Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26297
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat May 22, 2021 9:13 pm

Ertro wrote:
Could somebody explain which design features in a plane make it go faster.
I see people talking that long range planes go faster and widebodies go faster but for me neither of these sound like the design features that actually make the plane faster.

To me it feels that the short vs long range issue is a point of market analysis whether it makes sense to start building these go-fast-features into the plane or not.
Also to an amateur like me my gut-feeling is that being widebody is also not the feature that makes plane go fast but a hindrance.
A plane can be made to go fast despite that it is a widebody if big bosses say that we need to make it go fast and spend the big bucks to make this large blob to travel faster because that is where the market preference has been for widebodies.

Is it more powerful engines? Is it wing design optimized to high speeds? Or something else?
If it is those things could it be possible that a A322 with new wing could suddenly become a high-speed plane and because it is narrowbody it could fly those high speeds more economically than similar seatcount plane that is widebody?

Not knowing anything. Just Asking.

My understanding is wing sweep is the key parameter. Sweep at a sharper angle delays onset of interference patterns at high Mach numbers thus reduction in drag, but sweep at a sharper angle provides less lift at slow speed, so higher takeoff and landing speeds, which are negatives. 707 had a higher wing sweep angle than following planes, because they realized the gain of the sharper wing sweep wasn't worth the pain of high runway speeds.

I think more modern aerodynamics show that you can design a wing that has less wing sweep but still works well at higher Mach number, if you can make the wings longer. This is part of the reason why 777X has a longer wing with less wing sweep angle than 777. Of course longer wings are bad for airport gate spacing, thus the folding wing tips.

I think a lot will change with the "A322" wing, hopefully we get some good descriptions of it once it eventually gets announced. I think it will have less drag and store more fuel than the current one. Boeing did a major reworking of the 737 wing on the NG program, and a big part of that was to reduce drag and improve fuel storage.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat May 22, 2021 9:16 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Book it in the loss column. No airline ordered the Sonic Cruiser, the 787 though they have ordered hand over fist.

what was the 787 replacing?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I hardly understand what it is you are debating at this point. You are all over the place.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat May 22, 2021 9:20 pm

Ertro wrote:
Could somebody explain which design features in a plane make it go faster.
I see people talking that long range planes go faster and widebodies go faster but for me neither of these sound like the design features that actually make the plane faster.

To me it feels that the short vs long range issue is a point of market analysis whether it makes sense to start building these go-fast-features into the plane or not.
Also to an amateur like me my gut-feeling is that being widebody is also not the feature that makes plane go fast but a hindrance.
A plane can be made to go fast despite that it is a widebody if big bosses say that we need to make it go fast and spend the big bucks to make this large blob to travel faster because that is where the market preference has been for widebodies.

Is it more powerful engines? Is it wing design optimized to high speeds? Or something else?
If it is those things could it be possible that a A322 with new wing could suddenly become a high-speed plane and because it is narrowbody it could fly those high speeds more economically than similar seatcount plane that is widebody?

Not knowing anything. Just Asking.


The wing sweep, the angle the wing points backwards is a good indication for the speed the frame is designed for. The A320 and 737 have 25°. The A330 has 30° and the 787 has 32.2°.
Less wing sweep more economical flight, more wing sweep more speed.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat May 22, 2021 9:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
Ertro wrote:
Could somebody explain which design features in a plane make it go faster.
I see people talking that long range planes go faster and widebodies go faster but for me neither of these sound like the design features that actually make the plane faster.

To me it feels that the short vs long range issue is a point of market analysis whether it makes sense to start building these go-fast-features into the plane or not.
Also to an amateur like me my gut-feeling is that being widebody is also not the feature that makes plane go fast but a hindrance.
A plane can be made to go fast despite that it is a widebody if big bosses say that we need to make it go fast and spend the big bucks to make this large blob to travel faster because that is where the market preference has been for widebodies.

Is it more powerful engines? Is it wing design optimized to high speeds? Or something else?
If it is those things could it be possible that a A322 with new wing could suddenly become a high-speed plane and because it is narrowbody it could fly those high speeds more economically than similar seatcount plane that is widebody?

Not knowing anything. Just Asking.

My understanding is wing sweep is the key parameter. Sweep at a sharper angle delays onset of interference patterns at high Mach numbers thus reduction in drag, but sweep at a sharper angle provides less lift at slow speed, so higher takeoff and landing speeds, which are negatives. 707 had a higher wing sweep angle than following planes, because they realized the gain of the sharper wing sweep wasn't worth the pain of high runway speeds.

I think more modern aerodynamics show that you can design a wing that has less wing sweep but still works well at higher Mach number, if you can make the wings longer. This is part of the reason why 777X has a longer wing with less wing sweep angle than 777. Of course longer wings are bad for airport gate spacing, thus the folding wing tips.

I think a lot will change with the "A322" wing, hopefully we get some good descriptions of it once it eventually gets announced. I think it will have less drag and store more fuel than the current one. Boeing did a major reworking of the 737 wing on the NG program, and a big part of that was to reduce drag and improve fuel storage.


The A320 wings has a supercritical airfoil. I would believe that it would enable the A320 to fly faster at it's sweep with bigger engines if needed. Otherwise it is a very efficient wing, producing a lot of lift with reduced area and drag. One drawback of supercritical wings is the stall characteristic, easily manageable since the introduction of computerized FBW in the A320.
Another advantage of the supercritical airfoil are good takeoff and landing performance.
IMO the A320 family wing design is not a limiting factor, but one reason Airbus was able to push the A321 that far in MTOW.

Some posters seem to argue, that the 737 has the "better" wing. IMO newer does not equate to better.

We are again at the point as we discuss the 797 or NMA, that Boeing has to make a decision if it will be a fast long range frame or a slower highly economical shorter ranged frame, that with enough fuel can cover also longer distances.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 3:00 am

Las Vegas to London 4,544nm
A321XLR flying at mach 0.78 is 10:09
787-8 flying at mach 0.9 is 8:48

81 minutes time saved.

Now the A321XLR has to fly this route at the most economical cruising speed due to the distance. The 787-8 planners have plenty of fuel capacity to play with and can allocate 5% extra fuel for the trip and fly at maximum cruising speed. The 787-8 flight will have 2 pilots and 6 cabin crew for 300 passengers. The A321XLR will have 3 pilots and 6 cabin crew for only 200 passengers. The 787-8 crew also has 80 minutes less wages.

A321XLR map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

787-8 map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

Cruising and max speeds are listed in the Wikipedia pages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 3:41 am

mjoelnir wrote:
We are again at the point as we discuss the 797 or NMA, that Boeing has to make a decision if it will be a fast long range frame or a slower highly economical shorter ranged frame, that with enough fuel can cover also longer distances.

It is not as simple as "long range" or "short range" design. There are inifinte points in the optimising process. The A321XLR is far from perfectly optimised. It is severely wingspan limited. The 63t MTOW A220-100 has the same wingspan as the 101t A321XLR. At MTOW the A321XLR can't get above 28,000ft. That is a 10-15% fuel penalty compared to flying at say 40,000ft at the same weight/thrust.

Every argument used in favour of the A321XLR against the 797 I could use the same arguments for the 797 versus the larger widebodies.

1) The A321XLR is lighter per seat and burns less fuel per seat compared to the A321XLR.
2) The A321XLR can cover most flights operated by the 797.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller A321XLR can give increased frequency over the 797.

1) The 797 is lighter per seat and burns less than per seat compared to the A330/A350/797/777.
2) The 797 can cover most flights operated by the A330/A350/797/777.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller 797 can give increased frequency over the A330/A350/797/777.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7394
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 5:55 am

Folks, does the question of speed and its effect over 4,800Nm sectors really warrant a 150 post argument between people who also argue that the bulk of NMA sectors will be 1,000 to 2,000Nm, which is most likely true?. Can we move on please?

seahawk wrote:
Why should it be a problem to beat the 30 year old Airbus design with a new design and new engines? The A321 is not some kind of miracle, it is simply the only offering in the segment at the moment, but it is old, dated and not optimized for the modern needs of airlines.


Your question is a good one, and the answers to it are very important in terms of the prospects for a “new” NMA that can find a place in the market.
The problem you describe is very real, and is clearly evidenced by the amount of time, effort and money Boeing have spent in trying to find the place in the market that they can make the case for NMA work. This quote by a known Boeing fan and advocate of NMA backs this up

Opus99 wrote:
The fact that a 60 year old non-fly by wire design can still compete today is a testament in itself. Imagine the crash did not happen (assuming proper design and implementation of the aircraft) which would’ve meant the MAX10 would be up and about by now the MAX would be be in a much better position that it is now. It was already at 5000 orders. If the MAX10 came online and was very good that could’ve gone to 6000 for all we know.


NMA has one single real challenge IMO, and that is that it is up against 2 aircraft that have been “commoditised” (to use Revelation's expression), in a way that no other aircraft in history have. So the issue for NMA is not how good they are, or how old they are, but how universal they are, both in terms of huge production rates, and also 5 figure large fleets in service with all that means in terms of support infrastructure – servicing, spares, qualified operators, qualified maintainers – the whole worldwide experience base.

The reason the A321 IS such a miracle is not because it is so good, but because it is just another A321. A fundamentally important dynamic in the NMA conundrum.

So yes, it is the single biggest problem NMA has – how to beat not just a 30 year old design, but also a 60 year old one that can still attract comments like the one above, and also the one below, from known NMA advocates, who I’m not sure really understood how what they say impacts the case for NMA

RJMAZ wrote:
The NSA or 737 replacement is a long way away. I can see the 737MAX in production until 2035. I think airlines are about to be blown away by the per seat efficiency of the 737-10 and the family will continue to get sales..


I think this is generally correct, apart from the “blown away by the per seat efficiency” hyperbole. The rest of the paragraph I agree with. If true, it only adds to Boeings conundrum with the NMA. Why would they consider replacing the “most efficient narrowbody out there” that has a “per seat efficiency that blows away the airlines”? There’s no logic for doing so, surely, which severely limits the NMA space.

I wonder if we will see NMA by 2035, never mind NSA

Rgds
 
Noshow
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 6:19 am

So who is left to build any new planes needed for this market until then? Stricter environmental rules, higher fees, taxes and such will create additional pressure to phase out older aircraft.
NMA will not work as a single player but as the top end or big brother of the future NSA-family. This is why we now need some strategic Boeing commitment to develop and build the next generation. Not 2035.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10299
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 7:33 am

astuteman wrote:
Folks, does the question of speed and its effect over 4,800Nm sectors really warrant a 150 post argument between people who also argue that the bulk of NMA sectors will be 1,000 to 2,000Nm, which is most likely true?. Can we move on please?

Your question is a good one, and the answers to it are very important in terms of the prospects for a “new” NMA that can find a place in the market.
The problem you describe is very real, and is clearly evidenced by the amount of time, effort and money Boeing have spent in trying to find the place in the market that they can make the case for NMA work. This quote by a known Boeing fan and advocate of NMA backs this up

NMA has one single real challenge IMO, and that is that it is up against 2 aircraft that have been “commoditised” (to use Revelation's expression), in a way that no other aircraft in history have. So the issue for NMA is not how good they are, or how old they are, but how universal they are, both in terms of huge production rates, and also 5 figure large fleets in service with all that means in terms of support infrastructure – servicing, spares, qualified operators, qualified maintainers – the whole worldwide experience base.

The reason the A321 IS such a miracle is not because it is so good, but because it is just another A321. A fundamentally important dynamic in the NMA conundrum.


I fully agree with you. The big advantage is that the extra capability of the A321NEO comes practically for free. If you compare it to the 737MAX, 2 factors work in it´s favour.

1. The A320 carries less passengers than the 737-8 in a high density layout, while the A321 carries more than the 737-9/10.
2. There is no competition that is noticeably better in any segment of the market covered by the A321.

So for the NMA it should be easy to do a plane that flies 5000nm and carries more pax and that will be better at 3000nm+ mission than the A321XLR, what it won´t be, is better at <1.000nm missions and what it won´t be is just another A321 in the fleet. The NEO and MAX families are highly versatile and that is their strong point and the big problem that the NSA/NMA face. They are looking at expanding the market segment but also at dividing it. I am not sure the industry wants this. Especially with more and more frames being leased and lessors being highly interested in being able to place frames at as many different customers as possible. The German magazine "Aero" has an article about AerCap in their current issue and one of the the things AerCap points out as important for future orders is flexibility and standardisation. They want airframes that can do many missions and with interiors that can be easily and quickly adapted for different customers. I am not convinced NSA/NMA is fitting that idea at the moment.
 
Strato2
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 8:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Las Vegas to London 4,544nm
A321XLR flying at mach 0.78 is 10:09
787-8 flying at mach 0.9 is 8:48

81 minutes time saved.

Now the A321XLR has to fly this route at the most economical cruising speed due to the distance. The 787-8 planners have plenty of fuel capacity to play with and can allocate 5% extra fuel for the trip and fly at maximum cruising speed. The 787-8 flight will have 2 pilots and 6 cabin crew for 300 passengers. The A321XLR will have 3 pilots and 6 cabin crew for only 200 passengers. The 787-8 crew also has 80 minutes less wages.


Why would 787 operators destroy the economics of the plane by flying too fast to save half an hour? What would flying max speed do to the longevity of the engines for example?
 
Kikko19
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 8:10 am

It is not as simple as "long range" or "short range" design. There are inifinte points in the optimising process. The A321XLR is far from perfectly optimised. It is severely wingspan limited. The 63t MTOW A220-100 has the same wingspan as the 101t A321XLR. At MTOW the A321XLR can't get above 28,000ft. That is a 10-15% fuel penalty compared to flying at say 40,000ft at the same weight/thrust.

I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1961
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 10:17 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Las Vegas to London 4,544nm
A321XLR flying at mach 0.78 is 10:09
787-8 flying at mach 0.9 is 8:48

81 minutes time saved.

Now the A321XLR has to fly this route at the most economical cruising speed due to the distance. The 787-8 planners have plenty of fuel capacity to play with and can allocate 5% extra fuel for the trip and fly at maximum cruising speed. The 787-8 flight will have 2 pilots and 6 cabin crew for 300 passengers. The A321XLR will have 3 pilots and 6 cabin crew for only 200 passengers. The 787-8 crew also has 80 minutes less wages.

A321XLR map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

787-8 map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

Cruising and max speeds are listed in the Wikipedia pages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner



See a lot of 787's flying at max speed? What about traffic considerations? I know it helps your point here, but let's not go overboard with the comparisons we use. Better to use the cruise speed for both if you want to compare flight times, otherwise it seems a little like the debates on here where someone would use a heavy config compared to a light one and try to win a point on the weight of frames.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 10:36 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Las Vegas to London 4,544nm
A321XLR flying at mach 0.78 is 10:09
787-8 flying at mach 0.9 is 8:48

81 minutes time saved.

Now the A321XLR has to fly this route at the most economical cruising speed due to the distance. The 787-8 planners have plenty of fuel capacity to play with and can allocate 5% extra fuel for the trip and fly at maximum cruising speed. The 787-8 flight will have 2 pilots and 6 cabin crew for 300 passengers. The A321XLR will have 3 pilots and 6 cabin crew for only 200 passengers. The 787-8 crew also has 80 minutes less wages.

A321XLR map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

787-8 map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

Cruising and max speeds are listed in the Wikipedia pages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner


The only point that you are making is, that at it's extreme range frames have to fly at there economical speed. That will happen to the 787 as well, but on a longer distance. Most of the time the A321XLR will not fly trips that are at it's absolute maximum range.

So you compare the A321neo at economical cruise with the 787 at max speed. A very sensible comparison. :sarcastic:

There is one additional problem, you compare A321neo numbers to 787-8 numbers. We do not yet know if Airbus will up the maximum speed of the A321XLR compared to the A321neo.
To look at real numbers we would have to compare fuel burn numbers at different speeds, numbers we do not know. Perhaps it makes rather more sense to fly the A321XLR near it's max speed, remember it has an supercritical airfoil, and the 787 at cruise. And that would perhaps cover 90 % of the routes the A321XLR would be flying.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 10:52 am

Kikko19 wrote:
It is not as simple as "long range" or "short range" design. There are inifinte points in the optimising process. The A321XLR is far from perfectly optimised. It is severely wingspan limited. The 63t MTOW A220-100 has the same wingspan as the 101t A321XLR. At MTOW the A321XLR can't get above 28,000ft. That is a 10-15% fuel penalty compared to flying at say 40,000ft at the same weight/thrust.

I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.


How do you know that the A321neo or XLR is limited by it's wing? Wingspan, or area are not the only things you have to consider. The choice of airfoil can be a big factor. The change to the A321 wing from the A320 brought a change to the profile, still supercritical, but giving more lift.
We do not know about all the changes done to the A321XLR wing compared to the A321neo, apart that there will be new high lift devices. Will the A321XLR have the possibility to morph the wing like the A350 during the flight producing more lift during early stages?
Many airframes have problems reaching only lower flight levels while still at MTOW, engines with more thrust could partly compensate that.

When I talk about long range design and short range design, there are certain choices you have to make and they are not infinite, but do not exclude compromises as there are always compromises.
Long range frames are designed for higher cruise speed to cut flight time, short range frame are designed for a lower economical speed with emphasis on low fuel burn. You have to make choices, you can not go both ways at the same time.
Yes the 797 can be designed for higher speed than the A320/737, but than do not expect to beat them in fuel burn on short routes. And so on.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7394
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 11:09 am

Kikko19 wrote:
It is not as simple as "long range" or "short range" design. There are inifinte points in the optimising process. The A321XLR is far from perfectly optimised. It is severely wingspan limited. The 63t MTOW A220-100 has the same wingspan as the 101t A321XLR. At MTOW the A321XLR can't get above 28,000ft. That is a 10-15% fuel penalty compared to flying at say 40,000ft at the same weight/thrust.

I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.


The difficulty is that in solving one problem, a re-wing creates other problems in terms of disturbing the "standardisation" of the A320 family including the A321XLR.
And the market seems to value that, as the link provided by Seahawk shows.

You never get something for nothing.

Rgds
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 11:36 am

astuteman wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
It is not as simple as "long range" or "short range" design. There are inifinte points in the optimising process. The A321XLR is far from perfectly optimised. It is severely wingspan limited. The 63t MTOW A220-100 has the same wingspan as the 101t A321XLR. At MTOW the A321XLR can't get above 28,000ft. That is a 10-15% fuel penalty compared to flying at say 40,000ft at the same weight/thrust.

I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.


The difficulty is that in solving one problem, a re-wing creates other problems in terms of disturbing the "standardisation" of the A320 family including the A321XLR.
And the market seems to value that, as the link provided by Seahawk shows.

You never get something for nothing.

Rgds


The wing on the A320 and A321 are not the same, you could not exchange them. Similar in size, but not the same. The XLR wing will be different from the current A321 wing. The high lift devices are supposed to be of a more simple design and at the same time more effective. There could be other changes. Airbus has done a lot of work on wing design including flight trials. If the XLR wings are better under most conditions, I expect them to replace the A321 standard wing.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 12:21 pm

Kikko19 wrote:
I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.

But that would create a new very big problem of not fitting inside the 35m code C gates.

The only solution would be folding wingtips. To produce a 35m wing that can lift 101t efficiently is extremely hard. No fancy wing technology can make up for a lack of span.

A 797 will have greater wingspan and will easily beat the A321XLR on long flights.

Strato2 wrote:
Why would 787 operators destroy the economics of the plane by flying too fast to save half an hour? What would flying max speed do to the longevity of the engines for example?

Nothing is getting destroyed. Most engine wear is on takeoff. During cruise the engines are producing a fraction of the thrust.

Flying fast improves the econimics. The cost of the extra fuel is less than the money saved in wages if the gate to gate time can get under 10 hours.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 12:52 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.

But that would create a new very big problem of not fitting inside the 35m code C gates.

The only solution would be folding wingtips. To produce a 35m wing that can lift 101t efficiently is extremely hard. No fancy wing technology can make up for a lack of span.

A 797 will have greater wingspan and will easily beat the A321XLR on long flights.

Strato2 wrote:
Why would 787 operators destroy the economics of the plane by flying too fast to save half an hour? What would flying max speed do to the longevity of the engines for example?

Nothing is getting destroyed. Most engine wear is on takeoff. During cruise the engines are producing a fraction of the thrust.

Flying fast improves the econimics. The cost of the extra fuel is less than the money saved in wages if the gate to gate time can get under 10 hours.


So the A321XLR or a possible A322 would have the big problem of not fitting into code C gates, when fitted with longer wings. For a 797 with longer wings this problem magically disappears. Immaculate logic.
IMO they would fit both well in D gates. A size the 757 and 767 for example use today. I doubt that most of the airports have already removed those gates.

Flying faster produces more fuel burn, that makes for worse economics and that is physics.
If under certain conditions, hitting an airport slot at a certain time, or reducing staffing needs because of time limits, the higher fuel burn is compensated for is something else, that may be, but under most conditions your statement of flying fast improves economics is simply false.

Producing a wing slightly under 36 m (code C), lifting 101 t, is perhaps hard, but Airbus is doing it. How good that wing is, we will see. For my part, I am rather optimistic.
It will perhaps astonish you, but fancy wing technology can do quite a bit.

IMO your argument that flying faster does not increase engine wear compared to flying slower over many hours, does not hold. On short haul the main engine wear is take off and climb, on long haul engine wear at cruise is a significant part.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10819
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 1:24 pm

[quote="mjoelnir"]
Flying faster produces more fuel burn, that makes for worse economics and that is physics.
If under certain conditions, hitting an airport slot at a certain time, or reducing staffing needs because of time limits, the higher fuel burn is compensated for is something else, that may be, but under most conditions your statement of flying fast improves economics is simply false.
/quote]
...are you deliberately ignoring the 10 hour caveat that regulators have placed in the economic equation, or are you saying that the additional crew cost cannot be higher than the additional increase in fuel use by flying faster?
Hopefully, we do not have to restart the derate takeoff debates, pilots saving fuel, engine wear etc etc etc.

What is not prominent in this speed debate is ATC, a/c speed are limited by rules, regulations and traffic considerations and usually those flying short haul are much more constrained, long haul once they attain certain altitudes have less restrictions.
Unfortunately, neither Boeing nor Airbus control this aspect of flight, so the one up man ship does not exist.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26297
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 2:41 pm

Lots of strong commentary in the recent posts, sorry I can't respond to them all.

RJMAZ wrote:
Every argument used in favour of the A321XLR against the 797 I could use the same arguments for the 797 versus the larger widebodies.

1) The A321XLR is lighter per seat and burns less fuel per seat compared to the 797..
2) The A321XLR can cover most flights operated by the 797.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller A321XLR can give increased frequency over the 797.

1) The 797 is lighter per seat and burns less than per seat compared to the A330/A350/797/777.
2) The 797 can cover most flights operated by the A330/A350/797/777.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller 797 can give increased frequency over the A330/A350/797/777.

I think this kind of market differentiation is why Boeing will aim for the "small widebody" rather than "big narrowbody" market segment.

astuteman wrote:
NMA has one single real challenge IMO, and that is that it is up against 2 aircraft that have been “commoditised” (to use Revelation's expression), in a way that no other aircraft in history have. So the issue for NMA is not how good they are, or how old they are, but how universal they are, both in terms of huge production rates, and also 5 figure large fleets in service with all that means in terms of support infrastructure – servicing, spares, qualified operators, qualified maintainers – the whole worldwide experience base.

The reason the A321 IS such a miracle is not because it is so good, but because it is just another A321. A fundamentally important dynamic in the NMA conundrum.

So yes, it is the single biggest problem NMA has – how to beat not just a 30 year old design, but also a 60 year old one that can still attract comments like the one above, and also the one below, from known NMA advocates, who I’m not sure really understood how what they say impacts the case for NMA

Again, shows why NMA aims not just above MAX10 but also above A321XLR: market differentiation.

They really have no choice but let MAX10 run its course, and we know at best it has transcon range.

They really have no ability to take A321XLR head on, it has already won the large narrow body segment.

Only real market segment available is small wide body with true trans-pac/trans-atl range.

This "protects" MAX10 and lets it run its course while squeezing A321XLR from above and proving out tech needed for eventual MAX replacement.

Yes, it's a hard business case to make and maybe it'll never be made, but IMO that's where they are aiming.

Kikko19 wrote:
I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.

Just?

Seems 'just' adding a center fuel tank is taking four years, a lot of money and some churn to the production environment to achieve.

Doing A322 seems straight forward, but building out a new high volume wing production line will take years, cost $billions and involve a lot of financial and technical risk.

Right now they're selling every A321 they can make and their biggest challenge is to optimize the current platforms.

Thus we see a new A321 plant in TLS along with optimizations such as RCT and the electronic rudder.

There will be a time for A322 but in the short term it seems that it would act to blunt A321neo and A330neo sales so it won't happen too soon, IMO.

These are "rich man's problems" compared to the challenges facing Team B, but they still need to be taken into consideration.

par13del wrote:
What is not prominent in this speed debate is ATC, a/c speed are limited by rules, regulations and traffic considerations and usually those flying short haul are much more constrained, long haul once they attain certain altitudes have less restrictions.
Unfortunately, neither Boeing nor Airbus control this aspect of flight, so the one up man ship does not exist.

Right, all the airplane manufacturers can do is build a plane that can climb to higher altitudes relatively soon so they can take advantage of the more efficient and more permissive environment that high altitude provides.

As above, this is not one of the A321's strong points.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Kikko19
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 5:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
Lots of strong commentary in the recent posts, sorry I can't respond to them all.

RJMAZ wrote:
Every argument used in favour of the A321XLR against the 797 I could use the same arguments for the 797 versus the larger widebodies.

1) The A321XLR is lighter per seat and burns less fuel per seat compared to the 797..
2) The A321XLR can cover most flights operated by the 797.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller A321XLR can give increased frequency over the 797.

1) The 797 is lighter per seat and burns less than per seat compared to the A330/A350/797/777.
2) The 797 can cover most flights operated by the A330/A350/797/777.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller 797 can give increased frequency over the A330/A350/797/777.

I think this kind of market differentiation is why Boeing will aim for the "small widebody" rather than "big narrowbody" market segment.

astuteman wrote:
NMA has one single real challenge IMO, and that is that it is up against 2 aircraft that have been “commoditised” (to use Revelation's expression), in a way that no other aircraft in history have. So the issue for NMA is not how good they are, or how old they are, but how universal they are, both in terms of huge production rates, and also 5 figure large fleets in service with all that means in terms of support infrastructure – servicing, spares, qualified operators, qualified maintainers – the whole worldwide experience base.

The reason the A321 IS such a miracle is not because it is so good, but because it is just another A321. A fundamentally important dynamic in the NMA conundrum.

So yes, it is the single biggest problem NMA has – how to beat not just a 30 year old design, but also a 60 year old one that can still attract comments like the one above, and also the one below, from known NMA advocates, who I’m not sure really understood how what they say impacts the case for NMA

Again, shows why NMA aims not just above MAX10 but also above A321XLR: market differentiation.

They really have no choice but let MAX10 run its course, and we know at best it has transcon range.

They really have no ability to take A321XLR head on, it has already won the large narrow body segment.

Only real market segment available is small wide body with true trans-pac/trans-atl range.

This "protects" MAX10 and lets it run its course while squeezing A321XLR from above and proving out tech needed for eventual MAX replacement.

Yes, it's a hard business case to make and maybe it'll never be made, but IMO that's where they are aiming.

Kikko19 wrote:
I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.

Just?

Seems 'just' adding a center fuel tank is taking four years, a lot of money and some churn to the production environment to achieve.

Doing A322 seems straight forward, but building out a new high volume wing production line will take years, cost $billions and involve a lot of financial and technical risk.

Right now they're selling every A321 they can make and their biggest challenge is to optimize the current platforms.

Thus we see a new A321 plant in TLS along with optimizations such as RCT and the electronic rudder.

There will be a time for A322 but in the short term it seems that it would act to blunt A321neo and A330neo sales so it won't happen too soon, IMO.

These are "rich man's problems" compared to the challenges facing Team B, but they still need to be taken into consideration.

par13del wrote:
What is not prominent in this speed debate is ATC, a/c speed are limited by rules, regulations and traffic considerations and usually those flying short haul are much more constrained, long haul once they attain certain altitudes have less restrictions.
Unfortunately, neither Boeing nor Airbus control this aspect of flight, so the one up man ship does not exist.

Right, all the airplane manufacturers can do is build a plane that can climb to higher altitudes relatively soon so they can take advantage of the more efficient and more permissive environment that high altitude provides.

As above, this is not one of the A321's strong points.

I believe both team A And B are not sitting on their hands. Hopefully we'll have news on NMA and Reply from A.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26297
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 5:58 pm

Kikko19 wrote:
I believe both team A And B are not sitting on their hands. Hopefully we'll have news on NMA and Reply from A.

I agree, am looking forward to both.

Not picking on you at all, but will point out we've had a few posts saying "why do you think A will do nothing?" etc.

However, talking about what B will do does NOT mean me or anyone else is presuming A will do nothing!

If you look at the thread title, this is a thread mainly focused on Team B.

We also have threads focusing on Team A, with lots of good posts there as well.

And of course forum rules say to avoid direct A vs B threads since it often triggers emotional rather than logical discussions.

I hope people keep these things in mind as they read this thread.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 23, 2021 6:01 pm

Reading the recent comments on this thread has been like hearing a small microcosm of arguments I have heard over 35 years in the airline industry. It's amazing how much argument there is over .01 or .02 mach when the differences are almost negligible. The economic cruise band of modern commercial airplanes is quite narrow, and getting out of that sweet spot can be quite expensive.

Some airlines prioritize speed, and will pay an extra 5-10,000 lbs of fuel to save 5-7 minutes of flight time on a transcontinental flight. That has always seemed a poor bargain to me.

Other airlines will actually slow down slightly (very slightly) lower than what appears to be the optimum speed, each few degrees less EGT saves on engine life, and engine expenses are huge. Pilots and Dispatchers can't see this engine cost, and usually don't consider it when considering a speed up situation.

These small differences are multipled many times over due to the large fleets and high utilization. The bottom line is that there are many considerations.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2510
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 8:31 am

I find it amazing how A.net loves coming up with every reason NOT to launch a new aircraft. As we are enthusiasts, we should enjoy the competition between new entrants and the tried & true.

The existing spectrum of available planes in commercial aviation range from the ATR-42 up past the Q-400, the various RJ's, the Mad Dogs, 717, the A221 & 223, the 737, the A320, 757, 767, 787, 777, 747, DC-10's, MD-11's, A300 & 310, the A330,
A340's, A350, and A380. Well over half of what I listed are out of production and many are in their sunset period before heading to the desert. Why - because other models were more capable, versatile, or economical. Some of these planes are 50+ years old already.

Locating the right spot for a new model is a real art and getting the new aircraft done right to sustain the new model is quite difficult. Part is that the median line of the payload range points for all of these choices is where most models land. Only a few, for example the 787-10 are off this line substantially.

There are two main gaps in this line, - between the A321 and the 767 (losing the battle on passenger versions), but more relatedly the 788 and A332 is the large gap where the NMA is being proposed. A smaller gap in a smaller market is the scope compliant RJ that is up to today's efficiency standards.

For Boeing's own lineup, placing the NMA just above the A321 is what appears to be the best spot for the NMA.

I look forward to seeing some new models, in particular the NMA get launched and begin flying.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 9:05 am

When Boeing had to present bad financial numbers for last year being unable to spend much at this moment the narrative was, we plan so many new aircraft. Certainly.
Then here the spin switched to how bad the A321neo is and how much of a loss maker the A220 will always be and then that range is not required making the MAX 10 appear to be the favourite.
I wish Boeing to recover and get cool new programs going. The quiet ones are the important ones that finally happen.
 
chiad
Posts: 1367
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 9:26 am

Kikko19 wrote:
I believe both team A And B are not sitting on their hands. Hopefully we'll have news on NMA and Reply from A.


Airbus seems to a have a new wing "ready to go" whenever Boeing makes a move.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ver-boeing
 
Kikko19
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 10:14 am

chiad wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
I believe both team A And B are not sitting on their hands. Hopefully we'll have news on NMA and Reply from A.


Airbus seems to a have a new wing "ready to go" whenever Boeing makes a move.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ver-boeing

Preemptive attack ;)
 
astuteman
Posts: 7394
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 11:12 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
I find it amazing how A.net loves coming up with every reason NOT to launch a new aircraft. As we are enthusiasts, we should enjoy the competition between new entrants and the tried & true..


You might want to try having that conversation with enthusiasts for the A380 on this forum...

I'd like to think that the bulk of us would like to see new aircraft for our delight, from whatever manufacturer.
You will get the odd minority who just can't help cheering for their home team.

But there are always realities to discuss that either influence whether the new model is viable or not in the marketplace, or influence its architecture to enable it to be so. Those are legitimate debates.

I'll be delighted to see Boeing launch an NMA. That doesn't stop me thinking that doing so successfully will be akin to threading a camel through a needle. If they make it successful, all credit to them.

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14426
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 11:31 am

chiad wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
I believe both team A And B are not sitting on their hands. Hopefully we'll have news on NMA and Reply from A.


Airbus seems to a have a new wing "ready to go" whenever Boeing makes a move.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ver-boeing


The article is about a new NB wing development program launched years ago. Sue Partridge is interviewed she tells the program is focused on a wing that is both affordable and capable of high production rates.. Assembly of the first demonstrator is set to start in the next few weeks. For the rest there an consultant (Sash Tusa) talking about application on a A322. but he's not from Airbus. Also reference is made to the composite A220 wing build in Ireland by Spirit.

For me it's an indication research continues on technology development for high rate composite wing manufacturing. The applications are tbd, reference to an A322 is speculative at best. Personally I think Airbus made a big investment in the XLR wing and fuel system. That (E3? billion) business case probably includes application on a A321 stretch.

We saw the same new wing technology development projects going on in the late nineties with NASA Langley, a few years before the 7e7 launch. It's a normal process maturing technology development, bring it towards TRL6 level. Prototypes are build, tests are done to verify calculation models, repair validations, degradation due to fatigue, production technology, etc. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... -model.png

Image
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/201 ... 002561.pdf
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26297
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 3:45 pm

keesje wrote:
The article is about a new NB wing development program launched years ago. Sue Partridge is interviewed she tells the program is focused on a wing that is both affordable and capable of high production rates.. Assembly of the first demonstrator is set to start in the next few weeks. For the rest there an consultant (Sash Tusa) talking about application on a A322. but he's not from Airbus. Also reference is made to the composite A220 wing build in Ireland by Spirit.

For me it's an indication research continues on technology development for high rate composite wing manufacturing. The applications are tbd, reference to an A322 is speculative at best. Personally I think Airbus made a big investment in the XLR wing and fuel system. That (E3? billion) business case probably includes application on a A321 stretch.

The Bloomberg article as you point out isn't saying anything new, yet the time line it maps out is interesting. The wing of tomorrow (WoT) program will wrap up in 2023 and will present the rest of Airbus with the research it gathered on developing a composite wing manufacturing concept for a next-generation single-aisle aircraft including three full scale articles ( ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 76.article ). It will have the folding wing tip capability ( ref: https://www.aero-mag.com/airbus-aircraf ... elopments/ ). Pretty clearly aimed toward the MOM space, I say.

Also, presuming everyone at Airbus is singing from the same sheet of music, one should presume all this re-plumbing around the RCT would have been done with the awareness that a future different wing may be coming. Also one must think that new A321 assembly hall at TLS has to be designed knowing that different wings may be in the picture during the life cycle of that new hall. Faury's recent comments indicate he is seeing an upcoming step change in design and manufacturing integration similar to what Boeing has been hinting at for NMA. Seems they have many of the bases covered.

Since this is the Team B thread, what can we say about their efforts?

One would have to think the new wing factory for 777x was designed knowing there very well could be future narrow body wings in its future. It cost in the $billions and it size is similar to five football pitches so they were thinking big when they laid it out and it said to currently be under-utilized. We didn't really see the same kind of concerted R&D effort that we are seeing from Airbus on WoT I would say. Maybe we did see it in the 90's lead in to 787, but since then what we've seen is most of the detailed design for wings went to Japanese partners on 787 then it all got pulled back in for 777x. We didn't, for instance, see a WoT-scale research program for NMA, at least nothing Boeing was talking openly about. All we saw was some renders suggesting the wing was similar to 787 and 777x yet of course scaled down. As for volume composite manufacturing, we had a lot of suggestions that this was unsolved back in the 2011 time frame when they were considering NSA vs MAX. That was a long time ago, though.

So, I'd say Team B's future directions are pretty murky. They have to get MAX7 delivered this year and MAX10 and 777x in 2023 and if they can do this without too many set backs then maybe a clearer future will emerge. Not very satisfying to have such uncertainty, but that's what I see. A lot depends on the financial pressures, and if/when the world's 2nd biggest economy will start taking product from them, and how their relationships with the local and the international regulators develop, and what exactly is expected for future cockpit designs.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noshow
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 24, 2021 4:38 pm

For my taste Everett has not enough business until the 777X ramps up one day.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14426
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 25, 2021 10:21 am

I think Boeing can't assume 125-170 seats market segment will be alright. https://leehamnews.com/2021/05/24/boein ... at-sector/

A320, A220, E195E2 and C919 will ramp up this decade. 737-7 has 1.1 customers after 10 years on offer.

There is risk of a deny & get buried situation, like 2010-2011.

My money would be on the NSA, FSA projects, because of the volumes.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
744SPX
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 25, 2021 1:49 pm

keesje wrote:
I think Boeing can't assume 125-170 seats market segment will be alright. https://leehamnews.com/2021/05/24/boein ... at-sector/

A320, A220, E195E2 and C919 will ramp up this decade. 737-7 has 1.1 customers after 10 years on offer.

There is risk of a deny & get buried situation, like 2010-2011.

My money would be on the NSA, FSA projects, because of the volumes.


Bring on the Turboliner!
 
Opus99
Posts: 2233
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 12:29 am

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 78020?s=21

Well this is a new angle

Seems like White House wants a 737 replacement and will be putting money towards that in the upcoming budget
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26297
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 1:05 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1397346114785878020?s=21

I think Jon is overselling what is going on.

The upcoming first Biden Administration budget, set to be formally unveiled on May 28, includes a significant increase in funding for the NASA Aeronautics’ priorities. In April, the new administration proposed a budget request of $24.7 billion for NASA. While that represents a 6% bump over the agency’s budget last year, its outlays for aeronautics in 2022 are expected to grow by $86 million or 10.4% compared to its 2021 budget. The $915 million request is intended to “broaden and accelerate the testing of technologies that would enable highly efficient, next-generation airliners,” according to a letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Sorry, Jon, adding $86M to NASA's $24.7B budget is not the WH putting its finger on the scale with regard to a 737 replacement.

Wake me up when we get federal spending akin to what we saw in the 60s/70s for the SST program, then I'd say there's a finger on the scale.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Opus99
Posts: 2233
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 1:08 am

Revelation wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1397346114785878020?s=21

I think Jon is overselling what is going on.

The upcoming first Biden Administration budget, set to be formally unveiled on May 28, includes a significant increase in funding for the NASA Aeronautics’ priorities. In April, the new administration proposed a budget request of $24.7 billion for NASA. While that represents a 6% bump over the agency’s budget last year, its outlays for aeronautics in 2022 are expected to grow by $86 million or 10.4% compared to its 2021 budget. The $915 million request is intended to “broaden and accelerate the testing of technologies that would enable highly efficient, next-generation airliners,” according to a letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Sorry, Jon, adding $86M to NASA's $24.7B budget is not the WH putting its finger on the scale with regard to a 737 replacement.

Wake me up when we get federal spending akin to what we saw in the 60s/70s for the SST program, then I'd say there's a finger on the scale.

I’m only just learning about this concept in general. Didn’t even know it existed. You’re right though. If the government is putting something 15 billion into it. Then okay
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26297
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 5:52 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I’m only just learning about this concept in general. Didn’t even know it existed. You’re right though. If the government is putting something 15 billion into it. Then okay

Interesting reply to Jon's twitter post:

The TTBW is an academic study. It serves as a vehicle for improving the understanding of all relevant aspects and for developing respective design methods and tools.

Invariably, such vehicles are turned into notional products as soon as there is a public funding opportunity. (;

Ref: https://twitter.com/BurkhardDomke/statu ... 0891619330

No idea who Burkhard Domke is, but I agree with his observation,
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
IADFCO
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 7:55 pm

The concept has been around for decades: search "joined wings" (unfortunately the professional engineering analyses are behind paywalls, e.g., AIAA).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2510
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 8:26 pm

The official rule is any research funded by the US government, the results are made public for all to use. However, reality is that the firm doing the research gains more knowledge than those not in the program. The recent trussed wing project by NASA was as similar case.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 10:11 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
The official rule is any research funded by the US government, the results are made public for all to use. However, reality is that the firm doing the research gains more knowledge than those not in the program. The recent trussed wing project by NASA was as similar case.


:checkmark:

Decades ago Boeing participated in the NASA/USAF "Mission Adaptive Wing" project: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/multimedia/imagegallery/F-111AFTI/EC85-33205-07.html. I thought I would see morphing airfoils before a trussed/joined wing, but maybe both technologies were for the time when Boeing was "a band of engineers masquerading as a company".

I thought I read somewhere that morphing airfoils were going to be the next technology to be tried on the A340 flying lab after laminar flow, but I don't have a link, and in fact I haven't seen confirmation of that news/rumor either.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14426
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 10:52 pm

IADFCO wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The official rule is any research funded by the US government, the results are made public for all to use. However, reality is that the firm doing the research gains more knowledge than those not in the program. The recent trussed wing project by NASA was as similar case.


:checkmark:

Decades ago Boeing participated in the NASA/USAF "Mission Adaptive Wing" project: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/multimedia/imagegallery/F-111AFTI/EC85-33205-07.html. I thought I would see morphing airfoils before a trussed/joined wing, but maybe both technologies were for the time when Boeing was "a band of engineers masquerading as a company".

I thought I read somewhere that morphing airfoils were going to be the next technology to be tried on the A340 flying lab after laminar flow, but I don't have a link, and in fact I haven't seen confirmation of that news/rumor either.


A350-1000? The technology seems mature enough for Boeing to apply. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... light/amp/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7409
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 26, 2021 11:34 pm

keesje wrote:
A350-1000? The technology seems mature enough for Boeing to apply.


https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... -1000.html

Quote:
"The A350 is truly innovative, with new technology throughout the entirety of the aircraft. From the design of the wings that morph and change shape in flight to obtain optimal efficiency to the flight controls and system that reduce the pilot’s workload, this aircraft utilises modern technology to create a better way of flying."


They also had the fello'fly study...don't know about flapping wingtips. :scratchchin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:11 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Las Vegas to London 4,544nm
A321XLR flying at mach 0.78 is 10:09
787-8 flying at mach 0.9 is 8:48

81 minutes time saved.

Now the A321XLR has to fly this route at the most economical cruising speed due to the distance. The 787-8 planners have plenty of fuel capacity to play with and can allocate 5% extra fuel for the trip and fly at maximum cruising speed. The 787-8 flight will have 2 pilots and 6 cabin crew for 300 passengers. The A321XLR will have 3 pilots and 6 cabin crew for only 200 passengers. The 787-8 crew also has 80 minutes less wages.

A321XLR map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

787-8 map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

Cruising and max speeds are listed in the Wikipedia pages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner


Just to clean up some numbers.

For US airlines,

FAR117 Table A limits unaugmented flights to 9 hours if the hours of report are between 0500-1959 (home base time or when acclimated). And being acclimated means being in theater for 72 hours or receiving 36 hours free from duty. Any other report time outside those hours is a max of 8 block hours. And that is a very hard number. One can not take off if ground delays cause the block time to exceed that number. So except for a few NE USA to Ireland/UK flights, European flights are augmented due to not being acclimated for the return flight, and the early USA based report times resulting in an 8 hour block limit. 3 pilots crews can go up to 13 hours, and 4 pilot crews up to 17 hours.

Then you get into Table B for length of unaugmented duty period. Again non acclimated, most show times for the return from Europe limits the duty period to 9-12 hours. With a 90 minute preflight, that can exceed or be close to a max duty limit depending on the route. So airlines augment to gain operational reliability.

So for your LAS-LHR flight both flights would have 3 pilots, especially since the return flight back to LAS would require it due to the block time.

And there is a significant flight deck crew pay differential between a 321 and a 787. Roughly 15-20% depending on the contract.

What’s the fuel burn difference between the 321 and 787 on that route? Even with the 80 minutes less flying time, I’m willing to bet the 787 burns more fuel.

Obviously if you can fill more seats then a 321 profitably, you fly the larger aircraft. But the larger aircraft will have a larger trip cost as well, and not just in crew costs. Finding that right balance between revenue and cost and allocating the right aircraft for the route is why we have network planing.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1036
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Jun 02, 2021 1:57 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Las Vegas to London 4,544nm
A321XLR flying at mach 0.78 is 10:09
787-8 flying at mach 0.9 is 8:48

81 minutes time saved.

Now the A321XLR has to fly this route at the most economical cruising speed due to the distance. The 787-8 planners have plenty of fuel capacity to play with and can allocate 5% extra fuel for the trip and fly at maximum cruising speed. The 787-8 flight will have 2 pilots and 6 cabin crew for 300 passengers. The A321XLR will have 3 pilots and 6 cabin crew for only 200 passengers. The 787-8 crew also has 80 minutes less wages.

A321XLR map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

787-8 map: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=Las-lhr&R= ... mach&E=370

Cruising and max speeds are listed in the Wikipedia pages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A321
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner


Just to clean up some numbers.

For US airlines,

FAR117 Table A limits unaugmented flights to 9 hours if the hours of report are between 0500-1959 (home base time or when acclimated). And being acclimated means being in theater for 72 hours or receiving 36 hours free from duty. Any other report time outside those hours is a max of 8 block hours. And that is a very hard number. One can not take off if ground delays cause the block time to exceed that number. So except for a few NE USA to Ireland/UK flights, European flights are augmented due to not being acclimated for the return flight, and the early USA based report times resulting in an 8 hour block limit. 3 pilots crews can go up to 13 hours, and 4 pilot crews up to 17 hours.

Then you get into Table B for length of unaugmented duty period. Again non acclimated, most show times for the return from Europe limits the duty period to 9-12 hours. With a 90 minute preflight, that can exceed or be close to a max duty limit depending on the route. So airlines augment to gain operational reliability.

So for your LAS-LHR flight both flights would have 3 pilots, especially since the return flight back to LAS would require it due to the block time.

And there is a significant flight deck crew pay differential between a 321 and a 787. Roughly 15-20% depending on the contract.

What’s the fuel burn difference between the 321 and 787 on that route? Even with the 80 minutes less flying time, I’m willing to bet the 787 burns more fuel.

Obviously if you can fill more seats then a 321 profitably, you fly the larger aircraft. But the larger aircraft will have a larger trip cost as well, and not just in crew costs. Finding that right balance between revenue and cost and allocating the right aircraft for the route is why we have network planing.


I am also pretty sure that no airline that in any way or form offers a somewhat decent product will fly a 300 seater 787-8 with 6 cabin crew. Chances are that even on a 3 class 230 seat 787-8 you have 7-8 cabin crew.

Crew costs alone should be about 50% higher on the 787 just from higher wages and more staffing needed on the 787-8 to offer a similar product. Now if we exclude belly cargo, the 787-8 will have 23t of payload what will lead to a take off weight (without fuel) of around 140t. How much fuel would a 787-8 need to fly 140t from LHR to LAX? 50t? 60t?

That is 25-50% more than the XLR can even load. The trip cost for the 787-8 will be really high in comparison (excluding the financial cost of the 787-8 that is roughly double of the 321XLR). If the additional pax. In almost all circumstances the XLR will make more consistently money on the route, especially because the LHR-LAS is not a very high yielding route to start with.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2233
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:07 am

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... us-a321xlr

Okay some interesting information

It seems like Boeing is focusing on single aisle Instead of twin aisle

It seems they are going for the 757-200/300 seat count. Maybe in between or something

It also seems they are now looking at metal fuselage with composite wings.

And 5000NM range

So in other words playing it safe.

Now my question is, how do you build a better aircraft compared to what Airbus will bring. Boeing has said the efficiency must come from the frame and build because engine will not give them 15-20% cut in fuel burn.

So I’ll leave it to those more knowledgeable than me on the physics.

But with metal frame, composite wing, 757 size. What are we looking at?
 
Opus99
Posts: 2233
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:10 am

Also yesterday Calhoun says we won’t have to wait “all that long” for an announcement. I know Boeing have said that before…
 
beaconinbound
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:26 am

737 Max XL?
 
Opus99
Posts: 2233
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:28 am

beaconinbound wrote:
737 Max XL?

Oh dear God no
 
JonesNL
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:37 am

A tight 6 abreast skinnier and lighter than A32x fuselage with smaller container option and optimized wing? 5t OEW advantage over the A321 should be enough to be quite competitive on the market...
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:20 am

Always thought that a smaller wide body jet was an absolute waste of time so it is great hearing that they might be trending towards a new narrow body jet.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos