Revelation wrote:

No one is interested in doing a new engine for 2028 introduction because they haven't got any return on investment for the previous generation of engines.

Personally I thought the NMA with it's "LEAP and a half" engine from CFM made sense i.e. start with LEAP, grow its size a bit, add in whatever technology has matured since the original LEAP design was frozen and target it at a market segment with little competition, but COVID and MCAS killed it off. COVID pretty much guarantees we'll see nothing but PIPs for the rest of the 2020s, IMO.

I think we always disagreed on that. For me it would have been another A380 like mistake, as such plane would be eaten alive by the successors of the MAX/NEO and A330/787, which will field all new engines.

astuteman wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think it's more mouse than elephant. No one has figured out how to make carbon neutral hydrogen.

While I agree hydrogen (planes) is an mouse and a lab mouse at that, the second part is not completely correct. There are parties who have figured out carbon neutral (or even carbon negative) hydrogen, but it is commercially not viable at the moment. I have friends in the industry and they believe that hydrogen production could be viable/competitive end of this decade. Although they are quite biased, I also see the massive amounts of investments in hydrogen in Europe; Public and private.

Latest comments of industry leaders point to slashing cost by an factor of 3 by 2025: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintellig ... g-63037203
The highest contributing factor is the rapid decline in Wind and PV solar costs. The other part is declining electrolyser technology costs.

The hydrogen part might be solved by end of this decade, but developing a hydrogen plane is a different cookie. So, all in all I am still sceptical about a hydrogen plane. Too many challenges need to be solved at once...

Nuclear power guys solved it a long time ago....

Rgds

Well, conceptually yes. But reality shows there is less and less investment in nuclear.

An international standards group must, in my view, define what the US, EU, and China will require in the new automated flight deck/control. The project is too complex and undefined for any company to spend tens of billions$$ coming up with what could be an half ass solution. The definition of what is required will be followed by a definition of what is possible. The more ideal solution will result in a flight deck that can largely be redefined via well tested updates. This would, I think, entail that all hardware on a plane, engine, controls, monitoring etc be fully accessible to the current and later software. Then there is security and anti-hacking. It likely will be fully capable of flying the plane in all known situations, although not at first.

Analysts none withstanding electric and electric hybrids are coming. 200 miles endurance, and then creeping or leaping up toward 500 and then 1000 miles. The 737/320s will no longer be the mass produced/cheaper by the dozen planes they are now. Nor is the effect of full self driving cars and trucks appreciated. They likely will compete with any transportation mode outside of city cores for legs under 200 miles cars, and 1000 miles trucks. RRs - watch out!

enzo011 wrote:

Is it typical for a derivative to take longer than a new design though? If the engines are the delay, why did flight testing start 18 months ago? Is there a sudden delay that has not been reported that the engines are causing?

As I recall, the engine issues occurred early on in the flight test regimen and effectively halted them both because it would have invalidated data Boeing was getting from the engines and I also believe there was a Safety of Flight concern related to them so Boeing did not want to risk the airframe.

Stitch wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

Is it typical for a derivative to take longer than a new design though? If the engines are the delay, why did flight testing start 18 months ago? Is there a sudden delay that has not been reported that the engines are causing?

As I recall, the engine issues occurred early on in the flight test regimen and effectively halted them both because it would have invalidated data Boeing was getting from the engines and I also believe there was a Safety of Flight concern related to them so Boeing did not want to risk the airframe.

The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

The engine issues and Covid-19 were used a bit as decoys for those who wanted to believe. But the aggresive application of the changed product rule on the 777x and the way FAA agreed, amazed many from the start. On record and hotly discussed on this site for years.

keesje wrote:

The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

The engine issues and Covid-19 were used a bit as decoys for those who wanted to believe. But the aggresive application of the changed product rule on the 777x and the way FAA agreed, amazed many from the start. On record and hotly discussed on this site for years.

Yet 777x will be certified as a 777 family member and not an all new aircraft, so I'm not seeing the justification for the taking of victory laps.

Just not seeing hydrogen as viable.
Hydrogen is explosive unlike JetA (except in exact fuel/air mixtures). It's also got a much lower energy density than JetA. Finally, there's no distribution system for Hydrogen which is a huge issue.

Yes it is possible, but would be decades to get it established.

Hydrogen can be made carbon neutral through electrolysis of water from wind/solar. But hydrogen is more a carrier of energy than a source of energy. Unlike fossil fuels which exist in nature, H2 gas must be made using....energy from some other source.

keesje wrote:

The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

Events of the past few weeks make it quite clear that the FAA is not "playing along".

Chemist wrote:

Hydrogen can be made carbon neutral through electrolysis of water from wind/solar.

True, but then do the math on how much wind and solar you'd need to supply the aviation industry with enough hydrogen to operate a meaningful fraction of its needs and you soon realize in the real world we'll probably need carbon based fuels to generate the electricity to make enough hydrogen for the aviation industry to be able to boast about their use of 'clean energy'. I guess that's OK from the aviation industry's point of view, they took the government grants and did their bit, but in the great scheme of things the problem just got moved around a bit. Meanwhile, people burning wood to cook their food is a bigger source of CO2, with no glamorous solution.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

Events of the past few weeks make it quite clear that the FAA is not "playing along".

True, and will also point out their complaints were not about the certification basis of the airplane.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

Events of the past few weeks make it quite clear that the FAA is not "playing along".

That's correct, but it took crashes/ investigations to restore FAA authority and power. Boeing/ congress driven streamlining, delegation, exemptions forced by congress FAA budget re-authorizations took their toll. Boeing now is in the process of 4 years of certification rework. And resulting modifications.

Revelation wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

What will put it at a disadvantage compared to its competitors? Everything is the engine on those frames let’s be realistic here.

So unless the LEAP on the MAX does not get something that the NEO will get. Then I don’t know what you people are talking about.

I said BOTH the MAX and NEO will be forced out of the game earlier than people think.

Yes you did, and I apologize, I should have read it better.

As for your prediction, I'm skeptical. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I do think there's a good chance the alternatives such as SAF and hydrogen are being over-sold.

A case in point: "Airbus tells EU hydrogen won't be widely used in planes before 2050"

Most airliners will rely on traditional jet engines until at least 2050, Airbus (AIR.PA) told European Union officials in a briefing released on Thursday on its research into creating zero-emissions hydrogen fuelled planes.

The planemaker says it plans to develop the world's first zero-emission commercial aircraft by 2035, but has not publicly said whether the technology will be ready for the replacement for the medium-haul A320, due to be rolled out in the 2030s.

February's briefing to EU officials appeared to rule this out.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-06-10/

Anyone can write a goal into a document, that doesn't mean it can or will be achieved.

I think it may depend on the frequency of extreme weather events over the next 5 years- if they continue and worsen, I think there is a good chance major action affecting commercial aircraft emissions will be implemented. On the other hand, if we get even a temporary lull in the news-making climate-related events maybe the MAX and NEO will be enough for the next 15 years...

Boeing's proposal to certify a Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) engine by 2030 is by no means a stretch technology wise. It has less to do combustion of the fuel as an energy source as it does making design changes within the engine and fuel tanks to keep elastomeric materials malleable and functioning. There is no reason to delay any aircraft before this occurs.

As much as everyone likes to speculate on a hydrogen airplane, it is likely that costs associated with Synthetic Aviation Fuels, and in particular synthetic kerosene made from renewable energy, are going to decline due to scale and technological advances.

True, today the costs of eFuels are prohibitively high, which is why the EU is proposing a mandate of a blend initially.

"In a recent study commissioned by T&E, Ricardo Energy and Environment estimated a cost of 137 - 233 €/MWh (i.e. 1.3 - 2.2 €/litre) for e-kerosene in 2020 depending, that is almost 2 to 3 times the average price of fossil kerosene."

Reference: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/FAQ%20e-kerosene%20_0.pdf

Projections which look at economies of scale and technology improvements show cost equivalency of synthetic kerosene (eFuels) to fossil fuels by 2050.

- eFuel Alliance
information brochure
This is what climate-neutral fuels will cost in the future

Once one considers the added effects of contrail formation, Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) make even more sense.

"Synthetic e-kerosene is produced from synthetic crude in much the same way as e-diesel but is refined to be suitable as a jet fuel. The development of new aircraft based on novel fuels require significant research and development, investments, and accompanying regulation to ensure safe, economic aircraft. Commercialisation and certification of aircraft can take more than 10 years. Drop-in fuels like e-kerosene are the most immediate solution that would only require development of the supply infrastructure.

As with e-diesel, fuel impurities are removed, but the exhaust from e-kerosene combustion still contains CO2, CO, NOx and particulate matter. Emissions of the first three pollutants would be at a similar level to fossil-derived kerosene, but the concentration of particulate matter is likely to be lower.

Aviation has difficulty reducing these emissions due to technical solutions adding weight to the aircraft and requiring technical complexity that could have an impact on passenger safety. In addition, an issue unique to aviation is that the fine particulate matter results in contrails, creating cirrus clouds that contribute to short-term global warming. The effects of NOx emissions from aeroplanes are complex. On the one hand, they increase ozone formation, which has negative effects on respiratory health (at ground level) and is a greenhouse gas but NOx also shields the earth’s surface from harmful UV radiation at high altitudes. While on the other hand, NOx tends to reduce methane levels, which is itself a significant greenhouse gas."

Reference: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_Report_RES_to_decarbonise_transport_in_EU.pdf

Now as to the question of how much renewable energy is required. It is estimated for the EU that the entire transportation sector, including aviation, will use renewable energy equivalent to that in the electrical grid. Certainly a large amount, but not so large as to be entirely infeasible. One would presume that the same trends would apply to other localities.

"To achieve full decarbonisation of transport with T&E’s Base Case forecast, about 2,800 TWh/y will be required by 2050. This represents a significant scale-up between 2030 and 2050. For comparison, the predicted demand for renewables from the decarbonised electricity grid in 2050 is predicted to be about 3,350 TWh/y.

This study shows that the potential for additional renewable electricity in the EU28 countries comfortably exceeds the projected demand to decarbonise transport and the electricity grid by 2050. Studies show that the total exploitable potential for renewable electricity (solar PV, onshore wind, off shore wind & geothermal) in the EU28 countries is about 27,000 to 28,000 TWh/y. "

Reference: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_Report_RES_to_decarbonise_transport_in_EU.pdf

Forget electric powered and hydrogen powered commercial passenger transport.

It is NOT going to happen.

VV wrote:

Forget electric powered and hydrogen powered commercial passenger transport.

It is NOT going to happen.

It is already happening. It might not scale but it will definitely happen.

With the latest comment from the CEO will Boeing look at the possibility to increase MTOW of the 737 MAX 10?

SAF is a great approach for the aviation industry in that they can still get government funding for 'green research' yet have set a very achievable low bar for themselves while making the issue of who produces the SAF someone else's problem. Even the fact that the idea of using a 'blend' is already out there shows they are preparing to point the finger at someone else. 99.9% crude and 0.1% SAF is still a blend, right? They've even moved the goalposts out to 2050. All they need for success is the energy industry to create clean energy equivalent to today's grid and dedicate it all to SAF production, simples, right?

Seems the governments can/will rebut it by saying you can't fly if you emit more than X, since you want a 'market based solution' you go work with the energy industry and figure out how to make that happen.

Then round and round the wheel will go, where it stops no one knows.

I know one thing for sure, if I were CFM I would not put all my eggs in one basket.

In a way all this suits the engine industry as well. All the churn on what is to come means they can tell the OEMs that they won't be investing in a new engine till the way forward becomes clearer. In reality they too have been strongly impacted by COVID and still haven't gained a positive ROI on the last generation of engines so sitting back and cashing in on them while getting government grants to do 'green research' is just what they want/need.

JonesNL wrote:

VV wrote:

Forget electric powered and hydrogen powered commercial passenger transport.

It is NOT going to happen.

It is already happening. It might not scale but it will definitely happen.

It is hard for one to see how they would scale to commercial aviation. Producing hydrogen is not only expensive, but you will need to build infrastructure on a global scale for this to make sense. Batteries are too heavy for them to form a solution that gets rid of current aircraft types, not to mention how long will it take to recharge between flights?

Revelation wrote:

In a way all this suits the engine industry as well. All the churn on what is to come means they can tell the OEMs that they won't be investing in a new engine till the way forward becomes clearer. In reality they too have been strongly impacted by COVID and still haven't gained a positive ROI on the last generation of engines so sitting back and cashing in on them while getting government grants to do 'green research' is just what they want/need.

And to be honest this sounds very wise.

Revelation wrote:

SAF is a great approach for the aviation industry in that they can still get government funding for 'green research' yet have set a very achievable low bar for themselves while making the issue of who produces the SAF someone else's problem. Even the fact that the idea of using a 'blend' is already out there shows they are preparing to point the finger at someone else. 99.9% crude and 0.1% SAF is still a blend, right? They've even moved the goalposts out to 2050. All they need for success is the energy industry to create clean energy equivalent to today's grid and dedicate it all to SAF production, simples, right?

Seems the governments can/will rebut it by saying you can't fly if you emit more than X, since you want a 'market based solution' you go work with the energy industry and figure out how to make that happen.

Then round and round the wheel will go, where it stops no one knows.

I know one thing for sure, if I were CFM I would not put all my eggs in one basket.

In a way all this suits the engine industry as well. All the churn on what is to come means they can tell the OEMs that they won't be investing in a new engine till the way forward becomes clearer. In reality they too have been strongly impacted by COVID and still haven't gained a positive ROI on the last generation of engines so sitting back and cashing in on them while getting government grants to do 'green research' is just what they want/need.

It is to some extent in the OEM's best interest to have higher fuel price as that provides incentives for airframe retirement and renewal of an airline's fleet. As it is being said elsewhere through, the business model for engine suppliers is to generate returns on investment through spares and servicing. So early fleet renewal works to their disadvantage. As I've stated above, I see that the uncertainty surrounding the business model for how engine suppliers earn back their investment is the biggest reason why Boeing has not launched a new airplane.

The approach of gradually increasing fuel blends seems to be a good policy approach as it provides more certainty for investors in SAF as the volume of liquids can be projected and capital expenditures more efficiently made. Certainty as to the market will allow investors to go forward and accept a degree of risk that they would not otherwise would be able to justify. I was speaking about this with my daughter who is working in private equity with a focus on oil & gas sector. Algae sourced biofuels were set to take off last decade but the low oil prices resulting from the fracking boom in the US undercut the business case.

The OEM's though are still going to be in competition with each other and the incentives will be there to further reduce fuel burn through aerodynamics, structural efficiency, and new engine technology. For example, Pratt has stated that they did not push the technology for the high temperature components of the geared-fan. This would therefore appear to be relatively straight forward technology insertion. Increased use of ceramics and 3D printing will prove out that the P&W approach is a technology that can be taken further than GE's approach on the CFM family.

We may see a renewed focus in the electric systems architecture, like that of the 787, or more hybrid architecture as both permit better engine SFC. Remember a higher fuel price is acceptable if it is balanced out by fuel efficiency gains made elsewhere, whether that is in operations, engine, aerodynamics, or structural efficiency.

Boeing Names New Digital Chief to Prepare for All-New Jetliner https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-names-new-digital-chief-to-prepare-for-all-new-jetliner/ar-AAOXhFp?ocid=msedgntp

Boeing Co. is looking to digital tools for an edge in designing its next new jetliner and upgrading its manufacturing systems.
The aircraft giant has tapped veteran engineer Linda Hapgood -- who worked on Boeing’s flagship 747 and 787 programs -- to lead the digitalization effort. Her ascent to the new position signals a renewed focus at Boeing on its core business -- designing and building airplanes -- as it emerges from one of the worst crises in its history.

It continues without much meat, but it is some forward motion on a new jet in a decade or so.

positive step. signals a move from paper airplane to pixal airplane for their next airplane.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

positive step. signals a move from paper airplane to pixal airplane for their next airplane.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/777.page

“The Model 777, the first entirely new Boeing airplane in more than a decade, was the first jetliner to be 100 percent digitally designed using three-dimensional computer graphics.“

I think Boeing’s move from paper to pixel design happened at least 30ish years ago.

JoseSalazar wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

positive step. signals a move from paper airplane to pixal airplane for their next airplane.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/777.page

“The Model 777, the first entirely new Boeing airplane in more than a decade, was the first jetliner to be 100 percent digitally designed using three-dimensional computer graphics.“

I think Boeing’s move from paper to pixel design happened at least 30ish years ago.

I know. I'm aware of the milestones in digital design that were achieved with the 777. I was just teasing a bit. Boeing's next new airplanes that we've talked about for more than a decade is still just paper and pixels, when what we want is produced and performing.

I think the big change here though with this announcement is the idea that production systems for the aircraft will be designed digitally in conjuction with the aircraft itself...

Well hope it all goes better then it did back in the 1990s when DCAC/MRM was first implemented (though to be fair, nothing like it had ever been used in commercial aviation production before so at least Boeing now has that experience under the belts).

Stitch wrote:

Well hope it all goes better then it did back in the 1990s when DCAC/MRM was first implemented (though to be fair, nothing like it had ever been used in commercial aviation production before so at least Boeing now has that experience under the belts).

Or at least those who left with that tribal knowledge have the experience under their belts...

Chemist wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Well hope it all goes better then it did back in the 1990s when DCAC/MRM was first implemented (though to be fair, nothing like it had ever been used in commercial aviation production before so at least Boeing now has that experience under the belts).

Or at least those who left with that tribal knowledge have the experience under their belts...

Most of the 787 tribe have also trekked to retirement valley, certainly the managers in 2007 experienced that 14 years ago, halfway up the promotion ladder of a career. So it was the young bloods getting knowledge early in their careers are now the candidates for senior positions.

In my experience, improving the dimensional tolerances to be consistently tight in a product implies the quality in all aspects also improves. Can't get exact tolerances if the material is varying, so everything is closely watched in a practical manner.

Integrating true digital design with 3D printing, designing for far fewer parts in each component using such printing and bus signalling, all electric systems, a modern factory floor, and revised supply chains could make a world of difference. I personally see the composite barrel and wings all part of this because they can be more totally automated than aluminum. Aluminum has been the cheaper method as it uses the existing factory equipment, but composites are on a steeper part of the learning curve. Interesting times ahead.

NameOmitted wrote:

Boeing Names New Digital Chief to Prepare for All-New Jetliner https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-names-new-digital-chief-to-prepare-for-all-new-jetliner/ar-AAOXhFp?ocid=msedgntp

Boeing Co. is looking to digital tools for an edge in designing its next new jetliner and upgrading its manufacturing systems.
The aircraft giant has tapped veteran engineer Linda Hapgood -- who worked on Boeing’s flagship 747 and 787 programs -- to lead the digitalization effort. Her ascent to the new position signals a renewed focus at Boeing on its core business -- designing and building airplanes -- as it emerges from one of the worst crises in its history.

It continues without much meat, but it is some forward motion on a new jet in a decade or so.

Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -airplane/ ) has posted its piece on this move, and suggests:

While the appointment may mean a new jet program is nearer than some anticipated following all the setbacks of the past two years, it could be little more than Boeing signaling to the financial markets that even in the midst of this crisis, it is thinking of the future.

So, no one really knows what this means, other than Hapgood is getting a promotion.

JoseSalazar wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

positive step. signals a move from paper airplane to pixal airplane for their next airplane.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/777.page

“The Model 777, the first entirely new Boeing airplane in more than a decade, was the first jetliner to be 100 percent digitally designed using three-dimensional computer graphics.“

I think Boeing’s move from paper to pixel design happened at least 30ish years ago.

ST summarizes the differences quite well:

In the early 1990s, Boeing’s 777 was its first new airplane designed on a digital model rather than on paper blueprints. Moving beyond that, today Boeing aims to create its next new airplane design as well as the production system and the supply chain all in one digital model, so that all can be tested virtually before factories are built and hardware manufactured.

No surprise, Dominick Gates is a very good writer.

I am a bit wondering.
Being retired from Automotive. Integrated digital design tools are standard in Automotive already. This includes the Classic Design Tool, a lot of quick calculations which replace previous Finite Element Tools. In recent years thermodynamic tools have improved a lot such as Engine Compartment heat transfer simulations etc.
Manufacturing software supports designed parts, simulate assembly process, assembly tools, simulate working environment incl. ergonomics etc.
This is since years while tools are refining year by year, the latest 5-10 Years you can experience your vehicle virtually more and more.
I thought this is independent from Automotive or aerospace.
The announcement as it sounds or as the press has understood looks like they are doing something which is existent since 10-15 years in other branches.
I recommend Linda Hapgood to make a business trip to Warren, Detroit, Mi to General Motors and peers like Ford, Stellantis and check how they digitally develop cars around the globe and how the IT is connected within the development centers, contractors and suppliers.
Again- sounds nothing new from this text.

Look at the rates aircraft and cars are build. This is one reason why automation is different in both industries. Integration from design over robot manufacturing to disassembly is new for aviation. It's a good sign Boeing is willing to invest here.

Revelation wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Boeing Names New Digital Chief to Prepare for All-New Jetliner https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/boeing-names-new-digital-chief-to-prepare-for-all-new-jetliner/ar-AAOXhFp?ocid=msedgntp

Boeing Co. is looking to digital tools for an edge in designing its next new jetliner and upgrading its manufacturing systems.
The aircraft giant has tapped veteran engineer Linda Hapgood -- who worked on Boeing’s flagship 747 and 787 programs -- to lead the digitalization effort. Her ascent to the new position signals a renewed focus at Boeing on its core business -- designing and building airplanes -- as it emerges from one of the worst crises in its history.

It continues without much meat, but it is some forward motion on a new jet in a decade or so.

Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -airplane/ ) has posted its piece on this move, and suggests:

While the appointment may mean a new jet program is nearer than some anticipated following all the setbacks of the past two years, it could be little more than Boeing signaling to the financial markets that even in the midst of this crisis, it is thinking of the future.

So, no one really knows what this means, other than Hapgood is getting a promotion.

JoseSalazar wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

positive step. signals a move from paper airplane to pixal airplane for their next airplane.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/777.page

“The Model 777, the first entirely new Boeing airplane in more than a decade, was the first jetliner to be 100 percent digitally designed using three-dimensional computer graphics.“

I think Boeing’s move from paper to pixel design happened at least 30ish years ago.

ST summarizes the differences quite well:

In the early 1990s, Boeing’s 777 was its first new airplane designed on a digital model rather than on paper blueprints. Moving beyond that, today Boeing aims to create its next new airplane design as well as the production system and the supply chain all in one digital model, so that all can be tested virtually before factories are built and hardware manufactured.

No surprise, Dominick Gates is a very good writer.

Their statement on creating the design, the production system and the supply chain all digitally, and then testing virtually is worrying me.

That's exactly what they did on the Starliner. And it's been a complete disaster so far. I don't think Boeing has learned anything.

It might work if the aircraft, production system and the supply chain was all machines. But there's the human factor. Things don't always work the same in reality as it does in a computer.

Since some are mentioning car production as an example of this. Look at Elon Musk. He designed the Tesla factories like an integrated circuit, basically like a computer chip in 3D. Then after starting production they figured out that parts of the production had to be done manually. Not everything can be done by machines, and not everything works out the same way in reality as in the software. Now consider SpaceX. They're doing the exact opposite of Boeing. It's trial and error. Over and over. New iterations of designs.

While Crew Dragon is now regularly flying astronauts to the ISS as well as tourists to 575 km above earth. Starliner has failed twice in just 1.5 years. That's with a space capsule that costs twice as much as Crew Dragon.

I suspect that Tesla's goal of advanced design and production, not of the vehicles, but of the factory that builds them may represent what all manufacturers will be doing. Boeing kinna intended to do this with the 787 but seemed to have almost totally lost control of manufacturing.

Flyglobal wrote:

I am a bit wondering.
Being retired from Automotive. Integrated digital design tools are standard in Automotive already. This includes the Classic Design Tool, a lot of quick calculations which replace previous Finite Element Tools. In recent years thermodynamic tools have improved a lot such as Engine Compartment heat transfer simulations etc.
Manufacturing software supports designed parts, simulate assembly process, assembly tools, simulate working environment incl. ergonomics etc.
This is since years while tools are refining year by year, the latest 5-10 Years you can experience your vehicle virtually more and more.
I thought this is independent from Automotive or aerospace.
The announcement as it sounds or as the press has understood looks like they are doing something which is existent since 10-15 years in other branches.
I recommend Linda Hapgood to make a business trip to Warren, Detroit, Mi to General Motors and peers like Ford, Stellantis and check how they digitally develop cars around the globe and how the IT is connected within the development centers, contractors and suppliers.
Again- sounds nothing new from this text.

You have proverbially hit the nail on the head. Boeing needs to move its production system to be more aligned with how the automotive industry works. For a 737 replacement in particular, the Company needs to hit rate immediately to meet expected demand. To do that the production system needs to be highly automated and essentially error free from day one. Boeing has tried to do this in the past and has generally not been successful. The failure of FAUB is the most public example, but there are other examples that I know of where the capability of the automation was over-promised out-of-the-box.

The challenge for Boeing is not the tools that they use but figuring out their organizational structure and human resources required to implement this type of simulation capability. The skills of a manufacturing engineer who is adept at simulation is equally important as those of the design or stress engineer. Boeing though is not organizational set-up to develop this type of skill set in their engineering staff. Just having the software isn't good enough, you need the people to be trained and practiced in order to implement.

Interesting comments from UA's CCO:

“We want a machine that produces the same profit margins as the 757-300, which does not appear to be in the cards at this point,” United chief commercial officer Andrew Nocella tells FlightGlobal on 3 October.
...
At the end of 2020, United’s fleet included 21 ageing 757-300s, a type with more than 3,000nm (5,556km) of range and, in United’s configuration, 234 seats. The Chicago-based airline intends to operate the type until “as close to the end of the decade as possible”, Nocella says.

“It’s such a great machine,” he adds, citing the type’s range, economics and passenger comfort.

In June, United said it had ordered a combined 270 737 Max and Airbus A321neos. The airline will use those jets to replace 757-200s – but not its 757-300s.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 46.article

IMO it supports the idea that there's a market for something bigger than A321 and 752, more or less where NMA was headed.

Revelation wrote:

Interesting comments from UA's CCO:

“We want a machine that produces the same profit margins as the 757-300, which does not appear to be in the cards at this point,” United chief commercial officer Andrew Nocella tells FlightGlobal on 3 October.
...
At the end of 2020, United’s fleet included 21 ageing 757-300s, a type with more than 3,000nm (5,556km) of range and, in United’s configuration, 234 seats. The Chicago-based airline intends to operate the type until “as close to the end of the decade as possible”, Nocella says.

“It’s such a great machine,” he adds, citing the type’s range, economics and passenger comfort.

In June, United said it had ordered a combined 270 737 Max and Airbus A321neos. The airline will use those jets to replace 757-200s – but not its 757-300s.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 46.article

IMO it supports the idea that there's a market for something bigger than A321 and 752, more or less where NMA was headed.

Sounds more like a small notch at Airbus to go ahaed with the 322. If UA and DL take 50 each, I wonder if this is enough for Airbus to launch. I think it will take until certification of the RCT and new high lift devices on the XLR until Airbus will really move forward but they are in the pole position if there is demand for a 753 replacement.

Revelation wrote:

Interesting comments from UA's CCO:

“We want a machine that produces the same profit margins as the 757-300, which does not appear to be in the cards at this point,” United chief commercial officer Andrew Nocella tells FlightGlobal on 3 October.
...
At the end of 2020, United’s fleet included 21 ageing 757-300s, a type with more than 3,000nm (5,556km) of range and, in United’s configuration, 234 seats. The Chicago-based airline intends to operate the type until “as close to the end of the decade as possible”, Nocella says.

“It’s such a great machine,” he adds, citing the type’s range, economics and passenger comfort.

In June, United said it had ordered a combined 270 737 Max and Airbus A321neos. The airline will use those jets to replace 757-200s – but not its 757-300s.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 46.article

IMO it supports the idea that there's a market for something bigger than A321 and 752, more or less where NMA was headed.

Couldn't have said it any better, the flying pencil 753 prints money for those trunk routes. Whether it was an NMA stretch they were looking forward to or will Airbus look to green light A322. It's going to be awkward if no one addresses this segment before the end of the decade.

Revelation wrote:

IMO it supports the idea that there's a market for something bigger than A321 and 752, more or less where NMA was headed.

Yeah, there is a market. 1st go it was 55 ( you know I'm just having fun with that number... most folks argue it's low because Boeing waited to long to introduce it, diminishing the number of customers that still needed something with it's capabilities).

United flies 21 of them. Would they be willing to order 100 to be the launch customer? Probably not, which is why time and time again Boeing has had trouble closing the case on the NMA.

If you need 240pax to fly 6000km can't the 788 come close to matching the 753 performance/efficiency? Purchase price aside....

Lootess wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting comments from UA's CCO:

“We want a machine that produces the same profit margins as the 757-300, which does not appear to be in the cards at this point,” United chief commercial officer Andrew Nocella tells FlightGlobal on 3 October.
...
At the end of 2020, United’s fleet included 21 ageing 757-300s, a type with more than 3,000nm (5,556km) of range and, in United’s configuration, 234 seats. The Chicago-based airline intends to operate the type until “as close to the end of the decade as possible”, Nocella says.

“It’s such a great machine,” he adds, citing the type’s range, economics and passenger comfort.

In June, United said it had ordered a combined 270 737 Max and Airbus A321neos. The airline will use those jets to replace 757-200s – but not its 757-300s.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 46.article

IMO it supports the idea that there's a market for something bigger than A321 and 752, more or less where NMA was headed.

Couldn't have said it any better, the flying pencil 753 prints money for those trunk routes. Whether it was an NMA stretch they were looking forward to or will Airbus look to green light A322. It's going to be awkward if no one addresses this segment before the end of the decade.

I think the first 757-300 entered service in 1999, so many of UA's have cycles left. And they have unique capacity. I don't think a A322 could get as long as a 757-300..

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

United flies 21 of them. Would they be willing to order 100 to be the launch customer? Probably not, which is why time and time again Boeing has had trouble closing the case on the NMA.

They also have about 40 767-300ER so if they combined the two into a 60-frame order...

Then again, so few operators fly the 757-300 or the 767-300ER Boeing really can't depend on those folks to secure the program.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

If you need 240pax to fly 6000km can't the 788 come close to matching the 753 performance/efficiency? Purchase price aside....

Trick is the 787 might not fit in domestic gates that the 757-300 can and the 787-8 has a much more premium cabin (Polaris Business Class and Premium Economy compared to domestic First Class).

Stitch wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

United flies 21 of them. Would they be willing to order 100 to be the launch customer? Probably not, which is why time and time again Boeing has had trouble closing the case on the NMA.

They also have about 40 767-300ER so if they combined the two into a 60-frame order...

Then again, so few operators fly the 757-300 or the 767-300ER Boeing really can't depend on those folks to secure the program.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

If you need 240pax to fly 6000km can't the 788 come close to matching the 753 performance/efficiency? Purchase price aside....

Trick is the 787 might not fit in domestic gates that the 757-300 can and the 787-8 has a much more premium cabin (Polaris Business Class and Premium Economy compared to domestic First Class).

Did they ever consider folding wingtips on787? Once things seem to work on X, technology could be applied elsewhere

Stitch wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

United flies 21 of them. Would they be willing to order 100 to be the launch customer? Probably not, which is why time and time again Boeing has had trouble closing the case on the NMA.

They also have about 40 767-300ER so if they combined the two into a 60-frame order...

Then again, so few operators fly the 757-300 or the 767-300ER Boeing really can't depend on those folks to secure the program.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

If you need 240pax to fly 6000km can't the 788 come close to matching the 753 performance/efficiency? Purchase price aside....

Trick is the 787 might not fit in domestic gates that the 757-300 can and the 787-8 has a much more premium cabin (Polaris Business Class and Premium Economy compared to domestic First Class).

I've really wondered why they haven't made a narrow body "787." A decade of improvements in carbon tech has got to put them pretty close to a decent price point. I'm probably very wrong but the longer they take on NMA the more likely it is I think.

FluidFlow wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting comments from UA's CCO:

“We want a machine that produces the same profit margins as the 757-300, which does not appear to be in the cards at this point,” United chief commercial officer Andrew Nocella tells FlightGlobal on 3 October.
...
At the end of 2020, United’s fleet included 21 ageing 757-300s, a type with more than 3,000nm (5,556km) of range and, in United’s configuration, 234 seats. The Chicago-based airline intends to operate the type until “as close to the end of the decade as possible”, Nocella says.

“It’s such a great machine,” he adds, citing the type’s range, economics and passenger comfort.

In June, United said it had ordered a combined 270 737 Max and Airbus A321neos. The airline will use those jets to replace 757-200s – but not its 757-300s.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 46.article

IMO it supports the idea that there's a market for something bigger than A321 and 752, more or less where NMA was headed.

Sounds more like a small notch at Airbus to go ahaed with the 322. If UA and DL take 50 each, I wonder if this is enough for Airbus to launch. I think it will take until certification of the RCT and new high lift devices on the XLR until Airbus will really move forward but they are in the pole position if there is demand for a 753 replacement.

What is the magic of the 757 that this 40 year old design still gets raves from airlines? And if it is so great as Nocella says, why did not United and other airlines do top-up orders some 20 years ago when Boeing called them with "last call, we will shut down the 757 line unless we get some orders"?

littlewing347 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting comments from UA's CCO:


Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 46.article

IMO it supports the idea that there's a market for something bigger than A321 and 752, more or less where NMA was headed.

Sounds more like a small notch at Airbus to go ahaed with the 322. If UA and DL take 50 each, I wonder if this is enough for Airbus to launch. I think it will take until certification of the RCT and new high lift devices on the XLR until Airbus will really move forward but they are in the pole position if there is demand for a 753 replacement.

What is the magic of the 757 that this 40 year old design still gets raves from airlines? And if it is so great as Nocella says, why did not United and other airlines do top-up orders some 20 years ago when Boeing called them with "last call, we will shut down the 757 line unless we get some orders"?

I suspect when the NBA /NMA finally sees the light of day, it'll look like a 757 and 787 had a baby LOL

kalvado wrote:

Did they ever consider folding wingtips on 787? Once things seem to work on X, technology could be applied elsewhere

The original 787-9 and 787-10 were supposed to have a three meter wider span than the 787-8, but the weight of that span increase negated the fuel efficiency increase for the most common 787 stage lengths and it was easier to have just one common wing across the class so Boeing kept the 787-8 span for all three models. As such, there is no benefit to extending the span even more and using folding wingtips to fit in current gates,

BarrenLucidity wrote:

I've really wondered why they haven't made a narrow body "787." A decade of improvements in carbon tech has got to put them pretty close to a decent price point. I'm probably very wrong but the longer they take on NMA the more likely it is I think.

In aerospace structures, CFRP scales up very well, but not so much scaling down. So the weight benefits over the latest aluminum and aluminum-lithium alloys for a smaller airframe are not as compelling as they are for a large widebody.

littlewing347 wrote:

What is the magic of the 757 that this 40 year old design still gets raves from airlines? And if it is so great as Nocella says, why did not United and other airlines do top-up orders some 20 years ago when Boeing called them with "last call, we will shut down the 757 line unless we get some orders"?

I expect the biggest "magic" is the frame is paid for so the capital costs have been fully amortized compared to a new-purchase airframe. And effectively being a super-long 737 / A320, the CASM is great thanks to all the seats.

As to why they didn't order a ton back in the day, the model entered service in 1999 and by the time it was in full serial production, 9/11 happened and domestic air travel in the United States collapsed so the need for a high-capacity people-hauler dried up. Add in SARS two years later and Asia, which arguably could have been a popular market, also dried up.

And with the 737NG setting sales records, Boeing needed more production capacity for that family and the quickest and easiest way to add it was to close the 757 line and turn it into another 737NG line. So with neither US or Asian operators clamoring for more 757s of any model, that is what Boeing did.

Pythagoras wrote:

Flyglobal wrote:

I am a bit wondering.
Being retired from Automotive. Integrated digital design tools are standard in Automotive already. This includes the Classic Design Tool, a lot of quick calculations which replace previous Finite Element Tools. In recent years thermodynamic tools have improved a lot such as Engine Compartment heat transfer simulations etc.
Manufacturing software supports designed parts, simulate assembly process, assembly tools, simulate working environment incl. ergonomics etc.
This is since years while tools are refining year by year, the latest 5-10 Years you can experience your vehicle virtually more and more.
I thought this is independent from Automotive or aerospace.
The announcement as it sounds or as the press has understood looks like they are doing something which is existent since 10-15 years in other branches.
I recommend Linda Hapgood to make a business trip to Warren, Detroit, Mi to General Motors and peers like Ford, Stellantis and check how they digitally develop cars around the globe and how the IT is connected within the development centers, contractors and suppliers.
Again- sounds nothing new from this text.

You have proverbially hit the nail on the head. Boeing needs to move its production system to be more aligned with how the automotive industry works. For a 737 replacement in particular, the Company needs to hit rate immediately to meet expected demand. To do that the production system needs to be highly automated and essentially error free from day one. Boeing has tried to do this in the past and has generally not been successful. The failure of FAUB is the most public example, but there are other examples that I know of where the capability of the automation was over-promised out-of-the-box.

The challenge for Boeing is not the tools that they use but figuring out their organizational structure and human resources required to implement this type of simulation capability. The skills of a manufacturing engineer who is adept at simulation is equally important as those of the design or stress engineer. Boeing though is not organizational set-up to develop this type of skill set in their engineering staff. Just having the software isn't good enough, you need the people to be trained and practiced in order to implement.

But nobody in the automotive industry today would tell you, that all digital is the way. In the last 15 years it showed that digital is nice but you still need real prototyping and real test manufacturing set-ups to achieve volume and quality when it counts.

And the 753 is nothing like the rumoured MOM or MNA was supposed to be. It is a single aisle with surely no trans-atlantic range.

Stitch wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Did they ever consider folding wingtips on 787? Once things seem to work on X, technology could be applied elsewhere

The original 787-9 and 787-10 were supposed to have a three meter wider span than the 787-8, but the weight of that span increase negated the fuel efficiency increase for the most common 787 stage lengths and it was easier to have just one common wing across the class so Boeing kept the 787-8 span for all three models. As such, there is no benefit to extending the span even more and using folding wingtips to fit in current gates,

I am more thinking about shrinking existing wingspan by folding to fit 757 gates. Looks like it's too much to ask as the difference is quite large.

Sooner787 wrote:

I suspect when the NBA /NMA finally sees the light of day, it'll look like a 757 and 787 had a baby LOL

Pretty much.

kalvado wrote:

Stitch wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Did they ever consider folding wingtips on 787? Once things seem to work on X, technology could be applied elsewhere

The original 787-9 and 787-10 were supposed to have a three meter wider span than the 787-8, but the weight of that span increase negated the fuel efficiency increase for the most common 787 stage lengths and it was easier to have just one common wing across the class so Boeing kept the 787-8 span for all three models. As such, there is no benefit to extending the span even more and using folding wingtips to fit in current gates,

I am more thinking about shrinking existing wingspan by folding to fit 757 gates. Looks like it's too much to ask as the difference is quite large.

Correct, today you have 'all parameters Digital', but that doesn't mean no prototypes and no testing.
What you do is to drastically reduce such testing, because you simulate and select various variants upfront and ideally select the best one rather for a confirmation test. Depending on Parts probably testing is reduced to about 10% nowadays, but not to Zero.
And the other thing not mentioned is: Your 3d Parts view are accompanied by a huge Database which collects all issues around the part. Design, Tooling release, all kind of tests, supplier issues, certification, service planning etc., etc.

kalvado wrote:

Stitch wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Did they ever consider folding wingtips on 787? Once things seem to work on X, technology could be applied elsewhere

The original 787-9 and 787-10 were supposed to have a three meter wider span than the 787-8, but the weight of that span increase negated the fuel efficiency increase for the most common 787 stage lengths and it was easier to have just one common wing across the class so Boeing kept the 787-8 span for all three models. As such, there is no benefit to extending the span even more and using folding wingtips to fit in current gates,

I am more thinking about shrinking existing wingspan by folding to fit 757 gates. Looks like it's too much to ask as the difference is quite large.

Folding wing tip should only buys its way onto the airplane if one is flying very long range where the extra span is needed to reduce drag.