NAV20-- Mark, with all the goodwill in the world, this business of just quoting my points and then making weak or subjective comments on them
NAV20, that's actually
not what was going on there though! Why instead it's merely an honest attempt to hopefully further see what you're getting at, that's all!
doesn't do much in terms of promoting sensible (and entertaining) discussion.
its possibly-lower general entertainment value
Some necessary everyday chores just may not be so much fun-- what can ya do, it's just
how it goes sometimes!
1. This confirms that research into the Sonic Cruiser began in the 1990s.
NAV20 I like aviationexplorer.com, I think it's a fine site and all, but one of their contributors' just saying in a desultory way that "in the late 1990s, Boeing began to consider  replacement aircraft" does not
that Sonic Cruiser research began during that time! Okay, let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and suppose that Boeing folks had a few boardroom discussions and barbecue working get-togethers here and there, but that's just not all that much. Especially when they did officially announce the project in March 29 2001 it seemed like all they had even at that time was just a bunch of concept drawings and maybe a few material engineering and preliminary wind-tunnel datasets here or there and not much more than that.
So y'know, let's maybe say that early 2001 was in fact a more realistic start date for when Boeing first floated the Sonic Cruiser concepts to potential customers. But who really knows for sure --or for that matter even much cares-- anyway? Sonic Cruiser is gone now -- maybe let it rest in peace!
And that the final decision to abandon it was taken some six months after the article you quote, in view of the market collapse after 9/11 (that is, six months or so after the article you quote).
Again there's no way to know that, at least not around here anyway. Officially
the project was shelved nearly two years
after the article I quoted there:
So who knows, NAV20. Who really knows for sure?! so maybe best just let it go then
2. The point about a lot of the 'bleedless' technology being subject to confidentiality agreements comes from a friend of a friend who is in the engine business in the USA.
If Both GE and
(even more obviously) RR
are evidently talking to Airbus respectively about GENX and Trent 1000 ports to a potential A350, then notwithstanding what your friend may have told you it seems that at least some
of the development work done is already likely common knowledge, at least over at Airbus anyway. Then there're other outfits, it's not like all this somehow dropped from outer space exclusively into GE
's (or RR
's, or Boeing's) lap(s) y'know :
It is based on the fact that much, if not most, of 'bleedless' technology is more to do with the interfaces with, and systems installed in, the aircraft, rather than the design of the actual engines; and these are naturally the property of Boeing.
NAV20 it was you
who mentioned the phrase "bleedless engines" in your post above. Not "bleedless engine technology" or "bleedless engine systems" or something like that but simply "bleedless engines", period. I looked at that and thought "hey, maybe he means the aircraft systems instead, not anything related to the engines specifically since after all he's talking about Boeing and all. But no, lemme give him the benefit of the doubt and at least ask him about the engines, just for starters". So that's what did!
you start talking about the aircraft systems side. we're clearly making progress! (and your friend if he's in the engine business may therefore know only peripherally about Boeing's understandable confidentiality safeguards for its "aircraft-side" bleedless stuff, so therefore a might not know a lot about it since he doesn't work there himself, or not even at any of the subcontractor companies involved either)
Now that RR and GE are the sole engine options for the 787 Boeing are in a strong position to enforce it.
No they're not -- who else are they going to go with instead, if and actually when their aircraft-side bleedless systems work starts tricking out to Airbus and whoever else Planetwide. Especially if RR
have evidently already been talking to Airbus guys about porting the engines over to a potential A350 down the road.
In any case, the fact that Airbus are only proposing 'less bleed', rather than 'bleedless', engines for the A350 amply confirms that Airbus are not in possession of all the pieces of the jigsaw.
No it doesn't! Certainly not amply
, and probably not even 'confirms' either! Mind you, granted Airbus for whatever reason does
appear wimpy on this nonetheless -- I mean porting over bleedless engines to a non-bleedless aircraft seems kinda a dopey thing to do especially in a supposedly-new airplane -- and hopefully they'll soon drop that silliness and pitch something more sensible instead. Who knows, maybe in fact Airbus is
skittish about trying a bleedless design for whatever reason, and maybe in fact they aren't "in possession of all the pieces of the jigsaw". And in which case -- just like that Flug Revue article a linked to above sort of suggests -- it's time they got on with at least trying what will soon be inevitable anyway, especially if Boeing folks themselves are.
But again, having said that it's not at all a given that Boeing will succeed either. Buiding a bleedless midsize jetliner is tough. It's not at all clear that Boeing knows how to do it yet either (though sporting of them of course to give it the ol' college try and not roll over when their backs would otherwise be up a wall in the global marketplace). So -- just like with building a composite fuselage skin and integrated stringer cage -- we'll just have to wait and see how they do with that and the next twelve to fifteen months especially will be telling.
In any case, apart from contradicting me, what exactly are you saying?
NAV20, you haven't noticed? Why, just getting a clearer sense of what exactly you're
saying yourself is all.
Boeing's timetable for the 787 is first flight 2006, production 2007, delivery 2008.
Depends who you talk with and especially how long ago that all was. C'mon, they're apparently not even going to have the first prototype fuselage skin sections ready anytime before Q2
2006 at the earliest since the jumbo Vought/Alenia autoclave in North Charleston SC
isn't even supposed to be ready until late Q1 2006 itself. So most folks nowadays seem to be saying that 2007 is when they first flight's supposed to happen, and they're still sticking to a 2008 service entry for now (though frankly it seems to me real optimistic to think those Chinese airline guys will get theirs in time for the Beijing Olympics as was first expected)
I said that it will take Airbus a minimum of five years to bring out a competitive alternative (i.e. until 2010).
You said that "it will likely take Airbus a minimum of five years to catch up with Boeing's technological lead and develop and bring out some competitive models of their own".
Now that's a lot of milestones to apply that five-year timeframe to. If you want the first one to apply --namely "Airbus catching up to Boeing's technological lead"-- and if Boeing does actually come up with a 787 entering service in '08 then it would seem an Airbus alternative to it would be ready only by 2013 at the earliest.
On the other hand if you want your five-year minimum to start counting down from right now and
also apply to and include the last part of your statement -- "Airbus bringing out some competitive models of their own"-- then yeah in that case we get a service entry of 2010 or so for their A350 or whatever the heck they want to call it.
So maybe you want to be more specific as to which particular scenario you had more in mind here.
Do you think they can do it quicker than that? If so, by when?
Assuming we're talking about their bringing out a fully-bleedless midsize long-range jetliner here, naw there's no way I can see them doing that before 2010 at the earliest. It's a lot of work! Lots for them to do and test out, since like Boeing they've never done this before on anything near this scale.