Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
flipdewaf wrote:I working the field of innovation (albeit in a different but larger industry) and spend significant time understanding what innovation is and what we do to achieve it and I had a very long answer prepared here however I think it’s pretty simple.
Innovation (as I would define it) is not declining, it is increasing. I think that we see the innovation happening faster than the launch cycle of aircraft and so the individual innovations are captured less as step changes but as small pieces, marginal gains, that make up the changes we expect as time marches on.
The innovation we see in the space market is because of change in the market that allows more, already established, technologies to be applied. The innovation is the link and not the technology.
Fred
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Starlionblue wrote:Agreed with N1120A. The 787 and A350 may look similar to the previous generation on the outside, but there is massive innovation under the skin.
kitplane01 wrote:Starlionblue wrote:Agreed with N1120A. The 787 and A350 may look similar to the previous generation on the outside, but there is massive innovation under the skin.
No one outside of China is developing a new commercial airliner now. The 787/A350 was launched in 2004/2006. That's a long time ago.
I understood that the A350/787 was about 15%-20% more economical than the A330/777. And that at least half that was the engines. So even if the A350/787 are very different than the A330/777, can the improvement really be more than about 10% (plus another 10% from the engines, give or take)?
Suppose 1%/year improvement in airframes, and 1%/year improvement in engines is the current innovation rate. What *was* the innovation rate? How much better was the 767/777 than the DC-10/A340. And was it not the case that airframes were developed more often back then?
Starlionblue wrote:kitplane01 wrote:Starlionblue wrote:Agreed with N1120A. The 787 and A350 may look similar to the previous generation on the outside, but there is massive innovation under the skin.
No one outside of China is developing a new commercial airliner now. The 787/A350 was launched in 2004/2006. That's a long time ago.
I understood that the A350/787 was about 15%-20% more economical than the A330/777. And that at least half that was the engines. So even if the A350/787 are very different than the A330/777, can the improvement really be more than about 10% (plus another 10% from the engines, give or take)?
Suppose 1%/year improvement in airframes, and 1%/year improvement in engines is the current innovation rate. What *was* the innovation rate? How much better was the 767/777 than the DC-10/A340. And was it not the case that airframes were developed more often back then?
Let's start by ordering the aircraft generations correctly.
- 747/DC-10/L1011/A300
- 757/767/A320
- 777/A330/A340
- 787/A350
Of course, the aircraft within a generation didn't all appear the same year, but it is a reasonable approximation.
Engines are a big thing in efficiency gain. We are now seeing geared turbofans on the newer narrowbodies. That development might extend to widebodies.
Again, there is massive innovation under the skin. Looking at A350 vs A330/A340, you have self-contained hydraulic actuators, allowing the deletion of the third hydraulic system, improved flight deck ergonomics, BTV, improved aerodynamics, airport navigation function, integrated EFB, distributed computer processing and networking with automated redundancy and hot backup, simplified hydraulics, more robust air data system redundancy. But there are also little things, like moving the probes forward so they don't risk getting dinged by cargo loaders and airstairs.
Also, consider that the 787 and A350 that were launched are not the same as the aircraft being produced today. Lots of improvements are made to an airliner over its production life. Avionics upgrades are common, but also things like the deletion of the sideslip angle probes on the A350, higher gross weights, and so forth.
Are we seeing diminishing returns? Time will tell, but I don't think innovation is really declining. It just isn't very apparent from the outside.
kitplane01 wrote:Starlionblue wrote:kitplane01 wrote:
No one outside of China is developing a new commercial airliner now. The 787/A350 was launched in 2004/2006. That's a long time ago.
I understood that the A350/787 was about 15%-20% more economical than the A330/777. And that at least half that was the engines. So even if the A350/787 are very different than the A330/777, can the improvement really be more than about 10% (plus another 10% from the engines, give or take)?
Suppose 1%/year improvement in airframes, and 1%/year improvement in engines is the current innovation rate. What *was* the innovation rate? How much better was the 767/777 than the DC-10/A340. And was it not the case that airframes were developed more often back then?
Let's start by ordering the aircraft generations correctly.
- 747/DC-10/L1011/A300
- 757/767/A320
- 777/A330/A340
- 787/A350
Of course, the aircraft within a generation didn't all appear the same year, but it is a reasonable approximation.
Engines are a big thing in efficiency gain. We are now seeing geared turbofans on the newer narrowbodies. That development might extend to widebodies.
Again, there is massive innovation under the skin. Looking at A350 vs A330/A340, you have self-contained hydraulic actuators, allowing the deletion of the third hydraulic system, improved flight deck ergonomics, BTV, improved aerodynamics, airport navigation function, integrated EFB, distributed computer processing and networking with automated redundancy and hot backup, simplified hydraulics, more robust air data system redundancy. But there are also little things, like moving the probes forward so they don't risk getting dinged by cargo loaders and airstairs.
Also, consider that the 787 and A350 that were launched are not the same as the aircraft being produced today. Lots of improvements are made to an airliner over its production life. Avionics upgrades are common, but also things like the deletion of the sideslip angle probes on the A350, higher gross weights, and so forth.
Are we seeing diminishing returns? Time will tell, but I don't think innovation is really declining. It just isn't very apparent from the outside.
I think (but I'm not sure) that time is telling.
Next year, after the 777x enters operation, there will be *no* new large commercial aircraft under development. When was the last time that was true?
FGITD wrote:That’s a bit of an outdated mentality on innovation though, just because there’s no publicly known widebody under development doesn’t mean there’s no innovation. It’s not the 50s anymore, it’s not as if the Boeing engineers sit down and bang out a quick aircraft design over lunch and within 2 years it’s in service.
The next aircraft are certainly under development. But at the moment, they might be doing something as “simple” as testing out new composite surface designs, hydraulic systems, and all manner of things, as Starlionblue laid out. Then when the time comes, those ideas are applied to the new aircraft or even added to those currently in production. For example-Boeing didn’t start trying to develop composite parts the same day they announced the 7E7
I’ma simple ground employee, but even I can tell the difference between one of my company’s new 787s vs one delivered a few years ago. Very minor and basic changes from our perspective, but clear that they’re still working on it.
LH707330 wrote:[Edit: totally forgot about the A300, that eliminates the 1971-1975 hole...]
1981-1985: gap between 767 and A330/340, some work on derivatives (763, 743, 744, MD11).
1995-1999: gap between 777 EIS and full-bore A380 development, more derivatives.
kitplane01 wrote:LH707330 wrote:[Edit: totally forgot about the A300, that eliminates the 1971-1975 hole...]
1981-1985: gap between 767 and A330/340, some work on derivatives (763, 743, 744, MD11).
1995-1999: gap between 777 EIS and full-bore A380 development, more derivatives.
Love new data. Didn't know the actual dates. Thanks.
The A220 entered service in 2016. Unless the re-engined 777x counts as a "new plane" we are in a gap 50% longer than any of those. Isn't the 777X something like (total guess) 80% the same as the 777. It's not a "new plane" like the A220/A350/787!
(I know I earlier wrote that the 777x counted as a new plane ... I'm doubting as I think more.)
LH707330 wrote:…….what may have taken 2 years in 1960 now may take 3 or 4 because there are more tests to run based on lessons learned from accidents in the 1960s to now to show that something has, say, 9 9s reliability/safety today versus 7 9s back in 1960.
kitplane01 wrote:In the 1950s Boeing could "bang out quick aircraft design .. and within 2 years it's in service" and it was an improvement over what came before. Now we fly upgraded versions of 30 year old designs. New designs take 10 years to get into service. We are clearly innovating more slowly than the 1950s.
PITingres wrote:kitplane01 wrote:In the 1950s Boeing could "bang out quick aircraft design .. and within 2 years it's in service" and it was an improvement over what came before. Now we fly upgraded versions of 30 year old designs. New designs take 10 years to get into service. We are clearly innovating more slowly than the 1950s.
Your last sentence doesn't follow, unless you insist that "innovation" only counts when it's an all new, big-picture design. I think that's a fallacy. 30-year-old designs are flying because all the easy improvements have been made, and what's left is detail improvements on the inside. There's a LOT going on at that level.
FGITD wrote:Another facet of modern innovation is exactly that, the safety and reliability. Back then you build a prototype and it crashes, so you build another one and give it another shot. These days the prototype crashes and the program most likely goes down with it.
I think we all have a specific definition of what constitutes innovation, and it differs from user to user and eras.
PITingres wrote:New designs came relatively quickly right up through the 80's, sure. That's because the industry was relatively immature; there were big gaps in size and range to fill, and engine technology moved forward enough to go from 3 and 4 engines to 2 across the board. We won't see that level of change again, unless it might be in wing/body materials and/or construction techniques. That's maturity, not lack of innovation.
LH707330 wrote:kitplane01 wrote:
(I know I earlier wrote that the 777x counted as a new plane ... I'm doubting as I think more.)
I think much of it depends on what's considered "new." The 777-9 has new wings, gear, engines, and tail feathers. Those are the expensive things to develop.
kitplane01 wrote:That maturity *is* the cause of some of the lack of innovation. We've solved the easy problems and the hard problems are hard so we make less progress (as measured by some metric like cost/seat-mile).
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Looking at my Jepps, I’d say RNAV (GPS) are rolling out pretty fast.
SteelChair wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Looking at my Jepps, I’d say RNAV (GPS) are rolling out pretty fast.
Nearly 20 years ago, the FAA was publishing visions of space based approaches with minimums down to CAT III equivalents on hundreds of runway ends. Most of the approaches out there today have minima higher than Cat I. Richard Anderson 10 years ago was refusing to upgrade his fleet because there was no benefit.
And let's not even talk about the illusory benefits of RNP and RVSM. "Congestion" is as bad as ever given the number of AFP's on weather days. (Reduced traffic due to covid has helped.)
PITingres wrote:kitplane01 wrote:That maturity *is* the cause of some of the lack of innovation. We've solved the easy problems and the hard problems are hard so we make less progress (as measured by some metric like cost/seat-mile).
If you're going to define innovation that way, then of course it's declining, because the laws of physics prevent indefinite optimization. There's a point beyond which you can't reduce a metric like cost/seat-mile because there's no possible better way that doesn't cost more (especially when you include R&D, retooling, production, and certification cost, as you must).
You've defined the terms of your argument such that your argument is necessarily true. I'm not real sure what value you expected to get out of a discussion on those terms.
BubbleFrog wrote:I think a lot of people tend to associate "innovation" with "revolutionary" or at least "disruptive".
As an innovation economist, I'd argue that innovation is not necessarily to be measured in absolutes. A lot of incremental innovation is just as "innovative" as giant leaps here and there, because it testifies to a sustained pace, albeit in maybe smaller steps in absolute terms.
And while I agree that the 787 / 350 are rather big steps ahead, they are at the same time resulting from sustained more incremental innovation, which made the big step possible to begin with.
So, to answer the OP's question -- I don't think innovation is declining or slowing down. Like flipdewaf, I think it is actually increasing -- or rather, changing its shape once again.
SteelChair wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Looking at my Jepps, I’d say RNAV (GPS) are rolling out pretty fast.
Nearly 20 years ago, the FAA was publishing visions of space based approaches with minimums down to CAT III equivalents on hundreds of runway ends. Most of the approaches out there today have minima higher than Cat I. Richard Anderson 10 years ago was refusing to upgrade his fleet because there was no benefit.
And let's not even talk about the illusory benefits of RNP and RVSM. "Congestion" is as bad as ever given the number of AFP's on weather days. (Reduced traffic due to covid has helped.)
N1120A wrote:SteelChair wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Looking at my Jepps, I’d say RNAV (GPS) are rolling out pretty fast.
Nearly 20 years ago, the FAA was publishing visions of space based approaches with minimums down to CAT III equivalents on hundreds of runway ends. Most of the approaches out there today have minima higher than Cat I. Richard Anderson 10 years ago was refusing to upgrade his fleet because there was no benefit.
And let's not even talk about the illusory benefits of RNP and RVSM. "Congestion" is as bad as ever given the number of AFP's on weather days. (Reduced traffic due to covid has helped.)
Airlines aren't the only ones who benefit from the deployment of GPS approaches. LPV has been a revolution in general aviation - both business and personal - CAT I minima to hundreds, if not thousands, of airports that had either nothing or a terrible VOR or NDB approach before. GPS based RNP AR approaches are such a huge deal to the airlines that they are regularly requested over even visual approaches because of the fuel savings. Now the airlines are just catching on, with the regional carriers leading the way with WAAS approach flying.
SteelChair wrote:N1120A wrote:SteelChair wrote:
Nearly 20 years ago, the FAA was publishing visions of space based approaches with minimums down to CAT III equivalents on hundreds of runway ends. Most of the approaches out there today have minima higher than Cat I. Richard Anderson 10 years ago was refusing to upgrade his fleet because there was no benefit.
And let's not even talk about the illusory benefits of RNP and RVSM. "Congestion" is as bad as ever given the number of AFP's on weather days. (Reduced traffic due to covid has helped.)
Airlines aren't the only ones who benefit from the deployment of GPS approaches. LPV has been a revolution in general aviation - both business and personal - CAT I minima to hundreds, if not thousands, of airports that had either nothing or a terrible VOR or NDB approach before. GPS based RNP AR approaches are such a huge deal to the airlines that they are regularly requested over even visual approaches because of the fuel savings. Now the airlines are just catching on, with the regional carriers leading the way with WAAS approach flying.
Agreed GA has been "ahead." Unlimited budgets by billionaires on their business jets really helps. Most airlines have only recently been approved on a few specific fleets to start using LPV minima. I'll stick by my assessment though, in that it's taking a very long time to roll out, but may eventually have benefit.
RVSM may have saved some gas, but did little to solve airborne congestion, apparently because processes and personnel didn't keep up at ATC. I'm speaking specifically about the US east of the Mississippi. I see enough RNP having the same effect.
ferren wrote:Aircraft industry is very slow now, because there is no competion. Two major rivals are both in a very safe position, they can really screw up something and be safe. Tube with wings is very old concept and we see that 90% “new” design can be only <10% better. In almost all industries this triggers search for new basic concepts, but it looks that is not in this. And yes, i have seen some “flying wing” or other “radical” concepts where every amateur fan can find a lot of issues that were not thought enough.
Military flying is the same. We pack old body with new computers and sensors and call it a new plane (improvements are from other industries).
It looks like this industry is frozen after the cold war end. maybe we will return to the moon, but I bet that the biggest difference will be in IT/computing technology, not related to flying ( as the majority of SpaceX wow technologies)
kalvado wrote:ferren wrote:Aircraft industry is very slow now, because there is no competion. Two major rivals are both in a very safe position, they can really screw up something and be safe. Tube with wings is very old concept and we see that 90% “new” design can be only <10% better. In almost all industries this triggers search for new basic concepts, but it looks that is not in this. And yes, i have seen some “flying wing” or other “radical” concepts where every amateur fan can find a lot of issues that were not thought enough.
Military flying is the same. We pack old body with new computers and sensors and call it a new plane (improvements are from other industries).
It looks like this industry is frozen after the cold war end. maybe we will return to the moon, but I bet that the biggest difference will be in IT/computing technology, not related to flying ( as the majority of SpaceX wow technologies)
And most cars are still a box on 4 wheels. Like it was in medieval carriages. There is plenty of competition there, though.
ferren wrote:kalvado wrote:ferren wrote:Aircraft industry is very slow now, because there is no competion. Two major rivals are both in a very safe position, they can really screw up something and be safe. Tube with wings is very old concept and we see that 90% “new” design can be only <10% better. In almost all industries this triggers search for new basic concepts, but it looks that is not in this. And yes, i have seen some “flying wing” or other “radical” concepts where every amateur fan can find a lot of issues that were not thought enough.
Military flying is the same. We pack old body with new computers and sensors and call it a new plane (improvements are from other industries).
It looks like this industry is frozen after the cold war end. maybe we will return to the moon, but I bet that the biggest difference will be in IT/computing technology, not related to flying ( as the majority of SpaceX wow technologies)
And most cars are still a box on 4 wheels. Like it was in medieval carriages. There is plenty of competition there, though.
if you compare cars built 20 years ago, definitely average consumer will differentiate them visually, by performance, controlability, effectivity etc. Avareage consumer will differentiate planes by….IFE.
racing cars, for example formulas improve aerodynamics every year, with rules that almost limit creativity, still some surprise is visible every season.Every year you can find some tiny new aero component…
But, the physics is the same, right? That is most common argument why planes are almost the same….
Starlionblue wrote:Again, there is massive innovation under the skin. Looking at A350 vs A330/A340, you have self-contained hydraulic actuators, allowing the deletion of the third hydraulic system, improved flight deck ergonomics, BTV, improved aerodynamics, airport navigation function, integrated EFB, distributed computer processing and networking with automated redundancy and hot backup, simplified hydraulics, more robust air data system redundancy.
ferren wrote:kalvado wrote:ferren wrote:Aircraft industry is very slow now, because there is no competion. Two major rivals are both in a very safe position, they can really screw up something and be safe. Tube with wings is very old concept and we see that 90% “new” design can be only <10% better. In almost all industries this triggers search for new basic concepts, but it looks that is not in this. And yes, i have seen some “flying wing” or other “radical” concepts where every amateur fan can find a lot of issues that were not thought enough.
Military flying is the same. We pack old body with new computers and sensors and call it a new plane (improvements are from other industries).
It looks like this industry is frozen after the cold war end. maybe we will return to the moon, but I bet that the biggest difference will be in IT/computing technology, not related to flying ( as the majority of SpaceX wow technologies)
And most cars are still a box on 4 wheels. Like it was in medieval carriages. There is plenty of competition there, though.
if you compare cars built 20 years ago, definitely average consumer will differentiate them visually, by performance, controlability, effectivity etc. Avareage consumer will differentiate planes by….IFE.
racing cars, for example formulas improve aerodynamics every year, with rules that almost limit creativity, still some surprise is visible every season.Every year you can find some tiny new aero component…
But, the physics is the same, right? That is most common argument why planes are almost the same….
M564038 wrote:But aerodynamics aren’t the only design-element with cars. Far from it. There are very few cars built with purely efficiency in mind.
The cars with the lowest drag coefficient does indeed look somewhat similar within its generation. Tesla model S and 3, Hyundai Ioniq etc.
M564038 wrote:To judge wether there has been innovation, you have to look at the 2 important drivers:
1/Economics(including emissions because fuel)
2/Safety
Both have been drastically bettered over the last decade .
mxaxai wrote:Starlionblue wrote:Again, there is massive innovation under the skin. Looking at A350 vs A330/A340, you have self-contained hydraulic actuators, allowing the deletion of the third hydraulic system, improved flight deck ergonomics, BTV, improved aerodynamics, airport navigation function, integrated EFB, distributed computer processing and networking with automated redundancy and hot backup, simplified hydraulics, more robust air data system redundancy.
To expand on this.
The number of lines of code has increased nearly exponentially over the past decades. The A330 features just over 1 million LOC, the 787 is already well beyond 10 million LOC. The added software functionality contributes significantly to comfort, safety and efficiency, even if it's invisible from the outside. And it's fairly easy to add to existing models.
However, certification is becoming a problem. Software testing and software design requires research as well, even if it doesn't directly benefit the aircraft itself.
Large amounts of data are processed by modern aircraft. Up to 70 TB per hour for the A350. A major step to accomplish this was the introduction of ethernet-based systems on the A380 and 787. Newer aircraft such as the A350 introduced increasingly complex network topologies, again invisible from the outside (or even invisble to the pilots themselves).
Another field that's largely overlooked is manufacturing. Scaling up processes while reducing costs and maintaining quality is a huge area of research. Models such as the A321neo, the 787 or, on the military side, the F-35 wouldn't be as successful without it.
flipdewaf wrote:
Is the real cost effectiveness of cars changing faster than that of airliners? Is my productivity from an iphone 13 that much greater than when I used and iphone 7?
Fred
kitplane01 wrote:The measure of success is not the number of lines of code, nor the amount of data processed, but it's some combination of cost, environment, and safety. And those seem to be improving at the rate of 17% every 27 years.
kitplane01 wrote:mxaxai wrote:Starlionblue wrote:Again, there is massive innovation under the skin. Looking at A350 vs A330/A340, you have self-contained hydraulic actuators, allowing the deletion of the third hydraulic system, improved flight deck ergonomics, BTV, improved aerodynamics, airport navigation function, integrated EFB, distributed computer processing and networking with automated redundancy and hot backup, simplified hydraulics, more robust air data system redundancy.
To expand on this.
The number of lines of code has increased nearly exponentially over the past decades. The A330 features just over 1 million LOC, the 787 is already well beyond 10 million LOC. The added software functionality contributes significantly to comfort, safety and efficiency, even if it's invisible from the outside. And it's fairly easy to add to existing models.
However, certification is becoming a problem. Software testing and software design requires research as well, even if it doesn't directly benefit the aircraft itself.
Large amounts of data are processed by modern aircraft. Up to 70 TB per hour for the A350. A major step to accomplish this was the introduction of ethernet-based systems on the A380 and 787. Newer aircraft such as the A350 introduced increasingly complex network topologies, again invisible from the outside (or even invisble to the pilots themselves).
Another field that's largely overlooked is manufacturing. Scaling up processes while reducing costs and maintaining quality is a huge area of research. Models such as the A321neo, the 787 or, on the military side, the F-35 wouldn't be as successful without it.
Sure, techniques are improving. But how much more efficient is the A350 compared to the A330? Maybe 15%-20%? And how many years did it take to get that 17% improvements? It's been 27 years since the A330 entered service, and I'm sure Airbus would like the A350 to also last 27 years.
The measure of success is not the number of lines of code, nor the amount of data processed, but it's some combination of cost, environment, and safety. And those seem to be improving at the rate of 17% every 27 years.
kitplane01 wrote:flipdewaf wrote:
Is the real cost effectiveness of cars changing faster than that of airliners? Is my productivity from an iphone 13 that much greater than when I used and iphone 7?
Fred
Cars are undergoing a revolution. It is possible to buy a self-driving (or steering assisting) car powered by batteries. Tesla this year, Cadillac and Ford next year. Cars are a great example of how much I *wish* airplanes were improving.
Your new iPhone is water tight, and has a much better battery than what you got 20 years ago. Twenty years ago your phone was used to make calls. Now it's an entertainment device. The big revolution is that 20 years ago there was no Netflix, Tinder, or TikTok. And if you think those things are worthless ... go talk to a 19 year old. iPhones are a great example of how much I *wish* airplanes were improving.
(Dear person who wants to make snide remarks about the social value of Netflix, Tinder, and TikTok. Go post that in the non-aviation forum.)
mxaxai wrote:kitplane01 wrote:The measure of success is not the number of lines of code, nor the amount of data processed, but it's some combination of cost, environment, and safety. And those seem to be improving at the rate of 17% every 27 years.
Improvement is not limited to fuel efficiency. Safety has improved, noise and other pollution has been reduced. Manufacturing has become cheaper, maintenance has become cheaper, reliability and operations have been optimized, passenger comfort has increased. Even if those metrics aren't always easily quantifiable.
A result is that the average fare has become cheaper. Up to 50% less in the 20 years between 1995 and 2014, and another 10-50% since then, depending on the exact market. At the same time, passenger comfort has remained approximately equal (in Y) or has improved significantly (in Y+, C and F). And, particularly in the US, airline profits have soared in the past decade.