Airbus A320 Enhanced Series, Boeing Reaction?

keesje · Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:20 pm

.
While not promoting the A320 Enhanced for the 2010-2020 period, Airbus are obviously not sitting on their hands. Various parties are contracted and enhancements are being tested.

Some enhancements are already offfered as options, others are still under development or might prove just fantasy Wink

. If the GTF works, PW indicated it would take 2.5 yrs to get it ready for EIS. No doubt market leader CFM (Safran/GE) isn't watching from the side line, and RR are probably not keen on IAE fading away.

Airbus and its supply chain seem carefull not to hurt current sales. As soon as enhancements look good, airlines might postpone deliveries, waiting for the Enhanced slots. Specially during the current credit crises / economic downturn.

Two yrs ago everything was still up in the air, https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...neral_aviation/read.main/2724857/, now bits and pieces seem to come together.

No doubt Boeing is working on strategies to counter the emerging performance gab. I myself expect Boeing to go for an all new design before Airbus, when the 787 workload peak / economic crisis is behind us.

Flightglobal provides more details on possible A320 Enhanced improvements:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...wbody-development-on-the-back.html
.

scouseflyer · Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 pm

I guess that Airbus will look at drip-feeding in the improvements almost as soon as they're ready so that airlines can add them to their orders at relatively short notice (eg 9 months) so they don't have the excuse to cancel or defer.

seabosdca · Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:51 pm

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I myself expect Boeing to go for an all new design before Airbus, when the 787 workload peak / economic crisis is behind us.

So then you might just as easily ask how Airbus will react to Boeing's likely, and sensible, decision to engineer an all-new narrowbody for EIS in the late 2010s.

Will the A320 Enhanced be good enough, or will Airbus end up investing tens of millions on the enhancements only to have to turn around soon afterward and create its own new airplane?

keesje · Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:40 pm

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 2):
So then you might just as easily ask how Airbus will react to Boeing's likely, and sensible, decision to engineer an all-new narrowbody for EIS in the late 2010s.

Will the A320 Enhanced be good enough, or will Airbus end up investing tens of millions on the enhancements only to have to turn around soon afterward and create its own new airplane?

That might be a good question. However thinking about a possible answer of A to an answer B might have in 10 yrs is a bit shaky these days, even for me

Onlt think I've seen is Boeing saying they might consider putting a GTF under the 737,

But only a short article and sketch by flightglobal can be found so far..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-at-gtf-737-re-engining-study.html

It could very well be lighter aircraft like the CSeries, MRJ and Superjet in their (little doubt under consideration) stretched variants threatening to push Airbus out of the crusial 130-150 seat market that trigger it to invest..

The flightglobal article above states :
Airbus executives said at Farnborough that a GTF-powered A320 could be developed within 24-30 months of deciding on the move. However they warned that "a lot depends on how that engine programme looks" and that they would "wait and see what the data tells us" from the A340 tests.

Test flying started nearly 3 months ago, so they should have a pretty good impression by now..

[Edited 2008-12-23 06:56:10]

Stitch · Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:28 pm

Boeing has been consistently improving the 737 Next Generation family over the years:

They added winglets to improve range and reduce fuel consumption.
They added carbon brakes to reduce weight and improve braking performance.
They've created longer-ranged models of the 737-700 and 737-900.
They worked with Panasonic and Thales to develop an in-seat IFE option.
They developed a "short-field" kit that improves the amount of payload that can be lifted off and landed on runways of 5000ft or less length.
They developed a Class 3 Electronic Flight Bag.
They developed a system to allow operations from airports at altitudes up to 14,500ft.
They developed a Global-Positioning Based Landing System.

And that's just in the past four years alone...

As for engines, the CFM LEAP56 will fit under the 737NG and even Pratt is implying they can shoe-horn a GTF under there, as well, which makes sense as I doubt they'd want to abandon half the market...

[Edited 2008-12-23 08:28:39]

keesje · Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
As for engines, the CFM LEAP56 will fit under the 737NG and even Pratt is implying they can shoe-horn a GTF under there, as well, which makes sense as I doubt they'd want to abandon half the market...

I think both the 737 and A320 have relatively limitted by-pass ration of 1 to 4.x. e.g the Trent 900 and GENX have close to 1 : 9 making them inherent more energy efficient

A GTF on the A320 could have a bigger BPR of say 1:7.5 combined with more optimal turbine / fan rpm, counter rotation, higher pressure ratio's, better combution chambers, higher temperartures etc leading to significant better sfc.

Of course Boeing can shoe in a low BPR GTF under the 737, and it will have better SFC, but how much better remains a question. Combined with the spacier A320 cabin and cargo container capability I doubt it would be enough to prevent some Boeing 737 operators from switching, let alone be competative for new operators.

Of course Boeing Commercial Aircraft knows & will have a plan B in the drawer ( if plan A is wait & see ) ..

Revelation · Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Boeing has been consistently improving the 737 Next Generation family over the years:

* They added winglets to improve range and reduce fuel consumption.
* They added carbon brakes to reduce weight and improve braking performance.
* They've created longer-ranged models of the 737-700 and 737-900.
* They worked with Panasonic and Thales to develop an in-seat IFE option.
* They developed a "short-field" kit that improves the amount of payload that can be lifted off and landed on runways of 5000ft or less length.
* They developed a Class 3 Electronic Flight Bag.
* They developed a system to allow operations from airports at altitudes up to 14,500ft.
* They developed a Global-Positioning Based Landing System.

This article referenced in the thread starter says the following about the 737:

Quote:
Its in-service enhancement programme has been so prolific that many items that Airbus has just introduced or is planning for the A320 are already offered on its rival. These include winglets (introduced in 2001) and cockpit upgrades - head-up display (2001), vertical situation display (2003), GPS landing system (2005) and Class 3 electronic flight bag (2006).

Unlike the A320, the 737NG already complies with the 16g head-impact seat requirement, as it was a US Federal Aviation Administration certification requirement. Boeing phased in fuel inerting (a nitrogen generating system for the centre tank) this year on new-build 737s, which adds less than 23kg (50lb). The inerting system is being retrofitted to the in-service fleet as well.

Around 90% of 737s being delivered now have winglets developed by Aviation Partners Boeing. These provide fuel burn savings of "up to 4% depending on the route", says Polt.

I have a hard time seeing any major 737 operator jumping ship to an enhanced A320. The cost of the transition would be huge, and there's no need for Airbus to make concessions to make it happen, given the large A320 backlog.

wn700driver · Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:58 pm

Quote:
I think both the 737 and A320 have relatively limitted by-pass ration of 1 to 4.x. e.g the Trent 900 and GENX have close to 1 : 9 making them inherent more energy efficient

Couldn't they just shrink the diameter of the core to achieve a higher BPR? How big were the engine cores used on the Avro RJs or CR2? Not sure what that would do for effieciency, but I'm sure you could get 7.5 BPR on a 73G if you really wanted to.

Revelation · Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:06 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
The flightglobal article above states :
Airbus executives said at Farnborough that a GTF-powered A320 could be developed within 24-30 months of deciding on the move.

Yes, but that's just the Airbus side. It's not clear exactly when Pratt could get around to a GTF optimized for the A320.

It make for an impressive picture, but keep in mind the GTF hanging off the A340 is a demonstrator (PW6000 core with GTF front end and LPT) and Pratt has to commitments to build, test and certify the GTF for the CSeries and MRJ and their engines are somewhat smaller than what one would want for an A320.

These issues are the ones that drive things out till 2012 or 2014.

Stitch · Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:06 pm

Shrinking down the core raises temperatures and pressures, I expect, which brings their own set of issues that need to be addressed.

jacobin777 · Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:25 pm

From the article:

"However they warned that "a lot depends on how that engine programme looks" and that they would "wait and see what the data tells us" from the A340 tests."

I wonder at what % improvement would Airbus decide that its worth putting a new GTF under the A32X's.

I'm going to say >3% SFC improvement (wild guess).

Alessandro · Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:34 pm

Im more curious if Airbus will invest more in the A318 and offer the GTF engine and compete head on with MRJ and Bombardier?

tdscanuck · Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:45 pm

Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 7):
Couldn't they just shrink the diameter of the core to achieve a higher BPR?

Yes...this is one of the more pervasive incorrect assumptions about the GTF. You don't have to jack up the fan size, you can just shrink the core and hold the fan size, which ups bypass ratio.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Shrinking down the core raises temperatures and pressures, I expect, which brings their own set of issues that need to be addressed.

I'm not sure that this is true. The limiter on N1 speed is the fan tip speed. The GTF frees the LP turbine from that restriction, so the LP turbine can go faster and closer to its optimal speed. As a result, the LP turbine can extract more power from the same flow (same pressure and temperature). You can use that extra power to drive a bigger fan, or keep the same fan and make the core smaller. I suspect that solutions for the A320 and 737 will lean towards the latter side of the design trade.

Tom.

planemaker · Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:10 pm

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 2):
So then you might just as easily ask how Airbus will react to Boeing's likely, and sensible, decision to engineer an all-new narrowbody for EIS in the late 2010s.

I don't think that it will matter... both airframer's next narrowbody will most likely be their last "conventional" airliner and a few year's differrence in EIS will not be nearly as important as getting it right for the VERY long haul (pun intended).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
It could very well be lighter aircraft like the CSeries, MRJ and Superjet in their (little doubt under consideration) stretched variants threatening to push Airbus out of the crusial 130-150 seat market that trigger it to invest..

The Superjet will not breakout of the traditional "USSR" markets. MRJ has a good chance of breaking out of Japan. The CSeries will never be produced.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Boeing has been consistently improving the 737 Next Generation family over the years:

....

And that's just in the past four years alone...

I agree, the 737 will continue to improve, as it always has.

Now that the oil bubble has burst, all the rationale for a new narrowbody... "NOW"... has been swept off the table. There won't be an all new NB until 2020... at the earliest.

manfredj · Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:22 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
guess that Airbus will look at drip-feeding in the improvements almost as soon as they're ready

I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it. If I were Airbus and wanted to grab a customer like say, Southwest, I would be doing everything in my power to have a brand new 737/320 competitor on the drawing board ASAP.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I myself expect Boeing to go for an all new design before Airbus, when the 787 workload peak / economic crisis is behind us.

We've talked about his before, and I got hammered for my opinions, but I'm still under the belief that at this given point, Boeing has the money and resources to get the design out first.

railker · Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:31 pm

Man, now we can't use the winglets to ID the aircraft in wing shots ...

keesje · Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:20 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
The Superjet will not breakout of the traditional "USSR" markets.

Half the world flies with Russian made aircraft, this one seems has more western technology then any before (Safran, Goodrich, Honeywell, Thales all are in).

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
MRJ has a good chance of breaking out of Japan.

The Japanese have not exported any aircraft so far, I think they need a marketing / sales partner..

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
The CSeries will never be produced.

The CSeries looks very good, I think they need a big western partner too to make this promising aircraft a success.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
I agree, the 737 will continue to improve, as it always has.

Lets assume the CFM56-5 (A320) and CFM-56-7 (737NG) performance is similar.

Pratt claimed in August after flight tests the GTF "achieved "near double-digit" improvements in fuel burn on the demonstrator and validates the 12-15% improvement the manufacturer hopes to deliver in service.

Say the winglets give a 3% gain, aerodynamics twists another 2%.

That could mean a A320 Enhanced being 15% more fuel efficient, much more silent (late slots), more comfortable and pallet / container capable.

I think Boeing could be not in the driver seat here. They could be forced to react before they wanted too.

[Edited 2008-12-23 13:30:06]

Observer · Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:27 pm

Aviation and the Environment Magazine just published a 5 page piece about the A320E and what they are calling a 737 Re-Generation (not a new airplane, but a major redesign of the 737).

There's no direct link, just to the magazine website--they article starts on Pg 18

http://edition.pagesuite-professiona...-45da-42c2-844a-f9e7da4a0bc5&skip=

IAD787 · Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:44 pm

I just did a write up on Scott's article. Biggest revelation in there is the new 787 style cabin being designed for FlyDubai's 737-800s.

"In the near term, Hamilton states that FlyDubai, which ordered 50 new 737-800 aircraft at the Farnborough Air Show in July, will be the launch customer for a new interior for the narrowbody, drawing on 787 features to remake the 737 cabin. Delivery was originally planned for September 2009, but Hamilton adds that it could be delayed by the Fall's two-month IAM strike. "

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ntroducing-the-boeing-737-re-.html

IAD787

keesje · Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:57 pm

Quoting Observer (Reply 17):

Aviation and the Environment Magazine

Thnx, interresting stuff. Mostly overlapping with this post but also good new info. Remarkably Pratt, Boeing, Airbus and the magazine citing sources are all sketching different priorities, timetables and scenarios. Stakes are high, likely everyone has a double agenda !

[Edited 2008-12-23 14:14:01]

jambrain · Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:17 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Yes...this is one of the more pervasive incorrect assumptions about the GTF. You don't have to jack up the fan size, you can just shrink the core and hold the fan size, which ups bypass ratio.

If you shrink the core then the thrust will shrink for example
Trent 884 84000 lb trust 110" fan byepass ratio around 6
Trent 1000 69800 lb trust 112" fan byepass ratio around 11

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
the LP turbine can extract more power from the same flow

Modern LP turbines are up towards 90% efficient already, what a GTF can do it achieve the same objective with fewer stages and less weight, it can't get much more power. (and the gears will have a compensating weight penalty) GTF is not a game changing technology, just another way to achieve high byepass (IMHO)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y...+%25&lr=&ei=Rn5RSbrtBKDkzQSyr5DuAQ

tdscanuck · Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:07 am

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Yes...this is one of the more pervasive incorrect assumptions about the GTF. You don't have to jack up the fan size, you can just shrink the core and hold the fan size, which ups bypass ratio.

If you shrink the core then the thrust will shrink for example

But those examples are the same generation cores (same efficiency). If you increase the core efficiency at the same size it produces more shaft HP for the fan (more thrust) or, alternatively, you can shrink the core and get the same power.

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
the LP turbine can extract more power from the same flow

Modern LP turbines are up towards 90% efficient already, what a GTF can do it achieve the same objective with fewer stages and less weight, it can't get much more power.

All modern LP turbines (at least in commercial airliners) are slinging large fans, which means they're running slower than they could if they weren't RPM locked to the fan. Increasing the LP speed means more power extraction without any weight increase, or the same power extraction with a smaller (lighter & smaller core diameter) turbine.

Tom.

planemaker · Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:13 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
Half the world flies with Russian made aircraft, this one seems has more western technology then any before (Safran, Goodrich, Honeywell, Thales all are in).

Yes, that is why I said the "USSR" market area. That the Superjet has more western tech is a non-issue... they needed that just for their own domestic market acceptance. Even at that Aeroflot was reluctant to order it.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The Japanese have not exported any aircraft so far, I think they need a marketing / sales partner..

No, but they do have a deal with Boeing and I can see them flogging some frames off to some non-North American or European carriers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The CSeries looks very good, I think they need a big western partner too to make this promising aircraft a success.

Too complex a project for BBD (and the fuel efficiency argument has virtually vanished).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
I think Boeing could be not in the driver seat here. They could be forced to react before they wanted too.

No, they are not going to "rush" an all-new airframe response to an A320E when this airframe will be the last conventional NB that they will build.

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):
what a GTF can do it achieve the same objective with fewer stages and less weight

A GTF actually weighs more than a non-GTF enigne of the same thrust.

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):
GTF is not a game changing technology, just another way to achieve high byepass

It isn't game changing when conventional turbofan development continue to claw away at the efficiency advantage that GTF's have... while the price of fuel remains low in real terms.

jambrain · Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:27 am

But you will agree that to have a higher bye-pass ratio with same power you need a bigger fan, core improvements (of which GTF is one, 3 shaft is another, high pressure ratio another) will reduce the scaling but they won't eliminate it, modern gas turbines are so close to 100% that you are not able to make step changes.

It's simple physics higher bye-pass = lower jet velocity, lower jet velocity = larger area to achieve same thrust

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21):
more shaft HP for the fan

The only reason high bye-pass gives an improvement in propulsive efficiency is the lower jet velocity, having more shaft horsepower will increase jet velocity unless you put a bigger fan on.

Jam

PlanesNTrains · Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:27 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 13):
Now that the oil bubble has burst, all the rationale for a new narrowbody... "NOW"... has been swept off the table. There won't be an all new NB until 2020... at the earliest.

Yet we don't "know" what oil is going to do moving forward. I understand that the dynamics behind the higher prices have changed, but we never know what is just around the corner. Israel attack on Iran, OPEC, etc.

I guess I wonder if whether in a few years time we'll be wondering why the manufacturers sat on their hands in regards to an all-new NB when we had just gone through a ravaging experience with expensive oil.

-Dave

SpruceMoose · Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:46 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The Japanese have not exported any aircraft so far

How about the NAMC YS-11?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Richard Vandervord

-SpruceMoose

tdscanuck · Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:06 am

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 23):
But you will agree that to have a higher bye-pass ratio with same power you need a bigger fan

No. A smaller core causes bypass ratio to go up without changing fan size. If the core is more efficient and can provide the same amount of power as before, then power hasn't changed and fan size hasn't changed, but bypass ratio has gone up.

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 23):
It's simple physics higher bye-pass = lower jet velocity, lower jet velocity = larger area to achieve same thrust

Yes, but larger fan area can be obtained by enlarging the fan *or* shrinking the core. This type of simple physics analysis also assumes constant disc loading, which isn't necessarily true.

Tom.

UA772IAD · Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:29 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The Japanese have not exported any aircraft so far, I think they need a marketing / sales partner..

Doesn't matter. Mitsubishi is a well known name across the globe that can carry itself... though a marketing partner would certainly help. The company made inroads in the aviation community with impressive displays at Farnborough and Paris '07. I could see this aircraft doing well in the United States, and perhaps Europe.

parapente · Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:34 am

I do believe that Airbus is thinking hard about the next steps.Thet like Boeing are strapped for cash -of which alot would be required for a narrow body replacement. The studies from both Airbus and Boeing so far have suggested the from an airframe standpoint there are no great efficiencies to be found -unless you go all the way to prop fans.We know that Rolls and GE are working on these (and the noise issues) but its a big ask from both propulsion and airframe designers.

I was one who was rubbished for suggesting that this "test" engine might indeed be developed for production.Have not heard those noises recently!

P&W would need (I believe) to get Rolls on board.But if they did (and they have publicly offered) then yes I believe that this is the way they will go.

jambrain · Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:28 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 26):
Yes, but larger fan area can be obtained by enlarging the fan *or* shrinking the core. This type of simple physics analysis also assumes constant disc loading, which isn't necessarily true.

You are right of course, however I would still suggest that to a first order approximation higher bpr engines will have less power for a given fan size.

I plotted a graph of 45 widebody engines and if you normalise the thrust by dividing by Fan size squared there is a clear(ish) trend that for each unit increase in BPR thrust drops approx 1000lb

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21):
But those examples are the same generation cores (same efficiency)

Trent 800 vs 1000 pressure ratio went from 34.5 – 41.9 to 50 so that is at least half a generation older and yet more powerful (which supports my case that high BPR = less thrust)

from
http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/categories/commercial/21556.html and http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/packs/200702-civilaerospace.pdf

planemaker · Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:58 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 24):
Yet we don't "know" what oil is going to do moving forward. I understand that the dynamics behind the higher prices have changed, but we never know what is just around the corner. Israel attack on Iran, OPEC, etc.

We do know a few things... 30-to-1 and, in some funds, even 60-to-1 leveraging has gone away for a long time! We also know that the world is taking Climate Change seriously and that there will be a Carbon Tax of some form. We also know that there is political will to move away from imported crude via greater energy efficiency and alternative energy. Aging global tranport equipment is being replaced with more efficient models. Etc, etc, etc.

Regarding the "unkowns"... they are minimized by the decline in crude price.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 24):
I guess I wonder if whether in a few years time we'll be wondering why the manufacturers sat on their hands in regards to an all-new NB when we had just gone through a ravaging experience with expensive oil.

The price of crude won't break $100 in real terms again... unless an "unkown" happens.

jambrain · Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:42 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 30):
The price of crude won't break $100 in real terms again... unless an "unkown" happens.

So peak oil is just a myth, the Chinese are not going to move their car ownership from 6 per 1000, all is rosy?????

I am one that thinks this credit crunch is going to cause a lost decade of growth but unless you mean "won't break" this decade you are smoking something if you think long term trends have been reversed.

keesje · Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:46 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 30):
The price of crude won't break $100 in real terms again... unless an "unkown" happens.

I guess the high oil prices won't go away like a bad dream. Things will probably go back to normal in time, including the oil prices. Maybe without the credit crunch they would be $100 / barrel now..

Starlionblue · Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:35 pm

Quoting SpruceMoose (Reply 25):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The Japanese have not exported any aircraft so far

How about the NAMC YS-11?

And the Mitsubishi Mu-2. Wink

Alessandro · Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:29 am

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):

Modern LP turbines are up towards 90% efficient already, what a GTF can do it achieve the same objective with fewer stages and less weight, it can't get much more power. (and the gears will have a compensating weight penalty) GTF is not a game changing technology, just another way to achieve high byepass (IMHO)

So can we expect longer service periods with a GTF with fewer parts, less complicated to maintain or any other advantages than fuelconsumption?

planemaker · Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:56 am

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 31):
So peak oil is just a myth, the Chinese are not going to move their car ownership from 6 per 1000, all is rosy?????

All will be rosy... we don't have a choice. FYI, the Chinese have higher fuel efficiency standards than we do.

We are moving to an electric tranport future. BYD already has a plug-in hybrid selling in China (BTW, Warren Buffet invested $200-million in BYD this summer).

Quoting Jambrain (Reply 31):
I am one that thinks this credit crunch is going to cause a lost decade of growth but unless you mean "won't break" this decade you are smoking something if you think long term trends have been reversed.

Obviously at some point in the future crude might break $100/bbl if there is no geopolitcal conflict. But, yes, long term trends are being reversed. To use a Larry Kudlow expression on CNBC, "mustard seeds" are being planted in this recession.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 32):
I guess the high oil prices won't go away like a bad dream. Things will probably go back to normal in time, including the oil prices. Maybe without the credit crunch they would be $100 / barrel now..

Things won't go back to "normal" in time.... OPEC has already announced record production cuts and Feb crude prices are nontheless only trading in the mid-$30/bbl.

baroque · Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:49 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 32):
I guess the high oil prices won't go away like a bad dream. Things will probably go back to normal in time, including the oil prices. Maybe without the credit crunch they would be $100 / barrel now..

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 35):
Obviously at some point in the future crude might break $100/bbl if there is no geopolitcal conflict. But, yes, long term trends are being reversed. To use a Larry Kudlow expression on CNBC, "mustard seeds" are being planted in this recession.

Absent the recession/depression (delete to personal taste), you would suppose a quick return to Keesje's trend line would be the go, but staring into this mess, who knows? I do suspect the mid 30s at present are based on the assumption that OPEC discipline will be poor. Could be, but leopards might change their spots, especially after they have had a taste of $100 oil.

Even more significant, but in 3 to 5 years, will be the lower investment by many of the non-OPEC producers. I would not care to guarantee that Russia might not make common cause with OPEC and offer a bit of "backbone". Norway too has been known to "schedule its production" more carefully. After all, Norway is in the business to make money not to keep folk "happy in Hummers".

If you had the choice of improving a successful design or designing a completely new plane, in uncertain times, the improvement route must seem much more preferable. Especially if you plan to learn a bit more about composite wings and fuselages in the next five years. And even more, you plan to learn how much weight you really CAN save with composites.

MD-90 · Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:07 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33):
And the Mitsubishi Mu-2.

Which was a successful design and Mitsubishi has an incredible reputation for supporting the MU-2 even though it's been out of production for a very long time.

Rheinbote · Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:14 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
Half the world flies with Russian made aircraft, this one seems has more western technology then any before (Safran, Goodrich, Honeywell, Thales all are in).

'Half of the world'? What do you have in mind?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 22):
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 20):
GTF is not a game changing technology, just another way to achieve high byepass

It isn't game changing when conventional turbofan development continue to claw away at the efficiency advantage that GTF's have

While I don't like the term 'game changing', at this time neither LEAP-X nor Rolls' RB.something turbofan get close to the PW1000G, neither in SFC nor in fuel burn.

planemaker · Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:19 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
Absent the recession/depression (delete to personal taste), you would suppose a quick return to Keesje's trend line would be the go, but staring into this mess, who knows?

The trend line was built on shaky foundations and was not sustainable. The "bubble" ride was great for those that got out before the collapse but the world has changed and there is no way that we will be going back.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
I do suspect the mid 30s at present are based on the assumption that OPEC discipline will be poor. Could be, but leopards might change their spots, especially after they have had a taste of $100 oil.

The problem with this scenario is OPEC would have to cut producition too much to get close to $100/bbl oil... and that still won't fill the coffers of Iran, Russia or Venezuela - so as you mention, discipline will be poor and it will "perversely" keep the price low.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
Even more significant, but in 3 to 5 years, will be the lower investment by many of the non-OPEC producers. I would not care to guarantee that Russia might not make common cause with OPEC and offer a bit of "backbone". Norway too has been known to "schedule its production" more carefully. After all, Norway is in the business to make money not to keep folk "happy in Hummers".

The above worked before the world "changed"... we are moving away from IC transport and we are not going back.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
If you had the choice of improving a successful design or designing a completely new plane, in uncertain times, the improvement route must seem much more preferable. Especially if you plan to learn a bit more about composite wings and fuselages in the next five years. And even more, you plan to learn how much weight you really CAN save with composites.

First, as A and B conitue to insist, there just isn't the rationale at this point in time to produce an all new design... and particularily now that oil is so low.

Second, with oil so "low", the already efficient NBs can be improved that further narrows the cost/performance gap with an all-new design... at much lower risk.

Third, A and B's next NB will be their last conventional airliner... and waiting a few years for bleeding edge tech to mature is obviously preferable than to "rush" out an "inferior" model to the competitor's.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 38):
While I don't like the term 'game changing', at this time neither LEAP-X nor Rolls' RB.something turbofan get close to the PW1000G, neither in SFC nor in fuel burn.

They do in economics... and that is what counts.

Rheinbote · Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:46 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 39):
Third, A and B's next NB will be their last conventional airliner...

To be followed by what?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 39):
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 38):
While I don't like the term 'game changing', at this time neither LEAP-X nor Rolls' RB.something turbofan get close to the PW1000G, neither in SFC nor in fuel burn.

They do in economics... and that is what counts.

I doubt that. To get anywhere near GTF efficiency, the non-geared engines would have to make use of more airfoils and more advanced (expensive) materials. If the GTF is as reliable as advertised and doesn't need a draggy oil cooler´, fuel burn AND economics might be very favourable even at low fuel prices.

[Edited 2008-12-25 10:59:08]

planemaker · Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:10 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 40):
To be followed by what?

What comes next is too far out to state with certainty because the pace of technology innovation, particularily in nano tech, is accelerating. An autonomous BWB would be one avenue that seems likely for a number of reasons.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 40):
I doubt that. To get anywhere near GTF efficiency, the non-geared engines would have to make use of more airfoils and more advanced (expensive) materials. If the GTF is as reliable as advertised and doesn't need a draggy oil cooler´, fuel burn AND economics might be very favourable even at low fuel prices - final outcome depending on engine and spares prices, which I don't know. Do you?

Pratt states that they expect a 15% eventual advantage over current engines. GE and Rolls state that they can get at least a 10% improvement over their current engines. So we are talking about a 5% difference... that is not game changing.

Flighty · Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:21 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 32):
Things will probably go back to normal in time, including the oil prices.

Things won't be back to normal unless the forests regrow, humans retreat from the ecosystem and the biosphere recovers... IMO. The Brazilian rainforest continues to shrink. This can't go on forever. Things won't be normal for many centuries... IMO.

Starlionblue · Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:01 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
Things won't be back to normal unless the forests regrow, humans retreat from the ecosystem and the biosphere recovers... IMO. The Brazilian rainforest continues to shrink. This can't go on forever. Things won't be normal for many centuries... IMO.

The difficulty here is defining "normal". For example, Sweden has never had more forest than it does today. With or without humans, there probably is no "normal" state. How can we then define "recovery"? But we are digressing. Smile

parapente · Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:43 am

I think its correct to state that most people on this forum look forward to new aircraft and new designs. However the depth,length and severity of this recession boads against this.Also both aircraft manufacturers have their plates more than full with little left in the piggy bank.

Improving the 320 thus seems the obvious (only) way to go.Indeed Boeings liitle illustration of a GTF 737 suggests that they too are more than happy to go this way.

Oil will I am sure go back up.Not to $150 as that was due to oil being used as a "reserve currency" and speculated up. But a Keejse's graph shows $100 will be where it goes to over the next 5 years.

Early 2009 will reveal the results of the GTF test on the 340. If it is positive -what then.There would be no point in conducting this expensive test for "fun". There is a deadly serious reason for this test (and wanting to confirm the numbers for themselves) and it can only be for one aircraft.

So sadly no we will not now see a new "Heavy" BWB from Boeing after the 747-8i decision,nor will we be seeing any "muppit" "open rotor" aircraft from A or B in the near future.

Bit sad really - but thats business.

baroque · Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:54 pm

Quoting Parapente (Reply 44):
Early 2009 will reveal the results of the GTF test on the 340. If it is positive -what then.There would be no point in conducting this expensive test for "fun". There is a deadly serious reason for this test (and wanting to confirm the numbers for themselves) and it can only be for one aircraft.

Although part of it could be a version of per encourager les autres to RR and GE with more conventional layouts - "OK, this is what you need to beat".

planemaker · Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:00 pm

Quoting Parapente (Reply 44):
Oil will I am sure go back up.Not to $150 as that was due to oil being used as a "reserve currency" and speculated up. But a Keejse's graph shows $100 will be where it goes to over the next 5 years.

The graph is based on the "old" oil paradigm that is losing its grip on global energy markets with gathering pace. Unless there is a geopolitical crisis that will result in a short term spike in crude prices, $100/bbl crude will not be reached within the next 5 years.

keesje · Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:24 pm

I think oil & gas are in the hands of folks that don't hestitate making money from the West. Its sparse & we have no alternatives..

I think Airbus and Boeing are not letting their 20 yrs strategy being influenced by a 4 months drop, neither will e.g the automotive industry. We have learned our lessons.

Alessandro · Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:42 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 41):
Pratt states that they expect a 15% eventual advantage over current engines. GE and Rolls state that they can get at least a 10% improvement over their current engines. So we are talking about a 5% difference... that is not game changing.

'
Well, on a A318 it´ll increase the range, which definitly be a selling point.

planemaker · Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:53 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):
I think oil & gas are in the hands of folks that don't hestitate making money from the West.

Well, they obviously can't... otherwise March 09 oil wouldn't be at $37/bbl... even though OPEC announced the largest production cut in history.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):
Its sparse & we have no alternatives..

It isn't "sparse"... it has artificially been kept "sparse". And we do have alternatives!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):
I think Airbus and Boeing are not letting their 20 yrs strategy being influenced by a 4 months drop, neither will e.g the automotive industry. We have learned our lessons.

If A & B were very clearly stating that they weren't even planning to EIS their next NB before 2018 when oil was even at $148/bbl... just why do you "think" that they would move up EIS with oil at under $40/bbl?

So... just what "lesson" has A & B learned? Smile

(BTW, the 4 month drop is not just some slight bump downward but an over 75% reduction... in spite of record OPEC production cuts.)

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 48):
Well, on a A318 it´ll increase the range, which definitly be a selling point.

It can already fly transcontinental... so why would it "definitely" be a selling point when it doesn't even use the current range it has?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net