Interesting interview. I got the impression that GE will develop a new engine for the 777 but not the A350-10. Strange, because a new engine for the 777 would also be perfect for the A350-10. Maybe Boeing is going to fool everyone and come out with the Y3 before the Y1. If Boeing did this they could have a CFRP 777 replacement at about the same time as the A350 enters service. I wonder if Boeing could pull it off........A350XWB wrote:GE engine interview -- A350-1000 vs. 777-300ER
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... blog_last3
A350 XWB -- more from Steve Udvar-Hazy about the composite fuselage construction
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... 117843.asp
Qantas wants bigger 787
Moderator: Latest news team
Isn't it Qantas who said 'tarted-up old tech'? I wonder what you say about them when they ordered 65 787s. and i can anticipate what will be said if they do order XWBs.smokejumper wrote:tsv wrote: "My understanding is that the A320 has clearly outsold the 737 in the last 3 years and looks set to continue to do so. For this reason alone I think it's clear it's a superior product. But if anyone has figures to prove otherwise.. "
Several friends (1 at Northwest and the other at Frontier) have told me that the prices offered by Airbus are "very favorable" and that Boeing will not match them. Now, if these low prices are a result of more efficient manufacturing and production processes, then the A320 is a superior product. If, however, the low prices result from a policy to sustain employment and benefit from subsidies, then it is not a superior product.
Technologically, both the A320 and the B737NG are equal (with the exception of the B737's hydraulic flight controls, which while older technology, are very reliable and maintainable.
As for "tarted-up old tech 777's", they have been replaced with current production 777's incorporating technology that was not available in the 1990 design era. On the other hand, I guess you could say that even the current production 777's are old tech in that they use panels riveted over aluminum frames (just like the A350XWB [6th iteration]). Airbus has replaced aluminum panels with composite panels but still use thousands of rivets to hold them together.
Don't think Boeing will fool airlines, if they simply announce some plans of a new 777 that rivals the XWB, Airbus will not be getting its few hundred orders now. With the 787-10 going up to take over the 777-200, Boeing will only have the -300 size to build an improvement, and anything bigger than the -300 will start to overlap with 747-8.. We doubt Airbus' plan to rival 2 planes with one plane, but as soon as Boeing builds the 787-10, at least Airbus has succeeded in pushing Boeing to do the same as them, using one airframe to go accross very different sizes.
I am having reservations about the 747-8I.
Definitely has not set the world on fire. Our old friend Clark at Emirates says it would be great IF it had more range, and looking at buyers of any quantities, there is BA, United and NWA, any others are likely to by small volume.
Boeing abandoned the 717 because of a lack of market, what is the future of the 748I?
An 80% load factor 748I would fill an XWB 900 or 1000 very nicely.
If they miss out on BA, with so much 787 work they may drop it.
Cheers
Achace
Definitely has not set the world on fire. Our old friend Clark at Emirates says it would be great IF it had more range, and looking at buyers of any quantities, there is BA, United and NWA, any others are likely to by small volume.
Boeing abandoned the 717 because of a lack of market, what is the future of the 748I?
An 80% load factor 748I would fill an XWB 900 or 1000 very nicely.
If they miss out on BA, with so much 787 work they may drop it.
Cheers
Achace
I think the "tarted" up comment from Dixon is pure stage theatrics, and I suspect he is trying to create a diversion elsewhere (my impression was he was pretty deep into the takeover situation).
He was also in the group that tried to force Boeing to compete with the A380.
Boeing had to stand firm, and they have proven to be right. Its never (my opinion) going to return any revenue, they will not even break even. Boeing getting into that would have sunk both companies.
If he doesn’t like the new 747 that’s fine, but a lot of people do.
As for what he does want, Boeing has to look at the market, decide if they can achieve it at least break even. If not, how much do they loose and does other business offset that.
If not, then they will not try to compete.
You can't make everyone happy, and they obviously have made the right choices in the 787. If it can't pull magic tricks for Dixon and Clark, that may be just too bad. I don't think Boeing has done anything to deserve that comment. And I also recall at how "close" he said the competition with Rev 1 of the A350 was (he's been taking lessons from JL). I think he has just made as ass of himself (in both cases actually).
What should not be missed is that while Boeing has a lot on its plate, they have a full aircraft development team that is free now. Yes there is a huge amount of follow up to do, but the development stuff has been done.
Same for the 747 (it has its team in place) and the 777F work, both derivatives, and neither has the resource needs the 787 had.
If I was Airbus, I would be very very nervous.
P&W is accelerating (per Av Week) its GTF development, as it thinks it has a winner (low fuel use, and very green for CO reduction that no one else can offer anything close). Frankly I think are right. Early availability would let Boeing fire round 2.
The others are looking at the open fans, but I do not think that’s got any future (in that size aircraft).
Give Boeing a year to work out designs and see which bomb drops first (Y1 or Y3). Y3 would sink Airbus into being a single product company (with an occasional A380 rolling out of Toulouse). Boeing probably can do two new aircraft if it deems it the right move, Airbus could not do another one period.
He was also in the group that tried to force Boeing to compete with the A380.
Boeing had to stand firm, and they have proven to be right. Its never (my opinion) going to return any revenue, they will not even break even. Boeing getting into that would have sunk both companies.
If he doesn’t like the new 747 that’s fine, but a lot of people do.
As for what he does want, Boeing has to look at the market, decide if they can achieve it at least break even. If not, how much do they loose and does other business offset that.
If not, then they will not try to compete.
You can't make everyone happy, and they obviously have made the right choices in the 787. If it can't pull magic tricks for Dixon and Clark, that may be just too bad. I don't think Boeing has done anything to deserve that comment. And I also recall at how "close" he said the competition with Rev 1 of the A350 was (he's been taking lessons from JL). I think he has just made as ass of himself (in both cases actually).
What should not be missed is that while Boeing has a lot on its plate, they have a full aircraft development team that is free now. Yes there is a huge amount of follow up to do, but the development stuff has been done.
Same for the 747 (it has its team in place) and the 777F work, both derivatives, and neither has the resource needs the 787 had.
If I was Airbus, I would be very very nervous.
P&W is accelerating (per Av Week) its GTF development, as it thinks it has a winner (low fuel use, and very green for CO reduction that no one else can offer anything close). Frankly I think are right. Early availability would let Boeing fire round 2.
The others are looking at the open fans, but I do not think that’s got any future (in that size aircraft).
Give Boeing a year to work out designs and see which bomb drops first (Y1 or Y3). Y3 would sink Airbus into being a single product company (with an occasional A380 rolling out of Toulouse). Boeing probably can do two new aircraft if it deems it the right move, Airbus could not do another one period.
Don't know why Y3 will sink Airbus.. What will the Y3 be? I can only think of a 350-400 seat plane (anything bigger will kill off the 748I), and at the moment, if we trust Airbus' facts, the XWB range is more competitive (or at least as competitive for Boeing fans) as the 787, will Boeing work out some sort of plane that will be miles better than its 787 in a few years? I mean, what can it be? The 777 dimension today is already excellent, only things they can do is basically with the materials used engines, but hey, the XWB also has new materials and engines, so how will this sink the XWB? Obviously Airbus must be able to deliver the specs they made or else everything is nonsense.
As for the A320/737 replacement, well, the A350 is like 5 years down on the 787, it is a huge disadvantage but not bad enough that kills anyone. Afterall a plane 5 years newer is 5 years better, and after the production slots are filled up in the time gap, the advantage of the early plane is gone.
Yea if Boeing is really predative, you can say they build a line of planes that exactly matches XWB, i'm sure if they throw everything in they can build XWBs that are lighter than Airbus' XWB, and then again throw everything in to build double decker, then airbus will disappear.
As for the A320/737 replacement, well, the A350 is like 5 years down on the 787, it is a huge disadvantage but not bad enough that kills anyone. Afterall a plane 5 years newer is 5 years better, and after the production slots are filled up in the time gap, the advantage of the early plane is gone.
Yea if Boeing is really predative, you can say they build a line of planes that exactly matches XWB, i'm sure if they throw everything in they can build XWBs that are lighter than Airbus' XWB, and then again throw everything in to build double decker, then airbus will disappear.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Keep in mind that the B777F (freighter) is also built on the 777-200 platform. Even if the A350 and the 787-10 eclipse it, there is an incentive for Boeing to continue deveopment work on the -200 airframe in order to keep sales of the 777F going. I don't think Boeing will abandon the 777-200. To keep 777F costs reasonable, production of this airframe must be maintained. Boeing needs to maintain the 777-200's competiveness; therefore IMO they will invest money in the -200 to keep it competitive.CX wrote:Isn't it Qantas who said 'tarted-up old tech'? I wonder what you say about them when they ordered 65 787s. and i can anticipate what will be said if they do order XWBs.smokejumper wrote:tsv wrote: "My understanding is that the A320 has clearly outsold the 737 in the last 3 years and looks set to continue to do so. For this reason alone I think it's clear it's a superior product. But if anyone has figures to prove otherwise.. "
Several friends (1 at Northwest and the other at Frontier) have told me that the prices offered by Airbus are "very favorable" and that Boeing will not match them. Now, if these low prices are a result of more efficient manufacturing and production processes, then the A320 is a superior product. If, however, the low prices result from a policy to sustain employment and benefit from subsidies, then it is not a superior product.
Technologically, both the A320 and the B737NG are equal (with the exception of the B737's hydraulic flight controls, which while older technology, are very reliable and maintainable.
As for "tarted-up old tech 777's", they have been replaced with current production 777's incorporating technology that was not available in the 1990 design era. On the other hand, I guess you could say that even the current production 777's are old tech in that they use panels riveted over aluminum frames (just like the A350XWB [6th iteration]). Airbus has replaced aluminum panels with composite panels but still use thousands of rivets to hold them together.
Don't think Boeing will fool airlines, if they simply announce some plans of a new 777 that rivals the XWB, Airbus will not be getting its few hundred orders now. With the 787-10 going up to take over the 777-200, Boeing will only have the -300 size to build an improvement, and anything bigger than the -300 will start to overlap with 747-8.. We doubt Airbus' plan to rival 2 planes with one plane, but as soon as Boeing builds the 787-10, at least Airbus has succeeded in pushing Boeing to do the same as them, using one airframe to go accross very different sizes.
I agree with smokejumper that Boeing will keep working the 777-200.
If you compare the 777F with the A330F, we see two seemingly "old technology" airframes doing very nicely thank you. Probably the freight market is a bit less demanding on technology. They want extreme reliability as first priority, particularly in the overnight package business, and for heavens sake the amount they charge the customer they can afford a bit more fuel.
Cheers
Achace
If you compare the 777F with the A330F, we see two seemingly "old technology" airframes doing very nicely thank you. Probably the freight market is a bit less demanding on technology. They want extreme reliability as first priority, particularly in the overnight package business, and for heavens sake the amount they charge the customer they can afford a bit more fuel.
Cheers
Achace
Not necessarily, it may simply be 5 years late, just that and nothing more, or a poorly designed plane 5 years newer is a new plane that is designed poorly.CX wrote:Afterall a plane 5 years newer is 5 years better, and after the production slots are filled up in the time gap, the advantage of the early plane is gone.
The gap is not just the oft quoted 5 years. Depending on a whole host of factors including who can ramp up faster, who's supply chain more robust, whether Boeing opens a second assembly "line" (in 3-5 years?), etc.
I think Boeing has already made back their investment on the 747-8 in just the Freighter version alone. For a relativly small investment Boeing has put a lot of pressure on Airbus to discount the A380 more then they normally would to keep from losing sales to the 747-8I. I don't think it matters if Boeing sells more 777-200's or not, the freighter should sell enough to keep the line open. The 767 line is being kept open by freighter orders until the tanker order comes in (hopefully).
Even though the A350 is comming five years later there is no new technology to really make it a superior product. In fact, the panel on frame approach seems to be a step backwards from the 787. The A350 looks more like a "catchup" design rather then an improvement to me. That said, Airbus knows how to build great planes, so the A350 could be at least as good as the 787.
I think that if Boeing comes out with a 777 replacement that uses the one piece barrel CFRP design, the Airlines would go for it over the A350.
Even though the A350 is comming five years later there is no new technology to really make it a superior product. In fact, the panel on frame approach seems to be a step backwards from the 787. The A350 looks more like a "catchup" design rather then an improvement to me. That said, Airbus knows how to build great planes, so the A350 could be at least as good as the 787.
I think that if Boeing comes out with a 777 replacement that uses the one piece barrel CFRP design, the Airlines would go for it over the A350.
I concur completely on the 747-8. Downward pressure on the A380 is not so much that it is a direct competitor, but the airlines can do the same smoke scheme on Airbus as they have (at least tired to) with Boeing on the “old A350” vs the 787.
Airbus can’t be sure just what the traffic and route future looks like (a good idea maybe) so they have to juggle what they think vs what they offer, and lie said, downward pressure.
In the meantime, the 747-8F is selling very well. There simply is no competition for it (and the A380 delays removed a lot of the 747-400 conversion possibilities, many permanently due to airframe age and how much use they get out of it after its converted).
The reason Y3 would kill Airbus is that it would kill the A350. While the A350 is a technical step up for Airbus, it’s at least a half step backwards in the state of the technology available. Maybe more as it also does not move very far (a bit more than Airbus is actually publicly admitting) into an all electric aircraft.
And while the 787 is the biggest all composite fuselage, its not the only one out there. That technology has a lot of underlying fundamentals (i.e. it works, and they know there are no basic flaws to it). Yes you have to have the quality, but as long as that is there, it works and works well.
The A350 is using an approach no one has any underlying research on, all new. They will have to build a base for that, and in this case, that base is the aircraft itself, so its going to be its own research tool. Usually a very bad approach.
It does look like it may be close to being as lite as the all composite fuselage approach (you still have the stringers in that), but it’s a lot more complex integration, seam wise and materials wise. I would guess they would have to go to at least Al Lith for the frame, and maybe titanium in the lower section, or combinations of that. Boeing avoids the majority of that with the composite frame pieces, and where it can’t, it uses titanium (particularly in any areas that sees moisture).
If Boeing does Y3, that makes the whole A350 range older technology.
A company that has a well drilled and successful team that can do something like the 787 in 3 years, is an extremely dangerous competitor.
Airbus can’t be sure just what the traffic and route future looks like (a good idea maybe) so they have to juggle what they think vs what they offer, and lie said, downward pressure.
In the meantime, the 747-8F is selling very well. There simply is no competition for it (and the A380 delays removed a lot of the 747-400 conversion possibilities, many permanently due to airframe age and how much use they get out of it after its converted).
The reason Y3 would kill Airbus is that it would kill the A350. While the A350 is a technical step up for Airbus, it’s at least a half step backwards in the state of the technology available. Maybe more as it also does not move very far (a bit more than Airbus is actually publicly admitting) into an all electric aircraft.
And while the 787 is the biggest all composite fuselage, its not the only one out there. That technology has a lot of underlying fundamentals (i.e. it works, and they know there are no basic flaws to it). Yes you have to have the quality, but as long as that is there, it works and works well.
The A350 is using an approach no one has any underlying research on, all new. They will have to build a base for that, and in this case, that base is the aircraft itself, so its going to be its own research tool. Usually a very bad approach.
It does look like it may be close to being as lite as the all composite fuselage approach (you still have the stringers in that), but it’s a lot more complex integration, seam wise and materials wise. I would guess they would have to go to at least Al Lith for the frame, and maybe titanium in the lower section, or combinations of that. Boeing avoids the majority of that with the composite frame pieces, and where it can’t, it uses titanium (particularly in any areas that sees moisture).
If Boeing does Y3, that makes the whole A350 range older technology.
A company that has a well drilled and successful team that can do something like the 787 in 3 years, is an extremely dangerous competitor.
I would think the maintanance requirements on a panel on frame built aircraft would be more then on a one piece barrel built aircraft.
How would Airbus do an A320 replacement? Would they use the panel on frame like the A350, or the barrel like on the 787? If Boeing could come up with a 737 replacement that used two or three barrel segments they should save a lot on labor. This would make the plane cheaper to produce. I think the problem Boeing has now is getting their suppliers to produce the subassemblies fast enough to keep up with demand on the 787. How would they be able to get these same suppliers to produce subassemblies for the 737 and 777 replacements? Now I see why Boeing is working on curing composites without the autoclaves.
How would Airbus do an A320 replacement? Would they use the panel on frame like the A350, or the barrel like on the 787? If Boeing could come up with a 737 replacement that used two or three barrel segments they should save a lot on labor. This would make the plane cheaper to produce. I think the problem Boeing has now is getting their suppliers to produce the subassemblies fast enough to keep up with demand on the 787. How would they be able to get these same suppliers to produce subassemblies for the 737 and 777 replacements? Now I see why Boeing is working on curing composites without the autoclaves.
Boeing and its suppliers are facing two issue.
One is simply the learning curve of a new manufacturing processes. While composites have been done before, its not been done the exact way as well as size. So, getting up to speed is one issue (and just how fast ultimately you can produce the quality required).
You will also have equipment failures occur. The first time it takes a while to figure out, as well as how to fix it. As time goes by, you begin to see the failures repeat themselves and you get to know the symptoms. Sometimes it gets to specific you just replace a part knowing it will fix the machine. That whole process takes a while, and they probably don't have a lot of spare taping machines, and no spare mandrels.
You may not need as many mandrels as you initially think, as you learn to use the ones you have more efficiently (achieve a production level peak).
Once they know that, then they will know how many machines and mandrels they will need to achieve desired production rates (and what scaling needs to be done for a second, and I am beginning to think a third production line).
I think Boeing would have pushed gearing up more if the first A350 had been competitive. As it didn't, they have the latitude to do it more slowly, save a lot of money (haste always means money is wasted, and it can be worth it for certain goals, but not desirable commercially if you can avoid it).
I am guessing they will have a pretty good handle on it in 6 months, and then will begin to order the equipment to get ready for the speed up.
One is simply the learning curve of a new manufacturing processes. While composites have been done before, its not been done the exact way as well as size. So, getting up to speed is one issue (and just how fast ultimately you can produce the quality required).
You will also have equipment failures occur. The first time it takes a while to figure out, as well as how to fix it. As time goes by, you begin to see the failures repeat themselves and you get to know the symptoms. Sometimes it gets to specific you just replace a part knowing it will fix the machine. That whole process takes a while, and they probably don't have a lot of spare taping machines, and no spare mandrels.
You may not need as many mandrels as you initially think, as you learn to use the ones you have more efficiently (achieve a production level peak).
Once they know that, then they will know how many machines and mandrels they will need to achieve desired production rates (and what scaling needs to be done for a second, and I am beginning to think a third production line).
I think Boeing would have pushed gearing up more if the first A350 had been competitive. As it didn't, they have the latitude to do it more slowly, save a lot of money (haste always means money is wasted, and it can be worth it for certain goals, but not desirable commercially if you can avoid it).
I am guessing they will have a pretty good handle on it in 6 months, and then will begin to order the equipment to get ready for the speed up.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Steven Udvar-Hazy recently said that the reason Airbus has selected the carbon panel over alumimum frames are that the autoclaves for a large wound barrel technology fuselage is not available in Europe. If correct, this indicates that a lower technology (regardless of John Leahy's pronouncements) approach was dictated. It seems to me that Airbus should have worked on acquiring or developing the necessary technology as quickly as possible and THEN announced a new plane.
Being 5 years late to the party with old technology might be more dangerous than being 7 years late with advanced technology.
Several congtributors have mentioned pioneering composite aircraft designs but, I have not seen them list the Beachcraft (Ratheon) Starship - it was a beautiful and exotic bird. It had a wound carbon fiber fuselage and looked cool. Only 58 or so were built as the perforance fell short of expectations for a bird priced at it's level.
Being 5 years late to the party with old technology might be more dangerous than being 7 years late with advanced technology.
Several congtributors have mentioned pioneering composite aircraft designs but, I have not seen them list the Beachcraft (Ratheon) Starship - it was a beautiful and exotic bird. It had a wound carbon fiber fuselage and looked cool. Only 58 or so were built as the perforance fell short of expectations for a bird priced at it's level.
Isn't Alenia in Italy?...autoclaves for a large wound barrel technology fuselage is not available in Europe.
http://tinyurl.com/2vxsq3
Perhaps Boeing has them tied down, but I read that Alenia is interested in being a risk sharing partner on the A350.
If the Boeing Y3 is going to sink Boeing, then that plane will be an answer to the A350-1000, which means that Airbus at the moment has a product that is better than the B777. The A350-1000 will carry according to Airbus around 350 pax in a 3 class configuration, almost the same amount of the B777-300, which carries 320 pax. The A350-1000 will have a range of 8,000 nm, while the B777-300 has a range of 5,600 nm. This means that Boeing will have to come up with an equivalent of the B777-300 with a range of 8,000nm or better. As the Y-3 project is the replacement of the 747 and 777-300, in order for the Y-3 to sink Airbus it will have to surpass the A350-1000 and the 747-8, and they will have to develop this plane, and get it into the market after 2015, when the A350-1000 enters service. To me, the Y3 project is a long way from becoming reality and far away from "sinking" Airbus.
The Boeing 777-300ER can carry is 365 passengers in a Typical 3-class configuration, more, of course, in a 2 or single class configuration.
Range, 7,930 nautical miles.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777fam ... oduct.html
Boeing can improve the 777, as they have been doing all along, and/or they can build the 787-10 and have it to the market by 2013. They have said they will build it, but it hasn't been officially announced.
Range, 7,930 nautical miles.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777fam ... oduct.html
Boeing can improve the 777, as they have been doing all along, and/or they can build the 787-10 and have it to the market by 2013. They have said they will build it, but it hasn't been officially announced.