Production of the 737 Composite may be built in Everett.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... lly30.html
737 Composite likely will be built in 787 plant
Moderator: Latest news team
737 replacement
must be some work going on at GE for the engines, wonder if they will go it alone or with Snecma?
wonder if Pratt will have anything?
Sure that RR has something in the works.
Wonder if Airbus has all composite program, it seems they would be best served when they introduce the A320 replacement to match Boeing.
wonder if Pratt will have anything?
Sure that RR has something in the works.
Wonder if Airbus has all composite program, it seems they would be best served when they introduce the A320 replacement to match Boeing.
Hi, I'm an aircraft engineer new to this forum. Hopefully, I can give a technical perspective in some of the discussions.
Interesting thing about aircraft development is that the steady advancement of technology generally ensures that the newer aircraft will be the better aircraft.
Of course, reality tempers everything. If Airbus had more capital to work with right now (the A380 is soaking up all their capital), they can build an A350 better than the B787, because they would have the benefit of learning from Boeing's trial-and-error, both in technology and marketing. But the A350's plight is an exception.
It's not always best to be first to market. Sometimes, it's better to let your competitor validate the technology and the market. Then you come in with a superior product.
And because the B737/A320 replacement market is so gigantic, it will be interesting to see who is brave enough to go first. Because unless you nail both the technology and the market on the first try, your competitor will learn from your mistake.
Interesting thing about aircraft development is that the steady advancement of technology generally ensures that the newer aircraft will be the better aircraft.
Of course, reality tempers everything. If Airbus had more capital to work with right now (the A380 is soaking up all their capital), they can build an A350 better than the B787, because they would have the benefit of learning from Boeing's trial-and-error, both in technology and marketing. But the A350's plight is an exception.
It's not always best to be first to market. Sometimes, it's better to let your competitor validate the technology and the market. Then you come in with a superior product.
And because the B737/A320 replacement market is so gigantic, it will be interesting to see who is brave enough to go first. Because unless you nail both the technology and the market on the first try, your competitor will learn from your mistake.
They'll do the same airlines do when sellecting a manufacturer: ask for proposals, and then chose the one that suits them best.
Washington gave them a huge taxcut, so they took the 787 to Washington.
If Renton does more for the Y1 than Whashington, then they'll probably get it.
Does anyone know where Renton is located? Distance Everett-Renton?
Would it be possible for employees to transfer, or would they have to move across the country?
Washington gave them a huge taxcut, so they took the 787 to Washington.
If Renton does more for the Y1 than Whashington, then they'll probably get it.
Does anyone know where Renton is located? Distance Everett-Renton?
Would it be possible for employees to transfer, or would they have to move across the country?
First! Welcome DFW !
You'll find many levels of involvement in this forum from Pro. Pilots to Newbies, spotters and just plain aviation enthusiasts. With so many, the points of view are varied and interesting.
As far as your question goes Renton and Everett are about 35 Kilo's apart, and depending of the time of day travel times could be 15 minutes up to 45.
The Everett plant is the worlds largest building and they build 747,777,767 and soon the 787 in that plant. Renton is the primary 737 assembly plant and also does major Military work such as AWACS and Recon. aircraft. The plant is very constricted and has no room for expansion, and I believe Boeing would like to consolidate its ops at Everett.
Nice to have you aboard.
Ken
You'll find many levels of involvement in this forum from Pro. Pilots to Newbies, spotters and just plain aviation enthusiasts. With so many, the points of view are varied and interesting.
As far as your question goes Renton and Everett are about 35 Kilo's apart, and depending of the time of day travel times could be 15 minutes up to 45.
The Everett plant is the worlds largest building and they build 747,777,767 and soon the 787 in that plant. Renton is the primary 737 assembly plant and also does major Military work such as AWACS and Recon. aircraft. The plant is very constricted and has no room for expansion, and I believe Boeing would like to consolidate its ops at Everett.
Nice to have you aboard.
Ken
Re: 737 replacement
Of the three majors, PW is arguably the most advanced in the next generation of 20-35k thrust engines. Its looks quite promising.fleabyte wrote:must be some work going on at GE for the engines, wonder if they will go it alone or with Snecma?
wonder if Pratt will have anything?
Sure that RR has something in the works.
À suivre...
Thanks for the answer, Ken.
So Renton is also in Washington state? That would mean that there would be no competition between Renton & Everett on state-tax issues, so it would be more logical to consolidate aircraft production at Everett.
Good to hear the employees can just work at everett, and it would not involve having to move or mass-layoffs.
So Renton is also in Washington state? That would mean that there would be no competition between Renton & Everett on state-tax issues, so it would be more logical to consolidate aircraft production at Everett.
Good to hear the employees can just work at everett, and it would not involve having to move or mass-layoffs.
Your Welcome " Buzz"
You are correct, both are located in Washington State. In what is called the "I5" Corridor are the major Aerospace Industries extending from Vancouver B.C. south to Portland Oregon.
The Cities of Renton and Everett are suburbs of the City of Seattle and do compete for business with each other. As far as tax incentives go, the State of Washington was among many States and Governments competing to get the Boeing business building the 787.
They offered a tax deferral package that not only applied to Boeing but to any other Aerospace manufacturer that wanted to move to Washington State, You can read it here: https://www.aviation24.be/posts13609-highl ... html+state
Its near the bottom of the posts.
Ken
You are correct, both are located in Washington State. In what is called the "I5" Corridor are the major Aerospace Industries extending from Vancouver B.C. south to Portland Oregon.
The Cities of Renton and Everett are suburbs of the City of Seattle and do compete for business with each other. As far as tax incentives go, the State of Washington was among many States and Governments competing to get the Boeing business building the 787.
They offered a tax deferral package that not only applied to Boeing but to any other Aerospace manufacturer that wanted to move to Washington State, You can read it here: https://www.aviation24.be/posts13609-highl ... html+state
Its near the bottom of the posts.
Ken
Is Pratt next gen work from development of the A318 engine?
Of the three majors, PW is arguably the most advanced in the next generation of 20-35k thrust engines. Its looks quite promising.
Would I find out more about Pratt by looking at what I think is called PW6000?
Cheers
Would I find out more about Pratt by looking at what I think is called PW6000?
Cheers
While I respect DFWs view, reality is something else.
In the case of the 787, Boeing has made a number of technological leaps, and they have done it with a buffer (as Airbus is so far behind the curve right now it taking them longer to crank out a derivative (A350) than its taking Boeing to build all new aircraft.
Its not only the composites with the 787, though that huge. It also moving to a fully electric aircraft from bleed air and hydraulics). While not quite there, about 80%, and its not even a bet that they are shooting for 100%.
The features such as larger interior, better atmosphere, and also huge, vastly more cargo capacity, and you have a huge technological leap.
Airbus is still struggling with the A380, and the A400. They don't even have the same technology that Boeing is using.
They would have to develop the same or better technology as Boeing has, and then implement it and get though their own learning curve down. That assumes they do it right. While Airbus was making fun of Boeing and the Sonic Cruiser, they failed to realize that while the Aircraft did not fly, the technology behind it could, and now is going to.
Boeing obviously has to deliver on what they say they can, but they also have two years to fix any problems (assuming its not something huge like the inability to crank out the fuselage sections with no flaws or imperfections).
Upshot is if it works, Boeing will be so far ahead, Airbus will be playing catch-up for the next 40 years. They squandered their advantage when they decided the A380 was the future.
And this is not just my opinion, the analysts are predicting Airbus is going to fall to 40% of the market, and possibly as little as 30%.
Too many holes in the product line not being addressed, and what they are addressing is patches, not a fix.
If you look at it right now, Boeing is cranking out one derivative after another on successful programs (777 and 747), 4 new models of the 787, and around 2008, will start floating a 737 replacement.
Aircraft are such a long development time and life, that its not a matter of learning from your competitors mistakes, you need to have a competitive aircraft available, and then you can come out with a variation that trumps what your opponent has come out with (more range, better capacity etc). In this case, Boeing already has a aircraft that trumps the A350-900 (787-10).
In the case of the 787, Boeing has made a number of technological leaps, and they have done it with a buffer (as Airbus is so far behind the curve right now it taking them longer to crank out a derivative (A350) than its taking Boeing to build all new aircraft.
Its not only the composites with the 787, though that huge. It also moving to a fully electric aircraft from bleed air and hydraulics). While not quite there, about 80%, and its not even a bet that they are shooting for 100%.
The features such as larger interior, better atmosphere, and also huge, vastly more cargo capacity, and you have a huge technological leap.
Airbus is still struggling with the A380, and the A400. They don't even have the same technology that Boeing is using.
They would have to develop the same or better technology as Boeing has, and then implement it and get though their own learning curve down. That assumes they do it right. While Airbus was making fun of Boeing and the Sonic Cruiser, they failed to realize that while the Aircraft did not fly, the technology behind it could, and now is going to.
Boeing obviously has to deliver on what they say they can, but they also have two years to fix any problems (assuming its not something huge like the inability to crank out the fuselage sections with no flaws or imperfections).
Upshot is if it works, Boeing will be so far ahead, Airbus will be playing catch-up for the next 40 years. They squandered their advantage when they decided the A380 was the future.
And this is not just my opinion, the analysts are predicting Airbus is going to fall to 40% of the market, and possibly as little as 30%.
Too many holes in the product line not being addressed, and what they are addressing is patches, not a fix.
If you look at it right now, Boeing is cranking out one derivative after another on successful programs (777 and 747), 4 new models of the 787, and around 2008, will start floating a 737 replacement.
Aircraft are such a long development time and life, that its not a matter of learning from your competitors mistakes, you need to have a competitive aircraft available, and then you can come out with a variation that trumps what your opponent has come out with (more range, better capacity etc). In this case, Boeing already has a aircraft that trumps the A350-900 (787-10).
another advantage
I was sort of stunned when I saw a little chart on sales for 2005 in the Seattle newspaper:
It showed the 787 with a list price around USD 130 million and the A350 with a price of 170 million. How can such a situation occur:
- A350 enters service two years later
- arguably inferior technology
- arguably inferior performance
- reliant on 787 developments (engines)
Boeing is talking of the low cost of lean manufacturing used by Toyota, deleivering this 787 at the price of a 767.
It showed the 787 with a list price around USD 130 million and the A350 with a price of 170 million. How can such a situation occur:
- A350 enters service two years later
- arguably inferior technology
- arguably inferior performance
- reliant on 787 developments (engines)
Boeing is talking of the low cost of lean manufacturing used by Toyota, deleivering this 787 at the price of a 767.
Re: another advantage
I think someone pointed out in a separate topic that Airbus likes to pad their prices to allow seemingly large discounts. Plus the theoretical breakeven point to justify the airplane development is lower if you use a higher list price.fleabyte wrote:I was sort of stunned when I saw a little chart on sales for 2005 in the Seattle newspaper:
It showed the 787 with a list price around USD 130 million and the A350 with a price of 170 million. How can such a situation occur:
- A350 enters service two years later
- arguably inferior technology
- arguably inferior performance
- reliant on 787 developments (engines)
Boeing is talking of the low cost of lean manufacturing used by Toyota, deleivering this 787 at the price of a 767.
Finally, using composites is cheaper, provided you can amortize the cost over a fair number of airplanes. Why doesn't everyone use it then? Because you have to know what you're doing. While composites have been around for awhile, no one's used them on such a large fuselage (though I can't speak for all military aircraft).
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
-
theaviator
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 00:00
Boeing vs Airbus
Where do you folks get the idea that Boeing is somehow ahead of the technology in composites on comercial aircraft. For the record Airbus has been the inovator and proven user of composites on major structures in comercial jets since the 1980's, long before Boeing.
Dont get me wrong I amd a middle ground person but I like to see unbiassed discussion.
As for new technonlogy, Boeing is "reinventing" specs from the 1950's for electric aircraft and electric pressurisation. Ok so I admit I have a few grey hairs!
The real discussion should be who will make a profit out these NEW aircraft and can anyone really make a profit from these aircraft? Lets see entry into service as someone above has said and after a years service lets really see who is leading or lagging just like the B757300 B767400 or the A340500/600.
By the way its virtually impossible to perfrom NDI/MDT of composite structure other than thermal imaging, do you want to fly on an aircraft where its virtually impossible to detect a crack or delamination inside the promary structure? Perhaps thats why Airbus is for once a little apprehensive about composite fueselage barrels and whole wing assemblies.
Dont get me wrong I amd a middle ground person but I like to see unbiassed discussion.
As for new technonlogy, Boeing is "reinventing" specs from the 1950's for electric aircraft and electric pressurisation. Ok so I admit I have a few grey hairs!
The real discussion should be who will make a profit out these NEW aircraft and can anyone really make a profit from these aircraft? Lets see entry into service as someone above has said and after a years service lets really see who is leading or lagging just like the B757300 B767400 or the A340500/600.
By the way its virtually impossible to perfrom NDI/MDT of composite structure other than thermal imaging, do you want to fly on an aircraft where its virtually impossible to detect a crack or delamination inside the promary structure? Perhaps thats why Airbus is for once a little apprehensive about composite fueselage barrels and whole wing assemblies.
Hate to disagree with you but one of the first aircraft I flew was a 727 built in 1970, it had a composite tail and elevators.Where do you folks get the idea that Boeing is somehow ahead of the technology in composites on comercial aircraft. For the record Airbus has been the inovator and proven user of composites on major structures in comercial jets since the 1980's, long before Boeing.
as far as Composite inspection goes, the new method for the composites Boeing uses is ultrasonic, Airbus uses GLARE which is old technology. Its used on the A380, but will not be used on the A350.
You can read all about it here: http://doc.tms.org/ezMerchant/prodtms.n ... penElement
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
theaviator
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 00:00
Composites on Boeing 727 aircraft
The tail of the B727 is all aluminium with maybe tiny amounts of GRP (not composite) in some panels or antennae. Please see the excellent pics of the American Airlines B727 at www.rbogash.com or just look at airliners.net for the thousands of b727 pics there. The purpose of seeing the AA aircraft is it clearly shows Aluminium structure in the tail and horizontal stab areas. The complete empenages of A300-600, and all A320 family as well as A330 and A340 are all carbon composite. A substance not to be confused with 1950's technology GRP panels.
Please also see the pic at http://www.boeingiplicensing.com/librar ... N=85479189 you will note the chromate painted skins of the empenage and no body applies chromate or alodine coatings to non coroding composte panels. Like I said state facts not opions folks.
Please also see the pic at http://www.boeingiplicensing.com/librar ... N=85479189 you will note the chromate painted skins of the empenage and no body applies chromate or alodine coatings to non coroding composte panels. Like I said state facts not opions folks.
-
theaviator
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 00:00
On the Boeing ultrasonic portable MAUS system its still not a time proven technology, see the www.ndt.net for their comments. Like I said stay on facts not opinions.
Apparently the U.S. Airforce has been using MAUS for years?
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/ja ... ocus1.html
Facts?
as well a detailed location map of compostite usage in 727's
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/air ... rff727.pdf
I have noted that you stated you were not biased!
that is debatable, you opinions seem to be very anti-Boeing.
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/ja ... ocus1.html
Facts?
as well a detailed location map of compostite usage in 727's
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/air ... rff727.pdf
I have noted that you stated you were not biased!
that is debatable, you opinions seem to be very anti-Boeing.
Last edited by bits44 on 09 Jan 2006, 17:59, edited 1 time in total.
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.