Boeing has quietly said it has a customer for a cargo Blended Wing Body airplane and is
working with at least one other airline—something missed by mainstream media but
reported by trade magazine Flight International. We’ve learned that FedEx is probably
the customer and UPS is likely the second airline. Both had been customers of the Airbus
A380, but canceled the orders after the delays pushed delivery to 2012-2014. The BWB
freighter might be available as early as 2015.
Our source identifying the airlines is close to Airbus and to Boeing and has proved quite
reliable in the past, tipping us off to stories that subsequently made international
headlines after we reported them.
Our source came forward after seeing the basic story in the May 22 issue of Flight
International. Here is this report in its entirety:
Boeing’s BWB wings way towards air cargo market, May 22, 2007
Airframer in talks with two potential customers to define commercial freighter version
Boeing is working with two potential customers to define a commercial freighter variant of its
blended wing body large transport aircraft as it prepares to fly a subscale model of the flying-wing
design at NASA Dryden in California.
“We have been working with a couple of customers,” says George Muellner, president, advanced
systems, for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. “We have a customer, we have finalised what
they want, and it is now an issue of customer funding and our desire to invest.”
Boeing has been working on the BWB concept for years, but the design is still at an early stage.
“The earliest it could be out there is eight to 10 years, initially as a commercial freighter and
beyond that for military applications,” says Muellner.
He says two issues need to be overcome before the BWB becomes a reality. The first is an
understanding of the design’s low-speed flying qualities. This will be tackled with the two X-48B
unmanned subscale vehicles now at Dryden. Flight testing is expected to begin next month.
The second is manufacturability. “The basic design is not a tube, it’s a rectangular pressure
vessel, so material design is an issue,” Muellner says. “The internal structure is like an array of
ISO containers,” he says, which is one part of its appeal to freight operators. “It’s fuel efficient and
it’s easy to load.”
Boeing Commercial Airplanes has been careful to distance itself from the military division’s work
on BWB because of concerns about passenger acceptance. “BCA is scared because it has no
windows,” says Muellner.Our source (and this is a single source, to be sure) tells us that the two unidentified
airlines in the Flight article are FedEx and UPS. Boeing did not respond to a request for
comment on the Flight story.
This is potentially stunning news on several counts. First is the declarative statement that
Boeing “has a customer” and has “finalized” what the customer wants. Second is that
another customer has been involved as well. Third, the entry-into-service date for the
BWB-F—2015—is about when the Airbus A380 freighter now is loosely forecast to
enter service (2014). Waiting a year for the BWB vs. the A380 would be inconsequential
for the advantages the BWB offers.
The BWB economics, as we’ve previously reported, are forecast to be at least 25% better
than the A380. The A380 freighter would be immediately rendered obsolete (as would
Boeing’s 747-8). And if Boeing Commercial Aircraft (BCA) would overcome its longstated
reluctance to the BWB, a passenger version would also render the A380 obsolete—
a mere eight years after its entry into service. The BWB has the ability to carry as many
of more passengers than the A380. If the BWB-F is available as early as 2015, and a passenger version followed within a
couple of years—by 2017—the A380 won’t have had enough time to break even,
assuming sales as forecast by Airbus (and disputed by Boeing and others). We figured
Airbus needs a minimum of 11 years to break even at forecasted sales, and this is
probably conservative.
Our source says that BCA fears of the BWB having no windows can be overcome, in his
view. On current twin-aisle aircraft, people in the center sections don’t have windows and
basically can’t see out of the ones in the airplane anyway, so passengers are already used
to not having windows. This is particularly so on Very Large Aircraft, such as the 747
and A380.
Furthermore, the A380 now sports exterior cameras with video feed to the passenger seat,
providing a view to passengers that is more interesting than the side windows. Additional
cameras on a BWB that are directionally controlled by the passenger will alleviate any
concerns, our source says. As we’ve previously reported, the BWB is hardly a new concept. It’s been around for
decades and it was a major research project at McDonnell Douglas before Boeing merged
with the company in 1997.
In addition to the technical issues and passenger acceptance described above, there is
another major issue: government “subsidy.” As readers know, Boeing and Airbus—via
their surrogates, the US Trade Representative and the European Union—are engaged in
an international trade dispute over alleged “illegal” government “subsidies” for the
benefit of commercial projects. In addition to past, present and near-future airliners that are the subject of these
allegations, we reported last week that Boeing’s proposed BC-17 (a commercial
derivative of the C-17 military cargo airplane) would open Boeing up to new accusations
of benefiting commercially with Pentagon tax dollars.
This would also be true of the commercial BWB, which has been funded in past by
NASA money (another target of Airbus/EU complaints) and presumably at least some
military research and development funds. (The Air Force is interested in the BWB as a
tanker.)
Be that as it may, successful development of the BWB will render the A380 and 747
obsolete and give Boeing a major leg up in future rounds of the aerial tanker replacement
program. (Recall that following the current KC-X competition, the Air Force has already
announced plans for KC-Y and KC-Z programs.) These are follow-on programs to
replace the balance of the more than 500 KC-135s and 59 KC-10s. The KC-30 is
perfectly matched, in our view, to replace the KC-10—but would a KC-BWB become the
favorite, thus frustrating Northrop and EADS/Airbus?
If Boeing proceeds as outlined by Flight, Airbus stands being relegated to a distant
second place well beyond the next decade predicted by former Airbus CEO Christian
Streiff, as a result of the A380 problems and multiple A350 redesigns.
By: Schorsch - 18th June 2007 at 18:39
Oh poor Scorsch. The poor German doesn’t like the fact that Boeing is stomping Airbus’ backside. There is a reason for that. Try and figure it out.
I seriously doubt Airbus would even survive without constant government aid.
The unfortunate truth is that
LOL! I find anything that comes out of Airbus as suspect.
I like it when people close their post with the criptic acknowlegdement of their doubtful state of mind and a proof of their clear unwill to enter an adult-like discussion. Why don’t you just write: “Don’t know s##t, please put me on your ignore list.”
P.S.: It is astonishing how English-speaking people have problems with writing the letters S C H O R S C H one after another, as that representing my nick- name.
By: bring_it_on - 18th June 2007 at 14:24
Who make it?
It’s a over ten year old Mc Donnell Douglas concept!
Who cares? The jet engine goes back many many years yet do we say that the trent and the genex dont ammount to remarkable products ? This is an absurd argument . IIRC the BWB body goes back even further to WW2 times !! Its about who has the Vision to see the benefits , has the recources both financial and as intelectual talent and has the ability to take the risk and put billions on the table and do the research needed to verify its various advantages and disadvantages !
I think this is also a question of demographics, as the younger generations flying now are well used to not having windows, and those who will start flying in the next couple of years will not know different. The computer generation.
Very acceptable argument ! Its not about the current generation being able to fly those configuration but what would the next generation prefer ! With Oil at 200 dollars a barrel plus what would the next generation want cheap tickets or window seat ??? Also they could simulate windows with high def. LCD screenshots from exterior cameras , i believe boeing is allready working on that aspect of passenger preception !
By: Distiller - 18th June 2007 at 11:28
Well maybe its just boeing’s luck , But with all due respect please specify which aerospace companies dont get mileage out of future projects and which harvest disbelief and scepticism with examples stating Research projects
for knowledge sake please state projects,with relevance , and funding dollars and parnters. Not being scinical but just wanting to expand my knowledge.
Then those companies need to look into there PR departments and look at what they are doing wrong or what boeing is doing right . Each marketing PR department has to promote and market its company to the max ability , i guess this could be that airbus is more privately held then boeing and boeing need to do this for there investors i dont know!
Well , never say never . That is your opinion and not a fact , many boeing people that i have talked to can say otherwise and that is there opinion . We dont know what technology will enable in the next decade or what competition will force the manufacterers to do . With Tough competition from airbus , and poential other manufacterers that might expand or enter into the field we dont know how boeing (or airbus for that matter) would respond . However if the effeceincy is there and the market demands it they will go for it . Every project is RISKY , the 747 was very risky , no one had ever built as big as a passenger liner , and in the 70’s this was without computers yet boeing did it because the payoff meant that they had a cash cow for the next 3 decades . Trust me with advancing technology , tough competition if the payoff is there and if the technolgy works and market demands then one of the makers will make the leap . Now i am not saying that we will see BWB passenger jets flying around in 2020 , however what i am saying is that both airbus and boeing will look to inovate from now on , because as sfferin said we can only go to a point with conventional tube designs. I mean look at the 787 , its is over 50% CFRP by weight ( weight isnt the best parameter to judge CFRP usage as it is light , better paramater is volume ) , First time in commercial widebody that Single peice barrels were spun in a mandarel and joined to form a single tube . Amazing thing this however what eff. ? From the CFRP , weight savings boeing gets about 8% eff IIRC ( between 5-10 if we put a range figure) Most of the other eff. comes from Engines , electric generators etc etc . Well what next? They can play around with % and type of CFRP but still the eff. gained wont be significant . They have to at one point figure out newer aerodynamic shapes to get better eff. And i think that it is widely accepted that BWB and lifting bodies can get better fuel burn , are quiter ( due to engine placements) etc etc , however will they be accepted as a norm in passenger travel? I dont know ! there are many questions to answer here , specificially with regards to airport infrastructure and FAA,EAA certification . Maybe a partial Lifting body which combines best of tube and BWB is the key? We can only guess but someone has to try and believe you me either boeing or airbus will look at that . Being 20% more eff. then the product it is replacing gave boeing over 600 orders before EIS ( very close to total no. of A330’s orderd to date ) , the payoff is huge however they have to find ways to get this LEAP every generation and it wont be as simple as playing around with materials any more !
Lots of things out there –
BWB, hydrogen powered engines, UDF engines. Also not to forget improvements in ATC efficiency and automatisation, which could well result in more savings than most technical novelties.
Maybe the BWB will start as freighter, parallel to a tanker, but in the end this configuration will also migrate to self-loading-cargo versions. I think this is also a question of demographics, as the younger generations flying now are well used to not having windows, and those who will start flying in the next couple of years will not know different. The computer generation.
Boeing sure is in the better position to make that leap forward than Airbus. Mostly financially.
By: KKM57P - 18th June 2007 at 10:13
Oh poor Scorsch. The poor German doesn’t like the fact that Boeing is stomping Airbus’ backside. There is a reason for that. Try and figure it out.
I seriously doubt Airbus would even survive without constant government aid.
LOL! I find anything that comes out of Airbus as suspect.
US-Boeing: EU takes US to the WTO over subsidies granted to Boeing
Today, the EU has requested consultations with the United States in the World Trade Organization (WTO) on massive subsidies granted to Boeing. The EU believes that these subsidies are in serious violation of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The US launched a case regarding European support to Airbus earlier in the day. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy stated: “The US move in the WTO concerning European support to Airbus is obviously an attempt to divert attention from Boeing’s self-inflicted decline. It also shows that the US were never seriously interested in seeking to renegotiate the existing 92 EU-US Bilateral Agreement. . If this is the path the US has chosen, we accept the challenge, not least because it is high time to put an end to massive illegal US subsidies to Boeing which damage Airbus, in particular those for Boeing’s new 7E7 programme. Nonetheless, it is a pity that the US has chosen to go to litigation which could destabilize trade and investment, including in Boeing’s 7E7 project. Aerospace workers can rely on the European Commission to defend their interests. ”
For many years the US Government has subsidised Boeing, mainly by paying research and development costs through NASA, the Department of Defence, the Department of Commerce and other government agencies. Since 1992 Boeing has received around $ 23 billion in US subsidies. Moreover, the US Government continues to grant Boeing around USD 200 million per year in export subsidies under the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (the successor to the “FSC” – Foreign Sales Corporations legislation), despite a WTO ruling expressly declaring these subsidies illegal.
The latest and most flagrant violation consists in massive subsidies of about US $ 3.2 billion, inter alia in the form of tax reductions and exemptions and infrastructure support for the development and production of Boeing’s 7E7, also known as “Dreamliner”. The evidence the European Commission has collected over the years clearly demonstrates that the above subsidies violate the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
Moreover, they also violate the 1992 EU-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft which regulates precisely the forms and level of government support the US and the EU provide to Boeing and Airbus respectively.
Despite repeated invitations by the Commission, the US has declined to participate in the bilateral consultations stipulated by the 1992 Agreement for more than two years.
Nonetheless, further to a US request only a few weeks ago, the Commission agreed to discuss the question of a possible revision of the 1992 Agreement provided that this would cover all forms of subsidies including those used in the US, and that the US would bring any subsidies for the Boeing 7E7 into conformity with the 1992 Agreement.
Finally, and just when these discussions were taking place (most recently in a constructive meeting on 16 September), the US requested WTO consultations on European support to Airbus. This suggests that the US request for re-negotiation of the 1992 Agreement was never particularly serious.
WTO consultation and dispute settlement procedures
The first step in a WTO dispute settlement is a request for consultation from the complaining member. The defendant has 10 days to reply to the request and shall enter into consultation within a period of no more than 30 days (unless otherwise agreed by the 2 parties). The consultation should aim at finding a positive solution to the issue at stake.
If the consultations fail to settle the dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the consultation request, the complaining party may request the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish a Panel (however, the complaining party may request a panel during the 60 day period if the 2 parties considers that the consultations have failed to settle the dispute).
Once the panelists are nominated, the complaining party has normally between 3 and 6 weeks to file its first written submission and the party complained against another 2/3 weeks to respond. Two oral hearings and a second written submission follow. On average a panel procedure lasts 12 months. This can be followed by an appeal that should not last longer than 90 days.
By: KKM57P - 18th June 2007 at 08:27
Who make it?
It’s a over ten year old Mc Donnell Douglas concept!
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/pdf/FS-1997-07-24-LaRC.pdf
By: bring_it_on - 18th June 2007 at 07:15
The Economist wrote the following in an article in June 2006: “Boeing once toyed with a blended wing-body, a sort of flying wing, to produce dramatically better aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. Passengers would have sat in a wide cabin, rather like a small amphitheater. But tests with a mock-up produced such a negative reaction that the company dropped the technology, except for military refueling aircraft.”
And that is precicely what the (the thread starter) article is saying that they want to explore possibilities of Military aircrafts and Freight carrier . Obviously if the aerodynamic configuration really results in massive fuel burn savings and economics then a hybrid configuration can be developed like a partial lifting body design that boeing has also presented in the past .
By: KKM57P - 18th June 2007 at 06:50
The Economist wrote the following in an article in June 2006: “Boeing once toyed with a blended wing-body, a sort of flying wing, to produce dramatically better aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. Passengers would have sat in a wide cabin, rather like a small amphitheater. But tests with a mock-up produced such a negative reaction that the company dropped the technology, except for military refueling aircraft.” In fact, the original concept of a blended wing-body goes back to the jet bombers the Germans were designing at the very end of World War II. This concept was also developed at McDonnell Douglas in the ’90s, just prior to their merging into Boeing, and was presented during an annual Joint AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEA Propulsion Conference in the US a few years ago. The McDonnell Douglas engineers were confident their design had all the advantages mentioned, but their concept found no favor at Boeing.
By: joe_h - 18th June 2007 at 06:50
Oh poor Scorsch. The poor German doesn’t like the fact that Boeing is stomping Airbus’ backside. There is a reason for that. Try and figure it out.
I seriously doubt Airbus would even survive without constant government aid.
I find these press releases a bit optimistic.
LOL! I find anything that comes out of Airbus as suspect.
By: Schorsch - 18th June 2007 at 06:36
Good post!
–
And Schorsch? Seriously, your posts just WREAK of a “Arg! I hate Boeing, because they’re going to beat Aibus!” type vibe. lol
Come on man, seriously. Give it credit. 🙂
Do you KNOW how many revolutionary inventions were scoffed at by people for hundreds of years, yet the inventor pressed on and did it in the end? It’s people with such negative, biased emotions that hold technology from further advancement! Don’t be like those people from the past; open your mind. Stop letting your anti-Boeing emotions blind you. 😉
I just remembered why I decided to stop posting in the civil aviation section of this forum. It is just too pathetic.
So, good news everyone, you can continue to twist your reality without any disturbance from my side.
By: Northax - 16th June 2007 at 09:51
Sometimes in business, you have to push ahead with an idea to get the knowledge.
So, say Boeing go ahead with the BWB and only sell a small number, they will gain invaluable experience in designing, building and tweaking a BWB. Something no ammount of research can ever reproduce.
In the long run… it could prove an absolute winner for Boeing. They can take that knowledge and experience and make the next BWB work.
Sounds insane… but its been done before (not necessarily in the aviation industry though. Look at all those alternate fuel powered Car prototypes over the years…not one has made it to production.. but invaluable experience was gained.)
Good post!
–
And Schorsch? Seriously, your posts just WREAK of a “Arg! I hate Boeing, because they’re going to beat Aibus!” type vibe. lol
Come on man, seriously. Give it credit. 🙂
Do you KNOW how many revolutionary inventions were scoffed at by people for hundreds of years, yet the inventor pressed on and did it in the end? It’s people with such negative, biased emotions that hold technology from further advancement! Don’t be like those people from the past; open your mind. Stop letting your anti-Boeing emotions blind you. 😉
By: bring_it_on - 12th June 2007 at 06:54
I think we are drifting away from what this thread was meant for . Finger pointing , feeling let down by One companies PR department , Getting angry over another companies PR department isnt why i started this thread . It was just to highlight what boeing was working on as a POSSIBLE ( READ AGAIN – POSSIBLE) new shape for aircrafts . Unless Schorch you can prove that boeing is false and completely made up the story on having some customers who are willing to support the BWB freighter project then i would rather believe what a publically traded company has to say .
By: Schorsch - 12th June 2007 at 06:47
You sound a bit defensive and nationalistic.
You seem more interested in bashing Boeing than applauding a new design.
If the news release letterhead said Airbus instead of Boeing, you’d probably call it a “world beater” and predict that Boeings days were numbered. :rolleyes:Boeing deserves some credit here.
It’s a bold move and yes, Boeing should be congratulated. Especially since it’s a publicly held company using its own money (as opposed to one that is propped up by goverments).
You may Google the world and look where I post or prolifer Airbus news, or any special German aviation news. And when I do, I surely takle a different source than Airbus.com. Actually, I completly ignore Airbus press releases, but I am 100% sure that when I start posting Airbus news with comparable content, at least my direct preceeding poster would be very doubious.
Of course I am not objective on this issue, but I am neither the guy who starts to bash Boeing regardless of the topic. I just realize that Boeing has an especially busy press center and are quick out of the gate with “new technologies”.
When you re-phrase the press release and scratch the quite stupid talking of entry into service, it becomes an average press release.
Fact is that Boeing has a good run at the moment, and that whatever they tell the public people say “Oh, Boeing is so modern …”.
I’d say the same for any company that’s pushing the envelope of aircraft design…even Airbus.
It’s the 21st Century and planes basically still look like they did when Hugo was making Ju-52s or Donald Douglas designed the DC-1.
Time for some radical thinking? Yes.
Such comments always indicate low occupation with this topic. There are thousands of things that haven’t changed much, including cars, toasters and ships (still the lousy single hull crap).
I think Hugo Junkers would be very proud but sceptical if he read that his Ju-52 has any similarity with an A380 or B787.
By: Bmused55 - 12th June 2007 at 00:34
Big congratulations. The concept is out there for decades. Its primary use is military, the civil adaption is a rider.
I am always fascinated how Boeing can release the thinnest press releases and all people applaude. Other companies would only harvest disbelief and scepticism.
Like companies who have gone through 6 to 10 different supposedly final variations of an airplane before finally getting somewhere with it for instance?
Companies who book orders for a new design, then go change it all and then don’t understand the scepticism the move brings them?
I’m with J Boyle on this one.
By: J Boyle - 11th June 2007 at 21:30
Big congratulations. The concept is out there for decades. Its primary use is military, the civil adaption is a rider.
I am always fascinated how Boeing can release the thinnest press releases and all people applaude. Other companies would only harvest disbelief and scepticism.
You sound a bit defensive and nationalistic.
You seem more interested in bashing Boeing than applauding a new design.
If the news release letterhead said Airbus instead of Boeing, you’d probably call it a “world beater” and predict that Boeings days were numbered. :rolleyes:
Boeing deserves some credit here.
I’d say the same for any company that’s pushing the envelope of aircraft design…even Airbus.
It’s the 21st Century and planes basically still look like they did when Hugo was making Ju-52s or Donald Douglas designed the DC-1.
Time for some radical thinking? Yes.
It’s a bold move and yes, Boeing should be congratulated. Especially since it’s a publicly held company using its own money (as opposed to one that is propped up by goverments).
By: bring_it_on - 11th June 2007 at 06:48
The concept is out there for decades. Its primary use is military, the civil adaption is a rider.
I am always fascinated how Boeing can release the thinnest press releases and all people applaude. Other companies would only harvest disbelief and scepticism.
Well maybe its just boeing’s luck , But with all due respect please specify which aerospace companies dont get mileage out of future projects and which harvest disbelief and scepticism with examples stating Research projects
I know dozens of research projects from Airbus that are most probably better funded, have more relevance for future aircraft, bring more (and likely) gains in efficiency, have customers (even if these don’t know yet),
for knowledge sake please state projects,with relevance , and funding dollars and parnters. Not being scinical but just wanting to expand my knowledge.
but still the project doesn’t get a press release.
Then those companies need to look into there PR departments and look at what they are doing wrong or what boeing is doing right . Each marketing PR department has to promote and market its company to the max ability , i guess this could be that airbus is more privately held then boeing and boeing need to do this for there investors i dont know!
In the long run, it will turn out that without major investments by the public no aircraft manufacturer would risk such a thing. Period.
Well , never say never . That is your opinion and not a fact , many boeing people that i have talked to can say otherwise and that is there opinion . We dont know what technology will enable in the next decade or what competition will force the manufacterers to do . With Tough competition from airbus , and poential other manufacterers that might expand or enter into the field we dont know how boeing (or airbus for that matter) would respond . However if the effeceincy is there and the market demands it they will go for it . Every project is RISKY , the 747 was very risky , no one had ever built as big as a passenger liner , and in the 70’s this was without computers yet boeing did it because the payoff meant that they had a cash cow for the next 3 decades . Trust me with advancing technology , tough competition if the payoff is there and if the technolgy works and market demands then one of the makers will make the leap . Now i am not saying that we will see BWB passenger jets flying around in 2020 , however what i am saying is that both airbus and boeing will look to inovate from now on , because as sfferin said we can only go to a point with conventional tube designs. I mean look at the 787 , its is over 50% CFRP by weight ( weight isnt the best parameter to judge CFRP usage as it is light , better paramater is volume ) , First time in commercial widebody that Single peice barrels were spun in a mandarel and joined to form a single tube . Amazing thing this however what eff. ? From the CFRP , weight savings boeing gets about 8% eff IIRC ( between 5-10 if we put a range figure) Most of the other eff. comes from Engines , electric generators etc etc . Well what next? They can play around with % and type of CFRP but still the eff. gained wont be significant . They have to at one point figure out newer aerodynamic shapes to get better eff. And i think that it is widely accepted that BWB and lifting bodies can get better fuel burn , are quiter ( due to engine placements) etc etc , however will they be accepted as a norm in passenger travel? I dont know ! there are many questions to answer here , specificially with regards to airport infrastructure and FAA,EAA certification . Maybe a partial Lifting body which combines best of tube and BWB is the key? We can only guess but someone has to try and believe you me either boeing or airbus will look at that . Being 20% more eff. then the product it is replacing gave boeing over 600 orders before EIS ( very close to total no. of A330’s orderd to date ) , the payoff is huge however they have to find ways to get this LEAP every generation and it wont be as simple as playing around with materials any more !
By: Schorsch - 11th June 2007 at 06:44
Sometimes in business, you have to push ahead with an idea to get the knowledge.
So, say Boeing go ahead with the BWB and only sell a small number, they will gain invaluable experience in designing, building and tweaking a BWB. Something no ammount of research can ever reproduce.
In the long run… it could prove an absolute winner for Boeing. They can take that knowledge and experience and make the next BWB work.
Sounds insane… but its been done before (not necessarily in the aviation industry though. Look at all those alternate fuel powered Car prototypes over the years…not one has made it to production.. but invaluable experience was gained.)
In the long run, it will turn out that without major investments by the public no aircraft manufacturer would risk such a thing. Period.
I know dozens of research projects from Airbus that are most probably better funded, have more relevance for future aircraft, bring more (and likely) gains in efficiency, have customers (even if these don’t know yet), but still the project doesn’t get a press release.
By: Schorsch - 11th June 2007 at 06:41
Depends on the route. Bigger isn’t always better…even in freight.
Boeing needs to be congratulated for thinking “outside the box”…or in this case, tube.
With fuel & environmental concerns, ways have got to be developed to make aircraft more efficient.
This might work.
If it doesn’t, no harm in building models and doing wind tunnel and computer tests.
Big congratulations. The concept is out there for decades. Its primary use is military, the civil adaption is a rider.
I am always fascinated how Boeing can release the thinnest press releases and all people applaude. Other companies would only harvest disbelief and scepticism.
By: bring_it_on - 10th June 2007 at 06:33
In the meantime. Boeing leverages what it learned/is learning specially from the 787 plus its formidable technical resources and bring these to bear to make the BWB a success. I agree that this will be a challenging project but nothing that cannot be overcome. This is just the sort of project that captures the imagination and Boeing is more than capable of pulling it off IMO. Sure it will kill the 747-800 but by then Boeing should have more than recouped its modest investment. More importantly, think of what it does to the A380 and any hopes to generate a profit from that platform. With its resources tied up in the XWB, Airbus will have scant resources to respond and will be effectively left a generation behind.
Boeing isnt getting into any BWB PAX project anytime soon . They are looking at people , airline companies who might want to invest into there BWB product for freight , because they think that one platform could be common as a commercial freight carrier aswell as a military transporter (They are also consiedring offering the C5 to freight carriers just as Airbus are considering offering A400) . Even if boeing go ahead with this ambitious plan dont expect a BWB freighter EIS before around 2020 . The PAX vesion if ever will be EIS’s maybe 2025 or something like that so many many years to go . The 748 is a 744 replacement targeted very much to supply the demand of the replacement cycle when it comes around in 2011 or so .
And as far as gaining supremacy of the market , boeing doesnt care a squat . They have been leading the orders race interms of Dollars and aircraft value , there backlog interms of numbers is greater then airbus , and interms of dollar value is even greater . TThats all that matters .
By: mabie - 10th June 2007 at 01:36
I have a sneaky suspicion that this development may be part of a Boeing strategy to regain its position as the dominant plane builder by by being the first in the new paradigm and dealing a crippling blow to the competition at the same time. The 747-800 IMO is a stopgap to hold the fort vs the A380, sapping its sales until the BWB makes its entrance. The troubles the A380 is experiencing could not have been foreseen but they definitely work to Boeing’s advantage. In the meantime. Boeing leverages what it learned/is learning specially from the 787 plus its formidable technical resources and bring these to bear to make the BWB a success. I agree that this will be a challenging project but nothing that cannot be overcome. This is just the sort of project that captures the imagination and Boeing is more than capable of pulling it off IMO. Sure it will kill the 747-800 but by then Boeing should have more than recouped its modest investment. More importantly, think of what it does to the A380 and any hopes to generate a profit from that platform. With its resources tied up in the XWB, Airbus will have scant resources to respond and will be effectively left a generation behind.
By: Bmused55 - 9th June 2007 at 23:39
B747, B787 and A380 were/are all ambitious programs. But basically they were build on existing knowledge in overall aircraft design. Their customers somehow knew what to expect.
I cannot see how the limited market of large first-hand freighters can support such an aircraft. If someone needs large cargo aircraft with superior economics, he can have the A380.
Sometimes in business, you have to push ahead with an idea to get the knowledge.
So, say Boeing go ahead with the BWB and only sell a small number, they will gain invaluable experience in designing, building and tweaking a BWB. Something no ammount of research can ever reproduce.
In the long run… it could prove an absolute winner for Boeing. They can take that knowledge and experience and make the next BWB work.
Sounds insane… but its been done before (not necessarily in the aviation industry though. Look at all those alternate fuel powered Car prototypes over the years…not one has made it to production.. but invaluable experience was gained.)
Sign In
June 5, 2007 at 12:33 pm