SchorschYou can’t fit high bypass engines easily under twin aisle aircraft?
I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of the 757, or ther 737, or perhaps the A320?
Guess, I did! All mentioned aircraft have BR of around 6, 787 wil incorporate engines with BR of 10ish. So, no still no engine advantage for the “797”.
Even a 60% composite 787 would present a much lighter aircraft for its size.
That is without doubt. I never said anything else. But try to see it this way: Which percentage of weight saving was achieved on the 787? How many tons would that be on a 737-like aircraft?
As most airports charge airlines per weight of aircraft, this is surely of benefit of airlines.
The composite will reduce maintenance costs, the lighter weight will benefit fuel burn and as I just said, will reduce landing and take off fees (you’ll be able to operate a flight with a load similar to a 767’s but pay less due to the reduced weight). There’s a lot more to the composite fuselage than simply making the 787 lighter. For example, the underside of the fuselage will be made stronger to make the 787 resistant to “ramp rash”, further reducing maintenance. Its projected that the 787 will be able to resist knocks from airport equipment that would puncture an aluminium skin.
Boeing says … a lot. Outcome is uncertain. They never had a full composite-hull aircraft (and funnily the want to make the surrounding of the cargo doors out of aluminium, these are the areas most affected by ground crew mishandeling). And if you ever by chance punctuate a composite hull, it will be really tricky to repair it.
The fee-argument is like the fuel: The achieveable weight-saving will not have a significant impact. I actually must say that employing most advanced and possible risky (in terms of cost) technologies for the reason of saving a few bucks on fees is of no point.
Also, an additional benefit the 787 will have is interchangable engines. A technology being developed by Boeing. This will make the 787 more attractive to the second hand market as an airline can buy one and fit the engines it wants in a short space of time.
Interesting feature, but second hand market doesn’t procure aircrafts. They take what they get. Maybe a point for leasing companies. In the end this sounds more than a production streamlining than any benefit for the airline
(although clever Boeing people sell it as “a major advantage”).
I agree with you that some 787-technology will be used for a 737-successor and that it will happen some time. But I disagree with any detailed assumptions and especially with the opinion, that building “a 787 of the size of a 737” will bring the benefit.
The single-aisle question is here to stay for at least the next 5 to 10 years. Both manufacturers indentified this market as biggest in the future. Future single-aisle aircraft will in the first place employ strategies for reduced procurement cost. So the contribution of the 787 will not be any composite “advanced materials” bigger passanger window non-sense, but a higher proportion of “cheap” chinese labour involved in its production. Because that does reduce operating costs!
SchorschAirlines are all assuming that they are getting Boeing 787-s in 2008 and new models in 2010 and later. They call it a new revolutionary technology. They have orders for it.
There is no part of Boeing 787 in existence now. The plane is supposed to make a first flight in 2007. The making of the first frame is supposed to start in 2006.
What would happen if no Boeing 787 ever flew?
Once upon a time there was a new, revolutionary plane Boeing 2707. Airlines held, I think, 122 orders. And the assembly of the first flying frame had actually started – more than can be said of Boeing 787 now.
No Boeing 2707 was ever rolled out. The first plane was not completed.
What happened to airlines who had ordered Boeing 2707 but did not get them?
What would happen if, sometime in 2006, something were discovered so that no Dreamliner is ever rolled out? What would become of the airlines?
First, it won’t happen.
Second, your scenario is not completly unrealistic.
The Boeing B787 incorporates (following Boeing’s announcements) a lot of new technology, including as most important
– high composite percentage and even key structure parts made completly of composite (i. e. the fuselage)
– engines with very high bypass ratio (the bleedless is a new thing, too, but it is no innovation)
– more electrical systems (due to bleedless engines)
All of these technologies are risky. Normally one would suggest to make a technology demonstrator ore to build a pre-production series. Not so Boeing (Airbus doesn’t make it better), they want to build 30 or so aircraft in the very first year. From a business point of view this is clever, but if you find a problem in flight test and aircraft #20 is already in final assembly you have an expensive problem.
But it won’t happen. Why not?
Boeing will constantly watch its design process. Just look the first announcements and pictures. First is was the all-composite aircraft, now it has a decreasing amount of composites. If you encounter a problem in design, engineers will either have to risk or they switch back to aluminium and lose some performance.
The way chosen while aircraft is in design stage is a line of decisions made by upper management: If these people read to much articles about rapid prototype and quick computer model design they might tend to overhear warnings from their engineers.
So, worst case for Boeing would be
– a huge delay in deliveries with consequent financial losses
– a number of cancellations depending on the contracts (if airlines have cancelation-option if Boeing misses particular efficiency goals).
and of course stupid comments by its competitor.
I don’t think they cancel the problem, get a black cart from FAA (no certification) or crash an aircraft. After all, it is still Boeing.
SchorschIf the 787-fuselage will be all composite is known when the first 787 will be certified. Working here on the A380 lets me get a grasp how it works in a new project.
The fuel efficiency claim of Boeing is to be confirmed, too. I’m sure it will be a fine aircraft, but 20% less than B767, A300, A330 is such an unspecific claim, that you can hide a 707 in it (so, is it the A300 (easy), the 767 (respectable) or the A330 (tough)?)
Just to point out: I’m not bashing on Boeing. It is just that in modern aviation determination of costs is a complicated issue and very much depending on the airline’s situation.
I am actually living on a planet called earth. On this plant airlines have costs operating their aircraft. These costs are
– fuel
– crew
– maintenance
– finance
– fees (airport, ATC)
– insurance, misc
and other non-aircraft specific expenses (marketing, overhead, etc).
So, which of these costs can Mr. Composite greatly reduce, and if he is joined by Mr. Hi-Bypass (who actually can’t be mounted easily under a single-isle aircraft), what costs will decrease?
It’s fuel and maybe maintenance. On a typical short-range trip the fuel accounts for something between 15 to 20% of the cost. Now you achieve 10% less fuel consumption (what is a great achievement) resulting in 0.1 * (0.15 .. 0.2) = 0.015 .. 0.02 saving (that is 1.5 to 2%).
Yeah, that’s it! New technology, here we come! If the overall interesst rate rises by 1% it is actually cheaper to continue to operate that old A320/B737 because it doesn’t have any finance costs any more.
SchorschBoeing will most likely make the 797 fuselage entirely out of composite, as they are doing with the 787. This alone will give them a lighter aircraft compared to the 737 and A320 of the same size. Again, we’re not talking hundreds of tonnes here, but consider this, even a 3% deacrease in fuel consumption quickly adds up over a year to a substantial saving. and say Boeing can decrease overall operating costs by 9% with a new plane? That’s a lot!
As for the engines, yes it is a fairly simple case of outline to GE or RR what they need. If it can be done, GE or RR will get to it and give it a go.
Eventually the current 737 and A320 models will need to be replaced. No product lasts forever.In short, yes the 737NG and A320 are good aircraft, fairly equal on most respects and are selling very well. But sooner or later, the Airlines will be demaning a newer product that will take advantage of new technologies. It’s innevitable.
The 787 was an all-composite aircraft at time of announcement but isn’t any more. They percentage of “advanced material” is stabilising somewhere at 60%.
The engine technology is the critical part of whole equation. And because I guess that Boeing and Airbus are constantly talking to the engine manufacturers, they know that before 2010 a launch is not due.
The proposed 3% in fule saving and 9% in overall saving won’t bring too much saving for an airline.
SchorschHui, but what technologies do you want to use? Scaling down is not the way it goes in aircraft design (scaling up is even worse).
The bleedless engines ist still to decide. Especially because you need these engines. Who should develop them? Once again: You can’t just say to GE: Make me a GEnX with 30.000lb thrust and similar efficiency.
The smaller your aircraft gets, the smaller are the savings due to structural improvements. So you can be lucky if you save in total a couple of tons on a 737 but it will be very difficult and risky.
Which airline will pay you 60 Million for a slightly advanced design if they could use the less advanced design for less financing cost?
SchorschYes just look at the 787 it has extensive use of composites which couples with newer breed of econ-engines give it something like 20% or even greater economy and effeciency..Which ofcourse justifies in terms of cost savings the spending of all that money to integrate a brand new aircraft when a 767 would need far less integration.
Increasing Bypass to 8 or 9 doesn’t work with these smaller engines. Composites would go but the idea of an “all-composite aircraft” was burried before the first plastic was cut for B787. But: the smaller the aircraft the more “advanced materials” (i. e. composites) you can use.
Therefore 787-technology might not be 1-to-1 adaptable. Additionally, the 20%-saving compared to a 767 is a calculation by Boeing that is surely right, but under what boundary conditions?
SchorschIt’s true… they cant offer anything better. The shortness of the flights means that the aircraft never fly at their optimum cruise for very long to give good fuel economy. Thats why airlines can still operate old 737’s and still remain profitable. The real cost saver comes in maintenance… the newer aircraft are mose maintenance friendly which saves cash. In the future, fuel economy won’t be improved upon by very much. You can operate the 787 on short haul if you want… and the fuel bill wont be much different to a 737-400’s.
This is also the reason why the mail landing gear wheels are left uncovered by a door on the 737. It does cause drag… and fuel economy could be increased if there was a door… but… because the aircraft spends most of it’s life flying in conditions which are not optimum… the drag is barely noticable… and for what you’d save… it’d be cheaper to have the engineers go for a coffee break rather than design a door!
And so the usual way of an aircraft manufacurer does not work. This way means to spend awful amounts of money to kill half a drag count. In this case the optimum would be to reduce the weight as much as possible even if it means to sacrifice some efficiency (like GZYL said).
Maintenance still is an issue: All the additional systems may cause additional maintenace. Therefore the aircraft should be orientated more on a VW Golf (earlier versions) than on the newest BMw 5er in terms of complexity.
In order to save money for the airlines manufacturers have to think what other costs can be saved. For example financing costs. This would require to really save money in production and this would call for … China. And although I prefer the technologhy approach guess which way our two funny members (Mr A. and Mr. B) go right now.
SchorschThe A320-Familiy comes with a larger fuselage that provides more cargo space (containers!) and slightly increased passenger compartment. However, the higher landing gear adds weight and makes it more difficult to handle on the ground.
Operating cost is so depending on the individual carrier that comparison is nearly impossible. The fact that airlines choose both types with a slight advantage for the A320 can be taken as the airline-poll.
Sometimes I think that manufacturers promise the final blow on DOC when selling aircraft and airlines realize afterwards that the all-new A320 doesn’t give you the big advantage over your old aircraft in terms of prize (that may be caused by some airlines not knowing their own costs of operation properly). Airlines like Southwest and Ryan Air operated their old thirsty 737-200 for long time and still were profitable. So we might guess that for short-haul traffic the type of aircraft is somehow of no matter.
I guess that is a reason why no manufacturer is saying something about replacement. They just can’t offer anything much better right now.
SchorschPlease accept my apologies SCHORSCH.
Make no mistake about my idea ,it is just that,an idea that stays in my head whilst trying to get through a night shift.i’ve said before that i agree with you about regulation I’m also with you on the industry being a little conservative. It’s good to know i’m not alone.
As a foot note i don’t imagine these ports as being official airports as such just ports of call for the use solely of the operater keeping the number of aircraft movements to a minimum.May be i’m anticipating the problems of legislation.
To chornedsnorkack. From what i’ve seen of helicopter operations and a few flights in helicopters they rarely take off vertically to operating height.They gain speed in forward flight before gaining any significant height .With this in mind autogyros and VSTOL jets should be capable of using current larger heliports.
I think the best compromise between regislation/risk/cost and the offered service may be to operate light jets or Turbo-Props specially adapted for short-field operation.
Generally the issue is less the type of aircraft but the offered service and of course the price. Today’s business jets are too expensive for most potential customers. Additionally is there a perception in Europe that business jet usage is a waste of money and reflects the vanity of the upper management. So, to impress companies you have to prove them without doubt that you save them money.
SchorschHi Schorch, in response to your comments questioning the demand for such a service. Read the thread titled “Problems with Copterline”.up to 1200 passengers a week sounds like demand to me,and thats for expensive helicopters.Anyhow, have fun with my proposed service,expand ,develope or ridicule it as you see fit.
Hmm, I don’t have any number concerning the demand for such a kind of transportation. I just recognize that industry is rather conservative in some ways.
Your proposal is interesting. But the problem is not the land (there is plenty of room, even in crowded cities), but the regulation connceted with an airport. It is just not as easy to set up an official airport. Using something like a tilt-rotor will bring up major issues concerning costs, mainetance. Noise may be a problem. You will have to fight with more or less rationale safety concerns.
I wouldn’t say you project is not feasible. But I would say you are very optimistic.
BTW: My nickname is SCHORSCH (not Schorch). Maybe a little bit tricky to prounounce it your english tongues.
SchorschSorry for the ENIGMA-talk. VLJ means Very Light Jet.
I generally doubt the necessity and even if there is a demand I wonder why nobody is servicing this with existing planes. We have at the moment business aircraft that could actually fit in the category “air taxi”.
If considering the time saved by using air taxi instead of conventional air service, car or railway you will have only minor savings but higher costs. These costs are only acceptable for high raked executives.
And please lets accept that high ranked executives normally don’t have their office somewhere in the countryside. I would say the VLJ or top-class turbo-props and piston props are here to stay for long.
SchorschI think the distance HKG-London is not suitable for “low-costy” carrier. Or, if you do it there will be only monir difference to existing airlines and people will at best have the perception of flying low-cost.
SchorschQuestion: Do you think a VLJ can outperform a turbo-prop or piston aircraft in terms of cost? I don’t think so. And I doubt that there is e real demand. Because no matter what airplanes are there to come, you always need
– a pilot (certificated, waiting and getting hungry)
– an airstrip with proper clearance, not just a crop field
– ATC unless you restrict yourself to sunshine-taxi
The biggest cost would be the owner-cost of the aircraft, so that everything except VLJ or conventional prop drops out (especially this CH-45 thing).
The most realistic option would be a conventional prop with optimised operation cost (single-hand IFR, low-maintenance engine, minor maintenance). Everything else is unrealistic at least in central Europe (incl UK). Feasible and practical maybe in remote areas with less ATC-issues and less regulation-happy authorities.
Schorsch“We elminated the threat of nuclear radiated victimes because all people will instantly get grilled!”
That is progress! But to be honest, your post is very good and gives good explanation on nuclear warheades. The dangerous radiation level is by no means proportional to the warhead’s yield.
SchorschIs it known if the cancelation is more a political issue or a technical?
As the ‘sferrin’ stated the international blame when using the nuke would be ten times higher than the spreaded radiation. I think the US can live without bunker busting nukes. Il Kim should sleep well. Someday his final hour will come …
Sign In
