Ship 741IIRC the gen. tech research and development has been going on for about a decade or so and they have been tested as per 787 specs to full satisfaction . They will be the least of the worries as far as Mx is concerned . The only area is CFRP maintaince and how at the regional level that is tackled but again looking at what some of the airlines and boeing have worked up for over half a decade it seems that proper care is being done in that regards aswell.
My bad…I should have been a little more specific.
When you have 2 120 kva generators on a conventional airplane and now we have 4 250 kva generators…..well that tells me you are using electrical power for lots and lots of stuff. I’m not so much thinking about the gens themselves but the distribution and control, and all the user systems. This airplane may not be “all” electric but it is very, very dependent upon electrical power for many critical systems.
Ship 741Apples and orranges . F-22 electronics cannot be compared with those of commercial airliners . Commercial airline buisness is very conservative and everything is tested , double tested , verified and then given the stamp of approval . Look at the wireless IFE boeing wasnt comfortable with it at that point so they cancelled it for the 787 quite late (after design freeze) .
And what about RR engines? GE engine so far has been testing quite well and fuel burn figures are comming out better then expected.
revoulutionary is a relative term to be taken in context to commercial airline industry. A true revoulutionary aircraft by modern standards should be a fast supersonic (maach 2 ) jet with damn low CASM . Now that would be true revoulution !
I believe the 787 is truly revolutionary. For all the reasons listed in all the threads: structure, systems, etc.
All I had to know to worry about the avionics was that there were 2 huge generators on each engine, each with more output than the single generator on a 767. Basically 4 times the power (counting both engines). Wow.
My reason for not being as concerned about the RR engine is that it is a derivative. The GE is all new. A new engine with a new composite frame that is the first “all electric” commercial airplane….well, I guess thats why I’m concerned. Which is not to say I don’t think Boeing will pull it off.
I’m not worried about the burn at all……both will be within tolerance for what they originally spec’d out I believe.
Ship 741So revoulutionary and reliable cannot coexist?
Its not that they can’t, its just very, very difficult.
Just which systems do you think will contribute to the INCREASE in reliability as you predict ? CFRP has been tested to levels that airlines are now satisfied , both airbus (yes airbus) and boeing have tested rigourously CFRP skins , panels , joints , frames etc to levels much much more then those to be expereinced in the normal life of an airliner.
Actually I wasn’t predicting, just worried about, a DECREASE in reliability. At this point, with my still rather limited knowledge, I’m worried about the systems, particularly the electrical and electronic systems and the new bleedless airconditioning/pressurization. I’m also worried about the all new GE powerplant.
WRT to electronics, recall the embarassing F-22 Date Line incident don’t you? Imagine if China had invaded Japan and they were responding and that happened! And that was on a military airplane, in service, after a 15ish year, multibillion dollar gestation.
I’m not saying Boeing can’t do it, but if it is truly revolutionary, aviation history shows us that the reliable part will be difficult, at least in the beginning.
Quite true because looking at the first 8 months and few weeks of sales boeing has sold close to 2 years worth of production ( @ 10 per month starting 2012) allready , god knows how much they can sell .
I’m glad we finally agree there is no need for more customers to rush to the bargaining table at this time!!
IIRC your original point was that airlines will take decades making the price difference from buying a used 767 refurb. as opposed to the 787 . You even did a cost analysis . You were clearly wrong in that assesment as you have not included Mx values , Higher Revenue generated from the new product and many other factors . Your last comment that if airlines cannot get preffered slots on the 787 they should wait it out with used 767s is somewhat accurate ( i think they should do a shortest possible lease for A330 or 777 ) .
No doubt it was incomplete. I didn’t know we were doing a masters thesis here! However mtc is a piddance compared to fuel. An absolute piddance.
I also reject hard numbers for mtc for an airplane that hasn’t even been completely assembled yet, let alone flown, let alone flown in revenue service. Its all projections at this point.
Meanwhile for the in service product, costs can vary widely from carrier to carrier based upon numerous factors. Therefore, to say airplane X has a mtc cost of Y is hugely ignorant of where, when, how, why your airplanes are maintained. You do know that airlines can change their mtc programs within certain parameters and subject to local FAA approval don’t you? And that foreign carriers have different requirements also? And that some carriers are having heavy mtc done in low cost foreign countries?
Taking into account all of this (theres actually much more), you perform a comparison with this “known” airplane and then you quote “lower mtc costs” for the incomplete, unflown, and uncertificated 787 and tell me that I have performed an incomplete analysis? Pot, meet kettle.
PS: Sorry I can’t figure out how to do the multiple quotes.
Ship 741I’m not a fanboy or into the “coolness” factor. I couldn’t care less if the 787 had a shark fin or no fin at all. Form follows function after all and I’m just calling them as I see them.
I think Boeing is clearly “ahead” of Airbus right now….they have a “better” product in terms of cutting edge technology. I truly believe the 787 will be revolutionary, thus my skepticism about reliability factors. History has shown revolutionary and reliable don’t necessarily go together. And essentially unlimited ETOPS demands exceptional levels of reliability. I don’t think the 787 will, initially, have 777-style reliability. I hope I’m wrong.
Airbus, while taking a beating on these boards and in the market lately, is not yet out of the game. They retain certain advantages. Sometimes its best to be second to market……witness the case of the 737 Classic, which was, after all, a response to the DC-9 and ended up cornering the market over the long run. The 737NG was a response to the A320, after Boeing rejected building the NG for years and stuck their loyal customers with the -300 and -400 which can’t fly domestic U.S. transcons with a full load all year. Boeing wanted them to buy 757’s, which was too big for a market that was fractionializing (is that a word?). It could be argued the 767 was a response to the A300.
Non U.S. companies seem to have longer term horizons than U.S. companies….Airbus has time to recover nicely and their product will come to market about the time 787 slots become available in large numbers. It doesn’t have to beat the 787, just get close, they can play “games” with the rest….price/support/parts…there is wiggle room.
You’re right B.I.O. that I can’t name an airline who has ordered the 787 “just to keep up with the jones’s.” Just speculation on my part….not a crime after all.
In summary, I’m sticking to my original point….there are ample reasons for some airlines to sit tight if they have the patience to do so. The reasons that I have stated are both economic and strategic. And they can’t get significant numbers of 787’s in the next few years in any event. Perhaps I should have titled this thread: “Why buy 787’s NOW?” The early deliveries slots are gone, the fuel pays back only over time, and the prime competitor has time to respond.
Ship 741I would agree it is much harder to get efficiency gains on shorter legged aircraft. Significant powerplant improvements would seem to be necessary.
Back to my original assertion, while I can’t argue that an airline should never buy new airplanes, I think it is quite apparent that it is in some airlines best interests to sit and wait. The fuel savings clearly have a long term payback and the assertions about pax preference is spurious at best. So perhaps the 787 have-nots pick up a few 787s just for the effect/press/morale and then they wait?
Perhaps the 787 won’t be revolutionary and reliable at the same time. I also find it interesting that the Airbus competitor should appear in roughly the same time frame that significant numbers of 787 delivery slots become available…thereby increasing the leverage of the airlines…..which, history shows, they desperately need (The Wall Street analysts always say only 2 people ever made money in the airline business: Boeing and Pilots).
Ship 741“If you have any expereince in Aircraft projects , airliner development and the process of selling aircraft you would not have used these words. Every new aircraft when sold is sold with a certain promise of delivery be it delivery on cost , delivery on time , delivered as promised as far as performance is conecrned . Manufacterers give solid guarantees (written) regarding OEW , Fuel burn , MX costs , maintaince etc etc etc . How do you think boeing priced the aircraft at a particular cost 5 years before first flight? How do you think they knew about what it would cost even before “First one has flown” ? Why would airbus sell A380 in 2002 almost 5 years before EIS and guarantee performance? They are airliner makers they know their trade and based on there market research , produce research and development they come up with the numbers which are comfortable enough to be guaranteed to its customers and if the guarantees arent met on any one of the subjects guaranteed they have to compensate the airlines just like airbus has done so on the A380 .”
I am more than just a little bit familiar with the PW2037, which might be callled the DC-10 of the PW commercial engine line, since it is the last “new” engine that PW developed and that was 25 years ago. It has a horrendous reliability record compared to it’s competitor and has never met fuel burn guarantees, and eventually, the “guarantees” run out. Not that they ever actually covered the whole shortfall to begin with. Please don’t lecture with regard to manufacturer “guarantees.”
Since you brought the issue of actual experience to the fore: if you had any experience actually operating all this great stuff the manufacturer’s marketing departments trumpet so loudly, perhaps you would not believe their claims so sincerely.
Ship 741“With that kind of argument, why buy any new aircraft?”
Granted….they are in a different market than carrying passengers, but UPS and especially Fedex have done quite well historically buying used aircraft. Only now is Fedex buying new airplanes (777’s).
“But then, its not just about the fuel savings, is it?”
Fuel is the single largest operating cost of the airlines, I’m sure you know that. But you buy fuel over time, if I can save $120 million up front, well, that buys a lot of fuel (and time) doesn’t it?
“- around 20% cheaper to maintain”
Can anyone accurately predict the maintenance costs over the life of the airplane when the first one hasn’t even flown yet? I don’t believe so.
“- 20-30% greater range ( if you compare to various 767 models) which opens up vast ammounts of flexibility , routes etc “
For the North Atlantic, the range of the 767, and the A330 that you mentioned, are more than adequate for 90% percent of the markets.
“- Better cabin enviroment for Passengers ( which believe it or not yeilds better RASM as high paying buisness passengers will pay more to fly a spanking new A350 , 787 or 380 rather then a worn out 767 which doesnt have new features such as higher cabin pressure , higher humidity etc etc)”
Granted that the environment is better due to the better pressurization and humidity control, but I do not buy the often quoted “passenger preference” argument. My mother was a travel agent for 25 years and she told me that for 25 years people walked in the door and said, “Get me the cheapest ticket to XYZ.” Do people fly Southwest for the amenities or the new airplanes?
“By the logic you have presented no airline would ever buy a new jet , be it A380 , A350 , or 787 .”
I’m not saying never, but when the order book is full and the maker is asking premium, why not wait?
“Moreover a spanking new jet which is technologically superior also is a BETTER ASSET and that is important for the books . A 120-130 million 787 will have a fairly good resale value 15-20 years down the line if the airline so wishes to sell it , but a 767-300ER even 6-7 years down the line will have no resale value (relativle speaking) .”
The customers I’m thinking of don’t buy jets to sell them. They fly them for 25 years and amortize them fully.
You guys make some good arguments, but to me they don’t outweigh the 120 million up front PER JET.
Ship 741Two items:
1. If the KC-330 is wrong because it is too big, wouldn’t the 777 be wrong also?
2. Noted aviation author Rene J. Francillion wrote several years ago in an Air International article that a big/small combination utilizing a larger number of the smaller frames might be the way the USAF should go. A 737NG based tanker could easily handle most tactical refueing requirements.
Ship 741Both the MD11 accidents you’ve quoted were pilot error ..so how can you blame the airframe
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_31_14/ai_63805245
There are airplanes that are easy to fly (“honest”) and there are airplanes that are “quirky.” The MD-11 is an oddball. They COULDN’T blame the airplane, it is certificated and in service. But that doesn’t mean its safe.
A few posts ago it was almost insuated that I didn’t know what I was talking about, that I needed to “read the narratives.” There are always mitigating factors. Did ATC cause the L1011 crash in DFW in 1985? No, but the airplane was slowed from 170 to 150 on approach. Might it have survived the windshear encounter with 20 extra knots of airspeed?
How many crashes is Fedex going to have before someone sounds off?
Surely, most knowledgeable aviation people know that the oldest and most unfair trick in the book in accident investigation is to blame the (usually dead) pilot. Now I’ve taken my fair share of potshots at the hotshots, but not in the case of the MD-11.
There will be more landing incidents with the MD-11. Mark it down.
Ship 741I guess I mis-spoke. I understand what much maligned means, I intended to imply that IMHO the DC-10 and MD-11 have earned their reputation with much higher accident rates than their competitors. I supported my argument by showing the actual statistics.
I’ve read the narratives and am familiar with the crashes. IMHO, the MD-11 is one of the most dangerous airplanes in the air. It’s horizontal stabilizer is only 59% of the DC-10’s, yet it is 20 feet longer and the MTOW is about 100,000 lbs more. It’s got a longitudinal stability augmentation system that doesn’t seem to help much, because there have been many, many landing incidents (tail scrapes, wheel-barrowing on the nosewheel, etc.). Not to mention the two airframes that ended up on their backs, one in China and one in Newark if memory serves.
I predict future landing incidents with the MD-11 due to it’s treacherous handling characteristics. I once had a Line Check Captain with 32 years experience flying airliners tell me it was the worst airliner he had ever flown, “can’t be hand flown precisely above FL300 because the tail is too small, if the autopilot goes out you ask ATC to block out some airspace for you. the only airplane I’ve ever flown that was harder to fly than the simulator, the reverse of the the way it’s supposed to be, etc., etc.
Ship 741“much maligned?” the data show otherwise re: DC-10 and MD-11..
Ship 741Yes…a couple of examples:
In 1999-2001 timeframe Brig. Gen Joe Stien commanded the 7th BW and its
B-1Bs. He was originally a navigator, he had previously commanded the E-8 JSTARS unit.Col. Norman McDaniel commanded the 3636th CCTW (the USAF Survival School..not a flying wing,but a wing nonetheless) in the mid-1980s. McDaniel was a EWO downed over North Vietman when his EB-66 was shot down. He survived years of torture at the “Hanoi Hilton”…so his commanding the school was very appropriate.
Thanks, I knew there were a few out there, but I’ll bet if you went back to, oh say, some random number like 1960 you would find that less than 10%, possibly a much lower percentage, of the operational/combat unit USAF commanders have been non pilots. I think it is a requirement in the USN for the Captain of a CV to be an aviator, and I’ll bet very few, if any, have ever been NFO’s.
Its ironic that one of the two you named was a backseater with real combat/captivity experience. My original argument was that experience as a combatant is the only thing giving the senior USAF officers credibility. Lack of that experience hurts their credibility. “No Buck Rogers, no bucks.” Or at least no independent Air Force.
Ship 741Air forces will still do the same job just the planes will not have pilots, its not just pilots that make up an air force.:rolleyes:
True, but only pilots are allowed to lead the Air Force. Its been pretty clear for a long time there is a glass ceiling for non-pilot officers in the USAF. Same for the Naval Aviation.
Right now, squadron and wing command, and CV command in the Navy, is pretty much reserved for pilots, preferably “combat” pilots (even the tanker and AWACS guys get descriminated against, not to mention rotary wingers who may as well be meteorologists…). Have you ever seen a back seater command a wing? If so, I’ll bet it was a rarity. Someday, when no one is being shot at, you’re gonna have to find commanders, and there won’t be any combat experienced officers to choose from.
These combat experience right stuff guys face down the Senators for funding. “Well, I can tell you, Senator, from the position of having been in that situation that we need….”
Ship 741Holy Cow! If you all are this contentious over this small contract, it’s really gonna hit the fan when the KC-767 wins the tanker contract……;)
Ship 741A little bit off topic, what with all the talk about technical capabilities, but I’ve noticed no one ever talks about raw numbers of airplanes.
A recent issue of Aviation Week stated that the CDG just completed a Middle East/Afganistan cruise with only 10 embarked Rafale. It’s hard for me (at least) to take their combat capability serious when they have only 10 airplanes……ie., less than 1 SH squadron. One really nice thing about the reliable SH is that there are large numbers available.
I think the plan for the next few years is to have each CV have 2 squadrons of SH and 2 squadrons of legacy Hornets embarked ie., 48 fighter/attack airplanes, a potent “sting.”
Sign In
