User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25842
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:12 pm

DocLightning wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
There are no "new materials" that can reduce the weight by half.


No, but there are new materials that may be able to give us shapes that are not feasible with metal. There are new materials that may be able to give us a practically indefinite fatigue life. There are new materials that are stronger, stiffer, and yet lighter than metals. There are also ground-up improvements that would be prohibitive to add to a 1980s design like the A320 family. For example, a new laminar flow system would probably be easier to design on a clean-sheet design than to retrofit into an existing one.

Boeing must tread carefully in these matters. New materials will invariably offer unexpected challenges. They (finally) mastered the all-electric architecture on the 787. Will they use that design philosophy again on the 797?


New technologies may also drive up prices, so here comes another issue: airlines said they want the plane to be cheap.

Can't have it both ways.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10349
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:24 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
There are no "new materials" that can reduce the weight by half.


No, but there are new materials that may be able to give us shapes that are not feasible with metal. There are new materials that may be able to give us a practically indefinite fatigue life. There are new materials that are stronger, stiffer, and yet lighter than metals. There are also ground-up improvements that would be prohibitive to add to a 1980s design like the A320 family. For example, a new laminar flow system would probably be easier to design on a clean-sheet design than to retrofit into an existing one.

Boeing must tread carefully in these matters. New materials will invariably offer unexpected challenges. They (finally) mastered the all-electric architecture on the 787. Will they use that design philosophy again on the 797?


New technologies may also drive up prices, so here comes another issue: airlines said they want the plane to be cheap.

Can't have it both ways.


I think airlines think of cheap as cheap in 20 years of operating cost and rest value too.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Taxi645
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:54 pm

BTW, nice marketing name for a rewinged A320 as a fast to market response to a clean sheet Boeing MoM proposal:

A320NOW (New Optional Wing).


:P
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20615
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:41 am

keesje wrote:

I think airlines think of cheap as cheap in 20 years of operating cost and rest value too.


Most certainly. And if an airliner is made of material with a fatigue "floor," then the reseale value definitely becomes an issue because the airframe itself is "immortal." Pretty neat, huh?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 855
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:01 am

Some private entities associated with Airbus have been throwing scraps of Information at some journalists pointing to moves in this direction. Dont really know what the strategy is there.

I personally dont think Airbus will move first in this category. They have no need to. They have effectively knocked Boeing off the game with the 321NEOLR. At most they might introduce a new wing and maybe a further stretch A322.
L' Esprit de Mai 68
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7265
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:59 am

BawliBooch wrote:
Some private entities associated with Airbus have been throwing scraps of Information at some journalists pointing to moves in this direction. Dont really know what the strategy is there.

I personally dont think Airbus will move first in this category. They have no need to. They have effectively knocked Boeing off the game with the 321NEOLR. At most they might introduce a new wing and maybe a further stretch A322.


I haven't kept up with every single thread on this topic but I thought that this was largely the consensus? Airbus is in a good position, but if Boeing acts then Airbus could respond with a new wing and perhaps a stretched A322. Makes sense, but some would advocate for Airbus to move first largely out of a desire to see Airbus pound on Boeing even harder. I don't think that's a logical idea, however. They've got the market - why spend to have it "twice"?
-Dave
 
travelhound
Posts: 1494
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:27 am

An MOM can utilise technologies / manufacturing processes already developed for the 787 and 777X. A such, this aricraft should have some unique advantages over a A322.

For Boeing going forward an avionics / systems suite developed for the MOM could be refined and used for a 737 replacement, reducing a considerable amount of risk for such a program.

Put simply the MOM make sense, from a startegic, technology and commercial perspective.
 
Strato2
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:34 am

travelhound wrote:
An MOM can utilise technologies / manufacturing processes already developed for the 787 and 777X. A such, this aricraft should have some unique advantages over a A322.


But would they translate to anything meaningful on the market place? Boeing did just fine with a warmed over 737NG against brand new A320. I'd say it would be an interesting situation if Airbus stretches and rewings the A320 while Boeing has it's hands tied with the MOM. That would leave the 737MAX vulnerable.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1494
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:29 am

The 737 has some unique attributes that allows it to compete, in part with the much newer A320. For instance the shorter landing gear allows for lighter structures, which in turn allows for a lower OEW, which results in an efficiency advantage (the A320 has advantages in other areas - i.e. avionics).

But, as we have seen with the A321LR sales success, the balance swings in favour of the A320 when stage lengths become longer. Put simply the 737 is optimised for shorter stage lengths, whereas the A320 is optimised for longer stage lengths.

In contrast, the advantages of new technologies along with optimisation would allow an MOM to leap frog the A320 / 737 duos by a good margin. For instance, regardless of available technologies a wing optimised to fly stage lengths between 2000-5000nm is going to be different to a wing optimised to fly stage lengths between 500-3000nm. As such an MOM having a wing optimised for its intended route profile should be capable of creating a significant advantage overran A320 series derived aircraft. Again, an oval fuselage manufactured from CFRP that results in a higher percentage of usable fuselage volume would result in higher payload to weight ratios. An A322, as a consequence of being a derivative of the A320, which uses a circular fuselage made from aluminium, would have an inherent disadvantage.

If we consider the full service carriers and the product they use for premium cabins, a wide body could be more appealing (as well as more efficient) for airlines wanting to create a point of difference. I am not too sure how an airline like SQ could create a significant point of difference with an airline like AirAsia using narrow body aircraft.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:23 am

As long as you do not intend to go 3-3-3, I really fail to see how an oval fuselage would offer a higher useable fuselage volume, if you plan to use standard containers.

A330 cross section is perfect for LD3s, 767 is perfect for LD2 and A320 for LD3-45s.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:13 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I haven't kept up with every single thread on this topic but I thought that this was largely the consensus? Airbus is in a good position, but if Boeing acts then Airbus could respond with a new wing and perhaps a stretched A322. Makes sense, but some would advocate for Airbus to move first largely out of a desire to see Airbus pound on Boeing even harder. I don't think that's a logical idea, however. They've got the market - why spend to have it "twice"?



You would think Airbus is having the same discussions about the MOM with airlines and receiving the same information that Boeing has. How they interpret this may differ from Boeing and means they will take a different path though. I agree that there is no need for Airbus to go first, wait for Boeing to show their hand and reply when you have the information on what you are actually trying to compete with.

travelhound wrote:
An MOM can utilise technologies / manufacturing processes already developed for the 787 and 777X. A such, this aricraft should have some unique advantages over a A322.

For Boeing going forward an avionics / systems suite developed for the MOM could be refined and used for a 737 replacement, reducing a considerable amount of risk for such a program.

Put simply the MOM make sense, from a startegic, technology and commercial perspective.


Airbus can respond in kind with a MOM with A350 and A33neo technologies and manufacturing processes that is already being used. They can also easily refine the A350 avionics for the A322 and have this ready for their own NSA replacement in whenever they need it and reducing risk for such a program.

Everything you posted can be replicated by Airbus, if a new cross section provides the operating costs that allows the MOM to compete with a single aisle then Airbus can design one as well. They can also update the A321 stretch with A350 (newer than 787 :wink2: ) technology and have the advantage there.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:41 am

No tube fuselage is much more effective than the circular version.

a 8m circular fuselage that is 20m long has a volume of 1005 m³ and an external area of 502,6 m²
an oval fuselage of 8x7 m that is 20m long has a volume of 754m³ and an external area of 442 m²

1005/754 = 1,333
502,6/442 = 1,137

the circular fuselage offers 33% more volume for 14% more external area.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1494
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:42 am

Not arguing with you enzo011. My post was in reference to a A322 ompeting with the a MOM. In this scenario a MOM would probably win regardless if a nwe wing is used for the A322.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4704
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:56 am

DocLightning wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think airlines think of cheap as cheap in 20 years of operating cost and rest value too.


Most certainly. And if an airliner is made of material with a fatigue "floor," then the reseale value definitely becomes an issue because the airframe itself is "immortal." Pretty neat, huh?


The bane of some military airframes. you don't want that. 70..80 year old fuselage tech with brand new innards.
( The reason why the A330 would have made much more sense as a tanker + freighter. used up while its tech is still more or less competitive. We see the same with our small communities fire engines. Our "fire conveyance" is 25 years old, looks brand new , has low mileage but can't follow the changed requirements. No water tank. not enough room for another 2 BA sets and daytimes we can't muster enough hands to take the pump out.)

What you really want is a homogenously life limited "thing". works without failure for 50k hours, 40k cycles. then falls apart.
( cars today tend to go in that direction. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:57 am

travelhound wrote:
Not arguing with you enzo011. My post was in reference to a A322 ompeting with the a MOM. In this scenario a MOM would probably win regardless if a nwe wing is used for the A322.


When we look at what was published from a survey on what airlines think (or want) from a MoM it is clear that there isn't a settled answer. Boeing and Airbus need to be very clear what market they aim for, what they can scavenge from other ones expressed with their offering and finally is that final market sufficient to justify the investment.

This is not a slam dunk by any means.
 
350helmi
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:03 am

travelhound wrote:
Not arguing with you enzo011. My post was in reference to a A322 ompeting with the a MOM. In this scenario a MOM would probably win regardless if a nwe wing is used for the A322.


I would think that if the two planes had the same generation wings, they'd be almost identical in efficiency. The A330NEO isn't much less efficient than the 787 (within 1% - 5%) with just a span increase and wingtip treatment, and that wing was designed in the 1980s. How much more efficient can a fuse be made? maybe 0.5%?

350Helmi
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:17 am

travelhound wrote:
In contrast, the advantages of new technologies

Which technologies exactly ? And what kind of advantages do they bring ?
I'm not saying there are none, but technology is only a mean to the end of running the business (in the case carrying passengers). It does not in itself bring advantages ; instead the right technologies need to be applied to the right problem. It may very well be that "old" tech does the job quite well. Throwing new tech at a problem without defining said problem is merely a way to increase costs and risks.

travelhound wrote:
regardless of available technologies a wing optimised to fly stage lengths between 2000-5000nm is going to be different to a wing optimised to fly stage lengths between 500-3000nm. As such an MOM having a wing optimised for its intended route profile should be capable of creating a significant advantage overran A320 series derived aircraft


Supposing the A320 is not upgraded with a new wing. Contrary to what I have seen several times here, the fuselage is the most complex area to design. It's where you have passengers, meaning stringent certification issues, pressure control (and variations), temperature control, fire protection, cabin customisation, electrical wiring everywhere, toilets and galleys which may leak, ground servicing which may induce damage...
While not simple to design, a wing is mainly an aerostructure optimisation problem with relatively few other constraints (engines, landing gear and fuel, mainly, which are fairly well known integration constraints).
Additionnally, the wing is a natural module, so as long as a new wing is compatible with the center wing box, it should be possible to switch designs *relatively* easily.


travelhound wrote:
Again, an oval fuselage manufactured from CFRP that results in a higher percentage of usable fuselage volume would result in higher payload to weight ratios. An A322, as a consequence of being a derivative of the A320, which uses a circular fuselage made from aluminium, would have an inherent disadvantage.

But once the constraints mentioned above are added in, will the difference be that great ?
Again, not saying not the gains will not be there ; I'm just dubious about the magnitude of the difference in fuel burn.
Meanwhile the A321 (A322?) below and A330 above have installed and paid for manufacturing, training and maintenance infrastructure all around the globe. In addition to the >10B$ development costs, all that infrastructure needs to be put in place, adding another hefty lump of billions of $.
Any MoM concept will have to justify those total lifecycle ownership costs by a significant operational cost advantage...And not over the current A321/A330, but over what they could be in 10 years. That's a tough proposition.

travelhound wrote:
My post was in reference to a A322 competing with the a MOM. In this scenario a MOM would probably win regardless if a nwe wing is used for the A322.

The MOM may win in terms of fuel burn per pax, but that is just one aspect of the lifecycle
It could very well win this battle but lose the war.
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:15 am

DocLightning wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think airlines think of cheap as cheap in 20 years of operating cost and rest value too.


Most certainly. And if an airliner is made of material with a fatigue "floor," then the reseale value definitely becomes an issue because the airframe itself is "immortal." Pretty neat, huh?


Oh that really isn't going to happen...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:26 am

DocLightning wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think airlines think of cheap as cheap in 20 years of operating cost and rest value too.


Most certainly. And if an airliner is made of material with a fatigue "floor," then the reseale value definitely becomes an issue because the airframe itself is "immortal." Pretty neat, huh?


Maybe you haven't heard of polymer ageing. I have worked on it in my master thesis. Composites are most definitely not immortal, not by a very, very long shot.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:36 am

In fact composites might be much more nasty than metals when they age, as ageing will be harder to detect and the methods are not as mature to determine when structural deficiencies are problematic. Not to talk about the much bigger problem of replacing a part in a large composite structure.
 
StTim
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:41 am

Indeed composites may not be the great advance many thought.

The huge single piece barrel construction is very clever but may also give more issues as ageing starts to happen.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:45 am

Apart from that most planes are barely made of more than 50% of composites, so even if the fuselage barrel is immortal, the MGL is not, nor are the engines. And I doubt there will be a business case for stripping down a 25 year old Dreamliner until only the CFRP fuselage parts remain and then re-build it.
Last edited by seahawk on Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:51 am

seahawk wrote:
In fact composites might be much more nasty than metals when they age, as ageing will be harder to detect and the methods are not as mature to determine when structural deficiencies are problematic. Not to talk about the much bigger problem of replacing a part in a large composite structure.


I've been saying this for literally years. I've hinted at it on Leeham since before the 787 first flight.

Without giving any specifics, not only is the basic CFRP ageing and maintenance not very well understood (in terms of dealing with it in aircraft operation, I mean) - there are new issues in structures where long-term damage was not previously considered.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
travelhound
Posts: 1494
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:41 am

350helmi wrote:
travelhound wrote:
Not arguing with you enzo011. My post was in reference to a A322 ompeting with the a MOM. In this scenario a MOM would probably win regardless if a nwe wing is used for the A322.


I would think that if the two planes had the same generation wings, they'd be almost identical in efficiency. The A330NEO isn't much less efficient than the 787 (within 1% - 5%) with just a span increase and wingtip treatment, and that wing was designed in the 1980s. How much more efficient can a fuse be made? maybe 0.5%?

350Helmi


Yes, but we are talking about an MOM where the whole aircraft is optimised for a particular route mission in comparison to an A322 where the design of a new wing has to be compromised so that it can fit an aircraft originally designed to fly 2000nm.

We only have to look at the C-Series to realise a clean sheet design that uses the same materials and design philosophy can be more efficient by a significant magnitude over its older bigger brothers, simply by optimising the aircraft.

Airmagnac wrote:
Which technologies exactly ? And what kind of advantages do they bring ?

Boeing have developed a range of technologies for the 787 and 777X. The obvious ones are composites for the wings and fuselage and the less obvious one is the all electric architecture and associated systems.

At this stage of the game Boeing would have a fairly strong understanding of the technologies and how they can be applied to optimise a new aircraft. We may only be talking about 1 or 2 percent here and a few percent there, but at the end of the day these percentages all add up to a substantial sum.

I would suggest in talking to the market about an MOM Boeing know what needs to be done to develop a plane that can compete in its size segment.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10349
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:01 pm

enzo011 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I haven't kept up with every single thread on this topic but I thought that this was largely the consensus? Airbus is in a good position, but if Boeing acts then Airbus could respond with a new wing and perhaps a stretched A322. Makes sense, but some would advocate for Airbus to move first largely out of a desire to see Airbus pound on Boeing even harder. I don't think that's a logical idea, however. They've got the market - why spend to have it "twice"?



You would think Airbus is having the same discussions about the MOM with airlines and receiving the same information that Boeing has. How they interpret this may differ from Boeing and means they will take a different path though. I agree that there is no need for Airbus to go first, wait for Boeing to show their hand and reply when you have the information on what you are actually trying to compete with.

travelhound wrote:
An MOM can utilise technologies / manufacturing processes already developed for the 787 and 777X. A such, this aricraft should have some unique advantages over a A322.

For Boeing going forward an avionics / systems suite developed for the MOM could be refined and used for a 737 replacement, reducing a considerable amount of risk for such a program.

Put simply the MOM make sense, from a startegic, technology and commercial perspective.


Airbus can respond in kind with a MOM with A350 and A33neo technologies and manufacturing processes that is already being used. They can also easily refine the A350 avionics for the A322 and have this ready for their own NSA replacement in whenever they need it and reducing risk for such a program.

Everything you posted can be replicated by Airbus, if a new cross section provides the operating costs that allows the MOM to compete with a single aisle then Airbus can design one as well. They can also update the A321 stretch with A350 (newer than 787 :wink2: ) technology and have the advantage there.


If Airbus goes for an A322, probably it will maximize A320 commonality.

So much that the cost of making an A322 will so low, competitors for now cannot close their business cases for this segment (suitable engine availability, empty weight, time to market).

Even if they have a more optimized, more technologically advanced alternative.

Image
Last edited by keesje on Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10349
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

double

Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:03 pm

............ . . . ........... . .
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:19 pm

travelhound wrote:
We only have to look at the C-Series to realise a clean sheet design that uses the same materials and design philosophy can be more efficient by a significant magnitude over its older bigger brothers, simply by optimising the aircraft.


You are comparing apples to grapes.

Going from 6 to 5 to 4 abreast does not involve a change in the number of aisles.

There is a region between around 110-170 pax where 5 abreast is more efficient than either a 4 abreast or 6 abreast.

However, the region where a 7 abreast is more efficient than 6 abreast or 8 abreast may be non-existent. If its not non-existent, it is extremely small... simply due to having to carry an extra ~20" in aisle space in the step above 6 seats
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:38 pm

And I wonder what the CSeries has shown?

The OEW of the CS300 is not revolutionary lower than that of the 737-7 or A319. Nothing about the airframe itself seems stunning if you consider how old the 737/A320 are. If this would be all Boeing can do with a 7M7, the thing would be dead as the dodo once the successors of the A320/737 take to the air.
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:05 pm

travelhound wrote:
Yes, but we are talking about an MOM where the whole aircraft is optimised for a particular route mission in comparison to an A322 where the design of a new wing has to be compromised so that it can fit an aircraft originally designed to fly 2000nm.

You're again stating this as a driver for substantial overcosts for the A321...but the main part of the wing is its surface, shape, length, twist. The need to interface with an existing wingbox is a constraint, but not one that would necessarily prevent the design of an improved wing

travelhound wrote:
We only have to look at the C-Series to realise a clean sheet design that uses the same materials and design philosophy can be more efficient by a significant magnitude

Yes indeed, that's why the C-Series is a smashing hit...oh, wait
The C-Series may be a very good aircraft, but it's squeezed by competition below and above into a market segment that isn't very big, if it even exists. It just hasn't been able to stand out sufficently from the crowd of other aircraft

travelhound wrote:
Boeing have developed a range of technologies for the 787 and 777X. The obvious ones are composites for the wings and fuselage and the less obvious one is the all electric architecture and associated systems.

Which is all well and good, and I can only admire Boeing on making the bold decision to completely rip out the bleed system and replace it with electrics, and for going for all composites. I really do. I know first-hand how hard it is to decide to move away from established designs.
But at the end of the day it did not allow the 787 to "leapfrog the [A330] by a good margin" as you mentioned originally. It only gained a couple of % of fuel burn advantage over a slightly updated design without significant changes outside the engines.

Obviously the 787 is actually 15 years old now, going on to 20, so its tech is not necessarily the reference anymore. Maybe Boeing has an ace up its sleeve in the form of a new, revolutionary (this time) technology...but does anyone really believe that ?

travelhound wrote:
We may only be talking about 1 or 2 percent here and a few percent there, but at the end of the day these percentages all add up to a substantial sum.

Well it's a bit more complex than a direct sum as aircraft design is anything but linear, but even if the general principle is correct, it applies just the same to the competition. A bit better here, a tweak there, the improvements stack up, and out comes a design with nearly the same performance at a fraction of the cost.




travelhound wrote:
I would suggest in talking to the market about an MOM Boeing know what needs to be done to develop a plane that can compete in its size segment.


Indeed they should have a strong understanding of the market...and especially of just how fragile the business case is. Boeing has been making noise about this concept for over 2 years, and let's be honest, so far little has come out of it compared to the levels of leaked info that preceeded the 777, 787, Sonic Cruiser, A380, A350 Mk1 & XWB.
Nobody here (or at least not many) is suggesting Boeing is not competent and doesn't have a clue about reality ; on the contrary, they seem to be very aware that they have to deal with a tough challenge which may not have a good solution.
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:10 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
travelhound wrote:
We only have to look at the C-Series to realise a clean sheet design that uses the same materials and design philosophy can be more efficient by a significant magnitude over its older bigger brothers, simply by optimising the aircraft.


You are comparing apples to grapes.

Going from 6 to 5 to 4 abreast does not involve a change in the number of aisles.

There is a region between around 110-170 pax where 5 abreast is more efficient than either a 4 abreast or 6 abreast.

However, the region where a 7 abreast is more efficient than 6 abreast or 8 abreast may be non-existent. If its not non-existent, it is extremely small... simply due to having to carry an extra ~20" in aisle space in the step above 6 seats


No he is not. While you return us to the cabin width debate, the point that travelhound made is valid. A modern wing with varibable camber, more evolved super critical design, load alleviation, etc can have aerodynamic benefits. Modern electronic controlled bleed systems along with an air conditioning system designed for flammability prevention systems like nitrogen generating systems from the start can be more efficient and reduce maintenance (older generation pneumatic systems are notorious for the amount of maintenance they require and delays they cause). Load alleviation can reduce the structural loads going through the wing and wing box and reduce the amount of structure in the wing box. Avionics equipment can be packaged and simplified to reduce weight and complexities. There are many new technologies available to improve efficiency. While a.net frequently talks about cabin width, stretches and shrinks, many of these technological improvements have had the engineering and certification work done to make them easier to incorporate in the next design, which saves money.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:21 pm

The more electric design seems to be so superior, that Boeing went for it with the 777X upgrade - oh wait. I can only advice to not fall into the marketing trap. Yes the more electrical system offers many advantages over a bleed air system designed in the 1980ies and left alone since then, but nobody is building these systems any more, yet those systems were the baseline for the PR material given out. So far the real word reliability delta between the 787 and A330CEO shows no hint of a meaningful advantage for the 787.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:33 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
No he is not.

Yes he is.

Newbiepilot wrote:
A modern wing with varibable camber, more evolved super critical design, load alleviation, etc can have aerodynamic benefits.


It will have aerodynamic benefits. Which will add up to 2 or 3% better L/D relative to a good existing wing (for a given gate width demarcation).

Newbiepilot wrote:
Modern electronic controlled bleed systems along with an air conditioning system designed for flammability prevention systems like nitrogen generating systems from the start can be more efficient and reduce maintenance (older generation pneumatic systems are notorious for the amount of maintenance they require and delays they cause).


Ha. The all-electric architecture that Boeing didn't carry over to either the 777X or Max? That one?

You (inadvertently) also raise another point. An all new design cannot be grandfathered through certification, which for example, means the ullage in all fuel tanks would have to have fleet flammability exposure below 3%. That adds weight and complexity to the system architecture. There are other hurdles a new design would have to overcome that a grandfathered effort wouldn't.



Newbiepilot wrote:
Load alleviation can reduce the structural loads going through the wing and wing box and reduce the amount of structure in the wing box.


You mean the same load alleviation that all Airbus products have had since the A320?


Newbiepilot wrote:
Avionics equipment can be packaged and simplified to reduce weight and complexities.


This already occurs with Continuous Product Development.

Newbiepilot wrote:
There are many new technologies available to improve efficiency.


Yep. The gains for which are all fairly marginal.

Newbiepilot wrote:
many of these technological improvements have had the engineering and certification work done to make them easier to incorporate in the next design, which saves money.


The A330neo has fuel burn figures only a few percent off the 787. Indeed, the A330neo can be cheaper to run depending on your mission due to the lower build costs. Your logic has already been demonstrated in the real world not to add up.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2109
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:49 pm

Strato2 wrote:
travelhound wrote:
An MOM can utilise technologies / manufacturing processes already developed for the 787 and 777X. A such, this aricraft should have some unique advantages over a A322.


But would they translate to anything meaningful on the market place? Boeing did just fine with a warmed over 737NG against brand new A320. I'd say it would be an interesting situation if Airbus stretches and rewings the A320 while Boeing has it's hands tied with the MOM. That would leave the 737MAX vulnerable.


Airbus will not be in a hurry to spend billions and rewing the A320, they have a five year backlog and are now reaping profits for its investors. If you have not noticed lately, Airbus speaks frequently of ROI and profit.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:49 pm

Amiga500, you seem rather zealous to point out there are little benefits to the modernized architecture and efficient gains possible. When you say "your logic has already been demonstrated in the real world not to add up", are you implying that we might never see another new design again from Airbus?
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4704
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:53 pm

travelhound wrote:
Yes, but we are talking about an MOM where the whole aircraft is optimised for a particular route mission in comparison to an A322 where the design of a new wing has to be compromised so that it can fit an aircraft originally designed to fly 2000nm.


Going for "peaked" single design point performace efficiency is a bad thing.
You should go for a flat topped layout.
Then there isn't much about the fuselage that is dependent on leg length.
( you can have a bit more seats for shorter segments.)

finally you should undershoot your target. efficiency gains in engine performance
will push you right into the bulls eye in a couple of years.
If you do a "todays" point landing for a brand new type the future will drive its
best working point out of the desired window in short time.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:00 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Amiga500, you seem rather zealous to point out there are little benefits to the modernized architecture and efficient gains possible. When you say "your logic has already been demonstrated in the real world not to add up", are you implying that we might never see another new design again from Airbus?


Only with new engines that alone will bring 15+% more efficiency compared to the old plane I can see those engines when comparing the MoM to a 767 or A321/A330CEO, I can not see them compared to the NEOs. Making a new design win without new engines is extremely hard as with the actual airframe you are working with tenth of percent improvements, while engine development does bring about 1% more efficiency each passing year.
 
parapente
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:01 pm

Airbus have said they will do nothing ('cos they already have the A321NEO/LR and the 332R/8).Which is fair.Not of course is there an engine anyway to hang off a rewinged 320 (and you can't design a wing without the engine particulars).

What they want to do is get certain airlines to switch loyalties particularly as they have the only MOM game in town with the 321LR (or at least the nearest thing to it).Even this is not due out for a while (24 months?).

I guess if they really wanted to put the knife into the 737-10 they could consider stretching the 321 into a 250 one class economy aircraft with the existing wing/engine.Clearly range would drop considerably (3knm or shorter) but would fully meet MOM for trans con type missions.Could do this after the 321LR is launched in a couple of years perhaps.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7365
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:22 pm

seahawk wrote:
No tube fuselage is much more effective than the circular version.

a 8m circular fuselage that is 20m long has a volume of 1005 m³ and an external area of 502,6 m²
an oval fuselage of 8x7 m that is 20m long has a volume of 754m³ and an external area of 442 m²

1005/754 = 1,333
502,6/442 = 1,137

the circular fuselage offers 33% more volume for 14% more external area.

How much of that extra volume in the circular version is useful though, versus just being wasted dead volume?
 
WIederling
Posts: 4704
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:41 pm

Polot wrote:
How much of that extra volume in the circular version is useful though, versus just being wasted dead volume?


if you look at the A320 X-section there isn't much wasted volume. If any.
A flat oval may place pax more efficiently ( though I doubt that) but you
loose any sane storage for bags. It would be more of a rats hole than
the 737 is.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:48 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
When you say "your logic has already been demonstrated in the real world not to add up", are you implying that we might never see another new design again from Airbus?


Not at all.

But you'll not see the A320 or A330 replaced any time soon. Current technology (that cannot be retrofitted) is not enough of a jump to make the case compelling.


Maybe when CNF infused resin can be used in CFRP meaning fewer lamina to protect against low velocity impact damage then we'll see the metallic wings finally pass their "sell-by date".
Maybe when (if!?!) laminar wings can be made workable in service, the current wings will pass their sell-by date.
Maybe when distributed propulsion or boundary layer ingestion becomes mature enough, the current wings will pass their sell-by date.


But right now, nothing moves the goalposts far enough to make the return on investment add up.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7365
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:58 pm

WIederling wrote:
Polot wrote:
How much of that extra volume in the circular version is useful though, versus just being wasted dead volume?


if you look at the A320 X-section there isn't much wasted volume. If any.
A flat oval may place pax more efficiently ( though I doubt that) but you
loose any sane storage for bags. It would be more of a rats hole than
the 737 is.

1) The A320 does not have a circular cross-section, although many people mistakenly think it is ;) The A320 cross section is slightly taller than wide.

2)Things get a bit more complicated when the aircraft is expected to primarily be containerize and not bulk loaded, and as the circle gets larger (Seahawk was talking about a cross section about 2x wider than the A320 in his example). The larger the circle the more extra crown space you have, as cabin height requirements don't really change all that much the wider the cabin gets. Boeing and Airbus take advantage of that extra space by putting crew rests up there in their 787s/777s/A350s etc (yes I am aware those are not all circular), but how badly will MoMs need that crew rest space?

The A300/A330/A340 is probably the optimal circular cross section if you want to use LD3s (side by side) while minimizing wasted space.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:00 pm

A re-winged A322 neo would be a true MOM. Given that Boeing is now going for a 763/4 sized aircraft, an A322 neo would have the MOM market all to itself. Reasonably low development cost and a competitor that's decided to build an aircraft significantly larger than the original idea for MOM... A win-win for Airbus. I hope they do it.

Boeing's 260 seats in three classes widebody proposal (definitely NOT an MOM) will either flop or not get built.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10349
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:56 pm

I think it is interesting to consider fuselage sizes are so important. Engines can adjusted / bought by all (MAX, NEO's).

Wing is more difficult / expensive, but they can be adjusted (748,346) of even replaced by state of the art optimized ones (737NG, 777X).

(Ref. a 787 MoM wing

Image

A big cross section for a MoM might be inefficient, unless you are able to use all space in a profitable/ efficient way.

WB belly's can be used for lavatories, galleys, crew rest and fuel too, next to luggage and freight..

If Airbus, Boeing and the airline alliances could agree on a new, more flexible "LD-X" container standard, everything would look different..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 4704
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:58 pm

Polot wrote:
1) The A320 does not have a circular cross-section, although many people mistakenly think it is ;) The A320 cross section is slightly taller than wide.

cudos to you. but not enough to really matter.
The A300/A330/A340 is probably the optimal circular cross section if you want to use LD3s (side by side) while minimizing wasted space.


222". perfect.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:20 pm

Polot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
No tube fuselage is much more effective than the circular version.

a 8m circular fuselage that is 20m long has a volume of 1005 m³ and an external area of 502,6 m²
an oval fuselage of 8x7 m that is 20m long has a volume of 754m³ and an external area of 442 m²

1005/754 = 1,333
502,6/442 = 1,137

the circular fuselage offers 33% more volume for 14% more external area.

How much of that extra volume in the circular version is useful though, versus just being wasted dead volume?


Again that mostly depends on freight containers you want to carry. I think A300-A330 cross section is nearly perfect when you want to load LD3s, the A320 is already a stretched oval, as the extra wide of the circle would have gone wasted.

However the wide oval is much worse when it comes to wasted space.

You need about 2,10m for standing height in the cabin + 1,25 for the LD3 (or ~1,70m for LD-2/3 devices) + 0,40m for floor and fuselage. The width depends on how many seats you want to put in a row.
 
SonOfABeech
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:24 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
Boeing's 260 seats in three classes widebody proposal (definitely NOT an MOM) will either flop or not get built.


That would basically be a 789-Regional. Has Boeing's definition of MOM really grown that big?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10349
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:50 pm

SonOfABeech wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
Boeing's 260 seats in three classes widebody proposal (definitely NOT an MOM) will either flop or not get built.


That would basically be a 789-Regional. Has Boeing's definition of MOM really grown that big?


You could shorten the fuse & assumer higher density layouts. http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1358167#p19419997

Coming back to the OP, I assume would pursue an A320 / A330 derivative sooner then an all new design like a 2-3-2 MoM.

But who knows..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:55 pm

Is a new engine necessary? An extract from P&W,S website below.We know the engine can do 33/35k thrust.But it appears that it is possible to do more (I have no idea what it has been bench tested at).But if you could push it to 38k plus,It's probably all Airbus would need.
Note any new wing would create far more lift that the present highly wingloaded short range wing.
Extract.

How can one core meet the demands of so many aircraft? The answer is two-fold. First, Pratt & Whitney and partner MTU Aero Engines collaborated to design a state-of-the-art core that would be fully capable from 10,000 to 40,000 pounds of thrust. Second, scaling an engine core over this range was further enabled by the unique advantages of GTF engine architecture. Because GTF engines can slow the fan while greatly increasing the speed of the low-pressure modules, the low pressure compressor (LPC) is able to “supercharge” the air before it enters the high-pressure compressor (HPC). In turn, that means fewer HPC stages are required to accomplish the same work at an engine level. The end result for operators? A lighter-weight core with fewer parts, which is easier to maintain, with hundreds fewer airfoils and two fewer life-limited parts (LLPs). All this, with the same core across two families of engines, meaning operators will also bene t from the higher maturity that comes with so many more hours of experience.

Further thought.
We have seen how the wing extension and blended top of the 330X range has created a wing for a low cost and fast time (2years) that closely matches the performance of an all new wing.
What If Airbus took these 330Neo learnings and apply it to the 321 wing? Ok it could not use the smallest gates but could easily use 757 gates.Now that would be very low cost and quick...
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:23 pm

SonOfABeech wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
Boeing's 260 seats in three classes widebody proposal (definitely NOT an MOM) will either flop or not get built.


That would basically be a 789-Regional. Has Boeing's definition of MOM really grown that big?


Leeham reported last week that Boeing is showing the airlines a two variant 797. The smallest one from 225 seats in an international 3-class configuration and 280 seats for the largest variant (3-class).

The MOM is now 787-8 and 787-9 size, only optimized for medium haul. It sounds like the 787-3 revisited, a true 767 replacement and A330 killer. Two things the 787 did promise, but didn't deliver on.
 
parapente
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:13 pm

I agree it was said/written.But one has to believe it's a mistake because those numbers in 3 international classes simply cannot be described as middle of market by any stretch of the imagination.Anyway They tried It way back for Japan and discovered that the standard wing was better,you just didn't 'brim the tanks'.Really think it means 'one class' and something got lost in translation.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos