PlanesNTrains wrote:

I tend to think that the MoM may end up being quite different than we have been led to believe, and not in a "magical" way as some have put it, but rather simply as a consequence of market realities. I can imagine it will be closer to an A338/787 or something like that rather than a closer competitor to whatever the A322 might be. So much of the discussion that we've had here on A.net will likely have been in vain as we have been led by B down one rabbit trail when it really won't even be much of a trail at all. I'm most excited to see how they are able to take any 797 and backport it into the NSA.

There is a train of thought I guess that says there is a BIG market in this area for an "oversize/over range" narrowbody, and as you say it will be slightly bigger.

I'll offer an observation.
In my lifetime, whenever the narrowbodys have improved in capability, it has spelt disaster for the smallest narrowbodys.
And this too.
There has ALWAYS been a gap between the biggest narrowbody and smallest widebody.
I can see good reasons for that, and therefore predict that there will continue to ALWAYS be a gap.
All MOM will do is move the "MOM gap" upwards, and it will be pretty much goodbye to both the 787 and A330. Seriously.
787-8 and A330-800 are nearly already gone
787-9 and A330-900 will go
787-10 and the A350's will probably survive

When I stand back and look at the industry in my lifetime, I'm forced to conclude that fragmentation has ALWAYS been driven by the planes at the bottom, not widebodys. Not even the 787.

2175301 wrote:

I would not say that either Mfr can do magical things. But, each Mfr has developed experience in different areas that the other has not. If for example, as I believe Boeing has hinted, their propose MOM (AKA 797) is based on a fully composite barrel similar to the 787; just lighter and better fine tuned... (I've heard claims that the 787 barrels are over-designed and heavy: as Boeing was very conservative with them). Airbus may not be able to effectively respond in a timely manner with a similar light frame as Boeing has extensive production and in-service experience with composite of barrels; where Airbus has only studied it (the A350 is composite panels attached to a metal frame). Huge different in know-how and working knowledge in being able to execute a new aircraft in a timely manner. I believe that if Boeing gets it right, that they literally could have a 5-10 year clear field advantage in the MOM market based on that existing expertise.

The question is not could Airbus respond. But, would it be even worth it for them to try as they would have to fund a lot of very real R&D that Boeing already has behind them; especially as the MOM is likely a limited market.

Their is a counter argument that Airbus would have to develop that expertise (even if the program lost money) so that could not be squeeze out of future smaller aircraft that could potentially also be composite barrels in the future. Boeing is on record as saying years ago that the 787 composite barrels did not downsize well; now they seem to be saying that they have figured out a way to downsize them cost effectively at least modestly: Is the next step that they could produce a 737 size composite barrel cost effectively in the future? What happens if they can in the future, and all Airbus knows how to do is produce heavier metal frames? As I see it; there are some real long term strategic issues at play.

Have a great day,

I know you are an experienced engineer, and I know you understand trade-offs which is why I find this peculiar bit of cheerleading a bit puzzling.

Every engineering decision is a trade-off.
How much aircraft performance do you think Airbus have traded off by having panels on the A350 vs barrels on the 787
How much ease/familiarity/low risk/low cost in the manufacturing process vs the composite barrels do you think that has been traded for.

It feels to me like whilst denying that either manufacturer can do magical things, you're paradoxically claiming Boeing actually can - i.e. barrels.
I'm a fan of the barrels for what its worth, but in this sense there's nothing magical about them. It's just another, differently traded off solution to the same problem.

Even the good old A330 can still compete against the 787's CRP barrels after a fashion, given the same engine technology.

Airbus have every bit as much experience with CFRP as Boeing do.
They currently build the biggest CFRP wing.
They currently build the biggest CFRP fuselage (yes it is on an Al frame, but you'll find Al frames in the 787 too)
They currently build way the biggest CFRP empennage (A380)
They currently build pressure bulkheads for the 787 (so much for the 787's CFRP advantage I guess)

Both manufacturers have also suggested that CFRP does not benefit a smaller plane as much as a larger one.

I agree that there are long-term strategic issues at play with MOM, but I'll pretty much guarantee that a strategic gap in manufacturing competence is NOT one of them

I think the consequences of what a runaway success for MOM has for the widebody market will be far more eye-opening.
As I said above. There will always be a gap.
All a successful MOM will do is move that gap upwards.

Rgds

ElroyJetson wrote:

And per the article every frame sold for the past year is profitable and reduces the initial production cost. That was my point.

Sir, If that was your point then you are in error on 787 accounting. It every frame sold in the past year was cash flow positive, then the large deferred costs will be reduced, and when these are reduced to zero then the 787 will have reached break even. Frames sold after that may be profitable.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I tend to think that the MoM may end up being quite different than we have been led to believe, and not in a "magical" way as some have put it, but rather simply as a consequence of market realities. I can imagine it will be closer to an A338/787 or something like that rather than a closer competitor to whatever the A322 might be. So much of the discussion that we've had here on A.net will likely have been in vain as we have been led by B down one rabbit trail when it really won't even be much of a trail at all. I'm most excited to see how they are able to take any 797 and backport it into the NSA.

I believe, based mostly on what I've heard on a.net, that the boeing MOM will be close to the size of the 788/A338 and airbus response will be two new models of the A320 family to cover capacity (near enough) and range with a re-wing of the A321 and a stretch of it with the new wing. To me that makes most sense from both manufacturers perspectives. Both get a good size piece of the market (boing probably slightly bigger) and they will both make money on their investment. The boing MOM will essentially stop any new orders for either 788 or A338 and will make the 787 series more compelling to customers wanting to move to widebody planes with its cockpit comonality between the MOM and 787. This would also mean that the two plaes could be complimentary to each other for a bigger operator like DL, AA, JAL, BA ect.

350helmi

If th 797 is to be a 250 pax in 2 class with a range of 5-5.5knm then yes it will most likely finish off the 788 and 338.But that can't happen for 10 years (ish) and by then I am not sure they would mind that much.I don't agree it will hit the 789 and 339.These are highly optimised aircraft and operate in a different marketplace.

If Airbus really wanted to operate in the Boeing defined MOM area then they too will need a new a/c.
Again that's not a problem in the sense that the 300/310/330/338 will be a pretty old design by then (2027) and would need replacing anyhow.

It's the lower end that I find interesting.If the 'plus-plus' is a new carbon fibre wing -what is the 'plus'?
Is there something relatively 'simple' they can do to the 321 to grab a little more market share? Hard to know really.But the way the narrow bodied market is moving (up sizes) then a 250 pax (one class 29" pitch) might be highly attractive.Hard to know what the optimal or even possible range would/could be using fundamentally existing structure/engine combo.

plus-plus is wing + fuselage stretch
plus is just the wing or the stretch (depending on which version you believe)

Thx Seahawk.
It's interesting (well it is to me anyway).
If 'plus' is 'just' the new wing then it suggests that Boeing are on to something re 5k plus nm range requirement.
On the other hand.
If 'plus' is 'just' a stretch,then it suggests that Airbus have spotted a requirement in the classic nm sector.IE 250 pax for classic 2-3k nm sectors.
I feel it is likely to be the latter as any new wing would need to a lot bigger ( the present wing is horribly undersized for long 5k sectors.)This would require a much larger centre section and box.Thus the aircraft would be stretched ( in the best possible place) force majeur.
The simple stretch (existing wing) would also be neat ' riposte' to the recently announced '10'.
Could be announced in a years time after the 240 pax version is flying and the LR is ready.But that's just a guess.

I can't see a big classic MOM investment until they have seen Boeings proposed aircraft.There is no rush as it would require new engines anyway.

seahawk wrote:

plus-plus is wing + fuselage stretch
plus is just the wing or the stretch (depending on which version you believe)

If this is true, there seems to be a lot of thread drift since the first post where Karel provided links.

A380 Plus = "a series of systems and interior upgrades " => http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... grade-plan

A380 Plus Plus = "a new carbon-composite wing" => http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... SKBN185101

350helmi wrote:

I believe, based mostly on what I've heard on a.net, that the boeing MOM will be close to the size of the 788/A338 and airbus response will be two new models of the A320 family to cover capacity (near enough) and range with a re-wing of the A321 and a stretch of it with the new wing. ect.

I think I'd say MOM is closer in size to 767 rather than 788/A338 and with less range than all three. We know little about the MOM proposal and even less about the A320+/++ proposals. One has to keep in mind we may see none of these proposals become products.

The normal + is imho the typical product improvement of the A320 series.

As everything is based on rumours anyway, the most likely scenario I have heard is:

1. small reaction

Normal product improvement - maybe a slight stretch to by to take the plane to 250 seats in a little less dense configuration (A322) (going over 250 seats in single class in not efficient due to the need for an extra FA)

2. serious reaction

new wing for a longer ranged version with the current fuselage and the mentioned stretch (4500-5000nm range / 4000-4300nm range)

seahawk wrote:

CFRP is not the holy grail. Using mixed construction and even all metal but new alloys, you will come close to the weight of a CFRP solution. CFRP becomes more interesting when you use cold curing but that technology is still very young and maybe a bit risky for use as an aircraft fuselage.

In fact I would even say that a CFRP barrel might be the wrong choice, as a mixed construction allows you much more room for product improvement over time, especially when it comes to 3D printing.

Ha! Someone else who interprets Boeing's "hybrid fuselage" as mixed materials rather than ovoid shape...

With what Boeing has been promoting recently they indeed seem to be move up towards 767 territory, but probably lighter and with less payload-range.

IMO that opens up the opportunity for Airbus to also grow their responds. They won't do a new wing for just 1 variant & the A321 seems OK as is.

keesje wrote:

With what Boeing has been promoting recently they indeed seem to be move up towards 767 territory, but probably lighter and with less payload-range.

IMO that opens up the opportunity for Airbus to also grow their responds. They won't do a new wing for just 1 variant & the A321 seems OK as is.

Yes, it seems to be a logical reaction, but the point is that we have no press reports of anyone from Airbus saying this yet, either on or off the record.

keesje wrote:

With what Boeing has been promoting recently they indeed seem to be move up towards 767 territory, but probably lighter and with less payload-range.

IMO that opens up the opportunity for Airbus to also grow their responds. They won't do a new wing for just 1 variant & the A321 seems OK as is.

Your post sounds familiar. You posted this earlier in the thread In your post 213.

keesje wrote:

If Airbus develops a new larger wing to add additional capacity & range to the A320NEO family, it wouldn't do so for just one variant.

It would aim at a new family of variants including next decade payload - range and cargo opportunities.



Keeping everything lean, mean and affordable would be key program drivers. E.g. using NEO engine upgrades.

You predicted a 737-10. Perhaps you will be correct that there will be an A321 fuselage with an bigger wing and then another with a stretched fuselage. Since you keep posting the same image again and again to exceed your photobucket bandwidth, I think you would support the idea.

Personally I do wonder how much of a market exists for the A321 fuselage with more payload and a bigger wing. The A321LR has a pretty high payload. It will likely cruise low and has over powered engines to make up for the undersized wing, so a bigger wing might help with that. However the demand for a single aisle plane that has 170 seats in a 2 class configuration with more than 4000 miles of range for long haul may not be that big. I don't really know. A bigger wing will weigh more and Airbus will charge more for the plane. Since few airlines need more performance, the market may want to stay with the current A321. The vast majority of A321s flying are doing routes under 2500 miles where the current wing works pretty well.

I see a stretched version becoming very popular and a good competitor to a 797, but not sure the A321 fuselage is big enough to be worthwhile flying routes over 4000 miles. Airlines may want 200 seats in a 2 class lie flat business configuration, so I think an A322 has more potential. They also may want to increase short haul capacity. 220 seats in a standard US domestic 2 class configuration may be appealing. It could let some airlines ease frequency. United flying 12-17 757s a day between EWR and LAX/SFO is more frequency than the market needs.

seahawk wrote:

CFRP is not the holy grail. Using mixed construction and even all metal but new alloys, you will come close to the weight of a CFRP solution. CFRP becomes more interesting when you use cold curing but that technology is still very young and maybe a bit risky for use as an aircraft fuselage.

In fact I would even say that a CFRP barrel might be the wrong choice, as a mixed construction allows you much more room for product improvement over time, especially when it comes to 3D printing.

To back that up by the way ...

check out where the world's largest aerospace 3-D printed structure currently resides ....

https://www.autodeskresearch.com/projec ... on-project

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/ ... nting.html

That will be er, the A320 ......

Developed in collaboration with Airbus, Autodesk, and APWorks, the Bionic Partition is the world’s largest metal 3D printed airplane component. The partition is a dividing wall between the seating area and the galley of a plane, and it is a challenging component to design because of requirements to include a cutout for emergency stretcher access and to hold a fold-down seat for cabin attendants..........The Bionic Partition is currently undergoing 16G crash testing as part of the process for certification and integration into the current fleet of A320 planes. (article written in 2015)

A pertinent quote from here ..

http://www.3ders.org/articles/20151202- ... alloy.html

While 3D printed metal parts can be found all over the place on the outside and the mechanics of the Airbus nowadays, this is the first time metal 3D printed parts are designed for the plane’s cabin.

(my bolding)

Again, those waiting for the breakthrough manufacturing technology that is "going to floor the opposition" are likely to be waiting some time.
(it would actually be nice if some of those actually gave Airbus even just a tiny bit of the credit they actually deserve for pushing manufacturing boundaries, and did a bit or research. Sadly the thinking seems to get trapped in a barrel, as it were ..... )

Rgds

Egerton wrote:

I favour Airbus secretly building an all-new A322. When this was well established, smaller new winged, smaller capacity variants A321-2, A320-2, A319-2 etc could flow into the production system step by step. If this concept were to be designed for lowest cost of production, and with potential much bigger volumes, it should give Airbus shareholders a very good return on their capital. I cannot predict what Boeing might do, nor do I care.

If Airbus did this they would be repeating Rolls-Royce's current Advance and Ultra-Fan strategies. When winning use your advantage to keep on winning.

If repetition is allowed (and there has been a great deal of it), may I refer to the above.

Well Airbus can't "secretly" build anything. If they are working on an all new plane Boeing and everyone else in the industry will know. Planes are not cars that you can shockingly reveal at a trade show.

Also building something "all new" completely gives up Airbus's advantage, it doesn't leverage it.

Both A and B's CFRP are highly automated additive processes, so related to 3D printing. Either manufacturer is capable and will be further automating. If we want to go totally Sci Fiction, maybe if you want a dozen planes just have 'em printed off, and individually flight tested (no pilot of course). Voila - a plane optimized for SFO to Honolulu. A joke of course, but not entirely!

I disagree with those who predict the MoM will be a 767-200 sized aircraft with less payload-range. I think the key to a sales success is to offer the range needed from the get-go. The 767 didn't sell well until they offered the range needed to fly TATL and then some. Same thing with the A300/A310 and A330. 5500nm range makes a whole lot of difference, allowing many new routes and opening up new markets.

Thank you Revelation and my apologies for not reading the earlier link -it wastes everybody's time (sorry about that).Yes it has surprised me just how much new 'stuff' is coming down the line from Airbus on the 320 series.

So clearly yes the 'plus' is just that.Although more may have been added. Since that article was written.But it makes it clear that the plus does not involve major structural changes.Perhaps the carbon wing box is part of that?

Certainly additional electronics is interesting.But perhaps the biggest element is the decision ( then) not to launch any new aircraft for quite some time.If that remains the case then obviously the 'plus plus' will be they way they go if they see an opportunity as it does not involve a brand new a/c.

astuteman wrote:

While 3D printed metal parts can be found all over the place on the outside and the mechanics of the Airbus nowadays, this is the first time metal 3D printed parts are designed for the plane’s cabin.

Just to add a bit to this bolded section ...

http://www.arconic.com/global/en/news/n ... sYear=2016

Arconic (NYSE:ARNC), a global technology, engineering and advanced manufacturing leader, has entered into two agreements to supply Airbus 3D printed metal parts for the airplane maker’s commercial aircraft. Arconic will supply 3D printed components made from high temperature nickel superalloys, and 3D printed titanium airframe parts under two separate agreements.

These agreements build on Arconic’s April 2016 deal with Airbus for 3D printed titanium fuselage and engine pylon components. That agreement established Arconic as an innovation partner to Airbus in the fast-growing metal 3D printing space.

So the cabin partition adds to 3D printing of major structural components in nickel superalloys and Titanium already to be found on an A320 in 2017

3D printing in these very expensive materials clearly saves a lot of money.

To illustrate the point, and to show that this isn't just meant to be an Airbus fanboy flag-wave..

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/11/boe ... etals-787/

Boeing is looking to save between $2m and $3m off each 787 by adopting 3D printing of key titanium components.

The point of these links though is to illustrate that, whilst we might expect "manufacturing magic" state of the art aircraft like the 787 to employ such techniques, quietly and discreetly, the A320 has been, and is, incorporating more and more 3D printing, not just in the obvious expensive nickel and titanium parts, but also in cabin monuments that are up to 45% lighter than the fittings they replace.

These technologies are not just the domain of clean-sheet Boeing products.

And "30 year old technology" is not necessarily an accurate description of what an A320 based MOM competitor will be.

Rgds

The A320 has the potential for constant evolution. Surely one will have to do a new wing and wingbox at some point, but the fuselage can evolve slowly.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

seahawk wrote:

CFRP is not the holy grail. Using mixed construction and even all metal but new alloys, you will come close to the weight of a CFRP solution. CFRP becomes more interesting when you use cold curing but that technology is still very young and maybe a bit risky for use as an aircraft fuselage.

In fact I would even say that a CFRP barrel might be the wrong choice, as a mixed construction allows you much more room for product improvement over time, especially when it comes to 3D printing.

Ha! Someone else who interprets Boeing's "hybrid fuselage" as mixed materials rather than ovoid shape...

Yet http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... 97-design/ has some statements that seem to be contradicting what is being said here:

Mike Delaney, Boeing vice president in charge of new airplane development, said the plane — like the 787 Dreamliner — will have an all-composite airframe.

More details on CFRP fabrication techniques:

Delaney said Boeing is considering all options for fabricating the composites, including various new out-of-autoclave and resin infusion methods. He said the decision on which manufacturing process is used will be based on multiple factors, including the quality of the parts and the time involved in the fabrication.

And for use of the word 'hybrid', we have a direct quote:

Delaney also described the proposed 797 fuselage as having a “hybrid cross-section,” meaning having characteristics of both a single-aisle and a widebody fuselage.

No reference to hybrid materials.

Newbiepilot wrote:

...
Personally I do wonder how much of a market exists for the A321 fuselage with more payload and a bigger wing. The A321LR has a pretty high payload. It will likely cruise low and has over powered engines to make up for the undersized wing, so a bigger wing might help with that. However the demand for a single aisle plane that has 170 seats in a 2 class configuration with more than 4000 miles of range for long haul may not be that big. I don't really know. A bigger wing will weigh more and Airbus will charge more for the plane. Since few airlines need more performance, the market may want to stay with the current A321. The vast majority of A321s flying are doing routes under 2500 miles where the current wing works pretty well.

I see a stretched version becoming very popular and a good competitor to a 797, but not sure the A321 fuselage is big enough to be worthwhile flying routes over 4000 miles. Airlines may want 200 seats in a 2 class lie flat business configuration, so I think an A322 has more potential. They also may want to increase short haul capacity. 220 seats in a standard US domestic 2 class configuration may be appealing. It could let some airlines ease frequency. United flying 12-17 757s a day between EWR and LAX/SFO is more frequency than the market needs.

Agree with most you state. A serious 2 class 4000NM+ cabin would stimulate a longer fuselage to take care of flat beds, galley, lavatories and crew rests required. I did a quick & dirty 180 seat A322 but squeezed seats & skipped crew rests.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bcgICdFifv0/WVutthMVAPI/AAAAAAAABLg/mNZW4I7VU78eVVXsfOp0ahqwPaqqiRthgCLcBGAs/s1600/Airbus%2BA322%2BXR%2BKeesje%2BMoM%2BNMA%2BBoeing.jpg

Still over specification is a risk. Additionally a narrow fuselage has its design optimum, if you go long it becomes relatively heavy. I tried to look at OEW-payload-range from a fuel requirement and estimated a 15% bigger span would do a lot in terms of Fuel capacity (+35%), keeping wing loading under control (21% bigger surface vs 15% higher MTOW). Not sure which would be leading. Cruise efficiency might demand an slightly bigger wing and higher aspect ratio than required for the fuel. ACT will be optional but probably seldom required.

Polot wrote:

Well Airbus can't "secretly" build anything. If they are working on an all new plane Boeing and everyone else in the industry will know. Planes are not cars that you can shockingly reveal at a trade show.

Also building something "all new" completely gives up Airbus's advantage, it doesn't leverage it.

Thanks. How then for instance was every one fooled on the true max fuel capacity of the A350? We still do not know the answer to that. This is because Airbus can keep a secret if is chooses to do so. Look at the Skunk Works, and other 'Black' jobs around the world.

Dear Polot, you are correct to suggest that when the all new aeroplanes start to have large components in manufacture it cannot stay a secret..
But a number of years thinking, design and component testing can be kept secret if Airbus so chooses, unless Airbus is a cullender and full of holes, which I doubt.

It is a matter of opinion if such an 'all new' strategy will be better for shareholders in the long run than the alternatives which include 'do nothing' and 'do minimum'. I have expresses my view.

In my opinion the current Airbus team can do the 'all new' better than the current Boeing team can. One only has to look at the civil record of each firm. It Airbus avoids arrogance and believes they can do it, then they will silently proceed with 'all new' and we will not learn of it until they are ready to tell us.

Meantime Boeing will continue with brochure-ware for many more years. This is what happened when the neo was being pitched to US airlines.

Egerton wrote:

How then for instance was every one fooled on the true max fuel capacity of the A350? We still do not know the answer to that. This is because Airbus can keep a secret if is chooses to do so. Look at the Skunk Works, and other 'Black' jobs around the world.

Was everyone fooled? We the general public did not know about the increase A350-1000 weights. Please provide evidence that it took Boeing, GE, RR, PW, airlines, etc by surprise. You are being incredibly naive if you think it was out of the blue for them

Dear Polot, you are correct to suggest that when the all new aeroplanes start to have large components in manufacture it cannot stay a secret..
But a number of years thinking, design and component testing can be kept secret if Airbus so chooses, unless Airbus is a cullender and full of holes, which I doubt.

Airbus is full of holes (as is Boeing)...because they are not designing and testing all components by themselves. Things like a new plane will be reliant on next gen engines. Guess who is designing and testing engine tech (hint: not solely Airbus). Do you remember the Boeing 787 Lessons Learnt document? It was a dossier prepared by Airbus that got leaked to the press in 2008 that extensively reviews the 787 program. That level of corporate espionage was not invented by or unique to Airbus. Airbus and Boeing have the same customers, and many of the same suppliers. They talk. Boeing knows far more about the inner workings of Airbus, and their future products, than they let on, and Airbus knows far more about the inner workings of Boeing, and their future products, than they let on. They don't share publicly their info about competitor's products because they are not stupid.

Egerton wrote:

In my opinion the current Airbus team can do the 'all new' better than the current Boeing team can. One only has to look at the civil record of each firm. It Airbus avoids arrogance and believes they can do it, then they will silently proceed with 'all new' and we will not learn of it until they are ready to tell us.

Meantime Boeing will continue with brochure-ware for many more years. This is what happened when the neo was being pitched to US airlines.

Ironically you are doing the very same thing that you say Airbus shouldn't do: being arrogant. Boeing screwed up the 787 development, but they are very good at making planes. The NEO vs MAX issues isn't because of some great Airbus engineering prowess...it solely comes down to the fact that in the late 70s/early 80s Airbus decided to make the A320's landing gear taller than what Boeing engineers decided for the 737 in 60s. Need I remind you that it was not too long ago that Airbus was suffering their own issues with the A380 and A400M, and even the A340NG had its early issues (i.e. heavier than expected wings).

Airbus is looking a A322 because it is a cheaper and quicker solution to Boeing's MoM, so they can undercut them on price and time to delivery. That is leveraging an advantage in the marketplace. Creating an all new plane does not have those benefits.

Hi Polot, you disappoint me with the lack of politeness of your response. Good manners cost nothing. I will not be debating with you.

Egerton wrote:

Hi Polot, you disappoint me with the lack of politeness of your response. Good manners cost nothing. I will not be debating with you.

I do not see how I was being impolite, but I will accept your lack of a rebuttal.

In response to the core question of what Airbus' reaction would be to a 797.(Am assuming it's the 220-270 pax 5,200 nm variant that the press has spoken of).One is also assuming that they 'launch' it at Farnbrough next year.

As with the 787 they will initially say 'we already have the market covered'.
However (IMHO) they may look to protect their narrow bodied market by offering a 250 (one class) 322 product of some kind - perhaps with reduced range.

Later (one year-Paris ?) they will respond.I think they will accept that the 338 has no long term future (. And the -9?) and offer something at the 'top end' of MOM.They may go for an elliptical X8 carbon fuse.I have always liked their 'future aircraft 'with its semi embedded engines but that may be a step too far - but here's to hoping!

Polot wrote:

Egerton wrote:

Hi Polot, you disappoint me with the lack of politeness of your response. Good manners cost nothing. I will not be debating with you.

I do not see how I was being impolite, but I will accept your lack of a rebuttal.

When I read his post earlier, it struck me the same. Airbus is great, but after hearing multiple references about "magical" Boeing ideas, it seemed weird to give Airbus some sort of "magical" abilities.

I agree, too, that Airbus' advantage is in the existing A321 platform and what can be done with it, versus a clean-sheet. In fact, a clean-sheet would seem to put Boeing and Airbus on an equal playing field, whereas depending on what Boeing chooses to do, Airbus might be able to get a large chunk of the market at a fraction of the cost, spoiling Boeing's business case a bit.

I do not think that.

Imho they can do a A322 and maybe even a A321/A322 version with a new wing more range for the time being. The A330NEO will be just fine to keep Boeing honest when it comes to pricing the 787 and the 797. Then they can wait till 2022 and see how the 797 comes along. Around that time they could launch an A330 replacement with newer gen. engines maybe even a new fuselage design and so on to take on the 797 and the 787MAX.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Personally I do wonder how much of a market exists for the A321 fuselage with more payload and a bigger wing. The A321LR has a pretty high payload. It will likely cruise low and has over powered engines to make up for the undersized wing, so a bigger wing might help with that. However the demand for a single aisle plane that has 170 seats in a 2 class configuration with more than 4000 miles of range for long haul may not be that big. I don't really know. A bigger wing will weigh more and Airbus will charge more for the plane. Since few airlines need more performance, the market may want to stay with the current A321. The vast majority of A321s flying are doing routes under 2500 miles where the current wing works pretty well.

I see a stretched version becoming very popular and a good competitor to a 797, but not sure the A321 fuselage is big enough to be worthwhile flying routes over 4000 miles. Airlines may want 200 seats in a 2 class lie flat business configuration, so I think an A322 has more potential. They also may want to increase short haul capacity. 220 seats in a standard US domestic 2 class configuration may be appealing. It could let some airlines ease frequency. United flying 12-17 757s a day between EWR and LAX/SFO is more frequency than the market needs.

I think what keesje is suggesting is that Airbus develop a new wing for a A322 and a A323. A322 would be basically the A321 fuse with the new wing and A323 a simple stretch of that. you could leave the A321 as is and market the A322 for those operators that have used ACTs in their A321s up to now. The A321 is great at shorter ranges, but lacks higher cruise speeds and initial FL at or close to MTOW, which is a 'problem' a new wing would solve. I imagine A322 would have 4800nm range and A323 maybe 4200nm or even 4000nm. I agree with keesje that developing a new wing for just one varant wouldn't make much sense since a new main gear would almost certainly be developed with it, or at least the current will be modified.

Revelation wrote:

350helmi wrote:

I believe, based mostly on what I've heard on a.net, that the boeing MOM will be close to the size of the 788/A338 and airbus response will be two new models of the A320 family to cover capacity (near enough) and range with a re-wing of the A321 and a stretch of it with the new wing. ect.

I think I'd say MOM is closer in size to 767 rather than 788/A338 and with less range than all three. We know little about the MOM proposal and even less about the A320+/++ proposals. One has to keep in mind we may see none of these proposals become products.

I agree that the Boeing MOM will be very close in size to the 762 (maybe very slightly bigger), but that isnt that much smaller than the 788/A338, or am I mistaken? And besides, all this is just my own opinion/thoughts on what may happen with the MOM segment from both manufacturers perspectives because I cant see either of them giving the whole of that market to the other. IMO too many A321s are flying with ACTs and too many A332 are being abused on short routes for there not to be a market for these kinds of planes, provided they have cockpit comonality with either the 787 or the A320 family.

350helmi

astuteman wrote:

All MOM will do is move the "MOM gap" upwards, and it will be pretty much goodbye to both the 787 and A330. Seriously.
787-8 and A330-800 are nearly already gone
787-9 and A330-900 will go
787-10 and the A350's will probably survive

Disagree that the 787-9 and A330-900 will go; both have more range and capacity than the currently projected "MOM"; the 789 in particular is a dedicated long range airplane that flies well beyond what Boeing appears to be shooting for with the MOM airplane. Feel that the B788 and A338 will indeed be further marginalized by a MOM entry but as you say, they're not selling well anyway. Maybe Qatar's suggestion that Boeing tweak the 788 is something Boeing should consider but not as an alternative to developing a MOM airplane. As for the A338, it's hard to see what more Airbus could do to sell it; it already has all of the NEO improvements of the A339. I just don't think that the MOM will impact the larger, longer range twins as much as you do. Boeing would want to avoid seriously cannibalizing the 787, although the 788 will likely be somewhat impacted and its career further shortened. But as for the bigger variants, don't think so.

AvObserver wrote:

astuteman wrote:

All MOM will do is move the "MOM gap" upwards, and it will be pretty much goodbye to both the 787 and A330. Seriously.
787-8 and A330-800 are nearly already gone
787-9 and A330-900 will go
787-10 and the A350's will probably survive

Disagree that the 787-9 and A330-900 will go; both have more range and capacity than the currently projected "MOM"; the 789 in particular is a dedicated long range airplane that flies well beyond what Boeing appears to be shooting for with the MOM airplane. Feel that the B788 and A338 will indeed be further marginalized by a MOM entry but as you say, they're not selling well anyway. Maybe Qatar's suggestion that Boeing tweak the 788 is something Boeing should consider but not as an alternative to developing a MOM airplane. As for the A338, it's hard to see what more Airbus could do to sell it; it already has all of the NEO improvements of the A339. I just don't think that the MOM will impact the larger, longer range twins as much as you do. Boeing would want to avoid seriously cannibalizing the 787, although the 788 will likely be somewhat impacted and its career further shortened. But as for the bigger variants, don't think so.

It's been noted before that the 788 costs Boeing more to build, so if it loses sales to a (likely more profitable) MoM, they probably won't be bothered one bit. Boeing may be happy to have a more lucrative model to sell an airline who doesn't want to buy something as big or expensive as a 789. Indeed, it might give them the justification to drop the 788, a model they probably would rather not sell but currently need to have on offer to fill that space.

astuteman wrote:

2175301 wrote:

I would not say that either Mfr can do magical things. But, each Mfr has developed experience in different areas that the other has not. If for example, as I believe Boeing has hinted, their propose MOM (AKA 797) is based on a fully composite barrel similar to the 787; just lighter and better fine tuned... (I've heard claims that the 787 barrels are over-designed and heavy: as Boeing was very conservative with them). Airbus may not be able to effectively respond in a timely manner with a similar light frame as Boeing has extensive production and in-service experience with composite of barrels; where Airbus has only studied it (the A350 is composite panels attached to a metal frame). Huge different in know-how and working knowledge in being able to execute a new aircraft in a timely manner. I believe that if Boeing gets it right, that they literally could have a 5-10 year clear field advantage in the MOM market based on that existing expertise.

The question is not could Airbus respond. But, would it be even worth it for them to try as they would have to fund a lot of very real R&D that Boeing already has behind them; especially as the MOM is likely a limited market.

Their is a counter argument that Airbus would have to develop that expertise (even if the program lost money) so that could not be squeeze out of future smaller aircraft that could potentially also be composite barrels in the future. Boeing is on record as saying years ago that the 787 composite barrels did not downsize well; now they seem to be saying that they have figured out a way to downsize them cost effectively at least modestly: Is the next step that they could produce a 737 size composite barrel cost effectively in the future? What happens if they can in the future, and all Airbus knows how to do is produce heavier metal frames? As I see it; there are some real long term strategic issues at play.

Have a great day,

I know you are an experienced engineer, and I know you understand trade-offs which is why I find this peculiar bit of cheerleading a bit puzzling.

Every engineering decision is a trade-off.
How much aircraft performance do you think Airbus have traded off by having panels on the A350 vs barrels on the 787
How much ease/familiarity/low risk/low cost in the manufacturing process vs the composite barrels do you think that has been traded for.

It feels to me like whilst denying that either manufacturer can do magical things, you're paradoxically claiming Boeing actually can - i.e. barrels.
I'm a fan of the barrels for what its worth, but in this sense there's nothing magical about them. It's just another, differently traded off solution to the same problem.

Even the good old A330 can still compete against the 787's CRP barrels after a fashion, given the same engine technology.

Airbus have every bit as much experience with CFRP as Boeing do.
They currently build the biggest CFRP wing.
They currently build the biggest CFRP fuselage (yes it is on an Al frame, but you'll find Al frames in the 787 too)
They currently build way the biggest CFRP empennage (A380)
They currently build pressure bulkheads for the 787 (so much for the 787's CFRP advantage I guess)

Both manufacturers have also suggested that CFRP does not benefit a smaller plane as much as a larger one.

I agree that there are long-term strategic issues at play with MOM, but I'll pretty much guarantee that a strategic gap in manufacturing competence is NOT one of them

I think the consequences of what a runaway success for MOM has for the widebody market will be far more eye-opening.
As I said above. There will always be a gap.
All a successful MOM will do is move that gap upwards.

Rgds

Astuteman: I am not claiming that Boeing can (or may be able to do) anything magical. I am claiming that Boeing has working experience that Airbus does not have with composite barrels - and that working experience may provide a short term market advantage.

Building and marketing products is not just about engineering (I am sure that Airbus can engineer as similar composite barrel relatively quickly). It's not about trade-offs in design. It's about being able to apply the engineering in an effective way and produce a working product at a reasonable cost (limited R&D time and cost); and working experience has proven time and time again to be at least a short term market advantage in technological success over the decades in many kinds of technological devices. It's not magic; but, working knowledge and skills has won the short term race many times (the long term race is a different question).

If you look at the entire world of technological progress and goods delivered to the market you see a constant battle of old established ways vs innovative new ways. It is quite common for a well executed "old technology" method to compete (and perhaps crush) with new innovation - until that technical innovation clearly surpasses the old technology. The best engineering or technical solution rarely wins (a lessor effective technical solution better developed and marketed has often won).

Many times what is stated as true in the past is overtaken in the future. So to me both the Airbus and Boeing statement of the past regarding then understandings of composite technology and its down scale-ability at that time may not apply to the future.

I do not know if Boeing can do what they are claiming. I do know that the history of innovation, product development, market advantages, etc. does point out that they might be able to do it, and I see their working knowledge on composite barrel design and production as to me the most likely possible reason why. Thus I do not dismiss its possibility out of hand, as it appears some on this site do.

How much it affects the aircraft market if they can do it is unknown. Is their version of a MOM a 750-1000 aircraft market in 20 years, or a 3000-4000+ aircraft market in 20 years. I have no idea.

If they can do it, then it appears to me that there are strategic implications for future smaller aircraft; and that alone may force Airbus into a costly response even for a small MOM market.

Respectfully yours, and have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

Building and marketing products is not just about engineering (I am sure that Airbus can engineer as similar composite barrel relatively quickly). It's not about trade-offs in design. It's about being able to apply the engineering in an effective way and produce a working product at a reasonable cost (limited R&D time and cost); and working experience has proven time and time again to be at least a short term market advantage in technological success over the decades in many kinds of technological devices. It's not magic; but, working knowledge and skills has won the short term race many times (the long term race is a different question).

If you look at the entire world of technological progress and goods delivered to the market you see a constant battle of old established ways vs innovative new ways. It is quite common for a well executed "old technology" method to compete (and perhaps crush) with new innovation - until that technical innovation clearly surpasses the old technology. The best engineering or technical solution rarely wins (a lessor effective technical solution better developed and marketed has often won).

Many times what is stated as true in the past is overtaken in the future. So to me both the Airbus and Boeing statement of the past regarding then understandings of composite technology and its down scale-ability at that time may not apply to the future.

I do not know if Boeing can do what they are claiming. I do know that the history of innovation, product development, market advantages, etc. does point out that they might be able to do it, and I see their working knowledge on composite barrel design and production as to me the most likely possible reason why. Thus I do not dismiss its possibility out of hand, as it appears some on this site do.

How much it affects the aircraft market if they can do it is unknown. Is their version of a MOM a 750-1000 aircraft market in 20 years, or a 3000-4000+ aircraft market in 20 years. I have no idea.

If they can do it, then it appears to me that there are strategic implications for future smaller aircraft; and that alone may force Airbus into a costly response even for a small MOM market.

Respectfully yours, and have a great day,

From what I understand there is no performance difference between the barrel construction of the 787 and the panels of the A350. Yes the A350 has an aluminium frame, but the 787 need a metal harness as well for electrical conduction, which I feel will be lighter on the A350 because of the aluminium frame. In the end both methods should come out as almost identical in weight. If there was a clear benefit to building one over the other both would have undoubtedly built the planes using that method. Both manufacturers have working knowledge in roughly equal amounts with CFRP, Boeing with barel production and Airbus with panel production, it doesn't mean one or the other has an advantage in production, their just different methods of doing the same thing. I agree knowlege would give an advantage, but to me it appears both manufacturers are about equal on that at this point in time.

350helmi

350helmi wrote:

2175301 wrote:

From what I understand there is no performance difference between the barrel construction of the 787 and the panels of the A350. Yes the A350 has an aluminium frame, but the 787 need a metal harness as well for electrical conduction, which I feel will be lighter on the A350 because of the aluminium frame. In the end both methods should come out as almost identical in weight. If there was a clear benefit to building one over the other both would have undoubtedly built the planes using that method. Both manufacturers have working knowledge in roughly equal amounts with CFRP, Boeing with barel production and Airbus with panel production, it doesn't mean one or the other has an advantage in production, their just different methods of doing the same thing. I agree knowlege would give an advantage, but to me it appears both manufacturers are about equal on that at this point in time.
350helmi

Seems to me I'd read years ago that Boeing selected the CFRP barrel mode in the hopes of speeding up final assembly; so they could essentially snap together 787s in just a few days, unlike with the traditional metal fuselages. That apparently didn't work out to the extent they'd hoped but it still is likely to facilitate faster final assembly. Of course, the barrels have to be transported to Everett as part of a complex supply chain. Airbus's panel method was easier to industrialize, allowing more of the airplane to be built in-house and didn't incur the massive delays and costs Boeing did getting the supply chain to work properly (as in buying Vought to ensure the CRFP barrels were up to snuff). Think you're correct in saying there's no distinct weight advantage to either approach though I wonder myself if there might be a long-term difference in durability. Surely the A350 will likely be easier to repair in case of runway "ramp rash" incidents; individual panel sections can probably be removed and replaced without too much downtime. However, the barrel construction mode just might prove more robust and durable in the long run over many flight cycles although as yet there's likely no data to verify that; just a supposition I'm throwing in here.

astuteman wrote:

Boeing is looking to save between $2m and $3m off each 787 by adopting 3D printing of key titanium components.

Can anyone give us non-engineers a basic run down of the advantages of 3D printing? I've read MSM explanations of the benefits but don't really trust those. Would rather hear from knowledgeable folks here.

$2-3mn per plane is pretty darn significant. And I'm guessing it's just the beginning.
It also proves that Boeing and USA are the best because I assume the supplier is American and would never work with Airbus - but I skimmed over the part of where Norske is from.

1. you need fewer resources - all material not used for making the part can be used for the next. In the conservative way, you drill or cut away excess material to make the part
2. it can be lighter - you can make structures that would be too time consuming or even technical impossible to achieve with conservative methods
3. it can be faster - but that is not given and depends on the complexity of the conservative part

And Norsk Titanium is from Norway. And they work with Airbus using the same technology: http://www.norsktitanium.com/aerotec/

Matt6461 wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Boeing is looking to save between $2m and $3m off each 787 by adopting 3D printing of key titanium components.

Can anyone give us non-engineers a basic run down of the advantages of 3D printing? I've read MSM explanations of the benefits but don't really trust those. Would rather hear from knowledgeable folks here.

$2-3mn per plane is pretty darn significant. And I'm guessing it's just the beginning.
It also proves that Boeing and USA are the best because I assume the supplier is American and would never work with Airbus - but I skimmed over the part of where Norske is from.

The advantages of metal 3D printing or additive manufacturing are several, but there are also a few drawbacks.

1. producing parts that way less but have the same or added strength. The advantage here is weight.
You can have material only in those areas were it is needed

2. you can produce a part, that replaces several that for production reasons had to be produced as single parts.

3. You have completely new options in designing parts.

4. You can see a reduction in the amount of material used.
That is a plus today only on expensive materials. I know about aluminium, stainless steel and titanium.
The start up cost with preparation of the metal powder is that high, that aluminium comes out much more expensive and only titanium parts see a real cost reduction if everything is done right.

5. Additive manufacturing is an ideal way to produce small number of parts and do prototyping.

6. You can do part of a part in additive manufacturing, also usable for repairs.

Drawbacks.

1. a slow production rate, not yet well suitable for mass production

2. higher cost on anything but the most expensive materials like titanium.

3. Completely new skills needed in regards to the engineers designing parts

4. Complicated set up in production with added support structures that have to be removed.
You have to put a lot of thought into how you orientate the piece during the process.

5. The production process is really 2.5 D with using 2D in moving the laser and than very thin adding layers.

6. The process is welding with a lot of heat, so you have parts that deform during the process, you have to compensate and can not expect to work to small tolerances
That problem exasperates when speeding up production, using more powerful lasers or several lasers at the same time.

7. If you need small tolerances, you still have to mill or turn parts after the additive manufacturing process.

8. A lot of handwork after the manufacturing process, that is difficult to automate.

I have of course forgotten some points. Without wanting to disturb the feelings of our USA friends, the leading companies in additive manufacturing in regards to metal are in Europe, to be exact in Germany and Sweden. If we talk about plastics it is a different case.
Airbus has for quite a while a 3D metal printing facility in Hamburg and produces parts for new airplanes, but also spare parts were you need a small number of parts, but it is too expensive to start up a closed down old production line.
We see 3D metal printing for car parts, for example the hydraulic control box on an automatic gear case. But there also parts produced for people rebuilding old cars and needing one off, that really compares to prototyping Here you need also a good scanning system.

I myself have not yet used 3D printed parts for production runs, but both 3D printed metal and plastics in prototyping. In the moment I buy those parts, but are contemplating to buy a 3D metal printing system, it is not only the printer itself, but a lot of supporting equipment.

mjoelnir wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Boeing is looking to save between $2m and $3m off each 787 by adopting 3D printing of key titanium components.

Can anyone give us non-engineers a basic run down of the advantages of 3D printing? I've read MSM explanations of the benefits but don't really trust those. Would rather hear from knowledgeable folks here.

$2-3mn per plane is pretty darn significant. And I'm guessing it's just the beginning.
It also proves that Boeing and USA are the best because I assume the supplier is American and would never work with Airbus - but I skimmed over the part of where Norske is from.

The advantages of metal 3D printing or additive manufacturing are several, but there are also a few drawbacks.

1. producing parts that way less but have the same or added strength. The advantage here is weight.
You can have material only in those areas were it is needed

2. you can produce a part, that replaces several that for production reasons had to be produced as single parts.

3. You have completely new options in designing parts.

4. You can see a reduction in the amount of material used.
That is a plus today only on expensive materials. I know about aluminium, stainless steel and titanium.
The start up cost with preparation of the metal powder is that high, that aluminium comes out much more expensive and only titanium parts see a real cost reduction if everything is done right.

5. Additive manufacturing is an ideal way to produce small number of parts and do prototyping.

6. You can do part of a part in additive manufacturing, also usable for repairs.

Drawbacks.

1. a slow production rate, not yet well suitable for mass production

2. higher cost on anything but the most expensive materials like titanium.

3. Completely new skills needed in regards to the engineers designing parts

4. Complicated set up in production with added support structures that have to be removed.
You have to put a lot of thought into how you orientate the piece during the process.

5. The production process is really 2.5 D with using 2D in moving the laser and than very thin adding layers.

6. The process is welding with a lot of heat, so you have parts that deform during the process, you have to compensate and can not expect to work to small tolerances
That problem exasperates when speeding up production, using more powerful lasers or several lasers at the same time.

7. If you need small tolerances, you still have to mill or turn parts after the additive manufacturing process.

8. A lot of handwork after the manufacturing process, that is difficult to automate.

I have of course forgotten some points. Without wanting to disturb the feelings of our USA friends, the leading companies in additive manufacturing in regards to metal are in Europe, to be exact in Germany and Sweden. If we talk about plastics it is a different case.
Airbus has for quite a while a 3D metal printing facility in Hamburg and produces parts for new airplanes, but also spare parts were you need a small number of parts, but it is too expensive to start up a closed down old production line.
We see 3D metal printing for car parts, for example the hydraulic control box on an automatic gear case. But there also parts produced for people rebuilding old cars and needing one off, that really compares to prototyping Here you need also a good scanning system.

I myself have not yet used 3D printed parts for production runs, but both 3D printed metal and plastics in prototyping. In the moment I buy those parts, but are contemplating to buy a 3D metal printing system, it is not only the printer itself, but a lot of supporting equipment.

The huge numbers of 2 to 3 million USD cost reduction per frame is rather a potential, than something you can realize over a short span of time. I still see weight reduction at perhaps a even higher cost as the near term main potential.

Matt6461 wrote:

It also proves that Boeing and USA are the best because I assume the supplier is American and would never work with Airbus.

Yankees would sell their own mother up the river for a few more $$$. You should know, you are after all a lawyer.

mjoelnir wrote:

The advantages of metal 3D printing or additive manufacturing are several, but there are also a few drawbacks.

Very interesting write up of the pros and cons. Thanks!

I can imagine obtaining enough 3D printers to produce parts at a reasonable rate would be very expensive.

How reliable are the printers themselves? Are they 'fire and forget' or do they need a lot of support?

Thanks for the responses but just to be clear...

Matt6461 wrote:

It also proves that Boeing and USA are the best because I assume the supplier is American and would never work with Airbus - but I skimmed over the part of where Norske is from.

Seahawk wrote:

Norsk Titanium is from Norway

mjoelnir wrote:

Without wanting to disturb the feelings of our USA friends, the leading companies in additive manufacturing in regards to metal are in Europe, to be exact in Germany and Sweden.

...that was some a.net satire. Norsk doesn't sound like something from 'Murica. Dumb stereotypes and engineering ignorance cause me to assume that Germany and its neighbors have the best engineers.

EDIT- Amiga500 but the Irish would sell their mothers up the river for a pint!

Revelation wrote:

Delaney also described the proposed 797 fuselage as having a “hybrid cross-section,” meaning having characteristics of both a single-aisle and a widebody fuselage.

No reference to hybrid materials.

Fair enough. I was going on more vague statements on here and on Leeham.

Matt6461 wrote:

Dumb stereotypes and engineering ignorance cause me to assume that Germany and its neighbors have the best engineers.

Yeah, but:

Revelation wrote:

Yeah, but:

I'm sure that picture would have been very different if the German engineers had been able to get on with it without the interference of German politicians.

German politicians seem to be equally as bad as politicians everywhere else (except, perhaps, the USA right now).

speedbored wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yeah, but:

I'm sure that picture would have been very different if the German engineers had been able to get on with it without the interference of German politicians.

German politicians seem to be equally as bad as politicians everywhere else (except, perhaps, the USA right now).

Yes, I agree, but still, it's a bad look. It seems politicians everywhere need a better understanding of their role.

I think one advantage of 3D printing that might not have been made totally clear on this thread is that you can produce parts with quirks like hollow channels *inside* the structure or replace solid sections with complex lattices which carry loads more efficiently for their weight.

A disadvantage that I haven't seen mentioned is that while most aerospace metalwork is highly controlled in terms of grain size and structure (for very high quality wrt. corrosion, strength, metal fatigue (cracking), etc.), the 3D printed stuff is more like an amorphous piece of coral - the surface texture is like sandpaper and I assume that reflects on its internal structure too. Indeed I believe porosity was an issue in the early days. I think this is why most parts I've heard of are of the tricky-and-complex type but are not yet safety-critical.

Matt6461 wrote:

EDIT- Amiga500 but the Irish would sell their mothers up the river for a pint!

Aye definitely... as long as its not some pisswater like Budwieser or Miller.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I think this is why most parts I've heard of are of the tricky-and-complex type but are not yet safety-critical.

Yea, its working toward that. One of the big fears (as usual) is consistency.

Composites had to work through this. Indeed, they still are - its why CNF infused resins aren't here yet.

speedbored wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yeah, but:

I'm sure that picture would have been very different if the German engineers had been able to get on with it without the interference of German politicians.

German politicians seem to be equally as bad as politicians everywhere else (except, perhaps, the USA right now).

Well... an Architect that doesn´t want to remove smoke through the basement, because it is not pretty if you vent on the roof may have helped too. A lot.

best regards
Thomas