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.

Öhm.. nope, pretty much technology leader in Direct Metal Laser is EOS GmbH in Munich, Germany. They are also one of the first to do it, if not the first, founded in 1989. But they are also everywhere in the USA.

best regards
Thomas

This USA vs Germany discussion will probably get the thread locked. I don't think patriotism is a big factor in Airbus responding to a new airplane from Boeing. Other than the continuous world trade organization complaints where both sides keep saying that they are winning, I don't think this is a factor on whether or not the A321 gets stretched or a new wing.

Newbiepilot wrote:

This USA vs Germany discussion will probably get the thread locked. I don't think patriotism is a big factor in Airbus responding to a new airplane from Boeing. Other than the continuous world trade organization complaints where both sides keep saying that they are winning, I don't think this is a factor on whether or not the A321 gets stretched or a new wing.

Hence why I am pointing out that it is pretty much a commodity and pretty much everyone can just go an buy the equipment. No advantage to be had by manufacturing technology because it is inaccessible to the other.

Best regards
Thomas

SomebodyinTLS wrote:

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.

I remember my high school physics teacher talking up steel with "air bubbles" in it. Something like 30% less density but only 10% less strength per volume. I imagine a modern algorithm for stresses could more efficiently exploit that dynamic than random bubbles and that a 3D "printer" could actualize it with the required precision. Fascinating stuff. Any projections on the cost trajectory of 3D printing in foreseeable future? Is there a white paper or something out there (accessible for non-specialists)? Is it feasible that 3D-printing an entire fuselage or wing will be useful/cost-effective in the next 30 years? I can't imagine fuselage skin benefiting (too thin) but maybe stringers/spars?

Does anyone know, btw, what the load-bearing parts for 787 referred to in the Norsk story are?
Should this be a separate thread?

Amiga500 wrote:

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

Yep our (mass market) beers suck. Keep your belly open to our microbrews though.

Speedbored wrote:

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

Oh what we would give for a plain old bad politician like Merkel these days.

Revelation wrote:

Yeah, but:

True. OTOH the graph for one subway line in NYC would start in 1925 and end in 2020? Maybe?

Matt6461 wrote:

I imagine a modern algorithm for stresses could more efficiently exploit that dynamic than random bubbles and that a 3D "printer" could actualize it with the required precision.

Already happening. In fact, its easier for an optimiser to work without the pesky hinderance of considering manufacturability.

Matt6461 wrote:

Fascinating stuff. Any projections on the cost trajectory of 3D printing in foreseeable future?

Well... nothing concrete available to me.

Given the main variable costs in ALM are machine costs, energy and labour (powder is powder) then I guess you could guesstimate what way things will go.

Matt6461 wrote:

Is it feasible that 3D-printing an entire fuselage or wing will be useful/cost-effective in the next 30 years?

I don't think printing an entire wing or fuselage of an aircraft of this size would ever be useful.

You still need access to install systems etc, it'd make repairability a bit of a nightmare, your supply chain would

Newbiepilot wrote:

This USA vs Germany discussion will probably get the thread locked. I don't think patriotism is a big factor in Airbus responding to a new airplane from Boeing. Other than the continuous world trade organization complaints where both sides keep saying that they are winning, I don't think this is a factor on whether or not the A321 gets stretched or a new wing.

It's all tongue in cheek... No one is being serious about it. As mentioned the key thing is that most of these technologies are coming from third party vendors and are available to both manufacturers. It's hard to understand what Boeing is crowing about in terms of their new design/production methodology. To me it raises scary memories of the hype that accompanied the 787.

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.

The supplier of the parts can be an USA company or better a North American one, while the production machinery is from Europe. One should remember that in the machine tool industry Europe is and has been the biggest player for decades.

Anyway Boeing is buying parts from Airbus.

tommy1808 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

This USA vs Germany discussion will probably get the thread locked. I don't think patriotism is a big factor in Airbus responding to a new airplane from Boeing. Other than the continuous world trade organization complaints where both sides keep saying that they are winning, I don't think this is a factor on whether or not the A321 gets stretched or a new wing.

Hence why I am pointing out that it is pretty much a commodity and pretty much everyone can just go an buy the equipment. No advantage to be had by manufacturing technology because it is inaccessible to the other.

Best regards
Thomas

I disagree that there won't be a technology advantage. A new airplane design has the benefit of integrating he latest in manufacturing right from the start. This isn't Germany vs USA or Airbus vs Boeing, it is new vs old. It can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to recertify components. An older design isn't going to go through that design change process unless there is a strong business case.

If you compare the 787 and 777 electronic bays you will see huge differences. The 787 used fiber optics. The 777 does not. I don't believe the A320neo does either outside of the IFE system. Fiber optics can cut thousands of wires out of the airplane. I read an article that said the 787 saved 20 miles worth of wiring. I would expect a 797 to incorporate this technology for non essential information within the airplane. That is going to make the airplane lighter but also cheaper to manufacture and maintain. There are many more examples of where technology has improved. In the mechanical world, 3D printing allows components to be designed without need for draft angles or chamfers. It can be expensive to redesign for the latest technology compared to starting from scratch.

Airbus certainly could incorporate fiber optics into their airplanes. I think the A350 has a pretty slick fiber optic IFE system and I believe that is available on the A320neo but I am talking about airplane databus communication such as proximity sensors indicating component position or weather radar communicating with the flight management computer etc. It is not that the don't have the ability. Incorporating that into an existing design that has been certified and flying for 30 years is almost impossible. This is where I see a manufacturing technology gap.

There is a catch 22. While Boeing can start from scratch and design to incorporate the latest manufacturing technology, they also have to go through the 10 Billion or more in design and certification costs. This takes time and money and is why manufacturers prefer amended type certificates and upgrading new planes rather than having new designs with new type certificates.

Newbiepilot wrote:

This USA vs Germany discussion will probably get the thread locked. I don't think patriotism is a big factor in Airbus responding to a new airplane from Boeing. Other than the continuous world trade organization complaints where both sides keep saying that they are winning, I don't think this is a factor on whether or not the A321 gets stretched or a new wing.

Could you please talk once in a while about facts instead of scaremongering facts away that you do not approve off.

Changing the wiring is quite easy,especially if you reduce it. Sure you need to certify the new solution, but that is easy, the only drawback is that you suddenly get two standards for the same plane type, but that is also no biggie today. In the end modifying and improving an existing product in a constant evolution is the topic for the future - as least as long as the typical plane is a tube with wings.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

This USA vs Germany discussion will probably get the thread locked. I don't think patriotism is a big factor in Airbus responding to a new airplane from Boeing. Other than the continuous world trade organization complaints where both sides keep saying that they are winning, I don't think this is a factor on whether or not the A321 gets stretched or a new wing.

Could you please talk once in a while about facts instead of scaremongering facts away that you do not approve off.

A moderator must have cleaned up the more egregious comments.

Newbiepilot wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

This USA vs Germany discussion will probably get the thread locked. I don't think patriotism is a big factor in Airbus responding to a new airplane from Boeing. Other than the continuous world trade organization complaints where both sides keep saying that they are winning, I don't think this is a factor on whether or not the A321 gets stretched or a new wing.

Hence why I am pointing out that it is pretty much a commodity and pretty much everyone can just go an buy the equipment. No advantage to be had by manufacturing technology because it is inaccessible to the other.

Best regards
Thomas

I disagree that there won't be a technology advantage. A new airplane design has the benefit of integrating he latest in manufacturing right from the start. This isn't Germany vs USA or Airbus vs Boeing, it is new vs old. It can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to recertify components. An older design isn't going to go through that design change process unless there is a strong business case.

If you compare the 787 and 777 electronic bays you will see huge differences. The 787 used fiber optics. The 777 does not. I don't believe the A320neo does either. Fiber optics can cut thousands of wires out of the airplane. I read an article that said the 787 saved 20 miles worth of wiring. I would expect a 797 to incorporate this technology for non essential information. That is going to make the airplane lighter but also cheaper to manufacture and maintain. There are many more examples of where technology has improved. In the mechanical world, 3D printing allows components to be designed without need for draft angles or chamfers. It can be expensive to redesign for the latest technology compared to starting from scratch.

Airbus certainly incorporate fiber optics into their airplanes. It is not that the don't have the ability. Incorporating that into an existing design that has been certified and flying for 30 years is almost impossible. This is where I see a manufacturing technology gap.

There is a catch 22. While Boeing can start from scratch and design to incorporate the latest manufacturing technology, they also have to go through the 10 Billion or more in design and certification costs. This takes time and money and is why manufacturers prefer amended type certificates and upgrading new planes rather than having new designs with new type certificates.

And here is were you are completely off and do not understand the difference of the European way and the American way. And I do not have to talk about airplanes but concepts of running industry. I do not talk about every company, but a philosophy of operation. You can see it in many areas. I am not talking about companies were only the design is in the USA and the production somewhere in China.

Very rough, the American way is to build a factory for a product that is very advanced both the product and the way to produce it and then chuck out that product the next 30 years. It´s product starts out being the top of the pops, is produced in huge quantities until both product and production facilities are overaged. The factory is closed down, a new product is developed and the cycle runs again with a new factory in operation.
In Europe they start out with a perhaps not as advanced product and not as advanced production facility, but will tinker every year with the product and the production.
Starting perhaps out inferior but through constant development the product gets more advanced and easier to produce.

A secondary point is, that this European way leads not to this heavy breaks, building a completely new factory on a completely new place, with a change in product.
The big break does not have to be bad, gives huge advantage at that moment in time.

So you can be absolutely sure that fiber optics have arrived in all Airbus families including the A320 and that years ago.

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not have to talk about airplanes

That is pretty obvious from your post. It Does not represent my observations at either Airbus or Boeing. Both companies push the technology envelope with new designs and continuously improve their products and manufacturing. They behave pretty similarly. The 737 and A320 have gone through significant evolutions.

Res high tech aviation companies in the Seattle area: Just about every article on those companies and their work for Boeing mentions that Airbus contracts with them too. Actually the tax benefits for Boeing are so worded that they apply to any company, so long as they meet the requirements. Were they to refuse to sell to Airbus it might threaten tax breaks, although I am speculating. Anyway Washington State wants business for our high tech smaller companies, and fights to help them.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Hence why I am pointing out that it is pretty much a commodity and pretty much everyone can just go an buy the equipment. No advantage to be had by manufacturing technology because it is inaccessible to the other.

Best regards
Thomas

I disagree that there won't be a technology advantage. A new airplane design has the benefit of integrating he latest in manufacturing right from the start. This isn't Germany vs USA or Airbus vs Boeing, it is new vs old. It can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to recertify components. An older design isn't going to go through that design change process unless there is a strong business case.

If you compare the 787 and 777 electronic bays you will see huge differences. The 787 used fiber optics. The 777 does not. I don't believe the A320neo does either. Fiber optics can cut thousands of wires out of the airplane. I read an article that said the 787 saved 20 miles worth of wiring. I would expect a 797 to incorporate this technology for non essential information. That is going to make the airplane lighter but also cheaper to manufacture and maintain. There are many more examples of where technology has improved. In the mechanical world, 3D printing allows components to be designed without need for draft angles or chamfers. It can be expensive to redesign for the latest technology compared to starting from scratch.

Airbus certainly incorporate fiber optics into their airplanes. It is not that the don't have the ability. Incorporating that into an existing design that has been certified and flying for 30 years is almost impossible. This is where I see a manufacturing technology gap.

There is a catch 22. While Boeing can start from scratch and design to incorporate the latest manufacturing technology, they also have to go through the 10 Billion or more in design and certification costs. This takes time and money and is why manufacturers prefer amended type certificates and upgrading new planes rather than having new designs with new type certificates.

And here is were you are completely off and do not understand the difference of the European way and the American way. And I do not have to talk about airplanes but concepts of running industry. I do not talk about every company, but a philosophy of operation. You can see it in many areas. I am not talking about companies were only the design is in the USA and the production somewhere in China.

Very rough, the American way is to build a factory for a product that is very advanced both the product and the way to produce it and then chuck out that product the next 30 years. It´s product starts out being the top of the pops, is produced in huge quantities until both product and production facilities are overaged. The factory is closed down, a new product is developed and the cycle runs again with a new factory in operation.
In Europe they start out with a perhaps not as advanced product and not as advanced production facility, but will tinker every year with the product and the production.
Starting perhaps out inferior but through constant development the product gets more advanced and easier to produce.

A secondary point is, that this European way leads not to this heavy breaks, building a completely new factory on a completely new place, with a change in product.
The big break does not have to be bad, gives huge advantage at that moment in time.

So you can be absolutely sure that fiber optics have arrived in all Airbus families including the A320 and that years ago.

The difference I see with Boeing and Airbus. The 787 is a huge jump in technology, the most advanced airliner build at this time. But you will not see most of that technology move down the line into the older current families. It moves perhaps up into the 797, but even there it could be completely new again.
At Airbus the A350 is less revolutionary. But you can expect every bit of new technology, not of course fuselage and wings, that is in the A350 to flow down to the A320 family, the A330 family and the A380, if that bird lives that long. The technology in the A350 builds in steps on all the way down to the A320, through A330, A380 to the A350. And if something new comes to the top dog it will move down the line

mjoelnir wrote:

The difference I see with Boeing and Airbus. The 787 is a huge jump in technology, the most advanced airliner build at this time. But you will not see most of that technology move down the line into the older current families. It moves perhaps up into the 797, but even there it could be completely new again.
At Airbus the A350 is less revolutionary. But you can expect every bit of new technology, not of course fuselage and wings, that is in the A350 to flow down to the A320 family, the A330 family and the A380, if that bird lives that long. The technology in the A350 builds in steps on all the way down to the A320, through A330, A380 to the A350. And if something new comes to the top dog it will move down the line

Boeing did a much better job promoting the 787's tech to the general public than Airbus did with the A350 (that is partially because the A350 followed the 787 and has many of the same technologies). But make no mistake the A350 was a pretty big jump in tech for Airbus. A350 tech is flowing to the rest of the Airbus line up where appropriate, but so is 787 tech (777X, 797, future NSA etc). Part of the reason it is new planes versus refreshing old planes just comes down to the state of Airbus vs Boeing's lineup pre-787/A350, and thus how easily things can be adapted to them. Granted I don't know how much A350 technology will end up in the A320 family, and how similar it will actually be to the A350 tech, but I guess that is something easy to say without any proof/examples.

Eventually as things age roles will be reversed and we will be talking about all new A330/777X replacements for example versus refreshed 787/A350s.

Norway has a lot of high tech manufacturing for shipping industry, automotive industry and aerospace industry. We have a lot of experience especially in metals like aluminum and titanium. High cost of labor, but the labor force is very skilled, the technology is absolute top notch and energy is extremely cheap. Many companies that previously moved their manufacturing overseas are heading home because it's cheaper to produce in Norway. Who would have thought that 10 years ago.

Anyway, another positive about 3D printing is the ability to produce prototypes very quickly and cheap. Artificial intelligence is also aiding the design process more than ever. You can have AI make the best structural design in a part in the CAD software, then have a model 3D printed and verified very quickly and easily.

There's a very interesting TED-talk about this, where they explain how AI designs tend to mimic nature, and how they're working with Airbus. The most interesting parts are from 3:18 min into the talk.

https://www.ted.com/talks/maurice_conti ... transcript

mjoelnir wrote:

And here is were you are completely off and do not understand the difference of the European way and the American way. And I do not have to talk about airplanes but concepts of running industry. I do not talk about every company, but a philosophy of operation.

To add to Mjoelnir's excellent points. In Europe, many companies consider Philosophy first, then Strategy, then Policy then Operations.
If things go wrong as they often do, it is usual for the post mortem report to discover that one the these 4 links in the chain has failed.

The "American Way" seems an approximate US equivalent in their language to our Philosophy, which was a word and meaning first used by the ancient Greeks. And the main difference across the pond is that the real and deep meaning of European Philosophy is way different to the real and deep meaning of its US equivalent.

Their also seems to be a difference within the US on their American Way. California seems to have an American Way different to the Rust Belt states. The results on prosperity appears to suggest there are good and a better ways of dealing with this first and most important consideration.

Both US examples are way different to the European Way, for better or worse. The Jury is out as between long term prosperity between the US and Europe. But I consider myself very lucky to have been born in England's green and pleasant land, where a high value is put on tolerance.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not have to talk about airplanes

That is pretty obvious from your post. It Does not represent my observations at either Airbus or Boeing. Both companies push the technology envelope with new designs and continuously improve their products and manufacturing. They behave pretty similarly. The 737 and A320 have gone through significant evolutions.

I just have gone through the evaluation of metal printers and you can be sure I looked everywhere. You are just plain wrong and have no understanding of this technologies and one gets tired of your statements that everything from the USA is better just because everything from the USA is better.

You can look it up, in machine tools Europe is top dog, with Germany alone being the biggest exporter of machine tools in the world. Italy #3, Switzerland #6, Belgium #9, Spain #10, Austria #12, Czech Republic #13, UK #14, France #15, Netherlands #17.

In between you have Japan at #2, China at #4, Taiwan at #5, South Korea at #7 and than the USA at #8, Hong Kong at #11 and Turkey at #16, if you do not count Turkey as Europe.

And the biggest buyer of machine tools is #1 China and #2 the USA. So if you are looking a the tools used to manufacture things in the USA, it is not very unlikely to be manufactured in Europe.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not have to talk about airplanes

That is pretty obvious from your post. It Does not represent my observations at either Airbus or Boeing. Both companies push the technology envelope with new designs and continuously improve their products and manufacturing. They behave pretty similarly. The 737 and A320 have gone through significant evolutions.

I just have gone through the evaluation of metal printers and you can be sure I looked everywhere. You are just plain wrong and have no understanding of this technologies and one gets tired of your statements that everything from the USA is better just because everything from the USA is better.

You can look it up, in machine tools Europe is top dog, with Germany alone being the biggest exporter of machine tools in the world. Italy #3, Switzerland #6, Belgium #9, Spain #10, Austria #12, Czech Republic #13, UK #14, France #15, Netherlands #17.

In between you have Japan at #2, China at #4, Taiwan at #5, South Korea at #7 and than the USA at #8, Hong Kong at #11 and Turkey at #16, if you do not count Turkey as Europe.

And the biggest buyer of machine tools is #1 China and #2 the USA. So if you are looking a the tools used to manufacture things in the USA, it is not very unlikely to be manufactured in Europe.

And if you would look it up, the 737 and the A320 have not gone through similar evolution. For one the 737 has no FBW, so it is looked out of one of the important ares where the advances are happening.
Do you want to tell me where on the 737 3D printed parts are used? Fiber optics? I do not say that Boeing does not have or know those technologies, but they do not use it on their older frames.

I don't think where machine tools are built have any bearing on how well Airbus/Boeing can design and build all new jets and how well Airbus/Boeing can consistently update existing products and the philosophical choices the two companies make (where I also learned "Europe" is a monolithic culture, where of course the US has its obvious differences between places like CA and the rust belt that they need sorted out). Absolutely none of this has any relevance to the MoM or Airbus's response, can we get back on topic?

Things like how well the 737 can be updated with new tech versus the A320 have absolutely nothing to do with company/national cultures...it comes down to the age of the base frame.

AvObserver wrote:

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.

I think you may be right about the production speed advantage of the barrel construction, logically it would make sense, and for a widebody it may not be such a big compromise to make. However, I would tend to think that durability would be very equal since that is, and always will be, something that both manufacturers will prioritise for all their products regardless of size.

350helmi

Polot wrote:

I don't think where machine tools are built have any bearing on how well Airbus/Boeing can design and build all new jets and how well Airbus/Boeing can consistently update existing products and the philosophical choices the two companies make (where I also learned "Europe" is a monolithic culture, where of course the US has its obvious differences between places like CA and the rust belt that they need sorted out). Absolutely none of this has any relevance to the MoM or Airbus's response, can we get back on topic?

I said the center of the metal 3D printing technology is in Europe. And the technology is centered in those companies that do produce those systems, not in the users of those systems. And one of the most advanced builders of 3D printing machines resides in Lübeck about 50 km away from Airbus in XFW. Not that Airbus has only SLM printing systems. Look on the internet at the main producers of metal 3D printing systems.

mjoelnir wrote:

You are just plain wrong and have no understanding of this technologies and one gets tired of your statements that everything from the USA is better just because everything from the USA is better.

I would appreciate it if you laid back from the nationalistic pride in generalizations and talk about Airbus responding to Boeing potentially launching a new airplane. I dare you to find a post and quote it where I wrote where I said everything from the USA is better. I didn't say that and don't believe that. I made an explicit point to say this wasn't Airbus vs Boeing or USA vs Germany. What I said is that a new design allows all the latest manufacturing advances to be incorporated whereas an older design may be too expensive to modify. Then I brought up fiber optics outside of IFE. This is how a new design can use technology to lower production cost.

You say I am just plain wrong and have no understanding. I think you should reflect on that in your own posts since you are showing your lack of understanding of how an airplane works with this comment:

mjoelnir wrote:

For one the 737 has no FBW

The 737 has fly by wire controls for the spoilers, landing gear and yaw damper. The 737 MAX is a hybrid fly by wire design.

Polot wrote:

I don't think where machine tools are built have any bearing on how well Airbus/Boeing can design and build all new jets and how well Airbus/Boeing can consistently update existing products and the philosophical choices the two companies make (where I also learned "Europe" is a monolithic culture, where of course the US has its obvious differences between places like CA and the rust belt that they need sorted out). Absolutely none of this has any relevance to the MoM or Airbus's response, can we get back on topic?

Things like how well the 737 can be updated with new tech versus the A320 have absolutely nothing to do with company/national cultures...it comes down to the age of the base frame.

I agree with you. The 737NG was able to be refreshed and remain competitive against the A320. Same story with the A330neo vs 787. Older designs can be refreshed and updated. I don't think that has anything to do with where tools are built. The manufacturers use many of the same suppliers.

The challenge here is that Airbus not only will have to try to refresh the A320neo to keep it competitive with a new airplane, they will also likely have to stretch it to increase capacity and increase payload. That is a tough thing to do. The 737NG amd A330neo are success stories, the MD90, MD11, 747-8 and A340NG are less successful. This isn't about A vs B or Europe vs America despite what some people are posting.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I disagree that there won't be a technology advantage.

I didn't say it wouldn't, just that no matter what the advantage is, unless Airbus or Boeing hold the patents on it, will be available to all parties in the market. COMAC can effectively buy all the same maschinery Airbus or Boeing can.

Fiber optics can cut thousands of wires out of the airplane. I read an article that said the 787 saved 20 miles worth of wiring.

It is not fiber saving all those cables, it is busses. You can put such a bus on copper or aluminium wires just as well as into fiber, in fact the same protocols with the same speed are usually used on both, fiber and copper up and till fairly fringe applications, really long distances and/or really high data rates, both of which are a non issue on aircraft.
But you can not easily retrofit a bus based system onto a 1:1 control wire:system aircraft, since all the controlled devices need to be a bus enabled type, regardless of physical type.
However, since using fiber makes EMI testing easier, today basically doesn't cost more and is a little lighter than copper busses, they go fiber.

Of course that advantage will mostly go to new aircraft. No idea in how far such system has ever retrofitted for more than single systems on and aircraft that didn't have it from the start.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I disagree that there won't be a technology advantage.

I didn't say it wouldn't, just that no matter what the advantage is, unless Airbus or Boeing hold the patents on it, will be available to all parties in the market. COMAC can effectively buy all the same maschinery Airbus or Boeing can.

Fiber optics can cut thousands of wires out of the airplane. I read an article that said the 787 saved 20 miles worth of wiring.

It is not fiber saving all those cables, it is busses. You can put such a bus on copper or aluminium wires just as well as into fiber, in fact the same protocols with the same speed are usually used on both, fiber and copper up and till fairly fringe applications, really long distances and/or really high data rates, both of which are a non issue on aircraft.
But you can not easily retrofit a bus based system onto a 1:1 control wire:system aircraft, since all the controlled devices need to be a bus enabled type, regardless of physical type.
However, since using fiber makes EMI testing easier, today basically doesn't cost more and is a little lighter than copper busses, they go fiber.

Of course that advantage will mostly go to new aircraft. No idea in how far such system has ever retrofitted for more than single systems on and aircraft that didn't have it from the start.

Best regards
Thomas

Great points. I was thinking of comparing the 787 common core system and its 21 remote data concetrators to the older generation data buses to the even older generation control wire system. It is very difficult to retrofit the modern data bus fiber optic network like the 787 common core system on older airplanes.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 7-software

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.

Huh? You are usually making technical, solid arguments. But this is just odd. Since when isn't airplane parts business a global market?

AirlineCritic wrote:

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.

Huh? You are usually making technical, solid arguments. But this is just odd. Since when isn't airplane parts business a global market?

It is just sarcasm/satire/humor... The "Norske" part should be a clue...

Revelation wrote:

AirlineCritic wrote:

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.

Huh? You are usually making technical, solid arguments. But this is just odd. Since when isn't airplane parts business a global market?

It is just sarcasm/satire/humor... The "Norske" part should be a clue...

I think it was a bad and crude attempt at humor that Mjoelnir somehow attributed to me when he went on the attack and said that I just plain wrong and have no understanding.

AirlineCritic wrote:

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.

Huh? You are usually making technical, solid arguments. But this is just odd. Since when isn't airplane parts business a global market?

Yeah this was an attempt at satire/humor. I was trying to make exactly your point: this is a global business. Russian planes fly Honeywell or Rockwell avionics, Norwegian-printed parts will fly on Boeing planes, Wichita and Alabama products (among others) are flying on Airbus. I was frustrated that a technical discussion was turning into the usual garbage and tried to puncture that dynamic by bringing it to an obviously ridiculous level. It seems to have had the opposite effect.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 737 has fly by wire controls for the spoilers, landing gear and yaw damper. The 737 MAX is a hybrid fly by wire design.

It is astonishing, you just made a joke.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 737 has fly by wire controls for the spoilers, landing gear and yaw damper. The 737 MAX is a hybrid fly by wire design.

It is astonishing, you just made a joke.

Your post saying that the 737 has no FBW implies that you don't know what a fly by wire spoiler is. Do you?

mjoelnir wrote:

And if you would look it up, the 737 and the A320 have not gone through similar evolution. For one the 737 has no FBW, so it is looked out of one of the important ares where the advances are happening.

Here is another thread discussing the FBW spoilers on the 737 in case you don't believe me:

viewtopic.php?t=773287

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 737 has fly by wire controls for the spoilers, landing gear and yaw damper. The 737 MAX is a hybrid fly by wire design.

It is astonishing, you just made a joke.

And it is not at all astonishing that you just made an insult.

Here's a question. Did Boeing EVER build an airplane Model as a response to Airbus??
The B737 was updated to "Near" Modern Standards, The B767 was a LONG favorite if many leading airlines worldwide
The B777 was a proven winner from Day One and the B747 will be highly revered in it's later life as a freighter.
Right now? Only the B757 looks to be heading off into the sunset. But!! Even that could be deceiving
My point is? Airbus needs to Find and chart their OWN Course.

strfyr51 wrote:

Here's a question. Did Boeing EVER build an airplane Model as a response to Airbus??
The B737 was updated to "Near" Modern Standards, The B767 was a LONG favorite if many leading airlines worldwide
The B777 was a proven winner from Day One and the B747 will be highly revered in it's later life as a freighter.
Right now? Only the B757 looks to be heading off into the sunset. But!! Even that could be deceiving
My point is? Airbus needs to Find and chart their OWN Course.

Regarding aircraft families, the 787 as a response to the A330, the 767 as a response to the A300.

As you talk about models, the 737 NG in response to the A320, the 737MAx in response to the A320neo and the 777X in response to the A350-1000

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 737 has fly by wire controls for the spoilers, landing gear and yaw damper. The 737 MAX is a hybrid fly by wire design.

It is astonishing, you just made a joke.

And it is not at all astonishing that you just made an insult.

And is it not astonishing that you thing that.

Let us compare, the 787 is the all electric airplane, do we now call the A380 a hybrid?

Does electronical controlled spoilers make the 737 an airplane with FBW? When the A320 pioneered the electronic digital flight control system on an commercial airplane, that was called FBW, it meant the whole airplane with all systems, not one or two systems.

Matt6461 wrote:

Yeah this was an attempt at satire/humor.

Sorry. I guess my humor detector malfunctioned. Have a nice day!

If the 787 barrel sections were more complete before reaching final assembly, "days" would be achievable. Overall, with the complex supply chain - they are doing fairly well. All the body joins and bonnet sections take next to no time to complete. I would be curious to see how well the 3D printed Ti works out, structurally, because as of now, the amount that gets recycled to produce parts is unreal. Id love to see the blocks of Ti used on some of the inner/outter chords before milling.

I imagine that Boeing (and Airbus) will have done a detailed quantitative market analysis.If nothing else looking at the sector lengths of every 767,332 and 788 to see whether what percentage are being flown sub optimally.I would regard this as (say) 3knm-5knm sectors as opposed to 5-7knm which would be optimal for this type of a/c.It would give them an idea of market potential for a 797 type aircraft.

Maybe we should close this thread, it's becoming off topic, A vs B, members are getting irritated etc.

I think this new fashion of keeping threads alive for 10s of views, hundreds of comments isn't a very smart concept anyway. I avoid them. Individual posts get drowned, the topic doesn't cover the latest content etc. There used to be a time when posts where ended around 200 post, except when MOD's saw reason to do otherwise. Not a bad guideline, looking back.

keesje wrote:

Maybe we should close this thread, it's becoming off topic, A vs B, members are getting irritated etc.

I think this new fashion of keeping threads alive for 10s of views, hundreds of comments isn't a very smart concept anyway. I avoid them. Individual posts get drowned, the topic doesn't cover the latest content etc. There used to be a time when posts where ended around 200 post, except when MOD's saw reason to do otherwise. Not a bad guideline, looking back.

Agreed

keesje wrote:

Maybe we should close this thread

Definitely, we are well short of our quota of new MoM threads for the month.

I reckon we need half a dozen new threads in the next 12 hours to get back up to speed!

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

You are just plain wrong and have no understanding of this technologies and one gets tired of your statements that everything from the USA is better just because everything from the USA is better.

I would appreciate it if you laid back from the nationalistic pride in generalizations and talk about Airbus responding to Boeing potentially launching a new airplane. I dare you to find a post and quote it where I wrote where I said everything from the USA is better. I didn't say that and don't believe that. I made an explicit point to say this wasn't Airbus vs Boeing or USA vs Germany.

Yeah, there's been some sparks here after a simple misunderstanding of each other. Take a chill pill, mjoelnir...

keesje wrote:

Maybe we should close this thread, it's becoming off topic, A vs B, members are getting irritated etc.

I think this new fashion of keeping threads alive for 10s of views, hundreds of comments isn't a very smart concept anyway. I avoid them. Individual posts get drowned, the topic doesn't cover the latest content etc. There used to be a time when posts where ended around 200 post, except when MOD's saw reason to do otherwise. Not a bad guideline, looking back.

Are you going to start a new thread with the same picture of two Airbus narrowbodies again that you posted twice in this thread? The mods have deleted some of your new threads on existing topics, and I agree with them.

I think we can salvage this thread and continue discussing as more information comes out. I will try to avoid the toxic posts.

strfyr51 wrote:

Here's a question. Did Boeing EVER build an airplane Model as a response to Airbus??
The B737 was updated to "Near" Modern Standards, The B767 was a LONG favorite if many leading airlines worldwide
The B777 was a proven winner from Day One and the B747 will be highly revered in it's later life as a freighter.
Right now? Only the B757 looks to be heading off into the sunset. But!! Even that could be deceiving
My point is? Airbus needs to Find and chart their OWN Course.

Back to the jingoistic arguments then?

Right... explain how the A300 and A310 *weren't* the original widebody twins.

Explain how the A320 *wasn't* the first fly-by-wire airliner.

Explain how the A380 *wasn't* aimed at a (perceived) nascent VLA market *beyond* the capabilities of anything else.

Explain how the A350 *didn't* cover the high 787 and low 777 market rather than competing head-on with either.

Only the A330/A340 line could in any way be described as following other aircraft of the time - and even that was because it was a logical progression from the A310 right into the contemporary mass market. That's like looking at any family car and saying it's clearly a copy of any other random family car.

All of which doesn't mean I argue against Boeing here - but it's silly to make out that Airbus is copying.

Guys guys guys... can't we just all get along?

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

It is astonishing, you just made a joke.

And it is not at all astonishing that you just made an insult.

And is it not astonishing that you thing that.

Yes, when you refer to another member's serious post as "a joke", that is an insult.

mjoelnir wrote:

Let us compare, the 787 is the all electric airplane, do we now call the A380 a hybrid?

Does electronical controlled spoilers make the 737 an airplane with FBW? When the A320 pioneered the electronic digital flight control system on an commercial airplane, that was called FBW, it meant the whole airplane with all systems, not one or two systems.

A quick trip to Google gives us a cite from 2008: Cessna's Citation Columbus to have 'hybrid' fly-by-wire

So, yeah, "hybrid fly-by-wire" is a thing, despite what you think.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

All of which doesn't mean I argue against Boeing here - but it's silly to make out that Airbus is copying.

I agree. This thread seems to bringing out some very off the wall posts.

Fly-by-wire is a system where flight control laws are implemented through an electronic (analogue or digital) system that drives the respective actuators.

In the 737 none of this exists. The pilot directly actuates wire, hydraulic, electric actuators without an electronic mediator.
It is not a Fly-by-wire design.

"Hybrid fly-by-wire" is when control of, at least, one axis is done through an electronic system. This means in control
system theory that a control loop has to be implemented at least for one axis..

Spoiler actuation, electric or otherwise, has little to do with implementation of control loops for the plane's flight control laws.

As spoilers are concerned, saying that we have a "fly-by-wire" or "hybrid fly-by-wire" because we have electrically actuated
spoilers is, IMHO, nonsense, or empty marketing talk.