What are Boeing's plans?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:16:05 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Smutny wrote:

As I mentioned, it is in the long run. I didn't say that the 737 in
all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the
historical sales figures.

And they go back a long, long way !


What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the
product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to
market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That
design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead,
they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design.

So..... Airbus's idea of making multiple capacity variants of the ( 737
competitor ) A320 ( A318, A319, A320, A321 ) was more sensible I guess ? Same
cockpit - same operating procedures - same handling ( fbw ) .

Then they made bigger twin aisle versions ( A330, A340 ) with the same flight
controls and similar handling - making conversion very easy.

The big selling point on cockpit commonality is drastically reduced
training and recurrency costs to the airlines. Crew movement up and
down the fleet is also simplifed as various factors change route needs
and employees are re-deployed.

The beauty of having one airfame in various fuselage lengths is not
only cockpit comonality, but maintenance and spares issues are
simplified as well.


Was that what you reckoned Boeing should have done after 757/767 ?


Boeing scuttled the process when the 777 was not 'in the family' and
competed with the larger 767s. The 757-100 was never built, and the
-300 came too late to save the line. The 737 Next Gen is had an
adverse impact on the 757-100 development. So in essence, Boeing
created its own competition and that hurt. That should have been
better thought through.


Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a
new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling.

A380 is a pretty new concept too ! Mind you, I saw a documentary where Airbus's
Chief Exec simply jokingly described it as an A330 stuck on top of an A340 !


I have no idea if Airbus is making the A380 cockpit common to any of
the rest of thier line. But when you go after the biggest or the
fastest parts of the evelope, it's hard to stay common.

Similar cockpit ( but somewhat larger ), controls and handling to other fbw
airbuses are promised. Ease of conversion once again.


Graham

Pooh,


Hmm, I looked for the article I read that number in, but can't find it.
Will try to call Airbus later today to verify. But if you consider the
amount of avionics and standard aviation equipment going in, it makes
sense.

I see trouble looming as the asian countries get the expertise
and no longer require *us* !


Oh, I agree. Fully.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor
is
skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I
just
mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades
back.

I tell you what--you want to start up a new low-cost airline here in the
states with 727's, be my guest---but don't be planning on getting many
financial backers.

Question - how efficient is a 727 re-engined with the RR Tay conversion?
These seem popular with the higher end of biz-jet operators.

I think someone on here, though may have been on TV, said that the
difference between cruise speeds on various airliners is to do with the
critical speed of the wing. Above this speed, the thrust required is much
more, so you use much more fuel. The 747 was designed for a faster
speed in this respect so has a higher cruise speed? I think the 727 was
quoted as being quite good at M 0.75 but not at 0.85? Something like
that?

Paul

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith wrote:
Don't forget the Trident!

If de Havilland hadn't been obliged to scale down the Trident to suit BEA
and then later scale it back up again ( to suit BEA ! ) , it would have
been far more sucessful.

Indeed. You could say it was tremendously successful eventually, but by
then it was known as the Boeing 727. Boeing apparently hired 9 of the
Trident's designers and they made one without one hand tied behind
their backs.

Paul

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
Just dug out a Concorde brochure, written when they still optimistically
hoped to sell many and fly them all around the world.

Pacific routes are included as follows

West Coast of USA; Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San
Diego and Acapulco were all shown as legs to Honolulu. Onward links from
Honolulu were to Tokyo and to Auckland and Sydney via a stop at Nandi.

West Coast USA to Australia in 2 stops - that's all.

If any more Concordes had been made, they would have been the
"B" model. These would have had leading edge devices and other
high lift tricks to lower take-off and lading speed. They also had
more efficient engines. They apparently would have used 30% less
fuel, giving the plane a longer range (I'm not sure I have this absolutely
right, I'm quoting from my memory of reading Brian Trubshaw's
autobiography).

Regarding paying back of the design costs, it may well have happened
if the airlines had taken up the 70+ options they initially specified.

Of course, as has been mentioned, the venture as a whole continues
to pay in the guise of Airbus.

Paul

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
It looks like the competition is good for the airlines and the travelling
public, but very risky business for manufacturers.

Mmm. Competition. How much competition is there if Airbus
make the only real choice in the 500+ seat market and Boeing
make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market? :-)

Paul

Paul,

and Boeing
make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market


that's a big if, if ever I saw one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco
happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could
wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one
and Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The
DoD didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing
either refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end
result being that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B
they had bought and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the
E-8B to Omega for a pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid
Northrop Grumman a fortune to rebuild them so they could be used as
E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are
getting very difficult to maintain, so they will have to reengine them.
They could have had new 707 airframes, with new CFM56 engines (ala'
the E-8B), if they had just done things right.

I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform
independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as
the E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe
without spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move
from the 767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer
range 7E7 won't be available in time. The only choice will be used
767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs
were built from.

"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...

I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco
happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could
wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one and
Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The DoD
didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing either
refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end result being
that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B they had bought
and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the E-8B to Omega for a
pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid Northrop Grumman a fortune
to rebuild them so they could be used as E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining
that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are getting very difficult to maintain, so
they will have to reengine them. They could have had new 707 airframes,
with new CFM56 engines (ala' the E-8B), if they had just done things
right.

The focus for the E-10 as of now is getting the systems integrated; the
airframe is apparently of secondary concern, from what I read earlier. E-10
is not showing up anytime real soon, remember.


I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform
independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as the
E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe without
spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move from the
767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer range 7E7
won't be available in time.

Yeah, it would be available. NG is not required ot have the E-10
demonstration radar completed until around 2010, according to the AFA (
www.afa.org/magazine/july2004/0704world.asp ); 7E7 first flies in 2007.
Globalsecurity.com says that the delivery to the USAF is currently scheduled
for 2012, which might slip by two years.

The only choice will be used
767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs
were built from.

Maybe all of this is why the USAF has only committed to the 767 for the
single test and eval airframe as of yet.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:

7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
forever)

No ?

No. Aircraft have definite service lives.

Some helicopters don't.

--
Fritz