Bombardier CS100

Page 5 of 8« First<2345678>
October 26th, 2017 at 7:39:17 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Pacomartin
Not to mention you have to compare to 7 A330-900neos as well.


The first one flew just a few days ago.

Quote:
It was Airbus that made the $26 billion mistake with the A380. Meanwhile Boeing sold 1518 B777 at immense profit from June 7, 1995 through September 2017.

You would think of the two companies it would be Boeing that would have the brightest future.


Well, Boeing had many mishaps and cost overruns, not to mention battery fires, with the 787. And airbus sells more narrow bodies than Boeing. which is understandable, because airbus has a near-30 year old design rather than an over 50 year old design.

BTW, yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the A380's entry into service. the launch customer was Singapore Air. And that plane has already been retired from their fleet.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 26th, 2017 at 9:16:33 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2440
You keep harping on the '50 year old design' thing. I do not think that is a completely accurate characterization.

Are the 737s flying today the same as the 737-200? or even the 'classics' 300-600?

They have had cockpit, engine, and wing improvements, and more. They aren't flying the 50 year old design.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
October 26th, 2017 at 10:11:17 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Dalex64
You keep harping on the '50 year old design' thing. I do not think that is a completely accurate characterization.


I do. And I'm always right, except on such occasions when I'm not :)

Quote:
Are the 737s flying today the same as the 737-200? or even the 'classics' 300-600?


Not entirely. But to say they are a new plane is also not so.

It's not always easy to tell a 737 apart from an A320 in the air. On the ground it's very evident: the 737 is low to the ground. That was ok for the turbojet engines of the 60s. It caused problems with the turbofans of the 70s onwards. I think they had to raise the fuselage for the MAX. But if you see the 2nd and 3rd generation 737s, the engine nacelles are flattened at the bottom. This limits how large an engine the plane can have, and that's still part of carrying over the design for 50 years.


Quote:
They have had cockpit, engine, and wing improvements, and more. They aren't flying the 50 year old design.


Yes, but that helps only so much. the famous scimitar winglets may be better than the old design (and better than the nothing it started with), but they can also be added after market to the older generation 737s.

I admit there have been no revolutionary new designs in the basic shape of the commercial aircraft fuselage since even before the jet age. that's why a 60s 737 design is so similar to an 80s A320 design. Hell, give the MAX raked wings and place it next to a 787, and you can swear the latter had a baby ;)

So there isn't that much different, no. But Boeing is at the end of what it can do with the 737. Raising the fuselage off the ground isn't just a matter of longer landing struts. You'd then need to redesign the wheel wells so they'll fit, and that requires redesigning the wing and center fuselage as well. So you may try something new entirely.

Someday.

BTW, the 747-8, IMO, largely failed due to 1) the A380 eating some of its business, as well as larger twin-engine wide bodies like the B777 and 2) being an old design herself, c. late 60s Though the issues are different from those plaguing the 737. It was just cheaper to do minor mods to the Queen of the Skies, than to develop a double-deck plane, or a wider, single-deck wide body.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 26th, 2017 at 10:34:51 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2440
the new wing design is more than winglets

Quote:
The wing was redesigned with a new airfoil section, greater chord, increased wing span by 16 ft (4.9 m) and area by 25%, which increased total fuel capacity by 30%.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

as for engine size, the engines are as large as they need to be. Yes, they have an unusual shape because of limited ground clearance.

My main point, however, is that the 737 is not flying a 50 year old design, it has been modified over the decades, and in meaningful ways, not just interiors and winglets.

For another example, the 737 NG (600+) are now fly-by-wire. That is another major design change.

As for the 747-8, stretching and existing design is obviously much less expensive than a clean sheet design, and their market studies and the general failure of the a380 shows that there just isn't enough of a market to design that large of a plane from a clean sheet.

it looks like boeing's next middle-of-market plane might still be a twin aisle, so you still won't get your clean sheet boeing single aisle plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_of_the_market

Airbus's single aisle design is just as old as the the 737 'classic' (300-500) and they, instead of doing a new clean sheet design, purchased one from Bombardier.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
October 26th, 2017 at 11:00:31 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 822
Posts: 9885
Quote: Nareed
So there isn't that much different, no. But Boeing is at the end of what it can do with the 737. Raising the fuselage off the ground isn't just a matter of longer landing struts. You'd then need to redesign the wheel wells so they'll fit, and that requires redesigning the wing and center fuselage as well. So you may try something new entirely.


The original 737 was built for an engine with a fan diameter of 49.2 inches, while the original A320 had an engine with fan diameter of 62.5". (more than a foot larger).

The 737 was originally envisioned in 1964. The initial 737-100 made its first flight in April 1967, and entered airline service in February 1968 at Lufthansa.

30 Built
The -100 was 94ft long, carried 113 passengers typically (124 certified max) and had an MTOW of just 42,411 kgs. The original choice of powerplant was the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-1 at 14,000Lbs thrust, but by the time negotiations with Lufthansa had been completed the JT8D-7 was used. The -7 was flat rated to develop the same thrust at higher ambient temperatures than the -1 and became the standard powerplant for the -100. The diameter of the fan was 49.2 inches and dry weight only 4,741 pounds.

Just 30 series 100's were built, with 22 going to Lufthansa, 5 for Malaysia Airlines and 2 for Avianca.

So it had enough range to reach all of Europe from Frankfurt airport, but not as far as Taiwan for Malaysia Airlines. It could reach Miami from Bogota.


October 26th, 2017 at 11:19:00 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Dalex64
as for engine size, the engines are as large as they need to be. Yes, they have an unusual shape because of limited ground clearance.


They also have a propensity for FOD (Foreign Object Damage), though I'm not aware of any 737 lost due to that.


Quote:
For another example, the 737 NG (600+) are now fly-by-wire. That is another major design change.


You could modify an existing Ford Tri-motor or a DC-3 and make it fly-by-wire. it would cost a fortune in new control systems, and the software to take the plane into account. But technically it's possible. It would be easier, and cheaper, to build a new one with the fly-by-wire mods installed from the ground up.

Quote:
it looks like boeing's next middle-of-market plane might still be a twin aisle, so you still won't get your clean sheet boeing single aisle plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_of_the_market


I wouldn't be surprised if they 1) modify the 767, or 2) shrink the 787, think a 787-6 1/2. I would be surprised if they build a clean slate plane.

Quote:
Airbus's single aisle design is just as old as the the 737 'classic' (300-500) and they, instead of doing a new clean sheet design, purchased one from Bombardier.


Well, no. Airbus first flew the A320 in 1984. The 737 dates from 1967.

And buying a new design beats sticking with an old design.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 26th, 2017 at 1:24:24 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2440
Quote: Nareed
You could modify an existing Ford Tri-motor or a DC-3 and make it fly-by-wire. it would cost a fortune in new control systems, and the software to take the plane into account. But technically it's possible. It would be easier, and cheaper, to build a new one with the fly-by-wire mods installed from the ground up.


Are you suggesting that it would have been cheaper to make a clean slate narrow body design than modify the 737 classic into the 737 NG?

If you aren't then you are presenting a straw man in pointing out how difficult or expensive it would be to make a tri-motor or a dc3 fly by wire.

Quote:
Well, no. Airbus first flew the A320 in 1984. The 737 dates from 1967.


Please check what I wrote. The 'Classic' series, which is the 300, 400, and 500, entered production in 1984.

the 1984 model had significant updates and upgrades compared to the 1967 version. the 1996 NG had significant upgrades over the earlier ones.

You keep trying to compare the 1967 737 to the 2017 a320.

Quote:
And buying a new design beats sticking with an old design.

That is hardly a truism.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
October 26th, 2017 at 1:55:51 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Dalex64
Are you suggesting that it would have been cheaper to make a clean slate narrow body design than modify the 737 classic into the 737 NG?


No. I am saying if you wanted a fly-by-wire DC-3, it would be cheaper to build a new DC-3 from scratch rather than modify an existing one. Same as it was cheaper to make a new 737 than to modify existing models with new systems.

But as to your simile, no. It wouldn't have been cheaper.

It would have been better, though.


Quote:
Please check what I wrote. The 'Classic' series, which is the 300, 400, and 500, entered production in 1984.


Based on the low-to-the-ground 1967 classic design.

Quote:
the 1984 model had significant updates and upgrades compared to the 1967 version. the 1996 NG had significant upgrades over the earlier ones.


Updates to the low-to-the-ground 1967 classic design.

Quote:
You keep trying to compare the 1967 737 to the 2017 a320.


Well, the 2017 A320-200 is essentially the same as the 1984 A320-200.

Engine design and performance is a complicated subject. But overall, larger fans mean better fuel efficiency. now, the various 737 variants couldn't have had terrible fuel efficiency compared to the A320 family, or they wouldn't have sold at all (save to US airlines with government pressure). and that's clearly not the case. Still, the low design of the 737 imposes limits on engine size. We can also see some MAX variants and even older 3rd generation variants doing transatlantic crossings, and even flying to Hawaii.

But it remains a somewhat inferior, limited design.


Quote:
That is hardly a truism.


And yet it's true.

or it might be. Airbus might just be a reverse patent troll. One who buys the rights to your product in order to keep it off the market. I don't think that's the case, but I won't be sure until they begin selling actual C Series aircraft.

If they take advantage of the development work done by Bombardier, though, they have a leg up on the next generation of small jets, and can put the A320 basic design to bed.

I've no idea whether they'll try to develop a CS 500, as many people hope. They certainly can base an A360 narrow body ten to fifteen years from now on the basic C Series ideas. not a 2-3 configuration, but the large bins, the wider middle seats, etc.

I wonder if anyone is giving the UDF engine concept a second look.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 26th, 2017 at 2:59:43 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 822
Posts: 9885
I made this point before, but perhaps it bears repeating. Although people have been writing about the "middle of the market" almost since the B757 went out of production in 2005, the B757 was Boeing's worst selling model in the international market in their history.

Airbus's CEO keeps talking about selling a thousand long range A321neo's, but there is no indication of a mass stampede. Other than Norwegian's conversion of their four year old pre-existing order I haven't heard anything.

Although Boeing is trying to keep the waters murky, it is obvious that the A321neo is way outselling the Max-9 and Max-10. But there is no real evidence that the long range version is of particular importance. It's difficult to say with any certainty as the airlines and leasing companies can alter their order years from now.

If you fly for 9-10 hours in a plane, you still have to get to the restrooms. It is difficult to do that if a cart is deployed when there is one aisle. Norwegian's product may be a bust.

Southwest does not have a major share of the transcontinental market even after five years, and Norwegian Air Shuttle has even more crowded jets.

Market share 2000-2999 miles to any airport in California - carrier name- average number of seats per aircraft
25.9% United Air Lines Inc.
19.5% American Airlines Inc.
15.7% Delta Air Lines Inc.
9.3% JetBlue Airways
8.1% Virgin America
4.9% Hawaiian Airlines Inc.
4.6% Alaska Airlines Inc.
3.7% Southwest Airlines Co.
8.27% other airlines
October 26th, 2017 at 3:28:18 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12534
Quote: Pacomartin
I made this point before, but perhaps it bears repeating. Although people have been writing about the "middle of the market" almost since the B757 went out of production in 2005, the B757 was Boeing's worst selling model in the international market in their history.


I think the 757 market's limited to long short-haul thick routes, and short transatlantic routes. the latest A321 and MAX 10 can haul about as many people. So it was very successful, but only in a limited market. It was very versatile, too, doing short and mid haul plus short long hauls as well. IMO there is a bigger market for it, yet not a BIG market for it. ergo no replacement.

The proposed 797, if it doesn't wind up a super-stretched 737 ULTIMATE Y11, is shaping up to be a small wide body that might fill the capacity and range gaps between the A321 and the 787-8. A literal middle of the market.

If airlines insist on cramming ever more seats and less legroom on ever longer flights, they should use wide bodies for such things. I know they'll get the narrowest seats and the stingiest pitch, but with a double aisle you can move around and there are empty areas by the exits and the lavs. the problem is that a wide body has a larger cross-section, ergo more air resistance and less fuel efficiency.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
Page 5 of 8« First<2345678>