Big Order(s) for Boeing

[RC20]

Boeing added 30 more 787s to its order book (customer not listed), as well as 5 of the 777s (also not listed). [/b]

[smokejumper]

It will be interesting to learn who has placed the order(s) for these 30 787's. The Paris Air Show is only 2 months away and I assume that the manufacturers are storing up unannounced orders now to make a big splash at the show ("Mine is bigger than yours!").

I also want to see the final weights and specifications for both the B-787 and A-350XWB. We'll learn these numbers within a year for the B-787 and will have to wait until 2013 or 2014 for the A-350XWB. Until production planes are on the line, the final weights are subject to change.

Weight is the enemy of good fuel economy and I just do not see how the A-350XWB's construction (carbon fiber panels over aluminum frames) can be as light as a monolithic carbon composite structure.

The all carbon structure (if you accept Boeing's claim) will also permit a lower cabin altitude which should be more comfortable for passengers. Also, an all carbon construction is claimed to result in lower maintenance and longer structural inspection periods (any aluminum structure needs to be inspected for corrosion).

[RC20]

Pretty quiet about this news on the internet. A real major story in that the 787 continues to sell well when most aircraft would be slow.. Also, regardless of which way Qatar goes (or even Emirates), it is an extremely well done offering (and sales)-if it lives up to the technical l end, its going to be a such a monstrous success, it is likely never to be surpassed.

I have written up my A350 analysis with what’s known (put in the “Boeing 787 orders at 514” listing. Short take on is as you stated, it would appear to be totally non competitive vs the 787 period, and with a completely unknown technology (that aluminum CFRP interface problem) as well as dead end (no one in the future is going to go that route), a real question.

And when I say competitive, its removing all company bias, political decisions (and again I acknowledge Boeing has some of those on its side as does Airbus), and just the economics of its operations. The basics being fuel burn, maintenance and freight capacity on top of passenger capacity (they all can be tweaked within limits to match Pax numbers, its how they do it with those 3 factors that determine revenues).

[Ruscoe]

RC20,
The other factor is that the 787 should have aower cost of production.

Ruscoe

[beaucaire]

I would assume Air France are not to far away to pronounce themselves about their replacement order for the middle-range fleet.
Thre are about 100 A320 due for retirement in five to seven years,,so orders should be defined relatively soon.
Knowing Air France' appreciation for the 777,the likelyhood to see a big 737-NG order evolving is quite real.

[Homo Aeroportus]

[quote="smokejumper"]
Weight is the enemy of good fuel economy and I just do not see how the A-350XWB's construction (carbon fiber panels over aluminum frames) can be as light as a monolithic carbon composite structure.
.[/quote

Considering the Ramp Rash problem, does anyone have an idea as to how these materials compare with good ol' metal skin?
Cost? Time the A/C remains u/s?

Reminds me of an AZ bird being given a big hug by the boarding bridge 3 days after opening of Pier A. A couple of rivets and up it went.

Thanks.

[G-APEB]

"The all carbon structure ..... will also permit a lower cabin altitude which should be more comfortable for passengers"

Smokejumper can you enlarge on this statement?

Will the plane fly mostly at a lower height above sea level? What does that do for passengers as opposed to the aircraft as a whole?

Thank you in anticip.

Yours,

[Homo Aeroportus]

Will the plane fly mostly at a lower height above sea level? What does that do for passengers as opposed to the aircraft as a whole?

Yours,

It has to do with the difference between outside and inside pressure.
Outside is pretty low at high altitude and pressurizing the cabin at a "normal" sea level value will put a lot of stress on the structure.

Therefore the cabin pressure is set at a lower value which is expressed as the value of atmospheric pressure at a given height. E.g. at about 5000 meters, the atmospheric pressure is half that of ground level. This means your body has much less O² to breath making in very uncomfortable. Cabins today don't normally go lower than the equivalent of 8000ft if I'm right.

The new materials will enable the B787 to be pressurized at a (slightly) higher pressure, giving the Pax a higher level of comfort.

I am not sure though that it will enough to eat a "Cassoulet" before a flight without putting the laws of physics in practice.


Hope this helps.

[smokejumper]

"The all carbon structure ..... will also permit a lower cabin altitude which should be more comfortable for passengers"

Smokejumper can you enlarge on this statement?

Will the plane fly mostly at a lower height above sea level? What does that do for passengers as opposed to the aircraft as a whole?

Thank you in anticip.

Yours,

Today's commercial planes cruise with an interior cabin pressure equivalent to about 8,000 feet (2438 meters). According to Boeing's claim, the B787 will be pressurized to an equivalent altitude of 6,000 feet (1828 meters) which will result in a more comfortable ride for passengers. The plane will actually fly at the same altitude, only the interior will be pressurized at a higher level.

While most people do not notice the difference in cabin altitude, older people or those with breathing difficulties might. But over a long flight, the 2000 feet (610 meter) differential takes a toll and people should arrive at their destination more rested. The higher pressure allowance is due to several factrors which are due to the solid wound-composite fuselage construction. First, the absence of overlaping metal joints and rivets greatly reduces the leakage of air (which must be taken from the engine bleed system, reducing fuel efficiency). Second, the corrosion-free carbon fiber sturcutre will permit a higher humidity level so passengers will not dehydrate as much - aluminum is suseptable to corrosion and moisture levels must be controled and held to a minimum. It is interesting to note that the areas nearest the galleys and toilets are the most suseptible to corrosion and are the subject to the most inspection and concern since liquids are found in these areas.

[DFW]

The cabin is a giant pressure vessel. The ability of a material to hold that pressure without bursting is termed "hoop strength". In comparison to aluminum, the hoop strength of filament wound composites is off the charts. So you can pressurize the cabin to a pressure closer to what your body is accustomed to at ground level.

[boomer535]

From what I understand the carbon barrel construction of the 787 has no fatigue problem like aluminum has. This means the AC should be easier to maintain with fewer or less complicated inspections. I wonder if the carbon panel on aluminum frame fuselage of the proposed A350 will have the same benefits. I would think there could be corrosion problems with the aluminum frames and fatigue problems with the seams and fasteners on the carbon panels. The only problem I see with both the A350 and 787 is how do you repair them when they are damaged.

[smokejumper]

Weight is the enemy of good fuel economy and I just do not see how the A-350XWB's construction (carbon fiber panels over aluminum frames) can be as light as a monolithic carbon composite structure.
.[/quote

Considering the Ramp Rash problem, does anyone have an idea as to how these materials compare with good ol' metal skin?
Cost? Time the A/C remains u/s?

Reminds me of an AZ bird being given a big hug by the boarding bridge 3 days after opening of Pier A. A couple of rivets and up it went.

Thanks.

When Boeing first proposed the wound carbon-fiber construction, they made up some panels and took them to major airlines and told them to slam it with a sledgehammer - the hammer just bounced off, but the paint was scratched. Boeing has claimed considerable savings in "ramp rash" repairs annually for each plane.

Quoting from an article in the September 2005 Flug Revue (see - http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/ ... R0509g.htm

"A lot of airlines initially had reservations about the fact that it is very difficult, compared with aluminium, to spot and repair structural damage in the CFRP skin of an 787 caused by vehicles on the ramp, known as “ramp rash”. Mike Bair dismisses these fears by saying, “Ramp rash was actually a concern of the customers, but CFRP is a lot stronger than aluminium.” Bair sent the airlines suitcases with fuselage pieces made out of aluminium and CFRP and a hammer. Whereas the aluminium dented, the CFRP apparently proved resilient and returned to its original shape. “If you cannot see any damage from a distance of 2 metres, it will last the life of the aircraft.” For other cases, Boeing envisages two types of “patchcraft”: the first variant dries within an hour and lasts until the next shop visit, the second variant on the other hand needs between six and 12 hours to dry but lasts an entire aircraft lifetime. Moreover, where structural damage is suspected, it is possible to check CFRP with ultrasound sensors applied to the outer skin. CFRP is also UV-resistant and the special primer can accommodate paint of any colour."

[chunk]

I would assume Air France are not to far away to pronounce themselves about their replacement order for the middle-range fleet.
Thre are about 100 A320 due for retirement in five to seven years,,so orders should be defined relatively soon.
Knowing Air France' appreciation for the 777,the likelyhood to see a big 737-NG order evolving is quite real.

Not sure why there would be a link between the T7 and 737NG. Air France obviously likes its wee Airbuses yet still bought the T7 and not the 340-600 if we are going to use the same train of thought.

It also seems to like its 330's - does that not therefore mean it will go airbus?

I think that long haul and short haul fleets are quite distinct especially in AF's case and I wouldn;t put too much on their love of the T7. What AF really need to do is something about Regional.

When I flew to Beirut three weeks ago i took the regular F70 from Aberdeen to CDG and regular as clock work, it was late. Missed the connection - lucky for me I got on the 2nd MEA of the day instead of the first. The Fokkers of Regional are in terrible condition and are obviously very old. Service onboard virtually non-existent and it is always late. Whereever it leaves from............time to speed up the replacement i would suggest

[A390]

6500 feet cabin altitude instead of 8000 feet was also used on the good old DC10.

[bits44]

The rumour floating around the industry is the 787 & 777 orders listed as unidentified are for American Airlines, ILFC, and GECAS, with the GECAS order for a Gulf carrier.

No indication yet of the mix.

[smokejumper]

From past observation, unannounced orders generally are from leasing companies. Airlines like to announce orders when they are placed.

I guess that the leasing companies like to make their announcements in conjunction with the leasing airline when a leasing agreement is signed.