I've got a question...If the 787 proves to be successful over the next 5-10 years, you do guys think it possible that Boeing would redesign its current commercial aircraft using composite materials for the fuselage? Or would this prove to be impractical.

I am aware of the impending composite replacement for the 737. But what about the 747 and 777?

-DILLA

 

Boeing would not 're-design' a 74 or 77 out of 100% composites. The design is firm (in the case of the 74, it's over 40 years old, actually).

Boeing is sweating over the idea of having to build a larger wingbox to accommodate a 6 wheel main gear array and beefing up the fuselage of the 787 (the Airbus 350X is being designed to take on both the 78 and the 77. If the 78 is ever extended to the point where it would could go head to head with the larger 350X's, it'd likely need to go from a 4 wheel truck to a 6 wheel truck, necessitating the changes mentioned above, as well as others). Boeing doesn't want to build a larger 78 b/c it would cannibalize 77 sales. They also don't want to spend the $ to pay for the design and manufacturing changes that the larger wingbox would require.

The point of all of this? If Boeing thinks it's likely too expensive to design and build the larger wingbox on the 78 (a plane that hasn't even really flown yet), you can get a grasp of how much $ it would cost to re-design the 74 or 77 in composites.

 

I don't know why they would stay with current technology if the "new" technology presents a more economical airplane. Why would a customer buy anything else?

UAL has stated the reason they don't have ANY airplanes on order is that the company wants a narrow body fleet at least 20% more fuel efficient than the current 737 and or A320. I'm sure other airlines have similar positions citing current energy costs.

 

I see what you're saying. I figured that Boeing would want to combine the proven commercial success of the 74 and 77 with the efficiency of composite technology.

I dont know too much about the 747-8, more than it will be flying on GEnx engines. But if they weren't already, I think it would be a good opportunity to introduce composites into the current design (where possible) to make it even MORE efficient and economical than the 744's.

You have to excuse me, I'm a bit naive regarding the delicate balance between fuel costs, technology costs and their effects on airlines updating their fleets. I'm a looking at this purely as "what can Boeing do to make a better plane" and making the assumption that if it IS better, the airlines will always buy it.

 

Eventually all current aircraft product lines will be phased out and replaced with new technology airplanes. Composite construction is obviously a huge factor, but there are many, many other technologies which will make future airplanes more efficient, quiter, and less-polluting.

Due to large differences in construction between composite and metal aircraft and the need to incorporate possibly radical technologies, nobody is going to simply re-build an old aircraft using composites. Airbus tried that crap with the original A350 (they were too cheap to do a clean-slate design), but their customers told them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

The decision as to WHEN to switch product lines is a tough one...do it too early and you miss out on future technology. Do it too late and the competetion gets ahead of you. In some cases you can design a product to allow later addition of technological advancements, but some ideas (like open-rotor and flying wing) are so radical that they would need a clean-slate design.

In the next few years the next-gen narrow-body designs will firm up (737/A320 replacements). They will probably be similar to the 787, with VERY advanced engines.

The next-gen big widebodies (post 747/A380) are probably decades away and might be radical new designs that won't even look like today's airplanes.

 

Boeing had field day with that design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdeQ5xYrGDo

 

That's hilarious.

As far as redesign, new design, and technology, look what the private sector is doing. I think a lot of the technology comes from both sides, but what some of the more long-range jets like the Gulfstreams, the Globals, Challengers, those are the aircraft that get a lot of the new "goodies" early on because money isn't as much of a factor for some of the owners of these aircraft. Also, look what's going into the GA single engine piston planes, it's freaking crazy! Mainly more of a avionics upgrade in the traditional planes, but the Columbia(Cessna) 400 and the Cirrus planes are truly great designed aircraft with speed and efficiency built in.

 

Damn....LOL...I forgot all about what Airbus tried to do with the A330/A350. I guess you cant pull a fast one on the airlines. But one good thing that Airbus does is maintain the cockpit commonality between aircraft. I assume that makes it easier to move from an A320--->A330, A340, or A380.

I read that the A350 will have the same type rating as the A330....does anyone know if the 787 will possibly share a type with a previous jet (ie 767/777) or will it be an all-new type rating?

 

It will be a new type, although Boeing intends to have the FAA bless a 5 day transition course for current 777 pilots.