Re: The ABC's of Drafting and Passing (updated)

Airbus, John Leahy, in 2nd place for 2012

Re: The ABC's of Drafting and Passing

To: The Sober Few:

From: liftndrag:

Date: January 1, 2013

Dark Horse Rising At Selected Airports

787's Design Of The Year Photo

For the last ten years Boeing has been in Airbus' marketing wake by playing second seat in sales and production. Airbus has boasted about having the title of "World's Largest" Airplane Framer", for a solid string of ten years. Boeing has been drafting behind Airbus to gain extra momentum, and is now making a pass on Airbus as if is beating Airbus to the race track finish line. One thing that is of interest to me on this game, there is no finish line! The final winner is the one who doesn't wreck, and while the other wrecks by ceasing its operations. A Genuine Grudge Match!

The ABc's

A =Airbus
B = Boeing
c =Comac (A late entry in the Airplane Race, receives a lower case c as well as all others)

Orders

	2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002
Airbus	585	1419	574	271	777	1341	790	1055	370	284	300
Boeing	1203	805	530	142	662	1413	1044	1002	272	239	251

To have the title and bragging rights of "World Largest Airplane Framer", a Manufacturer must win both Sales, and Production in the form of contracted, but not option sales, and actual deliveries in a given year. Winning both Sales and Delivery is the Gold Trophy event. To split the categories only defaults title back to the prior year absolute Champion.  Boeing is about to embark on on a three year tear silencing the "Euro Bravado" for awhile, as the two giants wrestle one another. I'm so tired of these terms, "World's Largest Airplane, World's Largest Sales, and World's Largest Producer," as if that means, they are the World's best!  If found in second place, the framer will see a Red Ribbon.  Second place has a no John Leahy Bragging Points factor! If he brags in 2013, please disregard and move on.

However, and thankfully, that being Bigger is not some off-the-hull contrived way of speaking, and does not make a manufacturer, the best. Just BIG-ger ! If six inches bigger (XWB) is important, then I don't know... Some years the other guy received more cash, even when moving less product.

Deliveries

	2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002
Airbus	**516	534	510	498	483	453	434	378	320	305	303
Boeing	601	477	462	481	375	441	398	290	285	281	381

             ** Final numbers are not in, but Boeing will lead when compiled for 2012.

Why a Bi-annual number? Relevant for capturing Works In Processes number changes, where final productions and Pending Sales are added  in a relevant range of time.  This Illustrates a broader reflection of activity within each affected company. I have not added Airbus numbers for December and have not closed its 2012 for its final numbers(with its goofy accounting system they alaways seem to do better in December for some unexplained reason). This will affect  and change the 10 Year Moving Average and the Bi-annual report, but will not change the outcome or winner of standalone numbers for 2012. Boeing wins 2012! But is gaining ground on two other trend categories listed, where Boeing still finds itself behind in those assessments.

Bi-annual Numbers are startlingly close when adding together the last two years:

Years 2011+2012  Added

                     Orders                Deliveries

**Airbus            2004                   1050

   Boeing           2008                   1078

            

Dual	2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003
Airbus						*	*
Boeing						*	*

Boeing will win "The Worlds Largest Airplane Framer" (WLAF) Gold Trophy for 2012, when final numbers are compiled.  Congratulations, Boeing!

*John Leahy, Airbus's Sales Chief, retains Bragging rights in 2006 and 2007, even though Boeing out sold Airbus substantially. Boeing was second place during split years, and the world had to endure Leahy's bigger is better Mantra (Bravado) another 5 years.
Yellow Journalism     Envy

Below is a brief explanation of why I use a "Ten Year Moving Average" for total sales and deliveries. This tells the relative progress position for each aircraft framer in search of WLAF over the years, that gives you a general view of trend towards who's gaining and who's losing on the WLAF status:

1. Orders that are made ten years ago and should be delivered within that span of time.
2. Cancellations and changes for orders are caught up and corrected in a ten year cycle,
3. A trend can be establish easier by looking at bottom line numbers.  The last three years Airbus has a moving average lead, but that is beginning to erode away to Boeing.

Airbus's 10 Year Moving Average establishes a trend gap of Airbus over Boeing in orders/deliveries data. Boeing's over-all gap numbers, behind Airbus are as follows:  (2012) 56,(2011) 93, and (2010) 10.  Boeing owned the early part of the decade. By 2015 Boeing may pass Airbus on the Moving Average scale which sets a composite trend for both orders and deliveries. The trend is now dipping towards Boeing for gaining substantial ground, and is only a 56 behind Airbus in the moving average for 2012. Additionally when all numbers are finalized for 2012, an update will show a better trend of the order/delivery numbers setting a final gap for 2012. Another set of numbers, not pictured, is moving average of backlog, which would better identify how increased productivity will affect the resources for delivery of an aspiring World's Largest Aircraft Framer.

**The final votes are not counted at end of this 2012 year, but Boeing appears to win the "Booby Prize as World's Largest Aircraft Maker".  I hope Boeing doesn't follow Leahy's crass slogan of "World's Biggest Everything", or if Boeing does, they have to go back into training, and lose some more inches off its own Boeing posterior.

This will be a short Memorandum of (Little) Understanding from "liftndrag", as we drag ourselves into 2013.  I want to cheer up the few who endeavor to read this blog, and thank you for your early interest. Note I am familiar with Boeing, and a North American, where I have a bias for Boeing. Don't let that discourage anyone from reading or commenting. I invite everyone to comment on my mistakes, gaffs and ingnorance.  Please weigh-in on what you know, and point out stuff as you can. I can take a correction or two, as that is the way I like to learn.  Its hard for me to like Airbus because of that bias, but I try not to lambastes the Company because they have a lot of devoted, skilled and brilliant contributors to its aircraft. I admire them for pushing the envelope, and what you all bring to the table for aviation.  Please report in from time to time, because it adds to all the reader's enlightenment.  I feature Boeing, because I am closer to the source, and have friends who are well versed in what's going on, in their own public manner.  I have no top secret stuff here, just analysis, insight, and observations; from readings and statements.  All of you have a Happy New Year and enjoy any "Lift" I can give all the readers, and contributors this year. This is a blog, where No Dragging is Allowed!

cc: All your friends, associates, and enemies.

The 777X Project Is Going Underground Call It Project X

Why is the 777-X going underground and hiding in Boeing's Phantom Works? Answer: Because they are ready to spring its trap on Airbus! Also, Airbus' cement hasn't set yet on the A-350. Boeing will wait this out until Airbus money is spent and the factory's dies are cast. The 777 projects can afford to sit on its winning hand until all Airbus cards are played, they blinked, not Boeing.  Where Boeing will proceed to throw out its trump card on Airbus, called the "X".  In the meantime, Airbus is stressing on meeting the A-350 deadlines in time for the Paris "show and tell". Boeing is happy to wait for the air show to unload the X reveal!

 Highlighted in green below, are the benchmarks Boeing will address on its X project for Paris'

Model	EIS	Engine #	MTOW  Metric Tons	Inside Diameter Passengers	Outside Diameter Passenger	Passenger Seating and (Room)

A350-9 and-10 Straddles the 787 and 777 worlds.

Airbus A350	2013	2	298.0 tons[67] 192.0 Emtpy-9	221 inches (5.61 m) [68]	235 inches (5.97 m) [68][69]	8 across (19.0" wide) in 2-4-2 proposed[70][71] 9 across (17.7" wide) in 3-3-3 proposed[70][72] 10 across (16.38" wide) in 3-4-3 proposed [73]

A working general comparison of current information" 

Airbus 350 In Tons MTOW   Empty       Boeing In Tons    MTOW       Empty

-800*                       259.0      181           787-10X*           265(guess)  188 (Bigger guess)

-900*                       298.0      192           777-200              298             138

-1000*                     308.0      220           777-300-ER        351             168
* A Paper weight, is not an official lift-off weight from working prototypes.

The current 777-'s, are Boeing's starting weight points, considering Airbus's proposed weight advantages on its new A-350- line. Flying smarter can only squeeze so much efficiency out of the designs. But Tons are still tons when you are airborne.  Engineering Efficiency Maximizes best, when working with the least amount of weight. Boeing will strip tons off with introduction of various light weight technologies that are brought forward from the 787 project. However, it will not be an all composite skin, and will have some extra weight or disadvantages that could be made up with various system changes, materials, and wing advancements efficiency. Bottom line, how far can you fly with the most passengers and the least amount of fuel?

Boeing 777-300ER	1995	2	351.5 tons[91]	231 inches (5.87 m) [92]	244 inches (6.20 m) [92][93]	9 across (18.5" wide) in 2-5-2 on American Airlines [94] 10 across (17.5" wide) in 3-4-3 on Emirates Airlines[95

777-200ER             2003   2        MTW 
                                               261 tons         

Boeing 787	2011	2	245.0 tons	215 inches (5.46 m)	227 inches (5.77 m)	8 across (18.5" wide) in 2-4-2 on ANA[99] 9 across (17.3" wide) on United Airlines 3-3-3 [100]

Below are bullet points addressing what the green highlighted area above, means to engineer sensibilities?  Top Ten list for engineering to do's. Since Boeing is going into four corner delay game to win the basketball final four, like NC State used to do back in the '70s, they may as well go big on the last shot.

• The Boeing Company will address the outcome of "The Biggest Loser" by losing (maybe) some large amounts of metric tons, from the Maximum Take-off weight (MTW), for the X-factor. Or are those charts above, smoke and mirrors playing weight tricks on the mind. Maybe that's the A-350-9 weight, where the X-8 fits into that grouping is from its 777-200 position currently held by old technology weight.
• New Technology Aluminum is lighter than the current model.
• A marriage of composite wing box with metal frame.
• High Probability of Composite wing assemblies.
• Increased use of composites in non-essential body integration. Such as front nose assembly, Bay doors, in many areas as possible, that doesn't affect the metal frame integrity.
• The body width is about right. Why go bigger, unless you want more seats.
• Don't go ten across in seating. The A-350 looks like a downtown commuter bus with 10 across having 16.4" wide seats. Do you want to haul your good customers around the world like sardines?
• Plan B, Go the Airbus route and call it 2XWB because you can, by adding 9" inches to the inside width and make all 9 across, 18" seats. That half inch difference from the A-350 18.5" seat, is the width of my pinky finger. Or the width of a pack of lifesavers which you can put in your shirt pocket anyway.
• The wing is where the magic starts. This is where Boeing went to school and is now schooling the aviation world on wing design. Whether it’s a folding wing, or not, this wing will turn heads.
• Finally, bullet #10 for green box highlights above, under observations.  Internal efficiency factor has not been addressed by Boeing or any rumor. Is Boeing going to a 787 game plan with all electric architecture? Will they use a core technology to run the aircraft operations, and depart from hydraulic systems to all electric? If the answer is yes. Then Boeing continues to pack pounds out of the body with 787 like precision and infuse 787 commonalities, as a salve to customer's airline teams.

The competition, A-350

  

Here Comes The X Plane

This Rendering does not take into account the Engineering goals.

GE is burning the midnight oil on what it can do with a GEnx-90's.  Another X-factor to consider in this unraveling airplane soap opera. I imagine that the GEnx-90 will borrow significantly from the 787 projects, currently dubbed GEnx-2B, incorporating everything it has accomplished during that project. They will hang some big but lighter weight cans on those wings.  

The jury is not out on what is proposed. The next six months will tell if the players will agree and for presentations to be installed by the Paris Air Show. Timing is perfect for Boeing to counter punch the A-350 wonders of flight, which it is going through the same swamp the 787 has the last 5 years. The X is ready for a shorter turn around with a bigger bang for the buck.  Take a metric ton or two off the engine area. Take another bunch of tons with the use of both CFR and High Tech Aluminum formulations.

The X-9 needs to reduce by 11 tons to meet the A-350-10 weight area. The X-8(777-200 replacement) will be a push on the A-350-9 weights.  The 787-10 will be the Jr. Mini Jumbo. It will straddle all the Mini Jumbo parameters not covered in the lower end of the mini Jumbo performance. The A-350-8 is dead on arrival. 

It then comes back to how efficient are those flying tons?

How handy, comfortable and pleasant is the customer area?

Most important, how many seats with miles traveled?

How consistent is the X project compares to Boeing's family of Aircraft from 737 through 787?

The X project leaves room in its numbering/naming convention for the next baby, a 797 series, not to be confused with this 777-X project. The 777-200 is 294 tons, one would expect the 777-8 in the same weight range.

The 787-10 and how it fits in the Aviation Renaissance:

From: A quote from Aviation Week, Guy Norris   11-12-12

On the 787-10:

                                         my insert

"The stealthy aspect (X projects) of the ATO remains equally intriguing, though it is believed

 to be more closely linked to a desire to firm up a batch of initial launch customers than any 

last-minute uncertainty over the final configuration. Boeing says clearance to start discussing 

the 787-10X is “conditioned upon our obtaining final board approval to launch the program at 

a yet-to-be-determined date.”

The company adds, “The timing of a decision to launch the program will depend on market response during the next phase of our discussions about the airplane.” Given the current schedule, unidentified potential customers say a firm launch decision is not expected from the Boeing board until early next year.

The 787-10X is a 787-9 stretched by 18 ft. to 224 ft. to seat an additional 43 passengers. Although jutting up against the Airbus A350-900 in capacity, the stretch is targeted as an A330 “killer” with exceptionally low seat-mile costs. The 320-seater is expected to be a 6,700-6,750-nm-range aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight slightly less than 7,000 lb. heavier than the 787-9 now in initial assembly.

Boeing adds that it has been “working closely with airline and leasing customers to define the key capabilities and features of the 787-10X, and we anticipate strong market demand for this third and largest member of the 787 families.”

Seating around 320 in a three-class arrangement, the 787-10X will be a stablemate of both the 787-8/9 and 777 families.

Primary markets are expected to be trunk routes from the Middle East to Europe and Asia, as well as transatlantic services for carriers including British Airways and Singapore Airlines, which are among the early launch contenders. Assuming a firm launch decision in early 2013, entry into service is widely expected around 2018-19.

As the 787-10X forms part of Boeing's stated strategy to bracket the A350 between the double-stretch derivative and the 777X, the launch of one of the new aircraft will ultimately determine the go-ahead for the other. For Boeing, the key question on the 777X remains to time, and although the A350-1000 launch continues to show signs of sliding further into the second half of the decade, the main driver appears to be getting the technology decisions correct on its new, big twin derivative.

Compared to the relatively straightforward double-stretch of the 787-10X, the development of a pair of larger re-winged, re-engined successors to its 777-200LR/300ER for possible entry into service in 2019 is a far greater gamble in terms of cost, technology, and marketing tactics. As well as major choices concerning the use of composites in the wing and major system innovations, Boeing's the arguably biggest single decision is whether to make the engine dual- or sole-source.

General Electric, in the pole position to supply the engines for the new derivative, is sticking to a technology test plan for the GE9X for the 777X, despite continuing uncertainty over Boeing's development timetable. The engine maker is running a raft of technology demonstration efforts to support FAR33 engine certification in 2018, and entry-into-service in 2019.

“Even though Boeing is still figuring out what they want to do, we're doing the technology,” says GE90 general manager William Millhaem. “It's the right thing to do for the industry.”

Although GE is also reluctant to give specific timetable details, it is expected to run the first version of a new core for the GE9X as early as 2014. A final “Toll Gate 6” decision on freezing the design will likely take place around 2015, with the first engine going to test in the 2016 timeframe. Given this timing, the engine would be tested on GE's Boeing 747-400 flying testbed in 2017 with certification the following year.

Key technology maturation tests in the run-up to the design of the new core include the planned evaluation of a 27:1 pressure-ratio high-pressure compressor (HPC). The initial version of an 11-stage unit will be tested at GE's oil and gas facility in Massa, Italy, in mid-2013, and will be the highest pressure-ratio compressor of its type yet developed for a GE commercial engine.

Testing of the advanced compressor rig will check the configuration “to look if anything unexpected happens at 27:1 and see what happens when we bleed air off and if we get the right clearances,” says Millhaem, who adds that the lessons will be used to improve the baseline design before the first core is built. The advanced “E3” (Energy Efficient Engine) 19:1 compressor developed with NASA was key to the success of the original GE90, while the evolved HPC of the GEnx has a pressure ratio of 23:1. Overall pressure ratio for the entire GE9X is similarly targeted at an ambitious 60:1, compared to 50:1 for the GEnx and 40:1 for the GE90.

“With the GE9X, we're continuing that strategy, but we are reaching into the technology cupboard to pull out new things from the 9X technology pool,” says Millhaem. “If we start with a scaled GEnx-1B, we get about halfway to what Boeing is asking us to do for the 777X,” he says. The 777X is targeting fuel burn around 10% lower than the current GE90-115B-powered 777 while maintaining existing maintenance costs.

Other work is focused on a fourth-generation fan that will operate at a higher speed than the one in the current engine."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A well-presented position on how the 787-10 fits into the scheme of killing the A-330, and the X killing the A350. This is an insight into Boeing's strategy of a point to point travel competing with the Super Hubs (SH) like London Heathrow, Frankfurt, GER, and others that are A-380 friendly.  Now the Salt Lake City's, and  San Diego airport types get you on and off the slopes skiing and the beach tanning, as they become a personal sized point to point hub around the world competing with the SHs.

This brings me to comment on the A-380, formerly known as the Flying White Elephant, having all its eggs in one basket. Airbus has done a nice job building to the concept, but the concept itself may be flawed. The 747 reached the outer limits of filling seats every day of the year on any given day. The A-380 is tasked with filling 450 to 500 seats every day to the same places. When that train leaves the station on A-380 there won't be another one until tomorrow.  

However, with Mini Jumbo's and Jr. mini-jumbos (787-10), an airline can offer multiples of departures times from the same airport to anywhere in the world on the same day. The A-380 does not achieve that same flexibility day to day. Once the traveling public has traveled the A-380 enough to settle-in at its convenience, then the mini Jumbo will reemerge as the preferred way to get anywhere, anytime.  That is Boeing's strategy from 1995, and it is today's strategy forward.  

Airbus did not make Boeing "blink" by not trying to emulate the A-350. They upgraded what works very well, with the 747-8, and will get another 15 years out of it before any formal launch of a replacement, going forward with design and technology advances, plus new materials and markets. With the A-380, it has yet to achieve an important entrance into partnering with bigger and better airports (SH's), strutting the same theme of Airbus.

Boeing is trying revolutionary measures, referred by me as the "Renaissance in Aviation".  

They are building airplanes beyond the horizon, but where they can land on a postage stamp airport. 

Saint Martin Beach, Caribbean.... runway fence lines up with the nose of this 747, and lands just off the Sand, next to the guy in the red shirt.

“Maho Beach is a beach on the Dutch side of the Caribbean island of Saint Martin, in the country of Sint Maarten. It is famous for the Princess Juliana International Airport adjacent to the beach. Arriving aircraft must touch down as close as possible to the beginning of Runway 10 due to the short runway length of 2,180 metres (7,150 ft), resulting in aircraft on their final approach flying over the beach at minimal altitude”. – Wikipedia

My Note: The 747 wheels touch down across the street 500 feet from the guy in the red shirt, with yellow lettering (Bottom center-right, not the girl in the bottom left corner) on the Saint Martin's land-based Aircraft Carrier. Note also, the wind Sock is immediate to the Life Guard/Red Guy's right elbow. He must be one of three lifeguards working hard on that day.

Does the A-380 land here from taking off from fog-bound San Francisco! No and No! The rest of the world cannot build or afford to build, airports for the A-380. Hence the Boeing X will have a long shelf life.  The Slots for A-380 are destined for desert-based airports that can expand into the "endless" desert, but not on Manhattan Island or Saint Martin where they are needed. The Arab nations have a strategy of being a world hub not because everyone wants to go there on holiday.  It's the Arab Nation's geographic positioning on the globe for implementations of Super Hubs (SH). If you can get to that region of hubs, then you can go anywhere in the world from its SH sandy deserts and not beaches.  I often wondered why the Emirates, Qatar, and others, order super quantities of A-380 going to and fro in 120 degrees of temperatures.  Then I came to learn it’s not the A-380 so much, buts the Arab regions collective strategy of becoming the world's foremost SH.  Where they (collectively) now need long legged jets from both Boeing and Airbus to move people to specific parts of the world after getting there and off the A-380 by the desert. This Arab strategy demands the A-380. However, the rest of the world's strategy does not, it needs flexibly to go to the beach!

Therefore, it’s not so much a victory for Airbus to retire the 747, or that they had a superior feat in airline development.  It is more of a right time niche for the handful few airlines and airports pursuing SH status because they have resources to do so. That niche is filling up fast in the next ten years and will be stopped by numbers of airports and airlines with that kind of strategy. The A380 will soon meet the 747-4 and -8's in 10 years after filling the SH niche need. SH's will have served its purpose by then, as the Point to Point strategy of Boeing evolves into the free market. The X plane will literally go from foggy San Francisco to Saint Martin Beach, on a Jr. Mini Jumbo 787-10 or 7-X-8.

Whose strategy is best, and whose airplane is best, depends on what an Airline wants to do to make money?

One Man's Rubbish Is Another Man's Feast(updated)

Not long ago it was reported by the head cheese, from Ryan Air, that the 737 Max is Rubbish. That CEO is still employed having Ryan Air under his careful guidance.  Why the name calling and hate mongering for Boeing's new product? I hope to answer that question after we examine a "brief" on the 737 Max. First here is an excerpt from March 29, 2012 news clippings.

WBJ site report from the Rubbish pile: Citation below by Daniel McCoy of WBJ

"Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary on Thursday, speaking about a plan to swoop in on jet orders he believes other carriers will drop, again voiced a negative opinion of the Boeing Co.’s 737 MAX.

Although he said Airbus’ A320neo “does credibly deliver” on its promised fuel savings, the 737 Max “as a product, is rubbish,” according to a report from Bloomberg.

This isn’t the first time O’Leary has voiced his opinion on the 737 MAX, Boeing’s new engine variant of the 737.

In January, he said he was “unimpressed” with the aircraft and expected that weight issues would offset the fuel savings Boeing says the plane will offer.

The leader of European low-fare carrier also said he is interested in a jetliner that he’s hoping will be developed by China."

Many airline customers have examined his statements since March of 2012. Here is the timely response:

At the time of his Rubbish pronouncement the stats; Then vs Now, nine month later.

 First Quarter 2012 Orders Detail, Then Report

737	767	777	787	Total
415	3	6	15	439

 O'leary sets the fire! 

2012 Orders Detail, Now Report

737	747	767	777	787	Total
1124	1	22	68	-12	1203

Customers are not listening to O'Leary, because they are not paid from the same source.

That is what happened to Michael O Leary's dire comment on the 737 MAX.

Memorandum File:

To: Cows, Flame Throwers,  Neophytes, and China. 

From: Lifndrag

Date: December 31,2012

1. 648 additional 737's have been purchased since O'Leary's rendering of "Rubbish" and compared to Boeing's recent accounting even though the year's final number are not compiled.

2. Somebody did not give Mr. O' Leary my memo.

3. By definition A "Shill" is by Merriam Webster Dictionary a...: to act as a spokesperson or promoter <the eminent Shakespearean producer…is now shilling for a brokerage house — Andy Rooney> Used in a sentence. "Mr. O'Leary is a shill for his paymaster Chinese Aeronautics known for (advanced achievements in making Jets and Aero Space) accomplishments."

4. Money is floating somewhere nearby Ryan Air that has no discernible origin.

5. Mr O'Leary had a cow, over the Max, and started a fire near Boeing World Headquarters in Chicago's and was seen leaving town on a Chinese made Jet.  

Now that I had some fun I want to finish my observation in a civil manner.

Exhibit A:

R & D Link from Aspire Aviation (worth the read Post Rubbish Article ("PRA")

The Seattle Times Reports on December 28,2012 (PRA): by:Seattle Times business staff 

"With the Boeing plane lighter than the Airbus, the MAX version of the LEAP is much smaller than the neo version — 69 inches vs. 78 inches in diameter.

Yet, CFM is contractually guaranteeing that the MAX and the neo engines will each be 15 percent more fuel-efficient than current models.

That sounds like a recipe for maintaining today’s status quo, in which Airbus and Boeing split the narrowbody market roughly evenly." 

Retaining status quo is solid ground for Boeing during the Engine Wars. A plus for attracting and keeping Airline customers. They will gain market appeal from other sources, for innovation and commonalities found in its revised family of aircraft. Boeing is making a strategic move by setting standards in consistent form for all its other new aircraft.  Never underestimate the great expectation factor for the traveling public. That expectation is set on the 787 now translates to the 737.  A customer boards a Max and is familiar and comfortable as on a 787. A pilot pushes buttons and switches the controls and looks at screens similar to the 777 and 787.  Training time and familiarization for flying the 737 is one step away from flying the 787. Maintenance commonalities like procedural checks become consistent with Boeing' family of aircraft. Differences on the surface are subtle from model to model. However, the complexity going from one aircraft to another increases as well. Maintenance procedures and technical knowledge will significantly change from model to model.  The drill to check the maintenance work will be similar (electronic flight bag) but to do the maintenance will vary, significantly. 

The articles further states:

"The total weight savings from using composites in the fan system alone is 500 pounds.

Snecma’s debris rejection system ensures that sand or other runway detritus that is sucked in by the fan is centrifuged out to the edges and bypasses the engine core.

GE’s expertise is in the hot, high-pressure core of the engine, where the air is squeezed until its volume is reduced by a factor of 22 — twice the compression ratio in today’s 737 engine.

As the compressed air flows into a combustion chamber that can reach a temperature of more than 3,000 degrees F, only a separate streaming layer of cool air prevents the metal from melting.

The hot gas flow then turns a high pressure turbine, around which is a shroud made from a ceramic composite, strengthened with metallic threads — just thousandths of an inch away from the fast-spinning turbine blades.

Both the spinning and the static components expand with heat, so a flow of cooling air, precisely adjusted on the fly, must be used to tweak the temperature and maintain the tight clearance."

Having read the Seattle Times offering, one gains an appreciation for the difficulty in the tasks of high heat constraints, high pressure management, and extremely low tolerances for extremely fast moving parts. The engine is just one part of the Max puzzle. 

R & D Article

Without going into great detail, follow these bullet points about what this means from my memo to Mr. O'Leary, which he didn't read!

• CFM, Engine Vs The Neo GTF is a push, both jump up by 12% fuel economy.
• Drag and Weight the MAX advances by only having a 2% gain vs The Neo 3.5%
• Wing geometries net gain is 2% for the Neo
• Advance Technology Winglet (phew) was not added on the Boeing's proposed duel feathered tips (Flight Feathers, yeah)
• The difference is an additional 6% for the Max gained from NG design from the original 737.
• The 737 Max base model has 162 revenue seats where the Neo Base has 150.

From this optimistic Boeing Chart, the total Max gains is 17%, and the Neo is 12% from base model, for one man's rubbish is another man's feast. Boeing is betting that a lighter aircraft, holding more passengers with the 787 motif will win the day. This will be one tricked out model when done. The "well" Boeing is drawing from, is deep, but the water is so fine.

The Deep Well:

• 787 commonalities
• Complex Engine Technology
• Lessons Learned Book
• New Materials Parts Bin (High Tech Aluminum, increased use of new metals)
• Aero Design Advancement (dual feathers, body changes, Engine placement, and wing design).

Tweaking technology and enhancing the Boeing wing with the Advanced Technology Winglets (ATW) will change significantly the relationship between the old and the new. It is noted that Boeing is tweaking the center of gravity with engine placement. They are also looking at trailing edge 787 like, wing adjustments in relationship to the shifted center of gravity from engine placement. There are pluses and minuses for both adjustments.  Boeing is seeking the sweet spot (Max spot) for both.  Before that is done, the right sized engine diameter for Boeing is closing in on a "Max Spot", this has come about since Mr. O'Leary's barn fire in Chicago. The engine diameter that Boeing is strongly looking at is 68.4 inches. An inch here or there changes efficiency by .05% one way or other. By changing size upward you increase performance, but create more drag and weight.  What is the net effect? That is the Max spot, and  is now what is currently undergoing testing before final configuration. 

Enough said for  Aviation Geekdom, I would like to briefly comment on the passenger side. The Max design will improve the interior from its current 787 like interior. The Max will also have 787 like avionics. Other internal core efficiency has not yet arrived on the usual press releases, but it is in the background.  Boeing has an opportunity to trick out this pony from the  "Lessons Learned Book Of 787".

The Max to-do List:

• Final Engine Configuration with weight, drag and placement.  Boeing is inches away from the final answer.
• Nose gear design is dependent on bullet number one results.
• What 787 architectures flow forward, when stuffing it to the "Max".
• Final wing tweaks dependent on engine placement and size in inches change.
• Transitional Design Improvements. Prepare the Max Design as if it will become a plastic design. Meaning how the Max is put together, could easily translate to a plastic model, like the 787.  
• Max is a Continuous Improvement (QM exercise) model for passenger comfort. You can help fill in this blank.

Don't be surprised at the Max Party shortly after the NEO flies.

Boeing will include surprises from its proprietary bag already shared with customers during sales meetings, but not released to the press as of late.

As this piece started, "One Man's Rubbish is another man's feast", Mr. O'Leary does not have the gravitas of Akbar Al Baker (Qatar) nor the resources of Boeing to call it rubbish.  It is like it sounds, a paid advertisement from China. Even though people in the know don't buy hype, they just seek the truth and buy airplanes. Hype is defined by Boeing, Airbus and others. Truth is found in the air from satisfied customers. After all, it was just a barn fire outside Chicago. Mr O'Leary, the town didn't burn down, by a long shill's distance.

cc: +, all lurkers, and people loving Aviation's Renaissance.