Either Boeing's website for monthly orders and deliveries is broken or Boeing no longer wants its customers to see what's happening over a month to month process. However, a news reporting link mentions Boeing booked about 90 single-aisle and four other frames (3-787 & 1-777) and with the Hawian order splitting 5 787-9 leases through BCC pushing its net total year to date for 581 orders. No other detail is available.
Reuters 9/11/2018: <<Link)
Quoting Boeing during recent pressor" "Boeing also said its 2018 net orders totaled 581 aircraft through August, up from 487 toward the end of July. That includes 90 orders in August for 737 variants from leasing firms and unidentified customers."
Airbus now sits at 219 net orders for all types by the end of August for the year 2018.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
The First 777X Is Ready To Fold, Bend, and Mutilate With Post Office Precision
The time has arrived for the 777X. Sans engines it will go to a frame or some kind of jig to hydraulically bend wings back and forth. Stress the body and strike the concept to see if it will break. Engineers have calculated using computers and algorithms designing and building this copy. The time has come to see if theory beats real stresses imposed on its frame. The process will include those who know the 777X goals and performance metrics. Bending and folding may fracture some parts making a part removal, and concept changes a process of betterment. A replacement part improved will be reinstalled and another fold or bend will occur within the framework including wings.
This whole process will take about a year and the hopeful result will be an airframe ready for engines, fuel, and systems. The first flight tests imposed on the frame. will occur late 2019 long after the conceptual stress tests are complete and solutions for faulty designs are replaced and then succeed. Boeing will be looking at airframe duration or longevity while in service. Boeing wants to know the first flight is a winner and it can go further once over-loaded and flown and landed. The whole process is not new at this point. Boeing has gone through this many times with the Max family,787 family and all airplanes it has ever built. Yes, the folding portion of the wing will continue to test through the first stage. It's kind of the main public show during this build process. The other stuff is the immense plastic wing and new features like large windows will be fully vetted.
Once the engines come on, a whole new series of tests will occur with its systems. The landing gear will be tested alongside the fold bend and mutilate phase of its body and wings. It won't take long to find out about the landing gear attached to its frame. Boeing has been at that for decades and the fit and function are what's at stake.
First, 777X won't fly, but it will take a "bullet" for others that follow
This whole process will take about a year and the hopeful result will be an airframe ready for engines, fuel, and systems. The first flight tests imposed on the frame. will occur late 2019 long after the conceptual stress tests are complete and solutions for faulty designs are replaced and then succeed. Boeing will be looking at airframe duration or longevity while in service. Boeing wants to know the first flight is a winner and it can go further once over-loaded and flown and landed. The whole process is not new at this point. Boeing has gone through this many times with the Max family,787 family and all airplanes it has ever built. Yes, the folding portion of the wing will continue to test through the first stage. It's kind of the main public show during this build process. The other stuff is the immense plastic wing and new features like large windows will be fully vetted.
Once the engines come on, a whole new series of tests will occur with its systems. The landing gear will be tested alongside the fold bend and mutilate phase of its body and wings. It won't take long to find out about the landing gear attached to its frame. Boeing has been at that for decades and the fit and function are what's at stake.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
America May Build A Super "D" Disrupter.
Destroyer-Cruiser but what about new stuff in the hull. Even hull design supersedes the DDG1000 class of destroyer. The Navy is racking its brains for coming up with a hull, housing all those new toys. First of all a brief history of the fighting surface ship.
There was a battleship, then a smaller cruiser after which the fleet depended upon a destroyer also known as a fleet escort ship in a carrier flotilla. During the last twenty years, a techno blitz formed the DDG 1000 (Destroyer) for replacing the DDG51 series of Arleigh-Burkes. Now the Navy has made a reversal by dropping the DDG1000's to just three ships instead of dozens of its types replacing the DDG51's from the 20th-century design. However, costs have driven the DDG1000 out to sea and made the Arleigh Burke flight III the new kid on the dock.
The DDG 1000 has become a weapon and systems lab. Its tumblehome hull works as a stealth enhancer and its important weapons systems unproven thus making it a "lab" of sorts for anything next! A class of ship has yet been designed. Not a destroyer or cruiser but something in between those types. Hence the name "Goldilocks Disrupter".
A disrupter would be between a cruiser and the tonnage of a Zumwalt or about 9,000+ up to 15,000 tons. A ship length would extend beyond 500-600 feet. Not quite a destroyer at the lower end or a Zumwalt at the upper end but heavy enough for containing serious weaponry or defensive systems not yet installed on either the Zumwalt or Arleigh-Burke. The hull design is what's in the debate. It won't be tumblehome or Burkish in function but will have stealthy-like angles, thus making its real profile indistinguishable for absolute detection. Hence, the sticking point on how to build the hull.
So look for a 12,000-ton Disrupter-class for about 30 hulls coming to a shipyard near Bath, Maine. This ship will embody the functionality of the long worked Arleigh-Burke and the electronic capability of the Zumwalt. It will have a Laser gun, Missiles, and AESA-6. Its main gun will shoot 60 miles or so because by the time the first hull will be built a gun fitting the needs of both a cruiser and a destroyer is completed. It will be the new influence of power on the high seas. Two Disrupters will shadow a Gerald Ford type carrier with a few destroyers thrown in for added defense. The fire-power will amount to what the Zumwalt was intended but its versatility equals a "Burke" in spades.
This yet to be confirmed hull will house both crew and ancillary forces depending on the situation it encounters. A definite Blue-water warrior with a stand-off littoral capability, it will be a game changer (hence Disrupter) in any conflict. More likely it may replace the Zumwalt's lofty goal of 30 hulls now reduced down to just three hulls. It may cost a billion+ but not to exceed the Zumwalts per ship cost. Money on that program was mad lab spending which will be installed on a new hull designed as a Disrupter.
Helicopters are needed for up to four seated on its "large stern deck. An F-35B could land on its platformed deck. Missiles cells forward are the business end for worldwide conflicts. The back-end is for surgical strikes and disruption on the battlespace. The ultimate game-changing offers little comfort to potential adversaries as adaptation is its secret weapon. How well it changes its mission profile on a large scale makes its primary mission, offensive, but its defensive profile makes it a fool's errand to try and take it out. All of this from the Zumwalt lab.
There was a battleship, then a smaller cruiser after which the fleet depended upon a destroyer also known as a fleet escort ship in a carrier flotilla. During the last twenty years, a techno blitz formed the DDG 1000 (Destroyer) for replacing the DDG51 series of Arleigh-Burkes. Now the Navy has made a reversal by dropping the DDG1000's to just three ships instead of dozens of its types replacing the DDG51's from the 20th-century design. However, costs have driven the DDG1000 out to sea and made the Arleigh Burke flight III the new kid on the dock.
The DDG 1000 has become a weapon and systems lab. Its tumblehome hull works as a stealth enhancer and its important weapons systems unproven thus making it a "lab" of sorts for anything next! A class of ship has yet been designed. Not a destroyer or cruiser but something in between those types. Hence the name "Goldilocks Disrupter".
A disrupter would be between a cruiser and the tonnage of a Zumwalt or about 9,000+ up to 15,000 tons. A ship length would extend beyond 500-600 feet. Not quite a destroyer at the lower end or a Zumwalt at the upper end but heavy enough for containing serious weaponry or defensive systems not yet installed on either the Zumwalt or Arleigh-Burke. The hull design is what's in the debate. It won't be tumblehome or Burkish in function but will have stealthy-like angles, thus making its real profile indistinguishable for absolute detection. Hence, the sticking point on how to build the hull.
So look for a 12,000-ton Disrupter-class for about 30 hulls coming to a shipyard near Bath, Maine. This ship will embody the functionality of the long worked Arleigh-Burke and the electronic capability of the Zumwalt. It will have a Laser gun, Missiles, and AESA-6. Its main gun will shoot 60 miles or so because by the time the first hull will be built a gun fitting the needs of both a cruiser and a destroyer is completed. It will be the new influence of power on the high seas. Two Disrupters will shadow a Gerald Ford type carrier with a few destroyers thrown in for added defense. The fire-power will amount to what the Zumwalt was intended but its versatility equals a "Burke" in spades.
This yet to be confirmed hull will house both crew and ancillary forces depending on the situation it encounters. A definite Blue-water warrior with a stand-off littoral capability, it will be a game changer (hence Disrupter) in any conflict. More likely it may replace the Zumwalt's lofty goal of 30 hulls now reduced down to just three hulls. It may cost a billion+ but not to exceed the Zumwalts per ship cost. Money on that program was mad lab spending which will be installed on a new hull designed as a Disrupter.
Helicopters are needed for up to four seated on its "large stern deck. An F-35B could land on its platformed deck. Missiles cells forward are the business end for worldwide conflicts. The back-end is for surgical strikes and disruption on the battlespace. The ultimate game-changing offers little comfort to potential adversaries as adaptation is its secret weapon. How well it changes its mission profile on a large scale makes its primary mission, offensive, but its defensive profile makes it a fool's errand to try and take it out. All of this from the Zumwalt lab.
Sunday, September 2, 2018
A National Treasure Is Too High A Risk?
Japan is considering a hybrid F-22.F-35 rendering. This of course to the common observer would mean an F-22 aero performance married to an F-35 electronic center with a dash of stealth sprinkled on its skin. The big discussion point for acquiring such a beast is its cost. Just losing just one to a mechanical issue or a military incident would sink over $200 million dollars at a glance. Or to common folk, it would equal about four hundred sensibly sized homes in the western world per hybrid jet.
All the lessons learned and all the advancements added to a hybrid would make a national treasure to the likes of what Nicholas Cage would hyperventilate over on his next "National Treasure" movie. It would be such an airplane equivalent to losing a battle in a war with one downed jet. However, the risk of just one loss is balanced with a victory by one super-jet. If it took out a missile battery with one shot it would set back someones industrial complex by ten years. Or a back to the drawing board event costing the adversary billions in a new missile scheme.
There is much more at stake. The national security and defense are at stake and that has no price tag for our cultural sensibilities at this time or at any time. People will fight to win at a World War II scale or just die. So the reward outweighs the risk in this case. War is already declared and for example, the US has been waging a techno-war for some time. It so far is winning through its F-35, satellites and other such devices we are not informed about during the 21st century. Money is only spent others cannot match and thus the war being fought is won through superior firepower of spending. This strategy could too also come to a dead end when an adversary comes up with something so off the wall or out of a garage it stifles those spending ludicrous amounts on military industry without end or limits.
The price for Japan building a super-fighter or Europe answering with a gen 6 fighter is what is at stake. The risk of losing that techno war is with its national resources (money) but not its people. The national sovereignty is at risk if it cannot defend itself, Anialation is no longer a modern answer as a nation has too much to offer once subdued. The risk comes back to losing just one jet with its 200+ million costs. Today, implementing a total victory is a mad solution for any combatant, so building a fleet of maybe 100 such jets is the risk for such a great reward of defending its sovereignty. The US, being a developmental partner would make a Japanese super fighter possible. The trade for such a deal would be another 250 US F-? A military partnership with Japan would complete the F-22 objective of about 400 in its class, as the US was seeking when it started the F-22 journey by only 187 units could be obtained. Except in this case improvements in melding the F-35 capabilities with the F-22 could be achieved.
All the lessons learned and all the advancements added to a hybrid would make a national treasure to the likes of what Nicholas Cage would hyperventilate over on his next "National Treasure" movie. It would be such an airplane equivalent to losing a battle in a war with one downed jet. However, the risk of just one loss is balanced with a victory by one super-jet. If it took out a missile battery with one shot it would set back someones industrial complex by ten years. Or a back to the drawing board event costing the adversary billions in a new missile scheme.
There is much more at stake. The national security and defense are at stake and that has no price tag for our cultural sensibilities at this time or at any time. People will fight to win at a World War II scale or just die. So the reward outweighs the risk in this case. War is already declared and for example, the US has been waging a techno-war for some time. It so far is winning through its F-35, satellites and other such devices we are not informed about during the 21st century. Money is only spent others cannot match and thus the war being fought is won through superior firepower of spending. This strategy could too also come to a dead end when an adversary comes up with something so off the wall or out of a garage it stifles those spending ludicrous amounts on military industry without end or limits.
The price for Japan building a super-fighter or Europe answering with a gen 6 fighter is what is at stake. The risk of losing that techno war is with its national resources (money) but not its people. The national sovereignty is at risk if it cannot defend itself, Anialation is no longer a modern answer as a nation has too much to offer once subdued. The risk comes back to losing just one jet with its 200+ million costs. Today, implementing a total victory is a mad solution for any combatant, so building a fleet of maybe 100 such jets is the risk for such a great reward of defending its sovereignty. The US, being a developmental partner would make a Japanese super fighter possible. The trade for such a deal would be another 250 US F-? A military partnership with Japan would complete the F-22 objective of about 400 in its class, as the US was seeking when it started the F-22 journey by only 187 units could be obtained. Except in this case improvements in melding the F-35 capabilities with the F-22 could be achieved.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
The Real Stealth Of The F-35
It is, of course, the right question finds the right answer. The "What is it?", becomes the real stealth. Lockheed has spent copious billions on an idea hoping "others" might build into that idea as the audience would with do with a slight of hand exchange at the marketplace. The F-35 main weapon is sensor fusion. Not aerobatics, no missiles definitely not exceeding range with speed. The real stealth is Lockheed's confusing description of how good it is at everything. The but, the best question, will be is that stealth of hand be enough?
The trick is not in the aerobatic realm nor is in the superior performance capability, but is in the con job of not knowing what's coming next. Applause is heard after ejecting when an F-35 pulls the chair out from underneath another J-20. Those who call it an "underachieving pig", just don't get its purpose. When asking Lockheed, you get different answers as if a magician never reveals how it does its tricks of deception.
The stealth is in what little knowledge is available for modern warfare. If fighting from the back of a dark age thoroughbred stallion awaiting a ladies favor, then the Russian and Chinese solution is for you. But if not using a sword or lance in combat on a stout mount, then the other stealth is best done without vectoring nozzles for the dogfight. The real stealth is what deceptions the F-35 offers. Nobody knows how to use its invisible capability on the world's stage. Every adversarial nation and some allied nation are seeking what the F-35 is about with no luck providing the answers.
The following answers are available. It has a stealth which is being dissected. It isn't a good dogfighter. Its slower than a Mach 2 aircraft. It doesn't go far enough on its load of fuel. The missiles on the wings are not adequate for its capabilities. It glitches every day as so the sellers of news have wanted to print or broadcast for its advertisers.
So what is the F-35? It's a slight of hand when describing its attributes. It's deception beyond performance. It connects all the moving parts. It will have a laser light show. It's flying is for everything "bolted" on within the course of its real stealth, called deception. The dogfight becomes more medieval than efficient. Penn and Teller would be proud of the F-35 since so many have said so much about its shortfalls, the Lockheed corporation built vast numbers of F-35 deceptions. It rapidly becomes worth the money spent on its real performance. Horses on the battlefield are so 18th century.
The trick is not in the aerobatic realm nor is in the superior performance capability, but is in the con job of not knowing what's coming next. Applause is heard after ejecting when an F-35 pulls the chair out from underneath another J-20. Those who call it an "underachieving pig", just don't get its purpose. When asking Lockheed, you get different answers as if a magician never reveals how it does its tricks of deception.
The stealth is in what little knowledge is available for modern warfare. If fighting from the back of a dark age thoroughbred stallion awaiting a ladies favor, then the Russian and Chinese solution is for you. But if not using a sword or lance in combat on a stout mount, then the other stealth is best done without vectoring nozzles for the dogfight. The real stealth is what deceptions the F-35 offers. Nobody knows how to use its invisible capability on the world's stage. Every adversarial nation and some allied nation are seeking what the F-35 is about with no luck providing the answers.
The following answers are available. It has a stealth which is being dissected. It isn't a good dogfighter. Its slower than a Mach 2 aircraft. It doesn't go far enough on its load of fuel. The missiles on the wings are not adequate for its capabilities. It glitches every day as so the sellers of news have wanted to print or broadcast for its advertisers.
So what is the F-35? It's a slight of hand when describing its attributes. It's deception beyond performance. It connects all the moving parts. It will have a laser light show. It's flying is for everything "bolted" on within the course of its real stealth, called deception. The dogfight becomes more medieval than efficient. Penn and Teller would be proud of the F-35 since so many have said so much about its shortfalls, the Lockheed corporation built vast numbers of F-35 deceptions. It rapidly becomes worth the money spent on its real performance. Horses on the battlefield are so 18th century.
Friday, August 24, 2018
The F-35B, The Best, A Beast and Brass
Those could be the words that an F-35B exemplifies. Imagine a Mach 1,6 advanced stealth fighter that can be deployed to a few acres with a fast jet designation. The F-35B is Britain's next step up for quieting adversaries not compliant with the free world. Helicopters have long carried the load from rooftops or parking lots. The F-35B is possibly the best beast for the fight. Helicopters...well have its place.
Quote: From Lockheed Martin Publication
Quote: From Lockheed Martin Publication
"The UK will declare F-35 maritime Initial Operational Capability in 2020. When the new carrier comes into service, the F-35B will dominate the skies for decades to come. Squadron Leader Andy “GARY” Edgell, RAF, is the first UK military pilot to complete a takeoff from the ski jump with an F-35B.
“The performance of the jet has been great. As the pilot, I have to do very little to accomplish a perfect ski jump takeoff,” commented Edgell. “I push the STOVL [short take-off vertical landing] button to convert to Mode 4, push throttle to mil and use the pedals for minor directional inputs to remain on centerline.”
The "Swiss Army Knife" of the skies will change the battlespace as it issues a variety of capabilities from just a 300-foot stripe of firm surface with a ski ramp at its end. The HMS Queen Elizabeth is about to find out if years of planning and engineering of its ship makes for a perfect F-35B storm.
The imagination for those in the know is the only thing stopping this collaboration is political will. The war has changed and now it only remains to see if the F-35 idea was well conceived or a total failure. Those who make money talking about failure and the F-35 in the same space haven't been paying attention.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
How Big is the Boeing Everett Plant?
Bigger than a Tulip Farm in Everett, Wa., that's how big. Going from north to south.
Wing:787: 777 Paint
Roof Photo: N-Wing↓White: S-787↓black roof: Paint↓
Wing:787: 777 Paint
Roof Photo: N-Wing↓White: S-787↓black roof: Paint↓
If you can figure out what I'm describing then you win!
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
"Note To Self", Aviation's Market Doldrums Is August
There are only so many airlanes sold and upgrades made during the month of August. Several airlines have now penciled in completing Rolls Royce Engine check by the end of 2018, returning respective fleets to full service by year's end. Biman received a delivery on its first 787. Now you know what the aviation doldrums looks like. Not even another redo comment on the 797 program progress. Not even an announcement scintillating the reading public about a Farnborough post-show order firming. The August aviation doldrums are for real stifling the nonsense crowd into making noise over another Rolls Royce chipped fan blade.
Therefore or furthermore, fighting fires with aerial tankers flying off of lakes and into the timber, are the most dynamic news,
Below: CL-215 water-scooping air tankers working the Howe Ridge Fire August 16, 2018. InciWeb photo.
Back left dropping the load on the trees. Front center scooping run. "All dangerous"
That is a really cool picture on an August hot doldrum day in Montana. See those trees in the background? I camped near those same trees on this same lake (McDonald) in Glacier National Park with my family in Montana.
Now you know what a fire zone war space looks like with water tankers. The lake acts as some gigantic extinguisher. It's very dangerous work and tremendously exhilarating to watch the experts fly with their necks on the fire line. Homes were lost and that portion of Glacier Park is closed. My beloved Fish Creek Campground may make it through the firestorm.
The Howe Ridge fire was some distance from the lake on August 16 (below), and now it has burned to the water as shown in this US Forest Service fire photo below this first photo in the pairing.
August Aviation doldrums looks an "awful" like this in Glacier park from Lake McDonald Lodge dock. I also spent a lot of time on this dock during the summers of my youth. If I were there I would be not fishing. This is the Howe Ridge fire burning to the water's edge sending some campers into the water for a boat rescue.
Therefore or furthermore, fighting fires with aerial tankers flying off of lakes and into the timber, are the most dynamic news,
Below: CL-215 water-scooping air tankers working the Howe Ridge Fire August 16, 2018. InciWeb photo.
Back left dropping the load on the trees. Front center scooping run. "All dangerous"
That is a really cool picture on an August hot doldrum day in Montana. See those trees in the background? I camped near those same trees on this same lake (McDonald) in Glacier National Park with my family in Montana.
Now you know what a fire zone war space looks like with water tankers. The lake acts as some gigantic extinguisher. It's very dangerous work and tremendously exhilarating to watch the experts fly with their necks on the fire line. Homes were lost and that portion of Glacier Park is closed. My beloved Fish Creek Campground may make it through the firestorm.
The Howe Ridge fire was some distance from the lake on August 16 (below), and now it has burned to the water as shown in this US Forest Service fire photo below this first photo in the pairing.
August Aviation doldrums looks an "awful" like this in Glacier park from Lake McDonald Lodge dock. I also spent a lot of time on this dock during the summers of my youth. If I were there I would be not fishing. This is the Howe Ridge fire burning to the water's edge sending some campers into the water for a boat rescue.
The Hungry Horse News Is A Great Newspaper! It has the best history and photos in this region. One of its photos below of the aerial combat zone with a tour boat running for safety.
Glacier park will live on after I'm gone but at least I made it my place from 1971 when I worked in the park as these parts are familiar to me, but I never saw a water tanker like this on Lake McDonald. Been on that boat though.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Boeing Orders Posted Today Post Farnborough
<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({
google_ad_client: "ca-pub-2672197240493121",
enable_page_level_ads: true
});
</script>
One contemplates the Boeing order book and sees many missing parts of the order book puzzle. Missing is the Viet Jet number for 100 Max Boeing signed for as a firm order and a massive shift from unidentified to named aircraft carriers not changing the book total over-all by zip. However, the good of the bad and ugly is Boeing has a sizable number of aircraft not listed as of July 31, 2018, as a firm order. If Farnsborough Boeing numbers do eventually show up on the Boeing order book it could easily exceed 750 units ordered during 2018 as of this date today. But having accountants pouring over deals is a full-time job requiring 2080 hours a year per accountant on salary and the year is only 2/3rds through with another 700 hours out of each accountant to go before the end of the year. Below is a mishmash of Boeing's order book to date. Good luck on being cogent about its importance until some big deals not listed show-up. Below is the summary book as of July 31, 2018 per Boeing's own website.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Southwest Airlines Ponders A Weighty Matter
How much an airplane weighs is very important. It's as important as a passengers caloric intake each day. Southwest airlines discover it needed to weigh. 68 airplanes which had incorrect weights documented in its database and needed a weight measure do-over. were grounded until weighed. Weight and miles have a direct impact on how much fuel is burned for a prescribed distance.
Fortunately for passengers, a donut eaten onboard a 737, does not increase the weight of the payload, but 24 hours later a passenger may have to buy new clothes for the trip home because that donut has expanded the passenger's horizons by an inch at the waist.
Fortunately for passengers, a donut eaten onboard a 737, does not increase the weight of the payload, but 24 hours later a passenger may have to buy new clothes for the trip home because that donut has expanded the passenger's horizons by an inch at the waist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)