2013 Outlook For Airplane Framers (Must Read)

This is a share note for readers. Take a look at Aviation Week's Outlook Article for 2013

As brief as my notation is, this is a good background article to take forward in 2013.

Article #2

Its Not An Airplane Its Not A Blimp

Enjoy.

2013 Will Prove Out A Boeing Strategic Decision Making Plan

Dark Horse Rising For 2013, The Boeing 787

The Year 2013, has just started.  It is my goal to review 2012 and glean what tidbits of information out from that year, and determine its strategic value for 2013.  This may be a difficult task.  I am not looking at trends, slopes, and markets. I am looking at the underlying Strategic sense from Boeing, for determining what the Company hopes to accomplish during 2013.

First up to bat: is how Boeing intends to play Frogger with Airbus? A game where the frog jumps onto lily pads over other frogs to get to the other side of the pond.  Landing on the next Lilly pad is tantamount of coming out with a new aircraft that supersedes the other Aircraft framer (Airbus) as a show stopper.  This game started many years ago with the Airbus A-320/B-737 match and is still raging onward today with engine war strategy.  The Airbus company went with super sizing everything like MacDonald's did, with its hamburger. Airbus is asking its customers, "Do you want  (flying) with that", on all orders?  This is where the tongue meets the cheek, and the rubber meets the flight line. As Ginormous the A-380 is, its for people needing people, when size matters.

Here are Boeing's Strategic Talking Points For 2013:

• Keep Airbus Busy At The Copy Shop
• Advance Product In A Timely Manner Soon After Airbus Commits To Its Designs
• Lead From The Front, But Shoot From The Back

Below is a near-do-well authored, best selling 3 chapter Book, about Boeing Strategic goals: Critics are raving about its simplistic strategic genius. Please read all chapters if you have a minute.

Chapter I: (The Year 2013 Will Prove Boeing's Strategic Decision Making)

Keep Airbus At The Copy Shop

Strategic goal number one:

An Airbus panel section is hoisted into its Boeing-like copy shop. First Airbus said (paraphrased), " the 787 is not going to work, The A-380 is the answer". Two years later in a staff meeting, a High-up staffer for Airbus, was laser pointing his way through a meeting showing how Airbus has to catch-up with plastic airplanes. "Panels are the answer, if we do it in barrels, we would be just copying Boeing." So panels it is! Or in this case above, kinda a half barrel :<)   Now what we have, since 2005, is a Airbus Copy shop making a wider (6"s), and Bigger Airplane over the 787, just like Boeing's stuff (not really because Boeing has barrels and so much more than Airbus). Everybody complained (the copy paste press), about the 7-late-7, but is Airbus able to copy the Boeing? No in many areas, and yes in one fundamental area, a plastic hull. Airbus has spent an immense amount of time cherry picking Boeing subcontractors and industries, grabbing anything non proprietary it can from Boeing's play book. That all goes to the copy shop for a large F€€.

However, Airbus has shortened the distance when following Boeing's path, by not adding all all electric architecture, and skipping to a standard bleed-air, by-pass system. Used to power its hydraulic and other non Boeing compliant systems, but its still a plastic panel wagon! Airbus probably has unpublished issues at this time, since it has not had a test flight, they remain silent on the A-350-late and -9 (closing time is at 5:00 pm and its late, about 3:50 pm). When test flying does occur, I hope the press gives Airbus the same due diligence for every squawk. Just like they did for Boeing during its experiences, and journey to first delivery.  The Boeing all electric has reduced weight factors built into the system, since it lacks bulky hydraulic fluid, and lines as found on the Airbus.    

Strategic Goal For 2013 is to Keep Airbus Copying. It ties up resources for Airbus, and keeps it chasing Oz-like rainbows and Pooka's with its own second tier all new plastic airplane. Most flying customers wouldn't notice the all electric vs the hydraulic models, but bean counters, maintenance crews and airline bottom-lines will notice. 

Chapter II:  for: (The Year 2013 Will Prove Boeing's Strategic Decision Making)

Advance Product In A Timely Manner Soon...

After Airbus Commits To Its Designs

Strategic Goal Number Two:  777X and 787-10X

I am a big 787 fan (biggest understatement ever)! That being said, it is paramount that Boeing launches the 777X at the right time.  If 2013 finds a spot to make the most out  its customers, and its technological configuration, then 2013 is the time to leap frog the A-350 in the game of  Airplane "Frogger".  Airbus will be locked and loaded during 2013 for its A-350 line.  A 777X could set Airbus back a bunch, if Boeing can trump the A-1000 and A-900 in a three card game of 777X(-8,-9) and 787X-10. 

Airplane Frogger is Now In Play

Take time to compare the numbers as seen on the internet. You will surmise, dimensions, quantities and weights are not far apart for a 17 year old airplane compared to an Airplane that has yet to fly.  Boeing will not just go match up numbers straight across, it will find 787 commonalities, enhance structural integrity and space for the 777X.  Add new engines and weight saving technologies and this aircraft without using Airbus-like Carbon panels. It will meet and exceed the A-350's all-carbon-bird, with the 777X using light weight aluminum,  Carbon wing box and wings or flight surfaces, and it should match match or exceed, the A-350.  This is what the market wants to see before it goes on some Ginormous time payment plan when buying A-350's or 777X planes.

Giraffes are surmising when the Sun is rising

(If its blurry on your screen, I apologize. Double click image and use viewing magnifier to assist reading numbers in the comparison.  otherwise view on your screen in at 200 %.)

              The Old 777 (delta X ) is Taking on the:                  The New A-350           

The Old 777 (delta X ) is Taking on the:                                                                      New A-350           

Chapter III:   (The Year 2013 Will Prove Boeing's Strategic Decision Making) 

Lead From The Front But Shoot From The Back

Strategic Goal number 3: 777X, 787-10X and 787-9

But the 777X could be that "shot taken from behind", in Boeing's 2013 strategic plan.  The 787-10X is  the "lead from the front", item during 2013!

First the 787-9 will relax the naysayers into a pleasant ride on the 787-9

The 787-9 is just an execution of an already solid plan. Having aged 9 years with a refined configuration by sitting on the electronic chalk board. 2013 is the nine's year.  This is already in motion and has legs. Any 787 Concept Risks are retired and momentum is now in play. The 787 has already left the station while the Airbus A-350 has not yet flown. All the A-350 risks are in the flight bag waiting for take off.

Hence, the 777X is very important in 2013, as part of its shoot from behind strategic plan. Though the 787-9 and -10 will lead the way during the year with photographers, journalist and executives, who are more than ready to move onto the 787-9; with that attention garnered by the press and Airbus, Boeing holds the real target in view,supremacy, and out from the the rear, the 777-X takes its shot on the competition.   2013 promises to be an exciting year, similar to the test flight years for the 787 2009-2010 and the first deliveries in 2011. 2013 has a few surprises in it, which will keep the presses rolling. Boeing's strategery is unfolding at the wing tips.

Glossary score card:

Ginormous (Merriam- Webster says a real word from WWII British Military description of Big weapons, later used by Will Farrrel on (SNL))

Glean: After dinner you sweep up the crumbs to see what people ate from the field.

Paramount (not a picture studio, but more like a VIP who is more than important)

Pooka (No fairy is more feared in Ireland than the pooka. This may be because it is always out and about after nightfall, creating harm and mischief, and because it can assume a variety of terrifying forms.)

Tantamount (a well stacked supposition in an ill fitting sentence structure)

Surmise  (A half hour before sunrise)

Stategery (not a word, but needs to go in somewhere)

Tax Season Has Hit The 777X

Boeing's long term dabbling on the chalk board and note pad for the 777X program ended awhile back. New computers were installed in the various technology pits within Boeing's world footprint. All this during a time when productivity of the 777 expanded, a surge line for the 787 was completed and Charleston rolled out and delivered a flyable 787.  Even though all this was going on, the 777X remained at bay, somewhere in a cement and glass encased buildings where cars are parked nearby, and don't move for long periods of time.  The Tax dragging down the 777X is listed below:

• Resources for R&D are limited,
• Cost reductions from production efficiency needed from the 787 project, and other projects.  
• Project maturation not yet acquired for rolling technology forward to the 777X in design and configuration completion.
• Cash flow management lean, because of 787-9,-10 infusions.
• Enough people available that prevents show stoppers like the 787 program had for X long years.

These are just a few resources that taxes Boeing's Juggernaut of expanding its family line of aircraft.  Already multiples Gulf customers and others have expressed a serious interest in the 777X.  

Emirates may buy 100 Boeing 777X jets if new model built-report

Boeing is not concerned with customers at this point, but knows exactly what it needs to do before proceeding. An announcement can be made anytime in the next three years.  Even very soon, as in Paris 2013, if necessary. That maybe the key moment to blow up the party balloons around the Boeing Paris Pavilion.  If it does not happen then, its not because of lack of potential customers, because they do have a 777 backlog in play and interested customers as mentioned above.  The important thing, is similar to any major operation, you make a list and check it twice.  Ever since, I was child, the adults had a saying, "before you do that, get your ducks in a row". 

Boeing's ducks are not yet in a row or on a time table, when getting things right is more important.  It's not so much if Boeing can't execute the 777X, but its more of when it will be ready to execute the 777X.  Its like planning an invasion, where Boeing is marshaling all hands on deck, within a definite time period. No mention yet, of suppliers involvements, or potential partners on the project. Other than the usual suspects.  When the X announcement is made, the die has already been cast.  This is not a 777 make-over, it is a "777 game changer". Does Boeing have secret intelligence, that suggest the Airbus, A-350 family will not beat the 777-300, or does it have have a strategic move up its sleeve? Mystery surrounds the slow down, of both the 787-10 and 777X.  One can only surmise it is a pacing maneuver that makes sure a continuous flow of what is proposed or promised delivers at the right time and without setbacks.  A coiled spring is better than a limp rope.  It took awhile for Boeing to wind up the 787 project rope.

Boeing 777 wikipedia photo

Aspire Aviation Article   Boeing Develops 777X To Challenge Airbus A-350     

"Under the Chicago-based airframer’s latest schedule on the 777X development in December, the concept development of the 777-8X and -9X has been successfully accomplished at the end of 2011, with a firm configuration of the aircraft due in the second quarter of 2012, followed by the securing of an authority-to-offer (ATO) from Boeing’s board of directors in the third-quarter, Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources at Boeing revealed."

"The GE9X engine will have a 10% lower engine specific fuel consumption (SFC) than the GE90-115B1 engine and will incorporate the twin annular pre-mixing swirler II (TAPS II) instead of the dual annular combustor (DAC), composite variable-bleed valve ducts at the exit of the booster stage. The GE9X will have the same fan diameter of 325 cm (128 inches) as the GE90-115B1 engine and delivers a thrust of 99,500 lbs (443 kN), compared to the GE90-115B’s 115,300 lbs (512 kN) of thrust.

“I’m spending over US$50 million on technology development on it in 2012. We’ll be ready,” GE Aviation chief executive David Joyce told Bloomberg, adding the new engine powering the 777-9X will be 6%-8% more fuel efficient than the GE90-115B1 engine.

The GE90-115B1 engine burns 0.25 pounds of fuel per pound of thrust delivered per hour (lb/lbt/hr) whereas the GEnx-2B engine on the 747-8 burns 0.274 lb/lbt/hr. It is noteworthy, however, that a direct comparison between the GEnx-2B and GE90-115B1′s fuel burn figures is skewed as the engine fan efficiency improves as the fan size increases. As the GE90-115B1 has a fan diameter of 135 inches, including the engine nacelle, whereas the GEnx-2B engine has a diameter of only 105 inches and the -1B engine has a diameter of only 111 inches,Aspire Aviation‘s sources say a 10% reduction in engine specific fuel consumption (SFC) of the GE-9X versus the GE90-115B1 engine is achievable."

• "Meanwhile, the 777X will feature a 787-styled composite/super-critical wing that is going to have a considerably better lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio and is significantly lighter than the wings of the 777-300ER, with a wingspan of as large as 71.1 metres (233.4 feet)."
• The larger wing of the 777X will make it an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Code F aircraft instead of the Code E category that the 777-300ER and -200LR are in today as well as a US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airplane Design Group (ADG) Group VI aircraft whereas the 777-300ER and -200LR are Group V aircraft. The ICAO Code E and FAA ADG Group V categories include airplanes whose wingspan is between 52 m (170.6 ft) to 65 m (213.3 ft) whereas the Code F and ADG Group VI categories include airplanes with a 65 m (213.3 ft) to 80 m (262.5 ft) wingspan.
• Moreover, the same sources say Alcoa’s 3rd-generation lightweight aluminium lithium (Al-Li) is a “viable option” for the 777X, which will feature a 10% weight saving and a 6% reduction in skin friction drag, while cautioning the decision in the choice of the material for the 777X’s fuselage will not be made anytime soon.
• Indeed, a 777X featuring an advanced aluminium-lithium fuselage with a composite wing makes sense in significantly trimming weight, thereby further improving the fuel burn performance of the aircraft. In addition, advanced aluminium-lithium (Al-Li) is a well understood technology that requires little to no modification in the production process and will not complicate the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification for the 777X. Put it simply, advanced aluminium-lithium technology is what Aspire Aviation‘s sources characterise as a “low-hanging fruit” that could be incorporated into the design and the production of the 777X very easily, while providing a considerable weight saving."

Aspire Aviation,    By Daniel TsangFebruary 9, 2012

Since this Aspire article on February 9, 2012. Boeing has not been sitting still. However, what is really happening is the owners of  777-300 are getting anxious about the roll out of the A-350-9. This is a real poker hand being played by both companies.  Either the 777X invasion is not ready, or they are waiting for Airbus to commit to a winter campaign of the A-350, before Boeing has a great spring in Paris.

You can see at this point, either this is a Boeing bluff or an Airbus full house in play. I'm willing to speculate that Boeing is shooting the moon, as in the game of "Hearts", and is not sloughing off the Queen of Spades onto Airbus. 

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?