Fleet Dichotomy Watching Means 777X Is In.

What is "out" is an important trend. What is "in" , signals that event. What is "meant", falls below in the succeeding paragraphs. A little new snippet came out today, which makes one ponder about what is really happening in the airline industry. It's about BA receiving its next 777-300 ER. Good catch BA. Right there in the article is a dichotomy of fleet. An important trend for mega airlines. There are two classes of airlines in the world with subsets. One is the mega carriers, the other is everybody else. Mega carriers spawn out of the middle east like oil wells. Where national legacy airlines are that subset of mega carriers such as BA, Lufthansa and United as exampled. The "others", would include; substantial upstarts, "wanna be airlines", and emerging airlines. I won't name a few, you do the work. 

What comes from this article below are clues:

New Boeing 777-300ER plane for BA

15 Aug 2014

On Wednesday night (August 13th), a new Boeing 777-300ER became a part of the British Airway fleet, as it was delivered to the airline.

The twelfth 777-300ER to join BA touched down in Heathrow on the 13th and only a few hours afterwards was on its way to Mumbai.

"I think this aircraft is vitally important for the fleet, it's a wonderful aircraft - pilots love it, it is very fuel efficient and hugely comfortable for customers," chief Boeing pilot at BA, Allister Bridger, has said.

BA now has 58 Boeing 777 planes in its fleet, more than the number of Boeing 747-400s it has (48).

BA did at one point have 57 Boeing 747-400s, yet it has now started retiring its fleet of this sort of plane, putting Boeing 777, Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 planes in the place of the aircraft it retires.

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

The dichotomy shift comes in the last few sentences. Boeing has shored up its right sized jumbo fleet with the 777X's family. It's twin engine as mini Jumbos, that will erode both the A380 and A350-1000 potential markets. It also spells retirement for the 747. The 777X-9 will do the job of the 747-400, only more efficiently than either the 747-8I or the A380. 

The question for most mega airlines or emerging airline is; Do you really need to fill 525 passenger every time you fly when making money? The answer is a strong no! The 747-400 that BA is retiring in an on-going scheduled event, and will be replaced by 777-300ER's, which carry about the same number of tickets sold on an average for a 747-400 flight. BA will gain extreme efficiency on the 777-300ER by doing so at this time. Bank those immediate savings for future 777-300ER purchases or later for 777X-9 acquisitions if it follows through on the 777 type. No need for super jumbos at this time when the heart of its business plan and airport compliance's are set around the 360 seat mark. The 777X will come just-in-time as populations and business grows steady in the next 20 years. 

The A-380 is that one-off dichotomy decision. A useful attention get-er and option. It doesn't have purchasing continuity, even with its own family of aircraft. Refer to the Emirates cancellation of 70 A350's. Emirates has heavily purchased both the 777's and A380's. Boeing has filled a purchasing and seating continuity with its own 787 and 777 combined with the A-380. Both are better options than the A350. The market has paused and is dithering on the A350 market preference.

BA has measured it potential market, age of equipment, and its 747's in service. It has come with an easily achievable plan, in the making, with the 787, 777 types, and A380's. The only problem is that the A380 will exhaust early its airport potentials, where the 777 will continue to fit in the airports long after the A380 has saturated its own market. Airports can't just expand on a $dime, nor do they always have the space to expand. Airport status quot is what Boeing is banking on with the 777 types. So far they guessed right on that move, where Airbus bet the farm on "if they build it, airports will expand for "it"" (being the A380). Only desert kingdoms have the space and money for "it".

Finally, the A380, is really Boeing's step child within this news report.

AI vs Design Freeze KC-46 and The Military Procurement

Always Improving or (AI) is the poison pill of military projects. AI feeds cost overruns as it contributes to finding a better way of making something good, or best during the course of an "Idea Evolution" (IE, chasing the perfection rainbow F-35 example). How do you separate the AI in a fixed cost project? That is the question that Boeing must answer soon, as its main competitor, Airbus has announced the A330 NEO with new advanced constructs and engines that may outclass the the older 767 frame and engine, employed by the Air Force as its main tanker option. Adversarial nations may end up with a more advanced tanker at the US Air Force Expense.

Boeing gained an order for 179 tankers in a bitter competition with Airbus. Did Airbus sit still? No! The A330 NEO could make the 767's transition to an all modern air tanker obsolete, before its delivers the first one to the US Air Force. A frighting prospect to a fixed cost program  Boeing finds itself enclosed in the fix cost bid, while Airbus can upgrade a NEO A330  tanker proposal for its foreign powers customers through its extended commercial development. It could make the Boeing order a one and only with the US Military. The 767 commercial development has come to an end of its life cycle activity. The commercial side can no longer fund improved 767 advancements for the military side. The military fixed cost procurement theory assumes it takes commercial development and imbues it into a military advantage on the cheap. The F-35 program is clean sheet from bottom up, design, with all the cost and perils associated with a new invention. The 767 fixed cost bid feeds off a frozen commercial/military programs. The A330 NEO is not frozen on its commercial side and they can keep advancing innovations on  a large scale where the military can jump back in and buy those advancements. Boeing choose as did the military an end of life 767 frame, reviving it for near future into a fine tanker procurement with no future commercial value for improved developments. Boeing will have to offer the 787 frames in a future go around as it tries beating off the  A330 NEO bid in the next tanker go around in 10-20 years. Flight deck commonality will save the Boeing tanker program with a type jump to the 787.

Also,what Boeing could do is improvise the 767 techno points on its own dime. They will need to dig deep into its military/commercial play book with a revised Tanker model off its sunk R & D costs from all its family of aircraft.

Boeing must continue its AI processes behind the scenes, and outside the Fixed Cost Trap, it finds itself in. After all the US Air Force does want the best for the cheapest. Boeing probably has already taken steps to address the A330 NEO prospects with other foreign nations. The theme of the KC-46 is Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) development into its military DNA, saving both cost, and time for deploying an all new tanker. However, the fly in the ointment is Airbus taking an opportunity to improve its own tanker proposition, using company money through applying it on its own commercial A330 NEO endeavor, using its new commercial advances for installing it in future "Tanker Bids". In the meantime, an A330 NEO submission is for other national war powers, or even going back to the US Air Force looking for a follow-on Tanker upgraded bid.

Proposed Boeing internal talking points for consideration:

• Boeing bolsters capitol reserved for future Tanker R&D. 
• A plan to compete with a A330 NEO extended tanker Proposals as purposed from The A330 NEO commercial announcements.
• All new Engine developments for 767 freighter upgrades( military, Fed EX, UPS or any current 767 equipment development), 
• Or 787 Tanker Version using a 787 Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) on the fly development,
• and Lessons Learned experiences during the last few head to head competitive bids processes shaping bidding strategies with customers outside the US military procurement processes.
• Don't do anything outside the scope of current 767 development. 

The US Air Force lock on Boeing's current tanker bid, allows it to tender additional purchasing solicitation, once it nears its 179th tanker delivery, thus opening up the bid process for an A330 NEO tanker bid while the 767 model languishes as a frozen fixed cost project, nailed down by the Boeing tanker program. It, Boeing, must reach out with its own money, developing  future solutions from the commercial to military project bins, on the next go around in Tanker Wars, as Airbus will be ready with an on-the-fly solution, out performing the even older 767 frame design. The bottom line is that the new procurement process is a double edged sward, where winning is not always  the most desirable award with the project frozen within the tanker costs for configuration and development. Boeing must develop from its own commercial airplanes now, such as the 787, for any future non clean sheet military applications, if it where to exceed any future Airbus offerings of military applications from "its" own commercial parts bins.

The Boeing Poseidon project: Uses the 737 air frame from an AI upgraded aircraft in this Boeing example. The military sub-hunter and surveillance craft does more than just hunt and watch. It manages airspace during battle and directs both drones and fighter/bomber craft about, as it prioritizes its adversarial targets within the battle space.

The 767 is not actively upgrading its commercial aircraft where it falls out of the AI model. The money is not there in a fixed cost to always improve. The A330 NEO by name is AI through its commercial applications. That is the soft underbelly of the 767 fixed cost idea, which the military created when awarding the bid on an older commercial frame. The 767 for the most part, has closed frame development from its commercial production life cycle other than freight framing. The Military version, or Poseidon 737 is still in production on the commercial side, as well as the A330. The new MAX assures a future with AWACS , radar, and battle management type of military applications, and will be going into the future for the next 30 years. Awarding military bids using commercial foundations must also have a future commercial shelf-life going forward as an attachment of the AI model. This is fundamental for program continuity, and is an added value for both the military and the framer. Using military COTS procurement methodology while acquiring aircraft used in supporting rolls must have a future definition coming from the commercial side for this procurement method. In essence it must have a viable AI side on commercial applications. 

Exciting Corporate Airline Bottom Line, "Or-CASM"

The 737 MAX  customers are looking at maximising the corporate bottom through the acronym known as (CASM).

Press Report:

"But, as airlines continue to look for ways to lower their Cost per Available Seat Mile, "or CASM", Boeing wants to have a high-density version of its most popular aircraft available for purchase. The Wall Street Journal notes that reducing CASM is a major goal for this high-density 737 with Boeing targeting a 5% increase in per-seat efficiency."

Before you move the family to the front of the airplane thinking its a new airline incentive for booking passengers, its really a way of looking at enhancing the revenue system. Not surprising, It starts with seat count. Further its not surprising that filling space with form fitting seats.

Gone are the days of a strato-lounger with wing tip accents on the top corners for resting your head in a snore down with other passengers. Forget those 3-4 inch thick cushions surrounding you like a 7.1 speaker system. Space is what airlines are seeking and space becomes fixed on every airline no matter the aircraft size from the 737 MAX to the A-380.

Conceptually, Boeing gives parameters on weight hauling potential for every particular model. After-all, passengers are dead weight aren't they? From the airline concessions stand in the kitchen to the storage rooms in the belly, or overheads, its all weight. Each seat represents a factor for weight, including fuel. Addressing what filling a seat means, giving a final answer found on your ticket price. I have invented my own acronym for this calculation Seat Weight Efficiency Applied Totals or (SWEAT). What SWEAT does is assign a weight performance factor per seat. Variables are then measured as potentials from typical load per seat going the distance. 

One Seat SWEAT Totals:

• Expected customer weight, avg. 80 Kilos
• Expected customer Luggage Weight, both carry -on and checked. 24 Kg's
• Expected in service supplies, such as liquids and food 2.5 Kg's
• Expected Fuel weight per seat for trip duration (airline derived number per route)
• Total payload number divided by total seat number.

An airline can predict very accurately total TOW as a function of paid customers. It can add mail , other freight shipments or additional passengers from a fixed space of a particular model. The efficient seat configuration could add extra seat rows over the length of the passenger space without giving the passenger any discomfort. A thin line seat opens up possibilities for the airline without sacrificing customer comforts. Two more rows adds up to 12 more seats in the same space as found in the former 737 NG model..

An airplane with 150 seats will typically haul "150 passengers" as an optimal. Enter in all data from its data base, based on experience for 150 seats over the history of a particular airline model. Using this modeling, apply it against what the maximized ability from the manufacturer has established. In this example the airline has found that flying the aircraft for a particular route or in most cases maximum range, the 150 seat, always fly's within 70% of its true potential. It could easily fly with a dozen more revenue seats on-board every day. That's what the Max promises with the new seat interiors purposed and additional space provided.

Now the seat and its space becomes the issue! Not the engine, flight controls or laminar flow technology. The seat companies are on deck to make a seat fit you like a new tailored outfit. The seat becomes the fashion statement for your travels and comfort not the pitch number. A 32 inch pitch with an old lounger type seat could not even leave room for your legs and feet. Put your feet up on the bottom seat pad and curl up like a ball for the duration of the trip. However, the seat people came to the rescue, and make the most important contribution in decades. The old Pan AM Clipper seat has nothing over the new seat that are a coming! 

There are many seat offerings so I'll pick on Recaro, an easily recognizable name. Its form fitting seat allows the 32 inch seat pitch more room for its customer, at the same time more comfort than any predecessors. Magic, the seat pitch battle between air manufacturers have grown a pair of "" with the mention of pitch. Pitch now becomes a subset from the seat installed and deserves the "" around the word "pitch". These form fitting seats wear like a stylish suit, creating more space within the pitch allotment. Pitch has redefined itself by the seat itself. I would rather see on manufacturer advertisement on seat pitch we have a 32R pitch (R for Ricaro), which is significantly more than a our competitors 32Z pitch (Z for Zebras).

So the seat is now defining the Airline Model types that hold 182 passengers. 



"Using these seats, we can maximize the aircraft's revenue potential by fitting 182 people in the same space with lighter seats, giving more room in its allotted within 31-32 inches. That will add more loading weight per seat drawing it closer to the Airplane's best and efficient number for revenue, thus lowering the ticket price. After-all, its all about the passenger and its seat.

Every Great Publication has Advertisement. Since The Blog Is Not Great, But Informative...

Here is my gratuitous video for a commercial break. Its an attempt of being clever and oh so smart in presenting the only "MAX Affect" on potential airline customers, passengers and suppliers concerning that "MAX Affect".

The LiftnDrag Commercial critique for the 737 MAX Affect.

The video cover effect: it's a formal picture done in black tie. Even James Bond would appreciate its dress code for videos. It tells me its a mystery with a soft glow and silver lining. What airline wouldn't want a subliminal date in this MAX attire? 

Opening the video has a thirty-something voice model effect. Sounding like an upward mobile yuppie type from the 80's, while reading a clever script about fuel and more fuel not burned on this aircraft. The fifty percent cost of flying any aircraft is fuel. The revenue stream pays for that cost, hence 12 more seats in this commercial version per Max arriving. I didn't research out how that compares to the NEO across the seat count, but I do know that the ultimate MAX-900 could hold two hundred, but will be set for 199, thus saving the cost of one extra flight attendant if the MAX had seated 200. This advertised Max (stated as an 800) will hold 182, counting 12 more seats over the NG configuration of 170. Twelve more tickets sold while burning more than 14% less fuel (wordplay, sorry).

• Fuel Economy
• Reliable
• Eco Friendly

If I watch this commercial advertisement again, I might go out and buy one from petty cash.

The most important thing for me is that it didn't stump me on the words Laminar Flow Technology. I went to wordsmith school and did a paper on Laminar Flow. My paper had this quote, 

"Laminar Flow Technology is found on a sledding hill around Christmas.  Take one fifty gallon plastic leaf bag and insert a truck inner tube. Hop on it, and hope no radar gun is pointed in your direction, because laminar flow technology has arrived, and it will take you down the sledding hill faster than a sled runner." 

No pushing needed. That would be my Laminar Flow Technology Advertising Commercial. But since I don't have a petty cash account large enough to buy a MAX, I 'll just go sledding with inner tubes until I hit a tree or something.

My Laminar Flow Tube Technology Points For Tubing down hills in winter:

• No pushing needed
• Unreliable directional inputs from trip to trip
• Eco Friendly, when bouncing off trees and not scaring the bark. 

I came Across An A380 Posts Written By An A380 Debbie Downer

I don't spend my day hunting for online stuff of this nature. However sometimes it just falls out of the sky in front of my feet. William Tell Isaac Newton had it correct about apples, objects, and gravity. I am not lazy nor short of words, but sometimes it's just better when others write how I think for the most part. So it's important to relay that message forward as a re-post of a just discovered story that may be of interest to anyone who hasn't drunk the Airbus Kool-Aid! Now its time to give over my blog from another by re-posting of great "Non-Boeing Article."

Why Airbus’ A380 Failed

Bidness Etc investigates the reasons behind the failure of Airbus’ A380, which was once anticipated to break all air-travel normsPublished: August 11, 2014, at 5:34 am ESTBy: Sam QuestClick Ticker to See live coverage

• EADSY
• BA

AIRBUS GROUP (EADSY) hoped to change the face of the global air transport industry with the A-380. The company thought of the new aircraft as a solution to congested tarmacs, which are a result of higher demand for air travel. However, with only 11 airlines having ordered the A380 in initial years, and orders stagnating thereafter, it is evident that the aircraft has not taken off very well in the industry. What The A380 Hoped To Achieve? Airbus predicted that aircraft with greater passenger capacity would eventually dominate the market. The A-380 was deemed ideal for high volume and high traffic routes. 75% of the largest long-haul routes are slot-constrained, meaning the number of flights taking off or landing at a certain airport is restricted; 

hence, greater passenger volumes could be achieved with a larger carrier. British Airways, the national carrier for Britain, is an airline that might implement such a strategy. It plans on replacing the three Boeing 747s flying on the London-Los Angeles route with two A380s. This would decrease traffic at Heathrow Airport by one aircraft.

What Went Wrong?

The A380 is just too big for the industry to handle, having a wingspan that exceeds the length of a football field and taking up an area of 6,000 square feet. Four engines power the massive jet, bringing it to an altitude of 39,000 feet in under 15 minutes. However, the massive engines of the jet consume greater quantities of fuel and increase the overall costs of airlines that have the A380 as a part of their fleet.

Most airports in the world cannot accommodate the A380 owing to its large wingspan. Therefore, it is necessary to gain cooperation from airports to modify their gates in order to make the accommodation of the aircraft possible. For example, the aircraft cannot fly to Brazil as airports there cannot handle the A380.

The limited routes that the A380 can fly on, along with the higher costs attached to the aircraft, have made airlines pessimistic about adding it to their fleet. Only 11 airlines have ordered the A380 so far. Emirates Airlines has been the only one to have based its fleet around the plane, having ordered 140 planes and currently operating 50 of them.

Boeing’s Strategy:

The Boeing Company (BA), the largest competitor for Airbus’ aircraft-manufacturing business, had predicted that traffic would slow down between large hubs in the world and domestic air-traffic would drive growth in the aviation industry. As a result, the company developed the smaller wide-body, fuel-efficient Boeing 787 Dreamliner family of commercial jets, which was a big success. 

(The newest addition to the lineup, the 787-10, has a capacity of seating 323 passengers, compared to over 500 for the A380.)

Boeing’s prediction about the future of the aviation industry and drivers of growth seems to have hit the bulls-eye, whereas Airbus’ prediction has missed the target by a mile.

Boeing was up 0.66% during trading on Friday, while Airbus closed in the red after falling 0.14%.
Airbus has fallen 26.26% over the year, while Boeing has fallen 11.25%.
  

Flying As Promised Even With Engine Failure

The next to the worse thing for the 787-8 is engine failure over the Ocean. The worst thing is two engines failing over the ocean or a meteor strike. Last spring, a JAL had an engine oil failure near Hawaii and landed with grace. Worth noting: are the 288 passengers on board making it an extremely "Heavy" flying on one engine. Second time in history a 787 shuts down and going on one engine with paying passengers. The passengers were safe but scared. The 787 proving ground becomes a time in operation, as all its anomalies are worked out. All new models will have their moments, even the A380 blew up an engine in flight, and it will for the A350. It is hoped by each manufacturer, weakness is caught in development not on a revenue flight. GE has its work cut out for them, by developing an improved fix either in the engine assembly or with the design. Statistically, it may not constitute an emergency, but engine research and change are required quickly in a few areas. A million passengers and 20 million miles and only two occurrences have happened. However it's two, too many.

On March 9th, 2014, CNN reported:

JAL Dreamliner lands on one engine after oil pressure problem

On August 11, 2014 it was reported by the pressing multitude, and "Seeking Alpha" the following event.

Boeing Dreamliner engine fails over the Atlantic  link  Headline

Alpha's bullet point report:

Boeing Dreamliner engine fails over the Atlantic

Aug 11, 2014, 14:21 ET | About: The Boeing Company (BA)2

Off The Sea Wall With A Ship Update

I am still following the Zumwalt DDG1000. It reflects back my on boyhood dreams seeing my first ship at a pier in California, where I used to swim at the beach. Below as per usual, is the link to its progress report for the Zumwalt class Destroyer

Raytheon Meets Key Milestones in DDG 1000 Zumwalt-Class Destroyer Program

"Recent milestones include:

• Successful Test Readiness Review of Total Ship Computing Environment software, release 7. The 550,000 software lines of code – developed, integrated, tested, and delivered – build on the TSCE baseline of more than six million lines of code, and represent the first formal delivery to the ship that includes the combat system software as well as hull, mechanical, and electrical ship control functionality

• A production AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar successfully tracked air targets for the first time at Wallops Island, VA. The SPY-3 array, receiver/exciter and signal/data processor were controlled by the combat system of the Self Defense Test Ship, exercising various search and track modes, including the new volume search. The radar tracked targets of opportunity and displayed targets and data on the DDG 1000 Common Display System.

• Completion of the third session of instructor-led ship control systems training with members of the DDG 1000 pre-commissioning crew in Bath, Maine. More than 55 sailors have been trained on ship control systems to date; 85 sailors have attended TSCE operations training. Crew training continues, most recently with a session at Raytheon's Portsmouth, R.I. facility – in the company's Ship Mission Center, a realistic replica of the crew's command center."

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

The first ship is 90% complete. This means its new advanced systems continue to validate as installed, while not having any show stoppers, or it does not clog-up up the construction work when installing equipment and systems. It's development continues forward with robust over-all progress. I am not saying there are no failures encountered, but defects found are slight in nature, when it comes to the ship systems coding. That is great news for the program. Averaging only one error per ten thousand lines of code. 

Crews are being trained in separate companies per expertise. The article above has divided up two groups for the trained ship company, with 55 dedicated towards control systems and 85 for TSCE operations. The remaining crew not listed will matriculate on board during its initial sea trials.

More About TSCE

January 17, 2013 Posted by; Military Embedded Systems

Raytheon TSCE software delivered to U.S. Navy for DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer tes

Raytheon TSCE software delivered to U.S. Navy for DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer testing

BRANDON LEWIS ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR

More than six million lines of code for the Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) integrated mission systems of the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program have been delivered to the U.S. Navy by Raytheon. One of the most complex software development programs in Navy history, as well as the first large-scale implementation of the Navy's Open Architecture strategy, the Raytheon TSCE software will support combat system and ship activation testing, which is scheduled for later this year.

The TSCE is designed to connect all Zumwalt systems by creating a shipboard enterprise network that integrates all on-board systems. Kevin Peppe, Vice President of Seapower Capability Systems for Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems business commented on the upcomingDDG 1000 testing, "The upcoming tests and ship activation will demonstrate the robust capability and functionality of TSCE, the integrating element delivering mission wholeness for this revolutionary new warship."

Utilizing an open-architecture approach to offer scalability for cost-efficient new mission capabilities, the TSCE allows the Navy to leverage standardized Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) hardware and software across the fleet. Delivering a high level of modularity and automation, the TSCE will be a key tenent of reuse for other platforms, and deliver a significant reduction in manning Zumwalt-class destoyers thanks in large part to its sailor-centric human-computer interface. Currently at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6, Raytheon's TSCE recently demonstrated the ability to perform in end-to-end operational environments, successfully completing automated control tests of its Integrated Power System and Engine Control System capabilities on the Navy's first all-electric ship at a land-based Navy test site.

The TSCE includes all shipboard computing applications, from Command, Control, Communications, Computers (C4), and intelligence equipment to Combat Management Systems (CMSs) to machinery control and  embedded training, support, and damage control systems. Raytheon is contracted as the primary mission systems equipment integrator for the DDG 1000 program's electronic and combat systems, though the TSCE architecture is the product of a collaboration between Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Navy laboratories, and others.

Peppe continued, "We attribute TSCE success to the rigorous process employed by the incredibly talented industry team, building in incremental testing throughout development to verify quality, mitigate risk, and detect any defects early enough to avoid any impact to the Navy's schedule or cost."

The 787 Battery Will Get A Lease On Life

Researchers take major step towards longer battery life

A predominant  Stanford University Scientist, former Secretary of Energy for President Obama. Stands behind its research regarding a new Lithium Ion battery construct that should reach the market within five years. This success would make the 787 a complete solution for its all electrical theories and new aircraft technology. Five years isn't long to wait, after-all it took from 2007 to 2010, just to get the 787 to fly after it was initially assembled. 




Yi Cui, Stanford associate professor of materials science and engineering, along with other researchers at Stanford, announced a breakthrough that might triple battery life in cell phones.
(Courtesy of Steve Castillo/USA Today)

"The team of researchers working on the battery included Steven Chu, former Secretary of Energy and professor of physics and molecular and cellular physiology, and Yi Cui, associate professor of material sciences and engineering."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The top line title is the link for the science article. What it means is that Boeing in time will be out of the woods regarding its battery problems. The solution is not fixing the causal problem, but building a better Lithium-ion Battery with new advances on its stability for all applications such as power phones, computers, and the 787. There is a second group in Eastern United States who proposes a battery solution, which has tested stable in the lab using a certain stable Lithium-ion substrates for the battery cell which not erode or runaway. Both propositions are advancing and are extremely stable The above linking article has a carbon cap on the lithium-ion anode that does not allow battery runaway heating or fire. It keeps the battery stable under all condition, make the battery lighter and more powerful. Just what Boeing has ordered. A smaller more stable and more powerful battery. Only it will take five years to hit the aircraft application stage. I would assume Boeing would fly both old and new batteries on testing aircraft in a side by side comparison before installing a replacement on commercial aircraft. In time there will be a solution.

"In the paper, the authors explained that they are overcoming the problems posed by lithium – namely overheating, chemical reactions and buildup – by building a protective layer of interconnected carbon domes on top of their lithium anode."

"The team called this protective layer “the nanosphere,” and it resembles the shape of a honeycomb. This new layer creates a flexible, uniform and non-reactive film that protects the unstable lithium from the drawbacks that have made using it such a challenge."

The solution will enable the manufacture of more advanced 777's or 737's with all electric systems. Saving even more weight for each aircraft. Its not as simple as just getting the battery right and you are good to go. It means allowing installation of core technology, managing supported electrical systems. Not using the bleed air by-pass engine tasks for powering its systems. While those aircraft mentioned would benefit as being more like the 787. It would mean a reduction of hydraulics on the 737 and 777 types. The commonality of aircraft systems draws a tighter circle around its architecture with a stable new battery, as the other aircraft adopts a stable lithium-ion battery it will finally adopt the 787.

747-8i, Experience is Worth Reposting

Below is the article that captured my attention. Its an even handed honest report from a flight experience a iReport CNN contributor had, when traveling on Lufthansa 747-8I. Enjoy!

Boeing's new 747-8 Intercontinental: Same same, but different.

By zhugeli  |  Posted August 8, 2014  |  Malaysia

CNN PRODUCER NOTE    

Few feats of engineering are synonymous with an entire industry.

But Boeing's 747 jumbo jet revolutionized air travel, adding to the glamour, romance and, most significantly, affordability of commercial flight, while simultaneously slapping it in the face by ushering in the bovine era of mass tourism.

Monumental in size, the shape of the 747 is iconic itself -- the enormous wings, four engines and that front end "hump" make it one of the world's most recognizable aircraft. To this day, the "upstairs" seating area -- reserved for a lucky few each flight -- imparts a sense of prestige and exclusivity.

Boeing has delivered more than 1,400 of the aircraft to airlines around the world -- not bad for a plane now into its fifth decade.

 
Since its historic debut at the Paris Air Show in 1969, the company has introduced a number of variations to the 747 family, including the 747-100, 747-200 and 747-300. The most common variety for international travelers today are versions of the 747-400.

Each new version has brought enhancements. The 747-400's most noticeable change was the addition of winglets, which Boeing describes as "wing tip extensions which reduce lift-induced drag and provide some extra lift." 

The 747-400 is no longer being built -- production ended in 2009.

Its successor, the 747-8 Intercontinental, rolled out last year and is currently being built at a rate of two per month. Each 747-8 is made up of about 6 million parts and has a list price of $351.4 million.

Lufthansa is the only airline flying the passenger version of the 747-8. It has six in the skies serving cities such as Frankfurt, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Bangalore and New Delhi. The first was delivered in 2012, one of 19 of the aircraft the European carrier ordered, with deliveries expected to be completed in 2015.

This month, the airline added the 747-8 to its Hong Kong-Frankfurt route and invited CNN to tour the latest version of the classic jumbo jet.

So what's different?

 
No surprise that the 747-8 Intercontinental looks like a 747. Though 70% of the airplane's structural weight is brand new, it has the same iconic shape, though with some noticeable external differences.

The wings are new -- an upgrade Boeing hadn't originally intended for the new design. Gone are the winglets, replaced by raked wingtips Boeing says increase aerodynamics and, thus, fuel efficiency.

The same design is being used on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. Boeing says the 747-8 is approximately 14% more fuel efficient per seat than its predecessor.

The engines are new, too. There are still four, but the new design features a scallop-edged casing around each newly developed General Electric engine.

As important, though less noticeable to the typical passenger, the plane has been stretched. It's 5.6 meters (18 feet) longer than its predecessor, with a total length of 76.3 meters (250 feet).

Boeing points out this makes the 747-8 about a meter longer than the Airbus A340-600 and thereby the longest commercial aircraft in the world.

The upper deck is also stretched.

"We chose this location (for additional room) because it is here that the airlines benefit the most -- both from the premium seating on both the upper and lower decks, as well as in the cargo hold," says Boeing's Joanna Pickup.

Inside, the plane still has that exhilarating new airplane smell (kind of like new car smell, but a lot more expensive), with windows and surfaces joyously free of the scratches, smudges and hair goo residue all too typical of the commercial flying experience.

When we toured it was also free of other passengers -- no screaming kids nor (sadly) smiling cabin crew manning the drinks cart.

While we can't comment on the flying experience, the Lufthansa 747-8 interior is sleek, comfortable, modern and efficient. In other words, German -- designed to get you from A to B in good shape without over the top frills.

In economy class, where seats are naturally skeletal compared with their fat cousins up front, nothing feels tacky or about to break. Or worse still, like your father-in-law has been sitting in it for 20 years.

'Wow factor'

With the plane comes Lufthansa's new business class, which will be retrofitted on the rest of the airline's fleet.
We've reeled off some of business class' features and other enhancements in the gallery above. Expect the mod cons -- fully flat seats in biz and first, video on demand, power plugs and iDevice ports and new features such as sound-insulating curtains and cool automatic window shades in first class.

On the whole, the plane feels spacious. Admittedly, this is easier to pull off when no one else is aboard, but relocating some storage area to sidewalls (not in overhead spaces) adds a lot of cabin room and makes it less likely passengers will bash their heads on compartments above in that frantic post-landing-must-touch-my-carryon-immediately moment of choreographed (and mystifying) panic.

Lufthansa can carry 386 passengers on its 747-8 in its 8-80-298 (first-business-economy) arrangement.

The upper deck is home to 32 business class seats in a 2-2 configuration -- the width of the area is roughly the same as the interior of the 737-700.

It's here and at the front of the plane that Lufthansa is aiming to attract customers in the competitive but lucrative East Asia-Europe route.

"This gives us a competitive shift. We have been here for 52 years and we know that customer expectations are high. That's why we are the first to bring the 747-8 to Hong Kong," says Andrew Bunn, Lufthansa general manager for Hong Kong, South China, Taiwan and Macau.

"It brings a unique element to our brand. From an economic point of view, it gives us more capacity and is more cost effective. For customers, they will notice and appreciate the enhancements on board.

"More than anything, it is exciting. It is a new experience. It is a new aircraft. There is certainly a 'wow' factor, not just for our customers. People all over the airport are taking pictures of the aircraft every day."

Still capturing attention, this legend of the skies is showing no signs of retirement. Rather, the 747-8 is the latest chapter in a legendary chunk of aviation history.

• TAGS:
• breaking_news

Thompson Profits In spite Of 787 Issue

Thompson or TUI has experienced early operator issues with its fleet of 787. Part of that problem comes from its all new technology and different production process  never before attempted  on this scale. Customers now fly 173 of the 787 types. Everyday, and with several cycles each day, the 787 is tested as it should be for a new craft. The Thompson experience has been one filled with 787 problems. Even with that dismal prospect of "things" going side ways at times, it has grown its market and profitability with the 787. Just today is reported an engine failure over the ocean. It terrified its passengers and plunged the 787 down to the deck as part of recovery procedure during engine failure. The 787 performed as designed in the event of an engine failure.  Its little comfort to its passengers as they were in panic and fear mode.

My own fear story occurred on a 737, twice. Once in the winter when icing froze the slats in place over Montana just after take-off. The co-pilot came down aisle and looked over my seat out the window and said, "uh  huh frozen". He then announced on PA to the passengers later after reappearing from the cockpit, "We cannot move the control surfaces into flight mode, the captain will attempt to break the ice by moving the move able flight surfaces  back and forth until it breaks free!"

Wow, I was reassured as in panic stricken. The folks on Thompson were faced with engine failure over the Atlantic Ocean. More terrifying than my own frozen wing slat problem in the Rocky Mountains with peaks passing underneath as if in slow motion. The actuator motors were grinding away to break the Icy grip.

The second 737 experience was coming into Denver International. Wind sheer, I heard about on the news when a 737 many years ago smack dab down when taking off from Denver. This time we were banking while making the final approach turn before landing. At about FL50 the bottom dropped out and we went down knifing on its wing tip to about 500 feet above the run way in about 10 seconds. Acting calm, cool, and suave, I smiled at my fellow passenger next to me just to hold back my own fear and nausea. There are many moments I have experienced during my travels, none of them were over a body of water.

Coming from California to Portland, OR we started descending for the approach and a landing at Portland. The 737 descended into a storming cloud system where it pelted the aircraft with extreme weather and caused a very "bumpy" ride. I looked out the window and couldn't see anything but fog and storming. The 737 approach lights were on, demonstrating how thick the storm was as a bench mark for visibility. You couldn't see the wing but you could see a dull glow of lights less than 20 feet from my window The 737 was probably going at least 200 NM per hour faster than the fastest sports car in pea soup.

The engines roared and I grabbed my arm rest in a death grip. Looking out the the window towards the ground was a flash of white rectangles in a row marking the end of the run way. It was my first visible glimpse of something not a storming fog. Two seconds later the wheels touched down in a firm straight line. I remarked to my seat mate, "How did he (pilot) do that? Where I could only just shake my head.

The next point, is about my first flight I ever took was in Montana going over the continental divide. It was on a WWII type DC-3. It was a chartered flight for a sporting event. We were flying to play a football game. The Plane didn't go above 15,000 feet since it was not pressurized. The mountains didn't go higher than 12,000 feet so we were reassured by the flight attendant. I wasn't scared, I was in high school, should I have been, the answer is yes. I watched as sparks flew off the engine cowling. Oil seep over the wing in a flat stream. I asked a teammate it that suppose to do that? He said, "Yeah its part of what piston engines do, they leak. When it lands they will refill the engine oil supply." That reassurance prompted me forward in the game as I could over come anything flying. I was invincible! On the way back we approached the Rocky mountain front. A storm was hanging on the mountains. The pilot adjusted around the storm but we hit fantastic updrafts going around the storm. The wing flex really showed its rivets in full light. I didn't know tin could stretch and bend that much. Sparks, oil slick, and bending wings accompanied my sick stomach from the extreme roller coaster ride. Nothing has ever approached that gum chewing experience as gum was passed out to all passengers to relieve air pressure trapped in the ear. It prevented burst ear drums as sometimes the pressure build-up affected passengers.

The 787 can fly a long way on one engine. The 787 is pressurized at 6,000 ft, not even close to the outside air pressure. No sparks from its engine or oil leaking over the wing, but with a very smooth ride. Wings do flex on the 787, but not from an old "tin lizzy" metal fatigue. Rivets don't pop out during wing flexing. It even doesn't backfire just to wake you up from time to time as on the DC-30. Then I flew on a Ford Tri-motor going all out at 100 miles an hour for a fly around Missoula County airport, Montana, during an airshow when it commemorated the The Forest Service Smoke Jumpers. I think it was the Evergreen Aviation Tri-motor back in the 1970's. I have flown the gauntlet of modern aircraft, except the 787 or the A350. Even with that omission of my experience, I understand the aviation advancements and the remaining risks are always great. The remarkable part for all travellers are aircraft makers have mitigated so many risks by the thousands that a catastrophic failure of any main system has plan B's built into the aircraft integrity. The things we are worried about are far different than my first chartered flight on the DC-3 in 1969. War, and Terrorists, are the leading candidates for an aircraft downing . Engine failures and mechanical problems have not prevented safe flights with the 787.

Per Wikipedia:

The Douglas DC-3 is a fixed-wing propeller-driven airliner. Its speed and range revolutionized air transport in the 1930s and 1940s. Its lasting impact on the airline industry and World War II makes it one of the most significant transport aircraft ever made.

The major military version of which more than 10,000 were produced was designated the C-47 Skytrain in the USA and the Dakota in the UK.

Many DC-3s and converted C-47s are still used in all parts of the world.

Wikipedia:

The Ford Trimotor (also called the "Tri-Motor", and nicknamed "The Tin Goose") was an American three-engined transport aircraft that was first produced in 1925 by the companies of Henry Ford and that continued to be produced until June 7, 1933. Throughout its time in production, a total of 199 Ford Trimotors were produced.^[1] It was designed for the civil aviation market, and was also used by military units and sold all over the world.