Airbus Wing Cracks, not as Bad is it Seemed… it is Worse
On 20/01/2012, in Safety is no accident, The aircraft we fly, by steve
Only a few weeks ago Airbus said that the cracks discovered on the wing-rib feet of some A380s were not a threat to safety and they would be repaired as part of the four-yearly maintenance regime.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) does not agree. Carriers with A380s that have accumulated more than 1,300 takeoffs and landings must make the inspections immediately, and any aircraft that have made more than 1,800 trips need to be checked within four days. This translates to the grounding of some 20 aircraft or one third of the fleet within the next six weeks.
The inspection is done visually and takes just a few hours. In practical terms this means that each affected aircraft will be on the ground for a full day.
Although Airbus keeps stressing that while the cracking is “embarrassing”, it poses no danger to the passengers flying on the 380. The EASA Airworthiness Directive paints a slightly more ominous picture: “This condition, if not detected and corrected, could potentially affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.”
Click here to read the full article
Airbus, Sharklets and a Lawsuit
On 30/12/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
Perhaps you too have been wondering when you saw Boeing 737s and 757s sprouting winglets: why was the Airbus 320 family stuck with the old-fashioned wingtip fences? Winglets have been shown to bring substantial (up to 5 %) reduction in fuel burn and the Aviation Partners, Inc. (API) blended winglet design, patented in 1994, have been around for many years.
Why was Airbus resisting?
I have talked to airline people who have had experience with specifying aircraft they were going to buy from both Boeing and Airbus. If I say they had a very low opinion of the European manufacturer’s relationship with customers, I am not even coming close to what they said. Remember the story of the A350? Had it not been for a few very vocal customers practically beating Airbus on the head, the folks in Toulouse would have not deviated from their original, rather outdated, ideas.
One can only surmise but it is probably true to say that with the 320 selling like hot cakes, Airbus simply did not much care. Why spend money and effort on improving something when it was being bought as it was, without fancy new appendages like winglets? It is interesting that Airbus customers were not banging the door about this… may be they had but there was nobody home. In any case, when the API winglets were tried on a JetBlue Airways A320, the 5 % fuel saving was actually demonstrated. By not adopting winglets much earlier, Airbus caused its customers to lose a lot of money quite unnecessarily.
Click here to read the full article
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) – What are the Implications?
On 14/12/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
We have all heard in the news how UASs have been used by the military and police forces to catch bad guys. Sometimes referred to as drones, these strange looking aircraft seem to possess superhuman abilities to sniff out targets. So what are they really and what will happen when they start to appear outside the battlefield?
First of all we have to clarify the meaning of “unmanned”. Although there have been experiments with aircraft that were flying completely on their own able to even avoid other aircraft and obstacles, a UAS is typically flown by a pilot, albeit remotely from the ground. There are even hybrid types which do have a cockpit while they can also be operated remotely. Such vehicles are flown to the scene of the action by a pilot on board and then the mission is performed locally with remote control.
Clearly, the most critical element for a UAS is the air/ground digital link that connects the remote pilot to the controls of the aircraft and vice versa. A hiccup in this link in a combat environment, even if it leads to the crash of the UAS, is a big deal from a mission perspective but hardly something that is likely to increase the general mayhem already present. This is why so far UASs for military use have been developing relatively unhindered by regulatory intervention. In civilian usage however, the picture is very different.
Who would want to use a UAS for civilian purposes you may ask? Well, the obvious users would be police and customs surveillance and interdiction units, charting agencies, environmental protection, just to name a few. But cargo airlines of all sizes have also seen the potential of UASs to reduce costs. If you consider that for an airline, salaries are the second largest operating cost after fuel, it is easy to see why an aircraft with the flight crew halved or eliminated is such an attractive proposition.
While some civilian use could be envisaged in civilian but segregated airspace, the real impact will come when operations are conducted in non-segregated airspace.
Click here to read the full article
The Boeing 787, more than just a new aircraft in the sky
On 07/12/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
With the long awaited new 787 finally in the hands of launch customer All Nippon Airways, an 89 month run for the manufacturer has come to the end but it does not mean that they are looking to slow down in Chicago and Seattle. Two stretched versions, the 787-9 and the 787-10 are on the horizon and ramping up the production of the current model -8 is a challenge unto itself.
821 net orders for the type speaks for itself. Curiously, Airbus continues to hold that composite materials are suitable for wings and secondary structures but not for fuselage sections. They will build the A350XWB with this in mind… Well, time will tell but I do not think Boeing is a company that would get something like this wrong.
In any case, the 787 is an innovator in more ways than just its composite fuselage.
It has an interesting heritage, a kind of virtual family that never flew yet had a huge impact on what the 787 has become and what its competitors will look like (Airbus comments notwithstanding).
Back in the times when the Boeing 747-400 was still the undisputed Queen of the skies, Airbus came with the idea of building something even bigger. As the A380 slowly took shape, Boeing was faced with a dilemma. Should they compete with the new large transport head on or come with something not quite so big but so innovative that it took at least part of the limelight off from Airbus’ new baby?
The answer was not easy for two reasons: Boeing did honestly believe that there was no market for two aircraft types the size of the A380 and hence little chance of a competing line ever breaking even; if however they opted for a smaller product, they would need to avoid competing with their own best selling aircraft, the 777.
For a time, they felt that airlines might be attracted to a new aircraft that would beat everyone else by flying faster than anyone else. Not supersonic but coming close… The result of this thinking was the Sonic Cruiser, a concept that arrived at the worst possible time in terms of shifting airline preferences. It was the beginning of the times when fuel efficiency rose to the top of everybody’s agenda leaving higher speed off the wish-list (if indeed it had ever been there).
Boeing quickly dropped the Sonic Cruiser and redefined its offering, this time focusing on fuel efficiency. The 7 Efficient 7 was sketched out by engineers and soon renamed the 787 by the marketing folks.
It was clear from the start that the 787 must be something special.
Click here to read the full article
Space taxis? Boeing will build them in Florida
On 31/10/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
Space Florida is an agency backed by the State of Florida established to advance space related business in the State, now that the retirement of the space shuttle fleet has left many major facilities unused. Boeing Co. has announced that they have reached an agreement with Space Florida to lease the old Orbiter Processing Hangar Bay 3 at the Kennedy Space Centre in Central Florida. The purpose? To build 7-seat space taxis, no less.
NASA is currently sponsoring four companies to build space vehicles that can be used to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). The name space-taxi is an apt designation as the vehicles will in all likelihood be operated by commercial companies with the service being used by NASA and other customers on a rent-a-ride basis.
This is of course completely in line with the plans of the Kennedy Space Centre which wants to develop a state of the art spaceport that will be able to support NASA missions as well as serve the needs of commercial customers in the US and abroad.
Just an interesting aside… there was a time when the space shuttle was seen as the pinnacle of space travel technology and now, only a few decades later, state of the art means something totally different. Something that is not even in the same direction of development. Of course a lot have been learned from the shuttle development and many materials that are commonplace now in our homes were first used on the shuttle… But still, as a vehicle concept, it has proven a dead end.
Boeing’s taxis, called the CST (Crew Space Transportation)-100, is a 7 seat capsule that will be carried into space on an Atlas 5 rocket. Have we not seen something like that before?
In any case, you will have to wait until 2016 before you can whistle up a space-taxi.
Heads up – Sub-orbital flights are coming
On 28/10/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
Curacao, Changi, Spaceport America, Zaragoza, Lelystad… What is common among these airports? Seemingly nothing but do not be misled by appearances. All these airports are getting ready to launch and receive sub-orbital flights in the not too distant future. While our industry is still trying to figure out how to integrate Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) into the civil air traffic management environment, private industry is throwing another challenge at us: sub-orbital vehicles.
Although sub-orbital flight may seem like the plaything of a few crazy bilioners, it is anything but. There is huge potential in this and it is not for nothing that so many entrepreneurs led by Richard Branson, as well as visionary airports, are getting on the band wagon. Even mighty KLM is involved, albeit only in a marketing capacity… for now anyway.
So what kind of aircraft or spacecraft if you like are we talking about and what do they mean in terms of air traffic management requirements?
A typical first generation sub-orbital vehicle is a kind of rocket powered machine that takes off from a runway and boosts itself to an altitude of around 330.000 feet at which space is commonly considered to begin. Skimming the top of the atmosphere the vehicle and all within it, experience a short period of weightlessness before it tips over and glides back to a runway to land. In a way this is reminiscent to what the Space Shuttle used to do but then on a much reduced scale.
Click here to read the full article
737MAX, Boeing’s answer to the A320NEO
On 30/09/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
There is a real feeding frenzy around the future Airbus 320NEO (New Engine Option) with some 1200 orders and commitments having been booked by the manufacturer, almost double of what they expected. Boeing’s answer is the 737MAX and this old/new aircraft is also selling like hot cakes.
So how did we get from the NSA and 737NE to the 737MAX?
Airlines have been urging Airbus and Boeing for some time to come up with a replacement for the 320 and 737 families. The airlines had pretty clear ideas about what they wanted and this focused mainly on fuel efficiency and environmental sustainability. For the manufacturers however the task was anything but simple.
Quite apart from the fact that both the legacy 320 and the 737 new generation are selling very well (and hence there not being much of a motivation for the airframers to spend money on a replacement), there was the very clear engineering question: how could such a new aircraft be built so that it would be technologically future proof for the next 30-40 years? A shorter life-span would simply not make economic sense. Keep in mind that Boeing is introducing the 737MAX almost 50 years after the original 737 was launched.
Although a lot of innovation has gone into types like the 787 and A350, they are still traditional design that fall short of what we could call aircraft of the future.
Providing the quantum leap in fuel efficiency desired by the airlines would require even better new materials, aerodynamics and engines, very little of which was mature enough to go on a real aircraft.
Boeing was talking about the NSA, the New Small Aircraft as the follow up to the 737 even while Airbus was looking into re-engining the 320, a kind of half-way house that would bring efficiencies without the huge cost of developing a completely new aircraft.
Click here to read the full article
May be the Wright brothers were not the first after all…
On 26/09/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
We all grew up with the certain knowledge that the first powered flight was performed by two bicycle mechanics from Ohio, Wilbur and Orville Wright in the year 1903. This picture of the Wright Flyer, made by the attendant of the lighthouse several miles away who was invited towatch, is something we all know and revere as the definitive starting point of the machines that made our industry possible.
The Wrigth Flyer
Now it seems that we may have to accept the fact: we have been venerating the second successful attempt rather than the first one. How is that possible?
There appears to be mounting evidence that two years before the Wright’s historic flight, a resident of Bridgeport by the name of Gustave Whitehead had actually taken to the air in an aircraft of his own design. He was a simple mechanic holding various factory jobs but otherwise obsessed with building flying machines.
The August 14, 1901 event was reported in the local press but also in Boston and New York.
There seem to be several witnesses who said that Whitehead was visited by the Wrights and at least one of them remembered Whitehead saying that he had freely discussed his solutions with the visitors.
No account of the Wrights’ life seems to mention this visit… However, there appears to be a contract between the Wright estate and the Smithsonian, custodian of the Wright Flyer, stipulating that the Flyer would have to be returned to the estate if the Smithsonian ever suggested or admitted that another aircraft was the first that performed a controlled, powered flight.
Click here to read the full article
Paper or plastic?
On 22/09/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
Shopping in grocery stores across the US you are likely to hear this question at check out from the guy whose task it is to place your purchases in your preferred kind of bag (plastic or paper..?). In a way, airframe manufacturers are asking a similar question: plastic or aluminum? The implications are tremendous.
Composite materials have been used in aircraft for several years now, mainly in secondary structures of relatively limited size. Composites are best known for their strength, light weight, resistance to corrosion and difficulty to repair. When Boeing decided to build the 787, they set out to create something truly revolutionary not so much in terms of aerodynamics but in terms of systems and materials. A new, largely electric architecture (replacing bulky hydraulics) was combined with a fuselage built almost entirely of composite materials.
Not to be outdone, Airbus redesigned its A350 project, also giving composites a greater role. There are however fundamental differences in the structures being used by the two manufacturers. While Boeing is building the fuselage from composite barrel sections, Airbus has opted for a more conservative solution, placing composite panels on a frame made of aluminum alloy.
While the A350 is still to see the light of day, the 787 is approaching first delivery to ANA in Japan… after a delay of several years. Only a small part of this delay is directly attributable to the composite construction but there are some important lessons to be learned nevertheless.
Click here to read the full article
No new 737 from Boeing. The 737NE is coming instead
On 26/08/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
When Airbus announced the decision to re-engine the A320 family, as opposed to building an all-new replacement, everyone was looking at Boeing to see how the American giant would respond. Managers and engineers mulled over the issue in Seattle and Chicago while Airbus booked a hefty 1000 orders for the 320NEO (New Engine Option).
Initially it looked like Boeing would meet the challenge head-on and build a completely new 737, the NSA (New Small Airplane) using a lot of composite parts and adopting the 787’s all-electric architecture. In fact, Chairman/CEO James McNerney actually hinted in a speech that for Boeing only the NSA was an appropriate response to Airbus’ re-engined 320 family.
While Boeing could take comfort in the fact that orders for the 320NEO came mainly from existing Airbus operators and no long-established Boeing customers had deserted to the enemy, uncertainty grew over Boeing’s ability to design and manufacture the NSA with service entry around 2015 (when the 320NEO will hit the market). Although the technology that would make the NSA ultra competitive in terms of operating costs is in fact available, bringing it all together is seen as requiring a length of time that is simply not available in view of the Airbus offering’s timing. Boeing’s customers have also signaled that after the initial enthusiasm for a new, advanced aircraft they would prefer to have something earlier even if it was less of jump towards the future.
Click here to read the full article
Wouldn’t you love to know…
On 19/08/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
Did you ever wonder where the new car you just ordered was being built and even more, when the wonderful process of parts coming together to grow into an automobile, your automobile, started. Not to the hour but at least to the day.
I guess if you order a Rolls-Royce or some other exclusive car, they might be able and willing to tell you.
Your other option is to buy a spanking new 787 Dreamliner. Especially if you are the first to take delivery of the new jet in North America, you will know exactly when your new baby enters the gestation period.
On 17 August, United Continental Holdings announced that the first of its Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft has entered the assembly phase at Boeing’s facility in Everett, Wash. In early 2012, United will be the first North American carrier to take delivery of the aircraft, marking the first of 50 Dreamliners for the airline.
Click here to read the full article
Boeing wins $35 billion tanker contract
On 25/02/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
It looks like the longest running and possibly most controversial procurement process in US Air Force history has finally come to an end with Boeing being awarded the $35 billion contract to build the USAF’s next generation airborne refueling platform. Boeing is basing this on the 767 and the contract has given the 767 line a new lease on life with future maintenance tasks adding more icing on the cake.
As you will remember, the first round was won by Airbus who bid with their A330, an aircraft larger than the 767 and as such, better meeting the air forces’ requirement for general cargo capacity. Boeing attacked the decision and a protracted new round was initiated with Boeing being the winner this time.
Mobile, Alabama would have profited handsomely if Airbus were chosen as the European aircraft maker was planning to build the tankers there. This is now not going to happen.
Interestingly, defense analysts and even some lawmakers in the US were expecting Airbus to win this time also but the decision went the other way. Some say that with an ex-Boeing board member running the White House staff and the president having been helped to office by the aerospace giant the final decision could not be anything else but Boeing winning.
Click here to read the full article
737 successor is coming!
On 16/02/2011, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
Although officially Boeing maintains that they are still only evaluating their options concerning the future of the 737 (re-engining versus an all new aircraft), CEO Jim McNerney, speaking at the Cowen and Company Aerospace and Defense Conference in New York, basically confirmed that they will build an all new narrowbody to counter Airbus’s A320NEO.
Well, what did you expect? Boeing thinks that their loyal customers will wait for the new plane to come out around 2020, shunning the Airbus offering which will automatically become obsolete the moment Airbus decides to build an A320 replacement some time after the NEO has been put on the market.
CEOs are not given to proclaiming things without a basis and Mr. McNerney’s words that “it is not a done deal yet but they have a strong bias towards a new design” do mean more than just a tentative plan. Bet they will do it?
Airbus and Boeing have been facing down each other for some time now over this issue, with the likes of Bombardier and Embrear watching anxiously. Their future in the non-regional aircraft market will be affected in a big way depending on what the big boys decide.
Click here to read the full article
The Airbus NEO is coming
On 22/12/2010, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
It is definite now, the Airbus 320 family will get new engines, proper winglets and other enhancements so that it may stand on its own in the face of competition from, among others, the Bombardier CSeries and the Boeing 737NG.
NEO stands for New Engine Option and one of the new engines will of course be a variant of the P&W Geared Turbofan (GTF). This is good news for Pratt as riding on the Airbus band wagon will probably take away some of the reservations airlines seem to harbour in respect of the new turbofan architecture.
Analysts differ on the likely impact Airbus’ decision will have on the CSeries, a new aircraft proposal that has so far been less then spectacularly successful. Some believe the NEO Airbus will be replacing larger single-aisle aircraft and therefore will not eat significantly into Bombardier’s market. Others tend to view the CSeries as a dead duck.
Click here to read the full article
New engines for old favorites?
On 21/10/2010, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
There used to be a time when the big aircraft makers were churning out new types with astounding regularity. In the wide-body arena, there was a choice between the Tri-Star from Lockheed, the DC-10 from McDonnell Douglas and of course the 747 from Boeing. Narrow-bodies also came in a nice variety from the DC-9 through the MD-80 and the 727 to the 737. But let’s not forget that in those days a few legacy, long-range narrow-bodies were still plying the skies, just think of the DC-8 and the Boeing 707. Airbus joined the fray at the top end with the A300 which was a short-to-medium range wide-body and the first twin-engine wide-body as such. That was in 1971…
One thing was sure. Each new type brought something revolutionary, some novelty for which the airlines wanted to buy them. Safety and efficiency increased, noise decreased, passenger comfort improved…
In the meantime, the world went through a number of oil crises, stock market crashes, deregulation, 9/11 and the birth of low cost carriers and the market for narrow-body, short-to-medium range aircraft altered radically. The result? Only two types, the Boeing 737 and the Airbus 320 family survived and these days if you travel chances are you will find yourself in one of those, no matter where you are in the world.
Not that those types have not evolved over the years. In particular, the Boeing 737 had several versions with the biggest improvements coming with the New Generation (NG) series. But the 320 also improved if in less visible ways.
In spite of the improvements, the basic design of both the 737 and the 320 family has stayed much the same to this day.
When the 737 started sprouting winglets, bringing fuel efficiency improvements in the low single digits, the discussion was already going on: should the manufacturers design new aircraft to replace the existing types or should they think about re-engining the existing ones?
Click here to read the full article
Northrop will not bid for US Air Force tanker contract
On 09/03/2010, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
It has just been announced that Northrop/Airbus will not bid for the multi-million dollar Air Force new tanker contract quoting the USAF’s latest selection criteria which clearly favours Boeing’s smaller offering.
Originally, Northrop/Airbus were offering a tanker based on the Airbus 330 and Boeing on the 767. The new tanker is to replace the current crop of tankers based on the Boeing 707.
The A330-based Airbus offering
The first competition was won by Northrop but Boeing successfully appealed the decision, triggering a second round of bidding. Airbus had grand plans of penetrating the US defense market on the back of an eventual tanker contract. The folks in Mobile, Alabama stand to lose also as the $600 million plant that was to be built there to assemble the tanker will now not materialize.
Boeing has reason to celebrate. It has a lock on one of the biggest defense deals in US history and the precedent they have created will no doubt influence the outcome of future procurements also. They may or may not go to Boeing of course but a more pronounced preference for US sourcing of strategic war materiel cannot be excluded.
The Boeing KC-767...the winner in a race of one
Boeing 787 Dreamliner takes to the air
On 16/12/2009, in The aircraft we fly, by steve
Late by 28 months but finally in the air! 15 December 2009 will no doubt be a memorable day for Boeing and the whole industry for that matter: the 787 has finally taken to the air, its maiden flight hopefully bringing an end to the series of problems the program had to contend with over the past two and half years.
Of course when you set out to follow a revolutionary path, problems are expected. The point is: how far are you able to foresee the problems and how quickly you can react to them, foreseen or not.
The 787 is nothing if not revolutionary and in more ways than one too. Its composite structures built as complete fuselage barrels (as opposed to the more traditional approach of the Airbus A350XWB which uses ribs and composite panels) is a huge challenge, something that has never been tried on this scale. Then the degree of outsourcing Boeing has elected to use is also unique (and asking for trouble if you listen to union leaders in Seattle).
Click here to read the full article
