Is BOEING giving up!?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2022
- Keep exploring at brilliant.org/MentourNow/ Get started for free, and hurry-the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Earlier this month, Boeing made an announcement about its future that baffled much of the industry. Did Boeing just seal its fate, surrendering itself as a very distant number two, behind Airbus? Or is there something here that we are missing?
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👇
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Check out our other channel here: / mentournow
Get the Mentour Aviation app and discuss what You think about this! Download the app for FREE using the link below 👇
📲
📲 Join the Mentour Pilot Discord server here! 👉🏻 / discord
I have also created an Amazon page with Aviation books, material and flight simulator stuff that I think you will enjoy!
👉🏻 www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
Follow my life on instagram and get awesome pictures from the cockpit!
📲 / mentour_pilot
To find the right HEADSET for YOU, check out BOSE Aviation 👉🏻 boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Artwork in the studio 👉🏻 aeroprints.de/?lang=en
Get some Awesome Mentour Pilot merch 👉🏻 mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode. Enjoy checking them out!
/ @boeing
/ @airbus
• Boeing vs. Airbus: Why...
• Airbus Commercial Airc...
• Top Gun "Mavericks" Wo...
• GE Aviation and Safran...
• T-7A Red Hawk Digitall...
• In the Making: First #...
Articles
------------------------------------------
www.engineering.com/story/boe...
simpleflying.com/boeing-doesn...
www.aviacionline.com/2022/06/...
simpleflying.com/boeing-nma-y...
• McDonnell Douglas DC-1...
www.wsj.com/articles/economis... 
Наука
Keep exploring at brilliant.org/MentourNow/ Get started for free, and hurry-the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Way too many ads in this video! Felt like approaching a 60-40 time split in favor of ads.
Guaranteed it’s a horrible company. I worked in aerospace as an engineer, and I had a good friend working at Boeing, and this is before it turned into a great disaster. My college colleague, he told me what a dysfunctional disaster Boeing Was in 1990. This is long before McDonnel Douglas merger.
There is nothing good to say about this company in the visionary sense. It is run by boring stupid people. They can count money. It’s very easy to make money for a while when you completely shelve research and development.
I hope the company disappears. I hope new companies emerge. All companies must die sooner or later. It’s time for Boeing to go.
Who would ever want to fly on a propelled driven plane???? Especially in 2035 when technology should be greatly advanced, not go backwards!
@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn
Because propellers are more fuel efficient than turbofans. Their downfall is noise. But changing the blade design could ameliorate this problem.
@@mas3ymd When I was younger I had dreams of flying on a hypersonic airliner. This is ridiculous. Yes, propellers are more fuel-efficient. But so is a horse and buggy. Propellers are slower, more vibration, more noise, and are quite simply primitive technology. I'm so disappointed that this in all we can accomplish in my lifetime.... Going back to technology of the 1940's! And what really pees me off is that these decisions are made by greedy CEO's who only care about saving money.
In my opinion, one of the biggest obstacles that Boeing faces is Boeing.
More specifically, Boeing’s upper management
Most successful aircraft company in the history of the world. Nobody has sold more planes or made more money. To wit: I give you the A380.
This is RUclips, you’re not allowed an opinion.
@@mikek5298 And yet their entire commercial program is in turmoil, with orders being canceled almost monthly and compensation payouts a regular thing.
This company is doomed and it’ll take a whole scale change and restart for it to have any chance going forward.
Boeing CEOs to make the phrase complete. When the engineers had the upper hand, products like 757, 767 and 777 used to came out! Look at what happened since and who held the levers of power.
i used to be a massive Boeing fan boy growing up, now as an adult i'm more impressed with Airbus. You can really tell which company is led by engineers vs financials
Boeing's problems are indicative of the general decline of US engineering and industry
I only blame MD for Boeing's failure today. Before they put wallstreet above engineering, Boeing was an amazing place to work for, and a amazing company to be a fan. For their high regard of safety, the slogan "If it aint Boeing, I aint going" was born. Then they went and ran their reputation into the ground for short term stock gains.
R😮n by French not Anglo Saxons uk
Thank god !
Profit profit profit uk an USA !!!
A mania begun when apple made a 300% profit on iPhone every mad bad shareholder in every firm demanded same an so here we are killer planes junk medicine semi slave labour shitty mattresses lol
Greed has driven us mad
They're both the same; the problem isn't the companies, it's that they're state zombie corporations who will always have infinite money from government contracts and so never actually NEED to innovate.
@@MrRandomcommentguy you're right but we can make a comeback. The first thing they need to do is bring back vocational training in secondary school.
Love it! The MBAs come in, screw everything up for the engineers, totally get paid, and then split--wonderful!
And thus was the death of American manufacturing excellence...
It’s annoying how over the last few decades has become the norm in American business. Someone who knows what they are doing founds a company and builds it up from the ground up into something amazing. Then someone with a lot of cash looking for an investment buys up the company and then does whatever will squeeze more profit; consequences be damned. Then when it’s no longer profitable, they leave and let the company collapse or try to rebuild.
Would love to see you do one of these videos on the Boeing push on the US Government to slap massive tariffs on the Bombardier C-Series, which competed with nothing in Boeing's portfolio. The end result was killing Bombardier's airliner business and forcing them to sell it off to Airbus, now their new A220 lineup. Has to be the biggest backfire in aviation history and your take might help make sense of it.
Could have done the right move and coordinate cooperate
With Canadian expertise Bombardier as a breeding ground for betterment but ….
"Maximus Aviation" has done a video on this
the americans killed also the canadian jet , the Arrow, I guess.
@@txtworld Thanks. Just watched it, it's pretty good. Would love to get Petter's take on it.
@@Grundewalt Yup. And gave us second-hand widowmaker F-104s that we barely flew for 10 years as 'compensation' for pressuring Diefenbaker to kill what would have been the premier interceptor of the next 2 decades and kept Canada's aerospace industry vital and growing instead of brain-draining into NASA. (sigh)
If you look back over the last 25 years in the commercial aviation industry, nearly every time we are told that a new product is coming by some date, it actually ends up arriving 3-6 years later. So if they're telling us today that the new RISE engines will be available by 2035, history says that will probably become at least 2040 (assuming they ever come to market at all). And that's a long ways off.
Yup, very true
And we all know from recent history, Boeing is not the best manufacturer to ask to upgrade an existing aircraft type with new engines. (The big exception here is the B-52 Stratofortress, of course).
It seems a bit fishy to me that development of a propeller engine is going to take 15 years minimum. That sounds like it’s closer to a pipe dream than a reality with the efficiency gains being purely speculative at this stage.
i think it could be developed in 2 years, there's nothing complex about it that would demand 12-15 years to build. I could probably build it in my garage in 15 years! The questing is what kind of airplane is it for? Looks like a very small kind to me. Will there be demand? Probably very narrow. It might be a great engine for regional aviation, but then again - are current turboprops worse than this new thing? And if so, how much worse? Radically worse or meh-kinda worse?.. Can it be mounted on a plane that would compete with 737? Or is it competing with bombardier 5000?.. Noone will take it seriously if it can't compete with 737... much less 15 years into the future.
@@dmitrynova the problem is and will always be the planetary reducer, needed to run the prop way slower than the core.
As a lifetime Boeing pilot and fan, (now retired) I have found the developments within Boeing over the last ten plus years absolutely heartbreaking.
They were once a totally amazing company, but sadly no more.
Fingers, toes and everything else crossed that they can rebuild and totally restore trust.
Sadly true.
What they have managed to do over the years in developing updated versions of the 737 has been fantastic. However, they are now subject to design decisions made during that aircraft's original design over 50 years ago, so you cannot just keep fitting bigger engines to it without impacting the handling. They've fudged that issue on the MAX to try and retain the type rating but realistically have pushed the design as far as it can be. They really do need to develop a new aircraft to replace the 737.
They could do something for the country, the company, the staff and the stockholders by sacking every manager that doesn't have an engineering or scientific background. No company stays at the top in technology when accountants are in charge.
There working on it
Return to Seattle or QUIT!!!
As a passenger I prefer traveling onboard Airbus planes. Wider cabin, windows height level, etc. But the competition is what pushing this industry forward. Lack of it causes stagnation and mediocrity. Intel's case in the semiconductors industry is a perfect example.
Almost a decade without competition resulted in us paying more and more money for less and less progress. I wish Boieing will continue to be competitive and innovative. For the good of all of us.
I always found the windows height level at the 737 annoying. My favourite plane though is the 777.
That's why we need Embrarer to step up, and for the new Chinese jet to actually succeed enough to be a logical competitor.
To see that COMAC already released their C919 for China and yet bring the Japanese make a plane and the results is taking Boeing to the fate of the dodo bird.
100% agree. Just flown MAX. Form passenger and design standpoint I didnt like it. It can be seen that it is very old design. Recently I have flown with Airbus 220 and it was whole different experience. Really something new. We are living in interesting times when you have obsolete planes facelifted for decades.
You don't know what day of the week is.
Boeing commercial sealed their fate when they decided to produce the 737 NG in the 1990s instead of a clean sheet design (which they had started working on already). I worked there back then in flight testing and was appalled by the decision. That was their opportunity to build a better airplane than the A320 family. The NG was very successful (the only choices being Boeing or Airbus, after all),but it locked them into the obsolete 737 fuselage with all its limitations. (The NG was also way more complicated and expensive to develop than originally thought).
The eventual Max financial catastrophe speaks for itself as to what a bad decision sticking with the 737 has been.
Now Boeing is in a terrible financial position and unable to produce a truly modern airliner to beat the A320 line. I said beat, not just compete.
As an airline pilot I have flown the A320s for a long time and now fly the 787. One has to simply step in a 737 cockpit (yes, even the Max) to see how far behind the times the 737 is. Yes, the Max will sell, after all, the only choices are still Airbus or Boeing.
For the record, I think Airbus has fallen into the same trap by sticking with the base 321 airframe. The 321 NEO, or at least the new NX would benefit immensely from a re-designed wing like they did on the 330 NEO.
737 is an epitome of American engineering- manufacture old junk as long as possiblle, overadvertize, underdeliver. Create hype, and have the tiniest product portfolio in the world, selling old junk with new lipstick on a snout every 10 years. There is a reason, there are no Us companies that would manufacture industrial robots, wristwatches, modern trains, bikes, TV sets, camera, etc.
Actually if Embrarer makes a long range to compete they could have a legitimate shot.
@@chdreturns I hope they do, the competition is immensely important
And another problem for the Ng is how the passenger feels it.
Narrower... Louder.... Worst AC.... And I never got one with poouches in the seats to put my stuff so, I avoid the NG whenever I can.
Boeing in my opinion sealed their fate when the decided to stop production of the 757s and even the 717s which were the MD95s that they inherited from MD but more stopping production of the 757 in my opinion has now doomed Boeing 🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Nothing better to motivate engineers to stay than to tell them that there’s no new projects in the pipeline for another 5 years. It’s a company being led by accountants and it reflects in their attitude to engineering excellence.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Young, eager, newbies, who want to design airplanes...well, they won't be going to Boeing.
Yea, they've been going that way since 1997, if you take my meaning.
There are many types of engineering. Nothing wrong with a pause at the bleeding edge while experience and expertise catches up on the maintenance side. Been there.
They are gonna have a hell of a time with the competition as those engineers go on to their competitors. The value of talent in aerospace can't be understated. Not that many students get degrees in aerospace, most get degrees in other fields. They have a limited pool to pull from. I am an engineering student, out of thirty plus engineering students off the top of my head, only one is going into aerospace engineering. Everyone I know that wants to get into aerospace as an industry, they want to work on rockets and satellites. Boeing treating their engineers like a commodity is a grave mistake.
@@rrice1705 I've...heard...stories...)
I would like to see a plan from Boeing to put engineers back in charge of engineering
When they discover there is no money anymore for new gold toilets they might change. Usually they just ride a company into the ground and move to a new company. Parasites.
In a way this kind of looks like it is that plan.
It looks like Boeing is saying that they will put their focus on solving the problems their current line-up of planes have before starting the process of building a new plane. All the recent problems have put a really large dent in Boeing's reputation, so trying to win back at least part of that reputation should be key priority for Boeing.
@@tjroelsma Given that the execs headquarters is 2000 miles from the factory that seems unlikely.
That's probably not diverse woke inclusive enough for the self-destructive current standards.
@@ericvosselmans5657 ???
I worked at Boeing when MD was "absorbed". Given how so many of the VP's from MD suddenly were leading Boeing, we thought the "absorbtion" went the other way. The reason Boeing HQ was moved to Chicago was the then CEO (former MD CEO) was from Chicago. Now Boeing is moving out of Chicago because of the violence.
There is a saying that MD bought Boeing with Boeing's money. They inherited MD's backwards management.
They may be called "Boeing" but under the hood, it's really "Mcdonell-Douglas".
Democrats
@@haven216 blue anon
@@VGF80 blue anon
The unducted fan designs go wayyyy back. Engineers working around them called them "Acoustically Abusive". The tips are uber-supersonic and make a LOT of noise. No airport in the world will accept them and so on. It's an old concept that looks great on paper but the noise factor always shuts it down eventually. Still, investors will hand over their money, again, etc.
How much thrust do these engines deliver compared to a traditional, closed turbofan? Would a A320 equipped with two of these RISE engines be slower?
From what I found this is still geared thing, so this is essentially hybrid turboprop with a stator.
While they are not stupid loud turboprops are still loud and will not get you speeds of modern jets.
Take a look at the Thunderscreech. While not exactly the same technology as duct less fans, it's a good idea of what engineers might face trying to develop something like this.
@@MentalParadox If they can compare to turboprops they can get an airliner too similar speeds to high bypass turbofans the issue is going to be noise more than anything.
@@Theonedjneo -- that was the loudest aircraft ever built because of its supersonic propeller. It had to be tested out at the salt lakes because it was too loud for Edwards Air Force Base. It had a literal brown note!
This is what happens when the accountants take over what should be an engineering centric enterprise.
Managerialism
Power point culture
Go woke, go broke.
I've heard that argument before in other scenarios and can't agree.
It would be wrong for the decision makers to be only engineers or only accountants. Granted it's hard to find talent that has a necessary grasp on both but neither engineering nor getting things built properly competitively can be ignored.
There are also plenty of examples of well built and lasting products which were too expensive to the buyer also failed.
@@tonysu8860 Right but they dont have a mix of engineering and accounting decision makers. Engineers arent even at the table at Boeing. They didnt preserve the required knowledge, it was cashed-out and cashed-down for short and mid term gains and now they're out of fuel. The various engineering mistakes theyve made have cost them substantially more and now they need to down-size the business because, and squarely because, their main product is running shy on its critical resource.
Had they actually paid attention to the engineering knowledge quotient in decision-making like you say, the depth of knowledge would support the maintenance of their business.
When they acquired MD they basically sealed their fate.. the companies culture changed from engineering marvel to get things done marvel..
All that matters is paycheck and bonus for upper management nothing else is important.
You should read Air Wars by Scott Hamilton. It was effectively an internal takeover by MD management. Boeing lost their engineering culture with this transition.
@@Mentaculus42 Yes, and there was a PBS special years ago that only aired once because in the interview Phil Condit said he and Stonecipher didn't need a contract; they sat down in a hotel room and "worked it out on a napkin" -- that was the day Stonecipher told Condit (who was an engineer) how they could make millions off Boeing.
Short term ism is killing the US' industry
I just saw that documentary on Netflix as well.
I've been reading about how open rotors were going to take over the industry for 30+ years.
Yep, I remember seeing an article about "un-ducted" fan engines in Popular Science or Mechanics 30 or so years ago. Maybe even close to 40 years ago! Can remember which mag it was in for sure.
Beware those who claim to predict the future lol
They had a set of those fans on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago about 30 -40 years ago.
Will never happen, too much noise.
seems like it would be a whole lot harder to contain a blade out or rotor failure too. Yikes.
There was a 15 year gap between b767 and b777 too. Also Boeing has a lot of military contracts to keep them busy. There is also nothing to prevent Boeing from implementing improvements to it current fleet of b787 and of course b737 aircraft
Steering clear of Boeing's internal politics (of which I know nothing), it seems like the B777 and B787 are Boeings main cards currently. The B737 seems limited by the short undercarriage with modern engines getting larger and larger fans. And because Boeing kept incrementally developing the 737 and 747, they possibly had to choose not to convert either to fly by wire in order to get the new versions certified faster? And maybe they ditched the 757 and 767 because they thought at the time that the 737/747/777/787 range would cover the whole commercial market? Airbus probably got lucky as they launched the A320 family (and later models) with FBW and their range of A319/A320/A321/A330/A350 seems to fit better now. Obviously, both manufacturers had to ditch their 4 engined options because of higher running costs.
The other interesting thing is that passenger aircraft used to look different years ago (think DC10, 727, Tristar, 747) - now, they are almost all roughly the same. It looks like airframe and aerodynamic development has reached a kind of limit (especially with new, composite, materials) and the next changes will be in more fuel efficient engines (as noted in the video).
Boeing has a history of making smart moves. Bailing on the SST and super-jumbo programs.
@@peterhastings703 If there's one thing about the 737 market, it's massive.
@@austindarrenor when on earth is this old junk 737 going to die?
@@leotimtom6637 When you gain an IQ point, which is never.
I think it is quite difficult to get enough design experience on the table when you don’t design new aircraft in 25 years. It is an absolute leap in design techniques and people who are junior level during the 787 design are practically retired when the new design is being tested. It could turn out to be too long a strecht where boeing literally has to learn everything over.
I think their military division and tankers will keep their engineers current. Military designs ( having worked the F35 myself) are far more advanced than passenger jets. They’ll always have this in their hip pocket. Like Petter says, they’re holding their cards in right now
One thing I was thinking is that Boeing can still design new variants of their current line of aircraft. They could make changes to the capacity and capability according to the needs of the customer base while maintaining the same core models.
@@jimsteinway695 There's no overlap - BDS and BCA are completely separate divisions and there's not really much technology transfer between fighters and passenger jets.
presumably that was a big factor in why they made the 787, so it's a big shocking to see that forgotten so soon.
@@Timmayytoo The miltary has more than fighters, and a good portion of the development is not in the aircraft performance it is in production line technologies and methods which do transfer.
Things like quality control testing and design details that can have a high rate of failed assembly (Sensitive to exact conditions, 50% rejected, eg.) or higher cost of assembly than overall design advantage.(Saves 5 pounds but due to unforeseen complications it adds 100 hours of skilled labor and $1000 in production consumables per plane.)
When I went to tour the Boeing factory in Everett, I was surprised to sense that the morale of the workers just didn't seem high. The people were walking the factory floor as if they had weights on their legs.
Well they were the ones with the better made 787s so not sure how that comes about if the workers on the factory floor didn't have a good morale
@@nickolliver3021 Well if they listen to their own CEO, the engineers are being told "thanks for making us a Cash Cow. Now Go Away." Many a company has gone this route. Scientist invents something, bankers profit, scientist is put out to pasture.
@@ToolHombre well that's what they're doing now. Many do prefer profits over anything else. It doesn't just happen in aviation it happens all over the world.
Well, you would also have to tour an Airbus factory to see if there are any differences. Factory work is factory work. I can't imagine Airbus worker's "sense of morale" is any different. They do the same work.
@@nickv4073 Oh please. There are absolutely different working practices for factories, which is reflected in different productivity.
As a man in his 50s and an aviation enthusiast, I’m flabbergasted at the slow descent of Boeing. My entire life I grew up in Boeing was viewed as a powerhouse in aviation. It’s sad to hear this news, but I pray that Boating can come back and become the dominant aircraft manufacturer as it once was.
They'll be fine, as long as they invest in at least some R&D. Right now, they need to focus on fixing the problems with the current designs, that have been hurting their reputation.
The only logical thing for them to invest in now, would be more efficient fuel. All this nonsense about building electric planes is not worth it at this moment.
What's boating
Had to laugh when I saw the powerplant! That 'prop-fan' thing was tried in the late 80s/ early 90s. It's not only ugly, but it was deemed too noisy & as the blades are exposed, too dangerous. Airbus won't be fazed by this 'announcement'.
From what I've heard Airbus has been considering next-generation turboprop aircraft (them actually calling it what it is) as their next direction. I think a somewhat smaller aircraft, maybe the size of the A220, and looking pretty similar to the ATR72. With fuel costs being a rising factor, I think many foresee a return of the turboprop, but with most trying to avoid said term, instead preferring more marketable terms like "propfan" "unducted fan" "open rotor turbofan" and so on.
I think they still gear it down like in turboprops to be subsonic at the tip, do they?
So either this it overhyped hybrid turboprop, or this it the design that will never be used because of constant sonic boom during takeoff.
@@cola98765 From what I recall reading some "propfans" are geared (just like geared turbofans) while others are not. Typically the blade tips are supersonic, to reduce noise the blade leading edges are razor sharp (which also will wear quickly) but they're still quite loud. A lot of drawbacks to these, hence why experiments in the '80s didn't really go anywhere. These "propfan" concepts range anywhere from being basically a turboprop to being basically a turbofan as we know it without the duct, with some somewhere in between, some having the blades at the aft end (not typical for either turbofans or turboprops as we know them). What we saw in this video looks to me to be at the conventional turboprop end of this spectrum, and I'm guessing it's geared.
Suspect blades will be easily damaged
"Open rotor" designs have had to compete with ever-improving turbofan engines, and they only caught up recently. Their much greater efficiency (read: lower emissions and lower operating costs) pretty much guarantees that they'll be on the next generation of airliners. Their noise level is already within regulatory limits.
The unducted fan concept has come up about once every 10 years since the '70s.
I think the biggest problem facing Boeing is all the management that came over from MD. They ran one company into the ground, now they and the replacements they hired and promoted are doing similar damage to Boeing.
Someone told me a turbofan is a turpoprop in a tube. So this is a turboprop in a tube without the tube?
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 I'm not pedantic enough to answer that question.
Just an observation: the engine thermodynamic efficiency of the CFM RICE engine in 2035 will probably also only be 10% if that much, better than today's engines. The propulsive efficiency of an aircraft as a whole using RICE engines, will however be substantially better than one using turbofan engines. This is due to the lower velocity of the "exit air jet stream" produced by the RICE engine compared to that of a turbofan engine which includes a hot core flow at exit as well as the fan bypass flow.
The other way around bro. Boeing ran MD into the ground!
@@michaelosgood9876 MD was dying for 25 years.
The problem with not developing a new aircraft for such a long time is one of people: When Boeing is finally ready to start a new aircraft from scratch, they might not have enough engineers who know how to do this still working at the company.
Not really, the people able to design a completely new aircraft are the same people who design aircraft variants, boeing isn't stopping making variants so the people don't have much reason to leave
That's a major problem. Brain drain. Perhaps they are counting on magic digital design to put all newbies on it, after all, they are 'just pushing buttons'...right? /lol
You can see it with the 787 so many flaws. U didnt have that back then when they launched the 777.
@@Alucard-gt1zf There's a world of difference between tinkering a variant and debugging a new paradigm, a new technology.
They're so busy artificially inflating their stock prices (which are directly linked to increases in managerial salaries) through $80 billion in buying their own stocks in the last 10 years, that they forgot to invest, innovate and forgot to remain dedicated to quality and engineering.
As an old quantity surveyor who has never been a pilot, only a passenger, I think Boeing has failed to continue with research and design. Airbus seems to be way ahead. A couple of months ago I flew in the Airbus A380 for the first time, it had a certain wow factor! I also like the fact that the A380 seems to be coming back into service again with the airlines that mothballed them.
Me too I think the same
You are getting much better with these video. A commitment to constant improvement - great job
JR
Well, it looks like the bean counters completely rule now. Their newest version of a sardine can won't be for a while. The existing cans work very well, thank you !
the B777 is a great case of a sardine can
As a service tech, I used to visit GE Evendale jet engine plant when they were developing the UDF (unducted fan) engine in the mid '80s. I knew it was really a good idea, but it got stuck back on the shelf to wait until the time is right... I think its going to be it's time soon!
That's the first thing that came to my mind, also. I always felt the UDF engines got short-changed. Those engines themselves will create more positive aviation news.
Low fuel prices doomed the UDF programs, and now many of the engineers who worked on it have retired.
Airplanes with UDF will be slow and noisy.
@@henson2k you'd be amazed what boeing can do with "re branding". airbus dont stand a chance.
The NOISE was sooooo bad that they had to put noise canceling speakers in the back!....Also...what was Not said was, how long
before that noise vibration fatigue cracks the aluminum holding the Tail on......
SAAB helped Boeing to design and develop the T7 trainer and what I understand SAAB brought a lot of their design efficiency to Boeings attention.
Hope they will do more joint venture in the future.
Nice update and good analysis. Your perspective makes sense to me.
You are my lifeline in the aviation industry! So many different faucets ever since 2020 have been a complete mess for one reason or another, and it's getting pretty complicated. It's a damn shame how much of a joke Boeing has become but it seems like bloat and bureaucracy sunk the ship for the time being. They're too big to fail but they've wasted so much money, time, and even lives at this point.
FD FD - yeah, they need to stop spending so much time and energy on faucets and get back to building aircraft. ;-)
How can you be too big to fail in a free market? Oh that’s right, it’s not a free market, it’s corporate communism
The work on Both of Mentour’s channels is incredible. I find myself excited to learn things about aviation that I didn’t even know I wanted to know. My day gets so much better when I get a Patreon notification that there is new Mentour pilot post. Although, I am now apparently destined to say all aviation terminology with a Swedish accent 🤔😉
I sincerely hope that Boeing has a good “strategy” going on behind the scenes, but I am skeptical. Unfortunately, there is a long history of big business getting in the way of a good business.
Swedish..........
So two weeks after you made this video, Boeing announces a sale of 100 787s with an option for 100 more along with 56 new 737s to United. Makes me wonder how that November announcement helped finalize this sale
I have read that Boeing leadership have said they have transitioned from being an engineering firm to a financial firm, just before two of their planes crashed.
The CFM RISE reminds me of the GE36 Unducted Fan UDF of the early 80’s
Exactly what I was thinking. Although, if memory serves, that was a 'pusher.'
@@rwm2986
I do believe you caught a design philosophy difference
don't they gear it down making it overhyped hybrid turboprop with a stator?
Airbus started using a unified digital design platform in 2017 (Skywise). The latest official information from Boeing is that they will shift their development to Metaverse (Boeing actually announced this).
To Metaverse ? They'll be sorry!
Metaverse? Very Good News, they will fail miserably... that is what we wait for!
Wait.... Adults at Boeing have actually said that they're pinning their future hopes on the Metaverse?!?!? Jesus, Boeing "management" is even more fucked in the head than I thought.
The business schools have one helluva lot to answer for. Their alumni don't seem capable of anything other than vandalism and asset stripping.
🤦♂sounds like a great plan
I understood Skywise not as a development platform, but rather as an aircraft maintenance and operation platform.
I remember growing up and always loved the thought of flying on Boeing planes. Was always disappointed when I flew on an airbus. Now, it seems Airbus has completely taken over and Boeing will soon be a distant memory and remembered as a once great company that dominated the skies at one point.
This is a very well informed and astute take, well done 😉
I'd love to see a video about the issues that are delaying the 777X since we already have a good idea about the max and the dreamliner
The new engine design looks remarkably like the propfan designs from the late 1980s. I remember seeing one fitted to a MD80 at the Farnborough Airshow. I don’t believe they ever overcame the issue of blade tip noise from the unducted fan. Will society accept more noise in return for efficiency?
Just don't sit near the back of the plane
I think they'll have to combine this with a geared fan design so they can keep the tip speeds reasonable.
I worked at GE at the time in the late 80s and their "Unducted fan engine" was on the cover of the annual report.
I believe with newer technology being able to build the fan blades with more geometric twist lessens the tip noise. That’s just an inference though.
More noise for efficiency? Never in Europe.
The A320 family is high enough to implement the new bigger, high bypass ratio engines, it only needs to have the wings redesigned, while Boeing needs to design a whole new aircraft. Besides of this, the new engine manufacturer is French (I suppose), so I bet the Airbus will know the exact parameters sooner. I think these circumstances are worth to consider also.
CFM , a partnership between the America's GE and the French Safran . GE has a great relationship with Boeing, I'm sure they would also know the parameters sooner too
The 757 was basically a redesigned 737 airframe with a new flight deck, wing, tail, and landing gear. To accommodate the larger engines. So what would lead you to believe there is some advantage to Airbus?
@@Georgiagreen317 Higher ground clearance of the Airbus that allows it to fit larger, more fuel efficient engines without making significant changes to the rest of the aircraft. Case in point, the A320neo.
This video was absolutely fascinating! Thank you!!
Boeing's brand but McDonnell Douglas's spirit.
😩
That was the problem - reverse takeover by McDonnell Douglas has screwed Boeing over - built to a (low) price, not the traditional Boeing high engineering standards. Such a shame.
Very insightful! Well done. Thx.
*_Former Boeing Everett ... another cost in any new design is 'Facilities'_*
With the end of 747 and 757 products, that opens up manufacturing floor space at Boeing's massive Factory in Everett. When I worked their, we were rolling out Lean Manufacturing. Everything changed in how we make aircraft. Another program was to reduce the enormous range of 'options' but still be flexible enough for our customers.
It was not uncommon for 'special projects' for future aircraft going on in the background. Everett houses majority of engineers in many different disciplines. Give them a blank sheet of paper and wait to be blown away with their new ideas. So many rumors flying around the different facilities.
Question: Why would lawmakers get in Boeing's way and not grant extension. One of the stupidest things I have heard lately. After Covid, they better be bending over backward or Boeing will move production to a different country. I still remember when Boeing Corporate moved from Seattle to Chicago. You would have thought the world was going to end. When Boeing moved half of 787 production to different state, heard the world is going to end again.
*_Maybe pencil pushing bureaucrats need to spend a week in Everett so we can screw their bobble heads back on_*
I am expecting Boeing will proudly announce their new partnership, building wing spars and empennages for COMAC.
COMAC has closer working relationships with manufacturers who make parts for Airbus in Europe.
@@hunter62207 Yes.
I flew the B767 for close to twenty years and it came into service in the 1980s’. Forty years ago! I remain impressed at the whole aircraft design and it’s adaptability. Now I’m on the B787 and it’s a truly amazing aircraft that I anticipate will likely endure a similar lifetime. I get the sense that Boeing banked a lot of innovation for years and unleashed it on the 787. As technology rapidly develops, hasty designs are unlikely to be as successful as their classic designs.
Funny thing is, I don't understand why the USAF wants to buy such an old aircraft for their tanker program. That program alone will ensure that the 767 remains in service for another 30 years minimum. That's a life of 70 years!
I worked at American for 20 years mostly repairing engines & engine components. We were in a constant battle with management about the proper way to do repairs. They always wanted to cut corners any way they could. Currently Boeing aircraft built in that plant on the east coast have been getting a bad rep, so bad that some have cancelled future orders. The Air Force has been complaining about excessive amounts of debris left in the tankers they have purchased. Saudi customers claim the same thing. They are more concerned about share holder returns that building a quality product. Three examples of crashes that were management induced: DC-9 crash in the Everglades (a supervisor didn't understand the difference between expended & expired on some old O-2 canisters), Alaska Super 80 crash off the coast of California (manager forced mechanics to pencil whip the lube process of the horizontal stab position screw assembly), DC-10 crash at Sioux city Iowa (not going to comment on that one because it was an FAA paperwork screw up). If your Boeing ships gave you good service you need to thank the repair crews that kept them in good shape by fighting management practices. The bean counters can cause a multitude of problems.
I think people forget that the 787 largely is still on Generation 1, maybe Generation 1.5 if you consider the changes made to build the -9 and -10.
The 787 could easily go to a Generation 2 incorporating new technology like the folding wing tips from the 777x for a reduced range version of the -8 that would fit in the code D gates of the 767. In addition, Boeing is already looking at making a higher MTOW version of the -9 and -10 to be able to fully utilize the capacities for long range flights.
As historical background, the 747 platform finished with 5 generations. The 777 will be on the 3rd generation with 777X. Even the Airbus a320 is a multi generational aircraft based on what is now a 40 year old platform.
Constantly saying let’s make clean sheet designs is expensive and high risk. Airbus learned that with the a340 and a380 which both failed to achieve a market strength position let alone a return on investment.
You have the freedom to frame their failures any old way that makes you comfortable. It's a free country.
The 787 Max lacked a button for disengaging the Auto pilot, thats my personal belief, am I right? Or was it built to ignore the pilots, just follow the FMS program.
That new engine concept is really funny - we started with propellers, evolved into jets only to hook them up to a propeller system (only this time we called them "Fans" or ducted fans as we put them into a casing) and now we wait for a propeller or "un-ducted fan" driven by a turbo jet. A system we have used on some aircraft a long time and called a "turbo-prop" configuration
All along the way we knew that Thrust = mass x acceleration and we also knew that propulsive efficiency increases with increased mass flow rather than high acceleration - why shall we wait until 2035 for this?
The answer is that conventional propellers are inefficient at higher airspeeds and speeds a little below the speed of sound are highly desirable for air travel. Jet engines solved all of these problems at the expense of fuel efficiency. Once efficiency became a big issue they made high bypass designs that were the best of both worlds. Back to props? Seriously? Thunderscreech anyone?
@@knurlgnar24 If you by "conventional propellers" mean a 2 or 3 bladed config you have missed my point. The ducted fans are comparable to a propeller concept only with a lot more "propellers" and with the significant lower rpm associated with propeller propulsion. If you look at a fan-blade cross section you'll notice it's similarity to a propeller cross section.
And yes there have been huge developments in refining efficiencies but basically we are moving back towards turbo-props - however hugely improved
Having flown the a320/321 and the 737...and the e170... And the e145, I think it's safe to say that Boeing gave up nearly 30 years ago after the 777.
This reminds me of a concept recently proposed for an Embraer Turboprop commercial aircraft which has RISE looking turboprops placed in the rear of the craft, apparently they also made a new concept with quieter Turboprops, it really seems that these companies are aiming for Turboprops again, what an interesting world we live in.
Whenever I come across a Boeing vs Airbus market competition analysis, I can't help being reminded of the A380. Specifically, the assertion (not sure if it's confirmed or not) that Boeing intentionally misdirected Airbus into the double-decker airliner market when their own internal analysis said it wouldn't be a sustainable investment. Can't help but wonder if Boeing's current posturing has any element of misdirection (that doesn't go so far as to run afoul of SEC regulations).
The propfans are proven to be f* loud. Having Concorde over your head every hour would be joyous in comparison.
That was always the killer barrier back when propfans were being developed in late 80s and early 90s. But the argument RR puts forward these days is that new materials, 3D printing and (most of all) far more powerful simulation software give good prospects of this problem being beaten. Time will tell if they're right or not.
@@kenoliver8913 if you are not gonna gear it down you are not gonna go around the sonic boom it will produce, no matter how hard you try.
also: PLEASE no 3D printed critical components in engines. 3D printing is great for testing and low stress components that need weird hollow shape. Propelers do not have weird shape and are under a lot of stress.
@@cola98765 The point of 3D printing is you can make "impossible to manufacture" shapes that your simulation software says will raise the Mach limit at the tips. But I'm a bit sceptical too - I'm just putting forward RRs response.
Airbus is doing heavy in research since years and will have plans for new aircraft. As soon Boeing moves forward Airbus will throw everything against them. Also Airbus can be quite fast bringing jets to market as has been demonstrated with the A350.
There is also a legislation , if Boeing bring out a model , airbus will not bring out a model at the same time, as it will not be able to make money back from flying hours as there will be more competition. Vice versa airbus will not release a plane if Boeing are bringing out a new plane. It's weird but it's like a avaition businessman agreement.
@@incognito96 If Boeing and Airbus have an unwritten agreement that is mutually beneficial for each company when they launch a new aircraft model, that has nothing to do with legislation.
@@localbod there is a legislation between the us(airbus) and Boeing (Europe) , because any industry that fits the requirements for strategic trade policy it the aircraft industry , as the world realises it can only support 2 firms as they need 600 models to break even.( The world trade economy by beth.v. Yarborough)
@@incognito96 Are you talking about the agreement between the United States and the European Union to suspend trade tariffs for five years beginning in June 2021 as part of a trade deal?
The A380 was a massive white elephant, and an amazing testbed for technology and processes to be put to proper commercial use later.
isn't the open-fan already in existence and called turbo-prop ? 😁
I can say first hand that any future model aircraft development is on hold or stopped completely. NMA and FPS wind tunnel models that were being built have been boxed up and put in storage.
Boeing is broken in so many areas, it is scary. When the Max was grounded, it was apparent that more issues would be discovered throughout the company. Then we had problems with the KC46, Artemis SLS, 787 production halt, Max7/10 certification issues, not to mention the FAA crackdown. Production debris is a constant reminder that the wrong production systems still persist. I think the CEO knows there is more to be revealed, and that's why he is directing Boeing to focus on fixing existing problems before new airframe development.
The KC46 problems are not serious.
@@GH-oi2jf whoosh. That's not the point. It's yet 'another' problem on a list of them.
@@GH-oi2jf Would you call the need to redesign the refueling boom at taxpayer expense, with a completion date of late 2025 “not serious?”
I'm beginning to wonder if Boeing will ever develop another commercial passenger jet;
My dad was a pilot and I grew up with Boeing aircraft- but when I travel today I prefer Airbus- they're simply more comfortable
I worked for Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach in early 1960's. At that time, the U.S. commercial airplane manufacturing was on the path to be the largest in the world. We had 40 thousand employees working in Long Beach, California in addition to other commercial aircraft companies in the U.S. Between the crooked politicians and terrible company industry management, the U.S. commercial industry was slowly killed off. It took 60 years to kill off the U.S. commercial jet industry. It was political and personal greed that killed it. We had the engineers and know how; but many bad decisions as a result of ignorance and greed. Very sad!
i agree
The message was not intended for Boeing's customers, it was aimed directly for Airbus. If the CEO of Boeing had called the CEO of Airbus and told him directly, that could very well be illegal. But, making the announcement public, it was not. By putting Airbus on notice that it was giving them some competitive breathing room and market share targets, it gives Boeing the same breathing room for themselves.
something that seems a bit scary about the new propfan engines is that there’s no longer a cowling to catch fan blades that fail.
And I also agree. Smells Fishy
The noise also seems like it would be an issue. Perhaps this is intended to be combined with the planetary gear turbofan design GE is also working on to keep blade speed lower, but I dunno.
Those blades are spinning (without checking the numbers, but based on the PT6 engine in our Pilatus) somewhere between 30-40,000rpm. No flimsy cowling is going to stop runaway fan blades. Remember Southwest 1380?
If you hang then out the back it doesn't matter, don't restrict your thinking to current airframe designs...
To scare you even more: the thin sheets of aluminium and carbon fibre of the fan housing aren't capable of stopping a failing blade either. There was at least one example in the last few years were one blade failed and penetrated the cabin mid flight.
However, that's a rather unlikely event and turboprops are very safe as well, even though there is no housing around the propeller.
Probably very hard to hide the development of a new airliner. At least after the initial stages. The new rise engines look awesome. Boeing has done quite a bit of work on blended wing bodies, I would love to see one of them flying.
I live north of Seattle, about 15 minutes from the big Boeing plant in Everett. Given the size of that building, in my mind there aren't going to be many customers who could buy that building. As the 747 is done, it makes sense that now is a good time to retool and refit for something totally new. Thinking out of the box, who says it has to be a commercial airliner, how about something suborbital?
The look of the Rise engine is just uncomfortable to me. Sure, the bypass ratio will be higher, but aren't ducted fans a lot more efficient than open fans of the same size? Isn't that why we have turbofans instead of turboprops in the first place?
How would you even get reverse thrust from one of those? They don't look like they have variable pitch capability like regular turboprops do.
The part that makes me actually uncomfortable in the idea of a fan failure. Turbofans are in a housing that is supposed to (and usually does) contain blade failures. How is the Rise engine supposed to deal with that? Are we supposed to assume "it's not supposed to break" is going to be good enough?
Scary thoughts!
It’s very complex, there are aerodynamic inefficiencies also in ducts from the interaction of the blade tips and the duct wall…. with this design assumedly the fan would no longer be a part of the compressor stages, so it wouldn’t be doing work in that respect….
Safran hires one to two thousand top notch engineers each year, they know what they are doing.
I think a lot depends on whether (or when) they can get the Max 7 and 10 certified, how the 777x program progresses.. The longer these milestones take for them to accomplish, the harder it will be for them to compete with Airbus.
Yes.
I think Mentour nails it here: Boeing's top priority is getting the Max 10 and 7 certified and everything they say and do right now is about putting pressure on Congress to extend the deadline. They know that it's unacceptable to the Gov't and the American people that Boeing end up #2. Boeing's trying to leverage that sentiment cancelling a next gen aircraft and threatening cancellation of Max 10 and 7 if the deadline isn't extended. In the end Congress will extend the deadline and Boeing will announce a next gen plane in 2-3 years.
@@IcyTorment I can't tell. I don't know him, or in other words I know him as well as I have known any other Boeing CEO...
@@wallyballou7417 I wouldn't be too sure. Even as a company as big as Boeing, I would not try to put pressure on the government like this. It may backfire big time, and I am afraid it will. I can see why you think like this, but I don't agree with it. Watch congress not extending the deadline and then something soft and brown will clearly hit the fan...
It's sad to see my childhood favourite Aircraft Manufacturer go down like that
My best friend's family went on their last air vacation on a DC-10 ... in the early 80s. _Forty years_ ago.
and people say that chinas airplanes are actully bad but actully look at what boeing is actully becomeing
A reduction in competition would be worrying.
Yeah, but where there is a market, there will be players.
I think that China sees this as an opportunity. If they could only get their hands on the design of a competitive engine with all the associated black art of how to build it.
How are they going to certify the CFM engine without blade containment. Great video as always 😊👍
It's a reimagined turboprop, and would follow the same certification regime. That said, Jet-A fuel is headed for the scrapheap of history, and engine manufacturers need to focus on climate neutral solutions all the way from domestic to intercontinental designs.
@@johndododoe1411 I think that in raising the type of fuels in future aviation, you have hit the nail on the head.
Are we looking at stored electricity, resolving cold fusion, or even a fission system with control rods embedded in the core, preventing them from running away.
We use huge amounts of fuel getting up to cruising altitudes, but none of this is recovered during the final part of the journey.
Rather than separating all these factors, will the answers lie in revolutionary aircraft design.
A John DoDo Doe said, it's a turboprop, which have been certified and used just as long as jets. It is sort of an intermediary between turboprops and jets, but really is reflective of the direction turboprops have been evolving all along - look at those on the Q400, latest C130s, and A400M. This looks like a turboprop with some stationary blades behind the spinning ones, and has more blades than any existing turboprop, but otherwise it's just a turboprop. "Open rotor fan," "Propfan," "unducted turbofan" and so on are mostly just marketing terms to avoid the term "turboprop" which is seen as old fashioned and suitable only for small regional aircraft.
@@wilsjane Hopefully this will be the case, I'm doubtful any of those technologies will be able to replace hydrocarbon jet fuel in the foreseeable future. All have problems with power density or are just pretty far out there from current technologies. Maybe possible someday, but these aren't just refinements of existing (working) technologies. I wouldn't bank (or invest) in them yet. Some, such as hydrogen and electric, might be suitable for short-haul in the not too distant future, but not ocean-crossing any time soon. The next thing I'm anticipating is biofuel (still a hydrocarbon but not a fossil fuel) but that has a lot of issues as well in terms of actually being better than fossil fuels, thinking of the environmental impacts of agriculture and the ethics of using agriculture to produce fuel while people starve. I anticipate aircraft will be the last mode of transport (or other user of energy) to be able to get off hydrocarbon fuels.
As for the loss of energy in descent, I wouldn't really consider that to be the case. They don't regenerate any energy from the descent, but they are able to cover a lot of distance burning less fuel by partially gliding the last 100 miles or so. At least if the pilots plan ahead well rather than starting their descent too late and deploying spoilers for a "slam-dunk" arrival.
Does a C-130 have blade containment?
_That's a turboprop_
So is this.
I work for Boeing for 40 years.I worked on all the planes mentioned. I think Boeing is looking for more robotics in the design for the new planes to build them cheaper and better more affordable for all the airlines that Boeing delivers too. I know they still will be number 1 but time will tell. Thank you and believe in the Boeing Company, God bless you all and keep America strong.
Definitely part of the plan.
In which century do you live? 😅😅Boeing is so far away from being Nr. 1 like Russia from being worlds superpower Nr. 1
Competition in the market is usually a good thing, but when you consider the competition between Boeing and Airbus, it seems downright dangerous.
Love watching your videos! I know you're a Boeing fan, but if you had the chance to fly an Airbus, which one would it be and why? I'm really curious to know.
Airbus
I would also like to know
Boeing
Having flown both (737, A320), I prefer the airbus. It’s quieter, more spacious, cools better, the cabin is bigger, and the overall pilot workload is less. They both make great products, but I find airbus to have the edge. At my airline the airbus is the most senior narrow body fleet.
Yes, that open rotor fan engine is certainly interesting. What the hell happens when (not if) it throws a blade? One of the more interesting tests for jet engines is the blade off test, where they explosively release a fan blade at top speed in order to test whether the engine housing will contain the blade and all the other parts that disintegrate when such a high energy event occurs. Well, the answer so far is: one cannot be certain. I found a blade off test done by NASA for an open rotor engine, but it was just one blade tested against a specially designed panel (two, actually, of varying thicknesses), which performed fairly well. But the panel was tested by itself; it was not attached to an actual wing structure nor of course tested in the air.
Not a problem, such "open rotor fans" have been in service as long or longer than jets (in fact said open rotor fans driven by different engine types have been in service since the dawn of aviation) and have been certified just fine, with very few incidents of blade failures causing accidents. We just always called these engines "turboprops," which is what this thing actually is.
These multi-bladed props are geared, and rotate at far slower speeds than turbofans. (Have you looked at a C-130 lately?) They're also lightweight composite; that plus the lower RPM means less strain and greater reliability. I'm not aware of any such prop failing in use.
This was very very VERY interresting. Thx ;)
Gone are the days of CEO Alan Mutually - a commercial pilot AND aerospace engineer. After Boeing's turnaround, Allen did the same for Ford Motor Company before his retirement (Semi). Remember, Alan us the reason the F-150's body is mostly Alcoa Aluminum.
The option not explored in this video is that Boeing needs the time to figure out what to call their next model after the 797.
7-9.5-7
I'd imagine they go to the 800s
The SST model no. was the 2707, so there's that.
There are endless possibilities. For instance, they could call it Bob.
@@leisti Isn't that a Microsoft joke?
Something on the open fan engines would be interesting. I mean, they seem to just be modern turboprops, which we already know how to make, so what's so new about them?
I suspect they really are turboprops by any reasonable definition, and that CFM RISE looks like a natural continuation of the existing trend in turboprop evolution (such as those on the A400M). I think they are just trying to come up with terms like "open rotor turbofan," "propfan," "unducted fan," as marketing terms to avoid association with turboprops, which are seen as old-fashioned and only suited for small regional aircraft.
Great video! As far as new engines go, I always think of the meme with how the Dyson airplane engine would look and have a good chuckle. However, if it were ever able to be achieved, it would be absolutely incredible for both safety and maintenance savings in the aviation industry. No more worrying about broken blades, hitting flocks of birds, ingesting ice, and possibly even the ability to go through volcanic ash.
Dyson fans do have blades. There is a conventional, bladed fan hidden in the base and the "blade less" design is just a fancy duct for this conventional fan.
Great video. It will be great if you do the video about cfm engine. Thank you
I totally agree with you Mentor Pilots
Thank you!
I wish Boeing comes back financially and become healthy soon again.
On engineering side, I wish it adopts Japanese attitude. Gradual but steady improvements on 787 Dreamliner to rule the sky until it is ready to bring a truly groundbreaking technology to market.
The C-17 Globemaster was first introduced in 1995 as the US Air Force's primary aircraft for troops and cargo's global transportation. Initially produced by McDonnell Douglas, the C-17
Good-good content. As always.
Many years ago, I read an article about research on an UnDucted Fan (UDF) engine, the same concept as the RISE engine mentioned in this video. It used a single large fan stage at the front of the engine. I believe it was using a DC-9 as the test platform and they were getting good results from the test program. It took a long time, but it looks like this concept is finally moving towards a working engine.
Personally no thanks to the open fan. Sounds dangerous.(eg: blade braking apart on landing gear failure, metal fatigue, etc)
The problem is that they advertise it in a wrong way. It's not a replacement for a jet engine, it's a natural evolution of a turboprop, that will be more efficient, but slow and a bit louder.
Unless of course they are not gearing it down then it's a lost cause as sonic boom on bladetips will kill everyone's eardrums.
Of course, it wasn't like the DAC side of McDonnell Douglas didn't try. Before the "merger" with Boeing, Douglas had a concept for a two engine version of the DC-10 which was proposed to the powers that be in St. Louis, and which was rejected. There was a lot of animosity between Long Beach and St. Louis, especially with St. Louis pulling and holding all the strings, and seemingly not wanting to be a commercial manufacture too. It would have been a plane that may have flown up to 3 years before the 767.
and people say that chinas airplanes are actully bad but actully look at what boeing has actully become
Retooling design, manufacturing and engineering base should be everyone's goal at this time. There have been MAJOR changes in each one of those fields that a wise company as complex as this should be working hard to get in place before attempting a new plane.
Think Rotation Detonation as just one piece. Take a look at what changes have been used in the new NGAD program and it all makes perfect sense.
I remember a 727 testing an engine that looked a lot like the RISE many years ago. I wonder how similar they really are...
In was an MD80 or 81... About 1985...They found it too much noisy and fuel efficency was so-so compared to turbofans, so PropFan was shelved in a short time.
Boeing needs to drop the 737 after this debacle ends, with the certification or not, and then focus on a new mid range aircraft whilst considering going back in for Embraer.
Interesting idea but very improbable. The 737 is their cash cow and it’s still selling very well.
The 737 is an awesome airplane.
@@GeordieBoy69 the 737 is trash.
Didn't you hear? They're deep in development of the 737 ULTRA. It's engines will be completely in front of and above the wings.
@@soccerguy2433 nonsense, read the NTSB reports and grow up.
Spot on analysis
Good info ❤
Petter, you are a Boeing fan, since you are typerated on the 737. Understandable.
But you are neglecting one other very probable factor. Boeing has a major credibility-issue. Listening to a Dutch podcast about aviation, one of the two participants is very critical of Boeing. Since the crashes of both 737-Max's Boeing has 'earned' itself a reputation of an aircraftmanufacturer where safety took a backseat to commercial purposes. The number of faults found in recent designs is accelerating and causes longer delays in recertification of types.
Apparently, Beoing doesn't have its shit together, and they have to rehire hundreds of engineers just to get the basics working again.
Airbus on the other hand may face deliverydelays, but they don't let safety take a backseat. And there is no political pressure in the EU that leans on them.
It is very possible that the delay in an new type might be because they need to “get their shit together” that’s true.
Living in the Puget Sound area only 10 miles away from the Renton WA plant we hear a lot of Boeing gossip. about 3 years ago, I had a conversation with a Boeing insider, he told me he wouldn't be surprised if Boeing just got out of the civilian side of manufacturing and stuck with Military only. I remember thinking to myself " Oh yeah, right" But now I can actually see that happening. Sad
just like GE breaking up, Boeing could definitely split into separate commercial and military businesses. the military side has been getting help from the commercial side for years (cookie jar accounting). there have been few technology synergies between the commercial and military side (reason for the original merger).
I worked as a metal fabricator at a Boeing subcontractor in Everett the place was an old army barracks and I spent 90% of my time walking around in the rain a real joke
In a previous video you stated that Delta is probably waiting for NMA to replace their aged 757 fleet. Do you think they will change their decision (if there is such) in favour of XLRs to match range and/or 220s for STOL operations? Considering the huge backlog of A320 models they need to act fast.
I honestly think they just might. I would if I was in charge the xlrs will definitely do the job and they won’t have to wait fo shit no mo
Those new engines looks interesting. Question what happens if one of those fan blades get loose. No cowling to contain it?
Excellent question. I guess the same kind of reinforcements as turboprops need.
But that's the same for any propellor based engine we've had for over a century
So how exactly would the rise engines not be turbo prop.
@@dalentoews3418 the fan is powered as a byproduct of thrust from the main spool, where as a turbo prop’s propeller is direct drive.
I have heard one of the biggest issues is the noise.
In the avation industry delays are a common thing and the rise engine will be delayed but we should also consider what if the rise engine sease to exist what if the program never goes of the drawing board then Boeing would be left stranded
Indeed, like has happened to the "Propfan"/"Open Rotor fan"/"Unducted turbofan" thing several times in history.
Very good discussion
When recent shortcuts catch up with you... It's so sad for so many otherwise honest employees. Let's hope they find a way to get through this turmoil.
i agree and people say that china is going to be patheic agaist boeing but actully look at what the usa as a whole and boeing have actully become
Something to note is that beyond Airbus there is also China making big strides towards competing in this space in the next decade... If Boeing and Airbus slouch instead of competing with one another they _both_ may well be overtaken.
Yes, the Chinese will probably price the planes like they price their TV's -- super cheap but only last a few years (the old Detroit plan).
Another potential competitor is Russia, which has been forced to re-activate its commercial aircraft industry because of Western sanctions. It is reportedly developing new versions of aircraft such as the Tu 214, MC-21 and Sukhoi Superjet utilising indigenous Russian systems to replace Western supplied components. Significant orders are expected from the Russian market to replace sanctioned Western supplied aircraft.
The prospect of Russian-built airliners will obviously be treated with derision and contempt by Western airline customers. However, it could be a different story for "developing" nations with limited budgets, who may be attracted by low prices and beneficial financial/political packages offered by the Russian government to seduce developing nations away from Western influence.
Thanks for an interesting analysis. Other than Boeing was apparently being 'bullied' by Southwest Airlines to continue with the 737, I cannot understand why nothing has ever been done with the 'stepchild' 757. A good basic airframe that could be updated with new wing, new materials, etc and 'long enough legs' to take a larger diameter engine without needing MCAS.
The Max didn't need MCAS for any other reason than to make it feel like an NG so that it wouldn't need a new type rating.
@@AlexandarHullRichter That's what a lot of people say, but according to the 737 Technical Site, the real reason had to do with pitch stability at all angles of attack. Making the plane handle like the NG was a byproduct rather than a goal.
@@rrice1705 you don't think they could have written that site specifically to make themselves look better after a huge mistake?
I think Boeing observed that a new 757 type was not feasible at the moment because there was not a suitably sized engine. Available ones off the shelf were too big or too small. No engine manufacturer will commit to developing the engine a 757neo would require.
@@francoistombe Too bad. I would have liked to have seen a 757neo.
From a project management point of view, Boeing should release a jet airliner side by side with their digital framework development, and decouple critical dependencies. Otherwise, if it turns out they have to walk back from their framework, and restart from scratch, they risk not building a new plane for the next 25 years, creating a ~40 year gap between airplane releases