THIS Could Seriously HURT Aviation!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping @Manscaped with code MENTOURNOW or visit manscaped.com/mentour #manscapedpartner
-----------------------------------------------------
Why is aircraft development getting so slow? How did we go from developing an all-new jetliner from scratch in three to four years in the 50s and 60s, to needing more than a decade to change a wing and the engines of an existing airliner in the 2010s and 2020s?
-----------------------------------------------------
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
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentournow
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com...
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-e...
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the latest aviation content
👉🏻 www.mentourpil...
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
SOURCES
-----------------------------------------------------
• Airbus and Acubed Part...
• Boeing Model 367-80, t...
• How we developed the C...
• The next big thing in ...
• Celebrating first deli...
• How FedEx Helped Cessn...
• Cessna SkyCourier Join...
• Lockheed L-1011 TriSta...
• A350 XWB is 'Good to g...
• FAA studying the impac...
• US Airlines Are Worrie...
• Aerospace Innovation: ...
• 25 years of carbon fib...
• Industrial Co-Design a...
• Airbus Virtual Procedu...
• T-7A Red Hawk Producti...
• Airbus drives innovati...
• T-7A named the first i...
• USAF General Welsh vis... • Emotional Launch
• Airbus Careers - Quality
• Airbus Careers - Struc...
#Mentourpilot #pilot #boeing
Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping @Manscaped with code MENTOURNOW or visit manscaped.com/mentour #manscapedpartne
Glad you dropped Better Help scam
manscaped can piss right off.
Manscape isn't really designed for the face 🙂
After watching a number of channels ad's for Manscaped over the past several months, this is the one that will get me to buy. That ad was funny!
doglus as BM ... do you know about its safety record ? Max 8 remember .. effectively a Neo Doglous
There's potentially another factor you haven't mentioned. I think the better you make things, the harder it is to make them better because there's less room for improvement. It's like how a world record gets harder to break every time it's broken because the standard is higher for future competitors.
I liken it to Formula 1 in the 60s and 70s compared to now. Back then, with the tools and knowledge the designers and engineers had, they could maybe get "80%" of the max performance compared to the rules, and each team got to that 80% in completely different ways. So Ferrari may be good on fast tracks, but Lotus could dominate on tight twisty tracks, while Tyrell might be best on tracks that had both.
But now with CAD and computer simulations, as soon as the rules are announced, every team can instantly achieve 99% performance under the rules, and then vast resources are then devoted to finding another 0.1% against their opponents, which makes the difference between a champion and an also-ran. If you find 0.2%, then you end up completely dominating that season.
I agree
This is particularly bad for safety. Aircraft are so safe and we do not accept any -even small and temporary- steps back… however, it is super hard to make things super safe from the drawing board vs. fixing a couple of issues you didn’t think of based on experience. Every new design is expected to be as safe as the tried & tested, with many iteration under its belt -this risk aversion makes innovation ever harder.
If you hit that glass ceiling for innovation the production process becomes the focus, making something more efficiently, but for some reason even with all our modern technologies manufacturing is worse
You forgot to mention the human factor. All these new technologies need HUMANS to be developed, HUMANS to implement them and HUMANS to use them. Add that to the Wall Street types who run manufacturers and airlines, hell-bent on just maximising shareholder profit at the expense of everything else and you understand why everything is more complicated and expensive.
Why not value the human factor as we do in CRM and take stock of its value, while holding CEOs accountable for their mistakes even after 20 years.
In Boeing’s case, the CEO who decided to move HQ far away from the engineers should be held responsible for B737 MAX’s failures
Sign of a mature technology. Standards to meet. Much higher expectations and much less tolerance for failure.
As it should be
Except for Boeing.
@@PfsifOh god. The level of exaggeration over the Boeing issues is beyond crazy at this point. Even including the recent issues with the Max, Boeing still has the best safety record in history. And even the two crashes (the rest of the news was quality control issues) were down to poorly trained pilots rather than anything wrong with the plane. Boeing got blamed for the airlines’ desire not to require any conversion training for their 737 pilots.
Should Boeing and their subcontractors be held accountable for their failings? Yes, of course. Is it responsible or anyway helpful for people like you and media looking to generate traffic to act like every Boeing ever made is suddenly a death trap? No.
Yup. Only radical new fuselage or engine tech is going to yield major gains in efficiency and operating costs. But that requires huge investment gambles. The kinds that governments really should be a part of.
But also no revolutions so small improvements
With all due respect, there are some misconceptions in this video, which is common for most people outside the aircraft OEM to have.
1- Comparing "time to develop" between different manufacturers is kind of dicey. What are we talking about here? From concept to EIS? From preliminary design to EIS? From program development to certification? It turns out different manufacturers announce publicly the launch of a new program at different stages of development.
For example, some may declare new aircraft still in concept phase, which would add probably at least 2 years researching and sizing in preliminary design, to later get to a grinding 4 or 5 year program development, others will declare launch at the beginning of program phase which will make it look like it took only 4 years to build it. Furthermore, some companies spend a lot of time on preliminary design phase and have short development phase, while others might spent very short time in preliminary design and strike a deal with first client to troubleshoot small issues to improve dispatchability as the product matures.
2- Those VR or AR tech stuff are completely useless BS for most of the engineering! Sorry, they are cool marketing tools to make you look like you are at the forefront of technology, but they rarely add if any value to the development process of an aircraft. Also, if you are becoming an aeronautical engineer and you have tough time visualizing stuff in 3D from 2D drawings you probably shouldn't be getting involved in this field in the first place.
3- The A380, B787, Cseries are very specific cases of cost overrun and delay. When you have to remove traffic signs at night so that the aircraft part can pass thru narrow French roads on its way to the factory, clearly you do not have optimal manufacturing logistics to reduce cost, challenge to build something so large for the first time not withstanding.
On the Boeing side, the over delegation of parts manufacturing without sufficient oversight (sounds familiar?) led to innumerous non conforming parts.
In the case of Bombardier, they decided to venture to build something they were not used to - interestingly enough, a conventional tail aircraft was one of them. Plus they were dealing with many other projects such as Learjet and Global at the same time with limited staff and bad management decisions.
4- It is worth noting that the aviation industry is dealing with lack of professionals. The IT gold rush of the 90s and 2000s which captured millions of youngsters drained all the talent that would have come to the aviation industry otherwise. This created gaps of talent and hence less ideas, leadership, and efficiency.
I agree with everything else.
well said 🙂!!!
Definitively true!
Really well said, just want to add for the A380 there was a problem in the cable routing between the german and the french said due to not working in 1 tool. thats was only found out during assembly of the fuselage sections. Until you have defined it new, updated all drawing, manufactured the harnesses and then have everything installed you will get a delay of a year easily.
And you also want some pressure inside the company because we all know you work harder if the target is coming closer. Also to add you have already pretty good aircraftrs which were updated a lot over 40 years to get the maximum performance out of them it is getting increasingly harder to find gains or you have even more points you want to tackle before launch because of previous findings.
@@Infiltator2 Interesting. I did not know the A380 had such a snafu. I will look for more information about the issue.
@@Fey418 The A380 was pretty much on every basis a clean sheet. Completely new tools, new design, new material and the forst new aircraft after 20 years. etc.
But a lof of that helped with the A350 in the End, which is actually quite underrated.
I can't help but think that one factor that slows down new aircraft development is the law of diminishing returns, applied to both economy and performance.
I work at the maintenance for trains. That said, the moment you order new one, with all the regulations and stuff, it takes about the same time to get them registered.
We order new trains in 2017, and tho there got here until now there still not in use as for the regulations and everything, so even here, 7 years from order to almost in use...
And changing a part and modifications has gotten so regulated, we got a new law from the eu for example to change the headlights to some with led, although in other country's there did the modification for the same trains, we actually have to do all the registration again for ours. So from the point of action to the finished product, years are passing by, and making the whole product incredibly costly.
That said, it's a pretty save way of traveling, and I guess that always come with a high cost.
And in the 707-747 development era, most of the engineering was done with slide rules, trig tables and three sig figs!
Yeah,I’m a bit disappointed petter didn’t really show that and the draughtsmen lying on the ground on massive paper drawings
@@andrewpease3688He kinda did show the slipstick army in action.
In the Moon shots the work was done with human brain and slide rules, not by the 'keyboard jockeys' using CAD... ( keyboard Jockey' term was used in our design office for people who hardly knew engineering but could use a computer ). Do not underestimate the time lost by unqualified people making bad decisions...
One major problem adding time to design, is that a LOT of the aircraft isn't designed and built by the manufacturer, they are built by OTHER manufacturers. So, say Airbus decides on a new design. They do the initial work, then go to a company that making landing gear, and asks them to design a landing gear for the new plane. That engineering work is already 2-3 years behind the start of the design.
At least this is true for other manufacturing. I actually don't know in aerospace (don't work in aerospace), but it's more than likely the same as other industries.
That does happen, one reason for the delays on the 787 program was that major engineering work was doled out to subcontractors, making that work harder to supervise and coordinate.
Soon everything will be designed by AI anyway. And then certified by AI too.
I work for one such company, and I can confirm that’s exactly how aerospace works. The customer (the company whose plane we’re making a system for) gives us the requirements for a system, we review and eventually approve those and create our design requirements from there, then build it, test it, certify it, and deliver it to them to be integrated into the overall plane. We also hire out components of our system to further companies in some cases. Depending on the company making the aircraft at the top level, there’s a whole web of companies and supply chains involved, and I doubt any modern aircraft manufacturer makes an entire plane in house.
@@kosmosyche no kek
Might be the utter lack of competition plays a role. Back then, there were many more companies the airlines could chose passenger jets from.
That’s a good point
I cannot fathom how there could be more competition to do something that is so capital intensive and high risk. The very nature of the business seems to favour less competition.
It’s also the agenda. They don’t want people to travel, no need for planes.
The A350 with the "mask" is the most beautiful airliner in my humble opinion
It’s a good looking bird, that’s for sure
I believe that role belongs to the 757-300.
@@Danimalpm1 the 57 was my favorite plane cause its awesome and it just kicks ass . but look at the AA A350 from the front corner with the mask and both wing tips in view. Gorgeous plane
I work in the automotive industry. It happened to be involved also in Fisker ocean project. They reduced the development timeline to only 2 years. Usually, it will take 4 to 5 years to develop a new model even if you are an experienced car manufacturer. You know the outcome of Fisker Ocean.
I've heard of Fisker (and not good things), but I've never heard of the Fisker Ocean. I'm guessing it didn't go well?
I wasn't directly involved with this one, but know a few people who were. Basically, the car was far from fully developed when it launched, and that led to numerous complaints from the initial customers (in addition to high rework cost for each one devlivered in the first months) - which ultimately sank the company as people hesitated to buy the vehicle.
Haven't heard of it. Is it scissors?
@TonboIV Nop, the company is bankrupt now.
@kain0m I was involved in software test activities, and I remember that we had situations where we tested some scenarios, and it worked 2 times out of 10 tests. We reported this, and they still decided to release the car.
When it comes to the new computer tech 'possibilities' of development (at any level) I always think of the Unintended Consequences (which inevitably follow) and the old adage attributed to Yogi Berra: "In theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice, they are not." Great video. Thanks for posting.
The basic industry of aircraft design, development, and production is two companies. These companies are very large managed by risk aversion due to the bean counter mentality. The company’s management looks at their profit and doesn’t want to risk the big salaries and bonuses this produces. Also, this type of management chooses to reduce their technical and engineering as a way to control costs as they only need them during the design of the product through production. But as Boeing has shown these companies always push the limits of quality because it adds nothing to the bottom line than cost. Quality takes little ime if it is instill in the company to have quality independent of the bottom line, it should be above bean counters, manufacturing and management in general. The result is the company doesn’t have to go back time after time to ‘fix’ issues you shouldn’t be seeing. Thus it takes more time to get an aircraft certified because they take the short cut and pay in money and time over the design cycle. 4 years become 10 years because of risk aversion and poor quality control.
The old story: "Never enough time and money to do the job properly, so we have to do it a second time...."
Wow, every time I watch one of your videos I feel that the amount of research you've done could pass for a end-of-semester research paper. Well done, @MentourNow. Thanks for putting out quality videos for aviation enthusiasts and current pilots up-to-date with good material!
As an ex-Airbus customer facing person, you forgot the extremely demanding marketplace and customer. They are a very fickle lot and the longer we take to design something, the more they change their minds. Back in the 90s, they pretty much took what they got as a given. Now it has to be refined and refined (during which time the markets change - again). Even then it will not be good enough - Qatar Airways and the A350 are a good example. Then there's the Qantas LR fuel tank debacle. Etc etc ..............
Excellent commentary again so thanks for that
But couldn't you let the customer refine the hardware to their own will?
VC10 a fine example of an aircraft built to meet the customers needs.
the lack of highly educated people is influencing the process of development for new planes. Boeing is the best example. No NMA project before 10 years because each engineer will be busy to clean the mess with the B737 Max problems...
the short answer is that the complexity of aircraft has increased faster than the ability to design complex things. it's kind of like with computers: my current computer can run much more complex software at higher speeds than my first computer - yet it takes it longer to load software than my first computer did, because the complexity of the software has also increased.
Yet, nobody is seeing the value in dusting off old blueprints and modernizing them, either. We don't need super complex designs for things like short commuter flights. A modern MD80 or even a 727 might not be as efficient, but I bet it could be manufactured in record time, for less materials and cost. The issue airlines face is age, not bad tech. Planes were already "good enough" 20 years ago to get the job done. The issue is that the planes are now almost 20 years old. Just keep making more of the same, like they did with the VW Bus.
@@plektosgaming PR wise the industry can't afford that. They have promised regulators worldwide that the next generations of aircraft are more silent and more efficient. If they don't meet those promises, politicians might make decisions the industry really don't like.
@@MBSteinNL Except the politicians are basically owned by their corporate donors. If they really wanted to, they can find a way to make simpler designs. But.. they all have to one-up each other. It's like being stuck with some French chef telling you to wait 45 minutes for his next creation when all you want is a croissant and a coffee.
The software example speaks more to sloppy programming than complexity. Programmers now figure they’ve got infinite processing power and memory so they don’t need to think about good architecture, so data doesn’t flow as efficiently as it should.
I would equate that to the outsourcing craze in the aviation industry. Supply chains have become hopelessly complex and inefficient because management wanted to pretend to save money when what they were doing was robbing Peter to pay Paul. Whatever they saved by outsourcing they end up losing ten times over because so much of the production process is now out of their control.
@@johnmorris3744 no, programmers have always been sloppy. granted, the invention of the Windows shell, let them get away with being more sloppy,
and the outsourcing doesn't become a factor until they go to production.
For your information. The body of the A380 is made from auminium CF triplex and that is produced by Fokker NL. They had experience with CF parts but not of this size. It took them more time than expected to get it right. So Airbus had to wait. And they will experience this with a number of their suppliers. To design the parts and make them is a huge step.
Your ad for Manscape is much easier on the ears than Manscape’s own ads.
Petter changed the official tagline! I was waiting for "Your balls will thank you". Maybe YT algorhythm would demonetize him (painful).
8 years for the A350 is a bit misleading as they essentially rebooted the program after their first attempt failed. (Which of course was (more or less) implemented as the A330NEO later.)
The A340-300 was underpowered with CFM-56 engines because the desired Rolls Royce geared turbofan was not ready and ultimately failed development. Later A340 models had new engines. Grumman's F-14 Tomcat was designed to take a new GE afterburning turbofan that was delayed in development, so the F-14A flew with the Pratt and Whitney TF-30. The F-14Band D models received the GE F110 engine, which allowed them to fulfill their potential.
I'd guess it's the same problem NASA has: Too many people who wear ties and have meetings and not enough people who wear pocket protectors and do useful stuff.
Nah. We actually have a different problem at NASA-too many things that can go wrong and not enough money/people to mitigate them. You guys hold us to these unrealistic standards with only a fraction of the resources we had in 60s and 70s.
The big part of it is Software and how it is certified.
Modern Jet has so many complex computer systems that were not present in the old Jets.
Before 1992 the development and certification of safety-critical software for aviation was regulated by the Do-178A standard, 1992 to 2012 the Do-178B was in play, and right now it is Do-178C + a plethora of supporting standards like Do-330, Do-331, Do-332. ED-12A-C in Europe is a carbon copy of Do-178A-C translated to French and German (or you could say, it is the other way around, basically it is the same standard).
Each consequential version of the standard presented more goals that developer must achieve and demonstrate to Certification Authority.
178A - you did not need to really show how your software work inside those flight computers, you just needed to show that it can fly. Most of the certification goals could be achieved by the IRL flight testing.
178B - you must show to authorities how your software work in each of those numerous computers, down to the tiniest part of it. You need to not only make test flights, that is not enough - you must implement an extensive process of verification and certification of your software which requires a lot of work (you spent 1 hour to write 100 lines of code, and now you must spend 5-10 times of that to test them).
178C - It is described in terms of processes and activities. It adds some more complexity and places on the software developer a burden to demonstrate that not only the product that they developed adheres to the goals described in the standard, but also that processes in the software development company are working in accordance to the standard and project documentation.
Supplemental Do-330, Do-331, Do-332 describes a set of goals for the COTS software used in the development process and the new development methods such as the Model-based software design.
Similar situation happened in hardware standards as described in the video.
Basically, you could achieve adherence to Do-178A by the relatively small team of software engineers, but since the Do-178B got in a action in 1992, you would now need a big team whose probably gonna be an outsourcers from all around the world.
As a finishing note, the 737MAX problems with MACS is an example of what happens when you cut costs and limit those software certification activities while your pocket certification authorities representative rubberstamp your work to enter production line.
Yes the problem is big here . Most people seem not to get it
@@AnetaMihaylova-d6for, put differently, there is no problem whatsoever. This is just a natural consequence of more complicated designs and components combined with the result of companies spinning off and outsourcing their in-house work to other companies in the interest of improving their quarterly returns.
I would say the major flaws of the MAX was implementing a flight control change that affected flight characteristics in a critical phase of flight with single point of failure using a system that has a typical failure rate of 1*10^-5 hours and then not sufficiently documenting failure description and corrective actions in the AFM and crew QRH all for a feature to make the aircraft handle more like the previous model to save customers on traing cost to ensure continuing sales.
@@brasidas2011 yes and stock prices
Got to correct you on one thing you said. “The 777x is basically a 777 with a couple new bits and new engines” (paraphrasing). 95% of this plane is completely new. All the avionics, the computing platforms, the sensors, power units, including the engines. I have worked on the program for the best part of 8 years.
Wasn't he referring to the structure?
It don't look new...
@@jamesengland7461even the airframe is wholly refined.
It was easier to certify an in-family aircraft before two 737s nosed into the Earth with great vigor.
Makes sense that they iterated the design, probably for lightening where they could with different materials or structures that did not need as much material. Like Elon says, the best part is no part.
Strange that it now takes over a decade to get an aircraft into service because certification standards are stricter, but Boeing is putting up new planes that are crashing and having parts fall off in midair.
If you don't follow the plan you got certified, the best certification process is useless
@@zottelhuehs6375 Now quality assurance needs to be added to certification.
That was, without any doubt, the smoothest insertion of plug for the sponsor that I've ever seen in my life.
Mismanagement. If management would actually LISTEN to the engineers and do what makes sense technologically instead of what will be the cheapest thing to do. Engineers need to work around their pinhead bosses to actually get things done, which is a full-time job by itself.
pinhead bosses" yes, i've see a few !!They are typically preoccupied with cover up's and set-up's. don't have time or interest in the actual job.
The amount of computer coding is a major factor. The 707 and DC8 of course had none
Code is so cheap to make, so expensive to test.
Mentor, please please do a video explaining certification under FAR Part 25 ICA (instructions for continious airworthiness). You gotta show how planes are certified in parallel with development (not in sequence). The gotcha is that often necessary data for cert is due before the design is completed.
Postscript; note that software on the airplane at time of certification is part of the Type Certificated configuration, and is controlled by the TC holder (OEM). Owner/Operators can add software after certification, but they are responsible for demonstrating compliance (think EFB, IFE, etc). Each installed software component is a controlled airplane part. Chain of custody and revision history is required.
It is known as the Law of Diminishing Returns. Now it takes a lot, to get a small improvement in efficiency. Flight is pretty close to maxing out. You can only get so much energy out of a gallon of kerosene.
You could get a lot more gain, if existing infrastructure wouldn't be so tuned to the airliners we already have. A flying wing design for instance promises quite some gains. The issue just is that it won't fit into normal airport gates, so no airline is interested in that.
I recall Embraer deferred the development of a new turboprop airframe family recently because the engine technology wouldn't be ready in time.
Adding software to hardware problems makes a hard problem harder. There are _potential_ advantages, but the added complexity of having planes run by computers instead of solely mechanical components cannot be overstated, and the longer we go on, the more software components we stuff into everything. It's not the only factor, but it's almost certainly up there with the most significant ones.
This is not only a aircraft issue. It is something that is a problem in many industries. Layer on layer with middle-management and the engineers has no authority to take any decitions. More and more nonsens with reporting and having meetings about how to write instructions about having meetings etc.
There is a reason Tesle can move development so fast: They have a new organisation, without an old, ultra-large, continuously growing overhead.
Overall point is fair but other than the failed cybertruck, when is the last time Tesla introduced a new model or significantly updated existing models?
yeah, except remember they still have yet to bring FSD online. And furthermore, their move fast and break things mentality is actually doing so. Regulation of FSD is quickly coming because Tesla says its safe without actually proving it is.
They also have no union and treat their workers like crap
Tesla has a above average number of recalls. Perhaps due to reduced testing time?
Tack Petter!!!
This was an extremely well performed presentation for both "the average Joe" and for us that have some roots in the aviation industry.
As always, best Greetings from Båstad Sweden.
A321xlr got certified by EASA ❤
Great news. Now for the FAA over here.
@ryanlittleton5615 FAAIs shit so is Boeing
FAA will fast track this certification since EASA has already approved it. They work hand in hand.
even after they've mentioned they feel they need to be more thorough?
@@JustCallMeEm. They need to be thorough with Boeing, for certain, but they have more trust in EASA. Might still get more checks than they would have 5 years ago, but it won't be a full certification process.
I worked in an engineering design office and saw the introduction of CAD - what CAD effectively did was de-skill the workforce, the best I can say about CAD is that 'it improves the appearance of your work'...In the design office the younger people who knew about computers but knew little about design got the name 'keyboard jockeys'..... . Computers have allowed de-skilling in all areas of our lives, Industry and commerce loves it because they have a larger pool of workers . With AI the de-skilling will continue and speed up....Do not underestimate the time lost by unqualified people making bad decisions...
.....
I think there's another factor in play that' are causing these development delays; lack of talent. Years ago, I did an summer internship at a newspaper, The Huntsville Times, in Alabama as a business reporter. For context, Huntsville Alabama has a rich history of Military and Space related research and development. About 130 German scientists from Operation Paper Clip were relocated to Huntsville for the Space program, including Wernher von Braun. Their research in rocket technology is what brought us to the Moon.
Having learned this, I asked one of my fellow business reporters, who covered the Redstone Arsenal Military research base, a question. "Why haven't we gone back to the moon?" His answer: America is no longer producing the same level high caliber of scientists today, as the ones the brought us to the moon back then.
I believe the same explanation applies to the Aerospace industry, and why clean sheet design development cycles are taking longer now compared to back then. Companies like Boeing are having staffing issues finding enough engineers and scientists to replace the retiring ones who used to build new designs in 4-5 years. As Peter mention in a previous video, there's even a shortage of A&P licensed mechanics to physically build these designs! That's probably the reason why Boeing can't make 757's anymore, not even a Max version.
Nobody ordered new 757s, so they discarded the tooling. BTW, would any airline buy a new 757? Probably not, because it is only economical if it can be bought cheap. Economically, it is replaced by the A321 XLR.
Well why fewer with talent? More people grow up in city with ZERO room/ability to get their hands dirty and tinker with junk. Businesses SCRAP all their excess instead of selling it off so there is no ABILITY for young companies to get their hands on CHEAP products to tinker with. Government contracts today force businesses to count screws.... yes screws and then DESTROY everything when contracts are done--> Once again, no surplus for young up and coming engineers to get their hands on. Combine the above with a "safety first" baloney mantra and BOOM we have our problem. That and computer games.... Destroying electrons trains NO ONE in anything other than short term gratification. Technicians/ENgineers require LONG TERM training. Thus if you want an engineer in a business today you have to ~train them for 10 years and pray they then do not LEAVE and go elsewhere taking all your training with them as you cannot pay them to screw up on important things so nothing gets done. Also companies who are old like BOEING have ZERO engineers in charge.... Everyone on the board are all sharks finance guys squeezing every last penny and they do not give a $hi~t about R&D, inventory or getting anything done as that could be "dangerous" to their short term bottom line.
You have a good point.
We haven't been back the Moon because money. The US could have done that any time they wanted to for the last half century, but it would have cost a lot of money so they stopped doing it. The shuttle program involved a huge amount of talent and skill, but it was directed toward a fundamentally bad idea chosen by politicians.
As for Boeing having trouble with getting enough engineers, that company has been getting more and more rotten for a long time, and all big companies are constantly cutting costs to the bone and making incredibly short-sighted decisions, selling out their own futures for next week's stock prices. I think their staffing problems are likely a symptom of the whole company being very badly run and not even really caring about engineering anymore.
I think that bright people went into other rapidly growing technical fields. And returning to the Moon was just yet another mission by that point, decreasing breakthrough aspect, when lots of technologies were experiencing breakthroughs. America did make new space stuff...telescopes, probes, worked on ISS, etc. The space telescopes seem to have yielded more than equivalent spending on more Moon missions seem likely to have.
The downside of optimization is inflexibility. To improve on something that's already optimized so much is really hard and any one change isn't easily done.
This guy is the best aviation RUclipsr. always love his videos I don't know how he doesn't have more subscribers
Aww! Thank you! 💕😃
Now, having watched the video, I'm wondering if speed of development is really such a big problem. Sure, new wing shapes, lighter structures and more efficient engines have big fuel savings benefits, but fundamentally, airliners are, to put it bluntly, airbuses. They're buses with wings; workhorses which move people and cargo, winged tubes of varying length and diameter, generally driven by market competitive forces to high volume and low profit percentage per passenger. There are likely diminishing returns with each new aircraft generation.
but airlines are willing to chase those marginal gains, because even a 1% improvement in fuel efficiency is a massive reduction in operating costs and improves their profit margins and gives them more room to compete on price. For example, a 1% improvement in fuel consumption would save about $200-500 per flight on short haul domestic flights on 737s and A320s, thousands of flights a day that cost savings adds up quick. To use an example, United airlines flies approximately 5000 flights per day, a 1% fuel efficiency improvement could save them several million dollars a day.
Absolutely. And this is why companies like Embraer are gobbling up market share from the "big two". If you need to only ever fly 1000nm, it makes no sense to design a plane from scratch that can fly 2000nm.(as an example) Just keep improving the same cost-efficient designs forever. Because planes were "good enough" 20-30 years ago, to get the job done. They just wear out, and need to be replaced. At some point, trying to squeeze 2 or 3 percent more efficiency out of a design isn't worth it.
The diminishing returns bit that you claim doesn't seem to match reality.The Neo, max and 777X have double digit improvements in fuel burn over the previous gen.
@@oadka We're talking about 20 or 30 gallons less fuel per hour (something like 805 down to about 780 or so). The issue is that the heavier 3/4 filled 800s are using that much extra just to run, negating any improvements. Compared to a smaller A220 or E190/195, it's a giant SUV compared to a slimmer minivan - and in no way competes. Smaller and simpler works quite well, because even IF it were less efficient, the 50 million dollar price difference takes a LONG time to make up in extra fuel. This is the same fallacy that people have about hybrids. A hybrid that gets 40 mpg that costs 10K more will often take 100K miles to pay off that extra cost versus the simpler "normal" model. 50 million in fuel savings is a lifetime.
What these airlines need now are planes. They simply cannot fly 20+ year old planes as they will have exceeded their number of pressurization cycles, if nothing else. Waiting (now, potentially) a decade when your entire fleet is now 13 years old on average, for future tech that is slightly more efficient... that's you out of business as your fleet starts to get grounded. Yay! we started getting new Boeing deliveries! (staring at 800 planes that are too old to fly and 1600 needed, in 2035 or so.)
Boeing simply blew it. I just hope that Embraer can fill the extra orders before the questionable quality Chinese planes start to be bought as there's no alternative.
Five years for Airbus to go from the A321LR/Neo to the A321XLR approval.
Remember: this one was partially clean sheet because of the larger fueltanks. And the FAA/EASA send Airbus back partially to the drawing bord after the initial testing.
Mostly it was the center fuel tank and its position within the airframe. Boeing ratted out the design flaw and so Airbus had to make several changes to its design.
@@Bywater-S While Boeing no doubt wanted to slow Airbus down, it's safety first.
@@Bywater-S Airbus made several changes to the hullstrength after the FAA had put some criticism to the design. Where did you get the info Boeing had something to do with this?
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg sorry for failed complete date of one of many articles about Boeings involvement. It was written 5/4/2022. This was just one of several articles written about the aft center fuel tanks fire suppression system. As I know it, it didn’t have to do with any structural issues.
Thank you for covering this important topic. It's not only in aviation you can observe this, it is everywhere...
"We've never been so busy accomplishing so little"😅
14:30 - 15:30 The "so-called 5G problem" was that the altimeters in question were unacceptably primitive devices that couldn't distinguish between their own frequencies and those of the cell towers some 400.00 MHz (or more) away. When your cockpit radios are are expected to tune accurately to within .01 MHz for ATC comms, but your radio altimeters are literally five orders of magnitude worse? I don't care how costly it is, it's time to get with the current century.
I think there a another reason - airliner it's a very expensive thing, even for airline companies, they buying a aircraft to use for 5-10 years minimum. If aircraft manufacturers will be release new planes like a iphone this can be very expensive for aircraft manufacturers to support theirs lineups for customers
excessive bureaucracy extends development time for everything. housing developments used to pump out 500 new houses on new lots each year in my city.
now that kind of development takes a decade at least
Much of this excessive bureaucracy leads to higher home prices due to lack of supply, pricing many, including numerous young people, out of the market. In addition, much of this excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy is at the level of local governments, which often have little accountability and little oversight. In the past, there was much more local media to keep local governments somewhat honest, but as many small newspapers went out of business in the last few decades, there are fewer brakes to the increasing power of local governments.
In the U.S., much of the focus is on the federal government and to a lesser extent, the state governments. However, when it comes to excessive governmental power that adversely impacts Americans, much of it is at the local level. It would be beneficial to consolidate, monitor, and severely limit local governments to improve the lives of Americans (I am not sure about other countries).
Don't really think you can compare local govt bureaucracy in housing development with aviation certification. Some houses being delayed in being built isn't the same as hundreds of people dying.
@@gomezgomezian3236 Why not? The bureaucratic dynamic is the same. I wonder how many homeless folks didn't survive over the years, due to lack of affordable housing?
Yeah about that, they were half assed, poorly made, and took 30 years for the owners to fix, featuring lead, aspestos, and recycled land filled with broken glass, nails and god knows what else, while destroying the natural land, that your city should have told them to go pound sand about if they wanted to build upon it
given how much that disperses the wildlife, destroys the tree's, the actual stuff that stops global warming and helps you breath better, and disrupts everything else
as those idiots should have set a population cap and told those people to get bent 50 years ago, but you try and stop them when all they care about is tax money,
Electronics engineer here. Usually the certification work on the relatively simples designs i've worked on takes 2-4 times longer than the development time. And I work on systems that are not responsible for the life and safety of people and cargo.
This is the reason why BOOM OVERTURE will never fly. If it takes established manufacturers so long to develop an aircraft , a new start up company has NO chance.
I agree, they may be able to demonstrate new versions of the technology, and then sell that data, but the margins for error are even slimmer at supersonic speeds, so certification of an actual passenger liner would be a nightmare. And then there's trying to make it financially viable.
@@Jimorian It's the age-old problem of more more more faster faster faster! Chasing tech for the sake of chasing new tech.
We see this in electric cars. Most people need a 0-60 time of 8 seconds and a range of 240 miles. As cheaply as possible. This formula has been a good standard for passenger vehicles for 50+ years now.
What we get are 0-60 times of 3 seconds ( OMG - so slow! it has to be 2.8 or it's crap! )and 300 mile ranges with hugely expensive technology. So we get 60K environmental and design disasters when people just want a basic 25K box to get to the grocery store. The manufacturer is hyper-focused on bleeding edge and nerdy tech and the consumer is just trying to not take the bus.
Indeed.
Sometimes a smaller, newer company is more able to do new.
Tesla surpassed the legacy automakers in manufacturing technology (like castings), and makes the best selling car model in the world (sorry Corolla), in a notoriously hard industry. Despite predictions that legacies would quickly surpass Tesla in EVs, years later only Tesla can make them profitably.
Newness might be an advantage for aviation start ups.
@@bearcubdaycare It did, but it needed a jillionaire to bankroll it.
The only MUST WATCH videos in my feed. You do great work!
Duopoly, bureaucracy, and general risk aversion.
This a well studied feature of mature systems; heavily computer optimised aerodynamic shapes, engines and slowing advances in material technology mean there is diminishing value in incremental changes. There simply aren't huge breakthroughs that are on the table that are being worked on. The low hanging optimisation fruit is already taken and production techniques/scale are also pretty close to optimal.
Compare how fast Tesla creates new models of cars, to Cessna coming out with new G.A. aircraft. The legendary Cessna 172, now costs $500k, which is 5 times the cost of a Tesla CyberTruck, when the 172 hasn't changed the airframe much in decades. Something is radically wrong with aviation manufacturing.
Imagine trying to certify a Piper Cub in this day and age.
Not possible because of the FAA's stranglehold on freedom.
How long did it take Tesla to bring the Cyber truck to the market following the Musk fanfare? 5yrs.
What exactly is radically wrong with Aviation manufacturing? Before you answer, consider that at its height Airbus were producing +80 A320 per month. That is some going when you consider the 340,000 parts are needed to build an A320
@@TheCraftedMine Freedom? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The GA market is _tiny_ these days. Cessna sold 151 172s in 2022, so it isn't surprising that the cost per unit is ridiculous. High prices do reduce demand of course, but GA is fundamentally a niche market. Airliners are where the big money is, military aviation is off doing their own thing, high value stuff like resource extraction involves more helicopters these days, drones are doing most of the aviation photography. There's just not much left over for GA anymore, so sales are in the hundreds and unit costs are about what you'd expect for a complex engineering products sold in the hundreds of units.
They sold 151 units because they cost 500k. How many did they produce in 1970s? There's 50,000 skyhawks made since its introduction, that's 1000 a year approximately, not 151. I stand by my statement, it should not cost 500k to build 1 skyhawk
the tool you’re talking about is called Catia, it’s a software used to create passenger airliners, super tankers and skyscrapers. it actually is from Dussault software systems, it’s a digital cad system.
The Max shows how rushing things ended in crashes.
Specifically, rushing I new kind of people to replace some other kind of people
It had nothing to do with rushing. Both crashes were preventable if certain people on the money end weren’t in positions of power. They prioritized short term money over long term viability and safety.
The MAX wasn't rushed, it was cost cutting, their adapted a design that wasn't meant for the requirements of the MAX because they didn't wanna waste money on making a new airframe
Yes and why was it rushed? Because of all the regulations... If this continous there won't be any new planes at all, because why develop new ones, when the old ones are allready safe...
@@1ycan-eu9ji Boeing idiotically designed the MCAS system to rely on one Angle of Attack sensor at a time instead of a system with three AoA sensors and a computer to choose which two should be believed if one of the AoA sensors malfunctioned. If not knowing the exact time was possibly lethal, I'd want to wear 3 watches.
The DC-8 was the original "Queen of the Skies." I flew her many, many times during my childhood. The best airliner ever built!
Not only Aircraft Development is slow.
Also Aircraft production is very slow.
Boeing back log: 30 years for some models
Airbus back log for certain models 20 years
Embraer backlog for certain models 2-3 years (reasonable).
The main thing saving Boeing right now is that Airbus _can't_ take over their orders.
That's what I'D LIKE to know! Remember that, back in the day, airliners, along with everything else, were designed with pencil, paper, and slide rules. Though the aircraft of yesteryear were simpler, so were the tools, and the tools weren't as powerful. Nowadays, even though we have CAD/CAM, 3D printing, and other powerful tools that the designers of the 707, 727, DC-8, et al couldn't even dream of, it takes over a DECADE to do a new airliner! WTF?
How long did it take to develop the very first 737 (-100??)? The one that featured a big rudder surface. That sent an an unknown nbr of PAX into the eternity , due to delicate rudder hard overs.😮
It is always fun watching this show but this particular episode was even better than normal. Great work!
So many airlines are making huge orders to Airbus or just switching to Airbus from Boeing because of it's technologies which in turn, causes a huge backlog. I guarantee in that time, AI will play a huge part in aircraft development. The question is, how?
I imagine something like cabling layout planning could be massively sped up via AI use, same with other standardized solutions, like bolts and whatnot i guess.
By "generating", aka, making up, solutions that are in par to those of dei people
sure "for it's technologies" lol, reality: because boeing is corrupt and their planes are falling off the sky
The problem here is not rate of innovation or coming up with ideas. The problem is the amount of time taken to do painstaking simulation and certification work, which isn't going to go anywhere.
Replacing CEOs with AI would be a positive change.
Having been involved in developing one of the recent aircraft in your list, I feel secure in saying that the multiple iterative engineering processes aka systems engineering processes that can have up to 50k requiremts listed and the limited number of experienced SMEs available to review said requirements is a definite bottleneck. After that, youlist deficiencies that then get kicked up to mgmt for review with vendors where they negotiate (for weeks), after they do the updated and reduced requirement is again reviewed where SMEs then identify critical requirements for safety or functionality that were negotiated away without engineering input whereupon a new round of negotiations take place for the timeline required to implement the critical requirements for the function. This doesn't even cover delivery of the system, installation/integration issues, the functional testing, followed by safety of flight testing, then development testing, which then repeats until you get a cert candidate and all your other system also have to be cert candidate configuration before you begin testing a final cert candidate which you typically require 2000 hours of total aircraft flight test time to certify, and an aggressive campaign with no major flaws will take about 1.3 years with 5 test aircraft and 2 integration test benches and one engineering flight sim.
There also seems to be less tolerance for accidents...there's a bit of a blank check for new forms of revolutionary technology, but that runs out. Losing thousands of people a year to accidents seems like a higher price to pay when the jets we have are proven.
Pushing innovation for innovation's sake is why you get the tech issues and the structural issues....things that could be better understood through more rigorous testing and it's getting less and less acceptable to lose human life before we remember that.
Great video presenting that really complex theme!
With increased project complexities, both on the levels of engineering optimization as well as certification compliance showing, engineering teams and aviation authorities grew in size, while the number of aircraft developing companies decreased to very few, while any project involves Teams scattered across continents at best.
This makes it a lot harder to provide true leadership, think of the Skunk Works and Kelly‘s 14 Rules. More engineers having more engineering tools available will use them, while ongoing competition and optimization will require them to do that, and regulators as well expect more thorough investigations (i.e. more paperwork) for certification.
Petter, can you explain why old airliners not change their engines to new ones that have more power and fuel efficient?
I believe he has videos about why switching to more efficient engines created the problems with the 737 MAX.
Because they become another version of the airliner. That's what happened with Boeing's MAX line-up.
Simple: it’s not worth the enormous cost. The aircraft would have the be extensively tested and certified which would cost many millions, and then each individual aircraft would cost tens of millions to upgrade - all for very minor fuel efficiency gains.
It’s cheaper to simply buy a newer model when the old ones become old enough to retire.
@@kenbrown2808 i mean, for the old airliner, not new-designed airframe.
@@MaxusR thank you for explaining, but that not what i asked in the first place.
the way he switched topics from manufacturers trimming years down to trimming his beard was so accurate.
videos getting better and better keep up the good work ❤
I've never watched a smoother sponsor segue! Props to whoever did the writing.
My take on this is that the companies are largely lost in the weeds, trying to make more efficient and larger planes to the point where it's outrageously cumbersome. The best analogy would be shipping. What we need are passenger ferries. What they want to build are some sort of hydrofoil cruise ship that can go 100+ knots. Bleeding edge technology when small and simple works. We don't need NEW jets, we need the same old jets, just NEW ( as in same thing fresh off the factory line, to replace the 20 year old ones that are worn out).
We see this with poor Southwest. They need something simple to maintain and fly, like the jets of old, or something smaller and more efficient ( Basically a MD-80/90 ) and everyone is furiously trying to squeeze out that last few percent. Or go with things like flying wings. For what? Bragging rights? Being able to fly around the world on one load of fuel? Most regional carriers don't even use more than 500nm on most flights, and maybe 3x that on their longer routes.
150-200 million for a jet that can do everything versus 40-50 million for gets the job done, by basically updating the existing design. Another good example of this was the VW Beetle. It was still being made in Mexico around 20 years ago, just updated with things like a CD player and air conditioning, and some more modern touches. Eventually it died out, but versions were being made, new, for 50+ years as it worked and filled a market segment. The Toyota Stout is also kind of like this. Super basic but gets the job done.
But we get.. Yep, let's all embrace EVs and bleeding edge tech to get to the grocery store.
737 Max is like "old jet, just NEW" with some improvements. Well, that went wrong. Probably even Southwest wouldn't buy old tech just new, because they have to be competitive.
@@lgerigk The Max 800s actually cost them a couple of million a day, overall, just in fuel, because they are too big and have too many empty seats for most flights. They were designed to fly to Europe and similar overseas routes and Southwest doesn't have any routes that are nearly that long. They actually need a smaller and less costly to maintain design that fits with their NA only business model. They asked Boeing to make them smaller planes, and then accepted the 700 (which was still larger than they would have liked) - but sorry, we had problems - here, have these too large and inefficient 800s instead while you wait. So half of their entire fleet, now, is entirely too large and inefficient.
They are desperately looking to buy a company or otherwise obtain A320s and/or E-Jets. Note that an E-Jet is about 60 million to buy while the 800 is about 150. There's that as well. They paid more for extra capacity and range they never use.
This is why Embraer has zero plans for a larger plane. Maybe re-design the seating configuration, but not a whole new jet. They cost 40-50 million less than Airbus and Boeing and are selling every one they can make to regional airlines around the world.
In addition to your very thoughtful analysis ... add how the US Corp Empire is falling ... fueling more uncertainty. Heck, I still just attempting to locate where I placed my mini scout ship!
Comet was first, not DC8
a lot of the testing in the old days
was done already with the planes already in commercial service... mid air reverser deployment on the triple-seven, multiple electronics related crashes on the DC10, lack of turbulence penetration on the Tu104, stability & control issues on the Yak-52, mid-air breakups on the comet.... the list goes on & on. the thing is in a fast-design era teething problems that lead to accidents were quite the norm... the price of progress... but, as one economist once said:
"you think having accidents is expensive - try the dark-ages!!!!"
VC 10! Now that was a bird
Interesting to hear about the change in aircraft wiring standards. Putting physical distance between main and back-up systems in aviation is not limited to aircraft.
My profession is in system monitoring, control and automation. I once worked on a project at a major international airport. Much of the infrastructure and electrical power is routed under the airfield in service tunnels. When a risk assessment was done, it was found that precise information regarding routing of essential services through the warren of service tunnels was lacking and I was part of the project to survey what was actually where. Unsurprisingly, there were points where a system and one of it's backups came within a few metres of each other. This could impact system resilience in the instance of a disaster either malicious or accidental. Subsequent remedial work was therefore identified and scheduled.
hope things don't slow down worser then now
I agree, in the 1980s, airplanes took only 4 years to develop but they were also absolute death traps compared to today's planes.
If you ask me, Boeing's development should be even slower because of safety and quality concerns
It should've been faster but more careful on installing deadly systems
well they do need time to find out what their issues are
Boeing really pissed a lot of people off, didn’t they? With the constant media attention that comes with the territory these days, you’d think they were the first to have planes crash due to design shortcuts or maintenance flaws. Of course that’s far from the truth.
then why is Boeing rushing to get these planes built fast? there’s a much lower risk of flaws if you cover every inch of an aircraft for checks
You always flow into and out of your sponsor sections so efficiently and creatively Petter.
Dios les bendiga.
do u think they should have a fatty class ? like wider seats ?
Give em mandatory ozempic
you never know how many fattys you get so just let them buy 2seats
Only if they add a bitchy class too. It won’t matter what size the seats are in that class because those customers will find something to complain about either way.
This is part of why I wont be shocked by nearly any price of the new air force 1 project, the standards and features list is going to be so insane the planning will take a crazy amount of time and therefore money, regardless of how many you build. Even before any shenanigans that slow it down further.
Just a small quibble because I hear this a lot. If you say that the safety regulations are "literaly" written in blood, 10:34, that means that the ink they are using in the booklets is actual blood.
which alternative word would be suitable in such contexts?
A bit pedantic, don't you think?
It rolls off the tongue better than "aviation safety regulations are typed out on computers by teams of qualified professionals, following extensive, comprehensive investigations of aviation accidents and incidents that often but not always, resulted in a horrible and tragic loss of human life, either in the air, on the ground, or a combination of the above".
Yeesh.
@@IN10THRC I think he wants to point out to omit just the word "literally" here, which often is (incorrectly) used to emphasize a phraseology/statement, while its real purpose is to negate/lift the figurative/metaphoric property of an idiom
Government intrusion into all aspects of life has greatly added to the expense of things while not necessarily helping. One example is the gas can which has a spout that is difficult to use. It is also plastic which would burn in a fire, they use to be metal.
It won't hurt the industry as much as aircraft falling out of the sky. Safety first and foremost
“Shareholder dividends are more important than passenger safety.” - Boeing, probably.
And yet you are perfectly happy about 1.19 million people dying in car accidents every year. "Safety first"
@@steinarnielsen8954. Most of those deaths are in third world countries that lack basic standards of safety and training. As much as American politicians are trying to destroy us as a nation, I’d like to believe that we aspire to be better than that.
@steinarnielsen8954 Where did I say that? Are you a glitching auto-reply bot? Either way, I'll bite at the whataboutery response.
Can you quantify how many of those 1.9 million deaths are a direct result of long development lead times due to the increased air safety? regulations
@@corn985 Preventing people from flying = more traffic accidents. The TSA alone has costed more lives than terrorism.
Given how much more complex cars and trucks have become over the last few decades, I can only imagine what that increase in complexity could mean for aviation.
Better not be any BETTER HELP sponsorships in this video...
Calm down bro
Why?? Because just like many other companies they sold contact info of U.S. users?
C’mon bots, do better. And 40 thumbs up too, no, not suspicious at all 😂
@@Thrust-Set-Simulations Mhmmmm totally a bot, homie. Ya caught me with my pants in an emotionally vulnerable place....
@@Astronetics Riiiiggght. We all believe you. Pretty clever for a bot, I’ll give you that.
Sustainment of capability is another issue. If you release a new product every 10 years, but it only takes you 4 years to develop it, then every 10 years you must recreate your engineering capability because you're probably not going to want to pay your engineers to do nothing for 6 years.
The open-fan design is seriously flawed. They need a cowling to provide some protection against a RUD.
The structural safety can be added to the structure of the hull too. Like with turbo prop planes too.
Funny enough, the original engines were designed like that (big radial and similar designs) but they added the cowlings and exterior parts to provide protection against elements, impacts, and so on. So here we are trying to go full-circle to gain a few percent, where there are, as you pointed out, real engineering reasons you protect the moving parts as much as you can. I can only imagine what hail would do to these things.
The RUD of a fan blade is less dangerous than you'd think because it is turning far slower than the turbine core (which also means failure is far less likely than with the turbine) and it is ultra-lightweight carbon fibre. Even so, that's why they are proposing to put the engines at the back.
@@kenoliver8913 I know im sounding a bit sarcastic, but do you recall the C130 who's props completely cut-off the cockpit from the rest of the plane? Wonder what would happen if the tail section got chopped off. Also that Southwest had a low speed bypass fan blade puncture a window and suck someone out a few years ago. Just saying... Seems like they are removing a safety feature (loss of redundancy) in my opinion.
@@ronwatkins5775 But surely your examples undermine the claim that an open rotor engine must be more dangerous. The C130 had a massive traditional metal propeller, far bigger and heavir than rotor blade. The Southwest bypass fan went straight through the cowling, so a cowling gives no safety advantage over an open rotor.
I was waiting for you to bring up the issue of too much dependence on subcontractors.
That was my first thought at the start of this video.
Yep, but there is so much more as well..
One other factor is that prior to the "modern era" of aircraft development, the evolution of design is down to more minute details in the present day, whereas in the 1950's-80's, the evolution allowed for much larger and more dramatic developments, and so the desire to update designs and models was much more rapid, as opposed to today's more "fine-tuning" designs.
Analysis paralysis.
Just loved the way you segwayed your beard trimmer into the video.
SpaceX needs to enter in the airplane business.
You think an airliner prototype blowing up on the runway will somehow speed things up?
@@davidwright7193Not at all, but it would be fun to watch. 😅
@@davidwright7193 They can control remotely until is more or less safe.
@@davidwright7193 blowing up test articles is part of their rapid testing cycle and best safety record of any rocket builder. Meanwhile, every other rocket builder throws away every single stage of every single rocket they launch, with only a handful of recent exceptions. Sooooo....
@@jamesengland7461 No it isn’t. These aren’t things that are blown up they are rockets that fail on test flights. This isn’t a standard part of the process it is gross incompetence. Look at SLS and Ariane 6 both in the same class as starship neither has crashed. SpaceX have already lost 4 starships and are about to lose a 5th. Try to behave like that in developing a passenger aircraft and the regulators will be all over you. The last thing that aviation needs is a gung ho know nothing fuck whit like Elon Musk hanging around. Howard Hughes was bad enough.
In the 60s it took three people to understand an entire aircraft, today you need several hundred.
BETTER HELP sponsorship is stressing viewers to the point that they need better help than BETTER HELP. Better not, Petter 😂
tell me you didn't watch the video without saying you didn't watch the video.
... and there's where you'd be wrong. BETTER HELP has been an ongoing commenter compliant, including in this video which wasn't even sponsored by them, but by a razor company. I just thought I'd interject some humor, but you missed that.
A great example of bots running amok😂
Let's make the analogy something we can all relate to. The safety features in automobiles have gotten very sophisticated. So much so that the cost of a new vehicle has increased. Even more so, the cost of auto insurance is increasing faster than inflation. Why? Because if you are in a crash, the technical sophistication to repair the damage to these systems is through the roof. And good luck if you can find a mechanic who can perform the service. I just haqde my 2010 Sonata inspected. I asked the mechanic if he had performed any inspections on EVs. He said no, and he didn't want to. My local car shop does not deal with newer vehicles because the electronics are too complex. It all adds up and it takes time. I was surprised that I did not see any recent comments on "well, if we abolished these regs, the time line would speed up." My response to this would be, let you and your family be the test passengers.
''We have forgotten how to get to the moon'' says everything about todays world
No, we haven't. The business case for returning to the moon is not the same as the one for going there first-time round. Plus, we have become a lot more aware of the risks for space travel, and a lot less willing to risk astronauts' lives unnecessarily.
@@paolocaldato2301 but the world is very happy to risk life when it comes to wars?
@@stronzer59 what an absolute non-sequitur. What does that have to do with travelling to the moon, or for that matter the challenges of building a modern commercial aircraft? Are you high?
@@paolocaldato2301 I responded to your claimed nonsense regarding care of life
When it comes to wars all life is rated a zero until the Ops or goals are achieved
Am I high?? That would be my business not yours.
@@stronzer59 why don't you sit down, plot yourself a little graph of the number of people who have died annually in conflict between 1969 and 2023, and then have a word with yourself. Go and spout your generalised tripe elsewhere.
Cessna Skycourier has taken more than a few cues from the Shorts 360.
Imagining trying to do a cleansheet new design now versus the absolute bureaucratic nightmare doesn't inspire any confidence at all.
The 777X is a lot more than a 777 with new engines and wings. The only major parts it has in common is the shape of rhe fuselage, and even the fuselage is made of a different material, has bigger windows etc. In terms of avionics, flight deck etc its more like a 787 inside a 777.
Amazing and very interesting video anyway!
Regarding the engines, I think engineers call it "chasing nines". We're at the limit of the materials we have to work with so getting small improvements takes much more time and effort.
The Tempest has an engine which is basically a modified RB211. It was also modified to make the Trent series and the EJ200 according to some is based on it.
Biggest difference between those days and today is the leaders of those companies were engineering types then and are financial/business types today. The wrong decisions are made by committee that are often profit based and not quality or function based. Then, you add the tremendous overhead of the FAA approval process that is also a bunch of bureaucrats instead of technical types that don't understand what they are approving nor how to really approve it.
Ans: lack of quality management. We have shifted to Safe Agile in my shop which on the surface would speed up the development cycle, but in practice has added ill equipped supervisory positions that consume man-hours in the spin cycle. Real experts, prepped for the role are the best technical mgrs. you can’t process improvement your way out of that.
There is the difference in regulations, aerospace history, and development changes that have to be factored into new design production and certification time. For example, 777x and 787 use composite for a sizable section of the body. Until them, all grounding went to the aluminum skin. This doesn’t work anymore because composite is non conductive. Resulting in a need to redesign the ground paths for both the electronics and the static discharge system. Add to that the complete overhaul and update to the avionics system, known issues with previous planes (747 cargo door blow outs, 737 tail actuator, airbus adiru data mishandling, comet square windows, delamination, and others) certification takes a while.