Quantcast

Boeing - Design Issues...

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

trimtab

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
113
Location
rocky mountains, rocky, usa
The question of motives really isn't as much of an issue as whether or not Boeing as a system can produce safe, profitable products, and whether they can do so better than the alternatives.

I don't believe that Boeing as a system can. I think it's time for consequences. That means arbitrage in the C-suites and in the factories (cutting, selling, and re-org). The experiments with B-schoolers running an engineering org have been concluded: the hypothesis was negated. Wrap it up and move on. The car is in the ditch, it's not going to buff out, and it's just a question of whether the car is worth more as a whole or sold off for parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMD

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
372
Location
Timaru, NZ
Boeing may come to regret that, when/if Embraer starts building 200-250 seat airliners.
 

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Martensville SK
I put a lot of the blame on the Boeing situation on anti-trust regulators. Allowing mega-mergers removes the competitive forces from the productive side of business and invites the world of finance in to management. When you look at Airbus, Boeing, Embrauer, AVIC and maybe some day Tupolev - reality is that government/state sponsorship has become a significant part of big iron manufacturing. What the US HAD was a healthy level of competition to give the taxpayer some bang for their considerable pile of bux. Trust busters could have fixed that long ago, but since Wall Street literally owns government lock, stock and barrel these days, and it is finance that now literally runs not only the economy but also the government, here we are today.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,352
Location
Everywhere USA
The word is that the 797 will be a single isle 787 with common certification.

That would allow full vertical integration from top to bottom for most airlines, requiring only one set of pilots, mechanics, and logistics. As well as allowing vastly easier route planning.

The 240 seat 787 can match a full 737 MAX with 204 seats. A single isle 797 would absolutely obliterate the 737 in performance.

That is almost certainly what Boeing is doing now that it’s cleaned house and reset the 797 project.
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,026
Location
Savannah, Georgia
I doubt Boeing will need another number beyond that. They’ll just keep rewarming the 787 and 797 on the same type certificates. Any truly new airframes will be developed by someone else and Boeing will just buy the design like Airbus did with the C-series.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,345
Location
US
I wonder how the name of the next design, the 7-10-7, will be pronouncd.


BJC
This might be a good time for them to make the jump: DC-12

Presumably they own the rights to the "Douglas" moniker, that could be the new name of the Boeing airliner division.

A clean sheet symbolizing new priorities, but with a storied past.

And Donald Douglas would look down from above and laugh himself silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,352
Location
Everywhere USA
Wouldn’t surprise me if they did away with numbers completely. Like CRJ.

Maybe turn the Dreamliner into a series. The BDR series.
 

Urquiola

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
105
Location
Madrid, Spain
Early in aviation, all was wood and fabric made, then came all-metal; later in past century, the composites.
Well, you know concrete is a composite, besides sand, iron bars or nets, you can add lots of different things for a reinforced, prestressed concrete, just some testing is needed.
The Tech School in Karlsruhe, Germany, managed to build a kart sized car in concrete, with walls as thin as 4 mm, thus opening the possibility of a re-entry or space vehicle made in concrete, which has a high heat resistance.
In shipbuilding, it was shown from a hull lenght above 10 m, the ratio hull weight to buoyancy in a concrete boat is same or better as with a traditional wood or steel hull.
Structures in the F-104 and NASA lifting bodies don't look extremely complex, not beyond a homebuilder's abilities
You can have also look at UK document CP 1076, in Cranfield Repository, added here in Homebuilt airplanes by Barnaby Wainfan, designer of facetmobile, about an Ogival leading edge Delta wing planform, working better without the wingtip vertical surfaces, not winglets, and having a vertical central fin instead.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,991
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Structures in the F-104 and NASA lifting bodies don't look extremely complex, not beyond a homebuilder's abilities
I was considering building an F-104, as it is one of my all-time favorite airplanes. Then I realized that I would need a really big drag chute to get it stopped on our 3,700 foot grass runway, so I looked into it in more detail. I then concluded that it is just not the best homebuilt selection for me.


BJC
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,223
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
:pilot:
I was considering building an F-104, as it is one of my all-time favorite airplanes. Then I realized that I would need a really big drag chute to get it stopped on our 3,700 foot grass runway, so I looked into it in more detail. I then concluded that it is just not the best homebuilt selection for me.


BJC
Don't be so shortsighted. I think a 5xscale F-104 blimp would be a show stopper at KOSH! :rolleyes:
 

Swampyankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
1,432
Location
Earth USA East Coast
I was considering building an F-104, as it is one of my all-time favorite airplanes. Then I realized that I would need a really big drag chute to get it stopped on our 3,700 foot grass runway, so I looked into it in more detail. I then concluded that it is just not the best homebuilt selection for me.


BJC
Perhaps an F-104 derivative would be a better choice? I present the Lockheed Lancer.
The bigger wing would help. Getting the right engine would still be tough, but I'm sure that a surplus RB.199 would be relatively cheap and has the advantage of lower sfc for cruise than the J-79 or F-100 originally spec'd ;)
 
Top