tell that to boeing. you will get a good response from boeing saying "whilst we develop a new single airliner airbus will be trying to prevent cracks in their future aircraft. Oh and keep saying it is a 60 year old frame. airbus will still be dragging their 40 year old frame with god knows what of problems it will get
We'll save money no matter how much it costs! and yes I worked there for 15 years. Fyi, factory conditions are worse today then when those 2 planes went down.
And rumour has it that they will actually use torque wrenches! Quality control and inspection will be vastly improved as the big wigs will be supplied with plastic funnels in their ears. Every time they hear the ‘click’ of a torque wrench they will put a ‘tick’ on their inspection certificate.😂 What an absolute disgrace to a once respected name in the aviation community😢
Boeing have done a lot of research and development work in the last few weeks. They are now fitting every 737 max seat with a screwdriver and adjustable wrench so passengers can tighten any loose bolts or screws.
4:44 Airbus, not Boeing, were the first to utilize light weight composite materials, specifically on the A300 tail section back in the 70's. And they've been using composite materials on all their aircraft families since then. The most notable was the A380, the first using extensively Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic. The Dreamliner was just Boeing's first.
The biggest Boeing problem for some time now is profitability. While Airbus is making around 8 %, Boeing is making a negative 1% margin. And with 40 billions dollars of debt, Boeing will not be able to even think about a new generation plane. Airbus has plenty of ressources to develop a new generation. It will take time and money. Everything Boeing does not have anymore....
They publicly stated no new planes until the next decade.... apparently they want to develop their metaverse first to help them design their planes.......not sure what they intend to do... replace their brains with AI?
There cause of Boeing's lack of profitability is its inability to reliably produce aircraft. The cause of this lack of ability is poor quality. The cause of this poor quality is bad management. The cause of poor management is its owners who know about money but not manufacturing.
Sounds like the managers of McDonell Douglas have killed another aircraft manufacturer. These managers can be proud of how good they are at destroying companies.
again there is that 40 billion in debt they should give up if they are in that huge debt. Boeing will have a new generation because competition will not just stop existing because of what has happened. too bad airbus my experience really bad issues with hydrogen powered aircraft and it could hit them badly
I worked on A320 fuel gauging systems in the early 80s and spent some time in Toulouse before the first revenue earning flight. We mothballed software and hardware development systems for a planned 40 years of support - so not too far out there 😀 Great to see Airbus leading the pack on this one, really sad to see what’s happened to Boeing but glad to see Airbus still being driven largely by engineering and technology……
If true, then Airbus may be learning the lesson from Boeing's incompetence, by beginning work on replacing the A320 at an appropriate time. Instead of stretching (literally) the airframe far beyond it's expiry date, while their competitors roll out newer and more advanced models. What Boeing has done is like a auto maker trying to push a 60 year old car design, and asking for safety exemptions like not requiring seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, etc.
It's kind of ridiculous knowing that the 737 was never designed to do what it does today. The people that flew the original praised the performance so much, because that was before the design got screwed with.
Maybe Boeing can put even bigger engines on the 737 MAX, so big that they will almost block sidewindows in the cockpit, on a SuperMax, and stretch it to 150-200 meters. And spend 10 years on designing a gadget to make it feel like a 737 NG.
@@mikehindson-evans159 good point, Boeing 737 "Death-Defyer" Boeing 737 "Turbulence Titan" Boeing 737 "Doomsday Dart" Boeing 737 "Aero-Anxiety" Boeing 737 "Disaster-Dodger"
Interesting that the development of new wings might be key to its success in delivering an eco friendly plane. The wings of the A380 have always amazed me, the ability of that plane to take off in such a short length is truly fantastic. Let us hope they are successful for the sake of air travel and the planet.
In the branding war, Airbus takes a significant leap beyond Boeing with this announcement. The next leap, of course, is product delivery. For the safety of airline passengers worldwide, I hope they can do it.
Airbus has been talking about a A320 family replacement for a couple of years. I wouldn't be surprise that the new A320 replacement would be based on the A220 technology. The other aircraft replacement is for the ATR42/ATR72-600 with a new design 100 seat turbo prop.
While the A220 is a excelent aircraft, its really would not scale that well to that degree. While the -500 is for sure still in the works, and the -700 is possibly also around (but probobly not), that would really more be a A320 replacment, not cut into the A321 and specially not the LR version. It makes more sense to make a A320 replacment from the A350 series. While the A350 is consideraly larger, its also even more modern than the A220. A A320 replacement need to be signifcantly better than the A320neo, and the A220, while better, its really only slightly so. I would argue that the Turboprop market for 70-100 people is dying. The issue is the pilot to fuel cost as well as the latest generation of small jet liners, (like the E-jet) are so efficent that the turboprops is hardly even more fuel efficent. That give the pilot to fuel cost a huge factor making it pretty much impossible to it more profitable. I guess you could on really short routes. The issue with that is routes that short only work on arcipeilgoes where there is no road conection. The irony of it is for very short routes like sub 250km, when cars and roads are getting better, the market for those routes are getting smaler.
Just like the EV car industry, after a few hype years reality will set back in and then they will go back to kerosene. The smart companies are the ones who don't give in to this nonsense and waste no money or only as much as government gives them to research this travesty.
They have to replace the A320-the A220 is very strong competition, cannibalizing the A320 sales. They can buy the time to get an all new plane by letting the A220 being the stop gap measure and possibly grow a bit. Boing will bring the new engine option 737RB, RB stands for RubberBand...back to the roots, baby!
Simple Karma - remember Boeing trying to beat up Bombardier (who ended up marrying Airbus and delivering the A220. "Be careful what you wish for, Grasshopper!!"
This is the only reasonable strategy. Waiting for Comac growth and further CO2 reduction regulations doing nothing is not an option. I am worried about Boeing.
Since the 737 is a two engine 707 which is a 1954 367-80 derivative, under the skin the 737 is a 70 year old aircraft. Boeing execs bet that they could run an engineering company like Walmart, squeeze the staff and buy in cheap stuff. Boeing is actually offering a lot more money to design engineers, like me, these days. But they have a reputation for being run by bean counters, so many good developers won't even consider talking to them. So Boeing is in a really deep hole. Even if they decided to climb out they would find it hard to buy a ladder. Is hydrogen practical? Nope. Not unless they can get over the energy cost of generating it as a fuel, and its live of escaping. The newest Airbus is the A220, they may have bought the whole thing, but it's still recent and theirs. Boeing needed the C Series, but the tried to stiff Bombardier and Airbus stepped in. Boeing tried to block it from the US market and Airbus moved production virtually overnight. Boeing just aren't as clever as they think they are.
@@user-yt198 Basically their arrogance killed both deals. They wanted to play the big dog and thought they were bringing more value to the table. But they NEEDED to buy one of those designs, if not the entire company. It was a seller's market.
737 is a derivative of the 720 which is a lightweight redesign of the 707. 707 and 720 look alike externally but are different under the skin. Still the observation about age is totally valid.
Hydrogen might get practical if mini nuclear plant like is being developed now produce the fuel close to airports, and even more so if white hydrogen sites in Europe are being exploited.
I do not think that Airbus are taking consideration of Boeings 'failures / mis-steps', I think that they are 'thinking forward', and assuming that they will have tough competition from many fronts, as well as consumer and regulatory pressure for increased environmental pressure. Airbus does not have to survive in the 'annual dividend' market that Boeing does, its investors tend to hold a wider timescale for increased stock value as well as considering dividends, which seems to be benefiting the company.
i wont complain, i love the a320 but a complete overhaul is always needed, and the a320 is a relatively old design, at least airbus isnt pulling a boeing
seriously, plane travelling has not improved much for decades... no matter how much plane companies say what the new model is better than the last one the economy seats ain't bigger or longer leg room, maybe the only game changing improvements for passengers are individual TV and USB charging.... planes use less fuel but they ain't flying faster... in the end those improvements go back to airlines profits....
@@RLTtizMEthe whole problem with MCAS started with the fact that the original 737 was design to be low to the ground. The 737 design is so old that back then, jet bridges weren't common, and everyone got on and off the plane with stairs. A lower plane meant a smaller shorter lighter stair, easier to be moved around by airport vehicles, but more importantly, passengers can get on and off faster, simply because there were fewer steps to climb. Then we discovered that bigger engines were more fuel efficient, and the new bigger engines Airbus was using couldn't fit under the wings of the 737, because it was too low on the ground. What was originally a smart design choice that gave the 737 an advantage turned into a massive problem, because airlines wanted fuel efficient planes, because fuel costs impact profitability directly.
@@danielch6662 I can't believe you spent all of this time lecturing me on the history of the Max. It certainly has sold well given what you have asserted here. Thousands on backorder. The MCAS was fixed. Missing bolts certainly can be addressed as well as other quality issues. You are stuck and suffocating in your own bias. Go lecture someone else and take the day off...pumping out all of that bilge probably was exhausting.
I mean, Airbus at least is taking notes of boeing mistakes and not getting complacent with their current success to avoid overusing the same platform for decades to no end
Boeing: 1,314 new orders and 528 aircrafts delivered in 2023. Airbus: 2,094 orders and 735 aircrafts delivered in 2023, with more than 8,000 aircrafts in the order book. Airbus is World leader. Boeing:😲😭
Having bought my first computer in 1978, I'd like to offer this observation: revolutions take much longer than you think, and never end up like you expect. As for how this may affect aviation, consider that rapid evolution of sustainable energy (most notably wind and solar, with nuclear a distant third) may very well enable development of both very cheap hydrogen (by way of seawater electrolysis) or synthetic fuels similar to fossil fuels. Hydrogen has storage issues, but -- either way -- energy is the key: with enough cheap and environmentally balanced energy, anything is possible.
Hydrogen's issues in very badly wanting to be gas, and extremely flammable one if there's slightest leak, at normal temperatures are huge for aviation where weight is at premium. Batteries have similar issue in very bad energy density per weight along with having to drag weight of that dead battery volume all the way to landing instead of plane getting lighter and more fuel efficient. For short ranges batteries and electricity can work, but for long flights it's just very bad compared to liquid fuels.
I'd reckon the smaller variants of any 320 replacement will target replacing the 321 rather than the whole 320 series, while the bigger ones eat up the smaller end of the widebody market. The upcoming A220-500 (which Airbus have already said is "a matter of when, not if") will replace all the other 320 variants, plus of course kill the MAX series entirely. Boeing is screwed - and this is a big problem not just for the US but for every country. A monopoly of commercial airliners would be an absolute disaster for the world - in fact in the long run it would be a disaster for Airbus too because of the reaction by governments to that situation.
Personally, I don’t think Airbus are even thinking about Boeing. I think they’re just doing what they think is right for the future of their own company and aviation. The A320 has been a fantastic success and still is, I think it shows great credit and wisdom that they are not resting on their laurels and not assuming that it will always stay that way. It must be nice to be in a position where you can talk to expert people in many different countries, of different cultures and who think slightly differently and can bring all different kind of things to the table for you to consider. It’s a deep and very varied pool of talented people they have access to. Go for it Airbus, show us what you can do.
Hydrogen will cost trillions in infrastructure. Existing pipelines can't be used because the molecules of hydrogen are small enough to leak right through existing pipelines. Then there is the production and storage.
The 787 would not have been possible if the US government didn't authorise the USAF to share composite airframe technology with Boeing's commercial division. Ever since the merger with McDonnell Douglas Boeing has lacked the scientific and engineering resources necessary to design a completely new airframe. Now the US gov is directly funding Boeing's R&D via NASA. Both these instances are direct government subsidies intended to keep Boeing in business, without them the company would have probably been bought out by the Chinese a long time ago, or collapsed. Airbus on the other hand is far in the lead in every sector, manufacturing capacity, orders and R&D, not to mention reputation!
Boeing needs to put engineers back into upper management to replace the bean counters and start building quality aircraft again. Took my first round trip on an Aer Lingus Airbus and was quite impressed.
Hydrogen would seem the obvious alternative to oil based fuels. Electric planes with Li-ion batteries would be way too heavy, take too long to recharge and don't forget Li-ion batteries don't perform well at low temperatures and at 40,000 ft it can easily be -50C.
Regardless of whether Hydrogen is eventually chosen as an aviation fuel, preparing the electric propulsion systems is an essential step on the way. Fuel cells are still a couple of decades behind the rest of the electrical system as are electrolyzers. "We don't do it because it is easy, we do it because it is hard", JFK I believe.
@@synupps877 Yes ammonia has toxicity and corrosivity issues but doesn't require anywhere near the pressure that H2 does and doesn't embrittle steel and leak past molecules of containment vessels like H2. There seems to be an expectation that metal hydrides or Graphene will be a game changer. The mass of containment vessels is all important in aerospace.
Its a sucker punch to Boeing. They have no money to develop a new aircraft and the FAA have pegged production so losses will mount. By 2035, Airbus will be two generations ahead of Boeing. Who would you plan your fleet around?
I think it's a passing phase. So what if Boeing can't deliver the presidential 747's, a rocket to the sky, crew capsuls, 767 refueling tankers. So what if they save money by reducing Quality Control, Suppliers that are going bankrupt, and layoffs of their top minds. Just ignore 737's that are becoming worse with each improvement, a 777 that is continuosly parked, and delivery curves sloping downward. We are safe as long as the management is in Chicago!!
Boeing's decline began when they dropped 727 in favor of 737-200. 727 engine location was high enough to allow for larger engines. A pair of CFM56 and elimination of number 2 engine would have made a very capable and adaptable platform. 737 Classic was at the limit of engine size. Boeing had another chance with 757 but dropped the ball again by stopping production. 757 had the same fuselage and had taller landing gear so could have easily taken larger and more efficient engines.
I used to be a big fan of Boeing - back in the late 1970's and 1980's. I loved the B727 and B747 designs. Even in the early 2000's, I still favored the B737 over the A320. But then I noticed that newer A320 family aircraft were more comfortable than the B738 / B739. I flew biz class on LH A388 and B748. Well, I still think that the A388 is the better aircraft for pax. I don't know if it is the better aircraft for airlines. But, then, I am not running an airline. I am just one of the pax.
Hi, For us in France, it seems that we have no doubts that H2 (hydrogen) will be the next main change in Airbus family .... I'm living next to Airbus main factory and one can see the energy Airbus and the fans subcontractors deploy in R&D on that matter ... This will be a a game changer in this business market and Airbus will again run in the lead , as they did for composites and LEAP engines ... It seems that Boeing is struggling with their new 737's X generation with 2 crashes and this fancy door opening in flight... no doubt that they will solve the issue, but it's too late, the damage is done 🇫🇷
Would a stretched A220 be a viable replacement? The A220 already competes against the current A319 and A320. Just get rid of them and have the A220 take that market. You would still have the A321 available for higher capacity.
There will probably be something like that. Remember, Airbus came up with the whole A320neo family long before the C Series was essentially gift wrapped to them. When it comes time to design a clean sheet A320 replacement, they can plan out its design while knowing that the A220, and likely, a future A220neo, will be in the product range as well.
Considering the problems of 737, Boeing has only one option on the table… get a clean sheet design out of the door absolutely ASAP. Whatever ASAP means in this industry. Airbus is not in a hurry, but everyone should be afraid of a wounded beast. And that is Boeing.
When your opponent is out for the count due to their own failings... Really kick them while they're down, by showing that even while having a best selling product that's literally flying out the door - you will still invest in developing a new one.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is just a name for any type of synthetic/bio Jet A-1 fuel that could also run on current tech engines. The A320 replacement will not run on hydrogen.
Oh Airbus, please make the 100 seater battery electric. The technology will be good enough in 5 years, maybe even 2 years... And the cost per mile of electricity compared to hydrogen is just so much less. So airlines will actually want to buy them.
10 years is a very long time in aerospace these days. So lets see how Airbus get on with this idea. Certainly Rolls Royce are a long way down the sustainable fuel engine path and last year ran a Pearl 700 business aircraft engine on 100 percent hydrogen fuel as part of longer-term work to develop a hydrogen combustion engine for narrow-body airliners by the mid-2030s. I don't know if anyone else noticed but while Airbus is resourcing all this research and engineering from within the business, Boeing has already got, and will continue to get, US taxpayer funded research courtesy of NASA. Level playing field? Not so much but even so Airbus still manages to beat Boeing and the US Government.
Hydrogen is likely a non-starter: duplicate infrastructure (new hydrogen as well as legacy kerosene); difficulties in storing and handling both on the airfield and the plane; increased risks from a "leaky" fuel (h2 molecules are tiny and worm their way past seals very easily - witness the delayed Artemis 1 launch) etc etc. The CFM Rise is likely a non-starter because it will not meet (some airport) current or future noise regulations, limiting its value. IF the RR UltraFan is available at the appropriate thrust, then it will offer a step change in efficiency and would be the obvious choice. So who will get there first, Boeing or Airbus? Given their recent disasters I say Boeing has little chance a funding a new aircraft program - even the "computer modelled" T7 is proving a cock-up for them and an unexpected financial drain.
Looking for new ideas even in the middle of success? Huh, imagine that! Boeing would do well to learn a lesson here instead of the endless tinkering and recertifying 50-year-old air frames.
Was there a breakthrough in hydrogen storage that solves the density problem, allowing enough of it to be stored in the aircraft fuel tanks so that it has a good range? The way it is done in rockets is not feasible for commercial aviation.
I wonder if the first aircraft, a small one, could potetially be a replacement of the SAAB340s? One of our major regional airlines in Australia, REX, is cutting back flights, causing some problems for regional and remote communities, due to supply chain issues for their 30+ year old SAAB340s which is no longer manufacturered?
There are plenty of more modern regional airliners to choose from; REX is BSing you saying they can't replace their old SAABs. They just chose to hang onto their old planes too long to boost short term profits and are now paying the price.
Development costs - I imagine - will be similar irrespective of the size of the first aircraft; with all that new technology. So Airbus should spend that money on the plane that offers the best return ./ biggest sales.
@@bungee7503 ATR72s, Dash 8s, E-Jets - even at the smaller end for some routes Islanders, Do228s or CASA CN235s. Wikipedia lists 24 seperate regional airliner series that are currently in production and on sale.
The open rotor fan blades are presumably fixed pitch? I asked Juan Browne why propeller blades need to be feathered on a failed engine but there's no apparent problem with the fixed fan blades of a high bypass jet. His answer was simply "diameter". So how much bigger can these open rotor fan blades go before not being able to feather them on a failed engine becomes a problem?
@@poruatokin that turbofans don't need to feather because despite being bigger than ever before, they are still limited by the space between the wing and the ground so have still not reached a diameter where it's a problem that the fan can't be feathered in the event of engine failure. Presumably the idea of an open rotor is that it can be as much above the wing as below it, so allowing a much bigger diameter open rotor on a particular aircraft than the turbo fan that would fit under the wing of the same aircraft and increased efficiency that will come from that larger diameter. However, in the case of an engine failure, there will be a limit to the diameter of an unfeathered open rotor that will be at the limit of rudder authority for the aircraft. So how much bigger can an open rotor actually be than a turbofan, given the rudder authority limitation?
A very good question. But then, there are also questions about other after-events of an open rotor engine failure. At least we don't worry about all that tricky containment business any more!
@villiamo3861 yes, I had the same thought about containment. Perhaps they are not operating the blades so close to their structural limit as they do with a ducted turbo fan. On the other hand, the efficiency is going to come from a fairly large diameter and that's going to be a significant weight for a large double fan setup so they won't want to over do the strength as that's even more weight.
Not to be Debbie Downer, but I would wonder how Airbus plans to keep people safe on their open blade engine design in case the fan blades break or become detached. Current regulations make it mandatory for engine cowlings to be resistant to ruptures.
I presume (and hope) that they had a really good think about that before they spent any serious money on the project. As you imply, it's a very serious potential problem. I can't believe that they've just said 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it'.
@@crinolynneendymion8755 Not quite. Believe me, I understand you're being ironic, and yes, of course turboprops are entirely legal. But if there's a cowling, it has to be resistant to a blade going awol. And one of the big perceived safety advantages of turbofans over turboprops/open-bladed set-ups was - and remains - having such a cowling. You could even look up NASA's very pro-fanprop (and superb) investigations into this, ie regarding esp. all the developments of the 1980s with open-bladed engines, where they very obviously regret their being shelved due to the fuel economy gains being lessened by the declining price of oil. Yet the question remains hanging in the air: once all those developments have been made, why not adopt anyway? Partly passenger preference, which even NASA recognised at the end of its very favourable report. If looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it ain't got a protective cover.
Hydrogen is not viable due to storage concerns. You would need a huge volume and a large cylindrical container to be equivalent to jet fuel, even under cryonics and immense pressure.
I'd expect aviation to start making synthetic fuels and call that carbon neutral. Thing is, synthetic versions of fossil fuels were never that cheap (otherwise they would have replaced fossils).
It could also be Airbus having some fun with Boeing who whilst trying to sort themselves out along with the 737 ,now have Airbus announcing new models ,,So do Boeing stick with what it has or do they push forward with new airframes
Boeing without huge help from Uncle Sam are quite low on options. Heavily supervised licence production of Airbus designs is probably their cheapest option to get out of the bottom tier which they inhabit along with Comac.
It seems that airbus smells blood in the water... They know Boeing is so beholden to the stock price that the CAN'T innovate at this point, so they have the chance to completely dominate the entire industry.
I don't understand this. They have the brand new A220 (C series) that is just slightly smaller than A320. So a replacement for A320 should be just a hair bigger than A320 to reduce the overlap. Regarding hydrogen its a PITA to handle. If jets need a new fuel type why not use methane. Space industry seem to transition to methane. If it must be carbon free its not hard to make methane from hydrogen.
" If it must be carbon free its not hard to make methane from hydrogen." It may seem to be an obvious question : what happens to methane when you burn it?
The A220 having been designed and developed by Bombardier doesn't share the common cockpit design of the other Airbus planes. I'm a fan of the A220, it's a nice plane to travel in but I'm sure Airbus will want a easy migration for pilots (Boeing's reasoning for the MAX was the lack of pilot recertification from previous 737 pilots, which bit them on the ass with MCAS etc.).
New planes and/or new propulsion technologies by the next decade? A matter of survival for any manufacturer, considering the CO2-targets for 2040/2050. And the aviation biz is one of the hardest to accomplish this. Mentioning hydrogen is pure marketing and a good way to get attention.
Boeing doesn´t have misery or bad luck, they chose to use criminal negligence and reap their rewards for doing so. Boeing shouldn´t even exist anymore.
Hydrogen is a great fuel source for...rockets. Storing hydrogen is a nightmare. It leaks and requires subzero refrigeration to keep in a liquid state. It also requires larger tanks due to its low density. Which means the planes will weigh more. Batteries are the future, not hydrogen.
And what ever hydrogen leaks goes kaboom very easily if there's any significant amount... But batteries have also big problem in energy density compared to liquid hydrocarbons making them not viable choise for long flights without huge bettery tech revolution. Remember that plane has to drag weight of dead battery volume all the way to landing instead of plane becoming lighter and more fuel efficient.
This is not a shock announcement. The A320 is an old aircraft, and it needs replacing with a 100% new clean sheet aircraft. The NEO project was a relatively cheap stop gap measure for them that would put Boeing under enormous preasure to counter which it absolutely has. The preasure on Boeing was so great that they built a very flawed aircraft in responce that is still in trouble with it's quality. I would not be surprised if Airbus are not already halfway their in respect to the designing of the new aircraft. This announcement has now put Boeing in an even bigger mess as they still have not got either the Max 7 or 10 certified yet along with th777X. They now going to have face a narrow body aircraft with all the latest Tech built into it and all they can offer is a plane originally designed 60 plus years ago. The Max has all but destroyed Boeings reputation as a leader in the civil aviation industry . Well done to Airbus, they are now the true leaders in civil aviation. I do have a question though for all the airlines have been waiting delay after delay for the Max 10 and 7 . Do you cancel your orders and go to Airbus so you can stay competitive with the other airlines that will order the new plane or do you hold on and soldier on with the Max and fall behind with aircraft that will cost more to operate than the new Airbus. This is what airlines face with the introduction of the NEO and that design is here again while they are still waiting for their Max aircraft to be certified and and actually built. I know what I would do.
The open or exposed fan has been tried, they abandoned the idea because of extreme noise levels. They bolted it to an MD80 if memory serves. I saw it and heard it fly and totally agree it was way too loud. Cant imagine how loud it was in the cabin. The whole hydrogen idea may be viable but the reason we use JetA is flashpoint. I’m hoping they figure out a way to increase the flash on hydrogen fuel. I’ve ran a hydrogen fuel cell in my truck and it worked, saved me some fuel but it flashes at a low temp.
At 4:55, I’m trying to imagine how Boeing could fit the CFM Rise engine on a 737. It looks to me like they will have to come up with a new aircraft to replace the 737.
Don't worry my friend. This is nothing the MCAS 2.0 can not fix. Just put the engine directly in front of the wing or even higher. MCAS 2.0 will make this possible. And they will call it *737 SuperMax*
I'm willing to bet rotating detonation gas turbines combined with a Geared Turbofan will be the next generation. Both P&W and RR have advanced GTF programs. RR is developing CMC materials for the hot power section as P&W probably is. They are claiming bypass ratios up to 15-18 to 1 for these designs. RR is even placing a geared section between the compressor and power turbines to keep both at more optimal rotational speeds. Russia of course has the amazing NK-93 that is simply lacking funding and prime for an ultra efficient turbine section. The NK-93 is like a CFM RISE but in a ducted configuration which obviously alleviates the inherent noise issue. It already has a bypass ratio over 16:1. Hydrogen may one day be used or electric... but these are the much more mature technologies and cost effective.
These would be developments made by jet engine manufacturers and once developed would be available to all the various airplane manufacturers. Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer could encourage new powerplant technology, though.
@@johnstuartsmith I agree with what you said to an extent, but certain aircraft do not have the clearance under wing for these ultra high bypass designs
Rotating detonation enmgines? Apart from anything else, do you have any idea how LOUD these inherently are? Noise is proportional to exhaust velocity, and by definiton an RDE has a huge exhaust velocity (hence its efficiency). While it is a very promising approach for future military and space use, I can't see the neighbours - or the passengers for that matter - putting up with airliners running PDEs.
@@kenoliver8913 From what I’ve seen and I may be mistaken, the detonations are very small and fairly rapid. This isn’t V1 Buzzbomb style. But I guess time will tell. There was a report out about a year ago showing RDE turbo shafts beating the best diesel engines on efficiency. Even if they only get half way there it is a massive change in aviation. I appreciate your comment and will do some more research.
Thank you gentlemen for this discussion. I am far from being an expert from jet engines and I only understand about half of it, but it’s fascinating. 👍
Let me soon win in lottery so I can have my own "Bus". It may fly on hydrogen - potentially with fewer or no pilots -- but can it make coffee by itself? (just asking)
Important note: when Airbus talks about official launch in 28, it’s about launching the development, not entry into service. So, no, the target is not end of this decade but still the next one.
I don't doubt that it's possible to make a hydrogen powered commercial jet, but that it will ever be competative against alternatives seems highly doubtful. A very short range (500 mile) battery electric plane seems like it'll be viable before too long with the present pace of battery energy density improvements.
As for the 320 replacement , all airbus needs to do is re-wing the airframe and install no-bleed engines. Use the space for the packs for fuel or cargo.
I really don´t think Airbus is serius in making a hydrogen fueld aircraft. They got a shit ton of cash from EU to push a number of hydrogen project. The reason i think Airbus is really not intresting (other than int he money) is how they spent it. A large part of the money was spent on a new engine testplatform. It just so happen that that engine platform was designed to carry multiple diffrent engine concept, not only hydrogen once. There is also economical problem with the hydrogen project. Its basically a propeller aircraft powered by a electric engine. A prop airplane is slower than a fan and also a open fan. This limit the top speed to about 500km/h, and also the climb speed as well as general preformance. This is a problem becasue when the plane fly slower, the passanger need more crew hours of work for the transport, hence it more expensive. The range is also very short. This make it so its harder to make back-to-back(to-back-to-back) flights. Fueling is complicated, takes time and are costly. What short or very short routes typically do to cut down on fuel time, they make back-to-back flight. If the route is very short, they may do as much as 4 flights back-to-back. For this to be viable, the range need to be fairly large. Not only does the aircraft need reserve fuel, but it also typically would need extra lift capacity. If we look at the market today, the ATR 72 is probobly the most sucessfull prop airplane. It have been 1800 sold with a backlog of 200 aircraft. That is actually a really large amount for a smaller manufacturer. But if you wouldn´t buy a ATR what would you buy in steed? Probobly a CRJ or a E series. CRJ have been produced 924 and E series 1671. So it looks like ATR is the more popular aircraft. Well its not. The issue is that ATR72 have been in production for 36 years, CRJ was in produciton for 20 years and the E-jet have alreddy been replaced. The E-jet (1+2) also have a backlog of over 400 aircrafts. The range of ATR72 is 1500km that is really not that bad, and can easily do 2 back-to-back for most shorter routes. But CRJ700 have a range of 2600km, that is quite consideraly more. The E175 have a range of 4000km and the E175-E2 (and we should not even talk about the A220-100). Then there is the lift capacity. The jets can take consideraly more weight per passanger. Of cause, the argument is that the Turboprop use less fuel and that makes up for other increase in cost. And if you compaer a ATR72 to a CRJ700, that is true. The CRJ700 have a fairly inefficent configuraiton, but compare to the E-series ATR72 is just a tiny byt more efficent, and only on short routes. And compare to a E2 series it really is not more efficent. Its also hard to thinkt that handeling hydrogen will be any cheaper than jet fuel. And there is also really no reason to belive the fuel would be very cheap. The main reason why electric cars are even viable today is due to tax on fuel. There is little to no tax on jet fuel, and hydrogen is a less efficent process than battery. Its really very unlikely they would make that cheaper.
Hydrogen could be the way to go. France discovered recently a massive reserve of natural hydrogen underground, enough to power the city of Paris for 20 years.
The A220 was from bombardier's CSeries designed to compete with embrarer e2. Its not quite as the size of the 737/A320 families. Also airbus bought the CSeries when boeing tried to kill bombardier
The A320 is old, but not as old as the 737. This is a good move on the part of Airbus. It shows they don't want to be in a 737 situation down the road. Boeing can't modify the 737 anymore so they need to do something new. Hopefully this compells Boeing to do it now and not wait years. Development of a new plane will take many years. Best to start sooner than later.
A few things; firstly, I have to wonder if the hydrogen powered aircraft will emerge as an ATR product in collaboration with Leonardo, or if Airbus will pursue this aircraft independently of ATR. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 737 and A320 are exactly 20 years separated in terms of technological development, the A320 having first flown in 1987 and the 737 in 1967. I would argue that the 737's growth potential was used up with the NG and that the MAX never should have been pursued to begin with, but aside from that, I'd agree that both airframes are at the end of their growth potential and need to be replaced with clean sheet designs in the near future.
Amazing how different Airbus and Boeing are. Airbus: mature, sophisticated, cutting-edge, refined, professional. Boeing: delinquent teenager skateboarding drunk with a beer in its hand
I’m a bit skeptical of H2 powered aircraft since it’s not as simple as just the aircraft itself. There has to be the infrastructure supplying H2 to airfields across Europe and North America. Then there is production of green H2 to consider. The molecular size of H2 will make aircraft leakage problematic. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it but would like to seem the details.
It will probably be the A220-500 that will compete the 737-8 MAX. Fairy was in Montreal a couple of weeks ago and he was asked about the A220-500, he answered with a smile. The A220 was originally design to support 3 versions, The A220-100, the A220-300 and the A220-500. This will kill the 737 and will hurt Boeing badly.
I do hope airbus does not produce a high wing loading aircraft which looks to be the mistake of the ART when they too thought the fuselage could be stretch too. Airbus has an eye in the future for airframes which will utilise new power plant technologies. Plane makers must understand that passengers want to choose which aircraft they fly on after the spat of crashes..The EU plans to print which aircraft airlines can use at the time of purchase. In addition airbus does not seem to understand soo far the airlines feedback that passengers dont want three or four seating configurations. They want two seat configurations especially in narrow body aircraft. Concepts are not the same as reality in use
Hydrogen is a no-go in every way, including CO2! Electricity and Hydrogen are not created through low-carbon in so many countries, that it end-up being more carbonated than petrol, moreover if you consider margin: the few more electricity you need will be 100% carbon-based. Let's begin by working on the electricity mix itself. Not by raising consumption and thus carbon-based emissions.
So where's the outrage that "Airbus is rushing production to compete with Boeing!"? Everyone loves to hate on Boeing for apparently doing the exact same thing
The A320 will be replaced by a stretched A220. There's a new generation of engines on the cusp of being developed with geared turbofans being a very interesting idea.
I've lost 60 pounds! I cannot wait to try out my new smaller body in these ultra small economy seats. Especially the mega-uncomfortable Boeing 747-8i. ✈️💺Have you flown on it as a fat person? I have, but now I'm skinny!
The GE unducted fan was right around the corner……. Back in 1982…….. I’m sure it will be any day now since it’s only been in the queue for over 40 years
Aircraft maker should get propellar engine which is more fuel efficient, with 100% SAF fuel. More mileage with better cost saving is what many airliners are looking for now!
Slow and steady and nothing flashy keeps you around for a much longer term. All those stock buybacks and CEO bonus’s raises stock prices but does nothing to keep the business alive. You can only rest on your laurels for so long. General Electric did the same and see where they are now?
