NEO - Why the Fuss?
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NEO - Why the Fuss?
The world has gone mad recently because Airbus want to stick some slighly more efficent engines on their A32x. It feels like another Crash of 2008 but that's a separate story.
What confuses me is if the new engines are about the same weight, size and thrust, why is it such a big deal?
I can see you've got more issues if you are Boeing. You've not got enough ground clearance so you need a new undercarriage. But even then - why can't aircraft be regularly upgraded just like automobiles? Nowadays surely the flight computers are the most tricky part of flying, so as long as you keep the same flight control behaviour does it really matter if there are slight differences in actual flight responses? Slightly different engines surely can't make much difference compared to the normal variation in loads, weather etc?
I suppose I'm saying this because I wish Boeing would just say "OK we'll stick Leap Xs on when they're available and in the meantime just jack up the undercarriage a tad. No problemmo.
Then we wouldn't have this endless Will-they/Won't-they with regard to a totally new aircraft.
What confuses me is if the new engines are about the same weight, size and thrust, why is it such a big deal?
I can see you've got more issues if you are Boeing. You've not got enough ground clearance so you need a new undercarriage. But even then - why can't aircraft be regularly upgraded just like automobiles? Nowadays surely the flight computers are the most tricky part of flying, so as long as you keep the same flight control behaviour does it really matter if there are slight differences in actual flight responses? Slightly different engines surely can't make much difference compared to the normal variation in loads, weather etc?
I suppose I'm saying this because I wish Boeing would just say "OK we'll stick Leap Xs on when they're available and in the meantime just jack up the undercarriage a tad. No problemmo.
Then we wouldn't have this endless Will-they/Won't-they with regard to a totally new aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....Nowadays surely the flight computers are the most tricky part of flying, so as long as you keep the same flight control behaviour does it really matter if there are slight differences in actual flight responses? Slightly different engines surely can't make much difference compared to the normal variation in loads, weather etc?
Secondly, the engine/wing integration is not that simple - there's a LOT of work goes into ensuring an efficient design in terms of minimizing interference between the two, while still getting good stalling behaviour despite having that big thing hung in front of the leading edge. A new engine nacelle could have significant design work requirements to make it work.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus want to stick some slighly more efficent engines on their A32x
The sharklets as implemented on the NEO cannot be retrofitted, however Airbus have just announced that they are looking at alternatives for retrofit.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus have just announced that they are looking at alternatives for retrofit
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plug compatibility
OK - perhaps I'm asking a different question. Why don't plane companies design their planes to take new engines, new instrumentation etc thoughout the lifespan of the product?
It must have been obvious that, when the A320 and the 737NG were on the drawing boards, new more efficient engines would become available as technology moved on. Similarly with electronics, wings etc.
Every now and again you need to make a fresh start, but it's odd Boeing can't easily respond to the NEO. Their order book is healthy enough to suggest the enormous cost and disruption of a new plane is not necessary.
It must have been obvious that, when the A320 and the 737NG were on the drawing boards, new more efficient engines would become available as technology moved on. Similarly with electronics, wings etc.
Every now and again you need to make a fresh start, but it's odd Boeing can't easily respond to the NEO. Their order book is healthy enough to suggest the enormous cost and disruption of a new plane is not necessary.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind, however, that Boeing is already on the third iteration of the B737, so it's not as if they designed something that wasn't capable of being upgraded. But to imagine that someone sitting down to sketch the initial layout in the mid 1960s should have somehow tried to anticipate what might be wanted 50 years later ... they'd have been designing anchor points for the shielding for the airborne nuclear reactor that was going to be the power source!