General Aviation Thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This seems to be yet another manufacturing issue (4th one I believe) that is relevant to over 600 planes according to the article. Was interested in flying on one of Air Canada’s Dreamliners but I prefer Westjet’s (737)
Toronto Abbotsford route as opposed to AC’s Toronto Vancouver route. Might as well go for convenience as MAX may be no worse than a 787 long term. Boeing in talks with FAA about new reported 787 production issue
Might be better to see if you can find a DC-3 flight @John Fedup . Boeing appear to have acquired more problems. And speaking of Boeing and problems, Air NZ have parked up their entire B777 fleet for at least one year in order to cut costs.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Might be better to see if you can find a DC-3 flight @John Fedup . Boeing appear to have acquired more problems. And speaking of Boeing and problems, Air NZ have parked up their entire B777 fleet for at least one year in order to cut costs.

Buffalo Air was the last DC-3 operation in Canada flying passengers on a regular basis but I think that’s over now.

 

Ananda

Well-Known Member

Something that no one can even predict a year ago, finally happen. The efficient and profitable Singapore Airlines begin to cut off staff numbers. Unlike some other Airlines in the region that still can relied on domestic market, SIA can't do that.

If International travel did not sufficiently open by end of year or Q1 next year, this situation not only affects the survivability of Airlines but also the Manufacturer.

Even big Middle East Airlines that thrive on their Hub business model like Singapore Airlines already begin delaying their order up to 2022.
 
As this is about normal aviation. I was wondering if you designed a new airliner could you replace passenger windows with cameras. Surely this would make the airframe stronger and lighter plus through entertainment screens on your seats basically everyone could view the outside.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Only windows can give you the possibility to look in both directions whats happen in-/outside, and to allow light in to the cabin regardles there is electrical power or not.

Besides that a cabin without windows will give a claustrophobic feeling for the people inside.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
then your view depends on electronics, whatever the conditions outside. Windows are more reliable
Besides that a cabin without windows will give a claustrophobic feeling for the people inside.
The flying V concept from KLM and Delft University, in one of the iteration design also looking on potential artificial windows for passanger cabin. Camera outside being projected to the LED in the side fuselage to provide outside view.

However, it's only in passanger cabin while Cockpit still using real windows. But just like Sandhi put, the psychological effect for customers in the cabin with windows available is deemed more important.

Most people want to see what in the outside directly from Windows by themselves. Putting no windows even still provide artificial windows with camera projection, also added more costs. While for commercial Airliners seems the study shown the windows availability still can give acceptable Airframes strength.
 

Terran

Member
Concepts using cameras and windows for use by passengers aren’t new. A few like Airbus concepts have pitched mounting huge OLED displays on the ceiling and walls of the interior offering artificial vistas.
the V shaped hull seems like a modification on the Blended Wing body concept like the Boeing X48 which inspired a infamous Popular Science cover that occasional gets branded as “797”.
the Idea at its heart is to try and move away from the conventional aircraft configuration to a more aerodynamic machine with larger more powerful engines. Of course issues like the want of a view made it not popular. Elements of blended wing have appeared in newer airliners but nowhere near as far as these model demonstrators.

@Terran We have a rule about citing material that is not your original work. You have been on here long enough to know the rules. So a reference / citation is required for the above image. This is to be actioned immediately. If you have trouble inserting the required reference, contact one of the Moderators who will help you comply with this directive.

Ngatimozart
 
Last edited:

Ananda

Well-Known Member

Month old Article comes on my news feed. This's more on the talk on the future of Turboprop that Embrear has to ponder on.
Seems it's have similarities on my assessment on Turboprop market that I put in Indonesia Aero Thread (talking on potential market for Indonesian Turboprop project N245 and R80).

Basically:
1. Turboprop market will be more on regional short range thin routes. Which make question on larger than 70's seat Turboprop market. Embrear now study the market for 80-100 seats Turboprop. However there's question it will hold.
2. Turboprop facing competition from increasingly efficient Regional Jets Airliners like Embrear own E series (and Airbus A220/C Series). Turboprop can only face them on shorter routes. Thus this create question of the market Feasibility on longer range or/and higher capacities Turboprop.

This clearly shown that turboprop being push more on smaller capacities, short range niche Market.
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Basically:
1. Turboprop market will be more on regional short range thin routes. Which make question on larger than 70's seat Turboprop market. Embrear now study the market for 80-100 seats Turboprop. However there's question it will hold.
2. Turboprop facing competition from increasingly efficient Regional Jets Airliners like Embrear own E series (and Airbus A220/C Series). Turboprop can only face them on shorter routes. Thus this create question of the market Feasibility on longer range or/and higher capacities Turboprop.

This clearly shown that turboprop being push more on smaller capacities, short range niche Market.
Not necessarily. Several factors will affect choice in aircraft. Operating costs (ie fuel efficiency), maintenance costs, training, crew costs, airports that are being flown to, market demand for routes, capital expenditure etc.

Some routes the E-2 and A220 will fit in nicely, others they might have periods of good profits but be loss making the rest of the year depending on load factors etc.

It really will be a case by case basis for airlines.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
really will be a case by case basis for airlines.
Well the question on the article actually more on the market need for 80-100 capacity Turboprop (related to Embrear study).
ATR70 and Dash8-400 (as the Turboprop market leader) basically with their capacities on 60-70 capacity, already put themselves on niche market of Relative Short Range Thin routes. Those mostly on smaller cities/region with less developed market (in term of size) and airport infrastructure.

When you build 80-100 capacity Turboprop, you are entering more developed market (in term of size), which usually have better infrastructure.
Granted there are market between close range big cities (less than 1000 km or 600 miles) apart, that probably more fitting served by Turboprop than regional jets. However that kind of market will also served by better land transport infrastructure like good highway system, train or even high speed train.

Thus raise question on the availability of market demand for 80-100 capacity Turboprop. If they aim for longer range high density market of 2000km/1300 miles, then they will face faster regional jets. After all consumers experience for faster time flight due matter.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

Well-Known Member
decent idea for airlines that have access to interesting geography which Australia does.
It's part of 'scenic' flight that right now become trending also in Asia. Especially in East Asia.


When you can't travel, now people want to pay just to see your Holiday destination from above.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member

More assessment on how A321XLR really become game changer. The Airliners become corner Stone for Airbus to give substantial leads over Boeing. This Aircraft really taking the middle of the market without contest from Boeing.

Quite ironic for Boeing which few years back is the one that see the importance of the middle market trend. Boeing should developed MAX10 in the direction of range instead capacity only.
Doubt with Boeing problem in MAX, 777X, and build quality in 787, they will have something facing A321XLR within five years. In the meantime Airbus will take middle of market without competition.

Unless Boeing can upgrade range MAX10 or 737-10 as now Boeing preference to be call soon.
A321XLR has 5000 miles range, if 737-10 can be upgrade into 4500 miles from current 3800 miles, it will be sufficient enough to give competition in the middle market for time being. Until Boeing come out with definite NMA.
 

More assessment on how A321XLR really become game changer. The Airliners become corner Stone for Airbus to give substantial leads over Boeing. This Aircraft really taking the middle of the market without contest from Boeing.

Quite ironic for Boeing which few years back is the one that see the importance of the middle market trend. Boeing should developed MAX10 in the direction of range instead capacity only.
Doubt with Boeing problem in MAX, 777X, and build quality in 787, they will have something facing A321XLR within five years. In the meantime Airbus will take middle of market without competition.
Unless Boeing can upgrade MAX10 or 737-10 as now Boeing preference to be call soon.
i know some folks who’ve flown the various airbuses. Most prefer the Boeing. The electronics in the Airbus are too controlling in their opinion. This competition sent over by a long shot.

Art
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
The electronics in the Airbus are too controlling in their opinion. This competition sent over by a long shot.
True that Pilots that already used to work with Boeing, will have more preference with it. I also talk with Pilots of Garuda Indonesia and Lion Air (both using hundreds 737-800/900), on how they're unwilling personally to switch to Airbus.

However the decision is not with them. When some of them being push by their Airlines toward A320 Neo, they don't have choices but to begin transition to Airbus.

I put in my previous post that transitioning from Boeing to Airbus or vice versa it's going to be expensive for Airlines. Thus the ones that already used with Boeing will be difficult to persuade to switch to Airbus and vice versa.

However when one Boeing customer move to Airbus, then it will be difficult for Boeing to attract them back. That's why if those 757 users moving to A321XLR, then it will be hard for Boeing to regain Middle of Market users (that's now many of them using 757).
Problem is, those 757 need to replace soon. Aside A321XLR, there's no suitable replacement in the market. That's basically what Forbes article point is.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member

This could be related to Forbes Article on how Airbus gaining lead on Boeing. With MAX conundrums seems shown bright sign at last, perhaps Boeing will still have time to play catch up.

Among the changes, 737 Max operators would be required to install a revamped software system on the plane's flight control computer, following a major redesign to the computer, and upload new software for the plane's display system. 737 Max operators would be required to use a revised flight manual, install new wiring for the plane's horizontal stabilizers, complete tests of each plane's angle-of-attack sensor system, and perform operational test flights.
This will take months to sort out, luckily for Boeing most Airlines still ground most of their fleet anyway.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group

More assessment on how A321XLR really become game changer. The Airliners become corner Stone for Airbus to give substantial leads over Boeing. This Aircraft really taking the middle of the market without contest from Boeing.

Quite ironic for Boeing which few years back is the one that see the importance of the middle market trend. Boeing should developed MAX10 in the direction of range instead capacity only.
Doubt with Boeing problem in MAX, 777X, and build quality in 787, they will have something facing A321XLR within five years. In the meantime Airbus will take middle of market without competition.

Unless Boeing can upgrade range MAX10 or 737-10 as now Boeing preference to be call soon.
A321XLR has 5000 miles range, if 737-10 can be upgrade into 4500 miles from current 3800 miles, it will be sufficient enough to give competition in the middle market for time being. Until Boeing come out with definite NMA.
I really wonder if the market is anxious to see yet another modification of the 737 in order to gain extra range which will still be shorter than the XLR. For current Airbus users and airlines wanting to expand into new long distance point to point routes, the XLR is the solution. Boeing users will be more reluctant to switch but may have no choice as a Boeing NMA isn’t happening anytime soon and a 4500-5000 mile range 737(?) won’t be much sooner to market if at all. In addition to commercial jet problems dragging on Boeing, lets not forget the significant issues with the KC-46.
 
Top