Rickb and the 787

Hey Rick, I don't come in this area anymore. I just remember a few years back we were having the discussion and you could not see where the increases in efficiency were coming from. The "sum of the parts" did not add up for you. Well after our airline has flown them awhile, I figured out where the numbers were coming from....ALTITUDE!!! While the sum of the parts did not add up to the efficiency numbers that were quoted. But what they did add up to was the airplane's ability to climb straight to altitude. That is HUGE!!! If you load up any "conventional" widebody for the mission that it was designed for(ie 777 EWR-HKG), it will have to step climb all the way to the destination. It's first altitude may be FL300(maybe even lower). And FL320 in a couple hours and so on. Whereas the 787 can just climb straight to FL410 and stay there the entire trip. It is mostly a function of the lightweight carbon fiber construction and the wing. But all that other stuff helps incrementally as well. Are we getting the numbers that Boeing quoted during the propaganda campaign??? Pretty much. I know we are quite happy with them. "Game Changer" is what our marketing guys call them. Anyway, just popping in to give a progress report. And I might be (involuntarily) flying one soon. Shrinking Houston and might lose my left seat. All part of the "fair and equitable" merger!!!

John--- Last year I was sent to England, Poland, and Mexico to interview the CEOs and passenger service directors of airlines that fly the 787. They absolutely love them. Not only are they turning in better than forecast efficiency in terms of fuel burn but they are proving to be extremely popular with their passengers.

The CEO and maintenance director of one airline told me that their operations folks had to go back and completely rework their fuel burn calculations because the figures they had been using, which were based on our own fuel burn predictions, turned out to be too conservative. So much so that they initially simply didn't believe the fuel burn numbers they were getting from the planes. When they determined that the numbers were real, they redid all their route calculations and as a result they've been able to put their 787s on routes they initially hadn't thought they could use them on.

The really nice thing to hear was that all the hype we generated (some of it by me) about how fabulous the cabin environment was going to be is proving to be right on the money. The passenger service director of AeroMexico told me that their passenger surveys show that passengers who fly on both their 767s and 787s are even convinced the food is better on the 787s. But it's the exact same food. He flies a lot on their airplanes in the course of his work and he said that he, too, thinks the food tastes better on the 787.

The CEOs in Europe all spoke about how their passengers are reporting far less jet lag effects from the 787's lower cabin altitude and higher air humidity.

And all the CEOs and passenger service directors said that they are getting more and more passengers booking specifically to fly on their 787s instead of the other planes in their fleets.

Yesterday I got an email from Qantas, boasting about their improved profitability. It was as much due to lower fuel costs and a tanked A$ as their cost reduction efforts, but nonetheless quite important.

In the email they trumpeted that they will be taking delivery of 8 789-9's in 2017. Now I know why they made a fuss, since prompted by you guys above as well I've just reviewed a bunch of info on the 787. An important new aircraft, and the cabin pressure and humidity improvements are a big deal. I just hope the 787 is on the routes i want to fly. If they are running all LiFePO4 battery chemistries by then I'll be even happier.

Qantas has always been a leader in adopting or developing new technologies. They were one of the first airlines to start ordering all their new 737s with winglets. While the winglets were developed by the BBJ (Boeing Business Jet) program the drag reduction/ fuel savings they found during the flight test program was so impressive, exceeding 6 percent in some cases, that we began offering them to the airlines, too. They are very expensive so a lot of airlines like Alaska and Southwest said they'd never order them as they didn't think the payback would be there.

The first airline to order 737s with winglets was Air Berlin. Qantas was among the next airlines to opt for them. I produced a marketing video about Qantas' use of the 737 and they told us the winglets were saving them millions each year in fuel costs. Where they really pay off is on longer flights like trans-Australia but Qantas was ordering winglets on all their 737s, even the ones intended for shorter runs.

Today, of course, virtually every airline gets winglets on their new 737s.

Marin said:

Qantas has always been a leader in adopting or developing new technologies. They were one of the first airlines to start ordering all their new 737s with winglets. While the winglets were developed by the BBJ (Boeing Business Jet) program the drag reduction/ fuel savings they found during the flight test program was so impressive, exceeding 6 percent in some cases, that we began offering them to the airlines, too. They are very expensive so a lot of airlines like Alaska and Southwest said they'd never order them as they didn't think the payback would be there.

The first airline to order 737s with winglets was Air Berlin. Qantas was among the next airlines to opt for them. I produced a marketing video about Qantas' use of the 737 and they told us the winglets were saving them millions each year in fuel costs. Where they really pay off is on longer flights like trans-Australia but Qantas was ordering winglets on all their 737s, even the ones intended for shorter runs.

Today, of course, virtually every airline gets winglets on their new 737s.

Click to expand...

Today of course, we are removing old winglets for scimitar winglets.

And I'm not so sure about Quantas as the trailblazer on winglets. We were the launch customer for the nextgen 737s and while the first 10 -700s came without them, the rest came with them. That was 1997-98.

Qantas had them before that, I believe. They weren't the first to get them, but they were ordering them while most other carriers, particularly in the US, were still saying they weren't worth the price. I believe the current interim scimitar blade is added to the existing winglet but I could be wrong about that. The new 737MAX (first fuselage arrives tonight or this weekend) has an all-new winlet design.

A bit off topic, but I have a Q about how we ended up with cruise flight levels where we do: Most seem about 33 to 40,000ft. I know wing lift drops with altitude, and engine thrust drops with altitude, but drag also drops with altitude. So it makes sense that there is a limit to cruising alt. But is that 33-40 zone really optimal? Could higher and faster be more efficient? Or higher and somewhat slower with more wing area.

I guess if I wanted to answer all that, I could have gotten an Aero Eng degree!!

Always curious of this while flying.

And Kudos to Boeing on the 787. Sounds like it is proving to be a winner.

Ski, everything you said plays into it. The one important thing you are missing is L/D Max. LD Max is the point where maximum lift is generated for the least amount of drag. On a graph, where the drag line intersects the lift line. That usually occurs very close to stall speed. As we climb, the air does get thinner and we actually are pretty damn close to stall, and therefore LD Max. We just need more margin for safety reasons so we are not right at it. But as close as safely possible. In my example, they are close to LD Max at the lower altitudes but fuel burn at those altitudes are higher. Anyway, I am pretending to know what I am talking about.... As far as wing shape, it is really more a function of wing loading. The higher the wing loading, the closer to LD Max. The regional jets you see flying around have very low wing loading and therefore are not really efficient at all. An Emb145 will be burning about 3400pph at cruise whereas I can fly a 737-800 and be burning 5500pph carrying 3x as many people. That high burn rate on the RJ is due to their wing loading...of lack thereof. So a stubby fat wing would be slow AND inefficient.

Another thing that most people don't realize is that the 777 in my example is not stuck at the lower altitudes due to a lack of power or the inability to climb. It is an aerodynamic limit. Basically the buffet margins of low speed buffet/stall and high speed buffet. As fuel is burned, those buffet margins decrease and allows the plane to climb. The the weight and wing on the 787 allow it to climb to higher altitudes right away and that is where the efficiency is gained.

Thanks. That high speed buffet- is that what you get as you approach Mach 1? As I recall actual speed of sound is a function of temperature, not altitude, but can't remember if it gets higher with cold or lower with cold.

Fun stuff.

The 777 cruises at about Mach .85. At least that's what Emirates cruises them at.

Qantas held off ordering 787s until they got out of a financial hole, improved their credit rating and reached a deal with flight crews on pay. Though I think their budget subsidiary Jetstar already flies them. No dividends paid for years, it turned a 2Bn+ loss last year to a 500M+ profit and promised a capital return of 23c p/share instead of a dividend this year. Due to smart(or lucky) fuel cost hedging it is already getting the benefit of reduced oil prices. At one point the entire airline was grounded on a few hours notice, planes scattered all over the world, Qantas says over a staff/union disagreement, there was a massive kerfuffle over that. Let`s hope the worst is behind "The Flying Kangaroo". I think it still holds the record for the longest nonstop 747 flight, London to Sydney.

Ski in NC said:

Thanks. That high speed buffet- is that what you get as you approach Mach 1? As I recall actual speed of sound is a function of temperature, not altitude, but can't remember if it gets higher with cold or lower with cold.

Fun stuff.

Click to expand...

Mach is a function of temperature only!!! The colder it is, the slower the speed of sound!!

Baker said:

I just remember a few years back we were having the discussion and you could not see where the increases in efficiency were coming from. The "sum of the parts" did not add up for you. Well after our airline has flown them awhile, I figured out where the numbers were coming from....ALTITUDE!!!

Click to expand...

Ah so ... thanks for the update, that is a factor I did not consider.
Avoiding the the step climb makes a lot of sense. Do you reduce power during the climb so you end up at cruise power at cruise altitude or just go for altitude if ATC allows and accelerate to cruise speed before backing off?

RickB said:

Ah so ... thanks for the update, that is a factor I did not consider.
Avoiding the the step climb makes a lot of sense. Do you reduce power during the climb so you end up at cruise power at cruise altitude or just go for altitude if ATC allows and accelerate to cruise speed before backing off?

Click to expand...

You go to climb power and climb at your cruise speed. So let's say you're climbing thru 20,000 feet at 300 knots. You hold that 300kts until you transition to Mach. On the climb page in the FMC it would look like 300/.80. 300 knots at 20,000 feet is probably about .65. Just a WAG. Probably in the upper 20s you'd hit .80 and then hold that is indicated airspeed would then bleed off. Just an example....80 in the upper 30s is probably somewhere around 250 knots indicated. Even though your true airspeed would be around 460. Hence the reason we fly Mach as we get higher instead of indicated airspeed.

So to answer your question briefly, we do not slow down to climb. Technically we can't. The wing will become to much of a load for a slower speed. So we have to climb at our computed cruise speed due to buffet margins as we near cruising altitude. I hope this makes sense.

Sounds like there must be quite a calculation to arrive at actual Mach. Pitot tube gives two pressure readings, but as alt goes up, readings on both drop, so actual airspeed has to be corrected. Then need actual temp too. But temp readings will rise from aero friction. I guess with those numbers that is all you need, but will need some crunching.

Given the computing power of planes these days i suspect all the pilot has to do is not kick the plug out of the wall. A good friend is the chief pilot for the Everett flightline so flies 787s, 777's and 747-8s on a daily basis. Before that he was the assistant chief production pilot for the 787 program. He told me that the 787 is a very nice plane to fly but it's more like playing a video game than flying an airplane. He said all these planes pretty much fly themselves. So no human calculations needed.

Too give you an idea of where the industry is headed, i just finished a video about a new product that connects an iPad wirelessly to the airplane's flight management system. The application on the iPad shows the flight crew in real time the plane's actual fuel usage vs. the planned usage and how it will change if they change different parameters in their flight plan enroute. The fuel savings this makes possible are substantial. Pretty cool deal.

Always had a soft-spot for Boeing planes. All the crew, both injured and healthy, had time to bail out after B-17G 44-6463 of the 839th bombing squadron received a direct AAA hit behind engine no. 3 immediately after dropping 1000-pound bombs on Merseberg, Germany. This occurred two years before my conception. My father was co-pilot.

Ski in NC said:

Sounds like there must be quite a calculation to arrive at actual Mach. Pitot tube gives two pressure readings, but as alt goes up, readings on both drop, so actual airspeed has to be corrected. Then need actual temp too. But temp readings will rise from aero friction. I guess with those numbers that is all you need, but will need some crunching.

Click to expand...

Marin is correct. The airplane does it for you. But you do hit on some important points. Indicated airspeed becomes less reliable mostly because of compressibility issues. Basically, the tube fills up and it can no longer measure pressure accurately. Another measure of temperature we us is Total Air a temperature. And it incorporates aerodynamic heating Into the figure. So there are numerous temp readings and numerous different airspeed definitions. So while the airplane might do the computations, you still need to know what they mean.

If worse came to worse, can you manually fly these planes? Inquiring passenger wants to know.

Gulf Comanche said:

If worse came to worse, can you manually fly these planes? Inquiring passenger wants to know.

Click to expand...

Sure. Flight crews do this frequently during landing. In fact I would venture to say that commercial airliners are more often landed manually than using autoland, although the autoland works just fine. However, what an autopilot/autothrottle/autoland system cannot do is anticipate. It reacts, and it can react very fast, but it can't anticipate.

A good example of this is one I was given by a United 747 pilot (I used to be involved in the production of United's TV commercials) who described to me why he hated doing autolands an Honolulu International Airport. At the time HNL had only one long runway, Runway 8, which also had the only ILS approach.

The approach to runway 8 (today runway 8L) comes in over the entrance channel to Pearl Harbor. At that point the planes are very low, only a few hundred feet up. Cooler air sinks, warmer air rises. So the plane would be tracking the ILS just fine on autoland with the power being set by the autothrottle. On short final in an established descent the power was back pretty much at flight idle.

Then the plane would fly over the Pearl Harbor entrance channel and into the sinking, cooler air above the water. The plane would drop suddenly with the air, The auto throttle would immediately add power. But unlike a reciprocating engine, a turbofan has to spool up before it actually starts generating additional thrust and it takes a bit once more thrust is generated for it to overcome the inertia of the plane. So there is a delay of several to a lot of seconds between the power levers going forward and something actually happening.

The plane was across the channel in seconds and back in the warmer air over land, so the drop was never enough to actually get the plane in trouble. But the pilot told me it was very nerve wracking to sit there knowing this sudden sink was coming and that he couldn't do anything about it (at the time pilots were required to perform x-number of autolands a month to remain current),

Normally, he said, they hand-flew the plane down final approach, which meant that before they got to the Pearl Harbor entrance channel they would add power and get the engines spooled up in advance of actually needing the thrust to stay on the glide path as they crossed the channel.

In other words, the pilots could anticipate what was coming and prepare the plane for it where the autopilot/autothrottle was just sitting there fat, dumb and happy until something happened at which point it would react.

BUT..... as airplane's flight management systems become more and more sophisticated and capable, it's possible to program in "anticipation" using known conditions or occurrences data. So the Pearl Harbor entrance channel "sink" could be programmed into a flight management system. It would "know" what was coming and could get the engine's spooled up in anticipation of needing more thrust.

Combine this with the vastly improved information coming from sensors on the ground in terms of temperatures, air movement, etc. which can be transmitted to the plane, and automation can indeed be "taught" to anticipate.

While human pilots always erupt in howls of protest over this, I can tell you that both Boeing and Airbus and the designers of flight management systems are very actively working on perfecting the pilotless commercial airliner. It can actually be done now very easily although there is more work to be done on the "anticipation" aspect I described above because of the staggering number of variables that can affect an aircraft in flight.

The other obstacle, of course, is passenger acceptance. In fact that is the harder hurdle to clear, not safely automating the plane. But it will happen eventually, just as manned elevators gave way to automatic elevators the world over and today people think nothing of getting into the elevators in the Burj Kalifa in Dubai, the world's tallest building, and heading up a half a mile in a box at 50 mph.

Not that there won't be anyone who knows about the plane on board. But the role of the flight crew will initially be replaced with an airplane "systems manager" who, from the design studies I've seen, most likely won't even be where the flight deck is today but will be with the flight management systems hardware in the e-bay, which these days is in the lower lobe of the plane under the first class cabin (on multi-class airplanes). The flight deck will cease to exist and be used to generate revenue with more seats like the main deck of the 747. And eventually, the systems manager won't even be needed.

But don't lie awake at night worrying about your next flight to visit Aunt Sue in Cleveland, as the chief mechanic for the 777 program used to say. This level of automation is a long ways off yet, relatively speaking.

What is interesting is to witness the attitude of the young engineers joining Boeing (and I assume Airbus: both companies are virtually identical except for their locations). They are not saddled with the traditional views of flight crews and flight decks and control input systems and whatnot. They are thinking full automation right out of college. And, in thirty years, they will be the ones calling the shots and running the airplane programs at both companies.

I am producing a video right now about the new engineers joining the company and it's amazing to hear them talk and express their visions of the future of aviation.

Next year marks Boeing's 100th anniversary. Given the acceleration of technology, the next 100 years will be mind blowing, at least to people like us if we were here to see it. To the people running the company then, it will be their normal.

Below is one of my favorite photos, Orville Wright (L) standing under the engine of a Lockheed Constellation in 1944. In 41 years the airplane had progressed from the Wright Flyer to the Constellation. Forty one years from now, I suspect commercial aviation will not even remotely resemble what we know today.

Thanks for the answer Marin, good write up.

Marin, a lot of what you say just isn't all that true....or outdated. First off, I was thinking GC was asking about fly-by-wire manual reversion. And if he wasn't, OF COURSE WE CAN FLY THESE PLANES!!!! Sorry man...but I am insulted if that is the gist of your question. Marin is correct that we fly the vast majority of approaches by hand.....95% maybe. If the weather is really snotty, then we leave the autopilot on and autothrottles. And if it is really really snotty, we are required to leave the autopilot on for an autoland. How else would you expect us to land the airplane if we cannot see ANYTHING??? Yes, we can land an airplane full of people without seeing a thing!!! THe approach procedure still requires a "minimum" visibility but that minimum visibility is related to the ability to taxi clear of the runway and to the gate and it in no way affects the decision making during the approach. It is only required to start the approach. What good is a zero visibility approach procedure if you cannot clear the runway after you land???...it would be good for one airplane.

As far as "anticipation" and autothrottles and turbofans go..... We are required to add at least 5 knots to our ref speed of we are manually flying the airplane. We add even more for higher wind conditions and gusts. If we leave the autorthrottles engaged, then we do NOT add anything to ref speed. IOW, the autothrottles correct quicker than we do and do not need the added "cushion" of extra airpseed.

WHen on final in a modern turbojet, you have close to 60% power stabilized with full flaps and the gear down. IOW, the engines are spooled up and will respond almost instantaneously. Granted, if you do have the thrust levers at flight idle it will take about 1.5 seconds to spool. But if you have the thrust levers at flight idle while close to the ground(below 500 feet), you are screwing up. 500 feet is the final "gate" where everything needs to be on the nuts. ANd if you are at flight idle at 500 feet trying to slow down(or go down) then you have screwed up....big time and a go around should be initiated.

As far as pilotless airiners go...I will not get on one without a pilot. There is a disclaimer all through every manual we have. And the gist of it is that "while these procedures try to cover every contingency, there is no way possible to do so"!!!! IOW, if the writers of a book cannot cover every contingency, how can a computer programmer(for the pilotless aircraft) do so???? They leave those sort of contingencies to the human pilot.....the contingencies no one could have possibly predicted....until it happened.

As i said, human pilots will howl with outrage.. But it's coming. The industry is betting its future on it. Threr is stuff in the development stages that would make your head spin.

"As far as pilotless airiners go...I will not get on one without a pilot."

I guess you never venture on an Airbust with a French "cockpit crew".

Marin said:

As i said, human pilots will howl with outrage.. But it's coming. The industry is betting its future on it. Threr is stuff in the development stages that would make your head spin.

Click to expand...

I am not howling with outrage. I am just saying that until they have computers that can think for themselves, instead of a series of if/then statements, then it isn't gonna happen. Unless of course you are talking about having humans operate as pilots from the ground. I did read an article that was quite interesting regarding this. The main theme of the article was that it would be safer due to the immediate support you would have on hand on the ground. I did not necessarily agree, but it was well written and made some good points.

FF, sadly there is some truth to that. I am not a big fan of Airbus. I am also not a big fan of the European model of bringing pilots up the ranks. I have more flight time than all 3 pilots on Air France 447 combined. I am not sure that makes a difference...but it probably does. The Captain had as much flight time as I did when I got hired at Continental 18 years ago. Anyway....again, not really making any conclusions, but it is "interesting" the way they do things over there. I honestly don't think GermanWings would have happened either. That guy had 600 hours. Pilots come into cockpits in this country have mostly been fully vetted...although unofficially. Just my opinion and theory.

That's the point, John. The computers are getting there. We've done videos of systems that are doing exactly what you describe- think for themselves based on what they've been taught and the information they are receiving. In other words, they are doing exactly what the human brain does. And in this case, they are doing it to control an airplane. It is simply amazing to watch.

That said, this technology has a long way to go before it is ready to be trusted with a planeload of passengers. So no worries about stepping on board a jetliner with no human pilots yet.

My point is, it's coming. The industry is putting more and more effort into making this work. It's no different than the naysayers who predicted that flight itself would never work. In the context of their time they had plausible reasons for their position. But some people persisted and eventually what was said to be impossible became commomnplace.

So it is with automated flight. It will eventually become commonplace. To be in a room with the folks who are working on this is enlightening. They encounter problem after problem. Many of them could be construed as reasons why this idea will never work. But unlike the "old guard" who says, see, we told you this is not workable, they are determined that it will be. And one by one, the problems are being overcome.

There are two primary motivations behind all this. The first one is financial, of course. The more people can be removed from a process-- any process be it building a plane or flying one--- the better the business model for the entire industry becomes. This is as true for the aerspace industry as it is for the automotive industry.

The second reason is safety. This sounds like a massive contradiction, but the reality is that the vast majority of aviation accidents are caused by people. Either people making mistakes that cause the accident, or people reacting incorrectly to technical problems with the machine which then sets up a situation that results in an accident.

So if you look at that totally objectively what's the solution? Get rid of the people.

FF rails about "Airbust" and their flight management philosophy. Today, knowing what I know about the air transportation industry worldwide, I have no qualms about getting on an Airbus or a Boeing. In terms of the airplane itself, assuming proper maintenance, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.

What I worry about are the folks up front, the ones flying the plane. And there are some parts of the world, and some airlines and some cultures, where I prefer to be on an Airbus rather than a Boeing.

Why? Because Airbus' flight management philosophy assumes a less than competent aircrew than Boeing's. It is designed to not let a crew make a mistake that could cause an accident.

I used to be very much against this. But today, with the exploding demand for air transportation, particularly in Asia, Southeast Asia, India, South Anerica, and Africa, and a demand for pilots that far outstrips the supply, the chance of getting on a plane with an inexperienced crew is growing in leaps and bounds. So the Boeing philosophy of letting the crew do whatever they want with the airplane is not necessarily what you want.

It IS what you want if your plane is being piloted by John Baker. But there are fewer and fewer John Bakers out there, particularly in the developing regions of the world. What I want there is a plane that will ignore the incompetece of the crew and not let them do dumb things when situations develop that are beyond their experience level.

Have there been accidents that would not have happened had the plane been a Boeing, assuming a competent crew? Absolutely. But there have also been accidents that would not have happened if the plane had been an Airbus.

So what's the common variable between the two philosophies? People. Get rid of the people and you eliminate a huge variable in aviation safety. Fortunately, from what I am seeing from inside the industry, this is exactly what the folks entering the industry see as the future.

Don't forget, these are the people who have grown up with technology and automation as a basic element of every facet of their lives. When you talk with them about fully automated airline flight they don't tell you all the reasons it won't work or why it's dangerous. They tell you all the reasons why it's the only way to go and why on earth would anyone do anything else?

And these people are the future of Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, as well as every airline and air traffic control organization on the planet.

With too many commercials going down due to suicide by pilot, it would seem all of Boeing's hard work is not being matched by the airline industry to deal with fruit cakes in the cockpit.

It is a new world, are the carriers up to dealing with it?

So Marin, if you can't have John Baker piloting your airplane, you're willing to accept less???....maybe safer than some crews but not as safe as the John Bakers of the world?? Not following you. I want THE SAFEST!!! And I'm not sure your argument is sound. But thanks for the compliment b