"thad beier" <thadbeier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Over the last few months, it has begun to appear that the era of cheap
> oil might finally be over. I'm wondering what the implications of this
> might be for Boeing and Airbus. Might some time be well spent
> developing even more fuel efficient airplanes?
>
> Boeing's 787 is probably about as miserly a plane that you can make and
> have it still meet noise regs and fly faster than Mach .75. It appears
> that they have left no stone unturned in the pursuit of efficiency --
> the 787 is as radical a departure from the previous airplane design
> paradigm as was the 707 or the 747. It's still not clear to me that
> the composite fuselage bet is going to pay off, it's a huge gamble.
>
> But, the 787 was designed a couple of years ago, when oil was
> $15/barrel or so. It's a lot more expensive now, and shows no signs of
> abating. Airline ticket prices are going to have to go up quite a bit.
> Just as an example, for the quarter just ended, America West's
> percentage of expenses that were fuel went from 18% a year ago to 22.5%
> now, as the fuel price went from $1.05 to $1.42/gallon. If it goes up
> to $3.50/gallon, not out of the question by any means, then fuel costs
> will be more like 45% of their expenses. It makes sense to look at
> substantially more efficient airplanes.
>
> Boeing experimented with advanced turboprot designs from Allison and GE
> back in the early-to-mid 80's, with their proposed 7J7. Recall that
> when that plane was first mooted, oil prices peaked at $90/barrel in
> today's dollars (measuring inflation over 25 years is not an exact
> science, needless to say, but $90/barrel is probably as good an
> estimate as any.) As oil prices eased, Boeing killed the 7J7.
And there was an advanced turboprop engine option for the MD-90
series. Dropped for lack of interest. Perhaps this would offer a
lower-risk approach: a rear-engine airframe puts the "unducted fans"
as they were called by some aft of the cabin, thus dealing with the
cabin noise issue, and using an existing airframe means that there is
little lost investment if the idea doesn't catch on.
But the difficulty here is the same one that always seems to kill
advanced fuel-saving ideas: the price of oil is basically arbitrary.
A sudden increase in oil production would drive down prices, making
lots of ideas uneconomical. It's impossible to plan for such an
unstable future.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
|
