Go to https://ground.news/mentour to get worldwide coverage on Boeing, aviation safety and more! Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.

Smaller Dreamliner is a Napliner.

Just wait and see when Cessna enlarges the Caravan to compete with the 737 and 320. It will be glorious!!!

Retired Boeing engineer here who worked on all the new airplane programs mentioned here. Boeing developed expertise in out-of-autoclave resin infused structure on 787 flaps and wing control surfaces with Boeing Aerostructures Australia leading the effort. Airbus has similar production experience with A350 aft pressure bulkhead. Bombardier's C-series/A220 wing is also resin infused. Airbus has been using thermoplastics since the A340, where it was used in the wing fixed leading edge J-panels.

Scaling down the Dreamliner is a great idea. And to save weight, they could make it out of balsa wood.

Last year at ILA Airbus showed off a direct welding joint for aluminium fuselage sections which saves hundreds of kilos per aircraft by making all the extra protections and strengthening parts used on bolted joints obsolete. They won't have developed that for nothing, and it should scale VERY well. My prediction is that Airbus will significantly increase the weight efficency of their aluminium construction by using this method and similar ones on any new narrowbody design, allowing for a cheap and scalable production of much of the fuselage structure.
The wings might still be carbon fiber reinforced plastic, but I bet the fuselage won't.

Petter -- in my late 70s, I won't fly on anything OTHER than composite jets, because the jet lag from them, on long haul flights, is SO INCREDIBLY LESS  (due to the much higher humidity and lower cabin altitudes.  Just wait until you're my age, you'll see!!

When Airbus introduced the A320 in late 1980s,  it also got a huge innovation: robot rivet installation which really reduced cost/time needed to make duselages, and gave Airbus a huge competitive edge over Boeing laborious 737 manual assembly/riveting.  
After Boeing launched the 787, Airbus's first response was essentially a 330neo , and they argued that aluminium is about same weight as carbon fibre and that production costs are lower and less incertainty, but Stephen Hudvar Hazy told Airbus to get lost unless they built a totally new plane, hence the A3560   (and Airbus still ended up building a 330 neo because the market for more affordable aircraft was large).  And the 3509 was more conservative since it built a conventional fuselage with ribs/stringers but with composite instead of aluminium panels riveted to them

Composites allow you to build intricate 3d shapes not possible with metal. Suspect you will see fortcoming planes maintain the hybrid approach of metal and composites depending on where in the plane they go.  

One last issue is Boeing management. The 787 was done at a time where Boeing went to court to have Airbus fised for illegal subsidies for the A380. It couldn't be seen accepting huge donations from US government, so structure the programme to be outsourced to a whole bunch of suppliers who each got their subsidies , so Boeing had more or less clean hands (except for NASA funding the R&D for all composite fuselage).    The result was a disaster because Boeing got inexperienced contractor such as Voight who were unable to deliver.   (Boeing ended up having to buy them and put its own peoplle there and this is where  final assembly now happens, as well as fuselage plug production (the original contratc for Voight).
One would need to know whether Boeing's ramp challenges are due to the design of aircraft or whether it is legacy for its /outsource production" model first used this extensively for the 787.

Just how crazy it is: The Boeing 737 entry into service was in 1968 and the Airbus A320 in 1988, 20 years later. And still with 20 years head start, Airbus managed to take over the lead. Go Airbus!

Cube-square law. Resizing a design messes with strength/weight ratios, so you can’t just rescale, you need to redesign

I work for Boeing /Spirit in Tulsa. We still have the world’s largest autoclave in 1966. We made Lunar Module Adapter panels for the Apollo Program.

You think 4 to 8 years a long time in development to service? My first real job was part of the safety case development for Hinckley Point C nuclear power station, a development of existing designs. It's not in service yet, and I left that employer in 1990... so, over 35 years and not a watt generated! That's a long development - almost a whole career.

I used to be an engineer for the company that built the Boeing Everett and North Charleston autoclaves. I've been hearing buzz about out-of-autoclave techniques for years, however only seen relatively minor success. Nothing strong enough to knock autoclaves out of the core process, especially for the critical aerostructures that require long term reuse.

I've seen much more success with out-of-autoclave process in the space industry, where the large composite structures are sometimes treated as consumables.

Great video. It is interesting to consider whether autoclaves will eventually be dethroned. They are big and expensive, but fun machines to work on!

12:40 - It might be worth mentioning that autoclaves don't just use high pressure and heat to cure and temper composites; they also use a low pressure vacuum 'bagging' system to extract air from uncured resin, eliminate voids, and compact multiple laminations to conform to moulds, jigs and formers in a manner which can't be achieved by applying pressure externally.

Vacuum-bagging and resin-infusion techniques form the basis of making composite (laminated) structures without an autoclave and are useful in that there is no theoretical limit to the size of object than can be formed - all you need is enough polythene sheeting and an efficient vacuum.

Autoclave-wise, the low pressure cycles are at least as important as the high pressure heated ones. As Beavis and Butt-Head might say, "Whoa, dude! Autoclaves really suck!" 💨😁 Huh-huh huhhuhhuh...

One of the promises of composites was that it would reduce the number of parts enabling them to be assembled faster… so obviously that hasn’t worked out well

Another fun fact is total number of A320s in service is more than total number of all Boeing aircraft in service.

When talking about how long it took Boeing, Airbus and Bombardier to develop their airplanes, you forgot to contrast them with Embraer, and how fast they developed and certified their airplanes in recent times...

Four other issues confronting new model narrowbodies. Labor and other production costs. New materials may mean fewer workers, but higher costs in defective parts. Airbus has shifted some production of A320 group aircraft to the USA and China to lower labor costs. The shift to outside suppliers for major components for lower labor and component costs but also marketing, that an airline in a country that gets 'a piece of the action' may be more favorable to that maker. Problem is if a sub-contractor messes up (like with Spirit and Boeing, engine maker P&W with Airbus) that causes major problems. Boeing used to be a very integrated company but major shifts have meant a loss in quality control. A 3rd is expanding facilities but demand drops like a rock in a major recession, like in 2008-09 and in the past in the 1970's, higher financing costs (interest rates). Fourth, the costs and time to get to smaller gains of efficiency over time. Even getting rid of a few 100 kilos may cost too much, lead to major failures or mx costs, cause handling issues (i.e. 737 MAX, MD-11).

Yes! I’m loving this upload frequency! :)

I love this video’s content. As I’m working at the supplier that produces composite parts, especially using Autoclave production method. We found many problems and of course have seen reduction in sales for the past few years. The problem is exactly what you mentioned is the huge investment in this method. Even though it worked out well in 8-9 years ago, but as the changes in technical things from Boeing, Airbus and take 787, 350 as examples, these are really a mess. Not only that reason, my company’s working type is also labor-intensive when we still apply hand layup method in the production that means lots of cost lead to HUGE cost. And the consequence of this will accelerate more in the future, that when I’m not talking about the reduction in labor and salary that makes them not interested in this method. So this company’s method should not be long if they don’t change to another approach like (OOA or something’s new). Bonus: not only spend huge investments but also huge scrap and NCR, or issues we can’t define it yet