Orion: Learning From VE's Mistakes

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by ltd

OK Bud Bud, I'm assuming your an aviation enthusiast.
Firstly, the 747 was conceptualised in December 1966 when Juan Trippe, the then chairman of Pan Am approached boeing about a jet airliner that could carry 350 passengers at 0.9 Mach. Boeing wanted an order for 50 aircraft, Juan Trippe promised an order for 25 with options.

The 747 has been numerously modernised beyond just the cockpit. It has had to. Originally it's MTOW was 675000 lbs and that is now 980000lbs. Structurally, the plane is over 90% stronger than the 100 series.

As better materials have become available such as aluminium and stronger alloys they have been used.
Fasteners have also come along way in 40 years and having over 6 million of them does substantiate quite an improvement in equipment design. The wingbox has been extensively modified, as well as the lengthening of the upper deck of the fuselage. All of the systems on board the 747 from the leading edge flap drives, brakes, insulation, metals etc have been modernised.

The only thing that has retained its original structure is the overall appearance. Whilst this may be similar to the original 100 series even the airframe has undergone substantial redesign. There are fewer stringers now than before as materials have gotten stronger; the wing has undergone substantial changes to the spar structure and spacing and even the pods that hold the engines are revised for the increase from 43000 lbs thrust on the original GE engines to the 62500 lbs thrust developed by the RB211's. There is even a removable fifth and sixth pod on the wings now to allow for transporting of engines - requiring extensive redesign to accomodate effectively an 8 tonne dead weight.

I respectfully submit that the webpage you are looking at is out of date, as the 747 has not been 175 million for quite some time. The current price of a 747 is US$216-247 million for the 400 and 400ER version, the 747-8 or intercontinental is US$272.5-282.5 million. These are the list prices from Boeing.

Additionally, the 747-8 is not a rehashed version of the 400/ER. It too has undergone some extensive redesign with the employment of extensive carbon fibre used in the construction of the fuselage and wings. As a result, bigger windows on the 478 are being used due to greater spaces beween the spars and stringers and the aircraft will have a whole new wing. Humidifiers also will be used due to the lower content of aluminium in this aircraft; similar to the 787.
Ford would have to replace every component inside and out of any current model car and just retain the garnish panels to achieve the same feat as Boeing have done with the 747.

Finally, the 787 will not fall into the same category as the 747, it will be subjected to issues like ETOPS, whereas the 47 doesn't need to worry about that. Here's a little fun fact for you, did you know that the 747 does not have enough fuel to fly from Sydney to LAX?

Thankyou Ltd for pointing all this out. I actually agree with you, like I said the 747-400 is a very modern jet by today’s standards, compared to the 100 series that came first. (Sorry about the pricing, I should have gone straight to the Boeing website first.)

Except for one thing, and that it is still based around the same design which includes aero dynamics, function and form limitations that were implemented into the design of the 1960's. Boeing have done incredibly well to constantly update and upgrade the 747 to date. That put simply means that although retrofitting bigger and more powerful engines and integrating newer avionics and systems has been good for the lifespan of the 747 in general (a must for today’s needs requirements), it would not compare to the development of its Airbus rival of today.

It does not mean that this jet is inferior or more unsafe to the proposed 787 or any other jet for that matter, only to the contrary as this jet already has the runs on the board. But even Boeing recognizes that it is an ageing design. The 747 is still assembled much the same way today as it was nearly 40 years ago but you are right, using newer stronger and lighter materials. Boeing would not design and build this jet the same way today if it started from scratch.

Stretching Airliners is not unique to the 747 or Boeing as you know, but it is still far cheaper to do this than to start with a clean sheet of paper. The 747 is also an established industry icon and proven money maker (for both the airline operator and for Boeing) and that has helped to keep the 747 flying.

This is my point

By comparison the Airbus A380 cost over $12 billion to develop and has the potential to finally end up to over $16 Billion with some cost overruns and failure to start delivery on time.

This will need to be recouped from some where.

I remember someone from Boeing saying last year that Boeing did not think that Airbus would even make a profit from this project and this is why Boeing has not developed the same type of aircraft. Of course you can take that with a pinch of salt coming from a wounded and bleeding Boeing at that time.

The original point you made was that the price of composites was the difference between the price of a 747 which holds more passengers than the price of a Dreamliner designed to hold fewer. While this is true to some degree, it is not the all end all. Even some of these composites are yet to be created, still adding to the development cost overall.

The development cost for these projects is enormous and as I said must be recouped some how. As you know not all aircraft manufacturers make money from their aircraft designs regardless of what they are made of and the same could be said that not every car manufacture makes money from new car elastases either.

The AU was a good example and also the Leyland P76 (COTY) is another. This car had advanced materials such as all alloy V8's and the use of aluminium in the body, but this could not save this from not making any money. As a side note, the P76 cost Leyland $50 million to develop but they could only build and sell 15,000 units over 18 months before they canned it.

Also in comparison a shaken Airbus now say it will cost at least $10 Billion ($5 billion more than first estimated) to develop a rival to match the new Boeing Dreamliner. This is nearly what it initially cost to develop the A380. Who will pay for this. This has the potential to bring Airbus down in much the same as it did for Boeing in the 1960's

This is a Ford forum and I guess nobody really cars too much about this any way.

Kind regards Bud Bud

[jabba]

Originally Posted by SB076

I said granted it doesn't fit everyones lifestyle, thats just what I would like (I dont have kids) Maybe WRX size is a bit too small, but I wouldn't mind seeing something smaller than the current falcon. I doubt very much that Ford would manufacture a smaller Falcon for the reasons you have outlined. But maybe they could manufacture a variation of the next model Falcon with a shorter wheelbase, but still offer a V8. Just my 2 cents. Why you ask, just for fun........ Current model BA/BF falcons are great on the open road, but when you have to go into the city and park etc, it would be nice to have a slighter smaller car.

Then what you need is a Go Go Gadet Mobile... It can change into what ever you need... Big grunty GT, No problem... Tiny little focus for the city, it can do that to... What about a 4x4 when you hit the beaten track, or a boat when the fissing is good...... The Go Go Gadget Mobile is the car for you!!!!!LOL

[ltd]

Good points all mate. Even with the A380 the 747 is still the fastest commercial transport in the world - a characteristic enabled by its high speed wing. The inboard and outboard ailerons were redesigned somewhat on the 400, and the actuators are more powerful. You obviously know your stuff too mate so it's good to meet a fellow pilot on these forums.
The A380 orders have stalled at 152, they need 250 to break even on your initial estimate of 12 billion. Could sink them. The 787 has over 380 orders and options for a further 200 odd. It's break even point was between 300-350 from memory - already profitable.

Scarebus had and still have a lot of problems with weight on the A380, and they also have yet to satisfy the FAC requirement of evacuation within 90 seconds of all passengers for certification. Additionally, they have had to use aluminium in the empenage as the carbon fibre and glare used enabled too much vibration. After some 20 hours of testing, fatigue cracks began emerging in the composites. Not a good sign.

Additionally, the wing test only managed 146% before it snapped. Mandatory requirement is 150% (The 747 managed 208%). Also, the weight reduction drive meant that no steering gear was placed on the main gear. This has led to tyre scrubbing and the need for a massive radius when turning - potentially holding it up at airports. Will definately be interesting times ahead. I can tell you this though mate, a few of the engineers who checked it out in Sydney said that it may have all the new fangled gear, but it has the build quality of a Kia Rio.

I wonder if there are to be similarities between Holden and Airbus.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Phoon Hoon

Not everything went to plan for Holden with the launch of the VE. Much of the media questioned a larger, heavier, more powerful car in this age of high fuel prices and falling sales of traditional family sedans.

This has made me think about how Ford should learn from this in the two years they have before Orion is released. Here's some suggestions:

1. Lose some weight. Lighter car = more fuel efficient.
2. Alloy blocks on engines (see point 1).
3. Further develop the outstanding turbo engines as an alternative to a V8.
4. Make the Egas engine direct injection and offer it on more models.
5. Beg/borrow/steel a turbo diesel engine from somewhere in the Ford world and offer it on the range.
6. More fuel friendly 5 speed auto an option on base models - even better would be the 6 speed ZF.

My two cents.

I think your two cents are valuable ones.

Only one i dont necissarily agree with is point 3... as a turbo powered vehicle will use just as much/more fuel than a V8. The counter argument being "not if its driven off boost"... well, not much point turbo charging the engine if that's the case...

You're definately onto something with the weight.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by jabba

Then what you need is a Go Go Gadet Mobile... It can change into what ever you need... Big grunty GT, No problem... Tiny little focus for the city, it can do that to... What about a 4x4 when you hit the beaten track, or a boat when the fissing is good...... The Go Go Gadget Mobile is the car for you!!!!!LOL

hehe have thought about a focus but not quite big enough. Somewhere in between a focus and a falcon.............. May a Focon :dr_Evil: All the power of the GT, but the agility of the focus.

No need for a 4x4 @ the moment, I dont have a boat.

Seriously I would love a mid size V8 even if its a smaller 8.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by sfr rob

i just hope the new shape of the new model wont look anything like the VE, it is hidious.

It wont look like the VE, Orion is actually a very nice looking car. But I guess it also depends on the style they head for, as the B series has been considered European and Ford will continue the trend as it sells alot of cars.

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

I think your two cents are valuable ones.

Only one i dont necessarily agree with is point 3... as a turbo powered vehicle will use just as much/more fuel than a V8. The counter argument being "not if its driven off boost"... well, not much point turbo charging the engine if that's the case...

You're definitely onto something with the weight.

Even if an I6 Turbo doesnt save that much fuel it's the marketing of power and fuel economy that will get the punters in. People have the perception that the V6 is so much more modern and will save a heap of fuel.

[Phoon Hoon]

Originally Posted by ltd

Things such as a proper hand brake that doesn't bind would aid fuel consumption,

Sorry to sound like a noob, but what does this mean?

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Phoon Hoon

Sorry to sound like a noob, but what does this mean?

I think what ltd is getting at there, is even when the handbrake is disengaged, it is actually slightly engaged. Ever heard a commy (or falc) drive past and you can hear a strange scraping sound??? This causes extra resistence, hence burning more fuel than necessary.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by SB076

hehe have thought about a focus but not quite big enough. Somewhere in between a focus and a falcon.............. May a Focon :dr_Evil: All the power of the GT, but the agility of the focus.

No need for a 4x4 @ the moment, I dont have a boat.

Seriously I would love a mid size V8 even if its a smaller 8.

If it goes a size smaller than it is no longer a Falcon then is it. If Ford wanted a medium size car it would sell the Mondeo, but why sacrifice Falcon sales for an import. They want to protect the market they have.

[Bud Bud]

Hi Ltd, and thanks for the welcome. As I can gather from your response and from pilot to pilot, you too are already well aware of the fascination of the aviation (aerospace) world. I too know what it's like when pilots, Lame's ATC etc. come together in a room somewhere and talk aviation. I am lucky that my wife grew up with her father as an Ansett/Singapore captain otherwise it would drive her nuts! I guess we just need to be a little considerate to fellow forum users by not hijacking (excuse the pun) this thread.

The auto industry already has learnt a lot and been the beneficiary of developments from aircraft manufactures in the past. One of the most obvious ones was the introduction of the seat belt. This simple but effective device was used to complete stunts and not save lives as you might first think. Volvo was probably the first auto maker credited with turning the humble seat belt into mainstream safety thinking.

I think that while composites will play some part in the future of vehicle development, the next biggest wave of weight (and cost) saving will come directly from aerospace technology, and in deed it is already here! Ford was the first to introduce throttle by wire into a locally produced car. This was as you may remember received only with a luke warm welcome. While I think the first BA probably did have a little lag, I think it was also people still getting their head around it as well.

Controlling an aircraft by electronics (Fly By Wire or FBW) is now so advanced in aircraft systems now but it too was once received with apprehension within the aviation industry as well. Their have been some accidents with aircraft using fly by wire technology (not necessarily the direct cause) in the past, but have been also attributed to software interpretation and or pilot error.

The most famous incident that comes to mind is when an Airbus French pilot at an air show in Habsheim, France, flew an empty A320 into a forest during a demonstration. In this case the fly by wire technology didn’t fail, as the plane actually took over and tried to land itself during a gear down slow pass. This is but another lessen learnt about the very complex system that FBW is, and luckily only a few were killed. This had total disaster written all over it.

The use of FBW is used amongst other things, primarily to save weight. This system is used to eradicate the very reliable but very heavy hydraulic control systems similar to what the 747 and other jets right up to the 90's where designed with. This system (FBW) has many built in safety over ride systems and has now reached a level of price effect confidence within the industry. The very modern Boeing 777 was the first Boeing aircraft designed totally around this system.

All this said, the technology is becoming cheaper and cheaper as it is being developed, to the point where you will see it become more mainstream in auto manufacturing as well. The whole point to throttle by wire is to prove reliability to gain consumer confidence. Once this happens you will begin to see the system introduced to more critical vehicle control.

Can you imagine a time when your car has suspension by wire and brake by wire or even steer by wire. All this will need to be proved over time or otherwise people will be too frightened to drive these things! Most people don’t worry about flying in aircraft controlled by FBW these days.

The other inherent benefits will be well welcomed by every one. As well as having the potential to save considerable weight, direct vibration via steering shafts and brake peddle travel etc. will be minimised because they will not directly be hooked up to the person driving the car.

NVH levels will be better too because there will also be no need to have extra holes that need to be resealed in the fire wall as well. Other benefits include faster build times as most of this type of application will just be plug to plug hook ups, negating the need to spend time threading all the current systems together as they do now.

If Ford want to do something very special with the Orion, then these are some of the areas that would make the next generation Falcon more advanced than any thing else locally made today. Of course this gets back to the original augment. This would still cost money (although it is becoming cheaper as I said) to develop and if these systems where implemented and if the costs were not recovered, then that would probably by spell the end of the Falcon as we know it.

My bet is that while we will still sing the praises of the Orion, it will still resemble much of the BA BF of today, but only better. After the disaster of the AU, I have a feeling that styling will take the lion share of funds for the next generation Falcon to establish a firm ground, with these newer technologies introduced during the Orion's life.

I also have a feeling that VE has already been designed to have some of these features introduced into the not so distant future as well.

Bud Bud

ps sorry for the long post.

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

If Ford still made the XY today but only upgraded the technology when it became available. Some would say this would be good, but the reality is it would still rattle or creak and would not perform to any where near the same levels of comfort and performance as the BF.

B.T.W. this would make a new falcon very cheap by today’s standards, but you would never have seen any thing from XA-BF either.

Have you seen the Argentinian Falcons?
XM/XPs with with new nose/tails, even XD and fairlane looking fronts, and later.