
The inside story of Bombardier’s $4-billion gamble on a super quiet jet - uladzislau
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/companies-and-industries/shhhhh/
======
yread
Hm seems still quite a bit noisier than airbus 350 (why isn't it mentioned
even once in the article?)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3AiGiJgf9Y](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3AiGiJgf9Y)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3SMaNrsaoI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3SMaNrsaoI)

But it's cool we got to see so many first flights this year!

Here is some detail on why it is so quiet

[http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a350-xwb-
se...](http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a350-xwb-set-to-be-
quietest-generation-of-airliner-as-manufacturer-improves-zero-splice-211641/)

~~~
jsnell
It's not mentioned because the planes are so different that there is little
point in comparing them? A350 is 3x larger, has 2x the range, and is 4x the
price. Seems to me that the use cases they've been designed for have to be
completely different, and one can in no way be substituted with the other.

~~~
adrianb
But the article does say that Airbus and Boeing each had a major project in
recent years (A380 and 787) and they're unlikely to have anything major for
the next decade. A350 sounds pretty major to me.

~~~
Xixi
I wonder if Boeing and Airbus will increase the pace of new plane releases...

The A380 and B787 introductions were very rocky, with delays added to delays
added to delays. On the other hand so far the testing of the A350 as been
incredibly smooth.

I know that it's too early to draw any conclusion, and that the A350 is still
one year from EIS. But when you take into account the actual competence of
making a new plane, and how quickly it can be lost, I wouldn't be surprised if
the lesson learned is that it is more economical for Airbus and Boeing to
release new planes more often...

~~~
iSnow
Well, the A350 has a long and painful history, it should have flown for years
if customers had not threatened to boycott it. I can't see a fast release
schedule, considering the price of developing a new plane.

~~~
Xixi
You are right that Airbus had a hard time figuring out which plane to make,
rushing a couple of A350 concepts before settling on the so called A350-XWB.

But once it was settled the engineering went smoothly. Or, should I say, has
been going smoothly so far.

The skills involved in designing a plane are vastly different from that of
figuring out which plane your customers will want 5 to 30 years from now.

------
memracom
The former Soviet Union also has a lot of airports that are too close to the
city centre to handle noisy passenger air traffic. So there is a huge market
in countries like Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, all of which are spread out
over great distances. In fact the ability to use a shorter than normal runway
would make it possible for many of Siberia's towns to build an airport that
could handle the Bombardier jets. And next door to Siberia is China which also
has some considerable distances to deal with.

------
jcromartie
Does reduced noise necessarily mean increased efficiency? Short of using heavy
sound deadening material, I'd imagine that reducing the noise in an aircraft
means saving a lot of that previously noisy energy for useful work.

~~~
has2k1
Your inclinations seem right. There is a positive correlation between friction
(viscosity) and noise, and also between friction and energy waste. It is in
part from that connection that reducing noise would boost efficiency.

------
rurounijones
Gearboxes in the Engines... I cannot quite figure out how that works since
they are not driving an axle or anything... are they?

Any aerospace engineers in the house?

On plus side, if they work, more power to them. On the downside, sounds like a
maintenance / reliability nightmare in the making.

[EDIT] May be of use:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geared_turbofan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geared_turbofan)

~~~
itsmeduncan
I know this article is focused on noise, but the most important part about
this engine is the efficiency. The fuel savings alone from having the high
pressure section running at peak RPM in any situation is incredible. Billions
and billions of dollars in fuel savings for a modern fleet.

Think of it as an orbital reduction gear more than a transmission that allows
two different sections of the same axel to spin at differen speeds.

Checkout fuel burn vs. other engines. [1] The maintenance cost ratios across
an entire fleet versus the fuel savings make it an absolute no brainer for
regional fleets.

Source: My father a DER at MTU Aero Engines who developed the geared turbofan
with Pratt & Whitney. DERs develop and sign off repairs in accordance with FAA
regulations. He was also certified is EASA repairs.

1-
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_PW1000G](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_PW1000G)

Edit: Double the

~~~
unwind
In this context, I think "DER" means Designated Engineering Representative
([http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_d...](http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/der/)).
I had no idea, so I had to look it up.

~~~
itsmeduncan
That is correct. The short story here is the FAA simply can't keep up with the
innovation so they certify a group of people that can certify a repair as
safe, and effective. It can than be used, while the FAA eventually full
approves the change. The DER assumes full responsibility for the repair, and
it's safeness. There have been stressful Christmas eves when approving the
duct taping of a loose part of a V2500 so a plane full of troops can make it
home for Christmas. Don't worry, it was a single flight one direction approval
(but it happens all the time)

------
auctiontheory
Large airliners are a big-money duopoly with a US incumbent. A single deal can
make or break a project, or a company. I wonder how worried the Canadians are
about industrial espionage by the NSA, as may have happened in Brazil and
Germany.

~~~
Tiktaalik
I assume Canada is spied on, but Canada also appears to be an active spyer.
Leaked NSA documents have revealed that Canada has been participating in
industrial related spying on Brazil.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/08/brazil-
accuses-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/08/brazil-accuses-
canada-spying-nsa-leaks)

~~~
rmckayfleming
It's useful to note that Brazil is home to Bombardier's primary competitor,
Embraer. The Canadian and Brazilian governments have both accused each other
of subsidies in the aerospace market:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Aerospace_and_Embrae...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Aerospace_and_Embraer_S.A._government_subsidy_controversy)

------
PhasmaFelis
I'll be interested in this when (ha) I hear that airlines are using that
boosted efficiency to make coach seats more comfortable on the same profit
margin, rather than continuing sardine-packing and pocketing the difference.
Until then, it's entirely academic.

------
forgottenpaswrd
Wow!!

LCD user interface! Fly by wire! Carbon composite wings! Geared turbofan!

We are talking about more than 20 years old technology here. We (in our
company) programmed cockpit LCD like 12 years ago or so...

~~~
gaadd33
That stuff isn't new in passenger airlines? I was under the impression (and
seemingly the vast majority of media coverage) that the majority of it has
been introduced in the past few years with the A380 and 787. Is that wrong?
What company do you work for that was making LCD cockpits for passenger
airliners?

------
fidotron
Argh, Bombardier make me angry! They're probably the main contender for
showing how Canada still fails to understand the benefit of free market
economics. The main problem here is all this stuff is essentially funded by
things pulled out of the ground on the other side of the country, but rather
than allowing the market to function you have a class of bureaucrats
scratching each others backs in order to pass subsidies off to whoever bought
them the best lunch last week or gave them a season ticket to the Canadiens.

That isn't to say there isn't a market for this kind of thing, but if there
was really a market Bombardier could have done it properly, even via the stock
market. Too much Canadian business is built around exploiting whatever the
government is chucking around that week rather than being sustainable.

~~~
sokoloff
Do you think that Airbus gets no subsidy? Boeing? Embraer?

The aircraft market is global, and I can't fault Canada for supporting
Bombardier in a manner similar to how their competition is subsidized.

~~~
fidotron
Whether other countries choose to subsidise development in a particular
industry is irrelevant, and if they choose to essentially export their money
then that's up to them. It's not like there aren't plenty of other things
these people could be doing. If you reach the level of China style product
dumping then you have a trade war situation and things are different, but
that's not (quite) what is going on here, though if Boeing or Airbus gained a
monopoly it would sure look like that.

What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are
privatised.

~~~
Volpe
> What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are
> privatised.

Well not quite, given companies pay tax too. Not only that, but large
industries like Aerospace spend money on other stuff. I agree it's clumsy, but
it isn't as simple as you put it.

Seems to me with the level of subsidy Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier receive, why
aren't they just nationalised.

~~~
Mikeb85
To add to this, aerospace companies contribute plenty to the economy, in jobs,
scientific research - much more than most other corporations that are of a
similar size.

And speaking as a Canadian, it's nice that we still do have Bombardier,
otherwise those jobs would simply go down south (probably the actual talent
too). Canada needs to invest in industries other than resources... And of
course Bombardier IS profitable (forward P/E of 9.71 on the stock).

------
darylteo
Shouldn't there always be a manual flying mechanism failsafe in the case of
electrical failure? Fly-By-Wire doesn't seem very safe to me... in the same
way I have doubts about Drive-By-Wire.

~~~
lmm
Mechanical systems fail too. Cables can snap, gears can shear off, pedals can
bend. As long as you require an appropriate level of redundancy, there's no
reason an all-electronic plane should be any less safe.

~~~
Zancarius
As an illustration and to provide some sample evidence for lmm's comment
(there's plenty more):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96)

In both of these cases, rapid decompression from a failure of the cargo door
caused parts of the floor to collapse and sever or restrict the mechanical
cables leading to the aft control surfaces of the plane. Although the American
Airlines pilots were able to land the plane safely (they still had some
control), the Turkish Airlines pilots were not so lucky.

Furthermore, even mechanical systems are assisted by hydraulics. Hydraulic
systems can fail, usually through draining, leaving the flight uncontrollable.
So to add to the comments by both lmm and leoedin, safety has no bearing on
whether the aircraft is mechanically controlled or electronically. There are
also deployable ram air turbines[1] that can provide a small amount of
emergency backup power in the event of a total failure of all engines:

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine)

------
Fundlab
So much to be desired for design thinking;
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFUWCyOHIM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFUWCyOHIM)

