The inside story of Bombardier’s $4-billion gamble on a super quiet jet

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/companies-and-industries/shhhhh/

by uladzislau • 13 years ago

121 54 13 years ago

fidotron5• 13 years ago

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.

terryjsmith• 13 years ago

Well Porter as an airline is likely making a big bet on this for their downtown airport in Toronto so there is definitely a use-case there. I'm not sure if this is a contingency plan on their campaign to get the runway extended and noise by-laws lifted, but it sure seems like they're hedging their bets on this.

* Written from the downtown Toronto airport lounge.

fidotron5• 13 years ago

Yes, as they rightly observe the plane does have uses, but if it really had enough, with potential customers to prove it, then they would have been able to get the development cash on the open market.

Gambling with other people's money is a lot easier than doing it with your own.

sokoloff• 13 years ago

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.

fidotron5• 13 years ago

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.

pbreit• 13 years ago

Without subsidies, there would be no Bombardier. Is that what you would prefer? I'm not sure how it's irrelevant that competitors are receiving subsidies. If it's easier to build with other people's money, isn't that a prudent course?

Amygaz• 13 years ago

"understand the benefit of free market economics"

I think this a case where free market economics would not have produced the sort of improvements and innovations that we see with this new model. You need a lot of stability do pull this of over a long period of time. Stock market doesn't allow that.

gaadd332• 13 years ago

Are there any airplane manufacturers that don't benefit from some form of government subsidies?

rurounijones• 13 years ago

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

thrownaway2424• 13 years ago

The wikipedia article explains the deets, but basically yes, the turbine at the back of the engine is connected to the fan at the front of the engine, and the compressor and whatnot, and the gearbox somewhat decouples the speed of the former and the latter. It would be a bit of a shame if said gearbox fails in flight, of course.

ak2172• 13 years ago

Without knowing a lot about geared turbofans, it would be cool to have a gearbox bypass such that if the gearbox fails, the engine could stop, engage the bypass, and restart in an emergency mode that's less efficient but gets thrust.

ak2172• 13 years ago

they are not driving an axle or anything... are they?

They sure are, just not in the way internal combustion engines do. A turbofan is a turbine hooked up to a fan. The turbine does work by rotating a shaft, and the fan pushes extra air around it.

All engines have the potential to be maintenance / reliability nightmares. Over time we've learned how to make engines more efficient and more complex without failing often. This is just the next step - in a couple of decades, most passenger jets will have gearboxes.

spitfire• 13 years ago

The engine core (hot part) works best at a different speed than the fan part - fast and hot, vs slow and cool. hence they have a gearbox. But it's not like a cars gearbox, it has a single gear.

hollerith2• 13 years ago

No, they don't have a gearbox (yet).

What the current generation of engines have is two or three co-axial shafts rotating at different speeds.

The difference in shaft speeds is achieved by varying the size, shape and placement of the turbine blades connected to the shaft, not with a gearbox.

(And a single gear in isolation would be pointless. By definition, the purpose of a gear is to mesh with another gear.)

Here's an informative video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy4A-z2WKhw

Zoomla• 13 years ago

jet engine model made on a 3D printer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rX4xv5-NvE

itsmeduncan2• 13 years ago

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

Edit: Double the

unwind• 13 years ago

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

darylteo• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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/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

testrun• 13 years ago

Fly-by-wire is pretty established by now. The system is also made redundant for safety.

jessaustin• 13 years ago

It can even be safer than mechanical, if the savings on parts and maintenance allows a better class of component or more redundancy.

leoedin• 13 years ago

The A320 (introduced in 1988) uses only fly-by-wire. There's been almost 6000 of them built since. The Boeing 777, 787, Airbus A330, A340, A380 and forthcoming A350 are all fly by wire. It's a proven technology which has millions of flight hours behind it.

To fly something the size of a modern airliner, you need assistance. Even if they all used traditional control systems you'd still need functioning hydraulics to control the aircraft. That's why we build lots of levels of redundancy into the system. Rather than making something which can gracefully degrade to manual control, we make something which is so failure resistant that it never loses power.

virtuz: It seems your account is dead. Not sure why - your comment history doesn't make it obvious. Maybe worth asking HN admins about?

jcromartie• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

auctiontheory• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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-...

rmckayfleming• 13 years ago

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...

memracom• 13 years ago

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.

yread• 13 years ago

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=_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...

jsnell• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

Anechoic• 13 years ago

Hm seems still quite a bit noisier than airbus 350 (why isn't it mentioned even once in the article?)

Be careful about trying to judge the relative loudness of the two planes based on YouTube videos since the sound levels in the video will depend on the type (omnidirectional vs cardioid), frequency response of the mics, and location of the mics (distance from the plane, position relative to noise emitting components, etc) as well as how the video is mixed and other factors.

PhasmaFelis• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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...

gaadd332• 13 years ago

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?

Fundlab• 13 years ago

So much to be desired for design thinking; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFUWCyOHIM

The inside story of Bombardier’s $4-billion gamble on a super quiet jet

Related Stories