THIS Could Seriously HURT Aviation!

-----------------------------------------------------
Why is aircraft development getting so slow? How did we go from developing an all-new jetliner from scratch in three to four years in the 50s and 60s, to needing more than a decade to change a wing and the engines of an existing airliner in the 2010s and 2020s?
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!

Our Connections:

Social:

Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the latest aviation content

Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.

SOURCES
-----------------------------------------------------

#Mentourpilot #pilot #boeing

[MentourNow]

Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping @Manscaped with code MENTOURNOW or visit manscaped.com/mentour #manscapedpartne

[marvhollingworth]

There's potentially another factor you haven't mentioned. I think the better you make things, the harder it is to make them better because there's less room for improvement. It's like how a world record gets harder to break every time it's broken because the standard is higher for future competitors.

[mikebauer]

Sign of a mature technology. Standards to meet. Much higher expectations and much less tolerance for failure.

[Fey]

With all due respect, there are some misconceptions in this video, which is common for most people outside the aircraft OEM to have.
1- Comparing "time to develop" between different manufacturers is kind of dicey. What are we talking about here? From concept to EIS? From preliminary design to EIS? From program development to certification? It turns out different manufacturers announce publicly the launch of a new program at different stages of development.
For example, some may declare new aircraft still in concept phase, which would add probably at least 2 years researching and sizing in preliminary design, to later get to a grinding 4 or 5 year program development, others will declare launch at the beginning of program phase which will make it look like it took only 4 years to build it. Furthermore, some companies spend a lot of time on preliminary design phase and have short development phase, while others might spent very short time in preliminary design and strike a deal with first client to troubleshoot small issues to improve dispatchability as the product matures.

2- Those VR or AR tech stuff are completely useless BS for most of the engineering! Sorry, they are cool marketing tools to make you look like you are at the forefront of technology, but they rarely add if any value to the development process of an aircraft. Also, if you are becoming an aeronautical engineer and you have tough time visualizing stuff in 3D from 2D drawings you probably shouldn't be getting involved in this field in the first place.

3- The A380, B787, Cseries are very specific cases of cost overrun and delay. When you have to remove traffic signs at night so that the aircraft part can pass thru narrow French roads on its way to the factory, clearly you do not have optimal manufacturing logistics to reduce cost, challenge to build something so large for the first time not withstanding.
On the Boeing side, the over delegation of parts manufacturing without sufficient oversight (sounds familiar?) led to innumerous non conforming parts.
In the case of Bombardier, they decided to venture to build something they were not used to - interestingly enough, a conventional tail aircraft was one of them. Plus they were dealing with many other projects such as Learjet and Global at the same time with limited staff and bad management decisions.

4- It is worth noting that the aviation industry is dealing with lack of professionals. The IT gold rush of the 90s and 2000s which captured millions of youngsters drained all the talent that would have come to the aviation industry otherwise. This created gaps of talent and hence less ideas, leadership, and efficiency.

I agree with everything else.

[INTHRC]

I can't help but think that one factor that slows down new aircraft development is the law of diminishing returns, applied to both economy and performance.

[jeromethiel]

One major problem adding time to design, is that a LOT of the aircraft isn't designed and built by the manufacturer, they are built by OTHER manufacturers. So, say Airbus decides on a new design. They do the initial work, then go to a company that making landing gear, and asks them to design a landing gear for the new plane. That engineering work is already 2-3 years behind the start of the design.

At least this is true for other manufacturing. I actually don't know in aerospace (don't work in aerospace), but it's more than likely the same as other industries.

[dominiquejeschke]

I work at the maintenance for trains. That said, the moment you order new one, with all the regulations and stuff, it takes about the same time to get them registered.

We order new trains in 2017, and tho there got here until now there still not in use as for the regulations and everything, so even here, 7 years from order to almost in use...

And changing a part and modifications has gotten so regulated, we got a new law from the eu for example to change the headlights to some with led, although in other country's there did the modification for the same trains, we actually have to do all the registration again for ours. So from the point of action to the finished product, years are passing by, and making the whole product incredibly costly.

That said, it's a pretty save way of traveling, and I guess that always come with a high cost.

[DominicMazoch]

And in the 707-747 development era, most of the engineering was done with slide rules, trig tables and three sig figs!

[segredosdotiosam]

The A350 with the "mask" is the most beautiful airliner in my humble opinion

[gcorriveau]

When it comes to the new computer tech 'possibilities' of development (at any level) I always think of the Unintended Consequences (which inevitably follow) and the old adage attributed to Yogi Berra: "In theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice, they are not." Great video. Thanks for posting.

[HeadPack]

Might be the utter lack of competition plays a role. Back then, there were many more companies the airlines could chose passenger jets from.

[gslogar]

The basic industry of aircraft design, development, and production is two companies. These companies are very large managed by risk aversion due to the bean counter mentality. The company’s management looks at their profit and doesn’t want to risk the big salaries and bonuses this produces. Also, this type of management chooses to reduce their technical and engineering as a way to control costs as they only need them during the design of the product through production. But as Boeing has shown these companies always push the limits of quality because it adds nothing to the bottom line than cost. Quality takes little ime if it is instill in the company to have quality independent of the bottom line, it should be above bean counters, manufacturing and management in general. The result is the company doesn’t have to go back time after time to ‘fix’ issues you shouldn’t be seeing. Thus it takes more time to get an aircraft certified because they take the short cut and pay in money and time over the design cycle. 4 years become 10 years because of risk aversion and poor quality control.

[metrocaptain]

Wow, every time I watch one of your videos I feel that the amount of research you've done could pass for a end-of-semester research paper. Well done, @MentourNow. Thanks for putting out quality videos for aviation enthusiasts and current pilots up-to-date with good material!

[janhofmann]

8 years for the A350 is a bit misleading as they essentially rebooted the program after their first attempt failed. (Which of course was (more or less) implemented as the A330NEO later.)

[cellevangiel]

For your information. The body of the A380 is made from auminium CF triplex and that is produced by Fokker NL. They had experience with CF parts but not of this size. It took them more time than expected to get it right. So Airbus had to wait. And they will experience this with a number of their suppliers. To design the parts and make them is a huge step.

[MikeCaffyn]

As an ex-Airbus customer facing person, you forgot the extremely demanding marketplace and customer. They are a very fickle lot and the longer we take to design something, the more they change their minds. Back in the 90s, they pretty much took what they got as a given. Now it has to be refined and refined (during which time the markets change - again). Even then it will not be good enough - Qatar Airways and the A350 are a good example. Then there's the Qantas LR fuel tank debacle. Etc etc
Excellent commentary again so thanks for that

[chipset]

Mentor, please please do a video explaining certification under FAR Part 25 ICA (instructions for continious airworthiness). You gotta show how planes are certified in parallel with development (not in sequence). The gotcha is that often necessary data for cert is due before the design is completed.

[RickySTT]

Your ad for Manscape is much easier on the ears than Manscape’s own ads.

[listeningchairColin]

The amount of computer coding is a major factor. The 707 and DC8 of course had none

[zburnham]

Mismanagement. If management would actually LISTEN to the engineers and do what makes sense technologically instead of what will be the cheapest thing to do. Engineers need to work around their pinhead bosses to actually get things done, which is a full-time job by itself.