I'm a bit surprised the re-design would only yield 10 to 12 percent fuel savings. It seems that number of changes would produce a greater savings. Perhaps the earlier models were already designed for efficiency.
You probably know way more about this than I do, TJ. I was just thinking in terms on how inefficient automation devices and vehicles were in the past. So it seemed there must be significant gains to be made one you concentrate on energy savings. As an example, efficient motors and drives are driving down energy consumption 15 to 35 percent. Perhaps Boeing was not so inefficient going into the drive for efficiency.
From the article, I got the impression that the majority of the savings were aerodynamic related. I did see weight reduction mentioned also (for the fly by wire change), but the design changes didn't seem to focus on removal of weight.
From the picture and the article, I also noted the larger engines that are now directly attached to the wing (which appear to be a noticeable change from the older 737's that I remember when I was younger).
I know American Airlines is suffering badly because of fuel costs. It will take a great engineering feat to bring airplanes into the fuel efficient era. It will involve many disciplines. I hope they can pull it off! Wing design, engine design, electronic controls, fuel mixtures, and who knows what else, will make it happen. I am sure they have things in the "wings" that will surprise us all!
There are many efficieny improvements on this airpolane over the 40 year history of the plane. One of the more interesting aspects is the ability to retrofit many onto the older aircraft.
The 737 is arguably the most popular commercial aircraft ever. Wtih over 7000 delivered and orders for more than 2500 more it will soon pass the 10K delivery mark.
The ability of Boeing engineers to continuously improve the design and performance is testament to not only their ingenuity but also to a great design.
The new and improved wingtips are one of the more noticeable improvements. The blended engine and wing design is apparent to those with a more discerning eye.
For a long time the engines were seperated from the wing structure as a safety feature when the engines were not so reliable. The improved ability to service a pylon mounted engine was also a significant consideration. As the reliability and performance of the engines improved the aerodynamic advantages of a blended engine and wing became more attrractive.
A similar blending of the wing and body has also been considered. I suspect the manufacturing considerations are much more significant in a blended wing and body.
I just watched a movie about American (they must have said "largest airline in the world" at least two dozen times). AA is attaching extended tail cone's on their existing fleet themselves since the cost reduction (from having Boeing do it) was substantial. That implies that the fuel savings from that change alone is worthy of implementation. Although, I wonder what liability they are taking on by doing it themselves.
I also agree that 10% is a substantial number. With the amount of fuel they go through, the dollar savings will be HUGE over the lifetime of the airframe. Also, with airline margins as slim as they are, any improvement could be the difference between chapter 11 and profitability.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.