The highlight of two days of Boeing pre-Farnborough press briefings in late June was a breakfast of champions:

Five of Boeing's most distinguished employees -- including the dean of Boeing engineers Joe Sutter and airplane development strategy guru John Roundhill -- sat around a conference table, shared eggs and coffee, and talked with journalists about jets.

Last year, new Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh plucked these old hands from retirement to serve as senior advisers as the company faces key product strategy decisions.

The Boeing PR team present did their best to steer the conversation clear of company strategy revelations. But they couldn't repress the irrepressible Sutter, a legend at the company, father of the 747 and before that a key player in development of the 737.

Even after the PR guys had waved off questions on certain topics, Sutter insisted on offering responses, always passionate and forthright. At 89, Sutter doesn't feel the need to mince his words for anyone.

Sutter was asked if the Sonic Cruiser -- a supersonic jet airliner concept that looked like a futuristic dream but was abandoned in 2002 in favor of the 787 -- had ever been a real effort or was just a head feint to fool Airbus.

"It was a real effort by people that had been smoking marijuana," said Sutter, with conviction.

As the breakfast table exploded in laughter, Roundhill turned to Sutter and gently reminded him: "I was in charge of product development at that time."

Roundhill (left) and Sutter (right, in my photo) did
most of the talking.

Also present at the breakfast was Lars Andersen, who is back at work full-time, leading a team to decide what to do with the 777 as Airbus prepares to launch the A350-1000.

Rounding off the group were Ron Ostrowski, who preceded Andersen as head of the 777 program, and Bob Davis, a former vice president of engineering.

The conversation covered topics dear to the heart of Boeing watchers: the changing culture of the company, outsourcing design work, and future airplanes.

• What did the group think of the publicly
  declared intention by Jim Albaugh to bring the famed engineering culture back to the
  center of Boeing?
  
  Boeing Commercial airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh (Seattle Times photo).
  

Sutter: "We told Albaugh to re-organize his
engineering department and give the engineers more clout, which he did.
That's a big message.


"This gang is giving a little more emphasis on tackling the future a
little harder than when the bean counters were running the place."

• What did they make of all the outsourcing? Should there be less of
  it?

In explaining the company's evolving position on outsourcing, Roundhill
elaborated upon the repeated statements by senior Boeing executives that
after the supply chain disasters with the Dreamliner, they would have
to in future "draw the line differently" between what Boeing keeps
in-house and what it outsources.


He said that in designing a new airplane there are a series of layers,
starting with a concept of top level structural architecture -- wings,
body, tail, engines -- and working down to more and more detailed
levels.


Roundhill: "The model is pretty straightforward.
"Where do you draw the line between what you do yourself" (and what
suppliers do). "I submit that that top level is what Boeing will always
keep.


"Working with the (airline) customers, you are architecting the right
geometry in the wing. "If you are then working with a supplier on a
wing, you'll work with them on preliminary sizing: spars and ribs.


"As you refine it more, you start getting the loads. There comes a point
where an individual engineer can take a part and knows the loads on the
part and can do the detailed design of the flange thicknesses and so
forth.


"When you get to detailed design, you can divvy that out."



Sutter: "If you outsource engineering or production, and you
want it done to the Boeing system, you better damn well have Boeing
people there looking over their shoulder. The only way you maintain
discipline is watch them like a hawk."

• What technologies do they see adopted in future airplanes? Where
  can Boeing go with its narrowbody 737?
  
  
  
  Sutter: He said all depends on engines.
  
  "The technology is in the works at these engine companies. It'll cost a
  hell of a lot of money to do it. When they are ready, Boeing will be
  ready."
  
  He said aerodynamics "has reached a technology plateau to some extent."
  
  "If we didn't have these damned engine guys around, we couldn't do new
  airplanes."
  
  
  
• Are open rotor engines the future of commercial
  aviation?
  (See photo right of a Snecma open rotor concept and also this 2006 story about advanced concept planes.)
  
  Open rotors, under study by NASA, Boeing, Airbus, and all the engine companies, are engines without the now standard pod encasing
  the blades. They have propeller-like, counter-rotating curved blades and are designed
  to radically lower fuel burn and emissions.
  
  Most proposed designs for airplanes stick these heavy open rotor engines back near the tail, high up above the fuselage. That weight shifts the center of gravity way back and you run into serious problems of balance if you try to
  stretch the airplane. Having engines back there is what limited the fuselage growth of the DC-9 series.
  
  Open rotor engines
  are also very noisy because of the lack of shielding. And
  most challengingly, open rotors raise the fear of an engine blade flying
  off and piercing the fuselage.
  
  The engine makers are working on those issues but the technology is not expected to be ready until 2025, if ever.
  
  
  Sutter: "Open rotor has serious, serious design configuration
  issues."
  
  "If I were chief engineer, what would scare the hell out of me is the
  first day I lose a blade and lose an airplane."
  
  
  
  He then quoted an inside Boeing saying: "Life is too short to deal with
  propellers."
  
  
  
  So Joe, tell us what you really think about open rotor engines?