Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5813209/

Topic: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-10 04:46:13 and read 23333 times.

We have pretty well dissected the 777X and 787 to death so now I got to thinking about what a 797 would look like.

It seems that Boeing has a need for a 200-250 seat aircraft for domestic use with potential for increased range. My thinking is that it would be more of a 757 replacement than the 739.

So what does everyone think? When do you think Boeing will turn their attention forward past the existing models? It would be a huge capital investment.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: thekennady
Posted 2013-07-10 05:53:31 and read 23080 times.

With the 739max upcomming, a 200 seat 757 replacement aircraft may not be in the running for boeing anytime soon. The 797 would be more of a niche plane that would feel the gap between the 739 and the 788. Dont know if airlines would really demand this type of plane since most of what the 757 can do is duplicated by the 739 and will be by 739max on most short and medium haul routes, albeit with less passengers and less range. Other than some niche routes, this new plane may not be a slam dunk, although i wish i was wrong.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-10 06:15:09 and read 22919 times.

Quoting thekennady (Reply 1):
Other than some niche routes, this new plane may not be a slam dunk, although i wish i was wrong.

You are probably correct. For those that are interested, the 757-300 is a total DOG to work on. At NW we used to call it "Satan's Bowling Alley." The 788 may fill the bill. It would not be financially viable to make a niche airplane.

Perhaps down the road Boeing will consider a total 737 replacement.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: redzeppelin
Posted 2013-07-10 06:18:40 and read 22898 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Thread starter):
what a 797 would look like.

Like a 787 and E175 had a baby.  

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if "797" never gets used. I've wondered if the next generation of Boeings will be called 8X8, both as a natural progression and as a recognition of the 787's impact on technology, not to mention A&B's recent fascination with the number 8. Don't know if they would go with 808 or something higher to start with.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-10 06:24:38 and read 22831 times.

IRCC correctly, the 707 got its name because it was the 707th design proposal done by Boeing's engineers. That 7-7 is iconic now.

Numbers are funny things. In Asia the number four is considered bad luck. You have to be cautious. I remember that when Boeing had the supersonic transport in their sights it was to be called the 2707.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Mark2fly1034
Posted 2013-07-10 06:33:09 and read 22780 times.

I did the Boeing tour a few years ago and according to the tour guide Boeing already has that problem of the next number worked out and know what they would call it. I would not be surprised if the 797 ( or whatever it may be called) would be more of an MD-88 type replacement with maybe even looking at going with a UDF for the engine.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-07-10 07:15:46 and read 22559 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 2):
Perhaps down the road Boeing will consider a total 737 replacement.

Boeing wanted to replace the 737 with NSA already. Trouble is... airlines didn't want to wait for it. Then American got an offer for NEO they could not refuse. The rest is history....

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-10 07:25:07 and read 22497 times.

Quoting Mark2fly1034 (Reply 5):
would be more of an MD-88 type replacement with maybe even looking at going with a UDF for the engine.
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Thread starter):
My thinking is that it would be more of a 757 replacement than the 739.

   These are at the edges of the market. Boeing wants high volume and will concentrate on the heart of the market, accommodating the edge cases as best they can. They already cancelled the 757 once to increase 737 production capacity.

The 797 (or whatever the next airplane is) will be a 3-3 narrowbody. My guess is that it will be sized to have a high-volume variant slightly smaller than a 737-9 or A321 (199 seats all-economy), with a stretch variant getting near 757-300 territory (249 seats all-economy). The normal-size variant may have a high-MTOW, high-range version to cover the 757-200 TATL/hot/high market.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 6):
Boeing wanted to replace the 737 with NSA already. Trouble is... airlines didn't want to wait for it.

I think they will still do NSA, and it will be the next project in the queue after 777X. Offering the MAX relieved a bit of the schedule pressure but the fact is the A320 series has a better future than the 737, and they know it.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: SkyTeamTriStar
Posted 2013-07-10 07:27:07 and read 22476 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 2):
For those that are interested, the 757-300 is a total DOG to work on.

For the simple fact that the fuselage is SOO long? Is that the primary reason??

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-07-10 09:01:04 and read 22070 times.

IMO, the 797 will be the NSA and will replace the 737 MAX and 757-200. It will sit higher off the ground then the 737 and will have a cabin similar in width to the A320. The fuselage will come in three lengths: 34m, 40m and 46m and I think the wingspan will be 38m (same as the 757 and 2m wider than the 737) as that should still be able to fit in most any gate, but will help improve performance.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-10 09:02:14 and read 22061 times.

Quoting SkyTeamTriStar (Reply 8):
For the simple fact that the fuselage is SOO long? Is that the primary reason??

It is, combined with claustrophobic seating, makes it a difficult airplane to work. You do not want to be in the back galley in turbulence. I have bounced off the ceiling more than once. It is very reminiscent of the old DC-8-61/71 and -63/73's but at least the 8's had some space between the rows.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-10 09:04:18 and read 22041 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
34m, 40m and 46m

Do you think the 34 m version would sell any copies? I don't, particularly. We are already seeing this with the near-failure of both the 737-7 MAX and the A319neo.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
I think the wingspan will be 38m

Could folding wingtips be possible, if those on the 777X work out, for a folded span of 35.8 m (same as the 737W) and an unfolded span of 40-42 m?

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-07-10 09:13:26 and read 21968 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Do you think the 34 m version would sell any copies? I don't, particularly. We are already seeing this with the near-failure of both the 737-7 MAX and the A319neo.

I guess it depends on how many 737-7 WN ends up buying.  

Otherwise, we'll probably see 40m and 46m.



Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Could folding wingtips be possible, if those on the 777X work out, for a folded span of 35.8 m (same as the 737W) and an unfolded span of 40-42m?

It could be a possibility.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: clydenairways
Posted 2013-07-10 09:40:07 and read 21804 times.

It will be optimised as a 737 replacement starting at around the capacity of the 738 and growing on from there. It's performance will be optimised to give the best ecomomy at the current ranges of the 737MAX, this is the main bulk of the market so it needs to be as efficient as possible over these shorter ranges. It should also give adequate performance at the market fringes, just like the 737 today.
Physically it will probably look very much like a narrowbody 787.
I wouldn't expect any new comfort features either, Airlines will want this airframe to be designed to be all about the lowest operating costs possible.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 10:03:09 and read 21657 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
will have a cabin similar in width to the A320.

So then another single aisle aircraft? I thought the twin aisle concept was really gaining steam before they decided on the Max.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-07-10 10:06:13 and read 21616 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 14):
So then another single aisle aircraft? I thought the twin aisle concept was really gaining steam before they decided on the Max.

Going dual-aisle would add a fair bit of mass for not much benefit (loading/unloading is still going to be constrained by using a single door).

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-07-10 10:23:40 and read 21431 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
IMO, the 797 will be the NSA and will replace the 737 MAX and 757-200. It will sit higher off the ground then the 737 and will have a cabin similar in width to the A320. The fuselage will come in three lengths: 34m, 40m and 46m and I think the wingspan will be 38m (same as the 757 and 2m wider than the 737) as that should still be able to fit in most any gate, but will help improve performance.

I share a similar opinion    . Ive even came up with possible specifications as well (not really calculated ones, but something similar to what you have)

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Yflyer
Posted 2013-07-10 11:33:34 and read 19600 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 4):
IRCC correctly, the 707 got its name because it was the 707th design proposal done by Boeing's engineers. That 7-7 is iconic now.

The story I heard is a little more boring. Everything Boeing makes has a model number, even military aircraft, satellites, etc. Back in the 1950s Boeing decided to set aside model numbers 700-799 for jet powered commercial transports. Someone in marketing decided "Boeing 700" just didn't really have right ring to it, and "707" did, and the 7X7 model numbers stuck.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Yflyer
Posted 2013-07-10 12:53:02 and read 17772 times.

It's too late to edit my last post, but this article on Boeing's web site confirms what I said: http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...chive/2004/february/i_history.html

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Wingtips56
Posted 2013-07-10 12:56:07 and read 17660 times.

Whatever number they settle on, isn't the next new build likely to be a "lightweight" composite like the 787? I thought I'd read Boeing had been looking at a composite aircraft to replace the 737 series, whether it turned out to be a narrow body or middle-wide body. That all got sidetracked with the 737Max response to the A32x-Neo. Too bad, or they might already be making progress on the new clean sheet design.

Just my opinion, but with Boeing's success at offering different length variations on a base product, I envision a NB that could fill both the 737 and 757 missions, with the economy and range both enhanced by the composite frame.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Mcoov
Posted 2013-07-10 13:32:35 and read 16846 times.

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 17):

This is the right story.
I'm just wondering what Boeing will use once the 7X7 series has been filled.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-07-10 13:35:20 and read 16785 times.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 19):
Whatever number they settle on, isn't the next new build likely to be a "lightweight" composite like the 787?

That was the original presumption, however CFRP does not appear to offer as much weight-saving benefit for a small narrowbody compared to a large widebody. Alcoa has also developed new, lighter Al alloys. So NSA (and Airbus' NSR) may end up being Al (at least for the fuselage - they may have CFRP wings and stabilizers).

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-07-10 13:41:42 and read 16613 times.

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 18):

That confirms what I thought I remembered, which was that even before the 707, many Boeing designations ended in 7. I would expect that after the 797, we'd move on to 807.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: EddieDude
Posted 2013-07-10 14:30:22 and read 15588 times.

I wish we would see, after all the members of the A350 family, the refreshed A380-800 and all the members of the 787 and 777X families enter service, a wave of next-gen aircraft with new design elements and new engine technologies. I am a huge fan of the Lockheed Martin Box Wing concept (the looped winged, twin-engined plane that does not stray too far apart from the basic shape of current planes), and would love to see L.M. or one of the existing commercial aircraft manufacturers do something like that.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-07-10 14:47:13 and read 15271 times.

Boeing's current portfolio has the 737, 747, 767, 777 and 787. The low end is well handled by the 737 Max family and the higher 400 passenger end will be handled by the 777X. The 787 after a difficult development has its sea legs in the 250 to 350 people medium to long haul. The 748 I will be dead soon, sadly. The 767 will be around a few more years but probably retired by 2020. SO what will mission is needed for a 797 ?

Another 250 - 300 seat 3000-8000 mile range jet is NOT what is needed. It could be a composite 737 replacement after 2030 since the MAX is a new plane. The 797 could a be a bigger then 777 long haul composite airplane seating 500 people with huge twin engines, this seems a more like scenario. Doubtful Boeing will make a 4 engine long haul jet again or something as large as the A380. The 2020 Portfolio will be the 737 Max, the 787 and the 777X.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 15:05:35 and read 15613 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 24):
The 797 could a be a bigger then 777 long haul composite airplane seating 500 people with huge twin engines, this seems a more like scenario.

The A380 and 747-8i have both entered service in the last 10 years and are not exactly setting the world on fire. Why do you think Boeing needs to launch another ~500 seat aircraft?

I agree with other posters that a 737 NSA is probably the next clean sheet program.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: TaniTaniwha
Posted 2013-07-10 15:20:32 and read 15261 times.

I'm throwing my hat into the replacement Narrow Body ring. I believe the work Boeing has already put into the 'replacement' for the 737 will continue. Personally, I'm hoping for the twin aisle narrow body concept Boeing has patented but in reality, I suspect it will be something much more mundane but incredibly efficient, taking the learning's from the 787 and taking it to the next level. Carbon Fiber everywhere, electric architecture, etc. etc.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-10 15:21:10 and read 15667 times.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 23):
I am a huge fan of the Lockheed Martin Box Wing concept (the looped winged, twin-engined plane that does not stray too far apart from the basic shape of current planes), and would love to see L.M. or one of the existing commercial aircraft manufacturers do something like that.

Lockheed built some of the most incredible transports. The Constellation, my personal favorite airplane of all time, was a great success. The Electra did reasonably well and was viewed as a "pilot's airplane" due to its incredible power and agility and the Tristar was well received by both passengers and crew, if not exactly a financial success.

When Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas competition within the commercial aircraft industry in the United States effectively ended. That really is a shame. I wish Lockheed would reconsider their position and come back. It would keep Boeing on their toes, not that Airbus does not already do so. Being a sole-source does not make for great completion. I would wager that we would not see over 5,000 A320 family aircraft in service. McDonnell-Douglas could teach Boeing a few things about aircraft strength and long-term viability. Moving forward, composites seem to be the name of the game but I have to admit that I am not looking forward to the day (and it will come) that a mostly composite-built aircraft is involved in a serious accident.

IMHO the 737 is vulnerable to extinction because it essentially is the same basic wing that was on the first 737-100. Over the years Boeing has improved instrumentation and power plants but at the heart of it is the same basic 1960's airplane. I have to give credit where credit is due--the 737 is a great airplane and to think that Boeing was considering shutting down the line at one point is impossible to contemplate. But you can only stretch and rehash the same design over and over again for so many times.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-10 15:25:12 and read 15590 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 27):
it essentially is the same basic wing that was on the first 737-100.

The 737NG wing was all-new, and is arguably better than the A320 wing. The aircraft will have trouble competing with the A320 in the long term mostly because of gear height and systems.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: FlyingGoat
Posted 2013-07-10 15:33:36 and read 15321 times.

I don't know if the 797 will be a 737 or 777 replacement. I would suspect a 737 replacement before a 777 replacement, so here are my thoughts:

797 as a 737 replacement:

-3-3 seating a bit wider than current 737.
-Three variants: 160, 190, and 230 pax.
-Higher landing gear for larger fan diameters
-GTF engines with hotter cores
-CFRP wings, possibly with folding tips
-2 wings? Probably doubtful, but I'd like to see two variants, one optimized for 2000nm flights, and the other for longer flights.
-Who knows....maybe it'll be a prop

797 as a 777 replacement:

-3-4-3 seating a bit wider than the 777x
-CFRP wings with folding tips and CFRP fuselage
-Two variants: 360 and 430 pax. Possibly a third 310 seat variant
-6 wheel MLG on the 310 and 360 pax variant, and possibly 8 wheel MLG or 6+4+6 MLG for the 430pax variant
-Twin engine

Just my opinion.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 15:46:34 and read 15045 times.

Personally I cannot see how they will launch a NSA while producing 737 NG/MAX at ~50/month. I would like to see them do the 200-220 two class seating 4,000nm small aircraft (single aisle or twin aisle) out of CFRP in Charleston while Renton is doing what Renton does then gradually work backwards into the 162 seat bread and butter 737 replacement market when the kinks are worked out.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 29):
Three variants: 160, 190, and 230 pax.

Why would Boeing make their most popular size 737 the shrink version? That is usually the most inefficient frame of the family (787, 767, 737-100/500/700/MAX7, 772, etc.)

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 29):
Possibly a third 310 seat variant

Why would they make a 777 that fits in between the 787-9 and -10? Presumably those aircraft will be around for 20 years or so.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 29):
6 wheel MLG on the 310 and 360 pax variant, and possibly 8 wheel MLG or 6+4+6 MLG for the 430pax variant

If the 787 needs just 4-wheel mlg, why would a 310 seat 777 need 6?

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-10 16:10:52 and read 14659 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 24):
The 2020 Portfolio will be the 737 Max, the 787 and the 777X.

And that will truly be a sad day for us spotters. Boring!!!!

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-10 16:48:48 and read 14094 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):
Why would Boeing make their most popular size 737 the shrink version? That is usually the most inefficient frame of the family (787, 767, 737-100/500/700/MAX7, 772, etc.)

The trend in sizing is upward. Coupling that with the increasing global LCC wave, I think the sweet baseline spot in the future is a frame optimized for 199 economy passengers for typical airlines. That probably means a frame just a bit smaller than a 737-9. My view is that such a frame will be the baseline NSA and there won't even be a shrink.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: JHwk
Posted 2013-07-10 17:13:59 and read 13778 times.

Quoting TaniTaniwha (Reply 26):
Personally, I'm hoping for the twin aisle narrow body concept

A while back it was stated that one problem with the 737 is the lack of container cargo handling and the impact on working regulations. A narrow widebody seems to help with this problem, maybe something along the lines of a 14-15' diameter fuselage.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
That was the original presumption, however CFRP does not appear to offer as much weight-saving benefit for a small narrowbody compared to a large widebody. Alcoa has also developed new, lighter Al alloys. So NSA (and Airbus' NSR) may end up being Al (at least for the fuselage - they may have CFRP wings and stabilizers).

Another good reason to go with the narrow widebody?

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 17:27:36 and read 13630 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32):
The trend in sizing is upward.

No doubt about it.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32):
That probably means a frame just a bit smaller than a 737-9.

The 900ER represented less than 6% of the sales for the past six years and that should become nearly the baseline size? There is no doubt that this frame size is gaining in popularity but that is a big jump in just 15 years time.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32):
My view is that such a frame will be the baseline NSA and there won't even be a shrink.

In the past 15 years 70% of all 737s sold were in the 40m 160 seat 2-class format and you think it is wise to no longer even offer a frame that is that size?

I could see a 1-2m stretch of the 737-8 (42m) and a 48m '-9' but unless parking spaces change in size or folding wings are introduced I have a feeling we are looking at a 40m and 46m NSA if it is indeed a single aisle.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: ghifty
Posted 2013-07-10 17:31:07 and read 13575 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 27):
But you can only stretch and rehash the same design over and over again for so many times.

The 737 is a derivative of the 707.. and the 707 has been around since 1958. Seeing as to how the 737 is the best selling commercial jet and the 707 is one of the first, with the 707-current timespan it really does appear that you can keep stretching and rehashing the same design and still make money. It seems like airframe performance mostly matters on OEW, wing and powerplants.

Going off of that, seeing as to just how marginal the performance difference is between the 737NG and A320 how much of an affect does the actual fuselage shape have on efficiency? Confusing, I know.. I think a better way to frame what I'm asking would be along the lines of: if Boeing chose to build a carbon-fibre 767 fuselage with next-gen wings and engines how would that compare to the 787?

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-10 17:35:00 and read 13515 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 34):
The 900ER represented less than 6% of the sales for the past six years and that should become nearly the baseline size?

I think the -900ER is just a hair too big. In the end I think it will be about having the most seats you can with four FAs on board. Of course different airlines with different hard products would need different amounts of floor space for 199 seats, which is why I think the ultimate configuration will be somewhere in between 199 at 29" pitch (a 738 with an extra row and a reconfigured aft galley area) and 199 in two-class configuration (a slightly extended 739). I think in the end the baseline will be 41.5 m or so, assuming comparable space efficiency to the 737.

The "stretch" would similarly be optimized for 249 passengers, and would be 49 m or so. Folding wings would be a big help here, if they can be implemented on a narrowbody scale at a reasonable weight penalty.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Braybuddy
Posted 2013-07-10 17:42:57 and read 13525 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Thread starter):
What Would A 797 Look Like?

Another underwing twin.   

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-07-10 17:59:09 and read 13277 times.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 37):
Another underwing twin.   

Sadly we spotters cant always get what we want.... It wont stop me from going spotting though, so I wont complain  

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 18:02:58 and read 13232 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 36):
I think in the end the baseline will be 41.5 m or so,

I think the Max 9 is coming in at only 42.1m which may end up being the difference of one row. .6m is a large hair  . Its sales are impressive but still only represents 30% of the orders. The UA and DL orders for the MAX 9 and 900ER are support domestically but Asia (where the growth is) has not fully come on board. If this size is so close to being the baseline for the future NSA then I think we need to see sales pick up.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 36):
The "stretch" would similarly be optimized for 249 passengers, and would be 49 m or so.

If they could start with this frame and work smaller then they may be able to get what is left over of the 757 replacement market that is not rightfully filled by the Max 9/321 NEO. While not dramatically impacting MAX 9 sales and smoothly working in the ramp up and ironing out problems before getting to the smaller core frame.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: YXwatcherMKE
Posted 2013-07-10 18:59:32 and read 12439 times.

Excused my lack of knowledge here on the this but I have seen this term used before and did not know what it meant other than a Plane concept. So what does "NSA" stand for?

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-10 19:13:35 and read 12265 times.

Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 40):
So what does "NSA" stand for?

New Small Airplane

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: FlyingGoat
Posted 2013-07-10 20:44:40 and read 11185 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):
Personally I cannot see how they will launch a NSA while producing 737 NG/MAX at ~50/month. I would like to see them do the 200-220 two class seating 4,000nm small aircraft (single aisle or twin aisle) out of CFRP in Charleston while Renton is doing what Renton does then gradually work backwards into the 162 seat bread and butter 737 replacement market when the kinks are worked out.

What you describe here is almost a 757 replacement. I would love to see a 757 replacement (especially if it's a twin isle), but I don't think the market is large enough for a dedicated 757 replacement. I do, however, feel that a 797 stretched to the size of a 757 would have a better market than a 797 sized as a 737-7 replacement, especially with the CS300 on the horizon.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):

Why would Boeing make their most popular size 737 the shrink version? That is usually the most inefficient frame of the family (787, 767, 737-100/500/700/MAX7, 772, etc.)

Good point, but like I mentioned above, I think a 757 sized 797 will be more popular than a 737-7 sized 797. Aside from Southwest, are there any airlines ordering the 737-700 or 737-7 in large numbers? Numerous thread here on A.net suggests the economics of the 737-700 and 737-800 are close enough that many airlines are opting for the larger frame. If Boeing can keep the economics of the 160 seat 797 close to that of a 190 seat 797, it might work. That is a big IF, and I admit, you make some good points.

The other option is two different wings. One wing for a 130, 160, and 190 seat variant. Use another wing for a HGW 190 seat variant and a 230 seat variant. Frankly, I think this is the best route to go, but designing two wings will be a large expense.

Doesn't the A345/6 use a very similar wing to the A342/3, but with root extensions added? I believe the AN-225 also uses a modified AN-124 wing with large root extensions as well (and two extra engines, obviously). To save cost, perhaps Boeing could do something similar with two different wings for the 797.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):

Why would they make a 777 that fits in between the 787-9 and -10? Presumably those aircraft will be around for 20 years or so.

A 310 seat version would compliment the 787-10, and be larger than the current 777-200ER. Most 777-200ER operators seem to have 250-280 seats on their 777-200ER. I believe the 787-10 will be a hot plane, but it doesn't have the legs for longer trips. My hypothetical 777 replacement aircraft would offer better range and payload capabilities than a 787-10, but to be honest, the A359 would probably cover this role better.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):

If the 787 needs just 4-wheel mlg, why would a 310 seat 777 need 6?

My hypothetical 310 seat 777 replacement would be heavier than a 787-10 and may need 6 wheel MLG. Maybe a spread out 4 wheel MLG similar to the A359 would work.

Just my random thoughts...

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-07-10 21:28:11 and read 10763 times.

A model in the size between the 738 and the 739 as base model, remember CS500 coming to make life harder at 160 seats?

A larger model in the 752 size. Al-Li tube CFRP wings, the base wing 36m and the 752 sized model has folding tips adding another 4m of span.

The base 752 sized model has a 787-10 approch and then a ER model for those long and thin routes. 3 aircraft in one go?

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2013-07-10 21:37:04 and read 10697 times.

IMO, what Boeing should do, is try to go for the 100-120 seat market. More of a true 717 replacement and a CSeries rival. Something with 1500-1700nmi range. The current trend of having all planes needing to have TATL range needs to end, and something needs to be done with the lower end of the 100-seat spectrum.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-07-10 21:51:05 and read 10566 times.

Considering that a "797"/NSA is at least 15 years out it is too early to speculate with any accuracy what configuration the aircraft will have. On the one hand will be the changing dynamics of the airline industry and on the other hand will be OEM/supplier technology advancements.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-10 21:59:46 and read 10556 times.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 42):
What you describe here is almost a 757 replacement.

Hopefully with smaller engines, a lighter fuse and wing, and about 50% of the operating costs and a slightly smaller capacity.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 42):
The other option is two different wings. One wing for a 130, 160, and 190 seat variant. Use another wing for a HGW 190 seat variant and a 230 seat variant. Frankly, I think this is the best route to go, but designing two wings will be a large expense.

Three variants two wings could definitely be the way to go.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 42):
My hypothetical 777 replacement aircraft would offer better range and payload capabilities than a 787-10, but to be honest, the A359 would probably cover this role better.

Very true.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 42):
My hypothetical 310 seat 777 replacement would be heavier than a 787-10

Smaller and heavier is not the best combination in the world  . The 777-8X is only about 10% bigger than the 787-10 and has the range. I think these were positioned so close together (15% was closer to normal spread) because of the range differences. Not sure how successful the =8x will be as currently envisioned though.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 44):
IMO, what Boeing should do, is try to go for the 100-120 seat market

And watch their margins dive to single digits? I would place very large quantities of money on this not happening. They could have been in that market with de Havilland and they sold it, then they could have stayed in it with the 717 after they aquired McD but then they shut that down as well. Margins are too small and competition too tough especially when there are much easier ways to make money.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: YXwatcherMKE
Posted 2013-07-10 23:59:50 and read 9477 times.

Well Thanks AeroWesty for the info. I can't believe that did not figure it out myself.
But if I were to do a new N/B I would go with a 200-230 seat, 2-2-2 twin isle A/C that is about 8" to 10" wider than the 737 body. Also the cargo areas are bigger (height) to hold a small containers to make loading easier and faster. 3600 to 4000nmi range. Or if they do a 200 seat then a 230/240 seat a/c then they should be 3000 nmi. and a 4000/4200nmi. range respectively. I think Boeing should stay away from to MD 80/90/717 A/C let that to the C-Series E-jets and the like.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-07-11 00:06:08 and read 9421 times.

I don't think the 797 will materialize for another 20 years, especially with all of the replacement models for many current models.

I don't think the 97 either will be a 57 replacement....maybe in my opinion, it will be the final bridge between the 777 and 747. I always imagined it with 4 engines as well. I mean, they can only make the GE90 so big...

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: bavair
Posted 2013-07-11 00:11:09 and read 9409 times.

Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 47):
But if I were to do a new N/B I would go with a 200-230 seat, 2-2-2 twin isle A/C that is about 8" to 10" wider than the 737 body. Also the cargo areas are bigger (height) to hold a small containers to make loading easier and faster. 3600 to 4000nmi range. Or if they do a 200 seat then a 230/240 seat a/c then they should be 3000 nmi. and a 4000/4200nmi. range respectively. I think Boeing should stay away from to MD 80/90/717 A/C let that to the C-Series E-jets and the like.

What's the advantage of going 2-2-2 over 3-3 except that you have a bit more cargo capacity, and possibly a tiny advantage on the turn around times, but you're looking at significantly higher fuel burn due to increased drag I would think. Does anyone have estimates on this?

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2013-07-11 00:40:09 and read 9065 times.

We won´t see any new design until future noise limitations are decided. Because those will decide the feaseability of open-rotor design engines. If noise limitations do not get much stricter open-rotor can be done, if engines need to be quieter, open-rotor is dead.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-07-11 01:50:32 and read 8446 times.

Unless open rotor comes in, it's hard to see a 737 replacement not looking like a cross between an A320 and a 787. And if it's not going to have a CFRP fuselage, it'll be hard to justify producing it instead of yet another 737 variant...

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: offloaded
Posted 2013-07-11 02:03:24 and read 8209 times.

Technology seems to move on exponentially these days. We've got "larger" "lighter" and "leaner" I'm sure at some point we will see "faster."

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: CARST
Posted 2013-07-11 04:24:53 and read 7008 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
These are at the edges of the market. Boeing wants high volume and will concentrate on the heart of the market, accommodating the edge cases as best they can. They already cancelled the 757 once to increase 737 production capacity.

   This pretty much sums up the whole thread or at least is the only answer we can give so far.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
The 797 (or whatever the next airplane is) will be a 3-3 narrowbody.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
I think they will still do NSA, and it will be the next project in the queue after 777X. Offering the MAX relieved a bit of the schedule pressure but the fact is the A320 series has a better future than the 737, and they know it.

I would not bet they will go for a narrowbody as their next airplane. The new Boeing line-up of 737max, 787, 777X and 748 includes only one new design and three airplanes which are old designs which got improved to cater current market needs.
IMO Boeing could go either way with the 797 (or 808 etc.), they could go for a true 777X/748 replacement and the large twin / VLA market or for a new narrowbody replacing the 737max in 10-15 years. Now Boeing went forward with the 787-10 a 787-10LR is possible sometime in the future making the 777-8X obsolete and thus making a VLA replacement as their next airplane much more possible, replacing 777-9X, 748i and upwards in one aircraft family. Base size 777-9X and double strechted slightly above the 748 and again 60 seats above...

This is just my guess, they could go for a new narrowbody, too. But as the airlines did not want a new narrowbody for the next years and seem to be fine with a warmed up 737/A320 for the next 15-20 years it seems much more logical to go for the large twin / VLA market.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-07-11 04:58:09 and read 6665 times.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 22):
I would expect that after the 797, we'd move on to 807.

There's absolutely no reason they couldn't go to 7A7, 7B7, etc. Seven-alpha-seven has a nice ring to it, IMHO.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Fly-K
Posted 2013-07-11 06:05:54 and read 6533 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
There's absolutely no reason they couldn't go to 7A7, 7B7, etc. Seven-alpha-seven has a nice ring to it, IMHO

That would be rather clever, especially sticking to the vowels (in fact, the 787 started as the 7E7), especially a 7i7 and 7O7 would be quite cool!

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Thread starter):
It seems that Boeing has a need for a 200-250 seat aircraft for domestic use with potential for increased range. My thinking is that it would be more of a 757 replacement than the 739.

Have a look at the Russian Frigate Ecojet project.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-11 07:58:02 and read 6343 times.

I wonder if I am the only one that is of the opinion that China has great potential to enter the large transport market with a decent product. I have often wondered why the Japanese never did it--the YS-11, while not a great seller, was well liked by its customers. The prototype YS-11 is on display now at NRT.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-11 08:06:46 and read 6322 times.

Quoting CARST (Reply 53):
The new Boeing line-up of 737max, 787, 777X and 748 includes only one new design and three airplanes which are old designs which got improved to cater current market needs.

The 777X will obsolete the 747-8, so the "new Boeing lineup" will just be 737 MAX, 777X, and 787.

The 777 concept has much more potential for the future than the 737 concept at this point, as we're seeing from the development of the 777X itself. The 777X is largely a re-wing and re-engine, but nevertheless appears likely to have a market space to itself for quite some time to come. The 737 space is where an all-new airplane is needed the most urgently; the A320 has much more room for growth and improvement. The 737NG, not the MAX, was to the 737 as the 777X is to the 777.

Quoting CARST (Reply 53):
But as the airlines did not want a new narrowbody for the next years

Many airlines did very much want a new narrowbody. The problem was that it would take long enough to develop that the A320neo would have the market to itself for quite some time, bludgeoning 737NG operators, particularly on longer segments. That is the problem the MAX solves, and now it seems to me Boeing is in a good position to develop a NSA.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: frmrcapcadet
Posted 2013-07-11 08:45:20 and read 6221 times.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 45):
Considering that a "797"/NSA is at least 15 years out it is too early to speculate with any accuracy what configuration the aircraft will have. On the one hand will be the changing dynamics of the airline industry and on the other hand will be OEM/supplier technology advancements.

I agree:

Major uncertainties:
political collapse (a most worrisome trend)
fuel prices
climate change



.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-11 08:58:07 and read 6203 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 57):
The 777X will obsolete the 747-8

I think the 747-8f has a decent chance for some longevity. Even after the 777-FX comes out that unique front cargo door and capacity should make it essential for some operators for years to come. If you meant the 747-8i then I would not disagree. Orders should still trickle in for unique situations, VIP transport, VC-25, etc but orders should largely disappear from commercial service when the 777X hits its stride if not sooner.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-11 09:01:39 and read 6193 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
I think the 747-8f has a decent chance for some longevity.

I agree, although unless there is a dramatic change in the air cargo environment continued production at a rate matching market demand is going to present a tricky business case for Boeing. The word "passenger" should have appeared somewhere in my post.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-11 09:15:03 and read 6155 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 60):

I figured that is what you meant, just double checking  . I think they may need to find a way to change their footprint. I think they have three bay doors now, if they can fit in two or maybe even one there really is no reason why they could not keep the line going for the foreseeable future. At the reduced rate that you mention of course.

Airbus has one, very often ignored wide body freighter and this is clearly an opportunity for increased revenue for Boeing if the cargo market rebounds.

tortugamon

[Edited 2013-07-11 09:16:24]

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Tristan7977
Posted 2013-07-11 10:26:46 and read 6042 times.

These conversations make me feel like the "797" will be coming in a few years. The first 737 MAX hasn't even been built yet!!! But I can see the development of a 737 replacement once the MAX is in service for a few years. (I'm guessing 2-3 years after) But hold your thoughts for now!!!   

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-07-11 11:02:23 and read 5945 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
I think the 747-8f has a decent chance for some longevity.

I agree--especially if the USAF would want it as an off-the-shelf freighter and presidential aircraft. They could acquired at a reasonable cost without huge cost overruns.

[Edited 2013-07-11 11:07:28]

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-07-11 11:18:55 and read 5892 times.

Quoting Tristan7977 (Reply 62):
ut I can see the development of a 737 replacement once the MAX is in service for a few years.

I'm sure some work is already happening, but my guess is that the intensive engineering work will start to happen after the major engineering work on the 777X is done. That will probably be 2018 or so. And then you are right that Boeing won't want to prematurely kneecap the MAX. So if it were my crystal ball I'd guess EIS 2025ish.

That won't stop speculation in 2013, of course.  

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-07-11 18:34:38 and read 5508 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 61):
I think they may need to find a way to change their footprint. I think they have three bay doors now, if they can fit in two or maybe even one there really is no reason why they could not keep the line going for the foreseeable future.

Building 40-21 is used to store parts as well as holding the tooling necessary to build up the 747's structure from those parts.

Building 40-22 contains the wing/body join, final body join and final assembly stations.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-11 18:45:48 and read 5484 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 65):

I thought the 748 program had three bays not just the two though.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-07-11 18:59:28 and read 5498 times.

Quoting bavair (Reply 49):
What's the advantage of going 2-2-2 over 3-3 except that you have a bit more cargo capacity, and possibly a tiny advantage on the turn around times, but you're looking at significantly higher fuel burn due to increased drag I would think. Does anyone have estimates on this?

Southwest did express "interest" in a twin aisle 737 replacement at one point. And here is what SUH had to say about it...

Quote:
"In all of the studies that we have done and in talking to airlines, you can turn a twin-aisle aircraft faster if you have good passenger access. So the whole idea of a short- to medium-haul aircraft is maximizing utilization and if you can get ten minutes a turn and you do six segments a day you can get an hour more flight utilization.

Look, at the upper end of that market, once you get above 200 seats. How many of you have flown on a 757 when you're in row 39F and how long does it take to get off the airplane if they're loading only through the front. Sometimes it [feels like it] takes longer to get off the airplane then the flight itself. My feeling is that to be a really an effective airplane above 200 seats and a great competitor and have the cargo capacity, which is also an important element in the rev generation of airplanes, a small twin-aisle has a lot of advantages once you get north of 200 seats."

...

Quoting offloaded (Reply 52):
Technology seems to move on exponentially these days. We've got "larger" "lighter" and "leaner" I'm sure at some point we will see "faster."

Just about every single "study" has actually been "slower"

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 58):
I agree:

Major uncertainties:
political collapse (a most worrisome trend)
fuel prices
climate change

And that is just one part of the spectrum of significant impacts. There are so many potential factors that can overturn the CW that is being expressed on this thread.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 64):
So if it were my crystal ball I'd guess EIS 2025ish.

Not a chance!  

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-07-11 21:21:01 and read 5266 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
I thought the 748 program had three bays not just the two though.

The 747 and 767 doe share Building 40-51 to the left of 40-21.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-07-12 05:09:31 and read 4956 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 57):
Many airlines did very much want a new narrowbody. The problem was that it would take long enough to develop that the A320neo would have the market to itself for quite some time, bludgeoning 737NG operators, particularly on longer segments. That is the problem the MAX solves, and now it seems to me Boeing is in a good position to develop a NSA.

I agree, I think the MAX was only ever intended to be a short term solution to stop Boeing haemorrhaging sales between the EIS of the A320neo and the EIS of a '797'. I believe that once the MAX enters into service, Boeing would be starting work on the '797' to replace it, entering into service sometime in the mid to late 2020s.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-07-13 08:39:03 and read 4521 times.

Local debate speculates that the "797" would most likely have primary assembly in S. Carolina. Considering that the "797" is still ~15 years out it makes for interesting reading as to peoples perspectives in the Pacific Northwest.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-07-13 09:03:57 and read 4481 times.

Boeing has said again and again that they would like to focus their future fleet offering on three basic models.

The smallest would be a 100-200 seat aircraft family (realistically, more like 130-200). If the 797 goes this direction, then it will be a 3+3 narrowbody low-wing monoplane with wing-mounted engines and a standard three-fin empennage. The engines will not be rear-mounted unless there is a major breakthrough with open rotor technology. Otherwise, the tube-with-engine-mounted-wings has shown to be the optimal design for airline use. It may not be the perfect aerodynamic design but when ground ops and maintenance are factored in, it keeps winning over and over. The interior will be bright and curvy with lots of cute LED's and large 787-size windows and possibly better humidity and lower cabin altitude. Boeing will publish brochures showing attractive businessmen and women leaning back and closing their eyes with blissful faces in spacious seats in front of a scenic view of a blue sky with cirrus clouds out the window. In reality, airlines will cram the seats in at 31" pitch and the planes will fly no faster than the 737 today. The flights will be long, boring, and uncomfortable, and any food will be BOB and of poor quality. You will arrive exhausted, harried, and your bags will be lost.

The medium size would be a 787-sized aircraft. Unless this recent issue with the 787 is especially bad, I don't forsee a 787 replacement out of Boeing for at least two or three decades. Let us not forget that the 767 was about 30 years old when the 787 came along.

The large size would be the "Y3." In such a large aircraft, there are a few ways to go about it. The first is a tube-and-wing 747 replacement similar to the current 777/x family. The problem with this arrangement is that the larger you make the circular tube, the more wasted space there is inside. The A380's double-deck arrangement makes good use of an oval shape to fill more of the cross-section. Boeing could go with a smaller cross-section and make a giant twin out of it by using a 3-3-3 layout on the lower deck and a 2-3-2 layout. The drawback of these arrangements is that they cost underfloor cargo volume. There are also ideas about BWB designs, although there are multiple technical and operational issues with these designs that make them difficult to produce. Moreover, a BWB cannot be easily stretched and shrunk like a tube. So if the 797 was a BWB, it would be difficult to offer it in the -200 and -300 models that Boeing likes to offer for most new designs. My guess is that even if there is a BWB, you will still fly 10 hours from SFO-LHR in a 31" seat with a 1/4" cushion that makes your butt hurt and that baby will STILL be crying.

Bottom line, the planes will change; the passenger experience won't change much.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-07-13 09:15:30 and read 4437 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 69):
I believe that once the MAX enters into service, Boeing would be starting work on the '797' to replace it, entering into service sometime in the mid to late 2020s.

I largely agree. However, in such a short period of time can Boeing expect to be able to reach similarly significant efficiency improvements (15% +/-)? And if they can't will the new model sell well enough?

tortugamon

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: cornutt
Posted 2013-07-13 09:53:58 and read 4364 times.

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 18):
It's too late to edit my last post, but this article on Boeing's web site confirms what I said: http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers....html

That was a pretty decent writeup. There was a bit more to it as I recall... the 400 series was going to be reserved for military aircraft, and the 600 series was a "catch-all" category. The V-22 was originally the Boeing 609.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 22):
That confirms what I thought I remembered, which was that even before the 707, many Boeing designations ended in 7. I would expect that after the 797, we'd move on to 807.

I think that prior to the 707, that was mostly coincidental, just a luck-of-the-draw thing for how the serial assignment of model numbers came out. More specifically, for every Boeing product, there's always a master drawing that serves as the top level of the drawing tree and calls out all of the other drawings that are made for the product, and the master drawing is what gets assigned the model number. Then there are a whole bunch of "dash numbers" that get attached to it for specific parts and subassemblies; for example, the drawing for the left wing of the 707 might have been nuimbered "707-1" and the right wing "707-2" (for thing that had lefts and rights, the left item was always assigned an odd dash number, and the right one an even dash number).

IIRC my lore from when I was at Boeing, the 307 was supposed to have been the 298 originally, but they started over with the drawing series for some reason that I don't recall. The Pan-Am Clipper flying boats were the model 314.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: frmrcapcadet
Posted 2013-07-13 11:09:43 and read 4291 times.

A and B are both working with hybrid type technology. MIT has an article on it online this week. Quite a bit of new information, at least new to me. The article implies that it may come to fruition by 2030.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-07-13 16:59:50 and read 4047 times.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 73):
the 307 was supposed to have been the 298 originally

Was it designed in sequence with the B17? I remember that plane was originally the 299.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-07-13 19:02:41 and read 3908 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 71):
Boeing has said again and again that they would like to focus their future fleet offering on three basic models.

Of course, what they have said in the past... and what they will do in 15-20 years are possibly (probably) different.  


.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 71):
The smallest would be a 100-200 seat aircraft family (realistically, more like 130-200). If the 797 goes this direction, then it will be a 3+3 narrowbody low-wing monoplane with wing-mounted engines and a standard three-fin empennage. The engines will not be rear-mounted unless there is a major breakthrough with open rotor technology. Otherwise, the tube-with-engine-mounted-wings has shown to be the optimal design for airline use. It may not be the perfect aerodynamic design but when ground ops and maintenance are factored in, it keeps winning over and over. The interior will be bright and curvy with lots of cute LED's and large 787-size windows and possibly better humidity and lower cabin altitude. Boeing will publish brochures showing attractive businessmen and women leaning back and closing their eyes with blissful faces in spacious seats in front of a scenic view of a blue sky with cirrus clouds out the window. In reality, airlines will cram the seats in at 31" pitch and the planes will fly no faster than the 737 today. The flights will be long, boring, and uncomfortable, and any food will be BOB and of poor quality. You will arrive exhausted, harried, and your bags will be lost.

Will probably be slower than the 737 today... but you'll arrive with your bags coz of RFID tags (and a smart phone app that shows the location of your bag). You'll also arrive rested and refreshed coz of a legal pharmaceutical they'll sell on board.  

While the CW you present will probably be the outcome if the world remains static... I hope that doesn't happen. Too many changes ahead in the next 15 years to be able to predict accurately now what will happen.

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 74):
A and B are both working with hybrid type technology. MIT has an article on it online this week. Quite a bit of new information, at least new to me. The article implies that it may come to fruition by 2030.

This may be the link to the article: Once a Joke, Battery-Powered Airplanes Are Nearing Reality

.

If Lithium-air or Lithium-sodium batteries become practical by 2020 I can see engine OEM's starting to incorporate "hybrid lite" options to then current engines.

BTW, there was a recent thread about A's "electro flight research" display in Paris.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-07-14 01:10:08 and read 3635 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72):
I largely agree. However, in such a short period of time can Boeing expect to be able to reach similarly significant efficiency improvements (15% +/-)? And if they can't will the new model sell well enough?

I would think so, because the 797 would be a clean sheet design, whereas the 737MAX is substantially more compromised.

Even if they don't, I do not believe that it will greatly hinder potential sales, as the narrow body ~180 seat market is sufficiently large for both Airbus and Boeing to make money from their respective offerings.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-07-14 07:05:27 and read 3485 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 77):
I would think so, because the 797 would be a clean sheet design, whereas the 737MAX is substantially more compromised.

Unfortunately, no. The real gains are almost entirely due to the engines... and, just like on the CFMs, there is a continuous improvement path for the LEAP (on the GTF Pratt is saying at least 1%/year) while they will still tweak the fuse as they always have done on the NG.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 77):
Even if they don't, I do not believe that it will greatly hinder potential sales, as the narrow body ~180 seat market is sufficiently large for both Airbus and Boeing to make money from their respective offerings.

In theory sounds good but in practice it is another matter. Until A or B is "forced" into building a new NB (i.e. sales for one starts to decline) then neither is going to employ the billions of $ needed for a clean sheet.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: cornutt
Posted 2013-07-14 14:46:50 and read 3123 times.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 75):
Was it designed in sequence with the B17? I remember that plane was originally the 299.

Yeah, at about the same time. I need to go hunt up my copy of "Boeing in Peace and War" and find the quote.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: PGNCS
Posted 2013-07-14 18:30:11 and read 2939 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 10):
Quoting SkyTeamTriStar (Reply 8):For the simple fact that the fuselage is SOO long? Is that the primary reason??
It is, combined with claustrophobic seating, makes it a difficult airplane to work. You do not want to be in the back galley in turbulence. I have bounced off the ceiling more than once.

I sympathize. I have never flown the 753, but my wife and I recall our first time flying on one. We had purchased tickets on NW MSP-SEA and were in the next to last row. I've been a pilot for a long time now and my wife is an FA, but when we got into a little light to moderate chop over the northern Rockies I thought both of us were seriously going to vomit. I don't think I have been that queasy in an airplane since my first spin ride in the T-37. The hind end of that thing moves around a lot and the motion it describes is very unpleasant. Several people did get actively airsick but fortunately we were able to resist the urges of our GI tracts.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: giblets
Posted 2013-07-15 06:15:40 and read 2631 times.

As we are speculating on the 797, the big question in my mind is what comes next? Start over, or are we looking at the 808?

The airline companies would love that, as it is they are desperately trying to stuff an 8 into every aircraft they produce (the first model is never the -100 any more, rather the -800!

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-07-15 06:23:59 and read 2592 times.

It has to be a low capacity (Maximum 200 PAX in High Density), LH/ULH with CASM less than 787/350.

Topic: RE: What Would A 797 Look Like?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-07-15 18:16:48 and read 2237 times.

I'm not holding my breath but... Elon Musk has promised that he will publish his "Hyperloop" concept by August 12th. For those that haven't heard about the "Hyperloop," Musk has called it a cross between Concorde, a rail gun and an air hockey table. Downtown SF-LA would take ~30 mins. He claims that the system would be 1/10th the cost of the proposed high speed rail link that is proposed for SF-LA.

If the Hyperloop concept is indeed viable, then we could possibly expect to see variants of it eliminate high volume city-pair air traffic over the next couple of decades (we've already seen this with high speed rail in Europe, i.e. Paris-Lyon, Madrid-Barcelona.)

With Musk's track record I am mildly optimistic that the Hyperloop is viable. His 'grasshopper' re-useable rocket was recently flown to 1000 ft. and that concept would reduce going to space by orders of magnitude.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/