Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7475 times:
If the "tremendous customer interest" continues but orders don´t start streaming in, Boeing might consider some adjustments to the 7e7 design.
Boeing commitments to its customer ANA must be limited, they paid half price (rumor) and contracted the 7e7 in a premature phase. They might be open for changes..
IMO market driven adjustments to the 7e7 could be:
- a 100-150 inch stretch allowing 20-40 more passengers and cargo, lowering seat/mile costs. Same MTOW as current specified 7e7-8 to limit design adjustments, so reduced range (nobody seems to really demand that last 600 miles..)
- review the use of advanced composite materials on places that are easily damaged and/or hard to reach.. Mechanics do maintenance, not labatories..
- Airlines might prefer some systems to be powered by bleed-air, for component/ system standardisation (e.g. pneumatics, standard APU & batteries). Airlines hate complexity and too much expensive non-standard stuff on the shelves..
- Rationalize the shark tail (weight & complexity). Airlines buy aircraft, not the media..
For the short/medium range 230 seat requirement airlines might prefer single aisle efficiency.. A reworked 757 like aircraft with more 777/7e7 like cockpit, aerodynamic improvements, better engines e.g. might be more appealing for regional services..
Kl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5066 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7309 times:
You always surprise me......... But I see what you mean, They still have time to make the changes, if they wait longer it might not be possible anymore. It all depends on what the customers want, IF they want it.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7185 times:
The stretch of the 7e7-8 you are proposing sounds more like the 7e7-9. Unless you are proposing stretching the 7e7-9. One thing I have been thinking is that down the road when Boeing starts to plan the replacement of the 747/777 lines, they will probably push the low end of the new line to the 777-300 range, and have the stretch versions cover up to ~500 passengers. A stretch of the 7e7, perhaps with a modified wing, could fill the space occupied by the 777-200/ER.
As for a narrow body medium range 7e7 based 757 replacement, perhaps that will be part of 737 replacement program.
I don't know whether adding bleed systems to the 7e7 makes sense. If the future is all-electric, no bleed air powered systems, then mixing bleed air systems in the 7e7 makes less sense, especially if future aircraft will have commonality with the new systems.
[Edited 2004-10-21 01:32:19]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Pzurita1 From Greenland, joined Sep 2002, 1385 posts, RR: 15 Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7034 times:
I learned a lot about 7e7 design after reading your thread.
Anyway, we could think that Boeing is soon to reveal the names of those "customers interested" and perhaps solid orders can add to NH. If so, we will have little modifications to the current desing and specs.
Any idea what will be the acquisition price for 7E7
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6694 times:
>>"Rationalize the shark tail (weight & complexity). Airlines buy aircraft, not the media.."<<
I think the weight is negligible when compared to the whole thing, I do think it's kinda short. What exactly is complex about a fixed vertical piece, apart from the rudder control surface? Your opinions are respected and ignored.
>>"I learned a lot about 7e7 design after reading your thread."<<
Ouch! No offense PZ, I wouldn't jump to a conclusion based off a half opinionated post.
Personally, it'd be nice to see something new in the air since my local airport can't take an A380. Different is good, it means unique, don't fear it.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11799 posts, RR: 48 Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6592 times:
Having the most fuel efficient aircraft in a worls of high oil prices, has got to be a good selling point.
If airlines could swap their "gas guzzlers" for 7E7s today I would agree, However, somewhat ironically, the high cost of fuel is putting more and more airlines in a position where they can't afford to invest in new planes. Especially, if we are to believe Boeing's sales claims, as they won't get those planes till at least 2010.
KEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 6228 times:
From Walt Gilette (chief designer 7e7), August 04:
"The auxiliary power unit (APU) in the tail will have a modular design so that it can later be exchanged for a fuel cell, as it does not have to generate any bleed air any more"
This seems to become a very different APU from the current (Honeywell) APU used by Boeing and Airbus during the last decades, in it self not a selling point..
“The 7E7-8 and -9 have the 'right' wing. The wing is designed for the requirements of the 7E7-9.
If it's right for the much heavier -9, is should be "generous" dimensioned for the -8. A little streched on the -8 should be no problem, on the contrary: better optimized..
"Version 7E7-8 will attain “firm configuration” status in mid-2005, version 7E7-3 then following half a year later..... The empennage, wingtips and other details still have to be optimised"
So Boeing is at this moment still in the basic design stage..
Boeing might be forced to listen again to the airline industry at this moment, after playing the public / politics and telling airlines what they should want, and that they had to order quickly..
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 5922 times:
Maybe the 7E7 sales will improve when the price of oil drops back down and the economy does better. It is hard for me to imagine that the 7E7 would just wind up being ignored by the majority of the airlines...it is a brilliant concept. I hate to wait.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2689 posts, RR: 59 Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 5935 times:
First off, you should pay more attention. Boeing has said numerous times that design freeze isn't scheduled to occur until 2Q '05. Your implication that they are behind on their schedule is ridiculous. Now, on a point by point basis:
"- a 100-150 inch stretch allowing 20-40 more passengers and cargo, lowering seat/mile costs. Same MTOW as current specified 7e7-8 to limit design adjustments, so reduced range (nobody seems to really demand that last 600 miles..)"
Thereby making it basically a A330-200 equivalent, huh? No, the aircraft family has been laid out this way for a reason. Boeing is looking at not only competing head to head with the A330 (and any future derivatives), but also the large A300/310/762/763 replacement market. For some airlines, the A330-200 is too large for this role. Thus the 7E7-8 is sized between the 763ER and the A332, while the 7E7-9 is between the A332 and A333. Notice Boeing has pushed back the EIS of the -9 because they have so much interest in the -8. That's where the market is at the moment.
"- review the use of advanced composite materials on places that are easily damaged and/or hard to reach.. Mechanics do maintenance, not labatories.."
Airline mechanics are highly trained professionals. They perform the skills they have been trained to do, and learn new skills all the time. If Boeing can work with their suppliers to perfect the installation of a composite patch to a damaged area until the aircraft's D check (the current line of thinking), then airline mechanics will be taught this procedure, and do it well, I'm sure.
"- Airlines might prefer some systems to be powered by bleed-air, for component/ system standardisation (e.g. pneumatics, standard APU & batteries). Airlines hate complexity and too much expensive non-standard stuff on the shelves.."
. . . and change one of the basic and most effective cost-savings of the new aircraft, huh? BS!! Any system that Boeing put in requiring bleed-air, even a back-up system, would require a complete redesign of the entire 7E7 concept. And for what reason, so that Airbus has a shot of getting closer to the 7E7's performance with a warmed-over A330? Hardly. As to airlines 'hating complexity and too much expensive non-standard stuff,' I guess your point is entirely proven by the extremely limited number of A32X's out there, huh?
"- Rationalize the shark tail (weight & complexity). Airlines buy aircraft, not the media.."
Your one valid point. The last I heard from Boeing is, while the nose is pretty much set, the tail will be 'traditionalized' a little bit, though will retain some aspects of the current design.
"- Smaller windows. Saves weight, some passengers might prefer not having the sun in their face all flight (eliminates the need for complex cristal solutions for this) .. & Airlines buy aircraft, not passengers.."
Yes, I know as a passenger I hate it when I wake up in the morning on a transcon or trans-Atlantic flight, that awful feeling of having a large window with a beautiful morning sun in my face.
And of course, I'm too stupid to pull the shade.
And get off it, 'airlines buy aircraft, not passengers'? So you are admitting that Airbus' PR about the A320 being wider than the 737, or the A340 being quieter than the 777, that's all just bullsh**, right?
"For the short/medium range 230 seat requirement airlines might prefer single aisle efficiency.."
The most ludicrous argument of them all. Your suggesting that, instead of merely changing the wing design for the regional model, they design an entirely seperate aircraft, wing and fuselage? In the process, of course, one would also create the need to have two completely seperate assembly lines, or at least have to reconfigure the tooling jigs for each line number, thereby greatly increasing costs. And this makes sense, why. . . . ?
My god I've seen a lot of biased/ignorant posts on this forum, but jeez. . .
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7874 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 4886 times:
Boeing is going to use every day they can to continually improve on the design. The more they exceed the airlines' expectations the more they are going to sell so this is a prime time for them.
The interesting thing for me is the potential influence that airlines can have on the design. Traditional customers like UA and AA are not the prime prospects right now. QF had a major hand in the 777, but didn't buy any. So who is going to be a major influence on how the program develops? The one that comes to mind in the long run is Southwest and the impact they will have on smaller versions to replace their 737s.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 4851 times:
My god I've seen a lot of biased/ignorant posts on this forum, but jeez. . .
Hamlet69, Posted Mon Sep 3 2001 22:26:20. The Sonic Cruiser. How anyone can classify a program that has yet to be launched a failure is quite frankly beyond me. Especially one that has the potential to be ranked as one of the most revolutionary commercial jetliners in history, among the select group of the Comet, the 707 and the Concorde.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2689 posts, RR: 59 Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4599 times:
Thank you for the kind words.
I had not heard about the association with ANZ, however you are absolutely right. Current plans call for a "ding-patch" that will take @ 1-2 hours to apply. Boeing will certify this procedure in conjunction (or perhaps before) certification of the 7E7 airframe. A permanent fix to such incidents will then take place when the aircraft can be pulled from service for longer periods - for instance during C or D checks.
. . . and I stand by those comments 100%. They are just as true today as when I wrote them. The Sonic Cruiser had the potential to revolutionize the industry - in fact, it still does. As I said before, other aircraft that have done so in the past are the Comet, the 707, and the Concorde. To a lesser extent, the 747 also certainly revolutionized our industry. However, since these innovations, nothing truly revolutionary has emerged. There's been some great evolutions, the A320 and the 777 at the forefront. And the 7E7 could most certainly be considered a great evolutionary step forward. However, it is not the revolutionary step that the Sonic Cruiser promised to be.
Don't know why you're bringing that up in this discussion, however, as I don't see why that is a biased or ignorant line of thinking. If Airbus had proposed it, I would have still said the same thing.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4565 times:
I agree with Hamlet on that statement. I think he should have added the 747 in there because it was definitely revolutionary too being the first jumbo jet and some day the A380 could also be added to that list.
As for the 7E7... Boeing should make it the 787 and the 797, the 787 of course being more of a 757 replacement and a 797 being a bigger plane.
Boeing could also build a stretch 737, maybe the 737-1000 unless they want to redesign it eventually as a new aircraft.
The problem as someone said is that Boeing launched the 7E7 at the wrong place, wrong time. If the airlines were in the financial shape that most were in in the mid 90s, there would definitely be orders for this plane along the lines of 500+. This is an aircraft designed to replace 757s, 767s, A300s, A310s and older A330s, we're talking 3000 some aircraft.
One can hope and dream...
If the economy was now what it was in the mid to late 90s, just U.S. companies
Delta: 200 orders to replace the 757s and 767s. Remember in the 90s Delta was ordering new planes, the MD-90, the 737-800, 777-200 and still buying 757s and 767s, plus launching the 767-400.
Continental: There would be a market for them eventually, but since all of their 757s and 767s are newer they wouldnt need the 7E7 until about 2010, but there could be a potential for 100.
American: Another 200 orders to replace their 757s, 767s and A300s. AA was another airline in the 90s that ordered a bunch of new aircraft such as the 737-800, 777 and 757s and 767s.
Northwest and US Airways would stick with Airbus
United: Theres another 200 plane possibility if the economy was good and they weren't in CH 11. There are a lot of 757s and 767s that need to be replaced.
Smaller carriers: ATA could have probably bought 10 as a L1011 replacement for overseas charters
World Airways: another 10
There you have it, if the economy was good theres about 720 potential orders from just U.S. companies if and only if the economy was good and no one was in or about to enter Ch 11.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4355 times:
Since the design is not yet frozen we may very well see some changes to the final design of the 7E7. One area I hope Boeing sticks to is the bleedless engine. Being on the maintenance side of the house one of the biggest headaches we encounter is pneumatics. My fellow maintainers can back me up on this.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4242 times:
IMO advances in high powered electronics have made it possible to replace pneumatic systems. However think of the electronic power systems that are needed to extract flaps, start engines etc. and I think it is possible that this new technology will not be without problems from the first day.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7872 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3988 times:
I think it's likely you won't see the unusual tail design shown on the 7E7 renderings lately, mostly because Boeing wants to avoid the problem of Dutch roll with improperly sized vertical tail surfaces--an issue that first showed up with the early 707's. But the nose design will probably stay.
TransPac From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3902 times:
I noticed that Boeing's two page ad in the latest issue of The Economist doesn't show the tail of the aircraft at all. Coincidence? Who knows... I hope they do keep the current nose at least, very sexy!