Aa777jr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6496 times:
There might be just enough carriers to make it worth Boeing's time to develope a 747 ADV. They are alot of companies waiting to see what Boeing does with this project before they make any more orders...ie A380.
Aa777jr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6427 times:
You wait and see what the operational results are after they test fly the A380 and see what the R&D geniuses at Boeing can come up with, and I think we are gonna see another widebody unavailing pretty soon...
NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4155 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6375 times:
I think you're right. It would be great if Boeing can make the 747 all composite with bleedless engines a la the 787 but we all know that it would entail mucho dinero for that. A supper efficient 747 Adv would certainly be a big seller.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 5964 posts, RR: 73 Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6175 times:
I think we are gonna see another widebody unavailing pretty soon
Not to be too picky, but an unavailing? Wouldn't that be making something unavailable?
NYC777, I'd say that a snowball has greater chances of surviving in the fires of hell than Boeing building anything close to what you're describing (all composite and bleedless engines): regarding the engines, they'd have to redesign so many systems to get bleedless ones on there, it would make the B747Adv forbiddingly expensive... and "all composite"? No way... or at least highly doubtful.
NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4155 posts, RR: 25 Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6006 times:
Not in this decade. A new 747/A380 sized aircraft would probably cost Boeing about $20 billion to develop. Too much to justify given the market. Heck even $4 billion to $5 billion is hard to swallow. I think they're next project after the 787 is a 737 replacement (probably will be called the 797).
Zone1 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 993 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5972 times:
The people at Boeing must be crunching the numbers to see which one they should tackle first: revamp of the 737 or revamp of the 747. I personally think they should go for the 737 first because they would be so far ahead of Airbus if they decided to implement 787 technology on the 737.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5281 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5741 times:
Boeing might have the goal of creating a large A380 competitor wtih bleedless engines and high efficiency. This would squash sales for Airbus because the A380 is based on previous generation technology. It is sad to say that since the A380 took so long to develop, it might become obsolete a lot earlier than Airbus predicted, which would cause Airbus to have to invest even more in order to keep sales up. If Boeing could produce a 747 ADV in a 4 year time span, that would probably limit A380 sales to around 250 planes, which is the break even point.
The big question is that: should Boeing fight Airbus in the A380 market or the narrowbody market? The A320 has been flying for 17 years. It is getting old fast, but Airbus is currently using their resources to work on the A380 and A350. After the A350 is complete, Airbus will most likely revamp its A320 line. I would expect around a 2008-2010 launch of the new derivative. Boeing would need to work a 737 replacement in the same time period or sooner if they want to remain competetive in the strongest selling market. If Boeing can still do this while competing the 787 design, and work on a 747 ADV, then I think they should go for it. But if the 747 ADV project would delay a 737 replacement into the 2012 or beyond period, then I think Boeing will lose too much in sales.
It is a really interesting battle to see what they do. The management in the 50s - 70s would have gone ahead and probably developed the 787, 747ADV and begin work on the 737ADV. The more conservative late 80s - 90s management would probably not have gone for the 744 ADV and focused on developing less risky planes. We will see what the current management wants to do. Do they want to spend the money and run the risks of trying spending massive amounts of money on development while sales are lagging, or do they want to be conservative and remain the number 2 (in commercial planes delivered) commercial airplane manufacturer while maintaining the company's financials and having less risk? It is a tough decision that is being heavily debated. I am an aviation enthusiast and like most want to see them invest in everything and go for it, but that is a skewed point of view compared to what is best.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
7E72004 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 3534 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5723 times:
Roseflyer-i agree with your analysis. The only thing that gets me is why go through the expense of creating a jet of that size...I personally think Boeing would be better off developing a replacement for the 737 line or even bring the supersonic transport off the shelf at some point...
The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5630 times:
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Boeing will go ahead with the 747ADV. Why? Well, they had the monopoly for that aircraft size for 30+ years, and they still can be. They would have the only 450 seater aircraft in the market, and I believe that there is a market actually developing in that segment as we speak. It's been said over and over that there are airlines that are interested in a 747 sized aircraft but can't/don't want an A380 sized aircraft. Then there is the market for 744 replacement also. Grant it, the A380 will fill a few of those spaces, but not all. Then there is the freighter market as well.
My money is on the 747ADV becoming a reality. And not just because I'm Boeing biased either.
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7684 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5563 times:
The more conservative late 80s - 90s management would probably not have gone for the 744 ADV and focused on developing less risky planes.
Yeah... the 777 was most definitly a low-risk venture
I personally think Boeing would be better off developing a replacement for the 737 line or even bring the supersonic transport off the shelf at some point...
The RD for a 737-sized aircraft is not very high, and a 737-sized aircraft will never bring in the yield of a large widebody. There is no doubt the 744 is the single most profitable Boeing aircraft, 660(!) were sold at a very high unit price, without any competitor in its niche.... if Boeing can re-establish even a fraction of this former market, they stand to make a handsome sum.
At the moment... it could easily be less profitable to kill a booming line than let a former cash cow die
I think you're right. It would be great if Boeing can make the 747 all composite with bleedless engines a la the 787 but we all know that it would entail mucho dinero for that.
You do not necessarily need the newest engines and technology to make the 747 competitive again. Even the 40 passenger stretch, lowers seat/mile cost with zero "new" technologies...
The advanced aluminum alloys that the 7E7 rejected are still very significant improvements over the 744 structure, and require less (though some) design cost than a composite fuselage. Bleed-air versions of the 7E7 engines are an improvement, as are new avionics, a new wingtip, ect...
MNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 711 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5554 times:
I would think that Boeing will lauch a 747NG after the 787 is compleated. this way by the time the 787 has proven itself Boeing will have a A380/744 replacement and a 737/A320 replacement.
BUt you have to figure that Airbus is Done with the Design/engneering portion of the A380 and can Easly work on the A350 and a A320 replacemnt at the same time.
Since the A350 is "mostly" an A330 with bleedless engines the A320 program could create something new.
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7684 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5528 times:
I would think that Boeing will lauch a 747NG after the 787 is compleated. this way by the time the 787 has proven itself Boeing will have a A380/744 replacement and a 737/A320 replacement.
They won't wait until the 787 is done... if Boeing wants to meet a 2009 EOS, they have to decide in the next year.
Since the A350 is "mostly" an A330 with bleedless engines the A320 program could create something new.
And a new wing... the reason the RD cost for the A350 will reach $5 billion. It is not a minor program, it's a much more extensive upgrade than the 747-Adv
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5281 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5504 times:
DFWrevolution, while I agree with you, I still stand behind what I said. From the mid 80s up until the 787 launch, the only new model that Boeing developed was that 777. That was essentially 20 years with only one new design. That is far less than what they did in the 50s and 60s where they designed and launched the the 707, 727/720, 737, and 747. Boeing only redesigned/redevleoped the 767 twice (763 and 764), the 757 (753) once, the 737 twice (733-735 and 736-739).
I agree that the 777 was a risk, but Boeing put the whole company on the line twice when they built the 707 and then 747.
Cash cows are not something that works forever. I don't think Boeing can anticipate the 747 advanced being anywhere near as successful 744. If they expect that, especially when there would be a strong competetor in the form of the A380/A346 combo. Boeing would lose a lot if they let the 737 line fall. That has been a support line for the compnay for a while. It help provide a lot of the revenue that has funded the company. Losing the 737 line to Airbus, would be a disaster since Boeing can't rely on the 787, 777 and 747ADV lines only. Those planes are greatly affected in a recession as they are more subject to market conditions. The 737s are less of a risk since they can sell to LCCs in bad times, and network carriers in good times. Boeing needs to remain balanced if they are to continue as a viable company. Having just one or two lines isn't enough, diversity is essential in the market, so that a company can sustain itself through good and bad times.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5281 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5476 times:
Another question, why on earth would Boeing only do a small update like a stretch? That would be a waste of time and resources. That is the method of thought that caused them to lose the title of number 1 commercial aircraft seller (on number of planes delivered).
A partial stretch, or updates of just a few aluminum components would be cheap, but really wouldn't do much for the plane. The 744 would have benefited if that was done 10 years ago. The 744 design is 17 years old and is in need of a serious update. I hope Boeing does more than a little thing. An updated wing might be necessary, since (correct me if I am wrong) it is the same design as the one created in the late 60s. Composites and other technology is needed to save the plane.
A little update will probably only get a few customers like the 764 and 753. While it is arguable whether those were successful or not, they haven't done anything for the long term future of the company. I sincerely hope that Boeing does something better, because selling 50 more planes isn't going to position Boeing with a model that is a true rival to the A380.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7684 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5472 times:
From the mid 80s up until the 787 launch, the only new model that Boeing developed was that 777.
In what way does the 737NG not constitute a new program? It's RD was on par of an all-new airplane, it only retained the fuselage cross-section of its predesecor. As the A330, A350, 744, and 737NG show... an old cross section can still lend excellent new airplane programs.
I don't think Boeing can anticipate the 747 advanced being anywhere near as successful 744
Well duh... that's why the 11 or so previous 747 updates have not been successful...
Boeing would lose a lot if they let the 737 line fall
And who says they are? The 737NG line is doing great, and prematurely making it obsolete is the worst thing Boeing can do!
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5281 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5436 times:
And who says they are? The 737NG line is doing great, and prematurely making it obsolete is the worst thing Boeing can do!
You are right. But the problem is, what if Airbus makes it obsolete? Boeing got lucky in that many airlines continued to purchase new 733s while the A320 was offered. The 733 only beat the A320 by 4 years, but still somehow sold well all the way until the 737NGs came around because airlines were willing to go with an inferior plane. The A320 and 737NG are good competitors, but I doubt that Boeing could pull it off again and keep selling 737NGs if Airbus created a new technology narrowbody. The one thing that this is all contingent on though is if Airbus makes a move to replace the A320 in the next 5-8 years. You have good arguments, and we are arguing basically what Boeing would need to do if the A320 is replaced or not. I think their predictions of what Airbus will do, play a significant role in the decision, which is really important to the future of both companies.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4155 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 624 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 5964 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 711 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9660 posts,