Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 737 Replacement (Pictures)  
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15848 times:

So I know that there is another thread going on that says that there will not be a 737 replacement for 10 years, and I do agree with that statement. What I do not agree with is that it will be a narrowbody. Below I will paste my last post from that thread.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 33):
Another thing that everyone should realize is that the 737 replacement will not be a narrow body it will be wide. This is what WN is asking for. It will cut turnaround time in half, offer better seats throughout the aircraft, and be a lot more comfortable for passengers.

And now like I said in the other post

Ladies and Gentlemen may I introduce to you the all new BOEING 797



So what do you think? I personally can't wait to see it roll out!


/// UNITED AIRLINES
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15814 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Thread starter):
So what do you think?

Would airlines really want the engines hanging there right beside the cabin? Seems likely to be a noisy machine. How about move the engines to the rear DC-9 style...


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15792 times:

I didn't make this drawing, it was done by Boeing. I am not a big fan of the way it looks from the outside either but I do not know anything about designing a plane!


/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15786 times:

2-3-2 seating? Looks a lot like a 767. A twin aisle will not be as efficient as a single aisle. I think they will go with a single with 3-3 seating (18 inch wide seat) and an extra wide aisle.

User currently offlineStuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15673 times:

The early 757 designs started out with a T-tail, too. I think that would be one design aspect that would be quickly revised as well. Until some revolutionary flying wing or other such monumental breakthrough comes along, we're pretty much locked into the low-wing, fuselage mounted tail, wing-pylon mounted engines design for a long time. There are still a few refinements that can be made, but all medium and large transport designs will come from this cookie cutter until the "big breakthrough" comes along. The designers keep coming back around to it because it just works.  airplane  See? They even patterned the Airplane Smiley after it!

User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15618 times:

looks like a Do 328 jet, a 737, and a 767 had some super jet-a and had an interesting night...


Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3587 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15548 times:

Lets hope Boeing have a sense for designing a beautiful airplane, they did that when they built the 747, 787 and 777, but this design is just ugly.

Being ugly is no sales argument, efficiency is the only one, but please make it better looking!!!


User currently offlineAvioneto From Mexico, joined Jun 2005, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15504 times:

come on, tell me you're kiddin'


El Avioneto Jr. MMMX
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15482 times:

A widebody design would be nice, but I would prefer conventional wings with the engines more spread apart, and a conventional tail over a T-tail.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15443 times:

Hmm, so a stubby widebody? Interesting....

User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15412 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 9):
Hmm, so a stubby widebody? Interesting....

Remember that the 7J7, a replacement for the 727, was supposed to be a widebody. The 7J7 didn't fail because of its widebody design, it failed because of unproven unducted fan engines.

I'd like something looking similar to this:

Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Justin Cederholm
Template © Justin Cederholm



[Edited 2005-11-05 03:27:16]

[Edited 2005-11-05 03:28:15]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7642 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15408 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 1):
Would airlines really want the engines hanging there right beside the cabin? Seems likely to be a noisy machine

BAe 146 was pretty quiet...  Wink



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15318 times:

The cross section reminds me of Thunderbird 2 of international rescue fame, just hope Boeing is not planning to have supermarionation pilots like Virgil Tracy to crew them.

Might end up like a fat DO328JET.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12145 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15289 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

So this is the new B797. Well its still a long time intill the roll out so plenty of time for the design to hopfully change

User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15266 times:

Boeing will never make a bird with rear engines again....that would be like admitting defeat, in my opinion.  Wink I mean, they recently cancelled many rear engine production lines from "another" commercial aircraft builder if I remember correctly.

I think it's time to put the engines "inside" the fuselage, fighter-jet style. Scale up a F-14 Tomcat for instance....the fuselage carrying 30 abreast and 40 rows deep. Mimic the mighty goose, for example. Whah? It could happen?  Wink


User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15243 times:

Isnt there a problem aerodynamically with short and wide fuselages like this design? I'd think it'd be longer with a 2-2-2 layout, and regular wing arrangement (maybe a little taller landing gear for higher bypass ratio engines). A 120 pax arragement in 2-2-2 would probably be the same length as a 735 is.

User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15223 times:

Kind of reminds me of a smaller version of this:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert Matthews - FliteZoneImages



User currently offlineStuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15205 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 14):
I think it's time to put the engines "inside" the fuselage, fighter-jet style. Scale up a F-14 Tomcat for instance....the fuselage carrying 30 abreast and 40 rows deep. Mimic the mighty goose, for example. Whah? It could happen?

Why not scale up an SR-71? It has a much higher fineness ratio, it's quite efficient and would put the SST debate to rest for a long time!


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1646 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15193 times:

UAL747DEN

The drawing you are referring to is one of about 4 or 5 designs Boeing had drawn up as an alternative to the 737 narrow body design. IIRC, an article (which I cannot remember where from) showed this design, as well as a DC-9 looking variant, and a near 767-wide fuselage with a traditional wing placement design. It was an interesting article that was published a while back... I wish I had the article to be able to quote it properly!

If you do a search of the ORIGINAL Boeing 747 design, you will find 3 variations of the 747-100 fuselage, one with an XB-52 (or YB-52?) cockpit over top of the main fuselage, and yet another showing a TWO LEVEL FUSELAGE.

In other words, Boeing is just covering all their design bases! B2707, Sonic Cruiser, the 787 original design.... all are conceptual, as well as the high wing drawing you posted.

Regards, Rik



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineRichM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 798 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15150 times:

I am no expert on this. But surely it'd cause more drag than a typical narrow-body would? Thus making it a less fuel efficient design for an aircraft of that size?

I thought that major aircraft manufacturers had stopped designing aircraft with the T-tail, as apparently once the aircraft gets into a stall, it makes it more difficult to correct the problem. I am not 100% sure on that, so don't shoot me!

I personally think this is some sort of joke, trying to fool people into believing this is a 737 replacement.

[Edited 2005-11-05 04:10:11]

User currently offlineSs278 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15149 times:

An old pilot maxim...if it looks ugly, it'll fly ugly.

This looks ugly. I'm sure Boeing will do better.


User currently offlineStuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15124 times:

Quoting Ss278 (Reply 20):
An old pilot maxim...if it looks ugly, it'll fly ugly.

Then the A380 will fly like............

 duck 

Never mind. I'm not EVEN gonna go there!


User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15077 times:

Hello Everyone,

RichM, I believe that you are right. In certain aerodynamic regimes T- tails have a serius instability issue.

Waht about a blended wing design? I know expensive and unproven but it will be a paradigm shift in airliner design!

Peace

Elvis777



Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
User currently offlineBOS2LAF From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14837 times:

Quoting RichM (Reply 19):
I thought that major aircraft manufacturers had stopped designing aircraft with the T-tail, as apparently once the aircraft gets into a stall, it makes it more difficult to correct the problem. I am not 100% sure on that, so don't shoot me!

actually from what i recall from my aerodynamics class (its been 3 years, so im not certain), its the other way around. the t-tail is supposed to be better in a stall.

again, from what i can remember from this class, one of the big drawbacks to the t-tail is the extra weight required for structural reinforcement to support the weight of the tail.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14563 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 16):
Kind of reminds me of a smaller version of this:

 checkmark 

Looks like someone washed a C17 in hot water . . . . put a pax cabin in it . . . .stripped off two engines.

Fine by me, just get me from A to B . . . .


25 Post contains images Viscount630 : Single seats in "Y"...? BLISS!!
26 DLKAPA : If the engines were inside the fuselage F-16 style the interior would be ungodly loud.
27 FedEx : Looks like a Seattle built An-148.
28 Zvezda : Other than the obvious, such as it being a twin, the only feature from the sketches at the top that I think is likely is the ability to carry LD3s (si
29 Zvezda : Rather than narrowing from a 2-3-2 configuration to a 1-3-1 configuration, airlines would narrow to a 2-2-2 configuration.
30 HAWK21M : Why Not Dihedreal. regds MEL
31 Gigneil : This drawing has been around since before the 737NG was launched. No reason to believe its going to happen now. N
32 Post contains images GPHOTO : Ugh! Imagine the poor passengers when it had an engine unstart! Best regards, Jim
33 WhiteHatter : Old news....this was discussed here earlier this year. It is not a proposed design at all, it is a format Boeing patented for further study. They have
34 StuckinMAF : With modern flight control systems, stability is almost a second thought and dihedreal is not nearly as necessary for maintaining dynamic stability a
35 Post contains images A319XFW : Don't you get a deep stall with a T-tail though? Let's face it, A and B are going to be looking at tons of different designs according to what the de
36 ANCFlyer : Would love to answer your post, but I believe Airliners auto-quote sytem has again screwed the dog . . . I didn't make the post attribute to the blam
37 MD80fanatic : I did not mean putting the engines in the pax cabin. :P The engines we have now provide no lift at all....but if they were inserted into a shaped fus
38 Blast : With engines at the rear, the rear end of the cabin becomes a noisy place too. Certainly in the F-100 that is..
39 A319XFW : Apparently the 717 is very quiet in the back with the new BR engines, but that's from hear-say, as I've never flown the 717, only the old DC-9!
40 HAWK21M : Thought about the Landing gear Height. regds MEL
41 PIA777 : Why would we need to replace such a successful plane? If it ain't broken, don't fix it. PIA777
42 Post contains images Boeing Nut :
43 TheSonntag : Like we say, das Bessere ist des Guten Feind (the better is the enemy of the good). Today I agree that the technologies to make a much better airplan
44 Planemannyc : If Boeing listens to what passengers want, then this could easily fly. Come on, who wants to be stuck on row 29 with 6 passengers on each row waiting
45 Post contains links and images Zippyjet : I remember the 7J7 project but, this was the bird with the reverse profan engines! View Large View MediumPhoto © Ian KirbyView Large View Medium
46 Post contains images Bmacleod : You cannot replace a single-aisle with a twin-aisle. You're asking Boeing to dump single-aisle design, the most profitable for Boeing, for a shortened
47 Zippyjet : Pictures didn't come out. Tried Boeing's site, can't find the pictures. Please furnish the link.
48 Post contains links and images MD80fanatic : Well then, I guess it may be time to re-display the "MD-97" I am sure many have seen this before on A.net. For the life of me I cannot remember who po
49 PillowTester : Let's say that powerplants embedded in the wing (comet style) or in the fuselage like a jet fighter are inherently more aerodynamic (and turns into fu
50 DfwRevolution : Of course you can. What rule says you cannot? Boeing has a challenge when replacing the 737NG. They must effectivly span the 737NG (100-200 seats) an
51 AirPacific747 : What a little fatty lol. If it is going to be a widebody, I have a hard time seeing how it will replace the smallest 737s as it would be too wide in m
52 777236ER : This isn't true. Engines embedded in the wing roots lead to thick wings. Thick wings aren't good for transonic flight. Embedded engines also leads to
53 MD80fanatic : Engines mounted inside the fuselage will never seperate from the aircraft, accidently (this is a really big plus considering the disaster the Chicago
54 Eatmybologna : But doesn't the weight of the engines located away from the fuselage help in preventing the wings from bending upwards from the lifting forces/load?
55 PIA777 : Embraer would be one threat. The thread suggests a replacement for a 737. I think advancements to 737NG would be more logical then to replace it. If
56 Zvezda : I think Boeing need only span 125-250 seats with Y1. From 250-296 is not too large a gap. Boeing policy is 20% size difference between models. (1) Em
57 MD80fanatic : I don't think so.....if that were true wouldn't putting the engines on the wingtips be the optimal choice? Wing structure complexity is increased to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The 737-800 Really Delta's 727 Replacement? posted Sun May 7 2006 23:40:20 by 1337Delta764
Will AirTran Finally Take The 737-800? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 22:51:43 by AkjetBlue
Why Was The 737 Original Built? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 20:28:05 by 747400sp
Is Southwest Ordering The 737-700ER? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 04:08:45 by SWABFA
Boeing And Lockheed Martin JV On 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 22:56:32 by Lumberton
Rear-engined, 5-abreast Low End 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 22:38:12 by 1337Delta764
Could Delta Order The 737-700? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 01:22:28 by 1337Delta764
Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 21:45:28 by Tangowhisky
Is The 737-900ER Extra Door Same As A 757 Door 3? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 18:35:04 by Speedmarque
Delta - Why The MD-88 Over The 737-400? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 22:25:39 by 1337Delta764