Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?  
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 929 posts, RR: 7
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 32693 times:

What do you guys think about the possibility that Boeing will come up with not just one but two types of aircraft to successfully cover the 90 to 220 seat narrowbody market?

Here are some things to think about.
1) Covering this range of seats can not be most economically covered with a single platform. The low end is better suited with a 5 across seating, the medium to higher end with a 6 across.
2) The 737NG is 7 inches narrower than the A320. The A320 can better accommodate containerized cargo. This is a weakness on the current 737NG. With a wider fuselage you now get containerized cargo and the wider aisles can be designed for faster loading and unloading of pax.
3) Boeing has a patent for a twin aisle short range plane. They could make the next 737 2x2x2. This would allow for even faster passenger loading and unloading (something Southwest wants), no more middle seat, and a more comfortable plane in the 200 plus seat range.
4) Having two models (a narrow 3x2 like the 717 and a novel 2x2x2) would secure a complete and optimized family and further discourage developments of 100 seaters from Bombardier, Japan, China, etc.

I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are on this dual platform concept to secure Boeing's leadership position in commercial aircraft.

TW


Only the paranoid survive
79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 32649 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
3) Boeing has a patent for a twin aisle short range plane. They could make the next 737 2x2x2. This would allow for even faster passenger loading and unloading (something Southwest wants), no more middle seat, and a more comfortable plane in the 200 plus seat range.

and the plane while have less seats, thus higher even higher fuel consumption per passenger

And you would probably save 1 minute in loading and unloading passengers

[Edited 2006-08-15 21:51:21]

User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 32610 times:

the 2+2+2 aircraft will probably be relatively heavy, as it would need to be at least 8 inches wider then the A-320 and 15 inches wider then the current 737 in order to fly an extra aisle around and offer acceptable seat wide. Compare it to the 767-200, a modest success which has relatively high CASM because it flies an extra aisle around compared to a 757 or 737-800. Expect the new aircraft(s) to be single aisle at least, the only thing which is for sure.


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 929 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 32579 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 1):
And you would probably save 1 minute in loading and unloading passengers

I disagree. With a single aisle, a single slow poke can block all the remaining passengers. With twin aisles, you can go across a row and take the other aisle. This can be more than a minute when considering several slow passengers.
I remember reading somewhere that Southwest was in favor of such an idea as long as the weight and drag penalties are made up with using 787 technologies.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 32513 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
What do you guys think about the possibility that Boeing will come up with not just one but two types of aircraft to successfully cover the 90 to 220 seat narrowbody market?

That would certainly simplify the engine providers' task. They have been long thought to be pursuing this approach.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32463 times:

I have read that this is very much so a possibility. How they might do it is the question. I also think that Y3 might be a similar scenario. Kind of like the 757/767 with a lot of commonality but two different dimensions.


Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32383 times:

I think Boeing has a point, although whether a twin aisle solution is feasible is another question. However, if you look at Airbus, they have had similar problems; the A321 and 320 are superbly economical, but the 318 - really only for airlines which already have the other types (OK, apart from Tarom).

However, the other problem is that if they're splitting the market, the smaller size market will be very difficult to get into on its own, unless there is considerable commonality between both models; i.e. similar cockpit, engines, maintenance/parts commonality. Also, for airlines moving from one range to the other, this needs to be achievable with the minimum of problems; flexibility for airlines will be a big challenge here,.

Maybe a solution might be to liaise with Bombardier on its new C series aircraft and then, build a larger aircraft for the 150-220 seat (i.e. just below the 787-3/8 size), but with a close relationship between the two.

Certainly doable - as long as they can get the size right. I tend to believe, however, that 2+2+2 in Economy takes up too much floor space; 2+3+2 - i.e. a 767 layout would probably be more attractive from an economic standpoint.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21531 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32328 times:

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 3):
Why is it so difficult to get decent thread titles on this board?

tell me about it. Sounded like a statement from Boeing, turns out to be the same question rehashed over and over with no basis in current news.

Can I buy a question mark, Pat?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32297 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):

tell me about it. Sounded like a statement from Boeing, turns out to be the same question rehashed over and over with no basis in current news.

Indeed, I thought that too. Get the eraser!


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 929 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32297 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 6):
I have read that this is very much so a possibility. How they might do it is the question. I also think that Y3 might be a similar scenario. Kind of like the 757/767 with a lot of commonality but two different dimensions.

DeltaDC9, in fact the 787/777 is kind of the same approach. Each model optimized for its category. The 757/767 was highly successful, but the 757 would have been even more successful had Boeing stuck to the original idea of making it a 150 seater to truly replace the 727 (but was persuaded by BA and EA to make it a 180 seater) - but that is a topic for another thread.

If one looks at Boeing's past, they made more sizes of fuselage diameters for different markets (737/757, 767, 777, 747) than anyone else and this helped them rely on optimization first and commonality second.

Airbus had two A300/A310/A330/A340 and A320, and now they have the third: the A380.

Bombardier has one CRJ 100/200/700/900, Embraer now has two E-135/140/145 and E170/175/190/195, and Douglas had two DC-9/MD-80/MD-95 and MD-11, while Lockheed had one: L-1011.

One can certainly attribute success to having optomized designs versus bastardized designs (such as shrinks and stretches). I truly believe that Boeing is considering this dual platform strategy. If they do, they will lock out everyone out of the market except for Airbus who may follow a similar tactic.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 929 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32232 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Sounded like a statement from Boeing, turns out to be the same question rehashed over and over with no basis in current news.

Can I buy a question mark, Pat?

Pat I did not mean to mislead the thread and my appologies to not put in a question mark. With limited space, it's sometimes difficult to come up with a good title.

As for the rehashed question, I could not find it in the archives.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineAA777SJC From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32134 times:

I don't see how a twin aisle narrowbody will ever be better than upgrading the jetways to hit two doors at once on a single aisle. In one case, you've got to fly an aisle all over the place screwing up your efficiencies and in the other you've just to got to upgrade something on the ground.

User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 32134 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
1) Covering this range of seats can not be most economically covered with a single platform. The low end is better suited with a 5 across seating, the medium to higher end with a 6 across.

 checkmark  Which is why I think the 737/A320 replacements will cover the 175-225 pax range.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
4) Having two models (a narrow 3x2 like the 717 and a novel 2x2x2) would secure a complete and optimized family and further discourage developments of 100 seaters from Bombardier, Japan, China, etc.

I think the 5Y and 6Y configs may be too close togehter, and both Airbus and Boeing would be very hesitant to build a family of airplanes at each cross section due to overlapping sizes. A 2-2 family (i.e. a true RJ) by either A or B may be the best way to go. A family of this size could over the 80-130 pax range and leave the 150-215 pax range to the A320/737 replacement. Airbus will probably end up doing something similar to the 757/767 since it is pretty obvious there is no way they can cover the range under the A350XWB with just one aircraft. Hopefully Airbus will make a 2-3-2. . . which I think its simply the best config out there. In the future I think Airbus will build a 180-250 pax "A320" replacement and a 125-175 pax "A318" replacement. Boeing will replace the 737NG with a 160-220 pax plane, and *might* build a RJ sized plane in the 75-125 range. Just my {two cents}

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 4):
I remember reading somewhere that Southwest was in favor of such an idea as long as the weight and drag penalties are made up with using 787 technologies.

Well the question would be would they be willing to give up the possible fuel savings that a single aisle 3-3 plane has over a 2-2-2 plane. Either configuration will take advantage of 787 technologies. No matter how you look at it a 2-2-2 fuselage will use significantly more fuel than a 3-3 fuselage, and I don't think WN will want with that.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 10):
in fact the 787/777 is kind of the same approach. Each model optimized for its category. The 757/767 was highly successful, but the 757 would have been even more successful had Boeing stuck to the original idea of making it a 150 seater to truly replace the 727 (but was persuaded by BA and EA to make it a 180 seater)

The approach to the 757/767 was a joint development, and they shared many of the same systems. The 777/787 situation is quite different since the 787 is developed over 10 years after the 777. The 787 shares some structural components with the 777, but its systems are quite different (especially since its engines are bleedless). I would contend that the 757 would be less succesful at 150 seats. Considering the 757s range, how often would you fly 125-150 people across the Atlantic? I think 180-220 is a lot more likely.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 10):
If one looks at Boeing's past, they made more sizes of fuselage diameters for different markets (737/757, 767, 777, 747) than anyone else and this helped them rely on optimization first and commonality second.

Well IIRC, the 737/757 fuselage comes from the 727/707 fuselage. . .


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 31960 times:

Having anything but 3X3 seating is unlikely for a short to mid haul aircraft. 2X3 is less efficent for a mainline aircraft because the added aerodynamic drag is not as great as the revenuse of the additional seat in the row. At the same time 2X2X2 would increase drag and not add a seat to a row. That is the problem with the 767: it is much wider than the 737 or 757 but has only one more seat per row (in most configurations). The 767 can not carry LD3 cans either so going 2X2X2 would not leave enough room to fit LD3s side by side, negating cargo benefits.

If anything, the next 737 will cover all sizes of single aisle 3X3 seating with variants of a single model, mostly varying in length. This would retain commonality which airlines like. The other improvements would just be technolgy from the 787 passing to other product lines.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 929 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 31960 times:

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 13):
If one looks at Boeing's past, they made more sizes of fuselage diameters for different markets (737/757, 767, 777, 747) than anyone else and this helped them rely on optimization first and commonality second.

Well IIRC, the 737/757 fuselage comes from the 727/707 fuselage. . .

Yes, but my examples are models that a manufacturer offered most in a given instant of time. Boeing has always been a leader on this aspect where they had the most models offered at any given time in terms of fuse diameters.

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 13):
The approach to the 757/767 was a joint development, and they shared many of the same systems. The 777/787 situation is quite different since the 787 is developed over 10 years after the 777. The 787 shares some structural components with the 777, but its systems are quite different (especially since its engines are bleedless). I would contend that the 757 would be less succesful at 150 seats. Considering the 757s range, how often would you fly 125-150 people across the Atlantic? I think 180-220 is a lot more likely.

True and I realize what you are saying on 777/787. My point again is that Boeing always designed a new fuselage rather than butcher an old one (i.e they could have shrunk the 777 for the 220 seat market, but they decided to give the 777 a whole new sister).

As for the 757, one needs to go back to history. The original concept was a transcon not an intercon. The plane was to replace the 727 with no more than 3000 nm range 150 pax, 2 man crew, 2 engines and crew commonality with the 767. But BA and EA wanted more seats and more range and Boeing caved, the A320 became s uccess over the poor payload/range of the 737-400. Fast forward, the 757-200 was being eaten by the 737NG's superb payload range. Boeing made a decision, killed the 757 and launched the 737-900. If you say that the 757-200 was successful based on its range, then why was it killed? the 737-900ER does not offer the same payload/range as the 757-200?

But as the 737NG evolved from the 737 Classics with bigger wings for more payload/range, the low end 100 seat market such as the 737-600 has become a poor offer. This is why the dual narrowbody concept makes sens from a true market needs perspective as well as discouraging bottom feeders entering the market.

I agree with you that the 2-2-2 is a long shot.

TW



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 31943 times:

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 3):
Why is it so difficult to get decent thread titles on this board?

I agree, I also found this thread title deciving.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
1) Covering this range of seats can not be most economically covered with a single platform. The low end is better suited with a 5 across seating, the medium to higher end with a 6 across.

The 3+3 fuselage is aerodynamically viable for anything from 90-100 seats all the way to 240-250 seats. What hinders the 736 and A318 variants is not the fuselage, it's the wing platform and all the extra weight they carry.

I think the better question is, how many wings will Boeing build? That has more direct implications for the market niche that can be effectivly served by a given fuselage type.

Ideally, you want to keep the same fuselage diameter for tooling concerns. But since CFRP technology can vary the thickness (and thus strenght/weight) of a component, I think a wider range of optimal variants is possible.

Two distinct wings and a variable fuselage would open a lot of doors...

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 7):
I tend to believe, however, that 2+2+2 in Economy takes up too much floor space; 2+3+2 - i.e. a 767 layout would probably be more attractive from an economic standpoint.

Keep in mind that a 3+3 fuselage with a 1.5 wide isle can realize the turn-around advantages of a full twin-isle 2+2+2 airliner. But, the 1.5-Wide isle would keep the fuselage at a much more reasonable width.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6190 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 31828 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 11):
As for the rehashed question, I could not find it in the archives.

The topic title will not always be in the exact same format as the question you posed so you have to be more "general" in your searches. You must realize, however, that this being a.net this topic has been discussed before in several different threads.... afterall, it has even been in the aviation and mainstream press.

Some threads posted this year...

Boeing Also Developing 100 Seater As 737 Successor
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2643845/

Boeing 737RS Could Threaten Embraer
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2636303

Airbus NSR And Boeing RS/Y1 : New Engine Key
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2593819

Boeing Firms Up 737 Replacement Studies
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2636303

[Edited 2006-08-15 23:28:11]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAmerican777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 31801 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 4):
Southwest was in favor of such an idea as long as the weight and drag penalties are made up with using 787 technologies.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 7):
just below the 787-3/8 size

Here is a good model that can replace the 737 with 787 technologies:


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Yves Mayer
Template © Yves Mayer


Quoting 787engineer (Reply 13):
don't think WN will want with that.

But they might want these for their future 737 replacements:


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Yves Mayer
Template © Yves Mayer



JOE.  airplane 


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 31645 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
What do you guys think about the possibility that Boeing will come up with not just one but two types of aircraft to successfully cover the 90 to 220 seat narrowbody market?

A distinct possibility. Boeing had been ivestigating a concept dubbed "G-Family" as a 737 replacement in the 90s before 737NG was pursued. It revolved around two modular wings with common outboard sections and two or three different fuselage cross sections, including a 2+2+2 arrangement. The latter had also been investigated back in the mid-80s for the 7J7 propfan.

And it's not a secret that Boeing is exploring all options from 2+3 all the way up to 2+3+2 for Y1.

If you do a rough calc, 2+2+2 should add about 3% in drag over 3+3. In terms of turn-around, 2+2+2 is equivalent to 3+3 with a 25'' aisle, so no distinct benefit there. But what's the value of 'window and aisle seats only'?


User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 31566 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 19):
f you do a rough calc, 2+2+2 should add about 3% in drag over 3+3. In terms of turn-around, 2+2+2 is equivalent to 3+3 with a 25'' aisle, so no distinct benefit there. But what's the value of 'window and aisle seats only'?

How do you figure a 3% increas in drag. A rough calculation for me gives a 10%+ larger cross-sectional area, and a 5%+ increase in circumfrence which increases skin friction drag per unit lenth. . . I think total drag on a 2-2-2 would be at least 10% higher than a 3-3 aircraft.


User currently offlineRichM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 798 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 31144 times:

Quoting LPLAspotter (Reply 21):
It's just we're not as good as you. So why don't you make the thread of the year eh?

No need to be petty, he had a valid point.
The number of topics with misleading titles is somewhat frustrating to some and I think a.net should be strict on this. Especially considering a.net isn't exactly bandwidth friendly and many people have slow internet connections. (given the fact that it can't have multiple pages per topic)


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 30057 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting American777 (Reply 18):
Here is a good model that can replace the 737 with 787 technologies:

Is this a joke? It looks just like an Embraer 170/190.



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineAmerican777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 29919 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 23):
Is this a joke? It looks just like an Embraer 170/190.

I just posted those modified pictures because I thought it might fit with this topic as mostly everyone is talking about the new 737 replacement design with similarities to the 787. According to Yves Mayer, who designed this new plane, it's a 737 mixed with a 787. So I am not saying it's a 797 as Yves Mayer is, and Yves Mayer probably got an Embraer jet and just changed the cockpit design to make it look like a Boeing jet. Who knows.

JOE.  airplane 


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 29462 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 1):
And you would probably save 1 minute in loading and unloading passengers

No.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
Keep in mind that a 3+3 fuselage with a 1.5 wide isle can realize the turn-around advantages of a full twin-isle 2+2+2 airliner.

Yes, a 2-2-2 config would take longer to embark/disembark than a 3-3 config in the same cross-section.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 14):
The 767 can not carry LD3 cans

The B767 can carry LD3s, just not side-by-side. I'm hoping that Boeing produce a B737/B757 replacement in a wide 3-3 config with cargo capacity for single-file LD3s. The smaller market might be left to Embraer and Bombardier.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 29351 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 25):
Yes, a 2-2-2 config would take longer to embark/disembark than a 3-3 config in the same cross-section.

As I understand it, the ability to "step around" someone in the isle is more important than the number of isles.

You will always have two people in the isle acting as human cholesterol, so an extra isle doesn't change anything. But if the isle is wide enough that this guy doesn't impede the flow of passengers behind him, deboarding can continue without interruption.


25 Floridaflyboy : Actually, the idea of a widebody style 737 replacement is not that radical. My grandfather's brother is a high-ranking engineer at Boeing, and he sai
26 Acjflyer : Ahh, but a.net doesn't change it because it works. The title caught my attention as I'm sure it did yours, and because of that we want to read this a
27 Gigneil : Arguably, that's a bad thing from a price/production/margin perspective. Airbus did pick a great fuse size for their up-to-300 seat aircraft, saved a
28 Rheinbote : Interesting. How do a ~5% increase in fuselage wetted area and a 10% increase in fuselage frontal area translate into a >10% increase in total airpla
29 Cobra27 : I had something like this in mind. Hope to see it soon
30 Revelation : Since the A300 family and the A330/A340 family are built on seperate lines, does it really improve things all that much to have the same fuse diamete
31 MCOflyer : My opinion is that the 737 replacemnt will be called the 797. Years ago I envisioned a 797 having two engines on the wing and two on the tail like the
32 Rheinbote : Final assembly lines are separate, but not the barrel manufacturing lines. This has 'improved things' in the past, but in the age of flexible tooling
33 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Actually, if you check the Detailed Rules for posting on Airliners.net: 20. Please use the most relevant and descriptive heading for your topics. The
34 Tangowhisky : The 737-200 had a wingspan of 93'. Then in the mid '80's Boeing came up with the Classics for increased payload range, and extended the wingspan by a
35 MCOflyer : I'm guessing the 737 will be built for another 9yrs. when the new one does come out, I would assume at least 3500 mile range (like the 737-700). And a
36 Post contains images Steeler83 : The 757 was designed to be a medium-density domestic transcon plane, right? Sure, there are other planes in use that seat some 200 people that can do
37 DfwRevolution : Yes, but a transcon doesn't require 4,000 nm of range as suggested. Despite what the 757 was designed for, only a small fraction of scheduled 757 ser
38 Post contains images Planemaker : Looks like you were generous! Here's some detailed data as of last week for both the 737 and 757. The first set of numbers (seperated by a dash) give
39 Tangowhisky : Planemaker, that is great data. I assume US domestic data or worldwide? Here are some questions that come to mind from these stats: 1) Why would Bomba
40 Ikramerica : Considering how strict they are on other things, especially certain moderators who'll close threads if there is anything political they don't agree w
41 RoseFlyer : Having two similar planes might be successful, but I think that having one plane with just different wing modifications would be the best option. The
42 1337Delta764 : I really support the 2-2-2 idea. On the interior, I would like 787-style outer pivot bins, and no center bins, as center bins are not really needed on
43 Planemaker : It is worldwide since the market for the 737RS is worldwide. The answer is that BBD was actually offering a STD model (1800 nm) and the ER model (300
44 Tangowhisky : Aren't they both the same plane but higher MTOW to get the 3000 nm?
45 Post contains images Yellowstone : Two thoughts: 1) How much of the market does Boeing really want to sell to? Down at the bottom end of the narrowbody seating range (100-120) they have
46 JayinKitsap : Commonality of the cockpit, APU, Airpack controls, etc is what is important. As CRFP is done on mandrels and a line has an approximate maximum of 12 b
47 RoseFlyer : I think it is a given that the windows and lightening will resemble the 787. However 2-2-2 seating just doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to
48 Tangowhisky : LCC carriers cherry pick their routes as their operating model is point to point accompanied with low fares. This means that each flight has to be pr
49 Revelation : Not trying to shoot down your theory (in fact I agree with it), but CO is a counter example: they've abandoned MD-80s and are loading up on 737-8/9/9
50 Tangowhisky : JayinKitsap took a while understanding your approach and makes lot's of sense from the market needs perspective and the production line feasibility.
51 Post contains images Planemaker : As the saying goes, "a little bit of information is dangerous", even in trying to formulate a "conspiracy theory!"   The 736 is not there to "discour
52 Tangowhisky : I did not imply they were launched to discourage BBD and ERJ. The -600 were launched to get rid of the weeds and further dry up sales of smaller MD-8
53 Gigneil : Its only the -600, and I was very specific in saying up to 300 seats. The A340-600 clearly suffers from its fuse width. N
54 KSUpilot : I believe this concept has a very good chance. While I am a fan of the old T-Tails, I like this design as well. It keeps some of the old 737 lines an
55 Post contains images Planemaker : "Getting rid of weeds" does not make any sense. Again, the 736 was launched as a successor to the 735 and to maintain the 737 family range for Boeing
56 Post contains links and images Keesje : Operating empty weight Boeing B736: 37,104kg (81,800lb), Operating empty weight Airbus A318: 38,375kg (84,600lb) Operating empty weight Boeing B717: 3
57 Planemaker : Aside from the fact that you don't have an apple-to-apple comparison in your list, I don't understand what you are tryin to say above?
58 DfwRevolution : I think so. The virtually brand-new E190/E195 aren't any lighter than the F100. In fact, the trend of aircraft has been for aircraft to continue gain
59 KSUpilot : Just to prevent some confusion, if you haven't seen the other "100 seat LRJ" thread, the image that Keesje posted is just a little render I threw toge
60 Post contains images Yellowstone : Keesje's "Beaker" picture looks like some strange cross between an MD80 and an A-10 Warthog, with those huge engines it has. Maybe they could throw in
61 DAYflyer : You can bet Boeing will not go smaller than 135 seats, since Embraer has the edge with the super-efficient 170-195 sized aircraft. And in reality, it
62 Post contains images KSUpilot : I took the Wings from the "Fozzie" concept and placed them on the "Beaker" concept. The second image is from the "100 Seat LRJ" post, it is the conce
63 Tangowhisky : True, but one must keep in mind that today's aircraft weight efficiency in many ways can not be compared to older generation aircraft in simple OEW b
64 Post contains images KSUpilot : And I should add that it is not a bad cross. Both in appearance, and the fact that this tail configuration will down on sound. It now comes down whet
65 1337Delta764 : I doubt that Boeing will actually use one of those radical designs for the 737RS. Boeing should probably first try one of those designs when the time
66 DfwRevolution : None of which changes the trend over the last few generations of aircraft. This is exactly why I pointed out that OEW is not an appropriate gauge of
67 Post contains links and images KSUpilot : I agree...I'm expecting something exactly like this: Modified Airliner Photos:Design © Yves MayerTemplate © Yves Mayer
68 Planemaker : As I mentioned earlier, Keesje is not starting with an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, in addition to the increased capabilites that have b
69 Post contains images Tangowhisky : I am truly enjoying this. I hear what you are saying, but I doubt that Boeing will follow a diiferent approach irregardless of size on any new program
70 DfwRevolution : Stimulating a demand for a new product and wedging a product into an existing market are two very different things. That analogy is way off. Like I s
71 Planemaker : It is a good discussion! Oh, I agree completely. Obviously I was talking about the CSeries - basically a 3 year old design already. And, afterall, th
72 2travel2know : IMHO, For an airline operator, Commonality Rules - The less different the aircrafts in the fleet are, the best. Boeing should be getting feedback from
73 Planemaker : Actually, many factors rule... commonality being just one of them. Well, COPA is not alone in chosing the E190 instead of the low end B or A family m
74 Post contains links KSUpilot : Looking at the possibilites, I have come to two concepts that we could possibly see. Concept 1 is the 797 from MAF. It's advantages are that it keeps
75 1337Delta764 : The 737 family has shared the same fuselage since the beginning. The 737RS is likely to use a wider fuselage, and will also likely use many composite
76 KSUpilot : I understand, but from a marketing standpoint, I think it would be better to keep the 737 name, as that name is linked to a successful line of aircra
77 1337Delta764 : Yes, but if that's the case, it will be a 737 in name only. In the technical aspect, it will be a completely new aircraft unrelated to the 737, and I
78 Lehpron : Correction: First of all, I doubt airlines would give a hoot for these how these airplanes will look as long as they make up for it in performance, i
79 JayinKitsap : So what will the launch model be, I suppose what WN and the other launch customers want. It is probably only one model a year so there will be 4 to 5
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...
Airbus: Boeing Will Replace The 737 Within 5 Years posted Fri Jun 22 2001 01:46:42 by B757300
Can Boeing Ever Replace The 757? posted Mon Aug 28 2006 23:10:24 by KSUpilot
NW Plans To Replace DC-9s With RJs posted Fri Feb 24 2006 07:19:03 by United737522
KLM To Replace Old 737 By 737NG posted Wed Nov 23 2005 12:42:45 by AMSGOT
WN Pushes Boeing To Develop New 737-700 posted Tue Sep 13 2005 16:31:45 by KLMcedric
KLM To Replace MD-11 With 787/A350 posted Wed Jun 8 2005 18:21:35 by MauriceB
Boeing To Step Up 737/777 Production posted Wed May 11 2005 15:02:07 by DAYflyer
Why A330 To Replace The B767? posted Thu Apr 21 2005 20:37:23 by Asianguy767
FAA Orders Boeing To Replace Insulation On 800 A/c posted Fri Apr 1 2005 18:55:02 by Aa777jr
Could/Should AA Replace The A300's With 7E7's? posted Tue Jan 4 2005 03:21:02 by TriJetFan1