Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RUMOR: 737RS Development Slows Because Of 787  
User currently offlineZone1 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1035 posts, RR: 7
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7488 times:

Apparently development for the replacement to the 737 is slowing down at Boeing because all available resources are working full tilt on getting the 787 out of the hanger on time. This is a rumor that one of my friends who works for a aerospace contractor told me. I personally don't think this is a bad idea for Boeing because neither the 737RS nor the A320NG specifications are public right now and they keep on booking 737 orders. It would be smart to wait for Airbus to make the first move in this space and then come out with better specs and spend the development money at that time rather than skim workers off of the 787 development. The 787 will have a greater profit margin for Boeing than the 737RS ever will.

[Edited 2006-09-08 23:57:31]


/// U N I T E D
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31384 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well the 737RS can wait, frankly, since the proper powerplant is not available. So better to dedicate the resources now to the 787 program to make the launch as timely and painless as possible and then once she's out the (factory) door, they can re-start work on the 737RS program.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7388 times:

I doubt that either Airbus or Boeing are reducing the number of people working on the A320 or B737 replacements. It would be easier to believe that the numbers are not increasing as fast as earlier planned. If so, that probably has more to do with the availability estimates from the engine manufacturers than with the B787 project.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7322 times:

Honeslty, will the 737 actually be replaced, per se, i.e. not entirely?

737RS is just a reaplacement study, not a launch or any type of major development, what if they determine it is just not feasible with current or developing technology?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7238 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 3):
737RS is just a reaplacement study, not a launch or any type of major development, what if they determine it is just not feasible with current or developing technology?

The technology exists. It needs to be developed into an airliner. A lot of engineering work needs to be done, but no new technology needs to be invented (though some probably will be).


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7146 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
The technology exists. It needs to be developed into an airliner. A lot of engineering work needs to be done, but no new technology needs to be invented (though some probably will be).

Everything is there, with the exception of engines. It could be done right now, but Boeing most likely wants to wait for better engines.

They also want to see how the 787 does once it is in service, as Y1 will use some of its technology. And if airlines like the 787, then they will like a Y1 based heavily upon it (think narrowbody 787-like family that covers everything from the 737-600 to the 757-300).


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7077 times:

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 5):
Everything is there, with the exception of engines. It could be done right now, but Boeing most likely wants to wait for better engines.

And that's up to the engine manufacturers, who are now saddled with having to develop new engines for the 350X as well (should they choose to).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7055 times:

I think I have heard somewhere that CFM is working on a CFM56 successor, but I have also heard that Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce are currently studying two separate designs. I heard that RR is studying a three-spool design for the 737RS/NSR engine. This could be a sign that the 737RS will be offered with three engine options: CFM, RR, and PW.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 915 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6991 times:

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 5):
Everything is there, with the exception of engines. It could be done right now, but Boeing most likely wants to wait for better engines.

I think the importance of this can't be overstated. Without new technology engines, a whole new replacement isn't going to happen. Airbus can probably buy a bit of time with the 320E. A similar modification for Boeing would probably not be worth it as they have less room to improve and should be ready to go with Y1 once engines are available.

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 5):
They also want to see how the 787 does once it is in service, as Y1 will use some of its technology. And if airlines like the 787, then they will like a Y1 based heavily upon it (think narrowbody 787-like family that covers everything from the 737-600 to the 757-300).

I don't think it as much as seeing how the 787 performs in service, but in how development and production proceeds. They need to know that they can implement the new process efficiently (both in terms of supply chain issues as well as composite fuselage porduction and assembly) before they go full speed with a second program. They need to try and eliminate the kinks that will invariably appear through production of the 787. To be sure, it will be useful to know what the teething problems are for the 787, but I think the production issues are more important.

As for the range in capacity for the 737RS. i just don't see any single fuselage (composite or not) meeting everything from 737-600 to 757-300 sizes. It would just have to carry too much structure (the -600 and a318 already do) for that size range. I'm not sure what the market will be for 757-300 size planes, so they might skip the high end. I'd say 150-250 seats should about do it.

cheers.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6875 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):
This could be a sign that the 737RS will be offered with three engine options: CFM, RR, and PW.

I'd say that's a good bet. Even though it's against what Boeing has been doing lately I think this aircraft market is too important to not offer 3 engine choices.

Quoting Dank (Reply 8):
so they might skip the high end. I'd say 150-250 seats should about do it.

I'd bet my left arm there will be a model optimized for 149 seats, Southwest Airlines replacement aircraft. 3 FA's and 2 pilots forever.


User currently offlineDank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 915 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6800 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 9):
I'd say that's a good bet. Even though it's against what Boeing has been doing lately I think this aircraft market is too important to not offer 3 engine choices.

Only if PW can get their act together. Sad to see them falling by the wayside.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 9):
I'd bet my left arm there will be a model optimized for 149 seats, Southwest Airlines replacement aircraft. 3 FA's and 2 pilots forever.

I'd say that is 150 seats... I just don't see a 100 or 125 seater coming with Y1. not with the gap at the top end of the market and the competiveness of the ejets...

cheers.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6735 times:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Y1 is just in the concept phase so I doubt a lot of resources are being devoted to it anyway, as yet.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6657 times:

I seem to remember reading that Boeing was using a "Joint 787/Y1 Development" approach in their R&D - not a 787 development program with usable bits thrown into the Y1 program. The current situation with emphasis on the 787 might mean that more engineers are focused on the 787 for the short term, but lessons learned will still be available for Y1.

While I understand the problems related to the engines for Y1 I have also been interested in reading the GE hasn't committed to delivering an engine for the largest of the new 350s. Is it possible that they have already assigned a significant amount of engineering resources to an engine for Y1. They can feel the pressure for Y1 deliveries from WN (and others) as clearly as Boeing and the first one out the gate is going to be in a pretty good position. GE might be wanting that position to the point that they are pushing ahead full speed.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6489 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 9):
I'd bet my left arm there will be a model optimized for 149 seats, Southwest Airlines replacement aircraft. 3 FA's and 2 pilots forever.

I think Southwest is one of the few airlines with enough pull to get Boeing to design a plane to specifications that they want.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 11):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Y1 is just in the concept phase so I doubt a lot of resources are being devoted to it anyway, as yet.

While yes it is just in the concept phase, that is when much of the engineering work happens. Standard work is: design proposal, preliminary design, testing, refinement, and production ramp up. Different teams of engineers work on all different areas, but with the components for the 787 reaching the preliminary design and testing phase, engineering resources are being drawn from other programs to support Boeing's most critical commercial development now. But the 737 replacement is in the proposal phase.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
The current situation with emphasis on the 787 might mean that more engineers are focused on the 787 for the short term, but lessons learned will still be available for Y1.

I think that is crucial. Lessons need to be learned from all sources.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6415 times:

with current sales of the 737 as they are.... why should Boeing rush the replacement?

For every 737 sold, most of the profits go directly to R&D. So it doesn't surprise me that Boeing is rethinking its target date for the 737RS. One additional year of 737 production could equate to 1/10th of the 737RS program costs.

Engines is another reason??? IMO, I don't think so. The engine manufacters, specifically GE and RR, are finding tremendous sucess in the 787 engines. It is known via the recent media articles that they are ahead of schedule in testing those engines. Therefore, there is no indication that the engine manufacters would be the cause of the delay, if this rumor is true.

Again, anything that can contribute a delay in EIS of 737RS is everything to do with the sucesses of the current 737NG.

Also, we can't forget how soon we will see the 787 take shape and its first flight so additional resources are needed during this super busy period.

Time is really passing by us really very fast... just the other day it seemed Boeing was coming up with a sonic cruiser... lol... Interesting, what time and reality does to ideas/projects.

Cheers,

Ric



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6124 times:

I'm thinking something like this for the 737RS. I modified an image off of MAF (the original is the 797-100) The 797-100 is your Southwest 737-700 replacement. The 797-200 replaces the 737-800/900 and the 757-200. The 797-300 replaces the 757-300 and leaves a 25 seat gap between the 797-300 and the 787-3/8.

http://onfinite.com/libraries/991726/223.jpg


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5724 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 14):
with current sales of the 737 as they are.... why should Boeing rush the replacement?

That type of attitude is part of the reason why a few years ago Airbus was able to surpass Boeing in sales. Continued development is necessary to remain competitive. The 737NG is a great plane and is still selling well, but the replacement plane is still more than five years away. That's a long time. The 737-300 took was replaced 13 years after it first flew. If the 737NG was to replaced this quickly, then the replacement would already be in development and would fly in 2010. While there isn't as much pushing Boeing to replace the 737NG since its competitor is an older design and Airbus has not launched a replacement either.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 14):
Also, we can't forget how soon we will see the 787 take shape and its first flight so additional resources are needed during this super busy period.

Yes I believe that would be a reason to slow 737 replacement development. The 787 is requiring resources from all over Boeing and the suppliers for the plane.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5585 times:

I still think this "slowing" was already in the plans, as they knew they were going to be focusing on the 787 and the 747-8. I mean the earliest date we have heard for a possible launch of the official program is after the 787 first flight.

I wouldn't expect the 737-RS to actually fly until 2012 (at the earliest) That is 6 years from now, and there can be a lot of 737 sales in that time.

I think the the smaller 797-100 is going to be one of the key battles, as that will be of interest to basically any airline flying 737-300s, 500s, 600s, 700s. And the 797-200 will be the second key battle as it will replace the -800, -900, and 757-200. It still remains to be seem whether there is a need for a 757-300 replacement, but it would be nice for Boeing to come close to the 797-787 gap.


User currently offlineLredlefsen From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4920 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
And that's up to the engine manufacturers, who are now saddled with having to develop new engines for the 350X as well (should they choose to).

Please pardon the stupid question (and also excuse the fact that this might be in the wrong forum -- maybe this belongs in Tech/Ops?), but what are the tradeoffs involved in engine design for commercial airliners? Is there a good place to read up on the basics?

From my very limited knowledge, I gather that in order to make an efficient engine, you want a high bypass ratio, which means you'll end up with an engine with a large diameter.

If the engine is to be mounted under the wings, the landing gear has to be high enough so that the engines don't drag on the ground (viz the 757, which looks like a model with really looong legs).

A high/tall landing gear gives the forces on the wheels a longer lever, which means more strength is needed at the base of the gear (i.e., the place where it is mounted to the wing/fuselage). More strength often means more weight.

Is that pretty much what's involved?

How about a design similar to the C-17, where the wings are mounted on top of the fuselage, rather than below it?


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4819 times:

Quoting Lredlefsen (Reply 18):
How about a design similar to the C-17, where the wings are mounted on top of the fuselage, rather than below it?

Boeing did take out a patent on something similar to this. But it could just be a study, as when all aircraft manufacturers come up with something, they always patent it before the other guy does.

This could be a 737-RS design, however exits do become an issue...no over wing exits. And not to mention you have engines right next to some windows which could mean more noise.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

I think that the 737RS will feature a standard wing-mounted engine/conventional tail design, with a height similar to the 757. Exits are an issue with a high-wing design. With a T-tail/rear engine design, consider that T-tails are more complex and require more maintenence than conventinal tails, and that T-tails weigh more.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 16):

That type of attitude is part of the reason why a few years ago Airbus was able to surpass Boeing in sales.

No it wasnt. The reason for Boeings failures was perdominantly Boeing never priced the 737 to properly compete with the A320 when it comes to LCC sales. 737 was and continues to be on par when it comes to performance and efficiency. In 2006, the 737 continues to sell extremely well and with Airbus having bigger fish to fry... they can delay the EIS.

There is only one segment that Boeing lacked a competitive product and that was the A332. Even in this segment Boeing came out with the 764 and prevented some customers to switch to Airbus.

IMO, Boeing timed a midsize long haul replacement correctly. By delaying the 767 replacement launch by several more years Boeing was able to modernize its manufactering process, new cutting edge technologies were developed, and new engines were born. This is called the 787 project a perfect 767/A300/A310/A332 replacement in perfect timing, if you ask me...

Boeing has always had a adequate products.. the failures were perdominately due to an inadequate sales team and the overall management. oh, the arrogance too.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4579 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 20):
With a T-tail/rear engine design, consider that T-tails are more complex and require more maintenence than conventinal tails, and that T-tails weigh more.

From what I know, T-tails are more efficient. I'm have very limited aero experience, but I believe that they are less expensive in the long run. The biggest problem from seeing more of them is that they can have poor stall recovery capabilities. If the plane is at a certain angle of attack, the horizontal stabilizor will be in the wash of the wing, which causes the elevators to lose effectiveness and limit stall recovery capability. The 757 was originally designed with a T-tail. It was a late modification to switch to a conventional tail that happened after launch.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineEisman From Canada, joined May 2006, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 4537 times:

As they say in soccer, "first to the ball!". Boeing will be in a monopolist position for up to 4 years when it introduces the 787, potentially recapturing it's industry leadership. The possibility that Boeing will not press its current advantage in the product development cycle by delaying it's 737RS program is zero.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4448 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
The technology exists. It needs to be developed into an airliner. A lot of engineering work needs to be done, but no new technology needs to be invented (though some probably will be).

You know I can say the same thing for an SST but no one wants to believe that...  Confused

This is what happens when we kill imagination as we expect things to work right off the bat.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
25 Post contains images Stitch : Because the economics of an SST don't make sense right now because of both high fuel burn and the public's refusal for overland flights which restric
26 Lehpron : If what became of 737RS used modern engines, it would be no different than any other plane of similar class -- makes no sense to build it. We might a
27 Post contains links Jdevora : My understanding was that the B737 is cheaper than the A320... I'm still wondering if it is efficiency or is it that there are a lot of airlines with
28 BoeingBus : If so, why would airlines switch as the 737 and A320 are pretty much equals in terms of efficiency? If so, why would airlines go through the hassle o
29 Dank : I believe that there were two things that hurt Boeing with regards to the 737 vs. the a320. They were slow to realize that the improved efficiency of
30 Jdevora : That could be true NOW (A320 vs 737NG) but back when the A320 came out, the efficiency difference with the 737Clasic was big.
31 DeltaDC9 : They have done no such thing, PW has seen its commercial sales drop, but that is not relevant to their current status as one of the big three engine
32 Post contains images Stitch : Ok, I will certainly agree that a new generation of high-Mach supercruise engines would address the fuel burn and "usable payload" issues, but there
33 Dank : Sorry, I should have clarified and stated in the commercial aircraft engine market. It is still hard for me to see them recover and sell their own (n
34 1337Delta764 : I am pretty sure the 737RS will have a higher cruise speed than the 737NG, but not super-fast. Most likely, the speed will probably be comparable to
35 Zvezda : Given current fuel prices and the lesser range, I doubt that. Perhaps 0.82M, but anything faster than that would surprise me.
36 Post contains links BoeingBus : Whatever the date Boeing has in mind... the ball has started to roll... http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/09/11/afx3006032.html Article me
37 Dank : This is pretty much what has been known. cheers.
38 KSUpilot : Well if Boeing is going to give customers what they want, which is a more efficient, similar sized, 737-RS, then I ma pretty sure we are going to see
39 Post contains images Lehpron : With the idea of associating the two, not about cruise speed, I meant people have enough faith in one and will prove it workable but not the other, a
40 Zvezda : You're effectively just proposing to double the bypass ratio, but with the twist of pulsing thrust. The pulsing thrust per se doesn't have any advant
41 Phollingsworth : A couple of notes here. 1. On cruise speed, the shorter the range of the flight and the more congested the airspace the less benefit you get from incr
42 Post contains images Lehpron : How did you figure the bypass would double? Unless air that goes though core and doesn't burn would be the extra bypass? I proposed keeping the overa
43 Zvezda : Then you're proposing to halve the fuel/air ratio??? Or you want to inject twice as much fuel during each pulse???
44 Gigneil : Engines are the MAJOR holdup in any 737RS or NSR plans. End of story. NS
45 Lehpron : lol, how are you coming to these conclusions? This might confuse, but the fuel-to-air ratio doesn't change, with a pulsed turbofan, there is overall
46 Zvezda : I understand what interia is. I studied physics at university. If you take a standard jet engine and the only change you make is to pulse the fuel, t
47 Post contains images Lehpron : What kind of time split were you thinking of? Maybe I failed to mention the pulse rate would have to be high to be effective/competitve, on the order
48 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I think you greatly overestimate the inertia, as engine makers have been striving for decades to decrease the rotating mass. Even if you want to thin
49 Zvezda : That is completely immaterial. You get it perfectly.
50 Lehpron : If only the pulse rates were far apart to let the fans slow down then yes it will require more fuel to speed them back up. But if the time split was
51 Zvezda : The duration of each pulse and the duration of each gap between pulses is (by itself) immaterial. Doesn't make any difference. [quote=Lehpron,reply=5
52 Boeing7E7 : Tell that to the 707, 727-100, 727-200, 737-100, 737-200, 737-300, 737-400, 737-500, 737-600, 737-700, 737-800, 737-900, 757-200, 757-300. Different
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...
Boeing Says Development Of 787-8 On Track posted Tue Feb 21 2006 17:05:06 by NYC777
Pratt & Whitney Sued Because Of Engine Failure posted Tue Aug 22 2006 21:01:09 by RoseFlyer
A HK Girl Expelled From A Jet Because Of A Hangbag posted Wed Jul 26 2006 17:39:13 by CXCPA
Seattle Mariners' Plane Evacuated Because Of Fire posted Tue Jul 18 2006 06:00:39 by Clickhappy
Start Of 787 Asssembly On 6/27/06-Tomorrow! posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:54:01 by NYC777
Debarking Because Of MX Issue posted Wed Jun 7 2006 01:44:26 by Aileron11
Second Anniversary Of 787 Launch... posted Thu Apr 27 2006 01:18:56 by BoeingBus
Question Re: Integrity Of 787 Composites posted Sun Apr 9 2006 03:38:08 by JAAlbert
TG Flight Return To ARN Because Of Aggresive Pax posted Sun Jan 22 2006 01:44:37 by Flyboy_se
French Win Record Share Of 787 Programme posted Mon Oct 3 2005 12:11:20 by Astuteman