Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Re-engining The 737 An Option For Boeing  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14173 times:

In the latest issue of Aviation Week there is an interview with Mike Bair, strategic leader at Boeing. He has some very interesting remarks on the future product line at Boeing.

Boeing is positive about the P&W GTF PW1000G and does not rule out re-engining the 737. Bair says Re-engining the current 737 is an option for Boeing in the future including the GTF. He goes further on saying that they can get a bigger engine under the 737. Contrary to what some A.net members have claimed earlier.

Bair says in the interview that the PW1000G is going to be a good engine. PW has done their homework.

He also says that the problem with replacing the 737 line is how good Boeing are at building that plane. They have a really efficient production system and the RS737 has to start at that efficiency level.

IMHO it might be a good idea to give both the 737NG and 777 a huge upgrade so that they might last until the 2020 time frame and then come up with something completely new.

I did not find a link to the article yet, but as soon as it is available online I will post a link.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
110 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14166 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Contrary to what some A.net members have claimed earlier.

Wrong. What was claimed was that it would take a redesign of the gear and other systems to do it, and the question was the cost and practicality, and whether Boeing could fit a big enough engine under the wing to compete with Airbus when they toss a new engine under the A320.

It's not a question of "can" but "will" or "should".



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14114 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Wrong. What was claimed was that it would take a redesign of the gear and other systems to do it, and the question was the cost and practicality, and whether Boeing could fit a big enough engine under the wing to compete with Airbus when they toss a new engine under the A320.

It's not a question of "can" but "will" or "should".

I might be wrong on this one, but I believe someone has said it could not be done. If Bair says they are looking into this the first thing they would do would be to look at the cost and if they could get a healthy return of cost. I would have thought that when they go public and say this is an interesting option, they would have looked into the Return of investment, no?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2843 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14100 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
It's not a question of "can" but "will" or "should".

I think you are exactly right on this one. Just because it is an option (and probably the cheapest option) doesn't mean that it is the best option in the long term. That will, no doubt, be the subject of numerous design trade studies in the coming months and years.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 14027 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 3):
I think you are exactly right on this one. Just because it is an option (and probably the cheapest option) doesn't mean that it is the best option in the long term. That will, no doubt, be the subject of numerous design trade studies in the coming months and years.

Of course it will be a trade study, but Bair would not have said anything about the GTF unless they where thinking about it?

how would a re engined, redesigned 737NNG compare to the C-series?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2843 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13794 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):
Of course it will be a trade study, but Bair would not have said anything about the GTF unless they where thinking about it?

I am agreeing with you. They are thinking about it, hence the trade study.

I also read the article in AWST and found it interesting.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13773 times:

It probably (A big if at that...) can be done on the 737NG family, but I don't think it can be done on the 733, 734 or the 735 series...


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13745 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):
Of course it will be a trade study, but Bair would not have said anything about the GTF unless they where thinking about it?

Thinking serious about it, I should have written...  Smile

On a side note There is something strange happening when I use Internet Explorer 8 Beta2 when I reply on Airliners.net. Will take it up in the site related forum.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 5):
I am agreeing with you. They are thinking about it, hence the trade study.

Thank you. It was a very interesting article. Boeing also says they have learned allot about composites and calls the 787 and A350 first generation Composite airplane. And that Boeing could make a second generation composite airplane to compete against the first generation composite A350.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13681 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
It probably (A big if at that...) can be done on the 737NG family, but I don't think it can be done on the 733, 734 or the 735 series...

If it could be done with the 737 Classics, this could really be something along the lines of the DC-8 re-engine program that switched the JT3Ds of the DC-8-61/62/63 with CFM56-2s and they became DC-8-71/72/73s This kept the DC-8s in service with Delta and United into the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many of those Super 70s are still plying the skies as cargo birds. If such a conversion was possible with the 737 Classics, they'd probably have a steady customer in WN even if they were the only carrier to do such a conversion.

The thing about a re-engining project is that there has to be enough interest on the part of airlines to make it a viable project. The DC-8 and 707 re-engine projects had civilian and military interests which made it feasible. It also has to make sense financially for the airlines to do this as well. There has been talk of a re-engine program for the MD-80 family using the BR-715s used on the 717. Even with airlines like DL and AA having large fleets of the type, nothing has ever really gone forward with the program and it looks like the Mad Dogs will be replaced by other a/c.


User currently offlineJoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13655 times:

I would be very surprised if Boeing doesn't already have several solutions to putting a larger engine on the 737ng. Telescoping gear isn't exactly rocket surgery...or they are just keeping Airbus on their toes.


What the...?
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13644 times:



Quoting Srbmod (Reply 8):
If it could be done with the 737 Classics, this could really be something along the lines of the DC-8 re-engine program that switched the JT3Ds of the DC-8-61/62/63 with CFM56-2s and they became DC-8-71/72/73s This kept the DC-8s in service with Delta and United into the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many of those Super 70s are still plying the skies as cargo birds. If such a conversion was possible with the 737 Classics, they'd probably have a steady customer in WN even if they were the only carrier to do such a conversion.

You are forgetting about the very low landing gear on the 737-300 thru 737-500's. I dont think it would work, but I think it MIGHT work with the 737NG's. But then again, you never know.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13532 times:

But ultimately, anything they can do, Airbus can do better due to the design of the A320. Right now, the BPR of the Airbus engine is higher.

If Boeing truly loves the 737 cross section, I guess they can stick with it. But ultimately, it is based on a design from an era before automation, cargo containers, overhead bins, etc.

And personally, I hate the low windows that kill my neck as I try to look out, but that's no reason for Boeing to spend billions on a new plane…  Wink

So I'm sticking with my "no matter what Boeing tries with the 737, the A320 with the same tech will out class it" argument.  Smile



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9709 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13486 times:

Airbus builds a great product and I'm sure Bombardier will, but the 737 is still a very impressive airplane in its current state.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):

If Boeing truly loves the 737 cross section, I guess they can stick with it. But ultimately, it is based on a design from an era before automation, cargo containers, overhead bins, etc.

Well cargo containers can be used on the A320, but few airlines do. The 737 can have all new overhead bins before too long. I'm not sure what you mean by automation. Yes there are some parts that were designed for the 727 since the 737 was a cheaply shrunk copy of a 727. However, that also means that there is 40 years of learning and improvement done to the design. Subtle refinements over the past decade have kept the 737 refreshed and there's more to come!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):

And personally, I hate the low windows that kill my neck as I try to look out, but that's no reason for Boeing to spend billions on a new plane…

Carbon fiber strength is needed for bigger windows. The windows are a bit low to comfortably look out at other planes while on the ground, but they are in a good if you want to look at the ground while you are flying in the air.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
So I'm sticking with my "no matter what Boeing tries with the 737, the A320 with the same tech will out class it" argument.

Not sure what you mean by outclassing. The 737 has a higher dispatch reliability and is a lighter plane which translates to market leading efficiency.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13421 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
...I hate the low windows that kill my neck as I try to look out...

I thought I was the only one being paranoid about these windows on all of the 737 variants. Glad its not just me.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 12):
The 737 can have all new overhead bins before too long.

They actually do have them. It depends on the operator though....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineNwarooster From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1135 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 9):
I would be very surprised if Boeing doesn't already have several solutions to putting a larger engine on the 737ng. Telescoping gear isn't exactly rocket surgery...or they are just keeping Airbus on their toes.

The 737 is basically a 1960s aircraft that has been upgraded about as far as it can go.
Telescoping the landing gear could be more problems than it is worth. Special systems, extra weight and a big problem if it does not work on an inflight aircraft.
The aircraft sits to low to the ground for increasing engine size and thrust. The aircraft is a big vacuum cleaner and increasing thrust results in more FOD ingestion.  old 


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13223 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
They actually do have them. It depends on the operator though....

What I was saying is that the plane was DESIGNED before overhead bins existed. Yes they have been fit in, but at the expense of overhead space and aisle space.

All of the limitations of the design have been overcome so far, but it doesn't change the fact that there were limitations to overcome to begin with.

Let's look at the E-Jets vs. the CRJs, for example. Both are 2-2 designs, but the E-Jet, designed for commercial service from the ground up, are more customer friendly than the CRJ700/900, which was derived from an older platform.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13096 times:

It would be interesting to see their cost analysis,

re-engine the 737 + additional required work
vs
build a new jet from the ground up with a cost savings to operate of 20% or so.
(Boeings # for cost savings that would make them want to change over from the current 737)

Would also be interesting to see from the Airlines point of view: what cost saving vs cost of modification does it become worthwhile.

Certainly if Boeing came up with a "solution" that at least WN found desirable that would potentially be enough of an initial order to make it worthwhile.

From what I have been reading on here, neither A or B really have the technology at the moment to make the next big leap forward for this size aircraft so more band aids seems to be the way to go. Given the number of potential conversion opportunities it should keep the folks at Boeing busy if they get a good solution.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12981 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10):

You are forgetting about the very low landing gear on the 737-300 thru 737-500's. I dont think it would work, but I think it MIGHT work with the 737NG's. But then again, you never know.

Note the "If it could be done" that prefaced my post. The landing gear issue is covered under the "if it could be done" heading. The landing gear issue is part of the reason why the engine nacelles on the 737 Classics and Next Generation aren't round like those you see on other a/c that use the CFM56s. This is also why the 200 series birds were never considered for a re-engine program, as the only choice was pretty much an updated version of the JT8Ds used on the type.


User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1894 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12464 times:

The 797 is inevitable. Why not do it now and not have to worry about all the issues associated with new engines and modifications of the fuselage and wings. Start now with a totally new airframe and the plane will probably take flight around 2020.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12199 times:



Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 18):
The 797 is inevitable. Why not do it now and not have to worry about all the issues associated with new engines and modifications of the fuselage and wings. Start now with a totally new airframe and the plane will probably take flight around 2020.

Because a 737NNG could be ready for first flight in as few as 3 years. A 797 will take a good 10.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12166 times:



Quoting Srbmod (Reply 17):
The landing gear issue is part of the reason why the engine nacelles on the 737 Classics and Next Generation aren't round like those you see on other a/c that use the CFM56s.

I know. I have worked/maintained on 737's before.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11747 times:



Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 18):
The 797 is inevitable. Why not do it now and not have to worry about all the issues associated with new engines and modifications of the fuselage and wings. Start now with a totally new airframe and the plane will probably take flight around 2020.

The biggest issue for both A & B is that at this time, they don't have the technology or at least the technology at a viable cost/maturity level where they can say with confidence that they can come up with a new aircraft in the 737/320 market and get the necessary improvements in cost of ownership to make the investments viable.

The 787 obviously is getting it right in that market segment but right now neither A or B can replicate those benefits on smaller jets. I am pretty sure that if they knew they could pull it off they would be out right now wooing the airlines to get on board. Boeing would probably trying to knock down all the doors at WN if they had something special to bring to market.


User currently offlineSyeaphanR From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's reasonably sure the 733/734/735 could take the later CFM56 as used on the 737NG...Even Leap56, maybe...But would the improvement justify the cost?

If the BMW 715 is an option for MDs, would it be so for the 737? Likely not for either type, as, after all, the MD90 uses the V2500, not the 715. In addition, re MD80s, didn't the MD90 have a fuselage stretch to balance heavier powerplant? But that's BTW...

On the 737NG, new nose gear and telescopic main gear would be a fix, but what about putting the engine forward of and ABOVE the wing? Boeing proposed it for civil application back before the 757 gelled into shape, and the idea has been used on an earlier military project.

Bigger-fan CFM56, V2500, GTF..useful flexibility...

Engine weight would be similar; it would be down to the revised dynamic loadings, and wing torsion, I guess, with maybe an aerodynamic interaction between the nacelle and fuselage.

Bloody awful views out for pax, too!

That would also be quieter, a neat benefit. But then, remember the VFW 614; that hardly caught on, did it?

Hmmm...  headache 


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11648 times:

I suspect that to overcome the ground clearance/ FOD ingestion problem on 737s, Boeing will re-engine the aircraft using four of the smallest version of the new P&W GTF engine, two per wing in single pods a la B-52.  Wink

Okay, utterly absurd idea... but wouldn't it look cool as heck?  scratchchin 



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineTylerDurden From United States of America, joined May 2008, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11633 times:



Quoting Srbmod (Reply 17):
The landing gear issue is covered under the "if it could be done" heading.

I'll take Boeing's engineers word that it can be done. No one knows better than them.

If Bombardier can lift the CRJ gear almost four feet to make the -700/900...I fail to see the issue with Boeing getting two feet more (and it was said that the CRJ lift couldn't/wouldn't be done either).

It's a cost issue...but I don't see it as any technical roadblock.


25 Tdscanuck : You're not wrong. Several people said it. They were, by and large, people who don't understand airplane modification. It *can* be done, but it's prob
26 JoeCanuck : It's a lot simpler than a whole new airplane. There are lots of ways to do it. I don't know if they will attempt to put GTF's on the 737, but gear he
27 Kanban : Boeing engineers have maintained for a long time that an under slung engine is less ideal than having it mounted in the wing... (i.e. Comet...) maybe
28 Lightsaber : There are Pratt studies for a 60.5" diameter GTF. It can be done! Question is... with the C-series, MRJ, and other projects... Would the 737 be compe
29 RoseFlyer : Gear can be moved. The strut can be modified and even lowered in the structure. There are a good number of systems, in particular mechanical systems t
30 JoeCanuck : Still...if they ain't broke...
31 DocLightning : So where are the obligatory artists impressions?
32 N14AZ : Welcome to the club! whenever I land I always slip deeper into my seat as if I would try to relax or is if I were heavily drunken. I always wonder wh
33 Boeing74741R : I have to agree with you on that statement. The basic shell of the 737 is derived from the Boeing 727 that was first introduced in the early 1960s, a
34 StickShaker : Its also based on an era of somewhat less obese passengers than those of today, the 737 series can be quite cramped from a (contemporary) passengers
35 OyKIE : I am not so sure. My girlfriend and I went on a trip to Istanbul, and we felt the 733 classic was just as comfortable as the A320. I asked her if she
36 Tdscanuck : Really? Then why has every commercial design from Boeing since the 707 (except 727) used under-slung engines? There are huge containment issues with
37 MMEPHX : Does this mean: a) re-engine existing aircraft already flying including NG b) a re-design and option for future 737 -7/8/900s yet to be sold & built
38 OyKIE : You know your way around the 737. Good to have you onboard this thread The article talks about future model strategy, so Mike Bair talks about a re-d
39 Tdscanuck : This would be my guess. If a) happens, b) will certainly happen also. If you don't offer it as a retrofit, you're missing a potentially huge market.
40 Fruitbat : .........do P&W have the resources to support a programme that delivers a solution that makes a sufficient return prior to the official launch of the
41 Rheinbote : Re-engining the 737NG doesn't make much sense. Current size constraints do not allow for a significant increase in fan diameter. Changing the airframe
42 FrmrCAPCADET : The 737 is basically a 60 year old plane. This is true given some definitions of 'basically'. The 737 is basically a 1995 aircraft. Also true accordin
43 Alessandro : I don´t think so, FBW could make huge savings for the B737.
44 Tdscanuck : A new strut isn't generally considered "close to a new design" and that's all you'd need. That's because the second one is far more accurate. The onl
45 4holer : You have assumed the larger diameter fan, but is this truly a given? What is the diameter of the current engines? Are the 60.5" versions of sufficien
46 JoeCanuck : I recently flew on a 320 and a 737 on back to back flights. There is no way that any person who didn't know there was a difference would be able to te
47 XT6Wagon : And the A320 was designed when people were midgets if you use this reasoning. It has LESS room than a 737 for me given the slope of the side cabin...
48 DocLightning : My understanding of the GTF is that it decreases the rate of rotation of the main fan. If that's the case, then the specific impulse of that main fan
49 Stitch : 60.0" for the CFM56-3xx series used in the 737 Classic. 61.0" for the CFM56-7Bxx series used in the 737NG. 63.5" for the IAE V2500 series used in the
50 Alangirvan : When I first started to get interested in Commercial Aviation, the big new thing was the DC-9-80 ( which flew before it became the MD-80). The adverts
51 Tdscanuck : It's not so much about slowing the fan down as decoupling the speed of the fan and turbine. You could keep the same fan going the same speed but powe
52 Tylerdurden : Well, since according to AVITAS...a reasonable authority on aviation...the 737 and 320 have almost identical operating costs. Flipping by a few dolla
53 Nwarooster : Boring feels that the pilot should have ultimate control and fly the aircraft. Airbus thinks the computers do a better job and should fly the aircraf
54 Lightsaber : Yes. Its a game changer. Do recall the CFM only has a single stage high turbine, so its a bit easier to gain the fuel efficiency, despite the fan dia
55 Alangirvan : If it is doing an RNP you trust the computer.
56 Valkyrie01 : Get rid of the 737 and come up with something better they are a pain to work on not maintenance friendly.
57 B727LVR : Me personally I would rather have the pilot fly the aircraft. All aircraft at one point or another are flown by a computer... Hence Autopilot coupled
58 Valkyrie01 : Alot easier to work on less time to rig. Not much down time needed for maintenance to fix something if something need to be fix.Do you want the airpl
59 B727LVR : Just out of couriosity.... I agree that the not having to rig control cables would be nice, but switching over to a FBW system. Wouldn't that require
60 Tdscanuck : That's something of an over simplification now that both companies have gone to FBW. Both Airbus and Boeing have envelope protection on their FBW pro
61 RoseFlyer : The guy I sit next to at work just did a redesign and requalification of the thrust reverser control valve. He rolled modules, so the P/N is not exac
62 Gsosbee : Good discussion, but at the end of the day I don't think either Airbus or Boeing has the spare cash to do anything. The A350, A380 and A400M programs
63 Tdscanuck : Being under the same SCD doesn't mean all that much...I've seen SCD's with 20 distinct parts in there. True, but I think that's true of pretty much a
64 AirframeAS : On which variants?
65 TylerDurden : How many aircraft have been lost due to pilot error? And how many by computer error?
66 Stitch : I can think of two A320s that crashed due to the computer overriding the pilots and putting/keeping the plane in an unrecoverable position and I can
67 Fruitbat : A program of this importance would comfortably burn through many hundreds of millions of $, maybe even into the one or two billions when everything's
68 AirframeAS : I trust a pilot rather than a computer. I want my pilot to be able to override the autopilot in case of an emergency or in any emergency. How many ai
69 Boeing74741R : I've highlighted a serious flaw in your argument, because if every plane model was based on it's predecessor what did aircraft such as the A380 deriv
70 B727LVR : So would the third system, the hydraulic, in the FBW be the "back-up" as the cable system is to the 737? I have never really worked a FBW system so I
71 Rheinbote : That's exactly what A and B want you to believe. In fact, it's just that neither A nor B really want to loose their beloved cash cows. A and RR were
72 Gsosbee : Unions have a hard problem with reading and understanding financial statements. As of 30 June, Boeing had $7.3B of cash and short term investments, t
73 Tdscanuck : Any of them. It just costs more to do it to the older ones. Really? Which ones? Autopilot and FBW are very different things. Every aircraft every bui
74 Nwarooster : I can remember one Northwest Airlines A320 that the computers insisted that the aircraft was going fast enough to actually take off, when it was not.
75 RoseFlyer : On the 787, there is no backup if all FBW fails. 737 has cables to control actuators and additional rigging for manual reversion. In FBW, three hydra
76 B727LVR : Unless i am reading this wrong... Why would the GTF need to be Squashed into the NG acft? Current dia is 61" the GTF dia would be 60.5" thats a whole
77 Stitch : I believe what Lightsaber is indicating is that, at the same fan diameter of the current CFM-series engines, the Pratt GTF would need the same nacell
78 B727LVR : That makes sense, but which engine would require the taller gear? If they use the GTF I wouldn't see the need for it.
79 DocLightning : OK... The 73NG already has the squashed nacelle. What's wrong with using it again?
80 AirframeAS : I disagree. I still want a pilot in full control of the aircraft, not a computer. But that is completely off-topic of this thread.... When you have a
81 B727LVR : Thats true, air flow through a squashed duct will be different. But the way I understood some of the posts, that even with the taller gear and the ne
82 DocLightning : It would look like a 757 or even an A320.
83 Tdscanuck : OK, why? I'm not saying it's a good idea (it would be horribly on expensive on the 737-Jurassics) but it could be done. Better not fly any Airbus (ex
84 Rheinbote : We are certainly not talking about a marked increase in fan diameter then, as compared to the current CFM56? Would the limited mod you have in mind a
85 Tdscanuck : If you adjust the strut to mount the engine higher, you can gain quite a bit on fan diameter while maintaining ground clearance. If you allow for a t
86 Fruitbat : Brand new conventional engines maybe.....and 2015 isn't impossible for new 25k lbf engines that compete with the GTF if you start now...... I think w
87 Rheinbote : Don't see how they compete with a GTF in the same thrust class unless you're overly optimistic on SFC. A better opportunity to counter the 30 Klbs GT
88 PlaneWasted : Really, what's the principal difference from relying on a computer instead of a cable? Sure the computer is more advanced, but cables can fail to. The
89 Rheinbote : FBW enables active maneuver and gust load alleviation. The savings in strucutral weight are much more significant than the savings from shedding the
90 Fruitbat : GE are making some pretty serious hints/claims about LEAP56 technology (not just the UDF-style but the engine core too). Plus RR will offer substanti
91 JoeCanuck : It would seem to me that there is nothing stopping from putting the GTF on a more efficient core, when one is developed.
92 ZiggyStardust : Is P&W allowed to put the GTF on the 737? Could CFM have an exclusivity agreement similar to the one GE has with the 77L/W? For example, why has IAE n
93 Nomadd22 : You might want to multiply the average deposit by over a thousand planes. It's a little more than a "whiff".
94 B727LVR : I honeslty don't believe Southwest would buy a twin aisle acft. Heck right now they don't have a plane larger than a -700 . The reason for this is ti
95 Tdscanuck : There's nothing about a twin aisle that requires more flight attendants...that's driven by seat count. If you could built a twin with the capacity of
96 Planemaker : Then there is also a further increase in the nose gear strut length that makes it possible to increase the the nacelle angle (Boeing already did that
97 TSS : According to the Aircraft Data section of this site, these are the standard and optional per-engine thrust ratings for current 737 models: 737-600: 1
98 Jdevora : My understanding is that the A400M doesn't have anything to do there... The lunch customers pay the whole bill (plus a small % profit) and Airbus wil
99 TristarSteve : Sorry Steve is getting confused. The PW blurb on the GTF says the fan will turn slower for lower noise. Surely this must mean that for the same thrus
100 SEPilot : The safety records of all current production aircraft are so impressive that this argument is irrelevant.
101 Nomadd22 : Surely it doesn't mean that at all. the pitch and aerodynamics of the vanes can make a big difference in thrust for the same diameter fan.
102 Post contains links TSS : According to P&W's website, apparently not: The 56" version to be used on the MRJ is capable of 14,000-17,000 lbs of thrust. The 73" version to be us
103 TylerDurden : Just to you....or the hundreds of victims that haved died or been injured in the last decade? I'm betting most the accidents have been attributed in
104 AirframeAS : I already stated why above. Sometimes, one does not have a choice.
105 Planemaker : You are correct.
106 AirframeAS : Hence why I call the 757 'Chicken Legs'.
107 Tdscanuck : In theory, yes. Provided you can improve the fan efficiency enough (better airfoils, better blade design) then you can move more air through the same
108 ODwyerPW : Not to put to fine a point on it. But did anyone else notice the 737 has over 450 orders just 8 months into this year? This "1950's heritage" plane wi
109 Tdscanuck : How dare you bring facts into an Internet discussion board? Shame on you! Tom.
110 Planemaker : The GTF's economic advantage shine is starting to burn a bit less bright. Brent is below $100... a 30% drop from its high - and this is with OPEC stat
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...
An Idea For A Boeing Competitor For The A380. posted Mon Jan 14 2002 01:55:45 by Airplanetire
Carlisle Is An Option For Ryanair posted Fri Jul 14 2006 15:55:42 by Humberside
A380 Not An Option For KLM posted Tue Jul 5 2005 08:17:48 by Glareskin
A350 An Option For LAN? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 02:18:43 by A388
Longest The 737 Can Fly For posted Thu Feb 12 2004 18:18:35 by Boeingflying31
Once Again, The 737 Saves The Day For Boeing. posted Thu Feb 10 2005 14:51:31 by Juventus
Will SK Get The 737-700ER For OSL-EWR? posted Tue Dec 18 2007 10:03:09 by WF2BNN
Why No Winglets For The 737-400? posted Fri Nov 9 2007 12:31:51 by 1337Delta764
Longest Route For The 737 posted Sat Apr 14 2007 21:58:42 by Jamesbaldwyn
So Boeing Is Just Waiting For An Engine For 737RS? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 20:29:04 by Lehpron
Longest The 737 Can Fly For posted Thu Feb 12 2004 18:18:35 by Boeingflying31
Once Again, The 737 Saves The Day For Boeing. posted Thu Feb 10 2005 14:51:31 by Juventus
Will SK Get The 737-700ER For OSL-EWR? posted Tue Dec 18 2007 10:03:09 by WF2BNN
Why No Winglets For The 737-400? posted Fri Nov 9 2007 12:31:51 by 1337Delta764
Longest Route For The 737 posted Sat Apr 14 2007 21:58:42 by Jamesbaldwyn
So Boeing Is Just Waiting For An Engine For 737RS? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 20:29:04 by Lehpron