Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing CEO Sees Potential To Re-engine 737.  
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19972 times:

It is reported in Flightglobal:

Boeing chief executive Jim McNerney believes a re-engined narrowbody is viable in the near term because of the progress made by engine manufacturers.

McNerney believes that a derivative re-engined 737 would cost in the range of 20-30% of a full development programme.

As a result, he says, "the re-engine case is stronger than I anticipated it would be, which doesn't mean that that's what we'll decide".


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...otential-to-re-engine-the-737.html

With a massive backlog of narrow body orders neither Airbus nor Boeing has much incentive to embark on NB replacement programmes. But will airlines needing to replace old narrow body fleets in the next few years be pushed into defecting to Bombardier and other manufacturers if Airbus and Boeing offer no major improvement on the 737 and A320 until 2020 or so?

What if Boeing does re-engine the 737 and Airbus follows? Won't that push their replacements nearer to 2030 than 2020?

[Edited 2009-09-03 22:03:41]

83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well Boeing and Airbus both continue to perform studies on various adaptions and enhancements to their existing models. Airbus was looking at a whole slew of updates to the A320 a few years back (updated engines, winglets, new interiors, etc.) and Boeing has been tweaking the 737NG, as well.

The really "big" engine changes are not expected much before the latter half of the 2010's, so with the current backlogs, neither Boeing nor Airbus really have their backs against the wall. And Bombardier is busy canceling orders, so...  Silly


User currently offlineTimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19847 times:

IMO, the first A/B clean sheet design will win. Fuel will be hugely expensive beginning next year, probably. The scramble for efficiency will begin again. If A announces a clean sheet A320 family replacement verses are re-engined 737, well, you can guess who would win. Throw in the E-jets, MRJ, ect, and you have a compelling reason for both A&B to overhaul their narrowbody twins ASAP.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19811 times:

Airbus will get a few more % out of the A320 family with tweaks.

Boeing will have to respond with a re-engined 737NG.

Airbus will have to respond with an A320 re-engined and improved, similar to how Boeing originally responded to the A320 series with the 737NG.

Boeing will be forced to scrap the 737NG reengine in favor of a new clean sheet.

Airbus may have to then respond in kind, or may be able to replace the wing of the A320 and boost composite use but keep the basic A320 design a la the next genning of the 737.

This is how these things work.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDallasnewark From Estonia, joined Nov 2005, 495 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19732 times:



Quoting Timpdx (Reply 2):
IMO, the first A/B clean sheet design will win. Fuel will be hugely expensive beginning next year, probably. The scramble for efficiency will begin again. If A announces a clean sheet A320 family replacement verses are re-engined 737, well, you can guess who would win. Throw in the E-jets, MRJ, ect, and you have a compelling reason for both A&B to overhaul their narrowbody twins ASAP.

You have no idea where the fuel would be next year, it can be hugely cheap as well. Pure speculiaton based on nothing. There's no fundamenthals in place to make the oil go through the roof again.

Getting back on topic, why get a clean sheet design when your customers are happy with the current product of 737/A320. ROI is still not there to start with the clean sheet design



B732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, B742/4, B752/3,B762/3/4, B772/3, A306, A318/9/20/21, A332/3, A343/6, MD80/83/88, L1011, TU104/134, F
User currently offlinePanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19683 times:

With regards to engine, the only engine that is "publicly" available is the PurePower PW1000G geared turbofan engine by 2013.

Therefore, it seems that Boeing is willing to pay about $2 billion to have the engine installed on the 737, which will most likely be the -600 and the -700 version.

Airbus seems to have an easier job installing the PW1000G on the A318 and the A319, which will make it easier for them to spend a bit more money for a composite wing and wingbox, where they have the experience to do this by no with the A380.

Overall, maybe this is a good development, because A & B need to come up with something by 2015 in order to compete with the CSeries and push back their customers who are demanding a new product sooner than later.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19684 times:



Quoting Dallasnewark (Reply 4):
You have no idea where the fuel would be next year, it can be hugely cheap as well. Pure speculiaton based on nothing. There's no fundamenthals in place to make the oil go through the roof again.

And there is so much more oil out there waiting to be found. A massive find in the Gulf of Mexico the other day will come online in 8-10 years, the Brazilian fields will be coming online sooner rather than later, and as more fields are found away from the middle-east and outside of OPEC nations, the price will be more and more market driven.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8541 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19658 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Panais (Reply 5):
With regards to engine, the only engine that is "publicly" available is the PurePower PW1000G geared turbofan engine by 2013.

Therefore, it seems that Boeing is willing to pay about $2 billion to have the engine installed on the 737

as if you would ever see a PW engine under the wing of a 737  Wink

seriously though , if PW have any thoughts of re-entering the civil market then they will have to get this right , they must be still regretting the way CFM got hold of the second generation 737 family .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26361 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19656 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
But will airlines needing to replace old narrow body fleets in the next few years be pushed into defecting to Bombardier and other manufacturers if Airbus and Boeing offer no major improvement on the 737 and A320 until 2020 or so?

If Airbus and Boeing can sell the aircraft more cheaply while gaining efficiency, a re-engine or other relatively minor change short of a clean sheet could be what these long suffering airlines need.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 19516 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The really "big" engine changes are not expected much before the latter half of the 2010's, so with the current backlogs, neither Boeing nor Airbus really have their backs against the wall.

True. But a much more efficient engine to power 100-150 seat twins is due to be available circa 2012. That would mean the C Series outclassing the 737-600, 737-700, A318 and A319 until they were re-engined/replaced. Bombardier claims a 20% reduction in fuel burn for the C Series. Against what their website does not say but I guess that's against comparable airliners of similar seating capacity. 20% fuel saving should be enough to provoke defections from the smaller Airbus and Boeing narrow bodies.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
Airbus will get a few more % out of the A320 family with tweaks.

Airbus was/(is stll?) hoping to reduce fuel burn on the A320E by up to 5% with engine and aerodynamic improvements and winglets. Unfortunately half of that (or more) IIRC was to come from winglets and so far the winglets don't appear to be working that well.

I have not heard of any major fuel burn reductions in the pipeline for the 737 before the Leap engine becomes available.


User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3735 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 19326 times:

Neither A nor B seem very enthused at pouring money into develolping the A320/737 further, much less into a clean sheet design...

Airlines are pushing, competition is increasing, but so far the standoff between the 737 and A320 seems to be stable and profitable for both manufacturers, who have their hands deep into something else at the moment.

It will be a game of wait. As soon as one manufacturer makes a move, the other will respond accordingly, or up the ante. But the technology for substantial fuel burn improvement has to come first.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineBramble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 19309 times:



Quoting Dallasnewark (Reply 4):
You have no idea where the fuel would be next year, it can be hugely cheap as well.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
And there is so much more oil out there waiting to be found..................... and as more fields are found away from the middle-east and outside of OPEC nations, the price will be more and more market driven

Agree in part. Yes fuel prices could be lower next year. We don't know. We could see a huge drop in the cost of a barrel over the next 5 years as non-Mid East fields come on line. But in reality, fuel in the long term will only go up and up in cost. It is a finite resource with a growing demand. No amount of new finds will prevent this. And while new finds my occur the older traditional fields may stop producing or stop exporting, thus negating the benefit of the new finds.

Aircraft need to be more fuel efficient to make thm attractive to airlines. Thus any decrease in fuel burn will be jumped on by airlines and aircraft manufactuteres.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 753 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 19278 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
Boeing chief executive Jim McNerney believes a re-engined narrowbody is viable in the near term because of the progress made by engine manufacturers.

Roughly translated this means "we are running 2 years late on the 787 and have (or will) blown $10 billion more than expected so we are in no position to be offering a clean sheet design 737 replacement for many years to come - as a consolation we might do a re-engine job instead."
The ROI on the 787 program is going to be much slower and later than expected - there wont be anywhere near as much cash in the kitty as first hoped in the next few years.
With the 789 EIS inevitably slipping past its planned date of 2013 along with required enhancements to the 77W (to compete with the 350-10) the necessary engineering resources will also be thinly stretched - dont forget the 787-10 has to appear sometime as well.

Boeing have simply stated the bleeding obvious.

Quoting Timpdx (Reply 2):
Fuel will be hugely expensive beginning next year, probably. The scramble for efficiency will begin again



Quoting Dallasnewark (Reply 4):
There's no fundamenthals in place to make the oil go through the roof again.

If oil is sitting at $70/barrel while the world is still in shock from the worst financial crisis since the 1930's then what will the price of oil be once things get back to normal - let alone another boom. China and India's thirst for oil gets bigger every year - not smaller.



Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 19279 times:

Airbus got widely attacked for it's first A350, which was an upgraded re-engined A330, so it'll be a hard sell to persuade airlines that a re-engined 737 or A320 is what they want to be purchasing in 2020...

I guess once both manufacturers have composite aircraft in proper production and service, they'll be able to judge how much benefit they could derive from a clean sheet of paper, versus a derivative.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 19187 times:

How about:

a) A & B re-engine their NB's from 2015-2016. A with GTF, B with CFM Leap engines if GTF is too much of a problem

b) A & B introduce clean sheet NB's around 2025 onwards

Benefits:

a) A spends $1 billion to re-engine; B spends $1-$3 billion. Both would have to invest $8-$10 billion (say) for a clean sheet design

b) A & B sell 3000-5000 re-engined NB's in the following 10-12 years by which time things may have moved on to open rotor engines, giving A & B the chance to introduce new designs that are substantially cheaper to operate than the re-engined 737 and A320

c) Wing technology may have moved forward a lot by 2025-2030. It would be irritating if A & B designed clean sheet aircraft for introduction into service around 2020 and a little later were obliged to redesign the wings because "active wing" technology had matured sufficiently to be exploited commercially.


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1564 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19016 times:



Quoting Panais (Reply 5):
Therefore, it seems that Boeing is willing to pay about $2 billion to have the engine installed on the 737, which will most likely be the -600 and the -700 version.

I think Boeing will only re-engine the -700/800/900. Just like Airbus will only want to re-engine the 319/320/321. The 736 and 318 have never been popular, and that won't change with new engines, certainly with the competition from the CS100/300 on the horizon. And Embraer won't sit still either. I expect Boeing and Airbus to quietly drop the 736 and 318 altogether, just like they did with the 777-200/300 and the A340-200 when it became apparent nobody wanted these any more.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 18909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
Airbus got widely attacked for it's first A350, which was an upgraded re-engined A330, so it'll be a hard sell to persuade airlines that a re-engined 737 or A320 is what they want to be purchasing in 2020...

Not sure that is a fair comparison, if I recall Airbus were promoting a "new" aircraft to compete in a different category, what they were offering in effect was a re-engined A330.

That is entirely different to offering an upgraded/re-engined B737/A320.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18204 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
And there is so much more oil out there waiting to be found. A massive find in the Gulf of Mexico the other day will come online in 8-10 years, the Brazilian fields will be coming online sooner rather than later, and as more fields are found away from the middle-east and outside of OPEC nations, the price will be more and more market driven.

Trouble is many of the new finds, like the recent one in the Gulf Of Mexico, are only economically recoverable if the price per bbl remains high....



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18079 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
what these long suffering airlines need.

What's "long suffering" about them?

Quoting Bramble (Reply 11):

Aircraft need to be more fuel efficient to make thm attractive to airlines

Actually, the heart of the matter is that airlines need to cut their fuel use. If that involves cutting flying, then so be it.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17888 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
What if Boeing does re-engine the 737 and Airbus follows? Won't that push their replacements nearer to 2030 than 2020?



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 10):
Neither A nor B seem very enthused at pouring money into developing the A320/737 further, much less into a clean sheet design...

I just can't understand why neither A or B has rushed to get their new designs out. It still boggles my mind that they are not concerned with other manufacturers jumping in and steeling the cash cow the 737/320 is for them. I would start developing now!!!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
And there is so much more oil out there waiting to be found. A massive find in the Gulf of Mexico the other day will come online in 8-10 years, the Brazilian fields will be coming online sooner rather than later, and as more fields are found away from the middle-east and outside of OPEC nations, the price will be more and more market driven.

Let's hope our politicians let us exploit the new found oil rather than un-naturally drive up the price with taxes. The latter is likely to be the case unfortunately.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17853 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Airbus was looking at a whole slew of updates to the A320 a few years back (updated engines, winglets, new interiors, etc.) and Boeing has been tweaking the 737NG, as well.

Indeed they have been busy keeping their narrowbodies efficient. Doea anybody have any idea how much more efficient the A320 and 737NG are today compared to when they first arrived. Both have minor improvements in engine performance, Airbus has LCD displays today instead of CRT displays. Boeing has winglets and carbon fiber brakes. And has just launched a 2% improvement programme to their NG fleet that will come online in 2011.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The really "big" engine changes are not expected much before the latter half of the 2010's, so with the current backlogs, neither Boeing nor Airbus really have their backs against the wall.

Are you not counting the PW GTF because it would only fit the smaller planes?

Quoting Panais (Reply 5):
Overall, maybe this is a good development, because A & B need to come up with something by 2015 in order to compete with the CSeries and push back their customers who are demanding a new product sooner than later.

I think it might be a good idea to gradually evolve the design. The Both the A&B planes are very efficient frames to date, and with new engines and updates to make the design last even longer it will make the entrance for Bombardier even harder.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
If Airbus and Boeing can sell the aircraft more cheaply while gaining efficiency, a re-engine or other relatively minor change short of a clean sheet could be what these long suffering airlines need.

yep! And think how much the airlines can save by not having to train all personell on new equipment and the flexibility of a fleet where new and old planes can be changed witout the need to change crew.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
Airbus got widely attacked for it's first A350, which was an upgraded re-engined A330, so it'll be a hard sell to persuade airlines that a re-engined 737 or A320 is what they want to be purchasing in 2020...

The first A50 design would have entered service early next year, and I believe if Airbus could have been able to increase production compared to todays A330 rate, they could easily sold many re-engineered A330. The A350-800 is a heavier plane than the A330-200 so I still believe it would have given Airbus a sufficient ROI, evven with all the attacks.

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 15):
I think Boeing will only re-engine the -700/800/900. Just like Airbus will only want to re-engine the 319/320/321. The 736 and 318 have never been popular, and that won't change with new engines, certainly with the competition from the CS100/300 on the horizon

I fear that you are right, but hope that you are wrong. With newer engines and less consumption, they shoul have developed a smaller wing for the 737-600/737-700.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineMogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17753 times:



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
Airbus got widely attacked for it's first A350, which was an upgraded re-engined A330, so it'll be a hard sell to persuade airlines that a re-engined 737 or A320 is what they want to be purchasing in 2020...

Airbus had a hard time because (a) the competition, aka 787, is a clean sheet design, and (b) because they tried to sell it as a brand-new thing even though its the same A300 framework.

Now, if Boeing calls the 737-8, 737-9 instead of a brand new name like "797" and make it very clear it's simply re-engined to gain efficiency while lowering sticker price, that maybe a nice sale too.

At the high cycle short distance missions that 737/320 are designed for, high-cycle reliability is just as important as fuel efficiency (esp the climb portion). So the Trent core (albeit smaller) would be better suited than the GEnx one.

That being said, Boeing needs to fix the 736 else they would complete cede that market to C-Series and E-jets.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17686 times:

I think a lot depends on how the 787 and A350 perform. If the advantages of CFRP construction prove out, there will be no point in designing another Al airliner, and hence both Airbus and Boeing will launch new CFRP narrowbodies. If the CFRP widebodies turn out to be disappointments both Airbus and Boeing will be hurting, and will not have the resources to do a clean sheet design anyway. Besides, there will be no reason to; the main efficiency gains are to be found in the engines and both the A320 and 737 will get new engines and continue to soldier on for a few more decades.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 7):
As if you would ever see a PW engine under the wing of a 737.  Wink



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20):
Are you not counting the PW GTF because it would only fit the smaller planes?

P&W's VP of Next Generation Product Family, Bob Sala, on May 6th noted that he feels that a GTF for the 737NG/A320 would need a fan diameter of 80" and a nacelle diameter of 96". The engine could also be mounted higher and farther forward on the nacelle, helping mounting on the 737NG and improving aerodynamics for both the 737NG and the A320.



Quoting Art (Reply 9):
True. But a much more efficient engine to power 100-150 seat twins is due to be available circa 2012. That would mean the C Series outclassing the 737-600, 737-700, A318 and A319 until they were re-engined/replaced. Bombardier claims a 20% reduction in fuel burn for the C Series.

Bombardier is having a devil of a time securing orders for the C-Series and they're being forced to cancel some of the orders they have secured. Also, many 737NG/A320 operators are moving to the larger models to take advantage of the greater capacity and similar trip costs, which improves revenues per trip. Once the plane is in service and proven itself, interest will certainly increase and orders will start to follow, but that may very well not happen before Boeing and Airbus are ready to go forward themselves and if they do decide to offer a four-plane family, it might blunt Bombardier's attempts to move into airlines with major 737/A320 fleets.



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
Airbus got widely attacked for it's first A350, which was an upgraded re-engined A330, so it'll be a hard sell to persuade airlines that a re-engined 737 or A320 is what they want to be purchasing in 2020...

Well the original A350 was being placed against a plane that customers and the industry considered to be a significant step forward in design and performance. A re-engined 737NG or A320 would not be facing that.




The real roadblock to re-engining a plane are the engine manufacturers themselves. The costs are significant and the engine manufacturers want the security of hanging them off new-build frames to guarantee sales. So if the 737NG or A320 are re-engined, that would mean that the replacement model would be pushed back many many years to allow thousands of deliveries of the re-engined current model to occur and ensure that a proper RoI is achieved.


User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16957 times:

I think Boeing are "fishing".We all saw their reaction to Airbus testing the geared fan.They released a photoshop of a 737 with said engines in flight.All on this forum pointd out that it could not land though as the undercarriage is not long enough! The article suddenly changes direction stating that "anyway" they have the lead in carbon (tubes).

Airbus have been more candid (if you believe them) stating that the GTF trials were a fallback incase their preffered route (Open Rotor) could not be done.They also made it clear that they were not looking to go exotic (BWB).But did need clarification from the civil authorities of "Blade out" regulations.

I am certail that Boeing would love to go re-engine.But is it what the airlines want and the environmentally concious pubic wants.Not if you believe one of the biggest players Easyjet who have even gone to the trouble of physically showing what type of aircraft they and their customers want.

No it's all bluff and double bluff at this point. Both manufacturers have their hands full on what are essentially the same time frames for their mid sized jets.Neither wants to commit yet and neither wants to get into an avoidable war.

The 1-5% improvements already publicised will do for now. When they are ready it will be brand new aircraft IMHO


25 Post contains links and images Keesje : I can see the CSeries and reengined A320 enter service around 2013, regardless of what Boeing thinks / does. Along with Stickshaker's portfolio remar
26 Yyztpa : Which C-Series orders did Bombardier cancel?
27 AM744 : ... and demand (specially with steady BRIC growth) won't be decreasing for the foreseeable future. New discoveries will keep the current demand offer
28 Stitch : My mistake. It was a CRJ1000 order.
29 Stitch : I don't believe P&W can have a 25-30klb GTF ready by 2013, but if Airbus does indeed convince Pratt to build it, they are going to have to guarantee P
30 EA772LR : I disagree with this. Boeing is not likely to invest much more in the 737-600, and probably not a whole lot more in the 737-700...if anything, I woul
31 FrmrCAPCADET : Note on peak oil: Does not mean that there may not be a lot of oil left. What it generally means is that the easiest 50% of oil has already been produ
32 Ikramerica : Finite does not mean constrained. There is so much oil out there that whenever everyone starts worrying about "peak oil" all of a sudden massive fiel
33 Parapente : Oil wont run out -the stone age did not finish 'cos they ran out of stones.But it will get very expensive and the CO2 situation will not go away.As tr
34 Airbazar : Any backlogged orders could easily be converted to the new re-engined derivative much like what Airbus did for the A340. I have 1 fundamental for you
35 AirNz : In which case can you please then enlighten me as to how oil, or any hydrocarbon, is an infinite or renewable source of matter? You obviously also ha
36 NorCal : He's right, oil won't run out. It won't run out because there is some magical bottomless pit of oil, but it will simply be too expensive to extract a
37 N1120A : Have you been following the losses among airlines since 2000-2001? If they want to keep Southwest happy, I think they will give more than a cursory t
38 Post contains links Glbltrvlr : You might Google the term "Bio Jet Fuel"... Just a couple of links: http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/ne.../2009/06/24/a-better-bio-jet-fuel/ http://
39 Mascmo : Boeing needs to really make the 737 look like the one in Iron Man as a replacement for the 737! That thing looked awesome and I bet it's super efficie
40 413x3 : I think the point is obvious. That it is impossible in a market economy to pump oil fields until they are dry, there will still be oil in the ground
41 Pellegrine : Surely Boeing can also gain efficiency by doing something to that 40-year old airframe. Re-engining for a 737 NNG seems a band-aid solution. I don't t
42 Stitch : It is because the price of oil has been rising that these new deposits are now economically viable to be exploited, And once their capacity enters the
43 Rampart : Best quote of the week. Did you come up with that yourself, or is it from someone else? Can I use it? -Rampart
44 Parapente : Sadly I did not. It came from the Saudi Sheik who put the origonal cartel together.Warning them about supply/demand/price.He was saying that to maximi
45 Art : I'm starting to think that Airbus would be a bit dumb not to launch GTF powered A319, A320 and A321's (assuming that a more powerful engine could fit
46 Brons2 : I think Boeing is the one who really needs to introduce a new model to feature new engines on, due to the limited clearance on the current 737NG model
47 Parapente : Question.If fitting winglets to the A320 is a problem due to weight / stress as stated (for the first 2 trials) then one might imagine that fitting a
48 TSS : Boeing has been doing things to improve the 737's efficiency over it's 40 year production run. The current 737NG is in several ways quite a different
49 Stitch : It is, but as TSS notes above, it's also the easiest way for Boeing and Airbus to improve performance. Boeing and Airbus have been tweaking and impro
50 Post contains links and images Keesje : Maybe Boeing can join in with Embraer who also seem to have ambitions bigger the E195 to cover the lower end of the 100-240 segment. A few years ago
51 Jambrain : Doesn't always work like that, as the most stressed part of the wing is the wing box and as the weight of the engines is supported by the wing outboa
52 Parapente : What core would this new GTF use? The engine designed for the new Bombardier are too small.
53 Stitch : Pratt says they can scale it - all the way to north of 100,000 pound with a fan diameter of 133-138". As the fans gets larger, the engine gets shorte
54 Art : Don't understand. If a 30,000lb thrust GTF only saves 5-7% compared to a current engine and less than that on a 23,000lb thrust engine (and even less
55 Stitch : I believe Pratt was referring to structural weight. Pratt's goal was 12% greater fuel efficiency than current engines and the testing showed a 15% low
56 Art : Slight misunderstanding on my part then! Thought you were referring to fuel burn reduction.
57 Lightsaber : That seems pricey, unless a fuselage stretch is required to accommodate a changed center of gravity. The C-series is struggling, but once it gets its
58 Alangirvan : I am wondering about improvements in fuel consumption. Back in 1980, PSA said they got into DC-9 Super 80s, because they gave a 30% reduction in fuel
59 Lightsaber : For a re-engines 738? If we had a new 6-across c-series designed from the ground up, it would be a 20% to 25% fuel burn reduction, but more important
60 LTBEWR : Re-engining is not new, perhaps one of the most successful was with the DC-8's, improving it's use as a pax a/c and especially as a freighter for many
61 Alangirvan : I think Globespan has already tried Glasgow to Boston with a 738, and 737-900ER has a published range of 3,200 miles, so some TATL is already possibl
62 Lightsaber : Marginal TATL. Its going to be when continental Europe to the eastern seaboard is opened up that will drive the demand and sell a significant number
63 Nwarooster : There are just too many Boeing 737s around for an engine manufacture to not come out with a more efficient and economical replacement engine.
64 Flyglobal : One thing not discussed enough here: We are sometimes talking about GTF or leap X, or other engine core performance improvements (higher process tempe
65 Pellegrine : Dunno, I'm not an aero engineer. Maybe they could reprofile that nose and tail though, I'd hate to think there have been no advances in 3D aero model
66 XT6Wagon : Here is a question for you. Given that technology has progressed, couldn't they use a smaller core if starting with a clean sheet of paper for the sa
67 Keesje : Nobody knows but a likely scenario IMO. - Cseries / oil prices make the airlines put pressure on Airbus and Boeing to move forward. - Airbus upgrades
68 Lightsaber : Even for similar fan diameters, the core will shrink and thus the bypass ratio will increase. However, compared to a widebody, the bypass ratios will
69 Jambrain : Increasing bypass ratio without increasing fan diameter for the same thrust doesn't work. It can be done but it would be inefficient. The reason a hi
70 Lightsaber : Almost. Core 'overall pressure ratios' are increasing. Thus, a smaller core can power the same fan diameter with improved efficiency. Let's say the G
71 Jambrain : I was trying to keep it simple ! Thanks for your comprehensive reply! I was hoping to illustrate a bug-bear of mine that people seem to quote bypass
72 Lightsaber : Mix of component and propulsive efficiency. A little more towards propulsive efficiency as computer aided design is allowing the engineers to expand
73 Pellegrine : So basically the higher the bypass ratio, leads to a bigger overall engine, and therefore a heavier engine, which leads to increased fuel burn because
74 Lightsaber : Oops, bad wording on my part. The higher bypass ratio leads to lower fuel burn. But weight is increasing with bypass ratio. Thus, Optimal bypass rati
75 Jambrain : Unless of course someone has the balls to go for open rotor where the bypass goes north of 30:1 without the weight same penalty!
76 Burkhard : I do not see much profit from a so called "clean sheet" design, at least for Airbus. Increasing the percentage of composites from 25% to 50%, if possi
77 Parapente : These are your figures Burkhard.What if they are wrong? Clearly 787's and 350'd which are replacing designs that are of similar or ondeed later vintag
78 Burkhard : All we know is that these hopes didn't materialize yet. Would a Trent 700 powered 788 have any advantage compared to an A332? I doubt. The 788 has a
79 Airbazar : Smaller cities in the Eastern seaboard is a good example. BOS is a bad example because a) BOS only has 1 terminal with CBP facilities; b) that 1 term
80 Stitch : Pratt is keeping an eye out on the Open Rotor, but they feel that while an OR engine will be more fuel efficient than their GTF in the lab, once actua
81 Lightsaber : Not to mention the open rotor is optimized for the < 2.5 hour mission (due to slightly lower cruise Mach #). Pratt will keep a toe in the field, but
82 Pellegrine : Thanks. Forgive my not knowing, but why do the open rotor designs have a lower cruise mach than a jet engine? The open blades cannot go through airfl
83 Alangirvan : So, where is the sweet spot, that a NNG 737-800 ir 737-700NNG, re-engined will do enough to win a major order from WN or from AA? TATL is a great goal
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 To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010 posted Thu Dec 6 2007 13:57:53 by Scbriml
Boeing CEO Says 787 Halfway To Weight Reduction posted Tue Feb 6 2007 17:43:27 by NYC777
Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 21:45:28 by Tangowhisky
WN Pushes Boeing To Develop New 737-700 posted Tue Sep 13 2005 16:31:45 by KLMcedric
Boeing To Step Up 737/777 Production posted Wed May 11 2005 15:02:07 by DAYflyer
Boeing To AirAsia: Sell 737 At Cost 4 Mkt Share? posted Fri Dec 10 2004 23:52:44 by Xkorpyoh
NWA Wants Boeing To RE Open B757 Line posted Mon Oct 4 2004 04:19:31 by Smileyjet
Consequences To Boeing If It Has To Cancel The 787 posted Thu Jul 30 2009 15:58:31 by Mikesbucky
AA 769 Returned To JFK: Engine Trouble posted Mon Jun 29 2009 07:40:40 by Dr.DTW
Boeing Delivers 50th 767 To Japan Airlines‏ posted Mon May 11 2009 16:05:43 by 777ER