SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1508 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 14401 times:
I was thinking.
Boeing seems to be keen on going down the route of a dual-aisle replacement for the larger 737 models by designing a whole new aircraft. However, this doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't it be better to base it on the 787 by doing the following:
- Reduce the fuselage length to reduce capacity.
- Replace doors two and three with overwing exits (like most 767-300 models).
- Redesign the 787 wing to be smaller.
- Put on new engines to reflect the new aircraft's range/profile.
I think this would benefit customers by offering a common cockpit and simplified maintenance procedures.
[Edited 2011-03-10 05:47:02]
Next Flights: LHR-HKG (388-BA), HKG-LHR (388-BA), LGW-TRD (738-DY), TRD-LGW (738-DY)
sw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6218 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14299 times:
if they're going to base a 797 on a 787, they might as well just make a new version of the 787. Among other things, it makes certification a lot easier/quicker/cheaper. Boeing must feel the need for a brand new airplane.
What's the point of wasting space with a dual-aisle plane if you're going to do 2-2-2? I'm not criticizing, just curious...what advantage does that have over 3-3 and making a slightly skinnier aircraft with just one aisle?
gordomatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13934 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6): But, you will undoubtedly see a lot of the 787's technology in the 737 replacement
Exactly. I think the timing of the 797 announcement may be attached to the completion of 787 flight testing & validation of new technologies; what works, what does not. For example, will bleedless be applied to the 797 or are the benefits limited to larger aircraft?
We have clearance, Clarence. Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
tsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13919 times:
Quoting sw733 (Reply 2): What's the point of wasting space with a dual-aisle plane if you're going to do 2-2-2? I'm not criticizing, just curious...what advantage does that have over 3-3 and making a slightly skinnier aircraft with just one aisle?
I, and many others I'm sure, would be far more comfortable and happy in a 2-2-2 rather than a 3-3. The "wasted" space penalty may not be as much as previously thought, especially if CFRP construction allows an elliptical cross-section. Turnaround times would be much lower, increasing utilization, and it would also be a "game-changer" in a way... no other narrowbody could compete in terms of comfort for passengers. Many might not be persuaded by these arguments, insisting that weight and drag are the only concerns that should be be considered, but there are definitely good reasons to explore the possibility of a 2-2-2.
(By the way, if it has two aisles, it's by definition no longer a narrowbody, is it?)
sw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6218 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13883 times:
Quoting tsugambler (Reply 8): I, and many others I'm sure, would be far more comfortable and happy in a 2-2-2 rather than a 3-3
Me too, but what about economics? Which is cheaper to operate? a 2-2-2 would be a larger plane with the same number of people, I imagine that costs more to operate while still pulling in the same number of customers. At the end of the day, the airplane that is cheaper to operate will win the orders...simple economics.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1508 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13807 times:
Quoting sw733 (Reply 9): Me too, but what about economics? Which is cheaper to operate? a 2-2-2 would be a larger plane with the same number of people, I imagine that costs more to operate while still pulling in the same number of customers. At the end of the day, the airplane that is cheaper to operate will win the orders...simple economics.
I tend to agree.
Although from a passenger point of view the two aisle solution sounds great in terms of comfort, from an economical point of view, surely a twin aisle aircraft with the same passenger capacity as the 737-800/900 would be heavier?
That's why I am wondering if in the long run a shortened 787 would work. Remove some fuselage sections, change the wing and put on lighter engines and in theory there should be a significant reduction in the weight. Also, it would provide some great cargo capacity on shorter trunk routes LHR-FRA for example.
Next Flights: LHR-HKG (388-BA), HKG-LHR (388-BA), LGW-TRD (738-DY), TRD-LGW (738-DY)
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9736 posts, RR: 37 Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 13668 times:
Quoting sw733 (Reply 2): What's the point of wasting space with a dual-aisle plane if you're going to do 2-2-2?
I think it comes down to 'elbow-room,' sw773. Unless you're seriously overweight, a somewhat narrower seat is no great problem provided that you have at least one elbow in 'free mode,' able to 'overhang' either the window-space or the aisle. I'd BET that all of us tend to avoid 'middle seats' like the plague, for just that reason.
Hope Boeing pulls it off. If they can, it'll be a 'match-winner.' People will finally be able, just as passengers, to see a clear difference between the 'offerings' of the two main manufacturers. At the moment most passengers don't even know how many engines the blasted aeroplane has, leave alone which of the two major firms built it.........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
sw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6218 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 13655 times:
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 10): surely a twin aisle aircraft with the same passenger capacity as the 737-800/900 would be heavier?
The only thing I can think of is perhaps it can carry more cargo, making it economically-feasible despite its larger size...I admit that while I am an economics nerd, I know little real info about airline economics.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13360 times:
Quoting SKAirbus (Thread starter): I think this would benefit customers by offering a common cockpit and simplified maintenance procedures.
You can offer common cockpit and simplified maintenance procedures without holding cross section (e.g. 757/767). The major problem with this idea is drag...you can't shrink the length of 787 cross-section down to where it's in the 737 size class and not ruin the fineness ration of the fuselage, making it draggy. There's a reason the fuselage proportions of aircraft tend to be pretty tightly clustered.
jonnyclark From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12359 times:
Funny, I think this decision is based purely on their customer's profile. most of the boeing 737 series (especially 800 series) are operated by LCC's, which most have a very short turn around time on their aircraft. The airlines would make more profit by having less trips, but more passengers (or generally more passengers) and i am sure that the tight turnaround times are unfeasable with more than 180 odd passengers on a single aisle config (have you ever been on an FR flight? in the middle of the plane, it can take 10 mins just to get off!) Dual aisle provide a faster boarding time. Plus they become more preferential with seating. How many people get really hacked off when they get the middle seat?
I think it's a good idea, and from what i can tell from the general aviation training i'm doing as a trainee ATPL pilot, i can't sense any great weight penalties from increasing the fuselage diameter by a small amount, compared to the increase in payload. As most of a frame's weight is due it's fuel and wing characteristics. Not that i need to preach that to you guys!
and is it just me, or did ATA used to fly 757's with a 2 x 2 x 2 config? Or 2 x 3 x 2 (with really narrow seats?)
goblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10056 times:
The way i see it, Boeing will have to pull out a completely new design out of their hats when they do it. every a/c made has some kind of distinguishing feature that makes it stand out aerodynamically and internally as well. in other words it has to be innovative and basing it off of the 787 wouldn't sell.
yendig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 144 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9951 times:
If Boeing go 2-2-2, it doesn't mean they're going to increase drag in doing so. They've talked of widening the fuselage, yes, but also (I believe, though could be wrong) making it an ellipsoid in shape. They'll keep similar frontal area to the 737 by lowering ceiling height slightly, therefore no drag penalty. Think of a soft, very squishy ball. Unsquashed, it's perfectly circular (737). Squash it onto a flat surface and it gets wider (797). The frontal area is still the same, just redistributed.
With my (very limited) understanding of aerodynamics, I believe there would be drag penalties if they were to base the new aircraft on the body of the 787. Am I correct in thinking that the longer an object is, the easier it is to make it more aerodynamically efficient? If so, a shortened 787 will be less efficient than a whole new type optimised for the correct lengths. Not to mention, as others have before me, that the 787-3 was already offered to airlines and politely refused....
One final point, would an ellipsoidal fuselage have any benefit from a lift vs drag point of view? I believe it might - perhaps someone with greater knowlege than I could shed some light on the matter?
Either way, I'm looking forward already to another new shape in the sky!
YXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 878 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9573 times:
The idea of a twin-aisle A/C for the 737 replacement is to make de-planeing and loading the a/c as quickly as possible, primarily for an airline like WN, but lets face it other carriers want the same thing. The longer the a/c is on the ground the less money it makes for the airline. A clean sheet a/c is the best way to go, yes maybe using some old ideas from previous designs there nothing wrong with that. But to take the 787 and shrinking it still would need to a complete new design because you just can't take a plan and run it through the copier to make the new a/c.
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
25 Aesma: With that idea, I think the bins would be smaller, and the cargo hold too.
26 COS777: Not quite-if you squash it all the way the area is essentially zero. A circle has the largest area for a given circumference. The elliptical design w
27 prebennorholm: Ellipsoid shaped fuselage won't work on a pressurized fuselage. The pressure will always try to convert the shape to circular. Trying to prevent that
28 yendig: Thanks for putting me straight, guys! Just goes to show that you never stop learning I do hope Boeing can find a way of making the 2-2-2 layout work;
29 tdscanuck: Generally yes. High fineness ratio (length over width) is generally good aerodynamics. High fineness ratio is structurally heavy there, so there's a
30 yendig: Would there be any benefit to an airframer 'pinching' the side-of-body (like the SR71) on a passenger aircraft? Would this help the fuselage generate
31 BMI727: Quite possibly, and Boeing showed a design concept called Honeydew (I think) that shows this characteristic. Basically, yes. This sort of configurati