Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GE Completes Configuration Plans For 737MAX  
User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 15616 times:

As per Bloomberg post:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...r-engines-on-new-737-aircraft.html

Additionally, GE also said they plan on having a 77W replacement engine to market in 2018/19 that is 6 to 8% more efficient than today's GE90. That's a pretty big clue that the 777X will EIS in 2018/19.

99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1459 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15487 times:

From the article:

“It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX,” Joyce said. “We’re going to take full advantage of the integration we do with Boeing and with Spirit to make sure the overall engine-airplane combination is incredibly efficient from an integrated propulsion system and the engine is really optimized for this airplane.”

Does this mean a new core?



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15455 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 1):
Does this mean a new core?

Nah, just one huge engine mounted on top of the fuselage.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14756 times:

I am quite curious how the MAX will look like if even GE says "It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX".

"Very unique" probably also translates into:

- costly (a unique installation means minimized reuse of know how and technology, which translates into additional R&D cost)

- inferior (the straight forward and superior kind of approaches are known since long time. Requireing to make it unique, unseen, means that the chosen solution would not have been considered as optimum up to now).

Quoting qfa787380 (Thread starter):
Additionally, GE also said they plan on having a 77W replacement engine to market in 2018/19 that is 6 to 8% more efficient than today's GE90. That's a pretty big clue that the 777X will EIS in 2018/19.

When Boeing recently wrote the RFP for new 777 engines they seemed to ask for 10% more efficient engines than the GE90. 6-8% means that GE misses Boeing's expectation by 20-40%. So, they will have to rework their plans. Or maybe RR will fare better and get the order.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1583 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14676 times:

Reply 3

"When Boeing recently wrote the RFP for new 777 engines they seemed to ask for 10% more efficient engines than the GE90. 6-8% means that GE misses Boeing's expectation by 20-40%. So, they will have to rework their plans. Or maybe RR will fare better and get the order."

We don't really know yet what the new 777 will be. If the much vaunted 787-10 takes most of the 772 space then it could well be one engine at 99lbs thrust and another at 120lbs. The latter being GE's alone. If the 748i really does not cut it (and it is not right now) I can see a larger (carbon) rewinged 777 taking it's place (400?) and a (250) underneath it.The latter may well have rolls engines as an option. Airbus better watch out I feel. The 350 was a rushed knee jerk reaction to the 787 and 346 failure all those years ago - they may well pay the price of that decision in the future.


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14647 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
I am quite curious how the MAX will look like if even GE says "It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX".

Maybe something like this?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Thomas



     


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 729 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14598 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
If the much vaunted 787-10 takes most of the 772 space
Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
a (250) underneath it.

A359 and B789 are more than adequate for this role.

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
a larger (carbon) rewinged 777 taking it's place (400?)

Such 777NG would approach 748i and even A380 territory. I wonder how much better it would be comparing to "abusing" the two 4-holers?

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
Airbus better watch out I feel. The 350 was a rushed knee jerk reaction to the 787 and 346 failure all those years ago - they may well pay the price of that decision in the future.

This makes limited sense, to me at least.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14294 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 1):
“It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX,” Joyce said. “We’re going to take full advantage of the integration we do with Boeing and with Spirit to make sure the overall engine-airplane combination is incredibly efficient from an integrated propulsion system and the engine is really optimized for this airplane.”


I would be willing to wager that flight-testing will be fraught with a good dose of anxiety. Above and beyond the 'normal' problems that crop up, a "very unique installation" will guarantee that aerodynamic efficiency of the engine-wing-fuselage interface may become a major headache...Don't like that "very"...

Faro

[Edited 2012-02-07 03:52:06]


The chalice not my son
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13723 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
"Very unique" probably also translates into:

- costly (a unique installation means minimized reuse of know how and technology, which translates into additional R&D cost)

I agree more cost will be there because as you have pointed out more than once the 737 installation is challenging, however it's an issue of scale. Obviously the cost is less than the cost of the aborted NSA, and small enough to not deter Boeing from doing the MAX.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
- inferior (the straight forward and superior kind of approaches are known since long time. Requireing to make it unique, unseen, means that the chosen solution would not have been considered as optimum up to now).

So you don't allow for the possibility of discovery of new techniques and optimizations?

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
Above and beyond the 'normal' problems that crop up, a "very unique installation" will guarantee that aerodynamic efficiency of the engine-wing-fuselage interface may become a major headache...

Interesting. The way I read the first half of Joyce's second sentence was that he was quite confident that the GE-Boeing-Spirit team would produce an incredibly efficient engine-wing-fuse interface.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1144 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13706 times:

I'm fascinated as to why some people think "unique" has to translate to "awkward" or "inefficient". Just because "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't make it best in all scenarios.

It sounds to me like they are going to rethink some of the systems traditionally considered part of the engine, based on the fact that there is only one engine offering. Maybe move some stuff out of the nacelle area? I dunno. The bit about "integrated propulsion system" is suggestive, though.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13667 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

CFM did a "unique" installation to get the CFM56 to fit on the 737 Classic / 737NG and that worked out pretty well. *shrug*

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13523 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
If the much vaunted 787-10 takes most of the 772 space then it could well be one engine at 99lbs thrust and another at 120lbs.

do you believe there will be two versions of the 787-10, one using the present wing and undercarriage with a MTOW of about 254t with about a 36t payload at 6000nm and another with a new wing , more fuel capacity, more power and a higher MTOW with load capability to match the 772.?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13248 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 1):
“It’s going to be a very unique installation..."

Does Mr Joyce know what "unique" means? It's not an adjective than can be qualified. It's like saying "quite pregnant"


User currently offlinepoLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13158 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 12):
Does Mr Joyce know what "unique" means? It's not an adjective than can be qualified. It's like saying "quite pregnant"

Maybe not where you are from, but in the US the phrase "very unique" is very common. People would also have no problem saying quite pregnant either, referring to someone who is very far along their pregnancy.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7221 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13141 times:

Since its a pax plane with minimal aerobatics required, unique could be that the engine is "within" the wing, as in first few feet from the fuse, then engine, then rest of wing, like the Meteor of WWII fame, with such a configuration there would be no need to raise the landing gear since the engine will not be "hanging" from the wing on pylons.

At the rate these OEM's computer models screw up mine is probably just as good as their  


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13086 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):

Jeez, couldn't wait to get a chance to bash the Boeing, eh?

Perhaps GE means they (unlike you or me or anyone else) know what they are doing and wouldn't dare screw up their cash cow, which means that they are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to throw out an "inferior product."

GE makes superb products and their engineers know what they are doing. They didn't seem to have any problem with the 737 before with the "flattened" CFM56, and I know they won't this time, either.

But, please, continue with the Boeing bashing, GE bashing if it pleases you.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12883 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
So you don't allow for the possibility of discovery of new techniques and optimizations?

I have thought about this possibility. In summary I would say, that finding new ways do do some very profound and established things like mounting an engine, requires a hefty amount of research. For something that usually is a simple engineering task. It is about the difference between engineering and research.

So, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage by discovering new techniques and optimizations, the cost part of the equation would blow out of proportion (which does not mean that the MAX will not be a fine aircraft offering a nice ROI to Boeing, just to be clear).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
CFM did a "unique" installation to get the CFM56 to fit on the 737 Classic / 737NG and that worked out pretty well. *shrug*

True, it worked out well. But are you aware that the unique installation of the Classics and NG will not be useful for the MAX anymore? Because GE says that there will be a new unique solution. If the existing would work again GE would not need to say that the new will be "very unique".

How many unique engine installations does Boeing want to have invented for the 737? Dealing with limitations by virtuosity is limited in itself...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12749 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 3):
I am quite curious how the MAX will look like if even GE says "It’s going to be a very unique installation for the 737 MAX".

"Very unique" probably also translates into:

- costly (a unique installation means minimized reuse of know how and technology, which translates into additional R&D cost)

- inferior (the straight forward and superior kind of approaches are known since long time. Requireing to make it unique, unseen, means that the chosen solution would not have been considered as optimum up to now).

I doubt Boeing is designing the B-737MAX like the RMS Titanic or the Comet 1 was. At one time the Boeing designed and built B-47 was considered 'unique', yet the design set the basic standard for all airliners with the engines in pods under the wing, including all Airbus airliners. Since the B-731 was introduced by LH, the basic design has seen many changes, all of which improved upon the first design, so I see no reason the B-737MAX design will not continue that trend.

BTW, you do know the A-320NEO is going to be a 'unique' design, too. It is a departure from the original A-32X designs.

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
I would be willing to wager that flight-testing will be fraught with a good dose of anxiety. Above and beyond the 'normal' problems that crop up, a "very unique installation" will guarantee that aerodynamic efficiency of the engine-wing-fuselage interface may become a major headache...Don't like that "very"...

Have you ever heard of wind tunnel and computer generated testing? It is done well before the design is finalized/frozen. All flight testing has a 'good dose of anxiety'. More than a few airplanes have crashed during flight testing, including the wildly successful B-17, F-14, and even the A-333. In fact the F-14A crashed on its madian flight.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 9):
I'm fascinated as to why some people think "unique" has to translate to "awkward" or "inefficient". Just because "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't make it best in all scenarios.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
CFM did a "unique" installation to get the CFM56 to fit on the 737 Classic / 737NG and that worked out pretty well.

        


User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12620 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
I doubt Boeing is designing the B-737MAX like the RMS Titanic or the Comet 1 was

True, but hopefully a tad more successful than the Spruce Goose...



maxter
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12525 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
So, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage by discovering new techniques and optimizations, the cost part of the equation would blow out of proportion (which does not mean that the MAX will not be a fine aircraft offering a nice ROI to Boeing, just to be clear).

Your two statements are at odds with each other.

If the cost is blown out of proportion, then Boeing won't see a nice ROI on the MAX.

There will be a cost, but it clearly is a tolerable one.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12448 times:

GE and Boeing have been working on putting bigger engines on the 737 for years. Of course it will be a unique solution...just as the cfm's were unique, the winglets were unique...just like every single thing done to any aircraft is unique.

It's obviously worth doing since Boeing still seems keen on doing it.

That being said, the actual nuts and bolts of the design should prove interesting.



What the...?
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1144 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12426 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
I have thought about this possibility. In summary I would say, that finding new ways do do some very profound and established things like mounting an engine, requires a hefty amount of research.

Or, much more probably, discarding of one or more of the assumptions that has driven engine mounting up to this point. The most important one being, the airframe-engine interface. Most airframes are designed to accept more than one engine, at least in theory (whether it actually pans out is something else entirely). In the few cases where one engine has an exclusive on the airframe, the engine maker has generally wanted to be able to sell the engine elsewhere with minimal redesign (think CFM). The GE-90 might be a case of exclusivity in both directions, but it started life designed for a 777 accepting competing engines, and so far little to no advantage has been taken of the exclusivity.

If GE and Boeing are doing something special with the Leap-X mount for the MAX, they may simply be taking advantage of the opportunity to rethink what bits go where. That is not research, it's just engineering. It need not be particularly costly engineering, either.

(and yes, I know that the Leap is being used on other airframes. Maybe GE has accepted a much greater lack of commonality at the engine systems and installation level, as a tolerable price to pay for the MAX exclusive.)



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 582 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12001 times:

Given the words said about the unique solution of integrating the engines and given the issue that the 737 should get the biggest possible fan under the wing without lifting the plane too much, I would expect that we see something like an engine almost looking like integrated into the wing as a result.

I expect some core improvement (next step evolution) and the new fan wing attachment, effecting the fan design as well as wing design.

The core improvement I would expect to be taken to the Airbus version as well, as GE also has to defend the engine against the Pratts GTF.

can't wait so see first pictures.

regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11828 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):

I doubt Boeing is designing the B-737MAX like the RMS Titanic or the Comet 1 was.

About that we two are in a broad agreement...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
At one time the Boeing designed and built B-47 was considered 'unique', yet the design set the basic standard for all airliners with the engines in pods under the wing, including all Airbus airliners

That is exactly what I meant with a profound and established design. Indeed Boeing layed the foundation there.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the B-731 was introduced by LH, the basic design has seen many changes, all of which improved upon the first design, so I see no reason the B-737MAX design will not continue that trend.

Correct, since the first 737 version Boeing was always hunting creative solutions. Calling these improvements is not correct because any other aircraft, also much later ones including any later development from Boeing, had the engines mounted as firstly displayed on the B-47 (in principle).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
If the cost is blown out of proportion, then Boeing won't see a nice ROI on the MAX.

I would agree that the ROI probably looks much worse than for the NEO. But this does still not mean, that there will not be a nice ROI for Boeing. Because I expect the produced number to be high enough, that even double the development cost would easily be covered by the return. Astuteman has explained this.

You touch another point I usually make (that does not attract much feedback):
From the point we are today, the balance should not tilt any further in the direction of the NEO. Otherwise Airbus will eventually establish a noticeable lead on the market.

This would be the deceptive situation where Boeing will celebrate countless fantastic sales for their MAX, where year by year they sell hundreds of MAX's, where they will maintain the highest output of their 737 production for years and yet the customer base is slowly creeping away (see 737 Classics). And once the cards will be shuffled again (when NSA finally comes, as a new Airbus NB will), Airbus will be in a position where they have much more customers.

You know the beginning of a decline starts very subtle. There may be plenty of victories that might blur the broader picture.

This is my concern. And it is actually a concern, not a hope, as some seem to impute to me.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
There will be a cost, but it clearly is a tolerable one.

I agree, I have not said, that it would not be tolerable.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10975 times:

It seems the MAX is replacing the 764 as the plane that Airbus fans love to hate.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 23):

I would agree that the ROI probably looks much worse than for the NEO. But this does still not mean, that there will not be a nice ROI for Boeing. Because I expect the produced number to be high enough, that even double the development cost would easily be covered by the return. Astuteman has explained this.

Indeed so. Engine placement issues are not a detriment to moving forward with MAX.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 23):
And once the cards will be shuffled again (when NSA finally comes, as a new Airbus NB will), Airbus will be in a position where they have much more customers.

Customer loyalty is a factor, but far from the only factor.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 23):
I agree, I have not said, that it would not be tolerable.

What you did say was:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
the cost part of the equation would blow out of proportion

And the wording of this seems to me to be stronger than your later statements.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 faro : Unique doesn't necessarily mean awkward, bad or inefficient. What it does mean is that there is a higher likelihood that *significant* unforeseen iss
26 Post contains images WarpSpeed : Something like this? Engines a bit more forward and pulled up closer to the wing...
27 Roseflyer : I absolutely disagree that mounting an engine is a simple task. The regulations keep getting stricter and more limitations are existing. It is far mo
28 ContnlEliteCMH : The focus in this thread on the engine being "very unique" seems to focus on accessories packaging, engine placement, mount, etc. In my opinion, this
29 Post contains images cosmofly : What I found interesting is the phrase "an integrated propulsion system". What does the propulsion system integrate with? - the wing??? What about the
30 ferpe : When discussing the lack of space to hang an engine on the 737 one shall not forget that part of it's advantage over the 320, it's lower weight which
31 lightsaber : Nitpick, Boeing doesn't care about bypass ratio itself, but the parameters that lead up to a more efficient engine. What they wanted changed was the
32 Post contains images par13del : Oh, I thought the general wisdom was that it was not an advantage, hhhhhhhmmmm. That's my thought, may require additional wing strength but is does a
33 Roseflyer : I think he is referring to weight. Shorter gear is lighter. Also it allows more space in the wheel well which is highly used space for hydraulic comp
34 ferpe : Shorter gear is not only lighter it also transmits lower brake bending loads etc into the structure, ie the surrounding structure to hold the gears c
35 justloveplanes : Interesting time for a historical design review from the 40's... The swept wing / jet engine pod design was first used I believe on the Messerschmitt
36 Chimborazo : My immediate thought on reading the thread title was: GE press release, "Er... We've decided the configuration will be one under each wing". On a seri
37 odwyerpw : That is precisely how I interpret Unique. I submit that my interpretation of the semantics is no less invalid than anyone else here (unless of course
38 ferpe : The 262 pod design was very much the forerunner of the 737 original JT8 pod design. Re putting the LeapX ahead of the wing, this can work fine for th
39 JoeCanuck : In a way, as a curious onlooker, I'm glad Boeing went with the MAX purely from the standpoint of seeing where their creativity will take them. The pu
40 odwyerpw : I feel the same way. I have always enjoyed the 'How Evolved will the 737 Become' threads.(think there was a Parti, Partii and a Partiii). The MAX is
41 rheinwaldner : Out of proportion can can be a lot of things. Including my later statement. Absolutely correct, I did not want to say that it would be simple. It is
42 faro : Indeed, it's always exciting to see something new being done with the boring old wing-and-tube model. Faro
43 Revelation : What about "blow(n) out of proportion"? I doubt I'm alone in hearing that as an exasperated utterance. In other words, "them's fighting words"! At le
44 Stitch : Looking at the financial statements, as well as values and lease rates, the 737 has higher Average Sales Pricing than the A320, so RoI is probably not
45 StickShaker : I always understood that the 737 had shorter gear because it was originally designed to accommodate the PW JT8 which is a much physically smaller eng
46 Stitch : In addition to that fact, the lower ground clearance makes bulk loading and unloading of bags a bit easier. I imagine "lightness" was one of the seco
47 racko : I may be alone on this, but I would love anything that breaks with the boring "standard twin" look all new airliners have these days. Engines on the
48 Post contains links Devilfish : I've seen no mention of this, so here..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...et-or-exceed-a320neo-range-367932/ Quote: "Boeing will match or exce
49 Daysleeper : I think given the magnitude of sales which will be generated by this program an extra billion or two in costs isn’t going to matter, as Boeing will
50 Post contains links and images seabosdca : Yes, although the -7B (that powered the NG) had enhancements to the original -5s, which were incorporated into later -5B builds. There is no dramatic
51 Roseflyer : I think it does contradict that fact that it is a straight forward engineering task. With how complicated airplane systems are, there are few straigh
52 planesntrains : Something to watch. Well, he's speaking to the 60's when the aircraft was designed. Was containerised baggage in a narrowbody commonplace then? I don
53 ikramerica : Which, though possible, is not the norm for the A320, and not possible for the 737 and 757. The 737 was low to the ground just as the 727 was low to
54 Daysleeper : The NEO doesn’t require any significant modifications to be made to the engine from the specification proposed for the C919 two years ago. They als
55 JoeCanuck : I can't see how the engine situation is any different for the MAX/NEO than the current two models. Boeing has managed to hold about half the market wi
56 Roseflyer : I think that is a very good point. On the CFM-5 and CFM-7, performance improvement packages have not always come together. Choices is both good and b
57 Stitch : Boeing's CUSTOMER'S put their hopes on the "same frame". Boeing wanted to give them a new plane that they would have to wait 5-10 years longer for an
58 rheinwaldner : Sorry, my statement was not precise enough. I agree fully that re-engining will by far not be as risky as the 787 was. So indead, I expect none or cl
59 flyingAY : Here in Europe it definitely is the norm. (Containerised baggage)
60 racko : “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Henry Ford
61 par13del : Percentage wise I wonder how much of the deployment of the A32X series Europe accounts for, based on figures provided here the largest Airbus operato
62 Post contains images scbriml : More are Euope-based than anywhere else. Using Airbus's O&D spreadsheet from end of January, I see 4,851 operational A32x of which: 36.8% are ope
63 Stitch : Darn shame he wasn't starting out today, because he could have used genetic engineering to give them what they wanted. In Boeing's case, they do have
64 Post contains links PlaneAdmirer : JL seems to have a slightly different view of how things developed: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-off-the-line-comparisons-367738/ "One of
65 rheinwaldner : The most limiting aspect for the MAX clearly has roots in the initial design from the sixties: the ground clearance.
66 JoeCanuck : Actually, the marketing job has worked best with airlines. If customers didn't buy the planes and make profits with them, they would soon cease to ex
67 PlaneAdmirer : Agreed, but I really don't think it worked on the airlines. They made a very rational decision in purchasing the NG after doing their own reviews and
68 JoeCanuck : True...marketing may have gotten the airlines in the door but the performance characteristics are what they bought.
69 Post contains images Stitch : Yes it does. But the 737 was a plane designed when engines were very small in diameter and airports did not have the infrastructure they do today. I
70 Post contains links planemaker : A very short blurb came out a couple of days ago on Leeham's site... Optimizing LEAP for 737 MAX http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...02/08/optimizi
71 ikramerica : "More are Euope-based than anywhere else." No, more Europe based than any one other region. More "anywhere else" based than Europe. Do all EU airline
72 scbriml : "More are Europe-based than anywhere else." is clear and unambiguous. "More are based in Europe than anywhere else" is true. As is "there are less ba
73 Post contains links racko : Part 2 of the aforementioned Leeham post includes a slide by Boeing that shows the installation of the engine: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...
74 Stitch : So Boeing's 6% more fuel efficient claim for the 737NG vis-a-vis the A320 is at 500nm, which is where the FCOMs infer the 737NG has it's strongest ad
75 Revelation : It clarifies that Boeing is using fuel burn per seat, which is what many have been presuming.
76 odwyerpw : The question I have is, Is this per seat calculation based on exisiting seating capacity, or is Boeing going to make the flat bulkhead standard when
77 XT6Wagon : flat bulkhead adds wieght. If anything I'd bet they go back to a dome for all models and just make the pressure section extend farther aft if they ar
78 Daysleeper : Something doesn’t smell right here. First of all, I don’t buy the fact that by pure chance Boeing just happens to have the right amount of space
79 Revelation : I think you, like myself, use "optimum" more in the sense of "as best as possible if all constraints are removed" whereas these articles use "optimum
80 Tristarsteve : Up here in Northern Europe, all the scheduled airlines use containers on the A320, and all the local charter airlines. Even A319 is containerised, bu
81 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The Spruce Goose had 3 things that worked against it, the unusually long developement time (for the 1940s and Hughe's continous interference in the p
82 frmrCapCadet : And optimized for the 737 may mean that whatever technology and strategy being used may be useless for any other engine on any other plane. And when y
83 Post contains links sharktail : I would hope they are going to optimize the engine. But Boeing is optimizing for 500nm. According to Being's own documentation. http://leehamnews.file
84 rheinwaldner : Some days ago, you have said about weight penalties on the MAX: That should be clear to anyone, frankly,... And again, you make the same mistake agai
85 Stitch : There might very well be - for both OEMs. In context of the total dry weight of an engine, the fan weighs effectively nothing. The LEAP-1B fan will b
86 par13del : To true my friend, now I wonder if the 63+% of users do use containers, thanks for the info. Is this not why one has different engine makers and diff
87 faro : True up to a point. Airbus's cousin, Dassautl launched its 737 with a shortish landing gear configuration but had the engines on conventional pylons
88 rheinwaldner : I would even say fully true. It is perfectly ok for a design from the sixties to look like the 737. Not in their wildest dreams the designers at that
89 PlaneAdmirer : I can only dream of being so cursed with a backlog of how many profitable units again? It's not like DL doesn't operate both aircraft and just topped
90 Revelation : 60 years ago Boeing engineers couldn't have known the B-52 will be flying around today carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missles and GPS-guided iron bom
91 Daysleeper : Where does it say that the design is cursed? Or that it isn’t profitable? It’s a perfectly valid point, fitting larger engines to the 737 is bein
92 PlaneAdmirer : I was thinking of Boeing being cursed today with "design difficulties" from the 1960's comment in reply 88.
93 Revelation : Yes, I said the same above. It's a valid point, but not all that significant one, IMHO. My points were addressing the significance of the point, not
94 Post contains images Revelation : Nah, but since they want to stay a step ahead of the B737, they should add one!
95 sharktail : Yes it is different. There are 2 competing airframes, the C-Series and the COMAC C919. They both are going after the same market. At least the C-Seri
96 Post contains images rheinwaldner : Great stuff, indeed. Is not the KC-135 planned to reach the age of 100 according to the current phase out plan? If the KC-767 would once be equally l
97 Stitch : I honestly expect these split orders are driven by lack of availability more than an embracing of the A320neo and mild rejection of the 737 MAX by the
98 KC135TopBoom : I don't believe for one minute the B-737MAX is going to be optimized only for the 500 nm mission. Now there's a success story.......oh wait!!! I don'
99 Post contains images par13del : Well, time will tell whether this is an assumption or a fact. Engineers usually love a challenge. Airbus has plans to go up to 40+ frames per month,
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...
AI Plans For The B787 posted Mon Dec 12 2011 15:17:57 by pnd100
What Are UA Plans For 777 Replacement? posted Fri Nov 18 2011 12:38:04 by lesismore
Any Plans For A 3 Class 787? posted Sun Oct 16 2011 10:22:19 by VC10er
TAM CEO: Latam & Plans For 2011 (more GIG-FRA/JFK) posted Wed Dec 22 2010 00:29:15 by LipeGIG
Change In Scheduling Plans For BA 77W? posted Sun Sep 5 2010 07:04:40 by vikinga346
WN: No Plans For ICT In 2011 posted Thu Sep 2 2010 23:15:30 by FlyIGuy
Norwegian Plans For 15 Longhaul Aircraft posted Sun Jun 27 2010 08:23:24 by Mortyman
DFW: Ambitious Plans For Next 3-5 Years posted Thu Jun 24 2010 15:41:35 by DFWEagle
LOT Announces Plans For HAN, CAI, DAM posted Fri May 21 2010 14:59:13 by Flylot
Did GE Propose An Engine For The 757? posted Thu May 13 2010 09:25:42 by overloaduk