Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24476 times:

The linked article suggests Boeing expects 11% lower fuel burn on B738 Max over B738NG, and 5% lower fuel burn on 737-8 Max over A320NEO. I don't know if the 5% number is for trip fuel burn or per seat fuel burn.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...et-or-exceed-a320neo-range-367932/

Quote:
Tinseth said there would be a 12% improvement in Leap-1B specific fuel consumption when combined with the 1% drag improvement on the aft fuselage, and paired with the 2% increase in drag and weight as a result of the structural modifications.

All told, Boeing claimed the re-engined 162-seat 737-8 will hold a 17% fuel burn advantage over today's 150-seat A320 and a five percentage point fuel burn advantage over the A320neo. Further, the 737 Max would have an 11 percentage points lower fuel burn than today's 737-800 on 1,100km (600nm) sectors, said Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.

143 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21499 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24447 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
The linked article suggests Boeing expects 11% lower fuel burn on B738 Max over B738NG, and 5% lower fuel burn on 737-8 Max over A320NEO. I don't know if the 5% number is for trip fuel burn or per seat fuel burn.

Gotta be per seat. Boeing loves to spout the 738 v A320 numbers because the 738 is larger. Airbus prefers to compare the A319 to the 73G, because the 73G is less efficient.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24386 times:

Interesting numbers. This will spark a fierce debate I think. Gonna go get a Dr Pepper and some Popcorn and watch.


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24332 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
Gotta be per seat. Boeing loves to spout the 738 v A320 numbers because the 738 is larger. Airbus prefers to compare the A319 to the 73G, because the 73G is less efficient.
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Further, the 737 Max would have an 11 percentage points lower fuel burn than today's 737-800 on 1,100km (600nm) sectors, said Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.

As per Boeing, B738NG is 6% better than A320, and it expects B738-Max to be 11% better than B738NG.

From what I recall, Airbus expects A320NEO to be 18%(15% + 3% sharklets) better than today's A320. Roughly speaking, by Boeing's math and Airbus projection one would expect B738 Max and A320 NEO to be at par, with a slight advantage to B738 Max on shorter routes as the gains from sharklets are much less for shorter flights..


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9580 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24278 times:

It looks like we are starting to get some real numbers. 11-12% improvement over the existing 738 and increased MTOW to increase range. I think that is the most important fact in the article.

Range is undefined but it is "better" than the A320NEO. That opens up a confusing prospect. What numbers for payload and range are they using? The article is quoting max ranges that are the tank limited ranges, which, for the 737, is impractical as the payload hit to fill the tanks are quite substantial.

Also, I don't put much faith in the comparison to the A320. They are claiming 6% current over the existing A320. They are also claiming a 12% fuel burn improvement of the A320NEO over the A320. Airbus obviously doesn't agree with the numbers that we have seen from them. The exaggerating fuel burn thread from a few weeks ago shows that the few percentage points between the A320 and 737NG make comparisons provided by the manufacturers quite unreliable since they are in the region of variability that depends on unique assumptions made, airplane configuration and stage length.

The debate will get interesting. Boeing thinks Airbus will get 12%, Airbus thinks they'll get 15% (net difference 3% improvement). Airbus thinks Boeing will get 8%, Boeing thinks they'll get 11-12% (net difference again 3%).

One thing I find interesting since it appears that there is a forecast of a 3% larger improvement for the NEO than for the MAX (15% vs 12%), and sharklets are forecast to be 3% of that number for Airbus. That means that the engine and aero improvements themselves are roughly the same with each at 12%.

[Edited 2012-02-08 14:04:32]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21499 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24247 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
Range is undefined but it is "better" than the A320NEO.

That's how it is with 737NG vs A320 now. At least for 365 day ops.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24161 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5):
That's how it is with 737NG vs A320 now. At least for 365 day ops.

Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.


User currently offlineSplitterz From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24103 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.

So WN can fly across the pond to Europe.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24089 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.

It may make some transatlantic routes possible, which is also true for A320 NEO. It also makes possible India-Turkey, additional India-SE Asia/NE Asia routes.


User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1003 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 24068 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.

If this were the case then the A320 wouldn't sell.

I don't believe any of this anyway. This is just hype from Boeing in which they assume all the best scenarios for the B737MAX and the worst for the A320NEO. This claim of his is as useless as can be.

It's interesting that they will extend the range however. That might be solid info given that the MAX will fly further than the current model given less fuel burn and the same tanks. I wonder by how much.


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5377 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 24027 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.

In the US, year-round, reliable Hawaii service for the -8 and -9 from any airport on or near the West Coast with sufficient runway. For coastal airports, today's NGs aren't quite there, but neither the MAX nor the neo should have a problem. For PHX and SLC, the MAX and neo should be able to do the job. DEN is probably a step too far.

That will enable the replacement of a bunch of 757s and a few 767s.

Every mile they get now will also make the later development of a true TATL variant easier.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21499 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 23930 times:

Also allows for deeper access to Africa from the EU, deeper into South America from North America, etc.

To battle EK, the EU airlines need to be able to open more non-stops into Africa, but the routes can't support widebodies.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 23932 times:

The article suggests that a longer nose landing gear is being considered.

Quote(from the link in OP):
Tinseth's presentation identifies local strengthening of the empennage, fuselage, along with systems revisions, wing strengthening, a modified fuel system, longer nose landing gear and strengthened main landing as key changes to the 737 Max, along with the new pylon and nacelle needed for the larger Leap-1B engine.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5765 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 23749 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
The article suggests that a longer nose landing gear is being considered.

That is not new information- it was widely accepted a couple of months ago. We were talking about it here on a.net in a relevant thread, at least. I believe flightglobal mentioned it at that time... may have been ATW.
Evidently, substantial rework of the EE bay is a consequence of this NLG reconfig.... which is a shame, because the 737NG is the first 737 that has an EE bay that I actually like to spend any time in!!!


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23117 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 9):

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.

If this were the case then the A320 wouldn't sell.

That's not correct for two reasons:
1) Boeing doesn't produce 737's fast enough to satisfy demand. Both Airbus and Boeing will enjoy completely fully skylines for the foreseeable future simply because airlines need a certain number of airplanes at a relatively steady pace and neither OEM is capable of fullfilling that demand on their own.
2) The 737 costs more to buy (and to lease). This is a direct consequence of it costing slightly less in direct operating costs and lasting longer...the end result is that the total cost of ownership for both aircraft is almost identical.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
The article suggests that a longer nose landing gear is being considered.

Boeing already said it was part of the design.

Tom.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9997 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 22895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
That's not correct for two reasons:

They may be reasons for this not to be correct, but the 6% fuel burn delta that Boeing say is there has to be on assumed seat-count basis.
The FCOM's clearly show that on a trip basis, the 737-800 has a slight fuel burn advantage at short range, and a slight disadvantage at medium and longer ranges.

And that comparison is to an A320 without sharklets.

A sharklet equipped A320 will match a 737-800's fuel burn on a per-seat basis at ranges over 1000Nm even with a 6% seat-count disadvantage.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
2) The 737 costs more to buy (and to lease). This is a direct consequence of it costing slightly less in direct operating costs and lasting longer...the end result is that the total cost of ownership for both aircraft is almost identical

Is there evidence that shows the 737 having lower direct operating costs and lasting longer?

I'd suggest it's at least as plausible that the slight difference in capital costs is as much a consequence of the 737-800 being physically slightly bigger..

Rgds


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 22834 times:

Will we get a 757-200 replacement out of the new models?

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22693 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 16):
Will we get a 757-200 replacement out of the new models?

The 739-MAX will fall short in payload/range and seat capacity. However, with nearly 25% lower OEW and even lower trip fuel burn, B739-MAX should more than make up for its 12% lower seat capacity relative to B752 on routes where the higher range of 752 is not needed.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22612 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
The FCOM's clearly show

Since volume III of an FCOM's is configuration specific, can you tell me what configurations were compared? Airbus has improved the A320 since 1988, including engine PIPs, drag improvements and a redesign of the WTB fairing. Boeing claims to have improved 738 trip fuel by 6% since EIS in 1998, including the addition of winglets, two engine PIPs and a number of drag improvements. With a wide range of performance from both types, I can easily rig an FCOM performance comparison to show anything I want - especially if no one asks what aircraft are being compared.

The only way pulling data from the performance section of an FCOM is helpful for the kind of claim you are making is if you can give the airframe vintage, configuration and engine model. Without that, you are really making a meaningless claim.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 22415 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):

Didn't the A321 come the closest to replacing the 752's?? I truly thought that with Boeing knowing that the 752's were in such high demand years after they closed the line that with the MAX 900 they would come close to what it offered in terms of payload/range and seating. Oh well, hopefully we will see some MAX 900'S ordered in Singapore come next week   


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22256 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
It looks like we are starting to get some real numbers. 11-12% improvement over the existing 738 and increased MTOW to increase range.

Aspire is reporting that the MAX will gain 2t while the NEO number is 1.3t, so probably the increase en MTOW is to compensate for this extra OEW


User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22058 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
Tinseth's presentation identifies local strengthening of the empennage, fuselage, along with systems revisions, wing strengthening, a modified fuel system, longer nose landing gear and strengthened main landing as key changes to the 737 Max, along with the new pylon and nacelle needed for the larger Leap-1B engine.

Meaning...

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 20):
Aspire is reporting that the MAX will gain 2t while the NEO number is 1.3t, so probably the increase en MTOW is to compensate for this extra OEW



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 369 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21479 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
From what I recall, Airbus expects A320NEO to be 18%(15% + 3% sharklets)

No the NEO will be 15% better than today's aircraft without the sharklets.
The neo engines will be 15% better in SFC, but with respect to fuel burn a part of these 15% is eaten upt by higher drag and weight of the engines (as well as pylons and local structure strengthening).
The sharklets are bringing the whole package to roughly 15% then.
Although John Leahy recently said, that fuel burn with the LEAP-1A will be somewhat higher than with the GTF:

http://t.co/x7ZNhOiw


User currently offlineGCPET From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2012, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21394 times:

Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

GCPET



If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21352 times:

TATL in a320 and 737...I did fly on a 727 to Toronto back in the 80´s, it did a fuel stop in Iceland. Is this the future of travel?

The fuel bill will grow and travel will adjust, less comfort. I miss the old days! That damned oil..


25 rheinwaldner : I have said several times already that the weight of the MAX will grow more relatively. That it grows even more in absolule terms underlines my point
26 Post contains images EPA001 : I have got to give you credit for it. I always thought you were correct, but to read it here from an independent source, however independent that sou
27 Post contains images Stitch : Of course OEW is going to rise - the LEAP-X is larger and heaver than the CFM56-7B, if nothing else, but the other changes Boeing is planning would r
28 seabosdca : The 73G and 739ER are also slightly more expensive to acquire than their Airbus counterparts, even though the 73G has identical capacity to the A319
29 KC135TopBoom : Even if Aspire's numbers on weight increases are accurate, the B-737MAX still comes out well ahead and lighter than the A-320NEO. The B-737NG operati
30 tdscanuck : You need to be a little careful with FCOM fuel burn numbers; they're very coarse, very configuration specific, and very conservative. Yes. They sell
31 rheinwaldner : Some time ago there were countless statements like this one "the MAX might have disadvantages elsewhere, but the fact that the NEO will become even h
32 Stitch : Looking at CFM's website, the difference in dry weight between the CFM56-5B on the A320 and the CFM56-7B on the 737NG is 34 pounds.
33 Post contains images astuteman : Except.. The numbers for the A32X, straight from the ACAPs are:- A-319 = 87,579 lbs (39,725 kg) A-320 = 90, 927 lbs (41,244 kg) A-321 = 103,300 lbs (
34 Post contains links and images Roseflyer : I believe there have been articles indicating that there will be some flight deck changes and talk of new displays. I don't know if that is happening
35 Stitch : Frankly, I think the whole "numbers" game has limited value beyond something to argue about. Even if one frame is significantly cheaper on a per seat,
36 planesntrains : Could you please find the thread? Then you could call out those specific people instead of making us all endure the A Fan vs B Fan thing once again.
37 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
38 odwyerpw : Stitch, one of the few times that I am going to take exception with something you've said... You have to go with the hard, firm orders...... Bird in
39 CM : It's a fair criticism. If we're inclined to trust one OEM over the other, or if we're more familiar with the analysis behind one's claims over the ot
40 Revelation : The article in the thread starter says: Emphasis is mine. So, it'll be the same cockpit with some (currently un-named) revisions made to it.
41 Roseflyer : It looks like they are going for shorter, hotter and faster for the MAX. I don't know engine design well enough to understand the impact of that. Hot
42 kanban : One would think after recent experience with new planes missing the public relations targets, that we would be smart enough to just wait and see inste
43 Post contains images Stitch : Boeing have stated every one of those commitments has a deposit, so they do seem to be a bit less ethereal than an option or purchase right. That bei
44 Post contains images EPA001 : I already thought so upon reading your original post. Your balanced view is, as always, highly appreciated. At least by me. .
45 SEA : From what I've heard from the rumor mill, for airlines cross-shopping the MAX and the NEO, it seems as if the difference in fuel burn per trip for eit
46 Post contains images rotating14 : You have to go with the hard, firm orders...... Bird in the hand dude, Bird in the hand. The projected greater efficiency of the NEO does appear to b
47 Daysleeper : Could you elaborate as to where you would find such statistics? Isn’t this because the 737 doesn’t have to meet modern safety regulations? I’m
48 KC135TopBoom : Except...... The numbers I used are from the OEMs Did you notice those slides were from an Airbus PP? Each slide clearly says "Airbus" in the lower r
49 ikramerica : 737MAX was not officially launched until less than 2 months ago, so it's not quite that simple. It was a "soft launch" situation. Now that Boeing has
50 tdscanuck : For time in service any of the tracking sites like airfleets.net can be cross referenced against the manufactures' delivery info. For sales and lease
51 Roseflyer : No that is not true. It is actually the A320 that is using grandfather rights and not meeting the latest requirements with its overwing exits that ar
52 Post contains images scbriml : I think, given that AA committed to it on July 20th, you have to start the clock from then.
53 ikramerica : No, it was launched, with a confirmed launch customer in December. AA said they would buy it, but did NOT place an order. They placed an order for 73
54 LAXDESI : Delta's configuration for B738 and A320(as per searguru): ................................J.......................................Y...................
55 Roseflyer : Galley and lav positions are quite variable. It really depends on how the airline has its configuration setup. If Boeing wanted to change its baselin
56 ikramerica : The galley space isn't enough for 3 seats. Anyway, the reason the 738 is limited to 189 is due to exit capacity. The A320 at the same pitch as the 18
57 dbo861 : Isn't Delta reconfiguring their A320s? I was on a DL 320 flight last week and I'm pretty certain there were only 3 rows of first class.[Edited 2012-0
58 poLOT : While Roseflyer touched upon some of the regulation issues that you mentioned, that is not the main reason that the 737-800 has 5% more seats at exit
59 Post contains images Stitch : Ah, but evidently commitments don't count, only orders. Seriously, Boeing themselves announced the 737MAX launch on 30 August 2011 and they had ATO a
60 Post contains links and images scbriml : Hmm, that's not what Boeing say! We were both wrong, but my date is closer than yours. http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1907 So th
61 ikramerica : I guess it's semantics, but Boeing board approval to launch isn't the actual launch. It's actually the offer for sale. The launch order is the launch
62 LAXDESI : Indigo has its A320 configured with 180@30" pitch. Is that being considered? Would it help add one row?
63 JoeCanuck : It's at least 4 years until the first delivery of the NEO and it could be as much as 10 years after that until the last one is sold. The same pretty
64 Post contains images CM : This is a pretty interesting claim. In light of Mr. Mulally getting his shorts in a knot on Superbowl Sunday over Chevy claiming to have the "longest
65 astuteman : And the ACAP's aren't an OEM source? So what's your source? I've seen cycle numbers that suggest the earlier 737's should have had a longer life (not
66 CM : My take-away from the data is that both aircraft are very robust, at least up to 12 years in service. When you take the write-offs out of the picture
67 packsonflight : This is what Korean is saying in flight now: "As soon as they come up with a price, we'll look at it, but they don't have a price," said Walter Cho,
68 Post contains links Centre : That comparison was for the 747-400. They are no longer in the fleet.... http://atwonline.com/aircraftengines...s-virgin-atlantic-disappoints-0309
69 parapente : Reply 45 From what I've heard from the rumor mill, for airlines cross-shopping the MAX and the NEO, it seems as if the difference in fuel burn per tri
70 CXB77L : Err ... that'd be me. I'm currently eating a slice of humble pie. That said, we still won't know for sure until both aircraft's figures are revealed.
71 astuteman : For what it's worth, I'm not sure you need to. I have a suspicion that the weight increases quoted by Aspire Aviation in reply #20 actually refer to
72 par13del : An interesting comment, since when the A320 entered service the 737NG was not in service, so in those additional 8 years that you looked at for the A
73 scbriml : Not forgetting that he's only listed one model from each family. Without checking, I'd guess that A319 + A321 would have outdelivered 737-700 + 737-9
74 packsonflight : Looks like they are referring to MEW Aspire Aviation‘s sources at Boeing said the structural reinforcements required to accommodate the larger and
75 KC135TopBoom : I don't think AA has firmed up their committment for the MAX, or NEO, yet. IIRC the only airplanes that are firm orders are the A-321s and B-738s. Ac
76 Stitch : Boeing has published prices for the MAX with their 2012 update: 737-7 | $ 78 million 737-8 | $ 95 million 737-9 | $102 million On average, a 737MAX r
77 Roseflyer : 10 years is less than the useable life of the airplanes, so none should be retired. I think the most useful aspect of the chart is showing the demand
78 Daysleeper : The difference on average is a couple of % with the maximum difference being just 4.5% so your getting down to talking about 10 or 20 frames out of 2
79 CM : Without polling the operators who have scrapped and stored 737NGs and A320s and understanding their reasons, I agree; it is not possible to know what
80 Roseflyer : You are right it is a difficult statistic to analyze and I don't put a whole lot behind it. Having access to the leasing rates posted shows a lot mor
81 odwyerpw : Well it's standard on the 739ER.... and optional on the others. It's reasonable to assume it remains standard on the 9max, or they'd have to reduce p
82 Post contains images astuteman : They can be traced to a series of operators. Most of the stored A320's belong to Spanair. USA 3000's A320's are also in there, and they stopped tradi
83 par13del : In relation to the lease rate issue my question would be, is the 737G getting a higher lease rate than the A320, that seems to have been the statement
84 Post contains links and images planemaker : Courtesy of Leeham...
85 Tristarsteve : You can't eliminate some LPT stages. There are only four to start with, Some sounds like more than one!
86 scbriml : I think Boeing is being a little sneaky with the numbers here. Airbus claims the sharklets will reduce fuel burn by 3.5%. Boeing not only shows just
87 Post contains links and images Roseflyer : Absolutely. They predict the NEO improvements will be 12% instead of the 15% Airbus predicts. Ironically, Airbus is just as sneaky and predicts the M
88 sxf24 : The lease rate for a 737-800 is higher than an A320 because the aircraft can generate more revenue and costs less to operate. There are also many mor
89 sweair : Any OEM would try to put its products in the best possible light. I still think B should go full ahead with NSA despite the MAX interim. By 2025 that
90 abba : Without being an economist myself I would believe that the second reason is by far the most important of the two. You know, the law of supply and dem
91 travelhound : ...... Or the lease rate for the 737NG is higher than the lease rate for the A320 because the 737NG is a better (seamless) replacement for the 737 cl
92 Post contains images aircellist : Looks like the true successor to the 707 will finally be the 737MAX... steel... ludicrous... Why, or how, would an OEM make two different sets of num
93 astuteman : Absolutely no issue with the 737-800 having the ability to generate more revenue - it can hold more passengers. But once again, you have thrown at us
94 sxf24 : It is tough to find publicly available sources, but analysis by USDOT, IATA, Oliver Wyman, and appraisal firms support this position. One reason for
95 billreid : The Max has dramatically outsold the NEO since announcement of the MAX, so are you saying the A is not as good? This is the job of sales and both A &
96 astuteman : Not sure how you work that out. The MAX has only scored 150 firm orders since it was announced.. The NEO has gone up from c700 firm orders to 1250 in
97 Post contains images scbriml : I think you need to clarify your data here... "since announced" The MAX was announced when AA said they'd committed to 100 of them. That was 20th Jul
98 astuteman : You are right. My bad Rgds
99 Post contains links CM : Less than 50%, but point taken. Indeed, which has now been done... 19 from Spanair - storage is not airplane related. 4 from USA3000 - storage is not
100 Post contains links rheinwaldner : You mentioned but failed to explain the cross shopping. The fact that there is considerable cross shopping in only one direction seems to support a d
101 Post contains images astuteman : Having removed the aircraft which we know are stored for non-aircraft related reasons, we’re left with 14 x A320’s and 7 x 737-800’s that are s
102 Post contains images ferpe : I think we need to be a bit careful here, the 3,5% improvement was for a 737NG wing with and without the blended winglet. This is a wing which is 10
103 Post contains links and images astuteman : For information.. http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/winglets_lbf.php Source - AviationpartnersBoeing SIX percent... The world might want to tell
104 Post contains images scbriml : Misrepresentation and inaccuracy don't bother you? While I would expect each OEM to present their own offerings in the best light, they should have t
105 Post contains images EPA001 : Exactly. And the test results on real aircraft involved in the test program sometimes even exceed the 3.5% increase Airbus is aiming for. . Again som
106 tdscanuck : Really...the guys who sell winglets want to claim an advantage for winglets...what are the odds! Tom.
107 imiakhtar : Reading comprehension fail. Moving on, the "better" aircraft will have more sales. Simples. I'm going to bookmark this thread for future reference. H
108 Post contains images par13del : Without getting into the technical discussion, what exactly and who is the NEO gaining on if they are pretty much on par? You technical guys tend to
109 Post contains images EPA001 : The NEO will be gaining just a little bit on relative performance against the B737-MAX. .
110 par13del : Ok, I take back the beancounter commentary and will lean towards the political segment. Thanks
111 Revelation : And I'm sure that happens when real airlines are about to put real $$$ on the table. Just like they have real software that takes their actual missio
112 KC135TopBoom : Since neither the MAX nor the NEO are anywhere close to flying against each other yet, how do you know that? In the end it will be the technical guys
113 Post contains images EPA001 : The various statements in this and other threads seem to indicate this imho, and it is also logical when comparing the planned upgrades for both the
114 astuteman : Show me where any of the "customers" have contradicted the claim, and I might go along. Meanwhile I'll just sit here in awe at the extent of the nift
115 Post contains links Roseflyer : The real experts are Aviation Partners who had been working with Airbus, until Airbus created its own sharklet. The winglet tested on the A320 showed
116 CM : If that was even remotely the case, it would be for the APB winglet on the 767 at long range missions. For the 737 or the A320 to realize even half t
117 ferpe : 1. Can you give a link to the filings, would be interested reading. 2. I am not sure to what extent Airbus shared the wing pressure map of the A320 a
118 Stitch : According to the local news this morning, Boeing is starting the final set of wind tunnel tests for the 737MAX to reach design freeze (wind tunnel tes
119 qfa787380 : This seems to have gone a fair bit off topic. In relation to higher lease rates on the 737NG v 320, I have heard various reasons for this and none of
120 Post contains links Revelation : Also mentioned in FG: Boeing targets 2013 firm configuration for 737 Max By: Max Kingsley-Jones What's also quite interesting there is Boeing's Randy
121 dakota123 : I wonder if that doesn't simply mean an internal nozzle set with smaller area, and not a physically smaller case etc. That would improve efficiency a
122 Post contains links and images zeke : The question I have about the 737MAX is the effect the placement of the engine will have on the overall wing aerodynamics. I would have thought placi
123 ikramerica : I think you'll see a far more integrated engine+wing setup than we are used to. As others have pointed out, one reason for engine on thin pod designs
124 dfwrevolution : Visual differences do not necessarily mean that Airbus has designed a unique concept. Neither does optimizing the design a bit more than API. IIRC, t
125 Revelation : I think we were posting at the same time. In any case, the stuff I've been reading from Leeham and FG paints a very different picture: The MAX engine
126 XT6Wagon : Yet, Airbus is suing to invalidate the API patent. This says they have some serious money riding on the outcome of the case. You DON'T do that if the
127 WarpSpeed : Would like to get back on topic vs. discussing patent infringement suits over winglets/sharklets. Could Boeing integrate a Hybrid Laminar Flow Control
128 zeke : I am aware of that picture, however I am not convinced that the new pylon and wing integration will be positive. Two years in itself is not a signifi
129 ytz : I'm curious how this performance compares to the CSeries. Is CASM on the -7 better than the CS300? How does the CSeries compare to the -8?
130 seabosdca : Design patents are only for ornamental design, and start with a "D." The APB winglet patent is a normal patent, which lasts 20 years.
131 Post contains links Revelation : From a FG article two years ago: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ng-no-leap-before-its-time-339093/ So CFM has been talking about a "Phase I"
132 JoeCanuck : I wonder if Boeing could end up going back to the future with the nacelle blending into the wing, aka -200. It seems to me, that at some point, a gap
133 KC135TopBoom : Correct, at least for US Patents. I have no idea if the 14 and 20 year limits are US only, or include other places in the EU, Aisa, etc.
134 CXB77L : Article 33 of the TRIPS agreement provides that there must be a minimum term of 20 years. So those limits aren't just US law, it's international law
135 flyglobal : So the Airbus engine would be somewhare in the Middle? Then at 2018 or 2019, lets say about 1 year after the MAX EIS we will see PIPs for COMAC and A
136 Stitch : Interesting enough, the head of GTF development at Pratt noted in a conference back in 2009 that the GTF allowed an OEM to mount the nacelle closer t
137 JoeCanuck : That is interesting...I guess that's why they do silly stuff like testing.
138 ferpe : Over mounting an engine with a lower bypass yes, but mounting an engine up high in front of a transonic wing is nothing you do if you don't have to.
139 Post contains images CM : It seems there's ample evidence this is not the case. Boeing has been managing to achieve integrated aero-propulsion efficiency with the engines very
140 Post contains images ferpe : I am pretty sure of this too but if there is no problem with interference effects why this year long deliberation whether you go for a 66, 68 or even
141 Post contains links CM : I see no evidence to support the notion it is an aero issue. My guess is Boeing was very reluctant to accept the NLG extension, even though it bought
142 ferpe : I say they stopped short of that, the discussion was couldn't you put an engine with even larger fan on, just place it higher. We both know there is
143 Revelation : You may want to read the threads I referenced in #131. Wnat hat I gathered from them is that indeed at some point the Phase I engine can benefit from
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...
Pratt CEO Warns Boeing On 737 MAX posted Wed Sep 7 2011 03:05:21 by blueshamu330s
737 Max Development Cost To Be Twice A320NEO posted Wed Jan 25 2012 07:54:00 by eaa3
Delta And 737 MAX Variants posted Sun Jan 8 2012 16:37:20 by 1337Delta764
Boeing Delivers 7,000th 737! posted Sun Dec 18 2011 08:22:12 by kaitak
737 Max To Be Built In Renton posted Wed Nov 30 2011 10:42:25 by adipasqu
ACG Announce 737 MAX Commitment & 738 Order posted Thu Nov 17 2011 14:25:48 by PanAm_DC10
Can 737 Max Achieve 700nm Range Increase Over 737? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 21:29:27 by art
Long Beach Hoping To Capture 737-MAX Production posted Tue Sep 27 2011 07:56:02 by KarlB737
Who Will Order The First 737 Max? posted Thu Sep 1 2011 22:20:14 by FlyASAGuy2005
Boeing Board Weighs 737 Upgrade Next Week posted Fri Aug 26 2011 22:53:18 by PanAm_DC10