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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 24090 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, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 24061 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, 2586 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 24000 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23946 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, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23892 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, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23861 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, 6744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23775 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23717 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23703 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, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23682 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 offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23641 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.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23544 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 23546 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, 5644 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 23363 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 22731 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, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 22509 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 22448 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 22307 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 22226 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, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 22029 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, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 21870 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, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 21672 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, 351 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 21093 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 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 21008 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, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 20966 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..


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20990 times:

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 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 even more. I wonder, what excuse we will hear now from those people, who attacked this thought the first time.

Quoting sirtoby (Reply 22):
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).

That is how I understand it too. That these integration losses would be smaller on the MAX, as claimed by Boeing (it can be derived from the numbers discussed in this thread), seems like nonsense to me. I predict for the MAX even higher integration losses than the 3.5% on the NEO (Airbus says that the winglets, by contributing 3.5%, level out the losses from the integration).


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4594 posts, RR: 38
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20790 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
I have said several times already that the weight of the MAX will grow more relatively. That it grows even more in absolute terms underlines my point even more. I wonder, what excuse we will hear now from those people, who attacked this thought the first time.


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 source may be, is points scored by you.  .

On the fuel burn predictions I would say: I need a lot of salt. Boeing earlier said that the NEO was not even beating the 737-NG. Now we see more realistic numbers, still with a lot of PR mixed in to them.   In a couple of years, when both types are flying, we will know more.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
I have said several times already that the weight of the MAX will grow more relatively.

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 raise OEW. That should be clear to anyone, frankly, so for those who assumed it wouldn't...   

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
That these integration losses would be smaller on the MAX, as claimed by Boeing (it can be derived from the numbers discussed in this thread), seems like nonsense to me.

If Airbus is going to see parasitic SFC losses in part due to drag from the massive fans on their engines, then why shouldn't Boeing see smaller losses in that area because they're going to have a tiny fan on their engine?


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20875 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
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..

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 (for most operators) and the 739ER is at a small disadvantage to the A321.

I don't think that's justified in the 739ER case, which may explain why it doesn't sell as well as the A321, but the 73G has held its own against the A319.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20525 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
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 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 even more. I wonder, what excuse we will hear now from those people, who attacked this thought the first time.

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 operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg)

So if you add 2 tonnes (4,400 lbs) to each B-737NG model, for the MAX, and add 1.3 tonnes (2,860 lbs) to each A-32X model, for the NEO, you come up with the MAX models still being lighter than the competing NEO models (operating empty weights).

B-737-7MAX = 88,500 lbs, A-319NEO = 92,860 lbs
B-737-8MAX = 95,508 lbs, A-320NEO = 96,860 lbs
B-737-9MAX = 102,895 lbs, A-321NEO - 109,860 lbs


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 20125 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
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.

You need to be a little careful with FCOM fuel burn numbers; they're very coarse, very configuration specific, and very conservative.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
Is there evidence that shows the 737 having lower direct operating costs and lasting longer?

Yes. They sell and lease for more dollars per capacity and they stay in the fleet longer.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
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..

The purchase/lease cost difference is bigger than the physical size difference.

Quoting GCPET (Reply 23):
Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

Boeing has said a lot about a minimum change derivative, which strongly suggests commonality (not necessarily sameness) with the 737NG. There's no way a 787 cockpit would hold commonality.

Tom.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 20043 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
That should be clear to anyone, frankly, so for those who assumed it wouldn't...

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 heavier than it is now will counter this" and so on. So, when I brought up the idea initially, that the MAX will have a larger weight penalty (at least relatively) I have faced stiff opposition. Shall I find the thread again?

I have listed the following reasons why the MAX would have a larger weight penalty:

- The addition of the same amount of weight impacts more the previously lighter aircraft

- A longer pylon means more weight (you might think that this is only a tiny addition of new material but pylons have a high density)

- A longer gear means more weight (you might also think here that this is only a tiny addition of new material but gears are made from steal, which is much denser than most of the rest)

- The weight of the LEAP-X grows more relative to the old 737-CFM than relative to the old A320-CFM. That means that the strength of the existing A320 structure is closer to the required strength for the re-engined aircraft. Which means less stiffening in the wing and the wing root.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 18940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
The weight of the LEAP-X grows more relative to the old 737-CFM than relative to the old A320-CFM. That means that the strength of the existing A320 structure is closer to the required strength for the re-engined aircraft. Which means less stiffening in the wing and the wing root.

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.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 18147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg)

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 (46,85600 kg)

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
You need to be a little careful with FCOM fuel burn numbers; they're very coarse, very configuration specific, and very conservative.

As you're the second person to warn me of this, Tom, I'll back off.
Instead I'll use the marketing strap line that the 737 is "6% more efficient" as the gospel IT MUST BE, given that both you and CM were both content to let THAT pass unchallenged.....   

I can take a hint  

Rgds


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 17688 times:

Quoting GCPET (Reply 23):
Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

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 with the MAX or not. However other than displays, I don't think much can change as they are maintaining commonality.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
As you're the second person to warn me of this, Tom, I'll back off.
Instead I'll use the marketing strap line that the 737 is "6% more efficient" as the gospel IT MUST BE, given that both you and CM were both content to let THAT pass unchallenged.....

I don't think that you should throw out the analysis, but understand its limitations. The idea of 737 being better on shorter stage lengths and A320 on longer stage lengths gets thrown around a lot, and I believe there may be some basis for it. However, if the A320 series was more efficient on longer sectors then why doesn't Airbus show that in a chart where they compare the 737 and A320 in fuel burn by trip length? If there was such a discrepancy based on stage length, I'd expect Airbus to promote it in its literature. It does not appear present in Airbus' comparison of the 73G and A319.

http://d9itxagvk5mi8.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/a319neo-v-max.jpg
*note, I used comparison of A319 and 73G since they are closest in size and block fuel should be the most valid.


Understanding that it is block fuel comparison and not adjusted for capacity, here's the 737-800 vs A320, I am paying attention to the slope of the lines rather than numerical differences (since those are a whole separate analysis which you can read the article to understand those limitations). When looking at the chart it is of note that Airbus presents the data the opposite of the analysis that Astuteman is using since the slope of the curves indicate that the 737 fuel burn difference in percent is less on longer stage lengths than shorter stage lengths. That means the 737 improves on longer stage lengths. If Astuteman's analysis is true, then the line would be the opposite. I present these charts just to show that there are limitations in analysis and not that one is more correct than the other.

http://d9itxagvk5mi8.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/a320neo-v-max.jpg

Source: http://airinsight.com/2011/10/05/airbus-takes-on-max/



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 17666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, per trip, TCO, or whatever basis than another, that does not mean the other frame is "doomed".

SQ have said the A380-800 is over 20% more efficient than the 777-300ER and yet SQ continues to order 777-300ERs, so evidently it's relative inefficiency to the A380-800 does not translate into SQ seeing no value in operating the 777-300ER.

And just because the 777-300ER is some 10% more efficient than the A340-600 has not stopped LH, VS, IB and others from ceasing A340-600 operations and replacing them with 777-300ERs. So evidently the A340-600's inefficiency relative to the 777-300ER does not translate into those carries no longer seeing any value in continuing to operate their frames.

I am not qualified to say unequivocally how the 737NG and A320 line-up, much less the 737MAX and A320neo. But if the 737NG is more efficient than the A320, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the A320's acceptance in the market. And based on the commitments Boeing have secured in the past six months, even if the A320neo is more efficient than the 737MAX, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the 737MAX's acceptance in the market.


User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5295 posts, RR: 29
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 17346 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
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 heavier than it is now will counter this" and so on. So, when I brought up the idea initially, that the MAX will have a larger weight penalty (at least relatively) I have faced stiff opposition. Shall I find the thread again?

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.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Frankly, I think the whole "numbers" game has limited value beyond something to argue about

Preach!

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 17327 times:

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/optimizing-leap-for-737-max/

- some LPT stages and related parts are eliminated
- engine will be shorter
- ceramics being used



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 797 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 17278 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
And based on the commitments Boeing have secured in the past six months, even if the A320neo is more efficient than the 737MAX, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the 737MAX's acceptance in the market.

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 the hand dude, Bird in the hand.
The projected greater efficiency of the NEO does appear to be affecting market acceptance of the MAX. It's outsold it.
I'd love to see this change...to see a massive conversion of MAX MOU and LOI to firm orders! But at the moment, it has not come to fruition. I'm a bird in the hand guy.

I'm a huge fan of both the A320 and 737 maintaining parity with regards to performance and market penetration. 90% of my flying is done on these birds...and I want to see each manufacturer continue to push the other to improve!



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 17296 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
Instead I'll use the marketing strap line that the 737 is "6% more efficient" as the gospel IT MUST BE, given that both you and CM were both content to let THAT pass unchallenged.....

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 other, it's easy to apply scrutiny in only one direction.

In the case of Boeing's 6% per seat claim, that should not be one that's hard for any of us to accept. The 738 has 5% more seats than the A320 (at exit limit), and frequently over 6% more seats in a dual class config. It carries those passengers at lower structural weight per pax, using less thrust and with more wing. The only noteworthy factor favoring the A320 is a slightly more efficient engine (my view) when comparing the same generation CFM56-7 to the -5.

Having acknowledged being less familiar with Airbus' analysis, there's an oft cited claim in this thread that I'd love someone to help me better understand: Airbus and others are claiming upwards of 3% block fuel reduction for the addition of winglets to the A320. It's a claim which seems to be taken at face value...

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
3% sharklets
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
sharklets are forecast to be 3%
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
by contributing 3.5%

I think most of us are comfortable with ~3% benefit to the 737NG from their addition of wiglets over a standard tip. For years Airbus told us the A320 would not gain much from winglets over the benefit already achieved by the tip-fence - they would cite the highly regarded DAW studies which indicate the A320 tip fence already provided 1.5% to 2% of what could be gained by adding a winglet to the A320. Now Airbus is removing the tip fence, adding structural reinforcement to the wing and achieving a net gain of 3% to 3.5%? Is there someone who can help explain how the A320 is gaining everything the 737 did from adding winglets, plus some, despite the net losses which must be factored in?

Thanks!


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11959 posts, RR: 25
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 17195 times:

Quoting GCPET (Reply 23):
Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

The article in the thread starter says:

Quote:

Other changes include flight deck revisions and aft fuselage aerodynamic improvements.

Emphasis is mine.

So, it'll be the same cockpit with some (currently un-named) revisions made to it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 17193 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 37):
- some LPT stages and related parts are eliminated
- engine will be shorter
- ceramics being used

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. Hotter and faster indicate more maintenance and less reliability in some worlds, but is that true for an engine high pressure core?



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3217 posts, RR: 26
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 17005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 instead of staking ourselves to an unsupportable point. The design and improvement data is fraught with wishes and wild ass guesses at this point. And both manufactures will be making changes to offset or minimize any negative developments.

Yes it's a rousing discussion, however in 2 years so many points will have changed that some arguments will be ludacris, and some with the "absolute truth" will have egg on their faces. And others will be crying "foul" that the specs changed.

Knowing the desires of the program (as verbalized by public relations), and realizing them are two different matters especially when the engines are only part of the equation. Heck we could be arguing about the affect of tire sizes on fuel burn during take-off... or landing gear strut aerodynamics.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 16248 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 38):
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 the hand dude, Bird in the hand.

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 being said, I agree they are not firm orders until they are firm orders, but I will also note that even firm orders can and have been cancelled. Hence the true metric of "popularity" and "acceptance" is deliveries and we shall have an idea where each program stands around the turn of the next decade.  


I also need to revise an earlier post in this thread, as I said the opposite of what I meant (perils of trying to post during a short lull at work). This is what I meant to say:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
And just because the 777-300ER is more efficient than the A340-600, this has not compelled LH, VS, IB and others to cease A340-600 operations and replacing those frames with 777-300ERs.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4594 posts, RR: 38
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
This is what I meant to say:

I already thought so upon reading your original post. Your balanced view is, as always, highly appreciated. At least by me.  .


User currently offlineSEA From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 14804 times:

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 either frame is minor, almost to the point of being negligible. I think we will see airlines order these planes based upon which fits better into their fleet; ie, airlines that already have a good number of A320 family aircraft will stick with the NEO, airlines with a good number of 737NGs will stick with the MAX.

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 14224 times:

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 38):

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 be affecting market acceptance of the MAX. It's outsold it.


Mate, you have to realize in the same breath the NEO had a 1 year lead on the MAX and the modification are not as much on the NEO as they are on the MAX. Granted Boeing waited and played chicken with NSA and the MAX idea and as a result gave Airbus some market share but the truth remains that the MAX will come close to what the NEO has garnered if not par. But yes, I agree this competition should push each other to be and do better.   


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 14137 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):Is there evidence that shows the 737 having lower direct operating costs and lasting longer?
Yes. They sell and lease for more dollars per capacity and they stay in the fleet longer.

Could you elaborate as to where you would find such statistics?

Quoting CM (Reply 39):
The 738 has 5% more seats than the A320 (at exit limit),

Isn’t this because the 737 doesn’t have to meet modern safety regulations? I’m also wondering if this may change for the Max, as although the FAA was happy for Boeing to use 40 year old safety regulations for the NG, other agencies were not.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
. And based on the commitments Boeing have secured in the past six months, even if the A320neo is more efficient than the 737MAX, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the 737MAX's acceptance in the market.

I think it’s still a little early to be able to say that for sure. I don’t doubt that Boeing will get the 1000 orders this year, but I think it’s entirely possible that the NEO could reach 1,700 - 1,800 – and such a discrepancy isn’t going to be entirely explained by availability, especially since the majority of the early NEO slots will be taken.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 14039 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg)

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 (46,85600 kg)

Except......
The numbers I used are from the OEMs

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 34):
Roseflyer

Did you notice those slides were from an Airbus PP? Each slide clearly says "Airbus" in the lower right hand corner. Those slides are not very objective, nor realistict. DL flies the B-73G, B-73H, A-319, and A-320. Perhaps their operations comparison would be more objective......oh wait. DL did order about 100 B-739Es last year, they did not order the A-32X series. These airplanes are to replace older B-752s, and JL was really pushing the A-321 hard.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13952 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 46):
You have to go with the hard, firm orders...... Bird in the hand dude, Bird in the hand.

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 a launch customer in Southwest, the commitments should be firming quickly.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13908 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 47):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):Is there evidence that shows the 737 having lower direct operating costs and lasting longer?
Yes. They sell and lease for more dollars per capacity and they stay in the fleet longer.

Could you elaborate as to where you would find such statistics?

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 rates you typically look at securities filings (at least for US publicly traded airlines) and lease rates from the various lessors.

Tom.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13914 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 47):
Isn’t this because the 737 doesn’t have to meet modern safety regulations? I’m also wondering if this may change for the Max, as although the FAA was happy for Boeing to use 40 year old safety regulations for the NG, other agencies were not.

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 are not fixed. The latest regulations for Type III exits require a fixed stowage point, which the 737NG has as they rotate up, but the A320 does not since they are removable. With 737NG having self disposing overwing exits it is was able to maintain the 189 seating capacity. The 737NG design is quicker to operate and therefore allows a higher seat count.

On the other hand the 737NG does not have assist on its main doors. However, that does not come with a capacity restriction because it is required that a crew member is stationed at the door.

And as a side comment, the FAA is never happy. They may be satisfied after many lengthy discussions and analysis, but happy is not a word I would use when trying to convince them to accept an existing design based on historical capabilities and performance. EASA is starting to flex its muscle more and more, but the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office still think they are the Gods of aviation safety.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):

Did you notice those slides were from an Airbus PP? Each slide clearly says "Airbus" in the lower right hand corner. Those slides are not very objective, nor realistict. DL flies the B-73G, B-73H, A-319, and A-320. Perhaps their operations comparison would be more objective......oh wait. DL did order about 100 B-739Es last year, they did not order the A-32X series. These airplanes are to replace older B-752s, and JL was really pushing the A-321 hard.

I understand that they are not from an objective source, but I still think that if there was such a pronounced difference based on stage length, Airbus would show it when they publish a chart that has comparison based on range as its objective.

[Edited 2012-02-09 15:39:21]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12048 posts, RR: 47
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 49):
737MAX was not officially launched until less than 2 months ago

I think, given that AA committed to it on July 20th, you have to start the clock from then.   



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13696 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 52):
I think, given that AA committed to it on July 20th, you have to start the clock from then.   

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 737NG, A320 and A320NEO, but not for the MAX. DL too. WN placed an actual order, as the launch customer. 150 in Dec. Norwegian Air Systems followed with a 100 frame order. Those are the only orders to date. All else are commitments yet to be firmed. Now that GE and Boeing have a clear picture of what they can promise, those commitments can be firmed with performance figures. Last summer, that was impossible...



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 54, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13598 times:

Delta's configuration for B738 and A320(as per searguru):

................................J.......................................Y.............................Lav & Galleys
A320.................16@36" pitch..................132@31-32" pitch...............3L + 2G
B738.................16@38" pitch..................144@31-32" pitch................3L + 3G

B738 has more pitch in J class and has 12 more Y seats, along with one more galley. In Delta's 2-class configuration, B738 has 8% more seats than A320. In many LCC one class configuration, B738(189 seats) has 5% more seats than A320(180 seats).

Airbus expects to add 3 more seats to A320NEO, reducing the seat count advantage of B738. Couldn't 738-MAX respond by offering 3 or more seats in a 2-class configuration as it has one more galley to play around with?


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13553 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):

Airbus expects to add 3 more seats to A320NEO, reducing the seat count advantage of B738. Couldn't 738-MAX respond by offering 3 or more seats in a 2-class configuration as it has one more galley to play around with?

Galley and lav positions are quite variable. It really depends on how the airline has its configuration setup.

If Boeing wanted to change its baseline, they could make the rear pressure bulkhead flat option standard on the 737-800, which would further increase capacity.



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, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 56, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13533 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):
Airbus expects to add 3 more seats to A320NEO, reducing the seat count advantage of B738. Couldn't 738-MAX respond by offering 3 or more seats in a 2-class configuration as it has one more galley to play around with?

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 189 seat 738 would not hold 180 pax. Who maxes out the A320 at 180? I wouldn't want to fly that airline.

The real comparison is as you showed above, the DL birds. They have the same lav and F cabin configuration, but the 738 holds two more rows of Y with the same pitch (as well as giving 8 more total inches of pitch in the F cabin).

In comparison, the A319 and 73G in DL config are virtually identical. THe 73G has 2 fewer seats due to exit row limitation that I believe is being resolved with the MAX, but not positive.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinedbo861 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 863 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13488 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):
Delta's configuration for B738 and A320(as per searguru):

................................J.......................................Y.............................Lav & Galleys
A320.................16@36" pitch..................132@31-32" pitch...............3L + 2G
B738.................16@38" pitch..................144@31-32" pitch................3L + 3G

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 2012-02-09 16:19:07]

User currently offlinepoLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2049 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13461 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 47):
Isn’t this because the 737 doesn’t have to meet modern safety regulations? I’m also wondering if this may change for the Max, as although the FAA was happy for Boeing to use 40 year old safety regulations for the NG, other agencies were not.

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 limits than the A320. The 738 is actually slightly larger than the A320. Airbus gives a cabin length of 27.51m for the A320, while the 738 has a cabin length of 29.97m.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 59, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13486 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 52):
I think, given that AA committed to it on July 20th, you have to start the clock from then.     

Ah, but evidently commitments don't count, only orders.  

Seriously, Boeing themselves announced the 737MAX launch on 30 August 2011 and they had ATO at that time from the Board so that is the date we should be using.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12048 posts, RR: 47
Reply 60, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 53):
No, it was launched, with a confirmed launch customer in December.

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

Quote:
SEATTLE, Aug. 30, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- The Boeing (NYSE: BA) Company's board of directors has approved the launch of the new engine variant of the market-leading 737, based on order commitments for 496 airplanes from five airlines and a strong business case.

So they'd been garnering "commitments" even before the official launch on 30th August.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 61, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13355 times:

Quoting poLOT (Reply 58):
Airbus gives a cabin length of 27.51m for the A320, while the 738 has a cabin length of 29.97m.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 60):
Hmm, that's not what Boeing say! We were both wrong, but my date is closer than yours.   

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. On August 30th, the 737MAX was not defined clearly enough for anyone to sign an order.

Anyway, maybe someone else can clarify it. But it wasn't the AA order or the DL order. Those commitments were used to make the case to the board (as were others), but the board could have said "nope, we think you should go NSA" and then all those commitments were meaningless.

Boeing has had many such still-born projects in their history, including commitments.



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 62, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13265 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 56):
The A320 at the same pitch as the 189 seat 738 would not hold 180 pax. Who maxes out the A320 at 180? I wouldn't want to fly that airline.

Indigo has its A320 configured with 180@30" pitch.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 55):
If Boeing wanted to change its baseline, they could make the rear pressure bulkhead flat option standard on the 737-800, which would further increase capacity.

Is that being considered? Would it help add one row?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5323 posts, RR: 30
Reply 63, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13172 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 47):
I think it’s still a little early to be able to say that for sure. I don’t doubt that Boeing will get the 1000 orders this year, but I think it’s entirely possible that the NEO could reach 1,700 - 1,800 – and such a discrepancy isn’t going to be entirely explained by availability, especially since the majority of the early NEO slots will be taken.

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 much goes for the MAX.

I think it's waaaaaaaaayyyyy to early to say who won the final battle. The only statistic that puts real money in the bank is deliveries...and so far, and since the 320 entered service, deliveries have been within 2% of each other. If that holds true until the end of production, (and it will hold true until at least the end of this decade), then it doesn't matter how far in advance sales were made.

Until a plane is actually delivered, a sale, commitment, LOI or test drive can be cancelled. Once a delivery has been made, the check is cashed that money stays in the bank. That's the only absolute in the sales game.



What the...?
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13069 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
lasting longer

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 lasting trucks on the road", I thought I would see if the data supports your claim.

I pulled the fleet data for the 737-800 and A320 from airfleets; all deliveries 2000 through 2010, during which time Airbus delivered 1756 A320s and Boeing delivered 1947 737-800s.

The aircraft were sorted into 4 buckets: Active, Stored, Scrapped and Written-Off.

I normalized the results by showing each bucket as a percent of deliveries by year. I thought about excluding the write-offs, since this is not really useful in a measure of longevity, but left them in for completeness. You can see the results below. Thanks, Tom for bringing up an interesting dynamic in the never-ending comparisons between the A320 and 737NG!





User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 65, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
Except......
The numbers I used are from the OEMs

And the ACAP's aren't an OEM source?
So what's your source?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 50):
For time in service any of the tracking sites like airfleets.net can be cross referenced against the manufactures' delivery info

I've seen cycle numbers that suggest the earlier 737's should have had a longer life (not sure about new ones).
I've never seen anything anywhere that suggests that the smaller, less capacious A320 has a HIGHER direct operating cost than 737-800, despite being smaller.

And I don't believe it for one minute. There's no way the A320 would be in the market position it's in if that were the case. Once again, where's there a source?
Aren't we supposed to provide these?
I'll happily concede the 738 should have a lower DOC per seat

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 56):
Who maxes out the A320 at 180? I wouldn't want to fly that airline.

According to Seatguru, Easyjet's A320's have 183 seats at 29" pitch - that's the highest number I've seen. As you say, 189 seems to be the exit bounded limit

Quoting CM (Reply 64):
You can see the results below

Thanks for doing the work.

What does this tell us, apart from the fact that some A320's are currently in storage?

The scrapped and written off numbers look near-on identical

Rgds


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12801 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 65):
What does this tell us

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, about 98% of 737s and 95% of A320s are still flying. As you note, the difference between the two is in the number of aircraft stored, and storage can happen for a lot of different reasons. We can only speculate, but one obvious reason an A320 might be stored when a 737 wouldn't are that some A320s are more difficult to place due to engine type - this is never an issue for the 737. Another reason could be maintenance, which is an operating cost that increases with aircraft age.

Beyond the 12 year window I showed above, things get pretty interesting and probably more useful for this type of comparison. Unfortunately, we don't have 737NGs that old to compare to. If I go back 8 more years to look at 20 year old A320s, 70% remain in service with 7% scrapped and 22% in storage. We need another decade behind us before we can see how the 737NG will compare at these more advanced ages - ones which are truly representative of "longevity".

Cheers!

CM


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12609 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 49):
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 a launch customer in Southwest, the commitments should be firming quickly.

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, Korean Air senior vice-president corporate strategy and planning, of Boeing's 737 Max.

So it is a kind of a strange launch, without a price....


User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12536 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
SQ have said the A380-800 is over 20% more efficient than the 777-300ER and yet SQ continues to order 777-300ERs, so evidently it's relative inefficiency to the A380-800 does not translate into SQ seeing no value in operating the 777-300ER.

That comparison was for the 747-400. They are no longer in the fleet....

http://atwonline.com/aircraftengines...s-virgin-atlantic-disappoints-0309

Quote:
In terms of technical performance, specifically fuel burn, the aircraft is performing better than Airbus promised. "In seat/mile terms we achieve overall a 20% better fuel burn than our 747-400s."



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1511 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12463 times:

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 trip for either frame is minor, almost to the point of being negligible. I think we will see airlines order these planes based upon which fits better into their fleet; ie, airlines that already have a good number of A320 family aircraft will stick with the NEO, airlines with a good number of 737NGs will stick with the MAX.

Correct. You can't (and never could) put a sheet of paper between these two fine aircraft.It will be horses for courses.

Personally (when it comes out) The one area that may be different will be the economic range of the A321MAX.(GTF)

It just may be a better 757 replacement (particularly with it's hold.), we will have to see.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2543 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12411 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
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 heavier than it is now will counter this" and so on.
Quoting planesntrains (Reply 36):
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.

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. Aspire Aviation might agree with you, and they may indeed have inside sources and are in a better position to take more educated estimates as to what form the aircraft will take, but these figures are by no means certain until the aircraft is flying.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
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 raise OEW. That should be clear to anyone, frankly, so for those who assumed it wouldn't...

To clarify my position, though, I never doubted that the 737MAX will have an increased OEW due to its larger, heavier engines. What I did doubt was that the 737MAX's OEW increase over the 737NG would be greater than the A320neo's OEW increase over the A320, which was rheinwaldner's assertion, because while the 737MAX gets larger fan and longer nose gear, the A320neo also gets a larger fan, and an increased wingspan (including sharkets).



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 71, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12359 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 70):
Err ... that'd be me. I'm currently eating a slice of humble pie.

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 MTOW increases, which of course tell you nothing whatsoever about what's happening to the respective OEW's.

Airbus initially said the NEO change would add 1.7t to OEW for the LeapX and 1.8t for the GTF, and that they were increasing MTOW by 1t to partially compensate.

So it COULD be that Airbus are increasing MTOW by 1.3t, but the OEW will go up by 1.7t
It could equally be that Boeing are putting the MAX's MTOW up by 2t.
OEW might only be rising by 0.5 to 1t (for example)

That could be one of the tactics Boeing uses to offset the realtively larger gains in efficiency and range (over the current models) that Airbus will experience from both the re-engine AND the sharklets

Rgds


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 72, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12282 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 66):
If I go back 8 more years to look at 20 year old A320s, 70% remain in service with 7% scrapped and 22% in storage.

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 A320 what 737 versions would you compare against?
I ask because our local airline still uses a 737-200 and strictly limiting the comparison to the A320 and the 737NG may not be an accurate reflection of the lease assertions. I say use them all, the A32X against the 737 you could debate the A321 versus 757 but those are easily identified and can be included or excluded at onle leisure.

How about the following:

Quoting CM (Reply 64):
I pulled the fleet data for the 737-800 and A320 from airfleets; all deliveries 2000 through 2010, during which time Airbus delivered 1756 A320s and Boeing delivered 1947 737-800s.

Unless you have made a typo, you are saying that in your time frame Boeing delivered 1947 while Airbus delivered 1756, in direct contradiction to claims earlier in this thread and in general a.net mantra that the A320 has been kicking the 737 and Boeing fans counter claim that the NG has evened out the scale.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12048 posts, RR: 47
Reply 73, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 72):
Unless you have made a typo, you are saying that in your time frame Boeing delivered 1947 while Airbus delivered 1756, in direct contradiction to claims earlier in this thread and in general a.net mantra that the A320 has been kicking the 737 and Boeing fans counter claim that the NG has evened out the scale.

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 + 737-900 over the last 10 years. Sadly, we can probably ignore the contributions of the A318 and 737-600.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12139 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 71):
I have a suspicion that the weight increases quoted by Aspire Aviation in reply #20 actually refer to MTOW increases, which of course tell you nothing whatsoever about what's happening to the respective OEW's.

Looks like they are referring to MEW

Aspire Aviation‘s sources at Boeing said the structural reinforcements required to accommodate the larger and heavier CFM Leap-1B engine, such as the mid-body strengthening in Sections 43 and 44 reported by flightglobal, will add 2,000 kg (4,409 lbs) to the 737 MAX’s manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW), whereas the A320neo with a CFM Leap-1A engine weighs around 1,361 kg (3,000 lbs) more than an existing A320 (“Boeing 737 MAX sees a bright year ahead“, 20th Dec, 11).


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 75, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11938 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 52):
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 49):
737MAX was not officially launched until less than 2 months ago

I think, given that AA committed to it on July 20th, you have to start the clock from then.

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.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 67):
So it is a kind of a strange launch, without a price....

According to this FG story, JT got a price of about $95M USD for their B-737MAX 'order' of 201 airplanes (not sure if these are -8MAX or -9MAX) in November 2011.

JT is also expected to announce another big order this month. My guess is they will firm up their B-737MAX order and possibly order a replacement B-747-8I (580 seats in 2 classes) order for their (2?) B-744s (500 seats in 1 class). If true, this will make JT the launch customer for the B-737-9MAX


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 76, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 11909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 67):
So it is a kind of a strange launch, without a price....

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 runs $9 million more at list than a 737NG.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11798 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 65):
Quoting CM (Reply 64):
You can see the results below

Thanks for doing the work.

What does this tell us, apart from the fact that some A320's are currently in storage?

The scrapped and written off numbers look near-on identical

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 on the used market. The 737NG is in storage less, which likely means it has more value on the used market than the A320 does. I'm not sure of the difference in number of airlines disposing of A320s or 738s, however with how many that have been produced and how many carriers operate them, it is easy to understand that there are many on the used market.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11663 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 77):
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 on the used market. The 737NG is in storage less, which likely means it has more value on the used market than the A320 does. I'm not sure of the difference in number of airlines disposing of A320s or 738s, however with how many that have been produced and how many carriers operate them, it is easy to understand that there are many on the used market.

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 2000 - I wouldn't say its possible to draw any conclusions from this.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 79, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11305 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 78):
your getting down to talking about 10 or 20 frames out of 2000 - I wouldn't say its possible to draw any conclusions from this.


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 the data means. However, given the sample size, the difference between the two aircraft is real and statistically significant.

Based on the difference in scrappage/storage rate, I believe it must be a result of of some quantitative differences between the aircraft types (economics of aging frames, fungibility, durability, lending terms for used aircraft, or some other factor). These differences could (at least in part) be responsible for the 737NG selling and leasing for more money than the A320 - This was Tom's original assertion and why I dug into this a bit.

The difference in scrappage/storage rate has to make some difference in price. An operator who places an order for 200 A320s, would in some way be accounting for the quantitative airplane differences, which on average mean 2.5% of A320s (or 4.9 of the 200 airplanes) will be scrapped or in storage by year 12, compared with only 0.6% (1.3 of the 200 airplanes) for the 737-800. Parking even a single aircraft represents a considerable amount of money when you consider the asset and opportunity cost it represents. Since the pricing differential is real (average of $4M premium per aircraft to Boeing in 2010, per Avitas), then I think we would have to say Tom's assertion is at least plausible - the 737NG may earn some of its purchase price/lease premium by being a longer-lived airframe.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 80, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11251 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 78):

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 2000 - I wouldn't say its possible to draw any conclusions from this.

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 more. The only site I know posting availabilities is Boeing's and they only have a handful of 737NGs available compared to many 737 classics. For what it is worth, Boeing also has a couple A320s posted up for sale.

However, I think it is notable that there are more A320s parked than 737s. I think that shows a higher demand on the used market, unless they are traced to a single operator or series of operators. If the chart was refreshed today, you'd see a dozen more 737s from Malev which are stored. The original point was that the 737 has a higher used price. If there are more A320s on the market, then you'd assume they'd be commanding a lower rate since there is greater supply.

[Edited 2012-02-10 16:22:57]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 797 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 11136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 62):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 55):If Boeing wanted to change its baseline, they could make the rear pressure bulkhead flat option standard on the 737-800, which would further increase capacity.

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 pax count.
I've been looking for info as to whether it becomes standard on the 7max and 8max.

One trick with the MAX, is that we have not seen any projected seating capacity?



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 82, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 80):
However, I think it is notable that there are more A320s parked than 737s. I think that shows a higher demand on the used market, unless they are traced to a single operator or series of operators. If the chart was refreshed today, you'd see a dozen more 737s from Malev which are stored.

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 trading about 2 weeks ago   

Malev's stored aircraft do appear, but most of them seem to be 737-700's and 737-600's according to the Airfleets list.
CM specifically split out the 737-800's (which I don't have a problem with) which hides a lot of stored 737-7's and -6's..

For what it's worth, out of that list of aircraft,
1 x A320 was scrapped, and 4 written off
compared to
1 x 738's scrapped, and 8 written off.

In my view, the analysis tells us absolutely nothing about the longevity or appeal of the A320 vs the 737-800

Quoting CM (Reply 79):
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 the data means

Except it's not that hard to interrogate the Airfleets list....

Quoting CM (Reply 79):
However, given the sample size, the difference between the two aircraft is real and statistically significant.

Don't agree. Most of the stored aircraft belong to airlines with easily traceable issues

Quoting CM (Reply 79):
Based on the difference in scrappage/storage rate, I believe it must be a result of of some quantitative differences between the aircraft types (economics of aging frames, fungibility, durability, lending terms for used aircraft, or some other factor). These differences could (at least in part) be responsible for the 737NG selling and leasing for more money than the A320 - This was Tom's original assertion and why I dug into this a bit.


Based on a cursory look at the list, I'd say your conclusion is, er, flawed, to be polite (a load of round objects might be a less charitable description)
Does LionAir's stored May 2008 737-900ER tell us anything about the longevity of that aircraft?

I'm still awaiting the data which shows A320's having higher DOC's than 737-800's. I don't expect to see it

The only thing I've seen real data for on this thread so far is what's acceptably "on-message", and what's not.
If I'm honest.

Rgds

[Edited 2012-02-11 07:30:25]

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 83, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10547 times:

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 that triggered this debate which seems to be more of a defense of each a/c and its capabilities.
If the rate is higher can we just put it down to the lessor simply being greedy or the lesse's not knowing any better?


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 84, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10550 times:

Courtesy of Leeham...

http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/max-v-neo-sfc.jpg



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3934 posts, RR: 34
Reply 85, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10450 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 37):
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/optimizing-leap-for-737-max/

- some LPT stages and related parts are eliminated
- engine will be shorter
- ceramics being used

You can't eliminate some LPT stages.
There are only four to start with, Some sounds like more than one!


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12048 posts, RR: 47
Reply 86, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10424 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 84):



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 a 3% improvement but also reduces a further 1% for the removal of the wing fences.  Wow!

Boeing also gives Airbus no credit for the improvements they've said they'll apply to the wing fairing and the wing/pylon interface.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 87, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10333 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 86):

I think Boeing is being a little sneaky with the numbers here.

Absolutely. They predict the NEO improvements will be 12% instead of the 15% Airbus predicts. Ironically, Airbus is just as sneaky and predicts the Max will be 8% improvement instead of the 11% Boeing predicts. They are equally sneaky!

http://d9itxagvk5mi8.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/blockfuel-neo-v-max1.jpg



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1250 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10229 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 83):
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 that triggered this debate which seems to be more of a defense of each a/c and its capabilities.
If the rate is higher can we just put it down to the lessor simply being greedy or the lesse's not knowing any better?

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 more A320s on the market (either parked or uncommitted with lessors), which reduces lease rates.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10176 times:

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 would let them have 13 years to get it right. I wote for twin isles like some were talking about before MAX, a little wider and heavier but TATL will be far more attractive in a narrow body that way. A 2-2-2 narrowbody wouldnt have to be much wider than a 320 right? Maybe with 13 years of AL-LI or composite deveopement it might just come in at the current 3-3 narrow body fuselage? An engine gen further than Leap-X etc..

User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1271 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10156 times:

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 88):
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 more A320s on the market (either parked or uncommitted with lessors), which reduces lease rates.



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 demand...

Many airlines would not have a free choice as to which model to lease as they already have one of the two in their fleet.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 91, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9940 times:

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 88):

...... 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 classic which is less efficient and is increasingly becoming less viable for airlines.


User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9935 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
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?

Looks like the true successor to the 707 will finally be the 737MAX...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
steal

steel...  
Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
ludacris

ludicrous...  
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg)

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 (46,85600 kg)

Except......
The numbers I used are from the OEMs

Why, or how, would an OEM make two different sets of numbers? Which one would be the best for comparison?

Just for the fun of it, here is KC135TopBoom's table using the ACAPs numbers as provided by Astuteman (thanks to both of you):

The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

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 (46,85600 kg)

So if you add 2 tonnes (4,400 lbs) to each B-737NG model, for the MAX, and add 1.3 tonnes (2,860 lbs) to each A-32X model, for the NEO, you come up with the MAX models still being lighter than the competing NEO models (operating empty weights).

B-737-7MAX = 88,500 lbs, A-319NEO = 90,439 lbs
B-737-8MAX = 95,508 lbs, A-320NEO = 93,787 lbs
B-737-9MAX = 102,895 lbs, A-321NEO - 106,160 lbs

...      

Quoting par13del (Reply 72):
general a.net mantra that the A320 has been kicking the 737

Is it really an A.net mantra, or if we are getting a little bit carried over, here?        


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 93, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9593 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 88):
The lease rate for a 737-800 is higher than an A320 because the aircraft can generate more revenue and costs less to operate.

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 what seems to be another A-net mantra - that the A320 costs more to operate than the 737-800.
Please either provide the evidence, or stop presenting this unsubstantiated claim.

Quoting abba (Reply 90):
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 demand...

It might also be worth remembering that, as the A320's acquisition cost new is lower than a 737-800 (which, being slightly smaller, is right and proper), this will affect the point at which the NPV calclation which determines the buy v lease decision tips in favour of leasing. Which will cap the lease rate for new aircraft.

Rgds


User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1250 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9172 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 93):
But once again, you have thrown at us what seems to be another A-net mantra - that the A320 costs more to operate than the 737-800.

Please either provide the evidence, or stop presenting this unsubstantiated claim.

It is tough to find publicly available sources, but analysis by USDOT, IATA, Oliver Wyman, and appraisal firms support this position.

One reason for the difference is the engines and the maintenance check intervals.

As mentioned up thread, the lower cost of acquisition/ownership for the A320 helps offsets the maintenance savings, keeping the two very competitive.


User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 968 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9131 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 9):
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.


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 & B are guilty, in fact I wouldn't trust the A head of sales to sell me a pack of gum. He is more slipery than wet seaweed.



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 96, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting billreid (Reply 95):
The Max has dramatically outsold the NEO since announcement of the MAX, so are you saying the A is not as good?

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 the same period

Not that it actually means anything

Rgds


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12048 posts, RR: 47
Reply 97, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8933 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting billreid (Reply 95):
The Max has dramatically outsold the NEO since announcement of the MAX, so are you saying the A is not as good?

  

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 July 2011. Since then, they've got firm orders for 250. In the same time, Airbus has added firm orders for 621 neos.

"official launch"
MAX was officially launched on 30th August 2011. Since then, Airbus has booked 501 firm neos.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 96):
The MAX has only scored 150 firm orders since it was announced..

It's actually 250 - 150 for Southwest (13/12/11) and 100 for Norwegian Shuttle (25/01/12).



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 98, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 97):
It's actually 250 - 150 for Southwest (13/12/11) and 100 for Norwegian Shuttle (25/01/12).

You are right. My bad

Rgds


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8418 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Most of the stored A320's belong to Spanair.

Less than 50%, but point taken.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Except it's not that hard to interrogate the Airfleets list....

Indeed, which has now been done...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Most of the stored aircraft belong to airlines with easily traceable issues

19 from Spanair - storage is not airplane related.
4 from USA3000 - storage is not airplane related.
2 from Libyan - storage is not airplane related.
3 from Avia Nova, which were not stored for reasons related to the airplane, but nearly a year has passed and it's reasonable to wonder why these aircraft have not been placed elsewhere.
14 from active A320 operators (TAM, ANA, Aer Lingus, Niki, etc), which are much harder to explain.

By comparison, there are only 12 737-800 aircraft total in storage. If we take out the Malev airplanes and others in storage for reasons which are not airplane-related, you are left trying to figure out why 7 aircraft would not be in operation: 2 in storage from Air Berlin, 2 in storage from Buraq Air, 2 in storage from UTair, plus the scrapped airplane from Ryanair.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Based on a cursory look at the list, I'd say your conclusion is, er, flawed

I guess you are free to see what you want. The numbers say the 737-800 has half as many aircraft removed from service and this holds true when you remove the aircraft in storage which are there for reasons not aircraft related.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Does LionAir's stored May 2008 737-900ER tell us anything about the longevity of that aircraft?

It doesn't, as the sample size is too small to be meaningful... but you already knew that.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
I'm still awaiting the data which shows A320's having higher DOC's than 737-800's. I don't expect to see it

Well, Scott Hamilton posted an anecdotal comment on one 3rd party's DOC analysis over the weekend:

Quoting Scott Hamilton:
"at least one airline analysis of the MAX vs neo concludes that MAX will only be around 2% better than neo"

No one is going to conclude the MAX will have lower DOC than the neo unless they already believe the 737NG has lower DOC than the A320... even Boeing acknowledges the neo is gaining more than the MAX in terms of block fuel improvement. There are no details attached to Scott's comment, so it's not the assessment we would all like to see. However, it is reported as the results of an airline's analysis of the two aircraft. I believe AirInsight has also assessed the all-in operating costs of the 737-8 to be about 2% lower than the A320neo. I do not know if Scott's connection to AirInsight and the airline analysis he is privy to are related to the AirInsight conclusions, but they do seem to very conveniently align. I'll leave the conspiracy theories for another day. In the meanwhile, you can read Scott's comments here: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...the-leap-for-max-part-2/#more-5772

Quoting scbriml (Reply 86):
Airbus claims the sharklets will reduce fuel burn by 3.5%. Boeing not only shows just a 3% improvement but also reduces a further 1% for the removal of the wing fences.

I'm not sure why these things bother you. Boeing has far more experience with blended winglets than Airbus. I would expect than have a very good understanding of what benefit they will bring to the A320. And yes, when you remove the tip fence, you subtract that performance, before you add on the sharklet and its performance. You only get the net of what you can fly. You cannot have the sum of both. Boeing, Airbus and the world know from the DAW winglet studies, the tip-fence was worth 1%-1.5% fuel burn reduction. The world also knows blended winglets will not provide a 4.5%-5% fuel burn improvement over a wing with no tip treatment... but that's what Airbus wants us to believe. Here is why the "Airbus Math" won't work:

Airbus wing with Tip-Fence: Baseline
Remove Tip-Fence: Block fuel increases by 1.25%.
Add sharklet: Block fuel is reduced by 3.5%

Baseline +1.25% - 3.5% = 2.25% block fuel reduction from adding sharklets.

Airbus will have to have discovered a sharklet which will provide 4.75% block fuel reduction for them to net 3.5%... and we all know that didn't happen. Boeing is giving the A320neo credit for net 2%, which is much closer to reality than the 3.5% net Airbus is claiming.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 100, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8357 times:

Quoting SEA (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 trip for either frame is minor, almost to the point of being negligible. I think we will see airlines order these planes based upon which fits better into their fleet; ie, airlines that already have a good number of A320 family aircraft will stick with the NEO, airlines with a good number of 737NGs will stick with the MAX.

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 different conclusion about fuel burn.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 49):
Now that Boeing has a launch customer in Southwest, the commitments should be firming quickly.

Should. We are in the year of the MAX. But where are they?
If I have counted correctly the NEO is firming up orders still quicker. And so far (please correct me if I am wrong) there appear new NEO MOU's at the same rate how MAX orders are firmed (Norwegian)...

Quoting CM (Reply 99):

Quoting scbriml (Reply 86):
Airbus claims the sharklets will reduce fuel burn by 3.5%. Boeing not only shows just a 3% improvement but also reduces a further 1% for the removal of the wing fences.

I'm not sure why these things bother you. Boeing has far more experience with blended winglets than Airbus.

Seems not. Because the Airbus version of these things seem to beat even the 3.5% expectations. Fully validated on a real aircraft:
Quote initial results from the tests indicate the sharklets are saving more than 3.5% in fuel-burn from here
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...lets-test-programme-in-may-367674/

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
And yes, when you remove the tip fence, you subtract that performance, before you add on the sharklet and its performance.

Airbus never has stated the 3.5% in comparison to the few A320-100's (which had no tip fence). So 3.5% is the net gain (+ sharklet - tip fence).

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
Airbus wing with Tip-Fence: Baseline
Remove Tip-Fence: Block fuel increases by 1.25%.
Add sharklet: Block fuel is reduced by 3.5%

Rubbish...


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 101, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8211 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
I guess you are free to see what you want. The numbers say the 737-800 has half as many aircraft removed from service and this holds true when you remove the aircraft in storage which are there for reasons not aircraft related.

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 stored for reasons which we still DON’T KNOW are aircraft related.
And out of some 1 800 aircraft (give or take), you’re trying to claim that this is statistically significant?

I could just as easily claim then that the fact that 8 x 737-800’s have been written off vs 4 x A320 is equally statistically significant, and almost by definition is aircraft related. It would be just as nonsensical

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
It doesn't, as the sample size is too small to be meaningful... but you already knew that.

I did. It was my point.

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
I believe AirInsight has also assessed the all-in operating costs of the 737-8 to be about 2% lower than the A320neo.

What is really interesting about this article, is that Boeing has to
a) use a seat count 8% higher than that for the A320, and
b) distort Airbus’s figures

in order to derive a fuel burn per seat, (as Scott’s chart CLEARLY shows) that is only 5% better than the A320, even when using 8% more seats.

And that answers my question.   
I must thank Boeing for delivering the evidence nobody else on the thread has been inclined to (and I can see why)
Even with Boeing’s “slant”, this clearly shows the NEO to have 3% lower trip fuel burn than the 737-8 on Boeing’s base assumptions.

So BOEING say the A320NEO has a lower trip fuel burn. (They also say the A320 classic has a lower trip fuel burn too, by the way…   )

Out of interest, if I “un-distort” the A320 improvements, and use Airbus’s own figures, but don’t apply Airbus’s own “distortion” to the Boeing figures, (rather leave them as Boeing quotes them, which is equitable IMO, as I’m then using both manufacturers “own” figures), then the NEO ends up having 6% lower trip fuel burn than the 737-8.

I can buy that.
And hey, it pretty much jives with the “737-8 MAX being “only 2% lower than the NEO”” comment too, if we use the 8% seat-count difference   

Result  
Quoting CM (Reply 99):
I'm not sure why these things bother you. Boeing has far more experience with blended winglets than Airbus. I would expect than have a very good understanding of what benefit they will bring to the A320

But Airbus won’t?
After having actually had in their hands, and tested both of the aircraft under discussion?
Claiming that Boeing’s second-hand experience outweighs Airbus’s first hand experience and real testing strikes me as a somewhat untenable position, if I’m honest.

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
The world also knows blended winglets will not provide a 4.5%-5% fuel burn improvement over a wing with no tip treatment

And yet Boeing claim 5% for the 737NG’s winglets…   

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
Boeing is giving the A320neo credit for net 2%, which is much closer to reality than the 3.5% net Airbus is claiming.

Reality? Mmm   


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 102, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8279 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
Boeing, Airbus and the world know from the DAW winglet studies, the tip-fence was worth 1%-1.5% fuel burn reduction. The world also knows blended winglets will not provide a 4.5%-5% fuel burn improvement over a wing with no tip treatment... but that's what Airbus wants us to believe.

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 years younger in design then the A320 wing (1984 vs 1994). it is an advanced, slender, modern wing and it has consequently a higher aspect ratio of 10.2 vs 9.5 for the A320. We know the 737NG is more fuel efficient then the A320 and this comes from a modern wing on a light frame.

There is nothing that says that Airbus could not improve the rather old A320 wing with up to 3.5% net with a carefully integrated sharklet, the induced drag of a A320 being higher weight with a smaller wing with less AR could gain a lot from a good winglet.

This is what A claim before the flight tests and they have now stated they have exceeded that promise. I would not put to much money against JL in this case       .



Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 103, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8290 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
The world also knows blended winglets will not provide a 4.5%-5% fuel burn improvement over a wing with no tip treatment

For information..

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/winglets_lbf.php

Quote:
Winglets lower drag and improve aerodynamic efficiency, thus reducing fuel burn. Depending on the missions you fly, blended winglets can improve cruise fuel mileage up to 6 percent

Source - AviationpartnersBoeing

SIX percent...
The world might want to tell Boeing what it doesn't know, perhaps......  

Rgds


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12048 posts, RR: 47
Reply 104, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 99):
I'm not sure why these things bother you.

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 to clarify the baseline used for that comparison. In this case, Boeing seems to have done that by stating they're talking about a 500nm mission, but at the same time, they're misrepresenting Airbus.

The sales figures for A320s and 737s would suggest there is next to nothing between them in the real World. I don't expect there to be much more between neo and MAX. The GTF might be a bit of a wildcard in that respect though.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4594 posts, RR: 38
Reply 105, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8120 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 102):
There is nothing that says that Airbus could not improve the rather old A320 wing with up to 3.5% net with a carefully integrated sharklet, the induced drag of a A320 being higher weight with a smaller wing with less AR could gain a lot from a good winglet.


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 sometimes I think that laws of physics must be applied differently when comparing Airbus or Boeing aircraft, giving the latter some superiority even if it is clearly not there. Fortunately, in the real world this is not the case.  

The competing aircraft are pretty much on par, and will get even more competitive since the NEO seems to be gaining just a little bit more in performance then the MAX. Which is also not really a surprise considering the new engines AND the shark-lets she will get where the MAX will "only" get the new engines. Of course both airframes will be further tuned in other areas as good as possible, which in the end will make for virtually identical performing airframes. Where the one still most likely will be better on the shorter stretches and the latter most likely will be better on the medium to longer stretches, which is also very much alike the situation in today's playing field.  .


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 106, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8091 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 103):
Source - AviationpartnersBoeing

SIX percent...
The world might want to tell Boeing what it doesn't know, perhaps......

Really...the guys who sell winglets want to claim an advantage for winglets...what are the odds!

Tom.


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8051 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 106):
Really...the guys who sell winglets want to claim an advantage for winglets...what are the odds!

Reading comprehension fail.

Moving on, the "better" aircraft will have more sales. Simples. I'm going to bookmark this thread for future reference. Hindsight is a funny thing.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 108, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8055 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 105):
The competing aircraft are pretty much on par, and will get even more competitive since the NEO seems to be gaining just a little bit more in performance then the MAX.

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 confuse the masses, getting just like the beancounters  


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4594 posts, RR: 38
Reply 109, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 108):
what exactly and who is the NEO gaining on if they are pretty much on par?


The NEO will be gaining just a little bit on relative performance against the B737-MAX.  .


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6744 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7998 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 109):
The NEO will be gaining just a little bit on relative performance against the B737-MAX. .

Ok, I take back the beancounter commentary and will lean towards the political segment.
Thanks


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11959 posts, RR: 25
Reply 111, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7915 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 104):
While I would expect each OEM to present their own offerings in the best light, they should have to clarify the baseline used for that comparison.

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 missions as input and produces a lot more data than a single Powerpoint slide.

The stuff we see is PR fluff.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 112, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7888 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 109):
The NEO will be gaining just a little bit on relative performance against the B737-MAX.

Since neither the MAX nor the NEO are anywhere close to flying against each other yet, how do you know that?

Quoting par13del (Reply 108):
You technical guys tend to confuse the masses, getting just like the beancounters

In the end it will be the technical guys having an input into the bean counters final decision on which airplane to buy at each airline.


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4594 posts, RR: 38
Reply 113, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7851 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
Since neither the MAX nor the NEO are anywhere close to flying against each other yet, how do you know that?


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 airframes.  .


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 114, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 106):
Really...the guys who sell winglets want to claim an advantage for winglets...what are the odds!

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 nifty footwork going on around me for no good reason whatsoever (and to no great effect, for that matter) ......

It's quite a show.
Farcical is a word that comes to mind.

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 107):
I'm going to bookmark this thread for future reference

It will make interesting reading one day...

Rgds


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 115, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7613 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
Quoting CM (Reply 99):
I'm not sure why these things bother you. Boeing has far more experience with blended winglets than Airbus. I would expect than have a very good understanding of what benefit they will bring to the A320

But Airbus won’t?
After having actually had in their hands, and tested both of the aircraft under discussion?
Claiming that Boeing’s second-hand experience outweighs Airbus’s first hand experience and real testing strikes me as a somewhat untenable position, if I’m honest.

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 the same 3~3.5% improvement that the sharklet now is showing. There's a long legal battle ahead to see if Airbus did infringe on Aviation Partners patents and intellectual property since the two began working together in 2006.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-of-airbus-winglet-lawsuit-367720/

In the end, it probably won't matter to the customers as the ruling in courts will likely be settled and the worst that I'd expect to happen is Airbus paying royalties to Aviation Partners. If you believe the filings, Airbus has essentially copied the Aviation Partners design, I'd assume that the two should be fairly equal.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7573 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 103):
blended winglets can improve cruise fuel mileage up to 6 percent

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 this benefit, it would only be for very long (by single-aisle standards) missions. The fleet average stage-length for both the A320 and 737 is less than 800nm.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
And yet Boeing claim 5% for the 737NG’s winglets

Is there something you can point me to that supports this? I've only ever heard "3%-4% on longer missions".

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
So BOEING say the A320NEO has a lower trip fuel burn

Yes. Boeing has always credited the A320 with lower trip fuel than the 737-800. As I mentioned above, Boeing also credits the A320neo with gaining more in terms of a block fuel reduction than the MAX will gain for the 737-8. It's what makes a conversation about all the other op-costs so interesting...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
I’m then using both manufacturers “own” figures

The problem with doing this is the two OEM's have different ways of arriving at their numbers. Beyond mission rule differences (stage-length, winds, reserves, pax allowances, etc), the two OEM's have very different approaches to auditing engine performance. Airbus credits the engine manufacturer with spec TSFC in the analysis. Boeing audits the engine OEM's TSFC (and other claims) before it becomes a "Boeing number". This is why BOTH the LEAP-1A and LEAP-1B TSFC improvement shown in the Tinseth chart above are smaller (before integration effects) than what CFM is claiming for their engines.

In short: when you make a Boeing / Airbus mash-up of data, like you've done, you are taking figures arrived at using different operational rules, and different analysis methodologies and treating them as equal - airplanes don't work that way in real life.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
use a seat count 8% higher than that for the A320

We agree here. It's why I prefer to see the data presented at exit-limit. It is an indisputable number, and actually represents a good chunk of how the world's fleet is configured.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 117, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7573 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 115):
If you believe the filings, Airbus has essentially copied the Aviation Partners design, I'd assume that the two should be fairly equal.

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 at different cruise states with Aviation partners, just because the winglets look the same they can have major differences in how the influence the super critical transonic pressure distribution on the wing (and therefore cruise drag).

3. Given that Airbus was developing an own winglet while checking out Aviation partners design I would expect they did not reveal the pressure maps fully. With their own full knowledge of the wings characteristics and their A350 research program happening about the same time for a similar sharklet I would assume they can make a more efficient implementation.

4. If they can show their design generate a different and better transonic drag picture then Aviation partners design (and they have flown both) they might have a case in court (just might).

5. Anyway the conclusion is that although they look similar they can have rather different performance as drag reducers, especially transonic drag creep.



Non French in France
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 118, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 testing will continue once design freeze is achieved, I am sure). The tests will start in the UK and complete in the US.

User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7001 times:

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 them I have seen quantified:
Lighter frame
More efficient wing(irrespective of winglets/wingtips)
More durable frame with a longer lifespan
Lower maintenance costs(this has been a theme for while but again I haven't seen the numbers)
Obviously, the capacity advantage of the 738 v 320 is also a big plus for Boeing.
How one can quantify these statements, I'm not too sure but there doies have to be a good reson(s) that 737NG lease rates are consistently higher then those of the 320 family.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11959 posts, RR: 25
Reply 120, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6762 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
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 testing will continue once design freeze is achieved, I am sure). The tests will start in the UK and complete in the US.

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 Tinseth saying:

Quote:

"We've worked with GE and CFM and we're going to have a slightly smaller core compared to the competition, so we've really optimised for the airframe for the right airplane efficiency."

So, we really are talking a different engine for the MAX. We've read already different pylon and wing integration, different fan size, different number of turbine stages and blades, introduction of ceramic blades, and now, "slightly" smaller core.

Seems Boeing and CFM are going all out to make this product a success.

It does make one feel we'll be seeing the NSA later than sooner, since I can imagine CFM will need a whole lot of sales for this to pay off.

On the other hand it seems we have many sales on the way:

Quote:

More than 1,000 737 Max orders and commitments have been placed from 15 customers, of which 250 are firm from two airlines - Southwest (150) and Norwegian (100). Three other customers have been revealed: American Airlines (100), Aviation Capital Group (35) and Lion Air (201).

And I hear Lion Air firmed today, so we're at 451, no?

Times two plus spares puts CFM at north of 900 engines just for the MAX.

Aren't we getting spoiled by orders that are in the hundreds?

What an interesting time we live in.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedakota123 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6633 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 120):
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 Tinseth saying:

Quote:
"We've worked with GE and CFM and we're going to have a slightly smaller core compared to the competition, so we've really optimised for the airframe for the right airplane efficiency."

So, we really are talking a different engine for the MAX. We've read already different pylon and wing integration, different fan size, different number of turbine stages and blades, introduction of ceramic blades, and now, "slightly" smaller core.

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 at the expense of power without ending up with essentially a completely different engine.

Dakota123

[Edited 2012-02-14 09:35:06]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 122, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6578 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
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.

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 placing the engine closer to the wing would increase the interference drag between the engine and wing, and reduce the overall wing efficiency, and reduce the low speed high lift capability of the wing. As it was on the 737NG it has a reduced vertical clearance normally engineers aim to have a around 10% of the wing chord vertical clearance to give the necessary clearance between the wing and the nacelle to ensure efficient wing aerodynamics with a low nacelle drag. The engine is also normally placed 15-20% forward of the wing chord, so that the overlap of the final nozzle exhaust plane relative to the wing leading edge. The combination of the vertical and forward placement of the engine should be to minimise the interference drag, looks like they have done it to minimise the amount of rework on the landing gear and wing, hence a less than optimal solution, i.e. less efficient.

I am also concerned that there will be enough clearance between the power plant and the ground in the event of a crosswind landing, landing with a deflated nose wheel, or even the prevention of FOD and exhaust gasses from entering the engine.

I would be curios to see the final configuration, I am interested to see how they will have placed the mechanical components, the ones that give the 737 the odd shaped engine today.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):

Except......
The numbers I used are from the OEMs

The ACAPS numbers are from the OEM, your numbers should be as found in

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec2.pdf
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi.../Airbus_AC_A319_20110501_Apr11.pdf
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi.../Airbus_AC_A320_20110501_Apr11.pdf
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi.../Airbus_AC_A321_20110501_Apr11.pdf

The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg) – Actual OEM number 37,648 kg (CFM)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg) – Actual OEM number 41,413 kg (CFM)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg) – Actual OEM number 44,677 kg (CFM)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg) – Actual OEM number 39 725 kg (CFM)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg) – Actual OEM number 41 244 kg (CFM)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg) – Actual OEM number 46 856 kg (CFM)

Quoting planemaker (Reply 84):
Courtesy of Leeham...

This is one of the most interesting slides, Boeing is seeing an increase of a 7" in fan diameter, whilst Airbus in their best case is seeing 16", and worst case 10" increase in fan diameter.

Since both engine are going to be of similar age, the thermal and mechanical efficiencies of the power plant setups will be almost identical. The main difference will be the propulsive efficiency, and the power plant with the larger bypass ratio will be the more efficient.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 117):

I agree with what you are saying, APB did not invent the winglet, as you can see from the patent filings they built on existing knowledge.

Airbus has since before the aircraft even entered service has been looking at various wingtip devices, adding a wingtip device to the A320 is not a new idea the APB is bringing to the table. Airbus flew the Elliptical Winglet from Winglet Technology, and their own design, as well as the APB winglet before the Sharklet. They are all visually very different.



First Airbus design



Elliptical Winglet from Winglet Technology

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...irbus-a320-flies-with-aviatio.html

APB Winglet



Airbus Sharklet

Pretty easy to see the visual differences between each one, they are all different.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 123, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

Quoting dakota123 (Reply 121):
I wonder if that doesn't simply mean a nozzle set with smaller area, and not a physically smaller case etc. That would improve efficiency at the expense of power without ending up with essentially a completely different engine.

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 of current aircraft is it makes it easier to design in different sized engines from different manufacturers. With the 737, Boeing has given up on multiple engine suppliers, so why not work more closely to integrate the engine with the design knowing that doing so closes the door to other companies and designs?

Quoting zeke (Reply 122):
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 placing the engine closer to the wing would increase the interference drag between the engine and wing, and reduce the overall wing efficiency, and reduce the low speed high lift capability of the wing.

That's the big question, and while there are likely ways to mitigate it effectively, you are spending resources doing that, and possibly losing additional aero benefits you might be able to engineer into the current wing without this engine+wing combo.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 124, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6490 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 117):
If they can show their design generate a different and better transonic drag picture then Aviation partners design (and they have flown both) they might have a case in court (just might).

Anyway the conclusion is that although they look similar they can have rather different performance as drag reducers, especially transonic drag creep.
Quoting zeke (Reply 122):
Pretty easy to see the visual differences between each one, they are all different.

Visual differences do not necessarily mean that Airbus has designed a unique concept. Neither does optimizing the design a bit more than API.

IIRC, the API patent is for a blended contour between the winglet and wing surface. Prior wingtip devices had angular interfaces. Does the Airbus sharklet not do blend the winglet into the wing airfoil? Personally, I am very interested to see how Airbus demonstrates they found a new concept - not just a new instance - for the wing to winglet interface.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11959 posts, RR: 25
Reply 125, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6357 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 122):
Since both engine are going to be of similar age, the thermal and mechanical efficiencies of the power plant setups will be almost identical. The main difference will be the propulsive efficiency, and the power plant with the larger bypass ratio will be the more efficient.

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:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 120):
So, we really are talking a different engine for the MAX. We've read already different pylon and wing integration, different fan size, different number of turbine stages and blades, introduction of ceramic blades, and now, "slightly" smaller core.

The MAX engine will also be two years newer than the NEO engine.

See also:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 37):

Optimizing LEAP for 737 MAX
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...02/08/optimizing-leap-for-737-max/

- some LPT stages and related parts are eliminated
- engine will be shorter
- ceramics being used



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6155 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 124):
IIRC, the API patent is for a blended contour between the winglet and wing surface. Prior wingtip devices had angular interfaces. Does the Airbus sharklet not do blend the winglet into the wing airfoil? Personally, I am very interested to see how Airbus demonstrates they found a new concept - not just a new instance - for the wing to winglet interface.

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 other persons work is actualy wrong. Worse, given how the patent system in the US is setup, you can patent "improved" versions of someone's work without having rights to that work. After a trip through the legal quagmire you might not be able to use your improved version without royalties, yet the other person wouldn't then be able to use any of your improvements. This is why the Airbus lawsuit is confusing, since if they found a better way, its generaly a good idea to either keep it to yourself (tradesecret) or patent it and anything like it before going to court. The wrong way to do it is to sue the current patent holder and hope. The first case you pay your royalties, but use your improvements to better your products while leaving the other users of said patent in the dark. If someone else tries to patent your idea, then you get to work securing the rights. Second case you then have your own secured legal rights before going in, and far less chance of losing everything.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 127, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6172 times:

Would like to get back on topic vs. discussing patent infringement suits over winglets/sharklets.

Could Boeing integrate a Hybrid Laminar Flow Control on the horizontal and vertical stabilizers for the MAX much like it will for the 787-9. Or is it a technology best suited for larger planes and/or long-haul flights?



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 128, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6176 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 125):

In any case, the stuff I've been reading from Leeham and FG paints a very different picture:

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 significant amount of time for materials (i.e. ceramics) to change.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 124):

IIRC, the API patent is for a blended contour between the winglet and wing surface.

That in itself is not novel, have a look at the "Elliptical Winglet" from Winglet Technology, that is another blended winglet that has a different patent and was flown on the A320. The APB Patent was issued in 1994 (Patent number: 5348253), and as far I am aware, design patents are only valid for 14 years, making it expired.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 127):
Could Boeing integrate a Hybrid Laminar Flow Control on the horizontal and vertical stabilizers for the MAX much like it will for the 787-9.

They could, like everything in aviation it is not free. The system would add additional weight and certification costs.

[Edited 2012-02-14 15:10:22]


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 129, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6139 times:

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?

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 130, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6125 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 128):
The APB Patent was issued in 1994 (Patent number: 5348253), and as far I am aware, design patents are only valid for 14 years, making it expired.

Design patents are only for ornamental design, and start with a "D." The APB winglet patent is a normal patent, which lasts 20 years.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11959 posts, RR: 25
Reply 131, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5878 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 128):
Two years in itself is not a significant amount of time for materials (i.e. ceramics) to change.

From a FG article two years ago: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ng-no-leap-before-its-time-339093/

Quote:

(CFM Leap programme director Ron ) Klapproth says Airbus and Boeing in 2009 began to focus on re-engining instead, leading CFM to split the ducted Leap X development into two phases: a 2014 Leap X with 10-15% reduction in fuel burn depending on fan size and other to-be-determined parameters for the C919 and re-engining programmes, and a 2016 Leap X that would meet the original fuel efficiency goals with new lightweight hot-section blade technologies, such as ceramic matrix composites or titanium aluminide.


So CFM has been talking about a "Phase I" engine without CMCs and a Phase II engine with CMCs publicly for two years and internally (and presumably to partners such as Airbus and Boeing) for three.

At the time the article was written, the Phase I engine was for Comac. This was written before NEO was launched, but I have read nothing that says Airbus is waiting for the Phase II engine. In fact, recent articles are saying that Boeing's later EIS allows it to have a more advanced engine, and this article shows there have been two different phases planned for years now.

We had some interesting threads here about CMCs in September:

Questions About Pratt & Whitney GTF Engine Models (by pylon101 Aug 27 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Pratt CEO Warns Boeing On 737 MAX (by blueshamu330s Sep 7 2011 in Civil Aviation)

And our friend Lightsaber touched on the technical risk levels in #38 of the 2nd thread:

Quote:

No one has proven CMC blades yet. The TRL (technology readiness level) is two steps below the GTF. The GTF is at TRL7. It will take the completion of flight test to acheive TRL8 and a few years of service for TRL9. Scalloped compressors are at TRL6 and CMC turbines at TRL5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

Current information is saying GE will be taking the risks associated with CMCs on the "Phase II" Leap-X engines.

Should make for a very interesting development program!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5323 posts, RR: 30
Reply 132, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5807 times:

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 between the top of the engine and the leading edge of the wing will cause more issues than having the engine blend into the wing...at least to some degree.


What the...?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 133, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5742 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 128):
The APB Patent was issued in 1994 (Patent number: 5348253), and as far I am aware, design patents are only valid for 14 years, making it expired.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 130):
Design patents are only for ornamental design, and start with a "D." The APB winglet patent is a normal patent, which lasts 20 years.

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.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2543 posts, RR: 5
Reply 134, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5666 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 133):
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.

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 so far as it applies to all member parties of the TRIPS agreement.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 558 posts, RR: 3
Reply 135, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5556 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 131):
Current information is saying GE will be taking the risks associated with CMCs on the "Phase II" Leap-X engines.

Should make for a very interesting development program!

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 Airbus bringing all engine variants to the same technology level Phase II+ . Sounds good and CFM may need it if Pratts GTF will perform as some rumor here.

regards

Flyglobal


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29704 posts, RR: 84
Reply 136, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 132):
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 between the top of the engine and the leading edge of the wing will cause more issues than having the engine blend into the wing...at least to some degree.

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 to the wing leading edge and this improved aerodynamics.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5323 posts, RR: 30
Reply 137, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5371 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 136):

That is interesting...I guess that's why they do silly stuff like testing.



What the...?
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 138, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 136):
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 to the wing leading edge and this improved aerodynamics.

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. The Max wings shape at the point of the engine is a given, you don't adapt that without incurring huge costs. Now any change in the air streams pressure/velocity before it hits the wing will mess up the transonic shockwave situation on the wing behind the engine and this is nothing you want to happen.


I guess we will all be able to see the evidence of this as the MAX flight tests. There most likely will be vortex generators on the leading edge on the wing behind the engine which was not there before. These are placed there to energize any boundary layer that has been beaten dead by the now stronger shock-waves generated by the engine interference.


No aircraft manufacturer that don't have to mounts a nacelle engine like this, if can be done but will result in many engineering and CPU hours to mitigate the negative effects and in the end you will have to accept a transonic drag increase. Worst that can happen is that it generates earlier maneuver buffet and you will have to add more vortex generators to comply with certification rules, you don't want to lower Mcruise or Mmaxoperating so you accept more transonic drag instead.

[Edited 2012-02-15 22:02:54]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 139, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5091 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 138):
No aircraft manufacturer that don't have to mounts a nacelle engine like this

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 high and forward of the wing for quite some time, and on clean-sheet designs where they were not necessarily forced into it. If there were unacceptable or unworkable consequences for placing the 737 MAX engine so far forward and high against the wing, I doubt we would see almost identical relationships between the top of the nacelle and the wing chord line on the 787 and 777.

From Boeing's airport documents:
787-8


777-300ER


From Tinseth's presentation:
737 MAX wing/engine from Tinseth slide


And let's also not forget that Boeing has been studying how to accomplish this integration on the 737 for a long time. Remember this leaked photo of a re-engined 737 with an extended NLG in a wind tunnel from 2010? Its engines are very high against the wing:

2010 photo of a re-engined 737 in a wind tunnel - found by Flightblogger in an FAA presentation

Since this re-engined 737 photo was leaked in late 2010 and Boeing already had models in the wind tunnel at that point, they must have been studying this configuration at least back to 2009, and likely for much longer (you can't just start out with a model in the tunnel). I'm pretty confident Boeing has a good handle on how to make the MAX configuration work, and I certainly wouldn't bet against them preserving the efficiency of their wing in the process.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 140, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5031 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 139):
I'm pretty confident Boeing has a good handle on how to make the MAX configuration work, and I certainly wouldn't bet against them preserving the efficiency of their wing in the process.

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 bigger fan, you can just mount it higher? Don't claim that the fuel efficiency of the package would not gain from a bigger fan if this was easily integrated. Even B admits openly they sought the largest fan possible re the constrains the 737 architecture presents.

To compensate their partner CFM goes to the second best choice of increasing the high turbine inlet temp to counter the ensuing lower propulsive efficiency. Now that is something you rather play very safe with for a high cycle frame (like the GTF and the Leap does on the A320).

What we see is the end result on a several years long trade study which is still not finished, now low speed windtunnel test have to confirm the trade etc and ultimately flight test will verify whether the CFD designed transonics is OK (BTW the windtunnel picture is from the ex RAE tunnel in UK where they now return with the final config  ). Lets see if there crops up any additional vortex generators during flight tests    .

PS My response was to Stich saying PW claimed there would be no problem mounting a much larger fan GTF onto the MAX with no additional modifications DS

[Edited 2012-02-16 00:06:36]


Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 141, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4966 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 140):
if there is no problem with interference effects why this year long deliberation

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 them the space to fit a fan larger than 66" under the wing. If you wanted to argue encroachment on the wing was the reason they stopped at 68" despite the fact the NLG extension gave room to grow further, I could buy that. But if you are arguing Boeing has selected a fan size which will unravel the current performance of the wing, I don't buy it.

As for Boeing adding VGs to the engine to recoup low speed performance... since all recent Boeing aircraft with large fan diameter engines (777, 787, 747-8) already use VGs on the engine, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet the MAX will too. In fact, in these renderings, Boeing is already showing a large chine on the inboard side of the MAX nacelle...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8vbnQyfrLq...AAAAACY/pYab3JOdd7k/s1600/6am2.jpg
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainon...ine.com/files/uploads/737RE_1_.jpg

Adding the big VG on the MAX nacelle is no more of a compromise for the 737 than it is for the 787 or 777. It is at low speeds that the interference drag effect of the big fan has a meaningful impact on the wing. The chine is simply a very easy way to buy back some low speed performance at virtually no penalty during other phases of flight. This has clearly become a preferred design solution for Boeing on all of their aircraft; not just the 737.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 142, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4934 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 141):
But if you are arguing Boeing has selected a fan size which will unravel the current performance of the wing, I don't buy it.

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 no black and white in this case, there is interference effects in all directions, it is a matter of where one puts the optimum. How close the 737 team shifted the optimum interference in this trade we will see.

Quoting CM (Reply 141):
As for Boeing adding VGs to the engine to recoup low speed performance...

I don't mean the big one on the nacelle side which most frames have, this is there to help with Clmax when landing, this is well known.



Non French in France
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11959 posts, RR: 25
Reply 143, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 135):
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 Airbus bringing all engine variants to the same technology level Phase II+ . Sounds good and CFM may need it if Pratts GTF will perform as some rumor here.

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 introduction of CMCs because it was designed knowing such advancements were coming along, but it won't benefit to the same degree as the Phase II engine which is designed with CMCs from Day 1.

Phase II will dump a lot of energy into the LPT knowing it can handle it. Phase I engine will need more fuel to dump the same energy into the LPT once it can handle it.

And, not to beat a dead horse, but the MAX engine will be pretty different from the NEO engine. It will be shorter, it will have fewer stages (presumably LPT stages), it will have fewer blades, it will develop less thrust, it will have a smaller fan and a smaller core. Some things it will never do as well as the NEO engine, but that is known right from the start, and vice versa. Different horses for different (enough) courses.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
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