User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:19 am

Revelation wrote:
Leeham: Air Canada sees secondary airport need for NMA says:

“There is a need for that size of aircraft that might be able to fill some number of seats that is smaller than the [Boeing] 787 and larger than a narrow-body, that you might be able to take to a secondary airport. When you look at the range capability it is significant for us.”

In the context of Air Canada’s strategy to take some traffic out of the USA and connect via its international hubs, an aircraft of the NMA size could work for the Canadian carrier, says Ravinescu.

“That size of aircraft could fill in well with some of the cities that have the aspirations to connect international flights without connecting to a hub.”

It's nice that one more airline CEO is displaying interest in the NMA.

Momentum seems to be building towards a product launch.


Executives / unnamed sources close to the action "displaying interest", " eying", "discussing", "standing in line for" "being bullish" "building momentum" for the NMA/ 797. It's been going on for 4 years, but again and again it is brought as "news" and media stumble over each other forwarding it.

Tomorrow someone asks a BA / ANA or SAA executive if he / she has had a look at the 797. If this is (somewhat) affirmative we have breaking news again. I think operators are looking at future options all the time (their job) & Airbus/Boeing invite themselves on the table every quarter / half year or so.

Without any commitment these endorsements are for free and thus many more to follow, building momentum (as a marketing activity).

I'm also looking at, displaying interest, discussing, being bullish on the Boeing 797. :wink2:

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:35 am

https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:36 am

Maybe the most efficient MoM solution.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:41 am

mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


An improved 787-8 is still very much a 787. With all the long haul/ heavy load capacity build in. I do not think this will significantly shrink the space for a NMA.. A 787 is build to survive a bad landing at 380.000lbs, and climb out at 500.000lbs, on one engine. That is why it is weighs 120t empty> That is a lot of structure to fly e.g. 270 people between IAH to EWR. (Now often a 777)

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18036
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:54 am

keesje wrote:
Executives / unnamed sources close to the action "displaying interest", " eying", "discussing", "standing in line for" "being bullish" "building momentum" for the NMA/ 797. It's been going on for 4 years, but again and again it is brought as "news" and media stumble over each other forwarding it.

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to grouse. The reports clearly say these are expressions of interest rather than commitments. No one is saying anything else. But for a program whose usefulness gets questioned, having a CEO of an influential airline say that his airline sees important roles for the product is a very good sign, and worthy of being reported as news.

The flip side of this would be if a CEO of an airline who has your product on order already was saying on Facebook Live that it was too expensive. Now that would be an issue! :biggrin:

mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?

International aviation expert Keesje's sources tell him "this NMA seems a go", that's good enough for me! :biggrin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:04 pm

Revelation wrote:
International aviation expert Keesje's sources tell him "this NMA seems a go", that's good enough for me! :biggrin:


That's affirmative, but hardly Breaking News.. :covereyes:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 613
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:13 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


My understanding is the 787 overlap would have come from the now cancelled 787-3. The -8 is still a proper big widebody, not really some sort of MoM size.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18036
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:24 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
International aviation expert Keesje's sources tell him "this NMA seems a go", that's good enough for me! :biggrin:

That's affirmative, but hardly Breaking News.. :covereyes:

Now you decide to be modest? :biggrin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9140
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:33 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


I'll reiterate what I said when Airbus offered the A380 Plus:

If you can launch an NPV-positive project, then the broader context of the program economics do not matter. Some people have scoffed that "nobody should throw more money at the A380" or "Boeing doesn't want to sell any more 787-8s." That may be true. It is also true that both programs have backlogs that need to be fulfilled over the next 3-5 years and that presents opportunities for economically-winning manufacturing improvements or up-sells to existing clients.

Boeing has to fulfill another ~70 orders for the 787-8. Doing a quick scan of the very good nyc787 blog, there are 10 more 787-8 due this year. That means roughly 60 units would benefit from this production change if it goes online "later this year." That could put Boeing in the money right there even if they don't sell any more. I think it might be premature to say this is part of the MOM decision.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
morrisond
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:42 pm

Comments like Air Canada's keeps me thinking that my guess below is going to be right - NMA will be an NSA XL or Plus Plus in Airbus Speak - it's not going to be an 8W Oval that can take LD2's - especially with Boeing putting more money into 787-8.

NMA needs to be a lot lighter. You also have to remember that if it launches with 5,000 NM Range - by it's Midlife (late 2030's) I'm sure with tweaks, lighter 3d structures incorporated over time and PIP's it will be pushing a lot closer to 6,000nm.


morrisond wrote:
With Mullenberg talking 4,000-5,000 NMA that has me still thinking that NMA will be a 7W and use a lot of the same parts as NSA. Albeit with a different wingbox/wings and probably folding tips to fit in 737 gates. Basically NMA will be an NSA XL. But done first to get the bugs out at lower volumes, and optimize weight before moving on to NSA. Kind of like the A322 big wing studies, but 7W for a lot more premium seating options.

Cargo will be containerized but probably a new shape to fit a 7W oval cross section - Basically an Extra Wide LD3-45 - call it 36" wider for the extra seat and aisle - which shouldn't be an issue airlines adopting it if it will be the common container for NMA and NSA which could easily be in excess of over 10,000 frames over time.

The other thing to consider with costing of the NMA is that if they continue to use Program Cost accounting and launch NMA with NSA together (albeit NSA being delivered 3-5 years later) they could possibly amortize the cost of development, and early production of the common elements over a lot of frames....This could include major systems architecture, Nose, Front Fuselage barrel, Rear Fuselage/tailplane, Development of the Oval 7W cross section. The unique elements of NSA vs NMA could be different Wing/Wingbox, and gear - the tailplane may even be able to be reused with fly by wire.

It is not inconceivable that they could be amortizing these costs over 8,000 - 10,000 frames (I would say 2,000 - 4,000 NMA and 6,000 - 8,000 NSA). Even if the whole program cost $30B that is only $3.75 Million per frame worst case - at $20B and 10,000 frames that is only $2M per frame - relatively peanuts.

I would guess they don't necessarily have to launch them at the same time either - just state that they will use a lot of NMA when they do NSA so they can spread the costs over the production run of both and give airlines comfort that NMA will be very cross compatible with NSA in terms of Maintenance, training and operations.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:36 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


At Farnborough.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18036
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:50 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
I'll reiterate what I said when Airbus offered the A380 Plus:

If you can launch an NPV-positive project, then the broader context of the program economics do not matter. Some people have scoffed that "nobody should throw more money at the A380" or "Boeing doesn't want to sell any more 787-8s." That may be true. It is also true that both programs have backlogs that need to be fulfilled over the next 3-5 years and that presents opportunities for economically-winning manufacturing improvements or up-sells to existing clients.

Boeing has to fulfill another ~70 orders for the 787-8. Doing a quick scan of the very good nyc787 blog, there are 10 more 787-8 due this year. That means roughly 60 units would benefit from this production change if it goes online "later this year." That could put Boeing in the money right there even if they don't sell any more. I think it might be premature to say this is part of the MOM decision.

I think that lines up with what the original Charleston Post & Courier article said. This is about lowering production costs of 788s coming off the line. The AA order gave them enough additional mass to hit the trigger point on the decision to make the change.

There is not a lot of overlap between 788 and NMA. 788 has 2x the range, is bigger than 764, and is set up for long haul with lots of cargo. NMA will be 762-3 sized with less range and less cargo and will be optimized for quick turn around times.

Scott's post mentioned one interesting word: contracts. Different vendors make different parts of the -8 and -9/-10 tail. Perhaps enough time or enough volume has been reached so Boeing can drop the original -8 contracts. If not this, perhaps the additional volume has given them scope to give vendors different work shares in return for dropping the -8 tail. So, business relationships are also a part of why the shift happens now.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:14 pm

bigjku wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


At Farnborough.


That might be the best solution. It would prevent a NMA getting NEO'd like the NSA.
http://www.pilotcareernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image.jpg

Boeing were able to fix a MAX launch in weeks in July '11, so 3 months should be enough.
Anyway they have been preparing the launch for 4 years now, so looking forward :veryhappy:

Image
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/delta-ceo-eyes-launch-customer-status-as-boeing-mulls-797-jet
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:55 pm

keesje wrote:
bigjku wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


At Farnborough.


That might be the best solution. It would prevent a NMA getting NEO'd like the NSA.
http://www.pilotcareernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image.jpg

Boeing were able to fix a MAX launch in weeks in July '11, so 3 months should be enough.
Anyway they have been preparing the launch for 4 years now, so looking forward :veryhappy:

Image
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/delta-ceo-eyes-launch-customer-status-as-boeing-mulls-797-jet


I don’t think they are ultimately that worried about the Airbus response at this point. I think Boeing expects to move more quickly than most here expect from the point they start taking orders.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:05 pm

bigjku wrote:
keesje wrote:
bigjku wrote:

At Farnborough.


That might be the best solution. It would prevent a NMA getting NEO'd like the NSA.
http://www.pilotcareernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image.jpg

Boeing were able to fix a MAX launch in weeks in July '11, so 3 months should be enough.
Anyway they have been preparing the launch for 4 years now, so looking forward :veryhappy:

Image
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/delta-ceo-eyes-launch-customer-status-as-boeing-mulls-797-jet


I don’t think they are ultimately that worried about the Airbus response at this point. I think Boeing expects to move more quickly than most here expect from the point they start taking orders.


Lets conservatively assume 7-8 years this time :scared: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2004-04-26-Boeing-Launches-7E7-Dreamliner
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
GulfstreamFive
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 3:07 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:20 pm

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg defines MOM aircraft at a Politico Space event last week in Washington DC

Check out the video half way down the page at about 24:00

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-mars-decade/
 
bigjku
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:21 pm

keesje wrote:
bigjku wrote:
keesje wrote:

That might be the best solution. It would prevent a NMA getting NEO'd like the NSA.
http://www.pilotcareernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image.jpg

Boeing were able to fix a MAX launch in weeks in July '11, so 3 months should be enough.
Anyway they have been preparing the launch for 4 years now, so looking forward :veryhappy:

Image
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/delta-ceo-eyes-launch-customer-status-as-boeing-mulls-797-jet


I don’t think they are ultimately that worried about the Airbus response at this point. I think Boeing expects to move more quickly than most here expect from the point they start taking orders.


Lets conservatively assume 7-8 years this time :scared: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2004-04-26-Boeing-Launches-7E7-Dreamliner


Not saying they won’t screw it up but people can and do learn lessons on things and do better going forward. I am sure it will be a tough sell to airlines who will want proof in the form of delivery guarantees and frankly will want to assess where things stand before they would even sign. I expect it to be sooner than what you propose.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25394
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:37 pm

centrair wrote:
So why is it that Boeing just doesn't revive the 787-3? It was supposed to be a replacement for 767 and 757. It had the range for US to Europe and good for domestic US use.


Because the 787-8 is as good or better beyond 250nm. Boeing would need to invest significantly into weight reduction and optimization to increase that delta and the value is not there.


mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8. What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


All they are doing is moving to a common Section 47 between the three models to reduce production complexity. I don't see how that suddenly makes the 787-8 a more effective platform as a MoM replacement, just perhaps a bit cheaper one than it is now.


Revelation wrote:
The flip side of this would be if a CEO of an airline who has your product on order already was saying on Facebook Live that it was too expensive. Now that would be an issue! :biggrin:


To be fair, Delta's CEO once said the same thing about the 787-8's they had on order... Of course, they eventually cancelled them and went with the competitor's product. :scratchchin:
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5501
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
A smaller core based on the best semi-mature tech will first appear in the NMA in the 50,000lb thrust class. It will be a high tech core but to ensure durability it will not be run at maximum heat. It will be below peak heat efficiency but still better than other engines on the market. The power extracted from the core will be kept to moderate levels running a slightly smaller/lighter fan than the 787. Derated engines do have significantly less maintenance than their more powerful siblings.


So... this is interesting. Start with Leap1.5 on NMA, then scale it up to 787 thrust levels as it matures, and have a 787 MAX sometime in the 2030s.

Once you do that, it seems like NMA will be at a fuel consumption disadvantage to 787. Is the next step then to scale up the current Leap1 to NMA using the same techniques you used to get Leap1.5 on the 787, while developing a new even smaller core for NSA?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6742
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
Leeham: Air Canada sees secondary airport need for NMA says:

“There is a need for that size of aircraft that might be able to fill some number of seats that is smaller than the [Boeing] 787 and larger than a narrow-body, that you might be able to take to a secondary airport. When you look at the range capability it is significant for us.”

In the context of Air Canada’s strategy to take some traffic out of the USA and connect via its international hubs, an aircraft of the NMA size could work for the Canadian carrier, says Ravinescu.

“That size of aircraft could fill in well with some of the cities that have the aspirations to connect international flights without connecting to a hub.”

It's nice that one more airline CEO is displaying interest in the NMA.

Momentum seems to be building towards a product launch.


There's a lot of "some's" and "might's" in there though that I think question the level of momentum.
It's clear there's a space and a purpose for the NMA.
what's not clear is that it's big enough to clearly deliver the ROI Boeing need to launch it.

Ravinescu's comments make sense to me, and seem to reinforce the view that NMA (MOM) is there to carve out its own niche, and work alongside the bigger narrowbodys like the A321/737-10 rather than try to "kill" them.

Rgds
 
Elementalism
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:55 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


737-10 =MTOW ~200,000 pounds 3300nm range
787-8 = MTOW 505,000 pounds, 7350nm range

That is quite a large area for the 797 to occupy.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:13 pm

You should add a caveat that this is a Boeing gap, expect the A321XXX to appear in 1....2.....3.....
This is the part for me that is critical, Boeing has a gap in its product line up, the gap for the airlines is smaller as they can go between OEM's unfortunately, neither OEM sells the others products so......
 
tunahp
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:49 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:24 pm

Question about the NMA/797 prelimary range and capacity figures that are being thrown around. I keep seeing, "there will be variants with 2 fuselage lengths. The shorter with 220-225 pax capacity will have 5,000nm range. The larger with 265-270 pax capacity will have 4,500nm range".

Are those pax figures for a 2 class domestic configuration? Or a 3 class international configuration? I suppose they could also be 1 pax LCC or ULCC configs but I think the former 2 more probable. Those ranges are in line with planes like the 757 and 767 which are flown in both domestic and international configurations with significant differences in pax capacity.

I am interested because 4,500nm range, or even 5,000nm range, doesn't seem to open huge numbers of city pairs between North America and Europe. Maybe the East Coast to Central Europe or the Midwest to Western/Northern Europe. The 767-300/400ER have significantly more range.

However, those range figures would make more sense if they referred to a domestic configuration. The international configuration would carry ~20% fewer pax, which could allow for more fuel and range to open up a greater variety of city pairs between North America and Europe or South America. Maybe the larger variant in a 215 pax international configuration would have more like 5,500nm range.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:33 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Word on the grape vine is that GE has the NMA deal. A smaller core based on the best semi-mature tech will first appear in the NMA in the 50,000lb thrust class. It will be a high tech core but to ensure durability it will not be run at maximum heat. It will be below peak heat efficiency but still better than other engines on the market. The power extracted from the core will be kept to moderate levels running a slightly smaller/lighter fan than the 787. Derated engines do have significantly less maintenance than their more powerful siblings.

In the medium term this core will be run hotter as GE becomes comfortable with the new tech. This will most likely include production revisions in the core from experience with the NMA engine. Running the core hotter allows the core to produce more power to drive a larger fan in the 70,000lb thrust class for the 787-8/9/10.


Scaling up the LEAP makes good sense and going with GE only allows a quicker jump from having authority to offer to launching with orders. Being exclusive on the initial 2 models, later allowing a LR version with 2 engines available. The Leap should have have better economics per passenger for both first cost and in operation compared to the 320 / 737's.

The 797 is going to be a full shrink of the 787 tech, not just in body length but in total. A new wing sized for the 2 models, a new fuse, the same architecture but new models of the components - ie say the APU will be 787 design sized to this model. On the APU I see the possibility of a compressed air and an electric start. Right now the battery charging / size of battery would make it difficult for quick turn around on say 1 hour flights. Having 1 or 2 APU starts on CA would greatly reduce the battery cycles. The electric backbone of the 787 can be basically the same on the 797 except smaller ampacity wires, same logic etc. The cockpit can be a 787 shrink, etc.

I personally think barrels are the way to go, in particular if the insulation can be foamed around the stringers basically having a single use mandrel. The rest of the equipment can be the 787 production line. Having a rigid foam backing the CFRP skin would give it far better ramp rash strength, allowing a thinner skin. The CFRP and barrels extend the time to the D check far further out, a huge maintenance saving. Barrels allow for a more automated line than the other approaches.
 
manicottiK
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:56 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:34 pm

Elementalism wrote:
737-10 =MTOW ~200,000 pounds 3300nm range
787-8 = MTOW 505,000 pounds, 7350nm range

That is quite a large area for the 797 to occupy.


That's the upper bound of the each aircraft. While the 737-10 can't "do more," the 787-8 can "do less" while still being economical -- how much less helps defines the upper bound for NMA.

Nothing precludes two aircraft from the same manufacturer having partially overlapping capabilities. Maybe the 787-8 is still semi-economical down to 5,350nm or on loads of 350,000 pounds. Maybe NMA is set to economically do missions from 250,000-400,000 pounds traveling 3,000-5,500 nm. This overlaps the upper end of 737-10 and the lower end of 787-8. But a little overlap is ok.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18036
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:50 pm

keesje wrote:
Lets conservatively assume 7-8 years this time :scared: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2004-04-26-Boeing-Launches-7E7-Dreamliner

If you ever claim any sort of neutrality, this thread may be used as evidence against you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 says:

In mid-1988, Airbus engineers led by Jean Roeder began work in secret on the development of an ultra-high-capacity airliner (UHCA)...

And:

On 19 December 2000, the supervisory board of newly restructured Airbus voted to launch an €8.8-billion programme to build the A3XX, re-christened as the A380...

So, what's your point again?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Lets conservatively assume 7-8 years this time :scared: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2004-04-26-Boeing-Launches-7E7-Dreamliner

If you ever claim any sort of neutrality, this thread may be used as evidence against you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 says:

In mid-1988, Airbus engineers led by Jean Roeder began work in secret on the development of an ultra-high-capacity airliner (UHCA)...

And:

On 19 December 2000, the supervisory board of newly restructured Airbus voted to launch an €8.8-billion programme to build the A3XX, re-christened as the A380...

So, what's your point again?


The A380 also flew after 5 yrs & entered service after 7. I do not know what you are trying to suggest, but what is so strange about 7-8 years? Should we start telling each other Boeing (again) will do it in 4 years, clicking together finished modules in days? Would that make someone objective :confused:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25394
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:38 pm

keesje wrote:
The A380 also flew after 5 yrs & entered service after 7.


As did the 787.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18036
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:47 pm

keesje wrote:
The A380 also flew after 5 yrs & entered service after 7. I do not know what you are trying to suggest, but what is so strange about 7-8 years? Should we start telling each other Boeing (again) will do it in 4 years, clicking together finished modules in days? Would that make someone objective :confused:

Nice, answer a question with a question.

So, I'll try again: what point are you trying to make when you suggest NMA will be a 7-8 year program on a conservative basis, followed by the "scared" emoji, followed by a pointer to the Dreamliner announcement?

And how does such a post align with what most would consider an objective outlook?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:36 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
The A380 also flew after 5 yrs & entered service after 7. I do not know what you are trying to suggest, but what is so strange about 7-8 years? Should we start telling each other Boeing (again) will do it in 4 years, clicking together finished modules in days? Would that make someone objective :confused:

Nice, answer a question with a question.

So, I'll try again: what point are you trying to make when you suggest NMA will be a 7-8 year program on a conservative basis, followed by the "scared" emoji, followed by a pointer to the Dreamliner announcement?


Well it responds to the previous post::

bigjku wrote:
I don’t think they are ultimately that worried about the Airbus response at this point. I think Boeing expects to move more quickly than most here expect from the point they start taking orders.


Revelation wrote:
And how does such a post align with what most would consider an objective outlook?


Why are you so sensitive when I suggest that for an NMA from launch to service it might be a good idea to conservatively assume 7-8 years, like recent programs (787, 777X) ? I don't see why you or anyone else could have a problem with that.

What objective outlook are you referring too & why do you drag in the A380? It seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand, it's not even the same manufacturer. I do not understand what you are trying to proof.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
grbauc
Posts: 985
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:47 am

Elementalism wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boeing-to-implement-structural-design-change-in-787-8-for-production-commonality/

Boeing is renewing the 787-8. The space for the proposed 797 in the Boeing line up shrinks to the area between the 737-10 and the 787-8.
What influence will that have on the 797? Will it ever be launched?


737-10 =MTOW ~200,000 pounds 3300nm range
787-8 = MTOW 505,000 pounds, 7350nm range

That is quite a large area for the 797 to occupy.



Agree and The 737-10 is better at shorter ranges? The 10 is maxed where the A320 family is not. So there is a lot of room from the to up.
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:04 pm

The whole ETOPs WB LR twin model is based on the proven reliability of the engines. A lot of discussion on here about the 797 using next gen engines or even a GTF type.

Is there any risk that the reliability issues currently being experienced by the latest engines could undermine the whole LR twin premise or postpone sufficiently that the 797 may not be able to open up these new transatlantic city pairs that has everyone on here excited?
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:50 pm

spudh wrote:
The whole ETOPs WB LR twin model is based on the proven reliability of the engines. A lot of discussion on here about the 797 using next gen engines or even a GTF type.

Is there any risk that the reliability issues currently being experienced by the latest engines could undermine the whole LR twin premise or postpone sufficiently that the 797 may not be able to open up these new transatlantic city pairs that has everyone on here excited?

ETOPS 120 is needed for the most direct transatlantic routes, but with ETOPS 60 it's also possible to cross the atlantic without having to make a too long detour.

So even if ETOPS becomes more conservative for new engines it won't have too much of an impact on the proposed use of the 797. The 787 and A350 started with ETOPS 180, so even a reduced start ETOPS will not cause to much issues unless it goes below the ETOPS 60.

Ps. the most recent news suggest that Boeing will only go for improved versions of the current gen engines, probably to keep the costs down and lower the risk of delays. If this the case there will only be a small chance that there will be ETOPS issues.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18036
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:23 pm

keesje wrote:
Why are you so sensitive when I suggest that for an NMA from launch to service it might be a good idea to conservatively assume 7-8 years, like recent programs (787, 777X) ?

There's an on-going narrative here that NMA must be as big a project as 787 yet when you look at it with any sort of objectivity it clearly will not be. Clearly you support such a narrative when you post the "scared" emoji and point to the Dreamliner announcement.

keesje wrote:
What objective outlook are you referring too & why do you drag in the A380? It seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand, it's not even the same manufacturer. I do not understand what you are trying to proof.

It provides context. Suppose you said A350 would be as big a project as A380 was in terms of time and expense. Yet an objective look would show that is false because A350 had lots of reused technology from A380. As our member astuteman showed, even the panel construction was a re-use of the A380 aft section technology.

A380 and B787 were similar because of (a) lots of ground breaking when it came to technology and (b) a lot of "own goal" foul ups. Their derivative programs show very few foul ups. By the time NMA comes along it will be the third iteration of the 787 wing and will be built in the 777x wing factory. I think the "own goals" will be few, and wonder why you would draw the comparison to 787 when it's a totally different kind of program.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Why are you so sensitive when I suggest that for an NMA from launch to service it might be a good idea to conservatively assume 7-8 years, like recent programs (787, 777X) ?

There's an on-going narrative here that NMA must be as big a project as 787 yet when you look at it with any sort of objectivity it clearly will not be. Clearly you support such a narrative when you post the "scared" emoji and point to the Dreamliner announcement.

keesje wrote:
What objective outlook are you referring too & why do you drag in the A380? It seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand, it's not even the same manufacturer. I do not understand what you are trying to proof.

It provides context. Suppose you said A350 would be as big a project as A380 was in terms of time and expense. Yet an objective look would show that is false because A350 had lots of reused technology from A380. As our member astuteman showed, even the panel construction was a re-use of the A380 aft section technology.

A380 and B787 were similar because of (a) lots of ground breaking when it came to technology and (b) a lot of "own goal" foul ups. Their derivative programs show very few foul ups. By the time NMA comes along it will be the third iteration of the 787 wing and will be built in the 777x wing factory. I think the "own goals" will be few, and wonder why you would draw the comparison to 787 when it's a totally different kind of program.


All the programs you mention had that same 7-8 yr launch-EIS. So conservatively 2025-2026 seems a realistic time schedule for the first 797 NMA to enter service. That seems a long time to me for most 757s, 767, A300s.

E.g.
United's 757-200s have an average age of 21.8 years, its 757-300s 15.5 years and its 767-300ERs 22.7 years, Flight Fleets Analyzer shows.
It will be interesting if Boeing can keep them away from discounted A321LR's for the next 6-7 years.

Image
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-eyes-a330neo-and-nma-for-fleet-replacement-446322/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
stcsko
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:31 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
A misunderstanding o what the issue actually is here. The 737 benefits from grandfathering its certification forward from the 1960's and the main driver for being able to keep the original tye certificate are the cabin and systems, the wing update for the NG was a minor hurdle in the realms of certification. If Boeing were to raise the gear by 2 feet as you suggest then the trailing edge of the main wing would gain enough height such that its distance above the ground would mean that it is not suitable for evacuation without slides, this means you would have to re-certify the fuselage and cabin which would mean certifying it to 2018 standards rather than 60s standards at which point you would have to add other safety features and design elements not present in todays 737 which allow it to maintain a lower weight than would otherwise be the case. Its not that Boeing could not be bothered to spend the money, in fact I dare say if the recertification requirements weren't there then adding the extra 2 feet would be cheaper than the rigmarole they have to go through to maintain it at its low level.


I meant it as a somewhat ironic statement that Boeing could have chosen to do anything, and certainly has the capability to do so. To rely on a cert this old proves my point: that Boeing has not invested any significant capital into furthering this aircraft beyond what we know -- and that most of the changes that have taken place to keep the 737 competitive didn't even require Boeing to spend money.


flipdewaf wrote:
Do you believe that the whole of Boeings plan for the last 15 years has been about developing technologies specifically for the 797 in secret? Like priming harry potter to fight Voldemort? Its a nice story but like most companies being are just doing the best with what information they have available and what they learn the keep and carry on moving onward and upwards.


Well, I'm either going to be massively wrong... or substantially right. I'm former MDC and the merger/shutdown of MDC commercial, combined with dumping the Sonic Cruiser, etc: there was a lot of inward reflection/focus that let directly to the 787 (delays and all); I still think every breadcrumb leads to this. Yes, I am suggesting that's what they've been up to -- and it should be noted that they've kept a schedule far less reliably than teenagers. But nothing has changed in the business analysis, and the need just grows more acute.

I'd also suggest Airbus just figured it out, too, since they joined Bombardier in their effort last year and just now walked away from the 320plus study. No amount of griping on a.net changes the fact that the single-aisle space is commoditized: a price race to the bottom. As long as Airbus is obsessed with numbers, they will battle it out (and I suspect do extremely well next 5-10 years), but who ultimately wants to be building a 320/737 equivalent for $30 mil? The Chinese can, and they'll be doing it pretty well by then. And remember that "replacements", the real raw numbers, are all the DC-9s and older 737s and 320s flying, probably on third or fourth owner: those airlines will buy new if it's affordable and financing's good. COMAC won't miss the chance to catch carriers in growing economies. I don't think COMAC realistically thinks AA or UA is going to order 200. (DL, on the other hand... lol)

Again, I'm know I'm pretty far out there, and I don't thing Boeing commercial are masterminds or whatever. But I think they took a really hard look back then and are still comfortable with their analysis. After the expectations I have for them, they better not disappoint. I will need someone to blame. :roll:
 
Elementalism
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:45 pm

par13del wrote:
You should add a caveat that this is a Boeing gap, expect the A321XXX to appear in 1....2.....3.....
This is the part for me that is critical, Boeing has a gap in its product line up, the gap for the airlines is smaller as they can go between OEM's unfortunately, neither OEM sells the others products so......


The A321LR MTOW of 195,000 pounds with a range of 4000nm
The A330-900 MTOW of 533,000 pounds with a range of 6500nm

Airbus is in the same boat with a similar gap imo. They have pushed the A321 as far as it can go. The A330 Neo is too big. I would expect them to bring out something the size of an A310 with similar 5100nm range if they want to compete in this market once the 797 is launched.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:52 pm

manicottiK wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
737-10 =MTOW ~200,000 pounds 3300nm range
787-8 = MTOW 505,000 pounds, 7350nm range

That is quite a large area for the 797 to occupy.


That's the upper bound of the each aircraft. While the 737-10 can't "do more," the 787-8 can "do less" while still being economical -- how much less helps defines the upper bound for NMA.

Nothing precludes two aircraft from the same manufacturer having partially overlapping capabilities. Maybe the 787-8 is still semi-economical down to 5,350nm or on loads of 350,000 pounds. Maybe NMA is set to economically do missions from 250,000-400,000 pounds traveling 3,000-5,500 nm. This overlaps the upper end of 737-10 and the lower end of 787-8. But a little overlap is ok.


Of course the 787 can come down to some point as will the 737-10. And I would expect the 797 to fill in the gap. Is the 737-10 economical out to 3300nm? I would guess not. I used the max numbers to illustrate there is indeed a sizeable gap in range and size of equipment. A gap that was filled by the 757 and 767. And I think you have the mission and size of the plane pretty spot on. 3000-5500 at the size of a 767 carrying 250 pax.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:24 pm

Thinking about it, United will probably go for dual source. A321s to fill in short 757/767 retirements and NMA after 2025, because it's higher capacity seems a very good fit for the America's. Delta & AA no different.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:00 pm

A big justification for the MOM is for an added iteration to get the design and production of the 787 era technology working well in a less competitive venue, before doing the NSA. That could mean the difference of 3 to 4% better performance and a similar savings in production cost. Further it needs to be a platform that works for 30 to 40 years against a whole host of competitors. Except for AB's response offering, most of the competition is today's tech, with the NSA being able to pick up an extra decade of improvements.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4342
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Why are you so sensitive when I suggest that for an NMA from launch to service it might be a good idea to conservatively assume 7-8 years, like recent programs (787, 777X) ?

There's an on-going narrative here that NMA must be as big a project as 787 yet when you look at it with any sort of objectivity it clearly will not be.



The MAX was launched in 2011 and entered service in 2017. That's 6 years for a relatively simple re-engine job, that was the 3rd such mod for the 737. The all new A350xwb, was launched in 2006 and entered service 9 years later.

The MAX was held up a lot by the engines and the 350 team learned a lot from the 787 debacles. We can probably assume that Boeing has also learned lessons from the 787 so predicting that they could have an all new wide body in service a decade from launch is certainly within the realms of possibility.

The big question will be engines. GE seems to be the best placed to come up with a LEAP 1.5 or a GENX 0.75, or more likely, a combination of technologies. I imagine whatever engine is chosen, will be an evolutionary step over current technology, not revolutionary. I think the main focus will be on maximizing reliability over eking the absolute most efficiency out of the engine, since reliability seems to be where the newest engines are falling down.

I doubt the cost will be less than $10 billion, and probably closer to 15. I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus is also working on an MOM
twin aisle concept that they could build using xwb tech. After all, the wing is the most difficult part of a modern airframe to design and build by far, and if you're thinking about a new wing on an old aircraft, (322), you might just be inclined to go all the way and build a new plane from scratch.

Wait until Boeing launches, then making their MOM slightly different, aka 350 v. 787.
What the...?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:18 am

keesje wrote:
Thinking about it, United will probably go for dual source. A321s to fill in short 757/767 retirements and NMA after 2025, because it's higher capacity seems a very good fit for the America's. Delta & AA no different.


United is different from American and Delta. United ordered 100 737-10s. American and Delta chose the A321neo.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:30 am

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Why are you so sensitive when I suggest that for an NMA from launch to service it might be a good idea to conservatively assume 7-8 years, like recent programs (787, 777X) ?

There's an on-going narrative here that NMA must be as big a project as 787 yet when you look at it with any sort of objectivity it clearly will not be. Clearly you support such a narrative when you post the "scared" emoji and point to the Dreamliner announcement.

keesje wrote:
What objective outlook are you referring too & why do you drag in the A380? It seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand, it's not even the same manufacturer. I do not understand what you are trying to proof.

It provides context. Suppose you said A350 would be as big a project as A380 was in terms of time and expense. Yet an objective look would show that is false because A350 had lots of reused technology from A380. As our member astuteman showed, even the panel construction was a re-use of the A380 aft section technology.

A380 and B787 were similar because of (a) lots of ground breaking when it came to technology and (b) a lot of "own goal" foul ups. Their derivative programs show very few foul ups. By the time NMA comes along it will be the third iteration of the 787 wing and will be built in the 777x wing factory. I think the "own goals" will be few, and wonder why you would draw the comparison to 787 when it's a totally different kind of program.


All the programs you mention had that same 7-8 yr launch-EIS. So conservatively 2025-2026 seems a realistic time schedule for the first 797 NMA to enter service. That seems a long time to me for most 757s, 767, A300s.

E.g.
United's 757-200s have an average age of 21.8 years, its 757-300s 15.5 years and its 767-300ERs 22.7 years, Flight Fleets Analyzer shows.
It will be interesting if Boeing can keep them away from discounted A321LR's for the next 6-7 years.

Image
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-eyes-a330neo-and-nma-for-fleet-replacement-446322/



Keesje,

Why don't you enlighten everyone with your 777X predictions??

I seem to remember you telling everyone who would listen to your predictions, that the 777X would not EIS before 2022/23... Despite GE stating the engine would be certified in 2018!!

The Boeing "doom and gloom" development/manufacturing problems that you perpetually generate are seriously getting a bit old...
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
flyinggoat
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:13 am

What is the likelihood of a couple engine manufactures creating a joint venture to supply engines for NSA? Given the time constraints, this might be the best move, imho. GE could provide the hotter core, and either PW or RR a geared fan. Best of both worlds.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:38 am

flyinggoat wrote:
What is the likelihood of a couple engine manufactures creating a joint venture to supply engines for NSA? Given the time constraints, this might be the best move, imho. GE could provide the hotter core, and either PW or RR a geared fan. Best of both worlds.

CFM already make the LEAP engine. Safran also make parts in the GEnX and GE9x.

So the LEAP 1.5 or GEnx0.75 will use parts from Safran. I guess it's a matter of paperwork or even the pecentage of parts that determines if it's labelled a CFM or GE product.

I actually see Pratt and GE merging in 5-10 years time. With GE selling off GE aviation and that company will buy Pratt.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1477
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:56 am

GulfstreamFive wrote:
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg defines MOM aircraft at a Politico Space event last week in Washington DC
Check out the video half way down the page at about 24:00
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-mars-decade/

He says that a decision is due within one year. And that the question continues to be whether the business case is going to close. So I ask myself: if the business case was not a clear case in all the years since Boeing talks about the 757RS/MOM/NMA, what variable could change that in the next year?

B.t.w. was there ever a project that changed the name so many times during the just-talk phase?

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Why are you so sensitive when I suggest that for an NMA from launch to service it might be a good idea to conservatively assume 7-8 years, like recent programs (787, 777X) ?

There's an on-going narrative here that NMA must be as big a project as 787 yet when you look at it with any sort of objectivity it clearly will not be.

If the NMA does not take 7 years, it would have to be as small a project as the 737MAX (6 years from launch to delivery). Feel free to believe that.

Not to forget, the NMA will start deliveries at low rates and it will take several additional years until the ramp up to target production capacity will be completed. So after the first some hundreds orders are won, free production slots will move quickly to 2030 and later (787 -> first year = 3 deliveries, second year = 49 deliveries, third year = 114 deliveries)...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:27 am

mffoda wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
There's an on-going narrative here that NMA must be as big a project as 787 yet when you look at it with any sort of objectivity it clearly will not be. Clearly you support such a narrative when you post the "scared" emoji and point to the Dreamliner announcement.


It provides context. Suppose you said A350 would be as big a project as A380 was in terms of time and expense. Yet an objective look would show that is false because A350 had lots of reused technology from A380. As our member astuteman showed, even the panel construction was a re-use of the A380 aft section technology.

A380 and B787 were similar because of (a) lots of ground breaking when it came to technology and (b) a lot of "own goal" foul ups. Their derivative programs show very few foul ups. By the time NMA comes along it will be the third iteration of the 787 wing and will be built in the 777x wing factory. I think the "own goals" will be few, and wonder why you would draw the comparison to 787 when it's a totally different kind of program.


All the programs you mention had that same 7-8 yr launch-EIS. So conservatively 2025-2026 seems a realistic time schedule for the first 797 NMA to enter service. That seems a long time to me for most 757s, 767, A300s.

E.g.
United's 757-200s have an average age of 21.8 years, its 757-300s 15.5 years and its 767-300ERs 22.7 years, Flight Fleets Analyzer shows.
It will be interesting if Boeing can keep them away from discounted A321LR's for the next 6-7 years.

Image
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-eyes-a330neo-and-nma-for-fleet-replacement-446322/



Keesje,

Why don't you enlighten everyone with your 777X predictions??

I seem to remember you telling everyone who would listen to your predictions, that the 777X would not EIS before 2022/23... Despite GE stating the engine would be certified in 2018!!

The Boeing "doom and gloom" development/manufacturing problems that you perpetually generate are seriously getting a bit old...


? What are you talking about ? I know the GE promised Ge9X certification this year. But lets not celebrate until we have EIS.

After work on the engine started in 2010, the design is to be finalised in 2015. Ground testing is scheduled to begin in 2016, with flight tests due to follow a year later. Certification is planned for 2018.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-boeing-plans-first-777x-flight-in-2019-393206/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 2529
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:26 am

I think the point made by ManicottK is a good one -but I am no expertQuoted ranges.It is natural that one should talk about 'max range' of the various aircaft concerned,but it has little bearing on reality.The A321LR can fly 200 pax but with no cargo.The 788 can fly 7knm but as was recently stated in an article as I recall,that the majority of its flying was circa 5knm.So all these numbers quoted for the 797 are hard to interpret accurately.
What the Boeing CEO did repeat was that they still clearly believe that the growth of point to point flying is as unstoppable force.So clearly any 797 will be part of that trend.For this aircaft he also repeated what it must be capable of doing.Wide body economics with narrow body costs.Its a tough call.One can only assume they feel that the package they have developed achieves this.
I don't believe they are still trying to close the business case.Either they can or they can't.The fact that they are still talking about the project suggests (to me) that they can/have.
I am sure they would like to delay it further if they could as the timing is not ideal for either them or their main engine supplier.But I don't think the market will wait much longer.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18036
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:06 am

stcsko wrote:
I'd also suggest Airbus just figured it out, too, since they joined Bombardier in their effort last year and just now walked away from the 320plus study. No amount of griping on a.net changes the fact that the single-aisle space is commoditized: a price race to the bottom. As long as Airbus is obsessed with numbers, they will battle it out (and I suspect do extremely well next 5-10 years), but who ultimately wants to be building a 320/737 equivalent for $30 mil? The Chinese can, and they'll be doing it pretty well by then. And remember that "replacements", the real raw numbers, are all the DC-9s and older 737s and 320s flying, probably on third or fourth owner: those airlines will buy new if it's affordable and financing's good. COMAC won't miss the chance to catch carriers in growing economies. I don't think COMAC realistically thinks AA or UA is going to order 200. (DL, on the other hand... lol)

Again, I'm know I'm pretty far out there, and I don't thing Boeing commercial are masterminds or whatever. But I think they took a really hard look back then and are still comfortable with their analysis. After the expectations I have for them, they better not disappoint. I will need someone to blame. :roll:

I think you're on track with the notion that eventually the narrowbody space will be commodity. As you suggest it's hard to predict the scope and the timing. A lot of it is about when/if China and Russia can produce products the world aviation market can be confident in. Part of both vendors focus on narrowbody production rate is to fill in the current backlog before any competitive threat to the duopoly could undermine the price margins in the backlog contracts, given how many years the backlog stretches out. Part of the need to move on from B737/A320 will also be to be able to produce at a point that won't be undermined by China/Russia and to lock down intellectual property. Part of the current US/China trade skirmish is about locking down intellectual property. Unfortunately such a lockdown is hard to accomplish if the local government turns a blind eye, and in the case of China/Russia the local government is a partner if not a controller in the aviation industry so they have every incentive to look the other way.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11234
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:30 pm

I see a strong drive towards a range of 5000NM or even more for NMA.

IMO that risks building an aircraft that is way to heavy to be competitive on the bulk of flights.

I think it should be optimized, or at least be very efficient for flights of around 2hrs / 1000NM.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos