Newbiepilot
Posts: 2716
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:04 pm

We can beat the fuselage geometry numbers to death with stretches, widths, etc. What I think drives the business case is figuring out how many passengers airlines want to carry and how far they want to carry them. That will drive the size of the wing and engine thrust. Optimizing the size of the wing is going to be very very difficult Fuselages can be stretched and shrunk, but the wing isn't going to change size. The 4,000 sq ft wings on the 787 and A330 are too large and heavy for regional flying in Asia. How small will Boeing go?

I think this new program office is probably talking to a number of airlines to try to figure out what payload they need. United might want the plane to be optimized for 180 passengers for 4,000 miles. ANA might want it to be optimized for 280 passengers for 600 miles. Passenger counts are multiplied by the 220/225 lbs per passenger and from there the numbers can get crunched to determine wing size, engine thrust and fuselage geometry.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:08 pm

MOM main problem: Middles of the Markets. LOL
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:44 pm

[quote="Eyad89"][We go back to the most basic question, what is the capacity target? Airlines agree it is somewhere north of 200 passengers. Is it 220? Is it more?[/quote]
In Boeing's lineup we would take it as a 50% point between the 737 and 787. Depending on seating density you get a wide range of seating capacity. Max economy is 230 for the 737 and 381 seats for the 787. In luxury 3 class config it would be ~130 for the 737 and ~230 for the 787.

So the 50% point for the MOM would be 305 all economy or 180 in luxury 3 class. That would be for the mid point of the MOM family which is my 797-9

In terms of range of the MOM you would want the shortest range stretch to sit just above the longest ranged 737-7. You'd want the longest range stretch to sit just below the shortest ranged 787-10.

In terms of a CASM target you would want the 797-10 stretch model with the best CASM to sit with the 737 and the worst CASM 797-8 model to sit with the 787.

It definitely needs a 3 length family to hit all these goals. A 797-8.5 and a 797-9.5 at say 50m and 54m could not work. It wouldn't have the large difference in CASM or range between the models. So the high CASM model couldn't match the 737 and the long range model couldn't sit below the 787.

In terms of market analysis.

Narrowbody aircraft traditionally connect city pairs below 3000nm and widebodies do longer flights. If that remained the case there would be no need for an aircraft in between. You'd just put on more narrowbody flights to cover growth.

But the main driver for the MOM is:

1) The growing number of destination pairs with 20+ narrowbody flights.
2) The growing number of widebody aircraft doing routes under 1000nm.
3) The growing number of gate restrictions.
4) The new 787/A350 were built for 8000+nm range and have created a huge range gap between NB and WB. So now there is a huge market there.

Boeing predicted the market with the 787 as they could see that the number of international airports was growing exponentially during the 1990's. Upgauging of narrowbodies is the next big thing to help drive growth.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:01 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
So what is the wing area?

My model uses a modified version of the Stamford weight breakdown method and allies that to a buildup method for the aerodynamics. I then have some code which iterates weights, speeds and altitudes to determine thrust required in each scenario followed applying a basic sfc number to determine fuel usage. This last bit is problematic as i only currently use a sing value for SFC, which I know is innacurate. I normally set the speed to 175 kts at sea level to determine the thrust required from a single engine.

Fred

Wing details of my design it averaged the wings of the the nearest MTO's and got a wing loading of 663kg per m2. At 150T that is a 226m2 wing with a wing sweep of 27.35° and a span of 44m.

In terms of wing sweep, cruising altitude, cruising speed and wing loading we haven't seen that much of a change at all in the last 30 years.

Your model sounds good. I also try and mask out any extreme data so its a median more than an average. For instance wing sweep average I wouldn't include a 747. And wing loading I would exclude the 767 non ER models.

Newbiepilot wrote:
The 4,000 sq ft wings on the 787 and A330 are too large and heavy for regional flying in Asia. How small will Boeing go?

226m2 would be ideal. Pretty close to a A310 wing with a A300 fuselage.

Putting a small carbon wing on a shortened A330 using the same 797 engines could be a quick reply for airbus.

Newbiepilot wrote:
United might want the plane to be optimized for 180 passengers for 4,000 miles. ANA might want it to be optimized for 280 passengers for 600 miles.

An aircraft with the same MTO and same wing could easily do that. In this case United would order the 797-8 and ANA would order the 797-10.

Basically exchanging payload for range. Aircraft rarely fly their published max range. So the 797-8 would be nice for 4000miles and would provide headroom to allow for westbound or high high conditions.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17859
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:32 pm

CNN Money: Boeing's '797' takes a big step toward becoming reality tells us:

The aerospace giant has named a chief project engineer to oversee the formation of what is likely to become its first all-new airliner since the 787 Dreamliner. The chief engineer on a new jetliner program is among the most important positions.

Boeing named company veteran Terry Beezhold as the new project's engineering leader, the company confirmed. The engineering chiefs historically wield tremendous influence early on as decisions are made about every facet of the aircraft's design.

One more key decision maker on board.

And:

Beezhold is a long-time company veteran who in 2011 was in charge of developing new tools and processes to significantly reduce the cost of designing and manufacturing airliners. That work was put into action developing the 777X, which is manufactured using significantly more automation than previous Boeing airliners. He is currently chief project engineer on Boeing's 777X program.

Feeds into the narrative that 797 will be heavily focused on manufacturability.
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
Stitch
Posts: 25301
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:49 pm

Mr. Beezehold was also the Chief Systems Engineer on the 787 program as well as the 717 Deputy Chief Project Engineer. He came to Boeing by way of the McD merger where he served in Product Development, working on large commercial airplane concepts and MD-11 derivatives before joining the MD-95 team (which became the 717 team).
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5698
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
CNN Money: Boeing's '797' takes a big step toward becoming reality tells us:

The aerospace giant has named a chief project engineer to oversee the formation of what is likely to become its first all-new airliner since the 787 Dreamliner. The chief engineer on a new jetliner program is among the most important positions.

Boeing named company veteran Terry Beezhold as the new project's engineering leader, the company confirmed. The engineering chiefs historically wield tremendous influence early on as decisions are made about every facet of the aircraft's design.

One more key decision maker on board.

And:

Beezhold is a long-time company veteran who in 2011 was in charge of developing new tools and processes to significantly reduce the cost of designing and manufacturing airliners. That work was put into action developing the 777X, which is manufactured using significantly more automation than previous Boeing airliners. He is currently chief project engineer on Boeing's 777X program.

Feeds into the narrative that 797 will be heavily focused on manufacturability.

Wasn't Boeing problem with manufacturability on the 787 due to the extensive use of composites and plain lack of knowledge on the issue? If so, sounds like they have learned from that aspect, and that the 797 will be composite instead of aluminum.
You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
CNN Money: Boeing's '797' takes a big step toward becoming reality tells us:

The aerospace giant has named a chief project engineer to oversee the formation of what is likely to become its first all-new airliner since the 787 Dreamliner. The chief engineer on a new jetliner program is among the most important positions.

Boeing named company veteran Terry Beezhold as the new project's engineering leader, the company confirmed. The engineering chiefs historically wield tremendous influence early on as decisions are made about every facet of the aircraft's design.

One more key decision maker on board.

And:

Beezhold is a long-time company veteran who in 2011 was in charge of developing new tools and processes to significantly reduce the cost of designing and manufacturing airliners. That work was put into action developing the 777X, which is manufactured using significantly more automation than previous Boeing airliners. He is currently chief project engineer on Boeing's 777X program.

Feeds into the narrative that 797 will be heavily focused on manufacturability.


This reads a few things to me. It sounds like this guy is the expert at Boeing for what I will call the actualization phase of an airplane project. To me this says they largely know what they are going to make at this point.

Second it sounds like Boeing has kind of created a sequence of bosses to some degree for their programs based on how they are moving from project to project. That makes some sense to me as skill sets at different stages would be very different.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25301
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:43 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Wasn't Boeing problem with manufacturability on the 787 due to the extensive use of composites and plain lack of knowledge on the issue? If so, sounds like they have learned from that aspect, and that the 797 will be composite instead of aluminum.


While CFRP at the scale Boeing employed on the 787 was an issue, it was more the lack of knowledge by the sub-contractors, from the Primes on down, and lack of oversight by Boeing until they were too deep in the weeds that really set the program behind initially.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17859
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:19 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Wasn't Boeing problem with manufacturability on the 787 due to the extensive use of composites and plain lack of knowledge on the issue? If so, sounds like they have learned from that aspect, and that the 797 will be composite instead of aluminum.

Yes, but dealing with what went wrong with 787 is not what I was getting at.

Let me quote http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... -timetable for an idea of what I was getting at:

“Today we are very early in a program that’s not launched, and we already know what the production system looks like,” says Delaney. “We already know what the assembly sequence looks like, we are already starting to build parts in the computer. Because we are trying to build the first couple of hundred in the computer – that’s the power of the digital thread,” he adds.

The work is key to helping Boeing make fundamental changes in its production process to enable the NMA to be built for lower cost than previous twin-aisle designs.

Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail.

It will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with.
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
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:00 am

Revelation wrote:
“Today we are very early in a program that’s not launched, and we already know what the production system looks like,” says Delaney. “We already know what the assembly sequence looks like, we are already starting to build parts in the computer. Because we are trying to build the first couple of hundred in the computer – that’s the power of the digital thread,” he adds.


It used to be done with rough scale models of parts moved around on a table. Sometimes it still is. One of the 777X-related media days showed 3-D printed factory models from further along in the design process, so this definitely still happens, sometimes even well after this stage.

But the detail possible to work with at this stage is the large scale features of the aircraft, tooling, and machinery required. Some of that is assumed. It's an ever-present problem, for example, to estimate a certain tool will take up a specific amount of floor space or workers will need a specific amount of room, which almost always turns out to be optimistic.

It's also very, very tempting at this stage to incorporated newer, presumably more efficient work methods or technologies. Not all of them work as planned. See the 777 FAUB problems as one of the few examples that became public.

Revelation wrote:
The work is key to helping Boeing make fundamental changes in its production process to enable the NMA to be built for lower cost than previous twin-aisle designs.


Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail.


The quote sounds pretty similar to things that were said leading up to and even after the 787 launch. Fundamental changes are chances to significantly improve things, but also to throw away things that work in favor of things that are untested.

I'm not a pessimist about this. Just a cynic. There will be issues. They will drive up the cost, but probably not enough to seriously hurt the viability of the program. They will be solved. There will be a lot of lessons learned, and then a lot of them will be forgotten before the next project.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17859
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:34 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
They will be solved. There will be a lot of lessons learned, and then a lot of them will be forgotten before the next project.

Where I once worked our engineering design process had a "project post-mortem" at the end of each project to capture all the things that went wrong and to consider how we could do better next time.

After my third or so post-mortem, I looked at my boss and said, "How come we never start the next project by reading the last few project post-mortems?".

He looked at me in a way that told me he never had even considered the idea of doing this, then he regained his composure, and laughed off my suggestion.

I think that was the day I joined the ranks of the cynics.
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
 
Aither
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:09 am

RJMAZ wrote:
But the main driver for the MOM is:

1) The growing number of destination pairs with 20+ narrowbody flights.
2) The growing number of widebody aircraft doing routes under 1000nm.
3) The growing number of gate restrictions.
4) The new 787/A350 were built for 8000+nm range and have created a huge range gap between NB and WB. So now there is a huge market there.


There are many arguments against these points:

For 1) There are not so many such "shuttle" routes and these routes are mostly short range routes -> one aircraft is enough to do 4-5 rotations meaning this would not translate into a large fleet need.

For 2) There will be even more widebody flying short haul to keep the fleet flying between 2 long haul flights (the fastest growing market)

For 3) At -times of the day- when you have gate restrictions you will be better off replacing 2 narrowbody with a widebody.

For 4) Don't forget the A330s. To me the MoM is Boeing finally admitting the 787 is not competitive against the A330 on short/medium haul mission. There are tons of newly built A330s and many in operations A330s will be re-dispatch to shorter missions after being replaced by 787 & A350 on the long routes.

Last but not least the MoM would be a third aircraft type in the fleet : airlines will still need narrowbody. Airlines with more than one aircraft type would first select a widebody. Then only later they could choose something between.

We don't have the market data like probably Boeing has but it looks like an extremely risky investment. On top of the technical risk (like the 787) it also carries a huge market risk. It's much more risky than investing in a new clean sheet narrowbody which I think should be the priority for Boeing.
Never trust the obvious
 
bigjku
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:43 am

Aither wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
But the main driver for the MOM is:

1) The growing number of destination pairs with 20+ narrowbody flights.
2) The growing number of widebody aircraft doing routes under 1000nm.
3) The growing number of gate restrictions.
4) The new 787/A350 were built for 8000+nm range and have created a huge range gap between NB and WB. So now there is a huge market there.


There are many arguments against these points:

For 1) There are not so many such "shuttle" routes and these routes are mostly short range routes -> one aircraft is enough to do 4-5 rotations meaning this would not translate into a large fleet need.

For 2) There will be even more widebody flying short haul to keep the fleet flying between 2 long haul flights (the fastest growing market)

For 3) At -times of the day- when you have gate restrictions you will be better off replacing 2 narrowbody with a widebody.

For 4) Don't forget the A330s. To me the MoM is Boeing finally admitting the 787 is not competitive against the A330 on short/medium haul mission. There are tons of newly built A330s and many in operations A330s will be re-dispatch to shorter missions after being replaced by 787 & A350 on the long routes.

Last but not least the MoM would be a third aircraft type in the fleet : airlines will still need narrowbody. Airlines with more than one aircraft type would first select a widebody. Then only later they could choose something between.

We don't have the market data like probably Boeing has but it looks like an extremely risky investment. On top of the technical risk (like the 787) it also carries a huge market risk. It's much more risky than investing in a new clean sheet narrowbody which I think should be the priority for Boeing.


Anyone who thinks Boeing should move on a narrowbody prior to being ready to move away from the present propulsion and airframe paradigm is frankly a bit insane. Honestly did people see what happened with the C-Series?

I would expect Boeing will build 797, then you will see a new engine on the 787 platform and then you will see a new narrowbody. The last two may happen relatively in unison but neither Airbus nor Boeing will move on a new narrowbody until they can do something fundamentally different.

I keep waiting for someone to explain the dire need for Boeing to be first on a narrowbody that’s only a marginal improvement. No one has yet made a decent case.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11082
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:47 am

I see Boeing downsizing their original 763 sized NMA design concepts. The big assumption that the 737 will be fine is increasingly showing cracks. The backlog number tells far from the complete story. At a second look, it seems much softer than Boeing wants everybody to believe.

The definition of an "order" seems moving, often they seem investment vehicles, 800 orders are for unidentified, the -7 and -9 fell of the table already and everything hings on the must take LEAP.

Lets wait what happens. Boeing had to change its mind late on the 787-3, 747-8, NSA, 737-7,-9 787-9 too and there is a 777X order "pause". Boeing can will adjust their plans again if situation has changed.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:46 am

Think you are being a little harsh Keejse.The 738 and 7310 seem to be doing ok.Hell Airbus is 'only' selling the 320 and 321.
The is no doubt at all that Boeing know that in 2018/19 Airbus will be producing their modified 321 version that can either pack in 240 pax or 200 to 4knm.And yes it rightly bothers them.Not just now but perhaps they see this area expanding over the next 20-30 years and realise they have to do something about it.
Boeing always take their time about market positioning of new aircraft and their record is very good in that respect.
225-270 pax is smack on target.I think everyone would agree that.Max Range? 5knm ish...Probably about right.

The thing that has got everybody talking (and disagreeing) is the oval narrow twin aisle fuse.Going to sit on the fence on that one!Certainly a major point of difference to any stretched A321NEO (322).Either it's wrong or it's a game changer.

Speaking from a passenger perspective I would absolutely love it.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
Where I once worked our engineering design process had a "project post-mortem" at the end of each project to capture all the things that went wrong and to consider how we could do better next time.

After my third or so post-mortem, I looked at my boss and said, "How come we never start the next project by reading the last few project post-mortems?".

He looked at me in a way that told me he never had even considered the idea of doing this, then he regained his composure, and laughed off my suggestion.

I think that was the day I joined the ranks of the cynics.


+999999!

Yep. Totally true.

Boeing PR are already laying unrealistic expectations upon engineering. Expect much pain before something decent (and the 787 is a decent product... now) comes out.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:32 pm

bigjku wrote:
I keep waiting for someone to explain the dire need for Boeing to be first on a narrowbody that’s only a marginal improvement. No one has yet made a decent case.


Boeing have already made statements about pricing pressures from Airbus - and at that time Airbus were charging a healthy premium for their products. Which means you can only draw one conclusion. The 737 max prices are being supported more by delivery slot congestion for the A320/321 than by 737 max performance.


*IF* there was a weakening of the market, and there was mass deferrals, leading to airlines having a real choice, the A320/321 line would likely look much healthier in deliveries made.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:25 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
I keep waiting for someone to explain the dire need for Boeing to be first on a narrowbody that’s only a marginal improvement. No one has yet made a decent case.


Boeing have already made statements about pricing pressures from Airbus - and at that time Airbus were charging a healthy premium for their products. Which means you can only draw one conclusion. The 737 max prices are being supported more by delivery slot congestion for the A320/321 than by 737 max performance.

*IF* there was a weakening of the market, and there was mass deferrals, leading to airlines having a real choice, the A320/321 line would likely look much healthier in deliveries made.


I partially agree in that delivery slot congestion is a boon to Boeing, and the 737 is likely to be in the more vulnerable position in a downturn. However, from watching their earnings results, Boeing's fretting about margins really strikes me as largely for show for the sake of motivating cost reductions and seeking concessions from the workforce.

As a sometimes Boeing shareholder who got out too early recently based on my perception of 737 and 777 pricing challenges, I'm impressed - the decline of 737 NG pricing should be roughly at its worst right now, but MAX deliveries have barely started, the 777 legacy sales difficulty is no secret, and while the 787 is doing much better, there's still improvements being pursued in that line.

Yet their profits are looking quite solid. There's room for pricing to decline without things getting ugly.

They brought in nearly $14 billion in gross margin last year, compared to a little over $6 billion for Airbus (converted to USD), and had about 5% net margin compared to 1.5%, if I'm comparing the right figures. It appears Airbus does not have much room on pricing in tight sales campaigns.
 
downdata
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:32 am

iamlucky13 wrote:

They brought in nearly $14 billion in gross margin last year, compared to a little over $6 billion for Airbus (converted to USD), and had about 5% net margin compared to 1.5%, if I'm comparing the right figures. It appears Airbus does not have much room on pricing in tight sales campaigns.


Not sure where you are getting the figures from.. this is from an analyst report

Image
 
CX747
Posts: 5993
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:13 am

Hey, isn't this post supposed to be about Boeing's possible 797? You can't really compare Boeing and Airbus. One is a commercial aircraft manufacture, the other an aerospace giant that also produces a commercial aircraft line.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -cash.aspx

So, with that now out of the way. What is the next step for the 797 team?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Posts: 5993
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:32 am

keesje wrote:
I see Boeing downsizing their original 763 sized NMA design concepts. The big assumption that the 737 will be fine is increasingly showing cracks. The backlog number tells far from the complete story. At a second look, it seems much softer than Boeing wants everybody to believe.

The definition of an "order" seems moving, often they seem investment vehicles, 800 orders are for unidentified, the -7 and -9 fell of the table already and everything hings on the must take LEAP.

Lets wait what happens. Boeing had to change its mind late on the 787-3, 747-8, NSA, 737-7,-9 787-9 too and there is a 777X order "pause". Boeing can will adjust their plans again if situation has changed.


Yes, Boeing should weld shut it's doors as it is about to go bankrupt. Never mind the fact that all of the product lines are humming along outside of the 747. The 737 program is rock solid. 767 line has a wonderful tanker contract ahead of it and continues to sell product to FEDEX. 777 line has weathered the storm and will make the 777X transition. Last but not least the 787 has turned the corner and is making money on each airframe delivered. THAT shows a strong company able to battle through great struggles to still bring a superior product to market.

Let's not even start with the F-15, F/A-18, CH-47, AH-64 product lines....or the fact the company is competing for 300+ new USAF jet trainers, the USA's UH-60 replacement program and continuing to support the KC-135, KC-10, B-52, A-10, F-15C/E, F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F/G.

Yep, shut it all down boys.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
Slash787
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:49 am

787-9 with a range of a B757
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:50 am

downdata wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:

They brought in nearly $14 billion in gross margin last year, compared to a little over $6 billion for Airbus (converted to USD), and had about 5% net margin compared to 1.5%, if I'm comparing the right figures. It appears Airbus does not have much room on pricing in tight sales campaigns.


Not sure where you are getting the figures from.. this is from an analyst report


From their 2016 year end reports (downloaded Airbus', used the figures for Boeing reported by Google Finance), and admittedly only focusing on two factors of potential interest. The analyst's graphs you posted are from a year earlier, and deal with slightly different metrics.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:53 am

My question is, if 797 is launched to cover the 235-270 pax area, how would that affect the sales of 787-9 and 787-8? Does that leave 787 with only long-haul missions (except for 78J of course)?
Last edited by Eyad89 on Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:54 am

Depends on the cabin configuration used for 270 seats and the available range.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:35 am

Slash787 wrote:
787-9 with a range of a B757


Like, say, a 787-3.

This really is my problem with this MoM. What are they going to do that is so different from a 787 fuselage with different undercarriage and wings?

OK, the engines will be a bit lighter, but really? Does that justify $10B+ in the hole? Why not have a smaller GenX developed?


The fuselage would be heavier for short-haul than long haul (more cycles = more fatigue issues).
The empennage could shrink a little with a smaller wing.
The systems would be largely common, I suppose the fuel pumps could shrink a little (although common parts with 787-8/-9 would lead to better economies of scale for both build cost and maintenance).


I guess the 787 fuselage is a wide 8, cramped 9 abreast. They'd really be looking MoM to be a wide 7, cramped 8.
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1010
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 am

CX747 wrote:
... You can't really compare Boeing and Airbus. One is a commercial aircraft manufacture, the other an aerospace giant that also produces a commercial aircraft line.


Not sure if you are overestimating or underestimating any of them, but you should read more about both aerospace giants and their different projects and divisions before making such ignorant statements. Last time I checked Boeing was succesfully testing the CST-100, as an example of many, and Airbus was stuck building satellites all around :lol:
 
parapente
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:19 am

. They'd really be looking MoM to be a wide 7, cramped 8.
This is 'only' an 8 hour aircraft max and for many journeys probably a lot less.If 17" Y has been accepted for the long range 787 I would fully expect the same for Y in the 797.And not too generous for the aisles either!They need to keep that cross section width as narrow as possible.Hight will be no more than a 320.
PremY X6
Biz X5
Would be my guess.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2608
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:49 am

Revelation wrote:
Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail


I've read only the last page of this thread (these discussions have become repetitive).

But Rev has the issue nailed. IMJ this is a potentially huge market, at least a large market, and Boeing will launch if/when its board trusts that clean-sheet programs can be executed competently.

This is an industrial/organizational issue more than aero/engineering/marketing issue. As such, the speculation is more opaque and boring than is fit for an aviation fansite. This should be the top trending topic on all industrial philosophy forums.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:09 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:
787-9 with a range of a B757


Like, say, a 787-3.

This really is my problem with this MoM. What are they going to do that is so different from a 787 fuselage with different undercarriage and wings?

OK, the engines will be a bit lighter, but really? Does that justify $10B+ in the hole? Why not have a smaller GenX developed?


The fuselage would be heavier for short-haul than long haul (more cycles = more fatigue issues).
The empennage could shrink a little with a smaller wing.
The systems would be largely common, I suppose the fuel pumps could shrink a little (although common parts with 787-8/-9 would lead to better economies of scale for both build cost and maintenance).


I guess the 787 fuselage is a wide 8, cramped 9 abreast. They'd really be looking MoM to be a wide 7, cramped 8.


Instead of having a shortened 787 wing with most of the differences at the outboard end, MoM would have everything different right through to the root - shorter span, shorter height, and shorter chord. The center wingbox would reflect those changes, fundamentally changing the fuselage mid-body, as well. Although the mid-body looks like just another length of fuselage with wings sticking off the sides of it and a slick fairing, in reality, it's basically designed around the wings in order to properly support the rest of the fuselage on the wings. The break from 787 commonality also means the chance to leverage the lower MTOW and engine dimensions for a commensurately lighter and smaller landing gear, carrying those changes through to the other half of the lower mid-body as well, including the wheel wells, gear doors, and keel structure (I've never been clear what was planned for the 787-3 gear, but I assume it was not terribly different from the 787-8 gear).

As has been very thoroughly debated previously, the fuselage not only gets somewhere around a seat narrower, but also potentially significantly shorter vertically. That reduces drag, and if that design is chosen, it's because it's enough to offset increased structural weight per passenger of a flattened oval (or double bubble) versus a round fuselage or tall oval (although I've argued previously increased weight is not necessarily a given, since the reinforcements expected in the floor beams and frames are at least partially offset by reduced overall skin and frame circumference).

With 3/4 of the thrust of the current smallest version of the GEnx, the engine is presumably to the point where there is a significant penalty to having such a large core compared to the actual fan power requirements. Aside from better SFC from an optimized core size versus a shrink, comparing the CFM Leap 1A to the GEnx weights suggests the engines alone can be in the ballpark of 2000 pounds lighter each compared to what I'm guessing the 787-3's engines would have weighed.

I'm not in a position to argue the potentially $10+ billion business case for it in much detail, but fairly significant design differences are possible all over the airplane if not bound by commonality with the 787. I expect the final MTOW ends up somewhere in between the 757-300's 273,000 lbs and the 787-3's proposed 364,000 lbs, but with longer range than either.
 
User avatar
Slash787
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:17 pm

So you mean something like this?

Image
 
bigjku
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:06 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail


I've read only the last page of this thread (these discussions have become repetitive).

But Rev has the issue nailed. IMJ this is a potentially huge market, at least a large market, and Boeing will launch if/when its board trusts that clean-sheet programs can be executed competently.

This is an industrial/organizational issue more than aero/engineering/marketing issue. As such, the speculation is more opaque and boring than is fit for an aviation fansite. This should be the top trending topic on all industrial philosophy forums.


From some people at Boeing the key metric for if this is a reasonable success in a relatively niche market vs a great success depends on the ability of the bigger of the two aircraft versions to replace two narrowbody aircraft in a relatively cost neutral manner. If you can do that you open up some portion of the narrowbody market for yourself.

I believe based on what has been announced they can get there from an operating cost standpoint. The big question now is getting the cost to build correct. If when it’s all totaled up cost to buy and operate is equal to or less than two narrowbodies then it will do better than people are expecting.

The summary I was told was basically that the smaller aircraft is a transatlantic one that should replace the 757 and some 767/A330’s.

The bigger aircraft is aimed firmly at the narrowbody market.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:51 pm

bigjku wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail


I've read only the last page of this thread (these discussions have become repetitive).

But Rev has the issue nailed. IMJ this is a potentially huge market, at least a large market, and Boeing will launch if/when its board trusts that clean-sheet programs can be executed competently.

This is an industrial/organizational issue more than aero/engineering/marketing issue. As such, the speculation is more opaque and boring than is fit for an aviation fansite. This should be the top trending topic on all industrial philosophy forums.


From some people at Boeing the key metric for if this is a reasonable success in a relatively niche market vs a great success depends on the ability of the bigger of the two aircraft versions to replace two narrowbody aircraft in a relatively cost neutral manner. If you can do that you open up some portion of the narrowbody market for yourself.

I believe based on what has been announced they can get there from an operating cost standpoint. The big question now is getting the cost to build correct. If when it’s all totaled up cost to buy and operate is equal to or less than two narrowbodies then it will do better than people are expecting.

The summary I was told was basically that the smaller aircraft is a transatlantic one that should replace the 757 and some 767/A330’s.

The bigger aircraft is aimed firmly at the narrowbody market.



For the umpteenth time, the RETURN OF THE DOMESTIC WIDEBODY! YES!! YES!! YES!!

Should sell very well in Asia too.

Let's see, airlines up gauging their NB fleets, upcoming pilot shortage, SWA ( one of Boeing's loyal customers) would be happy, etc etc. Boeing has a good idea what an A321Super NEO or whatever one wants to call will do and more importantly NOT do. Even if you stretch it and rewing it, vice versa Airbus has an idea what the 797 could do too. I see this being the A330/777 all over again. The two products never really competed with each other and many fleets had both. The variants of the A321 will continue to print money for Airbus, but Boeing has the ability to own the space above it and the A330 space it occupys today.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17859
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:28 pm

bigjku wrote:
From some people at Boeing the key metric for if this is a reasonable success in a relatively niche market vs a great success depends on the ability of the bigger of the two aircraft versions to replace two narrowbody aircraft in a relatively cost neutral manner. If you can do that you open up some portion of the narrowbody market for yourself.

I believe based on what has been announced they can get there from an operating cost standpoint. The big question now is getting the cost to build correct. If when it’s all totaled up cost to buy and operate is equal to or less than two narrowbodies then it will do better than people are expecting.

The summary I was told was basically that the smaller aircraft is a transatlantic one that should replace the 757 and some 767/A330’s.

The bigger aircraft is aimed firmly at the narrowbody market.

I believe these are what Jon referred to as NMA-6X and NMA-7X ( ref: https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 0455532548 and https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 3002008576 ). I'm not sure if these are his names, or are coming from inside Boeing.
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
CRMCPILOT31
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:26 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:52 pm

OA940 wrote:
I like the idea of a 757-300 capacity airliner. Oh yeah, it better look prettier than the 757 (sorry but it's not the best aircraft in terms of looks)


How can you write that? Lol...the 757 is one of the best looking planes ever! lol....... What made me fall more in love with the 757 is the height, the landing gear which reminds me of the Concorde and those big engines and narrow body! Too bad airlines saw the work horse it was once it was done building it.

Hope the 797 brings the best of 787/767/757
HONDURAS A PARADISE WORTH VISITING!!
 
wingman
Posts: 3335
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:00 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
I guess the 787 fuselage is a wide 8, cramped 9 abreast. They'd really be looking MoM to be a wide 7, cramped 8.


Or from the perspective that really counts in the war of "cramped pax" vs. "airline pricing modeler", it becomes 8 wide sardine class, 7 wide eco premium and a 6 across lie flat up front. This plane wouldn't sell a single copy based on anything to do with 17.2 vs. 17.5 vs 18.1 in cattle class. It'll have 100% to do with algorithm based route scenario economics. Don't get me wrong, I want to fly like Sam Chui everywhere I go too, but very powerful forces prevent that from happening.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25301
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:09 pm

bigjku wrote:
The summary I was told was basically that the smaller aircraft is a transatlantic one that should replace the 757 and some 767/A330’s. The bigger aircraft is aimed firmly at the narrowbody market.


This is what Bernstein Research is reporting, as well, though they believe the TATL model is a mistake and is being driven by customer interest (most likely the US3 and European LCCs) for 240 seats at 5000nm so they can reach more TATL city pairs than the A321-200LR can wth more passengers. While on the one hand this could be bad news for the A321-200LR, Bernstein also believes it could be bad news for the NMA because there may not many airlines interested in this market.

Bernstein believes that 270 seats at 3000-3500nm is where Boeing should be looking as while that would not allow TATL or South America service, it would completely cover Southeast Asia, India and China and would allow for significant traffic growth without requiring significant frequency growth.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1179
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:24 pm

CRMCPILOT31 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
I like the idea of a 757-300 capacity airliner. Oh yeah, it better look prettier than the 757 (sorry but it's not the best aircraft in terms of looks)


How can you write that? Lol...the 757 is one of the best looking planes ever! lol....... What made me fall more in love with the 757 is the height, the landing gear which reminds me of the Concorde and those big engines and narrow body! Too bad airlines saw the work horse it was once it was done building it.

Hope the 797 brings the best of 787/767/757


Well now with the 787, A350 and CSeries the 757 looks a bit old and ugly (it is old lmao)
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:26 pm

Stitch wrote:
bigjku wrote:
The summary I was told was basically that the smaller aircraft is a transatlantic one that should replace the 757 and some 767/A330’s. The bigger aircraft is aimed firmly at the narrowbody market.


This is what Bernstein Research is reporting, as well, though they believe the TATL model is a mistake and is being driven by customer interest (most likely the US3 and European LCCs) for 240 seats at 5000nm so they can reach more TATL city pairs than the A321-200LR can wth more passengers. While on the one hand this could be bad news for the A321-200LR, Bernstein also believes it could be bad news for the NMA because there may not many airlines interested in this market.

Bernstein believes that 270 seats at 3000-3500nm is where Boeing should be looking as while that would not allow TATL or South America service, it would completely cover Southeast Asia, India and China and would allow for significant traffic growth without requiring significant frequency growth.


I do not understand his reasoning on this statement. While many airlines are up gauging NB aircraft, the market is not going away. The present order numbers dictate the 105-200 pax NB maket is and will be huge even if the 797 takes over from 200-300 in the domestic market.
 
LH707330
Posts: 1877
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
They will be solved. There will be a lot of lessons learned, and then a lot of them will be forgotten before the next project.

Where I once worked our engineering design process had a "project post-mortem" at the end of each project to capture all the things that went wrong and to consider how we could do better next time.

After my third or so post-mortem, I looked at my boss and said, "How come we never start the next project by reading the last few project post-mortems?".

He looked at me in a way that told me he never had even considered the idea of doing this, then he regained his composure, and laughed off my suggestion.

I think that was the day I joined the ranks of the cynics.

This is easily the funniest thing I've read all day. I've seen this same thing in many other companies, it all starts at the top.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25301
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:13 pm

william wrote:
I do not understand his reasoning on this statement. While many airlines are up gauging NB aircraft, the market is not going away. The present order numbers dictate the 105-200 pax NB maket is and will be huge even if the 797 takes over from 200-300 in the domestic market.


A 240-seat 5000nm frame is going to be structurally heavier to tank the fuel necessary for that distance compared to a frame designed for 3000-3500nm. If most of your customers are interested in flying the shorter distance, they're not going to like taking the fuel burn penalty to support missions they won't be using it on.
 
User avatar
CRMCPILOT31
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:26 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:24 pm

OA940 wrote:
CRMCPILOT31 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
I like the idea of a 757-300 capacity airliner. Oh yeah, it better look prettier than the 757 (sorry but it's not the best aircraft in terms of looks)


How can you write that? Lol...the 757 is one of the best looking planes ever! lol....... What made me fall more in love with the 757 is the height, the landing gear which reminds me of the Concorde and those big engines and narrow body! Too bad airlines saw the work horse it was once it was done building it.

Hope the 797 brings the best of 787/767/757


Well now with the 787, A350 and CSeries the 757 looks a bit old and ugly (it is old lmao)


Yes you are right!! Oh the CSeries is one of my favorite!........... A350 still has me undecided..some angles I do not like.

I wonder from those "possible" 797 designs that have been out there since a while ago if this will look anything like that.
HONDURAS A PARADISE WORTH VISITING!!
 
airzona11
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:43 pm

william wrote:
Stitch wrote:
bigjku wrote:
The summary I was told was basically that the smaller aircraft is a transatlantic one that should replace the 757 and some 767/A330’s. The bigger aircraft is aimed firmly at the narrowbody market.


This is what Bernstein Research is reporting, as well, though they believe the TATL model is a mistake and is being driven by customer interest (most likely the US3 and European LCCs) for 240 seats at 5000nm so they can reach more TATL city pairs than the A321-200LR can wth more passengers. While on the one hand this could be bad news for the A321-200LR, Bernstein also believes it could be bad news for the NMA because there may not many airlines interested in this market.

Bernstein believes that 270 seats at 3000-3500nm is where Boeing should be looking as while that would not allow TATL or South America service, it would completely cover Southeast Asia, India and China and would allow for significant traffic growth without requiring significant frequency growth.


I do not understand his reasoning on this statement. While many airlines are up gauging NB aircraft, the market is not going away. The present order numbers dictate the 105-200 pax NB maket is and will be huge even if the 797 takes over from 200-300 in the domestic market.


And the US3 are / were the largest 767 customers. So that is nothing to state as "only".

Would a standard + ER model be plausible? Or are those days done?
 
adorelerock
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:46 pm

Stitch wrote:
william wrote:
I do not understand his reasoning on this statement. While many airlines are up gauging NB aircraft, the market is not going away. The present order numbers dictate the 105-200 pax NB maket is and will be huge even if the 797 takes over from 200-300 in the domestic market.


A 240-seat 5000nm frame is going to be structurally heavier to tank the fuel necessary for that distance compared to a frame designed for 3000-3500nm. If most of your customers are interested in flying the shorter distance, they're not going to like taking the fuel burn penalty to support missions they won't be using it on.



Is it possible to go with 797-3 a 240 seat 5knm and a bigger stretch b797-4 with an additional 30-40 pax so the additional frames and payload will reduce the range by itself to lets say something at 3500-4000nm ? That would give the possibility to counter the a321NEOLR in TATL so thin long NB routes in general, while with the bigger stretch it will be right on top of an potential a322. The A330 on the other hand will be way heavier and the a330R is might be lighter but not as light as the 797 series.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25301
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:06 pm

airzona11 wrote:
And the US3 are / were the largest 767 customers. So that is nothing to state as "only".


And across them (including US and CO) they ordered less than 300 of them. I don't see them ordering 300 frames for TATL services and even if they did, I expect Boeing would want to sell about 10 times that many before they invest eight figures into this program.


airzona11 wrote:
Would a standard + ER model be plausible? Or are those days done?

adorelerock wrote:
Is it possible to go with 797-3 a 240 seat 5knm and a bigger stretch 797-4 with an additional 30-40 pax so the additional frames and payload will reduce the range by itself to lets say something at 3500-4000nm?


The issue is the stretch is carrying not just the original weight of the standard model, but also the stretch. So if the standard model is designed around long-haul missions, it's going to be "heavy" to begin with and then the stretch will be that much heavier. The 777-200A was very heavy because it had all the structure built in to support the 777-200ER model (the OEM OEW difference between them was only 2000kg where as the MTOW difference was 50,000kg). Same with the 767-300 / 767-300ER (a 3000kg OEW difference). The A330-300, on the other hand, was designed from the start for short-haul missions and had an OEM OEW 10,000kg less which resulted in a ~10% lower fuel burn on similar missions thanks to that lighter structural weight and needing less-powerful engines to carry that weight.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1179
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:19 pm

CRMCPILOT31 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
CRMCPILOT31 wrote:

How can you write that? Lol...the 757 is one of the best looking planes ever! lol....... What made me fall more in love with the 757 is the height, the landing gear which reminds me of the Concorde and those big engines and narrow body! Too bad airlines saw the work horse it was once it was done building it.

Hope the 797 brings the best of 787/767/757


Well now with the 787, A350 and CSeries the 757 looks a bit old and ugly (it is old lmao)


Yes you are right!! Oh the CSeries is one of my favorite!........... A350 still has me undecided..some angles I do not like.

I wonder from those "possible" 797 designs that have been out there since a while ago if this will look anything like that.


I think those at Paris were just Boeing's way of telling us ''Hey we are doing something in the 757 size be ready folks'' (hence why it looked exactly like a depressed 757). And tbh I wouldn't mind if it looked like a 757. But imo it's not the best looking plane in 2017.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
bigjku
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
And the US3 are / were the largest 767 customers. So that is nothing to state as "only".


And across them (including US and CO) they ordered less than 300 of them. I don't see them ordering 300 frames for TATL services and even if they did, I expect Boeing would want to sell about 10 times that many before they invest eight figures into this program.


airzona11 wrote:
Would a standard + ER model be plausible? Or are those days done?

adorelerock wrote:
Is it possible to go with 797-3 a 240 seat 5knm and a bigger stretch 797-4 with an additional 30-40 pax so the additional frames and payload will reduce the range by itself to lets say something at 3500-4000nm?


The issue is the stretch is carrying not just the original weight of the standard model, but also the stretch. So if the standard model is designed around long-haul missions, it's going to be "heavy" to begin with and then the stretch will be that much heavier. The 777-200A was very heavy because it had all the structure built in to support the 777-200ER model (the OEM OEW difference between them was only 2000kg where as the MTOW difference was 50,000kg). Same with the 767-300 / 767-300ER (a 3000kg OEW difference). The A330-300, on the other hand, was designed from the start for short-haul missions and had an OEM OEW 10,000kg less which resulted in a ~10% lower fuel burn on similar missions thanks to that lighter structural weight and needing less-powerful engines to carry that weight.


Agree with stitch here. The way you have to do this is build the longer, NB replacement frame first, then you can shrink it for the TATL mission and hopefully that range is enough. I would say you want to ideally get to 3,500ish NM range on the bigger variant and 4,000ish on the smaller version. If you set out to go 5,000 it will be an issue on weight. 4,000 will get you to Europe from the East coast hubs.

If you can get it, great. But the key number is keeping one larger aircraft cost competitive with two narrowbody aircraft. That is as we would say the “one big thing”.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:22 pm

Its interesting that we had a report of two different lengths. I'm fairly certain the family would need three members to cover the long thin routes at one end and short thick routes at the other. The spacing between each extreme is quite large leaving more than enough space for a middle model.

However it would make sense to introduce two middle models to gauge the market to see which of the two has the most demand. The third model can then be introduced either as a stretch high density short range model or a shrink longer ranged model.

Boeing did this with the 787-10. The market showed demand for a large medium haul model so it was launched some years later as a simple stretch of the 787-9 with 95% commonality. If demand was for ultra long haul they could have done a 787-8ER.

You don't want to end up with a member of the family that doesnt sell like the A319NEO, A330-800 or A350-800.

If both of the two launch models sell evenly and extremely well then Boeing could eventually end up with four members of MOM family. They could do a simple shrink and simple stretch of the two starting models to give a larger spread.

797-7 - 44m - 5700nm
797-8 - 48m - 5000nm (launch model)
797-9 - 56m - 4000nm (launch model)
797-10 - 60m - 3300nm

adorelerock wrote:
Is it possible to go with 797-3 a 240 seat 5knm and a bigger stretch b797-4 with an additional 30-40 pax so the additional frames and payload will reduce the range by itself to lets say something at 3500-4000nm ?

That's generally how most stretches work. So you get a bit of extra surface drag, a bit of added weight from the extended fuselage and a bit of added weight from the extra passengers. You then have to carry less fuel.

In the case of the 787-10 they can't fill the fuel tanks up above 75% capacity with a normal payload. So its range is reduced by around 20% compared to the 787-9 with similar density payloads.
 
CX747
Posts: 5993
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:05 am

Jayafe wrote:
CX747 wrote:
... You can't really compare Boeing and Airbus. One is a commercial aircraft manufacture, the other an aerospace giant that also produces a commercial aircraft line.


Not sure if you are overestimating or underestimating any of them, but you should read more about both aerospace giants and their different projects and divisions before making such ignorant statements. Last time I checked Boeing was succesfully testing the CST-100, as an example of many, and Airbus was stuck building satellites all around :lol:


No, it was spot on. Aerospace Giant and a company that has a commercial product line and some other daliances.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower

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