Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:08 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Summary

Technology is at the heart of the new target EIS for the NMA.
The 737 replacement was always intended to follow the NMA.
Supply chain asked for 767 production rate ramp-up feasibility

.


Hi Newbie, if your conclusions will be Boeings, I can hear the Airbus bottles popping everywhere.

Yes, maybe the 767 is the best alternative anyway, it stopped selling 15 years ago, but times might have changed.. maybe the A330NEO and A321NEO are easier to beat than the A330 and A321 CEO's back then. Let's take a few years to think about that :crossfingers:

The 737 is doing better then ever. Half of the contracts are with soft conditions to big Lessors, 800 are for un-identifed and large number was sold on commonality, availability and price. The -7 and -9 were rejected, but OK, it's really only that "4000 orders" that really counts. Ewverything is fine. :covereyes:

Technology is at the heart of the new target EIS for the NMA. Like it was with the A330/787, NEO's, MAX. It's not only the engines that make the difference. Cabin humidity, big windows and imploding maintenance costs play a big role.. :tired:


Those conclusions were from the Leeham News article, not me or Boeing. Scott Hamilton isn't particularly biased in Boeing's favor.

I think you are fabricating "Half of the contracts are with soft conditions to big Lessors". Less than a quarter of orders have been announced as coming from Lessors and I have no idea what you mean by soft conditions. Lessors are a big part of the market. That's the way it works. The A320NEO has more lessor orders than the 737MAX. Are you making stuff up again or are there facts behind your statements?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:16 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
46% of the market wants 150-200 seats, and 27% wants 200-250 seats. 13% actually wants less than 150 seats. That sounds more like a 737 replacement to me.

I think developing a new "MoM" aircraft for the 200+ pax market only is a mistake by Boeing. They should focus on developing a three size 737 replacement with 150-250 seats instead. A lot more revenue, and a lot more pressure on Airbus, while the development costs shouldn't be that different.


The thinking is MoM would be bigger, but it would also work out the kinks, so that when Boeing launches NSA (the 737 replacement) after NMA's EIS, things would go much smoother because they know what they're dealing with. Because unlike NMA, NSA will make or break the company depending on how successful it is.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:42 pm

Stitch wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
46% of the market wants 150-200 seats, and 27% wants 200-250 seats. 13% actually wants less than 150 seats. That sounds more like a 737 replacement to me.

I think developing a new "MoM" aircraft for the 200+ pax market only is a mistake by Boeing. They should focus on developing a three size 737 replacement with 150-250 seats instead. A lot more revenue, and a lot more pressure on Airbus, while the development costs shouldn't be that different.


The thinking is MoM would be bigger, but it would also work out the kinks, so that when Boeing launches NSA (the 737 replacement) after NMA's EIS, things would go much smoother because they know what they're dealing with. Because unlike NMA, NSA will make or break the company depending on how successful it is.


This is what I feel like people don’t get. A commitment to the wrong narrowbody is highly dangerous for both Airbus and Boeing. Running out and building a CFRP narrow right now is just building a wider C-Series. I don’t think it can be built to where reduced pricing on existing models doesn’t eat its lunch.

I think there next narrow is waiting on one of three things. Different propulsion methods to drive up efficiency. Different basic shape of the airframe to drive up efficiency. Different construction methods to drive down cost.

I don’t think you can do one on a technical level right now. Stuff isn’t ready yet. Two is a hard sell unless efficiency goes through the roof because there is lots of fixed infrastructure you might need to replace. It becomes a lot easier sell with a major step change in propulsion efficiency. Three is something you can work on with the 797 and in that respect it makes a lot of sense to me.

I think it’s a major misconception that invested cost is at all similar for MOM compared to a new narrowbody. A narrowbody program is going to be designed to run for 20-50 years and thousands of frames. You can invest much more heavily in automation because you can spread the cost over far more airframes. In fact you will have to do so because the output will be much higher per month. You are buying 3 or 4 of everything you need to build another plane. You can’t afford to invest in the wrong setup here. If that means living at 40% market share for a few more years then such is life. People are being very short sighted about this.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:44 pm

Stitch wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
46% of the market wants 150-200 seats, and 27% wants 200-250 seats. 13% actually wants less than 150 seats. That sounds more like a 737 replacement to me.

I think developing a new "MoM" aircraft for the 200+ pax market only is a mistake by Boeing. They should focus on developing a three size 737 replacement with 150-250 seats instead. A lot more revenue, and a lot more pressure on Airbus, while the development costs shouldn't be that different.


The thinking is MoM would be bigger, but it would also work out the kinks, so that when Boeing launches NSA (the 737 replacement) after NMA's EIS, things would go much smoother because they know what they're dealing with. Because unlike NMA, NSA will make or break the company depending on how successful it is.


I suspect a weak reaction from airlines to the MoM I causing B to start downplaying a 250 passenger 5000nm aircraft. Also a 2-3-2 Y-class cabin is weight inefficient compared to a single isle...and all new 40-50 klb engine is more expensive than newer versions of LEAP and GTF. I wonder if we will start hearing less and less about NMA as B backs away from what is a narrow market vulnerable to the A321 at the low end.

...Instead B may migrate the whole technology effort for MoM into a 737 replacement for about 2030 when MAX will be at replacement timeframe...Maybe a bit bigger -- a 175-225 passenger single isle family -- with an 'ER" version having 4500 nm range as the last vestige of MoM. All this makes more sense than the risk of a market failure. If you want a 5000-nm 250 passenger aircraft -- the A332 NEO or even a upgraded 788 with a engine PiP will have to due for the next decade.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:16 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
I suspect a weak reaction from airlines to the MoM I causing B to start downplaying a 250 passenger 5000nm aircraft.


According to reports, a few potential major customers are the ones pushing Boeing to make it a 5000nm frame whereas 3000nm seems to be the preferred design range to maximize efficiency in markets like SE Asia, India and China.



QuarkFly wrote:
Also a 2-3-2 Y-class cabin is weight inefficient compared to a single isle...and all new 40-50 klb engine is more expensive than newer versions of LEAP and GTF. I wonder if we will start hearing less and less about NMA as B backs away from what is a narrow market vulnerable to the A321 at the low end.


It could in theory all be an elaborate bluff to blunt the A321-200neoLR (as some believe the Sonic Cruiser and 747X were to blunt the A380-800), but the A321-200LR is not likely to be more than a relatively small percentage of the A321-200neo order book, much less the A320neo family. And reports continue to say at least some of the airlines Boeing has spoken with are interested / excited about the prospects it could bring them.


QuarkFly wrote:
...Instead B may migrate the whole technology effort for MoM into a 737 replacement for about 2030 when MAX will be at replacement timeframe...


With the money Boeing have invested, I expect they want MAX to last longer than 2030. Ditto Airbus with the A320neo, so I don't see them chomping at the bit to launch NRA in that timeframe and force Boeing into second-mover as they did with the neo/MAX. And despite all the shade thrown at MAX by a certain segment of the a.net population, the model looks as if it will easily become the most popular of all the 737 generations.

I expect NSA will scale across the 737-8 to 737-10 capacities (200 / 220 / 240 in a single class or 160 / 170 / 190 in two/three classes). However, I expect the largest models to be limited to 3500nm (unless you want to add ACTs and give up hold space).


QuarkFly wrote:
If you want a 5000-nm 250 passenger aircraft -- the A332 NEO or even a upgraded 788 with a engine PiP will have to due for the next decade.


The trick is the 787-8 and A330-800 are really more 300-seat airframes in the market NMA is looking at addressing. Think Norwegian and Scoot more than BA and UA when it comes to the premium seating product and density. The 767-300ER as operated by Condor Flugdienst is more where I see NMA aiming at (235-250 seats in J / Y+ / Y).
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:19 pm

I am really confused why people on A.net keep thinking Boeing is moving away from a new airplane. Everything coming from them is that they are dedicating more resources to the project and that they are taking their time to get it right.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/20/news/co ... index.html

It almost seems like A.net is impatient for a formal launch so many users are resorting to the idea that it isn’t going to be built and the 737(which currently is selling very well) is looking to be replaced sooner. I don’t get this logic at all. In my opinion Boeing is being careful not to rush like they did on the 787. It is best not to waste billions by rushing and making mistakes.
 
jagraham
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:34 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.



A 240 seat 5000 nm frame is going to be structurally lighter than the existing frames designed for 6500nm and up. As for the lower distance, most of those are within one country - especially if you count Europe as one country - and the airlines can operate increased frequencies.

3000 nm is the exact distance from JFK to LHR. Still air. No reserves. A plane designed for 3000 nm pax and bags only will be very marginal - see Leeham's analysis of the A321LR carrying 206 pax between JFK and LHR. Also, lie-flat seats have become a competitive feature over the Atlantic and only the ULCCs will fly across the Atlantic without lie-flat seats now.

So for under 3000 nm, single aisle planes rule. Over 3000 nm, there is a gap in current product offerings. Which is why airlines are flying 763ERs until that 5th heavy maintenance (or later). That is where Boeing is trying to put the 797.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:52 pm

jagraham wrote:
3000 nm is the exact distance from JFK to LHR. Still air. No reserves. A plane designed for 3000 nm pax and bags only will be very marginal - see Leeham's analysis of the A321LR carrying 206 pax between JFK and LHR. Also, lie-flat seats have become a competitive feature over the Atlantic and only the ULCCs will fly across the Atlantic without lie-flat seats now.


And that appears to be where the contention is.

The US3 and EU LCCs appear to want 5000nm so they can do TATL.

The Asian, Indian and Chinese appear to want 3000-3500nm as it nicely covers their part of the world. 3000nm would also be perfect for Australian domestic and Trans-Taz.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:04 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I am really confused why people on A.net keep thinking Boeing is moving away from a new airplane.

Because the 737 is elementary for the companies success and vulnerable by the C-Series sale at the same time. Betting that the 40% market-share would stay for the next 10 years, while the MOM would require Boeings full attention, would be a big gamble IMHO. Assume that Airbus announces the CS150 and the A320.5 (= 737-8 match) one year after MOM kick-off...
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:11 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I am really confused why people on A.net keep thinking Boeing is moving away from a new airplane.

Because the 737 is elementary for the companies success and vulnerable by the C-Series sale at the same time. Betting that the 40% market-share would stay for the next 10 years, while the MOM would require Boeings full attention, would be a big gamble IMHO. Assume that Airbus announces the CS150 and the A320.5 (= 737-8 match) one year after MOM kick-off...


The 737 continues to sell well and Boeing was able to modify the MAX to make it more attractive in the market with the revised 737-7 and 737-10. The MAX has 43% of the orders between the NEO and MAX. I think Boeing is making the necessary upgrades to the MAX to allow them to design the MOM while focusing on building the 4,000 MAX that they have in order. I don’t see am A320.5 hurting the backlog of 4000 planes to build.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:16 pm

Stitch wrote:
jagraham wrote:
3000 nm is the exact distance from JFK to LHR. Still air. No reserves. A plane designed for 3000 nm pax and bags only will be very marginal - see Leeham's analysis of the A321LR carrying 206 pax between JFK and LHR. Also, lie-flat seats have become a competitive feature over the Atlantic and only the ULCCs will fly across the Atlantic without lie-flat seats now.


And that appears to be where the contention is.

The US3 and EU LCCs appear to want 5000nm so they can do TATL.

The Asian, Indian and Chinese appear to want 3000-3500nm as it nicely covers their part of the world. 3000nm would also be perfect for Australian domestic and Trans-Taz.


I would guess the balancing act is that you generally with a typical stretch without any other major changes see a range reduction of about 10%-15% in rough terms. The gap in desires here is around 40% so it’s a tougher balance. Plus we don’t know how big people want each model to be and you need to find a base model big enough for TATL that can be stretched to give lower CASM for a stretch without being too big. You need to either gain consensus on more similar range numbers or have a bigger relative stretch of the big version. That is presuming your case requires both markets.

I suspect that harder boundary of performance is on the CASM of the people moving stretched variant. There aren’t a lot of great alternatives for smaller TATL that exist with range beyond 4,000nm as it stands so if the option when 767 and A330’s start to retire is a 787 or A330NEO I think you can still find a strong market for the plane doing TATL.

I suspect the answer will come out that gives the base model range of around 4,500 and the stretch range of around 3,750nm. With the ability to get to 5,000 if you will take on auxiliary fuel tanks in the base model.
 
jagraham
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:26 pm

bigjku wrote:
TranscendZac wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Alan Joyce just gave us the answer: anything based on the 787 is going to be too heavy. It's the same reason the -3 didn't make sense. It's a non-starter.

Oh I agree, I should’ve clarified my remark. My point was that for the people on here thinking 2-4-2 is happening, they’d just as well re-hatch the 787-3, which they won’t becaus it was too heavy and/or not enough range for the mission.


The 787-3 wasn’t heavy because of the fuselage width. It’s was heavy because it still had essentially the same wing and wing box and engines for a much heavier longer ranged aircraft. It was basically a bastard child.

Something designed to fit in that 3-5k mile range is going to have much smaller wings, engines and fuel tanks. For it to be viable it has to be much lighter than a 787-3 would have been.


I believe that a successful 797 will have smaller engines and fuel tanks. But not wings.

Start with the 763A (non ER). It flew 260 pax 4000 statute miles. 48000 lb thrust GE CF6 80A, Short thick wings at 30 degree pitch. Can takeoff at MTOW from LGA.

Looking at the 777 evolution, Boeing added bigger wings to get an aspect ratio of 11 from 9.5 on the 77W. That allowed for 10% less thrust to get the same MTOW off the ground using the same runways. I expect Boeing to be even more aggressive with the 797.

The 767 has a cruise speed of 460 kt. (M.80) It cruises 3000 nm in 6.5 hours. If speed is increased to 787 M.85 (488 kt), 3000 nm of cruise takes 6.1 hr. Almost 1/2 hour less fuel needed. So sweep the wings to 32 degrees or more.

The 767-300 wing is 47.5 m span and 283 m^2 area, aspect ratio of 8. The 787 wing is 60 m span and 377 m^2 area. The 778 wing is 72 m span. Holding the wing area constant and going to the 787 wing span increases the aspect ratio to 12.7, an improvement of 4.7. Boeing was able to reduce thrust by 10% with an aspect ratio improvement of 1.5. So going to 787 span wings while keeping wing area constant should allow for at least 20% reduction in thrust. 40000 lb per engine or less.

Before any weight savings, the aspect ratio change from going to a 787 span wing while holding wing area constant should get the 797 down to a LEAP or GTF engine. Other changes should be able to reduce the takeoff thrust even more.

Rather than having a 12000 + lb GEnx2, a 797 should be able to use engines which weigh 5500 to 7000 lb dry. Rather than having 6000lb thrust, the 797 should be able to work with 40000 lb thrust engines, with a resulting 1/3 reduction in fuel burn (not counting SFC differences). Rather than consume 20 lb / mi or so that the 767A does, the 797 should be able to consume 1.3 x the 11 lb / mi of the A321LR, or 14.3 lb/mi. Before weight savings.

Using the smallest possible engine is the key to success. Making the wing as long and skinny as necessary to facilitate that small engine is the key to a successful 797. It also reduces the fuel for 4000 nm down to about 11000 gal. Since the 767 center fuel tank is 8000 gal, Boeing does not have to worry about tank volume in the wings.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:34 pm

jagraham wrote:
bigjku wrote:
TranscendZac wrote:
Oh I agree, I should’ve clarified my remark. My point was that for the people on here thinking 2-4-2 is happening, they’d just as well re-hatch the 787-3, which they won’t becaus it was too heavy and/or not enough range for the mission.


The 787-3 wasn’t heavy because of the fuselage width. It’s was heavy because it still had essentially the same wing and wing box and engines for a much heavier longer ranged aircraft. It was basically a bastard child.

Something designed to fit in that 3-5k mile range is going to have much smaller wings, engines and fuel tanks. For it to be viable it has to be much lighter than a 787-3 would have been.


I believe that a successful 797 will have smaller engines and fuel tanks. But not wings.

Start with the 763A (non ER). It flew 260 pax 4000 statute miles. 48000 lb thrust GE CF6 80A, Short thick wings at 30 degree pitch. Can takeoff at MTOW from LGA.

Looking at the 777 evolution, Boeing added bigger wings to get an aspect ratio of 11 from 9.5 on the 77W. That allowed for 10% less thrust to get the same MTOW off the ground using the same runways. I expect Boeing to be even more aggressive with the 797.

The 767 has a cruise speed of 460 kt. (M.80) It cruises 3000 nm in 6.5 hours. If speed is increased to 787 M.85 (488 kt), 3000 nm of cruise takes 6.1 hr. Almost 1/2 hour less fuel needed. So sweep the wings to 32 degrees or more.

The 767-300 wing is 47.5 m span and 283 m^2 area, aspect ratio of 8. The 787 wing is 60 m span and 377 m^2 area. The 778 wing is 72 m span. Holding the wing area constant and going to the 787 wing span increases the aspect ratio to 12.7, an improvement of 4.7. Boeing was able to reduce thrust by 10% with an aspect ratio improvement of 1.5. So going to 787 span wings while keeping wing area constant should allow for at least 20% reduction in thrust. 40000 lb per engine or less.

Before any weight savings, the aspect ratio change from going to a 787 span wing while holding wing area constant should get the 797 down to a LEAP or GTF engine. Other changes should be able to reduce the takeoff thrust even more.

Rather than having a 12000 + lb GEnx2, a 797 should be able to use engines which weigh 5500 to 7000 lb dry. Rather than having 6000lb thrust, the 797 should be able to work with 40000 lb thrust engines, with a resulting 1/3 reduction in fuel burn (not counting SFC differences). Rather than consume 20 lb / mi or so that the 767A does, the 797 should be able to consume 1.3 x the 11 lb / mi of the A321LR, or 14.3 lb/mi. Before weight savings.

Using the smallest possible engine is the key to success. Making the wing as long and skinny as necessary to facilitate that small engine is the key to a successful 797. It also reduces the fuel for 4000 nm down to about 11000 gal. Since the 767 center fuel tank is 8000 gal, Boeing does not have to worry about tank volume in the wings.


I should have been more clear. Didn’t mean smaller by span necessarily but lighter wings. Your huge span and aspect ratio proposal relative to the weight of the plane makes some sense. Wonder if you can fold up enough of it to get into the right gates? Any thoughts on that? Folding wings could certainly be a relatively major change in what wings on smaller aircraft look like.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1657
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:49 pm

Stitch wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
46% of the market wants 150-200 seats, and 27% wants 200-250 seats. 13% actually wants less than 150 seats. That sounds more like a 737 replacement to me.

I think developing a new "MoM" aircraft for the 200+ pax market only is a mistake by Boeing. They should focus on developing a three size 737 replacement with 150-250 seats instead. A lot more revenue, and a lot more pressure on Airbus, while the development costs shouldn't be that different.


The thinking is MoM would be bigger, but it would also work out the kinks, so that when Boeing launches NSA (the 737 replacement) after NMA's EIS, things would go much smoother because they know what they're dealing with. Because unlike NMA, NSA will make or break the company depending on how successful it is.


I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it. One could argue that the "working out the kinks" part was done with the 787-program. Boeing has spent an enormous amount of resources into that program, and they have also learned a whole lot from it. As an example, the 787-9 and -10 only has a 40% parts commonality with the initial -8 version. Spending another $10 billion (or so) on a niche aircraft program just to work out the kinks for the NSA just doesn't make any sense. I would also argue that the 737 replacement - whatever that may be, will be a success regardless of initial problems like we saw with the 787 program. It will also be far larger in revenue potential, and therefore also less risky in terms of over-expenditure on the R&D side and initial EIS problems.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:04 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it. One could argue that the "working out the kinks" part was done with the 787-program. Boeing has spent an enormous amount of resources into that program, and they have also learned a whole lot from it....Spending another $10 billion (or so) on a niche aircraft program just to work out the kinks for the NSA just doesn't make any sense.


I don't see Boeing spending that much (nor their suppliers), to be honest. Unless it also includes the industrial capacity at the suppliers for NSA as well as a new overall production facility that will replace Renton when it comes time to begin serial manufacture of NSA.


JetBuddy wrote:
I would also argue that the 737 replacement - whatever that may be, will be a success regardless of initial problems like we saw with the 787 program. It will also be far larger in revenue potential, and therefore also less risky in terms of over-expenditure on the R&D side and initial EIS problems.


In the long-run, I agree. But there is a significant first-mover advantage. MAX is now closing in on parity with neo in terms of overall order market share, but neo had a huge order advantage to start and secured a number of previously Boeing-only customers because they could deliver sooner.

So if Boeing and Airbus launch in parallel, if one of them stumbles, the other will reap significant advantage for a period of time.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1657
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:26 pm

Stitch wrote:
I don't see Boeing spending that much (nor their suppliers), to be honest. Unless it also includes the industrial capacity at the suppliers for NSA as well as a new overall production facility that will replace Renton when it comes time to begin serial manufacture of NSA.


You might be right. The $10 billion was just a ballpark figure. Could be way less than that, but it could also turn out to be more if things don't go as planned. And things rarely go as planned.

Stitch wrote:
In the long-run, I agree. But there is a significant first-mover advantage. MAX is now closing in on parity with neo in terms of overall order market share, but neo had a huge order advantage to start and secured a number of previously Boeing-only customers because they could deliver sooner.

So if Boeing and Airbus launch in parallel, if one of them stumbles, the other will reap significant advantage for a period of time.


I see your points, but that scenario can work out different ways. If Boeing goes all-in on the niche MoM program, and Airbus launches A320-replacement in the meantime - Boeing doesn't have the same ability to respond as they would have without it. It would basically be a repeat of the NEO-MAX situation. This potential 797 MoM could also turn out to be a "problem child" in a variety of ways.

But if costs could be kept under control, and the R&D could be based on everything learned from the 787, maybe a new 797 MoM is a good idea. I'm just doubtful of it, especially considering what the market really wants is a 150-250 seat aircraft, and Boeing's only offering in the segment is a nearly half a century old warmed over design.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:18 am

I'm going to toss out a wild idea. Please don't crucify me, I'm just trying to run a little thought exercise here. Over the past few years, Boeing has quietly continued patenting and researching ideas related to the failed Sonic Cruiser, such as refining it's wing design and the placement of the engines. The big question is, why? Why keep working on it, even at a low level, if the project is dead?

Here's the question: might the 797 be a serious rework of the Sonic Cruiser design? If the larger MOM is meant to be a West Coast-Hawaii, or TATL vehicle ranged, would a Sonic Cruiser type aircraft be viable? I realize that the Sonic Cruiser is a design that fanboys like myself seriously enjoy dreaming about. But... At a somewhat faster speed, say Mach 0.95 over longer ranges where the vagaries of air traffic control would have less of an impact, might such a design be viable? It would allow the airlines to perhaps schedule one or two extra segments per week per aircraft.

Responses welcome.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:30 am

Aptivaboy wrote:
Here's the question: might the 797 be a serious rework of the Sonic Cruiser design? If the larger MOM is meant to be a West Coast-Hawaii, or TATL vehicle ranged, would a Sonic Cruiser type aircraft be viable?


The fuel burn penalty of Mach 0.95 flight would pretty much kill the economics of the type. When Sonic Cruiser was proposed, Jet A prices were half of what they are now and a quarter of their peak in 2008.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1670
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:06 am

JetBuddy wrote:
46% of the market wants 150-200 seats, and 27% wants 200-250 seats. 13% actually wants less than 150 seats. That sounds more like a 737 replacement to me.

I think developing a new "MoM" aircraft for the 200+ pax market only is a mistake by Boeing. They should focus on developing a three size 737 replacement with 150-250 seats instead. A lot more revenue, and a lot more pressure on Airbus, while the development costs shouldn't be that different.


I was surprised by that 150-200 seats too. That really is not a MOM size. And definitely a 6 abreast plane. Could be why Boeing is back to step A. My question is how much better can a 6 abreast single aisle be than the current 320/737. Those are two awfully optimized models.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:11 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
46% of the market wants 150-200 seats, and 27% wants 200-250 seats. 13% actually wants less than 150 seats. That sounds more like a 737 replacement to me.

I think developing a new "MoM" aircraft for the 200+ pax market only is a mistake by Boeing. They should focus on developing a three size 737 replacement with 150-250 seats instead. A lot more revenue, and a lot more pressure on Airbus, while the development costs shouldn't be that different.


I was surprised by that 150-200 seats too. That really is not a MOM size. And definitely a 6 abreast plane. Could be why Boeing is back to step A. My question is how much better can a 6 abreast single aisle be than the current 320/737. Those are two awfully optimized models.


Were those numbers 2 class or all economy? I would expect a smaller 2 class MOM to have 150-200 seats with lie flat business.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1182
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:44 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
Assume that Airbus announces the CS150 and the A320.5 (= 737-8 match) one year after MOM kick-off...


Agree fully on the CS500. I'd go a step farther and say that the stretched A320.5 will also have a new carbon fibre wing.. as will the A321... and the stretched A322 (launched to fend off the lower end of the mom). So much is correct about the A320 family that Airbus can continue to use it... just as Boeing has with the 737.... but will do so with even greater success.

NMA(MOM) / NSA combo need to get developed... what I described above is going to happen regardless of the Boeing scenario.... Hence... just get on with it and be prepared to compete against that C-Series/A320 family combo...
learning never stops.
 
JHwk
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:02 am

So could a 8-abreast passenger-forward "combi" supporting 8 full-size LD3's, oval fuselage, and no "belly" deck work as a MOM design? It would seem to address the "stubby" aspect of a 200-250 seat twin aisle and give good flexibility for a stretch.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:26 am

JHwk wrote:
So could a 8-abreast passenger-forward "combi" supporting 8 full-size LD3's, oval fuselage, and no "belly" deck work as a MOM design? It would seem to address the "stubby" aspect of a 200-250 seat twin aisle and give good flexibility for a stretch.

LD3's on the main deck with the passengers?

You would be better odd using the 767 main deck containers. A tight 8 abreast will only be a couple inchs wider than the 767's wide 7 abreast cabin. So the 767 containers will be near perfect and they are used by nearly every freight operator.

I highly doubt Boeing is thinking of a freighter version of the MOM. Freighters usually fly heavy with reduced range. So it definitely wont be used for international freight. The MOM would carry less freight by both volume and weight compared to the 763. So even with better fuel efficiency it will probably be inferior every way you look at it.

A 787 freighter makes much more sense in 10-15 years time. They could fill the fuel tanks up to only 50% and have heaps of weight left for cargo. LD3's in the belly and new contoured containers on the main deck. Plus it would maintain the ability to fly long routes with reduced payload.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6639
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:00 am

Stitch wrote:
In the long-run, I agree. But there is a significant first-mover advantage. MAX is now closing in on parity with neo in terms of overall order market share, but neo had a huge order advantage to start and secured a number of previously Boeing-only customers because they could deliver sooner.

So if Boeing and Airbus launch in parallel, if one of them stumbles, the other will reap significant advantage for a period of time.


Feels to me like the main thing that has caused the A320NEO to stumble is the concerns over the P+W GTF and the impact on the NEO ramp up.

This is not intended as fanboyism, but I personally see the "normal split" (i.e. about 55/56-44/45) being restored once P+W and Airbus finally get the engine issues properly sorted.

Your comment by the way lends weight to the notion of Airbus stepping in with the A320NEO double plus on the blind-side.
As you say, first mover availability will secure a lot of early customers if the demand for such a plane is really there

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10328
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:53 am

A few months I posted this, to illustrate the enormous improvements that R&D has brought us over the last 40 years

Resulting in top notch design and innovation, combining better costs and environmental friendly technology to safeguard our earth for future generations.

Image

Now indications are the 1981 one might already be the top notch technology needed for a sustainable solution .

A testament to excellence, foresight & innovation in aerospace. Fantastic :cloudnine:

Don't inhale unless accessary
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:32 pm

Stitch wrote:
jagraham wrote:
3000 nm is the exact distance from JFK to LHR. Still air. No reserves. A plane designed for 3000 nm pax and bags only will be very marginal - see Leeham's analysis of the A321LR carrying 206 pax between JFK and LHR. Also, lie-flat seats have become a competitive feature over the Atlantic and only the ULCCs will fly across the Atlantic without lie-flat seats now.


And that appears to be where the contention is.

The US3 and EU LCCs appear to want 5000nm so they can do TATL.

The Asian, Indian and Chinese appear to want 3000-3500nm as it nicely covers their part of the world. 3000nm would also be perfect for Australian domestic and Trans-Taz.

And yet nobody bought the 783, they are using A330s for the tasks you describe despite its longer legs.

The bulk of 757 sales came the USA. A large number of 767s as well, plus Japan, UK and some EU airlines precisely because the ER could do 5000nm.

You can't always trust the market to tell you what it wants.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:58 pm

keesje wrote:

Now indications are the 1981 one might already be the top notch technology needed for a sustainable solution .

A testament to excellence, foresight & innovation in aerospace. Fantastic :cloudnine:

Don't inhale unless accessary


What is the now indication the 1981 one might be already the top notch technology needed for a sustainable solution?

The rumor I heard is that UA and others want short term extra capacity and Boeing may build passenger 767-300ERs again and sell them for low prices. The 767-300ER used market prices skyrocketed in the last two years since freight carriers like Amazon and its associates have bought 10% of total fleet of exisiting 767-300ERs. A new 767-300ER might be a cost effective solution to wait for a new airplane. This has nothing to do with technology. It is all to do with the skyrocketing demand for express freight, a strong US economy, and low oil prices.

The 767 is a very popular plane right now on the used market and don’t forget it is 7 abreast and uses LD2s ;)
 
WIederling
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:50 pm

ikramerica wrote:
And yet nobody bought the 783,


Nobody built the 783. Boeing sold 43 ( ANA:30 JL:13 :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:39 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The 767 is a very popular plane right now on the used market and don’t forget it is 7 abreast and uses LD2s ;)


767 is a cheap plane :-)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361025&hilit=values
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:08 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The 767 is a very popular plane right now on the used market and don’t forget it is 7 abreast and uses LD2s ;)


767 is a cheap plane :-)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361025&hilit=values


A high value and low value don’t tell the whole story. A 767-300ER with useable life left (under around 30K cycles and 80K hours) has seen its value on the used market jump. That type of plane may be worth $15M-20M or more. If used prices hold due to freighter demand, it may be worthwhile to buy a new one with the intention of only flying it for 6-12 years and then selling to ATSG/ABX/Atlas/UPS/SF etc. Before Amazon and its partners bought 40+ Used 767-300ERs, the same plane may have been worth $10M or less and the idea of buying new and selling after 6-12 years was less attractive.

No one wants 25+ year old 767-300ERs with over 100,000 hours on them, but the ones that are 15-20 years old right now are very attractive on the used market. That is what is fueling all this restart the 767 passenger production discussion and how it can bridge the gap to a new MOM plane.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:21 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The 767 is a very popular plane right now on the used market and don’t forget it is 7 abreast and uses LD2s ;)


767 is a cheap plane :-)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361025&hilit=values


A high value and low value don’t tell the whole story. A 767-300ER with useable life left (under around 30K cycles and 80K hours) has seen its value on the used market jump. That type of plane may be worth $15M-20M or more. If used prices hold due to freighter demand, it may be worthwhile to buy a new one with the intention of only flying it for 6-12 years and then selling to ATSG/ABX/Atlas/UPS/SF etc. Before Amazon and its partners bought 40+ Used 767-300ERs, the same plane may have been worth $10M or less and the idea of buying new and selling after 6-12 years was less attractive.

Its current popularity is actually reflected in the that post. Look at the high (newest frame) estimated market value for the pax 767-300ER. Now look one line down at the high estimated value of the larger, more expensive, 777-200ER. That is because of the current desirability of lightly used 763s for freighter conversion. The newest pax 763ER is of similar age to the newest pax 77E.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:32 pm

Polot wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:


A high value and low value don’t tell the whole story. A 767-300ER with useable life left (under around 30K cycles and 80K hours) has seen its value on the used market jump. That type of plane may be worth $15M-20M or more. If used prices hold due to freighter demand, it may be worthwhile to buy a new one with the intention of only flying it for 6-12 years and then selling to ATSG/ABX/Atlas/UPS/SF etc. Before Amazon and its partners bought 40+ Used 767-300ERs, the same plane may have been worth $10M or less and the idea of buying new and selling after 6-12 years was less attractive.

Its current popularity is actually reflected in the that post. Look at the high (newest frame) estimated market value for the pax 767-300ER. Now look one line down at the high estimated value of the larger, more expensive, 777-200ER. That is because of the current desirability of lightly used 763s for freighter conversion. The newest pax 763ER is of similar age to the newest pax 77E.


Good point. I didn’t notice that the high value 767-300ER is worth more than the bigger 777-200ER. That is a big clue on why the 767 passenger production may get restarted and also there is interest in this capacity segment that the MOM is targeting.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:54 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
That is a big clue on why the 767 passenger production may get restarted and also there is interest in this capacity segment that the MOM is targeting.


fodder for freighter conversions or really for PAX use .-?
Murphy is an optimist
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:23 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
That is a big clue on why the 767 passenger production may get restarted and also there is interest in this capacity segment that the MOM is targeting.


fodder for freighter conversions or really for PAX use .-?


In my view it’s only viable if you have a commitment to buy it as a freighter the day you buy a passenger variant as an airline.

I don’t see it happening, though Amazon seems the most likely to surprise by doing it. They have $22 billion in cash so they could simply finance the planes for airlines themselves and just use lease payments to reduce what they ultimately have invested in their freighter fleet. Outside of that I don’t see it making sense.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24740
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:35 pm

astuteman wrote:
Feels to me like the main thing that has caused the A320NEO to stumble is the concerns over the P+W GTF and the impact on the NEO ramp up.


The CFM / PW split is almost dead-on 50/50, but I kind of believe a customer who wanted the A320neo could get one with CFM (even if not their desired choice) as quickly as they could a MAX.


astuteman wrote:
This is not intended as fanboyism, but I personally see the "normal split" (i.e. about 55/56-44/45) being restored once P+W and Airbus finally get the engine issues properly sorted.


Airbus has traditionally maintained a higher production rate on the A320 than Boeing on the 737 which would also favor availability and I would not be surprised if that helped Airbus take a larger share of the total market. By 2019 the production rate between them will be effectively the same (60 for neo / 57 for MAX) so Airbus will no longer have an availability advantage and that might shrink the difference closer to 50/50.


astuteman wrote:
Your comment by the way lends weight to the notion of Airbus stepping in with the A320NEO double plus on the blind-side. As you say, first mover availability will secure a lot of early customers if the demand for such a plane is really there.


Well such a change will be rather significant - new wing, new engines, perhaps new undercarriage - so EIS, while sooner than 2027, will probably be closer to the mid-2020s than earlier. Airbus would also either need to increase the production rate or look to A320/A321 customers doing a "swap up" as 737-8 and 737-9 customers did to the 737-10.


ikramerica wrote:
And yet nobody bought the 783, they are using A330s for the tasks you describe despite its longer legs.


Yes, because the 787-3 was worse than the 787-8 on those missions so you might as well use the -8 for the flexibility. So that is what ANA, JAL, Scott, JetStar and others are doing. As are A330-200 operators.


ikramerica wrote:
The bulk of 757 sales came the USA.


Who bought them as higher-capacity 727-200 replacements for domestic use. They only started putting them on TATL because they had better options domestically (A320/737NG) and the LCCs (at the time) could not follow them across The Pond.


ikramerica wrote:
A large number of 767s as well, plus Japan, UK and some EU airlines precisely because the ER could do 5000nm.


The only twin at the time that could do 5000nm was the A310 family and the 767 family is appreciably larger so it offered better CASM. And for the US majors who had the 757, the common rating and certain systems with the 767 reduced TCO compared to operating the 757 and A310.



ikramerica wrote:
You can't always trust the market to tell you what it wants.


True, but when the market is ready to put money down, you would be unwise to ignore them. So if the US3 and EU LCCs are willing to order appreciably more frames up front than the Asians and Indians, we might very well see the 5000nm model become the baseline rather than the 3500nm one.


WIederling wrote:
(new 767s as) fodder for freighter conversions or really for PAX use?


Probably depends on the customer and how NMA shakes out, capability-wise. Assuming it is the US3 who want this (UA specifically, but AA could use them, too) they appear to want a TATL-capable plane. If NMA becomes that, then I see them being moved off to the freighter market (5X is taking conversions now so I don't see why FX would not, too, plus Amazon Prime Air will be a major player). If NMA does not become that, then I expect UA(/AA) to fly them for decades.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5835
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:28 pm

Imho the big problem is that there seem to be 2 camps of interested airline when it comes to range. One looks at something with around 3000nm range, the other at something at 5000nm+ as a 763ER replacement.

The problem is both seem to prefer a similar seat number, yet with very different cabin space requirements. The problem is that the longer ranged variant is also the one needing more cabin space, so that there is easy trade-off possible.
 
User avatar
XAM2175
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:25 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:20 pm

Nobody ended up actually buying the 787-3 because by the time the 787-8 was ready it had become apparent that the 783 couldn't deliver on pretty much any of the promises made in selling it. It pretty much ended up being a derated 788 that could be put in a Code D box... except that it couldn't because Boeing couldn't even commit to having the time to actually build and certify one. If I remember correctly the empty weight was so close to the 788's in the end that once sector length exceeded something stupid like 400 mi the 788 was actually more efficient.

None of that precludes the NMA being as a widebody at 8-abreast.

For QF in particular, the appeal is definitely in something that can take a lot of passengers, a lot of containerised cargo, and a lot of cycles with nice short turn times. This is the field in which they used to use the 763ER and to a lesser extent now use the A332, which are specified for ranges of around 6000 and 7250 nmi respectively... but when VH-OGL was retired in December 2014 its average cycle distance worked out to something like 1200 nmi.

As far as I see it, range is the 787's game, while the NMA's is cheap capacity. For airlines like QF and JL, who currently deploy the likes of 767s, 777s, and A330s on short trunk routes, it's a way to keep capacity but lose the long-range overheads, while for other airlines operating in frequency-sensitive markets it's a way to up-gauge past the likes of the A321 and 737 MAX 10.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:15 pm

Leeham says that the NMA is being pushed back to 2027: https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/04/boein ... 7-sources/

Now we have another decade on this thread to speculate! :white: :tombstone:
 
VS11
Posts: 1160
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:29 pm

LockheedBBD wrote:
Leeham says that the NMA is being pushed back to 2027: https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/04/boein ... 7-sources/

Now we have another decade on this thread to speculate! :white: :tombstone:


Well, looks like new 767-300s will end up being the most cost effective solution to the whole MOM conundrum.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:32 am

Stitch wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Feels to me like the main thing that has caused the A320NEO to stumble is the concerns over the P+W GTF and the impact on the NEO ramp up.


The CFM / PW split is almost dead-on 50/50, but I kind of believe a customer who wanted the A320neo could get one with CFM (even if not their desired choice) as quickly as they could a MAX.


astuteman wrote:
This is not intended as fanboyism, but I personally see the "normal split" (i.e. about 55/56-44/45) being restored once P+W and Airbus finally get the engine issues properly sorted.


Airbus has traditionally maintained a higher production rate on the A320 than Boeing on the 737 which would also favor availability and I would not be surprised if that helped Airbus take a larger share of the total market. By 2019 the production rate between them will be effectively the same (60 for neo / 57 for MAX) so Airbus will no longer have an availability advantage and that might shrink the difference closer to 50/50.


astuteman wrote:
Your comment by the way lends weight to the notion of Airbus stepping in with the A320NEO double plus on the blind-side. As you say, first mover availability will secure a lot of early customers if the demand for such a plane is really there.


Well such a change will be rather significant - new wing, new engines, perhaps new undercarriage - so EIS, while sooner than 2027, will probably be closer to the mid-2020s than earlier. Airbus would also either need to increase the production rate or look to A320/A321 customers doing a "swap up" as 737-8 and 737-9 customers did to the 737-10.


ikramerica wrote:
And yet nobody bought the 783, they are using A330s for the tasks you describe despite its longer legs.


Yes, because the 787-3 was worse than the 787-8 on those missions so you might as well use the -8 for the flexibility. So that is what ANA, JAL, Scott, JetStar and others are doing. As are A330-200 operators.


ikramerica wrote:
The bulk of 757 sales came the USA.


Who bought them as higher-capacity 727-200 replacements for domestic use. They only started putting them on TATL because they had better options domestically (A320/737NG) and the LCCs (at the time) could not follow them across The Pond.


ikramerica wrote:
A large number of 767s as well, plus Japan, UK and some EU airlines precisely because the ER could do 5000nm.


The only twin at the time that could do 5000nm was the A310 family and the 767 family is appreciably larger so it offered better CASM. And for the US majors who had the 757, the common rating and certain systems with the 767 reduced TCO compared to operating the 757 and A310.



ikramerica wrote:
You can't always trust the market to tell you what it wants.


True, but when the market is ready to put money down, you would be unwise to ignore them. So if the US3 and EU LCCs are willing to order appreciably more frames up front than the Asians and Indians, we might very well see the 5000nm model become the baseline rather than the 3500nm one.


WIederling wrote:
(new 767s as) fodder for freighter conversions or really for PAX use?


Probably depends on the customer and how NMA shakes out, capability-wise. Assuming it is the US3 who want this (UA specifically, but AA could use them, too) they appear to want a TATL-capable plane. If NMA becomes that, then I see them being moved off to the freighter market (5X is taking conversions now so I don't see why FX would not, too, plus Amazon Prime Air will be a major player). If NMA does not become that, then I expect UA(/AA) to fly them for decades.

The 752 did not replace 722s in anybody's fleet. The 757 and 767 replaced 707s and dc8s. The 738 was the in fleet 722 replacement aircraft. Sure there were certain routes where the power of the 757 was needed to replace the excellent short field performance of the 722A, but that was an exception
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jagraham
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:40 am

bigjku wrote:
jagraham wrote:
bigjku wrote:

The 787-3 wasn’t heavy because of the fuselage width. It’s was heavy because it still had essentially the same wing and wing box and engines for a much heavier longer ranged aircraft. It was basically a bastard child.

Something designed to fit in that 3-5k mile range is going to have much smaller wings, engines and fuel tanks. For it to be viable it has to be much lighter than a 787-3 would have been.


I believe that a successful 797 will have smaller engines and fuel tanks. But not wings.

Start with the 763A (non ER). It flew 260 pax 4000 statute miles. 48000 lb thrust GE CF6 80A, Short thick wings at 30 degree pitch. Can takeoff at MTOW from LGA.

Looking at the 777 evolution, Boeing added bigger wings to get an aspect ratio of 11 from 9.5 on the 77W. That allowed for 10% less thrust to get the same MTOW off the ground using the same runways. I expect Boeing to be even more aggressive with the 797.

The 767 has a cruise speed of 460 kt. (M.80) It cruises 3000 nm in 6.5 hours. If speed is increased to 787 M.85 (488 kt), 3000 nm of cruise takes 6.1 hr. Almost 1/2 hour less fuel needed. So sweep the wings to 32 degrees or more.

The 767-300 wing is 47.5 m span and 283 m^2 area, aspect ratio of 8. The 787 wing is 60 m span and 377 m^2 area. The 778 wing is 72 m span. Holding the wing area constant and going to the 787 wing span increases the aspect ratio to 12.7, an improvement of 4.7. Boeing was able to reduce thrust by 10% with an aspect ratio improvement of 1.5. So going to 787 span wings while keeping wing area constant should allow for at least 20% reduction in thrust. 40000 lb per engine or less.

Before any weight savings, the aspect ratio change from going to a 787 span wing while holding wing area constant should get the 797 down to a LEAP or GTF engine. Other changes should be able to reduce the takeoff thrust even more.

Rather than having a 12000 + lb GEnx2, a 797 should be able to use engines which weigh 5500 to 7000 lb dry. Rather than having 6000lb thrust, the 797 should be able to work with 40000 lb thrust engines, with a resulting 1/3 reduction in fuel burn (not counting SFC differences). Rather than consume 20 lb / mi or so that the 767A does, the 797 should be able to consume 1.3 x the 11 lb / mi of the A321LR, or 14.3 lb/mi. Before weight savings.

Using the smallest possible engine is the key to success. Making the wing as long and skinny as necessary to facilitate that small engine is the key to a successful 797. It also reduces the fuel for 4000 nm down to about 11000 gal. Since the 767 center fuel tank is 8000 gal, Boeing does not have to worry about tank volume in the wings.


I should have been more clear. Didn’t mean smaller by span necessarily but lighter wings. Your huge span and aspect ratio proposal relative to the weight of the plane makes some sense. Wonder if you can fold up enough of it to get into the right gates? Any thoughts on that? Folding wings could certainly be a relatively major change in what wings on smaller aircraft look like.


I figure folding wings will be an option. Unless Boeing decides to have a longer wingspan than the 787, in which case it will become a necessity.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:19 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I don’t see am A320.5 hurting the backlog of 4000 planes to build.

I also dont see the backlog endangered. The A320.5 (and the CS500, that you forgot) could endanger the future 737 backlog. Note: I said, could. I have no idea whether Airbus will build these two new variants. Even only the possibility that they "could" should be considered by the Boeing strategy. Therefore my forecast is, that the MOM will not come in a way, that leaves the 737 space undefended.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5294
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:57 am

jagraham wrote:
I believe that a successful 797 will have smaller engines and fuel tanks. But not wings.

...

The 767 has a cruise speed of 460 kt. (M.80) It cruises 3000 nm in 6.5 hours. If speed is increased to 787 M.85 (488 kt), 3000 nm of cruise takes 6.1 hr. Almost 1/2 hour less fuel needed. So sweep the wings to 32 degrees or more.

The 767-300 wing is 47.5 m span and 283 m^2 area, aspect ratio of 8. The 787 wing is 60 m span and 377 m^2 area. The 778 wing is 72 m span. Holding the wing area constant and going to the 787 wing span increases the aspect ratio to 12.7, an improvement of 4.7. Boeing was able to reduce thrust by 10% with an aspect ratio improvement of 1.5. So going to 787 span wings while keeping wing area constant should allow for at least 20% reduction in thrust. 40000 lb per engine or less.

Before any weight savings, the aspect ratio change from going to a 787 span wing while holding wing area constant should get the 797 down to a LEAP or GTF engine. Other changes should be able to reduce the takeoff thrust even more.


This is a very interesting post. Thank you. I was assuming that NMA would have to fit within a 767 wingspan and not really thinking through possibilities with a wider span.

But I also don't think it will be realistic for most potential NMA operators, who will be replacing either narrowbodies or 767s, to deal with a 787 wingspan on NMA. So the question becomes how long a wing you can get with folding wingtips that give you a 767 span when folded. If it were possible to use folding wingtips of the same size as those on the 777X, then NMA could have a wingspan of 54.5 m with wingtips unfolded. I don't know if it is realistic to have all of the control surfaces within the non-folding part of such a wing, and I expect control surfaces in the wingtip are a non-starter.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:29 am

Now that the MOM is pushed back to 2027, it indicates that they can't build a proper Business case for a 2025 delivery.

As capital cautious Boeing is, I see them even NEO the 767 and sell it at Discount Prices.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:01 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
Leeham says that the NMA is being pushed back to 2027: https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/04/boein ... 7-sources/

Now we have another decade on this thread to speculate! :white: :tombstone:


This tells me one thing: engine makers told Boeing they won't have new engines that could give it "narrowbody trip cost" ready before then. Which is good - it gives Airbus more time to respond with its own NMA killer.
Rule #1: Never trust your government. EVER.
Rule #2: In case of any doubt, see Rule #1.
 
parapente
Posts: 1988
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:29 am

2027.It seems sensible to me.Companies such as RR and no doubt GE are only at the early testing phases for GTF technology.Even if the 797 is launched at Farnbrough in 2018 (it might not be) then 9 years to EIS is Not overdoing it imho.Quite often we see engines at EIS that are not properly mature or giving the sfc that they are supposed to.If fact it is often years before they achieve the on wing reliability and sfc promised.
The A380 engines,the 787 engines and now the NEO/MAX engines (particularly one).There are probably many more examples (obviously the original 747 launch all those years ago).
So far better to give these engine companies a realistic time scale to work to.

This is not to suggest that building the aircraft is easy or easier either.The 787 is the obvious example but the A380 also had huge issues too.
If this a/c is to have an ovoid plastic fuse,with super efficient wings etc this will take time to perfect.

But as above I do hope it gets announced next year ,at least it will stop the endless speculation!
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:18 am

seahawk wrote:
Imho the big problem is that there seem to be 2 camps of interested airline when it comes to range. One looks at something with around 3000nm range, the other at something at 5000nm+ as a 763ER replacement.

The problem is both seem to prefer a similar seat number, yet with very different cabin space requirements. The problem is that the longer ranged variant is also the one needing more cabin space, so that there is easy trade-off possible.


I won't be so sure of that, the Asian/Indian carriers that want 3000nm people-haulers are also the sort of carriers where adding frequency isn't really an option. If B is thinking of committing to a clean-sheet wide body design anyways. It might be pertinent for them to design and market the stretch as a replacement of 2 narrowbodies (i.e 320-340 seats in low-J narrowbody configuration), and lop off enough frames to satisfy EU/US range requirements to avoid cannibalizing on 787 sales.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5835
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:23 am

Jet the MoM customer survey showed very few airlines interested in 300+ seats.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1182
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:40 pm

320-340 shorthaul asian people hauler? Boeing already has that...its called the 787-10. A 340pax 7810 is not going to have long haul capabilities...this is your high density asian shuttle... Develping the MOM for that space would be redundant.
learning never stops.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 717
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

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

Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:07 pm

I'd like to see a 767-200A NEO (GEnx-2b). That would have real promise for the MOM role. Forget the -300. Too big (and too ugly in my opinion)

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