parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Flying goat.I think there is only 2 of us (7ab) ......oh and perhaps Boeing ;-)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:33 pm

parapente wrote:
Flying goat.I think there is only 2 of us (7ab) ......oh and perhaps Boeing ;-)


and Airbus..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:38 pm

I'm in the 7AB camp as well - I think it is the smart thing to do, as it gives them a cross section they can use in the future for the NSA. That being said I'm not sure this current crop of Boeing management really think that far into the future, being more concerned about the share price in the short run - so I'm not sure they will do the smart thing.

I think the 777X was a mistake - it should have basically been an 11W XL Oval 787 (Just add 18" to each side of the fuselage) with bigger wing - or done an Bigger Wing longer Version of the 787. The 777x is just too heavy. Either would have cost more but would have been more competitive over a longer production life.

It's time they really thought about the future and start making the necessary investments. It's time for MOM and NSA before it's too late.

If Airbus launches the bigger Winged 320 first - I can just see Boeing launching another iteration of the 737 that will not be that successful in the long run.
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:18 pm

I would not worry about Boeing too much -and particularly about doing the 'smart thing'.
You see they have this rather terrible record of getting their new projects positioned wrongly.Take for instance ....
The 707,727,737,747,767,777,787.....Got this little feeling they might just get this one right as well.
And that's from a European!
It's great to see Airbus in the driving seat in the NB sector.And they have played their cards exactly right with the NEO family.imho.
I have little doubt that they will continue to develop that advantage.I hope they do.But Boeing will want to stop the rot.Its not about finishing off the 338NEO it's already as good as gone imho.The new 321LR is brilliant but it also shows it's limitations (which Yes can be addressed).The 797 will look to address this and of course the 767 market.But it would be wrong simply to use old aircraft as a benchmark.Its a gamble as to where (they see) the market is going in the future.
Only time will tell but they do have a good track record in that regard.
 
morrisond
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:41 pm

I would have to disagree a bit on Boeing getting it right lately. Other than the 787 all those programs were launched decades ago. In recent history they have been mostly been doing derivatives and they have not turned as good as one would hope.

757-3 - Failure
767-4 - Failure
748i - Failure
737 Max - limited future due to not that competitive larger models - there was enough time since launch to regear/rewing it as they were basically waiting for the engines to be done anyways.
777W - that was a win - but it was more of a new model and not a derivative as the basic structure was already there - it just needed bigger engines.
777X - Limited sales so far and with the A351 gaining capability a not so bright future - with no hope of same margins as 777W

787 - A cleansheet and a great success (at least in terms of sales)

There derivative approach has not been working out so well and it's time for them to get there butt in gear and launch the MOM that they can use for NSA as well and take the initiative back from Airbus.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:44 pm

If 2-3-2 is the cross section selected, good use should be made of the cargo deck because it is shorter than a typical 3-3 AKH cargo deck.

Image
Last edited by keesje on Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
QXAS
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:45 pm

I read on here a while back that the A321NEO LR won’t have a great cruise altitude on long range stage lengths, if I recall correctly somewhere in the realm of FL 330, 320. If that is true, how much of an advantage will Boeing have simply by building a jet that can cruise at 380, 390 or 400? Or does cruise altitude not matter all that much besides winds?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:10 pm

keesje wrote:
If 2-3-2 is the cross section selected, good use should be made of the cargo deck because it is shorter than a typical 3-3 AKH cargo deck.

Image


Your drawing of an extendable akh container was already posted on page 9 of this thread in case you forgot

keesje wrote:
If Boeing goes for a flat 2-3-2 cross section, a bigger flat container design might be considerated retaining commonality with the widely used AKH / LD3-45 series. A container that fits A320's but can use the extra space of a wider NMA fuselage too, opening up extra revenue potential for Cargo.

Image

Oersonally I think the chances of a twin aisle NMA have shrunken over the last half year.


The response to an extendable LD3-45 was rather negative in the tech ops thread you started

viewtopic.php?t=1365951

I dont see that idea working out regardless of what cross section the 797 turns out to be
 
morrisond
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:54 pm

They could simply build a new larger 136" W LD3-45 that's not extendible and create a new standard. If they use MOM as the NSA Cross section there will be lots of containers around.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:57 pm

WIederling wrote:
A330-500 resp A330-100 was to be a A300-600 size shrink of the A330-200.
I would have had 6% better fuel economy than its same cap predecessor.
If you wear your large wing well .... that extra mass may not be a liability at all.

Absolutely no chance of that happening in real life.

Empty weight per passenger is pretty much the only thing that matters on short haul. Even engine fuel efficiency is mostly irrelevant.

Did you know on a 1000nm flight the A330CEO burns less fuel than the A330NEO? Kiran Rao Airbus vice president in 2014 said this. China will continue to produce A330CEO's for this reason.

The 5T or 4% empty weight increase on the NEO completely offsets the 12% fuel burn (TSFC) advantage of the newer engine and the fancy winglets. 1200nm is the approx crossover point. It is worth noting on a 6000nm flight the NEO burns nearly 10% less total fuel.

A hypothetical A330NEO shrink to A300 length would still weigh a massive 30T more empty. The A300 would burn less fuel even on a 3200nm flight which is the longest passenger flight flown by an A300. This is despite the A330NEO having engines with a massive 25% TSFC advantage over the old A300.

This is mostly why the 737 max is selling well despite its smaller diameter and lower bypass engines. If you crunch some numbers it's empty weight per passenger is about 1-2% lighter than the A320 family. This would easily offset a 4-5% TSFC disadvantage on trips under 1000nm.

A330CEO's average stage length is now well below 2000nm. They are getting pushed into more short thick routes.

I am absolutely certain the 797 will have a very small wing relative to its size. Think 757 sized wing on a 767 sized fuselage. It is only on ultra long haul where huge glider wings like the 777X provide a big advantage.

The 777LR and A321LR are both underwinged and have low initial cruising altitudes and struggle to even reach 30,000ft. But it's not that big of a deal.

Let's take two 797 designs, a 250m2 wing and a 150m2 wing but with the same fuselage on both. The big wing might weigh 10% more empty. The crossover point where the big wing aircraft burns less fuel might be at 3000nm. Boeing would have to determine what percentage of flights airlines will operate above 3000nm. It will always be a compromise.

The reality is the vast majority of current A330CEO and 767 flights are below 3000nm. So the small wing wins and they will just step climb with lots of fuel to get out to 5000nm.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:53 am

Amiga500 wrote:
If there was a solid business case, then Boeing would long since have launched. Right now, they are trying to make up favourable numbers that they can somehow justify that will let them get on with making a plane that won't sell.


Well at least you're on record with "NMA won't sell." We'll have to check back on that if it launches. Always props for asserting a falsifiable thesis.

Were this the Lockheed NMA, and had Lockheed the ability to execute such a program, the business case would be a no-brainer IMO. The only thing holding this up is NMA's cannibalization of other programs - 787 and 737 but also 777X. The latter not so much because of direct sales campaign substitution, but due to acceleration of route fragmentation. No doubt Boeing is considering that variable as well.

IMO that's a good explanation of the EIS bump to '27-'28. By then we'll likely see a 787MAX to catch up with A350's SFC edge and to fend off C929 competition in Greater China. The -10MAX will slot into A359 role, the -9MAX will become a ULR specialist, the -8MAX might not even come about. We'll probably see a -11MAX as well. With that lineup the NMA won't cannibalize much of other programs and the math works better.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:56 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Let's take two 797 designs, a 250m2 wing and a 150m2 wing but with the same fuselage on both.


If both wings are of the same AR, there is no chance of the 150m2 wing burning less fuel on any route. You're talking ~20% higher L/D with the bigger wing. Look at the 77W vs. 773 thread in TechOps. Bigger span will nearly always translate to lower fuel burn; the tradeoff for smaller wing is on other economic parameters - acquisition, fees, maintenance.
 
alyusuph
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:19 am

I bet many African airlines flying to Europe, Asia and the Middle East will buy this airliner. The airliner will also open many routes from Europe, Asia and the Middle East to more airports in Africa. The 797 will further solidify P2P operations. if the 797 acquisition costs will be much lower than the 788, many airlines from developing countries will go for it rather than purchasing other smaller wide bodies.

I think the business case of this aircraft is compelling.
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:53 am

Matt6461 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Let's take two 797 designs, a 250m2 wing and a 150m2 wing but with the same fuselage on both.


If both wings are of the same AR, there is no chance of the 150m2 wing burning less fuel on any route. You're talking ~20% higher L/D with the bigger wing. Look at the 77W vs. 773 thread in TechOps. Bigger span will nearly always translate to lower fuel burn; the tradeoff for smaller wing is on other economic parameters - acquisition, fees, maintenance.

You are wrong.

I'm talking a fully optimised 150m2 versus a fully optimised 250m2 wing.

The spans, aspect ratio, wingsweep and chord will all change as you increase the amount of "wing" an aircraft has. It's not like you scale the wing up in Adobe Photoshop.

A shorter span for instance allows for reduced wing sweep while maintaining the same cruising speed. Reduced wingsweep regains some of the lost lift and reduces weight. You want the wing tips inside the wave drag cone created by the nose of the fuselage.

A thicker wing also allows it to have less area and span while being much lighter.

The smaller lighter wing starts the weight reduction loop. With the same payload and fuel it weighs less so the landing gear can be lighter etc allowing the wing to be further optimised. This loop didn't happen with the 787-3.

Despite the larger wing and better engines the NEO burns more fuel on short trips.

But: “for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” Rao pointed out. To him the launch is therefore ”not a slam-dunk decision.”

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... h-decision

We could fill this topic up with pages of discussion. I would actually reccomend we create a post in tech ops.
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:12 am

Found your point regarding the 777X interesting Matt.Had considered it but thought it was abit 'way out there'.But since you raised it!

Airlines have to work in the 'here and now'.Both extreme short term and perhaps out to the next aircraft order.
This is not true of an OEM building aircraft.The investment (circa $15 billion) means it has to be (hopefully) a 30-40 year project.
So they are forced to stare into the crystal ball far further than their clients.
Yes I do think they can see increasing fragmentation.
Once upon a time Airbus thought that regional flying would be most economically managed via a large an economical Air -bus.Perfectly fine thought - just turned out to be wrong.It isn't easy.
They can see what the A321LR is going to do,they talk to their customers and they see what is happening in the larger sectors.
The Static 'overcrowded airports' myth has already been shown to be just that.Either those airports are being expanded or new ones built.And with that smaller more flexible aircraft are giving consumers the seamless services they want.
So yes a new aircraft like this may well further change the whole aircraft market dynamic.I think this is what they are betting on.If it was just to replace a thousand 767's they would not bother for a second.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:33 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
If 2-3-2 is the cross section selected, good use should be made of the cargo deck because it is shorter than a typical 3-3 AKH cargo deck.

Image


Your drawing of an extendable akh container was already posted on page 9 of this thread in case you forgot


No, I don't check three months / hundreds of posts back to see what you wrote. And I don't intend to do so :spit:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:05 am

keesje wrote:
No, I don't check three months / hundreds of posts back to see what you wrote. And I don't intend to do so :spit:

I did you a favour and checked on your behalf.

Everyone including myself said it wouldn't work. :lol:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:34 am

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
No, I don't check three months / hundreds of posts back to see what you wrote. And I don't intend to do so :spit:

I did you a favour and checked on your behalf.

Everyone including myself said it wouldn't work. :lol:


Maybe the reason & feelings why it wouldn't work weren't very solid & convincing to me :wink2:

That's the nice thing on a.net, it is 20 yrs old now.

You can google back & see good ideas/ predictions being dismissed in a Pavlov way, that proved very relevant years later.

As you know, people have that automatic resistance to anything new / out of the box. Some more than others.

A decade ago discussing a MoM "Greenliner" was a clear sign you didn't understand the business. The A310/757/767 are gone for a reason.

Until around the point Boeing them selves started discussing. https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/35724776535
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2088
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:14 am

parapente wrote:
Who understands patent law?I most certainly don't!
Have Boeing managed to patent the concept of an ovoid fuselage for all passenger aircraft?
Maybe but if they did it wouldn't stand up. Someone was sloshing the idea around on a project at uni 10+ years ago and I'm 99% sure that wasn't the first go at it. Patents last 20 years so even if Boeing had filed a patent 15 years ago then by the time anyone else got one in to production it would be done anyway so a moot point.
parapente wrote:
In which case Its a mighty wide patent I would have thought.Although it could be possible - I really don't know.
The only real things you need to for a patent are "new" (has anyone thought of this before) and "novel" (is it different from what has been done before) and it has to be useful.
Is the Ovoid fuselage useful - Yes, clearly.
Is the Ovoid Fuselage idea new - Nope.
Is the Ovoid Fuselage Novel - See above

Finally the patent has to be a thing, not what the thing does.

parapente wrote:
Or is their patent more specific to the associated drawings and descriptions?

You don't need to have a drawing with a patent but it helps.
This is the bit where you need to be clever, you can hide things in the claims for patents that are not immediately obvious when you first see it, the ovoid might be the obvious piece but there might be a special type of seat structure that adds to the stiffness of the floor enabling the fuselage to keep ts shape better. Or there may be a special bracket that is basically required for an ovoid that when patented by one party prevents the other party from creating the ovoid. This could also be in a totally different patent relating to something totally off piste.

The other thing you can do with patents is hide things that you think an opposing party may want to patent but you will want to use in the future in the description part of a patent so that they can't patent it as its in the public domain and therefore not new.

The trick with patents and particularly long term things is to bind the relevant parties to NDAs and keep as a trade secret until such time that it will become in the public domain anyway and time the patent date to coincide with this as close as you can but not after.

So in essence the Ovoid might have been patented once but its out of date if it was. There might however be critical parts that are patented which would preclude someone else having an easy ride.

Fred
Image
 
bigjku
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:03 pm

parapente wrote:
Found your point regarding the 777X interesting Matt.Had considered it but thought it was abit 'way out there'.But since you raised it!

Airlines have to work in the 'here and now'.Both extreme short term and perhaps out to the next aircraft order.
This is not true of an OEM building aircraft.The investment (circa $15 billion) means it has to be (hopefully) a 30-40 year project.
So they are forced to stare into the crystal ball far further than their clients.
Yes I do think they can see increasing fragmentation.
Once upon a time Airbus thought that regional flying would be most economically managed via a large an economical Air -bus.Perfectly fine thought - just turned out to be wrong.It isn't easy.
They can see what the A321LR is going to do,they talk to their customers and they see what is happening in the larger sectors.
The Static 'overcrowded airports' myth has already been shown to be just that.Either those airports are being expanded or new ones built.And with that smaller more flexible aircraft are giving consumers the seamless services they want.
So yes a new aircraft like this may well further change the whole aircraft market dynamic.I think this is what they are betting on.If it was just to replace a thousand 767's they would not bother for a second.


I think the overcrowded airports thing is not a myth actually. The problem is it was used to justify a business case in part for the A380 which could really only replace or upgauge a very small percentage of operations and gates.

If the 797 is what I have been led to understand to a degree it will be a 2 for 1 replacement for narrows on many very high frequency routes. If economical it has the potential to open up lots of growth potential for airlines in the gates they already have. Particularly for those that are running dozens of daily flights between the same locations.

To me that is how you make a business case to get to something reasonable. Then you can have your long-range aircraft built off the back of that core.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:06 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
If there was a solid business case, then Boeing would long since have launched. Right now, they are trying to make up favourable numbers that they can somehow justify that will let them get on with making a plane that won't sell.


Well at least you're on record with "NMA won't sell." We'll have to check back on that if it launches. Always props for asserting a falsifiable thesis.


It'll sell some - they'll not launch without quite a few launch orders. Whether it ever sells enough at prices profitable enough to justify the investment is the question.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:13 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
If 2-3-2 is the cross section selected, good use should be made of the cargo deck because it is shorter than a typical 3-3 AKH cargo deck.

Image


Your drawing of an extendable akh container was already posted on page 9 of this thread in case you forgot


No, I don't check three months / hundreds of posts back to see what you wrote. And I don't intend to do so :spit:


Some ideas are sufficiently bad that i remember them. I also notice when someone repeats the same bad idea again and again. It makes me wonder if you are in the business of selling cargo containers.

I dont see Boeing putting much effort into making their plane accomodate a less then optimized container that likely will break that can also be used on an Airbus product. In the bigger picture cargo containers are cheap. Given the robust 767 used airplane market, unique LD2s don't seem to be bothering many airlines. I expect a new airplane will use containers, but i suspect getting range, payload and capacity just right is what keeps the design teams up at night, not cabin width or container size.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:54 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Whether it ever sells enough at prices profitable enough to justify the investment is the question.


With a very significant revision I agree.
The revision is that the investment has to be justified after taking into account cannibalization of other programs.
IMO your above portrayals of the business case issue simplify excessively. In monopolistic competition, firms will forego profitable projects to protect their other projects. In a competitive market (low barriers to entry etc.), some firm can be depended on to undertake project X if X is NPV-positive. Knowing that, the first firm to recognize the opportunity will launch, even if it obsolesces other products. Otherwise some other firm will obsolesce its product.

...so both could be true: (1) NMA would receive enough sales to repay development costs plus a handsome profit and (2) Boeing would be foolish to launch NMA right now.

As the cannibalization threat recedes, the NMA makes more sense. For example, when engine tech advances force 787 program into higher capacity/range territory (and after Airbus likely kills/hamstrings the 777X with an Ultrafan A350-2000).

This dynamic makes sense to me because I largely agree with those who think Airbus can hamstring an NMA business case at the lower MoM range with a cheap(er) rewinged A322. The MoM has to sit at a higher capacity/range slot; that slot impinges on the cash-cow 787.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:11 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I'm talking a fully optimised 150m2 versus a fully optimised 250m2 wing.


This is question-begging. The issues are (1) which is optimal - 150m2 or 250m2 and (2) are there significantly different optimization points for short/long haul planes such that a 40% smaller wing makes sense. By stating "fully optimized 150m2" you're saying such a thing is possible and therefore assuming as a premise that which you seek to prove (the definition of question-begging).

RJMAZ wrote:
for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” Rao pointed out.


Are you sure this quote applies to fuel burn? Or is it about economics? It is common for thirstier planes to be more economical at short ranges where fuel cost doesn't predominate.

RJMAZ wrote:
shorter span for instance allows for reduced wing sweep while maintaining the same cruising speed. Reduced wingsweep regains some of the lost lift and reduces weight. You want the wing tips inside the wave drag cone created by the nose of the fuselage.

A thicker wing also allows it to have less area and span while being much lighter.


You're making a set of claims that don't make sense to me. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but that's my impression. But rather than hash it out here, you should follow up on this good idea:

RJMAZ wrote:
I would actually reccomend we create a post in tech ops.


Newbiepilot wrote:
Some ideas are sufficiently bad that i remember them. I also notice when someone repeats the same bad idea again and again. It makes me wonder if you are in the business of selling cargo containers.


Keesje has given us some really good ideas and a few really bad ones. I wish it were more the norm in this forum to say, "yeah you know what? I've read everyone's thoughts and realize that idea wouldn't work. Oh well."

We've all had our share of bad ideas. My "best" was probably a rewinged 747-8. :roll: :tombstone:
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:13 am

There are two parts to this debate really.Boeings plans and Airbus' response.But reading about Airbus' real and continuing engine supply issues and the unprecedented backlog is there not a question as to whether Airbus can respond whether they wish to or not?

For Boeing it's somewhat simpler.This is a brand new aircraft in every way - no one argues with that.Indeed various states are already 'pitching' for the new assembly/manufacturing business.As such It has no real effect on existing production.

The Airbus responses ( plus or plus/plus or both) are all based on the existing 320 plant.

At the moment -at absolute record rates (2017) of production ,the backlog has been stated as 11/11.5 years.They wish to move to 60pcm and have a new stated ambition to go even higher (70pcm).But right now (since gliders are no good) the production figure is more likely to be down not up.

But if we say something in the middle.So better than the present record leading to 11 years years but not the never achieved 60/even 70 pcm (6-7 years) one might guess At say 9 years production.

But that is the total time (or more) that Boeing are forecasting for building the new 797 aircraft - with the new engines - everything.So am struggling to see what response Airbus 'can' make unless the production rate/numbers are wrong in some way.I assume they are but not sure where.
This of course assumes Boeing launch this year.
 
brindabella
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:12 am

parapente wrote:
There are two parts to this debate really.Boeings plans and Airbus' response.But reading about Airbus' real and continuing engine supply issues and the unprecedented backlog is there not a question as to whether Airbus can respond whether they wish to or not?

For Boeing it's somewhat simpler.This is a brand new aircraft in every way - no one argues with that.Indeed various states are already 'pitching' for the new assembly/manufacturing business.As such It has no real effect on existing production.

The Airbus responses ( plus or plus/plus or both) are all based on the existing 320 plant.

At the moment -at absolute record rates (2017) of production ,the backlog has been stated as 11/11.5 years.They wish to move to 60pcm and have a new stated ambition to go even higher (70pcm).But right now (since gliders are no good) the production figure is more likely to be down not up.

But if we say something in the middle.So better than the present record leading to 11 years years but not the never achieved 60/even 70 pcm (6-7 years) one might guess At say 9 years production.

But that is the total time (or more) that Boeing are forecasting for building the new 797 aircraft - with the new engines - everything.So am struggling to see what response Airbus 'can' make unless the production rate/numbers are wrong in some way.I assume they are but not sure where.
This of course assumes Boeing launch this year.


Yes, it is interesting ... so I'll step a bit further.

Assuming (as most of us do) that Boeing will have to move first on the NSA, what would be the best way for them to handle what may still be a large backlog?
It would be reasonable to expect that a lot of existing Boeing customers with orders in the queue might want to jump to the new frame offering notably improved performance. Definitely a potential problem for Boeing.

However in such a case is it possible that Airbus might have an even larger problem? If the Airbus A32Xneo backlog remains significantly larger than the 737MAX backlog, then those Airbus customers waiting in that very long queue might see themselves as being exposed in future to competition from Boeing NSA customers - yet those Airbus customers are still committed to taking A32Xneos.

Of course it is a given here on a.net that Airbus will respond with a totally superior aircraft - but my point is that with a very large overhang in the A32Xneo backlog, that might take quite some time.

What might happen then?

:box: :stirthepot:

cheers
Billy
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6743
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:32 am

parapente wrote:
There are two parts to this debate really.Boeings plans and Airbus' response.But reading about Airbus' real and continuing engine supply issues and the unprecedented backlog is there not a question as to whether Airbus can respond whether they wish to or not?

For Boeing it's somewhat simpler.This is a brand new aircraft in every way - no one argues with that.Indeed various states are already 'pitching' for the new assembly/manufacturing business.As such It has no real effect on existing production.

The Airbus responses ( plus or plus/plus or both) are all based on the existing 320 plant.

At the moment -at absolute record rates (2017) of production ,the backlog has been stated as 11/11.5 years.They wish to move to 60pcm and have a new stated ambition to go even higher (70pcm).But right now (since gliders are no good) the production figure is more likely to be down not up.

But if we say something in the middle.So better than the present record leading to 11 years years but not the never achieved 60/even 70 pcm (6-7 years) one might guess At say 9 years production.

But that is the total time (or more) that Boeing are forecasting for building the new 797 aircraft - with the new engines - everything.So am struggling to see what response Airbus 'can' make unless the production rate/numbers are wrong in some way.I assume they are but not sure where.
This of course assumes Boeing launch this year.


Airbus is ramping up to 60 frames a month. Even with the engine problems Airbus managed a production record for a narrow aisle jet in 2017. The necessary infrastructure at Airbus is in place, could theoretically be pushed to 63-64. The weak factor is definitively engine production at P&W and CFM, but why should producing a new engine for Boeing be easier feasible than ramping the LEAP and GTF further once the production has got into gear?
It would be as easy for Airbus to build a new FAL for a possible A322 as it is for Boeing to set up a FAL and pre FAL production for the possible 797.
I see absolutely no industrial production reason that would favor the 797 over an Airbus response.
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:52 am

Timing.If Boeing launched they would not be attempting to deliver the new aircraft to customers for what 7++ years.They couldn't anyway as it would require that long to develop the new engines.
I am assuming that Airbus would wish to respond (plus,plus/plus) far earlier since they will be using the existing engines and a variant of the existing aircraft .(that what people seem to think anyway).
I am just pointing out that the present backlog and production maths suggests they can't respond.Unless ,as you say ,they build a brand new FAL.But there has been no mention of that.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:31 pm

If Airbus wants to have answer to a NMA 3 years earlier then that NMA, they still have 4-5 yrs to have PW and CFM to fix the engine issues. Enders said it would need 2 months however and he said they’ll meet their 2018 targets. There might be some hope in there, but relating engine issues and NMA responds seem farfetched.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17736
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:06 pm

Free email from AvWeek provided "Next-Gen Core Demo Boost For Rolls-Royce" by Guy Norris which says:

Stein notes that aircraft manufacturers continue to be briefed about the Advance and its UltraFan follow-on engine. “Each of them may or may not modify their airframe plans as a result of having this technology available,” he adds. “It is such a step change in fuel burn that it is starting to make them sit up and take notice of what sort of efficient aircraft could come about if a modern aircraft design was coupled with the UltraFan engine itself. In our view it is going to drive change in the market.”

No doubt one of the parties being briefed is the "797 program office" at Boeing, IMHO.

Stein further says wing configurations will have to be modified for the very-high-bypass architectures under development for the UltraFan. A gear-driven fan sized to produce about 70,000-75,000 lb. of thrust, for example, will likely have a diameter of 140 in., compared to the 112-in.-dia. fan of the similarly rated Trent 1000 of today. “One option [the airframe-makers] could consider is to go for gullwing configurations and short nacelles mounted close to the wing,” he adds.

Fan diameter growing (140-112)/112 = 25% for T1000-class applications, hmmm...

Seems like similar growth is something one could accommodate with a clean sheet 'MOM' but would be challenged to make work on an existing platform.

Will be interesting to see if this large increase in diameter would trip up a lot of the "A322" style proposals that have been discussed here.

Also interesting to see if such a large fan would be a "stretch too far" in the MOM application as opposed to the much longer ranged T-1000 application.
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
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
Free email from AvWeek provided "Next-Gen Core Demo Boost For Rolls-Royce" by Guy Norris which says:

Stein notes that aircraft manufacturers continue to be briefed about the Advance and its UltraFan follow-on engine. “Each of them may or may not modify their airframe plans as a result of having this technology available,” he adds. “It is such a step change in fuel burn that it is starting to make them sit up and take notice of what sort of efficient aircraft could come about if a modern aircraft design was coupled with the UltraFan engine itself. In our view it is going to drive change in the market.”

No doubt one of the parties being briefed is the "797 program office" at Boeing, IMHO.

Stein further says wing configurations will have to be modified for the very-high-bypass architectures under development for the UltraFan. A gear-driven fan sized to produce about 70,000-75,000 lb. of thrust, for example, will likely have a diameter of 140 in., compared to the 112-in.-dia. fan of the similarly rated Trent 1000 of today. “One option [the airframe-makers] could consider is to go for gullwing configurations and short nacelles mounted close to the wing,” he adds.

Fan diameter growing (140-112)/112 = 25% for T1000-class applications, hmmm...

Seems like similar growth is something one could accommodate with a clean sheet 'MOM' but would be challenged to make work on an existing platform.

Will be interesting to see if this large increase in diameter would trip up a lot of the "A322" style proposals that have been discussed here.

Also interesting to see if such a large fan would be a "stretch too far" in the MOM application as opposed to the much longer ranged T-1000 application.


Thanks for posting. I find this very interesting (especially compared to these recurring cabin width discussions). A new wing, strut and pylon layout may be needed for the next generation of engines. While existing platforms likely could be modified to accommodate, a new design may be better optimized.

A gull wing design would certainly be a departure from conventional design. I don’t know how the structural weight would work, but if it happened, it would likely be the unconventional design that some people on this forum praise.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
Will be interesting to see if this large increase in diameter would trip up a lot of the "A322" style proposals that have been discussed here.


Fan diameter should be proportional ~SQRT of thrust, so 35k engine would be ~96in. 15in delta might be a little tight on A322 but doable with small MLG extension plus slightly more dihedral?

~43k NMA engine means ~106in diameter - about the same as 767's CF6 so probably doable.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:06 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Free email from AvWeek provided "Next-Gen Core Demo Boost For Rolls-Royce" by Guy Norris which says:

Stein notes that aircraft manufacturers continue to be briefed about the Advance and its UltraFan follow-on engine. “Each of them may or may not modify their airframe plans as a result of having this technology available,” he adds. “It is such a step change in fuel burn that it is starting to make them sit up and take notice of what sort of efficient aircraft could come about if a modern aircraft design was coupled with the UltraFan engine itself. In our view it is going to drive change in the market.”

No doubt one of the parties being briefed is the "797 program office" at Boeing, IMHO.

Stein further says wing configurations will have to be modified for the very-high-bypass architectures under development for the UltraFan. A gear-driven fan sized to produce about 70,000-75,000 lb. of thrust, for example, will likely have a diameter of 140 in., compared to the 112-in.-dia. fan of the similarly rated Trent 1000 of today. “One option [the airframe-makers] could consider is to go for gullwing configurations and short nacelles mounted close to the wing,” he adds.

Fan diameter growing (140-112)/112 = 25% for T1000-class applications, hmmm...

Seems like similar growth is something one could accommodate with a clean sheet 'MOM' but would be challenged to make work on an existing platform.

Will be interesting to see if this large increase in diameter would trip up a lot of the "A322" style proposals that have been discussed here.

Also interesting to see if such a large fan would be a "stretch too far" in the MOM application as opposed to the much longer ranged T-1000 application.


Thanks for posting. I find this very interesting (especially compared to these recurring cabin width discussions). A new wing, strut and pylon layout may be needed for the next generation of engines. While existing platforms likely could be modified to accommodate, a new design may be better optimized.

A gull wing design would certainly be a departure from conventional design. I don’t know how the structural weight would work, but if it happened, it would likely be the unconventional design that some people on this forum praise.



I put a gull wing on a 797 design a few years ago (right side) to create ground clearance for a high BPR engine close to the fuselage, the A380 uses this. I can imagine the structure can be more complicated and heavier.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:29 pm

QXAS wrote:
I read on here a while back that the A321NEO LR won’t have a great cruise altitude on long range stage lengths, if I recall correctly somewhere in the realm of FL 330, 320. If that is true, how much of an advantage will Boeing have simply by building a jet that can cruise at 380, 390 or 400? Or does cruise altitude not matter all that much besides winds?


What's the reason of the altitude limitation of the A320 series, the hull or the wings? Can Airbus change this with a new long range wing, which is optimized for higher speed?
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:54 pm

Yes they can -put a fully optimised long range low drag wing on it (A321/2/3).But right now their existing wing is doing a good enough job.No opposition.Indeed they can stretch and go shorter range with no need to change the wing.
But as above if they wanted brand new engines then additional clearance must be found.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:09 pm

Revelation wrote:
Free email from AvWeek provided "Next-Gen Core Demo Boost For Rolls-Royce" by Guy Norris which says:

Stein notes that aircraft manufacturers continue to be briefed about the Advance and its UltraFan follow-on engine. “Each of them may or may not modify their airframe plans as a result of having this technology available,” he adds. “It is such a step change in fuel burn that it is starting to make them sit up and take notice of what sort of efficient aircraft could come about if a modern aircraft design was coupled with the UltraFan engine itself. In our view it is going to drive change in the market.”

No doubt one of the parties being briefed is the "797 program office" at Boeing, IMHO.

Stein further says wing configurations will have to be modified for the very-high-bypass architectures under development for the UltraFan. A gear-driven fan sized to produce about 70,000-75,000 lb. of thrust, for example, will likely have a diameter of 140 in., compared to the 112-in.-dia. fan of the similarly rated Trent 1000 of today. “One option [the airframe-makers] could consider is to go for gullwing configurations and short nacelles mounted close to the wing,” he adds.

Fan diameter growing (140-112)/112 = 25% for T1000-class applications, hmmm...

Seems like similar growth is something one could accommodate with a clean sheet 'MOM' but would be challenged to make work on an existing platform.

Will be interesting to see if this large increase in diameter would trip up a lot of the "A322" style proposals that have been discussed here.

Also interesting to see if such a large fan would be a "stretch too far" in the MOM application as opposed to the much longer ranged T-1000 application.


All of this news from RR and PW, really makes me wander if GE is not sandbagging a bit will debut its own game changing tech other than a hotter core.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17736
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:28 pm

william wrote:
All of this news from RR and PW, really makes me wander if GE is not sandbagging a bit will debut its own game changing tech other than a hotter core.

GE does seem to be mighty confident that CFM technology will find its way onto NMA. Not sure where this confidence is coming from.
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
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26969
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:14 pm

Few months ago Qantas showed public interest for the 797, and is now putting down real money for 18 A321LR aircraft.

I suspect Boeing might want to close the business case in the coming months, instead of next year.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:39 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Few months ago Qantas showed public interest for the 797, and is now putting down real money for 18 A321LR aircraft.

I suspect Boeing might want to close the business case in the coming months, instead of next year.



Is Jestar converting some of its existing A320neo orders to A321LRs the same market they were considering buying the proposed 797?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:56 am

Boeing is likely making sure it can manufacture at a profit before it sells at the price.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
bigjku
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:00 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Few months ago Qantas showed public interest for the 797, and is now putting down real money for 18 A321LR aircraft.

I suspect Boeing might want to close the business case in the coming months, instead of next year.


I don’t believe the core business case of the 797 rest in the same long and light routes the A321LR occupies. It will most appropriately be viewed an A320-21/738-9 alternative and a 767/A330ceo replacement I would guess.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:50 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Few months ago Qantas showed public interest for the 797, and is now putting down real money for 18 A321LR aircraft.

I suspect Boeing might want to close the business case in the coming months, instead of next year.


Right? Boeing has seemed a little strategically gun-shy in recent years. They delayed launch of 777X, losing significant orders in the process, got backed into 737MAX, delayed 787-10 a little too long IMO...

Maybe there's a meta-level of analysis where this strategic caution protects against repetitions of the 787 debacle, but maybe they're over-learning that lesson.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:53 am

morrisond wrote:
I would have to disagree a bit on Boeing getting it right lately. Other than the 787 all those programs were launched decades ago. In recent history they have been mostly been doing derivatives and they have not turned as good as one would hope.

757-3 - Failure
767-4 - Failure
748i - Failure
737 Max - limited future due to not that competitive larger models - there was enough time since launch to regear/rewing it as they were basically waiting for the engines to be done anyways.
777W - that was a win - but it was more of a new model and not a derivative as the basic structure was already there - it just needed bigger engines.
777X - Limited sales so far and with the A351 gaining capability a not so bright future - with no hope of same margins as 777W

787 - A cleansheet and a great success (at least in terms of sales)

There derivative approach has not been working out so well and it's time for them to get there butt in gear and launch the MOM that they can use for NSA as well and take the initiative back from Airbus.


How many times do people have to wrongly beat a dead horse? Where is it documented that the 757-300 lost Boeing money? The 764? On top of keeping 2 keep clients in DL and CO, the costs were amortized over 1000+ frames. The 737Max, they have already sold thousands of them. 77Ws are still not in their replacement cycle yet. The 777X has a few hundred orders before launch, historically, that is very impressive. The doom and gloom on Anet is tiring. Look at Boeing's stock, look at their financials, looks that the hundreds of planes they deliver that safely and efficiently move people across the world every single day.

They have made BILLIONS of dollars from derivatives. Just like Airbus has. There are 2 players in the space. Both are going to iterate until the billions stop flowing.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 5226
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:06 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Few months ago Qantas showed public interest for the 797, and is now putting down real money for 18 A321LR aircraft.

I suspect Boeing might want to close the business case in the coming months, instead of next year.


Qantas has stated an interest in the 797 for QF mainline and they have been consistent about what they have said about it since it was first raised on the 17th of October last year, the A321LR are for Jetstar, additionally the other 81 A320neo family will split almost evenly as replacements for Jetstar's current fleet as stated in their press release today

AJ has also talked up the 797 today.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-inc ... ource=grid
Forum Moderator
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:59 am

I read articles that both A and B have been researching adding an engine( both gas and electric) behind the tail that results in 12-14 % reduction in fuel costs.

Given the fact that there is not now a suitable engine availability for the typical twin configuration would
this 3 engine concept be viable?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007674.pdf
 
vahancrazy
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:54 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:42 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
I read articles that both A and B have been researching adding an engine( both gas and electric) behind the tail that results in 12-14 % reduction in fuel costs.

Given the fact that there is not now a suitable engine availability for the typical twin configuration would
this 3 engine concept be viable?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007674.pdf


it would be sweet to think about new tri-jets.... although maybe not a real one
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:18 pm

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-inc ... boeing-797

More comments from Qantas CEO.

I said this before and I will say it again. Boeing is aiming for a variant to be the next gen domestic WB. Not only will it play well in the ASEAN part of the world but also iin the US market.
 
holzmann
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:28 pm

I am thinking, at a minimum, Boeing is gathering QF, DL, if not the entire US3 to make them all launch customers. If Boeing is going to commit to this project, it is going to be with big names attached. Conversely, the ball will then be in Boeing's court to deliver or fail miserably.
DISCLAIMER: Airliners.net is an AIRBUS forum. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, if it has considered doing so in the past, should in no way consider supporting this website.
 
holzmann
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:31 pm

Does anyone know if this is some sort of official concept rendering from Boeing?

Image
DISCLAIMER: Airliners.net is an AIRBUS forum. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, if it has considered doing so in the past, should in no way consider supporting this website.
 
User avatar
CraigAnderson
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:28 am

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

Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:15 pm

holzmann wrote:
Does anyone know if this is some sort of official concept rendering from Boeing?

Image


Wow, a blast from the past, it's actually the Boeing 787-3 but I suppose it could look a bit like how the 797 ends up!

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