JayinKitsap
Posts: 834
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed May 23, 2018 9:21 pm

I think the initial 797 model will be the one needing the smallest engine and it will be a LEAP, but the 2nd model a few years later will have two engines for choice.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5685
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed May 23, 2018 9:22 pm

I don't think the 797's models will have differing engine choices. The volume is not high enough.

If there is a variation in engines, it will be because the single-aisle 737 replacement shares a lot of engineering with the 797 but has lower weights and smaller engines.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7375
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu May 24, 2018 5:00 am

iceberg210 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I don't think it will take eight years to make a LEAP derivative, and from what we read that's the most likely launch engine.


Only if you can achieve the performance goals with an engine only half a generation more advanced than the competition. Being 2 years later might be preferable if the engine gives you another 5% fuel burn reduction.

Blind speculation on my part but I think it'll be launched with two options for engines, LEAPX+ and EITHER Ultrafan or GTF. But the latter two will have a two year later EIS. Maybe the way you get tricky with it is make the 797-7 the launch model with the 8 following with the two engine options while the 7 gets the engine option later. We'll just have to see...


That would make for a very difficult opportunities and threats analysis for the engine OEM, not only would the market need to be big enough for 2 engine OEMs, it would also be obvious that one engine would enjoy a technology advantage over the other.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18786
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:32 pm

Seems Boeing has made up its mind on pax vs cargo:

Randy Tinseth, Boeing’s vice president of marketing for commercial planes, said the company was reluctant to change the design because larger wide body jets were better suited for cargo.

We don’t want to over design an airplane just to carry belly cargo, especially when I can make an airplane that becomes more efficient delivering and carrying passengers,” he told Reuters on the sidelines of a global airlines meeting.

He also says that Boeing has discussed the project with 60 airlines and he downplays the idea that the product may be launched at Farnborough.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airl ... SKCN1IZ039
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25664
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:37 pm

I'm going to hazard a guess that the preferred design cannot take dual LD3s and that is where the ask was from some customers. I still want to think we're looking at LD2/LD8 (ala the 767) more than LD3-45/AKH like on the A320 family (and assuredly NSA).
 
2175301
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:34 pm

It's not possible to make any item (much less an airliner) that pleases everyone... I suspect that Boeing is right that there are more airlines interested in a low cost passenger focused aircraft than there are airlines looking for a more expensive passenger/with decent cargo aircraft.

I understand that the engine proposals/quotes are due later this year from the engine suppliers. That's a key factor in being able to launch the 797.

I cannot wait until this is released. I think it will do well...

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3087
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:27 pm

Some more info here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-still-on-track-to-2025-nma-despite-engine-449146/


Stitch wrote:
I'm going to hazard a guess that the preferred design cannot take dual LD3s and that is where the ask was from some customers. I still want to think we're looking at LD2/LD8 (ala the 767) more than LD3-45/AKH like on the A320 family (and assuredly NSA).


Agree that Boeing must be very carefull not to "allow" too much scope creep, especially in cargo volume. Keeping structural weight down must be number one priority in order to approach narrow body trip cost for 220 - 270 pax.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
CRHoward
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:12 pm

A bit more probably from the same interview.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/pas ... es-closer/

Some good historical comparisons and evidently the business plan is getting closer.
All the engine manufacturers are still in the running and a launch is expected within a year. I'm guessing a couple months after the engine selection.
 
parapente
Posts: 2688
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:34 pm

The statements from Boeing seem to indicate that the decision to offer will be put back a year due to the stresses on the OEM engine manufacturers-although it could be a smoke screen
I thought it odd that he said the decision could go back a year -on an already tight timescale yet the EIS is not put back.They are going to have to work mighty fast.It perhaps suggests that both the wing and engine are scaled versions of existing wings?As for cargo -the design must be frozen by now -certainly the major decisions do it is what it is.I think they will be well advised to put pax economics before cargo volume.
Hell airlines can always buy the 788 if it means that much to them.
 
ITB
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:43 pm

I haven't seen this mentioned yet. In the FlightGlobal article "Boeing still on track to 2025 NMA – despite engine makers’ travails," published yesterday online, Randy Tinseth is quoted as saying this:

“We have an airplane between today's widebodies and today's single aisles. It won't look like either of them. When we take a look at what our customers want and need in this market, there no question that efficiency is critical. When a widebody airplane is operated on these shorter missions - the mission potentially of an NMA – they are over capable. With the ability to carry heavy cargo comes weight, structure, and inefficiency.”

Interesting. Boeing now has an airplane concept between a widebody and a single aisle, but "It won't look like either of them." What exactly does Tinseth mean with this statement? Is he saying the 797 will be significantly different, design wise, from today's airliner? Probably not. But still.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-449146/
 
MileHFL400
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:56 pm

2310 posts to this thread and we do not even know what it looks like! Come on Boeing get with it! Put us out of our collective misery!
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8549
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:56 pm

ITB wrote:
I haven't seen this mentioned yet. In the FlightGlobal article "Boeing still on track to 2025 NMA – despite engine makers’ travails," published yesterday online, Randy Tinseth is quoted as saying this:

“We have an airplane between today's widebodies and today's single aisles. It won't look like either of them. When we take a look at what our customers want and need in this market, there no question that efficiency is critical. When a widebody airplane is operated on these shorter missions - the mission potentially of an NMA – they are over capable. With the ability to carry heavy cargo comes weight, structure, and inefficiency.”

Interesting. Boeing now has an airplane concept between a widebody and a single aisle, but "It won't look like either of them." What exactly does Tinseth mean with this statement? Is he saying the 797 will be significantly different, design wise, from today's airliner? Probably not. But still.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-449146/

He is talking about the oval cross-section that is likely going to wider than it is tall, in contrast to the fuselages seen today which are generally either round or taller than they are wide.

Space in the cabin similar to wide bodies (but less width than most wide bodies) but cargo space more similar to narrow bodies (albeit probably a bit more).
 
morrisond
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:28 pm

I'll say it again as I've said many times - NMA will most likely be an 2x3x2 Oval with a Container something like a 2' Wider LD3-45 in the belly - maybe 5-6" higher. Then they can reuse the Cross Section and Nose for NSA. It just makes a lot of sense.
 
CRHoward
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:36 pm

2175301 wrote:
I understand that the engine proposals/quotes are due later this year from the engine suppliers. That's a key factor in being able to launch the 797.

This is the first time I have heard of a proposal due date. This along with a one year window given by Mr Tinseth leads me to believe it will be a spring 2019 launch.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:39 pm

morrisond wrote:
I'll say it again as I've said many times - NMA will most likely be an 2x3x2 Oval with a Container something like a 2' Wider LD3-45 in the belly - maybe 5-6" higher. Then they can reuse the Cross Section and Nose for NSA. It just makes a lot of sense.


Except that kind of cross section would not make any sense at all for a NSA narrow-body. Too much frontal area, and weight for only one more seat per row than a 6-acoss single-isle aircraft. And I doubt you could just put a shorter range wing on that larger center wing box.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
2175301
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:54 pm

parapente wrote:
The statements from Boeing seem to indicate that the decision to offer will be put back a year due to the stresses on the OEM engine manufacturers-although it could be a smoke screen
I thought it odd that he said the decision could go back a year -on an already tight timescale yet the EIS is not put back.They are going to have to work mighty fast.It perhaps suggests that both the wing and engine are scaled versions of existing wings?As for cargo -the design must be frozen by now -certainly the major decisions do it is what it is.I think they will be well advised to put pax economics before cargo volume.
Hell airlines can always buy the 788 if it means that much to them.


My memory (which may be wrong) says that the key item holding back engine proposals is the expiration of what is considered a key patent currently held by one OEM... and that it has been known for several years that to take advantage of that design feature by other manufacturers would preclude any formal engine proposal before this fall or early winter (which does not mean that the engine companies may not have a fairly well developed engine design by now; and that Boeing does not know the key features of those potential engines).

In the meantime; Boeing has essentially frozen the size(s) and their shape and can proceed with a lot of engineering on the 797... and keep the aircraft on track. This also allows time to look at different production methods and sequences... and feed that back into the design. This is likely going to go much smoother than other recently introduced aircraft where such time was not taken up front. Thus, I cannot see any reason why this "delay" would push out EIS. In the end:

Actually building the aircraft does not take a lot of time... It's engineering and ordering long lead time parts that takes most of the time. No reason that quotes cannot be obtained for certain items once the engineering is done (a key long term item is normally landing gear forgings - which they should be able to finalize the design on quickly at this stage).

Have a great day,

It would not surprise me if Boeing would be ready to issue purchase orders for the key long term parts the day after the Boeing Board OK's the project.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
He also says that Boeing has discussed the project with 60 airlines and he downplays the idea that the product may be launched at Farnborough.

If BCA doesn't announce launch at Farnborough, all the Airbus fanboys here will be hurling derision at them. Then again, they will probably do that if they DO launch at Farnborough. :yes:

I think the engine OEM troubles are a) tossing a monkey-wrench into the process, and 2) giving BCA a bit more breathing room. Oil prices have been ticking up recently, but I am sure the model accounts for that prospect.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:15 pm

QuarkFly wrote:

Except that kind of cross section would not make any sense at all for a NSA narrow-body. Too much frontal area, and weight for only one more seat per row than a 6-acoss single-isle aircraft. And I doubt you could just put a shorter range wing on that larger center wing box.



The problem becomes egress (and less importantly servicing that many passengers on a short haul route). With egress constraints a 6 across single aisle maxes out at 230 passengers. (not so coincidentally that's what the Max 10 is capped at)

Go to a 2x3x2 config and egress becomes less of an issue.

Based on all the indications we've seen thus far this is how it is going to be done. I have a high confidence of that at this point.
 
morrisond
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:56 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I'll say it again as I've said many times - NMA will most likely be an 2x3x2 Oval with a Container something like a 2' Wider LD3-45 in the belly - maybe 5-6" higher. Then they can reuse the Cross Section and Nose for NSA. It just makes a lot of sense.


Except that kind of cross section would not make any sense at all for a NSA narrow-body. Too much frontal area, and weight for only one more seat per row than a 6-acoss single-isle aircraft. And I doubt you could just put a shorter range wing on that larger center wing box.


I fully expect NSA would be a different much lighter/ cheaper to build wingbox and tail.

It's not really that much more frontal area as has been discussed many times here before. Imagine you are sitting in an A320 - hold your hands about 18" apart - that is how much width would be added to each side with not much more height. Without redoing the calcs once again - it's about 21% more cross Section for 17% more Y seats and potentially 50% more Business Class seats. That difference (4% more cross section delta of NMA over 320 when adjusted for 7 vs 6 seats is about the same difference between 320 and 737 and the 320 seems to do fine carrying around an extra 4ish% cross section. It would also be shorter for the same passenger capacity. All in all not bad compromises.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18786
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:51 pm

Reuters: Boeing targets 2025 for new jet but won't rush decision is yet another rendering of Boeing's NMA party line.

I guess it's news in the sense that we haven't heard the message in a couple of weeks and the message hasn't changed, but that's not much news.

I think the emphasis is interesting.

The part I found most interesting was:

(Ihssane Mounir, senior vice-president for commercial sales and marketing at Boeing) said the new mid-market plane would focus on what he described as a “revolutionary production system” incorporating new digital technology.

“It’s not a plane that will be technologically much more advanced than what we have today. What will be very advanced is the production system,” Mounir said.

Seems to be the trendy thing to emphasize these days, with Airbus "pushing out" A320+/++ in favor of improving the production system.

Also re-emphasizes heavy re-use of current generation technology.

Some other interesting quotes:

“Based on where we are today, we are very comfortable with the fact we can do it by 2025, but we haven’t made a decision.”

and:

Mounir said “conservative” estimates showed global demand for 4,000 to 5,000 middle-of-the market jets over 20 years.


So, still aiming for the same targets.
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
QuarkFly
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
The part I found most interesting was:

(Ihssane Mounir, senior vice-president for commercial sales and marketing at Boeing) said the new mid-market plane would focus on what he described as a “revolutionary production system” incorporating new digital technology.

“It’s not a plane that will be technologically much more advanced than what we have today. What will be very advanced is the production system,” Mounir said.
.


Hmmm, seems like only about 15 years ago, B was talking about the 787 production system....designed both digitally and globally, much fewer fasteners, would snap together on the line with the help of MOATT's (Mother of all Tool Towers), huge reduction in cost due to modern networked IT, etc etc...

Aircraft are not virtual...they need to be designed, tested, certified and built at a reasonable cost. Nobody can digitize their way out of a business case, solid aerospace engineering, safety and efficient production -- nor should they be allowed to !!
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18786
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:18 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
Hmmm, seems like only about 15 years ago, B was talking about the 787 production system....designed both digitally and globally, much fewer fasteners, would snap together on the line with the help of MOATT's (Mother of all Tool Towers), huge reduction in cost due to modern networked IT, etc etc...

Aircraft are not virtual...they need to be designed, tested, certified and built at a reasonable cost. Nobody can digitize their way out of a business case, solid aerospace engineering, safety and efficient production -- nor should they be allowed to !!

The statement “It’s not a plane that will be technologically much more advanced than what we have today. What will be very advanced is the production system,” should be read as good news -- they're not going to iterate the technology and the production system at the same time.

The leadership group from 15 years was more or less insane.

They changed pretty much everything about the product itself, and the way it was manufactured at the same time.

And, along with this, they tried and failed to outsource a lot of it at the same time.

Now we see the current group taking a more iterative approach.

Stabilize the core 787 tech, ramp up its production, then bring the 77x wing in house, stabilize that, then move on to 797.

I think the 797 approach is a lot more rational than the 787 approach.
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
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4487
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:35 pm

Revelation wrote:

I think the 797 approach is a lot more rational than the 787 approach.


Granted that it's not a very high bar.
What the...?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5685
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think the 797 approach is a lot more rational than the 787 approach.


I guess to me it depends on just what "advancements in the production system" entail.

Continuing the steady move toward more and smarter automation that we've seen with the post-ramp-up 787 program and the 777X program? Makes total sense.

Reinventing the production wheel again, with too many moon-shot shortcuts in management and oversight, as on the 787? Disaster looms.

I don't feel like I know which is under consideration.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18786
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:45 pm

For what it's worth, in https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 0885094401 we read:

Jon Ostrower
‏@jonostrower
2h2 hours ago

Boeing eyes 1Q19 for board authority to start selling new NMA https://theaircurrent.com/industry-stra ... uce-goose/ … (via @theaircurrent)

So, as late as March 31, 2019?
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
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 903
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:07 pm

Revelation wrote:
For what it's worth, in https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 0885094401 we read:

Jon Ostrower
‏@jonostrower
2h2 hours ago

Boeing eyes 1Q19 for board authority to start selling new NMA https://theaircurrent.com/industry-stra ... uce-goose/ … (via @theaircurrent)

So, as late as March 31, 2019?

Seems like Paris 2019 could be a launch date.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:12 pm

Well they have the 797 trademark ready to go.

See FG link.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rk-450071/
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25664
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:31 pm

Seal Beach is where Boeing's "help desk for airlines" is located.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:44 pm

mffoda wrote:
Well they have the 797 trademark ready to go.

See FG link.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rk-450071/


Will be interesting to see what the final product(s) is going to be.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:45 pm

Revelation wrote:


Revelation wrote:
For what it's worth
Jon Ostrower
Boeing eyes 1Q19 for board authority to start selling new NMA https://theaircurrent.com/industry-stra ... uce-goose/ … (via @theaircurrent)

So, as late as March 31, 2019?


777X authority to offer was 5/1/13. That leaves 6-1/2 years for a 4Q19 entry into service.

1Q19 to 4Q25 leaves just shy of 7 years for NMA.

Considering the wing of the 777X is all new, and the full aircraft development proceeds largely in parallel, this similarity in development timelines between a derivative and a clean sheet does not sound unreasonable.

That's certainly a lot more reasonable than the 787's program launch (I don't know the authority to offer date) on 4/26/04, leaving a little over 4-1/2 years planned for both major innovations in design and major innovations in production.

This will be interesting to watch. They've learned a lot about high rate production and minimizing costs with the 737. They've learned a lot about producing large carbon fiber parts with the 787 and 777X. When discussions about Boeing's middle-of-the-market started, I felt almost like they were trying to make it sound boring, but I'm increasingly eager to learn more about it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18786
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:05 am

FG: Boeing secures '797' trademark says:

Boeing has quietly registered the name ‘797’ as a trademark, European intellectual property documents show.

The US airframer’s application, from its Seal Beach facility, gives little context for the registration beyond identifying that it would cover a range of items including aircraft and aeronautical equipment.

Most have expected this, but some of our a.net numerologists might be disappointed.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:21 am

Revelation wrote:
FG: Boeing secures '797' trademark

Most have expected this, but some of our a.net numerologists might be disappointed.


Having just double-checked on GC Map the ability of this aircraft to connect almost any major US city, as well as Japan, to one of the top vacation destinations for either country, I think it's obvious this aircraft should be the start of the 8-series naming.

The Boeing 808, flying to area code 808. :D
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5685
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:34 am

If there will be two separate fuselages for this and NSA (as seems quite likely) then one assumes there will be two separate model numbers. And 777-787-797 for the widebodies is such a clean progression, but there is no corresponding number for the narrowbody. The numerologists will get their fun when NSA gets closer to reality.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:22 am

^^ could call it the Boeing 807 as its +10 of 797, and smaller in sequence.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:26 am

seabosdca wrote:
If there will be two separate fuselages for this and NSA (as seems quite likely) then one assumes there will be two separate model numbers. And 777-787-797 for the widebodies is such a clean progression, but there is no corresponding number for the narrowbody. The numerologists will get their fun when NSA gets closer to reality.


One fuselage. No chance of even talking about a NSA until after 2030. 737-MAX needs at least a decade in service before a replacement is even considered...or else B would be undercutting MAX price, sales and customer after-market value.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
Nomadd
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:26 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:38 am

Has there been a decision on the hull? I remember a Boeing engineer saying that a CFRP hull like the 787's wouldn't have any weight advantage over aluminum for a 737 size craft because the thickness wouldn't scale down.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6033
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:44 am

I remember the 787 was originally launched as the 7E7. Considering the Mom moniker, does that mean the 797 will be launched as the 7M7?
You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18786
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:21 pm

Nomadd wrote:
Has there been a decision on the hull? I remember a Boeing engineer saying that a CFRP hull like the 787's wouldn't have any weight advantage over aluminum for a 737 size craft because the thickness wouldn't scale down.

There's a very interesting article on this very subject at FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-449415/ ).

One quote:

Triumph Aerospace Structures vice-president of engineering Martin Perya thinks it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" to adopt a composite airframe for a single-aisle aircraft with today's carbonfibre technology. He says "high level" investment would be required to scale up production capacity with facilities featuring autoclaves, clean rooms and cold storage spaces, and that such infrastructure is "largely impractical for higher-volume production".

Perry notes that autoclave processing is "the single most cycle-time-affecting process in the value chain". He adds: "The economic viability [of potential capacity expansion] is very wearisome as the investment required would be significant and return on that investment is somewhat risky." He believes a "different approach" is needed as "there is a kind of limit that I think the industry is... hitting right now with that thermoset technology".

So this is about single-aisle but it could apply to 797 given the production volumes they want to hit.

And in the context of 797:

As Boeing evaluates options for its proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), it is arguably under greater pressure than rival Airbus to decide whether to adopt a composite design for an all-new aircraft. Marketing vice-president Randy Tinseth said in March that the airframer would use on the NMA "proven and understood" technologies rather than radical new ones, and that the manufacturer plans "no big technology push as we saw on [the] 787".

It'll be an interesting choice.

You should read the article because it has lots of other interesting quotes in it, but I'll say it ends by pointing out that metallics are also making advances all the time so composites not only have to catch up in terms of production cost and flexibility, they're also chasing a moving target.

Beyond this, Boeing has not telegraphed their decision on the fuse yet. I can imagine the decision could go either way.

Keep in mind the beloved Airbus A220 has composite wings and metallic fuselage and no one is making a big thing about that.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25664
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:41 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
I remember the 787 was originally launched as the 7E7. Considering the Mom moniker, does that mean the 797 will be launched as the 7M7?


The "E" stood for "Efficiency" to reflect the significant fuel efficiency improvements compared to earlier Boeing models (i.e. - 767).
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6033
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:23 pm

Stitch wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
I remember the 787 was originally launched as the 7E7. Considering the Mom moniker, does that mean the 797 will be launched as the 7M7?


The "E" stood for "Efficiency" to reflect the significant fuel efficiency improvements compared to earlier Boeing models (i.e. - 767).

Exactly. In this case the M comes from "middle of market". So 7M7 makes sense. The 757 (or 767, one of the two) was the 7N7 at first, I believe.
You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:50 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
I remember the 787 was originally launched as the 7E7. Considering the Mom moniker, does that mean the 797 will be launched as the 7M7?


I don't think it tells us much. I always viewed the 7E7 label as supporting the marketing transition from the Sonic Cruiser to an efficiency-oriented design.

The sonic cruiser name obviously put focus on the speed of the aircraft.
The 7E7 made an easy to explain reference to the focus on efficiency.

It's not really the same to emphasize a focus on being medium-sized.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
Nomadd wrote:
Has there been a decision on the hull? I remember a Boeing engineer saying that a CFRP hull like the 787's wouldn't have any weight advantage over aluminum for a 737 size craft because the thickness wouldn't scale down.

There's a very interesting article on this very subject at FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-449415/ ).

One quote:

Triumph Aerospace Structures vice-president of engineering Martin Perya thinks it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" to adopt a composite airframe for a single-aisle aircraft with today's carbonfibre technology. He says "high level" investment would be required to scale up production capacity with facilities featuring autoclaves, clean rooms and cold storage spaces, and that such infrastructure is "largely impractical for higher-volume production".

Perry notes that autoclave processing is "the single most cycle-time-affecting process in the value chain". He adds: "The economic viability [of potential capacity expansion] is very wearisome as the investment required would be significant and return on that investment is somewhat risky." He believes a "different approach" is needed as "there is a kind of limit that I think the industry is... hitting right now with that thermoset technology".

So this is about single-aisle but it could apply to 797 given the production volumes they want to hit.

And in the context of 797:

As Boeing evaluates options for its proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), it is arguably under greater pressure than rival Airbus to decide whether to adopt a composite design for an all-new aircraft. Marketing vice-president Randy Tinseth said in March that the airframer would use on the NMA "proven and understood" technologies rather than radical new ones, and that the manufacturer plans "no big technology push as we saw on [the] 787".

It'll be an interesting choice.

You should read the article because it has lots of other interesting quotes in it, but I'll say it ends by pointing out that metallics are also making advances all the time so composites not only have to catch up in terms of production cost and flexibility, they're also chasing a moving target.

Beyond this, Boeing has not telegraphed their decision on the fuse yet. I can imagine the decision could go either way.

Keep in mind the beloved Airbus A220 has composite wings and metallic fuselage and no one is making a big thing about that.


Hasn't Boeing (among others) been working on out-of-autoclave cured composite structures for exactly this reason, to remove the autoclave processing bottleneck in production?
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:40 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
I remember the 787 was originally launched as the 7E7. Considering the Mom moniker, does that mean the 797 will be launched as the 7M7?


For a period of time clean sheet Boeing development airplanes were referred to with 7A7 (A being a letter) before being introduced as their numerical model.

The 767 was the 7X7, the 757 was the 7N7, there was the unreleased 7J7, and so on. I don't recall what the 777's was, but it was an outgrowth of the 767-X project.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25664
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:52 pm

dvincent wrote:
The 767 was the 7X7, the 757 was the 7N7...


Boeing Aeritalia also had a number of concepts, all designated "7X7".


dvincent wrote:
I don't recall what the 777's was, but it was an outgrowth of the 767-X project.


The two concepts I am familiar with (one looking like a 757 but with a 727 T-Tail and aft mounted third engine and the other looking like a DC-10) were both known as the "777". The former dated from the 1970s as a third member of the T-Tail 757 (7N7) and 767 family. Not sure when the "DC-10 Clone" dates from.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:29 pm

monomojo wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Triumph Aerospace Structures vice-president of engineering Martin Perya thinks it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" to adopt a composite airframe for a single-aisle aircraft with today's carbonfibre technology. He says "high level" investment would be required to scale up production capacity with facilities featuring autoclaves, clean rooms and cold storage spaces, and that such infrastructure is "largely impractical for higher-volume production".

Perry notes that autoclave processing is "the single most cycle-time-affecting process in the value chain". He adds: "The economic viability [of potential capacity expansion] is very wearisome as the investment required would be significant and return on that investment is somewhat risky." He believes a "different approach" is needed as "there is a kind of limit that I think the industry is... hitting right now with that thermoset technology".



Hasn't Boeing (among others) been working on out-of-autoclave cured composite structures for exactly this reason, to remove the autoclave processing bottleneck in production?


It seems most of the major players in composite manufacturing are exploring out-of-autoclave processes, but it has plenty of its own challenges.

Aluminum fuselage assembly is hardly trivial, either. Spirit's being doing the same basic process over-and-over again for so long that they've been able to really streamline the process for 737's. Pictures that have been in the news of the rows of giant fuselage barrel riveters in Witchita attest to how much high cost equipment is involved in just one part of this process:
https://www.kansas.com/news/business/av ... 71367.html

Since this is a process Spirit is good at, it makes sense that they are in favor of designs that are likely to involve them as a key supplier.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 834
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:59 pm

CFRP barrels have the potential for high automation with relatively low amount of custom jigging, basically the mandrels (yes very fancy collapsing ones). Look at pictures of the 787 barrel construction vs the Spirit line link that I am Lucky posted. The barrel riveters in that photo can only do the 737 geometry. All of that equipment has locked in the diameter of the current tubes, but the 787 layup robots could the 797 layup as well, but on the different mandrel.

The Triumph VP is correct on the current state, but it seems to be working for the 787, should work similarly on the 797 as the technology on how to manufacture matures. Having the future NSA being the 3rd CFRP barrel method provides 2 more opportunities to tune the process.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4487
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:06 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
CFRP barrels have the potential for high automation with relatively low amount of custom jigging, basically the mandrels (yes very fancy collapsing ones). Look at pictures of the 787 barrel construction vs the Spirit line link that I am Lucky posted. The barrel riveters in that photo can only do the 737 geometry. All of that equipment has locked in the diameter of the current tubes, but the 787 layup robots could the 797 layup as well, but on the different mandrel.

The Triumph VP is correct on the current state, but it seems to be working for the 787, should work similarly on the 797 as the technology on how to manufacture matures. Having the future NSA being the 3rd CFRP barrel method provides 2 more opportunities to tune the process.


The combining of mandrel and out of autoclave curing might really speed up the process...though I imagine that one advantage for the autoclave is removing time constraints from forming large CFRP pieces. Everything cures at once.
What the...?
 
bigjku
Posts: 1660
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:25 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
CFRP barrels have the potential for high automation with relatively low amount of custom jigging, basically the mandrels (yes very fancy collapsing ones). Look at pictures of the 787 barrel construction vs the Spirit line link that I am Lucky posted. The barrel riveters in that photo can only do the 737 geometry. All of that equipment has locked in the diameter of the current tubes, but the 787 layup robots could the 797 layup as well, but on the different mandrel.

The Triumph VP is correct on the current state, but it seems to be working for the 787, should work similarly on the 797 as the technology on how to manufacture matures. Having the future NSA being the 3rd CFRP barrel method provides 2 more opportunities to tune the process.


There are also questions of scaling that investment in terms of both the footprint necessary to produce say 60 narrowbody fuselages a month. From what I read it takes 10 hours or so to cook a 787 barrel section. For simplicity sake let’s say you can do one a day per autoclave and maybe 2 a day if you push it. So simple says we have 20 working days a month or so. So I likely need 4 autoclaves per section per plane (4x20) which gives me some flex. We are looking at 3 major sections so we now need 12 of them at minimum.

Plus we need to produce wings for the same. For the 777X we have a 2-3 autoclave line and that supports maybe 5-7 a month. I think it’s safe to figure you would need at minimum 6-7 more autoclaves just for the wings.

I am a big believer in barrel construction. But depending on the volume demanded the infrastructure cost may outweigh the benefits of doing so. There is a lot of automation in both the 777 and 737 fuselage buildups now. While CFRP construction is moving forward there is also a limit to just how many machines, how much tape and how many autoclaves one can buy in the next 5-10 years.

We know the wings will be CFRP of some sort. But if you want to take the fuselage down the NSA territory you need to support rates above 60 relatively quickly. I am not sure the CFRP industry can support that much more production in the timetables that would be necessary.

In short if NMA is meant to be a stand alone thing I suspect it has a CFRP barrel fuselage. If they intend to use the fuselage for NSA prior to 2030 I won’t be shocked if it has a metal fuselage. You are going to be quadrupling the number of CFRP wing sets you are producing if you go to a high rate on them. That may simply be all that can be supported in the next 10 or so years.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:40 pm

Honestly autoclaves aren't really the problem. If you do an out of clave cure you still need ovens. Ironically there have been situations where (undisclosed supplier) has been curing things that are meant for out of clave cure inside autoclaves because they didn't have the oven capacity.

The problem is the nature of composite properties. You really only need a couple plies to take the pr/t strains of a fuselage at altitude. The problem is all the accidental damage and other problems like hail strike. There is a crossover point for the crown skins where at certain radiuses and frame/stringer spacings it's more weight efficient to go with aluminum than it is to use composites. Hail impact is just that severe and aluminum responds better to that kind of impact than composites do.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18786
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:53 am

monomojo wrote:
Hasn't Boeing (among others) been working on out-of-autoclave cured composite structures for exactly this reason, to remove the autoclave processing bottleneck in production?

Yes. The article uses thermoset for autoclave and thermoplastic for out-of-autoclave, and says:

GKN Aerospace, through its Dutch aerostructures division formerly known as Fokker Technologies, supplies thermoplastic leading-edge parts for the A380 and control surfaces for Gulfstream G650 business jets. Russ Dunn, GKN's senior vice-president for engineering, technology and quality, says thermoplastics have traditionally been used for lighter-loaded structures, while thermosets are suitable for large, complex primary structures, as they can be optimised for high static strength.

However, GKN is exploring the use of thermoplastics for "major structural components" – including fuselage skins, empennages and wing components – and is making "very good progress", says Dunn.

Perya describes thermoplastics as "almost the holy grail" of aerospace materials. Looking back at how employment of thermosets has grown over past decades, he expresses surprise that the aerospace industry did not concentrate earlier on opportunities offered by thermoplastics. He thinks the manufacturers were slow to adopt the material after they had spent time and effort on development of thermoset composites.

If you contrast this to Boeing's quote about wanting to be technologically conservative, it seems reasonable to presume 797 won't go too far past this "traditional" standard.

trpmb6 wrote:
Honestly autoclaves aren't really the problem. If you do an out of clave cure you still need ovens. Ironically there have been situations where (undisclosed supplier) has been curing things that are meant for out of clave cure inside autoclaves because they didn't have the oven capacity.

Very interesting.

The article says the industry invested heavily in autoclaves and hasn't seen the return on the investment which suggests a possible reason why they are short on ovens.

trpmb6 wrote:
The problem is the nature of composite properties. You really only need a couple plies to take the pr/t strains of a fuselage at altitude. The problem is all the accidental damage and other problems like hail strike. There is a crossover point for the crown skins where at certain radiuses and frame/stringer spacings it's more weight efficient to go with aluminum than it is to use composites. Hail impact is just that severe and aluminum responds better to that kind of impact than composites do.

And the article says:

Miguel Castillo Acero, vice-president of technology development at Spanish aerostructures specialist Aernnova, estimates that the costs of producing composite aerostructures are 40-100% higher than for comparable metal components, depending on part complexity.

... so metal also has some pretty strong cost advantages.
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

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