LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:34 pm

The linked article suggests Boeing expects 11% lower fuel burn on B738 Max over B738NG, and 5% lower fuel burn on 737-8 Max over A320NEO. I don't know if the 5% number is for trip fuel burn or per seat fuel burn.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...et-or-exceed-a320neo-range-367932/

Quote:
Tinseth said there would be a 12% improvement in Leap-1B specific fuel consumption when combined with the 1% drag improvement on the aft fuselage, and paired with the 2% increase in drag and weight as a result of the structural modifications.

All told, Boeing claimed the re-engined 162-seat 737-8 will hold a 17% fuel burn advantage over today's 150-seat A320 and a five percentage point fuel burn advantage over the A320neo. Further, the 737 Max would have an 11 percentage points lower fuel burn than today's 737-800 on 1,100km (600nm) sectors, said Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:38 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
The linked article suggests Boeing expects 11% lower fuel burn on B738 Max over B738NG, and 5% lower fuel burn on 737-8 Max over A320NEO. I don't know if the 5% number is for trip fuel burn or per seat fuel burn.

Gotta be per seat. Boeing loves to spout the 738 v A320 numbers because the 738 is larger. Airbus prefers to compare the A319 to the 73G, because the 73G is less efficient.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2315
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:42 pm

Interesting numbers. This will spark a fierce debate I think. Gonna go get a Dr Pepper and some Popcorn and watch.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:48 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
Gotta be per seat. Boeing loves to spout the 738 v A320 numbers because the 738 is larger. Airbus prefers to compare the A319 to the 73G, because the 73G is less efficient.
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Further, the 737 Max would have an 11 percentage points lower fuel burn than today's 737-800 on 1,100km (600nm) sectors, said Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.

As per Boeing, B738NG is 6% better than A320, and it expects B738-Max to be 11% better than B738NG.

From what I recall, Airbus expects A320NEO to be 18%(15% + 3% sharklets) better than today's A320. Roughly speaking, by Boeing's math and Airbus projection one would expect B738 Max and A320 NEO to be at par, with a slight advantage to B738 Max on shorter routes as the gains from sharklets are much less for shorter flights..
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:53 pm

It looks like we are starting to get some real numbers. 11-12% improvement over the existing 738 and increased MTOW to increase range. I think that is the most important fact in the article.

Range is undefined but it is "better" than the A320NEO. That opens up a confusing prospect. What numbers for payload and range are they using? The article is quoting max ranges that are the tank limited ranges, which, for the 737, is impractical as the payload hit to fill the tanks are quite substantial.

Also, I don't put much faith in the comparison to the A320. They are claiming 6% current over the existing A320. They are also claiming a 12% fuel burn improvement of the A320NEO over the A320. Airbus obviously doesn't agree with the numbers that we have seen from them. The exaggerating fuel burn thread from a few weeks ago shows that the few percentage points between the A320 and 737NG make comparisons provided by the manufacturers quite unreliable since they are in the region of variability that depends on unique assumptions made, airplane configuration and stage length.

The debate will get interesting. Boeing thinks Airbus will get 12%, Airbus thinks they'll get 15% (net difference 3% improvement). Airbus thinks Boeing will get 8%, Boeing thinks they'll get 11-12% (net difference again 3%).

One thing I find interesting since it appears that there is a forecast of a 3% larger improvement for the NEO than for the MAX (15% vs 12%), and sharklets are forecast to be 3% of that number for Airbus. That means that the engine and aero improvements themselves are roughly the same with each at 12%.

[Edited 2012-02-08 14:04:32]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:55 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
Range is undefined but it is "better" than the A320NEO.

That's how it is with 737NG vs A320 now. At least for 365 day ops.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:03 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5):
That's how it is with 737NG vs A320 now. At least for 365 day ops.

Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.
 
splitterz
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:40 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:08 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.

So WN can fly across the pond to Europe.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:11 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.

It may make some transatlantic routes possible, which is also true for A320 NEO. It also makes possible India-Turkey, additional India-SE Asia/NE Asia routes.
 
eaa3
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:13 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.

If this were the case then the A320 wouldn't sell.

I don't believe any of this anyway. This is just hype from Boeing in which they assume all the best scenarios for the B737MAX and the worst for the A320NEO. This claim of his is as useless as can be.

It's interesting that they will extend the range however. That might be solid info given that the MAX will fly further than the current model given less fuel burn and the same tanks. I wonder by how much.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4990
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:16 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Makes you wonder Boeing's need for the additional range.

In the US, year-round, reliable Hawaii service for the -8 and -9 from any airport on or near the West Coast with sufficient runway. For coastal airports, today's NGs aren't quite there, but neither the MAX nor the neo should have a problem. For PHX and SLC, the MAX and neo should be able to do the job. DEN is probably a step too far.

That will enable the replacement of a bunch of 757s and a few 767s.

Every mile they get now will also make the later development of a true TATL variant easier.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:24 pm

Also allows for deeper access to Africa from the EU, deeper into South America from North America, etc.

To battle EK, the EU airlines need to be able to open more non-stops into Africa, but the routes can't support widebodies.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:25 pm

The article suggests that a longer nose landing gear is being considered.

Quote(from the link in OP):
Tinseth's presentation identifies local strengthening of the empennage, fuselage, along with systems revisions, wing strengthening, a modified fuel system, longer nose landing gear and strengthened main landing as key changes to the 737 Max, along with the new pylon and nacelle needed for the larger Leap-1B engine.
 
AA737-823
Posts: 4905
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
The article suggests that a longer nose landing gear is being considered.

That is not new information- it was widely accepted a couple of months ago. We were talking about it here on a.net in a relevant thread, at least. I believe flightglobal mentioned it at that time... may have been ATW.
Evidently, substantial rework of the EE bay is a consequence of this NLG reconfig.... which is a shame, because the 737NG is the first 737 that has an EE bay that I actually like to spend any time in!!!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:38 am

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 9):

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Tinseth, who claimed today's narrowbody is 6% better than today's A320.

If this were the case then the A320 wouldn't sell.

That's not correct for two reasons:
1) Boeing doesn't produce 737's fast enough to satisfy demand. Both Airbus and Boeing will enjoy completely fully skylines for the foreseeable future simply because airlines need a certain number of airplanes at a relatively steady pace and neither OEM is capable of fullfilling that demand on their own.
2) The 737 costs more to buy (and to lease). This is a direct consequence of it costing slightly less in direct operating costs and lasting longer...the end result is that the total cost of ownership for both aircraft is almost identical.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
The article suggests that a longer nose landing gear is being considered.

Boeing already said it was part of the design.

Tom.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:45 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
That's not correct for two reasons:

They may be reasons for this not to be correct, but the 6% fuel burn delta that Boeing say is there has to be on assumed seat-count basis.
The FCOM's clearly show that on a trip basis, the 737-800 has a slight fuel burn advantage at short range, and a slight disadvantage at medium and longer ranges.

And that comparison is to an A320 without sharklets.

A sharklet equipped A320 will match a 737-800's fuel burn on a per-seat basis at ranges over 1000Nm even with a 6% seat-count disadvantage.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
2) The 737 costs more to buy (and to lease). This is a direct consequence of it costing slightly less in direct operating costs and lasting longer...the end result is that the total cost of ownership for both aircraft is almost identical

Is there evidence that shows the 737 having lower direct operating costs and lasting longer?

I'd suggest it's at least as plausible that the slight difference in capital costs is as much a consequence of the 737-800 being physically slightly bigger..

Rgds
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:58 am

Will we get a 757-200 replacement out of the new models?
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:40 am

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 16):
Will we get a 757-200 replacement out of the new models?

The 739-MAX will fall short in payload/range and seat capacity. However, with nearly 25% lower OEW and even lower trip fuel burn, B739-MAX should more than make up for its 12% lower seat capacity relative to B752 on routes where the higher range of 752 is not needed.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:03 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
The FCOM's clearly show

Since volume III of an FCOM's is configuration specific, can you tell me what configurations were compared? Airbus has improved the A320 since 1988, including engine PIPs, drag improvements and a redesign of the WTB fairing. Boeing claims to have improved 738 trip fuel by 6% since EIS in 1998, including the addition of winglets, two engine PIPs and a number of drag improvements. With a wide range of performance from both types, I can easily rig an FCOM performance comparison to show anything I want - especially if no one asks what aircraft are being compared.

The only way pulling data from the performance section of an FCOM is helpful for the kind of claim you are making is if you can give the airframe vintage, configuration and engine model. Without that, you are really making a meaningless claim.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:58 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):

Didn't the A321 come the closest to replacing the 752's?? I truly thought that with Boeing knowing that the 752's were in such high demand years after they closed the line that with the MAX 900 they would come close to what it offered in terms of payload/range and seating. Oh well, hopefully we will see some MAX 900'S ordered in Singapore come next week   
 
packsonflight
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:40 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
It looks like we are starting to get some real numbers. 11-12% improvement over the existing 738 and increased MTOW to increase range.

Aspire is reporting that the MAX will gain 2t while the NEO number is 1.3t, so probably the increase en MTOW is to compensate for this extra OEW
 
Centre
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:37 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:07 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
Tinseth's presentation identifies local strengthening of the empennage, fuselage, along with systems revisions, wing strengthening, a modified fuel system, longer nose landing gear and strengthened main landing as key changes to the 737 Max, along with the new pylon and nacelle needed for the larger Leap-1B engine.

Meaning...

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 20):
Aspire is reporting that the MAX will gain 2t while the NEO number is 1.3t, so probably the increase en MTOW is to compensate for this extra OEW
I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
 
sirtoby
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:56 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:20 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
From what I recall, Airbus expects A320NEO to be 18%(15% + 3% sharklets)

No the NEO will be 15% better than today's aircraft without the sharklets.
The neo engines will be 15% better in SFC, but with respect to fuel burn a part of these 15% is eaten upt by higher drag and weight of the engines (as well as pylons and local structure strengthening).
The sharklets are bringing the whole package to roughly 15% then.
Although John Leahy recently said, that fuel burn with the LEAP-1A will be somewhat higher than with the GTF:

http://t.co/x7ZNhOiw
 
GCPET
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:28 am

Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

GCPET
If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:32 am

TATL in a320 and 737...I did fly on a 727 to Toronto back in the 80´s, it did a fuel stop in Iceland. Is this the future of travel?

The fuel bill will grow and travel will adjust, less comfort. I miss the old days! That damned oil..
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:03 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 20):
Aspire is reporting that the MAX will gain 2t while the NEO number is 1.3t, so probably the increase en MTOW is to compensate for this extra OEW

I have said several times already that the weight of the MAX will grow more relatively. That it grows even more in absolule terms underlines my point even more. I wonder, what excuse we will hear now from those people, who attacked this thought the first time.

Quoting sirtoby (Reply 22):
The neo engines will be 15% better in SFC, but with respect to fuel burn a part of these 15% is eaten upt by higher drag and weight of the engines (as well as pylons and local structure strengthening).

That is how I understand it too. That these integration losses would be smaller on the MAX, as claimed by Boeing (it can be derived from the numbers discussed in this thread), seems like nonsense to me. I predict for the MAX even higher integration losses than the 3.5% on the NEO (Airbus says that the winglets, by contributing 3.5%, level out the losses from the integration).
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:23 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
I have said several times already that the weight of the MAX will grow more relatively. That it grows even more in absolute terms underlines my point even more. I wonder, what excuse we will hear now from those people, who attacked this thought the first time.


I have got to give you credit for it. I always thought you were correct, but to read it here from an independent source, however independent that source may be, is points scored by you.  .

On the fuel burn predictions I would say: I need a lot of salt. Boeing earlier said that the NEO was not even beating the 737-NG. Now we see more realistic numbers, still with a lot of PR mixed in to them.   In a couple of years, when both types are flying, we will know more.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:40 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
I have said several times already that the weight of the MAX will grow more relatively.

Of course OEW is going to rise - the LEAP-X is larger and heaver than the CFM56-7B, if nothing else, but the other changes Boeing is planning would raise OEW. That should be clear to anyone, frankly, so for those who assumed it wouldn't...   

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
That these integration losses would be smaller on the MAX, as claimed by Boeing (it can be derived from the numbers discussed in this thread), seems like nonsense to me.

If Airbus is going to see parasitic SFC losses in part due to drag from the massive fans on their engines, then why shouldn't Boeing see smaller losses in that area because they're going to have a tiny fan on their engine?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4990
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:47 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
I'd suggest it's at least as plausible that the slight difference in capital costs is as much a consequence of the 737-800 being physically slightly bigger..

The 73G and 739ER are also slightly more expensive to acquire than their Airbus counterparts, even though the 73G has identical capacity to the A319 (for most operators) and the 739ER is at a small disadvantage to the A321.

I don't think that's justified in the 739ER case, which may explain why it doesn't sell as well as the A321, but the 73G has held its own against the A319.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:19 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 20):
Aspire is reporting that the MAX will gain 2t while the NEO number is 1.3t, so probably the increase en MTOW is to compensate for this extra OEW

I have said several times already that the weight of the MAX will grow more relatively. That it grows even more in absolule terms underlines my point even more. I wonder, what excuse we will hear now from those people, who attacked this thought the first time.

Even if Aspire's numbers on weight increases are accurate, the B-737MAX still comes out well ahead and lighter than the A-320NEO.

The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg)

So if you add 2 tonnes (4,400 lbs) to each B-737NG model, for the MAX, and add 1.3 tonnes (2,860 lbs) to each A-32X model, for the NEO, you come up with the MAX models still being lighter than the competing NEO models (operating empty weights).

B-737-7MAX = 88,500 lbs, A-319NEO = 92,860 lbs
B-737-8MAX = 95,508 lbs, A-320NEO = 96,860 lbs
B-737-9MAX = 102,895 lbs, A-321NEO - 109,860 lbs
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:49 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
The FCOM's clearly show that on a trip basis, the 737-800 has a slight fuel burn advantage at short range, and a slight disadvantage at medium and longer ranges.

You need to be a little careful with FCOM fuel burn numbers; they're very coarse, very configuration specific, and very conservative.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
Is there evidence that shows the 737 having lower direct operating costs and lasting longer?

Yes. They sell and lease for more dollars per capacity and they stay in the fleet longer.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
I'd suggest it's at least as plausible that the slight difference in capital costs is as much a consequence of the 737-800 being physically slightly bigger..

The purchase/lease cost difference is bigger than the physical size difference.

Quoting GCPET (Reply 23):
Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

Boeing has said a lot about a minimum change derivative, which strongly suggests commonality (not necessarily sameness) with the 737NG. There's no way a 787 cockpit would hold commonality.

Tom.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
That should be clear to anyone, frankly, so for those who assumed it wouldn't...

Some time ago there were countless statements like this one "the MAX might have disadvantages elsewhere, but the fact that the NEO will become even heavier than it is now will counter this" and so on. So, when I brought up the idea initially, that the MAX will have a larger weight penalty (at least relatively) I have faced stiff opposition. Shall I find the thread again?

I have listed the following reasons why the MAX would have a larger weight penalty:

- The addition of the same amount of weight impacts more the previously lighter aircraft

- A longer pylon means more weight (you might think that this is only a tiny addition of new material but pylons have a high density)

- A longer gear means more weight (you might also think here that this is only a tiny addition of new material but gears are made from steal, which is much denser than most of the rest)

- The weight of the LEAP-X grows more relative to the old 737-CFM than relative to the old A320-CFM. That means that the strength of the existing A320 structure is closer to the required strength for the re-engined aircraft. Which means less stiffening in the wing and the wing root.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:31 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
The weight of the LEAP-X grows more relative to the old 737-CFM than relative to the old A320-CFM. That means that the strength of the existing A320 structure is closer to the required strength for the re-engined aircraft. Which means less stiffening in the wing and the wing root.

Looking at CFM's website, the difference in dry weight between the CFM56-5B on the A320 and the CFM56-7B on the 737NG is 34 pounds.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg)

Except..
The numbers for the A32X, straight from the ACAPs are:-

A-319 = 87,579 lbs (39,725 kg)
A-320 = 90, 927 lbs (41,244 kg)
A-321 = 103,300 lbs (46,85600 kg)

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
You need to be a little careful with FCOM fuel burn numbers; they're very coarse, very configuration specific, and very conservative.

As you're the second person to warn me of this, Tom, I'll back off.
Instead I'll use the marketing strap line that the 737 is "6% more efficient" as the gospel IT MUST BE, given that both you and CM were both content to let THAT pass unchallenged.....   

I can take a hint  

Rgds
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:06 pm

Quoting GCPET (Reply 23):
Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

I believe there have been articles indicating that there will be some flight deck changes and talk of new displays. I don't know if that is happening with the MAX or not. However other than displays, I don't think much can change as they are maintaining commonality.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
As you're the second person to warn me of this, Tom, I'll back off.
Instead I'll use the marketing strap line that the 737 is "6% more efficient" as the gospel IT MUST BE, given that both you and CM were both content to let THAT pass unchallenged.....

I don't think that you should throw out the analysis, but understand its limitations. The idea of 737 being better on shorter stage lengths and A320 on longer stage lengths gets thrown around a lot, and I believe there may be some basis for it. However, if the A320 series was more efficient on longer sectors then why doesn't Airbus show that in a chart where they compare the 737 and A320 in fuel burn by trip length? If there was such a discrepancy based on stage length, I'd expect Airbus to promote it in its literature. It does not appear present in Airbus' comparison of the 73G and A319.

http://d9itxagvk5mi8.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/a319neo-v-max.jpg
*note, I used comparison of A319 and 73G since they are closest in size and block fuel should be the most valid.


Understanding that it is block fuel comparison and not adjusted for capacity, here's the 737-800 vs A320, I am paying attention to the slope of the lines rather than numerical differences (since those are a whole separate analysis which you can read the article to understand those limitations). When looking at the chart it is of note that Airbus presents the data the opposite of the analysis that Astuteman is using since the slope of the curves indicate that the 737 fuel burn difference in percent is less on longer stage lengths than shorter stage lengths. That means the 737 improves on longer stage lengths. If Astuteman's analysis is true, then the line would be the opposite. I present these charts just to show that there are limitations in analysis and not that one is more correct than the other.

http://d9itxagvk5mi8.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/a320neo-v-max.jpg

Source: http://airinsight.com/2011/10/05/airbus-takes-on-max/
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:08 pm

Frankly, I think the whole "numbers" game has limited value beyond something to argue about. Even if one frame is significantly cheaper on a per seat, per trip, TCO, or whatever basis than another, that does not mean the other frame is "doomed".

SQ have said the A380-800 is over 20% more efficient than the 777-300ER and yet SQ continues to order 777-300ERs, so evidently it's relative inefficiency to the A380-800 does not translate into SQ seeing no value in operating the 777-300ER.

And just because the 777-300ER is some 10% more efficient than the A340-600 has not stopped LH, VS, IB and others from ceasing A340-600 operations and replacing them with 777-300ERs. So evidently the A340-600's inefficiency relative to the 777-300ER does not translate into those carries no longer seeing any value in continuing to operate their frames.

I am not qualified to say unequivocally how the 737NG and A320 line-up, much less the 737MAX and A320neo. But if the 737NG is more efficient than the A320, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the A320's acceptance in the market. And based on the commitments Boeing have secured in the past six months, even if the A320neo is more efficient than the 737MAX, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the 737MAX's acceptance in the market.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5487
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 31):
Some time ago there were countless statements like this one "the MAX might have disadvantages elsewhere, but the fact that the NEO will become even heavier than it is now will counter this" and so on. So, when I brought up the idea initially, that the MAX will have a larger weight penalty (at least relatively) I have faced stiff opposition. Shall I find the thread again?

Could you please find the thread? Then you could call out those specific people instead of making us all endure the A Fan vs B Fan thing once again.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Frankly, I think the whole "numbers" game has limited value beyond something to argue about

Preach!

-Dave
-Dave
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:33 pm

A very short blurb came out a couple of days ago on Leeham's site...

Optimizing LEAP for 737 MAX
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...02/08/optimizing-leap-for-737-max/

- some LPT stages and related parts are eliminated
- engine will be shorter
- ceramics being used
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:36 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
And based on the commitments Boeing have secured in the past six months, even if the A320neo is more efficient than the 737MAX, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the 737MAX's acceptance in the market.

Stitch, one of the few times that I am going to take exception with something you've said...
You have to go with the hard, firm orders...... Bird in the hand dude, Bird in the hand.
The projected greater efficiency of the NEO does appear to be affecting market acceptance of the MAX. It's outsold it.
I'd love to see this change...to see a massive conversion of MAX MOU and LOI to firm orders! But at the moment, it has not come to fruition. I'm a bird in the hand guy.

I'm a huge fan of both the A320 and 737 maintaining parity with regards to performance and market penetration. 90% of my flying is done on these birds...and I want to see each manufacturer continue to push the other to improve!
learning never stops.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:36 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
Instead I'll use the marketing strap line that the 737 is "6% more efficient" as the gospel IT MUST BE, given that both you and CM were both content to let THAT pass unchallenged.....

It's a fair criticism. If we're inclined to trust one OEM over the other, or if we're more familiar with the analysis behind one's claims over the other, it's easy to apply scrutiny in only one direction.

In the case of Boeing's 6% per seat claim, that should not be one that's hard for any of us to accept. The 738 has 5% more seats than the A320 (at exit limit), and frequently over 6% more seats in a dual class config. It carries those passengers at lower structural weight per pax, using less thrust and with more wing. The only noteworthy factor favoring the A320 is a slightly more efficient engine (my view) when comparing the same generation CFM56-7 to the -5.

Having acknowledged being less familiar with Airbus' analysis, there's an oft cited claim in this thread that I'd love someone to help me better understand: Airbus and others are claiming upwards of 3% block fuel reduction for the addition of winglets to the A320. It's a claim which seems to be taken at face value...

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
3% sharklets
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
sharklets are forecast to be 3%
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 25):
by contributing 3.5%

I think most of us are comfortable with ~3% benefit to the 737NG from their addition of wiglets over a standard tip. For years Airbus told us the A320 would not gain much from winglets over the benefit already achieved by the tip-fence - they would cite the highly regarded DAW studies which indicate the A320 tip fence already provided 1.5% to 2% of what could be gained by adding a winglet to the A320. Now Airbus is removing the tip fence, adding structural reinforcement to the wing and achieving a net gain of 3% to 3.5%? Is there someone who can help explain how the A320 is gaining everything the 737 did from adding winglets, plus some, despite the net losses which must be factored in?

Thanks!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13989
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:42 pm

Quoting GCPET (Reply 23):
Will the cockpit be the same as the 737NG or a brandnew one which is similar to the 787?

The article in the thread starter says:

Quote:

Other changes include flight deck revisions and aft fuselage aerodynamic improvements.

Emphasis is mine.

So, it'll be the same cockpit with some (currently un-named) revisions made to it.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:45 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 37):
- some LPT stages and related parts are eliminated
- engine will be shorter
- ceramics being used

It looks like they are going for shorter, hotter and faster for the MAX. I don't know engine design well enough to understand the impact of that. Hotter and faster indicate more maintenance and less reliability in some worlds, but is that true for an engine high pressure core?
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:57 pm

One would think after recent experience with new planes missing the public relations targets, that we would be smart enough to just wait and see instead of staking ourselves to an unsupportable point. The design and improvement data is fraught with wishes and wild ass guesses at this point. And both manufactures will be making changes to offset or minimize any negative developments.

Yes it's a rousing discussion, however in 2 years so many points will have changed that some arguments will be ludacris, and some with the "absolute truth" will have egg on their faces. And others will be crying "foul" that the specs changed.

Knowing the desires of the program (as verbalized by public relations), and realizing them are two different matters especially when the engines are only part of the equation. Heck we could be arguing about the affect of tire sizes on fuel burn during take-off... or landing gear strut aerodynamics.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:59 pm

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 38):
Stitch, one of the few times that I am going to take exception with something you've said...
You have to go with the hard, firm orders...... Bird in the hand dude, Bird in the hand.

Boeing have stated every one of those commitments has a deposit, so they do seem to be a bit less ethereal than an option or purchase right.

That being said, I agree they are not firm orders until they are firm orders, but I will also note that even firm orders can and have been cancelled. Hence the true metric of "popularity" and "acceptance" is deliveries and we shall have an idea where each program stands around the turn of the next decade.  


I also need to revise an earlier post in this thread, as I said the opposite of what I meant (perils of trying to post during a short lull at work). This is what I meant to say:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
And just because the 777-300ER is more efficient than the A340-600, this has not compelled LH, VS, IB and others to cease A340-600 operations and replacing those frames with 777-300ERs.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:29 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
This is what I meant to say:

I already thought so upon reading your original post. Your balanced view is, as always, highly appreciated. At least by me.  .
 
SEA
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:51 pm

From what I've heard from the rumor mill, for airlines cross-shopping the MAX and the NEO, it seems as if the difference in fuel burn per trip for either frame is minor, almost to the point of being negligible. I think we will see airlines order these planes based upon which fits better into their fleet; ie, airlines that already have a good number of A320 family aircraft will stick with the NEO, airlines with a good number of 737NGs will stick with the MAX.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:32 pm

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 38):

You have to go with the hard, firm orders...... Bird in the hand dude, Bird in the hand.
The projected greater efficiency of the NEO does appear to be affecting market acceptance of the MAX. It's outsold it.


Mate, you have to realize in the same breath the NEO had a 1 year lead on the MAX and the modification are not as much on the NEO as they are on the MAX. Granted Boeing waited and played chicken with NSA and the MAX idea and as a result gave Airbus some market share but the truth remains that the MAX will come close to what the NEO has garnered if not par. But yes, I agree this competition should push each other to be and do better.   
 
Daysleeper
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:44 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):Is there evidence that shows the 737 having lower direct operating costs and lasting longer?
Yes. They sell and lease for more dollars per capacity and they stay in the fleet longer.

Could you elaborate as to where you would find such statistics?

Quoting CM (Reply 39):
The 738 has 5% more seats than the A320 (at exit limit),

Isn’t this because the 737 doesn’t have to meet modern safety regulations? I’m also wondering if this may change for the Max, as although the FAA was happy for Boeing to use 40 year old safety regulations for the NG, other agencies were not.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
. And based on the commitments Boeing have secured in the past six months, even if the A320neo is more efficient than the 737MAX, it's clearly not having a significant negative impact on the 737MAX's acceptance in the market.

I think it’s still a little early to be able to say that for sure. I don’t doubt that Boeing will get the 1000 orders this year, but I think it’s entirely possible that the NEO could reach 1,700 - 1,800 – and such a discrepancy isn’t going to be entirely explained by availability, especially since the majority of the early NEO slots will be taken.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:14 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 33):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The B-737NG operating empty weights by model;
B-737-700 = 84,100 lbs (38,147 kg)
B-737-800 = 91,108 lbs (41,413 kg)
B-737-900ER = 98,495 lbs (44,676 kg)

The A-32X operating empty weights by model;
A-319 = 90,000 lbs (40,800 kg)
A-320 = 94,000 lbs (42,600 kg)
A-321 = 107,000 lbs (48,500 kg)

Except..
The numbers for the A32X, straight from the ACAPs are:-

A-319 = 87,579 lbs (39,725 kg)
A-320 = 90, 927 lbs (41,244 kg)
A-321 = 103,300 lbs (46,85600 kg)

Except......
The numbers I used are from the OEMs

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 34):
Roseflyer

Did you notice those slides were from an Airbus PP? Each slide clearly says "Airbus" in the lower right hand corner. Those slides are not very objective, nor realistict. DL flies the B-73G, B-73H, A-319, and A-320. Perhaps their operations comparison would be more objective......oh wait. DL did order about 100 B-739Es last year, they did not order the A-32X series. These airplanes are to replace older B-752s, and JL was really pushing the A-321 hard.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Outlines Some 737 MAX Specs.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:43 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 46):
You have to go with the hard, firm orders...... Bird in the hand dude, Bird in the hand.

737MAX was not officially launched until less than 2 months ago, so it's not quite that simple. It was a "soft launch" situation. Now that Boeing has a launch customer in Southwest, the commitments should be firming quickly.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ANA787, Arock21, ATLFlyer323, ericm2031, FGITD, Google Adsense [Bot], GSPSPOT, mclewis1, MrBretz, qcpilotxf, robr, seat1a, SEPilot, STEADYFLYING, STT757, ty97, VS4ever and 233 guests