Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:20 pm

The main think I am interested in is how Boeing will do the 777 treatment on the MLG. Going to boogies with with four wheels? Keeping the current two wheels and moving the MLG backwards? Must be something really clever to the 737-10 less of an runway hog than the 737-9.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4572
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:43 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The main think I am interested in is how Boeing will do the 777 treatment on the MLG. Going to boogies with with four wheels? Keeping the current two wheels and moving the MLG backwards? Must be something really clever to the 737-10 less of an runway hog than the 737-9.


It should be something along the lines of this, if I read the article right. Of course, it doesn't have to compress quite as much as on the Hornet:

Image
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:48 pm

I counted 6 posts in a row disparinging the 737. It looks like A.net is so in love with the A321, the blinders might be on. Let's look at technical specifications when they come out before jumping to conclusions. Who can have any idea how operating costs will compare from the limited information provided.

VSMUT wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing has sold over 3000 737MAX. Just look at that number for a minute. The 737ng only had about 400 orders before first delivery. Airbus has done a better job in emerging markets than Boeing and has gigantic mega orders for over 400 planes from both Air Asia and IndiGo. Congrats to them for their big backlog, but Boeing has done pretty well too. 3500 orders and they haven't delivered yet means there is plenty of opportunity for 737-10 sales, although we might see the 737-9 disappear.


About 3350 actually. But that is still 1500 short of the A320NEO, an aircraft that required significantly fewer changes over it's predecessor (and therefore cheaper to develop), and by all accounts an aircraft that commands higher prices too. 3350 means very little if you sell them at close to break-even cost. 3350 also means very little when two manufacturers enjoy a virtual duopoly, and the best-selling jet is already sold out many years into the future.

Comparing the number of orders before delivery is nonsensical. The global aircraft market was significantly smaller back then.


Newbiepilot wrote:
How do you know it won't match the A321 in efficiency? Lots of fanboys through nebulous generalizations around like it is based on an old design, fan diameter or other vague ideas, but head to head the 737MAX and A320neo families look to have very comparable Efficiency per seat.


1. It is a very old design, and that has influenced the development of the MAX in many detrimental ways. As a pilot I also find the lack of automation vs the A320 family very significant.

2. Fan diameter is relevant. There is a reason why the fan size is growing on all aircraft nowadays. The A320NEO (81 in.), C919 (78 in.) and MC-21 (81 in.) will all feature significantly bigger fans, and they all compete for the same mission profile. Sure, many will then respond by saying that the smaller fan is an advantage on shorter flights. But that completely misses the fact that the true short-haulers, the regional jets, also feature bigger fans than the 737MAX nowadays. The C-series (73 in.) and Embraer E2 (73 in.) will both have fans that are bigger than the MAX, as will the SSJ NG eventually. It seems pretty conspicuous that a 240 seat 737 will have smaller fans than a 100 seat regional jet ;)

Newbiepilot wrote:
Don't forget that the A321 has a lot of extra weight on board that a 737 does not like overwinter slides...
... oversized cabin doors


The 737-900ER already features an extra full-size door and slides for it. There is also a pretty good chance that the door configuration will be changed into an A321 layout on this proposed 737-10.
BTW, the A321 doesn't feature overwing emergency exits. True, the 240 seat version will, but it gets rid of the full-size doors forward of the wings too.

Newbiepilot wrote:
powered cargo doors, oversized cabin doors, larger diameter fuselage, heavier engines,


Powered cargo doors = bigger cargo hold = an advantage.

"Oversized" doors? How many times have we heard that 757 style boarding doors was necessary in this size category? Funny how suddenly it is a disadvantage when the 737 doesn't feature it :scratchchin:

Larger diameter fuselage = advantage

Heavier engines? Yeah, by about 200-300 kg pr. engine.

Newbiepilot wrote:
heavier gear


The gear on the proposed 737-10 will not be lighter than the A321s.

Newbiepilot wrote:
the A321 has a lot of extra weight on board that a 737 does not


The A321 at MTOW and with 240 passengers will weigh 389 kg per passenger. The same number for a 737-9 (albeit with 220 pax) is 400 kg. Using a rough calculation, assuming a linear growth of weight with length, the 737-10 should achieve 395 kg pr passenger at 230 pax.
Using the same method for MZFW, those numbers are 307 kg for the A321, 322 kg for the 737-9 and 307 kg for the 737-10.

The A321 is heavier overall, but lighter per passenger.


I think you just created a new measurement to compare airplanes. I have never seen MTOW per passenger used as a way to compare airplanes. Using that metric makes no sense. The A346 had MTOW/Passenger ratio 18% higher than the 777-300ER. All that means is it took a whole lot more fuel to get where you were going with an A346.

Looking at MZFW means either an airplane is bigger or it is heavier. If capacity is the same but MZFW/passenger is lower, that means the 737-10 will likely be more efficient.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4572
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:02 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I counted 6 posts in a row disparinging the 737. It looks like A.net is so in love with the A321, the blinders might be on. Let's look at technical specifications when they come out before jumping to conclusions. Who can have any idea how operating costs will compare from the limited information provided.


Or maybe it has, I don't know, something to do with the fact that some people here know a thing or two about aircraft design and operation, and have the ability to compare that information with statistics to draw comparisons and conclusions between two types of aircraft?


Newbiepilot wrote:
I think you just created a new measurement to compare airplanes. I have never seen MTOW per passenger used as a way to compare airplanes. Using that metric makes no sense. The A346 had MTOW/Passenger ratio 18% higher than the 777-300ER. All that means is it took a whole lot more fuel to get where you were going with an A346.

Looking at MZFW means either an airplane is bigger or it is heavier. If capacity is the same but MZFW/passenger is lower, that means the 737-10 will likely be more efficient.


It is relevant, because it gives an indication about how much weight needs to be dragged up to FL360 and all the way to the destination. A higher weight means an increase in the amount of energy required, and in aviation, that means fuel, and by extension, money. Dividing that weight per passenger gives an indication of how that number compares with the people who in the end will pay the bill.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:15 pm

Stitch wrote:
Guy Norris reports that the main gear will incorporate a form of trailing-link gear design that shifts the rotation point slightly aft and will be conceptually derived from the semilevered main landing gear design developed for the 777-300ER.


Also used on 787-10 according to earlier articles.

BTW Guy Norris link is http://aviationweek.com/technology/boei ... h-offering . I think it's accessible with a free registration. It goes into more verbiage about the gear choice. In particular this method gets the desired result without increasing weight or maintenance or development costs too much.

It also says the same engine can be retained. That's pretty amusing to me. That suggests that the main limiting factor on the -9 is the rotation angle, since the same engine and wings is now going to put another dozen pax and their bags into the air.

Waterbomber wrote:
... all that for 12 additonal seats that may or may not get filled?
It's absurd.


I guess the A321 is absurd too?

It was funny to read the AvWeek comments which said Boeing has finally produced a two-engine 707! :D

xdlx wrote:
Oh please.... the 900/900ER/900MAX are all you can get from this frame that should have stopped @ 800


If nothing else, Boeing is a for-profit corporation, so your ridicule is meaningless. If they can make a positive ROI, they're gonna go for it.

FlyHossD wrote:
The greater point is - is this aircraft attractive enough to generate the sales the -9Max has been missing (losing to the A321NEO)?


It'll at best stem the losses. They aren't adding thrust or MTOW (as far as we know) so this thing will take a hit on range. A321NEOLR will still be a better B757 replacement.

KarelXWB wrote:
Indeed the stretch is much smaller than expected, might as well cancel the MAX-9 instead.


It's too late: the first --9 is already being assembled, and this thing will not EIS till 2020 at best so it'd miss a lot of deliveries if it just cancelled the -9.

KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Delta has not a 12 seat difference between their 737-900ERs and A321s being delivered fresh from the factory this year. 66 inches would close that gap. The A321neo will add a few extra seats due to exit reconfiguration, but the capacities will probably be pretty close. Closer than the 737-800 to A320 I suppose.


I was just comparing OEM cabins. The MAX-10 goes up to 230 seats in single class, versus 240 seats on the A321.


Comments on the AvWeek article say that the A321 ends up being only 1 foot longer than the -10MAX, and the 240 seat configuration is not being widely adopted for the A321. Perhaps that explains the issue. Do we know of anyone who plans on using 240 seats (so we can all plan to avoid those flights)?

Clearly Boeing had to eek out every single inch on this thing, so it seems it will have to live without being able to claim pure parity with the A321.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
and the 240 seat configuration is not being widely adopted for the A321


Because it isn't available yet.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:28 pm

keesje wrote:
It is a good idea if it sells. Otherwise it is a waste of money/time. Boeing knows exactly what it is doing but after the original MAX launch, the MAX 7 and MAX 9 have now ~ been pulled. Maybe One Boeing listened to people they knew agree.

What everybody knows but doesn't want to say (Incl CFM), the higher by pass ratio on the LEAP-A is there for a reason & it won't go away.

Apparently UA agreed. If they don't we can turn another page..


So you're suggesting that UA had an early look at this MAX10 proposal and liked it enough to defer the 73G order?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10715
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:30 pm

VSMUT wrote:
It is relevant, because it gives an indication about how much weight needs to be dragged up to FL360 and all the way to the destination. A higher weight means an increase in the amount of energy required, and in aviation, that means fuel, and by extension, money. Dividing that weight per passenger gives an indication of how that number compares with the people who in the end will pay the bill.

It is actually entirely irrelevant at this point because we don't know this 737-10's MTOW. You are drawing conclusions between a 93.5t A321 (I note you did not use the 97T version) and a fictitious 90.85t 737-10. Just dropping that down to 90t for the 737-10 brings it to only 2kg more per a passenger). For all we know Boeing could be ceding the longer range part of the market to focus on shorter hops with this plane and maintain the 737-9's 88.3t MTOW (uh oh, that gives the 737-10 lower MTOW/passenger at 230 seats...) while still offering the -9 for airlines that need longer range but more capacity than the -8. We don't know what the 737-10's MTOW will be be, and what its performance at MTOW with 230 passengers will be vs an A321 at 93.5T MTOW with 240 passengers.
Last edited by Polot on Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:32 pm

I think Boeing have done little enough not to provoke Airbus into a response, which may be part of the point.
BV
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:32 pm

bgm wrote:
They should nickname it the Boeing 737 MAX Tailstriker.



Another day of a.net is now worthwhile thanks to you. :D
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:33 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Yes, they should have developed a clean sheet design back then. It would have placed the A320 at a distinct disadvantage, and allowed Boeing more room to do a proper update of it's own design today.

The 737NG wasn't a failure by any means (I would call it a great success), but in the long term they shot themselves in the foot by doing it. Easily said in hindsight, but still. The 737MAX is a mess of an update. Split scimitar winglets, new tail-cone, extended L/G, partial FBW, and engines that hardly fit. If you need to do that much work, while your competitor just slaps a pair of new engines onto their offering, then your base platform (the 737) is the wrong choice and ill-suited for the task. Especially when the simpler offering from your competitor sells better too.

6500 737NGs sold suggests that it would have been a roaring success.


That totally ignores the facts that (a) 737NG development was far cheaper than a clean sheet and (b) The clean sheet had a lot more risk than the 737NG and (c) The commonality with the classics made it easier to sell 737NGs and (d) There really wasn't a lot of compelling new tech to add to the 737 in the early 90s.

Or, put another way, what if Boeing went the way of the 787 and blew up the development budget and schedule for a clean sheet NB in the early 90s? Some of the earliest a.net posts would be about how Boeing is doomed due to program accounting, yada yada. In any case, the A320's blooming and market parity probably would have happened even earlier, and it could have had a disastrous knock on effect to the 777 much like the 787 screw up killed off Y1 and Y3.

I also don't see why you say the MAX is a 'mess of an upgrade'. Pretty much everything you describe is proven tech from other programs. Airbus had at least three different winglet designs before it found one that it could ship, isn't that more of a mess?

Bottom line to me is Boeing and apparently its key customers preferred to retain 737 compatibility for as long as possible. All this hindsight is just that. Boeing is going to milk every last drop out of the 737 line, because whenever it does switch to an all-new product it will be incredibly vulnerable, therefore it will put it off till it has no other choice.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Guy Norris reports that the main gear will incorporate a form of trailing-link gear design that shifts the rotation point slightly aft and will be conceptually derived from the semilevered main landing gear design developed for the 777-300ER.


Also used on 787-10 according to earlier articles.

BTW Guy Norris link is http://aviationweek.com/technology/boei ... h-offering . I think it's accessible with a free registration. It goes into more verbiage about the gear choice. In particular this method gets the desired result without increasing weight or maintenance or development costs too much.

It also says the same engine can be retained. That's pretty amusing to me. That suggests that the main limiting factor on the -9 is the rotation angle, since the same engine and wings is now going to put another dozen pax and their bags into the air.


The rotation angle is the limiting factor on the 737-9, once in the air the performance is not to bad.

In the article in aviation week there is no real information about the MLG. What is done on the 777-300ER and I assume will be done on the 787-10 is looking the boogie at takeoff, so the rotation is around the wheels that are on the back of the boogie. How that should relate to a MLG without a boogie I have difficulties to imagine.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:43 pm

Guy told us not so long ago Boeing was looking to put a higher BPR LEAP on the MAX. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-studies-using-airbus-leap-engine-737-max-stretch. That might have created parity on fuel efficiency / noise profile and stack up against the 80 inch GTF's pushed into the market as we speak. Boeing is fighting an uphill battle here & has to present a valuable proposition.

Image

It think United Airlines has a dis-proportionally large say in this. They ordered 100 737-9s & no one followed.
Will UA think this is good enough or will Ron Bauer call Leahy after all. Or get an offer he can't refuse.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10715
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
Comments on the AvWeek article say that the A321 ends up being only 1 foot longer than the -10MAX, and the 240 seat configuration is not being widely adopted for the A321. Perhaps that explains the issue. Do we know of anyone who plans on using 240 seats (so we can all plan to avoid those flights)?

It is effectively one row shorter than the current A321 (which apparently seats ~236 with all the latest space saving bells and whistles). The 240 seat version needs the new door layout to allow for better spacing between exit rows to avoid wasted space (Door 3s are pushed back slightly in that version). I note Wizz Air, who selected the 240 seat A321neo, currently puts 230 seats in their A321. Air Asia is putting in 236 seats in their "240" seat A321neo (of course there is difference in marketing capacity and what airlines are actually willing to sacrifice in terms of closet/lav/galley space for both the 737 and A321).

For most operators they would probably find this -10's and A321 capacity close enough, and it would come down to other factors (aka performance and price).
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:11 pm

Polot wrote:
For all we know Boeing could be ceding the longer range part of the market to focus on shorter hops with this plane and maintain the 737-9's 88.3t MTOW (uh oh, that gives the 737-10 lower MTOW/passenger at 230 seats...) while still offering the -9 for airlines that need longer range but more capacity than the -8.


The interesting thing about this comment IMO, is that if Boeing is ceding the longer range market to Airbus AND Airbus turns the LR into the standard A321 model as a lot of people expect it to happen, it should open the door to some airlines having 739/A321neo mixed fleets :bouncy: That should be very entertaining to say the least for all of us airline enthusiasts :)
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:17 pm

airbazar wrote:
The interesting thing about this comment IMO, is that if Boeing is ceding the longer range market to Airbus AND Airbus turns the LR into the standard A321 model as a lot of people expect it to happen, it should open the door to some airlines having 739/A321neo mixed fleets :bouncy: That should be very entertaining to say the least for all of us airline enthusiasts :)


Alaska chief among them. Fleet replacement negotiations with Boeing should be very interesting in a few years once AS has some experience with the VX 321s.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:39 pm

This announcement of these specifications may just be to see how interested airlines are in a bare-minimum simple stretch. I don't think we can conclude that this is the definitive MAX-9.5/MAX-10.

At least that's what I hope... to call this upgrade to the MAX-9 underwhelming is an understatement.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:46 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
and the 240 seat configuration is not being widely adopted for the A321


Because it isn't available yet.


Right, but as above, the a/c is only a foot longer than the -10 proposal, and it will be interesting to see if ULCCs go all the way to 240 seats or if some/many have mercy on their pax. The comments in the AvWeek article suggest that doing so creates issues with galley and lav space.

Bottom line is the 230 vs 240 comparison might be fodder for brochure marketing battles but in the real world the a/c are very similarly sized and airlines will be studying the real world numbers before making a decision. The A321 still has the advantage especially here on a.net but this might be 'good enough' to earn Boeing more business whilst staying within the technical envelope. Presumably that's why they're doing it...

BoeingVista wrote:
I think Boeing have done little enough not to provoke Airbus into a response, which may be part of the point.


It seems to me that Boeing's hands were tied by the existing 737's parameters. They could not land a square punch on the A321, it's just a glancing blow.

mjoelnir wrote:
The rotation angle is the limiting factor on the 737-9, once in the air the performance is not to bad.

In the article in aviation week there is no real information about the MLG. What is done on the 777-300ER and I assume will be done on the 787-10 is looking the boogie at takeoff, so the rotation is around the wheels that are on the back of the boogie. How that should relate to a MLG without a boogie I have difficulties to imagine.


Yes, the article is less than clear. Here's a fair use quote:

Having previously sought options for installation of a taller main landing gear without the need and expense of moving the pivot point of the leg, Boeing is adopting a form of trailing-link gear design that shifts the rotation point slightly aft.

Although the company studied various multihinged and compressible oleo designs for the earlier configurations, the trailing-link feature is believed to be considered simpler and less maintenance-heavy. The new configuration will be conceptually derived from the semilevered main landing gear design developed for the 777-300ER. The gear system enables the longer-range 777 version to rotate about an axis of the set of aft wheels rather than a central point of the three-axle bogie beam where the main strut is located. Boeing plans to adapt a version of the leveraging mechanism to the existing single-axle strut of the 737.


Given the gear looks like this:

Image

... it's hard to see where any leverage can happen. The article specifically says it's not based on multiple hinges and/or compressed oleos either.

Polot wrote:
It is effectively one row shorter than the current A321 (which apparently seats ~236 with all the latest space saving bells and whistles). The 240 seat version needs the new door layout to allow for better spacing between exit rows to avoid wasted space (Door 3s are pushed back slightly in that version). I note Wizz Air, who selected the 240 seat A321neo, currently puts 230 seats in their A321. Air Asia is putting in 236 seats in their "240" seat A321neo (of course there is difference in marketing capacity and what airlines are actually willing to sacrifice in terms of closet/lav/galley space for both the 737 and A321).

For most operators they would probably find this -10's and A321 capacity close enough, and it would come down to other factors (aka performance and price).


Thanks for the informative post. You've said what I was trying to say earlier, that the airlines will apply their own real-world configuration rules and might not go up against the absolute limits in the marketing brochures.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
airzona11
Posts: 1773
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:46 pm

Reading this thread, you would think Boeing can't sell any airplanes worthy of the air chair CEOs and their stock must be worthless. Insert reality.

The 739 (and 739MAX) \ don't have the largest payload or range in their class. Fine. There is only 1 competitor. For all the hate thrown the 739s way, you cannot doubt they have a place and are no doubt making money for the airlines flying them. For mid-range (even stretching their legs on longer segments) flying DL/UA/AS they do the job.

Why would the not maximize their investment and try and capture the higher end of the market that the A321 is currently capturing?
Fact- They are going to produce the 737MAX, the 7310 is not the "if not this than an all new plane" option. If they can capture more orders from a family they are going to produce, after reading this whole thread I am missing the reason why that is a bad thing?

airbazar wrote:
Polot wrote:
For all we know Boeing could be ceding the longer range part of the market to focus on shorter hops with this plane and maintain the 737-9's 88.3t MTOW (uh oh, that gives the 737-10 lower MTOW/passenger at 230 seats...) while still offering the -9 for airlines that need longer range but more capacity than the -8.


The interesting thing about this comment IMO, is that if Boeing is ceding the longer range market to Airbus AND Airbus turns the LR into the standard A321 model as a lot of people expect it to happen, it should open the door to some airlines having 739/A321neo mixed fleets :bouncy: That should be very entertaining to say the least for all of us airline enthusiasts :)


Which is the reality of the market today. The biggest airlines are much larger than they used to be. Their fleets as such can achieve scale efficiencies much easier. They can choose the best plane for the best role, and make money doing so. If the reason the A321 is infallible because it is larger and can fly farther than the 739 on the high end of chart, there would be no A321 and 739. 757s were doing that when all were being produced.

Back to the 7310. I am excited to see the plane and hope it develops. Neither Boeing nor Airbus is going to part ways with their main aircraft family anytime soon, so keep the versions coming. The A321 is a great plane, being enthusiastic about the 739 doesn't disparage it (unless you post about it on Anet, my oh my this thread is a dandy).
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:48 pm

I can't seem to find the part where they say they are making this plane for sure.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:05 pm

arizona11, I am excited too. 12 passengers is a substantial upgrade, basically to 200 passengers on the nose.

The cost per passenger for those 12 passengers is slim to nothing. That is why this is exciting, if it is executed well. For a fleet of 100, that is 1,200 extra seats flying around, maybe 800 occupied, so you sell about 3200 more fares every day. 1 million extra fares per year. For zero cost basically.

Or, these can be used to substantially beef up Premium Economy, and make money that way.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:11 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
... all that for 12 additonal seats that may or may not get filled?
It's absurd.


I guess the A321 is absurd too?

It was funny to read the AvWeek comments which said Boeing has finally produced a two-engine 707! :D



:banghead:

In Airbus terms, what Boeing is doing here is the equivalent of proposing a A322 NEO with 12 additional seats and different landing gear compared to the A321NEO.
Can you see the absurdity now?

Designing, certifying, establishing a separate procurement chain for the parts that are different, different maintenance and flight operations procedures, etc... has a huge cost that would need to be amortized over the entire sales.
This all only for offering airlines the benefit of being able to carry 12 more seats, hopefully with paying passengers? It woud be easier and wiser to give them a steeper discount on the B739 MAX.


I think that a trailing landing gear is not a good proposition. The Avro RJ and ATR72, have one of those and while spectacular to see that thing going in and out, it adds complexity and thus vulnerability. It also decreases life and increases weight because the force is off-centered, and hence applies torque, requiring a heavier structure.

I remember from my CDCCL training that the B737NG is equipped with a Nitrogen inerting system.
Why don't Boeing design a landing gear with a longer cylinder that deflates when stowed and inflates once it's extended, using Nitrogen from the Nitrogen inerting system? According to the servicing chapter in ATA32 of my copy of the B737NG systems description, there is a 16inch height difference between a fully compressed and a fully extended landing gear, referred to as "DIM X". If the strut is guided well inside the cylinder and there is enough added strength to this structure, there shouldn't be a problem to give it more extension, resulting in the ability to give more ground clearance andd put both a longer fuselage and bigger engines, offering a real A321NEO killer.

As an alternative, they could build a telescopic one, with a 2 chamber cylinder, wherein one chamber opens up during stowage to allow the strut to go deeper inside the cylinder, while it closes during extension and landing and keeps the strut pushed out at a more extended level.

As a second alternative, the cylinder could be made telescopic with a variable volume, ie that the inner cylinder head is extended using a hydraulic actuator or electrically operated screwjack.

Eventually a hydraulic actuator or electric operated screwjack can help move the strut up and down to support its extension and compression.


This is 2017, it should be pretty easy to design such a landing gear.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:21 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
This is 2017, it should be pretty easy to design such a landing gear.


Looks like Boeing applied for a range of locked levered bogie ( 2 axle ) patents ~2012.
( interesting that they think there isn't gobs of prior art around on that topic.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Well Boeing always did say that they were considering 2 routes.The (more) complicated route involved using the bigger fan engine and major undercarriage change,or, well ,exactly this.They said they were under pressure to move fast so I don't think this route is any surprise really.Unlikley to have any LR capabilities but that's a small part of the existing market which they will no doubt cover when they replace the 737 in a few years (post 777x programme).
I wonder However what the range (with act,s) might be for the -9 max if they fitted this canter levered MLG to that model as well.So perhaps a -9MAX LR?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3651
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:38 pm

My thinking is that the length of the main gear strut to the pivot of the trailing link system will be as long as the current gear plus a tyre radius giving the max length that will fit in the gear bay and then the trailing link part will be approximately the length of the radius of the tyre such that when it folds a full (or almost full) 180 in stowage the wheels ed up in exactly the same wheel wells as before but adds a full tyre radius in ground clearance and moves the fulcrum a tyres radius to the back aswell.

I had previously wondered about having one gear as a trailing link and one as a leading link and storing the left main gear in the right well and the right main gear in the left well :crazy:

Fred
Image
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:45 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
I had previously wondered about having one gear as a trailing link and one as a leading link and storing the left main gear in the right well and the right main gear in the left well :crazy:


Crossed feet for crossed eyes :-)
( only doesn't work as you have to move the strut through the keel beam.)

How is the nose gear handled?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:54 pm

This is underwhelming compared to what is possible, but quite reasonable considering the constraints of the 737.

My guess is that we'll see a 2–3–2 eliptical MOM launched with a 2025 EIS in the next few years. Then we'll see a NSA announced in the 2022–2024 timeframe for a 2028–2030 EIS to finally replace the 737.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:59 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
In Airbus terms, what Boeing is doing here is the equivalent of proposing a A322 NEO with 12 additional seats and different landing gear compared to the A321NEO. Can you see the absurdity now?


But if the A321NEO were a sales dog.. and the 737-MAX9 had better capabilities... we wouldn't think an A322 NEO is absurd... rather perhaps necessary.

My only question is 3 years to EIS? To put the equivalent of a fuse plug fore and aft of the wing, and modify the gear? Clearly the gear already exists.. There's no way Boeing has been wrestling with the 737 squatting too low to the ground for the last 10 years and not engineered and built at least half a dozen alternatives in some dark corner of Renton.
learning never stops.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9305
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:03 pm

VSMUT wrote:
The 737NG wasn't a failure by any means (I would call it a great success), but in the long term they shot themselves in the foot by doing it. Easily said in hindsight, but still. The 737MAX is a mess of an update. Split scimitar winglets, new tail-cone, extended L/G, partial FBW, and engines that hardly fit. If you need to do that much work, while your competitor just slaps a pair of new engines onto their offering, then your base platform (the 737) is the wrong choice and ill-suited for the task. Especially when the simpler offering from your competitor sells better too.


Both of your comments in bold cannot be true. I would suggest that you research net present value analysis. You are focusing on technical features when you should be considering economics.

Edit: To clarify, the economics of how to evaluate different investment options.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:07 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
In Airbus terms, what Boeing is doing here is the equivalent of proposing a A322 NEO with 12 additional seats and different landing gear compared to the A321NEO.
Can you see the absurdity now?


Sorry, no. To my view, this is only happening because Boeing feels the need to close a gap relative to its competitor. If Airbus had a competitor that could offer a few more rows of seats I would not think it would be absurd to see Airbus address that competitive gap and do so in a cost effective manner.

parapente wrote:
Well Boeing always did say that they were considering 2 routes.The (more) complicated route involved using the bigger fan engine and major undercarriage change,or, well ,exactly this.They said they were under pressure to move fast so I don't think this route is any surprise really. Unlikley to have any LR capabilities but that's a small part of the existing market which they will no doubt cover when they replace the 737 in a few years (post 777x programme).


It became clear in October when Boeing's CEO said:

“We can potentially do both,” says Muilenburg, referring to the 737-10X and NMA. “If you were to look at a stretched MAX airplane and additional stretch, that could potentially be a 2019, 2020 entry into service and a relatively minor development program. If you were to look at a new middle-of-the-market airplane, it would be more of a 2024, 2025 entry into service, so [it is] not something that is going to significantly affect the R&D profile in the near term,” he adds. Straddling the 787-10 and 777X debuts, both initiatives “would feather in very nicely and give us a nice, stable R&D profile,” says Muilenburg.


If you know CEO-speak, you knew that the -10X path is the one that would be taken. He says both can be done, but no one was publicly pushing for the -10X till he made this statement, so he was redirecting the conversation. Before that, it was all MadMax vs MOM talk.

The topic got 13 pages of discussion back then ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1344107 ).

parapente wrote:
I wonder However what the range (with act,s) might be for the -9 max if they fitted this canter levered MLG to that model as well.So perhaps a -9MAX LR?


Doubtful. The big fan and higher efficiency of the GTF really shines on the LR missions. Anything designed around LEAP-1B won't have a chance.

flipdewaf wrote:
My thinking is that the length of the main gear strut to the pivot of the trailing link system will be as long as the current gear plus a tyre radius giving the max length that will fit in the gear bay and then the trailing link part will be approximately the length of the radius of the tyre such that when it folds a full (or almost full) 180 in stowage the wheels ed up in exactly the same wheel wells as before but adds a full tyre radius in ground clearance and moves the fulcrum a tyres radius to the back aswell.


For those of us with less ability to visualize it, Wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailing_arm ) gives us a Cessna 404 gear as an example:

Image

Still, I'm not sure how this will relate to the 777-300ER and 787-10 gears that have multiple bogies. As quoted above, Guy Norris said:

The new configuration will be conceptually derived from the semilevered main landing gear design developed for the 777-300ER.


Not sure which common concepts are in play, other than the fact that the rotation will occur around a tire that's a few inches further aft than the current one.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:46 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
Don't do it !! Still won't match the A321 in performance or efficiency, The landing gear sounds kluged. Will not have much compatibility with other 737-MAX versions. Save the bullets for a 200-250 passenger all new aircraft for the 2025 timeframe.


How do you know it won't match the A321 in efficiency? Lots of fanboys through nebulous generalizations around like it is based on an old design, fan diameter or other vague ideas, but head to head the 737MAX and A320neo families look to have very comparable Efficiency per seat...


Don't need to do detailed math to know that a 2 meter stretch of 9-MAX still leaves this shorter than A321-NEO by almost a meter -- 6 more seats in A321. The new stretched MAX would be heavier, more drag, yet same wing and engine with no increase in fan size. And if they try to match the A321 range with thrust and weight increase, then even less efficiency for MAX. The range of A321-LR for TATL is the killer for any MAX, no kluge landing gear is going overcome that.

B already was outmaneuvered by A and NEO -- forcing their hand to develop the MAX...sales figures show who won...A321-NEO has clobbered 9-MAX...so B looks desperate here. No shame in being second place in a duopoly if you are selling a decent product like MAX-8. Save $$ in a weakening market to better price existing MAX and for a future elegant all new mid range product in a decade.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
Passedv1
Posts: 665
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:07 pm

newbiepilot wrote:
counted 6 posts in a row disparinging the 737. It looks like A.net is so in love with the A321, the blinders might be on.


For me at least I don't accept your binary choice that you have presented. I do disperage the 737 and do wish it's days were numbered because I wanted to see the new Boeing jet that Boeing was going to come up with. That does not mean I am suddenly an Airbus fan though. I think their automation design philosophy stinks from it's foundation...but that's for another thread.

I have been a NY Giants fan my whole life; they were just crushed by the Lions and are done for the season. This doesn't mean that I am suddenly a Patriots fan. It means that I wait to see what happens next year.

Here I was hoping Boeing was going to announce a clean-sheet that would effectively kill the 737 and the Airbus 321NEO. That didn't happen so I guess i'm just going to have to wait for another few years to see what happens next.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:14 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
Don't need to do detailed math to know that a 2 meter stretch of 9-MAX still leaves this shorter than A321-NEO by almost a meter -- 6 more seats in A321.

But what if you like to do detailed math?

Airbus A321 Length 44.51 m (146 ft 0 in)
Boeing 737-9 Length 42.11 m (138 ft 2 in)
Boeing 737-10 Stretch 1.67 m (66 in)
Boeing 737-10 Length 43.78 m
Difference in Length 0.73 m (28.7 in)

So the -10 will be one ULCC-pitch row of seats shorter than the A321. Not sure how usable cabin length will differ.

QuarkFly wrote:
B already was outmaneuvered by A and NEO -- forcing their hand to develop the MAX...sales figures show who won...A321-NEO has clobbered 9-MAX...so B looks desperate here. No shame in being second place in a duopoly if you are selling a decent product like MAX-8. Save $$ in a weakening market to better price existing MAX and for a future elegant all new mid range product in a decade.


No argument there. B was still up to its eyeballs in terrible teens when it was considering what to do next, and A sucker-punched them with the NEO.

Passedv1 wrote:
I have been a NY Giants fan my whole life; they were just crushed by the Lions and are done for the season. This doesn't mean that I am suddenly a Patriots fan. It means that I wait to see what happens next year.


Come over to the dark side! There's plenty of room on the bandwagon!

If not, at least be thankful that you're not a Jets fan! :D
Last edited by Revelation on Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:16 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
In the article in aviation week there is no real information about the MLG. What is done on the 777-300ER and I assume will be done on the 787-10 is looking the boogie at takeoff, so the rotation is around the wheels that are on the back of the boogie. How that should relate to a MLG without a boogie I have difficulties to imagine.

Well, if it doesn't have the desired effect, they can always blame it on the boogie.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:25 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
In Airbus terms, what Boeing is doing here is the equivalent of proposing a A322 NEO with 12 additional seats and different landing gear compared to the A321NEO.
Can you see the absurdity now?

Personally, I think that should have happened with the A321NEO anyway. Two extra rows of seats would have allowed current 2/3-class configs to go up to just about 200 seats, and single class to be more than the current aprox. 205 seats, which require an additional FA for just 5 seats. And ULCC high density to aproach 250 seats. Yes that would have bitten into its range but I see that more as a "good to have" rather than a "need to have".
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:40 pm

BaconButty wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
In the article in aviation week there is no real information about the MLG. What is done on the 777-300ER and I assume will be done on the 787-10 is looking the boogie at takeoff, so the rotation is around the wheels that are on the back of the boogie. How that should relate to a MLG without a boogie I have difficulties to imagine.

Well, if it doesn't have the desired effect, they can always blame it on the boogie.


I'm still trying to figure out what dancing has to do with any of this?? lol
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:55 pm

If Boeing is smart they standarize the gear, engines on the 737-9 too.

A 737-7/-8 standard and a 737-9/-10 standard.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:00 pm

airzona11 wrote:
Reading this thread, you would think Boeing can't sell any airplanes worthy of the air chair CEOs and their stock must be worthless. Insert reality.


It's like how the tech media reports incessantly how Apple is "doomed" and Android is "winning" because of respective market share. The A321-200 is the more capable airframe and it's sold very well because of it and those sales are generating a great deal of revenue and profit for Airbus, but it's not like the only model Boeing Commercial makes is the 737-9(00ER) and therefore Boeing must have a direct competitor that is equally as successful lest they risk going bankrupt and disappearing from the market.

Waterbomber wrote:
In Airbus terms, what Boeing is doing here is the equivalent of proposing a A322 NEO with 12 additional seats and different landing gear compared to the A321NEO.


:shakehead:

It's really an A321-300 with a tweaked landing gear to allow better rotation.

Waterbomber wrote:
Can you see the absurdity now?


Well it is something keesje has been arguing Airbus should do... :angel:


Waterbomber wrote:
Designing, certifying, establishing a separate procurement chain for the parts that are different, different maintenance and flight operations procedures, etc... has a huge cost that would need to be amortized over the entire sales.


A valid point for a significant redesign (the type keesje has been pushing for), which is why Boeing appears to be following a minimum-change approach to keep development costs down and also Customer Cash Operating Costs.


Waterbomber wrote:
This all only for offering airlines the benefit of being able to carry 12 more seats, hopefully with paying passengers?


The 737 family has had the capacity edge on the A320 family on the low-to-mid end and Airbus has been developing things like FlexLavs and FlexGalleys to fit more people to close that gap. And even on the A321, where they have an advantage over the 737-9, Airbus is doing the same to add even more seats. So is Airbus wasting their time trying to add more seats that hopefully will be filled with paying passengers?

And with probably near-identical trip costs to the 737-9, those 12 passengers will be "free" to carry and therefore it's pure revenue. Set the ticket price low enough, and you'll fill them every flight and still make hundreds, if not thousands per flight.
 
spacecookie
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:57 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:02 pm

Flighty wrote:
bgm wrote:
They should nickname it the Boeing 737 MAX Tailstriker.



Another day of a.net is not worthwhile thanks to you. :D

Fixed
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:15 pm

I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10715
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:17 pm

keesje wrote:
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.

Boeing probably already has an idea of any incremental improvements Airbus can offer, since those improvements will most likely be coming from the engines.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:18 pm

keesje wrote:
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.


You're not? Because this statement sounds exactly like something you'd say. No offense - I don't disagree with the sentiment - but why deny it?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:18 pm

keesje wrote:
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.


Assuming Airbus feels a threat that they need to do so. And if they do, and it proves to keep the A321 just as popular, then better for Boeing to have wasted a little money than a lot of money.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:27 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
I have been a NY Giants fan my whole life; they were just crushed by the Lions and are done for the season.

Are you sure you are a fan? I seem to remember the game being in Green Bay. The Lions never crush anybody in the playoffs.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:29 pm

keesje wrote:
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.


Just for the fun of it? I doubt it. However, if a somewhat stretched A321 can sway a big deal or two their way that they'd lose without a change, I could see them doing so. However, JL just said "I see no reason to change things" with regard to the MOM segment, which to me indicates he feels Airbus doesn't have to change things to sway deals.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2619
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:33 pm

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.


Assuming Airbus feels a threat that they need to do so. And if they do, and it proves to keep the A321 just as popular, then better for Boeing to have wasted a little money than a lot of money.


Considering the 9Max will be the last of the original 737Max series to be delivered, why not replace the 9Max with this version as was done with the 7.5Max replacing the 7Max.

That way a 752 capacity 737 could become the 10Max.
Last edited by flyingclrs727 on Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:34 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.


Assuming Airbus feels a threat that they need to do so. And if they do, and it proves to keep the A321 just as popular, then better for Boeing to have wasted a little money than a lot of money.


Considering the 9Max will be the last of the original 737Max series to be delivered, why not replace the 9Max with this version as was done with the 7.5Max replacing the 7Max.


The first MAX-9 is already in production, the MAX-7 was still on the drawing board.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:38 pm

So here is my rub, if the engineers were given the time to sit and devise this new landing gear arrangement, would they have done better with this gear on all MAX variants thus allowing the larger engine fan size and reducing engine cost by allowing the OEM's to make one less model?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
However, JL just said "I see no reason to change things" with regard to the MOM segment, which to me indicates he feels Airbus doesn't have to change things to sway deals.


Hold your cards close to your chest.

Marketing guys say a lot of things, like "putting heavier engines on the A330 is pointless", just to launch the A330neo several months later.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:41 pm

Polot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories, but I would't be suprized if Airbus waits for the point of no return of this 737-10 and then presents an incremental A321 improvement.

Boeing probably already has an idea of any incremental improvements Airbus can offer, since those improvements will most likely be coming from the engines.


No doubt. Seasoned engineers at both sides only need a glimps to know what's on.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14

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