Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:06 pm

[photoid][/photoid]
keesje wrote:
The more I see about the consequences of a 2-3-2 cabin and people mention a bigger cross isn't all that detrimental, the more I lbegin to like the concept of a big narrowbody, solving some of the typical long NB cabin disadvantages (cabin) while retaining single aisle advanatges (economics) .

Image


Is this the idea of 6 abreast economy but with a 30inch aisle? A wider fuselage that fits in another seat generates more revenue and therefore the wider cross isn't all that detrimental. A wider cross just to increase an aisle size to speed up boarding is likely not going to justify the extra weight and drag. If boarding time is critical, an airline can use the aft entrance. Airlines are asking for more efficiency. I don't know of many eager to increase cabin comfort if it will increase fuel burn. A widebody is an option for this size.

We could even see an aluminum fuselage with a composite wing like on the 777x if they are trying to minimize production cost. Boeing probably wants to keep production costs low so that Airbus can't undercut too much with the A321 on price (like the A330neo vs 787) to offset efficiency gains.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:07 pm

The problem is no matter how often people repeat it, it won't change the decision by Boeing and i guess they played with option for quite a while. A sligthly larger NB was shurely considered over and over again. But i guess they come to the point where it has to be really long and thin to get it into the desired size-class (at least slightly above the 767-200). For a NB, anything more than a slightly wider fuse as an A320 (about NSA6-200) is a waste. It's not that this decisions are made by rolling the dice.

Newbiepilot wrote:
Is this the idea of 6 abreast economy but with a 30inch aisle? A wider fuselage that fits in another seat generates more revenue and therefore the wider cross isn't all that detrimental. A wider cross just to increase an aisle size to speed up boarding is likely not going to justify the extra weight and drag.


:checkmark:
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:12 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Alaska’s fleet chief Kirby officially joined the Boeing NMA chorus. Wants 190-210 seats 4000-4500nm


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8046897153

Further states that Boeing's NMA concept is a twin aisle aircraft

And he confirms the Boeing NMA concept is a twin aisle. Boeing hasn’t officially said either way.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 3629411328


I simply can't see how a twin aisle this size can be CASM competitive with an A321 (or 737-10 for that matter).

The numbers simply won't add up - regardless of how many slick powerpoint presentations the PR folks in Boeing (or Airbus if they tried it) can produce.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:16 pm

Well it offers 4 abreast direct aisle access business. This becomes more important on longer flights, competing with products installed on widebodies. In reality it can cover a big part of the cabin. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Airbus_A321_new.php ). Than there is increased stiffness (weight reduction) if fuselages get long and quicker boarding / deboarding times. And more flexibility in lavatory / galley options. All factors mentioned when discussing long NB's.
The more cargo revenue potential of a same capacity NB over a shorter 7 abreast is there & won't be ignored by airlines.
Last edited by keesje on Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:20 pm

seahawk wrote:
It would be wide oval with a low floor, which would be so not nice when you look at the load distribution.



Yes that is true but that assumes you build it like they have built most airliners in the past. However if you were to build the frames as one piece of composite with no Mechanical Connections - Make the floor beams, support for the Cargo Floor, Brackets to hang the OVerhead bins off all part of each frame - you can get an amazing amount of strength out of a Composite frame. You would also save a large amount of labor and time in assembly as a lot less to bolt together. A lot of it could be automated.

The Very Stiff Composite skin that is over thickness to account for impact loads would want to to lift off the top and bottom - but that's only if it were able to stretch - the sides of the Frames keep it in tension.

Composite is very light and you could build the frames with very wide flanges where they touch the inside of the outer skin for bonding.

The Whole thing could be incredibly stiff.

Boeing has been playing with composite ovals for quite some time now (10 years?). I'm sure it's a relatively mature subject for them now and not a moonshot.

I still think it will be 2x3x2 Oval as then that makes it possible to use it with a different smaller wing/wingbox/tail to eventually replace the 737 before 2030.

2x4x2 Circular would be too big and too heavy for NMA and especially NSA. It's too close to 787 and not that far off 777. BTW 777X should have been an 11W Oval giving them 7W NMA/NSA, 9W 787 and 11W 777X.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:34 pm

Lets face it, CRFP is not ideal for pressure loads. Flattened fuselages don't help here. Vertically flattended would be better :yes:

Anyway I think Boeing might go for panels for high volume fuselage production. They'll name it differently.. or extrusion :silly:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:35 pm

It may not be Ideal - but if they can make it work in an optimized squeeze them in 2x3x2 - 737/787 Sized seat 163"x 185" Oval with Folding wingtips - it could be very light/efficent and work for both NMA and NSA.

With the one extra seat in width an A321 length 797 could be 280 seats at the same density as the 240 Seat A321 - making it an awesome midrange People hauler with quick turnarounds or a nice 200 Seat Plane with Bus, Y+ and Y and only 4 Cabin Crew.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:14 pm

keesje wrote:
Lets face it, CRFP is not ideal for pressure loads. Flattened fuselages don't help here. Vertically flattended would be better :yes:

Anyway I think Boeing might go for panels for high volume fuselage production. They'll name it differently.. or extrusion :silly:


Where are you getting that CFRP is not ideal for pressure loads? I learned in material science class back in engineering school that carbon fiber was ideal for pressure loads. Where CFRP is not ideal is in compression, where conductivity is needed or in low cost applications since manufacturing is more expensive.

Here is a quote from the FAA "The primary advantages of composite materials are their high strength, relatively low weight, and corrosion resistance."

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... a_Ch07.pdf
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:18 pm

morrisond wrote:
It may not be Ideal - but if they can make it work in an optimized squeeze them in 2x3x2 - 737/787 Sized seat 163"x 185" Oval with Folding wingtips - it could be very light/efficent and work for both NMA and NSA.

With the one extra seat in width an A321 length 797 could be 280 seats at the same density as the 240 Seat A321 - making it an awesome midrange People hauler with quick turnarounds or a nice 200 Seat Plane with Bus, Y+ and Y and only 4 Cabin Crew.


I don't really see how you can on the one hand admit that this flattened oval CFRP concept is not ideal, yet simultaneously claim it could be very light and efficient.

Seems like a great example of doublethink to me. Did you read Orwell? :D

Or is it my engineering brain wrongly interpreting "ideal" to mean "light and efficient"...?
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:24 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Lets face it, CRFP is not ideal for pressure loads. Flattened fuselages don't help here. Vertically flattended would be better :yes:

Anyway I think Boeing might go for panels for high volume fuselage production. They'll name it differently.. or extrusion :silly:


Where are you getting that CFRP is not ideal for pressure loads? I learned in material science class back in engineering school that carbon fiber was ideal for pressure loads.


That is true when it's a nice cylinder or ball shape. Not so much when it's this flat oval we seem to be talking about.

Where CFRP is not ideal is in compression [...] "The primary advantages of composite materials are their high [tensile] strength"


And there's the rub. CFRP is good in tension. Not so good in compression or shear... By making our pressure vessel non-perfect we're creating conditions where all sorts of non-tensile stresses are introduced.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:29 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Alaska’s fleet chief Kirby officially joined the Boeing NMA chorus. Wants 190-210 seats 4000-4500nm


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8046897153

Further states that Boeing's NMA concept is a twin aisle aircraft

And he confirms the Boeing NMA concept is a twin aisle. Boeing hasn’t officially said either way.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 3629411328


I simply can't see how a twin aisle this size can be CASM competitive with an A321 (or 737-10 for that matter).

The numbers simply won't add up - regardless of how many slick powerpoint presentations the PR folks in Boeing (or Airbus if they tried it) can produce.
I guess it depends on how you are determining the number of seats, but in general I agree. I has to start at a size larger than the A321 on go up from there to be competitive as a twin aisle.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1955
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:48 pm

So speculation is a CFRP body of some sort. What about the engines? Leap or GTF engines? Do these engines scale up and would they provide efficiency on a plane this size? Bleed or non-bleed technology?

Where CFRP is not ideal is in compression [...] "The primary advantages of composite materials are their high [tensile] strength"


"And there's the rub. CFRP is good in tension. Not so good in compression or shear... By making our pressure vessel non-perfect we're creating conditions where all sorts of non-tensile stresses are introduced."

Would an aluminum oval perform better re: non-tensile stresses?

I don't care what anyone says, the thought of a new 2-3-2 cabin layout gets me going. I've always thought the 767 was the most comfortable widebody out there. Pair it with a fresh interior - and 787 sized windows of course - and you've got something going on!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:52 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Lets face it, CRFP is not ideal for pressure loads. Flattened fuselages don't help here. Vertically flattended would be better :yes:

Anyway I think Boeing might go for panels for high volume fuselage production. They'll name it differently.. or extrusion :silly:


Where are you getting that CFRP is not ideal for pressure loads? I learned in material science class back in engineering school that carbon fiber was ideal for pressure loads. Where CFRP is not ideal is in compression, where conductivity is needed or in low cost applications since manufacturing is more expensive.

Here is a quote from the FAA "The primary advantages of composite materials are their high strength, relatively low weight, and corrosion resistance."

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... a_Ch07.pdf


we did different studies than :bigthumbsup: I learned CRFP good for tension, less for compression.
Toggling around fiber directions helps but metals are better predictable.

Would an aluminum oval perform better re: non-tensile stresses?


If you use panels, you can make areas subject to high compression made of material more suitable for that.
Last edited by keesje on Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:58 pm

JAAlbert wrote:
I don't care what anyone says, the thought of a new 2-3-2 cabin layout gets me going. I've always thought the 767 was the most comfortable widebody out there. Pair it with a fresh interior - and 787 sized windows of course - and you've got something going on!


Not with a 200" wide and 180" high fuselage.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:06 pm

Going to ask again. Is their a future for a frieght model of this plane?

FedEx has 767s on order with delivery dates out to 2023, where there's an option of 50 more.

Could there be an opportunity for Boeing to pitch a version of this model at that time to replace that option considering the proposed entry into service is near the same time frame.
Many have alluded to the similarity of this plane to the A310, which FedEx has used in the past and still have several of.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:09 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
Going to ask again. Is their a future for a frieght model of this plane?

FedEx has 767s on order with delivery dates out to 2023, where there's an option of 50 more.

Could there be an opportunity for Boeing to pitch a version of this model at that time to replace that option considering the proposed entry into service is near the same time frame.
Many have alluded to the similarity of this plane to the A310, which FedEx has used in the past and still have several of.


First priority will be passenger aircraft, freighter versions of passenger aircraft typically come years afterwards.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:30 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
WaywardMemphian wrote:
Going to ask again. Is their a future for a frieght model of this plane?

FedEx has 767s on order with delivery dates out to 2023, where there's an option of 50 more.

Could there be an opportunity for Boeing to pitch a version of this model at that time to replace that option considering the proposed entry into service is near the same time frame.
Many have alluded to the similarity of this plane to the A310, which FedEx has used in the past and still have several of.


First priority will be passenger aircraft, freighter versions of passenger aircraft typically come years afterwards.



Which would make sense for this plane after about 8 to 10 years of producton or would Boeing make a 787 frieghter?

How's the 767 USAF tanker coming along
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:32 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Lets face it, CRFP is not ideal for pressure loads. Flattened fuselages don't help here. Vertically flattended would be better :yes:

Anyway I think Boeing might go for panels for high volume fuselage production. They'll name it differently.. or extrusion :silly:


Where are you getting that CFRP is not ideal for pressure loads? I learned in material science class back in engineering school that carbon fiber was ideal for pressure loads. Where CFRP is not ideal is in compression, where conductivity is needed or in low cost applications since manufacturing is more expensive.

Here is a quote from the FAA "The primary advantages of composite materials are their high strength, relatively low weight, and corrosion resistance."

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... a_Ch07.pdf


we did different studies than :bigthumbsup: I learned CRFP good for tension, less for compression.
Toggling around fiber directions helps but metals are better predictable.


Cabin pressurization puts the fuselage skin in tension.

If I recall, both Boeing and Bombardier concluded that impact loads like hail or ground handling equipment would dictate the thickness of a narrowbody CFRP fuselage and not the flight loads. So in some ways, CFRP is actually "too" good at carrying the pressure load.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:43 pm

morrisond wrote:
It may not be Ideal - but if they can make it work in an optimized squeeze them in 2x3x2 - 737/787 Sized seat 163"x 185" Oval with Folding wingtips - it could be very light/efficent and work for both NMA and NSA.

With the one extra seat in width an A321 length 797 could be 280 seats at the same density as the 240 Seat A321 - making it an awesome midrange People hauler with quick turnarounds or a nice 200 Seat Plane with Bus, Y+ and Y and only 4 Cabin Crew.


There is the business case for such a plane. A variant of this will replace the 737 too. So really Boeing is creating a product that will cover two markets.

Could explain United's excitement about this plane, UA sees this family of aircraft replacing the majority of its fleet.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:37 pm

No. 2-3-2 or 2-4-2 makes absolutely no sense below 200 seats (single class).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:42 pm

william wrote:
morrisond wrote:
It may not be Ideal - but if they can make it work in an optimized squeeze them in 2x3x2 - 737/787 Sized seat 163"x 185" Oval with Folding wingtips - it could be very light/efficent and work for both NMA and NSA.

With the one extra seat in width an A321 length 797 could be 280 seats at the same density as the 240 Seat A321 - making it an awesome midrange People hauler with quick turnarounds or a nice 200 Seat Plane with Bus, Y+ and Y and only 4 Cabin Crew.


There is the business case for such a plane. A variant of this will replace the 737 too. So really Boeing is creating a product that will cover two markets.

Could explain United's excitement about this plane, UA sees this family of aircraft replacing the majority of its fleet.


Great unless it uses 10% more fuel with the same engines and passenger load then e.g a NEO. There is a price for the wide cabin.

Discounts on A321s evaporated in recent years & grumpy buyers / fleetmanagers hate the sigars Leahy's team are smoking during negotiations. They applaud any competition.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21414
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:50 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
I simply can't see how a twin aisle this size can be CASM competitive with an A321 (or 737-10 for that matter).

The numbers simply won't add up - regardless of how many slick powerpoint presentations the PR folks in Boeing (or Airbus if they tried it) can produce.


So, in order to continue the conversation, what do you think of the numbers in #115 ( viewtopic.php?p=19402925#p19401785 ) and #132 ( viewtopic.php?p=19402925#p19402729 ) ?
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
william
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:01 pm

keesje wrote:
william wrote:
morrisond wrote:
It may not be Ideal - but if they can make it work in an optimized squeeze them in 2x3x2 - 737/787 Sized seat 163"x 185" Oval with Folding wingtips - it could be very light/efficent and work for both NMA and NSA.

With the one extra seat in width an A321 length 797 could be 280 seats at the same density as the 240 Seat A321 - making it an awesome midrange People hauler with quick turnarounds or a nice 200 Seat Plane with Bus, Y+ and Y and only 4 Cabin Crew.


There is the business case for such a plane. A variant of this will replace the 737 too. So really Boeing is creating a product that will cover two markets.

Could explain United's excitement about this plane, UA sees this family of aircraft replacing the majority of its fleet.


Great unless it uses 10% more fuel with the same engines and passenger load then e.g a NEO. There is a price for the wide cabin.

Discounts on A321s evaporated in recent years & grumpy buyers / fleetmanagers hate the sigars Leahy's team are smoking during negotiations. They applaud any competition.


Maybe or maybe not, that's why this thread is four pages long. You can't beat physics, but maybe Boeing has nullified in the WB/NB discussion.

Also, if Airbus truly plans to replace the A320 with a new family, then why would they spend billions for a new wing for an extended A321 ala the A322? When Airbus too would want any A320 replacement to move further up into the MOM market too.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:31 pm

keesje wrote:
william wrote:
morrisond wrote:
It may not be Ideal - but if they can make it work in an optimized squeeze them in 2x3x2 - 737/787 Sized seat 163"x 185" Oval with Folding wingtips - it could be very light/efficent and work for both NMA and NSA.

With the one extra seat in width an A321 length 797 could be 280 seats at the same density as the 240 Seat A321 - making it an awesome midrange People hauler with quick turnarounds or a nice 200 Seat Plane with Bus, Y+ and Y and only 4 Cabin Crew.


There is the business case for such a plane. A variant of this will replace the 737 too. So really Boeing is creating a product that will cover two markets.

Could explain United's excitement about this plane, UA sees this family of aircraft replacing the majority of its fleet.


Great unless it uses 10% more fuel with the same engines and passenger load then e.g a NEO. There is a price for the wide cabin.

Discounts on A321s evaporated in recent years & grumpy buyers / fleetmanagers hate the sigars Leahy's team are smoking during negotiations. They applaud any competition.


Let me see if I understand you. In post #154 you are saying that a 10 inch??? Wider cabin would allow 4 abreast aisle access business, faster boarding, and more flexibility with galleys and lavs and that a bigger cross isn't all that detrimental (post 150). Then you are saying in post 171 that a 35inch??? Wider cabin could have 10% more fuel burn with the same engines and passenger load and that there is a price for a wide cabin.

So if I understand, you advocate for a 10 inch wider cabin which adds no extra seats, yet then state that a 35 inch wider cabin that adds an additional seat would have a price to pay? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I disagree. I believe that If they are going to build a wider cabin than on a 737/757, it needs to have at least one or possibly two more seats per row otherwise it is not bringing in more revenue to offset the cost.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:04 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
So if I understand, you advocate for .....


I think you answered your own question. :-)
-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: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:05 pm

Hi newbiepilot, take a look and you should be able to see, left below, there are 2 aisles but 2 seats per row are removed for business class. The cargo belly is the same height, so the cabin is about 10 inch higher, high enough to walk in the aisles.

Image

I'm interested to hear if you understand correctly, this time.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:35 pm

keesje wrote:
Hi newbiepilot, take a look and you should be able to see, left below, there are 2 aisles but 2 seats per row are removed for business class. The cargo belly is the same height, so the cabin is about 10 inch higher, high enough to walk in the aisles.

Image

I'm interested to hear if you understand correctly, this time.


I think your idea for a new small airplane with a 30 inch aisle which expands cabin width by 10 inches is a bad idea since it does not increase seat count. I think a 35 or 52 inch wider cabin that allows 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 seating makes much more sense. I have yet to talk to anyone at an airline who feels cargo volume on narrowbodies and aisle width needs to be increased. I think your NSA is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:02 pm

Keesje - My 163"H x 185"W 2x3x2 Oval only has 6.8% more surface area than your 3x3 168" NSA/NMA - but mine has 16.7% more seats...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26394
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:04 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I think your NSA is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.


Well it does address one problem - how can Airbus easily counter it with a longer A320 family member? :angel:

An "A322" will be able to match capacity and weigh less because of it's smaller diameter due to having a "cramped" 20" aisle.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:09 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Hi newbiepilot, take a look and you should be able to see, left below, there are 2 aisles but 2 seats per row are removed for business class. The cargo belly is the same height, so the cabin is about 10 inch higher, high enough to walk in the aisles.

Image

I'm interested to hear if you understand correctly, this time.


I think your idea for a new small airplane with a 30 inch aisle which expands cabin width by 10 inches is a bad idea since it does not increase seat count. I think a 35 or 52 inch wider cabin that allows 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 seating makes much more sense. I have yet to talk to anyone at an airline who feels cargo volume on narrowbodies and aisle width needs to be increased. I think your NSA is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.


Cargo space increase ?! Ok.. How about deboarding times, structural efficiency and cabin flexibility?

On a wider aisle and no one being interested, you probably are unaware it will fly this year..

https://leehamnews.com/2016/02/08/irkut ... -analysis/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:16 pm

Stitch wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I think your NSA is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.


Well it does address one problem - how can Airbus easily counter it with a longer A320 family member? :angel:

An "A322" will be able to match capacity and weigh less because of it's smaller diameter due to having a "cramped" 20" aisle.


Would Airbus spend the billions to re wing and stretch a platform they will be replacing in about a decade?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:32 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Hi newbiepilot, take a look and you should be able to see, left below, there are 2 aisles but 2 seats per row are removed for business class. The cargo belly is the same height, so the cabin is about 10 inch higher, high enough to walk in the aisles.

Image

I'm interested to hear if you understand correctly, this time.


I think your idea for a new small airplane with a 30 inch aisle which expands cabin width by 10 inches is a bad idea since it does not increase seat count. I think a 35 or 52 inch wider cabin that allows 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 seating makes much more sense. I have yet to talk to anyone at an airline who feels cargo volume on narrowbodies and aisle width needs to be increased. I think your NSA is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.


Cargo space increase ?! Ok.. How about deboarding times, structural efficiency and cabin flexibility?

On a wider aisle and no one being interested, you probably are unaware it will fly this year..

https://leehamnews.com/2016/02/08/irkut ... -analysis/


I admire your tenacity at defending your concept. Here is a question for you, you claim better structural efficiency from a 10 inch wider cabin. Will your wider cabin concept result in a fuselage that weighs more or less than a fuselage shaped like the current 737? Secondly, if the cabin is widened an additional 24 inches to allow an extra seat, what will be the fuselage weight difference? How far bigger can you go than current design and improve structural efficiency?

Deboarding times can be addressed by using an aft exit. Cabin flexibility likely has a very small impact on revenue. And if cargo volume is so critical, they wouldn't be using containers at all. You can usually fit more cargo in by bulk loading since space is not used up by the containers, power drive units and tracks. I don't see these reasons offsetting a heavier fuselage design that has more drag.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6895
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:43 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Hi newbiepilot, take a look and you should be able to see, left below, there are 2 aisles but 2 seats per row are removed for business class. The cargo belly is the same height, so the cabin is about 10 inch higher, high enough to walk in the aisles.

I'm interested to hear if you understand correctly, this time.


I think your idea for a new small airplane with a 30 inch aisle which expands cabin width by 10 inches is a bad idea since it does not increase seat count. I think a 35 or 52 inch wider cabin that allows 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 seating makes much more sense. I have yet to talk to anyone at an airline who feels cargo volume on narrowbodies and aisle width needs to be increased. I think your NSA is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.


The point here I think is that the wider aisle does increase seat count, by allowing a much longer tube (thus more seats) which can still be boarded and disembarked in a short timespan ...

Whether that is better than a tight 2-3-2, with a stubbier body for the same capacity, is a moot point.

Might be worth having a look at the MC21, which has a cabin 6" wider than the A320, so is a fair way towards the concept Keejse is proposing already.

Rgds
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14901
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:57 am

keesje wrote:
If we consider the flattened 2-3-2 fuselage (MOM7-200) , further improvements might be possible.

E.g. you could consider making the cabin a little higher, even circular. (NLT7-200)

It removes a lot of dead weight, all the bending fighting structure can be removed, saving weight & fuel while improving comfort.

Image

You could even consider removing 1 seat + 1 aisle and make the aircraft 20% longer. (NSA6-200)

In the 180-250 seat bracket that's very well possible.

That also improves the available space for revenue cargo pallets by at least 40% (assuming half is used for luggage) .

Why are you fixated on 2-3-2?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:03 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Hi newbiepilot, take a look and you should be able to see, left below, there are 2 aisles but 2 seats per row are removed for business class.


I think your idea for a new small airplane with a 30 inch aisle which expands cabin width by 10 inches is a bad idea since it does not increase seat count. I think a 35 or 52 inch wider cabin that allows 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 seating makes much more sense.


The way I view it, keesje's NSA design concept is all about trying to remove the drawbacks of having a large single aisle aircraft (boarding times, in-flight cabin challenges, business class seating etc.), while keeping the inherit benefits of a narrowbody (long and slim, low drag/weight). Additionally, but more importantly in my mind, his design concept addresses both development and production costs. The new NSA he is proposing is not only a MOM aircraft, but it is also the 737 replacement. High volume production equals lower costs, more aircraft sold. The benefits for the airlines, that can have aircraft of the same family doing both short and medium to long haul flights (flexibility, crew, ground facilities etc.), is major. I find keesje's ideas new and innovative. He is not just suggesting yet another 767 replacement with advanced materials.

Concerning cabin width, it is not only the number of Y seats abreast that is important, but also how efficient the cabin can take business class seats. Aisle access from all business class seats is extremely important. The suggested NSA cabin can have four business class seats abreast, all with direct aisle access. The NSA cabin width is very efficient is this regard. Concerning Y seats, 6 abreast Y seats and 10 inch wider aisle, compared to 7 abreast Y seats and two narrow aisles, is similar from a cabin width efficiency point of view. Just divide cabin width, with number of seats abreast. One can argue for one or the other, it all depends on how large the MOM should be. But remember, two aisles doesn't solve the trolleys blocking the aisle problem. A wide aisle does. Boarding a plane with a wide aisle, where people can pass each other, might be more efficient than two narrow aisles. When boarding a widebody, the FAs must check each passengers boarding pass in order to direct the passenger to the correct aisle.

Reading through all the posts in this tread, it is quite obvious to me that people's notions of what constitutes a MOM aircraft, are very different. For me a MOM aircraft is a plane that is optimized for medium to long haul flights, that's flights with a scheduled flight time roughly between 7 to 10 hours (+/-). Both the A339 and 787-10 is within this sweet spot, but these aircraft a way to large for many routes and airlines. The A321LR will probably be able to do 8 1/2 hours scheduled flight time, but is it an optimized design for these long flights?

Many of the posters here, in my opinion, are suggesting way to large aircraft for a MOM. What is actually lacking in both OEMs catalogs are small aircraft able to do longer haul. Direct point-to-point flying saves costs (flight time, therefore also fuel, navigational and landing fees, hub airport charges, taxes etc.). I also think passengers are willing to pay more for flying direct and thus saving time. The 787 promised to open up more direct flights, and has enabled that to some extent, but it became to large, to costly, and to capable (range).

How large is the 787-8? Most commonly it is configured with 220 to 240 seats in a 2/3 class layout (just take a look at seatguru). In an all Y configuration, with 9 abreast seating @ 31 pitch, the 787-8 can seat approximately 300 passengers. In an all Y, 6 abreast seating @ 31 pitch, the A321LR (in 2019) can seat up to 220 passengers. I think the initial MOM aircraft should be closer to the A321LR size, and later stretched and gradually made more capable (range). If you are in the camp that actually wants a 787 sized MOM, just shorter ranged, I would tell you that the benefits of an aircraft with a optimized design range of about 1000 nm less, is greatly overstated. It would be better to misuse a 787-8, instead of paying for a clean sheet design. Remember that the MOM must cost less to manufacture in order to have narrowbody economics.

The CEO of Norwegian said during a press conference that the A321LR would have a lower fuel burn than the 787 crossing from Western Europe to the US East coast. And then he added, "and we don't have to fill all those seats" (higher seats counts equals lower yields per seat, higher risks an challenges during low season, less fleet flexibility, and some routes can't support a large aircraft). Norwegian is a major 787 customer (43 on order is a remember correctly), and have 30 A321LR on order.

astuteman wrote:
The point here I think is that the wider aisle does increase seat count, by allowing a much longer tube (thus more seats) which can still be boarded and disembarked in a short timespan ...

Whether that is better than a tight 2-3-2, with a stubbier body for the same capacity, is a moot point.

Might be worth having a look at the MC21, which has a cabin 6" wider than the A320, so is a fair way towards the concept Keejse is proposing already.

Rgds


Excellent, I agree.

It depends how large the MOM should be, ref. stubbier body vs long/slim body. A some point a widebody would be better choice. The wider aisle makes it possible to have a larger narrowbody, and therefore moves this threshold.
Last edited by reidar76 on Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:17 am

Fixated.
I questioned the 2X4X2 twin aisle 240 seater with 5k range.p concept did not -( at 30 rows only) sound that efficient -to me.
The (quire correct) response I got was a picture of an old A310.
Quite correct in every way - other than efficiency (sfc).A longer narrow bodied aircraft would muller it!Thats the problem.

We know that in some way the concept is twin aisle.The question is how have they addressed both economics/physics and cost.
Personally can't wait to see what they have done.Must be clever.Clearly their major clients could not 'see it' to start with -but then did.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2359
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:40 pm

Lots of enthusiasm here for the NMA concept and how it would work, but essentially it stands or falls on shareholder consent at Boeing.

With a thirty billion (arguable I know) hole in the accunts from the 787, and the 777X sucking up even more development cash, is there going to be an appetite for a new expensive airliner program in the near term? I can see Wall Street wanting some payback first on the big pile of REAL cash (not accounting trickery) sunk in the last ten years. That money needs to flow back out of the various projects as it is real cash spent which would otherwise be on the balance sheet as profit or increased shareholder value.

The other side of this is that Boeing needs products to sell and if there's demand then the shareholders need to invest. Defining a plane to narrowly suit US carrier requirements won't cut it. It has to sell in China and Asian markets, as well as all the other global possibilities. It's that hurdle of "no moonshots" that needs to be jumped first and that won't be easy with shareholder pressure to see returns and the money pits of the 787,748 and 777X to be filled in first.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:38 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
I went wide to be somewhat conservative. Your suggestion sounds aggressive. I tend to expect something in the middle. However, A 185" x 163" ellipse yields 18.6% larger frontal area and 6.4% less skin area than a 156" x 163" ellipse.

An ellipse with the smaller extension as big as the larger extension of another one has less skin area? Where have you learned your math?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:50 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
So it seems clear that a small twin-aisle can be as efficicient as the A320 even before we get to the weight savings of a stubby tube versus a long narrow one, CFRP/NewMetal vs. old metal.

Since when is it good enough, when a larger aircraft is as efficient as a smaller one? I cant remember, that you e.g. said, the A380 would only have to be as efficient as the 777....
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21414
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:23 pm

AvWeekfiled their story on the recent chatter on the MOM.

One quote I found interesting:

United is the most outspoken carrier promoting the idea of the new midsize aircraft becoming a widebody, but it is not the only one. According to industry officials, Japan Airlines is looking at using the aircraft on domestic routes and regional services into China, for which the 787 has too much range.


Unfortunately we aren't hearing from Chinese carriers, but Chinese airplane procurement all goes through government channels so it seems we wouldn't hear much about it this early in the process.
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
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:41 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
I went wide to be somewhat conservative. Your suggestion sounds aggressive. I tend to expect something in the middle. However, A 185" x 163" ellipse yields 18.6% larger frontal area and 6.4% less skin area than a 156" x 163" ellipse.

An ellipse with the smaller extension as big as the larger extension of another one has less skin area? Where have you learned your math?


He is comparing it to an A320 which is 156x163" but is only 6W so it would have to be longer for same seating capacity as 7W Oval, hence less skin overall.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Many of the comparisons here are not really honest. Sure if you shrink the seats to 17", give the plane the most modern manufacturing methods and maybe even 2025 engines it might only show a small disadvantage to an A321, but this is not the problem Boeing is facing. The plane needs to be competitive to the A321 replacement. And this means a single aisle using same or better standard engines, same manufacturing methods and same seating standards. If you do not compare it that way, you are lying to yourself. You must also look good compared to a 787MAX and/or whatever Airbus could do to replace the A330NEO after 2030.

And for Boeing there is one additional step to consider - how many 787 sales will be going to the 797.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:05 pm

Reading this thread, I am woundering if the innovation needed for the MOM aircraft is actually in ground handling equipment.

If:
  • one of the goals of the MOM aircraft is to provide for tighter turns on the ground
  • a long tube is more fuel efficient than a wide tube
  • long tubes require tall landing gear for runway performance
  • tall planes are harder to board quickly through stairs

then perhaps while a new aircraft is being developed, Boeing also needs to develop an effective method of utilizing doors further aft on the aircraft for passengers with mobility issues, and in poor weather.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:26 pm

Let us look at possible options.

Imho for twin aisles the smallest possible solution is 767 size. Which means around 210 seat in two class configuration for the smaller version and around 270 seats, this would fit in between the 737 and the 787-9. We can also say from rumours and sales of previous designs that around 5000-5500nm range is needed, which is more than the 767-200/300 had and less than the ER versions had.
762 comes in at 80 metric tons, 767-300 at around 90t. If we compare the 787 to the A330 (CFRP design vs. conventional) and consider that the next CFRP will be better optimized while the 767 is older than the A330, while the range requirements stay unchanged, I think one could expect a weight reduction of 10-15% compared to a 767. So OEW for the small version could be around 70t and around 78-80t for the larger. Which means the difference to the A321 would still be around 20t for the smaller version and 30t for the larger.

Lets compare this to seating capacity:

A321 around 160 - 50t
797-8 around 210 - 70t --> 31% more seats for 40% more weight
797-9 around 270 - 80t --> 69% more seats for 60% more weight

Imho this would be competitive.
 
CX747
Posts: 6102
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:29 pm

Revelation wrote:
AvWeekfiled their story on the recent chatter on the MOM.

One quote I found interesting:

United is the most outspoken carrier promoting the idea of the new midsize aircraft becoming a widebody, but it is not the only one. According to industry officials, Japan Airlines is looking at using the aircraft on domestic routes and regional services into China, for which the 787 has too much range.


Unfortunately we aren't hearing from Chinese carriers, but Chinese airplane procurement all goes through government channels so it seems we wouldn't hear much about it this early in the process.



Interesting indeed that JAL is now discussing what they want out of the aircraft. IF JAL is interested then ANA would/should be right there too. AA, UA, DL, JAL and ANA are some huge blue chip clients that could make this happen. Add on even half of the Chinese carriers and you are looking at big numbers. This in addition to the fact that BA, LH, AF, AC have yet to chime in.

All of this would need to be put into action and executed properly. At this time, it seems that Boeing has "flipped the script". They are not making something Airbus can easily compete with through their A32X family. Let's see how it plays out!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14901
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:53 pm

parapente wrote:
Fixated.
I questioned the 2X4X2 twin aisle 240 seater with 5k range.p concept did not -( at 30 rows only) sound that efficient -to me.
The (quire correct) response I got was a picture of an old A310.
Quite correct in every way - other than efficiency (sfc).A longer narrow bodied aircraft would muller it!Thats the problem.

We know that in some way the concept is twin aisle.The question is how have they addressed both economics/physics and cost.
Personally can't wait to see what they have done.Must be clever.Clearly their major clients could not 'see it' to start with -but then did.

2-3-2 is not going to happen. It's been rejected in the modern market. If it was something people were clamorinv for, they'd be demanding a 767MAX
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:15 pm

I am seeing lots of discussion about cabin width. I know it is a popular discussion topic on airliners.net. To be honest, the engineers at Boeing can calculate what fuselage dimensions will be the most structurally efficient regarding, length, width, diameter etc once they decide the payload for the plane. Fuselage width will be decided after more pivotal decisions like what the payload of the plane needs to be.

Payload is the key driver here. It is what is going to drive the decisions. I am predicting that a payload in the 150-175K lbs range is probably the ideal range. There are many airlines interested and they will not agree. With the focus on maximizing efficiency, it is getting hard to make a wing that is flexible for multiple derivatives. I think he payloads are going to differ by 15% or so between the small and large. 175K should be able to transport 200 people 5000nm or 250 people 4000nm. That might be more payload than needed. Keeping payload down allows lower structural weight and a smaller wing, which will compete better with current narrowbodies.

Manufacturing cost is going to be very important. The plane has to be reasonably close to the A321 in purchase price, which will be difficult. This could drive fuselage decisions. I could see an aluminum fuselage or even glare if they want to keep manufacturing cost down and will sacrifice some weight. I think there might be less titanium than used in other new planes to keep cost down. CFRP could work if they can keep costs low for the fuselage and probably would be used in the wing. Once they figure out material, the calculations for fuselage width vs length should not be too hard. They can model a six, seven or eight abreast design and figure out what weighs the least and minimizes drag.
 
Delta757MD88
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:46 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:28 pm

We need a 757NEO
Flown on: MD-88/90 DC-9 717 737-7/8/900, 757-2/300, 767-3/400 777-200/300ER 787-9, E145/170/175, CRJ-100/200/700/900, A319/320 A333 A350 Q300/400.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:31 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
aviationjunky wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:

I believe the MOM will be an all new aircraft. Think of it as a 767-300 with the latest tech slotting in between the 787-8 and the B737-10.

British airways comes to mind as a potential customer for high demand European flights. The US3 is an almost certainty.


Oh! Ok! I was wondering why they never made a direct 767 replacement. That makes sense.. Although, with Boeing going all in on the 779 and 77X, would a 767 replacement be a near-future project? It sounds like it is a "back burner" project for now.

Also, isn't the 737-10 suppose to be almost as large as 757-200? Just under by like 10 feet I think. Does that mean that 737-10 is really a 757 replacement? Would it compete directly with the A321NEO?


I really don't think we ll see any sort of commitment to the project from Boeing until late in to this decade. They have enough on their plate getting new planes such as the B737-9, -10 and 787-10 in to customer hands along with B777X to the flight test stage. First deliveries could come all the way in to the middle of the next decade by which time I fear it may be too late.

The B737-10 and B757 almost certainly have similar capacities but that's where the similarities end. The power to weight ratio of the 757 is far superior, giving it better range and payload capacities along with better hot and high ability.


I think Boeing will and has to move faster than end of the decade. 787-10 isn't a big risk given MTOW is the same as before. If the 777x test flights are moving along, then I think you'll see something.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:38 pm

seahawk wrote:
Let us look at possible options.

Imho for twin aisles the smallest possible solution is 767 size. Which means around 210 seat in two class configuration for the smaller version and around 270 seats, this would fit in between the 737 and the 787-9. We can also say from rumours and sales of previous designs that around 5000-5500nm range is needed, which is more than the 767-200/300 had and less than the ER versions had.
762 comes in at 80 metric tons, 767-300 at around 90t. If we compare the 787 to the A330 (CFRP design vs. conventional) and consider that the next CFRP will be better optimized while the 767 is older than the A330, while the range requirements stay unchanged, I think one could expect a weight reduction of 10-15% compared to a 767. So OEW for the small version could be around 70t and around 78-80t for the larger. Which means the difference to the A321 would still be around 20t for the smaller version and 30t for the larger.

Lets compare this to seating capacity:

A321 around 160 - 50t
797-8 around 210 - 70t --> 31% more seats for 40% more weight
797-9 around 270 - 80t --> 69% more seats for 60% more weight

Imho this would be competitive.


Good analysis. This is more-or-less exactly what I expect and what the MOM will be designed for. A modern 767, smaller while still offering more seats and considerably lighter. For what it is designed for it will be very effective, even compared to single aisles but even more to the much heavier and bigger A330neo/787-8. OFC as said several times it is not a direct A321 competitor.

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