• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
 
edibletomb
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:25 pm

I don't understand why Boeing was strived to develop the 737-10 when they could've re-engined the 757 and stretch it a bit more. Why they retired the 757 in 2004 is beyond me. It's a proven airframe with massive popularity and a very capable one at that. And perhaps too capable - even Boeing designers claim that the plane was over-engineered. And yet they claim that the 757 is cannibalising 737 sales when there were pretty clear distinctions as to what their intended markets are.

Firstly, while the 757 is heavy, Boeing can modify parts so that it becomes lighter. I see lots of headroom for the PW1000G and the CFM LEAP-X to produce a 140-160Kn engine. The 757 can comfortably seat 230+ passengers in economy and a mixed config of 190. Give it a new wing and we got ourselves a winner - are Boeing really that ashamed to admit their mistakes? It's never too late to come back...

Or alternatively for a MoM aircraft they can design a 250-seat twin-aisle, 2-3-2 airliner (just like the 767) with new wings and engines etc that can be converted to 2-4-2 with 16.8-17" pitch. It can be around 50-60m long, with MTOW around 400,000-450,000lb and a max range of 5200-5800nm (so it has transcontinental, transatlantic, and transpacific range) while consuming less than a 787-8 or A330-200. Hopefully that's what the Boeing Y2 is going to be
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:29 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
As a point of reference for how bad going to wide oval is compared to going vertical.
3-3 A321 cabin fuselage is 8673kg
2-3-2 Wide ovoid give me 10759kg
Buuuuuttttt a tall ovoid that gives 3-3/3-3 on two decks is !?only!?12303kg


Each for a same capacity fuselage ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:55 pm

WIederling wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
As a point of reference for how bad going to wide oval is compared to going vertical.
3-3 A321 cabin fuselage is 8673kg
2-3-2 Wide ovoid give me 10759kg
Buuuuuttttt a tall ovoid that gives 3-3/3-3 on two decks is !?only!?12303kg


Each for a same capacity fuselage ?

As with most things there is some background assumptions and I wasn't about to go about designing a whole new aircraft so I simply changed the fuselage dimensions on my weight estimation tool.
I took the basic dimensions of the A321 and added them to the estimation tool and it gave a good estimate of the OEW (less than 1t out so looks fairly accurate) I then simply changed the fuselage dimensions (height and width) to get the fuselage weight.

What I didn't change was the overall length which of course would change because of the tail and nose sections having to reduce a larger amount and which would of course alter the weight of the fuselage. I wasn't going for a full design of an aircraft but a good indication of where and how the weight changes.

In terms of the capacity question then:
A320 = 240pax
Wide ovoid = 280pax
Tall ovoid = 480pax (wa wa wee wa) but like I say the caveats of the increased taper lengths would apply.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

edibletomb wrote:
I don't understand why Boeing was strived to develop the 737-10 when they could've re-engined the 757 and stretch it a bit more. Why they retired the 757 in 2004 is beyond me. It's a proven airframe with massive popularity and a very capable one at that. And perhaps too capable - even Boeing designers claim that the plane was over-engineered. And yet they claim that the 757 is cannibalising 737 sales when there were pretty clear distinctions as to what their intended markets are.

Firstly, while the 757 is heavy, Boeing can modify parts so that it becomes lighter. I see lots of headroom for the PW1000G and the CFM LEAP-X to produce a 140-160Kn engine. The 757 can comfortably seat 230+ passengers in economy and a mixed config of 190. Give it a new wing and we got ourselves a winner - are Boeing really that ashamed to admit their mistakes? It's never too late to come back...

Or alternatively for a MoM aircraft they can design a 250-seat twin-aisle, 2-3-2 airliner (just like the 767) with new wings and engines etc that can be converted to 2-4-2 with 16.8-17" pitch. It can be around 50-60m long, with MTOW around 400,000-450,000lb and a max range of 5200-5800nm (so it has transcontinental, transatlantic, and transpacific range) while consuming less than a 787-8 or A330-200. Hopefully that's what the Boeing Y2 is going to be


Did you bother reading the billion posts and comments on this site about why a reengined 757 isn't the answer? To give you a short answer, its old. I love the 757 but it was designed in the 70s, old tech with no fly by wire, old wing, and heavy for its capacity range. If you want more do some research.
 
AmericanHeavy
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:56 pm

AngMoh wrote:
parapente wrote:
It maybe worth noting that the Boeing patent 'leak' only depicts circa 90 pax making it look very 'stubby'.Any 'real' aircraft following this patent design would be over twice this length thus having a far more 'balanced' look.to it.Numbers of people clearly was not relevant to the patent.

PS. I wonder what aspects of the plane they had patented .Obviously not X7 seating as it already existed.
Is it the ovoid fuse/7 abreast together?
This point might be quite important (I am assuming that the patent that was filed was accepted )-i.e. Airbus cannot copy it.


The picture states "Fig 1B (Prior Art)". That means there is absolutely nothing new in it, just a reference what the prior art is and it helps to show what is novel in the paptent. There is information and figures in the document to show what the patent application is covering.

Just to note: pictures in a patent application are often drawn by patent lawyers and not engineers and the sole purpose is to clarify the patent and to ensure maximum coverage of the patent. In this case, it has no relevance to any specific design by Boeing whatsoever.


The patent art everyone is referring to is from a 2001 patent for a small (<200 seat) twin-aisle and features a few variations and similar designs. https://www.google.com/patents/US6834833

The 2010 patent which uses one of the drawings from 2001 just describes how they could change building variables along the fuselage when using carbon composites. https://www.google.com/patents/US20100200697

The holes in the crown are shown as for air conditioning.
 
BenTheGreat97
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:18 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:05 pm

edibletomb wrote:
Why they retired the 757 in 2004 is beyond me.


Orders for the plane dried up. It had an almost 25 year production run.

edibletomb wrote:
Firstly, while the 757 is heavy, Boeing can modify parts so that it becomes lighter. I see lots of headroom for the PW1000G and the CFM LEAP-X to produce a 140-160Kn engine. The 757 can comfortably seat 230+ passengers in economy and a mixed config of 190. Give it a new wing and we got ourselves a winner - are Boeing really that ashamed to admit their mistakes?


Yes, the 757 is heavy. No, you can't just "go out and modify the parts". That requires engineering, time, money and re-certification. No one would be willing to take on those costs.

The tooling for the plane is gone. People can't seem to wrap their heads around that simple fact, mo more tooling = a very expensive job to reverse-engineer (if at all) the instructions for ALL of the 757 parts. People will point to the Antonov An-225 in "production" in China and say that if they can do it, so can we. Well they're not quite as concerned with making profits as Western companies are.

And of course, it's SOOOO easy to just whip up a new wing, strap some new engines onto it and shazam, you have a new 757.

edibletomb wrote:
It's never too late to come back...


Yes it is. This isn't the movies where the good guy planespotters win.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:48 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
WIederling wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
As a point of reference for how bad going to wide oval is compared to going vertical.
3-3 A321 cabin fuselage is 8673kg
2-3-2 Wide ovoid give me 10759kg
Buuuuuttttt a tall ovoid that gives 3-3/3-3 on two decks is !?only!?12303kg


Each for a same capacity fuselage ?

As with most things there is some background assumptions and I wasn't about to go about designing a whole new aircraft so I simply changed the fuselage dimensions on my weight estimation tool.
I took the basic dimensions of the A321 and added them to the estimation tool and it gave a good estimate of the OEW (less than 1t out so looks fairly accurate) I then simply changed the fuselage dimensions (height and width) to get the fuselage weight.

What I didn't change was the overall length which of course would change because of the tail and nose sections having to reduce a larger amount and which would of course alter the weight of the fuselage. I wasn't going for a full design of an aircraft but a good indication of where and how the weight changes.

In terms of the capacity question then:
A320 = 240pax
Wide ovoid = 280pax
Tall ovoid = 480pax (wa wa wee wa) but like I say the caveats of the increased taper lengths would apply.

Fred


However if the capacity goes up, the necessary payload goes up, which means the weight goes up.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:55 pm

seahawk wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Each for a same capacity fuselage ?

As with most things there is some background assumptions and I wasn't about to go about designing a whole new aircraft so I simply changed the fuselage dimensions on my weight estimation tool.
I took the basic dimensions of the A321 and added them to the estimation tool and it gave a good estimate of the OEW (less than 1t out so looks fairly accurate) I then simply changed the fuselage dimensions (height and width) to get the fuselage weight.

What I didn't change was the overall length which of course would change because of the tail and nose sections having to reduce a larger amount and which would of course alter the weight of the fuselage. I wasn't going for a full design of an aircraft but a good indication of where and how the weight changes.

In terms of the capacity question then:
A320 = 240pax
Wide ovoid = 280pax
Tall ovoid = 480pax (wa wa wee wa) but like I say the caveats of the increased taper lengths would apply.

Fred


However if the capacity goes up, the necessary payload goes up, which means the weight goes up.


Yes, this is something that I didn't actually factor in ( Its in the model but only so much time can be spent fettling every time). In the model I have it doesn't actually affect fuselage weight itself but does affect services, electrics, a/c. Going from 240-280 adds about 2 more tons to the weight before any bums are placed on seats. I think we all love to think that aircraft weights go down as you take weight out and you iterate downwards but very easily forget how it iterates upwards as well.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:33 pm

It will affect fuselage weight as well. More payload, means more load, means a need for a stronger fuselage. And the not so nice load distribution for a wide ovid, will add even more, as you will need some strengthening you do not need with a full circle. I would say that around 40-50% more than the A321 sounds realistic. Now modern construction can reduce the weight growth, but I personally think it would be a folly to benchmark a plane taking to the sky around 2025 against a plane which first flew in the 1980ies.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:52 pm

What effect will the continued production of the 767F have on the MOM, and its potential resale value as a freighter?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26366
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:11 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
What effect will the continued production of the 767F have on the MOM, and its potential resale value as a freighter?


In the near term, probably little. Especially if MOM is not a widebody (or a widebody not as wide and long as the 767-300).
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:44 pm

As much we might like the comfortable 7-across...back of envelope at least...Hard to make the economics work if it can't be sold in the region of $80 million or less. That means high volume, which I don't think this market would support. I fear a future of cramped A321 / 737-10 transatlantic and intra-Asia flights.

So for MOM, we are tentatively looking at an approx. 220 passenger model and a 260-270 passenger model...If 7-across, this looks quite like a 762 and 763, maybe a bit larger. CRFP will only modestly affect weight as high-aspect ratio wing and larger fan engine both increase weights, Estimates...

- Length: 50 and 60 meters
- Wing Span: 50 meters.. More span means smaller, lower thrust engines (must fit in 767 gates...folding tips to fit in 757 gates?)
- 40-50 K lbf thrust engines...Nothing available now. Very expensive new engine development.
- Empty Weight: 60 to 70 tons ...a 762 (non-ER) was about 70 tons
- MTOW: 120 to 140 tons for 4000+ nm range, includes at least 30 tons of fuel (approx. 10-12K gallons)

I don't yet see how this can work...A321 more economical at the bottom end, 787 / A330NEO competitive at the top end. The market just may be too small for a clean sheet MOM twin-isle aircraft. Perhaps B should look at a wider, longer narrow-body with a wide center isle like the MC-21...220 to 250 passengers, eventually replacing the 737.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
texl1649
Posts: 1046
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:57 pm

Boeing has probably planned not to offer the carbon frame widebody MOM as a tanker option either (similarly to 787), hence "cheap" 767 F models will continue to dominate that space, for new production. However, the eventual KC-Z competition for frames to be acquired in the 2030's is an interesting possibility, along with a C-17 replacement of course, for a frame in this general size range.
 
qf002
Posts: 3575
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:01 pm

downdata wrote:
Um what? Why do you need a plane with 4000mi range when the route is only 500mi? The 738 will be replaced by 738max or A32x should they need more capacity (which they don't).


You do realise that QF also uses 8000mi+ A332s on these short domestic hops, don't you? If the MOM is a true 767 successor then QF will be all over it.

Those 12-15 A332s will all be due for replacement mid next decade. The 738s are also woefully short on cargo capacity, something QF has really struggled with since retiring the 763s. SYD is now maxed out during the peaks, the only way to add seats in that market will be by using larger aircraft. Domestic traffic growth will inevitably pick up between now and 2025 - the stagnation we are seeing is really just a delayed reaction to economic conditions 2-3 years ago and won't last for too long.

Something with two aisles, 200-220 seats, good cargo capacity and 4000mi of range would be hugely attractive to QF. Ideal for the transcon hops, ideal for slot-restricted SYD and ideal for lower-capacity regional routes like SYD-CGK, PER-SIN and PER-AKL. The MOM could even make routes like PER-HKG or BNE-MNL a reality again. The timing also works perfectly for QF and allows them to push back committing to a 737 replacement until a true next-generation narrowbody makes it onto the market (whenever that ends up being).
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3151
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:09 pm

edibletomb wrote:
I don't understand why Boeing was strived to develop the 737-10 when they could've re-engined the 757 and stretch it a bit more. Why they retired the 757 in 2004 is beyond me. It's a proven airframe with massive popularity and a very capable one at that. And perhaps too capable - even Boeing designers claim that the plane was over-engineered. And yet they claim that the 757 is cannibalising 737 sales when there were pretty clear distinctions as to what their intended markets are.

Firstly, while the 757 is heavy, Boeing can modify parts so that it becomes lighter. I see lots of headroom for the PW1000G and the CFM LEAP-X to produce a 140-160Kn engine. The 757 can comfortably seat 230+ passengers in economy and a mixed config of 190. Give it a new wing and we got ourselves a winner - are Boeing really that ashamed to admit their mistakes? It's never too late to come back...

Or alternatively for a MoM aircraft they can design a 250-seat twin-aisle, 2-3-2 airliner (just like the 767) with new wings and engines etc that can be converted to 2-4-2 with 16.8-17" pitch. It can be around 50-60m long, with MTOW around 400,000-450,000lb and a max range of 5200-5800nm (so it has transcontinental, transatlantic, and transpacific range) while consuming less than a 787-8 or A330-200. Hopefully that's what the Boeing Y2 is going to be


I used to be in the "they should do a 757MAX" camp, but thinking on the matter from a financial position it makes no sense. All the time and effort to set up a supply chain, design a new wing, new avionics, and new certification, Boeing would be halfway to building a new platform. The 757MAX would be a dead end aircraft, how would it tie in with the next gen 737 replacement ? Better to build a platform that can serve the nebulous MOM and next 737 replacement.

And besides, the 757 stopped selling because no one ordered it. I am sure Boeing has floated the idea again and the fact Boeing has stated there will be no 757MAX tells you what the real customers, the airlines think of the idea.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:02 pm

So the numbers say a twin aisle isn't the way to go and their has been no evidence from Boeing that a twin aisle is what they will offer and Boeing haven't even said they are going to offer anything. The only thing about twin aisles being offered is the airlines saying "we'd love a wide body at narrow body economics" and I'm sure they bloody well would, I'd like a Ferrari at Kia prices but it ain't happening. Fun to speculate but don't get your hopes up.

Fred
Image
 
Boeing1978
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:06 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:15 pm

It would not be a simple thing to restart the 757 line. No argument from me.
However, the basic aircraft was sound and the design could be modernized.
Seriously modernized.

The 757 was first produced in the early 1980s, so it is a newer design than the original 737 (1960s).
You’ll note the 737 has been modernized over the years and Boeing is still cranking them out, at a record pace no less.

Will they need new tooling? They will probably need a lot of new tooling.
No matter what aircraft they decide on for this market, they will need new tooling.

So stop already with the “it’s an old design, time to move on”.
Move on to what, exactly? A wide-body? For that market? Airbus will eat their lunch.
And, they’ll eat their lunch with a single-aisle aircraft, the A321.

If Boeing is going after this market (and it’s pretty clear they want to) they have two choices in my opinion.

NEO-MAX the 757, maybe swallow some pride if necessary, and get to work already.

Or, begin work on whatever will eventually replace the 737, starting with the larger version first.

A wide-body for this market seems ridiculous.
 
edibletomb
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:26 pm

The closest ideal MoM currently available is probably the A321Neo - and while it'd do transcon (US and Australia) just fine, it would struggle on 3000Nm+ routes, like many transatlantical and AUS routes from PER/BNE to MNL/HKG/CGK/KUL etc (although GA does fly a B738 from CGK-PER). Ideally Airbus should increase the MTOW to 230-240,000Lbs and add an extra centre-wing fuel tank. And to ensure the airframe can handle the extra weight it can install a four-wheel bogie MLG (Airbus actually had done this before - https://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Indi ... da1x9a2C7z). The four-wheel bogie would only need minor modification to fit into the landing gear bay, and while it's certain to add structural weight, the benefits of a greater MTOW outweighs it. Plus, the more robust landing gear could increase MLW, which could be a boon for cargo operators. Finally an uprated PW1000G or CFM LEAP-X with around 130-140Kn thrust should enable to aircraft to perform reasonably well in climb-outs and lessen minimum takeoff distance.

But really, this would be more of a stop-gap solutions. The 757 would still have better range and higher seating capacity. The closest MoM aircraft in terms of passenger capacity and range is the 767 - but it's really outdated by now and uses an old, innefficient, and loud engine. While Boeing and Airbus are touting their 787-8s and A330-200s as true MoM aircrafts, they are still pretty thirsty and heavy aircrafts (not to mention expensive - unless one buys it second-hand), simply not efficient enough. As I've said before a new MoM aircraft would ideally be an all-new design, with a spacious 2-3-2 seating @18" width each seat, or a wider aircraft that accomodates a 2-4-2 seating @17" seat width. The former would be easier and cheaper to build, but less versatile, while the latter is the opposite (with the potential to cannibalise current 787/A330 sales). Ideally transpacific capable as well, and using an all-new engine.Or a long 3-3 single-aisle jet a la the 757-300.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:36 pm

edibletomb wrote:
I don't understand why Boeing was strived to develop the 737-10 when they could've re-engined the 757 and stretch it a bit more. Why they retired the 757 in 2004 is beyond me. It's a proven airframe with massive popularity and a very capable one at that. And perhaps too capable - even Boeing designers claim that the plane was over-engineered. And yet they claim that the 757 is cannibalising 737 sales when there were pretty clear distinctions as to what their intended markets are.

Firstly, while the 757 is heavy, Boeing can modify parts so that it becomes lighter. I see lots of headroom for the PW1000G and the CFM LEAP-X to produce a 140-160Kn engine. The 757 can comfortably seat 230+ passengers in economy and a mixed config of 190. Give it a new wing and we got ourselves a winner - are Boeing really that ashamed to admit their mistakes? It's never too late to come back...

Or alternatively for a MoM aircraft they can design a 250-seat twin-aisle, 2-3-2 airliner (just like the 767) with new wings and engines etc that can be converted to 2-4-2 with 16.8-17" pitch. It can be around 50-60m long, with MTOW around 400,000-450,000lb and a max range of 5200-5800nm (so it has transcontinental, transatlantic, and transpacific range) while consuming less than a 787-8 or A330-200. Hopefully that's what the Boeing Y2 is going to be

The B757 as good as it was was NOT a Fly By Wire airplane. Even the A321 had it beat in Technology.
Boeing at some point had to revamp that and the B767 for the Next generation of innovation. And?? That time is at hand..
Whether they come out with a new carbon Fiber or composite , or aluminum-lithium or some other Hi Tech material for the fuselage it's going to be Fly By Wire which the Present B757 and B767 are surely NOT!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:18 pm

A single aisle with a stretch to as long as 753 and a wing that'll do 4000nm with ifs own volume (no ACTs). There will be a slightly shorter version A321 length that will go further. The wing will be carbon and look sexy and long and the fuselage may or may not be. The engines will have gears and they will be under the wings, the gear will be as normal, there will be two people sat at the pointy end driving it through a FBW system. It will have 2 hydraulic systems and 1 hybrid. It will have more electric but still bleed. Basically to the layman nothing will change.

Boeing have to get the cross section right on the mom as it will form the basis of the NSA......... or the other way round.

Fred
Image
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:23 pm

Boeing1978 wrote:
It would not be a simple thing to restart the 757 line. No argument from me.
However, the basic aircraft was sound and the design could be modernized.
Seriously modernized.

The 757 was first produced in the early 1980s, so it is a newer design than the original 737 (1960s).
You’ll note the 737 has been modernized over the years and Boeing is still cranking them out, at a record pace no less.

Will they need new tooling? They will probably need a lot of new tooling.
No matter what aircraft they decide on for this market, they will need new tooling.

So stop already with the “it’s an old design, time to move on”.
Move on to what, exactly? A wide-body? For that market? Airbus will eat their lunch.
And, they’ll eat their lunch with a single-aisle aircraft, the A321.

If Boeing is going after this market (and it’s pretty clear they want to) they have two choices in my opinion.

NEO-MAX the 757, maybe swallow some pride if necessary, and get to work already.

Or, begin work on whatever will eventually replace the 737, starting with the larger version first.

A wide-body for this market seems ridiculous.


For what they'd have to do to the 757, it'd be better to go clean sheet at this point. I'd imagine there are more than a few design changes that would come up after 40 years.

Having said that, I'd suggest searching for some of the numerous topics on the 757 Neo/Max concept, as it's been discussed so many times that a lot of people get frustrated having to rehash it again and again. It's not that it's an inappropriate topic, but it's been discussed to death for a decade now. Everyone - particularly Boeing - has moved on from it. The MoM may be similar when all is said and done, but it won't be based on the 757. :-)
-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.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:25 pm

Boeing1978 wrote:
It would not be a simple thing to restart the 757 line. No argument from me.
However, the basic aircraft was sound and the design could be modernized.
Seriously modernized.

The 757 was first produced in the early 1980s, so it is a newer design than the original 737 (1960s).
You’ll note the 737 has been modernized over the years and Boeing is still cranking them out, at a record pace no less.

Will they need new tooling? They will probably need a lot of new tooling.
No matter what aircraft they decide on for this market, they will need new tooling.

So stop already with the “it’s an old design, time to move on”.
Move on to what, exactly? A wide-body? For that market? Airbus will eat their lunch.
And, they’ll eat their lunch with a single-aisle aircraft, the A321.

If Boeing is going after this market (and it’s pretty clear they want to) they have two choices in my opinion.

NEO-MAX the 757, maybe swallow some pride if necessary, and get to work already.

Or, begin work on whatever will eventually replace the 737, starting with the larger version first.

A wide-body for this market seems ridiculous.


I completely agree. Making MOM a widebody would be pointless and wasteful. The market is already over-saturated with 250-300 seat widebodies. You certainly couldn't call it an MOM anymore.
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4380
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:39 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
Boeing1978 wrote:
It would not be a simple thing to restart the 757 line. No argument from me.
However, the basic aircraft was sound and the design could be modernized.
Seriously modernized.

The 757 was first produced in the early 1980s, so it is a newer design than the original 737 (1960s).
You’ll note the 737 has been modernized over the years and Boeing is still cranking them out, at a record pace no less.

Will they need new tooling? They will probably need a lot of new tooling.
No matter what aircraft they decide on for this market, they will need new tooling.

So stop already with the “it’s an old design, time to move on”.
Move on to what, exactly? A wide-body? For that market? Airbus will eat their lunch.
And, they’ll eat their lunch with a single-aisle aircraft, the A321.

If Boeing is going after this market (and it’s pretty clear they want to) they have two choices in my opinion.

NEO-MAX the 757, maybe swallow some pride if necessary, and get to work already.

Or, begin work on whatever will eventually replace the 737, starting with the larger version first.

A wide-body for this market seems ridiculous.


I completely agree. Making MOM a widebody would be pointless and wasteful. The market is already over-saturated with 250-300 seat widebodies. You certainly couldn't call it an MOM anymore.

Um...didn't they confirm it would be a widebody in the 210-250 seat realm?
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15404
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:54 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
For what they'd have to do to the 757, it'd be better to go clean sheet at this point. I'd imagine there are more than a few design changes that would come up after 40 years.


I think what everyone is saying is that while a clean sheet is definitely the way to go, using the B757 blueprints as a starting point is a good idea.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:03 am

EA CO AS wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
For what they'd have to do to the 757, it'd be better to go clean sheet at this point. I'd imagine there are more than a few design changes that would come up after 40 years.


I think what everyone is saying is that while a clean sheet is definitely the way to go, using the B757 blueprints as a starting point is a good idea.


Sure, but is that the cross section we should be striving for? I'm just not convinced that the 757 - in whole or in part - is worth going back in time to save. I'm no engineer though.
-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.
 
downdata
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:28 am

qf002 wrote:
downdata wrote:
Um what? Why do you need a plane with 4000mi range when the route is only 500mi? The 738 will be replaced by 738max or A32x should they need more capacity (which they don't).


You do realise that QF also uses 8000mi+ A332s on these short domestic hops, don't you? If the MOM is a true 767 successor then QF will be all over it.

Those 12-15 A332s will all be due for replacement mid next decade. The 738s are also woefully short on cargo capacity, something QF has really struggled with since retiring the 763s. SYD is now maxed out during the peaks, the only way to add seats in that market will be by using larger aircraft. Domestic traffic growth will inevitably pick up between now and 2025 - the stagnation we are seeing is really just a delayed reaction to economic conditions 2-3 years ago and won't last for too long.

Something with two aisles, 200-220 seats, good cargo capacity and 4000mi of range would be hugely attractive to QF. Ideal for the transcon hops, ideal for slot-restricted SYD and ideal for lower-capacity regional routes like SYD-CGK, PER-SIN and PER-AKL. The MOM could even make routes like PER-HKG or BNE-MNL a reality again. The timing also works perfectly for QF and allows them to push back committing to a 737 replacement until a true next-generation narrowbody makes it onto the market (whenever that ends up being).


By which time the west SYD airport will be operational with no restrictions/curfews ...etc. SYD and for that matter, the other metro airports are also nowehere near capacity, its the decade old artificial restrictions that may well be lifted in the next few years... they'd prefer to add more frequencies. As for the domestic A332s, its more about utilisation than anything else...
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:54 am

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?


I redacted some of the prior quotes to avoid filling up the page with blockquotes, and because it was easy to trace back up thread to see that I was comparing a fixed number of seats in a 7-abreast vs. 6-abreast layout. The difference in circumference is less than the difference in length, and distinct from the difference in frontal area.

I'm not sure how often you encounter somebody who knows how to do elliptical circumference and area calculations but somehow doesn't know that a bigger elliptical cylinder would have a larger surface area than a smaller elliptical cylinder if their lengths are the same. In the future, however, I encourage to you to reconsider if you've actually encountered such a person or if there might be more context to consider before making snarky comments about their math skills.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:49 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
...

Sorry, I am on the same page now.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:04 am

I think it will be a twin aisle to cover the gap between 737-1000 and 787-9. A single aisle would be a direct competition to the NSA. In the end it will imho be more of a competitor to the A330NEO than to the A321.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:50 am

flipdewaf wrote:
A single aisle with a stretch to as long as 753 and a wing that'll do 4000nm with ifs own volume (no ACTs). There will be a slightly shorter version A321 length that will go further. The wing will be carbon and look sexy and long and the fuselage may or may not be. The engines will have gears and they will be under the wings, the gear will be as normal, there will be two people sat at the pointy end driving it through a FBW system. It will have 2 hydraulic systems and 1 hybrid. It will have more electric but still bleed. Basically to the layman nothing will change.

Boeing have to get the cross section right on the mom as it will form the basis of the NSA......... or the other way round.

Fred


If it is launched, it will be a either a 7 or probably sardine-8 abreast TWIN, come over it. All we're hearing from leaks shows in that direction. It is even indirectly confirmed now by the United CEO ("We thought a TWIN can't be as efficient [as a single aisle], but now we think [otherwise]."

Obviously Boeing hasn't all the ingenius engineers from A-net who calculated in a glimpse that a small TWIN - be it horizontal oval or not - can't make ANY sense because of their deep inside understanding of all things made by man. Poor Boeing with all the old expensive guys never have a glue :banghead:


seahawk wrote:
I think it will be a twin aisle to cover the gap between 737-1000 and 787-9. A single aisle would be a direct competition to the NSA. In the end it will imho be more of a competitor to the A330NEO than to the A321.


:checkmark: But it too will be a marked below the A330 neo and it will be bigger, because it will of course change the marked by it's existense. It will open up "long range" travel for LCC's and capture new leisure traffic. At medium routes with high traffic volume (e.g. intra-Asia) it will be a good A321neo competitor, while say 2 MOM will do the job of 3 A321neo, be more efficient in that comparison, especially if controlled for slots and fees.

However this will further errode the prospects of classical widebodys - more than the A321 - which will hurt the A330neo more (this will more-or-less be gone with the MOM), but even the 787 may not be uneffected.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:20 am

dare100em wrote:
:checkmark: But it too will be a marked below the A330 neo and it will be bigger, because it will of course change the marked by it's existense. It will open up "long range" travel for LCC's and capture new leisure traffic. At medium routes with high traffic volume (e.g. intra-Asia) it will be a good A321neo competitor, while say 2 MOM will do the job of 3 A321neo, be more efficient in that comparison, especially if controlled for slots and fees.

However this will further errode the prospects of classical widebodys - more than the A321 - which will hurt the A330neo more (this will more-or-less be gone with the MOM), but even the 787 may not be uneffected.


However there is one very big problem for Boeing, which is the price airlines are willing to pay. It seems like the consensus seems to be that they would not pay more than 70-80 millions for the plane, which is about 60% of what Boeing wants (or needs) to get for a 787 and very close to the rock bottom prices paid for A330CEOs. And that would be for a new design, with new engines and probably cutting edge technology being needed to achieve the performance goals. At the moment MoM reminds me a bit of the Dreamliner, Boeing seems to promise an awful lot.
 
edibletomb
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:59 am

dare100em wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
A single aisle with a stretch to as long as 753 and a wing that'll do 4000nm with ifs own volume (no ACTs). There will be a slightly shorter version A321 length that will go further. The wing will be carbon and look sexy and long and the fuselage may or may not be. The engines will have gears and they will be under the wings, the gear will be as normal, there will be two people sat at the pointy end driving it through a FBW system. It will have 2 hydraulic systems and 1 hybrid. It will have more electric but still bleed. Basically to the layman nothing will change.

Boeing have to get the cross section right on the mom as it will form the basis of the NSA......... or the other way round.

Fred


If it is launched, it will be a either a 7 or probably sardine-8 abreast TWIN, come over it. All we're hearing from leaks shows in that direction. It is even indirectly confirmed now by the United CEO ("We thought a TWIN can't be as efficient [as a single aisle], but now we think [otherwise]."

Obviously Boeing hasn't all the ingenius engineers from A-net who calculated in a glimpse that a small TWIN - be it horizontal oval or not - can't make ANY sense because of their deep inside understanding of all things made by man. Poor Boeing with all the old expensive guys never have a glue :banghead:


seahawk wrote:
I think it will be a twin aisle to cover the gap between 737-1000 and 787-9. A single aisle would be a direct competition to the NSA. In the end it will imho be more of a competitor to the A330NEO than to the A321.


:checkmark: But it too will be a marked below the A330 neo and it will be bigger, because it will of course change the marked by it's existense. It will open up "long range" travel for LCC's and capture new leisure traffic. At medium routes with high traffic volume (e.g. intra-Asia) it will be a good A321neo competitor, while say 2 MOM will do the job of 3 A321neo, be more efficient in that comparison, especially if controlled for slots and fees.

However this will further errode the prospects of classical widebodys - more than the A321 - which will hurt the A330neo more (this will more-or-less be gone with the MOM), but even the 787 may not be uneffected.


dare100em, I agree with you. It would most definitely be a twin-aisle in the calibre of the 767 - a single-aisle would've been too long a plane and there would've been negative consequences regarding structural rigidity (specifically torsional rigidity - something that some current 757s are suffering from). It would also have a wider cabin that's configured for 2-3-2 or sardine 2-4-2 for flexibility that seats around 210-260 passengers in a 2-class, so a cabin width of 190-195", wider than current 767s by about 5-10". IMO that 2-3-2 twin-aisle design is preferred not only because it speeds up boarding (as this study suggests http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-conten ... oncept.pdf ), but also because crucially it offers future upgradeability (e.g a stretch or an ER variant), to possibly replace the 787-8 and rival the A330-200, which is likely given that orders for the 788 has dried up given its efficiency when compared to other 787 variants - https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/21/ponti ... ed-boeing/ )

In that sense it will cannibalise 787 sales, but only the 788 variant. As this aircraft would've had an MTOW similar to the 767 at 400-450,000lbs and range of 4000-5000nm max Boeing would've ensured that there'd be enough differentiation between it and the 789, and just enough for it to be competitive to the current A332ceo and/or A332Neo on sub-4000nm routes. And the market is there already - particularly US carriers looking to replace their 767-300ERs. The US3 are struggling to replace their 767-300ER fleets that makes up the backbone of their fleet - and if Boeing don't act fast, they'd risk losing sales to Airbus (and they already are - Delta is ordering A330s by the truckload to replace their 763s). Unless they found a way for the 788 to be more fuel-efficient (which they hope they've achieved with the trials of the new Trent 1000 - TEN and GEnx 2B PIP2), the future doesn't look so hot for them right now.

That however doesn't mean that there aren't any demand for a true 757 replacement - I think the demand is still there, as shown by the US3's continuous upgrade of their 757 fleet. Boeing could build a MoM aircraft using the 757 as a base concept. And as this report from BusinessInsider suggests (http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-7 ... ?r=US&IR=T), the A321Neo is outselling the 737-9 5 to 1, so the business case certainly exists. But of course in the end it's up to the airlines to decide - a light, 190-230 seat, more efficient, 250-270,000lb plane in the mold of the 757, or a 767-sized plane?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Maybe Boeing is too late already for United Airlines.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:03 am

I have the feeling that if Boeing keeps launching concepts (737-10, 2-3-2 MoM) with promises an aerospace student can calculate ain't gonna happen and keeps talking about 767 sized aircraft and ignore the 200-220 seat 3500NM space, things could move rapidly. United needs something for transcon soon and it ain't a 787-8. Wake up and smell the coffee or be sidelined. If Leahy offers Mobile A321NEO's starting in 2-3 years, Boeing might be too late already for United.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
sofianec
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:14 am

If Boeing create a 797 similar to 767 but with the materials and engine improvements of the 787 we can have a winner. Same goes for Airbus re-starting the A300/A310neo they have a great chance to keep A330neo as is with A350 as a flagship and re-define short/medium-haul. Many years ago LH were flying A300-600 and A310-200 domestic, now it's all A320/321.

I heard A330neo economics are worse than CEO for shorter flights. A300/310neo can be optimised for 4500 nm. China domestic will soon need something bigger than A321 and A330 has too much range.
Last edited by sofianec on Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
A350WARP
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Maybe Boeing is too late already for United Airlines.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:18 am

keesje wrote:
I have the feeling that if Boeing keeps launching concepts (737-10, 2-3-2 MoM) with promises an aerospace student can calculate ain't gonna happen and keeps talking about 767 sized aircraft and ignore the 200-220 seat 3500NM space, things could move rapidly. United needs something for transcon soon and it ain't a 787-8. Wake up and smell the coffee or be sidelined. If Leahy offers Mobile A321NEO's starting in 2-3 years, Boeing might be too late already for United.

Image



Right.. even though UA said A321 can't do the job l.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Maybe Boeing is too late already for United Airlines.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:48 am

ikolkyo wrote:
keesje wrote:
I have the feeling that if Boeing keeps launching concepts (737-10, 2-3-2 MoM) with promises an aerospace student can calculate ain't gonna happen and keeps talking about 767 sized aircraft and ignore the 200-220 seat 3500NM space, things could move rapidly. United needs something for transcon soon and it ain't a 787-8. Wake up and smell the coffee or be sidelined. If Leahy offers Mobile A321NEO's starting in 2-3 years, Boeing might be too late already for United.

Image



Right.. even though UA said A321 can't do the job l.


Yes, even after they said that.It's called negotiations.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:55 am

sofianec wrote:
If Boeing create a 797 similar to 767 but with the materials and engine improvements of the 787 we can have a winner. Same goes for Airbus re-starting the A300/A310neo they have a great chance to keep A330neo as is with A350 as a flagship and re-define short/medium-haul. Many years ago LH were flying A300-600 and A310-200 domestic, now it's all A320/321.

I heard A330neo economics are worse than CEO for shorter flights. A300/310neo can be optimised for 4500 nm. China domestic will soon need something bigger than A321 and A330 has too much range.


One should not forget that those planes were ordered way before something like a 737-9MAX or A321NEO was available. When your options were below were 737-400 / 727 / early A320 and above were DC-10/747/TriStar or old 707/DC-8 those 757/767s and A300/A310 looked splendid.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:58 am

If we take Boeing and their key customers words as gospel.
1. They will launch a 737-10 which will more than adequately cover the short/med haul and will be as efficient as the A321NEO in this regard
(But it simply cannot match the A321NEO longer ranges/capabilities).But that airlines would also like a little bit 'more'(range capacity if they could have it)
2.As such they will launch some sort of a twin aisle aircraft soon that meets all the desired customer criteria on range and pax/cargo.Somehow at an acceptable price.The clients that have commented appear to like it /want it.

This forum cannot agree/see how this can be done (no surprise there).But it appears that Boeing have done just that.So what might happen if these things do come to pass?
1.The 737 family continues as ong as is necessay -as long as the A320 family.It holds its own on everything except the longer range aspects of the top end of the market.
2.It matches (and betters) the A321NEO on the longer segments with the 797 'A'.It offers a larger version 797 'B' that enters a new gap in the market that was once filled with 757,767,310 aircraft.A market according to them has re emerged over the last decade.

If they are right.Whats wrong with that strategy? The hard part is creating an aircraft that can do these things-we must assume they have achieved this - in a way we have not imagined .
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:00 pm

I would say Boeing promised this, they also promised to built a 787 fuselage in 3 days and be able to sell it cheaper than any metal competitor...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:21 pm

I think Airbus would totally respect Boeing to pursue a 767 sized 2-3-2 adventure.

Ties up the money and people until 2025 leaving the A320, A350 and A380 alone.

The MAX-9 & -10, 787-8, 787-10, 777-8 and 747-8 will do just fine.

:champagne:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:25 pm

seahawk wrote:
I would say Boeing promised this, they also promised to built a 787 fuselage in 3 days and be able to sell it cheaper than any metal competitor...

They did sell it cheaper, didn't they?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:19 pm

It's there an advantage to be had to a tapered shape alla the 2707?

I am talking only of aerodynamics here. The engineering would be challenging and the shape would preclude an eventual stretch. I understand that if it were a practical advantage it would have been done.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Maybe Boeing is too late already for United Airlines.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:33 pm

keesje wrote:
I have the feeling that if Boeing keeps launching concepts (737-10, 2-3-2 MoM) with promises an aerospace student can calculate ain't gonna happen and keeps talking about 767 sized aircraft and ignore the 200-220 seat 3500NM space, things could move .[/img]


This is where I'm at keesje, if there is a manic bullet that Boeing have found to make this work then that's cool but I really can't see it. The inefficiencies of a wide body and short length just don't work for this pax capacity. A wide oval is too heavy. Weight = bad. If someone can explain how to make the weight savings on a wide oval work then please do but CFRP won't make it so. 240 seats at 7 abreast is only 34 rows so a 767 with the length of a 738. The chode of the sky!

My opinion is that the cross over from narrow to wide body is at about 300 seats in a one class aircraft.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:53 pm

If a narrow-body aircraft is the preferred alternative for efficiencies sake, but long aircraft have problems with runway performance due to the distance between the main gear and the tail (and therefore the limit to the angle the aircraft can be at upon takeoff), would it be worth considering an aircraft with a canard which subsequently moves the wings and main gear further aft?

Since any new aircraft is likely to be fly-by-wire, a computer would be involved with interpreting any pilot actions regardless of how outlandish the control surfaces are, it strikes me that such an aircraft could be quite long indeed.
 
StTim
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:25 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
If a narrow-body aircraft is the preferred alternative for efficiencies sake, but long aircraft have problems with runway performance due to the distance between the main gear and the tail (and therefore the limit to the angle the aircraft can be at upon takeoff), would it be worth considering an aircraft with a canard which subsequently moves the wings and main gear further aft?

Since any new aircraft is likely to be fly-by-wire, a computer would be involved with interpreting any pilot actions regardless of how outlandish the control surfaces are, it strikes me that such an aircraft could be quite long indeed.



Or you have taller gear to allow the rotation angle to be not a problem - and to hang larger engines under the wing. This is what the 757 had.
 
CX747
Posts: 6098
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:43 pm

seahawk wrote:
I would say Boeing promised this, they also promised to built a 787 fuselage in 3 days and be able to sell it cheaper than any metal competitor...



I would say, that is in the past. People need to get over it. Airbus thought the A340-500/600 was a good idea. Does that mean the A350 will be a dud?

We need to as a group move past the 787 issues. It is egg on Boeing's face but guess what? The plane got built, is flying and has garnered a ton of orders for them. They state, the program will turn a profit. At the end of the day, their accounting book is there's to keep and with it make sure the lights stay on. Are any airlines at this time dumping 787s because the airplane doesn't do what Boeing says it can?

No one here says Airbus can't make an all new airplane even though their A400, an "All New" platform has been a failure in many avenues. Germany and France are buying C-130s to do mission sets the A400 was supposed to do. That's two customer buying a fleet of the competition's product because Airbus products can't get the j o b done. In addition to being an "All New" platform that has not met customers needs, they also had one crash and kill everyone onboard during testing. It is complete crickets here on the board covering any of that as a failure by Airbus to bring a platform to market. Guys families have been devestated due to one program, another had executives make promises to big and got delayed. There is no comparison.

Boeing may build a 797 in two different configurations. Let's see if they can. All of the news so far has multiple blue chip carriers including UA, AA, DL and possibly JL as being interested. Hopefully we can see the design and production of a new family of aircraft.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:35 pm

While a forward canard setup would allow the wing to be moved further back, and the landing gears to be shorter but still allow sufficient rotation, it has it's own problems. There has to be a bit of additional strengthening of the fuselage between the wing root and the tail/empanage to account for the stresses imparted on the rest of the aircraft from the movement of the tail surfaces. If you move the horizontal stabilizers to the nose, you move those forces to the far end of the aircraft while also moving the wings rearwards. The entire length of the aircraft becomes the moment arm and is all under the maximum amount of stress for any movement. While not a major factor in its construction by any means, imagine the MD-88 with the T-tail horizontal stabilizers moved to the front of the aircraft. The entire length of the fuselage would have to be strengthened to account for the stresses that any movement of the stabilizers/canards make. Though you'd get to have a substantially lighter vertical stabilizer out of the deal, the trade-off wouldn't end well. The reason that the few planes that you see in limited private or regional service are able to get away with them is that they are substantially smaller and lighter, and don't have anywhere the same amount of force to contend with. Looking at other larger transports that had them, you get large delta wings like the XB-70 Valkyrie, which had wing structure for most of the length of the plane to help mitigate the stress, and the Concordski, which had very small canards that had a very limited amount of aerodynamic control authority.

I agree that such an arrangement would be interesting, and could solve some of the issues facing super long single aisle aircraft, but the nitty gritty of the construction side of things makes it somewhat weight prohibitive. Looking at the design sketches above, the ones that featured canards or full foreplanes, were rather short, fat fuselages, that come with a greater amount of inherent strength. Something else to consider, looking at the current jetway arrangement that you see at most airports, how would you propose that they manage to safely maneuver the jetways over to the aircraft quickly over and over again and not damage the canards? Do you adopt a heavy and complicated retraction or folding mechanism for them? Do you completely redo the jetways? Not cheap.

I just can't see Boeing proposing a canard/rear wing arrangement for production.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:17 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
[H]ow would you propose that they manage to safely maneuver the jetways over to the aircraft quickly over and over again and not damage the canards? Do you adopt a heavy and complicated retraction or folding mechanism for them? Do you completely redo the jetways? Not cheap.


I don't know enough about the physics of aviation to answer most of your concerns. I always like to learn, which is why I appropriate the conversation on this site.

As to jetways, again knowing nothing but the basic rudimentary physics, I was looking to the Sonic Cruiser's canards above and aft of the first set of doors.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:15 am

I'm not trying to insult or deride you in any way. Those are the questions that I have when considering a forward canard setup. If the improvement is worth the expense, they will certainly do it. However, that is going to require a whole lot of savings to justify.

I very much appreciatell variety of design an innovative thinking. It's just that, in the commercial air transport, there is a lot of design momentum that will take a lot to overcome.

To give you an example, why can't aircraft manufacturers go back to high wing designs? Aside from some loss of horizontal ground stability due to main gear location, the advantage of having a low fuselage for baggage loading with a high wing for big turbofan clearance would seem to recommend it highly. It seems to be very popular in the large cargo world, why is it unpopular in the large commercial jet world?
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:07 am

I don't feel insulted in any way, I simply wanted to acknowledge the part of your post I lack the experience to respond to. :)
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12

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