• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 12
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:42 am

As for a narrowbody/single aisle being potentially too long, that should only be the case for a 300 seater (all economy). I still think that is far too large for MOM. 280 seats (all economy) should be the upper limit, (i.e the 757-300 but with a slightly wider cabin) that's where the market is, at least according to graphics posted here for the last couple of years, United Airlines by itself cannot justify Boeing making MOM a 762-763 size aircraft.
 
flyinggoat
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:38 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:44 am

ikolkyo wrote:
With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees


Thought I'd quote that post from the first page as it appears many missed the link. It sounds like Boeing has decided on a 225-260 seat wide body.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:51 am

So many flies stuck in your scanner, Keesje. Sad.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8716
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:09 am

CX747 wrote:
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.


You are missing the bottom line, neither of those mentioned Airbuses promised a revolution for the industry. (A380 did and well,...)

If Boeing is able to built and sell a twin aisle for 20% more money than a 737, that only weights 20% more but carries over 20% more passengers and also make a good profit from it, all other airliners in production are obsolete. (Including everything from Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and Bombardier)
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:23 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
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.


Thanks for an interesting question I've never thought about before. I would imagine that, while there will definitely have to be very strict new rules and checklists for the ground staff to keep to, a fairly stubby canard would be used (simple and overbuilt) instead of the slender, retracting canards used on Concordski. In that case, for a medium sized aircraft, I would expect that most stands would be able to accommodate the aircraft on arrival, then extend the airbridge to the first door (assuming it's behind the canards).

Alternatively, perhaps the canard could be mounted further back (less severe aero loading in that case as well) so the first door is ahead of it - then the airbridge would be used as normal - although with tighter safety margins. If the canard is below the floor level as well (to allow fittings for wingbox structure and systems) then it's pretty much the same as bringing an A318 on stand...
"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
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:14 pm

seahawk wrote:
If Boeing is able to built and sell a twin aisle for 20% more money than a 737, that only weights 20% more but carries over 20% more passengers and also make a good profit from it, all other airliners in production are obsolete. (Including everything from Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and Bombardier)



Yeah, I would agree with that sentiment. You do wonder what has stopped any OEM from doing this before now though.
 
CX747
Posts: 6098
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:46 pm

seahawk wrote:
CX747 wrote:
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.


You are missing the bottom line, neither of those mentioned Airbuses promised a revolution for the industry. (A380 did and well,...)

If Boeing is able to built and sell a twin aisle for 20% more money than a 737, that only weights 20% more but carries over 20% more passengers and also make a good profit from it, all other airliners in production are obsolete. (Including everything from Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and Bombardier)


Wow, just wow. I'm missing the bottom line? Guys died in one program but you are caught up on what a marketing line attached to a commercial program promised.......

Let's see what comes of all the UA chatter on Boeing's supposed new 797 beasts.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:49 pm

I think there are very good reasons why this MOM class aircraft has not happened earlier -especially from Boeing.

1.IMHO (and only that!) The 788 was built with the 767 replacement market very much in mind.Partivularly with its 2x4x2 18.3" Y seating.In 2 class it's a 200/250 seater.Yes it's capable of longer ranges than the 767 but so what.That makes it all the more flexible - you don't 'have' to brim the tanks every time!They sold a shed load of 8's too (Obviously 'The 9 ' is designed as a 333 killer).
2.Boeing were under huge short term pressure to re engine the 737 rather than start from scratch.They knew there would be a weakness at the very top end (A321NEO).But may not have seen the potential of the recently announced LR nor the rise in potential demand.

Now that the 737max is in the air and the 787 project is nearly finished (the Ten) ,the timing is right to return to the MOM.
Although neither the A321NEO nor the 338 are in the air yet they do have a very good idea of any potential future competition which will help the planners (and accountants).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8716
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:03 pm

It is about realistic expectations. This plane sounds like a revolution, just like the 787 sounded like a revolution or the A380 and neither turned out to be one. But lets assume Boeing delivers and the MoM is all it is rumoured to be.

How much will airlines be willing to pay for a 737 or 787 when you get the 250 seat MoM for 70 millions and the 280 seat version for 80 Millions, both with 5000nm range and single aisle economics? And if they have this technology in their hands, why does the 777X keep the metal fuselage and why did they not launch the NSA instead of the MAX; because a new single aisle 10-15% lighter than a 737, with new wings and engines and improved economics would kill the NEO for good. Especially if you can built it cheaper.
 
akelley728
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:35 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:37 pm

Why is everyone focused on 2x3x2 for a twin aisle MOM? Boeing seriously considered 2x2x2 with the 80s/90s 7J7 design.

It had a 13.6ft diameter fuselage (compared to the A320 13.0ft). I remember seeing cross-section drawings that showed a 1x2x1 premium class and a 2x2x2 economy class with17" economy seats and 20" aisles (With modern manufacturing techniques and materials (CFRP, AL-Li) you could have thinner walls and perhaps 18" seats with slightly wider aisles). Cargo area would fit two LD3s like the A320. Since its a twin aisle it would solve the boarding issues but since it's not quite as wide as a 767 class aircraft it would approach the economics of a single-aisle.
Last edited by akelley728 on Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:00 pm

akelley728 wrote:
Why is everyone focused on 2x3x2 for a twin aisle MOM? Boeing seriously considered 2x2x2 with the 80s/90s 7J7 design.

It had a 13.6ft diameter fuselage (compared to the A320 13.0ft). I remember seeing cross-section drawings that showed a 1x2x1 premium class and a 2x2x2 economy class with17" economy seats and 20" aisles (With modern manufacturing techniques and materials (CFRP, AL-Li) you could have thinner walls and perhaps 18" seats with slightly wider aises). Cargo area would fit two LD3s like the A320. Since its a twin aisle it would solve the boarding issues but since it's not quite as wide as a 767 class aircraft it would approach the economics of a single-aisle.



That would be interesting if they went for that configuration. That could be a much better option for the ~250 seat category than a traditional widebody...
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:20 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
akelley728 wrote:
Why is everyone focused on 2x3x2 for a twin aisle MOM? Boeing seriously considered 2x2x2 with the 80s/90s 7J7 design.

It had a 13.6ft diameter fuselage (compared to the A320 13.0ft). I remember seeing cross-section drawings that showed a 1x2x1 premium class and a 2x2x2 economy class with17" economy seats and 20" aisles (With modern manufacturing techniques and materials (CFRP, AL-Li) you could have thinner walls and perhaps 18" seats with slightly wider aises). Cargo area would fit two LD3s like the A320. Since its a twin aisle it would solve the boarding issues but since it's not quite as wide as a 767 class aircraft it would approach the economics of a single-aisle.



That would be interesting if they went for that configuration. That could be a much better option for the ~250 seat category than a traditional widebody...


It only would solve the boarding issue and help somewhat to go for a longer fuselage lenght. But that's it. It would add ~10% frontal area without any capacity effect compared to an A320. I personally think they may even go for a sardine 8-abreast, but 7-abreast ist a given when it's a widebody.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3151
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:56 pm

Would set up an interesting situation if the this new MOM and the A321 have similar price and economics. Does an airline go for an extra few percentage points off operating costs and go for the single aisle (A321) or pax comfort and go for the twin aisle (Boeing MOM). Interesting times indeed.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3151
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:58 pm

seahawk wrote:
It is about realistic expectations. This plane sounds like a revolution, just like the 787 sounded like a revolution or the A380 and neither turned out to be one. But lets assume Boeing delivers and the MoM is all it is rumoured to be.

How much will airlines be willing to pay for a 737 or 787 when you get the 250 seat MoM for 70 millions and the 280 seat version for 80 Millions, both with 5000nm range and single aisle economics? And if they have this technology in their hands, why does the 777X keep the metal fuselage and why did they not launch the NSA instead of the MAX; because a new single aisle 10-15% lighter than a 737, with new wings and engines and improved economics would kill the NEO for good. Especially if you can built it cheaper.


After the money sunk into the 787, Boeing was not in the position or had the stomach to replace the 777 with a new platform.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3151
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:59 pm

flyinggoat wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees


Thought I'd quote that post from the first page as it appears many missed the link. It sounds like Boeing has decided on a 225-260 seat wide body.


Thank you, apparently this what the airlines are interested in, not a Boeing A321.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:10 pm

akelley728 wrote:
Why is everyone focused on 2x3x2 for a twin aisle MOM? Boeing seriously considered 2x2x2 with the 80s/90s 7J7 design.

It had a 13.6ft diameter fuselage (compared to the A320 13.0ft). I remember seeing cross-section drawings that showed a 1x2x1 premium class and a 2x2x2 economy class with17" economy seats and 20" aisles (With modern manufacturing techniques and materials (CFRP, AL-Li) you could have thinner walls and perhaps 18" seats with slightly wider aisles). Cargo area would fit two LD3s like the A320. Since its a twin aisle it would solve the boarding issues but since it's not quite as wide as a 767 class aircraft it would approach the economics of a single-aisle.


2-2-2 I looked at it "a while" ago. It would be 2-2-2 shortflights/quick turns and 3-3 wide seat/ longer flights. Various seatplans are included. We weren't discussing MoM's at that time, but the requirement apparently started to shine through. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/303170-real-a300-310-757-767-replacement-aircraft-idea.html

Image

It would have to designed for purely larger capacity/ longer ranges. It would have higher doc under 200 seats / 1500NM. And that's where the bulk of the market is..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
beaconinbound
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:24 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:07 pm

The whole MOM thing is nothing less than definition of a major platform for the next decades. Getting this right is vital for A and B. While Boeing apparently is discussing concepts with his long term buddies, we have to remember that JL mentioned in the context of the 320NEO launch that next gen brake through technology can expected to be market ready around 2025.

We may not forget all these future concepts presented by A and B in the last years when it comes to the next major platform. They seem to point into the direction what to expect.

All are nervous in the light of sheer complexity of this undertaking. To name a few challenges: Launch timing balancing world economics, global fleet status, predicted demand. Development scope balancing predicted mission profiles, availability of technology, production and aftersales cost. Production technology driving cost down and allowing efficient ramp up while being cost effective in a wide range of production numbers and derivatives. Funding able to balance all of the above - and all of its possible scenarios.

And last but not least: All relevant suppliers need to be convinced of a concept as their destiny is closely chained to the success of this program. Many are on the fence watching A and B closely while technology is being developed throughout scientific and industrial networks. To be quite honest: Most of the ideas seen and read in this thread are far from being future proof. And there is also some degree of uncertainty: Who would have thought that the GE90 changes a single market or that the A321 would evolve from the ugly duck to the swan it is today?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:37 pm

william wrote:
flyinggoat wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees


Thought I'd quote that post from the first page as it appears many missed the link. It sounds like Boeing has decided on a 225-260 seat wide body.


Thank you, apparently this what the airlines are interested in, not a Boeing A321.

Yep.

And it will be 2-4-2 (3-2-3) with the new normal for seat width (17.2") and narrower aisles (18" v 19").

You can even grab 4" back with 1.8" armrests between seats and 1.5" at windows aisles.

Compared to the 767 you can have a fuselage only 6" wider inside and 5" wider outside and fit the new normal in Y seating at 8Y. 203" wide/192" interior.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:46 pm

ikramerica wrote:
william wrote:
flyinggoat wrote:

Thought I'd quote that post from the first page as it appears many missed the link. It sounds like Boeing has decided on a 225-260 seat wide body.


Thank you, apparently this what the airlines are interested in, not a Boeing A321.

Yep.

And it will be 2-4-2 (3-2-3) with the new normal for seat width (17.2") and narrower aisles (18" v 19").

You can even grab 4" back with 1.8" armrests between seats and 1.5" at windows aisles.

Compared to the 767 you can have a fuselage only 6" wider inside and 5" wider outside and fit the new normal in Y seating at 8Y. 203" wide/192" interior.



I hope not..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:42 pm

ikramerica wrote:
Yep.

And it will be 2-4-2 (3-2-3) with the new normal for seat width (17.2") and narrower aisles (18" v 19").

You can even grab 4" back with 1.8" armrests between seats and 1.5" at windows aisles.

Compared to the 767 you can have a fuselage only 6" wider inside and 5" wider outside and fit the new normal in Y seating at 8Y. 203" wide/192" interior.



What about Boeing widening the cabin of the 777X to fit in 18" seats? Is that just a capital wasting exercise from them? What about BA widening the seats in the 787? Seeing as the MOM will have more range than the A321 you could be looking at flights longer than 8 hours, will Boeing want to give Airbus more ammunition in the marketing war if they offer once again the bare minimum for seats in Y?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:29 pm

enzo011 wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Yep.

And it will be 2-4-2 (3-2-3) with the new normal for seat width (17.2") and narrower aisles (18" v 19").

You can even grab 4" back with 1.8" armrests between seats and 1.5" at windows aisles.

Compared to the 767 you can have a fuselage only 6" wider inside and 5" wider outside and fit the new normal in Y seating at 8Y. 203" wide/192" interior.



What about Boeing widening the cabin of the 777X to fit in 18" seats? Is that just a capital wasting exercise from them? What about BA widening the seats in the 787? Seeing as the MOM will have more range than the A321 you could be looking at flights longer than 8 hours, will Boeing want to give Airbus more ammunition in the marketing war if they offer once again the bare minimum for seats in Y?


Not sure how Boeing is getting 10" of seat width from 5" of cabin width in an already cramped configuration.

My guess is that in service, airlines will be able to install their standard 17.2" or 17.5" seats they always used on wide bodies.

The MoM will just be another like that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:34 pm

keesje wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
william wrote:

Thank you, apparently this what the airlines are interested in, not a Boeing A321.

Yep.

And it will be 2-4-2 (3-2-3) with the new normal for seat width (17.2") and narrower aisles (18" v 19").

You can even grab 4" back with 1.8" armrests between seats and 1.5" at windows aisles.

Compared to the 767 you can have a fuselage only 6" wider inside and 5" wider outside and fit the new normal in Y seating at 8Y. 203" wide/192" interior.



I hope not..

Image


I always enjoy the pictures and diagrams that Airbus posts here. Very educational!
-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.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:57 pm

I still don't understand the tech which is only applicable to twin aisle aircraft that makes this 2-4-2 stuff work? I can't make the numbers add up but yet people are saying Boeing can. Will they apply it to the 777x and blow the A350 out of the water?

Fred
Image
 
StTim
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:59 pm

It's the Kool Aid!
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:02 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Yep.

And it will be 2-4-2 (3-2-3) with the new normal for seat width (17.2") and narrower aisles (18" v 19").

You can even grab 4" back with 1.8" armrests between seats and 1.5" at windows aisles.

Compared to the 767 you can have a fuselage only 6" wider inside and 5" wider outside and fit the new normal in Y seating at 8Y. 203" wide/192" interior.



I hope not..


I always enjoy the pictures and diagrams that Airbus posts here. Very educational!


The Airbus marketing team never stops telling us how much superior their planes are, even when compared to a plane that doesn't exist! The A321 simply is that good. Why hasn't UA ordered it by now? No need for a new plane from Boeing. Apparently Fuselage diameter is such a difficult constraint that Boeing can't create a new airplane with a 175K lbs payload that a dozen airlines are eager to buy. /sarcasm
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:42 pm

ikramerica wrote:
Not sure how Boeing is getting 10" of seat width from 5" of cabin width in an already cramped configuration.

My guess is that in service, airlines will be able to install their standard 17.2" or 17.5" seats they always used on wide bodies.

The MoM will just be another like that.



Agreed, but Boeing is still spending time on getting the impression of 18" wide seats in the 777X, even if airlines do not go for it. Something must have pushed them to do that, I wonder if this will still be an influence when they are looking at the MOM.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:00 pm

enzo011 wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Not sure how Boeing is getting 10" of seat width from 5" of cabin width in an already cramped configuration.

My guess is that in service, airlines will be able to install their standard 17.2" or 17.5" seats they always used on wide bodies.

The MoM will just be another like that.



Agreed, but Boeing is still spending time on getting the impression of 18" wide seats in the 777X, even if airlines do not go for it. Something must have pushed them to do that, I wonder if this will still be an influence when they are looking at the MOM.


Are you trying to get someone to say that 18" is better than 17.2" or 17.5", at least from a marketing if not comfort point of view? I don't think anyone disagrees, including Boeing. However, the MoM is not really the place to have that fight, as ithey've got the A321neo[LR] right below and the A330neo right above. It's by it's very definition "the middle" between families, and so must be as tightly placed into that position as possible. Going wider with the seating and aisles just might kill the economics or drive them down from e.g. 2-4-2 to 2-3-2. Will it still have a business case? And if not, would it be better to do e.g. 2-4-2 with 787 comfort or do nothing at all?

That's all part of the challenge and why it's being so hashed out. It's not that 18" isn't ideal (can't we do better than that though? Embraer and Bombardier have), but that it might be a deal-killer depending on what they are trying to accomplish.

All remains to be seen of course. I'm not convinced that Boeing will go forward with the MoM. Sometimes it's better just to bide your time to the next big thing.
-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.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:19 pm

Nice to see the Greenliner back in service!Who knows could be right.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:22 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Are you trying to get someone to say that 18" is better than 17.2" or 17.5", at least from a marketing if not comfort point of view? I don't think anyone disagrees, including Boeing. However, the MoM is not really the place to have that fight, as ithey've got the A321neo[LR] right below and the A330neo right above. It's by it's very definition "the middle" between families, and so must be as tightly placed into that position as possible. Going wider with the seating and aisles just might kill the economics or drive them down from e.g. 2-4-2 to 2-3-2. Will it still have a business case? And if not, would it be better to do e.g. 2-4-2 with 787 comfort or do nothing at all?

That's all part of the challenge and why it's being so hashed out. It's not that 18" isn't ideal (can't we do better than that though? Embraer and Bombardier have), but that it might be a deal-killer depending on what they are trying to accomplish.

All remains to be seen of course. I'm not convinced that Boeing will go forward with the MoM. Sometimes it's better just to bide your time to the next big thing.



Well 18" is better for passengers than 17.2" especially if you are looking at flights as long as the MOM is looking at. The range we have been reading about is 5000nm so you are looking at flights longer than 7 hours. We are discussing people's opinions as Boeing has only said twin aisle at single aisle efficiency. They have not specified what twin aisle means. So when someone says it will be 2-4-2 cross section I am interested to know if they think it will be an uncomfortable 8-abreast or closer to the A300 cross section.

If you go as narrow as you can with 7-abreast you will reduce the drag and weight and it will get you closer to the single aisle efficiency that has been spoken of, but what will it be like as a Y passenger for more than 7 hours? A lot of the comments on the 9-abreast A330s seem to be that its okay for a 4 hour flight but not any longer. It seems like the marketing from Airbus is having some effect on Boeing, otherwise you would not have the 777X at 18" wide seats we have seen marketed. So will it still be on the minds with the MOM or will Airbus still have ammunition to throw at Boeing?

I am interested to see what they do with the MOM. If they can design what airlines want it will be an awesome airplane and will force an answer from Airbus. That is good news for us as there will be new designs to look forward to.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:36 pm

enzo011 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Are you trying to get someone to say that 18" is better than 17.2" or 17.5", at least from a marketing if not comfort point of view? I don't think anyone disagrees, including Boeing. However, the MoM is not really the place to have that fight, as ithey've got the A321neo[LR] right below and the A330neo right above. It's by it's very definition "the middle" between families, and so must be as tightly placed into that position as possible. Going wider with the seating and aisles just might kill the economics or drive them down from e.g. 2-4-2 to 2-3-2. Will it still have a business case? And if not, would it be better to do e.g. 2-4-2 with 787 comfort or do nothing at all?

That's all part of the challenge and why it's being so hashed out. It's not that 18" isn't ideal (can't we do better than that though? Embraer and Bombardier have), but that it might be a deal-killer depending on what they are trying to accomplish.

All remains to be seen of course. I'm not convinced that Boeing will go forward with the MoM. Sometimes it's better just to bide your time to the next big thing.



Well 18" is better for passengers than 17.2" especially if you are looking at flights as long as the MOM is looking at. The range we have been reading about is 5000nm so you are looking at flights longer than 7 hours. We are discussing people's opinions as Boeing has only said twin aisle at single aisle efficiency. They have not specified what twin aisle means. So when someone says it will be 2-4-2 cross section I am interested to know if they think it will be an uncomfortable 8-abreast or closer to the A300 cross section.

If you go as narrow as you can with 7-abreast you will reduce the drag and weight and it will get you closer to the single aisle efficiency that has been spoken of, but what will it be like as a Y passenger for more than 7 hours? A lot of the comments on the 9-abreast A330s seem to be that its okay for a 4 hour flight but not any longer. It seems like the marketing from Airbus is having some effect on Boeing, otherwise you would not have the 777X at 18" wide seats we have seen marketed. So will it still be on the minds with the MOM or will Airbus still have ammunition to throw at Boeing?

I am interested to see what they do with the MOM. If they can design what airlines want it will be an awesome airplane and will force an answer from Airbus. That is good news for us as there will be new designs to look forward to.


1. A MoM with 17.2" seats will be just the same at 7 hours as any other aircraft with 17.2" seats. I don't think there's a lot of mystery there.
2. Of course Boeing would prefer if they had 18" seats right now in their lineup, but the train left that station years ago. We can rehash it to oblivion but them striving for 18" seats on the 777X or Southwest discussing 18" seats on their MAX deliveries is clearly aimed at combating the 18" marketing mantra.
3. Beyond that, everything else is a trade-off. We won't know what they decide until it's announced. Regardless of what it is, it will be just like the MAX imho - making the best with what they've got to work with. In this case, it's the narrow opening between the A321neo and the A332/A338/787.
-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.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:37 pm

FWIW, my daughter flew UA LAX-MEL on a 789 in Y and lived to tell about it. I think the world will continue to turn if Boeing puts a 17"+ seat in the MoM.
-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.
 
planespotter20
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:49 pm

I'm kinda late to this conversation but I'll give my opinion on the matter as well. I'm not Boeing, but I think the best thing they should do is use a design that will help their future. That is, a design that right now is perfect for a MOM but can later be tweaked to fill the 737's hole. I don't think they'll max the 737MAX so it'll need a replacement. A twin aisle MoM? Although it sounds absurd and I guess mathematically it seems impossible (I'm not an expert I'm a freshman in high school) if Boeing says they can do it then go ahead. If they mess it up as badly as the 787, then it's hell for them. But, from where they stand, a clean sheet design is the only way they can take back some market share (the 737 is a flying fossil in terms of design and the 787/767/757 are all unavailable for tweaks cuz they're either old as sh*t or are overcapable for a MoM). Whatever Boeing decides to do, let's hope they do the best they can, be it a twin aisle flying oval or a single aisle flying pencil. My best guess is it'll be a 767-capacity and Range that can be downgraded to capacity and range of a 757 in a different variant. It'll probably look like a 787 with that style of nose and everything. Thats about as much that we know from Boeing until they launch it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:56 pm

planespotter20 wrote:
I'm kinda late to this conversation but I'll give my opinion on the matter as well. I'm not Boeing, but I think the best thing they should do is use a design that will help their future. That is, a design that right now is perfect for a MOM but can later be tweaked to fill the 737's hole. I don't think they'll max the 737MAX so it'll need a replacement. A twin aisle MoM? Although it sounds absurd and I guess mathematically it seems impossible (I'm not an expert I'm a freshman in high school) if Boeing says they can do it then go ahead. If they mess it up as badly as the 787, then it's hell for them. But, from where they stand, a clean sheet design is the only way they can take back some market share (the 737 is a flying fossil in terms of design and the 787/767/757 are all unavailable for tweaks cuz they're either old as sh*t or are overcapable for a MoM). Whatever Boeing decides to do, let's hope they do the best they can, be it a twin aisle flying oval or a single aisle flying pencil. My best guess is it'll be a 767-capacity and Range that can be downgraded to capacity and range of a 757 in a different variant. It'll probably look like a 787 with that style of nose and everything. Thats about as much that we know from Boeing until they launch it.


Could very well be along the lines of what Keesje outlined with different wings/engines but shared fuselages (I think). Perhaps wide enough to do 2+2+2 but narrow enough to work as a 3++3?
-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.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:22 am

I seriously doubt there is any rationale reason behind a wider 6 abreast cabin. Either it will be very close in size to the current narrowbodies or a widebody design that is 7 or 8 abreast. As much as Keesje posts about a wider 6 abreast fuselage, I don't see the superficial reasons justifying it. Airlines are demanding more efficiency and squeezing in more seats into existing planes. Just look at how airlines like UA, DL, LH and BA are all squeezing in more seats.

I don't think cabin width is a deciding factor. Payload and range is probably dictating what the wing and engine combination will be. From there, the engineers can come up with what fuselage is the most efficient and lightest way to fit the number of seats that airlines want. It isn't that hard for the product development engineers at Boeing to layout a 6 abreast, 7 abreast and 8 abreast cabin to see which is the lightest. Cabin width just isn't a critical factor as deciding engine thrust, payload, range and wingspan.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:26 am

8 abreast for only 225-260 pax? No way is that going to happen. That would require a radical fuselage shape to be economical and I just don't see Boeing doing that (I won't complain if they do, it just doesn't fir their conservative MO of late)
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:35 am

SCAT15F wrote:
8 abreast for only 225-260 pax? No way is that going to happen. That would require a radical fuselage shape to be economical and I just don't see Boeing doing that (I won't complain if they do, it just doesn't fir their conservative MO of late)


It could look like an A310. The A310 wasn't the most popular plane, but I think that is because it was a shrink and initially underpowered and also before Airbus had serious market penetration and a decent customer base. Cabin width is not what cause that plane not to sell well and it does show that a shorter narrowbody can exist even if it is kind of ugly.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:37 am

SCAT15F wrote:
8 abreast for only 225-260 pax? No way is that going to happen. That would require a radical fuselage shape to be economical and I just don't see Boeing doing that (I won't complain if they do, it just doesn't fir their conservative MO of late)

It would be nice if people would bother to read the thread. Otherwise it's noise.

The 767 is 217h x 198w. The 767 has a lot of wasted width by today's sardine can standards. The MoM can be 216x204 and fit 8Y. It will do 2-2-2 J at 20" seats rather than 19" seats. It would be the length of a 762.5 and a 763.5 to fit those capacities.

It would have a more efficient cross section than the A330 and 767. And in Y it would be a wash but in J it would have a much more efficient cross section than an A321.

It would be the first modern airliner designed to be cramped from day 1, and airlines will be happy about that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:37 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I seriously doubt there is any rationale reason behind a wider 6 abreast cabin. Either it will be very close in size to the current narrowbodies or a widebody design that is 7 or 8 abreast. As much as Keesje posts about a wider 6 abreast fuselage, I don't see the superficial reasons justifying it. Airlines are demanding more efficiency and squeezing in more seats into existing planes. Just look at how airlines like UA, DL, LH and BA are all squeezing in more seats.

I don't think cabin width is a deciding factor. Payload and range is probably dictating what the wing and engine combination will be. From there, the engineers can come up with what fuselage is the most efficient and lightest way to fit the number of seats that airlines want. It isn't that hard for the product development engineers at Boeing to layout a 6 abreast, 7 abreast and 8 abreast cabin to see which is the lightest. Cabin width just isn't a critical factor as deciding engine thrust, payload, range and wingspan.


Killing two birds with one stone may be one reason to try. That may dramatically reduce development costs.

SCAT15F wrote:
8 abreast for only 225-260 pax? No way is that going to happen. That would require a radical fuselage shape to be economical and I just don't see Boeing doing that (I won't complain if they do, it just doesn't fir their conservative MO of late)


Cough * A310 * Cough.
-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.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:39 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
8 abreast for only 225-260 pax? No way is that going to happen. That would require a radical fuselage shape to be economical and I just don't see Boeing doing that (I won't complain if they do, it just doesn't fir their conservative MO of late)


It could look like an A310. The A310 wasn't the most popular plane, but I think that is because it was a shrink and before Airbus had serious market penetration and a decent customer base. Cabin width is not what cause that plane not to sell well and it does show that a shorter narrowbody can exist even if it is kind of ugly.


The A300/A310 also had a 222 inch fuselage to fit 70s seats, 70s technology side walls, and LD3s. The MoM won't have those constraints.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:41 am

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/fuselayou ... table.html

This is an older table from a Stanford aircraft design course but shows the inefficiencies built into some designs that can be tweaked out by designing directly to 17.2" seats, narrower aisles, thinner side walls.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:52 am

Doing some math the 2-4-2 will have about 1.5% more skin area per Y seat compared to an A320 fuselage, but the A320 has 11% more skin area per regional premium seat (2-2 vs 2-2-2). There's also the matter of a shorter fuse needing less reinforcement but a larger stabilizer.

But the A320 fuse is suboptimal from a passenger efficiency standpoint (the Boeing NB being better) but this was a sacrifice made to fit LD3-45s and pallets. What this shows is that there are other design factors besides fitting maximum pax into the smallest diameter possible.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:05 am

Thanks ikramaerica.
7J7?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8716
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:18 am

And it is only true if by efficiency you mean putting as many passengers into as many seats with as little comfort as possible.

Considering the increasing pressure for standards for seat width and seat pitch, building a plane designed for 17" seats and 18" aisles might be a huge mistake in the future.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/faa ... jjx3G25pKz
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2889
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:53 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I don't think cabin width is a deciding factor. Payload and range is probably dictating what the wing and engine combination will be. From there, the engineers can come up with what fuselage is the most efficient and lightest way to fit the number of seats that airlines want. It isn't that hard for the product development engineers at Boeing to layout a 6 abreast, 7 abreast and 8 abreast cabin to see which is the lightest. Cabin width just isn't a critical factor as deciding engine thrust, payload, range and wingspan.
From what I can tell its absolutely the other way round, workout how you are going to the payload in and then work around that to get the solution required for payload/range. If you start with the wing and engine you will get the size wrong because you don't know how big to make the wing to lift the money making part of the plane and by extension you don't know how big of an engine you need to keep the thing moving.
Yes, it is by default an iterative process and you shouldn't blindly stick to a choice made about fuselage configuration but you have to actually select the fuselage config and the other parts often fall out of your constraints diagram.

ikramerica wrote:
Doing some math the 2-4-2 will have about 1.5% more skin area per Y seat compared to an A320 fuselage, but the A320 has 11% more skin area per regional premium seat (2-2 vs 2-2-2). There's also the matter of a shorter fuse needing less reinforcement but a larger stabilizer.
As far as I can tell the skin friction part really counts when you have to design a wing that is bigger to take account that it has to get the heavier fuselage off the ground. Its weight that's the killer on this not the fuselage surface area.
ikramerica wrote:
But the A320 fuse is suboptimal from a passenger efficiency standpoint (the Boeing NB being better) but this was a sacrifice made to fit LD3-45s and pallets. What this shows is that there are other design factors besides fitting maximum pax into the smallest diameter possible.
Totally agree, this is where I think the 737 derived a lot of its weight advantage against the A320 from. This is why getting the choices right at the fuselage configuration stage is so critical, there was no mathematical formula that says, whether you should size the fuselage to get a container in there but here definitely is a mathematical way of helping you select the right sized wing and engine.

Fred
Image
 
olle
Posts: 1171
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:24 am

What I do not understand is the following;

MoM will compete with A321Neo -> latest generation engines in the low area of its markets and a A338 Regional and the 778 in the upper area of its markets both with latest generation of engines.

At least in the case of A321Neo and A338 they are paid of and do not need to cover investments.

How will the MoM compete either on price or efficiency to cover its investments? How much more efficient needs it to be compared to the mentioned competitors make ROI?

In case of A321Neo we might even see a new wing in a few years, and another engine update if needed and the MoM gets much more efficient engines.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:58 pm

ikramerica wrote:
The A300/A310 also had a 222 inch fuselage to fit 70s seats, 70s technology side walls, and LD3s. The MoM won't have those constraints.


Still the 222" section has the crossover from 8 to 9 across in the more acceptable area. ( majority of users have 8 across
the real el cheapo fringe uses 9 across compare to 787 were most everybody flies in el cheapo, though they may have paid
a higher prize and then there is that small overcomforted Y fringe at 8 across.)
LD3 is less of a constraint than an asset.( actually any capability for an establlished ULD type is an advantage.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18114
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:49 pm

ikramerica wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
8 abreast for only 225-260 pax? No way is that going to happen. That would require a radical fuselage shape to be economical and I just don't see Boeing doing that (I won't complain if they do, it just doesn't fir their conservative MO of late)

It would be nice if people would bother to read the thread. Otherwise it's noise.

The 767 is 217h x 198w. The 767 has a lot of wasted width by today's sardine can standards. The MoM can be 216x204 and fit 8Y. It will do 2-2-2 J at 20" seats rather than 19" seats. It would be the length of a 762.5 and a 763.5 to fit those capacities.

It would have a more efficient cross section than the A330 and 767. And in Y it would be a wash but in J it would have a much more efficient cross section than an A321.

It would be the first modern airliner designed to be cramped from day 1, and airlines will be happy about that.

It would be economical and today's Y pax buy first on price.

Y+ would be a nice 19" wide seat for those willing to pay for space.

Just would be wonderful.

I'm shocked at the twin isles. But since that is happening, time to come up with the most economical plane.

Design range needs to be limited. This plane must have better short haul economics than the 783. Much better. Lower maintenance, in particular the engines. A plane built for cycles like the 737. But with 5,500nm range.

I fully expect folding wingtips, CFRP (GFRP?) wings, electric subsystems, but a beer can tube.

Ironically, this plane will kill the 788. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18114
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:52 pm

olle wrote:
What I do not understand is the following;

MoM will compete with A321Neo -> latest generation engines in the low area of its markets and a A338 Regional and the 778 in the upper area of its markets both with latest generation of engines.

At least in the case of A321Neo and A338 they are paid of and do not need to cover investments.

How will the MoM compete either on price or efficiency to cover its investments? How much more efficient needs it to be compared to the mentioned competitors make ROI?

In case of A321Neo we might even see a new wing in a few years, and another engine update if needed and the MoM gets much more efficient engines.

The A321NEO is begging for more wing. A modern wing will save 8%+ in fuel. The A320 and A330 families lack electric subsystems, that cut maintenance costs.

A CFRP wing saves tons of weight. Both the A320 and A330 wing lack underside laminar flow. Both lack folding wingtips.

This new 797 will be more aerodynamic and weight less than the A339 (A338 hasn't sold well as too high of cost per flight for the number of pax). It will weight much less, cruise higher than both, with slightly more efficient engines of lower thrust and fuel burn. Most of the advantage will be a truely modern wing and optimized cross section.

The A338 engines are costly for per cycle maintenance too. Boeing will insist on lower maintenance engines, at a cost of about 2% of the fuel burn. Both Pratt and GE would add variable cycle technology, not something retrofit able to an old engine to help with getting the best of both worlds.

The A338/9 economics slightly suffer by not having a custom engine. But as sales have shown, the market wasn't large enough for a custom engine. The 797 will have all 3 engine vendors bid for the dual source option, this will result in very custom engines as the non-customized bid will loose.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:27 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I don't think cabin width is a deciding factor. Payload and range is probably dictating what the wing and engine combination will be. From there, the engineers can come up with what fuselage is the most efficient and lightest way to fit the number of seats that airlines want. It isn't that hard for the product development engineers at Boeing to layout a 6 abreast, 7 abreast and 8 abreast cabin to see which is the lightest. Cabin width just isn't a critical factor as deciding engine thrust, payload, range and wingspan.
From what I can tell its absolutely the other way round, workout how you are going to the payload in and then work around that to get the solution required for payload/range. If you start with the wing and engine you will get the size wrong because you don't know how big to make the wing to lift the money making part of the plane and by extension you don't know how big of an engine you need to keep the thing moving.
Yes, it is by default an iterative process and you shouldn't blindly stick to a choice made about fuselage configuration but you have to actually select the fuselage config and the other parts often fall out of your constraints diagram.

ikramerica wrote:
Doing some math the 2-4-2 will have about 1.5% more skin area per Y seat compared to an A320 fuselage, but the A320 has 11% more skin area per regional premium seat (2-2 vs 2-2-2). There's also the matter of a shorter fuse needing less reinforcement but a larger stabilizer.
As far as I can tell the skin friction part really counts when you have to design a wing that is bigger to take account that it has to get the heavier fuselage off the ground. Its weight that's the killer on this not the fuselage surface area.
ikramerica wrote:
But the A320 fuse is suboptimal from a passenger efficiency standpoint (the Boeing NB being better) but this was a sacrifice made to fit LD3-45s and pallets. What this shows is that there are other design factors besides fitting maximum pax into the smallest diameter possible.
Totally agree, this is where I think the 737 derived a lot of its weight advantage against the A320 from. This is why getting the choices right at the fuselage configuration stage is so critical, there was no mathematical formula that says, whether you should size the fuselage to get a container in there but here definitely is a mathematical way of helping you select the right sized wing and engine.

Fred

Of course you are right about designing around how to fit things in is the first task, then understanding payload second, but he's right in that it's iterative.

Considering that there have been 1-2, 2-2, 2-3, 3-3, 2-3-2, 2-4-2, 2-5-2, and 3-4-3 cross sections, they obviously look at various configurations combined with payload/range optimization and cargo configuration.

What I was saying about skin area was more in relation to the amount of structure per pax comparing the two shapes. Of course there's also the floor structure to think of. That's about the same. 2% more per Y seat, 10% less floor area per J seat compared to an A320 fuse. But the floor structure needs to be more robust on a wider fuse.

There's also the question of how lavs and galleys and exits fit and contribute to non revenue space.

Then there's the inevitable -10 version that Boeing would realize they need 8 years out. A twin aisle will allow for that. A super stretched single aisle wouldn't work. You'd end up with the Max 10 conundrum.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:39 pm

If the MoM to be out in 2025 would be ~10% larger than 321, then when Boeing release NSA in a timeframe of about 2030, would the NSA have a product in 321 size range? And persumably the NSA shall be able to fly at least as far as current 737 which would again mean the NSA would cover at least 90% of the market, unless they decided something similar to 737 would be too much and change to something with fewer range? Such new NSA shall also offer certain level of economic improvement over existing plane, but what would the NSA's economy be compared to MoM's economy? Posts above mentioned MoM's competitive advantage against existing 321, but then Boeing's NSA and Airbus's equivalent are coming in like 5 year's time after MoM's launch, and at that time would the MoM still have enough competitiveness against new platform, that are newer than the MoM itself? If not then the product life of the MoM would be only 5 years
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 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