parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:29 pm

Whilst it is without a doubt a little 'anal' to worry about seat widths I get the impression that Boeing are looking to 'standardise' on 17.5".
They have gone to a lot of trouble to create this on their new 777x product.Through the usual (armrest etc) techniques they wish to state that the 787 economy seat is/can be 17.5".BA have recently introduced this on their 789's.Even some 737 operators are claiming it.
It's a clever number as it suggests something wider that their old 17.3" number (757/767) and whilst being narrower that A's 18.0" it's not so different (0.5) to really bother anybody.But no doubt they will not waste an inch!
Present 767's offer 2 levels of premium economy depending on the airline.Either you simply get more pitch and recline -but stay at X7 or you get a wider seat and go for X6.
Most (but not all) manage to get X6 with lie flat beds.I am sure they will want to do this as will be highly efficient esp against a NB aircaft.
I don't believe First will be relevant for this aircraft in most cases.
It will never be quite as efficient as a NB on pure economy sq ft but as good if not better is every other class.But since they are looking at 250-270 in a two class config ( and longer ranges/plus cargo) they are positioning them selves quite differently in any case.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:56 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
"797": Codename for the project, not an airplane.

Two distinct aircraft which include both the NSA and NMA.

Significantly less cost to develop both side by side than to do two separate (and inevitable) programs at separate junctures in time.

Puts even more pressure on Airbus, caught completely blind-sided, to completely re-strategize and re-configure their entire narrowbody future (costing easily in the tens of billions of US Dollars) for a role that is unenviously defensive rather than offensive.

The last joint program was the 757/767. This time, the 737/757 replacement.



Even though the 757/767 are often seen as the same much related aircrafts, but in reality they are world apart at least structurally. Completely different solutions, so different you might think they are built by different company. They do share the same pilot type rating and the same philosophy.

What Boeing is talking about when they talk about 797 is increasingly wage, NSA MOM NMA If they build the MOM they are most likely going to reuse the 787 fuse and manufacturing technology to save money, and I think that is the main driver behind the MOM concept to be able to recycle knowledge

New narrow body platform is a costlier project because Boeing has to develop all new aluminium fuselage, so no savings there in developing them jointly.

Boeing has spent a lot of money developing the systems for the 787 therefore they have the system architecture ready for the next gen aircraft.

737 replacement will be so much more that just a 737 replacement. It will be more like 737,757,767 replacement. Just check what the 320 family has become, what started out as 1800 nm 320 has morphed into 4000 757 size aircraft. That is the scenario Boeing has to address. Only problem is that the 737MAX production cycle has just begun.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:23 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boeing themselves had said they haven’t been able to close the business case [yet]. We know it’s all fluid but we have seen the target keep moving bigger/longer range since the first talk of a MoM plane. It’s far from a slam-dunk and Airbus has lower-cost alternatives to pursue before having to consider responding with a clean-sheet.


Thank you. That sums it up perfectly. *THIS* is why I would suggest Boeing is in a worse position than Airbus. It's not fanboyism that anything A does is better than B, just that the evidence keeps mounting that Boeing is starting on the back foot (but has little choice) - and Airbus will almost certainly have less trouble responding to whatever Boeing decides to do.
"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."
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:27 pm

travelhound wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

The 321NEOLR require ACTs to achieve its range figures of 4000nm which is stated by airbus as being with 206 pax I believe. The article to which you linked even stated that jetstar configure their 321s with 232 seats which should give you some clue as to why the headline figure of 4000nm is not achievable.
If as you say when we are comparing the A321NEO to the 797 we are overstating the range of the 321NEOLR then please link to the specs of the 797 which demonstrate that it will be able to achieve these journeys.

Yes, but if you add the ACT's including fuel (weight) you have to subtract payload (weight). In other words a A321LR flying 4000nm may only be able to carry 160 passengers and their bags. In this instance we would be comparing the economics of an A321NEO with a seat count of 160 with a 797 with a seat count of 270.


No, 206pax for 4000nm. TOW at 97T with 3 x ACT and 206 pax worth of bags. then you take out 1 ACT and replace that reduced weight with the additional pax and away you go with a range of 400nm less because you have removed 2.5t of fuel but you have freed up about 3t of MTOW. Your average weight for the flight will be higher by about 3-4% so you are probably looking at about 3500nm range, they are still in the region of swapping pax/payload for fuel volume rather than pax/payload for available MTOW. The volume limitation are somewhat negated by the ACTs.

Fred
Image
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:02 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boeing themselves had said they haven’t been able to close the business case [yet]. We know it’s all fluid but we have seen the target keep moving bigger/longer range since the first talk of a MoM plane. It’s far from a slam-dunk and Airbus has lower-cost alternatives to pursue before having to consider responding with a clean-sheet.


Thank you. That sums it up perfectly. *THIS* is why I would suggest Boeing is in a worse position than Airbus. It's not fanboyism that anything A does is better than B, just that the evidence keeps mounting that Boeing is starting on the back foot (but has little choice) - and Airbus will almost certainly have less trouble responding to whatever Boeing decides to do.


Airbus if they go down the A320neo rewing has a lot of exposure that many want to deny. You have the A320neo, A330neo and A380 that are all old aluminum planes. The big key for Airbus is to prove it can get the cost of the A350 down. If they can then that program can be leveraged to replace their other airplanes as CFRP becomes the main airline material moving forward. If they can’t they may be going back to the industrial drawing board.

What you say is true if this is all about wings and fuselage sizes and takeoff weight. But if the real issue over the next 20 years rather than next 5 becomes construction methodology and industrial efficiency then things may look quite different. Boeing people tell me the biggest issue they have on the 737 is they can’t build it any cheaper. All indications are they are looking to start a price and production war and an NMA launch that sticks to the lines of the 788 will say they have put their money behind a method moving forward.
 
brindabella
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:20 pm

bigjku wrote:
Airbus if they go down the A320neo rewing has a lot of exposure that many want to deny. You have the A320neo, A330neo and A380 that are all old aluminum planes. The big key for Airbus is to prove it can get the cost of the A350 down. If they can then that program can be leveraged to replace their other airplanes as CFRP becomes the main airline material moving forward. If they can’t they may be going back to the industrial drawing board.

What you say is true if this is all about wings and fuselage sizes and takeoff weight. But if the real issue over the next 20 years rather than next 5 becomes construction methodology and industrial efficiency then things may look quite different. Boeing people tell me the biggest issue they have on the 737 is they can’t build it any cheaper. All indications are they are looking to start a price and production war and an NMA launch that sticks to the lines of the 788 will say they have put their money behind a method moving forward.


With the unexpected recent HA/AA sales I suspect the "war" has already started - at least for the 787!

:yes:
Billy
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
All the airlines say they want it? DL and QF say they want to be launch customers! I told the man at the local Landrover dealership I wanted a new car so he would give me more information and see what deals he would do, I aint F*cking buying one! Some CEOs have stated they want the widebody at narrowbody economics, I'm sure they do, what hasn't happened yet is this having been shown to be possible! When one of the airline COEs puts his Knob on the block and stumps up some cash then you believe them!

No offense, but your expression of interest and DL and QF's CEO's expression of interest are two different things.

They're not turning up at the local auto dealership, they're being wined and dined at the corporate headquarters.
No offense taken, one of the major things that is different is that I didnt feel that I needed to put something on social media about it and you must know as well as I do that large corporations don't put things on social media that are not highly thought through especially when its about another organization that they are working with and most assuredly under NDA. I.E, that stuff is choreographed.

Revelation wrote:
I'm confident they're being told more than you'd be told by your local auto dealer, otherwise they would not be associating themselves and their offices with this potential product.
no Doubt but what are they trying to gain by selectively making parts of this public?

Revelation wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I am critical of the people on here who don't question what they are told however.

I view this largely as a marketing exercise. The product and the message are still being tuned..
No doubt, but marketing to whom... and why...


Revelation wrote:
This is the orchestra warming up, not the concert itself.

Many of us have bought tickets and are sitting in the audience just based on the marketing buzz.

You on the other hand seem to want a recording of the final rehearsal dropped into your lap before you buy a ticket, and seem to be angry that anyone else would buy a ticket without having such.

I'd happily go a concert to a concert at a place and time but so far we don't know the style of music who is playing or what the location will be or even when the performance is due to start

In this case the tickets are free, so instead of being angry, why not just wait till the performance is over to make your criticism?[/quote]No, not at all, the speculation is all good and very exciting. Who will be playing, what time will the show go on till but my problem is that so far we are being told it will be the most relaxing/exciting, most comfortable/tiring, classical/modern, concert/play/musical I have ever been to because the man who sells the tickets said it would be. Pinch of salt of course because his previous events have been good.

The speculation is fun, that's what we are here for no? but somethings get repeated so much they have become facts in some peoples heads and when a man in power says it we take it as gospel(irony not withstanding).

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:58 pm

parapente wrote:

It's a clever number as it suggests something wider that their old 17.3" number (757/767) and whilst being narrower that A's 18.0" it's not so different (0.5) to really bother anybody.But no doubt they will not waste an inch!


Hi parapente, if you are e.g. adding a 20 inch wide seat (incl 1x 2" armrest) to a 8 abreast cabin (say 787), how much width do you think the existing 8 seats/passengers will have to surrender each to make place? 0.7 inch, really? I'm amazed by knowledgeable people here, absorbing such marketing stuff without blinking.

Cutting an inch of the armrest (doesn't solve anything) cutting inches of the aisles (pushing people into the aisles) and some are convinced all is fine "Just 0.7 inch, who notices?" :dopey: It must be..

I know Boeing and the 777/10 abreast 787/ 9 abreast got the feedback from the hundreds of thousands IATA surveys. The message on seat comfort is loud and clear all around. But what to do if there exists no solution othert than getting out seats? Generalize, distract, misinform.. The forced denial and dismissing has taken its toll, even on the marketing people. Be sure that for any new aircraft Boeing will specify 20 inch seats (incl. 1 armrest) and 20 inch aisles.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:29 pm

bigjku wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Boeing themselves had said they haven’t been able to close the business case [yet]. We know it’s all fluid but we have seen the target keep moving bigger/longer range since the first talk of a MoM plane. It’s far from a slam-dunk and Airbus has lower-cost alternatives to pursue before having to consider responding with a clean-sheet.


Thank you. That sums it up perfectly. *THIS* is why I would suggest Boeing is in a worse position than Airbus. It's not fanboyism that anything A does is better than B, just that the evidence keeps mounting that Boeing is starting on the back foot (but has little choice) - and Airbus will almost certainly have less trouble responding to whatever Boeing decides to do.


Airbus if they go down the A320neo rewing has a lot of exposure that many want to deny. You have the A320neo, A330neo and A380 that are all old aluminum planes. The big key for Airbus is to prove it can get the cost of the A350 down. If they can then that program can be leveraged to replace their other airplanes as CFRP becomes the main airline material moving forward. If they can’t they may be going back to the industrial drawing board.

What you say is true if this is all about wings and fuselage sizes and takeoff weight. But if the real issue over the next 20 years rather than next 5 becomes construction methodology and industrial efficiency then things may look quite different. Boeing people tell me the biggest issue they have on the 737 is they can’t build it any cheaper. All indications are they are looking to start a price and production war and an NMA launch that sticks to the lines of the 788 will say they have put their money behind a method moving forward.


The re-wing (and other enhancements) would not be a permanent response. It would be a good-enough response during the period where the 797 is finishing up certification, likely encountering delays, and then having to ramp up production. Airbus would basically be able to launch a clean-sheet almost a decade later than Boeing.

In the interim, you’d have a souped-up A32X family up against the MAX. It’s not likely that the MAX is going to remain as competitive, let alone more competitive, in the face of an even stronger NEO platform. An A320.5 would be more efficient than a MAX 8. The MAX 9 would already be irrelevant. The MAX 10 would be sandwiched between the 320.5 and 321. The 322 would kill/replace the A330neo but pressure the 787. All for a fraction of what Boeing will be spending at the same time on the 797.

Airbus would then be able to invest in a 797-“beater” with newer technology targeting the core of the NSA/NMA market. So - only a temporary investment in the re-winging, not meant to solve a problem but to remain competitive for a longer period - in fact, improving their market position for a number of years while the 797 ramps up.

And this doesn’t address the resources that Boeing will be tying up for a decade that won’t be able to address the 777X end of things.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:19 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
No, 206pax for 4000nm. TOW at 97T with 3 x ACT and 206 pax worth of bags.


Except according to Airbus' marketing materials, the only way you get 206 passengers 4000nm in an A321-200neoLR is to configure it with domestic (US3) First Class seats at 36" pitch and the Economy seats at 30" pitch and hand-load bags into the hold (there is insufficient space to carry them in LD3-45 containers due to the ACTs). You're also going to have basic galley and lavatory facilities and bring your own IFE to keep the OEW low enough to be able to tank the necessary fuel.

For airlines replacing 757-200s with lie-flat Business Class seating, Premium Economy and WiFi-based IFE with realistic catering, Leeham.net projects you're looking at around 160 seats as opposed to around 200. The A321 is going to have a shedload better fuel burn than the 757, so it's still a very viable option, of course. But as a high-density, long-haul people mover, it's not going to be a realistic replacement for a widebody.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20918
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:49 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
no Doubt but what are they trying to gain by selectively making parts of this public?

Freedom to change their mind while fine-tuning their message.

No doubt, but marketing to whom... and why...

The constituents are investors and potential customers. Enthusiasts like us are at best second order elements.

I'd happily go a concert to a concert at a place and time but so far we don't know the style of music who is playing or what the location will be or even when the performance is due to start

I'd equate the information we now have from the aviation media on the NMA to the level of information we'd have just as an artist is about to announce a tour. You know the artist and thus the genre/style and the fact there might be a tour and some speculation on the venues but not much more.

The speculation is fun, that's what we are here for no? but somethings get repeated so much they have become facts in some peoples heads and when a man in power says it we take it as gospel(irony not withstanding).

There are some fairly consistent statements to go on:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... an-438512/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... de-446726/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... th-443696/

The first one even says Boeing has 'authority to offer' so they must be giving some fairly stable characterizations of the NMA to the customers.

I don't see much of a problem using this as the starting point for speculation.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
giblets
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:18 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
bigjku wrote:

The re-wing (and other enhancements) would not be a permanent response. It would be a good-enough response during the period where the 797 is finishing up certification, likely encountering delays, and then having to ramp up production. Airbus would basically be able to launch a clean-sheet almost a decade later than Boeing.

In the interim, you’d have a souped-up A32X family up against the MAX. It’s not likely that the MAX is going to remain as competitive, let alone more competitive, in the face of an even stronger NEO platform. An A320.5 would be more efficient than a MAX 8. The MAX 9 would already be irrelevant. The MAX 10 would be sandwiched between the 320.5 and 321. The 322 would kill/replace the A330neo but pressure the 787. All for a fraction of what Boeing will be spending at the same time on the 797.

Airbus would then be able to invest in a 797-“beater” with newer technology targeting the core of the NSA/NMA market. So - only a temporary investment in the re-winging, not meant to solve a problem but to remain competitive for a longer period - in fact, improving their market position for a number of years while the 797 ramps up.


I agree with most of the statements here, but think the most damaging thing Airbus could do would be an A322NWO (New Wing Option), an aircraft based around a A321NWO , along with a A320nwo (or A320.5nwo as you suggest). but leaves the A319neo to be eroded by their C series.

This would do far more damage the business case for the 797, taking away the bottom end of the market, and really squeezing it with the 787, and A330neo.
This would definitely force BA to 'go early' on the NSA ( my understanding is they would prefer to wait for technology to mature to reduce costs/ improve performance), and give Airbus the time to more fully develop their competitor, as well as giving them ample time to reap the investment in the nwo.
146, ATR72, Q400, Saab 340, PA-46 Jetprop, Jetstream, E175/195, 707/727/737/747/757/767/777, DC-3/9/10, MD-11/80, A300/310/319/320/321/330/340/350/380 Tristar, BAC 1-11, Trident, Chipmunk, Bell 206/222, Chinook, Puma, Cessna 172, Fokker 70, 100, SRN4!
 
packsonflight
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:25 am

On top of that it would give Airbus time to sort out the production technology with the new wing, which will eventually be the base for the future wing on the narrow body platform. At production rate 70 aircrafts per month they have to build wing factory coughing up 2.4 fully fitted wingsets per day!

Factory like that takes a lot of time getting up and running, probably something like 10 years.
 
Planeyguy
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:12 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:32 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
bigjku wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Thank you. That sums it up perfectly. *THIS* is why I would suggest Boeing is in a worse position than Airbus. It's not fanboyism that anything A does is better than B, just that the evidence keeps mounting that Boeing is starting on the back foot (but has little choice) - and Airbus will almost certainly have less trouble responding to whatever Boeing decides to do.


Airbus if they go down the A320neo rewing has a lot of exposure that many want to deny. You have the A320neo, A330neo and A380 that are all old aluminum planes. The big key for Airbus is to prove it can get the cost of the A350 down. If they can then that program can be leveraged to replace their other airplanes as CFRP becomes the main airline material moving forward. If they can’t they may be going back to the industrial drawing board.

What you say is true if this is all about wings and fuselage sizes and takeoff weight. But if the real issue over the next 20 years rather than next 5 becomes construction methodology and industrial efficiency then things may look quite different. Boeing people tell me the biggest issue they have on the 737 is they can’t build it any cheaper. All indications are they are looking to start a price and production war and an NMA launch that sticks to the lines of the 788 will say they have put their money behind a method moving forward.


The re-wing (and other enhancements) would not be a permanent response. It would be a good-enough response during the period where the 797 is finishing up certification, likely encountering delays, and then having to ramp up production. Airbus would basically be able to launch a clean-sheet almost a decade later than Boeing.

In the interim, you’d have a souped-up A32X family up against the MAX. It’s not likely that the MAX is going to remain as competitive, let alone more competitive, in the face of an even stronger NEO platform. An A320.5 would be more efficient than a MAX 8. The MAX 9 would already be irrelevant. The MAX 10 would be sandwiched between the 320.5 and 321. The 322 would kill/replace the A330neo but pressure the 787. All for a fraction of what Boeing will be spending at the same time on the 797.

Airbus would then be able to invest in a 797-“beater” with newer technology targeting the core of the NSA/NMA market. So - only a temporary investment in the re-winging, not meant to solve a problem but to remain competitive for a longer period - in fact, improving their market position for a number of years while the 797 ramps up.

And this doesn’t address the resources that Boeing will be tying up for a decade that won’t be able to address the 777X end of things.

Then what do you suggest Boeing do? You are making it sound that Boeing have little to no chance in competing against Airbus
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:07 pm

Planeyguy wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
The re-wing (and other enhancements) would not be a permanent response. It would be a good-enough response during the period where the 797 is finishing up certification, likely encountering delays, and then having to ramp up production. Airbus would basically be able to launch a clean-sheet almost a decade later than Boeing.

[...]

And this doesn’t address the resources that Boeing will be tying up for a decade that won’t be able to address the 777X end of things.

Then what do you suggest Boeing do? You are making it sound that Boeing have little to no chance in competing against Airbus


As I intimated earlier, I don't think Boeing has much choice. They have to do something... and the fact they've been trying to define that something for quite a while indicates it won't be easy to hinder an Airbus response.
"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."
 
2175301
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:22 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
As I intimated earlier, I don't think Boeing has much choice. They have to do something... and the fact they've been trying to define that something for quite a while indicates it won't be easy to hinder an Airbus response.



OR: That Boeing is working real hard at making something work that Airbus cannot immediately effectively respond to.

In my personal opinion - it is this that is driving the delay. In order for the "797" to really work well - it needs to be something that Airbus cannot immediately effectively respond to. I think this comes down to manufacturing methods. All composite barrel with wide wings; where the cost to assemble the composite barrels is less than the AL frame experience that Airbus has.

Can Airbus learn how to make an all composite barrel. Of course. It's just that Boeing has many lessons learned under their belt from the 787 that Airbus will have to learn - which takes time and money.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:16 pm

2175301 wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
As I intimated earlier, I don't think Boeing has much choice. They have to do something... and the fact they've been trying to define that something for quite a while indicates it won't be easy to hinder an Airbus response.



OR: That Boeing is working real hard at making something work that Airbus cannot immediately effectively respond to.


That sounds almost the same as what I said.

I think this comes down to manufacturing methods. All composite barrel with wide wings; where the cost to assemble the composite barrels is less than the AL frame experience that Airbus has.


First, 787 and A350 experience has already shown that composite barrel is not significantly cheaper than large integrated composite panels - and that both are still way more expensive than aluminium.

Second, this doesn't really tally with the observed mission creep. If the delay was them knuckling down on some manufacturing methods then I would expect the airframe itself to be quite well defined already. All the discussion in this thread is about how that (still) isn't the case.
"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."
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:05 pm

giblets wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
bigjku wrote:

The re-wing (and other enhancements) would not be a permanent response. It would be a good-enough response during the period where the 797 is finishing up certification, likely encountering delays, and then having to ramp up production. Airbus would basically be able to launch a clean-sheet almost a decade later than Boeing.

In the interim, you’d have a souped-up A32X family up against the MAX. It’s not likely that the MAX is going to remain as competitive, let alone more competitive, in the face of an even stronger NEO platform. An A320.5 would be more efficient than a MAX 8. The MAX 9 would already be irrelevant. The MAX 10 would be sandwiched between the 320.5 and 321. The 322 would kill/replace the A330neo but pressure the 787. All for a fraction of what Boeing will be spending at the same time on the 797.

Airbus would then be able to invest in a 797-“beater” with newer technology targeting the core of the NSA/NMA market. So - only a temporary investment in the re-winging, not meant to solve a problem but to remain competitive for a longer period - in fact, improving their market position for a number of years while the 797 ramps up.


I agree with most of the statements here, but think the most damaging thing Airbus could do would be an A322NWO (New Wing Option), an aircraft based around a A321NWO , along with a A320nwo (or A320.5nwo as you suggest). but leaves the A319neo to be eroded by their C series.

This would do far more damage the business case for the 797, taking away the bottom end of the market, and really squeezing it with the 787, and A330neo.
This would definitely force BA to 'go early' on the NSA ( my understanding is they would prefer to wait for technology to mature to reduce costs/ improve performance), and give Airbus the time to more fully develop their competitor, as well as giving them ample time to reap the investment in the nwo.


That’s exactly what I mean with doing an A322 and then bringing those changes to the A320.5/A321. Seems like a low-risk investment that buys them lots of time.
-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: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:11 pm

Planeyguy wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
bigjku wrote:

Airbus if they go down the A320neo rewing has a lot of exposure that many want to deny. You have the A320neo, A330neo and A380 that are all old aluminum planes. The big key for Airbus is to prove it can get the cost of the A350 down. If they can then that program can be leveraged to replace their other airplanes as CFRP becomes the main airline material moving forward. If they can’t they may be going back to the industrial drawing board.

What you say is true if this is all about wings and fuselage sizes and takeoff weight. But if the real issue over the next 20 years rather than next 5 becomes construction methodology and industrial efficiency then things may look quite different. Boeing people tell me the biggest issue they have on the 737 is they can’t build it any cheaper. All indications are they are looking to start a price and production war and an NMA launch that sticks to the lines of the 788 will say they have put their money behind a method moving forward.


The re-wing (and other enhancements) would not be a permanent response. It would be a good-enough response during the period where the 797 is finishing up certification, likely encountering delays, and then having to ramp up production. Airbus would basically be able to launch a clean-sheet almost a decade later than Boeing.

In the interim, you’d have a souped-up A32X family up against the MAX. It’s not likely that the MAX is going to remain as competitive, let alone more competitive, in the face of an even stronger NEO platform. An A320.5 would be more efficient than a MAX 8. The MAX 9 would already be irrelevant. The MAX 10 would be sandwiched between the 320.5 and 321. The 322 would kill/replace the A330neo but pressure the 787. All for a fraction of what Boeing will be spending at the same time on the 797.

Airbus would then be able to invest in a 797-“beater” with newer technology targeting the core of the NSA/NMA market. So - only a temporary investment in the re-winging, not meant to solve a problem but to remain competitive for a longer period - in fact, improving their market position for a number of years while the 797 ramps up.

And this doesn’t address the resources that Boeing will be tying up for a decade that won’t be able to address the 777X end of things.

Then what do you suggest Boeing do? You are making it sound that Boeing have little to no chance in competing against Airbus


I think Boeing should be concurrently working on two platforms, whatever they may be - what else can they do? I’m not criticizing or denigrating them. It is what it is. But - it is what it is. Denying it or sugarcoating it makes no sense - for me.

I’m not overly concerned for Boeing because they aren’t in a terrible spot. It’s just that they had a different hand to play than Airbus which is why we’re where we are today.

I’m excited to see what they come up with. I’m not so excited for the A.net trolling.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:01 pm

If Boeing completes a real good business case for a NMA, that same case could prompt A to pre-empt with an A322.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:08 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Planeyguy wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

The re-wing (and other enhancements) would not be a permanent response. It would be a good-enough response during the period where the 797 is finishing up certification, likely encountering delays, and then having to ramp up production. Airbus would basically be able to launch a clean-sheet almost a decade later than Boeing.

In the interim, you’d have a souped-up A32X family up against the MAX. It’s not likely that the MAX is going to remain as competitive, let alone more competitive, in the face of an even stronger NEO platform. An A320.5 would be more efficient than a MAX 8. The MAX 9 would already be irrelevant. The MAX 10 would be sandwiched between the 320.5 and 321. The 322 would kill/replace the A330neo but pressure the 787. All for a fraction of what Boeing will be spending at the same time on the 797.

Airbus would then be able to invest in a 797-“beater” with newer technology targeting the core of the NSA/NMA market. So - only a temporary investment in the re-winging, not meant to solve a problem but to remain competitive for a longer period - in fact, improving their market position for a number of years while the 797 ramps up.

And this doesn’t address the resources that Boeing will be tying up for a decade that won’t be able to address the 777X end of things.

Then what do you suggest Boeing do? You are making it sound that Boeing have little to no chance in competing against Airbus


I think Boeing should be concurrently working on two platforms, whatever they may be - what else can they do? I’m not criticizing or denigrating them. It is what it is. But - it is what it is. Denying it or sugarcoating it makes no sense - for me.

I’m not overly concerned for Boeing because they aren’t in a terrible spot. It’s just that they had a different hand to play than Airbus which is why we’re where we are today.

I’m excited to see what they come up with. I’m not so excited for the A.net trolling.


I think the rewing thing is a bit over simplified here. That won’t be a quick and easy project. Moreover they will need to find delivery slots for it and right now that is a big problem for what, 4-5 years? How far in advance of a new aircraft could this really be delivered? Do you want to push rates to 80 a month to try and open up spots to do this sooner rather than later? Otherwise you are likely just doing conversions because almost all those slots are spoken for.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:11 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
2175301 wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
As I intimated earlier, I don't think Boeing has much choice. They have to do something... and the fact they've been trying to define that something for quite a while indicates it won't be easy to hinder an Airbus response.



OR: That Boeing is working real hard at making something work that Airbus cannot immediately effectively respond to.


That sounds almost the same as what I said.

I think this comes down to manufacturing methods. All composite barrel with wide wings; where the cost to assemble the composite barrels is less than the AL frame experience that Airbus has.


First, 787 and A350 experience has already shown that composite barrel is not significantly cheaper than large integrated composite panels - and that both are still way more expensive than aluminium.

Second, this doesn't really tally with the observed mission creep. If the delay was them knuckling down on some manufacturing methods then I would expect the airframe itself to be quite well defined already. All the discussion in this thread is about how that (still) isn't the case.


I think that the A350 and 787 issue saw no difference in the past but it may well be seeing a difference now. Recent RFP results have hinted at this. I think we have all acknowledged that it is speculation to this point. But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility either that one or the other picked the wrong way forward.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:40 pm

keesje wrote:
If Boeing completes a real good business case for a NMA, that same case could prompt A to pre-empt with an A322.



Well yes, thank you. Hasn’t this been the mantra for years? You say it like it’s a revelation or something.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20918
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:52 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
If Boeing completes a real good business case for a NMA, that same case could prompt A to pre-empt with an A322.

Well yes, thank you. Hasn’t this been the mantra for years? You say it like it’s a revelation or something.

Hey! Work your own side of the street! :biggrin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
bhill
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:57 pm

codc10 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Image


Can someone explain the strong progress around 1970
and the following rebound that takes 10 years to recross the 1970 line?

advent of the Wide Body Airliner?


I'm not sure of the exact data the chart is derived from, but my guess would be the early 1970s were skewed by the advent of the high bypass ratio turbofan and a lot of 747/DC-10/L10 deliveries, which burned much less fuel on a per-seat basis than the previous generation of jetliners. WB deliveries slowed down post-1973 oil crisis, but airlines were still taking delivery of comparatively less-efficient 727s, 737s, DC-9s, etc. through the decade. I also wonder if Concorde's 1976 EIS contributed to the little spike at mid-decade?



I also wonder about that...could newer technologies such as carbon fiber and ceramics/allows also play a role?
Carpe Pices
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:00 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
If Boeing completes a real good business case for a NMA, that same case could prompt A to pre-empt with an A322.



Well yes, thank you. Hasn’t this been the mantra for years? You say it like it’s a revelation or something.


Well just ignore or try saying something useful.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:52 am

keesje wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
If Boeing completes a real good business case for a NMA, that same case could prompt A to pre-empt with an A322.



Well yes, thank you. Hasn’t this been the mantra for years? You say it like it’s a revelation or something.


Well just ignore or try saying something useful.


I’ve already shared my thoughts, but I guess I coukd keep repeating like a broken record if you prefer?

I’m simply at a loss as to how you think what you posted was new information when it’s been stated over and over? Not sure how that is useful either?

To review, just one page back, you’re referencing an A322:

keesje wrote:
For the longer flight requirements it could offer 200-280 seats including significant cargo for flights up to 5000NM from short runways. And Business class direct aisle access. Capabilities even a A322 could never match.”

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/35555869662/


It’s been brought up in this very thread a number of times.

Previously, this thread has your drawing of an A322:

viewtopic.php?t=561869

And discussed here:

viewtopic.php?t=1374459

Or on other forums:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!top ... UyBlLZiLhw

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!top ... fkJY3pIc7c

I think it’s all great information. I just wondered why you posted it as if it was something new? Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1497
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:32 am

bigjku wrote:
I think the rewing thing is a bit over simplified here. That won’t be a quick and easy project.


Personally, I'm of the thought they've already taken what they've learned from constructing the A350's wing and are well underway engineering the new wing for the A320.5, A321-300 and A322. They will not sit still and wait... Once Boeing commits, they will go this route to steal thunder and prevent traction.

Let CS100, CS300 and CS500 take care of everything else below it in 5 years...
learning never stops.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:40 am

One thing to consider, Boeing has the cash flow to consider a new program. aB simply, at this time does not.

Before all the AB fans go nuts I’m an investor in both companies so want both to succeed . AB’s task is to milk the 320 and 350 and to minimize losses on the 380. 7-8 years from now they’ll be in a position to do a new program.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:19 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:


Well yes, thank you. Hasn’t this been the mantra for years? You say it like it’s a revelation or something.


Well just ignore or try saying something useful.


I’ve already shared my thoughts, but I guess I coukd keep repeating like a broken record if you prefer?

I’m simply at a loss as to how you think what you posted was new information when it’s been stated over and over? Not sure how that is useful either?

To review, just one page back, you’re referencing an A322:

keesje wrote:
For the longer flight requirements it could offer 200-280 seats including significant cargo for flights up to 5000NM from short runways. And Business class direct aisle access. Capabilities even a A322 could never match.”

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/35555869662/


It’s been brought up in this very thread a number of times.

Previously, this thread has your drawing of an A322:

viewtopic.php?t=561869

And discussed here:

viewtopic.php?t=1374459

Or on other forums:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!top ... UyBlLZiLhw

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!top ... fkJY3pIc7c

I think it’s all great information. I just wondered why you posted it as if it was something new? Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.


There is a Lot of repetition in this thread and yes I keep seeing the same comments and pictures from Keesje again and again. Repeating the same idea again and again does not make it more true.

Airbus likely will respond to a new product from Boeing. I think we all understand that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:31 am

Planeflyer wrote:
One thing to consider, Boeing has the cash flow to consider a new program. (Airbus) simply, at this time does not.


Boeing's Free Cash Flow position for 2017 was over three times that of Airbus', but Airbus' position improved last year over 2016 and was still close to $4 billion so I think for a derivative program like a re-wing, stretch and operating weight boost for the A321 - the "A322" - they could swing it. I do agree they're probably not in a position to clean-sheet a response to NMA at this time.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:32 am

Stitch wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
One thing to consider, Boeing has the cash flow to consider a new program. (Airbus) simply, at this time does not.


Boeing's Free Cash Flow position for 2017 was over three times that of Airbus', but Airbus' position improved last year over 2016 and was still close to $4 billion so I think for a derivative program like a re-wing, stretch and operating weight boost for the A321 - the "A322" - they could swing it. I do agree they're probably not in a position to clean-sheet a response to NMA at this time.


Not - imo - do they need to. I can’t see a theoretical A32X stretch/enhancement being a tough case to make, though selling a few dozen more A330neos would make another “remodel” easier to justify.
-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.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:49 am

Stitch, fully concur. Derivatives are well w/i financial capabilities and will allow AB to grow profitably. I also don't think AB needs a clean sheet design but my point is they are not in a position to do one.

AB to do list is to fix the A400, reduce costs to maintain the 380 and ramp the 350 and 320 for all their worth.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:02 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I can’t see a theoretical A32X stretch/enhancement being a tough case to make.

It is actually a very difficult case.

The code C wingspan limit is the Achilles heal of the A321. The A321LR is severely underwinged with a initial cruising altitude of only 29,000ft. It has pretty poor fuel burn but it simply lacks competition. Other narrowbodies can't fly over 3500nm and the widebodies are all heavy ultra long range beasts.

If Airbus stay code C a new carbon wing will only have a marginal range and efficiency improvement over the current A321NEO. A couple of percentage points at best due to more wing fuel capacity allowing an ACT to be removed.

If they go up to code D they gain massive fuel efficiency allowing for a higher aspect ratio wing. But the code D gates being rare outside of the US means this big wing A321 will be forced to use expensive code E gates. This will kill the economics on short haul as the airport fees make up a huge percentage of the trip costs.

Airbus would need either two wingspans. They have many options to choose.

They could keep the current cheaper single slot flap wing of the A320 and make that the smaller code C wing. It probably could be used to make an A321light weight. Not enough lift for ACT's in this model. Pretty much similar to the A320.5 proposal.

The more expensive double slot flap wing on the A321 could be replaced with a longer code D carbon wing. But lots of customers who use A321's short haul would prefer a smaller code C wing.

If they keep current metal code C A321NEO wing for these short haul customers then you dont have a lot of customers left to justify a brand new fancy carbon code D wing.

Due to Airbus's low cash flow I expect a very cheap solution will get used. A simple tapered wing root extension like they did on the A340NG. Adding a couple metres of extra span at the roots will gain a few thousand pounds of fuel. As the aircraft would now be in code D they could go crazy with wing tip extensions. The improved lift to drag ratio would allow for slower landing and takeoff speeds. This means the same thrust engines can be used and maximum takeoff weights can be increased slightly. Range for this A321 model would be pushing 5000nm.

Most A322 proposals are simple stretches using the current small code C wing on the A321. With this big wing Airbus could stretch it closer to 757-300 capacity.

The cheapest option by far would be Airbus to do nothing to the wing and just simple stretch the A321LR and remove the ACT's to cover the extra fuselage weight. It would be a short range with excellent CASM but won't touch the NMA on medium haul.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:08 am

Well Airbus could do a new wing with folding wingtips ala the 777X to allow them to span wider than Code C in flight while staying within Code C on the ground. Not sure how much more span they could get as I expect they would want to have the folded section not have any control surfaces.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:46 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Range for this A321 model would be pushing 5000nm.


Going above 8hrs requires a third pilot and additional cabin crew. Given flight crew's importance to economics of small-LH'er, and given lack of belly rests, this complicates things.
Better, IMO, to stick at 8hrs and trade range for capacity - which will improve short-haul turns between LH missions. Any MoM aircraft needs to be excellent on both short- and long-haul.

Plus as I've said elsewhere, .78M cruise becomes an issue for longer flights and we don't whether the A32X fuselage can cruise any faster due to its low nose- and tail-cone fineness. Compared to NMA at .85M, A32X cruise would give back ~8% of its capital cost edge, and cost 9% more for pilots, due to slower cruise speed.

Stitch wrote:
Well Airbus could do a new wing with folding wingtips ala the 777X to allow them to span wider than Code C in flight while staying within Code C on the ground. Not sure how much more span they could get as I expect they would want to have the folded section not have any control surfaces.


If Airbus exceed Code C span by same ratio as 777X exceeds Code E (235/213) then span would be 130ft. At constant AR that allows a ~21% bigger wing - probably around the optimum for a A322.

RJMAZ wrote:
They could keep the current cheaper single slot flap wing of the A320 and make that the smaller code C wing. It probably could be used to make an A321light weight. Not enough lift for ACT's in this model. Pretty much similar to the A320.5 proposal.


Good idea. If A321 size, though, would need lower MTOW due to rotation constraints. 3,000nm range should still be possible and that's fine for probably 98% of routes.

RJMAZ wrote:
Due to Airbus's low cash flow I expect a very cheap solution will get used. A simple tapered wing root extension like they did on the A340NG.


Do we know how expensive A340NG was? I don't. It didn't seem cheap though.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:08 am

Matt6461 wrote:
Do we know how expensive A340NG was? I don't. It didn't seem cheap though.


$2.9 billion per a 1997 report in FlightGlobal citing the approval of the program by Airbus' Supervisory Board. This price also included the development of the Trent 500 engines.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8509
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:08 am

I like the comparison to the A345/6. That is very fitting when comparing an improved A320 to the all new MoM.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:10 am

bigjku wrote:
I think the rewing thing is a bit over simplified here. That won’t be a quick and easy project. Moreover they will need to find delivery slots for it and right now that is a big problem for what, 4-5 years? How far in advance of a new aircraft could this really be delivered? Do you want to push rates to 80 a month to try and open up spots to do this sooner rather than later? Otherwise you are likely just doing conversions because almost all those slots are spoken for.

Building MOMs at a high pace must certainly much easier, if today A320 production facilities are the base for the ramp up compared with building up everything from scratch for the new Boeing aircraft? Both on a timeline and even much more regarding the size of the investment. Boeing faces another 30 billion investment until factories will pump out 797s at 787-like rates...

B.t.w. IMHO PlanesNTrains wrote some of the best posts on this page of the thread. It is like it is...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:12 am

Matt6461 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
They could keep the current cheaper single slot flap wing of the A320 and make that the smaller code C wing. It probably could be used to make an A321light weight. Not enough lift for ACT's in this model. Pretty much similar to the A320.5 proposal.


Good idea. If A321 size, though, would need lower MTOW due to rotation constraints. 3,000nm range should still be possible and that's fine for probably 98% of routes.

3000nm would be very optimistic.

An A320 weighs 42.6T an A321 weighs 48.5T. it would be highly likely an A320 stretched to A321 length would weigh around half way between the two. Say 45.5T or 6% lower.

This A321 light would retain the low 79T maximum takeoff weight which is a 14T lower than the 93T A321. That means the the total payload + fuel combination has to be 11T lower. With 200 passengers the A321 lightweight could only carry approximately half of the fuel of a normal A321. So range would most likely be below 2000nm.

It's low range would be offset by a considerable fuel burn improvement of 3-4% putting it far above the 737-10.

This short range model would still handle the vast majority of A321 routes. I estimate three quarters of them. The big wing A321 would then take the remaining 25% of the long range routes.

You also make valid points about crew rests. I would expect the big wing A321 to simply fly the same distance routes as the current A321LR but without payload restrictions and do so with less total fuel burn due to improved lift to drag.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
c933103
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:33 am

I think Chinese airlines probably won't want to order a lot, if any, of this proposed 797 design? As Boeing propose to make it a wide body, and there seems to be some sort of limit on number of widebodies that Chinese airlines can order every year, seems like they would really prefer wide body aircrafts that can actually fly intercontinentally despite they would also use them a lot in domestic routes. That's also said as why 33R were mot able to attract any Chinese customers despite that model isn't that much attractive in other aspects of economy either
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:39 am

c933103 wrote:
I think Chinese airlines probably won't want to order a lot, if any, of this proposed 797 design? As Boeing propose to make it a wide body, and there seems to be some sort of limit on number of widebodies that Chinese airlines can order every year, seems like they would really prefer wide body aircrafts that can actually fly intercontinentally despite they would also use them a lot in domestic routes. That's also said as why 33R were mot able to attract any Chinese customers despite that model isn't that much attractive in other aspects of economy either

I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:05 am

Planeflyer wrote:
One thing to consider, Boeing has the cash flow to consider a new program. aB simply, at this time does not.

Maybe Airbus should try to increase subsidies to the same level Boeing gets...

Matt6461 wrote:
Going above 8hrs requires a third pilot and additional cabin crew. Given flight crew's importance to economics of small-LH'er, and given lack of belly rests, this complicates things.
Better, IMO, to stick at 8hrs and trade range for capacity - which will improve short-haul turns between LH missions.

Too late, the A321LR all the time demonstrates longer-than-8hrs flights. You can of course stick below 8hrs and trade range for more payload.

Matt6461 wrote:
Plus as I've said elsewhere, .78M cruise becomes an issue for longer flights and we don't whether the A32X fuselage can cruise any faster due to its low nose- and tail-cone fineness. Compared to NMA at .85M, A32X cruise would give back ~8% of its capital cost edge, and cost 9% more for pilots, due to slower cruise speed.

If Boeings MOM will be good at short- and long-haul (as you say), it will impossibly cruise at .85M.

Sometimes to me it seems people believe Boeing does not design aircraft, but they somehow have a big machine with a web frontend, where you can tick "good at short-haul", "good at long-haul", cruise speed "hm, lets pick 0.85M", now press "Submit" (after entering a credit card with 30bn credit line) and - plop - a freshly designed aircraft is thrown through the opening at the rear of the machine...

Matt6461 wrote:
Good idea. If A321 size, though, would need lower MTOW due to rotation constraints.

The A321 does not have rotation constraints.

Matt6461 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
A simple tapered wing root extension like they did on the A340NG.


Do we know how expensive A340NG was? I don't. It didn't seem cheap though.

You are aware that the cost for the A340NG program is something completely different than the cost to develop the tapered wing?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:13 am

Rheinwaldner wrote:
If Boeings MOM will be good at short- and long-haul (as you say), it will impossibly cruise at .85M.

Sometimes to me it seems people believe Boeing does not design aircraft, but they somehow have a big machine with a web frontend, where you can tick "good at short-haul", "good at long-haul", cruise speed "hm, lets pick 0.85M", now press "Submit" (after entering a credit card with 30bn credit line) and - plop - a freshly designed aircraft is thrown through the opening at the rear of the machine...


Oh come on, this is uncalled for and beneath your usual standards.
The merit of A32X-based MoM entry is using an older, cheaper design against a newer, more expensive design.
A newer, more expensive design will have some capabilities (e.g. .85M cruise at acceptable short-range cost) that an older design will lack.
You can acknowledge that tradeoff without claiming superiority for one or another OEM.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:20 am

Rheinwaldner wrote:
The A321 does not have rotation constraints.


Why the 2-slot flaps then? The A321 may not currently be constrained by rotation angle, but if we use A320's wing (as the discussion suggested), there isn't sufficient lift.

Rheinwaldner wrote:
You are aware that the cost for the A340NG program is something completely different than the cost to develop the tapered wing?


Wing plus were part of the A340NG program, no? I didn't say they're the only part...
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
This A321 light would retain the low 79T maximum takeoff weight which is a 14T lower than the 93T A321.


Maybe try a quick Breguet comparison? I thought you were moving somewhere above 79T but below 93T. If you use A321LR engines you can probably do an MTOW bump on the A320's wing with some minor local reinforcements.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:34 am

This is the 797 topic. Detailed discussions on A320 variants should go in their own thread.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:48 am

Taxi645 wrote:
This is the 797 topic. Detailed discussions on A320 variants should go in their own thread.


As with every business case, the 797's depends on the quality of its competition.
What Airbus can/will do with A32X is just as important as what Boeing can/will do with 797.

What the 797 can do on shorthaul is critical to its business case; what its competition can do on shorthaul is therefore also critical to its business case.

We could try to simplify but our discussion is already orders of magnitude simpler than the teams of engineers/analysts/accountants etc. looking at this for Boeing and Airbus.

When we try to simplify, we get "Here's a pretty picture with a fly" and "I pronounce tomato incorrectly so I like Airbus/Boeing."
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:11 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:


Well yes, thank you. Hasn’t this been the mantra for years? You say it like it’s a revelation or something.


Well just ignore or try saying something useful.


I’ve already shared my thoughts, but I guess I coukd keep repeating like a broken record if you prefer?

I’m simply at a loss as to how you think what you posted was new information when it’s been stated over and over? Not sure how that is useful either?

To review, just one page back, you’re referencing an A322:

keesje wrote:
For the longer flight requirements it could offer 200-280 seats including significant cargo for flights up to 5000NM from short runways. And Business class direct aisle access. Capabilities even a A322 could never match.”

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/35555869662/


It’s been brought up in this very thread a number of times.

Previously, this thread has your drawing of an A322:

viewtopic.php?t=561869

And discussed here:

viewtopic.php?t=1374459

Or on other forums:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!top ... UyBlLZiLhw

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!top ... fkJY3pIc7c

I think it’s all great information. I just wondered why you posted it as if it was something new? Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.


As you linked & can see, those threads have a kind of different authors, topics. My statement was regarding the trigger for Airbus to launch a new aircraft. Not a responds to any Boeing NMA as widely aired here (e.g. by Newbiepilot) , but filling a market requirement at the right time, regardless of what Boeing says / does.

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.


If you re-search this endless thread and google the complete internet to repeat me, pls don't feel sorry for me.. We need new content.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
c933103
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:40 am

RJMAZ wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I think Chinese airlines probably won't want to order a lot, if any, of this proposed 797 design? As Boeing propose to make it a wide body, and there seems to be some sort of limit on number of widebodies that Chinese airlines can order every year, seems like they would really prefer wide body aircrafts that can actually fly intercontinentally despite they would also use them a lot in domestic routes. That's also said as why 33R were mot able to attract any Chinese customers despite that model isn't that much attractive in other aspects of economy either

I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.

They do use more wide body aircraft domestically but I don't think any Chinese airlines have created a widebody subfleet for domestic flying yet, unlike what Japanese airlines did. Surely, it is a waste to use more capable aircrafts in short missions, but when the opposite would be cutting back the long haul fleet for these short ranged aircraft I don't think that would be attractive. Also, some of these domestic widebody flights are actually domestic to international tag on, which obviously can't be replaced by short range wide body.
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.

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