Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6591
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:03 pm

What has changed since 2 years ago?

- The production process has come into clearer focus.
- The center of the potential market in terms of payload-range has become clearer (and, it appears, evolved upward to some degree).
- Boeing has figured out some new ways to reuse already-done work on systems and possibly to incorporate some existing parts.
- The A321neo has entered service and its real-world strengths and weaknesses have become clearer (which may be driving the upward evolution in payload range).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:11 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
My guess, and I want to be clear that this is a guess only:

o Boeing formally launches at the Paris Air Show
o AS commits to being one of the launch customers
o In the same deal, AS commits to returning to an all-Boeing fleet with new orders for the 737MAX9, MAX10, and the rumored 797-6

Total orders for the 797 from AS would be 15, with options for 25 more. Orders for MAX9/MAX10 would be for a total of 50, with options for 30 more.

This would replace the entire Airbus fleet over a period of 7 years, while providing both a modest ASM increase due to the larger gauge vs. the A319/A320 fleet, plus added flexibility for more frames (AS has a history of taking every option, and then some).

Again, just speculation on my part - not sharing any insider info.


Just a Alaska MVP, no inside info but have followed AS for decades - I concur with this guess, out 6 years AS will need larger transcon planes and will also return to just 737's except would keep any owned A320's, I believe all the leased ones will go back.

At launch the total number ordered, the number of Airlines ordering, and the 'quality' of those ordering do make an impression. The future "Kingfisher" type of airlines do not help a launch much. Besides for some majors ordering the 797 I suspect a lot of leasing firm orders will happen.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:16 pm

WIederling wrote:

Afaics there is no continuity from A350Mk1 to the A350XWB.
it was a new programme and it is unreasonable to pronounce this as "missed initial EIS by years".

Looking back Airbus should not have countered the drug like rush of the "Dreamliner" with a "real product".
The orders showed some continuity. Also, Airbus didn't counter with a "real product", they countered with the original A350. :D
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
VV
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:43 pm

seabosdca wrote:
What has changed since 2 years ago?

- The production process has come into clearer focus.
- The center of the potential market in terms of payload-range has become clearer (and, it appears, evolved upward to some degree).
- Boeing has figured out some new ways to reuse already-done work on systems and possibly to incorporate some existing parts.
- The A321neo has entered service and its real-world strengths and weaknesses have become clearer (which may be driving the upward evolution in payload range).


Are you sure you have been looking in the right direction?
What if the truth is not what many people perceived?
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:55 pm

WIederling wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There is a buzz in the industry similar to the launch of the Dreamliner. Everybody wants in on the 797, as they know it is the next big thing.


Has anyone amassed riches ( or even just made an overall profit ) from being on the 787, the Last Big Thing?

IMU the next Big Boeing Project is still in the Sonic Cruiser phase.




boeing definitely makes a profit on each jet, and most likely on the program itself considering they've successfully expanded the program block several times now
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13788
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:58 pm

VV wrote:
keesje wrote:
VV wrote:

What changed? As far as I know nothing has changed at all.

Is it only your perception that changed?


Boeing has been working on the business case for years. John O says decision will be taken soon. Apparently something has changed versus 2 years ago, the need for the NMA has grown.


Or perhaps It is a latent demand and you didn't see it?


I wouldn't dare to claim that I saw it, if the proof wasn't online for more then a decade. Some are more waiting for confirmation before they see it. Dismissing everything until then..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/35724776535/in/photostream

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/303170-real-a300-310-757-767-replacement-aircraft-idea.html
Last edited by keesje on Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:18 pm

Why 50,000lb of thrust?

The original 787-3 had 53,000lb of thrust.

Considering the 787-8 has 64,000lb of thrust this 797 will be very big if it has 50,000lb of thrust.

Assuming the same thrust to weight ratio of the 787-9 that means a maximum takeoff weight of 178T.

How disappointing will we be if it uses the 787 cross section but it is fully optimised unlike the 787-3. I've been over this many times. If everything from the landing gear, wing and centre wingbox is optimised empty weight will be around 100T. The 787-3 that was cancelled was just a normal 787-8 with about 5T removed, wing tips shortened. Pretty much no optimisation was done to the original 787-3.

Derated engines usually aren't as fuel efficient which is another reason why the original 787-3 wouldn't work. So fully optimised scaled up LEAP engines would probably beat Genx by a couple percent.

One thing for certain it won't be 7abreast. If it is a cleansheet it is going to be big!

I also doubt the oval design. It would not surprise me if Boeing takes the 787-8 and shrinks everything by exactly 10%. Nice and simple from an engineering perspective. 9ab becomes 8ab abreast and it would still fit LD2's with a bit of fiddling with the frames.

I would have thought the 797 at the very most would require 45,000lb of thrust. The lowest thrust 767 engine was 48,000lb.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9298
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:23 pm

WIederling wrote:
if the peak of the meet points into the fuselage you need a tension member
if the peak of the meet points out of the fuselage ( like in that flat oval envisoned )
you need a compression member connecting the junctions.


I'm not seeing where this compression member exists. Can you draw a Free Body Diagram showing where this compression load acts?
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:34 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
WIederling wrote:
if the peak of the meet points into the fuselage you need a tension member
if the peak of the meet points out of the fuselage ( like in that flat oval envisoned )
you need a compression member connecting the junctions.


I'm not seeing where this compression member exists. Can you draw a Free Body Diagram showing where this compression load acts?


This is the design that Wlederling is talking about. Double bubble but wider than it is high. The floor is in compression. The fuselage is trying to go back into a circle when it is under pressure. So the height is teying to increase which means the sides are pulling in.

Image

The ranges in the above images are in 1 class full economy. With a 3 class lower density cabin the ranges would be about 15% higher.
797-8 - 6100nm
797-9 - 5200nm
797-10 - 4150nm

Boeing would be only launching the largest two lengths it seems.

The shrink 797-8 probably didn't get enough demand. It would have the worst CASM of the three, not enough long thin routes. Airlines could probably fly a 787-8 with 50% more passengers with 50% higher trip costs giving equal or even better CASM.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2645
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:56 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Why 50,000lb of thrust?

One thing for certain it won't be 7abreast. If it is a cleansheet it is going to be big!




At this point unless you are on the NMA design team and they have made a final decision there is no way you can say this with any certainty.

At this point it could still be a Single Aisle 6W, Wide Single Aisle 6W, Eliptical 7W, Double Bubble 7W, 8W or even 9W.

Personally I think tight Double double 7w as they will be able to reuse it for NSA which will save them a ton of money - but that's me.

Who knows what they choose.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9298
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:22 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
WIederling wrote:
if the peak of the meet points into the fuselage you need a tension member
if the peak of the meet points out of the fuselage ( like in that flat oval envisoned )
you need a compression member connecting the junctions.


I'm not seeing where this compression member exists. Can you draw a Free Body Diagram showing where this compression load acts?


This is the design that Wlederling is talking about. Double bubble but wider than it is high. The floor is in compression. The fuselage is trying to go back into a circle when it is under pressure. So the height is teying to increase which means the sides are pulling in.


That's what I figured and that's why I'm not seeing the cause for alarm. The proposed fuselage in your image is not very elliptical at all. Just taking some dimensions off the image shows a major/minor axis ratio of about 1.05. The deflection along the major axis and resulting compression will be negligible. So what's the beef? The structural system does not present a risk of column buckling if that's where anyone is heading.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:10 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
WIederling wrote:
if the peak of the meet points into the fuselage you need a tension member
if the peak of the meet points out of the fuselage ( like in that flat oval envisoned )
you need a compression member connecting the junctions.


I'm not seeing where this compression member exists. Can you draw a Free Body Diagram showing where this compression load acts?


I would draw a free body diagram of the compression if I could, but I don’t see how the floor can be in compression when the fuselage is pressurized.
 
Caryjack
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:13 am

Yes you do. Draw an oval with the long part (the sides) on the X axis and the short part (top & bottom) on the y. Connect the 2 farthest points with a structure (the passenger floor / cargo ceiling), then add pressure. The oval will want to become a circle forcing the top & bottom to extend and the sides (held fixed by the floor/ceiling structure) to compress.
 
VV
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:04 am

keesje wrote:
VV wrote:
Or perhaps It is a latent demand and you didn't see it?


I wouldn't dare to claim that I saw it, if the proof wasn't online for more then a decade. Some are more waiting for confirmation before they see it. Dismissing everything until then..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/35724776535/in/photostream

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/303170-real-a300-310-757-767-replacement-aircraft-idea.html


What if it is NOT about the aircraft but more about the market and the timing related to the current and possible future conditions?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:17 am

musman9853 wrote:
Boeing definitely makes a profit on each jet, and most likely on the program itself considering they've successfully expanded the program block several times now


They make more money per item than the direct manufacturing cost.
They haven't reduced the deferred cost bow wave by much.
Expanding the accounting block is cosmetic.

What is the situation with suppliers ( those that have survived the experience) ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
jagraham
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:17 am

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
If the NMA would become e.g. a 30-40% heavier, expensive twin aisle, that would likely separate it from the bigger NB segment.


Well a 767-300ER has a roughly 25% higher fuel cost per seat than a 737-9 or A321-200neo on a 3600nm mission in a mixed Business/Economy class configuration with identical cabin product at identical class percentages so if NMA was as poor, much less worse, Boeing never would have floated the concept to airlines.

NMA will have a much lower OEW (the 767-300ER is twice that of the 737), a much newer wing with significantly better aerodynamics and engines multiple generations newer and more efficient so it should prove a more effective platform than the 767 family.



It is only necessary to get down to 767A (82t) OEW. Thomas Cook operates 767s and A321s in single class configuration, eliminating the first class / business class tradeoffs. Their 767s seat 326 while their A321s seat 220, giving a space multiplication factor of 1.48 for the 767-300 versus the A321. Accordingly a 54t

The A321LR is 97t MTOW. OEW is 51t. A 767 sized aircraft should be 1.48x heavier OEW, or 76t. The 767A weigh 82t, or 6t over. That is 8%, which can be gained over the 767A by either a better, longer wing, OR a better engine. In particular, each 767A engine weighs approx 9100 lb dry, while the Pratt 1100 weighs 6300 lb for 35000 lb thrust. A 45000 lb thrust Pratt GTF should weigh about 6800 lb, or 2300 lb less. New engines put the 767A at 80t OEW. Carbon fiber wings should reduce another 2t. 78t vs 76t for an airplane scaled up from an A321NEO. Not to mention that the 767A has 8 more first class seats than a scaled up A321 in most cases.

A 767A with new wings and new GTF engines would have CASM equal to or better than an A321LR.

But that is not where Boeing seems to be headed.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9552
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:19 am

But only with the 8 abreast configuration for the 767.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13788
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:23 am

VV wrote:
keesje wrote:
VV wrote:
Or perhaps It is a latent demand and you didn't see it?


I wouldn't dare to claim that I saw it, if the proof wasn't online for more then a decade. Some are more waiting for confirmation before they see it. Dismissing everything until then..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtm67/35724776535/in/photostream

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/303170-real-a300-310-757-767-replacement-aircraft-idea.html


What if it is NOT about the aircraft but more about the market and the timing related to the current and possible future conditions?


? It is in the post, as you can read. :thumbsup:

Maybe it is hard to admit someone else predicted something better & much earlier than you? And here you can not invisibly delete & quickly forget, like on your VeroVenia :wink2: I felt you are creating your own history there, by carefully filtering out contradicting facts and comments and selective self quoting.

I think you should open up that blog it bit more & sensor less radically. It could become a great blog. Adopt some more general objective rules. You apparently put a lot of time in there, so it might be worth the consideration. https://verovenia.wordpress.com/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:11 am

seahawk wrote:
But only with the 8 abreast configuration for the 767.

Yes 8ab with super narrow 16.5inch seats.

But expanding on jagraham calculations he was at 76T without touching the fuselage material. Add 8inchs to the width to bring each seat to 17.5inch and redo the calculations.

8inchs to the cabin width to goes 186" to 194" which is a 4 percent increase. The 767 is already 15inch taller than it is wide. So adding 8inchs to the width you could reduce height 7inchs and make a perfect circle.

Overall fuselage cross section area is less than 1% higher. Make the fuselage out of carbon and there is no weight increase. Still at 76T so empty weight per passenger is the seat.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:14 am

Re bigjku
'I think a big part of the business case, in the US at least, will be transcontinental and hub to hub movements.'

I agree with your point.I did not mention this as a separate contributor stated previously that by the time the 797 came out all 767's would have been replaced.I am not sure whether this is true or not.They are tough aircaft and perhaps they can continue in this role for a further 8 years.
This would also need to be true of the US based 757-300's that play a similar role.
Many of the longer ranged international 767 requirements have already been replaced by the superior 788.
Also Some shorter,less dense routes will go to A321's and 7310's.
But there is no doubt a requirement does exist ,as you say ,for the US transcon' role.With the steady growth of pax in this sector the requirement must surely grow over time too.So once again (like the P2P growth) Boeing's thinking must be more about predicting future patterns the replacing existing like for like market Although as you state there is a clear existing market already there.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9552
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
But only with the 8 abreast configuration for the 767.

Yes 8ab with super narrow 16.5inch seats.

But expanding on jagraham calculations he was at 76T without touching the fuselage material. Add 8inchs to the width to bring each seat to 17.5inch and redo the calculations.

8inchs to the cabin width to goes 186" to 194" which is a 4 percent increase. The 767 is already 15inch taller than it is wide. So adding 8inchs to the width you could reduce height 7inchs and make a perfect circle.

Overall fuselage cross section area is less than 1% higher. Make the fuselage out of carbon and there is no weight increase. Still at 76T do empty weight per passenger is the seat.


Who doubts that the 797 will be a CASM monster, I am certain it will be handily beat the A321NEO by 5-12%.
 
2175301
Posts: 1718
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:34 am

VV wrote:
keesje wrote:
VV wrote:

What changed? As far as I know nothing has changed at all.

Is it only your perception that changed?


Boeing has been working on the business case for years. John O says decision will be taken soon. Apparently something has changed versus 2 years ago, the need for the NMA has grown.


Or perhaps It is a latent demand and you didn't see it?


I disagree with that: What has changed in the last 2 years is that Boeing has resolved what aircraft they will be offering from a general concept with undefined capacity and range to what I believe to be a rather specific aircraft (or perhaps 2 aircraft models). They have also fine tuned significantly how much it will cost to produce, by what method, and how much potential customers will likely pay for it.

2 years ago they were just talking that they believed there to be a market for an aircraft in this size range (that actually started pre-2015, with a formal announced 2015 announcement to study and flesh out the idea). Now they have a highly refined idea.

Have a great day,
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:31 am

2175301 wrote:
VV wrote:
keesje wrote:

Boeing has been working on the business case for years. John O says decision will be taken soon. Apparently something has changed versus 2 years ago, the need for the NMA has grown.


Or perhaps It is a latent demand and you didn't see it?


I disagree with that: What has changed in the last 2 years is that Boeing has resolved what aircraft they will be offering from a general concept with undefined capacity and range to what I believe to be a rather specific aircraft (or perhaps 2 aircraft models). They have also fine tuned significantly how much it will cost to produce, by what method, and how much potential customers will likely pay for it.

2 years ago they were just talking that they believed there to be a market for an aircraft in this size range (that actually started pre-2015, with a formal announced 2015 announcement to study and flesh out the idea). Now they have a highly refined idea.

Have a great day,


All that nice work you count, has one main purpose, to determine if their is a business case. The two years work shows mainly how difficult it is to make that business case.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:25 am

mjoelnir wrote:
All that nice work you count, has one main purpose, to determine if their is a business case. The two years work shows mainly how difficult it is to make that business case.

This whole business case thing is entirely made up by Airbus guys.

Everything from the job hiring, to the project office to the engine selection all point to the 797 is definitely coming. It has probably been 100% for well over 12 months.

Now I hear you say "why not launch last year?"

Boeing is simply locking in the engine manufacturers before launch. Contracts with Boeing will prevent that manufacturer from selling a similar thrust class engine to Airbus. I have heard this repeated many times on various websites.

Airbus will then have no engine available to use in a competing model, aka carbon winged A330-800 or A300NEO. Airbus will then have to get a different engine from a competiting engine manufacturer. That engine might not be as cutting edge if the quantity of engines sold will be low.

Boeing definitely doesnt want a repeat of the A330NEO using the 787 engine. The 797 market is already narrow Boeing wants the small widebody market entirely to themselves.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9552
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:08 pm

There is nothing mystical about the process.

You can only sent RFIs for engine to the OEMs when you have finished your plane design so far, that you have concrete and reliable thrust requirements. And with 3 engine OEM bidding, there will always be at least one available for Airbus and if that engine is the least capable is never certain, it might only be the one with the longest time to EiS.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:16 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
All that nice work you count, has one main purpose, to determine if their is a business case. The two years work shows mainly how difficult it is to make that business case.

This whole business case thing is entirely made up by Airbus guys.

Everything from the job hiring, to the project office to the engine selection all point to the 797 is definitely coming. It has probably been 100% for well over 12 months.

Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, April 12, 2018:
"Now the question is whether we can make a business case close, .... That business case is what we are still working on. We are not up to a decision point yet, we haven't made a launch decision but I would say, over the next year we'll get to that (decision) point."
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23521
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:43 pm

2175301 wrote:
I disagree with that: What has changed in the last 2 years is that Boeing has resolved what aircraft they will be offering from a general concept with undefined capacity and range to what I believe to be a rather specific aircraft (or perhaps 2 aircraft models). They have also fine tuned significantly how much it will cost to produce, by what method, and how much potential customers will likely pay for it.

2 years ago they were just talking that they believed there to be a market for an aircraft in this size range (that actually started pre-2015, with a formal announced 2015 announcement to study and flesh out the idea). Now they have a highly refined idea.

https://leehamnews.com/2014/11/02/boein ... -airplane/ is an interesting article from Nov 2014, where they were thinking in terms of NSA (737 class) and NLT (new light twin, 757/767 class) programs. It was once paywalled but now is free.

Lots of the topics in that article are the same ones we discuss today, like cross section and engines.

Here's one I thought worth considering, manufacturing:

Jim Albaugh, former CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said at the time of the huge American Airlines order in July 2011 that one reason Boeing launched the MAX instead of a new, composite airplane was that Boeing couldn’t figure out to make a composite airplane at a rate of 60/mo. We asked Hadi (director of product development at Boeing) if Boeing sees a path toward a composite airplane for a new, clean-sheet airplane in the 737 category at rate 55-60/mo, or does it have to be a metal airplane with composite wings?

“Is there a path? Yes, I would say there is a path,” Hadi says. “Is it practical at this point? I would say we have to develop the technology. We are looking at both concepts, metal and composites. I would say composites are young in its evolution, so as we evolve the materials and its production system around composites, things change rapidly. I think two years from now, five years from now, it could be a different story.”

That to me suggests a lot of what the time has been spent doing. They pulled back from NSA in 2011 because they didn't have a good answer to the manufacturing question. I doubt they just gave up on the problem. I suspect it's more of the opposite: they saw how it dented their product strategy and doubled down on finding a solution.

That was late 2014. By late 2015 they had already transitioned from NLT to MOM to NMA according to our thread at viewtopic.php?t=594869 ...
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
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:04 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
All that nice work you count, has one main purpose, to determine if their is a business case. The two years work shows mainly how difficult it is to make that business case.

This whole business case thing is entirely made up by Airbus guys.

Everything from the job hiring, to the project office to the engine selection all point to the 797 is definitely coming. It has probably been 100% for well over 12 months.

Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, April 12, 2018:
"Now the question is whether we can make a business case close, .... That business case is what we are still working on. We are not up to a decision point yet, we haven't made a launch decision but I would say, over the next year we'll get to that (decision) point."


I agree that the issues with the business case aren’t made up by Airbus guys. Boeing is working through the total lifecycle costs of the airplanes and getting major components pricing and sourcing before completing the business case and committing to prices and contracting delivery dates.

I will say that I disagree with Mjoelnirs comment that all the work being done has the main purpose of determining if there will be a business case. I think it is pretty clear there is a business case and that the engineering work going on is the actual design work. We have had evidence that the design work is progressing further prior to launch than on other planes. With more prelaunch work complete, the chances of the airplane being way over budget or being late are reduced. I think the question is: how far down the design process are they going to go before completing the business case and launching? Waiting should avoid many of the problems the 787 being late and having high deferred costs since they couldn’t build it for the prices they expected they could at launch. When the CEO says they are not at a decision point and that they are still working on the business case, I interpret that as meaning they are still refining the design to get accurate pricing and schedule data and haven’t determined with enough accuracy what the production cost and sales price of the plane will be.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:11 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, April 12, 2018:
"Now the question is whether we can make a business case close, .... That business case is what we are still working on. We are not up to a decision point yet, we haven't made a launch decision but I would say, over the next year we'll get to that (decision) point."

Do you not play poker?

That is exactly what you would say if you were trying to lock out Airbus with the engine manufacturers.

Say the market is weak, Airbus won't plan a widebody response. Engine manufacturers will happily lock away their engines to Boeing to get sole source.

We already discuss about how the 797 is clearly further along the development timeline than normal.

A launch can happen any time during the aircrafts development. Lets break it down by using very rough 10 year aircraft development timeline.

Years 1-2 Market research and concept
Years 3-4 Initial design and spec
Years 5-6 Final design
Years 7-8 Low rate production and flight testing
Years 9-10 Production ramp up and entry into service.

Traditionally we have a program launch after the market research and concept stage. This gives 8 years from launch to service. With the 797 program it will be launched when development is at the 3-4 year mark with initial design and spec already done. This gives only 6 years of development left. This is why Boeing is confident about the 2025 service date.

The original A350 for example was a rushed launched in response to the 787. It was launched very early in the concept and market research stage so they had to redo the whole design as the extra wide body.

Boeing will not spend billions to do design work and then not decide to launch. There has to be a valid reason to delay the official launch. The only logical reason is to lock in the engine manufacturers.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9552
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:25 pm

Or maybe needing to define the business case.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:56 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, April 12, 2018:
"Now the question is whether we can make a business case close, .... That business case is what we are still working on. We are not up to a decision point yet, we haven't made a launch decision but I would say, over the next year we'll get to that (decision) point."

Do you not play poker?

That is exactly what you would say if you were trying to lock out Airbus with the engine manufacturers.

Say the market is weak, Airbus won't plan a widebody response. Engine manufacturers will happily lock away their engines to Boeing to get sole source.

We already discuss about how the 797 is clearly further along the development timeline than normal.

A launch can happen any time during the aircrafts development. Lets break it down by using very rough 10 year aircraft development timeline.

Years 1-2 Market research and concept
Years 3-4 Initial design and spec
Years 5-6 Final design
Years 7-8 Low rate production and flight testing
Years 9-10 Production ramp up and entry into service.

Traditionally we have a program launch after the market research and concept stage. This gives 8 years from launch to service. With the 797 program it will be launched when development is at the 3-4 year mark with initial design and spec already done. This gives only 6 years of development left. This is why Boeing is confident about the 2025 service date.

The original A350 for example was a rushed launched in response to the 787. It was launched very early in the concept and market research stage so they had to redo the whole design as the extra wide body.

Boeing will not spend billions to do design work and then not decide to launch. There has to be a valid reason to delay the official launch. The only logical reason is to lock in the engine manufacturers.


They are probably able to Lock in one of the engine manufacturers - and avoid to deliver a similar engine to Airbus. However I do not believe that this is possible with 2 of 3 manufacturers. They also have to pay the cost. I see a real Chance that Boeing takes a Major share in P&W engine, or takes over GE Engine section, but I can't think of this for RR.

Flyglobal
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:22 pm

$2 or 3 Billion is a lot for looking at a business case, but still much more a 'bargain' than losing several billion several years in a row.

res the Leeham article: it was four years ago, and interesting how events trumped predictions accuracy. The big miss is Airbus and Boeing buying out both Bombardier and Embraer.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:48 pm

Speaking of which, what effect does an Embraer deal have on the 797 design and market placement? Perhaps nothing. We hear comments about potential tie-ins between the 797 and future NSA, which probably adds complexity to the process, but if the NSA were to be "delegated" to Embraer following the closing of a deal how might that affect the 797?

To me, the 797 is interesting, but the NSA is where the rubber will meet the road. I'm just waiting to see if there's any connection between the two beyond just R&D.
-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.
 
2175301
Posts: 1718
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:57 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, April 12, 2018:
"Now the question is whether we can make a business case close, .... That business case is what we are still working on. We are not up to a decision point yet, we haven't made a launch decision but I would say, over the next year we'll get to that (decision) point."

Do you not play poker?

That is exactly what you would say if you were trying to lock out Airbus with the engine manufacturers.

Say the market is weak, Airbus won't plan a widebody response. Engine manufacturers will happily lock away their engines to Boeing to get sole source.

We already discuss about how the 797 is clearly further along the development timeline than normal.

A launch can happen any time during the aircrafts development. Lets break it down by using very rough 10 year aircraft development timeline.

Years 1-2 Market research and concept
Years 3-4 Initial design and spec
Years 5-6 Final design
Years 7-8 Low rate production and flight testing
Years 9-10 Production ramp up and entry into service.

Traditionally we have a program launch after the market research and concept stage. This gives 8 years from launch to service. With the 797 program it will be launched when development is at the 3-4 year mark with initial design and spec already done. This gives only 6 years of development left. This is why Boeing is confident about the 2025 service date.

The original A350 for example was a rushed launched in response to the 787. It was launched very early in the concept and market research stage so they had to redo the whole design as the extra wide body.

Boeing will not spend billions to do design work and then not decide to launch. There has to be a valid reason to delay the official launch. The only logical reason is to lock in the engine manufacturers.


Actually, I agree with the others that the decision to do the initial design and spec work (or a substantial part of it) is in fact to determine that the business case is viable.

No new aircraft program since the 777 has panned out for the old business case profit margins. There are spectacular business case failures (A380) to modest profitable aircraft (787, likely A350); but, those are not profitable anywhere near where the older programs were. The old business case methods of estimation and expectations of amount of profit are long gone... People just need to stop talking about it as the standard. High quality name brand tires that wore out after 20,000 to 30,000 miles used to be the standard too... Long gone (thankfully in that case).

A reality is that what I believe that Boeing is doing with the NMA (likely 797) is what is going to have to be done for all future new aircraft to ensure adequate profitability... Move further down the project stage and well into the initial design and spec stage to ensure that there is a viable and reasonably profitable business case (Airbus gets to do it next time too). As a side benefit the time from official launch to in service shrinks from the old as well.

While the indication I have is that Boeing has thought now for a long time that the business case will pan out; that they are also willing to walk if it does not (and consider the money spent a wise decision). At the same time, the indications I get most recently is that everything is indicating a go at this point.

The potential ability to lock in the engine to only Boeing is an interesting side benefit as well...

Have a great day,
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:59 pm

Flyglobal wrote:
They are probably able to Lock in one of the engine manufacturers - and avoid to deliver a similar engine to Airbus. However I do not believe that this is possible with 2 of 3 manufacturers. They also have to pay the cost. I see a real Chance that Boeing takes a Major share in P&W engine, or takes over GE Engine section, but I can't think of this for RR.

Flyglobal

All three manufacturers will be submitting paper engines. No manufacturer has an engine anywhere close to the required thrust rating. All current engines in service are 30% above or 30% below the required thrust rating.

State of the art engines require big investment. Big investments are only made if there are big returns. If the number of engines sold are small you will get an engine made on a shoe string budget.

If you go with two engine options on the 797 you reduce the amount of money engine manufacturers are willing to spend on development. Fuel targets might not get met.

If you lock in two engine manufacturers into the 797 the third manufacturers engine was either too high risk or low performance for Boeing. Airbus would be stuck with that third option.

The A330NEO for example was only made possible by using the 787's engines. Boeing could have stopped both GE and Rolls from selling 65-75klb engines to Airbus as part of the 787 contracts. The A330NEO didnt exist at the time so they probably both would have agreed.

With the 797:
I can't see GE winning without a gearbox.
I can't see Pratt winning based on reliability.
I can't see Rolls winning with a hail mary paper engine.

I personally think the best option for the 797 would be a single engine option from Engine Alliance. A near off the shelf LEAP core with an off the shelf Pratt gearbox in front with a very big fan putting bypass ratio up towards 14:1.

Airbus would then be left with the Rolls Royce ultrafan. The prototype is sized for the A380, 787 and A350 engine replacement market in 2025. To make an engine at 50,000lb would have to be a clean sheet design and it would be high risk. A quick lightweight A330-800 response probably wouldn't sell enough for Rolls to justify investment.

The market isnt big enough for two cleansheet small widebodies. If Airbus went all out in a full carbon small widebody even if Airbus split the market, they probably wouldnt sell enough to break even. Boeing probably wouldn't break even with the 797 either unlesd they have the entire category to themselves.

In summary if you lock out the engines you lock out Airbus.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:43 pm

It maybe that Airbus don't actually 'want' to 'go there'.Much of what has leaked out so far suggests they may not.
The 'LR' requires no new engine,the XLR requires no new engine (but can achieve 4.5knm -200 2 class pax).The 'plus' doesn't require a new engine either as that is trading a small stretch for range (250 pax-and the new exit arrangement is certified for this).

Now the 'plus plus' may require a new engine,but even that's not certain.Look at the ( carbon rewinged) 779 it requires no more thrust than the 773er.
Ok none of these aircaft ar 270 seaters doing 5knm.But perhaps Airbus don't see a whole lot of market there.Not saying they don't but they may not.
Over then next 2+ years Airbus have got to try their hardest to sell the 338 NEO.(the 339 NEO's ok esp' at 9AB). If they simply cannot then they will start looking at the MOM space but their brief will then be somewhat different to Boeing's.Larger......Ultra fan??
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3432
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
In summary if you lock out the engines you lock out Airbus.
But surely the engine manufacturers know this and charge for the privilege?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9552
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:59 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Flyglobal wrote:
They are probably able to Lock in one of the engine manufacturers - and avoid to deliver a similar engine to Airbus. However I do not believe that this is possible with 2 of 3 manufacturers. They also have to pay the cost. I see a real Chance that Boeing takes a Major share in P&W engine, or takes over GE Engine section, but I can't think of this for RR.

Flyglobal

All three manufacturers will be submitting paper engines. No manufacturer has an engine anywhere close to the required thrust rating. All current engines in service are 30% above or 30% below the required thrust rating.

State of the art engines require big investment. Big investments are only made if there are big returns. If the number of engines sold are small you will get an engine made on a shoe string budget.

If you go with two engine options on the 797 you reduce the amount of money engine manufacturers are willing to spend on development. Fuel targets might not get met.

If you lock in two engine manufacturers into the 797 the third manufacturers engine was either too high risk or low performance for Boeing. Airbus would be stuck with that third option.

The A330NEO for example was only made possible by using the 787's engines. Boeing could have stopped both GE and Rolls from selling 65-75klb engines to Airbus as part of the 787 contracts. The A330NEO didnt exist at the time so they probably both would have agreed.

With the 797:
I can't see GE winning without a gearbox.
I can't see Pratt winning based on reliability.
I can't see Rolls winning with a hail mary paper engine.

I personally think the best option for the 797 would be a single engine option from Engine Alliance. A near off the shelf LEAP core with an off the shelf Pratt gearbox in front with a very big fan putting bypass ratio up towards 14:1.

Airbus would then be left with the Rolls Royce ultrafan. The prototype is sized for the A380, 787 and A350 engine replacement market in 2025. To make an engine at 50,000lb would have to be a clean sheet design and it would be high risk. A quick lightweight A330-800 response probably wouldn't sell enough for Rolls to justify investment.

The market isnt big enough for two cleansheet small widebodies. If Airbus went all out in a full carbon small widebody even if Airbus split the market, they probably wouldnt sell enough to break even. Boeing probably wouldn't break even with the 797 either unlesd they have the entire category to themselves.

In summary if you lock out the engines you lock out Airbus.


If the market is too small for 2 planes, it is too small for 2 engines as well. All 3 OEMs will have learned from the A380 disaster. The MAX and NEO have changed the balance of power between the engine OEM and the airplane maker in many ways.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23521
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:04 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
We already discuss about how the 797 is clearly further along the development timeline than normal.

A launch can happen any time during the aircrafts development. Lets break it down by using very rough 10 year aircraft development timeline.

Years 1-2 Market research and concept
Years 3-4 Initial design and spec
Years 5-6 Final design
Years 7-8 Low rate production and flight testing
Years 9-10 Production ramp up and entry into service.

Traditionally we have a program launch after the market research and concept stage. This gives 8 years from launch to service. With the 797 program it will be launched when development is at the 3-4 year mark with initial design and spec already done. This gives only 6 years of development left. This is why Boeing is confident about the 2025 service date.

I think this is all plausible. We have articles going back to Nov 2014 where the concept was already established, and Oct 2015 where it was even more defined. From what we read there is a large spend going on, consistent with being early in design, and we even had a member tell us he's part of such an effort.

RJMAZ wrote:
Boeing will not spend billions to do design work and then not decide to launch.

I have seen big corporations invest large amounts of money on an engineering project and decide to shut down the project and go another direction. In fact one can argue this happens a lot. In the cases where it happens, you hope there are lessons learned that can be retained for future projects.

seahawk wrote:
Or maybe needing to define the business case.

Personally I think the delay comes from their goal to reduce lifecycle costs (i.e. squeeze the vendors) and indeed sort out which proposal(s) on engines works the best for them. We're told they've already had one round of engine proposals and they expect another by EOY. I think a lot of hard nosed negotiating is going on right now. This set of negotiations will probably set precedents for NSA so I think both sides are going to spend the time to try to find arrangements that work for them.
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
 
CRHoward
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:06 pm

Just an observation. Boeing does not use the word elliptical. Instead they use the word oval. Elliptical is a well defined shape whereas oval is egg shaped. Oval is a very broad term that could be elliptical or round or double bubble. Who knows? But Boeing has avoided the word elliptical.
 
CRHoward
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:22 pm

Parapente said
Over then next 2+ years Airbus have got to try their hardest to sell the 338 NEO.(the 339 NEO's ok esp' at 9AB). If they simply cannot then they will start looking at the MOM space but their brief will then be somewhat different to Boeing's.Larger......Ultra fan??

Will the market niche be large enough for a clean sheet a330 replacement? The 797, 787 and a350 have this niche well bracketed. IMO Boeing may lose profit but Airbus will be taking a huge loss. Being second to market is a bad plan.
 
QXAS
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:23 pm

Why do the concept drawings of the aircraft have a short nacelle? What is the aerodynamic benefit of a shorter nacelle? Or is it purely for weight?
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9552
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:14 pm

I think it is forum logic that both need to compete head on in every segment. I believe Airbus will answer with an A322/23, kind of the 757-300 to the Boeing 767-300.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:18 pm

QXAS wrote:
Why do the concept drawings of the aircraft have a short nacelle? What is the aerodynamic benefit of a shorter nacelle? Or is it purely for weight?


Reduced skin friction drag and also allows laminar flow to be prevalent for a larger part of the length of the nacelle before it becomes turbulent flow (higher drag).

Perhaps a modest weight reduction too.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:24 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Speaking of which, what effect does an Embraer deal have on the 797 design and market placement? Perhaps nothing. We hear comments about potential tie-ins between the 797 and future NSA, which probably adds complexity to the process, but if the NSA were to be "delegated" to Embraer following the closing of a deal how might that affect the 797?

To me, the 797 is interesting, but the NSA is where the rubber will meet the road. I'm just waiting to see if there's any connection between the two beyond just R&D.


The largest Embraer is not quite a 150 passenger plane, so the 737 and successor likely need to cover down to 150. If the 797 may be only efficient carrying 275 people for medium distances. Or would the 220 version be efficient enough for a 2500 mile trip?? In any event these three planes need to have just enough overlap, and not too much, or would some gaps be OK?. Perhaps someone would be able to construct and size/range chart and where the economic efficiency for the various models might fit in.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9298
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:25 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
WIederling wrote:
if the peak of the meet points into the fuselage you need a tension member
if the peak of the meet points out of the fuselage ( like in that flat oval envisoned )
you need a compression member connecting the junctions.


I'm not seeing where this compression member exists. Can you draw a Free Body Diagram showing where this compression load acts?


I would draw a free body diagram of the compression if I could, but I don’t see how the floor can be in compression when the fuselage is pressurized.


For an ellipse of uniform wall thickness and no other structural elements, there is no dispute that an internal pressure will cause the major axis (long axis) to constrict inwards. This can be readily verified in literature. A beam running the length of the major axis would be put in compression.

In my opinion, the only question is whether this is meaningful. For a nearly circular ellipse, the compression introduced along the major axis will be small. Bending will likely remain the dominant load along the beam, so much so that I'm not convinced its fair to define the floor beam as a primarily compression member. Happy to check anyone's math if they disagree.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26945
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:29 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Boeing will not spend billions to do design work and then not decide to launch.

Revelation wrote:
I have seen big corporations invest large amounts of money on an engineering project and decide to shut down the project and go another direction. In fact one can argue this happens a lot.


On the flip side, you have the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" where companies will continue to invest in a "failed" program just because they have already spent so much and if they spend just a bit more, they can overcome.

That being said, we have not really seen signs of that from Airbus nor Boeing as both have decided not to invest in their VLAs (new engines for the A380 or the Project Ozark upgrades for the 747-8).


[quote="Revelation"Personally I think the delay comes from their goal to reduce lifecycle costs (i.e. squeeze the vendors) and indeed sort out which proposal(s) on engines works the best for them. We're told they've already had one round of engine proposals and they expect another by EOY. I think a lot of hard nosed negotiating is going on right now. This set of negotiations will probably set precedents for NSA so I think both sides are going to spend the time to try to find arrangements that work for them.[/quote]

I am inclined to believe that the business case that is needing "closure" is NSA and the discussions and debates internally are on how NMA systems and technologies - most especially engines - can close NSA's business case a decade-plus from now.
 
VV
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:07 pm

keesje wrote:
? It is in the post, as you can read. :thumbsup:

Maybe it is hard to admit someone else predicted something better & much earlier than you? And here you can not invisibly delete & quickly forget, like on your VeroVenia :wink2: I felt you are creating your own history there, by carefully filtering out contradicting facts and comments and selective self quoting.

I think you should open up that blog it bit more & sensor less radically. It could become a great blog. Adopt some more general objective rules. You apparently put a lot of time in there, so it might be worth the consideration. https://verovenia.wordpress.com/


As everyone knows the role of the 757 has been largely taken over by narrowbody that are now very capable.
The A330-200, 767-300ER and the the 787-8 were more or less "abused" to do medium haul routes.

There are now more than 350 (three hundred and fifty) delivered 787-8 and deliveries for 787-9 and 787-10 are ramping up. Soon, there will be not enough capacity to deliver 787-8. In addition 737 is transitioning toward full MAX deliveries at the end of 2019 at a staggering pace of 5=fifty something aircraft per month. Most probably it will be close to maximum production capacity by then.

It is obviously natural for Boeing to offer another medium sized aircraft to complete the increasing demand for "regional" traffic. What's so difficult about it? The business case is already closed, that's sure. It is now about execution of the development and they need to plan for a steep production ramp while there is no competing offering between 2015 to 2030.

The 767 KC-46 got its FAA supplemental type certificate this month. The program might get another slight delay, but the production for the first lot will certainly start relatively soon.

So yes, it is about time to launch the NMA. You do not need to be clairvoyant o understand it, in addition it has always been obvious it would be an aircraft with seven abreast cabin configuration. It is a heresy to think that a 220-350 seater with a range up to 5,000 nmi will be a narrowbody.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:44 pm

parapente wrote:
It maybe that Airbus don't actually 'want' to 'go there'.Much of what has leaked out so far suggests they may not.
The 'LR' requires no new engine,the XLR requires no new engine (but can achieve 4.5knm -200 2 class pax).The 'plus' doesn't require a new engine either as that is trading a small stretch for range (250 pax-and the new exit arrangement is certified for this).

Now the 'plus plus' may require a new engine,but even that's not certain.Look at the ( carbon rewinged) 779 it requires no more thrust than the 773er.
Ok none of these aircaft ar 270 seaters doing 5knm.But perhaps Airbus don't see a whole lot of market there.Not saying they don't but they may not.
Over then next 2+ years Airbus have got to try their hardest to sell the 338 NEO.(the 339 NEO's ok esp' at 9AB). If they simply cannot then they will start looking at the MOM space but their brief will then be somewhat different to Boeing's.Larger......Ultra fan??


Certainly when you have an A321neo and it’s potential, the business case for a clean sheet is much more limited. There is no reason for them to pursue any big ticket makeover, let alone a clean sheet, before the 797 is well-all in production.
-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.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:20 am

CRHoward wrote:
Will the market niche be large enough for a clean sheet a330 replacement? The 797, 787 and a350 have this niche well bracketed. IMO Boeing may lose profit but Airbus will be taking a huge loss. Being second to market is a bad plan.
The MOM market definitely would not be big enough for a second cleansheet. Well unless you are happy with making a loss.

The problem is the more you invest in development the greater improvement in fuel efficiency you get. This increases market share. Lets assume the MOM market is for 2000 aircraft.

For instance Airbus could reply with increasing costly solutions.

The cheap option A would be to use a standard A330-800 reduce the maximum takeoff weight to 180T on paper and fit the 50,000lb 797 engines to it. This might cost $2 billion but might only capture 10% or 200 sales of the MOM market.

The second best option B would be use a standard A330-800 but fit a smaller carbon wing to it and a lighter landing gear. Using the 797 engines it might cost $5 billion but might capture 25% of the market or 500 sales.

Option C would be a full cleansheet, it might cost $10 billion and being late to market will capture 40% of the market or 800 aircraft.

All responses provide equally poor value for money.

In hindsight the A330NEO shouldnt have been launched as it was. It should have been upgraded like option b with a smaller carbon wing and lower weights. Probably with a new name A360. To move well away from A350 and below the 787-8. The A330-900 was competed against the A350-900 with AirasiaX for example.

The A330CEO's would have continued to flood the market cheap in the short term.

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