rheinwaldner
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:15 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Rheinwaldner wrote:
- So if Boeing would decide to make it a .85 airplane, it would not be a good short-haul aircraft anymore
- Or Boeing decides to cover short ranges as good as possible too and as a result, the cruise speed would have to be lowered

You're conflating "not good" and "less good."
Yes, .85M cruise will be less good for shorthaul efficiency. No, it does not mean NMA would be "not good" for shorthaul.
An NMA will be ~40 years newer than A32X and won't face clean-sheet shorthaul competition until/unless A&B launch their single aisle replacement programs.
A slightly suboptimal new design can be better than a once-optimal old design.
Why is this point so hard for you to understand?

Because the same physical laws apply to an old and a new design.

Making a large mid-range aircraft good at short-haul already requires compromises on all ends. The economics on a 1000nm flight already must be marginal, because the design is beefed up to also fly 4 times this distance. That brings an enormous weight penalty for short range usage. So you should not burden the short range competitiveness even more by nice-to-have features like .85 cruise speed. Unless you drop the short range competitiveness.

Anyway, while any other ever designed aircraft is competitive in a rather narrow range window, you are asking Boeing to design an aircraft, that would be efficient over 1000nm as well as over 4000nm. The factor four over which competitive ranges should span, has never been achieved by any other widebody. It is not even a realistic goal if you design the plane for a cruise speed of .78 imho.

RJMAZ wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
The A321 at rotation allows such an enormous angle of attack, that the answer would never be an even larger angle of attack. Civil airliners shall fly and not plow through the air. So the today HLD could just be kept, couldn't they?

Actually the double slot flaps on the A321 change the lift angle of the wing. The air deflecting off the flap is being deflected at a greater angle so the nose is lower and the tail is higher. This is the primary reason they were fitted.

An A320 stretch to make a A321lightweight would have the single slot flaps. The wing would have to have a higher angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift. This would increase the chance of a tail strike as Matt pointed out. So the A320.5 proposal might actually be the maximum length that could be used with the A320 wing.

However reducing the maximum takeoff and landing weights also reduces the lift requirement and the angle of attack required by the wrong. So the A320 wing on an A321 length fuselage could work providing the weights are kept as low as possible. This would result in significantly reduced fuel load and probably reduced payload to get the landing weight down. Lots of compromised but it would have excellent short haul CASM.

I agree, that if the max 9-10 degrees of angle of attack, that the A321 geometrically has, do not suffice, the idea to use the single slotted flaps is not going to fly.

I also don't believe that the penalty on short-haul economics by the doubled slotted flaps is more than hardly noticeable. So why not just keep the today wing?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
brindabella
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:40 pm

travelhound wrote:
The reality is we don't know exactly what a MOM will and up being.

As some have stated it could be oval shaped, round like the 767, carry 10 tonne of cargo over the stated range or carry none. As such we are still discussing an aircraft that is still to be defined.

In contrast, we have a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that a space in the market exists for a MOM type plane. I don't think anyone would be surprised to know a market for the plane exists.

For Boeing, the discussion revolves around the size of the market, what type of aircraft would best suit the market, the manufacturing process (and subsequently cost) and how shareholder value can be added by building an MOM aircraft.

As such, the primary exercise isn't about cost, but the opportunity associated with building an aircraft for this segment of the market. For instance, we often hear there is a potential market for 4000 aircraft in the MOM segment. This market isn't like a light switch that can be turned off and on. It's of a significant size, it exists and its ready to be exploited.

....and this is why we are currently hearing Boeing are defining the business case for the MOM project.

For Boeing, a part of the business case equation would revolve around the "do nothing" option. In other words, Boeing would assess the potential for sales in the MOM market with its current aircraft offerings and project profits going forward. In assessing a "do nothing" business case they might project an opportunity to capture 40% of the market. As such a business case for a new MOM aircraft would have to revolve around the 4000 aircraft size market less 40%.

Another consideration would revolve around the Airbus response. Some have stated the A322 option. Again a business case for the MOM would revolve around how such an aircraft would affect sales of an MOM.

Just as Boeing are considering its options for an aircraft for the MOM segment of the market, Airbus would be doing the same.

Considering they have already successfully developed a NQMOM (Not Quite an MOM) for the lower end of the MOM market........and sold an additional 2000 aircraft in doing so, the business case for their response would have to consider how any such proposal would create or diminish either shareholder and A321NEO customer value.


yadayadyada ...

travelhound wrote:
...and this, in my opinion is the conundrum for Airbus.


Huh?

travelhound wrote:
Arguably, a re-wing of the A321 would be a second best option. It could diminish the value of the current A320NEO range of aircraft. For airlines who have already ordered the A321NEO, they could be contracted to take Airbus's second best option. As such, financing, valuations, etc could adversely affect the value of the aircraft in an airlines fleet. This could result in cancellations or conversions to a the new model resulting in lower deliveries of the current range. This would be very disruptive to Airbus's long term plans.

For me, the suggestions that Airbus could simply respond to a Boeing MOM with a re-wing of the A321 is just too simplistic.


OK. Now we get to it.

The massive 787 order book was a multi-multi-multi Billion $ disaster for Boeing.

How does Airbus unwind a 6,000+ backlog for 320neo family if Boeing goes NSA?

And please, please don't give me this sh**t about the 321neo can do absolute everything known to man. ...

:angel:

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18612
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:50 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.

How did you jump from "“Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft.” ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet ) to "no freight" ????

An oval frame with a single row of LD3-45 for a small wide body, will hardly offer many more LD3-45 positions or bulk volume space than a A321, more passengers in the same length. Add to that the need for more space for bags in regards to the higher number of passengers than an A321. You can talk about payload, but the point is there will not even be space. And think about that the A321 is already tight on volume for belly cargo, rather than having payload limitations, the one area where the A321 does not match the 757. Only a sufficient belly space will allow the possibility of belly cargo.

So, seriously, you're saying Boeing will be offering a MOM with no possibility of belly cargo?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3139
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:01 pm

keesje wrote:
:rotfl:

RJMAZ, there seem exactly 0 leads / links it will be 2-4-2.

You might think 2-3-2 is not a good idea, but at least you should include those "I think", maybe", even "hopefully" disclaimers.

I e.g. "feel" 2-4-2 will have development & operating costs in the 767/A330 category, at least.
And forget CASM or other "per seat" numbers, Airlines want 220-280 seats single class, not 300-400.


While on the subject of correcting others, the 220-280 seat numbers were never shared as single class. This is what we were discussing:

Boeing says the NMA will be an aircraft family seating 220-270 passengers with a range of around 5,000nm (9,260km) and trip costs roughly 40% better than current generation widebodies.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-446689/

You were the one who assumed single class economy numbers. The article was talking about United and Delta’s interest in the plane and those airlines never talk single class airplanes. Boeing almost never quotes single class capacities either in this context. 220 and 270 seats are almost exactly identical to 767-200/300 2-class capacity. I assume that those were 2 class numbers.

The assumption about those being single class numbers was made by you and others who have been advocating for how competitive the A321 and potential stretch would be. Switching those numbers to single class makes the 797 sound closer in size to the A321 than most expect.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7381
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
How did you jump from "“Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft.” ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet ) to "no freight" ????

An oval frame with a single row of LD3-45 for a small wide body, will hardly offer many more LD3-45 positions or bulk volume space than a A321, more passengers in the same length. Add to that the need for more space for bags in regards to the higher number of passengers than an A321. You can talk about payload, but the point is there will not even be space. And think about that the A321 is already tight on volume for belly cargo, rather than having payload limitations, the one area where the A321 does not match the 757. Only a sufficient belly space will allow the possibility of belly cargo.

So, seriously, you're saying Boeing will be offering a MOM with no possibility of belly cargo?


If that concept of a oval fuselage with limited belly volume comes out on top, yes. Where would you want to stuff the cargo beside needing space for bags?

If they want to get their Asian customers satisfied and they want the possibility to take belly cargo, the shape of the fuselage would be more similar to the 767.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18612
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:01 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
An oval frame with a single row of LD3-45 for a small wide body, will hardly offer many more LD3-45 positions or bulk volume space than a A321, more passengers in the same length. Add to that the need for more space for bags in regards to the higher number of passengers than an A321. You can talk about payload, but the point is there will not even be space. And think about that the A321 is already tight on volume for belly cargo, rather than having payload limitations, the one area where the A321 does not match the 757. Only a sufficient belly space will allow the possibility of belly cargo.

So, seriously, you're saying Boeing will be offering a MOM with no possibility of belly cargo?

If that concept of a oval fuselage with limited belly volume comes out on top, yes. Where would you want to stuff the cargo beside needing space for bags?

I think the only way to get to "no freight" is to underutilize the amount of space under the floor with the oviod cross section, and I doubt that happens.

If they want to get their Asian customers satisfied and they want the possibility to take belly cargo, the shape of the fuselage would be more similar to the 767.

I think a.net thinks cargo space is marginal at best when we talk about 777 and 787 and 767 and A330 and A350 and now thinks it's critical for NMA.

The Bloomberg article I linked earlier says:

The general plan is for a two-aircraft family designed to overlap the largest single-aisle planes and smallest wide-body models.

And I think it's truly going to do that, meaning more cargo capability than the largest single-aisle planes and less than the smallest wide-body models.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1663
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:05 pm

bigjku wrote:
It also seems as if it stacks further risk for Airbus if and when we reach the point that aluminum airplanes simply aren’t wanted anymore. I think we can mostly agree that eventually the narrowbody fight will be one between composite airplanes.


No. Absolutely no-one with much experience on the matter would agree with your last assertion (in italics).

There seems to be a general ignorant belief among too many that composites are advancing all the time while metallic suppliers are sitting with their finger up their proverbial.


Furthermore, in reference to your first sentence - airlines don't buy materials - they buy capabilities. [Unfortunately though, the PR hype around the 787 led to many airlines trying to lead the design definitions rather than lead the requirements definitions. The 787 would be lighter and better if they'd went with the composite panels mounted on metallic frames - indeed, both it and the A350 might have been lighter with a full Al-Li fuselage - of course, such an assertion will appear as both ignorant and sacrilege to many who simply don't know better and believe CFRP is best at everything.]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15269
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think the only way to get to "no freight" is to underutilize the amount of space under the floor with the oviod cross section, and I doubt that happens.

If they want to get their Asian customers satisfied and they want the possibility to take belly cargo, the shape of the fuselage would be more similar to the 767.

I think a.net thinks cargo space is marginal at best when we talk about 777 and 787 and 767 and A330 and A350 and now thinks it's critical for NMA.

The Bloomberg article I linked earlier says:

The general plan is for a two-aircraft family designed to overlap the largest single-aisle planes and smallest wide-body models.

And I think it's truly going to do that, meaning more cargo capability than the largest single-aisle planes and less than the smallest wide-body models.

I think we will see a 2 aircraft family. I speculate the larger first as I perceive a more ready market with less entry risk.

Once concepts are more mature (we're talking 3 years at most here), the smaller variant.

Although there is no information anywhere about a 2-4-2 concept, I would speculate that the advantage of that cross section would win out unless Boeing has figured out a way to weave a much lighter fusalauge than I could design (which is more than possible). I know, 2-3-2 seems to be the winning concept, but the optimization of 7-across is a tough cross section with 2 isles...

The other concept will almost certainly be 3-3 narrowbody of large dimensions (752/753).

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:28 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
It also seems as if it stacks further risk for Airbus if and when we reach the point that aluminum airplanes simply aren’t wanted anymore. I think we can mostly agree that eventually the narrowbody fight will be one between composite airplanes.


No. Absolutely no-one with much experience on the matter would agree with your last assertion (in italics).

There seems to be a general ignorant belief among too many that composites are advancing all the time while metallic suppliers are sitting with their finger up their proverbial.


Yeah, I saw that but couldn't be arsed to try (yet again) to bring an acolyte of the Church of Composite back down to the real world. (Hint, I am involved in these topics btw.)


Furthermore, in reference to your first sentence - airlines don't buy materials - they buy capabilities. [Unfortunately though, the PR hype around the 787 led to many airlines trying to lead the design definitions rather than lead the requirements definitions. The 787 would be lighter and better if they'd went with the composite panels mounted on metallic frames - indeed, both it and the A350 might have been lighter with a full Al-Li fuselage - of course, such an assertion will appear as both ignorant and sacrilege to many who simply don't know better and believe CFRP is best at everything.]


Ha ha! All true (except IMO AlLi structures (not test specimens) have never shown any real advantage over other alloys - and they bring costs and manufacturing headaches, so personally I've written them off).

Edit: basically, we all did composites because the airlines wanted it, and the airlines wanted it because Boeing hoodwinked convinced them that they were indestructible and cost peanuts, and Boeing did that to steal a march on Airbus - presumably because composite guys hoodwinked convinced management that Airbus would never be able to catch up in time, what with their "unbeatable and uncopyable" barrel technology and all...
Last edited by SomebodyInTLS on Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:32 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I think we will see a 2 aircraft family. I speculate the larger first as I perceive a more ready market with less entry risk.

Once concepts are more mature (we're talking 3 years at most here), the smaller variant.

Although there is no information anywhere about a 2-4-2 concept, I would speculate that the advantage of that cross section would win out unless Boeing has figured out a way to weave a much lighter fusalauge than I could design (which is more than possible). I know, 2-3-2 seems to be the winning concept, but the optimization of 7-across is a tough cross section with 2 isles...

The other concept will almost certainly be 3-3 narrowbody of large dimensions (752/753).


I could see all of that coming true.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:54 pm

I really hope that Boeing takes a decision real soon and reveals what this thing will be (or things will be)

I don't think I can stand another 2000 more posts in this thread that has been running on empty for ages, and has had no new facts to react to since Post 1

Some respected posters see an effective rerun of the 767/757 combo here; not sure if that lives up to the hype! Certainly the time to turn around a 757 will not be breaking any records anywhere, not even in Australia!

Only time will tell (and another 20+ posts/day in this thread until time tells)!
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:16 pm

Regards composites vs metallic frames and barrels vs panels I have a few questions:

Why did AB go with composite panels on the 350 if Al offered better capability? I mean does anyone really believe AB could not make an effective technical presentation on why composites was/is a Boeing fantasy?

Isn't the performance of the 787 and 350 proof enough?

And if not won't the method of construction used on the next AC tell us all we need to know about the relative merits of the various structure approaches?

Call me a skeptic that either company would bet billions on anything but engineering based data.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:31 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Regards composites vs metallic frames and barrels vs panels I have a few questions:

Why did AB go with composite panels on the 350 if Al offered better capability? I mean does anyone really believe AB could not make an effective technical presentation on why composites was/is a Boeing fantasy?

Isn't the performance of the 787 and 350 proof enough?

And if not won't the method of construction used on the next AC tell us all we need to know about the relative merits of the various structure approaches?

Call me a skeptic that either company would bet billions on anything but engineering based data.
I think its because the devil is in the detail, back when I was doing my degree the structures professor who also was a guru on composites was very careful to tell us that composites have their place and whilst its easy to say something will be lighter the construction methods, difficulty in joining materials, fatigue properties, difficulty in working, tolerances all made it not as simple as it first appears.

the basic rule of thumb that was given to us was on a component level something might be 30% lighter, the whole subsystem is 20% lighter, the super system is 10% lighter and the whole aircraft could be 5% lighter (where the composites are used). If you are more selective about where you use the right composites in the right way you can still achieve the 5% but at much reduced cost.and manufacturing difficulty.

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:39 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Rheinwaldner wrote:
- So if Boeing would decide to make it a .85 airplane, it would not be a good short-haul aircraft anymore
- Or Boeing decides to cover short ranges as good as possible too and as a result, the cruise speed would have to be lowered

You're conflating "not good" and "less good."
Yes, .85M cruise will be less good for shorthaul efficiency. No, it does not mean NMA would be "not good" for shorthaul.
An NMA will be ~40 years newer than A32X and won't face clean-sheet shorthaul competition until/unless A&B launch their single aisle replacement programs.
A slightly suboptimal new design can be better than a once-optimal old design.
Why is this point so hard for you to understand?

Because the same physical laws apply to an old and a new design.

Making a large mid-range aircraft good at short-haul already requires compromises on all ends. The economics on a 1000nm flight already must be marginal, because the design is beefed up to also fly 4 times this distance. That brings an enormous weight penalty for short range usage. So you should not burden the short range competitiveness even more by nice-to-have features like .85 cruise speed. Unless you drop the short range competitiveness.

Anyway, while any other ever designed aircraft is competitive in a rather narrow range window, you are asking Boeing to design an aircraft, that would be efficient over 1000nm as well as over 4000nm. The factor four over which competitive ranges should span, has never been achieved by any other widebody. It is not even a realistic goal if you design the plane for a cruise speed of .78 imho.

RJMAZ wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
The A321 at rotation allows such an enormous angle of attack, that the answer would never be an even larger angle of attack. Civil airliners shall fly and not plow through the air. So the today HLD could just be kept, couldn't they?

Actually the double slot flaps on the A321 change the lift angle of the wing. The air deflecting off the flap is being deflected at a greater angle so the nose is lower and the tail is higher. This is the primary reason they were fitted.

An A320 stretch to make a A321lightweight would have the single slot flaps. The wing would have to have a higher angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift. This would increase the chance of a tail strike as Matt pointed out. So the A320.5 proposal might actually be the maximum length that could be used with the A320 wing.

However reducing the maximum takeoff and landing weights also reduces the lift requirement and the angle of attack required by the wrong. So the A320 wing on an A321 length fuselage could work providing the weights are kept as low as possible. This would result in significantly reduced fuel load and probably reduced payload to get the landing weight down. Lots of compromised but it would have excellent short haul CASM.

I agree, that if the max 9-10 degrees of angle of attack, that the A321 geometrically has, do not suffice, the idea to use the single slotted flaps is not going to fly.

I also don't believe that the penalty on short-haul economics by the doubled slotted flaps is more than hardly noticeable. So why not just keep the today wing?


I think what is envisioned is that one nose/cross section/systems would be shared between NMA and NSA - the Wingbox/wing and tails would be very different. It would not be hard to optimize NSA wing/wingbox/tail for .78 and short range and NMA for .85 medium range. Speed is very dependent on Wing design.
 
estorilm
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:40 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Airlines say they want narrowbody efficiency. That would mean 40% more thrust for a ~40% more pax (270 pax version). 40% more than 35k lbs thrust would be 49K lb thrust. Which is what Boeing is talking about.

If the engine manufacturers can produce a LEAP or GTF at 49K lbs thrust, it would be equal to the A321. Which would be enough.

But the 767A uses 48K thrust engines. Re-engining the 767A would meet the goal, since the 767A already flies far enough. A new high aspect wing should allow for a significant reduction in thrust along the lines of what the 77x has achieved over the 77W (although even better because the 767 has a compromised LaGuardia wing). All with current LEAP or GTF technology.


As good as the A321 won't cut it, IMO. NMA is bigger and therefore has to be more efficient. There isn't enough traffic congestion to force enough NB->NMA upgaugings without a significant efficiency edge, and there aren't enough NMA longhaul routes to close the business case without shorthaul upgauging.

The 767A isn't a good comparison; being a better version of it won't do. NMA has to be on the order of 40% more efficient.

If Boeing isn't confident they can pull off an ambitious NMA, they shouldn't do this at all. Better to wait a few years for the tech and production system to mature.

EXACTLY.

Extrapolating all of the critical points and data from hundreds of posts in this thread I keep coming back to the same conclusion. HOW are they going to sell planes and turn a profit on this design if it doesn't justify the cost and efficiency to airlines versus current models?!

Not only does the design have to be perfect for the perceived future market, but the performance has to be spectacular on top of that.

ALSO they need to factor in a response from Airbus, which will likely be much quicker to market (re-wing 321, etc - [relatively] cheap, easy to build, similar assembly lines, fleet & pilot comonality with existing airlines, LOW cost, and LOW risk). YES I know they are different aircraft, but it needs to be convincing enough to prevent airlines from buying anything for the next 6+ years, meanwhile they have needs and the 321LR is already exceeding expectations. AB isn't doing anything right now, the -1000 is finished up, the 321LR is testing well, as is 330NEO. Chomping at the bit.

I think Boeing know what they WANT to build, I just think they've having major issues with the math and justification/competition elements of the program. The last thing Boeing investors want right now is a new high-risk program.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11579
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:59 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
:rotfl:

RJMAZ, there seem exactly 0 leads / links it will be 2-4-2.

You might think 2-3-2 is not a good idea, but at least you should include those "I think", maybe", even "hopefully" disclaimers.

I e.g. "feel" 2-4-2 will have development & operating costs in the 767/A330 category, at least.
And forget CASM or other "per seat" numbers, Airlines want 220-280 seats single class, not 300-400.


While on the subject of correcting others, the 220-280 seat numbers were never shared as single class. This is what we were discussing:

Boeing says the NMA will be an aircraft family seating 220-270 passengers with a range of around 5,000nm (9,260km) and trip costs roughly 40% better than current generation widebodies.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-446689/

You were the one who assumed single class economy numbers. The article was talking about United and Delta’s interest in the plane and those airlines never talk single class airplanes. Boeing almost never quotes single class capacities either in this context. 220 and 270 seats are almost exactly identical to 767-200/300 2-class capacity. I assume that those were 2 class numbers.

The assumption about those being single class numbers was made by you and others who have been advocating for how competitive the A321 and potential stretch would be. Switching those numbers to single class makes the 797 sound closer in size to the A321 than most expect.


I think we should differentiate between what the airlines say they want and what Boeing says the airlines want.
They often have different interests on what they communicate. E.g. no doubt Boeing will soon communicate airlines are more than happy to wait 7-8 years for a great NMA.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/09/AI29_pie1.jpeg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18612
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:14 pm

keesje wrote:
I think we should differentiate between what the airlines say they want and what Boeing says the airlines want.

I think we need more evidence than one survey taken by AvWeek to conclude what the airlines say they want and what Boeing says the airlines want are different.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8522
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:26 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
:rotfl:

RJMAZ, there seem exactly 0 leads / links it will be 2-4-2.

You might think 2-3-2 is not a good idea, but at least you should include those "I think", maybe", even "hopefully" disclaimers.

I e.g. "feel" 2-4-2 will have development & operating costs in the 767/A330 category, at least.
And forget CASM or other "per seat" numbers, Airlines want 220-280 seats single class, not 300-400.


While on the subject of correcting others, the 220-280 seat numbers were never shared as single class. This is what we were discussing:

Boeing says the NMA will be an aircraft family seating 220-270 passengers with a range of around 5,000nm (9,260km) and trip costs roughly 40% better than current generation widebodies.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-446689/

You were the one who assumed single class economy numbers. The article was talking about United and Delta’s interest in the plane and those airlines never talk single class airplanes. Boeing almost never quotes single class capacities either in this context. 220 and 270 seats are almost exactly identical to 767-200/300 2-class capacity. I assume that those were 2 class numbers.

The assumption about those being single class numbers was made by you and others who have been advocating for how competitive the A321 and potential stretch would be. Switching those numbers to single class makes the 797 sound closer in size to the A321 than most expect.


I think we should differentiate between what the airlines say they want and what Boeing says the airlines want.
They often have different interests on what they communicate. E.g. no doubt Boeing will soon communicate airlines are more than happy to wait 7-8 years for a great NMA.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/09/AI29_pie1.jpeg

That survey is frankly useless if it doesn’t denote cabin configurations (can’t read article so unsure if it does). An airline that wants 220 seats in a two class layout wants a physically larger aircraft than an airline that wants 220 seats in a single class layout.

Also note the survey is number of seats preferred by potential MOM operators, not number of seats preferred in the MOM. Of course 150-199 seats is be number of seats preferred- that is right in the heart of the A320 and 738 market which both outsell their larger siblings.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18612
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:38 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Edit: basically, we all did composites because the airlines wanted it, and the airlines wanted it because Boeing hoodwinked convinced them that they were indestructible and cost peanuts, and Boeing did that to steal a march on Airbus - presumably because composite guys hoodwinked convinced management that Airbus would never be able to catch up in time, what with their "unbeatable and uncopyable" barrel technology and all...

To me the interesting thing is we don't see customers voting with their feet by embracing the cheap and cheerful AL based A330neo and we do see them embracing the opposite approach in 787, even though we read AL should be the thing that costs peanuts and is indestructible and the engine technology is virtually identical. If the market has been hoodwinked, shouldn't they have caught on by now?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:41 pm

Revelation wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Edit: basically, we all did composites because the airlines wanted it, and the airlines wanted it because Boeing hoodwinked convinced them that they were indestructible and cost peanuts, and Boeing did that to steal a march on Airbus - presumably because composite guys hoodwinked convinced management that Airbus would never be able to catch up in time, what with their "unbeatable and uncopyable" barrel technology and all...

To me the interesting thing is we don't see customers voting with their feet by embracing the cheap and cheerful AL based A330neo and we do see them embracing the opposite approach in 787, even though we read AL should be the thing that costs peanuts and is indestructible and the engine technology is virtually identical. If the market has been hoodwinked, shouldn't they have caught on by now?

787 has a critical mass and at 14/mo has a good chance to reduce its production costs to make it a favourable choice. The exact problem that is facing the a330neo will be what the mom faces vs the plus plus or whatever we will call it from airbus. That's my take anyway.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8522
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:55 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Edit: basically, we all did composites because the airlines wanted it, and the airlines wanted it because Boeing hoodwinked convinced them that they were indestructible and cost peanuts, and Boeing did that to steal a march on Airbus - presumably because composite guys hoodwinked convinced management that Airbus would never be able to catch up in time, what with their "unbeatable and uncopyable" barrel technology and all...

To me the interesting thing is we don't see customers voting with their feet by embracing the cheap and cheerful AL based A330neo and we do see them embracing the opposite approach in 787, even though we read AL should be the thing that costs peanuts and is indestructible and the engine technology is virtually identical. If the market has been hoodwinked, shouldn't they have caught on by now?

787 has a critical mass and at 14/mo has a good chance to reduce its production costs to make it a favourable choice. The exact problem that is facing the a330neo will be what the mom faces vs the plus plus or whatever we will call it from airbus. That's my take anyway.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is why it is looking like Boeing is targeting a larger aircraft that Airbus will have trouble reaching with the A320 family. Not an exact direct competition which the A330 and 787 basically are.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Edit: basically, we all did composites because the airlines wanted it, and the airlines wanted it because Boeing hoodwinked convinced them that they were indestructible and cost peanuts, and Boeing did that to steal a march on Airbus - presumably because composite guys hoodwinked convinced management that Airbus would never be able to catch up in time, what with their "unbeatable and uncopyable" barrel technology and all...

To me the interesting thing is we don't see customers voting with their feet by embracing the cheap and cheerful AL based A330neo and we do see them embracing the opposite approach in 787, even though we read AL should be the thing that costs peanuts and is indestructible and the engine technology is virtually identical. If the market has been hoodwinked, shouldn't they have caught on by now?

I see a few potential reasons for that:

1 - Customers already have 787's in their fleet. The 330NEO wasn't even launched until 2014, 3 years after EIS of the 787. Buying a few extra 788's or 789's is easier than adding a whole new fleet. AB was late to the game.

2 - Current customers aren't in need of A330 replacements yet.

3 - Price isn't good enough. No idea what their pricing is, but if it's not lower than the 787 and not much lower than an A350, they might go elsewhere for a more capable aircraft.

4 - 8x config isn't as efficient as 9x. Unless AB finds a way to carve out extra space like the 777X, per foot in length, the A350 and 787 are more efficient.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:09 pm

Polot wrote:
Which is why it is looking like Boeing is targeting a larger aircraft that Airbus will have trouble reaching with the A320 family. Not an exact direct competition which the A330 and 787 basically are.

I don't see why AB couldn't make a A321.5 and A322 that would have similar specs to the 757's. New wing and new gear with a stretched body. If anything, we see the A320 series is fuel volume limited. Get a bigger wing on there and an extra 10T-15T of MTOW with double bogey gear and 5000nm/4500nm isn't impossible for that combo. I mean, they've already produced a double bogey A320 before.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8522
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:19 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Which is why it is looking like Boeing is targeting a larger aircraft that Airbus will have trouble reaching with the A320 family. Not an exact direct competition which the A330 and 787 basically are.

I don't see why AB couldn't make a A321.5 and A322 that would have similar specs to the 757's. New wing and new gear with a stretched body. If anything, we see the A320 series is fuel volume limited. Get a bigger wing on there and an extra 10T-15T of MTOW with double bogey gear and 5000nm/4500nm isn't impossible for that combo. I mean, they've already produced a double bogey A320 before.

Boeing looks to be targeting larger than a A322- closer to A388/788 size for the stretch. Also remember that the more changes Airbus makes to the A320 to less it benefits from the family’s high production rate because the product is more bespoke.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25641
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:38 pm

Polot wrote:
Boeing looks to be targeting larger than a A322- closer to A388/788 size for the stretch.


I see something like an A300 / A310 family - the first one shorter range with higher capacity and the second a straight shrink in capacity to improve the range.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 802
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Edit: basically, we all did composites because the airlines wanted it, and the airlines wanted it because Boeing hoodwinked convinced them that they were indestructible and cost peanuts, and Boeing did that to steal a march on Airbus - presumably because composite guys hoodwinked convinced management that Airbus would never be able to catch up in time, what with their "unbeatable and uncopyable" barrel technology and all...

To me the interesting thing is we don't see customers voting with their feet by embracing the cheap and cheerful AL based A330neo and we do see them embracing the opposite approach in 787, even though we read AL should be the thing that costs peanuts and is indestructible and the engine technology is virtually identical. If the market has been hoodwinked, shouldn't they have caught on by now?


I suspect that the marginal cost of producing a composite wing or fuse keeps dropping as it goes out on the learning curve. Everyone now talks of any new wing being composite, but AL should be the fuse. It does seem the barrel method with its near elimination of fasteners is resulting in lower production and maintenance costs, but we will know the answer if the 797 goes with a barrel design.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:03 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Once concepts are more mature (we're talking 3 years at most here), the smaller variant.
...
The other concept will almost certainly be 3-3 narrowbody of large dimensions (752/753).


So B has done the MAX re-engine, then created a new larger 737 version (-10) and has a 4500+ frame 737 backlog...and you are suggesting a new narrow-body offering will come from Boeing in a few years?

No, it is the 737-Max until well after 2030. I'm sure customers, CFM and other and suppliers would just love to hear B is undercutting their investment in MAX with a new single-isle plan. There is no shame being second place in a duopoly if you have a big backlog and are profitable.

Maybe B starts talking about a new narrow body family in a decade...with a partner (Embraer?) after NMA (if it happens) is in service. Until then, MAX is the silver-medalist of narrowbody aircraft....Art Garfunkel is smiling somewhere.
Last edited by QuarkFly on Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7250
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:10 pm

The more info I do gather, the more I think the engines are the big topic. Boeing is said to aim for an 2024 EiS, which means they need the engine finished at least at the end of 2022. On the other hand MTU just now talked about the Gen.2 GTF that will come as a result from the Clean Sky 2 initiative and which is expected to bring 10% lower fuel burn compared to the current GTF and expected to be ready for application around 2025, in the same time frame as the Ultafan. If Boeing does indeed go for a bigger version of the LEAP engine, which seems likely, it could really turn out to be a risky decision, as Airbus could delay their response by just 2 years and have engines with a noticeable advantage at their disposal.

Sure there is the 757/767 replacement time frame to not be missed, but Airbus has, as far as we know, no new product planed for that market. So imho it leaves 2 possible options.

1. Airbus does have something planed and has offered it already to airlines
2. Boeing knows that the 737/787 will be clearly beaten by the A321/A330 for the 757/767 replacement market, which would explain the aggressive moves to keep the A330NEO from establishing itself in the market
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3005
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:27 pm

seabosdca wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
200-250 pax range 4000-4500nm and CASM at least 10% lower than the A321 neo or 737-10 MAX with equal or lower trip costs.

Do that and you have a winner.


A widebody with 250 max pax would get eaten alive by the A321 IMO, and if not by the A321 certainly by an A321 stretch. To work as a small widebody it'll have to be bigger than that.

What is it with you guys?? The A321 can barely keep up with the B757 and you want Boeing to rewarm the B757?? It's already been defined as a twin aisle for faster turns. If it's a twin aisle? Then it will not be a bulk loaded cargo system but loaded with "Cans" (Ld-2/3/4/6 etc.) to speed up the loading and unloading process. Also requiring fewer guys/gals to unload/load and service the Airplane on turns. It may or may not be CFRP.
(probably be a good Idea that it's not) But a direct competitor to the A321?? Ridiculous!! They could have just upgraded the B757 with Digital if that was the case.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3005
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:30 pm

They're more than likely waiting for a new Engine to replace the PW2040 and the Rolls 535's., GE doesn't yet have an engine in that class but I'm sure they Will.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8105
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:39 pm

Polot wrote:
Boeing looks to be targeting larger than a A322- closer to A388/788 size for the stretch. Also remember that the more changes Airbus makes to the A320 to less it benefits from the family’s high production rate because the product is more bespoke.

Boeing is targeting the MOM to be larger than the A322 which is the theoretical response that Airbus will have to the MOM?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8105
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:43 pm

seahawk wrote:
1. Airbus does have something planed and has offered it already to airlines

Boeing talks to airlines about a MAX version that would be better than the 9, about a MOM and a NSA and everyone knows about, Airbus on the other hand talks to airlines about
something in the MOM space and no one hears anything..
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25641
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:05 pm

seahawk wrote:
If Boeing does indeed go for a bigger version of the LEAP engine, which seems likely, it could really turn out to be a risky decision, as Airbus could delay their response by just 2 years and have engines with a noticeable advantage at their disposal.


This assumes Boeing and CFM agree to sole-source for the life of the program. CFM could have an initial exclusivity window (due to lack of choice, if nothing else) like Airbus and GE did on the A350 Mark I for the first two years after EIS until other options become generally available.

And depending on the size of these new engines, the optimum diameter might be greater than what the A321's clearance can handle. It would be somewhat ironic / karmic if Airbus finds themselves in the same position with GTF2 and UF with what Boeing found themselves with GTF1 and LEAP-X.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Regards composites vs metallic frames and barrels vs panels I have a few questions:

Why did AB go with composite panels on the 350 if Al offered better capability? I mean does anyone really believe AB could not make an effective technical presentation on why composites was/is a Boeing fantasy?


I'm not at liberty to go into detail but when the drug like rush was at full hype, a lot of people fell for it.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11579
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:33 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Once concepts are more mature (we're talking 3 years at most here), the smaller variant.
...
The other concept will almost certainly be 3-3 narrowbody of large dimensions (752/753).


So B has done the MAX re-engine, then created a new larger 737 version (-10) and has a 4500+ frame 737 backlog...and you are suggesting a new narrow-body offering will come from Boeing in a few years?

No, it is the 737-Max until well after 2030. I'm sure customers, CFM and other and suppliers would just love to hear B is undercutting their investment in MAX with a new single-isle plan. There is no shame being second place in a duopoly if you have a big backlog and are profitable.

Maybe B starts talking about a new narrow body family in a decade...with a partner (Embraer?) after NMA (if it happens) is in service. Until then, MAX is the silver-medalist of narrowbody aircraft....Art Garfunkel is smiling somewhere.


If Boeing produces 720 MAX per year, they are covered until 2024. Who is going to buy the next 4000? C919 & CS300 will be added to the playing field. Boeing may be willing to handle being a clear second in this segment. But not being kicked around the room & selling on availability & commonality only. Waiting for another 5 years may be worse than inconvenient.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:50 pm

keesje wrote:
If Boeing produces 720 MAX per year, they are covered until 2024. Who is going to buy the next 4000? C919 & CS300 will be added to the playing field. Boeing may be willing to handle being a clear second in this segment. But not being kicked around the room & selling on availability & commonality only. Waiting for another 5 years may be worse than inconvenient.


So you are saying Boeing is not going to get anymore MAX orders on top of the existing backlog?

There are at least 7000 NG's in service -- most will likely be replaced by MAX....WN, FR and China alone will account for maybe 2500+ more orders. Max is a 8000+ production run at least...over 10K frames if air traffic growth does not fall off before 2025. Most A.netters will be in retirement homes before they fly on a new B narrow-body.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:50 pm

Rheinwaldner wrote:
Making a large mid-range aircraft good at short-haul already requires compromises on all ends. The economics on a 1000nm flight already must be marginal, because the design is beefed up to also fly 4 times this distance


So obviously the 2,000nm Trident 3B is better on shorthaul than the 4,000nm A321LR.

And the clear efficiency winner is the Wright brothers flyer with its ~100ft range.
 
chidino
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:57 am

I'm new, so please be kind.

I've been struck by the lack of an overwhelming business case for the 797. Yeah, it fits a lot of tasks, but the fact that there's so much discussion shows the lack of that case -- and Boeing has never done anything this big without one.

But if you take the 777x wingtip and make it 5,500 ft TORA capable -- and enable it to fit on a 737/320 stand -- now you are talking a LCC/ULCC dream of maybe 230 pasengers you can turn in 30 minutes. You've just increased the capacity of every existing airport by 30% or so without having to get the airports to upgrade anything. Then the bigger model being a cheap 767 replacement is a bonus, and why Boeing does not seem to be sweating the 321ER/future at all.

Am I crazy? Please tell me the ways.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:20 am

To add further to the discussion QANTAS recently added wide body (A330) capacity into the New Zealand market. This was in direct response to Air New Zealand adding wide body (787) capacity into the Australian market. Both of these airlines can serve 95% of the trans-Tasman market with their narrow body aircraft, the 737-800 and A320/A321 combo. Some of the reasons for the addition of wide body capacity revolve around product offering.

In contrast again, Jetstar will be adding narrow body(A321NEO) into the Bali market. These markets are currently served with 787 aircraft.

As such, we have examples of narrow bodies being replaced wide bodies and wide bodies being replaced with narrow bodies.

This could suggest that the market is fragmenting beyond point to point travel. In other words, the market could fragment where an aircraft's ability to provide a product offering could influence buying decisions.

For instance, Singapore Airlines expressed their interest in the 797. I am not sure bout others, but I couldn't see a situation where SQ would want to operate a A321LR. On the same point fragmentation of the market could disrupt SQ's ability to continue attracting its current base of customers. Where a A321LR could simply diminish the SQ product, a 797 could allow for product differentiation and subsequently enhance their product for short haul flying.

As such, the business case for the 797 could be far more complex than the business case for new aircraft before it.
 
chidino
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:45 am

The more I think about this (my earlier post), the more intrigued I'm getting.

Boeing is working on its bread and butter: without saying it, they are replacing the 737. (Hear me out.) They are planning 50 years out with this model; discussions of replacing 757s and 767s are almost irrelevant. Boeing correctly picked up on the long-term PTP shift; now they are planning for a world with constrained space and ever-increasing demand. It's charming to roll out new models, but they have to fit on a stand somewhere, and this provides more capacity without infrastructure changes the airlines can't control. Also, the development kind of fits: they worked out the kinks with the expensive designer model (including outsourcing too much) and are ready for the next 10,000 unit bus. (And as to what happens to the 737? They keep selling them, silly.)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7250
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:39 am

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
If Boeing does indeed go for a bigger version of the LEAP engine, which seems likely, it could really turn out to be a risky decision, as Airbus could delay their response by just 2 years and have engines with a noticeable advantage at their disposal.


This assumes Boeing and CFM agree to sole-source for the life of the program. CFM could have an initial exclusivity window (due to lack of choice, if nothing else) like Airbus and GE did on the A350 Mark I for the first two years after EIS until other options become generally available.

And depending on the size of these new engines, the optimum diameter might be greater than what the A321's clearance can handle. It would be somewhat ironic / karmic if Airbus finds themselves in the same position with GTF2 and UF with what Boeing found themselves with GTF1 and LEAP-X.


MTU says that the changes for the GTF2 would not effect the fan section. They are looking at an up-date for the current GTF that would incorporate a new low pressure turbine, a new hot section, improved seals and flow dynamics. So as long as Airbus does not need a lot more thrust, the fan diameter should fit under the A320 series.

I am quite sure that CFM will have exclusivity on the 797, simply because all engine makers have so far hinted that exclusivity would be a requirement for them to invest, while I can not see Boeing doing such a deal with P&W or RR.
 
chidino
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:30 am

chidino wrote:
I'm new, so please be kind.

I've been struck by the lack of an overwhelming business case for the 797. Yeah, it fits a lot of tasks, but the fact that there's so much discussion shows the lack of that case -- and Boeing has never done anything this big without one.

But if you take the 777x wingtip and make it 5,500 ft TORA capable -- and enable it to fit on a 737/320 stand -- now you are talking a LCC/ULCC dream of maybe 230 pasengers you can turn in 30 minutes. You've just increased the capacity of every existing airport by 30% or so without having to get the airports to upgrade anything. Then the bigger model being a cheap 767 replacement is a bonus, and why Boeing does not seem to be sweating the 321ER/future at all.

Am I crazy? Please tell me the ways.


[quote="chidino"]The more I think about this (my earlier post), the more intrigued I'm getting.

Boeing is working on its bread and butter: without saying it, they are replacing the 737. (Hear me out.) They are planning 50 years out with this model; discussions of replacing 757s and 767s are almost irrelevant. Boeing correctly picked up on the long-term PTP shift; now they are planning for a world with constrained space and ever-increasing demand. It's charming to roll out new models, but they have to fit on a stand somewhere, and this provides more capacity without infrastructure changes the airlines can't control. Also, the development kind of fits: they worked out the kinks with the expensive designer model (including outsourcing too much) and are ready for the next 10,000 unit bus. (And as to what happens to the 737? They keep selling them, silly.)[/quote

This would mean Boeing clean-sheeted this thing about 10 years ago. How to replace the 737? More capacity, sure, but 80 years from now every airport will still be able to accommodate 737/320s, so that dictated size. So how do you increase capacity without increasing load times, and not change infrastructure? Now with that as the driving force, the fact that it only has the cargo width of a 737 becomes incidental -- for God's sake, it's a 30 min turnover, not an transcontinental jetliner. That it's capable of flying that far is probably met with a shrug from Boeing engineers -- they have to think range, not routes, so trans-Atlantic is just a nice side benefit, like "what did you realistically expect from a plane designed for 2050?" First and foremost is that it's the 21st century 737/320.

Apologies for my enthusiasm, but I just couldn't figure out what was so important about replacing the 757. The tipoff was LCCs like WN expressing interest in the 797. They certainly aren't rebuilding DAL or MDW.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:39 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
Anyway, while any other ever designed aircraft is competitive in a rather narrow range window, you are asking Boeing to design an aircraft, that would be efficient over 1000nm as well as over 4000nm.


Absolutely no one is suggesting Boeing will or should do that. The only suggestion is that the 797 will be optimized for 4000nm sectors and that is where it will excel over the competition, but will also likely be efficient enough due to the overall advance of technology to fly 1000nm sectors at little or no disadvantage to the competition. And it certainly won't be as bad as abusing an even larger 8000nm aircraft on <2000nm sectors, yet that's still done all the time.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1663
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:04 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Regards composites vs metallic frames and barrels vs panels I have a few questions:

Why did AB go with composite panels on the 350 if Al offered better capability? I mean does anyone really believe AB could not make an effective technical presentation on why composites was/is a Boeing fantasy?


Airbus had a perception problem at that point in time. Airlines rejected the original A350 (which is now essentially the A330NEO minus the composite wing).

If Airbus returned with another offering which was seen as conservative, then with the amount of kool-aid being drunk, they would have been shunned by the ignorance of the airlines.


Planeflyer wrote:
Isn't the performance of the 787 and 350 proof enough?


What are you comparing them to? Legacy products. If you had an equivalent technology metallic fuse to compare to...


Planeflyer wrote:
And if not won't the method of construction used on the next AC tell us all we need to know about the relative merits of the various structure approaches?


To a degree, yes. But then, there is now institutional bias as well.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:41 pm

chidino wrote:
I'm new, so please be kind.

I've been struck by the lack of an overwhelming business case for the 797. Yeah, it fits a lot of tasks, but the fact that there's so much discussion shows the lack of that case -- and Boeing has never done anything this big without one.

But if you take the 777x wingtip and make it 5,500 ft TORA capable -- and enable it to fit on a 737/320 stand -- now you are talking a LCC/ULCC dream of maybe 230 pasengers you can turn in 30 minutes. You've just increased the capacity of every existing airport by 30% or so without having to get the airports to upgrade anything. Then the bigger model being a cheap 767 replacement is a bonus, and why Boeing does not seem to be sweating the 321ER/future at all.

Am I crazy? Please tell me the ways.


I think the business case is the current 757\767 market. With up-gauging routes a thing due to growth. This market will be growing over the coming decades. Boeing believes this market will consume 4000 frames.

There is a gap in capability and size in Boeings lineup.

737 MAX = 177,000 to 194,000 pounds
757 = MTOW 255,000 to 273,000 pounds
767 = MTOW 315,000 to 450,000 pounds
787 = MTOW 502,00 to 560,000 pounds

For all intents and purposes the gap is the 737 to 787. That is a big gap imo.

I think it depends on what the role of this plane will be when it comes to replacing which 767. I think they are aiming for the 767-200 or 300 replacement. 400 size will be gobbled up by the 787-8. So we are looking at a ~315,000 to 350,000 pound plane that can fly ~250 people ~4500-5000nm. A role that is too big for the 737 and too small for the 787. Now they could go two plane series like the 757\767. But I suspect they will stick to a single plane due to costs. I am still not sold on whether it is a single aisle or wide body. It could go either way. But people are making really good cases about cargo capability that would favor a wide body.

Now if they go the two plane route it can get interesting long term. A 757 sized plane that cuts off the top of the 737 market. Allowing boeing to push the 737 back down into its original regional domain.

797-200 =225pax, 5000 nm, weight ~250,000 pounds
797-800 = 275pax 5000 nm, weight ~350,000 pounds

New lineup of 737s push down into the ~175 or smaller market, weight reduced. Current Max-7 as the largest in the new model range. Boeing also lacks a small plane to compete with the CS300 and A319 due to growing the 737 to fill in where the 757 vacated the market.
 
parapente
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:42 pm

It is certainly a very valid point that whatever the 797 turns out to be Boeing will have the 2030-2040 time period upmost in their mind.To that end they will be looking hard at long term growth trends both in numbers and P2P.Having said that clearly this aircraft will not fit existing narrow body gates (737/320).So in that sense it will be aimed at a different market.
I note American have just ordered another bunch of 788's (As British Airways did recently).Its a very good aircaft which may limit the growth potential of a 797.Equally I can't see a 797 challenging an A321NEO or indeed a stretched (250 one class-220/230 2 class?) version for trans con' use.So It is a tight marketplace imho.Having said that I think it will be launched.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18612
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:07 pm

chidino wrote:
The more I think about this (my earlier post), the more intrigued I'm getting.

Boeing is working on its bread and butter: without saying it, they are replacing the 737. (Hear me out.) They are planning 50 years out with this model; discussions of replacing 757s and 767s are almost irrelevant. Boeing correctly picked up on the long-term PTP shift; now they are planning for a world with constrained space and ever-increasing demand. It's charming to roll out new models, but they have to fit on a stand somewhere, and this provides more capacity without infrastructure changes the airlines can't control. Also, the development kind of fits: they worked out the kinks with the expensive designer model (including outsourcing too much) and are ready for the next 10,000 unit bus. (And as to what happens to the 737? They keep selling them, silly.)

It would be criminal incompetence if they were not thinking about where NMA development would take them in the future. Keep in mind they had pulled together a lot of thoughts about NSA just before they decided to go with MAX instead, and the main issue they could not resolve was how to do high volume CFRP manufacturing at low cost. They are making it clear that NMA too is about how to get cost of manufacture down.

Amiga500 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
And if not won't the method of construction used on the next AC tell us all we need to know about the relative merits of the various structure approaches?

To a degree, yes. But then, there is now institutional bias as well.

That's one way of looking at it. Another aspect is that there now is a large amount of customer acceptance. But we read here on a.net that it's all about the bottom line, so if metal pencils out lower, in theory the customers would be all over it. On the other hand, we now have another data point where Airbus pitched the cheap and cheerful fully amortized metallic A330neo against the impoverished destitute 787 plastic plane and lost.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1663
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:59 pm

Revelation wrote:

To a degree, yes. But then, there is now institutional bias as well.[/quote]
That's one way of looking at it. Another aspect is that there now is a large amount of customer acceptance. But we read here on a.net that it's all about the bottom line, so if metal pencils out lower, in theory the customers would be all over it.[/quote]

Yes, no, kinda.

If airlines have started replacing/renewing their 767s with 787s, its likely they'll continue to top that up, rather than introduce a new fleet type.

I do think airlines are a bit wiser to the limitations of CFRP now than they were 10 years ago, so would expect a bit less sway due to flashy powerpoints. But then.... I do read about the supposed keenness among various parties to be launch customer of the 797 and wonder - I suppose they'll cover themselves with performance guarantees.


Revelation wrote:
On the other hand, we now have another data point where Airbus pitched the cheap and cheerful fully amortized metallic A330neo against the impoverished destitute 787 plastic plane and lost.


Its far too early to say that yet.

When the A339 is in service, and the A330ceo renewal cycle gets going, we'll see how it pans out.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3139
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:10 pm

monomojo wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Anyway, while any other ever designed aircraft is competitive in a rather narrow range window, you are asking Boeing to design an aircraft, that would be efficient over 1000nm as well as over 4000nm.


Absolutely no one is suggesting Boeing will or should do that. The only suggestion is that the 797 will be optimized for 4000nm sectors and that is where it will excel over the competition, but will also likely be efficient enough due to the overall advance of technology to fly 1000nm sectors at little or no disadvantage to the competition. And it certainly won't be as bad as abusing an even larger 8000nm aircraft on <2000nm sectors, yet that's still done all the time.


I don’t think the 797 would be optimized for 4000nm, but rather it will be capable of 4000nm. 4000nm is closer to what a 787 is optimized for even though it can fly much farther. I would expect a 797 to be most efficient and ideal around 2000-3000nm so that it can cover routes from 500nm to 4500nm. The A350 is optimized for longer flights than the 787 from what I have read. It is truly impressive around 6000nm, but There are fewer city pairs justifying nonstop service the longer the flight is. That opened the door for the A330neo which will be flying many 3000nm Transatlantic routes.

The 737 is optimized for less than 1000nm from what I have heard. The average 737 flight is less than 1000nm, but the plane is capable of flying 3000nm. 737MAXs are currently flying routes from 200nm to 3000nm. That is a huge variety of routes. There is speculation on this forum that the A320family is optimized for longer flights than the 737, but that doesn’t mean the 737 can’t compete on 2500+nm routes.

Sorry for all the speculation and opinions in this post. This is all speculative based on conversations that I have heard
 
parapente
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:49 pm

Range optimisation is an interesting subject (I think) but sadly not one I know enough about.My guess would be (considering the size of wings and engine) that a 788 would be more like 5knm as optimal but I don't know.It would certainly 'leave room' for a 797 below that where an A321LR 'can' fly (4knm)-but not optimised (cargo for one,total pax perhaps being another).
But pax wise the 797 is a whole lot bigger than any 321 anyway (am assuming Boeing pax numbers are -as usual- 2 class numbers).
It does seem extraordinary to me that the 787 can operate very efficiently in 3 very different sizes yet use a nearly identical wing and engine combo.
On the other hand the A350 could not do an efficient shrink (now cancelled) but nor could it do a stretch without quite large modifications to both wing and engine.

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