• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
Kilopond
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:26 pm

keesje wrote:
[...]Airbus is in a very good position to counter & even pre emp this program. They have lots of resources, available technology and 2 existing maturing engines. If they want they do a small, light, cheap NMA, 3 years before Boeing NMA they will. And forget game changing, technological magic from either side. Airbus never has been shy, waiting for Boeing.


Exactly! An overbuilt heavy NMA with a great range would be an extremely low-selling niche plane. Useless or sub-par for 99.99% of all missions. The maximum economical range of a modern mass production aircraft should not exceed one crew shift with an outbound leg from their home base and an inbound leg back there.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:40 pm

frigatebird wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Cross section is still open for debate but I think it will be very similar to the 767. Most likely a foot wider to allow tight 8ab while keeping the 767's LD2 containers. Potentially a slightly reduced height cross section to use a brand new full width container.

Actually I think the 797 will have somewhat narrower cross section than the 767. 7 abreast Y with 17,5" only. The 787 is too wide for 8 abreast Y (according to the airlines) and too narrow for 9 abreast (according to the passengers). Same with the 777, too wide for 9 abreast and too narrow for 10 abreast. I don't think Boeing will make this mistake another time and make the fuselage wider (and heavier) than necessary, to compete with large narrowbodies like the A321LR.


On the contrary, I think "too narrow for 8-across Y and too wide for 7-across Y" is exactly what Boeing and the airlines want. It maximizes the airlines' ability to pack pax in like sardines for the no-frills economy fares, while incentivizing pax to spend more for the seat upgrade, and for Boeing it would force Airbus to make a difficult choice if they want to counter with a clean sheet WB design: either attack the 797 directly with a similarly sized and specced aircraft (which Airbus almost never does, for good reason), go full 8-across and get pinched by both the mature 787 and more efficient 797, or go down to a pure 7-across and deal with the bad seat/aisle ratio.
 
acjbbj
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:04 pm

Kilopond wrote:
keesje wrote:
[...]Airbus is in a very good position to counter & even pre emp this program. They have lots of resources, available technology and 2 existing maturing engines. If they want they do a small, light, cheap NMA, 3 years before Boeing NMA they will. And forget game changing, technological magic from either side. Airbus never has been shy, waiting for Boeing.


Exactly! An overbuilt heavy NMA with a great range would be an extremely low-selling niche plane. Useless or sub-par for 99.99% of all missions. The maximum economical range of a modern mass production aircraft should not exceed one crew shift with an outbound leg from their home base and an inbound leg back there.


You must work for Airbus.
Douglas Aircraft Company
Born: 22 July 1921 (Santa Monica, CA)
Died: 23 May 2006 (Long Beach, CA), age 84 years 10 months 1 day
You will be missed.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21434
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:09 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Does it seem to anyone else that Boeing and the engine OEM's are being more conservative than we might have thought a few years ago? Maybe due to recent problems with new engine platforms?

Yes. As per #66 above, Boeing's CEO is being really conservative by asking for “existing engine technology packaged in a new way”, presumably because of the recent engine problems.

Here's the quote:

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said recently that the company is seeking “existing engine technology packaged in a new way” to reduce development risk, upfront investment and increase the likelihood its propulsion suppliers will deliver on time.

Boeing must be considering the challenges with the Trent 1000/7000 and PW GTF. 787s and A320s are grounded around the world due to engine issues. The A330neo is in limbo waiting for engines. It makes me think they will go dual source or very low risk.

Setting the bar at +25% relative to 757 SFC is a low bar, but it'll sound good to the uninformed.
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
 
User avatar
lydh
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:12 pm

Does anyone else feel like the 797 is materializing way too late to be important?
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:29 pm

lydh wrote:
Does anyone else feel like the 797 is materializing way too late to be important?


How is it late?
There is a reason airlines aren’t hopping on the A321LR train. Especially the US3.
 
jagraham
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:29 pm

DLHAM wrote:
I am still surprised they want to do the 797 with ~230/~270 Passengers (I assume in a two class layout). That means 767-300 and 767-400 size. So there will be no direct replacement for the 757, capacity wise and the A321LR remains without any competition. The only way to compete is to make sure that the smaller 797 has the same operating cost as the A321LR or just slightly above.

I would have expected planes in the size of 767-200 and -300. Maybe a widebody that short is just too heavy compared to seatnumber.


763s and A333s are flying across the Atlantic full. On all major partnerships. They need the capacity. If natural growth is assumed, they will need more capacity in the future. At least LHR got the third runway approved . .
 
mham001
Posts: 5616
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:04 pm

Strato2 wrote:
I still believe there won't be any MOM. There is no business case.


Curious how you would know this? Have you seen the business plan?
 
mham001
Posts: 5616
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:15 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
In my own past approximations of NMA performance, I was expecting ~30% SFC delta vs. 757. Leeham's ~2015 analysis was projecting 15% SFC delta over LEAP/PW1000, though their more recent analysis implies a lower SFC delta.


I know you know far more than I about the difference between engine performance vs total airplane performance, and how weight and aerodynamics also play roles, but it appears youve mixed the two.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:25 pm

By the middle of next decade, Boeing will have to worry about the MOM and their next single aisle offering. Airbus already has their new single aisle with the CSeries, which can easily stretch into the 320 role. That means Airbus only has to worry about what they offer for their MOM contender.

I think airlines are going to put engine options on their wish list, considering the joys they've been experiencing lately. A second engine option was a saving grace for the 320neo. As well, whomever doesn't get the nod from Boeing, will be prodding Airbus to give them a go.
What the...?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:47 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
By the middle of next decade, Boeing will have to worry about the MOM and their next single aisle offering. Airbus already has their new single aisle with the CSeries, which can easily stretch into the 320 role. That means Airbus only has to worry about what they offer for their MOM contender.

I think airlines are going to put engine options on their wish list, considering the joys they've been experiencing lately. A second engine option was a saving grace for the 320neo. As well, whomever doesn't get the nod from Boeing, will be prodding Airbus to give them a go.


I agree. I wonder if Boeing going perhaps a bit bigger with the rumored specs is so that it is positioned almost exactly where Airbus will need to position it's own iteration? A321/A322/A338/A339 replaced with an A360 might roughly overlap with the 796/797/788/789.

Airbus would have:
CSeries
A360
A350
A380

Boeing would have:
[E2]
NSA
797
787
777

Airbus would have better coverage on the lower end, but if Boeing teams up with Embraer then I guess maybe you throw the E2 into the mix. If the NSA and NMA have some commonality, I can't image the larger variation of products being a big deal for most airlines.

In the short term, though, Airbus is in the catbird seat with the narrowbodies. They can do some upgrades with the A320/A321 and bridge themselves to a new clean sheet perhaps 2030 or so?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:33 am

Revelation wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Does it seem to anyone else that Boeing and the engine OEM's are being more conservative than we might have thought a few years ago? Maybe due to recent problems with new engine platforms?

Yes. As per #66 above, Boeing's CEO is being really conservative by asking for “existing engine technology packaged in a new way”, presumably because of the recent engine problems.

Here's the quote:

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said recently that the company is seeking “existing engine technology packaged in a new way” to reduce development risk, upfront investment and increase the likelihood its propulsion suppliers will deliver on time.

Boeing must be considering the challenges with the Trent 1000/7000 and PW GTF. 787s and A320s are grounded around the world due to engine issues. The A330neo is in limbo waiting for engines. It makes me think they will go dual source or very low risk.

Setting the bar at +25% relative to 757 SFC is a low bar, but it'll sound good to the uninformed.


Ha maybe read closer next time, Matt.

Over the past couple years I've gone from being a big booster of this project to being very suspicious when the first "LEAP 1.5" noises started coming from Boeing/GE.
The new article quantifies the more conservative engines at ~25% SFC, which is better than I worried for LEAP 1.5 but not as good as we could have expected a few years ago.

I wish Leeham and/or others would issue a more transparent model wherein we could evaluate the likely performance characteristics based on given SFC's. IMO the NMA is a slam dunk with -30% SFC delta (relative to 757), a likely no-go with ~20% SFC delta (i.e. only a little better than LEAP), and somewhat ambiguous at -25% delta.

I just hope that, if Boeing can see 6-7% better engines (.70 vs. .75 compared to 757) by waiting a few years for Ultrafan-gen engines to mature, that Boeing waits. Otherwise we could see an A330 replacement swamp the NMA a few years after its EIS.
Actually, if we could be guaranteed that outcome (NMA plus much better A330R) I'd be happy as a consumer. Boeing shareholders would be rightly mad.

mham001 wrote:
I know you know far more than I about the difference between engine performance vs total airplane performance, and how weight and aerodynamics also play roles, but it appears youve mixed the two.


No I'm doing estimations in my head of the plane-level characteristics of an NMA with various SFC levels. I've posted approximations of the -30% SFC NMA in several older threads; it's not extremely hard to guesstimate the impact of a ~6% increase in SFC on plane-level performance (more fuel carried, bigger wing/engines/empennage/MLG, then an iterative loop).

I don't recall the exact number or cites, but Boeing has previously projected economic improvement in excess of 20% versus 757/767, which implies vehicle-level fuel burn improvement on the order of ~40%. That seems about right to me when combining ~25% SFC delta with aero and structural improvements.

40% is a big number but I'm not sure it's quite enough to future-proof this aircraft. Boeing needs a platform that is a hands-down winner on 6-10 hour routes AND better than contemporary NB's on shorthaul. Given NMA's likely higher acquisition cost than NB's, it will need a serious fuel burn edge on shorthaul.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:31 am

Faro wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
So it’s ultrafan vs LEAP/9x. I’m shocked rolls has the resources available short term to do this.



Agreed, they're hustling to fix the Trent issues on the 787, developing a new business jet engine and debugging the Trent 7000's icing issues while preparing for production ramp-up.

Good luck to them (and their bankers)...


Faro


All the while they also plan to layoff 4000 employees.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:40 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
By the middle of next decade, Boeing will have to worry about the MOM and their next single aisle offering. Airbus already has their new single aisle with the CSeries, which can easily stretch into the 320 role. That means Airbus only has to worry about what they offer for their MOM contender.

I think airlines are going to put engine options on their wish list, considering the joys they've been experiencing lately. A second engine option was a saving grace for the 320neo. As well, whomever doesn't get the nod from Boeing, will be prodding Airbus to give them a go.


The C Series I don’t see as a serious contender. It’s not a 6 wide aircraft for most major airlines. No one has even tried it. It will suffer the same fate as the 5 wide Douglass products in the end. The thing has been on offer with what was, prior to this cluster screw of a program, a reputable supplier and didn’t really attract major interest.

Moreover Airbus is investing gobs of money in the A320neo production process. The same A320neo that they used to wipe the floor of the CSeries and drive it’s market value to some like negative a billion dollars which is what they took a flyer on it for.

In what universe does it not just make sense to keep building the A320neo ever more efficiently and take the CSeries out back and shoot it before you pour more money into it?

The plan of this move seems to be to move the A320neo out of that niche and to the A321 size or even higher with a new wing. Then invest in a stretched CS500. So now you are spending money bringing the CS line to a320 level capacity along with two development programs for a stretch and a new wing. And when you are done with this you get to sell planes in basically the same market you were winning in before?

Who wants to sign up to invest their money in this one? Give me a financial reason to do this rather than just let the CS survive if it can or even just kill it and tell people to buy the A320neo if they want and never invest one dime in it?
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:44 am

mjoelnir wrote:
jetblueguy22 wrote:
scouseflyer wrote:
"OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?"

After the recent SNAFUs by Pratt will an OEM trust them to provide launch engines in the near future?

RR and Pratt are about on par in the SNAFU department.


And GE has the better PR department.

You can see it big time in this thread. I'm actually shocked how much GE's faults have been ignored.
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:01 am

I believe that Authority to Offer will be made by the board prior to Farnborough so Boeing can be the excitement at the Show. For the 787 it was about 5 months after AtO to Launch. I suspect that Boeing has had the engine data for a number of months now and has optimized around one of them. Now, with better weights etc the initial specifications can be provided. Yes, there is tons of work getting the specifics nailed down enough to do contracts. The engine RFP's allow to establish engine pricing and soon the engine selection process can be executed.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:47 am

DLHAM wrote:
I am still surprised they want to do the 797 with ~230/~270 Passengers (I assume in a two class layout). That means 767-300 and 767-400 size. So there will be no direct replacement for the 757, capacity wise and the A321LR remains without any competition. The only way to compete is to make sure that the smaller 797 has the same operating cost as the A321LR or just slightly above.

I would have expected planes in the size of 767-200 and -300. Maybe a widebody that short is just too heavy compared to seatnumber.


I think airlines like DL/UA probably made it clear to Boeing that replacing their 767 fleet was a bigger priority than a replacement for the 757. I would agree.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:18 am

bigjku wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
By the middle of next decade, Boeing will have to worry about the MOM and their next single aisle offering. Airbus already has their new single aisle with the CSeries, which can easily stretch into the 320 role. That means Airbus only has to worry about what they offer for their MOM contender.

I think airlines are going to put engine options on their wish list, considering the joys they've been experiencing lately. A second engine option was a saving grace for the 320neo. As well, whomever doesn't get the nod from Boeing, will be prodding Airbus to give them a go.


The C Series I don’t see as a serious contender. It’s not a 6 wide aircraft for most major airlines. No one has even tried it. It will suffer the same fate as the 5 wide Douglass products in the end. The thing has been on offer with what was, prior to this cluster screw of a program, a reputable supplier and didn’t really attract major interest.

Moreover Airbus is investing gobs of money in the A320neo production process. The same A320neo that they used to wipe the floor of the CSeries and drive it’s market value to some like negative a billion dollars which is what they took a flyer on it for.

In what universe does it not just make sense to keep building the A320neo ever more efficiently and take the CSeries out back and shoot it before you pour more money into it?

The plan of this move seems to be to move the A320neo out of that niche and to the A321 size or even higher with a new wing. Then invest in a stretched CS500. So now you are spending money bringing the CS line to a320 level capacity along with two development programs for a stretch and a new wing. And when you are done with this you get to sell planes in basically the same market you were winning in before?

Who wants to sign up to invest their money in this one? Give me a financial reason to do this rather than just let the CS survive if it can or even just kill it and tell people to buy the A320neo if they want and never invest one dime in it?


You never mentioned customers. The airlines know rhat the 5 abreast CS is optimized for the 110-150 seat market and that the A320 series is optimized for the 160-190 seat market. There are no A319 neo orders. Once the CS "catches on" (airlines realize that the program will survive with Airbus support) more ordwrs will follow. The financial reason is that airlines don't want to carry around the 10,000 extra poinds per plane.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:54 am

morrisond wrote:
I'll keep saying this - my guess is 7AB with 17.5" seats, Cargo Container is a wider LD3-45 - that is maybe a few inches higher - the Fuselage would be something like 190"Wx 168"H. Then you can reuse the Cross section on NSA.

228 seats in a 2 class config is only 22 more than a 206 Seat A321 2 Class - probably about the same length as a 6w A321 - that does not kill the economics of a 7W tube.

While 8W might be slightly more structurally efficient it would be terrible as a 737 replacement.

Boeing will be looking at amortizing the costs of development of the new Fuselage over the NMA and NSA programs - if they go 8W on NMA they will never be able to reuse it on NSA.

I wouldnt be totoally surpirsed if it was 7ab with the intention of using it as the NSA. The faster boarding times of a twin aisle become quite significant the shorter the flights become.

For instance Melbourne to Sydney route, a 200 seat 7ab aircraft could fit an additional flight per day compared to a 6ab 200 seat aircraft.

Boarding isnt as important on longer flights, so a 8ab 300 seat aircraft will probably beat a 7ab 300 seat aircraft with all other things being equal.

Its very conplicated to work out the econimics. I cant see how a short 7ab NSA could match the A321 on short haul. Surface area is too high.

I think the best and safest solution is to do a 6ab for NSA and 8ab for NMA. Both can then be fully optimised.

With the NSA the key would be to limit it to 200 seats to keep boarding times down, maybe add extra aisle. Basically something similar in size to the 737 max8 but with a 10% lower empty weight and maximum takeoff weight. This allows a higher aspect ratio wing to be used while keeping within the 737 gates. Thrust requirements would be below 25,000lb. Optimised for short haul it would not have the fuel tankage to do transatlantic. It would be lean and mean sacrificing range for high efficiency.

With the NMA at 8ab it would be the medium range aircraft. Built for transatlantic and for the traditional A330 role in Asia. It doesnt need to be super efficient at short haul. The high capacity version will sit on the short thick routes with gate shortages. The longer range version will open new routes, routes that are too thin for a 787 and too long for the A321LR. Instead of being an atlantic rim aircraft it can hit secondary cities further from the coast. Emirates could use it to cover 80% of its network adding secondary destinations building on its one stop model.

The whole shared NSA and NMA cross section idea came from online bloggers not from Boeing.
 
rsbj
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:49 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:01 am

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering how easy (read, cheap) it would be to use the 787 fuselage and optimize the rest of the plane to achieve the needed weight?
Is Boeing really going to go through all that trouble (expense) to make a fuselage that is 5% smaller?? Seems foolish if development cost and time are paramount.
Also, the numbering would make sense, as in 787-6 and 787-7.
I fly really fast and take a lot of chances.
 
2175301
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:41 am

rsbj wrote:
Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering how easy (read, cheap) it would be to use the 787 fuselage and optimize the rest of the plane to achieve the needed weight?
Is Boeing really going to go through all that trouble (expense) to make a fuselage that is 5% smaller?? Seems foolish if development cost and time are paramount.
Also, the numbering would make sense, as in 787-6 and 787-7.


The 787 fuselage was conservatively overbuilt because of unknowns. Boeing has said many times that they will never build a composite aircraft so heavy; and I believe the MOM will be composite.

It cost money to haul around weight... and I'm sure that Boeing would build a much lighter 787 based on what they know now... if it was worthwhile. It's just not worth the development/re-certification cost at this time.

Have a great day,
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:46 am

bigjku wrote:
Give me a financial reason to do this rather than just let the CS survive if it can or even just kill it and tell people to buy the A320neo if they want and never invest one dime in it?


First off, we're just talking here. These are nothing but ideas.

Airbus didn't pick up the CSeries just for kicks. If Airbus wanted to kill it, they wouldn't have it now. They would have just let it die on its own. Instead, they are going to be building a CSeries plant in the US.

The 320 is probably on its last upgrade, as is the 737. Currently the CS300 has seat mile costs at least as good as the 738 and 320neo, so if stretched to that capacity, a CS500 would easily be more efficient than the 320neo. The 320's relative inefficiencies would be even more exacerbated if Boeing finally puts the 737 out to pasture and does an NSA.

Stretching the CS500 is a heck of a lot easier than an all new 320 successor. It already has the goodies...carbon wing, Al-Li fuse, latest gen FBW, etc. I think it's very likely that Airbus will want to deal with the Boeing MOM with more than the current 321. At the very least, they will probably want to do a new wing, which would probably be overkill on the 320, so that means if you want to keep the 320, either end up putting way too much wing on it, or having 2 single aisle wing production lines, (3 if you count the CSeries).

Passenger wise, (using Delta as an example), the 5 abreast MD-90 seats the same as the 738 and the 320.

It frees Airbus to optimize their MOM entrant without having to worry about also compromising it to fit a small aircraft role. So what you would get is a new MOM aircraft, (or rewinged 321), and an optimized single aisle family with the CSeries.
What the...?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:30 am

rsbj wrote:
Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering how easy (read, cheap) it would be to use the 787 fuselage and optimize the rest of the plane to achieve the needed weight?
Is Boeing really going to go through all that trouble (expense) to make a fuselage that is 5% smaller?? Seems foolish if development cost and time are paramount.
Also, the numbering would make sense, as in 787-6 and 787-7.

I have been saying this for a good year and it falls on mostly deaf ears around here. I also noted many months ago the numbering system line up just underneith the 787.

It would be cheaper to develop. I have done some massive posts on the topic over the last six months if you search my username.

The 787 could be taken down to A300 weights and dimensions quite easily. Less range > less fuel > less weight > smaller wing > less thrust etc

I would not be surprised ine bit if we see a short stubby small winged 787. People who dont think it would work just assume it would be a simple shrink of the 787-8. It would need to be fully optimised.

Boeing has been swapping lighter cheaper bits from the 787-10 onto the 787-8 to streamline production.

I could see the 787-6 and 787-7 being the lightweight models with smaller engines, wing and landing gear. 90% commonality between the two smaller models. The 787-9 and 787-10 have the big engines, wing and landing gear with 90% commonality between the two bigger models. The 787-8 can start receiving suitable lighter parts from the smaller models and eventually have 50% commonality with both the small and large family.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:31 am

So what went wrong with the 787-3 back then? Isn't this the aircraft they finally want?
Now that they build more 787 and have optimized details a cheaper production cost must be possible. Even adding another new custom wing should be cheaper than building some 797 from scratch?
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:31 am

ClipperYankee wrote:
I dunno, A is having a rather good run with the A321, why would B not want to compete with it since now we know the 797 will be bigger? Is there a card up B's sleeve that they're holding or did they just determine the 321 sized field is not big enough for two? Is the strategy that they'll sell enough 797s that it won't matter if A321s keep selling well?


There are a ton of points to consider here, and we can only guess what Boeing's management is thinking. I would assume that any gap that is left between the 737-8/9/10 and the 797, is so small that it's just not worth it. Also for the fact that the 321LR and the potential 322LR is already there. From the other side Boeing also knows that they need a strong competitor that can challenge them head on in every possible segment. Leaving small gaps like these solely for Airbus, will help to guarantee the existence of both far into the future. It will make marketing also easier when you have different specs than competition, and not just (hopefully) better powerpoint-shows.

The commercial aviation market is also changing the whole time. Every year there are about 6-7% more passengers carried than the year before. Now on average half of the world's population will fly once a year, more than 4 billion passengers. The size of airports is also increasing but much slower. Meaning there will be more and more demand for new destinations, which helps the pressure from getting unmanageable in the existing hubs. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to work it out, the demand for thin routes which require slightly more range and capacity than what the 737/320 can offer, is for sure increasing. Could be even at a verge of explosion in the coming decades. And I'm sure the 797 will still be around in 30-40 years from now.

Most of us "westerners" really don't understand how huge especially China is. It's full of cities with population in the millions that most people have never heard about. And those people are getting more and more wealthy, and are doing more and more leisure + business travel abroad. The 797 is able to connect central China with all of Europe, Asia, and majority of Africa. Especially Africa is not to be overlooked, China is quietly investing there at a speed that looks to me like a non-violent invasion. For sure they want to get quick and affordable connections there as well. Judging by the not-so-heavy focus on cargo carrying ability, it really seems that Chinese carriers are the main future market for this bad boy.

My $0.02.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:13 am

Noshow wrote:
So what went wrong with the 787-3 back then? Isn't this the aircraft they finally want?
Now that they build more 787 and have optimized details a cheaper production cost must be possible. Even adding another new custom wing should be cheaper than building some 797 from scratch?

The 787-3 was not optimised very well at all. Originally it was going to be slightly optimised and be maybe 10T lighter than a normal 787-8. When the program had cost blowouts and went behind schedule it turned into a 787-8 with its wings clipped to fit code D gates. The maximum takeoff weight and engines derated on paper. The original buyers jumped ship straight away and ordered normal 787-8's.

What we might see is a near 100% optimisation of the 787 fuselage tube to suit the middle of market role. It will go far beyond the 787-3. A smaller lighter wing, lighter wingbox, lighter landing gear, smaller lighter engines, smaller tail, lighter fuselage tube optimised for a shorter length and less payload. All of the knowledge gain will allow them to tweak the carbon fibre layups to make everything lighter.

The cockpit, systems and assembly techniques are probably the only bits that will be reused. It will still be ridiculously expensive but probably far less than a clean sheet design.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:40 am

imthedreamliner wrote:
The sales performance of game changing, technological magic dreamliner against old technology A330neo is proving you wrong. The cheap counter of Airbus against 797 may prove to be wrong as well.


The magic technological game changers being: bargain pricing, political fine tuning. :-)
( Boeing has said they expect more future profits from follow on business. razors and razorblades .-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:43 am

25% reduction AFC is quite conservative but then again they may well beat it.The A321NEO- LR boasts 'up to' 30 %SFC advantage on a 757-200.Note 'up to' so the very best possible.My guess is the target is rough parity with the A321/NEO-LR.But of course it will be a much bigger longer legged (WB) aircaft so not apples-apples.
Having said that Airbus won't simply lie down.Clearly they are gonna give the LR a few extra miles to make TATL (and other routes) more attractive.(ie it will become a 'mini mom').
If they do achieve this with the associated mtow raise.imho the 'simple stretch' ie 'the plus' will not be far behind as a very economical regional aircaft.We know the new revised fuse with revised doors can be certified for 250 pax ( they have said this).Therefore really simple to dust down their drawings from their stretch proposal of 10-12 years ago and trade miles for pax.
It won't begin to touch the main 797 market which is squarely aimed at the 767-300 and 400 but it should keep then the 757-200 market and perhaps the 767-200.
As for any full on 797 response from Airbus.Probably hear ( or not ) in Paris next year.What they can't do (patent law) is an ovoid x7 aircaft.So will be interesting.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:38 am

SteelChair wrote:
bigjku wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
By the middle of next decade, Boeing will have to worry about the MOM and their next single aisle offering. Airbus already has their new single aisle with the CSeries, which can easily stretch into the 320 role. That means Airbus only has to worry about what they offer for their MOM contender.

I think airlines are going to put engine options on their wish list, considering the joys they've been experiencing lately. A second engine option was a saving grace for the 320neo. As well, whomever doesn't get the nod from Boeing, will be prodding Airbus to give them a go.


The C Series I don’t see as a serious contender. It’s not a 6 wide aircraft for most major airlines. No one has even tried it. It will suffer the same fate as the 5 wide Douglass products in the end. The thing has been on offer with what was, prior to this cluster screw of a program, a reputable supplier and didn’t really attract major interest.

Moreover Airbus is investing gobs of money in the A320neo production process. The same A320neo that they used to wipe the floor of the CSeries and drive it’s market value to some like negative a billion dollars which is what they took a flyer on it for.

In what universe does it not just make sense to keep building the A320neo ever more efficiently and take the CSeries out back and shoot it before you pour more money into it?

The plan of this move seems to be to move the A320neo out of that niche and to the A321 size or even higher with a new wing. Then invest in a stretched CS500. So now you are spending money bringing the CS line to a320 level capacity along with two development programs for a stretch and a new wing. And when you are done with this you get to sell planes in basically the same market you were winning in before?

Who wants to sign up to invest their money in this one? Give me a financial reason to do this rather than just let the CS survive if it can or even just kill it and tell people to buy the A320neo if they want and never invest one dime in it?


You never mentioned customers. The airlines know rhat the 5 abreast CS is optimized for the 110-150 seat market and that the A320 series is optimized for the 160-190 seat market. There are no A319 neo orders. Once the CS "catches on" (airlines realize that the program will survive with Airbus support) more ordwrs will follow. The financial reason is that airlines don't want to carry around the 10,000 extra poinds per plane.


Again not what was talked about. Someone suggested a CS500 to replace the A320neo in its space.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:47 am

Everybody is free to assume a new wing for an bigger A322 is shelved & no longer been considered.

I think there might be a slight nuance between what is being communicated to the press, taking into account compertitive developments (timing), production hick-us, customers relations and polictical developments. And what what can be seen in DNW tunnels, Braunschweig FEM models and Onera CFD simulations. Laminair, composite, morphing smart wing R&D has been progressing for years. Nothing "shelved" here .

Image

That doesn't mean Airbus will pop-up with something at Farnborough, I'm 90% sure of that.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21434
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:49 pm

keesje wrote:
Everybody is free to assume a new wing for an bigger A322 is shelved & no longer been considered.

I think there might be a slight nuance between what is being communicated to the press, taking into account compertitive developments (timing), production hick-us, customers relations and polictical developments. And what what can be seen in DNW tunnels, Braunschweig FEM models and Onera CFD simulations. Laminair, composite, morphing smart wing R&D has been progressing for years. Nothing "shelved" here .

That doesn't mean Airbus will pop-up with something at Farnborough, I'm 90% sure of that.

Someone give Keesje a hug, he seems to need one.

It seems a discussion of the three 797 engine proposals and suggestions of an imminent NMA launch have put him in a foul mood.

Now it seems statements from Airbus leadership amount to nothing but preening for the press.

Therefore you can assure with 90% confidence that the empire will strike back at Farnborough.

But since statements from Airbus leadership are nothing but smokescreens, what will that mean?

No worries, a Photoshop illustration speckled with flies will soon appear, because Kessje knows the score.
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
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:52 pm

On the engines, PW can boost they have hundreds of GTF in service to build on in the next 4-5 years. Instead of on powerpoint slides.

They can also tell Boeing they are going to either invest in a 37-42k lbs new sub version for an unnamed aircraft manufacturer, or a 45-50k l lbs dedicated version for Boeing.

And give them the option to freely speak out how they feel.

Image

Revelation wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Does it seem to anyone else that Boeing and the engine OEM's are being more conservative than we might have thought a few years ago? Maybe due to recent problems with new engine platforms?

Yes. As per #66 above, Boeing's CEO is being really conservative by asking for “existing engine technology packaged in a new way”, presumably because of the recent engine problems.

Here's the quote:

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said recently that the company is seeking “existing engine technology packaged in a new way” to reduce development risk, upfront investment and increase the likelihood its propulsion suppliers will deliver on time.


I wonder how a conservative engine choice will look if it wouldn't exist yet.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2721
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:24 pm

I think the conservative engine choice is more of a "lets get this bird flying by our promised date" type thing. Reduce your risk. Everyone practically expects re-engine programs 15 years down the line anyways so get the plane in the air now so you get a firm hold on the market share, then you leverage that down the line for a neo. Lots of past precedence on this.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:30 pm

keesje wrote:
Everybody is free to assume a new wing for an bigger A322 is shelved & no longer been considered.

I think there might be a slight nuance between what is being communicated to the press, taking into account compertitive developments (timing), production hick-us, customers relations and polictical developments. And what what can be seen in DNW tunnels, Braunschweig FEM models and Onera CFD simulations. Laminair, composite, morphing smart wing R&D has been progressing for years. Nothing "shelved" here .

Image

That doesn't mean Airbus will pop-up with something at Farnborough, I'm 90% sure of that.


Everyone is also free to believe the Airbus executives who have told us that they have shelved the A321 plus for now and are focusing on production and a more simple extended range A321XLR. We have two threads on those topics, so why are you taking a thread about the 797 engine selection process off topic?

If a new engine or modified engine gets developed, i certainly think Airbus will evaluate whether it would be a suitable option for any future A321 family modifications, but we already have threads about Airbus so there isnt a need to discuss that here. I am really curious about the engine strategy. It lools like low risk is preferred which makee sense given how many engineless 787s, A330neos and A320neos are out there
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:36 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Noshow wrote:
So what went wrong with the 787-3 back then? Isn't this the aircraft they finally want?
Now that they build more 787 and have optimized details a cheaper production cost must be possible. Even adding another new custom wing should be cheaper than building some 797 from scratch?

The 787-3 was not optimised very well at all. Originally it was going to be slightly optimised and be maybe 10T lighter than a normal 787-8. When the program had cost blowouts and went behind schedule it turned into a 787-8 with its wings clipped to fit code D gates. The maximum takeoff weight and engines derated on paper. The original buyers jumped ship straight away and ordered normal 787-8's.

What we might see is a near 100% optimisation of the 787 fuselage tube to suit the middle of market role. It will go far beyond the 787-3. A smaller lighter wing, lighter wingbox, lighter landing gear, smaller lighter engines, smaller tail, lighter fuselage tube optimised for a shorter length and less payload. All of the knowledge gain will allow them to tweak the carbon fibre layups to make everything lighter.

The cockpit, systems and assembly techniques are probably the only bits that will be reused. It will still be ridiculously expensive but probably far less than a clean sheet design.


As others have already stated numerous times, what you suggest may work in the end. However, the effort will be 70-80% of a clean sheet with not much left of the 787 beside the fuse diameter and maybe the cockpit. Even the fuse has to be “stripped” of excess capabilities to bring the weight down.

At the end, you still will have a sub-optimal 9-abreast layout for the NMA with LD3-capabilities which obviously is not what the 797 should be. Aka A330neo plus plus.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Everybody is free to assume a new wing for an bigger A322 is shelved & no longer been considered.

I think there might be a slight nuance between what is being communicated to the press, taking into account compertitive developments (timing), production hick-us, customers relations and polictical developments. And what what can be seen in DNW tunnels, Braunschweig FEM models and Onera CFD simulations. Laminair, composite, morphing smart wing R&D has been progressing for years. Nothing "shelved" here .

That doesn't mean Airbus will pop-up with something at Farnborough, I'm 90% sure of that.

Someone give Keesje a hug, he seems to need one.

It seems a discussion of the three 797 engine proposals and suggestions of an imminent NMA launch have put him in a foul mood.

Now it seems statements from Airbus leadership amount to nothing but preening for the press.

Therefore you can assure with 90% confidence that the empire will strike back at Farnborough.

But since statements from Airbus leadership are nothing but smokescreens, what will that mean?

No worries, a Photoshop illustration speckled with flies will soon appear, because Kessje knows the score.


There is no need to take a thread about the 797 off topic to discuss the shelving of the A321 plus. Keesje seems really bothered by multiple journalists who also quote Airbus executives that Airbus isnt ready to launch and imminent A323 and tries to tell us it is all a cat and mouse marketing game.

It looks like Airbus is letting Boeing strike first here. Nothing wrong with that. Airbus is working on building their huge backlog.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:42 pm

They tune up their A321-rate again so production should become cheaper and they can -from their perspective- eat Boeing's lunch before Boeing is ready to fire. As any new aircraft will need it's time.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:40 pm

That is the nasty conflict between the desire to get the 757/767 replacement orders and the chance to make a jump in engine technology.

Imho it will be a LEAP based engine and that will be the only engine.

GE/CFM can probably deliver on time and have a good relationship with Boeing. They also have the resources.
PW has the technology and the resources but the GTF is not mature yet. I doubt Boeing will take the risk.
RR has no engine in the class. They face a limitation in resources and would face a huge challenge to achieve a 2025 EIS. Imho RR is the least likely option.

Imho it will either be LEAP only, or maybe PW GTF and LEAP options as both sides would work from existing engines and can benchmark each others performance quite well.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9058
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:49 pm

jetblueguy22 wrote:
You can see it big time in this thread. I'm actually shocked how much GE's faults have been ignored.

Not sure why, here on A.Net whenever another 787 is grounded for RR or a A320NEO not delivered because of PW, the next line is that GE is also having problems, even in this thread GE issues are mentioned whenever someone suggest exclusivity.

At present, the best PR that GE has going for them is that a/c with their bum engines are flying versus PW and RR which have a number of frames that are not flying?
Bragging about meeting and exceeding specs, fuel burn etc mean nothing if your a/c are not flying. One has to hope that the funds saved from the efficiency will repay those lost now by the groundings and delayed deliveries which are being made up by lease payments and higher cost, to OEM and carriers.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:59 pm

Revelation wrote:

Now it seems statements from Airbus leadership amount to nothing but preening for the press.

Therefore you can assure with 90% confidence that the empire will strike back at Farnborough.

But since statements from Airbus leadership are nothing but smokescreens, what will that mean?



So much speculation. Maybe you are right & Airbus leadership will no doubt play press now and then. Who really cares, we will know later on. No need to get so excited, we will see what the gentlemen from Boeing & Airbus have to say at Farnborough. Relax.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:26 pm

seahawk wrote:
That is the nasty conflict between the desire to get the 757/767 replacement orders and the chance to make a jump in engine technology.

Imho it will be a LEAP based engine and that will be the only engine.

GE/CFM can probably deliver on time and have a good relationship with Boeing. They also have the resources.
PW has the technology and the resources but the GTF is not mature yet. I doubt Boeing will take the risk.
RR has no engine in the class. They face a limitation in resources and would face a huge challenge to achieve a 2025 EIS. Imho RR is the least likely option.

Imho it will either be LEAP only, or maybe PW GTF and LEAP options as both sides would work from existing engines and can benchmark each others performance quite well.


I find there is a false notion here on this site that the GTF has “technology” and the LEAP or GE9X doesn’t. They simply use different technology. There is no guarantee that a geared fan will necessarily beat the GE approach. There is also no guarantee Pratt or RR can get to the same place GE is materials wise. It’s just different approaches.

But there seems to be this notion that the geared fan is the only way forward. I think GE does eventually go there. But I am not sure what they are investing in now isn’t more important long term than the gear technology.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:57 pm

bigjku wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That is the nasty conflict between the desire to get the 757/767 replacement orders and the chance to make a jump in engine technology.

Imho it will be a LEAP based engine and that will be the only engine.

GE/CFM can probably deliver on time and have a good relationship with Boeing. They also have the resources.
PW has the technology and the resources but the GTF is not mature yet. I doubt Boeing will take the risk.
RR has no engine in the class. They face a limitation in resources and would face a huge challenge to achieve a 2025 EIS. Imho RR is the least likely option.

Imho it will either be LEAP only, or maybe PW GTF and LEAP options as both sides would work from existing engines and can benchmark each others performance quite well.


I find there is a false notion here on this site that the GTF has “technology” and the LEAP or GE9X doesn’t. They simply use different technology. There is no guarantee that a geared fan will necessarily beat the GE approach. There is also no guarantee Pratt or RR can get to the same place GE is materials wise. It’s just different approaches.

But there seems to be this notion that the geared fan is the only way forward. I think GE does eventually go there. But I am not sure what they are investing in now isn’t more important long term than the gear technology.


If you think of the production life on an engine, it is possible to in-cooperate many of the advantages of the LEAP into a GTF, but impossible to add the geared fan to a normal engine. But even if you forget the geared fan, a 2025 EiS means the engine has to be ready by 2023, that means you can in-cooperate technology ready today or up to 2020. That is not a big step forward from the LEAP.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:14 pm

bigjku wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That is the nasty conflict between the desire to get the 757/767 replacement orders and the chance to make a jump in engine technology.

Imho it will be a LEAP based engine and that will be the only engine.

GE/CFM can probably deliver on time and have a good relationship with Boeing. They also have the resources.
PW has the technology and the resources but the GTF is not mature yet. I doubt Boeing will take the risk.
RR has no engine in the class. They face a limitation in resources and would face a huge challenge to achieve a 2025 EIS. Imho RR is the least likely option.

Imho it will either be LEAP only, or maybe PW GTF and LEAP options as both sides would work from existing engines and can benchmark each others performance quite well.


I find there is a false notion here on this site that the GTF has “technology” and the LEAP or GE9X doesn’t. They simply use different technology. There is no guarantee that a geared fan will necessarily beat the GE approach. There is also no guarantee Pratt or RR can get to the same place GE is materials wise. It’s just different approaches.

But there seems to be this notion that the geared fan is the only way forward. I think GE does eventually go there. But I am not sure what they are investing in now isn’t more important long term than the gear technology.


On the A320 series, CFM has been selected for about half of the orders, PW for about 1/4, with a bit less than 1/4 undecided. Orders in 2016 & 2017 are running about 800 to 250. I love the concept of the geared fan but it hasn't proven its durability yet. Will it have problems out in the 15K cycles range. The airlines are being careful as great efficiency with high maintenance is not a winner. Five to ten years from now the geared fan will settle in to be reliable and a great engine, but not yet.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21434
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:55 pm

Noshow wrote:
They tune up their A321-rate again so production should become cheaper and they can -from their perspective- eat Boeing's lunch before Boeing is ready to fire. As any new aircraft will need it's time.

It makes a lot of sense to me to convert the A32x backlog to cash as efficiently as possible.

That doesn't get much play here since armchair CEOs prefer to talk about stretched fuselages and new wings.

keesje wrote:
Maybe you are right & Airbus leadership will no doubt play press now and then.

You are the one that is working the misinformation angle, not me.

keesje wrote:
No need to get so excited, we will see what the gentlemen from Boeing & Airbus have to say at Farnborough. Relax.

You are demonstrating classic passive-aggressive behavior. You introduce the whole shelving misinformation angle into a thread about 797 engines then when people call you on it you tell them to relax. Just another day in K-world, so it seems. No doubt the photoshops will be getting reposted again soon.
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
 
 
Elementalism
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:29 pm

QXAS wrote:
So with a 45K engine, what sort of fuselage does that indicate? Is the thrust required a clue for that or is it mostly inconsequential?



Tells me it is a 757 type body. 757 had upto 43,500k engines. 767-200 had 48 to 52k engine.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 981
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:41 pm

Elementalism wrote:
QXAS wrote:
So with a 45K engine, what sort of fuselage does that indicate? Is the thrust required a clue for that or is it mostly inconsequential?



Tells me it is a 757 type body. 757 had upto 43,500k engines. 767-200 had 48 to 52k engine.

Making a plane that does what the 767-200 did with today’s technology would result in a lighter plane with a more effective/efficient wing and a plane that would require less fuel to do the job which means it can get by with less thrust.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:17 pm

Selecting an engine supplier or suppliers will go a long way to helping finalize the business case. Single source vs dual source will have an impact on engine price.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:32 pm

767333ER wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
QXAS wrote:
So with a 45K engine, what sort of fuselage does that indicate? Is the thrust required a clue for that or is it mostly inconsequential?



Tells me it is a 757 type body. 757 had upto 43,500k engines. 767-200 had 48 to 52k engine.

Making a plane that does what the 767-200 did with today’s technology would result in a lighter plane with a more effective/efficient wing and a plane that would require less fuel to do the job which means it can get by with less thrust.


Exactly, to me the NMA feels like a modern day 767. Which is what Boeing is effectively chasing and what the US3 are especially looking for.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9481
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing has given the 3 Major Engine Manufacturers until June 27 to submit their 797 engine proposals

Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:56 pm

mfe777 wrote:
The 5,000 NM range might need to be extended just a tad to appeal to all of the US3. It would be great for DL from ATL to Europe on longer, thinner markets. But for AA, to really leverage their DFW megahub, it would need to be more like 5,350 NM. In Europe, 5,000 NM only opens up Manchester, Dublin, Oslo, and Lisbon as potential destinations, but 5,340 opens up many possibilities such as Helsinki, Milan, Prague, Barcelona, Amsterdam (for year round), Hamburg, Berlin, Dusseldorf, Munich, Stockholm, Zurich, etc.

5000 NM helps DL from ATL and UA from EWR more than it helps AA.

AA also has PHL and CLT. Also basically every destination you mentioned is within 5000 nm from DFW. Are you sure you are not mixing nm and sm?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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