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.

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.

Boeing's head of marketing was quoted as saying "twin aisle" to the French press last week. So, no 757 type tube.

The June 27th talked about, was it the date two days ago, or in a year?

Range is a little on the light side of the 767, and significantly on the light side of the 330/esp. 330neo. The 330/767 were kind of competitors.

Range is a little on the light side of the 767, and significantly on the light side of the 330/esp. 330neo. The 330/767 were kind of competitors. It is deliberately lighter than both of these two planes.

At 25% less per lb of thrust compared to RB 211 and PW 2000, how does that compare to what the PW1100G is burning? Have they made the NMA 6X larger to spread the more conservative fuel burn targets over more seats to bring the CASM down?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Range is a little on the light side of the 767, and significantly on the light side of the 330/esp. 330neo. The 330/767 were kind of competitors.

Which is by design. If you want long range with your capacity, Boeing has the 787 family.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Range is a little on the light side of the 767, and significantly on the light side of the 330/esp. 330neo. The 330/767 were kind of competitors. It is deliberately lighter than both of these two planes.

You must look at their use today and not what they were originally used for.

The 767ER was doing medium/long haul when they first came out. They are flying shorter routes today.

The A330's are now flying short/medium haul thick routes. The engine upgrades and maximum takeoff weight increases have made the A330 more and more inefficient or overbuilt for its current role.

The 797 trims the fat and build an aircraft for todays very very large medium range medium capacity widebody market. Also Boeing would plan on having the 797 in production for 30+ years. That means newer technology engines will be fitted in the future adding 10% or even 20% additional range. You dont want to make the first version overbuilt.

QXAS wrote:

At 25% less per lb of thrust compared to RB 211 and PW 2000, how does that compare to what the PW1100G is burning? Have they made the NMA 6X larger to spread the more conservative fuel burn targets over more seats to bring the CASM down?

Engine fuel burn is comparible to the PW1100G. The NMA 7X is definitely larger at 270+ seats in 2 class this will provide excellent narrowbody CASM as it will be very light weight per seat. The 6X doesnt have to reach narrowbody CASM. It simply had to beat existing widebody aircraft on routes under 5000nm. Airlines will then pick the 6X as it allows increased frequency and lower risk to the airline when compared to a larger widebody.

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.

Payload range charts make this difficult to put a hard number on. Usually Boeings range number is with a average passenger load and no additional cargo and flying with the wind. You can easily reduce payload to get additional range. The range increase can be significant. Qantas flies its 787s on Perth to London and that is 200nm beyond the published wikipedia range and into the wind. It simply has a premium low density cabin.

On a 5000nm route a maxed out 797 might carry 75% of the passengers but burn only 70% of the fuel of a 787. That 5% is pure profit and an example of using the correct aircraft for the job. You could probably fly the 797 in a premium low density configuration up to 5500nm and still be as profitable as a 787 doing the trip with its fuel tanks 75% full. The 787 would allow for lots of additional cargo in the belly on such route but if you dont have cargo contracts then the 797 will work.

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

Very exiting!!!!!!! I’m glad to always see Innovation from all aircraft manufacturers! I think Delta is gong to be a large operator of this, as they have the most 757/767s, but we’ll see!!!

I do think it will be 8ab, but in a cattle class offering, 16" wide seats and minimum aisles. Sizes so nearly all airlines do 7ab with 18" seats. A nice way to differentiate from economy and premium economy. For high frequency 7ab with 17" seats and wider aisles, except for the rear of the plane. This wider cross section does wonders with business class seats of two levels, 6ab and 5 ab. The 8ab arrangement would be a lot heavier so less range just by selecting the seats.

The 797 is pretty much what the 783 was supposed to be, a high volume short range aircraft.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I do think it will be 8ab, but in a cattle class offering, 16" wide seats and minimum aisles. Sizes so nearly all airlines do 7ab with 18" seats. A nice way to differentiate from economy and premium economy.

Makes sense - 2+3+2 for Economy, 2+2+2 for Premium Economy and 1+2+1 for Business Class.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I do think it will be 8ab, but in a cattle class offering, 16" wide seats and minimum aisles. Sizes so nearly all airlines do 7ab with 18" seats. A nice way to differentiate from economy and premium economy. For high frequency 7ab with 17" seats and wider aisles, except for the rear of the plane. This wider cross section does wonders with business class seats of two levels, 6ab and 5 ab. The 8ab arrangement would be a lot heavier so less range just by selecting the seats.

The 797 is pretty much what the 783 was supposed to be, a high volume short range aircraft.

I highly doubt airlines like DL, UA and others alike would settle for 8ab at 16”.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I do think it will be 8ab, but in a cattle class offering, 16" wide seats and minimum aisles. Sizes so nearly all airlines do 7ab with 18" seats. A nice way to differentiate from economy and premium economy. For high frequency 7ab with 17" seats and wider aisles, except for the rear of the plane. This wider cross section does wonders with business class seats of two levels, 6ab and 5 ab. The 8ab arrangement would be a lot heavier so less range just by selecting the seats.

The 797 is pretty much what the 783 was supposed to be, a high volume short range aircraft.

My thoughts exactly.

I think 8ab and very narrow aisles will work. The cabin would be fairly short and with two aisles boarding should be acceptable even with 15" aisles. The longer the aircraft the wider the aisle needs to be to have the same boarding time. 15" is the minimum legal size. With 2-4-2 you could think of it as two Q400 cabins 2-2 on one aisle and 2-2 on the second aisle.

The 767-300ER has already used 8ab before. Boarding was very slow. For the NMA to hit its capacity target at 8ab it would be shorter than the 767-300ER.

If we use 17" wide seats. 2" armrests and 15" aisles we end up with 188" cabin width. The 767 is 186" in width. So it will probably be an aircraft a few inchs wider than the 767 with probably a new container type underneith. The 6x will be a couple metres shorter than the 767-200. The 7x will be a couple metres shorter than the 767-300. As the aircraft will be much lighter due to less fuel the wing size will be similar to the 757 with big winglets.

Bjm0517 wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

Very exiting!!!!!!! I’m glad to always see Innovation from all aircraft manufacturers! I think Delta is gong to be a large operator of this, as they have the most 757/767s, but we’ll see!!!

I wouldn't be surprised if American put in a big order, they really love new jets

musman9853 wrote:

Bjm0517 wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

Very exiting!!!!!!! I’m glad to always see Innovation from all aircraft manufacturers! I think Delta is gong to be a large operator of this, as they have the most 757/767s, but we’ll see!!!

I wouldn't be surprised if American put in a big order, they really love new jets

I could see a small order with some options. AA seems pretty set fleet wise.

grbauc wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

Bjm0517 wrote:

Very exiting!!!!!!! I’m glad to always see Innovation from all aircraft manufacturers! I think Delta is gong to be a large operator of this, as they have the most 757/767s, but we’ll see!!!

I wouldn't be surprised if American put in a big order, they really love new jets

I could see a small order with some options. AA seems pretty set fleet wise.

I bet that 788 order turns into 797s pretty darn quick. You

ikolkyo wrote:

grbauc wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if American put in a big order, they really love new jets

I could see a small order with some options. AA seems pretty set fleet wise.

I bet that 788 order turns into 797s pretty darn quick. You

You know what!!!! I so forgot about that and 100% agree

RJMAZ wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I do think it will be 8ab, but in a cattle class offering, 16" wide seats and minimum aisles. Sizes so nearly all airlines do 7ab with 18" seats. A nice way to differentiate from economy and premium economy. For high frequency 7ab with 17" seats and wider aisles, except for the rear of the plane. This wider cross section does wonders with business class seats of two levels, 6ab and 5 ab. The 8ab arrangement would be a lot heavier so less range just by selecting the seats.

The 797 is pretty much what the 783 was supposed to be, a high volume short range aircraft.

My thoughts exactly.

I think 8ab and very narrow aisles will work. The cabin would be fairly short and with two aisles boarding should be acceptable even with 15" aisles. The longer the aircraft the wider the aisle needs to be to have the same boarding time. 15" is the minimum legal size. With 2-4-2 you could think of it as two Q400 cabins 2-2 on one aisle and 2-2 on the second aisle.

The 767-300ER has already used 8ab before. Boarding was very slow. For the NMA to hit its capacity target at 8ab it would be shorter than the 767-300ER.

If we use 17" wide seats. 2" armrests and 15" aisles we end up with 188" cabin width. The 767 is 186" in width. So it will probably be an aircraft a few inchs wider than the 767 with probably a new container type underneith. The 6x will be a couple metres shorter than the 767-200. The 7x will be a couple metres shorter than the 767-300. As the aircraft will be much lighter due to less fuel the wing size will be similar to the 757 with big winglets.

Boeing has already said the wing will be indistinguishable from a 787 on the flightline. I would expect a skinnier, high aspect ratio wing (to get an advantage similar to what the 77X has over the 77W), but the wing will be approximately 787 width.

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.

Would that be enough power for hot and high locales? If it is in fact 767 sized?

Stitch wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I do think it will be 8ab, but in a cattle class offering, 16" wide seats and minimum aisles. Sizes so nearly all airlines do 7ab with 18" seats. A nice way to differentiate from economy and premium economy.

Makes sense - 2+3+2 for Economy, 2+2+2 for Premium Economy and 1+2+1 for Business Class.

Indeed from a numbers stanpoint 2-3-2 might be sub optimal for economy class. For longer flights with premium cabins it offers a lot of flexibility 3-3 doesn't offer. Specially direct aisle access that has become kind of standard for C class.


AA 767

Yes 2-3-2 might be sub-optimal for economy on NMA but you pick up so much in the front of the Cabin with Extra Premium seats it could be more than worth it. 2-4-2 with it's overall diameter and probable larger container than 2-3-2 will be incredibly inefficient if they wish to reuse the cross section for NSA. I believe if Boeing wishes to reuse the Cross section for NSA they will choose 2-3-2 in a very tight 17.5" seat width/ narrow aisle configuration - call it 6-8" less than 767 internal width, 8-10" less external width - 6-10" Taller than A320 Fuselage height. You have to remember that they will probably produce 5-10x as many NSA vs NMA and will optimize the cross section for that. It would be as if they designed NSA first then did NMA using same cross Section and Nose/Major systems with a new Wingbox/Wing and Tail (the same as if Airbus does a 322 based off the 320/321). NSA will have to be very efficient and cheap to produce - much better to figure that out on NMA where Volumes will be lower and you have time to optimize weight of the shared components.

Did we come up with the idea of a shared tube for the 797 and NMA, or is there actually Boeing comments to this regard?

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

keesje wrote:

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

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.

Well, AA also has PHL, CLT, MIA to introduce new routes from - deeper into Europe from PHL, CLT and deeper into Latin/South America (where AA is traditionally strong) from all three.

Doesn't 7ab (especially narrower than 767) create issues with overhead bins? How do you install bins that can take rollaboards lengthwise and still allow the aisle to be passable and have room to put the bags up/take them down?

It's been a long time since I've been on a 767. Can the 767 bins over the window seats fit them lengthwise?

ikolkyo wrote:

grbauc wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if American put in a big order, they really love new jets

I could see a small order with some options. AA seems pretty set fleet wise.

I bet that 788 order turns into 797s pretty darn quick. You

I doubt they convert the 788 order, but the deferral of 40 737MAX seems suspiciously like a conversion waiting to happen.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

And while we're asking, why aren't we predicting doom for the C Series in Asia because its 5-wide no-container fuse dis-favors cargo?

Maybe it's not all about cargo after all?

jagraham wrote:

Boeing has already said the wing will be indistinguishable from a 787 on the flightline. I would expect a skinnier, high aspect ratio wing (to get an advantage similar to what the 77X has over the 77W), but the wing will be approximately 787 width.

The 787 MTOW is up to 250 tons, a 797 would be about half that. Although the 797 wing may look like a proportionally smaller 787 wing... I doubt the span and wing area would be anything near the 787 wing dimensions because it would make the 797 way too heavy.

I suspect the 797 span would be no more than about 767-sized, 50 meter, maybe a bit more (about 170 feet), ...ideally to fit into smaller gates than the 787 without wingtip folding. The total wing area may be smaller than the 767 to obtain the higher aspect ratio -- which is OK because I'm sure a 797 will be much lighter than a 767.

ikolkyo wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I do think it will be 8ab, but in a cattle class offering, 16" wide seats and minimum aisles. Sizes so nearly all airlines do 7ab with 18" seats. A nice way to differentiate from economy and premium economy. For high frequency 7ab with 17" seats and wider aisles, except for the rear of the plane. This wider cross section does wonders with business class seats of two levels, 6ab and 5 ab. The 8ab arrangement would be a lot heavier so less range just by selecting the seats.

The 797 is pretty much what the 783 was supposed to be, a high volume short range aircraft.

I highly doubt airlines like DL, UA and others alike would settle for 8ab at 16”.

I agree that the major carriers even the LCC's in North America would stay with 7ab. But in the Asian and similar markets the 16" seats for LCCs would be a nice option. This adds about 25 pax to the capacity for either model over 7ab, with this added payload reducing the range. At 8ab the -7 would basically be the 787-3, a high volume short range plane.

I think the lengths should be based on 7ab seating to avoid the really short body for the -6.

texl1649 wrote:

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

How much of an undertaking is “productionising” the UltraFan? If it’s already running, it must not be that much of a development effort for RR, no? Maybe they don’t need such immense resources after all...

Paging Lightsaber here...


Faro

I strongly doubt NMA and NSA will have the same cross-section. I'd expect NSA to be as wide as an A320 inside (perhaps with thinner sidewalls resulting in less width outside) and less tall. Boeing knows exactly how much the 737 gains from being so compact (which is a lot) and won't throw away that advantage.

Faro wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

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

How much of an undertaking is “productionising” the UltraFan? If it’s already running, it must not be that much of a development effort for RR, no? Maybe they don’t need such immense resources after all...

Paging Lightsaber here...

Faro

But they really don't have it running. They have the core (Advance 3 demonstrator in UK) running in one test cell, the gear running in another (in Germany) and the fan has been on the ALPS testbed, but never have the three been in one engine at the same time, scaled for one target application, designed for production levels of durability.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-445377/ ( free sign in ) gives a great run down of the state of play as of February.

Revelation wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

And while we're asking, why aren't we predicting doom for the C Series in Asia because its 5-wide no-container fuse dis-favors cargo?

Maybe it's not all about cargo after all?

I think Cargo on regionals never has been big business, has it?

2-3-2 might be efficient for higher capacity aircraft. <260-270 seats I see no reason why the additional aisle coming with a 7th seat would be efficient from a weight/ drag standpoint. No breakthrough technology I know of, explaining why an oval bigger higher loaded cross section would bring that efficiency. Another consideration is what is "oval" The A320 is "oval" but only slightly. Maybe that's how the 797 ends up.

seabosdca wrote:

I strongly doubt NMA and NSA will have the same cross-section. I'd expect NSA to be as wide as an A320 inside (perhaps with thinner sidewalls resulting in less width outside) and less tall. Boeing knows exactly how much the 737 gains from being so compact (which is a lot) and won't throw away that advantage.

While I tend to this belief as well I think that NMA will move further down the single aisle market. I expect another pair of aircraft at some point with the NMA cross section and less range so lighter to be the “big” domestic aircraft family. I expect the cross section of NMA to be used for at least four if not six variants in the end.

NSA I would expect to be centered around the 175 passenger sized model in a single class and to have shorter range than a 737max does today to make it significantly lighter than existing narrows.

keesje wrote:

I think Cargo on regionals never has been big business, has it?

So CS's aspirations are now just regional?

CS is said here to be the thing to replace A320s and below in Airbus's line up, is it not?

Lots of A320s doing non-regional flights with meaningful amounts of cargo below decks, at least around here.

I guess i shouldnt be surprised to see the same cabin width discussions come up in a thread about engine selection. I am really introgued by the debate over single or dual source for engines. The implications are huge! Airlines want the aquisition price from single source but the maintenance and power by the hour rates offered by dual source. This truly is a pivotal decision impacting the business case for going ahead and launching the plane.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

Seems like a strange comment from Keesje. LCCs want faster turn times and easier aisle access for the carts to sell products inflight. LCCs also tend not to carry as much cargo. Some carry none. They likely do want twin aisle options that have aquisition prices in the same vicinity as current narrowbodies

Newbiepilot wrote:

I guess i shouldnt ve surprised to see the same cabin width discussions come up in a thread about engine selection. I am really introgued by the debate over single or dual source for engines. The implications are huge! Airlines want the aquisition price from single source but the maintenance and power by the hour rates offered by dual source. This truly is a pivotal decision impacting the business case for going ahead and launching the plane.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

Seems like a strange comment from Keesje. LCCs want faster turn times and easier aisle access for the carts to sell products inflight. LCCs also tend not to carry as much cargo. Some carry none. They likely do want twin aisle options that have aquisition prices in the same vicinity as current narrowbodies

I would strongly lean towards there being two engine options and those options being CFM and RR either RR to have an EIS 1-2 years later than the CFM.

CFM? I would rather think the entry would come from GE.

SteelChair wrote:

CFM? I would rather think the entry would come from GE.

Think again.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... ng-on-nma/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-446993/

Given where GE is, getting their partner to pay half the bill is probably a good thing.

RJMAZ wrote:

If we use 17" wide seats. 2" armrests and 15" aisles we end up with 188" cabin width. The 767 is 186" in width.

With 15" aisles you can't really use galley carts and anyone using the aisles will bump aisle pax. 192" (17in aisles/seats) is the absolute minimum for 8ab, IMO.

If you'd combine 192in cabin with sidewall sculpting a la 777X for 4in sidewalls then you have a 200in diameter tube - 10% narrower than A330 and about as effectively wide as 767 (which is taller on Y axis for LD2's).

But given that any idiot can do these calcs, and Boeing isn't biting on 8ab, I'd guess they've figured out the oval pretty well. The oval mostly moots the issue of 7ab inefficiency.

osupoke07 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

grbauc wrote:

I could see a small order with some options. AA seems pretty set fleet wise.

I bet that 788 order turns into 797s pretty darn quick. You

I doubt they convert the 788 order, but the deferral of 40 737MAX seems suspiciously like a conversion waiting to happen.

I disagree, the MAX 8s will he needed in the future for more A329/A320 and 738 retirements. The 788 is too much plane to be a proper 767 replacement. Plus the 788s are set to be leased through Boeing and I’m sure AA and Boeing can work out a conversion deal.

ikolkyo wrote:

osupoke07 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I bet that 788 order turns into 797s pretty darn quick. You

I doubt they convert the 788 order, but the deferral of 40 737MAX seems suspiciously like a conversion waiting to happen.

I disagree, the MAX 8s will he needed in the future for more A329/A320 and 738 retirements. The 788 is too much plane to be a proper 767 replacement. Plus the 788s are set to be leased through Boeing and I’m sure AA and Boeing can work out a conversion deal.

I suspect they take the 8’s in the near term and use them. Then they retain the option to use them for growth or replace them with NMA. I suspect they are a 50 order and 50 option airline for NMA.

SteelChair wrote:

CFM? I would rather think the entry would come from GE.

As the links Revelation included note, NMA's engine will likely be based on the CFM LEAP. In addition, I would expect it to become the basis for whatever engine powers NSA (the 737 replacement) as CFM will assuredly be at least one, if not the sole, source for powering that family.

Revelation wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

And while we're asking, why aren't we predicting doom for the C Series in Asia because its 5-wide no-container fuse dis-favors cargo?

Maybe it's not all about cargo after all?

Newbiepilot wrote:

I guess i shouldnt be surprised to see the same cabin width discussions come up in a thread about engine selection. I am really introgued by the debate over single or dual source for engines. The implications are huge! Airlines want the aquisition price from single source but the maintenance and power by the hour rates offered by dual source. This truly is a pivotal decision impacting the business case for going ahead and launching the plane.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think with 2-3-2 on a NSA they can probably wave good bye to all LCC's customers globally and most feeder flights too..

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

Seems like a strange comment from Keesje. LCCs want faster turn times and easier aisle access for the carts to sell products inflight. LCCs also tend not to carry as much cargo. Some carry none. They likely do want twin aisle options that have aquisition prices in the same vicinity as current narrowbodies

So far I find the substantiation behind the efficiencies of 2-3-2 vs 3-3 for ~ 260 seats single class a bit dissapointing. It's often evasive movements (prove it ain't so) & Boeing says so. But I keep hoping we will see some more factual input here to next the impressive, valuable commenting on others.

keesje wrote:

So far I find the substantiation behind the efficiencies of 2-3-2 vs 3-3 for ~ 260 seats single class a bit dissapointing. It's often evasive movements (prove it ain't so) & Boeing says so. But I keep hoping we will see some more factual input here to next the impressive, valuable commenting on others.

The topic has been beaten senseless here on a.net. If the discussions aren't to your satisfaction, that's on you. The old idea of just having an on-going 797/NMA thread to prevent rehashing old ground seems to be abandoned. I guess the mods can't muster the energy to merge threads any more. Therefore signal (like new engine selection information) gets buried by noise (endless fuselage cross section arguments).

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

And while we're asking, why aren't we predicting doom for the C Series in Asia because its 5-wide no-container fuse dis-favors cargo?

Maybe it's not all about cargo after all?

Newbiepilot wrote:

I guess i shouldnt be surprised to see the same cabin width discussions come up in a thread about engine selection. I am really introgued by the debate over single or dual source for engines. The implications are huge! Airlines want the aquisition price from single source but the maintenance and power by the hour rates offered by dual source. This truly is a pivotal decision impacting the business case for going ahead and launching the plane.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Just curious why? Not trying to argue, just wondering?

Seems like a strange comment from Keesje. LCCs want faster turn times and easier aisle access for the carts to sell products inflight. LCCs also tend not to carry as much cargo. Some carry none. They likely do want twin aisle options that have aquisition prices in the same vicinity as current narrowbodies

So far I find the substantiation behind the efficiencies of 2-3-2 vs 3-3 for ~ 260 seats single class a bit dissapointing. It's often evasive movements (prove it ain't so) & Boeing says so. But I keep hoping we will see some more factual input here to next the impressive, valuable commenting on others.

Boeing hasnt referenced a 260 seat single class design. Right now they are talking about engine selections for a 220 and 270 2 class configuration very similar in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range and thrust.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

So far I find the substantiation behind the efficiencies of 2-3-2 vs 3-3 for ~ 260 seats single class a bit dissapointing. It's often evasive movements (prove it ain't so) & Boeing says so. But I keep hoping we will see some more factual input here to next the impressive, valuable commenting on others.

The topic has been beaten senseless here on a.net. If the discussions aren't to your satisfaction, that's on you. The old idea of just having an on-going 797/NMA thread to prevent rehashing old ground seems to be abandoned. I guess the mods can't muster the energy to merge threads any more. Therefore signal (like new engine selection information) gets buried by noise (endless fuselage cross section arguments).

We have a thread to discuss cabin width and cross section.

viewtopic.php?t=1395181#p20437139

This thread is about engines yet people want to clog up every discussion talking about cabin width. We have seen the same photoshop inages of 6, 7, 8 and extra wide narrowbodies countless times. I am interested to learn more about the potential of a Scaled up CFM Leap engine.

keesje wrote:

So far I find the substantiation behind the efficiencies of 2-3-2 vs 3-3 for ~ 260 seats single class a bit disappointing.

Well we'd pretty much need to model them via computer since most 767-200 and 757-300 operators did not fly the type in a single class. And that is what I expect Boeing and the airlines have done.

The 757-300, which could seat 275 or 295 in a single class sold 55 units. The 767-200 sold 128 and the 767-200ER added another 121 on top of that (both could seat 290 in a single class).

Stitch wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

CFM? I would rather think the entry would come from GE.

As the links Revelation included note, NMA's engine will likely be based on the CFM LEAP. In addition, I would expect it to become the basis for whatever engine powers NSA (the 737 replacement) as CFM will assuredly be at least one, if not the sole, source for powering that family.

I expect NSA would be powered by a GTF engine from CFM. I doubt LEAP would still be used as a basis a decade from now.