• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 25
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3492
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:11 am

Please continue from last year's thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1374685
 
patches
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 5:56 am

Boeing 797

Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:04 pm

It seems very confusing on what Boeing wants with its 797. All the videoes and pictures I have seen on this thing it appears that it looks just like a 767-200. Dont you think Boeing could have saved billions of dollars on this new aircraft and updated the 767-2 with a new wing, new 787 like engines and a 787 cockpit? I mean for Christ sak they have been doing this with the 737 for 30 years!! That thing has been updated a jillion times and its worked pretty well.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:16 pm

Some recent information.

The basic configuration seems pretty well decided upon

In June Boeing defined two versions – the NMA-6 (797-6) with 228-passenger, 4,500nm (8,300km) and the NMA-7 (797-7) which would seat 267 in two classes with 4,200nm range.

The 797-6 would be launched first, followed by the larger 797-7. Range appears to be closing in on 4,500 nm (8300km). This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.

By not pushing the range further, the 797 will have reduced structural weight and thus cost.


https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... -analysts/

It sounds like the engineering design is progressing so they can work on what the production methods will look like to have a better understanding of cost.


“It takes a long time to get it right,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes v-p of marketing Randy Tinseth told AIN, rebuffing suggestions that the NMA process appears elongated. Boeing started talking about a potential replacement for its 757 in 2012 and the new model would enter service in the middle of the next decade. “Maybe this is an airplane where we are a little more boisterous in the market on what we are thinking and planning,” he reckoned.

The development of the business case for Boeing’s proposed NMA, a midsize airliner with 220 to 270 seats and a range of 5,000 nm, continues apace, Tinseth said. “We engaged with our customers, we worked to understand the market. There is not a lot to share about what has changed because what we are doing now is really inside [Boeing],” he said. The OEM is considering available technologies, production systems and capabilities, and whether or not it can build the new model at a cost that the market would accept. Boeing will decide on the plan next year, he stressed, though he cautioned the decision will depend purely on the business case. “There have been times where we worked really hard on programs and we decided they would not be economically viable,” he said.


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... iness-case

Doing more planning work up front to ensure that the plane can be produced at the price airlines are willing to pay sounds like a smart move. Some may be impatient waiting for launch or questioning the viability of the plane due to the lengthy pre launch phase, but it is important to remember that launch comes with orders from airlines. Orders mean pricing is negotiatied, performance guarantees are made, and delivery dates are established. It may be worthwhile waiting to launch and do it correctly rather than having the program go late, over budget or fail to meet performance guarantees.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20906
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797

Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:22 pm

patches wrote:
It seems very confusing on what Boeing wants with its 797. All the videoes and pictures I have seen on this thing it appears that it looks just like a 767-200. Dont you think Boeing could have saved billions of dollars on this new aircraft and updated the 767-2 with a new wing, new 787 like engines and a 787 cockpit? I mean for Christ sak they have been doing this with the 737 for 30 years!! That thing has been updated a jillion times and its worked pretty well.

You are answering your own question.

The 767 is a known quantity and is still in production yet Boeing appears to be on the verge of launching a clean sheet replacement.

That should tell you all you need to know about the 767's core technology, its ability to be upgraded, and its cost of manufacture.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797

Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
patches wrote:
It seems very confusing on what Boeing wants with its 797. All the videoes and pictures I have seen on this thing it appears that it looks just like a 767-200. Dont you think Boeing could have saved billions of dollars on this new aircraft and updated the 767-2 with a new wing, new 787 like engines and a 787 cockpit? I mean for Christ sak they have been doing this with the 737 for 30 years!! That thing has been updated a jillion times and its worked pretty well.

You are answering your own question.

The 767 is a known quantity and is still in production yet Boeing appears to be on the verge of launching a clean sheet replacement.

That should tell you all you need to know about the 767's core technology, its ability to be upgraded, and its cost of manufacture.


The airplane does look quite a bit like a 767-200 and 767-300 from the articles that I read. However I am also reading on how Boeing is going to be used more of the latest manufacturing technology and production methods. I would expect carbon fiber and 3D printing would be quite challenging to design into the 767. The 777 was a better starting point since it was a more modern fly by wire airplane designed in CAD. When Boeing decided to stretch it with new composite wings and engines to create the 777x, they had a better starting point. Being in CAD and having a decade of damage tolerant design experience when creating the original 777 certainly helped.

The 767 was innovative from a structural perspective

One notable success story has to be how Boeing developed supplemental structural inspections in the late 1970s and early 1980s and integrated them into operator-applied maintenance programs, essentially converting fail-safe certified airplanes into damage-tolerant ones. The success of these programs is evidenced in the ever-improving fleet safety record of the commercial airplane fleet, the majority of which consists of Boeing airplanes.
...
Initially developed in the early 1970s, and first implemented with the 757 and 767 models, the Boeing durability analysis standard, commonly referred to as “Book 2,” along with its design companion, “Book 1,” were first introduced with the overall objective of assuring a competitive economic life for aircraft structure. This goal was specifically defined as an absence of significant fatigue cracking in the first 20 years of service (defined as a probability of cracking of less than 1 percent with 95 percent confidence), and at least 30 years of service before fatigue related maintenance begins to measurably escalate (defined as a nominal probability of cracking of 5 percent with 95 percent confidence). This meant that the airframe truly remains economically viable for a minimum of 30 years.
...
The introduction of the durability method as well as active corrosion prevention programs has had a dramatic and almost immediate effect on fleet maintenance, as Fig. 6 shows. The 757 and 767 were the first models to take advantage of the Books, resulting in a drastic reduction of maintenance service hours. This trend has continued on newer airplanes, the 737 NG and 777, further enhanced by improvements to the methods and the continuous learning process afforded by fleet observations. This trend is also clearly evidenced in the many full-scale fatigue tests successfully completed since then.

https://www.boeing.com/features/innovat ... ility.page

Being a first generation damage tolerant design had positive and negative attributes. Take a look at all the 767 fuselage Airworthiness Directives to see where all the issues and supplemental inspections are required.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... boeing+767

Damage tolerant design made a big improvement on reducing weight in the airplane, but first generation methods are no where near as advanced as what can be done today. The 767 structure gets expensive to maintain with age due to all the inspections and airworthiness directives after passing the 20 and 30 year thresholds.

I remember a Boeing Leader saying that the 787 will be the worst composite airplane that Boeing ever builds. They learn from the 787 and will do better. From what I have read, the 797 will be focused on maturing the technology that was successful on the 787. Going back to the 767 design may sound good on the short term, but not necessarily as a long term strategy.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2098
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:38 pm

Sounds like the business case is dialed in, and now the engineers are doing their thing to figure out how to build it.

Are we still expecting a launch/Auth to Offer at Paris 2019?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20906
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797

Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:09 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Going back to the 767 design may sound good on the short term, but not necessarily as a long term strategy.

That's a very good point.

In theory you might have gotten one more round of development out of the 70s/80s tech in 757/767 but meanwhile the main competition in the segment is 80s tech (A330) and it's already been iterated once more (A330neo) so you're starting from further behind with older tech.

On the other hand it is evident that Boeing feels they can use modern design and manufacturing techniques to iterate the 787 tech into a smaller form factor with NMA and that will be a much more versatile starting point than the 70s/80s tech in 757/767.

We have posters here telling us that similar advanced design and manufacturing technology was used to develop that aircraft that won the $9B T-X trainer contract.

BlatantEcho wrote:
Sounds like the business case is dialed in, and now the engineers are doing their thing to figure out how to build it.

Are we still expecting a launch/Auth to Offer at Paris 2019?

The quoted article above said:

Newbiepilot wrote:
The OEM is considering available technologies, production systems and capabilities, and whether or not it can build the new model at a cost that the market would accept. Boeing will decide on the plan next year, he stressed, though he cautioned the decision will depend purely on the business case. “There have been times where we worked really hard on programs and we decided they would not be economically viable,” he said.

So to me it sounds like the business case is still being iterated i.e. various tradeoff studies are being made to get to the point where they have a product they feel confident they can make money producing.
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
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17674
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:25 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.

By not pushing the range further, the 797 will have reduced structural weight and thus cost.


https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... -analysts/

It sounds like the engineering design is progressing so they can work on what the production methods will look like to have a better understanding of cost.


“It takes a long time to get it right,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes v-p of marketing Randy Tinseth told AIN, rebuffing suggestions that the NMA process appears elongated. Boeing started talking about a potential replacement for its 757 in 2012 and the new model would enter service in the middle of the next decade. “Maybe this is an airplane where we are a little more boisterous in the market on what we are thinking and planning,” he reckoned.

The development of the business case for Boeing’s proposed NMA, a midsize airliner with 220 to 270 seats and a range of 5,000 nm, continues apace, Tinseth said. “We engaged with our customers, we worked to understand the market. There is not a lot to share about what has changed because what we are doing now is really inside [Boeing],” he said. The OEM is considering available technologies, production systems and capabilities, and whether or not it can build the new model at a cost that the market would accept. Boeing will decide on the plan next year, he stressed, though he cautioned the decision will depend purely on the business case. “There have been times where we worked really hard on programs and we decided they would not be economically viable,” he said.


This sums it up. Go for the bulk of the widebody market with minimum weight/costs. The 797 must compete with narrowbody aircraft, so it cannot have long range or the bulk of the market will have poor economics. The 330 and 788 market is the obvious target. If more range is required, there are plenty of widebodies to choose amoung.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:29 pm

Spending a few billion (guesses are that is what Boeing may have invested in early 797 design by the middle of this year), is a lot cheaper than the disasters both major civil airplane makers have spent on mis-designs. If Boeing can't make the numbers work, it still is cheaper to have spent the few billions than to lear so after spending 10 or more billions. Bombardier and Mitsubishi have also suffered the same. And guesses are that so did Russia and China. Mistakes go into the 11 place dollar numbers, dropped designs 9 and 10 place numbers.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:58 pm

Thx newbiepilot for links/ info.
Well if true ( why not) then I guess Airbus will 'have' to respond with the XLR.Cant see the need for 4,700 nm if Boeing is 'only' going for 4,500nm - unless they are thinking of a small stretch or slightly increased density beyond 206 2 class.Plobably enough space for one extra row ofY.
Have always loved 767 with 2-3-2 so look forward to 797. Interesting points made about overhead luggage space.Is that the future of travel - leaving more space for cargo below?
If launched wil clearly be the conversation piece of the latter half of 2019! Will be messy.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:32 pm

A term I can't find any other reference for: The bones of a plane

Neither Airbus and certainly not Boeing foresaw that the 737 and 320 were really a 1000 to 3000+ nm plane. They are not efficient given modern engines as 100-150 passengers below 1000 miles

The 330s bones make it a long range plane

Both 8 versions of the 787 and 350 are suffering from being kind of shrinks of the more efficient models of each plane

The 777s competative niche is now very large and kind of very long range

From these market and design constraints I see Boeing designing a light weight medium range 767 whose bones really are a 3000 - 4500 mile plane. It will allow abusing up to 5000 miles, and Boeing likely hopes down to 2000 miles. Costs are acutely important, and could result in a no go decision.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:35 pm

A term I can't find any other reference for: The bones of a plane

Neither Airbus and certainly not Boeing foresaw that the 737 and 320 were really a 1000 to 3000+ nm planes. They are not efficient given modern engines as 100-150 passengers much below 1000 miles. Southwest, Ryan, and Easy may do so, but it requires a particular business model.

The 330's bones make it a long range plane

Both 8 versions of the 787 and 350 are suffering from being kind of shrinks of the more efficient models of each plane

The 777's competitive niche is now very large and kind of very long range (Boeing is hoping)

From these market and design constraints I see Boeing designing a light weight medium range 767 whose bones really are a 3000 - 4500 mile plane. It will allow abusing up to 5000 miles, and Boeing likely hopes down to 2000 miles. Costs are acutely important, and could result in a no go decision.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20906
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:26 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Neither Airbus and certainly not Boeing foresaw that the 737 and 320 were really a 1000 to 3000+ nm plane. They are not efficient given modern engines as 100-150 passengers below 1000 miles

Airbus's John Leahy said (when asked about NEO and MAX) that going to an all-new aircraft would bring 3% reduction in fuel burn, all the rest of the improvement would come from engines.

I think that means the existing NB aircraft are pretty darn efficient.

I think NMA will do better since aero improvements pay off better on longer flights, and it will have the luxury of aiming for the bigger payload/range values right from the start.

The $12B question is if Boeing can make enough money in that market segment to justify the big spend.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:43 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
A term I can't find any other reference for: The bones of a plane

Neither Airbus and certainly not Boeing foresaw that the 737 and 320 were really a 1000 to 3000+ nm plane. They are not efficient given modern engines as 100-150 passengers below 1000 miles

The 330s bones make it a long range plane

Both 8 versions of the 787 and 350 are suffering from being kind of shrinks of the more efficient models of each plane

The 777s competative niche is now very large and kind of very long range

From these market and design constraints I see Boeing designing a light weight medium range 767 whose bones really are a 3000 - 4500 mile plane. It will allow abusing up to 5000 miles, and Boeing likely hopes down to 2000 miles. Costs are acutely important, and could result in a no go decision.


I would expect the NMA to be flying routes shorter than 2000 miles. If we look at Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chengdu to Beijing, each route has around 30 flights a day operated mostly by widebodies. The boost of A330s sales came because of exploding demand in China. These routes are around 1000 miles. I see a 300 seat dense configuration airplane replacing hundreds of 737s and A320s in China since airlines need to upgauge.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Neither Airbus and certainly not Boeing foresaw that the 737 and 320 were really a 1000 to 3000+ nm plane. They are not efficient given modern engines as 100-150 passengers below 1000 miles

Airbus's John Leahy said (when asked about NEO and MAX) that going to an all-new aircraft would bring 3% reduction in fuel burn, all the rest of the improvement would come from engines.

I think that means the existing NB aircraft are pretty darn efficient.

I think NMA will do better since aero improvements pay off better on longer flights, and it will have the luxury of aiming for the bigger payload/range values right from the start.

The $12B question is if Boeing can make enough money in that market segment to justify the big spend.


Existing narrowbodies are efficient, but the wings are being pushed to the limit. I doubt the NMA can really beat the narrowbodies on efficiency when the narrowbodies are operating within their optimized payload range region.

There is a big gap in wing size between the 1300 sq ft 737 and A320neo wings which max out around 100tons MTOW and the 4000 sq ft A330neo and 787 wings, which are three times the size that operate on routes where 200tons or more MTOW is needed. If the plane has a 2500 sq ft wing, there would be no direct competitor for routes needing 150tons MTOW. It depends on what an airline needs, but I could see the NMA displacing 737-10s, A321s, A330s and 787s by being optimized for that middle market region.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:17 pm

Is it fair to assume that a 228 seater in two classes is a 250 seater in one? It sounds about right.Could make an interesting LCC/charter in some markets perhaps.
 
Elshad
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:25 pm

Why would they start the numbering at 797-6? Why not start the smallest variant at -7 or -8 like the rest of Boeing current models?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:28 pm

parapente wrote:
Is it fair to assume that a 228 seater in two classes is a 250 seater in one? It sounds about right.Could make an interesting LCC/charter in some markets perhaps.


The 767-200 varied in capacity from about 175 seats in long haul configuration with 25 business class seats to about 249 seats in all economy high density configuration.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:17 pm

If the 797 is a fully rescaled, trimmed of excess 787 (same architecture but all parts optimized for its size) a huge savings for the airlines is reduced maintenance. The cost reduction for reduced C and D checks that are also at greater intervals, a 20%+ longer life for cycles and hours also.

It is probably true that the efficiency improvement past the NEO/MAX is just 5% outside of the engines. But there is probably just the same difference between the A330neo and the 787, where the 787 is winning the majority of the sales campaigns.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:20 pm

Elshad wrote:
Why would they start the numbering at 797-6? Why not start the smallest variant at -7 or -8 like the rest of Boeing current models?


But it fits well if Boeing just labels the 797 the 787-6 and 787-7, saving the 797 for the future.
 
uta999
Posts: 697
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:44 pm

The proposed 797, based around a 767-200/300 makes little sense, when ‘Boring’ has already sunk $32B into the only slightly larger 787 family.

Just take a few frames out of the 788, reduce the weight, fuel and engine thrust. Job done for around $500m

Then use the huge savings to finally kill off the 737 with a new model, once and for all.
Your computer just got better
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:52 pm

uta999 wrote:
The proposed 797, based around a 767-200/300 makes little sense, when ‘Boring’ has already sunk $32B into the only slightly larger 787 family.

Just take a few frames out of the 788, reduce the weight, fuel and engine thrust. Job done for around $500m

Then use the huge savings to finally kill off the 737 with a new model, once and for all.


If you seriously think Boeing didn’t look into this then you’re nuts. The 787 is too big and overbuilt for this segment.
 
marcogr12
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:10 pm

Even the originally proposed 787-3?...
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:16 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
uta999 wrote:
The proposed 797, based around a 767-200/300 makes little sense, when ‘Boring’ has already sunk $32B into the only slightly larger 787 family.

Just take a few frames out of the 788, reduce the weight, fuel and engine thrust. Job done for around $500m

Then use the huge savings to finally kill off the 737 with a new model, once and for all.


If you seriously think Boeing didn’t look into this then you’re nuts. The 787 is too big and overbuilt for this segment.


A shortened 787 would have oversized system components that would weigh and cost more than needed. The structure is also over designed. To shrink a plane and keep OEW proportional to capacity, every component must be redesigned to the lower load requirements. It is far more engineering work to efficiently shrink than stretch since when stretching only the parts without adequate margin for higher loads need to grow. Efficient shrinks are an order of magnitude more engineering work otherwise the plane is overweight and heavy.

As an example, the A300/A310 uses a 37 gallon per minute hydraulic pump on the engine. The bigger A330 uses a larger, heavier and more expensive 46 gallon per minute pump since the larger wing needs more hydraulic power. Assuming the 787 had a similar architecture, a shrink using the 46 GPM pump would be less efficient since that is 100 lbs of extra unnecessary weight. The engineering effort to resize the hydraulic system as reduce capacity by 25% for a shrink is possible but that is a significant amount of engineering work.

Multiply the hydraulic example over the rest of the airplane in electrical, pneumatics, air conditioning, fuel systems, etc and the engineering work climbs dramatically if Boeing wants to optimize the plane for efficiency. Meanwhile airlines expect to pay less for smaller planes, so all that engineering work was spent on a plane that will be cheaper.

787 and A330 shrinks are commonly proposed on this site. In reality they rarely work since the airframe costs almost the same to build as the bigger plane and has worse CASM. Unless it is a shrink for range, the business case for an airline to buy a shrink is rarely workable. They cost too much and aren’t as efficient as planes optimized for shorter missions.
 
planecane
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797

Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:44 pm

patches wrote:
It seems very confusing on what Boeing wants with its 797. All the videoes and pictures I have seen on this thing it appears that it looks just like a 767-200. Dont you think Boeing could have saved billions of dollars on this new aircraft and updated the 767-2 with a new wing, new 787 like engines and a 787 cockpit? I mean for Christ sak they have been doing this with the 737 for 30 years!! That thing has been updated a jillion times and its worked pretty well.

Probably the main reason they won't make a 767 ""NEO" is that it seems a major part of the business model is the cost of manufacturing and innovating when it comes to that. I'd imagine so many changes would be needed for the 767 to meet that requirement that the compromises of the 1970s design wouldn't be worth the minimal development cost savings.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:47 am

Adding the latest engines to the 767 would turn it into a 7000+nm aircraft. New engines always add range look at the A330NEO for example. This would push the 767 close to 787-8 territory.

The 797 might be the same a capacity as the 767 but it will be much lighter to stop the range growing too much.

From a physical appearance and weight perspective it will be more like a 767 fuselage stuck onto the lighter and smaller 757 wing and landing gear. Obviously a cleansheet design with lots of carbon.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:08 am

Elshad wrote:
Why would they start the numbering at 797-6? Why not start the smallest variant at -7 or -8 like the rest of Boeing current models?

Perhaps because the current preferred thinking is a 787 shrink, incorporating modified construction (learned and lighter), which will also available on the 8, 9 and 10 plus a new wing. The Board preference is to not make the 777X mistake again.

There will be a completely new NB, but only when an engine revolution supports. Meanwhile the focus is lower cost per unit, and even faster build time.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:22 am

uta999 wrote:
The proposed 797, based around a 767-200/300 makes little sense, when ‘Boring’ has already sunk $32B into the only slightly larger 787 family.

Just take a few frames out of the 788, reduce the weight, fuel and engine thrust. Job done for around $500m

Then use the huge savings to finally kill off the 737 with a new model, once and for all.

I was actually a huge fan of this idea many years ago. It doesn't fill the MOM gap but reduces it from the top end.

The 787-8 already has a lighter landing gear and has a quite unique structure that is expensive to produce. It also has derated engines that is far from ideal. The 787-8 needs its structure brought up to the newer 787-9/10 production standard. So I consider this a good opportunity to go all out for the lightweight model as part of this design refresh.

My idea was to go much further than the original 787-3 proposal which was hamstrung by the need to have very high commonality with the 787-8. Those derated engines of the 787-3 and clipped wings killed the design. Going much further would see the 787-8 as we know it discontinued. The 787-6 would be 6m shorter than the current 787-8. The 787-7 would be the same length as the 787-8 effectively replacing it. The 6-7 would get a fully brand new lighter wing, with much lighter landing gear and fully optimised geared turbofans. It would be built with the newer production techniques with all of the excess weight cut out from the long range models. This means low commonality with the 787-9 and 787-9.

787-6 240 seat - 5500nm small wing - 170T
787-7 280 seat - 4500nm small wing - 170T
787-9 320 seat - 7600nm big wing - 250T
787-10 360 seat - 6400nm big wing - 250T

The two small wing models would also have 90% commonality and fly around 2025. The two big wing models would then get new engines around 2030 and have 90% commonality.

The big and small families wings would share only 30% commonality but have the same pilot type rating. The tail, cockpit, nose maybe a few parts will be shared between all four models.

The 787-6 and 787-7 nearly perfectly match the 767 and A330 performance but in a much lighter and fuel efficient frame.

The 787-8ER could be produced as a straight shrink of the 787-9 creating a 9000+nm model down the track to replace the 777-8.

I think Boeing has since discovered that the MOM market is big enough to design an entirely new 797 family. It will sit right in the middle of the MOM gap between the A321 and 787-8 and have a new cross section narrower than the 787. I do expect the 787-8 to be discontinued once the 797 production ramps up. I also expect the 777X to sell poorly and the 787-8ER to launch as a replacement of the 777-8.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:39 am

So discontinue the 787-8 but make a 787-8ER?
-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.
 
B1168
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:16 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
A term I can't find any other reference for: The bones of a plane

Neither Airbus and certainly not Boeing foresaw that the 737 and 320 were really a 1000 to 3000+ nm plane. They are not efficient given modern engines as 100-150 passengers below 1000 miles

The 330s bones make it a long range plane

Both 8 versions of the 787 and 350 are suffering from being kind of shrinks of the more efficient models of each plane

The 777s competative niche is now very large and kind of very long range

From these market and design constraints I see Boeing designing a light weight medium range 767 whose bones really are a 3000 - 4500 mile plane. It will allow abusing up to 5000 miles, and Boeing likely hopes down to 2000 miles. Costs are acutely important, and could result in a no go decision.


I would expect the NMA to be flying routes shorter than 2000 miles. If we look at Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chengdu to Beijing, each route has around 30 flights a day operated mostly by widebodies. The boost of A330s sales came because of exploding demand in China. These routes are around 1000 miles. I see a 300 seat dense configuration airplane replacing hundreds of 737s and A320s in China since airlines need to upgauge.


You make a legitimate point. However, there is a lot more to B797s than replacing 330s in domestic service. That means 797s can thrive even more than 330s.
Sure, when the first 797 arrives (maybe 2025?), the first 330 introduced to China would be 20 years old. That is ideal timing for replacement. But when we talk about A330s, we have to spilt 332s and 333s, for they are used distinctly differently.
A332s are most frequently used for mid-long hauls (I.e. CTU-AKL). That is easily replaceable using 787 family planes. However, some shorter routes (I.e. PEK-MSQ, CAN-TLV) can be better replaced using 797-6s than 787-8s, eliminating the role that subsidies may have to play in. The only problem here is for its range. If coverage for the Middle East from HKG and coverage of E. Europe from ZBAD isn’t possible, the 797 will not help carriers explore new markets.
As for A333, yes, the 797-7 can be helpful. But by that time, the first 787-8s would have been 12 years old and would be kicked off most long-haul operations, especially if they have been replaced by 789s and 796s (Chinese tradition). 797-7s with high density kicking in just step in the market of the “old” 788s. Airlines can use 796s to serve relatively “smaller” second-tier cities (I.e. NKG-CTU), while also use them to serve long hauls, maximizing plane utilization.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7545
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:07 am

Unanswered is will the cargo compartments allow side by side LD3 carriage ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:20 am

Max Q wrote:
Unanswered is will the cargo compartments allow side by side LD3 carriage ?


Randy Tinseth more or less answered that question:

“The airplane is going to carry cargo, but it's not going to be a widebody aircraft the way you think about it,” he says. “A widebody has a structure that's built to carry those big containers, and there is a cost associated with that, and it's not insignificant. We ask our customers whether they want to carry those big containers or have better economics through saving weight. It's pretty close to unanimous that they want the most efficient aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... is-453005/
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:24 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
So discontinue the 787-8 but make a 787-8ER?

Longterm yes.

We are seeing a massive downscaling of routes with increased frequency. The whole market is shifting so the replacement aircraft will get smaller. 777-9 will replace A380's. 787's will replace 77W's.

Making the 787-8ER will target this downgauging trend and allow it to win long haul orders against the A350ULR and 777-8.

The current 787-8 still carries a lot of weight and the engines are sized for the 9/10 model. Cutting empty weight properly for the 787-7 would significantly improve short/medium haul CASM.

I am fairly certain Boeings original plan was to make the 787-6 and 787-7 as smaller, lightweight models of the 787 family. They would have been fairly optimised and the 787-8 would stop being offered. This explains the number system of 6 and 7 fitting underneith the 787-8. Not once did Boeing use numbers 797 they used NMA-6 and NMA-7. Both models would have been in service in 5 years time.

But Boeing then decided to suddenly bring the 787-8 up to 787-9 production standard a year ago using the simpler tail design. Boeing had a surge of new 787-8 sales. This is a strong sign that Boeing is no longer using the 787 cross section for the MOM. It could be that Boeing decided the lightweight 787 wouldn't have been efficient enough or the MOM market is so big that it is worth making a brand new family.

The current 787-8's are now already half way towards becoming the 787-8ER, they have most of the steong bits from the 787-9, they really just need the larger MLG trucks and the derated engines disabled and not much is needed to allow them to be bumped up to 254T MTOW. We'll see how 777X sales go.

In 10 years time I expect A380 production to have ended and the 777X and A350-1000 built at very low rates. The market will continue to downgauge with increasing point to point traffic.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:34 am

Max Q wrote:
Unanswered is will the cargo compartments allow side by side LD3 carriage ?

Zero chance.

Filling up the cargo compartment to reach maximum payload weight usually halves the "wikipedia range." This means an A330-300CEO can only fly 3000nm, a 787-8 only 4000nm.

The 797 ranges are "wikpiedia ranges" so fully loaded with cargo the range would be very low.

If an airline needed to move 250 passengers 4000nm the 787-8 would be offered to the airlines that do lots of cargo and the 797 will be offered to airlines that do passengers only.
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:39 am

If a 2000 mile flight is close to the minimum effective range where this is more cost effective than A321/737 series, what does this say for routes like DFW-LAX or ORD-EWR? Worth it for the capacity, or too much abuse of an airframe?
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4232
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:01 am

KD5MDK wrote:
If a 2000 mile flight is close to the minimum effective range where this is more cost effective than A321/737 series, what does this say for routes like DFW-LAX or ORD-EWR? Worth it for the capacity, or too much abuse of an airframe?

Carbon fiber airframes like the 787 have a really high cycle limit compared to similar airframes. 787 has an LOV of 46000 cycles, compared to just 16000 for the A340-500/600, so shorter hops shouldn’t hurt. Additional domestic cargo revenue may help get numbers competitive with narrow bodies.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
travelhound
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:59 am

I suspect with advances in technology the efficiency delta of a MOM over an A321 to be in the range of ~5-10% on longer stage lengths

On shorter range lengths the delta between the two aircraft may decrease, but an MOM would still hold an advantage because of its higher revenue opportunity (premium seats).

At the end of the day the viability of the aircraft will come down to the cost to produce in comparison to today's narrow bodies. There is no use having an aircraft that is 5% more efficient, but 50% more expensive to purchase. The ROI equation will always favour the cheaper aircraft.

That's why I see the entry in to service date as
a key factor in the viability equation. If the average seat count for short haul aircraft increases to ~220-240 seats in the 2023-2027 year period the economics of an MOM may be based more upon its capacity rather than its base economics.

Recently, Alan Joyce from QANTAS stated they could eventually replace their fleet of 737's with a combination of MOM and A220 aircraft. This suggests the value of an MOM could revolve around Right Sizing rather than base economics for some airlines.

The question is, can Boeing produce this thing cheap enough!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:06 am

KD5MDK wrote:
If a 2000 mile flight is close to the minimum effective range where this is more cost effective than A321/737 series, what does this say for routes like DFW-LAX or ORD-EWR? Worth it for the capacity, or too much abuse of an airframe?

2000 miles will not be the minimum effective range. That will probably be the point where it is no longer the most efficient aircraft. It will still be very efficient below this point. Between 2000 and 4000miles it will probably be the most efficient aircraft available, with the 787-8 being more efficient as the payload/range increases.

The 797 is being marketted as not being able to carry extra cargo on medium haul flights. The 787 can't carry extra cargo on ultra long haul flights. But like the 787, the 797 will be able to carry heaps of extra cargo on flights that are say two thirds of max range and below

On a 2000-3000nm flights the A321 and 737's usually fly passenger and bags only. The 797 could carry lots of extra payload at this range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8498
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:57 am

In the end many things are still undefined, like range. 4500nm sounds nice, but what does it mean - 4500nm with full payload, typical payload, passengers and bags only 3 class?

This adds question like capacity. How much space is available when you go with a full payload of passengers and bags.

We know it is a twin aisle, so just for arguments sake. lets say they want to use LD3/45s like the A320 series.

240 seats 6 abreast: 40 rows
240 seats 7 abreast: 34 rows
240 seats 8 abreast: 30 rows

There won´t be much space for cargo left.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:58 am

It's interesting ( I think) how market segments change over time.Based no doubt on consumer demand changes and improvements in technology making the non commercial ,commercial.
Others have pointed out before that the two sizes of 797's are -give or take the exact same sizes as the 2 primary 767's although 797 range differs -fundamentally less than the high selling 'er's'
Clearly the 767 stopped selling because it became outdated ( against the longer ranged 330-2).But now the heart of this segment has moved up in capacity size to 789's and 339's.Whilst the old 767 market has optimised at a lower range!
There has been an absolutely phenomenal growth of continental flying over the past decade whether it be within America,Europe or Asia. 'Standard' airacft have moved from 150 seaters B737-700/319 to today 737-10's and A321's at 230 seats.Enormous change.
Perhaps Boeing simply sees this change continuing over the next 40 years ( the 797 project length) and reality says that single aisle airacft just aren't going to cut it at this increasing size/length- particularly with the important development ( that consumers like) of eliminating the long wait for baggage in the hold to arrive ( if it arrives!).A twin aisle with enormous overhead bins allows you to simply 'grab n' go'.
Just thoughts really.
 
musman9853
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:01 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Unanswered is will the cargo compartments allow side by side LD3 carriage ?


Randy Tinseth more or less answered that question:

“The airplane is going to carry cargo, but it's not going to be a widebody aircraft the way you think about it,” he says. “A widebody has a structure that's built to carry those big containers, and there is a cost associated with that, and it's not insignificant. We ask our customers whether they want to carry those big containers or have better economics through saving weight. It's pretty close to unanimous that they want the most efficient aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... is-453005/



The way I'm reading that is it's gonna have a nb style cargo Bay, a la a320
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
uta999
Posts: 697
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:18 pm

Someone on the 797 project needs to come up with a better carry-on system for luggage, as most now use a cabin bag where possible to avoid the baggage system and lost bags. These bags don't all fit inside a NB cabin.
Your computer just got better
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:20 pm

NB cargo bay.A320
Yup that's what most people think.Ot totally fits with a 7AB ovoid structure.
Their mantra has consistently been
NB costs with WB comfort.
Now we know this isn't absolutly true as a certain Ryanair CEO said that it's not for him,re costs.But he did say he was interested in the MAX10.(230 seats).
All of which makes total sense considering his operational requirements and single product ( 737) beliefs.
 
catdaddy63
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:27 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:45 pm

Part of the business case will be the decision of where will the 797 be built. I think it's likely that Boeing is already engaged in talks for tax breaks, construction and land discounts, as well as job creation incentives with some strong non-disclosure agreements in place. That will be a huge driver of the business case of making the 797 profitable. I doubt we will see the 797 at PAE due to cost constraints, RNT is overloaded with the 737, CHS is a possibility if there is enough land to build a dual assembly line. I think it will be built somewhere that currently doesn't have a major Boeing facility but may have a partner such as Spirit nearby that can make the large composite sections and feed them directly to the assembly line. Otherwise, I think we might see a few 748LCF built to join the current fleet of 744LCF that will be getting long in the teeth by the in-service target of the 797.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:52 pm

Please don't make the cabin width slightly wider than a 767 or else airlines will cram another seat in. 2-4-2 seating instead of 2-3-2 seating.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:02 pm

catdaddy63 wrote:
Part of the business case will be the decision of where will the 797 be built. I think it's likely that Boeing is already engaged in talks for tax breaks, construction and land discounts, as well as job creation incentives with some strong non-disclosure agreements in place. That will be a huge driver of the business case of making the 797 profitable. I doubt we will see the 797 at PAE due to cost constraints, RNT is overloaded with the 737, CHS is a possibility if there is enough land to build a dual assembly line. I think it will be built somewhere that currently doesn't have a major Boeing facility but may have a partner such as Spirit nearby that can make the large composite sections and feed them directly to the assembly line. Otherwise, I think we might see a few 748LCF built to join the current fleet of 744LCF that will be getting long in the teeth by the in-service target of the 797.


I would almost guarantee that he first production line is at PAE. They will vacate the 77X LRIP to make space for it. And if you need two lines they will move all 787 work to CHS.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:14 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Please don't make the cabin width slightly wider than a 767 or else airlines will cram another seat in. 2-4-2 seating instead of 2-3-2 seating.


I actually love a cross section that allows 2-4-2 in a typical narrowbody economy seat and 2-3-2 in a nice premium economy seat. As the consumer I can choose either a very cheap seat or pay more for more space.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:17 pm

No chance of it being wider,nearly guaranteed to be narrower.They have created a new 17" benchmark with 787 Y and they need this craft to be as close- cost/operationally to an Airbus NB.
Layout guess.1/2/1 first/sleeper , 2/1/2 day biz,2/2/2 premium Y, 2/3/2 Economy.Lots of decent permutations which no doubt they know from the 767.
 
c933103
Posts: 3769
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:51 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The 797-6 would be launched first, followed by the larger 797-7. Range appears to be closing in on 4,500 nm (8300km). This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.

But why would Asian airlines downsize their A330 flights to MoM given the continual rapid growth in demand in the region?
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:02 pm

c933103 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The 797-6 would be launched first, followed by the larger 797-7. Range appears to be closing in on 4,500 nm (8300km). This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.

But why would Asian airlines downsize their A330 flights to MoM given the continual rapid growth in demand in the region?


Airlines in China are using A330s on domestic and international routes with about 280-300 seats alongside A321s. Using a 270 seat 2 class with 38 inch pitch business (versus long haul lie flats found on many A330s) would only be about a 10% reduction in seats. If they upgauge some A321s and downgauge some A330s then they would have similar capacity.

I suspect A330s are being used on trunk routes since they are one of the few options larger than an A321, not because they are the perfect size. There are also A350s, 777s and 787s doing many domestic flights as well. Slot restrictions are requiring the use of bigger planes in airports like Beijing. Airlines already have been getting rid of relatively new 737-700s and A319s because they need more seats and replacing with 737-800s, A321s and A330s. The rise in popularity of the A321 is linked with growth in China. The Chinese Airlines are using whatever they have. An airplane actually optimized for the big domestic trunk routes would likely sell very well in China.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 25

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