Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 28
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:40 pm

However if you say containers are optional, you will have problems realising the faster turn around times.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5054
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:42 pm

Maybe the 797 will be the first to simply assign a bin number along with the seat. And actually it could be done in most planes, not all seats would have an assigned bin - perhaps they could check in a carryon sized bag for a smaller fee. The dynamics for assigned bins is that they are self-enforcing regarding size - if your bag takes up some of my space it gets 'gate checked', at your cost. Beings I usually have a small bag, I might just smile, and say you are welcome to the space. You might buy me that glass of wine.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:02 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

Cargo capacity is a valid point. Boeing is obviously talking with airlines to find out what compromises work best

A number of AAPA’s members are major cargo operators such as Korean Air, Cathay Pacific and China Airlines. It has been reported that some Asia-Pacific carriers are focused on the NMA's cargo carrying capability, while North American carriers are considerably less concerned with this.

Tinseth, however, downplays the apparent divergence of views.

“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.”

Boeing has previously suggested an aircraft with a hybrid fuselage cross-section, which is generally taken to mean a wider passenger cabin and a narrower cargo bay.


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

From that article it appears airlines want efficiency. LD3s are out. They may be willing to pay for a new container size so they can have a more efficient plane. I don’t know how much backlash the 767 got from Using unique LD2s, but airlines clearly want efficiency over big containers.


Pressed further for details of the NMA, Mounir said “We’re looking at optimising the cross-section, giving you the best cross-section for passenger comfort, while not carrying more structure than you need.”

RGN asked Mounir if Boeing was planning to give airlines the choice to add one extra seat on the cross section, like the 787 — a choice which almost all operators made.

“We’re looking at — we’re talking to customers. Nothing is firm. We’re going through iterations; we don’t know yet how it’s going to end up.”

...

The NMA promise is for either long and thin or highly dense markets,” Mounir said. “In the highly dense markets, what they care about is passenger economics. That market is being addressed by A330s today, and old 767s, and old 757s.”

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/08/2 ... 797-paxex/

Again it is clear Boeing is talking to the airlines about what works best. They have the advantage of building something new so they can take the time to get a compromise that works best. It also looked like the A330 is clearly something that Boeing wants to displace from highly dense markets.

The analysts said the design appeared to be firming, with a 2-3-2 seating arrangement and a composite fuselage and wing.
...
The 797 would have twice the overhead bin space and two aisles, and most passengers would have an aisle or window seat.
...
The rise and rise of premium economy suggests they will.

Boarding of single-aisle aircraft is becoming a nightmare, particularly in the US where the trend is for passengers to bring all their luggage on-board with them.

This is a major problem as the overhead bins are not large enough and the drama surrounding getting the luggage into the overhead slows the boarding process to a crawl.

Verbal fights often break out over “luggage space”.


https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/bo ... b88994564z

Twice the overhead bin space freeing up space in the cargo hold below could work for some airlines. There is only so much space in a narrowbody. The 787 bins are downright huge. They are bigger than needed for a standard carryon. Likewise the big bin options on the A320 and 737 family are generous, but still can get very full in winter. If the NMA allows a rollaboard for every passenger, I could see that freeing up more space below deck. Far better than filling up the cargo hold with auxiliary fuel tanks.


Although on A320 cross section 17 inch seats can be combined with an 25 aisle, it's an issue. Not only during during (de)boarding.

I tried to think of something that would better tap into the cargo potential of a possible 797 wider cross section, without loosing all commonality to the standard NB containers many airlines and industry are already using. IMO it could serious improve NMA attractiveness for Asian and European markets.

Image


We discussed the idea of an extendable container in the tech ops thread you started

viewtopic.php?t=1365951

B777LRF wrote:
From someone who used to be the station manager of a ULD repair facility: I'll give this 'extension mechanism' a service life of between 2 and 4 days before it breaks. Seriously, ULDs are abused during ground handling like nothing else. They are dropped, pushed, driven into and generally treated like the dirt under your shoes. The key to durability is simplicity and ruggedness; introducing an extension mechanism, however simple and rugged, will simply lead to an increase in repairs, which means increased downtime and that in turn means the airline(s) need to purchase a larger number of ULDs to ensure there's enough around.


Trying to use common containers between the A320 and NMA seems like a very low priority.

If an airline wants to fly lots of cargo, they can buy the A330. The A330 has a high cabin floor compromise to fit LD3s. I think that is the compromise that Boeing said that airlines don’t want in the NMA. Creating extendable LD3-45 is probably equally unpalatable. How is your patent going with this design?

The 737 has customized cargo containers now too for airlines who want them

https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance ... boeing-737

Image


Judging a sliding mechanism no one has seen, as having 2-4 days service live. Is that good enough for you?
Aircraft are full of sliding mechanisms, but this one wouldn't have small or moving parts (I discussed with ULD mft).
The 737 Telair "container" hasn't really been sold & would carry 3x less. So nice, but not really the same. :)
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:04 pm

Correct me if you think this is wrong but I got a slightly different take out from what Boeing was saying about the cargo hold.
Sure there is the general point of space.But he seemed to be talking about 'strucure(s)'.IE that carrying a lot of cargo 'weight' would require stronger thus heavier structures.Structural weight.
That thought must surely transfer through the whole aircaft.More weight to lift means bigger wings stronger /heavier MLG and thus more powerful ( heavier) engines - the classic vicious circle.

It maybe that they are looking to do just the opposite.Really come down hard on the MTOW and create a virtuous circle.Their mantra has been 'wide body comfort narrow body ( operating) costs'.
Keeping the MTOW in check must surely be a big part of this.Sure it will be able to carry some containerised cargo but probably not the dense stuff.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:09 pm

parapente wrote:
Correct me if you think this is wrong but I got a slightly different take out from what Boeing was saying about the cargo hold.
Sure there is the general point of space.But he seemed to be talking about 'strucure(s)'.IE that carrying a lot of cargo 'weight' would require stronger thus heavier structures.Structural weight.
That thought must surely transfer through the whole aircaft.More weight to lift means bigger wings stronger /heavier MLG and thus more powerful ( heavier) engines - the classic vicious circle.

It maybe that they are looking to do just the opposite.Really come down hard on the MTOW and create a virtuous circle.Their mantra has been 'wide body comfort narrow body ( operating) costs'.
Keeping the MTOW in check must surely be a big part of this.Sure it will be able to carry some containerised cargo but probably not the dense stuff.


Sure, but if you do not have the capability to lift it, you do not need to design the space to carry it. Less pressurized space, means less heavy structure.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2885
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:13 pm

keesje wrote:
Judging a sliding mechanism no one has seen, as having 2-4 days service live. Is that good enough for you?
Aircraft are full of sliding mechanisms, but this one wouldn't have small or moving parts (I discussed with ULD mft).
The 737 Telair "container" hasn't really been sold & would carry 3x less. So nice, but not really the same. :)


You are assuming it's the first time this has been proposed or, indeed, tried. Neither is the case I'm afraid, and the 'tests' ended in spectacular failures. It doesn't matter how simple or how few (or even no) moving parts are involved; the first time it's dropped off a dolly, or driven into by a tractor or forklift, or forklifted whilst loaded, or yanked off a rack, it'll go out of alignment and the extension mechanism will be blocked. Yes, some aircraft holds have sliding floors in various disguises. But I've yet to see someone driving a tractor around the hold of a narrow body, so you're trying to compare apples and cheese - not even oranges.

The 737 container wasn't taken up for two good reasons: A) a significant reduction in available volume and B) the need for ground handling providers to purchase special and dedicated loaders. We looked into that many moons ago when the company I used to work for bought 757 and had them converted to freighters; containerising the lower-deck would speed up turn-around times, but only by a relatively small fraction and only if you have a dedicated team to handle the lower-decks. The cost of purchasing dedicated loaders and almost doubling the amount of manpower to realise the potential shorter turn-around times, outweighed the benefit. SLF carriers are different, as you don't need a team of ramp guys to load and un-load the main-deck. Hence the expression 'SLF'. Thus, a containerised narrow-body will benefit both from reduced turn-around times and less manpower required, at the cost of relatively small loss of volume and an increased fuel burn due higher weights.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:35 pm

B777LRF wrote:
keesje wrote:
Judging a sliding mechanism no one has seen, as having 2-4 days service live. Is that good enough for you?
Aircraft are full of sliding mechanisms, but this one wouldn't have small or moving parts (I discussed with ULD mft).
The 737 Telair "container" hasn't really been sold & would carry 3x less. So nice, but not really the same. :)


You are assuming it's the first time this has been proposed or, indeed, tried. Neither is the case I'm afraid, and the 'tests' ended in spectacular failures. It doesn't matter how simple or how few (or even no) moving parts are involved; the first time it's dropped off a dolly, or driven into by a tractor or forklift, or forklifted whilst loaded, or yanked off a rack, it'll go out of alignment and the extension mechanism will be blocked. Yes, some aircraft holds have sliding floors in various disguises. But I've yet to see someone driving a tractor around the hold of a narrow body, so you're trying to compare apples and cheese - not even oranges.

The 737 container wasn't taken up for two good reasons: A) a significant reduction in available volume and B) the need for ground handling providers to purchase special and dedicated loaders. We looked into that many moons ago when the company I used to work for bought 757 and had them converted to freighters; containerising the lower-deck would speed up turn-around times, but only by a relatively small fraction and only if you have a dedicated team to handle the lower-decks. The cost of purchasing dedicated loaders and almost doubling the amount of manpower to realise the potential shorter turn-around times, outweighed the benefit. SLF carriers are different, as you don't need a team of ramp guys to load and un-load the main-deck. Hence the expression 'SLF'. Thus, a containerised narrow-body will benefit both from reduced turn-around times and less manpower required, at the cost of relatively small loss of volume and an increased fuel burn due higher weights.


I won't discuss details on the "mechanism" but it would be very abuse friendly (non metal) & it would take a guy a minute to convert a container between the two settings. It would be ~20kg heavier than a AKH and have the same NET ALLOWED WEIGHT of around 1200 kg.

But instead of looking for possible drawbacks, lets allow ourselves to recognize the powerful advantages for getting the 797 business case closed. :veryhappy: It would definately be one up versus the A321. Bigger stuff could be shipped. More space freed up for revenue cargo (say hello China).
 
musman9853
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:49 pm

StTim wrote:
It amazes me - given how some people on here predict huge sales of the as yet unannounced 797 - that Boeing has been quite clear that they have had to work hard to close the business case.


the only issue with that line of thinking is that the actual design parameters for the nma have been pretty set in sotne for a while now. if boeing was still working on the busines case, the design would still be fairly freeform. but we know its gonna be a 2-3-2 ovoid short wb with about 5k nm range, a narrowbody cargo bay, will probably use composites very heavily, and will almost certainly be launched in paris this year, with ato coming a few months before
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
That's settled than, Airbus halted all revamp studies last june. Development people were probably send home, or send out, to assist suppliers in getting engines delivered. Better believe it.

:rotfl:

Thanks for providing a textbook example of a troll post.

We have media quotes of the Airbus CCO telling us that resources were shifted off A320 +/++ and we have media quotes from the engineer leading the A321XLR design study.

You don't have any other evidence to contradict that or evidence that supports your own position, so you try to make points off of things that people didn't say and throw in a taunting meme to finish.

Par for the course.


Agree I put words in your mouth you didn't say, sorry. Knowing the medium term market at stake and the cat / mouse play happening, I can assure development studies continue & the june statements were the correct thing to say for a CCO because of angry customers waiting for delayed aircraft. And that comes from somebody that has been on all sides of the table. Meanwhile nobody is sitting on their hands and business cases are pulled and pushed on both sides.

Image

Even while not matching the XLR / NMA on TATL range, an A322 could take another chuck out of the lower "MoM" segment. Boeing has to be creative and lean. And get clear on cargo capability. E.g. say the Airbus AKH is a good idea. :flamed:

Image
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:07 pm

musman9853 wrote:
StTim wrote:
It amazes me - given how some people on here predict huge sales of the as yet unannounced 797 - that Boeing has been quite clear that they have had to work hard to close the business case.




It has far more to do with squeezing the supply chain and vertical integration than it does sales. Doesn't matter if you sell 10,000 aircraft if you sell each one of them at a loss.
 
StTim
Posts: 3816
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:13 pm

I had a buddy who was terrible at chasing up his invoices. My standard quote - anyone can get work if the client never has to pay for it!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:47 pm

musman9853 wrote:
StTim wrote:
It amazes me - given how some people on here predict huge sales of the as yet unannounced 797 - that Boeing has been quite clear that they have had to work hard to close the business case.


the only issue with that line of thinking is that the actual design parameters for the nma have been pretty set in sotne for a while now. if boeing was still working on the busines case, the design would still be fairly freeform. but we know its gonna be a 2-3-2 ovoid short wb with about 5k nm range, a narrowbody cargo bay, will probably use composites very heavily, and will almost certainly be launched in paris this year, with ato coming a few months before


I wonder if a circular, metal fuselage would be a better business case. Lighter, cheaper, why oval anyway? Maybe it will be less oval than some expect.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:45 pm

keesje wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
keesje wrote:
Judging a sliding mechanism no one has seen, as having 2-4 days service live. Is that good enough for you?
Aircraft are full of sliding mechanisms, but this one wouldn't have small or moving parts (I discussed with ULD mft).
The 737 Telair "container" hasn't really been sold & would carry 3x less. So nice, but not really the same. :)


You are assuming it's the first time this has been proposed or, indeed, tried. Neither is the case I'm afraid, and the 'tests' ended in spectacular failures. It doesn't matter how simple or how few (or even no) moving parts are involved; the first time it's dropped off a dolly, or driven into by a tractor or forklift, or forklifted whilst loaded, or yanked off a rack, it'll go out of alignment and the extension mechanism will be blocked. Yes, some aircraft holds have sliding floors in various disguises. But I've yet to see someone driving a tractor around the hold of a narrow body, so you're trying to compare apples and cheese - not even oranges.

The 737 container wasn't taken up for two good reasons: A) a significant reduction in available volume and B) the need for ground handling providers to purchase special and dedicated loaders. We looked into that many moons ago when the company I used to work for bought 757 and had them converted to freighters; containerising the lower-deck would speed up turn-around times, but only by a relatively small fraction and only if you have a dedicated team to handle the lower-decks. The cost of purchasing dedicated loaders and almost doubling the amount of manpower to realise the potential shorter turn-around times, outweighed the benefit. SLF carriers are different, as you don't need a team of ramp guys to load and un-load the main-deck. Hence the expression 'SLF'. Thus, a containerised narrow-body will benefit both from reduced turn-around times and less manpower required, at the cost of relatively small loss of volume and an increased fuel burn due higher weights.


I won't discuss details on the "mechanism" but it would be very abuse friendly (non metal) & it would take a guy a minute to convert a container between the two settings. It would be ~20kg heavier than a AKH and have the same NET ALLOWED WEIGHT of around 1200 kg.

But instead of looking for possible drawbacks, lets allow ourselves to recognize the powerful advantages for getting the 797 business case closed. :veryhappy: It would definately be one up versus the A321. Bigger stuff could be shipped. More space freed up for revenue cargo (say hello China).


If you are trying to promote the container design in which you are getting a patent on, good luck. If you are in the business of designing and selling cargo containers, I see why you post so frequently about them.

With that said, I doubt using parts common with the A320 has any merit on the business case for a Boeing plane. If they need a new container, I doubt they will add the constraint of making it interchangeable with the A320.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:37 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
With that said, I doubt using parts common with the A320 has any merit on the business case for a Boeing plane. If they need a new container, I doubt they will add the constraint of making it interchangeable with the A320.


Many of the hundreds of A320 series operators use the standard containers and are potential 797 customers too. Hopefully Boeing really listens to them, instead of filtering out confirmations for preferences. (Ref. https://youtu.be/rJzRsodeYes, a month before AA MAX launch).
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:56 am

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
With that said, I doubt using parts common with the A320 has any merit on the business case for a Boeing plane. If they need a new container, I doubt they will add the constraint of making it interchangeable with the A320.


Many of the hundreds of A320 series operators use the standard containers and are potential 797 customers too. Hopefully Boeing really listens to them, instead of filtering out confirmations for preferences. (Ref. https://youtu.be/rJzRsodeYes, a month before AA MAX launch).


Are you implying that Boeing isn’t listening to airlines? They tells us they are speaking with over 50 airlines.

He [Randy Tinseth] expects demand to come from operators of large single- and small twin-aisle aircraft. "We know that dynamic," he says.

However, he foresees that the NMA will provide lower trip costs than existing widebodies – which are designed to carry heavy cargo loads as belly freight – with "almost" as many passengers.

Meanwhile, airport turnaround times will be closer to those of short-haul aircraft.

More than 50 international operators have participated in Boeing's NMA studies, and the airframer forecasts demand for at least 4,000 units over the next two decades.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-446909/

Please name an airline that has stated that they want an extendable LD3-45 or have suggested that they want to interchange containers between A320s and the NMA.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:43 am

Another article was published today

Boeing has discussed its NMA plans with more than 60 airlines and Herbert believes the NMA will cost Boeing more than $15 billion to develop. However, he said Boeing and engine suppliers continue to struggle with the "business case " of how they'll make money on the new jet.

"We expect it to be a sole source for the engine, likely CFM, and believe the official launch, if it is a composite fuselage, will be a positive catalyst for suppliers, such as Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita and Hexcel," Herbert added.


https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... rbert.html

60 airlines is a lot of presentations and a lot of customer input. If launch wasn’t likely I wouldn’t expect that many airline discussions.
 
B1168
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:01 am

musman9853 wrote:
StTim wrote:
It amazes me - given how some people on here predict huge sales of the as yet unannounced 797 - that Boeing has been quite clear that they have had to work hard to close the business case.


the only issue with that line of thinking is that the actual design parameters for the nma have been pretty set in sotne for a while now. if boeing was still working on the busines case, the design would still be fairly freeform. but we know its gonna be a 2-3-2 ovoid short wb with about 5k nm range, a narrowbody cargo bay, will probably use composites very heavily, and will almost certainly be launched in paris this year, with ato coming a few months before


These are vital characteristics that are nearly sealed.
The problem is, is it worthy to keep an expensive new fleet, while a smaller subfleet can fly as long?
As we all know, the French flew Sychelles-Toulouse using A321LR in 11hrs with regular simulated pax as a test flight. A321XLR is supposed to pose a 5000nm range, which is better than 797. 797 can’t cover the entirety of US even from LHR and will not help further TATL development as greatly with less range and larger cabin (harder to fill in). Nor were 797s able to cover the Eastern half of China, anything south of that, not even Sri Lanka. Though solid demands exist even with flaws of such, it is still mildly pitiful to potentially profitable routes unserved.
However, 797 owns a wider cabin and a design completely built from scratch. While it is costlier than A321XLRs, a leasing means (like A220s) of operation may really work out for airlines who doesn’t own A320 series, or who want more capacity (both pax and cargo) than A321XLRs but less than 788s&332s. It seems like that 321XLRs are more of an route expander, while 797s are more likely to add capacity for existing MoM routes.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:04 am

We know that Boeing uses conservative estimates for their range charts. What do you think the actual range of the two 797 models might be?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:46 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Another article was published today

Boeing has discussed its NMA plans with more than 60 airlines and Herbert believes the NMA will cost Boeing more than $15 billion to develop. However, he said Boeing and engine suppliers continue to struggle with the "business case " of how they'll make money on the new jet.

"We expect it to be a sole source for the engine, likely CFM, and believe the official launch, if it is a composite fuselage, will be a positive catalyst for suppliers, such as Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita and Hexcel," Herbert added.


https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... rbert.html

60 airlines is a lot of presentations and a lot of customer input. If launch wasn’t likely I wouldn’t expect that many airline discussions.


The number of airlines can be an argument for a launch or a non-launch. On one hand it can show that they are confident in the product that they have shown it to so many airlines, on the other hand it can mean that they still have problems closing the business case after talking to so many airlines.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:04 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
We know that Boeing uses conservative estimates for their range charts. What do you think the actual range of the two 797 models might be?

Range depends entirely on payload.

The wikipedia ranges are usually listed with a medium density cabin, passenger bags and no extra cargo in the hold. This means the payload is well below the maximum.

Once you start adding extra cargo or fit a high density cabin the range reduces significantly more than you expect. This is because as the payload increases the fuel load has to be reduced by an equal amount.

The best example is the 787-10 as it is a medium haul optimised model of the 787 family so it can relate to the 797. The 787-10 fully fueled can only carry 17T of payload before hitting MTOW. It can fly an impressive 7000nm much further than people would expect. However at maximum payload the 787-10 can only fill its fuel tanks to only 60% capacity and can fly only 4000nm.

A premium airline that runs a very luxurious low density cabin and had no cargo contracts could put the 787-10 on a route with cities 6000nm apart. A route that may have been operated by a 777. However an airline that had massive cargo contracts or a low cost carrier that wants to fit 400+ seats would have to place the 787-10 on routes below 4000nm.

The 797 family will also have a large range fluctuation. JAL for instance fitted a very low density 161 seats onto its original 787-8's that were used on long haul routes. Such a low density cabin on the long range 797-6 model would translate to only around 120 seats. Range with a such a low payload might reach 6000nm well above the reported 5300nm range. Low cost carrier should be able to fit 300 seats onto the 797-6 in a high density cabin. Range might reduce to only 4000nm but still enough to fly London to New York easily. The A321NEO at high density could not fly London to New York year round. The A321NEO gets its 4000+nm range from having a low to medium density cabin.

The higher capacity but shorter range 797-7 would have the same fluctuations. Range would be similar to the A321NEO in low density and high density. That means 4000nm in a medium density cabin but below 3000nm at max payload meaning it probably couldn't do transatlantic either fully loaded but would have excellent CASM. Ideal for domestic operations in congested hubs.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:44 am

seahawk wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Another article was published today

Boeing has discussed its NMA plans with more than 60 airlines and Herbert believes the NMA will cost Boeing more than $15 billion to develop. However, he said Boeing and engine suppliers continue to struggle with the "business case " of how they'll make money on the new jet.

"We expect it to be a sole source for the engine, likely CFM, and believe the official launch, if it is a composite fuselage, will be a positive catalyst for suppliers, such as Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita and Hexcel," Herbert added.


https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... rbert.html

60 airlines is a lot of presentations and a lot of customer input. If launch wasn’t likely I wouldn’t expect that many airline discussions.


The number of airlines can be an argument for a launch or a non-launch. On one hand it can show that they are confident in the product that they have shown it to so many airlines, on the other hand it can mean that they still have problems closing the business case after talking to so many airlines.


I think we should separate marketing from real interest. I can give a great "workshop" for 100 customers, surprise them with great visions, outlooks, specifications, ideas, impressive animations and fine dinner. And they will all say they are really interested. Who wouldn't be? https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/july/i_ca2.html

You can ask 30 potential customers what they want. But what if 75% wants fewer than 250 seats and 55% a range under 4000NM? And your own team concluded it has to be 285 seats and 5000NM? You listen, understand and include they don't understand and proceed with what you wanted in the first place. And only quote the people who agreed, promote they number of customers you talked too. 60 customers is a lot of presentations and input. But it's about what you do with that feed back, or are you only sending, promoting, convincing, selling?

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/10/AI29_pie2.jpg
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/09/AI29_pie1.jpeg
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:42 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
It does appear that the airplane is beginning to take shape

We continue to take input and suggestions from more than 50 customers around the world. Our NMA team remains focused on building a solid business case including understanding market opportunities, reducing program risk, and working through design tradeoffs. No decision has been made. Our Board will make one when it is ready. It’s a decision they will get to over the next year or so. If a program is launched, entry into service would be in the 2024-2025 timeframe.”

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... eings-nma/

Image

Image

This post could identically have been written a long time ago. Nothing has changed including the claim that something has changed...
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:01 pm

keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Another article was published today

Boeing has discussed its NMA plans with more than 60 airlines and Herbert believes the NMA will cost Boeing more than $15 billion to develop. However, he said Boeing and engine suppliers continue to struggle with the "business case " of how they'll make money on the new jet.

"We expect it to be a sole source for the engine, likely CFM, and believe the official launch, if it is a composite fuselage, will be a positive catalyst for suppliers, such as Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita and Hexcel," Herbert added.


https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... rbert.html

60 airlines is a lot of presentations and a lot of customer input. If launch wasn’t likely I wouldn’t expect that many airline discussions.


The number of airlines can be an argument for a launch or a non-launch. On one hand it can show that they are confident in the product that they have shown it to so many airlines, on the other hand it can mean that they still have problems closing the business case after talking to so many airlines.


I think we should separate marketing from real interest. I can give a great "workshop" for 100 customers, surprise them with great visions, outlooks, specifications, ideas, impressive animations and fine dinner. And they will all say they are really interested. Who wouldn't be? https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/july/i_ca2.html

You can ask 30 potential customers what they want. But what if 75% wants fewer than 250 seats and 55% a range under 4000NM? And your own team concluded it has to be 285 seats and 5000NM? You listen, understand and include they don't understand and proceed with what you wanted in the first place. And only quote the people who agreed, promote they number of customers you talked too. 60 customers is a lot of presentations and input. But it's about what you do with that feed back, or are you only sending, promoting, convincing, selling?

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/10/AI29_pie2.jpg
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/09/AI29_pie1.jpeg


Here are some airlines expressing interest

Air Canada

In the context of Air Canada’s strategy to take some traffic out of the USA and connect via its international hubs, an aircraft of the NMA size could work for the Canadian carrier, says Ravinescu.
“That size of aircraft could fill in well with some of the cities that have the aspirations to connect international flights without connecting to a hub.”


https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/16/air-c ... d-for-nma/

Delta

Delta Air Lines and Boeing have discussed the possibility of the carrier launching the proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), as Delta seeks a replacement for more than 100 ageing mid-market aircraft.

"We've had discussions with Boeing about being a potential launch customer," says Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta, at the National Press Club in Washington DC today.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... an-449780/

United

United Airlines is considering the Airbus A330-800neo and Boeing New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) among options to replace its fleet of aging Boeing 757s and 767s.

The Chicago-based carrier is looking at replacements for its 77 757-200 and -300s, and 51 767-300ERs in the near term, a presentation by senior vice-president of finance, procurement and treasurer Gerry Laderman on 27 February shows.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-446322/

American

The carrier’s senior vice-president of integrated operations David Seymour says American’s 787 delivery timeline keeps an NMA order on the table, though he stresses American knows little about the NMA’s ultimate production timetable or final specification.

Still, Seymour says the NMA could perform well in the carrier’s network and could replace the same aircraft types as the 787.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-447664/

Copa

Copa Airlines is considering Boeing's planned New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), which it says could potentially provide additional capacity on its longest routes, chief executive Pedro Heilbron tells FlightGlobal.

The Panamanian carrier's interest in the NMA is significant, given that it has steadfastly stuck to a narrowbody fleet all this while. However, Heilbron says a more cost-efficient widebody could convince Copa to change its mind.

"The existing widebodies make no sense," he tells FlightGlobal ahead of the US Chamber of Commerce aviation summit in Washington DC.

"But the NMA might make sense for Copa, if it gives us more capacity and range in what we hope will be a much less expensive and easier to operate aircraft compared to the 787 or A330."


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... eo-446363/

Qantas

“Whether you’re running out of slots or whether you’re just looking to optimise capacity for the peak levels of demand... an airplane that has the flexibility to carry 20 to 30 per cent more people at the right time is going to be compelling," Mr Hulst said on the sidelines of the International Air Transport Association's AMG in Sydney last week.

"Also, with the range capability to fly as far as somewhere like Japan, into and beyond places like Singapore, and secondary markets in South East Asia, it becomes a really compelling opportunity."


https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 4zkto.html

Norwegian

Norwegian is "very interested" in Boeing's proposed New Midsize Airplane design, says chief executive Bjorn Kjos.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... eo-438904/

Thomas Cook

Thomas Cook is 'definitely interested' in Boeing's potential 797 jet

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... debus.html

Air Astana

“It was a glimmer of an idea in Singapore. We now understand it’s more than just a glimmer of an idea,” Mr Foster says. “It is being very seriously debated with dates, times and production facilities now being talked about and thought about internally at Boeing. We love it. It would be brilliant for us.”

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ion-174725

I’m certain there are plenty more articles in non English publications.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26731
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:05 pm

keesje wrote:
I think we should separate marketing from real interest.

Unfortunately we can't do that till we see a product launched and several months for genuine interest in the form of orders (or lack of such) to become evident. Till then you seem to want to believe Boeing has already decided what the product is regardless of customer input and presumably become a failure due to misreading the market. I suppose that's fair since so many of us feel that's exactly what Airbus did with the A380. Time will tell if that is what happens to NMA.

rheinwaldner wrote:
This post could identically have been written a long time ago. Nothing has changed including the claim that something has changed...

The claim I see:

We continue to take input and suggestions from more than 50 customers around the world. Our NMA team remains focused on building a solid business case including understanding market opportunities, reducing program risk, and working through design tradeoffs. No decision has been made. Our Board will make one when it is ready. It’s a decision they will get to over the next year or so. If a program is launched, entry into service would be in the 2024-2025 timeframe.”

doesn't suggest something has changed, it suggests that progress is being made. Customer input is being taken (which Keesje sugggests is being done for show and the input is being ignored), market opportunities are being understood (i.e. market projections are being made, launch and post-launch orders are being discussed in tentative terms, market projections are being made), program risk is being reduced (vendors are being squeezed to make the business case more sound) and design tradeoffs are being made.

I guess I don't understand "the claim that something has changed".
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:06 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.


I guess a reengined 767 would still weigh around 30t (!) less than a 787. Unlikely it will ever happen, but it shows the size of the NB-WB gab in terms of empty weight. An A330 weighs twice as much as a A321.

Image


Newbiepilot wrote:
I’m certain there are plenty more articles in non English publications.


I have shown interest too. Free of charge, without any consequence. Airlines want options to keep cost under control. Sure airlines expressed interest. As far as I can remember, they have shown and expressed interest in any new aircraft. It can only help. Usually lessors are less enthusiastic (it devalues their investments), also unsurprisingly.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:20 pm

keesje 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.


I guess a reengined 767 would still weigh around 30t (!) less than a 787. Unlikely it will ever happen, but it shows the size of the NB-WB gab in terms of empty weight. An A330 weighs twice as much as a A321.

Image


Problem with a re-engined 767 is that it would be overwinged especially with more efficient engines. A 767 with 45-50klb engines and a new wing of a similar span and 220m^2 would be where I could see a large 767 update sitting.

Fred
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:43 pm

keesje wrote:
I guess a reengined 767 would still weigh around 30t (!) less than a 787. Unlikely it will ever happen, but it shows the size of the NB-WB gab in terms of empty weight. An A330 weighs twice as much as a A321.


The A330 also has more 2.5 times higher MTOW and more than double the payload. It also has a wing three times larger. OEW is driven by how high the payload Is. Based on the payload (passengers, cargo and fuel), OEW and MTOW, engine thrust, wing area and other parameters become clear. Existing widebodies other than the A300 have all been designed for more payload than is being suggested for the NMA as far as I can tell.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:
I’m certain there are plenty more articles in non English publications.


I have shown interest too. Free of charge, without any consequence. Airlines want options to keep cost under control. Sure airlines expressed interest. As far as I can remember, they have shown and expressed interest in any new aircraft. It can only help. Usually lessors are less enthusiastic (it devalues their investments), also unsurprisingly.


As far as I can tell you are in the business of designing cargo containers and not the CEO of a major airline being quoted in news sources expressing interest. But what do I know? I am just a fanboy who likes aviation and decided to get a pilot license when I was a teenager and has roamed around the industry. If we aren’t going to believe CEOs and their opinion of the plane , who will we believe?
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:57 pm

It seems to me Boeing have prospered when they have created a new aircraft and a new category.


Doing so takes a lot of market research especially in aerospace where time lines are very long.


For example the 797, if it happens and if it succeeds will be in its sweet spot 10-25 years out. I don't think a modified updated 767/321 is nearly as attractive in 20 years as it is today.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:13 pm

In the end all planes a tube with wings. The tube makes very little difference when it comes to the efficiency of the the aircraft. And the A321 is still good for a new wing.

But in the end range and size will differentiate them anyway.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5054
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:34 pm

Boeing (and every airframe maker) operating in a high tech, high cost, highly competitive environment has to make money this year and also ten years from now. (stock price is somewhat an expectation of future earnings) It is reasonable to doubt that the existing line of planes will be adequate to continue getting good orders in 2025. They (A and B) will have to have at least one new model coming on line, and will be talking about a second new model.

Whatever the eventual new narrow body, it will be better if it fits in with what the MOM will be. There is reasonable speculation the not only was the 380 too big, but also the 777X, and maybe even the 350 10. Which would mean that Airbus and Boeing will be making most of their money with planes small than the 10. Interesting. And at this point little clarification as to what the optimal 100 to 150 passenger planes might be.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:42 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:

The number of airlines can be an argument for a launch or a non-launch. On one hand it can show that they are confident in the product that they have shown it to so many airlines, on the other hand it can mean that they still have problems closing the business case after talking to so many airlines.


I think we should separate marketing from real interest. I can give a great "workshop" for 100 customers, surprise them with great visions, outlooks, specifications, ideas, impressive animations and fine dinner. And they will all say they are really interested. Who wouldn't be? https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/july/i_ca2.html

You can ask 30 potential customers what they want. But what if 75% wants fewer than 250 seats and 55% a range under 4000NM? And your own team concluded it has to be 285 seats and 5000NM? You listen, understand and include they don't understand and proceed with what you wanted in the first place. And only quote the people who agreed, promote they number of customers you talked too. 60 customers is a lot of presentations and input. But it's about what you do with that feed back, or are you only sending, promoting, convincing, selling?

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/10/AI29_pie2.jpg
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/09/AI29_pie1.jpeg


Here are some airlines expressing interest

Air Canada

In the context of Air Canada’s strategy to take some traffic out of the USA and connect via its international hubs, an aircraft of the NMA size could work for the Canadian carrier, says Ravinescu.
“That size of aircraft could fill in well with some of the cities that have the aspirations to connect international flights without connecting to a hub.”


https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/16/air-c ... d-for-nma/

Delta

Delta Air Lines and Boeing have discussed the possibility of the carrier launching the proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), as Delta seeks a replacement for more than 100 ageing mid-market aircraft.

"We've had discussions with Boeing about being a potential launch customer," says Ed Bastian, chief executive of Delta, at the National Press Club in Washington DC today.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... an-449780/

United

United Airlines is considering the Airbus A330-800neo and Boeing New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) among options to replace its fleet of aging Boeing 757s and 767s.

The Chicago-based carrier is looking at replacements for its 77 757-200 and -300s, and 51 767-300ERs in the near term, a presentation by senior vice-president of finance, procurement and treasurer Gerry Laderman on 27 February shows.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-446322/

American

The carrier’s senior vice-president of integrated operations David Seymour says American’s 787 delivery timeline keeps an NMA order on the table, though he stresses American knows little about the NMA’s ultimate production timetable or final specification.

Still, Seymour says the NMA could perform well in the carrier’s network and could replace the same aircraft types as the 787.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-447664/

Copa

Copa Airlines is considering Boeing's planned New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), which it says could potentially provide additional capacity on its longest routes, chief executive Pedro Heilbron tells FlightGlobal.

The Panamanian carrier's interest in the NMA is significant, given that it has steadfastly stuck to a narrowbody fleet all this while. However, Heilbron says a more cost-efficient widebody could convince Copa to change its mind.

"The existing widebodies make no sense," he tells FlightGlobal ahead of the US Chamber of Commerce aviation summit in Washington DC.

"But the NMA might make sense for Copa, if it gives us more capacity and range in what we hope will be a much less expensive and easier to operate aircraft compared to the 787 or A330."


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... eo-446363/

Qantas

“Whether you’re running out of slots or whether you’re just looking to optimise capacity for the peak levels of demand... an airplane that has the flexibility to carry 20 to 30 per cent more people at the right time is going to be compelling," Mr Hulst said on the sidelines of the International Air Transport Association's AMG in Sydney last week.

"Also, with the range capability to fly as far as somewhere like Japan, into and beyond places like Singapore, and secondary markets in South East Asia, it becomes a really compelling opportunity."


https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 4zkto.html

Norwegian

Norwegian is "very interested" in Boeing's proposed New Midsize Airplane design, says chief executive Bjorn Kjos.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... eo-438904/

Thomas Cook

Thomas Cook is 'definitely interested' in Boeing's potential 797 jet

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... debus.html

Air Astana

“It was a glimmer of an idea in Singapore. We now understand it’s more than just a glimmer of an idea,” Mr Foster says. “It is being very seriously debated with dates, times and production facilities now being talked about and thought about internally at Boeing. We love it. It would be brilliant for us.”

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ion-174725

I’m certain there are plenty more articles in non English publications.

Four of the biggest signed Expressions of Interest for Concorde!

At this stage, just posturing to be kept in the loop and stay the near the top for launch discounts.

When there IS a firm aircraft, projected lifetime ownership costs, and these entities are talking numbers, then it's getting closer to real.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26731
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:57 pm

smartplane wrote:
At this stage, just posturing to be kept in the loop and stay the near the top for launch discounts.

You can do all of that and still say "no comment" to media members.

smartplane wrote:
When there IS a firm aircraft, projected lifetime ownership costs, and these entities are talking numbers, then it's getting closer to real.

The aviation media has reported final engine proposals were due by end of 2018 and the rumor of a launch in Paris in June.

Given the desire to have some orders in hand at launch time, we're not too far away from firm numbers being passed around, again presuming the launch rumor is true.
 
MCTSET
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:45 pm

797: LEAP, GTF or both?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:37 pm

What would power the 797? I’m guessing atleast 35k+ so that would put both leap and gtf in a good position, would it be an exclusive deal or would they opt for engine options, I’m guessing that would significantly increase engineering time and budget on a programme which is already overdue and expensive as it is. Is there a possibility rolls offer them something, the advance should be out by EIS? What are your thoughts on this?
 
caverunner17
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:21 pm

IMHO, 797 needs to be a 737 replacement. Base model would be the 739 MAX 10 size with a model above and below (the below fitting between the MAX8 and MAX9)

You could develop 2 wings - one designed for short-haul with a 3500nmi range and one with a 5000 nmi range. Perhaps start with the 5000nmi MAX10/11 model and then a few years down offer the shorter winged 3500nmi model
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26731
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 797: LEAP, GTF or both?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:17 pm

MCTSET wrote:
What would power the 797? I’m guessing atleast 35k+ so that would put both leap and gtf in a good position, would it be an exclusive deal or would they opt for engine options, I’m guessing that would significantly increase engineering time and budget on a programme which is already overdue and expensive as it is. Is there a possibility rolls offer them something, the advance should be out by EIS? What are your thoughts on this?

Leeham (https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/03/ponti ... a-is-a-go/) says:

Market sources told LNC last summer that the engine for the NMA grew from around 45,000 lbs to 52,000 lbs of thrust.

The thrust is where you can't just push the current engines, you need to make a bigger engine ala the 757.

Rolls says they have offered UltraFan ( ref; https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... oeings-nma ).

Boeing said they expected a round of updated engine offers by end of 2018.

I think we'd all love to know more, but we aren't being told anything.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:38 pm

http://www.deagel.com/Propulsion-System ... 27007.aspx

35klbs ? That is where they are for the LR now. Laws of physics here.You create a ( much) bigger plane that flies further.Guess what - you need more thrust .Circa 45-50 klbs.
Why do you think they are having issues closing the business case?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 797: LEAP, GTF or both?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:19 am

Revelation wrote:
MCTSET wrote:
What would power the 797? I’m guessing atleast 35k+ so that would put both leap and gtf in a good position, would it be an exclusive deal or would they opt for engine options, I’m guessing that would significantly increase engineering time and budget on a programme which is already overdue and expensive as it is. Is there a possibility rolls offer them something, the advance should be out by EIS? What are your thoughts on this?

Leeham (https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/03/ponti ... a-is-a-go/) says:

Market sources told LNC last summer that the engine for the NMA grew from around 45,000 lbs to 52,000 lbs of thrust.

The thrust is where you can't just push the current engines, you need to make a bigger engine ala the 757.

Rolls says they have offered UltraFan ( ref; https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... oeings-nma ).

Boeing said they expected a round of updated engine offers by end of 2018.

I think we'd all love to know more, but we aren't being told anything.


52,000lb of thrust is an awful lot, you will get a 788 up at 200t with that.

Fred
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:33 am

Engine thrust.Yup 52 klbs does sound like an awful lot of thrust for the specs of the 797 so far given.Equally it's going to be more than the 35 klbs of a GTF on an A321LR for instance.Experts will perhaps know the answer.But something doesn't seem right.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:03 pm

parapente wrote:
Engine thrust.Yup 52 klbs does sound like an awful lot of thrust for the specs of the 797 so far given.Equally it's going to be more than the 35 klbs of a GTF on an A321LR for instance.Experts will perhaps know the answer.But something doesn't seem right.


The baseline 767-200 (not the ER version) had 52K lbs of thrust, 315K lbs MTOW and 3900nm range.

I think what’s not right is that people keep comparing it to the A321LR. Remember we are talking about a 270 seat 2-class plane with 4000nm of range. The A321LR is a 180 seat airplane in 2-class configuration. The airplane is expected to be closer in size to an A330 than an A321.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:09 pm

However the the engine was still enough for the ER which flew a lot further. And this thrust gives us an idea on the MTOW as this is more directly linked.
Last edited by seahawk on Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:13 pm

parapente wrote:
Engine thrust.Yup 52 klbs does sound like an awful lot of thrust for the specs of the 797 so far given.Equally it's going to be more than the 35 klbs of a GTF on an A321LR for instance.Experts will perhaps know the answer.But something doesn't seem right.
My "lunch break" excel work suggests that 45k will get you a 763 sized fuselage with a 220m^2, 48m span wing up at 145t. The weight of such a machine would be ~85t and would be capable of ~4000nm
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26731
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:52 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I think what’s not right is that people keep comparing (797/NMA) to the A321LR. Remember we are talking about a 270 seat 2-class plane with 4000nm of range. The A321LR is a 180 seat airplane in 2-class configuration. The airplane is expected to be closer in size to an A330 than an A321.

I agree, and this should be more clear as we learn more about the seat maps the various A321LR customers are using and the missions they are flying.

We have a whole thread on that ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1412303 ).

In very, very simplistic terms A321 is more of a 757 class plane whereas it seems 797/NMA is going to be more of a 767 class plane.

The A321 will have the pluses and minuses associated with a derivative airplane and 797/NMA will have the pluses and minuses associated with a clean sheet.

Therefore the comparisons between A321 and 797/NMA we find here don't make much sense.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I think what’s not right is that people keep comparing (797/NMA) to the A321LR. Remember we are talking about a 270 seat 2-class plane with 4000nm of range. The A321LR is a 180 seat airplane in 2-class configuration. The airplane is expected to be closer in size to an A330 than an A321.

I agree, and this should be more clear as we learn more about the seat maps the various A321LR customers are using and the missions they are flying.

We have a whole thread on that ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1412303 ).

In very, very simplistic terms A321 is more of a 757 class plane whereas it seems 797/NMA is going to be more of a 767 class plane.

The A321 will have the pluses and minuses associated with a derivative airplane and 797/NMA will have the pluses and minuses associated with a clean sheet.

Therefore the comparisons between A321 and 797/NMA we find here don't make much sense.

In terms of size I would agree with you but the range however is a different matter. The 767 had a much longer range.

I feel the difference is more akin to the 77W vs A380 where one was a substantially larger clean sheet and another was a derivative/update however their range was more or less comparable and the larger of the two played on an efficiently packaged passenger cabin at the detriment of cargo volume. For me this scenario is much more analogous.

Fred
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:07 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
parapente wrote:
Engine thrust.Yup 52 klbs does sound like an awful lot of thrust for the specs of the 797 so far given.Equally it's going to be more than the 35 klbs of a GTF on an A321LR for instance.Experts will perhaps know the answer.But something doesn't seem right.


The baseline 767-200 (not the ER version) had 52K lbs of thrust, 315K lbs MTOW and 3900nm range.

I think what’s not right is that people keep comparing it to the A321LR. Remember we are talking about a 270 seat 2-class plane with 4000nm of range. The A321LR is a 180 seat airplane in 2-class configuration. The airplane is expected to be closer in size to an A330 than an A321.


270 seats in a two / three class configuration 7 abreast would create a pretty big, heavymachine, bigger than most 763's. That would create a big gab for Airbus to harvest & compete with the 787. I estimate am OEW of 80-90t. Lean & mean for shorter flights would be gone. An NSA would have to follow shortly to relief the MAX-9/10.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_767-300ER_C.php
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I think what’s not right is that people keep comparing (797/NMA) to the A321LR. Remember we are talking about a 270 seat 2-class plane with 4000nm of range. The A321LR is a 180 seat airplane in 2-class configuration. The airplane is expected to be closer in size to an A330 than an A321.

I agree, and this should be more clear as we learn more about the seat maps the various A321LR customers are using and the missions they are flying.

We have a whole thread on that ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1412303 ).

In very, very simplistic terms A321 is more of a 757 class plane whereas it seems 797/NMA is going to be more of a 767 class plane.

The A321 will have the pluses and minuses associated with a derivative airplane and 797/NMA will have the pluses and minuses associated with a clean sheet.

Therefore the comparisons between A321 and 797/NMA we find here don't make much sense.


And it matches with the idea that Airbus shelved the A322 and a re-winged A321, as they would not compete in the same class anyway.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:17 pm

I am sure that if Boeing say they need50klbs+ then they do.Just 'seemed' a bit of a jump.
Having said that as pointed out above this (797) in two sizes is a pretty close match for the two classic 767's so as stated perhaps the A321LR/XLR should not even be compared ( to the 797) such is the performance capacity difference.Although (XLR if built) range is comparable.
767 was one of my favourite aircaft to fly on (BA and US carriers when on biz'in States) so I hope they do find a commercial sweet spot for it.
Certainly end of the 338 If they do imho.But it's hardly causing a ripple anyway.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:45 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

The baseline 767-200 (not the ER version) had 52K lbs of thrust, 315K lbs MTOW and 3900nm range.

I think what’s not right is that people keep comparing it to the A321LR. Remember we are talking about a 270 seat 2-class plane with 4000nm of range. The A321LR is a 180 seat airplane in 2-class configuration. The airplane is expected to be closer in size to an A330 than an A321.


270 seats in a two / three class configuration 7 abreast would create a pretty big, heavymachine, bigger than most 763's. That would create a big gab for Airbus to harvest & compete with the 787. I estimate am OEW of 80-90t. Lean & mean for shorter flights would be gone.


270 seats would only be 9 seats bigger than the 767-300. Per Boeing 2-Class specs, the 767-300 has 261 seats. The 767-200 has 214 seats. It should be apples to apples since we are talking Boeing standard configurations.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:35 am

flipdewaf wrote:
parapente wrote:
Engine thrust.Yup 52 klbs does sound like an awful lot of thrust for the specs of the 797 so far given.Equally it's going to be more than the 35 klbs of a GTF on an A321LR for instance.Experts will perhaps know the answer.But something doesn't seem right.
My "lunch break" excel work suggests that 45k will get you a 763 sized fuselage with a 220m^2, 48m span wing up at 145t. The weight of such a machine would be ~85t and would be capable of ~4000nm


45klbs thrust and a 763 sized fuselage?? That would be a 763A. Actual engine thrust of CF6-80A is 48klbs. OEW 86t. Range 3900 nm with 261 pax in 2 class.

Configured to operate out of LGA too . . if Boeing can't do any better than that after all these years . .
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:55 am

It's becoming clear that the A&B duopoly is becoming a stalemate, Which is exactly what they want. They don't have to develop anything 'new' and really gouge airlines for high prices on warmed up existing aircraft.

We need a strong 3rd entrant who is aggressive. I thought Bombardier was going to be that guy, but they got the business case wrong from the get go (too small).
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 797: LEAP, GTF or both?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:38 am

flipdewaf wrote:
52,000lb of thrust is an awful lot, you will get a 788 up at 200t with that.

I've pretty much said 20+ times on this forum that the 797 will most likely be a tight 8AB. You have probably seen my aisle efficiency posts of 7ab vs 8ab.

I expect as the 797 will be optimised for shorter ranges so it will be slightly underwinged. It will not have a big high aspect ratio wing like the 777X that would allow for lower thrust engines as that only helps with long haul efficiency.

Basically the longer length version of the 797 will most likely be extremely close to the original A300 in every dimension including weight. This makes it very close to the 787-8 in capacity but much lighter with around half the range. This will give it excellent short haul efficiency.

Then the shorter version of the 797 would be like a simple shrink and create the 5300nm range model we hear about. It will feed off the market fragmentation we are seeing with point to point routes.

I haven't seen any official source claim 7ab. It might be like the 787 where it was marketed as a very comfortable 8ab with 18.5inch seats but ended up being 9ab with 17.5inch seats.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 28

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