Airbus will most probably launch a new A321 version in a few months, Paris.

Boeing will launch next year, So they have extra time to fine tune their responds.

rheinwaldner wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The 797 enjoys a 40 years technology advantage over the existing single aisle competition, it should be not depending on the container size to beat the competition with ease.

You forget, that it needs to be competitive against same-tech-level narrowbodies, that will arrive a few years later. Your argument is as flawed as Airbus saying in 2000: the A380 will enjoy 30 year technology advantage over existing VLA competition. And yes, it did beat the 744 and even the 748i with ease. But not the upcoming same-or more-tech-level near-VLA competition.

Would not a same-tech-level launch of a 200-250 seat mid-range NB in 2030 (be it from A or B) shorten the 797s competitive life so much, that the overall market outlook becomes questionable? In 2030 the 797 factories would just have reached the planned output rates.

You can't really say that one way or another - as I (and many others have pointed out) - an 7W (or 8W for that Matter) Oval shaped fuselage could have the potential to be almost as light on a per seat basis in Y with a potential advantage in premium seating and advantages in Cargo capacity per m2 of cross section area. Plus it would be shorter for a given seating capacity - potentially a lot shorter as premium would take up a lot less of the length of the Fuselage.

Given that the barrel of the airplane is one of the lightest parts (isn't it something like 10% of the MTOW?) - even is there is a say a 10% disadvantage per seat - that overall is very marginal on the overall weight of the plane. I would have to guess that the difference will purely come down to engines and whether or not they are half a gen or a full gen ahead which could be back ported to a 7w anyways.

A 6W or 5W would beat it (5W not over 200 seats) - but probably only if optimized for much shorter ranges with smaller wing/gear/etc. But then they are not competing in the same space and that is what the rewinged/shorter ranged NMA - A.K.A. NSA is for. (Pure speculation on my part).

Sorry for reviving the cross section debate - but I didn't bring it up.

The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

uta999 wrote:

The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

Funny how the first thing I see on that page is “fatigue cracks”. Come on now...

morrisond wrote:

Given that the barrel of the airplane is one of the lightest parts (isn't it something like 10% of the MTOW?)

Would you then agree that the aircraft weights 10 x that of the fuselage?

morrisond wrote:

- even is there is a say a 10% disadvantage per seat - that overall is very marginal on the overall weight of the plane

or if you believe maths works both ways then a ~10% increase in fuselage weight would have to make the entire aircraft weight ~10% greater for a similar performance level.

morrisond wrote:

. I would have to guess that the difference will purely come down to engines and whether or not they are half a gen or a full gen ahead which could be back ported to a 7w anyways.

A 6W or 5W would beat it (5W not over 200 seats) - but probably only if optimized for much shorter ranges with smaller wing/gear/etc. But then they are not competing in the same space and that is what the rewinged/shorter ranged NMA - A.K.A. NSA is for. (Pure speculation on my part).

Sorry for reviving the cross section debate - but I didn't bring it up.

It comes down to the sweet spot for optimising hoop stresses for pressure, bending stresses for moment arms of the tail/engines/wings and then once you establish where that sweet spot lies then how you fit the relevant number of seats into that area.

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

All fun engineering challenges no doubt.

Fred

ikolkyo wrote:

uta999 wrote:

The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

Funny how the first thing I see on that page is “fatigue cracks”. Come on now...

It was never designed for the low-level sorties it ended up doing to avoid Soviet radar. In the end, the Victor flew until 1993 as an in-flight tanker with the RAF. The 787 had much the same start in life with some serious wing issues.

uta999 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

uta999 wrote:

The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

Funny how the first thing I see on that page is “fatigue cracks”. Come on now...

It was never designed for the low-level sorties it ended up doing to avoid Soviet radar. In the end, the Victor flew until 1993 as an in-flight tanker with the RAF. The 787 had much the same start in life with some serious wing issues.

I’m aware of all this, I just found that funny. Out of curiosity what designs have you seen? If you are referring to the version with a 757/767 forward section. It will certainly not look like that.

rheinwaldner wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The 797 enjoys a 40 years technology advantage over the existing single aisle competition, it should be not depending on the container size to beat the competition with ease.

You forget, that it needs to be competitive against same-tech-level narrowbodies, that will arrive a few years later. Your argument is as flawed as Airbus saying in 2000: the A380 will enjoy 30 year technology advantage over existing VLA competition. And yes, it did beat the 744 and even the 748i with ease. But not the upcoming same-or more-tech-level near-VLA competition.

Would not a same-tech-level launch of a 200-250 seat mid-range NB in 2030 (be it from A or B) shorten the 797s competitive life so much, that the overall market outlook becomes questionable? In 2030 the 797 factories would just have reached the planned output rates.

Exactly correct!

However the logic is outlined by 2175301 and fmrCapCadet above; and additionally Bigjku previously:

The background is as I (among others) have speculated about over the years, EG that BA would do an effective repeat of the 767/757 "sibling" development.

Easy to say: very very hard to do, because as Bigjku has outlined, the transition from the MAX will be hellishly hard. In particular, in a perfect world, the trick is to wring the last drop of juice out of the MAX line (737-8 in particular); then to immediately transition to the NSA.

Can't be done perfectly, of course, as (again) Bigjku outlines.
But you can do pretty well if you already have in production a small 2-aisle with all the required systems basically already in volume-production as well as there being minimal changes required to EG empennage, nose-section etc etc.

So then you then have the best possible accelerated start into the NSA production/speedup task. (**)

But meanwhile BA are very very very concerned that the NMA (797) IS ALSO PROFITABLE ON IT'S OWN MERITS.

Hence the delay.
And consequently heavyweight, high-profile contributors on this site (Revelation EG) have long been concerned about the NMA business-case.

The BA strategy seems to recognise this; but if they can make the NMA work, then ]BA has:

1) a profitable niche all to itself, as well as a dynamite fleet-selling proposition for the Sales staff; and
2) a perfect lead-in to the NSA.

So then (in the unlikely absence of any response from AB whatsoever), then AB will be faced with an NMA which will dominate it's own niche but which will also give substantial leverage to the BA Sales Staff, IMHO, when marketing their next-gen NSA; as well as an accelerated start to the NSA changeover/rampup.

cheers




(**) If this has been discussed here, then apologies; I haven't seen it.
My point is that BA are steadily making the point that the NMA will NOT be a new hi-tech "Moonshot".

WHICH MEANS THAT THE NSA WILL NOT BE A MOONSHOT EITHER!

So much for all the (endless) posts to the effect that there will be NO NSA launch until 10% - 15% - whatever improvement is available.

But that is for another thread!

uta999 wrote:

The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

Cars get bought in the millions to solve all kinds of problems and to project all kinds of images. I'm having a mid life crisis so I'm spending a lot on a fancy car. I'm a suburban dude that wants to look macho so I have a huge pickup truck. I'm a sensible sort who just wants to get from A to B so I bought an econobox. I'm a fashionista so I bought a cheap ass car because it's bright and shiny. I'm a greenie so I bought an virtue signalling electric car. I'm an urban gangsta so I bought a blinged out low rider. Etc.

While there may be some "wow factor" in airplane purchases, or even some "drug like rushes", they end up getting bought for mostly the same reasons: delivering as many people as required by a given airline's network from point A to point B at the lowest possible overall cost. Thus we end up with the tube with wings and two engines.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Given that the barrel of the airplane is one of the lightest parts (isn't it something like 10% of the MTOW?)

Would you then agree that the aircraft weights 10 x that of the fuselage?

morrisond wrote:

- even is there is a say a 10% disadvantage per seat - that overall is very marginal on the overall weight of the plane

or if you believe maths works both ways then a ~10% increase in fuselage weight would have to make the entire aircraft weight ~10% greater for a similar performance level.

morrisond wrote:

. I would have to guess that the difference will purely come down to engines and whether or not they are half a gen or a full gen ahead which could be back ported to a 7w anyways.

A 6W or 5W would beat it (5W not over 200 seats) - but probably only if optimized for much shorter ranges with smaller wing/gear/etc. But then they are not competing in the same space and that is what the rewinged/shorter ranged NMA - A.K.A. NSA is for. (Pure speculation on my part).

Sorry for reviving the cross section debate - but I didn't bring it up.

It comes down to the sweet spot for optimising hoop stresses for pressure, bending stresses for moment arms of the tail/engines/wings and then once you establish where that sweet spot lies then how you fit the relevant number of seats into that area.

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

All fun engineering challenges no doubt.

Fred

I didn't say it would be 10% more per seat - I'm guessing that when you average it - it could be better. However yes if at the outside it was 10% heavier per seat that would have knock on effects - if you designed for the exact same performance.

This is a serious question - One of the rumors from a while back was that the Fuselage was not an Oval per say but two circles of Different diameters - The top of the fuselage down to the Floorbeams 1/2 of a circle the width of the fuselage and the bottom 1/3 of a larger circle.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to keep the floor in tension with this approach?

flipdewaf wrote:

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

With all the draw-back of an ovoid fuselage, Boeing has to mature the design to it's final optimization as lessons learned from that work will surely help the development of a BWB aircraft.

bt

United clamoring for the NMA also.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-456472/

If the NMA's capabilities are above the current NB's, there doesn't have to be full match on the costs, but yes it needs to be very capable as the alternate to do the route is a different WB with all of its extra weight to perform 7,000+ nm range.

uta999 wrote:

The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor

It is because Physics is quite cruel. Designers are fighting over 0.1% improvements that are dictated by the lift & drag over a spectrum of design conditions. The T-tail vanished on the 787 because of the cruel physics, probably just a couple of 1/10s. Cars have far more flexibility, and if it looks cool and gets a 1/10th less MPG it doesn't really matter.

It is now down to the added drag of flush fastener heads vs the basic skin friction to get the best results. The bean counters don't really care how it looks, just that it is the most economical to operate.

bikerthai wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

With all the draw-back of an ovoid fuselage, Boeing has to mature the design to it's final optimization as lessons learned from that work will surely help the development of a BWB aircraft.

bt

The natural tendency of a horizontal ovid would be to put the floor in compression. I have no idea where the concept that the floor would be in tension came from. A vertical ovid would do that... but, that makes no sense unless it was going to be a double decked aircraft.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

With all the draw-back of an ovoid fuselage, Boeing has to mature the design to it's final optimization as lessons learned from that work will surely help the development of a BWB aircraft.

bt

The natural tendency of a horizontal ovid would be to put the floor in compression. I have no idea where the concept that the floor would be in tension came from. A vertical ovid would do that... but, that makes no sense unless it was going to be a double decked aircraft.

Have a great day,

I think flipdewaf just made a typo.

What about my idea from above?

One of the rumors from a while back was that the Fuselage was not an Oval per say but two circles of Different diameters - The top of the fuselage down to the Floorbeams 1/2 of a circle the width of the fuselage and the bottom 1/3 of a larger circle.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to keep the floor in tension with this approach?

Looks like United wants Boeing to move things along with the aircrafts development.

Dennis [Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing] and I talk about this all the time – speed up the process, we're growing, we need aircraft and they make great aircraft," Munoz told reporters on the sidelines of the US Chamber of Commerce Aviation summit on 7 March. "Having it in a little bit shorter timeframe would be helpful."

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411903&start=750

2175301 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

With all the draw-back of an ovoid fuselage, Boeing has to mature the design to it's final optimization as lessons learned from that work will surely help the development of a BWB aircraft.

bt

The natural tendency of a horizontal ovid would be to put the floor in compression. I have no idea where the concept that the floor would be in tension came from. A vertical ovid would do that... but, that makes no sense unless it was going to be a double decked aircraft.

Have a great day,

Yep, brain fart. The floor would be in compression.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JayinKitsap wrote:

United clamoring for the NMA also.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-456472/

If the NMA's capabilities are above the current NB's, there doesn't have to be full match on the costs, but yes it needs to be very capable as the alternate to do the route is a different WB with all of its extra weight to perform 7,000+ nm range.

Both Delta and United are in search of a replacement for the majority of their Boeing 757 and 767 fleets. The former operates 204 757s and 767s, and the latter 131 aircraft, Cirium's Fleets Analyzer shows

Operating costs of the 757 have raised significantly over the last 5 years. The aircraft slashing operating costs are entering service with competitors , 2300 sold and counting.

United probably hates the uninspired, sit back way Airbus sends them moderately discounted and timed proposals. They need healthy competition, shortly.

JayinKitsap wrote:

United clamoring for the NMA also.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-456472/

ILNFlyer wrote:

Looks like United wants Boeing to move things along with the aircrafts development.

Dennis [Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing] and I talk about this all the time – speed up the process, we're growing, we need aircraft and they make great aircraft," Munoz told reporters on the sidelines of the US Chamber of Commerce Aviation summit on 7 March. "Having it in a little bit shorter timeframe would be helpful."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-456472/ says:

Munoz is mum on what United wants in the NMA, saying only that it will be a combination of fleet replacement and opening new markets. The airline has used the 787, Boeing's last cleansheet aircraft, to open numerous new markets, including nonstop flights to Singapore from the US mainland and service to the interior Chinese city of Chengdu.

Imagine that: one airplane can be both a replacement and a route opener too.

"We want them to launch the right product," he says. "A lot of us have had a lot of input and conversation into what that might look like."

Imagine that: Boeing has actually talked to the airlines about what they want.

Which airlines will order the 797-6? Will the 797-7 replace the 767-400 at United or Delta?

There is a substantial issue that Boeing will most definitely need to determine before all else——size. Will they attempt to use folding wing tips to squeeze 797s into a C parking spot, or will they go with a full D size plane? You see, lots of US airports have D parking spots, so that won’t be a problem there; but for Asian market, due to their newer age, they didn’t really need that many D parking spots, and letting a D size plane use a E parking spot will be a problem. What will Boeing choose for this?

B1168 wrote:

There is a substantial issue that Boeing will most definitely need to determine before all else——size. Will they attempt to use folding wing tips to squeeze 797s into a C parking spot, or will they go with a full D size plane? You see, lots of US airports have D parking spots, so that won’t be a problem there; but for Asian market, due to their newer age, they didn’t really need that many D parking spots, and letting a D size plane use a E parking spot will be a problem. What will Boeing choose for this?

Very good question.

I don't know the answer, but hopefully we'll know the answer sooner than later.

Another question would be if they make folding wingtips, will they be an optional feature or will they be the default?

We see in 777x they made them the default but we know 777x wanted to fit into 777w gates and it flies relatively few legs per day compared to a 797 that might find itself banging out SYD-MEL-BNE triangle routes all day.

Revelation wrote:

B1168 wrote:

There is a substantial issue that Boeing will most definitely need to determine before all else——size. Will they attempt to use folding wing tips to squeeze 797s into a C parking spot, or will they go with a full D size plane? You see, lots of US airports have D parking spots, so that won’t be a problem there; but for Asian market, due to their newer age, they didn’t really need that many D parking spots, and letting a D size plane use a E parking spot will be a problem. What will Boeing choose for this?

Very good question.

I don't know the answer, but hopefully we'll know the answer sooner than later.

Another question would be if they make folding wingtips, will they be an optional feature or will they be the default?

We see in 777x they made them the default but we know 777x wanted to fit into 777w gates and it flies relatively few legs per day compared to a 797 that might find itself banging out SYD-MEL-BNE triangle routes all day.

This is why I have repeatedly claimed that Asian and Transatlantic demands over NMA will be hugely different. Asian carriers mostly need more capacity——best without the use of D/E gates, while Transatlantic demands relatively longer range, less capacity and implies less legs per day then their Asian counterpart. Boeing probably want both of them to work befor Airbus make the entire case uneconomical. We will indeed know Boeing’s decision at some point, so let’s be patient and see what will happen.

B1168 wrote:

There is a substantial issue that Boeing will most definitely need to determine before all else——size. Will they attempt to use folding wing tips to squeeze 797s into a C parking spot, or will they go with a full D size plane? You see, lots of US airports have D parking spots, so that won’t be a problem there; but for Asian market, due to their newer age, they didn’t really need that many D parking spots, and letting a D size plane use a E parking spot will be a problem. What will Boeing choose for this?

Probably not the airports' favorite option but couldn't some airports in question paint secondary lead-in lines (such as https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2199889 ... a=!3m1!1e3 ) to accommodate the larger aircraft?

I am sorry if this has been discussed in the previous 16 pages but will the flight deck be taken from the 787 and put into this aircraft? I know that this is all hearsay but having a common flight deck with the same suppliers could be a boost to the program.

The aircraft hasn't even been announced yet?

BWIAirport wrote:

B1168 wrote:

There is a substantial issue that Boeing will most definitely need to determine before all else——size. Will they attempt to use folding wing tips to squeeze 797s into a C parking spot, or will they go with a full D size plane? You see, lots of US airports have D parking spots, so that won’t be a problem there; but for Asian market, due to their newer age, they didn’t really need that many D parking spots, and letting a D size plane use a E parking spot will be a problem. What will Boeing choose for this?

Probably not the airports' favorite option but couldn't some airports in question paint secondary lead-in lines (such as https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2199889 ... a=!3m1!1e3 ) to accommodate the larger aircraft?

This looks like a E/2C gate. It can either park a E gate plane or 2 C gate planes if I didn’t get it wrong. Using this gate to park 1 D gate plane would have been a waste of gate size——hopefully obviously.
But well, for most new airports with only 4C size, there is little demand for any widebody whatsoever. There indeed are some airports with 4C capacity and can use some slightly larger capacity/range, but well, that can usually be handed off to A321XLR. At least in my personal memory, most every airport with actual long-haul service (that is, 6000+km) will possess at least 4D capacity, so I remain skeptical over Boeing’s choice for this.

SierraPacific wrote:

I am sorry if this has been discussed in the previous 16 pages but will the flight deck be taken from the 787 and put into this aircraft? I know that this is all hearsay but having a common flight deck with the same suppliers could be a boost to the program.

It makes sense but nobody knows the answer now, or if they do they are not allowed to share it.

B1168 wrote:

There is a substantial issue that Boeing will most definitely need to determine before all else——size. Will they attempt to use folding wing tips to squeeze 797s into a C parking spot, or will they go with a full D size plane? You see, lots of US airports have D parking spots, so that won’t be a problem there; but for Asian market, due to their newer age, they didn’t really need that many D parking spots, and letting a D size plane use a E parking spot will be a problem. What will Boeing choose for this?

It is not limited to gates, but the whole infrastructure in the airport. From boarding checks, over waiting areas to security controls. A 797 in short range high density configuration will have more passenger than a 787-9 in typical long range configuration and most likely way more economy class passengers.Maybe even more or as much as a 777W in a 4 class layout. Try squeezing this through a gate designed for a 737.

There are ways of doing it relatively simply. Heathrow T5 gates A13-17 are either 3 small or 2 medium gates https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4709096 ... a=!3m1!1e3 the gate area inside will likewise be shared between 2 or 3 gates so fewer busier gates shouldn't be too much of a problem. These will now be essentially A320 only since BA retired the last 767s though.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

There are ways of doing it relatively simply. Heathrow T5 gates A13-17 are either 3 small or 2 medium gates https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4709096 ... a=!3m1!1e3 the gate area inside will likewise be shared between 2 or 3 gates so fewer busier gates shouldn't be too much of a problem. These will now be essentially A320 only since BA retired the last 767s though.

It is not that simple because you just lost an A320 gate if handling 2 797s which sucks in peak times.

seahawk wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

There are ways of doing it relatively simply. Heathrow T5 gates A13-17 are either 3 small or 2 medium gates https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4709096 ... a=!3m1!1e3 the gate area inside will likewise be shared between 2 or 3 gates so fewer busier gates shouldn't be too much of a problem. These will now be essentially A320 only since BA retired the last 767s though.

It is not that simple because you just lost an A320 gate if handling 2 797s which sucks in peak times.

But you would need the added space anyway for the added passenger numbers.

SierraPacific wrote:

I am sorry if this has been discussed in the previous 16 pages but will the flight deck be taken from the 787 and put into this aircraft? I know that this is all hearsay but having a common flight deck with the same suppliers could be a boost to the program.

Not too early to ask for anet.

Since this is a new aircraft, they have more free reign. But you can probably guess that Boeing will keep the design common, not only from a cost stand point, but to avoid additional development risk. They seem to like the dual panel configuration.

The other question is will they keep the yoke? My guess would be yes also for the small reason . . . reduce development risk.

bt

The other question is with the 737 MAX fall out, they will no doubt be facing financial issue the comming year. Will they bite the bullet and fund the new airplane? Or will they hold of until the situation stabilize?

bt

Double post

bt

bikerthai wrote:

The other question is with the 737 MAX fall out, they will no doubt be facing financial issue the comming year. Will they bite the bullet and fund the new airplane? Or will they hold of until the situation stabilize?

bt

IMHO they have to. Boeing currently has a time advantage over any Airbus response. Giving that away would be a strategic mistake. Boeing hesitated once with the NSA and the A320neo exploited that.

787 delivery is running well and the first 779 deliveries should start next year. On the military side, the KC-46 is finally being deliverd too. So medium term, cash flow should not be a problem. Short term, they might rather postpone some improvements of current models (if necessary).

bikerthai wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

I am sorry if this has been discussed in the previous 16 pages but will the flight deck be taken from the 787 and put into this aircraft? I know that this is all hearsay but having a common flight deck with the same suppliers could be a boost to the program.

Not too early to ask for anet.

Since this is a new aircraft, they have more free reign. But you can probably guess that Boeing will keep the design common, not only from a cost stand point, but to avoid additional development risk. They seem to like the dual panel configuration.

The other question is will they keep the yoke? My guess would be yes also for the small reason . . . reduce development risk.

bt

I would agree - it will be 787 Avionics/Cockpit/Systems/Software and appropriately scaled flight actuators.

A lot easier to get certified. They will break no ground in this area and then they have a common cockpit across most of there fleet as I believe 777X has gone a lot more towards 787 as well.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Operating costs of the 757 have raised significantly over the last 5 years.

Are you referring to the Flight Length Sensitive Supplemental Inspections? How many airplanes have actually exceeded those limits? I wouldn’t think that many flying have hit those limits yet unless they are 1980s vintage airplanes.

I was referring to regular MRO. Engine and LDG costs have gone up. The companies supporting those are facing declining economies of scale for 757 specfic po arts and still want to maintain healthy margin. It gets harder to get price breaks, PMA's etc. As an operator you have no choice to get along with the rising cost levels. Switching service providers, parts manufacturers doesn't work anymore. Contrary, they try to stick to older contractual agreements while the supply chain tries to exit/ boosts pricing. There is no way back.

mjoelnir wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

There are ways of doing it relatively simply. Heathrow T5 gates A13-17 are either 3 small or 2 medium gates https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4709096 ... a=!3m1!1e3 the gate area inside will likewise be shared between 2 or 3 gates so fewer busier gates shouldn't be too much of a problem. These will now be essentially A320 only since BA retired the last 767s though.

It is not that simple because you just lost an A320 gate if handling 2 797s which sucks in peak times.

But you would need the added space anyway for the added passenger numbers.

Adding seats in the airport building is somewhat easier than adding gates. Same goes for over-night parking or maintenance. To be attractive for short haul, airlines have to be able to swap an A321 / 737-9 seamlessly with a 797.

Same goes for the wake turbulence. If the added capacity is lost by added separation, the overall gain is too small. We saw this with the A380. We'll see if the 797 can avoid the "heavy" designation.

mxaxai wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

The other question is with the 737 MAX fall out, they will no doubt be facing financial issue the comming year. Will they bite the bullet and fund the new airplane? Or will they hold of until the situation stabilize?

bt

IMHO they have to. Boeing currently has a time advantage over any Airbus response. Giving that away would be a strategic mistake. Boeing hesitated once with the NSA and the A320neo exploited that.

787 delivery is running well and the first 779 deliveries should start next year. On the military side, the KC-46 is finally being deliverd too. So medium term, cash flow should not be a problem. Short term, they might rather postpone some improvements of current models (if necessary).

Even if the 737 Fiasco costs billions they can just stop buying back stock for a while. In any event 737 settlements will take years and I suspect current operators will be compensated over time (many years) though further discounts on future frames or even free frames.

They have more than enough free cash flow to fund any fallout from 737 as well as NMA/NSA development.

Their big risk as others have pointed out above is if they wait and delay NMA/NSA 3-4 years - 787 Backlog might not be so good then (Cash cow) and if 737 suffers an order glut with airlines deferring frames - cash flow won't look so good.

Way better off to go now and get past the 737 (I'm assuming NSA (737 Replacement) is based off NMA using common Barrel/systems/nose/cockpit with different wingbox/wing/engines, tail and gear).

They have enough 737 orders to get them to NSA in the 2027/2028 if they base NSA on NMA. If they go clean sheet on NSA they might run into issues as that might not be ready until 2030/2031.

seahawk wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

There are ways of doing it relatively simply. Heathrow T5 gates A13-17 are either 3 small or 2 medium gates https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4709096 ... a=!3m1!1e3 the gate area inside will likewise be shared between 2 or 3 gates so fewer busier gates shouldn't be too much of a problem. These will now be essentially A320 only since BA retired the last 767s though.

It is not that simple because you just lost an A320 gate if handling 2 797s which sucks in peak times.

By that logic no airline would ever operate a widebody, they take up more space but carry more passengers. The flexible setup requires no more airbridges than 3 A320 gates, and can be used as such if there are no 767/797s around, but gives extra flexibility.

bikerthai wrote:

The other question is with the 737 MAX fall out, they will no doubt be facing financial issue the comming year. Will they bite the bullet and fund the new airplane? Or will they hold of until the situation stabilize?

bt

they've got plenty of cash. the max crashes wont really change it all that much.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

There are ways of doing it relatively simply. Heathrow T5 gates A13-17 are either 3 small or 2 medium gates https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4709096 ... a=!3m1!1e3 the gate area inside will likewise be shared between 2 or 3 gates so fewer busier gates shouldn't be too much of a problem. These will now be essentially A320 only since BA retired the last 767s though.

It is not that simple because you just lost an A320 gate if handling 2 797s which sucks in peak times.

By that logic no airline would ever operate a widebody, they take up more space but carry more passengers. The flexible setup requires no more airbridges than 3 A320 gates, and can be used as such if there are no 767/797s around, but gives extra flexibility.

Still it is a give and take when you suddenly use narrow body gates in that way. At least if you use the 797 on short routes in a high density configuration. But I think the 797 will open many new medium to long haul routes, creating many new connections and revolutionizing air travel, just like the 787 did. It is a game changer and airlines will to have to plan differently once it enters service.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Given that the barrel of the airplane is one of the lightest parts (isn't it something like 10% of the MTOW?)

Would you then agree that the aircraft weights 10 x that of the fuselage?

morrisond wrote:

- even is there is a say a 10% disadvantage per seat - that overall is very marginal on the overall weight of the plane

or if you believe maths works both ways then a ~10% increase in fuselage weight would have to make the entire aircraft weight ~10% greater for a similar performance level.

morrisond wrote:

. I would have to guess that the difference will purely come down to engines and whether or not they are half a gen or a full gen ahead which could be back ported to a 7w anyways.

A 6W or 5W would beat it (5W not over 200 seats) - but probably only if optimized for much shorter ranges with smaller wing/gear/etc. But then they are not competing in the same space and that is what the rewinged/shorter ranged NMA - A.K.A. NSA is for. (Pure speculation on my part).

Sorry for reviving the cross section debate - but I didn't bring it up.

It comes down to the sweet spot for optimising hoop stresses for pressure, bending stresses for moment arms of the tail/engines/wings and then once you establish where that sweet spot lies then how you fit the relevant number of seats into that area.

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

All fun engineering challenges no doubt.

Fred

I didn't say it would be 10% more per seat - I'm guessing that when you average it - it could be better. However yes if at the outside it was 10% heavier per seat that would have knock on effects - if you designed for the exact same performance.

This is a serious question - One of the rumors from a while back was that the Fuselage was not an Oval per say but two circles of Different diameters - The top of the fuselage down to the Floorbeams 1/2 of a circle the width of the fuselage and the bottom 1/3 of a larger circle.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to keep the floor in tension with this approach?

the Ovioid fuselage was used by the DC8 and the DC9 which accounted for Beltline stresses.

But that was not the wide oval expected to be used on 787. The form of double bubble design is quite standard.

[list=][/list]

seahawk wrote:

But that was not the wide oval expected to be used on 787. The form of double bubble design is quite standard.

The concept of half of a smaller circle on top of 1/3 of a bigger circle on bottom that I referenced above would lead to fuselage that was wider than high - Horizontal Ovalishy..

morrisond wrote:

[list=][/list]

seahawk wrote:

But that was not the wide oval expected to be used on 787. The form of double bubble design is quite standard.

The concept of half of a smaller circle on top of 1/3 of a bigger circle on bottom that I referenced above would lead to fuselage that was wider than high - Horizontal Ovalishy..

The existence of the floor beams make the two comparison not valid. The floor beams reacts differently in a vertical double oval as opposed to a horizontal double oval. Boeing has to figure how to deal with the different load profile on the floor beams with a horizontal oval. It can be done, it's just a matter of efficiency and weight.

bt

Interesting post on CNCB, the Boeing 797 could be equipped with an single pilot cockpit: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/boeings ... board.html