astuteman
Posts: 6856
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:09 am

Revelation wrote:
chiki wrote:
Latest article from Leeham says the NMA 7 will be launched first based on rumours from PAS.

Indeed. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-nma-comparison/ says:

This may help Boeing put some clearer product differentiation between the A321XLR and its 797. The 797-7 could fly 500 nautical miles further and carry some 50 more passengers than the A321XLR. These are not insignificant numbers.

Seems they want to hit that 767-300-not-ER spot pretty hard, then fill in with the 767-200-not-ER below it.


So what am I missing?
In the article linked they quote:-

797-6 will be able to seat 228-passengers and fly a range of 4,500nm (8,300km)
797-7 which would seat 267-passengers and fly a range of 4,200nm range (7,700km)
.

And in the article linked in the first article it quotes:-

The Airbus A321XLR is practically a direct competitor for the Boeing 797-6


which makes sense, given the numbers.
What I am reading tells me that the 797-6 and A321 XLR are almost exactly the same in terms of capability, with the XLR quoted as flying 180-220 people 4 700Nm.
I don't see anywhere any figures that tell me one of these models holds 50 more people and flies 500 nm further.

What the articles do tell me is that, far from taking just "a sliver of of the NMA market", the A321 XLR has already caused Boeing to veer away from its long established custom of launching the smaller variant first.
It does make me wonder if the smaller 797 will ever happen, even if the larger one gets the go-ahead.
Has the A321 XLR already killed the 797-6? I wonder.

Will they steal A321 XLR sales?
We may never know as the reality dawns that an A321XLR is just another A321 weight variant with a slightly different fuel tank.
Any airline that runs A321NEO's (which is a LOT of airlines) will have no downside to running a few XLR's mixed in
Will these planes kill the A321 XLR? Clearly not, for the reason above - to do so it would have to kill the A321NEO completely, which it clearly won't.

It will be interesting to see if the 797 is launched.
I hope it is launched, as then we'll get some data as to what is actually happening in that market.
My scepticism may prove to be ill founded - and I would be very cool with that.

Maybe it will get to boast the achievement of finally "killing" the A330-800.
But I doubt that too, as the few airlines buying A330-800's seem to be doing so for range.
A major Coup for Boeing if it does, though ;)

Rgds
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:47 am

747megatop wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
Guess the next question will be , when the NMA is eventually launched,
how soon will the NSA ( 737 replacement) be launched?

Also, will the boys and girls in Brazil be handed that project ?

I think you are getting ahead of yourself here. Boeing is currently MAXed out. They need to first get it fixed, certified and up the air. Then rebuild the lost reputation globally. I will be surprised if they launch a new airplane any time soon. Right now the Renton factory and Boeing field are oversized parking lots, jets are popping up in the most unlikely of places..employee parking lots.


There is no need to hold up the NMA program because of that. It has to go through all of the design phases first. The parked 737's will be long cleared out before it enters production.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 201

Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:26 am

keesje wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
Keesje

You made a mistake in you summary. Let me correct the first bullet for you

keesje wrote:

- Gate 3 milestones reviews would have been held weeks ago.


Corrected version from the article

- The program held its Gate 3 milestone review several weeks ago, stopping just short of bringing its proposal to the board of directors for its green-light, according to two people familiar with the reviews. “They just didn’t formally close [the development gate] due to the Max situation,


I fail to see wath needs to be corrected, few weeks iso several, brought without approval, according to two person familiar with the reviews, didn't formally close. You are free to read / believe more then is claimed. of course. But I wouldn't "speculate" to much without "official Boeing confirmation" :wink2:


this reply from you is disappointing for me. twisting and misrepresenting you linked the article and make it look like info from the article in you points. You might be right but your post is a let down to me. I really like a lot of what you bring to the board. The My team stuff agenda and pot stirring is a big let down.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:14 am

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
chiki wrote:
Latest article from Leeham says the NMA 7 will be launched first based on rumours from PAS.

Indeed. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-nma-comparison/ says:

This may help Boeing put some clearer product differentiation between the A321XLR and its 797. The 797-7 could fly 500 nautical miles further and carry some 50 more passengers than the A321XLR. These are not insignificant numbers.

Seems they want to hit that 767-300-not-ER spot pretty hard, then fill in with the 767-200-not-ER below it.


So what am I missing?
In the article linked they quote:-

797-6 will be able to seat 228-passengers and fly a range of 4,500nm (8,300km)
797-7 which would seat 267-passengers and fly a range of 4,200nm range (7,700km)
.

And in the article linked in the first article it quotes:-

The Airbus A321XLR is practically a direct competitor for the Boeing 797-6


which makes sense, given the numbers.
What I am reading tells me that the 797-6 and A321 XLR are almost exactly the same in terms of capability, with the XLR quoted as flying 180-220 people 4 700Nm.
I don't see anywhere any figures that tell me one of these models holds 50 more people and flies 500 nm further.

What the articles do tell me is that, far from taking just "a sliver of of the NMA market", the A321 XLR has already caused Boeing to veer away from its long established custom of launching the smaller variant first.
It does make me wonder if the smaller 797 will ever happen, even if the larger one gets the go-ahead.
Has the A321 XLR already killed the 797-6? I wonder.

Will they steal A321 XLR sales?
We may never know as the reality dawns that an A321XLR is just another A321 weight variant with a slightly different fuel tank.
Any airline that runs A321NEO's (which is a LOT of airlines) will have no downside to running a few XLR's mixed in
Will these planes kill the A321 XLR? Clearly not, for the reason above - to do so it would have to kill the A321NEO completely, which it clearly won't.

It will be interesting to see if the 797 is launched.
I hope it is launched, as then we'll get some data as to what is actually happening in that market.
My scepticism may prove to be ill founded - and I would be very cool with that.

Maybe it will get to boast the achievement of finally "killing" the A330-800.
But I doubt that too, as the few airlines buying A330-800's seem to be doing so for range.
A major Coup for Boeing if it does, though ;)

Rgds

I think it’s probably the same with most industries, upsetting an incumbent supplier takes more than being more capable or cheaper or more robust or more efficient or more reliable. In fact you can have a product that is worse from every perspective and when it comes to the crunch an executive will sign on the line for the incumbent because the perceived risk is lower. We all think this is driven by numbers but really it’s driven by the guy who puts his knob on the block who is also influenced by naysayers.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 201

Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:51 am

grbauc wrote:
keesje wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
Keesje

You made a mistake in you summary. Let me correct the first bullet for you



Corrected version from the article

- The program held its Gate 3 milestone review several weeks ago, stopping just short of bringing its proposal to the board of directors for its green-light, according to two people familiar with the reviews. “They just didn’t formally close [the development gate] due to the Max situation,


I fail to see wath needs to be corrected, few weeks iso several, brought without approval, according to two person familiar with the reviews, didn't formally close. You are free to read / believe more then is claimed. of course. But I wouldn't "speculate" to much without "official Boeing confirmation" :wink2:


this reply from you is disappointing for me. twisting and misrepresenting you linked the article and make it look like info from the article in you points. You might be right but your post is a let down to me. I really like a lot of what you bring to the board. The My team stuff agenda and pot stirring is a big let down.


Sorry to dissapoint you. It’s not clear to me what the issue is..

Anyway Boeing has some tough scenarios to choose from. Their weak position 200-240 seats dual/ single class ~4000 NM can’t be ignored, it the lower but probably biggest part of the Middle of the market. If they build something significantly more capable / costly, they are leaving the 737 MAX 10 alone in woods with the A321s for the next 10 years. That would IMO be a risky strategy.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-a321xlr-not-a-full-mid-market-solution-to-uni-459024/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:41 pm

I think Boeing has to launch the 797, and not much of an exaggeration to say it must do so to survive. It may have to eat upwards of half of the R and D in order to compete well with the 321. Before the grounding it would do so from a position of financial strength. After it eats some $billions from the MAX disaster it still will be possible but not from its position financial strength. Even so two years of no more buybacks and possibly reduced dividends I think the 797 will lead to a strong recovery. If it is priced even close to the 321 on a per person selling price the 321 niche will be smaller.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:05 pm

Gate 3 is an engineering milestone. It is a review of what engineering work has been done where issues are identified. Whether or not it was presented to the board does not mean that the engineering work is not progressing. The article linked earlier said that the reviews were complete. That is a good sign since the design is progressing and they are close to authority to offer. I’m curious if anyone has details on where the design is. Earlier posts may have implied that the reviews weren’t don’t and that the engineering work may have been late. It doesn’t sound like that is true.

The program held its Gate 3 milestone review several weeks ago, stopping just short of bringing its proposal to the board of directors for its green-light, according to two people familiar with the reviews. “They just didn’t formally close [the development gate] due to the Max situation,” said one NMA staffer. “They are telling us no let up and no change to the schedule.” Boeing has said it wants to have the airplane ready for 2025.


https://theaircurrent.com/company-cultu ... x-crashes/

Here is an insightful article from the 777 development:

https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1 ... 96-0.4.pdf

For historical reference, the 777 completed gate 3 and received authority to offer in December 1989, which was 5 and a half years before entry into service. If Boeing can follow that timelines, they are right on track for a 2025 entry into service. Nowadays regulatory requirements are more complex than they were back then, but at the same time Boeing isn’t dealing with the challenges of designing the first all 3D CAD airliner, with the most powerful engines in the world, using ETOPS 180 at entry into service for the first time while being the first fly by wire passenger airplane for Boeing.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:44 pm

I think the 737-10 MAX and NMA / 797X combo will box up and down the A321. It's a good strategy and Boeing deserves better than the current position
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:56 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
I think the 737-10 MAX and NMA / 797X combo will box up and down the A321. It's a good strategy and Boeing deserves better than the current position


Why deserves Boeing better?

Anyway it seems large airlines long term want a choice & competition when ordering aircraft. Examples are United and BA promoting the NMA and MAX without much to build on. They just dislike the unbalance and their lack of buying power at this stage, a1when they have order fleets. They want the OE's running, adjusting, discounting, making place for them. And that's not the current situation..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:56 am

The smallest 797 model is approx 20% bigger than the A321 and the largest 797 is approx 40% bigger. Just clearing this up again.

astuteman wrote:
So what am I missing?
In the article linked they quote:-

The Boeing 797 numbers are with a two class cabin you are comparing them to a single class cabin on the A321.

Boeing always gives seating capacity in two class.

The 737-10 for instance is 204 passengers in two class or 230 passengers in single class. A 13% increase.

The 767-200 is 214 two class and 245 one class.
The 767-300 is 261 two class and 290 one class.

On the long haul aircraft the business class seats are beds and on the narrowbody aircraft they are recliners. With the 777 and 787 the single class numbers are 40% higher than the two class number as you can fit more economy seats in the space of a lie flat bed.

787-8 is 240 seats two class or 335 seats in single class a massive 40% increase.

The A321 is 206 seats in two class.

Now the 797 seating numbers of 228 and 267 are two class and will most likely be using the recliners business seats like the 737 and 767 numbers. So adding 13% to the numbers we have a minimum of 258 seats and 302 seats. These are much bigger than the A321 of 230 seats.

The 797 models actually have fractionally more seats than the 767-200 and 767-300.



We can determine weights.

The 797 we are looking at a cleansheet 767. Now the 767-300/ER weighs 86/90T empty, has a MTOW of 158/186T and has a range of 3900nm and 5980nm. As the 797-7 has a range of 4500nm it is closer to the non ER version. The takeoff weight of the 767-300ER needs to be 168T to fly 4500nm.

We would be looking at 90T empty and 168T takeoff weight for a 767-300ER to hit the 797 payload range numbers.

Engine improvements allow an aircraft to be lighter. The 97T A321LR has the same payload range of the 115T 757-200. Due to engine improvements over 30 years it is 85% of the weight and can carry the same passengers. We can calculate 85% of the 767 numbers above to determine 797 weight. The 767-300ER weights of 90T and 168T will mean the 797-7 weighs only 76T empty with a 143T MTOW.

The smaller 797-6 will probably be slightly lighter with the same MTOW.

I would be shocked if the 797 weighed over 80T empty or over 150T MTOW for a 767 sized aircraft.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1171
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:42 am

RJMAZ - Great post - but the 797-7 will not be within 10% of the seating of the 788.

I remember a quote from a Boeing exec a few years back (I can't find it anymore) that the Bigger NMA will be A321 plus a Row.

I think we are looking more at 125-130T MTOW for the NMA to be competitive.

I still think it's a lot smaller than people are assuming and it's 7W.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:50 am

morrisond wrote:
RJMAZ - Great post - but the 797-7 will not be within 10% of the seating of the 788.

I remember a quote from a Boeing exec a few years back (I can't find it anymore) that the Bigger NMA will be A321 plus a Row.

I think we are looking more at 125-130T MTOW for the NMA to be competitive.

I still think it's a lot smaller than people are assuming and it's 7W.


Not sure I'm buying that. It has to replace the 763 as well. Delta and especially United have made that requirement pretty clear to Boeing. Both DL and UA have some premium cabin heavy 763ERs.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:02 am

morrisond wrote:
RJMAZ - Great post - but the 797-7 will not be within 10% of the seating of the 788.

I remember a quote from a Boeing exec a few years back (I can't find it anymore) that the Bigger NMA will be A321 plus a Row.

I think we are looking more at 125-130T MTOW for the NMA to be competitive.

I still think it's a lot smaller than people are assuming and it's 7W.

If a 34 row A321 seats 204, plus another row, is 210, plus 7x is 245, which is 20% more seating. So if that is the Bigger NMA, I can see why that one would be launched first. In which case, I doubt there would be a shrink, they would just add payload and engine capability and make a NMA-7ER in a few years.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:27 am

morrisond wrote:
RJMAZ - Great post - but the 797-7 will not be within 10% of the seating of the 788.

I remember a quote from a Boeing exec a few years

The larger 797 will most definitely seat 300 passengers in a single class cabin. You can not really argue with the numbers. 267 seats in Boeing two class seating equals just on 300 seats in a single class.

Boeing lineup
737-8 = 200 seats
737-10 = 230 seats
797-6 = 260 seats
797-7 = 300 seats
787-8 = 350 seats
787-9 = 400 seats

The above looks spot on and logical. The two 797 models are nearly perfectly spaced between the A321 and 787-8.

We do not have any all economy 787 cabins to show just how many seats can fit. Jetstar has 335 with a few routes of recliner business. Here is a 787-9 cabin layout showing 420 seats can fit.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/seatmaps3.jpg

So 350 and 400 seats for a 787-8 and 787-9 are conservative maximums.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:52 am

DenverTed wrote:
If a 34 row A321 seats 204, plus another row, is 210, plus 7x is 245, which is 20% more seating. So if that is the Bigger NMA, I can see why that one would be launched first. In which case, I doubt there would be a shrink, they would just add payload and engine capability and make a NMA-7ER in a few years.

Very doubtful on the NMA-7ER.

To produce an extended range model would mean they have extra headroom built into the original design. That means the original aircraft needs to be heavier than it needs to be and the engines need to be derated for the initial model.

The two 797 models will be optimised to the highest level. Both will share the same MTOW and same engines with very high commonality. Boeing will simply add and remove frames to give more range or more cabin area.

One could equally call the 797-6 a shrink or the 797-7 a stretch. The second size will be very cheap to develop as the changes will be extremely small.

I do expect a third 797 fuselage length to be produced in the future depending on how the market responds. We have a growing point to point trend and gate shortages in Asia so it be stretched or shrunk.

If the point to point market really takes off airlines might buy the 797-6's in huge numbers with new long thin routes. Boeing may produce a further shrink 797-5 with 6000+nm range to fill demand. If the 797-5 was two thirds of the size of the 787-8 but also had two thirds of the trip cost then the 797-5 could be a useful addition with a common pilot rating.

Alternatively the 797-7 might sell more with big demand flying between hubs. Boeing may then produce a further stretch getting close to 787-8 in capacity but with extreme short haul efficiency.

I expect the stretch to come naturally in the future once engine improvements increase range. This rules out 7ab as the aircraft would be too long and skinny. A tight 8ab will allow for this stretch in the long run.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
If a 34 row A321 seats 204, plus another row, is 210, plus 7x is 245, which is 20% more seating. So if that is the Bigger NMA, I can see why that one would be launched first. In which case, I doubt there would be a shrink, they would just add payload and engine capability and make a NMA-7ER in a few years.

Very doubtful on the NMA-7ER.

To produce an extended range model would mean they have extra headroom built into the original design. That means the original aircraft needs to be heavier than it needs to be and the engines need to be derated for the initial model.

The two 797 models will be optimised to the highest level. Both will share the same MTOW and same engines with very high commonality. Boeing will simply add and remove frames to give more range or more cabin area.

One could equally call the 797-6 a shrink or the 797-7 a stretch. The second size will be very cheap to develop as the changes will be extremely small.

I do expect a third 797 fuselage length to be produced in the future depending on how the market responds. We have a growing point to point trend and gate shortages in Asia so it be stretched or shrunk.

If the point to point market really takes off airlines might buy the 797-6's in huge numbers with new long thin routes. Boeing may produce a further shrink 797-5 with 6000+nm range to fill demand. If the 797-5 was two thirds of the size of the 787-8 but also had two thirds of the trip cost then the 797-5 could be a useful addition with a common pilot rating.

Alternatively the 797-7 might sell more with big demand flying between hubs. Boeing may then produce a further stretch getting close to 787-8 in capacity but with extreme short haul efficiency.

I expect the stretch to come naturally in the future once engine improvements increase range. This rules out 7ab as the aircraft would be too long and skinny. A tight 8ab will allow for this stretch in the long run.

I don’t buy 8ab. It would have a cabin the same length as an A320. The extra long range version you got over exited about would be like a 767 as short as a 73g...

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Oykie
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:26 am

I have no idea how many seats the NMA will have across, but I just flew Delta 767-300ER N198DN and the 7 across seating in economy is super. It just feels less crowded than bigger wide bodies as well ass 6 across narrowbodies. So I hope they do 7 across seating.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:35 am

flipdewaf wrote:
I don’t buy 8ab. It would have a cabin the same length as an A320. The extra long range version you got over exited about would be like a 767 as short as a 73g...

So pretty much an A310? Nothing wrong with that.

The A310 has a cabin length a metre shorter than a A321 and a 737-10. The A310 is a comfortable 8ab aircraft with some operators using 9ab. A tight 8ab on the 797 would be a foot narrower than the A310 so it will look skinnier.

Another point is we heard rumours of a reduced height fuselage for the 797. When looking from the side the 797-6 will not look stubby at all with the reduced height. A foot narrower than the A310 in the width and maybe two feet narrower in the height will have the smallest 797 model looking fairly normal.

As the 797-7 will be 300 seats 1 class and the highly likely future 797-8 could be 330 seats that will not work for a tight 7ab fuselage. If the width is half a foot narrower than the comfy 7ab 767 and it is also a reduced height cross section the 797-8 will be the skinniest aircraft even built when viewed from the side.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6856
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:45 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The smallest 797 model is approx 20% bigger than the A321 and the largest 797 is approx 40% bigger. Just clearing this up again.

astuteman wrote:
So what am I missing?
In the article linked they quote:-

The Boeing 797 numbers are with a two class cabin you are comparing them to a single class cabin on the A321.

Boeing always gives seating capacity in two class.

The 737-10 for instance is 204 passengers in two class or 230 passengers in single class. A 13% increase.

The 767-200 is 214 two class and 245 one class.
The 767-300 is 261 two class and 290 one class.

On the long haul aircraft the business class seats are beds and on the narrowbody aircraft they are recliners. With the 777 and 787 the single class numbers are 40% higher than the two class number as you can fit more economy seats in the space of a lie flat bed.

787-8 is 240 seats two class or 335 seats in single class a massive 40% increase.

The A321 is 206 seats in two class.

Now the 797 seating numbers of 228 and 267 are two class and will most likely be using the recliners business seats like the 737 and 767 numbers. So adding 13% to the numbers we have a minimum of 258 seats and 302 seats. These are much bigger than the A321 of 230 seats.

The 797 models actually have fractionally more seats than the 767-200 and 767-300.



We can determine weights.

The 797 we are looking at a cleansheet 767. Now the 767-300/ER weighs 86/90T empty, has a MTOW of 158/186T and has a range of 3900nm and 5980nm. As the 797-7 has a range of 4500nm it is closer to the non ER version. The takeoff weight of the 767-300ER needs to be 168T to fly 4500nm.

We would be looking at 90T empty and 168T takeoff weight for a 767-300ER to hit the 797 payload range numbers.

Engine improvements allow an aircraft to be lighter. The 97T A321LR has the same payload range of the 115T 757-200. Due to engine improvements over 30 years it is 85% of the weight and can carry the same passengers. We can calculate 85% of the 767 numbers above to determine 797 weight. The 767-300ER weights of 90T and 168T will mean the 797-7 weighs only 76T empty with a 143T MTOW.

The smaller 797-6 will probably be slightly lighter with the same MTOW.

I would be shocked if the 797 weighed over 80T empty or over 150T MTOW for a 767 sized aircraft.


I think you illustrate the issue that I have with both of the articles that were linked. They are not coherent, and don't make sense.
Firstly they state that the 797 will carry 50 more pax than the XLR 500Nm further - which I'm ok with.
Then they quote ranges where not even the longer range -6 matches the XLR's range - which I don't understand
Then they state that the 797-6 and XLR are "direct competitors" presumably based on the figures they quote - which I also don't understand.

I have no issue with the 797-6 being 20% bigger than the XLR, and the 797-7 being bigger again.
I can reconcile the 228 pax of the 797-6 with the 180 pax 2-class quoted as the bottom of the capacity range of the XLR, and typically used as the standard capacity at which the reference range is calculated. So I can make sense of that.

I also buy the MTOW in the 140t-145t range you calculate - it fits with the thrust ranges quoted for the engines.
There's something badly wrong though if a plane that's 40% heavier than the XLR, and purpose designed only carries 20% more passengers less distance.
The -6's range has to be a minimum of 5 000Nm in my book .
If it doesn't outrange the XLR then it does not have a bright future.

And it is interesting that Boeing are quoted as pushing the 797-6 to the back immediately after the A321XLR is launched.
If that is correct I don't think it bodes well for the 797-6 in the long term.

As an observation, I agree with those that think "767 sized" places the 797 too close to the 787 to be effective in its role.
The 797 will be a slightly flattened oval tight 7-across not that much larger in cross-section than a narrowbody, and with little accommodation for cargo.
Nothing else fits the brief that is given for this aircraft IMO.

Rgds
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

!!

Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:01 am

[quote="patches"]It seems very confusing on wof A321ing wants with its 797. All the videoes and pictures I have seen on this thing it appears that it looks just like a 767-200. Dont you think Boeing could have saved billions of dollars on this new aircraft and updated the 767-2 with a new wing, new 787 like engines and a 787 cockpit? I mean for Christ sakethey have been doing this with the 737 for 30 years!! That thing has been updated a jillion times and its worked pretty well.[

The B767 is a great airplane.. However. a new airplane would be ALL digital including the flight controls not to mention Avionics. Will the airplane be similar to the B787?
I might not doubt it will be. But Boeing is trying to get it ALL right and build an airliner they can take well into the Century which the B767 design will NOT! Why hurry? If airlines buy hundreds of A321's When the B797 hits the Streets? it will sell like Hotcakes and you KNOW itI
Were I Boeing's management? I'd leave Airbus twisting in the wind for another year to build an airplane that thoroughly beat the crap out of the A321 in any config they offer it. And? Make them cut up the A350 to chase the capability of the B797..
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8484
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:44 am

astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The smallest 797 model is approx 20% bigger than the A321 and the largest 797 is approx 40% bigger. Just clearing this up again.

astuteman wrote:
So what am I missing?
In the article linked they quote:-

The Boeing 797 numbers are with a two class cabin you are comparing them to a single class cabin on the A321.

Boeing always gives seating capacity in two class.

The 737-10 for instance is 204 passengers in two class or 230 passengers in single class. A 13% increase.

The 767-200 is 214 two class and 245 one class.
The 767-300 is 261 two class and 290 one class.

On the long haul aircraft the business class seats are beds and on the narrowbody aircraft they are recliners. With the 777 and 787 the single class numbers are 40% higher than the two class number as you can fit more economy seats in the space of a lie flat bed.

787-8 is 240 seats two class or 335 seats in single class a massive 40% increase.

The A321 is 206 seats in two class.

Now the 797 seating numbers of 228 and 267 are two class and will most likely be using the recliners business seats like the 737 and 767 numbers. So adding 13% to the numbers we have a minimum of 258 seats and 302 seats. These are much bigger than the A321 of 230 seats.

The 797 models actually have fractionally more seats than the 767-200 and 767-300.



We can determine weights.

The 797 we are looking at a cleansheet 767. Now the 767-300/ER weighs 86/90T empty, has a MTOW of 158/186T and has a range of 3900nm and 5980nm. As the 797-7 has a range of 4500nm it is closer to the non ER version. The takeoff weight of the 767-300ER needs to be 168T to fly 4500nm.

We would be looking at 90T empty and 168T takeoff weight for a 767-300ER to hit the 797 payload range numbers.

Engine improvements allow an aircraft to be lighter. The 97T A321LR has the same payload range of the 115T 757-200. Due to engine improvements over 30 years it is 85% of the weight and can carry the same passengers. We can calculate 85% of the 767 numbers above to determine 797 weight. The 767-300ER weights of 90T and 168T will mean the 797-7 weighs only 76T empty with a 143T MTOW.

The smaller 797-6 will probably be slightly lighter with the same MTOW.

I would be shocked if the 797 weighed over 80T empty or over 150T MTOW for a 767 sized aircraft.


I think you illustrate the issue that I have with both of the articles that were linked. They are not coherent, and don't make sense.
Firstly they state that the 797 will carry 50 more pax than the XLR 500Nm further - which I'm ok with.
Then they quote ranges where not even the longer range -6 matches the XLR's range - which I don't understand
Then they state that the 797-6 and XLR are "direct competitors" presumably based on the figures they quote - which I also don't understand.

I have no issue with the 797-6 being 20% bigger than the XLR, and the 797-7 being bigger again.
I can reconcile the 228 pax of the 797-6 with the 180 pax 2-class quoted as the bottom of the capacity range of the XLR, and typically used as the standard capacity at which the reference range is calculated. So I can make sense of that.

I also buy the MTOW in the 140t-145t range you calculate - it fits with the thrust ranges quoted for the engines.
There's something badly wrong though if a plane that's 40% heavier than the XLR, and purpose designed only carries 20% more passengers less distance.
The -6's range has to be a minimum of 5 000Nm in my book .
If it doesn't outrange the XLR then it does not have a bright future.

And it is interesting that Boeing are quoted as pushing the 797-6 to the back immediately after the A321XLR is launched.
If that is correct I don't think it bodes well for the 797-6 in the long term.

As an observation, I agree with those that think "767 sized" places the 797 too close to the 787 to be effective in its role.
The 797 will be a slightly flattened oval tight 7-across not that much larger in cross-section than a narrowbody, and with little accommodation for cargo.
Nothing else fits the brief that is given for this aircraft IMO.

Rgds


This would work in the current market, but that plane would be hugely under risk from being rendered obsolete by a more conventional 8 abreast widebody with an EiS 8-10 years later. The newer engines and newer materials would more than compensate the larger frame, while the seat costs would be reduced and cargo capacity is still nice to have on many routes.

The 797 you outlined is imho a very North American centric product.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:44 am

astuteman wrote:
There's something badly wrong though if a plane that's 40% heavier than the XLR, and purpose designed only carries 20% more passengers less distance.
The -6's range has to be a minimum of 5 000Nm in my book .
If it doesn't outrange the XLR then it does not have a bright future.

Previous articles have said the 797-6 is 5200nm and the 797-7 is 4500nm. So i think the recent article got everything right except for the range of the 797-6.

Searching "797 5200nm" in google brings up many links such as this

https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/bu ... oduce-797/

797-6 5200nm. 228 seats 2 class. 258 seats 1 class.
797-7 4500nm. 267 seats 2 class. 302 seats 1 class.

The vast majority of articles have repeated these numbers. I assume a tight 8ab and a 140T MTOW.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6856
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:20 am

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
There's something badly wrong though if a plane that's 40% heavier than the XLR, and purpose designed only carries 20% more passengers less distance.
The -6's range has to be a minimum of 5 000Nm in my book .
If it doesn't outrange the XLR then it does not have a bright future.

Previous articles have said the 797-6 is 5200nm and the 797-7 is 4500nm. So i think the recent article got everything right except for the range of the 797-6.

Searching "797 5200nm" in google brings up many links such as this

https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/bu ... oduce-797/

797-6 5200nm. 228 seats 2 class. 258 seats 1 class.
797-7 4500nm. 267 seats 2 class. 302 seats 1 class.

The vast majority of articles have repeated these numbers. I assume a tight 8ab and a 140T MTOW.


There's no doubt in my mind that the 797-6 will have at least 5 000nm nominal range - 5 200 jives with "500nm more than the A321XLR"

As a point of order, searching "797 range" gives a range of ranges between 5 000nm and 5 200nm for the -6, with most sources from major airlines quoting 5 000Nm. Not that I'm quibbling too much either way - I just thought your search parameters were a bit myopic, designed to produce the answer you want.

I still think tight 8-across is too big for the goals of the programme - it replicates the 767 that no-one has bought in pax form for heaven only knows how long, and becomes a genuine widebody. It will be too expensive and of too limited a market (IMO)
I still believe that the middle of the market gap between narrowbodys and widebodys grew because the market dictated it

As a potential "market disruptor" the "widebody pretending to be a narrowbody" at narrow 7-across and limited cargo works better for me. Just my point of view

Rgds
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:22 am

Whether 7 or 8 abreast I think Boeing will design it for 18 in seats. They kind of have to unless they want to hear screaming from the Airbus crowd. United was able to get 18 in seats on their 737 Max so it shouldn't be an issue.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8484
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:51 am

Who cares about the Airbus crowd? Airlines care about numbers and smaller seats mean better numbers. I would not expect more than 16.5-17.3" for the 797.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:21 am

astuteman wrote:
I still think tight 8-across is too big for the goals of the programme - it replicates the 767 that no-one has bought in pax form for heaven only knows how long,
You actually just proved my argument. 8ab on the 797 replicates the A330 that killed the 7ab 767.

The 797-6 and 797-7 closely matches the 767-200 and 767-300 in capacity. The future stretch would be close to the 767-400 in capacity.

Image

The 767-400 is fairly skinny. The 797-8 would need to be the same length. The 767 cross section is 5.03m wide and 5.41m high. The extra height is to fit the LD2's. To make a tight 7ab the 797 width would have to be around 4.9m if it was a circular cross section that means the height is 9% less than the 767-400 in that photo. Now that is one super skinny aircraft.

I should photoshop that picture to demostrate what the "reduced height" cross section would look like. If the height was only 90% of the width that would be 4.41m in height. That is 18% shorter height than the 767. I should photoshop that picture to show what 18% looks like. It will look extremely funny, skinnier than the 757-300 and people will soon realise it will have to be 8ab.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2785
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:29 am

RJMAZ wrote:

I should photoshop that picture to demostrate what the "reduced height" cross section would look like.

It is less important what it will look like but for what it will weigh like...

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:00 am

seahawk wrote:
Who cares about the Airbus crowd? Airlines care about numbers and smaller seats mean better numbers. I would not expect more than 16.5-17.3" for the 797.


16.5? Uh, no. That is only used by slaveship airlines like Monarch, Air Transat, and French Bee.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:41 am

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

I should photoshop that picture to demostrate what the "reduced height" cross section would look like.

It is less important what it will look like but for what it will weigh like...

Fred

Skinny planes are heavy as proven by the 757-300 and A340-600 and 767-400. Per metre of extra fuselage they gained more weight due to a smaller diameter long tube being easy to bend conpared to a shorter wider tube.

A 767-400 length fuselage that is 18% skinnier in height will be ridiculously heavy.
 
iberiadc852
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:18 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 we are looking at a cleansheet 767.

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I don’t buy 8ab. It would have a cabin the same length as an A320. The extra long range version you got over exited about would be like a 767 as short as a 73g...

So pretty much an A310? Nothing wrong with that.


Hi RJMAZ.
My thoughts exactly. I am really very excited about this topic, and I think the 767 substitution is the perfect niche for Boeing (too many aircraft still in service with the perfect timing to the 797 launch), rather to compete directly with the A321 XLR, but at the same time, they have to fully compete with A321 XLR efficiency (and trying to steal a share from there, but as a secondary goal)

So in my modest and amateur opinion they cannot afford the 7ab (too inefficient) neither the single aisle, (too small for the task) and they should build a cleansheet A310 (by size and distribution) for that market.

In my mind, the section would be an A310's slimmed down one, or as slightly wider 767's optimized one in the way of the 777X but for 8ab.
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
 
Oykie
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:27 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

I should photoshop that picture to demostrate what the "reduced height" cross section would look like.

It is less important what it will look like but for what it will weigh like...

Fred

Skinny planes are heavy as proven by the 757-300 and A340-600 and 767-400. Per metre of extra fuselage they gained more weight due to a smaller diameter long tube being easy to bend conpared to a shorter wider tube.

A 767-400 length fuselage that is 18% skinnier in height will be ridiculously heavy.


It is interesting to follow your arguments. Have you thought about the difference in materials? The 797 will be carbon fiber. I think that it has more strength compared to the others. Just look at the wing of the 787 and A350 and to a lesser extent the 777X
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8484
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:47 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Who cares about the Airbus crowd? Airlines care about numbers and smaller seats mean better numbers. I would not expect more than 16.5-17.3" for the 797.


16.5? Uh, no. That is only used by slaveship airlines like Monarch, Air Transat, and French Bee.


And would be a nice low cost more short haul lay-out with wider aisles for quicker turnaround. Oher airlines can the use 17" with a normal isle and 17.3" with minimum width aisle.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:07 pm

A tight 8 would be OK for one and two hour flights. It also is an easy upgrade to 2-3-2 abreast and 2-2-2 etc.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:06 pm

seahawk wrote:
Who cares about the Airbus crowd? Airlines care about numbers and smaller seats mean better numbers. I would not expect more than 16.5-17.3" for the 797.


Airbus marketing material is always advertising wider cabins. I don't think Boeing wants to always be on the negative side of that material. Boeing three times offered cabins for wider seats than 18 inches, (747s were originally 9 abreast, 777s were 9 abreast, 787s were 8 abreast) but airlines have gone to 17 inches as the standard.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:59 pm

Oykie wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Skinny planes are heavy as proven by the 757-300 and A340-600 and 767-400. Per metre of extra fuselage they gained more weight due to a smaller diameter long tube being easy to bend conpared to a shorter wider tube.

A 767-400 length fuselage that is 18% skinnier in height will be ridiculously heavy.


It is interesting to follow your arguments. Have you thought about the difference in materials? The 797 will be carbon fiber. I think that it has more strength compared to the others. Just look at the wing of the 787 and A350 and to a lesser extent the 777X

The wings and tail will definitely be carbon but I am 50/50 on the fuselage tube. Al-li 2198 is a big step up from the al 7050 7075's from last century.

Carbon has to be a certain thickness for impact protection so as an aircraft design gets smaller it can not be scaled down to the correct thickness.

Lightning protection and fatigue detection is also a problem with carbon. Metal you can detect cracking but with carbon they have to overbuild the fuselage and add senors into the carbon layup.

I also expect many 3d printed titanium parts. 3d printing is weaker than casting but titanium is so strong that when 3d printed it can beat cast aluminium.

Only Boeing engineers would be able to tell which would be the lightest and cheapest material to use on the fuselage tube. The carbon fuselage on the 787-9 was a big improvement over the 787-8 being stronger with no real weight gain. The carbon in the 797 might improve again and make it the best option for the fuselage tube. Don't be surprised if its Al-Li 2198.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
olle
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:10 pm

But "plastic" as we heard during the development of the 787 is supposed to make extenstions like the 346 possible without panelties?

Assuming that is correct how long will a new pure plastic 322 become in order arry the similar amounts oc seats and how more efficient will a long pure plastic 322 become compared to a 797?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:12 pm

iberiadc852 wrote:
So in my modest and amateur opinion they cannot afford the 7ab (too inefficient) neither the single aisle, (too small for the task) and they should build a cleansheet A310 (by size and distribution) for that market.

In my mind, the section would be an A310's slimmed down one, or as slightly wider 767's optimized one in the way of the 777X but for 8ab.

The A310 was more a response regarding a potential 797-5 long range variant.

I'd expect the 797-6 to be a couple rows longer than the A310. The fuselage a foot narrower in width and maybe two feet shorter in height. The 797-6 will look more slender than the A310. The 797-7 will be a couple rows shorter than the A300.

The 797-6 and 797-7 will actually be closer to the A310 and A300 respectively in both capacity and range. Moreso than the 767 models.

As the 757 to A321 results in a 15% weight saving due to 30 years of engine improvements we could apply the weight reduction to the A310 and A300.

A310: Empty 79T MTOW 164T Range 5150nm
797-6 Empty 67T MTOW 139T Range 5200nm

A300: Empty 88T MTOW 171T Range 4050nm
797-7: Empty 74T MTOW 145T Range 4500nm
 
DenverTed
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:41 pm

I think the 8ab drifts towards a larger aircraft. On equal proportions of width and length, a 140' 6x has about 200 pax, a 180' 7x has about 280 pax, a 40% increase. A 200' 8x has about 340 pax, a 70% increase. A 160' 2-2-2 has about 225 pax, a 12% increase. Shorten or lengthen slightly to desired capacity.
How much spread in length will separate the shorter and longer model, 5m to 6m, and how much range gain is that for the shorter model, 500nm to 600nm?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6856
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:37 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
I still think tight 8-across is too big for the goals of the programme - it replicates the 767 that no-one has bought in pax form for heaven only knows how long,
You actually just proved my argument. 8ab on the 797 replicates the A330 that killed the 7ab 767.


I don't think I did.
The 767 is a tight 8 across and comfortable 7-across and as such is a genuine widebody.

The 797 will need to be a lot smaller IMO to get even remotely close to being as cheap as a narrowbody

i.e. tight 7-across, generous 6-across

Rgds
 
DenverTed
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:58 pm

astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
I still think tight 8-across is too big for the goals of the programme - it replicates the 767 that no-one has bought in pax form for heaven only knows how long,
You actually just proved my argument. 8ab on the 797 replicates the A330 that killed the 7ab 767.


I don't think I did.
The 767 is a tight 8 across and comfortable 7-across and as such is a genuine widebody.

The 797 will need to be a lot smaller IMO to get even remotely close to being as cheap as a narrowbody

i.e. tight 7-across, generous 6-across

Rgds

At 15'-6" outside diameter of a circular fuselage, that is about the comfort level of the 787 or 777x. Compared to a 767, 10% less fuselage skin and 22% less frontal area, so a big savings, even without the much touted CFRP oval which I regard as mostly a gimmick whose savings to extra cost might not pencil out.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:16 pm

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
I think the 737-10 MAX and NMA / 797X combo will box up and down the A321. It's a good strategy and Boeing deserves better than the current position


Why deserves Boeing better?

Anyway it seems large airlines long term want a choice & competition when ordering aircraft. Examples are United and BA promoting the NMA and MAX without much to build on. They just dislike the unbalance and their lack of buying power at this stage, a1when they have order fleets. They want the OE's running, adjusting, discounting, making place for them. And that's not the current situation..


The choice will be between the 737-10 MAX, the A321Neo and the NMA 797X. Carriers will have more choice with Boeing
 
iberiadc852
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:55 pm

astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
I still think tight 8-across is too big for the goals of the programme - it replicates the 767 that no-one has bought in pax form for heaven only knows how long,
You actually just proved my argument. 8ab on the 797 replicates the A330 that killed the 7ab 767.


I don't think I did.
The 767 is a tight 8 across and comfortable 7-across and as such is a genuine widebody.

The 797 will need to be a lot smaller IMO to get even remotely close to being as cheap as a narrowbody

i.e. tight 7-across, generous 6-across

Rgds


Regarding the issue, I think the A330 did use partially that 8ab's efficiency to overcome the slight benefit of 7ab's spaciousness.
But in my opinion it can't be only that, as you could use the reverse argument for the 767 against the A300/A310.

On the other hand, I don't think you gain so much with a generous 6-across for a 6+ hours trip, (I'm assuming a NB here, if you are trying to be cheap), and it's still a handicap to be cheap, nor I see too much economical or comfort gain with a tight 7-across anyway.
I think the comfort argument is too risky and too difficult to sell in this market

Also, I have the impression the 767 has been mostly replaced by bigger WB with longer range, and at the same time, there are still quite a bunch, not only flying, but also sharing medium range routes with their bigger newer brothers (very efficient, but maybe not for those routes)
So it makes me think there's efficiency margin and gap for an aircraft especifically designed to suit that market of the 767ER, quite similar to the one Boeing declares to be aiming with the NMA (220-270 pax and 5000 nm.)
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
 
Oykie
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Oykie wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Skinny planes are heavy as proven by the 757-300 and A340-600 and 767-400. Per metre of extra fuselage they gained more weight due to a smaller diameter long tube being easy to bend conpared to a shorter wider tube.

A 767-400 length fuselage that is 18% skinnier in height will be ridiculously heavy.


It is interesting to follow your arguments. Have you thought about the difference in materials? The 797 will be carbon fiber. I think that it has more strength compared to the others. Just look at the wing of the 787 and A350 and to a lesser extent the 777X

The wings and tail will definitely be carbon but I am 50/50 on the fuselage tube. Al-li 2198 is a big step up from the al 7050 7075's from last century.

Carbon has to be a certain thickness for impact protection so as an aircraft design gets smaller it can not be scaled down to the correct thickness.

Lightning protection and fatigue detection is also a problem with carbon. Metal you can detect cracking but with carbon they have to overbuild the fuselage and add senors into the carbon layup.

I also expect many 3d printed titanium parts. 3d printing is weaker than casting but titanium is so strong that when 3d printed it can beat cast aluminium.

Only Boeing engineers would be able to tell which would be the lightest and cheapest material to use on the fuselage tube. The carbon fuselage on the 787-9 was a big improvement over the 787-8 being stronger with no real weight gain. The carbon in the 797 might improve again and make it the best option for the fuselage tube. Don't be surprised if its Al-Li 2198.


I was very impressed when I first read about the Al-Li, but it has been very silent lately. It will be interesting to see what kind of materials Boeing choose. I agree with you that, there will be plenty of 3D printed parts.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Oykie
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:13 am

iberiadc852 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You actually just proved my argument. 8ab on the 797 replicates the A330 that killed the 7ab 767.


I don't think I did.
The 767 is a tight 8 across and comfortable 7-across and as such is a genuine widebody.

The 797 will need to be a lot smaller IMO to get even remotely close to being as cheap as a narrowbody

i.e. tight 7-across, generous 6-across

Rgds


Regarding the issue, I think the A330 did use partially that 8ab's efficiency to overcome the slight benefit of 7ab's spaciousness.
But in my opinion it can't be only that, as you could use the reverse argument for the 767 against the A300/A310.

On the other hand, I don't think you gain so much with a generous 6-across for a 6+ hours trip, (I'm assuming a NB here, if you are trying to be cheap), and it's still a handicap to be cheap, nor I see too much economical or comfort gain with a tight 7-across anyway.
I think the comfort argument is too risky and too difficult to sell in this market

Also, I have the impression the 767 has been mostly replaced by bigger WB with longer range, and at the same time, there are still quite a bunch, not only flying, but also sharing medium range routes with their bigger newer brothers (very efficient, but maybe not for those routes)
So it makes me think there's efficiency margin and gap for an aircraft especifically designed to suit that market of the 767ER, quite similar to the one Boeing declares to be aiming with the NMA (220-270 pax and 5000 nm.)


It’s true that most 767 has been replaced by larger airplanes especially in longer flights. But I remember an article explaining that the 767-300ER is still very efficient up to 3000NM. And that is with a 30year old plane. Imagine a new tech plane replacing it.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
morrisond
Posts: 1171
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:50 am

DenverTed wrote:
astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You actually just proved my argument. 8ab on the 797 replicates the A330 that killed the 7ab 767.


I don't think I did.
The 767 is a tight 8 across and comfortable 7-across and as such is a genuine widebody.

The 797 will need to be a lot smaller IMO to get even remotely close to being as cheap as a narrowbody

i.e. tight 7-across, generous 6-across

Rgds

At 15'-6" outside diameter of a circular fuselage, that is about the comfort level of the 787 or 777x. Compared to a 767, 10% less fuselage skin and 22% less frontal area, so a big savings, even without the much touted CFRP oval which I regard as mostly a gimmick whose savings to extra cost might not pencil out.


You have to think about a tight 7W as Halfish of a big circle on top and say 1/4 or 1/3 of a larger diameter circle on the bottom - a lot easier to build than a pure Oval as it should take care of the floor trying to bend itself into a pretzel. That could be done in metal it doesn't need to be CFRP - but it might for production efficiency.

At about 163" H and 185-190" W that is only about 25% more than an A320 for 16.7% more Y seats and up to 50% more premium seats. The differential between NMA cross section and A320 cper seat could be about what the A320 is over the 737.

What people are missing as well is that if they build the Tight/light cross section/cockpit it could be used for NSA with a different wing box/wing/gear/engines/tail a lot faster than another cleansheet program to replace the 737.

That would save time and a lot of money vs going total clean sheet on NSA again. Boeing can't wait 10-12 years for NSA to arrive. NSA based on NMA could be here by 2028ish.
 
transswede
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:37 am

The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:26 am

For production efficiency I see both the NMA and NSA being CFRP barrels. It is highly automated, earlier in the learning curve (CFRP costs are rising slower than Aluminum), almost no fasteners except at the joints, and has much easier C and D checks. Heck, Leonardo is building two CFRP bodies for the ATR as a demonstration on its feasibility.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:08 am

transswede wrote:
The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

And this strategy has worked. Boeing is the leader in the widebody market. The whole purpose with the 787 is to squeeze Airbus out of the widebody space.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8484
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:11 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Who cares about the Airbus crowd? Airlines care about numbers and smaller seats mean better numbers. I would not expect more than 16.5-17.3" for the 797.


Airbus marketing material is always advertising wider cabins. I don't think Boeing wants to always be on the negative side of that material. Boeing three times offered cabins for wider seats than 18 inches, (747s were originally 9 abreast, 777s were 9 abreast, 787s were 8 abreast) but airlines have gone to 17 inches as the standard.


So airlines have spoken and it would be crazy to do a 7 abreast with more than 17" seats. Airbus marketing is just that, airlines care about performance and passengers care about price.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13016
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:28 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
transswede wrote:
The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

And this strategy has worked. Boeing is the leader in the widebody market. The whole purpose with the 787 is to squeeze Airbus out of the widebody space.


17 WB deliveries from Airbus in June. 10 A350, 6 A330 and 1 A380.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

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