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
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.