heavymetal
Posts: 4559
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:57 pm

musman9853 wrote:
A330 is more expensive than the 787, so I don't know why you think the a330 can be done "dirt cheap"


Do you have a legitimate source for this claim that is not an AvWeek, AIN, Leeham, etc. article?

Having fielded offers for both aircraft, this is categorically false. And it's not even close.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:24 pm

Thank you for the great post

2175301 wrote:
Dave05 wrote:
At this moment, actually Boeing is still unsure if their NMA will be a 757 or 767 based. As for me I believed that NMA should be based on the 757... If Boeing decides that their NMA will be based on the 757, it will be the base for their new 737 or NSA too....


Boeing knows exactly what the first variation of the NMA aircraft will be; and is 90% + confident on the 2nd variation (it may change slightly depending on the response to the 1st marketed variation). If it was not for the 737Max8 issue reports from several sources indicate that Boeing would have announced for sale of the 1st variation of the NMA already this year; that the engineering reviews of the design work are at the stage to proceed with construction and production; and that they believed (at least up to early summer) that they were on track for a 2025 introduction of it.

Anyone claiming that Boeing does not know what it will be... and the people debating what Boeing should be doing.... appear to me be in a fantasy world (or perhaps heavy denial).

Even though I have a connection who is working on the project; I do not know if its a carbon fiber or metal fuselage, or the size, and many things (there have been many interesting discussions on the possibilities and what has been studied, and in some cases to what approximate extent they have been studied). It focuses on passengers and minimizes cargo. Its Ovid. It has been highly suggested that its 7 wide for passengers with 2 isles. But, I know that Boeing knows what they are offering - exactly - for the 1st variation and that key drawings for long lead items already exist and waiting program offer authorization for release for bid/construction. They have 2 engine possibilities - and I have no idea which one is ahead (or will it be both). They have confidence in that they will have a certified engine by 2025.

It is my understanding that the manufacturing process will be such that this aircraft will be much cheaper to assemble than past aircraft; and that Boeing considers that to be a key market place advantage. My understanding is that Boeing believes that Airbus will not be able to compete well with existing A300 series aircraft because of the cost of assembly advantage (and you cannot make an A300 series much less labor intensive to manufacture). Airbus would have to design a clean sheet aircraft and new assembly process for them to compete head to head. For the NMA market size that is not likely to be a worthwhile investment for Airbus as that market is limited (and I believe Airbus has indicated as much - there is room for 1 aircraft in that market, maybe).

Further, my sources indicates that Boeing considers building and fine tuning the new production process for the NMA a key precursor to the eventual NSA replacement aircraft. So much so that they have had internal discussions about accepting a lower than normal estimated profit margin on the NMA to be ready for the NSA.

Have a great day,


For manufacturing efficiency I see the CFRP barrels being used as it can be extremely automated. CFRP barrels are much earlier on the learning curve than metal. It may be lower margins initially, but 15 years out will have better margins. With barrels it is relatively easy to change cross section, so the NSA likely will be a 6ab plane with the same lengths as the NMA.

As you noted, the NMA is the dress rehearsal for the NSA. The NSA will have a smaller but similar wing to the NMA. The NSA will be in the same capability as the A321 so the 738 can still be in production 8 to 10 years after the NSA introduction.
 
musman9853
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:09 pm

heavymetal wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
A330 is more expensive than the 787, so I don't know why you think the a330 can be done "dirt cheap"


Do you have a legitimate source for this claim that is not an AvWeek, AIN, Leeham, etc. article?

Having fielded offers for both aircraft, this is categorically false. And it's not even close.


first off, all of those sources you listed are legit sources. as I'm not a airline purchasing employee, I have no inside knowledge. But the list price of the 789 is less than the list price of the a339. Boeing has clearly been very competitive in price for the 787, as it got hawaiin to drop its a330neo orders. and the 787 production rate is increasing to rate 14, while the a330neo rate is dropping to 3.5. again, I have no inside info, but looking in from the outside it seems logical to me that the 787 is at the very least very competitive in price.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:16 pm

2175301 wrote:
Its Ovid.

I thought twin aisle was a given too. So we know it is an Ovid twin aisle, correct? And proposals for up to 52K engines is not speculation, that is a fact.
 
2175301
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:22 pm

DenverTed wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Its Ovid.

I thought twin aisle was a given too. So we know it is an Ovid twin aisle, correct? And proposals for up to 52K engines is not speculation, that is a fact.


I have been told its ovid (but not to what degree). It has been highly suggested, but not confirmed, by my source that its twin isle.

I have no information on engine thrust rating. That appears to be speculation. From an engineering standpoint they appear to need at least 40 K thrust for any reasonable configuration based on various estimates I have seen. Mid 40's and up appear to be quite plausible, depending on the wing chosen (low 40's likely need a large wing and may require a larger gate size). My guess is that the wing will be in the range of 6'-10" shorter than a standard gate size. Which gate size???

Have a great day,
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:29 pm

2175301 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Its Ovid.

I thought twin aisle was a given too. So we know it is an Ovid twin aisle, correct? And proposals for up to 52K engines is not speculation, that is a fact.


I have been told its ovid (but not to what degree). It has been highly suggested, but not confirmed, by my source that its twin isle.

I have no information on engine thrust rating. That appears to be speculation. From an engineering standpoint they appear to need at least 40 K thrust for any reasonable configuration based on various estimates I have seen. Mid 40's and up appear to be quite plausible, depending on the wing chosen (low 40's likely need a large wing and may require a larger gate size). My guess is that the wing will be in the range of 6'-10" shorter than a standard gate size. Which gate size???

Have a great day,


Thanks for your contribution.

That kind of gels with what I have been speculating on. If the wing is small it will need more thrust but probably fit into Class III gates when folded to 36M from about 43M or the skip the whole folding idea and it fits into Class IV gates and go with a 767 Wing's width at about 48-50M - 6-10' smaller than Class IV max of 52m.

I guess they go smaller wing and more thrust to fit in Class III gates to give them a lot more operational flexibility but that's just me.
 
HP69
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:57 pm

I think that there is no need for the 797. The 787 covers the MoM just fine. Boeing would do better to dedicate all their resources to the MAX.
 
planecane
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:16 pm

HP69 wrote:
I think that there is no need for the 797. The 787 covers the MoM just fine. Boeing would do better to dedicate all their resources to the MAX.


Ummm...

I haven't seen Boeing pitch the 787 vs. the A321XLR in any competition.

The 787 has at least 40% more range than needed for the medium length routes and therefore is carrying a lot of extra weight for no benefit on those missions.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:44 pm

planecane wrote:
HP69 wrote:
I think that there is no need for the 797. The 787 covers the MoM just fine. Boeing would do better to dedicate all their resources to the MAX.


Ummm...

I haven't seen Boeing pitch the 787 vs. the A321XLR in any competition.

The 787 has at least 40% more range than needed for the medium length routes and therefore is carrying a lot of extra weight for no benefit on those missions.

I did the math in one of these threads and the 787-8 had +70% more range in 2 class config than did the 797-7x config reported by Air Current and others.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:11 am

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


I would almost guarantee that he first production line is at PAE. They will vacate the 77X LRIP to make space for it. And if you need two lines they will move all 787 work to CHS.

They have the wing cooker building at PAE, so that could be one reason to build it there.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:47 am

musman9853 wrote:
But the list price of the 789 is less than the list price of the a339. Boeing has clearly been very competitive in price for the 787, as it got hawaiin to drop its a330neo orders. and the 787 production rate is increasing to rate 14, while the a330neo rate is dropping to 3.5. again, I have no inside info, but looking in from the outside it seems logical to me that the 787 is at the very least very competitive in price.

FYI, Boeing's list prices are for an empty airframe while Airbus prices are for a typiically fitted out aircraft. So airlines will have to pay for the interiors and fittings of Boeing aircraft in addition to the airframe.

Hawaiian is a one off case - Boeing saw an opportunity to kill the A330Neo (specifically the A338) and offered a good deal for Hawaiian to switch. Since that episode, Airbus has taken more orders for the A338 and Boeing's attempt to kill it has not worked as intended.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:11 am

morrisond wrote:
the belly would also act somewhat as a lifting body as well potentially giving an aero benefit.

A tube is a terribly bad lifting body. Using the fuselage width as the wingspan b in the formula for induced drag shows, that the resulting drag amount is shooting through the roof. Therefore fuselages should be carefully kept aligned with the airflow as much as possible.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:24 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
morrisond wrote:
the belly would also act somewhat as a lifting body as well potentially giving an aero benefit.

A tube is a terribly bad lifting body. Using the fuselage width as the wingspan b in the formula for induced drag shows, that the resulting drag amount is shooting through the roof. Therefore fuselages should be carefully kept aligned with the airflow as much as possible.


I meant to have said "could possibly also act" instead of would - I understand that in cruise that keeping the airflow aligned as much as possible is a good thing - but then a flat belly shouldn't matter as much when the angle of incidence was close to 0 - but wouldn't it help in Climb and descent when the Angle of Incidence was higher - allowing you to use a smaller wing? You don't need all that lift of a big wing in Cruise and M.8.

Aircraft have gotten pretty flat in the Wingbox area - this would just be extending that fore and aft.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:30 am

morrisond wrote:
You don't need all that lift of a big wing in Cruise and M.8.
.


thats why 77W flying FL300
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2799
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:42 am

[url][/url]
Armadillo1 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You don't need all that lift of a big wing in Cruise and M.8.
.


thats why 77W flying FL300


Seems to me that having an aircraft that spends most of its time doing the relatively short routes and only needs the range in relatively extreme cases this isn't really an issue. Check out the wing loading and relatively low initial altitudes of both the 77W and the A321NEO and then look at the sales numbers. having a wing that will get you up to fl370 at MTOW is never going to help you when doing short range work where you want to be cheap to operate.

Fred
Image
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:00 am

morrisond wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
morrisond wrote:
the belly would also act somewhat as a lifting body as well potentially giving an aero benefit.

A tube is a terribly bad lifting body. Using the fuselage width as the wingspan b in the formula for induced drag shows, that the resulting drag amount is shooting through the roof. Therefore fuselages should be carefully kept aligned with the airflow as much as possible.


I meant to have said "could possibly also act" instead of would - I understand that in cruise that keeping the airflow aligned as much as possible is a good thing - but then a flat belly shouldn't matter as much when the angle of incidence was close to 0 - but wouldn't it help in Climb and descent when the Angle of Incidence was higher - allowing you to use a smaller wing? You don't need all that lift of a big wing in Cruise and M.8.

Aircraft have gotten pretty flat in the Wingbox area - this would just be extending that fore and aft.


The angle of incidence is fixed for most fixed wing aircraft and can not be changed and is in general designed to minimize drag at cruise level.
 
brindabella
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:51 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Thank you for the great post

2175301 wrote:
Dave05 wrote:
At this moment, actually Boeing is still unsure if their NMA will be a 757 or 767 based. As for me I believed that NMA should be based on the 757... If Boeing decides that their NMA will be based on the 757, it will be the base for their new 737 or NSA too....


Boeing knows exactly what the first variation of the NMA aircraft will be; and is 90% + confident on the 2nd variation (it may change slightly depending on the response to the 1st marketed variation). If it was not for the 737Max8 issue reports from several sources indicate that Boeing would have announced for sale of the 1st variation of the NMA already this year; that the engineering reviews of the design work are at the stage to proceed with construction and production; and that they believed (at least up to early summer) that they were on track for a 2025 introduction of it.

Anyone claiming that Boeing does not know what it will be... and the people debating what Boeing should be doing.... appear to me be in a fantasy world (or perhaps heavy denial).

Even though I have a connection who is working on the project; I do not know if its a carbon fiber or metal fuselage, or the size, and many things (there have been many interesting discussions on the possibilities and what has been studied, and in some cases to what approximate extent they have been studied). It focuses on passengers and minimizes cargo. Its Ovid. It has been highly suggested that its 7 wide for passengers with 2 isles. But, I know that Boeing knows what they are offering - exactly - for the 1st variation and that key drawings for long lead items already exist and waiting program offer authorization for release for bid/construction. They have 2 engine possibilities - and I have no idea which one is ahead (or will it be both). They have confidence in that they will have a certified engine by 2025.

It is my understanding that the manufacturing process will be such that this aircraft will be much cheaper to assemble than past aircraft; and that Boeing considers that to be a key market place advantage. My understanding is that Boeing believes that Airbus will not be able to compete well with existing A300 series aircraft because of the cost of assembly advantage (and you cannot make an A300 series much less labor intensive to manufacture). Airbus would have to design a clean sheet aircraft and new assembly process for them to compete head to head. For the NMA market size that is not likely to be a worthwhile investment for Airbus as that market is limited (and I believe Airbus has indicated as much - there is room for 1 aircraft in that market, maybe).

Further, my sources indicates that Boeing considers building and fine tuning the new production process for the NMA a key precursor to the eventual NSA replacement aircraft. So much so that they have had internal discussions about accepting a lower than normal estimated profit margin on the NMA to be ready for the NSA.

Have a great day,


For manufacturing efficiency I see the CFRP barrels being used as it can be extremely automated. CFRP barrels are much earlier on the learning curve than metal. It may be lower margins initially, but 15 years out will have better margins. With barrels it is relatively easy to change cross section, so the NSA likely will be a 6ab plane with the same lengths as the NMA.

As you noted, the NMA is the dress rehearsal for the NSA. The NSA will have a smaller but similar wing to the NMA. The NSA will be in the same capability as the A321 so the 738 can still be in production 8 to 10 years after the NSA introduction.

:checkmark:

Very succinct!

IMHO got the lot in 1 small paragraph comprising 3 short sentences.

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:33 pm

musman9853 wrote:
A330 is more expensive than the 787, so I don't know why you think the a330 can be done "dirt cheap"


have you negotiated purchase agreements for both types to claim this? Even then you could only claim it for your entity, not generally.

If I am Airbus and I want to make the market for NMA as unattractive as possible for Boeing I sell the A330 at cost if required (as part of a larger deal including A321XLR of course) to avoid them ordering the NMA.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:54 pm

InsideMan wrote:
If I am Airbus and I want to make the market for NMA as unattractive as possible for Boeing I sell the A330 at cost if required (as part of a larger deal including A321XLR of course) to avoid them ordering the NMA.

IMO some airlines will see that like being offered 737MAX10 and a hypothetical 767MAX to dissuade them from buying a hypothetical clean sheet MoM/NMA from Airbus.

XLR's biggest strength, that it's an extension/upgrade of an 80s narrowbody, is also IMO a big weakness when comparing it to a clean sheet NMA.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
If I am Airbus and I want to make the market for NMA as unattractive as possible for Boeing I sell the A330 at cost if required (as part of a larger deal including A321XLR of course) to avoid them ordering the NMA.

IMO some airlines will see that like being offered 737MAX10 and a hypothetical 767MAX to dissuade them from buying a hypothetical clean sheet MoM/NMA from Airbus.

XLR's biggest strength, that it's an extension/upgrade of an 80s narrowbody, is also IMO a big weakness when comparing it to a clean sheet NMA.


well yes, of course. Except that the A321XLR performs better than the MAX10 even without the MCAS troubles and there is no 767MAX.
But at the end of the day airlines care about cost / making money. Even passenger comfort is just a translation of charging more or getting more bookings than the competitor.
So if a mix of A321/A330 is cheaper to operate than NMA at total cost of ownership(!!) than I'm sure a lot of airlines will go that way....

Maybe even Airbus wants Boeing to commit to the NMA to bind resources. What is clear is, that Airbus will only launch a new narrowbody once Boeing shows their cards (NSA).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:34 pm

I think everybody is getting a bit nervous on what Boeing should really do.

If the MAX drama drags on into 2020, the financial situation, backlog and public perceptions (=stock value) will take a big hit.
https://www.news18.com/news/auto/globally-grounded-boeing-737-max-8-unlikely-to-restart-operations-by-2020-2232669.html

Longer term strategies (NMA, NSA) could be sidelined getting the 737 production running again. A bit like 10 years ago; the 787 sucking up all attention, resources, which let ultimately to missing out on the NSA and being forced into rushing the 737MAX.

Putting GENX under the 767 was looked at years ago (tanker) and might not be such a bad idea afterall. It will probably cost $4billion, not 16. If Boeing believes it's own Middle of the market forecast, why not? Maybe they could put on the 777X cockpit, it's the same nose section.. OEW would still be 25t (!) below 787 and A330..

Maybe United, Delta, AA and the Chinese would be interested. Plus, the production facilities / supply chain exist today. For USAF a lot of usefull system updates where done. -> low risk.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-air-show-boeing-considering-genx-for-kc-x-tan-328255/
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/19/boeing-ponders-restart-767-300er-passenger-line/

Image
Last edited by keesje on Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:47 pm

keesje wrote:
I think everybody is getting a bit nervous on what Boeing should really do.

If the MAX drama drags on into 2020, the financial situation, backlog and public perceptions (=stock value) will take a big hit.
https://www.news18.com/news/auto/globally-grounded-boeing-737-max-8-unlikely-to-restart-operations-by-2020-2232669.html

Longer term strategies (NMA, NSA) could be sidelined getting the 737 production running again. A bit like 10 years ago; the 787 sucking up all attention, resources, which let ultimately to missing out on the NSA and being forced into rushing the 737MAX.

Putting GENX under the 767 was looked at years ago (tanker) and might not be such a bad idea afterall. It will probably cost $4billion, not 16. If Boeing believes it's own Middle of the market requirements, maybe they could put on the 777X cockpit, it's the same nose section..

Maybe United, Delta, AA and the Chinese would be interested. Plus, the production facilities / supply chain exist today.. low risk.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-air-show-boeing-considering-genx-for-kc-x-tan-328255/
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/19/boeing-ponders-restart-767-300er-passenger-line/

Image


Does the $4B include a new wing?

The 767 has a cross section of about 33,123 sq" vs about 25,171 sq" for a tight light 7W - about 30% more - that's a lot for no extra seating - extra cargo though.

Yes - you would have to do a new cross section for the tight light 7W - but if you can reuse it for NSA and amortize development costs over 10,000 frames no big deal even if it costs $10 billion for the new nose/barrel - that's only $1 million per frame in development costs.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:08 pm

morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think everybody is getting a bit nervous on what Boeing should really do.

If the MAX drama drags on into 2020, the financial situation, backlog and public perceptions (=stock value) will take a big hit.
https://www.news18.com/news/auto/globally-grounded-boeing-737-max-8-unlikely-to-restart-operations-by-2020-2232669.html

Longer term strategies (NMA, NSA) could be sidelined getting the 737 production running again. A bit like 10 years ago; the 787 sucking up all attention, resources, which let ultimately to missing out on the NSA and being forced into rushing the 737MAX.

Putting GENX under the 767 was looked at years ago (tanker) and might not be such a bad idea afterall. It will probably cost $4billion, not 16. If Boeing believes it's own Middle of the market requirements, maybe they could put on the 777X cockpit, it's the same nose section..

Maybe United, Delta, AA and the Chinese would be interested. Plus, the production facilities / supply chain exist today.. low risk.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-air-show-boeing-considering-genx-for-kc-x-tan-328255/
https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/19/boeing-ponders-restart-767-300er-passenger-line/

Image


Does the $4B include a new wing?

The 767 has a cross section of about 33,123 sq" vs about 25,171 sq" for a tight light 7W - about 30% more - that's a lot for no extra seating - extra cargo though.

Yes - you would have to do a new cross section for the tight light 7W - but if you can reuse it for NSA and amortize development costs over 10,000 frames no big deal even if it costs $10 billion for the new nose/barrel - that's only $1 million per frame in development costs.


No new wing, no new cross section. That means a new aircraft, billions, time to market, risk.

Just new engines, the KC46 system upgrades, upgraded glass cockpit, maybe MAX style wing tips.

A new look, slightly spacier (wider) interior, lighting. Even tight 8 abreast is possible (in operation..) unfortunately.

As said it weighs 25t less than a A330 or 787 and the Asians / Chinese would love it's capability to move serious cargo.

Image
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5635848

Image
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2011-09-26/rockwell-collins-provides-kc-46a-cockpit-details
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:35 pm

keesje wrote:
No new wing, no new cross section. That means a new aircraft, billions, time to market, risk. Just new engines, the KC46 system upgrades, upgraded glass cockpit, maybe MAX style wing tips.


To make any new 767 MAX cost competitive, Boeing would need to re-do the structural engineering to adopt the new manufacturing process currently being used for the T-X. This requires lots of non-recurring work that would divert more manpower from the 797 etc. The original 767 was design on mylar drawing, not sure how much of the design was converted to digital form. Most likely anything involving the KC-46 will have been converted, but chances are much of the passenger components have not been converted or exist in an obsolete CAD format.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:11 pm

bikerthai wrote:
keesje wrote:
No new wing, no new cross section. That means a new aircraft, billions, time to market, risk. Just new engines, the KC46 system upgrades, upgraded glass cockpit, maybe MAX style wing tips.


To make any new 767 MAX cost competitive, Boeing would need to re-do the structural engineering to adopt the new manufacturing process currently being used for the T-X. This requires lots of non-recurring work that would divert more manpower from the 797 etc. The original 767 was design on mylar drawing, not sure how much of the design was converted to digital form. Most likely anything involving the KC-46 will have been converted, but chances are much of the passenger components have not been converted or exist in an obsolete CAD format.

bt


The 767-400ER got an updated cockpit, redesigned landing gear, and 777-style Signature Interior in the late nineties, CAD has been there since the late eighties. The KC-46 took care of many aging (sub) systems and components and no doubt all structural FEM strenght and fatigue calculations have been redone for both 400ER and KC-46A. Radical re-design could/should be avoided to save cost, time and risk. Just fine tuning.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:36 pm

767NEO? Surely joking keesje?

New engines would increase range by around 15%. The 767 has a range of 6590nm and 5980nm.. That would go up to to 7575nm and 6875nm.

Just a bit higher than the 4500nm and 5200nm range figures that Boeing has mentioned.

The 767 needs the fuselage interior widened like the 777X. It needs the oversized old wing replaced. It needs engines smaller and lighter than the Genx. We are now half way to a cleansheet.
 
2175301
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:21 am

In regards to an updated 767 (with potential new engines). My source indicated that option died when the AirForce was not interested in newer engines for the KC-46. Had the Airforce been interested in more modern engines for the KC-46 then Boeing would have seriously considered a NEO passenger variant as the engine cost would be shared between the Airforce, Freighters, and Passenger aircraft. I am told that if new engines were an option that point Boeing would also have considered at a new wing too - at least for the Freighter and Passenger varients.

I'll admit that even though those engines would not have been the current latest and greatest... They likely could have been efficient enough to fill most of the NMA hole, and have eliminated the current plans for the NMA. Toss in new wings... we would not likely even be discussing the NMA at all. However, the US Airforce is real big on using well proven older technology even if not as efficient, unless performance really matters (as in fighter jets). GE is not complaining... There is no real risks in continued production of an existing engine. Development of a new derivative engine in the thrust range required would have had risks.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:13 am

I think a "plan B" for the middle of market might not be a bad idea.

The 767 seems very much right sized for the job. -> Boeing says so!

Image

People still believing Boeing can easily spend anything and have time on their side, better reset.

Improving fuel efficiency an d updating system, using existing production facilities might not be a bad idea.

Maybe someone can order 50 to start off (Donald Trump/DoD, Fedex, UPS, UA, Delta, GECAS). The E-3 AWACS also need replacements.
GE's GENX backlog has been shrinking lately. The 787 is selling slow and the 747-8 went nowhere. Another platform would be welcome.

Image

The costs, risks and time to market would probably be 20-25% of an NMA and Airbus would not have a direct answer. The 767 got major upgrades recently for the 767-400ER and KC46A. We are not talking the 1981 767-200.

Image

Boeing’s plans for the NMA are in question after the Chicago-based planemaker last week reassigned the executive spearheading the effort, Mark Jenks, to take charge of the 737 program. Mike Sinnett, a senior engineer who had been leading Boeing’s product strategy and future airplane development team, added the NMA to his portfolio as part of the executive shuffle.

“This move seems a clear sign that the NMA program is on ice,” Bank of America Corp. analyst Ron Epstein said in a note to clients this week. “While this doesn’t imply the NMA program won’t happen, it now appears it won’t happen anytime soon.”

https://www.ajot.com/news/united-air-prods-boeing-for-a797a-decision-as-max-crisis-lingers

Airlines like AA, United and Delta are pushing hard now for clarity on the NMA, their patience isn't endless and 757/767 fleets aging rapidly.
Last edited by keesje on Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:42 am, edited 8 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:21 am

2175301 wrote:
seriously considered a NEO passenger variant as the engine cost would be shared between the Airforce, Freighters, and Passenger aircraft.

330Neo OEW much heavier than CEO. serious disadvantage for military and freighter version of 330Neo, 77X and other refit proposal.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:40 am

keesje wrote:
The 767 seems very much right sized for the job. -> Boeing says so!

Image

The 767-200ER is outside of your MOM circle and the 767-300ER just scrapes in.

With new engines the dots will shift to the right. Both will now be well outside the MOM circle.

That graph shows that it is NOT right sized for the job.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:30 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
The 767 seems very much right sized for the job. -> Boeing says so!


The 767-200ER is outside of your MOM circle and the 767-300ER just scrapes in.

With new engines the dots will shift to the right. Both will now be well outside the MOM circle.

That graph shows that it is NOT right sized for the job.


I think you got it wrong RJMAZ. Under real conditions with normal cargo the 767-300ER has a far more limitted range than you indicate.
http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/images/product_767-300er_payloadrange.gif

NMA no cargo, luggage only range is exactly where Boeing received a lot of headwind, in the biggest future market: Asia.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/boeing-faces-u-s-asia-cargo-clash-in-design-of-new-797-jet

Boeing NMA's moment to stop talking start walking was 2 years ago IMO. Boeing still sticking to the NMA 2025 EIS, has become a running joke.
They now better come up with savvy down to earth solid solutions for their key customers. Those have started walking away (AA, QF, DL) .

Not 100% optimal (what is?) a 767 upgrade business case might be far easier to close than the NMA one, Boeing failed to close for the last 3-4 years.

It might be lighter, 4x times lower investment & 4 years earlier and still more capable than other ideas I have seen. With the same engines, build on an existing FAL. http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/797.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:32 pm

keesje wrote:
The 767-400ER got an updated cockpit, redesigned landing gear, and 777-style Signature Interior in the late nineties, CAD has been there since the late eighties.


The design would not necessary change. But to incorporate the advance manufacturing technique being applied to the T-X would require conversion of all the airframe data from the old system to the current CATIA V5 system. The cockpit may have been updated, but how much of the update involves just the electronic hardware and how much involved updating the skin structure to CATIA V5-CAD. Even if the data was in CATIA V4 or even V5, it would still require significant Engineering work to convert it into a format compatible with the new manufacturing process. The changes involves Engineering and Manufacturing principles and not necessarily CAD system alone.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:47 pm

bikerthai wrote:
keesje wrote:
The 767-400ER got an updated cockpit, redesigned landing gear, and 777-style Signature Interior in the late nineties, CAD has been there since the late eighties.


The design would not necessary change. But to incorporate the advance manufacturing technique being applied to the T-X would require conversion of all the airframe data from the old system to the current CATIA V5 system. The cockpit may have been updated, but how much of the update involves just the electronic hardware and how much involved updating the skin structure to CATIA V5-CAD. Even if the data was in CATIA V4 or even V5, it would still require significant Engineering work to convert it into a format compatible with the new manufacturing process. The changes involves Engineering and Manufacturing principles and not necessarily CAD system alone.

bt


So let's avoid incorporate manufacturing technique being applied to the T-X at all costs :bigthumbsup:

Better ways to spend your money & customers haven't been asking for it.

Boeing, Spirit and the supply chain are manufacturing 767s as we speak.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:14 pm

    keesje wrote:
    So let's avoid incorporate manufacturing technique being applied to the T-X at all costs
    :spin:

    Uh oh. It would become circular logic. If there is significant demands, Boeing would surely optimize their manufacturing process to reduce cost, which require significant up front effort.

    Heck, once they finally work out the Max crisis, I would not be surprised if they filter the process into the Max's line to reduce the cost there as well.

    Actually the manufacturing assembly is not complex. It is rather simple, thus the cost reduction.
    It's the Engineering and the front end manufacturing requirements that drives the whole process.
    bt
    Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
     
    TTailedTiger
    Posts: 1266
    Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:27 am

    Boeing knows how to build an efficient wing and has never needed to rely on winglets for cleansheet aircraft design. Can we expect both the NMA and NSA to feature raked wingtips instead of winglets? And possibly folding wingtips so that they can make the wing as big as needed without having to worry about fitting into current gate space?
     
    User avatar
    bikerthai
    Posts: 2906
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:42 pm

    TTailedTiger wrote:
    Boeing knows how to build an efficient wing and has never needed to rely on winglets for cleansheet aircraft design. Can we expect both the NMA and NSA to feature raked wingtips instead of winglets? And possibly folding wingtips so that they can make the wing as big as needed without having to worry about fitting into current gate space?


    Winglets are more efficient for short flights and longer wings are more efficient for longer flights. With computation fluid dynamic modeling and super computing, both companies knows how to design efficient wings. It's the difference in engineering/manufacturing phylosophy and know-how that makes one wing better/lighter than another.

    bt
    Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
     
    JayinKitsap
    Posts: 1397
    Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:08 pm

    brindabella wrote:
    JayinKitsap wrote:
    Thank you for the great post

    2175301 wrote:

    Boeing knows exactly what the first variation of the NMA aircraft will be; and is 90% + confident on the 2nd variation (it may change slightly depending on the response to the 1st marketed variation). If it was not for the 737Max8 issue reports from several sources indicate that Boeing would have announced for sale of the 1st variation of the NMA already this year; that the engineering reviews of the design work are at the stage to proceed with construction and production; and that they believed (at least up to early summer) that they were on track for a 2025 introduction of it.

    Anyone claiming that Boeing does not know what it will be... and the people debating what Boeing should be doing.... appear to me be in a fantasy world (or perhaps heavy denial).

    Even though I have a connection who is working on the project; I do not know if its a carbon fiber or metal fuselage, or the size, and many things (there have been many interesting discussions on the possibilities and what has been studied, and in some cases to what approximate extent they have been studied). It focuses on passengers and minimizes cargo. Its Ovid. It has been highly suggested that its 7 wide for passengers with 2 isles. But, I know that Boeing knows what they are offering - exactly - for the 1st variation and that key drawings for long lead items already exist and waiting program offer authorization for release for bid/construction. They have 2 engine possibilities - and I have no idea which one is ahead (or will it be both). They have confidence in that they will have a certified engine by 2025.

    It is my understanding that the manufacturing process will be such that this aircraft will be much cheaper to assemble than past aircraft; and that Boeing considers that to be a key market place advantage. My understanding is that Boeing believes that Airbus will not be able to compete well with existing A300 series aircraft because of the cost of assembly advantage (and you cannot make an A300 series much less labor intensive to manufacture). Airbus would have to design a clean sheet aircraft and new assembly process for them to compete head to head. For the NMA market size that is not likely to be a worthwhile investment for Airbus as that market is limited (and I believe Airbus has indicated as much - there is room for 1 aircraft in that market, maybe).

    Further, my sources indicates that Boeing considers building and fine tuning the new production process for the NMA a key precursor to the eventual NSA replacement aircraft. So much so that they have had internal discussions about accepting a lower than normal estimated profit margin on the NMA to be ready for the NSA.

    Have a great day,


    For manufacturing efficiency I see the CFRP barrels being used as it can be extremely automated. CFRP barrels are much earlier on the learning curve than metal. It may be lower margins initially, but 15 years out will have better margins. With barrels it is relatively easy to change cross section, so the NSA likely will be a 6ab plane with the same lengths as the NMA.

    As you noted, the NMA is the dress rehearsal for the NSA. The NSA will have a smaller but similar wing to the NMA. The NSA will be in the same capability as the A321 so the 738 can still be in production 8 to 10 years after the NSA introduction.

    :checkmark:

    Very succinct!

    IMHO got the lot in 1 small paragraph comprising 3 short sentences.

    cheers


    Thanks Brindabella-

    The NSA will need new production facilities not at the confined Renton, I suspect it will be Everett & Charleston, eventually all 787 will be at CHS. It is possible a 3rd site will appear, possibly at Wichita where Spirit is located. Renton needs to stay at full production well into this evolution.

    The NMA will initially be 2 models sharing the same wing and engines, the NSA initial design will be 2 models. But if all are a family there could be a NMA fuse on the NSA wing, a high capacity 2K-2.5K range animal and the NSA fuse on the NMA wing, a long range narrowbody.

    It's going to be cool to watch the development.
     
    User avatar
    keesje
    Posts: 13045
    Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:28 pm

    I fear Boeing is in no position to simultaneously develop an NMA and an NSA. A smaller type, ultra lean, competing in the 170-220 seat <3000NM segment seems required. Or the competition will have them for lunch. Welcome to 2019.
    "Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
     
    iberiadc852
    Posts: 257
    Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:06 pm

    keesje wrote:
    Not 100% optimal (what is?) a 767 upgrade business case might be far easier to close than the NMA one, Boeing failed to close for the last 3-4 years.

    It might be lighter, 4x times lower investment & 4 years earlier and still more capable than other ideas I have seen. With the same engines, build on an existing FAL. http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/797.jpg


    Those drawings and configurations sound right, but I can't see where some numbers came from. For instance, for the 797-7:
    - Why only 230 pax. maximum for a 52 m. 8 abreast?. A normal 763 can have more than 270 7ab.
    - Why 80 T. empty weight, nearly the same as the 763, while having shorter wings, much less tank capacity needed, and lighter materials for the whole aircraft?, Somewhat wider section, yes but also being a little shorter, looks it should account for much lighter frame than 763.
    variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
     
    Weatherwatcher1
    Posts: 177
    Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:43 pm

    keesje wrote:
    I fear Boeing is in no position to simultaneously develop an NMA and an NSA. A smaller type, ultra lean, competing in the 170-220 seat <3000NM segment seems required. Or the competition will have them for lunch. Welcome to 2019.


    In this thread you have suggested that Boeing do the following

    • Shrink the 787
    • Build an extra long and extra wide narrowbody
    • Build a new airplane with the specs similar to the A220
    • Re-Engine the 767
    • Build a new airplane with the specs of a 737-400
    • Replace the 737 entirely

    It sounds like you keep suggesting that Boeing should do anything but build the proposed NMA. It feels like to goal is to cast doubt on the NMA. It seems that the compromise between all six of those proposals is exactly what the NMA is intended to be!
     
    TTailedTiger
    Posts: 1266
    Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:57 pm

    keesje wrote:
    I fear Boeing is in no position to simultaneously develop an NMA and an NSA. A smaller type, ultra lean, competing in the 170-220 seat <3000NM segment seems required. Or the competition will have them for lunch. Welcome to 2019.


    So then that would make you very happy.
     
    User avatar
    seahawk
    Posts: 8521
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:41 am

    Amazing how people can look into the future. The 737 is competitive if you look at the actual aircraft performance and if it takes long term damage from the grounding will depend on the quality of the solution.
     
    User avatar
    keesje
    Posts: 13045
    Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:47 am

    Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
    keesje wrote:
    I fear Boeing is in no position to simultaneously develop an NMA and an NSA. A smaller type, ultra lean, competing in the 170-220 seat <3000NM segment seems required. Or the competition will have them for lunch. Welcome to 2019.


    In this thread you have suggested that Boeing do the following

    • Shrink the 787
    • Build an extra long and extra wide narrowbody
    • Build a new airplane with the specs similar to the A220
    • Re-Engine the 767
    • Build a new airplane with the specs of a 737-400
    • Replace the 737 entirely

    It sounds like you keep suggesting that Boeing should do anything but build the proposed NMA. It feels like to goal is to cast doubt on the NMA. It seems that the compromise between all six of those proposals is exactly what the NMA is intended to be!


    I don’t recognize A220 spec plane, new 737-400 specs.. & said a 787 based plane would be too heavy / expensive. A737 replacement NSA might have higher priority and the NMA requirement might be filled in in a cheaper way.. nothing inconsistent.. I doubt pushing on an expensive heavy 2-3-2 heavy is the best plan. But it seems Boeing isn’t good at listening lately..
    "Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
     
    Bricktop
    Posts: 1375
    Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:34 pm

    keesje wrote:
    Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
    keesje wrote:
    I fear Boeing is in no position to simultaneously develop an NMA and an NSA. A smaller type, ultra lean, competing in the 170-220 seat <3000NM segment seems required. Or the competition will have them for lunch. Welcome to 2019.


    In this thread you have suggested that Boeing do the following

    • Shrink the 787
    • Build an extra long and extra wide narrowbody
    • Build a new airplane with the specs similar to the A220
    • Re-Engine the 767
    • Build a new airplane with the specs of a 737-400
    • Replace the 737 entirely

    It sounds like you keep suggesting that Boeing should do anything but build the proposed NMA. It feels like to goal is to cast doubt on the NMA. It seems that the compromise between all six of those proposals is exactly what the NMA is intended to be!


    I don’t recognize A220 spec plane, new 737-400 specs.. & said a 787 based plane would be too heavy / expensive. A737 replacement NSA might have higher priority and the NMA requirement might be filled in in a cheaper way.. nothing inconsistent.. I doubt pushing on an expensive heavy 2-3-2 heavy is the best plan. But it seems Boeing isn’t good at listening lately..



    Your “fear” translates into your “hope”. Multiple often conflicting posts by you, with pretty graphics is simply page one of your FUD playbook. We all get a chuckle from your recycled photos and schematics that “support” the shade flavor du jour. And then there’s one of your most frequently repeated :liar: memes: The 797 and the 322 are both paper airplanes. I decided to break pattern when I see your posts in an ostensibly Boeing thread, namely to fast forward, but I hear the same old songs from the same tired hymn book. Boeing is all PR, and anyone who says anything positive about them is a dupe. You however, as a dispassionately objective onlooker are not fooled. And you have the graphs, drawings and pictures to prove it.

    Begs the question, why are you so afraid of a paper plane from a company that lies for profit with blood on its hands?
     
    User avatar
    Revelation
    Posts: 20960
    Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:58 pm

    Given the posting history here, maybe we should call this the anti-797 thread?
    Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
    The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
    Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
    The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
     
    Weatherwatcher1
    Posts: 177
    Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:26 pm

    I believe that there are some who don’t want Boeing to be successful. Airbus obviously doesn’t want the the NMA to be successful.

    The Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) falls into a few categories:

    • It will be late regardless of what the actual schedule and progress is. This is part of a sales strategy encouraging customers to avoid new designs and stick with the old designs. Ignore the design progress.
    • The product design is wrong. Wrong shape, size, range, etc. There is a whole cabin width debate trying to tell us that the strategy is wrong. Whether it is cabin width or containers or range, whatever Boeing is proposing is deficient. Always suggest that something else is better.
    • There is no market. Since the program wasn’t launched yesterday, it must mean that Boeing is doubting itself. Ignore the fact that launch to entry into service has always been scheduled to be 4 or 5 years except the A380, which had a 6 year plan. Ignore program reviews, the engineers working on the design and articles in the media.
    • Technological development is standing still. Ignore that the NMA is proposed to have a third generation composite wing. Assume it won’t be better than today’s products
    • It will be too expensive. Along the lines that some claims that technology stands still, designing for manufacturability will not help improve production costs
    • There is a superior competing product in the works that will be cheaper, better, faster, etc

    Trying to refute the FUD allows plenty of tangential debates that get away from the fact that there is a lot of buzz from airlines interested in the plane. I’m excited to hear more about NMA developments rather than the FUD
     
    User avatar
    seahawk
    Posts: 8521
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:53 pm

    I think we won´t hear much till the MAX flies again, because the MAX problem could cause changes to the management team at Boeing and most importantly it might change the balance of power between the OEMs and Boeing. One idea for the MoM was to get more revenue from MRO and parts service for Boeing, taking thins business from the OEMs, but maybe Boeing needs the goodwill of those OEMs right now to soften the blow of the MAX grounding. Another thing that could be re-evaluated is the strong desire to convince newcomers to bid for contracts to lower the costs.
     
    musman9853
    Posts: 742
    Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:58 pm

    seahawk wrote:
    I think we won´t hear much till the MAX flies again, because the MAX problem could cause changes to the management team at Boeing and most importantly it might change the balance of power between the OEMs and Boeing. One idea for the MoM was to get more revenue from MRO and parts service for Boeing, taking thins business from the OEMs, but maybe Boeing needs the goodwill of those OEMs right now to soften the blow of the MAX grounding. Another thing that could be re-evaluated is the strong desire to convince newcomers to bid for contracts to lower the costs.


    Yeah, that's almost certainly the case. We know that ato would've been given by now if it were not for the max crisis.
    Welcome to the City Beautiful.
     
    Weatherwatcher1
    Posts: 177
    Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:35 pm

    sassiciai, I’m sorry you feel the way that you do. I’m curious about developments regarding the NMA. I saw articles about organization changes at Boeing as well as United prodding the decision along this week. The impact of those is what I’m very curious about. The discussion about the 767 felt distracting when it sounds like Boeing and United are in some serious discussions.

    “We would like to see some clarity so that we can make the choice,” United Chief Financial Officer Gerry Laderman said on a conference call Wednesday to discuss earnings. “But we do have a little bit of time.”


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... on-797-jet

    United certainly is interested. Will they be the launch customer? It feels like we are close, but the United CFO says they have a little bit of time. I wonder if a little bit of time is the distance between now and Farnborough? Farnborough 2020 is exactly 1 year away.
     
    DenverTed
    Posts: 243
    Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

    Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

    Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:20 am

    The thing I find interesting is whether they can find a capability balance for a two aircraft family. They tried on the 777x, but it looks like the 777-8 could see less production than the 200LR. Will the 797-6 see a similar fate? A 165' to 170' 797-7 may be all that is needed.

    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