RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:36 am

DenverTed wrote:
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.

I highly doubt that. The ULH is a totally different market.

There are three big trends.
1) As an aircraft design gets bigger the efficiency improves on a per seat basis.
2) As an aircraft design range increases the efficiency becomes worse on a per seat basis.
3) If efficiency and range is equal airlines will nearly always choose the smaller aircraft.

Now the 797 will be a unique blend or compromise of these three rules. Both models are just a slight tweak of the same compromise with pros and cons to each. Both are 797 designs are right in the sweet spot unlike the 777LR and 777-8.

The extra range of the 797-6 allows more city pairs to be connected compared to the 797-7. Trend 3 means airlines will pick the 797-6 if it can fly the route over a 787. I actually doubt the 797-6 will even beat the per seat costs of the 787-10 but the Trend 3 will allow it compete. The 787-10 would have to significantly beat the 797-6 on a per seat basis to justify the extra size.

The A380 for instance failed because it underperformed on trend 1. The cost per seat needed to be significantly better due to it being significantly bigger. But cost per seat was only slightly better than the 787 or 777W.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:13 am

The A380 was too big. If configured to a similar seating standard as a 777W or 787 it would carry well north of 600 passengers. In the end the high trip costs killed the A380, as you could not keep the load factors high enough to sell so many seats or would have problems selling all those premium seats when using a less dense configuration.

3 is a simple "no". They will choose the plane that fits their needs best. One must be careful to take experience from the highest end of the airliner market and use it for the middle of the market. There a few routes that can constantly fill a 650 seat A380, there are a few more to fill a 450 seat 777, there are plenty to fill a 240 seat 797.

The 797 will be a revolution to the market offering wide body comfort for single aisle economics. I can see them easily reaching 30-40 frames a month. Imho it will kill everything between 737-8 and 787-9.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:09 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
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


I have a difficulty with this post as it implies that some very valid debates that counter the hype developing around the 797 on this thread must be suppressed.
In order:-

Lateness - The track record of OEM's in delivering programmes of late is abysmal. There are some pretty senior voices in the industry that suggest that 2025 is now unlikely.

The product design is wrong – I think that is a mis-representation of the debate. Some people's opinions of what the product design might be are likely to be wrong – Boeing themselves are fairly tight lipped on this one. But we have posters who variously think the 797 will be:-
A 787 lite
A reincarnation of the 767 but lighter
A very small oval twin-aisle 7-across max

And those that hold those views cling onto them tenaciously.
What makes the debates interesting, and valid, is that each of these options has characteristics that run counter to some of the other claims being made for the 797 – you don't get anything for nothing, but equally bring something different to the party.

There is no market – again, a misrepresentation. No-one claims that there is NO market. The debate is around whether what market there is big enough to facilitate the business case required to launch the product. That is a valid debate and again it is possible to find quotes from fairly senior figures in the industry questioning the business case (e.g. GE)

Technological development is standing still – in fairness Boeing themselves have clearly stated that the 797 will not be a technological "tour-de-force" and will play safe on the technology front. The focus of the product is said to be manufacturability

It will be too expensive – this is an interesting debate (for me certainly it goes to the crux of the business case). I wrote my master's thesis on manufacturing strategy in 1994 and have been a senior Manufacturing Engineer/Manufacturing Strategist ever since then (a quarter of a century). There's a few points at play here:-
There are very few sustainable competitive advantages in manufacturability.
Other OEM's have similar manufacturing technologies available
The factors which make up the overall cost of a manufactured product are pretty complex – more than most on here will comprehend, including cost of materials, cost of labour, cost of variable overheads, contribution to fixed overheads, etc., and like a lot of things few of these come for free.
Reducing labour invariably increases material costs, overhead costs and capital costs. Optimising the entire cost base is an art form, not a mathematical equation
Overall unit cost is heavily dependent on economies of scale
(Lightsaber quotes every doubling reduces UPC by 13% - I suspect its not that simple, but you get the drift).
One of the ways that the fuselage design plays into this is how it facilitates, or alternatively limits, volume of product that can be built to the same basic design, on the same lines.
This is why some people (and I am one of them) are very sceptical about the manufacturing claims being made when applied to some of the bigger options (e.g. the 787 lite, or 767 reincarnate). The two are contradictory.
It doesn't matter what the technology is, a 140t plane being made at 10 per month will never challenge the cost base of a 90t-100t plane being made on a line turning at 60 per month

The points I have made are all very valid challenges to the whole concept behind the 797 and merit constructive debate. That these arguments exist in no way makes their promoters haters, or spoilers, or anti 797. The whole fun of this thread should be in comprehending the spectrum of issues at play and the anticipation of learning what the final outcome actually is.
If these arguments are not acceptable on the thread, perhaps we should call it "The 797 propaganda thread". Who knows?

Revelation wrote:
Given the posting history here, maybe we should call this the anti-797 thread?


Or alternatively, see above.

Rgds
 
ewt340
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:15 am

seahawk wrote:
The A380 was too big. If configured to a similar seating standard as a 777W or 787 it would carry well north of 600 passengers. In the end the high trip costs killed the A380, as you could not keep the load factors high enough to sell so many seats or would have problems selling all those premium seats when using a less dense configuration.

3 is a simple "no". They will choose the plane that fits their needs best. One must be careful to take experience from the highest end of the airliner market and use it for the middle of the market. There a few routes that can constantly fill a 650 seat A380, there are a few more to fill a 450 seat 777, there are plenty to fill a 240 seat 797.

The 797 will be a revolution to the market offering wide body comfort for single aisle economics. I can see them easily reaching 30-40 frames a month. Imho it will kill everything between 737-8 and 787-9.


LOL, yeah no, It wouldn't kill A321neo. The widebody version of B797 would be hit hard by A321neo/XLR. While the single aisle version would only sell as much as B757 because Airlines could get the cheaper and more readily available MAX10 for shorter routes which are majority of the domestic and regional segment. If we look at many market, like continental US, continental Europe, East Asia-Southeast Asia-South Asia market, they don't actually need B797 range.

The dilemma for Boeing now would be:
The single aisle B797 would be too similar to the MAX10 which are cheaper to purchase and run and more readily available. On shorter routes less than 3000nmi, MAX10 would make more sense for majority of airlines.
The twin aisle B797 wouldn't be able to compete with A321XLR which are cheaper to purchase and run (single-aisle), commonality with A320neo family and more readily available. The larger variants would also cannibalized B787-8.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:59 am

morrisond wrote:
The 72 Tonnes I think is an Anet creation - no one knows for sure what the OEW weight will be. If an 797-6 (only 10-20 more seats than A321 not 50) is going to be competitive with A321NEO it's going to have to weigh a lot less than 72 tonnes - which is why I keep banging on about a tight light 7W - that doesn't weight that much more than an A320 cross section per seat.

Try to visualize this in your head. You are sitting in an A320 tube. The 797 Fuselage height would be about the same as A320 - maybe a little more. However the walls would be 20" further out on both sides - that is it - it's not an order of magnitude different in size - it's an Marginal increase to get that extra aisle of seating.

If Keesje's diagram of the Oval Cross Section above are right - the belly would also act somewhat as a lifting body as well potentially giving an aero benefit. You wouldn't need as big a wing making it easier to fit it into 737/320 gates with an 43ish M folding wing.

If I am right about NMA/NSA essentially being a combined program you are looking at volumes of potentially 80-100 per month (eventually) to amortize your barrel development and tooling costs over.

That is an order of magnitude difference. Boeing knows full well that Airbus can easily rewing and stretch the A321 to compete and would be crazy to do a unique 8W cross section for NMA as they would lose production efficiency.

If they don't do a dual aisle 7W - they would be better off to do wider 6W SA for NMA that they reuse for NSA than do a separate 8W for NMA and 6W for NSA.

That's one cockpit to develop, one barrel, one set of fuselage doors, one set of interior fittings, one set of systems all bought at huge economies of scale.

The NMA could essentially be the Rewinged A322 Equivalent of the NSA - however with NMA done first to figure out production systems at lower volumes - however the combined NMA/NSA amortized over a lot more frames under program accounting rules.


Good post. It has taken me a bit of time to respond to this post mainly due to bandwidth.

A couple of points I like and support in the post..
A tight, light 7-across ovoid cross section not massively greater than the cross-section of an A32X would not weigh a lot more than the A321XLR and not be much more expensive.
It could be made standard with the NSA to a much greater degree that would ever be possible with the 8-across cross section I see being mentioned. That said, I do wonder how far down the current narrowbody capacity range this ovoid 7-across could be pushed. I could see it being produced at c. A321/737-10 capacity, but struggle to see it down at 737-8/A320 capacity.

So the eventual family could look like:-
797-7 – 265 pax 4 500nm
797-6 – 220 pax 5 000nm
797-5 – 180pax - ? nm (presumably a lower MTOW) at c. A321 size

IMO this would limit its market to what is currently seen as NMA (2 000 – 4 000 depending on whether you're talking to Boeing or not), plus the A321/737-10 market.
We can debate what this might end up being, but currently of 11 500 MAX/NEO ordered, about 3 200 of these are supposedly A321/737-10 (about 2 600 A321, and c. 600 737-10 according to industry observers), so say 30% of current narrowbody orders. Boeing CMO predicts 32 000 narrowbody orders, which opens up about 10 000 places for A321/737-10 sized planes.

So a total market of up to 14 000, and say, a market share of 60% gives 8 400 orders over 20 years, or 4 200 per year – i.e. 35 per month. More than NMA alone, but a lot less than 80-100/month.

But I can see that working.

My view though based on the above, is that the option you describe of a wider single-aisle actually works best for this combined NMA/NSA role – the MC21 looks spot on for me in this respect – a 26" aisle so that pax can pass each other, or the trolleys, but very little different to current narrowbodys.

Designing for both NMA and NSA from the outset allows some standardisation to take place, e.g. a standard wheel well that fits the NMA's double bogie, whilst NSA has a single axle bogie (a bit like the A350-900 and -1000 share a MLG well, despite one having a triple bogie), and allows the growth to be built in to avoid most of the constraints the A321XLR comes up against.

One concern I have is that starting with the biggest variant and then shrinking has not traditionally been the most successful approach. In an ideal world, I would want to see the NSA version first, but 5 000 MAX orders make that unlikely.

Either way, I like the thinking in principle

I'm pretty clear in my mind that an 8-across NMA and 6-across NSA just isn't a solution that will deliver all of the things that supporters of this approach believe it will.
I did like your idea (in another post) that Boeing may well be prepared to limit margin on the NMA to enable it to establish the newer manufacturing model for NSA. That would be quite a strategic bit of thinking.

Rgds
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:00 am

If the larger and shorter ranged version can not soundly defeat the A321NEO on CASM on routes above 2000nm, it is not worth doing.

If they go with the twin aisle and can not beat the A321NEO, Option 1 (aka "do nothing") will be a very strong choice in their decision making. There is absolutely no need to invest another 7-8 billion to finally eliminate the A330 for good.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:12 am

How many more FA do you need in a twin aisle compared to a single aisle if both have the same amount of seats (A321). Because if we talk about economy of scale, the initial batches of NMA will be relatively expensive as the economy of scale does not kick in and if operating costs are also higher due to more FA's needed, it will be hard to make up for this with 30 seats more. On top of that the NMA will have no commonality with any other aircraft, at least initially. This makes the business case really hard. We will see if Boeing finds it. I think its hard, because the hypothetical A322 will have economy of scale from the get go (A320 family), commonality and lower development cots what means lower purchase prize. This makes the situation for Boeing really hard to find the right spot, especially as the Max-10 seems not really a challenge for the A321.
 
olle
Posts: 1149
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:15 pm

I do not beleive that Boeing will leave Airbus for themself forever with their A321 forever. It seems like Airbus soon will have half their backlog for their bigger model so there is a need in the market that Boeing today cannot answer in a proper way.

What the answer to address this will be is another matter. Until now Boeing has defined answer from the perspective what it will not be; It will not compete with 737 and 789. i have a feeling that 788 was acceptable.

Now the question will be how the return to production of 738 will affect future definitions of this answer. I can smell that there is a lot of discussions inside Boeing right now.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:09 pm

astuteman wrote:
The product design is wrong – I think that is a mis-representation of the debate. Some people's opinions of what the product design might be are likely to be wrong – Boeing themselves are fairly tight lipped on this one. But we have posters who variously think the 797 will be:-
A 787 lite
A reincarnation of the 767 but lighter
A very small oval twin-aisle 7-across max

And those that hold those views cling onto them tenaciously.
What makes the debates interesting, and valid, is that each of these options has characteristics that run counter to some of the other claims being made for the 797 – you don't get anything for nothing, but equally bring something different to the party.

Thing is, the info we get from the media about what NMA is has not changed in at least a year now. It could be viewed as disinformation perhaps up to a certain point in time, but when you have people like David Neeleman, a big player in the industry and historically a big buyer of Airbus products, come out of his briefing with Boeing reciting all the things we know about NMA chapter and verse, the room for debate about what NMA is becomes vanishingly small. You're then down to a change of mind at Boeing which is possible but not likely given the momentum, or a pure disinformation campaign, which seems ridiculous since you're now implying Neeleman is a dupe or a troll. Yet we have countless posts along the lines of "I've cracked the code, NMA really is X" where X takes on pretty much every value other than what Boeing is telling us it is and industry insiders briefed by Boeing are telling us it is.

ewt340 wrote:
LOL, yeah no, It wouldn't kill A321neo. The widebody version of B797 would be hit hard by A321neo/XLR. While the single aisle version would only sell as much as B757 because Airlines could get the cheaper and more readily available MAX10 for shorter routes which are majority of the domestic and regional segment. If we look at many market, like continental US, continental Europe, East Asia-Southeast Asia-South Asia market, they don't actually need B797 range.

The dilemma for Boeing now would be:
The single aisle B797 would be too similar to the MAX10 which are cheaper to purchase and run and more readily available. On shorter routes less than 3000nmi, MAX10 would make more sense for majority of airlines.
The twin aisle B797 wouldn't be able to compete with A321XLR which are cheaper to purchase and run (single-aisle), commonality with A320neo family and more readily available. The larger variants would also cannibalized B787-8.

No one should be talking in terms of NMA killing A321neo. They are different, complimentary products. If you don't believe me, try Leeham:

  • To understand how the A321XLR will compete with the NMA, we first need to compare them with the same yardstick.
  • Putting them on the same cabin and operational rule set reveals interesting differences. The A321XLR and the NMA are complementary rather than competitors.

All this isn't that hard to unpack. It doesn't make sense to go after A321neo directly, it's an established product. They have to offer something unique in terms of payload/range and CASM. They are also looking to transform their entire business model ( ref: https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ ) and do this on a lower volume market segment to prove out their concepts. NMA is a perfect niche to aim for.

You would think building a wide body with narrow body economics is a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly. Meanwhile we see Boeing get slagged for sticking with old tech like 737 at the same time reading here that they should be doing 767neo rather than NMA. It's all a part of the charm of the place, no?
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
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
You would think building a wide body with narrow body economics is a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly.


True, but there's also a school that prefers to seperate non-binding marketing ammo from aircraft specification and design.
Specially if the source of the marketing ammo build a reputation of overpromising in recent decades.
Both schools have a place though..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:05 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
You would think building a wide body with narrow body economics is a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly.


True, but there's also a school that prefers to seperate non-binding marketing ammo from aircraft specification and design.
Specially if the source of the marketing ammo build a reputation of overpromising in recent decades.
Both schools have a place though..

I think it's clear that Boeing has resolved the "aircraft specification and design" targets for NMA a long time ago, and find the transformation topics discussed in https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ and other places to be far more impactful on the aviation industry.

The idea that people want to keep debating things time and time again that are largely already decided seems strange to me.
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
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:18 pm

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The 72 Tonnes I think is an Anet creation - no one knows for sure what the OEW weight will be. If an 797-6 (only 10-20 more seats than A321 not 50) is going to be competitive with A321NEO it's going to have to weigh a lot less than 72 tonnes - which is why I keep banging on about a tight light 7W - that doesn't weight that much more than an A320 cross section per seat.

Try to visualize this in your head. You are sitting in an A320 tube. The 797 Fuselage height would be about the same as A320 - maybe a little more. However the walls would be 20" further out on both sides - that is it - it's not an order of magnitude different in size - it's an Marginal increase to get that extra aisle of seating.

If Keesje's diagram of the Oval Cross Section above are right - the belly would also act somewhat as a lifting body as well potentially giving an aero benefit. You wouldn't need as big a wing making it easier to fit it into 737/320 gates with an 43ish M folding wing.

If I am right about NMA/NSA essentially being a combined program you are looking at volumes of potentially 80-100 per month (eventually) to amortize your barrel development and tooling costs over.

That is an order of magnitude difference. Boeing knows full well that Airbus can easily rewing and stretch the A321 to compete and would be crazy to do a unique 8W cross section for NMA as they would lose production efficiency.

If they don't do a dual aisle 7W - they would be better off to do wider 6W SA for NMA that they reuse for NSA than do a separate 8W for NMA and 6W for NSA.

That's one cockpit to develop, one barrel, one set of fuselage doors, one set of interior fittings, one set of systems all bought at huge economies of scale.

The NMA could essentially be the Rewinged A322 Equivalent of the NSA - however with NMA done first to figure out production systems at lower volumes - however the combined NMA/NSA amortized over a lot more frames under program accounting rules.


Good post. It has taken me a bit of time to respond to this post mainly due to bandwidth.

A couple of points I like and support in the post..
A tight, light 7-across ovoid cross section not massively greater than the cross-section of an A32X would not weigh a lot more than the A321XLR and not be much more expensive.
It could be made standard with the NSA to a much greater degree that would ever be possible with the 8-across cross section I see being mentioned. That said, I do wonder how far down the current narrowbody capacity range this ovoid 7-across could be pushed. I could see it being produced at c. A321/737-10 capacity, but struggle to see it down at 737-8/A320 capacity.

So the eventual family could look like:-
797-7 – 265 pax 4 500nm
797-6 – 220 pax 5 000nm
797-5 – 180pax - ? nm (presumably a lower MTOW) at c. A321 size

IMO this would limit its market to what is currently seen as NMA (2 000 – 4 000 depending on whether you're talking to Boeing or not), plus the A321/737-10 market.
We can debate what this might end up being, but currently of 11 500 MAX/NEO ordered, about 3 200 of these are supposedly A321/737-10 (about 2 600 A321, and c. 600 737-10 according to industry observers), so say 30% of current narrowbody orders. Boeing CMO predicts 32 000 narrowbody orders, which opens up about 10 000 places for A321/737-10 sized planes.

So a total market of up to 14 000, and say, a market share of 60% gives 8 400 orders over 20 years, or 4 200 per year – i.e. 35 per month. More than NMA alone, but a lot less than 80-100/month.

But I can see that working.

My view though based on the above, is that the option you describe of a wider single-aisle actually works best for this combined NMA/NSA role – the MC21 looks spot on for me in this respect – a 26" aisle so that pax can pass each other, or the trolleys, but very little different to current narrowbodys.

Designing for both NMA and NSA from the outset allows some standardisation to take place, e.g. a standard wheel well that fits the NMA's double bogie, whilst NSA has a single axle bogie (a bit like the A350-900 and -1000 share a MLG well, despite one having a triple bogie), and allows the growth to be built in to avoid most of the constraints the A321XLR comes up against.

One concern I have is that starting with the biggest variant and then shrinking has not traditionally been the most successful approach. In an ideal world, I would want to see the NSA version first, but 5 000 MAX orders make that unlikely.

Either way, I like the thinking in principle

I'm pretty clear in my mind that an 8-across NMA and 6-across NSA just isn't a solution that will deliver all of the things that supporters of this approach believe it will.
I did like your idea (in another post) that Boeing may well be prepared to limit margin on the NMA to enable it to establish the newer manufacturing model for NSA. That would be quite a strategic bit of thinking.

Rgds


Thanks

In terms of sizes I doubt they ever do an NMA 797-5 - it would be too small. I think the smallest would be the NMA-6.

However I could see them doing one size smaller (using same barrel) NSA - call it 200 seat 1 class to maximize efficiency of FA's at 4. This would be equivalent in size to Keesje's A320.5 or a little bigger than 738 with a seat pitch about 30-31" - not the 28" Pitch of Ryanair 737-8200.

NSA would probably come in that 200 seat size and also in the NMA-6 length - call it 250 seat single class.

I got to 80-100 per month as a combined NSA/NMA program - NMA might only be 20-30 per month of that.

But as you could build them on the same lines - you would have a lot of flexibility to vary production between the two variants.

Basically NMA in a tight light 7W is an ER version (done first) of the NSA - just like a potential New Wing A321/322 series might be. NSA has unique lighter/shorter wing/wingbox tail, gear and engines.

It would make the program work as you would be amortizing the whole program over a lot of frames.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
You would think building a wide body with narrow body economics is a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly.


True, but there's also a school that prefers to seperate non-binding marketing ammo from aircraft specification and design.
Specially if the source of the marketing ammo build a reputation of overpromising in recent decades.
Both schools have a place though..

I think it's clear that Boeing has resolved the "aircraft specification and design" targets for NMA a long time ago, and find the transformation topics discussed in https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ and other places to be far more impactful on the aviation industry.

The idea that people want to keep debating things time and time again that are largely already decided seems strange to me.


The quote from the end of that article is telling "That would mean the NMA is really part of a long-term two airplane strategy, rather than a standalone program, Michaels said."

Now that might mean two barrel sizes - but more likely one. There are huge advantages with program accounting to making NMA part of NSA.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
You would think building a wide body with narrow body economics is a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly.


True, but there's also a school that prefers to seperate non-binding marketing ammo from aircraft specification and design.
Specially if the source of the marketing ammo build a reputation of overpromising in recent decades.
Both schools have a place though..

I think it's clear that Boeing has resolved the "aircraft specification and design" targets for NMA a long time ago, and find the transformation topics discussed in https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ and other places to be far more impactful on the aviation industry.

The idea that people want to keep debating things time and time again that are largely already decided seems strange to me.


I think the fact we have been discussing this for 4 years and the lauch will be next airshow, should indicate how solid the business case is. Meanwhile the situation has not really changed, so..

Oops it has, Boeing is facing one of the worst crises in its history. Time for a reset or live in the past, using assumption no longer valid?
Last edited by keesje on Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3003
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:35 pm

Mostly we, Boeing, and Airbus have been wrong in strategic planning. 380, 748, 330/340, failed, and then unexpected endless lifespan of the 737/320 amazed us all. All of them failed to fulfill their expected niches, and many of them filled niches unexpectedly. Largely it is a matter of the future being hard to predict. And technically a few models for both A and B have astoundingly succeeded. It is somewhat a crap shoot.

The 797 is/maybe is jumping into the gun flight. Online proponents believe that it may be capable of filling several empty niches, others think those niches are empty for good reasons. I am one of the former, but this blog exists for the debate and discussion - entertainment a little more than education. But we get a lot of that to from many of our knowledgeable posters.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:37 pm

morrisond wrote:
The quote from the end of that article is telling "That would mean the NMA is really part of a long-term two airplane strategy, rather than a standalone program, Michaels said."

Now that might mean two barrel sizes - but more likely one. There are huge advantages with program accounting to making NMA part of NSA.

The key IMO is "long-term".

Boeing is very clear that NMA will be a minimal airframe technology push and a major business model / supply chain / design and manufacturing push.

When they speak of something beyond NMA the most aggressive date I read was 2030 and this was before the MAX tragedy.

They are still making MAX which tells you they feel it will be back in service relatively soon and once it is the backlog is big enough to carry them to 2030 and the duopoly pretty much insures they will get more orders.

So, I see NMA being about getting the business model and the production tech ironed out, and a 2030+ NSA will be the big tech push needed to compete in the narrow body space for another 20 years or so.

I think NMA will have minimal concessions to a future NSA, along the lines of a monument free production line, but will provide lots of lessons learned to NSA, in the areas of model based engineering, vertical integration, etc.
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
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:40 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the fact we have been discussing this for 4 years and the lauch will be next airshow, should indicate how solid the business case is. Meanwhile the situation has not really changed, so..

Oops it has, Boeing is facing one of the worst crises in its history. Time for a reset or live in the past, using assumption no longer valid?

What part of https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ suggests that Boeing is living in the past?
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
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:47 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the fact we have been discussing this for 4 years and the lauch will be next airshow, should indicate how solid the business case is. Meanwhile the situation has not really changed, so..

Oops it has, Boeing is facing one of the worst crises in its history. Time for a reset or live in the past, using assumption no longer valid?

What part of https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ suggests that Boeing is living in the past?


Timing? https://airlinerwatch.com/united-is-on-the-edge-of-seperation-from-boeings-nma-program/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ewt340
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The product design is wrong – I think that is a mis-representation of the debate. Some people's opinions of what the product design might be are likely to be wrong – Boeing themselves are fairly tight lipped on this one. But we have posters who variously think the 797 will be:-
A 787 lite
A reincarnation of the 767 but lighter
A very small oval twin-aisle 7-across max

And those that hold those views cling onto them tenaciously.
What makes the debates interesting, and valid, is that each of these options has characteristics that run counter to some of the other claims being made for the 797 – you don't get anything for nothing, but equally bring something different to the party.

Thing is, the info we get from the media about what NMA is has not changed in at least a year now. It could be viewed as disinformation perhaps up to a certain point in time, but when you have people like David Neeleman, a big player in the industry and historically a big buyer of Airbus products, come out of his briefing with Boeing reciting all the things we know about NMA chapter and verse, the room for debate about what NMA is becomes vanishingly small. You're then down to a change of mind at Boeing which is possible but not likely given the momentum, or a pure disinformation campaign, which seems ridiculous since you're now implying Neeleman is a dupe or a troll. Yet we have countless posts along the lines of "I've cracked the code, NMA really is X" where X takes on pretty much every value other than what Boeing is telling us it is and industry insiders briefed by Boeing are telling us it is.

ewt340 wrote:
LOL, yeah no, It wouldn't kill A321neo. The widebody version of B797 would be hit hard by A321neo/XLR. While the single aisle version would only sell as much as B757 because Airlines could get the cheaper and more readily available MAX10 for shorter routes which are majority of the domestic and regional segment. If we look at many market, like continental US, continental Europe, East Asia-Southeast Asia-South Asia market, they don't actually need B797 range.

The dilemma for Boeing now would be:
The single aisle B797 would be too similar to the MAX10 which are cheaper to purchase and run and more readily available. On shorter routes less than 3000nmi, MAX10 would make more sense for majority of airlines.
The twin aisle B797 wouldn't be able to compete with A321XLR which are cheaper to purchase and run (single-aisle), commonality with A320neo family and more readily available. The larger variants would also cannibalized B787-8.

No one should be talking in terms of NMA killing A321neo. They are different, complimentary products. If you don't believe me, try Leeham:

  • To understand how the A321XLR will compete with the NMA, we first need to compare them with the same yardstick.
  • Putting them on the same cabin and operational rule set reveals interesting differences. The A321XLR and the NMA are complementary rather than competitors.

All this isn't that hard to unpack. It doesn't make sense to go after A321neo directly, it's an established product. They have to offer something unique in terms of payload/range and CASM. They are also looking to transform their entire business model ( ref: https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ ) and do this on a lower volume market segment to prove out their concepts. NMA is a perfect niche to aim for.

You would think building a wide body with narrow body economics is a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly. Meanwhile we see Boeing get slagged for sticking with old tech like 737 at the same time reading here that they should be doing 767neo rather than NMA. It's all a part of the charm of the place, no?


It's not that people hated it, it's just that the current concept for B797 doesn't really fit the bill yet. And creating this aircraft could be problematic if Boeing didn't recoup their money. With the MAX problem on horizon, and the high possibility that Boeing need to developed B737 replacement sooner than later. This is a no go for B797.

Now, you mentioned how B797 is a wide-body aircraft with a narrow-body economics. That's nice and all, but honestly, only few dozens airlines would ordered it since you need to invest lots of money to operate and maintain it. Smaller airlines or many LCC that prefer fleet commonality would get turned off by B797 unless they really gonna invested it in their operations at larger scale. Now obviously many of them would choose between A330neo or B787 since those aircraft have the payload capability and range to help them expand into bigger market. Which B797 lacked.

And it seems like many people underplay the importance of A321XLR in this instance. Again, as leeham stated, it's 2 different aircrafts that complement each other. But honestly, that makes it even worse, because they are in the same small "niche market". And looking at the success of A321XLR, this mean that the "niche market" are getting smaller and smaller for B797.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The quote from the end of that article is telling "That would mean the NMA is really part of a long-term two airplane strategy, rather than a standalone program, Michaels said."

Now that might mean two barrel sizes - but more likely one. There are huge advantages with program accounting to making NMA part of NSA.

The key IMO is "long-term".

Boeing is very clear that NMA will be a minimal airframe technology push and a major business model / supply chain / design and manufacturing push.

When they speak of something beyond NMA the most aggressive date I read was 2030 and this was before the MAX tragedy.

They are still making MAX which tells you they feel it will be back in service relatively soon and once it is the backlog is big enough to carry them to 2030 and the duopoly pretty much insures they will get more orders.

So, I see NMA being about getting the business model and the production tech ironed out, and a 2030+ NSA will be the big tech push needed to compete in the narrow body space for another 20 years or so.

I think NMA will have minimal concessions to a future NSA, along the lines of a monument free production line, but will provide lots of lessons learned to NSA, in the areas of model based engineering, vertical integration, etc.


And if you look at the MAX the new business model might become questionable and not only for Boeing but also for the OEMs.

There are plenty of strategies behind the MoM idea, that seem questionable right now, for example:

- invite new bidders, that have little experience in the field, to reduce costs
- reduce the OEMs to pure part suppliers by taking away the after sales business
- take the MRO business in house and reduce the market of the independent MRO services

I can see Boeing and OEMs rethinking this right now and negotiations will be very hard, as there is a lot of risk to distribute. And maybe Boeing needs a bit of goodwill at the moment.
And on the airline side I have doubts that they are very eager to hand over MRO services to Boeing at the moment. Even the FAA might have problems with some aspects of this now, as it gives the manufacturer another playing field to hide defects.
And with the current quality issues Boeing is having, there can be good arguments made for not depending on the squeezing the OEMs and the own production chain till it hurts to make a business case.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:31 pm

A factor with CFRP barrel manufacturing, the mandrel that goes into the layup machine is a simple unit. Fiberglass manufacturers change almost daily the mandrel size for a 10' diameter tank one day, and a 12' diameter the next. Changing the cross section is now not much different than changing the length. With metals, there is a huge investment on equipment and jigs to make the parts, a gigantic cost to change. Boeing has kept the 737 diameter the same as the 757 and 707 for that reason. The A330/340 took the A300 diameter. The A320 has kept its diameter constant since inception.

The same line that builds the NMA can build the NSA as well. That reduces production cost substantially.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:03 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
A factor with CFRP barrel manufacturing, the mandrel that goes into the layup machine is a simple unit.


This is actually not correct. The 787 barrel mandrel is complex. The external (aero) surface mandrel is simple, but the internal IML is complex because of the integrated stringers embedded in the mandrel/barrel. Then there are the various steps and tapers required to adjust for the skin thickness variations at the shear tie interface vs the main field skin (where typically you have machined or chem-mil pockets on a metal skin). Not to say that it's too complex. After all Boeing is pumping out 787 barrels like no tomorrow. But the tooling is not as simple as say tooling for a composite cylinder for a cryogenic tank.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:35 pm

morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The 72 Tonnes I think is an Anet creation - no one knows for sure what the OEW weight will be. If an 797-6 (only 10-20 more seats than A321 not 50) is going to be competitive with A321NEO it's going to have to weigh a lot less than 72 tonnes - which is why I keep banging on about a tight light 7W - that doesn't weight that much more than an A320 cross section per seat.

Try to visualize this in your head. You are sitting in an A320 tube. The 797 Fuselage height would be about the same as A320 - maybe a little more. However the walls would be 20" further out on both sides - that is it - it's not an order of magnitude different in size - it's an Marginal increase to get that extra aisle of seating.

If Keesje's diagram of the Oval Cross Section above are right - the belly would also act somewhat as a lifting body as well potentially giving an aero benefit. You wouldn't need as big a wing making it easier to fit it into 737/320 gates with an 43ish M folding wing.

If I am right about NMA/NSA essentially being a combined program you are looking at volumes of potentially 80-100 per month (eventually) to amortize your barrel development and tooling costs over.

That is an order of magnitude difference. Boeing knows full well that Airbus can easily rewing and stretch the A321 to compete and would be crazy to do a unique 8W cross section for NMA as they would lose production efficiency.

If they don't do a dual aisle 7W - they would be better off to do wider 6W SA for NMA that they reuse for NSA than do a separate 8W for NMA and 6W for NSA.

That's one cockpit to develop, one barrel, one set of fuselage doors, one set of interior fittings, one set of systems all bought at huge economies of scale.

The NMA could essentially be the Rewinged A322 Equivalent of the NSA - however with NMA done first to figure out production systems at lower volumes - however the combined NMA/NSA amortized over a lot more frames under program accounting rules.


Good post. It has taken me a bit of time to respond to this post mainly due to bandwidth.

A couple of points I like and support in the post..
A tight, light 7-across ovoid cross section not massively greater than the cross-section of an A32X would not weigh a lot more than the A321XLR and not be much more expensive.
It could be made standard with the NSA to a much greater degree that would ever be possible with the 8-across cross section I see being mentioned. That said, I do wonder how far down the current narrowbody capacity range this ovoid 7-across could be pushed. I could see it being produced at c. A321/737-10 capacity, but struggle to see it down at 737-8/A320 capacity.

So the eventual family could look like:-
797-7 – 265 pax 4 500nm
797-6 – 220 pax 5 000nm
797-5 – 180pax - ? nm (presumably a lower MTOW) at c. A321 size

IMO this would limit its market to what is currently seen as NMA (2 000 – 4 000 depending on whether you're talking to Boeing or not), plus the A321/737-10 market.
We can debate what this might end up being, but currently of 11 500 MAX/NEO ordered, about 3 200 of these are supposedly A321/737-10 (about 2 600 A321, and c. 600 737-10 according to industry observers), so say 30% of current narrowbody orders. Boeing CMO predicts 32 000 narrowbody orders, which opens up about 10 000 places for A321/737-10 sized planes.

So a total market of up to 14 000, and say, a market share of 60% gives 8 400 orders over 20 years, or 4 200 per year – i.e. 35 per month. More than NMA alone, but a lot less than 80-100/month.

But I can see that working.

My view though based on the above, is that the option you describe of a wider single-aisle actually works best for this combined NMA/NSA role – the MC21 looks spot on for me in this respect – a 26" aisle so that pax can pass each other, or the trolleys, but very little different to current narrowbodys.

Designing for both NMA and NSA from the outset allows some standardisation to take place, e.g. a standard wheel well that fits the NMA's double bogie, whilst NSA has a single axle bogie (a bit like the A350-900 and -1000 share a MLG well, despite one having a triple bogie), and allows the growth to be built in to avoid most of the constraints the A321XLR comes up against.

One concern I have is that starting with the biggest variant and then shrinking has not traditionally been the most successful approach. In an ideal world, I would want to see the NSA version first, but 5 000 MAX orders make that unlikely.

Either way, I like the thinking in principle

I'm pretty clear in my mind that an 8-across NMA and 6-across NSA just isn't a solution that will deliver all of the things that supporters of this approach believe it will.
I did like your idea (in another post) that Boeing may well be prepared to limit margin on the NMA to enable it to establish the newer manufacturing model for NSA. That would be quite a strategic bit of thinking.

Rgds


Thanks

In terms of sizes I doubt they ever do an NMA 797-5 - it would be too small. I think the smallest would be the NMA-6.

However I could see them doing one size smaller (using same barrel) NSA - call it 200 seat 1 class to maximize efficiency of FA's at 4. This would be equivalent in size to Keesje's A320.5 or a little bigger than 738 with a seat pitch about 30-31" - not the 28" Pitch of Ryanair 737-8200.

NSA would probably come in that 200 seat size and also in the NMA-6 length - call it 250 seat single class.

I got to 80-100 per month as a combined NSA/NMA program - NMA might only be 20-30 per month of that.

But as you could build them on the same lines - you would have a lot of flexibility to vary production between the two variants.

Basically NMA in a tight light 7W is an ER version (done first) of the NSA - just like a potential New Wing A321/322 series might be. NSA has unique lighter/shorter wing/wingbox tail, gear and engines.

It would make the program work as you would be amortizing the whole program over a lot of frames.

Yes, I think the 200 seat twin aisle for WN is the holy grail. But I think it will need a new smaller optimized wing different from the -6/7 wing. Folding wingtips out to 40m, or a 36m wing with winglets if they get the MTOW down enough at 3,000nm max range.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:53 pm

ewt340 wrote:
It's not that people hated it, it's just that the current concept for B797 doesn't really fit the bill yet. And creating this aircraft could be problematic if Boeing didn't recoup their money. With the MAX problem on horizon, and the high possibility that Boeing need to developed B737 replacement sooner than later. This is a no go for B797.

Now, you mentioned how B797 is a wide-body aircraft with a narrow-body economics. That's nice and all, but honestly, only few dozens airlines would ordered it since you need to invest lots of money to operate and maintain it. Smaller airlines or many LCC that prefer fleet commonality would get turned off by B797 unless they really gonna invested it in their operations at larger scale. Now obviously many of them would choose between A330neo or B787 since those aircraft have the payload capability and range to help them expand into bigger market. Which B797 lacked.

And it seems like many people underplay the importance of A321XLR in this instance. Again, as leeham stated, it's 2 different aircrafts that complement each other. But honestly, that makes it even worse, because they are in the same small "niche market". And looking at the success of A321XLR, this mean that the "niche market" are getting smaller and smaller for B797.

Above I sketched out a time line that I think will hold. I think the MAX tragedy may push out NMA a year or so and in turn that will push out NSA a year or so, but other than that, I don't think the NSA time line has changed. Both A and B have stated there is little new tech that makes a new narrow body compelling till at least 2030. By then we'd know if 737 was able to turn things around or not. Clearly Boeing is betting that it will.

We have many operators of A330/787 also expressing interest in NMA. I think there is strong interest in the market Boeing is targeting.

I think Boeing has factored XLR in to their planning. On one hand this is what makes the business case hard to close. On the other hand this is what compels them to change the dynamics of the market and offer a product quite differentiated from XLR.

seahawk wrote:
And if you look at the MAX the new business model might become questionable and not only for Boeing but also for the OEMs.

There are plenty of strategies behind the MoM idea, that seem questionable right now, for example:

- invite new bidders, that have little experience in the field, to reduce costs
- reduce the OEMs to pure part suppliers by taking away the after sales business
- take the MRO business in house and reduce the market of the independent MRO services

I can see Boeing and OEMs rethinking this right now and negotiations will be very hard, as there is a lot of risk to distribute. And maybe Boeing needs a bit of goodwill at the moment.
And on the airline side I have doubts that they are very eager to hand over MRO services to Boeing at the moment. Even the FAA might have problems with some aspects of this now, as it gives the manufacturer another playing field to hide defects.
And with the current quality issues Boeing is having, there can be good arguments made for not depending on the squeezing the OEMs and the own production chain till it hurts to make a business case.

I don't think the new bidders have little experience. The article gave an example of moving away from one experienced landing gear vendor to a different one. Also I think 777X and T-X shows that Boeing is willing to bring core technology back in house.

I don't think the changes in vendors and the changes in services offerings rely on any kind of leniency from the FAA, and any player in the market relying on such a strategy is asking for trouble.
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
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
And if you look at the MAX the new business model might become questionable and not only for Boeing but also for the OEMs.

There are plenty of strategies behind the MoM idea, that seem questionable right now, for example:

- invite new bidders, that have little experience in the field, to reduce costs
- reduce the OEMs to pure part suppliers by taking away the after sales business
- take the MRO business in house and reduce the market of the independent MRO services

I can see Boeing and OEMs rethinking this right now and negotiations will be very hard, as there is a lot of risk to distribute. And maybe Boeing needs a bit of goodwill at the moment.
And on the airline side I have doubts that they are very eager to hand over MRO services to Boeing at the moment. Even the FAA might have problems with some aspects of this now, as it gives the manufacturer another playing field to hide defects.
And with the current quality issues Boeing is having, there can be good arguments made for not depending on the squeezing the OEMs and the own production chain till it hurts to make a business case.

I don't think the new bidders have little experience. The article gave an example of moving away from one experienced landing gear vendor to a different one. Also I think 777X and T-X shows that Boeing is willing to bring core technology back in house.

I don't think the changes in vendors and the changes in services offerings rely on any kind of leniency from the FAA, and any player in the market relying on such a strategy is asking for trouble.


And if you look at the KC-767 line of Charleston, in-house does not necessarily mean trouble free. And if the MCAS coding was really outsourced internal policies will have be questioned.

All steps of the past and all planes for the future might need to be revisited today: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -suppliers

And regarding the FAA, I meant that authorities might be sceptical if overhaul and repair of certain parts is exclusevly being done by the manufacturer of the plane. In the end the independent MRO services have reported unexpected failure rates or defects to the authorities, if only the manufacturer is allowed to "open the box" and overhaul the part, it is imho a theoretical reduction of safety within the MRO system.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:38 pm

seahawk wrote:
And if you look at the KC-767 line of Charleston, in-house does not necessarily mean trouble free. And if the MCAS coding was really outsourced internal policies will have be questioned.

All steps of the past and all planes for the future might need to be revisited today: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -suppliers

And regarding the FAA, I meant that authorities might be sceptical if overhaul and repair of certain parts is exclusevly being done by the manufacturer of the plane. In the end the independent MRO services have reported unexpected failure rates or defects to the authorities, if only the manufacturer is allowed to "open the box" and overhaul the part, it is imho a theoretical reduction of safety within the MRO system.

Wow, you really seem to be able to extrapolate an awful lot from one report of Boeing self reporting a case of two employees it fired for conspiring to pencil whip an inspection and some 737 test and display software being outsourced, while ignoring that the entire 777x wing and T-X avionics suite were all brought in house, and it was the outsourced batteries that blew up on 787.
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
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:59 pm

DenverTed wrote:
morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:

Good post. It has taken me a bit of time to respond to this post mainly due to bandwidth.

A couple of points I like and support in the post..
A tight, light 7-across ovoid cross section not massively greater than the cross-section of an A32X would not weigh a lot more than the A321XLR and not be much more expensive.
It could be made standard with the NSA to a much greater degree that would ever be possible with the 8-across cross section I see being mentioned. That said, I do wonder how far down the current narrowbody capacity range this ovoid 7-across could be pushed. I could see it being produced at c. A321/737-10 capacity, but struggle to see it down at 737-8/A320 capacity.

So the eventual family could look like:-
797-7 – 265 pax 4 500nm
797-6 – 220 pax 5 000nm
797-5 – 180pax - ? nm (presumably a lower MTOW) at c. A321 size

IMO this would limit its market to what is currently seen as NMA (2 000 – 4 000 depending on whether you're talking to Boeing or not), plus the A321/737-10 market.
We can debate what this might end up being, but currently of 11 500 MAX/NEO ordered, about 3 200 of these are supposedly A321/737-10 (about 2 600 A321, and c. 600 737-10 according to industry observers), so say 30% of current narrowbody orders. Boeing CMO predicts 32 000 narrowbody orders, which opens up about 10 000 places for A321/737-10 sized planes.

So a total market of up to 14 000, and say, a market share of 60% gives 8 400 orders over 20 years, or 4 200 per year – i.e. 35 per month. More than NMA alone, but a lot less than 80-100/month.

But I can see that working.

My view though based on the above, is that the option you describe of a wider single-aisle actually works best for this combined NMA/NSA role – the MC21 looks spot on for me in this respect – a 26" aisle so that pax can pass each other, or the trolleys, but very little different to current narrowbodys.

Designing for both NMA and NSA from the outset allows some standardisation to take place, e.g. a standard wheel well that fits the NMA's double bogie, whilst NSA has a single axle bogie (a bit like the A350-900 and -1000 share a MLG well, despite one having a triple bogie), and allows the growth to be built in to avoid most of the constraints the A321XLR comes up against.

One concern I have is that starting with the biggest variant and then shrinking has not traditionally been the most successful approach. In an ideal world, I would want to see the NSA version first, but 5 000 MAX orders make that unlikely.

Either way, I like the thinking in principle

I'm pretty clear in my mind that an 8-across NMA and 6-across NSA just isn't a solution that will deliver all of the things that supporters of this approach believe it will.
I did like your idea (in another post) that Boeing may well be prepared to limit margin on the NMA to enable it to establish the newer manufacturing model for NSA. That would be quite a strategic bit of thinking.

Rgds


Thanks

In terms of sizes I doubt they ever do an NMA 797-5 - it would be too small. I think the smallest would be the NMA-6.

However I could see them doing one size smaller (using same barrel) NSA - call it 200 seat 1 class to maximize efficiency of FA's at 4. This would be equivalent in size to Keesje's A320.5 or a little bigger than 738 with a seat pitch about 30-31" - not the 28" Pitch of Ryanair 737-8200.

NSA would probably come in that 200 seat size and also in the NMA-6 length - call it 250 seat single class.

I got to 80-100 per month as a combined NSA/NMA program - NMA might only be 20-30 per month of that.

But as you could build them on the same lines - you would have a lot of flexibility to vary production between the two variants.

Basically NMA in a tight light 7W is an ER version (done first) of the NSA - just like a potential New Wing A321/322 series might be. NSA has unique lighter/shorter wing/wingbox tail, gear and engines.

It would make the program work as you would be amortizing the whole program over a lot of frames.

Yes, I think the 200 seat twin aisle for WN is the holy grail. But I think it will need a new smaller optimized wing different from the -6/7 wing. Folding wingtips out to 40m, or a 36m wing with winglets if they get the MTOW down enough at 3,000nm max range.


Yes - I agree - that is what I have been saying NSA would have a different wing/wingbox/gear/tail/ engines optimized around 3,000nm max with or without tips to fit into existing gates.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
And if you look at the KC-767 line of Charleston, in-house does not necessarily mean trouble free. And if the MCAS coding was really outsourced internal policies will have be questioned.

All steps of the past and all planes for the future might need to be revisited today: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -suppliers

And regarding the FAA, I meant that authorities might be sceptical if overhaul and repair of certain parts is exclusevly being done by the manufacturer of the plane. In the end the independent MRO services have reported unexpected failure rates or defects to the authorities, if only the manufacturer is allowed to "open the box" and overhaul the part, it is imho a theoretical reduction of safety within the MRO system.

Wow, you really seem to be able to extrapolate an awful lot from one report of Boeing self reporting a case of two employees it fired for conspiring to pencil whip an inspection and some 737 test and display software being outsourced, while ignoring that the entire 777x wing and T-X avionics suite were all brought in house, and it was the outsourced batteries that blew up on 787.


I am not extrapolating anything, I am just pointing out that there might be parts of the 797 project that need to be looked at again. And I am not doing this from those case, I am mostly doing this based on the strategies outlined by the Boeing leadership in 2018. Ideas like "Partnership for Success 2.0" and the reduction in employees in the last years as well as the agreement with the engineer union on not firing people before 2022. On the other hand we hear that they will bring most work on T-X in house, want to expand Boeing Global Services revenue by factor 4 within 10 years and also want to bring most of the MoM work back in house. Add the EiS of 2025 for the MoM and the current problems, I am sceptical to say the least.

There is an option I see, and that is doing the 797 largely in Brazil.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:20 pm

morrisond wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Thanks

In terms of sizes I doubt they ever do an NMA 797-5 - it would be too small. I think the smallest would be the NMA-6.

However I could see them doing one size smaller (using same barrel) NSA - call it 200 seat 1 class to maximize efficiency of FA's at 4. This would be equivalent in size to Keesje's A320.5 or a little bigger than 738 with a seat pitch about 30-31" - not the 28" Pitch of Ryanair 737-8200.

NSA would probably come in that 200 seat size and also in the NMA-6 length - call it 250 seat single class.

I got to 80-100 per month as a combined NSA/NMA program - NMA might only be 20-30 per month of that.

But as you could build them on the same lines - you would have a lot of flexibility to vary production between the two variants.

Basically NMA in a tight light 7W is an ER version (done first) of the NSA - just like a potential New Wing A321/322 series might be. NSA has unique lighter/shorter wing/wingbox tail, gear and engines.

It would make the program work as you would be amortizing the whole program over a lot of frames.

Yes, I think the 200 seat twin aisle for WN is the holy grail. But I think it will need a new smaller optimized wing different from the -6/7 wing. Folding wingtips out to 40m, or a 36m wing with winglets if they get the MTOW down enough at 3,000nm max range.


Yes - I agree - that is what I have been saying NSA would have a different wing/wingbox/gear/tail/ engines optimized around 3,000nm max with or without tips to fit into existing gates.


If Boeing can do it with good cargo capability and an OEW of around 42-43t that could work. In terms of certification and costs double wings, engines landing have the costs of ~two. So that would be the extra investment. Plus the costs of ~double resources, that come developping something in parallel instead of sequential.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:31 pm

keesje wrote:
morrisond wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Yes, I think the 200 seat twin aisle for WN is the holy grail. But I think it will need a new smaller optimized wing different from the -6/7 wing. Folding wingtips out to 40m, or a 36m wing with winglets if they get the MTOW down enough at 3,000nm max range.


Yes - I agree - that is what I have been saying NSA would have a different wing/wingbox/gear/tail/ engines optimized around 3,000nm max with or without tips to fit into existing gates.


If Boeing can do it with good cargo capability and an OEW of around 42-43t that could work. In terms of certification and costs double wings, engines landing have the costs of ~two. So that would be the extra investment. Plus the costs of ~double resources, that come developping something in parallel instead of sequential.


I'm assuming they do NMA first and then the team moves on to do NSA Wingbox/Wing/Gear/Tail right after. It gives them time to optimize the weight of the Barrel/Cockpit and interior (more and more 3D printed parts) to make them as light as possible for NSA. It also gives them time to ramp up production and figure out new processes. The systems work and flight system would essentially be done as well as you could easily reuse that work for NSA.

The engineering team would have a lot of tribal knowledge and it should not take that long to do NSA right after - it's conceivable NSA first flight could be within 3 years of NMA first flight.

Versus if NSA is a complete clean sheet you are probably talking 5-6 years after NMA. 2031-2032 might be realistic first flight vs 2028/29ish for NMA based NSA.

With program accounting the benefits of doing them combined is that even if they are $20 Billion in total they can probably amortize that over 10,000 frames - only $2 million in development costs per frame - quite reasonable.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:03 pm

seahawk wrote:
And if you look at the KC-767 line of Charleston,


Am I missing something? KC-767 in Charleston?

Revelation wrote:
while ignoring that the entire 777x wing


The 777x wing is a composite wing. Boeing has stated that wing design (and now manufacturing of composite wing) is core competency and is a natural to keep in house.

seahawk wrote:
On the other hand we hear that they will bring most work on T-X in house,


But don't forget that much of the T-X will be built by partner Saab in their new facility in Indiana.

seahawk wrote:
is an option I see, and that is doing the 797 largely in Brazil.


Maybe one day, but not today. Boeing have experienced bad mergers in the past and will not commit to something like this until the merger lasts more than a decade or two.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:40 pm

Well Brazil has a skilled and sizeable force of engineers, which have no current project to work on and that is cheaper than a similar sized group of engineers in the USA. And if you need to hire personal for an assembly line Brazil has the skill level and lower costs as well. I can see large parts of the work going to Brazil on the 797.

(and a correction - I meant KC-767 line and Charleston 787 line problems in quality control)
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The product design is wrong – I think that is a mis-representation of the debate. Some people's opinions of what the product design might be are likely to be wrong – Boeing themselves are fairly tight lipped on this one. But we have posters who variously think the 797 will be:-
A 787 lite
A reincarnation of the 767 but lighter
A very small oval twin-aisle 7-across max

And those that hold those views cling onto them tenaciously.
What makes the debates interesting, and valid, is that each of these options has characteristics that run counter to some of the other claims being made for the 797 – you don't get anything for nothing, but equally bring something different to the party.

Thing is, the info we get from the media about what NMA is has not changed in at least a year now. It could be viewed as disinformation perhaps up to a certain point in time, but when you have people like David Neeleman, a big player in the industry and historically a big buyer of Airbus products, come out of his briefing with Boeing reciting all the things we know about NMA chapter and verse, the room for debate about what NMA is becomes vanishingly small. You're then down to a change of mind at Boeing which is possible but not likely given the momentum, or a pure disinformation campaign, which seems ridiculous since you're now implying Neeleman is a dupe or a troll. Yet we have countless posts along the lines of "I've cracked the code, NMA really is X" where X takes on pretty much every value other than what Boeing is telling us it is and industry insiders briefed by Boeing are telling us it is.

ewt340 wrote:
LOL, yeah no, It wouldn't kill A321neo. The widebody version of B797 would be hit hard by A321neo/XLR. While the single aisle version would only sell as much as B757 because Airlines could get the cheaper and more readily available MAX10 for shorter routes which are majority of the domestic and regional segment. If we look at many market, like continental US, continental Europe, East Asia-Southeast Asia-South Asia market, they don't actually need B797 range.

The dilemma for Boeing now would be:
The single aisle B797 would be too similar to the MAX10 which are cheaper to purchase and run and more readily available. On shorter routes less than 3000nmi, MAX10 would make more sense for majority of airlines.
The twin aisle B797 wouldn't be able to compete with A321XLR which are cheaper to purchase and run (single-aisle), commonality with A320neo family and more readily available. The larger variants would also cannibalized B787-8.

No one should be talking in terms of NMA killing A321neo. They are different, complimentary products. If you don't believe me, try Leeham:

  • To understand how the A321XLR will compete with the NMA, we first need to compare them with the same yardstick.
  • Putting them on the same cabin and operational rule set reveals interesting differences. The A321XLR and the NMA are complementary rather than competitors.

All this isn't that hard to unpack. It doesn't make sense to go after A321neo directly, it's an established product. They have to offer something unique in terms of payload/range and CASM. They are also looking to transform their entire business model ( ref: https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/launc ... or-boeing/ ) and do this on a lower volume market segment to prove out their concepts. NMA is a perfect niche to aim for.

You would think building a wide body with narrow body economics is a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly. Meanwhile we see Boeing get slagged for sticking with old tech like 737 at the same time reading here that they should be doing 767neo rather than NMA. It's all a part of the charm of the place, no?



I'd be genuinely interested to understand what you think the spec is that has not changed in a year.
A link to the David Neeleman comments would help too. I searched, but all i could find was the standard seating and range numbers. i did find this..

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

which seems to reinforce the "small, tight 7-abreast ovoid twin aisle" which the likes of Morrisond and myself think is the only twin aisle configuration that is remotely feasible for NMA.
Because if that is what you believe is in the open regarding the spec, then I have to agree in wondering why we hear so much about 8-across 787 or 767 look-alikes hat have a vanishingly small chance of success in the marketplace, when it is clear what the 797 is going to be.

In terms of "building a wide body with narrow body economics being a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly", I don't see healthy questioning of genuine issues as throwing rotten tomatoes - it is genuine questioning.
I am inclined to wonder how many of those vehemently defending all things 797 on these threads would still "get behind building a wide body with narrow body economics" if it were an Airbus. Call me sceptical
It would be nice if this really was a forum where genuine enthusiasts could debate real issues without fear of reprisal, and be open to learning from the debate, but sadly the partisanship is almost always hard to bypass. Not all tomatoes are rotten, and not all of them are thrown.
The 797 programme is NOT beyond questioning, nor should it be :shakehead:

Rgds
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:00 pm

seahawk wrote:
Well Brazil has a skilled and sizeable force of engineers, which have no current project to work on and that is cheaper than a similar sized group of engineers in the USA. And if you need to hire personal for an assembly line Brazil has the skill level and lower costs as well. I can see large parts of the work going to Brazil on the 797.

(and a correction - I meant KC-767 line and Charleston 787 line problems in quality control)


My guess is my NMA/NSA 7W strategy is that Boeing Brazil does a 5W SA using the same technology as NMA/NSA to take on the space under the NSA and compete with the A220 - the A220 is really light and hard to compete with unless you stay with 5W. The key is you get 4W premium seats in that tube - that is very attractive.

Then Boeing has a common cockpit/ systems methodology all the way from BB 5W - NSA - NMA - 787 - 777X (as I'm guessing NSA/NMA are based off 787/777X and BB 5W would as well) . Exactly what Airbus has been trying to do for years but unless they redo the A220 Cockipt/systems they now have two different systems.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:56 am

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Well Brazil has a skilled and sizeable force of engineers, which have no current project to work on and that is cheaper than a similar sized group of engineers in the USA. And if you need to hire personal for an assembly line Brazil has the skill level and lower costs as well. I can see large parts of the work going to Brazil on the 797.

(and a correction - I meant KC-767 line and Charleston 787 line problems in quality control)


My guess is my NMA/NSA 7W strategy is that Boeing Brazil does a 5W SA using the same technology as NMA/NSA to take on the space under the NSA and compete with the A220 - the A220 is really light and hard to compete with unless you stay with 5W. The key is you get 4W premium seats in that tube - that is very attractive.

Then Boeing has a common cockpit/ systems methodology all the way from BB 5W - NSA - NMA - 787 - 777X (as I'm guessing NSA/NMA are based off 787/777X and BB 5W would as well) . Exactly what Airbus has been trying to do for years but unless they redo the A220 Cockipt/systems they now have two different systems.

I could see ten years from now in 2029, Boeing has a range of products in the sub 3Knm range E-195E2 at 125 seats, the 737-7 at 150, the 737-8 at 175, and the 797-5 at 200. A Boeing/Embraer 5w 737 replacement in the works for early 2030s EIS would fit neatly into that plan.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:11 am

astuteman wrote:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/this-is-boeings-nma/

which seems to reinforce the "small, tight 7-abreast ovoid twin aisle" which the likes of Morrisond and myself think is the only twin aisle configuration that is remotely feasible for NMA.
Because if that is what you believe is in the open regarding the spec, then I have to agree in wondering why we hear so much about 8-across 787 or 767 look-alikes hat have a vanishingly small chance of success in the marketplace, when it is clear what the 797 is going to be.

The official Boeing rendering/picture in that link based of the fineness ratio it has to be 8ab.

Firstly we have 265 seats 2 class which is just over 300 seats in a single class. That is slightly more than the 767-300. So the aircarft fuselage length will need to be as long as the 767-300. Now if you have a reduced height cross section that was say 75% of the height of the 767 you will quickly end up with a long and skinny tube that looks like the 757-300.

No rendering from Boeing looks long and skinny like the 757-300.

Now take the A300. It has just over 300 seats in 8ab. If you take the A300 and do the same height reduction of the fuselage you end up with something that looks like Boeings rendering in terms of fineness ratio.

No Boeing source has actually stated 7ab.

We have seating numbers, range, a potential reduced height cross section and a rendering. Based on that info it can only be 8ab. Unless the rendering is wrong.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:46 am

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/this-is-boeings-nma/

which seems to reinforce the "small, tight 7-abreast ovoid twin aisle" which the likes of Morrisond and myself think is the only twin aisle configuration that is remotely feasible for NMA.
Because if that is what you believe is in the open regarding the spec, then I have to agree in wondering why we hear so much about 8-across 787 or 767 look-alikes hat have a vanishingly small chance of success in the marketplace, when it is clear what the 797 is going to be.

The official Boeing rendering/picture in that link based of the fineness ratio it has to be 8ab.

Firstly we have 265 seats 2 class which is just over 300 seats in a single class. That is slightly more than the 767-300. So the aircarft fuselage length will need to be as long as the 767-300. Now if you have a reduced height cross section that was say 75% of the height of the 767 you will quickly end up with a long and skinny tube that looks like the 757-300.

No rendering from Boeing looks long and skinny like the 757-300.

Now take the A300. It has just over 300 seats in 8ab. If you take the A300 and do the same height reduction of the fuselage you end up with something that looks like Boeings rendering in terms of fineness ratio.

No Boeing source has actually stated 7ab.

We have seating numbers, range, a potential reduced height cross section and a rendering. Based on that info it can only be 8ab. Unless the rendering is wrong.

The renderings seem to show a short plane that doesn't make sense for a 7x ovoid. Looks like about 10 to 1 length to fuselage height. If the fuselage height is 14.5' and it's 145' long, that doesn't fit 225 two class. The engines look about 2/3 of the fuselage height. That's 116" on the case, maybe a 108" fan. If it is an 8x 16' high fuselage, then a 120" fan? I think they are drawing the engines too big.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:48 am

seahawk wrote:
I can see large parts of the work going to Brazil on the 797


Agreed. The pool of engineers can help with large SOW, then they can take the SOW back to Brasil for build. However large components will be difficult to ship if production rate gets up there. I can see hardware gets shipped by sea to the Gulf and then by train the rest of the way.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:10 am

DenverTed wrote:
morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Well Brazil has a skilled and sizeable force of engineers, which have no current project to work on and that is cheaper than a similar sized group of engineers in the USA. And if you need to hire personal for an assembly line Brazil has the skill level and lower costs as well. I can see large parts of the work going to Brazil on the 797.

(and a correction - I meant KC-767 line and Charleston 787 line problems in quality control)


My guess is my NMA/NSA 7W strategy is that Boeing Brazil does a 5W SA using the same technology as NMA/NSA to take on the space under the NSA and compete with the A220 - the A220 is really light and hard to compete with unless you stay with 5W. The key is you get 4W premium seats in that tube - that is very attractive.

Then Boeing has a common cockpit/ systems methodology all the way from BB 5W - NSA - NMA - 787 - 777X (as I'm guessing NSA/NMA are based off 787/777X and BB 5W would as well) . Exactly what Airbus has been trying to do for years but unless they redo the A220 Cockipt/systems they now have two different systems.

I could see ten years from now in 2029, Boeing has a range of products in the sub 3Knm range E-195E2 at 125 seats, the 737-7 at 150, the 737-8 at 175, and the 797-5 at 200. A Boeing/Embraer 5w 737 replacement in the works for early 2030s EIS would fit neatly into that plan.


I hope not, because in the end Boeing is to make money and buying the E2 program for quite a lot of money and turning it obsolete within 5-7 years after purchase is not a healthy strategy imho.

I think people need to be a lot more realistic about Boeing, it is a share value driven company and by 2020 Airbus and Boeing will be having a product portfolio more modern and up-to-date than it ever has been in the past. In addition nobody knows where the aviation industry is headed in the future, should countries start taxiing CO2 emissions the whole game could change. Add the promises made by the airline industry when it comes to emission reduction by 2050 and imho it will need some drastic changes in the design of aircraft. And if we remember that the engines always bring the biggest part of fuel burn reduction, I doubt that it makes sense to do a new tube with wings every 15 years. Sure you might hang on a new engine and/or wing but a completely new program, rather not. I think we will see successors to the 737/A320 around 2035 but those might look very differently.
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:04 am

How many orders is the 797 up to now?
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:46 am

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/this-is-boeings-nma/

which seems to reinforce the "small, tight 7-abreast ovoid twin aisle" which the likes of Morrisond and myself think is the only twin aisle configuration that is remotely feasible for NMA.
Because if that is what you believe is in the open regarding the spec, then I have to agree in wondering why we hear so much about 8-across 787 or 767 look-alikes hat have a vanishingly small chance of success in the marketplace, when it is clear what the 797 is going to be.

The official Boeing rendering/picture in that link based of the fineness ratio it has to be 8ab.

Firstly we have 265 seats 2 class which is just over 300 seats in a single class. That is slightly more than the 767-300. So the aircarft fuselage length will need to be as long as the 767-300. Now if you have a reduced height cross section that was say 75% of the height of the 767 you will quickly end up with a long and skinny tube that looks like the 757-300.

No rendering from Boeing looks long and skinny like the 757-300.

Now take the A300. It has just over 300 seats in 8ab. If you take the A300 and do the same height reduction of the fuselage you end up with something that looks like Boeings rendering in terms of fineness ratio.

No Boeing source has actually stated 7ab.

We have seating numbers, range, a potential reduced height cross section and a rendering. Based on that info it can only be 8ab. Unless the rendering is wrong.


Thanks for this post RJMAZ. It brought a smile to my face for a couple of reasons.

Firstly Revelation posted above that Boeing have made it absolutely clear what the 797 is and doesn't understand why there is any debate about what the 797 is.
And yet here we are, doing exactly that in the absence of a definitive statement from the manufacturer.

The second thing that made me smile is the

"I've looked at the artist's picture, and it doesn't look like a 7-abreast", so there's the proof that I'm right :rotfl:

Engineering analysis at its very best. Loved it.
In fairness you did back that up with a rudimentary numerical analysis.
But for me that unfortunately went astray.

The 757-300 already holds 300 (295) in single class in a 6-abreast configuration.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... _Rev32.pdf

So there is no way the 797-7 at 7-abreast will have the same fineness ratio as a 757-300 at 6-abreast :shakehead:
.
For a start it will be 7 seat rows shorter - 43 rows as opposed to 50, so the cabin will be at least 18ft shorter than the 757-300.
The 757-300 is 178ft long. The 797-7 could be as short as c.162ft and still seat 300 at 7-abreast. (I added c. 2ft to the 797 for an assumed longer empennage)

Add to that that the 797 cabin is likely to be a fraction higher, and you get a 797-7 with an aspect ratio more like the 757-200 rather than the 757-300.
On top of that, the rendering that you are looking at is clearly the 797-6, not the 797-7, which will be nearer 260 single class.
And thus will have an aspect ratio shorter even than the 757-200

In the link I posted earlier

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

Jon Ostrower points out that the rendering is the shorter 797-6.
He also points out that those that know the design say it is an ovoid small 7-abreast.

I can find numerous articles pointing to a small 7-abreast configuration for the 797
When I google "797 8 abreast", it brings up the same articles that say it is a 7-abreast.

I haven't seen Boeing say it is 7-abreast.
But I'd like you to show me where they do say it is 8-abreast
In fact it would be nice if you could show any link to an informed someone in the industry who says it is 8-abreast.
It would be nicer still if Revelation could point us to the link where Boeing have clearly told us what it is.
It would save us a lot of bandwidth. :)

Rgds
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 7:04 am

DenverTed wrote:
The renderings seem to show a short plane that doesn't make sense for a 7x ovoid. Looks like about 10 to 1 length to fuselage height. If the fuselage height is 14.5' and it's 145' long, that doesn't fit 225 two class. The engines look about 2/3 of the fuselage height. That's 116" on the case, maybe a 108" fan. If it is an 8x 16' high fuselage, then a 120" fan? I think they are drawing the engines too big.

Yes a short plane in the rendering but a 7ab ovoid would be very long and skinny. The engines will have the highest bypass ratio of any engines to date. My scaling estimates the engines will be 105inch diameter fan.

This seems right for a very high bypass ratio engine. Lets compare the Trent 500 and Trent 700.
Both had the same 97inch fans.
Trent 700 - 5.0:1 bypass ratio 68,000lb of thrust
Trent 500 - 7.6:1 bypass ratio 56,000lb of thrust

As you can see as the bypass ratio increases thrust reduces dramatically at the same fan size. The Trent 500 was more fuel efficient and much lighter even though it used the sane fan.

The Genx engine has a 111inch fan with 70,000lb of thrust and a 9:1 bypass ratio. Bringing the bypass ratio up to 13:1 with this same fan would reduce thrust, engine weight and improve fuel efficiency just like the trent 500.

Simply scaling up the 79inch diameter LEAP would require a 100inch diameter fan to hit the 52,000lb thrust levels. It would not surprise me if the bypass ratio was slightly higher than the LEAPs 11:1. It may even beat the 12:1 of Pratts geared turbofan.

I am 50% confident we may see a Pratt licenced gearbox on the proven LEAP core. If the bypass ratio was 14:1 then a fan 110inch in diameter would be required.

In terms of the fuselage fineness ratio compare at 8ab on the 797 we can compare the seat numbers to the A300/A310. The 797-6 would be one row longer than the A310. The 797-7 would be one row shorter than the A300.

The 797 fuselage lengths would be 47m and 53m. To get the 10:1 fineness ratio that is 4.7m or 5.3m fuselage height. A standard 767 is 5.4m in height. A A300 is 5.6m in height. 4.7m height sounds right in terms of the image.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 7:32 am

Aircraft design and engine design are not done by Excel spread sheets, mkay.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:39 am

astuteman wrote:
Engineering analysis at its very best. Loved it.
In fairness you did back that up with a rudimentary numerical analysis.
But for me that unfortunately went astray.

The 757-300 already holds 300 (295) in single class in a 6-abreast configuration.

So there is no way the 797-7 at 7-abreast will have the same fineness ratio as a 757-300 at 6-abreast :shakehead:

Maybe tell Boeing to change the rendering. It looks much fatter than a 757.

The 757-300 is 243 seats in two class the 797-7 is 265 seats in two class. A big difference.

It would be quite ridiculous to even think Boeing would not plan for a future stretch. If the 797-6 is 225 seats and the 797-7 is 265 seats then it is highly likely the 787-8 is 300 seats two class.

At 300 seats that is 24% more seats than the 757-300. Going from 6ab to 7ab increases seats by only 16.6% so the 797-8 will need more seat rows and a longer cabin than the 757-300. The 797-8 cabin will need to be approximately 10% longer than the 757-300.

Now with the reduced height 7ab cross section being only fractionally taller than the 757 you end up with one very skinny and structurally inefficient aircraft.

Now if the seating numbers were lower or that rendering looked skinnier then i would agree it is 7ab.

One other answer is that the rendering is axtually 7ab but it uses a circular cross section. This would explain the stubby appearance. The 767 fuselage is 5.41m high and 5.03m wide. Making the comfy 767 7ab cabin a little tighter could result in a 4.9m circular cross section. The LD2's could no longer fit but a custom containers of reduced height would fit the bill. This would join more dots and match the rendering.

If we have to match the rendering I think a reduced height 8ab would beat a circular 7ab any day of the week.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:00 am

Let us assume a realistic 797 benchmark:

:airplane: a NB fuselage
:airplane: mass produced
:airplane: 2 versions for up to 230-250 passengers
:airplane: range up to up to 3700-4700NM,
:airplane: rolling of US, China and Euro assembly lines, a few years earlier than a 797.
:airplane: an OEW of around 52-55t
:airplane: a MTOW of around 101t.
:airplane: ability to carry 10-12 cargo / luggage containers/pallets or bulk load
:airplane: 18 inch wide seats
:airplane: commonality, variants in service by most major airlines
:airplane: established, competitive global maintenance and support options
:airplane: a choice between the latest Geared / Leap 80 inch fan engines
:airplane: a list price of an A321NEO + 10-15%.

https://07185918574543712684.googlegrou ... zGRin12AV0

I think an oval, 2 aisle 797 better be mightly light weight, and cheap to produce. In large quantities, from day one. Maybe EIS in 2025, but no rushed design and certification and ensure lean and low cost production using new supply chain and aftermarket strategies..
:expressionless:

I think Boeing is to follow a robust roadmap of program risk migitation
and explore ways to vigorously strenghten share holder value moving forward.
:checkmark:
Last edited by keesje on Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:05 am

seahawk wrote:
Aircraft design and engine design are not done by Excel spread sheets, mkay.


You'd be both alarmed and disgusted if you knew just how much that was not true. :cry:
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:07 am

Oh and folks - I cannot emphasis enough the difficultly of making a fuselage that is wider than it is taller - the concept of a tight, light, 7AB ovoid is fraught with difficulties.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:24 am

Amiga500 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Aircraft design and engine design are not done by Excel spread sheets, mkay.


You'd be both alarmed and disgusted if you knew just how much that was not true. :cry:


I just have a huge problem when linking the bypass ratio to thrust levels.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:38 am

seahawk wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Aircraft design and engine design are not done by Excel spread sheets, mkay.


You'd be both alarmed and disgusted if you knew just how much that was not true. :cry:


I just have a huge problem when linking the bypass ratio to thrust levels.


While there is no direct relation, you can produce a graph in excel showing a scattered field with some correlation :duck:

The GE9X has the highest max thrust, BPR and OPR too. Not suggesting they are directly related, indirectly maybe :duck: :duck:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:07 am

seahawk wrote:
I just have a huge problem when linking the bypass ratio to thrust levels.


Yeah, well... there is a link, but its far more complex than just bigger = more.

I suppose most are just seeing:
- Newer engines have higher BPRs.
- Newer engines have higher thrust levels.
and extrapolating a somewhat incorrect conclusion from that.

While higher BPR will help produce thrust more efficiently at low speed, at high speed that tails off and eventually becomes a hindrance.

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