Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

tistpaa727 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:14 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
You must to consider the importance of his tweet.

"The FSA is not a narrowbody"

I missed where he said this. Please
provide a link. Thanks.

Hi!

Yes,

" NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737."

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/ ... 3483242496

Regards

This is laughable. In no way does this tweet say it will not be a single aisle or twin. It just defines an acronym. I usually don't like to jump on people for what they say but you are so adamant it is important to untwist the way you've twisted Jon's statement.

This thread is hilarious. It helps to add "I believe..." before 99% of the posts. Really helps clear up what is fact from fantasy.

KlimaBXsst · Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:19 pm

morrisond wrote:
Given Boeing's recent difficulties I think it's more likely they do NSA/NMA as a combined program using a lot of commonality with the same cross section. But they will still do NMA first to figure out Production at lower volumes and wait for NSA sized engines to come along to not cannibalize 737 sales.

The Math in Program accounting works out a lot better when you do it combined....

Ditto this

scbriml · Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:22 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Not "Futur Single Aisle" = not "Futur Narrowbody"

It's clear

You think it's clear, but AFAICS, you're in a crowd of one. Most everyone else reads what was written, not what you think was written. You're presenting opinion as fact.

So you honestly think Future Small Aircraft (a plane to replace 737s) is a 270-seat widebody?

tistpaa727 wrote:
This is laughable.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment!

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:24 pm

scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I missed where he said this. Please
provide a link. Thanks.

Hi!

Yes,

" NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737."

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/ ... 3483242496

Regards

Right. So, despite you repeatedly claiming such, Jon Ostrower never actually said "FSA is not a narrowbody".

But please, carry on believing that Boeing will replace the 737 with a widebody.

You interpret things as you wish. I never said that the FSA concept is a substitute for 737 MAX. FSA is a small double-aisle aircraft that would complete the 737MAX upwards. If you want to laugh at what your head inspires, do not deprive yourself ...

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:30 pm

scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Not "Futur Single Aisle" = not "Futur Narrowbody"

It's clear

You think it's clear, but AFAICS, you're in a crowd of one. Most everyone else reads what was written, not what you think was written. You're presenting opinion as fact.

So you honestly think Future Small Aircraft (a plane to replace 737s) is a 270-seat widebody?

tistpaa727 wrote:
This is laughable.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment!

Read AGAIN the tweet,

J. Ostrower speaks of a "eventually" of a 737MAX replacement .

Do you know what it means ?

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:37 pm

afterburner wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I missed where he said this. Please
provide a link. Thanks.

Hi!

Yes,

" NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737."

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/ ... 3483242496

Regards

Jon Ostrower just wrote that FSA is the acronym of Future Small Airplane, not Future Single Aisle. He didn't mention whether it will be a narrowbody or a widebody.

How many?
3 aisles then?? :roll:

KlimaBXsst · Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:44 pm

So rehabilitation of the MAX

1) Freighter Conversion
2) Longer haul legacy 5 abreast version
3) Combi’s for the AMC charter companies
4) Military applications possible - AWACS

5) Yes the MAX is tainted and WILL NOT live up to its sales potential, but will have to serve as a stop gap aircraft until Boeing gets their new narrow-body going.

Buying large sums of MAX aircraft will no longer be viable as the resale VALUE potential for large numbers of MAX’s will no longer. In the end an expensive depreciating asset. Boeing will also have something NEWER than Airbus in the narrow-body market do Airbus is not exactly in the clear either.

Boeing hands just have been forced earlier than they would have liked.

astuteman · Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:07 pm

morrisond wrote:
Isn't it common belief that A321 is now the right size for the bulk of the market?.

For what its worth, I'm not convinced it is a common belief - yet.

It is easy to get hooked up on the "A321 train" at the moment, but that on its own hides another statistic.

If you look at NEO and MAX combined, 4,900 MAX sold, and 6,600NEO sold equals about 11,500 "next gen" narrowbodys.
Of those, 2,800 are A321's and about 600 are 737-9 or 737-10, or about 3,400 out of 11,000.
i.e. less than 30%
I suspect the statistics will show that this percentage has not changed hugely in the last 20 years.

In fairness, I'm pretty sure stats will show that number of seats per aircraft is going up, and that this increase in the number of seats being squeezed into each type is hiding a trend towards bigger frames (more seats comes first 'cos its cheaper).
The sales would suggest that A320/737-8 is still the sweet spot at this time

I think it will continue to trend upwards, but over decades, rather than years, as it has up to now

Rgds

morrisond · Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:28 pm

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Isn't it common belief that A321 is now the right size for the bulk of the market?.

For what its worth, I'm not convinced it is a common belief - yet.

It is easy to get hooked up on the "A321 train" at the moment, but that on its own hides another statistic.

If you look at NEO and MAX combined, 4,900 MAX sold, and 6,600NEO sold equals about 11,500 "next gen" narrowbodys.
Of those, 2,800 are A321's and about 600 are 737-9 or 737-10, or about 3,400 out of 11,000.
i.e. less than 30%
I suspect the statistics will show that this percentage has not changed hugely in the last 20 years.

In fairness, I'm pretty sure stats will show that number of seats per aircraft is going up, and that this increase in the number of seats being squeezed into each type is hiding a trend towards bigger frames (more seats comes first 'cos its cheaper).
The sales would suggest that A320/737-8 is still the sweet spot at this time

I think it will continue to trend upwards, but over decades, rather than years, as it has up to now

Rgds

Yes it will take some time - it just seems like 200 Seat Single class will replace the 170/180 Seat single class 738/A320 space by potential NSA launch in 2030.

It's almost as though 6W will be squeezed out from below by 5W Carbon Tubes that can be efficient at much longer lengths than Metal 5W's were in the past with an Potential A220-500 squeezing into the 738/320 space on the Majority of missions (under 1,500 Nm) those planes fly.

Then the 7W Ovalish designs squeeze from the top due to things like boarding time. If you have a 5W that can go up to 170/180 then a 6W might take you to 220-230'ish before it gets too slow for short turns on short haul operations. That's a narrow seat range where 6W really works.

It's a hard choice for Boeing for if they Build an new 6W cross section - it will kind of work at 170/180 vs 5W but they can't really take the E-series 4W to 150ish seats, so they would be forced to build an 5W as well.

They then have 4W, 5W, 6W and a big gap to 9W and 10W.

Long term I see 5W replacing 4W at Boeing Brazil, and then they would have 7W for most mainline operations and 9W for long haul/high capacity. 3 Cross sections vs 5 as 777x probably does not have that long of a life as 787 improves.

For Airbus they have it a lot easier - stretch the A220 to an 500 and build a new 7W to replace A320/321 for mainline operations and kill the A330. They then have a nice 5W, 7W, 9W lineup.

StTim · Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:48 pm

seahawk wrote:
This is exactly the revolution Boeing will be aiming for. It would yet another revolutionary design that will change the industry forever.

This sounds more and more like moonshot territory. Get it right you own the market. Get it wrong you could be history.

I am not anti Boeing. They have built brilliant planes. But at present they are, IMO, floundering.

However, each time a new frame is floated - will zero solid information, we have people on here piling in to tell us how groundbreaking it will be. Lighter, cheaper to build, flies on fumes etc. Can we please have some sensibility on the forum?

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:08 pm

morrisond wrote:

Then the 7W Ovalish designs.

It's a hard choice for Boeing for if they Build a new 6W cross section - it will work at 170/180 vs 5W but they can not really take the E-series 4W to 150ish seats, so they would be forced to build year 5W as well.

Absolutely!

It's for why the fantasm of the Fanboys to see Boeing makes the next error but Unfortunately for them they think that Seattle will launch ANOTHER simple /ridiculous 3-3 tube before 2030 while the 737MAX will returns into service in December and January in Europe.

Inconceivable!
They may SOON be disappointed
Mdrrr!!! :rotfl:

kalvado · Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:39 pm

StTim wrote:
seahawk wrote:
This is exactly the revolution Boeing will be aiming for. It would yet another revolutionary design that will change the industry forever.

This sounds more and more like moonshot territory. Get it right you own the market. Get it wrong you could be history.

I am not anti Boeing. They have built brilliant planes. But at present they are, IMO, floundering.

However, each time a new frame is floated - will zero solid information, we have people on here piling in to tell us how groundbreaking it will be. Lighter, cheaper to build, flies on fumes etc. Can we please have some sensibility on the forum?

Boeing got problems, and they really need a masterpiece of an aircraft to move forward. What I see is a search for such masterpiece, trying to think outside of the box. Which is, of course, easier to say than to do - masterpieces are not created on order. On the other hand, sometimes people under pressure manage to get things done which would be unthinkable otherwise.
2+3 or 3+3 is too obvious, and may soon become a commodity. I hope there are some really interesting ideas on the table, and maybe some of them will come true. or maybe another 3+3, now with a better 3 than any number 3 before!

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:08 pm

Checklist787 wrote:

The 757 is NOT a Small Aircraft!
Re-read
the tweet and the article

That’s fine to think it’s not a small aircraft but you have been arguing that the the aircraft named the “future small aircraft” is going to be bigger than a 757. The inconsistency you display is quite astonishing.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DenverTed · Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:29 pm

As far as the wing and engine combo, the NMA was about a 45K engine on a 45m wing. I imagine the FSA will downshift to a 35K engine on a 36m wing. Will they build a new CFRP wing with split winglets, or go with 2.5m folding wingtips for a 41m span?
In terms of MTOW, will it be 100t on a single axle like the A321, or move towards 125t with double axle like the 757?

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:51 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 757 is NOT a Small Aircraft!
Re-read
the tweet and the article

That’s fine to think it’s not a small aircraft but you have been arguing that the the aircraft named the “future small aircraft” is going to be bigger than a 757. The inconsistency you display is quite astonishing.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not in the sense of "Narrowbody" since we know that the 757 was a former proxy of the future small twin aisles.

The 757 is not a small jer but will be replaced by a Small Twin Aisle/Futur Small Airplane who 's "Not A Narrowbody" (J. Ostrower)

Sorry but It's logic, even for the Fanboys

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:59 pm

DenverTed wrote:
As far as the wing and engine combo, the NMA was about a 45K engine on a 45m wing. I imagine the FSA will downshift to a 35K engine on a 36m wing. Will they build a new CFRP wing with split winglets, or go with 2.5m folding wingtips for a 41m span?
In terms of MTOW, will it be 100t on a single axle like the A321, or move towards 125t with double axle like the 757?

Put your 3D glasses Boeing comes!!!

Double Axles for Double Aisles would be Doubleling Beautiful!
:highfive:

hOMSaR · Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:20 pm

Checklist787 wrote:

Not in the sense of "Narrowbody" since we know that the 757 was a former proxy of the future small twin aisles.

The 757 is not a small jer but will be replaced by a Small Twin Aisle/Futur Small Airplane who not a "Not A Narrowbody" (J. Ostrower)

Sorry but It's logic, even for the Fanboys

I’m sorry, but your hijacking of this thread to argue your own misinterpretation of a 1.5 year old tweet is tiresome. First of all, nowhere does Mr. Ostrower use the phrase “Not a narrowbody,” which you put in quotes attributed to him.

Yes, his tweet says FSA stands for Future Small Airplane, not Future Single Aisle. But as everyone else on here as clarified over and over, that is simply clarifying the meaning of the acronym. It would be akin to someone in 1997 saying 737NG stands for 737 Next Generation, not 737 New Generation. It absolutely was a new generation of 737 back then, but the NG doesn’t stand for “New Generation.”

As for the market the so-called FSA is targeting, why not read the actual article (also written by him) to which his very own tweet links:

https://theaircurrent.com/industry-stra ... erduopoly/

With the future of U.S. scope clauses uncertain, the industrial plan is one that safegaurds Embraer’s finacial survival. They have to build both until the E175-E2 can fly in the U.S. But such expertise may unlock the future for Boeing as it considers an NMA and its follow-on FSA – the Future Small Airplane – as a replacement for the 737.

The expertise in this quote refers to Embraer’s ability to produce significantly different airplanes (in Embraer’s case, the E1 and E2 series) on the same automated assembly line, which Boeing could hypothetically use to build the NMA, and then eventually the FSA. And if the “FSA” was going to have a capacity of up to 270 passengers, then why the hell would they need an NMA?

You’re getting too hung up on the fact that the acronym FSA does not stand for “Future Single Aisle.” I suppose if someone told you that the 4 in 747 didn’t refer to the number of engines, you’d then argue that the 747 doesn’t have 4 engines.

morrisond · Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:32 pm

DenverTed wrote:
As far as the wing and engine combo, the NMA was about a 45K engine on a 45m wing. I imagine the FSA will downshift to a 35K engine on a 36m wing. Will they build a new CFRP wing with split winglets, or go with 2.5m folding wingtips for a 41m span?
In terms of MTOW, will it be 100t on a single axle like the A321, or move towards 125t with double axle like the 757?

I think if they build NMA/NSA on the same 7W cross section they would look like the following:

NSA -S 36M wing small wing - Engines up to about 32K - MTOW less than 737-9 - as less range and more fuel efficient doesn't have(can't because of the small wing) to carry as much fuel - call it 85T MTOW - Range 3,300ish (don't make it to much to start to maximize efficiency and have room to grow.
NSA-L Same as above - maybe a small thrust bump and 87-88T MTOW

NMA-S 42-43M Wing - whatever they can fold to 36M to fit in same gates as NSA - Engines in the 45K range - Range about 5,300NM 105-110T MTOW
NMA-L same as NMA-S - Engines maybe 47-48K - Range about 4,800NM 110-115T MTOW

Lean and Mean

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:20 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 757 is NOT a Small Aircraft!
Re-read
the tweet and the article

That’s fine to think it’s not a small aircraft but you have been arguing that the the aircraft named the “future small aircraft” is going to be bigger than a 757. The inconsistency you display is quite astonishing.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not in the sense of "Narrowbody" since we know that the 757 was a former proxy of the future small twin aisles.

Not sure what this means but I wasn’t aware of any small wise bodies that followed the 757. The smallest in the west would be the A330.

Checklist787 wrote:
The 757 is not a small jer but will be replaced by a Small Twin Aisle/Futur Small Airplane who 's "Not A Narrowbody" (J. Ostrower)

Mr Ostrower did not say this and it has been pointed out already by other posters. One can only assume at this stage you are being deliberately dishonest.

Checklist787 wrote:
Sorry but It's logic, even for the Fanboys

i know how fanboy logic works. Most people ignore it. I’ll keep pointing out how stupid it looks. Keep digging, it’s funny.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PW100 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:35 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
You must to consider the importance of his tweet.
"The FSA is not a narrowbody"

I missed where he said this. Please
provide a link. Thanks.
Hi!
Yes,
" NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737."
Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/ ... 3483242496
Regards

I may be mistaken, but apparently it also is not called NNWB . . .

New Narrow Wide Body

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:45 pm

flipdewaf wrote:

Mr Ostrower did not say this and it has been pointed out already by other posters. One can only assume at this stage you are being deliberately dishonest.

Only the writings remain. But certainly coming from a fanboy who is lying in your eyes.
I will consider your insult as not too important

flipdewaf wrote:
i know how fanboy logic works. Most people ignore it. I’ll keep pointing out how stupid it looks. Keep digging, it’s funny.

It is a quality to be conscious of itself. Congratulations :bigthumbsup:

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:48 pm

PW100 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
I missed where he said this. Please
provide a link. Thanks.
Hi!
Yes,
" NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737."
Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/ ... 3483242496
Regards

I may be mistaken, but apparently it also is not called NNWB . . .

New Narrow Wide Body

Congratulations!!!

Finally a person who CAN read.

Another opinion or someone who knows how to interpret again?

Thanks!

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:50 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Mr Ostrower did not say this and it has been pointed out already by other posters. One can only assume at this stage you are being deliberately dishonest.

Only the writings remain. But certainly coming from a fanboy who is lying in your eyes.
I will consider your insult as not too important

flipdewaf wrote:
i know how fanboy logic works. Most people ignore it. I’ll keep pointing out how stupid it looks. Keep digging, it’s funny.

It is a quality to be conscious of itself. Congratulations

I see you haven’t attempted to form an argument. Schopenhauer 14 at its finest.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:57 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Mr Ostrower did not say this and it has been pointed out already by other posters. One can only assume at this stage you are being deliberately dishonest.

Only the writings remain. But certainly coming from a fanboy who is lying in your eyes.
I will consider your insult as not too important

flipdewaf wrote:
i know how fanboy logic works. Most people ignore it. I’ll keep pointing out how stupid it looks. Keep digging, it’s funny.

It is a quality to be conscious of itself. Congratulations

I see you haven’t attempted to form an argument. Schopenhauer 14 at its finest.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To give arguments to a fanboy is like pedaling in yoghurt. I show you the moon, you look at my finger.
What do you want with people like that?

Nothing!!!

Go re-read the tweet of J. Ostrower and when you will understand we will discuss :bigthumbsup:

Thanks

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:12 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Only the writings remain. But certainly coming from a fanboy who is lying in your eyes.
I will consider your insult as not too important

It is a quality to be conscious of itself. Congratulations

I see you haven’t attempted to form an argument. Schopenhauer 14 at its finest.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To give arguments to a fanboy is like pedaling in yoghurt. I show you the moon, you look at my finger.
What do you want with people like that?

Nothing!!!

Go re-read the tweet of J. Ostrower and when you will understand it be discussed.

Thanks

“NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737.”

Same as I read before. Doesn’t say not single aisle, it refers to the acronym, Mr Ostrower even refers to this and then links to an article about the E2. I’m happy to keep doing this, swimming in yoghurt or otherwise.

So we have:
1. Seating capacities that fit in a single aisle range.
2. Speaking of replacing a current single aisle aircraft.
3. Calling it ‘small’
4. Linking the tweet to an article on a single aisle aircraft.

But because of a correction stating that the acronym FSA isn’t ‘future single aisle’ but ‘future small aircraft’ therefore it isn’t a single aisle.

You crack me up! Any other evidence or is this it?

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:27 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
, Mr Ostrower even refers to this and then links to an article about the E2. I’m happy to keep doing this, swimming in yoghurt or otherwise.

You want replace the 757 with an E2?

You no longer swim in yoghurt, you sink in yoghurt.. :roll:

flipdewaf wrote:
You crack me up! Any other evidence or is this it?

Re-read the tweet...
:wave:

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:32 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
, Mr Ostrower even refers to this and then links to an article about the E2. I’m happy to keep doing this, swimming in yoghurt or otherwise.

You want replace the 757 with an E2?

No, what gives you that idea?

Checklist787 wrote:

Re-read the tweet...

well if it hasn’t changed I’m not sure what will be gained. I have read it several times as have other posters and come to the same conclusion, apparently different from yours but consistent with other evidence.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:41 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Well if it has not changed I'm not sure what will be gained. The same conclusion, apparently different from your other objectives.

Goooood!
Try to read in bold...

" NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737."

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.

"NOT Future Single Aisle"

Waterbomber2 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:43 pm

In the meanwhile, after the Spirit order for 100 + 50, IndiGo order for 300 A320neo's including A321NEO's, Air Arabia is looking for 100.
All seem to include A321 to some extent.

The MAX hasn't booked orders since the grounding except BA's humble attempt to humiliate themselves.
Even Ryanair isn't ordering at a time where surely Boing would be offering them steeeep discounts for an endorsement.

If Boeing is to stop this momentum, they need to make a move.

Heck, why not talk to the Russians about their MC-21?
Under Boeing, that could become a very strong product.

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:44 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Well if it has not changed I'm not sure what will be gained. The same conclusion, apparently different from your other objectives.

" NMA isn’t the only Boeing acronym you need to know. Say hello to FSA, the Future Small Airplane (not Future Single Aisle) the eventual replacement to the 737."

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.

Yep, same as I posted. A clarification on an acronym and not a description.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:48 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
In the meanwhile, after the Spirit order for 100 + 50, IndiGo order for 300 A320neo's including A321NEO's, Air Arabia is looking for 100.
All seem to include A321 to some extent.

The MAX hasn't booked orders since the grounding except BA's humble attempt to humiliate themselves.
Even Ryanair isn't ordering at a time where surely Boing would be offering them steeeep discounts for an endorsement.

If Boeing is to stop this momentum, they need to make a move.

Heck, why not talk to the Russians about their MC-21?
Under Boeing, that could become a very strong product.

IAG group order many 737MAX in grounding period...
When 737MAX back in service, the things will return to order...

Checklist787 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:53 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Yep, same as I posted. A clarification on an acronym and not a description.

(not Future Single Aisle)

It's a description, is a characteristic!
Not only an achronym
Sorry you are wrong you should stop this... :roll:

delimit · Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:56 pm

Beyond the silliness of how a single sentence is being interpreted; is there some reason we are thinking that the words of a (no doubt well connected) journalist are somehow confirmation of Boeing's eventual strategy? Were he to read this (now somewhat tiresome) discussion and clarify that he in fact did mean it will not be a single aisle, that would confirm what exactly?

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:00 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Yep, same as I posted. A clarification on an acronym and not a description.

(not Future Single Aisle)

It's a description, is a characteristic!
Not only an achronym
Sorry...

Yes the acronym FSA is, as stated, for ‘Future Small Aircraft’ and it would be silly if that was not indeed supposed to represent an aircraft that is by some measure ‘Small’ and produced at a time in the Future. The fact that the acronym does not say it is a single aisle does not preclude that being a property of it. You will also note the acronym FSA does not refer to the fuel type but we can be pretty sure what it uses.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf · Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:03 pm

delimit wrote:
Beyond the silliness of how a single sentence is being interpreted; is there some reason we are thinking that the words of a (no doubt well connected) journalist are somehow confirmation of Boeing's eventual strategy? Were he to read this (now somewhat tiresome) discussion and clarify that he in fact did mean it will not be a single aisle, that would confirm what exactly?

You are indeed correct, the argument from authority piece has been dismissed by someone already. Because someone has been right before does not mean they are right now.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewt340 · Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:25 pm

questions wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Also, B727, B737 and B757 have all the same fuselage design. So, using B757 fuselage means that you are using B737 fuselage as well.

I don’t believe this is correct. It is my understanding,

1. The B707, B727, B737 and B757 share the same fuselage diameter
2. The shape of the B757 under the cabin floor is different

Correct me on the above if I am wrong.

Also, the nose and cockpit of the B757 is different.

I believe the forward fuselage and T-tail configuration were the same as B727. Some minor modifications was done to some parts of the fuselage. But the same could be said for All the variants that use the same diameter and design.

Not sure about point number 2.

Either way. Instead of doing bunch of expensive modifications to MAX. They might as well make a new design, the fuselage would be the least of their worry.

Checklist787 · Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:01 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Yep, same as I posted. A clarification on an acronym and not a description.

(not Future Single Aisle)

It's a description, is a characteristic!
Not only an achronym
Sorry...

Yes the acronym FSA is, as stated, for ‘Future Small Aircraft’ and it would be silly if that was not indeed supposed to represent an aircraft that is by some measure ‘Small’ and produced at a time in the Future.

2025 EIS is the major proof that the FSA concept will not a "real" replacement of the 737MAX since it's for 2030 (Airbus and Boeing know that)

flipdewaf wrote:
The fact that the acronym does not say it is a single aisle does not preclude that being a property of it.

No, no..

The FSA had for characteristic, description to be an " NOT Futur Single Aisle".
It'a concept among others in design offices
There is many concept studies with a code name in all industry, at Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and too in the railway for exemple, Alsthom, Siemens
Hitachi ...

Certainly there is a team for an All-new Narrowbody but it's not the announcement because does not speak of (future) narrowbody team.

The NMA team maybe had failed and the FSA team study certainly of a smaller Twin-Aisle.

A concept don't change code name even if it fail and vice versa...

Another team work in other concept with other code name It's the methodology in design. It's universal rule, c' est la vie !

That is why J. Ostrower precise the characteristic, the description to be an " NOT Futur Single Aisle" for the FSA it's the concept who is studied

Whether it be the NMA, FSA, NSA, others,
the final concept will be called 797X but the concepts do not change code names during the study...

Acronym =Code Name
Code Name = Acronym

But it seems in the marketing and strategy department they want something with a double aisle above the 737MAX and below the 787-8 Dreamliner.

Time will tell... :roll:

morrisond · Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:29 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
In the meanwhile, after the Spirit order for 100 + 50, IndiGo order for 300 A320neo's including A321NEO's, Air Arabia is looking for 100.
All seem to include A321 to some extent.

The MAX hasn't booked orders since the grounding except BA's humble attempt to humiliate themselves.
Even Ryanair isn't ordering at a time where surely Boing would be offering them steeeep discounts for an endorsement.

If Boeing is to stop this momentum, they need to make a move.

Heck, why not talk to the Russians about their MC-21?
Under Boeing, that could become a very strong product.

IAG group order many 737MAX in grounding period...
When 737MAX back in service, the things will return to order...

Once the MAX is flying again I would be stunned if there wasn't upwards of 1,000+ orders for it.

Boeing will use Discounted Max's as compensation for the grounding vs paying actual cash.

Southwest Needs to order another 500 at least and the IAG order isn't firm yet either.

There will probably be a ton of orders - however many will be undisclosed purchaser orders as the airlines won't want to be associated with the MAX until it proves itself. I'm sure there will be clauses in the contracts that if the MAX has a problem again the orders can be cancelled.

Checklist787 · Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:35 am

morrisond wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
In the meanwhile, after the Spirit order for 100 + 50, IndiGo order for 300 A320neo's including A321NEO's, Air Arabia is looking for 100.
All seem to include A321 to some extent.

The MAX hasn't booked orders since the grounding except BA's humble attempt to humiliate themselves.
Even Ryanair isn't ordering at a time where surely Boing would be offering them steeeep discounts for an endorsement.

If Boeing is to stop this momentum, they need to make a move.

Heck, why not talk to the Russians about their MC-21?
Under Boeing, that could become a very strong product.

IAG group order many 737MAX in grounding period...
When 737MAX back in service, the things will return to order...

Once the MAX is flying again I would be stunned if there wasn't upwards of 1,000+ orders for it.

Boeing will use Discounted Max's as compensation for the grounding vs paying actual cash.

Southwest Needs to order another 500 at least and the IAG order isn't firm yet either.

There will probably be a ton of orders - however many will be undisclosed purchaser orders as the airlines won't want to be associated with the MAX until it proves itself. I'm sure there will be clauses in the contracts that if the MAX has a problem again the orders can be cancelled.

With three security envelops of the MCAS 2.0 it is to be hoped that there will be no more problems...

ewt340 · Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:47 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Honestly, what should they do now then? Keep re-engine B737? What's next? B737XTREME?

I would not be surprised if we get another set of engines on the 737.

Firstly, to increase bypass ratio you don't always have to increase the fan diameter. A smaller and hotter core can allow more bypass air. A geared turbofan allows the low pressure turbine to spin much faster and extract more power from the core.

Secondly, as fuel burn would improve the takeoff weight would reduce on any given flight. So not as much thrust is needed to achieve the same takeoff performance.

Thirdly, small folding wingtips added to the 737 would allow lower thrust engines. So a higher bypass ratio in the existing nacelle diameter would work.

So, right now they need to convince at least 2 engines manufacturer to created new engines (that cost billions of dollars to developed) to fit into their re-re-re-engine B737?

kalvado · Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:58 am

ewt340 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Honestly, what should they do now then? Keep re-engine B737? What's next? B737XTREME?

I would not be surprised if we get another set of engines on the 737.

Firstly, to increase bypass ratio you don't always have to increase the fan diameter. A smaller and hotter core can allow more bypass air. A geared turbofan allows the low pressure turbine to spin much faster and extract more power from the core.

Secondly, as fuel burn would improve the takeoff weight would reduce on any given flight. So not as much thrust is needed to achieve the same takeoff performance.

Thirdly, small folding wingtips added to the 737 would allow lower thrust engines. So a higher bypass ratio in the existing nacelle diameter would work.

So, right now they need to convince at least 2 engines manufacturer to created new engines (that cost billions of dollars to developed) to fit into their re-re-re-engine B737?

Any twin with same siting capasity as 737 will weight about as much as 737 (maybe a bit less) and will require engines of about the same thrust. And modification of the same engine may be used on A320 - or whatever replaces it, and possibly on other planes.
Unlike one-of-a-kind GE90, mid-range engines will be developed at a certain rate.

DenverTed · Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:39 am

morrisond wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
As far as the wing and engine combo, the NMA was about a 45K engine on a 45m wing. I imagine the FSA will downshift to a 35K engine on a 36m wing. Will they build a new CFRP wing with split winglets, or go with 2.5m folding wingtips for a 41m span?
In terms of MTOW, will it be 100t on a single axle like the A321, or move towards 125t with double axle like the 757?

I think if they build NMA/NSA on the same 7W cross section they would look like the following:

NSA -S 36M wing small wing - Engines up to about 32K - MTOW less than 737-9 - as less range and more fuel efficient doesn't have(can't because of the small wing) to carry as much fuel - call it 85T MTOW - Range 3,300ish (don't make it to much to start to maximize efficiency and have room to grow.
NSA-L Same as above - maybe a small thrust bump and 87-88T MTOW

NMA-S 42-43M Wing - whatever they can fold to 36M to fit in same gates as NSA - Engines in the 45K range - Range about 5,300NM 105-110T MTOW
NMA-L same as NMA-S - Engines maybe 47-48K - Range about 4,800NM 110-115T MTOW

Lean and Mean

I'm down with that program. One fuselage, two sets of wings, two models on each wing.

Dave05 · Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:56 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
I think that the way to go is not a clean sheet, not a B767GENX (although I see some potential in a B767NG with a major PIP preferablr from PW that PW can upsell yo the USAF, 8Y, Sky interior and KC46 flight deck.),

but a B757X, with the same fuselage as the B752 and B753, a KC46 flight deck, new CFRP wing, scaled up LEAP for 120-125 tons MTOW and 12-hour range, ULD capability, even if they have to have their own container standard.

Such a beast would burn less than 3 tons per hour, cover all TATL and a lot of TPAC, while burning almost half of a B787 and also appeal to the freighters.

This sound really good.. and the 737 replacement will exactly based on this, except scaled down to the size of the 737 Max 8,9 and 10. Except, if this idea really take off, so many potential customers for the 787 will go to the proposed 757X.......

astuteman · Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:30 am

morrisond wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
In the meanwhile, after the Spirit order for 100 + 50, IndiGo order for 300 A320neo's including A321NEO's, Air Arabia is looking for 100.
All seem to include A321 to some extent.

The MAX hasn't booked orders since the grounding except BA's humble attempt to humiliate themselves.
Even Ryanair isn't ordering at a time where surely Boing would be offering them steeeep discounts for an endorsement.

If Boeing is to stop this momentum, they need to make a move.

Heck, why not talk to the Russians about their MC-21?
Under Boeing, that could become a very strong product.

IAG group order many 737MAX in grounding period...
When 737MAX back in service, the things will return to order...

Once the MAX is flying again I would be stunned if there wasn't upwards of 1,000+ orders for it.

Boeing will use Discounted Max's as compensation for the grounding vs paying actual cash.

Southwest Needs to order another 500 at least and the IAG order isn't firm yet either.

There will probably be a ton of orders - however many will be undisclosed purchaser orders as the airlines won't want to be associated with the MAX until it proves itself. I'm sure there will be clauses in the contracts that if the MAX has a problem again the orders can be cancelled.

I'm sure MAX orders will resume, but the existence of this thread itself suggests that the froth has gone off it to an extent that is making Boeing re-think.

It might be worth noting that the MAX is not the only Boeing aircraft that compensation can be applied to - we might see a number of very good value 787 conversions coming along. I think we've had at least one already.

Rgds

RJMAZ · Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:09 am

ewt340 wrote:
So, right now they need to convince at least 2 engines manufacturer to created new engines (that cost billions of dollars to developed) to fit into their re-re-re-engine B737?

That is exactly what Boeing has done every 15-18 years to the 737 family.

With the 737MAX they only had to "convince" a single engine supplier. Sole source of engines on 5000+ aircraft would be very attractive to any engine manufacturer. They will invest billions to makes tens of billions of profit.

Sole source is starting to become more common. The A330NEO, 777X, 737MAX, A350, 747-8 and A220 all have a single engine option.

I expect GE to get sole source on the next 737 version. Based on the previous cycle that would enter service around 2035. At this point I would say 50% chance we will see a cleansheet and 50% likely we will see the 737 with newer engines.

flipdewaf · Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:10 am

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

(not Future Single Aisle)

It's a description, is a characteristic!
Not only an achronym
Sorry...

Yes the acronym FSA is, as stated, for ‘Future Small Aircraft’ and it would be silly if that was not indeed supposed to represent an aircraft that is by some measure ‘Small’ and produced at a time in the Future.

2025 EIS is the major proof that the FSA concept will not a "real" replacement of the 737MAX since it's for 2030 (Airbus and Boeing know that)

flipdewaf wrote:
The fact that the acronym does not say it is a single aisle does not preclude that being a property of it.

No, no..

The FSA had for characteristic, description to be an " NOT Futur Single Aisle".

You see the different really is that you say:
“NOT Future Single Aisle” which of course would have an acronym of NFSA and then you might have a valid point (although a very weird project name)

What Mr Ostrower states is “not Future Single Aisle”. If you look to the capitalisation and noting that the “not” has no capitalisation and therefore is most likely not part of the acronym whereas the other words do. As you say re-read the tweet ( or just read the one I posted as I have not fiddled with it to show my bias so it will be the same) and you will see that.

Checklist787 wrote:
It'a concept among others in design offices
There is many concept studies with a code name in all industry, at Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and too in the railway for exemple, Alsthom, Siemens
Hitachi ...

I know how it really works, I work as an engineer in R&D and the project names/acronyms as are:
If by young male engineer it is an acronym that makes them and their colleagues giggle, if by an older male engineer it’s some they think sounds cool (it’s as cool as the way they dance) and if it is from one of the females it is a reference to a son or band, the age of the song or band shows the age of the the project ‘namer’ the descriptive power of the project is justified just as tenuously as you are doing here.

Checklist787 wrote:

Certainly there is a team for an All-new Narrowbody but it's not the announcement because does not speak of (future) narrowbody team.

There probably isn’t that, the way to really tie down and disengage creative engineers is to not let them solve the real problem and give them the problems induced by marketing Making half the decisions and having the engineers hamstrung by that. That’s why its ‘small aircraft’ and it isn’t ‘single aisle’.

Checklist787 wrote:
The NMA team maybe had failed and the FSA team study certainly of a smaller Twin-Aisle.

I’d be very surprised if anything was off the table.

Checklist787 wrote:
A concept don't change code name even if it fail and vice versa...

They do, I have just done it in my job when the technology required for the project was evident in the code name.

Checklist787 wrote:

Another team work in other concept with other code name It's the methodology in design. It's universal rule, c' est la vie !

LOL

Checklist787 wrote:

That is why J. Ostrower precise the characteristic, the description to be an " NOT Futur Single Aisle" for the FSA it's the concept who is studied

Again, dishonesty in the capitalisation.

Checklist787 wrote:
Whether it be the NMA, FSA, NSA, others,
the final concept will be called 797X but the concepts do not change code names during the study...

The code name hasn’t changed :wink:

Checklist787 wrote:

Acronym =Code Name
Code Name = Acronym

But it seems in the marketing and strategy department they want something with a double aisle above the 737MAX and below the 787-8 Dreamliner.

Seems that way to whom?

Checklist787 wrote:
Time will tell...

it will, is being right about it being twin aisle what you are worried about? I was 15 once too.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JayinKitsap · Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:25 am

william wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Given Boeing's recent difficulties I think it's more likely they do NSA/NMA as a combined program using a lot of commonality with the same cross section. But they will still do NMA first to figure out Production at lower volumes and wait for NSA sized engines to come along to not cannibalize 737 sales.

The Math in Program accounting works out a lot better when you do it it combined as you can amortize the development costs over 7-10,000 frames (2-3,000 NMA, 5-7,000 NSA).

Both programs use the same tight light 7W cross section with the same nose/systems/architecture. NMA is just basically an NSA-XRL (extra range/longer) with bigger Wing/tail/gear/engines.

Able to built on the same assembly line at very high volumes - possibly starting with NMA in the 747 factory space as it winds down. Multiple lines would be used to get to 80-100 units per month eventually.

The cross section would be ovalish (1/2 of a circle on top 1/3 of a bigger circle on the bottom so you get around Hoop stresses of an ellipse) with only about 25% more cross section than A320 for 16.7% more Y seats and 50% more seats in the front. Remember A320 cross section is about 5-6% more than 737 and it doesn't seem to hurt it that much.

For the same capacity as A320 the 7W would be shorter - it would be a toss up on what is lighter (the small wing versions potentially lighter - long wing definitely heavier) and depending on how you measure the cross section would be more efficient if you are looking at premium seats.

The family would look something like the following - Assuming 2x2x2 or 2x1x2 in Bus, 2x2x2 or 2x3x2 in Y+ and 2x3x2 in Y

797-5 118' NSA Small - 738/A320 Plus 2 rows Capacity (200 seats single class) - .75M Small wing (36M) - Small Gear - 3,500 NM Range
797-6 136' NSA Large - A321 Capacity plus 2 rows (240 Seats Single Class) - Small Wing - Small Gear 3,000 NM Range
797-7 136' NMA Small - A321 Capacity plus 2 rows - .85M Big Wing (36M Folded - as big as you could get extended - 44/45M?) - Big Gear - 5,300 NM Range
797-8 154' NMA Large - A321 Capacity + 40 Seats (280 seats Single class) - Big Wing, Big Gear 4,700NM

There would be room for stretch above 797-8 at about 170' long (320 seats single class) as Engines got more efficient, Aero cleaned up, MTOW increased, weight taken out of it and eventually an 154' version with the small wing/ gear as a super efficient people Mover when engines improved.

Basically an Tight light 7W 737/757 Replacement. I've been saying for years that NMA was going to be a lot more in the 757-300, 767-250 size than 767-350 size.

Then Boeing Brazil uses the same tech (maybe Aluminum tube which they are good at) to do a 5W using the NSA/NMA cockpit and systems architecture to take on the 130-180 single class space.

I agree. Cockpit commonality through it all too.

Thank you for a sane post in a sea of.................I don't know what you call it.

Launch the 798 first, less critical on range.

The best part of this lineup is it allows the 738 the most room to coexist.

ewt340 · Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:23 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
So, right now they need to convince at least 2 engines manufacturer to created new engines (that cost billions of dollars to developed) to fit into their re-re-re-engine B737?

That is exactly what Boeing has done every 15-18 years to the 737 family.

With the 737MAX they only had to "convince" a single engine supplier. Sole source of engines on 5000+ aircraft would be very attractive to any engine manufacturer. They will invest billions to makes tens of billions of profit.

Sole source is starting to become more common. The A330NEO, 777X, 737MAX, A350, 747-8 and A220 all have a single engine option.

I expect GE to get sole source on the next 737 version. Based on the previous cycle that would enter service around 2035. At this point I would say 50% chance we will see a cleansheet and 50% likely we will see the 737 with newer engines.

2035? Yeah no, they need the new aircraft to fly on 2030 at most.

FluidFlow · Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:49 am

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

The smallest size would actually be a bit larger than 738/A320 - call it Keesje A320.5 in Capacity.

The most economical version (CASM) would actually be NSA-L - a little bit larger than than A321 for the majority of Short haul missions under 1,500 nm. It would have less range than A321 as it would be the smaller winged/lighter version. Which means lighter gear, lighter engines, smaller/lighter less draggy wing than A321.

The commonality would be so much with the larger wing version that it would no big deal to have both in a fleet and sub in depending on the route. Most of the spares excepting for the engine parts/gear/wheels would be the same.

Really think of a tight light 7W. Imagine you are sitting in an A320 - the NSA/NMA fuselage would be less than 18" wider to each side of you - hold your hands up 18" apart - it is not that big of a difference. The crown height would be similar.

If you build it to compete with the A321 then you build the wrong aircraft. A tight light 6W would kill a tight light 7W if both compete in the same segment (200pax).

There was a reason Boeing built the 757 and the 767. The 767 was a light 7W for its time but a 757 was still needed to cover the lower end, because a further shrink of the 767 was not viable. If the NSA-L is the most economic (as you say) then the short version will be around 10 percent less economic per seat if it shares the same gear and just a shorter fuselage (compare A319 to A320). In that case the old A321neo might be over all cheaper to use on said missions because it only costs 40mio or less to buy (in 2028 massive discounted to break the new short NSA 7W, which probably will be 60m-70m) and is only marginally more expensive to run.

Yeah the NSA-L and XL are CASM beasts then but if you need anything lower than 240pax single class, hello Airbus. Good you might be able to snatch up some cheap 737-8.

You are still thinking that an Ovalish 7W is radically larger than a 6W round fuselage. It's hard to say one would kill the other in terms of weight and drag per seat. The fuselages will not be significantly different.

Yes the NSA-S would be less efficient than NSA-L - so is the 738 vs 739 or 320 vs 321. NSA-S wins on trip costs.

A tight light 6W (737 size) won't work for A321 and above.

A321 size seems to be the winning size now - how big will it be 10 years from now when NSA could enter service?

With an optimized wing/gear/engines an 3,000 ish Range 7W NSA should be a lot more efficient than an 4,000NM+ A320/321, especially if they rewing the A320/A321 for even more capability - but that is what the big wing NSA/NMA is for.

Lets calculate a little just to see what efficiency difference will be:

B737 MAX 200has officially a capacity of 197 seats (28' pitch). That is the most efficient use of floor space possible (for the theoretical best economics).

Cabin length is 30m (33rows, 198 seats for easy calc), total length is 38m, width is 3.54m, total width is 3.76m
For a possible two aisle high density 197 seat model (the smallest possible version) you get:
Cabin length is 25.5m (28rows, 196 seats for easy calc), total length is 33.5m, fuselage height is 3.76m, with is 4.5m

Now we need to make assumtions: Two options new singe aisle and new double aisle have the exact same materials and technology so there is no advantage in this, it is only the different shape that counts.

Frontal area of a circular fuselage with 3.76m diameter: 11.1m^2
Frontal area of a oval fuselage with 3.76m height and 4.5m width: 13.29m^2

That is a 20% increase in frontal area, simplified of course but assuming the same shape for the nose it is a roughly 20% increase in area exposed to the air flow (angled). Now for skin drag:

Area of a cylinder with length 30m and diameter of 3.76m: 354.4m^2
Area of a eliptical cylinder with length 25.3m and 3.76m height and 4.5m width: 332.2m^2

That is a 6.25% reduction in surface area of the cylinder. Unfortunately as this are optimized designs the shorter aircraft will need a bigger tail structure to compensate for the lack of moment arm. So the surface area advantage will be even smaller.

So overall we will have a drag penalty for the twin aisle.
On top of that there will be a weight penalty from the bigger tail structure, and the need for reinforced structures due to the ovoid design.
Also due to weight disadvantage the twin aisle design needs either reinforced wings (if they are the same as on the single aisle) to carry the higher load or bigger wings to keep wing loading the same. This leads to higher weights.

All in all a super light efficient single aisle might have an empty weight of 40t, then the twin aisle will probably be in the range of 50t. So for the same mission profile the aircraft has to carry more structure with more drag. To compensate that you could have a better bigger wing but this advantages only counts on longer routes. So for missions <2500nm I can not see how this aircraft will ever be competitive (and that is the biggest segment today).

Now we can look at a stretch: 240 seats, same fuselages just longer:
Single aisle 40 rows, 36.5m cabin length
double aisle 34 rows (238 seats), 31m cabin length

Area of a cylinder with length 36.5m and diameter of 3.76m:431.2m^2
Area of a eliptical cylinder with length 31m and 3.76m height and 4.5m width: 403.83m^2

So the advantage of surface area is now 6.8% but the 20% increase in frontal area is still there. So it becomes better. Also for weight as the singe aisle will also need to be reinforced for strengthening the cabin and wings for the higher loads while the double aisle will be a bit better because the proportions are better (shorter), but it still has a too big tail structure inherited from the short version.

In the end the aircraft is still heavier probably not 10t anymore but around 5t, and has more drag even in this configuration. A single aisle has still the advantage. The only way to overcome that problem is to have more seats and more range.

There is physically no way you can build a twin aisle with the same seat count as a single aisle that is more economic. A 5 seat BMWX5 never beats a 5 seat BMW 5er in efficiency, you would need a 7 seat BMWX7 filled to do that on a per seat count.

Checklist787 · Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:48 am

flipdewaf wrote:
it will, is being right about it being twin aisle what you are worried about?

Absolutely, I'm RIGHT!
Re-read the tweet :wave:

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net