Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19176
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:55 am

Stitch wrote:
Why does it have to be Boeing doing the "dithering" if airlines are not buying what they are trying to sell?


It's characterised here as "dithering" but a factor, as has been reported, is that there wasn't sufficient consensus among potential customers as to what they wanted NMA to be. Without that consensus to define exactly what NMA should be, Boeing simply hadn't been able to close the business case.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
moa999
Posts: 965
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:29 am

I think the issue is Boeing was trying to define too large an area for the aircraft to justify the investment.

Capable in the 500-2000mi shorthaul routes with high demand where a widebody 767 replacement is needed.

But also in the medium haul 2000-5000mi including transatlantic point to point.

The 321XLR has harmed the case in that second category. Smaller plane so more flexible and lower CASM.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:37 am

BoeingVista wrote:
Stitch wrote:
par13del wrote:
In principle, this is why I think a narrow body the size of the 757-300 or 200+ seat range will not work, Airbus is pumping out A321's and will most likely convert a lot of their A320NEO's. The idea of a small widebody between the largest MAX and the smallest 787 should provide enough distinction to allow a premium price to pay for the product. A narrow body 3 x 3 presents to difficult of a challenge to command a premium price, even if it were composite like the 787.


But that appears to be what Boeing has been offering for at least a couple of years and airlines just ordered A321XLRs.


Yes, and airlines are paying premium prices to be in the queue to take delivery of the A321NEO / LR / XLR


Stitch wrote:
SanDiegoLover wrote:
You know Stitch, I’m sick to death of this bs “premium” that so many Boeing supporters keep mentioning. At some point you have to actually build aircraft that people want to buy.,..regardless if you get a “premium” or not. Boeing keeps stalling and dithering over “closing the business case” year after year, after year, after year, and never doing anything.


If you cannot recover your R&D and production costs through the Average Sales Price per frame, then you can't be expected to close the business case. And that is what I mean by "charging a premium". I mean if it was just about spending money to spend money, sure Boeing could launch NMA and sell it for a loss just to gain market share in the 200+ seat segment against Airbus, but the stockholders are not going to be thrilled about it and the BoD and C-Suite cannot expect to keep their jobs, much less their bonuses.


But while Boeing continue to dither Airbus is making the A321 a better aircraft and booking orders further destroying the NMA business case, I think that Calhoun is acknowledging that but what exactly Boeing does to get back into this market sector is a mystery at this point. I don't believe that Boeing can afford to allow the MAX to go full cycle it has to be replaced sooner rather than later so that wedges them into a NSA, small enough to replace MAX-8 but big enough to slow the A321 XLR's roll.


It is impossible, I always said that those who think that the 737 will be replaced are wrong and then Calhoun made it clear that the narrowbody will not be replaced before a generation.

So, please take this as saying. Do you really read the articles?

The 737MAX-8 will be the last to be replaced, it is the most optimized in the family, it beats the A320neo with 2 additional rows in addition to having a narrower fuselage than its competitor.

The problem for Boeing was that it was suffocated by the success of the A321neo which proves that the heart of the market is right in the 737MAX-8 and the A321neo.

What was a mistake in 2011, not to have launched a brand new replacement for the 737NG has been corrected by the brand new ultra efficient 737MAX-10 today!


He is a chick and his egg has just hatched. It is a future success for Boeing, because it offers a cascade of seats with an MTOW much lower than the A321neo which is a proxy for the 757 of the same shape. Nothing too magical.

The A321neo just enjoyed a monopoly that was unexpected. This is why, like the 787 and 777 combo against the A350, we will need another proxy for the 757 with a different shape, this time called NMA and which will be The next combo 737MAX / NMA-MK2 = FSA?

In reality the 737MAX is magnificent!

When the regulators have re-certified it, the problems will be behind and what Calhoun says is to focus on a concept that is more suited to the characteristics of the Chinese market.

That is to say, may be less or more freight with a larger or smaller
belly freight , or even non-existent.

It is not me who says it but the articles published for 2 years on the differentiation of the needs were difficult and there Calhoun announces that they made the choice of the Chinese market. It is clearly a strategy that has been put in place and that the NMA-MK1 has been eliminated after comparison and criticism.

It is also possible that the A321neo only corresponds to the American and Western European market, so most certainly one can imagine much more than a 757 proxy of the same shape.

There will be no narrowbody or replacement for the 737 before a generation (dixit Calhoun, not me)...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:58 am

moa999 wrote:
I think the issue is Boeing was trying to define too large an area for the aircraft to justify the investment.

Capable in the 500-2000mi shorthaul routes with high demand where a widebody 767 replacement is needed.

But also in the medium haul 2000-5000mi including transatlantic point to point.

The 321XLR has harmed the case in that second category. Smaller plane so more flexible and lower CASM.


:checkmark:

I really like your point. Scenario 1 seems (in reality) to target the Asian market from which Boeing refocused through the voice of Calhoun ...

Short haul-People mover (2-2-2 or 2-3-2 or both 2-2-2 and 2-3-2 depending on demand). Anyway a lower MTOW and smaller wings than the NMA-MK1 ...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:34 am

Checklist787 wrote:
It is impossible, I always said that those who think that the 737 will be replaced are wrong and then Calhoun made it clear that the narrowbody will not be replaced before a generation.

So, please take this as saying. Do you really read the articles?
{snip}
There will be no narrowbody or replacement for the 737 before a generation (dixit Calhoun, not me)...


I did read the articles. Couldn't find a direct quote, but they all say things like "expects it will continue to fly for a generation" or "remain in service for a generation". That's not the same as "no replacement for a generation". All the indicators were that there would be a replacement at the start of the next decade regardless of the grounding.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:49 am

Let's be blunt. Boeing does not have the engineering resources to launch and NMA (or NSA for that matter) in the immediate term. The 737MAX and 777X programmes are consuming everything on the commercial side and more. Also, even if they did they have already lost the 757-200 replacement market to Airbus. It isn't coming back in the near term. Further, they have little ability to get into the growth segment in the near term as Airbus can provide a much better offer from an operations point of view across the A320-A330 range.

So where does that put Boeing? If they want to do an NMA they need to focus on the segment in the 30-40 ton payload regime. The problem with this is all the aircraft in this regime are crap. The cube-square law works against you. Further, you end up in a place where narrowbodies begin to be ungainly operationally, and wide-bodies tend to be heavy and have poor aerodynamics. Technically you can build an aircraft that works in this range, ie it is feasible, but viability is a problem. Some of the specific issues include:
  • 2-2-2 fuselages are much worse than 3-3 for everything except loading and unloading. They are wider, therefore heavier as there is not just more surface area in the barrel, but the hoop stresses are higher. They also have more dead space to paying space, e.g a second aisle
  • 2-3-2 and greater wide bodies start to claw back some of the dead-space problem, but they don't help the weight issue. Further, for a given payload the wider the fuselage the shorter the aircraft, this kills your form drag. Remember the A350 is narrower than the DC-10 or L1011 and carries a lot more people
  • As your payload increases, your wing area goes up in the first order they are directly proportional. This means the volume of the wing goes up at 3/2 power. So along with weight (some savings because of the deeper wingbox), you get more fuel volume, this drives the range points up a lot. All the sudden you have an aircraft that is right for 5500-6500nm
  • As you payload goes up your wing-span increases. Also, the optimal aspect-ratios have climbed quite a bit since 1980. So we have seen 767-300, DC-10 and L1011 sized aircraft move from Code D to Code E in span. The result is that no-one offers a Code D aircraft anymore and airports are changing their stand layouts to provide Code C and then Code E+. This means that you might as well go full Code E once you have hit anything bigger than the 757 wing-span (soon to be 737-8/A321NEO). If your doing this you might as well move the people around to compensate for for the flexibility loss

Couple this with the fact that Boeing's market will be limited 787 operators only as the fleet sizes they purchase will likely not make it worth it if they operate A321s and/or A330s but not 787s. Also, the size isn't a sweet spot for startups, that is in the A320-A321 size range. I think the NMA is probably off the cards for the next decade, if not longer.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:07 am

BaconButty wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
It is impossible, I always said that those who think that the 737 will be replaced are wrong and then Calhoun made it clear that the narrowbody will not be replaced before a generation.

So, please take this as saying. Do you really read the articles?
{snip}
There will be no narrowbody or replacement for the 737 before a generation (dixit Calhoun, not me)...


I did read the articles. Couldn't find a direct quote, but they all say things like "expects it will continue to fly for a generation" or "remain in service for a generation". That's not the same as "no replacement for a generation". All the indicators were that there would be a replacement at the start of the next decade regardless of the grounding.


My comment was a response to BoeingVista
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19176
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:12 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Short haul-People mover (2-2-2 or 2-3-2 or both 2-2-2 and 2-3-2 depending on demand). Anyway a lower MTOW and smaller wings than the NMA-MK1 ...


2-2-2 in economy? A twin-aisle only seating six per row in economy is insanity. :crazy:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:35 am

phollingsworth wrote:
Let's be blunt. Boeing does not have the engineering resources to launch and NMA (or NSA for that matter) in the immediate term. The 737MAX and 777X programmes are consuming everything on the commercial side and more. Also, even if they did they have already lost the 757-200 replacement market to Airbus. It isn't coming back in the near term. Further, they have little ability to get into the growth segment in the near term as Airbus can provide a much better offer from an operations point of view across the A320-A330 range.

So where does that put Boeing? If they want to do an NMA they need to focus on the segment in the 30-40 ton payload regime. The problem with this is all the aircraft in this regime are crap. The cube-square law works against you. Further, you end up in a place where narrowbodies begin to be ungainly operationally, and wide-bodies tend to be heavy and have poor aerodynamics. Technically you can build an aircraft that works in this range, ie it is feasible, but viability is a problem. Some of the specific issues include:
  • 2-2-2 fuselages are much worse than 3-3 for everything except loading and unloading. They are wider, therefore heavier as there is not just more surface area in the barrel, but the hoop stresses are higher. They also have more dead space to paying space, e.g a second aisle
  • 2-3-2 and greater wide bodies start to claw back some of the dead-space problem, but they don't help the weight issue. Further, for a given payload the wider the fuselage the shorter the aircraft, this kills your form drag. Remember the A350 is narrower than the DC-10 or L1011 and carries a lot more people
  • As your payload increases, your wing area goes up in the first order they are directly proportional. This means the volume of the wing goes up at 3/2 power. So along with weight (some savings because of the deeper wingbox), you get more fuel volume, this drives the range points up a lot. All the sudden you have an aircraft that is right for 5500-6500nm
  • As you payload goes up your wing-span increases. Also, the optimal aspect-ratios have climbed quite a bit since 1980. So we have seen 767-300, DC-10 and L1011 sized aircraft move from Code D to Code E in span. The result is that no-one offers a Code D aircraft anymore and airports are changing their stand layouts to provide Code C and then Code E+. This means that you might as well go full Code E once you have hit anything bigger than the 757 wing-span (soon to be 737-8/A321NEO). If your doing this you might as well move the people around to compensate for for the flexibility loss

Couple this with the fact that Boeing's market will be limited 787 operators only as the fleet sizes they purchase will likely not make it worth it if they operate A321s and/or A330s but not 787s. Also, the size isn't a sweet spot for startups, that is in the A320-A321 size range. I think the NMA is probably off the cards for the next decade, if not longer.


Except that you are not an engineer and I either, however Boeing believes that an ovoid is feasible who are you to say otherwise? Who tells you that a 2-2-2 ovoid composite with a small freight belly or even a non-existent belly 48 meters long or having two more rangers than an A321neo is not more effective?

Do you know the number of containers on such missions there would be guarantee that there is no dead surface in the belly of an A321neo?

It's would be no more than 3-4 LD3-45W that are loaded while the A321neo has room for 10 LD3-45W containers. You don't know the reality of the market. And when you say "frankly" you don't guarantee anything. It's just your own frank thought or not you ignore the reality of the market because you and I are not in this business except that I see a relevance in the strategy around the Chinese market that Calhoun mentioned... :)
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:39 am

Checklist787 wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
Stitch wrote:

But that appears to be what Boeing has been offering for at least a couple of years and airlines just ordered A321XLRs.


Yes, and airlines are paying premium prices to be in the queue to take delivery of the A321NEO / LR / XLR


Stitch wrote:

If you cannot recover your R&D and production costs through the Average Sales Price per frame, then you can't be expected to close the business case. And that is what I mean by "charging a premium". I mean if it was just about spending money to spend money, sure Boeing could launch NMA and sell it for a loss just to gain market share in the 200+ seat segment against Airbus, but the stockholders are not going to be thrilled about it and the BoD and C-Suite cannot expect to keep their jobs, much less their bonuses.


But while Boeing continue to dither Airbus is making the A321 a better aircraft and booking orders further destroying the NMA business case, I think that Calhoun is acknowledging that but what exactly Boeing does to get back into this market sector is a mystery at this point. I don't believe that Boeing can afford to allow the MAX to go full cycle it has to be replaced sooner rather than later so that wedges them into a NSA, small enough to replace MAX-8 but big enough to slow the A321 XLR's roll.


It is impossible, I always said that those who think that the 737 will be replaced are wrong and then Calhoun made it clear that the narrowbody will not be replaced before a generation.

So, please take this as saying. Do you really read the articles?

The 737MAX-8 will be the last to be replaced, it is the most optimized in the family, it beats the A320neo with 2 additional rows in addition to having a narrower fuselage than its competitor.

The problem for Boeing was that it was suffocated by the success of the A321neo which proves that the heart of the market is right in the 737MAX-8 and the A321neo.

What was a mistake in 2011, not to have launched a brand new replacement for the 737NG has been corrected by the brand new ultra efficient 737MAX-10 today!


He is a chick and his egg has just hatched. It is a future success for Boeing, because it offers a cascade of seats with an MTOW much lower than the A321neo which is a proxy for the 757 of the same shape. Nothing too magical.

The A321neo just enjoyed a monopoly that was unexpected. This is why, like the 787 and 777 combo against the A350, we will need another proxy for the 757 with a different shape, this time called NMA and which will be The next combo 737MAX / NMA-MK2 = FSA?

In reality the 737MAX is magnificent!

When the regulators have re-certified it, the problems will be behind and what Calhoun says is to focus on a concept that is more suited to the characteristics of the Chinese market.

That is to say, may be less or more freight with a larger or smaller
belly freight , or even non-existent.

It is not me who says it but the articles published for 2 years on the differentiation of the needs were difficult and there Calhoun announces that they made the choice of the Chinese market. It is clearly a strategy that has been put in place and that the NMA-MK1 has been eliminated after comparison and criticism.

It is also possible that the A321neo only corresponds to the American and Western European market, so most certainly one can imagine much more than a 757 proxy of the same shape.

There will be no narrowbody or replacement for the 737 before a generation (dixit Calhoun, not me)...


My only reply to this is LOLs

Yes I do read the articles 737MAX is totally safe, pilot error - 737MAX is totally safe, another pilot error - No grounding - Return to service by Q3 2019 - Return to service by Q4 2019 - Return to service by Q1 2020 - Currently Return to service by Q3 2020.. For godsake, do YOU read the articles?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I have a bridge to sell anybody that takes the word of Boeings CEO as a reliable indicator of the future, be quick I'm selling out fast...
BV
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:46 am

scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Short haul-People mover (2-2-2 or 2-3-2 or both 2-2-2 and 2-3-2 depending on demand). Anyway a lower MTOW and smaller wings than the NMA-MK1 ...


2-2-2 in economy? A twin-aisle only seating six per row in economy is insanity. :crazy:


A 3-3 economy with a large belly fret is as much insanity in many cases.

An ovoid 2-2-2 cabin is a solution for the future simply an efficient people mover.

You said yourself that China wants small aircraft. If they are optimized they are better than a single aisle ...

An A322-X concept would be an increased hell in term of empty belly fret increase and a hell of embarjation/disembarkation..

I suspect Boeing hitting it
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3651
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:23 am

par13del wrote:
Stitch wrote:


As such, I see Boeing hard-pressed to be able to command the premium they needed to pay for the program - especially since Airbus would be shoving A320neos out at 40+ a month (leveraging the economies of scale on Average Sales Prices) while Boeing would be spinning up both a new production line at home as well as at their suppliers.


In principle, this is why I think a narrow body the size of the 757-300 or 200+ seat range will not work, Airbus is pumping out A321's and will most likely convert a lot of their A320NEO's. The idea of a small widebody between the largest MAX and the smallest 787 should provide enough distinction to allow a premium price to pay for the product. A narrow body 3 x 3 presents to difficult of a challenge to command a premium price, even if it were composite like the 787.


The problem seems to be that the target pax loads seem to fall in a gap where Narrow bodies become too long and a widebody has inefficient use of structure as the economies of scale cannot be reached.

Stitch wrote:
Why does it have to be Boeing doing the "dithering" if airlines are not buying what they are trying to sell?
In a mature, commoditised, market the Driver will be for the customers to show signals for pricing and advancement and whilst this isn't in and of itself a bad thing if you always ask the customer of dim candles what they want they will tell you brighter candles, what should be provided is light bulbs.

Checklist787 wrote:
Except that you are not an engineer and I either
I am, Phollingsworth seems to be correct.

Checklist787 wrote:
however Boeing believes that an ovoid is feasible who are you to say otherwise?
As was the 2707, the sonic cruiser the 7j7 the hunch back of notre dame 767...

Checklist787 wrote:
An ovoid 2-2-2 cabin is a solution for the future simply an efficient people mover.
The weight per unit area of a pressure dominated structure increases linearly with the diameter of the structure, the increase of 1 aisle, or approximately 1/7 of teh diamter would mean that the aircraft would have an inherent weight defecit to a 3-3 cabin of similar technology level of some 14%. This would likely require an aircraft that burned more than 14% more fuel for a given design payload.
Efficient people move you say?

Fred
Image
 
astuteman
Posts: 7153
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:38 am

Checklist787 wrote:
It is impossible, I always said that those who think that the 737 will be replaced are wrong and then Calhoun made it clear that the narrowbody will not be replaced before a generation.


I have read the articles and the only comment I can see that Calhoun said is this.

Calhoun said the company is not considering scrapping the MAX and expects it will continue to fly for a generation.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1ZL2MA

I'm sure it will fly for a generation. That tells us nothing whatsoever about the timing of its replacement.

Checklist787 wrote:
What was a mistake in 2011, not to have launched a brand new replacement for the 737NG has been corrected by the brand new ultra efficient 737MAX-10 today!
He is a chick and his egg has just hatched. It is a future success for Boeing, because it offers a cascade of seats with an MTOW much lower than the A321neo which is a proxy for the 757 of the same shape. Nothing too magical.


Is now a bad time to state that in the 2 1/2 years since its launch, the 737-10 MAX has secured just 531 orders in total?
And that 361 of those 531 MAX 10 were secured at its launch at the Paris Air Show in July 2017, and only 170 since?
Whilst the A321NEO secured 963 in 2019 alone (from 2,292 in Dec 2018 to 3,255 in Dec 2019)?
And the A321XLR on its own secured 450 orders in the 6 months since its launch?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#737_MAX_10

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

Checklist787 wrote:
In reality the 737MAX is magnificent!


I do so enjoy reading your posts. It's fun trying to figure out whether you are being serious or not :)

Checklist787 wrote:
It is also possible that the A321neo only corresponds to the American and Western European market, so most certainly one can imagine much more than a 757 proxy of the same shape.


So to recover a factual conversation from these wild ass statements ….

A321NEO orders at Dec 2019

Europe - 530
North America - 438
Asia - 1,276 (so much for the A321NEO being only America and Western Europe Market …. )
Middle East - 203
Latin America - 159

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

Checklist787 wrote:
There will be no narrowbody or replacement for the 737 before a generation (dixit Calhoun, not me)...


Er, no. That was you. It was NOT Calhoun, from anything I can read, quote, or link.
Are you able to link the quote, you know, as per forum rules? :)

Rgds
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:08 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
Let's be blunt. Boeing does not have the engineering resources to launch and NMA (or NSA for that matter) in the immediate term. The 737MAX and 777X programmes are consuming everything on the commercial side and more. Also, even if they did they have already lost the 757-200 replacement market to Airbus. It isn't coming back in the near term. Further, they have little ability to get into the growth segment in the near term as Airbus can provide a much better offer from an operations point of view across the A320-A330 range.

So where does that put Boeing? If they want to do an NMA they need to focus on the segment in the 30-40 ton payload regime. The problem with this is all the aircraft in this regime are crap. The cube-square law works against you. Further, you end up in a place where narrowbodies begin to be ungainly operationally, and wide-bodies tend to be heavy and have poor aerodynamics. Technically you can build an aircraft that works in this range, ie it is feasible, but viability is a problem. Some of the specific issues include:
  • 2-2-2 fuselages are much worse than 3-3 for everything except loading and unloading. They are wider, therefore heavier as there is not just more surface area in the barrel, but the hoop stresses are higher. They also have more dead space to paying space, e.g a second aisle
  • 2-3-2 and greater wide bodies start to claw back some of the dead-space problem, but they don't help the weight issue. Further, for a given payload the wider the fuselage the shorter the aircraft, this kills your form drag. Remember the A350 is narrower than the DC-10 or L1011 and carries a lot more people
  • As your payload increases, your wing area goes up in the first order they are directly proportional. This means the volume of the wing goes up at 3/2 power. So along with weight (some savings because of the deeper wingbox), you get more fuel volume, this drives the range points up a lot. All the sudden you have an aircraft that is right for 5500-6500nm
  • As you payload goes up your wing-span increases. Also, the optimal aspect-ratios have climbed quite a bit since 1980. So we have seen 767-300, DC-10 and L1011 sized aircraft move from Code D to Code E in span. The result is that no-one offers a Code D aircraft anymore and airports are changing their stand layouts to provide Code C and then Code E+. This means that you might as well go full Code E once you have hit anything bigger than the 757 wing-span (soon to be 737-8/A321NEO). If your doing this you might as well move the people around to compensate for for the flexibility loss

Couple this with the fact that Boeing's market will be limited 787 operators only as the fleet sizes they purchase will likely not make it worth it if they operate A321s and/or A330s but not 787s. Also, the size isn't a sweet spot for startups, that is in the A320-A321 size range. I think the NMA is probably off the cards for the next decade, if not longer.

Well, they have to come up with something as opposed to doing nothing. There are airlines that wanted Boeing to come up with something that could replace the 757's and the 767's. They kept dragging their feet, and quite a few of those have started moving towards the A321LR/XLR. To do nothing really does not make any sense because as Airbus continues to gain more orders, it also ties in operators who down the line will not want a new jet.

Airbus is going to have the XLR out, and they are not simply going to sit around. They probably look to re-engine the A350 once the ultrafan is mature in four or five years time in the wide body segment.

Boeing may be having issues, but now is the time for them to really start investing in new products as opposed to doing more of the same.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:01 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Well, they have to come up with something as opposed to doing nothing. There are airlines that wanted Boeing to come up with something that could replace the 757's and the 767's. They kept dragging their feet, and quite a few of those have started moving towards the A321LR/XLR.

As far as the 757 is concerned, it is really the US airlines that have moved towards the A321LR/XLR recently, perhaps in desperation. There weren't such a huge number sold outside the US at all, and the vast majority of these have already been replaced at their original airlines. The sheer number of 757 freighters tends to point to this! After all, there were only around 1000 757s of all types built to begin with. The replacement program has pretty much sewn up either by actual deliveries or by orders yet to be delivered.
The passenger 767 got wider distribution around the world, but again many airlines outside the USA have already replaced theirs, or have the aircraft on order to do this with. Even US airlines have cleared out quite a lot of their older 767s.
There's a gap in the size ranges of aircraft available, but the problem Boeing has is that the replacement market has really left the gate, and different airlines who might see an NMA as a business opportunity don't necessarily need the same size and performance.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:26 pm

Stitch wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
But while Boeing continue to dither Airbus is making the A321 a better aircraft and booking orders further destroying the NMA business case, I think that Calhoun is acknowledging that but what exactly Boeing does to get back into this market sector is a mystery at this point.


Why does it have to be Boeing doing the "dithering" if airlines are not buying what they are trying to sell?

Is the assumption Boeing came up with one concept for the NMA and just keeps hoping airlines eventually come around? If so, that would be counter to how Boeing has developed every previous commercial model - Boeing has always engaged in a dialogue with potential customers to refine their designs to appeal to as many as possible, even if it does leave some "out in the cold".

Boeing and airlines have been working on defining NMA as a small widebody for years and Boeing could not convince them to commit to it. So now they have to start over, working within whatever constraints the airlines have placed on them in those discussions. And I would bet real money that those discussions focused on a 3+3 narrowbody in the 220-280 seat range (single class) with folding CFRP wings to fit in a 36m wide box with AKH containers as the holds will be used for passenger bags and "Express" freight (the heavy cargo will continue to be carried by larger twin-aisles), "next-generation" engines (Ultrafan and GTF Mk. II) and new, lighter aluminum alloys for the fuselage structure.

Airlines are not buying what Boeing was trying to sell since Boeing never officially offered the NMA for sale; airlines (like United) kept pushing Boeing until they had enough, said "f... that" and went to Airbus and the A321XLR...
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:30 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Short haul-People mover (2-2-2 or 2-3-2 or both 2-2-2 and 2-3-2 depending on demand). Anyway a lower MTOW and smaller wings than the NMA-MK1 ...


2-2-2 in economy? A twin-aisle only seating six per row in economy is insanity. :crazy:


A 3-3 economy with a large belly fret is as much insanity in many cases.

An ovoid 2-2-2 cabin is a solution for the future simply an efficient people mover.

You said yourself that China wants small aircraft. If they are optimized they are better than a single aisle ...

An A322-X concept would be an increased hell in term of empty belly fret increase and a hell of embarjation/disembarkation..

I suspect Boeing hitting it

But itsn't the 767 a 2-3-2 in economy? And how's that's selling?
Airlines (like passengers) have voted with their wallets: they want narrowbodies that seat 3-3...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19176
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:33 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
An ovoid 2-2-2 cabin is a solution for the future simply an efficient people mover.


No, it's the very antithesis of efficiency. You're dragging an extra aisle around for no additional revenue capacity over a 3-3 single-aisle of the same length. Just apply some common sense - NMA is supposed to be what a 220-280 seater in 2-class configuration? If you're only getting 6-across in economy how long will the plane need to be? The extra weight of a very long second aisle (with no revenue benefit whatsoever over a single-aisle of the same length) will cripple the economics. A seven-abreast twin-aisle is in no mans land between 3-3 and 2-4-2, but a six-abreast twin aisle makes no sense whatsoever. :shakehead:

Checklist787 wrote:
You said yourself that China wants small aircraft.


Yes, smaller than 77W long-haul planes dominate the Chinese fleets.

Checklist787 wrote:
I suspect Boeing hitting it


Boeing's supposed to have been "hitting it" with NMA for years. Now they're starting over.

flipdewaf wrote:
The weight per unit area of a pressure dominated structure increases linearly with the diameter of the structure, the increase of 1 aisle, or approximately 1/7 of teh diamter would mean that the aircraft would have an inherent weight defecit to a 3-3 cabin of similar technology level of some 14%. This would likely require an aircraft that burned more than 14% more fuel for a given design payload.
Efficient people move you say?


:checkmark:

Unless Boeing powers a 2-2-2 NMA with magic pixie dust. :scratchchin:

astuteman wrote:
Is now a bad time to state that in the 2 1/2 years since its launch, the 737-10 MAX has secured just 531 orders in total?
And that 361 of those 531 MAX 10 were secured at its launch at the Paris Air Show in July 2017, and only 170 since?


It also shouldn't be forgotten that a significant number of the initial orders were conversions from 737-9s.

astuteman wrote:
I have read the articles and the only comment I can see that Calhoun said is this.

Calhoun said the company is not considering scrapping the MAX and expects it will continue to fly for a generation.


Reading comprehension is important, otherwise you run the risk of arriving at wrong conclusions.
Last edited by scbriml on Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19176
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:35 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
But itsn't the 767 a 2-3-2 in economy? And how's that's selling?
Airlines (like passengers) have voted with their wallets: they want narrowbodies that seat 3-3...


Or widebodies that seat 8, 9 or 10 across in economy.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4325
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:36 pm

The NMA has to be a strong contender as a mid 21st century airplane. As others have said this means sensors and the computer power as much ahead of this time as Tesla is over its competitors. It must have the ability to be updated, not kludge-dated.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:39 pm

Andy33 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Well, they have to come up with something as opposed to doing nothing. There are airlines that wanted Boeing to come up with something that could replace the 757's and the 767's. They kept dragging their feet, and quite a few of those have started moving towards the A321LR/XLR.

As far as the 757 is concerned, it is really the US airlines that have moved towards the A321LR/XLR recently, perhaps in desperation. There weren't such a huge number sold outside the US at all, and the vast majority of these have already been replaced at their original airlines. The sheer number of 757 freighters tends to point to this! After all, there were only around 1000 757s of all types built to begin with. The replacement program has pretty much sewn up either by actual deliveries or by orders yet to be delivered.
The passenger 767 got wider distribution around the world, but again many airlines outside the USA have already replaced theirs, or have the aircraft on order to do this with. Even US airlines have cleared out quite a lot of their older 767s.
There's a gap in the size ranges of aircraft available, but the problem Boeing has is that the replacement market has really left the gate, and different airlines who might see an NMA as a business opportunity don't necessarily need the same size and performance.
My problem is that the last time that Boeing really did something that pushed the envelope was with the Dreamliner. They took the right gamble that the market was going to trend towards more point to point routes, and prior to that you have to go all the way back to the 777 in the mid 90's.

The narrow body portfolio is a plane from over 50 years ago. What the world needs is a healthy competition from Airbus and Boeing; one in which they are both pushing one another and consistently pushing better planes that drive the industry forward.
What Airbus has is a better portfolio and one that outside the A380 has mainly been issue free introduction to the market. And the original 777 was such a great job by Boeing, but the 777X could be dead with another re-engine to the A350.

And it does not stop there, Airbus with the marriage to Bombardier, has a smaller, modern regional jet that is only going to get better and more attractive with time. Airbus have made the right decision every single time, the exception being the A380. My hope is that there are people in the C suites at Boeing who see the need for investment in new types as opposed to simply pushing another re-engine.

Boeing can once again to some great research, think and try and see where the transport segment is going to be in 10 years time and develop a plane that meets that need. The Ultrafan according to Rolls Royce is scalable, so it is something that we may see in a re-engined 787. Outside this though, Boeing's lineup is not looking too hot.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:50 pm

I think it would be wise for Boeing to include a 4-5 rows stretched A322 in their competitive landscape. Based on A321XLR MTOW, trading range for capacity. 250 Seats 5 cabin crew, up to 3700NM. Low weight, engine choice, A320 cockpit commonality, ULD options, sharply prized.. Ignore & get burned.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JonesNL
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:54 pm

keesje wrote:
I think it would be wise for Boeing to include a 4-5 rows stretched A322 in their competitive landscape. Based on A321XLR MTOW, trading range for capacity. 250 Seats 5 cabin crew, up to 3700NM. Low weight, engine choice, A320 cockpit commonality, ULD options, sharply prized.. Ignore & get burned.


A322 is probably the most boring plane for us, but the most exiting plane for the likes of Delta. 270 pax in Full economy is the MoM plane they have been begging for many years.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:03 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
par13del wrote:
Stitch wrote:


As such, I see Boeing hard-pressed to be able to command the premium they needed to pay for the program - especially since Airbus would be shoving A320neos out at 40+ a month (leveraging the economies of scale on Average Sales Prices) while Boeing would be spinning up both a new production line at home as well as at their suppliers.


In principle, this is why I think a narrow body the size of the 757-300 or 200+ seat range will not work, Airbus is pumping out A321's and will most likely convert a lot of their A320NEO's. The idea of a small widebody between the largest MAX and the smallest 787 should provide enough distinction to allow a premium price to pay for the product. A narrow body 3 x 3 presents to difficult of a challenge to command a premium price, even if it were composite like the 787.


The problem seems to be that the target pax loads seem to fall in a gap where Narrow bodies become too long and a widebody has inefficient use of structure as the economies of scale cannot be reached.

Stitch wrote:
Why does it have to be Boeing doing the "dithering" if airlines are not buying what they are trying to sell?
In a mature, commoditised, market the Driver will be for the customers to show signals for pricing and advancement and whilst this isn't in and of itself a bad thing if you always ask the customer of dim candles what they want they will tell you brighter candles, what should be provided is light bulbs.

Checklist787 wrote:
Except that you are not an engineer and I either
I am, Phollingsworth seems to be correct.

Checklist787 wrote:
however Boeing believes that an ovoid is feasible who are you to say otherwise?
As was the 2707, the sonic cruiser the 7j7 the hunch back of notre dame 767...

Checklist787 wrote:
An ovoid 2-2-2 cabin is a solution for the future simply an efficient people mover.
The weight per unit area of a pressure dominated structure increases linearly with the diameter of the structure, the increase of 1 aisle, or approximately 1/7 of teh diamter would mean that the aircraft would have an inherent weight defecit to a 3-3 cabin of similar technology level of some 14%. This would likely require an aircraft that burned more than 14% more fuel for a given design payload.
Efficient people move you say?

Fred


It's nice to talk about 14%...
Wait a minute!
But what are your calculations based on?


1. Even if you claim to be an engineer you must bring proof of your figures. For me there is nothing serious in there. Did you know that the A320 cross section is significantly higher than its width?


2. Did you know that by using advanced materials such as CFRP for the same 143 inch wide cabin you can reduce the width of the fuselage cross section if you use a CFRP clean cheet design. You reduce the width of the fuselage by 4 inches and continue with the same 143 "wide cabin.


3. Next comes the total removal of the excess FRET belly, you shave off the weight and the excess wet area of ​​the A321neo or any other 757 proxy. A 757-300 or notionel "757-250" proxy, in other words an A322-X concept will only hasten the hellfire. Indeed, the belly freight would be longer and more empty while in the cabin of endless boarding queues / boarding


4. You can easily shave 25 inches of belly freight and add "only 18 inches" for an additional aisle to give the change. Less structure, less wet area, then less weight than the A321neo... :)
Last edited by Checklist787 on Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:14 pm

keesje wrote:
I think it would be wise for Boeing to include a 4-5 rows stretched A322 in their competitive landscape. Based on A321XLR MTOW, trading range for capacity. 250 Seats 5 cabin crew, up to 3700NM. Low weight, engine choice, A320 cockpit commonality, ULD options, sharply prized.. Ignore & get burned.


Lol..

No, no, no... :shakehead:
The A322-X neo concept is a 757 proxy...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:23 pm

Boeing is between a rock and a hard place. They really need a new clean sheet on at least 3 aircraft models. The only question is which comes first. A 737 replacement would be the boldest but also the most important.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:26 pm

astuteman wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
It is impossible, I always said that those who think that the 737 will be replaced are wrong and then Calhoun made it clear that the narrowbody will not be replaced before a generation.


I have read the articles and the only comment I can see that Calhoun said is this.

Calhoun said the company is not considering scrapping the MAX and expects it will continue to fly for a generation.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1ZL2MA

I'm sure it will fly for a generation. That tells us nothing whatsoever about the timing of its replacement.

Checklist787 wrote:
What was a mistake in 2011, not to have launched a brand new replacement for the 737NG has been corrected by the brand new ultra efficient 737MAX-10 today!
He is a chick and his egg has just hatched. It is a future success for Boeing, because it offers a cascade of seats with an MTOW much lower than the A321neo which is a proxy for the 757 of the same shape. Nothing too magical.


Is now a bad time to state that in the 2 1/2 years since its launch, the 737-10 MAX has secured just 531 orders in total?
And that 361 of those 531 MAX 10 were secured at its launch at the Paris Air Show in July 2017, and only 170 since?
Whilst the A321NEO secured 963 in 2019 alone (from 2,292 in Dec 2018 to 3,255 in Dec 2019)?
And the A321XLR on its own secured 450 orders in the 6 months since its launch?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#737_MAX_10

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

Checklist787 wrote:
In reality the 737MAX is magnificent!


I do so enjoy reading your posts. It's fun trying to figure out whether you are being serious or not :)

Checklist787 wrote:
It is also possible that the A321neo only corresponds to the American and Western European market, so most certainly one can imagine much more than a 757 proxy of the same shape.


So to recover a factual conversation from these wild ass statements ….

A321NEO orders at Dec 2019

Europe - 530
North America - 438
Asia - 1,276 (so much for the A321NEO being only America and Western Europe Market …. )
Middle East - 203
Latin America - 159

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

Rgds



The 737MAX-10 had a very good start. You forgot to include that since the two years of launching the 737MAX-10 It has and a little more than a year of MCAS problem. For this purpose it is not surprising to see airlines think twice before committing. This is not a bin argument for me because you know perfectly well that it is true, but you have all the same put forward figures which do not stick with the facts whereas you know that the problem was MCAS. The A321neo is not magic it only took advantage of the lack of ground clearance of the 737. ..
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:11 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
phollingsworth wrote:
Let's be blunt. Boeing does not have the engineering resources to launch and NMA (or NSA for that matter) in the immediate term. The 737MAX and 777X programmes are consuming everything on the commercial side and more. Also, even if they did they have already lost the 757-200 replacement market to Airbus. It isn't coming back in the near term. Further, they have little ability to get into the growth segment in the near term as Airbus can provide a much better offer from an operations point of view across the A320-A330 range.

So where does that put Boeing? If they want to do an NMA they need to focus on the segment in the 30-40 ton payload regime. The problem with this is all the aircraft in this regime are crap. The cube-square law works against you. Further, you end up in a place where narrowbodies begin to be ungainly operationally, and wide-bodies tend to be heavy and have poor aerodynamics. Technically you can build an aircraft that works in this range, ie it is feasible, but viability is a problem. Some of the specific issues include:
  • 2-2-2 fuselages are much worse than 3-3 for everything except loading and unloading. They are wider, therefore heavier as there is not just more surface area in the barrel, but the hoop stresses are higher. They also have more dead space to paying space, e.g a second aisle
  • 2-3-2 and greater wide bodies start to claw back some of the dead-space problem, but they don't help the weight issue. Further, for a given payload the wider the fuselage the shorter the aircraft, this kills your form drag. Remember the A350 is narrower than the DC-10 or L1011 and carries a lot more people
  • As your payload increases, your wing area goes up in the first order they are directly proportional. This means the volume of the wing goes up at 3/2 power. So along with weight (some savings because of the deeper wingbox), you get more fuel volume, this drives the range points up a lot. All the sudden you have an aircraft that is right for 5500-6500nm
  • As you payload goes up your wing-span increases. Also, the optimal aspect-ratios have climbed quite a bit since 1980. So we have seen 767-300, DC-10 and L1011 sized aircraft move from Code D to Code E in span. The result is that no-one offers a Code D aircraft anymore and airports are changing their stand layouts to provide Code C and then Code E+. This means that you might as well go full Code E once you have hit anything bigger than the 757 wing-span (soon to be 737-8/A321NEO). If your doing this you might as well move the people around to compensate for for the flexibility loss

Couple this with the fact that Boeing's market will be limited 787 operators only as the fleet sizes they purchase will likely not make it worth it if they operate A321s and/or A330s but not 787s. Also, the size isn't a sweet spot for startups, that is in the A320-A321 size range. I think the NMA is probably off the cards for the next decade, if not longer.


Except that you are not an engineer and I either, however Boeing believes that an ovoid is feasible who are you to say otherwise? Who tells you that a 2-2-2 ovoid composite with a small freight belly or even a non-existent belly 48 meters long or having two more rangers than an A321neo is not more effective?

Do you know the number of containers on such missions there would be guarantee that there is no dead surface in the belly of an A321neo?

It's would be no more than 3-4 LD3-45W that are loaded while the A321neo has room for 10 LD3-45W containers. You don't know the reality of the market. And when you say "frankly" you don't guarantee anything. It's just your own frank thought or not you ignore the reality of the market because you and I are not in this business except that I see a relevance in the strategy around the Chinese market that Calhoun mentioned... :)


Except I am an engineering (though not a Boeing one), and while I don't have access to Boeing's specific technology book I have spent a fair amount of time analysing the NMA market area. The issue is that all the rules about larger fuselages still hold. The beauty of the ovoid cross-section is that it reduces the total size for the increased width. However, it is still heavier than either a typical double-bubble for the same number of seats across and the same structural materials. The nice thing about composites is that they have the potential to reduce this penalty. Regardless, you still have the dead space issue and the weight associated with that. The cargo one is interesting, unless you make the cargo area deep enough to hold LD3-64s the only advantage you get over the newest A321s is moving the fuel needed to the wings and centre-wing box, at least at the same nominal capacities. As you drive up the number of passengers into the 753-762 area you would get more advantage from the length.

The problem with the NMA market is it is very sensitive to service entry date and once you slip past a point you might as well slip quite a bit further to take full advantage of new technology. If Boeing has really rolled the NMA back to the PD stage, it is going to be quite a while before they can free up enough engineering resource to move it forward past the point it was a year ago.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:27 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
The 737MAX-10 had a very good start. You forgot to include that since the two years of launching the 737MAX-10 It has and a little more than a year of MCAS problem. For this purpose it is not surprising to see airlines think twice before committing. This is not a bin argument for me because you know perfectly well that it is true, but you have all the same put forward figures which do not stick with the facts whereas you know that the problem was MCAS. The A321neo is not magic it only took advantage of the lack of ground clearance of the 737. ..


From Oct 2016 ( initial offer of the -10 subtype )

the 737MAX-10 accumulated 521 orders
and
the A321 NEO collected further 1961 order ( now at 3255 )

this does not really look like "catching up" ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
TObound
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:29 pm

Stitch wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
But while Boeing continue to dither Airbus is making the A321 a better aircraft and booking orders further destroying the NMA business case, I think that Calhoun is acknowledging that but what exactly Boeing does to get back into this market sector is a mystery at this point.


Why does it have to be Boeing doing the "dithering" if airlines are not buying what they are trying to sell?

Is the assumption Boeing came up with one concept for the NMA and just keeps hoping airlines eventually come around? If so, that would be counter to how Boeing has developed every previous commercial model - Boeing has always engaged in a dialogue with potential customers to refine their designs to appeal to as many as possible, even if it does leave some "out in the cold".

Boeing and airlines have been working on defining NMA as a small widebody for years and Boeing could not convince them to commit to it. So now they have to start over, working within whatever constraints the airlines have placed on them in those discussions. And I would bet real money that those discussions focused on a 3+3 narrowbody in the 220-280 seat range (single class) with folding CFRP wings to fit in a 36m wide box with AKH containers as the holds will be used for passenger bags and "Express" freight (the heavy cargo will continue to be carried by larger twin-aisles), "next-generation" engines (Ultrafan and GTF Mk. II) and new, lighter aluminum alloys for the fuselage structure.


Yep. This is where I think the NMA is going too. It addresses all the deficiencies with the 321 and then adds some improvements and efficiencies on top.

The target for every category of operation seems to be 200 seats. The space those seats take up and the range the aircraft needs to fly are the variables. 200 seats at 30" pitch for LCCs. 200 seats in a mixed config of J/Y+/Y for long-haul/TATL. The 321LR/XLR is not a 200 seat airplane with lie-flat J. It's ~170 seats. See TAP's layout on the 321LR. So they need 5 more rows. And the MAX 200 is a tad cramped too. I think 200 seats at 31" is probably the goal for airlines like FR and WN. So that puts the bottom end closer to a MAX 9. And the top end between the 752 and 753.

Range is very tricky. 4000nm with full pax payload is sort of the minimum to really sell as a TATL hauler. But that's way too much for an intra-regional hauler. 3000nm is enough for TCON and intra-Europe or intra-Asia. So they will have to find away to launch with 3000nm on the larger aircraft. And then enable aux tanks to boost to 4000+nm on the larger model.

Agree with you on the next-gen engines, alloy fuse structure and CFRP wings. Cargo I think will be designed as optional. The way the A320 is where airlines can choose to use ULDs or just load bags. LCCs may not care that much about cargo handling.

I hope Boeing takes the opportunity to do some pax enhancements. They should steal a page from Bombardier and put in 18" seats and 19" wide middle seats. Dimming windows would be great too. And of course, finally bringing full FBW and more to their narrowbody offering.
Last edited by TObound on Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:30 pm

tullamarine wrote:
You may be right with Boeing's current thougts but even here the business case may struggle given Airbus' ability to update the A321 (new wing, NG engines etc) for a much lower development cost meaning the price point at which Boeing could sell its new product could be restricted by Airbus selling an almost as good solution for much less.


Considering how the impact the MAX is having on certification, Airbus may find that performing significant updates to the A320 will be a longer and more involved process than it once was.


tullamarine wrote:
Airbus has second-mover advantage currently in that it really doesn't have to do anything radical at the moment and can either do the updates mentioned above to keep the current A32X series competitive against whatever Boeing plans (more likely) or do a clean-sheet (less likely) to match Boeing knowing it has a huge backlog of NEOs to fund the development spend. Boeing's issue is that, given current and forecast medium term technologies, it is hard to see how it develops something so game changing that it forces Airbus to the clean-sheet option too.


Boeing would still have first-mover advantage and as we saw with the 787, this can score a significant initial tranche of orders which can provide a secure foundation to build from. Of course, Airbus will follow with their own clean-sheet and it will also do exceptionally well, but a return to a stable "50-50" market is beneficial for both OEMs and would allow them to maintain their duopoly against new entrants (China).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:31 pm

Stitch wrote:
Why does it have to be Boeing doing the "dithering" if airlines are not buying what they are trying to sell?

scbriml wrote:
It's characterised here as "dithering" but a factor, as has been reported, is that there wasn't sufficient consensus among potential customers as to what they wanted NMA to be. Without that consensus to define exactly what NMA should be, Boeing simply hadn't been able to close the business case.


Exactly what I have been arguing / advocating. :)
 
User avatar
journeyperson
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:42 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
phollingsworth wrote:
Let's be blunt. Boeing does not have the engineering resources to launch and NMA (or NSA for that matter) in the immediate term. The 737MAX and 777X programmes are consuming everything on the commercial side and more. Also, even if they did they have already lost the 757-200 replacement market to Airbus. It isn't coming back in the near term. Further, they have little ability to get into the growth segment in the near term as Airbus can provide a much better offer from an operations point of view across the A320-A330 range.

So where does that put Boeing? If they want to do an NMA they need to focus on the segment in the 30-40 ton payload regime. The problem with this is all the aircraft in this regime are crap. The cube-square law works against you. Further, you end up in a place where narrowbodies begin to be ungainly operationally, and wide-bodies tend to be heavy and have poor aerodynamics. Technically you can build an aircraft that works in this range, ie it is feasible, but viability is a problem. Some of the specific issues include:
  • 2-2-2 fuselages are much worse than 3-3 for everything except loading and unloading. They are wider, therefore heavier as there is not just more surface area in the barrel, but the hoop stresses are higher. They also have more dead space to paying space, e.g a second aisle
  • 2-3-2 and greater wide bodies start to claw back some of the dead-space problem, but they don't help the weight issue. Further, for a given payload the wider the fuselage the shorter the aircraft, this kills your form drag. Remember the A350 is narrower than the DC-10 or L1011 and carries a lot more people
  • As your payload increases, your wing area goes up in the first order they are directly proportional. This means the volume of the wing goes up at 3/2 power. So along with weight (some savings because of the deeper wingbox), you get more fuel volume, this drives the range points up a lot. All the sudden you have an aircraft that is right for 5500-6500nm
  • As you payload goes up your wing-span increases. Also, the optimal aspect-ratios have climbed quite a bit since 1980. So we have seen 767-300, DC-10 and L1011 sized aircraft move from Code D to Code E in span. The result is that no-one offers a Code D aircraft anymore and airports are changing their stand layouts to provide Code C and then Code E+. This means that you might as well go full Code E once you have hit anything bigger than the 757 wing-span (soon to be 737-8/A321NEO). If your doing this you might as well move the people around to compensate for for the flexibility loss

Couple this with the fact that Boeing's market will be limited 787 operators only as the fleet sizes they purchase will likely not make it worth it if they operate A321s and/or A330s but not 787s. Also, the size isn't a sweet spot for startups, that is in the A320-A321 size range. I think the NMA is probably off the cards for the next decade, if not longer.


Except that you are not an engineer and I either, however Boeing believes that an ovoid is feasible who are you to say otherwise? Who tells you that a 2-2-2 ovoid composite with a small freight belly or even a non-existent belly 48 meters long or having two more rangers than an A321neo is not more effective?

Do you know the number of containers on such missions there would be guarantee that there is no dead surface in the belly of an A321neo?

It's would be no more than 3-4 LD3-45W that are loaded while the A321neo has room for 10 LD3-45W containers. You don't know the reality of the market. And when you say "frankly" you don't guarantee anything. It's just your own frank thought or not you ignore the reality of the market because you and I are not in this business except that I see a relevance in the strategy around the Chinese market that Calhoun mentioned... :)


I'm neither an amateur nor professional aeronautical engineer but reading phollingsworth's posts it seems clear to me that he does know what he's talking about, unlike a lot of posters here and it didn't take me long to analyse his username and discover his CV. For interested laymen like me it is reassuring to be able to separate the fact from the fanciful fiction . And I was delighted to discover he is a neighbour of mine!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:42 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
Let's be blunt. Boeing does not have the engineering resources to launch and NMA (or NSA for that matter) in the immediate term. The 737MAX and 777X programmes are consuming everything on the commercial side and more.


And yet we hear reports Boeing has 1000 engineers on NMA and they have had a dedicated 737 Replacement Study team in place and working on concepts since the mid-2000s.

I worked in Everett during the late 2000s and the local Japanese restaurant I visited was full of contact Japanese engineers from "The Heavies" working on the 747-8 and 787 programs. Boeing Moscow also was significantly involved in the 747-8 program when Everett 747 program engineers were pulled off to help the 787.

And let us not forget the 737MAX and 777X are already in production - the supporting engineering resources for them are for software and systems, not structures, propulsion and other areas. Those engineers should certainly be available for NMA (and NSA).

As to your other comments, they are rational and reasoned and explain why Boeing has been trying to "thread the needle" between where the A320/737 (without significant changes) and the A330/787 (due to their inherent designs being based around long-range, high-gross weight missions) cannot go.
Last edited by Stitch on Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
The 737MAX-10 had a very good start. You forgot to include that since the two years of launching the 737MAX-10 It has and a little more than a year of MCAS problem. For this purpose it is not surprising to see airlines think twice before committing. This is not a bin argument for me because you know perfectly well that it is true, but you have all the same put forward figures which do not stick with the facts whereas you know that the problem was MCAS. The A321neo is not magic it only took advantage of the lack of ground clearance of the 737. ..


From Oct 2016 ( initial offer of the -10 subtype )

the 737MAX-10 accumulated 521 orders
and
the A321 NEO collected further 1961 order ( now at 3255 )

this does not really look like "catching up" ?

You have accumulated all A321neo derivative launched since 2010. 10 years ago ... This is not an argument. Again (and the last one I hope) the 737MAX-10 is a chick which has just come out of its egg. +500 737Max-10 in one year and an interruption in 2019 is very satisfactory. Your argument is not valid in the context
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:05 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
The A321neo is not magic it only took advantage of the lack of ground clearance of the 737. ..

So, because Boeing made a mistake and Airbus got it right (it does happen too), Airbus should "play fair" and not take advantage of the strengths of its products???

Checklist787 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
The 737MAX-10 had a very good start. You forgot to include that since the two years of launching the 737MAX-10 It has and a little more than a year of MCAS problem. For this purpose it is not surprising to see airlines think twice before committing. This is not a bin argument for me because you know perfectly well that it is true, but you have all the same put forward figures which do not stick with the facts whereas you know that the problem was MCAS. The A321neo is not magic it only took advantage of the lack of ground clearance of the 737. ..


From Oct 2016 ( initial offer of the -10 subtype )

the 737MAX-10 accumulated 521 orders
and
the A321 NEO collected further 1961 order ( now at 3255 )

this does not really look like "catching up" ?

You have accumulated all A321neo derivative launched since 2010. 10 years ago ... This is not an argument. Again (and the last one I hope) the 737MAX-10 is a chick which has just come out of its egg. +500 737Max-10 in one year and an interruption in 2019 is very satisfactory. Your argument is not valid in the context

So, we have to differentiate the A321neo to the A321LR to the A321XLR? How about we also split the orders into GTF- and LEAP-powered aircraft? Let's also split them into the final color scheme. Like that, you can compare the "poor sale volume of the pink-colored LEAP-powered A321XLR" with the "altogether" 737 MAX 10 and show for the fact that the MAX 10 sold much better...

The 737 MAX 10 was offered for sale in October 2016 (let's say, 3 years ago) and sold 521 (per Wiki).
The A321neo was offered for sale in December 2010 (with the rest of the A320neos) and sold 541 in the first 3 years; at the time, there was no A321LR or A321XLR.
Does that work for you?
 
TObound
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:13 pm

Checklist787 wrote:

Except that you are not an engineer and I either....


Why do people assume everyone on this forum is a fanboy with no technical knowledge? Some of us have engineering degrees and even work in aerospace.

You wouldn't have had to Google much to see who he is:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?us ... AAAJ&hl=en

But even beyond that, his post shows an actual depth of technical knowledge and and engineering thought process that most here don't comprehend.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:25 pm

Please stop telling me you're an engineer.

Come rather refuted what I wrote above.

Thank you
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:31 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
The 737MAX-10 had a very good start. You forgot to include that since the two years of launching the 737MAX-10 It has and a little more than a year of MCAS problem. For this purpose it is not surprising to see airlines think twice before committing. This is not a bin argument for me because you know perfectly well that it is true, but you have all the same put forward figures which do not stick with the facts whereas you know that the problem was MCAS. The A321neo is not magic it only took advantage of the lack of ground clearance of the 737. ..


From Oct 2016 ( initial offer of the -10 subtype )

the 737MAX-10 accumulated 521 orders
and
the A321 NEO collected further 1961 order ( now at 3255 )

this does not really look like "catching up" ?

You have accumulated all A321neo derivative launched since 2010. 10 years ago ... This is not an argument. Again (and the last one I hope) the 737MAX-10 is a chick which has just come out of its egg. +500 737Max-10 in one year and an interruption in 2019 is very satisfactory. Your argument is not valid in the context


you may go over my post and reconsider.
I carefully extracted the orders delta for the A321 :: accumulated orders Dez 2019 - accumulated orders Oct 2016
difference is 1961. ( and sourced via the wikipedia history function.)

your turn.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
And yet we hear reports Boeing has 1000 engineers on NMA and they have had a dedicated 737 Replacement Study team in place and working on concepts since the mid-2000s.


There is a limit to how many engineers you can set to work on a project in a productive way.
This goes for a newish program as well as for a special conditions thing like fixing the MAX.

More manpower only pushes parallelized brute force attacks on a problem.
Next step is you run into group competition "mine is better, no mine is much better"
all out competition is rarely a good path to a future proof solution.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:46 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
The A321neo is not magic it only took advantage of the lack of ground clearance of the 737. ..

So, because Boeing made a mistake and Airbus got it right (it does happen too), Airbus should "play fair" and not take advantage of the strengths of its products???

Checklist787 wrote:
WIederling wrote:

From Oct 2016 ( initial offer of the -10 subtype )

the 737MAX-10 accumulated 521 orders
and
the A321 NEO collected further 1961 order ( now at 3255 )

this does not really look like "catching up" ?

You have accumulated all A321neo derivative launched since 2010. 10 years ago ... This is not an argument. Again (and the last one I hope) the 737MAX-10 is a chick which has just come out of its egg. +500 737Max-10 in one year and an interruption in 2019 is very satisfactory. Your argument is not valid in the context

So, we have to differentiate the A321neo to the A321LR to the A321XLR? How about we also split the orders into GTF- and LEAP-powered aircraft? Let's also split them into the final color scheme. Like that, you can compare the "poor sale volume of the pink-colored LEAP-powered A321XLR" with the "altogether" 737 MAX 10 and show for the fact that the MAX 10 sold much better...

The 737 MAX 10 was offered for sale in October 2016 (let's say, 3 years ago) and sold 521 (per Wiki).

The A321neo was offered for sale in December 2010 (with the rest of the A320neos) and sold 541 in the first 3 years; at the time, there was no A321LR or A321XLR.
Does that work for you?


So you are telling me that the only A321neo version was sold between 2010 and 2013 (3 years) 541 Against 521 for the chick 737MAX-10 between 2016 and 2019.

This is very good for once more since MCAS problem dampened momentum. For me the 737MAX is simply beautiful but its seems to be a problem for some

When there is something to complement the 737MAX (NMA / FSA) there will be some who will be more humble.

This is the reason why many deny, and saying that the 737MAX should be replaced first. As if there was a strong fear coming from Boeing? :?:
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
aumaverick
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:01 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Please stop telling me you're an engineer.

Come rather refuted what I wrote above.

Thank you


Image
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4576
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:19 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
You have accumulated all A321neo derivative launched since 2010. 10 years ago ... This is not an argument. Again (and the last one I hope) the 737MAX-10 is a chick which has just come out of its egg. +500 737Max-10 in one year and an interruption in 2019 is very satisfactory. Your argument is not valid in the context


Hang on one moment, weren't half the orders just conversions of 737-9s?
 
TObound
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:55 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
Let's be blunt. Boeing does not have the engineering resources to launch and NMA (or NSA for that matter) in the immediate term. The 737MAX and 777X programmes are consuming everything on the commercial side and more. Also, even if they did they have already lost the 757-200 replacement market to Airbus. It isn't coming back in the near term. Further, they have little ability to get into the growth segment in the near term as Airbus can provide a much better offer from an operations point of view across the A320-A330 range.

So where does that put Boeing? If they want to do an NMA they need to focus on the segment in the 30-40 ton payload regime. The problem with this is all the aircraft in this regime are crap. The cube-square law works against you. Further, you end up in a place where narrowbodies begin to be ungainly operationally, and wide-bodies tend to be heavy and have poor aerodynamics. Technically you can build an aircraft that works in this range, ie it is feasible, but viability is a problem. Some of the specific issues include:
  • 2-2-2 fuselages are much worse than 3-3 for everything except loading and unloading. They are wider, therefore heavier as there is not just more surface area in the barrel, but the hoop stresses are higher. They also have more dead space to paying space, e.g a second aisle
  • 2-3-2 and greater wide bodies start to claw back some of the dead-space problem, but they don't help the weight issue. Further, for a given payload the wider the fuselage the shorter the aircraft, this kills your form drag. Remember the A350 is narrower than the DC-10 or L1011 and carries a lot more people
  • As your payload increases, your wing area goes up in the first order they are directly proportional. This means the volume of the wing goes up at 3/2 power. So along with weight (some savings because of the deeper wingbox), you get more fuel volume, this drives the range points up a lot. All the sudden you have an aircraft that is right for 5500-6500nm
  • As you payload goes up your wing-span increases. Also, the optimal aspect-ratios have climbed quite a bit since 1980. So we have seen 767-300, DC-10 and L1011 sized aircraft move from Code D to Code E in span. The result is that no-one offers a Code D aircraft anymore and airports are changing their stand layouts to provide Code C and then Code E+. This means that you might as well go full Code E once you have hit anything bigger than the 757 wing-span (soon to be 737-8/A321NEO). If your doing this you might as well move the people around to compensate for for the flexibility loss

Couple this with the fact that Boeing's market will be limited 787 operators only as the fleet sizes they purchase will likely not make it worth it if they operate A321s and/or A330s but not 787s. Also, the size isn't a sweet spot for startups, that is in the A320-A321 size range. I think the NMA is probably off the cards for the next decade, if not longer.


Just want to say excellent post. And you've well laid out why the 200-300 seat long-haul market is so difficult for airframers.

Airbus is making a good go of it with the 321LR/XLR. But even these are sort of compromise aircraft with any practical J cabin pushing pax counts down to ~170. I am really interested to see how Boeing can work in such a restricted envelope. They'd have to go larger than the 321 and yet provide a 200 seater LCC bird that is competitive.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:57 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
You have accumulated all A321neo derivative launched since 2010. 10 years ago ... This is not an argument. Again (and the last one I hope) the 737MAX-10 is a chick which has just come out of its egg. +500 737Max-10 in one year and an interruption in 2019 is very satisfactory. Your argument is not valid in the context


Hang on one moment, weren't half the orders just conversions of 737-9s?


So what ?

This just proves that the gap between the MAX-8 and MAX-10 has become sufficient since the MAX-9 did not really allow. Again what can it change that are conversions for the majority?
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:21 pm

Resources sometimes means money not people as in you have to choose which group of them you are going to pay. So when one project ends its not you are moving computer programers to do structural engineering but, you hire fewer of them and start hiring more of the other type in todays world that probably means getting rid of one group of specialized contractors and using that money to hire a different specialization to work on projects.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:27 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Short haul-People mover (2-2-2 or 2-3-2 or both 2-2-2 and 2-3-2 depending on demand). Anyway a lower MTOW and smaller wings than the NMA-MK1 ...


2-2-2 in economy? A twin-aisle only seating six per row in economy is insanity. :crazy:


A 3-3 economy with a large belly fret is as much insanity in many cases.

An ovoid 2-2-2 cabin is a solution for the future simply an efficient people mover.

You said yourself that China wants small aircraft. If they are optimized they are better than a single aisle ...

An A322-X concept would be an increased hell in term of empty belly fret increase and a hell of embarjation/disembarkation..

I suspect Boeing hitting it


With due respect, I think you're wrong in this case. There are more case against 2-2-2 configuration rather than the standard and proven 3-3 configuration.

The only 2 positives for 2-2-2 configuration are faster boarding for faster turn around and faster inflight service on air.

The proven positive for 3-3 are lighter aircraft, better fuel efficiency, less materials to build the aircraft while carrying the same amount of passengers, the ability to maximized the upper part of the cabin for larger bins that could carry the most bags, cheaper fittings for two sets of 3 seats per row compared to three sets of 2 seats per row.

Other drawback for 2-2-2 would be centered around the ovoid shape of the fuselage. Apart from the pressurize cabin, the "dead weight", as in the unusable space between fuselage and the cabin + cargo holds are significantly larger on ovoid shape.

Both aircraft would use LD3-45. Since the 2-2-2 ovoid shape would be too small to carry standard LD3 or LD2, so in terms of cargo space, it doesn't actually provide any gains or higher profit at all. Those dead space around the cargo holds adds up the dead weight.

In a perfect universe, the fuselage would be a square shaped with pointy edges and cabin pressurization of sea level. But the Rounded shape has been proven over and over again to be the best one for this particular design. Unless we got into some more interesting changes, the ovoid or others like double bubble wouldn't work.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1804
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:45 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
So you are telling me that the only A321neo version was sold between 2010 and 2013 (3 years) 541 Against 521 for the chick 737MAX-10 between 2016 and 2019.

What does that even mean???
The A321neo has been offered for sale since the end of 2010 (alongside the remaining A320neoFamily - A319neo and A320neo), that it sold 541 in the first 3 years (2011-2013), and that the A321LR & A321XLR came later on.

Checklist787 wrote:
For me the 737MAX is simply beautiful but its seems to be a problem for some

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and is not what makes an aircraft successful or not (performance-wise or sales-wise).

P.S.: please use the correct terminology. It is 737 MAX, with a space, as acknowledged by Boeing on its website and by the FAA on the TCDS.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:51 pm

ewt340 wrote:
The only 2 positives for 2-2-2 configuration are faster boarding for faster turn around and faster inflight service on air.


I don't think that two aisles will speed up boarding ( it just takes pressure from the undecided to get settled.)
for de-boarding those two aisles have to go through one door of potentially the same size. no gain.

for service you have 1 FA per 50 PAX that wont change so more aisle space is wasted.

Thus and IMHO 2+2+2 is just one row of seats lost. as you can't do 3+4 the idea breaks down altogether.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3651
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:54 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
par13del wrote:
Stitch wrote:


As such, I see Boeing hard-pressed to be able to command the premium they needed to pay for the program - especially since Airbus would be shoving A320neos out at 40+ a month (leveraging the economies of scale on Average Sales Prices) while Boeing would be spinning up both a new production line at home as well as at their suppliers.


In principle, this is why I think a narrow body the size of the 757-300 or 200+ seat range will not work, Airbus is pumping out A321's and will most likely convert a lot of their A320NEO's. The idea of a small widebody between the largest MAX and the smallest 787 should provide enough distinction to allow a premium price to pay for the product. A narrow body 3 x 3 presents to difficult of a challenge to command a premium price, even if it were composite like the 787.


The problem seems to be that the target pax loads seem to fall in a gap where Narrow bodies become too long and a widebody has inefficient use of structure as the economies of scale cannot be reached.

Stitch wrote:
Why does it have to be Boeing doing the "dithering" if airlines are not buying what they are trying to sell?
In a mature, commoditised, market the Driver will be for the customers to show signals for pricing and advancement and whilst this isn't in and of itself a bad thing if you always ask the customer of dim candles what they want they will tell you brighter candles, what should be provided is light bulbs.

Checklist787 wrote:
Except that you are not an engineer and I either
I am, Phollingsworth seems to be correct.

Checklist787 wrote:
however Boeing believes that an ovoid is feasible who are you to say otherwise?
As was the 2707, the sonic cruiser the 7j7 the hunch back of notre dame 767...

Checklist787 wrote:
An ovoid 2-2-2 cabin is a solution for the future simply an efficient people mover.
The weight per unit area of a pressure dominated structure increases linearly with the diameter of the structure, the increase of 1 aisle, or approximately 1/7 of teh diamter would mean that the aircraft would have an inherent weight defecit to a 3-3 cabin of similar technology level of some 14%. This would likely require an aircraft that burned more than 14% more fuel for a given design payload.
Efficient people move you say?

Fred


It's nice to talk about 14%...
Wait a minute!
But what are your calculations based on?

Hoop stresses of a cylinder, basic derived formulas.


Checklist787 wrote:
1. Even if you claim to be an engineer you must bring proof of your figures.

The Hoop stress calculations for a cylinder demonstrate that the stresses increase linearly with the diameter...
Checklist787 wrote:
For me there is nothing serious in there. Did you know that the A320 cross section is significantly higher than its width?

That statement makes no sense.

Checklist787 wrote:
2. Did you know that by using advanced materials such as CFRP for the same 143 inch wide cabin you can reduce the width of the fuselage cross section if you use a CFRP clean cheet design. You reduce the width of the fuselage by 4 inches and continue with the same 143 "wide cabin.

... And how exactly does that help a twin ailse vs single aisle?

Checklist787 wrote:
3. Next comes the total removal of the excess FRET belly,
Whats a FRET Belly? Is that when I fret that I eat to much?
Checklist787 wrote:
you shave off the weight and the excess wet area of ​​the A321neo or any other 757 proxy.

Wait?! you think going away from round saves weight?
Checklist787 wrote:
A 757-300 or notionel "757-250" proxy, in other words an A322-X concept will only hasten the hellfire. Indeed, the belly freight would be longer and more empty while in the cabin of endless boarding queues / boarding

So the twin aisle can save boarding, likely true I suppose. You think that'll be able to compensate for the higher weight? What would be the expected time saving for twin aisle vs single aisle? What was the expected mission length for this jet?
Checklist787 wrote:

4. You can easily shave 25 inches of belly freight and add "only 18 inches" for an additional aisle to give the change. Less structure,

What?? More structure! How many square balloons do you see?
Checklist787 wrote:
less wet area, then less weight than the A321neo... :)
Why are you comparing it to the A321NEO, surely the decision is between the 3-3 and 2-2-2 at similar tech levels?

Im still waiting to see how you can take out the fundamental 14% weight disadvantage even before you try to make it ovaly squaries squishdy. Maybe the reason I can be an engineer is because I don't ignore physics when It doesn't agree with my team!

Fun times!

Fred
Image

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