Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 21
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3794
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:33 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
So for narrow body aircraft the 2 class figures go as high as 243 (as shown on the 757 wiki page).
The lowest 2 class capacity for a wide bodies airliner is 214 for the 767.

As the numbers posted by Mr Ostrower (180-210) fall Entirely within the Single aisle window and Entirely outside the Twin aisle window then I feel it falls upon you to demonstrate why this should point towards a twin aisle solution rather than obfuscation. There are a few fanboys on this site who seem to behave similarly to yourself (probably less fanbiys than the number of fanboy usernames), I don't mind fanboys (I'd include Revelation as a fanboy but he conducts himself very well) but I love arguing.

Fred


Checklist787 wrote:

You need to see my answer to BaconButty.

I do not like arguing :duck:


flipdewaf wrote:
You appear to suggest that the 2-class examples given are not representative of what would be expected in terms of seats/area for the FSA which is fine. What is your reasonable expectation on this measure and where have you derived this from? What are the current 2 class capacities for the aforementioned aircraft with which we are making the comparisons?

Fred


In fact there are several 2-class type

- In a widebody jet, what is called Premium seat generally a pitch of 36-38 inch pitch, are neither more or less than the First / Business seats of a narrowbody.

For example, the A321neo Airbus ACAP has 16 seats in First @ 36 in pitch ...
(2 + 2)

So,

According to J. Ostrower/WSJ
If the "non-narrowbody" FSA-8X concept, carries 2-class 180 seats, I see several types of 2-class / new opportunities for different arrangement

If it's a 7-abreast,

1. Business seat / 4-5 Abreast @ 36 to 60 " pitch

2. In Premium Seat / 6 Abreast @
36-38 " pitch

We understand

1. The flexibility and the opportunity offered for customers

We also understand

2. Like the A330's / 767's - Airbus /Boeing ACAPS the Twin-Aisle FSA-X'will also fit Business seat @ 60in pitch

Which translates to 180-210 seats in Business and not in Business Premium @ 36 in pitch like many Narrowbody arrangement (A320neo family / 737MAX family)...


Accordingly,


The FSA-8X concept, seems to carry "only" 2-class 180 seats / Business seats @ 60 in pitch for 5-6 hours missions

A LCC configuration might well accommodate 2-class 210 / Business seats @ 36 in pitch à la narrowbody too !


For the Strech FSA-9X concept there would be 2-class 210 / Business seats @ 60 in pitch
but, also 2-class 240 / Business seats @ 36 in pitch.

3/4 of the airlines will operate FSA's LCC's missions à la narrowbody too !

We must distinguish the two things
IMO, no interest for Boeing to offer / something that looks like 737MAX for NOW


Remember that Boeing presented the 787 Dreamliner as a little widebody jet that could carry 210 seats to 290 seats from 2003 to 2006.

"Little jet with a big airplane range"
- According to Boeing

Who remember that?

So, it seems the notional "little / Small-jet" for Boeing, represent something new not necessary a "vulgar" "New-Narrowbody",
Why Boeing had not called more logically the


"Futur Narrowbody Airplane" (FNA)
if is true??


The FSA concept seems "Small / Little" but not a all-New Narrowbody jet in the Boeing jargon

I hope had answered correctly your questions

Well not really, you have talked an awful lot and not provided any real information. You yourself stated single class 270 seats. Mr Ostrower stayed 180 to 210 and nowhere has it been stated the density would be outside of the norms for which Boeing currently market aircraft, you appear to have constructed a narrative to fit your wishes rather than look at the information and derive conclusions.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:20 pm

I don't know why everyone is so focussed on this being a clean sheet. What's wrong with the B757 fuselage?
It's better to keep it simple IMO, the B757 already has the perfect size in the two variants, it has gone through fatigue testing ,it's going to save time and money, and most importantly, it looks awesome and modern.
Put new wings, a larger variant of the LEAP with whatever PIPs are available and target a 2022 EIS. I'm not even sure that it needs FBW.
Then it makes sense.

If Boeing wait too long and let this drag on, the engine technology is going to be outdated by the time that it's ready to fly commercial service in significant numbers.
In the meanwhile Airbus will also have delivered huge amounts of A321neo that it makes it kind of obsolete.
In fact, wait beyond 2025 for EIS and by the time it ramps up production towards 2027ish, Airbus would have delivered THOUSANDS of A321neo that could have been B757X's or B797 so that that business case may also be shaky.

Also, to those saying that the B737 is obsolete. What the hell are you talking about?
Sure, someone at Boeing made a mistake but the B737 is still a very good and even beats the A320 in many metrics. The MAX's reputation will be tarnished for a while, but Boeing will somehow have it flying again someday, and eventually people will start trusting it again.
Why should it also be the last iteration of the family? The B737 has played a major role in the modern day aviation and we should be saluting it, not beating it.

The future Boeing line-up will be B737/B7?7/B787/B777X/B748.

I think that the business case for that B7?7 exists, but it has to be cheap, has to have narrowbody economics, and has to come out quickly.
So if that aircraft is going to ever come out, it would have to be a B757X IMO, and it better be done fast.

Hey but I'm the guy saying that Airbus shouldn't stop producing A380's, and the B787's should maintain rate 14, so don't take my word for it.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:27 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
I don't know why everyone is so focussed on this being a clean sheet. What's wrong with the B757 fuselage?
It's better to keep it simple IMO, the B757 already has the perfect size in the two variants, it has gone through fatigue testing ,it's going to save time and money, and most importantly, it looks awesome and modern.
Put new wings, a larger variant of the LEAP with whatever PIPs are available and target a 2022 EIS. I'm not even sure that it needs FBW.
Then it makes sense.

If Boeing wait too long and let this drag on, the engine technology is going to be outdated by the time that it's ready to fly commercial service in significant numbers.
In the meanwhile Airbus will also have delivered huge amounts of A321neo that it makes it kind of obsolete.
In fact, wait beyond 2025 for EIS and by the time it ramps up production towards 2027ish, Airbus would have delivered THOUSANDS of A321neo that could have been B757X's or B797 so that that business case may also be shaky.

Also, to those saying that the B737 is obsolete. What the hell are you talking about?
Sure, someone at Boeing made a mistake but the B737 is still a very good and even beats the A320 in many metrics. The MAX's reputation will be tarnished for a while, but Boeing will somehow have it flying again someday, and eventually people will start trusting it again.
Why should it also be the last iteration of the family? The B737 has played a major role in the modern day aviation and we should be saluting it, not beating it.

The future Boeing line-up will be B737/B7?7/B787/B777X/B748.

I think that the business case for that B7?7 exists, but it has to be cheap, has to have narrowbody economics, and has to come out quickly.
So if that aircraft is going to ever come out, it would have to be a B757X IMO, and it better be done fast.

Hey but I'm the guy saying that Airbus shouldn't stop producing A380's, and the B787's should maintain rate 14, so don't take my word for it.


The same could be said for B737 fuselage. The only problem B737 have is the fact that it's too low to the ground. But that's not necessarily related to problem with the fuselage.

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

B737 was designed many years before A320 comes into the market. This resulted in older design ideas that Boeing unable to change because they want to keep the commonality. One of the example gonna be the iconic sharp nose.

Both A319neo and B737MAX7 already losing to A220-300. So to think that re-engined B757 would work would be laughable. Alongside with the fact that B737MAX and B757 are 2 different model. Not a single family like A320neo and A321neo.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:53 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:




flipdewaf wrote:
You appear to suggest that the 2-class examples given are not representative of what would be expected in terms of seats/area for the FSA which is fine. What is your reasonable expectation on this measure and where have you derived this from? What are the current 2 class capacities for the aforementioned aircraft with which we are making the comparisons?

Fred


In fact there are several 2-class type

- In a widebody jet, what is called Premium seat generally a pitch of 36-38 inch pitch, are neither more or less than the First / Business seats of a narrowbody.

For example, the A321neo Airbus ACAP has 16 seats in First @ 36 in pitch ...
(2 + 2)

So,

According to J. Ostrower/WSJ
If the "non-narrowbody" FSA-8X concept, carries 2-class 180 seats, I see several types of 2-class / new opportunities for different arrangement

If it's a 7-abreast,

1. Business seat / 4-5 Abreast @ 36 to 60 " pitch

2. In Premium Seat / 6 Abreast @
36-38 " pitch

We understand

1. The flexibility and the opportunity offered for customers

We also understand

2. Like the A330's / 767's - Airbus /Boeing ACAPS the Twin-Aisle FSA-X'will also fit Business seat @ 60in pitch

Which translates to 180-210 seats in Business and not in Business Premium @ 36 in pitch like many Narrowbody arrangement (A320neo family / 737MAX family)...


Accordingly,


The FSA-8X concept, seems to carry "only" 2-class 180 seats / Business seats @ 60 in pitch for 5-6 hours missions

A LCC configuration might well accommodate 2-class 210 / Business seats @ 36 in pitch à la narrowbody too !


For the Strech FSA-9X concept there would be 2-class 210 / Business seats @ 60 in pitch
but, also 2-class 240 / Business seats @ 36 in pitch.

3/4 of the airlines will operate FSA's LCC's missions à la narrowbody too !

We must distinguish the two things
IMO, no interest for Boeing to offer / something that looks like 737MAX for NOW


Remember that Boeing presented the 787 Dreamliner as a little widebody jet that could carry 210 seats to 290 seats from 2003 to 2006.

"Little jet with a big airplane range"
- According to Boeing

Who remember that?

So, it seems the notional "little / Small-jet" for Boeing, represent something new not necessary a "vulgar" "New-Narrowbody",
Why Boeing had not called more logically the


"Futur Narrowbody Airplane" (FNA)
if is true??


The FSA concept seems "Small / Little" but not a all-New Narrowbody jet in the Boeing jargon

I hope had answered correctly your questions

Well not really, you have talked an awful lot and not provided any real information. You yourself stated single class 270 seats. Mr Ostrower stayed 180 to 210 and nowhere has it been stated the density would be outside of the norms for which Boeing currently market aircraft, you appear to have constructed a narrative to fit your wishes rather than look at the information and derive conclusions.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be nice if there was a standard measure. I think 32" pitch all econ is a good one. Kind of like a nominal 2x4, it is a name of a size but not the exact size per se.
A320-165pax, 738-175, A321-205
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:56 am

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


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

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

Correct me on the above if I am wrong.

Also, the nose and cockpit of the B757 is different.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9868
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:07 am

A new fuselage is really the smallest challenge for a new aircraft.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:27 am

seahawk wrote:
A new fuselage is really the smallest challenge for a new aircraft.


Agreed. The fuselage is the easy bit. Airbus had the same with the original A350. The airlines were not happy that everything was new except the A330 fuselage.

For the original A330, 8 abreast was the problem. It works fine but was not competitive vs the 787.
For the 737/757, the lack of container capability is the problem (while not every airline needs it, it has to be an option).

If you are going to change everything (wings, avionics, engines etc), you might as well add a fuselage which is optimised for the latest materials, maintenance and manufacturing techniques and will last the next 50 years.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:44 am

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

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

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

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

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:57 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:




flipdewaf wrote:
You appear to suggest that the 2-class examples given are not representative of what would be expected in terms of seats/area for the FSA which is fine. What is your reasonable expectation on this measure and where have you derived this from? What are the current 2 class capacities for the aforementioned aircraft with which we are making the comparisons?

Fred


In fact there are several 2-class type

- In a widebody jet, what is called Premium seat generally a pitch of 36-38 inch pitch, are neither more or less than the First / Business seats of a narrowbody.

For example, the A321neo Airbus ACAP has 16 seats in First @ 36 in pitch ...
(2 + 2)

So,

According to J. Ostrower/WSJ
If the "non-narrowbody" FSA-8X concept, carries 2-class 180 seats, I see several types of 2-class / new opportunities for different arrangement

If it's a 7-abreast,

1. Business seat / 4-5 Abreast @ 36 to 60 " pitch

2. In Premium Seat / 6 Abreast @
36-38 " pitch

We understand

1. The flexibility and the opportunity offered for customers

We also understand

2. Like the A330's / 767's - Airbus /Boeing ACAPS the Twin-Aisle FSA-X'will also fit Business seat @ 60in pitch

Which translates to 180-210 seats in Business and not in Business Premium @ 36 in pitch like many Narrowbody arrangement (A320neo family / 737MAX family)...


Accordingly,


The FSA-8X concept, seems to carry "only" 2-class 180 seats / Business seats @ 60 in pitch for 5-6 hours missions

A LCC configuration might well accommodate 2-class 210 / Business seats @ 36 in pitch à la narrowbody too !


For the Strech FSA-9X concept there would be 2-class 210 / Business seats @ 60 in pitch
but, also 2-class 240 / Business seats @ 36 in pitch.

3/4 of the airlines will operate FSA's LCC's missions à la narrowbody too !

We must distinguish the two things
IMO, no interest for Boeing to offer / something that looks like 737MAX for NOW


Remember that Boeing presented the 787 Dreamliner as a little widebody jet that could carry 210 seats to 290 seats from 2003 to 2006.

"Little jet with a big airplane range"
- According to Boeing

Who remember that?

So, it seems the notional "little / Small-jet" for Boeing, represent something new not necessary a "vulgar" "New-Narrowbody",
Why Boeing had not called more logically the


"Futur Narrowbody Airplane" (FNA)
if is true??


The FSA concept seems "Small / Little" but not a all-New Narrowbody jet in the Boeing jargon

I hope had answered correctly your questions

Well not really, you have talked an awful lot and not provided any real information. You yourself stated single class 270 seats. Mr Ostrower stayed 180 to 210 and nowhere has it been stated the density would be outside of the norms for which Boeing currently market aircraft, you appear to have constructed a narrative to fit your wishes rather than look at the information and derive conclusions.


All aircraft can be configured 1- class. bigger it is, more opportunities are offered it's normal

I do not understand your unceasing incomprehension.
What did you expect me to answer you?
You think I'm doing lines for not great things okay.

Now explain to me why I should be convinced otherwise as A. Netters would be more aware than an influential person such as J. Ostrower.

Without it I consider that the FSA is fine is anything but a narrowbody!!!

Maybe you REFUSE the truth? :wave:
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14118
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 7:46 am

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

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

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

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

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


I did an 737 extreme in 2009 for EIS 2014. At that point Boeing was really going after an NSA though.

Image

Suggesting the 737 could be reenegined at that point was a clear sign you didn't understand where things were moving.

Image

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=765287
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:05 am

AngMoh wrote:
seahawk wrote:
A new fuselage is really the smallest challenge for a new aircraft.


Agreed. The fuselage is the easy bit. Airbus had the same with the original A350. The airlines were not happy that everything was new except the A330 fuselage.

For the original A330, 8 abreast was the problem. It works fine but was not competitive vs the 787.
For the 737/757, the lack of container capability is the problem (while not every airline needs it, it has to be an option).

If you are going to change everything (wings, avionics, engines etc), you might as well add a fuselage which is optimised for the latest materials, maintenance and manufacturing techniques and will last the next 50 years.


The fuselage is actually the biggest challenge and most time-consuming in designing and building an aircraft.
If you can start with an existing fuselage, you have the fundations for building your aircraft.
If you don't have that, you can't even start configuring your software for your avionics because you don't know the distances to your sensors, etc...

A new fuselage brings very little merit when you have a compact and efficient one already.

But by all means, if you want to have it look like a B787, be my guest but by the time it hits the market, there won't be much of a market left as the A321 will dominate, and even beat it through lower pricing.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:11 am

This aircraft must be good for some long run. So they need something new that is designed with digital manufacturing in mind. It must be made to accommodate future HUGE diameter engines as well and it must be stretchable.
Start new, do it proper with the funding and timing required and build something solid not a warmed over oldie again please. This market is too important. Boeing can do it.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19452
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:34 am

It looks like a.net has decided. The NSA (737 replacement) will be a 757 widebody.

You cannot refuse the truth! :rotfl:
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.
 
StTim
Posts: 3788
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:46 am

I look on this as more spin and obfuscation from Boeing.

They have talked NMA for so long but found it isn’t a single market but lots of small ones a single frame cannot support. Meanwhile Airbus has chipped away at the volume bottom end.

Now it is replace the 737 with a new state of the art frame. So please don’t cancel your 737’s for 320’s.

Too much waffle, too little leadership.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:59 am

The timing seems to be adjusted to the D.C. MAX hearings.
 
juliuswong
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:01 am

scbriml wrote:
It looks like a.net has decided. The NSA (737 replacement) will be a 757 widebody.

You cannot refuse the truth! :rotfl:

I am laughing so hard reading this thread. I just keep my silence, no point arguing. ZZzzzz
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9868
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:08 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
AngMoh wrote:
seahawk wrote:
A new fuselage is really the smallest challenge for a new aircraft.


Agreed. The fuselage is the easy bit. Airbus had the same with the original A350. The airlines were not happy that everything was new except the A330 fuselage.

For the original A330, 8 abreast was the problem. It works fine but was not competitive vs the 787.
For the 737/757, the lack of container capability is the problem (while not every airline needs it, it has to be an option).

If you are going to change everything (wings, avionics, engines etc), you might as well add a fuselage which is optimised for the latest materials, maintenance and manufacturing techniques and will last the next 50 years.


The fuselage is actually the biggest challenge and most time-consuming in designing and building an aircraft.
If you can start with an existing fuselage, you have the fundations for building your aircraft.
If you don't have that, you can't even start configuring your software for your avionics because you don't know the distances to your sensors, etc...


No, it is not. You are looking at the detail design and systems design phase, but for the conceptional design phase it is easy. How many seats, how many aisles, what seat width, what cargo capacity and you are more or less done when it comes to fuselage specific parameters.But you still have full freedom when it comes to the wingbox, MLG and so on and can optimize all this for the plane you are designing. With an existing fuselage you do not have this freedom.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:17 am

I agree. It's a serious topic as this market segment is the most important and cannot be left to Airbus on the long run.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19452
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:35 am

StTim wrote:
I look on this as more spin and obfuscation from Boeing.


Too much talking, not enough doing.

Back in the day, IBM invented FUD. It's probably got a much sexier name these days.
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.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3794
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:40 am

Checklist787 wrote:

All aircraft can be configured 1- class. bigger it is, more opportunities are offered it's normal

Checklist787 wrote:
A321neo 1-class 240 pax @28-29 pitch
FSA-9X 1-class 270 pax @28-29 pitch

You said all of those things.
270 pax is within the realm of narrowbody aircraft, I have posted the link to the 757 wiki page already, it would be remiss of me to post it again.
Checklist787 wrote:
I do not understand your unceasing incomprehension.

I don't like threads being hijacked by people who post pseudo well researched and then talk themselves in to knots. Some people like to press the ignore button. I prefer to show the truth in the posters intent for the world to see.

Checklist787 wrote:
What did you expect me to answer you?

In some sort of utopian world I would like the answer to have been around admitting to predisposition on the subject and some inherent bias (either conscious or unconscious). The answer I expected however was more along the lines of what you gave which was a diatribe of worlds and numbers to try and dig your position further.
Checklist787 wrote:
You think I'm doing lines for not great things okay.

Now explain to me why I should be convinced otherwise as A. Netters would be more aware than an influential person such as J. Ostrower.

It has nothing to do with Mr Ostrowers position or words published on the matter, it is about the conclusion you have reached without suitable evidence and not stating that it is anything other than a wish or an opinion.
Checklist787 wrote:

Without it I consider that the FSA is fine is anything but a narrowbody!!!

Maybe you REFUSE the truth? :wave:

Many posters on here have shown that what Mr Ostrwer has stated does not indicate that it is not a narrow body. The seating numbers he put forward indicate that it fits well in to the scale/space currently occupied by flying narrowbody aircraft. you have stated the belief that even on a directly relateable scale including dimensions of seat pitch that you show it to be in this category (270 seats at 28-29inch pitch) but yet you seem to still think it cannot be a narrowbody because of a clarification of a name.

I do not say it cannot be a Widebody but whilst the indicators on size point the current narrowbody sizes and the fact that it is still called the "Small Aircraft" would be good indicators that a narrowbody (Single ailse) is being referred to.

The truth doesn't care whether you believe it or not, Show evidence.

Fred
Image
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:22 am

A single class 270 pax double isle aircraft is inherently less efficient than a single class 270 pax single isle aircraft:

1. It is heavier than a single aisle designed with the same technology
2. It is more expensive to build
3. It has more total drag reducing the efficiency

So that are the obvious negative points that make the aircraft more expensive to buy (Point 2), more expensive to run (Point 3) and more expensive to land (Point 1, airport fees)

What would be a positive?

1. Feels more comfortable for pax
2. Quicker turn around times

No airline cares about Point 1. Point 2 can in my opinion not make up the economical drawbacks of the negatives. You might shave 15 minutes off but only if you a) have a landing and starting slot available so close together, b) have the flexibility to still be able to connect with other flights, and c) actually can use them saved 15 minutes for another flight.

This will be so hard to justify especially for legacy carriers. ULCC that fly from remote airports with lots of free slots can benefit from such an aircraft. Legacy carriers will not benefit a lot due to slot constrained airports, need to offer connecting flights and many airports have night time curfews carriers with only one hub might not be able to stack up enough time to fly another city pair and can not fly or afford a one way flight and park the aircraft over night somewhere else.

On the other hand due to higher drag slight segments longer than 2-3h will become less efficient than on a narrow body and the longer the flight the less a short turn around time is important.

I just can not see a valid business case for a "small" wide body. Anything smaller than the 767-300 is just uneconomical in terms of wide body and even the 767 started to lose out badly when the A330 became available. I have a feeling that every thing below the 787-8 or A330-900 is just not economical. You might can optimize that sized wide body for shorter flights (hint. A310) but investing $30B+ into such an adventure? No board of directors will ever approve that.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:00 am

Especially when you have potential customers like "I'm just about to buy a Project Sunrise plane really" Alan Joyce out there
 
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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:33 am

flipdewaf wrote:
It has nothing to do with Mr Ostrowers position or words published on the matter, it is about the conclusion you have reached without suitable evidence and not stating that it is anything other than a wish or an opinion.



WSJ / J. Ostrower is closer to the industry than you and me. If you want to have a healthy talk and be right.

You must to consider the importance of his tweet.

"The FSA is not a narrowbody"

flipdewaf wrote:
Many posters on here have shown that what Mr Ostrwer has stated does not indicate that it is not a narrow body


I do not see. Which ones?

flipdewaf wrote:
The seating numbers he put forward indicate that it fits well in to the scale/space currently occupied by flying narrowbody aircraft


Obviously you still have not understood that 180/210 seats in a narrowbody and a widebody do not have the same effect. Reread higher than a business ACAP Airbus / Boeing seat are a suggestion. Look for example Jet Star 787-8, it carries 2-Class 335 seats / 21 recliner seats (7-abreast / 2-3-2) and 314 standard seats! And yet. It would have been impossible to get this flexibility / added value on a Narrowbody.


https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _787-8.php


In this way it is quite conceivable to have economy in this market segment.

When J. Ostrower says that the FSA can carry 180-210 it is the example of the lowest seats. But as in this market segment (Middle Of Market) the airlines are not Blue ship accordingly as I said

3/4 of the customers will have this flexibility to add more seats! It's very limited in a narrowbody. Add a second aisle and you quickly get a new TYPE for airlines!

The seating numbers he put forward NOT indicate necessarily
that it fits well in to the scale/space currently occupied by flying narrowbody aircraft when you consider the real possibility to adding seats and options for airlines and their customers ONLY through a small-widebody!



flipdewaf wrote:
The answer I expected however was more along the lines of what you gave which was a diatribe of worlds and numbers to try and dig your position further.


Sorry I'm not an engineer. But being observant I understand that you can do business by placing the most seats in a flying body is possible and in addition more flexibility than in a non-widebody / narrowbody jet

A narrowbody will have its limited in the edge of the market just like the widebody is inefficient in the bottom of the market but when it comes to the M.O.M. you are not going to be able to propose anything of quality for the travelers with a "vulgar narrowbody".

Don't forget the Jet Star exemple 787-8 2-class 335 seats/ Bisness-Premium
21 recliner seats!


With a small widebody you probably will not carry 314 eco seats like on the 787-8 but an airline has the right to want a smaller widebody to expand its business. It can very well carry 2-class 228 seats 200 eco seats and for example 18 reclinear seats (2-2-2) and flying 5-6 hours missions better than a too risked 787-8 and a too small and limited A321Neo for exemple??

You know that a narrowbody can not work with this type of seating/mission!

flipdewaf wrote:
I do not say it cannot be a Widebody but whilst the indicators on size point the current narrowbody sizes and the fact that it is still called the "Small Aircraft" would be good indicators that a narrowbody (Single ailse) is being referred to.

The truth doesn't care whether you believe it or not, Show evidence.

Fred


You have all the keys now to meditate and show evidence...

Thanks
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
rtspr787
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 9:45 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:54 am

I remember years ago, an email I sent to Boeing telling that new 737 project at that time will need a 757 nose and an extended mail landing gear to compete with A320 series. Having a similar diameter fuselage will require less engineering work to create a B757 nose. B737 is a workhorse and many pilots praise its roughness, strength and durability, but from flyers perspective, the B737 looks old.
By being and old design and optimized for efficiency in the early years, fuselage is too close to the ground. For ground operations is perfect, but for growth is inefficient.

I had the opportunity to fly on both A350 and B787-9 on a flight to Asia last week. We embarked via tarmac on both planes and you can see how closer to the ground is the B787 vs. A350. Matter is, and doubt it given the B777-8, if Boeing plans a B787-11 in a future; I think some major landing gear will be needed given the extra fuselage length.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19452
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:35 pm

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

"The FSA is not a narrowbody"


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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:39 pm

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


"The FSA is not a narrowbody"


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


Hi!

Yes,


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

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.


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

Regards
Last edited by Checklist787 on Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
astuteman
Posts: 7201
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:39 pm

juliuswong wrote:
scbriml wrote:
It looks like a.net has decided. The NSA (737 replacement) will be a 757 widebody.

You cannot refuse the truth! :rotfl:

I am laughing so hard reading this thread. I just keep my silence, no point arguing. ZZzzzz


All I'll say is that this has to be the most bizarre series of posts I've ever read on A-net. Well, Probably :)

Rgds
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3794
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:51 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It has nothing to do with Mr Ostrowers position or words published on the matter, it is about the conclusion you have reached without suitable evidence and not stating that it is anything other than a wish or an opinion.



WSJ / J. Ostrower is closer to the industry than you and me. If you want to have a healthy talk and be right.

You must to consider the importance of his tweet.

"The FSA is not a narrowbody"

flipdewaf wrote:
Many posters on here have shown that what Mr Ostrwer has stated does not indicate that it is not a narrow body


I do not see. Which ones?

astuteman wrote:

It would appear so.
But to me, all the Jon Ostrower tweet is intended to do is clarify what the acronym FSA stands for, not to imply that it is not a single aisle
The tweet clearly says it is the replacement for the 737.

Rgds


Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The seating numbers he put forward indicate that it fits well in to the scale/space currently occupied by flying narrowbody aircraft


Obviously you still have not understood that 180/210 seats in a narrowbody and a widebody do not have the same effect. Reread higher than a business ACAP Airbus / Boeing seat are a suggestion. Look for example Jet Star 787-8, it carries 2-Class 335 seats / 21 recliner seats (7-abreast / 2-3-2) and 314 standard seats! And yet. It would have been impossible to get this flexibility / added value on a Narrowbody.


https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _787-8.php

Impossible to the letter of the law, yes. but a close enough approximation I see as not an issue, one can configure the big flat bit in the cabin however one sees fit within the confines of the regulations. A mix of recliners and standard economy is also possible in a 737 or a A320 or a 777. The floor doesn't really care.
Checklist787 wrote:
In this way it is quite conceivable to have economy in this market segment.

When J. Ostrower says that the FSA can carry 180-210 it is the example of the lowest seats.

Tell me how you know that's an example of the lowest seats?It might be the highest.
Checklist787 wrote:
But as in this market segment (Middle Of Market) the airlines are not Blue ship accordingly as I said

3/4 of the customers will have this flexibility to add more seats! It's very limited in a narrowbody.

I'm confused as to why this is more limiting in Narrowbodies, different certainly. AA put lie flat reverse herringbone in their A321s.

Checklist787 wrote:
Add a second aisle and you quickly get a new TYPE for airlines!

The seating numbers he put forward NOT indicate necessarily
that it fits well in to the scale/space currently occupied by flying narrowbody aircraft when you consider the real possibility to adding seats and options for airlines and their customers ONLY through a small-widebody!


Is it in bold to represent a quote or for some other reason?
Checklist787 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:
The answer I expected however was more along the lines of what you gave which was a diatribe of worlds and numbers to try and dig your position further.


Sorry I'm not an engineer.

That doesn't mean that because you don't understand something it isn't relavent.

Checklist787 wrote:
But being observant I understand that you can do business by placing the most seats in a flying body is possible and in addition more flexibility than in a non-widebody / narrowbody jet

Well you can certainly put more things in a bigger jet. this still feels like obfuscation.
Checklist787 wrote:

A narrowbody will have its limited in the edge of the market just like the widebody is inefficient in the bottom of the market but when it comes to the M.O.M. you are not going to be able to propose anything of quality for the travelers with a "vulgar narrowbody".


AA A321
TAP A321
EI A321
B6 Mint.
BA A318

Checklist787 wrote:
Don't forget the Jet Star exemple 787-8 2-class 335 seats/ Bisness-Premium
21 recliner seats!


With a small widebody you probably will not carry 314 eco seats like on the 787-8 but an airline has the right to want a smaller widebody to expand its business. It can very well carry 2-class 228 seats 200 eco seats and for example 18 reclinear seats (2-2-2) and flying 5-6 hours missions better than a too risked 787-8 and a too small and limited A321Neo for exemple??

You know that a narrowbody can not work with this type of seating/mission!


757-300
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Unite ... 300_V2.php

Checklist787 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I do not say it cannot be a Widebody but whilst the indicators on size point the current narrowbody sizes and the fact that it is still called the "Small Aircraft" would be good indicators that a narrowbody (Single ailse) is being referred to.

The truth doesn't care whether you believe it or not, Show evidence.

Fred


You have all the keys now to meditate and show evidence...

Thanks

I'm not making a claim

Fred
Image
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3794
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:02 pm

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


"The FSA is not a narrowbody"


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


Hi!

Yes,


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

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.


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

Regards

Are you posting the link and then expecting people not to click it!!!!
1. The "Not Future Single Aisle" clearly refers to the naming convention/acronym and not the description of the aircraft, the clue is that if it were about the descriptor the capitalization of the wording is incorrect and you can see from his posts he doesn't have trouble with this.
2. Its above a picture of the E2 and this clearly links to a story about the purchase/tie up with Embrear.

Have you thought about joining team Ineos?

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:36 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Boeing Brazil uses the same tech (maybe Aluminum tube which they are good at) to do a 5W using the NSA/NMA cockpit and systems architecture to take on the 130-180 single class space.
 
Pt56
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:57 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:43 pm

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

This makes a lot of sense to me.

"7W cross section" not so much
Last edited by Pt56 on Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:43 pm

Could Fedex or UPS use MAX freighter conversions.

Surely a freight door cut into the fuselage shouldn’t be too tough.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1794
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:57 pm

scbriml wrote:
StTim wrote:
I look on this as more spin and obfuscation from Boeing.


Too much talking, not enough doing.

Back in the day, IBM invented FUD. It's probably got a much sexier name these days.
There's a lot of doing. Unfortunately, the doing is mostly cleaning up their screw up with the MAX.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:58 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I agree. Cockpit commonality through it all too.

Thank you for a sane post in a sea of.................I don't know what you call it.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:01 pm

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


The shorter the fuselage the bigger the tail for obvious reasons as the further away from the CoG the horizontal and vertical stabilizer are the bigger is their impact on the respective rotation moment.

So the Tail has to either be designed accordingly to every single length for optimal performance or compromised to work for the complete model range. Both have their specific pros and cons.

On top of that a 7W design with the capacity of the 737-8 would be so short, that it would be in the range of the A318 (a huge success). Fancy but not economical. Maybe with a minimal capacity version around the A321neo would start to become economical viable but that would mean giving Airbus the 125-200 seats market. I mean this is a 10'000+ aircraft market (A320+737-800/Max8) market conceded to Airbus just to keep commonality in the 200-300 seat market. I do not think that that will happen. If NSA/NMA have commonality than it will be a single aisle, a fusion of the 737 and the 757 range to one product range.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:16 pm

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


The shorter the fuselage the bigger the tail for obvious reasons as the further away from the CoG the horizontal and vertical stabilizer are the bigger is their impact on the respective rotation moment.

So the Tail has to either be designed accordingly to every single length for optimal performance or compromised to work for the complete model range. Both have their specific pros and cons.

On top of that a 7W design with the capacity of the 737-8 would be so short, that it would be in the range of the A318 (a huge success). Fancy but not economical. Maybe with a minimal capacity version around the A321neo would start to become economical viable but that would mean giving Airbus the 125-200 seats market. I mean this is a 10'000+ aircraft market (A320+737-800/Max8) market conceded to Airbus just to keep commonality in the 200-300 seat market. I do not think that that will happen. If NSA/NMA have commonality than it will be a single aisle, a fusion of the 737 and the 757 range to one product range.


I'm assuming that the shortest NSA is about A320 length minus a row with seating capacity for 200 Single class - 20-30ish more than A320 15-25 more than 737-8 to maximize the use of 4 flight attendants.

It would be 15-20' longer than an A318.

5W seems to be the way to go for 3 flight attendants 150 seats.

I'm assuming they would do two different of sizes of tails for NMA and NSA - Maybe the NSA - S and NMA - S have the same tail and NSA-L and NMA-L have the same smaller tails(but probably with different internal structure to account for the weight difference).
Last edited by morrisond on Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3794
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:20 pm

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

Adding circles together doesn't remove hoop stress issues, as soon as you add a variable radius either through an elipse or where one radius starts and another ends you have shear forces to carry in the system and things get worse/heavy and not simple to calculate. Hoop stresses are fine, shearing makes it complicated and that's why ovals are less good in terms of weight.Bigger is worse in terms of pressure vessels hoop stresses and any move away from circular is worse. From a business proposition it may make sense to make non circular if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:28 pm

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

Adding circles together doesn't remove hoop stress issues, as soon as you add a variable radius either through an elipse or where one radius starts and another ends you have shear forces to carry in the system and things get worse/heavy and not simple to calculate. Hoop stresses are fine, shearing makes it complicated and that's why ovals are less good in terms of weight.Bigger is worse in terms of pressure vessels hoop stresses and any move away from circular is worse. From a business proposition it may make sense to make non circular if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Fred


Hi Fred - thanks for responding. I'm assuming both parts (top and bottom) are circular - just with different constant radius and they meet at the floor beam so it's in tension vs compression. Would that not make it a lot easier?

Of course I can't find the article where I first read this - it was a rumor about how Boeing was going to get around the Floor Compression issues of a real Elipse.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:28 pm

Boeing going forward on the US Domestic Future small aircraft - 757 / 737 replacement ....

Is it the contention there is something wrong with the basic Boeing 3-3 fuselage barrel size?

Yes the Airbus fuselage is slightly wider, but why should Boeing add to the COST of developing a new aircraft with a new slightly wider 3-3 fuselage.

If Boeing is to do a new fuselage do 797 ovoid and just stick with the established 3-3 for narrow body types.

The FUSELAGE is not the Boeing competitive disadvantage, it’s the short cuts Boeing did getting the MAX into the air that disadvantaged Boeing.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
Blotto
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:38 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
A single class 270 pax double isle aircraft is inherently less efficient than a single class 270 pax single isle aircraft:

1. It is heavier than a single aisle designed with the same technology
2. It is more expensive to build
3. It has more total drag reducing the efficiency

So that are the obvious negative points that make the aircraft more expensive to buy (Point 2), more expensive to run (Point 3) and more expensive to land (Point 1, airport fees)

What would be a positive?

1. Feels more comfortable for pax
2. Quicker turn around times

No airline cares about Point 1. Point 2 can in my opinion not make up the economical drawbacks of the negatives. You might shave 15 minutes off but only if you a) have a landing and starting slot available so close together, b) have the flexibility to still be able to connect with other flights, and c) actually can use them saved 15 minutes for another flight.

This will be so hard to justify especially for legacy carriers. ULCC that fly from remote airports with lots of free slots can benefit from such an aircraft. Legacy carriers will not benefit a lot due to slot constrained airports, need to offer connecting flights and many airports have night time curfews carriers with only one hub might not be able to stack up enough time to fly another city pair and can not fly or afford a one way flight and park the aircraft over night somewhere else.

On the other hand due to higher drag slight segments longer than 2-3h will become less efficient than on a narrow body and the longer the flight the less a short turn around time is important.

I just can not see a valid business case for a "small" wide body. Anything smaller than the 767-300 is just uneconomical in terms of wide body and even the 767 started to lose out badly when the A330 became available. I have a feeling that every thing below the 787-8 or A330-900 is just not economical. You might can optimize that sized wide body for shorter flights (hint. A310) but investing $30B+ into such an adventure? No board of directors will ever approve that.


This.

There is no way Twin-Aisle beats Single-Aisle given the same capacity. If a quick turnaround would be that important and limited by boarding times, all A321ceos would use L2 for boarding. They don't.

If Boeing bets the company on a 7W cross section, Toulouse will celebrate this move
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:43 pm

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


The shorter the fuselage the bigger the tail for obvious reasons as the further away from the CoG the horizontal and vertical stabilizer are the bigger is their impact on the respective rotation moment.

So the Tail has to either be designed accordingly to every single length for optimal performance or compromised to work for the complete model range. Both have their specific pros and cons.

On top of that a 7W design with the capacity of the 737-8 would be so short, that it would be in the range of the A318 (a huge success). Fancy but not economical. Maybe with a minimal capacity version around the A321neo would start to become economical viable but that would mean giving Airbus the 125-200 seats market. I mean this is a 10'000+ aircraft market (A320+737-800/Max8) market conceded to Airbus just to keep commonality in the 200-300 seat market. I do not think that that will happen. If NSA/NMA have commonality than it will be a single aisle, a fusion of the 737 and the 757 range to one product range.


I'm assuming that the shortest NSA is about A320 length minus a row with seating capacity for 200 Single class - 20-30ish more than A320 15-25 more than 737-8 to maximize the use of 4 flight attendants.

It would be 15-20' longer than an A318.

5W seems to be the way to go for 3 flight attendants 150 seats.

I'm assuming they would do two different of sizes of tails for NMA and NSA - Maybe the NSA - S and NMA - S have the same tail and NSA-L and NMA-L have the same smaller tails(but probably with different internal structure to account for the weight difference).


The thing is, the smallest version of every family has to be the most economic because the losses you make in additional drag and weight by stretching an aircraft will be compensated by more passengers and in the ideal version even over compensated (A321).

If your most economical version is the A320/737-8, every shrink is just bad, see A319/318/737-7 but a stretch could work.
Now if you optimise your 7W aircraft for 200pax, it will be outclassed by miles from an optimized 6W 200pax. That is the same reason the A319 is killed off by the A220-300. The "streched" 5W is just better than a shrunk 6W. The economics just do not add up. So if you think a short 7W can compete in the sub 200 pax market, that will not happen. It is not possible to start that short and cover from 150-300 in a reasonable way.

At the lower end it will then be to heavy, to much drag and to expensive to produce compared to a single aisle and at the higher end it will not be able to lift enough without making the lower end version even more noncompetitive. And if you change to many components between the versions you have no economy of scale and the purchase prize goes up.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:55 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Boeing going forward on the US Domestic Future small aircraft - 757 / 737 replacement ....

Is it the contention there is something wrong with the basic Boeing 3-3 fuselage barrel size?

Yes the Airbus fuselage is slightly wider, but why should Boeing add to the COST of developing a new aircraft with a new slightly wider 3-3 fuselage.

If Boeing is to do a new fuselage do 797 ovoid and just stick with the established 3-3 for narrow body types.

The FUSELAGE is not the Boeing competitive disadvantage, it’s the short cuts Boeing did getting the MAX into the air that disadvantaged Boeing.


They have been working on tight light 7W cross sections for over a decade - it was one of the strong rumors for the NSA at the time.

It allows them to produce NMA/NSA on the same line in many different capacities with a lot of commonality.

Average passenger Capacity is growing for single aisle's - boarding/deplaning an 6W - Potential A322 length or longer will have issues at 6W - Isn't it common belief that A321 is now the right size for the bulk of the market?

You have to think really tight and Light 7W - Maybe 8-10" taller than an A320 Fuselage - and just enough extra width to fit in that extra Seat and two narrow aisles using 737 width Seats - Something like an 168-170" H x 186-190" Wide fuselage.

Given a shorter overall length than an equivalent 6W - the weight may not be materially different per seat with a lot of comfort advantages over the A320 Tube plus you have to assume that within 10 years COMAC will finally be producing C919's in Volume - you need something to differentiate yourself or you are just competing on price - which COMAC will win (at least in many parts of the world) as they probably won't care so much about actually making money on the program - they will sell frames at low cost for political purposes.

Eventually Boeing will have to become more of an Luxury product within the lifetime of whatever replaces 737.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:06 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

The shorter the fuselage the bigger the tail for obvious reasons as the further away from the CoG the horizontal and vertical stabilizer are the bigger is their impact on the respective rotation moment.

So the Tail has to either be designed accordingly to every single length for optimal performance or compromised to work for the complete model range. Both have their specific pros and cons.

On top of that a 7W design with the capacity of the 737-8 would be so short, that it would be in the range of the A318 (a huge success). Fancy but not economical. Maybe with a minimal capacity version around the A321neo would start to become economical viable but that would mean giving Airbus the 125-200 seats market. I mean this is a 10'000+ aircraft market (A320+737-800/Max8) market conceded to Airbus just to keep commonality in the 200-300 seat market. I do not think that that will happen. If NSA/NMA have commonality than it will be a single aisle, a fusion of the 737 and the 757 range to one product range.


I'm assuming that the shortest NSA is about A320 length minus a row with seating capacity for 200 Single class - 20-30ish more than A320 15-25 more than 737-8 to maximize the use of 4 flight attendants.

It would be 15-20' longer than an A318.

5W seems to be the way to go for 3 flight attendants 150 seats.

I'm assuming they would do two different of sizes of tails for NMA and NSA - Maybe the NSA - S and NMA - S have the same tail and NSA-L and NMA-L have the same smaller tails(but probably with different internal structure to account for the weight difference).


The thing is, the smallest version of every family has to be the most economic because the losses you make in additional drag and weight by stretching an aircraft will be compensated by more passengers and in the ideal version even over compensated (A321).

If your most economical version is the A320/737-8, every shrink is just bad, see A319/318/737-7 but a stretch could work.
Now if you optimise your 7W aircraft for 200pax, it will be outclassed by miles from an optimized 6W 200pax. That is the same reason the A319 is killed off by the A220-300. The "streched" 5W is just better than a shrunk 6W. The economics just do not add up. So if you think a short 7W can compete in the sub 200 pax market, that will not happen. It is not possible to start that short and cover from 150-300 in a reasonable way.

At the lower end it will then be to heavy, to much drag and to expensive to produce compared to a single aisle and at the higher end it will not be able to lift enough without making the lower end version even more noncompetitive. And if you change to many components between the versions you have no economy of scale and the purchase prize goes up.


The smallest size would actually be a bit larger than 738/A320 - call it Keesje A320.5 in Capacity. The Southwest Airlines 200 seat 4 flight attendant special.

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

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

Really think of a tight light 7W. Imagine you are sitting in an A320 - the NSA/NMA fuselage would be less than 18" wider to each side of you (actually it could only be 15" wider internal on each side vs A320 if you use 737 seats) - hold your hands up 18" apart - it is not that big of a difference. The crown height would be similar.

You may be able to get away with thinner sidewalls in a new carbon design as well - saving you drag there as well.
Last edited by morrisond on Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:16 pm

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


"The FSA is not a narrowbody"


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


Hi!

Yes,


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

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.


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

Regards

Jon Ostrower just wrote that FSA is the acronym of Future Small Airplane, not Future Single Aisle. He didn't mention whether it will be a narrowbody or a widebody.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:22 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I'm assuming that the shortest NSA is about A320 length minus a row with seating capacity for 200 Single class - 20-30ish more than A320 15-25 more than 737-8 to maximize the use of 4 flight attendants.

It would be 15-20' longer than an A318.

5W seems to be the way to go for 3 flight attendants 150 seats.

I'm assuming they would do two different of sizes of tails for NMA and NSA - Maybe the NSA - S and NMA - S have the same tail and NSA-L and NMA-L have the same smaller tails(but probably with different internal structure to account for the weight difference).


The thing is, the smallest version of every family has to be the most economic because the losses you make in additional drag and weight by stretching an aircraft will be compensated by more passengers and in the ideal version even over compensated (A321).

If your most economical version is the A320/737-8, every shrink is just bad, see A319/318/737-7 but a stretch could work.
Now if you optimise your 7W aircraft for 200pax, it will be outclassed by miles from an optimized 6W 200pax. That is the same reason the A319 is killed off by the A220-300. The "streched" 5W is just better than a shrunk 6W. The economics just do not add up. So if you think a short 7W can compete in the sub 200 pax market, that will not happen. It is not possible to start that short and cover from 150-300 in a reasonable way.

At the lower end it will then be to heavy, to much drag and to expensive to produce compared to a single aisle and at the higher end it will not be able to lift enough without making the lower end version even more noncompetitive. And if you change to many components between the versions you have no economy of scale and the purchase prize goes up.


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

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

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

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


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

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

Yeah the NSA-L and XL are CASM beasts then but if you need anything lower than 240pax single class, hello Airbus. Good you might be able to snatch up some cheap 737-8.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:35 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

The thing is, the smallest version of every family has to be the most economic because the losses you make in additional drag and weight by stretching an aircraft will be compensated by more passengers and in the ideal version even over compensated (A321).

If your most economical version is the A320/737-8, every shrink is just bad, see A319/318/737-7 but a stretch could work.
Now if you optimise your 7W aircraft for 200pax, it will be outclassed by miles from an optimized 6W 200pax. That is the same reason the A319 is killed off by the A220-300. The "streched" 5W is just better than a shrunk 6W. The economics just do not add up. So if you think a short 7W can compete in the sub 200 pax market, that will not happen. It is not possible to start that short and cover from 150-300 in a reasonable way.

At the lower end it will then be to heavy, to much drag and to expensive to produce compared to a single aisle and at the higher end it will not be able to lift enough without making the lower end version even more noncompetitive. And if you change to many components between the versions you have no economy of scale and the purchase prize goes up.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

With an optimized wing/gear/engines an 3,000 ish Range 7W NSA should be a lot more efficient than an 4,000NM+ A320/321, especially if they rewing the A320/A321 for even more capability - but that is what the big wing NSA/NMA is for.
Last edited by morrisond on Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:35 pm

scbriml wrote:
StTim wrote:
I look on this as more spin and obfuscation from Boeing.


Too much talking, not enough doing.

Back in the day, IBM invented FUD. It's probably got a much sexier name these days.


Nope. FUD is still a common Disinformation Strategy used in sales. Humans don't evolve quickly.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19452
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:41 pm

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


"The FSA is not a narrowbody"


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


Hi!

Yes,


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

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.


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

Regards


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

But please, carry on believing that Boeing will replace the 737 with a widebody. :lol:
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
seahawk
Posts: 9868
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:52 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Great post! This is exactly the revolution Boeing will be aiming for. It would yet another revolutionary design that will change the industry forever.
 
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

Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:14 pm

afterburner wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

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


Hi!

Yes,


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

Jon Ostrower
-April 9, 2018.


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

Regards

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


Not "Futur Single Aisle" = not "Futur Narrowbody"

It's clear
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 21

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