Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
planecane wrote:Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.
virage wrote:- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)?
virage wrote:planecane wrote:Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
virage wrote:Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
virage wrote:planecane wrote:Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
virage wrote:Thanks for the feedback on my idea.
I still maintain that the proposed line up is optimal for serving the current and upcoming passenger capacities while not costing an arm and a leg to develop.
tommy1808 wrote:aside of the 757 tooling being long gone
virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
virage wrote:planecane wrote:Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
benjjk wrote:I guess I just don't understand why Boeing should surrender the 120-200 seat market, home to the best-selling aircraft of all time?
virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
VSMUT wrote:virage wrote:planecane wrote:Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
The wing is massively bigger than the 737 and even A321, and achieves nothing more than the latter. All that weight is expensive to drag around, and nobody needs the redeeming feature (extreme takeoff performance) any more.
A 757 done in 2020 would need an all new A321 sized wing to be competitive. And much weaker A321 engines as well.
Waterbomber2 wrote:VSMUT wrote:virage wrote:
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
The wing is massively bigger than the 737 and even A321, and achieves nothing more than the latter. All that weight is expensive to drag around, and nobody needs the redeeming feature (extreme takeoff performance) any more.
A 757 done in 2020 would need an all new A321 sized wing to be competitive. And much weaker A321 engines as well.
The B757's wings achieve a lot more than the A321 wing as they have the capacity to hold almost double as much fuel while providing low wing loading for better runway but also cruise performance.
If you hang a derivative of the Leap under the wings, a B752 would have far superior payload range compared to the A321.
The B757 has been killed ahead of its time, the same way the A380 is being killed today. New technology can totally change rhe business case as this one proves.
The B757 was not competitive in a high fuel environment flying with old derivatives of widebody engines, but it would be ultra-competitive today with derivatives of the latest gen of narrowbody engines.
The B757's airframe is not heavy, a derivative of the Leap would already make it a ton lighter.
Plus, the A321XLR will be much heavier than the standard A321CEO, not far below the B757's.
A B753 with Leaps would have TATL range and beat any aircraft on CASM and that includes the A380 in its densest possible layout.
Tooling can be made, what counts is the type certificate. If they build the fuselage and wings the same with just some aerodynamic tweaks, they can grandfather that.
It's not true that Boeing threw everything away. They are still provising support for a fleet of hundreds of aircraft, they have all the data they need to restart production.
People here don't get it that designing and building a new type takes a lot of resources and cash, with a large risk factor too.
The B757 has a type certificate, blueprints, production and maintenance procedures. Certifying a B757MAX would cost them next to nothing compared to a multibillion cleansheet.
RJMAZ wrote:Boeing is on track to have the perfect lineup.
1) Short range narrowbody
2) Medium range small widebody
3) Long range large widebody
Three families evenly spaced to cover the full spectrum. I have been told the thought is to have three fuselage lengths in each family allowing a simple shrink with extra range and a simple stretch for improved CASM.
1) The short range narrowbody will be the 6AB 737 replacement. Launched around 2030.
160 seat 4000nm range (737-700 size)
190 seat 3500nm range (737-8 size)
220 seat 3000nm range (737-10 size)
2) The medium range small widebody. This will be the rumoured 8AB 797 launched next year.
797-6 250 seat 5200nm range
797-7 300 seat 4700nm range
797-8 350 seat 4200nm range (comes 5 years later)
3) The long range large widebody
787-9NEO 8400nm range
787-10NEO 7300nm range
787-11NEO 6200nm range
The 777X is a medium term solution and new engines on the 787 will make it stop selling after 2035.
virage wrote:Thanks for the feedback on my idea.
I still maintain that the proposed line up is optimal for serving the current and upcoming passenger capacities while not costing an arm and a leg to develop.
Jomar777 wrote:This is a very interesting proposition BUT:
1) The 797 as it stands would lose key markets which the A321XLR can reach.
Jomar777 wrote:2) Whilst I agree with your B737 replacement proposition, this definitely should not be the smaller range on the portfolio.
Jomar777 wrote:3) To have an aircraft that can replace the 777X (and the 748 for instance), Boeing would have to have a frame that can seat 10 abreast (3-4-3) and can fly a very long range. The B787 cannot offer this.
Aesma wrote:virage wrote:Thanks for the feedback on my idea.
I still maintain that the proposed line up is optimal for serving the current and upcoming passenger capacities while not costing an arm and a leg to develop.
You want to replace thousands of 737 flying millions of flights a year all over the planet, by a 757 that never sold outside the US to begin with ?
VSMUT wrote:virage wrote:planecane wrote:Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
The wing is massively bigger than the 737 and even A321, and achieves nothing more than the latter. All that weight is expensive to drag around, and nobody needs the redeeming feature (extreme takeoff performance) any more.
A 757 done in 2020 would need an all new A321 sized wing to be competitive. And much weaker A321 engines as well.
tommy1808 wrote:virage wrote:- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)?
not enough benefit at current and likely future fuel prices.virage wrote:planecane wrote:Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
aside of the 757 tooling being long gone, it still has the large, heavy, and only useful in niche applications, wing on it. You are looking at some 20.000 pound extra weight vs. the A321neo.
best regards
Thomas
P.S. Wingspan is also bigger 36m, which would dampen appeal
virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
patrickjp93 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:virage wrote:- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)?
not enough benefit at current and likely future fuel prices.virage wrote:
Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.
aside of the 757 tooling being long gone, it still has the large, heavy, and only useful in niche applications, wing on it. You are looking at some 20.000 pound extra weight vs. the A321neo.
best regards
Thomas
P.S. Wingspan is also bigger 36m, which would dampen appeal
IIRC the 757 wing was grossly overbuilt and has plenty of room for improvement. Between switching all the pure aluminum out for Aluminum-Lithium and the reduction in wing reinforcement, there's probably a lot of weight that can be removed essentially for free.
That said, I'd just as soon slap a 757-sized CFRP wing and landing gear on the 737 MAX 10's body with the 787's FBW system and send it from Chicago to Frankfurt. NMA done and dusted.
RJMAZ wrote:Boeing is on track to have the perfect lineup.
...
1) The short range narrowbody will be the 6AB 737 replacement. Launched around 2030.
...
2) The medium range small widebody. This will be the rumoured 8AB 797 launched next year.
...
The 777X is a medium term solution and new engines on the 787 will make it stop selling after 2035.
RJMAZ wrote:Jomar777 wrote:This is a very interesting proposition BUT:
1) The 797 as it stands would lose key markets which the A321XLR can reach.
I don't think so. The 787 sells well and the A321 sells well. There is no reason an aircraft half way between the two would not sell well. The higher cruising speed allows the 797 to fly 10% further with one crew. Plus the A321XLR is severely underwinged for 102t MTOW. An initial cruise of 28,000ft hurts fuel burn.Jomar777 wrote:2) Whilst I agree with your B737 replacement proposition, this definitely should not be the smaller range on the portfolio.
The 797's being available allows the 737 replacement to be optimised for shorter range. This allows it to be lighter and burn less fuel on sub 1000nm sectors.
tommy1808 wrote:Going Al-Li doesn't safe as much weight as you think.
So a new aircraft with new certification for some 10-15 billion USD that has compromises over a full clean sheet?
And then I hop on a Delta A221 in LAN, enjoy my 18.5-19" seat all the way to MSP, to then transfer onto the frankenNMA 17" seat for 10 hours? Customers will love that.
Those comfy seats are a problem for anything Jurassic. Boeing didn't spend a lot of extra cash on making the 777x wider inside to do passengers a favour, they probably just understood that 10AB 17" Y-seats will be a tough sell for airlines in the near future. Delta seems to have gotten the message too, hence no 787.....
Best regards
Thomas
virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
patrickjp93 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Going Al-Li doesn't safe as much weight as you think.
So a new aircraft with new certification for some 10-15 billion USD that has compromises over a full clean sheet?
And then I hop on a Delta A221 in LAN, enjoy my 18.5-19" seat all the way to MSP, to then transfer onto the frankenNMA 17" seat for 10 hours? Customers will love that.
Those comfy seats are a problem for anything Jurassic. Boeing didn't spend a lot of extra cash on making the 777x wider inside to do passengers a favour, they probably just understood that 10AB 17" Y-seats will be a tough sell for airlines in the near future. Delta seems to have gotten the message too, hence no 787.....
Best regards
Thomas
11% is significant.
PC12Fan wrote:tommy1808 wrote:aside of the 757 tooling being long gone
This does bring up a curious question for me though - this day in age, don't they have digital plans or even copies of the tooling designs? Obviously it would cost plenty, but would it really be that difficult to make since it's been already accomplished? Thanks for any input.
NoTime wrote:So, whether its old blueprints or old engineers or even pulling in an existing aircraft and reverse-engineering it... it would have to be easier than starting from scratch, right?
reltney wrote:virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
Love.. just did a tour 2 months ago at Boeing. 757 tooling is still available contrary to what rumors say. In fact the 747SP tooling is still on property according to Bob Johnson who gave the tour. Tooling gets stored, not destroyed. Well, says Boeing, but what do they know.
The narrow body fuselage is all the same. SW did not want the 757 cockpit on their 737 NGs and that doomed the fleet commonality angle. Lots to talk about.
tommy1808 wrote:NoTime wrote:So, whether its old blueprints or old engineers or even pulling in an existing aircraft and reverse-engineering it... it would have to be easier than starting from scratch, right?
Reverse engineering is usually much more work than from scratch. But of course it could be done and has been done at least for old, high value cars.
Best regards
Thomas
virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
virage wrote:reltney wrote:virage wrote:Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:
- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X
Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?
Love.. just did a tour 2 months ago at Boeing. 757 tooling is still available contrary to what rumors say. In fact the 747SP tooling is still on property according to Bob Johnson who gave the tour. Tooling gets stored, not destroyed. Well, says Boeing, but what do they know.
The narrow body fuselage is all the same. SW did not want the 757 cockpit on their 737 NGs and that doomed the fleet commonality angle. Lots to talk about.
To those who ridiculed my assertion that 737 and 757 have the same fuselage, please read realtney's comment quoted above.
Ditto those who pretended to know more than they do and claimed that 757 tooling was gone.