capitalflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:29 pm

With discussions around 757 replacement, the 321neo, the Max debacle, NMA, etc. it is easy to get lost. As I look at what both Airbus and Boeing have to offer in terms of Neo/Max aircraft, there still remain some pretty big gaps in capacity.

For Airbus, between the 320neo and 321neo and then the 321neo to the 338. Each of those gaps are roughly 45 seats depending on how you count.

For Boeing, between the 737-10 and the 788 and then the 788 to the 789. Again, both gaps are sizable, around 50 or so.

These seem like big holes in the heart of their aircraft lineups. So one would think that the next clean sheet would fill these gaps. Airbus needs a 185 seat plane and a 230 seat plane. Boeing needs a 215 seat plane and a 265 seat plane.

For Boeing, the NMA 6x and 7x would fill their holes. This would of course be completely out the window if the Max never sells again as they would need to focus on yet another 737 version.

But is Airbus working on anything? Their short term of poaching Boeing customers with the 321neo family is definitely a good move. But what about the future?

Or worse, will the A vs. B settle into a truce that sees each serve a particular range of sizes and cede the rest to its rival?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:56 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
For Airbus, between the 320neo and 321neo and then the 321neo to the 338. Each of those gaps are roughly 45 seats depending on how you count.

45 seats is if you can't count. It is more like 150 seats or 65% greater.

The A321 sits 240 passengers with 28inch pitch and 18inch wide seats. That is 500 square inchs per passenger.

The A330-800 fits 400 seats with the same 500 square inchs per passenger (16.8"x30")

capitalflyer wrote:
For Boeing, between the 737-10 and the 788 and then the 788 to the 789. Again, both gaps are sizable, around 50 or so.

The 737-10 fits 230 passengers with 490 square inchs of per passenger (17.5"x28"). The 787-8 hits the exit limit of 381 with 500 square inchs per passenger (17.3"x29"). The 787-8 could in theory fit 390 seats if it used 490 square inchs per passenger with 28inch pitch.

In summary the mom gap of 65% between families is so big both manufacturers could fit a new model in the gap and sell thousands. This is also using the largest of one family to the smallest of the other. If you took an average size of both families it is more than double the size.

A220 to A320.
A330 to A350.
787 to 777.
They are all 10-15% difference in size.

The MOM gap is so big you can stick a 300 seat small widebody in it. This is why the Boeing 797 will arrive. It will launch as soon as the Max returns to service.

Airbus will probably use the A330 cross section and make something like the A300NEO but with a new name. The OEW will be around 90t with a full carbon wing. The remaining A330NEO orders will go to the A350 or to this new lightweight shorter range model.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:09 pm

NMA is likely dead - I doubt a successful business case can be presented to the BoD.

I expect the next launches will be the replacements for the 737 (NSA - New Small Airplane) and the A320 (NSR - New Short Range). I expect Boeing to move first, but I also expect them not to do so until the next steps in structural, propulsion and systems arrive, which is likely late 2020s / early 2030s.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18132
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:22 pm

Stitch wrote:
NMA is likely dead - I doubt a successful business case can be presented to the BoD.

I expect the next launches will be the replacements for the 737 (NSA - New Small Airplane) and the A320 (NSR - New Short Range). I expect Boeing to move first, but I also expect them not to do so until the next steps in structural, propulsion and systems arrive, which is likely late 2020s / early 2030s.


I thought NSA is dead as well. Isn’t it FSA (future small airplane) now?
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.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:31 pm

scbriml wrote:
Stitch wrote:
NMA is likely dead - I doubt a successful business case can be presented to the BoD.

I expect the next launches will be the replacements for the 737 (NSA - New Small Airplane) and the A320 (NSR - New Short Range). I expect Boeing to move first, but I also expect them not to do so until the next steps in structural, propulsion and systems arrive, which is likely late 2020s / early 2030s.


I thought NSA is dead as well. Isn’t it FSA (future small airplane) now?


Are you saying it is no longer Y1? :duck:
 
ethernal
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:35 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:
The A321 sits 240 passengers with 28inch pitch and 18inch wide seats. That is 500 square inchs per passenger.

The A330-800 fits 400 seats with the same 500 square inchs per passenger (16.8"x30")


LOL - I love analyses like this. We just handwave away the fact that 9-abreast dual aisle is significantly less space efficient than 6 abreast and that there are other significant differences between the mission profile that will always inherently result in seating density differences.

OP's issue is the fact that they are ignoring the range-seating curve in terms of identifying gaps as that is just as important as looking at raw seat counts. Planes are built for specific mission profiles (seats + distance) so seats are only half of the equation.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:41 pm

scbriml wrote:
I thought NSA is dead as well. Isn’t it FSA (future small airplane) now?

VSMUT wrote:
Are you saying it is no longer Y1? :duck:


"New 737" like "New Coke". :spit:

I guess just going with "the 737 replacement" is probably the safest nomenclature for now. :bigthumbsup:
 
mdavies06
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:28 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:42 pm

There is an existing thread already just last week on the Airbus side:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1429207

And for Boeing, there is a year long thread on the MAX...

why open a new thread?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:22 am

ethernal wrote:
[LOL - I love analyses like this. We just handwave away the fact that 9-abreast dual aisle is significantly less space efficient than 6 abreast

Try again. I actually took into account aisle space.

The A321 has 127m2 of cabin area. The A330-200 has 237m2. That is 87% more cabin area but my calculation showed 65% more seats with the same comfort level.

Same deal with the 737-10 to 787-8.

I do find it funny when people think the 787 is only 50 seats bigger than the 737. Jetstars A321 sits 50 more passengers than a A350-900ULR.

The seating standard must be kept the same for any comparison.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:52 am

mdavies06 wrote:
There is an existing thread already just last week on the Airbus side:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1429207

And for Boeing, there is a year long thread on the MAX...

why open a new thread?

Because sifting through 50+ pages of threads is impractical.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:59 am

Stitch wrote:
NMA is likely dead - I doubt a successful business case can be presented to the BoD.

I expect the next launches will be the replacements for the 737 (NSA - New Small Airplane) and the A320 (NSR - New Short Range). I expect Boeing to move first, but I also expect them not to do so until the next steps in structural, propulsion and systems arrive, which is likely late 2020s / early 2030s.


Boeing slips into being a one trick pony if it does not go ahead with the MOM. That may delight stockholders with a quarterly report visual disability. It could happen.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:16 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Boeing slips into being a one trick pony if it does not go ahead with the MOM.


The 787 is doing fine in the widebody market so a new 797 narrowbody would offer a compelling product line-up once you consider the sub-variant models within each family.

It seems pretty clear Boeing could not close the business case with customers on NMA/MOM since they all went with the A321/737-10 in the end. Which implies to me that they felt the economics of MoM/NRA as a widebody would not work and that a larger new generation narrowbody would be the better long-term option. So they get A321/737-10 now to hold them over for the decade or so until the largest model of the 737 and A320 replacements are available.
 
foxtrotbravo21
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:52 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:29 am

Beoing does really need a new sheet 797 to replace its iconic 737 as the 737 design some nealry 50 years ago. The height of the 737 is too restrictive now for any further add on designs and especially for the new engines which have a higher fan dimensions for more efficicent bypass ratio. Boeing needs a new clean sheet aircraft and preferably one made of composites rather than the heavier aluminium metal.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:58 am

foxtrotbravo21 wrote:
Boeing needs a new clean sheet aircraft and preferably one made of composites rather than the heavier aluminium metal.


For a narrowbody, it seems the latest aluminum alloys offer better strength-to-lightness ratios that CFRP so I expect the A320 and 737 replacements to continue using Al for their primary structures. At least in terms of the fuselage. Wings and empennage might be CFRP.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:06 am

An NSA launched in 2020 is going to get blindsided by an Airbus (or ....... ) in 2030 that is a hybrid. Hopefully home city's other mega-corporations will cover the slack of the former air frame company.

ps - Stitch - our posts are not necessarily in disagreement, only possibly. It happened to Xerox, Kodak, GM, Chrysler struggles, Ford limps, GE is doing poorly, IBM survives, Rolls-Royce and PW are in there fighting (and hurting) and several other air frame makers are fond memories.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:43 am

You're looking at the 50-100 seat market. The CRJ and ERJ selections for this market are abysmal.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:50 am

Stitch wrote:
foxtrotbravo21 wrote:
Boeing needs a new clean sheet aircraft and preferably one made of composites rather than the heavier aluminium metal.


For a narrowbody, it seems the latest aluminum alloys offer better strength-to-lightness ratios that CFRP so I expect the A320 and 737 replacements to continue using Al for their primary structures. At least in terms of the fuselage. Wings and empennage might be CFRP.


Bear in mind you can't make such a blanket statement without complete knowledge of the resin and weave of the carbon tape. The blades on the GE90-115B undergo stresses far, far higher than the wings of the A380, and neither the 787 nor A350 wings were tested until utter destruction due to safety issues around cleaning up long carbon nanotubes (which cause Mesothelioma just like Asbestos when inhaled, along with Melanoma of various kinds if enough pierce the skin).

If the resin in particular is far stronger and heavier than needed, then there could easily be another 10-20% weight per volume B/A could remove along with optimizations in the weave, making any and all Aluminum alloy construction obsolete.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:06 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
An NSA launched in 2020 is going to get blindsided by an Airbus (or ....... ) in 2030 that is a hybrid.


I expect Boeing to have First Mover advantage, but I expect them to not launch until the late 2020s when the necessary advancements in structure, propulsion and systems are ready.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:23 am

Stitch wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
An NSA launched in 2020 is going to get blindsided by an Airbus (or ....... ) in 2030 that is a hybrid.


I expect Boeing to have First Mover advantage, but I expect them to not launch until the late 2020s when the necessary advancements in structure, propulsion and systems are ready.


Based on my lifetime, this will most likely be the 2050's.

If you think about it, it took over 25 years to finally replace the CFM56-5/7 and V2500, and NB airframe (systems and structure) technology has remained exactly the same since 1988 (A320-200).

It's been said countless times on this site that replacing the 1988 systems and structure of today's A320-200 will never be justified financially. CFRP does not make sense for a NB either.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:25 am

The FAA and EASA are going to make it quite tough to certify a new clean sheet, we could have just the current models for a decade or more.

Airbus will slap a new wing on the A321 and a new A322 to obtain 5,000 nm range and the world will be just fine.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:05 am

100t - A321
125t, 150t, 175t, 200t, 225t - ?
250t - A330
Looks like five missing aircraft sizes to me. Pick one, any one.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:47 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
The FAA and EASA are going to make it quite tough to certify a new clean sheet, we could have just the current models for a decade or more.


With all the bleating on this forum about "grandfathering" and such, one would think a clean-sheet would be the preferred option for regulators and the public since it would require the frame to meet all current safety regulations.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:55 am

If I were Airbus or Boeing, I'd be more worried about Tesla than Airbus and Boeing.
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:56 am

Stitch wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
The FAA and EASA are going to make it quite tough to certify a new clean sheet, we could have just the current models for a decade or more.


With all the bleating on this forum about "grandfathering" and such, one would think a clean-sheet would be the preferred option for regulators and the public since it would require the frame to meet all current safety regulations.


Changes to existing models could face big hurdles also. Tough to do a digital model of the aircraft when it is still ink on mylar.
 
User avatar
Dahlgardo
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:46 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:07 am

DenverTed wrote:
100t - A321
125t, 150t, 175t, 200t, 225t - ?
250t - A330
Looks like five missing aircraft sizes to me. Pick one, any one.


Isn't this because it then has to be a very long NB or a short (smallish) WB, none of which are particularly economical solutions with todays technology.
It would require some oval-shape fuselage to be effective.
leave your nines at home and bring your skills to the battle
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:17 am

Whoever produces the next Single aisle, the most important question to determine is the width of the fuselage.
The extra weight necessary to carry around a 2nd aisle is obviously not working out, so the next best thing is to make a single aisle wide enough for 2 people to pass. From my observations this would speed up boarding and exiting significantly. I estimate a 26" aisle is necessary.
Ruscoe
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18132
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:43 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
foxtrotbravo21 wrote:
Boeing needs a new clean sheet aircraft and preferably one made of composites rather than the heavier aluminium metal.


For a narrowbody, it seems the latest aluminum alloys offer better strength-to-lightness ratios that CFRP so I expect the A320 and 737 replacements to continue using Al for their primary structures. At least in terms of the fuselage. Wings and empennage might be CFRP.


Bear in mind you can't make such a blanket statement without complete knowledge of the resin and weave of the carbon tape. The blades on the GE90-115B undergo stresses far, far higher than the wings of the A380, and neither the 787 nor A350 wings were tested until utter destruction due to safety issues around cleaning up long carbon nanotubes (which cause Mesothelioma just like Asbestos when inhaled, along with Melanoma of various kinds if enough pierce the skin).

If the resin in particular is far stronger and heavier than needed, then there could easily be another 10-20% weight per volume B/A could remove along with optimizations in the weave, making any and all Aluminum alloy construction obsolete.


I’m with Stitch, I have serious doubts about the use of CFRP fuselage for A320/737 replacements. The concern is not the material, but the industrialisation and costs of production. Can anyone pump out 60-70 CFRP fuselages a month and can they do at lower cost than producing the same number in more traditional materials?

My expectation for single-aisle planes is Al fuselage and CFRP wings and tail empennage.

JayinKitsap wrote:
The FAA and EASA are going to make it quite tough to certify a new clean sheet, we could have just the current models for a decade or more.

Airbus will slap a new wing on the A321 and a new A322 to obtain 5,000 nm range and the world will be just fine.


As it should be, but at least we will know it meets all current certification standards and hasn’t had to only meet old standards because it’s a derivative of a 50 year old plane.

Ruscoe wrote:
Whoever produces the next Single aisle, the most important question to determine is the width of the fuselage.
The extra weight necessary to carry around a 2nd aisle is obviously not working out, so the next best thing is to make a single aisle wide enough for 2 people to pass. From my observations this would speed up boarding and exiting significantly. I estimate a 26" aisle is necessary.
Ruscoe


Every extra inch of fuselage width has to be paid for in one way or another. The A320 and 737 replacements will be as narrow as possible.
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
SEPilot
Posts: 5508
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:48 am

The idea that we can have airliners of all size ranges is a pipe dream. The fact that the rules say that a passenger can only have to climb over two other passengers dictates that anything over 6 abreast has to be twin aisle. Which means that a 7 abreast aircraft has an extra aisle for one more row of seats. This is inherently inefficient and I believe is the biggest reason why the 767 was completely dominated by the A330. The OP’s premise that there is a market for every size of airliner runs aground on the shoals of economics. The 767 was of the same generation of technology; they even used the same engines. The smaller size of the 767 should have meant it was more attractive to a lot of airlines (smaller models, as opposed to variants, almost always sell better) but the A330 crushed it. The reason? It was enough more efficient that it overcame the disadvantage of being significantly larger. So going forward I think we will see narrowbodies stretched as far as practical, maybe with the 737 replacement going all the way to 753 length. Then we will have widebodies starting at 8 abreast, but any new designs being 9 abreast or more. The gap between them will remain. No amount of tricks or tweaking is going to make 7 abreast economically viable. And that is why I believe Boeing could not close the business case for the NMA, and why they are going to drop it. They had a OMA with the 767 and they couldn’t sell it except as a freighter.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
raumfahrt82
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:47 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:08 am

how about changing the safety rules to allow 8 abreast single aisle ?
it would save fuel and CO2 after all. Important in this day and age.

What exactly would be the safety concerns for 8 abreast single aisle, and could those be mitigated ?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:23 pm

scbriml wrote:
I’m with Stitch, I have serious doubts about the use of CFRP fuselage for A320/737 replacements. The concern is not the material, but the industrialisation and costs of production. Can anyone pump out 60-70 CFRP fuselages a month and can they do at lower cost than producing the same number in more traditional materials?


It'd have to be out of autoclave curing to make the numbers stack up *I think* (but obv don't know for sure).

The MS-21 has OOA components for some PSEs. So I guess we'll just have to watch and see how Irkut get on (and what the others can gleam from their lessons learned).


scbriml wrote:
Every extra inch of fuselage width has to be paid for in one way or another. The A320 and 737 replacements will be as narrow as possible.


It is quite an interesting conundrum.

An extra 30cm of fuselage diameter gives an awful lot more room in the overhead lockers. The use of said lockers has changed so much with the ULCC pricing model.

An extra 30cm of fuselage diameter may lead to a wider 3+3 aisle - but it could also lead to an entirely differentiated product "up front" (2+2) - with a pricing model that would yield accordingly. This is more critical for the longer ranged missions that single-aisles now seem to be getting (in addition to their usual).


The single-aisle fuselage diameter won't be as narrow as possible - but they will be the result of a stupidly high number of studies done with airlines and cabin furnishers to try and find the optimum balance between weight/drag vs revenue & operations (and half a dozen other factors probably).
 
Elementalism
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:17 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus or Boeing, I'd be more worried about Tesla than Airbus and Boeing.
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.


Tesla should be more worried about the other car manufacturers delivering an electric car. They were first to market. But their product is pretty meh. An electric commercial airliner at this point is not possible. And I doubt battery technology will leap forward enough in a decade to make them practical.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:21 pm

It seems to me Boeing needs to design an NB airliner that is a replacement for the 737-7 through 757-200. 150-230 seats, 3-4 model lineup. 3500-4000nm range. Maybe an ER that pushes out to 4500-4800nm range. MOM if they were to go through with it would be fill the gap between this and the 787.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:28 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus or Boeing, I'd be more worried about Tesla than Airbus and Boeing.
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.

Tesla only produces and sells 3 models as of right now (the S, the X & the 3); the Model Y SUV, the pick-up and the semi are still prototypes, and they do not produce an ATV.
Also, Tesla is still financially on shaky grounds and their sales success is partly due to tax incentives.
Lastly, it's much easier to hire car engineers and manufacture a car than hire aerospace engineers and manufacture an airliner.
 
capitalflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:49 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:
For Airbus, between the 320neo and 321neo and then the 321neo to the 338. Each of those gaps are roughly 45 seats depending on how you count.

45 seats is if you can't count. It is more like 150 seats or 65% greater.

The A321 sits 240 passengers with 28inch pitch and 18inch wide seats. That is 500 square inchs per passenger.

The A330-800 fits 400 seats with the same 500 square inchs per passenger (16.8"x30")

l.


Airbus website lists 338 capacity at 220-260 for typical 3 class seating, not 400. 321 is listed at 180-220 for two class seating. These are the typical setups. More like 40-45 if you are counting!!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22332
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:02 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Airbus will slap a new wing on the A321 and a new A322 to obtain 5,000 nm range and the world will be just fine.

Certainly no time soon. Airbus CEO says his biggest problem is monetizing the orders he already has, not getting more orders. A321XLR won't FCS till 2023. A320 family has 9 year backlog and orders keep coming in (ref: UA for 50 A321XLR). The biggest risk to Airbus is some sort of world wide financial crisis causing airlines to defer aircraft orders. Why would anyone suggest the best use of capital would be to invest in major improvements to a product you've already sold out for the next nine years? I can think of lots of better uses. Paying down debt. Saving for the inevitable market slump. Investing in a market segment that you don't already dominate.

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus or Boeing, I'd be more worried about Tesla than Airbus and Boeing.
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.

Musk has shown he has a hard time getting along with authority figures, I have a hard time seeing him getting along with the various aviation regulators.

Elementalism wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus or Boeing, I'd be more worried about Tesla than Airbus and Boeing.
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.

Tesla should be more worried about the other car manufacturers delivering an electric car. They were first to market. But their product is pretty meh. An electric commercial airliner at this point is not possible. And I doubt battery technology will leap forward enough in a decade to make them practical.

If the Tesla was so 'meh' then the rest of the world's auto makers wouldn't be working so hard to catch up. Tesla's biggest advantage is its battery tech, from the batteries themselves to their thermal and life cycle management. The current generation battery packs are said to last for 300,000 or more miles ( https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/ ... 85236.html ) and data from class leaders show that prediction is quite realistic. The next generation battery is claimed to be capable of 1,000,000 miles, along with the chassis and power train, but we won't know about that for another year or two.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
DenverTed
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:14 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
The single-aisle fuselage diameter won't be as narrow as possible - but they will be the result of a stupidly high number of studies done with airlines and cabin furnishers to try and find the optimum balance between weight/drag vs revenue & operations (and half a dozen other factors probably).

Versus a three martini lunch with American and Boeing. 'The DC-8 is 12-3", widen the 707 by an inch and we'll buy it.' And there set the width for decades of travelers.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Airbus will slap a new wing on the A321 and a new A322 to obtain 5,000 nm range and the world will be just fine.

Certainly no time soon. Airbus CEO says his biggest problem is monetizing the orders he already has, not getting more orders. A321XLR won't FCS till 2023. A320 family has 9 year backlog and orders keep coming in (ref: UA for 50 A321XLR). The biggest risk to Airbus is some sort of world wide financial crisis causing airlines to defer aircraft orders. Why would anyone suggest the best use of capital would be to invest in major improvements to a product you've already sold out for the next nine years? I can think of lots of better uses. Paying down debt. Saving for the inevitable market slump. Investing in a market segment that you don't already dominate.

Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus or Boeing, I'd be more worried about Tesla than Airbus and Boeing.
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.

Musk has shown he has a hard time getting along with authority figures, I have a hard time seeing him getting along with the various aviation regulators.

Elementalism wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
If I were Airbus or Boeing, I'd be more worried about Tesla than Airbus and Boeing.
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.

Tesla should be more worried about the other car manufacturers delivering an electric car. They were first to market. But their product is pretty meh. An electric commercial airliner at this point is not possible. And I doubt battery technology will leap forward enough in a decade to make them practical.

If the Tesla was so 'meh' then the rest of the world's auto makers wouldn't be working so hard to catch up. Tesla's biggest advantage is its battery tech, from the batteries themselves to their thermal and life cycle management. The current generation battery packs are said to last for 300,000 or more miles ( https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/ ... 85236.html ) and data from class leaders show that prediction is quite realistic. The next generation battery is claimed to be capable of 1,000,000 miles, along with the chassis and power train, but we won't know about that for another year or two.


Their cars are meh. Avg quality, aesthetics blah. Once every other car manufacturer has an EV in its lineup Tesla will be just another car manufacturer.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22332
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:28 pm

Elementalism wrote:
Their cars are meh. Avg quality, aesthetics blah. Once every other car manufacturer has an EV in its lineup Tesla will be just another car manufacturer.

EVs aren't generic boxes. Things like range and charging networks matter a lot. I agree the major car manufacturers are a threat, but the question is, are they up for the challenge? From what I've seen, no one is offering the kind of range and charging network Tesla offers, and most of the others are missing the mark on price as well.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
DenverTed
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:41 pm

Relative to a 100t A321 in a 200 pax density, I would say that the next step above that would be a 115t to 125t single aisle with 225 at that same density. 50m long with double axle gear and a fixed or folding tip 42m wing.

Or go 2-4-2 with a smaller container than the A300. 212" diam instead of the A300 222". Proportionally more cabin and less cargo hold cross section. At 290 pax relative to a 200 seat A321, so 45% bigger and more range. About 48m wing by 50m long at 150t to 160t MTOW.
 
2175301
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:53 pm

Lets move this back to the original target. Automobiles - no matter what the power source - are not going to replace people flying aircraft. Most people in the USA and other places drive or take a train if that is on par with convenience and timing vs flying. Flying is long distance or around/over natural obstacles such as mountains or water.

Back the the concept of the next clean sheet design. It's the Boeing NMA for the MOM segment. The MOM segment is the ONLY segment where a clean sheet design is potentially cost effective with today's wing/body and engine technology. Down the road you may see other shapes of aircraft with other engine mounting options (we have all seen the theoretical designs). Down the road is noticeably more efficient engines.

Right now it would be uneconomical to do a clean sheet for most of the narrow body segment and the larger wide body segment. The A320 and 737 families are sufficiently efficient and cost effective to build. So are the A350 and 787 families - which are the newest and most efficient designs already.

Boeing was ready to offer the NMA late spring early summer 2019 to see if it would generate enough orders to put into production (Offer first, Authorize production later: They have done that before); and Boeing felt that they had closed the business case. The 737max situation delayed things. I fully expect that the NMA will be offered within a few months of 737max Return To Service. Then we will find out if there is enough interest to actually develop and put it into production (Boeing is looking for a certain number of conditional pre-orders).

Boeing has not suspended work on the NMA - and those several thousand engineers working on it have spent the last 9 months (or so) working on further completing or refining the design - and planned production line. IF Offer is 2020 and authorization is 2021, then I expect entry into service is 2026 as Boeing cannot speed up the development and testing of the required engine. They may well be ahead of schedule on the body at this point.

No one in the industry is truly clamoring for a clean sheet design on the 737 at this time, nor for the A320 family; except perhaps on this (and similar) websites. I have not heard of any of the major airlines saying that they were no longer interested in the Boeing NMA.

Think it through folks... I am sure Boeing will offer the NMA. If they get enough conditional pre-orders it will be built. If not, it dies (and it cost Boeing very little to offer it to the market and find out).

Otherwise, we need a significant improvement in body shape and engine technology for the next clean sheet.

Have a great day,
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:17 pm

scbriml wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Stitch wrote:

For a narrowbody, it seems the latest aluminum alloys offer better strength-to-lightness ratios that CFRP so I expect the A320 and 737 replacements to continue using Al for their primary structures. At least in terms of the fuselage. Wings and empennage might be CFRP.


Bear in mind you can't make such a blanket statement without complete knowledge of the resin and weave of the carbon tape. The blades on the GE90-115B undergo stresses far, far higher than the wings of the A380, and neither the 787 nor A350 wings were tested until utter destruction due to safety issues around cleaning up long carbon nanotubes (which cause Mesothelioma just like Asbestos when inhaled, along with Melanoma of various kinds if enough pierce the skin).

If the resin in particular is far stronger and heavier than needed, then there could easily be another 10-20% weight per volume B/A could remove along with optimizations in the weave, making any and all Aluminum alloy construction obsolete.


I’m with Stitch, I have serious doubts about the use of CFRP fuselage for A320/737 replacements. The concern is not the material, but the industrialisation and costs of production. Can anyone pump out 60-70 CFRP fuselages a month and can they do at lower cost than producing the same number in more traditional materials?

My expectation for single-aisle planes is Al fuselage and CFRP wings and tail empennage.

JayinKitsap wrote:
The FAA and EASA are going to make it quite tough to certify a new clean sheet, we could have just the current models for a decade or more.

Airbus will slap a new wing on the A321 and a new A322 to obtain 5,000 nm range and the world will be just fine.


As it should be, but at least we will know it meets all current certification standards and hasn’t had to only meet old standards because it’s a derivative of a 50 year old plane.

Ruscoe wrote:
Whoever produces the next Single aisle, the most important question to determine is the width of the fuselage.
The extra weight necessary to carry around a 2nd aisle is obviously not working out, so the next best thing is to make a single aisle wide enough for 2 people to pass. From my observations this would speed up boarding and exiting significantly. I estimate a 26" aisle is necessary.
Ruscoe


Every extra inch of fuselage width has to be paid for in one way or another. The A320 and 737 replacements will be as narrow as possible.


A fuselage is no more complex to construct from CFRP than wings. And to scale it up, just add printers and floor space. The tape is already being produced in much greater volumes than needed for aerospace alone.

The A320 NEO does NOT meet all the new certification requirements. It's fully grandfathered under the 30-year-old A320 design.

And yes, I think Boeing would go for one wide enough to get 17.5" wide seats (737 is 17"), but not more than that. Narrower fuselage = more aerodynamically efficient and less heavy.
 
Kikko19
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:16 pm

AB will rewing and re engine the a32x tube and will be OK for 20 more years. B should buy the russian plane program that is basically a copy of a32x and the party can continue (even if i suspect russians will never sell ).
 
9Patch
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:30 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
An NSA launched in 2020 is going to get blindsided by an Airbus (or ....... ) in 2030 that is a hybrid. Hopefully home city's other mega-corporations will cover the slack of the former air frame company.

ps - Stitch - our posts are not necessarily in disagreement, only possibly. It happened to Xerox, Kodak, GM, Chrysler struggles, Ford limps, GE is doing poorly, IBM survives, Rolls-Royce and PW are in there fighting (and hurting) and several other air frame makers are fond memories.


Of course Airbus has had its share of missteps as well, like the A380. A few more 'successes' like that and they may become a former air frame company too.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:45 am

capitalflyer wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
capitalflyer wrote:
For Airbus, between the 320neo and 321neo and then the 321neo to the 338. Each of those gaps are roughly 45 seats depending on how you count.

45 seats is if you can't count. It is more like 150 seats or 65% greater.

The A321 sits 240 passengers with 28inch pitch and 18inch wide seats. That is 500 square inchs per passenger.

The A330-800 fits 400 seats with the same 500 square inchs per passenger (16.8"x30")

l.


Airbus website lists 338 capacity at 220-260 for typical 3 class seating, not 400. 321 is listed at 180-220 for two class seating. These are the typical setups. More like 40-45 if you are counting!!


"typical" setups for an A321 don't include lie-flat business class or larger galleys to support long-haul flying, "typical" A338 setups do, try again.

UAs 752s have flat-beds and seat from 142-169 because newsflash: flatbeds take way more space than normal seats.

The next true clean-sheet design, when considering market demand and competition, would probably be a new turboprop.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:01 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

Bear in mind you can't make such a blanket statement without complete knowledge of the resin and weave of the carbon tape. The blades on the GE90-115B undergo stresses far, far higher than the wings of the A380, and neither the 787 nor A350 wings were tested until utter destruction due to safety issues around cleaning up long carbon nanotubes (which cause Mesothelioma just like Asbestos when inhaled, along with Melanoma of various kinds if enough pierce the skin).

If the resin in particular is far stronger and heavier than needed, then there could easily be another 10-20% weight per volume B/A could remove along with optimizations in the weave, making any and all Aluminum alloy construction obsolete.


I’m with Stitch, I have serious doubts about the use of CFRP fuselage for A320/737 replacements. The concern is not the material, but the industrialisation and costs of production. Can anyone pump out 60-70 CFRP fuselages a month and can they do at lower cost than producing the same number in more traditional materials?

My expectation for single-aisle planes is Al fuselage and CFRP wings and tail empennage.

JayinKitsap wrote:
The FAA and EASA are going to make it quite tough to certify a new clean sheet, we could have just the current models for a decade or more.

Airbus will slap a new wing on the A321 and a new A322 to obtain 5,000 nm range and the world will be just fine.


As it should be, but at least we will know it meets all current certification standards and hasn’t had to only meet old standards because it’s a derivative of a 50 year old plane.

Ruscoe wrote:
Whoever produces the next Single aisle, the most important question to determine is the width of the fuselage.
The extra weight necessary to carry around a 2nd aisle is obviously not working out, so the next best thing is to make a single aisle wide enough for 2 people to pass. From my observations this would speed up boarding and exiting significantly. I estimate a 26" aisle is necessary.
Ruscoe


Every extra inch of fuselage width has to be paid for in one way or another. The A320 and 737 replacements will be as narrow as possible.


A fuselage is no more complex to construct from CFRP than wings. And to scale it up, just add printers and floor space. The tape is already being produced in much greater volumes than needed for aerospace alone.

The A320 NEO does NOT meet all the new certification requirements. It's fully grandfathered under the 30-year-old A320 design.

And yes, I think Boeing would go for one wide enough to get 17.5" wide seats (737 is 17"), but not more than that. Narrower fuselage = more aerodynamically efficient and less heavy.


Lol - I've given up reminding people that the A320 is a product of the Hair Metal Era.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
speedbird52
Posts: 910
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:19 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Stitch wrote:
NMA is likely dead - I doubt a successful business case can be presented to the BoD.

I expect the next launches will be the replacements for the 737 (NSA - New Small Airplane) and the A320 (NSR - New Short Range). I expect Boeing to move first, but I also expect them not to do so until the next steps in structural, propulsion and systems arrive, which is likely late 2020s / early 2030s.


Boeing slips into being a one trick pony if it does not go ahead with the MOM. That may delight stockholders with a quarterly report visual disability. It could happen.

With so many prospective NMA customers ordering A321 XLRs and strongly considering additional 787-8s or A330 NEOs, I just don't see where the business case for the NMA is anymore. Who is left to buy it? Every year Boeing waited to launch it was a year the potential numbers of aircraft built went down. It would be a very high risk project. I agree with other posters on this site who have suggested a 739/757 replacement NSA. The market case for such an aircraft is far larger than that for NMA.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12777
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:07 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
In 10 years, they've gone from a single doubtful Roadster, to a full line up from ATV to weird pick-up and even a semi, along with a new roadster to beat a Formula 1 car in performance and a gas car on range.

And made almost no money in the process. So let's add more zeros to the costs, and a third dimension to the performance requirements: great idea! :boggled:


Ruscoe wrote:
Whoever produces the next Single aisle, the most important question to determine is the width of the fuselage.

What airline is saying that?


Ruscoe wrote:
so the next best thing is to make a single aisle wide enough for 2 people to pass. From my observations this would speed up boarding and exiting significantly.Ruscoe

And add drag to the flight performance... which actual airline customers are likely to care far more about.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:49 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
The next true clean-sheet design, when considering market demand and competition, would probably be a new turboprop.

Electric motors driving the props/fans and a single gas turbine generator in the tail is my pick. It will replace 50% of the A320/737 market.

90% narrowbody flights are under 1000nm which I expext to be close to the maximum range of a hybrid electric design. This means any ETOPs flight or flight over 1000nm will require a conventional twin turbofan design.

I expect the electric hybrid design to have a surge battery bank. Fast forward a decade or two with this design and as battery capacity improves the gas turbine can become smaller and smaller. Eventually the generator becomes a range extender and can remain off on flights under 500nm.

Now both manufacturers would know such a hybrid electric design would launch in 10-15 years time. It would be crazy to design a new short haul narrowbody using two turbofans under the wings. Replacing the 737MAX soon is then a bad idea.

Launching a medium range, medium sized aircraft makes sense until the hybrid electric tech is ready. This medium range aircraft can do the longer flights done by todays narrowbodies and the shorter thin routes done by todays widebodies.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9202
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:06 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
The A320 NEO does NOT meet all the new certification requirements. It's fully grandfathered under the 30-year-old A320 design.



Just for fun, could you point to a requirement or rule that the A320 family does not fulfill?

To my knowledge, the A320 family does not live on exemptions like the 737 does.
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: After Neo/Max - The Next Clean Sheet Need

Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:25 pm

Maybe the first mover will develop a single-aisle airplane with C-Series technology (Al-Li-Single-Aisle-Hull, CFRP Wings). But the second mover has to design something revolutionary to get an edge on this. I think about a concept like the D8 with Double-Bubble-CFRP-Hull: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8

For both, the efficient highly automized production will be a development focus. Energy efficiency and noise might get significiant higher priority than today, by statutory rules in all markets except the US. The fast increasing environmental requirements, might also mean a much shorter lifetime of this airplane generation.

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