Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:50 pm

Elementalism wrote:
to design a class of aircraft that covers from the 737-7 to the 757-200\300.

I've heard this many times and it is not possible. That would require two different wings and two different engine designs.

If the 757 sized model had 5000nm range then that would require a 110t MTOW and 40,000lb thrust engines. An 737-7 sized cleansheet aircraft at that MTOW would have 7000nm range which is getting ridiculous.

The 737-7 sized cleansheet model would have an empty weight 20+% higher than an actual 737-7. You can put the latest engines on the heavier aircraft and it will have no chance of matching the lighter 737-7.

90% of narrowbody flights are under 1000nm. You will end up with an aircraft that is a jack of all trades and master of none.

Having an 80t MTOW and 120t MTOW wing with 30,000lb and 45,000lb thrust engines would be very expensive. There would be little commonality so changing the cross section wouldn't be a big deal. Boeing would be better off going to a small widebody and then a fully optimised 737 replacement.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:17 pm

Seems like Boeing is now considering aiming for a me too XLR sized aircraft:

We are learning what the (A321) XLR is doing, or not. That also gives you a good idea of what the market may want,” Boeing Commercial Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing Ihssane Mounir, told Aviation Week during the Singapore Airshow. His comments offer the first new clues to where Boeing's product development efforts may refocus in the wake of the company’s decision to go back to the drawing board on the NMA.

NMA never closed its business case:

Mounir says “with NMA we never crossed the line with customers in terms of ‘this is perfect for me’. It is frankly something we looked at two years ago and when you look at the market today you have to re-address if it still makes sense to have exactly this concept.”

But that's a good thing since it lets them move on to a "fresh concept"

The beauty of it is we haven’t launched anything so you can always refine the concept and figure out what the right aircraft is for the marketplace,” says Mounir. “The product development team will redirect their efforts to look at a fresh concept and internalize all we have learned through the exercises we have had with customers, but I can tell you we are not flogging anything that we are discussing with customers right now.”

He goes on to say NMA produced valuable insights on market parameters and production systems, and a 787-3 is a non-starter because its production system would not provide the kind of yield they need for a new airplane produced in higher volumes..

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/boei ... ma-refocus

IMO that business case also won't close. The market is already saturated by the competitor's product. Whatever market that remains isn't enough to support a clean sheet competitor. It'd be like Airbus announcing a clean sheet 757 competitor for EIS in 2003.
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
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19173
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
NMA never closed its business case:

Mounir says “with NMA we never crossed the line with customers in terms of ‘this is perfect for me’. It is frankly something we looked at two years ago and when you look at the market today you have to re-address if it still makes sense to have exactly this concept.”


Perhaps that might dampen down some of the more strident claims about how far along Boeing really was with NMA.
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
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:48 pm

Rev, Scb,

I read that article in it's entirety. NMA appears to be a 757-200 replacement, aka A321XLR competitor. Interesting. The more things change, the more they stay the same. My god, I don't know if I can suffer any more threads on 757-MAX/NEO.

I've always thought a common cockpit/fuselage could be designed with a wing/engine/gear for 757 mission replacements and wing/engine/gear for 737 mission replacements. Maybe we are seeing the beginnings of a NMA/NSA combo.

Thank goodness they elaborated ' CLEAN SHEET '. So if anyone suggest locating and reinstating all of the 757 tooling, we should swiftly administer to them a collective purple nurple!!
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
AleksW
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:19 pm

I won't be surprised if it's going to be a 757/A321 class aircraft, maybe with slightly wider cabin (I hope so) and 2 different sets of wings. Assuming that MTOW will be in the region of 115-120 tonnes for an ER/XLR version (whatever they will call it), how far can you stretch CFM Leap? Looking at B757 and Tu-204, it will need around 160-170 kN engines, maybe even more, depending on desired weight and range.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:28 pm

Boeing is anyway between a rock and a hard place. Focus on a small WB and the NEO gains massive market share. Focus on a new NB and fight head on with the NEO but with a product that might be technically advanced but needs to be competitive against a possible 100 frames per month mature NEO that will be really cheap.

Hard times.

It is worth to note that the third generation of 737s was and is an amazing aircraft, probably the best NB out there, the 737 at the top of the evolutionary chain.

I wonder how good the third iteration of the A320 family will be.

If we look at the 737, the jurassic was modern and brilliant at the time. The the reengined classic the proper evolution and the rewinged NG unbeatable for its designed profile (speaking of the -800).

If we look at the A320: The „jurassic“ A320 was a new milestone in FBW and a brilliant entry into the NB market for Airbus. The classic NEO the perfect re-engined aircraft at the right time how brilliant will a re-winged version be?

Thats what Boeing is up against with their clean sheet: A rewinged A320 family massive economy of scale, the same as Airbus was up against with the NG vs jurassic A320.

What will Boeing choose to fight this battle? We do not know, a small WB? An advanced NB? Whatever it is, it has to be an amazing product or it will lose like the MD NB aircraft did against the 737 and A320 at the end of the 80s and 90s.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:40 pm

AleksW wrote:
I won't be surprised if it's going to be a 757/A321 class aircraft, maybe with slightly wider cabin (I hope so) and 2 different sets of wings. Assuming that MTOW will be in the region of 115-120 tonnes for an ER/XLR version (whatever they will call it), how far can you stretch CFM Leap? Looking at B757 and Tu-204, it will need around 160-170 kN engines, maybe even more, depending on desired weight and range.

It brings up a good point. CFM had spent a lot of time developing a proposal for a LEAP variant aimed at a new market segment. What are the odds they do much if anything for an A321 competitor other than saying "There's the LEAP-1A, go for it!".

FluidFlow wrote:
Boeing is anyway between a rock and a hard place. Focus on a small WB and the NEO gains massive market share. Focus on a new NB and fight head on with the NEO but with a product that might be technically advanced but needs to be competitive against a possible 100 frames per month mature NEO that will be really cheap.

Hard times.
...
What will Boeing choose to fight this battle? We do not know, a small WB? An advanced NB? Whatever it is, it has to be an amazing product or it will lose like the MD NB aircraft did against the 737 and A320 at the end of the 80s and 90s.

Indeed. Any "magic pixie dust" that can be sprayed on a Boeing clean sheet can be applied to NEO with almost equal effect.

If CFM/PW provide a new engine that's ideal for an A321 competitor, Airbus simply uses it on a new wing and they're all set.

It's a big ask for Boeing to try to take the A321XLR's market away from it, yet that's what Boeing seems to think they should try next.
Last edited by Revelation on Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
 
744SPX
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:41 pm

I think the sweet spot is between the 752 and 753. Say, 270-275 pax single class. Definitely single aisle. 5000-5200nm. Possibly the capability to fly in and out of cat 3 airports (5k-8k runways).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
AleksW wrote:
I won't be surprised if it's going to be a 757/A321 class aircraft, maybe with slightly wider cabin (I hope so) and 2 different sets of wings. Assuming that MTOW will be in the region of 115-120 tonnes for an ER/XLR version (whatever they will call it), how far can you stretch CFM Leap? Looking at B757 and Tu-204, it will need around 160-170 kN engines, maybe even more, depending on desired weight and range.

It brings up a good point. CFM had spent a lot of time developing a proposal for a LEAP variant aimed at a new market segment. What are the odds they do much if anything for an A321 competitor other than saying "There's the LEAP-1A, go for it!".


If the market case is solid, they will do an engine, but that can easily be just a scaled up LEAP, with only a limited improvement in efficiency. Which takes you back to the old problem of business case, time to market, risk sharing, margins and revenues during the service life of the product.
Last edited by seahawk on Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm

I can't see NMA working as a single model aimed right at the A321XLR because then it's just a war of attrition on sale price for both OEMs.

My "recommendation" has been design NMA as a 220-290 seat (single class 32" pitch / 18" width) family of two or three frames which would replace the 737-9 and 737-10 in Boeing's current lineup as well as offer a new-technology platform for the markets originally served by the 757-200 and 757-300. At a minimum, have a 45m and 55m length with a 40m wing (with folding wingtips to fit in a 36m gate), but also consider a 50m model, as well. MTOW range would be 100,000kg on the low end up to 125,000kg on the upper end with either a dual-axle main truck across the board or a single-axle setup on the 100t models and dual-axle on the IGW models. If they could offer the flexibility of both (like the A320 did for a time), that might be even better as you could then offer future HGW versions of the smaller model. Dual-axles will also allow the MTOW of the larger model(s) to grow over time, as well.

I personally do not see a 3+3 narrowbody doing well below 200 seats against a modern 2+3 like the A220 due to the higher OEW, though as you approach 200 seats, the OEW of the 2+3 probably starts to approach that of a 3+3.

So I think Boeing is going to have to bite the bullet and also launch a clean-sheeet in the 200 and below market (in conjunction with Embraer) which I will call "NSA". That market might very well support a dual-product common family strategy with one model aiming for 75-125 seats and the other 125-175.

So where does that leave the 737-8 at around 200 seats? Depending on how the economics work out, either a double-stretch of NSA or a shrink of the 45m NMA.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:49 pm

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
AleksW wrote:
I won't be surprised if it's going to be a 757/A321 class aircraft, maybe with slightly wider cabin (I hope so) and 2 different sets of wings. Assuming that MTOW will be in the region of 115-120 tonnes for an ER/XLR version (whatever they will call it), how far can you stretch CFM Leap? Looking at B757 and Tu-204, it will need around 160-170 kN engines, maybe even more, depending on desired weight and range.

It brings up a good point. CFM had spent a lot of time developing a proposal for a LEAP variant aimed at a new market segment. What are the odds they do much if anything for an A321 competitor other than saying "There's the LEAP-1A, go for it!".


If the market case is solid, they will do an engine, but that can easily be just a scaled up LEAP, with only a limited improvement in efficiency.

Why would they commit to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to design, test and certify a product so similar to LEAP-1A, which they already are selling every single engine they can make as fast as they can make them?

CFM's biggest vulnerability is GTF with a better hot section. Their R&D should be aimed at a gear (just as RR is doing) instead of scaling up LEAP to address a me-too market. Of course if the same engine covers whatever Airbus is going to do for A322 that's great, but it also makes the Boeing variant that much less attractive financially since Airbus already is dominating that market space.
Last edited by Revelation on Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 485
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:51 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
to design a class of aircraft that covers from the 737-7 to the 757-200\300.

I've heard this many times and it is not possible. That would require two different wings and two different engine designs.

If the 757 sized model had 5000nm range then that would require a 110t MTOW and 40,000lb thrust engines. An 737-7 sized cleansheet aircraft at that MTOW would have 7000nm range which is getting ridiculous.

The 737-7 sized cleansheet model would have an empty weight 20+% higher than an actual 737-7. You can put the latest engines on the heavier aircraft and it will have no chance of matching the lighter 737-7.

90% of narrowbody flights are under 1000nm. You will end up with an aircraft that is a jack of all trades and master of none.

Having an 80t MTOW and 120t MTOW wing with 30,000lb and 45,000lb thrust engines would be very expensive. There would be little commonality so changing the cross section wouldn't be a big deal. Boeing would be better off going to a small widebody and then a fully optimised 737 replacement.

Yes, the idea of a similar fuselage. But the 707-320 had a fuselage depth of 14'-2" versus 13'-2" for the front of the 727 and 737.

A fuselage with containers for a 757-300 size 4,500nm aircraft may be an albatross around the neck of a 737-700 size new aircraft.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:09 pm

Stitch wrote:
I can't see NMA working as a single model aimed right at the A321XLR because then it's just a war of attrition on sale price for both OEMs.

My "recommendation" has been design NMA as a 220-290 seat (single class 32" pitch / 18" width) family of two or three frames which would replace the 737-9 and 737-10 in Boeing's current lineup as well as offer a new-technology platform for the markets originally served by the 757-200 and 757-300. At a minimum, have a 45m and 55m length with a 40m wing (with folding wingtips to fit in a 36m gate), but also consider a 50m model, as well. MTOW range would be 100,000kg on the low end up to 125,000kg on the upper end with either a dual-axle main truck across the board or a single-axle setup on the 100t models and dual-axle on the IGW models. If they could offer the flexibility of both (like the A320 did for a time), that might be even better as you could then offer future HGW versions of the smaller model. Dual-axles will also allow the MTOW of the larger model(s) to grow over time, as well.

I personally do not see a 3+3 narrowbody doing well below 200 seats against a modern 2+3 like the A220 due to the higher OEW, though as you approach 200 seats, the OEW of the 2+3 probably starts to approach that of a 3+3.

So I think Boeing is going to have to bite the bullet and also launch a clean-sheeet in the 200 and below market (in conjunction with Embraer) which I will call "NSA". That market might very well support a dual-product common family strategy with one model aiming for 75-125 seats and the other 125-175.

So where does that leave the 737-8 at around 200 seats? Depending on how the economics work out, either a double-stretch of NSA or a shrink of the 45m NMA.

I agree with that strategy 100%.
But at 32" pitch, I would categorize a 44m 3-3 aircraft as 200 seats, and the 737-8 as 175 seats. If the A223 is 145 seats, how far can they stretch it? Maybe up to 170 seats, then they need new gear.
But as Boeing eventually goes to replacing the 737-7/8/9 with a 2-3, they could build a taller gear than the A220. 150/175/200 seats at lengths of 41m/45m/49m.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It brings up a good point. CFM had spent a lot of time developing a proposal for a LEAP variant aimed at a new market segment. What are the odds they do much if anything for an A321 competitor other than saying "There's the LEAP-1A, go for it!".


If the market case is solid, they will do an engine, but that can easily be just a scaled up LEAP, with only a limited improvement in efficiency.

Why would they commit to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to design, test and certify a product so similar to LEAP-1A, which they already are selling every single engine they can make as fast as they can make them?

CFM's biggest vulnerability is GTF with a better hot section. Their R&D should be aimed at a gear (just as RR is doing) instead of scaling up LEAP to address a me-too market. Of course if the same engine covers whatever Airbus is going to do for A322 that's great, but it also makes the Boeing variant that much less attractive financially since Airbus already is dominating that market space.


As I said it would depend on the business case, a scaled up LEAP is cheaper and faster to the market than a new geared engine. It is also less advanced. There is also the price of the complete aircraft to consider and if there is a competition on the plane or if there is only one engine. The business case for a MoM engine is not easier then for the plane itself.
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:30 pm

From a production point of view it would be very interesting if Boeing can incorperate 2 significantly different wings in 1 production line. Then they would be able to introduce one family for the 737-8 to 757-300 market, similar fuselage but with different wings depending on the lenght of the version.

They could start with the larger version in addition to the MAX to counter the A321XLR. As production ramps up they can introduce the smaller versions that will replace the MAX. This should make it possible to keep the MAX production going longer. And when it's time to replace the MAX the replacement will be able to ramp up in an already running production line. This should keep the early production cost lower and it will be possible to have a quick transition from the MAX to it's replacement.

This could also be done if Boeing decides to also do a new 2+3 plane to replace the Boeing Brazil / Embraer E2 jet. There they could start with the shorter versions and let it grow into the MAX 8 replacement later.
 
AleksW
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:48 pm

Momo1435 wrote:
From a production point of view it would be very interesting if Boeing can incorperate 2 significantly different wings in 1 production line. Then they would be able to introduce one family for the 737-8 to 757-300 market, similar fuselage but with different wings depending on the lenght of the version.

History shows that it's possible. The A340-300 and A340-500/600 have slightly different wings in terms of area, wingspan and wing sweep. Even the A321 has slightly larger wing area, compared to the A320 (I think due to larger trailing edge zone), but has the same span.
Last edited by AleksW on Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:48 pm

seahawk wrote:
The business case for a MoM engine is not easier then for the plane itself.

I think it was easier since it is a currently uncovered market segment with IMO growth potential.

I think the engine makers see that they're already close to covering the 757 market segment.

I think they'll expect the new products (FSA, A322) to make up the gap by improved aerodynamic performance rather than new engines.

They're happy to keep selling LEAP/GTF as-is on A321/737 and not too happy for anything that changes the mold lines.
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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

seahawk wrote:
The business case for a MoM engine is not easier then for the plane itself.


I would think that for a single aisle aircraft up to 753 size one could get away with the current generation of single aisle engines(leap/P&W GTF) as I don’t anticipate you’d need much more than about 38klb.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Rev, Scb,

I read that article in it's entirety. NMA appears to be a 757-200 replacement, aka A321XLR competitor. Interesting. The more things change, the more they stay the same. My god, I don't know if I can suffer any more threads on 757-MAX/NEO.

I've always thought a common cockpit/fuselage could be designed with a wing/engine/gear for 757 mission replacements and wing/engine/gear for 737 mission replacements. Maybe we are seeing the beginnings of a NMA/NSA combo.

Thank goodness they elaborated ' CLEAN SHEET '. So if anyone suggest locating and reinstating all of the 757 tooling, we should swiftly administer to them a collective purple nurple!!

It may have killed 757-MAX talk, but may give a boost to 764-MAX discussions.

All this is giving me flashbacks to John Leahy referring to Boeing as "the paper airplane company".

Whatever "fresh concept" Mounir is looking at won't even approach ATO level for another two or so years.

They may slip in the 764-NEO after 77X just to keep the engineers busy.
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
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:08 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The business case for a MoM engine is not easier then for the plane itself.


I would think that for a single aisle aircraft up to 753 size one could get away with the current generation of single aisle engines(leap/P&W GTF) as I don’t anticipate you’d need much more than about 38klb.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think a new plane using an engine that has been flying for 10 years before EiS of that plane, is not going to work. The efficiency gains of the engines are way too huge compared to what you can do with a tube with wings. It is not outlandish to say that by 2030 you could have an engine that is 8-10% better than the LEAP.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:19 pm

DenverTed wrote:
I agree with that strategy 100%. But at 32" pitch, I would categorize a 44m 3-3 aircraft as 200 seats, and the 737-8 as 175 seats. If the A223 is 145 seats, how far can they stretch it? Maybe up to 170 seats, then they need new gear. But as Boeing eventually goes to replacing the 737-7/8/9 with a 2-3, they could build a taller gear than the A220. 150/175/200 seats at lengths of 41m/45m/49m.


Sounds good to me.


Momo1435 wrote:
From a production point of view it would be very interesting if Boeing can incorperate 2 significantly different wings in 1 production line. Then they would be able to introduce one family for the 737-8 to 757-300 market, similar fuselage but with different wings depending on the length of the version.


They might not have to be that "substantially" different. The 777X wings is in many, if not most, ways a scaled-up 787 wing.

So I could see Boeing doing a "common" wing with one size scaled for 40m with folding wingtips to fit in a 737/A321 36m gate and then the larger model scaled for either 52m or 52m with folded wingtips to fit in a 52m 757/767 gate.


seahawk wrote:
I think a new plane using an engine that has been flying for 10 years before EiS of that plane, is not going to work. The efficiency gains of the engines are way too huge compared to what you can do with a tube with wings. It is not outlandish to say that by 2030 you could have an engine that is 8-10% better than the LEAP.


I agree Boeing will need to use the "2030 edition" of propulsion technology. Hopefully RR will have UltraFan ready by then.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2772
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:35 pm

Stitch wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
I agree with that strategy 100%. But at 32" pitch, I would categorize a 44m 3-3 aircraft as 200 seats, and the 737-8 as 175 seats. If the A223 is 145 seats, how far can they stretch it? Maybe up to 170 seats, then they need new gear. But as Boeing eventually goes to replacing the 737-7/8/9 with a 2-3, they could build a taller gear than the A220. 150/175/200 seats at lengths of 41m/45m/49m.


Sounds good to me.


Momo1435 wrote:
From a production point of view it would be very interesting if Boeing can incorperate 2 significantly different wings in 1 production line. Then they would be able to introduce one family for the 737-8 to 757-300 market, similar fuselage but with different wings depending on the length of the version.


They might not have to be that "substantially" different. The 777X wings is in many, if not most, ways a scaled-up 787 wing.

So I could see Boeing doing a "common" wing with one size scaled for 40m with folding wingtips to fit in a 737/A321 36m gate and then the larger model scaled for either 52m or 52m with folded wingtips to fit in a 52m 757/767 gate.


seahawk wrote:
I think a new plane using an engine that has been flying for 10 years before EiS of that plane, is not going to work. The efficiency gains of the engines are way too huge compared to what you can do with a tube with wings. It is not outlandish to say that by 2030 you could have an engine that is 8-10% better than the LEAP.


I agree Boeing will need to use the "2030 edition" of propulsion technology. Hopefully RR will have UltraFan ready by then.


I agree with both of you on the under 200 seat market - that makes sense for it to be a 5W Brazil Airplane. This is semantics but I think this is what Boeing is calling the FSA - the Future Small Airplane.

Whether or not the next size up for the middle of the market is 6W or 7W is very debatable - but as the weight penalty as calculated by Fred may only be 1,000 kg for the fuselage ( I argue they could be so close to be immaterial in weight difference) - 7W may not be that much of a penalty and allow you to stretch it a lot more making the cross section a lot more versatile.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:48 pm

morrisond wrote:
Whether or not the next size up for the middle of the market is 6W or 7W is very debatable - but as the weight penalty as calculated by Fred may only be 1,000 kg for the fuselage ( I argue they could be so close to be immaterial in weight difference) - 7W may not be that much of a penalty and allow you to stretch it a lot more making the cross section a lot more versatile.


I personally do not believe the market is interested in a 7W widebody - I believe they see it as inefficient compared to a 6W narrowbody for shorter "NMA style" missions and an 8W widebody for longer "NMA style" missions.

When Boeing launched the 7E7, they aimed it around the 767-300ER and 767-400ER because they did not want to encroach on the 777-200 and 777-300 families. However, airlines pushed hard for Boeing to enlarge the frame and Airbus raised the operating weights of the A330-300 to the point it could perform missions that were previously only possible with the A340-300 or 777-200ER at significantly lower fuel burn then either frame. As such, Boeing eventually scaled the 787 up to it's current form where it is much larger than the 767-300 / 767-400ER and now is comparable to the A330-200, A330-300 and 777-200.

And we have numerous direct quotes from Boeing Commercial executives saying they could not close the business case for a 7W widebody with airlines even after years of sales presentations.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:54 pm

As painful as it will be Boeing absolutely needs to replace the B737 first. That will take a decade to get a new clean sheet aircraft developed at which time you can end the B737 production. Maybe at some point in the process, they can also develop the 100-150 seat aircraft (Embraer?). By the time the New clean sheet 200-240 seat single aisle is in production they can then focus on a next gen twin aisle. It will be an expensive and long process with not very good financial results but I see no other path for Boeing.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:58 pm

morrisond wrote:

Whether or not the next size up for the middle of the market is 6W or 7W is very debatable - but as the weight penalty as calculated by Fred may only be 1,000 kg for the fuselage ( I argue they could be so close to be immaterial in weight difference) - 7W may not be that much of a penalty and allow you to stretch it a lot more making the cross section a lot more versatile.


I’ll kindly ask you to desist in mischaracterising the work I have put in. Whilst the structural elements of the fuselage may be ~1000kg heavier for the 7w platform you are once again neglecting to tell people this compares it to a 6w with a 28” aisle who still has an DOW of some 6t or 9% lower than the 7w and uses more than 3tons less fuel for the same trip at the same capacity.

Lastly it should be mentioned that the 7w aircraft to be able to get these performance figures has had to be so optimised for the particular mission that in the MOM role we are talking about it is functionally limited to about 4000nm.

I shall not have my work bandied around by someone who sees it as nothing but a tool to bang their own drum and leave it to go unnoticed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2772
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:17 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Whether or not the next size up for the middle of the market is 6W or 7W is very debatable - but as the weight penalty as calculated by Fred may only be 1,000 kg for the fuselage ( I argue they could be so close to be immaterial in weight difference) - 7W may not be that much of a penalty and allow you to stretch it a lot more making the cross section a lot more versatile.


I’ll kindly ask you to desist in mischaracterising the work I have put in. Whilst the structural elements of the fuselage may be ~1000kg heavier for the 7w platform you are once again neglecting to tell people this compares it to a 6w with a 28” aisle who still has an DOW of some 6t or 9% lower than the 7w and uses more than 3tons less fuel for the same trip at the same capacity.

Lastly it should be mentioned that the 7w aircraft to be able to get these performance figures has had to be so optimised for the particular mission that in the MOM role we are talking about it is functionally limited to about 4000nm.

I shall not have my work bandied around by someone who sees it as nothing but a tool to bang their own drum and leave it to go unnoticed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fred as I said in the other thread - I appreciate your work - it's great we just disagree on one or two things.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:30 pm

Stitch wrote:
I personally do not see a 3+3 narrowbody doing well below 200 seats against a modern 2+3 like the A220 due to the higher OEW, though as you approach 200 seats, the OEW of the 2+3 probably starts to approach that of a 3+3.


I'm not so sure a 3+3 would be that much heavier than a 3+2 in the 170-200 single class capacity. What seems to distort people perception somewhat is that people see the lack of success of the A319NEO for instance which has been hit hardest by the upgrade to the NEO. That thing is plain just too capable for the capacity and the missions that it is intended to fly. If however a single 3+3 fuselage cross section were to be offered in two different MTOW designs (wings, wingbox, landing gear etc.). The smaller of the two could be made significantly lighter than the MAX and the NEO (which have grown overly capable for the required missions) and the smaller one would not be too far off.

I'm not an Aviation engineer so I couldn't do any useful calculation, but I suspects the result would be fairly close between the 3+2 and the 3+3.

I'll list a few arguments for sharing the same 3+3 cross section between the high and low MTOW variant:

1 A 3+2 variant would just be a A220 copy, which is technically very well equipped for it's missions
2 A shared cross sections would have more synergies in both R&D and on the assembly line
3 By starting with the smaller variant in 3+3 the higher MTOW 3+3 would have a better base to start from and better economics of scale against the A320XLR with R&D and a very much optimized production infrastructure. Without this starting point the higher MTOW 3+3 would have a very though time against the A321XLR and possible future variants.


Airbus can't possible produce enough narrowbodies on it's own. It would have to increase production rates to insensible levels. That's Boeing's advantage. It's not to bad if the A321XLR takes a large part market for a few year (even if it's a higher margin market). Say Airbus would have a 75 to 25 market share around the A321XLR's market, if Boeing has a 65-35 market share in the sub 200 single class market. Sure it's not ideal but once they launch the higher MTOW version of the 3+3 cross section 50-50 will be restored or probably.s even better
Last edited by Taxi645 on Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2772
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:32 pm

Stitch wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Whether or not the next size up for the middle of the market is 6W or 7W is very debatable - but as the weight penalty as calculated by Fred may only be 1,000 kg for the fuselage ( I argue they could be so close to be immaterial in weight difference) - 7W may not be that much of a penalty and allow you to stretch it a lot more making the cross section a lot more versatile.


I personally do not believe the market is interested in a 7W widebody - I believe they see it as inefficient compared to a 6W narrowbody for shorter "NMA style" missions and an 8W widebody for longer "NMA style" missions.

When Boeing launched the 7E7, they aimed it around the 767-300ER and 767-400ER because they did not want to encroach on the 777-200 and 777-300 families. However, airlines pushed hard for Boeing to enlarge the frame and Airbus raised the operating weights of the A330-300 to the point it could perform missions that were previously only possible with the A340-300 or 777-200ER at significantly lower fuel burn then either frame. As such, Boeing eventually scaled the 787 up to it's current form where it is much larger than the 767-300 / 767-400ER and now is comparable to the A330-200, A330-300 and 777-200.

And we have numerous direct quotes from Boeing Commercial executives saying they could not close the business case for a 7W widebody with airlines even after years of sales presentations.


I'm beginning to believe that Boeing was thinking the NMA was going to be a lot bigger (longer) than I thought and they initially started with. I base a lot of my belief on one quote I saw a long time ago that NMA was about A321 size but one seat wider in it's larger size - about 15% bigger with the smaller one A321+0-5%. NMA seems to had grown since then to what the Airlines seem to have said no too over the last year, where NMA was 25-30% bigger than A321 with a lot bigger wing - 48-52 M.

It now seems like NMA is going back to the earlier smaller capacity concept - just a little bigger than A321 - call it A322 size and as capable as a rewing 322.

As others have pointed out - if you can get pretty good efficiency from smaller designs that have the range capability you need the smaller plane will be more popular and frequency will win over capacity.

If they don't do 7W and go 6W I think the possibility of another cross section 8W is about zero.

We know they are studying two different cross sections (I assume 7W and 6W). 8W as a standalone has about zero chance as no economies of scale as you could never use it to replace 737.

If it's 7W or 6W eventually there will probably be two different wings to cover 738 to 767-250/300 in capacity/capability.

I don't really care what they build - they just need to get started and build something new. However I hope it's an ovoid 7W just because another 6W round tube would be so boring...
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:36 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Whether or not the next size up for the middle of the market is 6W or 7W is very debatable - but as the weight penalty as calculated by Fred may only be 1,000 kg for the fuselage ( I argue they could be so close to be immaterial in weight difference) - 7W may not be that much of a penalty and allow you to stretch it a lot more making the cross section a lot more versatile.


I’ll kindly ask you to desist in mischaracterising the work I have put in. Whilst the structural elements of the fuselage may be ~1000kg heavier for the 7w platform you are once again neglecting to tell people this compares it to a 6w with a 28” aisle who still has an DOW of some 6t or 9% lower than the 7w and uses more than 3tons less fuel for the same trip at the same capacity.

Lastly it should be mentioned that the 7w aircraft to be able to get these performance figures has had to be so optimised for the particular mission that in the MOM role we are talking about it is functionally limited to about 4000nm.

I shall not have my work bandied around by someone who sees it as nothing but a tool to bang their own drum and leave it to go unnoticed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fred as I said in the other thread - I appreciate your work - it's great we just disagree on one or two things.

The thing is Morrisond is that you aren’t really disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Stanford and university of bath aerospace engineering courses so if you don’t like it take it up with them... I’m happy that it matches reality pretty close. So are Airbus...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
Mounir says “with NMA we never crossed the line with customers in terms of ‘this is perfect for me’. It is frankly something we looked at two years ago and when you look at the market today you have to re-address if it still makes sense to have exactly this concept.”

But that's a good thing since it lets them move on to a "fresh concept"

Interesting thing is, if Boeing waits for another two years the market will change again as more 757's and 767's will be retired, which in their product line, is where the gap exist.
So what have they learned from their customer interaction in the last two years that tells them that there is nothing they can do but wait for the market to change again to a position where they can eventually provide a product?
Last edited by par13del on Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2772
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:59 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

I’ll kindly ask you to desist in mischaracterising the work I have put in. Whilst the structural elements of the fuselage may be ~1000kg heavier for the 7w platform you are once again neglecting to tell people this compares it to a 6w with a 28” aisle who still has an DOW of some 6t or 9% lower than the 7w and uses more than 3tons less fuel for the same trip at the same capacity.

Lastly it should be mentioned that the 7w aircraft to be able to get these performance figures has had to be so optimised for the particular mission that in the MOM role we are talking about it is functionally limited to about 4000nm.

I shall not have my work bandied around by someone who sees it as nothing but a tool to bang their own drum and leave it to go unnoticed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fred as I said in the other thread - I appreciate your work - it's great we just disagree on one or two things.

The thing is Morrisond is that you aren’t really disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Stanford and university of bath aerospace engineering courses so if you don’t like it take it up with them... I’m happy that it matches reality pretty close. So are Airbus...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No I just find it really hard to believe that a 5M shorter aircraft needs a tail surface 50% bigger or 3,500lbs more with everything else being more or less the same and with only 1,000kg (assuming same wing span) more weight in the fuselage. Shorter gear could drop that number significantly (instead of adding 400kg) and then you are just dealing with the shorter Moment arm. If the cost/savings were really that much every length aircraft would have custom tail surfaces.

You are basically saying the 7W burns 15% more fuel as the tail is bigger/heavier - that just doesn't seem right.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:26 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Fred as I said in the other thread - I appreciate your work - it's great we just disagree on one or two things.

The thing is Morrisond is that you aren’t really disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Stanford and university of bath aerospace engineering courses so if you don’t like it take it up with them... I’m happy that it matches reality pretty close. So are Airbus...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No I just find it really hard to believe that a 5M shorter aircraft needs a tail surface 50% bigger or 3,500lbs more with everything else being more or less the same and with only 1,000kg (assuming same wing span) more weight in the fuselage. Shorter gear could drop that number significantly (instead of adding 400kg) and then you are just dealing with the shorter Moment arm. If the cost/savings were really that much every length aircraft would have custom tail surfaces.

You are basically saying the 7W burns 15% more fuel as the tail is bigger/heavier - that just doesn't seem right.

It’s a heavier fuselage
It’s a heavier wing
It’s heavier gear
It’s heavier engines
It’s heavier tail surfaces
The aero and weight are intrinsically linked.

If you don’t want to listen, I don’t care and even if you do listen you broadcast misleading statements about the work and effort I have put in.

I have had some nice PMs regarding the thread so thank you to all the nice folks out there. more than makes up for it.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:13 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
I'm not so sure a 3+3 would be that much heavier than a 3+2 in the 170-200 single class capacity. What seems to distort people perception somewhat is that people see the lack of success of the A319NEO for instance which has been hit hardest by the upgrade to the NEO. That thing is plain just too capable for the capacity and the missions that it is intended to fly. If however a single 3+3 fuselage cross section were to be offered in two different MTOW designs (wings, wingbox, landing gear etc.). The smaller of the two could be made significantly lighter than the MAX and the NEO (which have grown overly capable for the required missions) and the smaller one would not be too far off.


A single 3+3 cross section with two different wings and engine thrust capacities could work because we saw it happen with the 737 (Classic) and 757. :)

I just wonder if the shorter (40m and less) variants would be too heavy with a fuselage wide enough to offer a ~30 inch aisle compared to a ~20 inch aisle as on the A320/737 (again, assuming the wider aisle is something airlines would be willing to pay for at any length).
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3642
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:27 pm

Stitch wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
I'm not so sure a 3+3 would be that much heavier than a 3+2 in the 170-200 single class capacity. What seems to distort people perception somewhat is that people see the lack of success of the A319NEO for instance which has been hit hardest by the upgrade to the NEO. That thing is plain just too capable for the capacity and the missions that it is intended to fly. If however a single 3+3 fuselage cross section were to be offered in two different MTOW designs (wings, wingbox, landing gear etc.). The smaller of the two could be made significantly lighter than the MAX and the NEO (which have grown overly capable for the required missions) and the smaller one would not be too far off.


A single 3+3 cross section with two different wings and engine thrust capacities could work because we saw it happen with the 737 (Classic) and 757. :)

I just wonder if the shorter (40m and less) variants would be too heavy with a fuselage wide enough to offer a ~30 inch aisle compared to a ~20 inch aisle as on the A320/737 (again, assuming the wider aisle is something airlines would be willing to pay for at any length).

I agree with the 737+757 style analogy. That’s how I would approach it.

I think a wider single aisle might work in that it could be faster boarding/deboarding with normal seats for the 737 type replacement with a wide aisle and ability for wider seats and narrow aisle for the longer 757 type missions where boarding is less important. Whether these things are important to the airlines and if the are willing to pay a premium for those abilities.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
Seems like Boeing is now considering aiming for a me too XLR sized aircraft:

We are learning what the (A321) XLR is doing, or not. That also gives you a good idea of what the market may want,” Boeing Commercial Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing Ihssane Mounir, told Aviation Week during the Singapore Airshow. His comments offer the first new clues to where Boeing's product development efforts may refocus in the wake of the company’s decision to go back to the drawing board on the NMA.

NMA never closed its business case:

Mounir says “with NMA we never crossed the line with customers in terms of ‘this is perfect for me’. It is frankly something we looked at two years ago and when you look at the market today you have to re-address if it still makes sense to have exactly this concept.”

But that's a good thing since it lets them move on to a "fresh concept"

The beauty of it is we haven’t launched anything so you can always refine the concept and figure out what the right aircraft is for the marketplace,” says Mounir. “The product development team will redirect their efforts to look at a fresh concept and internalize all we have learned through the exercises we have had with customers, but I can tell you we are not flogging anything that we are discussing with customers right now.”


By the sounds of it, Boeing seems fairly happy now (more so than some on here . . . ) that they did not launch the NMA after all . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
744SPX
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:36 pm

With Boeing's apparent move downward in NMA size/capacity I've gotta believe that AB is getting ready moving in for the kill with a rewinged A322 seating 260 (single class) and flying 5000nm. They could beat Boeing to the market by probably 2 years and take a good sized chunk of the market before NMA even flies.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:58 pm

744SPX wrote:
With Boeing's apparent move downward in NMA size/capacity I've gotta believe that AB is getting ready moving in for the kill with a rewinged A322 seating 260 (single class) and flying 5000nm. They could beat Boeing to the market by probably 2 years and take a good sized chunk of the market before NMA even flies.


Unless Airbus is waiting to see how the fallout from the 737 MAX affects certification of new "significantly modified" airframes - which the A322 family would be.
 
2175301
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
NMA never closed its business case:

Mounir says “with NMA we never crossed the line with customers in terms of ‘this is perfect for me’. It is frankly something we looked at two years ago and when you look at the market today you have to re-address if it still makes sense to have exactly this concept.”

But that's a good thing since it lets them move on to a "fresh concept"


Actually, that is not evidence that they did not have adequate interest.

How many airlines buy an aircraft and can say that "this is perfect for me". Usually, it's "this is close enough and will work well."

My interpretation of that statement is that just gobbly gook talk to sound impressive while saying nothing meaningful.

There were multiple reports that multiple airlines were in fact interested in ordering the concept aircraft that Boeing told them about, and my information is that the closed the business case adequately (see below) to have been almost complete ready with presentation for the Board of Directors approval last spring/early summer; until the 737Max situation kibashed it.

What is an adequate business case? A key function of the NMA (797) was to demonstrate and prove out significantly different manufacturing techniques to allow an aircraft to be build much cheeper. Those advances would then feed into the 737 replacement which could allow much better profitability and a very competitive price for the aviation world.

As such, it is entirely possible that the NMA would not have had to meet the normal expected x% profit margin. Perhaps they were willing to accept half or 2/3 of that as demonstrating and real world proving the technology would pay off much more than any profit on the NMA. Of course, they would not be expected to proceed if they could not expect any profit from the program.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:27 pm

Stitch wrote:
A single 3+3 cross section with two different wings and engine thrust capacities could work because we saw it happen with the 737 (Classic) and 757. :)

I just wonder if the shorter (40m and less) variants would be too heavy with a fuselage wide enough to offer a ~30 inch aisle compared to a ~20 inch aisle as on the A320/737 (again, assuming the wider aisle is something airlines would be willing to pay for at any length).


It's not as if the A320 cross section is disfunctional in the A321XLR role. It's wider than tbe 757.

To be fair, one would have to compare a wide aisle 3+3 width a wide aisle a 3+2. If a wide aisle 3+3 170-200 single class is not competitive with a normal aisle 3+2 you built an A320 cross section, works fine.

That's said the idea of a wide aisle for boarding on the short ones and wide seats on the longer ones certainly has it's charme. One would have to do the numbers. It's a complex trade off.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:30 pm

PW100 wrote:
By the sounds of it, Boeing seems fairly happy now (more so than some on here . . . ) that they did not launch the NMA after all . . .

Or the MAX recovery budget has blown up to the point where simply can't afford to do anything for the next 2-3 years and the "fresh concept" is a "paper airplane" being launched to keep the engineers busy and buy time.

744SPX wrote:
With Boeing's apparent move downward in NMA size/capacity I've gotta believe that AB is getting ready moving in for the kill with a rewinged A322 seating 260 (single class) and flying 5000nm. They could beat Boeing to the market by probably 2 years and take a good sized chunk of the market before NMA even flies.

That's one reason why a 6W is problematic for Boeing: Airbus can get most of the "bang for the buck" by doing the oft discussed A322 and beat Boeing in time to market, cost of production, cost of training and spares, ease of integration, etc.

Going up against an entrenched competitor with similar technology is a tough ask.
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
 
744SPX
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:53 pm

Yep, its going to be a bit of a gamble either way unless they are willing to go for broke with the Truss Braced Wing concept. Now you are adding another 10-15% on top of a, lets say, 10-15% 2025-2030 engine gain. That would more than make up for the longer time to to market.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24584
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:06 pm

744SPX wrote:
Yep, its going to be a bit of a gamble either way unless they are willing to go for broke with the Truss Braced Wing concept. Now you are adding another 10-15% on top of a, lets say, 10-15% 2025-2030 engine gain. That would more than make up for the longer time to to market.

Any gain in engine performance that can be easily moved to the competitor's product isn't really a gain.

TBW seems to be a bit too late for anything currently being worked on:

By early 2019, following extensive wind tunnel testing at NASA Ames Research Center, an optimized truss and more sweep for the 170 ft (52 m) span wing allowed flying higher and faster, up from Mach 0.70–0.75 to Mach 0.80 like current jetliners.[1] Compared to aircraft with cantilevered wings, fuel burn should be reduced by 8-10%, and the technology should be ready in 2030-2035.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Truss-Braced_Wing
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
 
744SPX
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:27 pm

I'm curious as to whether rapid prototyping can get TBW in service sooner, or what exactly is holding back the technology? The other advantage with TBW is it could handle much larger bypass ratios than a comparable conventional design, so it would essentially require the competitor to come up with an unconventional design as well.
 
AleksW
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:39 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
A single 3+3 cross section with two different wings and engine thrust capacities could work because we saw it happen with the 737 (Classic) and 757. :)

I just wonder if the shorter (40m and less) variants would be too heavy with a fuselage wide enough to offer a ~30 inch aisle compared to a ~20 inch aisle as on the A320/737 (again, assuming the wider aisle is something airlines would be willing to pay for at any length).

It's not as if the A320 cross section is disfunctional in the A321XLR role. It's wider than tbe 757

That's said the idea of a wide aisle for boarding on the short ones and wide seats on the longer ones certainly has it's charme. One would have to do the numbers. It's a complex trade off.

I'm also thinking about extra space for fuel and cargo, which slightly wider cross section could provide, especially after reading the A321XLR's struggles to find more internal space. Likely, there will be some weight penalty if they go wider, but it's already not that dramatic in the case of A320 vs B737, and the MC21 pushes it even further. I'm assuming Irkut's engineers did their homework.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:58 pm

AleksW wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
A single 3+3 cross section with two different wings and engine thrust capacities could work because we saw it happen with the 737 (Classic) and 757. :)

I just wonder if the shorter (40m and less) variants would be too heavy with a fuselage wide enough to offer a ~30 inch aisle compared to a ~20 inch aisle as on the A320/737 (again, assuming the wider aisle is something airlines would be willing to pay for at any length).

It's not as if the A320 cross section is disfunctional in the A321XLR role. It's wider than tbe 757

That's said the idea of a wide aisle for boarding on the short ones and wide seats on the longer ones certainly has it's charme. One would have to do the numbers. It's a complex trade off.

I'm also thinking about extra space for fuel and cargo, which slightly wider cross section could provide, especially after reading the A321XLR's struggles to find more internal space. Likely, there will be some weight penalty if they go wider, but it's already not that dramatic in the case of A320 vs B737, and the MC21 pushes it even further. I'm assuming Irkut's engineers did their homework.


I would think so too. Just keep in mind that if going for two MTOW variant each with their own wingbox and wing, it would be much easier for Boeing (compared to the XLR) to provide the space for fuel inside the (40m+) wing and thus free up room for cargo in the fuselage.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
LDRA
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:30 am

AleksW wrote:
I won't be surprised if it's going to be a 757/A321 class aircraft, maybe with slightly wider cabin (I hope so) and 2 different sets of wings. Assuming that MTOW will be in the region of 115-120 tonnes for an ER/XLR version (whatever they will call it), how far can you stretch CFM Leap? Looking at B757 and Tu-204, it will need around 160-170 kN engines, maybe even more, depending on desired weight and range.


Maybe able to get away with current 101Ton XLR engine thrust level if they were to go for folding wing tip, and increased wing span
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:50 am

Personally I think it took Boeing an awfull lot of time to realize NB's are more lean and efficient up to 250 seats,than oval 7 abreast cross sections.

Next step is probably the realization that up close to 200 seats single class up to 4 hour flights is where most aircraft will be sold & 737MAX is not holding it's own.
An aircraft optimized for 250 seats and able to fly 5000NM is probably going to be less competitive around that sweetspot.

So Boeing has to slowly further un-NMA their new aircraft, without suggesting it's a 737 replacement of course. viewtopic.php?t=1415977
To be competitive with the A220/A320 families, a lean and mean wing is required. One that makes 250 seats - 5000NM impossible.

The medium segment (>220 seats >4000NM) could be challenged later on. When the new aircraft has been fully industrialized / generates positive cashflow.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
moa999
Posts: 963
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:40 am

But what is that 30" aisle doing for your efficiency and casm?. Remember this aircraft won't compete with today's 320neo,321LR/XLR but tomorrow's.

What if Airbus also takes the new engine, stretches to 322 using lighter panels and rewings with a folding tip - all at a lot less cost to them.
 
TObound
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:38 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Rev, Scb,

I read that article in it's entirety. NMA appears to be a 757-200 replacement, aka A321XLR competitor.


As I predicted. They can sell thousands by making a better 321NEO essentially..... More capacity than the theoretical 322 at the top. Less than the 321 at the bottom. Fits in C gates. Wider aisle. Hopefully wider seats.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:50 am

keesje wrote:
Personally I think it took Boeing an awfull lot of time to realize NB's are more lean and efficient up to 250 seats,than oval 7 abreast cross sections.


Considering Boeing has built both types of frames, one would expect them to know that already.


keesje wrote:
Next step is probably the realization that up close to 200 seats single class up to 4 hour flights is where most aircraft will be sold & 737MAX is not holding it's own.


:confused: The 737-8 is an optimum platform for that kind of mission.


keesje wrote:
So Boeing has to slowly further un-NMA their new aircraft, without suggesting it's a 737 replacement of course. To be competitive with the A220/A320 families, a lean and mean wing is required. One that makes 250 seats - 5000NM impossible.


Unless Boeing offers two wings, each optimized for it's specific model and market.

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