morrisond wrote:FluidFlow wrote:morrisond wrote:You can't say the shape is suboptimal - it may be more Aero - no way until you get it into a tunnel.
TrueThe extra 1,000kg in Fuselage Weight should be offset by shorter cable runs and shorter gear (and possibly more than offset). One of the other posters was suggesting a tail 50% bigger. That seems rather extreme. There should be a difference but on an aircraft that is 130Tish MTOW a tail that is 10-20% bigger (totally guessing) shouldn't be more than a few hundred pounds more - not 3,500.
You wrote in you assumptions that are Quoted above that we have the same weight NB vs the WB. No one will build a 130tMTOW NB, so the NMA will be heavier? The 757-200 had around 115t. Airbus will build the XLR with the same capacity (almost) with 101t MTOW. Your NMA is 30% heavier than the A321 so it will need 30% more capacity (320) to have the same weight/pax ratio.Then you have a wider body that might generate more lift/ meaning less wing.
Might but you assumed the same wing. Otherwise see your own quote:You can't say the shape is suboptimal - it may be more Aero - no way until you get it into a tunnel.We are getting into tiny margins and would the WB be as efficient - probably not - but it could be within very low single digits. Fuel is about 30% of costs - assume 3% less efficient - that is a .3% cost.
This will be entirely dependent on which MTOW you make your assumptions on, same as the NB as you assumed first or the 130MTOW you bring up later, that has to compete against a fictional 130MTOW NB...The WB as it could fit a Wider container - even accounting for shorter length (i've done the calcs before in previous threads and don't feel like looking them up or finding them again) could carry 15-20% more Cargo by Volume providing additional revenue.
A different container that needs new handling facilities to every airport the NMA flies, vs the standard NB container every airport can already handle. I do not see this as an advantage at all. Just more complexity for everyone.We are also ignoring the fact that the WB design will allow more room for Services (Lav's, Galleys) in the front and back meaning those could take less length of the fuselage shaving the WB disadvantage as well. Taking a meter off a 48M fuselage takes a few hundred KG's off. The WB could even with a bigger tail could weigh exactly the same.
So you are making the NMA even shorter if it competes on the same capacity vs the NB that you assume in the quote as being the same capacity.Basically the margins are so close I don't think one could say one is better than the other by any significant amount.
However if you were an airline and both cost the same to buy and operate what would you rather have in your fleet? What do you think passengers would prefer?
The one that offers the cheaper fares so the lower cost per seat, as well as the one I can easier integrate into the fleet (commonality with crew, maintenance and container handling capability).
I was just throwing 130T out there - it might be less it might be more. If a NB seats 300 in Y that means it's bigger than an 753 with a lot more range (753 is 3,400Nm) . The 753 is 124T MTOW.
I 'm assuming same MTOW for both.
WB could be shorter in the front and back service areas as it's wider so you get the same square footage for the same length. You are serving the same number of passengers so storage/lav needs are the same.
I've always assumed that NMA and NSA are based on the same cross section so introducing a new container is no big deal. An LD3-45 will fit in there just fine for cross shipping. 737 Customers don't own any Containers or handling equipment right now anyways - so no big deal to adapt a new size.
Why do you force an argument with a 130t MTOW narrowbody? No one builds such a narrow body and no one will? Why should A or B do this? Just to fit your argument?
There is non and there will be non. Also why should they build a 300 Y narrow body? The last one build was not sold at all and led to the end of the programm. So either you just take it as it is, the NMA will be 100t MTOW to compare it to the 321 or you leave it at 130t and we have am aircraft that is 30% heavier and go from there. Then the airlines can decide.
All I really think is that a 100t MTOW wide body will be a really stupid decision.
So can a 130t WB beat a 100t NB on per seat costs on missions up to 5000nm and also be as flexible to be efficient on 1000nm missions? Thats what the struggle is for Boeing and that is why there is no NMA on sale, especially not a wide body one.