WayexTDI
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:51 pm

morrisond wrote:
planecane wrote:
morrisond wrote:

They figured out how to build an A-12/SR-71 back in the 1960's with Slide Rulers and a very small team - so hundred's/thousand's with very advanced computers can't figure out how to build a wider than taller fuselage using mush more advanced materials and something they may have been working on for at least 12-13 years? You would have to guess they would have built one or two prototype cross sections in that time.



The old engineering adage applies here. "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."

I don't think the issue is that they "can't" figure out how to build it. The issue is that they can't or haven't figured out how to build it cheaply enough. If they really wanted to, I'm sure they could make a one off prototype in a few months.


I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.

I think that back in 2011 (or thereabouts) they had figured out the engineering to build the Ovalish cross section for the NSA as well (but it might have been more of a true oval) they just hadn't figured out how to build it cheaply enough hence we got the MAX.

I think what they had done in the intervening 9 years was to evolve the shape to Ostrower's Child's making it simpler and figured out the production system.

I still suspect we will still see the same NMA shape that would have been offered last year (maybe a touch longer to take into account A322)- albeit with a more advanced control system which they are doing the work on right now to make sure the frame can accommodate it and figure out what they have to charge for it.

I don't think it was that clear. Rumors said Boeing was about to launch the NMA last year, but there's no strong indication about it.

One question though: if the NMA was about to be launched a year ago (and I fully understand why it would not have been, given the MAX grounding), why does Boeing have to go back to the drawing board a year later? If the NMA proposal was solid a year ago, it would be as solid today.
Unless, as many (including me) speculate, the proposal and business case were already iffy-iffy and the announcement of the A321XLR killed it; in which case, the delay might have been a blessing in disguise.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:11 pm

I think it idepends what the NMA a year ago was supposed to address? I get the feeling going back to the drawing board is going to design a class of aircraft that covers from the 737-7 to the 757-200\300. Where the NMA was supposed to target the 757\767 market. And with new designs built in for a NEO versions around 2050. Meaning the capability to take bigger engines without severe modification like the 737. It will have taller landing gear like a 757.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7075
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:19 pm

morrisond wrote:
I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.

I think that back in 2011 (or thereabouts) they had figured out the engineering to build the Ovalish cross section for the NSA as well (but it might have been more of a true oval) they just hadn't figured out how to build it cheaply enough hence we got the MAX.

I think what they had done in the intervening 9 years was to evolve the shape to Ostrower's Child's making it simpler and figured out the production system.

I still suspect we will still see the same NMA shape that would have been offered last year (maybe a touch longer to take into account A322)- albeit with a more advanced control system which they are doing the work on right now to make sure the frame can accommodate it and figure out what they have to charge for it.


From my seat it didn't feel like they'd figured it out at all.
I saw lots of positive noises being created, but the only tangible thing that was consistently laid out right up until the MAX grounding was "We have yet to make the business case close".

I am sure that an NMA was (and is) technically feasible.
What I'm pretty sure is not the case is that they had found a way of making it cheaply enough and selling it in large enough numbers to make it worth doing within the financial targets that were set.

I don't see anything that has changed which makes it easier.
In fact changing the control architecture just adds
a) a level of complexity to the development
b) no chance on earth of making it common with the other aircraft in the Boeing range.

I suspect this CEO is going to have to swallow the pill of

1. lowering his short term financial aspirations
2. taking a much longer range look at strategic product development for the next 2 decades, and building a lasting architecture.

Rgds
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:55 pm

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.

I think that back in 2011 (or thereabouts) they had figured out the engineering to build the Ovalish cross section for the NSA as well (but it might have been more of a true oval) they just hadn't figured out how to build it cheaply enough hence we got the MAX.

I think what they had done in the intervening 9 years was to evolve the shape to Ostrower's Child's making it simpler and figured out the production system.

I still suspect we will still see the same NMA shape that would have been offered last year (maybe a touch longer to take into account A322)- albeit with a more advanced control system which they are doing the work on right now to make sure the frame can accommodate it and figure out what they have to charge for it.


From my seat it didn't feel like they'd figured it out at all.
I saw lots of positive noises being created, but the only tangible thing that was consistently laid out right up until the MAX grounding was "We have yet to make the business case close".

I am sure that an NMA was (and is) technically feasible.
What I'm pretty sure is not the case is that they had found a way of making it cheaply enough and selling it in large enough numbers to make it worth doing within the financial targets that were set.

I don't see anything that has changed which makes it easier.
In fact changing the control architecture just adds
a) a level of complexity to the development
b) no chance on earth of making it common with the other aircraft in the Boeing range.

I suspect this CEO is going to have to swallow the pill of

1. lowering his short term financial aspirations
2. taking a much longer range look at strategic product development for the next 2 decades, and building a lasting architecture.

Rgds


Maybe, maybe not. No one really knows.

However I totally agree with your Points Number 1 and 2 - it's time to stop Stock buybacks and actually invest in product.

I'm a little worried that they may not take this path though as he really is an Airplane Guy and more of a finance person.
 
planecane
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:58 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
morrisond wrote:
planecane wrote:

The old engineering adage applies here. "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."

I don't think the issue is that they "can't" figure out how to build it. The issue is that they can't or haven't figured out how to build it cheaply enough. If they really wanted to, I'm sure they could make a one off prototype in a few months.


I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.

I think that back in 2011 (or thereabouts) they had figured out the engineering to build the Ovalish cross section for the NSA as well (but it might have been more of a true oval) they just hadn't figured out how to build it cheaply enough hence we got the MAX.

I think what they had done in the intervening 9 years was to evolve the shape to Ostrower's Child's making it simpler and figured out the production system.

I still suspect we will still see the same NMA shape that would have been offered last year (maybe a touch longer to take into account A322)- albeit with a more advanced control system which they are doing the work on right now to make sure the frame can accommodate it and figure out what they have to charge for it.

I don't think it was that clear. Rumors said Boeing was about to launch the NMA last year, but there's no strong indication about it.

One question though: if the NMA was about to be launched a year ago (and I fully understand why it would not have been, given the MAX grounding), why does Boeing have to go back to the drawing board a year later? If the NMA proposal was solid a year ago, it would be as solid today.
Unless, as many (including me) speculate, the proposal and business case were already iffy-iffy and the announcement of the A321XLR killed it; in which case, the delay might have been a blessing in disguise.


The "back to the drawing board" seems to have more to do with flight control philosophy in the wake of the MAX than it does with the design or business case. Calhoun even mentioned the Airbus flight controls. I would expect that Boeing will attempt to "idiot proof" the cockpit like Airbus did when they created the A320 FBW system.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:14 pm

planecane wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.

I think that back in 2011 (or thereabouts) they had figured out the engineering to build the Ovalish cross section for the NSA as well (but it might have been more of a true oval) they just hadn't figured out how to build it cheaply enough hence we got the MAX.

I think what they had done in the intervening 9 years was to evolve the shape to Ostrower's Child's making it simpler and figured out the production system.

I still suspect we will still see the same NMA shape that would have been offered last year (maybe a touch longer to take into account A322)- albeit with a more advanced control system which they are doing the work on right now to make sure the frame can accommodate it and figure out what they have to charge for it.

I don't think it was that clear. Rumors said Boeing was about to launch the NMA last year, but there's no strong indication about it.

One question though: if the NMA was about to be launched a year ago (and I fully understand why it would not have been, given the MAX grounding), why does Boeing have to go back to the drawing board a year later? If the NMA proposal was solid a year ago, it would be as solid today.
Unless, as many (including me) speculate, the proposal and business case were already iffy-iffy and the announcement of the A321XLR killed it; in which case, the delay might have been a blessing in disguise.


The "back to the drawing board" seems to have more to do with flight control philosophy in the wake of the MAX than it does with the design or business case. Calhoun even mentioned the Airbus flight controls. I would expect that Boeing will attempt to "idiot proof" the cockpit like Airbus did when they created the A320 FBW system.

Boeing is not new to FBW: the 777 and 787 are FBW.
So, why reinvent the wheel?

I think all the excuses Boeing is throwing out there are just that, excuses: they couldn't close the business case for a brand new middle of the market design.
 
planecane
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:21 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
planecane wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
I don't think it was that clear. Rumors said Boeing was about to launch the NMA last year, but there's no strong indication about it.

One question though: if the NMA was about to be launched a year ago (and I fully understand why it would not have been, given the MAX grounding), why does Boeing have to go back to the drawing board a year later? If the NMA proposal was solid a year ago, it would be as solid today.
Unless, as many (including me) speculate, the proposal and business case were already iffy-iffy and the announcement of the A321XLR killed it; in which case, the delay might have been a blessing in disguise.


The "back to the drawing board" seems to have more to do with flight control philosophy in the wake of the MAX than it does with the design or business case. Calhoun even mentioned the Airbus flight controls. I would expect that Boeing will attempt to "idiot proof" the cockpit like Airbus did when they created the A320 FBW system.

Boeing is not new to FBW: the 777 and 787 are FBW.
So, why reinvent the wheel?

I think all the excuses Boeing is throwing out there are just that, excuses: they couldn't close the business case for a brand new middle of the market design.


Because their FBW philosophy is different than Airbus' philosophy. Airbus wanted the controls to be idiot proof. Boeing (on the 777 and 787) wanted the pilot to have ultimate control. It would take a lot of effort but a pilot can stall a 777 or 787 if they try hard enough (and turn off things like autothrottle) in normal mode. In an Airbus, the envelope protection won't let them.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:22 pm

morissond wrote:
I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.


Bird shot. Lots of info bytes released.
IMU the "offer readiness" was on a level with the NSA previously ( supposed to fend of NEO ) i.e. nill.

Coming up with "incrementals" from the Airbus side didn't make things easier.
A321NEO, LR, XLR are death by little cuts to the MOMish product idea.

On the smallish NB side it is the A220 that gnaws on Boeing's heels.
CoG in the NB line is the -800, -8MAX. not moving, really
while average seats sold per item has strongly grown on the A320 family side.

edit: fixed reference. OK now?
Last edited by WIederling on Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:27 pm

WIederling wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.


Bird shot. Lots of info bytes released.
IMU the "offer readiness" was on a level with the NSA previously ( supposed to fend of NEO ) i.e. nill.

Coming up with "incrementals" from the Airbus side didn't make things easier.
A321NEO, LR, XLR are death by little cuts to the MOMish product idea.

On the smallish NB side it is the A220 that gnaws on Boeing's heels.
CoG in the NB line is the -800, -8MAX. not moving, really
while average seats sold per item has strongly grown on the A320 family side.

That quote isn't mine; it's from morrisond.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:29 pm

planecane wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
planecane wrote:

The "back to the drawing board" seems to have more to do with flight control philosophy in the wake of the MAX than it does with the design or business case. Calhoun even mentioned the Airbus flight controls. I would expect that Boeing will attempt to "idiot proof" the cockpit like Airbus did when they created the A320 FBW system.

Boeing is not new to FBW: the 777 and 787 are FBW.
So, why reinvent the wheel?

I think all the excuses Boeing is throwing out there are just that, excuses: they couldn't close the business case for a brand new middle of the market design.


Because their FBW philosophy is different than Airbus' philosophy. Airbus wanted the controls to be idiot proof. Boeing (on the 777 and 787) wanted the pilot to have ultimate control. It would take a lot of effort but a pilot can stall a 777 or 787 if they try hard enough (and turn off things like autothrottle) in normal mode. In an Airbus, the envelope protection won't let them.

So, does it mean the 777 or 787 FBW philosophy needs to be changed as well?

I stand on my opinion: Boeing never had a case for the NMA and used all the excuses it could find.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:40 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
So, does it mean the 777 or 787 FBW philosophy needs to be changed as well?


777 and 787 FBW have not been questioned.
BoeingBossTalk could be interpreted as

"a new FBW type from Boeing will have harder limits and stronger pilot interaction channeling."

It sounded as if Calhoun saw Airbus hard limits FBW as a solution. But that is not a given afaics.
Boeing needs a consistent interface across fall back levels.
Murphy is an optimist
 
oschkosch
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:50 pm

WayexTDI wrote:

One question though: if the NMA was about to be launched a year ago (and I fully understand why it would not have been, given the MAX grounding), why does Boeing have to go back to the drawing board a year later? If the NMA proposal was solid a year ago, it would be as solid today.
Unless, as many (including me) speculate, the proposal and business case were already iffy-iffy and the announcement of the A321XLR killed it; in which case, the delay might have been a blessing in disguise.


That definitely sums it up pretty good! :checkmark:


morissond wrote:
I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.


I don't believe that the launch was even close to being imminent. Looking back, all the blustering about Boeing getting close to AtO seems to have been lots of hot air! Maybe just so that potential customers do not order Airbus planes.

WIederling wrote:
Bird shot. Lots of info bytes released.
IMU the "offer readiness" was on a level with the NSA previously ( supposed to fend of NEO ) i.e. nill.

Coming up with "incrementals" from the Airbus side didn't make things easier.
A321NEO, LR, XLR are death by little cuts to the MOMish product idea.


Yep, indeed, Airbus did not apply a full shot at Boeing, but a multitude or cuts which have caused the hot air of the NMA to evaporate.
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18268
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:56 pm

morrisond wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. No one really knows.


You would think senior Boeing execs would know, no?

In late May, Miulenburg said “We are continuing to work through our business case analysis
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 99.article

In mid June at the Paris Air Show, McAllister said they had yet to make the business case.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... commit-nma

Both those statements are comfortably later than when you believe NMA was ready to go if it weren’t for MAX.
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
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:07 pm

planecane wrote:
e]
The "back to the drawing board" seems to have more to do with flight control philosophy in the wake of the MAX than it does with the design or business case. Calhoun even mentioned the Airbus flight controls. I would expect that Boeing will attempt to "idiot proof" the cockpit like Airbus did when they created the A320 FBW system.

I would expect the regulators to first get together and propose a standard and or basic information that they want presented in a simply / complex manner, how the OEM's implement that will be based on their style.
If such is the case, Boeing and Airbus can do their next clean sheet using their existing philosophy while the regulators get their act together, if either one attempts to set the standard on their own it will not go well politically.
 
planecane
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:40 pm

This is sort of related to the NMA and cross section discussions. How did the 767 end up designed as 7 abreast? It was designed in the late 70's with the oil crisis issues. Fuel efficiency was a key goal of the design. How did they end up with 7 abreast, which, in the context of the NMA discussion, is less efficient than 6 abreast or 8 abreast even with 40 years of technology improvement?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:01 pm

planecane wrote:
This is sort of related to the NMA and cross section discussions. How did the 767 end up designed as 7 abreast? It was designed in the late 70's with the oil crisis issues. Fuel efficiency was a key goal of the design. How did they end up with 7 abreast, which, in the context of the NMA discussion, is less efficient than 6 abreast or 8 abreast even with 40 years of technology improvement?


767 is a different pay²load / fuel fraction and thus range design to the A300 using similar engines.
( Airbus objective was the smallest cross section that allowed 8 across and established containers in the belly.)

more range on the 767 needed the smaller fuselage for less drag.
Not quite sure who's aero was better at the time.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:06 pm

planecane wrote:
This is sort of related to the NMA and cross section discussions. How did the 767 end up designed as 7 abreast? It was designed in the late 70's with the oil crisis issues. Fuel efficiency was a key goal of the design. How did they end up with 7 abreast, which, in the context of the NMA discussion, is less efficient than 6 abreast or 8 abreast even with 40 years of technology improvement?

I believe they effectively wanted to get the biggest twin plane they could given the max thrust available per engine at the time and needed to get a certain range. To go 8 abreast would have given them too little range.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:17 pm

scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. No one really knows.


You would think senior Boeing execs would know, no?

In late May, Miulenburg said “We are continuing to work through our business case analysis
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 99.article

In mid June at the Paris Air Show, McAllister said they had yet to make the business case.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... commit-nma

Both those statements are comfortably later than when you believe NMA was ready to go if it weren’t for MAX.


All those quotes are after the MAX grounding - of course that is what they would say at that time they were a little busy. Things had changed.

In January this is what Boeing was saying "Boeing Co said on Wednesday it would make a final launch decision in 2020 on its proposed new mid-sized jetliner, depending on the results of a round of commercial pre-marketing which it may begin this year."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1PO2KS

In general Companies don't say things like that unless they are pretty serious.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:22 pm

morrisond wrote:

In general Companies don't say things like that unless they are pretty serious.

What would they say if they weren’t sure but wanted to sound serious to avoid sales going to competition?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:34 pm

morrisond wrote:
In January this is what Boeing was saying "Boeing Co said on Wednesday it would make a final launch decision in 2020 on its proposed new mid-sized jetliner, depending on the results of a round of commercial pre-marketing which it may begin this year."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1PO2KS

In general Companies don't say things like that unless they are pretty serious.


That is a black or white outcome statement.

It is by far not a "serious future commitment" statement :-)

They will do the decission ( yes or no ). outcome will be dependent on ....
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:36 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

In general Companies don't say things like that unless they are pretty serious.

What would they say if they weren’t sure but wanted to sound serious to avoid sales going to competition?


Where do you place the "767 re-engine with GenX" rumors ?

Into the big basket with FUD? .-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18268
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:37 pm

morrisond wrote:
All those quotes are after the MAX grounding - of course that is what they would say at that time they were a little busy. Things had changed.


Circumstances may have changed, but nothing before or after those statements has said Boeing ever closed the business case. Certainly not when you believe it was ready to go.

morrisond wrote:
In January this is what Boeing was saying "Boeing Co said on Wednesday it would make a final launch decision in 2020 on its proposed new mid-sized jetliner, depending on the results of a round of commercial pre-marketing which it may begin this year."


That’s from January 2019, before either of the quotes I provided. A year later and, in the words of the new CEO, “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper, again.

I’m struggling to see a basis for your belief NMA was all ready to go when MAX was grounded.
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.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:42 pm

scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
All those quotes are after the MAX grounding - of course that is what they would say at that time they were a little busy. Things had changed.


Circumstances may have changed, but nothing before or after those statements has said Boeing ever closed the business case. Certainly not when you believe it was ready to go.

morrisond wrote:
In January this is what Boeing was saying "Boeing Co said on Wednesday it would make a final launch decision in 2020 on its proposed new mid-sized jetliner, depending on the results of a round of commercial pre-marketing which it may begin this year."


That’s from January 2019, before either of the quotes I provided. A year later and, in the words of the new CEO, “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper, again.

I’m struggling to see a basis for your belief NMA was all ready to go when MAX was grounded.


Believe what you want. I believe they would not have made statements like that unless the math worked on both how to build it (how to build a cross section that wasn't round) and how to build it for a profit.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:47 pm

scbriml wrote:
That’s from January 2019, before either of the quotes I provided. A year later and, in the words of the new CEO, “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper, again.


Isn't that the promised "serious" notice from management on committing to this project or not?
i.e. a resounding NO. addendum: we'll start from new
( .. as work done up to now does not provide for a viable platform? ).
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:49 pm

morrisond wrote:
scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
All those quotes are after the MAX grounding - of course that is what they would say at that time they were a little busy. Things had changed.


Circumstances may have changed, but nothing before or after those statements has said Boeing ever closed the business case. Certainly not when you believe it was ready to go.

morrisond wrote:
In January this is what Boeing was saying "Boeing Co said on Wednesday it would make a final launch decision in 2020 on its proposed new mid-sized jetliner, depending on the results of a round of commercial pre-marketing which it may begin this year."


That’s from January 2019, before either of the quotes I provided. A year later and, in the words of the new CEO, “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper, again.

I’m struggling to see a basis for your belief NMA was all ready to go when MAX was grounded.


Believe what you want. I believe they would not have made statements like that unless the math worked on both how to build it (how to build a cross section that wasn't round) and how to build it for a profit.

So what would they say if the maths didn’t work out but they still didn’t want people to buy A321s?

Scenario 1.
Head of the treasury:“Mr president, we’ve just counted the gold in Fort Knox and there’s three times as much as we thought”
The president: “okay, double the guard”

Scenario 2.
Head of treasury: “Mr president, we’ve just counted the gold in Fort Knox and there’s none left.”
The president: “okay, double the guard”

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:46 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

In general Companies don't say things like that unless they are pretty serious.

What would they say if they weren’t sure but wanted to sound serious to avoid sales going to competition?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In all the years that Boeing has been talking about NMA and MOM, exactly how many airlines have NOT bought the A321?
I think we need to lay this chestnut to bed, there are enough tangible reasons that we can point to versus this sound bite.
 
AleksW
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:56 pm

planecane wrote:
This is sort of related to the NMA and cross section discussions. How did the 767 end up designed as 7 abreast? It was designed in the late 70's with the oil crisis issues. Fuel efficiency was a key goal of the design. How did they end up with 7 abreast, which, in the context of the NMA discussion, is less efficient than 6 abreast or 8 abreast even with 40 years of technology improvement?

These are only my speculations. IMO, it was a question of available engines and range. They just built the 767 in order to get 10-11k km and ended up with 2-3-2 standard seating. In the end, I think the B767 was able to fly farther than the A300/310.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:58 pm

They should have done this right after the 787. But they had to redo parts of the 787 and ended up being way over budget. So it seems they cut the CFRP narrowbody back then.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

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

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:25 pm

AleksW wrote:
planecane wrote:
This is sort of related to the NMA and cross section discussions. How did the 767 end up designed as 7 abreast? It was designed in the late 70's with the oil crisis issues. Fuel efficiency was a key goal of the design. How did they end up with 7 abreast, which, in the context of the NMA discussion, is less efficient than 6 abreast or 8 abreast even with 40 years of technology improvement?

These are only my speculations. IMO, it was a question of available engines and range. They just built the 767 in order to get 10-11k km and ended up with 2-3-2 standard seating. In the end, I think the B767 was able to fly farther than the A300/310.


Correct: competition was A300/310 and DC-10/L1011. Payload/Range way better than A300/310 and one engine less and better fuel burn than DC-10/L1011. Of course it sold very well. That however changed when the A330 came out but that was more than 10 years later and even then in the beginning Airbus missed the service network to provide equal (and necessary) support to be a big threat.On top of that, the first A330s lacked range to compete effectively with the 767. The real difference came when the A330's range improved.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
Schmave
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:30 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:14 pm

Here's an interesting article from FlightGlobal with comments from Ihssane Mounir, Boeing's vice-president of commercial sales and marketing:
https://www.flightglobal.com/singapore- ... 77.article

This quote in particular seems to lead us to read between the lines:

Asked about the NMA’s future, Mounir says: “It was a market space we probed. And notice we didn’t launch.”


To me this says they still haven't been able to make the business case work for a small wide-body. So it's looking more and more like Boeing will "do nothing" with NMA, and I would take a guess that their next clean sheet design will be to replace the 737 toward the middle/end of the decade.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:40 pm

You missed the part about the headline "Boeing head of sales still discounts narrowbodies as mid-market answer"

He totally contradicts himself in that article. Talking out of both sides of his mouth.

They may focus on smaller 737 sized variants first - but this doesn't mean that can't reuse the 7W cross section for that. It appears it does have some advantages in wetted area and the weight penalty may be insignificant. Look in tech ops.

Or maybe they were looking at something significantly larger but now will refocus on A322, A323 sizes as Airbus seems to have redefined what the Middle of the Market is.

But that's what I have thought all along as I believed NMA was A321 sized but one seat wider in Y - 2 wider in the front.
Last edited by morrisond on Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:41 pm

There was an article on Flightglobal that posed the question as to whether or not the old 787-3 design might be of some value to the NMA project.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:05 pm

The 787-3 design is effectively a no-go due to it's hampered aerodynamics from it's truncated wingspan - it's been said the 787-8 offered better per-seat economics at ranges as short as 500km. Boeing has also pulled empty weight out of the 787-8 baseline airframe by using lighter parts developed for the 787-9 since then so the 787-3 probably has zero advantage over the 787-8 on any stage length and you can de-rate the 787-8's operating weights and thrust variants for shorter stage lengths.

I do think 220-240 seats is where Boeing's near-term focus needs to be to successfully challenge the A321neo family (all models) and while I can understand Boeing's argument that a widebody will be perceived as more comfortable than a narrowbody with identical seats and pitch due to the more expansive cabin, the US3 have found sufficient success using their 757-200 fleets on 3000nm+ missions and Airbus has responded by offering an A321XLR that can do the same for airlines wanting to try and replicate that success who do not have 757s. I personally think the idea is going to catch on and while I do not see narrowbodies becoming the dominant platform across the Atlantic, there may be enough of them that Boeing will want to be in that market, as well.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:11 pm

If an A321 xlr has a 33K engine on a 100t aircraft and the A330 is a 70K engine on a 250t aircraft, when Boeing was asking for engine proposals for a 52K engine, they seemed to be building a 150 to 160t aircraft. Given what the A321 can do with older technology and a small Al wing, what could be done at 125t to 130t with a current tech wing? I think Boeing picked the wrong size in a 52K engine and would have simply built a competitor for the low half of the 787/A350 market, and a 767-300ER replacement. A 52K engine NMA is Y2, what the 787 supposedly is, so what's up with that?
 
Ertro
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:26 pm

morrisond wrote:
You missed the part about the headline "Boeing head of sales still discounts narrowbodies as mid-market answer"
He totally contradicts himself in that article. Talking out of both sides of his mouth.


There is no contradiction.

He said narrowbodies lack comfort. That is not a showstopper hard limit.
What he said about NMA was much stronger. “It was a market space we probed. And notice we didn’t launch.” Is much stronger language to tell that whatever Boeing studied as NMA is not the answer.

So that leaves three possibilities. Either mid-market does not have an answer at all. That is completely possible. Neither narrowbody nor widebody works.
Or it is still possible that Boeing will launch a narrowbody into mid-market or A322 is the mid-market answer despite it lacking some level of comfort.

There are some people who want to take each word from CEO as whole truth and nothing but the truth. CEO's always talk a little in mysterious ways. Not telling exact lies but also never also telling the whole truth. Especially if the issue is about little technical details like control concepts. A New CEO which has been on the job for 2 weeks cannot know what is the deep truth about some airplane control philosophy that is just starting to be developed.

What CEOs n the other hand do know is big picture and what is the big message they want to send to their customers, the CEOs of airlines around the world. They do not care about airplane control philosophies. The care whether they can expect NMA announcement next month. And for this we just got another strong message which is "Do not expect anything in near future and what is the thing we are going to propose a little later it might be completely different than what you think."
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:42 pm

Ertro wrote:
There is no contradiction.

He said narrowbodies lack comfort. That is not a showstopper hard limit.
"

Since the 767's are being replaced on USA transcons by A321's, what would we expect him to say to defend not having a appropriate product in that space?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4063
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:47 pm

morrisond wrote:
scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
All those quotes are after the MAX grounding - of course that is what they would say at that time they were a little busy. Things had changed.

Circumstances may have changed, but nothing before or after those statements has said Boeing ever closed the business case. Certainly not when you believe it was ready to go.
morrisond wrote:
In January this is what Boeing was saying "Boeing Co said on Wednesday it would make a final launch decision in 2020 on its proposed new mid-sized jetliner, depending on the results of a round of commercial pre-marketing which it may begin this year."

That’s from January 2019, before either of the quotes I provided. A year later and, in the words of the new CEO, “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper, again.
I’m struggling to see a basis for your belief NMA was all ready to go when MAX was grounded.

Believe what you want. I believe they would not have made statements like that unless the math worked on both how to build it (how to build a cross section that wasn't round) and how to build it for a profit.


Boeing made similar type of statements on the NSA ("we're going to build a new airplane"), right up to the point they lauched the Max back in 2011 . . . believe what you want. Indeed.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:52 pm

morrisond wrote:

They may focus on smaller 737 sized variants first - but this doesn't mean that can't reuse the 7W cross section for that. It appears it does have some advantages in wetted area and the weight penalty may be insignificant. Look in tech ops.

.


Incorrect, you will see a dead end aircraft with no capability for an increased range version having a 9% fuselage weight disadvantage and a total surface area disadvantage.

You are demonstrating Schopenhauer 14.

Physics is still the foot in the business case door...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:30 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

They may focus on smaller 737 sized variants first - but this doesn't mean that can't reuse the 7W cross section for that. It appears it does have some advantages in wetted area and the weight penalty may be insignificant. Look in tech ops.

.


Incorrect, you will see a dead end aircraft with no capability for an increased range version having a 9% fuselage weight disadvantage and a total surface area disadvantage.

You are demonstrating Schopenhauer 14.

Physics is still the foot in the business case door...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You need to go read Tech Ops - The fuselage weight disadvantage is more like 2.5% at the most when you add in the weight of the passengers and baggage, and total surface area looks like the 7W might win.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:35 pm

PW100 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Circumstances may have changed, but nothing before or after those statements has said Boeing ever closed the business case. Certainly not when you believe it was ready to go.

That’s from January 2019, before either of the quotes I provided. A year later and, in the words of the new CEO, “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper, again.
I’m struggling to see a basis for your belief NMA was all ready to go when MAX was grounded.

Believe what you want. I believe they would not have made statements like that unless the math worked on both how to build it (how to build a cross section that wasn't round) and how to build it for a profit.


Boeing made similar type of statements on the NSA ("we're going to build a new airplane"), right up to the point they lauched the Max back in 2011 . . . believe what you want. Indeed.


Somehow I don't think they will do another derivative this time. It will be a clean sheet - it's just whether or not the new cross section is 6W or 7W.

It looks like there may be no real disadvantage to a 7W (see tech ops) - If I were Airbus I would really hope Boeing doesn't do a 7W as that would put them at a big disadvantage if they stick with the A320 tube as they won't be able to grow it to nearly the same capacity.

I think that is why Airbus is waiting to see what Boeing does first as then they will know what direction to go in.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:50 pm

(profit per frame X Number of planes sold) - Development cost = Profit of program

This math clearly did not work out. Not enough planes could be sold at enough premium when considering how much it would cost to develop a new aircraft. With NBs being built at such high volume the unit cost advantage compared to a WB to fulfill the same market section must be daunting. I think that the WB optimum size has drifted up in recent years and we will see how it plays out. I expect to come back in a few years to rehash this discussion and we will be talking about hindsight rather than following the trends.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:04 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

They may focus on smaller 737 sized variants first - but this doesn't mean that can't reuse the 7W cross section for that. It appears it does have some advantages in wetted area and the weight penalty may be insignificant. Look in tech ops.

.


Incorrect, you will see a dead end aircraft with no capability for an increased range version having a 9% fuselage weight disadvantage and a total surface area disadvantage.

You are demonstrating Schopenhauer 14.

Physics is still the foot in the business case door...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You need to go read Tech Ops - The fuselage weight disadvantage is more like 2.5% at the most when you add in the weight of the passengers and baggage, and total surface area looks like the 7W might win.

Then add the tail and the tail surfaces which have to be bigger not only because it heavier but because if the reduced moment arm and the resulting wing area increase and in creased thrust requirements thus growing the fuel requirement and then the required MTOW and again another round of upping the surface areas to counteract the increased weight and you find that the WB is still not there. The triumphalism of “winning” betrays your bias. The myopic view of single variables hinders many in this forum. This time two years ago we were in the midst of aspect ratios whilst ignoring weight, today the words are different but the tune is the same.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:15 pm

Suddenly wetted area is the magic solution. It is not even a sensible metric to determine drag, but merely one part of the equation.
 
Blotto
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:25 pm

Schmave wrote:
Here's an interesting article from FlightGlobal with comments from Ihssane Mounir, Boeing's vice-president of commercial sales and marketing:
https://www.flightglobal.com/singapore- ... 77.article

This quote in particular seems to lead us to read between the lines:

Asked about the NMA’s future, Mounir says: “It was a market space we probed. And notice we didn’t launch.”


To me this says they still haven't been able to make the business case work for a small wide-body. So it's looking more and more like Boeing will "do nothing" with NMA, and I would take a guess that their next clean sheet design will be to replace the 737 toward the middle/end of the decade.


In the end he is just stating the obvious. They tried this NMA concept for almost a decade, still no business case. The market gap is there because of physics. No one in his right mind would launch a small widebody given the other homework Boeing has to do.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:38 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Incorrect, you will see a dead end aircraft with no capability for an increased range version having a 9% fuselage weight disadvantage and a total surface area disadvantage.

You are demonstrating Schopenhauer 14.

Physics is still the foot in the business case door...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You need to go read Tech Ops - The fuselage weight disadvantage is more like 2.5% at the most when you add in the weight of the passengers and baggage, and total surface area looks like the 7W might win.

Then add the tail and the tail surfaces which have to be bigger not only because it heavier but because if the reduced moment arm and the resulting wing area increase and in creased thrust requirements thus growing the fuel requirement and then the required MTOW and again another round of upping the surface areas to counteract the increased weight and you find that the WB is still not there. The triumphalism of “winning” betrays your bias. The myopic view of single variables hinders many in this forum. This time two years ago we were in the midst of aspect ratios whilst ignoring weight, today the words are different but the tune is the same.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I said the tail would have to bigger many times in our discussion - which might offset the 3% lesser wetted area of the 7W.

And the 7W might be 2.5% heavier (not 9%) assuming it's a lot heavier per meter - which it might not be (it will be more but maybe not as much as you expect). I'm using your numbers with payload to get to 2.5% more.

The shorter WB could have shorter/lighter gear as well and lighter wing box/nose (shorter gear doesn't need as much strength in the wingbox/nose) due to rotation angles not being as big a problem as on a NB that can take 300 people.

The difference is not as large as you suggest. We are talking very low single digits either way.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:43 pm

seahawk wrote:
Suddenly wetted area is the magic solution. It is not even a sensible metric to determine drag, but merely one part of the equation.


Yes - it is only one part of the equation - however if you hold everything else constant (same wing, same weight) there is not much left and the wider/flatter fuselage may give you a slight lift advantage meaning a smaller wing for the WB.
 
Schmave
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:30 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:00 pm

Blotto wrote:
In the end he is just stating the obvious. They tried this NMA concept for almost a decade, still no business case. The market gap is there because of physics. No one in his right mind would launch a small widebody given the other homework Boeing has to do.


Exactly. There is a reason that the MOM gap exists, at least with tube and wing designs. Once you go beyond a single aisle you add a fair amount of structure for the second aisle. If you then don't add enough extra seats per row you become noncompetitive.

morrisond wrote:
You missed the part about the headline "Boeing head of sales still discounts narrowbodies as mid-market answer"


I think what he's saying is that, by Boeing's definition of the MOM (220-270 seats, up to 5000 nm), a narrow body cannot meet that definition. In other words, the A321XLR does not meet Boeing's definition of the MOM. In reality, the A321XLR is most definitely encroaching on the bottom end of this. But he's also saying that they can't do a clean sheet 7W design and meet the business case. Heck, maybe they can make a 7W plane that is competitive with CASM of an A321XLR, but maybe it would cost too much to build. Either way it sounds like we won't getting our small widebody NMA anytime soon (if ever).
 
DCAfan
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:47 pm

What I would like to see is a 797 that is a true 767 replacement with range of 5 700 nautical miles. I am not sure this is possible, so I suspect I will keep on dreaming.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18268
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:35 pm

morrisond wrote:
The difference is not as large as you suggest. We are talking very low single digits either way.


And yet we don’t have a new 7W plane that airlines can buy, despite your belief Boeing had it all ready to go. If it was, why did Calhoun decide to “start over”? Clue - the answer isn’t “because of MAX”.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:47 pm

morrisond wrote:

I said the tail would have to bigger many times in our discussion - which might offset the 3% lesser wetted area of the 7W.
8.7% higher in total, apples to apples its 21.5% reduction.

morrisond wrote:
And the 7W might be 2.5% heavier (not 9%) assuming it's a lot heavier per meter
based on the fuselage weight being equal to that of a round fuselage and not adding the additional weight from having a oval shape that adds weight in bothe the areas of change of radius and the floor being in compression, if anything this favours the wide oval.

morrisond wrote:
which it might not be (it will be more but maybe not as much as you expect)
Is this wishful thinking or do you have something to add to this?

morrisond wrote:
The shorter WB could have shorter/lighter gear as well and lighter wing box/nose (shorter gear doesn't need as much strength in the wingbox/nose) due to rotation angles not being as big a problem as on a NB that can take 300 people.

It needs the gear to hold it high enough to allow the engines to fit so I don't know why rotation would be an issue. Why would the wing box and nose have less stress?

morrisond wrote:
The difference is not as large as you suggest

Question or statement? if its a question, read the tech ops thread again, if its a statement, please show why its true.

morrisond wrote:
We are talking very low single digits either way.
Cool, but even if it is single digits in favor of the NB you'll note that single digits in favor of the larger aircraft did not save the A380 against its rivals...

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Suddenly wetted area is the magic solution. It is not even a sensible metric to determine drag, but merely one part of the equation.


Yes - it is only one part of the equation - however if you hold everything else constant (same wing, same weight) there is not much left and the wider/flatter fuselage may give you a slight lift advantage meaning a smaller wing for the WB.

Indeed, if you ignore all the things that make the ovoid worse and only keep the things that are of benefit then hey presto it looks good! My gambling record is great by the way. if you ignore all the bad horses I back.

Fred
Image

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