Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:41 pm

Stitch wrote:
We also have to imagine that the 757RS (Replacement Study) would have a wing with better aerodynamic performance than the A321XLR due to it being a newer design, made of CFRP, perhaps having folding wingtips for greater span and the A321 said to be somewhat "underwinged" for it's current MTOWs. That might help runway performance.


They should call this new model the NMA designated as the 797.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:46 am

flipdewaf wrote:
It might have fractionally more payload range and it would be taking off ~14t heavier and burning more fuel.

The 757NEO wouldn't burn more fuel.

We can calculate it a different way.

The A321LR and 757 have nearly identical range with 20t of payload. Both are taking off at MTOW and both can fly 4000nm based on the curves in the ACAP or probably 3500nm real world distance.

The A321LR has a 97t MTOW and a 50.1t OEW with the extra ACT. Add the 20t of payload gives 26.9t of fuel.

The 757 has a 115.6t MTOW and a 58.4t OEW. Add the 20t of payload gives 37.2t fuel used. Now the Pratt GTF engines are said to be 16% more fuel efficient compared to the first A321CEO engines. So with rhese fitted the 757NEO would only burn 31.2t of fuel to fly that same route. This is still higher but we must not stop here.

The 757NEO would now be taking off at 109.6t MTOW to do same flight as the A321LR. The 757NEO will be 5% lighter at every point of flight versus the original 757 it will then burn less fuel at every point of the flight. Fuel burn is now only 29.5t compared to 26.9t of the A321LR. This is still higher but we have yet to add the winglets on the 757. Add 21st century wingtips and they will now be even.

The 757NEO would probably only need to takeoff at 106t to match the performance of the A321LR. It would need to take off at 110t to match the performance of the A321XLR. At 115t MTOW a simple 757NEO would fly approximately 500nm further than any A321 model.

The 757 is not magic it simply has a wing that is correctly sized for its takeoff weigh. The A321 is underwinged due to having to fit code C gates. Any 757NEO would have needed a new cleansheet engine as no other aircraft has an engine in that thrust class
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24626
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:53 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Any 757NEO would have needed a new cleansheet engine as no other aircraft has an engine in that thrust class

Which is the death knell for any such airplane: it needs its own clean sheet engine and no one has been able to find a business case to justify such a big spend for a niche market, and that was before CV19 laid waste to the airline business.
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
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:16 am

Revelation wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Any 757NEO would have needed a new cleansheet engine as no other aircraft has an engine in that thrust class

Which is the death knell for any such airplane: it needs its own clean sheet engine and no one has been able to find a business case to justify such a big spend for a niche market, and that was before CV19 laid waste to the airline business.

That is what killed the 757 in 2004. But today the perfect cleansheet engine for a 757NEO exists in the form of the Pratt GTF with probably an inch or three of additional fan. The A321NEO going from 93t to 97t and soon to be 101t has caused Pratt to develop more power from the core. So the hard internal groundwork has been done for a 757NEO engine at no cost to Boeing. So it is only be a slightly larger fan and new nacelle that would be required. Both are cheap and low risk. But now having the right engines are a tiny problem compared to restarting production of the 757.

A 757 like design cleansheet makes much more sense. As flipdewaf pointed out a 44m wing with much higher aspect ratio would be more ideal. With that much span it could now use completely standard A321XLR engines even with a MTOW of 115t. I think such an aircraft with a range well above 5000nm is critical to bypass more hubs and to downgauge struggling widebody routes.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:37 am

So, general question: could Boeing, in this fantasy land where the 757 gets a shot at life, do the same thing to the 757 that they did to the 777x? Maybe not as extreme, but through materials engineering, reduce the OEW of the 757 fuselage by a few thousand pounds, replace the outer section of the wings with a light weight folding setup that gave greater span, but fits the same gates, and, as a result of the greater span, be able to use the existing 33000 lb engines from the A321neo? There is additional weight savings in the engines as the PWG1100 weighs about 600 lbs less than the PW2000, giving an additional 1200 of weight savings.

Maybe it would work. We'll never know.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:34 am

If Boeing built a 49m single aisle, an increase of roughly 15% seating over the A321, and added a 42m CFRP wing, could the GTF get that aircraft to 3,000 nm range? If a majority of flight are 2 to 4 hrs, why worry about mid-market range? Go for mid-market capacity if 35K engines will perform that task.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2514
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:38 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
So, general question: could Boeing, in this fantasy land where the 757 gets a shot at life, do the same thing to the 757 that they did to the 777x? Maybe not as extreme, but through materials engineering, reduce the OEW of the 757 fuselage by a few thousand pounds, replace the outer section of the wings with a light weight folding setup that gave greater span, but fits the same gates, and, as a result of the greater span, be able to use the existing 33000 lb engines from the A321neo? There is additional weight savings in the engines as the PWG1100 weighs about 600 lbs less than the PW2000, giving an additional 1200 of weight savings.

Maybe it would work. We'll never know.


I had asked a similar question above, albeit simpler. If they can neo a 757.

Others pointed out that weight aside, the plans aren't digitized and the tooling does not exist. And investing in this would cost a lot more than a 777 to 777X type upgrade (or a320 to neo)
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
XLA2008
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:53 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:25 am

Antarius wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
So, general question: could Boeing, in this fantasy land where the 757 gets a shot at life, do the same thing to the 757 that they did to the 777x? Maybe not as extreme, but through materials engineering, reduce the OEW of the 757 fuselage by a few thousand pounds, replace the outer section of the wings with a light weight folding setup that gave greater span, but fits the same gates, and, as a result of the greater span, be able to use the existing 33000 lb engines from the A321neo? There is additional weight savings in the engines as the PWG1100 weighs about 600 lbs less than the PW2000, giving an additional 1200 of weight savings.

Maybe it would work. We'll never know.


I had asked a similar question above, albeit simpler. If they can neo a 757.

Others pointed out that weight aside, the plans aren't digitized and the tooling does not exist. And investing in this would cost a lot more than a 777 to 777X type upgrade (or a320 to neo)



I mean that is accurate the cost to Boeing to “re-open” the 757 production line and do everything needed to create a NEO would cost too much. I guess the question for Boeing is would it be worth it, would sales make enough profit to cover the over heads and bring in extra cash, would it be cost effective over a clean sheet design, the only people that truly know the answer to that is Boeing.
“For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.“
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:03 am

DenverTed wrote:
If Boeing built a 49m single aisle, an increase of roughly 15% seating over the A321, and added a 42m CFRP wing, could the GTF get that aircraft to 3,000 nm range? If a majority of flight are 2 to 4 hrs, why worry about mid-market range? Go for mid-market capacity if 35K engines will perform that task.

Many people have done analysis on a theoretical A322. Using the 101t MTOW of the XLR and a simple stretch to 50m the range of the A322 would still be well over 3,000nm. I remember seeing a few respected members mention it could fly as far as 3,500nm. This is a 1,200nm or 25% range reduction over the A321XLR. The 787-10 for comparison is also a simple stretch and it loses only 15% of its range compared to the 787-9.

So a 49m long Boeing cleansheet with code D carbon wing would probably fly more than 4,000nm with the current GTF engines.

If 3,000nm was as far as you wanted to go then this theoretical aircraft could be 757-300 length and still use the same A321NEO engines. The 757-300 can fly 3,400nm but with a MTOW 8t higher than the 757-200. On the ACAP document at 113t takeoff weight the 757-300 can fly the brochure payload 2,500nm. The latest Pratt GTF should extend that to your 3,000nm target. I am sure the 757-300 would operate fine with lowered powered A321NEO engines providing the takeoff weight was kept around 110t.

The 757-300 with PW2040 engines requires a 9,900ft runway at the 123t MTOW. At a 115t takeoff weight the runway required drops to only 7,200ft. At 110t it requires only 6,700ft. With the lower powered A321NEO I am sure the runway would stay around 10,000ft. It would probably still have better runway performance than a 737-900ER.
 
Chemist
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:26 am

Even assuming Boeing had decent cash flow right now, I would think that after the MAX, their appetite for warming-over parts bin airplanes might be a bit diminished.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3656
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It might have fractionally more payload range and it would be taking off ~14t heavier and burning more fuel.

The 757NEO wouldn't burn more fuel.

We can calculate it a different way.

Well it’s certainly different....
RJMAZ wrote:

The A321LR and 757 have nearly identical range with 20t of payload. Both are taking off at MTOW and both can fly 4000nm based on the curves in the ACAP or probably 3500nm real world distance.

The A321LR has a 97t MTOW and a 50.1t OEW with the extra ACT. Add the 20t of payload gives 26.9t of fuel.

The 757 has a 115.6t MTOW and a 58.4t OEW. Add the 20t of payload gives 37.2t fuel used. Now the Pratt GTF engines are said to be 16% more fuel efficient compared to the first A321CEO engines. So with rhese fitted the 757NEO would only burn 31.2t of fuel to fly that same route. This is still higher but we must not stop here.

The 757NEO would now be taking off at 109.6t MTOW to do same flight as the A321LR. The 757NEO will be 5% lighter at every point of flight versus the original 757

No, it won’t. It is the same weight with no fuel. It might be 5% at the start but it’s 0(or near enough) at the end. One could argue that it’s 2.5% on average but instead we actually calculate it not just guess.
RJMAZ wrote:
it will then burn less fuel at every point of the flight. Fuel burn is now only 29.5t compared to 26.9t of the A321LR.

The actual figure you are looking for is 30.2t. If you derive a specific range factor through the breguet equations then apply an increase to this by dividing by the new SFC change you can get a figure without chucking random numbers around.
RJMAZ wrote:
This is still higher but we have yet to add the winglets on the 757. Add 21st century wingtips and they will now be even.

To increase the specific range factor enough to allow the fuel burn to equal that of that of the A321 requires a further 9+% increase in UL/D of the 752. Once we see that the 77W-> 779X increase in UL/D is 3.5-3.8% and that had a whole new wing then we can see the likelihood of a nearly 10% improvement.
RJMAZ wrote:

The 757NEO would probably only need to takeoff at 106t to match the performance of the A321LR. It would need to take off at 110t to match the performance of the A321XLR. At 115t MTOW a simple 757NEO would fly approximately 500nm further than any A321 model.

The 757 is not magic it simply has a wing that is correctly sized for its takeoff weigh. The A321 is underwinged due to having to fit code C gates. Any 757NEO would have needed a new cleansheet engine as no other aircraft has an engine in that thrust class


With a 16% decrease in SFC the 752 would be capable of ~4700nm.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8279
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:31 am

Chemist wrote:
Even assuming Boeing had decent cash flow right now, I would think that after the MAX, their appetite for warming-over parts bin airplanes might be a bit diminished.


Boeing doesn't need positive cash flow right now: it can borrow, as demonstrated here. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN22C3SJ

The thirty firms of the Dow Jones Industrial Average have incredible borrowing capacity.

As for the 'parts bin' remark, new developments need to earn a return on capital (unless you're spending somebody else's money - launch aid, cough). Bombardier spent $7 Billion on the CS100 and the program had a ~$2 Billion valuation in the final Airbus/Investissement Quebec transaction.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24626
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:55 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
That is what killed the 757 in 2004. But today the perfect cleansheet engine for a 757NEO exists in the form of the Pratt GTF with probably an inch or three of additional fan. The A321NEO going from 93t to 97t and soon to be 101t has caused Pratt to develop more power from the core. So the hard internal groundwork has been done for a 757NEO engine at no cost to Boeing. So it is only be a slightly larger fan and new nacelle that would be required. Both are cheap and low risk. But now having the right engines are a tiny problem compared to restarting production of the 757.

It sounds like a dream till you got to the last sentence then you wake up, even before you get to consider who will buy any expensive new airplanes when the desert is filled with parked airplanes.

Also, pushing a core that's already eaten up margin to get to current levels isn't easy and causes trade offs with durability. Making a new fan and containment and nacelle isn't cheap and easy. The testing campaign would not be cheap and easy.

RJMAZ wrote:
A 757 like design cleansheet makes much more sense. As flipdewaf pointed out a 44m wing with much higher aspect ratio would be more ideal. With that much span it could now use completely standard A321XLR engines even with a MTOW of 115t. I think such an aircraft with a range well above 5000nm is critical to bypass more hubs and to downgauge struggling widebody routes.

Maybe it makes sense in a theoretical world, but we went through this same drill with NMA/FSA and Boeing could not make it work during boom times, and it ain't gonna work in a crisis and its aftermath either.

Chemist wrote:
Even assuming Boeing had decent cash flow right now, I would think that after the MAX, their appetite for warming-over parts bin airplanes might be a bit diminished.

Not really. Their very next project is a 777x with a new engine and wing. Rumors suggest a 764F is after that. Airbus has A320neo followed by maybe a new wing on the old body or maybe an A350 with ultrafan. Bin diving will be a big part of the future of aviation.
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
 
Noshow
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:05 pm

Binning slow selling programs will be next. So the bins will be full.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27242
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:05 pm

Revelation wrote:
Also, pushing a core that's already eaten up margin to get to current levels isn't easy and causes trade offs with durability. Making a new fan and containment and nacelle isn't cheap and easy. The testing campaign would not be cheap and easy.


Exactly. GE spent over half-a-billion to upgrade the GE90 for the LR777 family and that was "just" a slightly-larger fan and a revised core.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:00 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
With a 16% decrease in SFC the 752 would be capable of ~4700nm.

That is with 200 passengers which is the capacity used for the 757-200 brochure range.

The 4700nm figure from the A321XLR is with a refuced 163 passengers. Half of the range gain over the LR comes from reducing the number of passengers. As I said the the 757NEO would fly 500nm further than any other A321 model. If you put 163 passengers in the 757-200NEO the range would go up to around 5200nm.

Our numbers are close, I think you simply underestimate the performance gain of the winglets and simple aero tweaks Boeing would fit to a potential 757NEO.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun Sep 13, 2020 4:10 am

Stitch wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Also, pushing a core that's already eaten up margin to get to current levels isn't easy and causes trade offs with durability. Making a new fan and containment and nacelle isn't cheap and easy. The testing campaign would not be cheap and easy.


Exactly, GE spent over half-a-billion to upgrade the GE90 for the LR777 family and that was "just" a slightly-larger fan and a revised core.

Half a billion is still very cheap. That is only $1 million per aircraft spread out over 500 aircraft.

The GE90 did have a larger core, the slightly larger fan was the also changed to a new swept composite fan. The increased thrust for the Pratt GTF would entirely come from the larger fan with no extra strain on the core. The Pratt GTF holds a huge advantage when it comes to scaling. When a larger diameter fan is fitted to other engines the RPM must be reduced. Often this requires an extra LP turbine like in the CFM56-5C to extract more power at a lower rpm. The Pratt GTF fan is rotating quite slow thanks the gearbox.

Pratt has turned the core up to get extra power for the A321LR. If anything a larger fan would be better optimised to the now harder working core. An example of this is the XWB-97. Rolls increased power by 15% over the original XWB-84. The extra power from the core resulted in the fan rpm increasing past the peak efficiency. Rolls did mention a larger fan would have been ideal but keeping the existing nacelle was critical for certification.

Adding 6inch to the Pratt GTF and keeping everything behind the fan the same would result in a very optimised engine. It might have 36klb to 37klb of thrust which is perfect and the weight of the engine would probably be lighter than the RB211.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3656
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:25 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Our numbers are close, I think you simply underestimate the performance gain of the winglets and simple aero tweaks Boeing would fit to a potential 757NEO.


Cool story, that’ll be why we’ll see it launched next year .
10% UL/D with aero tweaks!!!!!!

The onus is on you to show evidence for your claim my friend. I’ll be buying some popcorn.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
DenverTed
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:43 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Also, pushing a core that's already eaten up margin to get to current levels isn't easy and causes trade offs with durability. Making a new fan and containment and nacelle isn't cheap and easy. The testing campaign would not be cheap and easy.


Exactly, GE spent over half-a-billion to upgrade the GE90 for the LR777 family and that was "just" a slightly-larger fan and a revised core.

Half a billion is still very cheap. That is only $1 million per aircraft spread out over 500 aircraft.

The GE90 did have a larger core, the slightly larger fan was the also changed to a new swept composite fan. The increased thrust for the Pratt GTF would entirely come from the larger fan with no extra strain on the core. The Pratt GTF holds a huge advantage when it comes to scaling. When a larger diameter fan is fitted to other engines the RPM must be reduced. Often this requires an extra LP turbine like in the CFM56-5C to extract more power at a lower rpm. The Pratt GTF fan is rotating quite slow thanks the gearbox.

Pratt has turned the core up to get extra power for the A321LR. If anything a larger fan would be better optimised to the now harder working core. An example of this is the XWB-97. Rolls increased power by 15% over the original XWB-84. The extra power from the core resulted in the fan rpm increasing past the peak efficiency. Rolls did mention a larger fan would have been ideal but keeping the existing nacelle was critical for certification.

Adding 6inch to the Pratt GTF and keeping everything behind the fan the same would result in a very optimised engine. It might have 36klb to 37klb of thrust which is perfect and the weight of the engine would probably be lighter than the RB211.

How much MTOW do you think an aircraft with 37K engines and a 41m folding CFRP wing could have, 115t? With that MTOW, there are many possibilities for a single aisle. Pick a 5m spread between the to length models, say 47m and 52m. The 47m model should be able to do trans-Atlantic, and the 52m model can do west coast to Hawaii.
Personally I think there is a bigger market for an airplane that is A321 plus 15% MTOW, than the 50% increase in MTOW of the NMA.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:00 am

DenverTed wrote:
How much MTOW do you think an aircraft with 37K engines and a 41m folding CFRP wing could have, 115t? With that MTOW, there are many possibilities for a single aisle. Pick a 5m spread between the to length models, say 47m and 52m. The 47m model should be able to do trans-Atlantic, and the 52m model can do west coast to Hawaii.
Personally I think there is a bigger market for an airplane that is A321 plus 15% MTOW, than the 50% increase in MTOW of the NMA.

The required runway performance will determine the MTOW when you set fixed thrust and wingspan. A MTOW of 125t would have similar runway performance to a 737-900ER.

Very interesting that your name says Denver. That airport was a driving factor to the 757 having such exceptional runway performance. Designing an aircraft to operate well at such an hot and high airport will cost efficiency when operating at average airports.

Looking at the lower thrust engines on the heavier 123t MTOW 757-300 gives a good idea of the runway performance. Your idea would have a few metres of extra wingspan, less wing area and fractionally less thrust. At a MTOW of only 115t such an aircraft would have above average runway performance.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:42 am

It sounds like a dream till you got to the last sentence then you wake up, even before you get to consider who will buy any expensive new airplanes when the desert is filled with parked airplanes.


Timing here will be crucial. Let's suppose that it takes several years for the airline and travel industries to more or less recover from Covid, and for airlines and leasing companies to begin to experience positive cash flow. If the 757NEO or whatever its called comes along at that time for initial production and service, and it beats the pants off of the A321NEO by a decent margin, and Boeing doesn't find a way to screw it all up due to their own incompetence (this last point really concerns me!), then it could quite possibly be a winner. But again, timing is everything. Legacy 757s will definitely be in need of replacement, as well as certain other types on certain routes, and Airbus may not be able to satisfy enough A321 orders, but its an open question if the airlines be able to afford new build planes. They could simply make do with older amortized metal for a time, especially if fuel prices don't skyrocket.

The real question for me is whether Boeing is willing to risk development of a revamped 757NEO or 757 class airplane with all of the financial costs entailed based upon a projected or possible industry-wide Covid recovery date? There are so many moving parts here. I just don't know.

Take care all,

Bob
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
Ref: https://www.quora.com/Can-the-A380-be-redesigned-to-fly-with-two-engines

I remember the first time I saw this posted, it had the caption "We better put these back before the boss returns on Monday!".

Doubtless Boeing believed engines at the time were not powerful enough for a double-decker. Might a GE9X version with considerably more thrust than the 779's do the trick ? :eyepopping:

Image
https://flyawaysimulation.com/images/do ... 2-701x.jpg


Anyway, the idea is overtaken by events as COVID-19 totally obviated the need for VLAs. :cheerful:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Antarius
Posts: 2514
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:11 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Anyway, the idea is overtaken by events as COVID-19 totally obviated the need for VLAs. :cheerful:


VLAs got obviated long before COVID-19. :old:
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:24 pm

Antarius wrote:
VLAs got obviated long before COVID-19. :old:

STC seems to believe otherwise! :spin:

https://www.flightglobal.com/proposed-a ... 99.article
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24626
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:33 pm

Devilfish wrote:

Seems STC is one of the last true VLA believers.

Can you imagine if Airbus and RR had followed up on STC's wishes?

RR would have been well into the new TXWB variant work as the T1000 crisis struck, and STC's airline would have ordered another 50 A380s so $millions of A380 parts would be on ships, barges and trucks heading to TLS as we speak.

All this, as the rest of the airline world had begun retiring A380s pre-covid, and are now planning a quicker exit during and after covid.

Airbus and RR are pretty lucky that they did not oblige him.
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
 
jagraham
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:45 pm

Stitch wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Help me understand why a 757neo wouldn't work?


I can think of three major reasons:

The 757-200 is 10,000kg heavier than the A321-200neo, so that is a lot of empty weight to carry around. Of course part of that is to support higher MTOW the 757-200 offered for longer range, but that's not really needed by almost every operator of the 757, much less the A321 operators.

Because of that OEW and MTOW, the 757-200 has engines with over 10,000 pounds more thrust than the A321. Getting CFM and/or Pratt to add around 25% more thrust to their existing LEAP / GTF engines is a big ask of the OEMs.

And finally, what is the realistic remaining operational life of the existing 757 fleet compared to the expense of hanging new engines on them? I have to think the ratio is not very favorable.


These disadvantages are true, but get less and less true as the A321 range is expanded.

The A321XLR at 101t is downright porky compared to the original 86t A321NEO. The Airport Planning guide says the A321 at 100t needs 8500 feet (2500 m) runway length at sea level. While at 86t only 6000 feet is needed. (sec 3-3-1 p4). The A321CEO is worse for some reason. But is maxes out at 93.5t; the curves shown on p3 cannot be fully realized by an A321CEO.

Same with range. 101t is not shown yet on payload range charts, but 97t and 3 tanks has 5000 nm ferry range. And 3600 nm range with 20t payload. This is Airbus typical, 16 recliners plus 184 coach seats, 95 kg per pax. Think AA 321 configuration (it's tight! I flew on one to Hawaii once). I'm sure the A321XLR will make 4000 nm with 200 pax and bags. And no more. But of course at 3600 nm there should be room for 4t of cargo. This does not meet 757 specs, but that is not the point. The A321LR gets there with less fuel, and the A321XLR gets there without being on fumes. That is why airlines are buying it, especially the XLR. Just like the A333 / 77E contest, once the A333 flew far enough (it still is 1000 nm short of 77E range), the fuel savings carried the day. So the A333 / A339 sells, while the more "capable" 77E is long gone as a new aircraft.

Same with the A321XLR. It will never carry fish like a 757. But it doesn't have to.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:51 pm

Revelation wrote:
Devilfish wrote:

Seems STC is one of the last true VLA believers.

Can you imagine if Airbus and RR had followed up on STC's wishes?

RR would have been well into the new TXWB variant work as the T1000 crisis struck, and STC's airline would have ordered another 50 A380s so $millions of A380 parts would be on ships, barges and trucks heading to TLS as we speak.

All this, as the rest of the airline world had begun retiring A380s pre-covid, and are now planning a quicker exit during and after covid.

Airbus and RR are pretty lucky that they did not oblige him.


Please explain (I'm serious, not being sarcastic) why A couldn't have just stuck the XWB84 on the A380. The thrust is the same, the weight is quite close. There would have been some pylon work to accommodate the fan, but it should have been doable. Rolls puts their most reliable engine on the A380 for very little in extra cost . . . probably saving the program . . . Why not?
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:00 pm

Interesting. The carbon fibre wing for the A321 plus plus was still in development pre Covid, at least. That's the target Boeing will have to aim for.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 07872?s=19

Exactly what is envisioned is another matter. Does it fragment the A320 line and coexist with the legacy wing, or would it become the standard? Either way, it would have implications for Boeing's planning.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24626
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:26 pm

jagraham wrote:
Please explain (I'm serious, not being sarcastic) why A couldn't have just stuck the XWB84 on the A380. The thrust is the same, the weight is quite close. There would have been some pylon work to accommodate the fan, but it should have been doable. Rolls puts their most reliable engine on the A380 for very little in extra cost . . . probably saving the program . . . Why not?

https://www.flightglobal.com/orders-and ... 54.article says:

Clark says he is trying to “pick this up and get it going” with Airbus, which is “still arguing the toss internally”. He adds that he believes that R-R is “ready to go”.

So the issue was money more than technology. There used to be articles saying Airbus was insisting on a 2nd customer before they'd do A380neo. I think that's a sign that Airbus wasn't making money at the price it was selling A380s to EK for, and needed to boost volume and margin before it made any sense to do A380neo.

RR's biggest problem during the T1000 crisis is their facilities were all tied up making replacement T1000 blades and rebuilding T1000 engines, and were bleeding cash at the same time.

Of course if the money was bad before covid, it'd be disastrous now.
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
Stitch
Posts: 27242
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:34 pm

jagraham wrote:
These disadvantages are true, but get less and less true as the A321 range is expanded.


And yet how many A321-200neo family members are flown on missions that really push their range? And of those that do, how many other A321-200neos are there in the fleet that are flown on shorter missions?

The significant bulk of A321-200XLR customers are already A321-200neo operators. Even if a 757RS offered better trip fuel costs and higher maximum payload potential than an A321XLR on a mission, the fact that the XLR is also an A321neo means that it leverages the entire existing A321 investment so the overall Direct Operating Costs should be significantly lower and I would not be surprised if they overwhelmed the lower trip fuel costs and revenue potential (which itself would require the 757RS always went out with a higher payload, and that is unlikely).

And then their is just direct capital costs - an A321XLR will always be cheaper than a 757RS because the former is part of a family built by the many, many thousands with it's development costs already mostly amortized thanks to that massive production run.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5033
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:55 pm

tullamarine wrote:
AngMoh wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
The problem with this discussion is that too many people think that it's a discussion about bringing back the 757 when Boeing was actually looking at designing a completely new large single aisle plane. One person just happened to call it 757+, just because of the similar dimensions to the 757. Too many people don't want to read into the subject matter beyond what is discussed here. And of course such a new plane will have to be designed so that it will be much better then the 757 on all aspects and good enough to be competitive to the A321. Which will be difficult to achieve with a new design since it will be more expensive to built then the mass produced A321.

The success of the A321 shows there's a clear market potential for such a plane, but the current crisis in the commercial aircraft market and the issues Boeing is having with the MAX doesn't really make it likely they are launching any new plane in the next couple of years.


Agreed.

This whole tread is just bonkers: Boeing to introduce updates to 2 updated planes, one which was introduced 20 years ago and was never a big success in the first place and one which went out of production 16 years ago, with the launch of an update in the middle of the biggest crash the aviation industry has ever seen?

The 767-400 has a replacement and it is the 787-8 which is modern, efficient and does not need billions of upgrading with new engines and a new wing. The very first Reuters article mentions a "757 like" plane which means it is not a 757 but something in the same size and range but modern with a long term future and efficient, but definitely not the same field performance because that is expensive and not needed and was the reason for the 757 to go out of production in the first place because airlines were buying 737s instead. If performance sells, why were the Concorde and Convair 990 duds?

Pointing out that reviving the 757 is bonkers is so true but for some reason there is a virtual cult on A-Net that refuses to hear anything against the aircraft. They seem to think Boeing ceased production by some mistake and ignore the fact that no one was buying it. They will always tell you how superior to the A321 it is in a whole lot of areas that mean absolutely nothing to airlines trying to make a quid. Does anyone really believe there is an airline in the world that would buy an aircraft because it can climb like a rocket ship?

Boeing ended the 757 when they put the 737-9 on the planning board. they thought the 737-9 could have competed with the A321 and it would had Boeing not screwed it up that the airplane is Not as popular as the A321? Was Boeing's fault for Not sticking to it's quality. So Now? A revamped 757 is probably all they can do to regain their footing as long as they don't let the SAME dimwits who meesed up the 737Max run amok with the 757 replacement.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:37 pm

Good to see this thread being bumped again despite there being absolutely no news or update.

16 pages of arguing whether an aircraft that sold just over 1000 frames and has been out of production almost 15 years is superior to one that's sold over 2000 and counting while still being in production...
 
2175301
Posts: 1898
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:25 am

FGITD wrote:
Good to see this thread being bumped again despite there being absolutely no news or update.

16 pages of arguing whether an aircraft that sold just over 1000 frames and has been out of production almost 15 years is superior to one that's sold over 2000 and counting while still being in production...


And most people not realizing that in reality what Boeing is looking at is the MOM or NMA, which was already well in progress and kicked back for further study. It's just in the size/range range of the old 757 or a 767.

At no point has Boeing ever suggested a restart of the 757 line.

They have looked at a 767neo as that would be a natural extension of the 764Fneo that appears to be coming. However, initial reports pre-Covid was that there was not much interest in just a 764Pneo with the same wing; but might be some interest if they changed the wing sufficiently that it would not work well for the Freighter.

Anyway, I will look to see what rolls out of the revise NMA project for the answer. It will likely be years away at this point.

Have a great day,
 
Noshow
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:15 am

Hopefully it will come soon and hopefully this is what Everett gets for compensation after likely losing their 787 line.
 
hitower3
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:06 pm

jagraham wrote:
Please explain (I'm serious, not being sarcastic) why A couldn't have just stuck the XWB84 on the A380. The thrust is the same, the weight is quite close. There would have been some pylon work to accommodate the fan, but it should have been doable. Rolls puts their most reliable engine on the A380 for very little in extra cost . . . probably saving the program . . . Why not?


Dear jagraham,

Fun fact: The A380 did fly with a Trent XWB-84 attached to it - namely for the flight tests of this engine. So, why wouldn't they carry on with this "low hanging fruit" idea?
When the certification of the Trent XWB was carried out back in early 2013, Airbus had already been struggling to secure orders for a few years. They sold only 60 units between 2010 and 2012, 20 per year. This made it difficult to justify any further investment into the programme.

Kind regards,
Hendric
 
Noshow
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:30 pm

Plus they had launched their more profitable inhouse competitor A350.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Please explain (I'm serious, not being sarcastic) why A couldn't have just stuck the XWB84 on the A380. The thrust is the same, the weight is quite close. There would have been some pylon work to accommodate the fan, but it should have been doable. Rolls puts their most reliable engine on the A380 for very little in extra cost . . . probably saving the program . . . Why not?

https://www.flightglobal.com/orders-and ... 54.article says:

Clark says he is trying to “pick this up and get it going” with Airbus, which is “still arguing the toss internally”. He adds that he believes that R-R is “ready to go”.

So the issue was money more than technology. There used to be articles saying Airbus was insisting on a 2nd customer before they'd do A380neo. I think that's a sign that Airbus wasn't making money at the price it was selling A380s to EK for, and needed to boost volume and margin before it made any sense to do A380neo.

RR's biggest problem during the T1000 crisis is their facilities were all tied up making replacement T1000 blades and rebuilding T1000 engines, and were bleeding cash at the same time.

Of course if the money was bad before covid, it'd be disastrous now.


Originally, when all the A380NEO talk was going on, they were talking about a new engine. I am puzzled as to why a new engine when the XWB84 looks like it would have fit the bill. Understanding that the water is already well under the bridge . . . the river is dry . . . the bridge is about to fall down . . . etc.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24626
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:06 pm

jagraham wrote:
Originally, when all the A380NEO talk was going on, they were talking about a new engine. I am puzzled as to why a new engine when the XWB84 looks like it would have fit the bill.

In short, EK / STC was asking for 10% or greater improvement in cruise fuel consumption and TXWB was more like 7%. The RR Advance based concept RR-3039 was able to deliver 12% but would have required a lot more time and money. Most re-engines do seem to need 10% or greater improvement in fuel burn to go forward.

Back when this was a hot topic, we spent a lot of time discussing https://leehamnews.com/2014/02/03/updat ... -involved/ and in particular the following chart from that article:

Image

In hindsight I think RR would have had huge difficulties trying to deliver the RR-3039 while dealing through the T1000 issues so it's probably best they did not try. Also Airbus would probably have had to make A380s at a very low rate to keep the line ticking over till it was ready even in the best case, so it probably never was a viable option.

Also we saw EK cancel A380 and order A350 and B787 before COVID struck, and I doubt improving fuel burn by even 12% would have made that decision any different. There just are too many seats to fill on A380 and not enough people willing to pay what it took to make a good profit even before COVID struck.
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
 
jagraham
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Originally, when all the A380NEO talk was going on, they were talking about a new engine. I am puzzled as to why a new engine when the XWB84 looks like it would have fit the bill.

In short, EK / STC was asking for 10% or greater improvement in cruise fuel consumption and TXWB was more like 7%. The RR Advance based concept RR-3039 was able to deliver 12% but would have required a lot more time and money. Most re-engines do seem to need 10% or greater improvement in fuel burn to go forward.

Back when this was a hot topic, we spent a lot of time discussing https://leehamnews.com/2014/02/03/updat ... -involved/ and in particular the following chart from that article:

Image

In hindsight I think RR would have had huge difficulties trying to deliver the RR-3039 while dealing through the T1000 issues so it's probably best they did not try. Also Airbus would probably have had to make A380s at a very low rate to keep the line ticking over till it was ready even in the best case, so it probably never was a viable option.

Also we saw EK cancel A380 and order A350 and B787 before COVID struck, and I doubt improving fuel burn by even 12% would have made that decision any different. There just are too many seats to fill on A380 and not enough people willing to pay what it took to make a good profit even before COVID struck.


Agree that even EK had too many A380s, but 7% is significant. And would have cost less than $1 billion to implement. There may be a possibility that Clark may have seen the excess and was looking for excuses to reduce his A380 numbers . . .
 
FGITD
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:26 pm

2175301 wrote:
FGITD wrote:
Good to see this thread being bumped again despite there being absolutely no news or update.

16 pages of arguing whether an aircraft that sold just over 1000 frames and has been out of production almost 15 years is superior to one that's sold over 2000 and counting while still being in production...


And most people not realizing that in reality what Boeing is looking at is the MOM or NMA, which was already well in progress and kicked back for further study. It's just in the size/range range of the old 757 or a 767.

At no point has Boeing ever suggested a restart of the 757 line.


Which makes this whole thread even more absurd. If I recall correctly, most of the first posts were saying exactly this. A 757 TYPE airplane. Yet the 75 brigade only saw 757plus and ran with it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24626
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:57 pm

jagraham wrote:
Agree that even EK had too many A380s, but 7% is significant. And would have cost less than $1 billion to implement. There may be a possibility that Clark may have seen the excess and was looking for excuses to reduce his A380 numbers . . .

There was a lot of things going on in a relatively short period. Our A330neo and A380neo discussions had a lot of overlap. It took Airbus a long time to decide what to do about A330neo. It could be that the A380neo discussions took away time and energy from A330neo and the lack of focus delayed the decision and some time on market for A330neo was lost forever.

The A330neo team was making the same trade offs: should we wait longer and suffer higher costs and risks to get a greater SFC improvement, or should we get on the market as quickly as possible by leveraging the TXB development work? Both options certainly were discussed here. From the outside looking in it seems they suffered a bit of indecision and lost some time on market advantage. This may or may not have been because they knew A330neo would compete with A350. When they did go forward they probably took time and resources away that could have been used on A380neo.

FGITD wrote:
Which makes this whole thread even more absurd. If I recall correctly, most of the first posts were saying exactly this. A 757 TYPE airplane. Yet the 75 brigade only saw 757plus and ran with it.

This suggests we should avoid ever referring to another future development using that label. Maybe we should refer to a "long range high capacity narrow body" ( oy, LRHCNB !! ) instead? Or narrow body MOM ( NB-MOM ) vs wide body MOM ( WB-MOM )? We have more than enough proof that using the historic label will trigger the nostalgic. Maybe start referring to the Boeing A321 ( LOL! ) instead?
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
Devilfish
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
The A330neo team was making the same trade offs: should we wait longer and suffer higher costs and risks to get a greater SFC improvement, or should we get on the market as quickly as possible by leveraging the TXB development work?

In hindsight, they were more or less correct in their decision as the NEO wouldn't have gotten the DL or other deals (relatively fewer as those were) if it came later or more expensive to begin with.

Revelation wrote:
Or narrow body MOM ( NB-MOM ) vs wide body MOM ( WB-MOM )?

:psst: ... The PC police have a dim view on body shaming and they might be on the prowl. :biggrin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Noshow
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:48 pm

How about 797 and 7-10-7?
 
dagKentWA
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:02 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:09 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Or narrow body MOM ( NB-MOM ) vs wide body MOM ( WB-MOM )?

:psst: ... The PC police have a dim view on body shaming and they might be on the prowl. :biggrin:


I've seen a wall of urinals labeled as "WB" for the ones without a divider from other stations, "NB" for ones with the divider present, and "FJ" (Fighter Jet) for the handicap slot, lower to the floor. :rotfl: :devil:

Personally, I'd use the 757RS/767RS, since it conveys both what segment we're talking about needing AND that it is a Replacement Study.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:56 pm

Noshow wrote:
How about 797 and 7-10-7?




Nah. Boeing likely won't continue the 7-x-7 series anymore after 797
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:34 am

Boeing757100 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
How about 797 and 7-10-7?




Nah. Boeing likely won't continue the 7-x-7 series anymore after 797


I could see them starting over with 707, 727 etc. I mean, why not? The original 707s etc will be gone for a very long time then. But true, also very possible they start something new.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
Sokes
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:31 pm

Suppose an engine maker commits to a new engine.
What's the advantage of B757 cross section over A321 cross section?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:34 pm

BaconButty wrote:
Interesting. The carbon fibre wing for the A321 plus plus was still in development pre Covid, at least. That's the target Boeing will have to aim for.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 07872?s=19

Exactly what is envisioned is another matter. Does it fragment the A320 line and coexist with the legacy wing, or would it become the standard? Either way, it would have implications for Boeing's planning.

Best idea concerning narrowbodies.
Keep A321 length for short transatlantic and add maybe 4 m for transcontinental.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?

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