brindabella wrote:

morrisond wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

You ever wonder why this is? Seems like it is a market where a suitable solution is hard to come by, even for engineers and designers at both OEM's.

It also just takes a lot of effort to push the state of the art a bit. Just think how long it has taken to make a Geared Turbo Fan work.

If the rumours were right - this was the cross section or something similar that Boeing was going to use for NSA back in 2011 and the rumours have stayed pretty consistent since then.

They gained a lot of experience with the 787 and the 777X new wing - they are understanding composites a lot better - new composites are available, computing power has multiplied exponentially, Machine learning is helping to make structures lighter and and knowledge has been gained in terms of how to efficiently produce complex composite structures (like the 777X wing) to radically reduce labour hours - maybe it has just taken this long to get to the point where we can start to progress beyond the basic round tube and wing.

Not to belabour it, but I'm going too - one of the main takeaways from that article was realizing how little of the length of the belly of a 2-3-2 would have the floor beam in compression where you would have a big hole in the monolithic floor beam/ lower floor frame for the cargo compartment. Due to all the pressure bulkheads in the ends for things like wheel well and gear bays - those sections should really not have any issues and it should be a lot easier to deal with the loads as they would also probably taper to circular anyways.

Plus then you have the section above the wingbox - the wingbox is essentially rectangular with only a Round cross section above it in the Ostrower Double Circle 2-3-2 concept - just like a 3x3. The leaves only about 50% of the length of an NMA-5 - maybe 20% in front of the wingbox and 30% behind that would have to deal with some non-standard loads. As I laid out above in another post that could be overcome with some innovative thinking - effectively turning the Cargo bay into a large keel beam.

Plus this 2x3x2 is really not that far off round. If it is 168"H x 185"W a circle of equivalent circular diameter would be about 176" x 176" - it's very mildly elliptical. You only have to taper out 8.5" on each side of the aircraft over 22' in the nose to get to round - (I'm sure not that hard to do in 5-6' if you wanted too) and in the tail you have 37' of length to work with. This is not an extreme shape.

Do I think that an NMA that has 9% less skin area, 2% less volume than a comparable capacity/technology 3x3 would weigh less? Probably not - but I don't think it would weigh a lot more - most likely low single digits - as only about 50% of it's length would be non-standard.

Lets go to an extreme - say that the non- standard cabin part is 20% heavier by equivalent Capacity - however those sections would not be 50% of the weight of the aircraft - the wingbox and nose sections and tail have to deal with a lot of loads are probably a high percentage of the weight - call it 60% - so 40% left over for the cabin that is not part of the wingbox - making the NMA fuselage 8% heavier for the same capacity at worst - and it could be a much smaller delta.

I posted a study many times over the last year ( that I can't find now) that shows that an A320 fuselage is about 5% of the MTOW - the study shows that done in carbon this drops to 3%.

So an increase of 8% of 3% is a whopping .24% - if you take an example that is pretty extreme. That is only 500lbs. The NMA could use shorter gear than an equivalent capacity 3x3 to get the same rotation angles - I'm sure you would make that up with the lighter gear and less structure(due to shorter lighter gear) in the wingbox and nose bay/nose gear.

It's a rounding error - and also less than the gain you get from a mild PIP or minor change to wingtips.

It should not be that much more complicated to manufacture as most of it will be automated - and about 50% of the fuselage won't be materially different than a 3x3 - the rest of the aircraft is the same - wings, tail, wingbox and most of the nose once circular. Plus the 2-3-2 will have fewer parts (frames, etc.. than an equivalent capacity 3x3) in the passenger compartment as it's shorter - it will just take design time to make it light and deal with the more complex loads in the non standard sections.

You have to guess that Boeing has not stopped working on refining this 2-3-2 even after NSA was scrapped and have been building and testing cross sections in a secret lab somewhere getting it ready for prime time.

Just like I am sure Airbus is doing as well (working on new concepts). Given that article originated in Germany (On the Double Circle with non-pressurized cargo bay) who knows that that idea didn't come out of Airbus engineers originally anyways?

Much as I admire your presentation, I would counsel caution on the "shorter/lighter gear" argument.

1) as far as we know, the newly-revealed MoM-5 model is in addition to the previously suggested -6 and -7 models.
So the gear will have to allow significant fuse extensions. Can't make it too short!
2) using "shorter gear" as an advantage seems to be heading back towards the 737 problem which has so badly warped development of the successive 737-family iterations.




cheers

Noshow wrote:

How much money would Boeing need for a program you envision? (As in doing it right from the beginning) And would they get this funding right now?

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

The problem I have with the concept is, that I cant find any pressurized model (like 10:1 or 5:1) built and tested. When we look back the last few years, there were a lot of BWB models etc. built and tested and still nothing has happened that points towards a commercial application in the next 15-20 years.
So I can't really imagine Boeing doing this moonshot without any proper testing in advance of the concept. It would be a very high risk application and I do not see how the BoD would allow this to go ahead.
Calculating it on computers is one thing, but there are always assumptions and conditions put into them models to make it work, and to really get it done you need to build an actual model and test things. As I haven't seen any evidence of that, I think it is too much risk to go straight to commercial application especially in the current environment. Boeing could lose the NB segment (the really profitable one) if things turn out bad (delays, cost overruns, etc.).
Airbus needed 30 years to catch up in the NB market and finally overtake Boeing. Good Boeing was really passive in that segment. Waiting another 15 years to launch something competitive into the NB market that can actually take back market share could push them close to the point where it will take too long to serve that segment economically.

If we have COMAC taking 10% share of the NB market, we could end up at 64% Airbus, 10% Comac, 24% Boeing, and 2% EMB. We are already at roughly 60/40 but over the next 2-3 years Airbus will increase the lead as an aftermath of the MAX grounding and reduced output of 737s.

It will be hard for Boeing to claim back ground if they wait too long with a compelling offer in the 150-200 seat market. Airbus could lock that segment in if they push out a good aircraft while Boeing is still sorting out the MoM. Then Boeing is pressured to launch some answer fast again (for the third time in a row). It worked with the NG but it was a few years behind the A320 and them years gave Airbus the entry into the NB-Market. Then Boeing was behind with the MAX vs NEO and lead to a costly grounding due to rushing the design, and gave the NB-Market lead to Airbus. If they have to rush a solution out again, it could hand Airbus a commanding lead for the next 30 years. That is a dangerous game. The story of McDD comes to mind.

Sure Comac's sales will all come from Boeing...

You really think Boeing would have pictures circulating around about how they would overcome the compression loads in the floor? If the rumours were true they were going to launch it in 2011 - the odds they have not tested it are very low.

Moonshot? This is not a Moonshot. I thought I described it well enough yesterday that people were finally getting it as no one has rebutted it (if I am right about what it is). This is how you get single aisle economics in an aircraft with two aisles.

It is not a Widebody. Boeing could have two competing proposals on the table.

A pure 3x3 taking into account the latest advances.

Or a 2-3-2 heavily based on the 3x3 that literally could use the same nose section as the 3x3 with a slight flair in height to accommodate a 2-3-2 that may may be a few inches higher in the middle and 8.5" wider on each side to accommodate the bulge by the time you get to the cabin. Quite like what Boeing did by reusing the 757 nose section for the 767 and 777 by extending the section (or that part might be a unique piece) to accommodate the larger passenger compartment.

This thread discusses it viewtopic.php?t=773953

The center section above the wingbox would have a wider circular passenger section on top of it - slightly different dimensions - but absolutely no difference in design concept than the 3x3. The tail would also be the same concept - probably just with larger surfaces due to the shorter body with a bit of flair in width at sides in the beginning of the section to take out extra width of the 2-3-2. The wing would be the same.

Th only parts that would be materially different in concept/loadings would be the parts between the Nose section and the wingbox and the wingbox and the tail.

The nose and tail sections along with the wingbox would be quite rigid due to all the bulkheads in them. You basically just have to join them together with the cabin parts.

Just think of how rigid you can make a Cylinder by putting ends on it.

For the non-standard Cabin sections - you have a Circular Section on top - nothing weird about that - and a circular section on the bottom of about double the radius. You could get enough stiffness out of these sections by basically making the Cargo Compartment into one very strong monolithic keel beam and it's most likely the floor beam/lower frame would be one unique part to help deal with the stresses in the lower floor.

Please grab a ruler and visualize how much 8.5" is and how hard do you think that would be flair out on each side of a 21' Nose section and 37' Tail section.

If Boeing can't engineer that then they might as well close up shop. It must pale in terms of complexity compared to a modern wing that flexes 10+ feet. This would not be a moonshot and could easily work for NSA as well - using a different wingbox/wing/gear/tail/engines and focus on smaller sizes

However they then would torpedo the MAX and have the added pressure of having get up to scale a lot faster with a brand new production process that has never been done at that scale in Carbon.

I would suggest the new 777X composites Wing factory would probably have the capacity to get the NMA going while they prepared a new factory for much higher NSA volumes.

In terms of pressure for Boeing to get out something to replace MAX - I fully expect whatever cross section Boeing chooses will be used for both NMA and NSA. They would be engineered as the same program (with NSA launching a few years after NMA - maybe in 2025) and EIS could possibly be no more than 3 years apart (2030 for NMA, 2032-2033 for NSA).

It might even be possible to have them on the same type certificate as all the systems/cockpit would the same. Kind of like the original 777-200 and 777-300ER - same basic concept - radically different in capability.

I actually took 5% of Airbus and 5% of Boeing. Right now we have about a 60/40 split in the newest generation NB offer but Airbus will grow that towards a 65/35 lead just because they have double the output of aircraft over the next few years. Now we take 5% of each of them we are at 60/30/10 and also take off a bit for EMB. So yes I must have miscalculated something here.

I really like all your writing and it is nice and makes sense but you write it yourself: Boeing has to take so much into account to create a perfect 200 two class aircraft that is then stuck in size and can only grow upwards and missing on the biggest market (150-200).

The NMA you explain can not become any smaller, or it ends up in the A310 category. You can not shrink the cabin any more than what you propose and adding a smaller wing will also not help because if you shrink it more you have to massively increase the tail to keep the aircraft stable. That thing could never compete vs the sleek aircraft you can produce squeezing the market of the NMA.

All you can do is stretch it so you might have an aircraft-family suited for the 200+ two class market but that is it. It is a moonshot to hope that market will grow big enough to get a good ROI while handing you competitors everything below. And no you can not derive a NSA out of it, because the fuselage is limited. It can not shrink any more economically. (see MAX-7 and A319Neo).

You need to define which family member is perfect and from there you can grow upwards (never downwards). 778?A358?B787-8?A319?MAX-? All not competitive.

So if you make the 200 seat variant the optimal version, you only go bigger from there.

Same for the cockpit, you can put a 757 onto the 767 and 777, but the other way around is not possible. So if Boeing would want to make a single cockpit section for both it would need the NSA first, what would also mean the NSA has to be designed first. So the specs for the NSA would be needed. But if you do all this work then you can also launch it first.

So instead of going for a limited market with a double aisle hoping it will give you enough return while boxing yourself into this market is in my opinion not a wise decision, because it will hand the biggest market to the competitors.

Every year now focusing on this project will automatically leave the MAX segment vulnerable to the competition. The MAX-10 comes in 2024. Boeing wants to sell this aircraft but if they launch NMA before 2024 all the investment into it is gone for nothing. If Boeing on the other hand launches a 130 seat 2 class (MAX-8 replacement) Boeing can lock the MAX replacement market and challenge this segment while still selling MAX-10s. Then in 2028 they can announce two stretches of the 130seater (two class) to a 170 seat (two class) and a 200 seat (two class).

So by 2035 Boeing has a super competitive NB with thousands of orders while still be able to sell MAX (and they can just keep current pricing to also make sure the line rolls until then).
Low risk, high reward. Exactly what every share holder wants.

morrisond wrote:

I thought I described it well enough yesterday that people were finally getting it as no one has rebutted it (if I am right about what it is). This is how you get single aisle economics in an aircraft with two aisles.

Noshow wrote:

Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into?

planecane wrote:

They missed the market segment because the A320NEO series and the American Airlines deal forced them to do the 737MAX instead of waiting to launch the NSA (Y1) as the replacement for the 737NG. In 2010/2011 they did not want to launch a clean sheet because they didn't feel the technology was available to make it enough of a step change in efficiency and intended to continue to sell the 737NG as their narrowbody offering and launch the NSA around now for EIS around 2030. The NSA would have covered the A321NEO market just fine.

CRJockey wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I thought I described it well enough yesterday that people were finally getting it as no one has rebutted it (if I am right about what it is). This is how you get single aisle economics in an aircraft with two aisles.

Or people just grew tired of rebutting it over and over.

Anyway, you will have my greatest respect if any of your described scenario comes to fruition. Until then, I am very sceptical about your complex proposal (and yes, it is a complex one no matter how you frame it) in a deeply conservative industry.

Time will tell.

morrisond wrote:

The other way to think of the NMA/NSA in the following versions:

NSA - S - 34M - 3,500 NM range 175 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NSA- L - 39M - 3,000 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NMA - S(5) 39M - 5,200 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32"
NMA- L 44M - 4,700 NM - 259 Seats at 32"

Revelation wrote:

IMO the Yellowstone plan fell apart because Y2 (787) ended up consuming far more money and time than anyone estimated, and consumed the resources one would have needed for a timely Y1 project. It also caused the Board to lose faith in the company's ability to deliver on time and budget, so there's no way they would have approved a Y1 in the early 10s, IMO.

DenverTed wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The other way to think of the NMA/NSA in the following versions:

NSA - S - 34M - 3,500 NM range 175 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NSA- L - 39M - 3,000 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NMA - S(5) 39M - 5,200 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32"
NMA- L 44M - 4,700 NM - 259 Seats at 32"

I doubt there will be a 2-3-2 at the length of a 737-700. I think the design objective is to build a 200 seat 2-3-2 for WN as light as possible with 3,000nm range, with a fixed 36m wing, with single axle main gear. For 200 seats at 32" pitch, I think that aircraft is 40m at best, but probably more like 42m. If they stretch it 5 rows, that puts it out to 757 length, and maybe they can pull that off with the 36m wing at 100t, which I think is the real economic threat to the AIrbus, and also where twin aisle is far superior to single aisle at that capacity of 225 mixed class 250 single class.

DenverTed wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The other way to think of the NMA/NSA in the following versions:

NSA - S - 34M - 3,500 NM range 175 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NSA- L - 39M - 3,000 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NMA - S(5) 39M - 5,200 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32"
NMA- L 44M - 4,700 NM - 259 Seats at 32"

I doubt there will be a 2-3-2 at the length of a 737-700. I think the design objective is to build a 200 seat 2-3-2 for WN as light as possible with 3,000nm range, with a fixed 36m wing, with single axle main gear. For 200 seats at 32" pitch, I think that aircraft is 40m at best, but probably more like 42m. If they stretch it 5 rows, that puts it out to 757 length, and maybe they can pull that off with the 36m wing at 100t, which I think is the real economic threat to the AIrbus, and also where twin aisle is far superior to single aisle at that capacity of 225 mixed class 250 single class.

Noshow wrote:

How much money would Boeing need for a program you envision? (As in doing it right from the beginning) And would they get this funding right now?

morrisond wrote:

Fred and I did a lot of back and forth on length - we both think a 2-3-2 at 217 seats at 32" pitch would be as short as 39.4 m - so 200 seats at 31" would be about 4M less than that - somewhere around 35M.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

How much money would Boeing need for a program you envision? (As in doing it right from the beginning) And would they get this funding right now?

I know $10-15 billion was mentioned at one point, which was intended to entail a primarily evolutionary program. It could have increased as they define the program scope better. Also, if they are thinking to use NMA in part as a pilot of the production system for NSA, I'd imagine that could add several billion more, but result in money and schedule savings for NSA.

I'm sure it won't be funded right now, but presumably the timing would be based on the market. They need extra cash coming in to fund this. They currently forecast turning cash flow positive in 2022, as for 2021 they are still implementing cost saving measures, paying out MAX compensation, and letting airlines re-shuffle their delivery payments.

I think there were some articles talking about a possible 2023 launch. Hopefully by then the market has recovered enough, even if not entirely back to previous traffic volumes, and enough retirements have occurred that production rates can start to creep upwards. That might also pair well with engineering resources freeing up from 777X and MAX10 related work.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Fred and I did a lot of back and forth on length - we both think a 2-3-2 at 217 seats at 32" pitch would be as short as 39.4 m - so 200 seats at 31" would be about 4M less than that - somewhere around 35M.

It got to the point where I was thinking about surface areas and lengths and drag and realised that with the length of the equations being 2 - 3 lines in excel function window and as it grew organically none of it was named ranges as it should be I decided I should just code it up in some vba (note to self, learn a proper language). this has allowed me to make sure that the figures are doing the right things like setting cabin all widths and ensuring that that is taken care of in the taper calculations etc. it will also allow me to drag out more data more readily. I may post up a spreadsheet with it on. I have also gone back over my notes and changed the tail taper to 2 rather than 2.5. unfortunately I work late on Thursdays so I better go do that.

For 217 @32 I have the mom at 42.2 and the A32x config at 44.9
For [email protected] I have the mom at 39.4 and the A32x config at 41.6

Fred

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Does WN have even a single route in their network approaching 3000nm?

DenverTed wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Fred and I did a lot of back and forth on length - we both think a 2-3-2 at 217 seats at 32" pitch would be as short as 39.4 m - so 200 seats at 31" would be about 4M less than that - somewhere around 35M.

It got to the point where I was thinking about surface areas and lengths and drag and realised that with the length of the equations being 2 - 3 lines in excel function window and as it grew organically none of it was named ranges as it should be I decided I should just code it up in some vba (note to self, learn a proper language). this has allowed me to make sure that the figures are doing the right things like setting cabin all widths and ensuring that that is taken care of in the taper calculations etc. it will also allow me to drag out more data more readily. I may post up a spreadsheet with it on. I have also gone back over my notes and changed the tail taper to 2 rather than 2.5. unfortunately I work late on Thursdays so I better go do that.

For 217 @32 I have the mom at 42.2 and the A32x config at 44.9
For [email protected] I have the mom at 39.4 and the A32x config at 41.6

Fred

What is your opinion of the poster who said the 737-700 and -800 have identical fuel burn at the same weight, hence the same drag? 20' of fuselage is aero irrelevant. Except of course if a fuselage weighs 500lb/ft, that is 10,000lb of payload advantage for the -700 for the same fuel burn.

Noshow wrote:

Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into? Do they need a different way to forecast?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into? Do they need a different way to forecast?

NG was doing good, so they just focused on selling WBs to few customers from a particular geographic region of the world. When you can sell 200 copies to one airline, why pursue 20 sale leads of quantity 10 each. Others have to come around anyway once the Frankenstein start eating their lunch.

R&D money tied up on niche projects.

SteinarN wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into? Do they need a different way to forecast?

NG was doing good, so they just focused on selling WBs to few customers from a particular geographic region of the world. When you can sell 200 copies to one airline, why pursue 20 sale leads of quantity 10 each. Others have to come around anyway once the Frankenstein start eating their lunch.

R&D money tied up on niche projects.

I would add to this, greed.

Boeing knew full well that if they developed a new narrowbody they would never reclaim the development costs, and in fact, they would have less profit on each new plane compared to the 737.
So, in all a loss in every way to develop a new plane, in the short term that is.
The reason i believe this is that a new narrowbody would be noticeable more expensive to produce, it would be heavier than the 737, even with a carbon fibre wing, and it would not be noticeable more efficient than the A320 if it had the same generation engines as a competing A320.

Since the B737 have always been a very efficient and size optimized up-to-200-single-class-aircraft a new only similarly efficient narrowbody from Boeing would not command a sufficiently increase in the average sales price to cover for the increase in production cost let alone cover the development cost.

THIS is the real reason Boeing has dragged its feet in launching a replacement for the 737. Namely greed and the fact that profit would go down, in the short and medium term. But by doing so, not launch a replacement, they now are on the brink of not having any competive narrow body at all to offer. And their profit risks tanking significantly in the years ahead.

And as we know, Boeing has never acted short sighted when profit, free cash flow and stock price has been on the board....

SteinarN wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into? Do they need a different way to forecast?

NG was doing good, so they just focused on selling WBs to few customers from a particular geographic region of the world. When you can sell 200 copies to one airline, why pursue 20 sale leads of quantity 10 each. Others have to come around anyway once the Frankenstein start eating their lunch.

R&D money tied up on niche projects.

I would add to this, greed.

Boeing knew full well that if they developed a new narrowbody they would never reclaim the development costs, and in fact, they would have less profit on each new plane compared to the 737.
So, in all a loss in every way to develop a new plane, in the short term that is.
The reason i believe this is that a new narrowbody would be noticeable more expensive to produce, it would be heavier than the 737, even with a carbon fibre wing, and it would not be noticeable more efficient than the A320 if it had the same generation engines as a competing A320.

Since the B737-800 have always been a very efficient and size optimized up-to-200-single-class-aircraft a new only similarly efficient narrowbody from Boeing would not command a sufficiently increase in the average sales price to cover for the increase in production cost let alone cover the development cost.

THIS is the real reason Boeing has dragged its feet in launching a replacement for the 737. Namely greed and the fact that profit would go down, in the short and medium term. But by doing so, not launch a replacement, they now are on the brink of not having any competive narrow body at all to offer. And their profit risks tanking significantly in the years ahead.

And as we know, Boeing has never acted short sighted when profit, free cash flow and stock price has been on the board....

kalvado wrote:

And what is so bad about such thinking for a company running in for-profit mode?

SteinarN wrote:

kalvado wrote:

And what is so bad about such thinking for a company running in for-profit mode?

The problem is the long term viability of the company.

When milking the osolete and highly profitable -but still competitive as measured in efficiency- aircraft for too long, you risk ending up in a position where the obsolete aircraft for some (sudden) reason is not viable anymore.
You have spent all the profit on stock buy back, you dont have a new aircraft ready on the drawing board, your profit is tanking, you need to fund a large development cost and after that a costly industrial production ramp up program.

See it like the early development of a new aircraft to replace a obsolete but still highly profitable aircraft is a form of insurance. You profit goes down, but your risk of suddenly sitting with a non viable product lineup is greatly diminished. Insurance is not for free, but it do definitely help in unforeseen situations.

kalvado wrote:

SteinarN wrote:

kalvado wrote:

And what is so bad about such thinking for a company running in for-profit mode?

The problem is the long term viability of the company.

When milking the osolete and highly profitable -but still competitive as measured in efficiency- aircraft for too long, you risk ending up in a position where the obsolete aircraft for some (sudden) reason is not viable anymore.
You have spent all the profit on stock buy back, you dont have a new aircraft ready on the drawing board, your profit is tanking, you need to fund a large development cost and after that a costly industrial production ramp up program.

See it like the early development of a new aircraft to replace a obsolete but still highly profitable aircraft is a form of insurance. You profit goes down, but your risk of suddenly sitting with a non viable product lineup is greatly diminished. Insurance is not for free, but it do definitely help in unforeseen situations.

You're partially correct . However, Boeing was commenting that there would be no huge efficiency leap as technology wasn't there. I tend to believe that. ANd it's not that competitors can pull out a new product out of thin air.
And I am not sure that running $10B+ project "just because" is a good idea. Yes it is an insurance; but does it really worth buying?
MAX decision was probably conservative one. It could be a compromise, seen as the least of all evils, but certainly not the one I would call non-viable upfront. At least that opinion wasn't dominant back then.

744SPX wrote:

Again, Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA if it wants to remain competitive in the commercial sector. Period. The reality is a hypothetical NMA launched in 2022 won't enter service until 2029-2030 and as such would be an absolute waste of time and effort that will sink Boeing. Airbus is in the position to come out not just with a re-winged A322 "NMA" well before 2030, but also its own NSA by 2030-2032. This Boeing "NMA/MOM" conversation/concept is pointless given the present state of affairs.

Noshow wrote:

A332 is (unofficially) meant to designate some stretched A321neo with a new wing. I see this coming anytime now. Sooner than 2030 for sure. Whenever Boeing has defined their NMA.

Opus99 wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Again, Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA if it wants to remain competitive in the commercial sector. Period. The reality is a hypothetical NMA launched in 2022 won't enter service until 2029-2030 and as such would be an absolute waste of time and effort that will sink Boeing. Airbus is in the position to come out not just with a re-winged A322 "NMA" well before 2030, but also its own NSA by 2030-2032. This Boeing "NMA/MOM" conversation/concept is pointless given the present state of affairs.

Airbus is not going to come out with an A322 before 2030. That’s on period. When do you think they will launch it? Before they finish the XLR? Or what? Come on. Again. I don’t know how many times one can say the technology is not ready. They will launch it now and then undermine max8 sales. And the aircraft willl be obsolete at soon as it enters the market. EVEN IF Airbus launches before new tech will be the same generation as whatever Boeing launches. What Boeing can do can be launch single aisle 250 seater (1 class) and then just cut the frame for a max 8/9 replacement with the new engines. But they need that new frame. Use this NMA or whatever they want to call it to set up for the max.

Opus99 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

A332 is (unofficially) meant to designate some stretched A321neo with a new wing. I see this coming anytime now. Sooner than 2030 for sure. Whenever Boeing has defined their NMA.

So if Boeing and Airbus launch at the same time. Then Airbus may come earlier. Not that much earlier though. 777X was meant to take 6 years so I’m assuming so would 322 since it’s basically the same thing. Maybe NMA will take 7?

AndoAv8R wrote:

So one thing to consider that I don't know if it has been brought up or not, is how much wider can the fuselage diameter be before there's an issue with using (primarily thinking Southwest Airlines) standard narrow body gates? For comparison it looks like the MC-21 is the widest currently at 13.3 ft, which I assume will be able to fit into the current gates

Ertro wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

A332 is (unofficially) meant to designate some stretched A321neo with a new wing. I see this coming anytime now. Sooner than 2030 for sure. Whenever Boeing has defined their NMA.

So if Boeing and Airbus launch at the same time. Then Airbus may come earlier. Not that much earlier though. 777X was meant to take 6 years so I’m assuming so would 322 since it’s basically the same thing. Maybe NMA will take 7?

The conditions that drived how early 777X and 322 should be announced to the world are totally different.
777X needed to be announced very early immediately after the program was greenlighted from management in order to take sales away from 380. 777X had also bigger changes than 322 leading to long time between annoucement and first flight.

322 is totally different. There is zero incentive to announce anything and it is possible to design 90% of the plane in secret before going public. Maybe the new wing and everything else is completely drawn in CAD already.

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly with certification processes changing when do you think they will launch that aircraft.

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly with certification processes changing when do you think they will launch that aircraft.

Is the certification process changing?

Fred

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Secondly with certification processes changing when do you think they will launch that aircraft.

Is the certification process changing?

Fred

I mean, with what is happening with the 777X, i'd assume so. Apologies, i did not make it clear that is just what i think not for sure. But i don't know what certification will look like going forward but its obvious it won't be the same so i'm sure airbus would also want to analyse what that entails before launch, a lot it still up in the air at the moment.

flipdewaf wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What is your opinion of the poster who said the 737-700 and -800 have identical fuel burn at the same weight, hence the same drag? 20' of fuselage is aero irrelevant. Except of course if a fuselage weighs 500lb/ft, that is 10,000lb of payload advantage for the -700 for the same fuel burn.

FluidFlow wrote:

So if you actually only stretch (the A321 to make the A322) and not change anything else (based on the XLR) all will be ok, but as soon as you start to include more and more modifications it becomes a lengthy process.

Noshow wrote:

This is true no doubt. With new wing and engine it will be more than a stretch but much less than a clean sheet.

So Airbus can wait for Boeing to come up with something and then react, be cheaper in development and sales prices and be on the markt earlier with a program that still has some A321neo commonalities. This is a tricky place Boeing has gotten into. No wonder Boeing hesitates to launch the NMA.

744SPX wrote:

Again, Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA if it wants to remain competitive in the commercial sector. Period. The reality is a hypothetical NMA launched in 2022 won't enter service until 2029-2030 and as such would be an absolute waste of time and effort that will sink Boeing. Airbus is in the position to come out not just with a re-winged A322 "NMA" well before 2030, but also its own NSA by 2030-2032. This Boeing "NMA/MOM" conversation/concept is pointless given the present state of affairs.

Noshow wrote:

This is true no doubt. With new wing and engine it will be more than a stretch but much less than a clean sheet.

So Airbus can wait for Boeing to come up with something and then react, be cheaper in development and sales prices and be on the market earlier with a program that still has some A321neo commonalities.