Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:21 pm

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.


:cry2:

cheers


Quite possibly - I guess it really depends on what the -6 and 7 are - if you look at the Aviation Week Articles rendering - -6/7 look like they have different wings/tails/gear again.

It is not inconceivable that after NMA and NSA - there is an NMA-XL with another a different wingbox/wing - not constrained by SA gate spacing even with folding tips ( I suspect NMA-5 would have folding tips - NSA - no folding tips. NMA-XL would fit in 767 sized gates that could launch in 2035 or so.

The NMA-5 with 322 Capacity would be quite small at less than 40M. There would probably be a longer version say at 45M that you are right you would have to account for. However a 3x3 of equivalent size would be even longer that would have to be taken into account for.

Given the growth in passenger volumes eventually I could see the following:

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"

NMA- XL - S 49M (762 Length) - 6,000 NM - 301 Seats at 32"
NMA-XL - L 54M (763 Length Approx) - 5,200 NM 343 Seats at 32" - the real 2040's Transatlantic monster.

All using the same basic systems architecture/cockpit/nose(just like 757/767/777) - all with one cross section - over what could easily be 20,000 frames in the lifetime of the program.

Basic Structures like wings and /wingboxes are not so hard - especially with modern computers and where they would be in 10 years at NMA-XL launch. It's the systems and control work that consume a lot of the testing and certification time.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:22 pm

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 guess $20-25bn with launch in 2024 and EIS in 2034, announcing the two stretched versions in 2028 for EIS in 2036.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:27 pm

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.


That is definitely possible what you envision.

I laid out the lengths I envision above which are basically 737 and 738 lengths for NSA. That is not that stubby if you think of the 2-3-2 as really not a Widebody - just a wider SA.

Who knows what they will do.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:22 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27832
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:07 pm

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


They did not miss the market, they just did not have a compelling alternative with the 737-900ER / 737-9. The 737-10 is a compelling alternative to a point (around 2500nm or so) and was seeing good sales up until the grounding.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 27445
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:13 pm

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.

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.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:18 pm

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.


Who knows - it's probably tilting at Windmills - but it's Covid and I'm bored.

But the more I think about the more it doesn't seem like a non-standard cross section is really all that hard. The process to produce it will probably be a lot more challenging - and we know they have been working on that and that process will probably be used if its a 3x3 as well.

Plus combined NSA/NMA program doesn't have to be that hard.

For example - say these are the variants they go for as above:

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"

Is that you could really view NMA as just an ER version of the NSA that they do first - kind of a reverse of what they did with 777-200,300/200LR/300ER but with ER version first due to realities of trying to produce 50+ NSA per month and not wanting to kill the MAX yet.

NMA could use a beefed up version (but same dimensions) of the NSA Wingbox - stronger tail, stronger gear/ more thrust and Folding wings that fold down to 36M.

That big wingbox could hold more than enough fuel for NSA allowing NSA wing to be super-efficient and thin with no fold - maxing out at 36M.

Airlines could buy NMA and abuse it - however Boeing should be able to get pretty good pricing on it (which will keep MAX selling well) Program accounting will allow them to spread development costs over 10,000+ frames (eventually).

Then when NMA design is done - come back to NSA and take what you learned to make it super light and super efficient with that new wing.

Fun to think about.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:36 pm

Great post again. The hardest thing for a non standard fuselage is to have the courage to think outside the box.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:49 pm

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.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:09 pm

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.


Really did seem to be the case. As fans of aviation, so many of us wished that Boeing would have gone with Y1, to get their mojo back.... Y2 was a sound plane, just a poorly executed program. Y1 could have learned from the program mistakes of Y2.

At the time.... I kept thinking... let American order 100 more Airbuses.... let them do it... Stay the course and build Y1 (RSA/NSA.. whatever they were calling it). However, I was certain they were just going to re-engine the 737 as a result of the 787 loss of confidence.. Hindsight being what it is... I imagine Boeing wishes that they had gone the Y1 route now too. How much of that American order money have they realized nearly 10 years after program launch?

Anyway, it's all coulda, shoulda, woulda now.....
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:27 pm

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.


Sure the smallest may be 200 seats at 32" pitch - but 30 or 31" is probably more likely the "Standard" Y seat by then or whatever Southwest is using - size it for that.

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.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:28 pm

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.


Isn't a MAX 9ER (MAX9 w/ 10 gear) a very good 200pax @32" pitch with 3000nm range plane for WN? Not that I want to see the 737 spin off even more variations.... but that's got to be a pretty efficient design for the mission and probably addresses field performance on some of the short runways that WN serves... I mean if they really are going to do the 10... why not push the landing gear tech down stream to the 9? Does WN have even a single route in their network approaching 3000nm?

If you are going to do this new plane at 752/762 mission profiles (NMA)..... it probably won't be compelling at 200pax/3000nm on the same platform.... that would require a major 'sub-family' development (NSA)...

It's going to be fun seeing what is done!
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1523
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:51 pm

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
Posts: 4490
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:59 pm

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
 
DenverTed
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:11 pm

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.

If the 777 was 5B in 1995, 4% is 20B in 2030. The A350 was 15B in 2015, which is 27B in 2030. Maybe they are more complex, but maybe the inflation of programs is more than 4%. So, I would guess 20B for a new program with 2030 EIS, as best case scenario, for anyone.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:16 pm

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.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:24 pm

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

The 727 didn't go that far. Is there a case for building new optimized aircraft at 150 or 200 seats with 2000nm or 2500nm range? Shave off some weight?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4490
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:07 pm

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.

About 180lb difference according to my model. ~45kghr^-1. In an identical aircraft with just length that’s like 2% difference. 2% could be masked by all sorts of age or wear related stuff as well as weather or it may just be close enough that the airline just use 1 fuel model?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:37 pm

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
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:56 pm

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
Posts: 3664
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:08 pm

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....

And what is so bad about such thinking for a company running in for-profit mode?
If MCAS was programmed just a touch better - not to today's standard, but say with an input filter and single activation - MAX would be in a great shape, selling like hotcakes, up to covid; everyone would be praising genius of Boeing engineers designing future-proof airplane and keeping it going.
Everyone keeps bringing great hindsight into the picture; but there was a very fat chance that the plan would work. Yes, a mistake in hindsight - but it is lack of engineering skill in project execution which giives Boeing problems; management is a comorbidity factor from my perspective.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3175
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:24 pm

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....

Theres absolutely nothing wrong in doing that. But doing that and doing it well, safely and with utmost quality are actually not mutually exclusive. I don’t think I would’ve launched a clean sheet either if I had the decision to make. I would’ve done MCAS properly with the two sensors and the training. Yes there was penalty for training on some customers but you take it on the chin. They want the plane as bad as you want to sell it. It will never be to the extent of customers switching to your competitor. After all that’s what everybody has to do now. The WN that was shouting no training, now they’re training and they’re still interested in more MAXs
 
SteinarN
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:25 pm

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
Posts: 3664
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:42 pm

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.
 
SteinarN
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:09 pm

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.


I agree fully that there is not any large efficiency gain to be had on a new narrowbody aircraft, as long as the "old" competitor are able to install the same new engines on his aircraft.
And that is the main reason i argue that a new narrowbody will not be able to command a significant increase in the average sales price. Thus the reduction in profit per aircraft on the new compared to the old narrowbody.

The question boiles down to for how long do you take the chance continuing milking your cash cow before you invest in a new one?
The old cow has obsolete flight controls, no flight envelope protection, limited sensor suite, no real flight control computer, emergency flight operation by physical strength of the pilots, archaic engine and aircraft warning system, too-low-to-the-ground not fitting the most efficient engines any more.

At what point in the future do you fear that those aircraft properties and specifications makes the aircraft not viable anymore beeing flown by non-military background pilots all around the globe?
If you fear that could happen in a decade or two you better start working on that new replacement promptly.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1532
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:11 am

Realistically speaking. They need around $20 billions in development costs .How much extra money do they need for delays or inflation and problem relating cost?

Could it reach $30 billions?
 
744SPX
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:34 am

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
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:16 am

So what programs in what order would you get going instead please?

What are technological breakthroughs that would top any comepetitor?
-Higher bypass engines
-growth potential beyound 240 or so
-new cockpit (augmented or similar, possibly single pilot cruise capable)*
-integrated robot manufacturing for high rate at low cost*



Admittedly expensive and risky if it doesn't work.
*reusable for NSA
 
Opus99
Posts: 3175
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:35 am

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.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:44 am

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
Posts: 3175
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:49 am

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?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:58 am

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.


I also do not think Boeing will launch anything before MAX-10 and 77X have been certified so the next 3 years until 2024 when both should be done will only be speculation what could come. Same from Airbus they will not launch anything before XLR is certified.

Maybe just maybe a A223 stretch but even that seems not be done before 2025. So we have boring years full of fruitless speculations ahaed.
 
AndoAv8R
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:29 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:46 pm

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
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:52 pm

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.
 
planecane
Posts: 1869
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:55 pm

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

It's about the wing span not the fuselage width.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:53 pm

Apologies A322 is the name I was talking about not A332.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3175
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:58 pm

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.

So how long do you think it will take? 321XLR is about 4 years and almost everything is the same. How long do you honestly think 322 will take? Secondly with certification processes changing when do you think they will launch that aircraft. IMO it will take at least 5 years from launch to EIS. AT LEAST. Let’s be realistic here.

I doubt Airbus will launch before XLR certification completion, no demand yet at XLR certification I think demand will be hot. Nice time to launch but at that time Boeing will (by his grace) will have the 777X certification and MAX 10 behind them for them to also launch. Or at least close enough, that will be an interesting race to battle to watch
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4490
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:07 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Secondly with certification processes changing when do you think they will launch that aircraft.


Is the certification process changing?

Fred
 
Opus99
Posts: 3175
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:10 pm

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.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:22 pm

The rules and construction standards are known. What might have changed is grandfathering. But this is not relevant to clean sheet designs like NMA or NSA.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:49 pm

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.



What is right now hurting Boeing is, that the certification goals changed during certification of their aircraft, so everything that deviates from the current model has to be fully certified to the new standards (for the 77X this seems to be the case). For the MAX-10 the problem is the additional demands by EASA that have to be implemented, tested and certified.

I guess the XLR will have to go through the same and the modification of the wings and the new centre fuel tank have to comply with up to date rules.

So while you most probably do not have to bring the old bits to new standard in case of the 77X or XLR (say the cockpit can stay the same), the same might be true for a A322. So if you actually only stretch it 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.
Now if you know from the beginning you can plan accordingly but Boeing unfortunately got caught in the middle of certification with the 77X.

For the MAX it is just the continuation of the grounding story.
 
AvgWhiteGuy
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:44 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:54 pm

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.

About 180lb difference according to my model. ~45kghr^-1. In an identical aircraft with just length that’s like 2% difference. 2% could be masked by all sorts of age or wear related stuff as well as weather or it may just be close enough that the airline just use 1 fuel model?

Fred

The data regarding the fuel burn for the -700 and -800's was obtained from the performance laptop in our cockpit. In the laptop, you could select any tail number we
had, so both 700 and 800, input the parameters of speed, altitude, weight, temp, bleed configuration, etc... and get fuel burn output. I think I've made the point, but
when I put in say 145,000 pounds for a 700 with X set of parameters, I would get ~2,520 pounds per hour per engine. Changing only the model to the 800, leaving
all other parameters the same, the laptop would spit out the same fuel burn, 2,520.

Guess another point to make clear was this was a digital output, I was not chasing charts.

As a side note, I had come up with a crude, but revealing performance calculation in the 90's of simply taking weight and dividing it by fuel burn at LRC and was using
the laptop 10 years later to see the changes the winglets and scimitars had on that reference number I had gotten from my years at Delta. The NG with winglets was
28.6 and widebodies of the day were in the low 30's. I believe now we are in the low 30's for narrowbodies and probably around 40 for wide. Admittedly, there is a
flaw with the calculation and that is the lighter a plane is made given a certain configuration, the more it falsely skews the numbers lower, when really higher is better.
I still like to use it to compare efficiency gain over a models aerodynamic and engine changes though; it is very useful for that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27832
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:02 pm

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.


And with all the changes folks are tossing around - new wing, new engines, higher operating weights so new gear, etc. - the "A322" is going to have a much lengthier certification and flight-test program than the A321XLR did.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:18 pm

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. This is a tricky place Boeing has gotten into. No wonder Boeing hesitates to launch the NMA.
Last edited by Noshow on Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3175
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:33 pm

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.

Very very tricky
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:44 pm

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.


I think the more and more we get into details of what the NMA might be - the more and more I just realize that it could really just be an NSA-ER with larger folding wing/ more thrust (possibly just a geared LEAP using the existing core), stronger gear.

So in effect they really will be doing NSA but just releasing the ER version first (to fill a hole in there lineup) to not kill the MAX until they get volumes up in a new production process so they can build the NSA version with smaller non-folding 36M wing/less thrust lighter gear.

If this plays out this way - it's a really smart way to do it. The next gen replacement for the LEAP that would be used on NSA will take longer than 9 years anyways - but it doesn't seem like a GTF version of the existing core would be impossible to deliver by then.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:51 pm

Your plan would lead them to design the heavy version first and the shrink it to found a family? So all the smaller ones end up being made of their heavy weight ancestor version's ingredients? No that would not be really smart and not lead to a competitive lightweight product.

And I doubt that airlines are ready for folding wing sections in the short haul market. They would fold heir wings in and out all the time. If that mechanism breaks you are grounded.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3908
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:51 pm

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. This is a tricky place Boeing has gotten into. No wonder Boeing hesitates to launch the NMA.


Based on the premise, a new wing on a A320 will be good enough competitive reaction. Lets see what Boeing debuts first, Airbus may not share the "simple" response many here do.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:52 pm

Let's say Boeing does the NMA first and somehow shrinks it to form the base for the NSA Airbus might very well do the same.
Build something above the A321neo entirely new and then use it to form a new family - above the A220 in this case.

I just wonder how shrinking structures initially sized for bigger aircraft can make sense this time? Remember the A318 or 737-600?
Last edited by Noshow on Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27832
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:54 pm

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.


And this might explain why Boeing is not looking at just a 757-300 with LEAP or GTF that Airbus can copy with a stretch and new wing.

By going twin-aisle, Boeing can differentiate and support higher passenger capacities more efficiently than just making a really long single-aisle tube. They can also make a wider wing because they would not be constrained with the 36m limit the A322 probably would be, instead being able to go wider which would boost efficiency on longer (i.e. - TATL) stage lengths (not that they would need a span that wide - shorter would provide airport maneuvering benefits).

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