keesje wrote:

I don't think Boeing can't survive too many WN, FR "wins" https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/, ($23-30mln ) and they need a real competitive offer also in to 130-150 seat segment. https://www.aerotime.aero/upload/files/ ... _price.jpg

If I was Boeing's CEO (unfortunately I'm not earning $21mln for 2020) I wouldn't burn myself again trying to fight of A321 / A322. That probably won't bring in a lot of dollar margin anytime soon. After 6 years of trying to market the NMA, Calhouns blank sheet approach, I wouldn't be surprised if NMA has become a decoy for a more ambitious, attractive NB program that could stear Boeing back on track for restoring parity in it's biggest market segment.

In summation, Airbus invulnerable in the A321-A322 and 757/762 replacement segment, vulnerable in A320-A220 segment, don't take WN and FR's business, kill MAX "asap", invest in clean sheet targeted at A320-A220 instead, who cares what that does to customer's or partner's investments. Sorry, but that kind of thinking doesn't rate burger flipper wages, never mind a CEO's pay package.

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

Pythagoras, CanukinUSA, thank you for your educated views, opinions above.

Back to topic, I think many of the NMA specifications, outlooks drift on one major assumption:
The 737 MAX will be just fine against A320 / A220 families this decade.

There are signs that's not a realistic assumption. Market share / backlog, order value of the 737 have been dropping.
We can play around with in service numbers, time windows, but I think the writing is on the wall on the good old 737.
It was visible already before the crashes / Covid-19.


https://leehamnews.com/2020/10/27/with-max-nearing-recertification-boeing-has-bigger-problem/

The latest A320 vs 737 '19-'21 delivery figures / delta's are shocking. And it's not like WB's are saving Boeing.
Boeing needs to cover it's bases first and fix it's 150-220 seats up to 3000NM segment later this decade

That is the bread & butter of the global aviation market and also for Boeing. Not offering a viable A220/A320 competitor, alternative, MAX conversion option could drive Boeing South, like never before.

Meanwhile, Airbus keeps investing in NB portfolio expansion and product improvements, driven by market demand. https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1

As an example, I saw this A320 improvement project this week. https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 03.article A significant A320 family modification. Not required by authorities, costing a lot of time/ certification / money, reducing standardisation, reducing free cash flow. But a good long term family improvement. A very different development approach compared to policies at their biggest competitor.

I think Boeing's next airplane will be a shrunken, single aisle NMA, a 737 replacing NB. Single aisle because it seems a 225 seat, 4000NM dual aisle aircraft will always be 6-8t heavier than a 225 seat, 4000NM single aisle aircraft. There is no engineering magic that works for twin aisles only. Direct operating costs and OEW are closely related.

Shelve NMA, do a NB 10% better than the NEO's asap.

Wow - of course MAX deliveries from 19-21 were substantially worse and probably will be for sometime. Did you miss the MAX delivery shutdown and airlines not wanting to take new frames due to Covid?

Please detail for us why a tight light 2 aisle fuselage that has less skin area and less internal volume than a comparable capacity 1 aisle will be 6-8T heavier when a bare entire A320 fuselage only weighs about 5T.

Yes - the the 50% approximately by length of the fuselage cross sections that are not the nose or above the wingbox or the tail will be a bunch heavier per meter but then of course there will be about 20-25% less of those meters by length for equivalent capacity for something that is essentially the same height but with a 15" bulge on each side.

Theoretically assuming you have enough clearance for the fans the 2 aisle could possibly use shorter gear as well to obtain the same rotation angle.

The assertion that it has less skin area and 20-25%less length are not true. An equivalent capacity (number of seats but not seat width ) fuselage for twin aisle has both greater surface area, drag and weight whilst not yet taking account of additional shear loads required for floor in compression.

If I recall correctly the difference in length for a 217 seat layout was about 3m shorter for the 7abreast compared to 6abreast. This assumes identical requirements for minimum fuselage cross section required for use as well as identical taper ratios.

That’s just the fuselage...

You think that Boeing are daft enough to hamstring themselves with short gear and prevent the aircraft being stretched to where the cross section might actually make sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Antarius wrote:

What's your plan? Just stop selling a jet you've spent money developing and will be profitable on a per aircraft production basis in the future?

Yes, shut it down before anyone can get any positive cash flow out of it, then ask the same partners to invest in building a replacement in the same payload/range category while having nothing that can compete in the segment with the most growth in demand, let the competitor do nothing while raking in cash at the high end growth segment instead of making the competitor respond to your clean sheet, that's the plan.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

I don't think Boeing can't survive too many WN, FR "wins" https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/, ($23-30mln ) and they need a real competitive offer also in to 130-150 seat segment. https://www.aerotime.aero/upload/files/ ... _price.jpg

If I was Boeing's CEO (unfortunately I'm not earning $21mln for 2020) I wouldn't burn myself again trying to fight of A321 / A322. That probably won't bring in a lot of dollar margin anytime soon. After 6 years of trying to market the NMA, Calhouns blank sheet approach, I wouldn't be surprised if NMA has become a decoy for a more ambitious, attractive NB program that could stear Boeing back on track for restoring parity in it's biggest market segment.

In summation, Airbus invulnerable in the A321-A322 and 757/762 replacement segment, vulnerable in A320-A220 segment, don't take WN and FR's business, kill MAX "asap", invest in clean sheet targeted at A320-A220 instead, who cares what that does to customer's or partner's investments. Sorry, but that kind of thinking doesn't rate burger flipper wages, never mind a CEO's pay package.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

Pythagoras, CanukinUSA, thank you for your educated views, opinions above.

Back to topic, I think many of the NMA specifications, outlooks drift on one major assumption:
The 737 MAX will be just fine against A320 / A220 families this decade.

There are signs that's not a realistic assumption. Market share / backlog, order value of the 737 have been dropping.
We can play around with in service numbers, time windows, but I think the writing is on the wall on the good old 737.
It was visible already before the crashes / Covid-19.


https://leehamnews.com/2020/10/27/with-max-nearing-recertification-boeing-has-bigger-problem/

The latest A320 vs 737 '19-'21 delivery figures / delta's are shocking. And it's not like WB's are saving Boeing.
Boeing needs to cover it's bases first and fix it's 150-220 seats up to 3000NM segment later this decade

That is the bread & butter of the global aviation market and also for Boeing. Not offering a viable A220/A320 competitor, alternative, MAX conversion option could drive Boeing South, like never before.

Meanwhile, Airbus keeps investing in NB portfolio expansion and product improvements, driven by market demand. https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1

As an example, I saw this A320 improvement project this week. https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 03.article A significant A320 family modification. Not required by authorities, costing a lot of time/ certification / money, reducing standardisation, reducing free cash flow. But a good long term family improvement. A very different development approach compared to policies at their biggest competitor.

I think Boeing's next airplane will be a shrunken, single aisle NMA, a 737 replacing NB. Single aisle because it seems a 225 seat, 4000NM dual aisle aircraft will always be 6-8t heavier than a 225 seat, 4000NM single aisle aircraft. There is no engineering magic that works for twin aisles only. Direct operating costs and OEW are closely related.

Shelve NMA, do a NB 10% better than the NEO's asap.

Wow - of course MAX deliveries from 19-21 were substantially worse and probably will be for sometime. Did you miss the MAX delivery shutdown and airlines not wanting to take new frames due to Covid?

Please detail for us why a tight light 2 aisle fuselage that has less skin area and less internal volume than a comparable capacity 1 aisle will be 6-8T heavier when a bare entire A320 fuselage only weighs about 5T.

Yes - the the 50% approximately by length of the fuselage cross sections that are not the nose or above the wingbox or the tail will be a bunch heavier per meter but then of course there will be about 20-25% less of those meters by length for equivalent capacity for something that is essentially the same height but with a 15" bulge on each side.

Theoretically assuming you have enough clearance for the fans the 2 aisle could possibly use shorter gear as well to obtain the same rotation angle.

The assertion that it has less skin area and 20-25%less length are not true. An equivalent capacity (number of seats but not seat width ) fuselage for twin aisle has both greater surface area, drag and weight whilst not yet taking account of additional shear loads required for floor in compression.

If I recall correctly the difference in length for a 217 seat layout was about 3m shorter for the 7abreast compared to 6abreast. This assumes identical requirements for minimum fuselage cross section required for use as well as identical taper ratios.

That’s just the fuselage...

You think that Boeing are daft enough to hamstring themselves with short gear and prevent the aircraft being stretched to where the cross section might actually make sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not say 20-25% less length overall. I said the sections that aren't the nose/tail and wingbox would be about 20-25% less in length. There is only a 3M difference if you assume uncompetitively long Nose and tail sections. When you do the math the skin area is less and even with the long ends you are assuming - you posted a few days ago that it actually has less internal volume. The only thing that might add to additional skin area would be a bigger tail. It does not necessarily have to use the same taper ratios.

In any case the fuselage will not be over 100% heavier as the poster onto previous page assumed. It will be a marginal difference.

The only places where compression issues might come into play to a significant degree would be the sections that aren't over the Wingbox (which would just be like normal with a Half Circle on top), or the nose or tail. Plus as we have discussed before there are ways to deal with those compression issues using monolithic carbon Floor/lower lobe beams and then rigidly attaching the cargo compartments to those beams basically creating one large keel beam out of the cargo area.

No - I don't think Boeing will be that daft to handicap the future. Based on the latest concepts I would guess that future versions of the NMA - the NMA-L and XL would use a different wingbox and gear and be in a totally different size class.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Wow - of course MAX deliveries from 19-21 were substantially worse and probably will be for sometime. Did you miss the MAX delivery shutdown and airlines not wanting to take new frames due to Covid?

Please detail for us why a tight light 2 aisle fuselage that has less skin area and less internal volume than a comparable capacity 1 aisle will be 6-8T heavier when a bare entire A320 fuselage only weighs about 5T.

Yes - the the 50% approximately by length of the fuselage cross sections that are not the nose or above the wingbox or the tail will be a bunch heavier per meter but then of course there will be about 20-25% less of those meters by length for equivalent capacity for something that is essentially the same height but with a 15" bulge on each side.

Theoretically assuming you have enough clearance for the fans the 2 aisle could possibly use shorter gear as well to obtain the same rotation angle.

The assertion that it has less skin area and 20-25%less length are not true. An equivalent capacity (number of seats but not seat width ) fuselage for twin aisle has both greater surface area, drag and weight whilst not yet taking account of additional shear loads required for floor in compression.

If I recall correctly the difference in length for a 217 seat layout was about 3m shorter for the 7abreast compared to 6abreast. This assumes identical requirements for minimum fuselage cross section required for use as well as identical taper ratios.

That’s just the fuselage...

You think that Boeing are daft enough to hamstring themselves with short gear and prevent the aircraft being stretched to where the cross section might actually make sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not say 20-25% less length overall. I said the sections that aren't the nose/tail and wingbox would be about 20-25% less in length. There is only a 3M difference if you assume uncompetitively long Nose and tail sections.

I don’t assume items independently. The taper ratios in all cases in my model are identical, the amount of cabin available in the tail is calculated in an identical way in each variant with an assumption around the required space to be useful and this applied to each variant identically. There is absolutely no special pleading, all assumptions universally applied.

morrisond wrote:

When you do the math the skin area is less and even with the long ends you are assuming - you posted a few days ago that it actually has less internal volume.

Longer ends due to higher cross sectional area you mean? That allow more use of the tapered section which is taken account of in the model? The 7w model has 6% higher surface area and 9.8% higher drag (fuselage only).

And you’ll note that the further from round you go the higher the surface to volume ratio.

morrisond wrote:

The only thing that might add to additional skin area would be a bigger tail. It does not necessarily have to use the same taper ratios.

Different taper ratios? Aerodynamics different for twin aisles?

morrisond wrote:

In any case the fuselage will not be over 100% heavier as the poster onto previous page assumed. It will be a marginal difference.

That isn’t what keesje said, 6-8t overall weight.

morrisond wrote:

The only places where compression issues might come into play to a significant degree would be the sections that aren't over the Wingbox (which would just be like normal with a Half Circle on top), or the nose or tail. Plus as we have discussed before there are ways to deal with those compression issues using monolithic carbon Floor/lower lobe beams and then rigidly attaching the cargo compartments to those beams basically creating one large keel beam out of the cargo area.

At what weight? Incidentally, the models used for the performance discussion just over a year ago derived from the Stamford method take into account the root cord as an input to determine the fuselage weight [(“fuselage length”- “root cord”)/2] as the wing does provide additional stiffness.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TTailedTiger wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

The 757/767 program was a great success. Just repeat it with new designs. A narrowbody to compete against the A321 and a widebody to replace 763/764/332.

It won't work since Airlines wants to streamline their operation these days. B787-8 could do B767-400ER and A330-200 more efficiently. And A321XLR could do B757-200 more efficiently.

Many airlines that use B757-200 already have A321 on their fleet and some XLR on order.

So why wouldn't a new 752 size plane be more efficient than a late 80's design A321?

It would be more efficient for sure. BUT the efficiency wouldn't be enough to negate the extra costs for training, extra costs for maintenance or extra costs of operations. When A321XLR could do the same thing with slightly less efficiency while having commonality with A320neo or A321neo which are extremely popular across the world. Which mean that adding A321XLR into their fleet wouldn't cost that much money.

Same goes for B787-8.

I think by going for a bigger more capable NMA, Boeing risks losing overall market share longer term. And I'm for sure not the only one.

In January 2020, Boeing had said it was pausing NMA development because dealing with the 737 Max grounding had pushed it beyond an ideal mid-2020s launch date. The jet was to carry some 270 passengers and have 4,000-5,000nm (7,400-9,300km) range. It was to fill the segment once controlled by ageing 757s and 767s, now led by A321neo variants.

Since that time, the need for a single-aisle aircraft in this space has only become greater as airlines struggle through the global pandemic and search for the ideal aircraft mix for post-coronavius growth.

Single-aisles have far lower operating costs that twin-aisles, and are beginning to outsell the widebodies almost two-to-one.
By 2025, narrowbodies will make up about 70% of all aircraft sold, with widebodies at just 15%, Michals says. By the end of the decade, narrowbody sales could be as high as 74%, ”We see a fundamnetal shift taking place,” Michaels says.

As long as the US airframer does not have a viable design and concept in this segment, it will risk losing ground to its European competitor.
“We all agree if Boeing doesn’t do something soon it threatens to go into a spiral here, to a 40% market share,” he adds.

https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/why-boeing-needs-to-work-quickly-on-nma-decision/142359.article

If Boeing goes for an NMA, they are basically betting the house on the 737 MAX. Even if the latest Southwest 737-7 order is seen as a decisive victory, it would still be a questionable, risky strategy in my opinion. https://www.flightglobal.com/737-max-tw ... 89.article

A superior, state of the art 150-225 seat narrow body by 2028 seems a smarter, safer investment. Complete the 737MAX production run & give airlines the option to convert some, to prevent them converting to the other guys. .

morrisond wrote:

Stitch wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Although if that does happen I don't think they will share the same wing as you won't have enough range in a -7 or the -5 would do something crazy like 6,500NM. Just like in the Leeham article which seems to show the -5 with a wing significantly smaller.

I would expect all three NMA to share the same wing, but I could see Boeing "clipping" NMA-5's wing like they originally intended to do with the 787-3. I could see that wing sized to 36m to fit in existing narrowbody (ICAO Code C) while the NMA-6 and NMA-7 could go up to 52m for ICAO Code D.

That could work but that would be quite the clip. The 787-3 was only supposed to be an 8M clip to 52M from the 788/9's 60.1.

Actually thinking about it more I think it's more likely Boeing does a folding wing that fits in the Code C gate with a wingbox that is sized the same as an NSA wingbox (but strengthened obviously) and the NMA-5 is basically an NSA-ER with same nose and cross section.

Then the 6-7 use a new Wingbox with a wing that may go beyond 52m with folding tips. We may not say the 6 and 7 for quite some time though.

I think the new digital design tools are really going to change things up and allow changes in primary structures a lot easier than in the past. The lineup could look something like the following:

NSA-S - 40M 3,500 NM 36M Non-Folding Wing 2034 EIS
NSA-L - 45M 3,000 NM 36M Non-Folding Wing 2036 EIS
NMA-S(5) 45m 5,500 NM 36M When Folded Wing 2030 EIS
NMA -M (6) 50m 4,750NM 36M When Folded Wing 2032 EIS
NMA - L 55m 6,000NM 52M When Folded Wing (Arriving late 2030's)
NMA - XL 60M 5,250NM 52M When Folded Wing (Arriving late 2030's)

By the late 2030's an 789 should be capable of really silly ranges after being reengined but will be really useful for those who want to carry cargo. The NMA-L and XL will become the people movers.

morrisond wrote:

Although if that does happen I don't think they will share the same wing as you won't have enough range in a -7 or the -5 would do something crazy like 6,500NM. Just like in the Leeham article which seems to show the -5 with a wing significantly smaller.https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/03/final ... direction/

The Leeham link may reveal something more than that.

The -5X wing differs in having winglets - but also looks to have a lower sweep,
(at least to my eye).

The arguments that you present on the wingbox etc may in fact pull-up short:

The -5X wing may in fact be the NSA wing!

cheers

Does Boeing have enough money now to start all this? Does GE have the right future engines ready for NMA and NSA? What upcoming technologies are to be expected that some immediate launch program would have to miss but competitors could make use of?
I don't see anything launching immediately.

Pre-designing some NSA wing right now as part of NMA, for such a long lasting program, would lead to some outdated wing from the beginning. This will not happen. The chopped 787-3 wing did not work.

Noshow wrote:

Does Boeing have enough money now to start all this? Does GE have the right future engines ready for NMA and NSA? What upcoming technologies are to be expected that some immediate launch program would have to miss but competitors could make use of?
I don't see anything launching immediately.

Pre-designing some NSA wing right now as part of NMA, for such a long lasting program, would lead to some outdated wing from the beginning. This will not happen. The chopped 787-3 wing did not work.

2 years is what we are hearing. 777X freighter will launch before NMA IMO

brindabella wrote:

The -5X wing may in fact be the NSA wing!

cheers

Or at least the Wingbox in a strengthened version. That is my whole point point the -5 does seem like it will be not that much larger than an NSA - it would just have more capability in terms of range/lift.

Basically the -5 would be an NSA-ER. Quite like what Boeing did when they strengthened the original 777, increased the Wingspan and bumped up the thrust to make the 77W.

That worked out pretty well for them. Although given that will have figured out folding wing tech by then - the NSA-ER could basically have an entirely different wing than NSA - possibly getting out to 43-44M unfolded, and NSA sticking with cheaper/simpler non-folding 36M wing.

keesje wrote:

I think by going for a bigger more capable NMA, Boeing risks losing overall market share longer term. And I'm for sure not the only one.

In January 2020, Boeing had said it was pausing NMA development because dealing with the 737 Max grounding had pushed it beyond an ideal mid-2020s launch date. The jet was to carry some 270 passengers and have 4,000-5,000nm (7,400-9,300km) range. It was to fill the segment once controlled by ageing 757s and 767s, now led by A321neo variants.

Since that time, the need for a single-aisle aircraft in this space has only become greater as airlines struggle through the global pandemic and search for the ideal aircraft mix for post-coronavius growth.

Single-aisles have far lower operating costs that twin-aisles, and are beginning to outsell the widebodies almost two-to-one.
By 2025, narrowbodies will make up about 70% of all aircraft sold, with widebodies at just 15%, Michals says. By the end of the decade, narrowbody sales could be as high as 74%, ”We see a fundamnetal shift taking place,” Michaels says.

As long as the US airframer does not have a viable design and concept in this segment, it will risk losing ground to its European competitor.
“We all agree if Boeing doesn’t do something soon it threatens to go into a spiral here, to a 40% market share,” he adds.

https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/why-boeing-needs-to-work-quickly-on-nma-decision/142359.article

If Boeing goes for an NMA, they are basically betting the house on the 737 MAX. Even if the latest Southwest 737-7 order is seen as a decisive victory, it would still be a questionable, risky strategy in my opinion. https://www.flightglobal.com/737-max-tw ... 89.article

A superior, state of the art 150-225 seat narrow body by 2028 seems a smarter, safer investment. Complete the 737MAX production run & give airlines the option to convert some, to prevent them converting to the other guys. .

They are not necessarily betting the house on NMA if NMA is basically just an NSA-ER. I highly doubt they could make 2028 anyways. 2030 seems more likely with NSA versions following by mid-2030's.

The funny thing with Boeing being forced to remove 1250 MAX's from the backlog. A large portion of the 570 that were removed from the books for financial reasons could come back as conditions at those carriers improve post-covid.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The assertion that it has less skin area and 20-25%less length are not true. An equivalent capacity (number of seats but not seat width ) fuselage for twin aisle has both greater surface area, drag and weight whilst not yet taking account of additional shear loads required for floor in compression.

If I recall correctly the difference in length for a 217 seat layout was about 3m shorter for the 7abreast compared to 6abreast. This assumes identical requirements for minimum fuselage cross section required for use as well as identical taper ratios.

That’s just the fuselage...

You think that Boeing are daft enough to hamstring themselves with short gear and prevent the aircraft being stretched to where the cross section might actually make sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not say 20-25% less length overall. I said the sections that aren't the nose/tail and wingbox would be about 20-25% less in length. There is only a 3M difference if you assume uncompetitively long Nose and tail sections.

I don’t assume items independently. The taper ratios in all cases in my model are identical, the amount of cabin available in the tail is calculated in an identical way in each variant with an assumption around the required space to be useful and this applied to each variant identically. There is absolutely no special pleading, all assumptions universally applied.

morrisond wrote:

When you do the math the skin area is less and even with the long ends you are assuming - you posted a few days ago that it actually has less internal volume.

Longer ends due to higher cross sectional area you mean? That allow more use of the tapered section which is taken account of in the model? The 7w model has 6% higher surface area and 9.8% higher drag (fuselage only).

And you’ll note that the further from round you go the higher the surface to volume ratio.

morrisond wrote:

The only thing that might add to additional skin area would be a bigger tail. It does not necessarily have to use the same taper ratios.

Different taper ratios? Aerodynamics different for twin aisles?

morrisond wrote:

In any case the fuselage will not be over 100% heavier as the poster onto previous page assumed. It will be a marginal difference.

That isn’t what keesje said, 6-8t overall weight.

morrisond wrote:

The only places where compression issues might come into play to a significant degree would be the sections that aren't over the Wingbox (which would just be like normal with a Half Circle on top), or the nose or tail. Plus as we have discussed before there are ways to deal with those compression issues using monolithic carbon Floor/lower lobe beams and then rigidly attaching the cargo compartments to those beams basically creating one large keel beam out of the cargo area.

At what weight? Incidentally, the models used for the performance discussion just over a year ago derived from the Stamford method take into account the root cord as an input to determine the fuselage weight [(“fuselage length”- “root cord”)/2] as the wing does provide additional stiffness.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem with models is all the assumptions. Using simple geometry I can get an equivalent capacity fuselage 2x vs 1x aisle with a few percent less internal volume and a few percent less skin area. I've posted the details and math behind it before.

As we get closer to a potential NMA launch all we hear is that Boeing is likely to go 2x aisle. It can't be as big as a disadvantage as your assuming or they would never make it.

morrisond wrote:

brindabella wrote:

The -5X wing may in fact be the NSA wing!

cheers

Or at least the Wingbox in a strengthened version. That is my whole point point the -5 does seem like it will be not that much larger than an NSA - it would just have more capability in terms of range/lift.

Basically the -5 would be an NSA-ER. Quite like what Boeing did when they strengthened the original 777, increased the Wingspan and bumped up the thrust to make the 77W.

That worked out pretty well for them. Although given that will have figured out folding wing tech by then - the NSA-ER could basically have an entirely different wing than NSA - possibly getting out to 43-44M unfolded, and NSA sticking with cheaper/simpler non-folding 36M wing.

OK, well I'll respond just the once then let it rest.

Pondering the thoughts of yourself (and Stitch) RE a clipped & wingletted NMA wing, it seems to me that this is basically a new wing anyway & will require it's own Certification.
That is, all the design, production & proving effort of an entirely new wing.
Won't save any time, money or effort by clipping the NMA wing & adding those winglets.
And yet it will of course be a less efficient wing than it could and should be due the the inherent compromises involved.
Which does not seem like such a great idea when facing competition as competent as A.



For the same money, time & effort B can build an entirely optimised new wing which will perform better on the -5X anyway;
and will also be certified & in efficient and de-bugged production when the button is pressed to do the NSA.

"A FLYING START!"



cheers

brindabella wrote:

morrisond wrote:

brindabella wrote:

The -5X wing may in fact be the NSA wing!

cheers

Or at least the Wingbox in a strengthened version. That is my whole point point the -5 does seem like it will be not that much larger than an NSA - it would just have more capability in terms of range/lift.

Basically the -5 would be an NSA-ER. Quite like what Boeing did when they strengthened the original 777, increased the Wingspan and bumped up the thrust to make the 77W.

That worked out pretty well for them. Although given that will have figured out folding wing tech by then - the NSA-ER could basically have an entirely different wing than NSA - possibly getting out to 43-44M unfolded, and NSA sticking with cheaper/simpler non-folding 36M wing.

OK, well I'll respond just the once then let it rest.

Pondering the thoughts of yourself (and Stitch) RE a clipped & wingletted NMA wing, it seems to me that this is basically a new wing anyway & will require it's own Certification.
That is, all the design, production & proving effort of an entirely new wing.
Won't save any time, money or effort by clipping the NMA wing & adding those winglets.
And yet it will of course be a less efficient wing than it could and should be due the the inherent compromises involved.
Which does not seem like such a great idea when facing competition as competent as A.



For the same money, time & effort B can build an entirely optimised new wing which will perform better on the -5X anyway;
and will also be certified & in efficient and de-bugged production when the button is pressed to do the NSA.

"A FLYING START!"



cheers

I'm not following your point. If you saying NMA(NSA-ER) and NSA should have two separate wings - then yes I agree. With the new digital design tools doing two separate wings could not be that big of an issue given the volumes the program could have. A lot cheaper than having two separate fuselages and different systems.

NMA(NSA-ER) a Folding 42-43M wing that will fit in C-gates when Folded
and
NSA - normal 36M wing - which should be enough - given that NSA may be optimized around shorter ranges than the MAX and could potentially be a bunch lighter at the same capacity given less fuel to carry, which means less thrust which means less weight.

If Boeing extends NMA up into the 55-60M length size and 5,000-6,000NM range it will probably need a lot more wing/wingbox than would be possible by basing it on the wingbox that could be common between NSA/NMA(NSA-ER) and its maximum 42-32M span.

An NMA that big would probably need a wing up to 52M that could be non-folding or longer using a fold if the trade-off is worth it. Then you have three wings but common systems/cockpit/cabin fittings basically all the way from 180-300 seats and 3,500-6,000NM.

Sash Tusa on the -5x concept:

But is Boeing preparing the right aircraft? “That aircraft cannot compete with the XLR, except at extreme ranges,”.. “And it does not solve Boeing’s biggest problem.” In his view, the main problem is that the MAX is turning into a “single-point design,” with only the 737-8 accepted by the market as a competitive product, while the -7, -9 and -10 are going to be commercial failures. Airbus will “beat them at volumes, efficiency and pricing,” Tusa says. Because of the higher volumes, the Boeing rival can expect to see 10% lower pricing from suppliers. “That is the brutal truth of the family concept,” he says.

Tusa’s argument is that Boeing is slowly nearing the fate of McDonnell Douglas, which did not have a competitive single-aisle family in the 1990s. He agrees that the -5X could turn into a serious problem for the A330neo, but the Airbus widebody is only a minor issue for Boeing. “Sinking $15 billion into an A330neo-killer is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut,” he says. “[Boeing is] failing to see their product weakness.” https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/boei ... craft-soon

I think we should accept airlines probably won't stumble over each other to order 737s again in the coming years. So Boeing needs a superior NB to regain market share. Airbus will probably ramp up A220-300 and -500 production this decade. Boeing should have something weighing a little less than a A220-500 around 150 seats, and being more fuel efficient, have engine choice and being locally assembled in America, Europe and Asia. A shrunk NMA? Maybe, maybe not..

morrisond wrote:

They are not necessarily betting the house on NMA if NMA is basically just an NSA-ER. I highly doubt they could make 2028 anyways. 2030 seems more likely with NSA versions following by mid-2030's.

They have bet the house with MAX.

If there ever was a time to walk away from a product we just saw it, yet what we saw was Boeing cling even tighter to it, bind their future even more to getting the last penny out of the MAX product.

Same with customers: it was the easiest time ever to decide to part from the MAX, and while some of the smaller and weaker carriers did, the larger and stronger ones doubled down and ordered more.

Are people letting their fantasies blind them? It's right in front of them, the hand is in front of the face.

MAX isn't going to be replaced till we see sales stop cold for several years and the backlog drops to 1-2 years production.

Till that happens, talk of a direct replacement is fantasy.

Boeing clearly will aim for where they have no coverage at all, above the MAX10, rather than shoot their own foot off and aim to replace the MAX8.

Same people saying mcas was going to kill MAX are now saying Boeing itself will kill the MAX.

At least they are consistent, consistently wrong...

keesje wrote:

Sash Tusa on the -5x concept:

But is Boeing preparing the right aircraft? “That aircraft cannot compete with the XLR, except at extreme ranges,”.. “And it does not solve Boeing’s biggest problem.” In his view, the main problem is that the MAX is turning into a “single-point design,” with only the 737-8 accepted by the market as a competitive product, while the -7, -9 and -10 are going to be commercial failures. Airbus will “beat them at volumes, efficiency and pricing,” Tusa says. Because of the higher volumes, the Boeing rival can expect to see 10% lower pricing from suppliers. “That is the brutal truth of the family concept,” he says.

Tusa’s argument is that Boeing is slowly nearing the fate of McDonnell Douglas, which did not have a competitive single-aisle family in the 1990s. He agrees that the -5X could turn into a serious problem for the A330neo, but the Airbus widebody is only a minor issue for Boeing. “Sinking $15 billion into an A330neo-killer is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut,” he says. “[Boeing is] failing to see their product weakness.” https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/boei ... craft-soon

I think we should accept airlines probably won't stumble over each other to order 737s again in the coming years. So Boeing needs a superior NB to regain market share. Airbus will probably ramp up A220-300 and -500 production this decade. Boeing should have something weighing a little less than a A220-500 around 150 seats, and being more fuel efficient, have engine choice and being locally assembled in America, Europe and Asia. A shrunk NMA? Maybe, maybe not..

Except an NMA-5 as far as we know will be no where near the size or Capability of an A330-900 NEO which is an 242T Aircraft. The 787 does fine in that market.

The -5 is probably slightly bigger than A322NEO and slightly more capable - somewhere in the range of 115-130T - about half of A330.

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

They are not necessarily betting the house on NMA if NMA is basically just an NSA-ER. I highly doubt they could make 2028 anyways. 2030 seems more likely with NSA versions following by mid-2030's.

They have bet the house with MAX.

If there ever was a time to walk away from a product we just saw it, yet what we saw was Boeing cling even tighter to it, bind their future even more to getting the last penny out of the MAX product.

Same with customers: it was the easiest time ever to decide to part from the MAX, and while some of the smaller and weaker carriers did, the larger and stronger ones doubled down and ordered more.

Are people letting their fantasies blind them? It's right in front of them, the hand is in front of the face.

MAX isn't going to be replaced till we see sales stop cold for several years and the backlog drops to 1-2 years production.

Till that happens, talk of a direct replacement is fantasy.

Boeing clearly will aim for where they have no coverage at all, above the MAX10, rather than shoot their own foot off and aim to replace the MAX8.

Same people saying mcas was going to kill MAX are now saying Boeing itself will kill the MAX.

At least they are consistent, consistently wrong...

Exactly. I think the fantasy is that Boeing focuses on where Airbus is now with A320/A321 and then Airbus goes and rewings/lengthens A321 to be above where the potential NSA is and then "Kill it".

Boeing needs something bigger. The MAX will be fine a while.

The Max is selling well, what they need is something to disrupt the market and that is the NMA. The vision is a twin aisle family will be used for the NMA and NSA, delivering superior economics in both segments.

So...

1. Airlines will only order narrowbodies for the next decade;
2. Airbus will increase narrowbody production to meet this switchover;
3. Airlines will not order MAX, period;
4. Boeing should invest tens of billions on a new narrowbody that won't be ready for at least a decade and will be better than the A220-A320, but by then Airbus will have filled the intervening demand so appetite for new planes - especially expensive planes - will be greatly diminished;

Yes, such a plan makes perfect sense...when one remembers the goal of the person presenting it is not to strengthen Boeing Commercial, but instead to effectively knock it out of the market so Airbus can own it all.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I did not say 20-25% less length overall. I said the sections that aren't the nose/tail and wingbox would be about 20-25% less in length. There is only a 3M difference if you assume uncompetitively long Nose and tail sections.

I don’t assume items independently. The taper ratios in all cases in my model are identical, the amount of cabin available in the tail is calculated in an identical way in each variant with an assumption around the required space to be useful and this applied to each variant identically. There is absolutely no special pleading, all assumptions universally applied.

morrisond wrote:

When you do the math the skin area is less and even with the long ends you are assuming - you posted a few days ago that it actually has less internal volume.

Longer ends due to higher cross sectional area you mean? That allow more use of the tapered section which is taken account of in the model? The 7w model has 6% higher surface area and 9.8% higher drag (fuselage only).

And you’ll note that the further from round you go the higher the surface to volume ratio.

morrisond wrote:

The only thing that might add to additional skin area would be a bigger tail. It does not necessarily have to use the same taper ratios.

Different taper ratios? Aerodynamics different for twin aisles?

morrisond wrote:

In any case the fuselage will not be over 100% heavier as the poster onto previous page assumed. It will be a marginal difference.

That isn’t what keesje said, 6-8t overall weight.

morrisond wrote:

The only places where compression issues might come into play to a significant degree would be the sections that aren't over the Wingbox (which would just be like normal with a Half Circle on top), or the nose or tail. Plus as we have discussed before there are ways to deal with those compression issues using monolithic carbon Floor/lower lobe beams and then rigidly attaching the cargo compartments to those beams basically creating one large keel beam out of the cargo area.

At what weight? Incidentally, the models used for the performance discussion just over a year ago derived from the Stamford method take into account the root cord as an input to determine the fuselage weight [(“fuselage length”- “root cord”)/2] as the wing does provide additional stiffness.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem with models is all the assumptions. Using simple geometry I can get an equivalent capacity fuselage 2x vs 1x aisle with a few percent less internal volume and a few percent less skin area. I've posted the details and math behind it before.

So is the problem that models have assumptions or you dont like the assumptions? you seem to believe your model? Is that the one where the seats up the front are 28% smaller to fit them in compared to the single aisle? Which would assume that the economy section had equal width already... the model I use assumes equal on all seat sizes, no special pleading required.

Which assumption(s) that I use do you not like?
Assumed space required before the tail taper becomes too small to use?
Assumed additional space required for passenger amenities?
Assumed tail taper ratio of 2?
Utilising 11km ISA for drag calcs?

morrisond wrote:

As we get closer to a potential NMA launch all we hear is that Boeing is likely to go 2x aisle. It can't be as big as a disadvantage as your assuming or they would never make it.

Well it often said by a select few posters here and somehow over the last week it has been said more often but outside of that same echo chamber the same are articles and sound bites are just being recycled over and over.... the only word we actually have from Boeing said about targeting the 321lr direct...

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

seahawk wrote:

The Max is selling well, what they need is something to disrupt the market and that is the NMA. The vision is a twin aisle family will be used for the NMA and NSA, delivering superior economics in both segments.

MAX 8 is more than good enough for the next decade and a half. Clearly the market has spoken that they trust Boeing’s actions.

A321 segment is the only weak point in the Boeing portfolio where good money can be made. Even the blinded by money shareholders point this out at most earning calls.

The 737-7 segment has too low margin to make the business case close; see the struggling A220 program. Strategically it is the only option to aim at the A321(+) segment.

The suggestions are to do this with an twin aisle. The big IF in this strategy is if they can deliver WB for SB costs. With my limited knowledge I have doubts if this is feasible. I would guess an NB with same tech will always be more efficient and cost effective.

I think there will be more clarity on the subject in the next couple of interviews with Calhoun, as he probably want to make Wall Street exited about Boeing’s future...

seahawk wrote:

The Max is selling well, what they need is something to disrupt the market and that is the NMA. The vision is a twin aisle family will be used for the NMA and NSA, delivering superior economics in both segments.

Indeed, and doing a 738 sized replacement isn't going to do that.

JonesNL wrote:

MAX 8 is more than good enough for the next decade and a half. Clearly the market has spoken that they trust Boeing’s actions.

A321 segment is the only weak point in the Boeing portfolio where good money can be made. Even the blinded by money shareholders point this out at most earning calls.

The 737-7 segment has too low margin to make the business case close; see the struggling A220 program. Strategically it is the only option to aim at the A321(+) segment.

The suggestions are to do this with an twin aisle. The big IF in this strategy is if they can deliver WB for SB costs. With my limited knowledge I have doubts if this is feasible. I would guess an NB with same tech will always be more efficient and cost effective.

I think there will be more clarity on the subject in the next couple of interviews with Calhoun, as he probably want to make Wall Street exited about Boeing’s future...

Great post.

IMO all we will get is teasers till after both MAX10 and 779 have EIS, some time in the 2023 time frame.

It'd be hard to launch a new program till they have a better understanding of the regulatory environment, plus they have that whole potential cockpit rule change thing to deal with.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I don’t assume items independently. The taper ratios in all cases in my model are identical, the amount of cabin available in the tail is calculated in an identical way in each variant with an assumption around the required space to be useful and this applied to each variant identically. There is absolutely no special pleading, all assumptions universally applied.


Longer ends due to higher cross sectional area you mean? That allow more use of the tapered section which is taken account of in the model? The 7w model has 6% higher surface area and 9.8% higher drag (fuselage only).

And you’ll note that the further from round you go the higher the surface to volume ratio.

Different taper ratios? Aerodynamics different for twin aisles?

That isn’t what keesje said, 6-8t overall weight.

At what weight? Incidentally, the models used for the performance discussion just over a year ago derived from the Stamford method take into account the root cord as an input to determine the fuselage weight [(“fuselage length”- “root cord”)/2] as the wing does provide additional stiffness.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem with models is all the assumptions. Using simple geometry I can get an equivalent capacity fuselage 2x vs 1x aisle with a few percent less internal volume and a few percent less skin area. I've posted the details and math behind it before.

So is the problem that models have assumptions or you dont like the assumptions? you seem to believe your model? Is that the one where the seats up the front are 28% smaller to fit them in compared to the single aisle? Which would assume that the economy section had equal width already... the model I use assumes equal on all seat sizes, no special pleading required.

Which assumption(s) that I use do you not like?
Assumed space required before the tail taper becomes too small to use?
Assumed additional space required for passenger amenities?
Assumed tail taper ratio of 2?
Utilising 11km ISA for drag calcs?

morrisond wrote:

As we get closer to a potential NMA launch all we hear is that Boeing is likely to go 2x aisle. It can't be as big as a disadvantage as your assuming or they would never make it.

Well it often said by a select few posters here and somehow over the last week it has been said more often but outside of that same echo chamber the same are articles and sound bites are just being recycled over and over.... the only word we actually have from Boeing said about targeting the 321lr direct...

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope - Special pleading is only required for one who can't fathom the idea that their excel model using Formula's found in text books might not be as accurate as they think it is when it comes to modern composite construction on non standard cross sections and taking taper ratios from the most disadvantageous part of a fuselage to make there preference look better.

When I get time in the next day or two I will dig up the post I wrote on how I got to my numbers using simple geometry. As far we know all we have seen of your model is some pretty graphs.

I can draw pretty graphs as well if you would like. My plane will be 300% betterer.

Boeing's next clean sheet(s) for the NMA / NSA are needed soon. Boeing's response to the 767 not competing well with the A330 brought the 787 with a bit of a head fake for the Sonic Cruiser. Well the MBA's and the bean counters with outsourcing lots of design in design/build packages was a financial horror story, hopefully never repeated ever again by Boeing. There was possibly $5B extra development cost for all the faceplants from the 7-Late-7 Potemkin rollout of the movie prop and boldly proclaiming it would have first flight just in weeks not years - Duh! they really fooled all of us with that one - <not>.

New Cockpit, new computers & components throughout the plane, new family of controls, actuators, APU's, full digital architecture, CFRP barrels possibly cured outside of the autoclave, all electric, very much automated assembly friendly. New manufacturing process, probably at Everett for the first line, two future lines elsewhere. All of this will take years getting going, at EIS only rate 3 or so for the 1st year, the issues with the terrible teens every new plane has. Rate 10 maybe in the 3rd year, quite similar to the A220's startup. Although the NMA and NSA will be sister designs, but optimized engines and capabilities for their respective markets. The NMA has to be the dress rehearsal for the NSA. Even the 1st model of the NSA will be more capable than the 738, landing into the 737-10 box. The MAX 7 and 8 are very competitive at their capabilities, where Airbus is whipping is the A321 size. Target right above the A321 but less than the 767 space.

Boeing should do an exclusive contract or a J/V on two items - engines, and the cockpit - control systems. Both of them will take a huge investment, foolish for the supplier to then sell to others in competition that didn't fund the development. With the NSA basically be open market there for the engines.

IF widebody sales remain slow, Boeing will need to respond to how the 737 / A320 battle goes, if Boeing's market share start getting down in the low 40% levels they have to respond hard or face major decline.

Would any engine manufacturers be swayed to created specific engine for NMA and their unique requirements?

So 7-abreast NMA would need larger thrust than MAX10 and lower thrust than B787-8.
This would mean that they would need to developed new engines for NMA. They can't use Trent 1000 or GEnx and developed a new variant for NMA. It's too big in size and too powerful.
And they can't use LEAP-1B cause it's too underpower.

With projected sales of around ~1000 aircraft amongst the potential 3 models which require 3 different thrusts. Would this be feasible for them to go for it?

It's not like Airbus shows any interest to develop next gen aircraft that require similar engine specifications. So these new engines would only be usable for the Boeing NMA, which limit its sales potential.

I think at some point Airbus will launch a A320 replacement, slightly bigger than 737-8, with engine choice, container options, quiet spacey cabine and full A320/A321NEO commonality. But only after Boeing has fully commited itself to an NMA, starting around A321 size. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vRKb ... tretch.jpg I hope Boeing takes the right decisions here. Airlines told / showed them since 2015 what they (don't) want.

keesje wrote:

I think at some point Airbus will launch a A320 replacement, slightly bigger than 737-8, with engine choice, container options, quiet spacey cabine and full A320/A321NEO commonality. But only after Boeing has fully commited itself to an NMA, starting around A321 size. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vRKb ... tretch.jpg I hope Boeing takes the right decisions here. Airlines told / showed them since 2015 what they (don't) want.

Airbus will only launch when engine tech is ready. Airbus too is changing their engineering systems. And their massive backlog also does not need them to replace the 321 or 320 before 2030s.

John Slattery has even said tech won’t be ready till 2030.

Why is it hard for some to understand. Technology IS. NOT. READY.

If Boeing is going to base NSA off NMA. In terms of design and manufacturing. NMA must happen. NMA will be messy but it will be necessary to get aviation together the next step. Same way 787 did.

ewt340 wrote:

Would any engine manufacturers be swayed to created specific engine for NMA and their unique requirements?

So 7-abreast NMA would need larger thrust than MAX10 and lower thrust than B787-8.
This would mean that they would need to developed new engines for NMA. They can't use Trent 1000 or GEnx and developed a new variant for NMA. It's too big in size and too powerful.
And they can't use LEAP-1B cause it's too underpower.

With projected sales of around ~1000 aircraft amongst the potential 3 models which require 3 different thrusts. Would this be feasible for them to go for it?

It's not like Airbus shows any interest to develop next gen aircraft that require similar engine specifications. So these new engines would only be usable for the Boeing NMA, which limit its sales potential.

If Airbus rewings the A321 it would probably need more thrust so it might be able to use variants as well.

The best idea I have heard was to take the LEAP core and put a geared fan on it.

keesje wrote:

I think at some point Airbus will launch a A320 replacement, slightly bigger than 737-8, with engine choice, container options, quiet spacey cabine and full A320/A321NEO commonality. But only after Boeing has fully commited itself to an NMA, starting around A321 size. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vRKb ... tretch.jpg I hope Boeing takes the right decisions here. Airlines told / showed them since 2015 what they (don't) want.

You mean around 2035 when alternative fuels will be around and the future of aviation will be much better defined? Considering that both have a a quite modern portofolio at the moment (767 aside), I still believe that both can actually do nothing in the 2020ies. Maybe a new engine for the 787/A350 at the end of the decade, but that should be it. After that we might see Hydrogen powered planes for medium routes, hybrid electrics for short routes and alternative fuels for long haul. But in the end this still depends on how batteries develop and which fuel will be the solution for the future. Once this is becoming more clear, both will have a lot of design work on their plate once this is happening.

Especially after the COVID crisis with many available airframes and the seriously slowed down traffic growths, I think both should concentrate on making the money, they will need that money for the future green airliners.

Stitch wrote:

So...

1. Airlines will only order narrowbodies for the next decade;
2. Airbus will increase narrowbody production to meet this switchover;
3. Airlines will not order MAX, period;
4. Boeing should invest tens of billions on a new narrowbody that won't be ready for at least a decade and will be better than the A220-A320, but by then Airbus will have filled the intervening demand so appetite for new planes - especially expensive planes - will be greatly diminished;

Yes, such a plan makes perfect sense...when one remembers the goal of the person presenting it is not to strengthen Boeing Commercial, but instead to effectively knock it out of the market so Airbus can own it all.

So we are playing the reductio ad absurdum game because you don't like what the poster said. I can play this game as well. I think Boeing should continue just like they are. They should continue only bringing out derivatives of current models to save money. They should also go after money saving measures like moving out of states due to unions when it comes to assembly because there is no way that will hurt them when it comes to delivering aircraft. Then they should also not deliver a program close to schedule since before the merger as well. What they definitely should do is when there is a change needed at the top, to employ the man that was the Chairman of the Board because luckily as we know that position has no power over the direction a company takes.

Boeing problems are that they are bleeding money, they have 3 programs that are costing them money and will do for a while still. They haven't brought a new, or even derivative of a current model out without either a long delay or a grounding. Sometimes they have both on the same model to add some spice to the conversation. So when a poster points out a radical plan, it cannot be more radical than the current direction because as we stand right now, nobody can say the company is heading in the right direction right now. A NMA in a marginal market with a viable competitor sure seems a huge risk, especially when you didn't launch it when times were good.

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think at some point Airbus will launch a A320 replacement, slightly bigger than 737-8, with engine choice, container options, quiet spacey cabine and full A320/A321NEO commonality. But only after Boeing has fully commited itself to an NMA, starting around A321 size. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vRKb ... tretch.jpg I hope Boeing takes the right decisions here. Airlines told / showed them since 2015 what they (don't) want.

Airbus will only launch when engine tech is ready. Airbus too is changing their engineering systems. And their massive backlog also does not need them to replace the 321 or 320 before 2030s.

John Slattery has even said tech won’t be ready till 2030.

Why is it hard for some to understand. Technology IS. NOT. READY.

If Boeing is going to base NSA off NMA. In terms of design and manufacturing. NMA must happen. NMA will be messy but it will be necessary to get aviation together the next step. Same way 787 did.

You might consider opening the link before saying technology IS. NOT. READY. Regarding using NMA to base an NSA, It’s two aircraft, 2x 15-$20B. Maybe you can use some systems, components if timelines are close together, but nothing to get emotional about in terms of cost / time savings.

Using too much NMA might compromise NSA efficiency. Not many airlines will go “it 5t heavier but hurray, it can do 5000NM when their average flight lenght is 700NM.

keesje wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think at some point Airbus will launch a A320 replacement, slightly bigger than 737-8, with engine choice, container options, quiet spacey cabine and full A320/A321NEO commonality. But only after Boeing has fully commited itself to an NMA, starting around A321 size. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vRKb ... tretch.jpg I hope Boeing takes the right decisions here. Airlines told / showed them since 2015 what they (don't) want.

Airbus will only launch when engine tech is ready. Airbus too is changing their engineering systems. And their massive backlog also does not need them to replace the 321 or 320 before 2030s.

John Slattery has even said tech won’t be ready till 2030.

Why is it hard for some to understand. Technology IS. NOT. READY.

If Boeing is going to base NSA off NMA. In terms of design and manufacturing. NMA must happen. NMA will be messy but it will be necessary to get aviation together the next step. Same way 787 did.

You might consider opening the link before saying technology IS. NOT. READY. Regarding using NMA to base an NSA, It’s two aircraft, 2x 15-$20B. Maybe you can use some systems, components if timelines are close together, but nothing to get emotional about in terms of cost / time savings.

Using too much NMA might compromise NSA efficiency. Not many airlines will go “it 5t heavier but hurray, it can do 5000NM when their average flight lenght is 700NM.

That link offers no insight on tech. It offers no insight on anything remotely to do with engines actually. NMA is more than just another aircraft to compete in the MOM space. Boeing is depending on NMA to prove its strategy. A380 and A350 were two aircraft one 36 billion. The other 15 billion. Airbus is hail and hearty today and I’m sure the NMA will serve Boeing’s long term strategy much better than 380. So spending that money is what is required to win back market share. I also want to see the final spec of NMA at least the -5X. Then I will make my judgments on what it can’t or can do and how well it can compete.

If Boeing launches anything else it will leap frogged eventually and then have an expired product upon EIS. Which is why it having a differentiated product for MOM is very important right now.

Market share is only important for forum enthusiasts, as long as your production is running at capacity and you are seeing acceptable margins. Neither of the two should have an interest to really start hurting each other, which is wise considering that new technologies are on the horizon and new competitors are about to enter the fray.

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think at some point Airbus will launch a A320 replacement, slightly bigger than 737-8, with engine choice, container options, quiet spacey cabine and full A320/A321NEO commonality. But only after Boeing has fully commited itself to an NMA, starting around A321 size. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vRKb ... tretch.jpg I hope Boeing takes the right decisions here. Airlines told / showed them since 2015 what they (don't) want.

Airbus will only launch when engine tech is ready. Airbus too is changing their engineering systems. And their massive backlog also does not need them to replace the 321 or 320 before 2030s.

John Slattery has even said tech won’t be ready till 2030.

Why is it hard for some to understand. Technology IS. NOT. READY.

If Boeing is going to base NSA off NMA. In terms of design and manufacturing. NMA must happen. NMA will be messy but it will be necessary to get aviation together the next step. Same way 787 did.

But Tech is not ready. So if they base NSA off NMA, that is based of old technology Boeing is done. That is the problem. We will not see a new design. What does it help to launch an NMA with old technology to test some manufacturing methods? That be a really expensive test for manufacturing methods that are then geared towards old technology.

Second I do not think Boeing is a bad engineering company and doing NSA and NMA with the same cross section would be bad engineering, effectively hampering both from optimal design. The only thing the NMA and NSA (if that ominous NMA ever happens) will have in common is systems and cockpit, but they will be totally different aircraft in shape and form. Like 757/767 were. Now both had a very little production run compared their competitors (737/A320/A330/787) that played in the same market segment.

If they want the "NMA" to be competitive globally it needs TPAC range with cargo capability. The Aviation market is not a homogenous distribution of stage lengths. There are 5 big markets to serve (NA domestic, EU domestic, Asia domestic, TATL, TPAC). Now the first three do not need more range than the 737 and A320 have. Both fill them huge markets and we see this in the sales. If you know build an aircraft geared towards TATL (767), you do not get sales outside of this market and your production run ends fast and with little sales (luckily the 767 hit the cargo nail head on). The MOM gap does not exist everywhere outside of TATL because a TPAC aircraft is to capable compared to a TATL one but it will do fine on that route anyway.
What seems to be way more interesting is to grow the range of the domestic workhorses towards TATL range.

So Boeing will be better developing a familiy of aircraft that can outshine everything else in the domestic markets 150-250 seats and can offer TATL range if necessary.

What is really important: If Boeing wants WN and FR and the other big 737 customers to stay Boeing customers their new offer has to be in the 150-250 seat market and not bigger. The new aircraft is not allowed to have too much more capacity because otherwise the introduction of a new type will bring problems with the unions.

WNs growth does not come by upgauging as we saw with the MAX-7 order but with the addition of new routes served with 150 seat aircraft. If the new offer from Boeing is bigger it opens a can of worms in terms of crew negotiations.

So if Boeing can not offer a new single aisle with 150 seat capacity (what a 7 abreast can not in any way do economically) the second type at WN (and there will inevitably be a second type at one point) will not be a Boeing aircraft.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The Max is selling well, what they need is something to disrupt the market and that is the NMA. The vision is a twin aisle family will be used for the NMA and NSA, delivering superior economics in both segments.

Indeed, and doing a 738 sized replacement isn't going to do that.

JonesNL wrote:

MAX 8 is more than good enough for the next decade and a half. Clearly the market has spoken that they trust Boeing’s actions.

A321 segment is the only weak point in the Boeing portfolio where good money can be made. Even the blinded by money shareholders point this out at most earning calls.

The 737-7 segment has too low margin to make the business case close; see the struggling A220 program. Strategically it is the only option to aim at the A321(+) segment.

The suggestions are to do this with an twin aisle. The big IF in this strategy is if they can deliver WB for SB costs. With my limited knowledge I have doubts if this is feasible. I would guess an NB with same tech will always be more efficient and cost effective.

I think there will be more clarity on the subject in the next couple of interviews with Calhoun, as he probably want to make Wall Street exited about Boeing’s future...

Great post.

IMO all we will get is teasers till after both MAX10 and 779 have EIS, some time in the 2023 time frame.

It'd be hard to launch a new program till they have a better understanding of the regulatory environment, plus they have that whole potential cockpit rule change thing to deal with.

True, the whole new human-machine interface doesn't make life easier. With the MAX and Covid issues adding up quite a lot. All in all not the best time to invest money in a new program with a tight business case. To be honest; looking at all the parameters, do nothing and launch MAX replacement around 2033 would be a saver bet strategy wise. Quite boring, but money/risk wise the smarter choise...

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think at some point Airbus will launch a A320 replacement, slightly bigger than 737-8, with engine choice, container options, quiet spacey cabine and full A320/A321NEO commonality. But only after Boeing has fully commited itself to an NMA, starting around A321 size. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vRKb ... tretch.jpg I hope Boeing takes the right decisions here. Airlines told / showed them since 2015 what they (don't) want.

Airbus will only launch when engine tech is ready. Airbus too is changing their engineering systems. And their massive backlog also does not need them to replace the 321 or 320 before 2030s.

John Slattery has even said tech won’t be ready till 2030.

Why is it hard for some to understand. Technology IS. NOT. READY.

If Boeing is going to base NSA off NMA. In terms of design and manufacturing. NMA must happen. NMA will be messy but it will be necessary to get aviation together the next step. Same way 787 did.

But Tech is not ready. So if they base NSA off NMA, that is based of old technology Boeing is done. That is the problem. We will not see a new design. What does it help to launch an NMA with old technology to test some manufacturing methods? That be a really expensive test for manufacturing methods that are then geared towards old technology.

Second I do not think Boeing is a bad engineering company and doing NSA and NMA with the same cross section would be bad engineering, effectively hampering both from optimal design. The only thing the NMA and NSA (if that ominous NMA ever happens) will have in common is systems and cockpit, but they will be totally different aircraft in shape and form. Like 757/767 were. Now both had a very little production run compared their competitors (737/A320/A330/787) that played in the same market segment.

If they want the "NMA" to be competitive globally it needs TPAC range with cargo capability. The Aviation market is not a homogenous distribution of stage lengths. There are 5 big markets to serve (NA domestic, EU domestic, Asia domestic, TATL, TPAC). Now the first three do not need more range than the 737 and A320 have. Both fill them huge markets and we see this in the sales. If you know build an aircraft geared towards TATL (767), you do not get sales outside of this market and your production run ends fast and with little sales (luckily the 767 hit the cargo nail head on). The MOM gap does not exist everywhere outside of TATL because a TPAC aircraft is to capable compared to a TATL one but it will do fine on that route anyway.
What seems to be way more interesting is to grow the range of the domestic workhorses towards TATL range.

So Boeing will be better developing a familiy of aircraft that can outshine everything else in the domestic markets 150-250 seats and can offer TATL range if necessary.

What is really important: If Boeing wants WN and FR and the other big 737 customers to stay Boeing customers their new offer has to be in the 150-250 seat market and not bigger. The new aircraft is not allowed to have too much more capacity because otherwise the introduction of a new type will bring problems with the unions.

WNs growth does not come by upgauging as we saw with the MAX-7 order but with the addition of new routes served with 150 seat aircraft. If the new offer from Boeing is bigger it opens a can of worms in terms of crew negotiations.

So if Boeing can not offer a new single aisle with 150 seat capacity (what a 7 abreast can not in any way do economically) the second type at WN (and there will inevitably be a second type at one point) will not be a Boeing aircraft.

Building planes has very much stayed pretty much the same whilst tech has changed. So I’m not sure of what you mean by that. I’m not saying NMA must be based of NSA. Yes they will share similarities especially in HOW their built. When I say technology I mean, engine tech. NOW, what that plane looks like, I don’t know. Whether it be single aisle or twin aisle. We have to see, from what I’ve seen I see why both make sense but ultimately let’s see

Transpacific range as a dogma requirement is wrong. Less range is even "better" because too much wing and weight and structure will ruin all efficiencies on shorter flights. Take the 787...
Boeing needs to do "just" something like 757/767 again, in CFRP. Very efficient robust airplanes.
And manufacturing HAS changed a lot (look at 787 and 777X for starters) and will change even more. In the future the aircraft design will be optimized much more for automated manufacturing processes.

This will be a moonshot and it will be expensive. Plus it must be done right from the beginning. Don't mess up the concept before launch with not enough budget please. Like the overly complex supplier structure of the Dreamliner. Built it at one site. Bring everybody together there.

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Airbus will only launch when engine tech is ready. Airbus too is changing their engineering systems. And their massive backlog also does not need them to replace the 321 or 320 before 2030s.

John Slattery has even said tech won’t be ready till 2030.

Why is it hard for some to understand. Technology IS. NOT. READY.

If Boeing is going to base NSA off NMA. In terms of design and manufacturing. NMA must happen. NMA will be messy but it will be necessary to get aviation together the next step. Same way 787 did.

But Tech is not ready. So if they base NSA off NMA, that is based of old technology Boeing is done. That is the problem. We will not see a new design. What does it help to launch an NMA with old technology to test some manufacturing methods? That be a really expensive test for manufacturing methods that are then geared towards old technology.

Second I do not think Boeing is a bad engineering company and doing NSA and NMA with the same cross section would be bad engineering, effectively hampering both from optimal design. The only thing the NMA and NSA (if that ominous NMA ever happens) will have in common is systems and cockpit, but they will be totally different aircraft in shape and form. Like 757/767 were. Now both had a very little production run compared their competitors (737/A320/A330/787) that played in the same market segment.

If they want the "NMA" to be competitive globally it needs TPAC range with cargo capability. The Aviation market is not a homogenous distribution of stage lengths. There are 5 big markets to serve (NA domestic, EU domestic, Asia domestic, TATL, TPAC). Now the first three do not need more range than the 737 and A320 have. Both fill them huge markets and we see this in the sales. If you know build an aircraft geared towards TATL (767), you do not get sales outside of this market and your production run ends fast and with little sales (luckily the 767 hit the cargo nail head on). The MOM gap does not exist everywhere outside of TATL because a TPAC aircraft is to capable compared to a TATL one but it will do fine on that route anyway.
What seems to be way more interesting is to grow the range of the domestic workhorses towards TATL range.

So Boeing will be better developing a familiy of aircraft that can outshine everything else in the domestic markets 150-250 seats and can offer TATL range if necessary.

What is really important: If Boeing wants WN and FR and the other big 737 customers to stay Boeing customers their new offer has to be in the 150-250 seat market and not bigger. The new aircraft is not allowed to have too much more capacity because otherwise the introduction of a new type will bring problems with the unions.

WNs growth does not come by upgauging as we saw with the MAX-7 order but with the addition of new routes served with 150 seat aircraft. If the new offer from Boeing is bigger it opens a can of worms in terms of crew negotiations.

So if Boeing can not offer a new single aisle with 150 seat capacity (what a 7 abreast can not in any way do economically) the second type at WN (and there will inevitably be a second type at one point) will not be a Boeing aircraft.

Building planes has very much stayed pretty much the same whilst tech has changed. So I’m not sure of what you mean by that. I’m not saying NMA must be based of NSA. Yes they will share similarities especially in HOW their built. When I say technology I mean, engine tech. NOW, what that plane looks like, I don’t know. Whether it be single aisle or twin aisle. We have to see, from what I’ve seen I see why both make sense but ultimately let’s see

I think even outside of engine tech, there is not a big enough leap forward possible at the moment and it makes way more sense to not launch anything until the end of the decade and then launch a new NSA with 150-250 seating capacity (32" single class).

There is no need for Boeing to do anything, they better optimize their current productions and models and make money. There is no immediate need to launch anything and from a business perspective it makes sense to invest in the current products while doing the R&D for a new cockpit and new manufacturing technologies. Then in 2028 launch a new single aisle with EIS in 2038. Maybe a bit earlier, maybe a bit later depending on engine technology. That's all that is necessary and it would be best for business at the moment. I personally do not see any gain for Boeing with an NMA (not financially nor technologically) at the moment. It is too early and the poor aircraft would be out of date when it has EIS, similar the the 757/767. They were surpassed withing a decade by 737NG, A330 and 777 and their life cycle ended fast with low produced numbers (excluding the 767F and military variants). They will play the same role in history as the A380 when it comes to numbers produced for passenger service.

A future Product just has to have more than 1000 built to be valiable and I do not think a MOM aircraft can do that.

FluidFlow wrote:

So Boeing will be better developing a familiy of aircraft that can outshine everything else in the domestic markets 150-250 seats and can offer TATL range if necessary.

FluidFlow wrote:

A future Product just has to have more than 1000 built to be valiable and I do not think a MOM aircraft can do that.

And let us not assume competition will sit on their hands, won't do moonshots and key customer will be loyally waiting.

The market needs a super efficient quiet, flexible and reliable people mover, cheaper to build than the NEO's and at least as efficient as the A220. Again focussing at the MoM concept, that nobody is asking for, already costed too much time and energy. https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalkin ... ugh-opens/

I wonder why people support that investments should be postponed in weak times because you don't have the resources, while it's not a good idea in good times because everything is swell and nothing new is needed. Responsible executives are sitting out their years having free cash flow parties, buy backs, dividends, bonuses. Billions in tax breaks are consumed, debt is pushed out of short term figures. In my opinion congress, senate should be furious, if they weren't so complicit. I really think something needs to change in the way the company is managed.

If I was a US taxpayer, I would support some sort of intervention in the coming years. To restore Boeings position and strong competition in the global market.

Noshow wrote:

Transpacific range as a dogma requirement is wrong. Less range is even "better" because too much wing and weight and structure will ruin all efficiencies on shorter flights. Take the 787...
Boeing needs to do "just" something like 757/767 again, in CFRP. Very efficient robust airplanes.
And manufacturing HAS changed a lot (look at 787 and 777X for starters) and will change even more. In the future the aircraft design will be optimized much more for automated manufacturing processes.

This will be a moonshot and it will be expensive. Plus it must be done right from the beginning. Don't mess up the concept before launch with not enough budget please. Like the overly complex supplier structure of the Dreamliner. Built it at one site. Bring everybody together there.

A 757/767 project will be hard to do, as the 757/767s had performance qualities that made them unique at their time. The 757 could fly a lot further and carry a lot more than the DC9/MB80 or 737 classic, the 767(ER) was the first twin that had ETOPs and TATL range. This simply is no longer possible. The whole market segment has been compressed, as the 737/A320 families are now a lot bigger and fly a lot further, while the 787/A330NEO have become a lot more efficient than the old quads or TriJets.
For example, just look at the question of belly cargo. For performance gains on shorter routes, the NMA will mostly have a small capacity, a 787-8 or A338 is able to fly the same routes with a full cargo hold. So the question is, if the NMA can be so much more efficient than the bigger planes, so that even the cargo revenue can not turn the equation into their favour. And that does not only depend on the NMA performance, but also on the revenue for belly cargo.

Can I ask what fuel burn figures you people are expecting from this MAX replacement and who the hell is going to buy it. When people just spent money to replace NGs and CEOs. Nobody wants that now

Boeing has done their market research. Airlines are pointing them more towards 757 replacement. If that what their customers are asking for then??

Customers buy tons of A321neos.

Noshow wrote:

Customers buy tons of A321neos.

A321neo is a 757 sized aircraft which is what Boeing said it will be.

But it has to offer more than that if you want people to wait 8 years

In a 8 years pax 757s will be gone, with a NMA and without. And people finally need to look at the 757 sales and usage. Nobody wanted the 757-200X and the use on longer routes only started, with the winglets and when the 757 was replaced on shorter routes by the 737-800. One could easily say, that nobody bought a new 757 to fly long haul with it ever.

In fact 757 did fly transatlantic quite a bit.

Opus99 wrote:

Can I ask what fuel burn figures you people are expecting from this MAX replacement and who the hell is going to buy it. When people just spent money to replace NGs and CEOs. Nobody wants that now

Boeing has done their market research. Airlines are pointing them more towards 757 replacement. If that what their customers are asking for then??

The majority of CEO and NG were produced between 2005 and 2015, they will be up for replacement in 2030+. That is the time you need a compelling offer or you lose out in the narrow body market, possibly forever. So it will be a new design by Airbus or a A320FEO(Future engine option) or a new design by Boeing the airlines want to choose from. Who ever offers that will be leading the narrow body market. Due to the MAX fiasco Airbus will go into this replacement cycle with a headstart but if they have nothing and Boeing does, Boeing will make the money.

I think it is not only fuel burn that counts, it will be overall operating costs per seat and I think this can be reduced by up to 20% including fuel burn (probably around 10-12% reduction) while the other reduction will be coming from maintenance advances, especially IoT and predictive maintenance, as well as simplification of the product. On top of that labour reduction in manufacturing (automation) will also drive down prices and a new NB could be up to 20% cheaper to acquire than a current one.

This will be the target market, buying A true 200 seat 32" single class 797 optimised for 2000nm range with the capability of flying 5000nm costing 40m$ to buy with the operating costs of a current A223 (per seat).

You can not fly 5000nm and optimize for 2000nm. This is simply not possible unless you want to fly the 5000nm as a ferry flight.