morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

Even an A322, if you put a long haul 3 class cabin in it, would be able to do transatlantic. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bcgI ... Boeing.jpg

But regional/ domestic 250 seats, comfy 19 inch wide, 31-32 inch pitch seating would be the focus markets. Up to 6-7 hour flights for leisure carriers flying to Caribbean, Mediterranean, Malaysian destinations. And low cost between big cities. All at a production speed, price, risk and time to market that seems hard to beat by anything new competitor this decade.

Also aircraft being assembled locally (Europe, China) is something Boeing might need to address on any future program, being it NSA or NMA. An aircraft being fully developed, build and locally assembled might make local people happy and proud, but maybe not Ma Xu Lun.

I wonder if Airbus would do a new wing without a new fuselage. For XLR/possible A322, they decided strengthening, new fuel systems, flaps were good enough as a "new wing"
A bigger, more capable, heavier, more expensive, 2026 wing would probably make the XLR less attractive for shorter flights, loosing operational flexibility. And waste the time to market advantage on any Boeing product. Maybe later on? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w0yv ... 320NEO.jpg

If Boeing launches a new NB, it should make sure it has selling points that can't be matched by the NEO family. Technical, operational, political and financial.

How do you get 6-7 hours 3,000-3,500NM with 250 seats when the A321XLR will struggle with that and by your assumption the A322 will have 1,200NM less range?

Source: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... pdate.html

Compared to the A321 XLR specification, an A322 would need a few tons for the extra fuselage, 2.5t for payload (4 rows). For the same wing, MTOW that will reduce fuel capacity ~4 tonnes reducing the range significantly. An A321NEO burns 1.9 - 2.5t per hour, dependent on lots of things. 4t Less fuel will on A322 reduce flight time by ~2 hours. Add catering, a lavatory extra etc. 2 hours, maybe more, 1000NM less than a same MTOW A321XLR. But it also makes one ACT (3k ltr) that the XLR would need redundant, saving 400kg in OEW, that helps on the other end.

The A322 is a option Boeing marketeers / engineers probably put in their xls's, the same day they heard of the new A321XLR's 101t MTOW and fuel capacity. You can discuss if it should be a 3,4 or 5 row stretch, might it need 35k lbs engines or 37k lbs> Or should MTOW be upped a bit after all. But that's details, it's "low hanging fruit", aerospace guys can see.


source: Flightglobal / keesje

(I assumed a NMA 72t OEW, because Boeing send out an RFQ for 45-52k lbs engines. The 3900NM, 767-200 weighed 80t.. 72t OEW is an ambitious assumption.)

seahawk wrote:

The A322 should never compete against the NMA. If it can, even with a new wing, the NMA has no business case.

NMA = Neither a started for real project nor an offered product

quod erat demonstrandum!

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

Even an A322, if you put a long haul 3 class cabin in it, would be able to do transatlantic. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bcgI ... Boeing.jpg

But regional/ domestic 250 seats, comfy 19 inch wide, 31-32 inch pitch seating would be the focus markets. Up to 6-7 hour flights for leisure carriers flying to Caribbean, Mediterranean, Malaysian destinations. And low cost between big cities. All at a production speed, price, risk and time to market that seems hard to beat by anything new competitor this decade.

Also aircraft being assembled locally (Europe, China) is something Boeing might need to address on any future program, being it NSA or NMA. An aircraft being fully developed, build and locally assembled might make local people happy and proud, but maybe not Ma Xu Lun.

I wonder if Airbus would do a new wing without a new fuselage. For XLR/possible A322, they decided strengthening, new fuel systems, flaps were good enough as a "new wing"
A bigger, more capable, heavier, more expensive, 2026 wing would probably make the XLR less attractive for shorter flights, loosing operational flexibility. And waste the time to market advantage on any Boeing product. Maybe later on? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w0yv ... 320NEO.jpg

If Boeing launches a new NB, it should make sure it has selling points that can't be matched by the NEO family. Technical, operational, political and financial.

How do you get 6-7 hours 3,000-3,500NM with 250 seats when the A321XLR will struggle with that and by your assumption the A322 will have 1,200NM less range?

Source: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... pdate.html

Compared to the A321 XLR specification, an A322 would need a few tons for the extra fuselage, 2.5t for payload (4 rows). For the same wing, MTOW that will reduce fuel capacity ~4 tonnes reducing the range significantly. An A321NEO burns 1.9 - 2.5t per hour, dependent on lots of things. 4t Less fuel will on A322 reduce flight time by ~2 hours. Add catering, a lavatory extra etc. 2 hours, maybe more, 1000NM less than a same MTOW A321XLR. But it also makes one ACT (3k ltr) that the XLR would need redundant, saving 400kg in OEW, that helps on the other end.

The A322 is a option Boeing marketeers / engineers probably put in their xls's, the same day they heard of the new A321XLR's 101t MTOW and fuel capacity. You can discuss if it should be a 3,4 or 5 row stretch, might it need 35k lbs engines or 37k lbs> Or should MTOW be upped a bit after all. But that's details, it's "low hanging fruit", aerospace guys can see.


source: Flightglobal / keesje

(I assumed a NMA 72t OEW, because Boeing send out an RFQ for 45-52k lbs engines. The 3900NM, 767-200 weighed 80t.. 72t OEW is an ambitious assumption.)

Maybe the Boeing saw what you did and figured they better build a NMA 5x, with closer to 55t OEW, closer to 36m wing and 35K to 40K engines for 500nm to 3,000nm flights. 15% to 20% more seats than the A321, at which point to match that with an A321 platform might require new wing or gear. And, the benefits of a twin aisle hopefully hit a crossover point for the people buying airplanes.

keesje wrote:

(I assumed a NMA 72t OEW, because Boeing send out an RFQ for 45-52k lbs engines. The 3900NM, 767-200 weighed 80t.. 72t OEW is an ambitious assumption.)

It is sounding like NMA will not be a clone of the 767 in terms of dimension and modern design and production (3D printing, new materials) can reduce OEW a significant amount today compared to 40 years ago. And the 767-200ER only needed another 2 tons of OEW to increase the range 70% (to 6600NM) so a small OEW increase can deliver a significant MTOW boost.

Viewing the market in terms of range, what yesterday was Y1,Y2, and Y3, where Y3 was 777 and A380. Maybe in the future, 787 and A350 are already Y3 at 5K to 7K range. A322 becomes the largest capacity aircraft for Y1 with .5K to 3.5K range. That still leaves the 3,5K to 5K range open for an optimal aircraft. But is there a bigger market for the largest aircraft that can be built for Y1? Does it have to have a fixed 36m CFRP wing, fixed 38m, or folding? I don't think building an aircraft for Y1 with a bigger gate will ever compete again like it did with the L1011, A300, DC-10.

The 767 probably is still the best baseline, when looking at the problem. A narrow 8 abreast with about 5500nm range for the short version (about 762 length) combined with a 4500+nm ranged version of around 763 length. Seating in a configuration similar to the A321 @240 seats, would be around 280 for the small and around 340 for the long version.

Keep the container capability of the 767 and it can also cover the 767F market. Imho this is the only variant which makes sense.

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

Even an A322, if you put a long haul 3 class cabin in it, would be able to do transatlantic. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bcgI ... Boeing.jpg

But regional/ domestic 250 seats, comfy 19 inch wide, 31-32 inch pitch seating would be the focus markets. Up to 6-7 hour flights for leisure carriers flying to Caribbean, Mediterranean, Malaysian destinations. And low cost between big cities. All at a production speed, price, risk and time to market that seems hard to beat by anything new competitor this decade.

Also aircraft being assembled locally (Europe, China) is something Boeing might need to address on any future program, being it NSA or NMA. An aircraft being fully developed, build and locally assembled might make local people happy and proud, but maybe not Ma Xu Lun.

I wonder if Airbus would do a new wing without a new fuselage. For XLR/possible A322, they decided strengthening, new fuel systems, flaps were good enough as a "new wing"
A bigger, more capable, heavier, more expensive, 2026 wing would probably make the XLR less attractive for shorter flights, loosing operational flexibility. And waste the time to market advantage on any Boeing product. Maybe later on? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w0yv ... 320NEO.jpg

If Boeing launches a new NB, it should make sure it has selling points that can't be matched by the NEO family. Technical, operational, political and financial.

How do you get 6-7 hours 3,000-3,500NM with 250 seats when the A321XLR will struggle with that and by your assumption the A322 will have 1,200NM less range?

Source: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... pdate.html

Compared to the A321 XLR specification, an A322 would need a few tons for the extra fuselage, 2.5t for payload (4 rows). For the same wing, MTOW that will reduce fuel capacity ~4 tonnes reducing the range significantly. An A321NEO burns 1.9 - 2.5t per hour, dependent on lots of things. 4t Less fuel will on A322 reduce flight time by ~2 hours. Add catering, a lavatory extra etc. 2 hours, maybe more, 1000NM less than a same MTOW A321XLR. But it also makes one ACT (3k ltr) that the XLR would need redundant, saving 400kg in OEW, that helps on the other end.

The A322 is a option Boeing marketeers / engineers probably put in their xls's, the same day they heard of the new A321XLR's 101t MTOW and fuel capacity. You can discuss if it should be a 3,4 or 5 row stretch, might it need 35k lbs engines or 37k lbs> Or should MTOW be upped a bit after all. But that's details, it's "low hanging fruit", aerospace guys can see.


source: Flightglobal / keesje

(I assumed a NMA 72t OEW, because Boeing send out an RFQ for 45-52k lbs engines. The 3900NM, 767-200 weighed 80t.. 72t OEW is an ambitious assumption.)

I take you missed this article. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

Btw - You were the initial proponent of the 322 with a new wing. That is still a great plan and will probably be needed to compete dependant on what the final spec is for NMA.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

(I assumed a NMA 72t OEW, because Boeing send out an RFQ for 45-52k lbs engines. The 3900NM, 767-200 weighed 80t.. 72t OEW is an ambitious assumption.)

It is sounding like NMA will not be a clone of the 767 in terms of dimension and modern design and production (3D printing, new materials) can reduce OEW a significant amount today compared to 40 years ago. And the 767-200ER only needed another 2 tons of OEW to increase the range 70% (to 6600NM) so a small OEW increase can deliver a significant MTOW boost.

While I agree that in 40 years much has changed, the weight differences are not that much on OEW when comparing old vs new (A330NEOvs787 or 737vsA220). When looking at the differences, 10% seems quite ambitious already...

seahawk wrote:

The A322 should never compete against the NMA. If it can, even with a new wing, the NMA has no business case.

Is this also on the sub 3500nm?

JonesNL wrote:

While I agree that in 40 years much has changed, the weight differences are not that much on OEW when comparing old vs new (A330NEOvs787 or 737vsA220). When looking at the differences, 10% seems quite ambitious already...

The A350-1000 is not as large as the 777-300ER, but still generally can hold as many passengers in a modern configuration. Yet it is significantly lighter than the 777-300ER due to it's smaller size and more modern materials and construction techniques. So an NMA that can generally hold as many people as a 767-200 and 767-300 in a modern configuration could be smaller and significantly lighter - though it will still be heavier than a 757-200 or 757-300 with the same number of people.

In the end, there has to be a reason/reasons why it appears Boeing feels a twin-aisle works for NMA better than a single-aisle. It is not public knowledge what their internal studies determined or what their discussions with airlines entailed that would have pushed them to twin aisles over a single aisle.

Stitch wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

While I agree that in 40 years much has changed, the weight differences are not that much on OEW when comparing old vs new (A330NEOvs787 or 737vsA220). When looking at the differences, 10% seems quite ambitious already...

The A350-1000 is not as large as the 777-300ER, but still generally can hold as many passengers in a modern configuration. Yet it is significantly lighter than the 777-300ER due to it's smaller size and more modern materials and construction techniques. So an NMA that can generally hold as many people as a 767-200 and 767-300 in a modern configuration could be smaller and significantly lighter - though it will still be heavier than a 757-200 or 757-300 with the same number of people.

In the end, there has to be a reason/reasons why it appears Boeing feels a twin-aisle works for NMA better than a single-aisle. It is not public knowledge what their internal studies determined or what their discussions with airlines entailed that would have pushed them to twin aisles over a single aisle.

If the NMA is as rumoured it will also be configured to carry a lot less cargo - saving a lot of weight with much more efficient engines. The 767 was sized to go 6,000NM and carry 44T.

The A321 XLR is 24T - so an NMA-5 would be maybe somewhere around 28-35T? Call it 115-120T MTOW vs 143T for the original 767-200 (which could carry 33.3T).

As far as the empty weight of a NMA 5x goes, perhaps assume it has a 36m CFRP wing and 36K engines. I think 100t MTOW is possible.
For WN, the A322 could have 37 rows for 222 pax at 48m. A similar NMA at 2-3-2 would have 32 rows for 224 pax at 46m.
Boeing can build either configuration, what will WN and others choose?

Stitch wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

While I agree that in 40 years much has changed, the weight differences are not that much on OEW when comparing old vs new (A330NEOvs787 or 737vsA220). When looking at the differences, 10% seems quite ambitious already...

The A350-1000 is not as large as the 777-300ER, but still generally can hold as many passengers in a modern configuration. Yet it is significantly lighter than the 777-300ER due to it's smaller size and more modern materials and construction techniques. So an NMA that can generally hold as many people as a 767-200 and 767-300 in a modern configuration could be smaller and significantly lighter - though it will still be heavier than a 757-200 or 757-300 with the same number of people.

Whilst I would agree that a new 767 would be lighter than the original it would not be down to material advances, just as it isn’t for the 77W vs A35K. It is almost entirely down to engine improvements and the resulting weight advantages that that brings. The A330 vs 787 show the similarities in old vs new methods of construction on weight.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

How do you get 6-7 hours 3,000-3,500NM with 250 seats when the A321XLR will struggle with that and by your assumption the A322 will have 1,200NM less range?

Source: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... pdate.html

Compared to the A321 XLR specification, an A322 would need a few tons for the extra fuselage, 2.5t for payload (4 rows). For the same wing, MTOW that will reduce fuel capacity ~4 tonnes reducing the range significantly. An A321NEO burns 1.9 - 2.5t per hour, dependent on lots of things. 4t Less fuel will on A322 reduce flight time by ~2 hours. Add catering, a lavatory extra etc. 2 hours, maybe more, 1000NM less than a same MTOW A321XLR. But it also makes one ACT (3k ltr) that the XLR would need redundant, saving 400kg in OEW, that helps on the other end.

The A322 is a option Boeing marketeers / engineers probably put in their xls's, the same day they heard of the new A321XLR's 101t MTOW and fuel capacity. You can discuss if it should be a 3,4 or 5 row stretch, might it need 35k lbs engines or 37k lbs> Or should MTOW be upped a bit after all. But that's details, it's "low hanging fruit", aerospace guys can see.


source: Flightglobal / keesje

(I assumed a NMA 72t OEW, because Boeing send out an RFQ for 45-52k lbs engines. The 3900NM, 767-200 weighed 80t.. 72t OEW is an ambitious assumption.)

I take you missed this article. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

Btw - You were the initial proponent of the 322 with a new wing. That is still a great plan and will probably be needed to compete dependant on what the final spec is for NMA.

And the new fuselage also adds lift, as the fuselage will add lift and make the plane much more efficient. Therefore I think Boeing should go with a narrow 8 abreast to fully reap the benefits of the design.

DenverTed wrote:

As far as the empty weight of a NMA 5x goes, perhaps assume it has a 36m CFRP wing and 36K engines. I think 100t MTOW is possible.
For WN, the A322 could have 37 rows for 222 pax at 48m. A similar NMA at 2-3-2 would have 32 rows for 224 pax at 46m.
Boeing can build either configuration, what will WN and others choose?

WN won't be adding any new fleet type until they are absolutely forced to whenever Boeing stops 737 production and moves to NSA.

To calculate the weights of the NMA using the 767 is not the best starting point. The 767-200 is effectively carrying the wing and nearly all of the weight for the ER model. The 767-200ER has a range of 6,590nm which is well above the Boeing NMA. With modern engines the 767-200ER would have 7,500+mm range.

The NMA would be much lighter. More like a 757-300 wing, engine, tail and landing gear but with a 767 sized fuselage tube. Replacing the 54m long 757-300 fuselage tube with a 48m 767-200 fuselage tube would probably only add a few thousand kilos. Cabin area of the 767-200 is only 5% higher than the 757-300.

So using 1980 materials this would give a 123t MTOW of the 757-300 and a 66t OEW a slight increase. R would drop from 3,400nm to around 3,000nm due to the bigger fuselage.

Using modern materials and engines the MTOW could probably increase up to 130t without any weight gain. Then the new engines would bring range up to 5,000nm. 72t would be mighty heavy for a 767 cabin sized NMA.

A NMA OEW of 72t is an ambitious target, if it was much lighter Boeing would have specified lower thrust engines. Plus, the basic design is a basis for significant larger, more capable variants up to 300 seats. That usually doesn't make the short version very light (Ref. A358. 788, 77LR, 737-7, A319) and competitive. Of course you can put on smaller wings, a lighter gear, engines but that's a new $15B aircraft..

I've been vaguely enthusiastic about a 767 re-engine for at least a decade. The smaller 748 GENX seemed a perfect match. GE even promoted it, many Farnboroughs back in time. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h2-u ... 2BGenX.jpg

The 767 freighters seem to do ok, but International regulations taking effect in 2027 mean the 767-300ERF can no longer be produced. The 767F won’t meet new, strict noise and emissions regulations. A new engine option will be required to continue the 767F line. Maybe congress can make the USAF launching customer. The 767 has seen many essential system and cockpit upgrades recently, because of the KC46 and new build freighters. A quiet freighter really helps cargo operators at night. Maybe it's not loo late, it can seat 8 abreast high density and 767-8, -9 fuselage lengths could be optimized. A very affordable, practical NMA, freighter, tanker transport. A 767 is significant lighter (-30t..) / smaller than a 787 or A330. https://aeronauticsonline.com/boeing-co ... gined-767/


source: keesje

It could continue to generate cash flow in the cargo market site, offer a unique NMA platform for airlines, for the USAF a more credible long term tanker transport, and Boeing jobs in States. Probably GE could pick up half the bill. And it could free up Boeing development resources to develop a superior light, nimble 737 and A320 replacement. And sell thousands at a premium. 10.000 NB's to be replaced 2030-2040. Burying any NMA business case.

keesje wrote:

72t is an ambitious target, if it was much lighter Boeing would have specified lower thrust engines. Plus, the basic design is a basis for significant larger, more capable variants up to 300 seats. That usually doesn't make the short version very light (Ref. A358. 788, 77LR, 737-7, A319) and competitive. Of course you can put on smaller wings, a lighter gear, engines but that's a new $15B design..

We don't know what thrust they are speccing for an NMA-5. The 50K engines seem to have been for the larger NMA variants. 50K could possibly work with 55 and 60M long future large NMA's with a 52M wing.

Yet according to you when you rewing, new gear and presumably new engine on an existing fuselage - Say a 321/322 rewing you say it will only cost a few billion.

The benefit of using the same nose/cross section and systems architecture from say an NSA to NMA to an NMA Large - all with different wings and different wingbox stengths if not shape, different gear and engines is only a few billion (okay maybe $5ish billion) for the different variants. You also get to amortize those costs under program accounting over a very large number of frames if you do them as one very large program.

Boeing has a state of the art Wing factory to do multiple different wing sizes with the capacity to at least do initial low volume production for each of the variants. I'm assuming they would need another facility for NSA levels of production - or takeover more of Everett for that.

The bulk of the cost in a new design and regulatory hassle is the fuselage/systems and cockpit/software. By making those common amongst the variants you save a ton of time and money. They would all have two engines - all be FBW - all have three gear legs - just shorter or longer and different wings/tail control surfaces. Same number of sensors - some variants may have folding wings, actuators sized appropriately - environmental systems adjusted for different passenger capacities.

Keesje - intriguing!

Morrisond, you seem a bit overly optimistic too me

Yet according to you when you rewing, new gear and presumably new engine on an existing fuselage - Say a 321/322 rewing you say it will only cost a few billion.

No way, I never said/ thought that. A new wing changes the total dynamics and performance & needs a full testing and re-certification, even if you hope not (ask the 777x program manager).

I think those complications pushed through a minor wing change at the A321XLR instead of a new wing (5 yrs/ 5 billion?). New materials brought no miracles in terms of weight savings, computer aided design didn't change physics. Aeronautical engineers 30-50 years ago weren't stupid either. A new engine = a new engine, a new gear = a new gear, same for wings. No "minor change" free tickets from FAA / EASA no more.

keesje wrote:

A NMA OEW of 72t is an ambitious target, if it was much lighter Boeing would have specified lower thrust engines.

I would expect MTOW has a much greater impact in gauging engine thrust than OEW.

keesje wrote:

A NMA OEW of 72t is an ambitious target, if it was much lighter Boeing would have specified lower thrust engines. Plus, the basic design is a basis for significant larger, more capable variants up to 300 seats. That usually doesn't make the short version very light (Ref. A358. 788, 77LR, 737-7, A319) and competitive. Of course you can put on smaller wings, a lighter gear, engines but that's a new $15B aircraft...

It is a digital design using CFRP and additive production, which means every variant will be perfectly optimized.

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

A NMA OEW of 72t is an ambitious target, if it was much lighter Boeing would have specified lower thrust engines. Plus, the basic design is a basis for significant larger, more capable variants up to 300 seats. That usually doesn't make the short version very light (Ref. A358. 788, 77LR, 737-7, A319) and competitive. Of course you can put on smaller wings, a lighter gear, engines but that's a new $15B aircraft...

It is a digital design using CFRP and additive production, which means every variant will be perfectly optimized.

That would mean that every part has to be certified seperately though. Which means no commonality for spares, etc. That means no economy of scale...

keesje wrote:

Morrisond, you seem a bit overly optimistic too me

Yet according to you when you rewing, new gear and presumably new engine on an existing fuselage - Say a 321/322 rewing you say it will only cost a few billion.

No way, I never said/ thought that. A new wing changes the total dynamics and performance & needs a full testing and re-certification, even if you hope not (ask the 777x program manager).

I think those complications pushed through a minor wing change at the A321XLR instead of a new wing (5 yrs/ 5 billion?). New materials brought no miracles in terms of weight savings, computer aided design didn't change physics. Aeronautical engineers 30-50 years ago weren't stupid either. A new engine = a new engine, a new gear = a new gear, same for wings. No "minor change" free tickets from FAA / EASA no more.

Okay then $5B - but it's not $15B.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

A NMA OEW of 72t is an ambitious target, if it was much lighter Boeing would have specified lower thrust engines.

I would expect MTOW has a much greater impact in gauging engine thrust than OEW.

Of course, together with other performance requirements. But usually OEW and MTOW are linear related, few "breakthroughs" here, ~45-50%.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A ... 3/figure/1


https://chart-studio.plotly.com/~aleksa ... 95/9.embed

Aeronautical designers around the world usually keep ending up around the same compromises.
Weight, production costs, lifetime, performance, MRO, efficiency. Excel one, others go south..

keesje wrote:

I've been vaguely enthusiastic about a 767 re-engine for at least a decade. The smaller 748 GENX seemed a perfect match. GE even promoted it, many Farnboroughs back in time. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h2-u ... 2BGenX.jpg

The 767 freighters seem to do ok, but International regulations taking effect in 2027 mean the 767-300ERF can no longer be produced. The 767F won’t meet new, strict noise and emissions regulations. A new engine option will be required to continue the 767F line. Maybe congress can make the USAF launching customer. The 767 has seen many essential system and cockpit upgrades recently, because of the KC46 and new build freighters. A quiet freighter really helps cargo operators at night. Maybe it's not loo late, it can seat 8 abreast high density and 767-8, -9 fuselage lengths could be optimized. A very affordable, practical NMA, freighter, tanker transport. A 767 is significant lighter (-30t..) / smaller than a 787 or A330. https://aeronauticsonline.com/boeing-co ... gined-767/

In summation, 1960's designed 737: old and outdated, must be replaced ASAP. 1970's designed 767: ready for more investment.

Reality: 737MAX has huge backlog and getting big new orders, 767 pax production shut down years ago because of no interest.

The fear of NMA having a market space to crack wide open seems clear, better for Boeing to focus on Camry while Airbus sells Lexus without competition.

FluidFlow wrote:

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

A NMA OEW of 72t is an ambitious target, if it was much lighter Boeing would have specified lower thrust engines. Plus, the basic design is a basis for significant larger, more capable variants up to 300 seats. That usually doesn't make the short version very light (Ref. A358. 788, 77LR, 737-7, A319) and competitive. Of course you can put on smaller wings, a lighter gear, engines but that's a new $15B aircraft...

It is a digital design using CFRP and additive production, which means every variant will be perfectly optimized.

That would mean that every part has to be certified seperately though. Which means no commonality for spares, etc. That means no economy of scale...

How often do you need a spare for a structural item? Sure the MLG is different, but apart from that?

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

I've been vaguely enthusiastic about a 767 re-engine for at least a decade. The smaller 748 GENX seemed a perfect match. GE even promoted it, many Farnboroughs back in time. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h2-u ... 2BGenX.jpg

The 767 freighters seem to do ok, but International regulations taking effect in 2027 mean the 767-300ERF can no longer be produced. The 767F won’t meet new, strict noise and emissions regulations. A new engine option will be required to continue the 767F line. Maybe congress can make the USAF launching customer. The 767 has seen many essential system and cockpit upgrades recently, because of the KC46 and new build freighters. A quiet freighter really helps cargo operators at night. Maybe it's not loo late, it can seat 8 abreast high density and 767-8, -9 fuselage lengths could be optimized. A very affordable, practical NMA, freighter, tanker transport. A 767 is significant lighter (-30t..) / smaller than a 787 or A330. https://aeronauticsonline.com/boeing-co ... gined-767/

In summation, 1960's designed 737: old and outdated, must be replaced ASAP. 1970's designed 767: ready for more investment.

Reality: 737MAX has huge backlog and getting big new orders, 767 pax production shut down years ago because of no interest.

The fear of NMA having a market space to crack wide open seems clear, better for Boeing to focus on Camry while Airbus sells Lexus without competition.

If a 737MAX could carry these new quiet, high bypass turbo fans from GE or PW, that showed up early in the previous decade, things would look different.


source: https://pwgtf.com/

If you would like to turn the MAX's 69.4 inch LEAP-B into 35k lbs, lifting 100t, carrying 200 people over 4700NM they become thirsty, red hot, noisy low TOW engines you want to avoid. The 767 can carry bigger, better, existing engines, it is in production and doesn't have direct competition. UA considered so a few years ago, while having a big 787 fleet. https://www.wsj.com/articles/united-con ... 1509890401

seahawk wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It is a digital design using CFRP and additive production, which means every variant will be perfectly optimized.

That would mean that every part has to be certified seperately though. Which means no commonality for spares, etc. That means no economy of scale...

How often do you need a spare for a structural item? Sure the MLG is different, but apart from that?

It applies to everything, even in the construction/manufacturing.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... _ckEsfdN6o

A good estimate of the learning factor is 87% for each doubling. If for example there were 1000 examples of an item made that were to all intents and purposes identical and it had a cost of X then it was decided that it would be better to optimise 50% for one job and 50% for another job then it would be reasonable to say that the cost of each one would be 15% higher (1/0.87). If however we were to say that they had 80% commonality then 80% of the 1000 would be at 0.8X of the price but the remaining 20% would be at 15% higher or 23% cost meaning the cost of each variant would be 103% of the base price. Whilst this isn't the be all and end all for costs it gives a good representation on the levels of cost savings for manufacturing scale changes and shows why very niche variants are so costly.

Fred

Stitch wrote:

In the end, there has to be a reason/reasons why it appears Boeing feels a twin-aisle works for NMA better than a single-aisle. It is not public knowledge what their internal studies determined or what their discussions with airlines entailed that would have pushed them to twin aisles over a single aisle.

Boeing needs to go for a product that allows to say that it is vastly different from the competitor product
and magnitudes better.
On the 787 that was materials, computer gimmicks, emo lighting and an assorted bag of other "B firsts".

This cloaked the fact that all things said and done the primary driver for better numbers was the engines.
No other super duper item detail from PR has much impact vs the A330.

Boeing can't offer "just another NB craft" and make it stick that this offer is so much better than an A321xyz.
It must be a twin aisle design where you can talk about "never before, best of breed, ... and thus Super".

Boeing might finish with a turnabout like on the Sonic Cruiser and just carry over the "Super Duper" pedigree.
It worked for the Dreamliner sales. "Druglike Rush" ( Aboulafia )

keesje wrote:

If a 737MAX could carry these new quiet, high bypass turbo fans from GE or PW, that showed up early in the previous decade, things would look different.

If bypass ratio was everything, Southwest would have ordered the A220 like you projected in countless threads and posts, and MAX7 would not be built.

instead, we now have 200 MAX7 and 145 MAX8 on order at WN with potential for another 350 or so orders as WN replaces all its NGs with MAXes:



Ref: https://skift.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 37-Max.jpg

It's pretty clear that MAX has a lot more staying power than you are willing to admit, and you can't come to terms with a Boeing product that can redefine the space above MAX10, so we're now getting the spin that MAX must be replaced ASAP and 767 the way to address the MOM gap.

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but we're entitled to measure it against your track record on things like A220 at WN.

It turns out the lightest plane doesn't always win...

WIederling wrote:

This cloaked the fact that all things said and done the primary driver for better numbers was the engines.
No other super duper item detail from PR has much impact vs the A330.

If it was all about the engines A330neo would be remarkably successful, instead it is remarkably unsuccessful.

WIederling wrote:

Boeing can't offer "just another NB craft" and make it stick that this offer is so much better than an A321xyz.

And yet we have posters suggesting they do just that....

WIederling wrote:

Boeing might finish with a turnabout like on the Sonic Cruiser and just carry over the "Super Duper" pedigree. It worked for the Dreamliner sales. "Druglike Rush" ( Aboulafia )

Hey, if Boeing can snow airlines into ordering hundreds of NMA just after launch like they did the 787, I say more power to them.

Revelation wrote:

If bypass ratio was everything, Southwest would have ordered the A220 like you projected in countless threads and posts, and MAX7 would not be built.

[/quote]

"Though Southwest took a hard look at the Airbus A220, which would have delivered better economics per trip, the Boeing discounts and compensation credits swung the deal. Bainbridge Island-based aviation analyst Scott Hamilton wrote on his Leeham.net news site that “There was no way Airbus could match the financial terms.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/s ... ax-planes/

TTailedTiger wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

As far as the empty weight of a NMA 5x goes, perhaps assume it has a 36m CFRP wing and 36K engines. I think 100t MTOW is possible.
For WN, the A322 could have 37 rows for 222 pax at 48m. A similar NMA at 2-3-2 would have 32 rows for 224 pax at 46m.
Boeing can build either configuration, what will WN and others choose?

WN won't be adding any new fleet type until they are absolutely forced to whenever Boeing stops 737 production and moves to NSA.

As the competition starts to fly the same routes with 737-9, 737-10, and A321, and then the A322 is launched, what will WN do? They could buy the 737-10, but that is still a compromise compared to the A321 and A322. I think they would seriously consider a 224 seat twin aisle that has good field performance and can operate out of most of their airports and gates. Like zoned boarding and free checked bags, a twin aisle with more aisle seats would differentiate it from the competition's 737-9/10 and A321/2, at over 175 seats, especially for the experience in coach.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

If a 737MAX could carry these new quiet, high bypass turbo fans from GE or PW, that showed up early in the previous decade, things would look different.

If bypass ratio was everything, Southwest would have ordered the A220 like you projected in countless threads and posts, and MAX7 would not be built.

instead, we now have 200 MAX7 and 145 MAX8 on order at WN with potential for another 350 or so orders as WN replaces all its NGs with MAXes:



Ref: https://skift.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 37-Max.jpg

It's pretty clear that MAX has a lot more staying power than you are willing to admit, and you can't come to terms with a Boeing product that can redefine the space above MAX10, so we're now getting the spin that MAX must be replaced ASAP and 767 the way to address the MOM gap.

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but we're entitled to measure it against your track record on things like A220 at WN.

It turns out the lightest plane doesn't always win...

WIederling wrote:

This cloaked the fact that all things said and done the primary driver for better numbers was the engines.
No other super duper item detail from PR has much impact vs the A330.

If it was all about the engines A330neo would be remarkably successful, instead it is remarkably unsuccessful.

WN average stage length in 2019 was about 750 Miles - 650 NM - which means that it's what maybe 20 min of climb - 30-40 of cruise - and then 20-30 min of power pulled back glide to landing?

https://www.southwestairlinesinvestorre ... -112908345

Higher bypass wouldn't help a lot as so little time spent in cruise and a wider/flatter 2x3x2 body could help in climb more than cruise. A 2-3-2 NSA should work pretty well for WN.

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If bypass ratio was everything, Southwest would have ordered the A220 like you projected in countless threads and posts, and MAX7 would not be built.

"Though Southwest took a hard look at the Airbus A220, which would have delivered better economics per trip, the Boeing discounts and compensation credits swung the deal. Bainbridge Island-based aviation analyst Scott Hamilton wrote on his Leeham.net news site that “There was no way Airbus could match the financial terms.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/s ... ax-planes/

Poor Airbus, unable to make A220 at industrial volume and price points after putting $1B more into the program, not willing to take the financial hit needed to win the once in a generation deal that Kessje and others suggested was needed to get the orders to scale up its industrial base, unable to use volume to reduce cost for the current backlog priced at a loss, unable to provide the environment needed to launch the A220-500 any time soon...

Revelation wrote:

If it was all about the engines A330neo would be remarkably successful, instead it is remarkably unsuccessful.

331 ( -800,-900) vs 418 ( -8,-9,-10 ) another 85 A330CEO were sold in the same timeframe.

I would not describe that as "remarkably unsuccessful".
actually not bad at all and gained with magnitudes less of hurt.

I know everyone here is talking about capacity and size. But don't you find it weird that their targeted range for the NMA is 5,000nmi at max?
While B767-300ER have close to 6,000nmi?

If you think about it. Flights from Dallas to Cities like Rome or Berlin. And San Francisco to Madrid or Zurich reach up to ~4,500nmi to ~5,000nmi.
So it seems like they are more focusing on competing with A321XLR than they are at replacing the popular B767-300ER. Do they gave us information to why the range is soo small?

ewt340 wrote:

I know everyone here is talking about capacity and size. But don't you find it weird that their targeted range for the NMA is 5,000nmi at max?
While B767-300ER have close to 6,000nmi?

If you think about it. Flights from Dallas to Cities like Rome or Berlin. And San Francisco to Madrid or Zurich reach up to ~4,500nmi to ~5,000nmi.
So it seems like they are more focusing on competing with A321XLR than they are at replacing the popular B767-300ER. Do they gave us information to why the range is soo small?

I think you might see that longer ranged longer Fuselage aircraft later with a different wingbox/wing, gear engines. It would be too big/too capable vs an A321/322XLR competitor and not competitive enough at shorter ranges.

They are calling this the 757 replacement not an 767 replacement.

Basically it appears as though they are doing an NSA-ER first and the real NMA will come later (after the smaller winged NSA to replace the MAX) - if my crystal ball is right/ reading the tea leaves correctly. But who knows - it's all speculation and Boeing could have two more CEO's between now and 2030 so anything could happen.

ewt340 wrote:

I know everyone here is talking about capacity and size. But don't you find it weird that their targeted range for the NMA is 5,000nmi at max?
While B767-300ER have close to 6,000nmi?

If you think about it. Flights from Dallas to Cities like Rome or Berlin. And San Francisco to Madrid or Zurich reach up to ~4,500nmi to ~5,000nmi.
So it seems like they are more focusing on competing with A321XLR than they are at replacing the popular B767-300ER. Do they gave us information to why the range is soo small?

Because most of the target missions are well below that range, and that enables a lighter frame.
Over time, PIPs would increase the range anyway - but the target market is shorter range where no optimized frame exists, yet.

Chemist wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I know everyone here is talking about capacity and size. But don't you find it weird that their targeted range for the NMA is 5,000nmi at max?
While B767-300ER have close to 6,000nmi?

If you think about it. Flights from Dallas to Cities like Rome or Berlin. And San Francisco to Madrid or Zurich reach up to ~4,500nmi to ~5,000nmi.
So it seems like they are more focusing on competing with A321XLR than they are at replacing the popular B767-300ER. Do they gave us information to why the range is soo small?

Because most of the target missions are well below that range, and that enables a lighter frame.
Over time, PIPs would increase the range anyway - but the target market is shorter range where no optimized frame exists, yet.

Yes it will improve over time. That is a very important point. A mid 2040's NMA that started out at 5,000 NM could easily be an 6,000NM+ frame by then with the same wingbox/wing.

I think Boeing and Airbus when it comes to re-engine 787 and A350 might regret making them so capable/ heavy initially as they will almost have too much capability.

WIederling wrote:

Boeing can't offer "just another NB craft" and make it stick that this offer is so much better than an A321xyz.
It must be a twin aisle design where you can talk about "never before, best of breed, ... and thus Super".

It's more along the lines of Boeing (or any airframer for that matter) will find it difficult to sell a new aircraft (that isn't a derivative) that completely replaces an existing and still selling product.

If Boeing announce a new jet to cover the 737 space then what happens to the 737 and the cash it brings? In an ideal world the backlogs are rock solid and longer than the development+rampup time for the new jet, in a nice world they have to discount some 737s at the changeover time or the backlog would continue to make up the gap. Unfortunately the world we currently inhabit it seems yo take a jet ~8 years from launch to EIS and so the backlogs aren't covering that. Hopefully Boeing having been paying enough attention to what the airlines want, can marry it to what is possible to produce and pull an 8 year development cycle out the bag at 4 years in already, that takes some big cajones and very tight lipped engineers.

Fred

morrisond wrote:

The bulk of the cost in a new design and regulatory hassle is the fuselage/systems and cockpit/software.

You couldn't be more wrong.
Creating a new program is not just designing an aircraft, far from it. The costs of supply chain, tooling, building, data management and personnel are simply enormous. All of this must be certified too.

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

How do you get 6-7 hours 3,000-3,500NM with 250 seats when the A321XLR will struggle with that and by your assumption the A322 will have 1,200NM less range?

Source: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... pdate.html

Compared to the A321 XLR specification, an A322 would need a few tons for the extra fuselage, 2.5t for payload (4 rows). For the same wing, MTOW that will reduce fuel capacity ~4 tonnes reducing the range significantly. An A321NEO burns 1.9 - 2.5t per hour, dependent on lots of things. 4t Less fuel will on A322 reduce flight time by ~2 hours. Add catering, a lavatory extra etc. 2 hours, maybe more, 1000NM less than a same MTOW A321XLR. But it also makes one ACT (3k ltr) that the XLR would need redundant, saving 400kg in OEW, that helps on the other end.

The A322 is a option Boeing marketeers / engineers probably put in their xls's, the same day they heard of the new A321XLR's 101t MTOW and fuel capacity. You can discuss if it should be a 3,4 or 5 row stretch, might it need 35k lbs engines or 37k lbs> Or should MTOW be upped a bit after all. But that's details, it's "low hanging fruit", aerospace guys can see.


source: Flightglobal / keesje

(I assumed a NMA 72t OEW, because Boeing send out an RFQ for 45-52k lbs engines. The 3900NM, 767-200 weighed 80t.. 72t OEW is an ambitious assumption.)

I take you missed this article. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

Btw - You were the initial proponent of the 322 with a new wing. That is still a great plan and will probably be needed to compete dependant on what the final spec is for NMA.

By my rekoning the A322 (3m stretch of the XLR) with 250 pax will have a real SAR of about 3050-3100nm, not enough for TATL.

If you take the same configuration rules as applied in the epsilon page for the TAP layout and apply it to get an 185 seat aircraft (18+167) then the SAR goes to just over 3600nm giving you reliable north eastern US from DUB (Hello EI!). It would become the bucket and spade crowds number 1 aircraft.

Fred

Grizzly410 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The bulk of the cost in a new design and regulatory hassle is the fuselage/systems and cockpit/software.

You couldn't be more wrong.
Creating a new program is not just designing an aircraft, far from it. The costs of supply chain, tooling, building, data management and personnel are simply enormous. All of this must be certified too.

Not to split hairs - but I did say new design vs program in reference to doing different variants of that common fuselage /systems and cockpit/software as one program. Was I not clear on that?

Presumably though if they share that common core and it's one super big program where the supply chain, tooling (at least most of it could be common), building(plenty of extra space in Everett - NSA and NMA could be built on the same line), data management and personnel would be common amongst the different variants - NSA/NMA and NMA L/XL.

I was assuming people would have made that intuitive leap and I didn't have to go into minute detail about what could be saved by doing it as one program. Sorry you were not able to.

Start doing a different cross sections for NMA and NSA with different systems and cockpits and yes the cost is 2x that of one program vs maybe 1.3-1.5ish.

Revelation wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If bypass ratio was everything, Southwest would have ordered the A220 like you projected in countless threads and posts, and MAX7 would not be built.

"Though Southwest took a hard look at the Airbus A220, which would have delivered better economics per trip, the Boeing discounts and compensation credits swung the deal. Bainbridge Island-based aviation analyst Scott Hamilton wrote on his Leeham.net news site that “There was no way Airbus could match the financial terms.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/s ... ax-planes/

Poor Airbus, unable to make A220 at industrial volume and price points after putting $1B more into the program, not willing to take the financial hit needed to win the once in a generation deal that Kessje and others suggested was needed to get the orders to scale up its industrial base, unable to use volume to reduce cost for the current backlog priced at a loss, unable to provide the environment needed to launch the A220-500 any time soon...

Many feel the 737MAX has made a real strong come-back recently, specially by the convincing 737-7 buy by Southwest. Few people expected SWA to buy 737s ? But it seems most people also know Southwest got their 737-7 at $23-30mln (list price $99.7mln) and Airbus didn't want to go there. (They couldn't meet delivery volume demands anyway). https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/

I have no doubt Boeing could build a good NMA, carrying 220-300 people over 5000NM. My biggest fear is 130-220 seats could get real messy for Boeing and the airlines would face reduced choice and competition for the next 12 years. I Boeing gets back to 737 build rate 50, the current backlog is gone in 2026. Who is going to order thousands 737 MAX more? The US airlines, Chinese, Europeans? I think airlines will push Boeing into a new better single aisle, and it better be competive with the 51t, A321NEO /LR/ XLR. .

If Boeing is going to launch a new clean sheet and spend all that money You can be rest assured they’ll have their sales lined up. If they don’t it won’t get approval. Their last two clean sheets can tell you that.

Boeing is very conservative on clean sheets. They won’t launch unless they know for sure they have a lot of customers begging them to do it

That’s what I think anyway. What that aircraft will look like only they know. But from what has been leaked it seems like twin aisle.

Richard Abulafia thinks it will be single asile from a zoom prod cast with Leeham today

Does Boeing need a mid-range plane to beat the XLR flying transAtlantic, or does it need to beat the A322 flying Hawaii, premium transcon / JetBlue MInt, hub to hub, and Spirit and Frontier with 250 passengers?

flipdewaf wrote:

seahawk wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

That would mean that every part has to be certified seperately though. Which means no commonality for spares, etc. That means no economy of scale...

How often do you need a spare for a structural item? Sure the MLG is different, but apart from that?

It applies to everything, even in the construction/manufacturing.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... _ckEsfdN6o

A good estimate of the learning factor is 87% for each doubling. If for example there were 1000 examples of an item made that were to all intents and purposes identical and it had a cost of X then it was decided that it would be better to optimise 50% for one job and 50% for another job then it would be reasonable to say that the cost of each one would be 15% higher (1/0.87). If however we were to say that they had 80% commonality then 80% of the 1000 would be at 0.8X of the price but the remaining 20% would be at 15% higher or 23% cost meaning the cost of each variant would be 103% of the base price. Whilst this isn't the be all and end all for costs it gives a good representation on the levels of cost savings for manufacturing scale changes and shows why very niche variants are so costly.

Fred

I know, but if their all digital design is too achieve something in combination with CFRP and additive manufacturing, it should be changing this rule.

DenverTed wrote:

Does Boeing need a mid-range plane to beat the XLR flying transAtlantic, or does it need to beat the A322 flying Hawaii, premium transcon / JetBlue MInt, hub to hub, and Spirit and Frontier with 250 passengers?

No, they do not. So far the A322 is a paper aircraft and the XLR is not certified, maybe never will be certified.