Possible disruptive changes (just brainstorming here, don't attack me on this; I'm not an aircraft designer):

1 - Much cheaper manufacturing
2 - Latest technologies to enable improved fuel economy. Possibly design for shorter range than A321 or 737-10 to enable even lighter weight, let future PIPs allow for increased range? Really hit the bulk of the NB market segments with high efficiency?
3 - New cockpit and more automation. Make the 797 look to the A320 as the A320 looks to the 737.
4 - In the spirit of #3, design for single pilot, but put on the market for 2 pilots, enabling future reduction if market/labor circumstances allow it. Would be compelling. Similar to how one model (I think the 767?) started with 3 person cockpit and then reduced to 2.
5 - Dual aisle? I'm still skeptical, as passenger comfort usually doesn't win.
6 - Possible innovation in seating? A way to fold seats for lie prone/flat in coach without sacrificing capacity? Fold down seats to widen aisle for faster boarding? Staggered or wider center seats in triple seat segments?
7 - Significant reduction in maintenance needs/operating costs a la 787
8 - More radical - if a BWB (blended wing body) is too much, is there a way to do sort of halfway? Like a wider tube with somewhat shorter wings than a full BWB?

seahawk wrote:

But that is just the final assembly, not the whole supply line. Boeing should nave no interest to see the rate of the 787 fall below 6/month, as then their economy of scale advantage over the A330NEo shrinks.

Well it is final assembly on the 787. It is design on the 737MAX and who knows what it is on the 777X. We know EIS has moved from now to 2023 or 2024 and with such a long delay it seems to me that is not just flight testing but more changes that need to be designed and approved that will take time.

I would think the economies of scale is already gone at the proposed 6/month they are planning for 2022. The current FAL can do 7/month (14/month at peak between the 2 sites), so any future increases will mean investment from Boeing as well.

morrisond wrote:

What do you mean "no cargo" for NMA? Versus an 321 XLR which uses a bunch of it's cargo area for fuel it should have quite good cargo ability. You would assume they will size the wingbox and wings appropriately in a clean sheet to carry the right amount of fuel without impinging upon the cargo area.

Plus if the NMA does have the same cross section as NSA - no real problem to intro a new Cargo Container, especially if they build an NMA with a 52ishM wing later on. Assuming 2-3-2 and a bit more fuselage height you could expand an LD3-45 by about 30" in width and a few inches in height - meaning each container would hold about 50% more vs having about 10-20% less length in the cargo bay.

Lots of room for cargo.

I am struggling here. You are adding one more seat per row in Y in the NMA, but you have the same cross section as the new NSA? One of these will be too wide or narrow. You cannot add one 16.5" seat and one 17" aisle and not be wasting space if you take them away for a 3-3 NSA. Or your seats and aisles are so narrow to be impractical for the NMA.

I like your idea of a 7-abreast aircraft, unless it is in leisure airline Y as standard. The problem with that is there is nothing you can do to make it more comfortable for Y passengers as there is no space and if you do go 3-3 single aisle you are just wasting space. There is a reason why a twin aisle at single aisle cost has not been produced, and its not because designers at both OEM's have been missing ideas. It just seems almost impossible to achieve because you need to compromise somewhere to make it work and that compromise is just too much to be feasible.

ewt340 wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for them to created a brand new narrowbody rather than a complex ovoid 7-abreast widebody that would have weird length and width ratio to compete with A321XLR?

What people overlook is that the XLR is a niche product.
A major niche apparently but the
XLR is bojed by all other A320family products. massive scaling advantages.
The XLR expands the range window. for the family.

Boeing would go for a new design just to fill that niche and maybe some extended neighborhood.
The market outlooks that are bandied about IMHO are overoptimistic.
( All the M(ama!) project floats we see from Boeing are, again IMHO, derived from desperation.)

And the XLR is still a normal A321 for operational purposes. The penalty of using it on short hop is negligible.

The XLR clearly is made to be usable on shorter routes. The fuel compartment takes less space now and the final tank, if needed for maxed out long range routes, is modular and can be taken out.
It is not your old A321 anymore as they now have the new Airbus cabin flex fuselage new door configuration and all the neo updates.

Noshow wrote:

The XLR clearly is made to be usable on shorter routes. The fuel compartment takes less space now and the final tank, if needed for maxed out long range routes, is modular and can be taken out.
It is not your old A321 anymore as they now have the new Airbus cabin flex fuselage new door configuration and all the neo updates.

It will also get an improved flap design, reduced complexity single slotted
but with improved lift capabilities vs the old double slotted bespoke A321 design.

Apparently the planning is to backport that to the whole family over time?

At least this is what they quietly seem to do all the time.

seahawk wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

seahawk wrote:

[...] there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

Serious question: what do you believe those disrupting technologies might be? Specific, if you may, not just saying some digital work and some new manufacturing technology.

The big question for the future is fuel. What kind and at what price. Even if you use green kerosene replacement, the engines still need to be adjusted to get the most out of it. If you look at solutions with a lesser energy density you aircraft design needs to change. If hybrid or electrical solutions come online and work for <500nm flights, it will seriously effect the roles of the jets.

That is all well and true. But not really what I was expecting re the answer, what disruptive technology might be useable for NMA or NSA/NMA combination. It is either using very conservative design solutions w.r.t. propulsion (jet engine on any sort of kerosene) or it won't be ready prior 2050.

I thought you are advocating some strong case for disruptive technology for the NMA now?

enzo011 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But that is just the final assembly, not the whole supply line. Boeing should nave no interest to see the rate of the 787 fall below 6/month, as then their economy of scale advantage over the A330NEo shrinks.

Well it is final assembly on the 787. It is design on the 737MAX and who knows what it is on the 777X. We know EIS has moved from now to 2023 or 2024 and with such a long delay it seems to me that is not just flight testing but more changes that need to be designed and approved that will take time.

I would think the economies of scale is already gone at the proposed 6/month they are planning for 2022. The current FAL can do 7/month (14/month at peak between the 2 sites), so any future increases will mean investment from Boeing as well.

morrisond wrote:

What do you mean "no cargo" for NMA? Versus an 321 XLR which uses a bunch of it's cargo area for fuel it should have quite good cargo ability. You would assume they will size the wingbox and wings appropriately in a clean sheet to carry the right amount of fuel without impinging upon the cargo area.

Plus if the NMA does have the same cross section as NSA - no real problem to intro a new Cargo Container, especially if they build an NMA with a 52ishM wing later on. Assuming 2-3-2 and a bit more fuselage height you could expand an LD3-45 by about 30" in width and a few inches in height - meaning each container would hold about 50% more vs having about 10-20% less length in the cargo bay.

Lots of room for cargo.

I am struggling here. You are adding one more seat per row in Y in the NMA, but you have the same cross section as the new NSA? One of these will be too wide or narrow. You cannot add one 16.5" seat and one 17" aisle and not be wasting space if you take them away for a 3-3 NSA. Or your seats and aisles are so narrow to be impractical for the NMA.

I like your idea of a 7-abreast aircraft, unless it is in leisure airline Y as standard. The problem with that is there is nothing you can do to make it more comfortable for Y passengers as there is no space and if you do go 3-3 single aisle you are just wasting space. There is a reason why a twin aisle at single aisle cost has not been produced, and its not because designers at both OEM's have been missing ideas. It just seems almost impossible to achieve because you need to compromise somewhere to make it work and that compromise is just too much to be feasible.

I'm assuming 2-3-2 for both NSA and NMA using the same cross section and 777X seats with 777X aisle width - 18". Adjusting for the same capacity in an 3x3 (as the 3x3 1x aisle would need to be longer) that is the equivalent of an 27" wide aisle in a 3x3 - it is not that big a difference when you do the math.

Depending on how long you make the ends of the aircraft - the 2-3-2 could actually have less internal volume and less skin area than the 3x3. It all depends on the assumptions one uses. A fuselage that is bulged out 15" on each side (20% more width) and maybe 6-7" in more fuselage height (4%) doesn't need a tail and nose that are over 20% longer to achieve good aero. It's not as though when they stretch or shorten aircraft they adjust the the nose and and tail sections for each variant - as the aero penalty is usually not enough to justify it.

Revelation wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Well, my thought process would be, why do they need to build a widebody to replace B757 and to compete with A321XLR? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for them to created a brand new narrowbody rather than a complex ovoid 7-abreast widebody that would have weird length and width ratio to compete with A321XLR?

It's not that complicated: they feel the MAX will hold its own in the small narrowbody space for the next decade plus, and they have nothing to offer above MAX10 and below 788.

A side benefit will be to roll out their new production methodology without needing to target 50/month like a narrow body, and not tax their engine partners by killing off their investments in LEAP and GTF before they have had some time to get a return on their investment.

ewt340 wrote:

If they want to replace B767-200 and B767-300ER, then the 7-abreast design would make more sense. But if they want to focus on replacing B757-200/-300 to compete with A321XLR. Then a single aisle would work better.

They want/need to offer something better than A321XLR and A322. Something to not just replace current aircraft, but something that can open up new city pairs and grow the market.

Would 7-abreast ovoid widebody be better than A321XLR and A322? I mean, the main reason why A321XLR became so successful is because of their flexibility and commonality with the rest of A320neo family.
The new B797 got none of that. It's a brand new aircraft that cost at least 20 billion dollars that predicted to sell around 1,000 frames.

As stated before, the range of the NMA would be around 5,000nmi, which is only 300nmi further than A321XLR. It wouldn't open up much more routes than A321XLR did. Unless they got 1,000nmi range differences, then it's not that much difference.

Unlike the popular B767-300ER with it's 240 passengers capacity and 6,000nmi range help connects cities better.

ewt340 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Well, my thought process would be, why do they need to build a widebody to replace B757 and to compete with A321XLR? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for them to created a brand new narrowbody rather than a complex ovoid 7-abreast widebody that would have weird length and width ratio to compete with A321XLR?

It's not that complicated: they feel the MAX will hold its own in the small narrowbody space for the next decade plus, and they have nothing to offer above MAX10 and below 788.

A side benefit will be to roll out their new production methodology without needing to target 50/month like a narrow body, and not tax their engine partners by killing off their investments in LEAP and GTF before they have had some time to get a return on their investment.

ewt340 wrote:

If they want to replace B767-200 and B767-300ER, then the 7-abreast design would make more sense. But if they want to focus on replacing B757-200/-300 to compete with A321XLR. Then a single aisle would work better.

They want/need to offer something better than A321XLR and A322. Something to not just replace current aircraft, but something that can open up new city pairs and grow the market.

Would 7-abreast ovoid widebody be better than A321XLR and A322? I mean, the main reason why A321XLR became so successful is because of their flexibility and commonality with the rest of A320neo family.
The new B797 got none of that. It's a brand new aircraft that cost at least 20 billion dollars that predicted to sell around 1,000 frames.

As stated before, the range of the NMA would be around 5,000nmi, which is only 300nmi further than A321XLR. It wouldn't open up much more routes than A321XLR did. Unless they got 1,000nmi range differences, then it's not that much difference.

Unlike the popular B767-300ER with it's 240 passengers capacity and 6,000nmi range help connects cities better.

The presumption is that whatever cross section they use for NMA they use for NSA - where the NMA-5 is basically like an NSA-ER with the costs amortized over 5,000+ frames as one big program.

The real range of the 321XLR is more like 3,600 with realistic cabins (180-190 seats) - with a bigger wing you could probably get a lot closer to 4,700nm - presumably a clean sheet sheet NMA-5 would have capabilities similar to a A321/322 rewing.

ewt340 wrote:

Would 7-abreast ovoid widebody be better than A321XLR and A322? I mean, the main reason why A321XLR became so successful is because of their flexibility and commonality with the rest of A320neo family.
The new B797 got none of that. It's a brand new aircraft that cost at least 20 billion dollars that predicted to sell around 1,000 frames.

The upside of doing a clean sheet is you can position the aircraft wherever you want it to be, you don't have to spend four years just to figure out how to fit a center fuel tank because you need to preserve the interfaces used by the legacy family members.

Airbus's original A350 was going to be an A330neo but it suffered because it was a straight 787 competitor. Instead they made it wider and heavier and all CFRP and gave it the payload/range to be an ideal 77E replacement and it has flourished. This is what Boeing will do, aim it for the place Airbus can't reach with its current family with a clean sheet with superior economics.

The people saying just skip NMA and go to NSA have no answer for how you deal with crushing the investments made into MAX by customers, partners and Boeing in the process, and in particular how you get an engine partner to invest in the next airplane before they can make ROI on the current generation of products.

ewt340 wrote:

As stated before, the range of the NMA would be around 5,000nmi, which is only 300nmi further than A321XLR. It wouldn't open up much more routes than A321XLR did. Unless they got 1,000nmi range differences, then it's not that much difference.

Unlike the popular B767-300ER with it's 240 passengers capacity and 6,000nmi range help connects cities better.

New city pairs don't get opened just by having range, they get enabled by having the economics to service existing city pairs within a smaller range envelope at lower price points than currently possible. Boeing has claimed they can do that, time will tell if they are right or not.

keesje wrote:

I think for competing with the A321/ a A322, Boeing should send out RFI's for a 35-40k lbs engine, not for a 50k lbs engine. If it's bigger, it costs and burns more.

Bigger engine with higher BPR is crucial when Airbus has a higher BPR engine than Boeing, but when Boeing's clean sheet targets a higher BPR engine the BPR no longer matters and the bigger engine costs more and burns more fuel.

A relevant data point:

Boeing issued a request for proposals (RFP) with a June 27, 2018 deadline for a 45,000 lbf (200 kN) engine with a thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) 25% lower than the 757's engines.[49]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ne ... e_Airplane

morrisond wrote:

I'm assuming 2-3-2 for both NSA and NMA using the same cross section and 777X seats with 777X aisle width - 18". Adjusting for the same capacity in an 3x3 (as the 3x3 1x aisle would need to be longer) that is the equivalent of an 27" wide aisle in a 3x3 - it is not that big a difference when you do the math.

Depending on how long you make the ends of the aircraft - the 2-3-2 could actually have less internal volume and less skin area than the 3x3. It all depends on the assumptions one uses. A fuselage that is bulged out 15" on each side (20% more width) and maybe 6-7" in more fuselage height (4%) doesn't need a tail and nose that are over 20% longer to achieve good aero. It's not as though when they stretch or shorten aircraft they adjust the the nose and and tail sections for each variant - as the aero penalty is usually not enough to justify it.

So what do you have the internal width of your aircraft at?

CRJockey wrote:

seahawk wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Serious question: what do you believe those disrupting technologies might be? Specific, if you may, not just saying some digital work and some new manufacturing technology.

The big question for the future is fuel. What kind and at what price. Even if you use green kerosene replacement, the engines still need to be adjusted to get the most out of it. If you look at solutions with a lesser energy density you aircraft design needs to change. If hybrid or electrical solutions come online and work for <500nm flights, it will seriously effect the roles of the jets.

That is all well and true. But not really what I was expecting re the answer, what disruptive technology might be useable for NMA or NSA/NMA combination. It is either using very conservative design solutions w.r.t. propulsion (jet engine on any sort of kerosene) or it won't be ready prior 2050.

I thought you are advocating some strong case for disruptive technology for the NMA now?

Boeing mentioned the all digital design and new production methods as key for the NMA. And I agree, if they can do a widebody for single aisle costs (production and operational) it would be a disruptive breakthrough for the industry. But it would affect their own legacy products as well.

seahawk wrote:

Boeing mentioned the all digital design and new production methods as key for the NMA.

Just catching up, isn't it?

astuteman wrote:

I'm open to being educated about the disruptive technologies that Boeing can apply to revolutionise the industry, that are not going to be available to Airbus which will make them very scared.....

I think all of us will agree Boeing hasn't been keeping its thoughts in this space a secret.

I think the internal decision to shelve the project and deal with the regulator's expectations first on MAX10 and 779 and then on future cockpit design is likely a setback in terms of utilizing whatever advantage they thought they may have had with regard to development and manufacturing process.

In short they've telegraphed where they think their advantages are, then have paused for a significant period of time, long enough to give the competitor time to react, one of the many prices they're paying for their lead role in the MCAS tragedy.

The only advantage is their development and manufacturing processes are maturing as they develop T-7A and MQ-25, so "lessons learned" will be available for the much larger commercial aircraft project.

Also Calhoun suggests they are continuing to make investments in this space so if/when they get to deploy the tech it should be more mature.

To my way of thinking this makes it even more likely they will need to aim for where they see a gap in the market, get their new development and manufacturing processes established using state of the art technologies, then scale them down to replace MAX using future technology and address the high volume market head on.

Trying to do all that is a huge task and perhaps impossible, trying to do that at the same time you push MAX out of the market seems to me to be folly.

Luckily for them they've performed a minor miracle in getting USAF to buy F-15EX, a major cash cow whose life is now extended for decades to come. Airbus's successes on the military side are paltry in comparison.

enzo011 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I'm assuming 2-3-2 for both NSA and NMA using the same cross section and 777X seats with 777X aisle width - 18". Adjusting for the same capacity in an 3x3 (as the 3x3 1x aisle would need to be longer) that is the equivalent of an 27" wide aisle in a 3x3 - it is not that big a difference when you do the math.

Depending on how long you make the ends of the aircraft - the 2-3-2 could actually have less internal volume and less skin area than the 3x3. It all depends on the assumptions one uses. A fuselage that is bulged out 15" on each side (20% more width) and maybe 6-7" in more fuselage height (4%) doesn't need a tail and nose that are over 20% longer to achieve good aero. It's not as though when they stretch or shorten aircraft they adjust the the nose and and tail sections for each variant - as the aero penalty is usually not enough to justify it.

So what do you have the internal width of your aircraft at?

I'm assuming that if you start with 77X external at 244" - remove 3 seats and armrest at about 19" each - takes you down to 187" and the frames can probably be shaved a bit from what is necessary for a 352T Aircraft. - external somewhere around 184-185" and whatever that works out to inside.

morrisond wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But that is just the final assembly, not the whole supply line. Boeing should nave no interest to see the rate of the 787 fall below 6/month, as then their economy of scale advantage over the A330NEo shrinks.

Well it is final assembly on the 787. It is design on the 737MAX and who knows what it is on the 777X. We know EIS has moved from now to 2023 or 2024 and with such a long delay it seems to me that is not just flight testing but more changes that need to be designed and approved that will take time.

I would think the economies of scale is already gone at the proposed 6/month they are planning for 2022. The current FAL can do 7/month (14/month at peak between the 2 sites), so any future increases will mean investment from Boeing as well.

morrisond wrote:

What do you mean "no cargo" for NMA? Versus an 321 XLR which uses a bunch of it's cargo area for fuel it should have quite good cargo ability. You would assume they will size the wingbox and wings appropriately in a clean sheet to carry the right amount of fuel without impinging upon the cargo area.

Plus if the NMA does have the same cross section as NSA - no real problem to intro a new Cargo Container, especially if they build an NMA with a 52ishM wing later on. Assuming 2-3-2 and a bit more fuselage height you could expand an LD3-45 by about 30" in width and a few inches in height - meaning each container would hold about 50% more vs having about 10-20% less length in the cargo bay.

Lots of room for cargo.

I am struggling here. You are adding one more seat per row in Y in the NMA, but you have the same cross section as the new NSA? One of these will be too wide or narrow. You cannot add one 16.5" seat and one 17" aisle and not be wasting space if you take them away for a 3-3 NSA. Or your seats and aisles are so narrow to be impractical for the NMA.

I like your idea of a 7-abreast aircraft, unless it is in leisure airline Y as standard. The problem with that is there is nothing you can do to make it more comfortable for Y passengers as there is no space and if you do go 3-3 single aisle you are just wasting space. There is a reason why a twin aisle at single aisle cost has not been produced, and its not because designers at both OEM's have been missing ideas. It just seems almost impossible to achieve because you need to compromise somewhere to make it work and that compromise is just too much to be feasible.

I'm assuming 2-3-2 for both NSA and NMA using the same cross section and 777X seats with 777X aisle width - 18". Adjusting for the same capacity in an 3x3 (as the 3x3 1x aisle would need to be longer) that is the equivalent of an 27" wide aisle in a 3x3 - it is not that big a difference when you do the math.

Depending on how long you make the ends of the aircraft - the 2-3-2 could actually have less internal volume and less skin area than the 3x3. It all depends on the assumptions one uses.

however if you keep the assumptions the same for both configurations and use area ruling then you’ll find that the volume and surface are are not as you describe. Of course you can choose what nose and tail taper ratios in each instance and use shorter for the wider and higher aircraft if you wish to reduce length but then you’d also need to take account of the higher drag that would create or reduce the cruise speed to take account of that. Of course we could ignore that and use a flat ended cylinder and assume drag doesn’t matter. Why when comparing configurations should we assumed different physics for each one?

morrisond wrote:

A fuselage that is bulged out 15" on each side (20% more width) and maybe 6-7" in more fuselage height (4%) doesn't need a tail and nose that are over 20% longer to achieve good aero. It's not as though when they stretch or shorten aircraft they adjust the the nose and and tail sections for each variant - as the aero penalty is usually not enough to justify it.

Of course they don’t change the taper ratios when they shorten and lengthen the aircraft, they are predominantly based on cross sectional area change per length for transonic flow regimes and this doesn’t change in a stretch.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Revelation wrote:

The only advantage is their development and manufacturing processes are maturing as they develop T-7A and MQ-25, so "lessons learned" will be available for the much larger commercial aircraft project.

To be honest I still do not see the magic of the T-7A. Saab adds a lot and compared to the AIDC T-5 Brave Eagle the program does not really stand out either.

keesje wrote:

I would be carefull putting all my eggs in the innovation basket in this industry. Breakthroughs, gamechangers, paradigm changes and amazing technology enablers seldom reach mass production. Often greenwashing, justifications play a role.


Source: keesje

But none of those "green" designs were envisioned to EIS in 2024... they're all for 2035 or later... I keep pointing this out to you, and you keep posting the same misleading picture again and again.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

Well it is final assembly on the 787. It is design on the 737MAX and who knows what it is on the 777X. We know EIS has moved from now to 2023 or 2024 and with such a long delay it seems to me that is not just flight testing but more changes that need to be designed and approved that will take time.

I would think the economies of scale is already gone at the proposed 6/month they are planning for 2022. The current FAL can do 7/month (14/month at peak between the 2 sites), so any future increases will mean investment from Boeing as well.




I am struggling here. You are adding one more seat per row in Y in the NMA, but you have the same cross section as the new NSA? One of these will be too wide or narrow. You cannot add one 16.5" seat and one 17" aisle and not be wasting space if you take them away for a 3-3 NSA. Or your seats and aisles are so narrow to be impractical for the NMA.

I like your idea of a 7-abreast aircraft, unless it is in leisure airline Y as standard. The problem with that is there is nothing you can do to make it more comfortable for Y passengers as there is no space and if you do go 3-3 single aisle you are just wasting space. There is a reason why a twin aisle at single aisle cost has not been produced, and its not because designers at both OEM's have been missing ideas. It just seems almost impossible to achieve because you need to compromise somewhere to make it work and that compromise is just too much to be feasible.

I'm assuming 2-3-2 for both NSA and NMA using the same cross section and 777X seats with 777X aisle width - 18". Adjusting for the same capacity in an 3x3 (as the 3x3 1x aisle would need to be longer) that is the equivalent of an 27" wide aisle in a 3x3 - it is not that big a difference when you do the math.

Depending on how long you make the ends of the aircraft - the 2-3-2 could actually have less internal volume and less skin area than the 3x3. It all depends on the assumptions one uses.

however if you keep the assumptions the same for both configurations and use area ruling then you’ll find that the volume and surface are are not as you describe. Of course you can choose what nose and tail taper ratios in each instance and use shorter for the wider and higher aircraft if you wish to reduce length but then you’d also need to take account of the higher drag that would create or reduce the cruise speed to take account of that. Of course we could ignore that and use a flat ended cylinder and assume drag doesn’t matter. Why when comparing configurations should we assumed different physics for each one?

morrisond wrote:

A fuselage that is bulged out 15" on each side (20% more width) and maybe 6-7" in more fuselage height (4%) doesn't need a tail and nose that are over 20% longer to achieve good aero. It's not as though when they stretch or shorten aircraft they adjust the the nose and and tail sections for each variant - as the aero penalty is usually not enough to justify it.

Of course they don’t change the taper ratios when they shorten and lengthen the aircraft, they are predominantly based on cross sectional area change per length for transonic flow regimes and this doesn’t change in a stretch.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Fred - yes you are right on the internal volume. I was misremembering what I came to the conclusion on before. I've rerun the calcs a few times and yes the 2-3-2 does have more internal volume (which is basically how you get more volume for cargo and the space for the extra bit needed for the extra row).

However on the skin area - even assuming all Y I'm getting at most 3% more with 1.6M extra length in the first part of the ends to do something with. When I use that for seating (like one row of 1x2x1 up front or two rows of 2x2x2 in the back) I make the center cylinder shorter and I get to 1-2% less skin area. You can make that 1-3% better by assuming a 2 class aircraft (like Boeing has stated) with 2x1x2 or 2x2x2 up front vs 2x2.

I'm using this calculator to approximate the surface area and volume of the ends and taking half the output using the length of the nose (about 6M) and the tail (approx 11-12M) as the polar radius. The ends I am using are 10% longer than the 3x3. https://planetcalc.com/149/

Make the ends longer and they can take more seating making the center constant section shorter. At worst I think the Skin area is a wash. Presumably the A320 has a bunch more than the 737 and it seems to do okay.

seahawk wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The big question for the future is fuel. What kind and at what price. Even if you use green kerosene replacement, the engines still need to be adjusted to get the most out of it. If you look at solutions with a lesser energy density you aircraft design needs to change. If hybrid or electrical solutions come online and work for <500nm flights, it will seriously effect the roles of the jets.

That is all well and true. But not really what I was expecting re the answer, what disruptive technology might be useable for NMA or NSA/NMA combination. It is either using very conservative design solutions w.r.t. propulsion (jet engine on any sort of kerosene) or it won't be ready prior 2050.

I thought you are advocating some strong case for disruptive technology for the NMA now?

Boeing mentioned the all digital design and new production methods as key for the NMA. And I agree, if they can do a widebody for single aisle costs (production and operational) it would be a disruptive breakthrough for the industry. But it would affect their own legacy products as well.

How familiar are you with "all digital design and new production methods"?
What disruptive new production methods are you thinking of?
And how does an all digital design benefit them?

And how does that compare to "legacy" products?

I do note that we have moved from

it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

to add the "if" that should have been there in the first place.....
So some progress

Rgds

Revelation wrote:

astuteman wrote:

I'm open to being educated about the disruptive technologies that Boeing can apply to revolutionise the industry, that are not going to be available to Airbus which will make them very scared.....

I think all of us will agree Boeing hasn't been keeping its thoughts in this space a secret.

I think the internal decision to shelve the project and deal with the regulator's expectations first on MAX10 and 779 and then on future cockpit design is likely a setback in terms of utilizing whatever advantage they thought they may have had with regard to development and manufacturing process.

In short they've telegraphed where they think their advantages are, then have paused for a significant period of time, long enough to give the competitor time to react, one of the many prices they're paying for their lead role in the MCAS tragedy.

The only advantage is their development and manufacturing processes are maturing as they develop T-7A and MQ-25, so "lessons learned" will be available for the much larger commercial aircraft project.

Also Calhoun suggests they are continuing to make investments in this space so if/when they get to deploy the tech it should be more mature.

To my way of thinking this makes it even more likely they will need to aim for where they see a gap in the market, get their new development and manufacturing processes established using state of the art technologies, then scale them down to replace MAX using future technology and address the high volume market head on.

Trying to do all that is a huge task and perhaps impossible, trying to do that at the same time you push MAX out of the market seems to me to be folly.

Luckily for them they've performed a minor miracle in getting USAF to buy F-15EX, a major cash cow whose life is now extended for decades to come. Airbus's successes on the military side are paltry in comparison.

Thanks for the reply.

There's no doubt that a clean sheet offers "digital product" advantages in a way that a "legacy product" does not.
It feels to me that we risk creating another "CFRP barrels" emotional tidal wave here if we're not careful.
I sense a risk that some will jump on the "digital twin" and label it as "industry transforming", and "Airbus will be very scared".

This is the world I live in today. Admittedly on a much lower volume product.
The challenge we have is understanding just where MBSE and the digital twin offer a benefit, how to quantify what the benefits are, and how to unlock them
And the reality is that an all-new digital product will be continuing a journey that has been happening for a long time in most industries, and certainly in the big 2 OEM's.

People with insufficient domain knowledge will talk this up as if it is a magic wand that Boeing can wave.
Got news for them.....

That Boeing will do this is inevitable - its just a fact of where manufacturing is moving to.
And they WILL have an advantage over a legacy product in this respect - no question about it.
But they will need it as they face disadvantages in other aspects of this product decision

So I'll keep asking the questions:-

What do we think these "transformational" manufacturing technologies are?
Where do we see Digital design and manufacturing offering an advantage?
How big do we think these advantages are?
Where do we think the main drivers in an aircraft's production cost are, and how do they break down?
And how does the digital double affect them?
What other ways are there of deriving the "digital double" benefit?

I'd also ask

How much of these "transformational" manufacturing technologies can be back-fit to a legacy product?
(I'd ask people how they think Airbus approached, for example, the robotic FAL in Hamburg, and the analysis of the A321 wing that has resulted in a single-slotted flap that provides more lift, less drag, and is lighter, than the double slotted flap currently on the A321NEO) ...

And perhaps most importantly of all:-

How do all of these aspects compare in significance to the correct positioning of the product in the marketplace?

It is a reality that Boeing are not going to, and never will, make a 140t to 150t aircraft for the same price as Airbus make a 100t one. Fantasy.
So that sorts the 797-6 and -7 out
The 797-5 is now touted as a 225 seat, 5,000Nm plane.
We don't know in exactly what configuration. This is what wiki says

By early 2021, Boeing was studying a shorter -5X variant to compete with the Airbus A321XLR as a 757-200/300 successor with a range of 5,000 nmi (9,300 km). A smaller 225-seat variant of the previous NMA twin-aisle design with composite wings and fuselage, it would reuse existing structures, systems and engine technology to target production costs comparable to single-aisle aircraft.[3] It would be powered by derated versions of the higher-bypass ratio 50,000 lbf (220 kN) engines proposed by CFM International and by Pratt & Whitney, while Rolls-Royce plc may be able to reconsider its withdrawal from bidding.[3] Boeing could spend $2-3 billion a year for the development, up to $25 billion, as a potential go-ahead in 2022 or 2023 could lead to a late 2020s service entry.

Note:- this will reuse existing structures, systems and engine technology to target production costs
And will also lug around a de-rated version of the 50k lb engine.
And a reality is that in order to drive the production commonality with bigger siblings, the 5X will be over-engineered in some areas for its purpose (as evidenced by the engine quote)

We know in the real world the XLR is not a 225 seat plane - nearer 175 to 180 seats in a 2-class configuration.
And an A322 "simple" stretch would be nearer 200 seats in a "longer haul" 2-class and likely only have a nominal range of 3,500Nm
So what MTOW for the -5X? 120t? 125t? It will almost certainly be bigger than the A321/A322

I spotted this on the Wiki page..

By April 2021, a standard A321LR fuselage section had been withdrawn from the Hamburg production line for use as a "pre-industrial system accelerator" to test the integration of XLR-specific systems; at Saint-Nazaire, a nose section was serving as an integration test bed for a new instrument panel assembly, before being used to analyse structural reinforcements needed for the XLR.[122]

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

That is all well and true. But not really what I was expecting re the answer, what disruptive technology might be useable for NMA or NSA/NMA combination. It is either using very conservative design solutions w.r.t. propulsion (jet engine on any sort of kerosene) or it won't be ready prior 2050.

I thought you are advocating some strong case for disruptive technology for the NMA now?

Boeing mentioned the all digital design and new production methods as key for the NMA. And I agree, if they can do a widebody for single aisle costs (production and operational) it would be a disruptive breakthrough for the industry. But it would affect their own legacy products as well.

How familiar are you with "all digital design and new production methods"?
What disruptive new production methods are you thinking of?
And how does an all digital design benefit them?

And how does that compare to "legacy" products?

I do note that we have moved from

it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

to add the "if" that should have been there in the first place.....
So some progress

Rgds

Well, it is not for me to add the "if", that is Boeing´s problem. If they launch the NMA, they should have solved the problems. And yes, I am not convinced what their "all digital" design actually means. In the end all current products have been digitized long ago and the A320 series is completely digitized when it comes to certification and design. When it comes to production, CFRP and additive manufacturing would allow for easier production and higher automation, but as the new FAL in Hamburg shows, you can also do this for legacy designs by finding the right machines. So yes, if one would say so far it sounds a lot like buzzwords, I would not disagree, but then I expect Boeing to have some substance behind those buzzwords, if they are using them.

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Boeing mentioned the all digital design and new production methods as key for the NMA. And I agree, if they can do a widebody for single aisle costs (production and operational) it would be a disruptive breakthrough for the industry. But it would affect their own legacy products as well.

How familiar are you with "all digital design and new production methods"?
What disruptive new production methods are you thinking of?
And how does an all digital design benefit them?

And how does that compare to "legacy" products?

I do note that we have moved from

it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

to add the "if" that should have been there in the first place.....
So some progress

Rgds

Well, it is not for me to add the "if", that is Boeing´s problem. If they launch the NMA, they should have solved the problems. And yes, I am not convinced what their "all digital" design actually means. In the end all current products have been digitized long ago and the A320 series is completely digitized when it comes to certification and design. When it comes to production, CFRP and additive manufacturing would allow for easier production and higher automation, but as the new FAL in Hamburg shows, you can also do this for legacy designs by finding the right machines. So yes, if one would say so far it sounds a lot like buzzwords, I would not disagree, but then I expect Boeing to have some substance behind those buzzwords, if they are using them.

Thanks for this, my friend.
It may have passed my previous post "in the post" so to speak.
Your response here touches on some of the points I make in that post, like the Hamburg FAL, and that its possible to digitise legacy products.

I too expect Boeing to have some substance behind their words - in fact I know they will have.
My questions are aimed at a) what substance do we think that is, and b) how significant is it in terms of market disruption?
The "so what" questions (and not meant cynically).

Picking up on the "Airbus will be scared" theme - I am one of those that think Airbus got too scared of the 787, and should have stuck with the original A330 based A350 - I think they spooked themselves out of a great market position (more complex than that, but not for this thread). I think they will be a bit more measured this time

My thoughts are:-

a) Airbus will continue to drive "off the front foot" by pressurising Boeing with the XLR and A322 (if and when it comes) without waiting for the 797. They still have the option of going clean sheet if needed, and from a solid A320 sales and revenue base.

b) I can't wait to see what Boeing do, and I hope it is really challenging. Because then we'll see a lot more creative energy being developed in Airbus to respond.

Rgds

morrisond wrote:

Hi Fred - yes you are right on the internal volume. I was misremembering what I came to the conclusion on before. I've rerun the calcs a few times and yes the 2-3-2 does have more internal volume (which is basically how you get more volume for cargo and the space for the extra bit needed for the extra row).

However on the skin area - even assuming all Y I'm getting at most 3% more with 1.6M extra length in the first part of the ends to do something with. When I use that for seating (like one row of 1x2x1 up front or two rows of 2x2x2 in the back) I make the center cylinder shorter and I get to 1-2% less skin area. You can make that 1-3% better by assuming a 2 class aircraft (like Boeing has stated) with 2x1x2 or 2x2x2 up front vs 2x2.

My model doesn't automatically deal with

morrisond wrote:

I'm using this calculator to approximate the surface area and volume of the ends and taking half the output using the length of the nose (about 6M) and the tail (approx 11-12M) as the polar radius. The ends I am using are 10% longer than the 3x3. https://planetcalc.com/149/

I had used a prolate spheroid for the front taper and a cone for the rear, a scalene looks like a better bet when dealing with significant off rounds. Why have you assumed 10%?

morrisond wrote:

Make the ends longer and they can take more seating making the center constant section shorter. At worst I think the Skin area is a wash.

I agree, that you can put more in the tapered section before its too small to use on the wide version than the narrow version but this is easily calculated rather than assumed.

morrisond wrote:

Presumably the A320 has a bunch more than the 737 and it seems to do okay.

All things being equal I would agree with you but all things are not equal. The 737 whilst lighter, had issues in terms of engine integration (being that high does come with consequences) and the propulsive efficiency that the engines can generate. One would have to assume on two equal tech level jets of 3-3 vs 2-3-2 that these issues would remain equal between them.

Fred

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

How familiar are you with "all digital design and new production methods"?
What disruptive new production methods are you thinking of?
And how does an all digital design benefit them?

And how does that compare to "legacy" products?

I do note that we have moved from

to add the "if" that should have been there in the first place.....
So some progress

Rgds

Well, it is not for me to add the "if", that is Boeing´s problem. If they launch the NMA, they should have solved the problems. And yes, I am not convinced what their "all digital" design actually means. In the end all current products have been digitized long ago and the A320 series is completely digitized when it comes to certification and design. When it comes to production, CFRP and additive manufacturing would allow for easier production and higher automation, but as the new FAL in Hamburg shows, you can also do this for legacy designs by finding the right machines. So yes, if one would say so far it sounds a lot like buzzwords, I would not disagree, but then I expect Boeing to have some substance behind those buzzwords, if they are using them.

Thanks for this, my friend.
It may have passed my previous post "in the post" so to speak.
Your response here touches on some of the points I make in that post, like the Hamburg FAL, and that its possible to digitise legacy products.

I too expect Boeing to have some substance behind their words - in fact I know they will have.
My questions are aimed at a) what substance do we think that is, and b) how significant is it in terms of market disruption?
The "so what" questions (and not meant cynically).

Picking up on the "Airbus will be scared" theme - I am one of those that think Airbus got too scared of the 787, and should have stuck with the original A330 based A350 - I think they spooked themselves out of a great market position (more complex than that, but not for this thread). I think they will be a bit more measured this time

My thoughts are:-

a) Airbus will continue to drive "off the front foot" by pressurising Boeing with the XLR and A322 (if and when it comes) without waiting for the 797. They still have the option of going clean sheet if needed, and from a solid A320 sales and revenue base.

b) I can't wait to see what Boeing do, and I hope it is really challenging. Because then we'll see a lot more creative energy being developed in Airbus to respond.

Rgds

I think the A350 scare was a blessing, as it made the A350 better and moved it up to compete with the 777 and not the 787, which turned out to be a wise move. Regarding the NMA, I think a twin aisle that directly competes with the A321 is a huge challenge and would be seriously pressured by any new single aisle using the same (or even newer) technology.

I think Airbus would probably be happy to keep the A320 line as it is, migrate the developments for the XLR into the standard A321 and be done with it till 2030. P&W is talking about a GTF Mk.2 to be ready around 2030 - smaller core, similar fan diameter, 10% better than the first GTF engines. Imho this would be the time for a A320NG / A220 NEO. New wing, new wingbox, new engine for the A320 series and moving it to a A320.5 - A321 - A322 line-up. With the A220NEO adding the A220-500 to the line-up.

Imho the thing they need to think about is the gap between the A320 line and the A350. And there I think something 8 abreast - standard diameter - about A306 to A332 length, 6000nm range for the the shorter version / 5200-5500nm for the longer version, ready around 2033-35 and using engines about 0,50-1 generation better than the NMA, would probably do the same to the NMA as what the A330 did to the 767.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Hi Fred - yes you are right on the internal volume. I was misremembering what I came to the conclusion on before. I've rerun the calcs a few times and yes the 2-3-2 does have more internal volume (which is basically how you get more volume for cargo and the space for the extra bit needed for the extra row).

However on the skin area - even assuming all Y I'm getting at most 3% more with 1.6M extra length in the first part of the ends to do something with. When I use that for seating (like one row of 1x2x1 up front or two rows of 2x2x2 in the back) I make the center cylinder shorter and I get to 1-2% less skin area. You can make that 1-3% better by assuming a 2 class aircraft (like Boeing has stated) with 2x1x2 or 2x2x2 up front vs 2x2.

My model doesn't automatically deal with

morrisond wrote:

I'm using this calculator to approximate the surface area and volume of the ends and taking half the output using the length of the nose (about 6M) and the tail (approx 11-12M) as the polar radius. The ends I am using are 10% longer than the 3x3. https://planetcalc.com/149/

I had used a prolate spheroid for the front taper and a cone for the rear, a scalene looks like a better bet when dealing with significant off rounds. Why have you assumed 10%?

morrisond wrote:

Make the ends longer and they can take more seating making the center constant section shorter. At worst I think the Skin area is a wash.

I agree, that you can put more in the tapered section before its too small to use on the wide version than the narrow version but this is easily calculated rather than assumed.

morrisond wrote:

Presumably the A320 has a bunch more than the 737 and it seems to do okay.

All things being equal I would agree with you but all things are not equal. The 737 whilst lighter, had issues in terms of engine integration (being that high does come with consequences) and the propulsive efficiency that the engines can generate. One would have to assume on two equal tech level jets of 3-3 vs 2-3-2 that these issues would remain equal between them.

Fred

I used a cone for the rear before as well - I was just being lazy this time but it got me to about the same place.

I was assuming ends about 10% longer as the cross section could be about 3-4% higher (168-170" vs 163" on A320) and about 17.9% wider - 184" vs 156" on A320.

I was just being lazy and taking the rough average of the two. Extending the nose (radome) and tail a little bit beyond 10% with longer fairings to get equivalent aero should not really add any material amount of weight as you really don't need the internal floor area.

Airbus and Boeing do not need to each have the 'best' plane in every niche to compete. They do need, amongst the variants of each model, a number of best. A number of goods, and a few merely OKs is in fact OK. Boeing has an almost unacceptable gap between the MAX8 and the 787-9. Airbus has a gap at the top, and the new 330s are merely good or OK, but the all over lineup is probably a lot better than Boeing. I don't think a successful Boeing MOM will be a disaster to Airbus. It will hurt a little, but not a lot.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Airbus and Boeing do not need to each have the 'best' plane in every niche to compete. They do need, amongst the variants of each model, a number of best. A number of goods, and a few merely OKs is in fact OK. Boeing has an almost unacceptable gap between the MAX8 and the 787-9. Airbus has a gap at the top, and the new 330s are merely good or OK, but the all over lineup is probably a lot better than Boeing. I don't think a successful Boeing MOM will be a disaster to Airbus. It will hurt a little, but not a lot.

Wise words and as many have pointed out it's not about "Killing the other". They both want the duopoly to continue. I suspect that are much more concerned about what China does with C919 and how heavily they will probably subsidize it to take market share once they are the point they can ramp up production.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Hi Fred - yes you are right on the internal volume. I was misremembering what I came to the conclusion on before. I've rerun the calcs a few times and yes the 2-3-2 does have more internal volume (which is basically how you get more volume for cargo and the space for the extra bit needed for the extra row).

However on the skin area - even assuming all Y I'm getting at most 3% more with 1.6M extra length in the first part of the ends to do something with. When I use that for seating (like one row of 1x2x1 up front or two rows of 2x2x2 in the back) I make the center cylinder shorter and I get to 1-2% less skin area. You can make that 1-3% better by assuming a 2 class aircraft (like Boeing has stated) with 2x1x2 or 2x2x2 up front vs 2x2.

My model doesn't automatically deal with

morrisond wrote:

I'm using this calculator to approximate the surface area and volume of the ends and taking half the output using the length of the nose (about 6M) and the tail (approx 11-12M) as the polar radius. The ends I am using are 10% longer than the 3x3. https://planetcalc.com/149/

I had used a prolate spheroid for the front taper and a cone for the rear, a scalene looks like a better bet when dealing with significant off rounds. Why have you assumed 10%?

morrisond wrote:

Make the ends longer and they can take more seating making the center constant section shorter. At worst I think the Skin area is a wash.

I agree, that you can put more in the tapered section before its too small to use on the wide version than the narrow version but this is easily calculated rather than assumed.

morrisond wrote:

Presumably the A320 has a bunch more than the 737 and it seems to do okay.

All things being equal I would agree with you but all things are not equal. The 737 whilst lighter, had issues in terms of engine integration (being that high does come with consequences) and the propulsive efficiency that the engines can generate. One would have to assume on two equal tech level jets of 3-3 vs 2-3-2 that these issues would remain equal between them.

Fred

I used a cone for the rear before as well - I was just being lazy this time but it got me to about the same place.

I was assuming ends about 10% longer as the cross section could be about 3-4% higher (168-170" vs 163" on A320) and about 17.9% wider - 184" vs 156" on A320.

I was just being lazy and taking the rough average of the two. Extending the nose (radome) and tail a little bit beyond 10% with longer fairings to get equivalent aero should not really add any material amount of weight as you really don't need the internal floor area.

I assume every aisle or seat of width requires an extra 2m of fuselage length. Going from 3-3 to 2-3-2 is an extra 4m.
An A321, 34 rows, 204 seats, 45m. A 2-3-2, 29 rows 203 seats, 44m. Of course maybe some of that taper can be used for lavs or galleys which added free volume for the 2-3-2.

I thought the NMA-6 was 225 seats and 5K range. The NMA-7 was 265 seats and 4.5K range, presumably a 6m stretch trading for 500 nm less range.
Has Boeing indicated what the NMA-5 is? Calhoun says a closer competitor to the A321. That could be 200 seats and 4K range with a smaller engine and wing than the -6/7.

DenverTed wrote:

I thought the NMA-6 was 225 seats and 5K range. The NMA-7 was 265 seats and 4.5K range, presumably a 6m stretch trading for 500 nm less range.
Has Boeing indicated what the NMA-5 is? Calhoun says a closer competitor to the A321. That could be 200 seats and 4K range with a smaller engine and wing than the -6/7.

Boeing hasn't said a lot - we are making assumptions based on illustrations where the -5 appears to have a different wing/wingbox than 6/7.

That being said I doubt the -5 would be the only version with that Wing/Wingbox - there probably would be an extended version.

DenverTed wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

My model doesn't automatically deal with


I had used a prolate spheroid for the front taper and a cone for the rear, a scalene looks like a better bet when dealing with significant off rounds. Why have you assumed 10%?


I agree, that you can put more in the tapered section before its too small to use on the wide version than the narrow version but this is easily calculated rather than assumed.
All things being equal I would agree with you but all things are not equal. The 737 whilst lighter, had issues in terms of engine integration (being that high does come with consequences) and the propulsive efficiency that the engines can generate. One would have to assume on two equal tech level jets of 3-3 vs 2-3-2 that these issues would remain equal between them.

Fred

I used a cone for the rear before as well - I was just being lazy this time but it got me to about the same place.

I was assuming ends about 10% longer as the cross section could be about 3-4% higher (168-170" vs 163" on A320) and about 17.9% wider - 184" vs 156" on A320.

I was just being lazy and taking the rough average of the two. Extending the nose (radome) and tail a little bit beyond 10% with longer fairings to get equivalent aero should not really add any material amount of weight as you really don't need the internal floor area.

I assume every aisle or seat of width requires an extra 2m of fuselage length. Going from 3-3 to 2-3-2 is an extra 4m.
An A321, 34 rows, 204 seats, 45m. A 2-3-2, 29 rows 203 seats, 44m. Of course maybe some of that taper can be used for lavs or galleys which added free volume for the 2-3-2.

You also save a bit with 2 narrower aisles vs one wider(longer by 4M) one. 777X uses 18" aisles which should be no problem in an 2X.

If you go 3x3 you probably stick with LD3-45 which probably means A320 cross section is about the smallest you can go. Which I think with 777X seats would have an aisle of about 21" which seems reasonable.

When you do the math - 1 aisle at about 27" wide - a 3x3 is equivalent to two 18" aisles in an equivalent capacity 2-3-2.

So more space would be taken up by aisles in the 2-3-2 but not a lot - and is some of the free floor space you get by making a Cabin wider vs longer for equivalent skin area. The other benefit of 2-3-2 is about 20-30% more volume in the cargo hold - for the same skin area.

2-2-2 all the way baby. Time to put passengers first again.

744SPX wrote:

2-2-2 all the way baby.

As a passenger I would agree with you - but it will be very unlikely to happen.

I wonder how much wider you would have to go than the MC-21's fuselage to do 2-2-2. There may be a sweet spot where it would be viable against a spacious 3-3 like the -21 because of the massive decrease in turnaround times (assuming the fuselage is on the longer side).

seahawk wrote:

I think the A350 scare was a blessing, as it made the A350 better and moved it up to compete with the 777 and not the 787, which turned out to be a wise move.

The XWB gestation is imu linked to the state of the 787 project.
Around 2006 Airbus internally must have known about the hung up state of the Dreamliner project.
( 2008 saw the "lessons learnt" dossier in its 2.0 version escape into the public domain. )

Hysterics/disbelieve had come down. The 787 was a direct squatter on the A330 product : Chinese Copy
A330 wasn't really endangered, continued to sell well.
( and could in the long run get the same engines that were foundation to 787 improved efficiency.
A350mk1 got acceptable sales but wasn't loved.

Again IMU the A350XWB was a bit of stealth project.
Everybody talked up the disadvantages vs the Dreamliner ( to be made from goldplated promises, unbeatable
What the pundits missed was that it really targeted bigger fish.

DenverTed wrote:

I thought the NMA-6 was 225 seats and 5K range. The NMA-7 was 265 seats and 4.5K range, presumably a 6m stretch trading for 500 nm less range. Has Boeing indicated what the NMA-5 is? Calhoun says a closer competitor to the A321. That could be 200 seats and 4K range with a smaller engine and wing than the -6/7.

As with any concept in active discussion with potential customers, things have been fluid.

Based on media and analyst reports, the original plan was NMA-6 at around 270 seats and NMA-7 at around 290 seats, putting it well above the A321 and below the A330neo/787. These two concepts seem to have been interesting to United and Delta, but nobody else. As such, I expect UA and DL wanted it as a 757-300 and 767-300ER replacement, but since they are the only operators of the 757-300 and one of the few operators of the 767-300ER (on TATL) that might explain the lack of interest from other carriers.

It sounds like NMA-6 and NMA-7 are holding firm where they are at, but a new, smaller NMA-5 is being added at 225-240 seats which would directly address the A321 and also support the 737-10 by handling missions well beyond it's range envelope.

744SPX wrote:

I wonder how much wider you would have to go than the MC-21's fuselage to do 2-2-2. There may be a sweet spot where it would be viable against a spacious 3-3 like the -21 because of the massive decrease in turnaround times (assuming the fuselage is on the longer side).

Using the McDonnel-Douglas DC-XX 757 competitor as a guide, the original plan was for a fuselage of 429cm in width that was locked at 2+2+2 with I presume 18" seats. They then widened it to 439cm to allow 2+3+2 with 16.5" seats.

The 7J7 cabin was planned to be 478cm in width and was planned for 2+2+2, but SAS wanted the option for 2+3+2.

For comparison, the 767 is 502cm wide and the A320 is 370cm wide.

WIederling wrote:

Again IMU the A350XWB was a bit of stealth project. Everybody talked up the disadvantages vs the Dreamliner ( to be made from goldplated promises, unbeatable What the pundits missed was that it really targeted bigger fish.

IMU, the failure of the A340NG to find any serious customer interest and the lukewarm initial response to the A350 Mk I pushed Airbus into making the A350 Mk II wider and longer so that it could compete against the 777-300ER, which had come to dominate the high-capacity, longer-range market and to better position itself against the 787-9 and a future 787-10.

Stitch wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Again IMU the A350XWB was a bit of stealth project. Everybody talked up the disadvantages vs the Dreamliner ( to be made from goldplated promises, unbeatable What the pundits missed was that it really targeted bigger fish.

IMU, the failure of the A340NG to find any serious customer interest and the lukewarm initial response to the A350 Mk I pushed Airbus into making the A350 Mk II wider and longer so that it could compete against the 777-300ER, which had come to dominate the high-capacity, longer-range market and to better position itself against the 787-9 and a future 787-10.

We once had a thread here listing at least five different significant "marks" of A350.

Point is, as always, it's hard to get this stuff right, and there's huge amounts of money on the line, so expect change.

That being said, it is interesting how much influence launch customers end up having.

744SPX wrote:

2-2-2 all the way baby. Time to put passengers first again.

Playing devils advocat here: It is passengers first since a couple of decades, not the other way round. Densifying aircraft seatmaps hence more effectively using available floor space has done wonders in enabling passengers to actually be able to afford air travel. It has done wonders for people being able to see the world, expose themselves to other cultures, for trade and diplomacy.

In the old world pre 1980ish, it was rich people first. For better or worse I prefer many people flying in acceptable conditions to fewer people flying slightly more in comfort.

Never has the prospect of flying half way around the globe with two 12hrs flights in Y back to back made the trip to far away continents any less enjoyable. Spending a fifth more for ever so slightly more comfort would not have been a good deal then, and isn't now.

CRJockey wrote:

744SPX wrote:

2-2-2 all the way baby. Time to put passengers first again.

Playing devils advocat here: It is passengers first since a couple of decades, not the other way round. Densifying aircraft seatmaps hence more effectively using available floor space has done wonders in enabling passengers to actually be able to afford air travel. It has done wonders for people being able to see the world, expose themselves to other cultures, for trade and diplomacy.

In the old world pre 1980ish, it was rich people first. For better or worse I prefer many people flying in acceptable conditions to fewer people flying slightly more in comfort.

Never has the prospect of flying half way around the globe with two 12hrs flights in Y back to back made the trip to far away continents any less enjoyable. Spending a fifth more for ever so slightly more comfort would not have been a good deal then, and isn't now.

Comparing a 170' 3-3 at 162" diam, to a 2-2-2 at 172" diam, there are a lot of pros and cons. Obviously that 10" costs some weight and fuel for the same amount of seats, maybe 5%, which I'll pay. Better turn times, better cabin circulation in the aisles in flight, and never underestimate the misery of the middle seat.
Southwest isn't cheaper than Frontier or Spirit, and yet people are willing to pay that premium. I think a 200 seat 2-2-2 for WN would change air travel again, as it need not be a race to the lowest common denominator.

What I'm afraid is if you design it for 2-2-2, airlines will go to 2-3-2. Just look at the 777 (3-3-3 to 3-4-3) and 787 (3-2-3 to 3-3-3).

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

What's the actual value people ascribe to an aisle seat or a window seat? If an aisle seat is 8% more and a middle seat is 8% less, then a 3-3 is a value of 6. A 2-2-2 is a value of 6.3, so that is 5% more value, to be subjectively paid for in ticket price, just like 32" pitch, free bags, open boarding, which are not paid for in an itemized fashion.

Ziyulu wrote:

What I'm afraid is if you design it for 2-2-2, airlines will go to 2-3-2. Just look at the 777 (3-3-3 to 3-4-3) and 787 (3-2-3 to 3-3-3).

That all boils down to the choice of fuselage cross section. From 2-2-2 to 2-3-2 is a difference of about 2.25". If it is a choice between 18" aisles and seats or 15.75", I don't think anyone would go 2-3-2. If a wider fuselage is used with a difference between 19" seats or 16.75", then yes.

DenverTed wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

744SPX wrote:

2-2-2 all the way baby. Time to put passengers first again.

Playing devils advocat here: It is passengers first since a couple of decades, not the other way round. Densifying aircraft seatmaps hence more effectively using available floor space has done wonders in enabling passengers to actually be able to afford air travel. It has done wonders for people being able to see the world, expose themselves to other cultures, for trade and diplomacy.

In the old world pre 1980ish, it was rich people first. For better or worse I prefer many people flying in acceptable conditions to fewer people flying slightly more in comfort.

Never has the prospect of flying half way around the globe with two 12hrs flights in Y back to back made the trip to far away continents any less enjoyable. Spending a fifth more for ever so slightly more comfort would not have been a good deal then, and isn't now.

Comparing a 170' 3-3 at 162" diam, to a 2-2-2 at 172" diam, there are a lot of pros and cons. Obviously that 10" costs some weight and fuel for the same amount of seats, maybe 5%, which I'll pay. Better turn times, better cabin circulation in the aisles in flight, and never underestimate the misery of the middle seat.
Southwest isn't cheaper than Frontier or Spirit, and yet people are willing to pay that premium. I think a 200 seat 2-2-2 for WN would change air travel again, as it need not be a race to the lowest common denominator.

I suggest that there exist a multitude of travellers. Yes, some people are willing to pay for an extra seat free or more leg space or what not. Others don’t, because they either can’t afford or chose not no spent extra.

Both are relevant travellers and both make the market with all its participants on either side of the value chain far wealthier than 50 years ago.