FluidFlow wrote:morrisond wrote:FluidFlow wrote:
So if it is different, is NMA for higher capacity or for longer range missions? Or both? As you say, on everything below 4000nm the NSA will be more efficient at same capacity (being NSA is a lean 3-3). A 2-3-2 will not work for a mass produced aircraft. Just look at the order of WN earlier this morning. If Boeing gives up everything below 200 seats single class, a lot of Customers are gone and you can not design a 2-3-2 seated 150pax aircraft. That is not possible.
So Boeing is doomed to make a 3-3 replacement for the biggest aviation market segment. There is no choice there. Thats why I say Boeing will box itself in if NSA/NMA are the same fuselage and it is not a 3-3. Of course if NMA is a 3-3 with a bigger wing for more range than it would work, and that is what I think Boeing could do. A family of aircraft with 150-200-250 single passenger capacity with the option to have the 250 a 5000nm version through a different wing.
That is very simple and places Boeing perfectly in the market with an aircraft family able to sell and no niche product only for a bit more capacity and range than an NSA can do anyway.
That could be right. Who knows what they do - but there is no reason they can't use a 2-3-2 cross section in a mass produced aircraft.
We also have to remember that by the time Southwest retires the 400-500 MAX7's they take on over the next decade (and which will fly for a good 20+ years to 2045+) Traffic will/should have grown significantly. It will be time to upsize and an 180-200 seat 2-3-2 NSA would be fine and is totally doable.
Heck the last MAX-7 will probably roll off the line somewhere around 2035 - a 25 year service life takes it out to 2060! By then fully electric short range solutions up to 150 seats should be entirely possible - and probably not too long after 2040.
I posted it before but I think an NSA/NMA(NSA-ER) 2-3-2 Aircraft family could look something like the following - three fuselage lengths to start, NMA - bigger folding wing, stronger engines, etc..
NSA - S - 34M - 3,500 NM range 175 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NSA- L - 39M - 3,000 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32" pitch
NMA - S(5) 39M - 5,200 NM Range 217 Y Seats at 32"
NMA- L 44M - 4,700 NM - 259 Seats at 32"
The structure for the 34M version will be very over designed though, even with different everything compared to the 44M version. The fuselage sections will be very overweight due to the necessary strengthening and if you have the same dimension wing box it will be super heavy. At 34M it will be 1M shorter than the A221 and we can see it struggles really hard to sell against the A223 and this without the inherent strengthening for a 44M LR version.
And 175Y at 32" Pitch is a no-go for WN for example. 4 FA for only 175 pax? Realistically it is not possible to make a 7 across below 200Y with 32" pitch, but if you want to crack the massive low cost market you need 200 at 28" and 250 at 28". Thats what you have to aim fore because the big orders come from there. If the FSCs have to give another inch or two upfront to fill the cabin that is no problem.
Also your upgauging is not a problem at all. Most aircraft will still be sold around 150-200 seats. Only ULCs will keep low frequency and take a bigger aircraft. Network carriers will increase frequency first and if you look at all airports world wide almost non are slot constraint. Look at all the regional flying, they will need aircraft and the lowest mainline will need aircraft. High frequency is king so with your proposal Boeing will forfeit 50% of the market and even if they get a 60-40 advantage in the 200+ passenger segment, they will only claim 30% of the total market.
I mean your NMA-S would have to take it on with a A220-500. How could that possibly turn out well, when there is no more flexibility downwards in models. Also it will be hard to get the NSA down to match the OEW of a potential A220-500.
I just cant see that Boeing is willing to give everything below 200 single class away to Airbus and EMB and at the same time will struggle with the 200 single class aircraft because it will not outperform a 200 single class 3-3 and will also have a hard time with the 250 stretch just to offer "commonality" (but even there it is just for the fuselage sections) with LR versions. IF you need different wing box, tail, gear, etc. you can also just have different fuselage diameter. So just keep cockpit and system architecture and actually make two optimised aircraft instead of a gigantic compromise that is in my opinion in the wrong size category and locks out half the market, gifting it to the other OEMs.
Yes you could make two unique cross sections and they may do that but that adds more cost - probably means two separate production lines - more certification effort and time. It is entirely possible given Digital design tools. I just don't think there is enough disadvantage to 2-3-2 to warrant that investment though.
The neat thing about Carbon is that by optimizing the layups for NSA and NMA the fuselage cross sections could be significantly different in weight/strength. Plus when you think about it the part of the airplane that is not the nose or the section above the wingbox or the tail is less than 50% of the length of the aircraft on shorter variants. Even if those sections are heavier than optimal it won't add a lot of weight if you keep in mind that an entire A320 Fuselage is only about 5,000KG - including tail/wingbox and nose.
On the WN 175Y with 4 FA's - funny don't they have Hundred's of 737-8/800 on the property/on order with exactly that capacity FA ratio?
175 Y passengers at 32" = about 200 Y at 28" - however by the 2030's I can see the leisure market dominated by the C919 on price alone - Yes I can see Boeing ceeding that market.
Boeing's own stated goal is not to dominate the market at all costs - it is to maximize profit.
We also have to remember that by the time WN is about ready to replace all the MAX's it has on order (after 2050) it is quite probable that the replacement it will choose will be fully electric especially for the majority of it's short range/small capacity routes.
Electric may shift that market to smaller capacity/higher frequency - especially if Single Pilot operations are allowed. I suspect(and hope) we will see a 100 Seat, 1,000NM electric (or fuel cell) aircraft by 2040 given the rate of progression of battery technology (and probably 150 seats by 2050). Turbines are very expensive to operate vs Electric Motors. Use nukes(possibly Fusion by then) to generate that energy and you have a very carbon neutral transportation system.
If that happens the world will need a lot of those Aircraft - a lot more than current SA production. That is where the investments in production technology Boeing will probably make for NMA/NMA could really pay off.
Airbus is quite capable of the same thing - but they may be behind in high volume carbon production if they choose to respond to NMA/NSA with new variants of A320.
So that is my Crystal ball - Boeing goes with 2-3-2 for turbine powered NMA/NSA and when those programs achieve EIS (probably not until 2035ish when all models are rolled out), battery tech will have progressed enough that it will be time to start work on Electric aircraft to fill in the space below NSA - for the short range markets.