iamlucky13 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Great work. Any idea of how many frames in total that would be for A&B between now and then?

The "2021-2030 Deliveries" column is the total number of narrowbody frames, based on Boeing's interim Commercial Market Outlook, which forecast 13,570 narrowbody frames delivered for 2020-2039. My numbers are simplistically based only on decreasing the number of frames by the indicated percentage.

Boeing's forecast across all market segments (widebody, narrowbody, freighters, and regional jets) is 18,350 for the 2020-2039 decade.

I neglected the C919 in my numbers. I assume in reality it will have a small but non-zero effect, mainly in the later half of the decade.

JonesNL wrote:

The ramp up speed of either one is going to be different compared to historical ramp up. When they went from 58 to 60 they had massive investments and were going to uncharted territory. Now the supply chain to support higher rates is a repetition of the past. I think both can ramp up much faster than before. In the end it boils down to demand and ability to deliver...

Every incremental rate increase is uncharted territory and has involved investments in some portion of the supply chain and production system or another. Some steps are bigger than others. I will treat the pace of the production rate ramp up as uncertain until it is demonstrated, and use the historical pace as the baseline. I expect they will be cautious as they see how the market actually recovers, and accelerate later in the decade if the demand is proven out.

In the meantime, many of the suppliers are in rough shape and resisted Airbus' requests to increase the rate. Just a couple months ago Airbus indicated they wanted to ramp back up from 40 to 47 per month by mid-2021. The target is now 45 per month by late 2021.

They never went 60 in terms of true numbers. In 2019, when Airbus achieved a factory pace of 60 per month, reportedly in the middle of the year, due in some manner I've never seen fully explained to the way production time is actually utilized, their actual output amounted to 53.5 per month.

morrisond wrote:

I think the NMA cross section totally works for Southwest at 200 seats - just with a lighter NSA wing/gear/wingbox/tail.

JonesNL wrote:

Do you have an source for the supply chain resisted the ramp up. I was under the impression that the slower market recovery forced Airbus to slow down the ramp up.

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

Opus99 wrote:

How many will the 5X sell.

Opus99 wrote:

https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/03/finally-boeing-moves-in-the-right-direction/

Scott Hamilton believes this is the right plane for Boeing to launch ATM, he wrote an article about it over the summer.

Over he has some nice renderings on what it could look like.

Essentially, would this jet also be good for short haul operations like your london to dublin for example, or would it lose out to the smaller 321XLR there?

I see this aircraft being big in the asian market though

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

seahawk wrote:

What a great article, especially if you pick numbers as you need:

For example: So, a new airplane family from 189 seats (the 737-9) to 250 seats (767-300ER) and a 4,000a-4,500nm range is needed. In other words, an ‘NMA Lite.’”

189 seats in a 737-9 is a completely different cabin configuration compared to 250 seats in a 767. That is just rubbing sand into the eyes of the uninformed.

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

And how should this work?

The shrink would have the lowest capacity and range, but the highest efficiency on short routes, the stretch would have the highest capacity and longer ranger. This does not work.

TTailedTiger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What a great article, especially if you pick numbers as you need:

For example: So, a new airplane family from 189 seats (the 737-9) to 250 seats (767-300ER) and a 4,000a-4,500nm range is needed. In other words, an ‘NMA Lite.’”

189 seats in a 737-9 is a completely different cabin configuration compared to 250 seats in a 767. That is just rubbing sand into the eyes of the uninformed.

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

And how should this work?

The shrink would have the lowest capacity and range, but the highest efficiency on short routes, the stretch would have the highest capacity and longer ranger. This does not work.

This is meant as a proper 757-200 to 767-300ER family replacement. Delta has 199 seats on their 757-200 so I don't see the math in that article being off at all.

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

TTailedTiger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What a great article, especially if you pick numbers as you need:

For example: So, a new airplane family from 189 seats (the 737-9) to 250 seats (767-300ER) and a 4,000a-4,500nm range is needed. In other words, an ‘NMA Lite.’”

189 seats in a 737-9 is a completely different cabin configuration compared to 250 seats in a 767. That is just rubbing sand into the eyes of the uninformed.

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

And how should this work?

The shrink would have the lowest capacity and range, but the highest efficiency on short routes, the stretch would have the highest capacity and longer ranger. This does not work.

This is meant as a proper 757-200 to 767-300ER family replacement. Delta has 199 seats on their 757-200 so I don't see the math in that article being off at all.

seahawk wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What a great article, especially if you pick numbers as you need:

For example: So, a new airplane family from 189 seats (the 737-9) to 250 seats (767-300ER) and a 4,000a-4,500nm range is needed. In other words, an ‘NMA Lite.’”

189 seats in a 737-9 is a completely different cabin configuration compared to 250 seats in a 767. That is just rubbing sand into the eyes of the uninformed.



And how should this work?

The shrink would have the lowest capacity and range, but the highest efficiency on short routes, the stretch would have the highest capacity and longer ranger. This does not work.

This is meant as a proper 757-200 to 767-300ER family replacement. Delta has 199 seats on their 757-200 so I don't see the math in that article being off at all.

It makes no sense to count the seats, if the seats are different. The 199 seat configuration in a 752, would be a 300+ seat configuration in a 763.

seahawk wrote:

If you say, the new plane will cover a 737-9 with 189 seats and a 763 with 250 seats, the seats in those 2 planes are very different.

seahawk wrote:

If you say, the new plane will cover a 737-9 with 189 seats and a 763 with 250 seats, the seats in those 2 planes are very different.

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

TTailedTiger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If you say, the new plane will cover a 737-9 with 189 seats and a 763 with 250 seats, the seats in those 2 planes are very different.

We must be reading different articles. The one I read had three variantss of different sizes. I'm not following why you think the smallest wouldn't match the 752 and the largest the 763.

flipdewaf wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If you say, the new plane will cover a 737-9 with 189 seats and a 763 with 250 seats, the seats in those 2 planes are very different.

We must be reading different articles. The one I read had three variantss of different sizes. I'm not following why you think the smallest wouldn't match the 752 and the largest the 763.

Because if it’s a wide body family the 240 seat variant (assuming 752 sized all econ) would have a length of some ~5m shorter than a 752 or about the same as a 739.

If however you think it’s a narrow body family then the largest version which if as you say is on a par with the 763 (351 max) the. You are reasonably looking at about 62m long.

As you can see a single cabin config cannot reasonably cover that whole spectrum and expect to maintain cost effectiveness.

Here is a link to a thread in tech ops from last year which shows this.

viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

We must be reading different articles. The one I read had three variantss of different sizes. I'm not following why you think the smallest wouldn't match the 752 and the largest the 763.

Because if it’s a wide body family the 240 seat variant (assuming 752 sized all econ) would have a length of some ~5m shorter than a 752 or about the same as a 739.

If however you think it’s a narrow body family then the largest version which if as you say is on a par with the 763 (351 max) the. You are reasonably looking at about 62m long.

As you can see a single cabin config cannot reasonably cover that whole spectrum and expect to maintain cost effectiveness.

Here is a link to a thread in tech ops from last year which shows this.

viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What of the 767-200?

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

We must be reading different articles. The one I read had three variantss of different sizes. I'm not following why you think the smallest wouldn't match the 752 and the largest the 763.

Because if it’s a wide body family the 240 seat variant (assuming 752 sized all econ) would have a length of some ~5m shorter than a 752 or about the same as a 739.

If however you think it’s a narrow body family then the largest version which if as you say is on a par with the 763 (351 max) the. You are reasonably looking at about 62m long.

As you can see a single cabin config cannot reasonably cover that whole spectrum and expect to maintain cost effectiveness.

Here is a link to a thread in tech ops from last year which shows this.

viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What of the 767-200?

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Because if it’s a wide body family the 240 seat variant (assuming 752 sized all econ) would have a length of some ~5m shorter than a 752 or about the same as a 739.

If however you think it’s a narrow body family then the largest version which if as you say is on a par with the 763 (351 max) the. You are reasonably looking at about 62m long.

As you can see a single cabin config cannot reasonably cover that whole spectrum and expect to maintain cost effectiveness.

Here is a link to a thread in tech ops from last year which shows this.

viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What of the 767-200?

What about it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CRJockey wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Because if it’s a wide body family the 240 seat variant (assuming 752 sized all econ) would have a length of some ~5m shorter than a 752 or about the same as a 739.

If however you think it’s a narrow body family then the largest version which if as you say is on a par with the 763 (351 max) the. You are reasonably looking at about 62m long.

As you can see a single cabin config cannot reasonably cover that whole spectrum and expect to maintain cost effectiveness.

Here is a link to a thread in tech ops from last year which shows this.

viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What of the 767-200?

Yeah, what about this market rejected very ineffective cross section & fuselage length combination?

Opus99 wrote:

In terms of the size configuration it was a widebody with 757 seat count even all econ

It’s 245 in all econ and I think 200 in two class

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

In terms of the size configuration it was a widebody with 757 seat count even all econ

It’s 245 in all econ and I think 200 in two class

Same max cabin capacity as the 753 but with a fuselage about 30% heavier...

At either end of the scale there is a non starter for either the wide body or the narrow body and then in the middle two pretty mediocre sellers hamstrung by their respective fuselage configurations.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

We must be reading different articles. The one I read had three variantss of different sizes. I'm not following why you think the smallest wouldn't match the 752 and the largest the 763.

Because if it’s a wide body family the 240 seat variant (assuming 752 sized all econ) would have a length of some ~5m shorter than a 752 or about the same as a 739.

If however you think it’s a narrow body family then the largest version which if as you say is on a par with the 763 (351 max) the. You are reasonably looking at about 62m long.

As you can see a single cabin config cannot reasonably cover that whole spectrum and expect to maintain cost effectiveness.

Here is a link to a thread in tech ops from last year which shows this.

viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What of the 767-200?

Opus99 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

What of the 767-200?

Yeah, what about this market rejected very ineffective cross section & fuselage length combination?

Relax. I’m not disagreeing with you but just relax

Taxi645 wrote:

The 808-3.
The bread and butter model. With a 200 max capacity @28 pitch it will maximize crew potential. One on one replacement for the 737-8 but much lighter and more comfortable/flexible. A possible simple stretch to a 400 is possible over time with efficiency and MTOW improvements, subsequently dropping the 808-200 from the range.

CRJockey wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

The 808-3.
The bread and butter model. With a 200 max capacity @28 pitch it will maximize crew potential. One on one replacement for the 737-8 but much lighter and more comfortable/flexible. A possible simple stretch to a 400 is possible over time with efficiency and MTOW improvements, subsequently dropping the 808-200 from the range.

I appreciate the detail of your post and the effort that you put into it. I just wonder, by picking one specific example above, how you come to the conclusion, that a 808-3 would be "much lighter" and more flexible/comfortable, at the same time easier to produce and cheaper than, or at least comparable to, the competition from own products (737) and those from Airbus or whomever.

Something has to give would many years in the industry teach me. As capable as Boeing is in designing efficient and advanced, cost competitive products, I fail to see this moonshot materializing.

Or did I maybe miss something from your post?

dtw2hyd wrote:

It appears Boeing crunches all the data but ends up with totally different plane when it rolls out.

So, Camel is a horse designed by Boeing.

Taxi645 wrote:

Boeing NSA and the brilliance of the MC-21 fuselage.

So in its latest communications Boeing seems to be hinting on a new single aisle design as their next airplane. Boeing is facing a tough challenge against a competitor that can offer further developments with similar capabilities based on existing designs and production facilities. It needs to have significant advantages in other areas in order to be able the compensate for the additional R&D and production ramp up costs.

In which areas would Boeing be able to be to create an advantage (some temporarily others structurally):
1. Production efficiency.
2. Lighter weight (from materials/technology and range reset.
3. Better fuselage design with faster boarding or better medium range comfort.
4. Length/capacity better adjust to market demand.
5. More room for high by pass ratio engines.
6. More capability.

1. Production efficiency.
Sure, A320 production is very efficient with years of experience and huge scale production. On the other hand a new design can have production efficiency built into the design that a few decades old design simply can’t match in all areas. At ramp up Airbus would have the advantage, but once ramped up that would tilt towards Boeing.

2. Lighter weight (from materials/technology and range reset).
The A320 series have grown overly capable for most of the missions. Sure, that means that it is very flexible as well, but it also means that ten thousands of planes flying at each moment in time, are heavier than necessary. Furthermore, a new design can make use of new technologies, like composite wings/wingbox, Al-LI fuselage and more 3D-printing.

3. Better fuselage design with faster boarding or better medium range comfort.
The A320 fuselage was a great design in the late 70’s. It takes container freight and has comfortable 18’’ seating. That said, the MC-21 shows what is possible. With only 0.8% more wetted area compared to the A320, it adds an incredible 11cm width to the cabin. This additional width does not only provide wider seats (especially welcome for medium range) but it is also incredibly flexible even allowing for a 27.6’’ aisle for fast boarding. Something which the likes of Ryanair and Asian carriers will very much appreciate.

4. Length/capacity better adjusted to market demand.
The A320’s length is not that well optimized. It could use two additional rows to creep up to the 200 limit, the A321 does not reach the 250 limit either and the gap between the two is rather large. No one buys the A319 because no one needs the extra range and rather takes the lower CASM of the A320.
5. More room for high by pass ratio engines.
A new design can create room for higher bypass ratio engines. Which especially for the medium range NSA could be built in where as for A321 would require more effort.
6. More capability.
A new wing/wingbox allows for MTOW and fuel capacity that the XLR can’t match. Airbus can respond, but at significant investment.

Concluding.
So now we’ve identified a few critical areas where a Boeing NSA could have an advantage over the A320. Some Airbus could match at reasonable additional investment (fuselage length, composite wing/wingbox, AL-Li, engine clearance). But regarding ultimate production efficiency, fuselage geometry Airbus won’t be able to fully answer with the A320.


Design definition.
Now that we’ve identified the advantages a Boeing NSA could provide, let’s look how that would translate into the NSA’s design definition.
1. Range reset and weight reduction.
2. Common fuselage.
3 Cabin and seating width
4. NSA short range.
5. NSA medium range.

1. Range reset and weight reduction.
Resetting to a lower range. For the short range version of the NSA, Boeing could start with resetting the range to stay in line with the majority of missions. Future efficiency improvements will allow it the gain range, but it’s important to limit the weight while keeping a non-foldable 36m wing. At the start Boeing won’t be able to ramp up to 50+ planes a month so this is not that important, future updates will allow it to close the gap.

2. Common fuselage.
The Boeing NSA short range and medium range would use the same fuselage dimensions and production line. After ramp up giving the NSA medium range less of an economy of scale disadvantage compared to the A320 variants. As said, the MC-21 shows the way here. Providing extra space for a wider aisle (short haul boarding speed) or seat (medium range comfort) without any significant penalty in wetted area or weight. This would be perfect for the NSA short and medium range common fuselage. The fuselage would be AL-Li to keep weight as low as possible relatively to production cost and capacity.






3. Cabin and seating width:


As visible in the above image, the MC-21 is much wider (11cm) and extremely flexible within a comparable fuselage circumference (+0.8%). Carriers can choose between very fast boarding with 737 seating comfort and a 70cm aisle to very comfortable medium range seat and standard A320 width aisles and everything in between.

4. NSA short range.
The NSA short range would cover three lengths with single class 28’’ pitch capacity of 170, 200 and 250 seats. We will call this the 808.

5. NSA medium range.
The NSA medium range covers two lengths. It has a separate wingbox/wing and landing gear with much more in wing fuel capacity. We will call this the 818.



Boeing NSA short and medium range proposal.





The 808:
The lighter of the two narrow-bodies. Range numbers suitable for the vast majority of short haul missions, but without being overly capable/heavy. Replaces the 737MAX and competes with the A220 and A320. Low cost carries will choose the config. 1 seating arrangement with above 737+ seating comfort and 70cm isle for fast boarding. Others will choose config. 2 with A320 seating width but with the flexibility of a 61cm aisle.
It has non-folding composite wing that, due to the limited MTOW, is very efficient within its 35.9m span.

The 808-2.
The 808-200 would be the smallest of the family. It would compete with the A220 and to a certain degree the A320. Why would it sell when for instance a 737-7 MAX or A319 are dead in the water? Two reasons, it’s got two extra rows compared tot the A319 and more importantly, the model above is more range limited, so carriers needing the flexibility of more than 3.200Nm can’t take the model up to reduce CSAM.

The 808-3.
The bread and butter model. With a 200 max capacity @28 pitch it will maximize crew potential. One on one replacement for the 737-8 but much lighter and more comfortable/flexible. A possible simple stretch to a 400 is possible over time with efficiency and MTOW improvements, subsequently dropping the 808-200 from the range.

The 808-5.
Lighter competitor to the A321 with more capacity up to the 250 crew limit. Range is limited to 3.000Nm for weight reasons. Plenty for the vast majority of missions and will evolve to have more range with future improvements. Carriers who need more range can either pick the 300 or the 818 or buy an A321.


The 818:
The medium range version of the common narrow-body fuselage, with a different wing/wingbox and landing gear. It has a 41m wing folding to 36m for maximum flexibility. Alternatively, it could have an even more efficient 43m wing, but that means being limited to 52m gates. Competes with the XLR and is also a replacement in the 757 and 767 market. Compared to the XLR:
- It uses lighter materials (Al-Li fuselage, composite wing)
- Has much more payload/range
- Has more capacity
- Carries all its fuel in its wing (less stress/weight in the wingbox and more cargo space),
- Has less induced drag due to the increased wingspan
- Has a much more comfortable and roomy cabin for medium haul.

The 818-5.
With 5.200Nm range it will open up new single aisle markets. Most carries will probably choose config. 3 seating with a 48,4cm aisle (boarding speed is not priority in a 5.200Nm aircraft), maximizing seating comfort with on average 18.7’’ wide seat. Much more comfortable than either XLR, 757 or 767 seating. In fact, more comfortable in economy than most airplanes currently flying. All this at only 0.8% circumference penalty compared to the A321.

The 818-6.
Simple stretch of the 500 with 4.500Nm range. It has the capacity and range to serve a significant part of the 767 market. Again, most will probably choose config. 3 seating for extra seating comfort, while some will choose config. 2 with still comfortable seating and at 61cm, more aisle flexibility.

Opus99 wrote:

So what do you suggest Boeing does?

morrisond wrote:

The Aviation Week Article which seems to be relatively well informed pegs the current version of the NMA as 757-200/300 240/270 seat single class capacity with 5,000 NM range.

morrisond wrote:

I think if you do the Wetted area calculations on a 7W Double Circle fuselage of similar capacity the wetted area is quite competitive.

Strato2 wrote:

You think Airbus will sit with hands in their pockets and just let Boeing steal their lunch. Any new Boeing plane that threatens the market of the A321XLR will push Airbus into re-winging the A320 and A321 and stretch the latter and this new A320NWO (New Wing Option) will then put the 738 MAX in a world of hurt.

Every recent plane has pushed the competition to respond:

A380 -> 747-8
787 -> A350/A330neo
A320neo -> 737 MAX
A350 -> 777X

morrisond wrote:

Everyone here is taking the opinion piece by Leeham on what they think Boeing should do as what Boeing is rumoured to be doing.

The Aviation Week Article which seems to be relatively well informed pegs the current version of the NMA as 757-200/300 240/270 seat single class capacity with 5,000 NM range.

Here it is again. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So what do you suggest Boeing does?

This:

morrisond wrote:

The Aviation Week Article which seems to be relatively well informed pegs the current version of the NMA as 757-200/300 240/270 seat single class capacity with 5,000 NM range.

But Single aisle, basically a new 757 but with a new cross section. Use this to iron out the cross section and manufacturing details at low rate so that the standard Narrowbody focused at no more than 3000nm range would be able to hit the ground running from a manufacturing perspective.

morrisond wrote:

I think if you do the Wetted area calculations on a 7W Double Circle fuselage of similar capacity the wetted area is quite competitive.

From a fuselage perspective yes, but its weight would make it lag behind in performance (payload/Range) and in order not to do that it would require a larger wing and the associated "costs" that that brings to the overall efficiency from both weight and increased surface area.

Fred

jeffrey0032j wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

It appears Boeing crunches all the data but ends up with totally different plane when it rolls out.

So, Camel is a horse designed by Boeing.

Is that a bad thing?

The 727 upgrade eventually became the 757.

The SST eventually became the Dreamliner.

Both sold way more than their main competitors of their time.

dtw2hyd wrote:

What was the main problem with 757? Engines too powerful and not economical - 787 didn't fix that
There is absolutely nothing wrong with 77W, rather than simple re-engine, went on to build 777X with $6.9 Billion write-off.

Imagine just another $Billion or two in the MAX design, would have saved $20 Billion.

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So what do you suggest Boeing does?

This:

morrisond wrote:

The Aviation Week Article which seems to be relatively well informed pegs the current version of the NMA as 757-200/300 240/270 seat single class capacity with 5,000 NM range.

But Single aisle, basically a new 757 but with a new cross section. Use this to iron out the cross section and manufacturing details at low rate so that the standard Narrowbody focused at no more than 3000nm range would be able to hit the ground running from a manufacturing perspective.

morrisond wrote:

I think if you do the Wetted area calculations on a 7W Double Circle fuselage of similar capacity the wetted area is quite competitive.

From a fuselage perspective yes, but its weight would make it lag behind in performance (payload/Range) and in order not to do that it would require a larger wing and the associated "costs" that that brings to the overall efficiency from both weight and increased surface area.

Fred

Okay, i agree it should be single aisle as well, i eluded to that upthread. They are fixated on twin aisle, why?

Revelation wrote:

Getting Airbus to react is part of the plan. It's a better idea than letting them invest nothing and dominate the market.

Revelation wrote:

There was something wrong with 777, it would not compete with A350 with the old wing.

Imagination is just that, imagination.

Opus99 wrote:

...Okay, i agree it should be single aisle as well, i eluded to that up-thread. They are fixated on twin aisle, why?

FluidFlow wrote:

amdiesen wrote:

Problem to solve: A significant NSA parameter will be to maximize efficiency around the 'economics of gate real estate'.
Thesis: The twin isle ovoid addresses one of the biggest problems in commercial aviation; gate turn around time. ...

This turn-around time issue is way to overblown to justify an inefficiency in aircraft design. More unused floor space (second aisle) just leads to a heavier design than necessary for a benefit that is actually a non-starter for most of the airlines and would only be for a feel good benefit for economy passengers.

Turn around times are not only limited by the ability for passengers to exit and enter the aircraft. Especially bulk loaded aircraft also have the issue of loading and unloading and if turn around times really were the issue than using airstairs at the back would be widely used but I only saw it in Europe and even there only sometimes (Gatwick and some holiday destinations were we had double airstairs).

alyusuph wrote:

Boeing should resurrect the 757 with more composites and a new engine

JonesNL wrote:

Stitch wrote:

A three-model family strikes me as a solid plan.

The 5X would cover the over-3000nm market as the 737-10 does the sub-3000nm market. Yes, Boeing would need two planes to do what Airbus does with one (the A321XLR), but the 737-10 would be better on shorter missions whereas the 5X would be better on longer missions which would win Boeing RFPs. And yet the A321XLR would still be plenty-fine for the “middle” of that market and continue to sell extremely well. Frankly, this would benefit Airbus and Boeing as it would allow them to both sell into the 200-seat market on specific strengths which would allow them to command (somewhat of) a premium versus a pure head-to-head competition which would then be mostly won or lost based on whomever offered the cheapest price.

The 6X and 7X would give Boeing a commanding position in the TATL market of the 2030s like they had with the 767 in the 1990s. The 7X would also likely be popular with Asian carriers on high-density markets. That being said, this “commanding position” would likely be somewhere around 1000-1500 deliveries. This would be large enough to justify Boeing’s expense, but small enough that Airbus would probably not feel compelled to actively compete (as splitting the market with two clean-sheets would likely not make either OEM enough to recover the investment).

Wouldn’t this limit the market of the 787(and Airbus wide bodies) to the +5500nm niche?

As I guessing it will perform better than those offerings sub 5500nm due to newer tech and less dead weight

morrisond wrote:

Everyone here is taking the opinion piece by Leeham on what they think Boeing should do as what Boeing is rumoured to be doing.

The Aviation Week Article which seems to be relatively well informed pegs the current version of the NMA as 757-200/300 240/270 seat single class capacity with 5,000 NM range.

Here it is again. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan