marcelh wrote:

GrandNegusZek80 wrote:

I really like the idea of a 2-3-2 or 2-4-2 layout.

It's already there for some decades and it's called B762/3

I'm aware of that; however, not a lot of them are operating now, and the majority of long haul operate a 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 layout.

I think Airbus is in a good position with a rewinged A321 Neo with a half generation newer engine tech. As many have said, the existing A320 wing is now well over 30 years old and is maxed out completely. A stretched, rewinged A321 with a seating capacity between 215-250 with around 4800 nm range should be the sweet spot.

There is a big hole in the market with the retirement of a 1,000 plus 757's and 763 ER's. In addition, a much more efficient NMA from Airbus would likely open up new potential markets. I think Boeing would find it hard to compete in that market segment. for Boeing I think their best move is a clean sheet 737 replacement with as much new tech as possible. Basically, a moon shot. The question is do they have the financial resources resources and the will in the current market environment to do so.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think Airbus is in a good position with a rewinged A321 Neo with a half generation newer engine tech. As many have said, the existing A320 wing is now well over 30 years old and is maxed out completely. A stretched, rewinged A321 with a seating capacity between 215-250 with around 4800 nm range should be the sweet spot.

There is a big hole in the market with the retirement of a 1,000 plus 757's and 763 ER's. In addition, a much more efficient NMA from Airbus would likely open up new potential markets. I think Boeing would find it hard to compete in that market segment. for Boeing I think their best move is a clean sheet 737 replacement with as much new tech as possible. Basically, a moon shot. The question is do they have the financial resources resources and the will in the current market environment to do so.

Could Airbus create 2 wings at minor extra cost (versus 1) and install the smaller on the A319/320neo and the bigger one (maybe with a bogie) on the A321/322neo? 4 models, 2 sub-families with major commonalities as far as systems are concerned.
Is that feasible?

RJMAZ wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Obviously it would be a tight 8AB with no room for 9AB like the Airbus models.

210" width versus 222" of the A300? Ovoid? A320 container or new container?

I'm not a fan of ovoid. You save a bit of drag but the fuselage gains weight compared to a circular fuselage. The extra weight then brings the drag back to normal for no overall gain.

Yes a 209 inch external diameter with LD2 containers. See attached photo

767-797.jpg

https://ibb.co/jWrnBxt

Good thing the rumoured is a Double Circle then and not an ovoid (see Ostrowers Child https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/ ). I think when you do the math a double circle is not as big of a penalty as you might think it it is. For instance the skin area is within 1-2% plus or minus of a Single aisle for the same capacity and you are only really dealing with non-standard loads in the length of the fuselage that is not the nose/tail or section over the wing box - which is only about half the length of the entire fuselage. Well engineered it should not be that big of a deal and you save a ton of skin area and cross section over a round cross section.

A220 has mythical status on this board. A plane with 649 orders in 12 years will now not only get a -500 but a -700. I'd love to see a -700 as it should rival the 757-300 for total length while carrying 200 people.

WayexTDI wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think Airbus is in a good position with a rewinged A321 Neo with a half generation newer engine tech. As many have said, the existing A320 wing is now well over 30 years old and is maxed out completely. A stretched, rewinged A321 with a seating capacity between 215-250 with around 4800 nm range should be the sweet spot.

There is a big hole in the market with the retirement of a 1,000 plus 757's and 763 ER's. In addition, a much more efficient NMA from Airbus would likely open up new potential markets. I think Boeing would find it hard to compete in that market segment. for Boeing I think their best move is a clean sheet 737 replacement with as much new tech as possible. Basically, a moon shot. The question is do they have the financial resources resources and the will in the current market environment to do so.

Could Airbus create 2 wings at minor extra cost (versus 1) and install the smaller on the A319/320neo and the bigger one (maybe with a bogie) on the A321/322neo? 4 models, 2 sub-families with major commonalities as far as systems are concerned.
Is that feasible?

The development cost to rewing would probably cost 1.5 to 2 billion. If I had to guess Airbus builds one new wing that is essentially over built for the smaller model so it can be used for both. Boeing basically did that with the 772. The wing was huge but they were factoring in the larger much heavier 77W coming down the line.

astuteman wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Didn't see this post earlier, DenverTed, so apologies for the late response.
The A321XLR carries the weight of the Rear Centre tank, which is said to be the same as an ACT, or about 550kg, plus another 150kg of additional strengthening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ly#A321XLR

So a "bare" A321XLR without an ACT (good for about 4,400Nm still air) will weigh about 700kg more than a "bare" A321NEO without an ACT (good for about 2,800Nm still air)
It will weigh about 150kg more than an A321NEO with 1 ACT (good for about 3,200Nm still air)
It will weight about 400kg LESS than an A321NEO with 2 ACT's (good for about 3,500 - 3,600Nm still air)

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Which means that it will weigh about 950kg LESS than the A321LR with 3 ACT's, (good for 4,000Nm still air)

So for anything more than around 3,200Nm still air, the XLR will carry virtually no penalty compared to an A321NEO

Of course the A321XLR also needs an ACT to hit its nominal 4,700Nm, which will add another 550kg.
I'm willing to bet that the bulk of XLR's never see an ACT....

Rgds

I agree that the payload-range of the XLR without the ACT, and the A322 are going to be very popular. I believe this is why Boeing shifted gears from the -6/7x (50K engine) to a lighter -5x possibility.

I know posters sometimes get frustrated with the "drug-like rush" of the XLR, but I think it is a pretty cool piece of lateral thinking by Airbus (assuming the certification goes without a hitch).
That it is nearly 1/2 a tonne lighter than a NEO with 2 x ACT's, but has nearly 800Nm more still-air range, and is nearly 1 tonne lighter than the A321LR with about 400Nm more still-air range (no ACT on the XLR) is pretty cool.

Nice, simple, neat, low-cost in the grand scheme of aircraft development programmes - just the sort of "low hanging fruit" that I like.

Surely has to spell the end for the LR (whose only benefit I can see is that you can actually take all the ACT's out and turn it back into a base NEO)

Rgds

Astute, from what I read/heard, the LR is pretty much an bumped up NEO. While not extremely capable it has almost complete commonality with the A321NEO. The XLR, while significantly more capable, has a lot less commonality with the NEO family. So it's is a trade-of for airlines, commonality vs capability. If the XLR keeps adding customers and a stretch will be launched, economies of scale will reduce that difference over time.

Bumped into this yr old A322 clip. https://youtu.be/6RWBNu0zLLY Assumptions are it needs 5000NM and a new wing & Airbus won't be building it because there's no competition and it could hurt XLR sales.

I can't agree, but it's still a nice effort, nice graphics.

What the author correctly mentions is that PW is slow with the PW1135G, I think it was test flown years ago already. It would be pretty üsefull for the 101t XLR and a possible A322.


source: https://youtu.be/6RWBNu0zLLY

Great Video - Thanks for posting it.

Speedy752 wrote:

I think what is being ignored is that Boeing is finding out with the 777x that a re-wing requires much more recertification than before, the same would likely mean a theoretical a322 would be more akin to a new plane vs derivative. I think a NMA would compete against the current Airbus portfolio, if that remaining market is big enough to support a plane remains to be seen

You think the only think changed in the 777X is a new wing? Look at other posts where myself and others have described the changes. Many of the systems are based on the 787, not 777. There are quite a few new systems that are completely new on this airplane.

If airbus rewing the A320 and launch A322, do they have to build a new system like 737 Max 10 does after the Max debacle? Or rewing is simply a rewing?

Captaincurious wrote:

If airbus rewing the A320 and launch A322, do they have to build a new system like 737 Max 10 does after the Max debacle? Or rewing is simply a rewing?

In theory it should be straight forward, as the A320 is FBW with full envelope protection.

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes all those leaks calling it a 7ab. 8ab only exists here on Anet.

Here we go again. None of the leaks said 7AB.

All official sources said twin aisle with 225 seats and 269 seats in two class layout.

The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180628124 ... rrent.com/

7AB has always been a guess by the author writing the piece. You can tell here that they are guessing it will be 7ab. This was probably the first person to even mention 7ab. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... gy-roadmap

Anyone who says 7AB is calculating the numbers wrong. They are seeing 240 seats on a 6AB A321 and then assuming a 269 seat twin aisle NMA must be 7AB. But they completely forget the A321 seat number is single class 28inch pitch and the NMA number clearly states two class from official sources. 269 seats in two class is more seats than the 767-300ER has in two class. That is well over 300 seats in single class.

It makes no sense to have the launch model that long and skinny if it was 7AB. Any manufacturer would plan for the future. Many aircraft get a stretch with new engines and a further stretch NMA-8 at 7AB would be inefficient.

The seating values of 225 and 269 line up perfect with 8AB. A row longer than the A310 and a row shorter than the A300 respectively. We are talking about length here. Obviously it would be a tight 8AB with no room for 9AB like the Airbus models.

On balance 8ab always seemed noticeably superior to me; however the weight of opinion in the industry was firmly towards 7ab.

So be it.

However this always piqued my curiosity:

"The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines."

Allowing for lighter construction and 5,000 NM only, this seemed much better fitted to 8ab than 7ab; that is an airframe in the A330 class.

cheers

ElroyJetson wrote:

There is a big hole in the market with the retirement of a 1,000 plus 757's and 763 ER's.

How many 757 and 767 are actually still in active service? And is it actually a big hole, or is it already filled? Most 757 in passenger operations will already be gone by the time this NMA potentially can have its EIS. Many of them already replaced by some version of the A321 (and even 737s). For the 767s, the lower end of the capacity can be replaced with the A321, minus the cargo, while there is a short jump up to the 787/A330 that can take care of the upper end of the needed 767 capacity and range

That doesn't mean that neither the NMA nor more derivatives of the A321 is a bad idea, but I do struggle to see the hole that needs to be filled

brindabella wrote:

On balance 8ab always seemed noticeably superior to me; however the weight of opinion in the industry was firmly towards 7ab.

So be it.

However this always piqued my curiosity:

"The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines."

Allowing for lighter construction and 5,000 NM only, this seemed much better fitted to 8ab than 7ab; that is an airframe in the A330 class.

7AB was always the authors opinion using back of the napkin calculation. Along with the 2 class versus 1 class seating number mistake these authors also made a mistake with the engine thrust. As 45,000lb in the RFP is less thrust than all 767 engines they assume it has to be 7AB. Even the small A310-300 in 8AB required over 50,000lb of thrust so it can't be 8AB according to their napkin calculations.

What they don't realise is the aircraft will be much lighter than the 767. The perfect example is the A321XLR vs 757-200. The A321XLR can carry the same payload with 12% less thrust and MTOW.

If we take the A310 and A300 and reduce the MTOW and thrust by the same 12% we are at the right at NMA thrust and passenger levels.

You are right that 50,000lb of thrust is getting close to A330 size. The A330-300 regional with its 199t derated MTOW has engines derated to 54,000lb of thrust. The shorter A330-200 could probably operate with 50,000lb thrust engines with a reduced MTOW.

Most of the authors online are not aerospace engineers so they have clearly got their napkin calculations wrong and assumed it was 7AB.

RJMAZ wrote:

brindabella wrote:

On balance 8ab always seemed noticeably superior to me; however the weight of opinion in the industry was firmly towards 7ab.

So be it.

However this always piqued my curiosity:

"The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines."

Allowing for lighter construction and 5,000 NM only, this seemed much better fitted to 8ab than 7ab; that is an airframe in the A330 class.

7AB was always the authors opinion using back of the napkin calculation. Along with the 2 class versus 1 class seating number mistake these authors also made a mistake with the engine thrust. As 45,000lb in the RFP is less thrust than all 767 engines they assume it has to be 7AB. Even the small A310-300 in 8AB required over 50,000lb of thrust so it can't be 8AB according to their napkin calculations.

What they don't realise is the aircraft will be much lighter than the 767. The perfect example is the A321XLR vs 757-200. The A321XLR can carry the same payload with 12% less thrust and MTOW.

Even more important I think than the weight reduction is the fact that both the A330 and A310 were wingspan restricted. A modern interpretation would have a larger wingspan to improve efficiency and in turn reduce thrust requirements.

RJMAZ wrote:

brindabella wrote:

On balance 8ab always seemed noticeably superior to me; however the weight of opinion in the industry was firmly towards 7ab.

So be it.

However this always piqued my curiosity:

"The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines."

Allowing for lighter construction and 5,000 NM only, this seemed much better fitted to 8ab than 7ab; that is an airframe in the A330 class.

7AB was always the authors opinion using back of the napkin calculation. Along with the 2 class versus 1 class seating number mistake these authors also made a mistake with the engine thrust. As 45,000lb in the RFP is less thrust than all 767 engines they assume it has to be 7AB. Even the small A310-300 in 8AB required over 50,000lb of thrust so it can't be 8AB according to their napkin calculations.

What they don't realise is the aircraft will be much lighter than the 767. The perfect example is the A321XLR vs 757-200. The A321XLR can carry the same payload with 12% less thrust and MTOW.

If we take the A310 and A300 and reduce the MTOW and thrust by the same 12% we are at the right at NMA thrust and passenger levels.

You are right that 50,000lb of thrust is getting close to A330 size. The A330-300 regional with its 199t derated MTOW has engines derated to 54,000lb of thrust. The shorter A330-200 could probably operate with 50,000lb thrust engines with a reduced MTOW.

Most of the authors online are not aerospace engineers so they have clearly got their napkin calculations wrong and assumed it was 7AB.

You are talking about a cross section based on your dimensions of 209"x209" that is 72% more than an A321/322 that it will be asked to compete with in a NMA-5 version and a cross section that is barely smaller than a 787. The 787 is only 234"x227" - your 8W is 82% of that - there would be no point in creating that 8W - you might as well just use the 787 cross section and save yourself billions while being able to use LD3's vs LD2's which are going the way of the Dodo bird.

You would also never be able to reuse that 8W for NSA. That is not out of the realm of possibility for a tight light 7W at about 168-170"x184-185" - whose cross section is only about 20% more than A320/321.

Plus the -5 may not need 45K engines - that may be for future larger winged NMA variants.

morrisond wrote:

a cross section that is barely smaller than a 787. The 787 is only 234"x227" - your 8W is 82% of that - there would be no point in creating that 8W - you might as well just use the 787 cross section

That is completely ridiculous.

The 787 cross section is 89% the size of the 777.
The A330 cross section is 88% the size of the A350.

My tight 8W cross section being 82% the size of the 787 is significantly smaller. The smaller nose and tail tapers will allow for it to efficiently reach the middle of the MOM gap.

morrisond wrote:

You would also never be able to reuse that 8W for NSA. That is not out of the realm of possibility for a tight light 7W at about 168-170"x184-185" - whose cross section is only about 20% more than A320/321.

That's fine because the 737MAX will be in production for 20 years. The 737MAX will most likely get replaced by a hybrid/hydrogen/electric aircraft that would have significantly less range. Airlines will need the larger NMA to do lots of the longer flights done by the 737 today.

In 2040 Boeing will probably have three aircraft families.

Small size short range (Truss emission free)
Medium size medium range (NMA)
Large size long range (787NEO)

AFAIK there are already sunk costs in a new A320 wing- they have been working on it for at least 3 years (I think).

RJMAZ wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Obviously it would be a tight 8AB with no room for 9AB like the Airbus models.

210" width versus 222" of the A300? Ovoid? A320 container or new container?

I'm not a fan of ovoid. You save a bit of drag but the fuselage gains weight compared to a circular fuselage. The extra weight then brings the drag back to normal for no overall gain.

Yes a 209 inch external diameter with LD2 containers. See attached photo

767-797.jpg

https://ibb.co/jWrnBxt

And design the thing so that the main deck can easily be strengthened for a freighter conversion.

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

a cross section that is barely smaller than a 787. The 787 is only 234"x227" - your 8W is 82% of that - there would be no point in creating that 8W - you might as well just use the 787 cross section

That is completely ridiculous.

The 787 cross section is 89% the size of the 777.
The A330 cross section is 88% the size of the A350.

My tight 8W cross section being 82% the size of the 787 is significantly smaller. The smaller nose and tail tapers will allow for it to efficiently reach the middle of the MOM gap.

morrisond wrote:

You would also never be able to reuse that 8W for NSA. That is not out of the realm of possibility for a tight light 7W at about 168-170"x184-185" - whose cross section is only about 20% more than A320/321.

That's fine because the 737MAX will be in production for 20 years. The 737MAX will most likely get replaced by a hybrid/hydrogen/electric aircraft that would have significantly less range. Airlines will need the larger NMA to do lots of the longer flights done by the 737 today.

In 2040 Boeing will probably have three aircraft families.

Small size short range (Truss emission free)
Medium size medium range (NMA)
Large size long range (787NEO)

Yes and both the 777X and 330 should probably be shut down - they are not needed as they are too close to the other cross sections.

I don't disagree with you though that the 319/MAX7/320 market could be replaced by some sort of emission free aircraft. That is what I expect airliners like WN to select to replace MAX 7/8's/319/320's and hence why I think Airbus is right to start really spending on it's ZeroE initiatives.

However it will be a long time before an emission free aircraft can seat 200 Y passengers and go 3,000NM. The MAX won't last that long - although I can see it making it to the mid 2030's when an NSA based on NMA should be available.

There would be very large holes in the lineup that you are proposing. Make it 8W if you want but it probably doesn't need to be much more than 203-204" wide (assuming 777X seats and aisle width's) and maybe 175-180" tall. No need to take LD2's - it's not like many airlines will still have them in use by the time an NMA flies. Use something not as tall and smaller to make your aircraft more efficient at smaller sizes so it can bridge the gap to whatever they pick for the emission free solution.

Otherwise you might as well stick with the 787 cross section or reuse the 767 as economies of scale are a large issue and basing NMA on something that can only be used on 1,000ish frames seems like a very unwise economic decision.

If you want Airlines to bring back the LD2 after it will have faded from use you would be better off to reuse the 767 cross section and sculpt the sidewalls like 777X to make it 8W and cram the seats in.

Even without sculpting 8W has been done before on 767. viewtopic.php?t=1349799

It could work well on Y- then 2-3-2 on Y. Of course all new wing, Tail, cockpit, etc..

Or do NMA (in a -5 version basically an NSA-ER) based on the same cross section as NSA and amortize the whole program over 5,000-10,000 frames.

ElroyJetson wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think Airbus is in a good position with a rewinged A321 Neo with a half generation newer engine tech. As many have said, the existing A320 wing is now well over 30 years old and is maxed out completely. A stretched, rewinged A321 with a seating capacity between 215-250 with around 4800 nm range should be the sweet spot.

There is a big hole in the market with the retirement of a 1,000 plus 757's and 763 ER's. In addition, a much more efficient NMA from Airbus would likely open up new potential markets. I think Boeing would find it hard to compete in that market segment. for Boeing I think their best move is a clean sheet 737 replacement with as much new tech as possible. Basically, a moon shot. The question is do they have the financial resources resources and the will in the current market environment to do so.

Could Airbus create 2 wings at minor extra cost (versus 1) and install the smaller on the A319/320neo and the bigger one (maybe with a bogie) on the A321/322neo? 4 models, 2 sub-families with major commonalities as far as systems are concerned.
Is that feasible?

The development cost to rewing would probably cost 1.5 to 2 billion. If I had to guess Airbus builds one new wing that is essentially over built for the smaller model so it can be used for both. Boeing basically did that with the 772. The wing was huge but they were factoring in the larger much heavier 77W coming down the line.

With a slightly higher rewing cost (say in the 2 to 2.5 billion), can't they concurrently develop 2 wings, with great commonality, to better fine-tune the capabilities of each airframe? That is, if there is a need to do that.
Compromising saves money, but is still a compromise.

The other portion of this equation is, would Airbus sell less planes if they compromise the wings? And the other side of the coin: can they sell more, due to the fact that production is limited?

WayexTDI wrote:

With a slightly higher rewing cost (say in the 2 to 2.5 billion), can't they concurrently develop 2 wings, with great commonality, to better fine-tune the capabilities of each airframe? That is, if there is a need to do that.
Compromising saves money, but is still a compromise.

The other portion of this equation is, would Airbus sell less planes if they compromise the wings? And the other side of the coin: can they sell more, due to the fact that production is limited?

The problem is the code C wingspan limit. There is no point having two wing designs if the span is the same.
The A321 wing is already compromised at 101t MTOW. It's ideal wing would have a span of more than 40m. With the A320 being limited to the same span then it is easiest for the heavier model to generate more lift with larger flaps and trailing edge.

Embraer E2 models have different wingspan with a scalable, high commonality wings. But all models are within the code C limit.

The only option would be for the Airbus to develop folding wingtips for the A321XXLR but I would expect even the A320 to benefit from the greater span. The A220 and E-195 wings are already at the code C limit with their much lower 60-70t MTOW.

morrisond wrote:

Yes and both the 777X and 330 should probably be shut down - they are not needed as they are too close to the other cross sections.

This I agree as 88-89% is a little too close in size. However 82% is definitely at the point where you can have a different cross section. The A220 is 84% of the A320 cross section

My tight 8AB 5.3m circular cross section has only 3% greater area than the 767. Yet the 8AB A330 cross section is a massive 13% bigger than mine.

The A220/A320 families are the best comparison while the smaller A220 has 84% of the cross section it has only 70% of the MTOW 75% of the thrust and 75% of the empty weight. The A321XLR is much more capable.

I would expect my NMA to have 82% the cross section of the 787-9 but with 60% of the MTOW and 65% of empty weight. The engines would be 65% of the thrust of the 787-9. We then have:

Empty Weight: 83t
MTOW: 152t
Thrust: 46,000lb

With two NMA models the shorter length might be 80t and the longer length might be 86t empty weight.

morrisond wrote:

However it will be a long time before an emission free aircraft can seat 200 Y passengers and go 3,000NM. The MAX won't last that long - although I can see it making it to the mid 2030's when an NSA based on NMA should be available.

It will probably be 100 years until an emission free aircraft can do 3000nm. The first emission free commercial aircraft will most likely be limited to flights below 1000nm. Boeing would know this so they will also need a smaller aircraft to do the longer flights done by current narrowbodies. The lightweight 8AB NMA can then operate these flights.

morrisond wrote:

Make it 8W if you want but it probably doesn't need to be much more than 203-204" wide (assuming 777X seats and aisle width's) and maybe 175-180" tall. No need to take LD2's -

Like my first design?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/797.jpg

I worked out the extra weight cancels out the drag reduction. You would be better just going circular and leave most of the cargo hold empty. Or just fit LD3-45 cans in the big LD2 capable hold.

morrisond wrote:

...and basing NMA on something that can only be used on 1,000ish frames seems like a very unwise economic decision.

Why?

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes and both the 777X and 330 should probably be shut down - they are not needed as they are too close to the other cross sections.

This I agree as 88-89% is a little too close in size. However 82% is definitely at the point where you can have a different cross section. The A220 is 84% of the A320 cross section

My tight 8AB 5.3m circular cross section has only 3% greater area than the 767. Yet the 8AB A330 cross section is a massive 13% bigger than mine.

The A220/A320 families are the best comparison while the smaller A220 has 84% of the cross section it has only 70% of the MTOW 75% of the thrust and 75% of the empty weight. The A321XLR is much more capable.

I would expect my NMA to have 82% the cross section of the 787-9 but with 60% of the MTOW and 65% of empty weight. The engines would be 65% of the thrust of the 787-9. We then have:

Empty Weight: 83t
MTOW: 152t
Thrust: 46,000lb

With two NMA models the shorter length might be 80t and the longer length might be 86t empty weight.

morrisond wrote:

However it will be a long time before an emission free aircraft can seat 200 Y passengers and go 3,000NM. The MAX won't last that long - although I can see it making it to the mid 2030's when an NSA based on NMA should be available.

It will probably be 100 years until an emission free aircraft can do 3000nm. The first emission free commercial aircraft will most likely be limited to flights below 1000nm. Boeing would know this so they will also need a smaller aircraft to do the longer flights done by current narrowbodies. The lightweight 8AB NMA can then operate these flights.

morrisond wrote:

Make it 8W if you want but it probably doesn't need to be much more than 203-204" wide (assuming 777X seats and aisle width's) and maybe 175-180" tall. No need to take LD2's -

Like my first design?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/797.jpg

I worked out the extra weight cancels out the drag reduction. You would be better just going circular and leave most of the cargo hold empty. Or just fit LD3-45 cans in the big LD2 capable hold.

Where is Fred when you need him? A 200 seat 8W with an LD3-45? Okay....

If you think that is the solution then stick with the 767 and do to it what Boeing did with the 777X.

Sokes wrote:

morrisond wrote:

...and basing NMA on something that can only be used on 1,000ish frames seems like a very unwise economic decision.

Why?

Economies of Scale.

You would be much better to use whatever cross section you pick for NSA then you have common cockpit and fuselage sections, common systems, common production line, administrative group, etc...

You would radically change what you could sell an NMA for especially under Program accounting. Dividing costs by 5,000-10,000 frames is a lot better than dividing development cost by 1,000 frames. The cost of doing a combined NSA/NMA program won't be 5-10x the cost of a standalone NMA.

morrisond wrote:

Dividing costs by 5,000-10,000 frames is a lot better than dividing development cost by 1,000 frames. The cost of doing a combined NSA/NMA program won't be 5-10x the cost of a standalone NMA.

Yes, selling 10.000 frames would be nice. However most narrowbodies are used on rather short ranges. I expect 1000 nm to be done on narrowbodies in future as well. We speak about the more demanding narrowbody missions.

We are not speaking of tooth picks. 1000 frames sounds good to me.

I don't understand the second sentence. We speak about different fuselages, different wings and different engines. I doubt a parallel development can save a lot of money.

Sokes wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Dividing costs by 5,000-10,000 frames is a lot better than dividing development cost by 1,000 frames. The cost of doing a combined NSA/NMA program won't be 5-10x the cost of a standalone NMA.

Yes, selling 10.000 frames would be nice. However most narrowbodies are used on rather short ranges. I expect 1000 nm to be done on narrowbodies in future as well. We speak about the more demanding narrowbody missions.

We are not speaking of tooth picks. 1000 frames sounds good to me.

I don't understand the second sentence. We speak about different fuselages, different wings and different engines. I doubt a parallel development can save a lot of money.

I'm assuming NMA and NSA use the same Cockpit/cross section and maybe with the NMA-5 even the same size wingbox - albeit reinforced making the NMA-5 basically an NSA-ER. Of course it would have a different longer wing, stronger gear/higher thrust.

There is large savings when you build something at a rate 10x something else it allows everything to be much more automated.

It is also why I believe that whatever Airbus chooses for a cross section for ZeroE will be used as the A320/321 replacement eventually and if it is 2-3-2 it could be used to replace A330 as well.

IMO Airbus has more of a luxury in going with 2-3-2 as they have the A220 which could potentially take over the market for them up to 200 seats.

morrisond wrote:

Where is Fred when you need him? A 200 seat 8W with an LD3-45? Okay.....

I’m here reading but too busy with work to do any modelling (1am finish tonight). I am also busy transferring my models to a more user friendly interface so that they are useful for everyone not just me, I was hoping a fill in the blanks and press go but it seems there is a lot to fill in and code...

My ongoing thought at the moment is about the over/under winging debate we have here. Whilst it seems, on the surface at least, that wing area is very important to the operation it’s main effect is at takeoff and the second segment in particular where excess thrust is key at low speeds. When it comes to cruise performance the trade off isn’t really ‘that’ sensitive. It might seem better to be up high but a small wing does have lower surface area and is lighter which means much (nearly all) of the disadvantage can be clawed back. Think of the 779X, it has about 3-4% L/D advantage compared to the 77W but then the 779X has about a 9% OWE disadvantage (5% from the wing). If the 779X was the same length as the 77W then at weights below about 230t the 77W would have less drag...

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

morrisond wrote:

Where is Fred when you need him? A 200 seat 8W with an LD3-45? Okay....

If you think that is the solution then stick with the 767 and do to it what Boeing did with the 777X.

Here is his weight model using my 5.3m circular cross section. From 240 to 300 passengers in single class it is the most structurally efficient cross section. It is the second most structurally efficient cross section from 220 to 320 passengers.

Let's take an existing airline that operated the A320 with LD3-45 containers and they purchased the tight 8AB circular NMA that fits LD2 containers. They could simply put the LD3-45 containers into the NMA if it is only passenger bags.

Let's take an airline that operated the A330 or 787 that uses LD3 containers they wanted to open new thin routes. They can still fit a single LD3 container in the space of two LD2 containers if it is only passenger bags.

morrisond wrote:

I'm assuming NMA and NSA use the same Cockpit/cross section and maybe with the NMA-5 even the same size wingbox - albeit reinforced making the NMA-5 basically an NSA-ER. Of course it would have a different longer wing, stronger gear/higher thrust.

Yes but the next cleansheet narrowbody will be emission free or hybrid. It could not share any engines, wings or systems with the longer ranged NMA.

The cockpit is probably the only thing that can be shared and this doesn't matter what cross section is used.

The 737 replacement will probably have a wing full of batteries and can only fly up to 1000nm. Doing a conventional powered narrowbody in 5 years time when emission free technology will be available in 10 years time would be incredibly stupid.

The Boeing NMA 2-4-2 would see Boeing planning for the future when portion of the current A321/737 flights can not be done by the replacement aircraft for the 737/A321 families.

flipdewaf wrote:

When it comes to cruise performance the trade off isn’t really ‘that’ sensitive. It might seem better to be up high but a small wing does have lower surface area and is lighter which means much (nearly all) of the disadvantage can be clawed back.

I have definitely noticed this as well. If the aircraft is optimised for shorter stage lengths then it if best to have an underwinged aircraft and just add 10% more thrust for takeoff performance. This is exactly what the A321XLR does with its small wingspan and high 101t MTOW.

Empty weight per passenger is the primary metric for measuring short haul performance and a big wing increases empty weight which reduces short haul performance.

With composite wings the most optimised wing span is going to be longer. A few extra metres of wingspan for no weight gain and a nice performance improvement.

If the my tight 8AB with its 150t MTOW also goes with the underwinged design like the A321XLR then the wingspan could be as low as 42m. The A310 for instance has 43.9m of wingspan for a 164t MTOW.

A 42m wingspan could easily have two 3m folding wingtips to fit inside code C gates. The underwing design would explain the very high 50,000lb thrust engines.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Where is Fred when you need him? A 200 seat 8W with an LD3-45? Okay.....

I’m here reading but too busy with work to do any modelling (1am finish tonight). I am also busy transferring my models to a more user friendly interface so that they are useful for everyone not just me, I was hoping a fill in the blanks and press go but it seems there is a lot to fill in and code...

My ongoing thought at the moment is about the over/under winging debate we have here. Whilst it seems, on the surface at least, that wing area is very important to the operation it’s main effect is at takeoff and the second segment in particular where excess thrust is key at low speeds. When it comes to cruise performance the trade off isn’t really ‘that’ sensitive. It might seem better to be up high but a small wing does have lower surface area and is lighter which means much (nearly all) of the disadvantage can be clawed back. Think of the 779X, it has about 3-4% L/D advantage compared to the 77W but then the 779X has about a 9% OWE disadvantage (5% from the wing). If the 779X was the same length as the 77W then at weights below about 230t the 77W would have less drag...

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then again, larger wingspan is lighter engines with less drag and less fuel weightneeded. So that compensates a bit the other way as well

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Where is Fred when you need him? A 200 seat 8W with an LD3-45? Okay....

If you think that is the solution then stick with the 767 and do to it what Boeing did with the 777X.

Here is his weight model using my 5.3m circular cross section. From 240 to 300 passengers in single class it is the most structurally efficient cross section. It is the second most structurally efficient cross section from 220 to 320 passengers.

Let's take an existing airline that operated the A320 with LD3-45 containers and they purchased the tight 8AB circular NMA that fits LD2 containers. They could simply put the LD3-45 containers into the NMA if it is only passenger bags.

Let's take an airline that operated the A330 or 787 that uses LD3 containers they wanted to open new thin routes. They can still fit a single LD3 container in the space of two LD2 containers if it is only passenger bags.

morrisond wrote:

I'm assuming NMA and NSA use the same Cockpit/cross section and maybe with the NMA-5 even the same size wingbox - albeit reinforced making the NMA-5 basically an NSA-ER. Of course it would have a different longer wing, stronger gear/higher thrust.

Yes but the next cleansheet narrowbody will be emission free or hybrid. It could not share any engines, wings or systems with the longer ranged NMA.

The cockpit is probably the only thing that can be shared and this doesn't matter what cross section is used.

The 737 replacement will probably have a wing full of batteries and can only fly up to 1000nm. Doing a conventional powered narrowbody in 5 years time when emission free technology will be available in 10 years time would be incredibly stupid.

The Boeing NMA 2-4-2 would see Boeing planning for the future when portion of the current A321/737 flights can not be done by the replacement aircraft for the 737/A321 families.

You are forgetting that Boeing is seeing no need for Zero Emissions at this point and have said that for them Biofuels are the answer, for which the basic architecture of the airplane doesn't change.

A battery powered 737 sized Aircraft that can fly 1,000nm may be possible in 2045 - may - but good luck in charging it in 20 minutes for WN style turns. The MAX won't last that long in production.

I think that Boeing Aircraft will come but as I said before it will be a long time before it can seat 200 people and go up to 3,000NM. I suspect it will be a lot smaller than a 737 as the first Generation - possibly 2x3 and start at 100-130 seats before growing as battery tech or fuel cell tech gets up to speed. Fuel cells you also need all the LH2 infrastructure.

Plus I am assuming that the NMA/NSA cross section is 2-3-2 while agreeing that it could be 3x3.

RJMAZ wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

With a slightly higher rewing cost (say in the 2 to 2.5 billion), can't they concurrently develop 2 wings, with great commonality, to better fine-tune the capabilities of each airframe? That is, if there is a need to do that.
Compromising saves money, but is still a compromise.

The other portion of this equation is, would Airbus sell less planes if they compromise the wings? And the other side of the coin: can they sell more, due to the fact that production is limited?

The problem is the code C wingspan limit. There is no point having two wing designs if the span is the same.
The A321 wing is already compromised at 101t MTOW. It's ideal wing would have a span of more than 40m. With the A320 being limited to the same span then it is easiest for the heavier model to generate more lift with larger flaps and trailing edge.

Embraer E2 models have different wingspan with a scalable, high commonality wings. But all models are within the code C limit.

The only option would be for the Airbus to develop folding wingtips for the A321XXLR but I would expect even the A320 to benefit from the greater span. The A220 and E-195 wings are already at the code C limit with their much lower 60-70t MTOW.

Thanks for this explanation.
Well, they could decide to make the A321/322 the "perfect" 757 replacement and enter the Code D group (in which the 757 falls), while keeping the A319/320 in Code C.
Everything is possible; does it make sense, that's another question.

I mean most things are possible, BUT limiting your cashcow to a comparably miniscule and shrinking amount of gates because you want to make the "perfect" replacement for something dead for almost 2 decades sounds rather meh

I think a new 180-250 seat PW1137 powered A322NEO would make Boeing abandon the NMA businesss case.
And launch an NSA to regain parity in the 150-200 seat NB segment, the bulk of the market.

Probably a reason Airbus stays quiet on an XLR based A322. A 60+% market share, 70+% revenue share is way better than fighting for every order.
Let them focus on free cash flow, dividents and dream NMA as if we live in 1992.


source airbus.com
.

Try as I might, couldn't find that image of A220-500 with a fly on Airbus' site! But since we're already talking about new wings for it, they might as well replace the wingtips with A33N-style sharklets for better aerodynamics (and sharper image) while staying within the A220's current gate limits.

Talking about wings, does Airbus' BLADE/Laminar flow wing (if Airbus finds the results fruitful) fit into any of or both of the A225/A322neo concepts?

WayexTDI wrote:

Thanks for this explanation.
Well, they could decide to make the A321/322 the "perfect" 757 replacement and enter the Code D group (in which the 757 falls), while keeping the A319/320 in Code C.
Everything is possible; does it make sense, that's another question.

It makes perfect sense for Airbus to put a carbon wing on the A321. A carbon wing the same size would probably reduce weight by 1,000kg as a rough estimate. Airbus could then put 2.5m folding wingtips that would probably add 2,000kg of weight for a 1,000kg total weight gain.

This bigger wing gives the following advantages:

1) The lift to drag ratio would improve by 3-4%.
2) The aircraft could cruise higher much earlier improving fuel burn.
3) The fuel saved would cancel out the extra weight so there would be no reduction in range at the same MTOW.
4) The bigger wing would slightly reduce the takeoff and landing speed.
5) A MTOW increase to say 105t could happen without needing extra thrust or stronger landing gear adding another 500nm range.
6) Rotation angle is reduced on takeoff allowing for a stretch to A322 length without tail strike issues.
7) Airbus now has a 5,000nm A321XXLR 200 seater and a 4,000nm A322 250 seater with fuel burn that can match a cleansheet design.
8) The new wing can slowly fade onto the A321 size reducing pressure on the production ramp.
9) The families moves further up in capability creating market for the A220.

Add the A220-500 to create a 2,500nm range A320 replacement.

keesje wrote:

I think a new 180-250 seat PW1137 powered A322NEO would make Boeing abandon the NMA businesss case.
And launch an NSA to regain parity in the 150-200 seat NB segment, the bulk of the market.

Probably a reason Airbus stays quiet on an XLR based A322. A 60+% market share, 70+% revenue share is way better than fighting for every order.
Let them focus on free cash flow, dividents and dream NMA as if we live in 1992.


source airbus.com
.

That's funny when you think it should be the New Wing A322 and you post a pic of an A220-500 which if Airbus does that before NMA is launched - I think causes Boeing to do the wrong thing and do a NSA 3x3 and then basically cede the Market above MAX 10 to Airbus.

I think it will be harder to make money in the 2x3/3x3 less than 200 seat going forward (by the time a new NSA could EIS) given how good the A220 is and how big I would guess the C919 could be by then in terms of market share.

If Airbus does the A322 New Wing - no reason to focus on that less than 200 seat market as MAX 10 is more than competitive enough absent an A220-500.

They would probably just make NMA-5 a little bigger than A322 and focus on bigger variants beyond that which the A322 won't be able to match as it will of course be 2-3-2 and could be stretched a lot more.

keesje wrote:

I think a new 180-250 seat PW1137 powered A322NEO would make Boeing abandon the NMA businesss case.
And launch an NSA to regain parity in the 150-200 seat NB segment, the bulk of the market.

Probably a reason Airbus stays quiet on an XLR based A322. A 60+% market share, 70+% revenue share is way better than fighting for every order.
Let them focus on free cash flow, dividents and dream NMA as if we live in 1992.


source airbus.com
.

A few observations about Airbus' potential moves.

As I posted earlier, I believe there is a "leading" element to the Airbus strategy and a "lagging" element.
The leading element is incremental change to the A320/A321NEO
Whilst the NEO is so strong, and whilst NMA stays a nefarious and undefined product, I don't think Airbus will launch major changes to the NEO.
I think they will continue to push the NEO with relatively low hanging fruit, like the XLR.

I think a look at the MAX shows that size changes only really happen when there is an imperative from lack of sales.
The 737-7 was increased in size so as to capture the WN order when the original size had stalled.
The 737-10 was introduced due to the failure of the 737-9 to address the A321.

Currently the A320NEO has a backlog of 2,650 units.
I think an A320.5 makes great sense in a product strategy, but I don't see it happening with such a large A320 backlog.
Not yet, anyway
When sales of A320NEO dry up, then maybe this will happen.

A322?
It seems clear that a pretty simple stretch of the XLR could be done.
And I think the driver in this case would be to further narrow the NMA gap.

We have a clear tendency to focus on the extra range/payload capability that NMA may have over an A321/A322.
But on the basis that average narrowbody sectors are about 1,000Nm and medium size widebody sectors are about 3,000Nm, I think that a simple stretch A322 would be a really valid development, and a real way of further limiting the market for NMA for very little cost.
A 4 ish metre stretch with 4-5 extra rows ( depending on config) would almost certainly match the range capability of the current A321NEO (c. 3,500Nm nominal, 2,800Nm ish "real-world" i.e. westbound, or LCC config).
This range capability doesn't seem to have harmed the A321NEO one tiny bit, despite the fact that it would be marginal at best for TATL.
What portion of NMA market do we think TATL really is?

I think that both the 321NEO/XLR and simple A322 would benefit from incremental engine gains as the OEM's work on the NMA's engines.
And despite all the existing MTOW gains, I wouldn't bet against Airbus using digital technologies and MBSE to release another 1 tonne or so of MTOW, making the XLR a nominal 5,000Nm plane, and the A322 a c.3,800Nm-3,900Nm nominal plane, and probably capable of "near-range" TATL

Now for the "lagging" bit of the strategy
New wing? New landing gear? New engines?
I don't think any of these will happen any time soon.
I think Airbus will keep their powder dry on the big investments until/unless Boeing launch NMA, and actually see how they need to react.
That way they will have milked the NEO for maximum return and profit for minimum expense, and be in a very good place to appropriately position a strong response when required.
What that will be? Could be

major NEO changes
an all-new 3x3
an all-new 2-3-2
an all-new 2-4-2

Who knows?

Rgds

Boeing for a while had the dogma "everything must be trans-pacific capable" (that is except for the 787-3). This left open a gap below that is now filled with the A321XLR and future possible cousins.

There is room for something above narrow body and below conventional wide bodies on both sides of the Atlantic. That 767 diameter as a modular family with latest engines and materials. Let's be clear about it: This cannot be the next NSA at the same time in any way. I can certainly donate some DNA but nothing more.

Let's build some smaller fuselage 787 and A350. Upcoming suites seats and budget economy need space and economies above narrow body sized aircraft.

Noshow wrote:

Boeing for a while had the dogma "everything must be trans-pacific capable" (that is except for the 787-3). This left open a gap below that is now filled with the A321XLR and future possible cousins. There is room for something above narrow body and below conventional wide bodies on both sides of the Atlantic.

I don't believe that this has been demonstrated to be "fact" in the marketplace yet.
There's a reason that the mid market gap exists. No-one has sensibly explained why that is, yet.

Noshow wrote:

That 767 diameter as a modular family with latest engines and materials. Let's be clear about it: This cannot be the next NSA at the same time in any way. I can certainly donate some DNA but nothing more.

I think the timing thing is something we haven't discussed properly yet.
I think the reality of the current financial position, and the ongoing risk that recovery may be slower than anticipated will delay any new programme launch for a couple of years yet.
I see 2023 at the earliest.
I also think those same factors will ensure that, whatever "digital manufacturing" world we exist in, it will be 2030 or 2031 before EIS

But here's the conversation we've not really had.
If that new programme is NMA, then when does NSA come along?
I've heard a lot of people say that the logic for going NMA first is to "prove the manufacturing paradigm for high volume NSA" and immediately follow that with an NSA timeline that is at most 2 years behind NMA.
Makes me laugh a bit.
Just how much of a volume manufacturing paradigm will have been proven 2 years after the launch of NMA?
That will be none.

If that is the logic behind NSA timing, then it will be 5 years minimum behind NMA, possibly more - so 2036 - 2037 EIS at the earliest.... IMHO

Rgds

Res why the MOM gap, not a solution but a restatement. Somehow it has to do with the 'bones' of the planes. Somewhat like a 5 person sedan, a compact SUV, likewise a 7 person SUV all look alike, to the bewilderment of designers who struggle to make them look distinctive.

A five abreast jet turbine bypass plane has economics that somehow make it difficult to be below a certain size, nor above a certain size. The most efficient models and ranges have been/ are being fought out by Embraer and Bombardier (now Airbus).

The 707/727/DC8 have given way to the 737/320 with available engines which have evolved into large trans Atlantic models. Both of which have about 5 times the range of their most common mission. Odd.

The various 2 aisle wide bodies have evolved into the 787/350* 9 abreast astounding range and anything else (330/777) struggles to survive

To my mind the 300/767 and even the old 330 8 abreast given the right engine with limited not ultra range should be possible. It may be a 'bell the cat' problem. Also available engines somehow dictate what a 5,6,9 abreast plane can do. I also expect hybrid electric and electric to up end the lower end of the market, probably not in my lifetime. I'm old.


ps - the 350 is toying with 10 abreast. Yeow!

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Talking about wings, does Airbus' BLADE/Laminar flow wing (if Airbus finds the results fruitful) fit into any of or both of the A225/A322neo concepts?

I would push the idea even further. I don't expect Airbus to broadcast (yet) what they are really up to, but their "Bird of Prey" (https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2019/07/airbus-conceptual-airliner-to-inspire-new-generation-engineers.html) in my mind points to two potential (and not so radical, TRL-wise) improvements.

The first is wing morphing. Properly scheduled with, say, weight, altitude and speed, it could turn into a true mission-adaptive wing (the concept is not new). The other is greatly reduced or completely eliminated vertical tail, with larger size winglets doing double duty as rudders.

Airbus plans to launch hybrid narrowbody replacement
of A320 family by 2035 https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 44.article

Captaincurious wrote:

Airbus plans to launch hybrid narrowbody replacement
of A320 family by 2035 https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 44.article

Wonder if this will affect our speculation of an A320 plus and A225. Though in my opinion, A322 is still likely to go forward.

What it means is that they are not done with the A320neo-family yet. No surprise so far.

astuteman wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Boeing for a while had the dogma "everything must be trans-pacific capable" (that is except for the 787-3). This left open a gap below that is now filled with the A321XLR and future possible cousins. There is room for something above narrow body and below conventional wide bodies on both sides of the Atlantic.

I don't believe that this has been demonstrated to be "fact" in the marketplace yet.
There's a reason that the mid market gap exists. No-one has sensibly explained why that is, yet.

Noshow wrote:

That 767 diameter as a modular family with latest engines and materials. Let's be clear about it: This cannot be the next NSA at the same time in any way. I can certainly donate some DNA but nothing more.

I think the timing thing is something we haven't discussed properly yet.
I think the reality of the current financial position, and the ongoing risk that recovery may be slower than anticipated will delay any new programme launch for a couple of years yet.
I see 2023 at the earliest.
I also think those same factors will ensure that, whatever "digital manufacturing" world we exist in, it will be 2030 or 2031 before EIS

But here's the conversation we've not really had.
If that new programme is NMA, then when does NSA come along?
I've heard a lot of people say that the logic for going NMA first is to "prove the manufacturing paradigm for high volume NSA" and immediately follow that with an NSA timeline that is at most 2 years behind NMA.
Makes me laugh a bit.
Just how much of a volume manufacturing paradigm will have been proven 2 years after the launch of NMA?
That will be none.

If that is the logic behind NSA timing, then it will be 5 years minimum behind NMA, possibly more - so 2036 - 2037 EIS at the earliest.... IMHO

Rgds

First, congrats on #141 above.
Masterful- and it also elucidates much about the 777X strategy.

I look forward to your matching analysis on the Boeing path forward.
I anticipate the entire dialogue improving and improving until we get matching announcements from both AB and BA:

"OK - we give in - it's all on a.net so we've fired the propaganda departments to save money!".



Now to my question prompted by my highlighted quote EG:

"Just how much of a volume manufacturing paradigm will have been proven 2 years after the launch of NMA?
That will be none."

Up until now the folks like me who have no background in digital manufacturing have had to quietly accept the buzz about "digital manufacturing",
and the T-7 has been used as an example of the new paradigm.

Given that we are talking about BA looking to gain a large new increment of manufacturing efficiency for the NMA -
1) how does digital manufacturing achieve this?
2) why would there be no good results showing just yet after 2 years of initial production?

cheers

brindabella wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Boeing for a while had the dogma "everything must be trans-pacific capable" (that is except for the 787-3). This left open a gap below that is now filled with the A321XLR and future possible cousins. There is room for something above narrow body and below conventional wide bodies on both sides of the Atlantic.

I don't believe that this has been demonstrated to be "fact" in the marketplace yet.
There's a reason that the mid market gap exists. No-one has sensibly explained why that is, yet.

Noshow wrote:

That 767 diameter as a modular family with latest engines and materials. Let's be clear about it: This cannot be the next NSA at the same time in any way. I can certainly donate some DNA but nothing more.

I think the timing thing is something we haven't discussed properly yet.
I think the reality of the current financial position, and the ongoing risk that recovery may be slower than anticipated will delay any new programme launch for a couple of years yet.
I see 2023 at the earliest.
I also think those same factors will ensure that, whatever "digital manufacturing" world we exist in, it will be 2030 or 2031 before EIS

But here's the conversation we've not really had.
If that new programme is NMA, then when does NSA come along?
I've heard a lot of people say that the logic for going NMA first is to "prove the manufacturing paradigm for high volume NSA" and immediately follow that with an NSA timeline that is at most 2 years behind NMA.
Makes me laugh a bit.
Just how much of a volume manufacturing paradigm will have been proven 2 years after the launch of NMA?
That will be none.

If that is the logic behind NSA timing, then it will be 5 years minimum behind NMA, possibly more - so 2036 - 2037 EIS at the earliest.... IMHO

Rgds

First, congrats on #141 above.
Masterful- and it also elucidates much about the 777X strategy.

I look forward to your matching analysis on the Boeing path forward.
I anticipate the entire dialogue improving and improving until we get matching announcements from both AB and BA:

"OK - we give in - it's all on a.net so we've fired the propaganda departments to save money!".



Now to my question prompted by my highlighted quote EG:

"Just how much of a volume manufacturing paradigm will have been proven 2 years after the launch of NMA?
That will be none."

Up until now the folks like me who have no background in digital manufacturing have had to quietly accept the buzz about "digital manufacturing",
and the T-7 has been used as an example of the new paradigm.

Given that we are talking about BA looking to gain a large new increment of manufacturing efficiency for the NMA -
1) how does digital manufacturing achieve this?
2) why would there be no good results showing just yet after 2 years of initial production?

cheers

The main problem with digital manufacturing, what a buzzword, is, why should it give a manufacturing advantage to Boeing?

What is this digital manufacturing people talk about?
If it is having all designs in 3D CAD, moving those designs to CAM, reviewing those designs in virtual reality, than Airbus is there.
If it includes highly automated manufacturing, Airbus is there.