Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:58 am

Polot wrote:
The 737’s wing is slightly larger than the A320neo’s wing. The A321neo has a slight area increase (although still around size of 737 wing at most) but has things like double slotted flaps, not found on the MAX 10, to help low speed lift. Both (MAX 10 and A321) could really benefit from new larger wings though.


The full 737 type range has double slotted flaps .. and thrust gates ...
a less clean aero design.

Aerodynamically the A320 family wing, though older, seems to do better than the NG( and thus MAX) wings.
At gestation the A321 got double slotted flaps to cope with rotation limits.
Airbus now seems to have a solution at hand that in a single slotted design allows the same or better performance.
( Add in variable profile control in cruise? )
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:27 pm

WIederling wrote:
Polot wrote:
The 737’s wing is slightly larger than the A320neo’s wing. The A321neo has a slight area increase (although still around size of 737 wing at most) but has things like double slotted flaps, not found on the MAX 10, to help low speed lift. Both (MAX 10 and A321) could really benefit from new larger wings though.


The full 737 type range has double slotted flaps .. and thrust gates ...
a less clean aero design.

Aerodynamically the A320 family wing, though older, seems to do better than the NG( and thus MAX) wings.
At gestation the A321 got double slotted flaps to cope with rotation limits.
Airbus now seems to have a solution at hand that in a single slotted design allows the same or better performance.
( Add in variable profile control in cruise? )


I'm not sure I agree the A320 wing is better than the NG wing.

The A320 wing is exceptionally good at slow speeds, especially considering when it was developed and the tools available at the time. The 737 wing is constrained by rotation angle (AOA). Considering the limitations, it does amazingly well. However, at a system level, the nod goes to the A320.

At altitude, the tables are reversed. The newer NG wing does a bit better. Slightly higher optimum altitudes. A bit less cruise drag. One could maybe argue this is related to the wingtip optimizations. Regardless, it does a bit better.

A320's biggest drawback is lack of fuel capacity. That has hurt the frame over its entire life. I think Boeing may have had to do more to the NG had the A320 has a better fuel capacity. ACT's in the A321 are efficiency killers: heavy, structurally inefficient (bad spot to carry the weight), etc.
 
brindabella
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:13 am

Okcflyer wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Polot wrote:
The 737’s wing is slightly larger than the A320neo’s wing. The A321neo has a slight area increase (although still around size of 737 wing at most) but has things like double slotted flaps, not found on the MAX 10, to help low speed lift. Both (MAX 10 and A321) could really benefit from new larger wings though.


The full 737 type range has double slotted flaps .. and thrust gates ...
a less clean aero design.

Aerodynamically the A320 family wing, though older, seems to do better than the NG( and thus MAX) wings.
At gestation the A321 got double slotted flaps to cope with rotation limits.
Airbus now seems to have a solution at hand that in a single slotted design allows the same or better performance.
( Add in variable profile control in cruise? )


I'm not sure I agree the A320 wing is better than the NG wing.

The A320 wing is exceptionally good at slow speeds, especially considering when it was developed and the tools available at the time. The 737 wing is constrained by rotation angle (AOA). Considering the limitations, it does amazingly well. However, at a system level, the nod goes to the A320.

At altitude, the tables are reversed. The newer NG wing does a bit better. Slightly higher optimum altitudes. A bit less cruise drag. One could maybe argue this is related to the wingtip optimizations. Regardless, it does a bit better.

A320's biggest drawback is lack of fuel capacity. That has hurt the frame over its entire life. I think Boeing may have had to do more to the NG had the A320 has a better fuel capacity. ACT's in the A321 are efficiency killers: heavy, structurally inefficient (bad spot to carry the weight), etc.


Interesting,thanks.

What would you say to the suggestion above that the MAX9 could become a viable competitor to the A321LR/XLR?

Or might the MAX8 be better?

cheers
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:19 pm

brindabella wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
WIederling wrote:

The full 737 type range has double slotted flaps .. and thrust gates ...
a less clean aero design.

Aerodynamically the A320 family wing, though older, seems to do better than the NG( and thus MAX) wings.
At gestation the A321 got double slotted flaps to cope with rotation limits.
Airbus now seems to have a solution at hand that in a single slotted design allows the same or better performance.
( Add in variable profile control in cruise? )


I'm not sure I agree the A320 wing is better than the NG wing.

The A320 wing is exceptionally good at slow speeds, especially considering when it was developed and the tools available at the time. The 737 wing is constrained by rotation angle (AOA). Considering the limitations, it does amazingly well. However, at a system level, the nod goes to the A320.

At altitude, the tables are reversed. The newer NG wing does a bit better. Slightly higher optimum altitudes. A bit less cruise drag. One could maybe argue this is related to the wingtip optimizations. Regardless, it does a bit better.

A320's biggest drawback is lack of fuel capacity. That has hurt the frame over its entire life. I think Boeing may have had to do more to the NG had the A320 has a better fuel capacity. ACT's in the A321 are efficiency killers: heavy, structurally inefficient (bad spot to carry the weight), etc.


Interesting,thanks.

What would you say to the suggestion above that the MAX9 could become a viable competitor to the A321LR/XLR?

Or might the MAX8 be better?

cheers


It's been rumored that Boeing shopped-around a MAX8 ER version using the -9 MTOW (88.3T) for a net gain of 6.1T (compared to standard MAX8 of 82.2T). That's enough payload gain to be able to stretch range from 3500nm of standard MAX8 to 4500nm like the XLR. It only needs about 4.5T of more fuel to do that.

The problem is -- there isn't fuel volume for that extra load. It will require at least 1 possibly 2 ACTs in the belly to do that. This makes baggage space an issue. And ACTs aren't light, might cut into payload.

Bigger problem is that the MAX is not optimized at this stage length. It's lower bypass engines, lack of proper landing gear doors, and other weight compromises that increase drag rear their ugly heads. End result is that the MAX8 ER will burn basically as much fuel as an A321neoXLR on a 4500nm flight despite 13% less cabin capacity.

This means that any sizable operator will take the XLR over the MAX8. The only viable customers are MAX-only operators with small enough fleets -- or unique business models -- that don't make it possible to add a handful of XLR efficiently. Examples includes Ryanair, Southwest, Copa. None have bit yet and I doubt they will.

Keep in mind that on short flights (500nm or so), the MAX has a decent fuel burn advantage over the neo. This gets back to the various target markets each OEM optimized to. Max is better on short flights and neo is better on longer stages.
 
orlandocfi
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:53 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:29 pm

Looks like she’s airborne and heading to BFI…hopefully someone can catch some good video of the landing.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27679
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:16 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
It's been rumored that Boeing shopped-around a MAX8 ER version using the -9 MTOW (88.3T) for a net gain of 6.1T (compared to standard MAX8 of 82.2T). That's enough payload gain to be able to stretch range from 3500nm of standard MAX8 to 4500nm like the XLR. It only needs about 4.5T of more fuel to do that.

The problem is -- there isn't fuel volume for that extra load. It will require at least 1 possibly 2 ACTs in the belly to do that. This makes baggage space an issue. And ACTs aren't light, might cut into payload.


That would be the 737-8ERX from 2015, which adopted the 737-9 operating weights and used the 737-9's wings, landing gear and center section to handle those increased weights. Leeham.net figured a 4000nm design range at 150 seats in a mixed Business, Premium Economy and Economy configuration using two ACTs.

While it was somewhat viable against the A321LR since both used 2-3 ACTs and therefore took a cargo space hit, the ACT of the A321XLR doesn't really have that penalty and I expect Boeing quietly dropped further discussions with airlines about the 737-8ERX.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2746
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:50 am

Stitch wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
It's been rumored that Boeing shopped-around a MAX8 ER version using the -9 MTOW (88.3T) for a net gain of 6.1T (compared to standard MAX8 of 82.2T). That's enough payload gain to be able to stretch range from 3500nm of standard MAX8 to 4500nm like the XLR. It only needs about 4.5T of more fuel to do that.

The problem is -- there isn't fuel volume for that extra load. It will require at least 1 possibly 2 ACTs in the belly to do that. This makes baggage space an issue. And ACTs aren't light, might cut into payload.


That would be the 737-8ERX from 2015, which adopted the 737-9 operating weights and used the 737-9's wings, landing gear and center section to handle those increased weights. Leeham.net figured a 4000nm design range at 150 seats in a mixed Business, Premium Economy and Economy configuration using two ACTs.

While it was somewhat viable against the A321LR since both used 2-3 ACTs and therefore took a cargo space hit, the ACT of the A321XLR doesn't really have that penalty and I expect Boeing quietly dropped further discussions with airlines about the 737-8ERX.


Any sign they were shopping it around to governments? They build 737-700s with 800 parts for this and BBJ customers. I would thought they offer to uprate a -8 length would have also been driven by these customers more than airlines.
 
brindabella
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:02 pm

Stitch wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
It's been rumored that Boeing shopped-around a MAX8 ER version using the -9 MTOW (88.3T) for a net gain of 6.1T (compared to standard MAX8 of 82.2T). That's enough payload gain to be able to stretch range from 3500nm of standard MAX8 to 4500nm like the XLR. It only needs about 4.5T of more fuel to do that.

The problem is -- there isn't fuel volume for that extra load. It will require at least 1 possibly 2 ACTs in the belly to do that. This makes baggage space an issue. And ACTs aren't light, might cut into payload.


That would be the 737-8ERX from 2015, which adopted the 737-9 operating weights and used the 737-9's wings, landing gear and center section to handle those increased weights. Leeham.net figured a 4000nm design range at 150 seats in a mixed Business, Premium Economy and Economy configuration using two ACTs.

While it was somewhat viable against the A321LR since both used 2-3 ACTs and therefore took a cargo space hit, the ACT of the A321XLR doesn't really have that penalty and I expect Boeing quietly dropped further discussions with airlines about the 737-8ERX.


:checkmark:

Thanks to you both.

cheers
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12193
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:07 pm

XT6Wagon wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
It's been rumored that Boeing shopped-around a MAX8 ER version using the -9 MTOW (88.3T) for a net gain of 6.1T (compared to standard MAX8 of 82.2T). That's enough payload gain to be able to stretch range from 3500nm of standard MAX8 to 4500nm like the XLR. It only needs about 4.5T of more fuel to do that.

The problem is -- there isn't fuel volume for that extra load. It will require at least 1 possibly 2 ACTs in the belly to do that. This makes baggage space an issue. And ACTs aren't light, might cut into payload.


That would be the 737-8ERX from 2015, which adopted the 737-9 operating weights and used the 737-9's wings, landing gear and center section to handle those increased weights. Leeham.net figured a 4000nm design range at 150 seats in a mixed Business, Premium Economy and Economy configuration using two ACTs.

While it was somewhat viable against the A321LR since both used 2-3 ACTs and therefore took a cargo space hit, the ACT of the A321XLR doesn't really have that penalty and I expect Boeing quietly dropped further discussions with airlines about the 737-8ERX.


Any sign they were shopping it around to governments? They build 737-700s with 800 parts for this and BBJ customers. I would thought they offer to uprate a -8 length would have also been driven by these customers more than airlines.

It’s not really needed for private/governments.

Auxiliary fuel tanks are already available on the 737 for them, and the 7M8’s MTOW is high enough to throw a couple of them into the plane and have enough payload for VIP loads when fully fueled.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2698
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:17 pm

Why would anybody need some -8 with tanks and not just some slightly smaller -7 if longer ranges are needed? I don't see the market for this -8ERX.
 
MileHFL400
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:24 pm

Noshow wrote:
Why would anybody need some -8 with tanks and not just some slightly smaller -7 if longer ranges are needed? I don't see the market for this -8ERX.


To carry more people a longer range. There is a market for this theory as evidenced by the A321 LR
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:15 pm

Wouldnt a 9ER be a better idea than a 8ER? Using the 10 gear and MTOW, this would have more space for cargo, (+passengers) with 2 ACT etc compared to the 8, while trading off just a bit of range, but still allowing most short/medium long transatlantic runs.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:25 pm

If the -9ER was such a great idea, Boeing would have built it instead of the -10.

600+ orders show airlines are happy with the MAX-10 as is.

I don't see Boeing making any lineup tweaks for a while.

They are finally getting things going in the right direction.

Our production thread shows 25+ deliveries for June as of a few days ago, with Ryanair and TUI both taking their first MAXes this month.

I think they will focus on production ramp up and delivery of parked frames for quite a while to come.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12193
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
Our production thread shows 25+ deliveries for June as of a few days ago, with Ryanair and TUI both taking their first MAXes this month.

TUI has had Maxes since before the grounding, although one of their subsidiaries may have gotten their first Max this past month.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
If the -9ER was such a great idea, Boeing would have built it instead of the -10.
600+ orders show airlines are happy with the MAX-10 as is.


where can we find detils on those 600+ orders for the MAX-10. boeing has lumped all MAX orders under one category now... we can't see the actual models?

obviously I'm sure SEC rules would prohibit Boeing falsely reporting MAX-10 sales, so I'm not implying that is the case, not at all. I'd just like to see who has the MAX-10 on order.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:49 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If the -9ER was such a great idea, Boeing would have built it instead of the -10.
600+ orders show airlines are happy with the MAX-10 as is.


where can we find detils on those 600+ orders for the MAX-10. boeing has lumped all MAX orders under one category now... we can't see the actual models?

obviously I'm sure SEC rules would prohibit Boeing falsely reporting MAX-10 sales, so I'm not implying that is the case, not at all. I'd just like to see who has the MAX-10 on order.

Details are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries which records the earlier orders where type was announced.

And I had a brain fart, the actual total is 483, but the point is the same, I don't think we'll see variants any time soon.

In particular it must be a bit of problem for lessors dealing with 737-900-not-ER, 737-900ER, MAX-9 and the mooted MAX-9ER on top of all that.

Makes it hard to come up with "mix and match" fleets later in the aircraft's life span.

Will also say since 1470 MAX orders fall into the unknown category, many of these can very well be -10, and others may have transfer rights from -8 or -9.

It's really important for Boeing to get this plane into service and start building out the backlog.

Once that is happening then we can talk about variants.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:52 pm

Revelation wrote:
If the -9ER was such a great idea, Boeing would have built it instead of the -10.

600+ orders show airlines are happy with the MAX-10 as is.

I don't see Boeing making any lineup tweaks for a while.

They are finally getting things going in the right direction.


The MAX9ER of course is not instead of the 10, it is additional. The 10 is perfect for capacity on short/Medium routes (most of the routes). After the 10 has arrived I do not see too many orders for the 9 in the future. A 9ER could cover the route lenghts where the 10 runs out of range. Also Boeing would have something to compete against the A321LR at least. The complexity seems to be manageable, as this 9ER would literally be a MAX10-Shrink.
But you are right, first Boeing of course needs to get the whole MAX right and running. But in the long run it could be worth doing.
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:49 pm

DLHAM wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If the -9ER was such a great idea, Boeing would have built it instead of the -10.

600+ orders show airlines are happy with the MAX-10 as is.

I don't see Boeing making any lineup tweaks for a while.

They are finally getting things going in the right direction.


The MAX9ER of course is not instead of the 10, it is additional. The 10 is perfect for capacity on short/Medium routes (most of the routes). After the 10 has arrived I do not see too many orders for the 9 in the future. A 9ER could cover the route lenghts where the 10 runs out of range. Also Boeing would have something to compete against the A321LR at least. The complexity seems to be manageable, as this 9ER would literally be a MAX10-Shrink.
But you are right, first Boeing of course needs to get the whole MAX right and running. But in the long run it could be worth doing.


There is currently no -9ER. And I would not discount the basic -9 yet. Assuming 100 kg pr pax w bags and full tanks of fuel, the types can carry:
-8 154 pax
-9 195 pax
-10 189 pax

So as a short-mid range peoplemover the -10 fits the bill. Need a descent load and say 5 hours or more range, go for the -9. The -8 is too weight limited.
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 27, 2021 7:12 pm

Deleted
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:52 pm

arcticcruiser wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If the -9ER was such a great idea, Boeing would have built it instead of the -10.

600+ orders show airlines are happy with the MAX-10 as is.

I don't see Boeing making any lineup tweaks for a while.

They are finally getting things going in the right direction.


The MAX9ER of course is not instead of the 10, it is additional. The 10 is perfect for capacity on short/Medium routes (most of the routes). After the 10 has arrived I do not see too many orders for the 9 in the future. A 9ER could cover the route lenghts where the 10 runs out of range. Also Boeing would have something to compete against the A321LR at least. The complexity seems to be manageable, as this 9ER would literally be a MAX10-Shrink.
But you are right, first Boeing of course needs to get the whole MAX right and running. But in the long run it could be worth doing.


There is currently no -9ER. And I would not discount the basic -9 yet. Assuming 100 kg pr pax w bags and full tanks of fuel, the types can carry:
-8 154 pax
-9 195 pax
-10 189 pax

So as a short-mid range peoplemover the -10 fits the bill. Need a descent load and say 5 hours or more range, go for the -9. The -8 is too weight limited.


Not sure what your point is. Given no take off restrictions, the -800 is generally tank volume limited for long sectors. Additional take off weight capacity doesn’t help it. It simply needs additional fuel to fly further. This is the reason why the range penalty gradient is so steep. You’re shedding weight to reduce drag/burn, not take more fuel. For longer range, it needs ACTs to carry the additional fuel. No commercial operator fitted ACT’s into -800’s.

-900ER is mostly the same. For any cabin config targeting long range flights, it needs an ACT. None of the USA carriers spec’d these. The only one I’m aware that did is Turkish.

Moving to the MAX 8, it continue to be fuel volume limited. It’s brochure range is listed at 3550nm and that’s without ACTs. MTOW rating is such that it take can take full tanks and normal cabin load out to that published range. Adding 2T to MTOW doesn’t increase its range.

The MAX 9 is also listed at 3550nm range, but it requires a ACT to get that far. It’s MTOW is such that it allows the ACT and standard cabin. I’m not aware of any carriers that have taken the ACT’s as the baseline version still flies plenty far on the standard tanks (further than a -900ER or -800)

I understand the MAX10 still requires an ACT to reach its’s brochure range (~3200nm).

The seating capacity difference between MAX 8 to MAX 9 is basically the same as between MAX 9 to MAX 10. I don’t have a link handy to the chart im about to reference. However, the take away is that the relative efficiency gain between MAX 8 and MAX 9 is nearly twice that as MAX 9 to MAX 10, meaning the 10’s advantage over the 9 is smaller than the 9’s advantage over the 8. This goes to the early days when the decision was made to size the 900 as it is, rather then further stretch to closer to A321 size. The additional work starts to drive cost up, commonality down, and reduces incremental advantages any bigger than -900.

That said, cost isn’t everything and the revenue advantage of the 10 has spoken relatively loudly. Enough routes need that extra capacity to justify the investment snd reap the slightly smaller CASM advantage as well.

I continue to think a 9 using the 10’s gear may be the new volume sales leader should it launch. It should nearly equal -8’s take off performance, which is the main aspect that’s held the -9 back, and picks up a sizable CASM advantage. The -10 performance is not better than the -9 so it will continue to face these operational challenges which effect sales to ROW.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22908
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:25 am

Okcflyer wrote:
I continue to think a 9 using the 10’s gear may be the new volume sales leader should it launch. It should nearly equal -8’s take off performance, which is the main aspect that’s held the -9 back, and picks up a sizable CASM advantage. The -10 performance is not better than the -9 so it will continue to face these operational challenges which effect sales to ROW.

I think the -10 having about the same field performance as the -9 is good enough.

I agree the -9 with -10 gear has tremendous potential. It could be the volume leader. It doesn't compete directly with anything, but rather is an efficient 2-class or better than FR 200 seater. Although with good shortfield, a 220 will probably be common.

Does someone know why the -9 has 220 seats maximum and the -10 230? In particular as 220 nor 230 are divisible by 6.

Lightsaber
 
Speedy752
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:26 am

Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If the -9ER was such a great idea, Boeing would have built it instead of the -10.
600+ orders show airlines are happy with the MAX-10 as is.


where can we find detils on those 600+ orders for the MAX-10. boeing has lumped all MAX orders under one category now... we can't see the actual models?

obviously I'm sure SEC rules would prohibit Boeing falsely reporting MAX-10 sales, so I'm not implying that is the case, not at all. I'd just like to see who has the MAX-10 on order.

Details are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries which records the earlier orders where type was announced.

And I had a brain fart, the actual total is 483, but the point is the same, I don't think we'll see variants any time soon.

In particular it must be a bit of problem for lessors dealing with 737-900-not-ER, 737-900ER, MAX-9 and the mooted MAX-9ER on top of all that.

Makes it hard to come up with "mix and match" fleets later in the aircraft's life span.

Will also say since 1470 MAX orders fall into the unknown category, many of these can very well be -10, and others may have transfer rights from -8 or -9.

It's really important for Boeing to get this plane into service and start building out the backlog.

Once that is happening then we can talk about variants.


I’m pretty sure if the “Delta used aircraft” thread happens, the answer for lessors of these will know exactly where to take them lol
 
Speedy752
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:30 am

lightsaber wrote:

Does someone know why the -9 has 220 seats maximum and the -10 230? In particular as 220 nor 230 are divisible by 6.

Lightsaber


That’s a very good question, 230 isn’t even divisible by 3! Might they have an additional exit row instead of a full row?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1114
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 5:43 am

lightsaber wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
I continue to think a 9 using the 10’s gear may be the new volume sales leader should it launch. It should nearly equal -8’s take off performance, which is the main aspect that’s held the -9 back, and picks up a sizable CASM advantage. The -10 performance is not better than the -9 so it will continue to face these operational challenges which effect sales to ROW.

I think the -10 having about the same field performance as the -9 is good enough.

I agree the -9 with -10 gear has tremendous potential. It could be the volume leader. It doesn't compete directly with anything, but rather is an efficient 2-class or better than FR 200 seater. Although with good shortfield, a 220 will probably be common.

Does someone know why the -9 has 220 seats maximum and the -10 230? In particular as 220 nor 230 are divisible by 6.

Lightsaber


I think the door limits are no multiple of 6 but rather 5 or 10 as far as I remember.

Speedy752 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

where can we find detils on those 600+ orders for the MAX-10. boeing has lumped all MAX orders under one category now... we can't see the actual models?

obviously I'm sure SEC rules would prohibit Boeing falsely reporting MAX-10 sales, so I'm not implying that is the case, not at all. I'd just like to see who has the MAX-10 on order.

Details are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries which records the earlier orders where type was announced.

And I had a brain fart, the actual total is 483, but the point is the same, I don't think we'll see variants any time soon.

In particular it must be a bit of problem for lessors dealing with 737-900-not-ER, 737-900ER, MAX-9 and the mooted MAX-9ER on top of all that.

Makes it hard to come up with "mix and match" fleets later in the aircraft's life span.

Will also say since 1470 MAX orders fall into the unknown category, many of these can very well be -10, and others may have transfer rights from -8 or -9.

It's really important for Boeing to get this plane into service and start building out the backlog.

Once that is happening then we can talk about variants.


I’m pretty sure if the “Delta used aircraft” thread happens, the answer for lessors of these will know exactly where to take them lol


Wasn't the problem of the 900 that it actually lacked range to perform any useful missions while the -9 has more than enough range to fullfill any mission the -900ER did before?

The question is, how good would a -9ER sell. On one side it would be like the 321LR, an extended range derivative, but with many big airlines already going for the 321LR, would there be enough market for the -9ER, when the -9 can allready do what it is supposed to to? Just beefing it up would actually be counter productive.

Boeing could sell the -9 and the 9ER in parallel (like Airbus does with the 321s) but I do not think the -9 will be replaced by an ER like the 900 was, as that model actually lacked a lot in capabilities unlike the -9.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:11 pm

FluidFlow wrote:

Wasn't the problem of the 900 that it actually lacked range to perform any useful missions while the -9 has more than enough range to fullfill any mission the -900ER did before?

The question is, how good would a -9ER sell. On one side it would be like the 321LR, an extended range derivative, but with many big airlines already going for the 321LR, would there be enough market for the -9ER, when the -9 can allready do what it is supposed to to? Just beefing it up would actually be counter productive.

Boeing could sell the -9 and the 9ER in parallel (like Airbus does with the 321s) but I do not think the -9 will be replaced by an ER like the 900 was, as that model actually lacked a lot in capabilities unlike the -9.


The biggest issue that the original 900 had was that it's exit door layout didn't permit any more than 189 seats. So an 800 and a 900 had the same exact max seating capacity. The 900ER changed the doors around and added a flat bulkhead to fit more seats. That's what allowed the 900ER to at least begin to have seating that was near par with A321. Unfortunately, it also added wieght (flat bulkhead, more seats, etc), so it's runway performance remained bad. So, while a MAX9ER wouldn't yield much range over the MAX9, nor would it allow more passengers than the MAX9.... It would improve runway performance.... which might make you able to tanker more fuel and carry passengers at range... So, in effect improving pax count and range... as well as being able to operate out of more airports.

I keep hearing folks say the 10 has the same runway performance as the 9. Two reasons I think that cannot be true: 1. the MAX10 has had, what, two takeoffs?..... How do you really know? 2. Boeing wouldn't have said, "let's start on a billion dollar program to add 4.4% capacity to the plane (220 to 230) at the minimal tolerable pitch." They certainly had to be addressing performance... We should let the flight campaign continue before we make too many assumptions this early on...
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:00 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

The biggest issue that the original 900 had was that it's exit door layout didn't permit any more than 189 seats. So an 800 and a 900 had the same exact max seating capacity. The 900ER changed the doors around and added a flat bulkhead to fit more seats. That's what allowed the 900ER to at least begin to have seating that was near par with A321. Unfortunately, it also added wieght (flat bulkhead, more seats, etc), so it's runway performance remained bad. So, while a MAX9ER wouldn't yield much range over the MAX9, nor would it allow more passengers than the MAX9.... It would improve runway performance.... which might make you able to tanker more fuel and carry passengers at range... So, in effect improving pax count and range... as well as being able to operate out of more airports.


The original 900 had a lot of problems, some of which you listed. It also didn't have TCON range (same MTOW as -800) and its field performance was atrocious. The 900ER added considerable MTOW and the SFP improvements from the 800. This prevented further deterioration of field performance at high payloads, but helped quite a bit with field performance on shorter trips. Further, while it came after launch, revised procedures and further testing with flaps 5 helped with second stage and go-around requirements, especially in icing conditions.

FluidFlow wrote:

Wasn't the problem of the 900 that it actually lacked range to perform any useful missions while the -9 has more than enough range to fullfill any mission the -900ER did before?

The question is, how good would a -9ER sell. On one side it would be like the 321LR, an extended range derivative, but with many big airlines already going for the 321LR, would there be enough market for the -9ER, when the -9 can allready do what it is supposed to to? Just beefing it up would actually be counter productive.

Boeing could sell the -9 and the 9ER in parallel (like Airbus does with the 321s) but I do not think the -9 will be replaced by an ER like the 900 was, as that model actually lacked a lot in capabilities unlike the -9.


The naming/branding issue is a fair point. The MAX 9 doesn't really need more range (already has 3550 nm brochure, which is plenty for TCON and Hawaii). What the MAX 9 needs is more versatility enabled by improved field performance. The "ER" designation could imply better payload/range from more challenging airports that don't have 10,000+ ft of pavement. Perhaps it's better to call it the "SFP" package?
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:10 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I keep hearing folks say the 10 has the same runway performance as the 9. Two reasons I think that cannot be true: 1. the MAX10 has had, what, two takeoffs?..... How do you really know? 2. Boeing wouldn't have said, "let's start on a billion dollar program to add 4.4% capacity to the plane (220 to 230) at the minimal tolerable pitch." They certainly had to be addressing performance... We should let the flight campaign continue before we make too many assumptions this early on...


I gear extension is pretty small and the geometry remains *very* constrained. Further field performance is more than just runway. The MAX 9 remains borderline once off the ground with single engine performance. The 10 will be even worse here....
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing MAX-10 First Flight Thread

Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:10 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Wasn't the problem of the 900 that it actually lacked range to perform any useful missions while the -9 has more than enough range to fullfill any mission the -900ER did before?

The question is, how good would a -9ER sell. On one side it would be like the 321LR, an extended range derivative, but with many big airlines already going for the 321LR, would there be enough market for the -9ER, when the -9 can allready do what it is supposed to to? Just beefing it up would actually be counter productive.

Boeing could sell the -9 and the 9ER in parallel (like Airbus does with the 321s) but I do not think the -9 will be replaced by an ER like the 900 was, as that model actually lacked a lot in capabilities unlike the -9.

That's an absurd exaggeration, IMO.

900 was like early A321s, stretch of the base model mostly trading range for payload (although A321 did add some low speed lift devices) and the operators were fully aware of its capabilities and scheduled it accordingly. This would mean for both that there may be occasional fuel stops on US trans-cons when fuel consumption went up due to adverse winds, but it definitely was not a case of "lacked range to perform any useful missions' for either.

A321 has been around for a long time but gained range when winglets were added and when the engines were PIP'd. The 900ER added tweaks mostly for more passengers. Then, both benefited from new engines (NEO, MAX) and so are doing transcons reliably. Boeing is again trading some of that range for payload and getting better field performance via the -10.

As above, I think it'll be quite a while before we see the -10 gear moved to the -9. Boeing needs to focus 100% on getting past issues on -10 and 777X before thinking about new projects.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos