737 with new wing, landing gear potential

SEPilot · Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:37 pm

Yes, the 737 is over 50 years old. But the time and money to make a clean-sheet new plane does not seem to be there, and may never be because airlines cannot endure a multi-year period of low production that a new design would almost certainly entail. The A320 is newer but still old technology, and is similarly not likely to be replaced any time soon. The A320 does have one significant advantage over the 737 going forward; it can accommodate larger diameter engines. That would appear to put the 737 at an increasing disadvantage in the future. This is already apparent. While the 737NG maintained near parity with the A320, the NEO has jumped to a 60-40 advantage over the MAX. While most commentators have come to the conclusion that the MAX is the end of the road for the venerable 737, I am not sure that it has to be. There is little efficiency to be gained by a new fuselage, and as I understand it at this point a change to CFRP gains almost nothing on a narrowbody. Systems can be improved, but they have relatively little impact on operating costs.

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

Noshow · Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:41 pm

The sales -and certification- argument now is commonality. The same parts, the same procedures all the same. Not different.
Changing the wing and center wing box would be the right moment to start new from scratch and look for commonalities to the 787 and such.

hiflyeras · Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:41 pm

What it really needs is a wider fuselage in addition so so many other things as you mentioned. As long as Boeing relies on the 707 specs it'll never see success over Airbus.

DaveMetroD · Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:44 pm

You would just be building a new plane and using an old name.
I don't see the benefit in that.

redflyer · Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:55 pm

SEPilot wrote:

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

And while you're at it, you would need to upgrade its internal cockpit systems that rely on computers and software that was written some 30 years ago, and which can barely keep up with what's in the current MAX iteration. Forget it. Slapping on new CFRP wings that allow for taller legs is not going to solve the 737's shortcomings for the future. The only thing Boeing might save some coin on is to contract Spirit Aero to repurpose some of the tooling used to manufacture the fuselage segments, assuming Boeing keeps the core fuselage design. But with so many other needed changes, it would be a new bird requiring new certification so why stick with a fuselage that was designed back in the early 1960's? Might as well go all-in on an all-new product.

2eng2efficient · Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:56 pm

At this point, Boeing has made its bed in the NB race, and will have sleep in it for the next several years. While the NEO will almost certainly outsell the MAX in the future, the MAX will continue to sell and drive good cash flow for Boeing. The incremental R&D costs of another derivative are almost certainly not worth it. That capital would be better deployed with fixing the quality issues dogging production today, and eventually launching a clean sheet replacement near the end of the decade. The A322 could be a formidable aircraft, but it won’t be worth a knee-jerk reaction from Boeing.

ClipperMonsoon · Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:57 pm

hiflyeras wrote:
What it really needs is a wider fuselage in addition so so many other things as you mentioned. As long as Boeing relies on the 707 specs it'll never see success over Airbus.

And what 707 specs might that be, the upper fuselage width?, I guess it goes to show what a fantastic jet was built by Boeing over 64 years ago and still flying..

ssteve · Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:04 pm

Doesn't even the fuselage fundamentally suck from a baggage loading perspective, esp as it gets longer?

FLALEFTY · Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:07 pm

SEPilot wrote:
Yes, the 737 is over 50 years old. But the time and money to make a clean-sheet new plane does not seem to be there, and may never be because airlines cannot endure a multi-year period of low production that a new design would almost certainly entail. The A320 is newer but still old technology, and is similarly not likely to be replaced any time soon. The A320 does have one significant advantage over the 737 going forward; it can accommodate larger diameter engines. That would appear to put the 737 at an increasing disadvantage in the future. This is already apparent. While the 737NG maintained near parity with the A320, the NEO has jumped to a 60-40 advantage over the MAX. While most commentators have come to the conclusion that the MAX is the end of the road for the venerable 737, I am not sure that it has to be. There is little efficiency to be gained by a new fuselage, and as I understand it at this point a change to CFRP gains almost nothing on a narrowbody. Systems can be improved, but they have relatively little impact on operating costs.

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

I believe that with the introduction of the B737-10 into service, that will be the end of the future development of new B737-based types. The mechanical/hydraulic control system is ancient tech and adds considerable weight to the aircraft. The mixed tech, cramped and noisy cockpit is not a favorite of pilots. As you mentioned, they have reached the limit on how big an engine that can be attached to those low-hanging wings. As it stands, the MAX does not allow for fitting an optimized main bypass fan for the LEAP engine (the A32XNEO's can). The landing gear was designed to sit low to accommodate airports of the 1960's that had minimal ground support equipment, but that is not required today. The lengthened fuselages for the MAX8, 9 & 10 require more runway to take off than the equivalent A32XNEO's.

Boeing needs to start design on a light-weight, CFRP, narrow body fuselage, married to an advanced, CFRP wing. It needs FBW controls. It needs a modern, automated cockpit. It needs landing gear at least as tall as the A32X's. And it needs the latest tech in engines.

Will Boeing do this? Probably not...

ikolkyo · Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:19 pm

That’s basically a new plane. Which is what will happen in the future.

SEPilot · Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:23 pm

The point of staying with the 737 is to keep as much as possible, in this case the fuselage, the same not so much for certification (after the MAX fiasco grandfathering will be intensely scrutinized and will be little different from a new design) as for manufacturing and assembly. Boeing is going to be producing 50+ a month again at some point, and a smooth transition to a new design will be very difficult, and almost impossible to keep up production. That is why I consider that a new wing while keeping the fuselage mostly the same should be considered. It should also be quite a bit less expensive. Also, a complete new design will probably force Airbus to do the same, costing both companies vast amounts of money forcing both to raise prices considerably. Just a new wing on the 737 may force Airbus to do the same, but not go clean sheet. Both of them are going to have a very hard time financing a new design for a long time to come.

flyinggoat · Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:42 pm

Regarding the MAX, I wondered if there were any engine configuration option other than mounting them ahead and below the wing. Mounting the engines behind the wing, either above (like Honda Jet), or buried in the trailing edge (like Sonic Cruiser) would’ve moved the CG and wings much further back. This would’ve allowed for a longer MAX10 and better rotation angles, plus there’s the option of larger diameter engines. Would the 737 type certification allow for different engine placement?

jholio · Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:42 pm

Forgive and correct me if I misspeak, but isn't one of the main certification challenges with the gear a height restriction for emergency exits? As far as I understand it, going any higher would require a complete redesign of the exit system. At this point, we're changing the wing, wingbox, gear, doors, exit system, so you may as well just make it brand new as a baby 787 with appropriately rated engines and folding wingtips.

Heavierthanair · Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:13 pm

G'day

Another iteration of the 707 shrink - Lord have mercy! With their competitor having basically shelved a rewinged A320 series indicates they are not having sleepless nights over a potential further 737 "development". Spending another - what - 5 billions for some sexy CFRP wings on a fifties design? Payback - provided it sells - would be over a decade I guess... :crazy:

Cheers

Peter

ikolkyo · Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:14 pm

SEPilot wrote:
The point of staying with the 737 is to keep as much as possible, in this case the fuselage, the same not so much for certification (after the MAX fiasco grandfathering will be intensely scrutinized and will be little different from a new design) as for manufacturing and assembly. Boeing is going to be producing 50+ a month again at some point, and a smooth transition to a new design will be very difficult, and almost impossible to keep up production. That is why I consider that a new wing while keeping the fuselage mostly the same should be considered. It should also be quite a bit less expensive. Also, a complete new design will probably force Airbus to do the same, costing both companies vast amounts of money forcing both to raise prices considerably. Just a new wing on the 737 may force Airbus to do the same, but not go clean sheet. Both of them are going to have a very hard time financing a new design for a long time to come.

It’s time to move on from the design though, can’t fit bigger engines under the wing, small cabin and a cock overhead panel that is approaching 60 years old. Especially since all the time it will take to certify the aircraft it will be just as much as a new aircraft.

Revelation · Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:05 pm

SEPilot wrote:
Yes, the 737 is over 50 years old. But the time and money to make a clean-sheet new plane does not seem to be there, and may never be because airlines cannot endure a multi-year period of low production that a new design would almost certainly entail. The A320 is newer but still old technology, and is similarly not likely to be replaced any time soon. The A320 does have one significant advantage over the 737 going forward; it can accommodate larger diameter engines. That would appear to put the 737 at an increasing disadvantage in the future. This is already apparent. While the 737NG maintained near parity with the A320, the NEO has jumped to a 60-40 advantage over the MAX. While most commentators have come to the conclusion that the MAX is the end of the road for the venerable 737, I am not sure that it has to be. There is little efficiency to be gained by a new fuselage, and as I understand it at this point a change to CFRP gains almost nothing on a narrowbody. Systems can be improved, but they have relatively little impact on operating costs.

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

Guess you missed our thread from a few months ago.

Boeing was studying such a thing under the name of the '5G' project:

The technology isn’t available to justify a $10 billion to $15 billion all-new moonshot development today. However, as Boeing watches Airbus and the A321neo and incoming A321XLR tilt single-aisle market share in favor of the European plane maker, an ambitious, but less costly effort to rethink the struggling 737 Max 10 — known internally as the 5G — was being actively studied by Boeing just prior to the onset of the pandemic, The Air Current has learned.
..
The 5G would’ve added a new wing on the aircraft, a fly-by-wire flight control system, resized vertical fin and a slimmed down tail section on a modified 737 fuselage to improve runway performance. The concept envisioned two models, one the size of a Max 8 and the other a Max 10-sized aircraft. Given the regulatory scrutiny on the 737 Max, the insider said such changes in a 5G product would likely require a fresh type certificate, separate from the 737 family

Ref: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... -to-light/
Ref: viewtopic.php?t=1453525

So, yeah, a new wing and FBW (and presumably a very different cockpit since all the systems would be different) all on a 737 fuselage with a new type certificate.

Might have been the cheapest way to get an A321XLR competitor, but it seems Boeing thought better of the idea.

Of course our thread didn't get to the end of Page 1 before someone suggested Boeing do a 757neo instead, and then a bunch of A vs B willie-wagging ensued.

mjoelnir · Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:25 pm

The main difference to the A320 family is the missing FBW. You can add to it the not implemented EICAS. All that is based on trying to keep the same type, so Southwest does not need additional training for their pilots.

The 737 is not old because when it was designed, but because it misses the essential points what compasses a modern airframe.

flybynight · Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:49 pm

I think one thing that is important is the damage to the marketability of the 737 moving forward with yet another re-design.
Back in the 60's Boeing 'bet the farm' on the 747. I feel that spirit is needed again with a clean-sheet replacement for the 737. No more re-designs. Start fresh.
I am pretty sure Boeing can get the necessary investment dollars to make it happen.
This plane should replace the 737 and 757.

Weatherwatcher1 · Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:33 am

redflyer wrote:
SEPilot wrote:

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

And while you're at it, you would need to upgrade its internal cockpit systems that rely on computers and software that was written some 30 years ago, and which can barely keep up with what's in the current MAX iteration. Forget it. Slapping on new CFRP wings that allow for taller legs is not going to solve the 737's shortcomings for the future. The only thing Boeing might save some coin on is to contract Spirit Aero to repurpose some of the tooling used to manufacture the fuselage segments, assuming Boeing keeps the core fuselage design. But with so many other needed changes, it would be a new bird requiring new certification so why stick with a fuselage that was designed back in the early 1960's? Might as well go all-in on an all-new product.

Can you tell me which computers in a 737MAX cockpit use software that was written in 1991? If you know, how do those computers compare to the A320?

Toenga · Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:25 am

The 737 is a true aviation icon but it is already one iteration too many.
Sure it will continue to sell at discounted prices especially to airlines wishing to retain more commonality then the alternative offering.
The A 320 perhaps has a remaining viable iteration left but old technologies do in fact run out.
Now is the time to invest for both companies, in seriuous work for new air frames, in by far the biggest segment of the aviation market.

hloutweg · Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:44 pm

SEPilot wrote:
What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777...

Good idea. However that is no longer a 737 if only in name. That sounds closer to a 757NG or whoever Boeing calls the new middle of the market plane. 797?

The MAX is really the end of the line for the 737

IADFCO · Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:53 pm

The only way I see for a significantly longer landing gear on the 737 is to remove it from inside the wing and move it to some sort of pod C-17-style, without otherwise changing the wing, and changing the central structure as little as possible. This would be major surgery, and not cheap. The only mitigating factor would be that it would not substantially alter the flight loads.

JohanTally · Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:08 pm

The 777 was Boeing's first aircraft designed completely in CAD which is one reason the design was so revolutionary and also why it's a prime candidate for updates with what is really the 3rd generation of 777. By using CAD plumbing, hydraulics, and wiring could follow the most efficient path avoiding excess materials saving weight and optimizing space. IMHO I believe this is why the 737 needs a replacement even if the fuselage dimensions stayed relatively the same.

Heinkel · Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:10 pm

Boeing should accept, that the "737 horse" is dead and they should dismount.

Or they are no longer interested in building state of the art commercial airliners in the NB segment.

kiowa · Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:10 pm

If they keep stretching and redesigning this tired 737, they could end up with a cool aircraft and call it a 757.

Weatherwatcher1 · Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:23 pm

IADFCO wrote:
The only way I see for a significantly longer landing gear on the 737 is to remove it from inside the wing and move it to some sort of pod C-17-style, without otherwise changing the wing, and changing the central structure as little as possible. This would be major surgery, and not cheap. The only mitigating factor would be that it would not substantially alter the flight loads.

The trunion could be moved outward and lengthen the gear.

I think what people don’t realize is that the shorter gear is also an asset. The shorter gear alleviates the weight and complexity associated with overwinter slides. It also simplifies cargo loading and provides ground access to more panels without lifts or ladders. All of that is helpful to speed up turns.

SunsetLimited · Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:09 pm

The MAX is the end of the road for the 737, as it should be. There’s simply not much more than can be squeezed out of that airframe. It had (and is still having) a pretty remarkable run, but it’s time to move on. Boeing knows this.

The MAX is the ultimate 737... pilots appreciate the quieter flight deck, passengers appreciate the quieter cabin, and airlines appreciate the greater fuel efficiency and range. That’s about all you can ask for with this base airframe.

9QCLI · Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:18 pm

I'm no expert but what about reusing the 737 fuselage with a new wing, new cockpit, fbw, and this patented engine mounting allowing the 737 MAX Square to keep its trademark short legs : http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... 10,814,990.

Airbus did move from a non fbw platform (A300/A310) to a fbw one (A330/A340/A330neo) reusing the same old fuselage. I'm sure it made industrial sense to do so. It would enable Boeing to keep the highly efficient 737 fuselage and the ability to quickly ramp up production at launch.

bennett123 · Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:48 pm

flyinggoat wrote:
Regarding the MAX, I wondered if there were any engine configuration option other than mounting them ahead and below the wing. Mounting the engines behind the wing, either above (like Honda Jet), or buried in the trailing edge (like Sonic Cruiser) would’ve moved the CG and wings much further back. This would’ve allowed for a longer MAX10 and better rotation angles, plus there’s the option of larger diameter engines. Would the 737 type certification allow for different engine placement?

One advantage of the current design, as opposed to engines in the wing structure is that if you choose a different engine you don't need to completely re design the wing.

Sancho99504 · Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:37 pm

ssteve wrote:
Doesn't even the fuselage fundamentally suck from a baggage loading perspective, esp as it gets longer?

Very much so, especially with the doors opening inwards. Still better than a mad dog though. I had to sit on my ass to stack bags, cargo and mail in the 737. A32X and 757, I could sit on my knees, much less stress on the back. I will say, the curves of the lower walls on the 737 made unloading 800s and 900s real easy since I could throw the bag along the wall and shoot it out the door and onto the belt loader.

PS: We didn't have those fancy extensions 12-20 years ago.

zuckie13 · Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:24 pm

Boeing knows the MAX is it for the 737. Hence the name....MAX..as in we've got the MAX out of the 737 we can get. They know it. Any talk of doing anything else with it is just wishful thinking by fans of the plane, but it's just not going to happen. If they did try to spend money to make another 737 generation, it'd just be digging their own grave.

I like the 737. It's been a workhorse of the world's commercial fleet for 54 years, and they will be in the skies for over 75 at least before they retire. That being said, time for new blood.

fireman0174 · Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:35 pm

SEPilot wrote:
Yes, the 737 is over 50 years old. But the time and money to make a clean-sheet new plane does not seem to be there, and may never be because airlines cannot endure a multi-year period of low production that a new design would almost certainly entail. The A320 is newer but still old technology, and is similarly not likely to be replaced any time soon. The A320 does have one significant advantage over the 737 going forward; it can accommodate larger diameter engines. That would appear to put the 737 at an increasing disadvantage in the future. This is already apparent. While the 737NG maintained near parity with the A320, the NEO has jumped to a 60-40 advantage over the MAX. While most commentators have come to the conclusion that the MAX is the end of the road for the venerable 737, I am not sure that it has to be. There is little efficiency to be gained by a new fuselage, and as I understand it at this point a change to CFRP gains almost nothing on a narrowbody. Systems can be improved, but they have relatively little impact on operating costs.

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

Please don't think this is being sarcastic or worse, but with that kind of thinking we might just be talking about the DC-3-111. Boeing needs a plane to replace the old horse.

flyingclrs727 · Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:00 pm

redflyer wrote:
SEPilot wrote:

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

And while you're at it, you would need to upgrade its internal cockpit systems that rely on computers and software that was written some 30 years ago, and which can barely keep up with what's in the current MAX iteration. Forget it. Slapping on new CFRP wings that allow for taller legs is not going to solve the 737's shortcomings for the future. The only thing Boeing might save some coin on is to contract Spirit Aero to repurpose some of the tooling used to manufacture the fuselage segments, assuming Boeing keeps the core fuselage design. But with so many other needed changes, it would be a new bird requiring new certification so why stick with a fuselage that was designed back in the early 1960's? Might as well go all-in on an all-new product.

Plus even if Boeing wanted to make a fifth generation 737 variant in a couple of decades, I doubt after the MAX experience that the world's regulatory agencies would allow such legacy cockpit avionics in a new major variant. Boeing wanted to replace the original 737 nose with the 757 nose back when they designed the 737 NG, but WN wanted the original nose, so their existing spare parts inventory would still work. At some point Boeing just needs to bite the bullet and design a clean sheet modern narrow body. The existing duopoly might not continue indefinitely. I doubt airlines in 2040 will care much for a design that has commonality with by then an over 70 year old design.

luckyone · Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:06 am

A 737 with a larger wing and taller landing gear was called the 757. Guess they should just CFRP that graceful old girl. :stirthepot:

Revelation · Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:51 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
Boeing knows the MAX is it for the 737. Hence the name....MAX..as in we've got the MAX out of the 737 we can get. They know it. Any talk of doing anything else with it is just wishful thinking by fans of the plane, but it's just not going to happen. If they did try to spend money to make another 737 generation, it'd just be digging their own grave.

I like the 737. It's been a workhorse of the world's commercial fleet for 54 years, and they will be in the skies for over 75 at least before they retire. That being said, time for new blood.

As per my previous post, no it is not just wishful thinking by fans of the plane, Boeing started an internal project called 5G to explore the idea.

Strange but true.

I guess you have to cover all the bases.

Pendennis · Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:21 pm

As was pointed out earlier, the short undercarriage means that overwing emergency slides are not required, escapees can slide off the rear of the wing onto the ground. Put on a new wing incorporating a taller undercarriage and that no longer applies; escape slides become necessary and there is nowhere viable to put them in the existing fuselage. Hence a revised fuselage would be required, commonality would be lost and certification could become a protracted process.

Revelation · Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:34 pm

Pendennis wrote:
As was pointed out earlier, the short undercarriage means that overwing emergency slides are not required, escapees can slide off the rear of the wing onto the ground. Put on a new wing incorporating a taller undercarriage and that no longer applies; escape slides become necessary and there is nowhere viable to put them in the existing fuselage. Hence a revised fuselage would be required, commonality would be lost and certification could become a protracted process.

'5G' assumed a new type certificate would be needed. At that point, though, one wonders why not just redo the cockpit and the fuse. Maybe they were hoping they could re-use production facilities.

James42 · Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:56 pm

I think the 737 program should have finished with the classic 300,400 and 500 series. Of course, the NG sold in great numbers but I feel in the long run, Boeing would find itself in a better position today with a completely new more modern aircraft. IMHO, the MAX is pushing the aging design a step too far.

FiscAutTecGarte · Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:08 pm

Is Boeing against a hard width limit for transporting fuselage sections by train from Spirit in Wichita? Would a fuselage some 6-12" wider be prohibitive? Was this perhaps the basis for considering maintaining the '37 fuselage in the 5G study?

SilverwingSpttr · Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:35 pm

I made a photoshop render of this concept a few months back and I'll happily share it here.

Bottom plane is the trusted and reliable 757-200. We all know and love this plane, but she's had her time and is now old news, even with Delta's great cabins.

The top plane is what we may know as the 797. Here's what it features (in my mind):
-757-200 fuselage length and width
-757-200 gear height
-Modern style 'droop nose' like all other new planes
-Variable cabin door configurations (I-I-ii-I, I-I-I-I, and I-ii-I)
-Dreamliner-style simplified cockpit windows
-New wing
-MAX-style split-scimitar winglets
-LEAP/PW (or RR) engines rated in the 38,000-45,000lb thrust range
-Dreamliner-style horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer, and tail cone.

Please keep in mind, when I say "757 fuselage length and width" those are just numeric values. This plane would by no means be a 757NG as that would make it a 757, which it is not. This would be an entirely new airplane that is 'inspired by' existing models. I cringe at the idea of another 737 model, especially now that we have a 737Max10 now, which is only about 10ft shorter than the 757-200.

Revelation · Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:58 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Is Boeing against a hard width limit for transporting fuselage sections by train from Spirit in Wichita? Would a fuselage some 6-12" wider be prohibitive? Was this perhaps the basis for considering maintaining the '37 fuselage in the 5G study?

I am NOT an expert but a little bit of reading suggests US rail cars normally don't exceed 10 ft 8 inches in width and the 12 foot plus width of 737 fuselages is already a challenge yet I'm not sure what the absolute limit would be.

There already are some cars used to ship airplane parts between Spirit and Boeing that are a bit bigger than the 737 fuse:

Ref: https://trainsnscale.com/models-and-pro ... s-by-rail/

Apparently these are called 'skybox cars' in the rail industry.

You can see those cars mixed in with 737 fuses in the following photo:

Ref: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed ... customers/

They appear to be a bit taller and maybe a little bit wider but that's probably the limit. One article I read said they have 767 cockpit sub-assemblies in them which are still made by Spirit in Wichita.

The first link ( https://trainsnscale.com/models-and-pro ... s-by-rail/ ) has lots of cool info and pictures in it, many of them historical. I always wondered how the various pieces for a 747 got to KPAE. It shows a lot of different stuff from a lot of the different subcontractors.

It shows one of the 737 fuse cars unloaded so you can get an idea of its size.

It seems fair to suggest you probably can't go much wider than the protective ring on the end of the flatbed.

The article also shows there is a purpose-built railroad from the Port of Everett to KPAE that handles extra-wide and extra-tall containers.

I read a lot of stuff for the 747 came by sea. For instance I read a lot of the stuff came on barges from the Los Angeles / Long Beach area and was put onto barges to the Port of Everett. Presumably a lot of this came from the ex-Northrup plant owned by Triumph that recently produced the last 747 sections. Also a lot of the 777 pieces come via sea transport from Japan and trains transport the containers from the docs to KPAE.

Three very nerdy interests collide: airplanes, railroads and ships...

14wheels · Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:44 pm

757NG, 797… whatever it is, that’s enough of the 707 derivitive. Flogging a 1967 or even 1957 design to do what a 757 can do all day long is just plane dumb. Common Type Certificate with the 787 would be smart if it’s a 797.

Aesma · Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:03 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
IADFCO wrote:
The only way I see for a significantly longer landing gear on the 737 is to remove it from inside the wing and move it to some sort of pod C-17-style, without otherwise changing the wing, and changing the central structure as little as possible. This would be major surgery, and not cheap. The only mitigating factor would be that it would not substantially alter the flight loads.

The trunion could be moved outward and lengthen the gear.

I think what people don’t realize is that the shorter gear is also an asset. The shorter gear alleviates the weight and complexity associated with overwinter slides. It also simplifies cargo loading and provides ground access to more panels without lifts or ladders. All of that is helpful to speed up turns.

If Boeing loses that asset but has a more modern, more efficient plane, would they lose sales ? Since no competitor has that asset anyway ?

gatechae · Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:03 am

Revelation wrote:
One article I read said they have 767 cockpit sub-assemblies in them which are still made by Spirit in Wichita.

Those are used to ship the 777 S41 and 747 S41. The 767 S41 was previously also shipped in that method but is now integrated in ICT and shipped via dreamlifter to everett.

seahawk · Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:52 am

Why would htey do this, when the -10 just had it´s first flight? The MAX has many succesful years ahead of it.

bluecrew · Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:14 am

SEPilot wrote:
Yes, the 737 is over 50 years old. But the time and money to make a clean-sheet new plane does not seem to be there, and may never be because airlines cannot endure a multi-year period of low production that a new design would almost certainly entail. The A320 is newer but still old technology, and is similarly not likely to be replaced any time soon. The A320 does have one significant advantage over the 737 going forward; it can accommodate larger diameter engines. That would appear to put the 737 at an increasing disadvantage in the future. This is already apparent. While the 737NG maintained near parity with the A320, the NEO has jumped to a 60-40 advantage over the MAX. While most commentators have come to the conclusion that the MAX is the end of the road for the venerable 737, I am not sure that it has to be. There is little efficiency to be gained by a new fuselage, and as I understand it at this point a change to CFRP gains almost nothing on a narrowbody. Systems can be improved, but they have relatively little impact on operating costs.

What the 737 really needs is longer legs. This would require major changes to the wing structure, and would best be accomplished by a completely new wing. While this is a huge change, Boeing is doing it on the 777, and there is persistent talk of Airbus doing it for the proposed A322. Why not build a 737-11 with a new (likely CFRP) wing, longer gear and a redesigned nose that would allow a longer nose gear? Once this is certified and the bugs worked out the new wing and nose can be passed down to the smaller models, thus easing the transition and minimizing the time where production cannot keep up with demand.

This topic veered lol

The 737 nose and fuselage design date back to the early jet age. A new wing and engine enhancements extended the 737's life over the MD-80's, which got a new engine but didn't adapt to have the better wing or pressurization system to take advantage of it.

It's plenty aerodynamic, it does a great job. But if we're talking about snapping the wings off, putting a whole new box in the middle, new landing gear, new engines, and a new wing, why are we going to hang on to the fuselage from the late 50's?

With modifications at that scale a clean sheet just sounds much more reasonable. Boeing seems to have issues with development timelines and anticipating market priorities. The reason the MAX was so rushed was because they dismissed the Airbus NEO project. They're currently losing this market segment to Airbus, which is already offering sales of an airplane that would surpass this idea, today. I'm not A or B, I genuinely don't care. Boeing missed the mark here and it's going to be catch up. If they try to re-hash the 737, I don't think it's gonna work.

mjoelnir · Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:36 am

seahawk wrote:
Why would htey do this, when the -10 just had it´s first flight? The MAX has many succesful years ahead of it.

It depends on how you measure successful. If you look at the numbers in isolation, as in selling an airframe and making money of it, the 737MAX can be successful, but you need to write of the cost of that came out of the catastrophic design and certification flop.

If one looks at market share in competition with the other main producer, the 737MAX will not be successful. It has been steadily losing market share in regards to backlog or sold frames. If one looks at deliveries, the situation is worse, the A320neo family is being delivered, while the 737MAX deliveries are sluggish, even when no grounding stops them.

B777LRF · Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:58 am

When one sub-member of the competitors family (A321neo) has outsold your own entire family, that does not qualify as a success - that's what best known as an "also ran". And this is before we even start touching on the quality issues which has plagued the 737 since the time of the NG, not to mention there's the not insignificant point about Boeing probably never going to make money on the program.

The Max will go down in history as the greatest blunder Boeing ever made, with 347 casualties, a ruined reputation, a disastrous relationship with their regulator and the exposure of a sick corporate culture to its name.

seahawk · Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:18 am

mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Why would htey do this, when the -10 just had it´s first flight? The MAX has many succesful years ahead of it.

It depends on how you measure successful. If you look at the numbers in isolation, as in selling an airframe and making money of it, the 737MAX can be successful, but you need to write of the cost of that came out of the catastrophic design and certification flop.

That money is lost any way. And the latest orders look good for the MAX and the -10 will add another tool to Boeing´s arsenal and will take orders from the A321. Maybe the Airbus will have a bigger market share, but that is something Boeing can accept (and can not change anyway) for 10-12 years until both will be coming out with new planes for 2035 and beyond.

KarlB737 · Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:38 pm

SEPilot wrote:
What the 737 really needs is longer legs.

The MAX should be the LAST.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net