Fokker NG jet, an unique opportunity for Boeing?

Now I know I will risk my credibility with a lot of people here (if there was any), but sometimes I just like to launch a left field idea, so hear me out.

https://www.ngaircraft.com/

- The lightest and most durable airframe in its class.
- Extremely quite cabin (low power GTF engines mounted in the back), but also very low environmental noise profile.
- The cost of synthetic fuel will in the future require even more optimized airframes. Better not use 3.500Nm planes on 1.000Nm missions.
- London City capable.
- Roomier and less draggy 5-abreast cabin, with more scope to grow than the most direct competition.
- Limited range and thus flexibility, but that just helps to offset it against the A220 with reduced acquisition and operation cost.
- Limited range, also means that future engine developments will increase its range and keep it relevant and economical going forward.
- Extremely low trip and seat-mile costs.
- Rear mounted engines make it more futureproof for future larger diameter propulsion developments (open-rotor/RISE, hybrid). Inline with Boeing synthetic fuel vision.
- Design team, still existing tooling (except wings) and current fleet support organization under one owner.
- High mounted engines help on rough runways.


F130NG compared to the 717:
- Same range.
- ±12 more seats at equal comfort.
- ±3.300 kg lower MTOW.
- ±650 kg lower OEW.
- A smaller variant to aid commonality and share cost base.

Fokker NG compared to the Embraer E2:
- 700 Nm less range.
- ±10 more seats at equal comfort.
- ±10.000kg lower MTOW.
- ±5.000 kg lower OEW.
- 20% lower OEW/seat.

So if it’s so great, why does it not get off the ground?
- It has no (European) political support
- It lacks funding/credibility.
- It lacks manpower to finish the design, production and sales materialization.

Now that’s where Boeing could come in. Their only airframe they have left that will most likely still exist past the current generation is the 787. In the narrowbody segment they are completely out manoeuvred by Airbus and are a few (potential) steps behind the curve.

- Political
Under Biden, a new high profile US-EU economic corporation would be an important symbolic political signal that the EU and the US stand shoulder to shoulder in the changing world order. So that’s the political support.
- Credibility
The Boeing umbrella would provide the necessary credibility.
- Funding
Although funding is never easy, it would be much easier for Boeing. It would almost be small change for them.
- Manpower
Boeing has enough manpower to shift towards such a program to guide it to market.




For Boeing this could be a cheap entry back into the 5-abreast segment, so they can subsequently focus on a 6-abreast replacement. The Fokker NG currently lacks a bit of range to be very flexible. However future open rotor options would move it in the right direction where other designs would become overly capable and perhaps lacks clearance. As said, it's a bit left field, but I reckon it's a nice idea.

Damn... how many times have they tried to revive the Fokker 100 now?

Taxi645, I think most agree the F100 is a light, reliable aircraft, that's why it is holding out so long.

But the Fokker supply chain has vaporized, the drawings are on microfilm, the avionics suit was modern 30 years ago.

That makes it a start from scratch, blank sheet/ empty CAD program.

A 10yrs, $10B-15B project. And the E2 jets look pretty good meanwhile.


https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... er-e195-e2

There is something to it, yes. But then I think it is still even more realistic that Embraer comes up with a new engine-rear mounted jet instead of the new proposed turboprop project. They simply have to make it a new generation regional jet instead of a turboprop. Let's keep in mind that it currently is only a project. So they could very well still transform it into a jet.

1. Does the Fokker have the avionics for the new engines and predictive maintenance?
2. How far away is this?
3. I believe the E2 sales are suffering on range, how to fix this?

There is a cost to breaking fleet commonality. JetBlue has nice costs (slide 9 of pdf link, if you sum up the numbers) for bringing in a new type: $225 to $315 million for not exactly a large airline.

http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

One reason airlines want more range is fewer subfleets. By specializing in shorter missions, this plane is vulnerable to the new E3, a much more likely partner for Boeing, than longer range aircraft. Part of the reason I harp on range is 2200nm or 2300nm is needed for midwest hubs to Florida.

You ignore the A220, why? Yes, it is heavier, but not all weight is bad:
1. Reduce fuel burn (electrical subsystems weight more, but save fuel).
2. Wing area (if paired with higher cruise, see E2-175 wing extension), as well as helping shortfield performance.
3. Engines. Higher pressure ratio engines are more efficient but require more weight (due to the higher pressure forces). Higher bypass engines reduce fuel burn, but add weight.

Your link notes a Pratt & Whitney GTF sized for a regional jet, in other words the PW1200G, or as noted in your first link PW1x17G.

It has some market potential, but needs funding. The F100NG is vulnerable to the MRJ-1000 relaunch.

There is a chance, but this is 7 years out. I feel the E2 and E3, next gen ATR, A220, and possibly Mitsubishi present tough competition. Would you bet your savings on this project?

Lightsaber

As I see it, you're talking about an almost clean-sheet design here. The mold lines of the fuselage stay about the same, but it will need:
1) New wings.
2) Completely new avionics probably including FBW if it's going to be competitive as a new entry, and so with that pretty much every system replaced.
3) Obviously new engines.

So why not just design the aircraft from scratch?

Then, the argument for high-mounted engines really boils down to options to expand engines for future variants. Modern jetliners, even small ones, don't operate out of semi-prepared fields anymore. Otherwise, rear-mounted engines add to structural weight and are less aerodynamically favorable (the "clean wing" is a myth, the engines can act as anti-shock bodies and improve area ruling).

As for a comparison with the 717, a major issue with modern engines is that the tolerances are so tight that the engine has issues with heating/cooling. A major advantage to the 717 for airlines like HA and DL is that it can tolerate very short flights with short turns. An engine with a GTF is probably going to need to take a few minutes of motoring time to come to thermal equilibrium.

I'm just not seeing the business case here.

keesje wrote:

Taxi645, I think most agree the F100 is a light, reliable aircraft, that's why it is holding out so long.

But the Fokker supply chain has vaporized, the drawings are on microfilm, the avionics suit was modern 30 years ago.

That makes it a start from scratch, blank sheet/ empty CAD program.

A 10yrs, $10B-15B project. And the E2 jets look pretty good meanwhile.

I've read there has been a digitization effort. At least for the documents, I don't know about the drawings. https://documentmanagementsysteem-info. ... tr_pto=nui I'm not sure what the status is on the avionics.

EDIT: the KM conversion in the table is not correct. Should be 3.880km and 3,700 km respectively.

Lack of opportunity to earn a profit will keep this from happening.

Boeing has had the opportunity to compete in this segment twice. First with the 717 and then with the Embraer E2 before that deal fell through. As a publicly traded US company, Boeing will build planes that they believe they can make money on. This is a tough segment. Despite huge investments, Airbus is still struggling to make money on the A220

Almost three years after renaming the model to A220 and obtaining good purchase contracts, the European planemaker has not yet managed to make the plane profitable or at least capable of generating less losses.

https://www.airway1.com/airbus-struggles-to-make-the-a220-a-profitable-aircraft/

I don’t see Boeing investing in Fokker being more profitable than Airbus buying the CSeries program for free

Airbus has improved the performance of the A220, opened a second assembly line in Mobile, Alabama, and won more customers for the jet, especially the A220-300 (ex-CS300) variant, but it has not been enough to transform technical excellence into the most basic of a company’s principles, profit.

Serious question, why is the F100NG 500kg over the 100,000 lb weight threshold? That doesn't scream informed system engineering. There are thresholds to be just under in aerospace. Because the USA's standard WW2 runway was built for 100,000 lb, they are everywhere. That seems odd to overlook.

I understand enthusiasm and a desire for jobs. What I don't see is anything beyond a college senior project design study. Sorry to be a cynic, but I am expected to do 3 design studies a day more filled out than this study. Seriously, I'm on a project where we have already changed the configuration 3 times significantly.

I agree with DocLightning, we really do not design for less prepared fields anymore. That is left to used turboprops. Rear mounted engines add weight. The MAX showed new engine configurations are the way forward (yes, also highlighted need for software testing, triple redundancy, and training).

Lightsaber

In your opening piece you mention the aircraft being LCY capable. The original Fokker 100 was never. The F70 was but not ideal with problems with a wet runway so I don’t think the F130 would work at LCY.

Be gentle on Taxi645... if you can't ask questions in good faith, then there's not much chance to learn

lightsaber wrote:

3. I believe the E2 sales are suffering on range, how to fix this?

You ignore the A220, why? Yes, it is heavier, but not all weight is bad:
1. Reduce fuel burn (electrical subsystems weight more, but save fuel).
2. Wing area (if paired with higher cruise, see E2-175 wing extension), as well as helping shortfield performance.
3. Engines. Higher pressure ratio engines are more efficient but require more weight (due to the higher pressure forces). Higher bypass engines reduce fuel burn, but add weight.

I think in the future, the cost of being flexible with higher weights and thus higher fuel cost will dramatically increase due to ever increasing percentages of synthetic fuel mixed in. I think the balance between lowest fuel burn vs. flexibility will shift towards the former the farther we go into the future.

seansasLCY wrote:

In your opening piece you mention the aircraft being LCY capable. The original Fokker 100 was never. The F70 was but not ideal with problems with a wet runway so I don’t think the F130 would work at LCY.

If I'm not mistaken, both the F70 and F100 are LCY certified. Just in real world use there are limitations. I'm not knowledgeable enough at what thrust levels these real world limitations could be overcome.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Be gentle on Taxi645... if you can't ask questions in good faith, then there's not much chance to learn

Thank you! My enthusiasm to share ideas is (un)fortunately not always overcome by my lack of knowledge.

lightsaber wrote:

The MAX showed new engine configurations are the way forward (yes, also highlighted need for software testing, triple redundancy, and training).

Lightsaber

Really? With all the due respect, couldn't you find a better example?
Or did you want to say that the MAX engines are way too forward (pun intended) ?

Taxi645 wrote:

I think in the future, the cost of being flexible with higher weights and thus higher fuel cost will dramatically increase due to ever increasing percentages of synthetic fuel mixed in. I think the balance between lowest fuel burn vs. flexibility will shift towards the former the farther we go into the future.

In effect, you are predicting a dramatic increase in fuel costs overcoming the added costs of a subtype. My prior link showed the cost at $215 million to $315 million. What you are proposing is an extreme cost for any aircraft below the so called "Greta line" which... is tough for this size (100 seat miles per gallon).
https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-stage- ... -a-review/

Maintenance costs end up being very important, that will favor the turboprops. I'm trying to figure out a scenario where enough F1xxNGs are sold to justify the project with expected competition.

In general jets thrive on > 1000 nm where the speed advantage over turboprops creates a nice market divide. I wouldn't compare to the 717 as it is a fuel hog at 5,000lb/hr vs 3500 of the A221 on 3 hour missions. There is a reason it didn't sell well.


https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysi ... %20will%20

Today jetfuel is at $2.05/gallon or
$ 0.302 per pound or $665.6 per metric ton. The A221 burns 1.588 metric tons per hour per above link or $1,056.7. Let us pretend fuel goes to $2,205 per metric ton, about the highest aviation could support, in my opinion. The per year fuel costs of the A221, for 8 hours a day utilization, go from today's $3.09 to $10.22. So theoretically, a subfleet of 20+ could be justified.

But that ignores A220 or E2 improvements, new turboprops, and the Mitsubishi Spacejet. (The much higher fuel burn of the 717 need not apply). It requires that high fuel cost to be a reality. e.g., I worked on the Pratt GTFs in the late 1990s, EIS took a massive spike of 2010-2014 to justify the investment.
https://inflationdata.com/articles/infl ... %20rows%20

I'm afraid the time synthetic or other low carbon fuels push prices high enough, we'll be ready to replace all the current aircraft.

Lightsaber

By the same token Airbus should look at bringing back and updating the A300. When it was first introduced it was mainly used in Europe on trunk routs between capitals. Sacrifice a little frequency for capacity.

Aquila3 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The MAX showed new engine configurations are the way forward (yes, also highlighted need for software testing, triple redundancy, and training).

Lightsaber

Really? With all the due respect, couldn't you find a better example?
Or did you want to say that the MAX engines are way too forward (pun intended) ?

It identified a very clever mounting scheme that is efficient and completely obsolescences tail mounted engines... well for every configuration I worked on that considered a pair of tail mounted engine (business jet, UAV, or passenger plane).

There is no other configuration that integrated the engine up towards the wing as much. I pointed out the lessons learned; no need to repeat them.

The F130NG is trying to promote a design missing several key and proven technologies for reducing fuel burn:
1. Wing mounted underslung engines. Saves weight and reduces cracking as well as so easy for maintenance.
2. CFRP wing
3. Electrical subsystems
4. Predictive maintenance.

Whenever a design constraint can be broken by new tech, in particular the excellent laminar wing/engine/pylon integration of the MAX, I look at how this improves everything. It allows keeping short gear (weight), easy fueling, a low wing (easy maintenance,), and low engine (easy maintenance). Reduces overall aircraft weight and produces less area to deice (reduces fuel burn and reduces structure cracking due to thermal gradients).

What isn't to like?

Breaking design constraints is why I love:
folding wingtips (not really applicable for this size of aircraft though).
CFRP (less weight, in particular in wings and improved durability).
The new aluminums (more for durability and manufacturing)
3D printed titanium (such a game changer in what parts can be economically made from that metal)
electric sub-systems (ok, weight penalty, but such nice fuel and maintenance benefits)
New wingtip options (mission determines optimum)

Very little in the new Fokker NG, it is a very old design. This is not swing #1 at a next generation Fokker. My experience is half the cost savings improvements come from the engine, half the airframe.

Lightsaber

DartHerald wrote:

By the same token Airbus should look at bringing back and updating the A300. When it was first introduced it was mainly used in Europe on trunk routs between capitals. Sacrifice a little frequency for capacity.

That's a choice ULCCs will make, but generally network carriers (trying to build connectivity across banks, trying to find higher yield passengers for whom schedule or frequency is important) do not. You can find all kinds of AA/DL/UA/WN routes that see 4 to 5x 73G/319 a day instead of 3x 739/321.

lightsaber wrote:

1. Does the Fokker have the avionics for the new engines and predictive maintenance?

I've read that Fokker Services have looked into condition-based maintenance (CBM), but don't know on what parts or airframes, nor am I really knowledgeable on the subject.

lightsaber wrote:

In effect, you are predicting a dramatic increase in fuel costs overcoming the added costs of a subtype. My prior link showed the cost at $215 million to $315 million. What you are proposing is an extreme cost for any aircraft below the so called "Greta line" which... is tough for this size (100 seat miles per gallon).
https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-stage- ... -a-review/

I don't think this Greta line is realistic, because it is horizontal. Meaning it expects the same CASM from a smaller plane compared to a larger one. Which of course is not how the real world evaluation works where a higher CASM is accepted for the smaller plane because of yield and frequency considerations.

Maintenance costs end up being very important, that will favor the turboprops. I'm trying to figure out a scenario where enough F1xxNGs are sold to justify the project with expected competition.

In general jets thrive on > 1000 nm where the speed advantage over turboprops creates a nice market divide.

In comparison to a turboprop an F1xxNG would have more range, more speed and more capacity. This might or might not be enough for it to succeed.

I wouldn't compare to the 717 as it is a fuel hog at 5,000lb/hr vs 3500 of the A221 on 3 hour missions. There is a reason it didn't sell well.

That's exactly what the F1xxNG would fix, I think it's seat mile cost would be close to 40% lower than the 717. That's game changing.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysis-airbus-a220-is-killing-it-at-delta/#:~:text=Pilots%20are%20reporting%20that%20the%20A220%20is%20averaging,the%20mainline%20operations.%20A%2076-seat%20aircraft%20will%20

Today jetfuel is at $2.05/gallon or
$ 0.302 per pound or $665.6 per metric ton. The A221 burns 1.588 metric tons per hour per above link or $1,056.7. Let us pretend fuel goes to $2,205 per metric ton, about the highest aviation could support, in my opinion. The per year fuel costs of the A221, for 8 hours a day utilization, go from today's $3.09 to $10.22. So theoretically, a subfleet of 20+ could be justified.

But that ignores A220 or E2 improvements, new turboprops, and the Mitsubishi Spacejet. (The much higher fuel burn of the 717 need not apply). It requires that high fuel cost to be a reality. e.g., I worked on the Pratt GTFs in the late 1990s, EIS took a massive spike of 2010-2014 to justify the investment.
https://inflationdata.com/articles/infl ... %20rows%20

I'm afraid the time synthetic or other low carbon fuels push prices high enough, we'll be ready to replace all the current aircraft.

Lightsaber

The F130NG is trying to promote a design missing several key and proven technologies for reducing fuel burn:
1. Wing mounted underslung engines. Saves weight and reduces cracking as well as so easy for maintenance.
2. CFRP wing
3. Electrical subsystems
4. Predictive maintenance.

Whenever a design constraint can be broken by new tech, in particular the excellent laminar wing/engine/pylon integration of the MAX, I look at how this improves everything. It allows keeping short gear (weight), easy fueling, a low wing (easy maintenance,), and low engine (easy maintenance). Reduces overall aircraft weight and produces less area to deice (reduces fuel burn and reduces structure cracking due to thermal gradients).

What isn't to like?

Breaking design constraints is why I love:
folding wingtips (not really applicable for this size of aircraft though).
CFRP (less weight, in particular in wings and improved durability).
The new aluminums (more for durability and manufacturing)
3D printed titanium (such a game changer in what parts can be economically made from that metal)
electric sub-systems (ok, weight penalty, but such nice fuel and maintenance benefits)
New wingtip options (mission determines optimum)

Very little in the new Fokker NG, it is a very old design. This is not swing #1 at a next generation Fokker. My experience is half the cost savings improvements come from the engine, half the airframe.

Lightsaber

Of course you are right. However you can also look at it in another way. If I just focus on the weight bit, the F1xxNG proposal is already so much lighter (also because it gives up range of course) than the competition even without most of these improvements. Everything staying the same, lower weight means lower fuel burn regardless of where it comes from. The fact that it is so light without these improvements effectively means that the potential for future improvements is only even larger.

On the wing, I'm not sure what they have in mind on the wing except for it being aluminium. Will it have a higher percentage laminar flow? Who is going to produce them? I do know the Netherlands has excellent institutions regarding aerodynamics. About not being CFRP, is it not so that because the range is limited, induced drag during cruise is smaller percentage of the the total drag over the duration of the flight. With induced drag being less important, a smaller span is can be an acceptable trade-off (It has a 29,9m span for a fairly limited weight. With a smaller span the weight gains from CFRP are more limited as well.

DocLightning wrote:

As I see it, you're talking about an almost clean-sheet design here. The mold lines of the fuselage stay about the same, but it will need:
1) New wings.
2) Completely new avionics probably including FBW if it's going to be competitive as a new entry, and so with that pretty much every system replaced.
3) Obviously new engines.

So why not just design the aircraft from scratch?

Well mostly I would say that there is already a support structure for the current model, the tooling is still there (except apparently for the wings) and a lot of work was already done on it. Also would something from scratch have much better economics? The specs do look quite good if true.

Even if they wanted a T tailed 5 abreast plane, Boeing wouldn't need to look at Fokker as they have the drawings for the DC9 family all the way to the 717. They even have 2 MD90s which they bought from Delta for some unknown purposes.

Francoflier wrote:

Damn... how many times have they tried to revive the Fokker 100 now?

The design dates back to the first crewed flight on the Apollo program. Restarting this will be like bringing something designed with a slide rule to a supercomputer fight. My guess is it would be cheaper and faster to go from a blank sheet.

RIP Fokker

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

1. Does the Fokker have the avionics for the new engines and predictive maintenance?

I've read that Fokker Services have looked into condition-based maintenance (CBM), but don't know on what parts or airframes, nor am I really knowledgeable on the subject.

lightsaber wrote:

In effect, you are predicting a dramatic increase in fuel costs overcoming the added costs of a subtype. My prior link showed the cost at $215 million to $315 million. What you are proposing is an extreme cost for any aircraft below the so called "Greta line" which... is tough for this size (100 seat miles per gallon).
https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-stage- ... -a-review/

I don't think this Greta line is realistic, because it is horizontal. Meaning it expects the same CASM from a smaller plane compared to a larger one. Which of course is not how the real world evaluation works where a higher CASM is accepted for the smaller plane because of yield and frequency considerations.

Maintenance costs end up being very important, that will favor the turboprops. I'm trying to figure out a scenario where enough F1xxNGs are sold to justify the project with expected competition.

In general jets thrive on > 1000 nm where the speed advantage over turboprops creates a nice market divide.

In comparison to a turboprop an F1xxNG would have more range, more speed and more capacity. This might or might not be enough for it to succeed.

I wouldn't compare to the 717 as it is a fuel hog at 5,000lb/hr vs 3500 of the A221 on 3 hour missions. There is a reason it didn't sell well.

That's exactly what the F1xxNG would fix, I think it's seat mile cost would be close to 40% lower than the 717. That's game changing.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysis-airbus-a220-is-killing-it-at-delta/#:~:text=Pilots%20are%20reporting%20that%20the%20A220%20is%20averaging,the%20mainline%20operations.%20A%2076-seat%20aircraft%20will%20

The Greta line isn't CASM, it is fuel per passenger mile. CASM is still higher for smaller jets (e.g., still two pilots, you still have one person fueling the plane or driving up the baggage belt cart). Either it is regulated, which would be the Gretta line, or it is fuel cost which might be too much.

The 717 is bad from a fuel and other cost perspective. There is a reason the plane is on the end run.
This is just creating such a niche aircraft. Speed isn't needed for less than 500nm as travel time isn't impacted enough; unless it is island hoping, people are doing far less flying less than 250nm (due to delays, Covid exposure, cost of renting a car). I wish Fokker luck. Perhaps it is living in the Western USA where distances tend to be substantial and we'll drive moderate lengths. e.g., I haven't flown LAX to the San Francisco area... in forever. It is cheaper to drive and an early start gets me where I'm going early enough.

I'd need to know more of what Fokker intends on CBM. Is that manual inspections or are they buying, for example, the Collins suite of predictive maintenance avionics with all the sensors. The weights seem a bit light for that though. If a classic CBM, that is a higher maintenance burden (maintain parts earlier than needed):
https://www.cirruspilots.org/Publicatio ... aintenance

While the article notes Delta did well, it does Apples to Oranges comparisons. The following link is better showing how well Airbus' "Skywise" maintenance algorithm is working (slides 11- 13). A start and nice improvement in dispatch reliability. It brought Allegiant from being the worst to mid-pack. I notice they didn't compare to Delta, the launch customer for Airbus predictive maintenance (and thus the most likely to benefit).
https://ir.allegiantair.com/static-file ... f510573ad7

Link noting that the predictive maintenance is going to the A220 (in transition from the Bombardier system, hence the 2022 start, but it has some):
https://services.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... nance.html

I'm a huge fan of predictive maintenance. As it matures, the gap to CBM or other maintenance plans grow. Either this is all about fuel price, or Cost (which maintenance is an important part), or the legislation (Gretta line). Since turboprops can make the line, I see no reason there would be any relaxation based on size of aircraft if governments go that route. If fuel price, the E3, depending on how efficient the engines are, would have an advantage. (In general, turboprops save fuel in climb.)

I'm trying to find the business case you are identifying. I've done aircraft trade studies. When an aircraft has a niche, it "pops out" as the ideal candidate. e.g., some aircraft are more efficient in climb (LEAP-1B) others in cruise (LEAP-1A) and that helps determine what aircraft airlines buy.

Lightsaber

zeke wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Damn... how many times have they tried to revive the Fokker 100 now?

The design dates back to the first crewed flight on the Apollo program. Restarting this will be like bringing something designed with a slide rule to a supercomputer fight. My guess is it would be cheaper and faster to go from a blank sheet.

RIP Fokker

For all that people complain about 50+ year evolution of the 737, at least it's been in continuous production, had thousands of units sold, been operated by hundreds of carriers, and had multiple major updates. I understand the virtue of recycling IP and tooling to keep launch costs down but Fokker is just DEAD.

OP: While an interesting idea, a major issue is - as others have noted - Boeing already has the drawings and testing data for the DC-9 through 717 series. If they're looking to make a tail-mounted NG 5-abreast airplane off an existing design, that'd be less costly and likely just as effective as the Fokkers. Plus, you're comparing a hypothetical F1XX NG to the existing 717, not to an NGed version of that. There would be less to do to get to an equivalent point on a 717 to make a current-generation flyable airplane and I'm not intuitively seeing why you couldn't make the same changes you note - for example, lengthening the fuselage back into the MD-8X range to trade range for capacity, as that seems to be your desire. Further, there would be less to do in terms of changes to accommodate avionics upgrades and the larger engines on new generation planes.

If they wanted the plane you are talking about, it'd be a lot easier for them to just "NG" the 717 - which, tellingly, they weren't interested in doing before, instead killing it off in favor of their own (in many ways inferior) product. And that's the second issue: Boeing has no history of acquiring and maintaining designs nor, at least right now, the corporate culture or will to do anything but the laziest and most expedient solution. They certainly don't seem to have the ability or will to put out new models or evolutions of old ones without significant issues right now and would be better served correcting their existing issues than wading into a more complex version of the same mess they're in twice over now with the 737 and 777.

lightsaber wrote:

The Greta line isn't CASM, it is fuel per passenger mile. CASM is still higher for smaller jets (e.g., still two pilots, you still have one person fueling the plane or driving up the baggage belt cart). Either it is regulated, which would be the Gretta line, or it is fuel cost which might be too much.

Yes, but fuel per passenger mile also increases the smaller the plane is. A fuel per passenger mile regulation which would apply equally to large and small planes would meet an enormous resistance from the industry one would think.

lightsaber wrote:

I'm trying to find the business case you are identifying. I've done aircraft trade studies. When an aircraft has a niche, it "pops out" as the ideal candidate. e.g., some aircraft are more efficient in climb (LEAP-1B) others in cruise (LEAP-1A) and that helps determine what aircraft airlines buy.

Lightsaber

Well, in the past at a certain point the original F100, despite the light airframe, was not that economical any more because it had old Tay engine. Furthermore it lacked range. Leapfrogging to a PW GTF, would tackle both issues simultaneously. I'm not sure if there's a business case. I do think that in a synthetic fuel aviation environment, the fuel burn numbers compared to the competition in the graph on the site linked in the OP look very interesting.

Taxi645 wrote:

Fokker NG jet, an unique opportunity for Boeing?

There is nothing unique about proposing that Boeing (or Airbus) loose multi-billions of dollars by modernizing another design for which they were never involved in.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Even if they wanted a T tailed 5 abreast plane, Boeing wouldn't need to look at Fokker as they have the drawings for the DC9 family all the way to the 717. They even have 2 MD90s which they bought from Delta for some unknown purposes.

IADCA wrote:

OP: While an interesting idea, a major issue is - as others have noted - Boeing already has the drawings and testing data for the DC-9 through 717 series. If they're looking to make a tail-mounted NG 5-abreast airplane off an existing design, that'd be less costly and likely just as effective as the Fokkers. Plus, you're comparing a hypothetical F1XX NG to the existing 717, not to an NGed version of that. There would be less to do to get to an equivalent point on a 717 to make a current-generation flyable airplane and I'm not intuitively seeing why you couldn't make the same changes you note - for example, lengthening the fuselage back into the MD-8X range to trade range for capacity, as that seems to be your desire. Further, there would be less to do in terms of changes to accommodate avionics upgrades and the larger engines on new generation planes.

If they wanted the plane you are talking about, it'd be a lot easier for them to just "NG" the 717 - which, tellingly, they weren't interested in doing before, instead killing it off in favor of their own (in many ways inferior) product. And that's the second issue: Boeing has no history of acquiring and maintaining designs nor, at least right now, the corporate culture or will to do anything but the laziest and most expedient solution. They certainly don't seem to have the ability or will to put out new models or evolutions of old ones without significant issues right now and would be better served correcting their existing issues than wading into a more complex version of the same mess they're in twice over now with the 737 and 777.

This F1xxNG proposal already has a 5.900 kg NG weight increase built in, if you NG the 717 the weight difference between the F1xxNG and the 717 would again become much bigger. Furthermore the 717 already has much newer engines than the F100 had, (in fact an early Fokker revival design even had the 717 engine family as propulsion).

Taxi645 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Even if they wanted a T tailed 5 abreast plane, Boeing wouldn't need to look at Fokker as they have the drawings for the DC9 family all the way to the 717. They even have 2 MD90s which they bought from Delta for some unknown purposes.

IADCA wrote:

OP: While an interesting idea, a major issue is - as others have noted - Boeing already has the drawings and testing data for the DC-9 through 717 series. If they're looking to make a tail-mounted NG 5-abreast airplane off an existing design, that'd be less costly and likely just as effective as the Fokkers. Plus, you're comparing a hypothetical F1XX NG to the existing 717, not to an NGed version of that. There would be less to do to get to an equivalent point on a 717 to make a current-generation flyable airplane and I'm not intuitively seeing why you couldn't make the same changes you note - for example, lengthening the fuselage back into the MD-8X range to trade range for capacity, as that seems to be your desire. Further, there would be less to do in terms of changes to accommodate avionics upgrades and the larger engines on new generation planes.

If they wanted the plane you are talking about, it'd be a lot easier for them to just "NG" the 717 - which, tellingly, they weren't interested in doing before, instead killing it off in favor of their own (in many ways inferior) product. And that's the second issue: Boeing has no history of acquiring and maintaining designs nor, at least right now, the corporate culture or will to do anything but the laziest and most expedient solution. They certainly don't seem to have the ability or will to put out new models or evolutions of old ones without significant issues right now and would be better served correcting their existing issues than wading into a more complex version of the same mess they're in twice over now with the 737 and 777.

This F1xxNG proposal already has a 5.900 kg NG weight increase built in, if you NG the 717 the weight difference between the F1xxNG and the 717 would again become much bigger. Furthermore the 717 already has much newer engines than the F100 had, (in fact an early Fokker revival design even had the 717 engine family as propulsion).

Sure, but the 717 has a lot of extra weight as it's overbuilt for its length. Stretch it and you get the same or more capacity as the plane you're proposing. Yes, it'd be heavier, but it'd be an "efficient" weight increase in that it'd be less overweight. The 717/DC9 platform would still need a lot less strengthening to take new engines than the Fokker. You'd still end up with a heavier plane than the F1xxNG but it'd take a lot less work to get there: it's basically an MD87 fuselage, 717 avionics, and whatever other changes you'd want along with a new engine. Both of the proposals are getting into Frankenstein territory, though.

IADCA wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Even if they wanted a T tailed 5 abreast plane, Boeing wouldn't need to look at Fokker as they have the drawings for the DC9 family all the way to the 717. They even have 2 MD90s which they bought from Delta for some unknown purposes.

IADCA wrote:

OP: While an interesting idea, a major issue is - as others have noted - Boeing already has the drawings and testing data for the DC-9 through 717 series. If they're looking to make a tail-mounted NG 5-abreast airplane off an existing design, that'd be less costly and likely just as effective as the Fokkers. Plus, you're comparing a hypothetical F1XX NG to the existing 717, not to an NGed version of that. There would be less to do to get to an equivalent point on a 717 to make a current-generation flyable airplane and I'm not intuitively seeing why you couldn't make the same changes you note - for example, lengthening the fuselage back into the MD-8X range to trade range for capacity, as that seems to be your desire. Further, there would be less to do in terms of changes to accommodate avionics upgrades and the larger engines on new generation planes.

If they wanted the plane you are talking about, it'd be a lot easier for them to just "NG" the 717 - which, tellingly, they weren't interested in doing before, instead killing it off in favor of their own (in many ways inferior) product. And that's the second issue: Boeing has no history of acquiring and maintaining designs nor, at least right now, the corporate culture or will to do anything but the laziest and most expedient solution. They certainly don't seem to have the ability or will to put out new models or evolutions of old ones without significant issues right now and would be better served correcting their existing issues than wading into a more complex version of the same mess they're in twice over now with the 737 and 777.

This F1xxNG proposal already has a 5.900 kg NG weight increase built in, if you NG the 717 the weight difference between the F1xxNG and the 717 would again become much bigger. Furthermore the 717 already has much newer engines than the F100 had, (in fact an early Fokker revival design even had the 717 engine family as propulsion).

Sure, but the 717 has a lot of extra weight as it's overbuilt for its length. Stretch it and you get the same or more capacity as the plane you're proposing. Yes, it'd be heavier, but it'd be an "efficient" weight increase in that it'd be less overweight. The 717/DC9 platform would still need a lot less strengthening to take new engines than the Fokker. You'd still end up with a heavier plane than the F1xxNG but it'd take a lot less work to get there: it's basically an MD87 fuselage, 717 avionics, and whatever other changes you'd want along with a new engine. Both of the proposals are getting into Frankenstein territory, though.

I don't think we disagree much. That said, the 717 really would need a complete new wing cause I don't think the current 28m span would cut it nowadays at the weight's we'd then be looking at.

I don't see any reason for Boeing to enter this segment. You'll enter a market where both Airbus and Embraer already are well established.
They have enough risks on their balance sheet. I don't see their investors approve such a strategy. Any investments they should be putting towards a Max follow up. Which is a much bigger market, with only Airbus as an real competitor.

Quite frankly, I think it would be interesting to see how the owner of NG Aircraft looks at working together with Boeing to further develop Fokker NG jets. I believe he has made many attempts to approach other companies for production and development of Fokker NG jets. But in itself it is still very quiet around NAC for a long time, at some point they may be developing a new aircraft that is also a better seller than the existing Fokker NG project.

We have now learned how to develop existing aircraft into new versions, which also failed miserably. While this also applies to Fokker 100NG and Fokker 130NG, it is doubtful whether it is wise to launch. At best it seems to have become a dead project what NG Aircraft is doing now. I don't think it is wise for NAC to continue with the Fokker NG project.

Unfortunately, independent aircraft construction is a thing of the past for the Netherlands, but it is possible to develop and build an aircraft together with another company. NAC would be better off looking for a partner to develop a new project in the field of aircraft construction, for example to investigate whether a sustainable, environmentally friendly aircraft is possible. Fortunately, there are better alternatives where NAC can keep busy as well as more financially for both parties.

So aircraft builders really shouldn't continue to upgrade existing types of aircraft to a newer version with newer engines. Which also turns out to be problematic with Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 777X.

So I conclude that Fokker 100 does not have eternal life and has already become history what made Fokker great. Maintenance costs, business case and very important, kerosene costs also play a major role in an updated aircraft, which also stems from the previous topic.

Another important point is that flights up to 500 km are not environmentally friendly, where the aircraft also emit too much CO2, which is also doable with the fast train connections. I don't think the market for small aircraft in the future is very rosy, no matter what those aircraft are really set up and built for short ranges.

Strict environmental requirements can also be a death knell for NAC's existing Fokkker 1XX-NG project, and it might also be better that they develop this project especially for more than 1000 km. In the past, KLM often used a Fokker 70 or Fokker 100 on scheduled service from Amsterdam to London or Paris, which is also a very short distance, which is very bad for the environment. I still think that the airlines do use larger aircraft than Fokker 50, for example E-195-E2 or ERJ-195 at very short distances. They do, however, do so several times a day in frequency.

So my big question is: does it make sense to develop a large 100-150 narrowbody aircraft for very short ranges? For many airlines, this is due to cost efficiency per seat, but does it meet strict noise and environmental requirements? That is quite a complex and complicated question for an aircraft manufacturer to answer for themselves whether it is sensible or not.

The design dates back to the first crewed flight on the Apollo program. Restarting this will be like bringing something designed with a slide rule to a supercomputer fight. My guess is it would be cheaper and faster to go from a blank sheet.

If you are referring to its Fokker 28 forebear, than the design actually dates back to Gemini. The Fokker 28's first flight was in 1967, while Apollo 7, the first crewed Apollo flight, was in 1968. The Fokker 100 dates back to the space shuttle era of the 1980s.

Sorry for being pedantic, but I'm an Apollo junkie!

The only folks that make money off of a NG Fokker are the Rekkof folks who sell out to someone else to make it happen...

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

The only folks that make money off of a NG Fokker are the Rekkof folks who sell out to someone else to make it happen...

It could also be that it has already happened, but it is possible that NAC/Rekkof is selling the entire program to a much larger aircraft manufacturer such as ATR or Chinese company.

One possibility is that negotiations are also taking place with another partner about a collaboration that I have also written extensively about in another topic. Or cooperation with Russians is not excluded, with which they also want to finance or support this Fokker 1XXNG project.

- Extremely quite cabin (low power GTF engines mounted in the back), but also very low environmental noise profile.

I find that very hard to believe for the seats 1m away from the engine.

I'm dutch and as a kid I've always wanted to work for Fokker, but when I flew a Fokker 100 once (many years later) I was right next to the engine and it was the most miserable flight I ever had, by far. The engine noise was deafening, and by lack of earplugs I had to keep my hands against my ears for the whole damn flight, even skipped my meal.

Apparently the flight staff felt so bad for me they offered me a first class seat on my connection flight, which made up for the discomfort. But having the Fokker 100 resurrected sends shivers down my spine. I will never board a plane with engines so close to the cabin ever again.

The Fokker NG aircraft appear not to have Kruger or leading age devices. It appears the wing is the same as what is on the Fokker 100. It would then need to have a higher takeoff and landing speed than the the Airbus A220 and Embraer E2 which appear to have the leading edge devices. This is something American Airline pilots did not like about the Fokker aircraft that American Airlines operated.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

The Fokker NG aircraft appear not to have Kruger or leading age devices. It appears the wing is the same as what is on the Fokker 100. It would then need to have a higher takeoff and landing speed than the the Airbus A220 and Embraer E2 which appear to have the leading edge devices. This is something American Airline pilots did not like about the Fokker aircraft that American Airlines operated.

The Fokker's wings dont have engines attached - The lift generated doesnt require Kruger flaps, its actually a very efficient wing and takeoff / landing speeds are actually fairly low. The ventral air brake ensures that for landing.

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

3. I believe the E2 sales are suffering on range, how to fix this?

You ignore the A220, why? Yes, it is heavier, but not all weight is bad:
1. Reduce fuel burn (electrical subsystems weight more, but save fuel).
2. Wing area (if paired with higher cruise, see E2-175 wing extension), as well as helping shortfield performance.
3. Engines. Higher pressure ratio engines are more efficient but require more weight (due to the higher pressure forces). Higher bypass engines reduce fuel burn, but add weight.

I think in the future, the cost of being flexible with higher weights and thus higher fuel cost will dramatically increase due to ever increasing percentages of synthetic fuel mixed in. I think the balance between lowest fuel burn vs. flexibility will shift towards the former the farther we go into the future.

seansasLCY wrote:

In your opening piece you mention the aircraft being LCY capable. The original Fokker 100 was never. The F70 was but not ideal with problems with a wet runway so I don’t think the F130 would work at LCY.

If I'm not mistaken, both the F70 and F100 are LCY certified. Just in real world use there are limitations. I'm not knowledgeable enough at what thrust levels these real world limitations could be overcome.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Be gentle on Taxi645... if you can't ask questions in good faith, then there's not much chance to learn

Thank you! My enthusiasm to share ideas is (un)fortunately not always overcome by my lack of knowledge.

Only the F70 was certified at LCY.

jrfspa320 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

3. I believe the E2 sales are suffering on range, how to fix this?

You ignore the A220, why? Yes, it is heavier, but not all weight is bad:
1. Reduce fuel burn (electrical subsystems weight more, but save fuel).
2. Wing area (if paired with higher cruise, see E2-175 wing extension), as well as helping shortfield performance.
3. Engines. Higher pressure ratio engines are more efficient but require more weight (due to the higher pressure forces). Higher bypass engines reduce fuel burn, but add weight.

I think in the future, the cost of being flexible with higher weights and thus higher fuel cost will dramatically increase due to ever increasing percentages of synthetic fuel mixed in. I think the balance between lowest fuel burn vs. flexibility will shift towards the former the farther we go into the future.

seansasLCY wrote:

In your opening piece you mention the aircraft being LCY capable. The original Fokker 100 was never. The F70 was but not ideal with problems with a wet runway so I don’t think the F130 would work at LCY.

If I'm not mistaken, both the F70 and F100 are LCY certified. Just in real world use there are limitations. I'm not knowledgeable enough at what thrust levels these real world limitations could be overcome.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Be gentle on Taxi645... if you can't ask questions in good faith, then there's not much chance to learn

Thank you! My enthusiasm to share ideas is (un)fortunately not always overcome by my lack of knowledge.

Only the F70 was certified at LCY.

I've seen people who apparently worked for Fokker claim the F100 was also. Obviously it has the same airbrake than the F70. Frankly I don't know.

Rekoff wrote:

- Extremely quite cabin (low power GTF engines mounted in the back), but also very low environmental noise profile.

I find that very hard to believe for the seats 1m away from the engine.

I'm dutch and as a kid I've always wanted to work for Fokker, but when I flew a Fokker 100 once (many years later) I was right next to the engine and it was the most miserable flight I ever had, by far. The engine noise was deafening, and by lack of earplugs I had to keep my hands against my ears for the whole damn flight, even skipped my meal.

Apparently the flight staff felt so bad for me they offered me a first class seat on my connection flight, which made up for the discomfort. But having the Fokker 100 resurrected sends shivers down my spine. I will never board a plane with engines so close to the cabin ever again.

On a rear mounted jet, the average cabin noise is lower, but the distribution is less even compared to a wing mounted design. So the seats in the back obviously receive the most noise. Also the RR Tay is now a pretty old design. By switching to a 35 year younger, much quieter GTF, the peak noise at the back seats will be much better and the average cabin noise very low.

The design dates back to the first crewed flight on the Apollo program. Restarting this will be like bringing something designed with a slide rule to a supercomputer fight. My guess is it would be cheaper and faster to go from a blank sheet.

I am always surprised how light the f100 design is compared with other later designs. In part because of less range ambition, but even then it is really light. Why are the a220 or e2 not that light with all new materials and computer design capabilities.

The Fokker 100 is gone for good. There is not much use in starting to manufacture it again. Today it is an old design and while being solid engineered it didn't earn money for it's manufacturer back then. This is why the line was closed.

tvh wrote:

The design dates back to the first crewed flight on the Apollo program. Restarting this will be like bringing something designed with a slide rule to a supercomputer fight. My guess is it would be cheaper and faster to go from a blank sheet.

I am always surprised how light the f100 design is compared with other later designs. In part because of less range ambition, but even then it is really light. Why are the a220 or e2 not that light with all new materials and computer design capabilities.

1. New engines are much heavier.
Higher bypass ratio means a larger diameter which means more weight (but much less noise and fuel burn)
Higher pressure ratios means the pressure vessel must be thicker
Higher temperatures might increase fuel burn, but that weakens materials which means more weight
Engines last many more cycles between overhauls, that added weight (and is just expected today).
2. A220 and to a lesser extent the E2 added electrical subsystems and predictive maintenance. That saves fuel and markedly reduces maintenance expenses at the cost of weight.
3. Range. Fuel tanks mean weight, which means more wing and more engine
4. Larger overhead bins (customer preference) and other improved interior fittings.
5. Better noise insulation (this adds a lot of weight and read the above comments, a F100 weakness that deters customers). Better insulation also cuts fuel burn (less cabin heating at altitude).
6. Wings and wingtip treatments improved to reduce fuel burn (this adds weight)
7. Fitting weights are way up.

There is good weight and bad weight. The F100 is a light rocket, but does it have what customers want? e.g., how many roller bags fit in the overhead compartments? (Hint, a new plane won't sell if it isn't competitive and I don't believe the F100 could be made competitive in expected carry on luggage. In short hops, most people I know will not check a bag and too many do not want to gate check. Not to mention many airlines now charge a fee for overhead bin space, so the more space, the more revenue...

The questions that should be asked: AA retired F100s, why did they buy heavier E190s? Why didn't the F100 sell better to keep the factory running? Why only 142 still flying:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-f100.htm

We have a thread on Qantas having out a bid to replace the F100s, that means, if you look at the link above, the top two airlines flying the F100 will retire the type. When those 57 leave service, it eliminates any real possibility of continuing support of the type.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465483

Seriously, we had a thread on the F100NG in 2011. We expected EIS in 2015 for the F100NG...
viewtopic.php?t=524879

With 20 million euros in subsidies, they couldn't make it happen back then. I would love for the small GTF to find a viable home. But a viable airframe needs a modern cabin.
I get weight is an easy metric to understand
How about the maintenance palan?

Lightsaber

What Boeing needed/needs was a 757NG… we would have a different Boeing on our hands today….

lightsaber wrote:

tvh wrote:

The design dates back to the first crewed flight on the Apollo program. Restarting this will be like bringing something designed with a slide rule to a supercomputer fight. My guess is it would be cheaper and faster to go from a blank sheet.

I am always surprised how light the f100 design is compared with other later designs. In part because of less range ambition, but even then it is really light. Why are the a220 or e2 not that light with all new materials and computer design capabilities.

1. New engines are much heavier.
Higher bypass ratio means a larger diameter which means more weight (but much less noise and fuel burn)
Higher pressure ratios means the pressure vessel must be thicker
Higher temperatures might increase fuel burn, but that weakens materials which means more weight
Engines last many more cycles between overhauls, that added weight (and is just expected today).
2. A220 and to a lesser extent the E2 added electrical subsystems and predictive maintenance. That saves fuel and markedly reduces maintenance expenses at the cost of weight.
3. Range. Fuel tanks mean weight, which means more wing and more engine
4. Larger overhead bins (customer preference) and other improved interior fittings.
5. Better noise insulation (this adds a lot of weight and read the above comments, a F100 weakness that deters customers). Better insulation also cuts fuel burn (less cabin heating at altitude).
6. Wings and wingtip treatments improved to reduce fuel burn (this adds weight)
7. Fitting weights are way up.

There is good weight and bad weight. The F100 is a light rocket, but does it have what customers want? e.g., how many roller bags fit in the overhead compartments? (Hint, a new plane won't sell if it isn't competitive and I don't believe the F100 could be made competitive in expected carry on luggage. In short hops, most people I know will not check a bag and too many do not want to gate check. Not to mention many airlines now charge a fee for overhead bin space, so the more space, the more revenue...

The questions that should be asked: AA retired F100s, why did they buy heavier E190s? Why didn't the F100 sell better to keep the factory running? Why only 142 still flying:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-f100.htm

We have a thread on Qantas having out a bid to replace the F100s, that means, if you look at the link above, the top two airlines flying the F100 will retire the type. When those 57 leave service, it eliminates any real possibility of continuing support of the type.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465483

Seriously, we had a thread on the F100NG in 2011. We expected EIS in 2015 for the F100NG...
viewtopic.php?t=524879

With 20 million euros in subsidies, they couldn't make it happen back then. I would love for the small GTF to find a viable home. But a viable airframe needs a modern cabin.
I get weight is an easy metric to understand
How about the maintenance palan?

Lightsaber

Sure there is some explenation for the weight difference, but still can not understand why it is this big :
Difference in OEW per seat in % more than Fokker 130 (# seats in type specification)
A320 neo (161)
46.7%
A220-100 (110)
70.7%
A220-300 (135)
46.4%
B737 MAX8 (158)
52.1%
E190 E2 (106)
66%
E195 E2 (132)
44.4%

https://www.ngaircraft.com/

They are now proposing an aircraft with basically the same engine as the E175-E2 caring 137 passengers over the same range. That is 71 % more passengers. If they really could pull this off, it would be highly efficient machine. I think they simply do not have the support to do so. Boeing has and that is what this thread was all about. Unfortunately, still not likely to happen.

Is there anything in the MAX that could be used for a 737-2MAX, or is the size difference between the -200 and -700 too vast?

tvh wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

tvh wrote:

I am always surprised how light the f100 design is compared with other later designs. In part because of less range ambition, but even then it is really light. Why are the a220 or e2 not that light with all new materials and computer design capabilities.

1. New engines are much heavier.
Higher bypass ratio means a larger diameter which means more weight (but much less noise and fuel burn)
Higher pressure ratios means the pressure vessel must be thicker
Higher temperatures might increase fuel burn, but that weakens materials which means more weight
Engines last many more cycles between overhauls, that added weight (and is just expected today).
2. A220 and to a lesser extent the E2 added electrical subsystems and predictive maintenance. That saves fuel and markedly reduces maintenance expenses at the cost of weight.
3. Range. Fuel tanks mean weight, which means more wing and more engine
4. Larger overhead bins (customer preference) and other improved interior fittings.
5. Better noise insulation (this adds a lot of weight and read the above comments, a F100 weakness that deters customers). Better insulation also cuts fuel burn (less cabin heating at altitude).
6. Wings and wingtip treatments improved to reduce fuel burn (this adds weight)
7. Fitting weights are way up.

There is good weight and bad weight. The F100 is a light rocket, but does it have what customers want? e.g., how many roller bags fit in the overhead compartments? (Hint, a new plane won't sell if it isn't competitive and I don't believe the F100 could be made competitive in expected carry on luggage. In short hops, most people I know will not check a bag and too many do not want to gate check. Not to mention many airlines now charge a fee for overhead bin space, so the more space, the more revenue...

The questions that should be asked: AA retired F100s, why did they buy heavier E190s? Why didn't the F100 sell better to keep the factory running? Why only 142 still flying:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-f100.htm

We have a thread on Qantas having out a bid to replace the F100s, that means, if you look at the link above, the top two airlines flying the F100 will retire the type. When those 57 leave service, it eliminates any real possibility of continuing support of the type.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465483

Seriously, we had a thread on the F100NG in 2011. We expected EIS in 2015 for the F100NG...
viewtopic.php?t=524879

With 20 million euros in subsidies, they couldn't make it happen back then. I would love for the small GTF to find a viable home. But a viable airframe needs a modern cabin.
I get weight is an easy metric to understand
How about the maintenance palan?

Lightsaber

Sure there is some explenation for the weight difference, but still can not understand why it is this big :
Difference in OEW per seat in % more than Fokker 130 (# seats in type specification)
A320 neo (161)
46.7%
A220-100 (110)
70.7%
A220-300 (135)
46.4%
B737 MAX8 (158)
52.1%
E190 E2 (106)
66%
E195 E2 (132)
44.4%

https://www.ngaircraft.com/

They are now proposing an aircraft with basically the same engine as the E175-E2 caring 137 passengers over the same range. That is 71 % more passengers. If they really could pull this off, it would be highly efficient machine. I think they simply do not have the support to do so. Boeing has and that is what this thread was all about. Unfortunately, still not likely to happen.

The issue is I think all the competition seat counts are low. Without knowing the assumed Fokker pitch, I believe every competitor was shorted rows of seats. Also, why only compare on OEW weight? Fuel burn us the metric.

I'm also skeptical on the released empty weights for the NG.

I posted this "Greta line" link before:
https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-stage- ... -a-review/

The A221 weighs more than the 717, but notice it trounces the older aircraft in fuel burn? Much is subsystems as the drop is more than engine efficiency...

That chart had the A321N, -9MAX above the Greta line with the A320N and -8MAX one PiP away (MAX 8 fractionally better). e.g., MAX 8 cut fuel burn 24.1%, the A320CEO by an amazing 31.6% (must be comparing pre-sharklets, pre-engine PiPs though).

You realize those aircraft have much higher empty weights than the prior models? e.g. the A320CEO was 42.6 tons now 44.3 tons yet fuel burn plummeted. More than engine efficiency gains (20%) That implies subsystems...

I design aerospace systems customers like. For example we had to go to the customer on the latest to increase cost by a few million per unit and weight by a huge amount to meet their maintenance time on station requirements. They screamed, but then came back realizing we were the only ones offering a truly low maintenance solution (five and a half years between C checks in high utilization duty in a harsh environment).

The fly sheet weight is good. But that doesn't mean that is the offered weight.

Also, shorthaul is tough. We're discussing in another thread 50-seat replacement with buses and all electric 19-seat turboprops. I would, for example expect LCY to lose a lot of traffic to the next high speed rail improvement. Wouldn't you?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465609

If you find more details, please let me know. Empty weights help sell, but until I know more about subsystems, it is hard to evaluate.

Lightsaber

What's the business case? The A220 and E195 aren't exactly flying off the shelves.

I did a back of the envelope calculation on fuel burn, 500nm mission.

Assumption
F100 100 pax
E2-190 100 pax
A221 110 pax
E2-195 132 pax
F130 137 pax
A223 148 pax

105kg per pax, incl. bags

I assumed PW1500G 5% more efficient than PW1200G

I assumed A220 subsystems cut fuel burn 3% vs F NG. E2 1% more (since I consulted, on both, I think this is accurate).

I used wing loading to assume after 250nm (thin air), I used purely weight the first 500nm.

I used F100 wing area per Wikipedia and wing area per Wikipedia for A220. (93 m^2 vs A220112.3 m^2 vs. E2 103m^2).

Everything relative to A223 fuel burn:
F100NG 85% mission burn, 126% per pax
F130NG 96% mission fuel burn, 104% per pax
E2-190 91% mission fuel burn, 135% per pax
E2-195 98% mission fuel burn, 110% per pax
A221 90% of mission fuel burn, 121% per pax
A233 baseline (100% mission fuel burn, base per passenger fuel burn).



I assume PW1200G and PW6000 weight the same, 2449.4 kg
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... -E.020_(IM)_Pratt_and_Whitney_USA_PW6000_series_engines-01-08062005.pdf

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... .07.17.pdf

The Spey weighed nothing, 1024 kg. That leaves only 1.35 tons of weight gain for nacells, avionics, winglets, and structure to support each 1425 kg heavier engine.

Winglets I estimate at 400kg, so only .95 kg for so many improvements before more advanced subsystems or more wing.

Anything past 500nm, the A220 has to much of an advantage. Neat idea, but optimized for turboprop ranges due to subsystems.

I am of the belief buses, trains, and electric turboprops are the future below 250nm. Above that range, new turboprops or the A223 or reduced frequency mainline.

This is what I meant by good weight (subsystems, wing, overhead bins, larger water closet) vs just focusing on Empty weight. The A221 is overwinged, E2-190 about perfectly winged, E2-195 slightly underwinged, F100NG slightly under winged by today's standards, but also suffering on subsystems and low bypass engine, F130NG underwinged. Please do your own math, but I come out with higher carbon emissions per passenger on the F130 on short missions and wing loading.

Lightsaber

Thanks a lot for that Lightsaber. Really nice, much appreciated

3 Things.

1 The Spey engine is on the original F28. The F100 had the Tay engine on it. I think that reduces the weight increase.
2 Wing area. The F1xxNG has new wing ends which extend the wing span from 28.1m to 29.9m (30.6m effective for the winglets seems about right). For the wing area I estimated a growth from 93.5m2 to 94.3m2.
3 Parasitic drag. How did it enter the equation? On the F1xxNG all surfaces are smaller;

- Fuselage
- Wing
- Nacelles
- Control surfaces

Taxi645 wrote:

Thanks a lot for that Lightsaber. Really nice, much appreciated

3 Things.

1 The Spey engine is on the original F28. The F100 had the Tay engine on it. I think that reduces the weight increase.
2 Wing area. The F1xxNG has new wing ends which extend the wing span from 28.1m to 29.9m (30.6m effective for the winglets seems about right). For the wing area I estimated a growth from 93.5m2 to 94.3m2.
3 Parasitic drag. How did it enter the equation? On the F1xxNG all surfaces are smaller;

- Fuselage
- Wing
- Nacelles
- Control surfaces

Thank for the correction on the engine, that means I pulled the wrong weight.

Since the major drag is fighting gravity in a climb (weight) or altitude for win loading, I ignored parasitic drag differeces, which would favor the F NG. However, there is a "take back" with wing mounted engines. I neglected the asymmetrical inlet profile on tail mounted engines that is a fuel burn penalty (due to aircraft boundary layer), this should be a wash between A220 parasitic drag and the Fokker. This would slightly benefit the E2 numbers, but shouldn't change the NG vs. A220.

I also neglected the cg benefits of modern avionics to balance the aircraft. However, I'm not aware of these systems in the A220 or E2 either. Why? I've seen in smaller aircraft... Perhaps reliability risk wasn't worth it? (The smaller aircraft I've seen it in were longer range where tuning weight/balance has more benefits).

Lightsaber

Ok Tay is 1598kg
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... e%2005.pdf

That gives 2092kg for the larger nacelles, avionics, and such. Ok, more plausible.

Other numbers shouldn't change, except I should discount the E2 fuel burn a little.

Lightsaber