lightsaber wrote:

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

Taxi645 wrote:

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.

Noshow wrote:

Well the D328 will be built again.

Noshow wrote:

Well the D328 will be built again.

Noshow wrote:

Well the D328 will be built again.

oldannyboy wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Well the D328 will be built again.

Says who?. There's absolutely ZERO certainty about that either, with an earmarked first flight date of 2024, that is 3 years from now... Please.
What we have now is the usual fanfare about upcoming plans, a website, and a foggy and distant timeline.

Customer support is one thing, building and selling a civil airliner is quite another...

Noshow wrote:

Don't mix up two separate types from two manufacturers please.
The D328 guys are hiring. https://deutscheaircraft.careers/en/jobs

Nean1 wrote:

https://www.aeroin.net/embraer-assina-acordo-com-a-fokker-para-atuarem-juntas-em-projetos-de-aeronaves/

Embraer signs an agreement with Fokker to work together on aircraft projects

“Whether it's the Defense market with our support for the C-390 Millennium transport aircraft or any type of support or development in the Commercial aviation market, we are confident that many exciting projects will emerge in the coming years,” said Menzo van der Beek, CEO of Fokker Services.

“There is enormous potential for the two companies to develop opportunities together. This is a very important step in Embraer's strategy to establish significant and strategic partnerships around the world,” said Jackson Schneider, President and CEO of Embraer Defense & Security.

“....Whether it's the Defense market with our support for the C-390 Millennium transport aircraft or any type of support or development in the Commercial aviation market, we are confident that many exciting projects will emerge in the coming years,” said Menzo van der Beek, CEO of Fokker Services.

“There is enormous potential for the two companies to develop opportunities together. This is a very important step in Embraer's strategy to establish significant and strategic partnerships around the world,” said Jackson Schneider, President and CEO of Embraer Defense & Security...."

What will be the real scope of this agreement?

Taxi645 wrote:

Well any F1xxNG would have so much overlap with the E2, that probably not what they're looking at. Looking forward to what will result from this corporation.

petertenthije wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Well any F1xxNG would have so much overlap with the E2, that probably not what they're looking at. Looking forward to what will result from this corporation.

My thought exactly.

My guess, Fokker services will become a maintenance organisation and possibly a regional sales arm for Embraer.

Probably Fokker will be included in the development of future Embraer products. They have a very strong R&D operation, working as sub-contractor for various civil, military and space projects.

CrimsonNL wrote:

I'm quite amazed that in 2021 we're somehow still talking about a Fokker 100NEO/NG/SuperMAX. Say that hell freezes over and KLM expresses interest in 50 of these new jets, plus a surprise order for 30 from Air France. Where are they even going to manufacture them? There's no production line anywhere. No infrastructure at all. What a joke..

oldannyboy wrote:

What's wrong with this place?? Everybody over here is fixating with resuscitating the dead, whether it's the Fokker 100, The Do-328, Pan Am, Eastern Airlines....

Let's move on people. I personally LOVED the Fokker 100. It was handsome, and flew great. But it was modern in 1986.

Noshow wrote:

This ship has sailed.

lightsaber wrote:

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.

scbriml wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

What's wrong with this place?? Everybody over here is fixating with resuscitating the dead, whether it's the Fokker 100, The Do-328, Pan Am, Eastern Airlines....

Let's move on people. I personally LOVED the Fokker 100. It was handsome, and flew great. But it was modern in 1986.

You forgot the endless 757 resurrection threads!

amcnd wrote:

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

Noshow wrote:

To be honest every time I sit in the Embraer I am surprised again how much space you have for yourself and your bag and how much better things have become.

Revelation wrote:

Also, I think it didn't have carry on overhead bins, it just had simple 'hat rack' overheads. I remember saying 'what the bleep!' when I saw them 25 or so years ago.

petertenthije wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Also, I think it didn't have carry on overhead bins, it just had simple 'hat rack' overheads. I remember saying 'what the bleep!' when I saw them 25 or so years ago.

Are you sure you where on a F100? That sounds more like a F28, and an early one at that, because the F28s came with overhead bins as well.

lightsaber wrote:

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