Not a lot new here, other than they are considering moving away from tube and turbofan. I has to be time for a lifting body, doesn't it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -decisions

"Boeing Co. has begun planning for its next all-new airplane, starting with the question of how soon it will shift away from the familiar tube-and-turbofan design that has defined air travel since the dawn of the jet age."

It's behind a paywall for me. Can you post some key, fair use, excerpts?

It’s going to be your usual jet engine with wings and a tube, that is if Boeing wants to get something out this decade.

Next gen tech can now focus on the single aisle side of the business. But customers will buy it if it gives them 20% economics over the 321neo. Anyway you dice it.

planecane wrote:

It's behind a paywall for me. Can you post some key, fair use, excerpts?

There is really nothing other than they keep thinking about planning to maybe do something someday.
I guess key message is that all the NMA talk is wiped off again.

planecane wrote:

It's behind a paywall for me. Can you post some key, fair use, excerpts?

I added a quote of the 1st sentence, which is the most important one in the article.

Well the article mentions tubes and turbofans. Tubes won’t be going away any time soon, so either we go back to turbojets (not happening) or unducted fans if those are the criteria for change going forward.

kalvado wrote:

planecane wrote:

It's behind a paywall for me. Can you post some key, fair use, excerpts?

There is really nothing other than they keep thinking about planning to maybe do something someday.
I guess key message is that all the NMA talk is wiped off again.

There is PD activity going on. I believe there will be a new airplane. Problem is the PD work keeps getting out-prioritized by immediate 737-10 and 777-9 certification work.

BoeingGuy wrote:

kalvado wrote:

planecane wrote:

It's behind a paywall for me. Can you post some key, fair use, excerpts?

There is really nothing other than they keep thinking about planning to maybe do something someday.
I guess key message is that all the NMA talk is wiped off again.

There is PD activity going on. I believe there will be a new airplane. Problem is the PD work keeps getting out-prioritized by immediate 737-10 and 777-9 certification work.

My belief is that there will be a launch was the 737-10 is certified

admanager wrote:

Well the article mentions tubes and turbofans. Tubes won’t be going away any time soon, so either we go back to turbojets (not happening) or unducted fans if those are the criteria for change going forward.

Options which would be mentioned - but not implemented - are all-electric, hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen something, and something totally non-carbon.

With a four or five year launch delay, has that shifted the chances more to a geared engine, or is a traditional architecture engine still in the running for a new airplane?

BoeingGuy wrote:

kalvado wrote:

planecane wrote:

It's behind a paywall for me. Can you post some key, fair use, excerpts?

There is really nothing other than they keep thinking about planning to maybe do something someday.
I guess key message is that all the NMA talk is wiped off again.

There is PD activity going on. I believe there will be a new airplane. Problem is the PD work keeps getting out-prioritized by immediate 737-10 and 777-9 certification work.

Is it too much to ask about the details? Some version of NMA or something else?

Is this the executives and/or bean counters talking? Or is this the engineers and designers talking? Because those are two COMPLETELY different situations...

Opus99 wrote:

It’s going to be your usual jet engine with wings and a tube, that is if Boeing wants to get something out this decade.

Next gen tech can now focus on the single aisle side of the business. But customers will buy it if it gives them 20% economics over the 321neo. Anyway you dice it.

13-14% will do it, and the MAX10 is already some ways toward that for routes that don't need the range.

I don't recall the CEO to NEO, nor NG to MAX improvements, being on the order of 20%.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It’s going to be your usual jet engine with wings and a tube, that is if Boeing wants to get something out this decade.

Next gen tech can now focus on the single aisle side of the business. But customers will buy it if it gives them 20% economics over the 321neo. Anyway you dice it.

13-14% will do it, and the MAX10 is already some ways toward that for routes that don't need the range.

I don't recall the CEO to NEO, nor NG to MAX improvements, being on the order of 20%.

Any source for the MAX 10 being 'some way towards that' percentage improvement, even for favourable routes?

From supply chain to company culture, I want to know what's going to make this effort different, and not another quagmire like the most recent programs.

reasonable wrote:

From supply chain to company culture, I want to know what's going to make this effort different, and not another quagmire like the most recent programs.

Boeing says digital engineering which is why they are designing the manufacturing process before they design the airframe

Why do I get the impression that every 3-4 years Boeing talks up their next clean sheet aircraft, then a year or two later they drop it and warm over an existing design?

Hopefully it will be something in the 180-230 seat range,. 2 engine options and a 4,000 to 5,000 range. Hopefully not another re-engined failure like the MAX.

NLINK wrote:

Hopefully it will be something in the 180-230 seat range,. 2 engine options and a 4,000 to 5,000 range. Hopefully not another re-engined failure like the MAX.

Yep. Hopefully with folding wing tips, so can extending out wingspan to reduce takeoff thrust required enough that can use same engine as A321

Chemist wrote:

Why do I get the impression that every 3-4 years Boeing talks up their next clean sheet aircraft, then a year or two later they drop it and warm over an existing design?

Except this time they don’t have the luxury to not launch it and they know it

B737's replacement is the only way they would actually makes money. Any other projects could possibly caused them to go bankrupt.
Think about it, VLA market is drying up, B787's next move would be new generation engines. The only thing they got to make for now is B737 replacement.

Problem is, Airbus could counter it using A220-300 and possible A220-500 stretch on the lower end, and heavily discounted A321XLR on the upper end for some times before they launched their own A320neo replacement.

So, what Boeing need is B737's replacement that are significantly more advance than just composite materials and next gen engines.

The article basically says Boeing wants to do something different but is torn between doing it now, or waiting given the fact that whatever they design today should be relevant for at least 30 years. Here's the main part of the very short article. Should classify as an excerpt.

... Airbus SE, is mulling a family of hydrogen-power aircraft. General Electric Co. and venture partner Safran SA, meanwhile, are working on several futuristic engine technologies in a bid to cut fuel consumption by more than 20% for single-aisle planes.

The dilemma for Boeing is whether to wait to see if the new technology pans out, “or do we run the propulsion system one more time before we go to that next technology suite?” Deal said in a virtual panel discussion hosted by the Royal Aeronautical Society.

Let’s hope something actually comes of it other than spurious marketing claims and asking airlines if they’d like “widebody aircraft at narrow body costs” without evidence that it’s remotely possible.

LDRA wrote:

NLINK wrote:

Hopefully it will be something in the 180-230 seat range,. 2 engine options and a 4,000 to 5,000 range. Hopefully not another re-engined failure like the MAX.

Yep. Hopefully with folding wing tips, so can extending out wingspan to reduce takeoff thrust required enough that can use same engine as A321

It can use the same engines as the A321, 4-5000nm range and 180-230 seats IS an A321.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good lord, not another round of clean sheet design fluff. I've heard this in 2015, then I thought we got another fresh wave in 2020. Are they back with Max and 787 and friends in terms of getting those in operation? Last I looked they were still working out program kinks there.

This is going to be years and years away.

Meanwhile, A321 and A220 are going to be doing fine.

Opus99 wrote:

It’s going to be your usual jet engine with wings and a tube, that is if Boeing wants to get something out this decade.

Next gen tech can now focus on the single aisle side of the business. But customers will buy it if it gives them 20% economics over the 321neo. Anyway you dice it.

They may also aim at the A220 rather than A320. After all the MAX still has a massive backlog.

Biplane BWB with UDFs?

rigo wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It’s going to be your usual jet engine with wings and a tube, that is if Boeing wants to get something out this decade.

Next gen tech can now focus on the single aisle side of the business. But customers will buy it if it gives them 20% economics over the 321neo. Anyway you dice it.

They may also aim at the A220 rather than A320. After all the MAX still has a massive backlog.

I still think they will try to go for the space in between the MAX and the 787... I don't know if they want to go for the A220 market (2-3) since whatever tech they implement into the the new plane should be scalable to the 737's market segment (3-3)... at the same time, this would mean that there is a chance that the NMA will no longer be a narrowbody, but instead more 767-sized (2-4-2??), which would mean that they can't use the new narrowbody tech for the eventual 737 replacement.

It's quite a dilemma, I guess–do they optimize the NMA for pax or for cargo?

Maybe Boeing will re-visit the "Kermit Kruiser" concept from 2006.

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archiv ... concepts05

dynamo12 wrote:

Good lord, not another round of clean sheet design fluff. I've heard this in 2015, then I thought we got another fresh wave in 2020. Are they back with Max and 787 and friends in terms of getting those in operation? Last I looked they were still working out program kinks there.

This is going to be years and years away.

Meanwhile, A321 and A220 are going to be doing fine.

757max anyone ???

Kikko19 wrote:

dynamo12 wrote:

Good lord, not another round of clean sheet design fluff. I've heard this in 2015, then I thought we got another fresh wave in 2020. Are they back with Max and 787 and friends in terms of getting those in operation? Last I looked they were still working out program kinks there.

This is going to be years and years away.

Meanwhile, A321 and A220 are going to be doing fine.

757max anyone ???

I can't believe it took 32 posts for this to come up.

AAlaxfan wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

dynamo12 wrote:

Good lord, not another round of clean sheet design fluff. I've heard this in 2015, then I thought we got another fresh wave in 2020. Are they back with Max and 787 and friends in terms of getting those in operation? Last I looked they were still working out program kinks there.

This is going to be years and years away.

Meanwhile, A321 and A220 are going to be doing fine.

757max anyone ???

I can't believe it took 32 posts for this to come up.

It was bound to happen haha

A 757Max would not be impressive to me as I'm very partial to the RB211 but would've been a good choice had they kept the line open instead of try to push the 900 then 900ER.

The upper end of the fuselage length should be roughly about halfway between the 200 and 300 but with a width a little wider to allow for 18.2inch wide seats with real armrests. 3 fuselage lengths, wings for each model built to scale as the biggest hindrance the A321 faces is its wing. Same thing ended up dogging the A300 compared to the 767......

Sancho99504 wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

757max anyone ???

I can't believe it took 32 posts for this to come up.

It was bound to happen haha

A 757Max would not be impressive to me as I'm very partial to the RB211 but would've been a good choice had they kept the line open instead of try to push the 900 then 900ER.

The upper end of the fuselage length should be roughly about halfway between the 200 and 300 but with a width a little wider to allow for 18.2inch wide seats with real armrests. 3 fuselage lengths, wings for each model built to scale as the biggest hindrance the A321 faces is its wing. Same thing ended up dogging the A300 compared to the 767......

Well, would Boeing make or lose more money by spending billions in development costs and restarting the production line for the B757 MAX?

They probably gonna lose more money by pursuing it. So they didn't even bother.

ewt340 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

I can't believe it took 32 posts for this to come up.

It was bound to happen haha

A 757Max would not be impressive to me as I'm very partial to the RB211 but would've been a good choice had they kept the line open instead of try to push the 900 then 900ER.

The upper end of the fuselage length should be roughly about halfway between the 200 and 300 but with a width a little wider to allow for 18.2inch wide seats with real armrests. 3 fuselage lengths, wings for each model built to scale as the biggest hindrance the A321 faces is its wing. Same thing ended up dogging the A300 compared to the 767......

Well, would Boeing make or lose more money by spending billions in development costs and restarting the production line for the B757 MAX?

They probably gonna lose more money by pursuing it. So they didn't even bother.

The tooling has long been destroyed. Many 757 parts are obsolete. 737 Max notwithstanding, the 757 is a 40 year old design. People really need to get over the 757.

Boeing discontinued the 757 almost 20 years ago because no-one would buy it.

ewt340 wrote:

B737's replacement is the only way they would actually makes money. Any other projects could possibly caused them to go bankrupt.
Think about it, VLA market is drying up, B787's next move would be new generation engines. The only thing they got to make for now is B737 replacement.

Who would buy a 737 then if a new jet was coming.

I fail to see how anything revolutionary (large improvements) could be produced, just evolutionary (incremental improvements).

zeke wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

B737's replacement is the only way they would actually makes money. Any other projects could possibly caused them to go bankrupt.
Think about it, VLA market is drying up, B787's next move would be new generation engines. The only thing they got to make for now is B737 replacement.

Who would buy a 737 then if a new jet was coming.

I fail to see how anything revolutionary (large improvements) could be produced, just evolutionary (incremental improvements).

Thinking that way about the Model-T got Henry Ford in big trouble.

I feel like you could do the between 737 and 787 space (like a true 767 replacement) with current-near future tech and have it be successful. The 737 replacement I feel needs to be a huge advancement for Boeing to be safe. It would be bad for Boeing spend many billions on a current/near available tech 737 replacement just to have it nearly matched by a much cheaper re-winged/re-engined A320. It would tie Boeing up much more compared to Airbus. The 737 MAX sells poorly compared to the A320 but has still sold thousands and will likely win many more orders just on the back of the sheer size of the market segment. Airbus simply cannot fill all those orders alone (and the C919 and MC-21 certainly won't be filling that gap). So Boeing may be able to wait until their is better tech out there.

On the other hand, if they do go for that MoM segement and it doesn't do well Boeing will be in a world of trouble. They might not be able to afford the proper 737 replacement at that point and that could kill them. I see some very tough decisions for BA in these coming years.

argentinevol98 wrote:

I feel like you could do the between 737 and 787 space (like a true 767 replacement) with current-near future tech and have it be successful. The 737 replacement I feel needs to be a huge advancement for Boeing to be safe. It would be bad for Boeing spend many billions on a current/near available tech 737 replacement just to have it nearly matched by a much cheaper re-winged/re-engined A320. It would tie Boeing up much more compared to Airbus. The 737 MAX sells poorly compared to the A320 but has still sold thousands and will likely win many more orders just on the back of the sheer size of the market segment. Airbus simply cannot fill all those orders alone (and the C919 and MC-21 certainly won't be filling that gap). So Boeing may be able to wait until their is better tech out there.

On the other hand, if they do go for that MoM segement and it doesn't do well Boeing will be in a world of trouble. They might not be able to afford the proper 737 replacement at that point and that could kill them. I see some very tough decisions for BA in these coming years.

Bit vague. How many pax? Single or 2 aisle? Mtowl? Range? Which fantasy engine? Will the fantasy engine be available for Airbus as well (for their response? Where will be produced? How many per month? Overall costs? All questions we all have I guess

They should finally greenlight the NMA and build it at Everett. If it takes some time to get the engines no problem. Take that time to get it right including manufacturing. Boeing should stop waiting. After this year with hopefully MAX deliveries up and certifications progressing its time to get the future going. Milking dead horses is not future proofing.

One day, someone, somewhere will have to break the service frequency paradigm and recognise that this level of service is unsustainable in an increasingly environmentally conscious society. It will be more efficient to use larger planes less frequently in order to reduce airport congestion, crew costs, airport fees and CO2 production. Business travellers will just have to get used to it and the manufacturer who comes up with a light weight twin aisle optimised for short to medium haul will have a field day!

Perhaps Airbus will have cause to reinvigorate the A300, which will come to be seen as years ahead of its time!

Boeing must finally come to conclusion for a new Jet. The largest conclusion however they need to come to and where they are obviously unable to decide in their culture.
They want (more than 100%) all parameters to control beforehand, and before the last 0,01% is not cleared they do not start.
This seems more and more looks like mission impossible.

As they are anyways continuously talking about digital development: How about to implement methods auf Agile and scrum Project management into the next plane. These methods include the Customers early and also allows for some flexibility.
Customers in this sense would be: Airlines, Authorities, Suppliers/ Partners.

My proposal.

Further I would go to the capital market with methods of a startup and collect money with the right idea. They need to ‘construct’ a hype for ‘Americas next Plane’, a vision around it and do some Musk attitude bey having the right people. Probably a totally different set of people then today in Boeing, except for engineering experts. Anyways all who day by day have stock price instead of the Project status on their screen need to be out.

Why dont they reengine the 767 for the mid 2020s?

Why is that so hard?

Then they could ponder the meaning of life and next level propulsion sales for a few years

Flyglobal wrote:

Boeing must finally come to conclusion for a new Jet. The largest conclusion however they need to come to and where they are obviously unable to decide in their culture.
They want (more than 100%) all parameters to control beforehand, and before the last 0,01% is not cleared they do not start.
This seems more and more looks like mission impossible.

As they are anyways continuously talking about digital development: How about to implement methods auf Agile and scrum Project management into the next plane. These methods include the Customers early and also allows for some flexibility.
Customers in this sense would be: Airlines, Authorities, Suppliers/ Partners.

My proposal.

Further I would go to the capital market with methods of a startup and collect money with the right idea. They need to ‘construct’ a hype for ‘Americas next Plane’, a vision around it and do some Musk attitude bey having the right people. Probably a totally different set of people then today in Boeing, except for engineering experts. Anyways all who day by day have stock price instead of the Project status on their screen need to be out.

Based on the cash flow Boeing should generate over the next several years as it clears its MAX, 787 and 777X inventories it can easily fund a new development while also reducing debt materially.

The big costs for a development program don't come in the early years anyways.

The MAX already has enough orders (3,400 in backlog) at 300-400 per year to get them to the early 2030's when a clean sheet could be available. It's hard to not see them getting a few thousand more orders before then as well. Boeing's current market forecast has something like 32,000 Single aisles to be delivered 2021-2040. Something like 23-24,000 still have to be ordered.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

They appear to continue to be progressing with the Truss Braced Wing Concept. It also opens the door for even larger fans since it is a high wing mounted design

https://youtu.be/NtQHjBinQQs

This chatter seems to match the NASA timeline

NASA plans to solicit industry in early 2022 for preliminary designs of aircraft configurations that could be tested, with the potential for first flight of the demonstrator no earlier than late 2026.

https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/nasa- ... onstrator/

Is there a chance for actual production before 2030 or 2035?
regular tube and wing takes at least 5 years (very optimistically), and truss concept would require a few more years to be cleared for design

Two possible design challenges with such a design.
Where are the gear attached and stowed?
Where to place large fuel tanks for +3000nm range? The wings are very thin and dont offer much space for fuel.

Edit:
If the gear is placed in the engine nacelle, which requires quite a bit larger nacelle than in the picture, then the gear will be forward of the wing and presumably forward of cog, which ofc wont work. Aditionally, if the gear was angled backwards to reach the ground well aft of the nacelle then the wing bracing would interfere with the gear strut.

kalvado wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

They appear to continue to be progressing with the Truss Braced Wing Concept. It also opens the door for even larger fans since it is a high wing mounted design

https://youtu.be/NtQHjBinQQs

This chatter seems to match the NASA timeline

NASA plans to solicit industry in early 2022 for preliminary designs of aircraft configurations that could be tested, with the potential for first flight of the demonstrator no earlier than late 2026.

https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/nasa- ... onstrator/

Is there a chance for actual production before 2030 or 2035?
regular tube and wing takes at least 5 years (very optimistically), and truss concept would require a few more years to be cleared for design

2030 could be pushing it but you could see it by 2035 when some of the Airbus Eco Concepts would be available as well.

It seems kind of silly to go forward with a brand new traditional tube and wing at this point - when structures such as that are technically feasible.

I strongly suspect we won't see launch until after 2025.

Until then I think it will be all variants all the time.

777xf
787IGW
787F
MAX-9/10ER with higher MTOW and more thrust (based on work for 321XLR engines) to better compete with A321XLR.

Nothing like NMA?

Noshow wrote:

Nothing like NMA?

Personally I think too much time has passed - the window for that is closed if they can do something like this truss brace.

It doesn't mean they couldn't do a 7W tight/light truss brace but way too much to speculate on until Boeing gives us more.

A 2026 tech demonstrator seems about right for an 2035 EIS.

They now need to replace MAX first - but that can wait a while if this concept is as good as they are saying. The MAX will keep selling.

The major regulatory and aviation manufacturers, world around, need to be negotiating what the cockpit of the future must have and how the plane will perform. No single company or regulator has the competence nor the clout to do this. So far as I know, this is not yet being done. It may be reckless for a single company to come up with 'their' idea. I don't think there needs be a single solution, but companies need to know what regulators will demand. Boeing and Airbus probably have a pretty good idea, as would the major regulators.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The major regulatory and aviation manufacturers, world around, need to be negotiating what the cockpit of the future must have and how the plane will perform. No single company or regulator has the competence nor the clout to do this. So far as I know, this is not yet being done. It may be reckless for a single company to come up with 'their' idea. I don't think there needs be a single solution, but companies need to know what regulators will demand. Boeing and Airbus probably have a pretty good idea, as would the major regulators.

I agree and think that is going to take a long time and why I think the 2020's are going to be the decade of the derivative. I doubt we will see a clean sheet with that new cockpit until 2035.