Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Elementalism wrote:Nobody really has definitive answers as to what the 797 was going to be. Lots of people think it was going to be like the A300 and a short twin aisle. Others thought it was a 757-200 and 300 replacement. Once the MAX issues happened, then COVID, and 777X issues it was shelved.
I agree with Max Q. At this point it may show up, but not as a dedicated MOM but a clean sheet 737 replacement that starts at a -7 or -8 sized and could end the size and capacity of a 757-300.
Max Q wrote:Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions
Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement
DartHerald wrote:I still think there ought to be scope for a small WB, a la A300 for short range (sub 3000nm) trunk routes. Maybe it will fall to AB to do it, in preference to the A322/3?
Sermons wrote:Max Q wrote:Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions
Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement
I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.
The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.
Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286
Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.
A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.
The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..
seat1a wrote:Thought of this concept photo today and wondering if it will ever become a reality? Generally speaking, is this rendering single-aisle redo of the 757? Trying to get a sense of scale from the photo.
Thanks. Cool concept photo from 2021.
https://www.airguide.info/should-boeing ... placement/
Jomar777 wrote:Sermons wrote:Max Q wrote:Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions
Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement
I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.
The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.
Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286
Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.
A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.
The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..
I understand what leeham says and your opinion but Airbus already countered this with the A321XLR. Tis is the excat segment that Boeing lost by not advancing the 757 which needs to re-coup. A WB/Twin aisle will increse cabin crew levels on the plane even though it might be shorter and this is only one of the many disadvantages.
A B737 clean sheet replacement starting within the 8 all the way to the -300 (757) might be the best option but we might never know for now.
Waterbomber2 wrote:Aviation is heading into a new era.
Aircraft are going to get significantly longer to carry hydrogen tanks in the back.
We will see awkward designs before they converge towards similar shapes.
The fuselages may extend far behind the tailplane.
We could see cargo compartments moved into the wings while underfloor decks get filled with hydrogen ULD's.
Waterbomber2 wrote:The fuselages may extend far behind the tailplane.
seat1a wrote:Thought of this concept photo today and wondering if it will ever become a reality? Generally speaking, is this rendering single-aisle redo of the 757? Trying to get a sense of scale from the photo.
Thanks. Cool concept photo from 2021.
https://www.airguide.info/should-boeing ... placement/
JBo wrote:Waterbomber2 wrote:The fuselages may extend far behind the tailplane.
I ... don't see that happening at all. Not from an aerodynamics standpoint, or from a weight-and-balance standpoint. The tailplane assembly has been firmly established at the very rear of the airframe for a reason.
Berven1 wrote:We always keep discussing new aircraft models, but it is now proving much more difficult to develop a new aircraft type. The Boeing 797 has been much talked about in recent years, but Boieng said in her press release that no new types of aircraft are expected in the coming years. It is also known that engine manufacturers are having problems and very few new engines are being developed.
However, I think Boeing 797 will be a new narrow body aircraft for replacement of Boeing 737MAX, in 180-250 seat versions. I guess she will launch new Boeing 797 by 2030 and go to market especially in 2035 for airlines who will buy 797.
In all likelihood, Boeing will also announce a new aircraft type in addition to the Boeing 797 to compete with the Airbus A321NEO. This aircraft type "Boeing 808" will fly a little further than Airbus A321NEO, and also become much more environmentally friendly and economical. Like the Boeing 797, the "Boeing 808" will probably also become a narrow-body aircraft and will carry various versions ranging from 200-270 passengers over a distance of up to 8700 kilometres.
It is also not surprising that KLM and Transavia will return to Boeing after ten years of flying with Airbus. However, I think that Airbus is a temporary solution for KLM and Transavia as they have not ordered a Boeing 737 MAX. This was due to problems with Boeing 737 MAX10, especially with certification, and there was also a lot of uncertainty about whether Boeing 737MAX would be delivered to KLM or Transavia on time.
intotheair wrote:seat1a wrote:Thought of this concept photo today and wondering if it will ever become a reality? Generally speaking, is this rendering single-aisle redo of the 757? Trying to get a sense of scale from the photo.
Thanks. Cool concept photo from 2021.
https://www.airguide.info/should-boeing ... placement/
To be clear, I'm 99% sure that concept rendering did not come from Boeing but rather some random person on the internet.
Jon Ostrower obtained from inside Boeing an actual rendering of the NMA. He has a good writeup at the time for how the project was progressing, just before the 737 MAX fiasco happened:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... eings-nma/
flipdewaf wrote:
The gap at the middle of the market is there for a reason...
Fred
Sermons wrote:Berven1 wrote:We always keep discussing new aircraft models, but it is now proving much more difficult to develop a new aircraft type. The Boeing 797 has been much talked about in recent years, but Boieng said in her press release that no new types of aircraft are expected in the coming years. It is also known that engine manufacturers are having problems and very few new engines are being developed.
However, I think Boeing 797 will be a new narrow body aircraft for replacement of Boeing 737MAX, in 180-250 seat versions. I guess she will launch new Boeing 797 by 2030 and go to market especially in 2035 for airlines who will buy 797.
In all likelihood, Boeing will also announce a new aircraft type in addition to the Boeing 797 to compete with the Airbus A321NEO. This aircraft type "Boeing 808" will fly a little further than Airbus A321NEO, and also become much more environmentally friendly and economical. Like the Boeing 797, the "Boeing 808" will probably also become a narrow-body aircraft and will carry various versions ranging from 200-270 passengers over a distance of up to 8700 kilometres.
It is also not surprising that KLM and Transavia will return to Boeing after ten years of flying with Airbus. However, I think that Airbus is a temporary solution for KLM and Transavia as they have not ordered a Boeing 737 MAX. This was due to problems with Boeing 737 MAX10, especially with certification, and there was also a lot of uncertainty about whether Boeing 737MAX would be delivered to KLM or Transavia on time.
The a321neo is a very capable but not soo capable that it would force Boeing to create a new additional aircraft type just for it. I feel like some are stretching it's capabilities just a bit.
A 3 member "797" with the largest seating around 240-250 max should suffice against the a321LR /XLR , and with enough ground clearance for a more powerful engine , a longer range 5000nmi varient should not be a problem . Boeing will probably want to make this 797 varient atleast 15-20% more efficient than the a321neo too .
Sermons wrote:
An "808" could be a 7 abreast widebody family or just a beefed up "797" with a larger wing and more powerful engine covering the 250-300 seg.
flipdewaf wrote:Sermons wrote:This is exactly the problem, Boeing can't find 15-20% gains without resorting to technology that Airbus could simply apply their current aircraft and get similar useful results out of. The 737 has done almost exactly this.
Fred
LAOCA wrote:flipdewaf wrote:
The gap at the middle of the market is there for a reason...
Fred
This, is one of the best comments I've seen in all MOM discussions.
Sermons wrote:LAOCA wrote:flipdewaf wrote:
The gap at the middle of the market is there for a reason...
Fred
This, is one of the best comments I've seen in all MOM discussions.
A gap that was perfectly filled by the 757 , 767 and a332 before but is no more. There still doesn't exist a perfect NEXT Gen substitute to this day.
william wrote:flipdewaf wrote:Sermons wrote:This is exactly the problem, Boeing can't find 15-20% gains without resorting to technology that Airbus could simply apply their current aircraft and get similar useful results out of. The 737 has done almost exactly this.
Fred
THIS!!!!! The same game Boeing did with the 737 for decades, Airbus could do the same with its more modern platform and has. Airbus has already done this. Its called the A321NEO.
william wrote:flipdewaf wrote:Sermons wrote:This is exactly the problem, Boeing can't find 15-20% gains without resorting to technology that Airbus could simply apply their current aircraft and get similar useful results out of. The 737 has done almost exactly this.
Fred
THIS!!!!! The same game Boeing did with the 737 for decades, Airbus could do the same with its more modern platform and has. Airbus has already done this. Its called the A321NEO.
77west wrote:Elementalism wrote:Nobody really has definitive answers as to what the 797 was going to be. Lots of people think it was going to be like the A300 and a short twin aisle. Others thought it was a 757-200 and 300 replacement. Once the MAX issues happened, then COVID, and 777X issues it was shelved.
I agree with Max Q. At this point it may show up, but not as a dedicated MOM but a clean sheet 737 replacement that starts at a -7 or -8 sized and could end the size and capacity of a 757-300.
I don't think we will see anything less than 737-8 size as a starting point. The -7 is a bit of a dead horse as is the A319
aemoreira1981 wrote:It should be a narrow-body version of the 737 but with the ability to accept larger engines and also containerized cargo. It needs to have versions with seating in a 1-class version between 180 and 250 passengers, with at least 3500 nmi range in this configuration. The existing CFM LEAP and PW1100G engines could be power plants.
As for Airbus and the A330 family…that is really to keep Boeing honest on 787 pricing.
questions wrote:What is the maximum number of passengers for a single aisle design? What are the factors involved in determining that number?
What is the tipping point where the move from single-aisle to twin-aisle makes sense and why?
questions wrote:What is the maximum number of passengers for a single aisle design? What are the factors involved in determining that number?
What is the tipping point where the move from single aisle to twin aisle makes sense and why?
Astronage wrote:questions wrote:What is the maximum number of passengers for a single aisle design? What are the factors involved in determining that number?
What is the tipping point where the move from single-aisle to twin-aisle makes sense and why?
I don't think there is a limit as long as your plane fits into that 80 meters cube and you have enough exits.
I remember hearing that passengers should not be more than two seats away from the aisle(s). Assuming such a rule actually exists in the FARs, that would put the maximum number of seats per row at 11 for WB.
flipdewaf wrote:Sermons wrote:LAOCA wrote:
This, is one of the best comments I've seen in all MOM discussions.
A gap that was perfectly filled by the 757 , 767 and a332 before but is no more. There still doesn't exist a perfect NEXT Gen substitute to this day.
You’ve missed the point, why does there need to be a substitute? There is a gap in the automotive market for 5 wheeled vehicles too, do we expect ford to be clamouring for solutions to this?
Fred
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jomar777 wrote:Sermons wrote:Max Q wrote:Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions
Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement
I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.
The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.
Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286
Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.
A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.
The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..
I understand what leeham says and your opinion but Airbus already countered this with the A321XLR. Tis is the excat segment that Boeing lost by not advancing the 757 which needs to re-coup. A WB/Twin aisle will increse cabin crew levels on the plane even though it might be shorter and this is only one of the many disadvantages.
A B737 clean sheet replacement starting within the 8 all the way to the -300 (757) might be the best option but we might never know for now.
Sermons wrote:Max Q wrote:Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions
Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement
I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.
The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.
Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286
Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.
A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.
The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..
strfyr51 wrote:Sermons wrote:Max Q wrote:Eventually there will be a 797, I think it will be a clean sheet 737 replacement starting at 160 seats and going to 250 seats across several different versions
Don’t see Boeing actually building a real MOM, 757 replacement
I read a great article from leehamnews a while back about the advantages of a WB fuselage more especially for an MOM aircraft. One thing that struck me was the fact that it mentioned how a longer NB fuselage ( 250+ seats ) needed to be stiffer/heavier to counteract the bending moment forces from the centre (something an equivalent shorter WB f.... wouldnt experience as much ) and in some cases due to this it was possible to have the WB be the lighter one of the two.
The NB landing gear would also have to be longer (aka 757) to avoid tail strikes and accommodate a steaper take off performance. A longer MLG would add more weight to the 250+ seat NB jet.
Obviously the NB MOM design would enjoy a lower seat cost due to it's slender fuselage experiencing less drag, but an equivalent WB would have more revenue potential due to faster turn around times (shorter boarding and deboarding times) , and have more cargo potential.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/08/analy ... more-36286
Anyway I doubt the TBW design could accommodate up to 250 seats, because it will use slender wings and will will need to be as light as possible. Will probably be as large as the MAX 9 (luckily the MAX 10) at best.
A widebody MOM could cover the 240 to 280 seats segment and the TBW could cover 130 to 240 (MAXPAX) . Boeing can still have time to launch the WB MOM in 2025-2027 with EIS in the early 2030s more especially with the Ultrafan now picking up pace ( and the 777-9 and Max10/7 certified by then) .. Then after this they could start work on the 737 replacement, or at least should be in the early years of dev.
The WB MOM could also replace the 787-8, and allow Boeing to focus only on the more profitable/ less costly 9 and 10. Not only that, the MOM could also fly longer, faster (0.85) and with alot of cargo..
If that is your reasoning? then the 797 should start as a 767-200 sized airplane and move up from there. t should have a center wing box that can house a center tank for extended range fuel and should have TATL range from Chicago to London or Frankfurt and Denver to Hawaii.it should not infringe on the 787 or the 777 in Range or passenger capacity,
Revelation wrote:seat1a wrote:Thought of this concept photo today and wondering if it will ever become a reality? Generally speaking, is this rendering single-aisle redo of the 757? Trying to get a sense of scale from the photo.
Thanks. Cool concept photo from 2021.
https://www.airguide.info/should-boeing ... placement/
What happened to it was there was no point in time where Boeing management believed they could make sufficient profit by building it, even after they had shown their advanced concepts to many customers and were giving at least outline-level briefings on it at major air shows.
A lot of the reasons are given in this thread. A lot of the market potential was taken up by smaller planes, both their own and Airbus's. The cost of a full-blown clean-sheet development program in the modern era is huge, so the market for it has to be huge. Also, the risk is huge. There's no guarantee that engineering will deliver what they say on time and on budget. 787 was proof of that, as was A380.
I agree with the posters that say it probably won't become a reality. The market has coped by buying A321XLR, MAX10, 787-8 and A330NEO. Not exact substitutes, but given the realities of the market place, close enough. The next thing we should be seeing should be narrowbodies based on CFM RISE.
JonesNL wrote:Revelation wrote:seat1a wrote:Thought of this concept photo today and wondering if it will ever become a reality? Generally speaking, is this rendering single-aisle redo of the 757? Trying to get a sense of scale from the photo.
Thanks. Cool concept photo from 2021.
https://www.airguide.info/should-boeing ... placement/
What happened to it was there was no point in time where Boeing management believed they could make sufficient profit by building it, even after they had shown their advanced concepts to many customers and were giving at least outline-level briefings on it at major air shows.
A lot of the reasons are given in this thread. A lot of the market potential was taken up by smaller planes, both their own and Airbus's. The cost of a full-blown clean-sheet development program in the modern era is huge, so the market for it has to be huge. Also, the risk is huge. There's no guarantee that engineering will deliver what they say on time and on budget. 787 was proof of that, as was A380.
I agree with the posters that say it probably won't become a reality. The market has coped by buying A321XLR, MAX10, 787-8 and A330NEO. Not exact substitutes, but given the realities of the market place, close enough. The next thing we should be seeing should be narrowbodies based on CFM RISE.
Agreed, simple NB with CFM rise from 250 to 300 in single class capacity and 200 to 250 in two class seating. The market is converging more and more towards the A321 size. And will probably want to up-gauge in a decade or 2...
Sermons wrote:JonesNL wrote:Revelation wrote:What happened to it was there was no point in time where Boeing management believed they could make sufficient profit by building it, even after they had shown their advanced concepts to many customers and were giving at least outline-level briefings on it at major air shows.
A lot of the reasons are given in this thread. A lot of the market potential was taken up by smaller planes, both their own and Airbus's. The cost of a full-blown clean-sheet development program in the modern era is huge, so the market for it has to be huge. Also, the risk is huge. There's no guarantee that engineering will deliver what they say on time and on budget. 787 was proof of that, as was A380.
I agree with the posters that say it probably won't become a reality. The market has coped by buying A321XLR, MAX10, 787-8 and A330NEO. Not exact substitutes, but given the realities of the market place, close enough. The next thing we should be seeing should be narrowbodies based on CFM RISE.
Agreed, simple NB with CFM rise from 250 to 300 in single class capacity and 200 to 250 in two class seating. The market is converging more and more towards the A321 size. And will probably want to up-gauge in a decade or 2...
I have a sweet spot for WBs myself but I do agree that a NB seems like a better bet . There will be trade offs associated with a 55- 60m NB with 300 seats MAX , but it should be worth it if seat and operating costs are low enough to displace SOME more expensive WBs in medium-long routes like TATL.
Hopefully RR can re-enter the large NB market again
intotheair wrote:seat1a wrote:Thought of this concept photo today and wondering if it will ever become a reality? Generally speaking, is this rendering single-aisle redo of the 757? Trying to get a sense of scale from the photo.
Thanks. Cool concept photo from 2021.
https://www.airguide.info/should-boeing ... placement/
To be clear, I'm 99% sure that concept rendering did not come from Boeing but rather some random person on the internet.
Jon Ostrower obtained from inside Boeing an actual rendering of the NMA. He has a good writeup at the time for how the project was progressing, just before the 737 MAX fiasco happened:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... eings-nma/
Ziyulu wrote:I find it funny that a few years ago, everyone on these forums were saying how airlines were waiting for this revolutionary aircraft. This just shows one should not plan the future based on something they cannot see.