User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13586
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:23 pm

I just stumbled over a Joe Perez made study of a new Boeing narrow body that seems to utilize a lot of Boeing 787 technology / commonality while probably providing a growth potential towards 250 seats.

This is thought to be a direction both Airbus and Boeing are thinking. An optimized bigger aircraft 150-250 seats and a smaller "bigger regional" closing the 100-150 seat gab without going head to head with Embraer / Bombardier / Sukhoi / AVIC / Mitsubishi.


Source: Joe Perez http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00008716

No 2-2-2, no BWB, no ultra BPR /unducted fans, just building on available technology.

Might be a realistic, low risk approach.. engines could be PW GTF, RR 3spool or CFM56 Leap.

For the 100-150 seats, research studies point more in the direction of 5 abreast tail engined variants. (you need the ground clearance for real efficient engines). Something like this might be an option in cooperation with one of the above mentioned specialized regionals OEMS..

http://www.kaktusdigital.com/images/large/klm_lrj_02.jpg
click to enlarge Source: Me & Henry Lam http://www.kaktusdigital.com

Thoughts?

[Edited 2007-07-13 16:25:19]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
tavong
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 1:59 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:30 pm

Well in fact that 797 is only a Camils Valiquette´s concept aircraft that was made for Fligth Simulator 2004, you can see it at www.avsim.com. There you will find an concept about a possible A320 replacement.

I don´t think that at this time A or B are spending too much energy on pulishing 737 or A32X replacements while the news are on the A350/787 battle.

Gus
SKBO
Just put me on any modern airliner and i will be happy, give me more star alliance miles and i will be a lot happier.
 
TSS
Posts: 3518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:32 pm

Yes!

Unfortunately, the new engines are the hold-up. Once they're ready to go, the aircraft will be designed around them.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
flyabr
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:34 pm

interesting stuff...but i wonder if the engines on say a 200-250 passenger plane would be too heavy to be mounted at the rear of the fuselage???
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm

Based on the very limited information now available, I expect Boeing will produce a relatively conservative 737RS largely based on WN's requirements. I think Airbus are more likely to push payload/range performance and introduce single-file LD3 capability to the narrow-body market. In other words, I'm guess Boeing will push CASM harder and Airbus will push RASM harder.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2467
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:42 pm

The 797 concept looks like the BBD C-series:

Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
wcs
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:04 am

Hi,

As I said some years ago, I'm pretty sure that Boeing and Airbus will team up either with Embraer and Bombardier, respectively, regarding the new medium sized RJ to come.

If I recall correctly, Bombardier asked during Paris AirShow some sort of involvement around the A350 program. On the other end, Embraer should not expose itself to much against Airbus/Boeing, in a head to head war. Bombardier is trying harder with the CSerie, ending maybe in teaming up with AVIC. They also have to protect themselves against AVIC, RRJ and maybe Mitsubishi.

The one family fits all concept is threatened; There is no way to address the market with one base frame. The future will be quite interesting to observe!

My 2 cents,
FLY SKYTEAM JETS
 
ckfred
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
Based on the very limited information now available, I expect Boeing will produce a relatively conservative 737RS largely based on WN's requirements.

I would think that AA would have a lot of say, considering that they have 350 MD-80s that need to be replaced.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:29 am

You can bet your bippy that B and A are both working towards this is some degree or other. They both know the airlines want it and have evaluated possibilities for designs at some stage.

I would bet now that the 787 is much closer to first flight, certification and delivery that Boeing is quietly working towards this goal. As previosuly stated, I think the main hang up are the engines on the 737RS.

Although they have publically stated 2015 or later for the EIS for the 737 replacement, I think it will be sooner based on the desire many airlines (like AA, DL for example) have for a new narrow body airframe. I think that the excitement which the 787 generated has played unto this to a degree; the airlines can see the future of reduced cost travel now, so they will push once the 787 is in service and proves it's operating economics.
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13586
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:41 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
I expect Boeing will produce a relatively conservative 737RS



Quoting Ckfred (Reply 7):
I would think that AA would have a lot of say

Thats a match then  Wink

I think operators like WN, AA, Delta, Ryanair would all have lot to say.

If Boeing / Airbus is able to promise the required 15-20% lower operating / fuel costs there will be a run & sales of the 737 and A320 would rapidly drop.

I think this is a reason for Boeing & Airbus to keep a very, very low profile on their NB plans / ideas.

Even disencourage the market by saying things like "end next decade" .. Same goes for GE/SNEMA (CFM) and PW/RR (IAE)..

So lets  stirthepot   stirthepot  for them  Wink
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:43 am

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 7):
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
Based on the very limited information now available, I expect Boeing will produce a relatively conservative 737RS largely based on WN's requirements.

I would think that AA would have a lot of say, considering that they have 350 MD-80s that need to be replaced.

I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this aircraft will be largely defined in Texas, since between AA, WN, and CO, we're talking about at least 1500 frames over the life of the program.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:55 am

http://www.kaktusdigital.com/images/large/klm_lrj_02.jpg

Regarding this thing, why do you bring it up in irrelevent threads? Which 'research studies' point to 5-abrest as being an optimum layout? The empennage will be ridiculously heavy, what engines are those and why the huge fan? What benefit does the horizontal stabiliser have from being in the jetwash? Why are the fins angled? Why the twin fins, why not just one?

Your picture, whilst maybe 'cool' doesn't look too realistic. Christ, the centre of mass is behind the centre of lift from the look of things - I doubt regulators are going to certify something dynamically unstable in pitch anytime soon.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
albird87
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:15 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:29 am

I have been wondering what the new 737 would look like and how much of the 787 might be used in creating it! I somehow get the feeling that the 737 style look will be lost tho and a more A320 height aircraft will be used to get rid of the engine clearance problem. Also i expect the 737RS to be wider to allow pallets to be used and very similar cockpits to the 787 and 748.
that model in flight sim looks like a good match for the new 737RS but i think they will keep the nose of the 737 to keep the 737 in the spirit of the plane.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 12):
a more A320 height aircraft will be used to get rid of the engine clearance problem.

Yes, the 737RS will have A320 height for engine clearance and to enable 757-300 lengths.

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 12):
i think they will keep the nose of the 737 to keep the 737 in the spirit of the plane.

The shape of the 737RS's nose will be determined by aerodynamics, not style or fashion considerations.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9285
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:12 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
If Boeing / Airbus is able to promise the required 15-20% lower operating / fuel costs there will be a run & sales of the 737 and A320 would rapidly drop.

But their backlog for the new airplane would grow faster than anything we have ever seen to date. It's an acceptable trade-off.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
No 2-2-2, no BWB, no ultra BPR /unducted fans, just building on available technology.

Might be a realistic, low risk approach.. engines could be PW GTF, RR 3spool or CFM56 Leap.

That's a distinct possibility, more so than some of the other concepts floated. Although I don't think Boeing has given up on serving the 100-150 seat market just yet. I anticipate something along the lines of the E170/175 and E190/195 strategy of having four variants based on a roughly common platform, with the larger variants optimized for heavier gross weights and greater range/payload.

3+3 will likely remain the industry standard, with cabin widths not to exceed the A320. Thinner, more vertical walls will allow comfort improvements. High wing is a possibility IMO, to allow larger engines while still allowing convenient ground access.

Light variants: base wing
797-100 - 100/110 seats, 3000 nm range, 22 klbf engine thrust
797-200 - 138/150 seats, 3500 nm range, 24 kblf engine thrust (introduced first for WN)

Heavy variants: strengthen wing with span extension, scaled-up engines
797-300 - 180/200 seats, 3500 nm range, 34 klbf engine thrust
797-400 - 230/250 seats, 3000 nm range, 36 klbf engine thrust

Base features shown, with optional center fuel tanks and engine thrust upgrades possible for all variants.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:39 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
High wing is a possibility IMO, to allow larger engines while still allowing convenient ground access.

That would introduce greater frontal area, worse area ruling, and structural load path length penalties, so I have my doubts.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26723
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
3+3 will likely remain the industry standard, with cabin widths not to exceed the A320. Thinner, more vertical walls will allow comfort improvements.

It would be awesome if they could get an interior cabin width a foot wider then the A320. That way you could have 3+3 at 19" width plus a six-inch wider aisle which means people can get by the drink carts to hit the restroom. Heck, I'd even take the 6" wider aisles if I could keep the 18" seat width. Even 9" would get you an extra half-inch in the armrests (for a bit extra shoulder room) and the wider aisle.
 
ZiggyStardust
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:37 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:46 am

How long would the 250 seat airplane be for a 3X3 layout? Will it run into structure rigidity issues?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26723
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:48 am

Quoting ZiggyStardust (Reply 17):
How long would the 250 seat airplane be for a 3X3 layout? Will it run into structure rigidity issues?

The 54.5m 757-300 held 248 in two classes, so 56m would be the upper end needed.
 
catdaddy63
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:27 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:51 am

I think we will see the same basic blueprint that has made the 737 such a success. Add some new technology, composite construction, more efficient engines, and improve aerodynamics to achieve a considerable CASM reduction over the current generation. 25% better CASM should not be unreasonable. I'd bet the single aisle 3x3 will remain, a slightly larger fuselage cross section, and a larger cargo hold volume to increase revenue as well. If the bleedless systems on the 787 deliver the efficiency gain the Boeing thinks is possible then plan on the new 797 series to incorporate that as well. This will be another evolutionary design, not a revolutionary design. I would be surprised to see a rear engine t-tail arrangement unless there is clear benefits to do so.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
3+3 will likely remain the industry standard, with cabin widths not to exceed the A320. Thinner, more vertical walls will allow comfort improvements.

External fuselage width might not be much greater than that of the A320, but cabin width probably will be. There is pressure for wider seats, for wider aisles to speed turns and, if cargo holds accommodate single-file LD3s, then that will also put pressure on fuselage width. I agree that 3-3 will remain standard.
 
Rbgso
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:15 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:04 am

I cannot help but think that Boeing will dramatically increase their partnership with the heavies in Japan, certainly on a small jet if built, and perhaps even on the 737 replacement. I believe Japan sees itself as a player in the aviation industry in 10-15 years, and teaming with Boeing makes sense.

In the future, I'm betting Airbus will team up increasingly with the Russians.

The wild card is China. Since they will be building A320s from kits, they may demand a bigger piece of the action for more sales in the future.

While partnerships/JVs do reduce risk, there is a tradeoff in control.
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
It would be awesome if they could get an interior cabin width a foot wider then the A320. That way you could have 3+3 at 19" width plus a six-inch wider aisle which means people can get by the drink carts to hit the restroom.

Not sure if airlines care about these things. Maybe you need to change your sales pitch: wider aisle for 10 minute shorter turnaround time. I bet some airlines would kill for that.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting Wsp (Reply 22):
Maybe you need to change your sales pitch: wider aisle for 10 minute shorter turnaround time.

Right in general, but even a 30" aisle would not cut turnaround times by 10 minutes. 3-5 minutes is more realistic, but that's still a very large pile of money over a year.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:45 am

The twin aisle 737RS would need only a minimal increase in crosssection from a A320 with the thinner walls composites allow. That is of course at max width, I would expect a increase in height that puts the widest part up at armrest height so that the shoulder room would be better than the A320.

My main thought that the twin aisle narrowbody as being the route to go down, is that it provides the operators alot more flexibility in seat arrangements, seat widths, aisle widths, etc. So most would still use 3+3, but with wide aisles for quicker loading. They could use whatever 3 wide seat assembly they use in their 787... even "Y+" seats if they use a conventional aisle. Main point is WN wants a faster aircraft on the ground, so it can't avoid picking up atleast a very wide aisle.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
if cargo holds accommodate single-file LD3s

Would the LD3's need extra height too? Enlarging the cargo holds would have the advantage of moving the wings "up" while keeping the landing gear shorter and the various items needing access on the fuselage at more typical 737 heights.

More I think about it, doing a "757RS" with LD3 and twin aisles makes alot of sense with the smallest version a 738 length plane for WN. Then do a "737RS" that is very much back to the capacity of the original 737, which means 5Y to get the length/width ratios that are economical for that capacity range. Even better with two you can optimize the larger one for higher speed and longer ranges than currently seen in the narrowbody arena. A true transatlantic 737RS with .81-.82M cruise would dramatically change the market. I'm not sure how much wing design and other aerodynamic advances would make that speed increase "free" compared to the older planes, but it remains something that WN would very much like... a faster aircraft in the air..
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:22 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 23):
Right in general, but even a 30" aisle would not cut turnaround times by 10 minutes. 3-5 minutes is more realistic, but that's still a very large pile of money over a year.

I was more figuratively speaking. I imagine if one of the manufacturers could carve out a 10 minute turnaround advantage by some innovative means that could be a huge advantage that could trump a percent or two in operating performance difference. So I think the sole focus on the flight performance in this debate may be misleading.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9285
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:35 am

Regarding comfort, might certain airlines want to prevent economy from getting a little too comfy? When you start talking about 2+2+2 with everyone one seat from an isle, seat-back and wireless IFE, 32+ inch pitch, higher cabin pressure and humidity, lower noise, etc, etc, what is left between the economy cabin and first? Shrimp cocktail? If your a legacy airline that benefits from premium cabin revenue, you need there to be a significant incentive for people to pay for upgrades. The widebody cabin in particular takes some of that away. Just a different way of looking at things, I suppose.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 24):
A true transatlantic 737RS with .81-.82M cruise would dramatically change the market.

.80 would be sufficient. Given the fragmentation the 767 was able to accomplish, what reason would the 737RS have for cruising any faster? This will still be an airplane heavily used on short-haul segments, so it shouldn't be biased too heavily for longhaul.

Quoting Rbgso (Reply 21):
I cannot help but think that Boeing will dramatically increase their partnership with the heavies in Japan

What more could Boeing give them? Boeing only retained 10% of the workshare for 787 production, so any "dramatic" work redistributions would have to come at the expense of partners like Spirit, Vought, Alenia, etc. If anything, production will be spread over more and more global suppliers, not just to the Japanese... who aren't even a significant consumer of narrowbody aircraft.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:36 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Regarding this thing, why do you bring it up in irrelevent threads? Which 'research studies' point to 5-abrest as being an optimum layout? The empennage will be ridiculously heavy, what engines are those and why the huge fan? What benefit does the horizontal stabiliser have from being in the jetwash? Why are the fins angled? Why the twin fins, why not just one?

Various answers: Because it's Keesje. Big fans are more fuel efficient. Breaking up the jetwash reduces the IR signature, as do those outboard twin fins. Either the artist is concerned about missile attacks, or he just thinks it looks good. smile 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Quoting ZiggyStardust (Reply 17):
How long would the 250 seat airplane be for a 3X3 layout? Will it run into structure rigidity issues?

The 54.5m 757-300 held 248 in two classes, so 56m would be the upper end needed.

And a 6Y CFRP vertically elliptical fuselage stretched to 56m could easily be stiffer than aluminum...not a problem.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:50 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 26):
.80 would be sufficient. Given the fragmentation the 767 was able to accomplish, what reason would the 737RS have for cruising any faster? This will still be an airplane heavily used on short-haul segments, so it shouldn't be biased too heavily for longhaul.

I think it will need/want to be in the .81-.82 range mostly to make it seem like a real improvement. It could very well be that speed will only be seen when at the end of a long haul flight and lots of fuel has been burned off.

I think the real answer to how fast it will be is in how much aerodynamics makes that extra speed "free" over the 737/A320.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:08 am

Quoting FlyABR (Reply 3):
interesting stuff...but i wonder if the engines on say a 200-250 passenger plane would be too heavy to be mounted at the rear of the fuselage???

You just have to put the wing in the right place to balance it. Control authority would be reduced, requiring larger tail surfaces.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
It would be awesome if they could get an interior cabin width a foot wider then the A320. That way you could have 3+3 at 19" width plus a six-inch wider aisle which means people can get by the drink carts to hit the restroom. Heck, I'd even take the 6" wider aisles if I could keep the 18" seat width. Even 9" would get you an extra half-inch in the armrests (for a bit extra shoulder room) and the wider aisle.

Making the fuselage wider has weight and drag penalties. Boeing is going for economy; I doubt that they'll make it more that an inch or two larger than the A320.
I doubt that the tail-engined version will come about; Boeing discovered during the original 737 design that tail mounted engines have structural and spatial penalties; putting them on the wing gives more passenger space for the same structural weight. The cost to make the landing gear tall enough to clear the engines is much less, and with airports using jetways the reason for trying to keep the 737 low to the ground has gone. If they do make two versions it will be because of different cross-sections, but I doubt that one will be 5 abreast. That's just my opinion, though. I have absolutely nothing to back it up with.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 28):
I think the real answer to how fast it will be is in how much aerodynamics makes that extra speed "free" over the 737/A320.

We're back to the speed vs. economy debate. The real answer will depend on whether WN et al can make more money by burning more fuel or less fuel on a given city pair. If going fast gets you an extra turn per day, and if you can sell those additional seats at a profit, then you go fast. If the cost of the additional fuel exceeds the revenue to be gained, you go slow.

Everything depends on the future cost of fuel. airplane 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
S12PPL
Posts: 3603
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:26 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):

Dude...what's your problem???

How is the thread

Quote:
irrelevent

???

And I'm curious what facts you have to say the thing would never fly? Anyway...I'm just curious what qualifies you as an expert?
Next Flights: 12/31 AS804 PDX-MCO 2/3 AS19 MCO-SEA QX2545 SEA-PDX
 
ThePRGuy
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:53 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):

Ahhhh, 777236ER is back to make an argument.

Personally I think the rear-engined 5 abreast format could (again) be a success - and potential DC9/M80 replacement

Alex
Heathrow has been described as the only building site to have its own airport.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting S12PPL (Reply 31):
Anyway...I'm just curious what qualifies you as an expert?

My degrees and my job.

Quoting S12PPL (Reply 31):
And I'm curious what facts you have to say the thing would never fly?

Well, I'm just curious as to the inclusion of the design features I mentioned. You can read my post above if you're interested. I wonder what a 3D rendering done by a graphics house and an A.net member has to do with real companies making real aircraft?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 28):
I think it will need/want to be in the .81-.82 range mostly to make it seem like a real improvement.

On short haul flights, there is more to be saved by reducing turn-around times and improving climb performance than by increasing cruise speed.
 
Blackbird1331
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:47 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:16 am

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The 737 is great. Improve the technology and find more comfortable seats. And what would improve the comfort and quality of all commercial aircraft would be to to solve the problem of timely departures and arrivals.
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
 
olle
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:31 am

How more efficient will a A320NG be compared to the current?

Will the current B737NG be able to be updated to this, and will a B737RS force an A320RS?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13586
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Olle (Reply 36):
How more efficient will a A320NG be compared to the current?

Will the current B737NG be able to be updated to this, and will a B737RS force an A320RS?

I think the A320NG will happen slowly; new even roomier cabin (accomplished), aerodynamics tweaks, A320,5 ? If an engine improvement comes on top of that improving fuel consumtion by say 5-7% and have longer maintenance intervals (accomplished) a point will arrrive when sales go e.g to a 70% share and Boeing is forced to act. Of course this won´t come unexpected & Boeing will likely prepare a strategy in advance, as is Airbus.

I think Airbus will continue to do A320 upgrades, the oldest technology onboard the A320 is 20 yrs, not 40 years old. They have some room for higher BPR engines and other tweaks. It is not a bad position to watch what your competitor does, listen to market responds, list the do & don´t & try improve on them.


Stretched, Reengined, A320EP https://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/2724857/
Graphics Henry Lam: http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00007055
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:57 am

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):

I really like Joe Perez's 797 concept. It looks really good, IMO! I'd dig that pretty quick!!  Wink
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:58 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
the oldest technology onboard the A320 is 20 yrs, not 40 years old.

The oldest components were designed 20 years ago, as opposed to 40 years ago. Many of the technologies come from 707/DC-8 era. In fact, this is in large part why Boeing has been able to keep the 737 on par with the A320 for so long... the evolutionary changes have been able to be added to both aircraft. I'd say the only major bennefit the A320 has being 20 years younger is a wider cabin and FBW.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:09 am

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Thoughts?



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
Based on the very limited information now available, I expect Boeing will produce a relatively conservative 737RS

With a stated EIS by Boeing of 2014-15... 7 to 8 years from now, there is tons of time for Boeing to come up with a non-conservative 737RS.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4750
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:36 am

Unless there is some miraculous breakthrough in aerodynamics coming at M0.80, you will continue to see "bog standard" twins with little different to what we've seen since the A300 was introduced.

Quite frankly.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
jdevora
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:57 am

Remember EasyJet's design from last month? There are some similarities with the http://www.kaktusdigital.com design

http://www.easyjet.com/common/img/ecojet11.jpg

The reasons are in The "easyJet ecoJet": to cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2015

Quote:
* Rear-mounted "open-rotor" engines offer unrivalled environmental performance for short-haul flying due to their higher propulsive efficiency. However, there are significant difficulties in fixing such a large engine under a wing of a narrow-body aircraft, making rear-mounting of the engines the optimum solution
* A lower design cruise speed to reduce drag and a shorter design range to reduce weight
* Noise reductions are expected to come from a gear box between the engine and the open-rotor blades keeping them subsonic during take-off and landing, the use of the rear empennage to shield the ground from engine noise, and airframe improvements (such as no slats on the front of the wing)
* The airframe will be made of advanced weight-reducing materials similar to those used in current projects like the Boeing 787, which itself is estimated to be 27% more fuel efficient than the aircraft it will replace in many fleets

Cheers
JD
 
B52overSMF
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:37 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:05 am

Based purely on aesthetics... I hope the 797 will resemble something along the line of the ecojet or tha KLM skinned plan from kaktusdigital.com. A new spiffy and unique design is overdue in my opinion (The 787 is a step in the right direction.).  Wink
Conquerer of air molecules.
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:14 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
I doubt regulators are going to certify something dynamically unstable in pitch anytime soon.

It's an imaginative concept, nothing more, and I wouldn't get so uptight about it. Lots of concepts floating around these days. Keesje's two illustrations seem to be polar opposite -- one very conservative, one radical. It's the radical designs that drive the improvements... 787 benefited from many of the radical ideas of the Sonic Cruiser. (Recall that the present 787 is still quite a bit flashier than the 1st 787 concept drawings, which looked identical to a smaller version of a 767-400.) In short, if we listed to the naysayers, we're doomed to stagnation.

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 42):
Remember EasyJet's design from last month? There are some similarities with the http://www.kaktusdigital.com design

very interesting point.
And, did anyone notice the lozenge-shaped Caravelle windows?

-Rampart
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:40 am

Shell? No, no, no. Air BP is the fuel you want. I'm serious. I'm getting an extra 5 mpg when I fuel up at BP petrol station. And I don't care how much oil they found in Nigeria, that area is unstable. Once we get our reforms through in the North Sea, we'll be back on top again. And we still own the Forties pipeline, which means we still make money on all the oil they produce. So there, Shell!
 
Slcpilot
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 am

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:06 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
I doubt regulators are going to certify something dynamically unstable in pitch anytime soon.

I do not agree with this statement. If regulators already certify completely fly by wire aircraft with no mechanical back-up, what is the difference if the computer is (and presumably it can) controlling a stable or unstable aircraft? In the future I think less stable and more effecient aircraft will be the trend. Remember, stablility comes at the cost of effeciency (put in very simple terms).

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 28):
It could very well be that speed will only be seen when at the end of a long haul flight and lots of fuel has been burned off.

I disagree with this as well. Burt Rutan has commented in the past that he discarded the notion of a flying wing when he calculated the cruise speed of the Voyager would be too slow at the end of it's flight if it was a pure wing. Like ballasted gliders, the ideal (most effecient speed) decreases as fuel is burned off.

Cheers!

SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
 
User avatar
Acey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:06 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:43 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
what engines are those and why the huge fan?

 checkmark  That thing looks like it would need about 200 feet to takeoff with those engines.
If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
Super98
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:51 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:58 pm

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):

Regarding the Henry Lamm A320 replacement, why is the wing so big for that size fuse? Also it seems a little
tail heavy to me with that planform stab and engines back there for such a short fuse in front of the wing.

Tis an interesting planform overall though. I completely agree with engines on the tail for an aircraft
of that size and efficiency. But those wings are humongous!

RM
 
Foxy
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:54 pm

RE: Next Boeing 797 Narrow Body Low Risk Scenario

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:04 pm

Needs pointing out that all Joe Perez has done is taken a screenshot of a model made by Camil Valiquette and a concept designed by him so all credit should be directed at him and not the person who just found the print screen button.

http://pages.videotron.com/camsim/

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos