Boeing Board Approves B737 Upgrade (Part 2)

SA7700 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:01 pm

This is a continuation thread from part 1 which can be found here: Boeing Board Approves B737 Upgrade (Part 1). As always, the moderators would like to request that all members post according to the rules-and regulations of the website. This is in order to make the forums an enjoyable experience for all members.

On behalf of the moderators, I would like to thank you for your co-operation in this regard and hope you continue to enjoy the forums.

Rgds

SA7700

TSS · Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:28 pm

In the previous thread there was some talk about Boeing possibly using the raked wingtips of the P8 on the 737MAX (nahhh... I'm not crazy about that name either), but I think that's highly unlikely because it would require wider gate spaces at airports, and I can't see either airlines or airports welcoming the idea of having to realign already crowded gate space for what is at best an interim model. One exception to this might be the 737-9, which would be replacing some of, and logically using the same gates as, existing domestic 757s.

Should Boeing be looking to improve overall efficiency via changed wingtips, I'd think a slightly more likely solution would be the use of spiroid wingtips, which have been tested by Aviation Partners for some time now.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...piroid-wingtip-technology-the.html

Of course, this would depend on four factors:
1. Do spiroids provide a real-world decrease in fuel burn over winglets on a 737?
2. Can spiroids be (relatively) easily integrated on to the 737 wing?
3. Can a spiroid-equipped 737MAX use the same gate spacing as a winglet-equipped 737NG?
4. How much more will spiroids cost?

cosmofly · Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:53 pm

Southwest NOT one of the five.

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_t...-have-boeing-737-max-on-order.html

parapente · Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:26 pm

reply1

I read recently that they had dropped the development on spiroid designs.Also

If Boeing were to go "raked" they would show "raked" but they show BW's and state min cost development max commonality.

Boeing has re engined and "parity" is resumed.So Boeing will still have a slight advantage on the 7/ shorter routes just as Airbus still has the advantage with the 321/longer routes. It will come down to individual Co requirements.

However (as has been discussed so many times). If - if Airbus can get the 321 er NEO to do economic TATL then they alone will have a section of the 757 replacement market to themselves.What that is worth is a mute point however.

But generally parity is restored.

What this means to Bombardier is however another matter entirely.We have all seen the "double order of 40" and wonder. I personaly believe having a new state of the art MAX7 is even worse news for them!

They are not IMHO in a good place right now.

astuteman · Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:18 pm

From the previous threads

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 275):
8-10% advantage??? are you kidding?.

The FCOM's for the current planes suggest that (specifically), the 737-800 burns c 4% less fuel than the A320 (current) at short ranges (200Nm - 500Nm), and c. 4% more at long ranges (2 000Nm - 3 000Nm)

Bearing in mind that the A320NEO is also inheriting sharklets which give it another 3.5% fuel burn reduction at longer ranges, as well as also having a somewhat more optimised engine solution than the 737MAX, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the A320NEO may well sport an 8% or higher fuel burn advantage over the 737MAX at longer ranges, and yet STILL have a 4% fuel burn disadvantage at shorter ranges.

Recognising your innate tendency to get extremely agitated at the merest hint that an Airbus might even remotely challenge a Boeing in any positive characteristic, I am at pains to hurriedly point out that I don't think that the long range fuel burn advantage I hypothesise for the A320NEO is a) unreasonable, or b) an issue for the 737-8MAX.

Most sectors aren't that long a range, and the 737-8 has a natural capacity advantage over the A320, so I can forsee many sectors, or missions, where the 737-8MAX will be at least as good a solution as the A320NEO.

If you still don't think that's a balanced view...........

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 279):
Do you really assume that the A320NEO will have three times the weight increase of the 737MAX?

It's just an opinion, but I think it will be about that.
The fan diamter increase of the NEO is of the order of 11" to 14" depending on the engine choice, whereas that of the 737MAX will be in the 5" to 7" range. That should make the 737's engine weight increase quite a bit less.

Rgds

Stitch · Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:08 pm

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 2):
Southwest NOT one of the five.

Good news, since it means Boeing has hundreds more orders waiting in the wings. I would expect WN to order by the end of the year.

EPA001 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:10 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
Recognising your innate tendency to get extremely agitated at the merest hint that an Airbus might even remotely challenge a Boeing in any positive characteristic

Very carefully selected words for something that is not so sensitive at all. The market accepts easily the stretches where the B737-NG has the advantage, where it is equal to the A320 series, and where the A320 series clearly has the advantage. Overall they are very close in performance and TCO. With the new "battle" NEO vs. MAX most likely that will remain more or less the same.

Due to the reasons you also mentioned, the overall advantage will have grown a (little?) bit in favor of the NEO since it will get the bonus of wing-lets too. Though they hurt on the shortest stretches of course. We want to keep a balanced view here.

.

EPA001 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:12 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Boeing has hundreds more orders waiting in the wings

I do not doubt this for a second. This re-engining decision to follow the strategy which has been so extremely successful was imho buy far the best decision Boeing's BoD could take.

.

Hamlet69 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:38 pm

The SW news is not surprising, as Albaugh was quoted as saying the "majority" of the 496 were "from outside North America". Really, I think AA is the only US customer so far. Then again, I don't expect SW to order hundreds right away. They tend more to order planes in batches.

In other (good) news for the 737MAX, I have it on good authority that none of the commitments so far are conversions of existing orders. Thus, all are new!

Regards,

Hamlet69

pylon101 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:40 pm

I liked the idea of MAX.
Boeing -737MAX makes it very well assotiated with Mad Max and other positive images.
As much as NEO is strogly assotiated with "Matrix" and a DENON product. Also positive.

AirPacific747 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:43 pm

I don't know if I have missed it, so sorry for asking a question again if it has already been answered, but will the 737MAX be a Fly-By-Wire aircraft or is it still all mechanical? I guess it will make a big difference in the economics of the aircraft, both in terms of weight savings, but also maintenance.

On a sidenote; I am a little disappointed that Boeing didn't decide to do an all new narrow body airliner. The A320 has a wider cabin and a larger cockpit, which Boeing just can't do anything about with the current design of the 737.

Stitch · Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:47 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 10):
I don't know if I have missed it, so sorry for asking a question again if it has already been answered, but will the 737MAX be a Fly-By-Wire aircraft or is it still all mechanical?

Boeing is said to be considering some FBW control surfaces, but the bulk will remain mechanical.

gigneil · Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:50 pm

It sounds as if that number might be getting bigger, Stitch. They want to do active load alleviation with the trailing edge now too.

Spoilers, flaps and ailerons, we're getting up there on number of surfaces.

NS

scbriml · Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:50 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 10):
The A320 has a wider cabin and a larger cockpit, which Boeing just can't do anything about with the current design of the 737.

Neither of which have stopped Boeing selling thousands of 737s.

AirPacific747 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):

Boeing is said to be considering some FBW control surfaces, but the bulk will remain mechanical.

Thanks!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):

Neither of which have stopped Boeing selling thousands of 737s.

Very true, but the A320 has catched up quite a bit despite it not being introduced before the late 80s. It was not directly a criticism of Boeing, but it seems like FBW is the way to go in order for better economics. But like in the 787, they could still keep the yoke.

I expressed my disappointment because I love Boeing and want them to do well and I think a whole new A/C would give them the advantage they really need.

[Edited 2011-09-01 14:12:15]

ferpe · Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:27 pm

I don't want to sound negative to the 737MAX, I like the design changes, it makes the A/C look more modern and it will be a fine competitor to the NEO. The Aviation world will benefit from this fight of 2 good A/C.

There is one thing about Boeing management that I wonder a bit over however:

1. When their tack was NSA their party-line was "and we don't want to re-engine the 737 because it will only bring so and so much (rather low and uninteresting values compared to a NEO), and by the way we have studied it very carefully so we know what we are talking about.

2. Now the story is (today at Leeham) "we are better then any NEO and also a couple of percent better then the C-series in fuel burn".

I think it is really fantastic how Boeing has found an almost 50% improvement for the re-engine in only 4 months, especially since there is many things not yet decided like Fan size, MTOW (Tinseth), wing tips and so on

.

Given the tarnished credibility from the recent aircraft projects I would have tried to be a bit more low key with how fast I would swing the story...

PlanesNTrains · Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:39 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
I think it is really fantastic how Boeing has found an almost 50% improvement for the re-engine in only 4 months, especially since there is many things not yet decided like Fan size, MTOW (Tinseth), wing tips and so on .

It sucks having two options, picking the one that you "think" you're heading for, then marketing for it and "against" the other. Then switching gears and having to re-market your ideas.

In the end, though, it doesn't really matter. As long as they get it right in the end, this is all just window dressing, posturing, etc.

-Dave

EPA001 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:43 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
Given the tarnished credibility from the recent aircraft projects I would have tried to be a bit more low key with how fast I would swing the story...

Marketeers at any company usually do not care much about the (recent) history of the products of the company they campaign for. I do not expect those of Boeing to be any different in this department. Of course the claims are mostly BS, but the data provided by the manufacturers to the airlines will most probably be fairly correct, especially if they are part of the sales contract guarantees.

.

JoeCanuck · Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:30 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):

Given the tarnished credibility from the recent aircraft projects I would have tried to be a bit more low key with how fast I would swing the story...

The PR guys can spin any story they like...but once they make commitments to customers, they have to put up or pay the price. They will have to make specific performance guarrantees to customers to get them to buy and not have to pay penalties.

Those are the figures I'm interested in. Until they publish those specs, as far as I'm concerned all numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.

That being said, like most reasonable folk in here, I have no doubt that whatever specific specs Boeing offers, they will be good enough to essentially maintain the status quo.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 17):

...which is basically and long windedly repeating what you said.

[Edited 2011-09-01 15:33:11]

qfa787380 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:37 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 8):
In other (good) news for the 737MAX, I have it on good authority that none of the commitments so far are conversions of existing orders. Thus, all are new!

Have heard the same myself from a very reliable source. Very good news. If WN aren't yet on board I think it's pretty safe to assume that Ryanair are. Taking AA out of the equation there are 396 firm orders for 4 carriers. I suspect 1 of those will order at least 150 frames.

scbriml · Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:43 pm

Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 19):
Taking AA out of the equation there are 396 firm orders for 4 carriers.

There are currently no firm orders, the pedants in the audience note.

qfa787380 · Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:27 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 20):
There are currently no firm orders, the pedants in the audience note.

Correct but they will be!

baroque · Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:03 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 17):
data provided by the manufacturers to the airlines will most probably be fairly correct, especially if they are part of the sales contract guarantees.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
Those are the figures I'm interested in. Until they publish those specs, as far as I'm concerned all numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Quite so. Which makes you rather wonder who in heck the marketing BS is directed at. If in public you are stating X% better, when in private you only state Y% where Y is markedly less than X%, I would have thought the subsequent conversation would be more difficult than it need be if your X had been closer to Y????

If it is the shareholders, that could get tricky if you get sued and the US is suesville. The puzzle deepens.

As ferpe writes, all this for a design "with many things not yet decided like Fan size, MTOW (Tinseth), wing tips and so on".

Stitch · Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:22 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
Which makes you rather wonder who in heck the marketing BS is directed at.

It's just sound bites to fill a minute or two of the 24-hour news cycle.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
If it is the shareholders, that could get tricky if you get sued and the US is suesville.

Hence the reason they don't give specific situations. "Oh, when we said the 737NG was 4% more fuel efficient than an A320neo, that was over a distance of 100 yards on push back from the gate without a tug. But we only had two minutes for the sound bite, so that extra part was left on the cutting room hard drive by the news agencies."

PlanesNTrains · Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:35 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Hence the reason they don't give specific situations. "Oh, when we said the 737NG was 4% more fuel efficient than an A320neo, that was over a distance of 100 yards on push back from the gate without a tug. But we only had two minutes for the sound bite, so that extra part was left on the cutting room hard drive by the news agencies."

Sad, but true.

If we could just flash ahead five or six years now, that'd be great.

-Dave

JoeCanuck · Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:38 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):

AA must have some numbers and the comparison figures won't be included in any contract. Those are just for the PR folks. Contracts will be based on absolute numbers like SFC, range, MTOW, and OEW...not numbers comparing it to any other plane.

Statistics don't lie...statisticians do...

rheinwaldner · Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:25 am

From the other thread:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 280):
The recent QF Group order for 110+options was for international subsidiaries and for Jetstar (who has always operated A320s).

And?
I spoke about customers who are not tied to one vendor. Like QF.

It is absolutely not a given that a group like QF must have different suppliers for their different subsidiaries. IMO it is clear that QF would only buy A320NEO's for any of their branch if they are the best. And they would buy something else for any of their branch if something else would be best.

Countless times we have seen holdings that have transformed the fleets of their branches from one type to another. E.g. Swissair pushed the A320 series at many places where they were engaged. Why should QF be different? I simply say QF is a good stereotype for an open minded customer.

Because of this I really can't see the QF A320NEO deal as a given just because one branch already operates already A320's.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
1. When their tack was NSA their party-line was "and we don't want to re-engine the 737 because it will only bring so and so much (rather low and uninteresting values compared to a NEO), and by the way we have studied it very carefully so we know what we are talking about.

I assume they compared the cheapest 737RE-approach with the NSA when claimed abysmally low fuel burn improvements for the 737RE.

This means that they will have to invest considerably more to reach the "new" numbers for 737MAX. Because I don't believe that they deliberately quoted bad numbers against better knowledge. They really had shabby 737RE plans some months ago. This means nothing about what they could do. It only shows what they wanted to do - or - how many extra miles they were willing to go.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
As ferpe writes, all this for a design "with many things not yet decided like Fan size, MTOW (Tinseth), wing tips and so on".

Usually the goal is static. The improvements must have a certain dimension otherwise the offering will not be swallowed by the market. The variable things are the actions that are needed to achieve these goals. A 737MAX as good as mentioned by Ferpe (and Boeing some months ago) would simply become a failure.

This implies that Boeing will have to invest more into that project than they have intented back then.

I can understand that Boeing first has fixed the goals and now are looking for the cheapest approaqch to reach these.

JoeCanuck · Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:15 am

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 26):
The variable things are the actions that are needed to achieve these goals. A 737MAX as good as mentioned by Ferpe (and Boeing some months ago) would simply become a failure.

Some months ago, (March), Boeing said a re-engined 737 would burn 11-12% less fuel...just like they are saying today.

http://www.flightglobal.com/channels...e-targets-for-737-clean-sheet.html

Quote:
The re-engined 737's targeted 11-12% improvement in fuel burn only equates to "a couple of percents' improvement on operating cost", Tinseth says.

It seems Boeing and at least 5 customers have confidence they will somehow manage. In any case, most of the work is being done by GE since they are the ones promising engine performance to Boeing.

[Edited 2011-09-02 01:20:35]

InsideMan · Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:20 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):
AA must have some numbers and the comparison figures won't be included in any contract.

yes, but even Boeing doesn't know yet where they will end up.
AA Will have performance guarantees of some sort and that's all they need. If Boeing misses the mark there will be due process to compensate for that...

JoeCanuck · Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:34 am

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 28):

yes, but even Boeing doesn't know yet where they will end up.

Boeing just has to have firm minimum specs...and will, no doubt, attempt to beat them. It's up to the customers to decide if those minimum specs are good enough for their operations since those are the only ones which will be contractually enforceable...and I imagine after the years of problems with the 787, customers will be doing some tough bargaining.

So far, whatever they're saying to prospective customers seems to be working...but it would be nice for Boeing if those prospective customers came out of the closet and signed on the dotted line.

baroque · Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
Which makes you rather wonder who in heck the marketing BS is directed at.

It's just sound bites to fill a minute or two of the 24-hour news cycle.

You mean I should use the "remote" a bit more.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
If it is the shareholders, that could get tricky if you get sued and the US is suesville.

Hence the reason they don't give specific situations. "Oh, when we said the 737NG was 4% more fuel efficient than an A320neo, that was over a distance of 100 yards on push back from the gate without a tug. But we only had two minutes for the sound bite, so that extra part was left on the cutting room hard drive by the news agencies."

I still reckon the best bet is a circuit and bump on a day with a favourable wind.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):

AA must have some numbers and the comparison figures won't be included in any contract. Those are just for the PR folks. Contracts will be based on absolute numbers like SFC, range, MTOW, and OEW...not numbers comparing it to any other plane.

Yes, well of course the thing that tends to be forgotten in these irritating comparisons is that not only is the nature of the point being measured not really known, but the benchmark is not defined -EITHER! That certainly applies between companies but probable even between their own products.

EPA001 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:17 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29):
but it would be nice for Boeing if those prospective customers came out of the closet and signed on the dotted line

I think these customers will do so rather sooner then later. The prospect of a re-engined and further optimized B737 is too good for existing customers (and possible new ones) to resist, at least imho . Just like the NEO-offering is too good to resist.

.

TP313 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:20 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 31):
The prospect of a re-engined and further optimized B737 is too good for existing customers (and possible new ones) to resist, at least imho

For existing customers, absolutely! Why incur in fleet conversion costs when there is a fine new competitive 737 out there.

For new ones, it is trickier...
I mean, if you need something the size of a -8 or -9 and the great majority of your operations are short haul, then the MAX is the plane for you.
If your airline operations fit a different profile, then I think there could be better offerings than the MAX in the market...

TaromA380 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:36 am

Let's get back to fondamentals.
Present days A320 and B737 were on par. Marketshare fifty-fifty.
Pretty soon:
A320NEO is getting 78/80" engine + winglets.
B737MAX is getting 66/68" engines + very (imho) minor tweaks
Now tell me how do you think the balance will stay the same.

My opinion is that Boeing didn't hesitate so long because this MAX was promising to match the NEO.
Moreover, MAX isn't getting the GTF, which has huge potential in the mid term.

TP313 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:37 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 12):
They want to do active load alleviation with the trailing edge now too.

Spoilers, flaps and ailerons, we're getting up there on number of surfaces.

If Boeing restrains from messing with the ailerons, the spoilers and flaps should be quite doable.

If they get to work on the ailerons, IMHO, they risk entering the pathway to "mission creep".
Next thing you know you'll be adding one more axis to the roll FBW... and then another!

[Edited 2011-09-02 03:40:33]

baroque · Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:54 am

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 33):
My opinion is that Boeing didn't hesitate so long because this MAX was promising to match the NEO.
Moreover, MAX isn't getting the GTF, which has huge potential in the mid term.

Or, put the other way round, the NEO can benefit from whichever of these new engines proves to be best. The Max has bet on the Leap being at least competitive with the GTF. Which it might be, or might not. One is a "belts and braces" job and the other is not. I thought I had read long thread on the merits of having competing engines, but I must have been dreaming, thought it particularly applied to the A350, so must be highly specific.

rheinwaldner · Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:08 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 27):
Quote:
The re-engined 737's targeted 11-12% improvement in fuel burn only equates to "a couple of percents' improvement on operating cost", Tinseth says.

Look at the second part of the statement to see what I meant. "a couple of percents" is not what Boeing promises for the 737MAX...

fpetrutiu · Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:30 pm

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 33):
Pretty soon:A320NEO is getting 78/80" engine + winglets.B737MAX is getting 66/68" engines + very (imho) minor tweaksNow tell me how do you think the balance will stay the same.

Salut,

If you look at a recent article (I believe you can find the link in part 1), that particular study seems to indicate that the MAX will end up beating the NEO by 2% on certain missions while the NEO would probably retain its advantage on long hauls. This is not taken into consideration the price of the aircraft, which from what I am hearing, Boeing is trying to keep the same.

Of course, if you take out a few rows and match seating capacity, the NEO will have a lower fuel burn, but remember, the MAX has more seats, and has an advantage on shorter hops. Winglets don't really present that much of an advantage on short flights. BTW, raked wingtips are also being considered from what I am hearing.

EPA001 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:48 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 37):
If you look at a recent article (I believe you can find the link in part 1), that particular study seems to indicate that the MAX will end up beating the NEO by 2% on certain missions while the NEO would probably retain its advantage on long hauls. This is not taken into consideration the price of the aircraft

Since several details are yet to be decided by Boeing, how can there already be "a study" (which of course should be independent, otherwise it is all marketing BS which we see all to often in aviation from almost every company) which can deliver proof of what you claim?

Until the real world data comes in, and we will know around 2016/2017 or so, most of the claims you hear now can not really be verified. Specific performances for these airliners can be calculated over computer models, but they are hardly proof.

What you can do is apply simple logic:

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 33):
Let's get back to fundamentals.
Present days A320 and B737 were on par. Market share fifty-fifty.
Pretty soon:
A320NEO is getting 78/80" engine + wing-lets.
B737MAX is getting 66/68" engines + very (imho) minor tweaks
Now tell me how do you think the balance will stay the same.

That is pretty straightforward, and shows where the larger improvement potential lies if it comes to a selection between an A3XX-NEO or a B737-MAX.

.

delimit · Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:55 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 38):
That is pretty straightforward, and shows where the larger improvement potential lies if it comes to a selection between an A3XX-NEO or a B737-MAX.

Given that the 738's advantage comes from a combination of lower weight and higher capacity, I would imagine the MAX vs. NEO situation will stay about the same as today.

The 320 gets more from the new engines and other changes listed, but the NEO program will add more weight to an already heavier frame.

The MAX's engine weight will increase, of course, but given it is constrained in size it should increase less than the NEO. Also, the other changes to the MAX look to me like aero improvements and potentially further weight loss.

The point where the 320 and the 738 trade off advantage may shift slightly, but we won't know how far or to which plane's advantage until they're both flying.

fpetrutiu · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:07 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 38):
That is pretty straightforward, and shows where the larger improvement potential lies if it comes to a selection between an A3XX-NEO or a B737-MAX. .

Bigger engine, bigger weight, bigger drag, although more trust. Efficiency decreases with size increase, so the bigger the engine, yes you can sage fuel, but you also increase drag and weight.

with the 737 being inhearantly lighter, a smaller engine will do the trick, there is no need for the extra size, although it could use an extra 2-4 inches.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 38):
which can deliver proof of what you claim?

http://airinsight.com/2011/08/31/how-does-max-compare/ have fun. Of course, these are based on what Boeing and CFM are saying, much like the NEO if you ask me, as far as I know, no NEO has ever flown yet, so at this time, it is a fair comparison.

par13del · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:08 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 14):
but it seems like FBW is the way to go in order for better economics. But like in the 787, they could still keep the yoke.

This is based on repair cost, building cost or selling price, the economics that is, FBW is not tied to the type of interface side stick or yoke.

EPA001 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:09 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 39):
Also, the other changes to the MAX look to me like aero improvements and potentially further weight loss.

Also the NEO will receive aerodynamic improvements and will go through a weight loss operation. But that does not make your post less true, because after this small addition, I can only agree to what you have posted.

.

Quoting delimit (Reply 39):
The point where the 320 and the 738 trade off advantage may shift slightly, but we won't know how far or to which plane's advantage until they're both flying.

Exactly my point.

.

TP313 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:10 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 12):
They want to do active load alleviation with the trailing edge now too.

I've been thinking a little bit more about this, and the way for Boeing to avoid "mission creep" is to stick to a "FBW for wing surfaces only" development strategy.

Anyway 2 potential difficulties with limited FBW introduction subsist:
1. Less commonality with the NG versions.
2. Certification issues.

That Boeing is prepared to overlook this, is for me an indication that they are trying to compensate for the worse SFC numbers with every fraction of drag reduction they can get, including passive solutions, like the hybrid laminar flow tail surfaces, and now with active systems, like partial FBW.

[Edited 2011-09-02 06:18:24]

InsideMan · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:11 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 39):
Given that the 738's advantage comes from a combination of lower weight and higher capacity, I would imagine the MAX vs. NEO situation will stay about the same as today.

The 320 gets more from the new engines and other changes listed, but the NEO program will add more weight to an already heavier frame.

look, the capacity difference will not grow, quite the opposite, the A320 gains 3 more seats. Therefore that argument is a moot point.

the A320 engines will be heavier, but this will be more than compensated by the better economics.

So, once again,

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 33):
Present days A320 and B737 were on par. Marketshare fifty-fifty.
Pretty soon:
A320NEO is getting 78/80" engine + winglets.
B737MAX is getting 66/68" engines + very (imho) minor tweaks
Now tell me how do you think the balance will stay the same.

I would expect the MAX and neo to be on par on short missions, and the neo opening an advantage of up to 8-10% over the MAX on long missions.

fpetrutiu · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:16 pm

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 44):
advantage of up to 8-10% over the MAX on long missions.

There is not way that would happen. 4% yes, 8-10% you must be smoking something really good. Give me some too.

What data do you have to back up your claim? It seems like AirInsight disagrees with you:

http://airinsight.com/2011/08/31/how-does-max-compare/

EPA001 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:20 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 45):
It seems like AirInsight disagrees with you

And they are thw holy grail in aviation?

.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 40):
Efficiency decreases with size increase, so the bigger the engine, yes you can sage fuel, but you also increase drag and weight.

I guess we better return to quads for the large aircraft classes. The VLA's are still quads too.

.

fpetrutiu · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:27 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 46):
And they are thw holy grail in aviation? .

No they are not. But are you with your claims? I trust their opinions a lot more than any A.nutter here, including myself.

[Edited 2011-09-02 06:30:31]

EPA001 · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:33 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 47):
I trust their opinions a lot more than any A.nutter here, including myself

And I do not. I will do my own math which I am quite confident of, and will let the market speak for itself. Which speaks out of real world experiences of course, and because of the fact that "the customer is always right".

.

fpetrutiu · Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 48):
let the market speak for itself.

Good idea. Before the NEO and the MAX, the market was 50-50% basically with slight favor on the 737. Now, the NEO got a lead because it came out first, but that lead is now basically cut in a half if the commitements turn out to be true and WN places an order, the rest remains to be seen.

Even Airbus admits that with the MAX now out, their projections could be way off and the future sells will take a big hit.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net