Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2559
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:57 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 97):
That will be enough before both Airbus and Boeing will bring on their real next generation Narrow-Body Airliners in the mid 2020's or maybe even a little bit later? (so both can sort out speedy ramp-up issues for the new model).

I'll go ya one better and put down a pint that says Boeing will do an NSA before Airbus.  

And that statement has nothing to do with the comparative merits of the MAX vs. NEO. Afterall, we have no idea what they are yet (despite both Airbus's and Boeing's PR spin to the contrary). A certain NEO sales contract tells me that Airbus intends to build the NEO for quite a long time. . .

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 98):
I doubt even that will happen. If the relative performance of the two is different from that of the current planes, then pricing power will just shift a bit. Anticipated demand will have both makers selling every aircraft they can build.

     


Hamlet69
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:10 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 87):
Just so we're clear, you're claiming that the 737MAX will *not* be competitive? How do you explain 600 "orders"?

No I think it's going to not age as well as the NEO and Boeing could be forced into jumping first on the new narrowbody. And it could create a logjam with other products in that timeframe as well.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):
They're also adding FBW to the spoilers. Re-profiling the aft fuselage for better aero. And beefing up the MLG (for higher ZFW/TOW?). And they have said they're still looking at other modifications.

That's all little things, which still counts, but Boeing should have tried to leverage 787 development and gone for a bigger score with a new wing, or at least more drastic weight savings.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 100):
I'll go ya one better and put down a pint that says Boeing will do an NSA before Airbus

I think they will, but not enough before to have a meaningful advantage on the market.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:12 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 94):
My take on all of this is that the A320NEO boxed Boeing into a corner that they would have liked to have avoided.

And, one can justifiably posit, the 737 boxed A into the NEO. There was even a thread a while back about a J.L. presentation bemoaning NB order splits.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:15 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 99):
And why is that a "must"? If I go to a 5-star restraunt in Times Square, should I demand that they deliver my food as fast as the local Burger King

Demand???? Comparing 5-star restaurant with Burger King???

But the funny thing is that both of them use the same method. A very common method already in use at Boeing. It is called multiple lines.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 99):
THAT is why I say, and I still maintain, that the NEO's success was not the driving factor behind MAX vs. NSA

I think you're discounting the effect of strong 737 customers taking serious looks at NEO. Before that Boeing thought Airbus would only (in practice) sell NEO to existing A320 and possibly some new customers. Once major 737 customers showed interest dynamics changed.

[Edited 2011-11-04 11:16:10]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24029
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:35 pm

Lots to reply to!

Quoting Baroque (Reply 73):
Am I not interpreting it correctly or have there been requests that GE produce a more efficient for for the small fan Leap than the larger fan Leap?

If that could be achieved without increased maintenance it is a bit difficult to see NEO customers not immediately demanding the same or similar on their donk?? And if it means more maintenance, well that rather defeats the current trends???

Nitpick, the LEAP-X core is too large for the 737. In other words, the low pressure compressor will have to deliver less mass flow of air for the lower required maximum thrust vs. the A320NEO LEAPX. Thus, the overall pressure ratio for the LEAP-X on the 737MAX will be lower costing 1.5% (by my SWAG) in fuel burn. So half of the missing fuel burn will be recovered if Boeing is able to convince GE its worth spending a few hundred million more designing a 10% to 12% smaller flow number core on the 737MAX LEAP-X.

Boeing is probably asking for further improvements in the low compressor and high turbine (perhaps low turbine too). If GE skips the Chevrons, that is 0.12% fuel burn recovered (possible due to the lower weight of the 737 should bring down the noise enough anyway).

So there are two improvements that would not apply to the A320NEO.    How to gain the remaining fuel burn is a tough guess (I do not know the margins on the LEAP-X).

Quoting astuteman (Reply 85):
That said, show me someone who is 100% correct 100% of the time and we'll be in fantasyland.

I'll be there this weekend.    Rain or shine (unless the rain gets colder).
Seriously. We have annual passes to Disneyland.   

So does that mean I can pretend I'm always 100% correct?   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):
Based on the GEnx program, maybe not so unusual.

Errr... You have me there.  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):
That GE/CFM is securing orders for the LEAP-X implies they must be offering something, but they could be following Pratt's lead and holding back SFC as protection.

I hope that is the case. I strongly believe 'competition improves the breed' and I do not want to see too much dominance by any one manufacturer.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 90):
Because the 737 is their bread and butter and they will do whatever it takes to make sure it is competitive.

I'm sure Boeing will. The issue is what is Boeing willing to pay to acheive that? Are they willing to do a rewing with the latest supercritical profile technology? I just attended a briefing on the latest in wing lift augmentation technologies. Will Boeing change the flaps and wing leading edge. (I mean *really* change the wing? Might as well go CFRP is the leading edge is going to be modified...)

There are options. Boeing has in its advantage:
1. Empty weight
2. Wing loading

Boeing has a disadvantage of:
1. Sub-optimal bypass ratio (fan diameter)
2. Sub-optimal engine core sizing (I mentioned this earlier)

I suspect Boeing needs to sharpen their pencil to obtain their expected ROI.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
That's all little things, which still counts, but Boeing should have tried to leverage 787 development and gone for a bigger score with a new wing, or at least more drastic weight savings.

While I'd like to see a new wing too, that is over $1 billion more in costs to develop.

Lightsaber
 
BA777
Posts: 2052
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 11:40 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:23 pm

Will the change in the nose gear lead to less tail clearance than the 52cm with flaps 5 on the current 738?
 
TomB
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:17 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:30 pm

With its short main landing gear and low wings, the B737 MAX is a sub-optimal derivative. That is why it is taking Boeing until 2013 to finalize the derivative design.

The B737 MAX will soldier on and provide a fairly effective aircraft for Boeing's customers, but I believe that the Airbus NEO, the Bombardier C Series, the Comac C-919 and the Irkut MC-21 are all going to provide strong competitive pressure to the B737 MAX which will force to Boeing to launch the New Small Aircraft (NSA) before the end of the decade with an EIS date of 2024 or 2025. In the meantime, the stopgap B737 MAX can remain in production from 2017 to 2027 and probably sell at least 4,000 units. It will be a financially successful stopgap.

While the Boeing engineering staff is busy designing and introducing their derivative aircraft
B-787-9 EIS 2014
B-787-10 EIS 2017?
B--737 MAX EIS 2017
B-777-8 and B-777-9 EIS 2018?,

Boeing best have a dedicated engineering working on second or third generation composite structures which will permit the NSA airframe to be built in large quantities, more efficiently and without autoclave curing. The next generation composites is the key to the success of the NSA.

In addition, the new Rolls-Royce/Pratt & Whitney joint venture on the second generation Geared Turbo Fan engines should have a new engine ready in ten years time to be incorporated into the new design. With a second generation composite airframe, second generation GTF engines and aerodynamic improvements, the NSA should offer a significant economic improvement over existing aircraft.

As aircraft continue to increase in size as more and more of world's population can afford to fly, a 200 seat aircraft may the sweet spot of the small aircraft market in the mid 2020's and the 2030's. A 200 seat aircraft would permit Boeing to look at light twin aisle aircraft - perhaps with 7 abreast seating such as the B-767. Although the wider fuselage may have a little more aerodynamic drag, the twin aisle configuration would permit 60% or 70% more overhead storage capacity per passenger, more comfort and better loading and unloading times. A light twin would offer many comfort and efficiency advantages over the NEO, the C-919 and MC-21 and Boeing would again regain the competitive advantage.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:04 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
That's all little things, which still counts, but Boeing should have tried to leverage 787 development and gone for a bigger score with a new wing, or at least more drastic weight savings.

There are evidently weight savings being researched. Perhaps Boeing will use Alcoa's new alloys.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
I think they will, but not enough before to have a meaningful advantage on the market.

At launch, the NSA will probably secure an impressive order book, but eventually Boeing's lines will be swamped, even if they can somehow throw out an NSA every three days or so. And at that point, regardless of how uncompetitive the A320neo is against the NSA, it's still going to be competitive against everything else and airlines will continue to order it in sufficient quantities to keep the money flowing until Airbus can get the A30X into service.



Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
Boeing is probably asking for further improvements (across the engine).

I wonder if Boeing agreed to renew the exclusivity agreement with CFM to convince GE that they will sell enough to make it worth spending those hundreds of millions more to create a separate version that is optimized for the 737MAX.
 
beeweel15
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:13 pm

To anyone at Boeing if you read this "JUST GIVE ME BACK THE B757" it is better than the 737 Max and the body has more flexability than the 737. Ending the 757 was a big mistake and nothing is replacing it from either Airbus or Boeing. This 737Max and A320Neo shows that both are lacking design innovation come on give us something good we are waiting.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:41 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
While I'd like to see a new wing too, that is over $1 billion more in costs to develop.

And, if you have a new wing, then you might as well go for an all-new NB. Some people, I guess, don't figure that there is a cost/benefit analysis done to design.

Quoting TomB (Reply 106):
Bombardier C Series, the Comac C-919 and the Irkut MC-21 are all going to provide strong competitive pressure to the B737 MAX which will force to Boeing to launch the New Small Aircraft (NSA) before the end of the decade with an EIS date of 2024 or 2025.

The CSeries only competes at with the 73G, the C919 is uncompetitive... period, and the MC-21 won't be seen outside of the CIS. So there will be no "forcing" of NSA by any of those players.

Quoting TomB (Reply 106):
Boeing best have a dedicated engineering working on second or third generation composite structures which will permit the NSA airframe to be built in large quantities, more efficiently and without autoclave curing. The next generation composites is the key to the success of the NSA.

Boeing is dependent upon the composite manufacturers (Toray on the 787). And the technology (materials and process) that will available a decade out is too far out there to start having "dedicated engineering".
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5770
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:43 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):
Ending the 757 was a big mistake and nothing is replacing it from either Airbus or Boeing.

Why is it a mistake to end a plane when nobody wants to buy it? It would also not sell today as its fuel consumption is much too high, and there is no new technology engine available to improve it, and I think the engine manufacturers are too busy right now to build one. Also, the 757 is too big for most of the 737 replacements.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:48 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):
it is better than the 737 Max and the body has more flexability than the 737.

You must not be paying the fuel or maintenance bills...
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5770
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
I wonder if Boeing agreed to renew the exclusivity agreement with CFM to convince GE that they will sell enough to make it worth spending those hundreds of millions more to create a separate version that is optimized for the 737MAX.

If there is any plane that can convince an engine manufacturer that enough will sell to justify investing in a new engine variant I would think it is the 737; only the best selling jet transport EVER.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:07 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 95):
Aren't they main landing gear doors already composite?

Sorry.I was not precise enough.

Complete doors are under consideration to improve the aerodynamics.
Today the wheels are not covered completely.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:36 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
While I'd like to see a new wing too, that is over $1 billion more in costs to develop.

I suspect that the 737MAX will not age especially gracefully and the need for a new airplane will come sooner and more forcefully than Boeing would like. It is then that they will wish they had gotten more of the benefits a new plane could have offered now. They already have the engines (one of them anyway) but they should take the wings too.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
There are evidently weight savings being researched. Perhaps Boeing will use Alcoa's new alloys.

Perhaps, but if you're going to use it to replace existing parts, they might as well use it to design a new part.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
At launch, the NSA will probably secure an impressive order book, but eventually Boeing's lines will be swamped, even if they can somehow throw out an NSA every three days or so. And at that point, regardless of how uncompetitive the A320neo is against the NSA, it's still going to be competitive against everything else and airlines will continue to order it in sufficient quantities to keep the money flowing until Airbus can get the A30X into service.

Margins matter too, and the 737MAX likely won't measure up well there. And relying on the competitors inability to turn out enough airframes is a poor way of doing business.

Of course this is why if Boeing was going to be first with a new plane, they should have done it, since they would have had a 4-5 year advantage over Airbus. Now they look to maybe at best be able to hit the market 1-2 years ahead, which isn't enough to matter. They'd be better off being 1-2 years behind and using the time to one up the competition, which is exactly what they had now, but wasted it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:26 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114):
Margins matter too, and the 737MAX likely won't measure up well there.

Boeing Commercial's margins climbed in the latest financial report, closing back towards 10%. I would expect a 737MAX that costs less to operate than a 737NG would only improve said margins, not undermine them.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2753
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:20 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114):
I suspect that the 737MAX will not age especially gracefully

the 737max should soundly beat the A320NEO in short haul. Short haul isn't going to go away in the US or EU. As the numbers stand the A320NEO should be better on longer flights and so will have all the customers Airbus needs to fill the order books.
 
yeelep
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:53 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:09 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 95):
Aren't they main landing gear doors already composite?

The MLG doors on the NG's are cast aluminum.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:17 am

I think the general consensus is that there is too much emphasis put on engine fan size. The 737 is not as suited for a larger engine, which many hear say is a large disadvantage. I see it as a different approach and an additional constraint. Shorter landing gear, no overwing slides, etc reduces weight. Landing gear is steel (not aluminum or composite) and very heavy. Being shorter provides a weight advantage. Also a smaller fan reduces engine weight (LeapX is 1,000lbs more than the current engine). Propulsive efficiency might be less, but it can be countered by weight and aerodynamics and be treated like a constraint to be factored into the design process. The fact that Boeing is saying that a 68'' diameter engine is optimized is not the same thing as saying a 68'' engine is the largest that will fit on the plane. They can go bigger. Main gear can change, nose gear can change, mounting can change. Boeing is a versatile company and can do many different things, but that doesn't mean bigger is better in all cases.

There are many factors that go into efficiency and fuel burn, so saying that the lighter 737NG is at a disadvantage confuses me since the A320 starts at a disadvantage from the start since it is heavier. The A320 has to overcome that constraint by working with propulsive efficiency and other methods. For example the 737-800 is the highest capacity airplane that can land at Rio De Janeiro Santos Dumont (A319 can, but not A320). A lot has to do with overall optimization and being weight is a big part of the equation. The 737 has a lot going for it, so claiming that it is outdated design or is at a permanent disadvantage because of height is not true in my mind. It has places where it excels just like the A320 has places where it does. Both are great planes and time will tell which direction the market will go once the upgrades enter service.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):
To anyone at Boeing if you read this "JUST GIVE ME BACK THE B757" it is better than the 737 Max and the body has more flexability than the 737.

Sure it can operate more routes and is more flexible. However, you need to consider what you mean by "better". It was heavier and burned far more fuel per seat than a 737NG (738s and 739ER have double digit reduction in operating a fuel cost per seat which is what killed off the 757 production line).

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):
Ending the 757 was a big mistake and nothing is replacing it from either Airbus or Boeing. This 737Max and A320Neo shows that both are lacking design innovation come on give us something good we are waiting.

How is the 757 more innovative? It was designed as a 727 replacement with the requirement to be able to operate out of 5,000ft runways. That resulted in an overpowered and heavy airplane by today's standards. The A320 and 737NG are far more lean aircraft and more innovative.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 113):

Complete doors are under consideration to improve the aerodynamics.
Today the wheels are not covered completely

The 737NG already has a significant weight advantage over the A320. There is additional drag associated with not having doors, but there is a trade off with weight and maintenance. So far full or partial doors have not "bought their way" onto the airplane.
 
SV777
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:57 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:07 am

after B777 and B787 full FBW systems, and still no full FBW on B737max and B747-8? what a shame?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24029
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:42 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 118):
How is the 757 more innovative? It was designed as a 727 replacement with the requirement to be able to operate out of 5,000ft runways. That resulted in an overpowered and heavy airplane by today's standards. The A320 and 737NG are far more lean aircraft and more innovative.

Not to mention the 757 is also far more maintenance intensive. The short field performance is impressive on the 757, but every takeoff costs a few hundred more bucks in maintenance, which quickly adds up.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:01 am

Quoting SV777 (Reply 119):
after B777 and B787 full FBW systems, and still no full FBW on B737max and B747-8? what a shame?

The 777 and 787 were designed with FBW from the beginning.

A complete FBW retrofit to the 737 and 747 would likely require significant re-ceritifcation in addition the the sheer amount of redesign work.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:17 am

Quoting BA777 (Reply 105):
Will the change in the nose gear lead to less tail clearance than the 52cm with flaps 5 on the current 738?

Not really...lengthening the nose gear changes the ground attitude but doesn't change the wing's incidence angle...that means rotation angles should be the same, hence same tail clearance.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
I wonder if Boeing agreed to renew the exclusivity agreement with CFM to convince GE that they will sell enough to make it worth spending those hundreds of millions more to create a separate version that is optimized for the 737MAX.

GE can read the market just as well as Boeing and Airbus...even if the 737MAX was a "poor" performer in the market it would still tell way more than enough frames to justify creating a separate version.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):
JUST GIVE ME BACK THE B757

Uh, no.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):
it is better than the 737 Max

It costs more, burns more gas, costs more to maintain, and would outperform a 737MAX on, at best, about 5% of missions. That's not "better" by my measure.

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):
This 737Max and A320Neo shows that both are lacking design innovation come on give us something good we are waiting.

Do you want something new or do you want a 757? Because those certainly aren't the same thing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114):
It is then that they will wish they had gotten more of the benefits a new plane could have offered now.

What an all new airplane offered was a product that would cost Boeing something like 3-4 times as much money for maybe twice the operating cost improvement...there is just no way to close that business case. If they launched an all new aircraft now with the LEAP-X as the primary enabling technology, Boeing would be trying to cover the costs of an all new type against Airbus's only having to cover the cost of a derivative. Airbus would slaughter them on pricing alone. Then, flush with cash, Airbus would do their new aircraft, leapfrogging Boeing's new aircraft, leaving Boeing in the position of trying to put a derivative up against a new type (again!) or having to design an all new type only ~15 years after the last one.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 118):
Propulsive efficiency might be less

Propulsive efficiency is only weakly correlated with fan size. It's much more strongly tied to bypass ratio which, if the 737MAX core is smaller, may be considerably closer to the A320NEO bypass ratio than fan size alone might indicate.

Quoting SV777 (Reply 119):
after B777 and B787 full FBW systems, and still no full FBW on B737max and B747-8? what a shame?

You don't put technology on for technology's sake, you put it on when the benefit outweights the cost. B747-8 got partial fly-by-wire (ailerons), which probably saved their bacon after they found the flutter issue. Going FBW on a 737 probably doesn't provide much weight advantage (the weight skews with larger aircraft because of the long cable runs), the engineering and certification burden would go way up, and for what?

Tom.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:59 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 115):
Boeing Commercial's margins climbed in the latest financial report, closing back towards 10%. I would expect a 737MAX that costs less to operate than a 737NG would only improve said margins, not undermine them.

It might improve on the NG, but likely won't grade out well against the NEO.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 116):
the 737max should soundly beat the A320NEO in short haul. Short haul isn't going to go away in the US or EU.

So Boeing should have gone the extra mile, in the time they have waiting on engines anyway, and lightened the airframe and made it more efficient to further differentiate it. De-commoditizing the market can only help.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 122):
What an all new airplane offered was a product that would cost Boeing something like 3-4 times as much money for maybe twice the operating cost improvement...there is just no way to close that business case.

I'm not making the case for a new plane, I'm making the case that Boeing should have gone with a new composite wing to get more of the new airplane benefits on the 737 now. As it is, all they did in the last year was contemplate their navels, with really none of whatever was done having any benefit in the foreseeable future.

Not to mention that all of this talk about a minimum change for minimum risk airframe has a huge hole in it: the engines. Sure there are fewer airframe questions if they just slap new engines on there, but they are dead in the water if the powerplants aren't up to par. If the Leap-X falls flat or the GTF is just that good Boeing is going to be relying on commonality and pricing to move the merchandise, which is not a particularly good way to be selling the cash cow model. The ability to offer only one engine represents a huge technical risk.

I think Boeing should have made more extensive modifications to the airframe so they could offer both engines. (That would have been my second option after a smaller new airplane joint venture) That would allow them to offer the best product with the lowest risk and put their narrowbody house in order until the middle of the next decade or so. As it is, they could be looking at starting a new airplane around the end of this decade, which could force Boeing into making some difficult decisions.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:45 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
Nitpick,

Hope that sets the standard for all nitpicks, very useful. So in summary, re-sizing and improving the characteristics of the core are a bit different. Most of the changes for the Leap MAX would relate more to re-sizing rather than simply making it better in overall terms?

I am sure A would be happy enough with a Max sized Leap but not so happy with more general characteristics that were better than NEO sized Leaps unless of course they also came with penalties such as shorter life!!
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1752
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:25 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
It might improve on the NG, but likely won't grade out well against the NEO

Boeing regularly obtains better yields with the current NG v 320 series. In fact Boeing Commercial has better margins overall also for the recent past except one year. (I don't have the figures with me) The current NG usually attracts a premium over the current 320 series, and I see no reason why this should change. Currently the two companies are working to 2 different goals, one to be world leader in numbers, the other to be world leader in profits. All the better if you can achieve both.

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20860
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:37 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 125):
Currently the two companies are working to 2 different goals, one to be world leader in numbers, the other to be world leader in profits.

This is your opinion, yes?
 
Extra300
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:04 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:53 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 112):
If there is any plane that can convince an engine manufacturer that enough will sell to justify investing in a new engine variant I would think it is the 737; only the best selling jet transport EVER.

Indeed the 737 is the best selling airframe over time. The 737 has been ordered in over 9100 copies, and of these almost 7000 has been delivered. Impressive!

7900 A320 family aircraft has been ordered and, 4800 has been delivered.

Keep in mind that 737 had its EIS in 1968, and the A320 in 1988.


My only conclusion is that both these aircraft are extremely successful, and that with the new versions NEO and MAX, they will be in better shape than ever. I believe that these numbers, both A and B, are more than enough for any engine manufacturer for investing in new technology.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:58 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
As it is, all they did in the last year was contemplate their navels, with really none of whatever was done having any benefit in the foreseeable future.

I very much doubt this is actually the case.

I suspect a lot of early work was done on NSA that will prove very valuable in the future.

I think Boeing's problem was not that it wasn't doing anything but that it didn't read the tea leaves correctly on the question of how many airlines wanted new aircraft very soon.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Quoting extra300 (Reply 127):
Keep in mind that 737 had its EIS in 1968, and the A320 in 1988.

Also keep in mind... an order for 10 aircraft was considered Large in 1968.  
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:00 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 108):

Although I admire your passion for the seven five - I have it as well - I'm siding with the posts that have not been receptive to it. It is still an impressive aircraft even in todays standards, damned few aircraft can do what it does in a total package. But few airlines need that kind of total package anymore.

Now if the 757 line were still going and a NEO version of it were to be introduced.......   
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:09 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
It might improve on the NG, but likely won't grade out well against the NEO.

Airbus Commercial's margins have trended lower than Boeing Commercial's, so I see the A320neo more as lifting Airbus' margins towards parity with Boeing's.



Quoting extra300 (Reply 127):
Keep in mind that 737 had its EIS in 1968, and the A320 in 1988.

However, the 737 family has secured the vast bulk of it's orders since the launch of the A320.

Airbus launched the A320 program in March of 1984. In that time, they have secured ~7926 orders for all members of the family.

Since March 1984, Boeing have secured 8002 orders for the 737 family.

[Edited 2011-11-05 07:19:19]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27445
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:43 pm

I hate it when work gets in the way of an interesting thread!  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 48):
To be fair, he says 68" is "the right size for the airframe". Insofar as 68" has already caused additional changes to be required of the 737, 81" could well be expected to add considerable weight and complexity to an airframe that's not really designed to accommodate it, and which may in overall cost terms, be counterproductive.

I assume 81" (or 78" for CFM) is "the right size for the airframe" for an A320 in the same way.

Perhaps worth remembering that the A320's engines are already 68" compared to the 737's 61", so the relative change in size isn't actually as big as is made out.


Thanks for the insight.

BTW Guy Norris (in AvWeek blog posting linked earlier) quotes Albaugh as also saying: "I think we made the right decision for us" .

And in a new, longer article at AvWeek, Norris quotes 737 Chief Program Engineer John Hamilton as follows:

Quote:

The 68-in. fan size is the largest possible that can be accommodated beneath the wing without extensive modifications to the landing gear. Although the 68-in. fan does not strictly require a nose leg extension, Hamilton says, additional design space will enable a more optimized design. "We've allowed our designers to remove that restraint, and the nose gear will float up a little bit," he said, adding that a nose gear dimension has not been selected.


So there in blue and white from the mouth of the 737 Chief Program Engineer is the constraint mentioned elsewhere: go any larger than 68" and you get hit with "extensive modifications to the landing gear", presumably meaning you need to change the MLG and thus you hit the wingbox and then you have moved into a very different and much costlier design space.

He's vague about the source of the "additional design space" but FlightBlogger's updated article says:

Quote:

The question of whether or not a nose blister for the larger gear comes into the fray, however, a year ago Boeing said it had essentially cracked the problem by relocating equipment from the forward electronics equipment bay and creating a larger nose landing gear wheel well for the extended strut.


It'll be interesting to see if that cuts into cargo space or not.

As for FBW, AvWeek says:

Quote:

Even the planned change to fly-by-wire spoilers, confirmed by Hamilton on Thursday, is being made in a less disruptive way by adapting a tried and trusted architecture based on the 757. Such a system does not require the same levels of redundancy as a primary flight control system, "so the weight impact is not the same," says Hamilton.


It'd be interesting to know how that approach contrasts itself with the one on 747-8.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 73):
Am I not interpreting it correctly or have there been requests that GE produce a more efficient for for the small fan Leap than the larger fan Leap?
fpetrutiu's posting of the Boeing PR in reply 43 states "a continued focus on engagement with customers and partners to optimize the engine core architecture.".

So, yes, Boeing is leaning on CFM to optimize the core. Whether or not it happens at all, or whether or not the impovements are suitable for the A320 either directly or via PIPs is still an open question AFAIK.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 73):
There is going to be a lot of "competition for Astuteman's peanuts".


Oh my!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77):
Like others (e.g. ebbuk) I am really annoyed by Boeing's twisting PR.


Yes, that was really where I was going with my earlier posts.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 64):
You also might be justified to conclude that if only a 78" fan would fit under the wings, this too would be an optimised solution. In other words 68" is as far as she will go, hence it is now optimised.


Yes, confirmed above. Going any further brings in more pain than can be tolerated within the scope of the project.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 87):
They have two lines to do the -5 and -7 right now (A320 and 737NG)...why would that suddenly change? They're not the same engine, they shouldn't have the same core.


It's not clear to me from what I've read that the -5 and -7 cores have different sizes. I've done some googling, wikipdeding etc and haven't found a definitive statement. Do you have a reference? I'd appreciate one if you had it.

Wiki makes the engines sound more similar than different:

Quote:

It (CFM56-7) incorporates features from the CFM56-5 series such as FADEC, double-annular combustor (as an option), and improved internal design.


So it's still not clear to me.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 94):
My take on all of this is that the A320NEO boxed Boeing into a corner that they would have liked to have avoided. They clearly did not want to do another 737 upgrade, but would have preferred to go directly to a new model, but not until the 787 was well under control (including the 787-10.) But with Airbus pushing the NEO button, they ran out of time, and while if they could have guaranteed a new, better plane with EIS before 2020 they might have been able to get away with it, but after the 787 fiasco nobody was going to believe them (not even me, and I am a die-hard Boeing fan.) So in order to maintain market share they were forced to offer the MAX; and if anyone still believes that the NEO had nothing to do with the timing then I have such a deal on a bridge in Brooklyn for them. It also appears to me that the AA deal is what pushed them over the edge.


I agree with this narrative. It matches all the statements being made in the press at the time. At the time of the AA deal, the Seattle Times said Boeing had to "scramble" to come up with a propoal, only after AA had already signed a MOU with Airbus, to get a chunk of their orders.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 118):
The fact that Boeing is saying that a 68'' diameter engine is optimized is not the same thing as saying a 68'' engine is the largest that will fit on the plane. They can go bigger. Main gear can change, nose gear can change, mounting can change.


Thanks for your interesting post, but to add some perspective, as above Mr. Hamilton is saying that changing the MLG is a step too far for this current program.

I did ask the question earlier about what the optimal aircraft would be if Boeing did not have this constraint, but no one has hazarded an opinion on it.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 122):
GE can read the market just as well as Boeing and Airbus...even if the 737MAX was a "poor" performer in the market it would still tell way more than enough frames to justify creating a separate version.

It seems inconsistent to me to say that GE will throw several hundred millions of dollars at a special core for the MAX, yet Boeing won't throw a billion or so to reprofile the MAX's wing.

Purely speculation on my part, but I can imagine if you make a smaller core for the MAX, it really is an all-new engine. There will be next to zero parts commonality, the temps and pressures at almost every part of the core will be different so you will have to redo the CFDs to make sure you get things right, etc. It makes a reprofiled wing look positively simple, at least to me, who admitedly is not a aerospace engineer.

GE has shown it's reluctance to make special engines for each aircraft. Witness the A350XWB where GE has given RR the windfall of a lifetime just because it didn't want to do a special engine for the aircraft.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
Nitpick, the LEAP-X core is too large for the 737. In other words, the low pressure compressor will have to deliver less mass flow of air for the lower required maximum thrust vs. the A320NEO LEAPX. Thus, the overall pressure ratio for the LEAP-X on the 737MAX will be lower costing 1.5% (by my SWAG) in fuel burn. So half of the missing fuel burn will be recovered if Boeing is able to convince GE its worth spending a few hundred million more designing a 10% to 12% smaller flow number core on the 737MAX LEAP-X.

Yes, and this is what makes me think the work for the smaller core is akin to doing a new engine.

BTW is Pratt varying the core size on its various PW1100G family memebers?

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 128):
I very much doubt this is actually the case.

I suspect a lot of early work was done on NSA that will prove very valuable in the future.


I don't know. If you re-read FlightBlogger's three part interview series with Mike Bair on the NSA, it seems they were no where close to doing any detailed engineering. It seems they were still working out what mission the plane would have, and what technolgies were of interest, etc. Seems to me they were struggling mightly in the requirements analysis phase, with no clear way forward. This was after he had a year or so working on the project at a VP level, and after something like three years of attention by his predecessor who was at a director level which means to me they probably had sizeable staffs under them for significant periods of time.

I think a lot of what NSA will be will come from the 787 team working with their current technology and working with their partners on what the next generation approaches will offer.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 128):

I think Boeing's problem was not that it wasn't doing anything but that it didn't read the tea leaves correctly on the question of how many airlines wanted new aircraft very soon.


I'd spin this a bit to read that Boeing was wishing that its customers would wait so it could be spared the distraction of the MAX and go full forward with NSA. The Boeing and BCA CEOs were publicly badmouthing the NEO which shows to me an active disinformation campaign rather than just poor tea leaf reading.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:23 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 132):
I did ask the question earlier about what the optimal aircraft would be if Boeing did not have this constraint, but no one has hazarded an opinion on it.

It would depend on what the clearance was. If the 737 sat as far off the ground as the A320, I would expect it to have the same 81" fan.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 132):
It seems inconsistent to me to say that GE will throw several hundred millions of dollars at a special core for the MAX, yet Boeing won't throw a billion or so to reprofile the MAX's wing.

But does Boeing need to re-profile the wing? The 737NG wing was designed in the 1990s, making it more than two decades newer than the 747 wing.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 132):
GE has shown it's reluctance to make special engines for each aircraft. Witness the A350XWB where GE has given RR the windfall of a lifetime just because it didn't want to do a special engine for the aircraft.

GE has shown a reluctance to make an engine that does not have a very strong RoI case. GE spent over USD 2 billion on the GE90 and they were a distant third in installations on the 772 and 77E. McNerney's move to secure exclusivity on the 777X was solely to try and salvage that investment. Fortunately, Boeing hit a grand slam and GE rode that ball into profitability.

As the incumbent, they should have been comfortable on the 737MAX even with the GTF, but if the GTF proves to be as fuel-efficient as Pratt believes (which is a good bit more then they're willing to claim), that could have resulted in a significant shift from CFM to P&W on the MAX.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5770
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:05 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):

I'm not making the case for a new plane, I'm making the case that Boeing should have gone with a new composite wing to get more of the new airplane benefits on the 737 now.

Don't forget that the existing wing was totally redesigned in the 90's; it is newer than the A320 wing. I doubt that there is a business case for redesigning it.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 130):

Now if the 757 line were still going and a NEO version of it were to be introduced.......

The problem is that there is no new engine available of the appropriate size, and the market is not big enough to justify developing one.

As to whether or not Astuteman should switch to cashews, I suspect he is paid in peanuts like the rest of us. Cashews are more expensive. 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7581
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:23 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
I'm not making the case for a new plane, I'm making the case that Boeing should have gone with a new composite wing to get more of the new airplane benefits on the 737 now.

My understanding is that the 737 customers basically want as little to change as is humaly possible, except for the new engines.
Going too far with additional changes could well go down a path which runs the risk of removing some of the commonality that should make the MAX pretty much a "no-brainer" for existing 737 operators.....

For what its worth, if you've ever been involved in a complete implementation of Lean thinking, you may have come across the phenomenon that attempting to optimise ALL of the elements of a system, invariably results in a "sub-optimal" system   

A funny thing, "optimisation"..  

Rgds
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:26 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
So Boeing should have gone the extra mile, in the time they have waiting on engines anyway, and lightened the airframe and made it more efficient to further differentiate it. De-commoditizing the market can only help.

Boeing is going where it makes economic sense and will lighten the airframe only where it makes economic sense.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
I'm making the case that Boeing should have gone with a new composite wing to get more of the new airplane benefits on the 737 now

Again, it has to make economic sense... and as many others have pointed out it simply doesn't.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
but they are dead in the water if the powerplants aren't up to par.

No they are not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
If the Leap-X falls flat

Which it won't so why even bother to speculate.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
The ability to offer only one engine represents a huge technical risk.

No it doesn't.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123):
I think Boeing should have made more extensive modifications to the airframe so they could offer both engines.

Makes no economic sense.
 
beeweel15
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:27 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 122):

Do you want something new or do you want a 757? Because those certainly aren't the same thing.

Well If I cant get the 757 back give me something new.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 130):
Now if the 757 line were still going and a NEO version of it were to be introduced.......

757NEO that sounds good and with the improvements to engines and weight reductions it should be a great aircraft.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27445
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:26 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
GE has shown a reluctance to make an engine that does not have a very strong RoI case.

I don't want to go too far OT but I can't see how getting half the A350XWB market would not provide strong ROI even if it meant putting out tweaked GEnX's for the program. GE was the launch engine on the A350-not-XWB so they had really good visibility into what the program could deliver. Clearly having half the A350XWB market trumps having 100% of the 747-8 market, IMHO, and I think GE probably had enough visibility to have figured that out in advance.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 135):
My understanding is that the 737 customers basically want as little to change as is humaly possible, except for the new engines.

I think the criteria really was to have it as soon as possible. Given the long lead time on the engines (especially if Boeing is asking for a custom core for it), I don't think tweaking the wings ala 747 is a non-starter on the basis of minimal change itself, presuming Boeing could achieve the change in the same time frame as the new engine (and perhaps core) will take. However I do see having it as soon as possible means taking on as little risk as possible, and tweaking the wings does risk having knock-on effects as did the 747-8. And of course minimize risk really means minimize change too, so in a long winded fashion, I agree with you!  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 135):
For what its worth, if you've ever been involved in a complete implementation of Lean thinking, you may have come across the phenomenon that attempting to optimise ALL of the elements of a system, invariably results in a "sub-optimal" system

Interesting. I can see cases where changing too many things can result in a sub-optimal result, but I also can see cases where not changing enough things results in an unacceptable result.

I see this more of like a family deciding if it should add on to the old house, or if it should buy a new house. Chances are the new house will be more optimal, but the new house costs time and money and means we have to move so keeping our friendships going may be difficult. Adding on to the old house means our family suffers some disruption, but it also is cheaper, quicker and means we don't have to disrupt our relationships with others. The real issue is, can we get the kind of house we need via an addition? In this case, it seems we have just barely enough land to get a workable house, but probably not an optimal one. It seems the family has decided that is good enough, but time will tell.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:24 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133):
But does Boeing need to re-profile the wing? The 737NG wing was designed in the 1990s, making it more than two decades newer than the 747 wing.

Even if they don't gain much aerodynamcially, they could remove quite a bit of weight from the plane with a new wing.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 135):
Going too far with additional changes could well go down a path which runs the risk of removing some of the commonality that should make the MAX pretty much a "no-brainer" for existing 737 operators.....

If the best selling point is commonality, they may need to rethink the product. An aircraft that is not going to sell on its own virtues is going to have a limited appeal and probably not so great margins.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 136):
No they are not.

Yes they are. You offer one engine, and if that engine is not as good as the engine Airbus offers for whatever reason, the 737 MAX will become a far less attractive product, no matter how great of a job Boeing does with it.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 136):
Which it won't so why even bother to speculate.

What assurances do we have of that? And for that matter, how do we know the GTF won't be better than expected? And that ignores how the engines might be improved in the future. For a plane that's supposed to be all about minimum risk, there is an awful lot of risk hanging on the wing.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:27 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 138):
I don't want to go too far OT but I can't see how getting half the A350XWB market would not provide strong ROI even if it meant putting out tweaked GEnX's for the program. GE was the launch engine on the A350-not-XWB so they had really good visibility into what the program could deliver.

And GE secured an agreement that the first two years of deliveries would only have GEnx-1A engines. Also, the GEnx-1A was going to be a derivative of the GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B engines, which minimized costs.

With the A350XWB, Airbus demanded a new bleed-air engine with a range of thrusts 10,000 to 30,000 pounds greater than the GEnx-2B.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):
If the best selling point is commonality, they may need to rethink the product. An aircraft that is not going to sell on its own virtues is going to have a limited appeal and probably not so great margins.

The 737 family from the 737-100 to the 737-9 have leveraged that commonality for some 10,000 orders and commitments and is earning enough margin to keep Boeing Commercial's overall margins in the double-digits.

If that's a failure, what the frack is success?   
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 140):
If that's a failure, what the frack is success?

The goal would be to not have a plane that has its appeal limited to 737 operators. It looks like that is the way it's going to go. The MAX should make sense for airlines that already have 737s, but for others it will be suboptimal.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:58 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 141):
The goal would be to not have a plane that has its appeal limited to 737 operators.

That was the purpose of the NSA.

The majority of new airlines seem to prefer the A320 family and it wins the majority of orders from them.

The NSA would have given Boeing the ability to combat that, but it appears those new airlines told Boeing that unless they could bring it to market in quantity within a similar timeframe to the A320neo, they would order the A320neo.

And existing 737 customers also appeared to have told Boeing if they could not bring the NSA to market in quantity within a similar timeframe to the A320neo, they would order the A320neo.

Boeing couldn't bring the NSA to market in quantity in a similar timeframe to the A320neo. And any doubts Boeing had about the sincerity of their customer's threats to buy the A320neo ended with AA's huge order for it.

So Boeing decided to offer a plane that would at least keep existing 737 customers happy, even if it would not secure them a significant share of new orders from new airlines.

Because it doesn't do Boeing any good to bring an airplane better than the A320neo to market after every airline has a new fleet of A320neos in service.   
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:06 pm

The funny thing about the NEO and the MAX is; that the MAX is optimized for Europe and the NEO is optimized for the US!   

But that's not how they're sold in their respective home markets... 
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:33 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):
Even if they don't gain much aerodynamcially, they could remove quite a bit of weight from the plane with a new wing.

But it isn't worth it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):
If the best selling point is commonality, they may need to rethink the product.

Not when your customers are TELLING you to keep the commonality.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):
Yes they are. You offer one engine, and if that engine is not as good as the engine Airbus offers for whatever reason, the 737 MAX will become a far less attractive product, no matter how great of a job Boeing does with it.

First, they are not "dead in the water" even if the engine is "not as good as the engine Airbus offers. Second, without quantifying your speculation, stating that the "737 MAX will become a far less attractive product is simply meaningless.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):
What assurances do we have of that?

Again, speculating that the "Leap-X falls flat" is baseless speculation. You provide absolutely no facts as to why the Leap-X would "fall flat". In fact, all your posts are baseless speculations with extreme negativity: "Leap-X falls flat"; "dead in the water"; "far less attractive", "limited appeal"; "huge risk", etc, etc.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:19 pm

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 137):
Well If I cant get the 757 back give me something new.

Boeing would be happy to if you were willing to buy a few hundred of them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 139):

Yes they are. You offer one engine, and if that engine is not as good as the engine Airbus offers for whatever reason, the 737 MAX will become a far less attractive product, no matter how great of a job Boeing does with it.

They did pretty well offering just one engine for every 737 until the MAX, while Airbus offered, (and continues to offer), 2 for the 320.

As far as I can tell, it's business as usual.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:23 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
The majority of new airlines seem to prefer the A320 family and it wins the majority of orders from them.

That is a preference Boeing could possibly change if they do more work on the 737 MAX.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
So Boeing decided to offer a plane that would at least keep existing 737 customers happy, even if it would not secure them a significant share of new orders from new airlines.

And a 737 with a new wing could do exactly the same, only better and widen the appeal to other airlines as well. It isn't as if a 737 with a new wing would have less commonality than the A320.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
Because it doesn't do Boeing any good to bring an airplane better than the A320neo to market after every airline has a new fleet of A320neos in service.

That's the argument against the NSA, but a 737 with more extensive modifications sidesteps a lot of those issues.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 144):
Not when your customers are TELLING you to keep the commonality.

That's what those customers want, but they aren't concerned what's best for Boeing. Boeing giving them what they want could cost them a lot of orders since the resulting aircraft is not going to be especially popular with any airline not already operating 737s.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 144):
First, they are not "dead in the water" even if the engine is "not as good as the engine Airbus offers.

They might still have most of the current 737 operators but that's about it. In such a scenario, the decision for airlines with A320s or starting with neither gets awfully easy, unless Boeing cuts into their margins.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 144):
Again, speculating that the "Leap-X falls flat" is baseless speculation.

Baseless after how many engines now have not met their specs? And I'll admit that it is speculation. For Boeing, that is risk.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 144):
In fact, all your posts are baseless speculations with extreme negativity: "Leap-X falls flat"; "dead in the water"; "far less attractive", "limited appeal"; "huge risk", etc, etc.

You think that Boeing shouldn't be looking at the worst case scenarios? After the 787 a little more negativity would do them some good. And there has been speculation here that PW is holding back their numbers on the GTF a little bit. If the Leap-X falls short by a percentage point or two, and PW really is being conservative with the GTF, the balance could swing far in favor of the A320. And I'm not going to say that's not possible because it is. Boeing is betting big on CFM, and it could bite them. I don't think that the MAX could be characterized as minimum risk.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:38 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
And a 737 with a new wing could do exactly the same, only better and widen the appeal to other airlines as well.

And a new wing is not economic.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
but a 737 with more extensive modifications sidesteps a lot of those issues.

Like what? A new wing???? I know that you like to ignore the cost/benefit analysis but extensive modifications cost money and are not cost effective.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
That's what those customers want, but they aren't concerned what's best for Boeing.

Oh... so Boeing issuppose to piss off their customers! Good strategy!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
Boeing giving them what they want could cost them a lot of orders since the resulting aircraft is not going to be especially popular with any airline not already operating 737s.

Utterly baseless.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
Baseless after how many engines now have not met their specs? And I'll admit that it is speculation. For Boeing, that is risk.

Care to check CFM's track record.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
After the 787 a little more negativity would do them some good.

Your statements are not a little negativity but absolute negativity with no merit to them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
I don't think that the MAX could be characterized as minimum risk.

Oh, a new wing and extensive modifications, as you advocate, are less of a risk? Your logic if deeply flawed.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:47 pm

Randy's Journal has just posted a blog on the subject.

The interesting point is the respective thrust requirements for each of the planes. The argument is since the 737MAX series of planes are lighter than the corresponding A320's, the 737's require less thrust and thus the fan diameter of the A320NEO is not required.

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

Now is this just PR spin or is there some truth in it?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27852
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1

Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:52 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
That is a preference Boeing could possibly change if they do more work on the 737 MAX.

The more things Boeing changes, the father back EIS is pushed.

The farther back EIS is pushed, the more customers buy the A320neo.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146):
And a 737 with a new wing could do exactly the same, only better and widen the appeal to other airlines as well. It isn't as if a 737 with a new wing would have less commonality than the A320.

The 737NG has a newer wing than the A320. Evidently it's not enough to convince the majority of new airlines to order the 737NG. It also was not enough to convince customers who switched from the 737 Classic to the A320 to switch back to the 737NG.

Clearly the A320 is not hobbled by it's current wing, so I don't see how an even newer new wing on the 737MAX would hobble the A320(neo).

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