Boeing 737 MAX Specs Released

817Dreamliiner · Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:28 am

Just watch a video presenting the Boeing 737 MAX specs:

http://youtu.be/4Fo9D1CBGZA

Main points from the video:

1) MAX 7 will have an increased MTOW of 5000lb and a range increase of 400nm with 126 pax

2) MAX 8 will have an increased MTOW of 7000lb and a range increase of 540nm with 162 pax

3) MAX 9 will have the same MTOW increase of 7000lb and increase of 540nm with 180 pax, also noted during the presentation of the MAX 9 was the talk of it being the 757 replacement EXCEPT on long haul duties.

The video also includes comparisons to the A320neo series

So basically heres what the figures are for the MAX aircraft compared to the NG:

737-700
MTOW: 154,400 lb
Range: 3,400nm

737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm

737-800
MTOW: 174,200lb
Range: 3,080nm

737 Max 8
MTOW: 181,200lb
Range: 3,620nm

737-900ER
MTOW:187,700lb
Range: 3055nm

737 Max 9
MTOW: 194,700lb
Range: 3,595nm

Wingspan: 35.9m
Height: 12.5m
Cruise speed: M0.79
Length 33.6m (737 Max 7)
39.5m (737 Max 8)
42.1m (737 Max 9)

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...arnborough-boeing-defines-the.html

[Edited 2012-07-11 20:31:48]

PHX787 · Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:35 am

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Thread starter):
737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Thread starter):
737 Max 9
MTOW: 194,700lb
Range: 3,595nm

Woah, there you go. Do you think that some airlines may use this on TATL routes (as in from the New England coast to Western euro?)

boeing773er · Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:41 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):

It could happen, but it would be pushing it. JFK-LHR is 3451 Miles, so they would have some chance of accomplishing it, but with winds and everything who knows.

BreninTW · Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:46 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Do you think that some airlines may use this on TATL routes

I don't believe it will have the range -- the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

Headwinds will make the real-life range shorter.

railker · Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:54 am

Also, as mentioned on the other thread, there's a size difference too as compared to NG winglets -- about 1'7" taller from top to bottom. It's only an inch higher than the NG winglets on the top portion, the rest of the height is made up by that bottom fin.

My question relates to what Boeing states about these ... the 737NG winglet installation as a retrofit means, according to http://www.b737.org.uk/winglets.htm , 480 pounds of weight for the set; including wing mods and the winglets themselves. Yet on the new MAX winglets, the quote on the page says, "... This makes the system more efficient without adding more weight."

calpsafltskeds · Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:10 am

The 752 has a stated range of 3900 NM. TXL-EWR is 3458 NM or 88.7% or stated range.

So, if 88,7% is used, TATL could be possible. However, CO had trouble westbound, especially in Winter.

However, the 73G would have a 88% range of 3014 miles and I don't think anyone with a standard 73G has scheduled routes like EWR-DUB, well under 3014 NM at 2774 NM.

737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm
88.7% would be 3369 nm
EWR-HAM is 3323 NM

737 Max 8
MTOW: 181,200lb
Range: 3,620nm
88.7% would be 3209 nm
BRU-EWR is 3198 nm

737 Max 9
MTOW: 194,700lb
Range: 3,595nm
88.7% would be 3187 nm
AMS-EWR is 3177 NM

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Thread starter):
737-700
MTOW: 154,400 lb
Range: 3,400nm

737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm

Interesting that the 737 MAX 7 does not have a 15% gain in range (the 8 and 9 are over 15%). If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range? I guess the added MTOW would allow more payload and that would lower the range gain.

CM · Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:11 am

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 3):
the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

The ranges quoted will be against 85% annual winds. All Boeing public range numbers are done this way.

81819 · Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:59 am

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
Interesting that the 737 MAX 7 does not have a 15% gain in range (the 8 and 9 are over 15%). If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range? I guess the added MTOW would allow more payload and that would lower the range gain.

I think the extra range is obtained by the engines being more fuel efficient and an increase in MTOW, so they planes can tank more fuel.

I stand corrected if not!

It would be interesting to compare the 737MAX range numbers with the corresponding A320NEO numbers.

[Edited 2012-07-11 22:00:34]

astuteman · Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:10 am

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range?

I thought Boeing had stated that the SFC improvement would be in the 10% - 12% range..

Rgds

astuteman · Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:12 am

Quoting CM (Reply 6):
The ranges quoted will be against 85% annual winds. All Boeing public range numbers are done this way

The R/P charts that I have seen in the ACAP's seem to say "no wind"..

Rgds

CM · Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:18 am

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
Interesting that the 737 MAX 7 does not have a 15% gain in range (the 8 and 9 are over 15%). If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range? I guess the added MTOW would allow more payload and that would lower the range gain.

Boeing claims the 737-8 is 13% more efficient than the 737-800, not 15%. That number likely varies a bit for the 737-7 and 737-9, but to my knowledge they have only released a number for the 737-8.

The reason the 737-8 and 737-9 range gain looks different than the 737-7 is because the 737-8 and 737-9 max range are both on the fuel volume limit at full pax and bags. The 737-7 max range is on the MTOW limit at full pax and bags. This is also true for the 737 NG models. If the 737-7 does not gain as much range as the 737-8 and 737-9, it is because Boeing chose not to move the 737-7 MTOW out that far... probably because no customers identified this as range capability that was critical to them.

CM · Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:21 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):
The R/P charts that I have seen in the ACAP's seem to say "no wind"..

I'd need to see what you are referencing. Regardless, all Boeing ranges which are made public as a part of a marketing message are shown worst direction with 85% annual winds.

aklrno · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:15 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Do you think that some airlines may use this on TATL routes

I don't believe it will have the range -- the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

Headwinds will make the real-life range shorter.

He said in the video that the new 737 is NOT a replacement for the TATL 757. I guess we should believe him.

kaitak744 · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:47 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range?

I thought Boeing had stated that the SFC improvement would be in the 10% - 12% range..

Rgds

The engines may be 15% more efficient, but there are losses in terms of added weight and aerodynamics. So the net gain is / was quoted at 13%.

astuteman · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:51 am

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
I'd need to see what you are referencing.

It's the standard ACAP documents that Boeing publishes. On their website...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/737.htm

All the charts show "Standard day, zero wind".
Using the range of 3 080Nm shown in the OP, it gives a zero fuel weight of about 126 000lb, for the non-wingletted aircraft.
Section 2 of the same document gives a "spec" OEW of 91 300 lb, which would give a "spec" payload of 34 700lb or 15.8 tonnes.
Which (to me at least) sounds in the ballpark for the 162 passengers quoted in the OP

I'm not sure exactly what the improvement generated by the winglets is, but if I assume 5% better fuel burn overall on a sector of that length, then I guess the still-air range at that 126 000lb zero fuel weight would be 3 230Nm for the wingletted 737-800.

Obviously, like all ACAP's, the real-world dry operating weight will be higher than 91 300lb

How a 3 230 Nm range with that 34 700lb payload at "spec" OEW (not airline specific DOW) in still-air (given my 5% assumed adder for the winglets) translates into 3 080Nm in the marketing blurb with "85% annual winds" is a different question

Rgds

[Edited 2012-07-11 23:54:13]

CM · Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:00 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
Which (to me at least) sounds in the ballpark for the 162 passengers as quoted in the OP

It's close. Narrow bodies are generically quoted at 200 lbs/pax, so 32,400 lbs.

astuteman · Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:02 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
I guess the still-air range at that 126 000lb zero fuel weight would be 3 230Nm for the wingletted 737-800.

Afterthought..
And if we add the extra 540Nm quoted in the OP to this, gives a still-air range of 3 770Nm at "spec" OEW plus 162 pax.

Which is remarkably similar to the 3 750Nm still-air being quoted for the A320neo
Which, I'm guessing is at "spec" weight with 150 pax.
And which, I believe is at an MTOW 1t up on the current heaviest version - i.o.w. 79 tonnes, or 174 000lb)

Rgds

ghifty · Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:42 am

It's hard to forget the visual Ozimek gave us of a 737 trucking around with GE90s..

Quoting aklrno (Reply 12):
He said in the video that the new 737 is NOT a replacement for the TATL 757. I guess we should believe him.

That was interesting.

He also said that only about 50 (or 15?) 757's are used on those long-range TATL routes, and that, being the newest 757s, will remain in service for a long time to come. He then said that the 737 MAX lineup will be a perfect replacement for the "other 1000." Which is interesting for numerous reasons.. 1) basically Boeing seems to be saying they're not interested in replacing the 50 (15) 757's that are pushed to the limits, and 2) THAT many 757 are still in service?!

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 3):
I don't believe it will have the range -- the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

Headwinds will make the real-life range shorter.

Ozimek was quite clear regarding that. In the beginning of the video, he basically states that the "circle" maps aren't true circles because they factor in winds.

ferpe · Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:30 am

Quoting CM (Reply 6):
The ranges quoted will be against 85% annual winds. All Boeing public range numbers are done this way.

Can you explain with an example what this means in practice, e.g. what would be the still air range of the -8 with the given 3620nm?

Quoting CM (Reply 15):
Narrow bodies are generically quoted at 200 lbs/pax, so 32,400 lbs.

I have got 210lb/pax for Boeing frames from Zeke but that is then for TA ? I assume A uses 95kg/pax throughout?

r2rho · Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:47 am

Sorry for those who were hoping for TATL capability - I'm afraid it won't happen (which is what I expected). I could still imagine a handful of UK-Ireland - Northeast US flights, but that's it. It won't be a 757 replacement. The MAX-7 is the only one that could, but not with a large enough pax load to make it worthwhile.

tdscanuck · Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:14 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
It's the standard ACAP documents that Boeing publishes. On their website...

I think people keep forgetting what ACAP stands for: Airplane Characteristics for AIRPORT PLANNING (emphasis added). Nobody does flight planning with an ACAP. The payload/range curve in the ACAP is not the same, and not derived the same way, as the spec ranges.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 17):
1) basically Boeing seems to be saying they're not interested in replacing the 50 (15) 757's that are pushed to the limits

Exactly. Which is what the "Here's why Boeing doesn't restart 757 production" crowd has been saying on a.net for as long as I've been here.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 17):
2) THAT many 757 are still in service?!

Yes. The 757 is very good for its mission; it is not an airplane you would park lightly.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
Can you explain with an example what this means in practice, e.g. what would be the still air range of the -8 with the given 3620nm?

Suppose the true airspeed of a cruising 737 is 400 knots, it's spec range is 3620nm, and the 85% annual headwind is 40 knots.

True groundspeed is 360 knots (400-40).
Flight time is therefore 10.1 hours (3620/360).
Still air range is then 4010nm (10.1 * 400).

These are random numbers I pulled out for the purpose of the example, I'm not including the climb/descent portions (because these don't have much effect on very long flights), and I'm not including altitude effects on the IAS/TAS variance. To do it properly you need full flight planning software. But this should give you a basic idea of what they mean.

Tom.

ferpe · Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:50 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
85% annual headwind

Thanks Tom, that I get, the term "85% annual headwind" not. Is this some kind of standard in airline flying, does some organization publish it's values for all parts of the world etc.

Stitch · Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:23 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 17):
Ozimek was quite clear regarding that. In the beginning of the video, he basically states that the "circle" maps aren't true circles because they factor in winds.

Boeing's Range Charts under the Technical Information section of a Commercial Airplane family reflect prevailing wind and weather patterns and the elevation and temperature of the city shown.

Examples - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_rc_newyork.html and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/777_range_london.pdf

CM · Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:40 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
Thanks Tom, that I get, the term "85% annual headwind" not. Is this some kind of standard in airline flying, does some organization publish it's values for all parts of the world etc.

The 85% is an adverse wind component (headwind) added into the range calculation. It theoretically accounts for winds on all but 15% of flying days. 85% has become a generally accepted standard by the airlines, as the conservatism in flight planning software and the tailored tracks most airlines actually fly results in 85% performance typically being flyable year round. "85% annual winds" or "85% winds" is how this is typically annotated on Boeing charts. Sometimes the winds are not specifically stated and this mission rule is lumped in with a few other factors and described as "Typical mission rules".

To Astuteman's point, I can't say how ACAP data is calculated or presented, but Boeing marketing ranges are calculated using 85% winds as a part of the "typical mission rules".

Using 85% winds is conservative, which is why the Boeing guy in the video stated the circle chart could be misleading. What he meant is on most days the aircraft will be able to fly farther than what the chart was showing.

Some parts of the "typical mission rules" are not so conservative (like pax weight) but taken as a whole, the rule set results in mission performance claims which are conservative and do not overstate the capability of the airplane.

tdscanuck · Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:50 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
Thanks Tom, that I get, the term "85% annual headwind" not. Is this some kind of standard in airline flying, does some organization publish it's values for all parts of the world etc.

Expanding on what CM said, the "85%" part is the probability distribution around the winds.

If you take all the winds on all they days everywhere and plot them out with how often you gets winds of various magnitudes you get some kind of curve. If you pick a really small value, say 1 knot, some huge % (95%+?) will be higher than that. If you pick some really high value, say 200 knots, almost none of the winds will be higher than that (0.01%?).

"85% winds" is saying "This is the value of windspeed that, 85% of the time, the actual wind will be equal or less than."

If the 85% wind is, say, 50 knots and you fly 1000 flights, for 850 (85%) of those flights you'd expect the average wind to be
less than or equal to 50 knots. The other 150 flights (remaining 15%) you'd expect the average wind to be higher.

Tom.

astuteman · Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:15 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
I think people keep forgetting what ACAP stands for: Airplane Characteristics for AIRPORT PLANNING (emphasis added). Nobody does flight planning with an ACAP. The payload/range curve in the ACAP is not the same, and not derived the same way, as the spec ranges

I certainly don't forget it Tom.
The only reason that I refer to the R/P charts in the ACAP is that, in reality, airline configurations differ, dry operating weights differ, mission profiles differ.
For better or for worse, the R/P chart is sort of "standard", and also "accessible".

Rgds

CARST · Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:27 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
Suppose the true airspeed of a cruising 737 is 400 knots, it's spec range is 3620nm, and the 85% annual headwind is 40 knots.

True groundspeed is 360 knots (400-40).
Flight time is therefore 10.1 hours (3620/360).
Still air range is then 4010nm (10.1 * 400).

Tom, if the still air range is about 4000nm for the 738max, what are the longest routes this aircraft will fly on a daily basis? It seems to be very close to the 757 maximum range.

CM · Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:30 pm

Quoting CARST (Reply 26):
Tom, if the still air range is about 4000nm for the 738max, what are the longest routes this aircraft will fly on a daily basis? It seems to be very close to the 757 maximum range.

Depends on your definition of "close". Using the typical mission rules we've been discussing shows the 757 still has a pretty decisive range advantage over any 737 model:

737-900ER ... 3,050nm (one aux tank)
737-800 ........ 3,080nm
737-700 ........ 3,440nm
737-9 ............ 3,590nm (one aux tank)
737-8 ............ 3,620nm
737-7 ............ 3,800nm
757-200 ........ 3,920nm

I took a look at the A320 / A320neo ranges using the same ruleset as well. The results come up a bit short of what Airbus advertises, which is likely a result of using a different ruleset than Airbus uses in their public material. Anyhow, the A321neo and A320neo also come up several hundred nm short of the 757-200. The only aircraft which come close are the 737-7 and A319neo (with aux tanks), but the pax count in these aircraft is so far off from the 757, the comparison is really just academic.

Conclusion, the Boeing guy was right: None of the MAX or neo models has the combination of range and capacity to replace the 757-200 in its TATL role.

LAXDESI · Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:44 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 27):
Conclusion, the Boeing guy was right: None of the MAX or neo models has the combination of range and capacity to replace the 757-200 in its TATL role.

I wonder if Boeing(or Airbus) has any plans to offer an ER version of 737-8(A320 NEO) with TATL range. Basically, MTOW of the larger 737-9 with one aux. tank.

How much would it cost to certify an ER version of 737-8? Back of the envelope calculations suggest that it saves enough in fuel to more than compensate for loss of seat revenues relative to B752.

flylku · Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:51 pm

Perhaps they can make TATL, and maybe some airline will try it, but it will be low yield. Low yield passengers are the ones who say "I think it had two engines...yes, two engines, I'm sure of it." They go for the lowest fare: low yield. High yield passengers say "There is no way I'm sitting in that thing for eight hours, who else does this route and what do they fly." I just flew Dublin-IAD on a 757. It was tolerable but I was in econ plus sitting next to my niece. If I'd had a choice I'd have chosen a different flight if it had meant a reasonable close schedule, non-stop and different type. I'd even pay a bit more for it. But this was the only non-stop.

zeke · Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:54 pm

I am not sure where they have come up with their numbers for the competitive analysis, they seem to be rather different to their competitors announcement which was also on youtube.

Did anyone see the rest of the presentation ? How have they address industry concerns over takeoff and landing distance, and climb performance restricting payload from current 737NG ports ? Not sure how they plan to get another 7000 lb airborne in the same distance with little change to the wing.

Do ACTs need to have inerting ?
How do they interact with the cargo compartment classification ?
What ETOPS acceptance range are they hoping to achieve for MAX ?
Why didn't they take a deduction away for the APB winglet when they did for the fence ?

ckfred · Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:59 pm

So, this begs the question. Will Airbus or Boeing try to develop a replacement for TATL 757s? Granted, that's not a huge number of aircraft. But, considering the number of 757s crossing the Atlantic everyday (as well as used on longer routes with demands for a high passenger count and cargo payload), it seems that whoever develops such an airplane could get a number of order.

XT6Wagon · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:03 pm

Quoting flylku (Reply 29):
If I'd had a choice I'd have chosen a different flight if it had meant a reasonable close schedule, non-stop and different type. I'd even pay a bit more for it. But this was the only non-stop.

how is it any better to be in a 777 or A330 with the same seat pitch and width as the economy seat in a 737/A320/757?

fpetrutiu · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:04 pm

Quoting ckfred (Reply 31):
So, this begs the question. Will Airbus or Boeing try to develop a replacement for TATL 757s? Granted, that's not a huge number of aircraft. But, considering the number of 757s crossing the Atlantic everyday (as well as used on longer routes with demands for a high passenger count and cargo payload), it seems that whoever develops such an airplane could get a number of order.

Boeing is reportedly working on one. We'll see where it goes...

phxa340 · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:11 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 33):

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...haul-757-replacement-study-371163/

tdscanuck · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:22 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
Not sure how they plan to get another 7000 lb airborne in the same distance with little change to the wing.

The MAX has altered flight controls; they may be getting more takeoff performance out of the wing.

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
Do ACTs need to have inerting ?

Auxiliary tanks are plumbed into the center tank on 737s. The center tank is inerted so the ACT's share that vent supply.

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
How do they interact with the cargo compartment classification ?

They don't. They have double barriers just like the main tanks.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 31):
But, considering the number of 757s crossing the Atlantic everyday (as well as used on longer routes with demands for a high passenger count and cargo payload), it seems that whoever develops such an airplane could get a number of order.

They could certainly get some orders, but nowhere close to what it would take to cover the development cost. If you think the 747-8 didn't sell that well, just see how few TATL 757's there really are.

Tom.

PHX787 · Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:46 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):

Thanks for the information

Quoting aklrno (Reply 12):
He said in the video that the new 737 is NOT a replacement for the TATL 757. I guess we should believe him.

It would be interesting to see if someone tries

WarpSpeed · Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:07 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35):
Quoting ckfred (Reply 31):
But, considering the number of 757s crossing the Atlantic everyday (as well as used on longer routes with demands for a high passenger count and cargo payload), it seems that whoever develops such an airplane could get a number of order.

They could certainly get some orders, but nowhere close to what it would take to cover the development cost. If you think the 747-8 didn't sell that well, just see how few TATL 757's there really are.

Might Boeing approach such a replacement by redefining the aircraft class such that TATL is a subset mission of a broader market? Some commentators have noted that Boeing could develop such an aircraft capable of TATL and other missions to give the critical mass necessary for a profitable production run.

SASMD82 · Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:44 pm

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Thread starter):
Just watch a video presenting the Boeing 737 MAX specs:

http://youtu.be/4Fo9D1CBGZA

Main points from the video:

1) MAX 7 will have an increased MTOW of 5000lb and a range increase of 400nm with 126 pax

2) MAX 8 will have an increased MTOW of 7000lb and a range increase of 540nm with 162 pax

3) MAX 9 will have the same MTOW increase of 7000lb and increase of 540nm with 180 pax, also noted during the presentation of the MAX 9 was the talk of it being the 757 replacement EXCEPT on long haul duties.

The video also includes comparisons to the A320neo series

So basically heres what the figures are for the MAX aircraft compared to the NG:

737-700
MTOW: 154,400 lb
Range: 3,400nm

737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm

737-800
MTOW: 174,200lb
Range: 3,080nm

737 Max 8
MTOW: 181,200lb
Range: 3,620nm

737-900ER
MTOW:187,700lb
Range: 3055nm

737 Max 9
MTOW: 194,700lb
Range: 3,595nm

I can't make head nor tail out it.....what is this in the normal metric system? How much better is it compared to the current 737 (Next -> oh yeah

Gen)?

Quite impressive of Boeing that they are able to put a bigger engine underneath the very low wings of the 737.

The recent orders are not a suprise to me. Airbus has had over 1,500 orders for their NEO and the production line is full until 2018. Boeing did not have the final design which it has now. The recent orders are - thus - logical.
Anyway, congratz to Boeing.

CM · Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:45 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
Not sure how they plan to get another 7000 lb airborne in the same distance with little change to the wing.

Just to be clear, 7,000 lbs MTOW increase does not equal 7,000 lbs OEW increase

The 737 MAX OEW increase is well shy of this. Regardless, the field length impact is being addressed with a combination of thrust, performance credit for carbon brakes, new winglet, revised spoilers and efficiency improvements to the high-lift devices, the 737 MAX has equal or better field performance than the NG. It’s a valid technical consideration of the increased operating weights, but it is something which has already been solved.

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
What ETOPS acceptance range are they hoping to achieve for MAX ?

There is no real interest from the airlines to go beyond the current 180 minute capability.

Edit - Clarification of takeoff performance

[Edited 2012-07-12 12:51:35]

Aesma · Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:56 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 32):
how is it any better to be in a 777 or A330 with the same seat pitch and width as the economy seat in a 737/A320/757?

Well, in a 330 you can get a window seat with only one person next to you, but I digress !

People like to be in a larger plane, more visual space and such subjective things.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 37):
Might Boeing approach such a replacement by redefining the aircraft class such that TATL is a subset mission of a broader market? Some commentators have noted that Boeing could develop such an aircraft capable of TATL and other missions to give the critical mass necessary for a profitable production run.

All the other planes Boeing and Airbus make are TATL capable...

Stitch · Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:16 pm

If you want TATL in a narrowbody there is the 737-700ER and A319-100LR.

PHX787 · Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
If you want TATL in a narrowbody there is the 737-700ER and A319-100LR.

Or BA's 318CJ

MCOflyer · Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:56 pm

My guess is UA will use the new 737-9 on the DUB route when capacity is needed. If UA does not, someone will use it on services across the pond.

KH

ikramerica · Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 43):
My guess is UA will use the new 737-9 on the DUB route when capacity is needed. If UA does not, someone will use it on services across the pond.

MAX9 will do EWR/IAD - UK/Ireland just fine. It's only a matter of cargo load depending on conditions.

yeelep · Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:01 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 40):
Well, in a 330 you can get a window seat with only one person next to you, but I digress !

That is the case with any plane, unless of course someone is sat on the wing.

On a less smartassy note, does anyone know if the ram air exhaust louvers are going to be fixed; or variable as on the Classics?

dfambro · Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:50 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 40):

People like to be in a larger plane, more visual space and such subjective things.

But on a 747 many folks want to be upstairs, which is basically a short narrowbody cabin plopped on top of a widebody. It's got the least 'sense of space' of anywhere on the plane!

Stitch · Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:59 am

Quoting dfambro (Reply 46):
But on a 747 many folks want to be upstairs, which is basically a short narrowbody cabin plopped on top of a widebody. It's got the least 'sense of space' of anywhere on the plane!

True, but upstairs on a 747 feels more like a 767 to me than a 757 for some reason...

zeke · Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:10 am

Quoting CM (Reply 39):

Just to be clear, 7,000 lbs MTOW increase does not equal 7,000 lbs OEW increase

I never said it did, I was referring to the 7000lb increase in TOW as described in the video in the OP at around the 1 minutes mark.

Quoting CM (Reply 39):
Regardless, the field length impact is being addressed with a combination of thrust, performance credit for carbon brakes, new winglet, revised spoilers and efficiency improvements to the high-lift devices, the 737 MAX has equal or better field performance than the NG.

I understand a number of operators have already expressed concern that this is not the case. Existing NGs have carbon brakes, I am not sure how relevant a winglet will be to a balanced field length, spoilers I can see getting more weight to the wheels, flaps, not sure how much improvement they are going to make over the current NG.

7000 lb is about 4% greater than the current 738NG, it is a significant increase, esp when one looks at energy, mv^2.

Quoting CM (Reply 39):
It’s a valid technical consideration of the increased operating weights, but it is something which has already been solved.

That is good to hear, not what I was hearing previously.

CM · Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:33 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
I never said it did, I was referring to the 7000lb increase in TOW

Fair enough. For those flights operating at MTOW, the full 7000lb increase is definitely a consideration for field performance. The OEW increase impacts every takeoff and landing, which I think makes that a more relevant topic.

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
That is good to hear, not what I was hearing previously.

It just depends on who you talked to and when. The changes to address field performance have only been settled for a few months. I'm sure many (most?) airlines have not yet been briefed on the changes.

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
Existing NGs have carbon brakes

You're right. They do. However, Boeing never took performance credit for their lighter weight or braking capability. Making carbon brakes baseline and taking credit for them in the MAX AFM is how the same NG carbon brakes have suddenly created a "new" capability for the MAX.

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
flaps, not sure how much improvement they are going to make over the current NG.

They are being tweaked to help recover the weight-driven impact to approach speed. Angles may change a little, but I think the bulk of changes are much simpler items like gaps and seals.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net