Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:42 pm

Ok, this could be the dumbest question ever asked in A.net history...

Could Boeing take the base 787 concept, and many parts, to create a single aisle version with a thinner tube, adjust wings and engines accordingly and have a 757 replacement that could do both domestic runs and very thin, ULH missions? Replace TATL and transcon 757's. This way a US airline can add service to Dublin, Lisbon, Hamburg, Manchester (even Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Santiago from either NY, or even midwest and west coast cities?

It seems to me that United, Delta and American would add service to some of these cities IF the could fill a 767/787-8. Perhaps if the economics were right given a (ala:787-8) but 757 seat count.

Obviously, Boeing or Airbus could build such an aircraft, but would the airlines buy something along this line to serve smaller cities non-stop and fill the aircraft given it's size.

An airline (like UA from their hubs, Delta from Atlanta etc) could add designations which would otherwise be cost prohibitive as they couldn't fill up a twin aisle?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:59 pm

First off, certainly not the dumbest question ever on A.Net, so you're good!  

But in all seriousness, your specific instance would a nasty Frankenstein from a technical standpoint -- expensive to engineer and hard to optimize to get the right cost numbers.

Taking the 60-year old standard Boeing narrowbody tube, lofting new-gen wings and perhaps a pair of GEnx engines* would be the way it would play out. Parts-wise that wouldn't share anything meaningful with the 787, but you could see some systems carried over and maybe a 757/767-type deal where they use as much of the 787 cockpit (maybe even nose section too) as possible. Even with downsized GE nx engines you'd still be fairly overpowered for the "base" model, but would be perfect as you scaled up to a 757-300 size. I'm thinking 170-200 pax in a premium int'l config at something like 5000-mile range with something better than glacial takeoff performance at MTOW, which would be 200-230 in domestic config, and then headroom in the design for a 230-250 seat 757-300 replacement.

The fundamental issue we keep running into there is that this mission simply continues to shrink. There is only a very small corner of the 757 performance chart that other options cannot do anymore. That makes a "true 757 replacement" less and less likely, as the MAX and 321NEOLR (in particular) keep getting closer and closer.

*=I realize a twin powered by GE nx's would of course be the 767, but you could use the version originally intended for the 787-3 as a baseline. You'd still have to downsize and optimize a bit for the narrowbody, but easier than a new engine entirely.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9668
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:12 pm

New fuselage, new wing, new engine -> new plane
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:18 pm

Take a look at the link below from another thread that is presently running, it goes into some details on the possibility of a small twin being used to replace the existing narrow body a/c.

It gives me hope for our Weight Watcher 767-200 replacement for the 757, Boeing would be able to hedge its bet by doing the NSA as a single aisle while also offering a small wide body.
The interesting thing would be if Boeing does the NSA as a narrow body and Airbus decides to compete with a small twin.
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/11/26/boeing-nsa-2018-launch/
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:01 pm

The problem is that it's impossible to make a "tweener" aircraft as efficient as a long narrowbody, on the one hand, or a 787-sized aircraft, on the other. Unfortunately, that's just physics. An A330/787-width fuselage works best at A330/787 lengths, and loses efficiency if it's shorter -- this is why the A300 was entirely supplanted by the A330 once engines were powerful enough to get the A330 into the air. A narrower twin-aisle fuselage has to use more of its floor area for aisles and can't carry standard cargo containers. The 757 replacement is a narrowbody--the A321neo. Those few missions the A321neo can't fly will be handled either by smaller narrowbodies (at increased yields) or by 787s/A330s.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:13 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
The problem is that it's impossible to make a "tweener" aircraft as efficient as a long narrowbody

Do we accept that the 757-300 is too long in terms of pax boarding / de-boarding and thus affects turn around times?
If the bean counters can assign financial numbers to that aspect of the equation they should be able to run the numbers to see if the efficiency hit is manageable or not.

Agree that the physics is against a "tweener", its only hope is financial.
 
ASA
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:12 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:56 pm

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Ok, this could be the dumbest question ever asked in A.net history...

Not dumb at all, a very interesting one, in fact. Looks like Boeing (or its sources) are thinking just like you!  Boeing Target To Launch NSA In 2018. EIS 2024/25 (by chiad Nov 26 2014 in Civil Aviation)
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:02 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 5):

If my reading of the tea leaves is right, yes the turn times are fairly long due to the long tube, but OTOH the plane isn't intended for quick-turn business shuttle routes so that isn't as much an issue. Not that doing a turn in MCO or TPA is less important or doesn't still need to be efficient for gate and aircraft utilization, but it's less of a priority. When it is an issue, you have to think about that obviously, but there is a niche for it.
 
Beatyair
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:21 pm

I brought that up with Boeing, Generally a scaled down version of the 787 to a single aisle aircraft. All the engineering is there already.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2520
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:46 pm

Quoting Beatyair (Reply 8):

I brought that up with Boeing, Generally a scaled down version of the 787 to a single aisle aircraft. All the engineering is there already.

I predict the NSA (797 hopefully) will look as if the 757 & 787 had a baby. It will have tech, general look of the 787 but will have power,capacity, long landing gear and a super efficient wing just like the 757. The smaller version could effectively replace 738/739 and larger version could replace the 752 & 753. This in turn would give BBD the 73G market because I don't see the NSA being able to effectively replace the 73G.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:50 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 9):
This in turn would give BBD the 73G market because I don't see the NSA being able to effectively replace the 73G.

So no production of both a/c at the same time, its all or nothing.
Based on the current 73G users, that a lot of potential clients to let go, all of them can't be looking to upsize.
One of the reason's why 767's still ply routes even though the larger A330 "killed" it, and some operators have not jumped on the larger 787-8.
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:04 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 10):
Based on the current 73G users, that a lot of potential clients to let go, all of them can't be looking to upsize.

How many are buying ned 737-700's now? And how many have ordered the -Max7? The 737-700 is lacking an advantage compared to the -800 and it is only going to be worse with a NSA optimised for larger sizes. Look at the -500 vs -600, the -500 sold very well at 389. The -600 started production only 8 years after the -500 and sold a total of 69.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
LH707330
Posts: 2352
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:47 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 5):
Do we accept that the 757-300 is too long in terms of pax boarding / de-boarding and thus affects turn around times?
If the bean counters can assign financial numbers to that aspect of the equation they should be able to run the numbers to see if the efficiency hit is manageable or not.

If you board them through L2, it's not much worse than an A320 or 738. I know LH opted against them on their short-hauls, but NW and CO bought them for longer legs, so the beancounters do pay attention, but the problem is not as bad if the distance flown increases.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:56 pm

Quoting larshjort (Reply 11):

WN has a placeholder order, but expect them to take between 400-500 MAX 7's at some point in the future. They will need a 73G replacement while still maintaining a single fleet type. That makes the CS300 and E190/E2 a nonstarter for WN as well as other Airlines I suspect.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:56 pm

Ok, I guess I wasn't thinking NEW airplane, not the 797...but a thinner 787-"5" an aircraft in the 757 zone with almost 787 legs. How many international routes are NOT flown solely because they can't fill a 767/330/787-8 ? In the same way the 747-8 is a fairly new airplane (new size, wings, engines and some composite materials) would it really be a new aircraft platform or a smaller, thinner 787?

Second, would airlines want to open BIG CITY HUB to small but far non-stops. United: SFO to Hamburg? Or IAH to Stokhlom? EWR to Prague etc. Lufthansa: Frankfurt to Africa or smaller but important cities in India? Or Brazil? Or add service a second flight a day etc.

As someone who often has to fly and then connect, I'd much rather spend 4 or 5 more hours at 35,000 feet (in BF on UA 757) than a 777, land in FRA and then connect on LH to XYZ.

Question is do large airlines like Delta or BA want very thin ULH non stops?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Skisandy
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:47 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:23 pm

There is this strange longing for ultra-long narrow body flights among so many a.netters -I don't get it.
I am old enough to have flown on B707 and DC-8's across the Atlantic, to/from the SFO and LAX.

10 hours in a narrow-body --- why is this such an obsession with many here - to return to that torture?

Who wants a Fresno to London or vice versa - nonstop - on a narrowbody?

Give me a decent and comfortable wide-body flight, preferably an A380, LHR-LAX, and then whatever
little plane to connect the last 50 minutes to Fresno.

That seems to be the preference of 95% of the flying public, the rest are "resurrect the 757" fanatics...
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:39 pm

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 15):

There is this strange longing for ultra-long narrow body flights among so many a.netters -I don't get it.

   Totally agree.

My thought: take the 767 fuselage and put engines, new wings, gear etc. on it to create a machine that rivals the efficiency and technology of today's new planes. Limit it to +/- 5,000 mile range. (like the early 777s) Not only a great plane for replacing the TATL narrowbodies but also a nice bump in capacity/comfort on US/Canadian transons or any markets in the (less)than 9 hour range.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5000nm%...h&R=5000nm%40ord%0d%0a5000nm%40ewr

[Edited 2014-11-26 14:46:00]
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:51 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
The problem is that it's impossible to make a "tweener" aircraft as efficient as a long narrowbody, on the one hand, or a 787-sized aircraft, on the other. Unfortunately, that's just physics.

While we're talking about Frankenplanes, I've wondered about the feasibility of a hybrid design with a tapered fuselage to span the 160-240 seat gap. Something with a cabin width similar to the 767 ( or even wider) ahead of the wing, and tapering to a typical 3+3 narrow body in the rear. It would be one solution to the too-short-widebody-too-long-narrowbody problem. My vision would be CFRP, with a uniform fuselage height-- only the width would vary. There would be a lot of interesting interior possibilities. But I don't know how the physics would work out.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:54 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 2):
New fuselage, new wing, new engine -> new plane

  

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 16):
My thought: take the 767 fuselage and put engines, new wings, gear etc. on it to create a machine that rivals the efficiency and technology of today's new planes. Limit it to +/- 5,000 mile range. (like the early 777s) Not only a great plane for replacing the TATL narrowbodies but also a nice bump in capacity/comfort on US/Canadian transons or any markets in the (less)than 9 hour range.

I don't think we will see a 7 abreast in Y twin aisle again after the 767 leaves us. Airlines can go for up to a 6 abreast single aisle to an 8 abreast plus twin asile. To have a new 7 abreast in Y plane like the 767 - would it really be worth it the extra drag created by a wider fuselage with an extra aisle just to fit in that extra seat per row would make? I doubt it... Not for the airlines at least. But, as a pax, sure! You can't beat a 2-3-2 config in Y  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:08 pm

A 7 across Y class aircraft has too much aisle space per pax
Make it a bit wider to provide 2-4-2 seating and standard containers and you have a winner
Assume we're talking a new aircraft with new engines, wings, body with at least 763ER range
On second thought not much different than the 787
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:15 pm

Quoting calpsafltskeds (Reply 19):
A 7 across Y class aircraft has too much aisle space per pax
Make it a bit wider to provide 2-4-2 seating and standard containers and you have a winner

  

My thoughts exactly!

IMO the width of the A330 (2-4-2 8 abreast) is ideal for what is being discussed. Despite partly being a 767 replacement, the 787 is already known as having 9 abreast in Y as the norm...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
fanofjets
Posts: 2025
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:35 pm

When I first saw the "-5" designation, I thought of this little gem concocted by the designers at Douglas in the early 1960s. However, the whole thing was in jest.
http://www.art-aviation.com/GALERIE/photo_galerie/Dc-9-5.jpg

When I saw the picture of the Ryanair bird, a long narrowbody twin with the "707 nose," I was reminded of some of the early Boeing 757 designs, before the company switched from the T-tail originally proposed to the current version.

History has a funny way of repeating!
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:07 am

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 15):

I recall a 707 as well. I don't think a new, better pressurized, quieter aircraft (especially like the United TATL 757 in Business class is bad for a 6+ hour trip - I could easily go to 9 or 10 hours...and that is an older tech)

I quite like it like on top of a 747.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Skisandy
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:47 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:11 am

VC10er: Sure you don't mind a narrowbody on a long flight in business
class..... or the upper deck of the 747, which almost always is business class.

The super rich people's private planes are even narrower, but it's all first class.

I am sure, though, that the discussion here is all about very long thin routes flown by
old or new narrowbodies in ECONOMY class, where two thirds of the passengers
in a 3-3 configuration don't have aisle access, for 9, 10, 11 or more hours --- THAT's the problem!
 
Skisandy
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:47 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:16 am

Now the starter of the thread is talking about flying long flights on narrowbodies in business class.
I am sure that was not the original intention of the discussion --- these long flights become very uncomfortable
in economy class, with a 3-3 configuration, where two thirds of the travelers don't have direct aisle access.
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:35 am

There is IMO almost no demand for ultra thin ULH flights. I dont want to be stuck in a small tube for 20 hrs.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1338
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:24 am

Any new narrow body, NSA, aircraft that Boeing builds must have longer legs. By that I mean a longer landing gear. The 737 is becoming nothing more than a tail dragger as the current landing gear is too short and the fuselage is getting too long. Boeing is going to have to realize that the 737 has out grown it's usefulness and a new build aircraft will have to come as there are other aircraft manufactures that will build a suitable aircraft and leave Boeing in the dust.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:49 am

Quoting Beatyair (Reply 8):
All the engineering is there already.

Yah right!!.. new fuselage, new wings, new tail, new engines and landing gear.. maybe the flight deck seats will be common..
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:14 am

Will Boeing create a 757-sized 787-5?

Is this the new way in starting 757-threads? Instead of asking for a 757 replacement or opening of the line, now people start asking for upscaled or downscaled models of other airplanes?

Just by following the forums the answer should be clear, that downscaling never works (minus the 747SP). Upscaling the 737 could work, with a new underbelly, new gear, new wing, but hey, then we have a new airplane, the NSA!

So for a 757-replacement we will have to wait for Boeings NSA, just a few years from now we will know more...


Carst
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:34 am

Quoting CARST (Reply 28):
Is this the new way in starting 757-threads? Instead of asking for a 757 replacement or opening of the line, now people start asking for upscaled or downscaled models of other airplanes?

If it isn't resuscitation, it's replacement...there is something about the over-abundance of 757 threads on A.net that I just can't fathom.

I'm willling to wager that there's a pretty decent Ph.D thesis lurkirng in all these 757 threads for the aspiring psychology students...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
simjim
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:14 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:03 am

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 16):

Great Idea as an interim solution, until Boeing develops NSA; but I don't think Boeing should develop a brand new airplane.

My   , if you can fit the GEnx Engine under a 767-200 and add scimitar winglets to it, it would be a worthy competitor to the A321neoLR. Maybe not as fuel efficient on shorter missions, but it would be better suited for TATL missions, operating from hot and high airports and would be able to carry a lot more Icelandic fish in its belly than an A321neoLR!  (reference from a previous very funny and spirited topic on A.net)

[Edited 2014-11-27 01:07:18]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:08 pm

Quoting simjim (Reply 30):
(reference from a previous very funny and spirited topic on A.net)

thought that was the pitch to sell larger planes to Alaska...       maybe an A321NEOLR combi...

of course I'm kidding..
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 832
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:44 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 2):
New fuselage, new wing, new engine -> new plane

This is the entire answer to the topic.

If we're going to go for elaborate stuff, why not a single engine narrow body? Put a GE90 on the back of a 757 and watch it leap.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting calpsafltskeds (Reply 19):
Make it a bit wider to provide 2-4-2 seating and standard containers and you have a winner

Wouldn't that be an A332?
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:31 pm

Ok, I did hit send and then considered my post even further. I was thinking about my United 757 TATL rides in BF and that was wrong of me. I fly SO much for business- that is my reference point. All but a few of my "personally paid" international fights have been in E+, and yet I find all Y at 53 years old to be horrible on any aircraft. That said I'd rather suffer through that stop, wait, change. Also, if a single aisle did a NYC to Budapest, I assume it wouldn't work without a good sized PAID BusinessFirst sort of cabin.

I am thinking beyond a 757 replacement- I'm thinking of a ULH aircraft for very thin non-stop missions way beyond a replacement for a 757 to make it EWR to London or Glasgow.

Pardon me: for a moment of insensitive premium flier attitude. I fly E+ often from NY to RIO. I need 2 Ambien and 2 Vicodin in a slimline seat.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:53 pm

Quoting larshjort (Reply 11):
How many are buying ned 737-700's now? And how many have ordered the -Max7? The 737-700 is lacking an advantage compared to the -800 and it is only going to be worse with a NSA optimised for larger sizes.

Same issue with the Q400 and the ATR, yes the 800 operating cost is roughly the same for greater profits as long as you can fill the seats, if one is now struggling to fill a 700 flying around additional empty seats does not help. ATR has another model besides their top end and Bombadier does not, the results in orders are there to be seen.

When the replacement cycle for the 700's come along, airlines will either upgrade or down size to the C-Series or the Airbus 319 if still available, that's the other issue the current OEM's face, they now have competitors in the lower end of the market. So their choice of forcing customers to upgrade no longer exist, they must now choose to service or decline.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:07 pm

The 787-3 was planned, then canned.

It is not so much that a business case does not exist for such a plane. The problem is that they can't produce enough of the potentially more profitable models 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10. So why waste production capacity on a plane that would have to sell for less?

An entirely new model would require new assembly lines. Boeing is already challenged enough with ramping up production on their existing models.

There is no time or room for a new airplane with Boeing now. (Or with Airbus, for that matter.)
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
incitatus
Posts: 3379
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:38 pm

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Ok, this could be the dumbest question ever asked in A.net history...

Ahaa, how pretentious to think you can win that trophy!  
Quoting VC10er (Reply 34):
I am thinking beyond a 757 replacement-

Posters who say there is not a big enough market for a 757 replacement do not understand what more range can do for such a type of aircraft in the market.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
silentbob
Posts: 1613
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: A Boeing 787-5?

Fri Nov 28, 2014 12:59 am

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Could Boeing take the base 787 concept, and many parts, to create a single aisle version with a thinner tube, adjust wings and engines accordingly and have a 757 replacement that could do both domestic runs and very thin, ULH missions? Replace TATL and transcon 757's

The base concept, yes. "Many" parts, depends on what you define as many. Cockpit commonality, similar interior fittings, etc..., I could see that. However, wings, engines, overall structure, etc... would have to be changed. I believe that you will see Boeing build the NSA in a way that uses as much from the 787 as possible, as well as updates where needed. And I do believe that there will be a model with sufficient range to handle the East coast of the US to Western Europe without a problem.

Quoting par13del (Reply 5):
Do we accept that the 757-300 is too long in terms of pax boarding / de-boarding and thus affects turn around times?

I think it's pretty close to the maximum size you will see in a single aisle aircraft.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 9):

I predict the NSA (797 hopefully) will look as if the 757 & 787 had a baby. It will have tech, general look of the 787 but will have power,capacity, long landing gear and a super efficient wing just like the 757. The smaller version could effectively replace 738/739 and larger version could replace the 752 & 753. This in turn would give BBD the 73G market because I don't see the NSA being able to effectively replace the 73G.

I am in agreement on pretty much all of those points. I do wonder if Boeing will still try to make a third (smaller) version of the aircraft available, even if it requires major design changes in order to reach the required levels of efficiency.

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