Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Devilfish
Topic Author
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:56 pm

I thought we'll be off this topic for a while but a rehash filler on Bloomberg pricks the interest. Attributes remain unchanged -- fuel efficient, 220-280 pax, up to 5,000nm range and introduction ca. 2022. What's not definite, as before, is whether it's going to be a single or twin aisle. Boeing is projecting a market for at least 2,000 frames but most daunting is the $15B development price tag.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...lane-twin-aisle-may-be-inefficient

Quote:
"Planning for a midrange aircraft to fit between Boeing’s 737 Max 8 narrow-body and smallest 787 Dreamliner has gained urgency with the sales success of a single-aisle Airbus Group SE model targeting the same market niche. Boeing hasn’t had an offering in that segment since the 757 went out of production a decade ago.

[.....]

The optimum shape for the new jetliner may be an oval-shaped fuselage similar to a design Boeing patented in 2010 with seven-abreast seating, according to Ron Epstein, an aerospace analyst with Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch unit."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:16 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Thread starter):
Attributes remain unchanged -- fuel efficient, 220-280 pax, up to 5,000nm range and introduction ca. 2022. What's not definite, as before, is whether it's going to be a single or twin aisle. Boeing is projecting a market for at least 2,000 frames but most daunting is the $15B development price tag.

Again, I believe this aircraft, whether it be a single aisle or twin aisle, should be developed alongside an eventual 737 replacement. If they did that, then the project could easily produce three times the number of frames, or more, throughout it's lifespan.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:23 pm

I couldn't find any new information in the article. I guess Boeing saying there is demand for at least 2,000 units is kind of a change but the ML guys came out with that 2,700 figure a while ago and we head a thread on it. 2022 is a bit more specific I guess but that's all I got.

tortugamon
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:25 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Thread starter):
The optimum shape for the new jetliner may be an oval-shaped fuselage similar to a design Boeing patented in 2010

IMHO you'll never see a flat oval fuselage. It is a design nightmare
as it introduces compression forces into the floors.

Not going to happen.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:36 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 3):
IMHO you'll never see a flat oval fuselage. It is a design nightmare
as it introduces compression forces into the floors.

Well, the A350 is elliptical. Not really an oval, but at least that can be done.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:53 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 4):
Well, the A350 is elliptical

A350XWB :: upright oval. ( height 6.09m width 5.96m, nothing to boast in respect to being oval. )

Nonetheless as an upright oval it introduces (small ) stress forces into the floors ( if at all )

a pronounced flat oval i.e. much wider than its height is something entirely different.
Under pressure this will try to turn round. You then have the floors in compression to take up this load.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:37 pm

I doubt they will spend $15 billion.

The 787 was the moon shot and now they can gain value from the money spent on it's development. by using sytems etc from it.

Fuselage width decision is critical. If a single aisle I would anticipate 6 abreast with a wider aisle, if a twin then 7 abreast,at 18" with just enough to get 8 abreast in at 17.2".

I think it will look a lot like a Dreamliner.

My guess is an XWA (xtra wide ailse) 6 abreast single aisle. (XWA for easier boarding)

Ruscoe

[Edited 2015-11-08 16:07:48]
 
hz747300
Posts: 2412
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:05 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
My guess is an XWA (xtra wide ailse) 6 abreast single aisle. (XWA for easier boarding)

I would have to agree with this, otherwise it would be a stubby 788. I think it would do well, if they offered two lengths too, the 752 length and the 753 length, plus a cargo variant, Boeing can get back on the bullet train to Successville.
Keep on truckin'...
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
I doubt they will spend $15 million.

I don't think Boeing believes that either.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:13 am

They should make a 737 replacement with a very cheap production cost, get rid of the 50 year old fuselage and make it 4 to 7 inches wider that the A320, modern avionics, fly by wire, multiplexed everything and use the best wing for a 180 to 210 pax max version, and call it a day. A twin aisle is a pipe dream because at 7 abreast the weight, economics and drag for a wider fuselage makes it NOT worth for a single extra seat on every row, maybe 8 abreast but 7 I think its not worth it.

In the mean time A and B are selling SA aircraft by the truckload what is the hurry?

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4688
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:18 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
My guess is an XWA (xtra wide ailse) 6 abreast single aisle. (XWA for easier boarding)

With a 2-3-2 option for ULCCs with 16.5" wide seats perhaps?   
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:54 am

Quoting Devilfish (Thread starter):
The optimum shape for the new jetliner may be an oval-shaped fuselage similar to a design Boeing patented in 2010 with seven-abreast seating, according to Ron Epstein, an aerospace analyst with Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch unit."

7 abreast seat arrangement surprises me. I thought one of the downfalls of the 767 was the fact that it wasn't quite wide enough for the standard LD containers.

It will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with -- I don't know how you get 280 passengers into a single aisle plane. Perhaps a very wide aisle would make up for it.

I truly hope Boeing doesn't produce another aircraft with 17.2" seats.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:33 am

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
I truly hope Boeing doesn't produce another aircraft with 17.2" seats.

If its good enough for 737s and 787s its hard to expect anything different

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:45 am

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 9):
They should make a 737 replacement with a very cheap production cost, get rid of the 50 year old fuselage and make it 4 to 7 inches wider that the A320, modern avionics, fly by wire, multiplexed everything and use the best wing for a 180 to 210 pax max version, and call it a day.

That would be the idea.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
My guess is an XWA (xtra wide ailse) 6 abreast single aisle. (XWA for easier boarding)

As I've said, one option Boeing could take to develop the NSA/NLT is to have a common fuselage.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:35 am

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
I thought one of the downfalls of the 767 was the fact that it wasn't quite wide enough for the standard LD containers.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's not tall enough, either.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Topic Author
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:38 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 2):
but the ML guys came out with that 2,700 figure a while ago and we head a thread on it. 2022 is a bit more specific I guess but that's all I got.
.
Aviation Week picks up the story too.....

http://aviationweek.com/dubai-air-sh...ld-sell-thousands-midsize-nma-jets

Granted it's the Boeing salesman putting out the forecast...but there could be fire behind the smoke.


Quoting WIederling (Reply 3):
IMHO you'll never see a flat oval fuselage. It is a design nightmare
as it introduces compression forces into the floors.

Perhaps 'optimum' as used by the writer is not the right description. A 0.44m difference between the 'x' and 'y' axes could be very challenging but may not be insurmountable. Below are the 2010 patent application and comparative cross-sections of potential configurations.....

.
https://www.airliners.net/uf/181769/1434664083CAPp8I.jpg

http://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MOM-NSA-NLT-A322-cross-section2.png
http://leehamnews.com/wp-content/upl...OM-NSA-NLT-A322-cross-section2.png

Of course, the patent application was for an 'internally pressurized composite body' while the article talks of a new aluminum alloy.


Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 6):
I doubt they will spend $15 billion.

Am surprised with the figure too, considering it would have a more conventional aluminum fuse instead of the pace setting CFRP on the 787. Not farming out the work as much internationally may have a big impact, or inflation has gone much steeper. Unless they're thinking of developing two sizes.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 9):
In the mean time A and B are selling SA aircraft by the truckload what is the hurry?

It's precisely Airbus selling a lot of A321NEOs that may be spurring Boeing on.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
It will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with -- I don't know how you get 280 passengers into a single aisle plane.

Maybe the differing cross sections of the NLT and NMA hold the answer.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:48 am

All this for *ONE* extra seat per row? At the cost of doubling aisle space? Not sure it is worth it....
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:09 am

Would it be possible to build a drop-shaped fuselage, allowing for 7-abreast over the wings and in the front (4-abreast buisness), but only 6-abreast in the rear? (Like the Boeing 2707-200). A drop-shaped fuse isn't optimal regarding a strecht ect., but areodynamically it is one of the best options. Furthermore it would reduce the loads of the parts which are the farest from the wings and reduce the (Bending) loads alot.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:11 am

I guess that Boeing will offer this NMA aircraft to airlines, then Airbus will start to talk about A321 re-wing+stretch program dubbed A322 with PW GTF engine. Boeing NMA all new design will not be competitive against relatively cheap A322, for a relatively thin and small market, which will only get thinner and smaller after service entry of the A321ER

At that time this segment will not be called 757 replacement market anymore, it will be called A321 replace market.
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:31 am

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 17):
All this for *ONE* extra seat per row? At the cost of doubling aisle space? Not sure it is worth it....

Just consider how long a 753 with 6 extra seat rows is, because that is the seating capacity the airlines are asking for.
A wide aisle will only fix some of the problems that are created by using a very very long tube.
A Russian team has been working on the practical problems of ovoid (wide) fuselage construction, look at the technical documents published by the Frigate Ecojet team. It appears that ovoid fuselages are possible using aluminium and traditional construction methods.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:51 am

The question is do airlines ask for so many seats, or do you need to have so many seats for the 7 abreast design to make sense?
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:57 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 21):
The question is do airlines ask for so many seats, or do you need to have so many seats for the 7 abreast design to make sense?

As I understand it is the airlines that want at least 240 seats in mainline type 2-class configuration, that probably is about 300 seats in economy only charter airline configuration. According to Boeings John Wojick some of the airlines driving this are AA, DL and UA.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:58 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 21):
The question is do airlines ask for so many seats, or do you need to have so many seats for the 7 abreast design to make sense?

The sucess of the A321 prooves that there is a demand well above 150 seats. Furthermore "size" and "range" go together to some degrea, like you need a bigger wing for more fuel, which doesen't make sense on a small plane etc. etc.

And i highly doubt it is a "small" marked. If it really goes up to 5000 nm it could eat alot into the original A3xx marked. It's just a matter of fact that there isn't really a medium range airplane available above the A321. All modern types - including the A330neo - are really long haul planes, the 787 definitely. There is definitelly a huge market.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:14 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 23):
And i highly doubt it is a "small" marked. If it really goes up to 5000 nm it could eat alot into the original A3xx marked. It's just a matter of fact that there isn't really a medium range airplane available above the A321. All modern types - including the A330neo - are really long haul planes, the 787 definitely. There is definitelly a huge market.

7 abreast still has the problem that it is always caught between the lighter and smaller single aisle design and the not much heavier 8 abreast design. However with the experience Boeing has I am sure that they will come up with a plane that will sell extremely well and revolutionize the market.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 14):
it's not tall enough, either.

The 222" A300 fuselage seems to be the smallest diameter
that allowed widely used LD devices to be loaded.
Achieved by way of raising the pax floor relative to
earlier wide body designs.
The 767 ( had to ) undercut that by going (too) small
due to a different payload / range objective.
capability for the established underfloor LD devices fell by
the wayside.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
speedygonzales
Posts: 664
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:01 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:48 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 25):
The 222" A300 fuselage seems to be the smallest diameter
that allowed widely used LD devices to be loaded.

This photo shows the difficulty in accomodating LD3s in anything smaller than the A300 fuselage:
Ignorance kills. :tombstone:
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:52 pm

All indications are that the numbers for 2+3+2 don't add up [not sure if numbers change if its wide enough to be a big cargo enabler].


I'd be interested to know how extensively they've looked at trying to double load (use front and back doors) or, failing that, move the main (LH) door as far back toward the wing root as possible to split the flow of passengers forward and back. [obviously sticking with Single Aisle for both]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:13 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 19):
I guess that Boeing will offer this NMA aircraft to airlines, then Airbus will start to talk about A321 re-wing+stretch program dubbed A322 with PW GTF engine. Boeing NMA all new design will not be competitive against relatively cheap A322, for a relatively thin and small market, which will only get thinner and smaller after service entry of the A321ER

Yet if what some project happens, B739MAX simply won't sell against A321 past a certain point, and then Boeing will have no choice but to do a new frame. The quoted articles say this bird won't fly till after 777-8X is flying so we have a long time for things to shake out.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 25):
The 222" A300 fuselage seems to be the smallest diameter
that allowed widely used LD devices to be loaded.
Achieved by way of raising the pax floor relative to
earlier wide body designs.
The 767 ( had to ) undercut that by going (too) small
due to a different payload / range objective.
capability for the established underfloor LD devices fell by
the wayside.

Yet UPS operates 59 767s and Fedex operates 26 767s with firm orders for a total of 106 and options for another 50. The FX ships are largely to replace MD-10, A300 and A310. The point being that while the freight carriers might prefer the A300 cross section it hasn't prevented them from operating 767s in large numbers even in the face of the availability of new or converted A330s with the more desirable cross section.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:38 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
Yet UPS operates 59 767s and Fedex operates 26 767s with firm orders for a total of 106 and options for another 50. The FX ships are largely to replace MD-10, A300 and A310. The point being that while the freight carriers might prefer the A300 cross section it hasn't prevented them from operating 767s in large numbers even in the face of the availability of new or converted A330s with the more desirable cross section.

As they can use the main deck, LD3 in the belly is not that important.

https://www.abxair.com/aircraft-charters/documents/B767-300-Configurations-2013-05.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei.../startup/pdf/freighters/767BCF.pdf
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:10 pm

This market seems to be a combination of the upper 757 market plus the A300/310/762 market.

How competitive would a A330-800 be with a new, smaller A300 sized wing and weight taken out be against anything new Boeing could offer?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 30):
How competitive would a A330-800 be with a new, smaller A300 sized wing and weight taken out be against anything new Boeing could offer?

It would be too heavy.
It would need to loose roughly 30t of OEW to be competitive. I do not see that kind of weight loss a being possible.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:42 pm

Quoting kelvin933 (Reply 31):
It would need to loose roughly 30t of OEW to be competitive. I do not see that kind of weight loss a being possible.

As well as reducing wing area by ~20%, you'd also need to drop off about 10m of fuselage to equate capacities with the 767-200.

It'll not get you 30 tonnes saved, nor will it equate your performance - but it'd burn a helluva lot of engineering time (money) making those changes.


They'd be safer approaching it from the A320 family than A330 (**I think**).

Make a new larger CF wing (which can retro onto A321 if required by airlines) and a stretched fuselage for A322.

Then down the line, they can add another CF wing for A320. Maybe even the same wing with extensions removed.

This can be an iterative step to A30X (assuming they are still going Plan A on 30X... )
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:05 pm

The description fits the A310 NEO perfectly.
It even boasts a supercritical rather modern wing.
FBW would have to be backported from the A330  

but what engine would be available in the 50klbs thrust class?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:41 pm

Ultrafan was said to aim at 45-50 klbs
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:43 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 29):

As they can use the main deck, LD3 in the belly is not that important.

That's what I was thinking, too........they could use palletized freight in the belly as well as LD-8s. When I was working DL cargo in SLC, there were times when we had difficulty finding enough LD-2s to accomodate the cargo. The problem is that most shippers prefer to use the containers going across the Atlantic, but operators and shippers in Europe prefer to palletize their cargo, so the LD-2s would accumulate over in Europe and the pallets would accumulate over here.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1173
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:01 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 27):
move the main (LH) door as far back toward the wing root as possible to split the flow of passengers forward and back. [obviously sticking with Single Aisle for both]

My thought is to do this, and put the premium cabin over the wings, just aft of the boarding door. Then put high-density Y seats in the front and back, to balance the numbers of pax turning left vs right at the door. I've played with such a scheme for the 753. You can fit a lot of pax ahead of the door, especially if you shift the galleys and lavs back. The premium pax may not like flying amidships, but it potentially makes huge gains in boarding efficiency.
 
2175301
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:20 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 3):
IMHO you'll never see a flat oval fuselage. It is a design nightmare
as it introduces compression forces into the floors.

It is not a design nightmare, and there is nothing inherently wrong with designing a floor that is in compression vs one that is in tension (as are some of the current aircraft).

What you wish to avoid is designing something that has to cycle through compression and tension. That is one of the reasons why wings and wing boxes are so expensive.

Designing an aircraft as a horizontal oval instead of a vertical oval is a bit more complex than designing a circular aircraft. But, no where near a design nightmare.

I fully expect to see it produced sometime; and the MOM replacement would be a likely candidate due to a variety of technical advances in designing and materials over the last several decades.


Have a great day,
 
LPSHobby
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:28 pm

Why not a longer ranger instead of only 8000 km?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:31 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 37):
It is not a design nightmare, and there is nothing inherently wrong with designing a floor that is in compression vs one that is in tension (as are some of the current aircraft).

I think Wlederling's point is that compression is ultimately unstable - whereas tension isn't. If your ultimate load envelopes involve significant degrees of compression, then the spectre of buckling raises its ugly head - which wouldn't be nice in a cabin!


Yes, for fatigue reasons, compression/tension is to be avoided if at all possible, but away from joints, tension can be better than compression.
 
StTim
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:37 pm

I have a prediction that when Boeing do finally announce what they are going to do in the sector that an awful lot of people here will immediately pronounce that it is:

1. A game changer
2. Going to have every airline queing up to buy it
3. Will absolutely wipe the floor with every Airbus option

There will be others that:-

1. Will believe that Boeing will again make a hash of the delivery
2. Boeing marketing will prove more effective than their engineering (too many accountants - I am an engineer   )
3. Airbus have nothing to worry about.


The fact will be that at the point the plane is announced every one of those statements could be true - but it wil be far too early to tell. It will not however stop many posts debating the points of the design in absolute detail - even though it will not have yet been detailed designed.


Hey ho - it keeps us going  
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:41 pm

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 38):
Why not a longer ranger instead of only 8000 km?

Which routes longer than 5000nm would use a MOM/NMA type aircraft rather than a 788 or A338 ?
The aircraft will be less roomy than the larger widebodies, so passengers will probably not be clamoring for 11+ hours flying in the MOM/NMA.
And I do not see any airline wanting to put crew rests into a MOM/NMA type aircraft.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:44 pm

I'll launch my pre-emptive strike now (which is dangerous territory for the monday-morning quarterbacks!!)

- Airbus will have nothing to worry about. What they lose in this MoM, they'll have gained with the A321 vs 737-9 already, and have done so for a fraction of the investment.
- Boeing's marketing will probably prove more effective than their engineers (although the engineers will likely a solid job) - its just the A321 is really not far off what a modern interpretation could do... maybe ~5% fuel efficiency. The investment to beat that 5% will kill overall DOC.
- Mission creep could result in a delivery hash (see below).

IMO Boeing have to view this as a step to NSR (AND DO SO FROM THE BEGINNING). Whether multiple wing options, common fuselage or common systems. They cannot afford two big investments in such similar areas and doing MoM now would derisk (and speed) NSR later. So, even if the MoM program is deemed a commercial failure, if it means NSR can be brought in around 2025 as a quick step and give a 3-4 year lead time over Airbus it may be a company level success.

The worst they could do is start as a standalone program, get halfway through then start the headscratching "I wonder if we could make A, B or C common with NSR?" - that'd be a complete disaster.
 
2175301
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:48 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 39):

I think Wlederling's point is that compression is ultimately unstable - whereas tension isn't. If your ultimate load envelopes involve significant degrees of compression, then the spectre of buckling raises its ugly head - which wouldn't be nice in a cabin!


Yes, for fatigue reasons, compression/tension is to be avoided if at all possible, but away from joints, tension can be better than compression.

For every tension there has to be a matching compression as all the forces have to balance out. Thus, aircraft already have components designed for compressive forces. It is not difficult to design to avoid buckling, and I do not think floor joist would change much at all between tension and compression design as the pictures of the ones I have seen do not look like they would have an inate buckling issue.

The way I see it is that it is nothing more than a change from the historical standard approach; and looks "ugly" to classical designers. That is not to say that it could not be done and that it would not work well.

Part of the advancement of aircraft designs has always depended on adoption of new ways of doing things. This is no different.

I see the bigger issue is a determination of overall width and number of seats and isles across, and not the shape of the fuselage.


Have a great day,
 
LPSHobby
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:49 pm

Quoting kelvin933 (Reply 41):
Which routes longer than 5000nm would use a MOM/NMA type aircraft rather than a 788 or A338 ?
The aircraft will be less roomy than the larger widebodies, so passengers will probably not be clamoring for 11+ hours flying in the MOM/NMA.
And I do not see any airline wanting to put crew rests into a MOM/NMA type aircraft.

no route, but maybe because we don´t have a plane today with this size and that range, if we would have one we could have planes with this size flying longer routes, don´t you think?
 
silentbob
Posts: 1604
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 38):
Why not a longer ranger instead of only 8000 km?

Building it to have a longer range will require a lot of additional weight.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:09 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 43):
Part of the advancement of aircraft designs has always depended on adoption of new ways of doing things. This is no different.

New ways are nice, but some ways still have their natural drawbacks regardless of the technology you use to tackle them. And the wide oval is structurally more challenging not only due to the pressurisation but also when it comes to taking vertical loads.

7 abreast also has the problem that you can not fit LD3s and that you add one extra aisle for just one extra seat.

And then there is the problem that NSA is the big ticket item that Boeing needs to get right. I have my doubts that NMA as a 7 abreast design could have much in common with NSA.

And the final big problem is, that all designs in that market space were killed by bigger planes with more range or more efficient planes with less range.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10456
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:18 pm

How important is it that this could hold LD3's side by side?

It is not like the Airbus alternative can either (unless they try and make a A310neo with significant weight reductions), and I'm guessing Boeing will be heavily targeting 767 customers who are using LD2s anyway.

If you are interested in cargo heavy aircraft I'm guessing Boeing would point you to the 788. It is whether the effort of making a twin aisle is worth the weight penalty and how large (in terms of pax capacity) they want the aircraft to reach. Sticking to single aisle you start to run into length issues.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 46):
And then there is the problem that NSA is the big ticket item that Boeing needs to get right. I have my doubts that NMA as a 7 abreast design could have much in common with NSA.

If they could get 757/767 commonalities I'm sure they can figure some things out with the NMA/NSA.

[Edited 2015-11-09 10:19:40]
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6593
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:23 pm

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 17):
All this for *ONE* extra seat per row? At the cost of doubling aisle space? Not sure it is worth it....

This is my thinking as well. I think airlines and OEMs alike are frustrated at the difficulty of designing an optimal aircraft in the 250- to 275-seat single-class space. Narrowbodies get long enough to create operational headaches and widebodies have inherently inefficient cross-sections. The OEMs will keep studying things like 7Y ovals to see if there is a way to crack the puzzle. But I'll be shocked if one actually gets built, at least any time in the foreseeable future (in commercial aircraft terms, before 2030 or 2035). I don't think there's a way to crack the puzzle and retain competitive economics without technology we don't have yet.

Boeing has special motivation to look hard at this space because the A321 is better than the 737-900ER/9 MAX as it stands today *and* has more room for growth. Boeing would rather leapfrog the A321 than spend a ton of money developing an airplane and having it be a "me too" product. But eventually I think Boeing will have to buckle. The potential efficiencies from developing NSA and MOM in tandem are just too great. Expect a single-aisle aircraft with a very A320-like cross section, maybe with a slight horizontal oval shape for a bit more aisle width. It will probably have two separate wing sizes (likely with the larger featuring folding tips), with the larger wing able to accommodate ~40k engines and the smaller one optimized around ~25k. Those two wing sizes would be distributed among three fuselage lengths, with the longest fuse/big wing and 2nd longest fuse/little wing being the volume models.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:31 pm

I love the concept of a mid-size mid-range plane - right now all the Boeing and Airbus planes are optimized for either Ryanair or Emirates, and there's clearly a gap that can be filled.

What I'm *not* frilled is that it might potentially be single aisle. 9 hour flights on a 3-3 tube is no fun at all. Hopefully the smart engineers at Everett can figure out how to make a modern efficient 2-3-2 frame.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:38 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 48):
The potential efficiencies from developing NSA and MOM in tandem are just too great. Expect a single-aisle aircraft with a very A320-like cross section, maybe with a slight horizontal oval shape for a bit more aisle width. It will probably have two separate wing sizes (likely with the larger featuring folding tips), with the larger wing able to accommodate ~40k engines and the smaller one optimized around ~25k. Those two wing sizes would be distributed among three fuselage lengths, with the longest fuse/big wing and 2nd longest fuse/little wing being the volume models.

Couldn't disagree with a word of that... well, maybe the shortest fuse/little wing could be the smaller "volume model" in the -8/A320 space (I don't see them replacing the -7, or Airbus doing a next generation version of the A319.)

The middle fuse then offers airlines intra or intercontinental range depending on which wing they pick.

A common wingbox would also probably be high on the agenda. Then a moveable tip and TE extensions for the larger wing.

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