Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:49 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
Imho there is no doubt it is being marketed, we already see a decline in NEO orders.

Through rose tinted glasses maybe. If we could see a MOM effect on the current orders, the MAX would be impacted more than the NEO...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:26 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 134):
Quoting WIederling (Reply 129):

Going by CFM data both engines variants (-5 / -7) seem to have about the same weight @4t each.

When measuring by tons yes they are the same. When measuring by pounds, the 7Bs are about 60lbs lighter than the 5Bs.

you can stuff the pounds.

I actually remembered that wrongly. 3995kg or 3.995t ~= 4t is the current 5C variant for the A340-300.

CFM56-7B* 27,300 lbf (121 kN) 5.1 32.8 5,216 lb (2,370 kg)
CFM56-5B* 27,000 lbf (120 kN) 5.7 32.6 5,250 lb (2,380 kg)

the difference seems to be 10kg or 0.01t  

neither weight nor thrust are differentiators. only the inferior sfc for the 7B.
( which reduces any Boeing PR on 737 is lighter, lighter, lighter and thus advantages to rear orifice talk.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:32 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 149):
You may not buy into it, but the market seem to like the A321.

About as much as the market did with the CEO.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18971
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:40 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
Imho there is no doubt it is being marketed, we already see a decline in NEO orders.

The decline in neo orders? Oh yes, they only sold 850 last year!     

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 150):
If we could see a MOM effect on the current orders, the MAX would be impacted more than the NEO...

Well look at that - 850 neo vs. 409 MAX!   

I don't mind a bit of cheerleading, but this is silly.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:42 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 134):
If you believe that is true, then why on earth would you recommend Boeing holding off on a MoM airplane? Either you don't think the A321NEO will have a 10% CASM difference over the 737-9 in 4 years or you don't think it is possible for Boeing to produce a product that competes with the A321NEO.

Seriously?

You'd want Boeing to invest $10+ Billion in a redesign and achieve an aeroplane that just competes with the A321?

That would be utterly crazy and would threaten the long term competitiveness of Boeing.


If they are investing that kind of time and money, they need something that jumps the A32X line by 10+%, not merely compete.


Hence why I would recommend waiting till out of autoclave CFRP is matured (cheaper manufacture costs) and CNF resins are matured (cheaper manufacture costs, better static and damage tolerance material properties). Both of those *should* come along in the next few years as both are already being used elsewhere in aerospace - just not in the volumes Boeing would need.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:22 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 145):
Stretching the fuselage retains all of the old tooling,

And what? For the 777X with the same fuselage as the 777 there will be a new more automated production line for example.
Production for the 737MAX is to be expanded hardly space to produce an additional type of frame. I assume a new production line for the MoM anyway.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:31 am

I do not get the drama. The ratio of A320 to A321s was 3:1 for the CEO and is 3:1 for the NEO.

The ratio of 737-800 to 737-900 was 10:1 for the NG and the MAX does not seem to do worse.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:07 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 156):
I do not get the drama. The ratio of A320 to A321s was 3:1 for the CEO and is 3:1 for the NEO.

The ratio of 737-800 to 737-900 was 10:1 for the NG and the MAX does not seem to do worse.

Snapshot in time. At this current moment the ratio is 3:1. It didn't start out there for the A320 series. Airbus believes the market will move to a 50:50 split between the A320 and A321. The question is, will the market move to the same split for the 739?

And if you don't get it, why is Boeing looking at a bigger model? Why aren't they satisfied with their current line-up if it was just much to do about nothing?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:26 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 157):

A321 appears to be a much more desirable product than the 739.
( This is _not_ necessarily a statement on competing products for the same capabilities slot
but more on the capability sets )

Though it sits in the middle of the capacity range covered between A320 and A321.

Either it is
too epxensive.
too problematic in use
lacks in performance
or is
just not the right size, a niche product for special customers.

size:
Would this be also valid for the sometimes touted as urgently needed A320.5 ?  
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:39 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 157):
And if you don't get it, why is Boeing looking at a bigger model? Why aren't they satisfied with their current line-up if it was just much to do about nothing?

Because there is a market for an airline better than the A321.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:12 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 159):

Let me correct that:
Because there is a market for an airline more capable ( pax, range ) than the A321.

which is obvious.

But this product must also be more efficient than the current A321.

IMU the MOM will not provide that.
( for the same reason why the lower widebody market has been "rolled up" )
A WB is too fat
A NB is too long : a wet floppy noodle.  
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:27 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 156):
I do not get the drama. The ratio of A320 to A321s was 3:1 for the CEO and is 3:1 for the NEO.

Your confusing orders and deliveries. For 9 of the last 10 years the proportion of A321's delivered has increased. It's a significant trend and all the indications are it will continue if not accelerate.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18971
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:29 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 159):
Because there is a market for an airline better than the A321.

There might be a market of questionable size, but there's nothing to sell into it today. A vague notion and a TLA won't sell a single plane.

[Edited 2016-02-10 06:30:31]
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:44 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 145):
Stretching the fuselage retains all of the old tooling, and calculations can verify what reinforcements are needed. The 5 billion i a guess; true, but it is a guess between a variant and a new design. I have never seen or heard of a variant where the fuselage diameter or construction changed, and that is why I am believing that it will have to be a new certification if it does. New wings, engines, wingboxes, landing gear, and empennage have all been done as a variant, but not a fuselage.

I can not see how Boeing can change the wingbox gear and wing and reatain the 737 certification.

The 737 has really old flightcontrol system of hydrulically assisted directly linked control cables (much like Cessna without the hydrulic assist) and it can be flown without the hydrulic power in a mode called manual reversion. It is verry hard, but it can be done. No FBW envelope protection here!

If Boeing is to build spanking new wingbox wing and gear for the 737 they have to stick to this system in order to retain the pilot type rating, which is an absalute demand from the airlines.

So it does not make any sense to me to build state of the art wing with antique comtrol system, and if there where any workaround we would have seen it on the NG or at the latest on the MAX.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:36 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 163):

So it does not make any sense to me to build state of the art wing with antique comtrol system, and if there where any workaround we would have seen it on the NG or at the latest on the MAX.

I do not see why not. The control system is independent of the wing design; Boeing can very easily make a state of the art CFRP wing and wingbox complete with new landing gear and retain all of the 737 controls. I believe the keys to keeping 737 certification and type rating is that the plane appears the same to the pilot, and the fuselage and cockpit stay the same (except for length.) This can all be accomplished with what we have been discussing. Keeping the same type rating is important for customers, and keeping the same certification will save years and billions of dollars for Boeing.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:08 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 164):
I do not see why not. The control system is independent of the wing design; Boeing can very easily make a state of the art CFRP wing and wingbox complete with new landing gear and retain all of the 737 controls. I believe the keys to keeping 737 certification and type rating is that the plane appears the same to the pilot, and the fuselage and cockpit stay the same (except for length.)


I was under the impression that the reason for the laughably short MLG on the 737Classic, 737NG and 737MAX is that Boeing has not been able to figure out how to continue using the original 737-100 type certificate if they change the MLG and wingbox.
Is there an example of a derivative airliner which has had a new wingbox, new wings, new MLG and an a stretched fuselage and was able to continue to use the original type certificate ?
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:14 pm

Quoting kelvin933 (Reply 165):

I was under the impression that the reason for the laughably short MLG on the 737Classic, 737NG and 737MAX is that Boeing has not been able to figure out how to continue using the original 737-100 type certificate if they change the MLG and wingbox.
Is there an example of a derivative airliner which has had a new wingbox, new wings, new MLG and an a stretched fuselage and was able to continue to use the original type certificate ?

The 737NG increased the size of the wing by 25%, increased the main landing gear height, significantly increased loads in the wingbox, made significant MTOW and OEW increases, and stretched the same fuselage while keeping the same type certificate.

Laughably short also means lighter weight. It also means easier and faster loading.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:35 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 166):
Laughably short also means lighter weight. It also means easier and faster loading.

737NG MLG height still causes rotation limitations for 737-900, 737-900ER and presumably 737-MAX9.
The proposed FrankenMOM will need a fuselage length over 50m and I doubt the needed wingbox/MLG combination can be accommodated on the original 737-100 type certificate.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:03 pm

Quoting kelvin933 (Reply 167):
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 166):
Laughably short also means lighter weight. It also means easier and faster loading.

737NG MLG height still causes rotation limitations for 737-900, 737-900ER and presumably 737-MAX9.
The proposed FrankenMOM will need a fuselage length over 50m and I doubt the needed wingbox/MLG combination can be accommodated on the original 737-100 type c

Again I don't know if Boeing will want to pursue a 737 derivative for the middle of the market, but don't believe all the a.net "experts" on landing gear and type certifications. The MD80 got a new landing gear and wing that was about 25% larger and kept the DC-9 type certificate. The 737NG had redesigned lading gear and also a 25% larger wing and also was certified under an amended type certificate. The A340-500/600 added an entire axel to the center landing gear.

There would be years of design effort and a scope similar to the DC-9 to MD80, 737 classic to NG, or A340-200/300 to A340-500/600. It would cost billions (probably not 10 billion, more like 2-5) but it could be done. A 25% wing area increase, larger engines and further fuselage stretch could create a competitive middle of the market plane. Obviously gear changes would be one factor but that is relatively small compared to the wing span increases necessary. Such a plane could certainly beat the A321neo on CASM, range and payload. Whether this is a good option or an all new plane is better has probably not been decided.

[Edited 2016-02-10 09:11:48]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:37 pm

Quoting kelvin933 (Reply 167):
The proposed FrankenMOM will need a fuselage length over 50m and I doubt the needed wingbox/MLG combination can be accommodated on the original 737-100 type certificate.

That would be for the FAA to decide.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:51 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 169):
That would be for the FAA to decide.

Not necessarily. Or at least not unilaterally. There has been rifts over grandfather rights before - the JAA (EASA predecessor) insisted on strengthening of the 747-400 cockpit floors while the FAA didn't. The 737NG strained transatlantic harmony to the limits, and there's no guarantee EASA (and other civil aviation authorities) would fall in line.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:13 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 169):
That would be for the FAA to decide.

The 787 development problems have shown the FAA as a subsidiary of The Boeing Company.  
They are round heeled and willing.
But my guess would be that the non US cert organizations might give some problems.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 561
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:16 pm

It has been said many times here that FBW does not really help safety but does increase efficiency. The 787, the apex of modern technology, itself implements some FBW "tricks" to improve efficiency. Retaining the 737 prehistoric control system, the new NMA would so loose some efficiency to a "possible" FBW competitor, should anyone else, not necessarily AB, dare to respond.
Really I do not think Boeing would be stubborn like some of their fans here.
If the NMA would be, it would be top-notch like the 787, FBW, envelope protection, electric and CFC. Maybe it will have even have, God forbid, a joystick.  
737 is Maxed out already. Get over it.     
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:08 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 171):

Quoting seahawk (Reply 169):
That would be for the FAA to decide.

The 787 development problems have shown the FAA as a subsidiary of The Boeing Company.  
They are round heeled and willing.
But my guess would be that the non US cert organizations might give some problems

Are you implying that the FAA favors Boeing? While the FAA has delegated authority for much of the certification, it is absolutely ridiculous to say something like the FAA is a subsidiary of The Boeing Company. EASA and Transport Canada are fully competent regulators but the FAA has the most expertise in the world. Type Certification is just a small piece of the overall interaction between the manufacturers, airlines and regulatory agencies. The FAA is not an agency giving favors to Boeing that other regulatory authorities question. I have never heard of that happening in my entire career. You may have read articles about delegated authority and authorized representatives and it is true much of the demonstration of compliance to the FARs is handled by the manufacturer, that does not mean that Boeing can sidestep the FARs.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:12 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 173):

May I turn your attention to what the NTSB had to say on systems certification in context of the 787 battery problem.

FAA is embedded at Boeing with the same taming effects it had on journalists embedded in armed forces.
A bit of patriotism is quite ok but one should not go overboard with it.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ned Kelly
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2001 8:14 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:12 pm

Sounds like what's needed is a single aisle 787-8/9
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 561
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:25 pm

I believe it can be that FAA was a little too soft with Boeing. I also have understood the NTSB comments that way. It's natural. Boeing is a so tall mountain of power and competence that you really don't want to go against it lightheaded.
In most occasions Boeing would know better than FAA anyway.
But as I said, I believe woud be Boeing first, that given the market opportunity would go for a new, top-notch product .
The Max and the 748 were exceptions, not the rule.
chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:32 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 174):


May I turn your attention to what the NTSB had to say on systems certification in context of the 787 battery problem.

FAA is embedded at Boeing with the same taming effects it had on journalists embedded in armed forces.
A bit of patriotism is quite ok but one should not go overboard with it.


Are you now implying that the FAA favors patriotism over safety???

The NTSB concluded that the FAA did not have regulations in place for Lithium Ion batteries when they were originally proposed on the 787. The NTSB recommended that the FAA seek outside expertise for when their own knowledge or expertise is inadequate for newly evolving technology.

That is entirely different than discussing type certification and requirements related to structural changes. The FAA has no lack of expertise in that area. Whether or not a new middle of the market airplane will evolve or not from the existing 737 platform has nothing to do with the 787 battery or deficiencies in the certification process.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 139):
Reading this blog on the 757 and 737 aircraft is like reading the comics or watching comedy hour. The tooling for the 757 is gone and no more757s will be built. The 757 will continue to fly until they time out, wear out or just become too expensive to maintain. It is a very good twentieth century aircraft and this is the twenty first century.
The 737 is also a twentieth century aircraft and Boeing is going to have to build a new aircraft that will be a replacement for both these aircraft . The cow only has so much milk and Airbus is perfectly happy to see Boeing remain in the twentieth century. The only people that seem to think these aircraft should continue on are Aneters.
Find something else to talk about that Anet has not talked to death like these two aircraft.…….

I don't understand why the 737 and 757 are dated 20th Century planes and the A320 is somehow the flashy future? The A320 was launched in 84 and entered service in '88. The 757 wasn't too much before, entering service in '83. The 737-100 first entered service in '68 which was obviously a good bit before. However, today, we're further away from the A320's in service date (28 years) than the A320 was from the 737 (20 years), so why is the 737 and 757 ancient and the A320 not?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:09 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 146):
Do you have a reference for the latest GE PIP beating RR? I thought RR was currently better on the package C.

I will look for it. Last I read it was the Trent that was needed to take the sfc title from the GEnx. But it will do solidly as I believe the TEN brings 3%+ sfc improvement over the package C.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 146):
Oh, I thought it was assumed that it was fuel/pax. I'd expect the 359 to have a higher trip burn in all circumstances.

Well here is the statement again: "elsewhere I heard that the 359 takes marginally less fuel than the 789 for the same mission?An airframe one size up !" - Pure hogwash if you ask me.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 146):
Part of the issue with this is the transit visas in the US. If you have that hassle, then it's not worth it. Also, aside from a small handful of Asia-Central America and Aus-US routes, HNL is a detour (though a nice one).

Well I specifically highlighted North America. My point is that HNL could be stopping point for people in Asia/Oceania heading to the US. Sure Canada and Mexico it would be harder without transit visas but I don't think that is the lion's share of that traffic anyway. They have to clear customs somewhere, might as well be HNL and maybe a nice stop over.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
A absolute game changer, single aisle economics with TATL range will change the industry. It will open many new direct connections and allow airlines much more flexibility in scheduling. Ryanair could serve the whole US from Dublin with direct flights. Imagine what this would mean for ticket prices.

Well FR would have to change their business model if they were going to start transferring people as right of right now I understand connections are relatively difficult. Dublin would have ok O&D but the TATL model out of DUB would be great for a hub and spoke model - maybe worth a change in business strategy - maybe not. Someone will do it I bet.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 149):
How does that make sense? You take a realistic range and compare it to a optimistic range

I was optimistic on my guess of what the MoM range will be. We really don't know the range of the aircraft yet so any number is a guess. If you can do something better that is more informed please do.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 154):
You'd want Boeing to invest $10+ Billion in a redesign and achieve an aeroplane that just competes with the A321? That would be utterly crazy and would threaten the long term competitiveness of Boeing. If they are investing that kind of time and money, they need something that jumps the A32X line by 10+%, not merely compete.

The A321neo represents one of the most efficient seats in the sky. Matching those economics on a 4knm mission would be an amazing achievement sure to garner hundreds of orders in my opinion. Better yet matching A321neo economics on a 1,500-2,000nm mission would be amazing as there is inevitably going to be carriers looking to up-gauge when slots get tight or they want to pack in a higher concentration of premium seating.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 163):
I can not see how Boeing can change the wingbox gear and wing and reatain the 737 certification.

They are doing so on the 77X and that retains 777 certification. The 787 shares the 777 pilot cert and they are vastly different.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23726
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:47 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 166):

The 737NG increased the size of the wing by 25%, increased the main landing gear height, significantly increased loads in the wingbox, made significant MTOW and OEW increases, and stretched the same fuselage while keeping the same type certificate.

All true plus MANY other important changes yet still the same type certificate:

Quote:

   Performance: Faster cruise M.78, Higher ceiling 41,000ft, Lower take-off & approach speeds, Higher MTOW, lower fuel burn.
   Engines: FADEC controlled CFM56-7, 2.5deg nozzle tilt, redesigned struts, improved nacelles with increased airflow and improved noise treatment, 7% more fuel efficient than CFM56-3.
   Fuselage: Strengthened for increased tail loads and design weights, new wing-body strake.
   Wings: New airfoil section, 25% increase in area, 107" semi-span increase, 17" chord increase, raked wing-tip, larger inspar wingbox with machined ribs.
   Fuel Tanks: Main tanks smaller at 3900kg each but centre tank much larger giving total fuel capacity of 20,800kg. (compared to 16,200kg on classics).
   Tail: 4ft 8in taller, 60 sq ft root insert, modified rudder, segmented rudder seals, digital yaw damper.
   Flight Controls: Increased elevator PCU capability, aileron and tab span increase, new double slotted continuous span flaps, new leading edge Krueger flaps, additional slat, additional spoiler.
   Nose Gear: Stroke increased 3.5" to relieve higher dynamic loads and wheelwell extended 3" forward.
   Main Gear: Longer to reduce tailstrike risk, one piece titanium gear beam, 43.5" tyres, digital antiskid.
   Flightdeck: 6 programmable LCD's, replacing EFIS CRT displays and most conventional instruments.
   Systems: Most systems developed particularly: electrics, powerplant & navigation.

The NG's have 33% fewer parts than the Classics which reduces production time.

Ref: http://www.b737.org.uk/737ng.htm

Quoting kelvin933 (Reply 167):
The proposed FrankenMOM

IMHO MadMax was cute, and this is derisive. Sorry to see this topic upsets you so.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 174):
A bit of patriotism is quite ok but one should not go overboard with it.

And your evidence of 'going overboard' is?

Seems the pattern DC-9->MD-XX and 737 Jurassic->Classic->NG->MAX is well established, yet some just can't deal with it.

Meanwhile, we have a Randy sighting:

Quote:

"The Max 9 isn't as large but has lower trip-cost as well as lower seat-cost and so that’s a nice combination, and it flies a bit further, so we think we're well-positioned," Tinseth says.

But airlines have ordered only 224 737 Max 9s compared with 1,111 A321neos, according to Flightglobal's Fleets Analyzer.

Tinseth also argues that the smaller 150-180-seat-segment will claim about 60% of the sales in the single-aisle market, where Boeing offers the 737 Max 8 with up to 189 seats and the 737 Max 200 with up to about 196 seats.

He estimates that the 737 Max 9 and A321neo combined will account for about 20-25% of overall demand for single-aisle aircraft over the next 20 years.

Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-strategy-despite-slow-sal-421752/

Before people start throwing fecal matter at the wall, keep in mind it's his job to say nice things about his products.

[Edited 2016-02-10 14:50:43]
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
enzo011
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:42 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 179):
I was optimistic on my guess of what the MoM range will be. We really don't know the range of the aircraft yet so any number is a guess. If you can do something better that is more informed please do.

I am just curious how you decided the ranges. You have the realistic 737/A320 range at 2900nm, but the MOM at 4800nm. Does this mean you think the MOM will have to have a marketed range of around 5700nm to reach the realistic range you have for the 737/A320? Or did you choose the 4800nm number as a few more mega cities fall inside the range rather than 4400nm?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:07 am

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 178):
However, today, we're further away from the A320's in service date (28 years) than the A320 was from the 737 (20 years), so why is the 737 and 757 ancient and the A320 not?

The geometry of the A320 still provides a lot of scope for further improvements, there is still lots of room the the A320NEO for even larger diameter engines, the rotation/landing attitude still provides scope for additional length. The is evidenced with the changes required to go from an A320 to the A320neo, it was a far simpler upgrade path. This results in a lower cost to design and certify the upgrade, lower corporate risk, and common spare pool for operators.

Being a FBW aircraft with a modular avionics design the A320 sees incremental improvements all the time that are common for the other FBW aircraft, the A320 produced today is very different inside to the one that came off the production line 10-20 years ago. A lot of those upgrades are reasonably easy to retrofit to aircraft in service. The cockpits shared a lot of common hardware to the other FBW aircraft, control, seats, screens, switches, glare-shield etc.

At a later stage if Airbus were to rewing the A320, it would be a far simpler design process. The FBW provides advantages for an upgrade path that are just all that harder on an aircraft with mechanical linkages. At the moment there are electrical signals going to the wing, basically all they would need to do is provide the same electrical interface.

The capability to further expand the A320 with these improvements with a much lower cost/risk than an all new airframe is known to many industry, and Boeing would have done their own assessment. It makes a business case for a clean sheet 757 replacement very dubious. Realistically it would cost Airbus around 1/4 of the cost of what it would cost Boeing to build a new clean sheet design to add additional length and a new wing to the A320, at a much lower risk, and half the time to get the product to the market.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:48 am

Quoting kelvin933 (Reply 165):
I was under the impression that the reason for the laughably short MLG on the 737Classic, 737NG and 737MAX is that Boeing has not been able to figure out how to continue using the original 737-100 type certificate if they change the MLG and wingbox.

I was under the impression that it was that they did not want to spend the money to do it, and were able to come to an adequate solution without it. They did lengthen the gear slightly for the NG.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:21 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 149):
At what cost though? Airbus could also design (maybe some think not though) a new clean sheet 777 competitor,

It's called the A350, Enzo   

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
Imho there is no doubt it is being marketed, we already see a decline in NEO orders.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
No doubt about that. And I am also not buying into the A321 hype.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 153):
The decline in neo orders? Oh yes, they only sold 850 last year!
Quoting scbriml (Reply 153):
Well look at that - 850 neo vs. 409 MAX!   

I don't mind a bit of cheerleading, but this is silly.

Scbriml is indeed correct. Like it or not, there is an A321 Sugar High in the industry right now, and rightly so.

We wouldn't be talking about the MoM this way if A321 hadn't been performing the way it has now.

I was at LAX today, and I saw more AA A321s then 737s there!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
True but the CFRP construction will mean higher costs and a completely separate production line. A 737 version might allow them more flexibility. Boeing will know what is best.

The MoM may not be produced alongside the 737 MAX, we don't know. I think this is a bigger issue for when the NSA arrives.

I still think it won't be an issue for Boeing.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
A absolute game changer, single aisle economics with TATL range will change the industry. It will open many new direct connections and allow airlines much more flexibility in scheduling. Ryanair could serve the whole US from Dublin with direct flights. Imagine what this would mean for ticket prices.

The MoM is sounding more and more like a Next Generation 757 every time we talk about it. I think what defines a game changer when is comes to commercial planes is something the market wants, impressive economics, but also, innovation, among other things. Game changing planes also set a higher standard, industry wide. The 787 is a game changing plane.

I believe the MoM is a smart investment for Boeing. I believe it will also take the places of the 737 MAX 9 and 787-8.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:55 am

Someone mentioned the 707 intercontinental. Specs of the 707-320B:
2 - class 147
1 - class 219
Range : 5750 nm

4 PW JT3D-7 19K thrust engines.

BA must be looking at the landing gear they put on the 707-320B. It looks like it retracted into the wing. The wing probably carried a lot more fuel.

sv
 
JHwk
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:40 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 168):
It would cost billions (probably not 10 billion, more like 2-5) but it could be done. A 25% wing area increase, larger engines and further fuselage stretch could create a competitive middle of the market plane

IMO, it might be worth the $2-5B investment now on an MOM plane that forms the certification foundation for the NSA rather than counting on cables for the next 30 years. It is much lower risk doing the work on a 1,000 frame market than a1,000 frame/year market.

The obvious challenge is justifying the extra investment now. Could it have more value for the airlines? Could it have a lower manufacture cost? Does it offer a strategic labor value? Is there something that lets Boeing leapfrog the competition for a profitable window?

I think the answer will come down to the future life expectancy of frames; the manufacturing volume seems unsustainable long term unless economic lifespans drop to the 15-18 year range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:25 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 179):
Well FR would have to change their business model if they were going to start transferring people as right of right now I understand connections are relatively difficult. Dublin would have ok O&D but the TATL model out of DUB would be great for a hub and spoke model - maybe worth a change in business strategy - maybe not. Someone will do it I bet.

Ryanair, Norwegian, even Aer Lingus, or Jet Blue, West Jet or whomever. I think the plane will change traffic on TATL routes.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 184):
We wouldn't be talking about the MoM this way if A321 hadn't been performing the way it has now.

The A321 does not have the range or capacity to challenge the MoM and it is a dated 19080ies vintage design with an old and already too small wing. It is no competition for the MoM.

Quoting sv11 (Reply 185):
The MoM is sounding more and more like a Next Generation 757 every time we talk about it. I think what defines a game changer when is comes to commercial planes is something the market wants, impressive economics, but also, innovation, among other things. Game changing planes also set a higher standard, industry wide. The 787 is a game changing plane.

The MoM has the potential to be more than the 787. You can go the more electric route, you can go CFRP and even more advanced wings and engines. Especially if you consider how dated the current single aisle designs are., this could be more of a game changer than the 787.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7128
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:27 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144):
This 5 billion for a fuselage change is just a crazy put up number. No reason for it.

Don't know about $5Bn, but it's the integration of all the systems that reside within the fuselage that is the problem IMO, not the structure per se.
That's why new fuselage = new aircraft.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
And I am also not buying into the A321 hype

At the time of the MAX launch, at least one Boeing exec went on record to say that the A321NEO was the plane they would have to find an answer to.
So he must have bought into the hype...

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
Imho there is no doubt it is being marketed, we already see a decline in NEO orders.

The decline in orders last year was for the MAX, not the NEO.
850 orders vs 400

Quoting scbriml (Reply 153):
I don't mind a bit of cheerleading, but this is silly.

Embarrassing in fact  

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

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:31 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 187):
The A321 does not have the range or capacity to challenge the MoM and it is a dated 19080ies vintage design with an old and already too small wing. It is no competition for the MoM.

Quite right, but as of now, the closest thing to a 757 is indeed an A321. That just proves that there is a market for the 757 and a similar sized aircraft.

Problem is, that plane is not here yet. When the MoM arrives, I fully expect it to be successful, but I worry that a portion of it's market could be occupied by A321s.

Not necessarily in an international market, but a domestic/short range market.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
astuteman
Posts: 7128
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:39 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 187):
The A321 does not have the range or capacity to challenge the MoM and it is a dated 19080ies vintage design with an old and already too small wing.

Boeing778X is right, though.

The reason we're talking about the MOM today is because of the A321NEO's performance in the market.

The ball is definitely in Boeing's court here

I'd also suggest it would be short-sighted to assume that an A321NEO derivative couldn't challenge MOM if and when it ever emerges.

Rgds
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:29 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 188):
Embarrassing in fact

Come on, even a freaking Mad Max 737 would be a welcome addition to the skies, if you look at it as an aviation enthusiast.

Luckily in these forums, I do not have to be fully professional and following facts, sometimes I have to let my heart speak and something that could look like the child of a 707 and 757 surely warms my heart.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18971
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:54 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 191):
Come on, even a freaking Mad Max 737 would be a welcome addition to the skies, if you look at it as an aviation enthusiast.

No dispute, even if it is just another 737.

What we're 'surprised at' was your claim that neo sales had declined.  Wow!

[Edited 2016-02-10 23:54:43]
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:25 am

Well, did 2015 not see a bit less orders than 2014.  

I am fully aware, that the NEO seems to be doing clearly better than the MAX and that Airbus is a very strong position not only to counter a Mad Max 737 but even to pre-empt it.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:56 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 184):
It's called the A350, Enzo

If you read the forums then Airbus needs an answer to their own answer....my point was both companies cannot design everything we think they should. They have real world constraints that hold them back into designing the new MOM and Y3 and Y1.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 184):
The MoM is sounding more and more like a Next Generation 757 every time we talk about it. I think what defines a game changer when is comes to commercial planes is something the market wants, impressive economics, but also, innovation, among other things. Game changing planes also set a higher standard, industry wide. The 787 is a game changing plane.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 187):
The A321 does not have the range or capacity to challenge the MoM and it is a dated 19080ies vintage design with an old and already too small wing. It is no competition for the MoM.

Wait, what MOM are you guys talking about? How do you know how it will compare when there isn't anything concrete on what Boeing can offer, other than talk of what airlines want and what we think they can do?

Game changing? You basically just described every new model that has been launched.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 187):
The MoM has the potential to be more than the 787. You can go the more electric route, you can go CFRP and even more advanced wings and engines. Especially if you consider how dated the current single aisle designs are., this could be more of a game changer than the 787.

At what cost? Again, Airbus could just as well do a competitor as a clean sheet design to the MOM with the same economics. They won't, because there is a better alternative, but they could. The could also design a game changing A330 replacement....etc.
 
StTim
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:12 am

I just don't get some people on here. Boeing releases that they are looking at a new MoM plane with absolutely no details and yet on here we have people confidently predicting it will be a game changer, wipe the market with anything that Airbus can do.

What are they smoking? It may be all those things. It may however be another warmed over 707/737 fuselage stretched to extreme lengths to accommodate hundreds in uncomfortable seats. We just don't know what it will be.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:34 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 180):
Before people start throwing fecal matter at the wall, keep in mind it's his job to say nice things about his products.

In scope of the PR objective he isn't too far off:
assume 60 market share for Airbus and on the right horizont 50% A321 share :: voila 30%
40% remainder and every 8th a -9 sale is another 5% in that segment.
( Though one could judge the -9 to be sitting in a kind of "Uncanny Valley" ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley#Hypothesis ) nicht Fisch , nicht Fleisch  
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:47 am

The big question for me is how Boeing would finance a new design.

The 787 is not making money yet, the development costs of the 777X are unavoidable and the 777W sees a cut in production rate (and probably some serious discounts). The 737 is doing well, but Boeing claimed that the pressure by Airbus has reduced their margins for the 737.They are even indirectly admitting that the "cheap" A330NEO is hurting the market price of the Dreamliner.

The 737 must be hurting, that Boeing is even considering doing a MoM, imho. Because whatever they do, I am sure Airbus must do less to match it.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:44 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 197):
The 787 is not making money yet, the development costs of the 777X are unavoidable and the 777W sees a cut in production rate (and probably some serious discounts). The 737 is doing well, but Boeing claimed that the pressure by Airbus has reduced their margins for the 737.They are even indirectly admitting that the "cheap" A330NEO is hurting the market price of the Dreamliner.

Boeing had very high margins on the 747-400 in the 1990s and then high margins on the 777 in the 2000s. Airbus has since closed that gap and there probably will never be margins like that again. Even with that said, revenue from the 737 is where the most money comes. Airbus is aggressive with price but there is plenty of money coming in from the 737. That is why they cannot wait if the NEO is going to take 60% of the market. Boeing has the widebody lead and probably will keep the lead, but they can't fall too far behind in the narrowbody market.

Quoting StTim (Reply 195):
I just don't get some people on here. Boeing releases that they are looking at a new MoM plane with absolutely no details and yet on here we have people confidently predicting it will be a game changer, wipe the market with anything that Airbus can do.

It won't wipe the market of anything Airbus can do. It can beat what Airbus is currently doing. If they spend the money, I have no doubt that Boeing can produce a plane that has lower costs, higher capacity and more range than the A321neo. Airbus can certainly counter but would have to put in significant development as well. The A321 wing is not optimized for the middle of the market segment and while fly by wire lacks some of the more innovative design features like variable camber and super critical airflow, which leaves opportunity.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:03 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 198):
The A321 wing is not optimized for the middle of the market segment and while fly by wire lacks some of the more innovative design features like variable camber and super critical airflow, which leaves opportunity.

The a320 is said to sport a supercritical wing in contrast to the later but not quite there 737NG ( NASA: shows elements of ...).

FBW use for variable camber is a potential addon to the existing airframe. ( See later Airbus models that each added some enhancing feature to FBW scope and some of them allow backporting to the earlier designs without too much hassle. IMU the MTOW increases on the A330 leverage FBW features quite nicely.)

Boeing seems to have entered this field with the 787 also. On the MTOW path they seem to have come up to some hard limits though. Decidedly the -10 could use an MTOW lift.
Murphy is an optimist

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