Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:24 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 77):
Sure....the 7 abreast isn't the most efficient cross section, but with the 3-5 billion dollars development savings with a MAX 767 over even a best case MAD MAX 737, they could offer some pretty serious discounts and still make money selling the aircraft.

I don't see it unless they can go to 8-abreast. If they can get a 17" 8-abreast Y out of that aircraft then new wings and new engines could be a solid aircraft. Its too damn heavy at 7-abreast. J/F cabin would be pretty solid with the 767 cross section.

The 767 was built for 6,000+nm of range and has the weight to show for it. It needs 60,000 lbs of engine to hurl it. This MoM is really in the 42,000 range.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 77):
The A332neo will probably be the poorest selling of the duo, (going by recent relative sales trends between the 332ceo and 333ceo).

I think the A338 will end up being the worst seller of all modern widebodies actually. I think the 778 will even outsell it. I think we are looking at a 77L-situation with that aircraft except worse because I don't think the freighter will sell well either.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 79):
This even makes sense without the wing. Sure the range would be less, but it would still do anything below 3000nm with very high efficiency.

Actually that is the variation that I do think Airbus will take depending on what Boeing launches for the MoM. An A322 simple stretch with any necessary adjustments to the gear and maybe light wing modifications makes a ton of sense as a response.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 81):
I guess sense really ain't that common after all.

I just think its too damn heavy. Honestly what routes will it be better than an A321neo? Routes that are 3,800-4,600nm in length? It would get hammered on short routes. I just don't think it will sell unless it can match A321neo efficiency on 1,500nm routes and I just don't see how a 767-derivative can do that. By 2023 the GEnx 2B engines will be old tech (12 years old).

tortugamon
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:27 am

Cold Boeing incorporate FBW (or FB-whatever-is-the-best-when-they-decide-to-take-the-plunge) in the 737? If not, then I suppose they won't have much choice, at one point.

Let's face it, if cable and pulleys were still the way of the future, the 777 and 787 would still use it.

Hence, I believe there shall not be a MADMAX… Sorry for its fans.
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:41 am

What new routes can we expect from a 757 size plane with 5000 nautical miles range. Seems like North America to most of Europe and S.America, Africa to Europe, any possible routes in Asia. Seems like a small market.

sv11
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6919
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:13 am

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 23):
For something really mad, how about if rather than going for a new (as yet undeveloped) engine which would also need new landing gear and probably a new wing, Boeing made a 737 trijet

Been there, done that. But they couldn't figure out how to fit the open rotor on the #2 engine...  ...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:55 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85):
It looks like Boeing is interested in a new plane, but NMA could be 737 based if they wanted.

They could if they wanted, yes, but seeing as using the 737 as a base for a 757 is somewhat restrictive, I don't see why they would besides the fact it would be "cheaper."

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 89):
The A35K is better than the 77W. The 739 isn't better than the A321. Boeing had to do a major job on the 77W to have it in a position to overtake the A35K (new wings, stretch) so you would think the same treatment will have the same results for Airbus.

Yeah, it's called the 777-9  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
This MoM is really in the 42,000 range.

Which isn't that much different from a 757, really.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
I think the A338 will end up being the worst seller of all modern widebodies actually. I think the 778 will even outsell it. I think we are looking at a 77L-situation with that aircraft except worse because I don't think the freighter will sell well either.

The 777-8 is selling better than most people would like to admit, but I'm not ready to throw away the A330-800 at this point.
No doubt neither will sell exceptionally well, but the fact that they will probably be be freighters at some point gives them a bit more longevity.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 101):
Let's face it, if cable and pulleys were still the way of the future, the 777 and 787 would still use it.

Hence, I believe there shall not be a MADMAX… Sorry for its fans.

What fans? I honestly think it's a terrible idea.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:06 am

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 101):
old Boeing incorporate FBW (or FB-whatever-is-the-best-when-they-decide-to-take-the-plunge) in the 737?

Would love to hear more discussion on this. It is hard to believe that this aircraft would not be FBW so would like to learn what that entails.

Quoting sv11 (Reply 102):
What new routes can we expect from a 757 size plane with 5000 nautical miles range. Seems like North America to most of Europe and S.America, Africa to Europe, any possible routes in Asia. Seems like a small market

Just because it has 5000 miles of range doesn't mean it will entirely be used on such routes. There is a certain point where a 77E and its payload makes more sense than an A330 (albeit a small one) and I think the trick of this MoM would be to make that tradeoff as short in range as possible vs the A321neo. I believe that with a clean sheet aircraft it could happen at 1,500 or 2,000nm. Meaning that above that the MoM would match A321neo economics. If that can happen then US Trans Continential traffic like NYC-LAX/SFO starts looking very interesting.

I made a couple charts for reference. If it could get down to 2,000nm where it has similar economics to the neo then here are maps of the world from major airline markets where the neo stops having the advantage and the MoM starts gaining it. The idea is to focus on city pairs that are not in the first light circle nor in the darkest area, which I think affords a ton of opportunity:

from London: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2000nm%...lgw%0D%0A4500nm%40lgw&MS=wls&DU=mi
from Dubai: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2000nm%...dxb%0D%0A4500nm%40dxb&MS=wls&DU=mi
from Beijing: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2000nm%...%0A4500nm%40pek%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=mi
from New York: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2000nm%...nyc%0D%0A4500nm%40nyc&MS=wls&DU=mi


tortugamon
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:33 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):

The 767 was built for 6,000+nm of range and has the weight to show for it. It needs 60,000 lbs of engine to hurl it. This MoM is really in the 42,000 range.

The MOM's stated goal is over 6000nm range...over 5 at least with a more than 250 passenger load. No 40,000lb thrust twin is going to do that anytime soon. The extra range and passenger load Boeing states for the NMA .

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

Quote:
John Wojick, senior vice president, Global Sales & Marketing, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, says “we see substantial demand. If we can produce an airplane with a range of 4,500 to 5,000 miles, seating about 220 to 280 passengers then there would be an awful lot of demand, in the thousands. Easily more than 2000,” he adds.



The 321neo will touch the low end of those specs. And Mad Max MOM isn't going to happen for another decade. As I mentioned, Boeing has already had 5 years to perfect the MAX and has known about the A321neo for at least that long. In all that time, they never thought the idea of a new wing or longer gear or longer fuse or more power was worth it. I really don't understand how people expect Boeing to spend 2+ billions and take another 3 or more years, to MAX the MAX9, to allow only one model of the 737 to compete with one model of the 320.

Right now, the 738 is doing very well against the 320 so there is no need for any more upgrades in that segment. Both lines have 5 years of backlog so what's the point?

The 321 is just physically able to carry more passengers than the 739, which is why it's winning that battle. Still, ultimately, it's just another 737 and there isn't much of a difference to Boeing profit wise for a 738 or 739 coming off of the line.

And...somebody has to spend more billions designing an engine for this plane. So we're talking about an investment of at least 3 billion, (I'm thinking over 4), for an aircraft designed to take the leftovers of the A321neo.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
I just think its too damn heavy. Honestly what routes will it be better than an A321neo?

Any route where an airline might want to haul more than 200 people more than 3000nm....for tens of millions per plane less to purchase than a 788 or 330neo. After all, 80,000lbs of aluminum doesn't come cheap.

Basically, anywhere the 762/3er currently flies. Point to point pretty much anywhere N.America to Europe, Hawaii and even eastern Asia.

280 people, 5000nm isn't going to be flown by any sized 320 derivative...or, I believe, any single aisle. It's also going to need a lot more than 42,000lbs of thrust just to haul the fuel, and it will need a lot more structure.

Now, I'm sure they could shave 10klbs or so off of a 762 sized aircraft by going all new, but at what cost? We're talking well over 5 billion dollars for that program, including the engines.

On the other hand, if you are willing to take a little heavier than the optimal weight, you can get the 767MAX program done for probably less than 1 billion, in 20% the time, using already certified parts. The 4 billion savings can be taken off of the purchase price. Airlines get a completely known commodity with no "new airplane trauma" involved.

Sure it's a bit heavy, but it can also be put into service very cheaply and quickly because every bit of it is already still in production.

[Edited 2016-02-21 19:34:08]
What the...?
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:50 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
The 321neo will touch the low end of those specs.

   And the A321neoLR, I suppose, could do thinner routes.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
And Mad Max MOM isn't going to happen for another decade.

A Mad MAX MOM could be done quickly, but I don't think there will be a Mad MAX they way that Boeing has been talking in these articles. It sounds like they're more interested in a cleansheet MOM.

I think they could hypothetically introduce a cleansheet MOM in under 10 years, provided they launched it this year or next.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
As I mentioned, Boeing has already had 5 years to perfect the MAX and has known about the A321neo for at least that long. In all that time, they never thought the idea of a new wing or longer gear or longer fuse or more power was worth it. I really don't understand how people expect Boeing to spend 2+ billions and take another 3 or more years, to MAX the MAX9, to allow only one model of the 737 to compete with one model of the 320.

I don't see it happening either. The MAX 8 is selling great and the MAX 9 is a good domestic plane, and they buy time for Boeing.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
And...somebody has to spend more billions designing an engine for this plane. So we're talking about an investment of at least 3 billion, (I'm thinking over 4), for an aircraft designed to take the leftovers of the A321neo.

And as you said, it doesn't seem worth it.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
I just think its too damn heavy. Honestly what routes will it be better than an A321neo?
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
280 people, 5000nm isn't going to be flown by any sized 320 derivative

   I think what also needs to be understood is that the MOM could be larger than the A321neo. We are, after all, talking about a 757 sized plane.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:49 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 104):
No doubt neither will sell exceptionally well, but the fact that they will probably be be freighters at some point gives them a bit more longevity.

The A332 has sold, what 42 aircraft? Airbus has a non-existent freighter program.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
The MOM's stated goal is over 6000nm range...over 5 at least with a more than 250 passenger load. No 40,000lb thrust twin is going to do that anytime soon. The extra range and passenger load Boeing states for the NMA .

I have seen nothing indicating 6000nm range.

The 753 seats 234 in Delta configuration (in line with stated appealing capacity), has 3,600nm stated range and my quoted 42k rated engines. I am sure a brand new wing with improved aero, new engines, and 30 years worth of advancements could get the aircraft up to the 4,500nm range without jumping from 42k engines to 60k. I know you are aware but the 77X engine thrust actually dropped with the newer engine/wing and range increased...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
I really don't understand how people expect Boeing to spend 2+ billions and take another 3 or more years, to MAX the MAX9, to allow only one model of the 737 to compete with one model of the 320.

I think we are talking about 3000 units if done well regardless of what the A321neo does. I personally think this is a valid market in its own right.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
Right now, the 738 is doing very well against the 320 so there is no need for any more upgrades in that segment. Both lines have 5 years of backlog so what's the point?

The following 5 years is the point, and 5 years after that

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
Any route where an airline might want to haul more than 200 people more than 3000nm....for tens of millions per plane less to purchase than a 788 or 330neo. After all, 80,000lbs of aluminum doesn't come cheap.

If you think that is the market then you're right a 767 derivative is a good choice. Honestly makes sense. You and I disagree because I think they will want to design this aircraft around matching the A321neo on much shorter missions. Which is why the 767-based-solution is not viable to me.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):
On the other hand, if you are willing to take a little heavier than the optimal weight, you can get the 767MAX program done for probably less than 1 billion, in 20% the time, using already certified parts. The 4 billion savings can be taken off of the purchase price. Airlines get a completely known commodity with no "new airplane trauma" involved.
Sure it's a bit heavy, but it can also be put into service very cheaply and quickly because every bit of it is already still in production.

The parts that are in production won't fit in a viable aircraft though. It will need a ton of new components.

I really don't think they are trying to get something into service in less than 5 years. I don't even think that is a consideration. I think they are thinking what works best considering their resources after the 77X enters service. A 767-Max solution being quicker doesn't seem to matter as much what is the best solution in this space, in my opinion.

If you think they can convince airlines of 8-abreast 767s and newer, cheap engines than the GEnx 2Bs coupled with a cfrp wing, I could start coming around to this idea.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:54 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 104):
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 89):
The A35K is better than the 77W. The 739 isn't better than the A321. Boeing had to do a major job on the 77W to have it in a position to overtake the A35K (new wings, stretch) so you would think the same treatment will have the same results for Airbus.

Yeah, it's called the 777-9

I know, and if Airbus applies the same improvements that Boeing did for the 779 to the A35K you would expect a similar result. Same with the 739 and A321, unless you believe Boeing designers and engineers are better than Airbus staff.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
Would love to hear more discussion on this. It is hard to believe that this aircraft would not be FBW so would like to learn what that entails.

I would guess only if it is a clean sheet design to save on costs. Don't underestimate the need to cost saving for borh OEM's, if they don't have to spend it they won't. If the MOM will form the skeleton for the NSA they would definitely go FBW. They should probably go for a smaller yoke/sidestick as well, but the time for that has passed (787) and will be stuck with the cumbersome yoke till the cows come home.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):

The 767neo/MAX is a non-starter if the airlines are asking for 250 seats at A321/739 economics. They are essentially asking for a 753. I don't know how you can force the square peg into a round hole. It may be that Boeing doesn't want to lose face and admit they shut down the 757 line too early when airlines are asking for a 757neo, so they are making statements that will not lead to this conclusion.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:40 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):

I have seen nothing indicating 6000nm range.

The 753 seats 234 in Delta configuration (in line with stated appealing capacity), has 3,600nm stated range and my quoted 42k rated engines. I am sure a brand new wing with improved aero, new engines, and 30 years worth of advancements could get the aircraft up to the 4,500nm range without jumping from 42k engines to 60k. I know you are aware but the 77X engine thrust actually dropped with the newer engine/wing and range increased...

Maybe not 6 but the link I provided showed Boeing wanted up to 280 passengers to 5000nm. That would be a pretty darned long single aisle.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):

I think we are talking about 3000 units if done well regardless of what the A321neo does. I personally think this is a valid market in its own right.

It could be. I just look at that huge gap between the 321 and the 333neo/789, (I leave out the 332neo and the 788 since I just don't think they will be big sellers anyway), and think that there surely must be a market for an aircraft that could plug that hole.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):
The following 5 years is the point, and 5 years after that

If they are looking to the middle of next decade, then who knows what they'll decide.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):
If you think that is the market then you're right a 767 derivative is a good choice. Honestly makes sense. You and I disagree because I think they will want to design this aircraft around matching the A321neo on much shorter missions. Which is why the 767-based-solution is not viable to me.

I really do think that the big gap is the place to shoot for. The 321neo pretty much can do the 752's job but at some point, a single aisle just won't cut it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):
The parts that are in production won't fit in a viable aircraft though. It will need a ton of new components.

I really don't think they are trying to get something into service in less than 5 years. I don't even think that is a consideration. I think they are thinking what works best considering their resources after the 77X enters service. A 767-Max solution being quicker doesn't seem to matter as much what is the best solution in this space, in my opinion.

Actually, I don't think they'll need much new at all. The 762/3 are still coming off of the production line and with 744 engines on them. What I'm talking about is putting the newest 747 engines on the plane, maybe some aero tweaks and that's about it.

Everything they need to make this plane fly, (except the pylon), is in production and certified right now.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 109):
The 767neo/MAX is a non-starter if the airlines are asking for 250 seats at A321/739 economics.

Boeing said they want their NMA to do as many as 280 seats out to 5,000nm. In my mind, that pretty much takes it out of single aisle territory.

If Boeing wants to wait most of a decade, who knows what possibilities technology might bring? If they just want to get the most out of their 739 right now, they should look at fancy gear that gets longer as it extends and maybe some high lift tricks. Maybe just a really good tail skid to let them max out the pitch angle on takeoff.

Basically I look at a re-engined 767 as a gap filler above the A321 that could be done cheaply, quickly and give good value for the money for 5-10 years worth of production.

As for the current models, I think we've seen the last remake of the golden goose that is the 737.

For me, this is mostly an entertaining thought exercise that will never see the light of day but it's fun to talk about.
What the...?
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:13 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
Boeing said they want their NMA to do as many as 280 seats out to 5,000nm. In my mind, that pretty much takes it out of single aisle territory.

If Boeing wants to wait most of a decade, who knows what possibilities technology might bring? If they just want to get the most out of their 739 right now, they should look at fancy gear that gets longer as it extends and maybe some high lift tricks. Maybe just a really good tail skid to let them max out the pitch angle on takeoff.

Basically I look at a re-engined 767 as a gap filler above the A321 that could be done cheaply, quickly and give good value for the money for 5-10 years worth of production.

As for the current models, I think we've seen the last remake of the golden goose that is the 737.

For me, this is mostly an entertaining thought exercise that will never see the light of day but it's fun to talk about.

Well we don't know the capacity at the moment. Is that 280 in 2-classes? That is the 332 and 788 (more actually). Why spend money there? Is it a one class 280 seats which goes to 250 2-class or 220 in 3-classes. They could be the same length. Until we know more on the actual capacity and how many classes and whether it is for regional flying (40" J) or overnight flights (78" J) we are speculating on scraps. But the scraps we have seem to indicate that they are not looking at any current twin-aisle aircraft as they are too heavy (single-aisle operating costs).
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:27 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
Maybe not 6 but the link I provided showed Boeing wanted up to 280 passengers to 5000nm. That would be a pretty darned long single aisle.

The 737-800 takes 200 and the A321 takes 240. According to those numbers it would not need to reach the length of the 757-300.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:06 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 112):
The 737-800 takes 200 and the A321 takes 240. According to those numbers it would not need to reach the length of the 757-300.

The 240 on the A321 is ultra sardine configurations...not for 4000nm. The 4000nm LR will seat 164 in a 2 class configuration. 220 will be the normal single class configuration.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 111):
Well we don't know the capacity at the moment. Is that 280 in 2-classe
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 111):
Well we don't know the capacity at the moment. Is that 280 in 2-classes? That is the 332 and 788 (more actually). Why spend money there? Is it a one class 280 seats which goes to 250 2-class or 220 in 3-classes. They could be the same length. Until we know more on the actual capacity and how many classes and whether it is for regional flying (40" J) or overnight flights (78" J) we are speculating on scraps. But the scraps we have seem to indicate that they are not looking at any current twin-aisle aircraft as they are too heavy (single-aisle operating costs).

Regardless, no single aisle in Boeing's arsenal, (or Airbus's), will do 5000nm...period...and it seems unlikely to me that they'll build one. At MTOW, I believe the A321 starts taking a payload hit at 3000nm....but i could be wrong.

The 757 is only a 4000nm plane, which can't take a full load that far either. 5000nm on single aisle seems unlikely to me....but I'm just guessing like the rest of the crowd.

My point is that if Boeing wants those specs on a MOM quickly, they have no choice but to go with a modded 767. If they are looking all new, we won't see anything offered until the end of the decade at the earliest.

Any plane that can carry that load for that distance will be much heavier than an A321 anyway, just to carry the extra fuel.

As for the 330neo or 788, they are 80,000 lbs heavier than a 762, so if you want to talk too heavy for the MOM job, you're looking at it.
What the...?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:15 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 113):
At MTOW, I believe the A321 starts taking a payload hit at 3000nm....but i could be wrong.

Payload hit kicks in around 2,500 nm.

http://imagr.eu/up/do8xE_Screenshot_2016-02-22_11-09-34.png

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 113):
Regardless, no single aisle in Boeing's arsenal, (or Airbus's), will do 5000nm...period

The airplane doesn't need to fly 5,000 nm at MZFW. It would be 5,000 nm 'design range', in other words with a payload hit.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 113):
My point is that if Boeing wants those specs on a MOM quickly, they have no choice but to go with a modded 767

What makes you believe Boeing cannot build a larger 737 with 5,000 design range? MZFW range would between 3,500 - 4,000 nm, versus 2,500 nm on the A321neo.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 113):
As for the 330neo or 788, they are 80,000 lbs heavier than a 762, so if you want to talk too heavy for the MOM job, you're looking at it.

Agreed.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:23 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 113):
Regardless, no single aisle in Boeing's arsenal, (or Airbus's), will do 5000nm...period...and it seems unlikely to me that they'll build one. At MTOW, I believe the A321 starts taking a payload hit at 3000nm....but i could be wrong.

The 757 is only a 4000nm plane, which can't take a full load that far either. 5000nm on single aisle seems unlikely to me....but I'm just guessing like the rest of the crowd.

My point is that if Boeing wants those specs on a MOM quickly, they have no choice but to go with a modded 767. If they are looking all new, we won't see anything offered until the end of the decade at the earliest.

Any plane that can carry that load for that distance will be much heavier than an A321 anyway, just to carry the extra fuel.

As for the 330neo or 788, they are 80,000 lbs heavier than a 762, so if you want to talk too heavy for the MOM job, you're looking at it.

I don't know what the 5000nm refers to, is it brochure range where we are actually only looking at 4000nm or less at full payload? Or is it 5000nm full payload range, which will be what the current 787 and A350 will be doing only. A lot of definitions need to be cleared up, otherwise we are basically discussing one of:

A321 with bigger wing for more range
A321 with a stretch
A321 with bigger wing and stretch
A321 with bigger wing, stretch and new engines
739 with new wing and MLG
739 with new wing and engines and MLG
739 with stretch and new wings, MLG and engines
757 with new engines
757 with new wing and engines
757 with a stretch and new wings and engines
767 with new engines
767 with new wings and engines
767 with new wings, engines and all new features
Clean sheet that will have 7-across but somehow will not pay the penalty this adds with the extra weight or drag

Take your pick at the moment which you personally decide is the better option. It is no better or worse than the others out there as we don't know what it needs to do.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:25 am

More evidence popping up this MoM is most likely not going to be a clean-sheet program:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...rket-jet-could-happen-but-not.html

Quote:
“This is not something where you’re going to see a big change in our R&D profile over the next five years,” he said. speaking to investors at Barclays Industrial Select Conference in Miami Beach. “It simply won’t be the case.”

Speaking directly to investors, Muilenburg said Boeing is sticking with its guidance of $3.6 billion in research and development for 2016, adding that this number won't be "up and down" over the next five years.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:30 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 116):
More evidence popping up this MoM is most likely not going to be a clean-sheet program:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...rket-jet-could-happen-but-not.html

Quote:
“This is not something where you’re going to see a big change in our R&D profile over the next five years,” he said. speaking to investors at Barclays Industrial Select Conference in Miami Beach. “It simply won’t be the case.”

Speaking directly to investors, Muilenburg said Boeing is sticking with its guidance of $3.6 billion in research and development for 2016, adding that this number won't be "up and down" over the next five years.

Do I read the same article?

Quote:
Boeing could do nothing in response. Or the company could stretch the 737 Max 9, or build an all-new airplane, Muilenburg said.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:32 am

For an 'an all-new airplane', the R&D would have to go up significantly.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:12 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 118):
For an 'an all-new airplane', the R&D would have to go up significantly.

If it is a new design the spending would then be after 5 years, so only starting 2021. What would the EIS be then, 2026? Surely by that time the A321 has eaten the lunch and dinner and will be in a slumber after the meal before a rival is there to challenge it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:25 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 118):
For an 'an all-new airplane', the R&D would have to go up significantly.

Quote:
"CEO Dennis Muilenburg dialed back expectations for an imminent launch of a so-called “middle of market” airplane on Wednesday, saying the company’s decision will be bottom-line driven and not immediate."

and

“This is not something where you’re going to see a big change in our R&D profile over the next five years,” he said. speaking to investors at Barclays Industrial Select Conference in Miami Beach. “It simply won’t be the case.”

and

"And he added that Boeing won’t spend money on a new plane until it finishes developing its three new models: the 737 Max, 787-10 and 777X."

I would say a MoM in the near future is off and any decision how that frame could look is not doene.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23722
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:36 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 106):

The MOM's stated goal is over 6000nm range...over 5 at least with a more than 250 passenger load. No 40,000lb thrust twin is going to do that anytime soon. The extra range and passenger load Boeing states for the NMA .

http://aviationweek.com/dubai-air-sh...ld-sell-thousands-midsize-nma-jets
Quote:
John Wojick, senior vice president, Global Sales & Marketing, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, says “we see substantial demand. If we can produce an airplane with a range of 4,500 to 5,000 miles, seating about 220 to 280 passengers then there would be an awful lot of demand, in the thousands. Easily more than 2000,” he adds.

Right, he's saying 5,0000 miles max which is 4,344 nm -- where are you getting 6,000 plus from?

If you size the plane for 6,000 nm it has little hope of capturing market from A321, it will be too heavy for all the shorter range routes and only good for the longer ones.

And the problem is not that there is no 757 replacement, the problem is that there is no A321 competitor.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 116):
More evidence popping up this MoM is most likely not going to be a clean-sheet program:

Yes, that article has been in play for a while now:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 70):
As you say Boeing wants to know what they plan to do in a year or so, but also are saying they can't spend any real money on it for another five years or so ( ref: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...rket-jet-could-happen-but-not.html ) -- it "simply won't be the case"!

----

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 118):
For an 'an all-new airplane', the R&D would have to go up significantly.

I read it as saying no matter what they do (MadMax, MOM) they won't start the spend for another five years. I don't know if I believe it, though, and a lot of "prelminary design" can happen without changing the R&D profile significantly especially since 787-10 and Max at least will be wound down by then and 777X largely wound down too.
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: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:01 pm

If they move it to after 2021, they can start the NSA instead the MoM.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:46 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 82):
Either the 787 has been a move into a dead end, or Boeing should be able to do a right sized fuselage for the MoM with much less cost than designing the 787 fuselage.
The same should be for the systems of the 787, either there is ability to reuse that stuff in the next important development or it was an expensive dead end.

There are several problems with this argument. First, while the 787 blazed important trails for the future, the benefit of CFRP construction has appeared to be less than hoped for. It is still a benefit, but it must be weighed against the enormous cost associated with an all-new aircraft. It is already paying dividends with the 777X, which is getting CFRP wings (and as a reminder, the 787 is the first airliner with CFRP wings), and undoubtedly the MAD MAX (if that is the route Boeing chooses) will have one too. Second, the NSA, when it appears, will need to ramp up very quickly to at least 40 per month, unless demand for narrowbodies takes a nosedive. This is much easier with established (737) technology than with a new technology, even with the experience of the 787 behind them. Third, while CFRP does give the 787 weight savings over AL construction, it will give much less advantage to a narrowbody. And finally, the time to get it to market will undoubtedly be more, and the development costs more, because the tooling for the 737 fuselage exists and it would have to be built from scratch for a CFRP narrowbody fuselage (the 787 tooling will be useful only for a pattern.) However, if out-of-autoclave CFRP gets perfected, then the situation might be different. Also, if a new composite material that will give the needed impact resistance with a significantly lighter weight than AL on a narrowbody fuselage, then it may be worthwhile. But neither is available yet, to the best of my knowledge.

In short, the 787 has not fulfilled all of the (sometimes wildly optimistic) predictions for it during its development. But to call it a dead end is way premature; the advances that were made may take a while to spread towards other lines. Boeing management must always take a coldly realistic approach; they are in business to make money, and they have to guess what direction will make the most. They are not always right, and they need to assess past decisions realistically, and not repeat past mistakes just for the sake of saving face. I do not think that the 787 was a mistake, but the program was horribly run, and the biggest mistake in the course of it was not being willing to admit that things were not going as they should be.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:46 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
"And he added that Boeing won’t spend money on a new plane until it finishes developing its three new models: the 737 Max, 787-10 and 777X."

Since we are talking about a version of the MAX, it could be the MAD MAX development is included in the MAX project.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:55 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85):
I find it interesting that some of the same posters that say stretching the A350 by increasing takeoff weight, upgrading engines, updating the wing, strengthening the landing gear etc to make the A350-1100 will be a huge success, also think it is impossible to do that type of work to a 737 and have it be competitive. It looks like Boeing is interested in a new plane, but NMA could be 737 based if they wanted.

Spot on, both Airbus and Boing have excellent engineers. Boeing unlike us Anetters have already built a perspective A22 on their CAD's. They know how where the MadMax needs to be to competitive today and in the future.

[Edited 2016-02-22 08:56:16]
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:12 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 121):
I read it as saying no matter what they do (MadMax, MOM) they won't start the spend for another five years. I don't know if I believe it, though, and a lot of "prelminary design" can happen without changing the R&D profile significantly especially since 787-10 and Max at least will be wound down by then and 777X largely wound down too.

The design efforts on the 737MAX and 787-10 will be gone by the end of this year or latest in early 2017. The 77X will take a year longer, but at the end of 2018 there is NOTHING in the design department.

What he says doesen't nearly mean they'll don't start it in the next 5 years. They very probaply start with the basic design about (end) 2017. What he means is that they won't "hurry up" the design efforts to bring that plane faster to the marked, like Airbus did with launching the A350 while they still had the A380 to finish or Boeing with the 787 and 747-8.

And it also means nothing in respect to the MadMax vs. clean-sheet. If it's a clean-sheet it will just take longer, so they'll invest (just an example) 3b $ over 4 years -->12b $ which would be 80% of their R&D budget while a MadMax would probably be design in 2 to 2 1/2 years "only" 7b $.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:58 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 122):
If they move it to after 2021, they can start the NSA instead the MoM.

That's if only they didn't do anything. It's plausible, as they can devote all their R&D to making the NSA after 2021.

Another thing they can do is do the NSA, which I'm guessing would be 2 models, one the size of the 738 and the other the 739, and then make a 3rd model the size of the 752 using the same fuselage, but having bigger wings, engines, etc.

Would be significantly cheaper than making two separate families.

And then if demand requires, they could simply stretch that model farther without affecting it's economics.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 118):
For an 'an all-new airplane', the R&D would have to go up significantly.

As stated above, they're totally free by 2020/21.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 126):
The design efforts on the 737MAX and 787-10 will be gone by the end of this year or latest in early 2017. The 77X will take a year longer, but at the end of 2018 there is NOTHING in the design department.

They still have to test the 777-9 and finish the 777-8 in 2018. I think it's safe to say by 2020 they could start something new.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6919
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:44 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
What I'm talking about is putting the newest 747 engines on the plane, maybe some aero tweaks and that's about it.

The 748i engine may still be too much power for a lighter 762-size plane. How much redesign, cost and lead time would it take to use the GEnx54B core and maybe update it with a smaller fan to produce the same 54,000 lbs thrust?


Quoting SEPilot (Reply 123):
the benefit of CFRP construction has appeared to be less than hoped for. It is still a benefit, but it must be weighed against the enormous cost associated with an all-new aircraft. It is already paying dividends with the 777X, which is getting CFRP wings

And it may continue to earn dividends here. It's said that it doesn't scale down well...but with the 787 already using it and we're thinking of putting CFRP wings on and tweaking it anyway, how much less CFRP thickness is possible and how difficult, how long and how much more expensive would it be to do on the smaller 767 widebody section intended to carry 250-280 pax up to 5,000nm ?

Quoting dare100em (Reply 126):
What he says doesen't nearly mean they'll don't start it in the next 5 years. They very probaply start with the basic design about (end) 2017.
.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...-market-initiative-within-one-year

Sorry, need to sign up.

[Edited 2016-02-22 11:00:50]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:00 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 114):
What makes you believe Boeing cannot build a larger 737 with 5,000 design range? MZFW range would between 3,500 - 4,000 nm, versus 2,500 nm on the A321neo.

Boeing absolutely can build a 5000nm 737...but it won't be cheap, easy or quick to happen. It would cost more than a couple of billion from them alone...another billion or so from an engine maker. By the time you're investing that much money, why not just do the fuse as well and go all new?

The 767MAX is, in my opinion, merely the fastest, cheapest way into the MOM market segment that Boeing is talking about...not directly competing with the 321, but occupying the gap above it, between the 321 and the 80,000lb heavier 332/788 pair. (Actually since the two smaller models will likely be the poorest sellers, the gap is even larger topping out at the 333/789).

It absolutely won't do if all they want is to match the 321neo.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 121):
Right, he's saying 5,0000 miles max which is 4,344 nm -- where are you getting 6,000 plus from?

5000nm is the range Boeing gives for their NMA concept. 6000nm+ is what you get for free if you choose to MAX the 767, though I believe the 767 takes a payload hit at that range.
What the...?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:05 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
Maybe not 6 but the link I provided showed Boeing wanted up to 280 passengers to 5000nm. That would be a pretty darned long single aisle.

Well Thomas Cook fits exactly 280 seats in its 753s. When I read 220-280 that really tells me its 757 sized.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
It could be. I just look at that huge gap between the 321 and the 333neo/789, (I leave out the 332neo and the 788 since I just don't think they will be big sellers anyway), and think that there surely must be a market for an aircraft that could plug that hole.

Me too.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 110):
Actually, I don't think they'll need much new at all. The 762/3 are still coming off of the production line and with 744 engines on them. What I'm talking about is putting the newest 747 engines on the plane, maybe some aero tweaks and that's about it.

Well I just don't think they are in a hurry to get something out there is all. 77X and 78X seem like much higher priorities so I am thinking this is a 2023 EIS and as you mention they don't need 8 years for this 767Max but in that time the engines won't get much better but competing technology will. Engine OEMs are clearly lining up to spend billions - hard to picture Boeing not taking advantage of using other people's money to improve their product.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 113):
The 757 is only a 4000nm plane, which can't take a full load that far either. 5000nm on single aisle seems unlikely to me....but I'm just guessing like the rest of the crowd.

757 is a late 1970s early 80s airplane. The 767 was a 6knm plane and its replacement was 8knm. 737 Classic was 2,200nm...MAX is 3,500. A 757 going from 4,100nm to 5,000nm doesn't sound like that much of a stretch. Especially with additional span allowed by folding wingtips and improved engines.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 121):
I read it as saying no matter what they do (MadMax, MOM) they won't start the spend for another five years. I don't know if I believe it, though, and a lot of "prelminary design" can happen without changing the R&D profile significantly especially since 787-10 and Max at least will be wound down by then and 777X largely wound down too.

Yes, that is how I read it too. The advance team for the 77X had a pretty detailed spec for the 77X in 2011 and they were doing wind tunnel testing in 2013. As work is finalized on it and the 78X then I assume that labor will shift to the next thing and the actual expense of building the production line won't be before 2020 anyway.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 129):
It absolutely won't do if all they want is to match the 321neo.

I think they will want to do both. If it is a 40,000 lb engine then it will be closer to $5-6 Billion for the engine OEM according to an article I posted above. I am definitely seeing a significant expense in this space.

tortugamon
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:06 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 127):
They still have to test the 777-9 and finish the 777-8 in 2018. I think it's safe to say by 2020 they could start something new.

To test the 777-9 has Zero consequences for the design engineer or the simulation guy doing CFD-fluid dynamics. To expect the hole development department to do"studies" is just unrealistic to the point it gets ridiculous.

It's not how these things work and I know what I'm talking about. There are literally thousands of engineers at Boeing how are specialized in design/simulation and a lot of them have nothing to do with test engineers and the test procedure in general. Boeing may fire some but for such a high-level tech company this isn't an option for 80% of staff, the rest doing "studies". Again, they may not hurry up like 5-10 years ago but they'll definitely start well before 2020 with a design. It could still be cancelled - as where the 747-500/600 or the Sonic Cruiser - but we'll hear from something in the not to distant future.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4008
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:37 pm

And the 'behind the scenes' activity may well be figuring out who the customers may be, and what they want. It is entirely possible at this time that airlines do not know.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:44 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 130):
Well Thomas Cook fits exactly 280 seats in its 753s. When I read 220-280 that really tells me its 757 sized.

I think I'd really, really, really, have to need a vacation to buy that ticket. The charter guys seem willing to cram people in to a degree that doesn't really fit with the mainstream. They'll do 9 abreast 330's, 8 abreast 767's....I don't really think of them as the main market....but....just think what they might do with a nice, shiny, new 767MAX.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 130):
Well I just don't think they are in a hurry to get something out there is all. 77X and 78X seem like much higher priorities so I am thinking this is a 2023 EIS and as you mention they don't need 8 years for this 767Max but in that time the engines won't get much better but competing technology will.

I agree that Boeing has bigger fish to fry, (or fly...). They mostly have to deal with answering because they keep getting asked the question. They really, really need the 78X and 778/9's to get done fast, right and worry free.

As long as the 737 lines are backed up into the next decade, the problem is pretty much moot. Sure...the A321 is handily outselling the 739....BUT....that only matters when one line finally runs out of product. Until then, both lines are producing pretty much at the same rate and the line doesn't really care what size of product it puts out.

Sales start the process but the money doesn't change hands until the plane is delivered and both makers are delivering at about the same rate so when it comes down to actual income, both models are neck and neck....and will be for years to come.

That's the main reason I laugh when I read how crappy the 737 is doing in comparison to the 320. Right now, the money each makes for its company, is the same. In 5 years....they will still be the same. After that...? Well, if I could predict the future I'd be rich and have my own plane to worry about.

Even if it takes 5 years to come up with an all new solution, they have more than 5 years of 737 backlog so they can pick the new line up where the 737 line would end.

Airbus might be able to charge a bit more for the 321 but if they charge too much more...some might be inclined to try the 739. Just as the a321 can do more than 95% of what a 757 can...a 739 can do over 95% of what an A321 can do. That's close enough to keep the A321 prices in check.

I basically look at the concept of the 767MAX as an opportunity to take advantage of some low hanging fruit. It may very well be that the gap between the 321 and the 333neo/789 just isn't a viable market and may never get filled.

To me, it's an interesting situation and I enjoy everybody's analysis of it.
What the...?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:08 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 133):
That's the main reason I laugh when I read how crappy the 737 is doing in comparison to the 320. Right now, the money each makes for its company, is the same.

Given the talk around price pressure on Boeing (the talk originating from Boeing), its hard to know if a 737-8 is selling for the same price as an A320.

Certainly, a -9 does not sell for anything like the price of an A321 (and sells much, much less often too).


edit: Leaving aside your point of the income not actually coming till the aircraft are delivered.

[Edited 2016-02-23 00:08:47]
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:24 am

Here's a simple question, with probably a complex answer.


Why is the rear door... at the back? Is it to maximise cabin space?


My train of thought - if you have 2 doors, one 1/4 way down the cabin, and another 3/4 way down the cabin - you've effectively got a "quad-aisle" aircraft for embarking - as long as people can use both doors and use the door nearest their seat.

OK, it sort of reduces effectiveness when debarking due to bottlenecking at the doors, but debarking is always much quicker anyway.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18967
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:31 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 133):
I think I'd really, really, really, have to need a vacation to buy that ticket.

The thing is, people don't buy tickets for the flight. They buy a holiday the includes the flights on a cramped plane - they have no idea what the flight will be like until they get on the plane and even then most of them don't care. I flew to Turkey on a TC A330 at 9-across, it was fine for a four-hour flight.
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 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:39 am

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 101):
Cold Boeing incorporate FBW (or FB-whatever-is-the-best-when-they-decide-to-take-the-plunge) in the 737? If not, then I suppose they won't have much choice, at one point.

Let's face it, if cable and pulleys were still the way of the future, the 777 and 787 would still use it.

Hence, I believe there shall not be a MADMAX… Sorry for its fans.

Posters here are skipping this part when they fabulate about the Mad-MAX

I see no way of retaining the 737 type rating if they put a new wing with FBW systems on the Mad-MAX. If they are going to keep the type rating they have to keep the 737 system layout.

There are no common type rating existing between none FBW and FBW aircraft. The 747-400 and the 777 do not shear the common rating, but it is possible between 777and the 787 with conversion training.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:53 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Then Airbus releases its 777x style new wing and fuse stretch aircraft that they built for 1/3rd the cost and takes away half of whatever remaining market the MOM/NMA was targeting. Boeing would be in quite bad shape, and I don't think that scenario is too too far fetched.

Long thread but this is the heart of the matter IMO. Boeing has to be convinced of technological leap over an A322X sufficiently large to remove the possibility of competition on price by a cheap Airbus response. If Boeing thinks there's any chance of such a response a clean sheet just won't happen.

To get that kind of leap may require the dreaded "moonshot" that Boeing promises not to take. I'm with Rev et. al. predicting a MadMAX, though with Tortugamon et. al. cheering for a clean sheet. I don't own Boeing stock so don't really care if they lose their ass building us a nifty new plane.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:02 am

What technological leap would that be? There are no technologies available that could make such airplane. It's all about the engine...
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:07 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 139):
What technological leap would that be?

Good question. I don't really see any but Boeing doesn't tell me all their secrets.

Seriously though by tech leap I'd include anything that Airbus couldn't replicate except by doing its own clean sheet project. This would include an oval CFRP fuselage that makes 7-abreast efficient on weight and drag. Ferpe/Bjorn thinks this is a great idea; he's pretty smart. I'd still bet against it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:19 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 138):
Long thread but this is the heart of the matter IMO. Boeing has to be convinced of technological leap over an A322X sufficiently large to remove the possibility of competition on price by a cheap Airbus response. If Boeing thinks there's any chance of such a response a clean sheet just won't happen.

If Boeing does not do a clean sheet single aisle one day, they can completely forget about leading in that area or even forget about drawing even with Airbus. A clean sheet is not about the big jump, you are lucky if you get that, but opening up to the possibility of continuous improvements by making the design adaptable to progress.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:16 am

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 135):
Here's a simple question, with probably a complex answer.


Why is the rear door... at the back? Is it to maximise cabin space?


My train of thought - if you have 2 doors, one 1/4 way down the cabin, and another 3/4 way down the cabin - you've effectively got a "quad-aisle" aircraft for embarking - as long as people can use both doors and use the door nearest their seat.

OK, it sort of reduces effectiveness when debarking due to bottlenecking at the doors, but debarking is always much quicker anyway.

I think it is to do with safety regulations, have to have a exit in front and behind for passengers. The 747 doesn't fall under this regulations (designed before it was introduced) that is why you have the nose of the 747 with seating. This is all from the forums and no formal knowledge of the safety regulations.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 139):
What technological leap would that be? There are no technologies available that could make such airplane. It's all about the engine...

Have we reached a point where the next jump isn't available yet and the foreseeable future will only see new engines as the benefits of CFRP hasn't been realized (A330neo and 777X competing with their CFRP counterparts) to cause both OEM's to jump at new designs with the current materials? Seems you only need new engines and more seats to beat your competitor.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23722
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:23 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 141):
A clean sheet is not about the big jump, you are lucky if you get that, but opening up to the possibility of continuous improvements by making the design adaptable to progress.

Really, so you think going to the Board and saying we're doing a clean sheet program just to open up to the possibility of continuous improvements by making the design adaptable to progress is going to result in launching a new program?

Sorry it doesn't work that way.

Airbus's last clean sheet was A350 and it certainly didn't work that way. A350 Mk1 was a "Mad A330" in today's parlance, the only reason it became clean sheet was that they could not sell it in the face of the 787's presence.

Boeing's last clean sheet was 787 and the only reason it became that way was because you could not create a 767 variant that would sell in the face of the A330's presence.

Boards do not fund multi-billion dollar/euro programs just so the boffins can keep the parts bin stocked. There's plenty of ways to develop new technology without tying it to a clean sheet program. They do it when they have no other way to create products that can sell.
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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:01 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 143):
Really, so you think going to the Board and saying we're doing a clean sheet program just to open up to the possibility of continuous improvements by making the design adaptable to progress is going to result in launching a new program?

That is one of the usual ways to manage progress. You can just so often put new lipstick on the old pig.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 143):
Airbus's last clean sheet was A350 and it certainly didn't work that way. A350 Mk1 was a "Mad A330" in today's parlance, the only reason it became clean sheet was that they could not sell it in the face of the 787's presence.

I again say most of you guys on the other side of the Atlantic do not get what continuous improvement is all about. Yes the A350 is clean sheet as the definition is done in aircraft manufacturing. But you see a lot of reuse of technology build and tested for the A380 and improved for the A350. In that way the A350 is much more conservative than the 787, but on the other side it allows this same technology to flow back to other product lines. An airframe is not only the box around, that can be of old or new materials, but all the systems. Airbus is doing its innovations in smaller steps, keeping the systems in all frames similar allowing therefore the innovations to flow back and forth.

At Boeing the different product lines 737, 747, 767, 777 and 787 are that different, that the flow of technology between those product lines is much more restricted.

Building the NSA, MoM or whatever on the bases of the 787 technology would allow to reuse it before it gets old news and I do not mean especially the fuselage. Further frames should keep than to this technology and develop it further. It could of course be that Boeing has already decided that the 787 technology is a dead end, what I do not believe.

[Edited 2016-02-23 07:11:29]
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5574
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:03 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 142):
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 135):
Here's a simple question, with probably a complex answer.


Why is the rear door... at the back? Is it to maximise cabin space?


My train of thought - if you have 2 doors, one 1/4 way down the cabin, and another 3/4 way down the cabin - you've effectively got a "quad-aisle" aircraft for embarking - as long as people can use both doors and use the door nearest their seat.

OK, it sort of reduces effectiveness when debarking due to bottlenecking at the doors, but debarking is always much quicker anyway.

I think it is to do with safety regulations, have to have a exit in front and behind for passengers. The 747 doesn't fall under this regulations (designed before it was introduced) that is why you have the nose of the 747 with seating. This is all from the forums and no formal knowledge of the safety regulations.

I believe FAR 25.807(f)(3) is the relevant airworthiness regulation:

Quote:
If more than one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a combination cargo and passenger configuration, at least one floor-level exit must be located in each side near each end of the cabin.

The word "near" is obviously open to interpretation, so someone with more certification experience than me might be able to shed further light on this.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:19 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 143):
Airbus's last clean sheet was A350 and it certainly didn't work that way. A350 Mk1 was a "Mad A330" in today's parlance, the only reason it became clean sheet was that they could not sell it in the face of the 787's presence.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144):
Airbus's last clean sheet was A350 and it certainly didn't work that way. A350 Mk1 was a "Mad A330" in today's parlance, the only reason it became clean sheet was that they could not sell it in the face of the 787's presence.

And the A350 XWB shows exactly it's not all about "technological jumps". With it being a clean-sheet it could be optimized about a total different size (777) than would have ever been possible by twisting the A330 into a A330 MadMax.

A clean-sheet is as much about OPTIMIZATION for a certain size as it is about "technological jumps". That's the whole point of the MOM clean-sheet possibility. It is correct that there are no jumps in the 737Max size - that's the sole reason a 737-8Max works given it's very old base. But that doesn't mean however that the 737-base is optimized for a 280 pax 5000 nm plane. Once the 767 was optimized around that size but with new engine's and wing developments it no longer is. There are different factors all working together and a main point is Boeing hasn't a actual base frame optimized for the desired MOM size/rang anymore with current engines and comfort level (767 at 7-abreast doesn't work anymore).
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6919
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:14 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144):
Building the NSA, MoM or whatever on the bases of the 787 technology would allow to reuse it before it gets old news and I do not mean especially the fuselage.

For now, it seems Boeing's idea of the NSA is a bargain-basement 737MAX...    ...

Leeham: Boeing Changes 737-7 Strategy (by anfromme Feb 23 2016 in Civil Aviation)


Quoting dare100em (Reply 146):
than would have ever been possible by twisting the A330 into a A330 MadMax.

That term is copyrighted to future stretched incarnations of the 737MAX. Suggest CrazyNEO to differentiate.   

[Edited 2016-02-23 12:22:17]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:28 am

And from AvDaily, Delta is lobbying strongly - summary of Nathaniel Pieper comments:

- Wants Boeing to build it for North Atlantic market
- Cautions against making it fit to broad a profile, leads to over range, over size
- Looking for something smaller than a 757, 5000nm, 250 seats
- 737-8 is not a good North Atlantic plane because of excessive range
- 787-10 will be great, but competes against the less expensive A330-900neo
- A330-300 is too big

BCA CEO Ray Conner Response:

- Wants to launch within a year, needs to compete against A321NEO


My comment: Taking another year to "study" the market is not a roadmap to success.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:17 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144):
I again say most of you guys on the other side of the Atlantic do not get what continuous improvement is all about.

Generalize much?

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 148):
- Cautions against making it fit to broad a profile, leads to over range, over size

I guess that rules EK, FR, and WN out of the planning.  
Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 148):
- Looking for something smaller than a 757, 5000nm, 250 seats

How can it be smaller than a 757 yet carry 250 seats? Do they mean smaller than a 757-300?

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 148):
- 787-10 will be great, but competes against the less expensive A330-900neo
- A330-300 is too big

If the A333 is "too big", how can the A339 or 78X be in the running?

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.

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