User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:40 am

Please continue posting your updates here.

New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4 (by KarelXWB Feb 18 2016 in Civil Aviation)
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:45 am

New information keeps popping up every week.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...oices-as-boeing-chases-airbus-a321

Quote:
“It’s a tough decision. It’s not easy,” Jeff Knittel, president of CIT’s transportation unit, told reporters Tuesday. “Building an airplane is not only hard, it’s expensive. You’d better get it right.”

As Boeing studies whether to develop a new aircraft, it would also have to decide whether to squeeze any new model into the factory in Renton, Washington, where it churns out 737s. Alternatively, it could locate production in an area with lower labor costs, Udvar-Hazy said, in an apparent reference to the company’s new plant in North Charleston, South Carolina.

The planemakers “have a lot on their plate aside from making very difficult decisions about launching a 797-type airplane,” he said, referring to an informal nickname for a potential new Boeing plane. “Maybe a year from now we’ll all be a little more informed. But there’s a lot to chew on right now.”

This will be interesting to follow. Boeing will have an interesting chat with the folks at Renton if they allocate production to South Carolina.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:28 am

Two more features of the 737 incorporated in the 737 design that is not allowed on new design aircrafts.

Inward opening plug doors, opposite to outward opening doors, again more heavy structure.

Different more lax regulations to determine fatigue life of the airframe.

It is not about if the design is safe enough. If the regulators wants the industry to move to towards higher safety standards, and I suppose that is done for a reason, unless people want to argue that late safety standards are bullocks. It seems unfair that only part of the industry has to comply with the regulations.
 
atlflyer
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:13 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:10 pm

Bring on the 797 that can later be shrunk to become the 737 replacement. The A320 is now really showing how much of a more modern airplane it is.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3250
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:17 pm

The 320 allows larger diameter engines, as I understand it in all other aspects the 737 is competitive.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:16 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 1):
Boeing will have an interesting chat with the folks at Renton if they allocate production to South Carolina.

Well I think Renton is nearing capacity limits as is with essentially zero places to grow. As I stated in the previous thread I highly doubt it would be based there. I could possibly see the 747-line being converted if that production is ceased but I think its far more likely to be located in another state altogether. Even MO could make sense.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 4):
The 320 allows larger diameter engines, as I understand it in all other aspects the 737 is competitive.

Yep and I wonder what it would like like if those larger A321neo engines were put on a 739 with longer gear.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:28 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Yep and I wonder what it would like like if those larger A321neo engines were put on a 739 with longer gear.

Just the engines would make it some kind of beast that the A321 would struggle against. With the extended gear to accept that added diameter engines and the added costs of changing the wing box to allow the extra length and the added weight associated with the longer gear and changed wing box we are talking about a small gain that is offset by the extra seats from the A321, IMO.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:44 pm

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 4):
The 320 allows larger diameter engines, as I understand it in all other aspects the 737 is competitive.

Larger fan diameter is no small thing.

Looks like the gearbox technology is changing the old correlation between turbine efficiency and fan diameter, making bigger fan relatively more efficient.

Somebody here on Anet called the GTF disturbing technology, and quite possibly the GTF opens up to big efficiency gap between those who have it and those who don't.
 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:12 pm

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 3):

The A320 is now really showing how much of a more modern airplane it is.


Interestingly, we are talking about 30 years old design vs 50 years old design! Sure, it's "only outside", "inside" it's all latest and greatest - yet it's that very "outside" that makes the 30 years old one so much more modern  .
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:15 am

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 3):
Bring on the 797 that can later be shrunk to become the 737 replacement.

Shrinking doesn't often seem to go well

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 7):
Larger fan diameter is no small thing

  

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 3):
The A320 is now really showing how much of a more modern airplane it is.

I can see the A320 going through similar developments that the 737 has gone through over the years.

The change to the NEO was like going from the Jurassics to the classics.
Boeing went from classic to NG with a new wing and I can see airbus doing the same thing in 10 years time and stretching it like Boeing did for the -900.

Fred
Image
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8908
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:33 am

Quoting RIX (Reply 8):
Interestingly, we are talking about 30 years old design vs 50 years old design! Sure, it's "only outside", "inside" it's all latest and greatest - yet it's that very "outside" that makes the 30 years old one so much more modern  .

The A320 is "inside" a very modern frame, for example FBW, the 737NG and MAX are not. The 20 years between the 737 and A320 were a time of huge changes.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:58 am

Depending on your definition of 'modern', airplane avionics are quite old. They do the job just fine, but are pretty outdated from a technology point of view. I believe our friend lightsaber can tell your more about it.

That's why Airbus are looking for system upgrades on the A320neo.

Airbus Ponders 'Neo Plus' Upgrade Plan
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8908
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:02 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):
Depending on your definition of 'modern', airplane avionics are quite old. They do the job just fine, but are pretty outdated from a technology point of view. I believe our friend lightsaber can tell your more about it.

That's why Airbus are looking for system upgrades on the A320neo.

Yes and cable and pullies are ancient. And yes what Boeing sells as new on the 787 regarding electrics and electronics was state of the art in other industries 15 years ago, yes I know all about that. A floating frequency 3 phase generator and using a rectifier to produce than DC current is standard in any car since years ago. Any good new hydro power station or windmill uses wild frequency generation, to use the aerospace word, rectifies it and produces clean electrical power with stabilized voltage and frequency for distribution.

But using mechanics for control surfaces and no FBW is not longer state of the art, even not in the aircraft industries.

The A320 having an FBW can partake of the advance coming from the newer frames. I do not to start on lists as you should know anyway about it.

I do not want to start on many of the mechanical designs "grandfathered" on the 737.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:19 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 10):

The A320 is "inside" a very modern frame, for example FBW, the 737NG and MAX are not. The 20 years between the 737 and A320 were a time of huge changes.

Do you ever get tired of posting about how much more modern and better the A320 is than the 737? I see over a dozen posts from you that all essentially say that the 737 is outdated, grandfathered and even less safe (I think) than the more modern A320. I think it is very clear that you believe that there is no way that a 737 derivative can compete with the A320. I also think it is relatively clear that you believe that only a new airplane can adequately integrate new technology from other programs. You keep mentioning fly by wire, which is a much more modern control system, but not really discussing that conventional cable controls can still be effective and don't necessarily result in higher fuel burn or operating costs. A few posts discuss the 737 using outdated regulations as a way to compete and the term grandfathered. I keep reading that as well. All I can say is that airplanes aren't static designs.

When I read someone posting about how outdated the 737 is and how only a new airplane can compete with the A320, I think about these pictures.

737-100

737 MAX
https://worldairlinenews.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/boeing-737-max-cockpit-boeinglr.jpg


I know you think that A320 is better than the 737. I have read it loud and clear. Thanks for sharing your anecdotal opinion.

Now I'd love to see someone back up that opinion with some independent fuel burn and operating cost charts over various stage lengths. I've seen enough posts about the A320 is better because... fill in the blank (bigger engines, longer landing gear, more modern, FBW, cabin width, side sticks, different regulations etc). How about we start looking at the actual operating costs and critically compare them to see if it would make sense to make a middle of the market airplane based on a 737 or not?

These anecdotal opinions result in endless threads and opinions which can be fun, but those aren't really about airplane design. Here are the 8 top reasons why airlines choose one airplane over the other:

Financing cost, purchase or lease
Fuel Efficiency
Maintenance intervals
Maintenance costs per cycle and block hour
Training
Seat capacity required
Route network/schedule structure
Range requirements

Nothing about being "more modern" measurably affects these (unless you start going down to maintenance costs of cables & pulleys). If being more modern is a competitive advantage for the A320, why is it that for the exact same capacity, the 737-700 has an OEW about 84,000 lbs and the A319 has an OEW of about 87,500 lbs?

[Edited 2016-03-04 06:43:59]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21892
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:28 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 7):

Somebody here on Anet called the GTF disturbing technology, and quite possibly the GTF opens up to big efficiency gap between those who have it and those who don't.

I think the usual expression is disruptive technology rather than disturbing. Both more or less mean the same thing, but the second has some darker meanings too...

In any case you may be thinking of:

PW GTF: Disruptive Technology? (by Revelation Dec 4 2015 in Tech Ops)

in our tech ops area.

The infamous villian Richard Aboulafia came up with the phrase and the article that is the basis of that thread. It's in the tech ops area mostly because any article about engines ends up in tech ops anyways (whereas we have obscure airframe tech discussions in CivAv all the time). The article is more about how disruptive GTF has been in the market place, and makes the point that perhaps it isn't all that disruptive in the market place given CFM's financing clout.

Time will tell on GTF's disruptiveness. It's sure disrupting A320neo's schedule right now! 

It seems clear that if the gear is reliable it will be a winner. It has a lot of headroom to improve the core, but that will only happen as the cash flow gets strong enough to support the investments already made as well as the ones needed for improvements.

CFM LEAP has a lot of positives technically and otherwise, but raises concerns about its durability given the temperatures and pressures it operates at.

Time will tell on both engines, IMHO.
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: 8924
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:36 pm

The big problem is the untouched potential in the A320. If Airbus wants they could do a re.design similar to the 737NG and they would come very close to a new design, as long as it is also a mostly conventional design.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:28 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 13):
Now I'd love to see someone back up that opinion with some independent fuel burn and operating cost charts over various stage lengths.

Seeing how you love to focus on fuel burn, here you are, courtesy of our very own Mandala499. Note that these figures don't include the sharklet or scimitar improvements which balance the field on shorter runs or an insignificant advantage to the bus on longer sectors (738 189 pax vs A320 180 pax).

http://www.gerryairways.com/index.ph...rdcore-a320-and-b738-fans-hate-me/

Also, a heavier aircraft doesn't necessarily burn more fuel that a lighter frame. Without looking it up, our A320s are about 5000lbs heavier than the MD90s they replaced yet they burn 200-300USG less per trip.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:47 pm

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 16):
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 13):
Now I'd love to see someone back up that opinion with some independent fuel burn and operating cost charts over various stage lengths.

Seeing how you love to focus on fuel burn, here you are, courtesy of our very own Mandala499. Note that these figures don't include the sharklet or scimitar improvements which balance the field on shorter runs or an insignificant advantage to the bus on longer sectors (738 189 pax vs A320 180 pax).

Thanks for the chart. Looking at a chart like that shows that despite designs originating in different decades, the A320 and 737 are competitive with each other. Being more modern, by whatever definition that entails, does not mean better when it comes to purchasing new planes. That chart shows that regardless of distance, the 737-800 burns less fuel than the A320 per seat. I believe that if we saw the same chart for the 737-900ER vs A321, it would show an advantage in per seat fuel burn for the A321, which is why Boeing is talking about doing something about 200-250 seat market segment. The 737 is a very efficient platform to start from. Whether or not it is best to start from the existing platform to save on development costs and utilize existing technology or start all over with a clean sheet is up for debate. Both directions have the ability to succeed even though there would be quite significant changes if they started with 737 such as a bigger wingspan, longer fuselage, redesigned wingbox and taller gear.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:02 am

Leeham reports that MOMentum is slowing.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/10/momentum-appears-slowing/#more-18992

Behind a paywall but leading bullet point is cost to build and sell - these two are obviously related.

Boeing is probably applying a very high discount rate to the anticipated profit stream from future MoM sales when figureing the NPV of this project after anticipated development costs. This would be appropriate given the recent history of clean sheet programs, where both development and production costs may far exceed the engineers' initial projections. A prudent manager will either apply a very high discount rate or establish as a launch condition that the plane would recover development and early production losses even if things go 787ish. That requires an extremely high per-seat sales price, such that airlines have less/no interest.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:59 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 18):
Leeham reports that MOMentum is slowing.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/10/momentum-appears-slowing/#more-18992

Behind a paywall but leading bullet point is cost to build and sell - these two are obviously related.

It's definitely a though situation for Boeing. With the high probapility of a further A350-stretch the future 77X profits are at least somehow limited. I think it will be (very) sucessfull but I think it's not likely it turns into another 77W mega-cash cow.

On the single-aisle front the situation is well known. Yes, they have a big backlog but as others have pointed while the balance of numbers is more-or-less 60-40, the balance of profits may be more like 70-30 in Airbus favour given the higher price of the A321 and it's nearly undisputed position.

From our knowledge now it looks they really trapped themeselfes with the MAX. A NSA would have been the much better long-trem strategie with more growth-potential. Yes, they had no choice back in 2011. To start the NSA now is complicated / impossible after the investment in the MAX.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:39 am

Aviationweek also published an article:

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...mom-aircraft-it-s-economics-stupid

Quote:
“One of the challenges you’re going to have if you enter into this market is to try to figure out how you can build an airplane that has the flexibility to really address the concerns of all of those customers,” Tinseth says. “You’re going to see a variety of business models today, and you have to anticipate business models of the future.”

And:

Quote:
Real or not, what does it mean for operators? “It’s very important,” says Ron Baur, vice president for fleet at United Airlines. “It’s a good space to be in, but clearly there is a trade-off,” he adds, noting additional costs that come with range, for example.

Bert van Leeuwen, managing director of transportation finance provider DVB Bank SE, also sees the middle of the market as real but the answer to it as still unclear. “The middle-of-the-market need is there; there is a market involved—[but] it’s difficult to see a specific product that fits in,” he says.

Finally:

Quote:
Indeed, the challenges really are twofold, says van Leeuwen. Besides development costs, which could be formidable, there is risk of cannibalizing current market strategies with a new offering.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:50 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 18):
Boeing is probably applying a very high discount rate to the anticipated profit stream from future MoM sales when figureing the NPV of this project after anticipated development costs.

I often wonder what time frame they are looking at when they deside to launch something new. I mean if you were debating the 737 program in the 1960s and you knew it was going to be the 65+ year program that it is then that NPV calc wouldn't have been daunting. Or the 40/50+ year projects that are the 747, 777, and 767 and what looks like the 787 similarly Airbus with the A320, A330, and A350 which look like multi-decade projects. With that time horizon anything could look good.

Unfortunately the decision makers deal with the number of years left in their careers (or lack thereof) more than the anticipated years of the program.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):
“One of the challenges you’re going to have if you enter into this market is to try to figure out how you can build an airplane that has the flexibility to really address the concerns of all of those customers,” Tinseth says. “You’re going to see a variety of business models today, and you have to anticipate business models of the future.”

Thanks for posting this.

I think it is clear that whatever happens in this space that it will have to have multiple models. Although many customers seem to agree there is some need here its not in common design form. One member with range and one with less range but better economics seems like it could be necessary.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8924
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:27 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21):
Unfortunately the decision makers deal with the number of years left in their careers (or lack thereof) more than the anticipated years of the program.

No, the big question is when is it worth the effort to do a new fuselage. Back in the late 1990ies the expectation was that you will need to do this once CFRP is ready, but today new alloys and additive construction mean, that a metal fuselage can be very competitive compared to a CFRP design. The nice thing is that it allows you to constantly improve your product, which keeps it viable and also keeps you from having to bear the huge development costs of a new plane, with which you would need to scratch on the boundaries of available technology to achieve an advantage worth the effort.

And with things like the Sweeping Jets tested on the 757 ecoDemonstrator or ACTE by FlexSys, there is still a lot of growth left in the current fuselage designs. Especially if you consider that engines improve by 5% every 5 years, while you would be spending a lot of money trying to gain a 5% advantage over your current solution. Especially if you consider that blended wingbodies could be ready for commercial application in 15-20 years. But this needs technologies like PRSEUS to mature. Which you could apply to your existing frames in some places before and again find a few improvements.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8908
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:58 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 13):
Do you ever get tired of posting about how much more modern and better the A320 is than the 737

Do you get ever tiered of denying a fact?

It may well be that the 737-800 hangs in there with the A320 and sales numbers for both the 737-800 versus the A320 and 737-8MAX versus the A320 are very similar. But that does not mean that the 737MAX and the A320 series are equally modern in their design. I take one point, the A320 has FBW the 737 does not.
If FBW is not an advancement, why do the newest frames from Boeing do move to it?

For the definition if a 737MAD MAX is a good idea there are other considerations than how the 737-800 matches uo against the A320.

The first point were does lie the advantage of the 737-800. It is the larger frame being lighter per passenger, therefore it has an advantage over the A320 on short stage length with the advantage diminishing as the stages getting longer.
The A320 has, as the smaller frame a trip fuel advantage, increasing as the stages are getting longer.

If you do now the 737 MAD MAX, you are looking for a frame having an advantage at longer stages than both the A320 and 737-800 are doing today, at the opposite spectrum where the advantage of the 737-800 lies.
Furthermore, you start compromising the advantage of the 737 having a lighter frame. You need a similar or bigger gear compared to the A 320. You need similar escape slides. But you also have to make the frame bigger and fit for longer trips and there I would have look at how the 737-900 fares against the A321.

I am not putting down the 737-800, I am just of the opinion that the MoM needs the advantage of modern design to pull away from a A321neo.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:08 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 22):
No, the big question is when is it worth the effort to do a new fuselage.

From a science perspective you are right seahawk. My point is that the decision makers have spent their 20-30+ careers getting to the point that they are at and they didn't get there by taking risks -and- they will lose their jobs if they take a big risk and it fails but they are much more likely to keep their jobs by instituting small improvements. It makes big companies risk averse which detracts from big bets which this NMA is. Hard to see if these execs have the testicular fortitude if they can agree on a design.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6609
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 18):
Boeing is probably applying a very high discount rate to the anticipated profit stream from future MoM sales when figureing the NPV of this project after anticipated development costs.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 22):
No, the big question is when is it worth the effort to do a new fuselage. Back in the late 1990ies the expectation was that you will need to do this once CFRP is ready, but today new alloys and additive construction mean, that a metal fuselage can be very competitive compared to a CFRP design. The nice thing is that it allows you to constantly improve your product, which keeps it viable and also keeps you from having to bear the huge development costs of a new plane, with which you would need to scratch on the boundaries of available technology to achieve an advantage worth the effort.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 24):
It makes big companies risk averse which detracts from big bets which this NMA is.

So, do these mean that the scales are now tipped ever so slightly to a 767MAX's favor? JoeCanuck might be pleased.  .

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Various_Aircraft/Maxjet_Boeing_767-238.jpg
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Vari...Aircraft/Maxjet_Boeing_767-238.jpg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21603
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:44 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):
Depending on your definition of 'modern', airplane avionics are quite old. They do the job just fine, but are pretty outdated from a technology point of view. I believe our friend lightsaber can tell your more about it.

That's why Airbus are looking for system upgrades on the A320neo.

To some degree, this has been a work in progress. The CPUs that can do the in-flight computing necessary to run an A320 can now be made at probably 1/100th the size that they were in 1988. In fact, my guess is that a device not much larger than an iPhone could easily fly an A320.

In 1988 the screens in the cockpit were big, clunky, heavy CRTs. Now they have been replaced by a few generations of much thinner, lighter LCDs. Also, with the existing wing, I wonder if some sort of differential flaps could be programmed. Will be interesting to see what they can do with the avionics to make the plane even better.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 25):
So, do these mean that the scales are now tipped ever so slightly to a 767MAX's favor?

Nope. MoM won't be a twin aisle.

It can't be. The fundamental economic handicap of weight & drag of a 7-across twin aisle is just too much to carry in a fight against a competitor as formidable as the A321neo.



**IF** MoM happens, and I'm very unsure they'll go ahead, it has to be a single aisle and has to be a technology bridge to NSA.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2610
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:06 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 27):
**IF** MoM happens, and I'm very unsure they'll go ahead, it has to be a single aisle and has to be a technology bridge to NSA.

Sounds like a 757-800 and 757-900 MAX with a new carbon fiber wing and new engines   
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:35 pm

Seems like the quotes in the article just about sums it up. Boeing can decide to do 4 types to fill the market. The problem comes in not only what type will fill the needs for most of the airlines, but one that would restrict an answer from Airbus to not eat into their margins.

737MADMAX
757NEO
767NEO
NSA

The one that seems to be out of contention is the NSA as they appetite financially is not there. They will also eat into their 737MAX market where they just spent billions.

The other 3 will each have its own limitations, whether you will need to spend a lot to get it to the range with the 737, will have a weight disadvantage against a A322 with the 757 or have an even bigger weight disadvantage with the 767 it is a tough choice. Sort of like a situation of, pick your poison Boeing.

I still am of the opinion that they should have done the NSA instead of the 737MAX. Even if it meant waiting a few years. If we talk about Airbus reacting with a little panic with the original A350 to the 787, nothing different with Boeing and the 737MAX. Yes they have sold a lot, but what is the cost at trying to get to the MOM and eventual upgraded single-aisle aircraft that is new generation, not just 1960's refreshed design.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6609
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:52 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 27):
It can't be. The fundamental economic handicap of weight & drag of a 7-across twin aisle is just too much to carry in a fight against a competitor as formidable as the A321neo.
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 29):
767NEO

What if it were to compete with both the A321LR in the low end and the A330NEOs in the upper end? The former gives up a lot of pax to achieve range, while the latter could be too much capacity for intended missions. And with the trend towards slimmer seats and flexible configurations, more seats could be squeezed into the same section. Surely the A330 CEO/NEOs weigh more than a 762-sized plane? I think a new, 52m CFRP wing and 54Klb thrust GEnx2Bs (with smaller diameter fans perhaps) and 787 systems would be more than adequate for this application...something that promises to be cheap and quick. The OEMs project the NMA market at 1,000 to 2,000 frames. Not too bad if Boeing gets a half share.

[Edited 2016-03-10 15:33:02]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:11 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 30):
What if it were to compete with both the A321LR in the low end and the A330NEOs in the upper end? The former gives up a lot of pax to achieve range, while the latter could be too much capacity for intended missions. And with the trend towards slimmer seats and flexible configurations, more seats could be squeezed into the same section. Surely the A330 CEO/NEOs weigh more than a 762-sized plane? I think a new, 52m CFRP wing and 54Klb thrust GEnx2Bs (with smaller diameter fans perhaps) would be adequate for this application...something that promises to be cheap and quick. The OEMs project the NMA market at 1,000 to 2,000 frames. Not too bad if Boeing gets a half share.

I think if this was possible it would have been touted as an option early on when Boeing was discussing the new MOM. The 3 options that have been talked about publicly by either Boeing or articles stating what Boeing is thinking has always been about either a NSA or now a 737MADMAX. Leeham has touted the 757 as being too heavy. What would that make the 767? I am listing the options that we are talking about in our discussions regarding the MOM.
 
JHwk
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:42 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21):
I often wonder what time frame they are looking at when they deside to launch something new. I mean if you were debating the 737 program in the 1960s and you knew it was going to be the 65+ year program that it is then that NPV calc wouldn't have been daunting.

With a 15% discount rate, the sales in years 15-20 are worth less than bringing EIS forward four months. In practical terms, unless you have very low capital cost and very low minimum attractive rates of return, the difference between a 20-year and 40-year event horizon are negligible.

I am still thinking that the only thing that can be done at an attractive cost point is a 767 MAX, although I still don't know what they could do to make it more attractive to the airlines. It seems like anything else they can do is a few $B more than the business case can justify.

Really, the only justification I can think of at this point for a clean sheet design is that they become less than 40% of new orders in dollar terms, which kicks in company pride issues. At that point do you do a non-economically justifiable investment?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:34 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 25):
So, do these mean that the scales are now tipped ever so slightly to a 767MAX's favor? JoeCanuck might be pleased. 

I just can't see a widebody solution at this size. Its just too much weight. Look at the OEW/seat between the 757-300 and the 767-200. The 767 is 25% heavier and may not even offer more seats than the 762. I see zero ways where that added weight can be salvaged.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 30):
What if it were to compete with both the A321LR in the low end and the A330NEOs in the upper end?

But that is just it, if it is that heavy it cannot compete with an A321neo in any form it takes.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 32):
In practical terms, unless you have very low capital cost and very low minimum attractive rates of return, the difference between a 20-year and 40-year event horizon are negligible.

I hear you in terms of the NPV calculation. You're right.

It just occurs to me that a program launched today could be generating profits 40 years from now and that has to mean something vs doing nothing. Having one more active program than your competitor can also be helpful.

tortugamon
 
JHwk
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:33 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):
It just occurs to me that a program launched today could be generating profits 40 years from now and that has to mean something vs doing nothing. Having one more active program than your competitor can also be helpful.

Since it all comes down to risk management and return on investment, it is still an NPV assessment. If it were a government organization then the interest rate assumed goes much lower (looking at ripple effects in the economy), so 40-60 years is a great investment.

Would love to see Boeing have a "best in class" offering between the 738 and 789.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8924
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:26 am

Imho the MadMax is a good idea. The performance will be sufficient and many developments will be also be of use to improve the normal MAX. The MadMax could even be the base of yet another 737 upgrade, if engines continue to improve so much faster than airframe technology.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:55 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 29):
will have a weight disadvantage against a A322 with the 757

How much of a weight disadvantage would that be? After all, I presume a future A322 would also need a bigger wing.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:06 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 29):
I still am of the opinion that they should have done the NSA instead of the 737MAX. Even if it meant waiting a few years. If we talk about Airbus reacting with a little panic with the original A350 to the 787, nothing different with Boeing and the 737MAX. Yes they have sold a lot, but what is the cost at trying to get to the MOM and eventual upgraded single-aisle aircraft that is new generation, not just 1960's refreshed design.

That summs it up well. While the decision for the MAX may have been unavoidable it really trapped/hurt Boeing in the long run. The NSA would have been a perfect base-plane for stretches (including bigger wing/folding wingtips) up to the 757-300 size. It would be perfect designed around the GTF and would have an edge over anything Airbus can do with the A320.

No they can't come out with an NSA because the invested heavily into the MAX. They are somehow trapped. While currently things arn't that bad for Boeing it's risky to sit back and "relax" too. Even without considering the practical imlications for the design-stuff let's look 10 years ahead. Airbus will have even more advantage in the single-aisle marked with the ever shiffting centerpoint to the A321. The 77X will be a great plane, yes, but with the A350-1100 stretch (which is a given) I don't see it anywhere as a cach bringer than the 77W (or the 747-400) where once. That leaves the 787 to bring at least 50% of the profit-stream.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6609
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:35 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 31):
I think if this was possible it would have been touted as an option early on when Boeing was discussing the new MOM. The 3 options that have been talked about publicly by either Boeing or articles stating what Boeing is thinking has always been about either a NSA or now a 737MADMAX. Leeham has touted the 757 as being too heavy. What would that make the 767? I am listing the options that we are talking about in our discussions regarding the MOM.

A compromise for the 'narrow' twin-aisle, ovoid MoM you forget, which has fallen out of favor for being a mega expensive, clean-sheet design.


Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):
I just can't see a widebody solution at this size. Its just too much weight. Look at the OEW/seat between the 757-300 and the 767-200. The 767 is 25% heavier and may not even offer more seats than the 762. I see zero ways where that added weight can be salvaged.

May be outdated, though a quick look in the Aircraft Data section shows the 753 OEW is at ~142Klbs while the 762 OEW start at ~164Klbs up to ~178Klb. A 22Klb difference with 240 pax out to 3,485nm for the 753 vs 216 pax and 3,160nm for 762 and ~6,600nm for the heavier version...so the 753 indeed wins in an ungainly ~55m length to the 762's stubby ~48.5m.

But ~6,600nm is too much range than asked for. To balance things out a bit, let's compare the ~55m length 763. Even heavier by at least 33Klbs, but carries 269 pax out to ~4,200nm -- right about where prospective customers are said to be asking the NMA to be. Give it the relatively modern and efficient GEnx2B, new CFRP wings and some aerodynamic tweaks and the economic picture changes considerably. One gets what one pays for.


Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):
But that is just it, if it is that heavy it cannot compete with an A321neo in any form it takes.

The A321neo will have to leave payload behind to do what the NMA is supposed to do. The idea is not to go head to head with it at its prime segment but above it at the real capability gap between the 738 and 788 -- the actual middle of the market. The sweet spot keeps moving up. Question is whether the OEMs' estimate of the demand still holds true at this point.

[Edited 2016-03-11 02:31:59]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:47 am

Quoting JHwk (Reply 32):
With a 15% discount rate, the sales in years 15-20 are worth less than bringing EIS forward four months. In practical terms, unless you have very low capital cost and very low minimum attractive rates of return, the difference between a 20-year and 40-year event horizon are negligible.

I am still thinking that the only thing that can be done at an attractive cost point is a 767 MAX, although I still don't know what they could do to make it more attractive to the airlines. It seems like anything else they can do is a few $B more than the business case can justify.

Really, the only justification I can think of at this point for a clean sheet design is that they become less than 40% of new orders in dollar terms, which kicks in company pride issues. At that point do you do a non-economically justifiable investment?

Would I be right in saying you are an accountant?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9235
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:28 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 27):
Nope. MoM won't be a twin aisle.

It can't be. The fundamental economic handicap of weight & drag of a 7-across twin aisle is just too much to carry in a fight against a competitor as formidable as the A321neo.
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 30):
What if it were to compete with both the A321LR in the low end and the A330NEOs in the upper end?
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 31):
I think if this was possible it would have been touted as an option early on when Boeing was discussing the new MOM.

No question the twin aisle is more comfortable and will be able to carry more pax further and by default the 767-200 will be abused on the lower A321 end and the lower A330 / 787 end.
Why would Boeing not consider a 767-200 frame for the MOM, have to be built in the tanker line with separation issues, production rate is low and more focused on the military specs, cost / profit per unit may be higher on the 737, I can think of a few more which have less to do with the capability of the a/c to compete or do well in the envisioned space.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8924
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:40 pm

Because with a new engine and a new wing, we are looking at at least 4-6billion dollars that the plane would have to bring back in. Even if you look at the list prices and consider a good 10% margin, you are looking at 400+ frames that need to be sold.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9235
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:49 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):
Because with a new engine and a new wing, we are looking at at least 4-6billion dollars that the plane would have to bring back in.

So new wing on the 737, stretched fuselage along with new landing gear will not cost 4-6 billion resulting in 400 frames having to be sold?
The 767 fuse is set, they could even look to implement some of the 777X weight trimming, depending on how much they can do more engine options would be available, needs no new landing gear, the only must do may be the wing.
As I said, I think factors internal to Boeing more than the potential capability of the frame are why they are not looking at the a/c.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:06 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 42):
So new wing on the 737, stretched fuselage along with new landing gear will not cost 4-6 billion resulting in 400 frames having to be sold?

But, if you put a new wing on the 737, why not make it CFRP and future proof it as a basis for the NSA?

So that $4-6B USD is not just a sunk cost over 400 frames of MoM, but potentially the next 50-60 years of NSA.


Sorry for repeating myself, but IMO, that is the only way Boeing can make this work - MoM has to be looked at as a part, probably a loss-leading part if considered in isolation over 15-20 years, of NSA. But it would enable NSA to be more profitable and the intention should be to make MoM+NSA more profitable than two standalone attempts to cover both markets.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2610
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:37 pm

This whole MOM discussion reminds me of when Boeing offered the airlines
a dozen different larger version of the 767 platform, but when the dust had settled
the airlines decided on a clean sheet airplane which became the 777   
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:37 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 38):
But ~6,600nm is too much range than asked for. To balance things out a bit, let's compare the ~55m length 763. Even heavier by at least 33Klbs

Yeah the 763 weight per seat applied to a smaller aircraft could give us an idea of what the difference would be but as your notes indicate it would still be heavier than a 753 concept. Its hard to take capability out of an aircraft and customers aren't looking for a 763 (maybe at the top end but with less range). I personally see this as two models: a 752.5 and a 753.5.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 38):
The A321neo will have to leave payload behind to do what the NMA is supposed to do. The idea is not to go head to head with it at its prime segment but above it at the real capability gap between the 738 and 788 -- the actual middle of the market.

Agreed but as you know there are grey areas where airlines are going to make a decision for one aircraft over another. If you are a US airline operating 2,500nm transcontinental routes and could use the capacity bump over an A321neo you won't consider this MOM for that route if it is non-economically competitive. And if you only fly the MOM on routes where the A321neo can't go then that is a pretty small band of potential routes coupled with very little flexibility from a route planning perspective.

The point is that I think this aircraft does need to be economically competitive with the A321neo on routes as short as 1,500nm in order to have a big enough market to justify the investment.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 34):
Since it all comes down to risk management and return on investment, it is still an NPV assessment. If it were a government organization then the interest rate assumed goes much lower (looking at ripple effects in the economy), so 40-60 years is a great investment.

Agreed.

tortugamon
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:30 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 43):
So that $4-6B USD is not just a sunk cost over 400 frames of MoM, but potentially the next 50-60 years of NSA.


Sorry for repeating myself, but IMO, that is the only way Boeing can make this work - MoM has to be looked at as a part, probably a loss-leading part if considered in isolation over 15-20 years, of NSA. But it would enable NSA to be more profitable and the intention should be to make MoM+NSA more profitable than two standalone attempts to cover both markets.

Exactly. By the logic [to bring in profits with just a few hundret sales] every investment has to be judget by the medium-term sales of the first, say 10, years. Neither Boeing nor Airbus could ever start a new typ again based on that. If you follow this the future can only bring re-engining of existing typs with absolute minor chances.

I personally don't think that the main problem at Boeing is the front-up design investment, be it 5 or 10b $. As stated in all articles the market is there. The main problem IMO is that this MOM was always discussed as a "value" - one could say "cheap" - alternative vs. the very expensive widebodys of our days. Airlines want something as capable as a 757-300 or 767-200 in a modern dress for a price of e.g. 10% more than the A321. And that "wishfull thinking" doesen't summ up for Boeing, especially regarding the production costs. The low oil-price doesn't help because it limits what Airlines like to spend for improved efficiency.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8924
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:40 pm

That would mean around 50m fuselage length for the shorter version and nealry 60m for the longer. That is over 300 seats in a single class high density configuration, I think it is too much.

I think 55m is the upper limit which, would be 280 seats in single class layout (maybe even close to 300 with modern toilet and galley solutions)

I think 4-6 rows of a 2-2 lower standard business class, followed by 5-6 rows 3-3 Y+ and finally 22-25 rows (depending on pitch) of Y.

Things like the Transcon A321 will be rare and imho we would rarely see a fist class or a full spec business class on the MoM.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6609
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:00 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
Yeah the 763 weight per seat applied to a smaller aircraft could give us an idea of what the difference would be but as your notes indicate it would still be heavier than a 753 concept.

Forgot to mention this. The 753 and 762 have virtually the same high density seating maxima...the 753 with 289 seats at a leg-numbing 28"-29" pitch, and 290 pax for the 762 in a tight 8-across but more knee-friendly 30" pitch layout. So there's scope to make the excess weight useful. I don't think airlines and passengers would prefer a 289 seat 757.    .

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
The point is that I think this aircraft does need to be economically competitive with the A321neo on routes as short as 1,500nm in order to have a big enough market to justify the investment.

The 'narrow' twin-aisle, ovoid MoM promises that but Boeing do not want to spend for it. IMHO, they have already pocketed too much profit by just warming up and tweaking the 737 over the decades, that it's about time they bite the bullet and funnel some of those money back to develop (a) worthy successor(s).
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 5

Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Reply 45
The point is that I think this aircraft does need to be economically competitive with the A321neo on routes as short as 1,500nm in order to have a big enough market to justify the investment.

Of course this is 100% right.Which is why it will never be built and why that niche has been an elephants graveyard.

The A321 NEO LR capabilities were never envisaged just a few years ago.But technology and design has 'come to it'.
Aerodynamics (BW's etc)
GTF Engine (Game changing)
Slimline (and comfortable IMHO) seats.
Better internal packaging (Flex 1&2).

So yes the A321 can (just) do the TATL with circa 210 pax.But it does all the 'normal' stuff brilliantly too with 240 pax.

Boeing will just have to walk away from this small sector for a few years.It won't kill them.But they will be back (post 777X) with a brand new game changing narrow body aircraft - and it starts all over again! Hell it's not as if they have not had their monies worth out of the 737! (The clue is in the middle number)

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