Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27045
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 3:26 pm

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 91):
This sounds more like posturing for the future NSA/MoM program in order to judge customers reactions.

I am positive Boeing has been talking to customers about NSA since last decade and MoM for years.

These proposals are to address perceived shortcoming in the MAX family.



Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 96):
Boeing needs to do an NSA/MoM pair, and quite soon too.

The airlines didn't want to wait for it when fuel was expensive.

The airlines don't want to pay for it when fuel is cheap.

NSA has to wait at least a decade for fuel to get expensive again and the next generation of propulsion technology to mature to the point it is accepted by the market.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 6:12 pm

Quoting PHLwok (Reply 7):
You men they're not going to restart 757 production? :-p

 
Quoting Stitch (Reply 100):
NSA has to wait at least a decade for fuel to get expensive again and the next generation of propulsion technology to mature to the point it is accepted by the market.

... or for the market to totally stop buying the 737 MAXes on offer.

The fact that there is a huge backlog and orders still come in show that the 737 is competitive. At some point it won't be competitive and it will have to be replaced.

Of course getting the timing of the transition is important. Starting it too soon will destroy the backlog as well as the value of the MAXes already built. Waiting too long can cause all kinds of problems. Both need to be considered.
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
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 6:50 pm

You know what this thread means:

A decade of "lets revive the 757" threads on Anet.

Bummer.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 7:46 pm

What Boeing really needs for any -9 stretching is not so much new gear, as a new type of gear that lengthens automatically as it extends, much like that used on the Concorde.

The mechanism could be pneumatic, hydraulic or mechanical, but the gist is that it wouldn't necessarily have to take up any more space than the current units. The Concorde unit was strictly mechanical.

Say they did a pneumatic/hydraulic version. For flight, and ground operations, the gear would be 'relaxed' to its current length, which is just fine for those duties. But during taxi to take off, the 'bladder/ram/whatever' is inflated/actuated to lengthen the gear by 6 or so inches, giving it the clearance it needs for those extra few degrees of rotation. Then, as part of the stowing process, it shrinks as it tucks into the bays.

With this kind of mechanism, the default would be the same length gear as it currently has, so if the mechanism failed to extend, it would only mean that the aircraft would be restricted to current -9 style operations.

All that being said, I think that whatever Boeing has planned, or is planning, for the -9...longer gear will be part of the deal, as will playing with the high lift devices...maybe trying to work out a way too droop the ailerons, for every bit of lift they can squeeze out of the wing.

It seems to look more and more like Boeing has made its priority bringing the -9 as close as it can to 321 performance and is worrying less about a future MOM.

Frankly, I like the smell of panic coming from Boeing...not for any malicious reasons, but that's the kind of stress that can produce some really interesting, out of the box, innovations. That they might apply to, what can be argued as the least out of the box airliner ever, has a tasty irony to it.

I still marvel at how they so quickly and creatively designed the Classic. It was far from perfect but shoehorning CFM-56's under the -200's wing, was some brilliant engineering. That those cobbled together franken-goonies are still making money for airlines today is a testament to some very clever folks.

Does Boeing have one last trick up its sleeve for the most notorious 'Walking Dead'...it just won't die, aircraft in history? Maybe not...but I'm not willing to count them out quite yet.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27045
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 7:50 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 101):
The fact that there is a huge backlog and orders still come in show that the 737 is competitive. At some point it won't be competitive and it will have to be replaced.

Where MAX looks most vulnerable is at the top end. Beyond it's other benefits, the A321-200 offers 10% more seating than the 737-9(00) and airlines clearly appreciate that capacity. Closing (or eliminating) that "capacity gap" might very well be sufficient to win RFPs that are now going to the A321-200neo (at least from Boeing operators).

The "737-10" would still have a performance gap (payload / range / field) - hence Boeing looking at a MoM - but I don't believe that is as critical as the capacity gap (otherwise the 737-900ER should have sold as equally extremely poorly as the 737-900). But if CFM can get another couple percent of thrust out of the engines (perhaps via a "thrust bump" option ala the GE90-11xB), that should help field performance in some locales.
 
flyabr
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 7:53 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 103):
The mechanism could be pneumatic, hydraulic or mechanical, but the gist is that it wouldn't necessarily have to take up any more space than the current units. The Concorde unit was strictly mechanical.

Interesting...could even allow "maybe" the use of the larger Leap engine on this upgraded model to give it better field performance.  
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6593
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 7:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Where MAX looks most vulnerable is at the top end. Beyond it's other benefits, the A321-200 offers 10% more seating than the 737-9(00) and airlines clearly appreciate that capacity.

And Boeing knows this; it's extra capacity that allowed the 737-800 to enjoy a pricing advantage over the A320ceo and that is keeping the 737 MAX 8 so competitive against the A320neo. If they can find a not-too-heavy way to get 737-900ER field performance out of a 2m stretch of the MAX 9, they'll do it.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 8:33 pm

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 102):
ou know what this thread means:

A decade of "lets revive the 757" threads on Anet.

Bummer.

My sentiments exactly. Let's stop beating this long dead horse. The 757 died from a lack of market interest. It's too old tech and heavy to MAX it, not to mention that its tooling jigs are long since dismantled. Let it go. Boeing's best move now is to do a bigger 737 MAX stretch with bigger landing gear which means major wing changes and a far bigger development cost they were trying to avoid by simply re-engining the existing 737NG. But doing the MoM airplane involves far higher costs still and will take far longer. So Boeing needs to admit its 737-9 is uncompetitive and build a bigger derivitive which can exceed the A321NEO in capacity and range. No doubt Airbus would then respond with a 322NEO with larger wings but Boeing can't just sit by and be content with a roundly inferior model like the -9. BCA didn't adequately address their too short landing gear issue when they first announced the MAX line so that finally needs to be done. What made sense for Joe Sutter's design team in the 60's - a short landing gear to ease boarding access at smaller airports for a short range twin with far smaller bypass engines no longer makes sense in the here and now when engine sizes are progressively increaseing. Though it will be a major and costly design change, it will still be far cheaper and faster to market than the MoM, though its emergence would push any prospective MoM timetable farther out still. Bitter medicine for Boeing but they need to bite the bullet now if they wish to even approach market parity with the 320NEO in the next few years. At least the -8MAX seems right for the current market but yes, the -7 is too small as configured; maybe the proposed modest stretch will help a bit, provided it's not too close to the -8. The combined gear and wing upsizing changes could also help boost range and payload capacity on future versions of the -8 and the -7.5 as well if transferred to those frames. I do think a short-sighted Boeing really underestimated Airbus's determination to dominate this market; it was too focused on bringing the MAX to market with minimum changes.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 8:56 pm

Since any stretched -9 MAX would be virtually the same length as a 707,
could the rotation performance be helped if they revived the 707 / 720's 4 wheel trucks
for the main gear?

The -9 Max and 707 share the same basic fuselage design, so adapting that wouldn't be that
hard, would it?
  
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 8:58 pm

Quoting flyabr (Reply 105):
Interesting...could even allow "maybe" the use of the larger Leap engine on this upgraded model to give it better field performance.

If they used a purely mechanical device that automatically extended the gear so it was always full length when extended, then there's no reason they couldn't go with a bigger fan. I mean, no reason other than development time and money for adding a unique engine to the lineup.

I believe if the plane was taller, then they would have to make some other mods like slides for the overwing exits...but that's pretty small potatoes compared to the rest of the challenges.

If they used hydraulics or pneumatic, the plane would squat down to current height when off of the runway, so any other height related certification issues wouldn't have to be addressed.
What the...?
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 9:08 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100):
The airlines didn't want to wait for it when fuel was expensive.

The airlines don't want to pay for it when fuel is cheap.

Boeing was very un specific when they talked about 737 replacement, like they where expecting the airlines to wait for something new sometimes in the future.

I believe the airlines would have waited if Boeing would have bin more specific about what they where going to build, and when it would have bin available.
 
flyinggoat
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:38 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 9:40 pm

What are the downsides to wing root inserts, similar to the MD88 or AN-225? A root insert probably isn't the most efficient wing structure, but adding a root insert would push the engines and MLG pivot point outward, giving space for longer gear. More wing area would also be gained.

The nose gear would be a challenge too.
 
flyabr
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 10:32 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 110):
I believe the airlines would have waited if Boeing would have bin more specific about what they where going to build, and when it would have bin available.

I don't know. The fast selling NEO was definitely putting extreme pressure on Boeing to come up with something quick. Airbus was guiding the boat and Boeing really had no choice but to ride along or lose a significant number of NB customers in the process. Airbus was smart and definitely forced Boeing away from developing a new NB line of aircraft.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27045
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 10:47 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 110):
Boeing was very un specific when they talked about 737 replacement, like they where expecting the airlines to wait for something new sometimes in the future.

I believe the airlines would have waited if Boeing would have (been) more specific about what they where going to build, and when it would have bin available.

Boeing should have had at least a general idea for NSA from the Yellowstone Program, which had generalized replacements for the 737/757, the 767 (what became the 787) and the 747/777.

As flyabr noted above, I think Boeing was not in a position in terms of financial and human resources to launch NSA in the same general timeframe as they are MAX. But with jet fuel at an all-time high and Airbus offering a significantly more fuel-efficient upgrade to the A320 family with a rapid EIS target, Boeing had to do something and MAX was the answer.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 10:59 pm

Quoting flyabr (Reply 105):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 103):
The mechanism could be pneumatic, hydraulic or mechanical, but the gist is that it wouldn't necessarily have to take up any more space than the current units. The Concorde unit was strictly mechanical.

Interesting...could even allow "maybe" the use of the larger Leap engine on this upgraded model to give it better field performance.  

Would this be certified? If it fails you land on 2 engines and that was not the case in the Concorde.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:12 pm

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 114):
Would this be certified? If it fails you land on 2 engines and that was not the case in the Concorde.

Taxi/Takeoff Nacelle clearance is required to be 17" (if I'm wrong by an inch either way, please politely correctly me).. So a telescoping landing gear strut that failed to extend it's designed 25cm (10 inches) shouldn't result in the engines plowing into the ground... but rather just not meeting nacelle ground clearance requirements. If a pilot you were making an approach where you anticapted the gear fulling extending... and it didn't.. well perhaps you'd strike a tail if you didn't have time to adjust the landing or make a go around.
Not minor issues, but definitely something that must be well understood in the procedures...
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7201
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:14 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 113):
rapid EIS target

This is what forced Boeings hand. They were ready to commit to a clean sheet design, but the taste the 787 left was still in everyone's mouth. They were throwing around preliminary designs, my personal favorite being the 2-2-2 twin aisle Y. They realized the NG didnt leave much room for further improvement, there's only so much you can do to an airframe, and now we have the MAX. But Boeing is still trying to remain competitive and these stretches may be the way to go. I'd hate to see another MDD, a great manufacturer that fails from lack of further innovation.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:33 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
Yes, the A319NEO is 'wrong too.'. If Boeing upsizes, Airbus will have to look into options including just cancelling the A319NEO. With the A320NEO shortfield kit, there is no need for the shorty. At least not after a thrust bump.

They will still sell as corporate jets, not a huge market but an important one. Plus its already built.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 109):
If they used a purely mechanical device that automatically extended the gear so it was always full length when extended, then there's no reason they couldn't go with a bigger fan. I mean, no reason other than development time and money for adding a unique engine to the lineup.

I believe if the plane was taller, then they would have to make some other mods like slides for the overwing exits...but that's pretty small potatoes compared to the rest of the challenges.

Soooo if its so simple why didn't Boeing do this in the first place?

Apart from the fact they drank their own coolaid in respect of the MAX-9's competitiveness against the A321NEO.
BV
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:57 pm

The Flightglobal article, which was linked by the thread starter, has been updated. And now it contains the following notice in the end:

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported the 737 Max 9 may be replaced. The 737 Max 7 is being reviewed for replacement with a larger version, but Boeing is reviewing options for adding to the 737 Max product line with an aircraft larger than the 737 Max 9.

It seems like the whole issue about the -9MAX was a misunderstanding by Flightglobal.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
CX747
Posts: 6240
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 12:46 am

How did you get "the whole article"? Boeing is looking to make an aircraft that will not replace the Max 9 but IF made be a larger family model. Guys let's not let fanboy ism cloud our posts.

One of the interesting things from a recent article where the names mentioned that are interested in the 7.5. Airlines mentioned have been Southwest, United, Delta and American. IF the 7.5 is to be modeled as a 737-700 replacement for Southwest and an A320 replacement for the others, that is a lot of potential orders just from those blue chip carriers. That's 219 frames just in A320 1 for 1 replacements.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 12:57 am

Quoting flyabr (Reply 112):
don't know. The fast selling NEO was definitely putting extreme pressure on Boeing to come up with something quick. Airbus was guiding the boat and Boeing really had no choice but to ride along or lose a significant number of NB customers in the process. Airbus was smart and definitely forced Boeing away from developing a new NB line of aircraft.

The NEO was selling like hot cakes initially, but at that time Boeing insisted they had to do nothing to the 737, Airbus was jus catching up, so it was no wonder the NEO was selling well.

The 737 and the 320 have proven to be extremely flexible platforms, just look at where the 737 started and what it has turned out to be, but all good things come to an end, and this is clearly the end for the 737.

IMO Boeing was not forced to build the Max. After the NEO was launched Boeing still had the option to respond with new narrow body platform. A platform really nothing more from a technological standpoint than a 3+3 version of the C-series.
But since new platform was totally out of the question you could say Boeing was forced to do the limping MAX.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 113):
As flyabr noted above, I think Boeing was not in a position in terms of financial and human resources to launch NSA in the same general timeframe as they are MAX.

I think you are right, But a defined program for a 737 replacement with EIS date, would have severely dented the NEO sales moment, and ultimately making the MAX unnecessary.
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2430
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 1:15 am

Perhaps Boeing could just put a tailwheel on the 737 and remove the nose gear, like the DC-3. Would solve the tailskid, tipping, and engine size problems all in one go.

Problem solved.  
If you hate wearing a mask, you’re really going to hate using a ventilator.
 
flyabr
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 1:29 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 120):
IMO Boeing was not forced to build the Max. After the NEO was launched Boeing still had the option to respond with new narrow body platform. A platform really nothing more from a technological standpoint than a 3+3 version of the C-series. But since new platform was totally out of the question you could say Boeing was forced to do the limping MAX.

You are being contradictory. Nonetheless, I think Boeing did what they had to do. From what I surmised, many customers weren't gonna wait nearly 10 years for a brand new line of NBs. The only choice was to upgrade the current 737.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 1:47 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 120):
The NEO was selling like hot cakes initially, but at that time Boeing insisted they had to do nothing to the 737, Airbus was jus catching up, so it was no wonder the NEO was selling well.

I know there are people that believe this but I simply do not believe for a moment that Boeing seriously thought they could do nothing to the 737NG in the face of the NEO. The whole "Airbus was just catching up" thing was marketing BS.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 120):
IMO Boeing was not forced to build the Max. After the NEO was launched Boeing still had the option to respond with new narrow body platform. A platform really nothing more from a technological standpoint than a 3+3 version of the C-series.
But since new platform was totally out of the question you could say Boeing was forced to do the limping MAX.

I don't believe an all-new platform could have been introduced in less than 10 years, which to a lot of airlines was simply too long to wait. With oil going through the roof, 10 years probably would have felt like a lifetime.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 120):
a defined program for a 737 replacement with EIS date, would have severely dented the NEO sales moment, and ultimately making the MAX unnecessary.

Doubtful, imho. How many thousands of neo's are scheduled to be delivered before 2025? And MAX's? What percentage of those orders would have disappeared in the face of a possible mid-20's NSA EIS? I'm guessing not a whole heck of a lot. So instead of a 55-45 or even 60-40 spread between the NEO and MAX, we likely would have seen more of a 75-25 or 80-20 spread between the NEO and the NG while Boeing worked towards the NSA introduction.

I just don't see where Boeing had a lot of options at the time. Whether they coulda/woulda/shoulda done some things with the MAX differently is debatable, but I don't think you can argue that spending $10B-$12B on an NSA, seeing production --> deliveries --> cash flow plummet on the NG line while they pass the years by, and thus see most non-NSA development come to a halt for lack of funds would have been a better outcome than where we are at now.

-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.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 2:09 am

Quoting flyabr (Reply 122):
Nonetheless, I think Boeing did what they had to do. From what I surmised, many customers weren't gonna wait nearly 10 years for a brand new line of NBs. The only choice was to upgrade the current 737.

And that's where we are today as well. Boeing's not going to spend a huge lump of cash to launch an all-new NB when Airbus can spend 1/10th the money to hang the same engines under an A320 family member and get within a percent or two of the performance of the all-new NB. They're going to muddle on with 737 variants till the can't sell any for a significant period of time.

An all-new NB just ain't happening, just like we're not going to see a 757NG or 767NG either. Everyone, step back and breathe that in...
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
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 2:40 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 124):
An all-new NB just ain't happening, just like we're not going to see a 757NG or 767NG either. Everyone, step back and breathe that in...

Agree.

I bet Boeing will sit and watch the A321 eat its milk money for years while they sell and deliver 3000 Maxes and get some Money$$$ recover from the 787 disaster and hope that the future waits for the 797.... boring and predictable but heck they will make a lot of money on the MAX and can torpedo the C series with lower prices...

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 3:14 am

So let's say Boeing goes for a 737-10 MAX (MadMAX). The whole design will be cost effective. Basically a stretch of the -9 frame, they manage to keep the wings of the -9, but introduce a new main landing gear with a lengthening mechanic, giving them 30 cm better ground clearance. They hang 33,000 lbf thrust LEAP-1A engines under the wings, except they rename them LEAP-1B2 or LEAP-1B10 or something along those lines. Let's say MTOW stays the same as the -9 at 194,700 lb, which is basically the same as the A321LR at 97 tons MTOW.

Why would an airline like Delta, American or United choose the 737-10 MAX instead of the A321neo? It would surely be a better choice than the 737-9 MAX, but in my opinion Boeing needs to aim to beat the A321neo on multiple levels for them to win back this segment. Similar fuel burn and lift capacity is not going to be enough. The -9 MAX will most likely have a 3,596 nm range (at least those are the numbers from 2012). I think that if Boeing could somehow give the -10MAX the range of the A321LR, it could be a winner. But then they need to add another 500 nm and increase MTOW.
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 3:26 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 126):
The -9 MAX will most likely have a 3,596 nm range (at least those are the numbers from 2012). I think that if Boeing could somehow give the -10MAX the range of the A321LR, it could be a winner. But then they need to add another 500 nm and increase MTOW.

The 737 can fit couple of auxiliary tanks. If the fuselage is stretched, probably they can add some of these to get to 4000 nm,if no change in wing to carry more fuel.

sv11
 
User avatar
GE9X
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:13 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 3:36 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 126):
Why would an airline like Delta, American or United choose the 737-10 MAX instead of the A321neo?

For the record I don't agree with the -9+ and I don't think it's feasible, but to answer your question: slot availability and fleet commonality. For an airline like Southwest, given a choice between two perfectly equivalent 737-9+ and A321neos, they would choose to not have to manage a separate pilot group and operational network. For other airlines like United and others, given a choice between an A321neo in 2025 and a 737-9+ in 2020, they would choose the latter option. But again, I don't think it's the right play for Boeing, I'm just giving you two obvious reasons for their thinking.

[Edited 2016-05-03 20:37:16]
 
User avatar
2707200X
Posts: 6533
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 4:30 am

I like the idea of stretching the 737-7 MAX to something similar to the 737-400 Classic as only 60 so far have been ordered compared to the over 1,600 MAX-8 that have been ordered. I think it would be wise for Boeing to maintain the 737-9 MAX at it's length because already over 400 units have sold and I expect the carriers to assume what they have ordered on the 9 MAX when it comes to dimensions, weights, and performance. The larger proposed version of the 737 perhaps another ten foot stretch like the 900 NG is to the 800 NG and how it was to the the 400 Classic sounds reasonable. I think a simple stretch is viable with the LEAP engines available to the 737 MAX series with a strengthened and slightly taller dual tandem landing gear for a MTOW for about a 210K lb MTOW, six full sized passenger doors (2x rear, aft, and forward of the wing) and two smaller emergency exits aft of the wing and a similar but strengthened wing structure. Perhaps it could the the 737 MAX-10.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 4:54 am

Expect a simple solution. No different engines, no new wing, just a longer fuselage and a MLG that folds a bit more. It won´t catch up to the A321NEO in performance, but it will lead the field in economics.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1387
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 4:59 am

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 129):
Perhaps it could the the 737 MAX-10.

737 MAX-DOUT
 
UA444
Posts: 2979
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 4:59 am

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 129):
think it would be wise for Boeing to maintain the 737-9 MAX at it's length because already over 400 units have sold and I expect the carriers to assume what they have ordered on the 9 MAX when it comes to dimensions, weights, and performance.

More like 220. And 100 of those are UA. The 400 number is not accurate.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18959
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 7:13 am

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 129):
I like the idea of stretching the 737-7 MAX

Just a point of clarity here - Boeing is not talking about stretching the -7, but shrinking the -8. There's a subtle, but important difference.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 130):
but it will lead the field in economics

How, exactly, does a simple stretch turn a mongrel into best of breed?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 7:19 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 133):
Just a point of clarity here - Boeing is not talking about stretching the -7, but shrinking the -8. There's a subtle, but important difference.

Are you sure about this?
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
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 7:20 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 133):

How, exactly, does a simple stretch turn a mongrel into best of breed?

I know of no reports claiming that the 900ER or 9MAX would not be competitive in economics, they just offer too little extra space over the 800/8 to take the performance limitations for most operators. If you can add 18+ seats while keeping the performance at the 9MAX level, the economics should be very competitive.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 7:35 am

It's interesting that whole Boeing are tinkering with lengths, there's been nothing from Airbus.

After all, if one of the main reasons the 737-8 is so competitive against the A320 is because it's slightly longer, why don't Airbus counter with an A320.5 - after all the gap between the A320 and A321 is pretty sizeable?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 7:45 am

Because they do not need to right now. And to be honest a A322 would be the better idea.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/03/16/leahy-on-737-8x-and-the-prospect-of-an-a322/

Mind the "right now".
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 7:46 am

Quoting GE9X (Reply 128):
but to answer your question: slot availability and fleet commonality.

Yep, that's a fair point. Commonality wouldn't matter as much to airlines like Delta, United and American, but definately for Southwest.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 133):
Just a point of clarity here - Boeing is not talking about stretching the -7, but shrinking the -8. There's a subtle, but important difference.
Quoting hilram (Reply 134):
Are you sure about this?

Yes, that's what I read as well. They're talking about an -8 shortened.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 136):
It's interesting that whole Boeing are tinkering with lengths, there's been nothing from Airbus.

After all, if one of the main reasons the 737-8 is so competitive against the A320 is because it's slightly longer, why don't Airbus counter with an A320.5 - after all the gap between the A320 and A321 is pretty sizeable?


An A320.5 would steal sales from both the A320 and the A321, so I don't think that makes economic sense. Both are selling like hot waffles. And regarding a larger A321, I don't think we'll see Airbus do anything in this segment until Boeing moves first.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 7:50 am

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 136):

When that ( a "320.5") reaches the customers sales will already have moved further towards the A321.
Looks like the step from A320 to the A321 is adequate.
( and cornering Boeing further would push more on Boeing to counter at all cost. undesirable.)

MAX7+:
IMU the current -700/MAX7 has a slightly lighter airframe than the -800/MAX8.
Changing the MAX7 to a simple shrink would simplify manufacturing and
hand the MAX8 MTOW down to the MAX7+.
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3669
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 8:08 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 133):

How, exactly, does a simple stretch turn a mongrel into best of breed?

Because it's Boeing?
 
Someone83
Posts: 4799
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 8:35 am

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 136):
After all, if one of the main reasons the 737-8 is so competitive against the A320 is because it's slightly longer, why don't Airbus counter with an A320.5

They sort of did this in a very cheap way through spaceflex. By reducing and moving rear galley and toilets 1-2 more rows of seats are fitted. While not a "fully" A320,5, it is a A320,3 solutions that partly closed the seat gap to the 737-800
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 9:24 am

Quoting StTim (Reply 140):

Because it's Boeing?

No, because I have not yet heard any problems with the pure economics of the long 737. Everything points to operational limitations as the main reason for the lacking popularity. Afaik it is also mostly accepted, that the 900 is highly efficient on routes where it is not suffering from operational limitations. If it would be class leading on the majority of missions remains to be seen, but for the missions it would work for, it will be very efficient.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 9:50 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 134):
Are you sure about this?

There is no economic justification for Boeing to do weight optimizations like they have in the past. So the question to the airlines is what size do they want their simple shrink in. Or if they want optimizations, how much are they willing to pay for it.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 10:25 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 66):Developing a main landing gear with a shortening strut and linkage might sound sketchy and complicated, but it sure would be a lot less complicated than having to built an entirely new wing box and centre fuselage sectionQuoting frigatebird (Reply 72):But I wonder why Boeing didn't pursue this option in the first place with the MAX. If they develop it now, their compromise with the reduced fan diameter on the LEAP engine will look kind of silly. Because at the time they felt they didn't need to.Now they do.

OK. Boeing now realizes the -7MAX isn't selling, and the -9MAX can't really compete with the A321neo.
However, at the MAX launch, the 737-700 was selling very poorly already, and the -900ER was losing campaigns against the A321ceo too.
So why only now the realization by Boeing they have to do something about the -7 and the -9? Misjudgement? Arrogance? Misplaced costefficiency?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 133):
Quoting 2707200X (Reply 129):I like the idea of stretching the 737-7 MAX
Just a point of clarity here - Boeing is not talking about stretching the -7, but shrinking the -8. There's a subtle, but important difference.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 130): but it will lead the field in economics
How, exactly, does a simple stretch turn a mongrel into best of breed?

At least it would make an unviable variant into a more viable one, offsetting some of the disadvantages of the -7(00), by optimizing it as 149 seater for some potentially large customers. It could make it more attractive to other airlines, needing something smaller than a 737-8 but larger than a CS300 (and having to invest in a totally new aircraft type).
But I agree a shrink of the -8 may not be the best way to do it. Perhaps, if potential customers don't need the range, a stretched -7 will be developed instead of a -8 shrink. I hope Boeing doesn't play the cheap card again, thinking it will be good enough. Then they truly are not learning from past mistakes.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 10:35 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 138):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 136):
It's interesting that whole Boeing are tinkering with lengths, there's been nothing from Airbus.

After all, if one of the main reasons the 737-8 is so competitive against the A320 is because it's slightly longer, why don't Airbus counter with an A320.5 - after all the gap between the A320 and A321 is pretty sizeable?


An A320.5 would steal sales from both the A320 and the A321, so I don't think that makes economic sense. Both are selling like hot waffles. And regarding a larger A321, I don't think we'll see Airbus do anything in this segment until Boeing moves first.

My logic, was that the A321neo is hammering the 739MAX, whereas the A320neo sales have been on par with the 738MAX, due to the latter being slightly longer.

A slightly longer A320 would thus put pressure on the 738MAX the "sweet spot" of the 737 range.

Of course Airbus might feel that as the neo is selling so well anyway, they've no need to fight for every sale, and instead let Boeing spend extra money trying to catch up.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23712
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 11:35 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 138):
Commonality wouldn't matter as much to airlines like Delta, United and American, but definately for Southwest.

And yet we read one (but not the only) reason the 737-700 was ordered by UA (over CSeries) was commonality with existing 737s, so while it's not AS important as it is to WN, it still does offer real benefits.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 144):
So why only now the realization by Boeing they have to do something about the -7 and the -9?

Connor et al make it clear: they are no longer able to maintain pricing. I'm not sure if going on a witch hunt is the appropriate response. They've sold thousands of MAXes already, presumably at acceptable prices. That cash flow gives them a little bit of breathing space, but not that much. Should be interesting to see where this all leads.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 144):
I hope Boeing doesn't play the cheap card again, thinking it will be good enough.

They really can't win. They spend the big bucks on the 787 and it gets undermined by a cheap A330neo. Same could easily have happened if they skipped over the MAX and built a NSA. At least now they've sold a few thousand MAXes and can consider their next move.
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
 
texl1649
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 11:46 am

The departure of mcnerney probably has had a great impact in ba for future product planning. The old Boeing (like the old Douglas), without McDonnell management was simply much more of an airplane company and responsive to customer needs than it has been lately.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 12:06 pm

Quoting texl1649 (Reply 147):
The departure of mcnerney probably has had a great impact in ba for future product planning. The old Boeing (like the old Douglas), without McDonnell management was simply much more of an airplane company and responsive to customer needs than it has been lately.

I don't follow? McNerney wasn't a McDonnel Douglas guy. He came from Procter & Gamble then GE. The last MD guy at the reins was Stonecipher.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10230
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Wed May 04, 2016 12:32 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 126):
Why would an airline like Delta, American or United choose the 737-10 MAX instead of the A321neo?

...for the same reason why a number of airlines choose Airbus over Boring or vice versa, price, price, price.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 144):
So why only now the realization by Boeing they have to do something about the -7 and the -9? Misjudgement? Arrogance? Misplaced costefficiency?

....perhaps they focused their energies on the product that they knew would sell which is the MAX 8, and judging by the rumours that it may EIS early, they appear to have done so.
Now if resources are freed up they can look at the marginal products and see how they can be enhanced.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anstar, Baidu [Spider], ClassicLover, ELBOB, KGAI, LHRApproach, Opus99, Scotron12, TheSonntag, Thomas32125, TWAL1011, val1, wawaman and 198 guests

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