Or at least the Wingbox in a strengthened version. That is my whole point point the -5 does seem like it will be not that much larger than an NSA - it would just have more capability in terms of range/lift.
Basically the -5 would be an NSA-ER. Quite like what Boeing did when they strengthened the original 777, increased the Wingspan and bumped up the thrust to make the 77W.
That worked out pretty well for them. Although given that will have figured out folding wing tech by then - the NSA-ER could basically have an entirely different wing than NSA - possibly getting out to 43-44M unfolded, and NSA sticking with cheaper/simpler non-folding 36M wing.
OK, well I'll respond just the once then let it rest.
Pondering the thoughts of yourself (and Stitch) RE a clipped & wingletted NMA wing, it seems to me that this is basically a new wing anyway & will require it's own Certification.
That is, all the design, production & proving effort of an entirely new wing.
Won't save any time, money or effort by clipping the NMA wing & adding those winglets.
And yet it will of course be a less efficient wing than it could and should be due the the inherent compromises involved.
Which does not seem like such a great idea when facing competition as competent as A.
For the same money, time & effort B can build an entirely optimised new wing which will perform better on the -5X anyway;
and will also be certified & in efficient and de-bugged production when the button is pressed to do the NSA.
"A FLYING START!"
I'm not following your point. If you saying NMA(NSA-ER) and NSA should have two separate wings - then yes I agree. With the new digital design tools doing two separate wings could not be that big of an issue given the volumes the program could have. A lot cheaper than having two separate fuselages and different systems.
NMA(NSA-ER) a Folding 42-43M wing that will fit in C-gates when Folded
NSA - normal 36M wing - which should be enough - given that NSA may be optimized around shorter ranges than the MAX and could potentially be a bunch lighter at the same capacity given less fuel to carry, which means less thrust which means less weight.
If Boeing extends NMA up into the 55-60M length size and 5,000-6,000NM range it will probably need a lot more wing/wingbox than would be possible by basing it on the wingbox that could be common between NSA/NMA(NSA-ER) and its maximum 42-32M span.
An NMA that big would probably need a wing up to 52M that could be non-folding or longer using a fold if the trade-off is worth it. Then you have three wings but common systems/cockpit/cabin fittings basically all the way from 180-300 seats and 3,500-6,000NM.
Sorry if I have been obtuse.
Ref the Leeham link - to my eye the NMA-5X wing as depicted has less sweep than the wing on its' larger siblings.
I am speculating that the illustration is of a -5X with a 36metre wing; but it is not in any way the same wing as the larger two NMA models.
It is, rather, a CFRP wing optimised for a 36 metre span and designed to employ MAX-style winglets right from the get-go.
Not a clipped larger and longer wing with winglets added.
As such I would expect this wing to do a better job for the -5X than an adapted larger and longer wing.
Presumably the NSA family members will also require 36metre wings with winglets when the time comes.
The NMA-5X might have that wing first.
Where the NMA-5X wingbox and gear are concerned, indeed, the -5X might well have a smaller wingbox and lighter, shorter gear, as you also mentioned.
Presumably the same wingbox and gear as the future NSA family members will use, albeit beefed-up some, as you say.
None of this will compromise the larger NMA-6X and -7X, as they will share a completely different wing with a larger wingbox & longer gear.
But by bringing into service an NSA-optimised wing, wingbox & gear, the NMA-5X should give a flying start for when the NSA family is launched.
The new 36metre wing should and will be a better wing than the A32X family has had so far (and the engines will be better too).
Hence I would expect that the NMA-5X should do just fine with this wing.
The -6X and -7X wings look to have have more sweep as well as span (now in the 762/763 space, so more lift is required) and may have M0.85 cruise - whereas the -5X will be competing with the A321 at M0.79 - and so the straighter, stiffer, lighter 36 metre wing will do just fine for the lower cruise Mach.
PS - I will not be surprised if the NMA-6X and -7X wing has no leading/trailing edge surfaces towards the tips such that the NMA -6XF (for example) can exactly replace the 763F when the time comes.
Following the example of the folding tips of the 777X, of course.
PPS - Revelation has pointed-out what should have been obvious to all, EG:
1) the MAX family appears to be undergoing a strong recovery, and the parked fleet of MAX8 may well disappear quickly in the sort of global economic recovery that the IMF etc. are predicting, and
2) the NMA-5X will be above the MAX10 in capacity as well as range.
3) Boeing will plan on selling the MAX family for many years to come.
However things can change in a hurry.
A couple of "whatifs":
1) "What if Airbus decides to go for the new family first?"
2) "What if the 36metre wing performs better than specification when in service and the customers become restless for the NSA family?".
The designers of this 36metre wing would be feeling very pleased with themselves in either case, IMHO.