I seriously doubt that.

Boeing fighting the A321XLR rear center tank via the certification route seems to indicate they themselves plan to go for something like it possibly a tad bigger.

Opus99 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Customers buy tons of A321neos.

A321neo is a 757 sized aircraft which is what Boeing said it will be.

But it has to offer more than that if you want people to wait 8 years

People bought lots of A321NEO's and lots of 737-8s. But even more A320NEO's. Medium size range-capacity, as defined for NMA, seems a niche. I wouldn't put in $15B at this stage. Overall NB marketshare & scale would suffer.

Enhanced mk2 versions and PIPS of LEAP and PW1000 engines will find their way on NEO's, A220s and E2's. The MAX, even the -10, remains restricted to the LEAP-B's 69.4 inch fan diameter. The smaller E2's and A220s having significant bigger, higher BPR, quieter, savvier turbofans than the 2023 737-10, something does go wrong there. It's about time Boeing engineering, sales and customers get full access to high BPR, geared fans too, this decade.


https://www.airlinereporter.com/page/272/

FluidFlow wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I seriously doubt that.

I would say the A321 is probably most efficient on routes up to 2000nm due to the wing being designed for small distances and not long cruising. It still can fly way further and the LR even more just by adding ACTs.

Do not forget it is not just about the amount of fuel you can load, but also for what kind of mission you want the aircraft to be good at. Just because you gear the aerodynamics towards 2000nm the maximum range will depend on maximum fuel capacity and possible MTOW.

So while the aircraft can fly 2000nm with 200pax and a full belly of cargo you can also substitute the cargo with fuel and then fly further. It does not need to bring the maximum payload to 5000nm, for that mission you need another aircraft. I bet the XLR will not bring the maximum payload to 4500nm but it will bring enough to make it a profitable flight. The optimal range for maximal payload at range is probably around 3500nm and that is with a old wing designed for even shorter ranges.

So if Airbus was able to get a family of aircraft with a 30 year old design to be super efficient at <2000nm but have the ability to make 4500nm with reasonable payload, Boeing should be able to do the same 30 years later and even exceed them marks. Otherwise they should close shop if they cant do that.

The A321 is misleading. The original design was badly optimized and had a lot of growth potential The original MTOW A321-100 reached the 2000nm and barely flew over 3000nm empty. Doing 5000nm with a 2000nm design would require about 250% fuel capacity alone and that is something you can not do with ACTs, which bring another weight penalty. The MTOW would also be based on the long range flight and this means the structure, MLG and so on would also be designed for the meximum MTOW.

morrisond wrote:

brindabella wrote:

morrisond wrote:

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!"



cheers

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
and
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.

cheers


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.

seahawk wrote:

You can not fly 5000nm and optimize for 2000nm. This is simply not possible unless you want to fly the 5000nm as a ferry flight.

To be honest as mentioned earlier all but one of the 50 busiest routes in the world are under 1200nm. The next airplane will likely be optimized for closer to 1000nm than 2000nm. As you say, you can’t achieve optimal efficiency at 1000nm or shorter while maintaining the ability to fly 5000nm. The amount of structural loading required to go 5000nm makes everything heavier and stronger. Extra structure increases weight and hurts efficiency.

I think the supposition that the market wants a 4500nm plane that carries 200 passengers that is also optimized for 2000nm starts opinion that the A321 is perfect and will dominate the market and works backwards to say whatever the A321 does is exactly what the market wants. Obviously one single airplane model achieving market dominance without room for competition is ludicrous. People seem to conveniently forget that the A320neo has outsold the A321neo

FluidFlow wrote:

seahawk wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I would say the A321 is probably most efficient on routes up to 2000nm due to the wing being designed for small distances and not long cruising. It still can fly way further and the LR even more just by adding ACTs.

Do not forget it is not just about the amount of fuel you can load, but also for what kind of mission you want the aircraft to be good at. Just because you gear the aerodynamics towards 2000nm the maximum range will depend on maximum fuel capacity and possible MTOW.

So while the aircraft can fly 2000nm with 200pax and a full belly of cargo you can also substitute the cargo with fuel and then fly further. It does not need to bring the maximum payload to 5000nm, for that mission you need another aircraft. I bet the XLR will not bring the maximum payload to 4500nm but it will bring enough to make it a profitable flight. The optimal range for maximal payload at range is probably around 3500nm and that is with a old wing designed for even shorter ranges.

So if Airbus was able to get a family of aircraft with a 30 year old design to be super efficient at <2000nm but have the ability to make 4500nm with reasonable payload, Boeing should be able to do the same 30 years later and even exceed them marks. Otherwise they should close shop if they cant do that.

The A321 is misleading. The original design was badly optimized and had a lot of growth potential The original MTOW A321-100 reached the 2000nm and barely flew over 3000nm empty. Doing 5000nm with a 2000nm design would require about 250% fuel capacity alone and that is something you can not do with ACTs, which bring another weight penalty. The MTOW would also be based on the long range flight and this means the structure, MLG and so on would also be designed for the meximum MTOW.

The thing is, you need way less capacity now than you needed back then. An optimised wing fuel tank on a standard 737 sized wing + 2-3 ACTs will give you 5000nm range. So it will be no problem to fly to 5000nm (if necessary) with an aircraft that has aerodynamics optimised for 2000nm. Yes MTOW and OEW will be slightly higher but that compensates more than enough the drawbacks of different sized wings.

Do not forget everything that differs could lead to different type rating and certification issues what leads to different pilot groups and pools what leads to a big no-no from WN, what drives this massive customer to the other side.

For the record the following routes are all about 5000nm

LAX-NRT
LHR-LAX
NRT-LHR

Why should a narrowbody carry the structure for these routes? That’s prime 787 market territory. Early A330s could IAG even fly these routes.

seahawk wrote:

Market share is only important for forum enthusiasts, as long as your production is running at capacity and you are seeing acceptable margins. Neither of the two should have an interest to really start hurting each other, which is wise considering that new technologies are on the horizon and new competitors are about to enter the fray.

Right, Airbus has already has the narrow body market share lead and we did not see them fulfill the fan boy's previous narrative of choice, placing the A220 at WN, largely because of what you say, they really aren't interested in hurting each other, certainly not enough to make some serious financial sacrifices to do so. Now we're on to a new narrative of choice, MAX must die. I suppose it's at heart a variant of the old narrative (placing A220 at WN would lead to an earlier death of MAX) so we really aren't seeing the tune change much if at all. I'm confident it is equally wrong.

JonesNL wrote:

True, the whole new human-machine interface doesn't make life easier. With the MAX and Covid issues adding up quite a lot. All in all not the best time to invest money in a new program with a tight business case. To be honest; looking at all the parameters, do nothing and launch MAX replacement around 2033 would be a saver bet strategy wise. Quite boring, but money/risk wise the smarter choise...

I don't think doing nothing till 2033 is a viable strategy. Right now they have engineering staff working on 779 and MAX10 regulatory edification programs till 2023. I could easily see them rolling on to a NMA type program for delivery in the 2028-30 time frame, then NSA derivative program in the 2033-35 time frame.

Boeing should do an exclusive contract or a J/V on two items - engines, and the cockpit - control systems. Both of them will take a huge investment, foolish for the supplier to then sell to others in competition that didn't fund the development. With the NSA basically be open market there for the engines.

It seems to me that the new cockpit is not something for a single supplier, or for that matter A or B to develop. The specification of what it will do and what it must be needs to be the result of world wide cooperation of companies and regulators. Only after that has been done will all the software and hardware be designed and built to enable those specifications. Probably even airports and other aviation players need to be involved.

It's about time. It seems crazy that whilst we've gone through several totally different generations 747>757/767>777>787 of long-haul aircraft, the 737 is still hanging on with its 1960s design.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not fly 5000nm and optimize for 2000nm. This is simply not possible unless you want to fly the 5000nm as a ferry flight.

To be honest as mentioned earlier all but one of the 50 busiest routes in the world are under 1200nm. The next airplane will likely be optimized for closer to 1000nm than 2000nm. As you say, you can’t achieve optimal efficiency at 1000nm or shorter while maintaining the ability to fly 5000nm. The amount of structural loading required to go 5000nm makes everything heavier and stronger. Extra structure increases weight and hurts efficiency.

I think the supposition that the market wants a 4500nm plane that carries 200 passengers that is also optimized for 2000nm starts opinion that the A321 is perfect and will dominate the market and works backwards to say whatever the A321 does is exactly what the market wants. Obviously one single airplane model achieving market dominance without room for competition is ludicrous. People seem to conveniently forget that the A320neo has outsold the A321neo

Good point. 737MAX and A320 series are actually way overbuilt with todays very efficient modern engines to be as efficient as possible on the vast majority of their routes.

A clean sheet optimized for the mission could have a real fuel burn advantage.

That's why I continue to believe NSA and NMA(NSA-ER) will essentially be the same aircraft with the NMA beefed up (more thrust, strengthened wingbox/new wing/new gear) over the NSA to give it more range - call it 5,500NM for NMA-S and 4,800 NM for NMA - L.

NSA when launched could have pretty low maximum ranges (call it 3,000 NM-NSA-L, 3,500NM NSA-S) as you have to account for the design to become more efficient over time.

Designing NSA to match A320/A321 gives it too much capability and makes it less efficient than it could/should be. But that is how it will be be 10-20% better than MAX/A320 and justify launching the program.

FluidFlow wrote:

seahawk wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I would say the A321 is probably most efficient on routes up to 2000nm due to the wing being designed for small distances and not long cruising. It still can fly way further and the LR even more just by adding ACTs.

Do not forget it is not just about the amount of fuel you can load, but also for what kind of mission you want the aircraft to be good at. Just because you gear the aerodynamics towards 2000nm the maximum range will depend on maximum fuel capacity and possible MTOW.

So while the aircraft can fly 2000nm with 200pax and a full belly of cargo you can also substitute the cargo with fuel and then fly further. It does not need to bring the maximum payload to 5000nm, for that mission you need another aircraft. I bet the XLR will not bring the maximum payload to 4500nm but it will bring enough to make it a profitable flight. The optimal range for maximal payload at range is probably around 3500nm and that is with a old wing designed for even shorter ranges.

So if Airbus was able to get a family of aircraft with a 30 year old design to be super efficient at <2000nm but have the ability to make 4500nm with reasonable payload, Boeing should be able to do the same 30 years later and even exceed them marks. Otherwise they should close shop if they cant do that.

The A321 is misleading. The original design was badly optimized and had a lot of growth potential The original MTOW A321-100 reached the 2000nm and barely flew over 3000nm empty. Doing 5000nm with a 2000nm design would require about 250% fuel capacity alone and that is something you can not do with ACTs, which bring another weight penalty. The MTOW would also be based on the long range flight and this means the structure, MLG and so on would also be designed for the meximum MTOW.

The thing is, you need way less capacity now than you needed back then. An optimised wing fuel tank on a standard 737 sized wing + 2-3 ACTs will give you 5000nm range. So it will be no problem to fly to 5000nm (if necessary) with an aircraft that has aerodynamics optimised for 2000nm. Yes MTOW and OEW will be slightly higher but that compensates more than enough the drawbacks of different sized wings.

Do not forget everything that differs could lead to different type rating and certification issues what leads to different pilot groups and pools what leads to a big no-no from WN, what drives this massive customer to the other side.

You side step the pilot issues by basically making them the same aircraft NSA and NSA-ER(NMA). Other than engines and gear - most parts that need to be replaced on the line should be common.

FluidFlow wrote:

seahawk wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I would say the A321 is probably most efficient on routes up to 2000nm due to the wing being designed for small distances and not long cruising. It still can fly way further and the LR even more just by adding ACTs.

Do not forget it is not just about the amount of fuel you can load, but also for what kind of mission you want the aircraft to be good at. Just because you gear the aerodynamics towards 2000nm the maximum range will depend on maximum fuel capacity and possible MTOW.

So while the aircraft can fly 2000nm with 200pax and a full belly of cargo you can also substitute the cargo with fuel and then fly further. It does not need to bring the maximum payload to 5000nm, for that mission you need another aircraft. I bet the XLR will not bring the maximum payload to 4500nm but it will bring enough to make it a profitable flight. The optimal range for maximal payload at range is probably around 3500nm and that is with a old wing designed for even shorter ranges.

So if Airbus was able to get a family of aircraft with a 30 year old design to be super efficient at <2000nm but have the ability to make 4500nm with reasonable payload, Boeing should be able to do the same 30 years later and even exceed them marks. Otherwise they should close shop if they cant do that.

The A321 is misleading. The original design was badly optimized and had a lot of growth potential The original MTOW A321-100 reached the 2000nm and barely flew over 3000nm empty. Doing 5000nm with a 2000nm design would require about 250% fuel capacity alone and that is something you can not do with ACTs, which bring another weight penalty. The MTOW would also be based on the long range flight and this means the structure, MLG and so on would also be designed for the meximum MTOW.

The thing is, you need way less capacity now than you needed back then. An optimised wing fuel tank on a standard 737 sized wing + 2-3 ACTs will give you 5000nm range. So it will be no problem to fly to 5000nm (if necessary) with an aircraft that has aerodynamics optimised for 2000nm. Yes MTOW and OEW will be slightly higher but that compensates more than enough the drawbacks of different sized wings.

Do not forget everything that differs could lead to different type rating and certification issues what leads to different pilot groups and pools what leads to a big no-no from WN, what drives this massive customer to the other side.

That is why I mentioned a percentage and not an absolute number. 150% more range needs at least 150% more fuel (actually a bit more). You equally need the extra volume to store this fuel. You need to free your mind of the A320/737. They are relics of the past, they are nothing. If you even have to consider, if your new design will be able to beat them, you can scrap your new design in place.

Revelation wrote:

Airbus has already has the narrow body market share lead and we did not see them fulfill the fan boy's previous narrative of choice, placing the A220 at WN, largely because of what you say, they really aren't interested in hurting each other, certainly not enough to make some serious financial sacrifices to do so.

I seem to recall it was your opinion that Airbus should have done whatever it takes to get the A220 at WN. And as they predictably did not want to compete with Boeing with whom WN would have had many concessions due to the MAX fiasco you found a new way to slag Airbus off for thinking about profit and not trying to put MAX out of its misery at whatever the cost.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

People seem to conveniently forget that the A320neo has outsold the A321neo

People conveniently forget that times change ( capabilities too ).
Airbus expects to grow A321 output to 50% in the reasonably near future.

Now that the A321NEOxyz reaches that magic range
customers will buy the larger bird.
You've seen it on the A319 / A320 runoff over time already.
( delivery numbers were even for a time. A321 used to be a shorter range niche product.)
Markets are not static.
And step changes like the NEO engines move things much faster than
the flow of incremental improvement to the family.

enzo011 wrote:

A NMA in a marginal market with a viable competitor sure seems a huge risk, especially when you didn't launch it when times were good.

NMA didn't launch because COVID effectively ended air travel in 2020 so airlines didn't want any plane, regardless of it's size or market. But considering they almost did launch it and did so after spending years engaged with potential customers, enough of them were ready to go if COVID had not happened. And since we now are in a position to get COVID under control like we do other infectious diseases, it's dampening effect on air travel will fade and air travel will resume.

As to the "marginality" of NMA's market, we look at the 5000+ pre-COVID orders of the A320neo and 737 MAX and assume anything that cannot sell that many would be "a waste of resources" and yet both Airbus and Boeing reaped huge windfalls from selling only ~1500 A330, 747, 767 and 777. An NMA that could clear 1000-1500 sales arguably should make money if executed properly - and yes, that is a big "if" considering, but hey, Boeing stuffed the 777 at launch and they still did well in the end.

And I don't believe Airbus has a viable competitor at the NMA-6 and NMA-7 end. And if this market is so "marginal", Airbus might not bother competing there and instead continue to reap the benefits of the A321XLR at the NMA-5 and below space.

Noshow wrote:

Boeing fighting the A321XLR rear center tank via the certification route seems to indicate they themselves plan to go for something like it possibly a tad bigger.

Since EASA dismissed Boeing attempt to fight, how is this relevant?

Stitch wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

And I don't believe Airbus has a viable competitor at the NMA-6 and NMA-7 end. And if this market is so "marginal", Airbus might not bother competing there and instead continue to reap the benefits of the A321XLR at the NMA-5 and below space.

Simple question if Airbus has no viable competitor which airplane would airlines buy, if Boeing does not launch the NMA?

Strato2 wrote:

I seem to recall it was your opinion that Airbus should have done whatever it takes to get the A220 at WN. And as they predictably did not want to compete with Boeing with whom WN would have had many concessions due to the MAX fiasco you found a new way to slag Airbus off for thinking about profit and not trying to put MAX out of its misery at whatever the cost.

That's an inaccurate recollection. What I was commenting on is other people's clams that Airbus would use A220 as a strategic weapon and do what it takes to win the WN order to undermine the MAX, one of whom is now saying the right thing for Boeing to do is to kill the MAX itself "asap". We have the same common theme, no surprise.

WIederling wrote:

Now that the A321NEOxyz reaches that magic range
customers will buy the larger bird.
You've seen it on the A319 / A320 runoff over time already.
( delivery numbers were even for a time. A321 used to be a shorter range niche product.)
Markets are not static.
And step changes like the NEO engines move things much faster than
the flow of incremental improvement to the family.

Indeed, then consider Boeing had CFM's proposal for an improved LEAP for NMA in hand before the MCAS tragedy and Muilenberg's resignation resulted in the NMA being put on ice for the time being. It's pretty clear CFM is happy to create an improved, larger engine that will open new markets to itself above A321 whereas it won't be happy to undermine the markets it already competes strongly in via MAX and A321/A320/A319neo.

Here’s the problem with building a new airliner. It takes a ludicrous amount of money and an excessive amount of time to do so, and it is very difficult to come up with enough improvements to make the venture financially worthwhile. With only two players it makes the situation a little easier, but you still have to weigh what you come up with against what the other guy already has, and how to convince customers to buy yours instead of theirs. That usually boils down to money. You have to offer enough better efficiency to offset the price that must reflect the insane development costs, or you must come up with enough manufacturing cost savings that you can build it for less and hence recoup development costs that way. Since most efficiency gains come from the engines and not the airframe, it is so much cheaper to hang new engines on an existing airframe than to design a whole new one. This is how Boeing ended up being boxed into doing the MAX. They wanted to do a new airframe, but just couldn’t justify the expense or the time it would take, and their customers wouldn’t wait. So Boeing is between a rock and a hard place in the narrowbody market; they have a good plane (albeit one with a huge black eye) but Airbus has one that is clearly better, especially in the longer lengths. The market share has shifted from close to 50-50 to more like 60-40 in favor of Airbus, but that does not seem to be enough to justify a completely new plane. In the small wide body field the situation is reversed. Boeing has an excellent plane dominating the field with the 787; Airbus has an almost as good plane competing directly with it with the A330NEO. But the A330neo is struggling to stay alive. It cannot sell at a low enough price to overcome the 787’s small but significant economic advantages. And while the A350 is an equally good plane to the 787, it is enough larger that it has sold significantly less. It remains to be seen how the 779 will fare; from what I have read it offers enough efficiency improvement that it will sell. Whether it will sell enough to repay the investment Boeing made in it remains to be seen.

So right now the various versions of the A321 seem to have no competition from Boeing. That seems to be the focus of Boeing’s thinking at this point. There is no question that they can come up with a plane that is superior in operating economics to it. But the question is can they come up with one that they can sell at a price and in enough quantity to repay the investment? That is the question. And, in addition, can they use that as a basis to reverse the advantage that Airbus currently has in the small narrowbody field? That, if they can do it, might make the whole thing worthwhile. But I don’t think it will happen soon. The aftereffects of COVID for both the manufacturers and the airlines will linger for a few years at least.

But there is another issue lurking in the woodwork. Designing a new airliner also requires a large, very skilled engineering team. Experience is vital. Boeing discovered this when they designed the original 777, as they had few holdovers from the last clean-sheet designs, the 757/767. They rediscovered it with the 787. Airbus has had less of it, because they are a younger company and have had less of a gap (so far) between new designs. But by the time Boeing launches another new design there will be few holdovers from the 787, which was royally botched. So it is a huge risk, and will take extremely shrewd and competent management to get right.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not fly 5000nm and optimize for 2000nm. This is simply not possible unless you want to fly the 5000nm as a ferry flight.

To be honest as mentioned earlier all but one of the 50 busiest routes in the world are under 1200nm. The next airplane will likely be optimized for closer to 1000nm than 2000nm. As you say, you can’t achieve optimal efficiency at 1000nm or shorter while maintaining the ability to fly 5000nm. The amount of structural loading required to go 5000nm makes everything heavier and stronger. Extra structure increases weight and hurts efficiency.

I think the supposition that the market wants a 4500nm plane that carries 200 passengers that is also optimized for 2000nm starts opinion that the A321 is perfect and will dominate the market and works backwards to say whatever the A321 does is exactly what the market wants. Obviously one single airplane model achieving market dominance without room for competition is ludicrous. People seem to conveniently forget that the A320neo has outsold the A321neo

What is interesting about the journey the A321 has been on is how little structural weight has been added to get the range.

The original 89t A321 had a range of about 2,400Nm with a 20t payload.
MTOW was raised to 93.5t in 1996, resulting in the potential for c. 3,000Nm with a 20t payload.
Wiki cites "only minor structural strengthening"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... A320:_A321

Then the NEO came along, adding about 1,8t of engine and very little else, to provide 3,500Nm range.
The A321LR added about 150kg of strengthening, but also about 1.8t of ACT (not structural) to get 4,000Nm
Most of the 150kg strengthening was recovered through weight saving (e.g. bionic bulkheads)

The XLR removes the 1.8t of ACT and replaces it with about 500kg of internal tank, and another c. 150kg strengthening, to get 4,700Nm.

So the XLR flies roughly twice as far as the original 89t MTOW A321 for the weight cost of:-

about 150kg strengthening
about 500kg internal tank (RCT)

and flies 1,200Nm further than the A321NEO for about 150kg extra weight (the NEO requiring an ACT to hit 3,500Nm)

I guess the lesson there is that optimising for the c.2,000Nm, but then "stretching" performance to achieve the 4,500Nm+ is the way to go, rather than aiming for 4,500Nm+ out of the box

As for A320NEO outselling the A321NEO - it did initially, but not in the last 3 years.
There have been some eye-watering swaps of A320NEO's for A321NEO's (Indigo probably a good example)

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not fly 5000nm and optimize for 2000nm. This is simply not possible unless you want to fly the 5000nm as a ferry flight.

To be honest as mentioned earlier all but one of the 50 busiest routes in the world are under 1200nm. The next airplane will likely be optimized for closer to 1000nm than 2000nm. As you say, you can’t achieve optimal efficiency at 1000nm or shorter while maintaining the ability to fly 5000nm. The amount of structural loading required to go 5000nm makes everything heavier and stronger. Extra structure increases weight and hurts efficiency.

I think the supposition that the market wants a 4500nm plane that carries 200 passengers that is also optimized for 2000nm starts opinion that the A321 is perfect and will dominate the market and works backwards to say whatever the A321 does is exactly what the market wants. Obviously one single airplane model achieving market dominance without room for competition is ludicrous. People seem to conveniently forget that the A320neo has outsold the A321neo

What is interesting about the journey the A321 has been on is how little structural weight has been added to get the range.

The original 89t A321 had a range of about 2,400Nm with a 20t payload.
MTOW was raised to 93.5t in 1996, resulting in the potential for c. 3,000Nm with a 20t payload.
Wiki cites "only minor structural strengthening"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... A320:_A321

Then the NEO came along, adding about 1,8t of engine and very little else, to provide 3,500Nm range.
The A321LR added about 150kg of strengthening, but also about 1.8t of ACT (not structural) to get 4,000Nm
Most of the 150kg strengthening was recovered through weight saving (e.g. bionic bulkheads)

The XLR removes the 1.8t of ACT and replaces it with about 500kg of internal tank, and another c. 150kg strengthening, to get 4,700Nm.

So the XLR flies roughly twice as far as the original 89t MTOW A321 for the weight cost of:-

about 150kg strengthening
about 500kg internal tank (RCT)

and flies 1,200Nm further than the A321NEO for about 150kg extra weight (the NEO requiring an ACT to hit 3,500Nm)

I guess the lesson there is that optimising for the c.2,000Nm, but then "stretching" performance to achieve the 4,500Nm+ is the way to go, rather than aiming for 4,500Nm+ out of the box

As for A320NEO outselling the A321NEO - it did initially, but not in the last 3 years.
There have been some eye-watering swaps of A320NEO's for A321NEO's (Indigo probably a good example)

Rgds

Great point.

Hence why it looks more like NMA is just an ER version of the NSA. Except due to realities of not wanting to kill off the MAX yet - they appear to want to do the ER first.

In the Age of digital design it is not that hard. Design NSA first then strengthen/change what you need to make the ER. Same fuselage, same dimensions on Wingbox (but strengthened) different gear, engines, wing and probably tail to deal with extra thrust/weight.

Boeing has been playing with tight light 2x Cross sections for at least a decade and have just finished designing a very modern wing and built a state of the art wing factory (777X program) that could be used to build NMA wing (which I guess will be folding to fit into C gates) and it's not like it will be operating at capacity anytime soon. Plenty of space in Everett to build the first line which should be flexible enough to do NMA and the first NSA's.

If they automate it enough they may not even need a second line in SC. All NMA/NSA could be built there. I would assume they have enough space with 747 shutting down and 787 moving to SC - plus the space they will gain from when 777X low rate assembly stops.

What else are they going to use it for? If they get the labour hours down enough - SC's advantage disappears.

astuteman wrote:

As for A320NEO outselling the A321NEO - it did initially, but not in the last 3 years.
There have been some eye-watering swaps of A320NEO's for A321NEO's (Indigo probably a good example)

Aww, there you go, undermining a favored narrative...

My guess is that we'll get a re-post of the market share pie chart soon.

Boeing's MAX factory is quite busy for many years to come.

They can't really be expected to invest in more MAX production facilities, nor will CFM want to replace LEAP any time soon.

The main area it makes sense to invest in is the area they have no real offering, above the MAX10.

Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/03/final ... direction/ ) says:

In Boeing’s NMA concept, the NMA-6 and NMA-7 were above the A321, not competitive with it. The nominal configurations were 225, 270 and 200 seats respectively.

The three-member NMA family directly takes on the A321neo and fills the gap above. There remains some overlap with the 787-8. The -8’s range of 7,300nm far exceeds the NMA-7. But an LNA analysis several years ago concluded there were only 35% of the -8 routes that were more than 5,000nm. The lighter NMA-7 is more economical than the heavier -8.

If they start by building the mooted -5X sized aircraft, they can leave room for growth into -6X and -7X.

Personally, I don't think we'll know more for another two years or so.

SEPilot wrote:

Since most efficiency gains come from the engines and not the airframe, it is so much cheaper to hang new engines on an existing airframe than to design a whole new one. This is how Boeing ended up being boxed into doing the MAX. They wanted to do a new airframe, but just couldn’t justify the expense or the time it would take, and their customers wouldn’t wait. So Boeing is between a rock and a hard place in the narrowbody market; they have a good plane (albeit one with a huge black eye) but Airbus has one that is clearly better, especially in the longer lengths.

Which again suggests the strategy for Boeing should be to let their good airplane do its thing as the black eye heals then come out with a new airplane for the longer lengths.

Revelation wrote:

My guess is that we'll get a re-post of the market share pie chart soon.

Boeing's MAX factory is quite busy for many years to come.

They can't really be expected to invest in more MAX production facilities, nor will CFM want to replace LEAP any time soon.

The main area it makes sense to invest in is the area they have no real offering, above the MAX10.

Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/03/final ... direction/ ) says:

In Boeing’s NMA concept, the NMA-6 and NMA-7 were above the A321, not competitive with it. The nominal configurations were 225, 270 and 200 seats respectively.

The three-member NMA family directly takes on the A321neo and fills the gap above. There remains some overlap with the 787-8. The -8’s range of 7,300nm far exceeds the NMA-7. But an LNA analysis several years ago concluded there were only 35% of the -8 routes that were more than 5,000nm. The lighter NMA-7 is more economical than the heavier -8.

If they start by building the mooted -5X sized aircraft, they can leave room for growth into -6X and -7X.

Personally, I don't think we'll know more for another two years or so.

We all seem to agree that the best way is to start with a light, lean design and let it grow (like the A321 has - in fact all the 737/A320 families).
But then I read Morrisond saying that modern design tools allow the "let it grow" variant to be the first, which feels completely counterintuitive in my head.
I play with modern design tools for a living - especially in a design to build/procure setting, and I see a lot of people hanging a lot of unrealistic expectations on MBE/MBSE and the like.
I don't buy it.
And I can't help thinking that a base aircraft that can grow into the 6X and 7X is going to be bigger and heavier than the plane that grew into the A321XLR

Which brings me to my original concern....
All of the c. 140t widebodys that used to sit in what is now MOM space are gone - the 767-200, A300, A310.
The 767-200 grew into the 767-200ER, then the -300, then the -300ER, then the -400, and they're all gone (from a sales of passenger variants perspective)

I still can't help thinking that the middle of the market gap is a structural thing that always has, and always will be, driven upwards by the continued growth of the mainstream smaller aircraft that sell in the 10's of thousands and have that economy of scale.

RJMAZ will convince you that the 737-10 is poised to knock the A321NEO off its perch because its just THAT efficient.
I don't know that I subscribe to that view to the same degree.
But I'm sure there's enough in it that the 737-10 will sell well and be around for a long time.

Which makes me feel that NMA is a solution looking for a problem in the marketplace.........
Bit of a killjoy view I accept...

Rgds

keesje wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Customers buy tons of A321neos.

A321neo is a 757 sized aircraft which is what Boeing said it will be.

But it has to offer more than that if you want people to wait 8 years

People bought lots of A321NEO's and lots of 737-8s. But even more A320NEO's. Medium size range-capacity, as defined for NMA, seems a niche. I wouldn't put in $15B at this stage. Overall NB marketshare & scale would suffer.

Enhanced mk2 versions and PIPS of LEAP and PW1000 engines will find their way on NEO's, A220s and E2's. The MAX, even the -10, remains restricted to the LEAP-B's 69.4 inch fan diameter. The smaller E2's and A220s having significant bigger, higher BPR, quieter, savvier turbofans than the 2023 737-10, something does go wrong there. It's about time Boeing engineering, sales and customers get full access to high BPR, geared fans too, this decade.


https://www.airlinereporter.com/page/272/

GE and Safran engineers would disagree with you.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

My guess is that we'll get a re-post of the market share pie chart soon.

Boeing's MAX factory is quite busy for many years to come.

They can't really be expected to invest in more MAX production facilities, nor will CFM want to replace LEAP any time soon.

The main area it makes sense to invest in is the area they have no real offering, above the MAX10.

Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/03/final ... direction/ ) says:

In Boeing’s NMA concept, the NMA-6 and NMA-7 were above the A321, not competitive with it. The nominal configurations were 225, 270 and 200 seats respectively.

The three-member NMA family directly takes on the A321neo and fills the gap above. There remains some overlap with the 787-8. The -8’s range of 7,300nm far exceeds the NMA-7. But an LNA analysis several years ago concluded there were only 35% of the -8 routes that were more than 5,000nm. The lighter NMA-7 is more economical than the heavier -8.

If they start by building the mooted -5X sized aircraft, they can leave room for growth into -6X and -7X.

Personally, I don't think we'll know more for another two years or so.

We all seem to agree that the best way is to start with a light, lean design and let it grow (like the A321 has - in fact all the 737/A320 families).
But then I read Morrisond saying that modern design tools allow the "let it grow" variant to be the first, which feels completely counterintuitive in my head.
I play with modern design tools for a living - especially in a design to build/procure setting, and I see a lot of people hanging a lot of unrealistic expectations on MBE/MBSE and the like.
I don't buy it.
And I can't help thinking that a base aircraft that can grow into the 6X and 7X is going to be bigger and heavier than the plane that grew into the A321XLR

Which brings me to my original concern....
All of the c. 140t widebodys that used to sit in what is now MOM space are gone - the 767-200, A300, A310.
The 767-200 grew into the 767-200ER, then the -300, then the -300ER, then the -400, and they're all gone (from a sales of passenger variants perspective)

I still can't help thinking that the middle of the market gap is a structural thing that always has, and always will be, driven upwards by the continued growth of the mainstream smaller aircraft that sell in the 10's of thousands and have that economy of scale.

RJMAZ will convince you that the 737-10 is poised to knock the A321NEO off its perch because its just THAT efficient.
I don't know that I subscribe to that view to the same degree.
But I'm sure there's enough in it that the 737-10 will sell well and be around for a long time.

Which makes me feel that NMA is a solution looking for a problem in the marketplace.........
Bit of a killjoy view I accept...

Rgds

I'm assuming the -6/7 reuse the cross section and nose but have a different wingbox/wing. However I also see something in between -5 and -6 - with the -5 structure but carry more people at the cost of some range.

To be competitive I can't see the -5 being much more than 115-120T.

The -6/7 would be be easily 150-175T.

seahawk wrote:

Simple question if Airbus has no viable competitor which airplane would airlines buy, if Boeing does not launch the NMA?

I am guessing they would buy nothing and either continue to use older, less efficient frames (767/A330) if the service already exists or not launch new services due to lack of an efficient option.

astuteman wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not fly 5000nm and optimize for 2000nm. This is simply not possible unless you want to fly the 5000nm as a ferry flight.

To be honest as mentioned earlier all but one of the 50 busiest routes in the world are under 1200nm. The next airplane will likely be optimized for closer to 1000nm than 2000nm. As you say, you can’t achieve optimal efficiency at 1000nm or shorter while maintaining the ability to fly 5000nm. The amount of structural loading required to go 5000nm makes everything heavier and stronger. Extra structure increases weight and hurts efficiency.

I think the supposition that the market wants a 4500nm plane that carries 200 passengers that is also optimized for 2000nm starts opinion that the A321 is perfect and will dominate the market and works backwards to say whatever the A321 does is exactly what the market wants. Obviously one single airplane model achieving market dominance without room for competition is ludicrous. People seem to conveniently forget that the A320neo has outsold the A321neo

What is interesting about the journey the A321 has been on is how little structural weight has been added to get the range.

The original 89t A321 had a range of about 2,400Nm with a 20t payload.
MTOW was raised to 93.5t in 1996, resulting in the potential for c. 3,000Nm with a 20t payload.
Wiki cites "only minor structural strengthening"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... A320:_A321

Then the NEO came along, adding about 1,8t of engine and very little else, to provide 3,500Nm range.
The A321LR added about 150kg of strengthening, but also about 1.8t of ACT (not structural) to get 4,000Nm
Most of the 150kg strengthening was recovered through weight saving (e.g. bionic bulkheads)

The XLR removes the 1.8t of ACT and replaces it with about 500kg of internal tank, and another c. 150kg strengthening, to get 4,700Nm.

So the XLR flies roughly twice as far as the original 89t MTOW A321 for the weight cost of:-

about 150kg strengthening
about 500kg internal tank (RCT)

and flies 1,200Nm further than the A321NEO for about 150kg extra weight (the NEO requiring an ACT to hit 3,500Nm)

I guess the lesson there is that optimising for the c.2,000Nm, but then "stretching" performance to achieve the 4,500Nm+ is the way to go, rather than aiming for 4,500Nm+ out of the box

As for A320NEO outselling the A321NEO - it did initially, but not in the last 3 years.
There have been some eye-watering swaps of A320NEO's for A321NEO's (Indigo probably a good example)

Rgds

But that was not intentional. At the time the A321 was originally designed they optimized the structure as good as they could.

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

To be honest as mentioned earlier all but one of the 50 busiest routes in the world are under 1200nm. The next airplane will likely be optimized for closer to 1000nm than 2000nm. As you say, you can’t achieve optimal efficiency at 1000nm or shorter while maintaining the ability to fly 5000nm. The amount of structural loading required to go 5000nm makes everything heavier and stronger. Extra structure increases weight and hurts efficiency.

I think the supposition that the market wants a 4500nm plane that carries 200 passengers that is also optimized for 2000nm starts opinion that the A321 is perfect and will dominate the market and works backwards to say whatever the A321 does is exactly what the market wants. Obviously one single airplane model achieving market dominance without room for competition is ludicrous. People seem to conveniently forget that the A320neo has outsold the A321neo

What is interesting about the journey the A321 has been on is how little structural weight has been added to get the range.

The original 89t A321 had a range of about 2,400Nm with a 20t payload.
MTOW was raised to 93.5t in 1996, resulting in the potential for c. 3,000Nm with a 20t payload.
Wiki cites "only minor structural strengthening"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... A320:_A321

Then the NEO came along, adding about 1,8t of engine and very little else, to provide 3,500Nm range.
The A321LR added about 150kg of strengthening, but also about 1.8t of ACT (not structural) to get 4,000Nm
Most of the 150kg strengthening was recovered through weight saving (e.g. bionic bulkheads)

The XLR removes the 1.8t of ACT and replaces it with about 500kg of internal tank, and another c. 150kg strengthening, to get 4,700Nm.

So the XLR flies roughly twice as far as the original 89t MTOW A321 for the weight cost of:-

about 150kg strengthening
about 500kg internal tank (RCT)

and flies 1,200Nm further than the A321NEO for about 150kg extra weight (the NEO requiring an ACT to hit 3,500Nm)

I guess the lesson there is that optimising for the c.2,000Nm, but then "stretching" performance to achieve the 4,500Nm+ is the way to go, rather than aiming for 4,500Nm+ out of the box

As for A320NEO outselling the A321NEO - it did initially, but not in the last 3 years.
There have been some eye-watering swaps of A320NEO's for A321NEO's (Indigo probably a good example)

Rgds

But that was not intentional. At the time the A321 was originally designed they optimized the structure as good as they could.

I agree. There's no way that the A321 was envisaged to go 4,700Nm at its inception.
The question that I feel needs asking is:-
What would it have looked like if it was?

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

What is interesting about the journey the A321 has been on is how little structural weight has been added to get the range.

The original 89t A321 had a range of about 2,400Nm with a 20t payload.
MTOW was raised to 93.5t in 1996, resulting in the potential for c. 3,000Nm with a 20t payload.
Wiki cites "only minor structural strengthening"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... A320:_A321

Then the NEO came along, adding about 1,8t of engine and very little else, to provide 3,500Nm range.
The A321LR added about 150kg of strengthening, but also about 1.8t of ACT (not structural) to get 4,000Nm
Most of the 150kg strengthening was recovered through weight saving (e.g. bionic bulkheads)

The XLR removes the 1.8t of ACT and replaces it with about 500kg of internal tank, and another c. 150kg strengthening, to get 4,700Nm.

So the XLR flies roughly twice as far as the original 89t MTOW A321 for the weight cost of:-

about 150kg strengthening
about 500kg internal tank (RCT)

and flies 1,200Nm further than the A321NEO for about 150kg extra weight (the NEO requiring an ACT to hit 3,500Nm)

I guess the lesson there is that optimising for the c.2,000Nm, but then "stretching" performance to achieve the 4,500Nm+ is the way to go, rather than aiming for 4,500Nm+ out of the box

As for A320NEO outselling the A321NEO - it did initially, but not in the last 3 years.
There have been some eye-watering swaps of A320NEO's for A321NEO's (Indigo probably a good example)

Rgds

But that was not intentional. At the time the A321 was originally designed they optimized the structure as good as they could.

I agree. There's no way that the A321 was envisaged to go 4,700Nm at its inception.
The question that I feel needs asking is:-
What would it have looked like if it was?

Rgds

A lot heavier and much like the 757-200 which is not that much older.

The moral of the story is that if you want something to fill the NSA space don't start out with something that has a range of 4,000NM from the get go. Twenty years from EIS Engines and Aero clean-ups plus getting a little more out of the structure or lightening it will make it far too capable and unnecessarily heavy from the get go.

morrisond wrote:

Hence why it looks more like NMA is just an ER version of the NSA. Except due to realities of not wanting to kill off the MAX yet - they appear to want to do the ER first.

But wouldn't a twin-aisle - even a tight twin-aisle - be too structurally inefficient when scaled down below 240 seats (single-class)?

Revelation wrote:

If they start by building the mooted -5X sized aircraft, they can leave room for growth into -6X and -7X.

My only concern is that I see the NMA-5X as being the least-efficient model in the family. Kind of like the 757-100 / 767-100 / 777-100. I see astuteman feels the same.

I feel it might not be able to effectively compete with the A321 except at the longest stage-lengths (probably 3000nm or higher) where it's higher capacity and payload lift can offset it's higher trip costs.

NMA-6X and NMA-7X seem to me to be the better-positioned members of the family because their size gives them lower CASM than the narrowbodies and their lower operating and structural weights gives them lower CASM then the A330 and 787 even if they do not have the same capacity.

astuteman wrote:

Which brings me to my original concern...All of the c. 140t widebodys that used to sit in what is now MOM space are gone - the 767-200, A300, A310. The 767-200 grew into the 767-200ER, then the -300, then the -300ER, then the -400, and they're all gone (from a sales of passenger variants perspective).

The have stopped selling because their airframes and engines are so much less-efficient than the A330(neo) and 787 that those newer airframes can still pull a double-digit CASM advantage even with their significantly larger size and weight. A "modern" A310/B767 with current-generation engines and airfoils might very well have a CASM advantage over the A330(neo) and 787 even with it's lower capacity.

astuteman wrote:

I still can't help thinking that the middle of the market gap is a structural thing that always has, and always will be, driven upwards by the continued growth of the mainstream smaller aircraft that sell in the 10's of thousands and have that economy of scale.

Frequency does seem to be king on these shorter (2500nm and less) stage lengths and airports do seem to be willing to expand or procreate as necessary to accommodate more flights with smaller planes rather than choose consolidation on less flights with larger planes. As such, I don't think one can look at NMA as a "one-size fits all/most/many" option that will sell in the near-side of five figures.

But I do think there are markets it could work and that Boeing found enough interest from enough customers that they felt it was worth moving forward on it. We also need to remember that the 767-300's days as a new-build freighter end on 1 January 2029 (at least for where the IATA CO2 Emissions Rules will be in force). While we have been focusing on NMA as a passenger frame, like the 767, it could have a parallel life as a freighter.

astuteman wrote:

I agree. There's no way that the A321 was envisaged to go 4,700Nm at its inception. The question that I feel needs asking is: what would it have looked like if it was?

An A310-100?

Stitch wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Hence why it looks more like NMA is just an ER version of the NSA. Except due to realities of not wanting to kill off the MAX yet - they appear to want to do the ER first.

But wouldn't a twin-aisle - even a tight twin-aisle - be too structurally inefficient when scaled down below 240 seats (single-class)?

I don't think so as the fuselage is only about 5% of the MTOW. Long Range wide bodies seem to have fuselage weights as even a smaller fraction - as low as 3% of MTOW. So even if it is a bit heavier (and that is debatable as it is shorter) it's not a big deal. I doubt the smallest NSA will be much smaller than an MAX - 9 and the smallest NMA about A322 in size.

NSA would have different gear/wing/engines and probably tail. Those 4 are where a lot of the empty weight is.

How big/capable are you assuming -6/7 are? I'm assuming they would have a 52M class wing with different wingbox/gear/engines and effectively replace 767-300/A333/788 in the 5,500-6,000 Range Box. So the -5 really isn't a shortened -6/7 but an ER version of the NSA that may come in two lengths itself.

I doubt we would see the really big NMA's until after NSA - so call it late 2030's.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The problem with models is all the assumptions. Using simple geometry I can get an equivalent capacity fuselage 2x vs 1x aisle with a few percent less internal volume and a few percent less skin area. I've posted the details and math behind it before.

So is the problem that models have assumptions or you dont like the assumptions? you seem to believe your model? Is that the one where the seats up the front are 28% smaller to fit them in compared to the single aisle? Which would assume that the economy section had equal width already... the model I use assumes equal on all seat sizes, no special pleading required.

Which assumption(s) that I use do you not like?
Assumed space required before the tail taper becomes too small to use?
Assumed additional space required for passenger amenities?
Assumed tail taper ratio of 2?
Utilising 11km ISA for drag calcs?

morrisond wrote:

As we get closer to a potential NMA launch all we hear is that Boeing is likely to go 2x aisle. It can't be as big as a disadvantage as your assuming or they would never make it.

Well it often said by a select few posters here and somehow over the last week it has been said more often but outside of that same echo chamber the same are articles and sound bites are just being recycled over and over.... the only word we actually have from Boeing said about targeting the 321lr direct...

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope - Special pleading is only required for one who can't fathom the idea that their excel model using Formula's found in text books might not be as accurate as they think it is when it comes to modern composite construction on non standard cross sections and taking taper ratios from the most disadvantageous part of a fuselage to make there preference look better.

-The special pleading was referring to the specific configuration in question, I apply all assumptions equally.
-Is the excel maths not good enough? do you use different maths?
-Formulas found in textbooks whilst doing my masters degree in aerospace engineering?
-The accuracy that cannot be shown to materially affect any modern airliner? Or that I did not see when I spent my time working for a composite panel manufacturer (admittedly for RR engine panels, not fuselages)
-Taper ratios were based on normalised diameters based on fuselage cross sections.

morrisond wrote:

When I get time in the next day or two I will dig up the post I wrote on how I got to my numbers using simple geometry.

Simple goemetry is ok and accurate enough but geometry automated through excel is bad?

morrisond wrote:

As far we know all we have seen of your model is some pretty graphs.

What did you expect the output of a model to be?

morrisond wrote:

I can draw pretty graphs as well if you would like. My plane will be 300% betterer.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

So is the problem that models have assumptions or you dont like the assumptions? you seem to believe your model? Is that the one where the seats up the front are 28% smaller to fit them in compared to the single aisle? Which would assume that the economy section had equal width already... the model I use assumes equal on all seat sizes, no special pleading required.

Which assumption(s) that I use do you not like?
Assumed space required before the tail taper becomes too small to use?
Assumed additional space required for passenger amenities?
Assumed tail taper ratio of 2?
Utilising 11km ISA for drag calcs?

Well it often said by a select few posters here and somehow over the last week it has been said more often but outside of that same echo chamber the same are articles and sound bites are just being recycled over and over.... the only word we actually have from Boeing said about targeting the 321lr direct...

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope - Special pleading is only required for one who can't fathom the idea that their excel model using Formula's found in text books might not be as accurate as they think it is when it comes to modern composite construction on non standard cross sections and taking taper ratios from the most disadvantageous part of a fuselage to make there preference look better.

-The special pleading was referring to the specific configuration in question, I apply all assumptions equally.
-Is the excel maths not good enough? do you use different maths?
-Formulas found in textbooks whilst doing my masters degree in aerospace engineering?
-The accuracy that cannot be shown to materially affect any modern airliner? Or that I did not see when I spent my time working for a composite panel manufacturer (admittedly for RR engine panels, not fuselages)
-Taper ratios were based on normalised diameters based on fuselage cross sections.

morrisond wrote:

When I get time in the next day or two I will dig up the post I wrote on how I got to my numbers using simple geometry.

Simple goemetry is ok and accurate enough but geometry automated through excel is bad?

morrisond wrote:

As far we know all we have seen of your model is some pretty graphs.

What did you expect the output of a model to be?

morrisond wrote:

I can draw pretty graphs as well if you would like. My plane will be 300% betterer.

So why not use that knowledge to help figure out how Boeing might have gotten around the issues that you think are an insurmountable problem and keep bringing up - vs just saying they won't work and they will never build it.

Obviously there are some tradeoffs they are willing to make that don't have that big of a penalty or have come up with a clever solution that you might have not have thought of.

morrisond wrote:

Obviously there are some tradeoffs they are willing to make that don't have that big of a penalty or have come up with a clever solution that you might have not have thought of.

Out of interest, why is this obvious?

Rgds

morrisond wrote:

How big/capable are you assuming -6/7 are?

Just for easy dimensioning, I figured 45m for NMA-5, 50m for NMA-6 and 55m for NMA-7. Start at 240 for NMA-5 and end at 290 for NMA-7 (single class) with NMA-6 in the middle at 265 seats.

morrisond wrote:

So the -5 really isn't a shortened -6/7 but an ER version of the NSA that may come in two lengths itself. I doubt we would see the really big NMA's until after NSA - so call it late 2030's.

If NMA-5 can be competitive with the A321 from 3000-5000nm, then it would make sense as the first model to launch since it would pair nicely with the 737-10 for sub-3000nm missions.

And I like the idea of a 40m (200 seat) NSA to replace the 737-8 and then a 45m (240 seat) model to replace the 737-10 and take on the A321 at shorter stage lengths through optimization with NMA-5 handing the longer stage lengths. But Airbus can still claim flexibility ("our A321 can fly 450-4500nm with one airframe instead of two")...

I know many of us have been presuming NMA-5 would have folding wingtips, but I wonder if the weight and folded span would work out. You would want it like the 777X where the folding part has no control surfaces, but I wonder how much span you could get before aileron control becomes an issue. Even if you could add, say, 2m to each end, that would only be 40 and would the weight of the folding mechanism pan out for such a short extension? Boeing dropped a 4m span expansion on the 787-9 because it weighed some 1600kg and the aero benefits were effectively negated by the extra weight. I think Boeing could probably get away with a 38m span on NMA-5 to match the 757-200 which seems to fit fine in Code C 737 and A320 gates even though it is a Code D airframe.

As for NMA-6 and NMA-7, I agree with you that it would not have folding wingtips and would be sized as a Code D frame to use 767 gates at airports (where available) or Code E gates where not.

Is the 7 abreast for NMA and NSA?

Stitch wrote:

morrisond wrote:

How big/capable are you assuming -6/7 are?

Just for easy dimensioning, I figured 45m for NMA-5, 50m for NMA-6 and 55m for NMA-7. Start at 240 for NMA-5 and end at 290 for NMA-7 (single class) with NMA-6 in the middle at 265 seats.

morrisond wrote:

So the -5 really isn't a shortened -6/7 but an ER version of the NSA that may come in two lengths itself. I doubt we would see the really big NMA's until after NSA - so call it late 2030's.

If NMA-5 can be competitive with the A321 from 3000-5000nm, then it would make sense as the first model to launch since it would pair nicely with the 737-10 for sub-3000nm missions.

Is the 3000-5000nm stage length that interesting?

Most airlines mention they are liking the A321xlr for the flexibility. They can experiment with 3000-5000nm routes and if those don't work they can still use it from London to Mallorca. So, the setup seems more geared towards efficient at sub 3000nm with options to go beyond 3000nm. From that perspective the NMA-5 should be at least a bit more efficient at sub 3000nm and with the option to go beyond 3000nm much more efficient.

Revelation wrote:

They have bet the house with MAX.

If there ever was a time to walk away from a product we just saw it, yet what we saw was Boeing cling even tighter to it, bind their future even more to getting the last penny out of the MAX product.

Same with customers: it was the easiest time ever to decide to part from the MAX, and while some of the smaller and weaker carriers did, the larger and stronger ones doubled down and ordered more.

Are people letting their fantasies blind them? It's right in front of them, the hand is in front of the face.

MAX isn't going to be replaced till we see sales stop cold for several years and the backlog drops to 1-2 years production.

Till that happens, talk of a direct replacement is fantasy.

Boeing clearly will aim for where they have no coverage at all, above the MAX10, rather than shoot their own foot off and aim to replace the MAX8.

Same people saying mcas was going to kill MAX are now saying Boeing itself will kill the MAX.

At least they are consistent, consistently wrong...

Boeing and the airlines did not have an option but to continue with the MAX. What were they choose?

Boeing if they walked away would not have a product in the narrow body segment. So what do you do? Design a new plane and hope to sell it 8 years from now? What is there in the interim?

Airlines did not have a choice either because there are only two options that can be pumped out at volume. Even if an airline wanted to go Airbus, would they be willing to wait 7 years to get a plane?

Boeing whether they like or not will have to design a new plane, and hopefully they do not buy into the NMA fantasy. Make a MAX replacement and look towards a re-engine of the 787. That right there should offer enough economic benefit to drive business going forward.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

They have bet the house with MAX.

If there ever was a time to walk away from a product we just saw it, yet what we saw was Boeing cling even tighter to it, bind their future even more to getting the last penny out of the MAX product.

Same with customers: it was the easiest time ever to decide to part from the MAX, and while some of the smaller and weaker carriers did, the larger and stronger ones doubled down and ordered more.

Are people letting their fantasies blind them? It's right in front of them, the hand is in front of the face.

MAX isn't going to be replaced till we see sales stop cold for several years and the backlog drops to 1-2 years production.

Till that happens, talk of a direct replacement is fantasy.

Boeing clearly will aim for where they have no coverage at all, above the MAX10, rather than shoot their own foot off and aim to replace the MAX8.

Same people saying mcas was going to kill MAX are now saying Boeing itself will kill the MAX.

At least they are consistent, consistently wrong...

Boeing and the airlines did not have an option but to continue with the MAX. What were they choose?

Boeing if they walked away would not have a product in the narrow body segment. So what do you do? Design a new plane and hope to sell it 8 years from now? What is there in the interim?

Airlines did not have a choice either because there are only two options that can be pumped out at volume. Even if an airline wanted to go Airbus, would they be willing to wait 7 years to get a plane?

Boeing whether they like or not will have to design a new plane, and hopefully they do not buy into the NMA fantasy. Make a MAX replacement and look towards a re-engine of the 787. That right there should offer enough economic benefit to drive business going forward.

The MAX was beyond the point of no return, with mass production in place. I feel Boeing needs a way out to ensure the 3000 NB's on order remain in the order books. It would be handy if airlines have the option to convert part of their backlog into a superior, new Boeing NB.

If Airbus launches a "cheap" same wing A322NEO, based on the 101t A321XLR, that can easily cover Europe, US mainland and China with 250 passengers, what will be left of the MoM/NMA projections? If AA, DL, UA order 100 Mobile, Pratt powered A322s each and Airbus leaves the 2023 Paris Airshow with 554 A322 conversions / commitments, can't believe that? Why?


Source keesje.

Experienced Boeing engineers / marketeers can easily estimate such an aircraft's specifications, time to market, costs and the impact on their NMA projections.

Boeing needs a solid longer term strategy, instead of hoping the 737-10 will do miracles. Airlines want to buy Boeing aircraft, they want competition among OEM's (REF IAG, Qatar) . But they need Boeing offering superior aircraft for the next 30 years. Not failed upgrades of real old ones. And Boeing can't afford another 748 / MAX / 777x. Stop the "fully understanding", talking, cashing, draining.

Boeing needs a solid longer term strategy, instead of hoping the 737-10 will do miracles. Airlines want to buy Boeing aircraft, they want competition among OEM's (REF IAG, Qatar) . But they need Boeing offering superior aircraft for the next 30 years. Not failed upgrades of real old ones. And Boeing can't afford another 748 / MAX / 777x. Stop the "fully understanding", talking, cashing, draining.

This.
Airlines want competition and a choice.

Boeing had been early with thinking about concepts for this market segment but wasted years over years. Now they have no offer in this size?

keesje wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

They have bet the house with MAX.

If there ever was a time to walk away from a product we just saw it, yet what we saw was Boeing cling even tighter to it, bind their future even more to getting the last penny out of the MAX product.

Same with customers: it was the easiest time ever to decide to part from the MAX, and while some of the smaller and weaker carriers did, the larger and stronger ones doubled down and ordered more.

Are people letting their fantasies blind them? It's right in front of them, the hand is in front of the face.

MAX isn't going to be replaced till we see sales stop cold for several years and the backlog drops to 1-2 years production.

Till that happens, talk of a direct replacement is fantasy.

Boeing clearly will aim for where they have no coverage at all, above the MAX10, rather than shoot their own foot off and aim to replace the MAX8.

Same people saying mcas was going to kill MAX are now saying Boeing itself will kill the MAX.

At least they are consistent, consistently wrong...

Boeing and the airlines did not have an option but to continue with the MAX. What were they choose?

Boeing if they walked away would not have a product in the narrow body segment. So what do you do? Design a new plane and hope to sell it 8 years from now? What is there in the interim?

Airlines did not have a choice either because there are only two options that can be pumped out at volume. Even if an airline wanted to go Airbus, would they be willing to wait 7 years to get a plane?

Boeing whether they like or not will have to design a new plane, and hopefully they do not buy into the NMA fantasy. Make a MAX replacement and look towards a re-engine of the 787. That right there should offer enough economic benefit to drive business going forward.

The MAX was beyond the point of no return, with mass production in place. I feel Boeing needs a way out to ensure the 3000 NB's on order remain in the order books. It would be handy if airlines have the option to convert part of their backlog into a superior, new Boeing NB.

If Airbus launches a "cheap" same wing A322NEO, based on the 101t A321XLR, that can easily cover Europe, US mainland and China with 250 passengers, what will be left of the MoM/NMA projections? If AA, DL, UA order 100 Mobile, Pratt powered A322s each and Airbus leaves the 2023 Paris Airshow with 554 A322 conversions / commitments, can't believe that? Why?


Source keesje.

Experienced Boeing engineers / marketeers can easily estimate such an aircraft's specifications, time to market, costs and the impact on their NMA projections.

Boeing needs a solid longer term strategy, instead of hoping the 737-10 will do miracles. Airlines want to buy Boeing aircraft, they want competition among OEM's (REF IAG, Qatar) . But they need Boeing offering superior aircraft for the next 30 years. Not failed upgrades of real old ones. And Boeing can't afford another 748 / MAX / 777x. Stop the "fully understanding", talking, cashing, draining.

Boeing needs to focus on a family of aircraft at the lower end that scales. It is impossible to design a plane that does everything and as such, you design a plane that can cover as many missions as possible at different stage lengths. Start with an jetliner that offers double digit efficiency gains and unlike the MAX, offer a product that scales so that you can have larger variants that can tackle added range should airlines desire it.
Airlines that flew the 767 moved to the 787 because it was more efficient. Those that flew the 757 have similarly moved to other equipment over the years be it the 737 or the A320. This is what used to be the middle of the market.

What Boeing needs to focus on is getting an efficient 787 even more efficient when new power plants are available and then have a clean sheet replacement for the relic that is the 737. Airbus too should be looking at a wing for the A321, a potential stretch in the near term but in the medium term, start thinking about getting a lighter frame to match a new engine.

The MAX and NEO allowed airlines to get cheaper derivatives, however, the narrow body segment is something that needs new entrants from both Boeing and Airbus one there are engines available.

seahawk wrote:

Market share is only important for forum enthusiasts, as long as your production is running at capacity and you are seeing acceptable margins. Neither of the two should have an interest to really start hurting each other, which is wise considering that new technologies are on the horizon and new competitors are about to enter the fray.

Market share is everything when it comes to aviation. The more jets you sell today, the more you are likely to sell tomorrow and this is what makes vanity projects or poor execution extremely costly.

Lockheed Martin had a great product, and it did not help in the long run because they were an upstart trying to break in. McDonnell Douglas thinking that aviation was a mature market and all they needed to do was pump out derivatives also saw their market share wane. What they were doing in the narrow body segment was over once the A320 came along, and everything they were doing in the wide body segment dead as a dodo once the 767 and A330 could handle a lot of routes that needed less range and less capacity.

Boeing and Airbus compete for orders, each wanting to increase market share.

As for the competition, who are COMAC going to sell to? They will do that to airlines at home but they will find it extremely difficult selling aircraft abroad to airlines that already have a relationship with Airbus and Boeing.

Noshow wrote:

Boeing needs a solid longer term strategy, instead of hoping the 737-10 will do miracles. Airlines want to buy Boeing aircraft, they want competition among OEM's (REF IAG, Qatar) . But they need Boeing offering superior aircraft for the next 30 years. Not failed upgrades of real old ones. And Boeing can't afford another 748 / MAX / 777x. Stop the "fully understanding", talking, cashing, draining.

This.
Airlines want competition and a choice.

Boeing had been early with thinking about concepts for this market segment but wasted years over years. Now they have no offer in this size?

And the OEMs do not want that. As long as both are running at capacity and earn good margins, it is totally okay for Airbus and Boeing to have the MAX with a little advantage in the -7/-8 and the A321 with a little advantage over the -9/-10. A nicely balanced duopoly is perfect for both.

seahawk wrote:

And the OEMs do not want that. As long as both are running at capacity and earn good margins, it is totally okay for Airbus and Boeing to have the MAX with a little advantage in the -7/-8 and the A321 with a little advantage over the -9/-10. A nicely balanced duopoly is perfect for both.

They are both publicly traded stock.

The very worst they want is to maintain market share even as the need for aviation continues to grow. Investors also want to see revenues and profits going up, and if they are wise/have any common sense, they will insist on long term planning. Boeing is not going to be profitable for quite some time unless they become really, really creative in how they report. It has nothing to do with program accounting but poor execution across multiple product lines.

Boeing is in the hole they are in today because they were pandering to the short term dictates that dominate Wall St.in combination to making some strange decisions to cater to a few airlines.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And the OEMs do not want that. As long as both are running at capacity and earn good margins, it is totally okay for Airbus and Boeing to have the MAX with a little advantage in the -7/-8 and the A321 with a little advantage over the -9/-10. A nicely balanced duopoly is perfect for both.

They are both publicly traded stock.

The very worst they want is to maintain market share even as the need for aviation continues to grow. Investors also want to see revenues and profits going up, and if they are wise/have any common sense, they will insist on long term planning. Boeing is not going to be profitable for quite some time unless they become really, really creative in how they report. It has nothing to do with program accounting but poor execution across multiple product lines.

Boeing is in the hole they are in today because they were pandering to the short term dictates that dominate Wall St.in combination to making some strange decisions to cater to a few airlines.

I think both would be very happy with keeping the market share at 50:50 and with no third player gaining market share.

astuteman wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Obviously there are some tradeoffs they are willing to make that don't have that big of a penalty or have come up with a clever solution that you might have not have thought of.

Out of interest, why is this obvious?

Rgds

Well I don't think there are that many disadvantages when you start thinking of this as a widened narrow body vs 767 in size but some posters do think differently and believe it's a non-starter. Picture an A320 Fuselage with the sides bulged out 15" on each side. So it will have a bigger cross section but will be shorter so the wetted area and internal volumes are essentially the same.

Obvious as the rumours/articles won't die (that it will be a tight/light 2x aisle) and were there even way back when Boeing went with the MAX vs NSA.

Boeing has been working on this an awful long time so I'm sure they have figured out ways to optimize it. I have no doubt the clever engineers at Airbus could do the same if they choose to do so.