User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13044
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:39 pm

Latest news is Boeing is delaying a decision on re-engining, slightly upgrading (Plus) and/or replacing the 737.

http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Boe...0-10-05T091859Z-INTERVIEW-UPDATE-1

I can imagine the 737 "plus" upgrade mentioned by Boeing recently isn't having the airlines stumbling over each other to place large orders. The Competition from Airbus (Neo), Bombardier (CSeries), OAK and Comac seems to go for new, high bypass turbofans to achieve fuel efficiencies higher the 10% over current narrwobodies. Gaining 2-3% by tweaking the good old 737 probably makes placing orders for the next 20-25 years in the 737+ less attractive.

Boeing is studying various new designs, including a 7 abreast oval cabin, new open rotor engines, new composites and other new technology.

I wonder what if Boeing engineering says they think a good new platform and associated supplychain can be ready by 2022 and the airlines say they just can't wait for that.

I guess inbetween a slight upgrade (plus), suboptimal re-engining (single digit) and entirely new aircraft there must be alternative options. What would it take to make the 737 base platform competitive for the next 15 years? I guess a serious re-engining, including optimized wing- pylon, generous ground clearance for high BPRs, new landing gears and a new cockpit replacing the 55 yr old 707 nose design would help.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Radical4Bill737Upgrade737-900XG.jpg

No doubt it would cost a lot of money. Being sidelined for a decade in the biggest market segment also costs a lot though..

[Edited 2010-10-05 06:04:12]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CplKlinger
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:05 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:04 pm

I had always agreed with the thought that a "makeover" of the 737 could be a hit. To me, it's sort of a compromise between bleeding edge tech like the 787 and the tried and true work on the earlier 737's. With the longer variants (-700, -800, and -900) a landing gear reconfigure could be done with a fair amount of work, and I don't think that the extended heights would put the aircraft in too much of an odd balance situation.

In the end, the airlines would get the solid frame they are used to, with modern effeicencies. Now as long as they can get it to show steam-style gauges on the panels, their favorite customer would definitely be interested...
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:08 pm

This is IMO the minimum to keep the pace of the A320.
Only the new cockpit is not really needed to keep the competitivness. There is no business case for that IMO.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:22 pm

Boeing must do something; standing pat is not a viable option. There is no doubt that they have a harder job with re-engining than Airbus, and the question is whether or not to just go for a new design. Doing so is gambling that there will be no major breakthrough that will render their new design obsolete before it can pay for itself. Personally I doubt that that will happen, but I could be wrong. This will certainly be the most important decision Boeing makes in a long time; let's hope they get it right. Whether or not they do will not be known for years; but doing nothing is definitely the wrong decision.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
CplKlinger
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:05 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:23 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 2):
Only the new cockpit is not really needed to keep the competitivness. There is no business case for that IMO.

I disagree. To continue to use the old section poses serious disadvantages to using new technology like bigger, wider LCD screens, and also allows more space for HUD installs and the like. If I'm buying a new build, I want all the fancy toys (or at least the option to install them myself) up front as well. Additionally, I do believe that a new build cockpit section could indded reduce drag like the OP stated, which could lead to better fuel burn. Even if it's 2-3% per frame, that adds up across a fleet.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:06 pm

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 4):
I disagree. To continue to use the old section poses serious disadvantages to using new technology like bigger, wider LCD screens, and also allows more space for HUD installs and the like. If I'm buying a new build, I want all the fancy toys (or at least the option to install them myself) up front as well. Additionally, I do believe that a new build cockpit section could indded reduce drag like the OP stated, which could lead to better fuel burn. Even if it's 2-3% per frame, that adds up across a fleet.

Whether or not they redo the cockpit will depend on whether or not they can shoehorn the desired changes in the old one, and whether it will in fact reduce drag. They will not do it unless they can make it materially improve performance. One factor you did not mention is lengthening the nose gear (which Boeing says they need to do to accommodate the new engines.) That in itself may require a redesigned nose section, and may trigger a complete new nose.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13044
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:43 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
One factor you did not mention is lengthening the nose gear

hey I mentioned it! I think the separate enhancements (drag, noise, weight, screens, landing gear) by themsleves do not justify he investment. It's the combination. The marketing value of a new 787 / CSeries looking nose should not be overestimated, and also not be underestimated..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3947
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:44 pm

Some changes were discussed here

Another Possible 737 Replacement Design? (by kanban Sep 24 2010 in Civil Aviation)

If the design in the above thread was pursued, there would be significantly more room in the cockpit.. if they stay with the current diameter, there might be some aerodynamic reshaping to a 787 style and maybe some elongation for systems hardware space
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:49 pm

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
I can imagine the 737 "plus" upgrade mentioned by Boeing recently isn't having the airlines stumbling over each other to place large orders.

Not surprising seeing as they haven't actually launched it.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
new landing gears

New main gears would be a waste unless they are going with a new wing.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
a new cockpit replacing the 55 yr old 707 nose design would help.

Only if it saves money somehow.

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 1):
To me, it's sort of a compromise between bleeding edge tech like the 787

The 787 isn't really bleeding edge tech anymore. Even the 787-9 which was frozen recently will be more advanced. Anyway, an all new design would require some technology beyond the 787.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 2):
This is IMO the minimum to keep the pace of the A320.

Based on what we're hearing about the NEO, this (which appears to have no basis in public reality) would do more than keep pace. But it couldn't happen in 2014.

[Edited 2010-10-05 07:51:17]
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:15 pm

While the 737NG is routinely shat upon by a number of Airbus Aficionados who then proclaim the A320NEO will own 70% of the market, with the 737NG fighting it out amongst the CSeries, MRJ-21, C919 and MS-21 for the "30% scraps", they always fail to note that the 737 family has secured 262 gross orders for the year compared to 221 for the A19/A320/A321.

So perhaps Airbus is pushing all these upgrades because it's the A320 that needs to be improved in the face of a 737NG that entered service almost a decade later and has seen consistent improvements ever since, with more on the way?  

So far, the only serious threat to either Boeing or Airbus looks to be the MS-21, and the biggest customer for that, SU, just signed a deal to lease a shedload of 737NGs - so many that it matches their current A320 family fleet (not counting undelivered frames on order).
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
SU, just signed a deal to lease a shedload of 737NGs - so many that it matches their current A320 family fleet (not counting undelivered frames on order).

For what it's worth, it seems that those planes will not be flying for SU.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
CplKlinger
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:05 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:36 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
The 787 isn't really bleeding edge tech anymore. Even the 787-9 which was frozen recently will be more advanced. Anyway, an all new design would require some technology beyond the 787.

It may not be bleeding edge anymore, but it certainly is more advanced than the continual retouching of a 30+ year old design. The combination of the pieces of the original 737 design with new 787 tech would in itself produce a much more advanced airframe than is currently available.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:13 pm

Although I accept that most disagree.I still believe that the "curve ball" is OR.RR/GE/Safran continue to deveop it.It won't (if at all) be ready till very late in the decade.It is (must be) accepted that the noise issues have/can be addressed ("below stage4").Such an announcement would be meaningless if such test work was not done with the OR producing (at a scaled level) the correct amount of thrust.No body argues that such technology delivers an extra 10-15% improvement Sfc on top of Leap-X type engines.

Of course it may not work at all.I accept that.But what if it does?If Boeing goes early with a design that cannot accept such an engine and Airbus (post NEO) goes late with a design that does.....

As such it may well be in Boeings interest to develop their own NEO for the short term. Although many keep on talking about new undercarriages it ignores the fact that Boeing have already installed a mock Leap-X engine on a 737 to proove that it can take the engine without such a change. OK the fan diameter is a litte compomised, but not much.And as Stitch points out -it's not as if this aircraft is selling badly right now - even better than the 320?

Personally I cannot believe that these very serious companies don't talk.If Boeing said NO to OR then I don't believe for a moment that the expensive research work would continue - why would it?That's not to say that success is guaranteed -it's not.But Boeing - who after all has been very keen on the concept in the past clearly is on board with this technological development.It is IMHO inconceivable that they are not.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1500
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:29 pm

this could be a fun discussion....especially if we can get some real numbers associated with proposed changes.

How much additional ground clearance? How significant a change to the wingbox to accomodate the taller main landing gear?

With the larger cockpit...how would you re-arrange things? Would it take ques from the 757, 737 and 787? Now that you've got a larger cockpit...do you introduce new avionics?


What form would the re-profiling of the already supercritical wing for the 737 take? Probably still need to keep the blended winglets....because raked wingtips (ala 777/787) would increase span too much.

Cockpit, Wingbox, Wing Reprofile, Engines, Nose/Main landing gear........ Lot to spend. How much of a price premium would the 737Radical command? How much of this price increase is offset by operational savings (this is an issue with 320Neo as well, but we are talking allot more money being spent on 737Radical).
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:36 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 12):
Although I accept that most disagree.I still believe that the "curve ball" is OR.

I happen to agree with you that Open Rotor is "the joker in the deck". Pratt believes that in-situ, that 10-15% SFC advantage over GTF will largely shrink due to mounting and structural trade-offs and I imagine CFM is saying much the same on OR vs. LEAP-X, but then they have a vested interest in casting FUD on it.

But the fact is that OR will require a tail-mounted solution and that will require either a T-tail configuration for the horizontal stabilizers or something like the configuration the NASA 747 Shuttle Carrier used. Now that second option would allow traditional turbofans to be mounted, as well, but it raises maintenance issues and with large, heavy high-BPR engines, center-of-gravity issues come into play with means you need longer fuselages forward of the wing to counter this, which means no "widebody" designs and a more unwieldily airframe to maneuver around airports.

Perhaps Boeing will launch something like their "Kermit Cruiser":

Boeing Kermit Cruiser Low-Noise Concept


The fuselage looks "widebody" in style, so it could be short with twin aisles and if you put all the cargo forward of the wing, that would help with balance and CoG. If Boeing builds in some structural support to allow people to stand, it would help maintenance on the engines. And the wings and twin vertical stabilizers would help shield noise from both turbofans and Open-Rotor engines.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:56 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 12):
It won't (if at all) be ready till very late in the decade

That is highly optimistic. 2020 is probably the absolute earliest we'll see open rotor and 2025 might be closer to the mark.

Quoting parapente (Reply 12):
If Boeing goes early with a design that cannot accept such an engine and Airbus (post NEO) goes late with a design that does.....

It just isn't worth making the compromises open rotor would demand for a jet. If you use a tail mounted engine configuration, it isn't worth the heavier wings and t-tail (or twin tail) when it isn't needed on a jet.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 13):
especially if we can get some real numbers associated with proposed changes.

We probably won't as this appears to be purely Keesje's idea. I'm sure something like this is floating around Boeing, but they've said nothing publicly.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 13):
How significant a change to the wingbox to accomodate the taller main landing gear?

It would be significant because you change the gear because you change the wing, not the other way around.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Perhaps Boeing will launch something like their "Kermit Cruiser":

I'll reiterate what I said about the Airbus concept which is that I think that the 787 is plenty quiet. I would go tossing engines up there and doing two tails plus canards plus heavier wings just to reduce noise of a jet engine. If such a configuration returns real aerodynamic benefits or is necessary for open rotor, that changes things of course.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:14 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
I'll reiterate what I said about the Airbus concept which is that I think that the 787 is plenty quiet.

It is indeed quite quiet. As is the A380 (and I expect the A350 will be).

But Open Rotor is going to need rear mounting for clearance and damage-tolerance issues, so if you can also reduce low noise even more, that helps keep the NIMBYs at bay and increase slots or extend hours of operation.

Then again, you might very well not want the wings that far back (ala the KK) so perhaps something more like "Fozzie" with the Pi-Tail:

Boeing Fozzie - UDF Engines for Low Fuel Burn


Though that does not look too effective for "traditional" high-bypass turbine engines, so maybe you just have to split the difference between OR and HPT and go with "Beaker":

Boeing Beaker Concept - Lower Speed with Lower Fuel Burn
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:36 pm

I will reiterate my belief that OR will never be ready for prime time. There are two reasons, speed and noise. While I have no doubt that they will be able to get the OR quieter, they will also be able to make conventional turbofans even more quiet. Noise is a moving target, and aircraft noisier than the current models will meet too much resistance in heavily populated areas. The current standard is being set by the A380 and 787, and I doubt that OR will ever match that standard. The other issue is speed, and I again do not believe that OR will be able to come close enough to the current speed of today's narrowbodies. Note that commuter turboprops (which are much cheaper to own and operate) have still largely been replaced by RJ's. This is because passengers prefer them and they generate more revenue by virtue of higher utilization. Fuel consumption alone will not save the OR; if it cannot match the noise standard or the utilization of turbofans the airlines will not buy it. And I do believe that advances in turbofans will keep them close enough to the fuel economy of the OR that they will remain the preferred powerplants.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:36 pm

In reference to reply 14.

Yup if one believes that OR "might" work then the design of the aircraft must be tailored to suit.The illustation given is one possible route . I also can envisage (after a scotch!) an aircraft that would look like a cross between the Beech Starship and the Sonic Cruiser. This route would only work if the rotor noise issues really have (as stated by RR) been overcome as the engines are embedded in the rear or the wings.Trim is an issue of course.But perhaps the long LERX (as on the sonic cruiser) could be used to move fuel forward and aft as in Concorde.

Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought that forward mounted canards contibuted to lift rather than drag (as in conventional planes at the rear).This I thought (like the Piaggeo) was Burt Rutans "holly Grail" in reducing drag.Thus contributing towards a "breakthrough" design.

PS Yes it does look as if it is widebodied.The recent patent disclosure does strongly suggest that they are looking hard at this possibility.

As for 2020.That was RR's view not mine.But if they were correct....Next year is 2011.If you add say 5/6 years from then (fair?) to design,build,test,certificate and start to produce a brand new aircraft you are into 2016/7.Thats abit too close to 2020 for comfort -- if OR was found by RR/Safran/GE to be the long term solution and ready by 2020..
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:41 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
But Open Rotor is going to need rear mounting for clearance and damage-tolerance issues,

It isn't necessary for traditional jets though, and I think that it is not worthwhile to deal with the disadvantages of such a design when it isn't needed just so you might be able to slap open rotors on there at some point.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13044
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:51 pm

I believe late 2009 Boeing and Airbus concluded engine positions like the fozzy and various Airbus concepts would be hard to certify. The risks of one engine taking out the other were an issuet. The good old T tail did not seem such a bad idea afterall.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:14 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 18):

Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought that forward mounted canards contibuted to lift rather than drag (as in conventional planes at the rear).This I thought (like the Piaggeo) was Burt Rutans "holly Grail" in reducing drag.Thus contributing towards a "breakthrough" design.

Canards, however, have very significant hidden drawbacks. In order to be stable, the canard must stall before the main wing (else when the plane does stall it will fall to earth tail first, which would be unrecoverable.) This means that control authority must be limited, which means that landing speed is significantly increased. There is no easy solution for this; not even FBW can adequately compensate on an airliner because of failure modes. There is a reason that all airliners since the dawn of airline travel have been tube and wings conventional layout (the Concorde excepted) and the reason has not been overcome. I do not see anything on the horizon that will change this.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:36 pm

Just a point of clarification: the article does NOT state that the decision has been delayed, but rather, it "may" be delayed. Nothing definitive yet. Boeing is taking the time to listen to its customers and not rush into the wrong decision.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:18 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 18):
Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought that forward mounted canards contibuted to lift rather than drag (as in conventional planes at the rear).This I thought (like the Piaggeo) was Burt Rutans "holly Grail" in reducing drag.Thus contributing towards a "breakthrough" design.

And the lift of the canards will produce downwash, so the wing is less effective.
I never saw a real reason for a canard layout on an airliner.
Same applies for forward swept wings, which are even not useful for combat aircraft.
The pictures above can mostly be taking as entertainment.

Quoting SEPpilot:
There are two reasons, speed and noise.

According to engine manufacturers the noise will be lower than current turbo fans. Noise may be a moving target, but aviation reached a point where it isn't a major source of noise any more. Cars, trucks and trains are also loud.

RR says the cruise Mach number with and OR-engine is about .74 to .76.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:52 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 23):

According to engine manufacturers the noise will be lower than current turbo fans. Noise may be a moving target, but aviation reached a point where it isn't a major source of noise any more. Cars, trucks and trains are also loud.

RR says the cruise Mach number with and OR-engine is about .74 to .76.

I am quite dubious about those claims; if they really had solved these problems the aircraft manufacturers would be building planes using them. While the difference between Mach .75 and the current planes (Mach .82-.84?) may not sound like much, but operationally it is significant. As I said, if the problems really were solved the airplanes to use them would be in design, and if the problems are not solved there is no guarantee that they will be. Just from my own knowledge of physics I do not see how an OR can ever be made quiet enough or fast enough due to the problems when a blade exceeds the speed of sound. Shock waves can be reduced, but I have never heard any technology that can eliminate them. If you know of any I would be extremely interested in reading about it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13044
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:48 pm

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 13):
especially if we can get some real numbers associated with proposed changes.

I did the 737 radical upgrade within 1 hr, so not to much numbers involved   The cockpit was finished very quickly. I was a bit shocked by my own respect-less plastic surgery on one of the biggest aviation icons Big grin

- Cockpit -2 % drag ?
- New wing engine pylon combi; -14%, lower fuel consumption?
- Other tweaks -2 % drag ?
- Engines :-50% CO2, -3 dB noise ?
- Noise in cockpit -6 dB ?
- OEW of this 737-900ERX compared to 737-900ER: + 4% OEW ?
- Range + 12% ?

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00013503.jpg

Investments: $2 billion for the new engine, pylon, centerbox reinforcements? $1 billion for a new metal cockpit, $1 billion for the rest?

[Edited 2010-10-05 15:57:24]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21480
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:40 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21):
There is a reason that all airliners since the dawn of airline travel have been tube and wings conventional layout (the Concorde excepted) and the reason has not been overcome. I do not see anything on the horizon that will change this.

Concorde was no exception. Tube with wing-mounted engines. The only variance from that layout was that the wing root was exceptionally long.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3947
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:50 am

since composites allow for more free form thinking, does the fuselage need to stay the same diameter the whole length?

Could say the nose and first class section be 787 width tapering to steerage at 737/320 width?

Of course for pilots who want more room an adaption of a ships wheelhouse...   
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:55 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
While the 737NG is routinely shat upon by a number of Airbus Aficionados who then proclaim the A320NEO will own 70% of the market, with the 737NG fighting it out amongst the CSeries, MRJ-21, C919 and MS-21 for the "30% scraps", they always fail to note that the 737 family has secured 262 gross orders for the year compared to 221 for the A19/A320/A321.

The A320NEO would raise the market share at least to 70% if the 737NEO does not come. Sales will mostly be backlog constraint.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
... that the 737 family has secured 262 gross orders for the year compared to 221 for the A19/A320/A321.

Since 10 years the 737 and the A320 family are sold equally well. If one has a peak in one year are the other sells more in the next. Each time when the backlog of either one raises to high it will cause that for a certain period demand cools down a bit. That is the only explanation why the 737 is ahead of the A320 in 2010. Overall I think the A320 has sold slightly better.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
So perhaps Airbus is pushing all these upgrades because it's the A320 that needs to be improved in the face of a 737NG that entered service almost a decade later and has seen consistent improvements ever since, with more on the way?

Similar improvements have been constantly phased into A320 production as well.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:42 am

Timings.
Today we see a 10 frame order for the 737 from Indonesia's regional carrier.The delivery date given is somewhere in 2015.(They said that if possible they would like them earlier).But 2015 is the "standard" delivery slot they have been given.

Of course there will be more orders comming along -I don't think anyone doubts this. Then (speculating) what if the 200-300 Ryanair order does go to Boeing (as is the most likley outcome- although not certain, I grant).What is a fact is that Ryanair needs a large quantity of aircraft from somebody to meet their continued expansion plans.

So accepting this "if" where then is Boeings delivery scheduleI? - must be moving towards 2016 and beyond pretty rapidly I would have thought.

As such one can see that perhaps there is no "rush" to announce a new aircraft (or not). Personally I do not buy this 70% Airbus market share talk at all. It is more likely that the 320/1 NEO will be an extra (new) market segment for longer range operators replacing old 757's. The advantages for the classic 500-1,500 mile routes would be pretty minimal for the NEO I would have thought considering the additional expense.

Reply 24.
"I am quite dubious about those claims; if they really had solved these problems the aircraft manufacturers would be building planes using them".

They are not using them (OR) because they don't exist yet.As previously stated RR (and others state 2020 EIS).But I note you do not "believe" them. Nor do you "believe" them when they quote engine noise results. Well no.If you choose not to "believe" anything published that you don't want to "believe" then your arguement - to yourself alone- will always be right won't it? However that is fairly pointless.

I don't think anyone on this forum is stating that they "know" OR will work.But the work being done and the numbers produced so far do suggest that it might. We also see Airbus,Boeing and indeed dear old Easyjet showing aircraft concepts based around such engines.Are they all out of their minds?According to your "beliefs"- they are.Which is somewhat contrary I would suggest.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13044
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:04 pm

I think one party that should not be underesimated in trade-offs is GE/CFM. .For example they play(ed) a major role in the 777 program, providing the technology, financing, buying aircraft (lease). GE have a strong relationship with Boeing.

I can imagine GE/CFM isn't too happy if Boeing would pass on a 737 re-engine and push back a 737 replacement after 2020.

Biggest compititor PW got a good foothold at Bombardier, OAK and MHI. Airbus (Leahy) was unexpected generous last month when he openly confirmed performance and maintenance claims from PW (we checked & it works) for their GTF.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/gtfleapx.jpg

GE sofar only has a strategic deal with Comac that goes further then only the selection for the C919 series (EIS 2016?). It might be smart of them to push a few billion (in various ways) into a competitive 737 re-engining to get the LEAPX (-orderbook) rolling..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:47 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
Concorde was no exception. Tube with wing-mounted engines. The only variance from that layout was that the wing root was exceptionally long.

It was a delta wing and had no separate horizontal stabilizer; that was what I was referring to. If I had not excepted it I would have been barraged by complaints of "What about the Concorde????"

Quoting kanban (Reply 27):
Could say the nose and first class section be 787 width tapering to steerage at 737/320 width?

Wouldn't this create the higher drag of a wider fuselage without the additional capacity? The maximum frontal area would be the same, and the wetted area would be higher as well than a traditional narrowbody.

Quoting parapente (Reply 29):
I don't think anyone on this forum is stating that they "know" OR will work.But the work being done and the numbers produced so far do suggest that it might. We also see Airbus,Boeing and indeed dear old Easyjet showing aircraft concepts based around such engines.Are they all out of their minds?According to your "beliefs"- they are.Which is somewhat contrary I would suggest.

I am just voicing my opinion based on my knowledge; I do not claim to be any sort of authority. I have seen many claims made by many players in the aerospace field as to what they would be able to accomplish only to have them fall short when it comes to actually producing an aircraft. Of course Boeing and Airbus are both going to consider the possibility that the OR may become practical; they would be extremely foolish not to. But as I said earlier, if the problems really were solved they would be designing real aircraft to use it, not just sketching concepts. And if the problems are not yet solved, there is no guarantee that they will be. My position is that I do not believe that they will; I have no doubt that the people actually working on it believe otherwise, or else they would not still be working on it. OR is not a new idea; Boeing was seriously trying to make it work in the 80's, and gave up on it due to the noise and speed problems. Technology has advanced since then, but there are problems in nature for which there is no solution, although improvements can be made. I happen to believe that sonic shock waves is one of those problems, and I see no way to have a plane traveling at Mach .7 with an open rotor without the rotor tips going supersonic. Without a shroud around them I cannot see how noise can be kept to an acceptable level. But I am willing to concede that I could be wrong, and will wait and see.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
nycbjr
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:45 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:02 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 30):

BTW awesome mock-up I would love to see Boeing go this route, the flight-deck section looks surprisingly at home on the 737 fuse... as everyone else said, could they get the return on investment in the 10 year period.. but hey they can't sit on their butts and doing nothing!!

cheers
  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:17 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 30):
I can imagine GE/CFM isn't too happy if Boeing would pass on a 737 re-engine and push back a 737 replacement after 2020.

Why? They'd be selling plenty of CFM Evolutions in the interim, since that will become the standard engine for all 737NGs starting around 2011-2012, I expect.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8205
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:37 pm

From a purely layman's view, a new cockpit section sounds too expensive for the benefits it could provide. There is a reason Boeing hasn't changed it for several decades, and it isn't an inability to design something better.

The fact that this is a stop-gap measure makes its case even worse IMO. A new engine is about as much as I could believe, aside from any other relatively inexpensive tweaks. But I could be wrong! It will be a long time until a 737/320 replacement rolls out, let alone EIS/full production based on recent experiences. .

[Edited 2010-10-06 10:56:10]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:34 pm

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
What would it take to make the 737 base platform competitive for the next 15 years?

LEAP-X and the PW1000G, both of which can be added for a good deal less than $4 billion.

Then again, if $4 billion can give Boeing 70% of the narrowbody market, leaving the A320NEO as the plane fighting with the new comers for the "scraps", it might be worth the investment...

Because such a plane should kick an A320 NEO's butt, considering how the current model is holding it's own so well against the A320...
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:23 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 30):
I can imagine GE/CFM isn't too happy if Boeing would pass on a 737 re-engine and push back a 737 replacement after 2020.

But it would be their fault for designing an engine too big to fit on the 737. Of course, they didn't actually do that...
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:11 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 18):
This I thought (like the Piaggeo) was Burt Rutans "holly Grail" in reducing drag.Thus contributing towards a "breakthrough" design.

The Avanti is not a canard. It's more a biplane with a huge amount of stagger, with a conventional tail. There are no control surfaces on the forward wing.

Paiggio's reason for the forward wing is that they were trying to maximize cabin space, without the drag of an enormous fairing for the wing. So the main wing is mounted behind the cabin, and they needed some more up front to balance the thing. They also made the tail lift too, in that sense their design has some of the advantages claimed for canards.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
LEAP-X and the PW1000G, both of which can be added for a good deal less than $4 billion.

But according to the latest news they would only offer single digit improvements on the 737NEO which is less than the A320NEO would offer.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Because such a plane should kick an A320 NEO's butt, considering how the current model is holding it's own so well against the A320...

No. It will only reach parity with the A320NEO.

Look at the proposed changes (with reference tags added by me):

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
serious re-engining (Ref#1), including optimized wing- pylon (Ref#2), generous ground clearance for high BPRs (Ref#3), new landing gears (Ref#4) and a new cockpit replacing the 55 yr old 707 nose design would help (Ref#5).

My remarks about those:
Ref#1 is the alternative to a "simple re-engining" that offers smaller gains than the A320NEO (which itself will be a simple re-engining). So Ref#1 is just required to make full use of the SFC gains of the new engines. Ref#1 is also the umbrella requirement that requires almost certainly the inclusion of Ref#2, Ref#3 and Ref#4. This explains why Boeing found the simple re-engining case not so attractive. Because Ref#2, Ref#3 and Ref#4 have to be added to retrieve the potential of the new engines. Ref#2, Ref#3 and Ref#4 are nothing more than costly steps to achieve ref#1.

Conclusion:
This proposed 737 has nothing that would kick the A320NEO's butt. It is the minimum to keep parity. Everything less trails the A320NEO by 5% (per max efficiency gain estimates from both Boeing and Airbus, please don't question again the most accurate info we have).

Basically Kessje proposes a 737 that is seriously redesigned to overcome the issue of small ground clearance (by aadding Ref#2, Ref#3 and Ref#4). This would definitely bring it in the same league where the A320NEO is (but not a higher one). And at much higher cost (as I always said).

Now Ref#5 is useless to gain any notable effciency. I don't believe that since the fifties thousands of Boeing aircraft have efficiency deficits that could easily be overcome by a new nose. Just leave Ref#5 away and you have a complicated way to level the field with the simply transformed A320NEO.

737NG and A320 were equall on almost any aspect. But the 737NG resides on a much later point in the overall product life cycle. This is the underlying issue the 737 has. The upgradeability curve is declining just since the time when the A320 was drafted (since 30 years!!).
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13044
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:53 am

If the aircraft has a new cockpit, modified wings, new engines and systems, I think a new type name would justified. Boeing 797-900, or just new extensions Boeing 737-9.

The cockpit noise of 737 is a topic in various discussions and accident reports. It doesn't improve communications and pilots that have flown it over longer periods can see the frequencies in their audiograms. Boeing has been doing modifications to improve it. It obviously meets the minimum requirements, but that's about it. Apart from noise the cockpit isn't really sized to house the many big displays that come with newer aircraft types. Materials and aerodynamics (CFD) have come a long way since the fifties and I think a 2% aircraft drag reduction is not that farfetched to assume.. Boeing "replaced" the cockpit 30 years ago on the 757..

[Edited 2010-10-07 03:13:15]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:42 am

" What we think we're going to have do is we'd have to have a new pylon, a new nacelle, strengthening of the wing and potential strengthening of the wingbox."

Tinseth explains that Boeing "doesn't really want to touch the main landing gear and we don't have to. We've looked a little bit around maybe some minor modifications around the nose landing gear, still yet to be determined."

What I don't understand is "whats wrong with this quote"? I am also sure I have seen a picture where they even tested the new nacelle.If as they say they don't need to change the landing gear why are we always saying "they do have to".They don't.Unless this is another "we know better than you" arguement.

It seems that Boeing positively refuse to commit themselves before Airbus.So the ball is really back in their court now.They are/were due to state their intentions any day now as I recall.If they now jump behind Boeing again we may as well give up as that game could go on forever!

But I guess in the end, if this forum is correct, we will only see a re engine.As apparently there are no breakthroughs to be had using carbon on small aircraft,canards don't work,FSW wings don't work,OR doesn't work,wider body just adds drag etc etc.Airbus have stated that a new 320 today would look like...a 320 the same must then be true of the 737.Perhaps they are right.
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:26 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
But according to the latest news they would only offer single digit improvements on the 737NEO which is less than the A320NEO would offer.

You have to read that Bell quote carefully. It's pretty clear that he wasn't talking about pure SFC gains, rather about cost savings. "Right now it looks like the engines can get 10- to 15-percent more efficient, but it’s not flow-through efficiency,” Bell explained. “When you add the weight associated with the change in the design of the airplane and you add the cost, it looks more like a single-digit improvement..." (emphasis mine)

Nearly all of the factors that apply to the 737 calculations will apply to the A320 re-engine as well. A re-engined A32x is only going to beat a re-engined 737 by a couple of percentage points, if that, as long as you do an apples to apples comparison. Too bad we probably won't have a chance to find out for sure, since I don't think Boeing is going to do a re-engine, and I doubt we'll ever get to see the internal study results.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13044
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:38 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 40):
I am also sure I have seen a picture where they even tested the new nacelle.

Boeing did not test nay biggernacelle, there's no room. Maybe you mean the evolution nacelle.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...oeing-flies-cfm56-7b-evolutio.html

Quoting parapente (Reply 40):
It seems that Boeing positively refuse to commit themselves before Airbus.So the ball is really back in their court now.

I think it's smart for Boeing to wait how the market reacts on the A320/321 NEO/Sharklets. No doubt they are working out different scenarios as we speak. I think Boeing sofar studies a reenging were the engine BPR is adjusted to what practicle on the 737 without real radical modifications. A trade-off resulting in a moderate sfc improvement. Going after a design that maximizes the engine sfc improvement would IMO lead to a more radical and more expensive 737 upgrade as shown in the OP.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:23 pm

Quoting PITingres (Reply 41):
You have to read that Bell quote carefully. It's pretty clear that he wasn't talking about pure SFC gains, rather about cost savings.

It is clear as well that Airbus talks about overall cost savings as well when they speak of a "14% gain". See this quote from the Ryanair-thread:

“We’re interested in developments of the Airbus family in terms of any new engine option and given it’s potentially going to produce a cost-saving reduction of 12 to 14 per cent.”

Therefore up to 14% cost savings (and not SFC gain) can be considered as established for the A320NEO.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 41):
Nearly all of the factors that apply to the 737 calculations will apply to the A320 re-engine as well. A re-engined A32x is only going to beat a re-engined 737 by a couple of percentage points, if that, as long as you do an apples to apples comparison.

9% for the simple 737NEO vs. 14% for the simple A320NEO *is* apples to apples! The 320NEO has a solid 5% lead! See above quote!

Quoting PITingres (Reply 41):
"Right now it looks like the engines can get 10- to 15-percent more efficient, but it’s not flow-through efficiency,” Bell explained. “When you add the weight associated with the change in the design of the airplane and you add the cost, it looks more like a single-digit improvement..." (emphasis mine)

This means that Boeing can not install the new engines without loosing 5% of their basic sfc/efficiency gain. But we have evidence that Airbus can.

Therefore I stand by my assessment: the 737 drafted by Kessje in post #1 can only catch up with the A320NEO. The ground clearance issue cost the 737 5% and making that up requires roughly the measures mentioned:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
optimized wing- pylon, generous ground clearance for high BPRs, new landing gears


I would add that longer gears require changes to the wing and/or the wing/fuselage joint.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:24 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 39):
Apart from noise the cockpit isn't really sized to house the many big displays that come with newer aircraft types.

There's no panel space problem on a 737. It's got far more panel area than an E-jet, C-Series, or any biz jet and they all live happily with much larger displays. This is a complete red herring.

Quoting keesje (Reply 39):
Materials and aerodynamics (CFD) have come a long way since the fifties and I think a 2% aircraft drag reduction is not that farfetched to assume..

It's extremely far fetched. In addition, changing the cockpit would kill your common type rating, a very important factor for the 737. If you're going to sacrifice that, there's no reason to go for an upgrade and you might as well go clean-sheet.

Quoting keesje (Reply 39):
Boeing "replaced" the cockpit 30 years ago on the 757..

To keep it common with the 767.

Quoting parapente (Reply 40):
If as they say they don't need to change the landing gear why are we always saying "they do have to".They don't.Unless this is another "we know better than you" arguement.

Because, if Boeing doesn't have to do it (and they don't), then the "A320ENO will crush the 737-anything-version" argument totally deflates and a bunch of people have nothing to do. It is very much a "we know better than you" mentality.

Tom.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5427
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:32 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):

“We’re interested in developments of the Airbus family in terms of any new engine option and given it’s potentially going to produce a cost-saving reduction of 12 to 14 per cent.”

Therefore up to 14% cost savings (and not SFC gain) can be considered as established for the A320NEO.

Yes, it has potentially a cost savings of up to 14%. That is also consistent with a cost savings of 0% or 14%. We do not know how much it will actually be. What has been established, from my understanding, is that both the A320 and the 737 can have their economics improved by something under 14% by new engines; Boeing has stated that it will be in single digits when all factors are considered (which specifically INCLUDED higher initial cost) whereas Airbus has been less specific. What is not disputed is that Boeing will have to spend more to get the same improvement. But there has been no proof that the A320NEO will blow away the 737NEO, or vice versa. In fact, every indication is that they will probably be pretty close to where they are now competitively, and that is pretty darn close to even.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:00 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
But according to the latest news they would only offer single digit improvements on the 737NEO which is less than the A320NEO would offer.

I'm not doubting this statement, but can you point me to one of these articles? Because what I have been reading say LEAP-X and PW1000 should offer similar benefits to the 737NG as they would to the A320NEO.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
No. It will only reach parity with the A320NEO.

This statement, on the other hand, strikes me as nothing more than Airbus Fanboyism.

If the 737NG and A320 as they currently exist match up so well that they can effectively split the market, just adding new engines to an A320 while adding the same engines to a 737NG (thanks to the taller gear), plus a new wing (the 737NG's wing being newer than the A320s, already) and a new, more aerodynamic nose would only match the A320NEO in performance?

Puhleeze.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3947
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:01 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
737 has nothing that would kick the A320NEO's



I started to comment on this idea that there must be a clear victor that will take all the sales and force the competition to close attitude... (and Rheinwaldener I'm not picking on you) Yes we love our planes (all manufacturers) and we love debate... however football (European or American) kick butt analogies obscure the logical thoughts expressed.
Unfortunately we really have no idea what the manufacturers will do or what the improvement numbers are until they've committed themselves...

Personally I still see the 737 replacement as a stubby twin aisle with at least 4 lengths and ranges spanning the 737-757 envelope. the A320 series will not go that way and will continue to modify their younger airframe design in the short term
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:30 pm

OK,let us assume that both companies re engine with the obvious Leap-x engine.The one which has a brand new core already running and has compressed its eis schedule to meet the requirements of a similar sized Chinese plane.Neither need a new undercarriage but both need significant wing and pylon changes.And hell they will have similar perormance - bound to.Certainly not enough for wholesale fleet changes.What then?

Sadly we can wave bye bye to any brand new aircraft for a decade.Hmmm 2020- can't imagine what's coming round that particular corner!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade?

Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:54 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
But according to the latest news they would only offer single digit improvements on the 737NEO which is less than the A320NEO would offer.

We don't know exactly what numbers Airbus is talking about when it's on the wing, but they will get a little back with sharklets. I'd be shocked at anything over 13%.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
Ref#1 is the alternative to a "simple re-engining" that offers smaller gains than the A320NEO (which itself will be a simple re-engining).

What the hell is the difference between a "serious re-engining" and a "simple re-engining?" Either it has new engines or it doesn't.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
Ref#1 is also the umbrella requirement that requires almost certainly the inclusion of Ref#2, Ref#3 and Ref#4.

First, any engine is going to need a new pylon. Secondly, Boeing has stated that they don't need to be screwing around with the new main gear.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
This proposed 737 has nothing that would kick the A320NEO's butt.

So a new wing wouldn't help it then?

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 38):
Basically Kessje proposes a 737 that is seriously redesigned to overcome the issue of small ground clearance (by aadding Ref#2, Ref#3 and Ref#4).

And never mind the fact that the serious redesign isn't necessary if all they really want are the new engines.

Quoting keesje (Reply 39):
The cockpit noise of 737 is a topic in various discussions and accident reports.

It isn't worth the cost.

Quoting parapente (Reply 40):
" What we think we're going to have do is we'd have to have a new pylon, a new nacelle, strengthening of the wing and potential strengthening of the wingbox."

That is exactly what Airbus is going to have to do as well.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 41):
It's pretty clear that he wasn't talking about pure SFC gains, rather about cost savings.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the article said "fuel burn", but Bell's actual comments were more ambiguous.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
This means that Boeing can not install the new engines without loosing 5% of their basic sfc/efficiency gain.

Do you really think that Boeing loses 5% just on new pylons and nacelles? I bet that a lot of it comes from the extra weight necessary to carry the new engines, which Airbus cannot avoid.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
I would add that longer gears require changes to the wing and/or the wing/fuselage joint.

With the slight detail that they don't need to change the landing gear. The landing gear would change because the wing changes, not the other way around.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
Because what I have been reading say LEAP-X and PW1000 should offer similar benefits to the 737NG as they would to the A320NEO.

Of course they would. How retarded would one have to be to design an engine that wouldn't work for half of the potential market?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
This statement, on the other hand, strikes me as nothing more than Airbus Fanboyism.

It's changed a bit though. It used to be 1+1=3 for the A320. Now, it's 1+1+1=2 for the 737.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: barney captain, BravoOne, Vladex and 34 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