Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1253 posts, RR: 21 Posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15662 times:
"Boeing Goes Back to Drawing Board for 737RS Follow-on"
Aviation Week, 05/19/2008, page 28
Boeing is abandoning its long-running effort to devise a successor to the 737, driven back to the drawing board by the lack of existing technology that can deliver the huge leap in performance airlines want for a next-generation single-aisle aircraft.
The design team has reportedly been transferred to the 787 program some time ago...
The manufacturer openly admits the change of strategy, saying, “We know customers are demanding really high targets for this aircraft, and we know that with the state of technology, we’re not going to get there anytime soon.” As a result, Boeing adds, “We’re focusing on technology efforts and reducing the aircraft design effort while the technology matures.”
Boeing’s 737RS study emerged from the product development group’s P-1 project of the late 1990s, and was later absorbed as a subset of the Yellowstone project.
Confirms that the 737RS was planned as a scaled down 'son of the 787' using the same technologies.
Boeing has not publicly stated the 737RS targets, but they are believed to be cost reductions in the 20-25% range. A company official clarifies, however, that “you can’t just do a shrink of the 787; it’s not as easy as that because of the different missions, higher cycles and shorter range. You can’t shrink the 787 because of the systems. You need volume to handle the systems on the 787. With this study, we really need breakthroughs.”
This brings us closer to what might be the motivation behind the change in strategy. The 787 technology benefits, especially from CFRP primary structures and a bleedless power architecture, where never that compelling in a small, short-range aircraft context. It has become even more questionable now that the weight and efficiency targets have not been met even in the large, long-range aircraft 787 context.
The transformation of the 737RS project into a more sweeping technology study effort is sparking industry speculation that this will inevitably push any prospective development of a 737 successor toward 2017-19.
But then there's sort of a disclaimer...
Boeing declines to be more specific on the impact of the decision or the potential for further slippage. It simply says, “We expect the rate of this technology development to be available in the latter part of next decade, and we’ve said this will be no earlier than 2015.”
...which basically gets us back to square one: We might still see a 737 follow-on by 2015!
Davescj From United States, joined Jun 2007, 1563 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15510 times:
This question perhaps belongs in Tech/ops, but I'll post it here as it relates to the 737 question.
We know Boeing is using advanced composites for the fuselage of the 787. From my limited understanding, it isn't a metal body to weld together, rather sections are "cast" (for lack of a better word) that are then "snapped" together at final assembly.
My question: could a similar process not be used for the 737? Obviously, we have the technology to make the materials. Obviously, Boeing knows the size for all parts of the 737. Could they not use that technology on the 737? Are they already?
Second question, is the issue also related to the power out put of the engine? I know for quite sometime Boeing has wanted a "more efficient" engine, is this part of the problem?
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 317 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15434 times:
A scaled down 787 would never be able to carry open rotor engines.Airlines want "the big leap" and this technology is de rireur for this outcome. This week GE stated (in flight article) that they were looking at this technilogical route as (as far as anyone can tell) is Rolls.Its a whole new ball game. But I feel certain that carbon fibre will still be the primary construction method.
FlyAriana From Germany, joined May 2008, 3 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15385 times:
Hi Airliners.net community !
After years of lurking I have finally joined !
Back on topic:
It somewhat looks like "If you move first, you will be shot".
What I don't understand: With Airbus and Boeing pushing the EIS of their respective NB further back, wouldn't it be good chance for a third manufacturer to develop a /- 150 seater ? Maybe with an EIS in 2012 with todays technology they might find some 10 years of strong sales. I'm especially thinking on Embraer as they are already pretty close to that market. Or is there a gentlemen's agreement between those manufacturers to not step into each other market ?
Flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15299 times:
I belive that Boeing is is now in the same position as Airbus. They have to spend some more manpower and money on the 787 and also the 777 needs some refreshment to overhaul to not fully give le VLA and large aircraft market to Airbus, while at the same time an all new 737 NG wouldn't bring the benefit compared to the money to be spent.
Also with the learning of doing CRFP planes, they probably realized that the benefit of a 787 fuselage type 737NG doesn't bring the benefit expected, so that the most advantage will be engine technology and aerodynamics improvement.
For me it looks that we will see rather another 737 3rd. Gen with new engines and some limited other improvements then a 737NG.
I also believe that Airbus is going the same way with the A320 series. The next A320 will be a A320 SEH = 'super enhanced' with probably GTF technology, improvements on the wings and such. Airbus may have it easier to adopt partly CRFP with their 'panel CRFP technoloy´combined with their 'Glare' material, which would allow CRFP and other material improvements just where beneficial.
I wonder if we wouldn't see similar technologies at Boeing in the future and a 777 'enhanced' would be a perfect candidate for that. I am waiting for a 4 GTF engined 777 'enhanced' (my dream) accepting the blame of the A'net twin engine fraction .
A 737 3rd gen. may need a GTF engines as a must even if it may be more expensive to adopt it to the 737 then on Airbus A320. But they may need to go through it.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 441 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 15018 times:
Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 4): I am waiting for a 4 GTF engined 777 'enhanced' (my dream) accepting the blame of the A'net twin engine fraction
.
A 737 3rd gen. may need a GTF engines as a must even if it may be more expensive to adopt it to the 737 then on Airbus A320. But they may need to go through it.
For sure that would be a sight to see! I am not so sure this will happen though.
First this topic shows that Boeing is in real trouble with the B787. Every resource that they have (or do not have) are being assigned to the programme. Even when it costs giving away a possible advantage Boeing could have compared to Airbus when it comes to the successor of their real cash-cows, the B737 and A320. Lets hope this move will work out fine for Boeing and let them put the B787 in the air a.s.a.p.!
As for the B737-RS and also the A320-Enhanced: It becomes clearer and clearer that the usage of CFRP alone is not the holy grail in order to save lots of money on SFC for manufacturers and airliners. Maybe on the maintenance part the material will have advantages, but I believe even there the jury is still out.
As it stands only a radical improvement in further weight savings and aerodynamics, but even more important, in more fuel efficient engines will bring the real successors of the B737 and A320 out in the open and on the market. As long as the engines are not drastically better than they are today (I am not saying todays engines are not good), the manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing will wait. Anyone who will give it a try know will be "punished" by the market when the real improvements are available out there. So I think everyone will be cautious. Besides that, the order books for the B737-NG and the A320 series are still very full. So there is no need to rush a new development there.
Which is the text of the article and which is your commentary? Without a source linked, it's hard to tell.
Anyway, the premise of the article, if the first sentence is from the article, is a complete fallacy. Boeing is in no way 'abandoning' the development of a 737 successor. That is just the wrong word entirely. They may be putting it on hold, rethinking it based on technology available, etc. But they ARE planning on creating a successor, thus it is in no way abandoned.
The talk of pushing it back to 2015,2017, 2019 only confirms to me though that the original plan was for 2012-2013, which is what I kept saying, but now that it's 2008 (the launch year for a 2012-2013 EIS) they are leaking that they aren't going to be ready, mostly due to the 787 fiasco, but claimed to be because of external factors. Such is life, such is spin…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2117 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14921 times:
Boeing initially must have thought that all they had to do was to copy-paste the CFRP fuselage technology of the 787 to a 737-size frame to have a winner, but in the mean time they have found out the hard way (with the 787-9) that CFRP barrel fuselages have a close to zero weight advantage over similar sized Al fuselages (A330), a difference which is going to be completely insignificant for a 737/A320 sized plane, hence them halting the studies.
It seems that after the recent comments about the excessive weight of the 787, this is actually the second indirect confirmation from Boeing that the weight reductions from first generation CFRP fuselages have been too highly rated...
After all the PR mantra about the alleged higher operating efficiency of bleedless engines, something which was quickly put down by the engine manufacturers and the subsequent focusing on the fabulous weight advantages of 'monolithic' CFRP fuselages, it now seems that basically nothing really immediately spectacular comes out of the 787, other than gains which can also be achieved by evolutionary progresses.
Its 'bleedless engines' aren't more efficient than similar bleeding engines and its 'revolutionary' monolithic fuselage isn't spectacularly lighter than that of an A330.
As such attention has shifted from immediate operating savings, to potential long term savings from reduced maintenance, but this remains to be seen: hence Boeing taking the cautious approach and canning their plans to use the technology used on the 787 for their entire future new family.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that as time goes by, Boeing learns that some things are better kept as they were and backtracks a bit to end up finding out that the best technology for the future is something like Airbus uses on the A350.
VHHYI From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14902 times:
Well, 737 and A320 are only going to get more efficient due to the work of A/B and engine manufacturers. On the A320 there is room to go further with engines, but can the 737 possibly take another powerplant?
Maybe Udvar-Hazy will get his wish and an event similar to 757 'replacing' 727 will happen.
This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5057 posts, RR: 69 Reply 9, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14866 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): They may be putting it on hold, rethinking it based on technology available, etc. But they ARE planning on creating a successor, thus it is in no way abandoned.
Pretty much the same as the A380F then....
Quoting Rheinbote (Thread starter): A company official clarifies, however, that “you can’t just do a shrink of the 787; it’s not as easy as that because of the different missions, higher cycles and shorter range. You can’t shrink the 787 because of the systems. You need volume to handle the systems on the 787. With this study, we really need breakthroughs.”
I found this the most interesting comment of all.
Does this point to the scale of difficulties in industrialising the systems as they are on the 787, in such large volumes?
Putting the cracked record on again, our first choice of focus always seems to be on the CFRP fuselages, when for my money, there are far greater industrialisation issues in the plethora of small, but pretty specialist stuff which goes to make an aircraft.
Olle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14766 times:
This must be a big trouble for Boeing...
Airbus seems to be in the process to integrate more efficient engines in teh 320 models and Boeing must make the 737 line follow in order to not loose that market.
What can they (Boeing) do in quit short period? When can Airbus be expected to deliver a more efficient 320NG that will make 737 obsolete?
Quote: Airbus is targeting the end of 2010 for certification for its enhanced service goal package for A320 family aircraft.
Originally certified to operate for 48,000 cycles/60,000 flight hr., the family has an initial enhanced target of 60,000 cycles/120,000 hr. and a second target of "as much as is economically feasible," Airbus said. A retrofit will be made available, Executive VP-Alain Flourens said at the manufacturer's Technical Press Briefing in Toulouse.
Airbus spends more than €100 million ($154.6 million) each year on development engineering and upgrades for the A320 family. Future initiatives include "Brake to Vacate" technology, more efficient taxiing (including electric taxi), FANS B+, ACARS over GSM/IP and the enhanced service goal structural test elements. It also has identified two tonnes of weight reduction that can be realized through "simple modifications."
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9712 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14624 times:
This is looks to me like Boeing simply needed those engineers on the 787 programme and invented a convenient excuse to avoid an even greater negative PR hit.
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1043 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14568 times:
IMO I don't think Boeing have got a thing to worrty about regarding the 320 and likely developments there.
Both manufacturers are producing their respectibe 150 seaters as fast as they can, and both still have a huge backlog, and continuing orders.
Both know that to "jump the gun" would introduce huge risk that the other manufacturer would respond with an even better offering.
Therefore both will stretch out the development as long as airlines keep ordering them.
I don't think it has to do with the 787 at all. Being able to transfer workers there is just a bonus.
The technology they are waiting for is engine and system, not airframe technology.
GolfOscarDelta From United States, joined Feb 2008, 41 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14447 times:
Is Vought by any chance working on a 737/A320 replacement to get back in the game?
Disclaimer: I heard this from a friend whose friend is working on something at his University, so i have no idea how true this is. But my friend was positlively convinced that it was.
Apparently the friend-of-friend is working on a project that involves some kind of design validiaton for Vought and the validation stuff is for a 150 odd seater aircraft.
So my question is does any of you know if
1. Vought is trying ot seize an oppurtunity and be a 3rd player in the market.
2. B probably outsourced some of their 737RS work to Vought
3. Somebody (other than B) and Vought are jointly studying a 737/A320 replacement
or have my friend and his friend been smoking something lately?
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5057 posts, RR: 69 Reply 15, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14315 times:
Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 15): Is Vought by any chance working on a 737/A320 replacement to get back in the game?
Never say never, and all that, but a new entrant into the A320/737 market has some serious barriers to entry to overcome....
Not least of which, if you were supplying components to the 737 and/or A320, and were stretched to the limit, looking at 2000+ backlogs for each aircraft, how inclined would you be to divert scarce resources to a riskier competing product?
Once slack starts to appear in the supply chain, things might change, but before that?
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 12997 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14265 times:
I would not be so quick to dismiss the benefits of CFRP in terms of weight-savings.
Remember that the 737RS fuselage will likely be spun as a single piece and not multiple barrels. 737 fuselages are shipped complete from Spirit in Wichita to Boeing Renton. So you will save weight in fasteners and additional structure at the joins needed on the 787 (and likely on the 777RS). Yes, it will not be amazing (savings will likely be measured in the tons as opposed to tens of tons), but it will result in a stronger and lighter frame optimized for high-cycle operations which should make it a darling with LCCs.
And for those crowing that the 787's CFRP structure saves no weight over the A330's Al structure, one wonders how "light" the A350 will be compared to the A340 and 777, as well, since it's process is likely to be even "heavier" then the 787's process...
Airbus continues to be silent about the OEW numbers even as they approach final design freeze...
Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 15): Is Vought by any chance working on a 737/A320 replacement to get back in the game?
I think Spirit has the inside line for the 737RS if it is made of CFRP due to both being one of the (if not the) best 787 suppliers and that they currently build the 737NG fuselage. And now that they are an A350 partner, they might have the inside line for a CFRP A320RS, as well.
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8575 posts, RR: 16 Reply 18, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13788 times:
It think going to CFRP for a 737 replacement may only marginally help long term ops costs (especially fuel) but may raise considerably the sales price with the possibility of losing customers or seeing fewer orders unless they shave their profit margins. A major jump in tech may also create mx and related cost issues for the biggest buyers of the current 737, Southwest and Ryanair. Right now they are running at full capacity with the 737 - why mess that up? Still, if they persist in only doing another relatively minor revision of existing 737's in the meantime to hold them to about 2015 or later they may lose some sales to Airbus.
There is no doubt the issues of the 787 which is the most important aircraft for Boeing since the 747 as well as needed revisions to the 777 and 747 is sucking up a lot of engineering time and attention away from the 737.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 1253 posts, 
From United States, joined Jun 2007, 1563 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 317 posts, 
.
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 441 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2117 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 62 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5057 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 149 posts, 
From India, joined Mar 2008, 477 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9712 posts, 
