Another generic looking design!

petera380 wrote:

Another generic looking design!

If you read Jon's article, that is an intentional aspect of this early rendering.
The final article is likely to be different.

The whole point of the plane is to make it as cheap to build as possible. The fuselage shape (not really noticeable in that render) is going to be the most interesting part of the jet. The rest will look “generic”. Boeing is not going to be explorering new engine and wing configurations with th aircraft, that just increases costs and risks in an already questionable market for a brand new jet.

The artist rendering doesn’t mean much in terms of the final design, I expect the cockpit section in particular to resemble the 787 in its final form.

Polot wrote:

The whole point of the plane is to make it as cheap to build as possible. The fuselage shape (not really noticeable in that render) is going to be the most interesting part of the jet. The rest will look “generic”. Boeing is not going to be explorering new engine and wing configurations with th aircraft, that just increases costs and risks in an already questionable market for a brand new jet.

I agree, but he does point out how the rendering shows a shorter nacelle, both inlet side and outlet side, to offset additional cost of ever-increasing weight due to higher bypass ratio.

william wrote:

DId we really learn anything new? We (Anet) have been making the same guesses.

Confirmation is the key here. Most of us can just come up with things using our intuition or a dartboard, but Jon probably has a source.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

T A third thing, related to the previous two is what Boeing has learned with the 777X wing design and production.

While it is temporary, Boeing may have a significant lead over Airbus with the NMA.

So far, until the 777X goes into testing I would not take too much about what they learn producing the wings....have they even completed the static frame wing test?

QuarkFly wrote:

tlecam wrote:

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

Until we know the wingspan, weights and engine...we don't know much

Not to mention fuselage cross section . . .

par13del wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

T A third thing, related to the previous two is what Boeing has learned with the 777X wing design and production.
While it is temporary, Boeing may have a significant lead over Airbus with the NMA.

So far, until the 777X goes into testing I would not take too much about what they learn producing the wings....have they even completed the static frame wing test?

They are now building the first 777x wing, and to get to that point they've designed the entire wing, which means they've already learned a lot via simulation.
Implementation should just verify all the things you learned during design.

Looks like a 757 shape with 767 proportions. I know it's an early rendering but I like the loook!

So, nothing really new in Jon's article that hasn't been speculated about previously.

Boeing is doing an amazing job getting people to talk about a plane that's so far away and whose design and function isn't even solidified yet to distract from their current NB situation. Amazing really. Wonder why Airbus is yapping away too.

tlecam wrote:

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

I see nothing in this article but speculation based upon an artist's rendering. In other words......surmising a hyothetical conjecture. While A.netters know of the program and know of the basic outlines of the program we know nothing of the finality that will be the outcome of Boeing's engineering computations that result from their conversations with airlines as well as their own belief of what the future holds for their interpretation of an airlines needs in the future. Until Boeing announces the 797 it is all speculation. Hopefully, Farnborough will be the stage for Boeing's announcement!

Does anybody remember that "797" was the model of airplane used by the airline on the movie, The Doomsday Flight?

crimsonchin wrote:

So, nothing really new in Jon's article that hasn't been speculated about previously.

Boeing is doing an amazing job getting people to talk about a plane that's so far away and whose design and function isn't even solidified yet to distract from their current NB situation. Amazing really. Wonder why Airbus is yapping away too.

True, but a.net has speculated about pretty much everything so he was bound to hit a subset of such speculation.

deltadawg wrote:

I see nothing in this article but speculation based upon an artist's rendering. In other words......surmising a hyothetical conjecture. While A.netters know of the program and know of the basic outlines of the program we know nothing of the finality that will be the outcome of Boeing's engineering computations that result from their conversations with airlines as well as their own belief of what the future holds for their interpretation of an airlines needs in the future. Until Boeing announces the 797 it is all speculation. Hopefully, Farnborough will be the stage for Boeing's announcement!

Yet Jon is well connected and it's pretty much a given that it's a Boeing artist who did the rendering, which gives us a confirmation of the general direction we've been hearing.

And yes, we don't know as much as we will know once the program is announced. This is a similar amount of leaked information as we had about '7E7' at a similar time in its pre-announcement days which is fine by me.

I guess it's a sign of the time that everyone expects to know everything all the time?

Amiga - if Boeing (and I assume Airbus) can save upwards of $4 million in existing planes the savings in planes specifically designed to take advantage of 3D printing must be in the low 10 figure range. It strikes me as an entirely new ball game. This is not a speculative technology. All manufacturers are currently changing over.

Always cool to see the renderings and specs for new A and B planes. This seems to have a fair amount of detail and seems like logical iterations. While the plane might cost a significant sum of money to produce, it certainly does not appear to be a moonshot.

keesje wrote:

I think container cargo capability of the A321 next to its 220+ seat capacity is what makes it unique and a hot seller.

The 737, 757, A310, 767 never offered this combination of cost efficiency and capability.

Ben Sandilands ( ) wrote a nice article about this Asian perspective.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/10/08/airbus-mom-will-drive-asia-pacific-changes/

You are using your commentary to make a point that the article is not making. Forever, the A321 has been successful because "99% of the routes the 757 operates are done better with the A321." That LR is not changing that. But now all of a sudden "long and thin routes are the reason the 757 was great and now the A321 does it better." That is not the case. Stop trolling these forums repeating your container argument.

What airlines have a large A321 fleet or pending deliveries that either use container cargo or have stated "the container cargo sold us on the A321"?

airzona11 wrote:

Always cool to see the renderings and specs for new A and B planes. This seems to have a fair amount of detail and seems like logical iterations. While the plane might cost a significant sum of money to produce, it certainly does not appear to be a moonshot.

keesje wrote:

I think container cargo capability of the A321 next to its 220+ seat capacity is what makes it unique and a hot seller.

The 737, 757, A310, 767 never offered this combination of cost efficiency and capability.

Ben Sandilands ( ) wrote a nice article about this Asian perspective.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/10/08/airbus-mom-will-drive-asia-pacific-changes/

You are using your commentary to make a point that the article is not making. Forever, the A321 has been successful because "99% of the routes the 757 operates are done better with the A321." That LR is not changing that. But now all of a sudden "long and thin routes are the reason the 757 was great and now the A321 does it better." That is not the case. Stop trolling these forums repeating your container argument.

What airlines have a large A321 fleet or pending deliveries that either use container cargo or have stated "the container cargo sold us on the A321"?

You should look from a global perspective. The 757's are mostly gone, except from the US. Mist were used in the US anyway.
The list of airlines that flew the 737 in the past and now A320/321 with AKH is very long. While they could have optionally sticked to bulk loading,

I think the bloomberg article indicates Boeing is being called back into the room on NMA cargo capacity. After dismissing it for years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/boeing-faces-u-s-asia-cargo-clash-in-design-of-new-797-jet

Revelation wrote:

[
They are now building the first 777x wing, and to get to that point they've designed the entire wing, which means they've already learned a lot via simulation.
Implementation should just verify all the things you learned during design.

Agree, but if the frame fails the static test it may need additional strength in which case....it may even be overbuilt that one the 787 may have already resolved.
All I'm saying is that until the wing is accepted, I'l hold off using that as any variable in the 797 debate.

There is a long way to go but I like the way the jet looks. It's as if Boeing is answering the 757NG calls with a look alike of different proportions. That would be a sharp looking jet.

par13del wrote:

Revelation wrote:

[
They are now building the first 777x wing, and to get to that point they've designed the entire wing, which means they've already learned a lot via simulation.
Implementation should just verify all the things you learned during design.

Agree, but if the frame fails the static test it may need additional strength in which case....it may even be overbuilt that one the 787 may have already resolved.
All I'm saying is that until the wing is accepted, I'l hold off using that as any variable in the 797 debate.

You're free to use whatever metric that works for you, but as an engineer I'll tell you that regardless of pass/fail the 777x wing will teach Boeing a lot about how to do the 797 wing.

Note that even though it's much bigger, the 777x wing is being built in the same factory that almost certainly will build the 797 wing.

keesje wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Always cool to see the renderings and specs for new A and B planes. This seems to have a fair amount of detail and seems like logical iterations. While the plane might cost a significant sum of money to produce, it certainly does not appear to be a moonshot.

keesje wrote:

I think container cargo capability of the A321 next to its 220+ seat capacity is what makes it unique and a hot seller.

The 737, 757, A310, 767 never offered this combination of cost efficiency and capability.

Ben Sandilands ( ) wrote a nice article about this Asian perspective.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/10/08/airbus-mom-will-drive-asia-pacific-changes/

You are using your commentary to make a point that the article is not making. Forever, the A321 has been successful because "99% of the routes the 757 operates are done better with the A321." That LR is not changing that. But now all of a sudden "long and thin routes are the reason the 757 was great and now the A321 does it better." That is not the case. Stop trolling these forums repeating your container argument.

What airlines have a large A321 fleet or pending deliveries that either use container cargo or have stated "the container cargo sold us on the A321"?

You should look from a global perspective. The 757's are mostly gone, except from the US. Mist were used in the US anyway.
The list of airlines that flew the 737 in the past and now A320/321 with AKH is very long. While they could have optionally sticked to bulk loading,

I think the bloomberg article indicates Boeing is being called back into the room on NMA cargo capacity. After dismissing it for years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/boeing-faces-u-s-asia-cargo-clash-in-design-of-new-797-jet

Global has nothing to do with it. 737s carry cargo every day, no containers. My point is where is the container listed as the reason airlines purchased the A321? The article you posted quotes JetBlue as choosing A321NEO for tranastlantic (that remains to be seen) and they don't use containers. Red herring. Telling us that 737 operators not fly A320s has nothing to do with containers. You overhype it in every thread.

Revelation wrote:

crimsonchin wrote:

So, nothing really new in Jon's article that hasn't been speculated about previously.

Boeing is doing an amazing job getting people to talk about a plane that's so far away and whose design and function isn't even solidified yet to distract from their current NB situation. Amazing really. Wonder why Airbus is yapping away too.

True, but a.net has speculated about pretty much everything so he was bound to hit a subset of such speculation.

deltadawg wrote:

I see nothing in this article but speculation based upon an artist's rendering. In other words......surmising a hyothetical conjecture. While A.netters know of the program and know of the basic outlines of the program we know nothing of the finality that will be the outcome of Boeing's engineering computations that result from their conversations with airlines as well as their own belief of what the future holds for their interpretation of an airlines needs in the future. Until Boeing announces the 797 it is all speculation. Hopefully, Farnborough will be the stage for Boeing's announcement!

Yet Jon is well connected and it's pretty much a given that it's a Boeing artist who did the rendering, which gives us a confirmation of the general direction we've been hearing.

And yes, we don't know as much as we will know once the program is announced. This is a similar amount of leaked information as we had about '7E7' at a similar time in its pre-announcement days which is fine by me.

I guess it's a sign of the time that everyone expects to know everything all the time?

Agreed. ostrower updated his article later to state that Boeing created the rendering.

Beautiful, elegant and modern. A real Boeing.

Well I'm sure all of us as much as we'd like an optimal airplane for this MOM section, we'd also would hope the design is pretty "sculpted" like a 757 as opposed to just a generic, boring design. The article gave us a pretty rendering, but it's pretty prospective. Anyone recall the 787's early rendition?

For some it has to do with the missing containers, for others it does not. Regardless, a short twin aisle will need containers to achieve the promised fast turn around.

airzona11 wrote:

keesje wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Always cool to see the renderings and specs for new A and B planes. This seems to have a fair amount of detail and seems like logical iterations. While the plane might cost a significant sum of money to produce, it certainly does not appear to be a moonshot.



You are using your commentary to make a point that the article is not making. Forever, the A321 has been successful because "99% of the routes the 757 operates are done better with the A321." That LR is not changing that. But now all of a sudden "long and thin routes are the reason the 757 was great and now the A321 does it better." That is not the case. Stop trolling these forums repeating your container argument.

What airlines have a large A321 fleet or pending deliveries that either use container cargo or have stated "the container cargo sold us on the A321"?

You should look from a global perspective. The 757's are mostly gone, except from the US. Mist were used in the US anyway.
The list of airlines that flew the 737 in the past and now A320/321 with AKH is very long. While they could have optionally sticked to bulk loading,

I think the bloomberg article indicates Boeing is being called back into the room on NMA cargo capacity. After dismissing it for years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/boeing-faces-u-s-asia-cargo-clash-in-design-of-new-797-jet

Global has nothing to do with it. 737s carry cargo every day, no containers. My point is where is the container listed as the reason airlines purchased the A321? The article you posted quotes JetBlue as choosing A321NEO for tranastlantic (that remains to be seen) and they don't use containers. Red herring. Telling us that 737 operators not fly A320s has nothing to do with containers. You overhype it in every thread.

Yes, 737 carry belly freight every day without containers, mainly because you can not use containers on them. Meanwhile a lot of the A320 family aircraft are used with containers to carry belly freight. At the least the airline has a choice. If you believe, that having the possibilities to use containers, is no advantage for the A320 family, that is your opinion.

Boeing have known from the very first days of the 787 that there was a market in the Far East for optimal cargo movement.Thats why they offered the 787-3.It turned out (they said) not to be any more efficient than the 'standard' wing 788.It seems that to try and shoehorn this full cargo requirement into a 797 would be the tail wagging the dog.

It looks like a Chinese copy of A321neo. xD

But seriously - Boeing should give it cockpit commonality with the 787 and 777. It's the way to go, as proven by Airbus philosophy. The ancient 767 cockpit windows have to go - I won't be surprised one bit if the 797 would inherit the 787-like nose section, or something similar to it.

[twoid][/twoid]

BlueSky1976 wrote:

It looks like a Chinese copy of A321neo. xD

But seriously - Boeing should give it cockpit commonality with the 787 and 777. It's the way to go, as proven by Airbus philosophy. The ancient 767 cockpit windows have to go - I won't be surprised one bit if the 797 would inherit the 787-like nose section, or something similar to it.

Boeing didn’t start up an in house aviation nice unit to rehash what’s on the 787.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... rcing.html

Boeing will much more likely make the 797 the avionics basis for its new narrowbody when that comes out than try to make it compatible with the 787 IMHO. Also I expect it to be very different avionics wise anyway. My expectation is this sets the stage for potential one pilot operations in the future.

airzona11 wrote:

Always cool to see the renderings and specs for new A and B planes. This seems to have a fair amount of detail and seems like logical iterations. While the plane might cost a significant sum of money to produce, it certainly does not appear to be a moonshot.

keesje wrote:

I think container cargo capability of the A321 next to its 220+ seat capacity is what makes it unique and a hot seller.

The 737, 757, A310, 767 never offered this combination of cost efficiency and capability.

Ben Sandilands ( ) wrote a nice article about this Asian perspective.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/10/08/airbus-mom-will-drive-asia-pacific-changes/

You are using your commentary to make a point that the article is not making. Forever, the A321 has been successful because "99% of the routes the 757 operates are done better with the A321." That LR is not changing that. But now all of a sudden "long and thin routes are the reason the 757 was great and now the A321 does it better." That is not the case. Stop trolling these forums repeating your container argument.

What airlines have a large A321 fleet or pending deliveries that either use container cargo or have stated "the container cargo sold us on the A321"?

That a false argument. Can you provide a listing of airlines where containers were not listed as reason why airlines switched to the the A320 family?

The Boeing team has been dismissing container options because they can not offer it. In the US, with its many 737 and MD80 series flying in recent decades, switching over will take more time. Inter-operability is important. In Europe most bigger carriers use AKH / pallets. And also increasingly in Asia. If you want to ship 500lb items / packages, bulk loading just doesn't work. Many airlines use a combination of containers and bulk on A320 family, dedicating front / aft holds. Turnaround time / manpower / working conditions are very important too.



I think it's funny people try dismiss the container/pallet options, pointing to US carriers that don't use it. As if that is a sign of efficiency / redundancy. The party line seems to be bulk loading is not an issue. Meanwhile few doubt Boeing NSA / NMA must have it. As soon as Boeing offers it too, the crowd will do a 180

frmrCapCadet wrote:

There are a couple of significant manufacturing things Boeing has said which are in play on the NMA. The first is Boeings comment that the 787 was the heaviest barrel they ever would make. The second is what 3D printing would be doing to simplify production. A third thing, related to the previous two is what Boeing has learned with the 777X wing design and production.

While it is temporary, Boeing may have a significant lead over Airbus with the NMA.

I cannot see why any of these gives Boeing much, if any, advantage over Airbus (as far a technology goes)
The only reason for thinking this is a belief that Airbus "just aren't as good as Boeing, cos ......" IMO

Boeing may have made "the heaviest barrels, in the 787, but I'm equally sure that Airbus made "the heaviest panels" in the A350, and you can see from the performance of the two aircraft that the barrels don't confer any really meaningful advantage, either in terms of weight, or cost.
Airbus's next CFRP plane is bound to be more optimised

3D printing. What makes you think Boeing have a lead here? Even temporary?
Airbus are already trawling through the A320 series to pick out all the TI components which benefit from 3D printing, and are now moving onto the less critical components (like the bionic bulkhead). More on 3D printing in a sec.

CFRP wings. It's not like Airbus have never made a CFP wing. They are going down a similar learning curve as Boeing with CFRP wings - they already have the A400M and A350 (currently the biggest CFRP wing flying) under their belt. There's no advantage that I can see for Boeing in terms of CFRP wings and their evolution.

If you cite these as an advantage over a derivative of the current A320 series, then yes, 2 out of the 3 stand scrutiny - i'm not sure 3D printing would

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Amiga - if Boeing (and I assume Airbus) can save upwards of $4 million in existing planes the savings in planes specifically designed to take advantage of 3D printing must be in the low 10 figure range. It strikes me as an entirely new ball game. This is not a speculative technology. All manufacturers are currently changing over.

A couple of things - firstly Boeing hope to save $3m on the 787 using 3D printing. Do you know how? By using it on as much of the TI components as they can. The saving will be from a reduction in materials - TI components cost a LOT of money. Some of the bigger TI forgings may not release the savings they envisage.
3D printing is actually an expensive process - it works on TI because of the huge material cost.
Elsewhere, 3D printing will be used to save weight, not cost - like the A320's "bionic bulkhead".

If manufactuability, and low cost production are the goal, I can only see the use of TI on the 797 being kept to the minimum necessary to achieve operational performance. I would not be surprised if it has only 50% of the TI by weight of the 787, given that it is also a smaller plane.

I'm not sure what "low 10 figure range" means in terms of savings.
But I can't see the 797, saving as much as the 787 hopes to from 3D printing, even designed from the outset to do so.

Bear in mind that the A320 series is already realising these savings by swapping out many of its TI components for ALM ones.

Rgds

DELTA will be launch customer.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 76-445886/

pabloeing wrote:

DELTA will be launch customer.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 76-445886/

er, that's a month old report that has been discussed for long. Why is it being posted now?

I see Airbus having advantages from time to time and having some now, but guess what - so does Boeing. If they really have their stuffed barrel system doing what it is suppose to it will be a small advantage.

Boeing will be building its 3rd CFRP wing, again a small advantage. (and no Brexit issues!)

Res 3D printing. The earliest cars were horseless carriages. That motor looks a little silly now that cars are designed for that motor and put it where it should be. Early hybrid cars stuck the battery in the trunk or squished under the back seat. Musk built it close to the ground and out of the way and improving center of gravity issues. Airbus and Boeing are now fabricating bits and pieces of their planes with 3D, kind of like those motors on a horseless carriage. Knowing what they can do now Airbus and Boeing will be designing planes differently because they will have better tools. The NMA will be the first plane so designed. Hope Boeing does a better job this time. If they succeed it will be a not so small temporary advantage over Airbus.

I don't think it was your intention to say that Boeing never has an advantage over Airbus, but the post kind of came off that way.

Easy take a 767, Update the cabin and flightdeck. Give it new wings (787 style) and some Genx engines. Then forget the 787 ever came about.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I don't think it was your intention to say that Boeing never has an advantage over Airbus, but the post kind of came off that way.

you countered that nicely. Thank you.

Now we read that Boeing is saying the 2024-5 time line is confirmed:

Randy Tinseth, vice-president of marketing at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said "things are coming together" on the configuration and performance of the aircraft, during a briefing at the conference. When asked about views on the proposed 2024-25 timeline, which he affirmed, he says customers have indicated that they are "happy" with it.

"Now, it's about closing the business case," says Tinseth.

yet customers such as UA and Avalon aren't convinced:

"I'm not so sure it'll show up in the 2024-25 period," said Andrew Levy, chief financial officer of United Airlines, on the NMA in an interview with FlightGlobal on the sidelines of an industry conference in San Diego earlier in March.

As a result, the Chicago-based carrier is not building its fleet plan around the proposed widebody being available by 2025, he says. United is looking at nearer-term alternatives, including the Airbus A321LR and Airbus A330-800neo, to replace some of its 128 Boeing 757s and 767s, two models that the NMA is designed to replace.

Such a move by United would be a blow to Boeing, as the airline is a long-standing loyal customer that has long sought a new aircraft in the NMA's market segment.

Indeed, losing UA would be a blow to Boeing.

I wonder if Boeing can/will do anything about it.

The issue seems to be the engines more than the airframe:

CFM International, Pratt and Whitney (P&W) and Rolls-Royce are all competing to supply engines to the NMA. CFM has not provided details of its proposed architecture, P&W plans a scaled up version of its geared turbofan (GTF) and Rolls-Royce the so-called UltraFan with a reduction gear.

The thrust range for the NMA engines will be between 40,000-50,000lb, an area that has been neglected since the early 1980s, according to Boeing.

All three engine manufactuers are tight lipped about the status of their NMA engines that, coupled with some of the delays meeting deadlines for current aircraft programmes, raise questions about their ability to deliver on time for the proposed Boeing widebody.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-446689/

The previous NMA topic is getting very long in the tooth and was started 5 months, 1000+ posts ago.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1374685

Luckely John Ostrower / Boeing gives us fresh new input.



https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boeing-797-of-2025-is-this-2018-conceptual-nma-rendering

Lots to discuss.

This...is from Boeing???

frmrCapCadet wrote:

If they really have their stuffed barrel system doing what it is suppose to it will be a small advantage.

It will only be an advantage if any future Boeing plane also uses CFRP barrels (ditto Airbus and CFRP panels). However, I don't think a CFRP fuselage is the slam-dunk that many seem to believe, especially for high production-rate single-aisle frames.

CFRP wings are absolutely the way to go, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those wings on a more traditional Al fuselage.

There are pages and pages on the RR website on their 2017 Financial Results Presentation

My take is that the RR UltraFan looks likely to EIS in 2027 or later. On the Boeing MoM engine, RR said that they are in business to sell engines, but, but . . .

The interesting bit was that RR were going to be keeping up its high rate of research spending on multiple discreet projects to prepare for the UltraFan. So if a Mom gets a go ahead, and a suitably sized UltraFan is chosen, then RR could bring forward the monetisation (i.e. cash inward) of this huge UltraFan investment at an earlier date then expected.

My take is that building gliders is not fun, so the long lead item on a Mom will be a proven, reliable engine delivered to an agreed schedule. (No names, no pack drill!) A MoM looks like needing 50,000 lbs of thrust. My take on this is that P&W with its current GTF technology and a warmed up version of their existing base engine may work well on the Mom. The UltraFan may be the newer tech choice, but would come along a few years later.

My take is that any OEM is likely to lack comfort with the potential risks of any new engine using warmed up current technology which will be outdated in a just a few years by a step change higher tech new model. This is one area where the A380 timing came unstuck. Airbus would have delayed the A380 if they had known that a step change was just around the corner on engines. I could be wrong of course.

Revelation wrote:

Now we read that Boeing is saying the 2024-5 time line is confirmed:

Randy Tinseth, vice-president of marketing at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said "things are coming together" on the configuration and performance of the aircraft, during a briefing at the conference. When asked about views on the proposed 2024-25 timeline, which he affirmed, he says customers have indicated that they are "happy" with it.

"Now, it's about closing the business case," says Tinseth.

yet customers such as UA and Avalon aren't convinced:

"I'm not so sure it'll show up in the 2024-25 period," said Andrew Levy, chief financial officer of United Airlines, on the NMA in an interview with FlightGlobal on the sidelines of an industry conference in San Diego earlier in March.

As a result, the Chicago-based carrier is not building its fleet plan around the proposed widebody being available by 2025, he says. United is looking at nearer-term alternatives, including the Airbus A321LR and Airbus A330-800neo, to replace some of its 128 Boeing 757s and 767s, two models that the NMA is designed to replace.

Such a move by United would be a blow to Boeing, as the airline is a long-standing loyal customer that has long sought a new aircraft in the NMA's market segment.

Indeed, losing UA would be a blow to Boeing.

I wonder if Boeing can/will do anything about it.

The issue seems to be the engines more than the airframe:

CFM International, Pratt and Whitney (P&W) and Rolls-Royce are all competing to supply engines to the NMA. CFM has not provided details of its proposed architecture, P&W plans a scaled up version of its geared turbofan (GTF) and Rolls-Royce the so-called UltraFan with a reduction gear.

The thrust range for the NMA engines will be between 40,000-50,000lb, an area that has been neglected since the early 1980s, according to Boeing.

All three engine manufactuers are tight lipped about the status of their NMA engines that, coupled with some of the delays meeting deadlines for current aircraft programmes, raise questions about their ability to deliver on time for the proposed Boeing widebody.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-446689/

So CFM (ie GE) is still trying to find a way to do a GTF without infringing on patents

P&W- GTF tech

RR- GTF (reduction gear???) with moveable fans ala a turboprop.

I have stated this before, the airframe is easy, would not be surprised most of the aero work is done. How to assemble the aircraft cheaply and the engines are the fly in the ointment .

keesje wrote:

The previous NMA topic is getting very long in the tooth and was started 5 months, 1000+ posts ago.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1374685

Luckely John Ostrower / Boeing gives us fresh new input.



https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boeing-797-of-2025-is-this-2018-conceptual-nma-rendering

Lots to discuss.

I think way too much is being read into an artists conception. Interesting (in a stupid, nerdy sort of way) that they would start with -6.

2024 is very ambitious.

seahawk wrote:

2024 is very ambitious.

Yet Tinseth affirms that time line. Go figure...

pabloeing wrote:

DELTA will be launch customer.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 76-445886/

Delta wants to be the launch customer. There's a big difference between "will" and "wants".

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

2024 is very ambitious.

Yet Tinseth affirms that time line. Go figure...

Another rollout with home depot fasteners?

What about engine development time?

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

2024 is very ambitious.

Yet Tinseth affirms that time line. Go figure...

I would guess it means they will be conservative on the engine technology. Most likely an up-scaled LEAP.

747-600X wrote:

This...is from Boeing???

Yes, Jon confirms this is from Boeing.

He also gives us:

Equally important is what’s not visible. The angle doesn’t show the most distinctive – and potentially technically challenging – aspect of the design. The ovoid shape of the fuselage isn’t readily apparent, but the curve in the future nose hints at the ‘hybrid design.”

The aim of such a design is to maximize the passenger space in the cabin; notionally a seven-abreast 2-3-2 twin-aisle economy arrangement above the floor with room for a single-aisle-sized cargo hold below, according to those familiar with the design. The debate between North American and Asian airlines over the shape and capacity of the belly (and ensuing wing-sizing and engine thrust capabilities) was detailed last week by Bloomberg News’ Julie Johnsson.

So it isn't finalized, and Asian customers are pushing back, but the "notional" design is a 7ab 2-3-2 cabin above a "single-aisle sized" cargo hold.

If certain member's prayers are being heard, this cargo hold will be containerized, but that word wasn't used in Jon's report.

I have updated the thread title to include all 797 discussion. It makes more sense to have discussion contained in one place rather than segmented into numerous threads with overlapping discussion. Like other general discussion threads, big news announcements will still have their own separate threads, but let's keep general discussion and minor news events here to keep things organized. Having a dozen similar topics pop up at the same time discussing the same things has a tendency to drive everyone crazy.

✈️ atcsundevil