• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1568
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
Sure, and I'm no expert either, but weight growth is not really linear because to add fuel you need to add strengthening which adds weight, so you need to add more thrust which also adds weight, so you need to add more fuel for the same range, and now we're in a negative feedback loop.


I understand what you mean. By aiming for more range, you need higher MTOW, which means sturdier gear, higher rated engines, fuselage/wing box/wings strengthening, and it all snowballs.

All I'm saying is that most aircraft models in or around this segment has only started selling well when the higher range models became available. That's the case with the A300/A310, the A330, the 757 and especially the 767. They started trimming unnecessary weight, gaining MTOW and thrust. By aiming at a 5500nm range target from the get-go, you do run the chance of designing an overbuilt plane.

What really matters is sales numbers, that Boeing finds a market for the aircraft. And that will be much easier if you offer better range.

I would suggest Boeing build two variants, one shorter 797-8 with 5500nm range, and one larger 797-9 with 4500nm range. A single variant with 4500nm range could fall into the trap where Airbus launches an A322 with stretched fuselage, new wings and a thrust bump, matching the 797 in just about every aspect but fuel burn, while keeping commonality with the garden variety A320-series. I believe Boeing should place the 797 one notch above the Airbus option with regards to range and capacity already at launch. But I'm sure this is something they've been considering.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:31 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
All I'm saying is that most aircraft models in or around this segment has only started selling well when the higher range models became available. That's the case with the A300/A310, the A330, the 757 and especially the 767. They started trimming unnecessary weight, gaining MTOW and thrust. By aiming at a 5500nm range target from the get-go, you do run the chance of designing an overbuilt plane.

What really matters is sales numbers, that Boeing finds a market for the aircraft. And that will be much easier if you offer better range.

Right, but we're not in the same market as the 1980s. Now we already have highly efficient planes with the desired longer ranges, so that demand is being addressed. Boeing is saying that there's a whole host of city pairs that would become economically viable to serve if there is a very efficient plane with the desired range/payload characteristics. We still don't know exactly what that target is, but we should know more soon.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:37 pm

Seattle Times ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... o-reality/ ) now has an article up about the new program office.

It quotes a letter from the CEO to Boeing employees:

Commercial Airplanes boss Kevin McAllister has created a new airplane program office to “move us one step closer to a decision on a New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) and also serve as a vehicle to evolve how we design and build airplanes.”

McAllister said he’s appointed Mark Jenks, who has been heading the 787 program, as vice president and general manager of the new NMA program office, which will be based in Renton.

With a wealth of lessons learned on the 787, (Jenks) has the right expertise to lead production system development, reduce program risk and manage the tradeoffs between cost and investment in meeting development targets,” McAllister told employees.

I don't know anything about Mr. Jenks but it's kinda interesting that they'd move the leader of the 787 program to the NMA/MOM.

And gives a good re-cap of what the NMA/MOM is currently projected to be:

The NMA, first discussed publicly at the 2015 Paris Air Show, gathered momentum at this year’s Paris Air Show. Boeing said then it had consulted with 57 different airlines about the concept, which is for a twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers with a medium range of 5,500 to 5,700 miles.

In Paris this year, Mike Delaney, vice president of new airplane development, indicated that the plane will likely have a carbon composite airframe.

Significantly bigger than the single-aisle 737 and with much less range than a 787 Dreamliner, it would be targeted to open up new international routes, such as connecting cities around Southeast Asia or less-traveled transatlantic routes such as Washington, D.C., to Budapest.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:40 pm

airtechy wrote:
It's very simple. You re-design the 757 in plastic, upgrade the engines and avionics, add FBW and you're done. ;)



I'm going to have to agree with this.

757-300 sized (3-3) aircraft as the base model as the 797-8 with 757-200 range.

New wings, engines, avionics, more plastic.

Print money and haul tonnes of fish!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
medium range of 5,500 to 5,700 miles

Doing the math, that's around 4800-4900 nautical miles, so it kinda splits the difference between our 4500 nm vs 5500 nm discussion above.

WorldFlier wrote:
757-300 sized (3-3) aircraft as the base model as the 797-8 with 757-200 range.

"twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers" sounds more like a 767-300 to me ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications ).

WorldFlier wrote:
Print money and haul tonnes of fish!

FI's fleet now has four 767-300ERs -- just sayin' :wink2:
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Swadian
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:02 pm

Boeing will almost certainly build more than one length of the 797 (just like every new aircraft these days), so if we have a 797-9 significantly larger than the 737 and with significantly less range than the 787-8, it might be DC-8-63 size (187' long) with 4250 nm range, and then a shorter 797-8 might be DC-8-62 size (157' long) with 5500 nm range.

Both versions would be just slightly longer than the 753/752, respectively.
SMS Kaiser
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1568
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:16 pm

Revelation wrote:
Revelation wrote:
medium range of 5,500 to 5,700 miles

Doing the math, that's around 4800-4900 nautical miles, so it kinda splits the difference between our 4500 nm vs 5500 nm discussion above.


Yep, 5700 miles is 4953 nm. So it's right in between the 4500 - 5500 nm discussion. Their example of Washington DC to Budapest is exactly the type of route I was thinking of when I mentioned US to Eastern Europe.

Interesting that Jenks was chosen to lead the NMA/MOM program. He should have a lot of experience by now.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:26 pm

Revelation wrote:


"twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers" sounds more like a 767-300 to me ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications ).



220-270 sounds like it would be well within the 788 territories to me.

788 is advertised to seat 240-250 in a two class configuration.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:29 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
Revelation wrote:


"twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers" sounds more like a 767-300 to me ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications ).



220-270 sounds like it would be well within the 788 territories to me.

788 is advertised to seat 240-250 in a two class configuration.


IIRC, Boeing no longer wants to build the 788, so this should not be an issue.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1911
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:31 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
Revelation wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:

I'm no expert in aerodynamics or aircraft design. I do understand your point, but comparing a long range widebody aircraft like the 787 with a short/medium range narrowbody aircraft like the 737 isn't really fruitful. Of course the 787 wings are 3 times the size of the 737 wings.

I'm talking about adding 20% more range in the same aircraft model (797/MOM 4500nm baseline suggestion), not tripling or quadrupling the range and doubling the pax capacity as is the case between the 737 and 787.

Sure, and I'm no expert either, but weight growth is not really linear because to add fuel you need to add strengthening which adds weight, so you need to add more thrust which also adds weight, so you need to add more fuel for the same range, and now we're in a negative feedback loop.


Do we know for sure that a 5500nm design would create that negative feedback loop?

Yes, every mile added adds more than the previous mile added did.

Fred
Image
 
CRHoward
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:56 pm

I recall reading that cargo will not be a driving force in this design. Baggage would be handled as it is for narrow body aircraft which I assumed meant no LD3s.
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:03 pm

CRHoward wrote:
I recall reading that cargo will not be a driving force in this design. Baggage would be handled as it is for narrow body aircraft which I assumed meant no LD3s.

It might mean it will have LD3-45s in the belly like the A321
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
Revelation wrote:
medium range of 5,500 to 5,700 miles

Doing the math, that's around 4800-4900 nautical miles, so it kinda splits the difference between our 4500 nm vs 5500 nm discussion above.

WorldFlier wrote:
757-300 sized (3-3) aircraft as the base model as the 797-8 with 757-200 range.

"twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers" sounds more like a 767-300 to me ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications ).

WorldFlier wrote:
Print money and haul tonnes of fish!

FI's fleet now has four 767-300ERs -- just sayin' :wink2:



I agree, if they go twin-aisle it has to be 767-300 sized. I am just not convinced that it would be a twin-aisle with 7 seats (a lot of wasted space for 1 extra seat). If you go 8 abreast, now you're talking wide and short...it just doesn't seem efficient.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
It seems 767-200 - 757 comparisons confirm this. Same technology aircraft launched by the same OEM at the same time.
This time around, groundbreaking technology changing the balance between wider and longer might again not be available.

It seems the steady stream of good news about the progress of the program suggests that it might be available. :scratchchin:


Which stream of good news about the progress are you referring too.

A technology break through benefiting a wider body but not a narrower one would be fantastic. I'm looking forward.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:36 pm

CRHoward wrote:
I recall reading that cargo will not be a driving force in this design. Baggage would be handled as it is for narrow body aircraft which I assumed meant no LD3s.


Correct. LD3s will be too large and LD2s (ala the 767) are too non-standard. So we will almost assuredly see LD3-45 / AKH as used on the A320 family.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:40 pm

270 pax is too big unless that is an all economy/single class configuration. If that's a 3-class configuration this will fail financially as its too close to other twin aisles.

Something just under or at 757-300 size is the ideal size according to the graphs we have all seen.
Last edited by SCAT15F on Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SonOfABeech
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:41 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
Revelation wrote:


"twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers" sounds more like a 767-300 to me ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications ).



220-270 sounds like it would be well within the 788 territories to me.

788 is advertised to seat 240-250 in a two class configuration.


IIRC, Boeing no longer wants to build the 788, so this should not be an issue.


Take the 788 fuselage and put in smaller wings, less thrusty engines, a lighter gear, etc...
 
Boeing1978
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:06 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:45 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
airtechy wrote:
It's very simple. You re-design the 757 in plastic, upgrade the engines and avionics, add FBW and you're done. ;)



I'm going to have to agree with this.

757-300 sized (3-3) aircraft as the base model as the 797-8 with 757-200 range.

New wings, engines, avionics, more plastic.

Print money and haul tonnes of fish!


Agreed. I would love to see that.
And, maybe the design would make a good starting point when it's time to replace the 737.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:16 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
I agree, if they go twin-aisle it has to be 767-300 sized. I am just not convinced that it would be a twin-aisle with 7 seats (a lot of wasted space for 1 extra seat). If you go 8 abreast, now you're talking wide and short...it just doesn't seem efficient.

I am convinced, because from what I know Boeing has never said it would be a single aisle. Early on they would not say either way, but more recently they have said it will be twin aisle.

keesje wrote:
Which stream of good news about the progress are you referring too.

This is part of a stream of good news about the progress to me:

Commercial Airplanes boss Kevin McAllister has created a new airplane program office to “move us one step closer to a decision on a New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) and also serve as a vehicle to evolve how we design and build airplanes.”

McAllister said he’s appointed Mark Jenks, who has been heading the 787 program, as vice president and general manager of the new NMA program office, which will be based in Renton.

With a wealth of lessons learned on the 787, (Jenks) has the right expertise to lead production system development, reduce program risk and manage the tradeoffs between cost and investment in meeting development targets,” McAllister told employees.

If Airbus was announcing similar news for not just an all new airplane but even a new A32x family member ( ref: viewtopic.php?t=1362655&start=600 and http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=604161 and http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1357281&start=150 ), no doubt you'd be wetting yourself with joy.

keesje wrote:
A technology break through benefiting a wider body but not a narrower one would be fantastic. I'm looking forward.

If you've been reading the thread, there already are benefits to shorter wider bodies rather than longer narrower bodies with no technology breakthroughs needed, but since this isn't an Airbus product being discussed, those things are invisible to you.

SCAT15F wrote:
270 pax is too big unless that is an all economy/single class configuration. If that's a 3-class configuration this will fail financially as its too close to other twin aisles.

Something just under or at 757-300 size is the ideal size according to the graphs we have all seen.

IIRC the 220 to 270 passengers is in two-class configuration.

SonOfABeech wrote:
Take the 788 fuselage and put in smaller wings, less thrusty engines, a lighter gear, etc...

Very doubtful that such an aircraft would meet the project goals.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:58 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
Do we know for sure that a 5500nm design would create that negative feedback loop?

Any increase in range for a design will start a negative feedback loop. Adding 1000nm range to a given design would make CASM worse by at least 10%.

An additional 1000nm is a 20% range increase for the MOM. So minimum of 20% more fuel. But then you are burning more fuel to carry the weight of the extra fuel and the weight of the structure to hold that extra fuel. You would easily need a 25% increase in maximum takeoff weight to provide a 20% range increase.

So a 5500nm ranged MOM has ZERO chance of reaching the CASM of an A321. It won't even reach the CASM of a 787-10. I don't care how much carbon fibre it uses or if the engines are newer, it stands no chance. Look at the C series, all that technology yet too much range was added and it killed the efficiency advantage.

JetBuddy wrote:
Your argument is flawed. Look at the A300/A310, A330, 757 and 767. The initial low range models sold poorly, but they sold a lot better when they were offered with more range.

That was back in a time when the 737 couldn't even fly 2000nm at full load. I don't see how that is even a counter argument. The competition above and below were different back then. None of them had a 787-10 CASM monster sitting a size above them setting the benchmark for CASM. All they had was a long range 747 and DC-10 which were not hard to beat that on medium haul CASM.

If anything the A330 proved that 8 abreast trumps 7 abreast of the 767 in a similar ranged aircraft. The 757 proves that a really long narrowbody can only work on niche missions.

I still think we're getting a single length short ranged lightweight 787 model to replace the 787-8.

But if they go clean sheet it will be 8 abreast with two lengths. Based in my intense spreadsheet analysis:

The longer length "797-9" will be the same number of seat rows as the 787-8. So that's not short and stubby at all. So 88% of the seats with a range of 3800nm. About 5% greater range than the 737-8 and equal to the 737-7. It can fly New York to Paris year round.

The shorter length "797-8" will have a range of 4500nm. I remind you this is a full 10% greater than the new awesome extended range A321. It can perform all long range missions the 757 could do with full payload. It can fly from from east coast of the US to central Europe.

Both models with my calculations will beat the A321 and 787-10 on CASM on 2000nm, 3000nm and 4000nm flights. Any increase in range or reduction in passengers from the above by going 7 abreast or 6 abreast all results in dead on arrival CASM numbers.

More than half of current 767 and A330 flights are below 4000nm and all of the 757 flights. So the medium haul market is pretty big. The longer range 797-8 will capture most of these aircraft which are due for replacement. The 797-9 will take a significant portion of the narrowbody market for short thick routes at gate restricted airports.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:07 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
I agree, if they go twin-aisle it has to be 767-300 sized. I am just not convinced that it would be a twin-aisle with 7 seats (a lot of wasted space for 1 extra seat). If you go 8 abreast, now you're talking wide and short...it just doesn't seem efficient.

Not really. The 787-8 is not wide and short. It is only 2 metres longer than the 767-300 yet it is wide 9 abreast fuselage.

An 8 abreast would be 10% narrower than the 787-8. If we keep the proportions the same and make it 10% shorter you are now at the same capacity as the 767-300. Or 80% of the seats of the original 787-8.

Near perfect ratio.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:32 pm

SonOfABeech wrote:
Take the 788 fuselage and put in smaller wings, less thrusty engines, a lighter gear, etc...


That fuselage is integrated with a center wingbox sized for long-range, high payload wing that your new smaller wing has to mate to, and the fuselage is sized for easy 8-abreast or tight 9-abreast seating with a large cargo deck as well (the fuselage is actually slightly ovalized vertically). The result would be better than the 787-3, but still has a lot more weight and drag per passenger to deal with the A321LR.

The 787 fuselage is 227 inches wide. I've crunched some simple numbers suggesting a 7-abreast NMA would be about 195" wide (and possibly only 163" tall, vs. 234" if Boeing follows through on the flattened elliptical fuselage concept), or 213" for 8-abreast.

SCAT15F wrote:
270 pax is too big unless that is an all economy/single class configuration. If that's a 3-class configuration this will fail financially as its too close to other twin aisles.


It's likely the other way around - if the NMA is too close to the 787, it hurts the future 787 prospects more than the NMA prospects.

WorldFlier wrote:
I agree, if they go twin-aisle it has to be 767-300 sized. I am just not convinced that it would be a twin-aisle with 7 seats (a lot of wasted space for 1 extra seat). If you go 8 abreast, now you're talking wide and short...it just doesn't seem efficient.


What defines too much wasted space, especially since a second aisle isn't entirely wasted space, but can help improve turn times and passenger appeal? It might also allow an extra seat in premium classes. All these considerations potentially improve RASM. Don't forget efficiency/CASM is not the only economic consideration.

When I crunched numbers on how a wide elliptical fuselage would compare to the A320 if it had the same height, I found a 7-abreast fuselage would have only about 7% more cross sectional area per passenger than the A320 (more form drag), and about 3% less skin area per passengers (less skin drag, and depending how much extra frame and floor beam reinforcement such a design requires, potentially less weight, too).

Going to 8-abreast improves that to 2% more cross-sectional area per passenger than the A320, and 11% less skin area. It is an improvement over 7-abreast in this grossly simplified analysis, but not a radical one, and it further increases the strengthening required in the frames and floor beams.

I suspect the overall tradeoffs come very close between 7 or 8 abreast, depending what exactly Boeing has worked out as based fuselage aspect ratio.

By the way, the A320 has roughly 4% more skin area and 9% more cross-section area per passenger than the 737, and almost nobody argues that makes it too heavy or wastes too much space. Usually the argument is instead that the 737 doesn't provide enough space.

All of the above figures are based on elliptical approximations. Actual fuselage shapes are usually not true ellipses.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:33 pm

SonOfABeech wrote:
Take the 788 fuselage and put in smaller wings, less thrusty engines, a lighter gear, etc...

Highly likely option. A 787-7.

The fuselage is the lightest part. Its the wings, wing box, engines and landing gear that determines the range and efficiency of the plane.

People say it will be too heavy but the 30 year old A300 has 10% less cabin volume yet it weighs a massive 30% less. That gives you an idea of the potential target weights.

People who say the 787-3 didn't work and use it as proof. Chopping off the wing tips to save 1000kg, limited the engine thrust to 80% throttle and on the delivery paper work deducting 50ton off the max takeoff weight would never work.

I'm talking a fully optimised wing box, landing gear with wings with a 160ton max takeoff weight target. Maybe a brand new geared turbofan.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
Jon Ostrower tweets at https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8342553600

Jon Ostrower‏ Verified account @jonostrower 42m42 minutes ago

Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans. Boeing says it’s not ready to launch, but this is a big sign of seriousness.

Despite all the criticisms (it really does have a tight window to hit in terms of price/performance), every sign so far is that Boeing is serious about the MOM, and here's one more of those signs.

Is this the BOLD new SEXY airplane what Boeing is going to up the ante with? A BWB aircraft that could form the basis for a completely new generation family of aircraft and revolutionize commercial airliners? Perhaps and aircraft that could also do some sort of STOVL to counter runway congestion? Or is this going to be another case of bigger/better/faster/more efficient incremental leaps in evolution of airplanes built by Boeing?...yet nother tube with wings under which engines are hung (granted that 787 was kind of revolutionary considering that it is a CFRP aircraft...but still..it is some what of a I phone 10 relative to an Iphone 4 or 5 ).

Intertesting to see what will happen; but given that the competition is getting crowded (Airbus, Comac, Boom Supersonic etc.) Boeing needs to do something spectacular & reinvent itself to stay competitive. Gone are the days of monopoly or even duopoly where Boeing (or Airbus) can take it easy and be over confident.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:14 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
The result would be better than the 787-3, but still has a lot more weight and drag per passenger to deal with the A321LR.

Actually a 787-8 at similar weights of the A300/767 would have less weight and drag per passenger. Let's compare 28inch full economy.
787-7: 150T with 381 seats = 393kg per passenger.
A321LR: 97T with 240 seats = 404kg per passenger.

iamlucky13 wrote:
By the way, the A320 has roughly 4% more skin area and 9% more cross-section area per passenger than the 737, and almost nobody argues that makes it too heavy or wastes too much space. Usually the argument is instead that the 737 doesn't provide enough space.

This is why the 737-8 still sells so well with its smaller engines. It's narrower and lighter, I regularly point this out as an advantage.

iamlucky13 wrote:
All of the above figures are based on elliptical approximations. Actual fuselage shapes are usually not true ellipses.

The fuselage won't be oval. If the height is less than width it will be done the same way the 767 is higher than it is wide. The lower lobe will be shorter.

The best weight to strength optimised is as follows. Draw a 212inch diameter circle draw a horinzontal line 118inch from the top of the circle. That is the passenger cabin. Now draw a 350inch diameter circle and draw a horizontal line 64inch from the bottom of the circle.

You now have a 212inch wide 182inch high fuselage that can fit LD3-45's and has perfect pressurisation. You might have gained a few inchs compared to a pure oval but the loading and weight savings would more than make up for the drag increase.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:21 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SonOfABeech wrote:
Take the 788 fuselage and put in smaller wings, less thrusty engines, a lighter gear, etc...

Highly likely option. A 787-7.

The fuselage is the lightest part. Its the wings, wing box, engines and landing gear that determines the range and efficiency of the plane.

People say it will be too heavy but the 30 year old A300 has 10% less cabin volume yet it weighs a massive 30% less. That gives you an idea of the potential target weights.

People who say the 787-3 didn't work and use it as proof. Chopping off the wing tips to save 1000kg, limited the engine thrust to 80% throttle and on the delivery paper work deducting 50ton off the max takeoff weight would never work.

I'm talking a fully optimised wing box, landing gear with wings with a 160ton max takeoff weight target. Maybe a brand new geared turbofan.


WE looked at it before. Technically possible, but a large aircraft still, but price wise it probably couldn't compete e.g. 200-240 seats single class over 500-1500NM. And that's a huge segment.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1358167&start=50#p19781393

Airbus backed off from a similar concept around 2000. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-rethinks-250-seater-to-keep-a330-commonality-65324/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ytz
Posts: 3135
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:50 am

keesje wrote:
As long as we fully understand & embrace taking the development directions we see on new aircraft, we are doubling air pollution in the next 20 years (assuming traffic keeps doubling every 15 yrs).


I don't see the need to be so pessimistic. The pace at which electric cars are coming on is incredible. That will have a huge impact on emissions. Next, is investment in rail infrastructure. The US aside, a lot of the world is really going to eliminate a ton of short-haul (< 1 hr) flights. Think of what HSR 2 will do in the UK, for example. These efforts should do far more than displace rising aviation emissions. And that's just the transport sector. The advances in the power sector are equally hopeful.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:14 am

keesje wrote:
WE looked at it before. Technically possible, but a large aircraft still, but price wise it probably couldn't compete e.g. 200-240 seats single class over 500-1500NM. And that's a huge segment.

Actually short distance efficiency is directly connected to aircraft weight per passenger. My rough numbers above show that the MOM would be more efficient even on 500nm stage lengths if sized for the same range as the narrow bodies. If it can beat the most efficient A321 then it beats every other narrowbody on short trips.

People think of aircraft designs as the wings being the constant and the fuselage (payload) stretches or shrinks. But let's make the fuselage the constant and scale the wings and engines instead in our design process.

Boeing can scale the wings, wingbox, engines and landing gear to any size to suit the range requirement. Each wing size option they can place the same 787 diameter fuselage on top. The smaller the wings, gear and engines the lower the maximum takeoff weight. The fuselage and passenger weight remains constant so it means less fuel as you go smaller and more fuel as you go larger.

Let's now look at the two wing extremes.

A 757 sized wing, gear and engines underneath the 787 fuselage would result in a 125T maximum takeoff weight and a 70T empty weight. With a full passenger payload (40T) there would only be weight left for fuel(15T) to travel 2000nm. That's 60% more passengers than an A321 yet it weighs only 25% more. CASM of such an aircraft would be much greater than any narrowbody on trips below 1000nm.

An A310 sized wing, gear and engines underneath the fuselage would result in a 165T maximum takeoff weight. 80T empty weight. With full payload(40T) you now have enough fuel(45T) to fly 5000nm. That's 70% more passengers and it weighs 70% more.

At this point the weight per passenger is no longer superior to the narrowbody aircraft. It will have worse CASM on all short trips. So going beyond that size it now becomes a niche aircraft a Jack of all trades master on none. Sales would fall off a cliff shortly after this point.

150-160T would be the sweet spot allowing a 787-8 sized fuselage to fly 4000-4500nm with slightly superior CASM to the narrow bodies.

Or if some believe it will be a clean sheet it will be 8 abreast. The maximum takeoff would be around 150T. I posted the weight estimates on the last page of the 797-8 and 797-9. I can see the fuselage barrel potentially made in one piece saving costs.

It would be cool if you had the time to draw up the 8 abreast plane with the reduced height lower lobe for ld3-45's.
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:58 am

keesje wrote:
Personally I'm not blown away by the innovation I've heard about / seen sofar on a possible 797.

Obviously we are seduced by great concepts proving the enormous leaps forward, only to be presented more of the same at launch.

Image

I know I know I see this totally wrong.. or at least 85%

:wink2:

While it is nice to see pictures of the N3-X, the D8, the Boeing SUGAR Volt, and other designs, you do realize that literally NONE of them were being designed with EIS of today in mind. They were conceived to enter into service in the 2035+ time period. So before you start posting misleading pictures, actually go out and read reports on them? (There are a lot of those very detailed reports btw.)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5479
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:58 am

8 abreast and only LD3/45s will be very hard pressed to take the luggage of the passengers in a higher density configuration.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:47 am

seahawk wrote:
8 abreast and only LD3/45s will be very hard pressed to take the luggage of the passengers in a higher density configuration.

Maybe for international flights but not for domestic.

2-4-2 will have plenty of overhead storage.

I have flown a dozen of jetstar Australia flights using A320's and have only seen a maximum of two LD3-45. Every domestic holiday I have been on no one in our group has used checked luggage.
 
workhorse
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:21 am

If they go 7-abreast, will they make it half a dozen of inches narrower than the 767 in order to create a continuous passenger experience across all the product range? :lol: :lol: :duck: :duck:
 
parapente
Posts: 1857
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:30 am

I agree with others about mission/range creep.In the end X6/7/8 or 9 even! Are marginal aspects of packaging.But range and all the associated significant increases of weight would be far more telling IMHO.
Could be wrong here but my fag packet calculations suggest that for an 8 hour flight (the max one crew can do) would be (at 787 speeds) circa a genuine range of 4,500 nm (4,800 stat miles?).
This would cover one hell of a load of city pairs.Of course more range gives you more pairs (obvious) but they would come at a hell of a price considering the tight window of economics the MOM has to work in.At that sort of range you would not require an engine of more that 50k lbs thrust possibly a fraction less depending on the wing.I think this is the ball court they need to be in for a 'workhorse' such as this.
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:43 am

I spoke with a Boeing engineer something like 4-5 years ago in Seattle, and he mentioned that a version of the Sonic Cruiser was actually back on the drawing board, with potentially revolutionary powerplants and fuselage design - even though not as dramatic as in the earlier designs.

I am now just wondering, is the potential 797 the result of that drawing on the board? Since realistically, if they would really be building a completely new generation aircraft, surely it would not be in the jumbo-size, and also not in their bread&butter -segment, but this 220+ MOM sounds just about right.

If you just think about the potential that this thing would have, point-to-point in overcrowded and polluted Asia, with significantly more eco-friendly and quiet - the order books would be filled like no tomorrow.

But then again, probably it's just the upgraded 757. Same like at one point people were always waiting for the next gen Prius to be the giant leap in automotive history, and in the end it turned out to be just a fraction better. And the main differentiator being tyres with less resistance. *sigh*
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2488
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:02 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Designing a Middle of the Market airplane in the B797, the question IS?? Where if the Middle of the market?? I submit it is just longer than the B767-200 and
B767 300, within a few miles. However, What Boeing states the range to BE and what it actually IS?? Might be 2 separate ranges of which I seriously doubt it will be LESS than the B767-300ER. But it will NOT be the same as the B787-8. ..



strfyr51 wrote:
The optimum Between the Single aisle of the B757-300 and the B767-300 or B767-400 makes the twin aisle the better fuselage base because of the ease of Loading and unlading passengers and LD2 or LD3 containers.
It will be faster to load cargo with fewer people and have a greater freight base for revenue cargo than the B757.passengerliner has.
I think Boeing could still update and build the B757 sized airplane in the future...



Is that what you Know?? Or what you HOPE?? Because it Certainly isn't anything you can Prove!! :-)

it's what I've learned from having worked on the B767 since 1984 to present and having flown over 700 times trans con on her over the last 30+ years at United..
We've already talke to the Reps from Boeing. and they're pretty sure it's not going to be a narrow body. The B757-300 is a good airplane but
boarding and turning the airplane is a chore. and turning the B757-300 and the B767-300 are a world of difference in time and manpower.one is manual the other containerized..
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:05 am

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
It seems 767-200 - 757 comparisons confirm this. Same technology aircraft launched by the same OEM at the same time.
This time around, groundbreaking technology changing the balance between wider and longer might again not be available.

It seems the steady stream of good news about the progress of the program suggests that it might be available. :scratchchin:


Which stream of good news about the progress are you referring too.

A technology break through benefiting a wider body but not a narrower one would be fantastic. I'm looking forward.


Why are you so focused on technology breakthroughs and what amounts to moonshots with radical designs? Boeing leadership has talking about creating a low cost optimized design based on technology from the 787 and 777x. They want low production costs for an airplane optimized for missions where there is currently no plane available (somewhere around the 300K MTOW range).

In some threads I also see you posting about shrinking and modifying the 787, which also doesn't make sense. They want an airplane optimized around a smaller wing and smaller engines rather than an overbloated shrink of a bigger plane.

Boeing appears to want a clean sheet design incorporating technology already developed from other designs especially around composites and flight control architecture to be combined with low cost manufacturing lean methods in place on the 737 production line. There is a big gap between 737s and A321s maxing out at around 200K MTOW with their 1300 sq foot wings and 787s and A330s with their 500k lbs MTOW and 4000 sq foot wings. The progress being mentioned is good news.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2488
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:08 am

Other than that?? I retire in a few months so I won't hae a
DOG in this fight I'll no longer have to worry about it My biggest worry will be can I upgrade to First??
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5479
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:33 am

strfyr51 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Designing a Middle of the Market airplane in the B797, the question IS?? Where if the Middle of the market?? I submit it is just longer than the B767-200 and
B767 300, within a few miles. However, What Boeing states the range to BE and what it actually IS?? Might be 2 separate ranges of which I seriously doubt it will be LESS than the B767-300ER. But it will NOT be the same as the B787-8. ..



strfyr51 wrote:
The optimum Between the Single aisle of the B757-300 and the B767-300 or B767-400 makes the twin aisle the better fuselage base because of the ease of Loading and unlading passengers and LD2 or LD3 containers.
It will be faster to load cargo with fewer people and have a greater freight base for revenue cargo than the B757.passengerliner has.
I think Boeing could still update and build the B757 sized airplane in the future...



Is that what you Know?? Or what you HOPE?? Because it Certainly isn't anything you can Prove!! :-)

it's what I've learned from having worked on the B767 since 1984 to present and having flown over 700 times trans con on her over the last 30+ years at United..
We've already talke to the Reps from Boeing. and they're pretty sure it's not going to be a narrow body. The B757-300 is a good airplane but
boarding and turning the airplane is a chore. and turning the B757-300 and the B767-300 are a world of difference in time and manpower.one is manual the other containerized..


Somebody already did a single aisle ready to use LD3-45s containers, so I think this not valid. The pencil of horror (753) still can be turned around in 45 minutes, a replacement using LD3-45s and boarding from the second door would achieve this with ease.
Although I agree it will not be a single aisle, as it would be too open to an attack from a A321 stretch with a new wing. I think it will be around 767-300 (small version) to 767-400 size, which means it could be ready for LD2s and an 8 abreast configuration at 17".
 
parapente
Posts: 1857
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:47 am

Congratulations on your retirement and thanks for your insightful comments-with many more to come I hope!
And yes turn round time is clearly v important both to pax and the airline.I think it's fair to say that the shorter the leg the more important it becomes.Ok this aircraft is not gonna be short range but it will be next up 'mid range'.
Extending the point.If this is true of Boeing -which considering your position I am sure it is correct.The the same 'must'be true for Airbus.

It's perhaps even more relevant to them as their 2x4x2 fuse is the first piece of work they ever did way back in the 70's.Sure they are producing a 'stop gap' NEO but once Boeing launches its gonna be tough for them.Not saying their MOM response 'will' be a carbon 2x4x2 fuse but I wouldn't bet against it!
Taking Keejse's point.Yes Boeing look like they are staying 'tried and trusted' taking the best from the 787 and 77x programs.Thats fair.But Airbus?I wonder...When they make their counter move (2 years time?) we may just get a surprise!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:51 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Why are you so focused on technology breakthroughs and what amounts to moonshots with radical designs?

It's a classic strawman argument. One asserts a falsehood as if it is a truth then use it to bludgeon others in the discussion. This one is along the lines of "there needs to be a technological breakthrough for the project to succeed and since there won't be one, the project will fail". It's also a FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) argument.

This particular member often makes digital doodles of very conventional projects that Airbus should do (I linked to them above) yet insists that Boeing needs radical technology for a MOM/NMA/797 program to succeed. Go figure.

It raises the bar so that if Boeing should come along with a fairly conventional approach "based on technology from the 787 and 777x" the first thing we will read is "what a disappointment", but Boeing is being clear that it's not going to be a radical moonshot project.

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing appears to want a clean sheet design incorporating technology already developed from other designs especially around composites and flight control architecture to be combined with low cost manufacturing lean methods in place on the 737 production line. There is a big gap between 737s and A321s maxing out at around 200K MTOW with their 1300 sq foot wings and 787s and A330s with their 500k lbs MTOW and 4000 sq foot wings.

Thanks for the nice summation of the project's current direction.

Newbiepilot wrote:
The progress being mentioned is good news.

Indeed. You'd think people would be more positive about this project taking the next step forward. Instead we read all kinds of posts proposing all kinds of different things that are far from what Boeing has told us about what this project is shaping up to be.

It seems people aren't reading what Boeing is saying and are projecting their own fantasies onto this project.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Why are you so focused on technology breakthroughs and what amounts to moonshots with radical designs?

It's a classic strawman argument. One asserts a falsehood as if it is a truth then use it to bludgeon others in the discussion. This one is along the lines of "there needs to be a technological breakthrough for the project to succeed and since there won't be one, the project will fail". It's also a FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) argument.

This particular member often makes digital doodles of very conventional projects that Airbus should do (I linked to them above) yet insists that Boeing needs radical technology for a MOM/NMA/797 program to succeed. Go figure.

It raises the bar so that if Boeing should come along with a fairly conventional approach "based on technology from the 787 and 777x" the first thing we will read is "what a disappointment", but Boeing is being clear that it's not going to be a radical moonshot project.

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing appears to want a clean sheet design incorporating technology already developed from other designs especially around composites and flight control architecture to be combined with low cost manufacturing lean methods in place on the 737 production line. There is a big gap between 737s and A321s maxing out at around 200K MTOW with their 1300 sq foot wings and 787s and A330s with their 500k lbs MTOW and 4000 sq foot wings.

Thanks for the nice summation of the project's current direction.

Newbiepilot wrote:
The progress being mentioned is good news.

Indeed. You'd think people would be more positive about this project taking the next step forward. Instead we read all kinds of posts proposing all kinds of different things that are far from what Boeing has told us about what this project is shaping up to be.

It seems people aren't reading what Boeing is saying and are projecting their own fantasies onto this project.


I think that makes sense. I've been wondering why one specific user is posting pictures of fairy tale designs as technological improvements in this thread while in another thread promoting the idea of 787-5s and other 787 shrinks. Neither of those concepts make much sense at all and that's not what Boeing has been communicating that they are working on. Perhaps it is so that when a potential 797 design solidifies and is neither of those, that member can claim disappointment and cast doubt on the Boeing design.

There's a gap between the current narrowbodies and widebodies. Boeing doesn't need outlandish technological breakthroughs to optimize an airplane for a range/payload configuration that is currently not being filled. Keeping production and development costs down are essential to keeping it within sight of A321/737-10 acquisition prices while it is also important to ensure it has enough capacity to displace 787s, 777s and A330s currently used on shorter missions.
 
holzmann
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:35 pm

RJMAZ: finally bringing a brain to this conversation. Thank you.
Keesje: Always the troll and will write/suggest only things that will hurt Boeing and help Airbus, according to his logic. I ignore his posts.

I flew my first 753 last December. It was the longest boarding/de-boarding experience I've ever had (at DCA). Not cool.

My bet is that Boeing is going to use proven techniques, including some new stuff like 3D printing, borrowing from the 787 and 77X programs, to build a twin-aisle, 8 abreast 797 with MTOW and range as described by RJMAZ above. His numbers make sense to me. It will not be a moon shot, supersonic, near-sonic, delta wing project. Sorry. Perhaps some day when Boeing has billions of funny money just sitting around.

As has also been mentioned: the secret sauce will be in the engines.
Last edited by holzmann on Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:37 pm

This is from a 16 years old patent filing, but I believe that it shows what direction Boeing is going in: https://www.google.com/patents/US6834833

Image
 
holzmann
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:57 pm

I just think 7 abreast doesn't justify the second aisle. Take the above and do 2+4+2.
 
Swadian
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:22 pm

8-abreast is just too big for an aircraft with such short range. Boeing may end up going with a huge narrowbody instead and figure out some way to cut the turnaround times. They won't develop a whole new aircraft just to build it in one length; they'll probably build at least 2 lengths and the shorter would have more range.

We don't need another 762 or A310.
SMS Kaiser
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:26 pm

holzmann wrote:
I just think 7 abreast doesn't justify the second aisle. Take the above and do 2+4+2.


I don't know enough to agree or disagree with you. What we do know is that Boeing reportedly believes that 2+3+2 is what is optimal for this market segment.

Also interesting is a recent Merrill survey. There's a podcast discussing it here: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... e-airplane. One of the points is that only about 40% of airlines are interested in a stretched a32x airplane for this role. What they want is a twin aisle aircraft with single aisle economics. About 250 seats with a 5,000nm range, according to the survey.
 
Flighty
Posts: 8743
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:34 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Make it too short and the A321 will eat its lunch. Make it too long and you're cannibalizing the 787 for shorter missions.

One-class maximum density: ~299 seats, ~4200 nm with full pax/bags
Domestic US style seating: ~249 seats, ~4500 nm with full pax/bags
International (J/Y) style seating: ~199-215 seats, ~4750 nm with full pax/bags


I was going to say nothing is needed between A321 and 787, which I agree are the state of the art. The "technological frontier" goes between them (and nothing is in the middle).

The A321 can already get to 180 (?) seats in decent international config. You're talking about routes between 3800nm and 4750nm (capability) or that really need those extra 20-30 Y seats that the A321 cannot provide. The A330neo may play here too. That's a correct identification of part of the MOM market but maybe not all of it.

We get into the problem that 7-abreast is probably a no-go. So you are at the A330 platform. I submit my prior suggestion, the A338 Lightweight. A totally new aircraft, optimized for the 5000nm mission, a touch smaller than A338 in every way and much lighter. The problem with THAT may be, when you buy a fleet, you want it to hit the furthest city pair, so customers will agitate for 6500nm just to hit 1-2 city pairs and avoid buying a real widebody.

Maybe you are right - the market is bigger the smaller you go. There is just no way to be sure there is a viable market for a fleet type there, and again the reason is the 7Y problem. Maybe you just go 7Y and build a new 763ER. My gut says no to all of this.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:49 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
I spoke with a Boeing engineer something like 4-5 years ago in Seattle, and he mentioned that a version of the Sonic Cruiser was actually back on the drawing board, with potentially revolutionary powerplants and fuselage design - even though not as dramatic as in the earlier designs.


Sounds like the "Kermit Kruiser" concept from the mid-2000s: one of Boeing's Green Team "Muppet" designs for low-noise, low-emission, low fuel-burn airframes.

Image

I'm just wondering if Honeydew was a widebody design (or could be adapted to such):

Image


Swadian wrote:
8-abreast is just too big for an aircraft with such short range.


For the US and European markets, it probably would be as they favor frequency over capacity. But for (Southeast) Asian, African and Indian markets, such a plane could be quite popular with airlines as regional "people haulers" ala the original Airbus A300 design (which was developed when air travel was more constrained between major hubs in the US and EU than it is today).
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:57 pm

Stitch wrote:
I'm just wondering if Honeydew was a widebody design (or could be adapted to such):

Image



Is this something that can be manufactured with existing technology?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:06 pm

A repeat question, but couldn't this plane be designed from the beginning with two wings optimized for the variety of missions and niches a MOM needs?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

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