This could potentially be a massive homerun in for Boeing. If they indeed bring out a 7 abreast with a containerized single aisle cargo hold a la A320, this could prove unbeatable in overall economics, however, what if Airbus decide to stretch and rewing the A321 while placing the engines designed for the 797 on the new wings? It would cost less and carry at least as much cargo and passengers for likely quite a bit lower weight. Sized slightly above the 752 and up to about the 753 length.

blrsea wrote:

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?

It seems to be DL's response to a month old report.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... de-446726/

is also a new article but just confirms DL's interest.

Perhaps these are getting posted today because of the "JP Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Industrials Conference today".

They have seattled the date, the tech, possible launch customers, and now the only thing left is to decide what kind of aircraft to build.

What an excellent idea to continue this thread forever.

It really helps the readers, nothing get's and we prevent hundreds of threads we always get about the same topic.

Brilliantly reader friendly !

It looks a bit like a big 3-3 to me.

atcsundevil wrote:

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

I think this is a major event & a refreshment of this thread is long overdue.

keesje wrote:

What an excellent idea to continue this thread forever.

It really helps the readers, nothing get's and we prevent hundreds of threads we always get about the same topic.

Brilliantly reader friendly !

It looks a bit like a big 3-3 to me.

Don’t know why you keep sticking the 3-3 when airlines have come out and literally said it’s a wide-body.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

2024 is very ambitious.

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

He confirms the timeline at the same time as he acknowledges they haven't yet confirmed the business case.
go figure

Rgds

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 there is way too much focus on these renderings, i'd be very surprised if the actual aircraft looked like that. The tail design is right out of the 80's for a start. Tails have become much smaller since then.
Also i would be really surprised if they went with the 767 cockpit section, but then again the new 777 will still retain that profile so maybe it's still an efficient design.

keesje wrote:

I think this is a major event & a refreshment of this thread is long overdue.

I think it's giving more credence to a bunch of things that are already typed into this thread, thus more of a small delta rather than major event.

I think a new thread would re-ignite the same old discussions for no reason.

I like the title change.

I think there have been too many MOM/NMA/797 threads with too much overlap in content.

scbriml wrote:

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.

Isn't that exactly what Boeing is doing with the 777?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

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.

I think there's a need to differentiate between "advantage" in the generic sense, and "advantage" specific to the 797.

I would fully expect the latest airliner from either manufacturer to be the most advanced.
When the 797 comes out it will be the most advanced.

Generically I actually don't think either OEM has a sustainable competitve advantage over the other.
Either in CFRP barrels vs panels
Or in CFRP wings
Or in ALM (3D printing)

Each one will take the lead in some aspects at some points, but overall I think the technology baselines are pretty tied.

If Airbus counter the 797 with the A32X++ with CFRP wings then i'd expect:-

The 797 to have an advantage in the CFRP fuselage
The wings to be the same
The ALM to slightly favour the 797

But the 797 will also have a higher development cost, and I suspect a higher build cost.
Being bigger, it will also need to be more efficient anyway (assuming Matt6461's rules apply to all aircraft, and not just the A380).
The benefit of a CFRP fuselage at this size is supposed to be marginal

For what its worth whilst appreciating the technology behind both CFRP barrels and ALM, I'm not caught up in the "drug-like rush" over either of them.
My training and experience and specialisation is in the optimisation of the overall manufacturing system, on very complex products.
Quite often, what looks like a large advantage at the incremental or component level can barely move the needle of the whole system.
Sometimes a poor implementation of a great technology can actually move the system backwards.

This may not be a palatable example, but it has been fascinating to see the energy the cost reduction exercises on the 787 have generated in the last few months.
Nothing wrong with that, of itself.
But that energy is based on a realisation that the 787 manufacturing cost will, after this huge, unprecedented squeeze, reduce from hugely expensive to being close to achieving parity with the identically sized A330NEO

Do you remember where the "drug-like rush" took us in the early 2000's?
I suspect if we go back there, "parity" with an identically sized conventional plane would have been a vast disappointment.
Especially considering the 787 needs to be going from rate 12 to rate 14 to achieve this compared to rate 6 for the NEO.

That's not a dig, by the way - I applaud everything Boeing are doing. What I am trying to illustrate is that whole unit cost reduction of the type Boeing are aiming to achieve with the 797 is phenomenally difficult to achieve, and fraught with all kinds of risks.

On the upside, all the efforts will continue to offer learning and development opportunities for the business that will ultimately continue to move it forwards

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

2024 is very ambitious.

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

He confirms the timeline at the same time as he acknowledges they haven't yet confirmed the business case.
go figure

He affirms the timeline they are using while trying to close the business case.

It's quite true the business case might not close at all, it is a very complex one.

Pretty much every '797' observer knows that it's a relatively small market niche to hit, with tight economic targets, and it's vulnerable to competitive responses.

Also, the business case might not close if the timeline is so far out that it prevents them from capturing business such as UAs.

Surprised that UA's potential defection is not getting much notice here.

Thus we may see the need to keep time to market short at the expense of "moonshot" engine technology.

Yet we know engine tech is one way to get the kinds of gains you need to close a business case.

OTOH Boeing mumbles about wing/pylon/nacelle/engine integration breakthroughs as being significant.

It's a fascinating set of tradeoffs, IMHO.

Revelation wrote:

blrsea wrote:

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?

It seems to be DL's response to a month old report.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... de-446726/

is also a new article but just confirms DL's interest.

Perhaps these are getting posted today because of the "JP Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Industrials Conference today".

The other 'new' thing in the article about Delta and the NMA is that apparently Ed Bastian himself was in Seattle last week to discuss the plane with Boeing...

I find the story of United waiting 7 years for the 797 iffy at best. Their 757s and 767s are old, and I would expect United to do what their competitors have done an replaced the oldest planes first with A321s. Airbus will be aggressive with A330 pricing in particular and United would be a fool to walk away from. At least a partial replacement.

william wrote:

I find the story of United waiting 7 years for the 797 iffy at best. Their 757s and 767s are old, and I would expect United to do what their competitors have done an replaced the oldest planes first with A321s. Airbus will be aggressive with A330 pricing in particular and United would be a fool to walk away from. At least a partial replacement.

Seven years is very optimistic. It needs very efficient engines to be competitive with twin isle. I doubt any airline actually believes that will be in 7 years.

scbriml wrote:

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.

Barrels on any material can be stuffed. Current 737s are fuselages built in Kansas. I suspect that Boeing or some other firms could stuff them before they are put on the train. And I really suspect that any 797 barrel/fuselages will be stuffed before assembley.

Res United - what else does Boeing have to offer to replace SOME of the 128 757/767s? Right now that is one of Airbus's advantages.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the program is being driven by the need to meet the timeline (airlines want NMA by the middle of next decade or they will pursue other options) so Boeing needs to have a business case that can support it. The longer Boeing waits, the cheaper NMA should be as general manufacturing processes improve and the better it will be as general technology improves (lighter materials, better engines, more advanced aerodynamics). The inability to leverage some of those advantages due to the "accelerated" timeline means the program will be more expensive to bring to market and the frame will not be as good as it could be, so Boeing's ability to command a pricing premium for the better economics will be less.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Res United - what else does Boeing have to offer to replace SOME of the 128 757/767s? Right now that is one of Airbus's advantages.

The 737-10.

And maybe more 767-300ER.

The most interesting part to me from the Flight Global article is that Bastian seems to hint that he envisions replacing all variants of the 757 and the 767 with the NMA. Not necessarily a 1:1 replacement, but that seems to be the strategy he's articulating and that's 200 planes or so, on a 1:1 basis.

Interesting to me for two reasons:

1. I would have guessed that there would be more discussion about the 321 for the 757 replacements.
2. I was playing with the GCM and at least on paper, the NMA (5000nm) can reach a decent chunk of the big East Asian cities from Seattle.

Stitch wrote:

I'm going to hazard a guess that the program is being driven by the need to meet the timeline (airlines want NMA by the middle of next decade or they will pursue other options) so Boeing needs to have a business case that can support it. The longer Boeing waits, the cheaper NMA should be as general manufacturing processes improve and the better it will be as general technology improves (lighter materials, better engines, more advanced aerodynamics). The inability to leverage some of those advantages due to the "accelerated" timeline means the program will be more expensive to bring to market and the frame will not be as good as it could be, so Boeing's ability to command a pricing premium for the better economics will be less.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Res United - what else does Boeing have to offer to replace SOME of the 128 757/767s? Right now that is one of Airbus's advantages.

The 737-10.

And maybe more 767-300ER.

and 787's

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Res United - what else does Boeing have to offer to replace SOME of the 128 757/767s? Right now that is one of Airbus's advantages.

Stitch wrote:

The 737-10. And maybe more 767-300ER.

cledaybuck wrote:

and 787's

And A330-800s.

But how much does UA wish to up-gauge 767 routes?

The A330-800 and 787-8 offer almost one-third more space. That works out to around another 40 Economy seats (assuming UA keeps Polaris and Economy Plus the same as on the 767-300ER).

Will be very interesting, I can't wait the reaction this Boeing move will evoke at Airbus. Even if a new design bears a high business case risk, I am all for it! The engine selection is in my view the most interesting aspect.

Here is an article about the 797. It says the 797, should Boeing go ahead with it, will not have any technical leap forwards. Here's a quote.

"But it will give the world's largest plane maker a chance to test its new business approach of designing the plane so that it generates lucrative services revenues for Boeing while also offering efficiencies to airlines over the aircraft’s decades-long lifespan.

And here's the article.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/focus-bo ... 39653.html

MrBretz wrote:

Here is an article about the 797. It says the 797, should Boeing go ahead with it, will not have any technical leap forwards. Here's a quote.

"But it will give the world's largest plane maker a chance to test its new business approach of designing the plane so that it generates lucrative services revenues for Boeing while also offering efficiencies to airlines over the aircraft’s decades-long lifespan.

And here's the article.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/focus-bo ... 39653.html

It does seem to be an interestingly broad repudiation of the whole 787 strategy of outsourcing.

I can imagine some will say we're swapping one "drug-like rush" for another...

I found this part to be of interest:

To support the strategy, Boeing is bringing back key in-house technology like avionics - the brains of a modern jet - partly with an eye to future after market revenue.

"It is important that we build out vertical capabilities that sustain our engineering depth...as airplanes become more digital," Muilenburg said, adding that broader growth in the industry would also provide a boon to suppliers.

Yet at the same time UTC is working on acquiring Rockwell-Collins...

And:

Depending on how far this goes, industry sources say it may also herald gradual changes in patterns of cash generation.

While planemakers get paid on delivery, engine makers charge little upfront and make money on services provided over years.

Some analysts say new plane manufacturer strategies suggest those business models could start to converge and put pressure on them to be more generous with discounts on jets.

So we may see Boeing willing to cut prices up front to get longer term revenue streams on the back end.

Of course that hurts when the airline industry hits a soft spot and has to park airplanes, but by the time that matters Muilenburg will be retired.

cledaybuck wrote:

scbriml wrote:

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.

Isn't that exactly what Boeing is doing with the 777?

Yes, of course. But I'm talking about an all-new plane.

tlecam wrote:

Interesting to me for two reasons:

1. I would have guessed that there would be more discussion about the 321 for the 757 replacements.
2. I was playing with the GCM and at least on paper, the NMA (5000nm) can reach a decent chunk of the big East Asian cities from Seattle.

Your point #2 is very interesting. To date, Delta has struggled to generate any concrete advantage from its SEA hub, compared to the competition's West Coast operations. The ability to fly multiple NMA frequencies on core routes and one frequency to secondary destinations would change that dramatically. No wonder Delta is so outspoken about wanting to be first.

On point 1, I think Bastian's just being a bit sloppy in his wording. It seems clear that existing A321ceo orders will replace MD-88 and MD-90 capacity, while the A321neo order was to replace a decent chunk of the domestic 757 fleet. But A321neo won't be able to (directly) replace the long-distance and international 757s or the 753s. And those are the ones that will be around until NMA will be delivered (many of the domestic 752s will cycle out before then).

atcsundevil wrote:

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".

I have a feeling this is what Boeing wants as well.

tlecam wrote:

The most interesting part to me from the Flight Global article is that Bastian seems to hint that he envisions replacing all variants of the 757 and the 767 with the NMA. Not necessarily a 1:1 replacement, but that seems to be the strategy he's articulating and that's 200 planes or so, on a 1:1 basis.

Interesting to me for two reasons:

1. I would have guessed that there would be more discussion about the 321 for the 757 replacements.
2. I was playing with the GCM and at least on paper, the NMA (5000nm) can reach a decent chunk of the big East Asian cities from Seattle.

5000nm from SEA is as good as 4000nm from FRA for TATL.

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.

"757/767/777 windscreen"

NO NO no no nO NO NO no no NO. Why would we want a 7(5/6/7)7 windscreen? The reason that older planes have curved windscreens is because it was difficult to produce useful curved glass that was impact resistant and light enough when those noses were designed 30-50 years ago. The flat-glassed windscreens are ugly and inefficient. Every new fuselage has a curved windscreen because it is now feasible to design more aerodynamic, better looking noses. Look at the A350, 787, CSeries. They all have curved glass. I don't know why you would put in a front windscreen that is essentially the relic of the 757/767 program from 40 years ago. The nose is usually the most dated part of any aircraft because it is one of the most expensive parts of the fuselage along with the wingbox and the tailcone, and it is something that can't be refreshed when a plane goes through a refresh cycle. Why would you put a nose that will be 50 years old when the 797 enters service? By the end of its life, there will be 797s flying around with noses designed 85-90 years ago. Not that boeing wouldn't want to do that, ahem 737 MAX, but this just seems like some fanboy wetdream of combining different parts of old boeing aircraft. The 787 is an entirely new design, why would they want to regress on that? Stupid chimera aircraft.

If you paint a 777 in retro colors, it genuinely looks like an old aircraft. A 787 or A350 in something like Air China's livery is still going to look new because the "faces" are updated. The nose used on the 757/767 is one of my least favorite Boeing designs, and its the one thing that makes the otherwise flawless 777 look ugly. I know aesthetics don't matter, but god, that nose is completely hideous. I'm almost having flashbacks from the 777-with-a-hump thread. Please make it stop.

jubguy3 wrote:

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.

"757/767/777 windscreen"

NO NO no no nO NO NO no no NO. Why would we want a 7(5/6/7)7 windscreen? The reason that older planes have curved windscreens is because it was difficult to produce useful curved glass that was impact resistant and light enough when those noses were designed 30-50 years ago. The flat-glassed windscreens are ugly and inefficient. Every new fuselage has a curved windscreen because it is now feasible to design more aerodynamic, better looking noses. Look at the A350, 787, CSeries. They all have curved glass. I don't know why you would put in a front windscreen that is essentially the relic of the 757/767 program from 40 years ago. The nose is usually the most dated part of any aircraft because it is one of the most expensive parts of the fuselage along with the wingbox and the tailcone, and it is something that can't be refreshed when a plane goes through a refresh cycle. Why would you put a nose that will be 50 years old when the 797 enters service? By the end of its life, there will be 797s flying around with noses designed 85-90 years ago. Not that boeing wouldn't want to do that, ahem 737 MAX, but this just seems like some fanboy wetdream of combining different parts of old boeing aircraft. The 787 is an entirely new design, why would they want to regress on that? Stupid chimera aircraft.

If you paint a 777 in retro colors, it genuinely looks like an old aircraft. A 787 or A350 in something like Air China's livery is still going to look new because the "faces" are updated. The nose used on the 757/767 is one of my least favorite Boeing designs, and its the one thing that makes the otherwise flawless 777 look ugly. I know aesthetics don't matter, but god, that nose is completely hideous. I'm almost having flashbacks from the 777-with-a-hump thread. Please make it stop.

Oh my good god it’s just a basic rendering of an aircraft that isn’t even officially launched. I bet many things will change once it gets launched. Especially the cockpit section. Please calm yourself...

ikolkyo wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

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.

"757/767/777 windscreen"

NO NO no no nO NO NO no no NO. Why would we want a 7(5/6/7)7 windscreen? The reason that older planes have curved windscreens is because it was difficult to produce useful curved glass that was impact resistant and light enough when those noses were designed 30-50 years ago. The flat-glassed windscreens are ugly and inefficient. Every new fuselage has a curved windscreen because it is now feasible to design more aerodynamic, better looking noses. Look at the A350, 787, CSeries. They all have curved glass. I don't know why you would put in a front windscreen that is essentially the relic of the 757/767 program from 40 years ago. The nose is usually the most dated part of any aircraft because it is one of the most expensive parts of the fuselage along with the wingbox and the tailcone, and it is something that can't be refreshed when a plane goes through a refresh cycle. Why would you put a nose that will be 50 years old when the 797 enters service? By the end of its life, there will be 797s flying around with noses designed 85-90 years ago. Not that boeing wouldn't want to do that, ahem 737 MAX, but this just seems like some fanboy wetdream of combining different parts of old boeing aircraft. The 787 is an entirely new design, why would they want to regress on that? Stupid chimera aircraft.

If you paint a 777 in retro colors, it genuinely looks like an old aircraft. A 787 or A350 in something like Air China's livery is still going to look new because the "faces" are updated. The nose used on the 757/767 is one of my least favorite Boeing designs, and its the one thing that makes the otherwise flawless 777 look ugly. I know aesthetics don't matter, but god, that nose is completely hideous. I'm almost having flashbacks from the 777-with-a-hump thread. Please make it stop.

Oh my good god it’s just a basic rendering of an aircraft that isn’t even officially launched. I bet many things will change once it gets launched. Especially the cockpit section. Please calm yourself...

I'm responding to the rendering itself. I know stuff will change when it's launched because Boeing isn't dumb enough to launch a clean sheet aircraft with a 50 year old nose

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Res United - what else does Boeing have to offer to replace SOME of the 128 757/767s? Right now that is one of Airbus's advantages.

If this 797 ever gets built, when it is first delivered, the 757's and 767's will mostly be gone. Even if there is a 2025 service entry (very unlikely -- engines !!)...by the time the aircraft production is ramped up so that hundreds are in service...it will be 2030 or later...by then 757's and 767's will be gone, especially the 757 -- production stopped in 2003? -- and the 767 has been primarily a freighter since 2000...I think ANA took some new 763 passenger versions while waiting out the 787 delays. Very few will be less than 25 years old by 2030.

A 797 will replace these aircraft on current 757-767 routes -- that will likely be flown in the interim by suboptimal aircraft -- tightly packed A321's or 737-9/10 or wide-bodies like A330's and 788's that are not stretching their legs. And actually, I think a 797 has more potential as a LCC people-mover in and between China/India/SE-Asia...I don't think A or B really design "replacement" aircraft.

It will be interesting to see if orders in the next few years reflect an interim approach...knowing a NMA is coming closer to the 2030 timeframe....e.g. A321/737-10's ordered, that later in life, can be put on shorter dense routes after NMA arrives....or wide-bodies that after NMA is introduced...can be put on longer range routes?

seahawk wrote:

tlecam wrote:

The most interesting part to me from the Flight Global article is that Bastian seems to hint that he envisions replacing all variants of the 757 and the 767 with the NMA. Not necessarily a 1:1 replacement, but that seems to be the strategy he's articulating and that's 200 planes or so, on a 1:1 basis.

Interesting to me for two reasons:

1. I would have guessed that there would be more discussion about the 321 for the 757 replacements.
2. I was playing with the GCM and at least on paper, the NMA (5000nm) can reach a decent chunk of the big East Asian cities from Seattle.

5000nm from SEA is as good as 4000nm from FRA for TATL.

Good to know - I was going off of the "paper" range. Even with that, it was mostly Tokyo and Seoul that were within range and notable.

jubguy3 wrote:

"757/767/777 windscreen"

NO NO no no nO NO NO no no NO.

I don't think I know how you feel about it.

Worth noting that the 757/767/777 have curved glass except for the front panes. If Jon's rendering reflects Boeing's thinking accurately, then Boeing may have decided that the incremental aerodynamic benefit from curved front panes isn't worth the extra maintenance expense -- they are a lot more expensive to replace when they break.

Also, the 757/767/777 cockpit spaces are widely considered pilot-friendly, very much unlike the 737. There's no reason that a 767 cockpit updated with all of the 787 tech couldn't be competitive.

seabosdca wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

"757/767/777 windscreen"

NO NO no no nO NO NO no no NO.

I don't think I know how you feel about it.

Worth noting that the 757/767/777 have curved glass except for the front panes. If Jon's rendering reflects Boeing's thinking accurately, then Boeing may have decided that the incremental aerodynamic benefit from curved front panes isn't worth the extra maintenance expense -- they are a lot more expensive to replace when they break.

Also, the 757/767/777 cockpit spaces are widely considered pilot-friendly, very much unlike the 737. There's no reason that a 767 cockpit updated with all of the 787 tech couldn't be competitive.

Well, if Boeing puts the 757 cockpit on 797 and Airbus the CSeries cockpit on their NB NMA, they are at least clearly recognizeable at the gate.

TranscendZac wrote:

This could potentially be a massive homerun in for Boeing. If they indeed bring out a 7 abreast with a containerized single aisle cargo hold a la A320, this could prove unbeatable in overall economics, however, what if Airbus decide to stretch and rewing the A321 while placing the engines designed for the 797 on the new wings? It would cost less and carry at least as much cargo and passengers for likely quite a bit lower weight. Sized slightly above the 752 and up to about the 753 length.

not much room for Airbus to further stretch the 321 without major modification

hongkongflyer wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

This could potentially be a massive homerun in for Boeing. If they indeed bring out a 7 abreast with a containerized single aisle cargo hold a la A320, this could prove unbeatable in overall economics, however, what if Airbus decide to stretch and rewing the A321 while placing the engines designed for the 797 on the new wings? It would cost less and carry at least as much cargo and passengers for likely quite a bit lower weight. Sized slightly above the 752 and up to about the 753 length.

not much room for Airbus to further stretch the 321 without major modification

Airbus says one more stretch would be easy. But they are not aiming to certify for more than 250 seats anyway, as you need an extra FA for 250+ seats and the costs of this needs about 7 seats to compensate. So you need about 270 seats for it to make sense.

Yup Airbus offered the potential of a stretch of rhe 321 about 15 years ago but fell on deaf ears at the time.Someone on this forum dug up an article from Flight Global when they 'cancelled ' the idea.So it's definitely possible.
And yes I note a spokesperson from Airbus recently (and pointedly) stated that the new fuse door arrangement allowed for a max of 250 pax.
The present 321neo maxes at 240 pax - but- that is using 'cabin flex' to the max and using the lowest possible pitch -28".But a stretch to 250 at a 29" pitch (LCC) may be possible without changing the fundamentals of the aircraft except trading range for the additional weight.Perhaps 220 pax in 2 class transcontinental arrangement?
This is possibly what the 'plus' is.Mind you They need to get their engines working properly before they promise anything!

That's the intriguing engine question for Boeing. Sure GE wants to be exclusive on the 797, why not?

But what if PW gets it right on the geared turbo fan and starts doing their PiP's
and upgrade in terms of temperatures, pressures, lighter fan blades etc.
GE / RR are behind on geared fans. And there's only hope they'll quickly catch up
& PW will sit on their hands meanwhile.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-05-31/pratt-whitney-says-new-pw1000g-core-will-cut-fuel-burn

keesje wrote:

That's the intriguing engine question for Boeing. Sure GE wants to be exclusive on the 797, why not?

But what if PW gets it right on the geared turbo fan and starts doing their PiP's
and upgrade in terms of temperatures, pressures, lighter fan blades etc.
GE / RR are behind on geared fans. And there's only hope they'll quickly catch up
& PW will sit on their hands meanwhile.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-05-31/pratt-whitney-says-new-pw1000g-core-will-cut-fuel-burn

I doubt PW is sitting on their hands. Their hands are busy rebuilding engines in stock that have a faulty seal design and repairing engines coming in for warranted service after such seals have failed. PW executives are trying to figure out how to deal with the PR and financial nightmare. Some airline executives are cursing their decision to use PW, others are thanking the gods that they didn't choose PW.

Sure, maybe the wounds will heal in 5-10 years time but by then 797 will have made an engine choice, and I strongly doubt PW will be trusted with the role.

Maybe executives conclude breaking up AIE was a bad idea for everybody, except CFM..

I did not read all of the 1537 earlier posts but would the "797" be able to operate from airports like MDW, LGA, DCA, SNA, etc? It would be great to have an aircraft with more seating/cargo capacity operate from these types of airports.

keesje wrote:

That's the intriguing engine question for Boeing. Sure GE wants to be exclusive on the 797, why not?

But what if PW gets it right on the geared turbo fan and starts doing their PiP's
and upgrade in terms of temperatures, pressures, lighter fan blades etc.
GE / RR are behind on geared fans. And there's only hope they'll quickly catch up
& PW will sit on their hands meanwhile.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-05-31/pratt-whitney-says-new-pw1000g-core-will-cut-fuel-burn

Yes, that's a big "what if".

As I stated in another thread, RR is going to have similar tech with their,"stepped down" engine. P&W and RR both were in the IAE consortium that looked at the SuperFan GTF in the 80s. RR seems to be taking it a step further than P&W with variable pitch tech. The real question is what is GE up too and no, I do not believe for a second they are relying on a hotter core. After seeing the future landscape, no doubt Boeing has told GE, "show us what you are really cooking".

keesje wrote:

That's the intriguing engine question for Boeing. Sure GE wants to be exclusive on the 797, why not?

But what if PW gets it right on the geared turbo fan and starts doing their PiP's
and upgrade in terms of temperatures, pressures, lighter fan blades etc.
GE / RR are behind on geared fans. And there's only hope they'll quickly catch up
& PW will sit on their hands meanwhile.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-05-31/pratt-whitney-says-new-pw1000g-core-will-cut-fuel-burn

We both know that GE has their own GTF in development. It will beat RR UltraFan to market and outperform it as well. The process RR is going through right now is to make an engine as good as GE with carbon fan blades, etc. Advance is finally RR's response to GE's aging GE90 design. UltraFan takes Advance and adds the GTF, something GE is working on now, especially with recent corporate purchases of said technology.

holzmann wrote:

keesje wrote:

That's the intriguing engine question for Boeing. Sure GE wants to be exclusive on the 797, why not?

But what if PW gets it right on the geared turbo fan and starts doing their PiP's
and upgrade in terms of temperatures, pressures, lighter fan blades etc.
GE / RR are behind on geared fans. And there's only hope they'll quickly catch up
& PW will sit on their hands meanwhile.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-05-31/pratt-whitney-says-new-pw1000g-core-will-cut-fuel-burn

We both know that GE has their own GTF in development. It will beat RR UltraFan to market and outperform it as well. The process RR is going through right now is to make an engine as good as GE with carbon fan blades, etc. Advance is finally RR's response to GE's aging GE90 design. UltraFan takes Advance and adds the GTF, something GE is working on now, especially with recent corporate purchases of said technology.

If what you state is true, then if I am Boeing, I would give an exclusive deal to GE/CFM if that engine is going to be ready.

I think Boeing may well go for a GE (Cfm) exclusive ,why not it's worked perfectly well to date.Whether they will 'gear' or not is another matter.This a/c is clearly being built 'down' to a price.Price in purchasing and price in other areas. Such as maintaining the a/c.So they may not bother with a 'Moon shot' even though they could do it (gearing).Also the very tight timing schedule (if launched ) mitigates against using this new and complex technology.

holzmann wrote:

keesje wrote:

That's the intriguing engine question for Boeing. Sure GE wants to be exclusive on the 797, why not?

But what if PW gets it right on the geared turbo fan and starts doing their PiP's
and upgrade in terms of temperatures, pressures, lighter fan blades etc.
GE / RR are behind on geared fans. And there's only hope they'll quickly catch up
& PW will sit on their hands meanwhile.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-05-31/pratt-whitney-says-new-pw1000g-core-will-cut-fuel-burn

We both know that GE has their own GTF in development. It will beat RR UltraFan to market and outperform it as well. The process RR is going through right now is to make an engine as good as GE with carbon fan blades, etc. Advance is finally RR's response to GE's aging GE90 design. UltraFan takes Advance and adds the GTF, something GE is working on now, especially with recent corporate purchases of said technology.

Much of what I read is along the lines of:

GE Aviation CEO David Joyce has made it abundantly clear that any engine for NMA/797 would come from partner CFM International and be based upon an evolutionary step change through the LEAP family.

Ref: http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/20 ... -solution/

See also: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ct-445532/

So it's a strange decision tree. 797 is targeting a relatively small market so it's hard for an engine maker to justify spending on an all new design. It needs really good fuel burn to gain an advantage. It also needs to get to market before all of the 757/767 replacement market disappears. It needs to hit strict price targets. It can be (and to a good degree already is) undermined by the the competition's moves. It needs a clean entry to service.

Seems if GE is not going with a gear it will be at a fuel burn disadvantage. The only way this works out is if GE can provide gear-like fuel burn without using a gear. Either that or GE is dissembling and they are developing a gear and will use it on NMA.

Another complicating factor is whomever gets on NMA has the inside track on future Boeing business namely a new narrow body.

Personally I think Pratt is out of the running. They've placed third on Boeing's last several projects and the poor showing on PW1100G pretty much pushes them to the bottom. RR is still a runner, but Boeing has a high comfort level with CFM and GE might be willing to spend a lot of money to get on the NMA whereas I doubt RR can/will. Pretty much all their current profits are being eaten up by the need to tear down T1000 engines and replace the blades in them.

astuteman wrote:

This 32 800 litres compares to 42 600 litres for the 757 - only 75% of the capacity of a 757

for 65..70% of fuel flow. fully sufficient.

Revelation wrote:

holzmann wrote:

keesje wrote:

That's the intriguing engine question for Boeing. Sure GE wants to be exclusive on the 797, why not?

But what if PW gets it right on the geared turbo fan and starts doing their PiP's
and upgrade in terms of temperatures, pressures, lighter fan blades etc.
GE / RR are behind on geared fans. And there's only hope they'll quickly catch up
& PW will sit on their hands meanwhile.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-05-31/pratt-whitney-says-new-pw1000g-core-will-cut-fuel-burn

We both know that GE has their own GTF in development. It will beat RR UltraFan to market and outperform it as well. The process RR is going through right now is to make an engine as good as GE with carbon fan blades, etc. Advance is finally RR's response to GE's aging GE90 design. UltraFan takes Advance and adds the GTF, something GE is working on now, especially with recent corporate purchases of said technology.

Much of what I read is along the lines of:

GE Aviation CEO David Joyce has made it abundantly clear that any engine for NMA/797 would come from partner CFM International and be based upon an evolutionary step change through the LEAP family.

Ref: http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/20 ... -solution/

See also: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ct-445532/

So it's a strange decision tree. 797 is targeting a relatively small market so it's hard for an engine maker to justify spending on an all new design. It needs really good fuel burn to gain an advantage. It also needs to get to market before all of the 757/767 replacement market disappears. It needs to hit strict price targets. It can be (and to a good degree already is) undermined by the the competition's moves. It needs a clean entry to service.

Seems if GE is not going with a gear it will be at a fuel burn disadvantage. The only way this works out is if GE can provide gear-like fuel burn without using a gear. Either that or GE is dissembling and they are developing a gear and will use it on NMA.

Another complicating factor is whomever gets on NMA has the inside track on future Boeing business namely a new narrow body.

Personally I think Pratt is out of the running. They've placed third on Boeing's last several projects and the poor showing on PW1100G pretty much pushes them to the bottom. RR is still a runner, but Boeing has a high comfort level with CFM and GE might be willing to spend a lot of money to get on the NMA whereas I doubt RR can/will. Pretty much all their current profits are being eaten up by the need to tear down T1000 engines and replace the blades in them.

As of right now using the current A320NEO as a test bed, real world shows a couple percentage points going to the GTF and thats before P&W wrings out more efficiency. Again, we will see if the one post about GE working on its own GTF is true.

Fuel disadvantage -to whom?Their Leap has an exclusive on the 737 and sfc parity on the 320 (and it actually works).Above it is the 788/388.Where is the fuel disadvantage?With leap and GE9 they are right on the bleeding edge of hot core design and great carbon wide blades (we haven't even seen their latest and greatest (777x) in action yet.)Why to you 'have' to gear?
Note -once you gear everything else has to change as all the rotational speeds change.Keep it simple -and light.

parapente wrote:

Fuel disadvantage -to whom?Their Leap has an exclusive on the 737 and sfc parity on the 320 (and it actually works).Above it is the 788/388.Where is the fuel disadvantage?With leap and GE9 they are right on the bleeding edge of hot core design and great carbon wide blades (we haven't even seen their latest and greatest (777x) in action yet.)Why to you 'have' to gear?
Note -once you gear everything else has to change as all the rotational speeds change.Keep it simple -and light.

Putting aside the questionable P&W reliability so far, on the A320NEO the GTF is marginally more efficient than its LEAP counterparts, and thats before P&W starts minor improvements.. Boeing will not want to be locked in to OEM not seen keeping up with its competition.

Unless, I am totally wrong and just running a hotter core will keep GE competitive against GTR and variable pitch powerplants.

william wrote:

Unless, I am totally wrong and just running a hotter core will keep GE competitive against GTR and variable pitch powerplants.

The advantages of a hotter core more than make up for not having the geared fan. A-netters spread false rumours and exagerate the GTF fuel burn advantage. I have not seen any evidence to back up that claim.

Everything starts with the core. The fan is driven from power created in the core. Running the core hotter allows it to be smaller and more fuel efficient. It creates more shaft power to turn the fan while burning the same amount of fuel. The smaller core saves weight and allows the bypass ratio to be higher with any given fan size. This has the knock on effect of saving on cowling weight and reduced drag.

The extra low pressure turbines required by GE are fairly insignificant in weight compared to a gearbox.

It has a compounding affect as a package.