Revelation wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

The problem is the nature of composite properties. You really only need a couple plies to take the pr/t strains of a fuselage at altitude. The problem is all the accidental damage and other problems like hail strike. There is a crossover point for the crown skins where at certain radiuses and frame/stringer spacings it's more weight efficient to go with aluminum than it is to use composites. Hail impact is just that severe and aluminum responds better to that kind of impact than composites do.

And the article says:

Miguel Castillo Acero, vice-president of technology development at Spanish aerostructures specialist Aernnova, estimates that the costs of producing composite aerostructures are 40-100% higher than for comparable metal components, depending on part complexity.

... so metal also has some pretty strong cost advantages.

I imagine the aluminum folks, as well as the manufacturers, are advancing lighter/stronger alloys and how to more efficiently work with them. The A220's Al-Li fuse seems to be working out well for them.

Metal also has the advantage that additive manufacturing technologies are quite mature and ready for mass production.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Revelation wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

The problem is the nature of composite properties. You really only need a couple plies to take the pr/t strains of a fuselage at altitude. The problem is all the accidental damage and other problems like hail strike. There is a crossover point for the crown skins where at certain radiuses and frame/stringer spacings it's more weight efficient to go with aluminum than it is to use composites. Hail impact is just that severe and aluminum responds better to that kind of impact than composites do.

And the article says:

Miguel Castillo Acero, vice-president of technology development at Spanish aerostructures specialist Aernnova, estimates that the costs of producing composite aerostructures are 40-100% higher than for comparable metal components, depending on part complexity.

... so metal also has some pretty strong cost advantages.

I imagine the aluminum folks, as well as the manufacturers, are advancing lighter/stronger alloys and how to more efficiently work with them. The A220's Al-Li fuse seems to be working out well for them.

A220 is 46% composite and 24% Al-Li

AviationWeek weighs in on the conflicting desires and requirements of airlines impacts and influences NMA's design:

http://aviationweek.com/NMA?NL=AW-05&Is ... 56911d4b6f

Might explain why Boeing is still not ready to commit to a design to present to the Board for ATO.

Add in the complexity of composite scarf repairs etc. Not as simple as slapping a doubler on and throwing a bunch of rivets at it.

Stitch wrote:

AviationWeek weighs in on the conflicting desires and requirements of airlines impacts and influences NMA's design:

http://aviationweek.com/NMA?NL=AW-05&Is ... 56911d4b6f

Might explain why Boeing is still not ready to commit to a design to present to the Board for ATO.

Indeed - its possibly the most difficult (commercial) aircraft top-level requirement definition faced by any OEM.

12 months ago I was unconvinced there was a business case for it and believed Boeing wouldn't launch. 3 months ago I thought Boeing were going to launch and obviously knew better than me.
Now I'm leaning back toward 'there is no strong case and a few executives are trying very hard to talk one into existence'.

The only way I can see it working (even then, it'd likely be a local program loss but to benefit of Boeing as a whole) is if it is a bridge to the 737 replacement. i.e. single aisle which gets a lot of the next-generation's systems and manufacturing/assembly techniques debugged for the most pressurised ramp up in history (A32x and 737 replacements).

Amiga500 wrote:

Indeed - its possibly the most difficult (commercial) aircraft top-level requirement definition faced by any OEM.

Looking at the Realized Price Per Seat chart, the 767-300ER is actually pretty close to the A321neo. It's the Block-Hour Per Seat cost where the delta grows significantly. However, NMA will burn significantly less fuel and have significantly lower maintenance costs than a 767-300ER. So I would be interested to see how much lower they would be and how they would compare to the A321neo.

Amiga500 wrote:

The only way I can see it working (even then, it'd likely be a local program loss but to benefit of Boeing as a whole) is if it is a bridge to the 737 replacement. i.e. single aisle which gets a lot of the next-generation's systems and manufacturing/assembly techniques debugged for the most pressurised ramp up in history (A32x and 737 replacements).

Most of us believe that is a given. NMA will serve to mature the production process and systems design to ensure NSA has a smooth EIS and production ramp.

From the AW&ST article:

"And of concern for Boeing, executives of 72% of the surveyed airlines say aircraft other than the NMA would best meet their midmarket requirements. Among them are the A321neo, the proposed A321neo-plus-plus (more capacity, more range), the 737-10, and even the A330neo and a derated 787-8 if they are offered for less than $100 million."

There you have it. If I were Boeing, I'd simply re-work 787-8 to have as much commonality with -9 and -10, derate it and offer for the price the market wants it for. Based on the above, it appears to be the most logical choice at the moment.

The 797, when eventually launched, will be an amazing aircraft, but do airlines really want an amazing all new, unproven aircraft? Just look at the engine dilemma. How long will this aircraft take to enter service after it is launched? How long after that before it's operating reliably and up to spec?

I've droned on about this many times before, but I think Boeing dropped the ball by not maxxing the 767 with the genx -2b's from the 748. The 767 is still in production, OEW and performance almost exactly half way between the 788/332 and the 321/737-10, (as MOM as you can get), proven certified engines right in the 762/3er thrust class. It would not be ideal, but what it would be is cheaper and easier than making an all new aircraft, but also good enough to do exactly the job Boeing says they want from their MOM aircraft. It would have all the reliability of the 767 with the efficiency of modern engines and be bullet proof from the moment it entered service. It would also be completed in about one third the time it will take to go all new.

If it wasn't a big hit for the airlines, Boeing could very well sell the upgrades to the USAF.

Instead, they have to try and sell another brand new aircraft with brand new bleeding edge engines against the backdrop of none of the engine makers making good on the specs of their current bleeding edge engines...some more than a decade after their first EIS deadline. How many neo's are waiting for engines? Who knows what issues Boeing will have with the airframe, considering everything will be all new? Boeing's 5 years of delays on the 787 were completely self inflicted and partly caused by them deciding to use completely unproven tech, as well as trying to reinvent the supply chain.

And yet, 767's are being flown until they pretty much fall apart and cargo companies are still ordering new ones. Genx -2b engines are reliably plying the skies every day on 748's.

Airlines seem to be asking for the capabilities either of the 321 or 767. Airbus is willing and able to fill their 321 needs, and Boeing is taking even more of the bottom end of the market with the 737-10. That's making for a pretty small MOM window into which Boeing must insert a brand new in every aspect, totally unproven, multi billion dollar aircraft that will do more than the 737/321, but won't eat into 787 sales, and be reliable as well.

Maybe it's like the NMA. Airlines were keen on the concept, but in the end, instead of waiting around for what might be a better plane way down the road...they were willing to settle for somewhat less than ideal upgrades of the same, old, reliable planes that they could get in half the time.

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 797, when eventually launched, will be an amazing aircraft, but do airlines really want an amazing all new, unproven aircraft?

They wanted the 787 and A350 bad enough.

JoeCanuck wrote:

I've droned on about this many times before, but I think Boeing dropped the ball by not maxxing the 767 with the genx -2b's from the 748.

GE would have had to develop yet a third version and it could have hit the same snafus the engine did on the 747-8 and 787 programs depending on when it was scheduled to enter service. And if the A330-200 "killed" the 767-300ER as a passenger frame as we are so often told on this forum, then by extension the A330-800 would have "killed" the "767-3". So would GE or Boeing have been willing to spend the money?

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 767 is still in production, OEW and performance almost exactly half way between the 788/332 and the 321/737-10, (as MOM as you can get), proven certified engines right in the 762/3er thrust class. It would not be ideal, but what it would be is cheaper and easier than making an all new aircraft, but also good enough to do exactly the job Boeing says they want from their MOM aircraft.

But MOM/NRA will be as much a step beyond the 767 as the 787 was and that is what airlines seem to want to wait for. We know Boeing could not make a business case to sell new passenger 767s to at least one of the US3 (believed to be UA) and I am sure Boeing peddled the plane to the other two when the first came a calling since the US3 is the most obvious choice to buy more. But I feel that the US3 might also be the only choice to buy more.

JoeCanuck wrote:

If it wasn't a big hit for the airlines, Boeing could very well sell the upgrades to the USAF.

If the USAF had chosen GE for the KC-46A, perhaps GE and Boeing could have made a successful pitch to the USAF to develop a smaller and lighter version of theGEnx1B.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Instead, they have to try and sell another brand new aircraft with brand new bleeding edge engines against the backdrop of none of the engine makers making good on the specs of their current bleeding edge engines...some more than a decade after their first EIS deadline.

The US3 are flying them until the wings come off because they're already in the fleet (so CAPEX) and now they have the allure of NMA on the horizon as a replacement.

As for passenger to freighter conversions, it's thanks to the wide availability of feed stock due to every other 767 operator getting rid of them in their own fleets.

And yet, 767's are being flown until they pretty much fall apart and cargo companies are still ordering new ones. Genx -2b engines are reliably plying the skies every day on 748's.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Airlines seem to be asking for the capabilities either of the 321 or 767. Airbus is willing and able to fill their 321 needs, and Boeing is taking even more of the bottom end of the market with the 737-10. That's making for a pretty small MOM window into which Boeing must insert a brand new in every aspect, totally unproven, multi billion dollar aircraft that will do more than the 737/321, but won't eat into 787 sales, and be reliable as well.

And that is the conundrum for NMA's business case. If Boeing can make it work, it could be huge because it would offer the performance and capacity advantage of a widebody with the economics of a narrowbody. But if they can't, then it likely won't "fly" - figuratively or literally.

1. The 767MAX idea has been hashed and rehashed.
2. Boeing doesn’t NEED to do anything.
3. The NMA sounds less risky from a technology POV than the 787.
4. They could also be rethinking their planes based on the outcome of the CSeries and Embraer deals.
5. It could surprise us and be the NSA.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

From the AW&ST article:

"And of concern for Boeing, executives of 72% of the surveyed airlines say aircraft other than the NMA would best meet their midmarket requirements. Among them are the A321neo, the proposed A321neo-plus-plus (more capacity, more range), the 737-10, and even the A330neo and a derated 787-8 if they are offered for less than $100 million."

There you have it. If I were Boeing, I'd simply re-work 787-8 to have as much commonality with -9 and -10, derate it and offer for the price the market wants it for. Based on the above, it appears to be the most logical choice at the moment.

Boeing could also take a risk that they have always taken, break the market up in their favor. Creating a whole new market segment and squeezing out older inefficient planes that overlap this new segment, just like the 77W and 787s did.

They are not afraid of cannibalizing their own products if they need to, the 744 and 772 were practically dead after the introduction of the 77W and 787 respectively.

So it seems the problem is that Asian operators want a "son of 787" that can carry significant cargo throughout Asia, while American and some European operators want the lightest possible thing that can do high-volume transatlantic missions with a full passenger load. And to make the business case make sense Boeing has to get both groups on board.

I think they will both have to compromise a bit and will end up doing so in the end. The A321neo is just not quite there on the TATL missions, and the 787/A330 is too heavy on the Asia missions. IMO this is pointing to something that can carry cargo out to about 3200 nm -- enough to get from China to anywhere on the subcontinent or in Indonesia. One tough question may be what kind of containers it can accommodate - side-by-side LD2 is probably too big.

Stitch wrote:

They wanted the 787 and A350 bad enough.

...and they may have even wanted the NMA, they just weren't willing to wait or pay for it.

GE would have had to develop yet a third version and it could have hit the same snafus the engine did on the 747-8 and 787 programs depending on when it was scheduled to enter service. And if the A330-200 "killed" the 767-300ER as a passenger frame as we are so often told on this forum, then by extension the A330-800 would have "killed" the "767-3". So would GE or Boeing have been willing to spend the money?

The 767er's used 747 engines. We're basically talking new pylons.

But MOM/NRA will be as much a step beyond the 767 as the 787 was and that is what airlines seem to want to wait for. We know Boeing could not make a business case to sell new passenger 767s to at least one of the US3 (believed to be UA) and I am sure Boeing peddled the plane to the other two when the first came a calling since the US3 is the most obvious choice to buy more. But I feel that the US3 might also be the only choice to buy more.

They were trying to sell ceo, not neo 767's. There is no business case for that, just like there is no business case for 737ng's and 320ceo's. The airlines ARE buying re-engined decades old designs in droves.

If the USAF had chosen GE for the KC-46A, perhaps GE and Boeing could have made a successful pitch to the USAF to develop a smaller and lighter version of theGEnx1B.

Which is basically the -2B...but yes, without having GE powering the tanker, it would be a tough sell.

The US3 are flying them until the wings come off because they're already in the fleet (so CAPEX) and now they have the allure of NMA on the horizon as a replacement.

As for passenger to freighter conversions, it's thanks to the wide availability of feed stock due to every other 767 operator getting rid of them in their own fleets.

True...why get rid of a perfectly good running aircraft, though I don't think the allure of the NMA is why. I believe that they are the right plane for the right job and they would fly them until the wings come off regardless of whether or not an NMA ever comes.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Airlines seem to be asking for the capabilities either of the 321 or 767. Airbus is willing and able to fill their 321 needs, and Boeing is taking even more of the bottom end of the market with the 737-10. That's making for a pretty small MOM window into which Boeing must insert a brand new in every aspect, totally unproven, multi billion dollar aircraft that will do more than the 737/321, but won't eat into 787 sales, and be reliable as well.

Stitch wrote:

And that is the conundrum for NMA's business case. If Boeing can make it work, it could be huge because it would offer the performance and capacity advantage of a widebody with the economics of a narrowbody. But if they can't, then it likely won't "fly" - figuratively or literally.

Even with perfect engines, it's still a huge investment with a risky business case, and the odds of getting engines perfect out of the box, are slim.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. The 767MAX idea has been hashed and rehashed.
2. Boeing doesn’t NEED to do anything.
3. The NMA sounds less risky from a technology POV than the 787.
4. They could also be rethinking their planes based on the outcome of the CSeries and Embraer deals.
5. It could surprise us and be the NSA.

1. See 757. This is A.net, after all. Rehash is what we do.
2. Boeing acts and talks like they need to do something.
3. That's certainly not true for the engines. As it is, much of the technology that would be needed for the all new engines is still under development, and the engines are not only the key to the major increases in efficiency, but also have been the least reliable of the new technologies in the latest aircraft.
4. True...though I'm not sure how that would affect the 797.
5. Also true. We have no idea what they are really thinking.

What is needed is launch customers for the NMA. Without them it obviously will never happen. Who ?? ANA, Delta, UAL, AA, Air Canada, Qantas,, KAL... China is probably out of the picture for a while-- I'm sure they won't be ordering Boeing aircraft due to Tariff retaliation.

Seems to me a de-rated 788 should still be a solution -- the Asian carriers love the LD3 cargo capacity that B does not want to provide in NMA. Maybe clip the wingtips so the 788 will fit in more gates...lighten it up a bit -- halve the fuel capacity...maybe RR or GE will optimize a 50 Klb thrust version of T1000 or GEnx ?? Sell it for $100 million or less....

For about a billion $$ investment you have a poor man's 250 passenger MoM aircraft with a lot of cargo volume. What's not to like?

QuarkFly wrote:

What is needed is launch customers for the NMA. Without them it obviously will never happen. Who ?? ANA, Delta, UAL, AA, Air Canada, Qantas,, KAL... China is probably out of the picture for a while-- I'm sure they won't be ordering Boeing aircraft due to Tariff retaliation.

Before that can happen, Boeing has to present an NMA to offer.

QuarkFly wrote:

Seems to me a de-rated 788 should still be a solution -- the Asian carriers love the LD3 cargo capacity that B does not want to provide in NMA. Maybe clip the wingtips so the 788 will fit in more gates...lighten it up a bit -- halve the fuel capacity...maybe RR or GE will optimize a 50 Klb thrust version of T1000 or GEnx ?? Sell it for $100 million or less....

For about a billion $$ investment you have a poor man's 250 passenger MoM aircraft. What's not to like?

The OEW of the 788 is almost 265,000 lbs, over 80,000 pounds heavier than the 762er and over 65,000 pounds heavier than the 763er, and who knows how much heavier than the 797 would be. That's a lot of dead weight which kills efficiency, especially on shorter flights. It's built into the 787 so most of it is impossible to lose.

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 767er's used 747 engines. We're basically talking new pylons.

The GEnx1B is somewhat of a bespoke design for the 747-8. The fan diamater is 2.66 meters compared to 2.19 meters for the CF6-80C2 and the weight is fairly higher at 5600kg compared to 4500kg for the C2.

JoeCanuck wrote:

They were trying to sell ceo, not neo 767's. There is no business case for that, just like there is no business case for 737ng's and 320ceo's. The airlines ARE buying re-engined decades old designs in droves.

The narrowbodies (737/A320). Not the widebodies (747/A330). But of course, they bought the "original engine" narrowbody models in droves, as well.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Even with perfect engines, (NMA is) still a huge investment with a risky business case, and the odds of getting engines perfect out of the box, are slim.

If they go LEAP at launch, I think it will be good so this is what I see as the only option. Later on, there could be a second and GTF will probably have the edge on UltraFan since GTF will have had time to mature in service on the A220, A320 and other platforms.

The systems of the 787 could easily go into the 797, including all the software etc. So actuators, APU, and environmental equipment needs to be sized down for the smaller plane. So it is mostly aerodynamics and structures involved, so really only about half a clean sheet. The big job is to get the manufacturing plan right.

A LEAP properly scaled up with current but not bleeding edge tech should suffice.

I see it could be issued as the 787-5 and -6, the 6 being for the 783 mission profile but without the weight and the right wing vs a clipped 788 wing.

JoeCanuck wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

Seems to me a de-rated 788 should still be a solution -- the Asian carriers love the LD3 cargo capacity that B does not want to provide in NMA. Maybe clip the wingtips so the 788 will fit in more gates...lighten it up a bit -- halve the fuel capacity...maybe RR or GE will optimize a 50 Klb thrust version of T1000 or GEnx ?? Sell it for $100 million or less....

For about a billion $$ investment you have a poor man's 250 passenger MoM aircraft. What's not to like?

The OEW of the 788 is almost 265,000 lbs, over 80,000 pounds heavier than the 762er and over 65,000 pounds heavier than the 763er, and who knows how much heavier than the 797 would be. That's a lot of dead weight which kills efficiency, especially on shorter flights. It's built into the 787 so most of it is impossible to lose.

I have flown many 3000 mile routes in Asia on a 787 ... NRT BKK, NRT-SIN, ICN-BKK, more...QR is all about 788's into Europe on 3-4 K nm routes. N. America east-coast to Europe is 3-4K nm and see plenty of 787's.

Sometimes the empty weight is misleading...if you have the high aspect ratio wing to support the weight with low drag. I doubt the 788 is optimized for 6K+ flights. And the extra cargo capacity may be worth it for many carriers. Existing 787 carriers may see it as a reasonable solution if the 788 could be optimized for a bit less range.

Yes a NMA would be more efficient...but I think there is a reason 757-767-A310 size faded away... for geographic as well as economic reasons. The world needs narrow bodies with less that 200 passengers for flights of 3K nm and lower. Wide bodies to cross oceans or Asia -- 300 passengers is the ideal size for economic reasons, which is why 787-A350 will dominate. The earth's continents and oceans distribution may reduce the need for a 250 passenger size.

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 767 is still in production, OEW and performance almost exactly half way between the 788/332 and the 321/737-10, (as MOM as you can get), proven certified engines right in the 762/3er thrust class.

The 767 has ~30% higher fuel/pax burn than A321NEO/MAX-10. 767MAX closes maybe half that gap.
Although 767MAX would be smaller than A338/788 with greater range than A321LR, its trips costs would be so close to 788/A338 that you might as well buy the bigger plane and - idk - give everyone 5in more legroom. Or sell extra TATL tickets for $50. Closing the trip cost gap between 788 and 763MAX would be easy.
Boeing would likely see literally zero orders if it launched a 767MAX.

Stitch wrote:

AviationWeek weighs in on the conflicting desires and requirements of airlines impacts and influences NMA's design:

http://aviationweek.com/NMA?NL=AW-05&Is ... 56911d4b6f

Might explain why Boeing is still not ready to commit to a design to present to the Board for ATO.

Impressions:
1. Any survey is cheap talk. Of course airlines want a smaller plane; the issue is what efficiency/range is possible at what capacity level. Airlines would say yes if the survey asked "Do you want a 50-seater that runs on a single AA battery?" Ignore these surveys.

2. A lot of the quoted consultant know very little about planes. Widebodies have more induced drag? Well sure, if they're bigger. But nothing about fuselage form directly contributes to induced drag. A310 definitely has less induced drag than a DC-8-73.

3. I'm with Spohr in thinking the NMA timeline will - and should - be pushed out. Ultrafan and its ilk are coming and Boeing would be stupid to launch a plane with "LEAP 1.5's" or similar engines that Airbus or anyone else could obsolesce a few years later.

At the FL30 level, what appears to have happened is this: (1) Boeing formed NMA pre-program with expectation of ~2025 EIS with ~Ultrafan-type engines. (2) Engine OEM's then showed reason not to trust the more aggressive propulsion tech development timelines. (3) Instead of explicitly adjusting NMA timeline to match propulsion tech troubles, Boeing is exploring using worse engines - a terrible idea IMO - or else is refusing to publicly admit that the NMA has to wait for ~Ultrafan engines and instead of admitting it has to wait is just stringing out the pre-program phase.

Stitch wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 767er's used 747 engines. We're basically talking new pylons.

The GEnx1B is somewhat of a bespoke design for the 747-8. The fan diamater is 2.66 meters compared to 2.19 meters for the CF6-80C2 and the weight is fairly higher at 5600kg compared to 4500kg for the C2.

JoeCanuck wrote:

They were trying to sell ceo, not neo 767's. There is no business case for that, just like there is no business case for 737ng's and 320ceo's. The airlines ARE buying re-engined decades old designs in droves.

If they go LEAP at launch, I think it will be good so this is what I see as the only option. Later on, there could be a second and GTF will probably have the edge on UltraFan since GTF will have had time to mature in service on the A220, A320 and other platforms.

The 747 and the 767 have used the same engines before, with the biggest differences, as far as I can tell, being the pylons.

The RB211-524 used on the 767 weighed 5600kg and the CF6-80-C2A1 used on the 763er had a fan diameter of 2.36m, so not really far off. The cf6-80-A1, on the 762, had a 2.19m fan. Besides...in relative terms...compared to shoehorning the heavier and larger diameter LEAP under the 737 wing, putting a 748 engine on the 767 would be a piece of cake.

I agree that a LEAP 1.5, (or some such thing), will probably be most likely to be mature at EIS.

Matt6461 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 767 is still in production, OEW and performance almost exactly half way between the 788/332 and the 321/737-10, (as MOM as you can get), proven certified engines right in the 762/3er thrust class.

The 767 has ~30% higher fuel/pax burn than A321NEO/MAX-10. 767MAX closes maybe half that gap.
Although 767MAX would be smaller than A338/788 with greater range than A321LR, its trips costs would be so close to 788/A338 that you might as well buy the bigger plane and - idk - give everyone 5in more legroom. Or sell extra TATL tickets for $50. Closing the trip cost gap between 788 and 763MAX would be easy.
Boeing would likely see literally zero orders if it launched a 767MAX.

That's interesting. I'd like to see the data on those fuel/passenger stats.

How would the trip costs be the same for a 767max and 788 with the same generation engines lifting 65-80,000lbs less empty weight, especially considering most of the efficiency comes from the engines? That difference in weight is equal to a 737.

QuarkFly wrote:

I have flown many 3000 mile routes in Asia on a 787 ... NRT BKK, NRT-SIN, ICN-BKK, more...QR is all about 788's into Europe on 3-4 K nm routes. N. America east-coast to Europe is 3-4K nm and see plenty of 787's.

Sometimes the empty weight is misleading...if you have the high aspect ratio wing to support the weight with low drag. I doubt the 788 is optimized for 6K+ flights. And the extra cargo capacity may be worth it for many carriers. Existing 787 carriers may see it as a reasonable solution if the 788 could be optimized for a bit less range.

Yes a NMA would be more efficient...but I think there is a reason 757-767-A310 size faded away... for geographic as well as economic reasons. The world needs narrow bodies with less that 200 passengers for flights of 3K nm and lower. Wide bodies to cross oceans or Asia -- 300 passengers is the ideal size for economic reasons, which is why 787-A350 will dominate. The earth's continents and oceans distribution may reduce the need for a 250 passenger size.

...and that's the biggest problem with the MOM gap; is it really a gap that needs filling?

JoeCanuck wrote:

How would the trip costs be the same for a 767max and 788 with the same generation engines lifting 65-80,000lbs less empty weight, especially considering most of the efficiency comes from the engines?

788 has close to 20% higher L/D than 767-300ER (~21 vs. ~17.5), which has an old wing (8AR, not fully supercritical). http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/
I didn't say their trip costs would be equal; I say they would be so close that only an incompetent airline couldn't close the gap between them with revenue from either extra space/pax or dirt-cheap tickets.

JoeCanuck wrote:

I'd like to see the data on those fuel/passenger stats.

Here's Leeham's chart for fuel/seat:


As I said, about ~30% delta for 763ER over A321NEO. A 767MAX with GEnx engines (~-10% SFC) closes not even half that gap. Thus it'd be a bad idea with likely zero orders and certainly not enough orders to pay development costs.

Matt6461 wrote:

As I said, about ~30% delta for 763ER over A321NEO. A 767MAX with GEnx engines (~-10% SFC) closes not even half that gap.

And it's easy to see where the rest comes from: the 767 cross-section is awfully big and heavy for 7Y + 2xLD2, and the 767 wing is 35 years old and way too short.

Hmm... if you need both a new fuselage and a new wing (not to mention new systems to reduce maintenance costs)... sounds like maybe a new aircraft is in order?

seabosdca wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

As I said, about ~30% delta for 763ER over A321NEO. A 767MAX with GEnx engines (~-10% SFC) closes not even half that gap.

And it's easy to see where the rest comes from: the 767 cross-section is awfully big and heavy for 7Y + 2xLD2, and the 767 wing is 35 years old and way too short.

Hmm... if you need both a new fuselage and a new wing (not to mention new systems to reduce maintenance costs)... sounds like maybe a new aircraft is in order?

Right. And this new aircraft has to be more fuel-efficient than A321Neo, which means 35-40% delta over 767, which means comparing it to 767 is profoundly superficial - as I've been saying for a few years now.

bigjku wrote:

There are also questions of scaling that investment in terms of both the footprint necessary to produce say 60 narrowbody fuselages a month. From what I read it takes 10 hours or so to cook a 787 barrel section. For simplicity sake let’s say you can do one a day per autoclave and maybe 2 a day if you push it. So simple says we have 20 working days a month or so. So I likely need 4 autoclaves per section per plane (4x20) which gives me some flex. We are looking at 3 major sections so we now need 12 of them at minimum.

Plus we need to produce wings for the same. For the 777X we have a 2-3 autoclave line and that supports maybe 5-7 a month. I think it’s safe to figure you would need at minimum 6-7 more autoclaves just for the wings.

I'm not making any predictions which way Boeing will go. However, there's been no indication anybody is expecting 60 frames a month for the 797, and I'm not inclined to think the 797 fuselage material choice will be driven primarily by commonality with whatever recommendations the presumably ongoing NSA trade studies are currently making. Boeing reportedly estimates the MoM comprises about 5000 aircraft over 20 years, and that's the highest estimate that I've seen (possibly including some overlap with existing narrowbodies and widebodies).

That's 21 aircraft a month. Boeing is already pushing towards 14/month on the 787.

Also, 10 hours to cook a fuselage barrel sounds very reasonable to me. How long does it take to position aluminum fuselage panels in tooling, drill and install fasteners in the hundreds or perhaps thousands of holes that mate the multiple panels into a full barrel?

seahawk wrote:

Metal also has the advantage that additive manufacturing technologies are quite mature and ready for mass production.

I've never seen any discussion of building metal fuselage panels by additive processes.

Res additive processes: I suspect that Boeing is looking at how this technology could reduce costs of manufacturing if designed in from the very beginning. Think a 787 designed right from revolutionary manufacturing processes from twenty years later. Airbus will not be far behind in doing the same, but Boeing may have a few years and one model headstart.

iamlucky13 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Metal also has the advantage that additive manufacturing technologies are quite mature and ready for mass production.

I've never seen any discussion of building metal fuselage panels by additive processes.

Why would you make simple structures like panels in that way? Stringers, connectors and such on the other hand..

PlanesNTrains wrote:

5. It could surprise us and be the NSA.

Yes. Like the sonic cruiser morphed into the 787

Well, Boeing is now saying it has to make a 797 decision BY THE END OF 2019!!! in order to get a 2025 EIS.

So there will be no Farnborough announcement.

You mean we have to put up with this continuing speculation nonsense for up to another 18 months???

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... yptr=yahoo

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 797, when eventually launched, will be an amazing aircraft

We'll put good people on it and it'll be an amazing program. It'll be the best program the world has ever seen. It'll be an amazing aircraft. Amazing aircraft. Amazing.

Seriously, though, it will never be an amazing aircraft. Because there will never be a new Boeing mid-market aircraft. Boeing knows that Airbus can quickly respond to ANYTHING. They can make their A321 longer, heavier, lighter, or build the A322. And it'll be cheaper and sooner. Boeing needs to wait another 10-20 years before they can compete with Airbus in this segment. Whatever they do will be counteracted by Airbus. Ergo, 797 will never exist. EVER.

As we speak Boeing is running around from one potential customer to another asking them what they want. And the only answer they get is, "we wanted the A320 but we already bought it. Sally, call security". Boeing has NOTHING to offer to them. It'll be more expensive than A320 and everyone still remembers how airlines had to lease or even buy planes while waiting for Boeing to invent fasteners for their "game changer". Nobody wants a game changer. Airlines want predictability, certainty and security, and the McDonnel-Douglas team running Boeing has destroyed all trust Boeing built over the years.

It'll be an amazing aircraft, fantastic aircraft. Which will never exist. But it'll be AMAZING!

Imho the problem is that if they want to avoid the direct competition with the A321, the plane becomes so big that it competes with the 787-8. Sure it would offer much better economics on shorter routes, but most sales would probably turn out to be 787s not sold - especially as the 787 dominates the A330NEO. The MoM could motivate Airbus to design something that competes with the MoM and as such would eat into the 787 market as well.

The big question any manager should ask is: If we do not go ahead with the MoM, which planes will be bought instead?

Revelation wrote:

Yes. The article uses thermoset for autoclave and thermoplastic for out-of-autoclave, and says:

auto of autoclave is not thermoplastic.

thermoplastic as the name says uses increased temps to make the material pliable.
( and you can repeat the process )

resins, (be that thermosetting or other wise reactive creations ) create duroplast components.
Once set ...

BREECH wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 797, when eventually launched, will be an amazing aircraft

We'll put good people on it and it'll be an amazing program. It'll be the best program the world has ever seen. It'll be an amazing aircraft. Amazing aircraft. Amazing.

Seriously, though, it will never be an amazing aircraft. Because there will never be a new Boeing mid-market aircraft. Boeing knows that Airbus can quickly respond to ANYTHING. They can make their A321 longer, heavier, lighter, or build the A322. And it'll be cheaper and sooner. Boeing needs to wait another 10-20 years before they can compete with Airbus in this segment. Whatever they do will be counteracted by Airbus. Ergo, 797 will never exist. EVER.

As we speak Boeing is running around from one potential customer to another asking them what they want. And the only answer they get is, "we wanted the A320 but we already bought it. Sally, call security". Boeing has NOTHING to offer to them. It'll be more expensive than A320 and everyone still remembers how airlines had to lease or even buy planes while waiting for Boeing to invent fasteners for their "game changer". Nobody wants a game changer. Airlines want predictability, certainty and security, and the McDonnel-Douglas team running Boeing has destroyed all trust Boeing built over the years.

It'll be an amazing aircraft, fantastic aircraft. Which will never exist. But it'll be AMAZING!

Well, I guess I should short Boeing stock. They can never possibly compete with Airbus in the 180-240 seat, medium range space ever. Whatever Boeing does, Airbus can just magically re-wing and stretch the A321 and have it available almost instantly even though it is taking Boeing over 6 years from launch to entry into service for the 777X which is the same type of development. It took Airbus 5 years from launch to delivery for the A320 NEO.

I can guarantee you the 797 will exist. Whether it is the currently envisioned MOM or morphs into a 737 replacement/A320 family competitor developed by the Boeing/Embraer JV is anybody's guess. The only reason for Boeing to enter that JV is to get engineering and production resources for a new program. They could have co-marketed the E2 family with a simple agreement.

planecane wrote:

It took Airbus 5 years from launch to delivery for the A320 NEO.

and thats with many of the improvements already being worked on in the A320NG program which had already put new interiors and other bits into the A320 prior to the A320NEO. Definitely time saved there compared to starting fresh on the program. The winglets alone were a huge time and resource sink since they had issues finding something worth putting on.

If the 797 is such a disaster in the makimg, why are all the Airbus fanboys against it? I would expect them to egg it on.

That said I expect the NMA to be a composite fuselage. The NSA is the tricky one. If composites do come close they may replace aluminum. Boeing has to keep in mind that this will be a thirty year investment and the projected trend of composites vs metals will play into that decision. Still that decision is still 5 to 10 years in the future.

BREECH wrote:

Boeing has NOTHING to offer to them

I read this guy's post and was like, "WTF?"
Then I read his signature and it all made sense.
It's like if crazy people on the street always wore signs saying, "I'm crazy, just ignore me."

BREECH wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 797, when eventually launched, will be an amazing aircraft

We'll put good people on it and it'll be an amazing program. It'll be the best program the world has ever seen. It'll be an amazing aircraft. Amazing aircraft. Amazing.

Seriously, though, it will never be an amazing aircraft. Because there will never be a new Boeing mid-market aircraft. Boeing knows that Airbus can quickly respond to ANYTHING. They can make their A321 longer, heavier, lighter, or build the A322. And it'll be cheaper and sooner. Boeing needs to wait another 10-20 years before they can compete with Airbus in this segment. Whatever they do will be counteracted by Airbus. Ergo, 797 will never exist. EVER.

As we speak Boeing is running around from one potential customer to another asking them what they want. And the only answer they get is, "we wanted the A320 but we already bought it. Sally, call security". Boeing has NOTHING to offer to them. It'll be more expensive than A320 and everyone still remembers how airlines had to lease or even buy planes while waiting for Boeing to invent fasteners for their "game changer". Nobody wants a game changer. Airlines want predictability, certainty and security, and the McDonnel-Douglas team running Boeing has destroyed all trust Boeing built over the years.

It'll be an amazing aircraft, fantastic aircraft. Which will never exist. But it'll be AMAZING!

YOUR Fantasy makes His "Supposed" fantasy look like reality. What we know, Boeing Is doing Due diligence and spending money on research, and trade marking names. They can Guess Airbus Counter before they started down this road way better then you or I, and all you have is your OPINION. I'll be Leaning on His Facts to your argument for now.

seahawk wrote:

Imho the problem is that if they want to avoid the direct competition with the A321, the plane becomes so big that it competes with the 787-8. Sure it would offer much better economics on shorter routes, but most sales would probably turn out to be 787s not sold - especially as the 787 dominates the A330NEO. The MoM could motivate Airbus to design something that competes with the MoM and as such would eat into the 787 market as well.

If the 797 closes the gap between the MoM and the 787-8 such that it takes sales from the 787-8 while still successfully delivering on the promise of widebody capacity with narrowbody economics, I think Boeing will ride that horse all the way to the bank. Giving up a few 787-8 sales to make the 797 a success is a small price to pay, and it would make it nearly impossible for Airbus to wedge a competitor in between them, giving Boeing an extremely competitive widebody lineup that stretches contiguously from 240 seats to 470 or more, and efficient ranges in all markets from 2000nm to 9000nm. Let Airbus spend the money to rewing, reengine, and stretch the A321 to try and compete at 4000nm+ sectors, that will just make it less competitive at the shorter sectors and leave an opening for the Boeing-Embraer collaboration NSA.

CRHoward wrote:

That said I expect the NMA to be a composite fuselage. The NSA is the tricky one. If composites do come close they may replace aluminum. Boeing has to keep in mind that this will be a thirty year investment and the projected trend of composites vs metals will play into that decision. Still that decision is still 5 to 10 years in the future.

Yes, I would expect both new planes to be composite (or at least not aluminum).

A complete paradigm shift in aircraft construction: With its new Torreswing automated system for mold-free, fastener-free composite fuselage and wing construction, MTorres aims to revolutionize aerostructure.

The Torreswing process is designed to eliminate virtually all metallic fasteners and rivets, a significant weight savings over today’s aircraft, says the company. The adhesive used to bond the elemental rings, says Idareta, would be equivalent in weight to the shimming material used on conventionally built aircraft. And, with the high degree of robotic automation, cycle time and touch labor would be significantly reduced, resulting in process simplification and much lower manufacturing costs. For example, he adds, the number and size of part-specific tooling and the time needed for part production on that tooling would reduce manufacturing costs significantly. Other advantages include elimination of the autoclave in favor of oven cure, and use of dry fiber, reducing material cost.

Although it’s a TRL 6 project, only one demonstrator has been built so far — the fuselage shown at JEC, using equipment similar to that depicted in the step photos. But there are plenty of opportunities for a first customer trial. “There are a lot of proposals for new aircraft today, and we see a big market, which we believe would justify this factory concept.” Idareta acknowledges, of course, that certification of a bonded structure could be a challenge, given a regulatory environment that currently requires redundant fasteners for certification. “Our point of view,” he says, “is how to enable the plane of the future using the factory of the future. We’ve designed for automation, not just for manufacturing.”

BREECH wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

The 797, when eventually launched, will be an amazing aircraft

We'll put good people on it and it'll be an amazing program. It'll be the best program the world has ever seen. It'll be an amazing aircraft. Amazing aircraft. Amazing.

Seriously, though, it will never be an amazing aircraft. Because there will never be a new Boeing mid-market aircraft. Boeing knows that Airbus can quickly respond to ANYTHING. They can make their A321 longer, heavier, lighter, or build the A322. And it'll be cheaper and sooner. Boeing needs to wait another 10-20 years before they can compete with Airbus in this segment. Whatever they do will be counteracted by Airbus. Ergo, 797 will never exist. EVER.

As we speak Boeing is running around from one potential customer to another asking them what they want. And the only answer they get is, "we wanted the A320 but we already bought it. Sally, call security". Boeing has NOTHING to offer to them. It'll be more expensive than A320 and everyone still remembers how airlines had to lease or even buy planes while waiting for Boeing to invent fasteners for their "game changer". Nobody wants a game changer. Airlines want predictability, certainty and security, and the McDonnel-Douglas team running Boeing has destroyed all trust Boeing built over the years.

It'll be an amazing aircraft, fantastic aircraft. Which will never exist. But it'll be AMAZING!

The vaunted A320NEO was supposed to torpedo the 737 into epic #FAIL. I guess a 57-43 NEO to MAX orders is a serious drubbing, but in the last year it has been more like 50-50 because of the A320 backlog. So the 1967 vs 1987 tech (with lots of updates) can almost compete. I really like the A320 and it is amazing what it has done but it is quite similar to the A300, A310, A340, B727, B757, B767 where the life span of the plane is nearing its end of production. In 15 years probably both the 737 and A320 will be in the very low volumes as their replacements arrive.

So the 737 is close to par with the A320 in the airlines preference but the A320 is going to slaughter new clean sheet designs.

seahawk wrote:

Imho the problem is that if they want to avoid the direct competition with the A321, the plane becomes so big that it competes with the 787-8.

This presumes Boeing is worried about protecting the 787-8. The 787-9 and 787-10 are the models being pitched in RFPs against the A330-900 and A350-900.

Matt6461 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

How would the trip costs be the same for a 767max and 788 with the same generation engines lifting 65-80,000lbs less empty weight, especially considering most of the efficiency comes from the engines?

788 has close to 20% higher L/D than 767-300ER (~21 vs. ~17.5), which has an old wing (8AR, not fully supercritical). http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/
I didn't say their trip costs would be equal; I say they would be so close that only an incompetent airline couldn't close the gap between them with revenue from either extra space/pax or dirt-cheap tickets.

JoeCanuck wrote:

I'd like to see the data on those fuel/passenger stats.

Here's Leeham's chart for fuel/seat:


As I said, about ~30% delta for 763ER over A321NEO. A 767MAX with GEnx engines (~-10% SFC) closes not even half that gap. Thus it'd be a bad idea with likely zero orders and certainly not enough orders to pay development costs.

Changing those data representation:
aircraft/max density seat count/aircraft mile fuel cost/seat mile fuel cost
Max 9 215 seats 4.78 0.0222
321neo 240 seats 5.09 0.0212
752 239 seats 6.48 0.0271
753 295 seats 7.24 0.0245
763 351 seats 9.12 0.0259
The 763 was about 50% larger than 752 in single class max density seating and the per seat class is only slightly better, with 763 being a widebody and 752 being a narrowbody.
If the MoM aircraft is going to be 50% larger than Max 9 in single class seating, could it provide better cost delta than what 767 provided in relationship to 757? It would need to be so to beat 321neo's CASM and even then it's still a considerably larger plane than 321neo

(p.s. can someone plot a graph with these numbers? I don't have an Excel on my hand)

Stitch wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho the problem is that if they want to avoid the direct competition with the A321, the plane becomes so big that it competes with the 787-8.

This presumes Boeing is worried about protecting the 787-8. The 787-9 and 787-10 are the models being pitched in RFPs against the A330-900 and A350-900.

And with the A338 practically dead the 787-8 has no competition and would be the plane closest in size for 763/764 replacements.

Boeing seems to delay a 797 decision at least a year. That (major) rumour / news is so unwelcome, it was rerouted to this contain & burry all thread twice.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1399075

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1399015&p=20557009

BREECH wrote:

Seriously, though, it will never be an amazing aircraft. Because there will never be a new Boeing mid-market aircraft. Boeing knows that Airbus can quickly respond to ANYTHING. They can make their A321 longer, heavier, lighter, or build the A322. And it'll be cheaper and sooner. Boeing needs to wait another 10-20 years before they can compete with Airbus in this segment. Whatever they do will be counteracted by Airbus. Ergo, 797 will never exist. EVER.

Well, I still think that the 797 will exist one way or other (either as the NMA or a combination between the NMA and the NSA, replacing the 737 in the way). There's opportunities for both Airbus and Boeing in the 180-240 seat (and Boeing likely won't wait such amount of time to compete with Airbus's proposals).
And rewinging the A321 and morphing it into a A322 won't happen too soon unlike you claim. It may take several years for Airbus having a proper reaction to Boeing's NMA if they decided to do so. And the A321LR is a good aircraft, although it may likely have problems to compete with Boeing's NMA when it is launched.

Like I have predicted it seems there will not be a "797" and looks like Boeing is slowly coming to the same conclusion. They have the numbers and they know that their every action has a reaction from the competitition. They must shudder at the thought of what a single aisle A321neo and A322 stretch with a new CFRP wing in place of this Miami Vice era wing could do. Much better have the 737 printing out money and maintain the near equilibrium with Airbus than throw away 10-15 billion USD for no economical benefit. It is boring but pragmatic.

The delay is not surprising, but is a confirmation of the difficulties Boeing is facing in finding the right combination of market segment, tech, and economics that make sense for them and their customers.

Back to basics.

Which types of other airplanes are you competing against, and what trick do you have that makes your product the choice that customers will pick? And how many of them?

I can believe there's customer demand for larger (= longer) narrowbody plane. *If* it doesn't become impractical, e.g., due to turnaround times or gate requirements.

I can believe there's customer demand for smaller and more economical widebody plane. *But* it has to be significantly cheaper to compete effectively against the narrowbodies. What are the technologies and economics that make that possible?

For years I've been expecting the NMA to shrink into NSA territory.

Maybe Boeing has signals Airbus will launch a smart wing. There are signals.

If the 737 is really to soldier on until 2030, things could get pretty ugly. They are already.

Where to invest most?