User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10113
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Tue May 02, 2017 9:43 pm

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Tue May 02, 2017 10:52 pm

Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 2939
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Tue May 02, 2017 11:13 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?


Nah. Boeing will keep them in just to have more leverage against CFM and RR.
 
PEK777
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:56 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Tue May 02, 2017 11:27 pm

:stirthepot: Is this in 757 thrust range?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Tue May 02, 2017 11:52 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?

Nah. Boeing will keep them in just to have more leverage against CFM and RR.

Fair point, and likely the case.

Perhaps my question should've been: how long will PW continue to play that role, for widebodies?
I guess they have no choice.

But I have such a hard time seeing how (or even, why) Boeing/Airbus would risk relying on them for a newbuild, considering Pratt's near unbroken legacy of f#ckups over the near-term.


PEK777 wrote:
:stirthepot: Is this in 757 thrust range?

The upper end, but yes.
UA's RR-powered birds for example, than 43,000lb/ft engines.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
kitplane01
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 2:59 am

Is there any chance that Boeing would favor GE (i.e. CFM) because they already use GE or CFM on so many planes? Or disfavor GE to maintain a range of engine suppliers?
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 3489
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 3:20 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Is there any chance that Boeing would favor GE (i.e. CFM) because they already use GE or CFM on so many planes? Or disfavor GE to maintain a range of engine suppliers?

Additionally is there any reason to think Boeing is going to go with just one supplier on this one?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
chiki
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 4:21 am

Spacepope wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Is there any chance that Boeing would favor GE (i.e. CFM) because they already use GE or CFM on so many planes? Or disfavor GE to maintain a range of engine suppliers?

Additionally is there any reason to think Boeing is going to go with just one supplier on this one?

If the market is limited better use 1 supplier otherwise its not work worth it
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14260
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 4:51 am

PEK777 wrote:
:stirthepot: Is this in 757 thrust range?

No. It's 20% more efficient multiplied by the thrust range of the 767ER engines.

In other words, the aircraft will be a 767-300/400 replacement as some of us have assumed all along.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 5:49 am

Spacepope wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Is there any chance that Boeing would favor GE (i.e. CFM) because they already use GE or CFM on so many planes? Or disfavor GE to maintain a range of engine suppliers?

Additionally is there any reason to think Boeing is going to go with just one supplier on this one?

Boeing technically makes the final call, but realistically, it might not be all their decision...

As was the case with the 777LRs, the OEM with the optimum choice (or the one most willing to heavily invest or share risk) may demand exclusivity in return. Boeing and RR were open to multiple providers. GE and PW were not. GE had the most easily-scaled core and were willing to risk-share in exchange for exclusivity, so they got just that.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5678
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 5:54 am

keesje wrote:
Interestingly CFM (GE - Safran) is also proposing an all new engine, just like RR.

CFM
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cfm-in-talks-with-boeing-over-mom-engines-436574/

This would suggest a 25-50% higher MTOW than the 737-9.

From the Flightglobal article.....

Quote:
"CFM International is in talks with Boeing potentially to supply engines for the latter's as-yet unlaunched middle-of-the-market (MoM) development, but will not propose a version of its Leap powerplant for any such application.

[......]

Although that falls within the scope of the CFM joint venture – which covers engines from 18,000-50,000lb-thrust – Petitcolin stresses that it will not offer a new variant of the Leap which already powers the 737 Max."



That doesn't necessarily exclude development of a new, smaller, lower thrust derivative of the GEnx2B, does it :?:

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/gen ... del/981736
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 1857
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 6:01 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?


Boeing would be nuts to launch a new product with a new P&W engine, it hasn't been a good call for literally 30+ years.
BV
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 6:13 am

BoeingVista wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?

Boeing would be nuts to launch a new product with a new P&W engine, it hasn't been a good call for literally 30+ years.

Wasn't so bad with the 772A. In fact, ironically, GE was the early f#ckup there.

Pratt on the 77E and (especially) the 773A was a disaster though.
And then came the A330 flop.
The the successive narrowbody flops.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1251
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 6:19 am

LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?

Boeing would be nuts to launch a new product with a new P&W engine, it hasn't been a good call for literally 30+ years.

Wasn't so bad with the 772A. In fact, ironically, GE was the early f#ckup there.

Pratt on the 77E and (especially) the 773A was a disaster though.
And then came the A330 flop.
The the successive narrowbody flops.


Funny to think of how PMUA was the biggest Pratt cheerleader back in the day. But if it weren't for United and Pratt, who knows if the original 777 would have come to fruition.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 801
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 6:42 am

So Boeing are looking into a 757 replacement... :hyper: :bouncy:
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 6:55 am

intotheair wrote:
Funny to think of how PMUA was the biggest Pratt cheerleader back in the day.

Totally.

NW and DL were too... DL shocked the piss out of just about everyone, when they selected RR for their 77Es back in the day.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5678
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 7:04 am

OA940 wrote:
So Boeing are looking into a 757 replacement... :hyper: :bouncy:

:shakehead: No.....a replacement for this..... ;) .....

Image
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Various ... 67-238.jpg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4263
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 7:12 am

As Lightsaber mentioned in another thread recently, it's getting really tough to be a Pratt cheerleader...and I'm a long time Prat fanboy. From where I'm sitting, though, I'd hate to bet against GE in anything related to jet engines.

The last hiccup they had was being a few points shy on GEnx specs at 787 eis, but they got that sorted quick enough. CF-6, CF-34, GE-90, CFM-56, GEnx, Leap, Passport. Sure, some had teething problems but not a dog in the bunch...and let's not forget their turboprop and helicopter engines.

The GEnx-2B is already in the 762/3ER thrust range, (which I doggedly maintain would make a perfect bolt on, 767max engine, as it is). The core and technology might make a perfect platform for the geared fan you just know GE is working on in silence.
What the...?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 7:29 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
the geared fan you just know GE is working on in silence.

^This.

I've always wondered why GE's been so mum on the concept. There's no way that they're NOT doing it, what with PW having already produced, and RR not being coy about the UltraFan.

So why the silence? What gives?

(Figure this one might deserve its own topic as well)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1362101
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 8:32 am

In the articles linked to by keesje in the opening post, I noticed that the stated thrust requirements for the MOM differs between the engine manufacturers. PW mentions 40,0000 lbf, RR 40,000 to 45,000 lbf and CFM 40,000 to 50,000 lbf. I think the latter is because the European/American CFM is a joint venture that is limited to engines up to 50,000 lbf. I think this also excludes a GE engine, as the joint venture includes engines between 18,000 and 50,000 lbf.

Assuming the MOM is a widebody that comes in two length variants, with engines between 40,000 lbf to 45,000 lbf, are we then looking at something smaller than the 767-300ER for the largest variant, and with less range than the 767-300ER?

The 767-300ER has 57,000 to 62,000 lbf engines, while the non-ER could be delivered with engines generating 48,000 lb of thrust. By comparison the A310 has engines delivering between 46,000–58,000 lb of thrust.

If the engine requirements for the MOM really is between 40,000 to 45,000 lbf, then the MOM would have a MTOW somewhere around 120 and 135 t? (Taking technology advances in the last decades into account.) The A321LR has a MTOW of 97 t.

I also noticed that PW says they are looking at scaling the PW1100G (A321LR engine @ 35,000 lbf) from to 40,000 lbf., while CFM is clear that the LEAP can't be scaled up to this thrust level. The possibility of scaling the PW engine is promising for an A322 MOM response from Airbus.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 25097
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 9:19 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?


P&W started working on the second generation GTF several years ago and aims to have it ready by 2025. They need an application for that engine.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
parapente
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 9:19 am

Reidar 76.I agree.Clearly at this point in time the concepts are not 'bolted down' hard enough for the engine manufacturers to know.It does suggest that this whole MOM project still has a load of definition work to go.
I also note that there has been - an is a quiet revolution going on with wing s
Designs (as well as much other) that will have a direct effect on the required thrust levels.Whilst I note they have 'upped' it a little recently it's worth noting I think that the stretched longer ranged 777 (9) actually requires less power (not more).
Tomorrow's wings will be light (carbon - and so will the fuse be too).They will probably be fully laminar (top and bottom surfaces).They will be hinged offering both access to 'normal' gates as well as offering phenomenal aspect ratios.
If that's not enough Boeing are using an old 757 to test new technologies for their next wing.They are looking for (wait for it) 25% improvement in efficiency.On one wing they are investigation the use of 'blended' Kruger leading edges.On the other wing they are testing low adhesive material (like teflon?) to minimise loss of laminar flow from insects etc.
So my question might be.Will you really need all that old style power when the new style wings can do so much more of the 'heavy lifting'.
P&W gtf's have been bench tested up to 40K.Ok that's not the same as real World.But as one writer stated it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could get to say 38K using the existing engine.
If Boeing really do mean 270 pax and 5,000 nm well then no it's probably not enough power.But that sort of aircraft is very much in the 788/338 territory so am somewhat sceptical that it's really necessary frankly.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1534
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 10:13 am

I'm surprised the current CFM agreement goes up to 50000 lbs of thrust, as that's well above what's needed for the narrowbodies

I can imagine a stretched upgraded MOM in the distant future needing more than 50000 lbs of thrust anyway.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
TP313
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 10:52 am

reidar76 wrote:
If the engine requirements for the MOM really is between 40,000 to 45,000 lbf, then the MOM would have a MTOW somewhere around 120 and 135 t?


How do you get to these numbers? Using latest technology example (787), for 40,000 lbf I get an MTOW from 134 to 143t.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 11:19 am

This news about these MOM engines makes it possible to make some qualified assumptions. :-)

In order to keep development and manufacturing cost down, I can imagine one optimized MOM variant and a simple stretched variant. The latter taking a hit on range in order to keep the two variants as similar as possible. Even with all the advances in carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and other advanced lightweight materials, taking into consideration the advances in wing design and aerodynamics, I can't see a MOM the size of the 763 flying 5000 nm with these engines. It needs to be a slightly smaller aircraft, with only the smaller variant been capable of flying up to a 5000 nm mission.

Fuselage internal cabin width 4.5 m (177 inches), enabling 7 abreast seating with the same seat and aisle width as the 787 at 9 abreast (about 10 inches narrower than the 767).

Small MOM:
Length 46 m (150 Ft), range 5000 nm, MTOW 135 t, thrust 40,000 to 45,000 lbf
Maybe about 210 passengers (2 class), 240 passengers all Y.

Large MOM:
Length 52 m (170 Ft), range 4000 nm, MTOW 135 t, thrust 40,000 to 45,000 lbf.
Maybe about 230 passengers (2-class), 270 passengers all squished Y class.

Both variants with an approximately 44 m (144 Ft) wingspan, with folding wingtips in order to fit into a C-gate. That is about 4 m (13 Ft) of folding on each side.

The cargo capabilities would be limited to passengers' bags and very little additional cargo.

The big question is of course: Can Boeing develop and manufacture such an all new aircraft at a competitive price?

The next question is: Could Airbus re-wing the A321LR, do a possible small stretch, and use the scaled up PW 40,000 lb. thrust engine, and be competitive with the MOM? It seems Boeing is aiming the MOM to be just out of size/range of what could be reasonably achieved by further development of the A321.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 12:24 pm

TP313 wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
If the engine requirements for the MOM really is between 40,000 to 45,000 lbf, then the MOM would have a MTOW somewhere around 120 and 135 t?


How do you get to these numbers? Using latest technology example (787), for 40,000 lbf I get an MTOW from 134 to 143t.


It's just an assumption based on MTOW and engine trust requirements for the nearest sized aircraft.

Thrust per 1000 kg (1 ton) .
A321LR, MTOW 97,000 kg / 35,000 lbf = 2.77 (under-winged)
787-8, MTOW 228,000 kg / 64,000 lbf = 3.56 (over-winged)

Doing the same for the A300/A310 and the 767, gives us a thrust per 1000 kg on average between 2.8 and 3.1. For the 757, 2.6 to 2.8. Bombardier CS-300, 2.91. For the larger, ultra-long range widebodies, about 3.35 on average. The latter is the number that you used.

I made a conservative assumption of 3 t per 1,000 lbf, taking into account that this aircraft should be capable of flying into smaller airports, just like the narrowbodies, considering the folding wingtips and C-gate compatibility.

I don't think there is a right or wrong here. I don't think even Boeing have decided yet. :-)
 
parapente
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 1:21 pm

Again I agree Reidar.The aircraft has to be far enough away from the 321 to stop them doing a 'quick fix'.That of course is dangerous marketing.They must remain 100% focused on their customer needs.I believe they have stated 250 pax/5K and 270/'lower range'.That would indeed probably 'do it'.It would certainly require a rewind and re-engine from Airbus.

But what if the range/payload is more than many (trans con) customers need?If that was the case then Airbus could do a 'simple stretch'(A322) with a reduced range from the 321LR say down from 4K to 3k (250 pax one class).Perhaps with a small power bump.
Boeing needs to be very sure of the range requirements in the market IMHO.

The 321 already has all 757 markets covered.What is the typical trans con 767 pax numbers I wonder.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 2:38 pm

"Small MOM:
Length 46 m (150 Ft), range 5000 nm, MTOW 135 t, thrust 40,000 to 45,000 lbf
Maybe about 210 passengers (2 class), 240 passengers all Y.

Large MOM:
Length 52 m (170 Ft), range 4000 nm, MTOW 135 t, thrust 40,000 to 45,000 lbf.
Maybe about 230 passengers (2-class), 270 passengers all squished Y class.

Both variants with an approximately 44 m (144 Ft) wingspan, with folding wingtips in order to fit into a C-gate. That is about 4 m (13 Ft) of folding on each side."

Wouldn't both of these versions still be optimal at 1500 nm less, and perhaps even 2000nm less? Would they be able to carry freight then?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
parapente
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 4:20 pm

Optimal 1,500 km less?
Not against a plane being sold at a far lower price that is part of an uber successful existing family of aircraft.An aircraft using 32-35k engines that will also burn less fuel too.

That's not a definitive statement of course.But they do need to be very careful as to exactly where the sweet spot is or an A322 could be launched far earlier and cheaper and be highly attractive at lower ranges.

But I do agree on your definitions of what the 2 MOM aircraft are likely to be ,although I would have thought the smaller version would be 250 pax one class as it makes the most economic sense.Lets see if anything 'gives' in Paris.But I imagine launch is a year away myself.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 5:03 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Who's up for betting that PW gets shut out of any bidding for this, relatively sooner than later?

P&W started working on the second generation GTF several years ago and aims to have it ready by 2025. They need an application for that engine.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll get one, at least in a commercial application; especially if they don't have Boeing/Airbus' confidence for reliability.


reidar76 wrote:
enabling 7 abreast seating
reidar76 wrote:
The cargo capabilities would be limited to passengers' bags and very little additional cargo.

Have trouble seeing them bring something like that to market.

Adding all of that structure+weight, to gain just a single row of seating over an A321 but with no real cargo? ....seems like a non-starter.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 6:19 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Have trouble seeing them bring something like that to market.


Me too. :-) But, it seems like that is what you get when you want small widebody capable of flying up to 5000 nm, and have 40,000 to 45,000 lbf engine.

I think a long range narrowbody is what is actually needed, maybe just slightly larger than the A321LR, but with longer legs.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 6:47 pm

parapente wrote:
But they do need to be very careful as to exactly where the sweet spot is or an A322 could be launched far earlier and cheaper and be highly attractive at lower ranges.

But I do agree on your definitions of what the 2 MOM aircraft are likely to be...


I think developing a two variant MOM family, where the largest one takes a hit on range, is the only way we could see a new widebody in this market segment. There are so many things a MOM should be, but by these definitions we get a nearly 767-300 sized widebody optimized for transcon+, and we get a small widebody that can fly up to 5000 nm, and thereby opening up for more direct intercontinental flights. It also saves manufacturing cost keeping the two variants as similar as possible. The large variant could beat the A321 on transcon on a cost per seat basis (since it is quite larger), and the smaller variant as it has much more range than the A321LR, thus making it more flexible and addressing a larger market by connecting more city pairs.

But, I have a hard time seeing how there could be a large enough market to launch a clean sheet widebody. Return on investment... The development cost would probably easily be in excess of 10 billon.
 
Taxi645
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 7:15 pm

reidar76 wrote:
parapente wrote:
But they do need to be very careful as to exactly where the sweet spot is or an A322 could be launched far earlier and cheaper and be highly attractive at lower ranges.

But I do agree on your definitions of what the 2 MOM aircraft are likely to be...


I think developing a two variant MOM family, where the largest one takes a hit on range, is the only way we could see a new widebody in this market segment. There are so many things a MOM should be, but by these definitions we get a nearly 767-300 sized widebody optimized for transcon+, and we get a small widebody that can fly up to 5000 nm, and thereby opening up for more direct intercontinental flights. It also saves manufacturing cost keeping the two variants as similar as possible. The large variant could beat the A321 on transcon on a cost per seat basis (since it is quite larger), and the smaller variant as it has much more range than the A321LR, thus making it more flexible and addressing a larger market by connecting more city pairs.

But, I have a hard time seeing how there could be a large enough market to launch a clean sheet widebody. Return on investment... The development cost would probably easily be in excess of 10 billon.


In airbus case if it's the basis for both an a330 replacement and the MoM than the investment might start too look a bit more feasible.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 7:30 pm

reidar76 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Have trouble seeing them bring something like that to market.

Me too. :-) But, it seems like that is what you get when you want small widebody capable of flying up to 5000 nm, and have 40,000 to 45,000 lbf engine.

Not necessarily. The A310 still granted 8abreast and tandem LD3s, but launched with the CF6-80 still under 50K lbf... and that was 40yr-old technology.


reidar76 wrote:
I think a long range narrowbody is what is actually needed, maybe just slightly larger than the A321LR, but with longer legs.

Perhaps, but it possibly leaves a comparatively easy target for Airbus to hit, with a lower expenditure on their part
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 801
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 8:31 pm

Devilfish wrote:
OA940 wrote:
So Boeing are looking into a 757 replacement... :hyper: :bouncy:

:shakehead: No.....a replacement for this..... ;) .....

Image
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Various ... 67-238.jpg


Or for both... :idea:
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 8:51 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
The A310 still granted 8abreast and tandem LD3s, but launched with the CF6-80 still under 50K lbf... and that was 40yr-old technology.


Yes, but with a nominal range of 3,500 nm (without any additional cargo onboard). The A310 was quickly upgraded with a 58,000 lbf engine option. With technology advances since then, I would agree it is quite possible to develop a new A310 sized widebody (8-abreast, 153 ft long fuselage, 144 ft wingspan and LD3 compatibility) with a 40,000 to 45,000 lbf engine, but it would a MOM aircraft that only addresses one part of the MOM gap. It would lack range in order to be a 767 replacement. The A333 (and 787-10) has a similar range as the A321LR when both takeoff with their cargo compartments full.

If the information from the engine manufacturers are correct, and Boeing is indeed looking for engines for a widebody from 40,000 lb of thrust, I think that indicates that the MOM won't be an aircraft with cargo capabilities in focus.

reidar76 wrote:
I think a long range narrowbody is what is actually needed, maybe just slightly larger than the A321LR, but with longer legs.

Perhaps, but it possibly leaves a comparatively easy target for Airbus to hit, with a lower expenditure on their part[/quote]

Yes, this is quite a challenge for Boeing. Airbus has a better starting point, so Boeing needs to be smart.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 9196
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 8:57 pm

reidar76 wrote:
The A310 was quickly upgraded

Just as this will inevitably be. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single widebody (or even variant) in the last three decades where Boeing hasn't spec'ed it for X amount of thrust, without quickly uprating it, by a significant amount.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Wed May 03, 2017 9:08 pm

reidar76 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
The A310 still granted 8abreast and tandem LD3s, but launched with the CF6-80 still under 50K lbf... and that was 40yr-old technology.


Yes, but with a nominal range of 3,500 nm (without any additional cargo onboard). The A310 was quickly upgraded with a 58,000 lbf engine option. With technology advances since then, I would agree it is quite possible to develop a new A310 sized widebody (8-abreast, 153 ft long fuselage, 144 ft wingspan and LD3 compatibility) with a 40,000 to 45,000 lbf engine, but it would a MOM aircraft that only addresses one part of the MOM gap. It would lack range in order to be a 767 replacement. The A333 (and 787-10) has a similar range as the A321LR when both takeoff with their cargo compartments full.

If the information from the engine manufacturers are correct, and Boeing is indeed looking for engines for a widebody from 40,000 lb of thrust, I think that indicates that the MOM won't be an aircraft with cargo capabilities in focus.

reidar76 wrote:
I think a long range narrowbody is what is actually needed, maybe just slightly larger than the A321LR, but with longer legs.

Perhaps, but it possibly leaves a comparatively easy target for Airbus to hit, with a lower expenditure on their part


.[/quote]

I don't think you should be comparing 30-40 year old aircraft types versus comparable thrust requirements for a future MOM.... Remember that not only will the MOM be much lighter than a 767-300 due to use of new materials, but also fuel consumption will mean the MOM will require significantly less fuel to go a given distance. Fuel is heavy. All that helps reduce the thrust required to lift a much lighter aeroplane (Fuel load and structure).
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10113
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Thu May 04, 2017 10:28 am

.
In my conservative world 50k lbs is good for a 150t / 320k lbs MTOW, and probably an OEW of 70-80 klbs.

Image

Achieving that in combination with up to 300 seats single class and 5000NM needs a very efficient and lean design.

Because it should end up efficiently hopping between big places on the US East Coast, China domestic and Europe too, <2000NM, mostly probably..

That's why I've been asking if a big narrowbody is maybe a better idea than a small widebody.

Image

The estimations I made point to a OEW between 70 and 80t. 50 klbs seems a suitable engine thrust rate based on existing aircraft configurations.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Taxi645
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Thu May 04, 2017 2:16 pm

What would be really interesting if someone would give a shot at trying to make a calculated guess at the economics of both a single aisle and a wide body of equal technology level in the 4500 to 5200nm range with 210, 245 and 280 2cl. capacity (or thereabouts).

Until someone does an attempt at calculating specifications and economics of both concepts we can discus till are fingers fall off.
 
parapente
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Thu May 04, 2017 6:24 pm

I can't help thinking that all the 'MOM' really is,is a 2025 version of the 767.There is a huge replacement market coming for this aircraft and indeed the large amounts of the 330-200.It will also pick up sales from the 'edges' (753).It will stop the 338 dead in its tracks too.Ok it will also stop the 788 but I am not sure if they are bothered about that.Along with the 737-10 it will also 'bracket' the 321lr.Not sure it's any more complicated than that really.
On reflection probably a very good idea from Boeing.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RR bids on MOM engine, says BA will EIS MOM in 2025

Thu May 04, 2017 6:59 pm

Title says it all. Pretty convenient way to get the MOM EIS out. Let's see where this GE and RR bidding war goes


https://www-bloomberg-com.cdn.ampprojec ... boeing-jet
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: RR bids on MOM engine, says BA will EIS MOM in 2025

Thu May 04, 2017 7:03 pm

Looks like this will be a very scalable engine design. They're also considering partnering with Pratt, but it might happen years down the line.

"Stein said that the ultrafan and geared turbofan aren’t ultimately compatible designs. The Rolls engine is being developed with a thrust range of 25,000 pounds to 110,000, making it suitable for the entire span of Boeing and Airbus jetliners, including the new middle-of-market plane, which could require 40,000 to 50,000 pounds of thrust."

"It’s not yet clear whether Rolls-Royce will pursue the project with a partner, though the company is open to doing so in principle if the business conditions are right, East said. “We’ve done it before,” the CEO said. “If that’s the practical way of doing it, then we might well.” He added that decisions on industrial partnerships can come “years into the process, rather than months.”"
 
morrisond
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: RR bids on MOM engine, says BA will EIS MOM in 2025

Thu May 04, 2017 7:09 pm

If the 2025 EIS is real - you would think they have to Launch MOM this year if they have any hope of making that date.

A Launch at Paris this Summer and Steal Airbus's thunder?

You would think that if they are ready to launch they would have a few hundred orders.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: RR bids on MOM engine, says BA will EIS MOM in 2025

Thu May 04, 2017 7:17 pm

morrisond wrote:
If the 2025 EIS is real - you would think they have to Launch MOM this year if they have any hope of making that date.

A Launch at Paris this Summer and Steal Airbus's thunder?

You would think that if they are ready to launch they would have a few hundred orders.


I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing was already chirping in the ears of early launch customers about it, especially when you consider UA was pretty happy with the initial design/specs.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 25097
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: RR bids on MOM engine, says BA will EIS MOM in 2025

Thu May 04, 2017 8:14 pm

morrisond wrote:
If the 2025 EIS is real - you would think they have to Launch MOM this year if they have any hope of making that date.


Way too soon, Boeing will focus on the MAX 10 first and still has to put the MAX 8/9, 787-10 and 777X into service. Additionally Boeing's CEO mentioned that R&D budgets will not be increased, so the next big project will have to wait until current projects have winded down. Therefore a launch in 2018/19 is more logical.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
parapente
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Thu May 04, 2017 8:42 pm

The article makes the point in its last sentence that this project has evolved into a 767 replacement (primarily- my word not theirs).
I agree with Karel that Their forward accounts do not envisage a 2017 launch.But I do wonder...The time is right.I can well imagine a soft launch in Paris with a further 6 months definition phase.Bit difficult for Airbus with the 338 still waiting for engines!
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Fri May 05, 2017 2:16 pm

The peculiar factor on just about all recent planes (excepting the 380), is that smallest model (thought optimized) has been dropped, and the plane has been pushed larger that original designers thought possible. How might that play out with a MOM? One could also posit that the 737/320 are leaving a huge gap at the smallest size.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1911
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Fri May 05, 2017 2:56 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
The peculiar factor on just about all recent planes (excepting the 380), is that smallest model (thought optimized) has been dropped, and the plane has been pushed larger that original designers thought possible. How might that play out with a MOM? One could also posit that the 737/320 are leaving a huge gap at the smallest size.


I think you are right, and this could cause a serious issue over time for a MOM offering. over time the payload/range performance of aircraft increases to the point that the larger aircraft in the family that was below the sweet spot now sits over it and the smaller variant that was right over the sweet spot becomes overbuilt for it. This has to do with being able to add higher MTOW for relatively little OEW growth over time and engine performance increases allow better fuel use giving extra payload range capabilities.

If I remember correctly the 787 was touted as a 757/767 replacement and its grown into a 77E replacement.

The A32X series was a short range narrow body and now it replaces the 757 in its largest form and is looking to crack TATL.

I see it like buying clothes for children, if they fit when you buy them then they wont be wearing them for very long.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16095
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing discussing 40-50 klbs MoM engines with OEM's

Fri May 05, 2017 3:13 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
If I remember correctly the 787 was touted as a 757/767 replacement and its grown into a 77E replacement.

It may have been back in the 7E7 days, but by the time they were cutting metal / baking plastic it was bigger than the 767-400 and pretty much over lapping the A330 family members ( but with an eXtra wide body allowing for 9X seating in Y ). Also the thrust and MTOW ranges always made it a long range plane.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: allegro, Bing [Bot], dirtyfrankd, jetblueguy22 and 4 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos