Boeing and the "Middle of Market Airliner"
Boeing and the "Middle of Market Airliner"
Since Boeing stopped building 757s and 767s (at least passenger 767s) they have been studying some form of replacement. It has been reported that United can't wait for a new Boeing and, presumably, they've looked at the A321LR and the A330neo and decided they don't meet their needs so they are thinking about new 767s.
So here's my question. Airbus has updated and re-engined A32x, A33x and has made noises about A38x - the "neos". Boeing has constantly re-engined, stretched, added wingtip fences to 737s. Why not do a 757 max or 767 max? What is it about those two airframes that seem to make that not possible?
So here's my question. Airbus has updated and re-engined A32x, A33x and has made noises about A38x - the "neos". Boeing has constantly re-engined, stretched, added wingtip fences to 737s. Why not do a 757 max or 767 max? What is it about those two airframes that seem to make that not possible?
787 is the 767 replacement.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and Boeing is working on the 797 to replace the 757. Boeing just hired the 797 Chief Engineer today, so progress will be coming quick.
The 797 is reported to be larger than the 737 but smaller than the 787, thus a replacement for the 757.
Boeing's '797' gets a chief engineer - Nov. 20, 2017
The 797 is reported to be larger than the 737 but smaller than the 787, thus a replacement for the 757.
Boeing's '797' gets a chief engineer - Nov. 20, 2017
But that doesn't answer the question. I focused on the 737 but Boeing re-engined the 747 at least three times, stretched it twice etc.
The question isn't about what Boeing ARE doing but about WHY they are doing what they are doing. Why are they working on MOMA rather than developing the 757 or 767?
The question isn't about what Boeing ARE doing but about WHY they are doing what they are doing. Why are they working on MOMA rather than developing the 757 or 767?
I think the fact that you can't decide which of those two should be developed illustrates the dilemma that Boeing are faced with.
That assumes, of course, that they haven't got tired of warming up 30+ year old designs.
That assumes, of course, that they haven't got tired of warming up 30+ year old designs.
But they have replaced the 767 with the 787. There's no need to develop the 767?
Then the 797 will become the new 757, if what +TSRA says is true. If United want a 757-class aircraft pronto then they either pick the most suitably-sized Boeing or Airbus, or wait for the 797.
Then the 797 will become the new 757, if what +TSRA says is true. If United want a 757-class aircraft pronto then they either pick the most suitably-sized Boeing or Airbus, or wait for the 797.
I take your point DaveReidUK, Part of the problem Boeing has is deciding quite which segment of the market they are aiming at - range or load capacity. Given the expansion of the industry as a whole I incline to the view that the 767 would be the logical choice (if a choice has to be made).
Then again, a new design is going to be a compromise and maybe the reason why Boeing built the 757 and 767 in the first place was they decided a compromise wouldn't work.
Then again, a new design is going to be a compromise and maybe the reason why Boeing built the 757 and 767 in the first place was they decided a compromise wouldn't work.
There is a gaping hole for a new aircraft in the 200-250 passenger with 4-5,000 mile range. Single aisle don't work well, not only are they uncomfortable, it takes a long time to load/unload that many people with a single aisle (I've been in the back of a 757-300 - and it was a solid 10 minutes after they opened the doors before we could even see any movement).
I've long thought Boeing should do a 767 "X" - new wing and engines, updated flight deck and avionics from the 767-2C with the basic 767 fuselage.
Unless they can do something really magical with composite construction for a twin aisle, it'll be had to make a big enough improvement over the 767 fuselage to justify the investment.
The 757 was really intended to be a 727 replacement, while the 767 was a 707 replacement. However relatively late in the game they increased the 757 range/payload such that it wasn't that much less than a 767. The 767 came into it's own when they did the -300 with the updated FADEC engines. But it's worth noting that Boeing developed the 757 and 767 at pretty much the same time for about $2 Billion. Now, that was 1980 dollars, but even today that' pencils out to less than $10 billion. Compare that to the estimated $30 Billion that the 787-8 set them back...
I've long thought Boeing should do a 767 "X" - new wing and engines, updated flight deck and avionics from the 767-2C with the basic 767 fuselage.
Unless they can do something really magical with composite construction for a twin aisle, it'll be had to make a big enough improvement over the 767 fuselage to justify the investment.
Then again, a new design is going to be a compromise and maybe the reason why Boeing built the 757 and 767 in the first place was they decided a compromise wouldn't work.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many, many years ago (over 30) when I was at uni, I was told that after the 797 will be the 7J7. I am still waiting to find out if this is true.....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?
Will they start on 818?
Will they start on 818?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that doesn't answer the question. I focused on the 737 but Boeing re-engined the 747 at least three times, stretched it twice etc.
The question isn't about what Boeing ARE doing but about WHY they are doing what they are doing. Why are they working on MOMA rather than developing the 757 or 767?
The question isn't about what Boeing ARE doing but about WHY they are doing what they are doing. Why are they working on MOMA rather than developing the 757 or 767?
That's the designation for the replacement Groom Lake-pentagon shuttle aircraft. Boeing have made extensive use of copied airbus features in the design of the 808 to alight with the Area 51 policy of exploiting superior advanced alien technologies...
PDR
PDR
Are you supposed to know that? Will you be looking out for men in black suits with fingers to their ears?
The 7J7 was going to use tail mounted unducted fans - basically pushing for max fuel efficiency. They went as far as to do a demonstrator aircraft (I'm thinking it was a DC-9 but don't hold me to that), replacing one engine with the unducted fan prototype. I don't know how fuel efficient it was, but the counter-rotating props were so noisy it quickly became a show stopper.
The Boeing SST was going to be called the 2707 before it was cancelled, so I suspect the next new aircraft after the 797 will be the 1707.
The Boeing SST was going to be called the 2707 before it was cancelled, so I suspect the next new aircraft after the 797 will be the 1707.