Boeing and the "Middle of Market Airliner"

[Hartington]

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?

[TURIN]

787 is the 767 replacement.

[+TSRA]

...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 (http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/20/news/companies/boeing-797-nma-chief-engineer/index.html)

[Hartington]

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?

[DaveReidUK]

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. :O

[vctenderness]

The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?

Will they start on 818?

This is causing me sleepless nights:ok:

[AndoniP]

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.

[Hartington]

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.

[tdracer]

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.


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. 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...

[HamishMcBush]

The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?

Will they start on 818?

This is causing me sleepless nights:ok:
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.....

[DaveReidUK]

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.....

The 7J7 was a cancelled 1980s project which, had it gone ahead, would in all likelihood have been called the 777. :O

[Duchess_Driver]

The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?

Will they start on 818?

That is assuming they’re working in decimal.....how about hex? 7A7 anyone?

[Intruder]

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 757 and 767 are OLD airframes. New airframes will likely be composed of MUCH more composites and less aluminum, with more modern engines and avionics. A rehash of an old airplane just wouldn't sell in a competitive market, so they may as well start from scratch (or from the 787 concept).

[Groundloop]

The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?

Will they start on 818?

This is causing me sleepless nights:ok:

What happened to the 808?

[PDR1]

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...

:E

PDR

[Groundloop]

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...

:E

PDR
Are you supposed to know that? Will you be looking out for men in black suits with fingers to their ears?

[PDR1]

They won't notice - after all they did't notice when we induced them to elect a brain-damaged alien as their president...

PDR

[Heathrow Harry]

The 7J7 was also going to be co-produced with the Japanese IIRC

Then Mr B saw what happened to the US car industry.....................

[DaveReidUK]

The 7J7 was also going to be co-produced with the Japanese IIRC

Yes, the "J" is a bit of a giveaway. :O

[tdracer]

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.

[DaveReidUK]

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.

Yes, the MD-80 prototype was retrofitted with the GE36 propfan/UDF:

1BMNaXc1rL8

quickly acquiring a reputation as one of the most efficient ways of converting jet fuel directly into noise. :O

[El Bunto]

But they have replaced the 767 with the 787. There's no need to develop the 767?


Not particularly. In terms of empty weight the smallest 787 starts 16 tonnes heavier than the biggest 767.

And most 767s are -300ER which are 27 tonnes lighter than a 787-8 at empty. For an airline that doesn't need the extra range capability of the 787 that's equivalent of a fully-loaded CRJ in extra weight to be lifted. 787s are more efficient on a seat-basis ( and about the same in trip costs ) but against that have to be offset the higher capital costs plus all the hassles of introducing a new type.

So for an airline such as United with an immense 767 infrastructure I can see why adding more new-builds would be attractive.

Incidentally the 787-8 / -9 are pretty much direct matches in floor-space to the A330-200 / -300 respectively which slotted-in just above the 767 series.

[treadigraph]

quickly acquiring a reputation as one of the most efficient ways of converting jet fuel directly into noise.

I remember seeing it fly at Farnborough some 30 years ago - oddly don't recall the noise! Must be my preference for Merlins, Griffons, R2800s, etc!

[Lyneham Lad]

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.

This one? Farnborough 1988 (apologies for the poor quality).
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4517/38582746266_ca2663ff4a_b.jpg

[Pugilistic Animus]

What they really need to do is open up the 707 line again :}

[+TSRA]

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.

Personally, I’d hope Boeing would knock 6 off of 1707 and call it Enterprise now that we’re back to naming aircraft types. Starship would be better, but it’s already taken.

[WHBM]

Not particularly. In terms of empty weight the smallest 787 starts 16 tonnes heavier than the biggest 767.

And most 767s are -300ER which are 27 tonnes lighter than a 787-8 at empty.
Furthermore the basic 787, the 787-8, is effectively out of production now, it was only ordered by those who did so before it entered service. Production has moved on to the larger 787-9, which will soon be supplanted by the even larger 787-10. All moving well away from the traditional 767 market and impinging on the 777.

[SeenItAll]

Given we are discussing aircraft designations, can someone explain why some model modifications start at 100 and go up, while other start at a higher number? And while some use 3-digit designations, while others use 1-digit. And why some numbers in a sequence are never used?

727-100, 727-200
737-100, -200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, -900, MAX-8, MAX-9
747-100, -200, -300, -400, -8
757-200, -300, (-100 missing)
767-200, -300, -400, (-100 missing)
777-200. -300, X-8, X-9
787-8, -9, -10

300B4, -600
310-200, -300
320-100, -200
318, 319, 321
340-200, 300, -500, -600 (-400 missing)
380-800, -900 (not produced)
350-800, -900, -1000

I have tried to list only major models, but I am sure with some inaccuracy.

[Heathrow Harry]

A lot of it is Marketing's view at the time............

[DaveReidUK]

The -100 series designator has been unfashionable for many years now (it was missing from the 777 too).

More recently, it's been almost compulsory to start series designations for new types with 8 (or 800) and higher (Airbus started it with the A380).

An added complication was Boeing's decision in recent years to stop incorporating customer codes in their series designations, so they really only need one or two digits (saves ink).

[SeenItAll]

More recently, it's been almost compulsory to start series designations for new types with 8 (or 800) and higher

But now you have the problem of running out of "same number of digits" codes. 737MAX-10, 787-10, 350-1000. :ugh: Yes, I know, this is a First World problem.

I guess another reason why we now like to start at higher numbers comes from the software field. Seeing a version XX.0 always made people alert that it was more likely to be buggy than a version XX.1 or higher. Of course, I think the amount of initial testing in large transport aircraft exceeds immensely the amount of initial testing in consumer-grade software.

[Alan Baker]

The -100 series designator has been unfashionable for many years now (it was missing from the 777 too).

More recently, it's been almost compulsory to start series designations for new types with 8 (or 800) and higher (Airbus started it with the A380).

An added complication was Boeing's decision in recent years to stop incorporating customer codes in their series designations, so they really only need one or two digits (saves ink).
This is the aircraft industry's bizarre obsession with the number 8 being considered lucky in some far eastern cultures. We could have the Eightplanes 888-8. Total sales.....err...eight.

[tdracer]

The -100 series designator has been unfashionable for many years now (it was missing from the 777 too).
The -100 designation was a place holder for a 'shrink' version of the 757, 767, and 777. However it's very difficult to shrink an aircraft and keep it economical (as Airbus discovered with the A318). You end up with something that's too heavy with too much wing that costs nearly as much to build as the original, but is much less valuable to a potential customer. Hence the -100 versions were never built.

[rog747]

a/c have shrunk over the last few years

once upon a time LGW was a line up of 747 DC-10 and Tristars now its 320 and 738 in the main with many long haul oceanic flights conducted by narrow body types such as 738 and the 320/321 especially now on many USA transcontinental flights and from UK provincials
the old 757 is still seen on legacy airline Long Haul oceanic use by many carriers UA AA EI Iceland

this is really a retrograde step to go to so much narrow body use

the 738/or MAX and 321 are no match for a 757 or 767 which airlines today are trying to emulate

Boeing have lagged behind thinking they can keep on stretching the 737 to get it doing missions which are way beyond its original game plan
as for airbus the 320/321neo family again merely gasps at grabbing abit more range in a narrow body that was never designed for going over the pond nor transcon/Hawaii

[SeenItAll]

It's all about the economics. PAX want cheap tickets, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, they are much cheaper now than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Further, they want to avoid connections through a hub. While a narrowbody may not be as comfortable as a widebody, its cost per PAX is less on routes that do not need widebody range, and it allows more point-to-point flying.

[dixi188]

British Airways as BOAC took delivery of B747-036s that were -100 series, so why not -136?

[DaveReidUK]

British Airways as BOAC took delivery of B747-036s that were -100 series, so why not -136?

I think you have been misinformed.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=AWNA