What Boeing range SHOULD look like?
Paxing All Over The World
UltraFan
Because
I never understood why Boeing, with all its enormous profits, needed $500mil from the engine supplier.
- Boeing thought that money was more important than any thing else
- The money would also boost the share price
- Because they could
A family of aircraft with as far as possible commonality, so that a pilot could go from smallest to largest with ease. Flight decks and handling characteristics as similar as possible along with the rest of the systems, SOPs and operational philosophy.
A single aisle 190 seater B787.
The current B787 with the 8,9,10 versions is well placed.
The new B777X once sorted out will cover the top end of the market.
Whilst there will be places for niche aircraft such as supersonic, VLA and middle of the market, why bother ?
A single aisle 190 seater B787.
The current B787 with the 8,9,10 versions is well placed.
The new B777X once sorted out will cover the top end of the market.
Whilst there will be places for niche aircraft such as supersonic, VLA and middle of the market, why bother ?
Previously there was a huge gap between the B737-200 and the B747-200 into which the B757/767 was neatly slotted.Now with greater capacity, longer range narrow bodies and much smaller wide bodies that gap has narrowed considerably.
Many airlines needed something between the 73 and 74 but many of those would now choose either a B737-900 or a B787-800. Only a few would specifically require something in the middle, however if the growth in air travel is sufficient it could pull the number up to a viable total.
With the MAX debacle necessitating a new narrow body sooner, rather than later and ongoing problems with the B787 and B777W Boeing won’t have the resources to take on another new project for a number of years, leaving Airbus A321 variants virtually unchallenged in this area.
Many airlines needed something between the 73 and 74 but many of those would now choose either a B737-900 or a B787-800. Only a few would specifically require something in the middle, however if the growth in air travel is sufficient it could pull the number up to a viable total.
With the MAX debacle necessitating a new narrow body sooner, rather than later and ongoing problems with the B787 and B777W Boeing won’t have the resources to take on another new project for a number of years, leaving Airbus A321 variants virtually unchallenged in this area.
Are the economics really worth a narrowbody clean sheet design using composites ?
I would have thought a new Boeing product range based on the 787 design would be the way to go
Then I looked up the empty weight on the 787-9, it’s very similar to the much older three engine DC10
This was a big surprise, I thought the main reason to build with composites is to save weight and that just doesn’t appear to be the case with the 787
It seems most of the efficiency comes from the advanced engines, systems and wing
I imagine an all new composite design could be ‘over built’ less and have a lower empty weight but it makes you wonder whether it’s worth it
I would have thought a new Boeing product range based on the 787 design would be the way to go
Then I looked up the empty weight on the 787-9, it’s very similar to the much older three engine DC10
This was a big surprise, I thought the main reason to build with composites is to save weight and that just doesn’t appear to be the case with the 787
It seems most of the efficiency comes from the advanced engines, systems and wing
I imagine an all new composite design could be ‘over built’ less and have a lower empty weight but it makes you wonder whether it’s worth it
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They did stretch the 757 - the 757-300. You may not be familiar with it because it was a big flop (55 built - 5% of total 757 production). The main problem with the 757 is that it was relatively expensive to build - when the 737NG came along it cost little more than half as much, and aside from long range it could do pretty much anything the 757-200 could.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the economics really worth a narrowbody clean sheet design using composites ?
I would have thought a new Boeing product range based on the 787 design would be the way to go
Then I looked up the empty weight on the 787-9, it’s very similar to the much older three engine DC10
This was a big surprise, I thought the main reason to build with composites is to save weight and that just doesn’t appear to be the case with the 787
It seems most of the efficiency comes from the advanced engines, systems and wing
I imagine an all new composite design could be ‘over built’ less and have a lower empty weight but it makes you wonder whether it’s worth it
I would have thought a new Boeing product range based on the 787 design would be the way to go
Then I looked up the empty weight on the 787-9, it’s very similar to the much older three engine DC10
This was a big surprise, I thought the main reason to build with composites is to save weight and that just doesn’t appear to be the case with the 787
It seems most of the efficiency comes from the advanced engines, systems and wing
I imagine an all new composite design could be ‘over built’ less and have a lower empty weight but it makes you wonder whether it’s worth it
The A320 vs B727 was a good example of how efficiency improved over 25 years. Basically the A320 does the same job with one fewer engine, one fewer flight crew member and uses half the fuel.
With the basic A320 being 30 years old now, I wonder if a brand new design would offer similar improvements, given that engine and flight crew numbers couldn’t be reduced.
With the basic A320 being 30 years old now, I wonder if a brand new design would offer similar improvements, given that engine and flight crew numbers couldn’t be reduced.
Previously there was a huge gap between the B737-200 and the B747-200 into which the B757/767 was neatly slotted.Now with greater capacity, longer range narrow bodies and much smaller wide bodies that gap has narrowed considerably.
Many airlines needed something between the 73 and 74 but many of those would now choose either a B737-900 or a B787-800. Only a few would specifically require something in the middle, however if the growth in air travel is sufficient it could pull the number up to a viable total.
With the MAX debacle necessitating a new narrow body sooner, rather than later and ongoing problems with the B787 and B777W Boeing won’t have the resources to take on another new project for a number of years, leaving Airbus A321 variants virtually unchallenged in this area.
Many airlines needed something between the 73 and 74 but many of those would now choose either a B737-900 or a B787-800. Only a few would specifically require something in the middle, however if the growth in air travel is sufficient it could pull the number up to a viable total.
With the MAX debacle necessitating a new narrow body sooner, rather than later and ongoing problems with the B787 and B777W Boeing won’t have the resources to take on another new project for a number of years, leaving Airbus A321 variants virtually unchallenged in this area.
There are a lot of 757s and 767s out there that are getting quite long in the tooth, and the A321 NEO simply isn't a good replacement. It's single aisle and it's wing is too small - to make the A321LR viable they loose cargo capability which is often a bigger money maker than the SLF.
Fuselage length also becomes a problem as well, increased length needs increased ground clearance or tail strikes become a greater risk. Some smaller airports even have difficulty with the A321 on the apron as the tail sticks out too far.
Hopefully Airbus won’t repeat Boeing’s mistake and try to take the A320 beyond the current range, any more than an A321XLR needs to be an all new design.
Hopefully Airbus won’t repeat Boeing’s mistake and try to take the A320 beyond the current range, any more than an A321XLR needs to be an all new design.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weight of those really big fan engines has also skyrocketed. I don't remember numbers, but the two engines on the 787 weigh quite a bit more than the three smaller engines of a DC-10.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the 757 was originally designed (1978-1981), it was expected that the cost of jet fuel would skyrocket over the next 20 years (the number I remember was $10/gallon by 2000, which of course didn't happen). So, pretty much every design trade of lower weight vs. lower cost fell on the side of lower weight. Further, the 757 tooling was designed for a max production rate of 7/month (one very 3 work days). By contrast, by 2000 they were cranking out 737s at over 1/day. This gave considerable economies of scale to the 737 and much lower overhead costs per aircraft. Eventually as customers chose the 737 over the 757, and the production rate dropped on the 757, the overhead costs associated with keeping the 757 line open became too high (especially since that same factory space could be devoted to manufacture of additional highly profitable 737s).
So how does the 757 compare to the A32x in weight and fuel consumption? Propably apples and oranges because of size and range differences.
Did the 767 see the same optimization for weight? AFAIR, it does not compare favorably even to early A330.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Shoreham
Age: 72
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic weight of a B747-400 177,400 kg
Basic weight of a A340-600 179,200 kg
A full B747-400 from London to Orlando has same operating costs of an A330.
Bring on the B747-900 with B787 technology.
Basic weight of a A340-600 179,200 kg
A full B747-400 from London to Orlando has same operating costs of an A330.
Bring on the B747-900 with B787 technology.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 4-8 has the 2013 costs per hour. 300+ passenger jet cost was $14,600/hr, <300 was $9,100/hr. Four engine jets cost per hour was $14,000, two engine jets were $10,300 per hour. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...4-op-costs.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the insight! I had suspected overhead but not realized weight savings were prioritized in the design. I suppose overhead does not make that much of a difference once development and invest for tooling is written off.
So how does the 757 compare to the A32x in weight and fuel consumption? Propably apples and oranges because of size and range differences.
Did the 767 see the same optimization for weight? AFAIR, it does not compare favorably even to early A330.
So how does the 757 compare to the A32x in weight and fuel consumption? Propably apples and oranges because of size and range differences.
Did the 767 see the same optimization for weight? AFAIR, it does not compare favorably even to early A330.
It's not really fair to compare the 767 with the A330 - the A330 came along over 10 years after the 767 and hence the more direct 767 comparisons would be with the A310 and A300-600.
