Boeing Shelves NMA

[b1lanc]

Not surprising - wonder if the clean sheet includes a 'new' Max?
“Since the first clean sheet of paper was taken to it, things have changed a bit … the competitive playing field is a little different,” per Calhoun - quite the understatement.

https://simpleflying.com/the-boeing-...rawing-boards/

[procede]

Flightglobal: https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/boeing-to-take-another-clean-sheet-to-nma-with-focus-on-pilots/136296.article.

"We might have to start with the flight control philosophy before we actually get to the airplane,” Calhoun says of NMA development. Design decisions related to “pilots flying airplanes” are “very important… for the regulator and for us to get our head around”.

Anything wrong with just using the 787 philosophy?

[nicolai]

This is great news for the A321XLR.

Meanwhile Boeing have had no serious problems with the 777 and 787 flight control philosophy - it's only trying to keep the 737 design alive, so that Southwest never has to give any pilots any further training, that has led them into trouble.

[switch_on_lofty]

Wonder if it's a short term cost deferral mechanism too.
How many designers & engineers are looking at this blank sheet? If not many; money is saved for the current balance sheet.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by switch_on_lofty

Wonder if it's a short term cost deferral mechanism too.
How many designers & engineers are looking at this blank sheet? If not many; money is saved for the current balance sheet.

I think this is pretty close. The MAX fiasco has Boeing bleeding money, and with over 400 built MAX aircraft sitting around that can't be delivered, that's a massive hit to cash flow. Plus all the expenses associated with getting the 777X flight tested, certified and in-service, there is a whole lot of money going out, with not much coming in. Boeing has already borrowed over $6 Billion to cover short term cash, and it's looking to borrow several Billion more.
So I'd put this in along with the 777-8X - delayed to save money until the MAX is straightened out and income once again starts exceeding spending.

[krismiler]

The NMA would require considerable resources which can't be spared at the moment with the MAX problem and the issues with the new B777. It would have been a niche aircraft which Boeing could have bought to market if they didn't have their current problems.

What they need now is a guaranteed big seller/big earner to set the company back on its feet.

[Global Aviator]

So is it back to the 767 discussion?

[dead_pan]

Why announce this? It sends yet another negative message to the market and customers. Surely they could have said they were temporarily redeploying some of the team to focus on more pressing issues?

Nice little fillip for the 321XLR.

[safetypee]

The reference to flight controls is open to interpretation - revised link to Flight Global
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-tra...136296.article

"… the NMA’s design must center around the flight control system and how pilots interact with that system – a topic highlighted by the 737 Max crashes.
“We might have to start with the flight control philosophy before we actually get to the airplane,”…. Design decisions related to “pilots flying airplanes” are “very important… for the regulator and for us to get our head around”.

Previously Boeing retained what some views defined as 'old style' pilot interface, applying this to their high tech aircraft (if only to differ from Airbus).
Thus the new suggestions for change might reconsider this philosophy; primarily addressing the issues of how pilots interact with aircraft, fly and operate modern technology, which will presumable start with the level of automation and systems integrity - considering the role and contribution of the human in flight operations.

The background to Boeing's existing (FBW) approach, a pilot's view, (published circa 1990 ?) is here:- https://www.dropbox.com/s/x5jaqackx4...2B%2B.pdf?dl=0
Assuming that this was aimed at the 787 onwards, it was not retrospectively applied to the 737, nor subsequent derivatives - a regrettable decision with hindsight.

Thus what now might change. Is Boeing heeding previous advice; last words in the document:-
'… a dynamic philosophy that will be revised as we learn more about the complex human factors factors which control the way pilots fly airplanes'.

What has Boeing learnt about HF from recent events (777, NG, Max), how does this now relate to the new technologies which might not have been available at the time of Ken Higgins report; interesting times.
Not so much as the 'way pilots fly aircraft', but more about how pilots should / could operate aircraft.

[OldnGrounded]

Originally Posted by dead_pan

Why announce this? It sends yet another negative message to the market and customers. Surely they could have said they were temporarily redeploying some of the team to focus on more pressing issues?

Public companies get in trouble with shareholders and regulators when they aren't upfront and candid about events, decisions, etc. that might have a material effect on revenue or profits. Not announcing this really wasn't an option.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by procede

I do not get why they do not basically just do what Airbus did with the A330: just take the basic 767 airframe, add new engines, modify the flight control system to match the 787 and tweak the wings for the increased engine size and weight.

The 767 isn't FBW, so it would take a major redesign to "modify the flight control system to match the 787". As I've posted many times, I think a "767X" - 767 fuselage with a new composite wing, new engines, and modern avionics/FBW would make a good NMA. But my friends on the inside say that's not likely.
Currently the biggest hurdle to the NMA is engines - it will need a state of the art engine in the 40-50k lb. thrust range, and at the moment the "newest" engine in that thrust range is the PW2000 (40 years old). Rolls still has their hands full with the Trent issues (had a beer with a former coworker last week - told me there are still over 30 787s AOG due to a lack of airworthy Trent 1000 engines) and Pratt is struggling to keep the current GTFs in the air.

[Mk 1]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Currently the biggest hurdle to the NMA is engines - it will need a state of the art engine in the 40-50k lb. thrust range,

Why the lack of development? More profit in the bigger engines in the 60k+ lb thrust range? More demand? Or the lack of an airframe to match it to?

[CargoOne]

Starting a new clean sheet project for anything else than pilotless aircraft is irresponsible towards the shareholders. And the last opportunity to be ahead of Airbus at least in something.

[Momoe]

CargoOne,

Yeah right, those pesky pilots keep crashing our latest jets, let's take them out of the equation and rely on our state of the art technology. That'll go down well with SLF, aircrew and airlines, best budget a few billion for PR.

[Australopithecus]

Maybe not pilotless, but probably less pilots. One in fact, with a triple redundant ground monitoring/oversight function coupled with more robust communication links. I don’t think the next generation aircraft could be pilotless. Pilotless is 25 more years away at least, if ever.

Losing one pilot would save maybe 3% of the total costs per year, but the hull cost would probably be 5% higher, along with a higher technology and perception risk. Still a pretty massive incentive...maybe 40 million of the 800-900 million operating cost over 70,000 hours life of the aeroplane. Add up the savings over 40 planes and you’re talking about a handy executive bonus plan right there.

[SaulGoodman]

from the article

Thus Boeing envisioned a cheap aircraft that could carry 220-270 passengers in a widebody twin-aisle configuration to fill this market niche.

re-engined (and re-winged) A310/A306
again Airbus was way ahead of its time

[CW247]

The more I look back at Boeing's history, the more I see an American company riding on its nation's status and the ability of its country's politicians to engage and do business with world leaders whilst offering arguably inferior aeroplanes (sweet talk, bribery, American charm, defense contract discounts). OK that's an exaggeration and I don't want to take anything away from the talented engineers (although they haven't done much engineering or have been prevented from doing it by decision makers since the 777/787) but the point I'm making is Boeing used to take business for granted. That's going to change from now on.

[fizz57]

Originally Posted by Momoe

CargoOne,
That'll go down well with SLF, aircrew and airlines, best budget a few billion for PR.

There'll be a Captain on board if only to sign the paperwork and do you think the SLF (who don't know the difference between an NG and a MAX, remember) will complain even if his only other job is to push the START button?

As for the airlines, they'll chase the bottom line, and the aircrew? Do their opinions even matter?

[turbidus]

I have a feeling that the NMA they have been working on may not have stood up too well against the A321XLR or wasnt worth the effort to compete with the 321XLR. Airbus has probably been working on their own NMA as well, who knows.
A bit of a shame to toss a few years worth of engineering and development, and another 5 or 6 years to market.

Agree that the 767F is viable, but betting the 767 to FBW probably just is not worth the effort.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Mk 1

Why the lack of development? More profit in the bigger engines in the 60k+ lb thrust range? More demand? Or the lack of an airframe to match it to?

I think a big part of it is that the engine companies have had their hands full with other stuff. Since 1990, GE's done the GE90-94B, the CFM56-7, GE90-115B, part of the GP7000, GEnx-1B, GEnx-2B, two version of the LEAP, and now the GE9X. All good, successful engines (GE9X still tbd), but that's a lot of development time and money. Similarly Rolls has been busy with various versions of the Trent and currently has their hands full solving in-service issues with it. Pratt has bet the farm on GTF - the jury is still out on the long term wisdom of that but they have their hands full making that work at the current scale, never mind up-scaling to NMA size.
It becomes a bit of a chicken or the egg problem - you can't design an aircraft without an engine, but the engine company doesn't want to spend money developing an engine without something to put it on.

Unlike some other posters, I don't think Boeing is giving up on the NMA, they are just putting it on hold while they get the rest of the house in order.

I think the first pilotless (or even single pilot) aircraft will be freighters - not passenger aircraft.