Boeing and the "Middle of Market Airliner"
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.
quickly acquiring a reputation as one of the most efficient ways of converting jet fuel directly into noise.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by El Bunto; 25th Nov 2017 at 07:18.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,636
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
quickly acquiring a reputation as one of the most efficient ways of converting jet fuel directly into noise.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by SeenItAll; 27th Nov 2017 at 15:28.
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).
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).
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
The -100 series designator has been unfashionable for many years now (it was missing from the 777 too).
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.