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? |
787 is the 767 replacement.
|
...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 |
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? |
Originally Posted by Hartington
(Post 9964170)
Why are they working on MOMA rather than developing the 757 or 767?
That assumes, of course, that they haven't got tired of warming up 30+ year old designs. :O |
The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?
Will they start on 818? This is causing me sleepless nights:ok: |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by vctenderness
(Post 9964266)
The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?
Will they start on 818? This is causing me sleepless nights:ok: |
Originally Posted by HamishMcBush
(Post 9965395)
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 most important question here is....what comes after the 797? Will they start on 818? |
Originally Posted by Hartington
(Post 9964170)
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? |
Originally Posted by vctenderness
(Post 9964266)
The most important question here is....what comes after the 797?
Will they start on 818? This is causing me sleepless nights:ok: |
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 |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 9966766)
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 |
They won't notice - after all they did't notice when we induced them to elect a brain-damaged alien as their president...
PDR |
The 7J7 was also going to be co-produced with the Japanese IIRC
Then Mr B saw what happened to the US car industry..................... |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 9967025)
The 7J7 was also going to be co-produced with the Japanese IIRC
|
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. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9967358)
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. :O |
Originally Posted by AndoniP
(Post 9964568)
But they have replaced the 767 with the 787. There's no need to develop the 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. |
quickly acquiring a reputation as one of the most efficient ways of converting jet fuel directly into noise. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9967358)
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. https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4517/...2663ff4a_b.jpg |
What they really need to do is open up the 707 line again :}
|
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. |
Originally Posted by El Bunto
(Post 9968511)
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. |
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. |
A lot of it is Marketing's view at the time............
|
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). |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9970806)
More recently, it's been almost compulsory to start series designations for new types with 8 (or 800) and higher
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. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9970806)
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). |
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 |
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.
|
British Airways as BOAC took delivery of B747-036s that were -100 series, so why not -136?
|
Originally Posted by dixi188
(Post 9971994)
British Airways as BOAC took delivery of B747-036s that were -100 series, so why not -136?
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalap...llregmark=AWNA |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.