Boeing looking at stretching The 737-9
Neville
What you read is nonsense. There is something called the "Changed Product Rule" or CPR. It short, it says that any system you change when doing a new ATC has to step up to the latest version of the regulations. Aside from some of the structure, there is very little on the 737 Max that's not certified to 21st century regulations.
What you read is nonsense. There is something called the "Changed Product Rule" or CPR. It short, it says that any system you change when doing a new ATC has to step up to the latest version of the regulations. Aside from some of the structure, there is very little on the 737 Max that's not certified to 21st century regulations.
Don't see the big deal, the landing gear on the 767-400 was raised by 18 inches, cockpit displays were all redone amongst other changes and it was still covered by the 767 type rating.
As for common type rating - that's always a major driver when designing a derivative aircraft.
BTW, if anyone is wondering, CPR is harmonized between EASA and the FAA - Airbus is also using CPR for their various NEO projects.
What you read is nonsense. There is something called the "Changed Product Rule" or CPR. It short, it says that any system you change when doing a new ATC has to step up to the latest version of the regulations.
The news that Boeing is considering a further stretch of its largest 737 MAX variant reflects not only the seriousness of the threat posed by the better-selling Airbus A321neo but also the company’s belief in the growth potential of its seemingly ever-flexible 737 design.
Though Boeing is not commenting on the concept, reportedly dubbed the 737-10, there is little doubt the move is a response to the A321neo’s growing sales lead and to pressure from loyal customers to do something about it. Most recent numbers indicate Airbus now has more than 4,515 orders for the A320neo family, of which 1,117 are for the A321neo. Boeing, which lists orders for 3,090 MAXs on its website, does not detail the breakdown of variants, but is believed to have accrued less than 500 orders for the competing 737-9.
Impetus for the initiative has grown since 2015, when long-standing Boeing customers such as Korean Air were driven to split purchases to include both MAXs and A321neos. Korean ordered as many as 50 A321neos, along with 737-8s and 777-300ERs, in a $12 billion deal announced at last year’s Paris Air Show. American Airlines—which launched the MAX with its order for 100 737-8s—also selected the
A321neo, as did Lion Air with orders for both. All Nippon Airways, which bought the A321neo over the MAX, is another single-aisle defection to Airbus.
To make the stretch worthwhile, Boeing will need to develop the variant quickly, possibly with as little as four years from launch to service entry. Although engine development is generally the pacing item, Boeing can take advantage of the more powerful Leap-1A variant of CFM’s Leap-1 engine series, already certificated and in production for the A320neo family. The use of the Leap-1A engine, rated at over 32,000 lb. thrust for the A320neo family, would provide more than 3,000 lb. additional thrust per engine over the Leap-1B, additional margin for higher weight takeoffs and longer range. ut because there’s no such thing as a free lunch, Boeing must confront the design challenge of how to install the larger Leap-1A on a wing designed for the MAX aircraft’s standard Leap-1B engine. The Leap-1A has a 78-in.-dia. fan and a maximum nacelle height of 93 in. while the -1B, with a maximum thrust rating at takeoff of just over 29,000 lb, has a 69-in.-dia. fan and a nacelle just under 89 in. in height at its deepest point. The basic -1A also weighs considerably more than its smaller sibling, tipping the scales at almost 7,000 lb.; the -1B weighs about 6,130 lb.
Boeing managed to get the Leap-1B under the wing of the MAX by extending the nose leg 8 in., and cantilevering the engine forward and upward of the wing leading edge. The company faces a bigger challenge with the Leap-1A, particularly if it wants to keep development costs under control by avoiding major surgery around the main landing gear bay. The focus of engineering studies will almost certainly be on options to extend the main gear by a similar amount without changing the pivot point of the leg. The alternate option of a wing box redesign would entail significant investment and resources, at a time when Boeing is already heavily committed to other developments such as the remaining MAX family members, the 787-10 and 777X.
While Boeing remains silent about the concept, Airbus has been quick to discredit it. Airbus A320 program chief Klaus Roewe says “the other guys are under tremendous pressure.” Speaking at an Airbus event in Hamburg, Roewe added that Boeing has “to do much more than just the engine.” A decision to go for the Leap-1A would have “huge repercussions for the airframe,” he says, and “there is no easy way out of the corner.”
Not surprisingly, John Leahy, Airbus chief operating officer-customers, was equally disparaging about the potential 737 stretch. “They will try to get close to a ‘me-too’ aircraft, but not quite get there. Boeing has not named the aircraft yet, but we have: We call it the Mad Max.” According to Airbus, the A320neo family has a market share of 59%. Leahy thinks the market split will stay at around 60/40 in Airbus’s favor. The A321neo has a market share of 79%, Airbus claims, far outselling the 737-9. Airbus has no plans to stretch the A321, he says. In his view, 240-250 seats is the upper limit for a narrowbody aircraft because of the need for reasonable turnaround times on the ground.
Airbus also says the adoption of the -1A engine will result in a “full loss of commonality” within the MAX family, although Boeing reportedly considers that a nonissue, particularly with some carriers already adopting both engine variants as part of mixed MAX/Neo fleets.
To at least one potential customer, leasing company AerCap, the issue is not so much lack of commonality but rather the potential strategic knock-on effect on Boeing’s amorphous New Midsize Airplane (NMA). AeroCap CEO Aengus Kelly says about the potential stretch, “Boeing will sell it. It will be fine. There is a big user base. The core of the market is the -8, but the -10 will bring the MAX family closer to the A320neo.”
However, he adds, “The new midsize aircraft is the real challenge. Is there room for another aircraft? In part, it depends on the [737]-10. There are a lot of discussions around that. To an extent, the -10 would take part of the NMA market.”
Though Boeing is not commenting on the concept, reportedly dubbed the 737-10, there is little doubt the move is a response to the A321neo’s growing sales lead and to pressure from loyal customers to do something about it. Most recent numbers indicate Airbus now has more than 4,515 orders for the A320neo family, of which 1,117 are for the A321neo. Boeing, which lists orders for 3,090 MAXs on its website, does not detail the breakdown of variants, but is believed to have accrued less than 500 orders for the competing 737-9.
Impetus for the initiative has grown since 2015, when long-standing Boeing customers such as Korean Air were driven to split purchases to include both MAXs and A321neos. Korean ordered as many as 50 A321neos, along with 737-8s and 777-300ERs, in a $12 billion deal announced at last year’s Paris Air Show. American Airlines—which launched the MAX with its order for 100 737-8s—also selected the
A321neo, as did Lion Air with orders for both. All Nippon Airways, which bought the A321neo over the MAX, is another single-aisle defection to Airbus.
To make the stretch worthwhile, Boeing will need to develop the variant quickly, possibly with as little as four years from launch to service entry. Although engine development is generally the pacing item, Boeing can take advantage of the more powerful Leap-1A variant of CFM’s Leap-1 engine series, already certificated and in production for the A320neo family. The use of the Leap-1A engine, rated at over 32,000 lb. thrust for the A320neo family, would provide more than 3,000 lb. additional thrust per engine over the Leap-1B, additional margin for higher weight takeoffs and longer range. ut because there’s no such thing as a free lunch, Boeing must confront the design challenge of how to install the larger Leap-1A on a wing designed for the MAX aircraft’s standard Leap-1B engine. The Leap-1A has a 78-in.-dia. fan and a maximum nacelle height of 93 in. while the -1B, with a maximum thrust rating at takeoff of just over 29,000 lb, has a 69-in.-dia. fan and a nacelle just under 89 in. in height at its deepest point. The basic -1A also weighs considerably more than its smaller sibling, tipping the scales at almost 7,000 lb.; the -1B weighs about 6,130 lb.
Boeing managed to get the Leap-1B under the wing of the MAX by extending the nose leg 8 in., and cantilevering the engine forward and upward of the wing leading edge. The company faces a bigger challenge with the Leap-1A, particularly if it wants to keep development costs under control by avoiding major surgery around the main landing gear bay. The focus of engineering studies will almost certainly be on options to extend the main gear by a similar amount without changing the pivot point of the leg. The alternate option of a wing box redesign would entail significant investment and resources, at a time when Boeing is already heavily committed to other developments such as the remaining MAX family members, the 787-10 and 777X.
While Boeing remains silent about the concept, Airbus has been quick to discredit it. Airbus A320 program chief Klaus Roewe says “the other guys are under tremendous pressure.” Speaking at an Airbus event in Hamburg, Roewe added that Boeing has “to do much more than just the engine.” A decision to go for the Leap-1A would have “huge repercussions for the airframe,” he says, and “there is no easy way out of the corner.”
Not surprisingly, John Leahy, Airbus chief operating officer-customers, was equally disparaging about the potential 737 stretch. “They will try to get close to a ‘me-too’ aircraft, but not quite get there. Boeing has not named the aircraft yet, but we have: We call it the Mad Max.” According to Airbus, the A320neo family has a market share of 59%. Leahy thinks the market split will stay at around 60/40 in Airbus’s favor. The A321neo has a market share of 79%, Airbus claims, far outselling the 737-9. Airbus has no plans to stretch the A321, he says. In his view, 240-250 seats is the upper limit for a narrowbody aircraft because of the need for reasonable turnaround times on the ground.
Airbus also says the adoption of the -1A engine will result in a “full loss of commonality” within the MAX family, although Boeing reportedly considers that a nonissue, particularly with some carriers already adopting both engine variants as part of mixed MAX/Neo fleets.
To at least one potential customer, leasing company AerCap, the issue is not so much lack of commonality but rather the potential strategic knock-on effect on Boeing’s amorphous New Midsize Airplane (NMA). AeroCap CEO Aengus Kelly says about the potential stretch, “Boeing will sell it. It will be fine. There is a big user base. The core of the market is the -8, but the -10 will bring the MAX family closer to the A320neo.”
However, he adds, “The new midsize aircraft is the real challenge. Is there room for another aircraft? In part, it depends on the [737]-10. There are a lot of discussions around that. To an extent, the -10 would take part of the NMA market.”
Aside from some of the structure, there is very little on the 737 Max that's not certified to 21st century regulations.
Yeah everything except the cockpit!
BTW, as I have "inside" information that I can't reveal, I can't go into details. But that article is pretty far off the mark...
I have read that Boeing are lobbying the FAA to allow them to raise the height of the landing gear so they can put geared turbofans on the 737 frame and still keep the 1960s type certificate.
One has to wonder what the point of a type certificate is anymore when the regulator allows so many changes.
One has to wonder what the point of a type certificate is anymore when the regulator allows so many changes.
The regulatory changes that materially contribute to safety are by far the exception. 90% of the changes do little or nothing to improve safety - but increase the aircraft costs and complexity immensely. SEVERAL CHANGES HAVE ACTUALLY HAD AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON SAFETY!
The Feds also have a bad habit of latching onto a relatively minor aspect of the design, forcing the airframers to expend enormous cost and effort to show compliance when the associated failure is fairly benign, while glossing over areas that have resulted in fatal accidents.
I'm glad I'm getting out of it (I'm retiring from Boeing next month).
Out of interest TDracer why do Boeing keep kicking the 737 can down the road? Why not build a new aeroplane or resurrect the 757? It seems ridiculous to have a 200+ seats on a 737 airframe.
Obviously cost of construction and design is one easy answer as to why, but what else? Why haven't they just come out with a clean sheet narrow body design? The risk they run is that Embraer or Bombardier might come and eat their lunch in the narrow body market with a product that represents a 21st century design.
Obviously cost of construction and design is one easy answer as to why, but what else? Why haven't they just come out with a clean sheet narrow body design? The risk they run is that Embraer or Bombardier might come and eat their lunch in the narrow body market with a product that represents a 21st century design.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called competition. Companies don't exist in a vacuum and must respond to market challenges.
A "clean sheet" 737 would be strategic but is at least 10 years away, maybe closer to 15 given investments in MAX. The A321neo pressure is now, today, immediate. So what will Boeing do about it?
A "clean sheet" 737 would be strategic but is at least 10 years away, maybe closer to 15 given investments in MAX. The A321neo pressure is now, today, immediate. So what will Boeing do about it?
Out of interest TDracer why do Boeing keep kicking the 737 can down the road? Why not build a new aeroplane or resurrect the 757? It seems ridiculous to have a 200+ seats on a 737 airframe.
Resurrecting the 757 isn't an option - the tooling is long gone, plus it would still need a new engine to be competitive.
A 737-10 - if it happens - would be a stopgap until the new midmarket aircraft would be available sometime in the mid 2020's.
What that MMA will look like is still pretty fluid, but expect something with capabilities along the line of the early 767s. In fact, my personal idea for the MMA is basically a 767X - 767 cross section with new engines and a composite wing. When you're talking 200+ passengers you really need a twin aisle to keep turn times reasonable (sit near the back of a 757-300 some time and time how long it takes to get off the aircraft after you're at the gate
).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly, I've heard before that "they can't just start building the ___ again, because the tools have been destroyed". I've long wondered, why get rid of them in the first place, and more importantly, what's stopping them from building the tools again? Surely it's easier to invent the wheel the 2nd time around...what am I missing here?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If B737 uses the fuselage and switches from B707, why could B757 have not been the embryo for a new generation of downsized a/c in similar vein?
How short can a B787 go?
How short can a B787 go?
Everybody goes on about the "narrow" B737 fuselage--it is the widened version if you recall the B707 history.
Regarding storage of tooling, it's real expensive to do and with the advances in technology becomes obsolete pretty quickly. The USAF paid Lockheed to store the C-5 tooling and in the run-up to the C-17 chopped the money and Lockheed got rid of the tooling unnecessary for the C-5M model conversion line.
GF
Regarding storage of tooling, it's real expensive to do and with the advances in technology becomes obsolete pretty quickly. The USAF paid Lockheed to store the C-5 tooling and in the run-up to the C-17 chopped the money and Lockheed got rid of the tooling unnecessary for the C-5M model conversion line.
GF
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer,
I have always enjoyed reading your informed postings and I wish you the best in retirement.
TD
I'm glad I'm getting out of it (I'm retiring from Boeing next month).
TD
The phrase "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind. Maybe if they do persist with it, they could have a look at the ergonomic disaster zone that is the Flight Deck?
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-737-9 was a stretch too far
My opinion is the -9 or 900 was a stretch to far. The problem is the engineering of the main wheels. Cannot make them longer. Already fly fast approaches to keep from striking the tail. 1.3 VSO, no way.
I agree the 757 Max would be a big success. Great capable airplane. Just build it with 2 jumpseats for Christ sake.
Ken
B-787
I agree the 757 Max would be a big success. Great capable airplane. Just build it with 2 jumpseats for Christ sake.
Ken
B-787
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May be better to walk in that case...
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Lossy city
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF please give up on that narrow 737 fuselage already...
Question for the pilots: what are your opinions on the viability of the Comac C919 and Irkut MC-21? Both of those have even wider fuselages than the A32X. I'm fully aware that they're a while away from launch, never mind that there's no public news about longer versions yet - but to me at least it looks like there could possibly be some competition for the existing duopoly at some point in the distant future?
Question for the pilots: what are your opinions on the viability of the Comac C919 and Irkut MC-21? Both of those have even wider fuselages than the A32X. I'm fully aware that they're a while away from launch, never mind that there's no public news about longer versions yet - but to me at least it looks like there could possibly be some competition for the existing duopoly at some point in the distant future?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I briefly flew the 737-9ER, it was sold to our airline as a 757 replacement but was no where near. It didn't have the range or load capacity, often bags or passengers had to be left behind.
I was in Seattle a few days ago and visited the plant for the factory tour. I asked the guide about the 757 and she said that Boeing were seriously considering putting it back into production, such was the demand from the airlines.
I was in Seattle a few days ago and visited the plant for the factory tour. I asked the guide about the 757 and she said that Boeing were seriously considering putting it back into production, such was the demand from the airlines.