Boeing looking at stretching The 737-9
I highly doubt they MAX the 757. If they do something it will be 737-based.
"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?"
Easy - nil.
Easy - nil.
"Can't build 757 because the jigs are gone"
Well if Boeing were able to make 757 jigs back in the day, they can make 757 jigs now.
If you're trying to create a fuel efficient 757, do you start with a 757, or do you start with a 737?
Well if Boeing were able to make 757 jigs back in the day, they can make 757 jigs now.
If you're trying to create a fuel efficient 757, do you start with a 757, or do you start with a 737?
Wrong way round. The jigs are gone because nobody wanted to buy 757s any more.
And if nobody wanted to buy them when the line was still open, there's no way that re-establising one to build a warmed-over 35-year-old design is going to be remotely cost-effective.
And if nobody wanted to buy them when the line was still open, there's no way that re-establising one to build a warmed-over 35-year-old design is going to be remotely cost-effective.
It's probably worth remember what killed the 757 in the first place: The 737NG got too close to it's capabilities and cost a LOT less. The 737-800 had close to the range, and the -900 close to the passenger count of the 757, burned less fuel, and cost less to buy. While some operators needed that extra margin of range and/or passenger capabilities, it wasn't enough to keep the line cost effective - near the end the 757 was down to one/month - which drove the per aircraft overhead costs of keeping the line open through the roof (plus, the 757 was always a relatively expensive aircraft to build).
15 years ago, not many operators used 737s and A320s for long haul operations. But as point to point has grown, so have the number of relatively long haul 737/A320 operations. That extra margin of range and passenger count is now more desirable, and the 737 (and to a lesser extent the A320 series) can't provide it. Further, as others have pointed out, 6+ hour flights crammed into the back of a narrow body aircraft sucks - especially to those who've become accustomed to relative roominess of a wide-body.
A 'new' 757 would require a new wing, new engines, and new flight deck to be even remotely marketable, and you'd still be stuck with that (relatively) narrow 707 sized fuselage. If Boeing is going to dump that much money into a "757X", why not just bite the bullet and do a new, state of the air, Mid-Market Airplane (which, as I've noted before, I expect to be twin aisle)? A family of MMA, with seat counts from ~180-280, 5-6,000 mile range, and seat mile costs better than either the MAX or the NEO would relegate the narrow bodies back to short haul and dirt cheap charters where they belong. The biggest hurtle to a new MMA is the lack of a suitable engine - currently there is nothing in the 40k-50k thrust class...
15 years ago, not many operators used 737s and A320s for long haul operations. But as point to point has grown, so have the number of relatively long haul 737/A320 operations. That extra margin of range and passenger count is now more desirable, and the 737 (and to a lesser extent the A320 series) can't provide it. Further, as others have pointed out, 6+ hour flights crammed into the back of a narrow body aircraft sucks - especially to those who've become accustomed to relative roominess of a wide-body.
A 'new' 757 would require a new wing, new engines, and new flight deck to be even remotely marketable, and you'd still be stuck with that (relatively) narrow 707 sized fuselage. If Boeing is going to dump that much money into a "757X", why not just bite the bullet and do a new, state of the air, Mid-Market Airplane (which, as I've noted before, I expect to be twin aisle)? A family of MMA, with seat counts from ~180-280, 5-6,000 mile range, and seat mile costs better than either the MAX or the NEO would relegate the narrow bodies back to short haul and dirt cheap charters where they belong. The biggest hurtle to a new MMA is the lack of a suitable engine - currently there is nothing in the 40k-50k thrust class...
So they can spend 5 billion on something that will be flying 4 years after and outsold by the Airbus anyway.
I'm sure there's profit for them in it, but God wouldn't it be great to see them start with a blank sheet of paper and show us what they can really do again? 707, 727, 737 classic, 747, 777....blew the competition into the middle of the next decade. Hell Airbus only managed to beat the 777 last year!
We're starting to see ceilings being hit. The VLAs are dead in a pax role, the 777x might be too big too...so 77W/A35K might be the limit for profitable widebody production and looks like A321Neo is about the largest size for profitable narrowbody production. Boeing isn't ideally placed for either based purely on sales.
Good thing the 787 sold so well.
Come on Boeing, the whole industry knew you had the best engineers in the business 20 odd years ago, cut them loose and let them show us what they can do again!
I'm sure there's profit for them in it, but God wouldn't it be great to see them start with a blank sheet of paper and show us what they can really do again? 707, 727, 737 classic, 747, 777....blew the competition into the middle of the next decade. Hell Airbus only managed to beat the 777 last year!
We're starting to see ceilings being hit. The VLAs are dead in a pax role, the 777x might be too big too...so 77W/A35K might be the limit for profitable widebody production and looks like A321Neo is about the largest size for profitable narrowbody production. Boeing isn't ideally placed for either based purely on sales.
Good thing the 787 sold so well.
Come on Boeing, the whole industry knew you had the best engineers in the business 20 odd years ago, cut them loose and let them show us what they can do again!
There doesn't seem to be any technical reason why it shouldn't be shrinkable (think A300 -> A310), but it certainly wouldn't be optimal at that size.
I think it's more likely that a clean-sheet MoM design would end up roughly B762-sized (7-abreast Y).
I think it's more likely that a clean-sheet MoM design would end up roughly B762-sized (7-abreast Y).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoM design would end up roughly B762-sized
In all econ that was 260 pax. If you added a business class, which would have a fixed bulk-head, what would that create? It would depend where the bulk-head was, of course, and depend on the routes; but that would be quite a bit larger than B757/B737-900 stretch.
Problem is the economics of routes change very fast and the time frame from concept to first line flight is many years. Every day the future is getting more difficult to predict e.g. A380 in a world where perhaps the B747 is a dying breed and A340 is gasping for breath already. B787 A350 B777, perhaps A330 derivatives seem to be changing the world. Was that foreseen at concept time for A380? That does have a role to play, but can it achieve what B747 achieved?
In all econ that was 260 pax. If you added a business class, which would have a fixed bulk-head, what would that create? It would depend where the bulk-head was, of course, and depend on the routes; but that would be quite a bit larger than B757/B737-900 stretch.
Problem is the economics of routes change very fast and the time frame from concept to first line flight is many years. Every day the future is getting more difficult to predict e.g. A380 in a world where perhaps the B747 is a dying breed and A340 is gasping for breath already. B787 A350 B777, perhaps A330 derivatives seem to be changing the world. Was that foreseen at concept time for A380? That does have a role to play, but can it achieve what B747 achieved?
OK - I was thinking more of the cross-section than necessarily the length. Maybe a "767-100" size, then.
My point re the OP was that shrinking the much wider 787 fuselage down to a 200-250 seater would produce a seriously compromised aircraft.
My point re the OP was that shrinking the much wider 787 fuselage down to a 200-250 seater would produce a seriously compromised aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the 787-3 wasn't so far away in the first place...
Would a shorter 787 not solve the problem? Perhaps 767-200 length? Then add the clipped wing from the 787-3; with a much reduced range, and hence fuel load, weights would fall dramatically.
Given the carbon structure of the 787, I guess it would be 'relatively' easy to reduce the weight through less tape, so lightening the whole structure.
The downside is the high construction effort...autoclaving the fuselage would be costly. But it might be the right airplane?
Would a shorter 787 not solve the problem? Perhaps 767-200 length? Then add the clipped wing from the 787-3; with a much reduced range, and hence fuel load, weights would fall dramatically.
Given the carbon structure of the 787, I guess it would be 'relatively' easy to reduce the weight through less tape, so lightening the whole structure.
The downside is the high construction effort...autoclaving the fuselage would be costly. But it might be the right airplane?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it might be the right airplane?
At least it would be today's (well recent) technology and common type rating. It might give airlines the option to mix & match season changes in route demand. A high capacity route demand in summer might shrink in winter, leading to a smaller model, but the larger model might be used on other routes. I'm thinking of the east-west N.Hemisphere routes in summer & north- south in winters.
At least it would be today's (well recent) technology and common type rating. It might give airlines the option to mix & match season changes in route demand. A high capacity route demand in summer might shrink in winter, leading to a smaller model, but the larger model might be used on other routes. I'm thinking of the east-west N.Hemisphere routes in summer & north- south in winters.
Downsizing an airliner rarely results in a competitive aircraft.
As pointed out above, even an aircraft with the capacity of the B762 is a bit bigger than Boeing's MoM target market, so we'd have to be talking about a pretty drastic reduction in size for the 787 compared to the current/proposed variants of that aircraft.
Yes, it worked (up to a point) for the A300 -> A310, but that involved a completely new wing.
The 737-500 was pretty uncompetitive and sold mostly to airlines operating other 737 variants, where at least it had the advantage of fleet commonality.
But Boeing can't just target its MoM offering at existing 787 operators as that would severely restrict the market.
My money is still on a 2-3-2 twin aisle, for which the 787 fuselage would make no sense at all.
As pointed out above, even an aircraft with the capacity of the B762 is a bit bigger than Boeing's MoM target market, so we'd have to be talking about a pretty drastic reduction in size for the 787 compared to the current/proposed variants of that aircraft.
Yes, it worked (up to a point) for the A300 -> A310, but that involved a completely new wing.
The 737-500 was pretty uncompetitive and sold mostly to airlines operating other 737 variants, where at least it had the advantage of fleet commonality.
But Boeing can't just target its MoM offering at existing 787 operators as that would severely restrict the market.
My money is still on a 2-3-2 twin aisle, for which the 787 fuselage would make no sense at all.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would basically need to be a 200 seater in short model and 250 in long. 787 Flight Deck achitecture is a given and a common wing and engine ideal. The key is the fuselage diameter.... Get it right and they can build a winner. Get it wrong and they'll just not sell.
I'll have retired before I see one anyway.....
I'll have retired before I see one anyway.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing should just launch the NSA (New Small Aeroplane). That's what they were about to do before the NEO/Max came along. Make it about the same size and range as the 757. This makes it slightly larger than the existing single isles, where the trend is going. It takes it away from the C Series, A320, 919 territory where the competition is building up. The operating economics will be a lot better than the 757 and perhaps better than the 737/A320 so its sales wont be eaten away by the 737 like what occurred with the 757. Yes, it will kill the 737, this was always going to happen with the NSA and sadly by the time the NSA is flying the 737s time will almost be up. It will put it closer into the NMA territory and maybe the NMA plane is not so attractive. If Boeing launch the NMA they still have the quandary of the A321 decimating the Max9. Of course Airbus agrees with Boeing's NMA idea. It keeps their A321 monopoly secure.
Last edited by Cool Guys; 14th Oct 2016 at 14:43.
I understand why the 738 and 9 to a degree pushed the lovely 75 out of the way but I often ehar comments about 75 being too heavy. Its much younger surely thatna 737 structure some of which goes back to the 60s -is things like a longer broader wing and of course the dual bogie gear that theycannot do weight reduction on
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing Defines Final 737 MAX Stretch Offering
Update from AWST:
Full article: Boeing Defines Final 737 MAX Stretch Offering | Technology content from Aviation Week
As Boeing closes in on completion of final assembly of the first 737-9, the longest variant of the MAX family it originally announced in 2011, the company has defined the size of the proposed additional -10X stretch variant to compete more aggressively against the Airbus A321neo.
Boeing, which first revealed design studies of an extra stretched variant of the MAX in mid-2016, has finalized a design based on a 66-in. fuselage stretch. While significantly less than the 132-in. extension it outlined at last year’s Farnborough Airshow, the additional cabin length enables two-class capacity to be increased to 189 passengers, compared to 193 for a similarly configured A321neo. In a single class, the -10X could seat up to 230.
The minimal change in design is expected to be both cheaper and faster to develop than more extensive stretch options evaluated earlier in 2016. The modest stretch enables Boeing to retain the existing wing and CFM Leap 1B engine, rather than having to adopt a more extensively reinforced wing structure and larger Leap 1A/C variant considered under earlier studies. The reduced scope of the design changes also means the company will be able to offer the -10X for entry into service as soon as 2020, giving the aircraft longer to compete against the A321neo and dovetailing into the current new product introduction sequence that starts with the debut of the 737-8 later this year.
Boeing, which first revealed design studies of an extra stretched variant of the MAX in mid-2016, has finalized a design based on a 66-in. fuselage stretch. While significantly less than the 132-in. extension it outlined at last year’s Farnborough Airshow, the additional cabin length enables two-class capacity to be increased to 189 passengers, compared to 193 for a similarly configured A321neo. In a single class, the -10X could seat up to 230.
The minimal change in design is expected to be both cheaper and faster to develop than more extensive stretch options evaluated earlier in 2016. The modest stretch enables Boeing to retain the existing wing and CFM Leap 1B engine, rather than having to adopt a more extensively reinforced wing structure and larger Leap 1A/C variant considered under earlier studies. The reduced scope of the design changes also means the company will be able to offer the -10X for entry into service as soon as 2020, giving the aircraft longer to compete against the A321neo and dovetailing into the current new product introduction sequence that starts with the debut of the 737-8 later this year.