Boeing Bets On Replacement Over 737 Re-engining
 

Boeing Bets On Replacement 737 Over Reengining | AVIATION WEEK

It seems Boeing has all but decided to come up with something new.

Wonder if any new engine technology (further the PW geared turbofan or GE LEAPX technology) will be available by 2020..

Good Move
 

The 737NGs have a limited life anyway. 2019 hits the airframe integrity issue right on the nose.:mad:

And Embraer is just waiting what Boeing will do.

Embraer waits for 737 decision before defining own plan

No doubt they have some ideas.

Putting new engines under the 190 seems a no brainer. I guess they have to, with the CS100, MRJ coming on line.

Neo is probably a damp squib and Boeing's position looks strong with the 787 and 748 coming online. This leaves Boeing potentially resource rich to proceed.

It is possible that Boeing are sandbagging and that they have known how to with the 737 replacement for some time. I think this because it is clear that that the current design can't be re-engined with alacrity due to the almost certain need for a significant redesign on the undercarriage and subsequent wing, airframe and systems impact.

Ok the 737/A320, it goes up and down, mostly short legs. Boeing does not care.The only major cost savings would be in the engines. Just how clean can an aircraft get?

The NEO is just a stop gap. Its only bolting on a new engine and a few other systems. Its not a major undertaking at all.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Airbus will also be working on a A320 replacement for 2020.

Hearing is believing?
 

It's open to interpretation, but Boeing certainly did not make any firm commitment to a replacement of the B737, in my view. There was, however, a loose commitment to some sort of decision being made late this year. There's probably a replay of the 2010 result conference call on the Boeing website.

Anyway, there is an argument that replacing the B737 (and A320) like-for-like won't be the right answer in terms of the market that will exist in 2030. Very big decisions loom ahead for both Airbus and Boeing. Being able to re-engine the A320 probably gives Airbus the luxury of having more time to decide.

And weight of course, assuming composites will make the difference. There are potentially big economies to be made with an all new airframe.

But Airbus is on the back foot slightly because they still have the A350 gumming up the works until at least 2013 and with the Neo due 2015 it will put them behind if (big if!) Boeing can deliver.

I'm wondering if Neo is a bad idea.

Airbus says reengining the A319, A320 and A321 with new PW GTF's and new GE LEAPX will cost them around E1 Billion. Fuel saving should be around 15% or give payload / range. It will be significantly quieter and cleaner (NOx) too.

The NEO combined with the CSeries and some other entrants causes Boeing a serious headache IMO. What new engine technology will be available in 2019? It probably isn't coming from Pratt or GE. Maybe it's there when Airbus comes up with their new NB, 4-5 years later.

The Boeing backlog (2000+ 737s) runs in to 2015-2016. Will a new CFM powered 737 be a good investment for any airline after .. 2014? with clearly better competitors entering service?

A picture I produced in 2010 that stirred up the blogosphere and had even Randy Tinseth write a counterblog two days later :E

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...21C939MS21.jpg

How does it take so long to design the things nowadays ? 9 years ? Did Boeing, with the 737 entering service in 1968, start designing it in 1959 ? Where is all the advantage that billions of dollars of investment in CAD products gives over our grandfathers with drawing boards, crew-cuts, and new Studebakers out in the parking lot ?

And in the meantime, where are Boeing going to get their cashflow from over the next nine years ? 787 delays have already knocked a huge hole in that, now the 737 will be on notice as a past-generation product for almost a decade, which must have an impact on how much you can charge for it.

The common denominator as of now for Boeing and Airbus is the PW GTF or the CFM Leap X (or is it ten?).
A Boeing 737 NEO no matter how difficult is going to get within a few percentage points of an A329 neo in performance at a fraction of the cost of a 797, which has to use the same engines at the moment.
Do you spend say $3 billion to tart up the 737 or $10 billion on a 797 giving probably a marginally better direct operating cost than 737 NEO for an additional $10 million in capital cost?
The dog in all these questions is that open rotor seems to be the next big step in power plants now that the noise appears to be solved, and it is going to be very difficult to come up with a common airframe to suit open rotor, GTF and LeapX.
Maybe Keesje can dream up a suitable concept?:ugh:

Sorry for the finger trouble! For 329 neo read 320 neo. :confused::confused:

Just as an SLF have flown all three types, got to admit that the Embraer beats all with more passenger room and quieter in flight.
All power to them they do make good aircraft and the safety record I think is better.:ok:

I've heard that SWA killed many of the improvements that Boeing had in mind for the B737NG.

I'm not a SWA basher, but I believe a big customer could lobby for or against changes.

chase888

Sounds like a subject I would like to know more about in order to join in.

Could you expand the points above more

Sorry Lomapaseo,
Cannot direct you to a source, just has been reported a number of times that RR claim to have solved the noise issue on open rotors.
After the T900 issue on the Qantas A380, the fan containment issue may be a point, although we have been spinning open propellers for a few years, and do not fully understand why the open rotor fan(or propeller) should be such an issue.
In my simplistic way, I fail to see so much difference between a turbo-prop and the open rotor except for the physical size of the beast.
Does not answer your question I know, but thats what age does for you.
Cheers.

:O

touched the grey cells about a year ago. I contacted Henry Lam on the idea and he actually made some excellent sketches.

Name we came up with: ERC-20 (EcoRegionalConcept 2020). Then we got busy with serious things. Maybe its time to grab together what we got produce 1 story board and "launch" it here. I'll contact Henry & ask what he thinks.

sneak preview of the ECR-20
..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1296819363

You and me both
 

Yes - it would be an interesting subject right enough.

As for open-rotor looking feasible, that's something I've been pondering since the A320/B737 re-engining got going.

Despite the success of IAE and despite Airbus urging IAE to come with a new engine, RR didn't play. Is that because RR felt the GTF was a blind alley? If the open-rotor has made good progress then RR's stance would be a reasonable one, perhaps.

Of course, it may just be that RR isn't convinced by re-engining programmes, perhaps in the wake of the A340-500/600. Certainly, doing the engine and airframe hand-in-hand is always going to come up with a more optimal solution.

I am sorry that this post provides nothing specific.

Technolgy can of course make things work. Whether a company provides a product line is mostly a money thing, both in available resources to invest (engineers and money) as well as long term returns.

The open rotor concept got a good airing in the prop-jet programs. One of the chewing over points was the read-over of the current safety regulations to these unique installations. Nobody wanted to see any hint of lessening of safety in any one regulatory paragraph, regardless of any argument that overall it might look good.

There isn't much interest in starting from scratch in writing a completely new regulatory section for unique ideas so trying to fit a round block in a square hole by adopting a regulation to fit takes time away from generating novel ideas.

It isn't as simple as calling it a prop (it installs differently on larger aircraft and flies different)

I'm just going outside...
 

Thank-you. I now have a starting point and will try to go forward without making a complete idiot of myself. Like Captain Oates, I may be some time.

Engineering is one thing (I'm still mopping my brow after the Qantas Trent 900 thread), but money I can get to grips with, I think. Poor old P&W pioneers the way with the UDF and then settles for the GTF. Can't help but feel they've developed a habit of coming up with an answer before knowing what the question is. Mind you, given their position, I have some sympathy.

The game-changer, at least as I see it, is the price of oil. I know that safety is paramount (despite some of the stuff on the Qantas thread), but perhaps the oil price will concentrate minds.

Just a thought. Feel free to set me straight.