|
Boeing looking at stretching The 737-9
It seems Boeing is seriously considering stretching their 737-9 MAX to counter the market being flooded by A321s. Boeing Co. is studying two designs for its so-called Max 10, a potential stretch of its largest 737 aimed at making up ground on Airbus Group SE’s longest single-aisle jet, according to people familiar with the plans. One option Boeing has discussed with airlines and lessors in recent weeks is a simple lengthening of the 737 Max 9 that would offer much of the range and payload of Airbus’s A321neo, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. The company is also vetting an alternative, more elaborate revamp that would feature the larger engines developed for the Airbus jet. The more straightforward redesign, which would rely on upgrading engines developed for the Max family, would enter the market by early 2020, while the more complex one wouldn’t begin service until almost two years later. http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...y-large-02.jpg |
It seems Boeing is seriously considering stretching their 737-9 MAX
It's called a B757. |
Looks like a 757 with new engines and shorter undercarraige. Put the NEO engines on it, lengthen the undercarraige it will look like a 757 with new engines!!
|
Do whatever you want to do to it, but it will never be a match for the capability of a 757.
|
757 has a much larger wing. Personally I think a '737-10' would be a stretch to far.
|
A lot of professional comment on PPrune suggests the existing 739 is a stretch to far and can barely get airborne with a full load at some places and usually requires a longgggg runway for a short haul aircraft.
It is too narrow for the modern world and many parts of it must be same as the 50+ year old original . Yet another stretch is really going to make it a 'Triggers Broom' (for non Brits, thats a ten year old broom thats had five new heads and four new handles) |
I think Boeing can make a 737-10 as capable as they want. It's a trade-off between costs and expected market success.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...psyfqwm0y3.jpg |
Really? 777 type bogie pitch lock required perhaps? Proper doors not them dodgy overwing jobs. In fact forget it.
|
777 type bogie pitch lock required perhaps? |
I think if Boeing really choses to offer a PW1000/LEAP-A sized turbofan it is inevitable they will have to redesign much of the inner 737 wing and central wingbox to make this possible. Then we are likely talking about more than 5 billion investment.
Doing nothing and carrying on with just the -9 for the next 8 years can be just as damaging or worse though. Airbus has been totally pushing Boeing around with the A321 for the last few years. A320 production will be half A321 in the near future, with margins that typically come with mass production and no competition. http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-co...7-1020x528.jpg (Airbus Alabama assembly line) It seems Boeing feels doing nothing is no longer an real option. https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetal...37-max-family/ |
It would be more promising to build that famous "middle of the market" airplane from scratch and use it as a base layout for the upcoming next single aisle family. Not at Renton but at Charleston.
|
It seems Boeing feels doing nothing, i.e. not making a longer version, is no longer an real option.????
What kind of option is that? |
Another MAX stretch is a new build airplane. New wing and old airframe? Didn't work well on the 747-8.
|
RAT 5,
basically that is saying to each other: all will be fine, no need to panic. Investment risk is high and 3000 737s in the backlog, what can happen? Boeing outproduced Airbus last year! Lesshair, old airframes with new wings worked for the 727, 737, 757, A310, A330, E2, CRJ, 777X hopefully. It seems to me Boeing only should make the investment in a 737-10 when they best the A321LR on capacity & range. Just matching isn't good enough, they're fighting an uphill battle. A great new MoM would take at least 8 years, during which Airbus would have a sales / margin feast. |
Boeing has missed to cover the MAX gap to the A321neo and there are reasons for it. Bigger engines plus longer gear needed, leading to some quite different wing, resulting in very high cost for low gain as the fuselage diameter is still a tad too small for lower deck cargo and Airbus is offering the A321neo now.
This chance has passed. No drama. Time to start the next big thing. |
Keeje...love the big fly on the image!
Aside from that, the prospect of a re-design of the 737 to make room for large diameter motors is moot. The airlines that wanted that were already supplied by Airbus. Boeing builds great aircraft, management decisions have left customers getting 'facials', while AB has been providing 'implants' that are attractive. |
Not a lot of use on a bogey with one row of tyres....... |
737-10 = Mad Max.
|
I know we're talking MoM and shorthaul.
But why don't they bite the bullet and just build a BWB. Enough naffing around with the X-48 already - we all know Bob Liebeck has been right all these years. Yes I know - problems of pressurising non-circular fuselages, customers wanting windows, tendency to pitch up-down, not enough space at the gate, 90 secs to get everyone out etc. etc. I suspect the real reason that the Randy Tinseths of the world aren't fans of a passenger version is that by making one, they'd render most of their current inventory obsolete in one fell stroke. Imagine it - a bleeding great civilian B-2 with a couple of stonking hi-bypass turbo-fans on the back. Give me a few good movies, some nice food and space to stretch out and I'd be on that bad boy for thirteen hours up to LAX sharpish - window or no window. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 9524304)
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.” 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... |
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
(Post 9524249)
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. |
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 9525033)
Boeing has taken this CPR business to an obscene level. The CPR should be simplified: no more than 25 years for an old cert basis. If that means a "new" type, meeting the latest safety requirements - all the better.
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. |
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? |
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 :ugh:). |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9525421)
Resurrecting the 757 isn't an option - the tooling is long gone, plus it would still need a new engine to be competitive.
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? |
Aviation Week article on the 10X
Simpler 737-10X, New Midsize Airplane Both ?Doable? | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week |
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? |
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 |
tdracer,
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?
|
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 |
Originally Posted by kjmorris2023
(Post 9532387)
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 May be better to walk in that case... |
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? |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.