Waiex191
Member
What does it cost to buy?
Can the airlines make money with it?
Will passengers pay for a ticket? Is it as fast as today's technology?
Next Next-Generation Future Airliner - Boeing Commits to Proof-of-Concept Build
- Thread starter Boathavn
- Start date
Can the airlines make money with it?
Will passengers pay for a ticket? Is it as fast as today's technology?
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
Says it's transonic
Like a sportboat on a starting line, those skinny foils can stall... Is it's possible? Yes, but like many other great technologies, the ecosystem around it may not support it. Longer runways, better software (that's probably the easiest) and changes to the terminals would slow any adoption.
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
Cost of Fuel for Airlines
Fuel costs account for 10% to 12% of operating expenses.So this new tech might save them 4% of their operating expenses.
That's a lot of money but hardly a driver of radical changes to their operating environment.
My guess, if it works, it will get adopted for the smaller planes on feeder routes, commuters and so forth.
Talchotali
Capt. Marvel's Wise Friend
Boeing's cash cow is and always has been the 737. It is highly profitable as it is a cheap-to-manufacture, easy-to-upgrade where it counts, derivative 1960's design.
Pasting newer technology engines on it has allowed a significant fuel economy improvement vs. development cost over its 50-year history. 15,500 737 customers can't be wrong.
Simply -- stretches, new engines (and required tail structure changes) created the Next Gen/MAX series over the original geriatric/Classic design. The MAX takes re-engining about as far as it can go. However, recent events show the limitations of 60's avionics and the shortcomings of the FAA's derivative design grandfathering rules.
Time for a new bird. And the decision is required soon.
In a parallel universe, a look at choices - good choices and choices not taken:
Airbus came along in 1984 with the A320. This was at the time a state-of-the-art modern 160-passenger jet, which remains, 40 years later, still a modern jet design (fly-by-wire, triple redundant systems, modular avionics, centralized health management).
The 7J7 was an early attempt to re-invent a 737, but was defeated by low fuel prices at the time.
Unducted fans made it the mother of all weed whackers - noise so loud that an active noise-canceling system was required in the cockpit. When fuel prices went south (in the right direction) it was cheaper to soldier on with a warmed-over 737.
The Sonic Cruser was an attempt to re-invent the airliner based on available low fuel prices. However fuel prices are dynamic, and in the post 9/11 economy, its look cool/go-faster technology was repurposed into lightweight design for fuel savings with the 7E7 (later 787).
The 787 modular avionics system and composite construction could make a 737 replacement. However, the cost and complexity of 787 construction technology were seriously miscalculated.
Also, the (MacDonald management) idea that suppliers could build the airplane for you on their dime was shown to be in error (delay, delay, delay).
It is very difficult to scale down to a smaller narrow-body aircraft with the same performance/cost benefits. And if the old design is still selling...
Time for a new bird. For both companies.
Big fan engines made the MAX possible, but you can only hang so big of a fan off a wing and gear designed for a small diameter JT8D (wing and gear define the final developments of the MAX and A320 NEO).
Boeing continues to sell MAX's and Airbus NEOs. But both companies need a magic bullet design, with Boeing likely needing it sooner and harder.
The 737/A320 sector aircraft replacement is a big shoe to fill. It must cover a whole range of size/seating requirements (120 to 200) and missions (domestic short-haul to thin over ocean long-haul).
Boeing must use as many derivative 787 systems and technologies as possible (modular avionics, power distribution, environmental systems). Airbus must choose full composite or hybrid.
But most importantly for either, it can't be a one-generation charlie. It needs to be a 30+ year manufactured life solution. That's a really hard commitment to make in the current brave new world of greenhouse gasses, carbon offsets and unknown energy technologies.
Boeing will lead, because they have to -- the 737 is long-in-tooth. Airbus will wait three years after Boeing commits and learn from Boeing's errors and gain three years of tech advantage.
Airbus did this with the A350 and A320NEO and has done quite well for their patience..
Boeing is really in the hot seat on this one. The choice of the 737 replacement technologies will make or forever change the company.
They must get this decision right. Airbus is a formidable competitor.
Pasting newer technology engines on it has allowed a significant fuel economy improvement vs. development cost over its 50-year history. 15,500 737 customers can't be wrong.
Simply -- stretches, new engines (and required tail structure changes) created the Next Gen/MAX series over the original geriatric/Classic design. The MAX takes re-engining about as far as it can go. However, recent events show the limitations of 60's avionics and the shortcomings of the FAA's derivative design grandfathering rules.
Time for a new bird. And the decision is required soon.
In a parallel universe, a look at choices - good choices and choices not taken:
Airbus came along in 1984 with the A320. This was at the time a state-of-the-art modern 160-passenger jet, which remains, 40 years later, still a modern jet design (fly-by-wire, triple redundant systems, modular avionics, centralized health management).
The 7J7 was an early attempt to re-invent a 737, but was defeated by low fuel prices at the time.
Unducted fans made it the mother of all weed whackers - noise so loud that an active noise-canceling system was required in the cockpit. When fuel prices went south (in the right direction) it was cheaper to soldier on with a warmed-over 737.
The Sonic Cruser was an attempt to re-invent the airliner based on available low fuel prices. However fuel prices are dynamic, and in the post 9/11 economy, its look cool/go-faster technology was repurposed into lightweight design for fuel savings with the 7E7 (later 787).
The 787 modular avionics system and composite construction could make a 737 replacement. However, the cost and complexity of 787 construction technology were seriously miscalculated.
Also, the (MacDonald management) idea that suppliers could build the airplane for you on their dime was shown to be in error (delay, delay, delay).
It is very difficult to scale down to a smaller narrow-body aircraft with the same performance/cost benefits. And if the old design is still selling...
Time for a new bird. For both companies.
Big fan engines made the MAX possible, but you can only hang so big of a fan off a wing and gear designed for a small diameter JT8D (wing and gear define the final developments of the MAX and A320 NEO).
Boeing continues to sell MAX's and Airbus NEOs. But both companies need a magic bullet design, with Boeing likely needing it sooner and harder.
The 737/A320 sector aircraft replacement is a big shoe to fill. It must cover a whole range of size/seating requirements (120 to 200) and missions (domestic short-haul to thin over ocean long-haul).
Boeing must use as many derivative 787 systems and technologies as possible (modular avionics, power distribution, environmental systems). Airbus must choose full composite or hybrid.
But most importantly for either, it can't be a one-generation charlie. It needs to be a 30+ year manufactured life solution. That's a really hard commitment to make in the current brave new world of greenhouse gasses, carbon offsets and unknown energy technologies.
Boeing will lead, because they have to -- the 737 is long-in-tooth. Airbus will wait three years after Boeing commits and learn from Boeing's errors and gain three years of tech advantage.
Airbus did this with the A350 and A320NEO and has done quite well for their patience..
Boeing is really in the hot seat on this one. The choice of the 737 replacement technologies will make or forever change the company.
They must get this decision right. Airbus is a formidable competitor.
Last edited:
Until it jumps from $50 to $130 / barrel....
Airlines operate on pretty slim margins. 3 or 4% IS important.
Technically I don't see anything there that is a showstopper. They'll build the wings out of carbon (mostly) because it's perfect for long/skinny/stiff. They've already got the 777X with the folding wingtips. Not too tricky.
Carbon is SO much better in fatigue than aluminum.
I think the design has a chance. Will it end up as the fabled missing middle airplane?
Except that little A380 fiasco. That cost them a few billion euros.
Rain Man
Super Anarchist
Mach 0.8 in the article. Kinda slow. Normally airliners cruise between 0.85 and 0.92. Maybe a few are a bit faster, it has been 30 years since I programmed flight plans.
Ventucky Red
Super Anarchist
- 11,937
- 1,494
Last edited:
Ventucky Red
Super Anarchist
- 11,937
- 1,494
Much is going to depend on what the airlines will want. Regional jets are becoming more of a player in other parts of the world and the outlook for the Norte Merica market has a strong forecast..
Regional Jet Market Share & Forecast | Industry Outlook [2028]
The global regional jet market is projected to grow from $10.47 billion in 2021 to $16.58 billion in 2028 at a CAGR of 6.8% in the forecast period, 2021-2028
www.fortunebusinessinsights.com
This too can upset the apple cart a little
And think, Boeing could have owned the market with the 717 (MD-95)
I think most modern planes are flying around 0.8. Slower than the earlier jets because they save fuel and nobody really cared if their journey time is 5 hr 15 mins or 5 hr 38 mins.
Aircraft speed is irrelevant, even if it's a dirigible: Drive to airport parking lot. Deal with parking. Take shuttle from parking lot to terminal somewhere in an adjacent state. Take off shoes, bend over and cough, etc. Wait for plane (late). Take plane to random airport on a 90' tangent between origin and destination and three hours off course. Run across airport because flight time was changed or wait for second plane which is late. Arrive at destination airport. Wait for luggage. Rent a car. Finally get something to eat. Arrive at hotel, stressed and annoyed. If trip is < 2 time zones, expect to save an hour in good weather, add 2 hours in bad weather, add three days if computer glitch or airline cancels flight. My last trip I ended up driving five hours to the intermediate airport because the first flight rescheduled. I never got reimbursed for the tickets I couldn't use.
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
Boeing has a long history of betting the company on the next big thing.
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
Remember when flying was fun and exciting?
I can remember going out to the airport for a drink just to soak in the energy of the place.
Waiex191
Member
I still find that it is. Not so much the tubes full of people, but real flying. In a month or so I'm going to fly from northern Illinois to the Knoxville area to visit my parents. First long cross country in the new airplane. I think I can beat the airlines at 100 kts cruise. Or at least tie them. Should be about $240 in gas round trip for two people.
I won't be drinking.
Ease the sheet.
ignoring stupid people is easy
- 20,976
- 2,663
That's only one point.
I don't see it being able to be scaled up to a 400 seat aircraft.
My concerns are less economic and more practical.
Waiex191
Member
If it's not economic, it's not practical.
