Boeing 797

>>1084178
If Airbus responds, it won't be for a while because it's not even definite that Boeing will build the NMA/797 yet.

Airbus has, in the recent past, said that they feel they are covered with the A321neo (and LR version) and the A330neo. And on top of that, they've indicated that they don't plan to stretch the A321neo into the A322. In a 2-class config, the A321 is basically a 757-200 in terms of capacity. I'd guess that an A322 would be about the capacity of a 757-300. The 797/NMA will allegedly carry 220-270 passengers and go about 5200nm. The lean towards "twin aisle w/ single aisle economics" is supposed to be what differentiates it beyond the capacity/range combination.

Going to be very interesting to watch how this develops.

>>1084184
Also, I really don't see the point in keeping the MAX 9 around. It seems like they should push as many orders as possible to convert their MAX 9 orders to MAX 10s. Airbus dominated the upper tier of that segment with the A321neo and Boeing should take the hint.

>>1084186
Apparently 214 of the 361 MAX 10 orders were conversions with the rest being net new.

>>1084184
>twin aisle w/ single aisle economics
Is that even possible?
I thought the smaller twin aisle aircraft necessarily had a much lower seating space to total space ratio, making them less efficient and screwing up the economics unless there's significant freight demand?

>>1084195
I don't know. They seem to think it's possible. No way for us to really know for sure at this point. And supposedly, the design of this new aircraft makes the fuselage more oval horizontally, reducing the cargo capacity.

>>1084178
which is same as 767-200 and A310

>>1084184
Well, what Airbus cannot achieve with their own product now is give 5000+nm range their narrowbody. So airlines using Airbus would have to use A330 to fly those 4000-5000nm routes, and that could be too much capacity

>>1084195
>>1084205
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/paris-air-show-boeing-exec-gives-some-detail-on-possible-797-design/

>Some in the aviation trade press have speculated that this means Boeing must be looking at an elliptically shaped fuselage cross-section for the 797.

>This could allow it to be wider though not as deep as today’s widebodies. Such a cross-section could reduce the overall size of the jet, though at the cost of cutting the available cargo space below the passenger cabin.

>>1084400
It's the 767-300 and A310-300, except longer range and more efficient. It's a seat-mile cost calculation. You need to know range, number of seats, and fuel used over that distance.

Even if the 797 has the capacity and range of an A310-300 and the capacity (but longer range than) of a 767-300, it would be doing so in a much more fuel efficient manner.

>>1084401
Airbus has said they consider the A321neo and A330neo to cover them in the middle of market category, but I don't personally buy it. There is still a noticeable gap and if the 797 does end up being a twin aisle in that segment I don't see how an A322 solves that for Airbus.

>>1084410
1. According to my understanding, the aircraft family MoM will have different member, the smaller one would be like 762 and the larger one would be like 763
2. Not sure about Airbus but I heard Russian UAC said that in the upcoming 20 years they could make an extended range version of their narrowbody with range up to 9000+km. Perhaps Airbus could do the same to their 320 series, together with further stretch.

>>1084409
The current thinking on Boeing's talk of a "hybrid fuselage" is using a wider top portion more akin to the 787 and a smaller bottom section, more akin to a MAX.

>>1084411
> 1. According to my understanding, the aircraft family MoM will have different member, the smaller one would be like 762 and the larger one would be like 763
That seems roughly correct if we're talking about two variants.

> 2. Not sure about Airbus but I heard Russian UAC said that in the upcoming 20 years they could make an extended range version of their narrowbody with range up to 9000+km. Perhaps Airbus could do the same to their 320 series, together with further stretch.
Sure they could, but it might not be compelling if they're putting up an increasing stretched single aisle against a twin aisle. And 9000km would be an improvement for sure but would still be well short of the ~9700km they are talking about for the 797.

when will Boeing build the Blended Wing Body or a SuperSonicTransport?

>>1084418
Apparently they just said blended wing nody is becoming more viable thanks to computer tech

>>1084418
Blended wing might be come around in the 2030s. Supersonic is further out than that because it's a fuel efficiency problem. That will be even more true if they come out with blended wing aircraft.

File: 737RSCrossSection.JPG_thumb.jpg (10KB, 290x255px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 290x255px

>>1084412

So a double bubble like the 707 and earlier boeing pax aircraft. Funny how old solutions find new life.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if they go with an oval fuselage. There are some real aerodynamic advantages to such an arrangement, but the problem is the dead space.

>>1084444

dead space is great for fuel and oddball equipment though

>>1084401
But how much demand would there be for so much range with so few passengers?
Air NZ would undoubtedly use them to fly more routes to South America, but competition from intermediate hubs could make it uneconomic in the northern hemisphere.

>>1084410
A 322 would enable Airbus to compete in that segment on all but the longest routes, without the enormous cost of a totally new airframe. It would be the most profitable strategy even if it doesn't perform quite so well in terms of market share.

File: 797 patent.jpg (45KB, 920x613px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 920x613px

???

>>1084540
That reminds me of another Boeing patent I heard about. The aircraft would almost be fully double decker, but for aerodynamic reasons the roof would dip at the point the wings are attached.

It's a pity they never got to apply it to the 747. It will be interesting to see what happens when the market for large aircraft picks up again, but that won't happen any time soon.

File: Boeing long range.jpg (39KB, 586x449px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 586x449px

>>1084565

747 already benefits from area ruling to a degree, part of the reason it has a higher max cruise speed than most airliners

Boeings first serious studies of transonic airliners with pretty extreme area ruling came during the 70s after the 747 though

>>1084534
According to airline survey, most airlines do want such an airplane to open new routes.
The main concept here is to overfly hubs, allowing profitable operation of flights between city pairs with relatively little traffic demand for instance IND-MAN

>>1084574
Boeing proposed Sonic cruiser but airlines rejected that
>>1084565
747LCF?
>>1084540
Just a patent on wing config

>>1084703
IND-MAN would count as a new route even if the airline already served both destinations.

And how much demand would there be for IND-MAN direct when more frequent (and probably cheaper) flights are available via Toronto?

>>1084744
- Yes, the whole idea behind Boeing's move is to open new route.
- No matter what's you destination and origin, dorect flight are almost always more expensive, but people still fly directly

>>1084703
Actually, The airplane Boeing is proposing most probably won't have enough range to fly from New Zealand to most part of South America

737 Max - Short to mid range
787 - mid to long range
777x - mid to long range + high demand
797 - Something new hopefully

>>1086425
The 787 is pretty much exclusively long range. Same for the 777. The MAX is clearly short-medium. The 797 is meant to be squarely in the medium range, medium capacity market while doing it more efficiently than what exists on the edges of that market today.

>>1086425
>>1086538
MAX: 3100-4400 miles
797: 6000 miles
787: 7400-8800 miles
777X: 8750-10000 miles

>>1086425
787's range is a bit too much for typical trans Atlantic mission. It is also a bit too large for smallest servicable markt exceeding the range of 737max
>>1086541
777X East Asia <> South America nonstop when

>>1086620
I think it's theoretically possible with the A350-900ULR and 777-200LR.

>>1086696
From data I gathered, they can do so if only they were carrying a hundred or two passengers but not more

>>1086744
If that's the case, then the X probably won't be able to do it either in most cases.

777-200LR range // 777-8X range
9,845 miles // 10,012 miles

777-300ER range // 777-9X range
8,481 miles // 8,746 miles

Not sure that's enough to make a difference on a lot of East Asia - South America routes.

>>1086756
Well, this figure is only the range of those planes at their given payload, and is not the whole story.
As I said, 77L and 359ULR can make it from Asia to South America, but the amount of passenger those plane can carry for the trip would be limited.
With 77X, it have more nominal range, but at the same time it also mean that for a certain stage length it would be able to carry more passengers on the plane to reach destination. That and the new aircraft's improved economic could make it work.
And also, I forgot that Bogota and Caracas are actually part of South America. Their distance from Tokyo/Seoul/Beijing is actually less than DOH-AKL the current world longest 77L route, although the 77L being used to flown DOH-AKL only have ~260 seats either.

>>1084540

>20 rows of seats on the bottom deck get cucked out of window views

pass

>>1086921
I'm sure that there is no seats inside the wingbox