ftrplt18e

So...which part is false? I guess Torti is lying again?

boilerpilot

Not entirely false.

boilerpilot

Bob's a great guy, one of the most remarkably honest men I've ever met.

Looks kinda small, I dread thinking what the seat pitch in that thing is. I would hate to commute with half an inch of pitch

bigDummy

Maybe you guys missed this article

Boeing Goes Back to Drawing Board for 737 Follow-on | AVIATION WEEK

May 18, 2008

By Guy Norris and Robert Wall

Boeing is abandoning its long-running effort to devise a successor to the 737, driven back to the drawing board by the lack of existing technology that can deliver the huge leap in performance airlines want for a next-generation single-aisle aircraft.

The decision to disband the 737RS (replacement study) design project, because it fell short of critical performance targets, has implications beyond Boeing. It will likely influence how Airbus moves forward on its A320 replacement effort, the A30X. For airlines, it means an even longer wait until a 737 or A320 follow-on hits the market.

For Boeing, the focus now switches to more fundamental research into aerodynamics, composites and other advanced alloys and hybrid materials, systems and propulsion in the hope that concepts will emerge to meet the challenge.

The manufacturer openly admits the change of strategy, saying, "We know customers are demanding really high targets for this aircraft, and we know that with the state of technology, we're not going to get there anytime soon." As a result, Boeing adds, "We're focusing on technology efforts and reducing the aircraft design effort while the technology matures."

The transformation of the 737RS project into a more sweeping technology study effort is sparking industry speculation that this will inevitably push any prospective development of a 737 successor toward 2017-19. Boeing declines to be more specific on the impact of the decision or the potential for further slippage. It simply says, "We expect the rate of this technology development to be available in the latter part of next decade, and we've said this will be no earlier than 2015."

Boeing's 737RS study emerged from the product development group's P-1 project of the late 1990s, and was later absorbed as a subset of the Yellowstone project. Further details came out in early 2006, when Boeing named key executives to the project, including Mike Cave, vice president for airplane programs, and Carolyn Brandsema, head of aircraft and production system studies.

At the time, Boeing was still targeting a 2012-15 entry-into-service window, and was starting to explore splitting the project, renamed 737RS, into two portions covering a 90-120-seater and a larger family bridging the gap between 125 seats and the lower range of the 787.

Studies to date combining the best technology advances in materials, propulsion, aerodynamics, structures and systems have produced results that, according to industry sources, fail to get even halfway toward Boeing's original operating cost, fuel burn and emissions goals. The most realistic design scenarios have produced overall operating cost improvements of only around 10% versus current 737-700/800 performance.

Boeing has not publicly stated the 737RS targets, but they are believed to be cost reductions in the 20-25% range. A company official clarifies, however, that "you can't just do a shrink of the 787; it's not as easy as that because of the different missions, higher cycles and shorter range. You can't shrink the 787 because of the systems. You need volume to handle the systems on the 787. With this study, we really need breakthroughs."

Airbus also has backed away from any earlier commitments for its A320 successor, the A30X, which was similarly aimed at the 2012 entry-into-service timeframe when originally disclosed as the New Short Range (NSR) project around 2005. The aircraft maker now forecasts a 2018 service entry at the earliest.

Moreover, Airbus is spending about ııı100 million ($155 million) a year on continued A320 development engineering upgrades, and is planning to invest another ııı270 million over the next two years in additional improvements as part of a production ramp-up in Europe and China.

There are strong signs Airbus is not looking to give up on the A320. The company is now talking about building more than 8,000 of the aircraft, and forecasts reaching that milestone delivery around 2018 or 2019, says Airbus vice president of marketing, Colin Stuart. "That suggests we're only at the midlife of this product," he notes.

Having targeted 600 sales at program outset, Airbus now projects, based on its existing firm order backlog of 2,668 A320 family aircraft, that it will deliver its 5,000th in 2011 and pass the 7,000th delivery milestone in 2016-17. Weight-reduction studies and aerodynamic improvements, including flight trials of a blended winglet, are to begin in July with Seattle, Wash.-based Aviation Partners. Airbus is hoping those will yield a further 1-2% reduction in fuel consumption by about 2011-12, adds John Leahy, chief operating officer for customers.

Airbus will look at other measures it can phase in for the A320 to improve fuel burn. Overall, Leahy would like to see fuel-burn improvements of 4-5% around 2011 for the single-aisle family.

The extended life prospects for the A320 also increase speculation that the Pratt & Whitney-developed Geared Turbofan (GTF) could figure in plans for a more comprehensive update sometime early next decade. Airbus officials contend "nothing will be said about an A320 and GTF until 2009" while thorough engine evaluations are performed.

Airbus will flight-test a GTF on an A340 this year to gauge likely fuel-burn improvements. Engineers should be able to extrapolate from those trials what the A320 gains in fuel-burn efficiencies might be.

But Airbus has a laundry list of concerns about reengining the A320 with the GTF, and even Pratt & Whitney officials concede reengining programs often aren't successful in the marketplace.

Topping Airbus's considerations is simply how many aircraft of the type could be sold. An A320 with the GTF would not enter service until at least 2014, so one Airbus official questions how many sales could be achieved before the replacement aircraft has to be fielded. In particular, many customers may not want mixed A320 fleets, some with CFM56 or V2500 engines and some with the GTF.

Another issue is that Airbus has its hands full ramping up the A380 and birthing new versions, designing the A350XWB and developing the A400M, so there are few industrial resources available for the required design and development work. Airbus would want to put the GTF on at least the A319, A320 and A321, compounding demand.

There is anxiety, the Airbus official says, about what such a move could do to the current stable balance for single-aisles, where Boeing and Airbus both are enjoying robust sales that provide critical cash flow. Launching a major modification, such as the GTF reengining, could cause airlines to pause.

Moreover, Airbus is worried that by embracing the GTF, it could push Boeing into accelerating its 737 replacement, since the latter probably won't have the GTF reenginging option, given the space constraints on the narrowbody. The fear is that Airbus then would be spending precious resources on extending the current product line while Boeing has brought to market a new design offering much greater fuel savings. In addition, the A30X would be delayed because engineers were busy with the A320/GTF.

And questions remain about the GTF. Airbus officials aren't convinced that the powerplant offers the required fuel-burn savings, and have concerns about the maintenance burden associated with the engine's design approach.

How Airbus will position the new aircraft in terms of seat-count is also uncertain. There is now a gap between the A321 and A330, and there are no plans to cover the 250-seat segment, although Stuart says that will be revisited as part of the A30X review.

bigDummy

That's why they are gonna leap frog the technology and go with the Wing Body Lifter.

doogiebarnes

Oh great!!
An advanced airplanelike the 787 but better; analog instruments and 4 switches for everything.

(how many switches do you have to flip to start a 737 vs a 320?)

exp96

I guess I shoulds have read bigdummy's post before I posted.

Murano

Please don't drink and post!

boilerpilot

I'm glad somebody picked up on my sarcasm! And don't you dare tell me not to drink.

Riddler

Maybe SWA pilots of the future will remotely "fly" their blended wing-body jets from their current 737-300 simulators. That way, they'll find a way to keep the same type rating.