Boeing 797
06-23-2017, 09:37 PM
#42
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
The 330/340 were originally 2-4-2. Some asian carriers are now squeezing in 3-3-3. Very tight. I just sat in one. It sucked.
I think 9 across is the sweet spot for double isle. Anything else is structurally/space inefficient. 7 across we will never see again, unless it was narrow body 3-4 across. That would be too painful to board/service etc.
The 330NEO is going to be hard to compete against when you add it the cost of the aircraft. I think Boeing is doing smoke and mirrors.
I think 9 across is the sweet spot for double isle. Anything else is structurally/space inefficient. 7 across we will never see again, unless it was narrow body 3-4 across. That would be too painful to board/service etc.
The 330NEO is going to be hard to compete against when you add it the cost of the aircraft. I think Boeing is doing smoke and mirrors.
06-24-2017, 04:21 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
the 787-8 is exactly the same size as the 767-300ER. It just flies to dang far. For that reason it carries to much extra weight. Put in a smaller center tank and up the max ZFW. This should add more cargo room.
The mission we need is sub 12hrs. 150,000ish pounds of fuel should suffice.
The mission we need is sub 12hrs. 150,000ish pounds of fuel should suffice.
787 is wider (cabin width and exterior), longer, holds more freight, burns less fuel, and so much more than the 767. The 767 was designed from the start as a domestic coast to coast airplane while the 787 has always been an international long range design.
But this stupid myth goes back to the integration discussions so just remember this; different designs and missions from the beginning.
06-24-2017, 10:09 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,120
Clean-sheet engines might imply a few things... Higher cruise speed and different integration concepts (above wing, integrated into tail, etc) are just the start. It'll add risk and development time but if they really want to push the product out ahead of the tech curve they're gonna need to pull out all the stops.
A mini-787 with squashed dual-aisle cabin and engines above the wing or one integrated into the tail for wake energy transfer, or whatever, might do it but would still be an evolution of what we've got already. All of the NASA-sponsored concepts under investigation (like BWB and distributed propulsion) are too far out in the future I think.
A mini-787 with squashed dual-aisle cabin and engines above the wing or one integrated into the tail for wake energy transfer, or whatever, might do it but would still be an evolution of what we've got already. All of the NASA-sponsored concepts under investigation (like BWB and distributed propulsion) are too far out in the future I think.
06-24-2017, 10:57 PM
#47
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by Chuck D
Does Spirit take 90mins to turn a 321? Honestly not sure but I think they're around 220 seats. I know SWA does a clean as you go method to speed up turns. I really wonder whether a few minutes of turn time makes up for boring a much larger hole in the sky w/ a twin aisle at 200-230-ish pax and a much bigger fuel burn normally. Any way you cut it - even w/ a non round cross section, about 2x the internal volume will be apportioned to aisle vs a narrow body. We'll see if Boeing reinvents aerodynamics with the 797 or sticks w/ single aisle haha.
Nobody every loved the 757 except the pilots and airlines. United spent 20 years trying to turn a 757 in less than an hour. When gas was cheap, you wanted to maximize aircraft and crew utilization. 737-900's and 321's didn't sell well back when gas was cheap prior to 2007.
When gas went to 100+ dollars, the pie chart of airline costs changed dramatically. All of a sudden, gas was the #1 expense by far. The elephant in the room became fuel cost per available seat mile. Even SWA couldn't stand it anymore and bought NG800's because their 700's were killing them on this basis.
Gas is still higher than it was for most of the last 40 years, but the execs are hedging their bets by buying long skinny airplanes. And no, you can't turn a 900 or 321 in 20 minutes.
I still think Boeing is either still deciding what to do, or just doing smoke an mirrors to screw with Airbus and their potential customers.
The 321NEO and 330 NEO are just to good, and too cheap to buy.
06-25-2017, 09:54 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: American Airlines Brake Pad Replacement Technician
Posts: 472
It seems as though Boeing can only do one thing at a time.
While Airbus was turning out development on multiple new concepts the last 15 years....what did Boeing do exactly besides the 787? Stretch a 73? Re-engine the 74?
They are 10 years behind, hope Boeing can catch up.
While Airbus was turning out development on multiple new concepts the last 15 years....what did Boeing do exactly besides the 787? Stretch a 73? Re-engine the 74?
They are 10 years behind, hope Boeing can catch up.
06-25-2017, 11:00 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 612
Originally Posted by Caveman
It seems as though Boeing can only do one thing at a time.
While Airbus was turning out development on multiple new concepts the last 15 years....what did Boeing do exactly besides the 787? Stretch a 73? Re-engine the 74?
They are 10 years behind, hope Boeing can catch up.
While Airbus was turning out development on multiple new concepts the last 15 years....what did Boeing do exactly besides the 787? Stretch a 73? Re-engine the 74?
They are 10 years behind, hope Boeing can catch up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
