Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Nareed

I don't know, and I suspect neither does Airbus.

The Boeing New Mid-Market Airplane (the 797-6 and 797-7) are specified at seating where 797-6 is roughly the same size as the Boeing 767-200 and the -7 is about the size of the 767-300. Seating would be 225 and 270 in two class configuration where economy is 2-3-2 and premium economy is possibly 2-2-2 with a little more pitch. Range is expected to be over 5000 nm.

The Airbus 321neo has an exit limit of 240 seats, but is marketed as 206 seats in normal 2 class configuration with a range of 4000 nm.

My guess is the A322 will try to achieve even more range to chisel away even more at the 797-6 market. Airbus seems stronger on this end. The closest competition they have to on the other end (to the 797-7) is the A330-800neo which has now lost every single one of it's orders. The A330-900neo still has 241 orders from 13 customers.

But the A330-900neo has a MTOW of 553,000 lb which is virtually the same as The Boeing 787-9 MTOW of 560,000 lb.

The obvious problem is that the Boeing NMA is not an existing plane, and the concept faces some serious engineering problems if they are going to be able to price it competitively.

Frankly I would not be shocked if it ends up near the same MTOW of the B767-200ER/300ER (395,000 lb / 412,000 lb).

The counter argument is that Boeing needs to start work on the NSA (New Single Aisle Airplane) and modify the B787-8 so that it is cheaper to produce or simply to sell it at a lower profit margin.

Quote: Pacomartin

The Boeing New Mid-Market Airplane (the 797-6 and 797-7) are specified at seating where 797-6 is roughly the same size as the Boeing 767-200 and the -7 is about the size of the 767-300.

I hope they don't wind up doing a 767 MAX.

Quote:

But the A330-900neo has a MTOW of 553,000 lb which is virtually the same as The Boeing 787-9 MTOW of 560,000 lb.

If they're not going for extensive use of composites, they shouldn't do the plane at all.

Quote:

The counter argument is that Boeing needs to start work on the NSA (New Single Aisle Airplane) and modify the B787-8 so that it is cheaper to produce or simply to sell it at a lower profit margin.

Boeing is near to buying Embraer. I suspect the new clean slate Boeing narrow body will look Brazilian.

Quote: Nareed

If they're not going for extensive use of composites, they shouldn't do the plane at all.

It's a given that they will use extensive composites in the wing. The question is how much effort will they put to using composites in the fuselage. They used extensive composites in the B787 design, but no composites at all for the B777X.

Quote: Pacomartin

It's a given that they will use extensive composites in the wing. The question is how much effort will they put to using composites in the fuselage. They used extensive composites in the B787 design, but no composites at all for the B777X.

I know the cost overruns in the 787 were due to the use of composites. but you'd think they have that worked out. The first of anything is always the hardest and usually the most expensive.

Quote: Nareed

I know the cost overruns in the 787 were due to the use of composites. but you'd think they have that worked out. The first of anything is always the hardest and usually the most expensive.

A quick comparison between the larger B767s and the smallest B787 yields a surprising conclusion. The B767 seats more people in, but weighs less in "operational empty weight". The reason is because the Dreamliner is fatter, but shorter in length.

787-8: ------- 2-class 242 seats (24J ,218Y) OEW 264,500 lb | 33,340 US gal | range 13,620 km | 186 ft 1 in | Cabin width: 18 ft 0 in
767-400ER: 2-class 296 seats (24J, 272Y) OEW 229,000 lb | 24,140 US gal | range 10,415 km | 201 ft 4 in | Cabin width: 15 ft 6 in
767-300ER: 2-class 261 seats (24J, 237Y) OEW 198,440 lb | 24,140 US gal | range 11,070 km | 180 ft 3 in | Cabin width: 15 ft 6 in


So despite all the expense of developing composites for the fuselage to save weight, it all gets wasted on a geometry which is driven by the larger Dreamliners.

Simply by returning to a 15.5' cabin width (i.e. 2-3-2) the plane will lose a lot of weight.

Quote: Pacomartin

Simply by returning to a 15.5' cabin width (i.e. 2-3-2) the plane will lose a lot of weight.

Use composites for the fuselage, and you lose even more weight (no diet necessary!)

you won't bring down the operational costs to those of a narrow body, but they'll be less than the old 767, even if you were to for some reason use the same engines.

On other news, NASA has chosen Lockheed (apparently it still exists) to build and X plane to serve as a low-boom demonstrator and test bed.

I wonder what this means for Mr. Scholl and Boom. He, too, is building a demonstrator Baby Boom.

Quote: Nareed

On other news, NASA has chosen Lockheed (apparently it still exists) to build and X plane to serve as a low-boom demonstrator and test bed.

I wonder what this means for Mr. Scholl and Boom. He, too, is building a demonstrator Baby Boom.

Only good things for Mr. Scholl and Boom. The NASA project is to gather data about flying over land and populated areas. They want to pave the way for possible repeal of the laws prohibiting over flights of land.

The Lockheed project is not in competition with Boom.

Quote: Pacomartin

Only good things for Mr. Scholl and Boom. The NASA project is to gather data about flying over land and populated areas. They want to pave the way for possible repeal of the laws prohibiting over flights of land.

The Lockheed project is not in competition with Boom.

Sure, but Boom will want to get its design flying, certified, and into service as soon as possible. As far as I know, it doesn't specifically address the low-boom issue. NASA wants to test the X plane in 2020, and will release all its research to the public domain. Say by 2022 or so. by then, I expect Scholl expects Boom jets to be flying transcon routes commercially. If he does this with a regular sonic boom(*), when a design for a low boom is available, I don't think either regulators or the public will like it.

(*) I always thought "Boom" was a terrible name for an aircraft company, and more so for one focused on supersonic airliners.

Quote: Nareed

Sure, but Boom will want to get its design flying, certified, and into service as soon as possible. As far as I know, it doesn't specifically address the low-boom issue.

The NASA LBFD contract is for a purpose-built experimental research aircraft. It is not a prototype for a supersonic business jet.

Quote: Geekwire

The results from the LBFD project could be factored into the designs for commercial supersonic jets, however. Several ventures — including
Boom Technology,
Spike Aerospace and
Aerion Supersonic — already are working on concepts.

For what it’s worth, Lockheed Martin is one of Aerion’s partners on a supersonic business-jet development project. Aerion says it’s expecting to conduct the first flight of its 12-passenger jet in 2023 and get it certified in 2025. That’s when the LBFD project is expected to wrap up.

Boom technology and Aerion will begin flying over the Atlantic, but they will have some data for possibly a modified version that will be able to fly from NYC to CA.

The real money will be made from JFK to LAX. If they can fly round trip in 5 hours, they might get three round trips in per day per plane. Also the market for business versions will be much larger than simply TransAtlantic.

I am fairly sure the Concorde did one round trip London to JFK per day. They used to have two flights, but they had different planes. And their fuel usage was one ton per seat per one way trip.