New high capacity airplanes

Page 27 of 28« First<2425262728>
September 26th, 2017 at 7:18:51 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Qatar just took possession of a 747-8F, and has ordered two more, as well as 4 extra 777s of some kind.

The 747-8F is the cargo version of the 747-8 (the passenger version si called 747-8i). the main difference, aside from the interior being fitted for cargo (and that's far less different than being fitted for passengers than it used to be, right?), is that the nose swings open for faster loading and unloading, and in order to load bigger objects.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
December 24th, 2017 at 5:10:33 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
With the retirement of Delta's B747 the biggest plane they have is the Airbus A350-900 (plans for 25 planes). Capacity is 306 seats.
American's only aircraft with over 300 seats is the Boeing 777-300ER (20 planes). Capacity is 310 seats.
United has the largest planes left with 33 B777s with 4 on order with capacity 364-366 seats.
Hawaiian Airlines fleet has as many as 294 seats, and is AFAIK, the only other USA airline to fly wide body planes.

Spirit Airlines has the highest capacity of a narrow body in the USA with the Airbus A321-200 configured with 228 seats.

So it looks like the permanent end of the ultra high capacity airplane with 4 engines for the USA airlines.
December 25th, 2017 at 8:54:15 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
So it looks like the permanent end of the ultra high capacity airplane with 4 engines for the USA airlines.


The A380 was always too big for US carriers. And Boeing pretty much put the 747 out of business itself by developing the larger 777 variants.

Engines aren't quite there for a double-deck twin, but I think we'll see something along those lines within the next few decades. While wide bodies got smaller, compared to the original 747, narrow bodies have gotten larger (and both have become denser). I think Airbus had the right idea with the A380, but they underestimated the degree to which airlines would "densify" their planes.

But as generals always fight the last war, designers always design on current trends. So watch out.

And there's the game changer in Boom, if it ever gets built. They seem to have plenty of support, so we'll see. I'm sure that many airlines won't want to make the capital investment needed for an SST, especially in the US. I fully look for astroturf groups, financed by US carriers, to loudly complain about the unholy noise and sonic booms of SSTs. Airports won't want more small planes to take up slots.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
December 25th, 2017 at 9:16:57 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Boeing says the NMA will be aircraft sized to carry 200-270 passengers and fly 5,000nm.

Nortwegian Air Shuttle flies both the b787-8 with 30 rows in economy, and B787-9 with 37 partial rows in economy. In Both configurations they have 5 rows of premium seats.

So basically the NMA would be the B787-8 without premium seating or an 18' cabin width and 30 rows with 9 seats. It doesn't sound very aerodynamic to have the NMA be basically an B787-8 with about 6 meters shortened.

It seems more likely it will copy the 767 cnfiguration with 7 across and up to 39 rows?

Quote: Nareed
Engines aren't quite there for a double-deck twin, but I think we'll see something along those lines within the next few decades.


Could the NMA (aka B797) be a double-deck single aisle jet? It's a wild concept, but it may make sense.The bottom could be 25 rows of 6 across or 150 seats, and the top could be 20 rows of 6 across or 120 seats, or as few as 60 premium seats. On a mini scale airlines may be able to repeat the sales figures achieved by Emirates by fostering a sense of exclusivity by putting steerage on their own deck.



You pointed out that the wide body design is going to have a huge fuel penalty in wind resistance. Normally that is acceptable since you need the range and capacity, but the B797 is projected to have only 25% more capacity and 25% more range than the A321R.

THE MOST NUMBER OF SEATS IN A SINGLE AISLE JET
Quote: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET A2NM
IV - Model 757-300 (approved January 22, 1999)
For 757-300 airplanes, the total passenger capacity is limited to:
275 (Three pair of Type C exits, one pair of Type I exits and two pair of Type III exits).
295 (Two pair of Type C exits, one pair of Type B exits, one pair of Type I exits, and two pair of Type III exits).
December 26th, 2017 at 6:55:40 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
Cabin Width
[..]
B777 19'2" (10 across)


Remember that started as nine across?

Quote:
Could the NMA (aka B797) be a double-deck single aisle jet? It's a wild concept, but it may make sense.


You get the same surface area and drag issues as with a wide body, plus the space lost to stairways.

Unless... I hesitate to bring this up, because some bean-counters somewhere will love the idea. anyway, unless you were to add just a little more space, and use the cargo space beneath the usual main deck as part of the new main deck, and the upper deck were not as tall (say about enough for an average person to barely miss brushing the ceiling with their head when standing up). You'd be unable to have overhead bins in the upper deck, but if you designate that Basic Economy you don't need them anyway. In fact, it inherently enforces the no carry-on policy. You also won't have as much space for checked bags, so just increase those fees. and the would be no room at all for extra galley supplies, but who cares about that any more.

There are rumors swirling that Boeing may restart the 767 passenger program (they still build them for freighters and the new Air Force tanker). The engine no longer makes sense, though with low fuel prices it's bearable. The next logical step, fi they re-start that program, would be to design a new version with a better engine, a 767 NG. Make one shorter and you have the MoM plane everyone's been talking about.

And nothing says "Innovation" like keeping old designs alive (not at Boeing).
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
December 26th, 2017 at 7:27:20 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
There are rumors swirling that Boeing may restart the 767 passenger program (they still build them for freighters and the new Air Force tanker). The engine no longer makes sense, though with low fuel prices it's bearable. The next logical step, fi they re-start that program, would be to design a new version with a better engine, a 767 NG. Make one shorter and you have the MoM plane everyone's been talking about.


There is a lot of superficial resemblances between the NMA and the B767. The nominal range of the NMA is 5000 nmi. The range of different versions of B767 are
Range B767 nmi
3,900 767-200
6,590 767-200ER
3,900 767-300
5,980 767-300ER
3,225 767-300F
5,625 767-400ER

It turns out some of the European charter airlines were seating 8 abreast in the 15'6" cabin width (2-4-2 configuration) although the 2-3-2 was more common with a wider 18" seat.

The NMA may have the same 15'6" cabin width. The length will probably resemble the original B767-200 (48.51 meters)
1-class: 245 seats 35 rows 7 abreast = 245
exit limit: 290 seats 36 rows 8 abreast + 2 seats

I just can't see Boeing selling 4000 of these planes.
December 26th, 2017 at 4:17:58 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
There is a lot of superficial resemblances between the NMA and the B767. T


Boeing being Boeing, they may decide to upgrade the 767. the investment would be much smaller than a clean sheet design, but it would leave them stuck with another outdated design with limited capacity for further upgrades.

While the 767 is a newer design than the 737 and has fewer limitations, it doesn't make extensive use of composites. That could hurt it if Airbus stops emulating Boeing and designs a new narrow body (but what are the chances of that?)

Seriously consolidation is hurting commercial aviation more than it appears.


Quote:
I just can't see Boeing selling 4000 of these planes.


In that case they should redesign the 767 and have a modest failure.

If it were me, I'd try the Bombardier approach and go for passenger comfort, or as much as the manufacturer can impart. I'd go with a 2-2-2 seating arrangement. Of course no airline would pay for the extra drag with no increase in seating density. But a triple aisle plane with a 2-2-2-2 configuration would be even more impossible to sell :)

But imagine the 2-2-2 possibilities, even with Spirit-style no-leg-room seats: no middle seats, direct aisle access for 2/3 of passengers, room to move around the cabin, room to congregate, and the service carts wouldn't block both aisles at the same place.

I thought of this along with the 737/A320 transatlantic and transcon routes, not to mention long short-haul flights which would have been covered by wide bodies a generation earlier, like MEX-Lima.

I came across a note where Triple-A estimates millions of people are choosing to drive rather than fly due to all the hassles involved in air travel. While airlines and plane makers can do little about much of this, they can provide a better in-flight experience. Perhaps they'll have to in order to retain travelers.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
December 26th, 2017 at 5:14:52 PM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
Quote: Nareed
I came across a note where Triple-A estimates millions of people are choosing to drive rather than fly due to all the hassles involved in air travel. While airlines and plane makers can do little about much of this, they can provide a better in-flight experience. Perhaps they'll have to in order to retain travelers.


Although that may be true the number of seats filled keeps increasing in North America.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
December 26th, 2017 at 8:42:45 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
If it were me, I'd try the Bombardier approach and go for passenger comfort, or as much as the manufacturer can impart. I'd go with a 2-2-2 seating arrangement. Of course no airline would pay for the extra drag with no increase in seating density. But a triple aisle plane with a 2-2-2-2 configuration would be even more impossible to sell :)
But imagine the 2-2-2 possibilities, even with Spirit-style no-leg-room seats: no middle seats, direct aisle access for 2/3 of passengers, room to move around the cabin, room to congregate, and the service carts wouldn't block both aisles at the same place.

I think you are in a fantasy tangent.

I was wrong about the 8 across arrangement. It seems to be the choice for the upcoming A330neo. Mike Delaney, Boeing's vice president of airplane development said that one airline had estimated that Boeing's new airliner could cut flying costs by as much as 45% compared to Airbus' A330neo jet. Of course, that may be based on the fact that it is projected to carry 40% fewer passengers.

The A330-800/900neo can be configured with a maximum of 406/440 seats for 7,500/6,550 nmi . The -800 has only 6 orders from Hawaiian airlines compared to over 200 orders for the -900 variant.

Cabin Width
Cseries 10'9" (5 across)
B737 11'3" (6 across)
A320 12'2" (6 across)
B767 15'6" (7 across)
B797 ????
A330neo 17'4" (8 across)<--------------------------
B787 18'0" (9 across)
B777 19'2" (10 across)
B747 20' (10 across)
A380 21'5" (11 across maximum)


I guess if I had to bet money I would say the B797 will go with 8 across seating in economy.

While 7 across is more comfortable, there is very little economic advantage to going with a twin aisle jet. A 9 across seating seems to wide and short.

across * rows = total seats all economy
6* 45= 270
7* 39= 273
8* 34= 272
9* 30= 270

The A321 flies with 39 rows already. So a potential A322 with room for six more rows of seats would equal the carrying capacity of the Boeing NMA. It will probably be impossible to stretch it's range to 5000 nm, but Chicago to Frankfurt is 3774 nmi, so much of the Transatlantic market is already covered.

LAX to Frankfurt is 5045 nmi , so it won't be possible with the B797 anyway. You are still going to need bigger planes.
December 27th, 2017 at 6:38:06 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
I think you are in a fantasy tangent.


Ah, but it's so pleasant in here :)

Quote:
The A330-800/900neo can be configured with a maximum of 406/440 seats for 7,500/6,550 nmi .


And that's the reason no one wants the A380 or 747-8.

Quote:
The A321 flies with 39 rows already. So a potential A322 with room for six more rows of seats would equal the carrying capacity of the Boeing NMA.


I wonder if an A322 is a good idea for anyone.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
Page 27 of 28« First<2425262728>