|
|
Post by Jkkw on Mar 8, 2017 3:33:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Mar 8, 2017 10:32:01 GMT 1
This will be the future 737 successor's core so it must be just perfect from the beginning. It will define when and how Airbus will have to do some A320-follow on product as well. This will be the biggest battle in within next ten years. Wonder what engines will be selected.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Mar 8, 2017 10:38:38 GMT 1
This will be the future 737 successor's core so it must be just perfect from the beginning. It will define when and how Airbus will have to do some A320-follow on product as well. This will be the biggest battle in within next ten years. Wonder what engines will be selected. I am 99,9999% sure they still do not know about engines. They believe something will come up. They are checking all the possibilities. And since their two competing teams in the 60/70 made two great planes they are looking at similar concept today.... ? |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Mar 8, 2017 10:53:03 GMT 1
Likely yes because they cover the same market from around 150 to 250 seats (maybe going even bigger) for the same key customers and requirements. Would be fun to see one guy go for a short widebody and the other opt for a single aisle.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 8, 2017 11:00:10 GMT 1
I don't think we should refer to the 757, since Boeing is talking about a twin-aisle design. If anything, this would be a 767 successor. There is a reason United is showing interest : they recently said one of their main concerns is the way to replace their aging 767s, and no existing aircraft is a perfect match (as I already pointed out, the A338 has not been attractive to many airlines so far, whereas the A339 may be too large for many routes).
So, the main question is : would this aircraft be a seven-abreast design, like the 767, or an eight-abreast one ? The former implies a passenger-friendly set-up at the cost of some inefficiency, whereas the latter might be too close in capacity to the 787, and might be viewed as a 788 replacement ! It would hardly be ideal for Boeing to have two of its newest designs competing in the same market segment.
|
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Mar 8, 2017 11:09:34 GMT 1
The 767's diameter proved to be to small for two standard cargo containers. So either wider or smaller and super-lightweight I'd suggest.
It's strange how Boeing forgot about their own 787-3. That might have been the plane needed. With a better wing instead of the chopped one it could still be successful. Claims are it was to costly to build for that segment.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 8, 2017 11:41:27 GMT 1
The 767's diameter proved to be to small for two standard cargo containers. So either wider or smaller and super-lightweight I'd suggest. It's strange how Boeing forgot about their own 787-3. That might have been the plane needed. With a better wing instead of the chopped one it could still be successful. Claims are it was to costly to build for that segment. Boeing must decide 'how many abreast' first. Containers are only one of the reasons why the 767 remains the only seven-abreast design, the most important one is that you add one seat per rank as compared to a single-aisle, and you have to widen the cross-section to allow not only for that additional seat, but for a second aisle as well, which makes for a comfortable, yet inefficient set-up. That's the drawback of any seven-abreast design. Now, if Boeing was to go for an eight-abreast set-up, it would not be exactly a new 787, since the latter is used at nine-abreast, but the potential market might be too small, especially with many 788s already flying. As regards an improved 787-3 - a nine-abreast design - I doubt Boeing would give it a new wing since even the -9 and -10 did not get it. Anyhow, the engines would be too heavy, and there is no way it would be more successful than tha A358. |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Mar 8, 2017 12:02:11 GMT 1
They must know something. Otherwise any concept doesn't make sense. Maybe only one engine supplier is available yet and a second one is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Mar 9, 2017 2:28:03 GMT 1
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Mar 9, 2017 8:58:19 GMT 1
So, the main question is : would this aircraft be a seven-abreast design, like the 767, or an eight-abreast one ? The former implies a passenger-friendly set-up at the cost of some inefficiency, whereas the latter might be too close in capacity to the 787, and might be viewed as a 788 replacement ! It would hardly be ideal for Boeing to have two of its newest designs competing in the same market segment. It might be seven designed - filled with 8 tiny seats -as is the trend with 787 - 8 seats design filled with 9 uncomfortable seats  |
|
