Next: 737 Or 777?
February 1st, 2010
Product Development Teams Kick Off Formal Start To Replace Current Best Sellers
Future Products Could Be Based Outside of Washington State
Sole-Source Engine Application Most Likely Options For Both Jet Families
The announcement of various leadership changes alongside the formal start of the Advanced 737/777 Product Development teams points not only to the direction of more serious discussions to update or replace two of Boeing’s biggest sellers in recent years, it also kicks off a second competition as to where the eventual production site(s) may be.
This year sees flight testing of the improved CFM56-7BE on board the Next Generation 737, delivering up to 2% better fuel burn (alongside aerodynamic improvements). Both Airbus and Boeing have thus far been reluctant to commit to all-new replacements and with Boeing confirming last week that it is actively considering a new powerplant for the 737 more than raises the stakes.
All images owned/copyright of FleetBuzz Editorial.com
Airbus has thus far held off from offering the Pratt & Whitney PurePower PW1000G engine on the A320 and despite its stating that modifications to the 737 will accommodate this or a competing engine, it is unlikely that Boeing will “rush” to offer it either. Part of the reason stems from the poor-selling CSeries, to be powered by the same Pratt & Whitney PurePower PW1000G engine - selection by Airbus or Boeing would almost certainly provide an unwitting shot in the arm for sales for a rival jet - rather, Airbus and Boeing will work with existing engine makers to develop an improved interim solution that negates the current customer base from going to the CSeries.
However, given the abject failure of the CSeries to snare any orders away from the hot-selling Airbus A319 or Boeing 737-700 means that desire to get new engines may not be as pressing as some make it out to be - and with Airbus introducing new winglets to the A320 family, the business proposition of the CSeries gets even worse.
On the 777, things are a little different.
Bringing former 777 VP Lars Andersen back into the fold has been met with great optimism. His tenure over the 777-200LR and 777-300ER programs certainly makes him the perfect candidate to oversee the next phase of development of Boeing’s biggest twin jet.
The biggest question perhaps doesn’t relate to whether there is a 777 update or replacement - the driver, aside from customer requirements, will be the challenge/threat that the Airbus A350-1000 poses. With just 75 orders from four airlines, design definition of the big Airbus twin jet remains some distance away, however, the new 777 development team will almost certainly be looking to an all-new replacement ahead of mid-life update.
Part of that will be driven from a materials expertise standpoint based on experience with the 787 family. Alongside that, Boeing’s purchases of the Vought operations and Alenia’s stake in Global Aeronautica gives the company access to autoclave curing technology from which it can “grow” a bigger fuselage. Wing work experience with Mitsubishi on the 787 will almost certainly be replicated for any new 777 replacement - further decreasing Boeing’s dependency and/or exposure to industrial action by unionized employees in Washington State.
Throw into the mix employees based in South Carolina who are familiarised solely with new materials and manufacturing techniques, the productivity efficiency can be migrated to a bigger fuselage - all of that alongside Boeing’s existing patents of monolithic barrel fuselage construction for passenger jets seating up to 600 passengers, the omens look far more favourable for a clean sheet design. It is entirely feasible that the 747-8 family too, will be supplanted by an eventual 777 successor.
Make no mistake - there is certainly no shortage of takers wanting a new and improved 777. Emirates, the biggest 777 customer, has made clear that the A350-1000 will not be able to haul as much freight as its existing fleet of 777-300ER’s, as well as questioning the capability of the big Airbus twin to operate at the hotter climate of Dubai with a full payload during the peak summer season due to the lower thrust engines in contrast to the 777-300ER.
At the same time, Boeing hopes to extrapolate efficiencies in the 787-8 model with weight savings to incorporate into the 787-9 - the goal of course is to lure the existing base of 777-200ER operators toward that model instead of the A350-900, sized slightly above the 787-9. For now, it’s the upper end of the 777 market that Boeing seems to want to protect - the 787 certainly has the lower end covered in plying for business against the A350-800 and baseline A350-900.
The one common feature that may indeed unite the 737 and 777 replacements will be engines - in that a sole-source supplier will be the way forward. This recipe has worked well for the 737 to date, as well as the 777-200LR and 777-300ER. Rolls-Royce has also scored a big success by being the defacto sole engine choice in the absence of GE on the Airbus A350XWB. In a bid to keep a lid on costs for OEM’s, this sole-source option has far more merit than it does disadvantages.
Irrespective of whether the 787 enters service this year, payments from deliveries starting in 2011 onwards, coupled with Boeing’s strong cash balance means it will have at its disposal a significant portion of investment for both 737 and 777 updates or new product replacements.
The real question is whether customers want something updated or completely new, as well as deciding if a new or update model should arrive first in the form of the 737 or the 777.
Entry Filed under: Boeing, Boeing 737-700, Boeing 737-800, Boeing 737-900ER, Boeing 737NG, Boeing 777, Boeing 777-200LR, Boeing 777-300ER, Boeing 777F, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
40 Comments Add your own
1. ikkeman | February 1st, 2010 at 01:28
my 2c:
first an all new 737 followed quickly by an 777 update.
2. Vero Venia | February 1st, 2010 at 07:08
This time it’s a little bit different than the 787 launch. The launch of the 787 was necessary to saturate the 200-300 market before the competition could offer competing product. It is also important to note that the opportunity to launch the 787 came quite early. First beacuse Airbus launched the A380 4 years earlier and second, this aircraft reached the point of no return when it achieved 120 sales in 2003.
The timing of a widebody long-range launch is crucial. It’s much more crucial than the timing for a narrowbody short range aircraft.
I commented on the new 737 and 777 development teams in my blog entry last Friday here: http://wp.me/piMZI-E7
Although all indications point to an earlier 737 replacement/enhancement than the 777 development, the order can be reversed quite quickly. If the engine manufacturers fail to mature efficient engines on time for the 737, the 777 development could well start first, if some determining factors dictate it. Please note that the A350-1000XWB orders still stand at 75 units. When this aircraft reaches the point of no return then maybe we will hear more about the 777 enhancement or replacement. The point of no return may be situated at 150 to 200 units.
It’s an interesting situation where Boeing has a huge advantage because they can choose the timing as they like. This luxury has cost them a lot of money with the early launch of the 787. But now they have it. Some clever analysts say that Boeing has now 0.75 cycle advantage over its competitor.
3. Aurora | February 1st, 2010 at 10:53
As we’ve seen with the 787 and 748 programs being developed concurrently, it is not necessary to do a 737RS and a 777 replacement sequentially. They can be done in parallel if the financing can be arranged. FWIW, I don’t think the 737RS will happen in Washington state. IAM 751 killed any chance of that with the last strike.
4. Vero Venia | February 1st, 2010 at 11:38
3. Aurora | February 1st, 2010 at 10:53
Indeed the development of the two programs will be concurrent. There is little doubt about that. The 777F, the 747-8F, the 747-8i and the 787 have been developed at the same time.
The question is only about which one will start first. the 737 or the 777. Boeing has much flexibility for the timing of those two new programs. There is not any need to rush. As I pointed above, some analysts think that Boeing now has 0.75 cycle of advantage.
5. JustSomeDude | February 1st, 2010 at 11:58
THE 777 is only 17 years old, has modern superior alloys and is way more durable and manufacturable than anything Boeing has made prior to it. I can’t imagine WHY Boeing is already thinking about replacing 777, just because of Airbus?… But then again, the current Boeing Management ain’t known for being too bright.
HOWEVER, the 737 fusalage is ancient, has 1950’s assembly techniques and alloys, and DOES need replacing badly with a complete overhall. That could be the next carbon fiber model, but JUST the fusalage for now, the wings have been redesigned two or three times thus far… could maybe re-re-design the wings later on.
And by the way, raked-wingtips are more efficient and have no flutter problems, whereas blended-winglets DO have flutter problems and are not very efficient for their looks.
But like I said, the current Management is not known for being too bright, and I bet they’ll botch whatever they touch… although Jim Albaugh is yet unknown and is sort “old school”, maybe he’ll do alright, who knows… Bell, McNerney, etc, I have zero trust in.
6. Mike M | February 1st, 2010 at 12:20
I suspect that the 777RS will be aimed more toward replacing the 747 rather than just the 777.
JustSomeDude is right - the 777 is a young, efficient airframe.
The 777-300ER only entered service a few years ago and is still far more of an investors choice than is the A350-1000-XYZ.
7. Aurora | February 1st, 2010 at 13:45
Mike M: “The 777-300ER only entered service a few years ago and is still far more of an investors choice than is the A350-1000-XYZ.”
Just looking at the sales speak volumes. The main customers of the A350-1000XW whatever are the state owned Arab airlines, that buy aircraft as much for influence in foreign policy as to fit a business case (Etihad and QR have yet to turn a profit; EK says they make money but since they are not publicly traded, one just has to take their word on that). EADS is desperate to have a second engine on this aircraft and GE ain’t budging. Since the airbus -1000 isn’t defined yet, I have to wonder what on earth the Arab airlines think they bought?
8. Vero Venia | February 1st, 2010 at 13:54
5. JustSomeDude | February 1st, 2010 at 11:58
You’re right. But don’t forget that Being is not at all in hurry to replace the 777.
As I mentioned in my post here: http://wp.me/piMZI-E7 in the coming years we will watch a slow motion movie about the 737 and 777 enhancement or replacement. I don’t think they’re close to deciding anything.
They have only decided that they will decide later on about the 737 and the 777. The recently announced “advanced 737 and 777 development teams” is not at all a program launch announcement. The teams are merely a group of people who will think about Boeing’s long term product strategy. It only costs Boeing roughly their salary. The important thing is that they say, “Look, we already think about the future.” to airlines.
One thing is clear. At the end of this decade there will be something new in the short haul and large aircraft offering from Boeing.
There is no rush to introduce new products in the market. There are already too many new products offered these days.
9. Chris Wallace | February 1st, 2010 at 15:48
JustSomeDude opinionated: HOWEVER, the 737 fusalage is ancient, has 1950’s assembly techniques and alloys, and DOES need replacing badly with a complete overhaul.
The 737 is on a moving production line and shares more in common with the 787 production process than any other Boeing model, as the fuselage shells arrive complete from Wichita. And while the 737NG shares components going back to the 737 Classic and 737 Ancient programs, the main thing the 737NG fuselage shares with the Ancient is the physical dimensions.
I’m not sure Boeing will sole-source the engines for either the 737 or the 777. For the 737, it will probably depend on how close the various options (two-spool, three-spool, GTF) are. If they all pan out pretty close, then they might go single-source. But if there is enough difference (in weight, SFC, maintenance) where one engine favors ≤1500km missions and one favors ≥1500km missions, Boeing might choose to offer both to maximize appealability.
The LR777 has done as well with one engine as the “777 Mk I” did with three, so that is an incentive. Yet the 747, 767, 787 and A330 programs all cleared (or will clear) 1000 orders likely in part because they offered more than one engine.
10. Y2KPony92881 | February 1st, 2010 at 15:49
I agree with JSD…
I personally would love to see the737 replacement (Y1) come first and take most of the sales airbus has away from them. When that model goes into flight test, then they could start working on the 777 replacement (Y3).
11. CE7 | February 1st, 2010 at 18:11
Nightmareliner 9 is no replacement to 777-200. It is just too small. The A350-900XWB will replace shorter 777’s just nicely while the 1000XWB will kill of 300ER.
Also of course the 1000XWB doesn’t need the ridiculous amount of thrust is because it is so much lighter than the fat 300ER.
12. Vero Venia | February 1st, 2010 at 18:59
11. CE7 | February 1st, 2010 at 18:11
Why do you compare an aircraft that is planned to enter into service in 2015, if everything goes right, against an aircraft that entered into service in 2004? There are at least eleven years between the two. If the A350-100XWB can’t be better than the 777-300ER then you can ask the question, Why?
13. jacobin777 | February 1st, 2010 at 19:47
Vero, why bother responding to such asinine comments?
I do however believe (and have been stating incessantly) that Boeing needs a plane to counter the A359. Airbus is eating Boeing’s lunch on that market segment. SQ, UA (and a host of others) have ordered the A359 for that particular reason. Also, KL’s CEO recently stated that AF/KL will probably have the A350 in its fleet as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if they order the B789/A359 combo as well-though I’m not so sure if they will go with the A350-1000 if Boeing comes out with a decent B77W replacement.
14. Vero Venia | February 1st, 2010 at 22:52
13. jacobin777 | February 1st, 2010 at 19:47 ,”why bother responding to such asinine comments?”
Maybe it’s an asinine comment, but I met clever people who compared the 777-300ER to the A350-1000XWB.
Of course, the comparison is irrelevant, but I am always amazed to read this absurd comparison in every blog and discussion forum I visit.
15. Mike M | February 2nd, 2010 at 06:40
>>>It is just too small.
Are you John Leahy? Most probably. Didnt you say the same thing about the 787-8 and look how that model alone has outsold all of your A350 family!
As for the A350-1000, Mr Leahy, or CE7, or whatever your name is - tell us how many 777-300ER customers in Europe or Asia have bought the XWB?
Thanks.
16. jmbee | February 2nd, 2010 at 07:28
jacobin777:
“I do however believe (and have been stating incessantly) that Boeing needs a plane to counter the A359. Airbus is eating Boeing’s lunch on that market segment. SQ, UA (and a host of others) have ordered the A359 for that particular reason. Also, KL’s CEO recently stated that AF/KL will probably have the A350 in its fleet as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if they order the B789/A359 combo as well-though I’m not so sure if they will go with the A350-1000 if Boeing comes out with a decent B77W replacement.”
I agree with you on this right now Boeing’s big weakness when looking at the sales delta between themselves and Airbus is the 777-200 and A350-900 size market. Right now the A350-900 is selling like gangbusters, while the A350-800 and and A350-1000 haven’t really set the market on fire. I have been of the opinion that Boeing needs to launch a 787-10 stretch first and then tackle the 737 and 777 updates. The 787-9 looks to be the sweet spot for the 787 family and it should do quite well against Airbus’ A350-9 shrink, and a 777-300 despite being older than the A350-1000 does have some important advantages in MTOW and cargo capacilty that the A350-1000 can’t match. The 777-200 though appears to have been put out to pasture 4 years before the first A350-900 should even be delivered though.
17. Mike M | February 2nd, 2010 at 07:32
Its also worth noting that not many 777-200ER operators have selected the A350-900. The 777-200ER is a good airplane and has plenty of life left in it yet.
18. ikkeman | February 2nd, 2010 at 08:35
Seeing how the 787 and 748 are (should be) at the end of their engineering cycle, and a new project is needed for all those engineers soon;
Seeing how Airbus may be able to equal some of the 777 line in 5 to 10 years;
Seeing how the A318:A321 series has on average been consistantly outselling and outproducing the 737 family for 15 years;
Seeing how Airbus already indicated it is mainly looking at “just” an engine refresh for the A320 series;
Seeing how the 777 replacement cycle will not kick off for many years;
Seeing how many new players are trying to nip at their heels (sukhoi, COMAC, embraer)
I say an 737 replacement is both more pressing and more valuable - Ofcourse both will be in engineering concurrently, but htey will not be at the same stage of engineering at the same time.
The new 737 will be ahead of any 777 work.
19. JustSomeDude | February 2nd, 2010 at 11:39
Wichita (Spirit) has proven themselves superior to any other supplier in making CFRP Nose Sections for 787.
So it should almost be a walk in the park for Wichita to make full-length 737 CFRP replacements.
Current 737 ancient fusalage alloys corrode relatively fast compared to 777 and A350. And the current 737 fusalage is basically the same as it was in 1950, except for length changes (sort of shows how well the original was designed). But really the ancient type alloys just don’t last.
CFRP fusalage would make a big difference in weight and corrosion problems.
But getting Boeing to assemble a newer 737 in Renton might be a whole nother problem… because it sounds like they want to get cheaper labor elsewhere.
But nevertheless, 737s get used the most, do the most flight-cycles, have the wierdest pilots flying them sometimes, and even wierder maintanence practices done to them, not to mention some very wierd passengers… and so 737s definitely wear out the fastest, and suffer the worst fatigue problems… even after only about five years… rather unbelievable sometimes how fast they get used and abused unless you’ve seen some, and even then still unbelievable.
Anyway, 737 would be a good choice for CFRP upgrade asap.
20. Chris Wallace | February 2nd, 2010 at 20:00
The 787-9 and 777-200ER are not as indifferent as first glance might think.
A 787-9 cabin is about seven meters shorter than a 777-200ER, so that is roughly seven rows of Economy seating or four rows of Business Class. A 787-9 does offer four more LD3 positions than a 777-200ER, so you could do something like LH and their A340s and move the lavatories down into the cargo hold to free up more space to put in seats - assuming you really must have them.
A 787-9 will also hopefully be able to match a 777-200ER at 5800nm range at MZFW and will hopefully be within spitting distance of the 777-200ER’s 59t maximum payload (say 55t).
At that point, really, why would an airline want to fly the 77E?
21. Erik Bloodaxe | February 2nd, 2010 at 20:49
JustSomeDude, your comments about the 737 show how little you actually know about the 737NG. It’s NOT the same fuselage as the Classics. In fact about the only thing the 737NG shares in common with the Classics is the name which was retained for marketing reasons. Other than that, it’s mostly a new aircraft with new materials, new structure, new processes, etc.
Your other claim that a 737 is “worn out” by 5 years after EIS is another wild eyed claim, and one completely with out basis of evidence in the real world.
22. Paulo M | February 2nd, 2010 at 22:58
Agree with most.
But:
The 737 Next-Generation is a modern commercial airliner built on current methodologies, materials and manufacturing techniques. That Boeing recently delivered the 3,133rd example of this latest 737 family is no coincidence.
The 777-300ER is not fat. Just because your airplane feels ugly, tacky and utterly useless, gives you absolutely no right to hurt another’s feelings. Not that the 777-300ER gives a continental about what you think - because she’s got an awful lot of power to connect distant continents quite efficiently. It goes without saying that it is by far the best 350-seater-plus aircraft flying in the world today. Anyway, these commentaries about the need ‘to kill’ top selling market leading Boeing aircraft are annoyingly dumb. You have to, have to be better and then winning is just a formality.
The 787-8 is not small. Yes, John Leahy may feel inadequate, but not the 787-8 with its market justification.
There is such a thing as the 757. It did sell just over 1,000 units - I think* 1,055. The 737-900ER is its spiritual replacement. So yes, A321 sales are against 757 + 739ER. And yes, Boeing was better - by far - last time* I checked.
23. Aotearoa | February 3rd, 2010 at 01:25
JustSomeDude
“So it should almost be a walk in the park for Wichita to make full-length 737 CFRP replacements. ”
While it may or masy not be a “walk in the park” for Spirit to do this, it is recognised that the benefits of CFRP over traditional Aluminum, etc isn’t as marked for short haulers as it is for longer ranged craft, therefore the extra cost aren’t warranted.
24. JustSomeDude | February 3rd, 2010 at 10:25
I guess I stand corrected…
Probably the majority of 737’s last as long as designed… but I have seen corrosion areas on fairly new 5-year-old NGs (due to poor drainage and water buildups, from whatever reasons… FOD clogging drains, poor maintanence, or poor whatever) and it is incredible to behold… and the fatigue from high cycle volume and various rough usages they get subjected to… they seem to take the brunt of such things… probably A318s, A319s and A320s go through similar problems.
It would be a bummer if Boeing couldn’t make 737 even tougher and corrosion proof.
But I’ll shut up now, I probably should not even have started in on this whole topic…
25. Dougloid | February 3rd, 2010 at 16:20
Mike sez “Its also worth noting that not many 777-200ER operators have selected the A350-900. The 777-200ER is a good airplane and has plenty of life left in it yet.”
The most significant advantage adhering to the 777 I can think of is that you can buy it today and know exactly what you’re getting and what it will do. That means you can actually measure it’s performance up against your route and traffic structure and have a good idea of whether it’ll make the kind of money you need. It’s never a good idea to be the first kid on the block with a new toy, like my friend Robert who laid out $800 for a Commodore VIC64.
The A350 is like the next Windows release that’s guaranteed to cure all the problems that came before it.
26. jacobin777 | February 3rd, 2010 at 21:36
Vero:
Even carriers such as EK aren’t making a 1:1 comparison of the A350-1000 versus B77W’s….
MikeM:
“Its also worth noting that not many 777-200ER operators have selected the A350-900. The 777-200ER is a good airplane and has plenty of life left in it yet.”
I have to disagree on that. I think Chris stated a good reason as to why its going to sell well as a B77E replacement.
jmbee:
I agree, I think Boeing can build a B787-10 as the “top-end” of the B787 platform. Being a CFRP design, it won’t have the same problems as the A346 would have. Yes, there probably needs to be an additional bogey or possibly changing from a 4-wheel bogey to a 6-wheel bogey, but its possible. Also, RR and GE will have the available thrust (IIRC, RR is already there) for a potential B787-10. A larger wing will also be needed but I think its feasible.
I would say maybe a 6-8 frame stretch of the -9.
27. Aotearoa | February 4th, 2010 at 08:44
Hey jacobin777, how much do you reckon it will cost Boeing to do the -10 and then stacking that up against a potential ROI in terms of numbers needing to be produced/sold?
Then, what happens after that to a potential 777 replacement and is the threat of the 350 the catalyst alone? Really, after the debacle of the 3fatty, does the 777 replacement need to be bigger than the current model?
Would then, the smallest 777 replacement need to be no larger than the current 772 but way more efficient? It may be for Boeing to stay with the optimal 787 (the -9) and concentrate on the 777. Hell, they have time.
Lots of questions I know but worth a thought.
28. Paulo M | February 4th, 2010 at 20:15
24. JustSomeDude | February 3rd, 2010 at 10:25
I think you’re right about some corrosion. There was an incident where a Hawaiian airliner had a serious - and near fatal - inflight structural failure after a corrosion induced crack went undetected in a routine inspection. Airlines operating from coastal areas need to be a little more thorough. Or C & D checks need to be carried out in line with best industry practise. No shortcuts.
====================================================
NEWS FLASH
For those of you that don’t know already, Boeing today announced the maiden flight of the 747-8F: 8 February at 10h00 Pacific Time (18h00 GMT).
I can’t wait.
29. jacobin777 | February 5th, 2010 at 01:51
Aotearoa:
I think it would certainly cost $2-$3 billion for the -10 given the requirements which I stated. However, the B772ER market is quite large. Very large in fact. While the A359 would be able to have more uplift and/or greater range, the -10 would be very economical for a 7500nm plane (or about 6,500-7,000nm at MTOW-but I really haven’t done extrapolation data-more of a “back of the envelope” calculation). Also, if I’m not mistaken, the -10 would have more cargo (LD3) capabilities than the A359.
If Boeing doesn’t go with the -10, then yes, the smallest B777 replacement should be the current B772 size and up.
I do agree, Boeing does have time, but only until Airbus gives the exact configurations (OEM’s, etc) for all three variants-especially the -1000XWB.
30. Erik Bloodaxe | February 5th, 2010 at 19:48
Paulo,
I think you’re right about some corrosion. There was an incident where a Hawaiian airliner had a serious - and near fatal - inflight structural failure after a corrosion induced crack went undetected in a routine inspection.
First off it was Aloha Air, NOT Hawaiian. Second off it was a 737-200 that had over 89K cycles and was 19 years old at the time of the incident. Not an NG, and Faaaar beyond this mythical “5 years of life” crap. The incident happened in 1988, several YEARS before the advent of the NG program. Oh, and by the way… there was one fatality.
That incident was taken into account in the design of the NG. There are differences in maintenance, materials, and structural design that make trying to pin what happened to a very old 737-200 on an NG like comparing apples to pomegranates.
31. Paulo M | February 6th, 2010 at 07:25
Woah Mr Bloodaxe! When I said Hawaiian - I meant based in the State of Hawaii - or with the focal point of its business serving that market. I know about this incident, got pictures and a wiki report on my desktop - just wasn’t on my desktop when I made the comment. And yes, there is a massive difference between the First Generation 737’s and the current Next Generation family - massive. The point of my very general comment is that corrosion is more likely at coastal areas than inland areas on any current airliner. Clearly, too much of a broad sweep. Sorry. Will be more specific next time.
32. Aotearoa | February 7th, 2010 at 00:28
Thanks jacobin777 for your educated thoughts and comments.
t little off topic but anyway, re the Aloha 732 incident. I remember it well. I was on my way to LAX from AKL and in those days on the 742, you needed a fuel stop. We stopped in the early hours (about 6am if I recall correctly) for a couple of hours and then on our way. When I arrived at my hotel in L.A. I switched on the TV to the news that had happened tha day. Wow! I’m unsure however, if it was the same airport we were at or not but regardless, it is forever etched in my memory.
33. Mike M | February 7th, 2010 at 18:09
The biggest problem Boeing faces right now is if it underestimates the performance of the 787 and A350.
They’ll be the big reasons as to whether they can indeed do another widebody.
34. Aotearoa | February 7th, 2010 at 20:33
Listening to Saj on the Plane Crazy Down Under Podcast, he made a great point about the personel changes at Boeing pointing heavily at the 777 being the first cab of the rank for replacement (ahead of the 737).
Bearing this in mind, I don’t think for a moment Mike, Boeing is underestimating the performances of the new gen of CRFP aircraft
35. Mike J | February 8th, 2010 at 11:36
Most everyone knows about the Hawaiian 737 incident, which was tragic… I wonder how many other accidents of crashes really were of similar cause (but undetected)… third-world countries and remote locations, etc…
I wonder what the total number of 737 crashes is?… and 737NG-800s seem to crash a lot, from whatever reasons…
Anyone remember the GOL in Brazil?, I think Sept of 2006, midair collision with a learjet, but the learjet landed okay, and the GOL 737NG-800 (new, two weeks old) didn’t make it, fully loaded 200+ people dead… I never heard how/why on that one (how it went down, but not the learjet)….
For blogger 19 and 24,
I think CFRP fusalage for 737 is still a good idea as the “next” thing Boeing upgrades, despite the counter arguements (which also have their points)… 777 can wait for awhile….
All 737s and Airbus A318, A319, A320 do get “used up” about 5X (five-times) faster than widebodies, as a rough guess…. 5X the wear and tear, need 5X the maintanance inspections (whether they get it or not), 5X the mishaps too, probably five-times the flying cycles… and if it is not 5X, then it is even higher like 6 or 7.
Key reasons 737NG has sold so many, is to replace used-up older 737s and 727s and MD80s and 90s, etc… and the NGs are effecient flyers.
Maybe the 737NG fusalage has newer alloys, but I bet only in key areas like skin panels, but not the whole plane, I’d bet that some body-frames and clips and stringers are same the original 1950…
A totally new 737 fusalage, lighter and plastic, seems in order as my vote… (assuming the 787 proves out in several years-time… which is yet an unknown longevity factor, as so far everythng on it was only compter simulated, and NOT real world tested, yet… and three-years late).
36. Dougloid | February 8th, 2010 at 16:13
Mike sez (assuming the 787 proves out in several years-time… which is yet an unknown longevity factor, as so far everythng on it was only compter simulated, and NOT real world tested, yet… and three-years late).”
Carbon fiber composites have been around a long time and have been tested in every ‘real world application’ that there is. The properties of the material as used in aircraft are not unknown as you suggest. Howzabout the B2 bomber and the F117 fighter? Carbon fiber composites.
Computer simulations are a valid way of testing materials and designs. As long as the properties of the material are pretty well known and the algorithms used are accurate, the simulations will be better, faster and more accurate than accruing cycles in a mechanical test. They can help you ascertain and correct weak points much earlier in the design cycle than was previously attainable.
37. Dougloid | February 8th, 2010 at 16:19
At the time that aircraft was built Boeing was in the habit of using lap skin splices and cold process epoxy sealer. The DC9s were built with butt splices and with doublers. When the aging aircraft program came along they had cracks too, but the underlying structure was less likely to fail catastrophically.
When I worked for Douglas in the early nineties they bought back the 4th DC9 built from Northwest-it had been a North Central or Republic bird. It had an ungodly number of hours and cycles. It sat on the ramp and got cut to pieces so the engineering types could see how well it was holding up, and it probably could have gone another 100,000 hours.
38. Aotearoa | February 8th, 2010 at 19:59
35. Mike J | February 8th, 2010 at 11:36
“GOL 737NG-800 (new, two weeks old) didn’t make it, fully loaded 200+ people dead… ”
Sorry Mate, I know you’re trying make a point but 200+ on a 737? I don’t think so. Read…
http://www.routesonline.com/news/24/atw/4777/gol-737-crash-report-blames-excelaire-pilots-brazilian-atc/
“Gol 737 crash report blames ExcelAire pilots, Brazilian ATC
The Brazilian Air Force is set to release a final report on the Sept. 29, 2006, midair collision between a Gol 737-800 and an ExcelAire Legacy 600 that led to the deaths of all 154 aboard the 737, “
39. Dougloid | February 8th, 2010 at 21:43
Sorry Mate, I know you’re trying make a point but 200+ on a 737? I don’t think so. Read…
What IS the point being made? That when airplanes crash into other airplanes bad things happen? Hardly an indictment of anything but the people flying the offending aircraft I should think…
That’s like saying a Chevrolet Biscayne was at fault because a guy in a Volkswagen ran into it.
40. JimmyZ | February 13th, 2010 at 04:11
Something everyone may be forgetting, the Chinese C919 program. Boeing is very aware, thus, I feel they will attack the 737 first to give the best challenge to the 919
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed