Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 3. Propulsive efficiency April 12, 2024
737RE in 2017, NSA in 2021
In the rapidly changing situation at Boeing over the future of the 737 class of aircraft, it appears almost certain that Boeing will move forward with a re-engine of the 737 and follow it with the New Small Airplane a short time later, under the current thinking.
We reported the possibility Boeing may do both June 15, becoming the first outlet to do so. This posting explains the rationale. Boeing recognizes that the 737 must be replaced, regardless of the re-engining.
Whereas the prospective EIS of the NSA was 2019-2020, we now have learned 2021 would be the new target date. We reported yesterday the NSA had moved from 2019-2020 to the 2020-2025 period but “closer” to 2020.
The 737RE EIS is now targeted for 2017. Fuel burn target is the A320neo minus a couple of percentage points. As we reported this week in another post today, Boeing figures the all-in cash cost gives the 737RE an 8% advantage over the A320neo.
If you buy the Boeing PR that a 737RE is going to have an 8% cost advantage over the A320neo I have a bridge to sell you…
I have never seen Boeing taking the risk to come out with a new airplane so fast after the NEO EIS – and I still think that 2021 might be too early. If they do the reengining and with that be able to hold their roughly 50% market share, there is no immediate need to do a new airplane. The C919 won’t be a threat in the international markets for long, the MS-21, if it survives, will be a factor in the russian market, but probably not beyond.
Boeing seems to have some tricks still up its sleeve on the NB/NSA market. I wonder if AA is the launch customer for one or both programs?
Probably the textbook “How to make your Zarina happy”
written by Prince Grigory Aleksandrovich Potemkin-Tavricheski.
What trick is that then?
Finally Boeing listened to market, not only to the ones agreeing.
“As we reported this week in another post today, Boeing figures the all-in cash cost gives the 737RE an 8% advantage over the A320neo.”
And lots of folks that ‘ll immediately adapt that figure.. despite few Boeings figures of the last 5 yrs holding ground.. and Boeing saying it wasn’t a good idea for a year.
It Boeing says so it the truth (& don’t look back!).
If the Fan area minus core area is 80-67/80 *100% smaller and GE says 47% of the sfc improvement comes from a the LEAPs higher BPR.
At least 8% worse sfc for a 67 inch fan vs a 80 inch fan of the same engine.
I’ll take that for reference, until GE or an airline comes up with a better figure.
I changed my mind and support the re-engined 737, because of ONE
completely new factor in the equation: i.e. the agreement by P&W and
GE?, to reduce their NE fan diameter, eliminating the need for a taller
landing gear and all the other structural changes to the 737, required
before the existing engine(s) on offer, can be installed on the 737!
The following is an historic example of the same measure, to reduce fan-
diameter size, which eventually saved the 737 program, in the early 80’s!
Lufthansa, the 737 launching customer, needed to replace all their 22
737-100s and 4 -200s, in the late 70s and Boeing refused to consider
the CFM engine LH championed, claiming that it was “not cost effective,”
because the CFM56-5 fan diameter would require an taller landing gear!
Sounds familiar?
LH, p….d off at Boeing for not recognizing the fuel efficiency and noise-
reduction capabilities of the CFM engine, purchase 32+24 option 737-
200ADV aircraft in March of 1979, for delivery starting in 1981.
CFM, anxious to find a home for their engine, after loosing the last
opportunity they had to have the engine on the YC-15 at MDD after
that program was cancelled, decided in desperation, to reduce the fan
diameter on the CFM engine, so Boeing could install the engine on the
737, WITHOUT having to make ANY changes to the 737 structures!
It is not officially known, but it is fair to believe the rumors that GE/
SNECMA contributed heavily to the certification/installation costs of
installing the CFM56-3 engine on the 737-300!
And guess what, BEFORE LH received their first 737-200ADV aircraft
in 1981, Boeing launched the 737-300 program, with an order from
United and RED FACES all around Boeing!
Fortunately, LH understood and eventually ordered 90 737-300/500s,
as a result of major traffic increases.
Hopefully, a re-engined 737 program today, again with reduced fan
diameter engines, will create the same fortunes for Boeing, the 737-
300 did 30 years ago and I believe it has all the ingredient to do so!
In order for a re-engining to be worthwile, the 737 will need landing gear modifications for increased fan clearance. If the main gear are lenghtened, then this is a lot of structural changes to the aircraft beyond just hanging new engines and integrating a new FADEC. I recall a study once that claimed if the nose gear alone were lengthened, it would result in increased fan clearance, but still not as much as the A320.
If you’re going to put that much money and effort into structural changes for the 737NEO, you’re not going to come out with an all new single isle airframe four years later.
If the smaller fan option is so good it would also become the natural choice for the 32xneo. It obviously is going to be lighter than the currently projected 32xneo engines so would possibly be of even greater benefit to Airbus which at the moment are working on a 400kg. weight penalty on the neo design.
If production levels could match demand, I could see a huge market for re-engined 737 and 320 aircraft.
How can the B737-NEO achieve a better fuel burn than the A320-NEO, when even the NG trails the A320-Classic? They will use a smaller fan, and they can hardly add a second pair of winglets.
Pingback: Launching both NSA and re-engined 737 a mistake | Aspire Aviation
I recall what Leahy said, in the video posted on AirInsight, that Boeing will keep rubbishing the idea of a re engine, say that nobody wants it, a new a/c is much better and we have the technology to beat NEO by 20% and our 737 is more efficient than NEO… but in the end will turn around and re engine. He was dismissed by certian crowd almost immediately…. Ouch
🙂
The key to the 737RE, is, or rather WAS, the offer from P&W to reduce the fan-
diameter on their geared-fan-engine!
Had that offer from Pratt been made earlier, I believe that AA would have made
a different decision, because the 737 has the lowest structural wait of any other
aircraft of it size by 120+ lbs per seat, as I indicated earlier and consequently,
the reduced-fan-engined 737RE, will be more efficient compared to the A320NEO,
witha heavier structure AND a heavier engine!
My May 22, 2010 blog ‘737 Replacements = 717 replacement + 757 replacement’ at
http://planetalks.blogspot.com/2010/05/737-replacements-717-replacement-757.html
and ‘737-8, the true 757 replacement’ in August 27, 2010 at http://planetalks.blogspot.com/2010/08/737-8-true-757-replacement.html proposes a two aircraft solution to the 737 replacement.