Dec. 8, 2015, © Leeham Co. Airbus surpassed Boeing in wide-body passenger orders through November, data released yesterday by Airbus shows.
Airbus released its November YTD order book yesterday. Boeing last week updated its weekly order tallies through Dec. 2.
Airbus trailed Boeing in wide-body passenger aircraft orders throughout the year, but now posted 134 orders to 113 for passenger wide-body aircraft. The orders were for 134 A330ceos/neos and for 42 777 Classics and Xs. Cancellations for 19 A350-900s were offset by an equal number of A330-900s as TAP Portugal swapped one model for the other. There were 14 new orders for A350s, leaving a net cancellation of five YTD. This left Airbus with a net of 127 wide-body passenger orders for the year compared with Boeing’s 113.
Airbus has a 54% market share of wide-body passenger orders through November.
Boeing cleaned up on freighter orders. Airbus posted four A330F orders in the first 11 months of the year. Boeing posted 66 orders, boosted by 48 from FedEx. Two 747-8Fs were posted; these had been white tails and were leased to Air Bridge Cargo, but are owned by Boeing Capital Corp.
Airbus blew away Boeing in the single aisle competition YTD, with 876 orders for the A320ceo/neo family compared with 389 737NGs/MAXes, resulting in a 69% market share for Airbus.
Boeing’s effort to sell 777 Classics to fill the production bridge to the 777X is so far falling short of the goal of 40-60 sales a year. Boeing booked orders for 22 777-300ERs and 16 777Fs, or 38 in total. Marketing is counting on a follow-on sale to United Airlines for another 10-12 777-300ERs before then end of the year to boost these numbers. Boeing booked sales for 20 777Xs this year.
It seems early to draw 2015 conclusion at this stage.
I guess 2016’s WB “winner” will be determined by Emirates, like 2014, when EK cancelled a load of A350s and ordered a epic pile of 777Xs.
Boeing sold 2 767 in 2013, 4 in 2014 and 48 in 2015. so if this trend continuous, they might sell 92 in 2016.
> Boeing sold 2 767 in 2013, 4 in 2014 and 48 in 2015. so if this trend continuous, they might sell 92 in 2016.
They’re hoping to sell 161 in 2017, so that looks like a plausible trendline 😀 (179-18 KC-46A)
Its not a trend line when you have a one off from its last commercial customer. Plus a likely USAF order will be the last from that customer too.
Sour grapes me thinks. A330MRT has had its issues and is just now getting full certification for fuel delivering’s.
Also the A330MRTs in service are not to USAF specifications so you don’t know if they would not have issues meeting it as well.
Yes Boeing mucked up, that seems to be a way of life. Long term the 767 tankers will do what they need to.
Another order depends on if the USAF needs more 767 size or they need to replace the KC10.
Long term there is a lot of 767 type (current KC135) that are getting old that need replacing (500 or so). Will see what the mix turns out to be.
The C17 was a dog when it first came out and was almost cancelled. It has gone on to excel.
The jump in 767 orders was FedEx. They now have orders and options in place. Not to be repeated.
Those last ‘500 or so’ KC135 arent going to be replaced ‘ever’.
There are no fleets of B52s to support, and even other aircraft have substantial range on their own. The major requirement now is for tactical refueling, and that only takes a few planes in each orbiting track, cutting back on the total needed.
Not true. C17s require in air fueling, one reason we have fleets of tankers around the world so that they can reach those areas.
We dispatch fighters to various parts of the world and they need fueling on the way (and are not being dragged out by a dedicated tanker as they have the4ir stuff in place or swapping out with others who have in place
We support B1, B2 and B52 on their mission around the world as most are stationed in US (B2 in Guam)
And then we have what I call local support. Eilsen in Alaska a good example that has a tanker force to support the Alaska defense forces in their intercept of Russian aircraft, local training that needs tankers and AWACs.
How many tanker we need now I don’t know, but its still a lot, so sour grapes indeed!
Bases are not Alaska limited that do a lto of training and need tankers, Nevada with Ref Flag, Alaksa has a Red Flag as well (whe a great playc to pracitve!) as do the various bomber commands and fighter command that need it for training.
Ergo, a lot of smaller tanker more better than a few big ones, and that does not count the ones positioned overseas for same reasons as well as direct combat support.
Military jets are all abut power and not about fuel economy (they are working on that with the next generation engines) so they are very short legged and have little or no loiter time without refueling.
Airbus may be ahead in terms of number of widebody tails ordered, but methinks that Boeing would have a big lead in terms of contract value. 777’s and 787’s would each sell for a whole lot more than what Airbus would have sold A330’s – whether ceo’s or neo’s.
There is a difference between contract value and profit.
Also Boeing has several early 777 slots to sell. The 787 is under pressure from the A330NEO from below and A350 from above. The 767 was sold to keep the line idle while waiting for the KC-46.
Therefor I am not so sure about a Boeing win according to value or profit.
And the A350 is under pressure by the 787 from the side and below, the A330NEO from below, and the 777-8/9 from above, so pricing that aircraft will be under tremendous blowtorch for any profits for the foreseeable future.
Hmm…funny how that works.
The problem is that the ridiculously cheap A330neo looks as it will be keeping downward pricing pressure on the 787 over at least the next decade, while the latter programme seems to be in urgent need of significantly higher pricing due to the enormous deferred programme costs etc.
And the A330NEO does the same thing to the A350, don’t be under any illusion it doesn’t. So far, the only casualty of the A330NEO seems to be the A350, as it has effectively snipered quite a few sales.
First, since the backlog for the A350 exceeds 750 orders, it may seem as if Airbus’ main priority since the launch of the A330neo programme – apart from securing the initial A330neo launch customer orders – has been to sell A330ceos in order to maintain A330 production at 5-6 units per month until completion of the A330neo production ramp-up.
2nd, the A350-900 has more than 10 percent higher capacity than the A330-900neo, and the former has much greater range capability. Hence, the A330-900 and A350-900 are positioned in such a way as of being complementary rather than being in competition with each other – a point illustrated with the Delta order last year for 25 units of each. Also, and as I’ve already mentioned, the A350 backlog is much greater, which would seem to indicate that Airbus has been prioritising securing A330 sales over that of A350 sales. The challenge for Airbus in respect to the A350 is the production ramp-up, not sales.
Some current A330 customers such as Tap (Air Portugal) doesn’t have range requirements exceeding those of the A330neo, which is why they chose to go with the A330-900 instead of the A350-900 – and Airbus would obviously prefer customers to switch between models in their portfolio rather than handing them off to Boeing.
3rd, the A330 programme has apparently secured almost as many orders as that of the 787 programme since the launch of the latter in April, 2004. Inferring, therefore, that the 787 has not been a “casualty” of the A330 sales success – a programme that was supposed to be put out of business by the 787 – would seem to be rather silly. Finally, as for the respective A330neo vs. the 787 sales successes since the launch of the A330neo last year, would you care to explain the already mentioned Delta order?
Maybe the fact that production of the A330 was about to terminate indicates the 787 was killing it?
NEO has not had lots of sales since the initial which is in line with it fits a few people but not a lot?
787 has been on sale for a lot shorter time than A330 and has more orders than the A330 has (1200 some and that does not count options)
“Maybe the fact that production of the A330 was about to terminate indicates the 787 was killing it?”
Merely by putting the same tech engines on the A330, while adding a few aero tweaks, was all Airbus had to do in order to keep the A330 competitive.
“NEO has not had lots of sales since the initial which is in line with it fits a few people but not a lot?”
As I’ve already mentioned, Airbus has been prioritising selling the A330ceo after securing enough A330neo launch customers.
BTW, thing’s seems to be all quiet on the 777X front as well. 😉
“787 has been on sale for a lot shorter time than A330 and has more orders than the A330 has (1200 some and that does not count options)”
Airbus reached the 1500 orders mark for the A330 earlier this year.
“So far, the only casualty of the A330NEO seems to be the A350”
What would Delta have ordered had Airbus not launched the A330neo?
How many options?
A330NEO is a one trick pony, very good fit for a select group of operators. I am on record that it will sell less than 250
I think 1200+ sales for the 787 is close enough for the length of the 787 being made. If A330 was on the same pace it would have sold 3000
I don’t begrudge Airbus in the least getting as much as they can out of the old dog, but lets face it, its almost as old a design as the 737 (A300). I flew on one of them when I was a kid. Sheese.
” If A330 was on the same pace it would have sold 3000″
it couldn’t have.
Overall demand was too low in that timeframe.
more recent window:
Again, the A330 programme has logged more than 1,500 firm orders from over 100 customers. The A330neo programme may become a one trick pony, but the customer base for the A330 is so large that it’s going to not only have an advantage over the 787 on the acquisition price among many of these non 787 customers, but it will also be much cheaper for an A330 operator to acquire more A330s (neos) than buying an all new aircraft due to the fact that they’re already operating the aircraft. That’s why quite a few respected industry analysts have predicted that Airbus will sell more than 1000 A330neos.
The A330 has surpassed the 1600 order mark.
1444 for the CEO and 159 for the NEO.
Like financially analysis, they do not know what happens in the future, its a comfort thing for them to grab someone to guess at it so they can blame the decision on someone else.
I have had that happen, i.e. conversion:
“You do realize that the weather forecast is not good past two days”
Yes, but its something to base a decision on
Even if we know its not going to be true
Regardless of the production issues, 787 probably has 3000 orders and options of various sorts and its just getting going.
It will be interesting to see how the A330NEO fares, right now its fit a few operation and Air Asia X is not one that I would go with as a poster child of quality order (they keep shifting their A330 order around, delay, new model until…..)
So yes the 787 is the wave of the future
I hope you’re not an accountant! ROTFL.
Is the 787 really under pressure from the A330 NEO?
I will be surprised if Airbus really builds the A330-800 NEO and not sure who has purchased the A330-900 NEO other than bottom-feeder Delta. What did Anderson say he expected for those airplanes ($80 million?). Hard to imagine any profit if that’s the case.
Gee Wizz….Airbus A330neo’s selling for $80 Million per plane would be news. Could you please link to an article or source where this can be confirmed?
Here’s the exchange on the Delta 2nd quarter 2014 conference call:
“John Godyn – MSSB
With the A330neo now formally announced is there any update on thoughts that you would be willing to share?
Yes. If it’s a priced in low 80s high 70s we might be a buyer.”
Delta subsequently ordered the airplane so you can draw your own conclusion on what Anderson paid.
So BS was the essence of your first post as we suspected Dieter.
BTW, pretty soon 80 million $ will equal 80 million €.
Great news for Airbus, not so great for Boeing.
Wow, that’s low!
If that’s accurate, and Scott pretty much established Anderson as a straight shooter on the residual value of 777 topic, I imagine a lot of airlines will be interested.
Nothing wrong with being the cheap alternative in my book. At $80 million a copy, I think the A330-900 NEO could hunt. Agree with Parker though and doubt the A330-800 NEO will be built. The leasing co. orders will probably vaporize or be swapped when there is no airline demand.
Thanks for the find. Very interesting.
Anderson also said the 787 and A350 were in the full consideration and that the A330 was out and then turned around and ordered the A330s
I put no more account on Anderson that I do any other Politician, CEOs tend to be as bad or worse
Keep your celebration on ice..
Once Boeing lists all those undisclosed 787 orders,, the outcome will surely change.
Namely Hainans 30 787 9 , xiamens too.
The 49 aircraft for unidentified customers are already included in the order total. Or are you talking about some other undisclosed orders?
Good point. Don’t bank on an updated flashy article with accompanying pie chart when that happens though. That appears to be reserved for Airbus in my humble opinion.
@TC: Those 49 Unidentified orders are indeed already included in the order totals.
@Parker: Sorry to disappoint you, but those flashy pie charts have appeared in the years Boeing thumped Airbus. Oh, wait! Just last July:
Perhaps a slice of Humble pie is in order.
Not to parse words here, but I said “flashy article with accompanying pie charts”.
I can’t help but notice that in the July article when Boeing was thumping Airbus in widebody sales, the article settled for the much more prosaic headline “Airbus, Boeing YTD orders assessed (Update)”.
Also, I got a good chuckle out of this article’s pie chart which excludes all the Boeing widebody freighter orders this year. That is the kind of chartsmanship I would expect from John Leahy.
P.S. Never been a fan of humble pie. Lemon Merengue sounds good though. Cheers!
The article includes a pie chart with the freighter orders and the text that “Boeing cleaned up” in these orders. One with only pax orders, one with pax and freighters.
Nice comeback, Scott.
As someone who works for an aerospace OEM, and subscribes to many industry journals and blogs, I find Leeham to rank amongst the very top in terms of its objectivity and balanced reporting. I’m always surprised by how various commenters will resort to attacking the integrity of the reporter when a report doesn’t show their preferred airframer in a favourable light…
As a person who works in a government position where “words matter” (Military), I think where people are needling Scott on bias are in the lead sentences of a couple of paragraphs:
“Boeing cleaned up on freighter orders. Airbus posted four A330F orders in the first 11 months of the year. Boeing posted 66 orders..” Going by the numbers, for every 1 A330F out the door, Boeing sent out 16.5 aircraft, so a 16.5:1 ratio, or a 94% market share for Boeing (not mentioned). Scott uses “cleaned up” to describe the difference.
“Airbus blew away Boeing in the single aisle competition YTD, with 876 orders for the A320ceo/neo family compared with 389 737NGs/MAXes, resulting in a 69% market share for Airbus.”
So for every one 737, Airbus got 2.25 A32X orders, for a 69% share. But a 2:1 ratio is “blowing away”, while a 16.5:1 is only “cleaning up.”
Curious choice of adjectives for very dissimilar situations, where one can easily say that “blowing away” someone is far more dramatic than “cleaning up”.
So I see where some people are keying in on your article, Scott. If I told my commander I “cleaned up” Taliban forces in the village, he and everyone would presume it was merely inconsequential.
However, if I told him my company “blew away” the Taliban in the village, they would think (rightly) that we routed them.
Descriptors can change the meaning of things in astonishing ways. Just saying….
@Neutron: I can assure you there was no subliminal choice of adjectives. Both were meant to convey Airbus cleaned up in single aisle and Boeing blew away Airbus in freighters.
And to do my own needling: Some of the military descriptions about common things defies logic. I remember to old story about the military procuring an item with some convoluted description that was for a simple No. 2 lead pencil. Wish I could remember the details.
Scott: Most of us less younger guys have that problem!
Publish it if you can, the Elephant is a mouse build to government specification comes to mind
That said unfortunately as we have seen, corporations more than give the government a run for their money.
I am amazed at how fast the A320/737 ratio has turned to Airbus’ favor. I guess that airlines have concluded that the bigger engine inlets on the A320 are going to be a significant and unassailable advantage as far as fuel economy is concerned.
Additionally, I thought Airbus might seriously ramp up A320 production to ~700/year, but recent events make me think they’ll go even higher. In any case, I think we are about to see a tidal wave of A320s hit the market.
Looks like 2015 will be below 500. Any projections for 2016, 550?
“simple” extrapolation : 475..480
( 436 / 11) * 12 , ’13 and ’14 ~= 490/a
all at nominally 42 / month
source : seattletimes
By the yearly totals (however they get those numbers?), 2700 each in the next five years. A 50/50 production split.
I honestly see airbus pulling ahead by a few hundred, so I’d like to see an explanation behind the Seattle Times predictions.
I think w’ll see an accelerated move to NSA from the Boeing side. They (should) think 7-10 years ahead.
If they launch, I assume Airbus has a strategy ready to saturate the market short term. Increased production rates, attractive packages and the realistic 200 seat variant airlines are asking for since many years.
I think both Airbus and Boeing must be further down the road in their 10 year strategies then they communicate. It’s a cat & mouse play at this stage and Leahy is the one sitting back.
Airbus could IMJ be producing more than 800 single aisles per year post 2020. Also, IMO they’ll very likely launch a 6-7 frame stretched A322neo (or A320neo plus) in due course – an aircraft that would have about the same capacity and MTOW as that of the 737-9 MAX . Whereas Boeing would only have one real contender in the single aisle segment (e.g. 737-8 MAX), Airbus would have three (e.g. A320neo, A321neo and A322neo).
I don’t know how fast Airbus can ramp up production, so I see a more conservative number in 2020, like 600 to 650. But, I think they can improve the profit margins by building the A320plus, and offering conversions from the A320 for a premium. Same with the A322, more room for 190 people in a three class airplane, seems like a no-brainer.
60 per month by 2019 will be equal to at least 650 units per year. Going to 70 per month would equal an output approaching 800 units per year.
I agree that the A320neo could easily be stretched by 6-7 frames and making it similar in size to the 737-900/-9-MAX (i.e. A32neo plus, or A322 – e.g. 737-500 was smaller than the 737-300/-400), and that the A321neo could be stretched as well by a similar number of frames (i.e. A323), while having the same 97 metric tonne MTOW as that of the A321neoLR. That would result in 4 capable A32Xneo family members vs. the one trick pony from Boeing (e.g. 737-9 MAX).
I think Boeing could go the NSA route, but I doubt they’d get anything from their efforts except something a little bit better than the A320 – and for a whole lot of development cost and production cost that they may not be able to recoup.
I mean…there’s just not much more you can do to an airframe like the A320 to make it better. The last few years have taught us that Carbon Fiber is no Panacea – and most likely a headache in most cases. Titanium is radically expensive. There are no new wings to develop. No new fuselage concepts that are more significantly more economical. Not much at all….except bigger engines – always bigger engines.
No, if this Boeing were the same Boeing of the 1990s, then I’d say “Sure…go for it!” The Olde Boeing could build a plane and get it done on time and within budget. I mean, I thought they did an amazing job transforming the 737 into the 737ng – despite the fact that Boeing should have built a brand new plane at that time. And…Boeing did an amazing job with the 777 development – despite being yoked to the “Working Together” baloney which drove up development costs to more than twice that of the A330/A340.
But…that’s the Olde Boeing. The “New Boeing” couldn’t design and build a paper airplane on time and within budget. So…I don’t think Boeing Management is too hot to launch an NSA anytime soon.
IMJ, the strategic mistake of launching the 737NG, instead of an all new single aisle family, was made by the “old” Boeing (i.e. pre MacDac merger). The “old” Boeing seems to have had a habit of seriously underestimating Airbus.
Now, they seem to be damned if they do or damned if they don’t in respect to re-asserting themselves in the single aisle market segment. It will take a decade, at least, before Boeing will be able to challenge the A321neo, and at that time Airbus would IMJ easily be able to respond to any NSA/MOM with not only a further update of the A32Xneo family, but a direct 757-200/-300 replacement as well (i.e. A32X fuselage + 757-sized wing etc.).
“I think we are about to see a tidal wave of A320s hit the market.”
There has always been an major discrepancy between Airbus orders and deliveries. How is it possible that Airbus has this vast advantage in sales year after year, yet has delivered 153 fewer jets than Boeing in 2015 YTD? You can chalk some (but only some) of that up to the A350 transitions, but NB are 436/457 Airbus/Boeing.* You can do the math for WB. Only in quads does Airbus have a lead (24/18).
* and that Boeing number could have been six larger if six 737 fuselages hadn’t fallen off a train in Montana.
Airbus has consistently out-delivered Boeing annually on single aisles since 2002. Airbus single aisle deliveries during 2015 and 2016 will be similar to the 2014 output. It has long been standard practice for many industries to enact ‘production freezes’ during transitional periods for products. This practice makes intuitive sense. If the system is stable, you don’t want to risk business operations by destabilising it. Change introduces uncertainty, which generates real as well as potential instability, which is why it’s prudent for Airbus to be cautious during the A32Xceo to A32Xneo transition. Of course, the A-bashers predictably have long since wanted to make an issue out of 737 production levels supposedly catching up with A32X production levels, but even en elementary analysis will debunk those uninformed claims. Meanwhile, the A-bashers don’t seem to be much “concerned” with the fact that Boeing will increase 737 production during the transition from 737NG to the 737 MAX…..
The problem for Boeing is that while annual deliveries today reflects the slight sales edge of the A32Xceo, annual deliveries less than half a decade hence will be a reflection of the current 60 to 40 percent market split – and IMJ the situation seems to be getting worse (i.e. the A32Xneo family will IMJ further increase its market share).
I wonder if any analysts have tried to adjust the Airbus single-aisle order numbers for the flake factor.
Why would you limit that to Airbus sales?
For any airframer selling to competing airlines makes sense.
Whatever happens the demand for the region stays sold.
If the competing airline in a region is “serviced” by the competing airframer you are exposing yourself to political shenanigans.
Only because Airbus appears to have had a lot of orders flake out over the years.
OK. Kinkfisher is all the rage with B fans.
A case of limited supply?
Fortunately over the years net orders count.
And with these net orders your object of desire has already been “flaked in” so to speak.
Thus your problem appears cling wrapped already.
Of course, it’s difficult to account for the Boeing ‘flake factor’ when so many of their orders are “unidentified”.
Many times I questionned Scott on the validity of the “unidentified orders”
Every time his answer was .. they are real orders …
I guess that all orders are subject to cancelletions
one thing is for sure Scott is a fanboy neither of Boeing nore for Aibus !!
I’m not suggesting they are not real orders.
Many people point to Airbus’s larger backlog and make suggestions that the ‘quality’ of those orders is questionable. My point being that it’s hard to compare with Boeing’s backlog when so many are for ‘unidentified’ customers.
Well, the “Unidentified”s seem to get a second calling a year or two later as named orders. Not much is made of a complementary set of unidentifieds evaporating. Not in general news reporting.
Would still be interesting to know something about the conditions enabling these order advances? ( like zero penalty backout, xtra rebates, ..)
The sharp turn down in order rate for 2015 …
What are the manufacturer’s production targets for the next five years?
Airbus 200 per year and Boeing 250 per year? As far as orders go, looks like an off year.
All their eggs in one basket. Total a350/380 count …-2..
I’m shocked at those orders for a rehash of a 30 yr. Old design. .
30-year-old design? Isn’t the 737 older than that?
737 Max design is another improvement of the 707 !! over 60 years design
Boeing removed 2 engines as did Aibus with the 340 making it the successfull 330
They just added most recent tecchnologies on the way to make it “NG” and now Max !!!
BTW history tells us that twins are much better than quads best example is 777 killing 747 and giving hard time to 380 … next move for Aibus is to remove 2 engines off the 380 .. good luck to find an engine powerfull enough .. wait another decade !!!
… a design that probably was way ahead of its time – and not the least, it was born to be re-engined with engines almost as big in size as the ones flying on the 767/A310.
It may seem as if Boeing didn’t notice the last point, nor does it seem that they thoroughly contemplated how optimised next generation single aisle engines would grow size-wise, and chose instead to respond with the 737NG – an aircraft incapable of maintaining market parity for Boeing once the competitor moved ahead using next generation single aisle engines.
You’re right. And it’s really a heart-breaker considering that at the time Boeing decided to go with the 737ng they had a whole bunch of experienced engineers left over from the 777 Program that they could have used to build a brand-new NSA that would have throttled the A320 back into the stone age (even if the A320 was good airplane – Boeing owned the market). But…Boeing decided to reduce its engineering ranks and concentrate on a warmed-over 737 – the 737ng. The engineers that designed the 737ng did an admirable job, but in the end, it’s still just a 737ng.
The 737 NG wasnt ‘warmed over’, it had a completely new lighter but bigger wing which is what gives it the weight advantage it enjoys over the A320 today.
AFAIK, the 737NG wing was not “all new”. Its design was legacy constrained since it’s having dimensionally the same centre wing box. An undertaking sort of similar to what Boeing did with the wing on the 747-8 with respect to the original 747 wing. It helps explain, perhaps, why the newer non-FBW 737NG wing isn’t more “advanced” than the FBW A320 wing.
Also, please do note how the fuselage centre-line to engine centre-line is exactly the same on the 737 classic and 737NG. If Boeing had put an all new wing on the 737NG, the engine would in all likelihood have been mounted further outboard – enabling, among other things, a taller MLG. Whereas the the fuselage centre-line to engine centre-line distance on the A320 is 5.75m (18.86ft), it’s only 4.83m (15ft, 10″) on the 737-Classic/-NG/-MAX.
Wrong again. The wing on the 737NG is all new compared to the 737 Classic. I don’t know where you got the idea that it wasn’t, but perhaps you should check the following:
Boeing’s own website even says: “wing of Next Generation 737 is a NEW DESIGN compared to the 737 Classic”
Heres what a all new wing looks like;
“Wings: New airfoil section, 25% increase in area, 107″ semi-span increase, 17” chord increase, raked wing-tip, larger inspar wingbox with machined ribs.
and not forgetting the fuel tanks
Fuel Tanks: Main tanks smaller at 3900kg each but centre tank much larger giving total fuel capacity of 20,800kg. (compared to 16,200kg on classics).
“All new” – at least in my book – means a wing designed without any legacy constraints from the earlier wing, whatsoever.
If you have to design a larger, re-designed wing around an existing centre wing box and main landing gear set-up, while retaining old legacy non-FBW systems, it’s not “all new” IMHO. Do you seriously believe that Boeing would have designed an “all new wing” for the 737NG after havin developed the 777, and made it a non-FBW wing? I don’t think so.
From Classic to NG the frames gained ~5t OEW each. ( the -800 and -900 stretches then additionally added quite a bit more. Weight gain per m length is much higher than on the Classics ( less pronounced but also against the A320 fam )
So, “in your opinion”, a new wing isn’t a new one unless Boeing conforms or anyone else conforms to YOUR definition of a new wing?
Yeah. Okay. Right. Like I said before, ” wrong again”, OV-099.
You seem to have a habit of repeating yourself without fully thinking things through, don’t you?
Interestingly, you keep on insisting that the 737NG wing was “all new”, while Boeing says it’s of a “new design” – not even “all new”.
In fact, the 737 wing was as much of a “revised design” as it was of a “new design”. That doesn’t mean that it was “all new” and not based on an older design. Again, if Boeing had designed an “all new wing” for the 737NG, they’d would have been stupid not to move the engines further outboard in order to facilitate a taller main landing gear – something that would have prevented Airbus running away with 60 plus percent of the single aisle market over the next 15 years. FWIW, on the all new wing on the 777X, the fuselage centre-line to engine centre-line is increased over that of the current 777.
From dukeofurl’s link above, you can see that the fuel volume in the “centre fuel tank” is “much” greater on the NG than on the Classic. That’s due to the redesigned fuel cell structure of the 737NG wing-box. That doesn’t mean that the centre wing box was changed and enlarged. So again, if you dimensionally don’t change the centre wing-box, it’s not an all new wing.
In contrast, the original A330/A340 had an all new wing. The centre wing box, for example, is significantly bigger in size. The only thing the A330/A340 had in common with the A300/A310 was the fuselage, not the wing and MLG.
Keep in mind that the wing-box consists of a centre wing-box mounted in the fuselage, an inner wing-box (i.e. inboard of the engines on a twin – and inner engines on a quad) and an outer wing-box (i.e. outboard of the engines on a twin). On the 737NG the centre fuel tank is located in the centre and inner wingbox as illustrated in slide 5 in the link below:
Finally, instead of regurgitating your misguided “beliefs”, perhaps you could, step by step, outline why the NG wing supposedly has nothing in common with the Classic wing.
Whatever floats your boat, Dude. Boeing says “new design” I’ll take their word for it, not whether they changed it to FBW or not.
Definition of “new”: having recently come into existence : recent, modern
(1) : having been seen, used, or known for a short time : novel
(2) : unfamiliar
b : being other than the former or old.
Hmmm……..but that’s from a dictionary so I guess it’s wrong, too. Like I said, whatever makes your world’s sky whatever color you wish, OV-099. I’m not going to discuss it further (in my best Darth Vader voice!)
Had to get a Star Wars reference in there…
Yes, Boeing says “new design”, but that was not what you’ve been claiming all along.
All new, which is your description of the 737NG wing, is according to this dictionary used to describe something that is completely new: The Boeing 777 represented the first all-new airliner to be delivered since the 767 in 1982.
Perhaps you should take a better look at “dictionaries” before criticizing Scott on semantics. LOL!
Introducing the “New State-of-the-Art Wing”…
*stirring the pot*
Ov-099, is the 737 classic a supercritical wing or not? And I think you need to read the previous page of your flightglobal post.
Boeing’s 757 and 767 jetliners, and the new generation of 737 aircraft, also have wings designed with some form of applied supercritical technology.
Agian, the wing design on the 737NG was legacy constrained, derived from a ’60s wing planform and re-shaped into a supercritical aerofoil – or similar to how it was done with the revised wing on the 747-8. The movement of the flight control actuator on the 737NG is still via ancient cables and pulleys technology.
As I’ve already mentioned, if the 737NG was “all new”, why is the fuselage centre-line to engine centre-line of 4.83m exactly the same on the 737 classic and 737NG? Just a coincidence?
Did Airbus sell so many single aisles because it decided to go rate 60? That opens up lots of delivery positions.
For widebody orders the calendar year does not represent a relevant timeframe. The 12/24/36 month moving average would probably have more meaningful results.
I looked at the 5 year widebody sales from 2010-present. Boeing has about 1250 sales in the period. Airbus has about 930*. This translates to 57:43 market share in favour of Boeing.
*Cannot find exact sales totals by year for the A330 but got an estimate by tracing wiki history; also not sure if it includes all non-pax variants.
I can,understand airbus fans giddyness..
1st. Time in years . they’ve even come close to Boeing in widebody sales,who can blame’em..
Should be more concerned with newer programs lackluster sales
Waiting for the much anticipated Emirates decision. Clark is now considering both the A350-900 and A350-1000 in addition to the 787-10. He also indicated he could split the order between the A350 and 787. Very interesting indeed, especially since a stretched A350-1000 may surface at some point,
i wish i had a dollar for every potential paper airplane floated by the Airbus fanboys
I don’t believe I am a fanboy of any Corporate structure, at the same time I believe that a larger a350 is in the offing. This is one of the great competitive markets of our age and neither OEM are willing to or can afford to step back from the battle.
As it stands the NB war is being won by Airbus with substantial concern about pretenders and the WB war is hands down Boeing territory regardless of this year’s sales.
What will happen? I am sure the A350 will at some stage be extended, the A380 is the concern. The B737 is a problem and some sort of NSA must be being considered.
This is not fanboy, it is the stark reality of a duopoly with winner takes all competition. Better that than a cosy cartel. The only problem is that both OEMs are not generating returns at present that are needed by financial markets.
Can we leave fandom at home please. The skill base of both OEMs is something quite amazing to contemplate. They have far more in common than separates them.
We need a term for the outlandish and never to be produced designs per OV99 and others.
Sim Aircraft? Not very catchy. I kind of like Photo Chopped Airplanes but….
much noise, nothing tangible,
……… like the “Sonic Cruiser” 🙂
probably the most professional cloud(ed) dream in that domain.
Only one dollar each? Try to keep yourself from spending all that money in one place…
The situation for Boeing had changed 10-12 years ago.
The A380 took the VLA segment, the A320 started out selling the 737, the A330 sidelined the 767 and forced them into the 7e7, while the A321 had made the 757 absolecent.
The 777-300ER became the dominant long haul 350 seat 8000NM platform. Then the A350 overtook the 300-350 seat 8000NM market with most major 777 operators.
Boeing has not yet recovered from that and needs something better than the 787-10 – 777-8 combi for the heart of the longhaul segment. A more capable 787 seems most likely.
But an NSA seems more urgent, parking the MoM.
The money is going to be in the A350-1000 once it emerges. The 777-8 is a heavy niche aircraft. The 787-9 is smaller to compete with the bigger boys, including perhaps the A350-900. The 777-9 will be magnificent. A stretched -1000 with a range of let’s say 7000nm will also compliment a 777-9 fleet very well where less range and payload is needed-Asia, Middle East
“The money is going to be in the A350-1000 once it emerges.”
I think you’ve got a point, but I am amazed at how well the 777-300ER still sells. Yeah, maybe the A350-1000 is more advanced, but is it as economical to purchase and operate over the service life of the aircraft? That’s the big question!
Sure, the A350-1000 probably operates a lot cheaper than the 777-3000ER on a day-to-day basis, but the 777 also sells for a lot less – even less than the A350-900 if we are to believe the sources compiled by Wikipedia concerning actual aircraft prices (and I think they are good estimates). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing
Nevertheless, I’m sure once production is well along and the a350-1000 becomes cheaper to build (and sell) then it will start to really sell well.
the 777-9 appears to be ‘the daddy’ at present taking up where the 300er left off. What are the thoughts on the potential of a a350 – 1100 by whatever name knocking them off the perch. EIS in 2022/3 with RR Advance, 400 seat capacity. I am looking at this proposal having unbeatable economics with little opportunity for the 777x to compete. Thoughts?
Apparently, they’re looking at something more advanced than the “Advance-engine”.
BTW, I’m on record saying that the 777-9 will be extremely vulnerable to either a further stretched “A350-1100” or an all new Airbus “super twin family”, featuring engines at least as advanced as the UltraFan engine.
No time soon if it will be using ultra fan. An 1100 would make a great regional jet, but would not be in the same category as a 77X fitted with ultrafan. (because that is what Boeing would do)
The MTOW of the A350-1000 is 308 metric tonnes, while its 352 metric tonnes for the 777-9 (and 77W). Also, the former will have a triple bogie MLG and should therefore be able to handle a significantly higher MTOW for a stretched “A350-1100”. In short, an “A350-1100” should be able to outperform the 777-9, while still having lower MTOW. I don’t know, therefore, where this notion comes from where an “A350-1100” supposedly would have to have the same MTOW as the A350-1000 – does it originate with the ones who seemingly cannot see the forest for the trees?
One problem, though, for the 777X is that it’s already depending on the GE9X engine having some 5 percent lower TSFC than the TXWB-97 engine on the A350-1000 – in order just to roughly match the latter on fuel burn per seat. That’s a risky proposition.
Another problem is that GE and Boeing already have an exclusivity agreement on the 777X. Hence, Boeing is stuck with GE. Also, in the very unlikely event of RR being offered a place on the 777X – why should they want to offer an engine that would essentially be competing with themselves? In short, doing what GE did with the A350-1000: Refusing to offer an engine that would be “competing with themselves”.
The main problem for Boeing, though, is that the UltraFan should have at least a 10 percent lower TSFC than the TXWB-97 engine, which would not only make an “A350-1100” more than competitive with the 777-9, but that a re-engined A350-1000 – using the same engine as well – would have up to 10 percent lower fuel burn per seat than the 777-9.
It’s hardly likely that GE &P&Ware not going to put something up to complete with the ultrafan.A350 is just as likely to end up with P&W or a choice of engines.
PW might, but not GE. They’re in need of a decent ROI on the GE9X – and a geared fan is not compatible with the architecture of that engine, nor would it be easy to increase the overall pressure to 70:1 on that engine. Also, as Boeing and GE are joined at the hip on the 777, there isn’t much of a chance for Boeing to ask PW for help.
could you further expand on this please, why would the 777x be more competitive and why do you see the 1100 as a regional jet, rather confused. I do not see a revamped 1990s design would cope this a 2010s design especially given the more modern engine on the 1100.
What about GE’s exclusivity status on the 777X ?
( is that actually a type constraint or a thrust constraint ?)
This sort of article might best be left to A.net.
Say hello to a new kid on the block 🙂
Thank you. Good shot of new tail, new longer front gear.
Boeing and Southwest’s next best move, MAX 7.5 ?
MAX 8 “Spirit of Renton”
and the upcoming MAX 9, Spirit of the 405 S-curves.
And the reality is that Boeing makes as many 737s as Airbus does A320s and if you can’t make more then all those sales mean nothing.
Don’t assume it stays static, Boeing will execute if they have to, sad state of affairs but so it goes.
Boeing executes and then they sell more than Airbus but they still make the same number and in reality market share is almost exactly 50/50 (Airbus gets more money for the A321 and there Boeing has no current answer but stay tuned as well, I think that changes soon)
“And the reality is that Boeing makes as many 737s as Airbus does A320s and if you can’t make more then all those sales mean nothing.”
That’s not vey accurate. Please do read my comment up-thread:
Did not realize that this many aerospace executives had this much idle time… I think most of the contributors are missing the point… Numbers of aircraft sold/delivered are just numbers… The real focus is on profitability and long-term sustainability… Both manufacturers produce excellent products and to play a childish game of I have more than you do, is just that…
The winner is both Airbus and Boeing… Strong companies meeting a global demand for one of the most complicated products that you can build/assemble…
You came late. All were diddling their blackberries while waiting for the Chairman. 🙂
ah.. the good old Blackberry’s.
They didn’t do things you didn’t ask for..
I fear to read you posts because they tend to wander into designing aircraft that will never happen in some sort of Face Book unreality area type. Call it Photo Shop design that is no more real than Sim city.
That said, I have followed Boeing and Airbus single aisle production closely the last few years.
The last two years they have been within 2 or 5 of each other.
So the monthly thing is wrong, look at the yearly total (and divide by 12 months if you want to see what it means monthly) but the reality is Boeing and Airbus make the same number of single aisle each year for all practical purposes recently and will continue to do so matching each other with production increases. That does not give Airbus a 60-40 market (they will sell more A321 than 737-MAX and for good reason, its a superior aircraft size that Boeing cannot match)
In the long term those sales MAY equate to real market share, but before that I expect Boeing will do something about it (they have to). How soon, pretty soon on the fist step on the MOM at a guess and single aisle alter.
When we calculate car mfg market share its how many they made last year vs the opposition. Not how many they think they will make.
If Boeing comes out with a superior aircraft then huge sale swing to them and others with Airbus have to decide on cancelation, not taking up the various option types etc.
I know Scott disagrees with my take (and with all due respect his business is forecast oriented, no forecast no business) but I am a rubber meets the road kind of guy. Unless next year or two Airbus expands to building 120 a month (and Boeing sits still), they do not have a real 60-40 market share. They have a 60-40 sales share that may never be realized.
Airbus could hurt Boeing further with a match for the 737-8 but has not done so for unknown reasons as it’s a natural (maybe they don’t want to force Boeing into action?)
That’s one of the most arrogant and ignorant posts I’ve ever seen on this board: and arrogance and ignorance doesn’t become anyone. First, you launch an Ad Hominem fusillade against OV99 with this jewel:
Quote: “I fear to read you posts because they tend to wander into designing aircraft that will never happen in some sort of Face Book unreality area type. Call it Photo Shop design that is no more real than Sim city.”
Well, I don’t know what OV99 has posted in the past, but his posts and linked illustrations did a very good job of explaining why the 737 is locked into its current dilemma: how the 737’s wing-structure limits Boeing to the smaller (less efficient) engines for the 737. And had you really read what he posted, you would have also realized why the a320-200 is set-in-stone to be heavier than the 737-8, and you would have never, ever concluded your post with this nugget of nonsense:
Quote: “Airbus could hurt Boeing further with a match for the 737-8 but has not done so for unknown reasons as it’s a natural (maybe they don’t want to force Boeing into action?)”
No….Airbus can’t feasibly build a match for the 737-8 because to do so would require them to redesign the wing and landing gear placement to move the engines further inboard to reduce wing weight, and then re-qualify the wing. But….you would have known that had you paid attention to OV99’s posts and knew what you are talking about.
The rest of your post was a lame attempt at “Moving the Goalposts” by trying to convince everyone that Airbus’ greater number of aircraft orders don’t matter because they’ll never be able to produce them anyways. Amazing how you know that. What…I guess Airbus obligated itself for the inevitable and costly non-performance penalties for non-delivery just to show a bigger order-book than Boeing? They are going to take a major financial hit for Bragging Rights?
Last, I don’t know why you think just because “they have to” is the reason that Boeing will follow on with a new NSA to challenge Airbus should all those A320 orders result in higher delivery rates. For any time in the near future (10 years), there will be no great advances in Aerospace technology that will allow Boeing to build a new 737 that will leap-frog the A320 – and to even try get even or a bit better will require a very-expensive all-new plane. The near past had taught us that Carbon Fiber is certainly no Panacea, and according to Mitsubishi, it’s not cost effective on smaller aircraft (as Bombardier is finding out now with its CSeries debacle). Boeing has even limited the new use of Carbon Fiber for the 777x to it’s wing – and this works for larger aircraft. The 787 – that wonder of Carbon Fiber – is a financial disaster. So…Carbon Fiber is out. Titanium is too expensive. There are no feasible new wings on the drawing board. There are no feasible new fuselages on the drawing board. So…Boeing is where they are with the 737: they are trapped building a lower-performing jetliner for the next 10 years – at least. Get used to it – it’s the new normal.
Jimmy: thank you for the compliments. You seem to have missed OV99 wandering into designing aircraft for Airbus mostly as I recall that are plane silly. I think reality is commenting on real aircraft (like a longer A320 that would cause Boeing more grief)
And the reason Airbus did a mostly composite A350?
Yes there is technology that will jump over the A320. What form it takes is going to be ingesting, strut based has some possibilities . GTF opens up a lot.
Yes Airbus can respond with an all new wing (sorry per OV99 if you don’t re-do the box section its not an all new wing)
As for production , until Airbus causes Boeing to drop yearly production on of the 737 they only have a market share of 50% of single aisle.
they have a strong sales advantage but that has to be proven out over a very very long time. Said sales are pushing into the 2025 area. the world does not hold still. Low oil stays and both backlogs are going to be hit. Interest rates go up, same thing.
I have already enjoyed your take on matters but simply the current sway in orders towards a320 must be a massive concern to Boeing given the potential for the future of the b737. The leadtime of aircraft development means they are in a very difficult position when their brand new iteration in NB is being comprehensively outsold before its first flight.
The NB market is the bedrock of both key OEMs and it appears that their offering is being considered as definitely second best prior to first flight.
Can they afford a MOM punt when they have a fundamental issue with their main NB product? A risky strategic decision on any level when MOM can be scuppered by a330 above and a321(lr) below, both airframes that are fully paid off and pure cash cow
Sowerbob: Thank you, some find them interesting and some like Jimmy not so much.
Yes I do believe the long term sales are a factor in Boeing future outlook. If not they are even worse off than I currently think (it is possible)
I suspect they are mad at work trying to figure out a response for in the long term that takes into account what Airbus can do (new wing on A320)
If Boeing does nothing then they are toast.
MOM or not? I think they need the 737RS worse, but if they can manage along with 737 and take a new market like they did with the 787 then it may be worth it.
Airbus did out produce Boeing when Boeing was prudent and dropped production during the last recession, Airbus made the right decision and Boeing did not though its what I would have done.
Now, unlike Ford n the heyday of the Mustang, when they saw it selling they could shift resources and make massive numbers to take advantage of that, Airbus (nor Boeing) can do so with aircraft
Supposedly they can crunch the numbers which I can’t and come up with a rational decision. More so now hopefully with McNeaney is gone.
That a reason this is a fascinating period, a lot is riding on who does what.
I think Boeing is going to and soon, but as always with an opinion I could be wrong.
So the sales thing goes from year to year, production is what brings money in the door and Boeing is out producing Airbus.
Boeing matching Airbus production level has less to say about market share than Boeing willingness to burn faster through the backlog.
Even if it means a roller coaster ride : https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Airbus-boeing_deliverycomparison_2010.png
The question one should ask : how much MAX deliveries in 2025 ?
A reminder to everyone: Reader Comment Rules don’t allow personal attacks of any kind. I don’t hesitate to temporarily suspend those who are repeat offenders.
Jimmy and Scott
Thank you for your comments …. very necessary at this stage
Scott … I love your “pontifications” it opens large debates to say the least
No one is forcing you to read what I write. As this blog includes both pontifications and detailed technical anlyses, I do not think it altogether inappropriate to outline the possibilities of additional OEM product derivatives and/or all new airframe configurations.
I am a mechanic/ technician/engineer, I make things work.
I don’t think your designs have any real basis in this world nor a technical discussion but then as noted it is Pontifaion and opinion.
Good luck with them.
I do read the posts and some are quite good as I have noted when they are (IMNSHO)
Boeing’s strong production output, year after year, is what keeps this company in relatively good financial health. But the low price of oil, the slowing down of the world economy and poor planning might hit Boeing particularly hard in the coming years. We can take the 737 as an example. Boeing wants to increase production when it is currently outsold by the A320 and the B2B ratio is below one. That means Boeing wants to increase production when demand is likely to diminish in the near future. It is very risky for Boeing to increase production because the 737 might not sell so well in the coming years. And this could happen sooner than later, and much faster than expected. The 787 is not as big a concern because regardless of what Boeing has already lost what’s important is how it is making out today. It is not exactly a profit centre for Boeing but at least it not costing so much either. In other words it is about to enter neutral territory: not contributing much to the balance sheet in a positive or negative way. On the other hand the 777 is still bringing a lot of cash in. But for how long? At least as long as the Classic in in production. After that there will be a sharp decline in revenues for a limited period of time. But limited does not necessarily mean short. And after that there is no guarantee the 777X will continue to sell as well as its predecessor even if it is better. It is also more expensive. All that doesn’t leave much money for R&D, which is needed more than ever to develop the NAS, MoM and multiple variants of existing models.
I did some math on 737 production level !!!
Assuming that intake of NEW orders stay at this year level that is about 400 minus 50 (Copa order indentified from previous years) is 350
Assuming Boeing produce 55 per month this translate of 6.36 month to produce those new orders each years
so 12 month/year minus 6.36 means 5.64 month each years to produce the backlog of 4231 of old orders this is about 4231/55/5.64 that is 13 years from now on of total production !!!
I wonder how Aibus will do … open a 5th FAL ?? they still increase their backlog !!!
In +/- 13 Years Both OEM will come up with another itération or a brand new model … I am not sure new technologies will be there to justify investments from OEM
“I wonder how Aibus will do … open a 5th FAL ?? ”
+1 @ Mobile ( going active )
+1 @ FXW ( ?advanced? planning )
thanks for enlightening !!
Agree with Normand. It seems priority for Boeing is not ignoring the NB situations and come up with a real good, not too large / heavy / late NSA.
Second, in my opinion is the Twin aisle situation. While 250-300 seat 8000NM and over 370 seats 8000NM seem well covered, Boeings clock is cleaned in the big middle.
Neither Airbus, Boeing or anyone else seems to have any interest to put this on the table so far.
keesje: “It seems priority for Boeing is not ignoring the NB situations and come up with a real good, not too large / heavy / late NSA.”
That is where our views might differ slightly. There is no doubt in my mind that Boeing will have to do something, sooner than later, about the NB situation. But cash could become a problem, and time is not on Boeing’s side. So hard decisions will have to be made, and perhaps sooner than Boeing would like. NAS and MoM cannot be done simultaneously, like for example the 757 and 767 were in the early Eighties. So those projects will have to be prioritize. But I like to think that an effort should be made to combine the two into a single design. I believe it is possible today because computers can do miracles in terms of optimization of complex engineering solutions.
The situation is this. Bombardier now owns the market below 150 seats with the CS100/300. And at the other end of the spectrum Airbus owns the market above 200 seats with the A321. Where Boeing is still relatively strong is in between, around 175 seats, with its remarkably resilient 737 MAX 8. What I propose is to merge the NAS and MoM into an optimized design that would retain the capabilities of the MAX 8 while addressing the need for a 757 replacement, the so called MoM. I believe this is feasible with a single design that would take into consideration both requirements during the initial design phase.
For sure this concept would require two wings and perhaps as much as four different fuselage lengths. The end product would be a slightly larger aircraft than the 737/A320 platforms. The variant with the larger wing would carry more passengers than the A321 and with a greater range. I believe this could be done if Boeing is willing to accept the challenge. I would go as far as saying that there are no viable alternatives because Bombardier is pushing up while Airbus is putting unbearable pressure from the upper end. It is often when confronted with apparently intractable problems that people or institutions come out with imaginative solutions.
I think Norman has put it right.
I don’t know that it an be done but that’s the best solution if possible.
If not then its a throw of the dice if a MOM can get them enough sales and limp along the 737 until that is done and a new aircraft can be designed.
As the match seems to say, Boeing can eek this out into the 2025 range.
All time record for a non A380 Post?
note: no idea on subscribers posts of course
I think that if Boeing designs something slightly larger then the A320 family, with e.g slightly more range (TATL, MoM), a slightly bigger wing, that would be a very good aircraft for 180-240 seats up to 4300 NM.
The big risk is Airbus develops something slightly smaller, less capacity (140-200) less range <2800NM and less wing then A320. And takes 70% of the NB segment because it is 10-12% cheaper to buy and operate..
<1000NM <180 seats is 5 times as big as the NB segment above.
Pretty much negates the situation where they are moving up sizes, not down.
Ergo the A321.
Its amazing they are operating single aisled good for 3k on 500 mile routes, somehow it average out but the C series may change that.
What I propose is a 737 + 757 into a single basic design. How can this be done you ask? Just look at both aircraft which already exist. Both are six-abreast/single aisle. As it would have been impossible to put the 757 wing onto the 737 fuselage Boeing had no choice but to design a new one for the 757. Which is quite narrow by the way. But today Boeing could start with a single fuselage that would be readily designed to take two different types of wings: medium range and long range. The 737 Replacement would have shorter fuselage sections with the medium range wing, whereas the 757 Replacement would have longer fuselage sections with the long range wing. Each wing could have two different fuselage lengths, but they would all share the same basic fuselage design and systems.
That would be a very expensive aircraft to design and certify, but the total cost would be much lower than if the two designs were undertaken separately. It would be extremely difficult to optimize the two designs because they sort of contradict each other in their respective usage. But with the level of sophistication of the mainframe computers that are available today at Boeing I believe it would be possible to arrive at an acceptable optimization that would satisfy these two different sets of criteria. For Boeing the main advantage would be the high degree of standardization between the two designs. And the operators could also benefit form a streamlined fleet that would encompass a complete array of capabilities with almost identical aircraft models. But Boeing would have to change allegiance and go with Pratt & Whitney for the powerplants. Just like in the good old days of the 707, 727, 737 and 747.
As far as I know 737 have the same fuselage … inherited from the old 707 … correct ???
That is correct. The 737 has also inherited the 707 inherent limitation in terms of angle of rotation on takeoff. Since this type of fuselage sits very low to the ground it cannot be made very long, à la DC-8, because on takeoff when the pilot initiates rotation the tail, which is already very close to the ground, goes in the opposite direction: as the nose goes up (rotation) the tail goes down, an can quickly hit the runway surface. That partially explains why the 737 MAX 9 is not very successful. Being a stretched version of the MAX 8 it cannot be rotated much before the tail comes dangerous close to the runway surface on takeoff. That limits the angle of rotation for the pilot and when the aircraft is fully loaded it therefore takes longer distances to takeoff. That is because the larger the angle of rotation is the more lift the wing has and the quicker the aircraft gets airborne. But that rule does not apply to older designs like the de Havilland Comet, which could only be rotated slightly on takeoff lest the aircraft stalled abruptly.
Thanks for explaining the limitation on 707/737 of AOA at take off !!
Up to now (I am over 70!!!) I thaught that high AOA at take off for DC9/MD80 were the consequences of crazy pilots trained on fighters !!!
You must have been a little boy when the Comet entered service in the early 50’s. The Comet had a few spectacular crashes on takeoff because the new wing design, for what was then the first passenger jet, only allowed very small AOA on takeoff. BOAC blamed the pilot for one of a couple spectacular Comet crashes one takeoff, not realizing that only its best and most experienced pilots were entitled to fly the jet, as was the case also for the Concorde later on. The wing was eventually modified to allow higher AOA on takeoff, with less abrupt stall characteristics.
Normand I think “one shoe fits all” designs are a thing of the past in todays competitive environment.
Cheap, practical derivatives like the A319, 737-700, A350-800, 777-8, 737-9, 787-3 appear attractive but prove too compromised to succeed.
A MoM needs to be a MoM to be real good. Same for a 6-8 flights a day shuttle. If you really optimize two variants, you may end up with two compromized aircraft. No dinner for a lunch’ price.
Good points keesje. But Bombardier has designed the C Series around the CS300 with the CS100 on one side and the CS500 on the other (+/- 25 seats) with a single wing. And eventually they might come out with a CS700 and CS900 designed around a completely new wing. The only difference with my proposal is the long range of the 757 Replacement. That is why I mentioned potential difficulties in optimizing two different requirements. There would inevitably be some compromises that would have to be made. But perhaps not that big considering the fact that both aircraft (737/757) had very similar fuselages.
If Bombardier can stretch the CRJ and the C Series I don’t see why Boeing could not do the same, particularly during the initial conceptualization phase. In my opinion they don’t have much of a choice if they want to replace both within a reasonable period of time and at an acceptable cost. I would not be surprised if they were already working on a similar solution. But they may already have proven to themselves that it wouldn’t work. I just don’t know. But I would like to find out, should it be the case.
I never liked the idea that the 757 would have a similar fuselage to the 737’s and still be a completely different design. So I think there must be a way to design each Replacement with the other in mind, in order to retain maximum commonality. An Al-Li fuselage and composite wing, à la C Series, might give Boeing the flexibility they didn’t have with an all-aluminium design.
Bjorn explain in another string that for overall efficiency length to diamater ratio muust be between 9 and 12 …. Boeing already covered this rule fron 737-600 to 757-300
I found Bjorn comments in his quad to twin comparison here it is for easy reference !!
“– it is a typical example of a base design stretched to far. The cross section (8 abreast) stems from the A300 which had a fuselage fineness ratio of 9.5 (length/diameter, efficient ratios are between 9 and 12). This was stretched to 11.2 for A340-300 and 13 for A340-600. This is a fuselage to long and slender, you pay with weight. The A340-600 is at least 10t heavier than a 777-300ER (fineness ratio 11.8).”
“efficient ratios are between 9 and 12”
I hope the 787-10, 777-9X and possible -10x are OK.