Why Boeing Should Build The 797
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Should Boeing build the 797? Watch to find out!
Sources:
leehamnews.com...
wingtalkers.co...
www.airguide.i...
onemileatatime...
theaircurrent....
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
#boeing #airbus #airplane #757
Boeing needs to dump the entire senior management team before they even think of building a 797. A once great company, trashed for short term profits, now moribund.
CORRECT. THEY ARE BOEINGS PROBLEM
Boeing should start making bread. Maybe in this industry they will succeed...
Airbus will rule the commercial aviation industry like Boeing did the last 30 years...
Nope
Brit here. Thats NOT what Airbus wants. Airbus wants Boeing back in the game, to help promote invention and competition- nobody gains otherwise. Its not just the aircraft manufacturers, its the entire aviation industry. Boeing needs most of all, to be rid of that management- prison would be a good place to put them. Where's the American government in all this? Why isn't the FBI in there, arresting these murderous bastards? Dont write on here, ring your senator and ask him why the FBI is not in there.
Everything comes and goes, Airbus have it now... Boeing WILL get it back in 10 years
The aircraft that should of become the MAX is the B757, the 757 was already a brilliant aircraft and ideal for larger engines due to its shape and higher clearance off the ground. The B737 should of been replaced with a whole new model, trying to continuously modify an old 1960s 737 fuselage is not good in my opinion.
I think Boeing did consider upgrading the 757. However, because that plane was no longer selling much, and the Airbus A320 had begun outselling the 737, and airlines were looking for smaller, more fuel efficient planes, Boeing decided to upgrade the 737 and end production of the 757. Now airlines want medium range narrowbodies, and the A321neo LR and XLR are poised to fill that market that the 757 dominated.
@@mrAhollandjr the issue is though the B737 is not an easy plane to upgrade, it has its limitations mainly due to a lower to ground fuselage
With the certification of the XLR close, the true range should out soon.
What you fail to mention is the advantage of having a plane in the big a32x family instead of a fully new type, economy of scales will come into play fast especially if Arbus manages the deliver on their 75 a month target
True they should stay with the 787
Amazing how airbus and its system of different languages, different countries and cultures works better then just American. Oh wait, America is about profit not products. Top men get consulted……who’s consulting??? Not engineers……consultants who only know cut labor, timelines and profit (short term)
Brit here, whatever Boeing needs to do, ain't with that management.
Where did you get the -200 miles shorter range due to modifications in the fuel tank? Airbus already stated that these changes will not affect A321XLR's range.
Modifications to the fuel tank increase the aircraft’s weight which decreases its range. Airbus will obviously try to downplay it because they don’t want to lose customers.
@@plane_nerd So you made it up? Nobody will cancel their order if range is reduced by 200 miles. It is still higher than any alternative. And no, manufacturers cannot "downplay" specifications like that. Eventually customers will see the range themselves.
The original range is calculated within tolerances. If the final weight is within that tolerance, it is still possible to keep the advertised range.
@@plane_nerd Additionally, if total empty weight of the aircraft is, say, 1 ton higher than planned, Airbus can limit the cargo capacity by 1 ton to keep the original range. The important thing is having the extra fuel tank and higher MTOW for that much extra fuel which doesn't seem to be a problem.
No I did not make up the 200 mile range cut - you can check the sources linked in the description. With the 200 mile reduction in range, some of the routes Airbus themselves advertised eg. SFO to Haneda are not possible under normal conditions. While they will not lose current customers, this could disincentivize potential customers who were planning to fly those or similar such routes. Also, cutting the cargo capacity is not a good idea - these are long haul routes we’re talking about so passengers are going to have more luggage.
@@plane_nerd I checked your source. No idea what they got the number from. But let's do a plausibility check: the MTOW of the A321XLR is around 101 t. According to your source, the weight increase might be as high as 800 kg maximum. That's about 0.8% of the MTOW. Advertised range is 4700 nmi. A range low of 200 nmi would be about 4.3%. That would be more than 5 times the change in weight. Not plausible. Mind you, I don't say impossible. But it isn't plausible, which means, we need better sources than you give us...
It’s a complex endeavour.
The new plane will probably need to be single aisle and it will need favourable economics for the routes it will fly.
It needs to be produced in 3-4 sizes to replace the 737 and 757 families. Around the 150-170 seat capacity, the 180-200 seat capacity, and the 210-230 seat capacity, and be proportionally relatively profitable in terms of fuel burn per seat costs in all sizes.
It may or may not need very powerful 40,000 lb thrust engines from the few engine manufacturers we have (that can also be easily derated to save maintenance and fuel costs for smaller versions)
It needs to be made with technology that has advanced since the 787 was first conceived.
And on top of that, Boeing needs to get this plane right on launch time. They need to get this new aircraft’s QC right from the start in order to redeem themselves.
And they’re bleeding money since 2019.
It’s a tough job for them to build the 797
yeah but if they want to really make a change, they should've started on it yesterday
@@Joa_sss The thing is that Boeing did actually start on a 737-757 replacement.
It would have been called the NMA and it may have been a stubby twin aisle seating around 150 in small versions up to 240 for the larger versions. So imagine like a 787 with A310 proportions, a stubby 787.
The 787-3 could not have worked for this due to the airframe’s size optimisation, so Boeing decided to propose a clean sheet widebody with narrowbody economics for routes around 1-4h long. Airlines showed mixed interest in it, but at the time, there were multiple factors (e.g insufficient market demand, lack of tech, problems and miscalculations in getting the targeted efficiency right)
That study broke down after Boeing Commercial put all it’s resources into fixing the 787 issues and re engining the 737 into the MAX.
The period of time after that is history.
After covid and the max groundings were over, Boeing CEO dave calhoun implied that the company eventually shelved that project. The NMA is “back to the drawing board” according to him.
So now we don’t know what the 797 will look like, we assume it could look like a narrowbody 757 with a slightly more optimised wing shape and newer materials. But Boeing hasn’t really made any announcements so we assume they are basically starting from scratch again in terms of designing the 797
@@fanta6285 I really hope it can save Boeing
I wouldn’t be surprised if they did 3 variants. A -8 sized around the 737 max 9, that would use CFM leap engines for commonality purposes. Then a -9/-10 designed to be 757 replacement. This is probably financially viable and allows them to replace their entire mid-haul product offering.
@@cxaviation3313 I think they will most likely do 4 and hope that the scaling of fuel burn per seat costs doesn't affect the value proposition of the smallest variant.
The thing is, Boeing cannot just design an aircraft that will replace the 757 only, this aircraft has to replace types like 737 MAX 7 with 140 seats all the way to 757-300 with 230 ish seats. That's one of , if not the most important part of designing a new plane: making sure fuel efficiency scales with per seat fuel burn and operating costs for all variants.
Wow, great video bro!
Too
the idea has been shelved and we won't see development untill the 2030's. But hopefully tho
I believe that the 797 will look exactly like a narrowbody version of the 787 💯💯💯💯💯💯 I doubt that it will be a widebody
Well the 75 was basically a narrow 76 developed at the same time and that didn’t turn out too bad
Boeing has negative dollars right now. Let’s stop trying to jump to massive conclusions. They don’t have the money, the reputation, or the technological capability to bring a clean sheet design to the market. Especially in one that it has nothing going for it. This is a stretch at best.
wow
Boeing needs to re process their engineering & salvage their sorry product line, especially the sun down of 737.
boeing is trapped because if it launches the 797 and in 5 years airbus launches an aircraft of the same size but with the new reactors on which it is working they will not be able to compete, that is why neither of the 2 manufacturers will launch a new program to the moment !!!!!
fix their problems by
scrapping the 7-10MAX
Prioritize B787
Delay B777 till 2028
None of that, with the current management-- they ARE THE PROBLEM
I agree, Boeing should build another aircraft, they call it the 797 if that makes them happy. Then they will have 3 aircraft (multiple models) that need major fixing. They can't can't fix the 737 and 787's go ahead and develop another aircraft and maybe they will go bankrupt sooner than we all expect..
Nope just update the 757 theres no $ to build 797.
THEN YOU'LL GET 757 MAX.
@@johnchristmas7522 most likely buy .maybe faa will clamp down. Theres no $ to do a 797. The mcd mgrs that took over ba are mak8ng the same penny wise pound foolish moves tbeydid with dc10 that killed a bunch of ppl. So i serikusly doubt tbat ba will be in ga in 2030s as they havent brought a new pland to mkt in nearly a generation so getting too far behind airbus lead.
Boeing should cease operations, maybe sell to Airbus.
The 757X-8 is a single isle 787. Done.