Author Topic: Boeing 797 To Launch At Paris Airshow In July  (Read 1435 times)

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Boeing 797 To Launch At Paris Airshow In July
« on: January 31, 2019, 09:35:43 AM »
The basic configuration seems pretty well decided upon.  In June Boeing defined two versions – the NMA-6 (797-6) with 228-passenger, 4,500nm (8,300km) and the NMA-7 (797-7) which would seat 267 in two classes with 4,200nm range.

The 797-6 would be launched first, followed by the larger 797-7. Range appears to be closing in on 4,500 nm (8300km). This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.

By not pushing the range further, the 797 will have reduced structural weight and thus cost.

It sounds like the engineering design is progressing so they can work on what the production methods will look like to have a better understanding of cost.


“It takes a long time to get it right,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes v-p of marketing Randy Tinseth told AIN, rebuffing suggestions that the NMA process appears elongated. Boeing started talking about a potential replacement for its 757 in 2012 and the new model would enter service in the middle of the next decade. “Maybe this is an airplane where we are a little more boisterous in the market on what we are thinking and planning,” he reckoned.

The development of the business case for Boeing’s proposed NMA, a midsize airliner with 220 to 270 seats and a range of 5,000 nm, continues apace, Tinseth said. “We engaged with our customers, we worked to understand the market. There is not a lot to share about what has changed because what we are doing now is really inside [Boeing],” he said. The OEM is considering available technologies, production systems and capabilities, and whether or not it can build the new model at a cost that the market would accept. Boeing will decide on the plan next year, he stressed, though he cautioned the decision will depend purely on the business case. “There have been times where we worked really hard on programs and we decided they would not be economically viable,” he said.

Doing more planning work up front to ensure that the plane can be produced at the price airlines are willing to pay sounds like a smart move. Some may be impatient waiting for launch or questioning the viability of the plane due to the lengthy pre launch phase, but it is important to remember that launch comes with orders from airlines. Orders mean pricing is negotiatied, performance guarantees are made, and delivery dates are established. It may be worthwhile waiting to launch and do it correctly rather than having the program go late, over budget or fail to meet performance guarantees.


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2018-11-27/boeing-homes-nma-business-case

Expect a twin isle with a two-three-two seating configuration.  similar to shown below.
 

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2019, 09:36:56 AM »
Expect the exterior to look something like this.  The airlines are already lining up for this aircraft and it will dominate the trans Atlantic routes from Europe to the US.  The 797 will be a game changer like the 787 was and the airlines know it.  Delta has already stated they want to be the launch customer and probably will be.

The fuselage will probably be carbon fiber like the 787 and the wings will also be carbon fiber like the 777X.  In addition, this aircraft will indicate what to expect for the next generation 737.

Airbus has stated the will wait for this aircraft to come out before beginning the design of their own version.


Mr Anabolic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10647
  • Better to die on your feet than on your knees.
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2019, 09:54:05 AM »
Same old shit.

They need to make passenger jets that fly at mach 1 and beyond.  We should be there already.  What's the holdup?  Spending hours flying around in planes at only go 500mph is a tremendous waste of time.

milone79

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1623
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2019, 10:09:33 AM »
Same old shit.

They need to make passenger jets that fly at mach 1 and beyond.  We should be there already.  What's the holdup?  Spending hours flying around in planes at only go 500mph is a tremendous waste of time.

^^^ THIS!!!

My father came to this country in 1970 from Italy and the flight took 7.5 hrs....today the same flight still takes 7.5 hrs...wtf?? IN nearly 50 yrs they have not improved the technology?? Look at how far cars, computers or any other area of tech has come in that time!! There is something very fucking suspicious about air travel!!

Mr Anabolic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10647
  • Better to die on your feet than on your knees.
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2019, 10:20:27 AM »
^^^ THIS!!!

My father came to this country in 1970 from Italy and the flight took 7.5 hrs....today the same flight still takes 7.5 hrs...wtf?? IN nearly 50 yrs they have not improved the technology?? Look at how far cars, computers or any other area of tech has come in that time!! There is something very fucking suspicious about air travel!!

I feel bad for people that fly on business.  It's pure torture.  I used to fly LAX to Heathrow a few times a year.  Even though it was a straight flight in business class, it still sucked ass to be stuck in that plane for 11 hours.  It's not just the long flights and cramped spaces, it's having to deal with ghetto TSA workers and bitchy battle axe flight attendants.  Since I've retired, I don't need to fly anymore... what a relief.

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2019, 11:06:41 AM »
^^^ THIS!!!

My father came to this country in 1970 from Italy and the flight took 7.5 hrs....today the same flight still takes 7.5 hrs...wtf?? IN nearly 50 yrs they have not improved the technology?? Look at how far cars, computers or any other area of tech has come in that time!! There is something very fucking suspicious about air travel!!

I see, so computers have improved drastically over the last 50 years and commercial airplanes have not.  You do know that an airplane is just a flying super computer and that all the advances in computers have also gone into aircraft computers.  in fact the Apollo program help launch the computer industry by using the first integrated chips designed by Intel because nobody else could afford them.

Cars have improved because engines have improved, but don't you think jet engines have improved as well.

The 787 of today is vastly better than the 707 you grandfather flew on in EVERY way.  It baffles me when people don't understand this, and I know both of these airplanes very well.  The engines and cockpits are night and day different, just no comparison.  If you flew these planes back to back you would see how dramatic the difference is particularly if you're in the cockpit, it's night and day.

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32457
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2019, 11:13:38 AM »
I see, so computers have improved drastically over the last 50 years and commercial airplanes have not.  You do know that an airplane is just a flying super computer and that all the advances in computers have also gone into aircraft computers.  in fact the Apollo program help launch the computer industry by using the first integrated chips designed by Intel because nobody else could afford them.

Cars have improved because engines have improved, but don't you think jet engines have improved as well.

The 787 of today is vastly better than the 707 you grandfather flew on in EVERY way.  It baffles me when people don't understand this, and I know both of these airplanes very well.  The engines and cockpits are night and day different, just no comparison.  If you flew these planes back to back you would see how dramatic the difference is particularly if you're in the cockpit, it's night and day.

His complaint was with the speed being the same.  Are you saying he's wrong on that?

sync pulse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5708
  • Only be sure always to call it please, 'research'
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2019, 11:14:58 AM »
Same old shit.

They need to make passenger jets that fly at mach 1 and beyond.  We should be there already.  What's the holdup?  Spending hours flying around in planes at only go 500mph is a tremendous waste of time.

It takes an excessive amount of energy to shove an air breathing commercial aircraft supersonic... Add in the engineering and maintenance... Just because it is technically possible, doesn't mean it is monetarily viable.

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2019, 11:17:08 AM »
Same old shit.

They need to make passenger jets that fly at mach 1 and beyond.  We should be there already.  What's the holdup?  Spending hours flying around in planes at only go 500mph is a tremendous waste of time.


When did 500 mph become ONLY 500 mph and how is traveling at 500 MPH wasting time?  What do you intend to do about the sonic booms caused by flying over mach 1?  Also, you know when you double speed you don't just double fuel consumption, you quadruple it.  Are you will to pay more than four times as much for your flight to fly twice as fast?  The Concord wasn't just a failure it was a colossal failure.


Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2019, 11:18:35 AM »
It takes an excessive amount of energy to shove an air breathing commercial aircraft supersonic... Add in the engineering and maintenance... Just because it is technically possible, doesn't mean it is monetarily viable.

^^^ This!

Mr Anabolic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10647
  • Better to die on your feet than on your knees.
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2019, 11:20:48 AM »
It takes an excessive amount of energy to shove an air breathing commercial aircraft supersonic... Add in the engineering and maintenance... Just because it is technically possible, doesn't mean it is monetarily viable.

Fly it at a much higher altitude.  70-90K ft.  Problem solved.

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2019, 11:21:43 AM »
His complaint was with the speed being the same.  Are you saying he's wrong on that?

His complaint was that aircraft have not progressed because they're still going 500 mph.  I'm saying he's wrong on that AND that going 500 mph is STILL impressive.  

Mr Anabolic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10647
  • Better to die on your feet than on your knees.
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2019, 11:23:09 AM »

When did 500 mph become ONLY 500 mph and how is traveling at 500 MPH wasting time?  What do you intend to do about the sonic booms caused by flying over mach 1?  Also, you know when you double speed you don't just double fuel consumption, you quadruple it.  Are you will to pay more than four times as much for your flight to fly twice as fast?  The Concord wasn't just a failure it was a colossal failure.

You seem to have a vested interest in planes flying slower... do work for Boeing?  How much stock do you own?

lol

sync pulse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5708
  • Only be sure always to call it please, 'research'
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2019, 11:59:15 AM »
Fly it at a much higher altitude.  70-90K ft.  Problem solved.

No it wouldn't be...It would be more difficult to engineer the airframe and maintain it...Greatly increasing the cost.


It's a matter of Linear Programming...Finding the simultaneous solutions for systems of equations...or to put it another way, finding good solutions to problems when there is no one single "best" answer.

Think of New York City skyscrapers:
The Empire State Building has 86 occupied/rented floors.  

Freedom Tower has 96.

However in Dubai, the Burj Khalifa has 163

Why is this?...It is because the buildings in New York City were designed to turn a profit and if you run the numbers 80 stories is around the top level in which you can reasonably expect to make money...
The Burj Khalifa was made to win a dick measuring contest.


It would be the same with a Mach 3 aircraft.

MAXX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17462
  • MAGA
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2019, 12:06:01 PM »
It takes an excessive amount of energy to shove an air breathing commercial aircraft supersonic... Add in the engineering and maintenance... Just because it is technically possible, doesn't mean it is monetarily viable.
yes. pretty sure air resistance makes it increasingly harder.

I Believe there is more potential for trains or pods in vacuum tubes hovering on Electro magnetic fields for zero friction and zero air resistance. Problem is this requires cooperation between nations.

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32457
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2019, 12:10:53 PM »
No it wouldn't be...It would be more difficult to engineer the airframe and maintain it...Greatly increasing the cost.


It's a matter of Linear Programming...Finding the simultaneous solutions for systems of equations...or to put it another way, finding good solutions to problems when there is no one single "best" answer.

Think of New York City skyscrapers:
The Empire State Building has 86 occupied/rented floors.  

Freedom Tower has 96.

However in Dubai, the Burj Khalifa has 163

Why is this?...It is because the buildings in New York City were designed to turn a profit and if you run the numbers 80 stories is around the top level in which you can reasonably expect to make money...
The Burj Khalifa was made to win a dick measuring contest.

That's a big dick!

Mr Anabolic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10647
  • Better to die on your feet than on your knees.
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2019, 12:12:18 PM »
No it wouldn't be...It would be more difficult to engineer the airframe and maintain it...Greatly increasing the cost.

It's a matter of Linear Programming...Finding the simultaneous solutions for systems of equations...or to put it another way, finding good solutions to problems when there is no one single "best" answer.
Think of New York City skyscrapers:
The Empire State Building has 86 occupied/rented floors.  

Freedom Tower has 96.

However in Dubai, the Burj Khalifa has 163

Why is this?...It is because the buildings in New York City were designed to turn a profit and if you run the numbers 80 stories is around the top level in which you can reasonably expect to make money...
The Burj Khalifa was made to win a dick measuring contest.

 ???  comparing buildings with airplanes?

Bring back the Concorde and redesign it.  

Why not? because greedy companies like Boeing dominate the industry.  Can't beat them, buy 'em!  

RIP  McDonnell/Douglas and many others.  

Airbus is our only hope.

Mr Anabolic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10647
  • Better to die on your feet than on your knees.
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2019, 12:13:24 PM »
yes. pretty sure air resistance makes it increasingly harder.

Less air at higher altitudes.

sync pulse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5708
  • Only be sure always to call it please, 'research'
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2019, 12:14:23 PM »
I Believe there is more potential for trains or pods in vacuum tubes hovering on Electro magnetic fields for zero friction and zero air resistance. Problem is this requires cooperation between nations.

It would require maintaining a vacuum in wide tunnels hundreds of miles long...

Edit:
V=πr2l is the formula for the Volume of a Cylinder.
  • V = Volume
  • r = radius of tunnel (say tunnel 10 feet wide) = 5Ft
  • l = length of tunnel (say 3000 miles) = 15,840,000 ft

To three significant digits:
1.24×109 cubic feet of vacuum to be maintained... 1,240,000,000 cubic feet

sync pulse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5708
  • Only be sure always to call it please, 'research'
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2019, 12:16:50 PM »
???  comparing buildings with airplanes?

Yes...the mathematics and concepts can be surprisingly very similar.

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Re: Boeing 797
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2019, 10:52:16 PM »
???  comparing buildings with airplanes?

Bring back the Concorde and redesign it.  

Why not? because greedy companies like Boeing dominate the industry.  Can't beat them, buy 'em!  

RIP  McDonnell/Douglas and many others.  

Airbus is our only hope.


McDonnell Douglas is still alive and well in Boeing Space and Defense.  McDonnell Douglas management made the decision not to invest in commercial, but instead to focus on defense.  As did Lockheed which used to make the L1011 and Northrup Grumman which used to make the Convair 880.  Nobody is stopping Lockheed, Northrup, Gulfstream, or Cessna from making a commercial jet and all four of these companies have the capability to do so.

By no means was the merger a mistake for either company.  Boeing's revenue this year is twice what it was when the merged and shareholders of both companies have done very well.  in addition, Boeing continued to make both the MD-11 and MD-95 (717) after the merger until airlines stopped buying them.

Commercial air travel would not be what it is today without Boeing and the 797 is a perfect example of their leadership.  

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3714
Re: Boeing 797 To Launch At Paris Airshow In July
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2019, 11:07:55 PM »
They say there is now a consensus amongst the leading buyers if the 797 of the size and layout of the aircraft.

The massive appeal of the 797 will be its passenger cross section of 2-3-2 with huge overhead luggage bins which will put an end to the economy crush.

The 797 will be a made of composite material like the 787 and it will be able to economically connect hundreds of new non-stop routes between smaller cities.

Earlier this year Boeing moved one of its top engineers, Terry Beezhold, to the program signaling that it is very serious about the aircraft.

Mr. Beezhold has had lead roles in the 787 and was project engineer on the ultra-long-range 777X, which will fly next year.

In June Boeing defined two versions – the NMA-6 (797-6) with 228-passenger, 4,500nm (8,300km) and the NMA-7 (797-7) which would seat 267 in two classes with 4,200nm range.

The 797-6 would be launched first, followed by the larger 797-7. Range appears to be closing in on 4,500 nm (8300km). This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.

Boeing sees the market at about 5000 planes over 20 years.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-will-launch-797-plane-passengers-will-love-say-analysts/



I predict Boeing will have over 2,500 orders for the 797 when the first airplane is delivered.

Tapeworm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 29349
  • Hold Fast
Re: Boeing 797 To Launch At Paris Airshow In July
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2019, 07:10:51 AM »

“Maybe this is an airplane where we are a little more boisterous in the market on what we are thinking and planning,”

There is not a lot to share about what has changed because what we are doing now is really inside [Boeing],”


This is the great PR orator they push toward a podium?  Did his dog eat his notes?  What. 




“not be economically viable,”


Good, good.  Let the hackneyed expressions flow through you.