Boeing Launches 737 New Engine Family

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 949

Boeing Launches 737 New Engine Family

496 airplanes from five airlines. AA is one of them…

More good news from Boeing, they are on a roll recently. Long may it continue.

Original post
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 9,664

There was a good commentary by a Wall Street aerospace analyst in last week's Aviation Week defending Boeing's choice of doing the new engine route.

Why?
The NE plane will cost about $2 billion to R&D.
An all-new plane would have been $8 billion.

Would a new narrow-body been that much better...especially wth the current engine state of the art?
Yes, the all new plane would have had more composites and fly by wire, but are they really needed in short-haul aircraft?
The author points out that the narrow-body planes are commodities to airlines like Southwest and sold in bulk. A lot of high-tech isn't needed.
I can't say I disagree. After all, its competition, the A320 series, is 30 years old.

Might as well save the all-new design for ten years and an engine breakthrough is available and we might have a better idea on how to build a super-efficient airframe.

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 949

Very true J Boyle. Another thing that strikes me about the A320NEO and the B737NE is that they are going to be heavier, and thus likely to only offer gains in the longer routes of the short-haul market. On that basis — and with Airbus stating that they will still offer the A320OEO alongside the NEO — it is safe to say the standard versions will still be produced for some time yet.

Profile picture for user longshot

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 1,699

Does this mean the 737 will overtake the DC-3 in numbers produced? Or did it already?:)

Member for

10 years

Posts: 2,163

I found this story most interesting... either its very badly reported or Boeing cannot count.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/30/361430/most-737-max-launch-customers-outside-of-the-us.html

The airframer said this morning that it has order commitments for 496 aircraft from five airlines for the re-engined narrowbody, which has been approved by the company's board. First delivery of the 737 MAX is scheduled for 2017.

While Boeing Commercial Airplanes president and CEO Jim Albaugh declined to name the airlines, he noted that 85% of Boeing's backlog is outside of the USA

On 20 July, American Airlines announced its intention to purchase 200 Boeing narrowbodies, split between current 737 Next Generation aircraft and the re-engined version.

Albaugh said that while American will be one of the launch 737 MAX customers...

Now... I'm sure you can do the sums as well as me. 100/496 is greater than 15%.

D'oh.

Profile picture for user nJayM

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 1,684

Jim has said 85% of the BACKLOG is outside the USA

I found this story most interesting... either its very badly reported or Boeing cannot count.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/30/361430/most-737-max-launch-customers-outside-of-the-us.html

Now... I'm sure you can do the sums as well as me. 100/496 is greater than 15%.

D'oh.


Jim has said 85% of the BACKLOG is outside the USA. (at the last count over 3,000 total aircraft as backlog orders)

Before which "The airframer said this morning that it has order commitments for 496 aircraft from five airlines for the re-engined narrowbody, .."

They are two different sets of numbers.

The new US airline orders for the New Engined 737 aren't 15% of the backlog

Member for

10 years

Posts: 2,163

F88king marketing bu******ters.

Nothing is max efficiency and max reliability with max passenger appeal.

The engineer in me groans everytime you hear these hot-air-balloons (like Leahy over in Toulouse) come out with this crap.

Its like the old line, "we can do it better, cheaper and quicker". :rolleyes:

Member for

10 years

Posts: 2,163

Jim has said 85% of the BACKLOG is outside the USA. (at the last count over 3,000 total aircraft as backlog orders)

Before which "The airframer said this morning that it has order commitments for 496 aircraft from five airlines for the re-engined narrowbody, .."

They are two different sets of numbers.

The new US airline orders for the New Engined 737 aren't 15% of the backlog

Ah - makes sense.

Stupid me! I was thinking they were specifically talking about the 737-ME2 backlog.

Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 9,664

Does this mean the 737 will overtake the DC-3 in numbers produced? Or did it already?:)

Not yet.
So far orders are about 7000. There were 10,600 US produced DC-3s/C-47s plus 5000 Soviet examples and about 500 Japanese.

So if you count license-built versions, it's still only about half-way.
Will it?
Good question..it depends on when the new narrow body comes about.

Profile picture for user nJayM

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 1,684

You ain't stupid - it's just boring me keeps a close eye on the numbers

Ah - makes sense.

Stupid me! I was thinking they were specifically talking about the 737-ME2 backlog.


You ain't stupid - it's just boring me keeps a close eye on the numbers. In my old age being a bean counter is my choice.:)
I mainly look at firm orders as all the rest are pipe dreams based on poor projections by opportunists and can go whizz bang at any time.:rolleyes:

Like you I treat the marketing blurb with respect but take it with a large pinch of salt until I see the words firm order appear from the manufacturer.;)

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 472

Dear oh, oh dear what a mess the wing to engine aero integration is......about 10-15% of the span is now generating no lift, only drag (compare to the competitors where a clear separation of allows the wing to earn its keep). Still I guess its an inevitable consequence of Boeing using some of the engine performance improvement to save themselves from spending money on the cert cost of a new airframe......albeit at the expense of their customer's bottom line. I mean it obvious Boeing can't have done a deal with god to get preferential terms on the application of the fundamental laws of physics, so any intelligent customer should be able to figure this out.

Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 9,664

Still I guess its an inevitable consequence of Boeing using some of the engine performance improvement to save themselves from spending money on the cert cost of a new airframe......albeit at the expense of their customer's bottom line.

Thanks for that objective tirade. :rolleyes:

Your line: "At the expense of their customer's botton line" is rich.
Who do you think would pay for the extra R&D? The airframe fairey?
The customers would have to pay for it with higher cairframe prices.
Unlike some outfits, Boeing is not a make-jobs charity and has to answer to shareholders who expect a profit.

As I pointed out above, there are good cases to be made for NOT doing a new aircraft. Aside from costs, one being why put new-old technology engines on an all-new airframe?

After all, its main competitor isn't doing one yet and even to Boeing $6 billion is a lot of money.

Let's see what the Canadians, Brazillians and Chinese come up with in the segment.

Profile picture for user longshot

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 1,699

It's rash to presume having the engine directly mounted to the wing wipes out the lift in that area...I doubt if it's that simple and they'll do a lot of work refining the aerodynamics round there

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 472

Longshot
Yes it really is "that simple" and no amount of computer analysis will fix it. You need an aerofoil section to produce lift.

J Boyle
"As I pointed out above, there are good cases to be made for NOT doing a new aircraft. Aside from costs, one being why put new-old technology engines on an all-new airframe?"

But doggedly sticking with a throw back to the days of the turbojet Pax A/C of some 50 years ago is a bit rich don't you think.(i.e the poor ground clearance which really messes up the integration of a modern high bypass ratio turbofan).
I was really expecting a longer MLG and/or one with a shortening mechanism to at least exploit some of the potential saving.

And as for a job creation scheme, please remind me how much funding does Boeing gets from US black projects? ......all untraceable of course as to where's its actually spent ........lets just leave it there shall we.

Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 9,664


And as for a job creation scheme, please remind me how much funding does Boeing gets from US black projects?.

My comments were general in nature given the amount of funding aireframe companies (especially start-ups) get from their nations. I didn't mention any names. Why do you assume I meant Airbus?
Is there something you want to confess? :)

Of yeah, the 787 is supercruise stealth, almost forgot. :)
Please feel free to explain what "black" technology is finding its way into 737s...which you seem to think are more than ancient (not that I'd totally disagree).

Since the Boeing came out with jetliners (remember the prototype was privately funded, BTW) fback inthe 50s and Airbus used the same basic (underwing pods) configuration, didnt Airbus get some basic R&D or proof of concept experience from Boeing? :diablo::D:diablo:

As an side, years ago I remember reading that Boeing gave Ilyushin data on how to hand engines underwings for their IL-96. In return the USSR gave Boeing sokme data on how to machine titanium. Anyone else remember that or am I mistaken ?

Remember, a lot of basic R&D is funded by NASA and universities...which is shared. Likewise I'm sure Farnborough and French data eventually goes industry-wide. But there is no denying that Airbus and EADS do get sweethart financing (witness the A380 loans) from state banks and government investors (like the German provinces).
Boeing gets some state tax brakes...and some R&D from NASA. Do they compare? Depends on who you ask.

Member for

10 years

Posts: 2,163

Dear oh, oh dear what a mess the wing to engine aero integration is......about 10-15% of the span is now generating no lift, only drag (compare to the competitors where a clear separation of allows the wing to earn its keep).

You don't need separation of the frontal projection of the nacelle/wing to guarantee lift.

As long as the nacelle recedes in diameter prior to the leading edge of the wing, and allows sufficient clearance around that point, then lift can still be generated virtually uninhibited.

As an example, Boeing have a similar pylon arrangement on the 787. They did not compromise the aerodynamic performance of that any more than is necessary.

B787
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/0/8/2/1240280.jpg
and: here (bit big)

B737
http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/6am2.jpg

Member for

13 years 4 months

Posts: 796

With regard to the aerodynamic comments, does it seem realistic to be making assessments based upon artist renderings? Shouldn't one wait until they see something a little more definitive?

I looked at the Boeing website and did not see any cockpit renderings. I'm hoping that Boeing ditches the 1968 overhead panel that Southwest mandated for the NG, and also installs a modern EICAS/ECAM type system.

Boeing is a company that hires people to build airplanes, Airbus is a political consortium that builds airplanes so they can hire people.

Member for

10 years

Posts: 2,163

With regard to the aerodynamic comments, does it seem realistic to be making assessments based upon artist renderings? Shouldn't one wait until they see something a little more definitive?

True. I just quickly want to quash the absurd notion that Boeing would actually design an aircraft where 10% of the wing is not working!


I looked at the Boeing website and did not see any cockpit renderings. I'm hoping that Boeing ditches the 1968 overhead panel that Southwest mandated for the NG, and also installs a modern EICAS/ECAM type system.

I think they are strongly insisting on keeping the cockpit common to eradicate any (or vastly reduce) retraining of glorified button pushers/pilots.


Boeing is a company that hires people to build airplanes, Airbus is a political consortium that builds airplanes so they can hire people.

Now, now, behave.

I guess Hawker-Siddeley, English Electric, Vickers-Armstrong, Bristol, De Havilland, Sud Aviation, Aerospatiale and Breguet (to name a few) had no history of building aeroplanes prior to their combining? :confused:

Using the same yardstick; would that mean that the combination of Lockheed, General Dynamics and Martin into Lockheed-Martin mean they are a political consortium that builds aeroplanes so they can hire people?

Or Northrop and Grumman?

Or McAir and Boeing?

Due to the smaller size of each European country relative to the US, the consolidation process of indigenous companies started much earlier - which maybe is what makes it harder for... 'an outsider' (for lack of a better term) to see the lineage. The combining of the respective companies into Airbus was largely driven by the private companies need to lump together to survive, not by the politicians.

[Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt - while I know there are some incredibly smart people at Airbus - I also know there are a large number of inept bstards there too - particularly within their procurement branch. There is a culture of 'zero responsibility' within the company as well as a culture of 'managers' and procurement zombies leading chief engineers, which may or may not be different at Boeing.]

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 472

You don't need separation of the frontal projection of the nacelle/wing to guarantee lift.

[/IMG]

Amiga - Please advise, for a cruise mach number, the percentage cord for an Engine Nacelle where flow transition occurs which leads to turbulent flow separation.

Also please advise the CL max that can be expected for a supercritical aerofoil within a separated turbulent air flow.

To make such a bold statement as this you should be able to answer these questions.

As for the twaddle about Boeing being the only manf to "hire people to make aeroplanes" it really show zero understanding of the industry.

As for US subsidisation of Boeing;- The podded jet engine was developed for the Boeing B47 paid for by DoD then gifted to its civil business, the CFRP fuselage was developed for the Boeing Osprey paid for by DoD then gifted to its civil business and there are numerous other small examples of gifting;- a typical unseen example is the analysis package used for Birdstrike Cert known as "Dyna3d" originally paid for DoD to model underground nuclear tests.

Upon investigation at Boeing's request, the WTO decided there was no case to answer.