It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing Shelves the 737RS and goes back to the drawing board.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Boeing has shelved the ongoing 737RS (replacement study) project as it was simply unable to meet critical performance targets and even the best case scenario would have meant only a 10% inprovement over current 737-700/800's. Technology to make the narrow body jet more efficient do not exist at this time. Boeing will now focus on "fundamental research into aerodynamics, composites and other advanced alloys and hybrid materials, systems and propulsion".

This is also expected to delay Airbus's plans for its followon to the A319/20/21 family as well. Both have shown little interest in replacing what is a hot selling cash cow for both and will concentrate on improvements on both lines.

www.aviationweek.com.../aw051908p2.xml&headline=Boeing%20Goes%20Back%20to%20Drawing%20Board%20fo r%20737%20Follow-on




posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Amazing that a design that first flew in 1967 is still selling very well.



777 / 747 replacement next?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Airbus A320 is also there best seller - and they are testing new winglets this year and the P&W GTF engine as well , but it doesn`t have the same limitation of the 737 - namle the lower slung wing restricting engine choice to a 60" fan



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Boeing has shelved the ongoing 737RS (replacement study) project as it was simply unable to meet critical performance targets.

This is also expected to delay Airbus's plans for its followon to the A319/20/21 family as well.


Interesting on both counts.

I had previously learned that Airbus were working on the 320 replacement at a decent pace. I'm somewhat surprised they would shelve it.



Also, the Bombardier CSeries is projected to have DOC around 20% lower than either A320 or B737. Perhaps there is an avenue there for growth of the Bombardier fleet? I might know more on that by tomorrow evening.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


the bombadier et all RJ`s are all reaching the point where they will be entering that market - at lower operating and purchase costs...



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Is this decision by Boeing also anything to do with freeing up resources for the 787? Neither Boeing nor Airbus see replacing their single aisle models as urgent, so it would make sense to ease off a bit when they have so many other troubles to sort out.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Is this decision by Boeing also anything to do with freeing up resources for the 787? Neither Boeing nor Airbus see replacing their single aisle models as urgent, so it would make sense to ease off a bit when they have so many other troubles to sort out.


I don't think so. The 737RS was a relatively small group (As far as I know) and as you noted neither Boeing nor Airbus has shown any real urgency to field a replacement. Anything is possible, but I see the group going back into R&D.

As noted above the 777 may get some attention. The A350 will encroach into 777 seat capacity and so improvement to that line may also be needed as well.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
[I had previously learned that Airbus were working on the 320 replacement at a decent pace. I'm somewhat surprised they would shelve it.


While the fight over wide bodies gets alot of attention 787, A350, A380 et al., the narrow bodies are what really makes money for both companies. Both are selling strong and have hefty backlogs. So if there is no urgent need to replace the airframe with something new, neither company feels the need to do so.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Both are selling strong and have hefty backlogs. So if there is no urgent need to replace the airframe with something new, neither company feels the need to do so.



The company doesn't feel the need to publicise it - otherwise your backlog disappears quite sharpish.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 
Someone here feel free to correct me if I am wrong but GTF's are not neccessarily any greater in fan/case diameter than more conventional turbofan's, no? I can't therefore see any real restriction to the 737 being fitted with them as a way of improving fuel burn and therefore operating costs so long as they do not excede the fan case diameter limit.

LEE.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
Someone here feel free to correct me if I am wrong but GTF's are not neccessarily any greater in fan/case diameter than more conventional turbofan's, no?


Your right in that the gearbox itself does not increase Dfan - but the purpose of the gearbox is allow a larger diameter fan to operate effectively.



With a 60" dia fan, it is not really practical to use a gearbox (or a triple spool engine), but if you enlarge the fan significantly, then you will have a mismatch of turbine and fan rotational speeds.

One solution is a 3rd turbine spool - as used by Rolls-Royce, the other a gearbox on the 2nd turbine spool - as used by Pratt&Whitney.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 
Yes of course kilcoo, and with an additional spool on a relatively small engine you are going to add weight and complexity. Unless of course you can design a very compact high output core, the fan of which is no greater than the current CFM56's. But this is where the idea I am postulating starts to get a little silly. The only other solution I can see is IF Boeing could redesign the whole landing gear to give greater ground clearance. Taking a casual look this arvo at one of our 737-800's, it might be possible but I doubt you could add more than about 12" max, of additional ground clearance before you ran into serious stowage issues. And thats without worring about the wing box or any carry through beams that might prove inconveniently placed. Im not overly familliar with the 737 as I work on the heavies but I see a few real challenges there.

LEE.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join