Possible Boeing 737 replacement

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,021
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
The patent is believed to be a concept for the Boeing Yellowstone Y1 project, previously known as the 737 Replacement Study, to find a replacement for the Boeing 737 that is expected to enter service between 2012 and 2015.

Source:
Ostrower, Jon. "Boeing Patent May Provide Glimpse Into 737 Replacement Plan" Flight Blogger September 23, 2010
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/09/boeing-patent-may-provide-glim.html
 

Attachments

  • 737RSpatent_1000.jpg
    737RSpatent_1000.jpg
    368.2 KB · Views: 414
Dorsal view of Boeing patent.

Fuselage cross-section of Boeing patent.

Source:

Sankrithi V, Mithra M. K, Retz, Kevin.Weight-Optimizing Internally Pressurized Composite-Body Aircraft Fuselages Having Near-Elliptical Cross Section
Assignee: The Boeing Company (Chicago, IL)
Application Number: 12/624322
Publication Date: 08/12/2010
Filing Date: 11/23/2009
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0200697.html
 

Attachments

  • 737RSpatentDorsal.JPG
    737RSpatentDorsal.JPG
    37.9 KB · Views: 358
  • 737RSCrossSection.JPG
    737RSCrossSection.JPG
    43 KB · Views: 335
Advances in composite materials may tip the scales at The Boeing Co. toward developing an all-new successor to its popular 737, rather than putting new engines into the current model.

In the latest expression of his thinking thus far, Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh said in an interview that second- and third-generation composites — more advanced than those used on the 787 — are making him more favorable to the idea of an all-new, composite successor to the 737.

Albaugh’s recommendations will be pivotal in Boeing’s decision, expected by the end of the year, about whether or not to tweak the best-selling 737 with efficient new engines.

The next decision, closely related, is whether to develop an entirely new airplane to meet the projected $1.6 trillion demand for single-aisle jets over the next two decades. That decision would likely be in 2011 or beyond and would require Boeing board approval.

Source:
Wilhelm, Steve. "Composites May Be Just the Ticket for Boeing 737 Successor, Albaugh Hints" Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) August 27, 2010
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2010/08/30/story1.html
 
I was about to say, I haven't seen many positively beautiful airlines in a while, but this one goes out of its way to be ugly. hope this is purely notional , although a horizontally elliptical fuselage might lead to this 'tadpole' effect
 
The elliptical composite fuselage is designed to accommodate a seven-abreast 2-3-2 twin-aisle configuration that is ideal for the quick loading of passengers and cargo.

Twin-aisle medium to short-haul aircraft configurations are not new to Boeing, having explored a six-abreast 2-2-2 arrangement for the open-rotor design of the 7J7 of the late 1980s. The twin-aisle arrangement offers expedited boarding and deplaning, as well as containerized cargo that can be loaded more quickly than bulk luggage.

For an airline like Southwest that lives and dies by its 20 minute 737 turn times, a composite twin-aisle 737 replacement could give the airline a boost in its daily utilization. In essence, more flights, more revenue. The question remains, is this patent the special sauce that makes it happen?

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/09/boeing-patent-may-provide-glim.html
 
Flight International created the attached artist's impression of the 100-200 seat Yellowstone 1 (Y1)/737RS (Replacement Study) in 2006. This aircraft is expected to share technology from the new Boeing 787. This artist's impression looks like a much more conventional single-aisle narrow body design.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/03/03/205223/boeing-firms-up-737-replacement-studies-by-appointing.html
 

Attachments

  • 11360.jpg
    11360.jpg
    38.6 KB · Views: 353
I'm pretty sure I saw that design *years* ago, 2005 or earlier. Lemme look...

UPDATE: That didn't take long. It's from patent 6834833, which was filed in Oct 2001 (but issued Dec 2004).

Shazam!
 

Attachments

  • patent2.gif
    patent2.gif
    15 KB · Views: 120
  • patent1.gif
    patent1.gif
    18 KB · Views: 310
Orionblamblam said:
I'm pretty sure I saw that design *years* ago, 2005 or earlier. Lemme look...

UPDATE: That didn't take long. It's from patent 6834833, which was filed in Oct 2001 (but issued Dec 2004).

Shazam!

Thank you Orionblamblam. I don't find the design any uglier or handsomer than the current Boeing 737 design. I presume that a Boeing 737 replacement would use a glass cockpit similar to that of the Boeing 787 and would offer similar interior cabin and seating designs. The twin aisle is supposed to increase passenger comfort by creating a more spacious cabin, more desirable ambiance and interior architecture, and easier passenger mobility while the aircraft is in flight.
 
Another take on a 737 replacement - the "Double Bubble"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/radically-redefining-the-airplane-breakthrough?click=pm_news
 
"Boeing CEO: 'new airplane' to replace 737"
Originally published Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Boeing is sending its strongest signals yet that it plans to build a new plane to replace its 737.

By JOSHUA FREED
AP Business Writer

Boeing is sending its strongest signals yet that it plans to build a new plane to replace its 737.

Boeing Chairman and CEO James McNerney told analysts on Thursday, "We're going to do a new airplane." He then seemed to backtrack a little, saying, "We're not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias ... is to move to a newer airplane, an all-new airplane, at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade. It's our judgment that our customers will wait for us."

After McNerney spoke, the company tweeted that it expects to have more clarity by the middle of this year on its plans for the 737. Boeing has said previously that it is leaning toward designing a new plane.

Boeing builds more 737s than any other model. It competes with the A320 made by Airbus, which recently said it will make a version with new engines that it hopes to bring to market in 2016.

Airlines have been watching closely to see whether Boeing would upgrade its 737 with new engines like Airbus' A320, or build an all-new plane. Either one would be more fuel-efficient, but designing and building an all-new plane will take longer. McNerney said he thinks the technology for more efficient engines and the plane itself, as well as customer demand, will come together around 2020.

Southwest Airlines Co. currently flies only the 737, and has bought more of them than any other airline. On Jan. 20, CEO Gary Kelly was asked whether Boeing's plans for the 737 will cause Southwest to look at other new planes.

"If they told us that we're not going to see a more fuel-efficient 737 for another 20 years, that probably would cause us to do something," he said. Southwest will acquire smaller Boeing 717s once its purchase of AirTran Holdings Inc. closes.

Source:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014188453_apusboeingoutlook2ndldwritethru.html?prmid=obinsite
 
"We're not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias ... is to move to a newer airplane, an all-new airplane, at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade. It's our judgment that our customers will wait for us."

Ah, the blistering pace of progress.
 
At this rate we should have a Shuttle replacement as soon as the next century.
 
Orionblamblam said:
"We're not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias ... is to move to a newer airplane, an all-new airplane, at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade. It's our judgment that our customers will wait for us."

Ah, the blistering pace of progress.

Couple of things.

Customers have made it clear they want at least a certain level of improvement before they're willing to jump. Apparently that's going to take a while

The A320 NEO is going to have an adverse effect on existing A320 sales, and is going to depress the price of "standard" A320s on the used a/c market, which is an important consideration for fleet managers. Boeing wants to avoid this.

Boeing also wants to avoid the mistake they made when they went to the 737NG. They decided to build it on the existing line. As a result, production of "Classics" had to be terminated. Apparently, a lot of sales were lost to customers who would have been perfectly happy to buy more of the less expensive "Classic" model. Whatever they do with the 737 replacement, they don't want to hurt their cash cow, which still has a big backlog and looks like it'll be selling for quite some time.
 
F-14D said:
Orionblamblam said:
"We're not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias ... is to move to a newer airplane, an all-new airplane, at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade. It's our judgment that our customers will wait for us."

Ah, the blistering pace of progress.

Couple of things.

Customers have made it clear they want at least a certain level of improvement before they're willing to jump. Apparently that's going to take a while

The A320 NEO is going to have an adverse effect on existing A320 sales, and is going to depress the price of "standard" A320s on the used a/c market, which is an important consideration for fleet managers. Boeing wants to avoid this.

Boeing also wants to avoid the mistake they made when they went to the 737NG. They decided to build it on the existing line. As a result, production of "Classics" had to be terminated. Apparently, a lot of sales were lost to customers who would have been perfectly happy to buy more of the less expensive "Classic" model. Whatever they do with the 737 replacement, they don't want to hurt their cash cow, which still has a big backlog and looks like it'll be selling for quite some time.

Isn't this an attempt by Boeing Chairman and CEO James McNerne to state that the company is working on a replacement for the 737 without causing the airlines to cancel current orders and wait for the new plane? Is it possible that the time frame for the appearance of the 737 replacement exaggerated to safeguard these orders and keep the production lines going in Renton? Further, is it possible that some airline customers have seen proposals for the new aircraft and are under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA)? Business schools tell us that it is unwise to announce the new model while you have a backlog of orders or a warehouse of inventory.
 
Triton said:
Isn't this an attempt by Boeing Chairman and CEO James McNerne to state that the company is working on a replacement for the 737 without causing the airlines to cancel current orders and wait for the new plane? Is it possible that the time frame for the appearance of the 737 replacement exaggerated to safeguard these orders and keep the production lines going in Renton? Further, is it possible that some airline customers have seen proposals for the new aircraft and are under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA)? Business schools tell us that it is unwise to announce the new model while you have a backlog of orders or a warehouse of inventory.


1. Yes

2. Not so much that, as to better time the arrival of the new a/c as 737 sales are winding down anyway.

3. No so much proposals as much as potential specifications of capabilities vs. cost. That would be a big factor in determining whether to go for a new a/c and when. This may be where the statement about airlines willing to wait for them is coming from. Certainly there would be NDAs.

4. Airbus may not have gone to those business schools, which is one of the concerns about the NEO.
 
Triton said:
Business schools tell us that it is unwise to announce the new model while you have a backlog of orders or a warehouse of inventory.

Yes, when you are selling the pencils. But when you are selling the highly sophisticated product with a tremendous time required for the development and real market introduction, this is the best way how to wake up one morning and realize, that you were eaten by your competitors.

I think that the developing of the whole new airplane should be the wise decision of Boeing's representatives. But I should also note that while the single aisle airplane with the capacity slightly above 100 passangers is the best selling product, it is also going to be the most competitive market. So their proposal must be really good to beat the competitors. And of course... finished in time and budget :)
 
In an article published on March 7, 2011, author Geoffrey Thomas of Air Transport World magazine claims that Boeing will announce a twin-aisle replacement for the 737, to be dubbed the 797, at or before the Paris Air Show on June 20, 2011.

Separately, ATW has learned that Boeing will announce an all-new 737 replacement, to be named the 797, at or before the Paris Air Show commencing June 20.

The 797 will be offered in a twin aisle configuration of 180-250 passengers.

Boeing is moving "far more aggressively" toward a 180-250 seat twin-aisle replacement for the 737, according to company insiders.

The 737-800 and 737-900ER will continue to be in production as is after the 797 enters service.

It would continue production of the 737-800/900ER for airlines that still want the standard offering.

Source:
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/boeing-focusing-twin-aisle-concept-737-replacement-will-be-announce?cid=nl_atw_dn&YM_RID=lcg@bilrevyen.no
 
Triton said:
The 797 will be offered in a twin aisle configuration of 180-250 passengers.

That would make it more of a 757 replacement, wouldn't it?
 
Trident said:
Triton said:
The 797 will be offered in a twin aisle configuration of 180-250 passengers.

That would make it more of a 757 replacement, wouldn't it?

I wonder if it'll be as fun to fly.
 
From what I had heard a few months ago from someone close to the 737 advanced design group, they are trying to optimize for the Southwest use case. Fast load/unload, better fuel economy, very maintainable. Apparently heavy use of composites, and at least some technologies developed from FATE studies(!).

This may be relevant:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/09/boeing-patent-may-provide-glim.html
 
quellish said:
From what I had heard a few months ago from someone close to the 737 advanced design group, they are trying to optimize for the Southwest use case. Fast load/unload, better fuel economy, very maintainable. Apparently heavy use of composites, and at least some technologies developed from FATE studies(!).

This may be relevant:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/09/boeing-patent-may-provide-glim.html

It would be very interesting if this is tadpole/polliwog shape is the actual design for the production Boeing 797.
 
more possible hints of 797 shape from other Boeing's patent
 

Attachments

  • 797-1.jpg
    797-1.jpg
    189.8 KB · Views: 154
  • 797-2.jpg
    797-2.jpg
    137.8 KB · Views: 139
From Flight Global (Flightblogger blog):

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/04/the-first-boeing-sanctioned-re.html
 
I wonder if it'll have the same type of construction as the 787.
 
According to Jon Ostrower on John Ostrower's Flightblogger blog:


The rendering may begin to give away some clues on the possible configuration of this particular aircraft, which includes 33 large windows, two full size exit doors and two smaller Type II exit doors, suggesting a passenger configuration equivalent to, or slightly larger than, the 215-seat 737-900ER.


The windows, whose number is equivalent to the 110 and 126-seat 737-600 and -700, would not be spaced this far apart for an aircraft of similar capacity along with exits as large as they appear in the rendering. One conclusion to draw is this is the New Light Twin (NLT) concept with seven-abreast seating covering 30+ rows and a capacity of about 230 seats in a single-class configuration.


Undoubtedly, this design is a conservative look at what Boeing envisions for a 230-seat composite jetliner fitting into a spot just above the 757. It's important to remember that the original 7E7 design looked like a scaled down 777 when it was first unveiled, containing barely any of the iconic design elements of the 7E7's shark fin and the final 787 design.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/04/the-first-boeing-sanctioned-re.html

Image comes from a presentation by Dr. Charles Harris, Director of the Research Directorate at NASA's Langley Research Center.
 

Attachments

  • NLT%20Concept.jpg
    NLT%20Concept.jpg
    591.3 KB · Views: 250
May be not ;D......

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/avd/2011/04/19/09.xml&headline=No%20Program%20Launch%20At%20Paris,%20Boeing%20Says

Terry (Caravellarella)
 
Could this be the 797? See pdf. -SP
 

Attachments

  • 797 maybe.pdf
    302.7 KB · Views: 170
XB-70 Guy said:
Could this be the 797? See pdf. -SP

No way. Too radical. They have not flown anything like that, and they certainly would not be that radical with a replacement for their most successful airliner. That's too risky.
 
That design is as pretty as it is unlikely to replace the bread-and-butter product Boeing makes. Other than Scaled and a few military skunk works prototypes, the Buck Rogers aesthetic is a definite liability comsidering how profoundly design-conservative the average client from the airlines tends to be. Realistically, my little yellow Reno Racer design from the mspaint thread stands more chance of being built, and that's saying something. :D
 
Seems to be some confusion about whether or not the 737 replacement will still be a clean sheet design. In the meantime:

Winglets%20B737%20Scimitar.jpg

737NG Scimitar (concept: Boeing)

Aviation Partners Boeing has launched the Split Scimitar (above) program to retrofit its 737 blended winglets with a new tip cap and ventral strake for an extra 2% fuel saving.

Aviation Week/Things With Wings blog
 
Grey Havoc said:
Seems to be some confusion about whether or not the 737 replacement will still be a clean sheet design. In the meantime:
Aviation Partners Boeing has launched the Split Scimitar (above) program to retrofit its 737 blended winglets with a new tip cap and ventral strake for an extra 2% fuel saving.

dog_zpsd8291e34.jpg
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/faas-737-max-approval-is-probed-11552868400
Boeing was toying with a new plane to replace the 737, launched in 1967, and had engineers working on the new plane concept. While many airlines liked the idea, existing 737 customers didn’t want to retrain their pilots at huge cost and so lobbied for an updated, more-efficient 737 they could also get faster and more cheaply.

Then in 2011 Boeing learned that American Airlines, one of its best customers, had struck a tentative deal with Airbus for potentially hundreds of A320neo planes to renew its short-haul fleet. American invited Boeing to make a counter-offer. Boeing realized it needed to act fast, and offered what would become the MAX.

A senior Boeing executive said late Sunday the MAX was the company’s clear choice from options including a new airplane or a re-engine of the 737 NG. “The decision had to offer the best value to customers, including operating economics as well as timing, which was clearly a strong factor,” this executive said, noting the company embarked on a six-year, consistent and methodical development program.

American eventually bought 260 Airbus planes and agreed to take 200 upgraded 737s from Boeing.

I bet Boeing now dearly wish they'd gone with the clean sheet design instead.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/faas-737-max-approval-is-probed-11552868400
Boeing was toying with a new plane to replace the 737, launched in 1967, and had engineers working on the new plane concept. While many airlines liked the idea, existing 737 customers didn’t want to retrain their pilots at huge cost and so lobbied for an updated, more-efficient 737 they could also get faster and more cheaply.

Then in 2011 Boeing learned that American Airlines, one of its best customers, had struck a tentative deal with Airbus for potentially hundreds of A320neo planes to renew its short-haul fleet. American invited Boeing to make a counter-offer. Boeing realized it needed to act fast, and offered what would become the MAX.

A senior Boeing executive said late Sunday the MAX was the company’s clear choice from options including a new airplane or a re-engine of the 737 NG. “The decision had to offer the best value to customers, including operating economics as well as timing, which was clearly a strong factor,” this executive said, noting the company embarked on a six-year, consistent and methodical development program.

American eventually bought 260 Airbus planes and agreed to take 200 upgraded 737s from Boeing.

I bet Boeing now dearly wish they'd gone with the clean sheet design instead.

Because of a software bug?
 
sferrin said:
Because of a software bug?
Because of this:
MCAS was introduced to counteract the pitch up effect of the LEAP-1B engines at high AoA. The engines were both larger and relocated slightly up and forward from the previous NG CFM56-7 engines to accomodate their larger diameter. This new location and size of the nacelle causes it to produce lift at high AoA; as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this causes a pitch-up effect which could in turn further increase the AoA and send the aircraft closer towards the stall. MCAS was therefore introduced to give an automatic nose down stabilizer input during steep turns with elevated load factors (high AoA) and during flaps up flight at airspeeds approaching stall.

On the face of it this seems like a sensible, beneficial system. However following the accident to Lion Air MAX-8 PK-LQP on 29 October 2018, shortly after take-off, in which it appears that the Captains AoA sensor was faulty, it is believed that the MCAS used this erroneous AoA data to command nose down stabiliser which was not counteracted sucessfully by the crew until the aircraft impacted the water.

Boeing have been working on a software modification to MCAS since the Lion Air accident. Unfortunately although originally due for release in January it has still not been released due to both engineering challenges and differences of opinion among some federal and company safety experts over how extensive the changes should be. Apparently there have been discussions about potentially adding enhanced pilot training and possibly mandatory cockpit alerts to the package. There also has been consideration of more-sweeping design changes that would prevent faulty signals from a single sensor from touching off the automated stall-prevention system.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14158.msg347564.html#msg347564
http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm

mboeller said:
I have just read this Seattle times article about the crashes:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/

I think this article gives a very good summary about the subject.
From the Seattle Times piece:
Going against a long Boeing tradition of giving the pilot complete control of the aircraft, the MAX’s new MCAS automatic flight control system was designed to act in the background, without pilot input.

It was needed because the MAX’s much larger engines had to be placed farther forward on the wing, changing the airframe’s aerodynamic lift.

Designed to activate automatically only in the extreme flight situation of a high-speed stall, this extra kick downward of the nose would make the plane feel the same to a pilot as the older-model 737s.
[...]
The original Boeing document provided to the FAA included a description specifying a limit to how much the system could move the horizontal tail — a limit of 0.6 degrees, out of a physical maximum of just less than 5 degrees of nose-down movement.

That limit was later increased after flight tests showed that a more powerful movement of the tail was required to avert a high-speed stall, when the plane is in danger of losing lift and spiraling down.


The behavior of a plane in a high angle-of-attack stall is difficult to model in advance purely by analysis and so, as test pilots work through stall-recovery routines during flight tests on a new airplane, it’s not uncommon to tweak the control software to refine the jet’s performance.

After the Lion Air Flight 610 crash, Boeing for the first time provided to airlines details about MCAS. Boeing’s bulletin to the airlines stated that the limit of MCAS’s command was 2.5 degrees.

That number was new to FAA engineers who had seen 0.6 degrees in the safety assessment.

“The FAA believed the airplane was designed to the 0.6 limit, and that’s what the foreign regulatory authorities thought, too,” said an FAA engineer. “It makes a difference in your assessment of the hazard involved.”

The higher limit meant that each time MCAS was triggered, it caused a much greater movement of the tail than was specified in that original safety analysis document.
 
This new location and size of the nacelle causes it to produce lift at high AoA; as the nacelle is ahead of the CofG this causes a pitch-up effect

First: sorry if I am stepping in awkwardly. I didn't read much of your post, lacking the energy to do so(not in anyway related to your text).

Then, you'll have to understand that there is no insurmountable effect with the presence of engine nacelle. OK, if you are flying a DR400 fitted with such engines podded under the wings... maybe (but you'd look so stupidly happy...).

But a 737 wouldn't see this. The pitch-up phenomena described by you is just a small effect coming as a consequence of the pitch-up momentum from having an swept wing. Big engine nacelle won't pitch your nose up to the way a trim tab couldn't compensate.

So, please, let's put aside this wrong assumption now. All that is written on internet doesn't have more sense than making $. And we still can't fly green paper... ???
 
TomcatViP said:
But a 737 wouldn't see this. The pitch-up phenomena described by you is just a small effect coming as a consequence of the pitch-up momentum from having an swept wing. Big engine nacelle won't pitch your nose up to the way a trim tab couldn't compensate.

Pitch-up momentum of a swept wing? not sure i understand...are you referring to swept wings pitching up if stall starts at the tips first?

The article talks about the additional lift coming from having the larger area of the new fan cowlings ahead of the wing, compared to older models, which intuitively makes sense to me. They act like a flying surface ahead of the cg, so produce nose up when flying at high alpha.
It's also worth mentioning that if the thrust line of the engines has been lowered, that will also produce a pitch-up with throttle application (although TBH i do not know for the latter if that is indeed the case).
I think in the end this will be fixed by a combination of software, sensor redundancy, and training. I would be surprised if the dynamics of the vehicle had deteriorated beyond remedy by the limited extent of the modifications introduced with the MAX.
That is not to say that Boeing has messed up badly. How can a flight critical system be designed such that it is susceptible to a single-string failure?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom