1337Delta764 From United States, joined Oct 2005, 2669 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1773 times:
Does anyone think they know what to expect on the 737RS? I know it is widely expected to have a composite fuselage, a wider cabin, and larger, more powerful engines. The common questions are how wide the cabin should be, and how the design of the aircraft should be. Some have suggested a 3--3 cabin or a 2-2-2 cabin. For the design, some claim that the aircraft should have rear-mounted engines and a T-tail for the aircraft doesn't have to increase in height. Others have suggested to use wing-mounted engines and a conventional tail with a higher landing gear like the 757, as they suggest that T-tails are more complex and require more maintenence. A third possibilty often discussed is to use a high wing design.
787engineer From United States, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter): Some have suggested a 3--3 cabin or a 2-2-2 cabin. For the design, some claim that the aircraft should have rear-mounted engines and a T-tail for the aircraft doesn't have to increase in height.
While I think we would all love to see a 2-2-2 aircraft, I doubt either A or B would build a 2-2-2 A320/737 replacement. It's just more efficient to have it 3-3, easier for serving meals, easier getting on and off the plane, and a little more fuel efficient (smaller cross-section). I don't think the 737RS will be a rear-mounted T-tail since the newer engines have increasingly large fans and bypass ratio, it might be hard to fit the engines back there. The 737RS will most likely have taller landing gear like the 757 and A320.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1): It will be twin engined under wing (most efficient aerodynamically).
How is an under-wing engine more aerodynamically efficient than a rear-mounted engine plane? With a "clean" wing the wing itself becomes more efficient aerodynamically. Structurally the under-wing engine is probably more efficient since you're essentially span-wise loading the wing.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 12605 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
I imagine it will be wide enough to hold an LD3 like the A320 can. As for fueselage size, this is kinda tough.
2+2+2 with three sets of overhead bins would probably appeal greatly to LCCs as it makes embarking and disembarking passengers much quicker and easier (no middles and ample overhead space), which would improve turns. And 2+1+2 domestic First would appeal to the majors.
The trick is can Boeing get the weight down enough via CFRP to make the CASM competitive with the A320E. And CFRP should allow a plane as long as a 757-200 to address that market. And a 757-200-sized plane with 4000nm range allowing 1+1+1 in First and 2+1+2 in Business could be popular on trans-Atlantic and intra-Asia routes between secondary city pairs.
I do believe there will be two wing sizes, but I wonder if Boeing can tailor them to mission more then payload?
A wing optimized for shorthaul travel that could handle both a 150-seat 73G and 200-seat 739-sized plane.
A wing optimized for long haul that could handle a 175-seat 738 and 225-seat 752-sized plane.
That might appeal to airlines more then a wing designed for raw payload - one for a 73G/738-sized plane (150-175 seat) and one for a 739/752-sized plane (200-225 seat) - that would be inefficient either at short range or long range.
To the passengers: Just another 737 full of narrow seats set very close to together. Tiny lavs, overstuffed overhead bins. In short, very little from what we are riding in now.
1337Delta764 From United States, joined Oct 2005, 2669 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
I am not sure if the airline industry is ready for designs like those. I don't think that unducted fans will be used either. Remember the concept for the 787 had the shark-tail? Boeing abandoned that design because it was untested. BTW, tail-mounted engines, along with a T-tail, are more difficult to mantain. I personally believe that the best option is to stick with wing-mounted engines and a conventional tail. The landing gear should be about the height of the 757 to support the larger engines. The aircraft should be more fuel efficient than the 737, but have a cruise speed similar to that of the 777 or even the 787. The 737 got more fuel efficient as it matured, yet got speed boosts twice.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Oct 2005, 2669 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8240 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
