Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JustanotherPilot

Boeing 797 Launch...Maybe?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

And the 737NG debacle is just starting to unfold...

Debacle? Because 13 jets have been grounded for repairs?


Microsoft Flight Simulator | PMDG 737 for MSFS | Fenix A320 | www.united-virtual.com | www.virtual-aal.com | Ryzen 9 7950X3D | Kingston Fury Renegade 32 GB | RTX 3090 MSI Suprim X | Windows 11 Pro | HP Reverb G2 VR HMD

Share this post


Link to post

The latest estimate is that at least 5% of the worldwide NG fleet is affected.

Share this post


Link to post

Boeing are having a boardroom re-shuffle and are in DC soon for tough questioning.


 

Raymond Fry.

PMDG_Banner_747_Enthusiast.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Cracks in the NG and the first generation are nothing new. When you have a short haul with that many cycles in one day this causes cracks over time. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was because of this and they have known that ever since. 13 out of the 4500 in service with some cracks is normal to be honest considering the amount of use this aircraft gets. They are far more vigilant about this issue then they were back in the 80s and this issue has been known for decades now. These new cracks are in the wing area that join to the aircraft which was supposed to be good for 90,000 cycles, a very small number of aircraft are showing premature cracking out of the large majority.

Edited by Matthew Kane
  • Upvote 1

Matthew Kane

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/12/2019 at 11:44 AM, rjfry said:

Boeing are having a boardroom re-shuffle and are in DC soon for tough questioning.

nothing will happen to boeing, i can promise you.


 
 
 
 
14ppkc-6.png
  913456

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Cracks in the NG and the first generation are nothing new. When you have a short haul with that many cycles in one day this causes cracks over time. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was because of this and they have known that ever since. 13 out of the 4500 in service with some cracks is normal to be honest considering the amount of use this aircraft gets. They are far more vigilant about this issue then they were back in the 80s and this issue has been known for decades now. These new cracks are in the wing area that join to the aircraft which was supposed to be good for 90,000 cycles, a very small number of aircraft are showing premature cracking out of the large majority.

This guy gets it, 

ive lost count of how many times Ive seen an aircraft on the "AOG Board" at work with "crack, needs inspection/crass, awaiting boeing"   and thats on the jumbo

Edited by fluffyflops

 
 
 
 
14ppkc-6.png
  913456

Share this post


Link to post

Europe will not clear the MAX until it`s pilot`s have tested the plane say the EASA .


 

Raymond Fry.

PMDG_Banner_747_Enthusiast.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Cracks in the NG and the first generation are nothing new. When you have a short haul with that many cycles in one day this causes cracks over time. Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was because of this and they have known that ever since. 13 out of the 4500 in service with some cracks is normal to be honest considering the amount of use this aircraft gets. They are far more vigilant about this issue then they were back in the 80s and this issue has been known for decades now. These new cracks are in the wing area that join to the aircraft which was supposed to be good for 90,000 cycles, a very small number of aircraft are showing premature cracking out of the large majority.

That's wrong according to engineers and industry insiders on other aviation sites.

The part, 'pickle fork', is supposed to be a part that lasts the lifetime of the airframe as it is a critical piece, connecting the wing to the fuselage.

The issue was only discovered by accident during pax 2 freighter conversions and seems to be caused by retrofitting winglets. The cause for concern is that cracks are apperaing after only 1/3 of the lifetime cycles.

It's now above 5% of the total worldwide 737NG fleet and is a big issue as it's not an easy area of the aircraft to inspect.

Edited by F737NG
Typos

AMD Ryzen 5800X3D; MSI RTX 3080 Ti VENTUS 3X; 32GB Corsair 3200 MHz; ASUS VG35VQ 35" (3440 x 1440)
Fulcrum One yoke; Thrustmaster TCA Captain Pack Airbus edition; MFG Crosswind rudder pedals; CPFlight MCP 737; Logitech FIP x3; TrackIR

MSFS; Fenix A320; A2A PA-24; HPG H145; PMDG 737-600; AIG; RealTraffic; PSXTraffic; FSiPanel; REX AccuSeason Adv; FSDT GSX Pro; FS2Crew RAAS Pro; FS-ATC Chatter

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, F737NG said:

That's wrong according to engineers and industry insiders on other aviation sites.

The pickle forks are rated for 90,000 cycles and they are failing on some at or around 30,000 cycles. Nothing is really 'Lifetime' as that can always change with the age of the product. Reasons this recall could be

1. Fault in the assembly process, ie wrong torque on assembly causing extra stress etc

2. The alloy used in a batch wasn't up to standard, which wouldn't cover the entire fleet but that batch of parts that may have failed.

None of this can be confirmed for some time. It doesn't look fleet wide at this point as a more isolated event. They are taking the precautions which is good.

Lots of people saying lots of things online and that is fine. I would rather narrow it down rather than the broad speculation that these forums can bring. I'm just going to focus in the things that makes most sense until Boeing can determine this for themselves. Until then their is no right or wrong, just looking at the facts available. 

 

Edited by Matthew Kane

Matthew Kane

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

The pickle forks are rated for 90,000 cycles and they are failing on some at or around 30,000 cycles. Nothing is really 'Lifetime' as that can always change with the age of the product. Reasons this recall could be

1. Fault in the assembly process, ie wrong torque on assembly causing extra stress etc

2. The alloy used in a batch wasn't up to standard, which wouldn't cover the entire fleet but that batch of parts that may have failed.

None of this can be confirmed for some time. It doesn't look fleet wide at this point as a more isolated event. They are taking the precautions which is good.

How can it be an isolated event when multiple airlines across different continents are affected? Over 5% of tested 737NG are showing a problem. A lot of airframes remain untested at this stage.

Of course they're taking precautions. Another 737-shaped hole in the ground would almost certainly bring Boeing to its knees.

The concern is that this safety critical part was found to be showing damage at 1/3 of its life expectancy and even then it was discovered by accident.

On 10/3/2019 at 4:46 AM, JustanotherPilot said:

I hope Boeing don't miss the boat with the release of the 797, the MAX debacle has really put them behind and it would appear Airbus A320/A321 NEO and LR/XLR are taking a lot of orders to fill the void. Anyway, the 797 looks promising.

link to AirlineRatings 797 story

With the 797, it looks uncomfortably placed between popular short-haul airframes and long-haul ones. Rather than see this as a gap in the market, it could be described as the 'jack of all trades, master of none' segment. Look at the cluster groupings in the diagram below. There is a gap, but can it be exploited?

F-NMA.jpg


What makes current types very useful is their ability to be flexible and cover a different mission profile relatively efficiently in otherwise downtime.
Airlines can 'abuse' a 777W to do HKG - PEK - HKG carrying pax volume, before a trip to LHR. A 737 can do DUB - BHX - DUB - LRH - DUB - SXF - DUB - MAN - DUB and still have 7 hours downtime for maintenance.

Could a 797 as currently envisaged really turn-around fast enough for more legs or carry enough passengers on fewer legs to justify the extra capital cost of a new type purchase for airlines over and above 'abusing' what they already own / lease cheaply?

Edited by F737NG
Added diagram
  • Like 1

AMD Ryzen 5800X3D; MSI RTX 3080 Ti VENTUS 3X; 32GB Corsair 3200 MHz; ASUS VG35VQ 35" (3440 x 1440)
Fulcrum One yoke; Thrustmaster TCA Captain Pack Airbus edition; MFG Crosswind rudder pedals; CPFlight MCP 737; Logitech FIP x3; TrackIR

MSFS; Fenix A320; A2A PA-24; HPG H145; PMDG 737-600; AIG; RealTraffic; PSXTraffic; FSiPanel; REX AccuSeason Adv; FSDT GSX Pro; FS2Crew RAAS Pro; FS-ATC Chatter

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, F737NG said:

With the 797, it looks uncomfortably placed between popular short-haul airframes and long-haul ones. Rather than see this as a gap in the market, it could be described as the 'jack of all trades, master of none' segment. Look at the cluster groupings in the diagram below. There is a gap, but can it be exploited?

What makes current types very useful is their ability to be flexible and cover a different mission profile relatively efficiently in otherwise downtime.
Airlines can 'abuse' a 777W to do HKG - PEK - HKG carrying pax volume, before a trip to LHR. A 737 can do DUB - BHX - DUB - LRH - DUB - SXF - DUB - MAN - DUB and still have 7 hours downtime for maintenance.
Could a 797 as currently envisaged really turn-around fast enough for more legs or carry enough passengers on fewer legs to justify the extra capital cost of a new type purchase for airlines over and above 'abusing' what they already own / lease cheaply?

My thoughts exactly.  Up until recently, I was an enthusiastic advocate of Boeing developing the 797, but now I'm wondering if it's worth the cost and effort.  Boeing has enough problems with the 737Max, 737NG issues, 767 refueler issues, etc.  The gap in that chart is very narrow, so the 797 would be filling a small niche in the market.  Plus the 787-10 is about to come on line and that will make the gap even smaller.

I read an article recently that stated Boeing is looking into producing a 767-X which would be a "simple" upgrade of the 767-400ER to use new fuel efficient engines.  However, the article also mentioned the requirement for taller landing gear, which brings back frightening memories of the 737Max tragedy and debacle.  There would be no airframe stretch, however, so perhaps no major aerodynamic changes would result.

The 767-X in my opinion is the way to go for several reasons: 1)the 767 is a proven design and so good that the 767-300F is still being produced for Fedex and UPS, 2)the cost to upgrade would be minimal and existing production lines would only need to be modified a bit to produce the plane, 3)it fills the gap nicely between the low capacity short haul and high capacity long haul aircraft, and finally 4)it would free up resources for Boeing to focus on a 737 replacement, i.e. a brand new, clean sheet design which would blow the Airbus A319/20/21 out of the water.

I have little faith in Boeing executives as of late, however, so I'm not confident they'll make the right decision(which may not be my suggestion - after all, these guys are supposed to be the experts, right?).

 

Dave

  • Upvote 1

Simulator: P3Dv5.4

System Specs: Intel i7 13700K CPU, MSI Mag Z790 Tomahawk Motherboard, 32GB DDR5 6000MHz RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Video Card, 3x 1TB Samsung 980 Pro M.2 2280 SSDs, Windows 11 Home OS

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The 767-X in my opinion is the way to go for several reasons:

I agree. The article by the way for anyone interested: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-examines-genx-powered-767-x-for-cargo-and-pa-461386/


Microsoft Flight Simulator | PMDG 737 for MSFS | Fenix A320 | www.united-virtual.com | www.virtual-aal.com | Ryzen 9 7950X3D | Kingston Fury Renegade 32 GB | RTX 3090 MSI Suprim X | Windows 11 Pro | HP Reverb G2 VR HMD

Share this post


Link to post

If they go for 767X, then the 797(NSA) would likely to cover 738 to 752 or even 753 size I guess, because 763/4 is quite big for MOM. and 762X doesn't seems promising to me like B783\B37M and A19N.

Wile I'm big fan of 757Max(see my profile and cover photo😛), 767X seem more reasonable as there are still been produced. also 764 wings and avionics seems more suitable for modern upgrade.

It's worth mention I was surprised 767 engines are actually smaller than PW1000 and LEAP on 320NEO and 737MAX, when I first noticed that on my model collections.

Edited by C2615

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...