Boeing figuring out 757 replacement market

[Foxtrot]

Looks pretty interesting, let's see where this goes.

Source: Aviation Week

[Highkeas]

It would not be a surprise to me if Boeing introduces a blended wing aircraft or other advance configuration aircraft as a 757 replacement. There is research ongoing for such aircraft.

[Gabriel]

It would not be a surprise to me if Boeing introduces a blended wing aircraft or other advance configuration aircraft as a 757 replacement. There is research ongoing for such aircraft.

Well, they had the 787-3 to cover the empty space left by the 757, no? And they cancelled the program with 45 firm orders in the books.

It seems it would make more sense to make a derivative of an existing plane than a whole new platform. After all, they cancelled the 757 due to lack of interest of the airline industry in planes for this segment, and then did the same with the 787-3.

[ConcordeBoy]

There is research ongoing for such aircraft.

Not going to happen. They still can't figure out evacuation procedures for such a design, that would comport to current law. Host of other issues too.

A pax-bearing BWB is still more science-fantasy at this point, than reality. Maybe someday, but no time soon.

Well, they had the 787-3 to cover the empty space left by the 757, no? And they cancelled the program with 45 firm orders in the books.

It's not like they cancelled it with outstanding orders still.

The Japanese concluded that there wouldn't be any real savings from using a dedicated shorthaul 783, versus "abusing" a 788... the weights were just too similar.

At least that way, they had the option of sending the 788 longhaul, should market conditions require it. So they converted their orders. JL first, NH after further consideration.

No orders, no plane.

[Gabriel]

Not going to happen. They still can't figure out evacuation procedures for such a design, that would comport to current law.

Why? Don't you think that 4 full sized exit doors + 2 over wing exit windows would make the trick?

That worked for the 757-300, approved for up to 280 pax.

The current 737-900ER is good for up to 215, with 3 full size + 2 over wing exits.
That compares well to the 757-200 with a max capacity of 228, except that the 37 has a quite shorter range.

By the way, to cramp as many passengers as the above max capacities (limited by evacuation standards) you would need to seat all of them in a single class with a small seat pitch.

The 737 is seriously limited to evolve into a full replacement of the 757, limited by it's landing gear's length, which doesn't allow to put bigger engines.

As I've said before, as a replacement of the 757, the 737 is an airplane that can take fewer passengers and less cargo, slower and not as far, albeit using much less fuel.

[Peter Kesternich]

Looks pretty interesting, let's see where this goes.

Source: Aviation Week

IF this really turns into something, here is my speculation what it could be like (even if Boeing at the moment says it won't be a direct successor to the 757): 757neo - new engines, new nose-section and 787-style cockpit, old wing and fuselage...

[Gabriel]

IF this really turns into something, here is my speculation what it could be like (even if Boeing at the moment says it won't be a direct successor to the 757): 757neo - new engines, new nose-section and 787-style cockpit, old wing and fuselage...

That would be 757max (the name that they are using for the new 737 and 777). "neo" is an Airbus thing for the A320 family.

By the way, I think that, if they do a 757max, it will get new (or updated) wings too. The 737 got updated wings for the NG family, and the 777 is getting new wings for the max family. Proably the control systems would also be updated to something more "fly by wire".

But if the idea is to do a 200/250 seats plane with a range of 7k miles, a downsized 787 would be a better option.

Another option would be a significant derivative of the 737, extending fuselage but also the landing gear to enable bigger fan diameters. Probably it will need a modified wing, not only the structure due to the landing gear and bigger engines, but also a longer wing with more area and more room for fuel too.

This would be a huge modification of the 737, but if they manage to keep it officially a 737, they have a good saving in certification and, most importantly, they will be ready for the next family of "normal" 737s. Boeing was very close to loose the race with Airbus in the last spin (MAX vs neo) due to limitations on the fan size that they could put on a 737 with the current landing gear. Other than the already wired "flat bottom" nacelles and extremely close proximity between the wing and the nacelles, both of which have some small performance penalty, they went to the extreme to lengthen the nose gear to make room between the nacelles and the ground, so they will be sitting somehow nose-high when on the ground. That's the last time that Boeing can walk away with it. Next time it's either a completely new plane or a big modification of the 737. So the investment of theoretical 737-1000 MAX (replacement of the 757) can be used also to extend the life of the whole 737 family for many years.

[ConcordeBoy]

Don't you think that 4 full sized exit doors + 2 over wing exit windows would make the trick?

Don't you think that if it were that simple, they would've figured it out a long time ago?

*********************
Everything you've compared it to, is a tube-with-wings... where a passenger cannot have more than 2 seats between himself and an aisle or window.

A BWB, by its very design, doesn't lend itself to any such specification, without leaving a massive waste of available floor space. So then the question becomes, do you create multiple aisles? If so, how do you evacuate them?

Remember, regulations require pax evacuation in less than 90 seconds, using only 50% of the available exits.

If a BWB ends up on its side... then that'd require some pax to cross 3, 4, maybe even 5 aisles, to evacuate. The FAA/DOT would never in a million years approve that.

So again, what's the solution? Boeing's looked at making ceiling evacuations, or even floor evacuations possible. The obvious problem of course, is how do pax get up/down there in order to reach those exits... especially if the craft ends up on its side or back.

So yeah: these, among many other reasons, are why you wont see pax on a BWB annnnnnny time soon. Cargo perhaps, but not pax.

[Gabriel]

Ooops. Sorry. I completely misread the WBW part. Somehow I thought that you were saying that it was difficult to evacuate a large amount of paxs from a single-aisle plane. All my argumentation was thinking of narrowbodies.

[Peter Kesternich]

That would be 757max (the name that they are using for the new 737 and 777). "neo" is an Airbus thing for the A320 family.

(...)

Thanks, Gabriel, re-reading the post this morning I realized that the "neo" was stupid in this context.
Anyway - I still think that if push comes to shove Boeing will keep the changes to the original 757 to a minimum.