New narrowbodies before 2022

Tu-204 is the only manufacturer left in the 757 niche, or what is left of the niche. And they are developing the Tu-204SM.

The TU-204 gets no where near the 757 except in the number of seats they’ve crammed into it.

But B707, 727, 737 and 757 use the same fuselage, which dimensions were set in the late 1950ies. It was OK back then, but airlines demand more today. The B757 was a good aircraft, but sales don’t lie and the fact that the single aisles cashed it big sales while the B757 was discontinued speaks for itself.

Rose tinted tosh.
Why are you comparing it to the 737/A320 sales to justify your argument?
We all know the 757 cannot be compared to them in that way. It was not designed for the same markets. The 757 was designed to replace the 727 and it did that.
Sales do not lie, that is very true. So you must concede that with nigh on 1000 units sold, I think the 757 proved it was the right aircraft at the right time for the right market.

In the list in the beginning, I missed An-148. It is now in service, and enjoys firm orders to the stretch version An-158.

A high-wing aircraft designed from a military transporter is the worst you can get. Some people might find it interesting, but airlines apparently not. No big name under the customers, and they just delivered the first aircraft, after achieving first flight in 2004.
Ilyushin Finance and this funny Iranian conglomerate HESA make 80% of the orders.

Can I just ask, and this is a very genuine question, why you so frequently compare fuselage dimensions in some way? I ask because I want to understand the point you’re getting at as it seems regardless of the subject of the thread, you end up comparing the sizes of aircraft and I can not for the life in me really see how the cabin height of the DC-9 relates to Airbus not making a new widebody for a few years. :confused:

New narrowbody. That is important.

Comparing fuselage dimensions is one major point of comparison which neither airline nor aircraft manufacturer can change easily. It can be done – Mitsubishi expanded MRJ fuselage to 276 cm cabin width, but this was 4 years before planned EIS and delayed it by half a year. But during the life of an aircraft model, it is almost set in stone. Boeing 737 still has the 1958 cabin width of 707, and shall have it in 2024.

The cabin height of DC-9? I recalled the stretched MD-80/MD-90 series. Up to 187 passengers, and a serious competitor to Boeing 737 and Airbus 320.

What are the chances of Bombardier producing a stretched Cseries? Well, the smaller fuselage of Cseries would put Cseries to a certain disadvantage compared to 737/320, just like the small fuselage was a disadvantage of MD-80/90. But since the Cseries fuselage is bigger than that of MD-80/90, it suffers less of a disadvantage.

In the list in the beginning, I missed An-148. It is now in service, and enjoys firm orders to the stretch version An-158.

Damn, the EIS moves closer to my retirement.

Before 2024 now

Neither Airbus nor Boeing can move before 2024:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/17/332442/no-a320-replacement-until-2024-airbus.html

I don’t see that the Boeing and Airbus positions change much – Cseries stands a chance of making something, but not many of the rest as most airlines will go with slightly older designs from proven manufacturers rather than buy “riskier” solutions like the SSJ and ARJ (the designs may end up being proven but there’s still a perceived risk in support and supply chain – and consider that Aviastar couldn’t sell the TU204 even with Rollers and western avionics).

Despite the recession and the potential cancellations that might bring, the order backlog on A320/737 families will keep the lines moving until the new types ramp up, and those backlogs and the lack of really credible alternatives suggest the current types will keep most airlines happy during that period too.

The mid-/long-haul 200-sh seater (i.e. 757 replacement) may be a gap in the market (and the recession might increase its importance a bit versus the larger options currently available), but at present I think the market is too limited to justify manufacturer investment.

The same niche also includes A310 and B767, from 767-200 to 767-400. Oh, and DC-8-61 and -63.

Theoretically, but both airliners are dominantly used for long range service. The B767 is replaced by B787-8.

It has been launched and it has been sold. ANA continues to hold 25 firm orders. (JAL has cancelled theirs)

ANA is in the position of getting to be the sole world operator of two airplane types (787-3 and MRJ). Let´s see what is the more efficient plane.

If ANA makes a firm order, pays deposit and progress payments, but then cancels without good reason (such as Boeing´s failure to deliver on promised time or with promised performance), ANA loses their deposits, and Boeing earns money without selling any planes. However, ANA pays their deposits, keeps them with Boeing, and Boeing then cancels the airplane, is Boeing discharged by merely refunding the deposits? Or does Boeing have to compensate the customers over and above the refund of deposits?

The design of a new wing costs several hundred million to one billion USD. For 25 orders Boeing will not commit, and ANA would go for a normal -8 with somehow less attractive cash operating costs.
That of 860 orders only 25 are for the -3 indicates two things: either no-one wants it, or Boeing is not offering it any more but retains the orders from ANA as road kill.

Comparing MRJ versus and B787-3 is like comparing apples with … pumpkins.

I am not disputing that there is the need for a B757 replacement. I actually think there is a dire need for an aircraft that can hold around 200-220 people comfortably. Such a design needs to replace B757s, but also A300-600s.

The same niche also includes A310 and B767, from 767-200 to 767-400. Oh, and DC-8-61 and -63.

The problem is that for such capacity a single aisle is too small and a widebody too large, it is a compromise. And airlines don’t like this segment much. The B787-3 was aimed at that marked, but didn’t sell and I doubt it will ever be launched. We’ll see which concepts are proposed to the airlines.

It has been launched and it has been sold. ANA continues to hold 25 firm orders. (JAL has cancelled theirs)

ANA is in the position of getting to be the sole world operator of two airplane types (787-3 and MRJ). Let´s see what is the more efficient plane.

If ANA makes a firm order, pays deposit and progress payments, but then cancels without good reason (such as Boeing´s failure to deliver on promised time or with promised performance), ANA loses their deposits, and Boeing earns money without selling any planes. However, ANA pays their deposits, keeps them with Boeing, and Boeing then cancels the airplane, is Boeing discharged by merely refunding the deposits? Or does Boeing have to compensate the customers over and above the refund of deposits?

?????
The 757 was designed to replace the 727-200…but hardly a 50s fuselage.
Not even the 727 had that.

But B707, 727, 737 and 757 use the same fuselage, which dimensions were set in the late 1950ies. It was OK back then, but airlines demand more today. The B757 was a good aircraft, but sales don’t lie and the fact that the single aisles cashed it big sales while the B757 was discontinued speaks for itself.

I disagree, I think there is going to be a real need for a proper B757 replacement – whether this is part of the A320/B737 replacement remains to be seen. On that note, I think the replacement of those aircraft wil be split into two – 130-180 seats and 180-230 seats. I doubt the B787 will be used current niche routes that the B757 are used on, but there may be a niche market for a re-winged A321 – or B739 – until a definitive A320/B737/B757 replacement is found.

I am not disputing that there is the need for a B757 replacement. I actually think there is a dire need for an aircraft that can hold around 200-220 people comfortably. Such a design needs to replace B757s, but also A300-600s. The problem is that for such capacity a single aisle is too small and a widebody too large, it is a compromise. And airlines don’t like this segment much. The B787-3 was aimed at that marked, but didn’t sell and I doubt it will ever be launched. We’ll see which concepts are proposed to the airlines.

Airbus has the advantage that its A320 family has the optimum fuselage diameter, there ain’t much to change and only limited point in making it composite (you don’t save much weight but add headache). A re-winged A320 family using P&W GTF is a possible solution, especially as it would be a good stop-gap until 2020.

Sukhoi Superjet has a double bubble fuselage, with cabin 212 cm high floor to ceiling, and belly hold 102 cm high. For comparison, the double bubble fuselage of DC-9 has cabin 205 cm high and belly hold 99 cm high.

DC-9 could be and was stretched as far as MD-90. However, it got a new wing.

Can I just ask, and this is a very genuine question, why you so frequently compare fuselage dimensions in some way? I ask because I want to understand the point you’re getting at as it seems regardless of the subject of the thread, you end up comparing the sizes of aircraft and I can not for the life in me really see how the cabin height of the DC-9 relates to Airbus not making a new widebody for a few years. :confused:

Paul

Considering wing load and fuselage dimensions, both have definitive limits. There is not so much fantasy in it.

Sukhoi Superjet has a double bubble fuselage, with cabin 212 cm high floor to ceiling, and belly hold 102 cm high. For comparison, the double bubble fuselage of DC-9 has cabin 205 cm high and belly hold 99 cm high.

DC-9 could be and was stretched as far as MD-90. However, it got a new wing.

The B757 suffers from the late 1950ies fuselage, which sets clear limits on its attractiveness.

?????
The 757 was designed to replace the 727-200…but hardly a 50s fuselage.
Not even the 727 had that.

What about a rewinged A321, ideal B757 replacement!

If you are really looking for an aircraft anchored around 200 Pax, you need to consider turn-around times. That becomes a prohibitive factor above 160 Pax in standard airline config (no EayJet). Other factors like undesirable fuselage length and flexibility become a factor. The B757 suffers from the late 1950ies fuselage, which sets clear limits on its attractiveness.

The A321 and B737-900 are rather stop-gab solutions, especially Boeing never really gave a sh#t on its -900 until a few years ago.
The A321 is long-time favorite on short range trunk routes. It replaces the A300-600 at Lufthansa (while it is not really a replacement).

I don’t think this forum has the ability to discuss it, the lack of specific knowledge and experience becomes apparent in each thread. Really, you need some basics on aircraft design, and the trades involved. Not a layman’s task.

Agreed. As I said on a C-17 thread a couple of days ago…

Me? I know just enough to know I don’t know enough. 😀

Why develop anything for the short term?
If Boeing and Airbus are going to introduce more efficient transports in “just” 10-12 years, why would anyone buy a less efficient AC as a stop gap?

It’s not like any of the new players (Brazil, Canada, China, Russia) are going to leapfrog the big guys with new airframe or engine technology.

Just wait until 2020 and the new technologies will be in a range of narrowbodies….just in time to replace existing fleets of late model 737s & A320 series planes.

Especially, as on the short legs, fuel consumption doesn’t really matter.

The topic of the next single aisle is really a big one. I don’t think this forum has the ability to discuss it, the lack of specific knowledge and experience becomes apparent in each thread. Really, you need some basics on aircraft design, and the trades involved. Not a layman’s task.

Definitely expect variants of the SSJ and MRJ.

I won’t put the MRJ out of contention so quickly, i know aty least 2 airlines in India itself who are looking at the MRJ seriously for future fleet plans.

And as far as India goes, we won’t be heading anywhere substantial in civil aviation products for at least a decade or so.

Considering wing load and fuselage dimensions, both have definitive limits. There is not so much fantasy in it.

Why develop anything for the short term?
If Boeing and Airbus are going to introduce more efficient transports in “just” 10-12 years, why would anyone buy a less efficient AC as a stop gap?

It’s not like any of the new players (Brazil, Canada, China, Russia) are going to leapfrog the big guys with new airframe or engine technology.

Just wait until 2020 and the new technologies will be in a range of narrowbodies….just in time to replace existing fleets of late model 737s & A320 series planes.

Definitely expect variants of the SSJ and MRJ.

I won’t put the MRJ out of contention so quickly, i know aty least 2 airlines in India itself who are looking at the MRJ seriously for future fleet plans.

And as far as India goes, we won’t be heading anywhere substantial in civil aviation products for at least a decade or so.

Ain’t it funny that the B757, which was the last standardbody aircraft of Boeing, and the previous one survived it.

Not so funny. The stretched 737s about match the passenger seats of a 757.
So why not rationalize production with one type?
They needed the extra capacity for 737 production at the same factory plus its attractive to airlines so they can operate just one ac.

I’d think that the long range small capacity is a rather small market. Boeing probably thought the existing 757s would suit the demands of the trade for awhile. The next generation narrowbody will surely have a LR variant.

B757 is out of production, and out of development. Which means that a newbuilt Tu-204SM is a much better alternative to an old 757 than a Tu-204 was to a new 757.

Who would be so lost and desperate to have these funny Russian engines under his wing?
I rather take a used B757 any time over the 1to1 copy of the Russians.
As we can see, most airlines see it the same way.
Buying a Tu204 is like paying for scrap metal.

As for A321, it has never matched the MTOW of 757, nor range. Since there is no new narrowbody from Airbus nor Boeing before 2022, it seems that Airbus is not going for a new wing to an A320 757 replacement either.

The A321 does make 2500nm with full passenger load.
So for those sectors, the A321 perfectly matches the B757.

Guess why the B757 is out of production?
Ain’t it funny that the B757, which was the last standardbody aircraft of Boeing, and the previous one survived it.