UAL T38 Phlyer

I'm just passing along stuff I found on the web. Boeing said at Paris they wanted to make it double-aisle in the cabin, but standard narrow-body below (for cargo pods). This illustration shows it could be either.

I thought that would make a bizarre cross-section, but now I see what they were driving at. Oval cross section; narrow for the AKH pod, but wide enough you could go dual-aisle.

Here's a thought: what if First/business was dual, with coach as a single? Transition point would be a galley area.

Boeing has acknowledged the wider tube means more drag, but they are trying to offset it partially with the narrower belly, a composite fuselage, and other refinements. It makes me wonder if they could area-rule it by contouring the fuselage below the floor deck, instead of just being a standard straight tube.

As far as giving a 3-3 arrangement one extra inch or so: that's the Bus. The fuselage is 6 inches wider than a narrow-body Boeing.

While turn-time for United has never been leading edge, a dual aisle---and containerized baggage---could allow faster turns, meaning longer daily utilizations...which is effectively capital in the bank.

Interesting point: articles I read said Rolls is a primary contender, with a Geared Fan engine. Delaying the 350 buy....could it be a way to roll the inescapable engine contract into a contract for a different Rolls engine?

Probe

This has been my guess for a couple of years. Gets rid of the 50+ year old guppy, and a real, better replacement for the 757. Low risk.

I would be shocked if it was as wide as a 320, and there is no way it will be wider.

Boeing sells over 80% of new 777's with 10 across seating because that is what the market wants. Airbus couldn't take it anymore, and is selling a lot of 330's 9 across instead of 8. I have been on a couple. It sucks. The public wants cheap seats. Giving them extra space, when they don't pay a dime more for that space, doesn't make business sense.

oldmako

Well sorta...

If brand X airline really really wanted to, they could advertise how much larger their seats are, how much more leg room there is in their coach section and directly compare it to brands Y and Z. And they could charge more, and get more but only if the differences were worth it. It would take significant effort and advertising dollars. But at some point the cheap, tiny slices of pizza could become a liability. But only if, larger slices were offered by the competition.

Not everyone is a cheap ***. Mercedes, BMW and Lexus sell a hell of a lot of cars. Giant SUV's and $50K pickups roam the land. A night at a nice hotel is easily 200 bucks. Designer pints of ale are ten bucks. But people have to be convinced that they are paying for something. In this case, space for their big (posterior selves). I don't think that todays airline execs really care. As long as they can rake in profits in the Billions, why fix anything? They just want to stay out of the headlines during their short tenure and then move on to a life of leisure.

Pat Patterson, Bob Six, Juan Trippe, Howard Huges, etc would likely never make it in today's airline world because their ideas would be deemed too reckless and a waste of money.

And now, the scrolling wheel of pricing on the web search engine won't support it.

DashTrash

I've said this before. Boeing should develop the concept of the XWNB (Extra Wide Narrow Body). Fuselage diameter between the Guppy/757 and 767. Twin aisle and 2x2x2 seating in coach. No dreaded middle seat! Overhead bins in the center for extra bag room and then you don't waste time checking as many bags. The twin aisle would decrease turn times and increase the amount of segments each airframe could fly. Just my $0.02...

N6279P

Such a fantasy plane would not make the airline any money.

CLazarus

I'd love 2x2x2 seating, but I agree with many who say it will never happen (and I think 2x3x2 is also unlikely). The reason 2x4x2 is a potential winner is no one is ever more than one seat away from an aisle. Think of how fast you could take your bag out of an overhead and exit. If you are flying by yourself in one of those dreaded middle seats the odds are half decent the other middle seat might be unoccupied, so middle seaters of size might at least be able to raise the armrest and spill over a bit.

For those who keep insisting on a traditional NB fuselage tube because anything else has too much drag, take a look at the Lockheed HWB and BA BWB concepts below. I'm not saying those specific concepts are gonna end up on a passenger airliner, but they get a tremendous amount of lift from their fuselages. I think BA is gonna find a way to get a decent amount of lift from the 797 fuselage and keep the wings thinner as a result, so the extra drag might be negligible. Oh, and I'm also wondering if BA will do away with the traditional rudder/horizontal stab setup and replace them with a pair of canted "stabilators" - obviously depends on how much rudder authority they can provide.

A Closer Look At NASA?s Options For Large-Scale X-Planes | Aircraft Design content from Aviation Week

CALFO

I'm thinking the future Boeing concept should be two 737-900's welded together with a common wing. Somewhat similar to a P-39. It would be foolish to entirely reinvent the wheel when the 737 is already so advanced. Look out SWA, here comes your wide body.

ItnStln

Nice, thanks!
Are the first two from Boeing, or something that someone made in Photoshop?

UAL T38 Phlyer

Not sure; if not Boeing, then some industry journal.

The last one is from some flight-sim game that someone posted.

M5000

All of this talk is great. The real question is what SWA wants because they’ll be the launch customer when they announce service to Europe.