Read the forum code of contact
By: - 10th February 2011 at 20:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never going to re-engine the 737? Quite incorrect.
CFM were quoted saying they could fit an engine under the wing and deliver the same by pass ratio and fuel economy of the projected A320NEO figures.
And there is plenty evidence out there to show Boeing were considering the idea.
By: - 10th February 2011 at 20:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never going to re-engine the 737? Quite incorrect.
Sorry, that was my opinion - not meant as fact. :o
By: - 11th February 2011 at 11:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder what the timeframe will be for this new project. I would have thought that with things as they presently are at Boeing, attaching new engines to the 737 airframe would be the best option at this time. I wonder if the powers that be at Boeing have decided that the 737 is all 'tweaked out' and that the all new design is the way to go.
By: - 11th February 2011 at 11:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here is something I drew up some months back.
My vision of a 737 replacement, a mini 787 (in terms of aerodynamic form)
This is equivalent to the 737-800 model
By: - 11th February 2011 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've always really liked the graphics you do, Sandy, and that looks damned good!
By: - 11th February 2011 at 11:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
must be quite a risk to take
as they will need to stop 737 production soon after i comes into service, and i am sure the cost of 7?7 will be a lot more than a 787-800.
mr graphics man could you conjour up an image of a 737 with a 757 undercarrage, then they could fit any engine the like!!!!!
imagine with a 787 engine they could market it as 737-GTI
By: - 12th February 2011 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 797 ?
By: - 13th February 2011 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 797 ?
I wouldn't be too surprised to see them drop (at least for this plane) the 7-7 designations.
I predict something with an eco/green theme....along the lines of "Dreamliner".
By: - 13th February 2011 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 'Greenliner', perhaps? ;)
By: - 13th February 2011 at 18:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing 808 ?
By: - 14th February 2011 at 06:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doubt it. Mazda used to sell a little car in New Zealand in the 1970's called the Mazda 808. I suppose they must still have the rights.
I reckon the 'Stratoliner 2', after the fifties prop-liner, would be better.
By: - 15th February 2011 at 03:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doubt it. Mazda used to sell a little car in New Zealand in the 1970's called the Mazda 808. I suppose they must still have the rights.
I reckon the 'Stratoliner 2', after the fifties prop-liner, would be better.
Are you stating that Mazda could actually buy the rights to the number "808"... :confused:
By: - 15th February 2011 at 06:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. One of the major European car companies - I can't remember which - got into a lot of bother for proposing to name a car with a 3-number code with a zero in the middle but found that Peugeot had licensed all such numbers, e.g. 307, for their own use in Europe. The Mazda 808 was called something else in Europe for that reason - the 818, if my memory serves me correctly.
I suppose you could argue that very few people are going to confuse a new Boeing airliner with a seventies Mazda, but I'm not sure the lawyers would see it like that.
Stupid, I know.
By: - 15th February 2011 at 07:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But trademarks such as product titles are applied for within given fields of commerce, e.g. cars or airplanes.
I doubt Boeing has applied to trade-mark the number 787 within the lawn-mower market, for example.
As a direct example, Roland marketed drum synthesizers under the names 808 and 707 which obviously overlaps with previous Boeing and Mazda products.Only if you are competing in a market which could potentially cause ´confusion´ can a trademark be asserted. Cars don´t fly.
By: - 15th February 2011 at 09:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok. I stand corrected.
Even so, 'Boeing 808' just doesn't sound right, in much the same way as 'Mazda Dreamliner' wouldn't.
By: - 16th February 2011 at 01:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok. I stand corrected.Or Nissan Skyliner? ;-)
Even so, 'Boeing 808' just doesn't sound right, in much the same way as 'Mazda Dreamliner' wouldn't.
...Personally, I see nothing wrong with 797, though that´s the last available in that series obviously.
By: - 17th February 2011 at 12:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've always really liked the graphics you do, Sandy, and that looks damned good!
Thank you :)
...mr graphics man could you conjour up an image of a 737 with a 757 undercarrage, then they could fit any engine the like!!!!
I could do a little photo manipulation for sure :)
Might take a day or too to get it uploaded here as my internet connection at home is sporadic at best.
By: - 17th February 2011 at 12:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...Personally, I see nothing wrong with 797, though that´s the last available in that series obviously.
What's wrong with the Boeing 7107?
Peugeot did it with the 1007 (Sorry, One-thousand-and-seven. you can't say "One-double-oh-seven" for obvious reasons pertaining to a series of movies)
By: - 18th February 2011 at 06:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I still reckon a name like Stratoliner or Stratocruiser would be best. It would invoke memories of those wonderful fifties propliners.
I assume Boeing would not be allowed to use the name Constellation.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 10th February 2011 at 20:02
Interesting! They had no choice, they were never going to re-engine the B737.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/02/boeing-ceo-jim-mcnerney-were-g.html