Back to Squawk list
  • 53

Boeing Teases a New Jet that Could Replace 737 MAX

ARLINGTON, TEXAS — Boeing is exploring the possibility of introducing a cutting-edge plane it has been developing alongside NASA into its lineup in the next decade, Boeing's CEO Dave Calhoun confirmed. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Roger Parish 9
Well, no more over-wing emergency exits!
AJ Mesalic 5
Oh sure. Now you exit into a covered "breezeway".
bartmiller 19
I talked with the NASA scientists at their exhibit at Airventure this past summer. I joked that that NASA finally discovered the wing strut. (And they laughed at that.)

We went on to talk for about an hour about this new design, how it enabled a significant reduction in drag and how they turned the traditional draggy wing strut into an effective airfoil. They went on to show me a ton of interesting simulations and wind tunnel results.

It's totally fair to ask if Boeing, in its current structure, can execute a completed design for this technology. And whether they can complete it in a reasonable time. But the underlying technology looks very attractive.

Boeing also had on display, in the main Airventure plaza, their sustainability demonstrator plane. That had a huge variety of interesting efficiency and material sustainability features. Dozens really.

I came away from that feeling better about Boeing. I'm DEFINITELY not a fan of their current management, but they still have a foundation of solid and innovative engineers and scientists working there.
HeissZephyr 8
Nice to see Boeing catching up to the design thinking of Giuseppe Mario Bellanca. Lifting wing struts featured prominently in his early designs. He believed every external feature of the aircraft should contribute lift.
Alan Macdonald 21
Isn't this Boeing receiving government funding (backhanded maybe) but just the same is it not what Boeing and half of Congress were having hissy fits over not too many years back when Airbus received government loans to kick start whatever it was at the time
Jeff Phipps 15
You can add Bombardier to that list, essentially killing the C-Series and driving it into Airbus' arms. Government subsidies are only ok if Boeing is receiving them.
Tim Dyck 2
After the Billions the Canadian Government sank into the C Series Canada didn’t benefit from any manufacturing jobs or economic spin off. Bombardier should be sued into bankruptcy by the Canadian taxpayers. Or better yet the politicians who casually threw money at Bombardier should he sued into poverty for being so willing to waste taxpayers money.
Keith Bjorndahl 7
Actually Tim, it is Boeing and the U.S. Govt that should be sued, as in a fair and open market the return on the CSeries would have been there. As Jeff said, subsidies apparently only ok if they are going to Boeing.
matt jensen 1
Never gonna happen
boughbw 7
So you're complaining that Boeing now doing what its competitor does?
cyberjet 2
Now doing? Boeing has been the benefactor of up front and covert subsidies for decades.
ewrcap 2
Boeing builds military aircraft and sells them to the government. That is not a subsidy, it is a sale. If you were to sell beans for the Army commissary, that doesn’t mean you are being subsidized by the government. It means the government is your customer.
James T 13
"Boeing received a $425 million grant from NASA to develop..."
mbrews 7
The grant might result with a paper airplane, i.e. an airplane on paper (other than the single prototype built to satisfy a NASA contract) ?

OR, has NASA thrown Boeing a type of "make work " contract, aimed at keeping some Boeing designers / analysts employed longer ?
Neil Postlethwaite 4
Or a further spat with Airbus and trade bodies on subsidies.
Sue Lockwood 3
And who funds NASA?
AJ Mesalic 11
Who funds Airbus?
John Nichols 0
The French government. But only 10%
Mathew Thieneman 19
I realize that NASA has continually created technology that changes our daily lives, most of which we're oblivious too, but I have little faith in their ability to drag Boeing's corpse across the finish line here.

Boeing has shown time and time again, that they're no longer an airplane manufacturer but a vehicle to deliver investors short term gains over long term success. Unlike K-Mart, and Sears though, they'll survive, because like the big banks, the Government will never allow them to fail.

This project will never cross the finish line, and we'll be in 2033, talking about the next soon to be cancelled narrow body from Boeing to compete with an Airbus competitor that continues to push Boeing for more and more market share because Boeing simply refuses to compete by producing market demanded aircraft.
ewrcap 2
Boeing is not producing “market demanded aircraft”? Hmm. That explains the thousands of aircraft orders on their books. It’s not like there is a government airline they can force to buy uneconomical impractical aircraft the way the British and French used to do. If you’d like an example of an aircraft that was NOT demanded by the market, look at the A380. Subsidized by the government for LE GLOIRE de FRANCE and to upstage the 747, the $25 BILLION project netted 254 aircraft some of which were junked after 15 years. The 747 production reached 1574 because there was a demand for their aircraft.
21voyageur -2
Agreed. Sounds like Boeing is desperate to find an organization that understands and respects engineering. Are they not, in effect, looking at outsourcing their engineering? Sounds like BIG Government is pulling some strings to assist Boeing. Or is this just another blast of marketing noise from Boeing aimed at increasing stock value while quelling the growing perception that Boeing is a failing commercial aviation entity? Military and defense may be another yet much much smaller story. Just amazing how this Boeing / NASA story gains traction at the same time that Boeing is in a fraud lawsuit by the feds.

Of course, all IMHO.
flyingtrainguy 3
First, the location of the article is incorrect. It should be Arlington, Virginia not Arlington, Texas. While Arlington, Texas would be much better place for Boeing Commercial.

Second, this situation further evidences Boeing has lost its way. This is a Boeing - NASA pipedream funded by the taxpayers. This project may or may not come to fruition meanwhile Boeing continues to fritter away time and market share to the Europeans. What happens when some day Comac actually churns out something with quality (don't laugh that day will come)? Boeing is lost and wondering in the proverbial wilderness.

Boeing's move to Northern Virginia was about being close to the Hill and siphoning off more taxpayer dollars. Boeing is beholden to the 'machine.' I believe the only way to revitalize Boeing is to split it into two companies - Boeing Defense & Space and Boeing Commercial. At that point Boeing Commercial would be better suited moving to Texas, Oklahoma, or even Charleston - anywhere far from D.C. Refocus on its engineering talent in the Puget Sound area and drastically refocus the company on its customers, innovation & engineering, and actually making quality aircraft.
bentwing60 9
The "Moonshiners" will marry a 'revanooer' before this thing flies!
Michael Hope 6
The best comment I have in a while.
linbb -6
Well dont see the same comments when there is talk about electric passenger planes on here. So far all hopes and dreams of those who are trying to bilk money from investors have resulted in net zero success. Always about future batteries which will be tiny and supply needed power.
Greg Kusiak 4
Maybe this is why they’re telling people at my flying club that glider time is good to have?
hal pushpak 2
The fuselage was designed by McDonnell Douglas people who are still hanging in there at Boeing! :)
Neil Postlethwaite 2
ADB Safegate will be thrilled as unless it’s wing profile fits a move to a wide bodied airplane gate it will require lots of updates.
Ken Pritchard 2
Not so new an idea, check out the ultra high aspect ration Hurel Dubois proposed jetliner in the 1950's. Sud Aviation Caravelle beat it in the competition, bringing in the era or rear mounted jet engines.
Rico van Dijk 2
I am sceptical as well, but there is a youtube from Scott Manley on the subject with some valid points you should watch.
Shenghao Han 2
This looks remarkably like the SUGAR demonstrator back in 2012.
Eric Rindal 2
No need for tip sails on those thin wings?
Robert Johnson 2
The Sustainable Flight Demonstrator looks iffy and has yet to be proven in tests. Personally I am dubious regarding its feasibility as a wide body as well.
cmball 2
Uhhhh, where’s the landing gear supposed to go?
Gregg Bender 6
Under the fuselage in those sponsons,like the C-17, C-130, etc.
srobak 1
and then what? wingtip gear like a B-52 to prevent it from tipping over or scraping during TO?
matt jensen 1
High wings don't scrape.
srobak 1
you do know the 52 is high winged, right? And this thing has wings longer than that, are angled down and droop. One minor crosswind and it will be putting the grounds crew out of business.
garritt 1
up & down....duh !!
Tom Bruce 2
let's see how they screw this one up!
Greg S 2
I believe this when I see the new 737-99 employing this technology being delivered by Boeing, complete with MCAS-99 so that pilots can pretend they're flying a 737NG or maybe even a Cessna.
1mooneymite 2
How Quaint! Combining a DC-9 and an AN-2. Maybe a Bi-Polar express?
JimPlez 1
Might considera kingpost also.
Dan Boss 1
There is nothing new about using long slender wings for greater efficiency. Gulfstream has been doing this for decades on it's still top of the line business jets. Their L/D ratios are superior to Boeing airliners and performance is top notch. But to be self supporting with a lot more fuel in the wings, and/or with lighter composite materials, then you need a strut for a high wing design and of course the 3 ton engines are out there too.

And of course gliders use high aspect ratio wings too, but without sweep, this limits the speed.

Don't you just love it when someone reinvents the wheel with taxpayer dollars and calls it new and innovative?
AJ Mesalic 1
NASA infamously spends billions to develop... Tang and velcro. But you can't blame Boeing for pulling up a chair to the handout table.
ewrcap 2
TANG was developed by General Foods in 1957 without a cent of government money and didn’t fly with NASA until 1962 on John Glen’s flight. VELCRO was a SWISS invention which was first produced in 1955 and was not funded by NASA either. Interesting that the organization that made the moon landings possible and has provided research that has made commercial aviation so safe, is now the enemy of the America.
Justthefacs 1
Better put some solar panels on the roof for power or Al and John will not be happy.
Charles Lindbergh 1
Looks like the jump needed to pass Airbus in single aisle planes and get back on top. Newly developed engines could be hung from the wings without needing to move them forward to get ground clearance. If the hull is composite carbon fiber plastic then the plane will be very suited for the frequent take offs and landings associated with medium haul planes.
Brian Chandler -1
Yeah this is never happening for mass produced travel. The wing braces are because the design calls for extraordinarily long wings.... that [checks notes] wouldn't fit in gates. This is just another government boondoggle, no good waste of money by the Biden administration.
srobak 1
agreed - not a chance airlines nor airports would accept the reduction percentage of passenger throughput as a result of having to close every other gate. Even with folding wingtips this wouldn't work.
Edward Dexter 0
Hah, did they reinvent the biplane? Hmmm, maybe gates will need wider spacing with those long wings.
Gregg Bender 5
Folding wingtips like the latest version of the 777 anyone?
Keith Bjorndahl 0
How is this any less a subsidy to Boeing than the subsidy that forced Bombadier to sell the CSeries to Airbus after Boeing complained about how the CSeries was subsidized? So hypocritical!.
Chris Tyler 0
Boeing is a soiled company - maybe a team up with NASA gives them back a bit of credibility
Doug Parker -1
One of my first thoughts was “Misdirection to whitewash bad 737 MAX press.” À la Rodney King, “Can’t we just find a better way?”

Admit failure, or (create an elephant in the room and) pretend (aka lie) otherwise. Unfortunately it seems it's the toxic US business culture.

Culture never looks at itself. In everything is the seed of its own destruction.
Bill Overdue 0
Hmm, I think a pilotless, 1-4 seater, transcontinental jet is more likely for success. No one "really" cares about efficiency as we have plenty of oil for 169 years and natural gas for 300 years. Electric will not happen for another 50 yrs, and then it'll be the same as installing solar panels on your house today, a 150 yr ROI! Jetsons... bring it on!


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.