Boeing 7J7

[Libelle]

Many articles can be found about the UDF version of the 7J7, but what about this second variant?

 

[Triton]

Article about the Boeing 7J7, "The Short, Happy Life of the Prop-fan" from Air & Space Smithsonian magazine by Bill Sweetman.
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/prop-fan.html

Concept art of the UDF (unducted fan) or prop fan version of the 7J7.

 

[flateric]

always like Mr.Sweetman's sense of humor
The Short, Happy Life - LOL

 

[Just call me Ray]

Almost looks like what could be called a 767-100.

 

[LowObservable]

I have not seen the lower aircraft before but I would guess that it is a straw-man comparison of a 7J7-spec aircraft with a very high bypass cowled engine, probably PW's Advanced Ducted Prop or one of its relatives. Not a serious study, but done to underline the merits of the 7J7 and show that Boeing had looked at alternatives.

 

[gtg947h]

Interesting picture of the twin-aisle 7J7 proposal here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/runway-girl/2010/07/photos-twin-aisle-narrowbody-i.html

Also has a cabin cross-section and a bit of data.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing 7J7 circa 1987.

Source: "Propfan: the price factor" Flight International June 13, 1987 p. 76.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1987/1987%20-%200770.htm

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing 7J7.

Source: "Boeing names 7J7 fly-by-wire contenders" Flight International October 25, 1986 p. 4.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202886.html

 

[Triton]

Three-view drawing of Boeing 7J7.

Artist's impression of Boeing 7J7 cockpit.

The 7J7 cockpit will almost certainly feature a flat-panel display. The sidestick question is unresolved, depending on the flight control system chosen.

Comparison of Boeing 7J7 to Boeing 727.

The supercritical wing will have less sweep than the Boeing 727, and its aspect ration will be increased by around 25 per cent, improving efficiency at the Mach 0.8 crusing speed.

Source: Moxon, Julian. "7J7: Boeing sets the pace" Flight International October 26, 1986 p. 27,28.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202924.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202923.html

 

[Grey Havoc]

Propfans are supposed to be back in favor, but wether we'll see actual metal being cut on new propfan powered designs is still open to question.

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing 7J7 at the Boeing Archives.

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/airlinereporter/4957523840/in/set-72157624753056369/

 

[fishjay]

I would certainly like to see a propfan driven plane. I thought there was a noise problem with this type of engine. Does anyone know if this problem has been solved? If it hasn't then they will be bucking the same old headwinds of years past. If anything it will be worse with the more stringent noise laws around our airports.

 

[Triton]

Boeing Publicity Release photos and artwork of 7J7 airliner.

Source:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Boeing-Publicity-Release-Photos-Artwork-7J7-Airliner-/250808477173

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing 7J7 located in the Boeing Archives Bellevue, Washington.

The Boeing 7J7 was a short- to medium-range airliner proposed by the United States aircraft manufacturer Boeing in the 1980s. It would have carried 150 passengers and was touted as the successor to the successful Boeing 727. It was initially planned to enter service in 1992. This was intended as a highly fuel-efficient aircraft employing new technologies, but it was cancelled when the price of oil dropped during the 1980s. The 7J7 was planned to include advanced technology and electronics,[1] such as a fly-by-wire flight control system, glass cockpit, and two General Electric GE36 UDF rear-mounted advanced technology contra-rotating unducted fan (propfan) engines. The sum of all these features promised better fuel consumption by more than 60% compared to any existing large passenger aircraft technology at the time. "Efficiency" was the key theme. The 7J7 was to have a twin-aisle (2+2+2) seating configuration, giving an unprecedented wide and spacious cabin for its class, with no passenger more than one seat from an aisle. It was also unprecedented in its foreign content with Japan having 25% industrial workshare. Potential customers were concerned about the economics and noise of the unproven propfan engines. Boeing cancelled the 7J7 in 1987 and instead concentrated its resources on further developments of the Boeing 737 and the Boeing 757. The project's cancellation (as disappointing as it was to the Japanese aviation industry signaled a new era of cooperation between Boeing and Japanese suppliers. Japanese companies contributed significantly larger percentages of subsequent Boeing projects (about 15% of the Boeing 767 and 25% of the Boeing 777. Japanese industry continues to be a primary foreign partner on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Courtesy: Wikipedia

Source:
http://airchive.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-7j7-model-at-boeing-archive-mid-1980s/19048

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing 7J7.

Source:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/507/picture19ts0.jpg/

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing 7J7.

Three-view drawing.

Boeing 7J7 cabin mockup on display at Paris Air Show 1987.

Source:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/frontrunners2/SEA/SEA-474/6_13_308_img1767A.jpg
http://avia.superforum.fr/t1200-boeing-7j7
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/frontrunners2/SEA/SEA-474/6_13_308_img1765A.jpg

 

[Triton]

Boeing 7J7 Press Photo

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1986-Boeing-7J7-10-Billion-to-Design-Produce-Press-Photo-/190704390315?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2c66de10ab

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing 7J7.

Source:
Hager, Roy D.; Vrabel, Deborah. Advanced Turbofan Project, NASA Glenn Research Center, Jan. 1, 1988
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890003194_1989003194.pdf

 

[hesham]

From Flugzeug 4/1986,


here is the Boeing 7J7 drawings.

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/POSTCARD-Boeing-7J7-Propfan-Concept-Boeing-Issue-/291181930897?pt=UK_Collectables_Postcards_MJ&hash=item43cbcba991

 

[fightingirish]

B)
Here some pictures of the Boeing 7J7 project.
Copyright: Boeing and Herzog
Source: http://www.flugrevue.de/zivilluftfahrt/flugzeuge/boeing-7j7/638496/fsuebersicht

 

[fightingirish]

More pictures of the Boeing 7J7 project.
Copyright: Boeing and Herzog
Source: http://www.flugrevue.de/zivilluftfahrt/flugzeuge/boeing-7j7/638496/fsuebersicht

 

[fightingirish]

Last two pictures of the Boeing 7J7 project.
Copyright: Boeing and Herzog
Source: http://www.flugrevue.de/zivilluftfahrt/flugzeuge/boeing-7j7/638496/fsuebersicht

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzO7OVGakw

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxVAaIsfPIY

 

[isayyo2]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzO7OVGakw

Gorgeous paint scheme

 

[Grey Havoc]

Yep.

 

[bobbymike]

Boeing 7J7 – Has Its Time Finally Come? - Mentour Pilot

Most people have never heard of the Boeing 7J7. And yet this rather unusual design once looked set to replace both the 727 and 737!

mentourpilot.com

 

[Springtime]

So was the 7J7 going to use a side stick or am i just seeing the cockpit concept art wrong and was any attempt made to convert the 7J7 into a "conventional" jet airliner after the end of the prop fan program

 

[Moose]

So was the 7J7 going to use a side stick or am i just seeing the cockpit concept art wrong and was any attempt made to convert the 7J7 into a "conventional" jet airliner after the end of the prop fan program

One of the proposed configurations was sidestick

 

[Blackbuck]

Found whilst browsing for other things, a 1986 programme brochure.

Source: https://theairchive.net/boeing-the-7j7-program-brochure-may-1986/

 

[alertken]

7J7 lapsed not solely because the Day for UDF was distant.

Boeing was, as Convair, Douglas, Lockheed had been, entirely capable of solo-design/development...in engineering terms. Not in financial.
Douglas had put DC-9 wings into Canada...as make-to-print: fabrication to Prime Contractor's design, Quality Assurance...Japan won such work. In 1976/77 Boeing was trying to launch (to be) 757,767 concurrently...but could not afford to do so. MDC was exploring replacements for DC-9, DC-10. They both explored teaming with Europe and/or Japan. Both proposed to retain Design Authority and Prime Contractorship, while expecting (say, UK, say Japan) to build-to-parents' prints, at parent-imposed price, and to contribute cash, but not brains, to the non-recurring upfront investment.

Everyone declined. UK rejoined Airbus Industrie. Italy and Japan accepted part of those deals: to make-to-print at parents' imposed price. Italy does so today. Japan does so today but is reputed to have lost vast sums. What they both have enjoyed is the business/employment benefit of leeching off Boeing sales success, without Prime's liability pain. 787 delay, then 737 MAX: good to read about, but not be involved.

 

[hesham]

From Flight 25-10-1986

 

[publiusr]

always like Mr.Sweetman's sense of humor
The Short, Happy Life - LOL

There was a recent article about a very loud engine set up.

“The production version will be much quieter.”

“What!”

“I SAID THE PRODUCTION VERSION WILL BE MUCH QUIETER!!”

Good thing those fans are in the back—imagine looking out the window and seeing whirling death inches from you face.

Lowering the shade will protect you about as much as hiding under the covers from a home intruder.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There was a recent article about a very loud engine set up.

“The production version will be much quieter.”

“What!”

“I SAID THE PRODUCTION VERSION WILL BE MUCH QUIETER!!”

Good thing those fans are in the back—imagine looking out the window and seeing whirling death inches from you face.

Lowering the shade will protect you about as much as hiding under the covers from a home intruder.

Meh. Spent enough time around DHC-8s, Q-400s, and C130s. People need to unclench about things.

 

[BlackBat242]

If we are reviving the UDF (unducted fan) concept, then I must bring this back!

 

[taildragger]

7J7 lapsed not solely because the Day for UDF was distant.

Boeing was, as Convair, Douglas, Lockheed had been, entirely capable of solo-design/development...in engineering terms. Not in financial.
Douglas had put DC-9 wings into Canada...as make-to-print: fabrication to Prime Contractor's design, Quality Assurance...Japan won such work. In 1976/77 Boeing was trying to launch (to be) 757,767 concurrently...but could not afford to do so. MDC was exploring replacements for DC-9, DC-10. They both explored teaming with Europe and/or Japan. Both proposed to retain Design Authority and Prime Contractorship, while expecting (say, UK, say Japan) to build-to-parents' prints, at parent-imposed price, and to contribute cash, but not brains, to the non-recurring upfront investment.

Everyone declined. UK rejoined Airbus Industrie. Italy and Japan accepted part of those deals: to make-to-print at parents' imposed price. Italy does so today. Japan does so today but is reputed to have lost vast sums. What they both have enjoyed is the business/employment benefit of leeching off Boeing sales success, without Prime's liability pain. 787 delay, then 737 MAX: good to read about, but not be involved.

Build-to-Print of large aircraft components is not a no-brain activity.
Sharing design responsibility between teams on the US West Coast and Europe or Japan might be feasible today with modern communications but it would have been difficult in the late 70s. The Concorde and MRCA produced results but the teams were much closer and the projects were not models of efficiency. Other such proposed collaborations have generally stalled out.
How do you get to "parent-imposed price"? These were independent organizations engaged in commercial discussions - in the end, you take the deal or not. For all Boeing's strengths, $60B in debt suggests that they're not able to "impose" prices on anyone.

 

[DWG]

From Flight 25-10-1986

7J7 was before my time in Flight Controls Division, but my understanding from people who'd been involved (and if my memory is accurate 30 years on) is that GEC's plan was for 9 boxes, much as eventually used on 777, but rather than three lanes of three channels for redundancy, any of the nine boxes would be able to talk to any other, giving an even greater degree of redundancy. As long as any four boxes of the nine were working the system could configure itself as two dual redundant flight control lanes.

Obviously this would be complex, but do-able, but ISTR being told FAA didn't value it any higher than the simpler three lanes of three channels, so they dropped to the simpler proposal.

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 15-5-1986

 

[Scott Kenny]

7J7 was before my time in Flight Controls Division, but my understanding from people who'd been involved (and if my memory is accurate 30 years on) is that GEC's plan was for 9 boxes, much as eventually used on 777, but rather than three lanes of three channels for redundancy, any of the nine boxes would be able to talk to any other, giving an even greater degree of redundancy. As long as any four boxes of the nine were working the system could configure itself as two dual redundant flight control lanes.

Obviously this would be complex, but do-able, but ISTR being told FAA didn't value it any higher than the simpler three lanes of three channels, so they dropped to the simpler proposal.

That's unfortunate. The 3x3 works and gives fault-tolerance, but the any-4 is a lot more tolerant of damage or malfunction.