The Boeing 7M7 - The Proposed Future Boeing Aircraft To Replace The 737 MAX and 797 | Never Built

In this video we will explore the history of the fat Boeing 7M7, a design pitched to Boeing to solve its middle of the market problem, and extend the lifespan of its Boeing 737 series.
What was the aircraft like and what happened? Let's find out!

The middle of the market is the mythical passenger capacity between 220 passengers and 270 passengers, and a range of 5,000 nautical miles. Currently, there is no aircraft that can best suit it. Either the plane is too small and has too small a range, like the 737, or it is too big and is too expensive to operate, like the Boeing 787.

In the past, airlines operated a Boeing 757 in this space, but today there is no aircraft built, underproduction, or planned to serve 220-270 passengers. Airbus does come close with its new Airbus A321XLR, it has the range of 4,700 and can fit 220 passengers - but no more.

Boeing had successfully extended its Boeing 737 series longer and longer since it first flew in the 1960s. The original had a length of 94 ft or 29 meters to the latest Boeing 737 MAX resting at a comfortable 143.7 ft a43.8 ms. That's almost a 50% increase, which has had the benefit of 100 more seats onboard.

But alas, despite carrying up to 230 passengers - it still doesn't solve the middle of the market problem. You can't make the 737 any longer otherwise the tail will strike the runway when it takes off.

The very first difference would be that the 7m7 would feature an elliptical cabin. This means an oval shape, almost squashed if looked through a cross-section.

This would give the aircraft bigger floor space onboard, allowing it to fit between 220 passengers to 270 passengers.

To do this, designers moved the seats from a typical Boeing 737 with a 3-3 configuration to a very unique 2-3-2 configuration. This means there would be a throne seat in the middle of rows. . In business class, Boeing could deploy a 1-1-1 business class. And it wouldn't be a single-aisle, rather it would put the wide in widebody with two aisles. Twin aisles would mean a much faster turn around time at airports, making it perfect for commuter routes between New York and Chicago, or Sydney and Melbourne.

A wider body would also give it a wider fuel tank, meaning more fuel for the standard Boeing 737 engines - a longer range of around 5000 nautical miles. This is much further than the range of the Boeing 737 with a 3850 nautical mile range.

To maintain aerodynamics, the plane would have a tadpole shape that would taper out near the tail. This would give it the space of a widebody with the economics of a narrow body. To ensure pressurization, the plane would use the same composite materials at the Boeing 787 - a technical marvel that opened the door on non-circular shapes.

Boeing would be set to make a saving when it came to engineering and construction. it could use all the same materials, manufacturing, suppliers, engineers, marketers, and more as the 737 - saving Boeing a fortune.

Lastly, Pilots would not have to retrain to use the aircraft. This is a principle thorny issue that resulted in the Boeing 737 MAX having its design issues leading to crashes in recent years. However, it is possible the 7M7 didn't need to move the engines forward like the 737 MAX and thus would not have required the special autopilot to keep it aloft. Again, these are theoretical and I'm not an engineer, so legally, this is just conjecture!

Back in 2011, it seemed like that Boeing was on the verge of announcing a new design for the middle of the market - rumors had it that the airframe would be elliptical like the 7M7. Boeing had filed several patents for designs wider than they are tall.

In 2017, Boeing unveiled a timetable in which design work would happen in late 2018 through 2020 for a 797 - which very well could have been the 7M7. Boeing said that it would be a hybrid of a wide and narrowbody, like a 787 and a 737 combined.

Important dates would be aircraft components in 2020-1, assemble the new plane prototype in 2023, and fly it for the first time in 2024, with the new aircraft ultimately entering service in 2025. The company predicts a market for more than 4,000 of these planes - billions of dollars for the company.

Two years later in 2019 the Paris Air Show came and went, and Boeing seemed the stagger with any announcement. Airbus revealed the A321XLR, securing orders left and right and Boeing was left holding the bag. Likely, they decided to pause their reveal until they could factor in a competitive advantage over the A321XLR.

Alas, then tragey struck with the 737 MAX crashes and grounding, and a replaced CEO later the 797 has been put on the back burner. Boeing has decided to focus on getting its existing 737 back to the air, and moved to redesign its next concept for a very different market indeed.

[FoundAndExplained]

* A special thank you to all the new subscribers and those who have watched my videos! With more viewers, I've been able to improve the quality of my videos and spend a bit more extra time with more effort. So again thank you :). - Nick*

[slothinaspacesuit]

Pilots wouldn't need to retrain to fly the 7M7. That went great with the 737 max.

[NakulDalakoti]

Boeing's biggest mistake was to shut down the 757 line. A revamped 757 with better engines, avionics and carbon fiber structures was the answer of all their problems.

[rochditidjani]

"Pilots don't have to retrain to fly this airplane". Haven't we heard that before?!

[sterlingarcher]

It’s an Airbus A300, we’ve come full circle, well done boys.

[johnpitzer]

Boeing screwed up on canceling the 757, which would have been better refit then the max

[vapsa]

Ah yes, the experienced aeronautical engineers of Merrill Lynch designing what could go wrong?

[tkshz]

When I heard the words "It doesn't need to train the pilot. It would be the same as flying 737" again... I feel it's time to sell the stock again... Referring to the 737 MAX

[WhySoitanly]

737 MAX is the product of Boeing's "management by accountants". No one needed to die, it was just cost-effective.

[grobertson]

As long as Boeing is prohibited from certifying their own planes.

[dennischallinor]

Excellent video - thank you. On a trip to Australia, the first time, I got trapped in a window seat on a 777 with a married couple next to me who had 'medicated' so that they could sleep the flight away. This left diabetic little me climbing over them each time I needed to use the restroom. With 14 hrs. to think about things my mind turned to aircraft design (my father was an aircraft electrician and I've loved planes since I could climb into them). In my mind, I designed that first plane you showed, so that everyone was no more than 1 person away from an aisle. The second time to Aus I flew Air New Zealand Business Class 777 and now I'm spoiled for life!!! Air New Zealand took such good care of this old man I considered applying for monthly room and board status - what an adventure!!!

[BrandonMeyer]

The last time pilots didn’t get trained on a new Boeing aircraft... well that didn’t end up going over that well.

[michaelwoodhams]

By the time you've changed the fuselage that much, the design costs are so high I suspect Boeing would rather just do a complete clean sheet design.

Admittedly, the fat fuselage would probably allow corresponding lengthening of the undercarriage. This is the thing which is really holding the 737 back. Boeing are forced to do all sorts of weird things to try to fit large modern high bypass engines, and it makes it harder to lengthen due to tail strike (as discussed in the video.)

[martinirving]

Never more have we needed a fresh 757 aircraft!

[oldmech]

Back in 1978 I made the statement that the B737 would have to die because there was just not enough room for a new fan engines.

[bcshelby]

...the 737 is a already a 53 year old design and has been pushed to edge of it's viability. Originally, it was developed to be a short to medium haul aircraft that would bring jet service to small town airports with minimal ground service equipment - hence the "stubby" undercarriage - which was fine with the narrow low bypass engines of the day, but became problematic with more efficient, larger diameter turbofans as they had to be moved more forward of the aircraft's centre of gravity, and in the case of the LEAP engine, further upwards as well to allow for ground clearance which resulted in excess lift characteristics that could lead to a stall.

This particular proposal as outlined in the video would be a "new aircraft type" particularly if it is to be powered by larger diameter engines (meaning taller landing gear struts similar to the A-320/321 particularly as the higher weight would cause a greater compression of the undercarriage during landing) as the wider fuselage would also change the handling characteristics enough to require aircrew re-certification. Any meddling using a software to make it handle like say a 737 NG would be repeating the same mistake as occurred with MCAS in the Max series. MCAS was little more than a software "kluge" primarily to appease the airlines who didn't want to incur crew retraining/certification costs, which backfired terribly resulting in two tragic accidents and the subsequent grounding of the type that will be going on 19 months.

Boeing needs to learn from this experience and move forward instead of continuing to milk an over half century old concept even further than they have. Better to base the NMA more directly off of the existing 787 concept and tooling along with focusing development on the FSA (Future Small Aircraft) which is to be the 737's replacement.

[cfrincon]

So now bankers are telling Boeing how it should design its planes. That explains a lot.

[tonysimister]

...a 2-3-2 seating layout, a small wide body... So, a 767 then?

[allankamen]

Great video. I'm glad I found this channel. Subscribed.

[adampoultney]

Love this channel! Keep up the great work on the Aviation videos!
A video I would suggest would be the Avro Atlantic based on the vulcan, Vickers V1000 based on the valiant (which was actually built but scrapped two months before the first flight was scheduled), and the various Victor based airliner proposals