Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4786625/

Topic: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: CFBFrame
Posted 2010-04-21 11:19:05 and read 27277 times.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/202839.asp

Aubrey Cohen's Seattle pi update on Boeing Q1 results presents interesting comments on the need for the 787-10. Appears Boeing CEO has high level of confidence 777 team will find performance improvements. He was not specific about the gains but he did mention where they will originate. CEO also mentioned new upcoming orders for the 777 to justify production increases. If Boeing delivers the A350-1000 will have their line in the stand.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-04-21 11:27:56 and read 27184 times.

This is interesting to me. I'm not worried about the A350-1000 killing off the 77W in the near term (pre 2020). The 77W and 77L still offer quite a punch. I'm concerned about something to compete with the A359, which the 77E can't or won't. At least I don't see how it can based on Airbus's specs on the A359. Who knows tho, maybe the 789 will be good enough to replace A343s/77Es for most operators, and perhaps a 789ER with the 63m wingspan and increased MTOW later on for more performance. I think a straight stretched 7,200nm 7810 would be a helluva plane to beat over the Atlantic, and some Pacific routes.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-21 11:37:10 and read 26958 times.

There is just no growth in the current 787 platform for a 787-10. When the 787-10 was floated, it would have held about 290 people in three classes at 8-abreast in Economy. The 787-9 can reach 280 with 9-abreast in Economy, so it's effectively filled the role the 787-10 was planned to. The 787-9 offers similar room to the A330-300/A340-300 and with many carriers are now omitting the First Class cabin and others are considering reducing their Business Class cabins, that would allow it to hold more Economy seats.

The 777-200ER offers more seating capacity than the A350-900 at 9-abreast in Economy, and that delta only grows if the 777-200ER is 10-abreast. A 787-10 would offer even more capacity than the 777-200ER at 9-abreast and be in the ballpark of a 777 at 10-abreast, but I'm interested in knowing if the 787 (and A350) can take the herringbone Business Class seating in 1+2+1 like the 777 can, or if they have to stay at 1+1+1 like on the 767 and A330/A340. I also expect the 787 (and A350) cannot accept 2+3+2 forward-facing Business Class seating like the 777 can (at least without narrow seats like 2+2+2 on the 767).

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 11:37:59 and read 26953 times.

Quote:
"the extent to which we really redo the 777, which is a real option, the improvements particularly the weight-to-strength kind of improvements with carbon fiber and what we think we can get from the engine, are substantial."

That's intriguing. What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing? Perhaps too much to hope for.  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-21 11:44:14 and read 26818 times.

The wing would be the most obvious part. The current wing is heavier than it needs to be, so starting fresh with a CFRP wing - probably re-profiled like the 747-8 wing was - could save many tons, which can be put back into payload or fuel weight.

GE has plenty of updates they could do to the GE90, and by keeping the 777-200ER around would allow GE to spread them across the low-thrust models, as well, which might make them palatable to Airbus (and customers) for the A350. It would also open up another opportunity for Rolls-Royce and the highest-thrust model of the Trent XWB as a Trent 800 replacement.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2010-04-21 11:51:26 and read 26727 times.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3):
That's intriguing. What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing? Perhaps too much to hope for.

I'd guess they will do nothing less than what they did with the 748. It's a bigger market, and you have tough competitors, something the 747 doesn't--directly anyways.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: WarpSpeed
Posted 2010-04-21 11:51:45 and read 26721 times.

I found Jim McNerney's comments interesting as well; especially when he called it the "old" 787-10.

He seems to suggest the use of CFRP and new engines may be enough for refresh of both the 777-200 series and -300 series to compete with the A350-900 and -1000. If so, this could make the 787-10 unnecessary. However, he did not suggest a commitment to the refresh approach; only that they are looking at all options. Boeing still needs to have a good understanding of the A350-1000 before making a design decision. I believe Airbus has set next year as a goal for final design freeze on the -1000 (please correct me if I'm wrong). At that point, I would suspect we will see something solid from Boeing shortly thereafter.

Given JM's comments, I wonder how much CFRP would be used in a refresh of the 777 series? A new CFRP wing seems given as it would be lighter and offer improved aerodynamics. Could Boeing feasibly switch to CFRP barrels for the fuselage or would the weight savings be so minimal to not justify the effort/expense? Perhaps a CFRP wingbox would offer significant weight/structural gains.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-04-21 11:53:57 and read 26672 times.

I wonder what Emirates is going to think of this development. Weren't they the ones pushing the 787-10 in the first place?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BoeEngr
Posted 2010-04-21 11:56:33 and read 26550 times.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 6):
Given JM's comments, I wonder how much CFRP would be used in a refresh of the 777 series? A new CFRP wing seems given as it would be lighter and offer improved aerodynamics. Could Boeing feasibly switch to CFRP barrels for the fuselage or would the weight savings be so minimal to not justify the effort/expense? Perhaps a CFRP wingbox would offer significant weight/structural gains.

I suspect an all new or significantly new wing, and perhaps some interior components, but not the fuselage. The CFRP fuselage drives a lot of complexity into the airplane systems, and I don't think a lot of people realize that. Grounding and lightning protection is entirely different, and would require modifications to multiple airplane systems. So it would not likely be much lighter, if at all, but would be very expensive to do. At that point, it's time to just design a clean sheet airplane.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: WarpSpeed
Posted 2010-04-21 11:56:50 and read 26549 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The 787-9 can reach 280 with 9-abreast in Economy, so it's effectively filled the role the 787-10 was planned to.

Jim McNerney seemed to confirm your thinking today as he suggested that the 787-10 may not be required as the 787-9 was turning out to be a very capable plane.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: CFBFrame
Posted 2010-04-21 11:58:05 and read 26527 times.

Regarding the 777 orders, do any of you think that what Boeing has heard from customers recently indicates the demand for their family with modifications will, at a minimum, match the current orders for the A350-900 (273 units) and the A350-1000 (75 units)? There has to be some reason for the inclusion of the 777E/LR config in the discussion, because generally 777 discussions have focused on the 777W.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2010-04-21 11:59:55 and read 26521 times.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3):
That's intriguing. What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing? Perhaps too much to hope for.

Perhaps a new section 41, made of CFRP and reshaped? Could be used on 767 tanker as well, same avionics in both. Replace the rear section as well, making it more aero and all CFRP (including new APU design and exhaust) again closer to the 787 design. Combined with a new wing shape, extension and material change (similar to the 748 reworking), reduction of weight with newer internal systems and more electric v. pneumatic, and the new engines, and there's some opportunity there.

Compared to a crippled 787-10, or the same sort of work required to make a 787-10 worth it, the 777-8/9 makes more sense.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 12:01:05 and read 26475 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The wing would be the most obvious part.

No doubt. So if Boeing offers a CFRP wing and new engines to counter the 'all'-CFRP challenger we'll finally get a hint at how well the original A350 concept might have fared in the marketplace had Airbus stuck with it.

Boeing will need a new wing to produce a viable 787-10. For much the same investment, they can develop a wing for the 777 instead. The 787-10 will need much more than just a wing, whereas the 777 won't need a new landing gear etc. Seems that the 777 path would be cheaper and holds the possibility of two distinct models to be offered (-200LR+ and -300ER+).

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EPA001
Posted 2010-04-21 12:02:00 and read 26476 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The wing would be the most obvious part. The current wing is heavier than it needs to be

I agree, and here the most improvements in operating economics are to be found, then come the engines and finally weight reduction by using more CFRP. It will be interesting how a (again) revised/upgraded B777 will look like and how it will perform.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-04-21 12:06:36 and read 26363 times.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 6):
He seems to suggest the use of CFRP and new engines may be enough for refresh of both the 777-200 series and -300 series to compete with the A350-900 and -1000.

My only reservation is that many were claiming the same kind of 'refresh' wasn't good enough for the A330 vs. the 787. Why should or would it be any different here with a 'refresh' of the 777 vs. the A350? Perhaps it's what Stitch said in another thread-maybe the airlines are more open to a refresh now that they've experienced all that they have in the last 4 years.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: CFBFrame
Posted 2010-04-21 12:09:09 and read 26332 times.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 8):
I suspect an all new or significantly new wing, and perhaps some interior components, but not the fuselage. The CFRP fuselage drives a lot of complexity into the airplane systems, and I don't think a lot of people realize that. Grounding and lightning protection is entirely different, and would require modifications to multiple airplane systems. So it would not likely be much lighter, if at all, but would be very expensive to do. At that point, it's time to just design a clean sheet airplane.

So could they use CFRP for much of the internal structuring and re-enforcements? I would think the floor structure change would have an impact on weight, but will impact overall a/c strength. Could that impact a wing modification?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 12:09:33 and read 26337 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
Perhaps a new section 41, made of CFRP and reshaped? Could be used on 767 tanker as well,

Way too late to be putting a new nose on the 767.  

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
reduction of weight with newer internal systems and more electric v. pneumatic

Going electric carries considerable cost in redesign, and unless you go all-electric you're still carrying the weight of the pneumatic ductwork and adding a heavy electrical buss to that...counterproductive IMHO. Best to go with one or the other, not a mix. I expect lighter internals, but no fundamental redesign.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-04-21 12:12:10 and read 26264 times.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 12):
So if Boeing offers a CFRP wing and new engines to counter the 'all'-CFRP challenger we'll finally get a hint at how well the original A350 concept might have fared in the marketplace had Airbus stuck with it.

Good point. But I'm convinced Airbus made the right call by going with the A350XWB. They needed something to replace the A340 family in their lineup. If only Airbus could have smoothed out A380/A400M production and worked on a refresh A330 and the A350XWB.  
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 9):
Jim McNerney seemed to confirm your thinking today as he suggested that the 787-10 may not be required as the 787-9 was turning out to be a very capable plane.

This is what our friend BoeEng has been saying about the 789.    He'd know. He works on the 787.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 12:12:22 and read 26258 times.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 15):
So could they use CFRP for much of the internal structuring and re-enforcements? I would think the floor structure change would have an impact on weight, but will impact overall a/c strength.

The 777 floor beams are already CFRP.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 12:16:59 and read 26211 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 17):
But I'm convinced Airbus made the right call by going with the A350XWB.

The original A350 would've worked if the cross-section allowed 9Y. The 777 doesn't have that problem...it's already wider than the XWB.  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: CFBFrame
Posted 2010-04-21 12:19:26 and read 26161 times.

Should Boeing consider modifications to the 777E to make it more regional friendly to offset the nipping seen from the A330-300?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: N328KF
Posted 2010-04-21 12:26:26 and read 26022 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 14):
My only reservation is that many were claiming the same kind of 'refresh' wasn't good enough for the A330 vs. the 787. Why should or would it be any different here with a 'refresh' of the 777 vs. the A350?

Because the 777 is a wider airframe than its erstwhile competitor (A350 Mk. 6/XWB), whereas the A350 Mk. I was narrower than the 787.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-21 12:36:10 and read 25863 times.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 20):
Should Boeing consider modifications to the 777E to make it more regional friendly to offset the nipping seen from the A330-300?

I expect the 787-9 will have that market covered from a Boeing product standpoint.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: bobnwa
Posted 2010-04-21 12:43:03 and read 25763 times.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 9):
Jim McNerney seemed to confirm your thinking today as he suggested that the 787-10 may not be required as the 787-9 was turning out to be a very capable plane

That is an amazing statement as the first 787-9 hasn't even been built yet, yet we are talking about its capabilities.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BoeEngr
Posted 2010-04-21 12:48:57 and read 25669 times.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 15):
So could they use CFRP for much of the internal structuring and re-enforcements? I would think the floor structure change would have an impact on weight, but will impact overall a/c strength. Could that impact a wing modification?

I suspect we'd see things like new, lighter Flight Deck support structure and lighter Flight Deck seats, perhaps new cabin lavs and galleys making use of lighter materials (ala 787), and maybe the dimmable windows in replacement of window shades (a maintenance savings). Perhaps new linings in the cargo compartments and cabin if they can be made lighter. As well, they could potentially redesign some of the airplane systems to smaller, lighter LRUs. So these changes, in addition to engine improvements and a new or improved wing.

It's all going to depend on how much money Boeing is willing to spend. From the discussions I've been hearing, the answer to that question is "whatever it takes".

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BoeEngr
Posted 2010-04-21 12:52:58 and read 26389 times.

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 23):
That is an amazing statement as the first 787-9 hasn't even been built yet, yet we are talking about its capabilities

Not THAT amazing, if you ask me. The 787-9 design is well on its way. We're getting lots of good data back from the 788 test program, and that data is feeding into the models for 789. Add that data to the changes we're making on the 789 (additional weight savings, systems improvements, etc.) and you start to see a clearer picture of what the 789 will become.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 12:56:58 and read 26233 times.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 24):
It's all going to depend on how much money Boeing is willing to spend. From the discussions I've been hearing, the answer to that question is "whatever it takes".

   That's what we want to hear!

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: einsteinboricua
Posted 2010-04-21 12:59:55 and read 26607 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 7):
I wonder what Emirates is going to think of this development. Weren't they the ones pushing the 787-10 in the first place?

Well, if there's no demand, then there's no cigar. Basically what has been said is that the 789 can do everything a possible 787-10 can do. Maybe an enhanced 777 can do, though with the new delays of the A350, I wonder what Emirates will do with THAT order. (Most likely add even more a la A380)

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-04-21 13:06:08 and read 26464 times.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 21):
Because the 777 is a wider airframe than its erstwhile competitor (A350 Mk. 6/XWB), whereas the A350 Mk. I was narrower than the 787.

I think it had more to do with all the rave of CFRP at the time more so than the width of the respective fuselages. I think the reason why the 787 is not as light as once thought is because it is a wider plane with larger engines than the A330, whereas the A350 is narrower with smaller engines than the 777. Therefore the weight savings realized from CFRP, at least in the fuselage may be fairly significant for the A350 vs. 777. I will remain unsure how well a refreshed 777 will fare against the A350. You know loud mouths from airline CEO's to Aviation Consultants and 'experts' will lambaste a 777 refresh much the way they did the A330 'Lite' A350 Mk1...

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2010-04-21 13:08:38 and read 26464 times.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3):
That's intriguing. What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing? Perhaps too much to hope for.

Cabin floor?  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 13:13:25 and read 26435 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 28):
I think the reason why the 787 is not as light as once thought is because it is a wider plane with larger engines than the A330, whereas the A350 is narrower with smaller engines than the 777. Therefore the weight savings realized from CFRP, at least in the fuselage may be fairly significant for the A350 vs. 777

I think you've got this backwards. Generally accepted fact that the larger the aircraft the greater the weight savings by going to CFRP. An all-CFRP 777RS would be awesome...but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 28):
ou know loud mouths from airline CEO's to Aviation Consultants and 'experts' will lambaste a 777 refresh much the way they did the A330 'Lite' A350 Mk1..

You may be right. And they will be wrong.  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2010-04-21 13:15:41 and read 26401 times.

Well the obvious major weightsaving for the program is going to be replacement of window shades with LCDs. All the rest is simply secondary...  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-04-21 13:17:30 and read 26335 times.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 30):
An all-CFRP 777RS would be awesome...but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Ah, but you're talking about an all new plane essentially. Not a refresh. An all CFRP 777 would be a show stopper IMHO.   

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 24):
From the discussions I've been hearing, the answer to that question is "whatever it takes".

If this is the case, then some exciting days could be ahead for the 777.  
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 25):
Add that data to the changes we're making on the 789 (additional weight savings, systems improvements, etc.) and you start to see a clearer picture of what the 789 will become.

Awesome news. Any idea when we'll see the first 789 in production?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-21 13:23:55 and read 26255 times.

That surprises me as early indications suggest to me that the -900 will do what the 763ER did to the 762ER. This effectively leaves just the 789 which is up against the A358. The A358 is likely to be the high performance low efficiency model of the A350 series so it may be less desirable on most missions over the 789. However this does means you can effectively cover the 787 and more with the A350.

Then again with so many orders on the board i guess this doesn't matter.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-21 13:24:03 and read 26245 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 7):
I wonder what Emirates is going to think of this development. Weren't they the ones pushing the 787-10 in the first place?

They were interested in it at least as a way to move more people on ≤10-hour missions, but with their investment in the A350, they might be interested in a significantly improved 777.

EK VP-Route and Fleet Planning Richard Jewsbury noted in March of 2008 that using EK mission rules, he believed the A350-1000 would burn 11% less fuel per seat and 21% less fuel per trip than the 777-300ER, though the 77W would hold 37 more people / 6-8 more tons of payload.

I don't know how much GE could lower the SFC if they incorporated all the modifications that lightsaber has suggested are possible, but if they could knock 5-6% off the per seat fuel burn and 10-11% off the trip fuel burn, that would help.

An a.net member stated that MZFW for the A350-1000 equals the MWE for the 777-300ER. Per a post on PPRune, average MZFW for EK's 77W fleet is said to be 237 tons. I've seen A350-1000 MWEs run the gamut from a low of 128 tons to a high of 152 tons (the 77W is 168 tons). Airbus has stated the A350-900's MWE was 116t in 2008 and the 77L has an MWE over 20 tons lighter than the 77W. So if we take the middle ground of 140 tons, that would put it some 30 tons lighter than a current 777-300ER (though the 777-300ER is larger). I recall folks saying Boeing was looking to lower MWE some 10 tons on the 777-200LR for QF through special seats and cabin fittings combined with other "quick and easy" weight reduction protocols, so with a new CFRP wing and some other lightening, Boeing could maybe narrow that gap by a good bit.

[Edited 2010-04-21 13:26:49]

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: TeamAmerica
Posted 2010-04-21 13:42:30 and read 26097 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
I recall folks saying Boeing was looking to lower MWE some 10 tons on the 777-200LR for QF through special seats and cabin fittings combined with other "quick and easy" weight reduction protocols, so with a new CFRP wing and some other lightening, Boeing could maybe narrow that gap by a good bit

And that would finally produce the aircraft that QF has wanted all along. LHR-SYD nonstop, either way.  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2010-04-21 13:49:06 and read 26020 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
I recall folks saying Boeing was looking to lower MWE some 10 tons on the 777-200LR for QF through special seats and cabin fittings combined with other "quick and easy" weight reduction protocols, so with a new CFRP wing and some other lightening, Boeing could maybe narrow that gap by a good bi

If Boeing could reduce empty weight by 15 tons across the 777 line, while keeping MTOW, MZFW, and thrust the same, the payload range capabilities of all of the 777s would just be unholy. The aircraft would absolutely destroy the A350 on the most difficult missions. The only question in my mind is how necessary all of that capability really is... will it still be better for airlines to go with the lighter A350, because it's good enough?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2010-04-21 13:50:15 and read 26033 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
I recall folks saying Boeing was looking to lower MWE some 10 tons on the 777-200LR for QF through special seats and cabin fittings combined with other "quick and easy" weight reduction protocols, so with a new CFRP wing and some other lightening, Boeing could maybe narrow that gap by a good bit.

And before people say "but Airbus could do the same with the A350" don't think for a minute that Airbus isn't already doing such things to get a lower ZFW in the first place on the A350.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-04-21 13:56:28 and read 25907 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
I recall folks saying Boeing was looking to lower MWE some 10 tons on the 777-200LR for QF through special seats and cabin fittings combined with other "quick and easy" weight reduction protocols, so with a new CFRP wing and some other lightening, Boeing could maybe narrow that gap by a good bit.

How much weight could Boeing shed by going with an all new CFRP wing?

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 36):
The only question in my mind is how necessary all of that capability really is...

Good question.   

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-04-21 14:14:20 and read 25490 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
There is just no growth in the current 787 platform for a 787-10.

Not as it is, but I think that it would be worthwhile for Boeing to make the necessary changes for a competitive 787-10.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
and perhaps a 789ER with the 63m wingspan and increased MTOW later on for more performance.

How about a 787-9LR with the modifications from a 787-10? If Boeing gets the 787-9 to where it can realistically replace all 777s except the -200LR and -300ER, then the 787-10 wouldn't be necessary. Of course the other factor is that I would ideally like to see the 777NG be made to start at 77W size and have one stretch above that, which may not be possible if they have to make compromises for a shorter body as well.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3):
What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing?

I'd have to think that a new wing will be part of it, though it may not be CFRP.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 14):

My only reservation is that many were claiming the same kind of 'refresh' wasn't good enough for the A330 vs. the 787.

I'd rather see them move forward with the all new Y3 as well, but given that later 787 variants will have to get in the air and the prospect of the all important 737RS, Boeing simply may not have the engineering and financial resources to pursue a clean sheet design.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-21 14:48:20 and read 24614 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 36):
If Boeing could reduce empty weight by 15 tons across the 777 line, while keeping MTOW, MZFW

This proposition sounds completely unrealistic to me. Maybe an all composite clean sheet design could pull this off.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 37):
And before people say "but Airbus could do the same with the A350" don't think for a minute that Airbus isn't already doing such things to get a lower ZFW in the first place on the A350.

Do you have any basis for this claim other than "i got in there before anyone could question it"?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-21 15:00:45 and read 24362 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Not as it is, but I think that it would be worthwhile for Boeing to make the necessary changes for a competitive 787-10.

It depends on how much that 787-10 would cost and how it would compare to an upgrade of the 777.

At a minimum, the 787-10 would likely need new undercarriage which means a revised center wingbox. They could probably get away with a span increase to 65 meters and GE and RR can probably get their 787 engines to 80,000+ lbs of thrust without a fan increase (or at least one so large as to require taller undercarriage to accommodate it).

Boeing could probably stretch the 787 at least twice (to 69m for the 787-10 and 75m for a 787-11 sized just above the 777-300ER). The 787-11, especially, would be a cargo god (in theory, it could accommodate up to 52 LD3 positions - 8 more than the 777-300ER and A350-1000), but it would probably need a maximum structural payload greater than the 777-300ER's 70 tons to make effective use of all those positions. But at that point, it starts to impinge on the 747-8, which has an MSP of ~77 tons, but ~12 less LD3 positions.



As to a lower ZFW A350, wasn't that part of the "A350 Regional" proposal CASA was floating a year or two back?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-04-21 15:10:29 and read 24188 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 40):

Do you have any basis for this claim other than "i got in there before anyone could question it"?

While perhaps overstated, the 777 is reputed to be overbuilt. It was designed during a time when efficiency was not the be-all end-all it is for the airline industry. Materials technology has also advanced a fair bit sense then. There's definitely weight savings in the plane that you wouldn't find in either the 787 or the 350.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-04-21 15:37:39 and read 23563 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):

An upgraded 787 wouldn't be cheap, but cheaper than a new airframe. Honestly, I think that both an upgraded 787 and 777 will be necessary, unless a 787-11 could really cover the 777 missions.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: SV777
Posted 2010-04-21 15:39:40 and read 23533 times.

I think beside wings/fuselage enhancements, Boeing still waiting for final results of all electric systems from the 787 to be adopted in 777 and how much weight it can save if adopted?.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: CFBFrame
Posted 2010-04-21 15:41:09 and read 23496 times.

So I'll ask the question again. Take off your technical hats and think about Boeing's reason for its change of heart. Mr. Mc said new 777 orders are on the horizon.

Do you think the airlines said a 777 was more appealing than a 787-10 (except for EK?), and the sales numbers Boeing saw were within the sights of the A350-900 (273 units) and the A350-1000(75 units)?

Earlier to market with a product forcing Airbus to deliver very close to specifications, making the A350XWB an ever more critical program. Also, maybe trying to push them out of the tanker program?

I just find it interesting that the announcement was made now. Could it be that they are going to the airshow with 777 sales as well as displaying the 787 and the 747-8? Good way to delay the 737 re-engine program announcement, and maybe a way of not having to kick that program off. There was no mention of any activities there.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: allegro
Posted 2010-04-21 16:06:48 and read 23045 times.

I think QF wanted the 7810 too ... I think it is dead.

The 777 is proving to be a remarkable design that can be updated to be competitive with current designs.

My suggestions for the 77NG:
1. New wing profile and material (CFRP)
2. Updated GE90 with GENx technology
3. Replace keel beam with Al-Li or Ti (did they do this for the 77W? I seem to think so)
4. Use Al-Li extensively throughout structure
5. Examine Wing box for further efficiencies ... maybe replace it with a CFRP box to match the wings.
6. Use GLARE panels, instead of Al ... I think the cargo floor is GLARE already
7. Replace previous generation electronics with current generation
8. Update cockpit to include 4D trajectory, ADS/B, RNP, etc
9. DO NOT TOUCH THE 2D tail ... love that ... reminds me of MD planes ...

Got some of this info from: http://mae.ucdavis.edu/vlasaponara/boeing777_article.pdf

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2010-04-21 16:35:46 and read 22619 times.

The 777s are very expensive to manufacture, thus expensive to acquire and own.

The 787, and the A350XWB are supposed to have a much more cost efficient manufacturing process. So even if the XWB cannot have commanding efficiency over 777NG, it may be able to beat it with substantially lower price and ownership cost.

If Boeing believes the 77NG can compete, I assume they may also revamp the manufacturing process to bring down its cost and therefore price.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: clickhappy
Posted 2010-04-21 17:25:23 and read 21795 times.

Aubrey Cohen is about the LAST guy you want to listen to about anything Boeing, seeing has he has been banned from attending any Boeing media functions due to his childish blog-bashing of one of Boeing's best customers.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: web500sjc
Posted 2010-04-21 17:33:46 and read 21622 times.

Can Boeing get any more length out of the 777? Will the add a 774 to the line up, and would they not call these ERs and instead just designate them with a new model series I.e. 778 Mabel signifying that Boeing could again revamp the 777 with an 8ER?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-21 17:34:39 and read 21684 times.

Quoting allegro (Reply 46):
I think QF wanted the 7810 too ... I think it is dead.

What QF wanted was a plane that can fly 350 passengers and their bags some 8500 nm, which the 777-300ER, 787-11 or A350-1000 could not attain, so it kind of struck me as a red herring, much like EK's "interest" in the 747-8.



Quoting cosmofly (Reply 47):
The 787, and the A350XWB are supposed to have a much more cost efficient manufacturing process. So even if the XWB cannot have commanding efficiency over 777NG, it may be able to beat it with substantially lower price and ownership cost.

Average list price for the A350-900 is $36 million more than the 777-200ER and for the A350-1000, $13 million more than the 777-300ER.

[Edited 2010-04-21 18:17:20]

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2010-04-21 18:04:44 and read 21122 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 40):
Do you have any basis for this claim other than "i got in there before anyone could question it"?
Quoting Delimit (Reply 42):
While perhaps overstated, the 777 is reputed to be overbuilt. It was designed during a time when efficiency was not the be-all end-all it is for the airline industry. Materials technology has also advanced a fair bit sense then.

While true, that's not what I'm saying.

Airbus has a very aggressive weight target for the A350, and they are going to be doing everything possible to make the interior components as light as possible. Unless RJ111 thinks that Airbus is going to use heavy interior components and old technology bins and electronics just for the heck of it? Of course not, but that doesn't stop people from getting defensive.

The 777 was designed at a time when fuel was not as expensive, and the weight of interior fittings were higher partly because it was less of a penalty and partly because lighter weight materials for seats and bins and galleys were more expensive and/or not even in use. But there is a cost to redesign an entire interior, which is why it doesn't happen that often, and why manufacturers will use a "XXX-like interiror" upgrade package to save on costs. So the 767 got "777-style" bins because they development cost was mostly accounted for in the 777 program. It would not have made sense to redo the interior of the 767 at that point if the program would need to eat the whole cost.

And it's why it's a big deal for the 737NG and A320 to get a new interior despite their large sales backlogs. It just doesn't happen that often.

A350 is starting from the point that other platforms would have to go through a cabin redesign (and recertification) to reach, at a cost to those programs. That puts Airbus ahead of a 777 in weight simply by having newer fittings, even before other weight savings of structural design are factored in.

What Boeing is saying is that they can spend the money to redesign the interior with lighter materials and certify lighter seats (all of which will cost a bit more) in order to save weight and narrow the gap or add more range to the 777.

Airbus could respond I suppose, but going with an even lighter, more expensive interior (if the technology exists), but I doubt that's really practical. In terms of interiors, Boeing is going to try to get as close to state of the art (A350) as possible with any NG777 platform. They can't afford not to.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-04-21 18:11:30 and read 21031 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 36):
. The aircraft would absolutely destroy the A350 on the most difficult missions

..but there really aren't too many C-market or long B-market missions....the A350 will have a lower cash cost/seat advantage.....something which carriers will love to have.   

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 47):
The 777s are very expensive to manufacture, thus expensive to acquire and own.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
Average list price for the A350-900 is $36 million more than the 777-200ER and for the A350-1000, $13 million more than the 777-300ER.

...add amortized costs for the B77 platform and development costs for the A350 platform and Boeing can certainly offer a very competitive price as well.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: morrisond
Posted 2010-04-21 18:15:20 and read 20924 times.

How much longer of a wing could they put on it? Could they go to A380 width? Keep Lift the same but minimize drag?

How much a fuel savings would they get out of this?

How close could they get to an A380 in efficiency with an optimized wing (with A380 width) and updated engines? Could this be a A380-800, 747-800 Killer?

Can they save any interior width by using the 787 interior technology (LCD windows and new insulation) to really make 10W the normal configuration?

Assuming Length and MTOW (then you don't have to make any changes to the landing gear) stays the same at 10W what would be typical passenger seating?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-22 01:56:51 and read 15721 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 51):
Unless RJ111 thinks that Airbus is going to use heavy interior components and old technology bins and electronics just for the heck of it? Of course not, but that doesn't stop people from getting defensive.

You could just as easily ask why Boeing didn't incorporate these quick and easy changes like lightweight seats and interiors into the 777LRs in the first place. And the answer is probably that they are not cost effective unless you absolutely need the range - such as for LHR-SYD. So why would they necessarliy be cost effective for the A350?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2010-04-22 04:14:43 and read 14374 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 52):
..but there really aren't too many C-market or long B-market missions..

Agreed... EK, EY, and CX would find an 8500+ nm "77W light" very, very useful, but all that capability would be wasted on European and most North American airlines... the price will also have to be comparatively low.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-04-22 04:15:11 and read 14350 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 54):
You could just as easily ask why Boeing didn't incorporate these quick and easy changes like lightweight seats and interiors into the 777LRs in the first place

Price, price, price....cost of technology going down and economy of scale.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 54):
And the answer is probably that they are not cost effective unless you absolutely need the range - such as for LHR-SYD. So why would they necessarliy be cost effective for the A350?

Price, price, price......cost of technology going down and economy of scale.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-22 04:40:23 and read 14011 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 56):
Price, price, price....cost of technology going down and economy of scale.

How can economies of scale be an issue if Boeing were seemingly willing to incorporate them for the sake of one customer?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2010-04-22 04:45:46 and read 13977 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):

I wonder what Emirates is going to think of this development. Weren't they the ones pushing the 787-10 in the first place?[/quote]

Yes but remember that they also pushed Airbus into developing the A430 300 HGW and then cancelled their order for about 28 frames!

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2010-04-22 06:18:22 and read 12857 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Boeing simply may not have the engineering and financial resources to pursue a clean sheet design.

  

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 14):
My only reservation is that many were claiming the same kind of 'refresh' wasn't good enough for the A330 vs. the 787. Why should or would it be any different here with a 'refresh' of the 777 vs. the A350? Perhaps it's what Stitch said in another thread-maybe the airlines are more open to a refresh now that they've experienced all that they have in the last 4 years.

Its a very good point - how can it be the angle in one case and the devil in the other. Boeing are essentially in a similar position to that of Airbus in 2004 when the 787 was first launched - it didn't suit them to launch a clean sheet design just as it doesn't suit Boeing to launch Y3 now. After something like $20B in R&D and more than 2 years of delays Boeing have reached their threshold of pain (and financing) for the moment.
I think Boeing have looked hard at the capex required for both 787-10HGW and the 777 upgrade and have decided that there is more bang for the buck in investing that capex (and reaping returns) in/from 3 models (77E, 77L and eventually 77W) rather than just a single 787-10 model.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
Compared to a crippled 787-10, or the same sort of work required to make a 787-10 worth it, the 777-8/9 makes more sense.

It probably does when looking at the 787-10HGW but I cant help thinking that a "crippled" 787-10 based on 789 gross weights (minimal change & cost) would do a wonderful job on TATL and regional routes.

Quoting allegro (Reply 46):
My suggestions for the 77NG:
1. New wing profile and material (CFRP)
2. Updated GE90 with GENx technology
3. Replace keel beam with Al-Li or Ti (did they do this for the 77W? I seem to think so)
4. Use Al-Li extensively throughout structure
5. Examine Wing box for further efficiencies ... maybe replace it with a CFRP box to match the wings.

It sounds so similar to the 350 proposed in 2004 (minus the GE90's).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
Average list price for the A350-900 is $36 million more than the 777-200ER and for the A350-1000, $13 million more than the 777-300ER

It would be nice if we new the average price for a substantial order of frames rather than just the list price. Does the 77W price include the cost of those expensive GE90's ?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 53):
How close could they get to an A380 in efficiency with an optimized wing (with A380 width) and updated engines? Could this be a A380-800, 747-800 Killer?

A 300 seater being a 380 killer ?   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The 787-9 can reach 280 with 9-abreast in Economy, so it's effectively filled the role the 787-10 was planned to

But the 787-10 (and the 359) does this at 8 abreast - and could do even more at 9 abreast. I agree that the 789 will be very capable but I'm at a loss to see how squeezing pax in like sardines suddenly makes it a 300 seater.



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-04-22 06:28:32 and read 12717 times.

Aren't seats something that are customer supplied?

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BoeEngr
Posted 2010-04-22 06:49:13 and read 12467 times.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 32):
Any idea when we'll see the first 789 in production?

The bulk of assembly will be in 2012. First flight in early 2013.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-22 07:42:53 and read 11785 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
It would be nice if we new the average price for a substantial order of frames rather than just the list price. Does the 77W price include the cost of those expensive GE90's?

You can generally knock 50% off list for a widebody order from either Boeing or Airbus today, and yes those prices include engines, avionics, cabin outfittings and other ancillaries, though those are all "list prices", as well. An actual sale involves multiple contracts with multiple vendors with different prices and discount rates so really, so even just knocking half of the list price is not really an accurate guess as to what a carrier paid.


Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
It probably does when looking at the 787-10HGW but I cant help thinking that a "crippled" 787-10 based on 789 gross weights (minimal change & cost) would do a wonderful job on TATL and regional routes.

I've seen the 787-10 as kind of a "super A330-300" just as I have heard that some airlines consider the A350-1000 as a "super 777-200ER" - a way to offer more capacity across the same mission.

However, the 787-10 right now looks like the 767-400ER to the 787-9's 767-300ER and the A350-900's A330-200. And that's not a favorable position for the 787-10 to be in, IMO.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-04-22 07:43:05 and read 11766 times.

I didn't really seen much in the article concerning the fates of the -10 and 777. Boeing is looking at both options and will decide their choices sometime in the future. Not really news, in my mind, since they have been saying essentially the same thing since the xwb was announced.

I still think they'll do a -10 stretch with 6 bogey main gear and more wing. Either way...interesting times.

It is good to hear about confidence in the 787 program and have data to back it up. Getting the last two test birds in the air is the next big thing.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-04-22 07:59:14 and read 11498 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 57):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 56):
Price, price, price....cost of technology going down and economy of scale.

How can economies of scale be an issue if Boeing were seemingly willing to incorporate them for the sake of one customer?

You have it the other way around friend. It would have been cost prohibitive for one customer...but not for many, many customers.....

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
Quoting morrisond (Reply 53):
How close could they get to an A380 in efficiency with an optimized wing (with A380 width) and updated engines? Could this be a A380-800, 747-800 Killer?

A 300 seater being a 380 killer ?

...better CASM, etc.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-22 08:37:25 and read 10951 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 64):
You have it the other way around friend. It would have been cost prohibitive for one customer...but not for many, many customers.....

I shall effectively repeat what i said, as they were seemingly ready to do it for one customer, it obviously isn't cost prohibitive.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-04-22 09:13:49 and read 10502 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 66):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 64):
You have it the other way around friend. It would have been cost prohibitive for one customer...but not for many, many customers.....

I shall effectively repeat what i said, as they were seemingly ready to do it for one customer, it obviously isn't cost prohibitive.

How do you know? Do you know what the asking price was? Maybe the price was indeed too high for QF once Boeing made all of the changes...

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-22 09:29:25 and read 10261 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 67):
How do you know? Do you know what the asking price was? Maybe the price was indeed too high for QF once Boeing made all of the changes...

And Jacobin plays the "i and others are allowed to speculate but you are not" card.

How predictable.  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-04-22 09:44:31 and read 10021 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 69):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 67):
How do you know? Do you know what the asking price was? Maybe the price was indeed too high for QF once Boeing made all of the changes...

And Jacobin plays the "i and others are allowed to speculate but you are not" card.

How predictable.

No need to get your knickers in a twist mate.....Where did I state you weren't allowed to speculate?....I was only explaining why I think your argument was incorrect...nothing more nothing less..

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2010-04-22 09:51:01 and read 9964 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 70):
No need to get your knickers in a twist mate.....Where did I state you weren't allowed to speculate?....I was only explaining why I think your argument was incorrect...nothing more nothing less..

He's still hung up on the idea that the A350 is getting some of it's weight savings by going with light interior fittings and that is bothering him because it might reveal that other legacy aircraft designs can get lighter with similar improvements, meaning the A350 isn't performing as many miracles as some would believe. If that bothers him, let it bother him.

But improvement is a moving target. Boeing targeted the A330's economics, but since the 787 launch, those have improved greatly. Airbus targeted the 777s economics, but before the A350 EIS, those also might improve greatly. Such is life...

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2010-04-22 10:21:34 and read 9633 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 71):
But improvement is a moving target. Boeing targeted the A330's economics, but since the 787 launch, those have improved greatly. Airbus targeted the 777s economics, but before the A350 EIS, those also might improve greatly. Such is life...

  ....I think that's probably more along the line as to what is happening...both the A330 and B777 have been improving continuously.....

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-22 10:59:37 and read 9223 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 71):
...other legacy aircraft designs can get lighter with similar improvements...

Spirit Airlines just introduced A320s with seats that cannot recline, noting the lighter weight saves fuel and the lack of movement reduces maintenance.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: EA772LR
Posted 2010-04-22 11:34:48 and read 8821 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):
Spirit Airlines just introduced A320s with seats that cannot recline, noting the lighter weight saves fuel and the lack of movement reduces maintenance.

Crazy what the airlines will do to make a dollar. These things really are turning into buses of the sky. Pretty soon we'll see school bus style seats installed...     

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 71):
But improvement is a moving target. Boeing targeted the A330's economics, but since the 787 launch, those have improved greatly. Airbus targeted the 777s economics, but before the A350 EIS, those also might improve greatly. Such is life...

  

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2010-04-22 12:52:33 and read 8619 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):
Spirit Airlines just introduced A320s with seats that cannot recline, noting the lighter weight saves fuel and the lack of movement reduces maintenance.

That's not quite the same thing. That's cutting features to save weight.

But look at DL and UA, replacing perfectly good coach seats with lighter ones to save weight and cost. When installed, comfort was more important to them than weight, now it's weight.

A350 will come with lighter weight seats out of the box. Carts and galleys and side panels and all the rest will also be as light as economically possible in the 2010s, whereas the current 777 design only has interiors as light as economically possible when in about 2001-2002.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-22 16:58:44 and read 8296 times.

At the end of the day, if what Boeing proposed to QF for LHR-SYD made economic sense for less extreme flights, i see no reason why this proposal wouldn't be incorporated into the countless 777s which have rolled off the line since then. Who wouldn't want 10t quickly and easily taken off an aircraft?

There is in fact no evidence that Boeing would go to these lengths in weight reduction in the cabin on the 777NG anyway, which is essentially why i found it amusing, and possibly quite revealing, that it was immediately insisted the A350 would be doing so.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: parapente
Posted 2010-04-23 02:29:13 and read 7733 times.

Quote "I quite like the EK idea for the 777NG. Make it a 772.5 and 773.5, where there’s a 2-3 row stretch for each model. This could be doable with new efficiencies, new engines and a new wing. This would then pressure the 350-1000 from both sides.
Wouldn’t do much for 748I sales, though!"

I agree

This seems the way to go for Boeing.It could be achieved as above via a stretch or as others have pointed out via "thinner" walls allowing 17.5 in seats at 10 across. (or both?).

Boeing (whilst not ruling out a new wing) have stated that they are worling on a "748" solution for the 777 wing.They will know by now how this has worked out for the 748. They will have hard data.

As for engines.For the 777-2.5 the Rolls offering effectively already exists in the XWB. For the 773.5 it will of course be a development of the existing engine (a very good Engine already IMHO).

Thus as someone pointed out they can do a pincer movement on the 350 .The additional seating capacity and improved economies of the engine/wing will probably - combined, be enough to match the 350

It's a good thing for the airlines as they will have a huge range of seating/load capacities to choose from depending on their differing market requirements.It will then be a case of "horses for courses" rather than "better".

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-24 09:39:08 and read 6819 times.

The more I think on it, a dual-track strategy of the 787-10 and an updated 777-200LR and 777-300ER might be the best option for Boeing.

Even if it was just a stretch of the 787-9 with no improvement in MTOW, a 787-10 should absolutely crush an A330-300. It would have a similar empty weight and it would carry significantly more people and cargo, burn significantly less fuel and handily out-range it. I could see it becoming the de-facto choice for any mission under 10,000km.

I expect CX, TG, SQ, NH, JL and EK would snap them up as 777-300 replacements (so that's 50-60 sales right there) and it would probably come to dominate hub-to-hub TATL mission with it's CASM and trip costs. I think Boeing could conservatively sell 250 of them and the costs would be minimal.

Then have GE totally overhaul and update the GE90-11xB (contra-rotation, new fan, IBR compressors, wide chord blade technology, etc.) and have Boeing launch a 70m "777-400ER" and 80m "777-500ER" and just hope that by a mix of seat count, improved wing and improved engines you can get close enough to the A350 that you remain competitive enough to recoup your costs and keep in the game for another 10 years until you're ready to unveil Y3.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: 2175301
Posted 2010-04-24 10:03:09 and read 6767 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
The more I think on it, a dual-track strategy of the 787-10 and an updated 777-200LR and 777-300ER might be the best option for Boeing.

I actually agree with this concept; but what I think will happen is that Boeing will first do a 777NG (more bang for the $$ now), and then later on do a 787-10. The 787-10 later on will probably change from current concepts - and might be more of a 10.5.

Have a great day,

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2010-04-24 10:38:18 and read 6644 times.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 77):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
The more I think on it, a dual-track strategy of the 787-10 and an updated 777-200LR and 777-300ER might be the best option for Boeing.

I actually agree with this concept; but what I think will happen is that Boeing will first do a 777NG (more bang for the $$ now), and then later on do a 787-10. The 787-10 later on will probably change from current concepts - and might be more of a 10.5.

Have a great day,

The 787-10 would be years out anyhow, and the 787-9 can fill some of that void temporarily, so I can also see the 777NG being the higher priority. However, I was more hoping they'd use the 787-10 to help them bridge directly to a Y3 replacement. I hate to see us go 773/744 -> 773NG/748i -> Y3, if only because I feel like that puts them well into 2020+. By then the A350 and A380 will be mature designs going through improvements and cleaning up the market.

But money don't grow on trees.

-Dave

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: bmacleod
Posted 2010-04-24 11:04:17 and read 6573 times.

So if the 787-10 is dead, will the next-gen 777 have 787 Gen-X type engines? Maybe more composites in the fuselage?

An all-aluminum fuselage carries considerable more weight, so lighter materials like those in the 787 should be included....

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-24 11:52:08 and read 6464 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 78):
The 787-10 would be years out anyhow...

And yet it doesn't really have to be. The 787-9 is a good bit more than just a stretched 787-8, which is why it's gestation is taking as long as the 787-8's did. But a 787-10 would be a pure 6m stretch with a plug forward of the wings and one aft. That can't be very hard to engineer.

Now I expect Boeing would not want to launch the 787-9 and 787-10 together, but they should be able to engineer them in concurrence. The real market for the 787-10 would begin in the second half of the decade, as 777-300s and early model A330-300s start reaching their service lives. This would also allow the CHS line to increase it's own rate to allow Boeing the ability to deliver ~14 frames a month.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 78):
I hate to see us go 773/744 -> 773NG/748i -> Y3, if only because I feel like that puts them well into 2020+. By then the A350 and A380 will be mature designs going through improvements and cleaning up the market.

That might be the time to jump, however. I expect A350-1000 sales are what they are now because airlines have very "low-mileage" 777-300ERs in their fleets making them money so even if the A350-1000 could save them 20% per year, they need a lot of years to cover a new $150+ million purchase (assuming an A350-1000 goes for what a 777-300ER does at actual market prices). If most 77W operators are not ready to replace their 77Ws until the early part of the next decade, Boeing coming in with a Y3 that would itself be "five or more years ahead" of the A350 in design and performance and economics could probably convince a sizable number of those buyers to eschew the A350-1000 and directly replace their 77Ws with a Y3 even if they have the A350-800 or A350-900 in their fleets.

I would expect Boeing would want minimum 777 production to be four per month, so they need to project how much of the annual market for large widebody twins Airbus can take with the A350. Airbus continues to play their cards publicly close to their vest, but their customers have to be getting updates and that data is flowing through channels back to Boeing (just as Airbus could keep abreast of the 787 program via customer updates and supplier leaks).

If the A350 looks certain to be 20-25% better than the 777 and can achieve 100-120 deliveries per year within a few years, then Boeing probably has no choice but to go to Y3 and just move 777s at minimal markups plus whatever "quick and cheap" updates they can do to keep the line active at even 1-2 a month until then.

If the A350 looks to be 10-15% better than the 777, even if Airbus can hit 100-120 deliveries quickly, a full on "Next Generation" upgrade could probably keep the 777 in the game and reach those ≥50 deliveries a year at a price that can recover the R&D costs at that rate.

[Edited 2010-04-24 12:02:29]

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2010-04-24 12:14:52 and read 6388 times.

Stitch, rather than quote your great posts, what I'll say is that I didn't consider the replacement cycle as you laid it out, and that is obviously a critical element of their decision making.

In regards ot the 787-10, I agree that the development cycle would be much shorter than, or as you say perhaps concurrent with, the 787-9. I just don't see a 787-10 "fitting in" to the delivery schedule for a long, long time. But, as you say, that might be just fine for those who need it as a replacement for aging fleets.

I'm curious if Boeing would be happy to allow carriers to switch to the -10, and have it steal some sales from the 350 lineup, knowing that they have the low end locked up to a degree? We heard in the past that the -10 was a 772 killer so Boeing was relunctant to do much with it. Things have changed now, so I can see where Boeing would really want to push the -10 rather than lose those sales to Airbus.

Anyhow, aside from my rambling, thanks for the replacement cycle input. It gave a clearer picture to me for their timing and decisions.

-Dave

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-24 12:53:11 and read 6306 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 81):
In regards ot the 787-10, I agree that the development cycle would be much shorter than, or as you say perhaps concurrent with, the 787-9. I just don't see a 787-10 "fitting in" to the delivery schedule for a long, long time.

I expect a "straight stretch" 787-10's best market is going to be TATL services and sub-10,000km missions around Asia, Africa and the Middle East - areas right now dominated by the A330-300 and, for Asia, the 777-300.

So the longer Boeing waits, the more market-share Airbus can claim by selling A330-300 operators new frames. And the A350-1000 will make a solid 777-300 replacement - same capacity, better range and better operating economics.

Now if they plan to overhaul the 787-10 with a ≤50t MTOW boost and all the accoutrements (wingspan extension, new undercarriage, more powerful engines), then yes, I agree that can wait until the end of the decade because that can fight the A350-900 and A350-1000 since it slots in between them.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-04-24 16:00:26 and read 6032 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
The more I think on it, a dual-track strategy of the 787-10 and an updated 777-200LR and 777-300ER might be the best option for Boeing.

Good to see people coming around to my way of thinking...     

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 78):
But money don't grow on trees.

That is part of the reason that I think that a 777NG must be part of Boeing's future.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 80):
he 787-9 is a good bit more than just a stretched 787-8, which is why it's gestation is taking as long as the 787-8's did.

True, especially considering that although the -8 is yet to enter service, its design has been frozen for a long time due to delays. The -9 will have several years worth of new technology.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 81):
We heard in the past that the -10 was a 772 killer so Boeing was relunctant to do much with it.

Well, if I ruled the world that is exactly what the -10 would be. Then build a 777NG with a -300 length and a stretch which would set Boeing in a good position until they get around to the Y3.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
I expect a "straight stretch" 787-10's best market is going to be TATL services and sub-10,000km missions around Asia, Africa and the Middle East - areas right now dominated by the A330-300 and, for Asia, the 777-300.

I think that there is something to be said for a straight stretch, but I believe that Boeing is better off going up the ladder with performance and competing with the A350-900. If the market warrants it, they can always go back and combine the wings of the 787-9 with the -10 body for a relatively low cost, and likewise combine the -10 wings and engines with the -9 fuselage to get a 787-9LR.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-04-24 16:13:45 and read 6006 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
I think that there is something to be said for a straight stretch, but I believe that Boeing is better off going up the ladder with performance and competing with the A350-900. If the market warrants it, they can always go back and combine the wings of the 787-9 with the -10 body for a relatively low cost, and likewise combine the -10 wings and engines with the -9 fuselage to get a 787-9LR.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
The more I think on it, a dual-track strategy of the 787-10 and an updated 777-200LR and 777-300ER might be the best option for Boeing.

Good to see people coming around to my way of thinking

I think you either do the dual strategy or the 787-10IGW. I like the dual strategy idea, but it's true that some airlines tend to prefer flexibility over specialisation. I think a lot of Far East operators would love a straight stretch 787-10 though.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-04-24 16:34:27 and read 5969 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 84):
I think you either do the dual strategy or the 787-10IGW.

I envision it as kind of both. The IGW 787-10 would be designed to replace all of the short bodied 777s except the LR, or maybe including the LR if possible. Then, build the 777NG based on the 77W and add one stretch to that meaning that those airframes would not need compromises for smaller siblings.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 84):
I think a lot of Far East operators would love a straight stretch 787-10 though.

I think many would, and if enough do, go back to the drawing board and do that. Ideally, Boeing could have a 787 "shelf" containing three fuselage lengths (-8, -9, -10, though the -8 probably wouldn't see additional use) and two sets of wings, landing gear, and engines (-8/-9 and -10). Then they could more or less just mix and match to suit the market, in a manner somewhat like what they have done with the 777.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: parapente
Posted 2010-04-24 21:59:00 and read 5677 times.

But Boeing "did" have 2 wings for the 787.But they decided to compromise (sorry "unexpected wing performance improvements") the 789 by using the smaller "standard" wing.No problems with that - saves a shed load of money,reduces development and testing times and still delivers a fantastic product.

But it is also a decision about the future is it not? Hence all the (now public) rumblings about the 777NG.Clearly a decision was made as to which of the 2 routes had the greater merit.

Fact.The 787 is and will remain heavier than they origonaly hoped for and MTOW's have gone up accordingly (indeed the engine manufacturers have been struggling to meet their ambitious fuel consumption promises).Then (as always with weight) there is the undercarriage capability.

With the 788 wing and undercarriage (and engines maxed out) what range /load would a "10" now offer.It was shortish when Boeing origonally included such an aircraft overtly in their presentations (they don't now please notice).It (range)would be even shorter today if they did.

Hence re looking at the 777 as the obvious way forward. Anyway Boeing have the advantage of seeing what happened to Airbus when they "overstretched" the 340 to the 600.Bad idea, the structural weight goes north rapidly.

If (as I suspect) Boeing offer a revised/reengined 772 at 10 across seating they will at least have a new interior (with small adjustments) waiting for it in the shape of the new 748i interior. Might as wel use it for something.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-04-24 22:10:33 and read 5654 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 86):
But Boeing "did" have 2 wings for the 787.But they decided to compromise (sorry "unexpected wing performance improvements") the 789 by using the smaller "standard" wing.

My guess is that a new 787-10 wing would be even larger and diverge more from the 787-8 wing than the original -9 wing. Basically, I believe that Boeing decided that the extra weight and effort of the new wing would nearly cancel out the benefits.

Quoting parapente (Reply 86):
Clearly a decision was made as to which of the 2 routes had the greater merit.

I am not sure that is a straight either/or situation with the 787-10 and 777NG.

Quoting parapente (Reply 86):
.It (range)would be even shorter today if they did.

Which is why they should go back and do the -10 right, with new wings, engines, and undercarriage.

Quoting parapente (Reply 86):
Anyway Boeing have the advantage of seeing what happened to Airbus when they "overstretched" the 340 to the 600.

I'm sure that Boeing knew that when they showed the original 787-10 and it's why I'm skeptical at best about any potential -11 and why some sort of 777 or Y3 will be necessary in the Boeing lineup.

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: BAW716
Posted 2010-04-24 22:20:46 and read 5634 times.

787-10 won't happen. It will be less expensive and faster for Boeing to modify it's existing (and very successful) 777 line to bring the 300-400 seat market home. The 787-8/3 will happen first, then the larger 787-9 will get done, but right now, the 777 has been such a winner that Boeing would be foolish to do anything except make the plane a little more efficient...which it has the technology and know how to do...and can be done faster than the 787-10, which would put a serious dent in the sales possibilities of an Airbus A350-1000....which is at least six to eight years out??

Murky crystal ball again...

baw716

Topic: RE: No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-04-25 08:14:07 and read 5292 times.

The 787 is heavier than planned, but Boeing continues to claim it will meet it's performance guarantees (and they now have actual data to plug into those equations, not just hypotheticals) so it appears the extra weight is not going to penalize the plane's performance.

So in theory a 787-10 should not suffer any worse performance than originally planned, as well.

And nothing is stopping Boeing from putting in the 787-9's original wingtip extensions to increase the span back to the original 63m (or up to


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/