Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5624883/

Topic: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-03 02:07:11 and read 40020 times.

In a general AW article about all new Boeing DA aircraft programs (and the 747-8 in the headline) is hidden SOME REAL NEWS  Wow! (and it sound like they know what they are talking about), here goes:

"The -10X involves more than adding fuselage plugs to the 787-9. There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads. A redesign also offers the promise of improved performance in the wing. An upgraded environmental control system is likely, as is a stronger main landing gear that uses six-wheel trucks, as does the 777-300ER. "

That sounds very much like the start of the 787-10HGW, a cleaned up and stronger wing - center wingbox join can carry a higher MTOW then the 789 as can a 6 wheel MLG. With these modifications the route up to some 280t should be prepared and ranges that make the 787-10 a real long-haul frame (280t gives you some 8000nm with the present wing). Don't be surprised to see the final offered variant pass 7000nm with full passenger load with a margin and then gradually stepping up to 8000nm as times goes. The engines are probably the limiting factor more then the wing so as these can add power so will the 787-10 add MTOW and thus range.

The new MLG would possibly restrict the cargo to 40 LD3 with the present 9 frame stretch, a small sacrifice and a good move. If you go to the trouble of certifying a new variant better remove some of the bottle-necks that you can in the process and those that you can't (the engines) you follow their stepwise development.

So we get a real A359 competitor after all in the 787 range, mile by mile or really lbf by lbf  .

[Edited 2012-12-03 02:13:32]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-03 02:11:56 and read 40045 times.

What market does that leave for the 777-8X?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2012-12-03 02:52:52 and read 39797 times.

None, unfortunately...

Sniff... sniff...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2012-12-03 03:10:31 and read 39673 times.

So if the cost of development of the 777X can't be spread across the 778-8X as well, does that mean reducing the scope of the 9X as well? Expanding the scope and cost of development of 787-10 logically means reducing that of the 9X. Just as the A330 is competitive for years yet, so the 777 might be with not so much development more than a pretty simple stretch.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2012-12-03 03:15:10 and read 39618 times.

Interesting! Surely expecting a MTOW increase now

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: SeJoWa
Posted 2012-12-03 03:18:17 and read 39599 times.

Interesting catch, ferpe!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 3):
Expanding the scope and cost of development of 787-10 logically means reducing that of the 9X.

Not necessarily. If the putative 777-8 goes to the boneyard in the sky, then the -9 could be better optimized for its missions and hence more competitive. 777-9 and -10 anyone?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2012-12-03 03:32:18 and read 39509 times.

So the 7810 moves from an A333 killer to an A359 direct competitor.

Does that mean the A333 lives longer?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-03 03:49:02 and read 39375 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):


Sounds like they are using a similar approach as what Airbus did from the -900 to -1000. The additional wheels, increased wing loads, and changes to the ECS may also mean the possibility of another fuselage extension.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2012-12-03 03:55:14 and read 39326 times.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 5):
Not necessarily. If the putative 777-8 goes to the boneyard in the sky, then the -9 could be better optimized for its missions and hence more competitive. 777-9 and -10 anyone?

Wouldn't a -10 be too long to be practicable.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-03 04:17:37 and read 39185 times.

Do you see what I meant in all these 77X threads about a 787-based A351 competitor?

A new landing gear is a more extensive upgrade that I would have thought to be required to approach A351 capability from below. If Boeing brings forward the 787 that much, a 340 seat, high performance version won't be out of reach anymore.

With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

Bye bye 77X.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-03 04:50:57 and read 38969 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):

I wonder what sort of a weight and fuel burn penalty this will cause on the 787-10. The 787-10 as it was would have been a terrific A333 replacement on medium haul (10 hour) routes. I think the addition of the triple bogie main landing gear will have a negative effect its trip fuel burn for such routes.

Also, are there any plans to increase the wingspan on the 787-10? At just 60m it seems to be on the small side for an airliner with its size and mission profile, particularly if Boeing wishes to increase the range of the 787-10.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 3):
Expanding the scope and cost of development of 787-10 logically means reducing that of the 9X.

No.

While I agree that the base 777-8X is all but dead (though the ultra long range 777-8LX and a "777-8F" is still a possibility), the 787-10 isn't anywhere near big enough to take on the market of the 777-300ER and its successor, the 777-9X. What the advent of the 787-10 means is that the 777X family will be reduced. It will not make the 777X family redundant.

I think it is a good strategy for Boeing to sandwich the A350-1000 between two of its models, the 787-10 and the 777-9X. Without a competitive and heavily revised 777-9X, Boeing wouldn't have much of a competitive offering if airlines wanted something between the size of the A350-1000 and the A380.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

Bye bye 77X.

In your dreams.  

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 05:00:51 and read 38884 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads.

Going back into history when the SOB issues and weight creep became evident back in 2009/10 the smart money was on a complete SOB redesign and 6 wheel boggies (you can check the archieve) but there were some who insisted that Boeing could cheat physics, not so.

Also at this point I'm thinking ironic thoughts about the recent thread that insisted that the A350-1000 was a dead end with no room for growth without a major redesign (not true), seems that the B789 has this problem in spades.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-12-03 05:04:17 and read 38842 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
That sounds very much like the start of the 787-10HGW, a cleaned up and stronger wing - center wingbox join can carry a higher MTOW then the 789 as can a 6 wheel MLG.

Wouldn't make these added modifications the -10X a lot heavier, thus compromising its biggest advantage towards the A359? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard a 6 wheel bogie implies some stiff weight penalties.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
The engines are probably the limiting factor more then the wing so as these can add power so will the 787-10 add MTOW and thus range.

Perhaps we'll see a modified GE9x appear on the -10X to compete with RR's Trent-1000 TEN, GE is working hard on it anyway for an and of the decade EIS.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

It would need another stretch, and I'm not so sure Boeing will go that far.

And I don't write the 777-9X off just yet, although it becomes more and more likely Boeing will eventually have a 787-10 with GE9x and RB3025 engines and 8000+ NM range. Possibly developing an all new widebody family offering 77W/747 replacements, GTF engines, EIS 2023/2024, right at the start of the 77W replacement cycle.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 05:13:16 and read 38682 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
Perhaps we'll see a modified GE9x appear on the -10X to compete with RR's Trent-1000 TEN, GE is working hard on it anyway for an and of the decade EIS.

We have the bleed v non bleed problem here again, a GE9x would have to be completely re engineered for the 787. But I think that the GEnx is at the top of its thrust range for the 789 anyway, this is another problem with a double stretch.

[Edited 2012-12-03 05:14:58]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: SeJoWa
Posted 2012-12-03 05:15:26 and read 38638 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 8):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 5):
Not necessarily. If the putative 777-8 goes to the boneyard in the sky, then the -9 could be better optimized for its missions and hence more competitive. 777-9 and -10 anyone?

Wouldn't a -10 be too long to be practicable.

I can't say. But there's a market for a twin widebody with the highest capacity that's practical to build, and it would be a lucrative niche for sure. On the other hand, Boeing is still making hopeful noises regarding the 747-8I... ( and we know how many of those Emirates have bought, even though they say that growth will be mainly via airplane size upgrades ).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-12-03 05:23:35 and read 38468 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):Perhaps we'll see a modified GE9x appear on the -10X to compete with RR's Trent-1000 TEN, GE is working hard on it anyway for an and of the decade EIS.
We have the bleed v non bleed problem here again, a GE9x would have to be completely re engineered for the 787

At this stage of the development, I don't think it would cause GE that many headaches (although I admit it wouldn't be something trivial either) GE initially started both bleed and non bleed (for the non-XWB A350) versions of the GENx too...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-03 05:36:49 and read 38233 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
In your dreams.

My dreams are not related in any way to the 77X.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
It will not make the 777X family redundant.

I agree fully. With the 77X Boeing will try to conquer markets that have been adressed before (748) but that are in danger to be covered by future 787 upgrades.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

It would need another stretch, and I'm not so sure Boeing will go that far.

The new landing gear would not be needed for A359 capability. Proof: the A359.

So what else does Boeing have in mind?

I would say any stretch is easy-peasy compared to the wing/center-wing-box changes that go with 6 wheel MLG. The newsworthy part in this thread is the High-MTOW version of the 787, that will be on the radar from now on. The length of that plane will only be a minor variable, that can be adjusted to match the sweetest portion of the market. Anything up to 340-350 should be straight forward...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Ronaldo747
Posted 2012-12-03 05:49:55 and read 38011 times.

The original range of the 787-10X is about 6750 nm, reportedly potential customers want a range over 7000 nm, but I never see 8000 nm range for this aircraft, this range is reserved for the 787-9 and 777X (all variants) respectively. The six wheel MLG is not a surprise, given to the heavy stretch over the basic 787 frame.

I don't see why Boeing should kill the 777-8X variant. Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter, so a 777-9X shrink is a must-have.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-03 05:53:37 and read 37907 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
"The -10X involves more than adding fuselage plugs to the 787-9. There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads. A redesign also offers the promise of improved performance in the wing. An upgraded environmental control system is likely, as is a stronger main landing gear that uses six-wheel trucks, as does the 777-300ER. "

Very interesting news. Thanks for posting.

Quoting zeke (Reply 7):
Sounds like they are using a similar approach as what Airbus did from the -900 to -1000. The additional wheels, increased wing loads, and changes to the ECS may also mean the possibility of another fuselage extension.

It sure looks that way.  .

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 6):
So the 7810 moves from an A333 killer to an A359 direct competitor.

It sure looks that way too!  .

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):

Do you see what I meant in all these 77X threads about a 787-based A351 competitor?

You have said it all along, I commend you for that. But they are not at A351-capacities yet.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

They will not need the B777-8X for sure now.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
In your dreams.

Maybe, maybe not. But these changes to the B787-10X are influencing the business case for the B777-X-program. For sure the B778-X is now an even more highly doubtful proposal imho.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
It would need another stretch, and I'm not so sure Boeing will go that far.

But the potential is now there.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But I think that the GEnx is at the top of its thrust range for the 789 anyway, this is another problem with a double stretch.

True, but the potential is there. At least from RR.  .

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
The new landing gear would not be needed for A359 capability. Proof: the A359.

So what else does Boeing have in mind?

That question will be answered as the program comes along. When that will be only Boeing can tell us.  . Interesting times ahead, as always. But Boeing seems to be following more and more the concepts Airbus is bringing to the market. We have seen it with the B737-MAX and now they seem to be "copying" the A350 program structures.

[Edited 2012-12-03 05:54:09]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-03 05:58:47 and read 37771 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):

The new landing gear would not be needed for A359 capability. Proof: the A359.

So what else does Boeing have in mind?

My guess it is a tyre pressure issue, they are probably pushing 240-250 psi.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-03 06:03:51 and read 37696 times.

As others have suggested above, and I have pointed many a time - The 787 barrel has a lot of future capability in it. A 280T 787 effectively kills the 77W. The Barrels are very similarly sized - only a 9" difference in Height is inmaterial although the barrel is maxed out at 9W - you don't get the same comfort in a 777 barrel at 10W. As for engines the 789 is launching with 71,000 LB engines - the engine OEM's are already pushing there designs to 76-78,000 - with wing tweaks wouldn't this be in the right thrust class?

I can see a 77W+ as mentioned in articles from last week with a 4-5% Fuel burn improvement in the 2016-2017 timeframe to get to a complete replacement in the early 2020's with the program starting very soon, with the improvements carrying over to the 77F program.

A 2020's technology - all carbon 12W Eliptical (same cross section area as the 777) 70M (375-400 seats - huge range) and 80M Twin (450 + seats - 8,000NM range) with up to 80M wings would put some serious hurt on the A380 program - kill the 787i and take Boeing into New size ranges. This plane should be possible with engines in existing thrust ranges.

Mastering non-standard Fuselage cross sections (possibly using non-autoclave carbon) makes sense at the relatively low volumes of a Y3 sized aircraft.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2012-12-03 06:08:20 and read 37558 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter, so a 777-9X shrink is a must-have.

The thing is, 777-8X was not being conceived as the shrink of -9X, contrary to the belief on this forum. It was going to be a stretch of the current 777-200ER with a lighter wing. At least that's what the original idea of it was.

I'm still hoping Boeing decides to build it, however, with this latest development I'm afraid the 787-10X will turn out to become the "777-200ER/-8X killer".

Well... at least 777-9X is a sure thing.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-03 06:10:29 and read 37528 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
With the 77X Boeing will try to conquer markets that have been adressed before (748) but that are in danger to be covered by future 787 upgrades.

  

I do not believe any 787 variant will ever supplant the 777-300ER, let alone the 777-9X. It was simply never designed to be stretched that far in the first place. The 787-10 is as big as the 787 will get, although higher MTOW variants remain a possibility.

The 787-10 may have the range (with an MTOW upgrade - which is by no means definite), it may have the fuel burn, but it does not have the cargo carrying capacity or the seating capacity of the 777-300ER. The 777-9X will only raise the bar further in that respect.

The 777 and 787 families of aircraft are distinct and separate. The increase in the 787's capabilities - which is terrific for the 787 family, by the way - does not mean

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
Bye bye 77X.

... not by a long shot.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
I would say any stretch is easy-peasy compared to the wing/center-wing-box changes that go with 6 wheel MLG.

  

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
the stiffness to strength ratio for CFRP is lower than for aluminum, which means with the same strength you will get more deflection with CFRP as opposed to aluminum (hence the much greater wing flex with CFRP wings). Fuselage flex with an airliner is much more important than wing flex, and hence with the CFRP fuselage (especially with the smaller diameter) and a very long fuselage you may have to add structure to get the necessary stiffness beyond what is required for structural strength. Hence you may lose the weight savings of CFRP. Overall, you are probably better off with the larger diameter Al fuselage rather than trying to extend a smaller diameter CFRP fuselage to get the same capacity. There comes a point (as the A346 proved) where a extending a given fuselage diameter is a case of diminishing returns, and that will be true no matter what the material
777X Vs 787-11/12 (by morrisond Sep 20 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
I don't see why Boeing should kill the 777-8X variant. Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter, so a 777-9X shrink is a must-have.

  

The base 777-8X variant probably won't get off the ground, but there's still the ultra long haul 777-8LX and a potential 777-8F variant to be built. There's little doubt in my mind that although the 777-9X will dominate the 777X family sales going foward, its smaller sibling will also be developed, if only as a freighter/ultra long hauler.

[Edited 2012-12-03 06:15:16]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-03 06:27:25 and read 37236 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 22):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
With the 77X Boeing will try to conquer markets that have been adressed before (748) but that are in danger to be covered by future 787 upgrades.

Sorry, you are right of course. I wanted to say "not in danger" to be covered by future 787 upgrades...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2012-12-03 06:30:09 and read 37176 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):

with the GE90-115 the most powerful GE engine? Then Gen 1b engine could easily exceed that 115K thrust limit
The answer is?? will there BE enough room for the FAN to make that Thrust?? ??
The Triple Bogey Landing gear we at United call "BIGFOOT" will solve the problem because it is large and LONG enough to support a 115 in fan already this will obviously change the Ground stance with the smaller 787's but not significantly enough to make It undoable

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 06:45:18 and read 37575 times.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
Then Gen 1b engine could easily exceed that 115K thrust limit

No it couldn't core is too small.

Its like saying that Dodge make NASCAR engines so a Cirus engine can be made good to race in NASCAR.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-03 06:49:57 and read 37565 times.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
with the GE90-115 the most powerful GE engine? Then Gen 1b engine could easily exceed that 115K thrust limit
The answer is?? will there BE enough room for the FAN to make that Thrust?? ??

With todays technology they do not need an engine the size of the GE90-115 to power an aircraft the size of the 77W.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-12-03 07:14:28 and read 37456 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
I think the addition of the triple bogie main landing gear will have a negative effect its trip fuel burn for such routes.

Agree. You can see this in the effect that it has on the A350-1000 relative to the A350-900.
however, it does raise some very interesting questions about how far Boeing may push the 787-10 in the future.
As Rheinwaldner pointed out, the A350-900 is approaching 270t MTOW on a double bogie MLG

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
At just 60m it seems to be on the small side for an airliner with its size and mission profile

If the weights go beyond 250t in any meaningful way, I'd tend to agree

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 11):
Also at this point I'm thinking ironic thoughts about the recent thread that insisted that the A350-1000 was a dead end with no room for growth without a major redesign (not true), seems that the B789 has this problem in spades

One or two of us went to some lengths to point out the inconsistency of some of the thinking on that thread.
Wasn't all that well received in some quarters though. It seemed much more fashionable to single out the A350-1000 for some unique treatment..

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
Then Gen 1b engine could easily exceed that 115K thrust limit
The answer is?? will there BE enough room for the FAN to make that Thrust?? ??

???
The GEnx 1B will never get anywhere near that.   
A brand new engine based on its technology could, of course

Rgds

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-03 07:16:35 and read 37398 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
The six wheel MLG is not a surprise, given to the heavy stretch over the basic 787 frame.

Everyone has been assuming the 787-10 would have the same MTOW (~251t) of the 787-9, so there was no need for a revised main gear geometry.

The only reason Boeing needs a six-wheel bogey on the 787-10 is because they're going for significantly heavier weights - 20-30t, IMO.

GE and RR have both been working on more powerful engines for the 787-9 and 787-10. My guess was it was meant to improve field performance, but they would also be necessary to support higher take-off weights.

As for the wingspan, I think it safe to assume we'll see 63-65m because the extra weight is no longer a real penalty since you have so much TOW growth.

I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m. That would give the 787-10 the same 3m fuselage cabin length advantage over the A350-900 that the A350-900 has over the 787-9. So you'd be able to seat an additional 27 passengers over an A350-900 (and 52 over a 787-9). This would also provide room for 44 LD3 positions - an 8 LD3 position advantage over the A350-900 and 787-9.

The A350-900 should still have the range advantage - at MZFW it can tank 76t of fuel whereas I could see the 787-10 at around 70t (210t MZFW | 280t MTOW).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-03 07:38:27 and read 36883 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):

The only reason Boeing needs a six-wheel bogey on the 787-10 is because they're going for significantly heavier weights - 20-30t, IMO.

Bit of an overkill for 280t, that woud be around 20 t per wheel, 5 wheel would be around 25, and 8 around 30. The norm would be 25-30t per wheel.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-03 07:40:41 and read 36735 times.

For a moment I thought Boeing should consider doing both versions of the 10, the stretch only and the increased MTOW, but I get why they wouldn't. They can leverage a huge portion that would have bought the stretch only into helping pay to develop the higher MTOW variant of the airplane which may or may not be the basis for other frames in the future.

As for the 777x I am curious what this does to it. If you could stretch the 787 to an 11 model and complete with the A351 directly then things get interesting. Does Boeing either remake 777x or move down the road to a Y3 approach or some blend. Were I Boeing I would be looking to use by 777x/Y3 to offer a true 10 across, ultra low CASM airliner that would make life tough for the A350/787 and would be able to serve as the top end large airliner for most airliners not named Emirates.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-03 07:45:23 and read 36745 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
My guess it is a tyre pressure issue, they are probably pushing 240-250 psi.

This is very likely. The 787-8 already has really really high tire loading, it's only going to get worse on the stretches.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-03 07:58:01 and read 36445 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 29):
Bit of an overkill for 280t, that woud be around 20 t per wheel, 5 wheel would be around 25, and 8 around 30. The norm would be 25-30t per wheel.


A 69m long, 65m span, 300t 787-10 would offer more passenger seating, more cargo volume and longer range than the A350-900, so it would be a compelling option for many carriers (EK alone could be hundreds of frames).

And if Boeing is going to 300t, then a 75m 787-11 designed o compete with the A350-1000 becomes a possibility, IMO. Such a plane would offer about an 18-seat advantage over the A350-1000 and would offer the same cabin length as the 777-9X

[Edited 2012-12-03 07:59:27]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-03 08:05:19 and read 36167 times.

I don't think this rules out a simple stretch version of the -10. Not everybody needs the extra capabilities of a HGW and there is no reason why they can't do a -10 lite and a heavy.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-12-03 08:11:19 and read 36035 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m. That would give the 787-10 the same 3m fuselage cabin length advantage over the A350-900 that the A350-900 has over the 787-9. So you'd be able to seat an additional 27 passengers over an A350-900 (and 52 over a 787-9). This would also provide room for 44 LD3 positions - an 8 LD3 position advantage over the A350-900 and 787-9.

Wouldn't the new landing gear eat at least two of those LD3 positions? So a 6 m stretch might (or might not) be enough to preserve the expected 42 LD3 capacity of the 5 m "simple stretch," but won't likely give 44 LD3 capacity.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-03 08:27:00 and read 35762 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Wouldn't the new landing gear eat at least two of those LD3 positions?

I would expect it depends on how much larger Section 45 needs to be to accommodate the larger bogies. Airbus had to extend the gear-bay of the A350-1000 by one frame.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 08:35:23 and read 35554 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
A 69m long, 65m span, 300t 787-10 would offer more passenger seating, more cargo volume and longer range than the A350-900, so it would be a compelling option for many carriers (EK alone could be hundreds of frames).

Okay, but surely this is yet another proposed 787-10 version, this is not the one that was rumoured to be offered last month, that one was aimed at the A330-300 this one is targeted at the A350-900.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2012-12-03 08:41:02 and read 35442 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):

Boeing could build a freighter out of whatever model they field as a passenger model. As a matter of fact the Bigger the Fuselage the Better and more cost effective. there are no major freight ports that already cannot be reached by air and having a 9000KM range isn't going to help when you take off and land at max gross ZFW Every Flight

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-03 08:46:07 and read 35313 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter

Could the 787-10 not serve as a decent freighter?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-03 08:46:18 and read 35334 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
I would expect it depends on how much larger Section 45 needs to be to accommodate the larger bogies. Airbus had to extend the gear-bay of the A350-1000 by one frame.

As they are redoing the side of Body join - maybe the 781 has a unique section 45 with the Chord of the 781 Wing Wider at the Join (1M?) - essentially putting 2.5M plugs in the existing 788/9 wing and allowing room for a larger MGB?

Maybe the longer Section 45 (call it 1M longer) makes it a 70 M plane with Stitch's 6M Stretch - giving it room for two more rows and giving it a 350 seat (A351) capacity?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-12-03 08:46:31 and read 35442 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Everyone has been assuming the 787-10 would have the same MTOW (~251t) of the 787-9, so there was no need for a revised main gear geometry

Probably because all along that is what Boeing appear to have maintained it was likely to be.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
The only reason Boeing needs a six-wheel bogey on the 787-10 is because they're going for significantly heavier weights - 20-30t, IMO.

GE and RR have both been working on more powerful engines for the 787-9 and 787-10.

Ge and RR have indeed both been working on more powerful engines, but it has always been stated that the push from 75k lb to the (say) 78k lb of the Trent 1000 TEN was to accommodate the requirements of the 787-10 at the existing weight.

I can't see any way a 787-10 at 270 tonnes, (even with a 65m wingspan) will need less thrust than a 270 tonne A350-900 - i.e. 83 000lb.
A 280 tonne MTOW is more likely to need about 87 000lb thrust

To me, that's a different engine altogether to the GEnx 1B and Trent 1000
(Ironically enough, it would look more like the Trent XWB to my eyes...   )

Rgds

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-03 08:46:45 and read 35446 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 36):
Okay, but surely this is yet another proposed 787-10 version, this is not the one that was rumoured to be offered last month, that one was aimed at the A330-300 this one is targeted at the A350-900.

Yes it would be a different and more capable airframe than the simple stretch.


Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
Ge and RR have indeed both been working on more powerful engines, but it has always been stated that the push from 75k lb to the (say) 78k lb of the Trent 1000 TEN was to accommodate the requirements of the 787-10 at the existing weight.

But a 787-10 at the same MTOW of the 787-9 would be able to use the 787-9's engines. Hence my guess it was to improve field performance at the 251t TOW.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
To me, that's a different engine altogether to the GEnx 1B and Trent 1000. (Ironically enough, it would look more like the Trent XWB to my eyes...   

And the GE-9X.

[Edited 2012-12-03 08:55:34]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-03 09:12:41 and read 34854 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
A 69m long, 65m span, 300t 787-10 would offer more passenger seating, more cargo volume and longer range than the A350-900, so it would be a compelling option for many carriers (EK alone could be hundreds of frames).

I have seen these throw away lines far too many times before, what iteration is this of the 787-10 ?

Point being EK, nor any other carrier has placed orders partially due to the design uncertainty, partially due to availability, and thirdly, due to the 777/777X/A350 crossover. Wing design changes, gear changes, engine changes, ECS changes are not free, that is best part of 5 billion in R&D, it is just as complex as going from the A340-300 to A340-600.

The 787 does have a physical limit on growth, and Boeing does have limits on its resources.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
This is very likely. The 787-8 already has really really high tire loading, it's only going to get worse on the stretches.

My understanding is the -9 is lower pressure than the -8, different tyre ?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-03 09:16:28 and read 34784 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
I have seen these throw away lines far too many times before, what iteration is this of the 787-10?

The iteration based on what ferpe says AviationWeek believes Boeing may be working on.

The 787-10 is currently projected to be a 5m to 5.5m stretch, so 6m is hardly pushing the envelope. And you were the one who noted that a six-wheel bogie is unnecessary unless you're looking at 300t or more TOW.

We know the 787 at 251t suffers from poor field performance with a 60m span, so such a span seems untenable for a 300t model. On the flip side, the Airbus Aficionados all mention how wonderful a 65m span is for the A350. Since the 63m span was going to weigh 1.8t more than the 60m span, a 65m span should come in at or below 5 tons (to account for additional strengthening). But with TOW going up close to 10x that, it should be acceptable.

And a 300t 787-10 with a 65m span should need around 95,000 pounds of thrust if we use the A350-1000 as a baseline. While well beyond what the GEnx and Trent 1000 can offer, it is not beyond what the GE-9X and Trent XWB can offer. So both companies do have a foundation to build on to scale the GEnx and Trent 1000 (just as both did to develop the high-output GE90-11xB and Trent 8100 series).


Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
My understanding is the -9 is lower pressure than the -8, different tyre?

I recall someone noting that the 787-9's tires are larger diameter than those on the 787-8.

[Edited 2012-12-03 09:32:04]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 09:18:31 and read 34681 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):

But a 787-10 at the same MTOW of the 787-9 would be able to use the 787-9's engines. Hence my guess it was to improve field performance at the 251t TOW.

If you are keeping the weight the same you do not need a 6 wheel main gear hence the weights are rising and so must thrust.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
Yes it would be a different and more capable airframe than the simple stretch.

Yes another month another 787-10 proposal, I hope all of these designs are electronic or there wont be a single tree left in Washington State

Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
I can't see any way a 787-10 at 270 tonnes, (even with a 65m wingspan) will need less thrust than a 270 tonne A350-900 - i.e. 83 000lb.
A 280 tonne MTOW is more likely to need about 87 000lb thrust

To me, that's a different engine altogether to the GEnx 1B and Trent 1000

Nope its going to need a thrust bump into the range that neither the Trent 1000 or GEnx-1b are comfortable with, lets hope that neither RR or GE are goaded into making unrealistic promises like last time..

Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
(Ironically enough, it would look more like the Trent XWB to my eyes... )

And we are back to the non bleed problem yet again! Some really short sighted (or long sighted) decisions were made when designing the 787, its like it was designed by Apple marketing men...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-03 09:26:22 and read 34560 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
If you are keeping the weight the same you do not need a 6 wheel main gear hence the weights are rising and so must thrust.

Exactly what I mentioned in my first response (#28).



Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
And we are back to the non bleed problem yet again! Some really short sighted (or long sighted) decisions were made when designing the 787, its like it was designed by Apple marketing men...

When Boeing launched the 7E7, the MTOW for the 7E7-9 was projected to be 227t. That left 25t of MTOW growth for a "7E7-10", which should have been enough to account for the extra OEW while still offering ~8000nm range (at 8-abreast Economy).

As structural weight grew and customers made the switch to 9-abreast Economy and planned to put in more modern and heavier premium cabins, Boeing ate up that entire surplus with the 787-9. So the only way to get more range out of the 787-10 is to up the TOW.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2012-12-03 10:07:53 and read 33725 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
As structural weight grew and customers made the switch to 9-abreast Economy and planned to put in more modern and heavier premium cabins, Boeing ate up that entire surplus with the 787-9. So the only way to get more range out of the 787-10 is to up the TOW.

And thrust requirements. Yes, basic physics.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
When Boeing launched the 7E7, the MTOW for the 7E7-9 was projected to be 227t. That left 25t of MTOW growth for a "7E7-10", which should have been enough to account for the extra OEW while still offering ~8000nm range (at 8-abreast Economy).

Well the 787-9 is now topping 250t so its eaten the MTOW growth margin for the 10 and then some, so are we agreed that the 787 design was short sighted?

Boeing did not ask the engine OEM's to design with that magnitude of weight growth in mind, they were expecting to power a 250t 787-10 not a 280 - 300t one and that I think is an Elephant yet to be dealt with. If we use 280t thats 12% more weight than the 789, 12% on 75,000lb is 84,000lb an increase of 9,000lb; people are still freaking out about the A35J thrust bump of 4000lb which is 4.3%

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-03 10:12:58 and read 33660 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
Well the 787-9 is now topping 250t so its eaten the MTOW growth margin for the 10 and then some, so are we agreed that the 787 design was short sighted?

At the time they made the decision?

No.

Boeing wanted the 7E7 to be sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200 in passenger capacity (hence focusing on a comfortable 8-abreast Economy configuration). Discussions with potential customers scaled that to the A330-200, A330-300/A340-300 and 777-200, but still with a comfortable 8-abreast Economy (I would not be surprised if 9-abreast was meant for Japanese domestic missions and charter operators).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-03 10:44:06 and read 33104 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
The iteration based on what ferpe says AviationWeek believes Boeing may be working on.

We have been discussing 787-10/11/12 for over 5 years now, Boeing has taken numerous iterations to airlines.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
And you were the one who noted that a six-wheel bogie is unnecessary unless you're looking at 300t or more TOW.

No I did not say that.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
65m span is for the A350.

With a corresponding increase in wing area, the wing area on the A350-1000 is greater than the 77W for a lower TOW. Increase in span can reduce drag, it does not really rate a mention in the lift equation, and adding span at the tips does not tend to produce great aeroelastic results.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
And a 300t 787-10 with a 65m span should need around 95,000 pounds of thrust if we use the A350-1000 as a baseline.

The 787-8/9 wing has around 1000 sq.ft less wing area than the A350-1000.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-03 11:07:33 and read 32750 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
My understanding is the -9 is lower pressure than the -8, different tyre ?

According to CM yes, the 787-9 have larger wheels and they might be more spread then the -8. They certainly take more place then the -8, the MLG roof had to be raised for the -9.

Here now the tire pattern and data from the A359 ACAP (left) and 788 ACAP (right). As one can see there is a considerable difference in the size of the boogie, the 359 covering 3.5 m2 vs about 2 m2 fr the 788, the A350 covers 82% more surface with 1400*533, 240 PSI tires vs 1250*508, 230 PSI tires. Don't have the 789 dimensions but will search for it (click on the picture to see the data better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350788bogiespattern.jpg

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-03 11:14:20 and read 32520 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
Well the 787-9 is now topping 250t so its eaten the MTOW growth margin for the 10 and then some, so are we agreed that the 787 design was short sighted?


That seems like a tremendous leap of logic to me.

People here seem to expect both manufacturers to plop out designs that are perfect from day 1 for the whole market. The fact of the matter is the 787 has already sold around 850 of them in two versions. The 777 has sold 1,400 models. For Airbus the A330 has sold 1,200 models and the A350 around 550. If we add in the 767 and A340's then we have another 1,000 and 400 respectively.

The 777, in particular the 77W, seems to have shifted the economics of long haul flying a good deal. Quads and tri-jets no longer fit into any plans except in the largest models but pose unique challenges when it comes to right sizing a plane to span certain portions of the market. I don't think there is any shame for either manufacturer to take its time in figuring out how to address markets that were at one point addressed by multiple airplanes, the 767, 777 and if you look at where the 777x would go the 747 for Boeing and the A330, A340, A380 for Airbus. Why people get so worked up about it is beyond me.

Frankly I think it makes the most sense for Boeing to see exactly what they want to do with the 787-10 before addressing the 777 section of the market. The good news about the way it has played out is that, at the moment, Boeing has nothing internally it has to fear hurting with the 787-10 (and any derivatives of that). If they decide that the 787-10 with whatever level of work they elect to put into it could be the basis for another stretch then nothing they currently market really stops them from doing so. Whatever they decide to do with the 787 they can build the 777 (or its replacement) in the market above that since it does not currently exist. However they got here this approach strikes me as prudent. Once you know exactly what you can do with the 787 barrel and basic engineering then you can decide exactly what you need to do around that.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-03 12:11:52 and read 31723 times.

Here the 788 and 789 LG pattern and tires, now the experts can start telling us why B goes to 6 wheels for the 787-10. My take is that the area covered is to small, the 789 boogie covers 55% less area then the A359 even though the tires are now 1370*530 230 PSI.

One can see from the dimensions that the boogie is contained in the length, it increased 0.22m in with but only 0.05m in length. The 788 and 789 MLG well is 5 frames in length ie 5 * 0.61 = 3,05m and you need some margin, guess it was time to add 2 frames to get 4.25 m well which would fit 3 wheels of the 788 size :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/788789bogiespattern.jpg

Edit: as little as the A350 needs to go to 280t to fly 8000nm with full pax as little must the 787-10X, I remembered wrong in the OP The slightly higher 787-10 pax count gets hauled 8000nm at 270t with the existing 789 wing, should one extend the wintips a bit that will reduce or it will fly slightly longer. Most of all it will help the start performance thereby reducing how much the engines needs to increase in thrust for a higher MTOW.

[Edited 2012-12-03 12:56:37]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-12-03 13:58:19 and read 29846 times.

All the article says is that the 6 wheel MLG is "likely". IMO it will depend much more on customers feedback. Are customers really replacing A333s with A350s that B needs to do a A359 me-too?

A simple stretch will give B a strong position in the A333 market. Without such, a possible A333HGW or NEO will be left unchecked, and may in fact encourage A to do so. Besides, a 6 wheel MLG 787-10X is no more attractive than a A359.

IMO it is better to optimize new wing and MLG for 787-11 and -12 which will keep A350 family tree in check, and will make customers study hard about ordering A351 and 777X down the line. There are already increasing market shift to A351, as in the recent case of QR. It will be very difficult for B to launch a third wing to maximize the 787 barrel length to match further A350 stretch when A decides to do so.

A may have 1 or 2 wings for A350s, but B has to decided how to best deploy its 2 wings for all possible 787 variants.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-03 14:16:15 and read 29564 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
IMO it is better to optimize new wing and MLG for 787-11 and -12 which will keep A350 family tree in check, and will make customers study hard about ordering A351 and 777X down the line. There are already increasing market shift to A351, as in the recent case of QR. It will be very difficult for B to launch a third wing to maximize the 787 barrel length to match further A350 stretch when A decides to do so.

I would tend to agree with this as well. The discussion of a new MLG is probably a lot more about a potential 11 model than it is the 10.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-03 19:11:55 and read 26527 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
I think the addition of the triple bogie main landing gear will have a negative effect its trip fuel burn for such routes
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
but I've heard a 6 wheel bogie implies some stiff weight penalties.

In its analysis of the mass of the 788, PIANO-X put the weight of the under carriage at 8.5t. I would image that most of this weight starts at the strut so two extra wheels and modifications to the strut to support them will probably not add that much weight, perhaps 1.5t tops.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2012-12-03 20:10:30 and read 25957 times.

When you look at the A330 thread Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank (by BoeingVista Nov 29 2012 in Civil Aviation)#last perhaps Boeing is thinking of investing heavily in the 787 for now, and doing with the 777 what Airbus has done with the A330. Not a lot of money, not a lot of risk, incremental changes that keep an already good product making easy money for quite a few more years.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-03 21:29:26 and read 25169 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
But they are not at A351-capacities yet.

They don't need. The A351 does also not neet 77W capacity to obsolete it in the long turn.

Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
The new landing gear would not be needed for A359 capability. Proof: the A359.

So what else does Boeing have in mind?

My guess it is a tyre pressure issue, they are probably pushing 240-250 psi.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 22):
... not by a long shot.

You can quote SEPilot and others as long as you like. I always said that the A351 would be answered best using the 787 platform (with the equal or smaller effort than for the 77X). And now Boeing has set a course that approves this.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
Then Gen 1b engine could easily exceed that 115K thrust limit
The answer is?? will there BE enough room for the FAN to make that Thrust?? ??

Why does a 787 based 340-seater need more thrust than a 777-based 400-seater?

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 30):
Were I Boeing I would be looking to use by 777x/Y3 to offer a true 10 across, ultra low CASM airliner that would make life tough for the A350/787

Boeing is proposing such an incredibly expensive upgrade of the 777. And it is still not more ultra-low-CASM than the e.g. A351.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m.

Why not 7m?

In that case the capacity would be closer to the A351 than the A351's capacity to the 77W. Which is close enough to compete.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
And if Boeing is going to 300t, then a 75m 787-11 designed o compete with the A350-1000 becomes a possibility, IMO.

The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
Wing design changes, gear changes, engine changes, ECS changes are not free, that is best part of 5 billion in R&D, it is just as complex as going from the A340-300 to A340-600.

Correct, but very likely this is less than for the 77X. At least not more. And that way Boeing will get a better A351 competitor than the 778X (can't trump on efficiency) or the 779X (not comparable in size) would be.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
Are customers really replacing A333s with A350s that B needs to do a A359 me-too?

I can't get why people are so fixated on the A359. This news can only mean that Boeing tests whether the void at 340-350 seats can be adressed with the 787 platform. They will find out, it can.

And if it can, there is an incredible award. I mean they would offer a familiy that would be unchallenged to replace 767's as well as anything else up to the spot where the 77W sits today. Only the upper 2/3 of that bandwidth would have to be shared with the A350. But the "single-family"-argument for basically any long-range-need of 80% of all the airlines must be a very, very compelling case for the 787.

As I have said earlier, from Airbus perspective I would fear such a 787-family much more than anything that starts with 77.

Don't forget there is one tendency (among others) to replace larger aircraft with slightly smaller ones if it comes with a CASM-reduction. The 77W proves that. And aircraft that are currently discussed or offered to replace the 77W prove that too. It does not need the 77X to keep that market.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: jet-lagged
Posted 2012-12-03 21:53:56 and read 24948 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
Here now the tire pattern and data from the A359 ACAP (left) and 788 ACAP (right).
Quoting ferpe (Reply 51):
Here the 788 and 789 LG pattern and tires, now the experts can start telling us why B goes to 6 wheels for the 787-10. My take is that the area covered is to small, the 789 boogie covers 55% less area then the A359 even though the tires are now 1370*530 230 PSI

It looks like of the three, the A359 has the highest wing gear tire pressure.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-04 00:00:25 and read 24015 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
787-11 and -12

The 787-10 is already a double stretch over the base 787. I do not believe that we will see a 787 larger than the -10.

I don't get this fixation with larger 787s. There's a limit to how far an aircraft can be stretched before it becomes severely compromised by weight and fuselage flex. If that weren't the case, we'd be flying in 80m long 707s ...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
I always said that the A351 would be answered best using the 787 platform (with the equal or smaller effort than for the 77X).

Only if you're willing to accept an inherent compromise in range and payload against the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Boeing is proposing such an incredibly expensive upgrade of the 777. And it is still not more ultra-low-CASM than the e.g. A351.

Even if that turned out to be correct, airlines don't choose aircraft based solely on CASM. Airlines aren't nearly as concerned about CASM as they are about profit. If the 777-9X offers a capacity and payload advantage over the A350-1000, it does not need to beat the A350-1000's CASM in order for it to be attractive to airlines.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Correct, but very likely this is less than for the 77X. At least not more. And that way Boeing will get a better A351 competitor than the 778X (can't trump on efficiency) or the 779X (not comparable in size) would be.

The 787-10 is smaller than the A350-1000, thus I d not believe it will be as effective an A350-1000 competior as the 777-9X. The 787-10's ideal mission is as an A330-300 replacement and that's the market that I believe Boeing is aiming for. Even with the increase in weight and trip fuel burn over the previous 787-10 - if Boeing indeed do go down the route of offering a 6 wheel main landing gear - it is still very likely to have a fuel burn per seat advantage over the A330-300. With the added range due to an increased MTOW, it's going to also be a very capable 777-200ER replacement. I see the 787-10 as alternatives to the 787-9 and A350-900 as replacement for A330-300, A340-300 and 777-200ER.

As for the 777-9X being bigger, it does not make it any less an A350-1000 competitor. It may not necessarily be competing for exactly the same market, but as far as sales is concerned, we could see airlines buying both models and operating them side by side in the same fleet. It is therefore a very effective ploy by Boeing to "sandwich" the A350 family with both the 787 and the 777. None of the 787 and A350 families are exactly the same in size, thus offering an alternative to airlines should they consider one aircraft to be too small and the other too big. The 777-9X is an A350-1000 competitor in the same way that the A380-800 is a 747-8 competitor.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-04 00:27:56 and read 23797 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 30):Were I Boeing I would be looking to use by 777x/Y3 to offer a true 10 across, ultra low CASM airliner that would make life tough for the A350/787
Boeing is proposing such an incredibly expensive upgrade of the 777. And it is still not more ultra-low-CASM than the e.g. A351.

I think that with the planned 777X program Boeing could be at serious risk of over-investing in a mature platform (777) - one that was conceived in the 1990's when fuel was cheap and aircraft were designed somewhat heaver than in today's world. I see the 330-350 seat segment as being far better served by a modern state of the art platform (787) than by one that will be approaching the end of its life cycle by 2020. The 777 platform is only a couple of years younger than the 330, an aircraft that Airbus has decided doesn't warrant expensive upgrades in its later years.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m.
Why not 7m?

In that case the capacity would be closer to the A351 than the A351's capacity to the 77W. Which is close enough to compete.

Agreed, the 405 seat capacity of the 777-9X is born out of the need to compete on CASM with the 35J rather than airlines clamouring for a bigger aircraft (other than EK). Airlines happily traded their 744's for 77W's, is there any indication that they really need that capacity again or is it just the performance.

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
Wing design changes, gear changes, engine changes, ECS changes are not free, that is best part of 5 billion in R&D, it is just as complex as going from the A340-300 to A340-600.

The 787 does have a physical limit on growth, and Boeing does have limits on its resources.

Its all a matter of how those resources are best deployed - the 777X program represents a massive investment in a mature platform, far exceeding that required to develop a 787-10/11 with similar capabilities and also with much greater risk. Any 787-10/11 would have a life span of at least 30 years - far more than could ever be possible with the 777X which I suspect could struggle to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI.

I think this 787 vs 777X debate is going to go on for quite a while.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: brindabella
Posted 2012-12-04 00:45:36 and read 23639 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
I think it is a good strategy for Boeing to sandwich the A350-1000 between two of its models, the 787-10 and the 777-9X

Agree. Always looked like the best use of the available resources as well as a larger barrel for the 777X being the more conservative approach as the fuselage length heads towards 80m (see SEPilot above).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
We have the bleed v non bleed problem here again, a GE9x would have to be completely re engineered for the 787.

Is a "bleedless" engine not simpler?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
I can see a 77W+ as mentioned in articles from last week with a 4-5% Fuel burn improvement in the 2016-2017 timeframe to get to a complete replacement in the early 2020's with the program starting very soon, with the improvements carrying over to the 77F program.

Agree. The two decisions should be seen as linked, IMO, rather than being separate.
B have now amassed a pretty substantial portfolio of projects (KC46, MAX, 787-9, 787-10, 777+).
I had wondered if something along these lines might happen, in that B came in for (understandable) criticism from various quarters for being excessively conservative in their announced development times for the MAX etc.. Those big gaps in time sure looked extremely seductive ... just fill them in with an upgrade here, a "simple stretch" there ...

This is overall the lowest risk, coupled with the 777+ going for a nice market while it is there, in exactly the same manner as the A330 MTOW upgrades are planned to do.

cheers Bill

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: brindabella
Posted 2012-12-04 00:57:43 and read 23560 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
Boeing wanted the 7E7 to be sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200 in passenger capacity (hence focusing on a comfortable 8-abreast Economy configuration). Discussions with potential customers scaled that to the A330-200, A330-300/A340-300 and 777-200, but still with a comfortable 8-abreast Economy (I would not be surprised if 9-abreast was meant for Japanese domestic missions and charter operators).

  

 

Thanks, Stitch; it explains a lot, and rounds the story out. I previously queried the weight-growth, and CM observed that the 787 barrel is 1st-gen and hence very conservative (apart from the unforeseen weight-growth due to the still-evolving techniques required to cope with lightning-strike on a CFRP fuse.).

Put the two together ...

cheers Bill

 

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-04 03:57:23 and read 22834 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 54):
I would image that most of this weight starts at the strut so two extra wheels and modifications to the strut to support them

oops my bad. Two should read four   

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-12-04 04:31:13 and read 22724 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 51):
the 789 boogie covers 55% less area then the A359

If you look at some of the pictures posted on the A350 prototypes thread (especially Boeingvista's at reply 91), you can see that the 4-wheel bogie of the A359 is indeed very wide. I guess increasing the length by adding 2 wheels is a less complicated solution for the 787-10X.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
All the article says is that the 6 wheel MLG is "likely". IMO it will depend much more on customers feedback. Are customers really replacing A333s with A350s that B needs to do a A359 me-too?

It definitely came as a surprise since there were reports potential airlines wanted Boeing to emphasize efficiency rather than range. Only S-UH was on record pushing Boeing for A787-10X with 7000+ range.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-04 05:14:11 and read 22598 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 58):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
I always said that the A351 would be answered best using the 787 platform (with the equal or smaller effort than for the 77X).

Only if you're willing to accept an inherent compromise in range and payload against the A350-1000.

Inherent, but small. At least a lot smaller than the difference between 779X and A351.

Why do you insist that the 779X could compete against the A351, although its size does differ strongly? And at the same time you deny the ability of a 781ER to compete with the A351, although its size would not differ nearly as much.

I don't get it.

And notice: the 6-wheel MLG would enable the 781ER to match the range of the A351 for virtually any needs. For a half baked 781 Boeing would never entertain the idea of such a massive gear-reconstruction. No, this will be a fully fledged upgrade of the 787.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 58):
The 787-10 is smaller than the A350-1000

So what. It would be a lot closer than the 779X.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-04 06:41:54 and read 22437 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):

I agree that a HGW -10x will be in a totally different weight class than the -9, and it would probably be a close competitor to the 350-1000, (though at this point we are starving for actual details).

I think Boeing is realising that the 787 is better suited to compete in the 772 arena than the 777x...which will compete almost directly with the 748 more than the 350-1000.

That's why I think they will still do the relatively simple stretch for the -10 lite, (based on the -9 MTOW), and that will give them the fuselage to work with should they go for a HGW version. (I believe it is somewhat easier to add strength efficiently than have to take out weight.)

For that, I believe the wings, gear and engines will be derived from the 777x family, rather than the current 787 family. That way, there would still be some economics of scale working in their favour as opposed to doing major mods for only the 779x alone.

My 2 clams anyway.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-04 07:07:54 and read 22374 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 65):
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...901_boeingexecsxml.html?prmid=4939

Boeing just reshuffled management in a way that makes me think major changes to the scope of the 777X project are quite possible. It strikes me that placing one person in charge of these programs is primarily to rationalize the various programs into a coherent product lineup. My person guess is that one of his primary task is going to be to decide just where the 787 stops and where the 777X either begins or a new aircraft is needed.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 65):
That's why I think they will still do the relatively simple stretch for the -10 lite, (based on the -9 MTOW), and that will give them the fuselage to work with should they go for a HGW version. (I believe it is somewhat easier to add strength efficiently than have to take out weight.)

I tend to think your approach makes sense unless Boeing sees no potential competition for a pure stretch of the 787-10 and figures it can make the changes it needs to make to get a true A351 competitor range wise out of the 787 while still having a firm hold on the large potential market for the pure stretch with the same airplane. That would let you amortize your R&D cost across a much larger volume of frames. There are plenty of airlines who would probably prefer a pure stretch but they won't be left with many other options. I could see that going either way really.

I am with those who think that the discussion of a higher MTOW for the 787 means a major rethink for the 777X program. I would think it may go so far as killing it all together.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-04 07:34:15 and read 22288 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 66):

I am with those who think that the discussion of a higher MTOW for the 787 means a major rethink for the 777X program. I would think it may go so far as killing it all together.

I think there is real potential for the 777-9x. The biggest obstacle was the 748i and it seems to me that Boeing has pretty much accepted that the -8i will always be a low demand, niche aircraft while the 777-9x has the potential to get a large chunk of the 744 retirement market, as a more efficient gap filler than the 748i.

Boeing would rather a product of theirs puts two in the temple of their big bird than have the other guy do it.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-04 08:33:53 and read 22149 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

Only if the 787 was launched after the A350XWB, which it of course was not.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-12-04 09:31:33 and read 21984 times.

Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup? I would have thought that the success of the A333 shows that there is a significant market for it. Do all airlines insist on the ability to fly 8000nm with EVERY widebody, even though there are only a comparatively small number of routes requiring that range? It seems to me that far more people fly 500-6000nm routes than longer ones, and a plane with 6000nm range will burn less fuel doing it than one with 8000nm range. Yes, fleet commonality is nice, but you can still buy a 789 or A359 for the long routes and accept the capacity penalty while saving a lot of money on the vast majority of routes with the 7810 or A3510. I thought Boeing was being very sensible in making the 7810 a simple stretch of the 789 and accepting the shorter range that that would entail, but they seem to be following the same pied piper that Airbus followed with the A3510, to less than an enthusiastic reception from their customers. Has the A3510 gained any net orders since they announced the redesign? I think the whole world's gone nuts.      

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-04 09:41:21 and read 21952 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

Not necessarily, the 787 is a very compact design, the design team has got a lot of capacity onto a very minimalistic real estate. Do the numbers and you will find that it is comparatively shorter, lower and in general tighter then the A350. Not all this is because it is positioned one tick lower then the 350, it is deliberate to minimize weight and wetted area, to gain performance. The A350 lives on it's one generation later engines to match the 787 IMO (I also think the more spacious 350 design is deliberate to gain more stretch room but that is not the discussion of this thread).

The other side of that coin is you might have to go into your trick bag for longer length versions, the 787-10X has a 5 frame stretch forward of the wing and only a 4 frame rear of the wing. One should immediately question one-selves why, the more normal stretch is symmetrical?

Is it for CG reasons? Not sure. Is it for rotation clearance reasons with the present MLG attachment point unchanged? Might be. What would jive with that would be a longer 6 wheel boogie with a 777-300 type pivot restraint to gain MLG length at rotation.

There are many reasons why B might have gone to 6 wheel boogies on a 787-10X, not all have to be pavement loading alone   .

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-04 09:49:49 and read 21888 times.

Maybe they want a 100% 772/ER replacement? By going that route they kill the 8X.

But the 9X is still a good idea it has 10 across as a weapon against the smaller 787+A350.

320 seats and more range and then up to 380 seats with even more range, I think a lineup like that will make Airbus sweat more than just a 787 competitor.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-04 10:02:08 and read 21830 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 71):
I think a lineup like that will make Airbus sweat more than just a 787 competitor.

I think it will make Boeing sweat a lot more to first accomplish this line-up.  .

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-04 10:15:24 and read 21800 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?

It's not about willingness, it's about demand. If enough airlines wanted one, they'd build it. But look how fast they 777-200/300 became the 200ER/300ER and how fast the 787-3 disappeared.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
a plane with 6000nm range will burn less fuel doing it than one with 8000nm range.

Yes, but the relatively small delta in fuel burn doesn't balance the opportunity cost of not being able to go really far when you want to or, much more typically, being able to haul an obscene amount of pax and cargo. Don't think of an 8000nm airliner as an 8000nm airliner...think of it as a 6000nm airliner with tons of revenue cargo.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-04 10:33:12 and read 21690 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 72):
I think it will make Boeing sweat a lot more to first accomplish this line-up. .

Both companies have challenges in the market area above their current offerings.

The good news for Boeing is that they have an open top end of their product lineup they could fill with a 777x or something new, depending on what you can get out of the 787. The bad news is that in my view it is looking more and more likely they will need a new airplane at the top end of their product lineup.

The good news for Airbus is that you probably don't need another plane with the A380 already at the top end. The bad news is they have two potentially awkward gaps (between the A320 and A350 and the A350 and A380).

It will be interesting to see how everyone elects to move on opportunities and weaknesses over the next couple of years. In my view Boeing has the more wide open playing field on the top end (they don't have to worry about cannibalizing 777 or 748 sales in my view). Airbus would be more reluctant to impinge upon A380 sales but probably will feel less of a need to move quickly in my view.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-04 10:49:54 and read 21670 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup? I would have thought that the success of the A333 shows that there is a significant market for it.

The A330-300 is successful because it's range has improved so much from EIS thanks to the significant TOW boosts.

If the A330-300 of today still had the 212t MTOW of the original model (WV000/WV002), the 777-200ER would probably be closer to 1000 orders than 500 and the A340-300 would probably still be on offer.  

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-04 11:05:07 and read 21587 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?

Good question. I have noticed that too and I don't know why too. I could imagine that the increment to cover the larger ranges too is small enough, that a specialized design could bring much better economics....

Even 788's that replace 767's have excessive range and payload capabilities (compared to the 767).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 70):
Not necessarily, the 787 is a very compact design, the design team has got a lot of capacity onto a very minimalistic real estate.

I do consider a too dense design as a flaw, if the first upgrade just 10 years after launch scratches at the limits regarding weight and clearances.

This did not happen to the 747, 757, 767, 777, A300, A320, A340. Basically any other aircraft did not run into issues with ground clearance and MTOW-upgrades 10 years after launch. I don't know how to call that other than shortsighted.

In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective. But as both are 9 abreast, high performance long range aircraft it was likely from the beginning that they will end up covering very similar spots on the payload/range-map.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 70):
Do the numbers and you will find that it is comparatively shorter, lower and in general tighter then the A350.

I did the numbers and I noticed it too. I did a heavy fight with CM recently, because he claimed wrongly that the 787 and the A350 would sit roughly at the same height above ground....

Note: I don't consider the 6-wheel MLG as an activity to just correct a mistake. People who think that this is only directed at the A359 are claiming that (in essence). I think this is a normal and reasonable increment to enable new MTOW dimensions that are needed to tackle the A351 from below.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-04 11:42:13 and read 21537 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
Even 788's that replace 767's have excessive range and payload capabilities (compared to the 767).

And yet NH and JL have noted the 787-8 is more efficient. I'll be interested to know how the 767 and 787 compare for LA.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective.

Boeing clearly didn't want the 787 to compete with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, but by 2004 Boeing likely saw the writing on the wall as the A330-300 was winning more and more RFPs against the 777-200ER. And even if Boeing did not, Boeing's customers clearly saw said writing as they pushed Boeing to make the 787-9 a true 777-200/777-200ER replacement (which the 7E7-9 was not).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-04 14:26:04 and read 21282 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
This did not happen to the 747, 757, 767, 777, A300, A320, A340. Basically any other aircraft did not run into issues with ground clearance and MTOW-upgrades 10 years after launch.

The 757, 767, and A300 were only stretched once, not twice. The 747, 777, and A340 all required huge structural modification to handle their eventual MTOW (and the 777 required semi-levered gear to mitigate ground clearance). The only one that got away unscathed is the A320 and it, like the 737, was designed for a lot more stretch/shrink from the get-go than the rest. What you're calling "shortsighted" is actually normal.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective. But as both are 9 abreast, high performance long range aircraft it was likely from the beginning that they will end up covering very similar spots on the payload/range-map.

They're not both 9 abreast for any one carrier. If your cabin product is 9 abreast in a 787, it's 10 abreast in a 777 (and 8 vs. 9 if it's a wider product). As a result, the payload/range curves don't overlap in any meaningful way unless you've got an airline that runs wildly different cabin products within their long-haul fleet, and I can't think of anyone that does that.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: dfambro
Posted 2012-12-04 14:39:46 and read 21228 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
unless you've got an airline that runs wildly different cabin products within their long-haul fleet, and I can't think of anyone that does that.


There's United, for one. 9 and 9.

Qatar, Ethiopian, and Air India are also 9 and 9.
JAL and ANA are 9 and 8 long haul.
LOT and LAN, no 777s of course.

Not sure about arrangements for airlines that haven't taken delivery.

[Edited 2012-12-04 15:11:20]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-12-04 15:30:35 and read 21077 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 73):

It's not about willingness, it's about demand. If enough airlines wanted one, they'd build it.

It seems from what I have read that Airbus was originally offering just that with the original A3510, and was getting a lot of interest. After they upgraded it for long range they got a lot of flak from some customers, no new orders for a long time, and some cancellations. I'm not sure whether or not they have more orders for it now than they did when they made the change. I do not have any inside information into airlines' thinking and desires for new planes, but it seems to me that they were doing better with the medium range version.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-04 15:43:00 and read 21094 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 73):
It's not about willingness, it's about demand. If enough airlines wanted one, they'd build it.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
It seems from what I have read that Airbus was originally offering just that with the original A3510, and was getting a lot of interest.



The A350-1000 at launch was designed to be an 8300nm aircraft, though once the design started to firm up that dropped to 8000nm. Airbus responded by increasing the MTOW from 298t to 308t to restore the range (now 8400nm).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-12-04 17:00:10 and read 20910 times.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 79):
There's United, for one. 9 and 9.Qatar, Ethiopian, and Air India are also 9 and 9.JAL and ANA are 9 and 8 long haul.LOT and LAN, no 777s of course.Not sure about arrangements for airlines that haven't taken delivery.

Exactly. I was so excited about the Dreamliner when it launched. But knowing that all the airlines are going 3-3-3 in Y has me rooting more and more for Airbus, where future Y pax won't be condemned to a 17" wide seat.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?

Range-Payload. It's not about range. I would suggest that as cargo drives profits more and more, airlines want the ability to service their medium-haul destinations with a full payload. That 7000nm 787-10 is really a 5500nm aircraft at max payload. That makes it truly a "large capacity medium range" aircraft. Really, we should stop talking about the superficial max ranges of the OEMs and stick to discussing max payload-ranges.

[Edited 2012-12-04 17:17:41]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-04 18:14:32 and read 20721 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 82):
That makes it truly a "large capacity medium range" aircraft. Really, we should stop talking about the superficial max ranges of the OEMs and stick to discussing max payload-ranges.

Good point ! Based on typical passenger aircraft belly cargo density of about 160kg/m3 the 787-10 is volume limited at about 50t max payload. It will haul such a load about 10hrs

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-04 19:24:44 and read 20633 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
The 757, 767, and A300 were only stretched once, not twice

The 767-200 was the base 767 airframe. Then you ended you ended up with a 767-300 and a 767-400.

NS

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-04 20:57:54 and read 20478 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

Only if the 787 was launched after the A350XWB, which it of course was not.

How does the number of wheels depend on the order when an aircraft was launched? No, the number of wheels depends on the carried weight first and foremost.

A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels. More wheels come into play to when the MTOW goes up another dimension.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
And yet NH and JL have noted the 787-8 is more efficient.

I brought it as an example to show exactly that. The new generation widebodies are beating the effficiency of the old ones despite that their extensive range capabilities (SEPilot raised the question the medium ranges aren't adressed with tailor made designs anymore).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
What you're calling "shortsighted" is actually normal.

None of the examples I listed had:
- Space issues
- Gear issues at just the next weigth increment

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
They're not both 9 abreast for any one carrier. If your cabin product is 9 abreast in a 787, it's 10 abreast in a 777

The two are maybe not always 9-abreast but both are twin aisle-twins which suffices to make my point...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-04 21:30:18 and read 20439 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
- Gear issues at just the next weigth increment

It is not just the next weight increment, at these levels of MTOW the A340 had an extra leg installed to spread the load, the A359 has an unusually wide spread boogie (which takes a lot of place, A359 uses 6 frames spaced 0.635 m to stow it's 4 wheel MLG and the wing fairing is deeper then the 787 for that very reason. The 787 uses 5 frames spaced 0.61 m on the 788 and 789 and has a rather snug wing fairing, something they can keep if they do as we assume).

Further the 359 wheel pressure is the highest in the industry, one could probably argue that A is taking a risk with the A359, should the OEW increase they can be pavement loading limited to what they can do about it. If B has gone to a 6 wheel boogie for the 787-10 I think it is a clever move, it gives the 787-10 a long life with several MTOW hikes going forward (and we know how successful that is as mid-life kickers  ), A has the 350-1000 to cover that space and it has indeed 6 wheels on the boogie.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-05 01:46:11 and read 20157 times.

If Boeing wont do the 8X, what about the freighter? Will it stay the same? The 9X has no competitor as of now, I view it as a 10 across cabin. The 8X would have had 2 competitors if not 3, A359+3510 and 787-10.

Very few will order the 9X and just have 350 seats on it. They would rather order the A350-1000. But what is a realistic seat number in the A350-1000? I guess it would be below 350?

The 9X will finish off the 748i, but the freighter would still have its own market.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-05 03:01:49 and read 20084 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
The 777 platform is only a couple of years younger than the 330, an aircraft that Airbus has decided doesn't warrant expensive upgrades in its later years.

The 777 is a different airframe to the A330 with different characteristics and different "upgradeability" (for want of a better word). While I think the A330neo would be quite a formidable airframe, I can understand why Airbus chose not to go ahead: it is hindered by its fuselage cross section that does not support 9-across economy configuration, which can be achieved on the 787 to further reduce its cost per seat.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
Airlines happily traded their 744's for 77W's

The 77W may lack outright passenger capacity against the 744, but beats it in just about every other way, including payload and range. I disagree with the notion that airlines are trading 744s for 77Ws due to a want of smaller aircraft, but rather they are doing so because the 77W is a more capable aircraft. The 77W has more LD3 positions and more space for revenue cargo than the 744. Fuel burn is but one factor.

If the 787 is to replace the 777X program, I think the question is not so much whether one is more efficient than the other, but whether one is more capable than the other, in every aspect of aircraft performance and capacity. There's little doubt that the 787-10 (or any 787 derivative) will beat the 777-9X's trip fuel burn. But will it also beat the 777-9X's payload-range?

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
the 777X program represents a massive investment in a mature platform, far exceeding that required to develop a 787-10/11 with similar capabilities and also with much greater risk. Any 787-10/11 would have a life span of at least 30 years - far more than could ever be possible with the 777X which I suspect could struggle to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI.

In terms of gross costs, I disagree that the 777X program "far exceeds" what is required to develop larger and higher MTOW 787s. Personally, I do not believe that we will see a 787 larger than the -10, as it is already a double stretch over the base -8. So if Boeing wants to compete in a market above that of the A350-1000, the 777-9X is needed.

I also disagree that it would struggle to sell. I think the 777-9X has a reasonably bright future. Any airline that's currently operating the 777-300ER at 10-across in economy would find the 777's extra width attractive in order to maintain on board product commonality.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):
Why do you insist that the 779X could compete against the A351, although its size does differ strongly? And at the same time you deny the ability of a 781ER to compete with the A351, although its size would not differ nearly as much.

I don't get it.

If you look at seating capacity alone, that's true. However, I remain doubtful that a 787-10 will match the A350-1000's payload-range figures, while I have little doubt that the 777-9X will beat it. This is not so much to do with the 787-10's physical size as it is with its MTOW limitations.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):
For a half baked 781 Boeing would never entertain the idea of such a massive gear-reconstruction. No, this will be a fully fledged upgrade of the 787.

Not necessarily. Without doing a 6 wheel main landing gear, the 787-10 would be severely limited. I have read on here that if the 787-10 was to use the same gear as the 787-9, it would be limited to an MTOW of 251t - the same as the 787-9. That would have a massive impact not only on its range but its payload. A 6 wheel main gear is the only logical solution to that problem.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
I would have thought that the success of the A333 shows that there is a significant market for it.

I agree. But despite the redesigned main gear, the 787-10 is still likely to be a very capable replcement for the A333.

Quoting sweair (Reply 71):
Maybe they want a 100% 772/ER replacement? By going that route they kill the 8X.

I think the 777-8X would not have taken off anyway, with or without this upgrade to the 787-10. I think, however, that the 777-8 might still proceed but only in the guise of the ultra long range 777-8LX and the 777-8F.

Quoting sweair (Reply 71):
But the 9X is still a good idea it has 10 across as a weapon against the smaller 787+A350.

  

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective.

No, not a mistake. They designed the 787 to be primarily a 767/A330 replacement. If they had made provisions for the 787 to succeed at the upper end of the 777 market as well, the 787-8 wouldn't be as efficient as it is today. That would be the mistake.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: pellegrine
Posted 2012-12-05 04:25:04 and read 19902 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):

"The -10X involves more than adding fuselage plugs to the 787-9. There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads. A redesign also offers the promise of improved performance in the wing. An upgraded environmental control system is likely, as is a stronger main landing gear that uses six-wheel trucks, as does the 777-300ER. "

A big DUH. I've been saying this for years. A.net's 787-10 can't support itself on 8 main wheels. DUH...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: trent1000
Posted 2012-12-05 05:30:37 and read 19809 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
Don't be surprised to see the final offered variant pass 7000nm with full passenger load with a margin and then gradually stepping up to 8000nm as times goes.

I think you're getting a bit excited there & wonder how an extra 1000nm magically appears (even over your unspecified timeframe). That's a significant jump from 7000 to 8000.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-12-05 06:27:24 and read 19702 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 58):
I don't get this fixation with larger 787s. There's a limit to how far an aircraft can be stretched before it becomes severely compromised by weight and fuselage flex

true. But I can't see any reason why the 787 can't be stretched to at least the same length (and hence same capacity) as the A350-1000

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Has the A3510 gained any net orders since they announced the redesign?

Where've you been, my friend? Both CX and now QR have ordered 43 between them since July

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels.

Except, as Ferpe has pointed out the wheels on the A359, are much bigger, have a higher pressure, and are further apart, than the wheels on the 787-9.
It's not a simple like-for-like

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 63):
I guess increasing the length by adding 2 wheels is a less complicated solution for the 787-10X.

It may be quite the opposite.

The aircraft was designed to accommodate a twin bogie. It's brave to assume that the wheel well has room for a triple bogie.
It's entirely possible that re-arranging the wheel well to accomodate a triple bogie may entail not just signifucant structural changes but also the relocation of some significant bits of system equipment.

The A350 was designed from the outset to allow the A350-1000's wheels to fit

Rgds

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 07:12:07 and read 19588 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
How does the number of wheels depend on the order when an aircraft was launched? No, the number of wheels depends on the carried weight first and foremost.

A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels. More wheels come into play to when the MTOW goes up another dimension.

Except the A350-900 didn't exist in 2004 when Boeing launched the 7E7 so how, exactly, were they to know they would have needed to design the 7E7 to (eventually) support a ~268-ton MTOW in order to achieve the same capabilities?

At 252t, the 7E7's theoretical maximum take-off-weight was equal to the baseline 257t A340-300 and well beyond what the A330-200 and A330-300 were at (and continues to remain so).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-05 07:34:34 and read 19528 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 92):
Except the A350-900 didn't exist in 2004 when Boeing launched the 7E7 so how, exactly, were they to know they would have needed to design the 7E7 to (eventually) support a ~268-ton MTOW in order to achieve the same capabilities?

That is why the OEMs spend millions each year doing massive mathematical models for their market forecasts, those forecasts are used to define the passenger demand and hence aircraft of the future. This is not the only market class where there Boeing market forecast obviously did not identify the demand correctly in advance.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-05 07:43:22 and read 19498 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 84):
The 767-200 was the base 767 airframe. Then you ended you ended up with a 767-300 and a 767-400.

I was thinking mostly of the 200/300...if your argument (not *yours*, I mean the argument in general) is that they stretched wtihout much modification, you really don't want to be bringing the -400ER into the conversation.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
The two are maybe not always 9-abreast but both are twin aisle-twins which suffices to make my point...

Then I don't understand your point. The 767-200 and the 777-300ER are both twin aisle twins too...but they're sure as heck not playing in the same space.

Quoting zeke (Reply 93):
This is not the only market class where there Boeing market forecast obviously did not identify the demand correctly in advance.

I don't think you can find *any* market forecast for a new type in modern times, from either OEM, that turned out to be even remotely correct except maybe the 757/767 and the A300.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 07:46:49 and read 19483 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 93):
This is not the only market class where there Boeing market forecast obviously did not identify the demand correctly in advance.

Airbus and Boeing follow different design philosophies when it comes to the widebody market.

Airbus uses one widebody family to cover as much of the market as possible - the A330 and A340 were effectively one family and the A350 certainly is.

Boeing uses two widebody families - one scaled to the lower end (767) and one scaled to the upper end (777). And their market forecasts reflected that with the Yellowstone Project. Yellowstone 2 would be the smaller widebody - the 787 - and Yellowstone 3 will be the larger widebody (replacing the 777).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-05 08:15:19 and read 19412 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 94):

I don't think you can find *any* market forecast for a new type in modern times, from either OEM, that turned out to be even remotely correct except maybe the 757/767 and the A300.

I think history has shown the SA2 (A320), YA9 (A330) and TA11 (A340) identified passenger demands well in advance and produced popular aircraft still used in the market almost 25 years later, the forecasts are normally 20 year projections to match the life span of a major investment like a new airframe. Prior to launching the A330/A340 the A320 was about 2 years away, and the 737-300 was in service. Boeing were saying they did not need a re-engine the 737-300 with a 10% fuel savings, as by 1992 that new engines (prop/unducted) would be around that would reduce fuel burns by 60% for the 150 seat aircraft, needless to say, I do not think we will be at those levels even in 2022.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
Airbus uses one widebody family to cover as much of the market as possible - the A330 and A340 were effectively one family and the A350 certainly is.

Boeing uses two widebody families - one scaled to the lower end (767) and one scaled to the upper end (777). And their market forecasts reflected that with the Yellowstone Project. Yellowstone 2 would be the smaller widebody - the 787 - and Yellowstone 3 will be the larger widebody (replacing the 777).

Last time I looked, the A330/A340 family was still selling very well, is it premature to dismiss Airbus as having a one product widebody line up ? when in reality they are still selling A330 and A350s ? Would it be fair to say they A350 is the A340-200/300/500/600 replacement ?

Or do you contend the A330 is not for sale ?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 08:22:37 and read 19405 times.



Quoting zeke (Reply 96):
Last time I looked, the A330/A340 family was still selling very well, is it premature to dismiss Airbus as having a one product widebody line up? when in reality they are still selling A330 and A350s ? Would it be fair to say they A350 is the A340-200/300/500/600 replacement?

Or do you contend the A330 is not for sale?

 Confused

[Edited 2012-12-05 08:24:08]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-05 09:16:39 and read 19266 times.

How much of an bad idea would it be to do a 787-10 with the 789 MLG and MTOW and a heavier 787-10, call it ER for commonality with the other frames at Boeing. One would be the 6800nm A333 replacement and the other a proper 772ER replacement.

What range would a ER version have to have to replace the 772ER?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 09:34:50 and read 19203 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 98):
How much of an bad idea would it be to do a 787-10 with the 789 MLG and MTOW and a heavier 787-10, call it ER for commonality with the other frames at Boeing.

It would depend on what platform airlines were more interested in. A 787-10 with a higher MTOW can, of course, be loaded to a lower TOW for shorter missions.

At least with the 787 platform, we've seen aerodynamics plays a much larger role in operating economics than empty weight - the 787-3 was projected to weigh over 10 tons less than a 787-8, but the loss of wing area from the shorter wingspan meant that beyond 250nm, the heavier 787-8 was more efficient.

So if Boeing is also considering increasing the wing area and span in addition to raising the MTOW, then the extra weight to support that MTOW will likely have little to no impact on operating economics on shorter missions at lower TOWs.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-05 09:35:17 and read 19212 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 96):
I think history has shown the SA2 (A320), YA9 (A330) and TA11 (A340) identified passenger demands well in advance and produced popular aircraft still used in the market almost 25 years later, the forecasts are normally 20 year projections to match the life span of a major investment like a new airframe.

I agree those are all popular and successful, but we were talking about forecast *accuracy*. At launch, Airbus grossly underestimated A320 and A330 demand, and overestimated A340 (although their estimate assumed the SuperFan was available). Boeing did the same thing for the 737 and 747. Boeing hasn't (yet) grossly overestimated a new type but they totally shanked it on derivatives (767-400ER, 747-8i, etc.).

My point was that the OEM's really suck at actually getting the correct demand estimate...typically, they either go way low or way high from reality.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-05 09:51:06 and read 19158 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 86):
If B has gone to a 6 wheel boogie for the 787-10 I think it is a clever move, it gives the 787-10 a long life with several MTOW hikes going forward (and we know how successful that is as mid-life kickers )

I gather we are to assume that there will be no 787-10 at ~251t MTOW ... or do we? The 6750nm range at max passenger load does not need more than the 251t. So is that behind us and is SU-H's ideal of 7000nm plus now more likely?
Have you given thought to where the first MTOW might be with the new MLG?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 09:56:02 and read 19225 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 101):
I gather we are to assume that there will be no 787-10 at ~251t MTOW ... or do we?

I guess it depends on how accurate Aviation Week's reporting is, as they are the ones reporting Boeing is at least considering a 6-wheel bogie and a revised SOB join to support higher wing loadings.



Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 101):
Have you given thought to where the first MTOW might be with the new MLG?

I would imagine Boeing would want an MTOW similar to the A350-900 to allow a similar fuel load to be carried to provide similar range (the 787-10 will be able to carry around 18-27 more people). So between 270-275 tons.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-05 10:01:38 and read 19184 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
I would imagine Boeing would want an MTOW similar to the A350-900 to allow a similar fuel load to be carried to provide similar ra

What options do Boeing have to increase the fuel capacity from the present ~101t ?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 10:44:06 and read 19120 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 103):
What options do Boeing have to increase the fuel capacity from the present ~101t ?

The issue with the 787-10 is not fuel volume at MTOW, but fuel weight at MTOW.

If we take Aspire Aviation's numbers, a 787-10 with a 251t MTOW and 191t MZFW can tank 58 tons - 57% full tanks.

The A350-900 at 268t MTOW and 192t MZFW can tank 76 tons - 70% full tanks (Airbus shows the fuel capacity at 108t).

So increasing MTOW would allow more fuel to be tanked.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-05 11:42:52 and read 19003 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective.

No, not a mistake. They designed the 787 to be primarily a 767/A330 replacement.

There is a difference between a shortsighted 767/A330 replacement and a clever design that is fully capable to replace 767's at one hand and does not pose restrictions regarding later upgrades on the other hand.

There are a lot of things you can do enable later upgrades in a more easy way that don't impair the first versions notably.

Just look at the 787 cross section. For a pure 767 replacement 8.6 abreast is a terrible cross section to choose. But it is a great example how assets have been injected into a design, that would not have been needed for the initial versions. That design decision alone (which was very wise and exceptionally far-sighted) has put the 787 firmly into the neck of the 777. Even the smallest 788 does increase the 767's payload/range/size-capability to an extent, that putting the two in the same league is insulting the 787.

If you draw little dots on a floorspace/range diagram for the 763ER, the 788 and the 772ER you will see that the 788 sits a lot closer to the 772ER than the 763ER. And still the 788 is the primary 767 replacement. Already the 789 would match the 772ER's position and the 781X will leave behind both A359 and 772ER.

Nobody should be suprised if the 787 continues creeping into 777 territory and eventually cover any spot that has been held by 9-abreast 777's. Its just a matter of time.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels.

Except, as Ferpe has pointed out the wheels on the A359, are much bigger, have a higher pressure, and are further apart, than the wheels on the 787-9.

On the other hand the 789 has a more narrow fuselage, has lighter wings and engines. I really can't imagine that the 787 would need 6-wheels to compete with the A359 if stretched to the same length. Too similar are all these parameters. And b.t.w. the lower tire pressure of the 787 does not increase surface loading but reduce it....

Quoting sweair (Reply 98):
What range would a ER version have to have to replace the 772ER?

The 789 has already the cabin-length of the 772ER. And as the 772ER's are almost all 9 abreast this means that the 789 is already there. Having a lot more range than the 772ER.

So the 6-wheel 781X is not about the 772ER.

It is strange to see how people almost stubbornly "invent" aircraft against which this 781X should compete. First the A359, now the 772ER. But nobody seems to recognize that this flavour of a 787 will run against the A351 (IMO). At 340 seats nominal the A351 will face tough competition from such a 781X. Doing the 748i trick Boeing could sell it as-350 seater...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-05 12:02:24 and read 18945 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):

Your problem is that you keep thinking the 787 is the A350. It is not! The 787 was never designed to replace the 777, Y2 is 787 Y3 is the 777 replacement, get it?

Airbus will try to cover the 220-350 seat market with one family, Boeing thinks they can do this with 2 different families. If you stop being so stubborn things will get clearer.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 12:03:23 and read 18992 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
On the other hand the 789 has a more narrow fuselage, has lighter wings and engines. I really can't imagine that the 787 would need 6-wheels to compete with the A359 if stretched to the same length.

Well if the goal is to only match (or exceed) the A350-900's capacity, then yes, the 787-10 does not need any additional MTOW. However, such a 787-10 would not match the capability of the A350-900 in terms of payload/range at the outer ends of the spectrum.

So if you want to match an A350-900 out to around 5000nm, no worries.

If you want to match an A350-900 out to around 8000nm...   

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-12-05 12:05:55 and read 18962 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
Where've you been, my friend? Both CX and now QR have ordered 43 between them since July

Asleep. I was not aware of these orders; my life has been quite complicated in the last six months-you may have noticed that I have not been posting very often lately.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-05 12:16:49 and read 18926 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
Your problem is that you keep thinking the 787 is the A350. It is not! The 787 was never designed to replace the 777, Y2 is 787 Y3 is the 777 replacement, get it?

That was once the idea, but since then a lot has happened. And the weight and size increases of the B787-versions -9 and -10X (proposed) put a heavy strain on that claim which you make. Not to mention the B777-X proposals instead of an all new successor to the B777. Also that is by far not so black and white anymore as it was maybe 5-6 years ago. The world has changed. Get it?      .

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2012-12-05 12:30:03 and read 18885 times.

Quoting xxxx (Reply 100):
My point was that the OEM's really suck at actually getting the correct demand estimate...typically, they either go way low or way high from reality.

I fail to see how they could actually be all that accurate anyhow? The world changes and unless they have a crystal ball, how can they know all possible ramifications of what's to come? Certainly there are many parameters that they can model, but then there's the surprises...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
I guess it depends on how accurate Aviation Week's reporting is, as they are the ones reporting Boeing is at least considering a 6-wheel bogie and a revised SOB join to support higher wing loadings.

These "leaks" always seem to be put back on the OEM's as if they were press releases. Then the thrashing and bashing begins...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
If you draw little dots on a floorspace/range diagram for the 763ER, the 788 and the 772ER you will see that the 788 sits a lot closer to the 772ER than the 763ER. And still the 788 is the primary 767 replacement.

Were there an A330NEO or an A322NEO, I think it would be less of a 767 replacement than it is right now. If/when Airbus (followed by Boeing) announce a new narrowbody lineup that is in the 175/200/225-ish range with transatlantic range, sales of the 787-8 will likely be the next 767-200ER (past) or 777-200ER (current) as aircraft that are seldom ordered.

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
Your problem is that you keep thinking the 787 is the A350. It is not! The 787 was never designed to replace the 777, Y2 is 787 Y3 is the 777 replacement, get it?

It is what it becomes. Until the Y3 becomes more than an internal concept, the 787 gets to become whatever Boeing and the airlines decide it can be. Back when the 7E7 was formulated, we had the 7E7 (Y2) coming out in 2008, the 797 (Y1) coming out in 2012, and then Y3 (whatever it was to be) coming out mid-2010's. Oh, and Airbus was going to be relegated to a distant 2nd. Flash ahead 8 years and you'll see that things have not gone as planned. There is no money to do all of that, no need - yet - to do the Y1, and no clear path forward - yet - to do the Y3.

I have absolutely zero clue what Boeing is going to (or should) do, but it would make sense to me to do the 787-10 as a more capable platform such as described in this thread, tweak the 777 to get a few more years of decent sales out of it, but put all their cards into the true 773/748/388 replacement aircraft mid 20's, with a new Y1 coming late 20's. Were that to be the case, the 787 would be "promoted" to low-end 777 replacement, even though it initially wasn't supposed to go that way.

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
Airbus will try to cover the 220-350 seat market with one family, Boeing thinks they can do this with 2 different families. If you stop being so stubborn things will get clearer.

I think it remains to be seen what Airbus does in that market segment. Today is one thing - five years from now is another. Just as Boeing ponders different options, so does Airbus. An A330NEO/Lite could conveivably become the new 250 seat, mid-range people mover that replaces much of the 767 capacity in a more effective and perhaps less expensive manner than the 787. And they could probably have it on the market for delivery while there are 787 customers waiting for their planes.

Hey, it probably won't happen, but it could. And if it does, Boeing needs to get as much out of the 787 as possible. Might as well take it up-market rather than cannibalize it from both ends with the A330NEO and the 777X.  

-Dave

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-05 12:49:54 and read 18866 times.

I ran the different variants to do a PR chart to help the discussion.

The -10ER is 270t with an OEW of 135t ie showroom spec, the -10 is 251t with 132t OEW, -9 251 with 125 and 359 268 with 136. The engines on the -10ER has to be 80klbf to get acceptable start performance and a top of climb of 300ft/min at FL310. As can be see the -10ER is just fuel limited at the design range of 8000nm, maybe a bit tight (as always click on the chart to see better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR789781781ER359.jpg


I have made no changes to the -10ER wing, the -9 proposed extended wingtips might do it good, haven't check what it does however. Engines are TWXB and T1000TEN, the latter being 1% of from the TXWB TSFC.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-05 13:17:03 and read 18782 times.

Put a graph of the 787-10ER+A3510 and the 77W/9X, that would probably explain why the 787 will never replace the 777 for some. Payload range is payload range..

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2012-12-05 13:25:15 and read 18733 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 112):
Put a graph of the 787-10ER+A3510 and the 77W/9X, that would probably explain why the 787 will never replace the 777 for some. Payload range is payload range..

Of course it will never replace the 777 for some. That doesn't mean it can't replace the 777 for many. For the ones whom it doesn't, is there enough of them to warrant investing billions into a 777X - following billions invested in a 748 - only to once again replace if prematurely with a clean-sheet design? I doubt very much that Airbus will stand still during all of this.

-Dave

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-05 13:38:53 and read 18745 times.

The 787-9 should pretty much handle the same missions as the 777-200ER (at 6-abreast Business / 9-abreast Economy) with better efficiency.

So Boeing really need only worry about the 777-300ER at the moment.

As to protecting that plane, I still believe a "777-300ERX" with 115,000lb GE-9X engines makes more sense than the 777-8X / 777-9X.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-05 13:41:11 and read 18806 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 112):
Put a graph of the 787-10ER+A3510 and the 77W/9X

Added (and busy  ) , it shall be noted the -8X and -9X have engines that are 4% better then TXWB, this means end of the decade and some development risk IMO:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR-9-10-10ER359351-8X-9X.jpg

-8X MTOW 315t with 158t OEW, -9X with 344 and 172, both with 71m wings.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-05 13:43:59 and read 18740 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):
Added (and busy  )

Thanks for your hard work and quick reactions to posts here.   Your graph is very enlightening.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-05 13:45:58 and read 18718 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):

Thanks, that is making our debate so much better, great graphs!

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: mffoda
Posted 2012-12-05 16:32:35 and read 18489 times.

@ ferpe

The 777-9 cabin m2 seems off... Is it?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-05 21:54:15 and read 18268 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 118):
The 777-9 cabin m2 seems off... Is it?

The cabin areas per m2 are as follows: 789 266, 7810 -10ER 296, 359 291, 351 330, -8X 322, -9X 370

What you see concatenated after the frame name is the average fuel consumed in kg over 1000nm and then divided by cabin m2 to normalize it between the frames. I use m2 cabin to avoid the whole seating discussion with things like class distribution and 8 vs 9 vs 10 abrest comfort levels etc. Wingedmigrator proposed it in a Tech/Ops thread and it makes sense for first order normalization purposes avoiding the whole complexity of seating. One can also see that for a certain cabin comfort level there goes roughly 1 pax per m2, if you take my m2 figures as pax above the positioning of the frames in capacity fits our discussions somehow over the different threads.

Now if one want to go to a more exact comparison one would have to do a cabin for all frames with the same principles for comfort, galley sizing etc and then divide by seats to get kg per seat-mile but that is for the airlines to do  .

Re normalized fuel consumption, suffice to say that all these frames are in the 39 to 40 kg range with only the -9X dipping below at 38.4 kg/nm/m2. It is also average fuel consumption when flying their spec mission, it cost fuel to carry fuel for those last miles so one can only really compare frames with the same spec range. The -10 only have a 6900nm nominal range and therefore has a lower average fuel consumption, should not be directly compared with the 8000nm frames.

To really compare things like fuel consumption one shall fly all frames over the same distance, say 3000 and 6000nm. Then the result is more representative. Further such results shall be taken as an indication, the model is not that exact and I also do the cabin m2 by cabin length * cabin width ignoring front and back cabin taper etc. Therefore I normally don't show any fraction for the fuel but did it this time as they are all so close. To use with caution   .

[Edited 2012-12-05 22:02:46]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2012-12-06 00:04:41 and read 18069 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 63):I guess increasing the length by adding 2 wheels is a less complicated solution for the 787-10X.
It may be quite the opposite.

The aircraft was designed to accommodate a twin bogie. It's brave to assume that the wheel well has room for a triple bogie.

No, that is not what I said. I said it was a less complicated solution - less complicated than further increasing the size of a 4 wheel bogie, especially in width. Pretty sure a 4 wheel bogie as wide as the A359's will never fit on a 787. Ferpe once posted 2 pics comparing the thickness of the wing roots of both 787 and A350, the latter one looks about 50% thicker.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-06 01:19:28 and read 17994 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
So if you want to match an A350-900 out to around 5000nm, no worries.

If you want to match an A350-900 out to around 8000nm...

The 789 is a great 772ER competitor as well as the A359. So do you think that the 787 would lose 3000nm range, just by stretching it 2-3 meters to come close to the A359?

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
The 787 was never designed to replace the 777, Y2 is 787 Y3 is the 777 replacement, get it?

So it was aimed at the 767 replacement market only?

That's rubish because the 787 is far too much 777-like for that. The first 787-versions have longer ranges than any other new design before (that means it is a high performance twin aisles aircraft from the outset) and it has a cross section which would be pure waste if the 767 and the A330-market would have been the sole purpose.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):
Added (and busy ) , it shall be noted the -8X and -9X have engines that are 4% better then TXWB, this means end of the decade and some development risk IMO:

Thanks for the charts. I have some observations:

- It is not plausible why the 779X would have significantly more range and payload while it will have roughly engines with the same power as the A351. Something does not add up. I could imagine that Boeing makes a 400-seater from the 77W with less thrust by giving up some range and probably payload. But extending range, payload and size while reducing thrust and weight is simply not credible.

- It does not make sense to spend 6-wheels MLG to the 781 if the gained payload increment would turn out so small. Your MTOW-assumption for the 781ER is biased to make the difference look small. If you would recalculate using an MTOW that would match the potential of the 6-wheel MLG and assume other changes (that would still cause comportably less effort than planned for the 77X), you will see that the 787 could be brought very closely to the A351.

- Looking at payload alone does hide a lot of relevant parameter because it tells nothing about the pax/freight split. As a full A380 has almost no reserves to carry cargo, a 781ER could have virtually the seating capacity of a A351 while the payload would be consumed by a higher percentage for pax instead for cargo. A characteristic which could suit a lot of customers at least as well as the other way round.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-12-06 01:37:47 and read 17969 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 120):
No, that is not what I said. I said it was a less complicated solution - less complicated than further increasing the size of a 4 wheel bogie, especially in width. Pretty sure a 4 wheel bogie as wide as the A359's will never fit on a 787

Ah. Apologies. My Bad.
Yep. I get that.  

Rgds

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-06 03:21:12 and read 17807 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
The 77W may lack outright passenger capacity against the 744, but beats it in just about every other way, including payload and range. I disagree with the notion that airlines are trading 744s for 77Ws due to a want of smaller aircraft, but rather they are doing so because the 77W is a more capable aircraft.

Agreed - that also means that airlines are not clamouring for the 405 seats of the 777-9X and would be happy with less if they could get the required capability.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
In terms of gross costs, I disagree that the 777X program "far exceeds" what is required to develop larger and higher MTOW 787s.

I disagree, a heavier 787 will likely use an extended wing of around 65m which would be based on the existing 787 wing - Boeing originally proposed a larger wing for the 9 and 10. The costs involved would be far less than the full cost of developing a completely new wing for the 777X.

The 777X represents the most ambitious derivative program in terms of scope and cost ever proposed by Boeing. Previous major late life upgrades included the 737NG, 744 and 748 - none of these programs involved significant changes in materials, assembly techniques or the supply chain as will occur with the 777X.

Airbus had almost exactly the same concept for the 350 Mk1 which was costed at around $5.5 billion in 2004 dollars, throw in inflation, scope creep, schedule slippage and all the other unkown unknown's and the 777x is likely to exceed $10 billion in cost. It has much of the capital cost and risk associated with a new platform but doesn't have the advantages of long life and further derivatives - Y3 will be the next cab off the rank.
Its not a case of whether Boeing can do it but rather a case of is the 777X the right thing to do with $10 billion or more - you come up against the law of diminishing returns when investing huge amounts of capital late in the life cycle.
The 748 is a good exampe of over investing in a derivative - while the market did not materialise, Boeing could still have gernerated a ROI if the development costs had been much lower.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):the 777X program represents a massive investment in a mature platform, far exceeding that required to develop a 787-10/11 with similar capabilities and also with much greater risk. Any 787-10/11 would have a life span of at least 30 years - far more than could ever be possible with the 777X which I suspect could struggle to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI. ......
.......I also disagree that it would struggle to sell.

Yes it will sell but the qualifier is "to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI".
With such a massive upfront capital investment the 777X will need to sell a huge number of frames to recoup that investment and then earn some income. With that size of capital investment the 777X will need to either sell like hot cakes or have a very long life cycle for a derivative. The more that is invested in the 777X then the further out to the right the launch of Y3 will need to be pushed. The 777X will never have the market to itself as occurred with the 77W - it will be competing in a very diferent world against much newer and very capable competitors.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
I think the 777-9X has a reasonably bright future. Any airline that's currently operating the 777-300ER at 10-across in economy would find the 777's extra width attractive in order to maintain on board product commonality.

Your right, it will probably sell in reasonable numbers - but would the present value of the 777X exceed that of a 777+ (5% improvement) launched much earlier and costing far less to develop. The 777X also does not satisfactorily address the 300-350 seat market where a heavier 787 derivative would be such a formidable competitor.

The concept might not necesarily be one of a heavier 787 replacing the 77W but rather supplimenting it by by exploiting as yet untapped potential of the 787 platform. There will likely still be the need for a heavier and larger platform but I'm not sure that the 777X is the best way to fill that need - the 777+ may be a better way to go.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 113):
Quoting sweair (Reply 112):Put a graph of the 787-10ER+A3510 and the 77W/9X, that would probably explain why the 787 will never replace the 777 for some. Payload range is payload range..

Of course it will never replace the 777 for some. That doesn't mean it can't replace the 777 for many. For the ones whom it doesn't, is there enough of them to warrant investing billions into a 777X - following billions invested in a 748 - only to once again replace if prematurely with a clean-sheet design? I doubt very much that Airbus will stand still during all of this.

Good summary.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-06 06:57:55 and read 17606 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
The 789 is a great 772ER competitor as well as the A359. So do you think that the 787 would lose 3000nm range, just by stretching it 2-3 meters to come close to the A359?

It is not the loss of range, but the loss of payload to meet that range.

At their respective Maximum Zero Fuel Weights, the higher MTOW of the A350-900 allows it to tank an additional 18 tons of fuel which translates to some three hours of additional cruising time using Airbus' estimates.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
As a full A380 has almost no reserves to carry cargo, a 781ER could have virtually the seating capacity of a A351 while the payload would be consumed by a higher percentage for pax instead for cargo.

A 75m 787-11 would offer some 52 LD3 positions - 8 more than the A350-1000 and 777-300ER - so cargo volume won't be an issue for her.  

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-06 08:13:07 and read 17530 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
- It is not plausible why the 779X would have significantly more range and payload while it will have roughly engines with the same power as the A351. Something does not add up.

Why not, the engines are 4% more efficient, that is a lot (half of the efficiency improvement of a A333neo).

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
But extending range, payload and size while reducing thrust and weight is simply not credible.

Weight is frame+ fuel and fuel burn goes down 10%, ie trip fuel no longer weighs 140 but 120t, there you have 20t. Thrust is set by start and top of climb, start is to 80% induced drag, there your 71m helps (look in past threads how much, has been discussed several times). Top of climb suffers a bit but is over strong on twins anyway so it is OK for a -9X.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
- It does not make sense to spend 6-wheels MLG to the 781 if the gained payload increment would turn out so small. Your MTOW-assumption for the 781ER is biased to make the difference look small. If you would recalculate using an MTOW that would match the potential of the 6-wheel MLG and assume other changes (that would still cause comportably less effort than planned for the 77X), you will see that the 787 could be brought very closely to the A351.

If you read what I write I say the MTOW is engine limited for a 787 stretch, the 6 wheel gear is there because you're past the limit for a 4 gear design that fits the 787 belly (if AW has the right info). This does not mean you can suddenly make the frame a 300 tonner, other things needs major changes then.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-06 08:25:32 and read 17489 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 125):
This does not mean you can suddenly make the frame a 300 tonner, other things needs major changes then.

And one would reasonably expect those other things to change as well (greater span/larger wing area, higher thrust engines, etc.) in order to both support those higher MTOWs and to maximize their benefit.

And we're unlikely to see a direct jump from 250t to 300t - I could see the first jump being to, say, 270t to equalize the "TOW Gap" to the A350-900.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-06 11:00:55 and read 17363 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 126):
And we're unlikely to see a direct jump from 250t to 300t - I could see the first jump being to, say, 270t to equalize the "TOW Gap" to the A350-900

Probably not by coincidence, at 270t MTOW the required fuel load including reserves for max passenger load at max range of about 7800nm is right on the tank capacity of just over 101t.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-06 11:44:37 and read 17292 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 125):
other things needs major changes then.

Sure, but isn't it reasonable to assume that other major change would come with the 6-wheel MLG?

How weird would it be, to have only that one specific major change (6-wheel MLG) if the increment would be so small as shown in your chart?

No, it is safe to assume that Boeing does analyse a package of several major changes and the 6-wheel-MLG are just that part which became evident. Otherwise it makes no sense. This can clearly be seen in your chart....

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ZOTAN
Posted 2012-12-06 12:07:36 and read 17218 times.

Could someone please post the link to the article? I have been looking but unable to find it.

This would be big news. Last I've heard is that the 787-10 MTOW would be the same as the 787-9

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-06 12:16:44 and read 17210 times.

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 129):
Could someone please post the link to the article? I have been looking but unable to find it.

I'm guessing it is in the print edition.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-06 12:30:23 and read 17200 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):
I'm guessing it is in the print edition.

Nope, the the headline is funny: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_12_03_2012_p40-522315.xml

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-06 12:43:36 and read 17146 times.

Quote:
The -10X involves more than adding fuselage plugs to the 787-9. There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads. A redesign also offers the promise of improved performance in the wing. An upgraded environmental control system is likely, as is a stronger main landing gear that uses six-wheel trucks, as does the 777-300ER.

So stronger SOB. Updated wing. Updated undercarriage. Upgraded ECS.

All would support higher TOWs and additional stretches.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-06 21:18:49 and read 16734 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
So stronger SOB. Updated wing. Updated undercarriage. Upgraded ECS.

Thanks.

One line that explains a lot.

It took me countless posts in many threads to explain the rationale behind such an upgrade. And faced strong opposition by many. It does not fit into a world view where the 777 should keep its current relevance for a long time despite being sandwiched by three new clean sheet designs (two of them of a revolutionary new kind).

How often I got kindly reminded (garnished with verbose explanations) that the 781 would "only" be planned as simple stretch? And boom, that plan seems to become invalid (as it happens now and then with plans)....

And still almost nobody seems to believe, that this will be Boeings primary answer to the A351. But I still do.

This means also that this will be their primary effort to stay present in the 350 seat market. Because it is better to compete there with a 340-seater, than with a 400-seater, you know. Range&payload will be fine and sufficient for the bulk of all airlines as well.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-07 01:37:07 and read 16499 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133):

You really think the 777 has no future? And that it is optimal to have one family to cover 230-400 seats? The span is too great to cover with one frame, hence you see how the A358 falters in the lower range, it is just too much airframe! The 748i is not a top seller, so no 400 seat option there, end the 777 and the top model would have 320 seats. To go beyond the 787-10 length will be a major pain for Boeing, it would become the new A340-600. The frame is not designed to go to the 77W size.

To EOL the 777 and not do a Y3 would be the most stupid mistake B ever could do.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-12-07 02:35:11 and read 16417 times.

One thing about Boeing that I like is how they move slowly and carefully.This is how they have achieved such a fantasic record of success with their models over they years.

The only recent mistake (if one can call it that) is the 748. But even here, even though it is locked into losses at present, is doing an interesting job. It removed Airbus from the heavy freight market,kept it 'honest' on every 380 they have sold, and racked up a few 'i' orders.But they, by now, have presented and re presented the aircraft to all and sundry. The picture is not rosy.

So they are feeling airlines out. An improved 300 then a a smaller 8X a larger 9X both with a new wing attached.And that is what we have ben hearing about for the last year or two.Over the same period Airbus has made a big change to their 1000.Clearly this is what their customers were demanding. Indeed it looks like it is now taking precident over the -8 model.

None of which will have been lost on Boeing. It appears they have now swiveled their 'guns' and have pushed the 777 offerings into the background (poor responses?) and offering to plug the gaps (A333 and A359) with 2 potental stretched versions (heavy and light) of their brand new platform (787).

This IMHO is exactly what they will do now.

As for the large aircraft segment - who knows. As others have said, It begins to look more and more like they will wait and (after the 10X) developments produce a totally new aircraft to replace the 773 and 748 . In the mean time the 773er continues to do very nicely thank you.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-07 02:36:11 and read 16411 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
But I can't see any reason why the 787 can't be stretched to at least the same length (and hence same capacity) as the A350-1000

I didn't mean that it would be physically impossible to do so, but rather that it'd be impractical and entail many structural changes to the current 787 to "beef up" the fuselage and increase its strength.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
Already the 789 would match the 772ER's position and the 781X will leave behind both A359 and 772ER.

The 787-9 is pretty much a replacement for the 777-200ER. As is the A350-900.

However, the A350-900 is the better, more capable 777-200ER replacement for airlines that want to use their aircraft on longer haul missions. The 787-9 falls short of the A350-900's payload beyond 5000nm, as Ferpe's chart shows. The 787-10, without the upgrade, would've been even worse in that regard, as a simple stretch with the same MTOW as a 787-9. What the inclusion of six wheel main gears does for the 787-10 is increase its MTOW so that it can match the A350-900's payload range figures - and even beat it. But it still falls a long way short of the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
Nobody should be suprised if the 787 continues creeping into 777 territory and eventually cover any spot that has been held by 9-abreast 777's. Its just a matter of time.

I doubt that the 787 would be stretched any further than the -10. So there is still a gap at the top end of the 777 family that can only be replaced either by the A350-1000 or by the 777X.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
It is strange to see how people almost stubbornly "invent" aircraft against which this 781X should compete. First the A359, now the 772ER.

The 787-10 doesn't compete against the 777-200ER. It replaces it.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 113):
Of course it will never replace the 777 for some. That doesn't mean it can't replace the 777 for many. For the ones whom it doesn't, is there enough of them to warrant investing billions into a 777X

I think there is, particularly if the 777X turns out as good as it has been reported could be. The 777-9X and the A350-1000 sales battle isn't a "one or the other" proposition. I think it is quite likely that airlines would order both to operate alongside each other, as the 777-9X is the larger and more capable aircraft. If the airlines can make more money from the 777-9X's added payload range capabilities than they lose from the fuel burn deficit, then I fail to see why the 777-9X wouldn't be on their shopping list.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):

Thank you for your hard work in putting that graph together, Ferpe. It just goes to prove my point that the 787-10 isn't really a match for the A350-1000 even with the upgraded main gear, and that is quite evident from looking at your payload range chart. At 6000nm the A350-1000 would carry about 7t more than the upgraded 787-10. The 787-10"ER" is much closer, payload range wise, to the A350-900 than the A350-1000.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 119):
The cabin areas per m2 are as follows: 789 266, 7810 -10ER 296, 359 291, 351 330, -8X 322, -9X 370

Thank you for that. There's been too much emphasis placed on seat count. I think the cabin area figures show clearly where the 787-10 is at in terms of size.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
The 789 is a great 772ER competitor as well as the A359. So do you think that the 787 would lose 3000nm range, just by stretching it 2-3 meters to come close to the A359?

That wasn't Stitch's point. According to Ferpe's chart, the original 787-10 could match, or even beat the A350-900 in terms of payload until around 4250nm. Beyond that, the A350-900 builds up a sizeable advantage in payload-range. The 787-10"ER" fixes that, and its payload range figures now pretty much match the A350-900 until about 8000nm. It is therefore a much better A350-900 competitor than the previous version.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
it has a cross section which would be pure waste if the 767 and the A330-market would have been the sole purpose.

It was designed originally to be a comfortable 8 abreast layout but with the option of going to a higher density 9 abreast layout for carriers that want to have that option. Boeing's early cabin mockups show the seats arranged in a 3-2-3 configuration. That puts it smack bang in the A330/A340 territory. As more and more carriers went for the 9 abreast layout - possibly due to ever spiralling fuel prices, its demonstrator aircraft were fitted with a 3-3-3 configured economy. But that doesn't change the fact that the cabin cross section is narrower than it would be had it been designed as a 777 replacement in the first place.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
But extending range, payload and size while reducing thrust and weight is simply not credible.

Yes, it is.

Lower trip fuel burn = less fuel required to be carried for the same mission = lower MTOW without affecting payload. It also increases range.
Larger wings provide greater lift, therefore less thrust is required.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
It does not make sense to spend 6-wheels MLG to the 781 if the gained payload increment would turn out so small.

It does, because without the 6 wheel landing gear, the 787-10 wouldn't be able to compete with the A350-900, although it would still be a very good A330-300 replacement. Clearly, Boeing doesn't think that's enough.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
Looking at payload alone does hide a lot of relevant parameter because it tells nothing about the pax/freight split. As a full A380 has almost no reserves to carry cargo, a 781ER could have virtually the seating capacity of a A351 while the payload would be consumed by a higher percentage for pax instead for cargo. A characteristic which could suit a lot of customers at least as well as the other way round.

Payload isn't just about cargo, it's also about range. If an aircraft has an excellent payload range performance, then it can theoretically fly a long way - such as westbound on a transpacific route against a stiff headwind - without (or with less) weight penalties, so it doesn't have to leave pax, bags or cargo behind. The more it carries, the more money it makes.

Rather than focusing on seat count, CASM or trip fuel burn, I think that payload-range is one of the most, if not the most important factor when deciding on aircraft purchases, because that affects how much money an airline is able to make from the aircraft. Based on payload range, the 787-10 without a 6 wheel landing gear would have been a fantastic A330-300 replacement, but it would struggle against the A350-900. This upgrade brings it more in line with the A350-900 but it is still somewhat short of what the A350-1000 can do. That's why the 777X, particularly the 777-9X, is still required. Irrespective of what Boeing chooses to do with the 787-10, it will never be able to supplant the 777-9X.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
I disagree, a heavier 787 will likely use an extended wing of around 65m which would be based on the existing 787 wing - Boeing originally proposed a larger wing for the 9 and 10. The costs involved would be far less than the full cost of developing a completely new wing for the 777X.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing. It'll also need a new landing gear, new engines, new wing to body join, and various structural "beefing up" to handle the increase in MTOW. It is not an insignificant task. Neither is the 777X an insignificant task, granted, but if it has one advantage at all, then it's the fact that they aren't increasing the MTOW for the 777-9X but rather reducing it, and as such, Boeing do not need to engineer a new main landing gear for the 777X.

Even if I were to concede this point, would a heavier 787 result in a more competitive - and by implication, more capable in terms of payload-range - airframe than the 777X program could achieve? I'll call on Ferpe's talents and expertise here - if he reads this - to see if he can create a payload-range comparison for a hypothetical higher MTOW 787-10 (pick a number, whatever you think might be possible - never mind the fact that there's a lot more work that needs to go into it to make it possible) against the 777-8X/777-9X and A350-1000?

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The 777X represents the most ambitious derivative program in terms of scope and cost ever proposed by Boeing.

I don't think anyone would suggest that the 777X is anything but a significant update of the 777 family.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The 777X will never have the market to itself as occurred with the 77W - it will be competing in a very diferent world against much newer and very capable competitors.

Neither will the 'Y3' or a heavier 787 have the market to itself. So as far as that point is concerned, there is no difference. I don't dispute that it will need significant sales in order to turn an acceptable RoI for Boeing, but I disagree that the 777X would struggle to reach that magical number, whatever it happens to be. As expensive as the 777X is, I doubt it will be more expensive than the 'Y3' or, indeed, doing a heavier 787. And the 777-9X's size and payload range advantage over the A350-1000 could mean that airlines will operate both aircraft side by side rather than one or the other.

As long as the 777X remains competitive - and I have no reason to believe why it wouldn't be - then having the Y3 being pushed further and further to the right isn't a problem. Ideally, from my point of view, the 777X will hold the fort against the A350-1000 with both having more or less an equal share of the market, while the Y1 comes in the mid to late 2020s and the Y3 comes in the mid 2030s. As someone who is partial to the 777 family of aircraft, I concede that I might be viewing this with rose coloured spectacles clouding my objectivity, but I fail to see why the 777X, with a significant enough update - can't take the 777 a further 20 years into the future before bringing its all new replacement to the market. The 737 and 747 families have both been around significantly longer than the 777, yet they're both still being sold, albeit with varying degrees of success.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The 777X also does not satisfactorily address the 300-350 seat market where a heavier 787 derivative would be such a formidable competitor.

On this point, I don't disagree.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The concept might not necesarily be one of a heavier 787 replacing the 77W but rather supplimenting it by by exploiting as yet untapped potential of the 787 platform.

Then I think we might have been talking at cross purposes here. I agree that a heavier 787 is beneficial to the 787 program as there is, as you say, untapped potential, and that it would supplement the 777. However, I also believe that the 777, and the 777X, will continue to exist irrespective of what Boeing chooses to do with the 787. Their futures are not interdependent.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133):
And still almost nobody seems to believe, that this will be Boeings primary answer to the A351. But I still do.

This means also that this will be their primary effort to stay present in the 350 seat market. Because it is better to compete there with a 340-seater, than with a 400-seater, you know. Range&payload will be fine and sufficient for the bulk of all airlines as well.

You can believe what you want. I remain unconvinced. You're placing too much emphasis on seat count and not enough on payload range and completely ignored Ferpe's cabin area figures which shows that the 787-10 is indeed closer to the A350-900 than the A350-1000. I also don't know where you got 340 seats from as the "typical" seat count for the 787-10 is 323 seats.

The 787-10, even with the 6 wheel landing gear, still falls short of the A350-1000's payload range and seat count.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-07 03:26:44 and read 16319 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
Maybe, maybe not. But these changes to the B787-10X are influencing the business case for the B777-X-program. For sure the B778-X is now an even more highly doubtful proposal imho.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133):
It took me countless posts in many threads to explain the rationale behind such an upgrade.

The 787 started out as a upsized version / replacement of the 767, it is not the league of the 777W in terms of range and capacity at longer ranges, it can certainely be more efficient than the 777W on the lower ranges.

The question is does the world need a 777W replacment, an a/c which can travel its current max range with it max cargo to suit that range, if the answer is no, then the A350-900 and 787-9 and 748i are all fine, but Airbus seems to think that they need to get closer to the max performance figures of the 777W so they are working on the A350-1000.
Boeing has to decide if they are going to leave the market segment where the 777W max performance number reside, efficiency is only one metric, wanting to carry 350+ pax 7,000nm is one issue which cannot always be replaced by taking 300+ pax 6,000nm more efficiently.

Unless Boeing designs a new version of the 787 which is wider than the existing a/c negating the need to make a long thin looking a/c to accomodate 777W loads and range, I do not see any version of the 787 replacing the 777W at its maximum ranges, which is where the a/c presently excels and has no competitor.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-07 05:14:48 and read 16171 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 134):
You really think the 777 has no future?

Not at all.

777's will be built easily for another 10 years even if doing only some minimalistic improvements. Which would mean that there are a lot of $$$'s to earn for Boeing without noteable effort. Which means that earning back the collosal investment for the 77X proposal would require the 777-franchise to sell another thousand copies until 2030 or so. Which is questionable to ever happen...

The correct discussion is about the right balance between investment and return. The 77X is an extreme proposal in that regard. A huge investment and huge risks whether it will stay competitive for that long period until the investment is payed back.

Quoting sweair (Reply 134):
And that it is optimal to have one family to cover 230-400 seats?

Not at all.

Nobody needs a A351 competitor with 400 seats. If no 400 seater does exist airlines will do what they do today if they want a 230-seater: order something else that is as similar as possible in size.

400-seaters are currently such a hot market, that you can be happy if you don't participate.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-07 05:35:35 and read 16142 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 138):

Emirates liked the idea of putting up to 380 seats and have a notch more range than the current 360 seat 77W. Its a big step between the A350-1000 and the A380, depending on where the line is for profit in a A380, might be well above 400 seats. The market wants less option in your opinion? I think its the other way, they want something between the mega 380 and the 350 seat twins. Just because the 748 is not popular doesn't say that there is no market above 350 seats and below 460 seats.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-07 05:37:17 and read 16154 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
Rather than focusing on seat count, CASM or trip fuel burn, I think that payload-range is one of the most, if not the most important factor when deciding on aircraft purchases, because that affects how much money an airline is able to make from the aircraft.

The two most important strategic decisions for any type are fuselage cross section and payload/range curve. Those, much more than anything else, determine whether the airlines want it or not.

Quoting par13del (Reply 137):
The 787 started out as a upsized version / replacement of the 767, it is not the league of the 777W in terms of range and capacity at longer ranges, it can certainely be more efficient than the 777W on the lower ranges.

This is a bit inverted...the 787 is a range/payload/speed/crew equivalent *downsized 777*. The demand the 787 i's filling was caused by the aging out of the 767's but if you look at all the characteristics of the aircraft it's absolutely clear that it was intended to be a "777 for routes without enough demand for a 777." This also makes it capable of filling all the 767 roles. Note that this line of argument doesn't apply to the 787-3, which I'd argue is why the -3 went away.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-07 05:57:07 and read 16115 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 138):
Which means that earning back the collosal investment for the 77X proposal would require the 777-franchise to sell another thousand copies until 2030 or so. Which is questionable to ever happen...

I can't see any reason why the 777, with substantial upgrades in the form of the 777X, can't keep selling from now until the mid 2030s, when I expect its all new replacement to then take over. The 777 is still a relatively young and advanced airframe with huge potential for further development.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 138):
Nobody needs a A351 competitor with 400 seats.

Tell that to EK. Tell that to AF. Tell that to every airline that puts a high density 10-across seating configuration in a current 777-300ER. I think the evidence is quite clear: as there are more and more airlines adopting a tighter 10-across economy on their 777s, there is a greater demand for a larger 777-300ER. That's where the 777-9X slots in.

Quoting sweair (Reply 139):
The market wants less option in your opinion? I think its the other way, they want something between the mega 380 and the 350 seat twins. Just because the 748 is not popular doesn't say that there is no market above 350 seats and below 460 seats.

  

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 140):
The two most important strategic decisions for any type are fuselage cross section and payload/range curve. Those, much more than anything else, determine whether the airlines want it or not.

...the 787 is a range/payload/speed/crew equivalent *downsized 777*. The demand the 787 i's filling was caused by the aging out of the 767's but if you look at all the characteristics of the aircraft it's absolutely clear that it was intended to be a "777 for routes without enough demand for a 777."

Thank you for your input, Tom. That makes a lot of sense.

[Edited 2012-12-07 05:59:59]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-07 06:50:37 and read 16004 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133):
How often I got kindly reminded (garnished with verbose explanations) that the 781 would "only" be planned as simple stretch? And boom, that plan seems to become invalid (as it happens now and then with plans)....

To be fair, until the Aviation Week article that started this thread, all of the talk from Boeing and analysts was that the 787-10 would indeed just be a "simple" stretch of the 787-9, leveraging all the systems and components of that model.

The only folks talking about a "787-11" or "787-12" were a.net members.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing. It'll also need a new landing gear, new engines, new wing to body join, and various structural "beefing up" to handle the increase in MTOW.

And all of this is what Aviation Week says Boeing is at least looking at.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-07 07:54:05 and read 15934 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 134):
You really think the 777 has no future?

You should read better. Nowhere in his post is he suggesting this.

Quoting parapente (Reply 135):
An improved 300 then a a smaller 8X a larger 9X both with a new wing attached.And that is what we have ben hearing about for the last year or two.Over the same period Airbus has made a big change to their 1000

All changes Airbus made between the A350-900 and the A350-1000 are at best at the size of 5% of what Boeing is proposing for the B777-X Program. It is the other way around, Airbus makes small changes to the A350-1000 to get a very competitive airframe. Boeing needs to do an awful lot of changes to the "good old B77W" to keep her competitive only because she is bigger (as the B777-9X). The B777-8X will still lose out easily against the all new A350-1000.  .

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
I doubt that the 787 would be stretched any further than the -10.

But now for sure the opportunities are there.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
As long as the 777X remains competitive - and I have no reason to believe why it wouldn't be - then having the Y3 being pushed further and further to the right isn't a problem

Only if she remains competitive. Then I agree with you. If not, Y3 is the next move to make by Boeing.

Quoting sweair (Reply 139):
The market wants less option in your opinion?

Again you should read better, nowhere in his post is he suggesting this.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
The only folks talking about a "787-11" or "787-12" were a.net members.

Seems they were quite visionary A-net members. I recall that I have also talked a couple of times about a possible B787-11 or -12.  ,

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-07 08:21:30 and read 15855 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 143):

He dismissed the 400 seat market, but as I see it a realistic 400 seater has max 380 seats in airline layout. Why settle for 50% of the 350 seat market when you have a product that can go above and create its own niche? Want up to 340-350 seats go Airbus, want more go Boeing.

In EKs cabin the A350-100 would have below 340 seats anyway.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-07 08:51:32 and read 15783 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 144):
nd create its own niche?

And that is where the risks are. The niche might easily be too small to make a decent ROI for such an extensive redoing of the B77W. Then Y3 would be the better choice imho.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-12-07 09:13:56 and read 15736 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
There is a difference between a shortsighted 767/A330 replacement and a clever design that is fully capable to replace 767's at one hand and does not pose restrictions regarding later upgrades on the other hand.

There are a lot of things you can do enable later upgrades in a more easy way that don't impair the first versions notably.

I admire your persistence, but efficiency is a spectrum not a case of shortsightedness. If they design extra capability in the 787 to allow for additional stretches and increases in MTOW without significant redesign, then they have overdesigned the 787-8, put too much weight in the design, and hurt its efficiency. Airbus is running into this problem with the A350. While trying to offer the -800/900/1000 they are facing problems with efficiency on the -800. The airplane is overweight for its intended capacity and payload and many suspect that it will suffer the same fate as the 777-200 A market. Airbus also is facing problems pushing the A350-1000 high enough without requiring significant redesign and similarly is receiving negative comments from customers.

It isn't a case of shortsighted design. It is optimized design. A single airplane cannot efficiently cover a spectrum of 150,000 - 200,000MTOW without significant design changes.

Conventional design practices usually result in an airplane being overdesigned by about 10% to allow stretches and MTOW increases. That was the logic used during the design of airplanes prior to the 777. The 787 had extra pressure on efficiency with skyrocketing fuel prices, and they reduced the 10% overdesign gap to make the 787-8 and 787-9 even more efficient, but the consequences are a complicated 787-10 design.

The 77W exceeded the intended MTOW increases for landing gear. The result was significant redesign including semi-levered gear and a dual chamber shock strut.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-07 12:01:53 and read 15521 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 140):
This is a bit inverted...the 787 is a range/payload/speed/crew equivalent *downsized 777*.

Yes, which I take to be the 777-200, 200ER and maybe even the 300, but is it really a downsized version of the 777-300ER, that is what I meant by the 777W, trust I was not wrong in my a/c nomenclature.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-07 12:29:14 and read 15475 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
But it still falls a long way short of the A350-1000.

Depends on the MTOW they choose.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
I doubt that the 787 would be stretched any further than the -10.

Maybe you doubt wrongly. Which -10 anyway? Has it been settled?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing. It'll also need a new landing gear, new engines, new wing to body join

Sure. And where is the difference to the 77X?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
You're placing too much emphasis on seat count and not enough on payload range and completely ignored Ferpe's cabin area figures which shows that the 787-10 is indeed closer to the A350-900 than the A350-1000.

Ferpe did pick an unnormally low MTOW for the 781X on that chart. This was an assumption on his part and not a fact. An assumption that is not credible because Boeing would be nuts to spend the enourmous effort for a 6-wheel MLG if the gained payload and range would be so negligible.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
To be fair, until the Aviation Week article that started this thread, all of the talk from Boeing and analysts was that the 787-10 would indeed just be a "simple" stretch of the 787-9, leveraging all the systems and components of that model.

It was absolutely. But to me it was always clear that a 9-abreast aircraft, that has the 8000nm range from the outset will eventually become what the 777 today is. This is really not hard to see.

To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers. One for seats, another for range with spec load. If you are not sure how to accomplish the prediction, just apply the average increases in size and range of similar aircraft. Anyway just dare that prediction.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-07 12:49:28 and read 15437 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):

You keep thinking of the 777 as a 9 across cabin, its going more towards being a 10-across cabin and the 777-X even more so.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-07 13:02:58 and read 15408 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers. One for seats, another for range with spec load. If you are not sure how to accomplish the prediction, just apply the average increases in size and range of similar aircraft. Anyway just dare that prediction.

I think that this is the right answer.

Quoting parapente (Reply 135):
None of which will have been lost on Boeing. It appears they have now swiveled their 'guns' and have pushed the 777 offerings into the background (poor responses?) and offering to plug the gaps (A333 and A359) with 2 potental stretched versions (heavy and light) of their brand new platform (787).

This IMHO is exactly what they will do now.

As for the large aircraft segment - who knows. As others have said, It begins to look more and more like they will wait and (after the 10X) developments produce a totally new aircraft to replace the 773 and 748 . In the mean time the 773er continues to do very nicely thank you.

They are going to design the -10 (possible as both a "light" pure stretch and a heavy with various new things designed to support an increased MTOW) and then once they will compare an -11 to the A351 and the 778X and go from there. My guess is that you see the 10 light, 10 heavy and 11 models of the 787. It is cheaper with lower risk than farting around with the 777.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-12-07 13:23:44 and read 15383 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers. One for seats, another for range with spec load. If you are not sure how to accomplish the prediction, just apply the average increases in size and range of similar aircraft. Anyway just dare that prediction.

My personal opinion is tainted with information I will not share, so sorry can't do that.

I don't doubt they can build a 787 to match the payload and range of the A350 lineup. Doing it with similar efficiency and having the realistic redesign and engineering costs is the challenge. When you start with a smaller airplane, scaling it up is more challenging and less cost effective. Sometimes the trade study indicates you should start fresh or with a different model like the 777.

[Edited 2012-12-07 13:41:24]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-07 18:39:07 and read 15209 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers.

Sure...same range and 20% less seats than whatever Boeing's next largest aircraft is at the same time.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-12-07 19:21:57 and read 15143 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 144):
He dismissed the 400 seat market

That's not actually what he did.

What he actually suggested is that it's possible that a smaller, lower cost airframe CAN compete with a larger, more expensive one for a given market segment.

In much the same was as EK suggest that the 777-300ER is the 748i's biggest problem.....

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 146):
Airbus also is facing problems pushing the A350-1000 high enough without requiring significant redesign and similarly is receiving negative comments from customers

Customers who have "commented" and then promptly gone out and ordered a shedload more.........

Rgds

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: pellegrine
Posted 2012-12-08 00:25:13 and read 14886 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 151):

I don't doubt they can build a 787 to match the payload and range of the A350 lineup. Doing it with similar efficiency and having the realistic redesign and engineering costs is the challenge. When you start with a smaller airplane, scaling it up is more challenging and less cost effective. Sometimes the trade study indicates you should start fresh or with a different model like the 777.

  times 100 over

The 7E7 which became the 787 was meant to replace the 767-300/ER and -400ER more or less. Sure, can that grow to eclipse a 777-200ER, of course given two decades of engine, aerodynamics, and avionics improvements. People need to get real, in the sense that the 787 family is not a 777/747 replacement...it is not big enough! "787-11X" is ridiculous. 787-1000 is proving difficult enough. There will be no 777-300ER replacement in the form of a 787.

And even so, the 787 sweet spot is smaller than the A350. That's no commentary on how efficient each of them are for their own sweet spot. Only that Boeing wanted to target a 767 replacement given the success of the 772 and Airbus got tempted by the 772 success and chose to target that.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-08 03:26:26 and read 14717 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing.

I am suggesting a heavy 787 would suppliment the existing 77W (and later 777+) until Y3 rather than replacing the entire platform.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
Even if I were to concede this point, would a heavier 787 result in a more competitive - and by implication, more capable in terms of payload-range - airframe than the 777X program could achieve?

The job of the heavier 787 is to provide a competitive and capable airframe (in terms of payload range) to compete against the 35J rather than attempting to duplicate the 777-9X - its a slightly different concept.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):The 777X will never have the market to itself as occurred with the 77W - it will be competing in a very diferent world against much newer and very capable competitors.
Neither will the 'Y3' or a heavier 787 have the market to itself. So as far as that point is concerned, there is no difference.

There is a huge difference - Y3 and the 787 are both clean sheet programs that will have life spans of 30 to 40 years. That gives plenty of time to earn a healthy ROI and lots of optional value in terms of future derivatives.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
As long as the 777X remains competitive - and I have no reason to believe why it wouldn't be - then having the Y3 being pushed further and further to the right isn't a problem.

It will be a problem because Airbus will not be sitting on its hands from 2017 to the late 2030's - if there was no competition then I would agree. I am suggesting that the 777X be skipped and Y3 be bought forward into the mid 2020's.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):The 777X also does not satisfactorily address the 300-350 seat market where a heavier 787 derivative would be such a formidable competitor.
On this point, I don't disagree.

Thanks goodness we can agree on something !

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
I also believe that the 777, and the 777X, will continue to exist irrespective of what Boeing chooses to do with the 787. Their futures are not interdependent.

I also strongly agree that the 787 and 777 are not interdependant - I just have a different take on how Boeing should go about it.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 141):
I can't see any reason why the 777, with substantial upgrades in the form of the 777X, can't keep selling from now until the mid 2030s, when I expect its all new replacement to then take over.

OK - substitute 777+ (5% improvment over 77W) for 777X and move Y3 to the left to the mid 2020's. You save the massive R&D costs of the 777X and you get a clean sheet platform in the form of Y3 much earlier.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 138):
The correct discussion is about the right balance between investment and return. The 77X is an extreme proposal in that regard. A huge investment and huge risks whether it will stay competitive for that long period until the investment is payed back.

  

The problem I see with the 777X is not technical but rather the business case. I see it as having a rather limited life span that wont permit a decent return on what will be a huge investment. In comparison, the 787 and later Y3 will have life spans of 30 to 40 years - a more appropriate timeframe to recoup a large investment. The 77W and its 777+ enhancement should continue to sell 330 style into the 2020's - at this stage of the program its money for jam as the R&D should have been well and truly paid off.



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-08 03:58:00 and read 14678 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
The only folks talking about a "787-11" or "787-12" were a.net members.

Which is why I think there is very little credibility in this sort of talk. If Boeing were discussing stretching the 787 further, I'd sit up and listen. But right now, the only talk is coming from armchair 'experts'.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 143):
You should read better. Nowhere in his post is he suggesting this.

Err ... yes, he did:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

Bye bye 77X.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 143):
Only if she remains competitive.

Oh it will be. Count on it.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 146):
If they design extra capability in the 787 to allow for additional stretches and increases in MTOW without significant redesign, then they have overdesigned the 787-8, put too much weight in the design, and hurt its efficiency. Airbus is running into this problem with the A350. While trying to offer the -800/900/1000 they are facing problems with efficiency on the -800. The airplane is overweight for its intended capacity and payload and many suspect that it will suffer the same fate as the 777-200 A market.

....

It isn't a case of shortsighted design. It is optimized design. A single airplane cannot efficiently cover a spectrum of 150,000 - 200,000MTOW without significant design changes.

.....

The 787 had extra pressure on efficiency with skyrocketing fuel prices, and they reduced the 10% overdesign gap to make the 787-8 and 787-9 even more efficient, but the consequences are a complicated 787-10 design.

I agree. Boeing are finding that the 787-10 isn't quite a "simple" stretch, hence the addition of the 6 wheel main gear. Thank you for your input.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
Sure. And where is the difference to the 77X?

I don't believe that the 777-9X will require a new gear since its MTOW will be 7t lower than that of he 777-300ER. If that gear can handle the weight of the 777-300ER, it can also handle the weight of the 777-9X.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
Ferpe did pick an unnormally low MTOW for the 781X on that chart. This was an assumption on his part and not a fact.
Ferpe has shown in his posts that he is a knowledgeable and well informed member of this forum. He has consistently shown time and again that he knows what he is talking about. I'd take his educated estimates over your wild assumptions backed up by more assumptions.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
An assumption that is not credible because Boeing would be nuts to spend the enourmous effort for a 6-wheel MLG if the gained payload and range would be so negligible.

The 787-10 went from being an aircraft that would've been beaten by the A350-900 for payload at 4250nm without the 6 wheel main gear, to an aircraft that can match the A350-900 up to about 8000nm. That is not an insignificant upgrade.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025?

The 787-10 will stay the same size. I don't think that there will be any further stretches beyond the 787-10. The typical three class configuration of the 787-10 as proposed is 323 seats. We might see a "787-10ER" which might match the A350-1000's range but it won't match its payload. I think the 787-9 will be the longest ranged 787, but even that will require a new main landing gear should it need to upgrade its MTOW for a further extension to its range.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 150):
My guess is that you see the 10 light, 10 heavy and 11 models of the 787. It is cheaper with lower risk than farting around with the 777.

I disagree that it will be cheaper as the 787 is the more compromised design due to its size. Boeing are already finding that out on the 787-10, which is already a double stretch over the base 787-8. I also don't think we'll ever see a "787-11".

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 151):
Doing it with similar efficiency and having the realistic redesign and engineering costs is the challenge. When you start with a smaller airplane, scaling it up is more challenging and less cost effective. Sometimes the trade study indicates you should start fresh or with a different model like the 777.

I agree.

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 154):
People need to get real, in the sense that the 787 family is not a 777/747 replacement...it is not big enough! "787-11X" is ridiculous. 787-1000 is proving difficult enough. There will be no 777-300ER replacement in the form of a 787.

  

I agree. The 777-300ER replacement / A350-1000 competitor will either be the 777-9X, which I think is very likely, or an all new aircraft. A 787 derivative isn't big enough nor capable enough.

If the 787-10 already poses such a challenge for Boeing, stretching it to a "787-11" would pose even more challenges, not the least of which is fuselage flex. I understand from another member here that CFRP is less stiff than aluminium, and thus the further it is stretched, the more structural reinforcements it will need, which would negate the weight advantage of CFRP.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 155):
The job of the heavier 787 is to provide a competitive and capable airframe (in terms of payload range) to compete against the 35J rather than attempting to duplicate the 777-9X - its a slightly different concept.

But as it has already been shown, the 787-10 doesn't have enough payload range to match the A350-1000. Even if it is possible to make the 787-10 heavier still so that it could carry its payload as far as the A350-1000, it's maximum structural payload is still somewhat lower than that of the A350-1000. I don't know a lot about aircraft design so I'm not entirely sure how to go about increasing an aircraft's MSP as well as payload range, but I would imagine it's not a simple task. That's why it will cost more, in my view, than doing a 777X, and why the 777X is the easier project to embark on. It is easier to beat the A350-1000's payload range with a 777-9X than it is with a 787 derivative.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 155):
There is a huge difference - Y3 and the 787 are both clean sheet programs that will have life spans of 30 to 40 years. That gives plenty of time to earn a healthy ROI and lots of optional value in terms of future derivatives.

I also believe that the 777X will have a long life span. If it EIS by the end of the decade, I can't see why it won't remain competitive until the mid (perhaps even late) 2030s so the Y3 comes around in time for the A350 replacement market.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 155):
It will be a problem because Airbus will not be sitting on its hands from 2017 to the late 2030's - if there was no competition then I would agree.

Neither will Boeing be sitting on their hands. I don't see why the 777X can't also get incremental upgrades throughout its production life just like any other aircraft. The 777 itself is still a relatively young and quite advanced airframe with room for further development.

[Edited 2012-12-08 04:25:17]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2012-12-08 05:52:47 and read 14524 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 156):
the 787 is the more compromised design due to its size. Boeing are already finding that out on the 787-10, which is already a double stretch over the base 787-8. I also don't think we'll ever see a "787-11".

While I agree with your conclusion, we should also remember that Airbus used the same fuselage from A310 up to A346, and Boeing from B731 to B 753. Not that the frames at either end of these continua sold particularly well!

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-08 05:52:53 and read 14545 times.

CXB77L - Above you state that Boeing may actually replace your cherished 777 instead of doing 778/9.

What do you think they replace it with if they go cleansheet?

How good would 777+ be? Would EK not be happy as it would give them the range they need?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-08 09:36:17 and read 14281 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 156):
Err ... yes, he did:

No, he did not. This was the question asked:

Quoting sweair (Reply 134):
You really think the 777 has no future?

And Rheinwaldner never stated anything like this. He did state a possible goodbye to the B777-X, which is really a totally different thing.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rwessel
Posted 2012-12-08 10:59:20 and read 14184 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 156):
I understand from another member here that CFRP is less stiff than aluminium, and thus the further it is stretched, the more structural reinforcements it will need, which would negate the weight advantage of CFRP.

On a per-weight basis CFRP is vastly stiffer than aluminum, and about twice as stiff as aluminum on a per-strength basis. Obviously that depends on how the layup was done and the orientation of the fibers.

Larger objects, however, get most of their stiffness from much larger scale structures (a truss, for example, is vastly stiffer over its length than a simple bar of material of the same mass would be), and the stiffness of those are dependent on the goals of the designers.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-12-08 12:25:29 and read 14047 times.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 160):
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 156):
I understand from another member here that CFRP is less stiff than aluminium, and thus the further it is stretched, the more structural reinforcements it will need, which would negate the weight advantage of CFRP.

On a per-weight basis CFRP is vastly stiffer than aluminum, and about twice as stiff as aluminum on a per-strength basis. Obviously that depends on how the layup was done and the orientation of the fibers.

To help answer CXB77L, stiffness, strength and toughness are all different measurements of a material. Carbon fiber itself is great in tension but horrible in compression, so elaborate composite structures need to be made to make it work in airplane structure. Furthermore since the composite structures are lousy conductors, electrical bonding and grounding needs to be added as well.

A carbon fiber composite panel with the same strength as an aluminum panel will be far lighter. However since carbon fiber is not an easy material to work with, requires additional conductive material, is expensive, has to have a polymer structure, the benefits are marginalized. The actual benefit in the end is far less than you'd expect on paper. As Boeing and Airbus get better working with carbon fiber materials, I have no doubt we will see more and more carbon fiber technology introduced in airplanes, but it is an extremely difficult material to work with. Composites have existed on airplanes since the 1960s, but it is only recently that they have started to be used in primary structure. The fact that the A380 and 747-8 are not carbon fiber composite and the 737MAX and A320NEO continue to use aluminum as primary structure shows that carbon fiber is not always the superior option.

It goes well beyond a simple statement of longer stretches negate the benefit.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-08 12:41:11 and read 14024 times.

Various Boeing people have also mentioned that the 787 is much heavier and stiffer than necessary as they were very conservative with there first use of Carbon in the primary structure - this overengineering may already give them the stiffness to go to 70M and maybe a little beyond.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-12-08 12:57:01 and read 13986 times.

Out of curiosity, who, out here, honestly thought in 1995 that the 777 would one day mostly replace the 747?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-08 13:41:14 and read 13922 times.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 163):
Out of curiosity, who, out here, honestly thought in 1995 that the 777 would one day mostly replace the 747?

Well the 777-300 was designed to replace the 747-100 and 747-200 so it was not beyond the realm of possibility that a very HGW 777-300 (the 777-300ER) could perform most of the missions a 747-400 could.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2012-12-08 14:10:47 and read 13867 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 159):
And Rheinwaldner never stated anything like this. He did state a possible goodbye to the B777-X, which is really a totally different thing.

The 787-10X proposal appears to be one more piece of the puzzle that Boeing is trying to solve. Where to put it's investment for the next series of real offerings to the market. The 777X is only one option, a 777 incremental improvement, similar to the still successful A330, a 777NEO similar to the A320, are also alternatives that will be cheaper. In principle, the newer plane should offer the best ROI since it should be around longer. The 777 as it is still has plenty of back orders and easy profits to make.

Like all complex problems of how to achieve an optimal ROI, Boeing is going to have a good look at all the alternatives. It cannot make all these alternatives in the near future, so It will be interesting to see what they finally decide on.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-08 14:23:49 and read 13876 times.

As we might have discussed the 7810 vs 777 to some length, let me highlight some other comparisons that might spark some fire  Wow! (it is weekend and we need something to do ).

Here is what A presented at their annual investor forum in London early this week:

7810 vs 333:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirbusGIF2012A333vs7897810.jpg


7810 vs 359:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirbusGIF2012A359vs7810.jpg

with the Payload Range chart:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirbusGIF2012A359vs7810PRchart1.jpg

[Edited 2012-12-08 14:30:03]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-08 14:33:39 and read 13814 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
Here is what A presented at their annual investor forum in London early this week:

You are evil...entertaining and informative...but evil. Nice find.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-08 15:00:48 and read 13741 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 153):
What he actually suggested is that it's possible that a smaller, lower cost airframe CAN compete with a larger, more expensive one for a given market segment.

In much the same was as EK suggest that the 777-300ER is the 748i's biggest problem.....

A question, does this create a frequency issue, the lower capacity more efficient 777-300ER replacement would only have the A380 above which is a huge leap in capacity.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-12-08 15:23:56 and read 13703 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
7810 vs 359:

with the Payload Range chart:

Note the 7810 vs 359 comparison is based on 4000nm. Looking at the chart at 4000nm, 7810 has the same payload as 359, but can carry 16 more pax, about 5% more.

I assume A is talking about the simple stretch -10. I have no idea how the 7810 4.5% higher per trip cost comes about. The capital cost is a funny number.

We will also have to wait for a B presentation, and then take an average to get a better picture.  

A's comparison chart at this juncture can also hint that the -10, which is not yet formally launched, is already stirring the 359 market.

[Edited 2012-12-08 15:28:51]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-12-08 17:42:01 and read 13541 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
As we might have discussed the 7810 vs 777 to some length, let me highlight some other comparisons that might spark some fire Wow! (it is weekend and we need something to do ).

You are evil aren't you. As you'd probably expect, I can see interesting manipulations in those numbers as you probably can too. Nothing too egregious, but the manufacturers always assume the most favorable conditions for their airplane and least favorable conditions for their competitor.

First off, why does Airbus assume an 8% higher lease rate for the 787-10 than A359? The A358 and 787-9 are virtually the exact same size and have virtually the exact same price.

I'm unsure how Airbus derived such a payload curve.

Thirdly the operational costs are extraordinarily high for the 787-10. Usually the longest model has very good operational numbers for costs, but lousy payload performance.

[Edited 2012-12-08 17:47:27]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-08 17:53:19 and read 13501 times.

It seems clear to me that A are using a 251t version of the 789-10 in their presentation. Ferpes chart shows the 270t version a little ahead in payload of the A350 -900.
Note who the audience was that this presentation was directed to. 

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-12-08 20:21:24 and read 13382 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
And if Boeing is going to 300t, then a 75m 787-11 designed o compete with the A350-1000 becomes a possibility, IMO. Such a plane would offer about an 18-seat advantage over the A350-1000 and would offer the same cabin length as the 777-9X

Most excellent. The 787-10 isn't finalized and we're ready to discuss the -11.  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
It's brave to assume that the wheel well has room for a triple bogie.
It's entirely possible that re-arranging the wheel well to accomodate a triple bogie may entail not just signifucant structural changes but also the relocation of some significant bits of system equipment.

I've read some reports that the original (titanium IIRC) wheel bays didn't meet weight requirements (for the structural load) and they they were under consideration for redesign with some new aluminum (sorry, I forgot which ones). So if one is going to do a significant change, go big. This is of the order of the 77E to the 77W boggie change. Non-trivial by any measure.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-08 20:41:52 and read 13344 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 172):
Most excellent. The 787-10 isn't finalized and we're ready to discuss the -11.   

I know. I know.  

But seriously, the changes Aviation Week list are a fair bit of changes for a single model. Having two would improve the RoI.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-09 02:30:56 and read 13058 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 170):
You are evil aren't you. As you'd probably expect, I can see interesting manipulations in those numbers as you probably can too.

It is always nice with compliments  . I see manipulations as well but in both directions  Wow! . The whole comparison is multidimensional, let's therefore start with the seating, then discuss the direct cost (or really lease rates) and finally the payload range:

Here a start with the classical cheat parameter, seating. If one runs their numbers vs spec numbers and cabin length one gets:

Seating comparison........789......7810.....333.......359

Spec 3 class....................280......321......295.......314
Spec 3 class vs 333.%......95......109......100.......106
Cabin length m................48.4.....53.3.....50.4......51.8
Cabin length vs 333.%......99......106......100
Cabin length vs 359.%................103...................100

GIF med range 2 class.....304......352......300
GIF med range vs 333 %..101......117......100

GIF long range 2 class.................331..................315
GIF long range vs 359 %.............105..................100


For the 333 comparison A have increased the seating to cater for 9 abrest for the 787 but not enough in my view, this would be normal practice  . For the long range case however A has given the 7810 2% more seats then the cabin length difference would justify, this despite the 350 cabin being 2% wider which would potentially make toilets and galleys take less space length wise.

So are A suddenly the white knights or have they got the 7810 numbers wrong? (This is a John Lehay slide so I have a hard time believing in the former    )

[Edited 2012-12-09 02:32:55]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-09 02:35:57 and read 13032 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 158):
CXB77L - Above you state that Boeing may actually replace your cherished 777 instead of doing 778/9.

What do you think they replace it with if they go cleansheet?

I have no experience with aircraft design but I'd imagine the 'Y3' to be a single deck widebody twin approximately the same size as the 777-300ER as a baseline, as well as a small stretch. In short, a 777X clone but all new rather than a derivative.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 158):
How good would 777+ be? Would EK not be happy as it would give them the range they need?

It is hard to say, but if it competes well with the A350-1000, then obviously Boeing could get away with doing cheaper upgrade. But if it doesn't, then Boeing needs to do more.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 160):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 161):

Thanks for that. I was under the impression that CFRP flexes more than Aluminium under load, hence aircraft wings have incorporated composites for decades, and have been used as movable aerodynamic devices in Formula 1.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 162):
this overengineering may already give them the stiffness to go to 70M and maybe a little beyond.

The 787-10 is just shy of 70m as it is, but aside from that, there's packaging issues with the new main landing gear that Boeing needs to work out. Even with the extensive challenges of the 787-10, it still isn't a match for the A350-1000 in terms of payload range, not to mention passenger capacity.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 163):
Out of curiosity, who, out here, honestly thought in 1995 that the 777 would one day mostly replace the 747?

No, I didn't think that would happen, admittedly. Not in 1995. But when talks of longer ranged 777s emerged in the late 90s to the launch of what was then dubbed as the "777-X" in 2000, it became apparent that the -300ER could replace the 744, even more so when the 777-300ER exceeded performance expectations.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 165):
The 777X is only one option, a 777 incremental improvement, similar to the still successful A330, a 777NEO similar to the A320, are also alternatives that will be cheaper.

Yes, there are alternatives to the 777X and it would make sense for Boeing to launch the type that would give it the bigger ROI. However, I also believe that ROI is directly proportional to the competitiveness of the aircraft. A substantial upgrade in the form of the 777X is likely to yield a much more competitive aircraft than either of the other two options that you mentioned.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 165):
In principle, the newer plane should offer the best ROI since it should be around longer.

Assuming, of course, that they compete in the same market, and it does not cost significantly more than doing an upgrade. An all new aircraft would cost quite a lot more than the 777X. I'm not convinced that an all new aircraft launched now would fare significantly better in terms of ROI than a heavily modified 777X as they both have to share the market with the A350-1000.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 05:29:26 and read 12829 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):
But seriously, the changes Aviation Week list are a fair bit of changes for a single model. Having two would improve the RoI.

Only if the extra model garners enough extra orders to cover the incremental investment for the second model. That is, at best, not clear for a notional -11.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 175):
I was under the impression that CFRP flexes more than Aluminium under load

It all depends on how you design the CFRP. You can make it more or less stiff depending on the loading relative to the layup.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-09 05:31:49 and read 12911 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 149):
You keep thinking of the 777 as a 9 across cabin

The 77X will be 10 abreast. And it will need it. But I see it not as strength but as liability. At least to compete with the A351. Because to compete with the A351 you don´t need it. It´s fine if the 779X shall conquer the 400+ seat market. But it does not endanger the A351. The A351 is smaller.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 151):
I don't doubt they can build a 787 to match the payload and range of the A350 lineup.

Fine, thanks. So they will.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 151):
Doing it with similar efficiency and having the realistic redesign and engineering costs is the challenge.

See I just compare the magnitude of that challenge with the 77X. And see no easier path for it. Let´s face it. A 340 seat 787 is easier than this 779X proposal. And will fend off the A351 better.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 152):
Sure...same range and 20% less seats than whatever Boeing's next largest aircraft is at the same time.

You are backing off from the question I have asked (as the two others as well). Just tell us what you think the 787 design after future upgrades is good for. Two numbers. If I can do it you can too.

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 154):
The 7E7 which became the 787 was meant to replace the 767-300/ER and -400ER more or less.

If that would be the whole truth the cross section would have been a terrible mistake (I repeat myself). But even during development the market noticed the potential in that chosen design parameter. And boom, each 787 version grew by dozens of seats. Even before EIS the initial intention was obsolete and the role of the 787 had to be rewritten! I am sure there are further such surprizes waiting on us....

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 155):
There is a huge difference - Y3 and the 787 are both clean sheet programs that will have life spans of 30 to 40 years.

Exactly. There will be no 777MAX anymore. So the half-new built 77X will have to recoup its investment as the last sibling...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 156):
Ferpe has shown in his posts that he is a knowledgeable and well informed member of this forum.

Ferpre did never answer my question, why Boeing should go for the hefty investment (6-wheel MLG) if the gain would be so small as on his chart. I am quite certain that his MTOW will be far of from the value Boeing will announce one day...

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 163):
Out of curiosity, who, out here, honestly thought in 1995 that the 777 would one day mostly replace the 747?

Probably nobody. And today only few seem ready to learn from that history.

If I see the lack of vision in this thread I am 100% certain that in less than 10 years 787 versions will be launched that will humiliate many who have downplayed the 787. And if at that point some nostalgics will ask the rhetorical question "where will that leave the 77X so early?" the reaction will be similar like today in case of the 748: shrugged shoulders and mild regrets that Boeing went one upgrade too far....

Quoting ferpe (Reply 166):
7810 vs 359:

Seems Airbus puts in a more generous seatcount for their competition than our friend CXB77L. Do you know how many additional rows the 781 needs to match the capacity of the A351 very closely (going up from Airbus' assumption)? Only one or two...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 172):
Most excellent. The 787-10 isn't finalized and we're ready to discuss the -11.

I know. I know.

But seriously, the changes Aviation Week list are a fair bit of changes for a single model. Having two would improve the RoI.

Stitch, you are obviously reading the article too carefully. But don´t expect many to follow you about the -11 for the time being. The first step will be to establish the idea of a 787-based A351 competitor....

Of course you are fully right. The 6-wheel gears will enable a number of new 787 versions, that will cover the market between 340seats/8000nm and up to 400seats/5000nm. At a time when the 77X would still be very fresh. And when last thing the 77X could use would be so strong inhouse competition...

[Edited 2012-12-09 05:50:28]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-09 06:49:01 and read 12763 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
But I see it not as strength but as liability. At least to compete with the A351. Because to compete with the A351 you don´t need it. It´s fine if the 779X shall conquer the 400+ seat market. But it does not endanger the A351. The A351 is smaller.

That's the whole point! By moving the 777-9X above the A350-1000, Boeing is "straddling" the A350-1000 at both ends: with the 787-10 at the smaller end and the 777-9X at the upper end. That, combined with the 777-9X's superior payload range, works in its favour because airlines are more likely to operate both in its fleet rather than one or the other. That's how they compete, and that's why I say it is likely that the 777-9X will sell nearly as many as the A350-1000, as some airlines may find that they need both.

In addition, there's evidence to suggest a need for such an aircraft due to the number of airlines currently operating the 777-300ER with a 10-across configuration in economy. Every airline that configures their 777-300ERs with more than 350 seats is likely to find the 777-9X's extra length and width attractive. If Boeing did not offer the 777-9X, they would lose out on that market, and customers are more likely to go all-Airbus for their large long haul operations. Yes, Boeing has the 747-8, but that's clearly not selling particularly well for whatever reason. The 777-9X would be a more competitive offering for customers wanting something between the sizes of the A350-1000 and the A380-800.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
See I just compare the magnitude of that challenge with the 77X. And see no easier path for it. Let´s face it. A 340 seat 787 is easier than this 779X proposal. And will fend off the A351 better.

That is your opinion. I strongly disagree with both of your assertions.

Also, I don't know where you got 340 seats from. The cabin area figures - kindly provided by Ferpe above shows that the 787-10's cabin area is much closer to the A350-900 than the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
Exactly. There will be no 777MAX anymore. So the half-new built 77X will to recoup its investment as the last sibling

 

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
Ferpre did never answer my question, why Boeing should go for the hefty investment (6-wheel MLG) if the gain would be so small.

  

I have already explained why this is not an insignificant gain. The 787-10's payload range is much better now than it was before the addition of the 6 wheel main landing gear.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
Boeing went one upgrade too far....

I do not believe that will be the case. The 777 is still a relatively young and advanced airframe, and I believe it has the potential for further development. While that potential is still there, closing down the line and doing an all new aircraft would be a waste.

The 747 was 20 years old when its first major update, the -400, came along, and proved to be a success, with sales of the -400 alone nearly equalling all previous variants combined. The 737 was 27 years old before its second major update, the NG, came along, and likewise outsold the previous variants. And yet the 777X would be an upgrade too far when it hasn't even been 20 years since the original 777's first flight?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
Seems Airbus puts in a more generous seatcount for their competition than our friend CXB77L. Do you know how many additional rows the 781 needs to match the capacity of the A351 very closely? Only one or two...

Because it was beneficial for them to do so. The 787-10 is very much a direct replacement for the A330-300 and the 777-200ER and a direct competitor to the A350-900. The fact that they're trying to tell people that the 787-10 isn't a replacement to the A330-300 as much as the A350-900 is plainly obvious: to get people to buy the A350-900 over the 787-10.

Secondly, in terms of cabin length Ferpe's figures show that the 787-10 is only 1.5m longer than the A350-900. At the very best, that would give it two rows of extremely tight economy seating, which means that the difference between the 787-10 and the A350-900 would be, at most, 18 seats. As the 787-10 is a 5 metre stretch over the 787-9, it is about 1 metre longer overall than the A350-900, which means that it's still 6 metres shorter than the A350-1000.

Unless the 787-10 is configured in a more dense configuration than the A350-1000, there's no way that it'll match its capacity, even if both are configured with a 9 across economy configuration. That's not to mention the massive difference in payload-range ...

Quoting ferpe (Reply 174):
For the long range case however A has given the 7810 2% more seats then the cabin length difference would justify, this despite the 350 cabin being 2% wider which would potentially make toilets and galleys take less space length wise.

So are A suddenly the white knights or have they got the 7810 numbers wrong? (This is a John Lehay slide so I have a hard time believing in the former )

  

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 169):
A's comparison chart at this juncture can also hint that the -10, which is not yet formally launched, is already stirring the 359 market.

  

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 06:55:16 and read 12769 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
Just tell us what you think the 787 design after future upgrades is good for. Two numbers. If I can do it you can too.

Of course I can make up two numbers, just as you did. But they don't *mean* anything because we don't know how much Boeing is willing to sink into upgrades 15 years in the future. They can make the 787 take over the entire 777 market if they want to...but that's a scale of upgrade we're very unlikely to see because it makes no economic sense.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
The 6-wheel gears will enable a number of new 787 versions, that will cover the market between 340seats/8000nm and up to 400seats/5000nm.

At 400 seats, a 787 needs to be about 255' long. That's a 37% stretch, longer than 777-300 and A350-1000, and a bigger fractional stretch than anything else Boeing has ever done (even more than the 737-600 to the 737-900). You just can't get good performance out of a length span that large without changing cross section. Airbus is having to work mightily to get the A350 to play nicely across the -800 to -1000 range that that's, literally, not as big a stretch as you're talking about.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-09 07:26:26 and read 12706 times.

If Boeing wants to "envelope" Airbus, then IMO the plan to do so would be a 79m 777-9X, a 74m 777-8X and a 69m 787-10X - a 5m stretch between each plane, all designed around an 8000nm nominal range.

That would give you a cabin length of:

777-9X: 63.5m
777-8X: 58.5m
787-10X: 54.4m

The 777-9X would offer almost four additional meters of cabin length, good for some 70 passengers over the A350-1000.

The 777-8X would have about the same cabin length as the A350-1000, but able to seat 10 abreast in Economy, so around an additional 30 passengers.

The 787-10X would offer about three additional meters of cabin length over the A350-900, good for about 30 additional passengers. It would also offer about four additional meters of cabin length over the A330-300 and also able to seat 9-abreast in Economy, so upwards of 60 more passengers.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-09 07:45:58 and read 12645 times.

I'm with Stitch on stretching the 777 as much as possible - but don't really see the need for 778.

Just max out the 777 at 80M - expand internally - huge wing - stay in the 115 lb thrust class on engines, maintain 77W weights or even go higher if possible to give EK a very large mid 400 Seat very capable twin.

That puppy could hall a lot of freight - get closer to A380 capacities - and negate the need for Y3 - however they need to max it out and not compromise at all for 778 - let the 781HGW compete with A359/351 and go bigger.

Call it the 777-10 which from a marketing standpoint could be interesting

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: waly777
Posted 2012-12-09 08:06:23 and read 12603 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
Of course you are fully right. The 6-wheel gears will enable a number of new 787 versions, that will cover the market between 340seats/8000nm and up to 400seats/5000nm

It is simply not economically sensible to stretch any aircraft family that long.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 179):
At 400 seats, a 787 needs to be about 255' long

To put that into persperctive, the B787-8 is 56.7 metres long, to cover 400 seats, a B787 will be 77.7metres long = a 21 metre stretch!!!!! (roughly 4 metres longer than a B777W!)

Even the A340-200 to 600 went from 59.4 to 75.3, which is a 15.9 metre stretch and we all know the A340-500/600 had problems with having an OEW that was just too high for what is meant to do, despite having an improved wing and additional landing gear added to it.

This also in addition to the fact that the 787 already sits lower to the ground than the A330/A340/A350/777 families should point out that the stretch of 787-11 or 12 etc is just a dream and not economically sensible especially with history clearly showing it does not work. The 777 Family is more suited to 340 pax and above in a 3 class config.

Also the 787-10 seats 323 not 340!

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-09 08:33:28 and read 12547 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 178):
Also, I don't know where you got 340 seats from. The cabin area figures - kindly provided by Ferpe above shows that the 787-10's cabin area is much closer to the A350-900 than the A350-1000.

Cabin area makes the 781 look smaller because ist has a less wide cross section. But as it is basically as 9-abreast as the A350 in fact the cabin length counts and not the area. Competing with the 787 the A350 has "some wasted floorspace" (at least for those Airlines that can live with 9-abreast in the 787).

So focus on cabin length instead of area to compare 787 and A350. And then you see that the 781 only needs two additional meter of length to become comparable to the A351. At least a lot closer than the 779X...

Airbus estimates the 781 to have more than 330 seats. Two additional meters in length bring the three class seatcount close to 350. Bingo, there you are.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 179):
They can make the 787 take over the entire 777 market if they want to

Ok, thanks for having clarified that in principal.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 179):
But they don't *mean* anything because we don't know how much Boeing is willing to sink into upgrades 15 years in the future.

I am confident that Boeing likes to tackle huge upgrade Projects.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 179):
but that's a scale of upgrade we're very unlikely to see because it makes no economic sense.

But the 77X does?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 12:24:48 and read 12344 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 183):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 179):
but that's a scale of upgrade we're very unlikely to see because it makes no economic sense.

But the 77X does?

Yes, absolutely. If you want a 400 seat aircraft a 777-X makes economic sense. A 787-X does not.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-09 13:29:20 and read 12176 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 181):

I'm with Stitch on stretching the 777 as much as possible - but don't really see the need for 778.

Just max out the 777 at 80M - expand internally - huge wing - stay in the 115 lb thrust class on engines, maintain 77W weights or even go higher if possible to give EK a very large mid 400 Seat very capable twin.

That puppy could hall a lot of freight - get closer to A380 capacities - and negate the need for Y3 - however they need to max it out and not compromise at all for 778 - let the 781HGW compete with A359/351 and go bigger.

I agree on the 77-9X being maxed out to around 80m; I think that plane would do pretty well, especially because it would be so big that it would basically be in a different class than the A35-10 altogether (assuming it would indeed hold 70 more Y seats); therefore it wouldn't have as much competition, and I think there are enough buyers that would want that many seats and buy the plane to justify it's existence. You could have the desired result (for Boeing) of preventing some order loss to the A35-10, yet potentially stealing orders from the larger A380 in a few cases where buyers are on the fence about whether they need something A380's size, which couldn't be achieved without such a growth by the -9X.

The problem of course, is that by doing this, you're completely abandoning the initial 77W segment, which will probably continue to constitute most of the market share, and allowing the A35-10 to dominate with no competitor. (IMO, the 787-10 would be too small). That's why the 77-8X, as proposed by Stitch, would still be necessary - it would actually become more of a necessity in such case. And, since the -8X as he proposed would be increased to a size where it has more seats than the A35-10, it would be at least competitive enough to limit the -10's success somewhat.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-09 13:47:42 and read 12123 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 178):
The 747 was 20 years old when its first major update, the -400, came along, and proved to be a success, with sales of the -400 alone nearly equalling all previous variants combined.

The 744 had no effective competition in its size category - it was always going to do well. It was only much later with the arrival of the 346, 77W and 380 that the 744 finally had genuine competition.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 178):
The 737 was 27 years old before its second major update, the NG, came along, and likewise outsold the previous variants.

Both the 744 and the 737NG had new metal wings and a conventional alloy fuselage. Their R&D costs would have been relatively minimal compared to the original cost of launching the programs in the first place.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 178):
And yet the 777X would be an upgrade too far when it hasn't even been 20 years since the original 777's first flight?

The 777 will be 25 years old by 2020 - the earliest possible EIS for the 777X. However, the real issue is the magnitude and cost of the 777X derivative. No OEM has ever proposed a derivative on this scale before - the 777X could conceivably cost more than it did to launch the 777 back in 1995.

The 767 had only been in service for only 22 years when Boeing launched the 787. Boeing could have easily planned a further 767 derivative with a carbon fibre wing and Al-Li fuselage which would have matched and surpassed the 330 but they chose to go for a new platform instead. This new platform (787) is now spawning a whole family of derivatives that will have long and competitive lives.
Airbus made the same decision to launch a new platform (350XWB) after having an identical (and costly) concept for the 350 Mk1.

Derivative programs have always been about leveraging the investment that was made in the platform in the first place rather than attempting to repeat the scale of that investment further down the track. Whatever form the 777X models take, they will be the end of the line for the 777 platform as ultimately Y3 will be required.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-09 14:05:29 and read 12062 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 185):
The problem of course, is that by doing this, you're completely abandoning the initial 77W segment, which will probably continue to constitute most of the market share, and allowing the A35-10 to dominate with no competitor.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. The 777-9X may well establish a new market in the 400 seat category but the 350 seat market will essentially be handed to the 35J on a silver plate (the 8X will struggle to compete).
This is where a heavier longer ranging 787 is could play a vital role and provide much needed competition at or just below 35J capacities.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: mffoda
Posted 2012-12-09 15:37:28 and read 11919 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 186):
the 777X could conceivably cost more than it did to launch the 777 back in 1995.

Don't mean to be a stick in the mud... But, if you were building original 777 Now? It would cost more as well!  

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-09 15:39:39 and read 11937 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 187):
The importance of this cannot be overstated. The 777-9X may well establish a new market in the 400 seat category but the 350 seat market will essentially be handed to the 35J on a silver plate (the 8X will struggle to compete).



I do believe the 777-8X at the planned 70m length is probably too short. A 74m 777-8X, which would offer the same cabin length as the 777-300ER (and A350-1000), would be more competitive, IMO.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-12-09 15:46:00 and read 11903 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 187):
The importance of this cannot be overstated. The 777-9X may well establish a new market in the 400 seat category but the 350 seat market will essentially be handed to the 35J on a silver plate (the 8X will struggle to compete).
This is where a heavier longer ranging 787 is could play a vital role and provide much needed competition at or just below 35J capacities.

I agree with the premise, just not as to the best solution or action for Boeing to take to best defend the segment. The current -8X would struggle, but a slightly longer version could be competitive. Thus, I endorse Stitch's proposition of an -8X being around 4-5m longer than the recent rumors have suggested, which would make it a similar length to the 77W. At this length, with new wings, engines, and other tweaks, it could easily be made competitive to the A350-10, given the inherent ability to carry 30-35 more pax in to a 10x cabin which should gain a couple inches as well. This likely will not beat the 350-10 in that segment, but it will prevent excessive market share loss, while the larger -9X would be unopposed in the larger segment and could help offset any losses experienced in the current 77W market.

You seem to favor a further 787 stretch to combat the 350-10, but I agree with those who have classified such a long stretch as problematic; it would probably bring more problems than solutions from an efficiency standpoint.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-09 17:07:37 and read 11806 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 190):
You seem to favor a further 787 stretch to combat the 350-10, but I agree with those who have classified such a long stretch as problematic; it would probably bring more problems than solutions from an efficiency standpoint.

I think the key to such a stretch is a more stout version of the 10. I would suggest that if Boeing goes with a new MLG, modified wing and wing-body join you effectively start over and a stretching from the 10, not from the 8.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-09 17:46:58 and read 11749 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 191):
I would suggest that if Boeing goes with a new MLG, modified wing and wing-body join you effectively start over and a stretching from the 10, not from the 8.

The main issue is going to be fuselage bending. This was an issue with the A340-600 and providing sufficient structural reinforcement contributed to the high OEW.

The 787 fuselage is wider in diameter, which helps. And CFRP may be able to be reinforced with less structural weight than if the 787 fuselage was Al.


The 777 fuselage is wider still and is already at 74m, so a third stretch to 79m should be possible without requiring significant structural reinforcement and weight.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 17:55:26 and read 11708 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 191):

I think the key to such a stretch is a more stout version of the 10. I would suggest that if Boeing goes with a new MLG, modified wing and wing-body join you effectively start over and a stretching from the 10, not from the 8.

It doesn't have to be either/or. I think there are markets for both a -10 lite and a HGW -10. Not everyone is going to want to haul around the significant extra empty weight the HGW will have. Even with as little as 6500nm range, the -10 lite hauls a lot of people to a lot of places...and more cheaply than anything else with the same number of seats.

It could fly non stop from anywhere in N.America to anywhere in S.America, Europe, and Northern Asia. From Singapore, it can reach anywhere in Asia, Europe and Africa. From Europe, it can reach almost everywhere except Australia.

They already have customers asking for it...so why not deliver it? It's definitely the low hanging fruit of the 787-10 concepts. That stretch will also give them a lot of data they can use towards the HGW program.

Win/win...I reckon.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-09 18:11:10 and read 11689 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 193):
They already have customers asking for it...so why not deliver it? It's definitely the low hanging fruit of the 787-10 concepts. That stretch will also give them a lot of data they can use towards the HGW program.

I tend to agree unless Boeing judges that the 787-10HGW we are theorizing would, in Boeing's eyes, still dominate that market and thus they could spread the R&D cost for that aircraft across a much larger number of planes. I think airlines would prefer to have both options. But (and these are made up numbers) if Boeing thought it could sell 400 10's and 200 HGW models if it built them that way or it could sell 500 HGW models if that is all it built. That would take some thinking on Boeing's part before they made a decision.

That being said I am with you. Were I Boeing and the numbers were similar I would run out the pure stretch model and follow it with the HGW model.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 192):
The main issue is going to be fuselage bending. This was an issue with the A340-600 and providing sufficient structural reinforcement contributed to the high OEW.

The 787 fuselage is wider in diameter, which helps. And CFRP may be able to be reinforced with less structural weight than if the 787 fuselage was Al.

While I agree that may be an issue I would not propose any further 787's being significantly longer than the A350. The barrels are similar enough that they ought to be able to reach roughly the same length. It is a gross simplification but if the A351 can be made to work I see no reason that an 787 of equal length cannot also be made to work.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 18:17:56 and read 11677 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 194):
I think airlines would prefer to have both options.

The sales of the 333 bear this out, to my way of thinking.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 194):
While I agree that may be an issue I would not propose any further 787's being significantly longer than the A350. The barrels are similar enough that they ought to be able to reach roughly the same length. It is a gross simplification but if the A351 can be made to work I see no reason that an 787 of equal length cannot also be made to work.

It will be interesting to discover how Boeing does brace up the stretch. More stringers? Big Ass Keel? Stronger floor? A combination? Inquiring geeks want to know.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 18:47:53 and read 11641 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 191):
I would suggest that if Boeing goes with a new MLG, modified wing and wing-body join you effectively start over and a stretching from the 10, not from the 8.

The problem is the fuselage cross-section...it's just to narrow to be that long. It would be the CRJ-1000 of widebodies (that is not a good thing). You start to pay a big structural penalty for letting the fineness ratio get too high.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 195):
It will be interesting to discover how Boeing does brace up the stretch. More stringers? Big Ass Keel? Stronger floor? A combination? Inquiring geeks want to know.

It would have to be bigger stringers and thicker crown and belly skins, they carry the bulk of the bending load. More stringers is very problematic because it would force you to redesign the frames. Big ass keel doesn't help you outside the center section, and the floor doesn't react much bending load at all because it's close to the neutral axis.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-09 19:11:10 and read 11602 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 196):

The problem is the fuselage cross-section...it's just to narrow to be that long. It would be the CRJ-1000 of widebodies (that is not a good thing). You start to pay a big structural penalty for letting the fineness ratio get too high.

Ok, so how is Airbus doing it with a fuselage that is 3% wider? Is that little bit of width that big of a difference?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-09 19:26:10 and read 11597 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 197):
Ok, so how is Airbus doing it with a fuselage that is 3% wider? Is that little bit of width that big of a difference?

Airbus developed the baseline loads around the 67m A350-900, while Boeing developed them around the 57m 787-8.

So the 74m A350-1000 is a 7m stretch of the A350-900 structure.

A 75m "787-11" would be an 18m stretch of the 787-8 structure.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-12-09 19:36:53 and read 11561 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 198):
Airbus developed the baseline loads around the 67m A350-900, while Boeing developed them around the 57m 787-8.

So the 74m A350-1000 is a 7m stretch of the A350-900 structure.

A 75m "787-11" would be an 18m stretch of the 787-8 structure.

I, and everyone else I think, fully understand that part. I am responding to the statement that just flat said the barrel is too thin to be stretched that far. I would fully expect that as presently laid up it would not be good at A351 length. But I don't think this comes from excessive fineness. If it does not have excessive fineness than it is just a matter of strengthening the barrel which should impose basically the same penalties as incurred by Airbus to get to that length shouldn't it?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 20:04:02 and read 11546 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 197):
Ok, so how is Airbus doing it with a fuselage that is 3% wider? Is that little bit of width that big of a difference?

3% wider is 12% stiffer. So yes, it makes that big of a difference.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-09 23:46:03 and read 11375 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 196):

It would have to be bigger stringers and thicker crown and belly skins, they carry the bulk of the bending load. More stringers is very problematic because it would force you to redesign the frames. Big ass keel doesn't help you outside the center section, and the floor doesn't react much bending load at all because it's close to the neutral axis.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-10 00:47:40 and read 11357 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 188):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 186):the 777X could conceivably cost more than it did to launch the 777 back in 1995.
Don't mean to be a stick in the mud... But, if you were building original 777 Now? It would cost more as well!

Yes, it probably would - but the cost and complexity of the 777X progam still remains well beyond the threshold at which most OEM's prefer to opt for a new clean sheet design. That won't stop Boeing from proceeding with the 777X - but it will be new territory and it won't come without consequences.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 190):
You seem to favor a further 787 stretch to combat the 350-10, but I agree with those who have classified such a long stretch as problematic; it would probably bring more problems than solutions from an efficiency standpoint.

Given that Boeing have spent something like $30 billion and endured much pain to create such a superb platform as the 787 I think it is well worth taking a hard look to see if there is untapped potential to give the 35J a hammering that won't likely come from any other Boeing product on the horizon. If the "straight" 787-10 is the structurally efficient wonder it is claimed to be then is it really out of reach to produce something a bit heavier and slightly longer. Going from 325 to 340 seats only needs another 2 or 3 meters in length - does that really cross the line into 346 territory ?
Other than the 346, it has always been the more efficient stretched derivatives that have performed (and sold) best.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 193):
It doesn't have to be either/or. I think there are markets for both a -10 lite and a HGW -10.

I think the 10 lite is very likely given that airlines are already queing up to place orders, it has a solid case in its own right. I suggest that any HGW version be slightly larger, if thats not possible then fine - it would still work at the 10 size.



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2012-12-10 02:40:20 and read 11255 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 201):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 196):

It would have to be bigger stringers and thicker crown and belly skins, they carry the bulk of the bending load. More stringers is very problematic because it would force you to redesign the frames. Big ass keel doesn't help you outside the center section, and the floor doesn't react much bending load at all because it's close to the neutral axis.

How does the "barrels vs. panels" design difference between 787 and 350 play into the potential to stretch either frame?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-10 02:54:21 and read 11245 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 183):
So focus on cabin length instead of area to compare 787 and A350.

Funny you should say that, considering that in terms of cabin length, the 777-9X isn't very much longer than the A350-1000, which you argue doesn't compete with the A350-1000. But the 787-10, which is primarily designed as an 8-abreast platform and significantly shorter, is? Ferpe's cabin length figures show that the 787-10 is closer to the A350-900 than it is to the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 183):
Airbus estimates the 781 to have more than 330 seats. Two additional meters in length bring the three class seatcount close to 350. Bingo, there you are.

The 787-10 is currently propsed to be a 5 metre stretch over the 787-9. In terms of overall length, the 787-9 is 63 metres, so the 787-10 would be 68 metres, while the A350-900 is 67 metres and the A350-1000 74 metres. The 787-10 is quite clearly, in every dimension, closer to the A350-900 than it is to the A350-1000.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 186):
However, the real issue is the magnitude and cost of the 777X derivative. No OEM has ever proposed a derivative on this scale before - the 777X could conceivably cost more than it did to launch the 777 back in 1995.

It could, but gross cost is only one factor in the RoI equation. I think the RoI is directly correlated with the competitiveness of the aircraft, and the more Boeing spends on it, the more competitive it is likely to be. Yes, there comes a point where throwing money at it isn't going to make the 777X more competitive, I acknowledge that. But if Boeing gets the 777X upgrade right, I see no reason why new 777 based derivatives can't still be rolling off the production line 15-20 years after the 777X's eventual EIS. I do firmly believe that the 777X, particularly the currently propsed -9X, would be an extremely competitive aircraft with a bright future, so Boeing shouldn't fear spending that money on the upgrade.

I also don't believe that the 777X in terms of gross costs will cost more than either a 787 based derivative stretched to A350-1000 size, nor an all new aircraft. Yes, it's an expensive project. Yes, it's an upgrade of greater magnitude than what has been attempted before, but likewise, the rewards could also be greater than previous derivatives.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 186):
Whatever form the 777X models take, they will be the end of the line for the 777 platform as ultimately Y3 will be required.

The 777 platform will ultimately need an all new replacement, yes. But whether the 777X upgrade will constitute the 'end of the line' remains to be seen. While I do think that the 777X is likely to be the final upgrade of the 777 platform, that is by no means certain.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 187):
This is where a heavier longer ranging 787 is could play a vital role and provide much needed competition at or just below 35J capacities.

The 787-10 is somewhat size and MTOW limited. It's more of an A350-900 competitor than an A350-1000 competitor.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):
A 74m 777-8X, which would offer the same cabin length as the 777-300ER (and A350-1000), would be more competitive, IMO.

I'm beginning to come around to this idea of a 74m 777-8X. Initially, I was of the view that Boeing has got the sizes right, but with the increase in MTOW and the 6 wheel landing gear of the 787-10, a 70m 777-8X is superfluous to Boeing's needs, since the 787-10 can compete quite effectively with the A350-900. A 74m 777-8X would compete directly with the A350-1000 while a 79m 777-9X could open up a new market where the 747-8 has failed.

However, I believe that the currently proposed 76.6m 777-9X would be quite successful and be the volume seller in the 777X range. I'm not sure if stretching the 777-9X to 79m would put it in danger of being too close to the A380-800. I don't think there's any need, nor indeed any profit in Boeing attempting to take on the A380.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 202):
That won't stop Boeing from proceeding with the 777X - but it will be new territory and it won't come without consequences.

There are consequences whichever choice Boeing makes. I think embarking on the 777X program could turn out to be a positive investment.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 202):
Given that Boeing have spent something like $30 billion and endured much pain to create such a superb platform as the 787 I think it is well worth taking a hard look to see if there is untapped potential to give the 35J a hammering that won't likely come from any other Boeing product on the horizon.

I think the same argument can be made for the 777. I think there is "untapped potential" in the 777 to give the A350-1000 a run for its money more so than any other Boeing product.

[Edited 2012-12-10 02:59:58]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-10 04:38:18 and read 11152 times.

Seems we hadn't finished of the 7810 vs 777 part, let me then finish of how Airbus views the 7810 before we get to long from my charts in post 166.

So with the s(ch  )eating done here the lease rates stuff:

IMO lease rates show the value of a frame, they are of course based on the purchase price and the rest value but if a frame earns it's keep nicely the rates stays high and less well the rates go south. It also seems the new frame lease stays around 1% per month. That means Airbus values the frames in question as:

m$............7810........333........359
Lease/m....1.45..........0.9........1.25
Value.........145...........90.........125
List.price....250..........231........278

I made the 7810 list price as 22m$ higher then 789 (228m$) as this is 35m$ more expensive then 788. Cost of manufacture is closely related to empty weight and there is 23t and 6 meter diff between 788 to 789 and only 5m and perhaps 8t diff to 789. As can be seen A thinks 7810 is a stellar machine whereas the 333 has to be sold at 60% discount  .


Finally payload-range. Airbus points out that the 7810 only flies 6100nm with their 331pax load and that 359 flies 7800nm with 315 pax. First, for the 359 this is 300nm less then what they normally promise, it seems they have put a more realistic cabin in with about 10kg more per pax then spec OEW for both frames. This brings the OEW to 138t for the 359 and about 135t for the 7810. When I put this in my model the PR chart looks like:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRtocomparewithAirbusGIF2012A359vs7810.jpg

So seems the 7810 looses 200nm more in As chart then what I estimate, guess we are not to chocked by that   . Also seems the ink went missing for to print the max payload part of the 7810  . Now I don't think even Financial analyst can't deduce empty weight from max payload and see that the 7810 carries more then the 359 below 8 hour flights. Given the label of the slide "more revenue potential" I therefore think the message is somewhat dubious when analyzed one tick deeper.


   So to conclude, A has conveyed the following re the 7810 at their investor forum:

- it carries more pax then even B is saying

- It is a frame to be taken seriously and it's value is even higher then the 359

- it is indeed a competitor to the 359 (and not to the 333 as B says). It has shorter range then the 359 (which everyone knows) but at that shorter range it carries equally much (and in reality more).

Now I guess this is not what Lehay intended with showing these slides       .

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-12-10 05:08:48 and read 11081 times.

. A 74m 777-8X would compete directly with the A350-1000 while a 79m 777-9X could open up a new market where the 747-8 has failed. Post 204.

Yup exactly. And those 2 points is exactly why it has got a thumbs down from the airlines and been put on the back burner by Boeing in preference to the 10X

The -8X would compete - but be inferior to the -10000 and the -pX hits the gap in the market where there is no market in the gap.

It matters not whether Boeing go for a 10X simple stretch (333 compeditor) or a 10X (Heavy) to go against the 900. There are clearly large markets in both worth having - perhaps they will do both - who knows.

But I would say this. The 333 is often used on (short) routes where price is a key factor. That is why you will see 9 across seating from time to time ). Here the 9 across sardene solution for the 787 does not matter much I feel.

But when you get to the 359XWB. Oh now thats a different proposition. The airline with the "real" long haul config (and engines - and wing etc etc) will win every time. You cannot put a quart into a pint pot.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-10 06:02:21 and read 10962 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 186):However, the real issue is the magnitude and cost of the 777X derivative. No OEM has ever proposed a derivative on this scale before - the 777X could conceivably cost more than it did to launch the 777 back in 1995.
It could, but gross cost is only one factor in the RoI equation.

Its a mighty big factor - particularly when it occurs late in the platform life cycle.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
I think the RoI is directly correlated with the competitiveness of the aircraft

Yes - but the aircraft must remain competitive over a longer time span as you increase the size of the initial capital investment. Not a problem with a new platform but a potential trap for late life derivatives.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
and the more Boeing spends on it, the more competitive it is likely to be. Yes, there comes a point where throwing money at it isn't going to make the 777X more competitive

This is where we differ - the point is not to optimise your capex to maximise competitiveness but rather to optimise it to maximise ROI - these are very different concepts. For more mature and amortised platforms such as the 777 and 330 the best ROI is obtained through modest investments in upgrades.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
But if Boeing gets the 777X upgrade right, I see no reason why new 777 based derivatives can't still be rolling off the production line 15-20 years after the 777X's eventual EIS.

If the 777X is to have further derivatives EIS in 15-20 years time then when is Y3 going to occur - 2050 ?
Are you seriously suggesting that further derivatives of an early 1990's platform can EIS in 2040 and still be competitive ??

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 187):This is where a heavier longer ranging 787 is could play a vital role and provide much needed competition at or just below 35J capacities.
The 787-10 is somewhat size and MTOW limited. It's more of an A350-900 competitor than an A350-1000 competitor.

Hence the need for increased MTOW.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 202):That won't stop Boeing from proceeding with the 777X - but it will be new territory and it won't come without consequences.
There are consequences whichever choice Boeing makes. I think embarking on the 777X program could turn out to be a positive investment.

Consequences can vary in severity from a few lost sales to sending the company broke .... or (more likely) over-investing in a derivative that winds up in a forward loss position such as the 748. The consequences of uncertainty need to be weighed up carefully for each strategy.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 202):Given that Boeing have spent something like $30 billion and endured much pain to create such a superb platform as the 787 I think it is well worth taking a hard look to see if there is untapped potential to give the 35J a hammering that won't likely come from any other Boeing product on the horizon.
I think the same argument can be made for the 777. I think there is "untapped potential" in the 777 to give the A350-1000 a run for its money more so than any other Boeing product.

Its a matter of leveraging existing assets to compete against the 35J and it is best done as a multi platform effort. Boeing are currently putting all their eggs in the 777X basket - I think there is further leverage to be gained from the 787 platform with less emphasis on the 777X. In the 777X program it will be the 9X that does all the heavy lifting in terms of sales - and it will do so as a 400 seater.


I dont see any reason for Boeing to panic just because there will soon be a new kid on the block in the 350 seat category. The 77W has a huge installed base of loyal clients who are not going to desert the platform in droves. The 35J will be impressive (to be expected) but it is not going to be available in large numbers until well into the next decade. If Boeing use the 77W/777+ approach they should still retain most of their customer base - many of which will operate both aircraft on different types of missions.
I'm puzzled by this "defend the 777 at all costs" mentality, it was inevitable that the 77W would face competition one day.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-10 06:30:42 and read 10918 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 206):
Yup exactly. And those 2 points is exactly why it has got a thumbs down from the airlines and been put on the back burner by Boeing in preference to the 10X

 

Mr Conner has confirmed as recently as August that the decision on offering the 777X (or not) is proceeding as planned. There is no delay. The only "delay" is illusory, stemming from EK wanting their aircraft yesterday.

Quoting parapente (Reply 206):
The -8X would compete - but be inferior to the -10000 and the -pX hits the gap in the market where there is no market in the gap.

I do not believe that the slow 747-8 sales is any indication as to whether or not there is a market for aircraft of that size. The 777-9X is likely to be a more efficient and more capable aircraft than the 747-8 just as the 777-300ER was more efficient and more capable than the 747-400.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 207):
late in the platform life cycle.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 207):
late life derivatives.

This is where we disagree. I don't think the 777 platform is anywhere close to reaching the end of its useful service life. I think there is potential for further development, and that the 777X can remain competitive not just for the short term but for the medium term.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 207):
If the 777X is to have further derivatives EIS in 15-20 years time then when is Y3 going to occur - 2050 ?
Are you seriously suggesting that further derivatives of an early 1990's platform can EIS in 2040 and still be competitive ??

What I meant to say is that I think the 777X (not a derivative beyond the 777X) will remain competitive until the mid to late 2030s. And the Y3 can be pushed back indefinitely if the 777X remains competitive (I do think we'll see the all new replacement sometime in the mid 2030s, though - in time for the A350 replacement market). I also said that I don't think there would be a further major derivative beyond the currently planned 777X, but there might be.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 207):
Boeing are currently putting all their eggs in the 777X basket

Quite the contrary, in my view. They would be putting all their eggs in one basket had they chosen the 787 platform as the basis for every widebody aircraft from the 787-8 size to A350-1000 size. I think having two separate families of aircraft optimised around different sizes is an excellent strategy.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 207):
I dont see any reason for Boeing to panic just because there will soon be a new kid on the block in the 350 seat category.

They're not. They're doing anything but panicking at the moment, and are resisting Tim Clark's call to rush the 777X into the market. I do not think there's any rush to bring out that aircraft.

[Edited 2012-12-10 06:33:15]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-10 06:55:16 and read 10872 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 203):
How does the "barrels vs. panels" design difference between 787 and 350 play into the potential to stretch either frame?

It shouldn't really factor in much at all in terms of design. It may factor in big time in terms of capital expense (tooling) because building a longer barrel tool costs more than building a new panel tool. There is also some danger of hitting the length limit of the available autoclaves, which is more of a risk for barrels than panels, but I don't know how close they are to that limit today so I have no idea if it matters. That's, again, not a design problem but doesn't mean buying some new big-ass autoclaves. Or just putting one more barrel splice (circumferential splice for the panels) in the fuselage, which is weight and cost but not a particularly hard design problem and one they've solved already.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 207):
Are you seriously suggesting that further derivatives of an early 1990's platform can EIS in 2040 and still be competitive ??

Well, further derivatives of a late 60's platform are going to EIS in 2017 and are competitive so...yes.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Beeski
Posted 2012-12-10 07:19:55 and read 10824 times.

Has anyone done projected Seat Cost per Mile of the 787-10 "lite"?
Would it be the most efficient airliner in the world?
Even more efficient than the A380?

Even at a 4000 mile range limit for a full plane, there are plenty of missions where it would be the most profitable aircraft.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-10 08:03:17 and read 10800 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
I'm not sure if stretching the 777-9X to 79m would put it in danger of being too close to the A380-800. I don't think there's any need, nor indeed any profit in Boeing attempting to take on the A380.

I don't see a 79m 777-9X as a competitor to the A380-800, but instead as a way to narrow (perhaps eliminate) the seat-mile and trip costs to the A350-1000 with the higher seat count.

I have to believe that the 777-8X will have higher seat-mile and trip costs than the A350-1000, but it will also offer a stronger payload-range curve (especially in 777-8L form) and that appears to appeal to at least some large operators in the Middle East.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: brindabella
Posted 2012-12-10 08:49:31 and read 10710 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup? I would have thought that the success of the A333 shows that there is a significant market for it. Do all airlines insist on the ability to fly 8000nm with EVERY widebody, even though there are only a comparatively small number of routes requiring that range? It seems to me that far more people fly 500-6000nm routes than longer ones, and a plane with 6000nm range will burn less fuel doing it than one with 8000nm range. Yes, fleet commonality is nice, but you can still buy a 789 or A359 for the long routes and accept the capacity penalty while saving a lot of money on the vast majority of routes with the 7810 or A3510. I thought Boeing was being very sensible in making the 7810 a simple stretch of the 789 and accepting the shorter range that that would entail, but they seem to be following the same pied piper that Airbus followed with the A3510, to less than an enthusiastic reception from their customers. Has the A3510 gained any net orders since they announced the redesign? I think the whole world's gone nuts.

  

Guess it's understandable that much of the discussion here on a.net is focused towards TATL - N.America - Europe. I surprises me, however that neither A nor B seem to be looking to the huge expansion coming as the billions in S.Asia - SE.Asia - N.Asia move into the middle class & take to the air.
Which is to say, the city-pairs will frequently require medium/range/large capacity types. Big time.
(Last time I looked, there were still plenty of A300s soldiering-on on these routes, and doing a great job despite not having much wing and therefore range.)

cheers Bill

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-12-10 08:57:02 and read 10704 times.

Reply 208

This thread has come about due to Boeing stating that instead of pushing the 777 derivatives (as it has been for 18 months) it is now putting the -10 project first (thus the 777X on the backburner). The surprise had been that instead of a straight stretch and trading range there now appeard to be potentially a 'major change' (and cost/development) to create a -900 class aircraft.

This has lead to people correctly wondering where such an aircraft would leave the 8X- 777 (nowhere?). The -9X would - by virtue of it's sheer size be able to compete in economics with the 351. The question posed is how many people want one of these? (market/gap). Again the fact that they are looking at one perhaps 2 vatiants of the 10X I think answers the question. (you are being kind calling the 748i sales "slow").The -10 (lite) and the -10 (heavy) will cover 2 huge and very active markets. Isn't this what you would do? (you have to make a choice between the 2 projects).

This has naturally lead people to wonder about timings. If the 10X family comes first as it will now do (and cover the 772 market).Then just how old will the 777 platform be when it's turn comes soooo.Writers are logically stating that at this point. (A morbound ancient 747-8i and an old 777 platform). You might as well do what they said they were going to do all along. Y3.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-10 09:14:41 and read 10688 times.

Quoting brindabella (Reply 212):
I surprises me, however that neither A nor B seem to be looking to the huge expansion coming as the billions in S.Asia - SE.Asia - N.Asia move into the middle class & take to the air.

A significant number of them are flying on 737s and A320s operated by LCCs - between them, Lion Air and Air Asia have ordered almost 800 A320-200s, A320-200neos, 737-900ERs and 737-9s.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2012-12-10 10:11:55 and read 10567 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 213):
You might as well do what they said they were going to do all along. Y3.

It's sure looking that way now. Maybe a 777MAX lite or weight reduction program while Y3 gets launched.

Waiting on Y3 also gets a better look at the 787 design as a base platform vice going to panels or back to aluminum.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-10 10:39:09 and read 10512 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 200):
3% wider is 12% stiffer. So yes, it makes that big of a difference.

Tom.

The actual Height difference is only 5" A350 20' 787 19'7" or only 2.1%. Is it the compression of the Top Skin the problem - or the stretching of the bottom Skin. I'm guessing the 787 is better on the bottom half/worse on top - depending on layup

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-10 12:08:51 and read 10366 times.

Quoting brindabella (Reply 212):
I surprises me, however that neither A nor B seem to be looking to the huge expansion coming as the billions in S.Asia - SE.Asia - N.Asia move into the middle class & take to the air.

Both A & B are looking at those markets in a *huge* way. But, per customer choice, most of that growth is currently being served by medium-haul narrowbodies.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 216):
The actual Height difference is only 5" A350 20' 787 19'7" or only 2.1%.

That'd be closer to 8% stiffer then, all other things being equal, but it still makes a significant difference.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 216):
Is it the compression of the Top Skin the problem - or the stretching of the bottom Skin.

Well, the top skin is normally in tension and the bottom is normally in compression, but it's the compression skin that's usually the problem. With large thing structures like you find in airplanes, buckling (compression) is usually a bigger issue than tension.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 216):
I'm guessing the 787 is better on the bottom half/worse on top - depending on layup

I would assume they've tailored the layup so that top and bottom are working equally hard, but I don't know enough about the detailed load cases to know for sure.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-12-10 12:15:39 and read 10337 times.

How about 31t for a 13hr sector

Quoting brindabella (Reply 212):
Which is to say, the city-pairs will frequently require medium/range/large capacity types. Big time.

which will also mean that it is likely that there will be many more city pairs to pick up the increases in traffic. I think the NRT-SAN type of pairing will become much more common. The big hubs are going to have trouble keeping up because of all the cities that will want to access them directly.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: abba
Posted 2012-12-10 13:48:18 and read 10192 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 218):
which will also mean that it is likely that there will be many more city pairs to pick up the increases in traffic



However, there will be many more pairs of mega-cities around as in particular Asia and S. America grows economically. China alone will contribute quite a few as will India. In Asia there is actually quite a few medium range routes (less than 5 hours) being flown by WBs.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-10 15:39:12 and read 10070 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 217):
Well, the top skin is normally in tension and the bottom is normally in compression, but it's the compression skin that's usually the problem. With large thing structures like you find in airplanes, buckling (compression) is usually a bigger issue than tension.

If that is normal doesn't Carbon give you a big natural advantage in Tension and wouldn't the large wingbox really help on the bottom with the compression? Add a few layers of tape on the bottom and your good to go?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-10 17:18:36 and read 9937 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 209):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 207):Are you seriously suggesting that further derivatives of an early 1990's platform can EIS in 2040 and still be competitive ??
Well, further derivatives of a late 60's platform are going to EIS in 2017 and are competitive so...yes.


I think the 737 is somewhat enigmatic and I wouldn't expect current wide-bodies to have the same longevity. The 707, 717, 727 and 757 have all ceased production during the same period while the 747 and 767 are in their twilight years. The 737 story is certainly an achievement but you wouldn't bank on producing new derivatives 50 years down the track for any given program.



Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2012-12-10 17:39:13]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-12-10 18:53:14 and read 9843 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 220):
If that is normal doesn't Carbon give you a big natural advantage in Tension and wouldn't the large wingbox really help on the bottom with the compression?

CFRP has much better fatigue properties (fatigue is primarily a tension problem), which gives you a big tension advantage for structures where fatigue is limiting...that's generally true for skins but may or may not be the case for stringers.

The wingbox really doesn't help with fuselage lower half compression because the compression load goes around the wingbox via the keel beam. Making the keel beam effective under the wing isn't hugely hard, it's worse in the MLG bay because then you're trying to preserve clearance. The fuselage is basically a cantilever beam with a hole in it, and the wing runs through the hole.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-11 01:03:02 and read 9628 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
Funny you should say that, considering that in terms of cabin length, the 777-9X isn't very much longer than the A350-1000, which you argue doesn't compete with the A350-1000.

You can compare only cabin-lengths width the same abreast-count of course.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
But the 787-10, which is primarily designed as an 8-abreast platform and significantly shorter, is?

The 787 is hardly more 8-abreast than the 777 10-abreast.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
The 787-10 is currently propsed to be a 5 metre stretch over the 787-9

Keyword: currently.

At the speed how Boeing changes their intentions about the 77X and the 781ER I would not consider it as very significant.

How if Boeing would stretch it 7m?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 204):
The 787-10 is quite clearly, in every dimension, closer to the A350-900 than it is to the A350-1000.

Again only currently.

Some misunderstandings between us are because you strictly look at older statements from Boeing while I try to work out the potential that is build into the 787. I don't care so much what Boeing has said about 781 (and 77X) because hardly anything gets revised as frequently as intentions in the early phases of aircraft designs (this is the same with Airbus). My discussion is based on "what could be". It does not help if you try to map these things too closely with published intentions from Boeing. Think further, try to sense the underlying movements and stay ahead of official announcements. This might be more risky but the half-life period of a lot of Boeing's recent announcements in the area of NSA, MAX, 77X and 781 must also be record low...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: brindabella
Posted 2012-12-11 06:51:56 and read 9412 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 221):
I think the 737 is somewhat enigmatic

I get what you mean (and you may yet prove to be right) - but the idea of an "enigmatic" 737 tickles my fancy.

Sneaks out on foggy nights? What you see may not be what you get??




     

Bill

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-11 07:08:04 and read 9378 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 223):
How if Boeing would stretch it 7m?

A 7m stretch would still give the A350-1000 a 27-36 Economy seat advantage. For comparison, the A350-900 has a 27-seat advantage over the 787-9.

The 787-10 would have to be a 10.5m stretch to match the A350-1000 in capacity, which is why I speculate a "787-11" would be a 12m stretch of the 787-9 (and even that means only one more row of Premium Economy).

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-11 11:57:59 and read 9111 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 225):
A 7m stretch would still give the A350-1000 a 27-36 Economy seat advantage.

?
The current 781 per Airbus would have 330 seats. Stretching it less than two additional meters would mean that the delta to the A351 would shrink to less than 5 seats. So I can't see why the delta would stay 27-36 seats if it would be stretched 7m instead of 5m. The current 781 proposal is about that much smaller.

If we go with Boeings numbers the case looks similar: Boeing states the three class capacity of the current 781 with 323 seats. That means that it would require the addition of exactly three rows in order to match the seatcount of the A351 (=350). Three rows with 31" pitch mean that such a 781ER would have to be just 2.36 meters longer than the today proposal. Which should really not stir up the doom and gloom scenarios described by some posters in this thread.

The -11 you mention would be possible as well with the 6-wheel MLG. But it would leave the A351 behind regarding capacity IMO. And I agree with the doubters, that somewhere short of 400 seats the ultimate limit of the 787 design will be reached (other than the A350, which has all the assets to become a sound 400-seater one day).

If I make a stupid error with my calculation above, the things would look different of course. I am suspicous because you folks normaly don't need such accurate reasoning to see these things...

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-11 13:38:57 and read 9103 times.

The best data I have been able to find shows the A350-1000 having a cabin length of 58.95m compared to the 787-9 having a cabin length of 48.39m.

If Boeing stretches the 787-9 by 7m to get the 787-10, that would give a cabin length of 55.39m - 3.56m shorter than the A350-1000. Depending on how an airline adjusted galleys and lavatories, that would be sufficient room for three or four rows of 9-abreast Economy - 27 to 36 seats.

In terms of cabin floor area, an A350-1000 will have about 330m2 ( 58.95m x 5.59m ). A 70m 787-10 (7m stretch) would be about 304m2 ( 55.39m x 5.49m ), while a 75m "787-11" (12m stretch) would offer about 332m2 ( 60.39m x 5.39m ). Hence my belief that a 787 needs to be around 74-75 meters in length to be a true A350-1000 competitor in terms of passenger capacity since they will offer the same number of seats per row in each class of service so it is the number of rows that will determine the actual seat count.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-11 14:44:55 and read 9022 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 227):
Hence my belief that a 787 needs to be around 74-75 meters in length to be a true A350-1000 competitor in terms of passenger capacity since they will offer the same number of seats per row in each class of service so it is the number of rows that will determine the actual seat count.

I don't think the OEMs are seeking overlapping positions, look at the presently presented frames capacity positioning:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Cabinandcargoholdlengths.jpg


This shows the cabin and cargo hold lengths of the presently proposed frames, as can be seen they are nicely stacked with not a single model overlapping the competitors position. I think this i deliberate and it is very good for the airlines, look at how many have bought 789 and 359. A 7810ER will nicely slot in above the 359 and then B will place the 777X over the 3510 and the puzzle will be complete. A 100% head to head competition like for the SA serves no-one. With the present positioning an airline can buy from one OEM and get his stacked series or if he needs tighter spacing (and more pricing bargain power) and have the fleet size to support it he can sick-zack his way up in capability.

[Edited 2012-12-11 14:51:47]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-11 15:41:33 and read 8967 times.

Well Airbus has placed the A350-1000 smack on top of the 777-300ER: same cabin length, same number of LD3 positions, same ~8000nm nominal range.

If Boeing needs to extensively (and expensively) re-work the 787 and 777 to compete with the A350-1000, that admittedly worries me a bit as it means two programs need to provide sufficient RoI.. And it probably really worries the BoD since they're answerable to The Market and I am not (though as a shareholder, they are answerable to me in a way).  

It would be like Airbus announcing tomorrow that the A350-800 is cancelled and instead they are going to re-work the A330-200 and A330-300 along the original A350 concept with a new CFRP wing and new engines to take the fight to the 787-8. If I was an EADS shareholder, I'd be a bit worried.  Smile


In the A330 vs 787 competition, Airbus is fighting efficiency with capability - it costs more to operate an A330 than a 787, but the A330 earns more money. To that end, I still believe the right call to carry the fight to the A350 is a 74m 777-8X and an 80m 777-9X with GE-9X engines at 115k thrust. The 777X will cost more to operate (though it will cost less than a 77L and 77W), but it will also earn more money thanks to greater passenger and cargo capacity (and the TOW to make use of it).

But if Boeing has decided to use the 787 to fight, instead, then I believe it needs a 69m 787-10ER and a 75m 787-11. Two models to spread the costs out and support a strong RoI.

[Edited 2012-12-11 15:44:32]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-12 02:42:54 and read 8651 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 227):
The best data I have been able to find shows the A350-1000 having a cabin length of 58.95m compared to the 787-9 having a cabin length of 48.39m.

So Airbus' average number of seats per meter of cabin length would be 5.9. Using that number for the 789 cabin length gives me a total of 287 seats. Sounds Ok. So using 6 seats in average per meter of cabin length sounds reasonable for both.

So in a sense it is unfair indeed if I have assumed the seatcount to increase by 9 seats per meter. Because in that case the class split would change (more economy, less for the rest). To keep the class split constant each added meter to the cabin length should only add 6 seats.

So yes, the cabin length of the 781 should approach the one of the A351 to carry a similar capacity (this sounds even logical). If I take my number of 340 seats (which I assume to be enough for the 781ER to be considered as a 77W replacement and a A351 competitor), the 781 should be 3.27 meters longer than the current proposal.

So I change my question to:
What if the 781 will be stretched 8m instead of 5m?

This should still not stir up all the doom and gloom scenarios, that have been described above...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 227):
If Boeing stretches the 787-9 by 7m to get the 787-10, that would give a cabin length of 55.39m - 3.56m shorter than the A350-1000. Depending on how an airline adjusted galleys and lavatories, that would be sufficient room for three or four rows of 9-abreast Economy - 27 to 36 seats.

Here I think you make the same mistake that I did: assume that the additional length is only used for Economy.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-12 05:19:16 and read 8499 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 211):
I don't see a 79m 777-9X as a competitor to the A380-800, but instead as a way to narrow (perhaps eliminate) the seat-mile and trip costs to the A350-1000 with the higher seat count.

Fair point. However, I would imagine that the 76.6m stretch with a 57 seat advantage over the A350-1000 would do just that. Then there's the issue of whether a 79m 777 would be a stretch too far, as that would be a 15m stretch over the base 777-200. I'm sure I've read before that at the time the 777-300 was launched, it was the longest possible stretch of the 777 frame. Perhaps engineering methods have changed since then to allow even longer stretches.

The other issue with a 79m stretch would be weight. I think that keeping the stretch to a minimum - like they are planning with the 76.6m 777-9X, keeps the weight down so that, combined with the larger wing which generates more lift, lower thrust and more efficient engines can be used to aid trip fuel burn reduction. Would a 79m stretch require two 115,000lb thrust rated engines? Or something even more powerful?

Quoting parapente (Reply 213):
This thread has come about due to Boeing stating that instead of pushing the 777 derivatives (as it has been for 18 months) it is now putting the -10 project first (thus the 777X on the backburner).

Boeing has not officially announced a delay to the 777X program.

Quoting parapente (Reply 213):
This has lead to people correctly wondering where such an aircraft would leave the 8X- 777 (nowhere?). The -9X would - by virtue of it's sheer size be able to compete in economics with the 351. The question posed is how many people want one of these? (market/gap). Again the fact that they are looking at one perhaps 2 vatiants of the 10X I think answers the question.

I agree that the base 777-8X is probably superfluous with the new 787-10 having a 6 wheel landing gear and an increase in MTOW. But despite that increase, the 787-10 is still neither big enough nor capable enough to compete with the A350-1000, which is where the 777X steps in. The fact of the 787-10 gaining a 6 wheel main landing gear which may possibly allow for an ER version of the 787-10 has no impact on the decision on whether or not to offer the 777X, as they serve different markets.

Quoting parapente (Reply 213):
an old 777 platform

It hasn't even been 20 years since the 777's first flight. It is hardly old. I firmly believe that there is room for further development on the 777 frame, or else Boeing wouldn't even be considering embarking on the 777X project.

Quoting parapente (Reply 213):
You might as well do what they said they were going to do all along. Y3.

1. The 777X would not be as costly as doing an all new Y3.

2. There is no point in doing an all new aircraft when an upgrade of an existing platform would result in a competitive aircraft. Depending on the total cost, the RoI of an upgrade may even exceed that of an all new aircraft: fewer 777Xs would need to be sold to recover the development costs, while that "magical number" is higher for the Y3.

3. An upgrade of an existing platform leverages on an investment that has already been made. An all new aircraft does not. Closing down the 777 line prematurely without so much as exploring further development potential in the airframe would be a waste.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 221):
I wouldn't expect current wide-bodies to have the same longevity.

I think that's a rather big call to make given that history has shown that a design and it subsequent derivatives can, and has been, around for significantly longer than the service life of an individual aircraft. It's not just the 737: the Douglas DC-9, which spawned derivatives such as the MD-80 series and the MD-95/Boeing 717 only ceased production in 2006, giving it a production life of 41 years. The A320neo will push the A320 family, which made its EIS in 1988, to a similarly long production life.

Yes, the above examples are narrowbodies, but what makes a widebody so different in that sense?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 223):
At the speed how Boeing changes their intentions about the 77X and the 781ER I would not consider it as very significant.

How if Boeing would stretch it 7m?

That would still leave it 4m shorter than the A350-1000 in terms of overall length, and as Stitch pointed out, 3.56m shorter in terms of cabin length. If both are configured in a 9-abreast configuration, the A350-1000 would still have a significant capacity advantage, not to mention payload/range. What has been said above by Tdscanuck and Roseflyer makes a lot of sense: stretching the 787 will pose significant challenges to limit fuselage bending issues. The 787's fuselage is too narrow to be stretched as far as the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 223):
Some misunderstandings between us are because you strictly look at older statements from Boeing while I try to work out the potential that is build into the 787. I don't care so much what Boeing has said about 781 (and 77X) because hardly anything gets revised as frequently as intentions in the early phases of aircraft designs (this is the same with Airbus). My discussion is based on "what could be". It does not help if you try to map these things too closely with published intentions from Boeing.

It's all well and good to try to determine what is possible, but unless it is backed up by sound engineering principles and/or the word of people who work in the industry and/or aviation journalists/analysts, it is nothing but speculaion. Saying something is "reasonable to assume" doesn't make it so unless you have strong evidence to back up that assumption.

I also find it somewhat amusing that while say your discussions is based on "what could be", you do not acknowledge that the 777X "could be" the best thing since sliced bread and take the 350-400 seat market by storm. The fact that it hasn't even left the drawing board yet is a sign that it could be anything the Boeing engineers want it to be. Whether the 777X succeeds or not is entirely in the hands of Boeing's engineers. As such, I have no reason to believe why it wouldn't be a success.

I don't have the requisite engineering expertise to make educated guesses (as opposed to assumptions) about future aicraft types that have not been openly discussed as a distinct possibility by people in the industry. No one outside of armchair experts here on a.net has suggested the possibility of a larger 787-10 to combat the A350-1000. Based on what has already been made public, there will be a 777X to EIS around 2019 to tackle the market for aircraft the size of the A350-1000 and above, as there will be no 787s larger than the -10, which is a 5m stretch over the 787-9.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 226):
The current 781 per Airbus would have 330 seats

Which is not an accurate indication. Boeing's "standard spec" configuration is tigher than Airbus', and even then it only allows 323 seats for the 787-10.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 228):
A 7810ER will nicely slot in above the 359 and then B will place the 777X over the 3510 and the puzzle will be complete.

I agree.

That's why larger 787s are not necessary. The 777X will handle that market very well.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 228):
With the present positioning an airline can buy from one OEM and get his stacked series or if he needs tighter spacing (and more pricing bargain power) and have the fleet size to support it he can sick-zack his way up in capability.

I agree with that too. What Boeing has done with the staggered capacity of its 787s and 777s vis-a-vis the A350 is an excellent strategy.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 230):
If I take my number of 340 seats (which I assume to be enough for the 781ER to be considered as a 77W replacement and a A351 competitor),

The 777-300ER's nominal three class seat count is 368. The 787-10 as currently proposed is 323 seats. The 787-10 is also significantly inferior to the 777-300ER's payload/range. I do not believe any 787 derivative will ever be able to match or exceed the capabilities of the 777-300ER due to limitations in both size and MTOW.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 230):
So I change my question to:
What if the 781 will be stretched 8m instead of 5m?
Stitch mentioned that for the 787 to match the A350-1000's capacity it'll need to be about 74-75m long. That will make it a 12-13m stretch over the 787-9. I think the following is important:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 227):
they will offer the same number of seats per row in each class of service so it is the number of rows that will determine the actual seat count.

Overall seat count means nought unless we know the distribution over different classes of service. A more economy heavy configuration will result in a higher seat count than a more premium heavy configuration. It is only with the same cabin length that both aircraft can be compared on a like for like basis with the same number of rows and seats per row in each class.

I don't believe any 787 derivative will match the A350-1000 on that front, let alone the 777-9X.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-12 06:15:57 and read 8425 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
you do not acknowledge that the 777X "could be" the best thing since sliced bread and take the 350-400 seat market by storm.

The question is, is that market there? It hardly exists now and I have the impression the B77W is exactly in the sweet spot with her present capacity. As will be the A350-1000. How many B77W's are now "packed" and which airlines would really require something on top of what the B77W is doing now? (Or on top of what the A350-1000 will do after EIS in 2017).

Besides EK, and surely they do not experience these top load factors on all routes and flights, I do not see that many candidates. And if they need more, would it not be attractive to go A380? just as EK and others are doing. The A380 is still a very young airframe and is now undergoing the first of no doubt many incremental improvements, including increased MTOW. And it has a lot more potential to improve even more.

Thanks for your extensive posts btw. Though I might not agree with all your statements the effort you make is for sure respectable.  .

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-12 06:20:34 and read 8421 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
I also find it somewhat amusing that while say your discussions is based on "what could be", you do not acknowledge that the 777X "could be" the best thing since sliced bread and take the 350-400 seat market by storm.

You are in error. I consistently say that the 77X "could be" not worth the effort.

I have witnessed a lot of changed intentions from Boeing and Airbus. It could be, that Boeings intentions for the 77X will not pan out as planned. I am even sure that they will find out before they launch it. I don't say that Boeing made any error regarding the 77X so far. Only launching it as 10bn-program or so would be a mistake IMO. Currently we see Boeing backing off from earlier planned launch dates. Which does not suprise me. It is just another changed intention....

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 230):
So I change my question to:
What if the 781 will be stretched 8m instead of 5m?
Stitch mentioned that for the 787 to match the A350-1000's capacity it'll need to be about 74-75m long.

You rely on the opinion from a lot of other people which is wise but sometimes deceptive too. What if my calculation this time is correct?

Could it be that my approach for this calculation is the best?

And - could it be that airlines would consider a 340-seater as direct A351 competitor? Could it be that basically everybody on this board misjudged the size needed for the 781ER to become that A351 competitor?

Three questions, three times "yes" would be my answer. Agreed, this is only my opinion. But the 6-seats per meter cabin length rule is quite sound IMO. And it does not support Stitchs numbers.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-12-12 06:53:34 and read 8367 times.

Reply 229.
"Well Airbus has placed the A350-1000 smack on top of the 777-300ER: same cabin length, same number of LD3 positions, same ~8000nm nominal range".

And that is exactly the point is it not. Airbus did their research and changed their goalposts to meet the requirements from the Airline companies. Now it just so happens that what they want is a better 773er. This is not surprising considering the fantastic sales and performance of the 773er.

This poses a real problem for Boeing as the only way they can match the numbers is making the 773 (alot) bigger. But as others have said - Who wants "bigger"? They most certainly don't want the 748 which is abit of a clue. But clue number 2 is the fact (point of this thread) that Boeing are now concentrating on winning/saving the 772er market - and know they have a new platform capable of doing this.

Oh and yes developing a Y3 is more expensive that creating a derivitve of an existing plane - but not (see 748/346) if you cannot sell many! My money is on a Y3.Anyway I just love the BWB scale prototype design that is currently being re tested with 2 engines "Hmmmm"- so I am biased  

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-12 07:11:21 and read 8345 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 230):
Here I think you make the same mistake that I did: assume that the additional length is only used for Economy.

Yes, they could throw in an extra row of Business Class and an extra row of Economy, but I favor Economy because it's load factors are consistent whereas Business Class sees peaks and valleys.



Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
Would a 79m stretch require two 115,000lb thrust rated engines? Or something even more powerful?

I would expect a 79m 777-9X to have the same 351t MTOW of the 777-300ER so it would not need more powerful engines - especially with more efficient wings.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 233):
And - could it be that airlines would consider a 340-seater as direct A351 competitor? Could it be that basically everybody on this board misjudged the size needed for the 781ER to become that A351 competitor?

If a 340-seat 787-10HGW has lower seat-mile and trip costs than a 365-seat A350-1000, then yes, it would be a direct competitor.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-12 07:22:50 and read 8319 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 232):
The question is, is that market there? It hardly exists now and I have the impression the B77W is exactly in the sweet spot with her present capacity.
Quoting parapente (Reply 234):
Who wants "bigger"? They most certainly don't want the 748 which is abit of a clue.

As I have tried to explain, the lack of 748i sales is no indication of the available market for that segment. I would argue that any airline that currently operates the 777-300ER in a 10-abreast economy configuration - and there are an increasing number of airlines doing this - would find the extra width and capacity of the 777-9X attractive. There are also quite a few airlines that operate the 777-300ER with a seat count between 350-400, and indeed, even some have more than 400 seats in their 777-300ERs.

The second point about why the 777-9X will fare a lot better than the 747-8 is that it is both a more capable aircraft in terms of payload-range, and, as a twin rather than a quad, a more fuel efficient aircrat. As the 777-300ER was to the 747-400, so too will the 777-9X be to the 747-8.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 233):
You are in error. I consistently say that the 77X "could be" not worth the effort.

  Same thing.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 233):
Currently we see Boeing backing off from earlier planned launch dates. Which does not suprise me. It is just another changed intention....

Please point me to where Boeing have officially announced a delay for the 777X launch.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 233):
What if my calculation this time is correct?

It doesn't make sense. If the 787-10 concedes cabin length to the A350-1000, it will only achieve the same seat count through the use of a more economy heavy configuration. If both are to be configured in a 9-abreast configuration, then it must have the same cabin length for a like for like comparison with the same number of seats per row and the same number of rows in each travel class.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-12 09:13:09 and read 8181 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 235):
If a 340-seat 787-10HGW has lower seat-mile and trip costs than a 365-seat A350-1000

You are mixing probably the nominal three-class-capacity of the 77W with the one of the A351. The A351 has a nominal three-class-capacity of 350 per Airbus. Thus I say 340 for the 781 would be close enough.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 235):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 230):
Here I think you make the same mistake that I did: assume that the additional length is only used for Economy.

Yes, they could throw in an extra row of Business Class and an extra row of Economy, but I favor Economy because it's load factors are consistent whereas Business Class sees peaks and valleys.

That's not correct because doing that I could claim rightfully that just extending the length of the 781 by 2.4 meters would add three rows (= 27 seats) which would bring the capacity from today 323 to 350 (= it now would match the A351). But that would be cheating because the percentage of Economy seats would increase. Keep the upper classes at the same size while only extending the Economy class obvioulsy polishes the seatcount in an incorrect way.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 236):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 233):
What if my calculation this time is correct?

It doesn't make sense. If the 787-10 concedes cabin length to the A350-1000, it will only achieve the same seat count through the use of a more economy heavy configuration.

Please answer with yes or no: did I ever ask for a 781 with the same seat count as the A351? I am interested in that personally because I wonder whether I write my posts completely incomprehensible. Do you know the number of matches for the term " 340" in this thread? It is 27.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-12 09:48:25 and read 8123 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 237):
But that would be cheating because the percentage of Economy seats would increase. Keep the upper classes at the same size while only extending the Economy class obvioulsy polishes the seatcount in an incorrect way.

Perhaps, though I will note that Airbus has traditionally used a higher percentage of Economy Class seating in their OEM configurations compared to Boeing and their OEM configurations.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-12-12 09:50:40 and read 8112 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 234):
Who wants "bigger"? They most certainly don't want the 748 which is abit of a clue.

As I have tried to explain, the lack of 748i sales is no indication of the available market for that segment. I would argue that any airline that currently operates the 777-300ER in a 10-abreast economy configuration - and there are an increasing number of airlines doing this - would find the extra width and capacity of the 777-9X attractive. There are also quite a few airlines that operate the 777-300ER with a seat count between 350-400, and indeed, even some have more than 400 seats in their 777-300ERs.

I should re phrase. Of course there will be some demand - there are "some" 748i's after all. What I should have said is a commercial market size of demand - this may be the problem - hell it's a problem for the A380 - some demand - just not enough to make a decent ROI. But I remain convinced that Boeing see a far better ROI (which is what it is all about) developing variants of the 787 rather than the 777. Which is why I believe they are making all the noise around the former aircraft.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Heavierthanair
Posted 2012-12-12 09:51:15 and read 8127 times.

G'day

Here I am reading that the 787-10X requires engines with 76000 lb thrust in comparison to the 787-9 with 74000 lb thrust. I am confused. I doubt an additional 2000 lbs is sufficient to get the 280 ton 787-10X discussed in this thread into the air, a basic stretch maybe, but not the heavy version discussed here.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-787-9-demonstrator-engine-380120/

Anyone out there to clarify, thanks

Cheers

Peter

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-12 10:02:57 and read 8089 times.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 240):

I was just thinking about the engines...if they needed more power, could Boeing use the XWB engines?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-12-12 11:07:43 and read 8042 times.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 240):
Anyone out there to clarify, thanks.

I am of the opinion that the 76,000 pound thrust engine is to improve field performance for the 251t 787-9 and a 251t 787-10X.

If Boeing is going with a significant TOW boost for the 787-10X, then the engines will be more powerful than 76,000 pounds.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-12-12 11:35:33 and read 7972 times.

They will probably need more thrust - but this could be offset by an increase in wing span.

You Can't use the XWB engines without major mods - the 787 doesn't need any bleed air.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-12-12 12:29:39 and read 7891 times.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 240):
I doubt an additional 2000 lbs is sufficient to get the 280 ton 787-10X discussed in this thread into the air, a basic stretch maybe, but not the heavy version discussed here.

We shall be very clear on what is thread facts and fiction (or speculation)  , as the one that started the thing here a try to clear the fog a bit:

- B have stated they are working on a 6700nm A330 replacement dubbed 787-10X. AW has stated this involves a clean-up of the wing join (about time ), an increased Air cond (necessary if you carry 15% more pax) and a 6 wheel MLG (why is not 100% clear but rotation angle, pavement loading or future upgrades can play a part).

- IF B goes to a 6 wheel MLG and IF the wingjoin is done better then path is open to start increasing the MTOW IF you have the engines for it. There is 3 big IFs here and a not confirmed increase in MTOW. The OEM armchair project bureau ( A and B skunk-works@Airliners.net) have then starting telling B what to do once these improvements are under the belt  .

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: tarheelwings
Posted 2012-12-12 13:26:22 and read 7778 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 244):
We shall be very clear on what is thread facts and fiction (or speculation) , as the one that started the thing here a try to clear the fog a bit:

- B have stated they are working on a 6700nm A330 replacement dubbed 787-10X. AW has stated this involves a clean-up of the wing join (about time ), an increased Air cond (necessary if you carry 15% more pax) and a 6 wheel MLG (why is not 100% clear but rotation angle, pavement loading or future upgrades can play a part).

- IF B goes to a 6 wheel MLG and IF the wingjoin is done better then path is open to start increasing the MTOW IF you have the engines for it. There is 3 big IFs here and a not confirmed increase in MTOW. The OEM armchair project bureau ( A and B skunk-works@Airliners.net) have then starting telling B what to do once these improvements are under the belt .

It is re-freshing to read posts like these: informative, un-biased, and with humor to boot! Welcome to my respected list Ferpe.....and merci beacoup mon ami!

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: Heavierthanair
Posted 2012-12-12 14:20:31 and read 7702 times.

G'day

Quoting ferpe (Reply 244):
- B have stated they are working on a 6700nm A330 replacement dubbed 787-10X. AW has stated this involves a clean-up of the wing join (about time ), an increased Air cond (necessary if you carry 15% more pax) and a 6 wheel MLG (why is not 100% clear but rotation angle, pavement loading or future upgrades can play a part).

Thanks for clarifying this Ferpe. In other words the 333 killer is still on for which the 76,000 lbs engines seem to be adequate. The 787 quadruple stretch 3510 and 388 killer with 120,000 lbs+ engines and with APU's used for added take off thrust, 8 wheel bogies and canards for added lift remains a "A and B skunk-works@Airliners.net" project.

I look forward to see how that develops, interesting times ahead  

Cheers

Peter

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-12 20:55:47 and read 7479 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 238):
Perhaps, though I will note that Airbus has traditionally used a higher percentage of Economy Class seating in their OEM configurations compared to Boeing and their OEM configurations.

When I divided the the nominal three-class-capacity by the cabin length, the resulting constant was the basically the same both in case of the 789 and the A351: 6 seats per meter length of cabin. This check validates that both OEMs apply about the same class mix. So between these two models the OEM have publishes comparable seat numbers. And the magical number "6 per meter" gives us a good tool to judge the effect of various stretches...

Traditionally you certainly find cases where Airbus cheated by adding a larger Y class section. On the other hand Boeing did it with the 748i.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-12 20:57:48 and read 7481 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 237):
Please answer with yes or no: did I ever ask for a 781 with the same seat count as the A351? I am interested in that personally because I wonder whether I write my posts completely incomprehensible. Do you know the number of matches for the term " 340" in this thread? It is 27.

Then the proper way of determining the required cabin length for such an arrangment would be whatever the A350-1000's cabin length is, minus one metre. That way, it will still have the same number of first and business seats. The only thing that's missing is one row of economy.

Without that, it wouldn't be a like for like comparison.

Regardless of whether it is possible to stretch the 787 that far, it is still likely to be MTOW limited and thus payload-range limited. It is therefore lacking somewhat as an A350-1000 competitor. Passenger seat count is but one very small part of the equation.

Quoting parapente (Reply 239):
But I remain convinced that Boeing see a far better ROI (which is what it is all about) developing variants of the 787 rather than the 777.

In terms of developing an aircraft to compete with the A350-1000 and above, I remain absolutely convinced of the opposite.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-12 23:30:33 and read 7395 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
I think that's a rather big call to make given that history has shown that a design and it subsequent derivatives can, and has been, around for significantly longer than the service life of an individual aircraft.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
Yes, the above examples are narrowbodies, but what makes a widebody so different in that sense?

1. Massive increase in fuel prices to above $100/barrel after a very long period at around $35/barrel.
2. The greater impact of high fuel prices on long haul operations.
3. The introduction of new materials (CRFP) by both OEM's to achieve greater efficiencies to counter higher fuel costs.
4. The massive increase in competition in the wide body market in the last 20 years.

These features seem to have reduced the life span of wide bodied programs, whether this is a permanent feature or just a transient blip due to the introduction of CRFP wings and fuselages remains to be seen.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 248):
Regardless of whether it is possible to stretch the 787 that far, it is still likely to be MTOW limited and thus payload-range limited. It is therefore lacking somewhat as an A350-1000 competitor. Passenger seat count is but one very small part of the equation.

How do you know it will be MTOW limited ? That applies to the 6700nm 787-10 "lite" but the whole point of a heavier 787 is to give it those range/payload capibilities.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 236):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 233):Currently we see Boeing backing off from earlier planned launch dates. Which does not suprise me. It is just another changed intention....
Please point me to where Boeing have officially announced a delay for the 777X launch.

Boeing originally indicated a launch by years end with EIS in 2019, this has moved to a launch sometime next year with EIS that could be after 2020.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 235):
If a 340-seat 787-10HGW has lower seat-mile and trip costs than a 365-seat A350-1000, then yes, it would be a direct competitor.

Boeing highlight the 787's greater efficiencies vs the 350 due to a smaller frontal area & lighter weight but still carrying a 9 abreast passenger load. This suggests a 340 seat 787 would have better CASM than the 35J.


Regards,
StickShaker

Quoting Stitch (Reply 229):
If Boeing needs to extensively (and expensively) re-work the 787 and 777 to compete with the A350-1000, that admittedly worries me a bit as it means two programs need to provide sufficient RoI..

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-13 01:06:44 and read 7307 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 248):
Then the proper way of determining the required cabin length for such an arrangment would be whatever the A350-1000's cabin length is, minus one metre. That way, it will still have the same number of first and business seats. The only thing that's missing is one row of economy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You must decrease the seats of the upper classes and the Y-seats by the same percentage.
But I won't explain it once more. See details above.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 248):
It is therefore lacking somewhat as an A350-1000 competitor.

That's correct. It does not need to match fully. It is at least a lot closer than the sweet spot of the 77X.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-13 01:58:53 and read 7233 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 229):
If Boeing needs to extensively (and expensively) re-work the 787 and 777 to compete with the A350-1000, that admittedly worries me a bit as it means two programs need to provide sufficient RoI..

When a competitor (35J) is positioned within the gap (or overlapping zone) betweeen 2 programs that gives the opportunity to compete from below (787) or above (777) or both. If a heavy (expensive) effort for both platforms cant be done then a heavy/lite approach can be taken. This is what Boeing have done to some extent except they have taken the heavy approach with the more mature platform (777X) and the lite approach with the modern platform (787-10X). I suggest that it should be done the other way around, 787-11 and 777+.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
An upgrade of an existing platform leverages on an investment that has already been made. An all new aircraft does not. Closing down the 777 line prematurely without so much as exploring further development potential in the airframe would be a waste.

It would be a waste - but the level of development needs to match the age of the platform. Shelving the 777X does not mean the 777 line would be closed down.
The argument about leveraging the existing investment in a platform applies equally to the 787 which will be around for far longer than the 777.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
There is no point in doing an all new aircraft when an upgrade of an existing platform would result in a competitive aircraft.

It depends how competitive you want to be and on what other options you have available.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 231):
Depending on the total cost, the RoI of an upgrade may even exceed that of an all new aircraft

Derivative programs can have very healthy ROI's but that is predicated on making a modest capital investment that is paid off relatively quickly. With the proposed cost, scope and complexity of the 777X, Boeing are going where no OEM has gone before. There are plenty of other options to be considered if making that level of investment.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-12-13 02:07:35 and read 7252 times.

Re Engine thrust requirements.
Quote
Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 240):

I was just thinking about the engines...if they needed more power, could Boeing use the XWB engines?
..And many others.

Stupid thought (particularly with the bleed/non bleed issue (But think Trent 1700). I was thinking reversing that logic and applying it to the 358.

Just wondering (although perhaps a silly thought).The 350-8 which would be in this discussion if it were not sinking without a trace. It is failing because shrinking a fuse and depowering a large engine is not an efficient way to go in general.

But I notice that the de powered XWB was designed to have around 75K Ils thrust. Now the 'X' varient of the Trent 1000 will now offer 76K lbs thrust. What with the existing (big) wing (people talk of Boeing needing to revert to their 'old' extended wing for the 10X for the same reason). This would/should (with bleed) be enough power, particulary for medium ranges.

Just wondered if that could save this aircraft? ie a highly efficient '1000/1700'engine, strapped on - rather than a massively detuned bigger engine? Probably not but perhaps a better way to go than putting it on the 330.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: pellegrine
Posted 2012-12-13 02:35:30 and read 7223 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 177):
Quoting pellegrine (Reply 154):
The 7E7 which became the 787 was meant to replace the 767-300/ER and -400ER more or less.

If that would be the whole truth the cross section would have been a terrible mistake (I repeat myself). But even during development the market noticed the potential in that chosen design parameter. And boom, each 787 version grew by dozens of seats. Even before EIS the initial intention was obsolete and the role of the 787 had to be rewritten! I am sure there are further such surprizes waiting on us....

Dozens? I could count maybe 15-20. Biz class didn't get any wider per the airline flying. Airlines only chose to put an extra seat in economy rows. 15-20 Econ seats on a long-haul international might equal US$5,500-17,500 extra revenue per one-way trip assuming a full Y cabin, AND [i]given[/] a >83-90% pax load depending on airline configuration.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):
I do believe the 777-8X at the planned 70m length is probably too short. A 74m 777-8X, which would offer the same cabin length as the 777-300ER (and A350-1000), would be more competitive, IMO.

Hypothetical 778 should be between a 772 and 773, 779 should be longer than a 773. IMO

Quoting Stitch (Reply 198):
A 75m "787-11" would be an 18m stretch of the 787-8 structure.

Oh my.   

Quoting ferpe (Reply 205):
m$............7810........333........359
Lease/m....1.45..........0.9........1.25
Value.........145...........90.........125
List.price....250..........231........278

I made the 7810 list price as 22m$ higher then 789 (228m$) as this is 35m$ more expensive then 788. Cost of manufacture is closely related to empty weight and there is 23t and 6 meter diff between 788 to 789 and only 5m and perhaps 8t diff to 789. As can be seen A thinks 7810 is a stellar machine whereas the 333 has to be sold at 60% discount  .

Me thinks Airbus sells A330-300s less than 90M, could be as low as 75. And you can definitely get one less than US$900,000/month on dry lease.

Sure shows how B went on the smaller "763" side, and A went to the bigger "772" side. Hmm.

[Edited 2012-12-13 02:37:04]

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-13 07:36:34 and read 7046 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 249):
1. Massive increase in fuel prices to above $100/barrel after a very long period at around $35/barrel.
2. The greater impact of high fuel prices on long haul operations.
3. The introduction of new materials (CRFP) by both OEM's to achieve greater efficiencies to counter higher fuel costs.
4. The massive increase in competition in the wide body market in the last 20 years.

All fair points. However, that is the reason why the 777X needs to be a significant upgrade. A minor update to the engines won't do.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 249):
How do you know it will be MTOW limited ?

Because Ferpe said in Reply 125:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 125):
If you read what I write I say the MTOW is engine limited for a 787 stretch, the 6 wheel gear is there because you're past the limit for a 4 gear design that fits the 787 belly (if AW has the right info). This does not mean you can suddenly make the frame a 300 tonner, other things needs major changes then.

The 787-10 isn't going to get bigger or more powerful without further significant and costly changes, and because of the 787's fuselage diameter being smaller than the 777, stretching it would pose greater challenges.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 249):
Boeing originally indicated a launch by years end with EIS in 2019, this has moved to a launch sometime next year with EIS that could be after 2020.

There's also an article which quoted an unnamed Boeing insider as saying that they could launch the 777X program as late as 2014 and still be able to get the aircraft to EIS in 2019.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 249):
This suggests a 340 seat 787 would have better CASM than the 35J.

It probably will, assuming that 340 seats can fit in a 787-10 in a three class configuration. But due to its MTOW limitations, it is also likely to have a worse payload range performance. The A350-1000 is a larger and more capable aircraft than the 787-10 is proposed to be.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 250):
It does not need to match fully.

Even if it were economically feasible for Boeing to stretch the 787 to fit 340 seats in a three class configuration (which would take it well beyond 70m: I disagree with your calculations), there's the issue of MTOW and payload range which needs to be addressed. I also wonder if it'll have enough cargo capacity to compete with the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 250):
It is at least a lot closer than the sweet spot of the 77X.


Assuming, of course, that the sweet spot doesn't change over time. Given that more and more airlines are operating their 777-300ERs with a 10-across economy configuration; and that more and more airlines are putting more than 350 seats in their 777-300ER, there is clearly a market for aircraft larger than the A350-1000. That's where the 777-9X fits in, and I believe it will be quite successful at it too.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 251):
This is what Boeing have done to some extent except they have taken the heavy approach with the more mature platform (777X) and the lite approach with the modern platform (787-10X). I suggest that it should be done the other way around, 787-11 and 777+.

Quite the contrary, I think that is precisely the right approach. The 777 is the larger and heavier frame and in terms of payload range, more capable. It makes perfect sense to me to use he larger frame as the basis for its "heavy approach" to combat the A350-1000 and beyond.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 251):
The argument about leveraging the existing investment in a platform applies equally to the 787 which will be around for far longer than the 777.

That's true, but then it goes back to the argument about cost. I'm of the view that the 777X, as comprehensive an update as it is planned to be, is still going to cost less thn stretching the 787 beyond the size of the -10. Other posters above have mentioned the challenges to do with fuselage bending, and the 787's narrower fuselage means that it is less stiff than the 777.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 251):
With the proposed cost, scope and complexity of the 777X, Boeing are going where no OEM has gone before.

As technology increases at an exponential rate, I do not believe it would be appropriate to look at the scope of the upgrade in a linear fashion. Yes, the scope of the 777X upgrade is greater than anything Boeing has attempted before, but due to advances in technology, more needs to be done in order to keep up and compete. That, to me, is perfectly logical.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-12-13 21:37:09 and read 6750 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 254):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 249):
How do you know it will be MTOW limited ?

Because Ferpe said in Reply 125:

No, Ferpe said that it does require other major changes than the 6-wheel gears.

Which is obvious as the article mentions even a number of other major changes (not close to the scope of the 77X but yes, some major changes). New engines, some strengthening and something to get somewhat increased wingarea should be fine and not a dealbreaker.

I don't believe that the stretch poses nearly the troubles you think. Too similar are others such tubes that did grow very looooong in the past. Just think where the A300 cross section started and where it ended up. I think the most extreme length/diameter ratio has a Boeing product: the 753.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-12-13 22:45:33 and read 6712 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 255):
I don't believe that the stretch poses nearly the troubles you think. Too similar are others such tubes that did grow very looooong in the past. Just think where the A300 cross section started and where it ended up. I think the most extreme length/diameter ratio has a Boeing product: the 753.

Your comment motivated me to compare length to diameter ratios for some examples of simple stretches.

............................................A342...........................A343
Length in feet.........................195..............................209 (+7%)
OEW(lbs).........................280,000.......................287,000 (+2.5%)
Length/Dia. Ratio......................10.5.............................11.3

Assuming B787-10 as a simple stretch of B789, here are my estimated numbers:

............................................B789...........................B787-10(6 wheel MLG)
Length in feet.........................206..............................224 (+9%)
OEW(lbs).........................265,000.......................278,000 (+5%)
Length/Dia. Ratio......................10.8.............................11.8

Some other length/dia ratios to ponder:
B77W 11.95
A346 13.35
A345 12.05
A359 11.25
A351 12.40

A346 is about 11% longer than A345, and weighs about 4% more. I wonder if B787-10 could be stretched(simple) one more time without adding too much empty weight.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-14 00:58:58 and read 6614 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 255):
No, Ferpe said that it does require other major changes than the 6-wheel gears.

Precisely. Those major changes don't come cheaply, and that money is better spent on the 777 as it's a platform that's already correctly sized to compete with the A350-1000 and above. Given that it is wider, its structure is going to be stiffer at any given length than the 787.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 255):
I think the most extreme length/diameter ratio has a Boeing product: the 753.

The 757-300 is the perfect example of what happens when you stretch an airframe too far.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: parapente
Posted 2012-12-14 01:32:38 and read 6578 times.

I guess Boeing will have to learn how to make just one first before blue skying on the distant future.....

Al Baker described his frustration about the latest problem and warned Boeing that it had to raise its game. "Unfortunately our third 787 has the same [generator control unit] problem that diverted a United 787," he said. "Fortunately it was on a delivery flight, but the aircraft is grounded and I am very disappointed with Boeing. They have to get their act together very fast because we will not accept any more defects with our aeroplanes because we have waited too long for them."

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-12-14 02:51:46 and read 6548 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 257):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 255): I think the most extreme length/diameter ratio has a Boeing product: the 753.
The 757-300 is the perfect example of what happens when you stretch an airframe too far.

What exactly "happended" to the 753 ?
You do realise that there are more A.netters out there who firmly believe in the resurrection of the 757 program than those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.

The 757 platform along with the 767 are a good demonstration that two platforms can happily share the same size category (200 seats) and that when they do, the smaller diameter aircraft (757) will be far more structurally efficient than the larger diameter aircraft (767).

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 256):
Assuming B787-10 as a simple stretch of B789, here are my estimated numbers:

............................................B789...........................B787-10(6 wheel MLG)
Length in feet.........................206..............................224 (+9%)
OEW(lbs).........................265,000.......................278,000 (+5%)
Length/Dia. Ratio......................10.8.............................11.8

Some other length/dia ratios to ponder:
B77W 11.95
A346 13.35
A345 12.05
A359 11.25
A351 12.40

Using LAXDESI's ratios, a 72m 787-11 would have a length/dia ratio of 12.38 - just under that of the 35J and far less than the 346.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 254):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 251):With the proposed cost, scope and complexity of the 777X, Boeing are going where no OEM has gone before.
As technology increases at an exponential rate, I do not believe it would be appropriate to look at the scope of the upgrade in a linear fashion. Yes, the scope of the 777X upgrade is greater than anything Boeing has attempted before, but due to advances in technology, more needs to be done in order to keep up and compete. That, to me, is perfectly logical.

If you could graph capital cost vs "competitiveness" for a derivative program you would find that it is not a linear relationship - its a convex curve where after a certain point, cost increases exponentially for small increments of competitiveness. Most derivatives would sit on the low part of the curve - but the 777X sits much higher because it takes much more effort & cost for a mature program to compete with a new program.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-12-14 23:49:34 and read 6234 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 259):
If you could graph capital cost vs "competitiveness" for a derivative program you would find that it is not a linear relationship - its a convex curve where after a certain point, cost increases exponentially for small increments of competitiveness.

I agree with that, but I think you'd find that the same is true for stretches: there comes a point when stretching an airframe beyond a certain length becomes a case of diminishing returns. Whether that length on the 787 is at 68m, I don't know, but there has to be a reason why Boeing aren't proposing a stretch greater than that on the 787. I'm not saying that it would be physically impossible to build a 787 longer than the currently proposed -10, but that it may require significant structural reinforcements to minimise the effects of fuselage bending, which in turn may reduce or even negate the weight advantage of a CFRP construction.

Cost and complexity are other things that I believe may increase exponentially in relation to the length of the stretch. If Boeing were to stretch the 787 to 72m that you propose, then it'll be 10m stretch over the 787-9 and a 15m stretch over the base 787-8. A 777-9X is a 2.7m stretch over the 777-300ER and a 12.7m stretch over the base 777-200. As I have no engineering expertise I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I've little doubt that a 10m stretch over the 787-9 is somewhat more complex and costly to engineer than a 2.7m stretch over the 777-300ER.

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-12-15 02:59:09 and read 6155 times.

Do we have numbers of 260 seats in a 753 vs say a 260 seat 787-8? The old 753 must still give some impressive numbers at that capacity on shorter routes?

Topic: RE: 787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-12-15 04:58:11 and read 6086 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 260):
Whether that length on the 787 is at 68m, I don't know, but there has to be a reason why Boeing aren't proposing a stretch greater than that on the 787.

Yet!  Smile.

They might propose a longer B787 in a month, 6 months, a year, two years? Nothing is fixed in stone yet, especially since the 6 wheel bogey will give them great opportunities. And if the A346 could grow to 75 meters, for sure the stiffer and thicker B787 can. Whether or not that is the most optimal length is a totally different discussion, but it sure is possible.

[Edited 2012-12-15 04:59:53]


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/