Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5689639/

Topic: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-02-13 13:03:05 and read 27477 times.

Randy Tinseth's today's briefing shows the 787-10X details for the first time.


(picture uploaded by http://twitter.com/jonostrower)

No word yet on EIS or first customers.

[Edited 2013-02-13 13:04:36]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-13 13:09:21 and read 27384 times.

The 787-9 is a 6m stretch of the 787-8 and it added four LD3 positions forward and 4 LD3 positions aft (going from 28 to 36). A 5.5m stretch should offer at least another 6 LD3 positions, not 4. I wonder if Boeing is leaving space aft for a larger Section 45 to support larger gear with a future HGW model?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Zkpilot
Posted 2013-02-13 13:20:10 and read 27215 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I wonder if Boeing is leaving space aft for a larger Section 45 to support larger gear with a future HGW model?

Or it has added belly fuel taking up space

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-02-13 13:23:33 and read 27181 times.

Or for weight, balance and structural integrity they are "blocking" the most forward and rear positions to decrease on moment? Simple stretches are not simple when it comes to added flex and moment.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-13 14:26:23 and read 26612 times.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2):
Or it has added belly fuel taking up space

I would expect the 787-10 to have the same fuel capacity as the 787-8 and 787-9 (~126,000 liters) for, like the 787-8, the 787-10 will be fuel-weight limited at MTOW so it won't be able to load that much fuel, anyway.

I would expect Boeing will extend Sections 43 and 46 for the 787-10 just as they did for the 787-9, so I would think they'd be able to get a similar number of LD3 positions from said stretch.

[Edited 2013-02-13 15:06:17]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: behramjee
Posted 2013-02-13 17:05:37 and read 25930 times.

Too few passengers for my liking versus B789...B781 should be increased to 340-350 at least !

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-02-13 17:16:40 and read 25831 times.

I heard that the 7810 might have a 777 style 6-wheel landing gear truck. Anybody know anything about that?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-13 17:26:14 and read 25740 times.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
Too few passengers for my liking versus B789...B781 should be increased to 340-350 at least !

The step change from the 787-8 to the 787-9 is 40 passengers, so another 40 from the 787-9 to 787-10 seems appropriate.



Quoting rj777 (Reply 6):
I heard that the 7810 might have a 777 style 6-wheel landing gear truck. Anybody know anything about that?

As the various weights are the same as the 787-9, a triple-axle bogie is unnecessary.

However, if Boeing increases those weights, then yes, a triple-axle bogie may be necessary or desirable.

[Edited 2013-02-13 18:16:50]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Dash9
Posted 2013-02-13 20:19:10 and read 24755 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
A 5.5m stretch should offer at least another 6 LD3 positions, not 4

Well, LD3 are side by side, they go in pairs. A new fuse section is added on both ends of the wingbox so I assume they could either fit in 2 extra LD3 per section (single pair, side by side), or 4 extra LD3 (two pairs). Both sections gives you either a total of 4 extra LD3, or 8. Can't have 6, that would mean a pair of half-LD3 in each section.

Thats the way I see it!

-Dash9

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-02-13 20:40:55 and read 24293 times.

Range for payload then. Hmm. History hasn't looked too kindly on such a plane except for 747 Classic vs 747SP.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 787-9 is a 6m stretch of the 787-8 and it added four LD3 positions forward and 4 LD3 positions aft (going from 28 to 36). A 5.5m stretch should offer at least another 6 LD3 positions, not 4. I wonder if Boeing is leaving space aft for a larger Section 45 to support larger gear with a future HGW model?

Perhaps the extra length is long enough for 1.8 LD3s forward & aft, left and right. What I'm trying to say is maybe it falls just short of the required length, and they are unwilling to shuffle the extension forward/aft due to balance issues.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Andrensn
Posted 2013-02-13 20:47:58 and read 24157 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The step change from the 787-8 to the 787-9 is 40 passengers, so another 40 from the 787-9 to 787-10 seems appropriate.

It will also give the 777-8x a better business case because there will be a bigger seat count difference

[Edited 2013-02-13 20:49:05]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: swallow
Posted 2013-02-13 23:25:00 and read 22003 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
the 787-10 will be fuel-weight limited at MTOW so it won't be able to load that much fuel, anyway.

My understanding is that all 787 variants are fuel-weight limited at MTOW, but the 789 can tank more fuel than the 788 (higher MTOW) and 7810 (lower MZFW). Correct?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-02-13 23:31:25 and read 21902 times.

The cargo capacity change with 1 additional row of 2 LD3s in the forward and back holds can be explained as follows:

- the forward fuselage is stretched 6 frames compared to the -9 or 12 frames compared to the -8. Frame spacing is 24''. Normally that would allow 2 additional rows of LD3, here apparently only 1 row of 60.4'' lenght LD3s. The most plausible reason would be that the air conditioning "snake pit" in front of the center wingbox needs to be expanded to cater for the additional pax capacity, this is very tight on the -8 and -9.

- the rear fuselage is stretched 3 frames compared to the -9 or 7 frames compared to the -8. As that is 72'' and a LD3 row takes 60.4'' it only allows one additional row to be loaded, even with the present landing gear being untouched.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-02-13 23:43:22 and read 21680 times.

Quoting swallow (Reply 11):
My understanding is that all 787 variants are fuel-weight limited at MTOW, but the 789 can tank more fuel than the 788 (higher MTOW) and 7810 (lower MZFW). Correct?

You are correct, all have about the same tank volume (126.000 l or 101t) and they all get fuel limited well north of 8000nm if you load them so you can start with the tanks full, ie they are all weight limited in their practical payload-range usage. The rest is a matter of MTOW, MZFW and DOW/OEW, where the -9 has the best range cards and the -10 the most MSP. The -8 is limited in both MZFW and MTOW, expect new weight variants once things settle down.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-02-14 00:42:31 and read 20875 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 13):
The -8 is limited in both MZFW and MTOW, expect new weight variants once things settle down.

The 787-8 should benefit from the weight savings made for the 787-9. We might see new weight variants after LN126.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: maxter
Posted 2013-02-14 01:08:11 and read 20486 times.

Mmmmmmm, call me cynical, but does this look like a hastily contrived smokescreen to you?

Maybe not, but then again, maybe yes...   

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: SeJoWa
Posted 2013-02-14 01:57:12 and read 19847 times.

Quoting maxter (Reply 15):
but does this look like a hastily contrived smokescreen to you?

The presentation itself may be hastily contrived, but not the underlying data.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Jack
Posted 2013-02-14 02:05:36 and read 19718 times.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 16):
Mmmmmmm, call me cynical, but does this look like a hastily contrived smokescreen to you?

Due to the 787-8 issues I assume you mean?

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 16):
The presentation itself may be hastily contrived

It is also a picture taken from an iphone of a presentation, not a copy of the presentation itself. That doesn't help the look of the information.

[Edited 2013-02-14 02:06:45]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 04:06:36 and read 18267 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Randy Tinseth's today's briefing shows the 787-10X details for the first time.

No real surprises there, it appears to be quite similar to the many rumours of the 787-10 before.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
Too few passengers for my liking versus B789...B781 should be increased to 340-350 at least !

I don't agree. I think Boeing has it just right by positioning the 787-10 in between the A350-900 and A350-1000 in capacity. It is also a shorter ranged (compared with the other members of the 787 family) aircraft aimed at providing maximum fuel efficiency as a medium hauler and is an ideal A330-300 replacement.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: ual777uk
Posted 2013-02-14 04:12:08 and read 18161 times.

Whilst this is all great and i looking forward to many variants of the 787 in the skies, would it not have been more appropriate to keep this under wraps (not go public) until they get the current issues resolved? just my   

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 04:26:39 and read 17890 times.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 19):
would it not have been more appropriate to keep this under wraps (not go public) until they get the current issues resolved?

It may be that this presentation was planned long before the 787 was grounded, so I don't think this was deliberate timing on Boeing's part. But even if it is, I think it's about time we had some positive news about the 787 family.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-02-14 05:38:40 and read 16750 times.

According to those details, here is a rough idea of the 787-10 compared to the the 8:

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 07:23:07 and read 15101 times.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 9):
Range for payload then. Hmm. History hasn't looked too kindly on such a plane except for 747 Classic vs 747SP.

Depends on the competition.

The 777-200 carried more people and cargo farther than the A330-300, but burned more fuel doing so. The market spoke and the A330-300 has outsold the 777-200 by a tremendous factor.

The 787-10 will carry more people and cargo then the A350-900 and should burn less fuel doing so. So for RFPs for medium-range missions (those currently dominated by the A330-300), I expect the 787-10 to be a very strong - and successful - competitor. (The A350-900 will be the vehicle of choice for long-haul missions.)

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-02-14 08:42:53 and read 13835 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
The 787-10 will carry more people and cargo then the A350-900 and should burn less fuel doing so. So for RFPs for medium-range missions (those currently dominated by the A330-300), I expect the 787-10 to be a very strong - and successful - competitor.

I agree. It will be interesting to see how Airbus responds. I think there is scope for a "simple stretch" A359 to A3510 length or thereabouts with A359 engines, wing, landing gear etc.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: columba
Posted 2013-02-14 10:14:26 and read 12361 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
or first customers.

From what I read we will likely hear from a customer around the third quarter of 2013  

[Edited 2013-02-14 10:15:28]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-02-14 10:39:05 and read 12342 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
The 777-200 carried more people and cargo farther than the A330-300, but burned more fuel doing so. The market spoke and the A330-300 has outsold the 777-200 by a tremendous factor.

The 787-10 will carry more people and cargo then the A350-900 and should burn less fuel doing so.

This is true. That said, the difference in size and weight between the 772 and A333 is very large compared to that between the 787-10 and A350-900, which are only about 6% apart in terms of MTOW.

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: SWALUV
Posted 2013-02-14 12:12:51 and read 10981 times.

This looks like very, very similar to the 767-400. Is the 787-10 going to replace those as well.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 12:50:03 and read 10658 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 25):
This is true. That said, the difference in size and weight between the 772 and A333 is very large compared to that between the 787-10 and A350-900, which are only about 6% apart in terms of MTOW.

At an OEM OEW level, pending "final numbers" for production frames, their looks to be around the same 8-12% spread between the 787-10 and A350-900 as there is between the A330-300 and 777-200. The A350-900 is still going to have the payload over range advantage, but it will be interesting if future variants of the 787-10 can close the gap to the A350-900 as the various MTOW boosts to the A330-300 have allowed it to perform more and more of the same missions as the 777-200ER / A340-300 (Leahey now says the 240t A333 can perform some 95% of the missions of the 77E). (And yes, I am sure the A350-900 will see improvements just as the 77E did).



Quoting SWALUV (Reply 26):
This looks like very, very similar to the 767-400. Is the 787-10 going to replace those as well.

The 787-8 is the direct replacement for the 767-400ER in Boeing's lineup.

[Edited 2013-02-14 13:01:54]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-02-14 13:23:10 and read 10236 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
like the 787-8, the 787-10 will be fuel-weight limited at MTOW so it won't be able to load that much fuel, anyway.

I have played around with a number of different payload /range options in PIANO-X and I cannot get a fuel load greater than 88t. Seems to me there is an opportunity to increase the MTOW in the future. It takes a MTOW of ~267t, max passenger load and a range of ~7800nm to use max fuel capacity.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: panam330
Posted 2013-02-14 13:41:37 and read 10115 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
The 787-8 is the direct replacement for the 767-400ER in Boeing's lineup.

The 'typical' 3-class seat count (according to wikipedia) on the 787-8 is 210. A.net says that the 764's typical 3-class count is 245, with the 763 at 218. The 787-8 more directly replaces the 763, and the 787-9 will replace the 764/77E more directly, at least in terms of typical 3-class pax count.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-02-14 14:11:13 and read 9904 times.

Quoting panam330 (Reply 29):
The 'typical' 3-class seat count (according to wikipedia) on the 787-8 is 210

The Boeing ACAP sheets for the 788 show 242 seats in a 3-class layout.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-02-14 14:20:55 and read 9932 times.

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 26):
This looks like very, very similar to the 767-400. Is the 787-10 going to replace those as well

What the 767-400 lacked, was range. So let's see . . .

767-300ER range: 6300 nm*
767-400ER range: 5500 nm*
787-10 range: 6500 - 7000 nm**

* per WIKI
** per John Ostrower tweet


The 787-10 easily outranges the 767-300ER quite comfortably, let alone a 767-400ER.

I think the 8000nm market is getting somewhat over served now. I see a lot of potential for a plane with 767-300ER range +, but with considerable more payload potential, and much much lower seat cost.

Not everybody needs 8000nm+ range, which is just too much plane for many many routes. I'm very confident that Boeing have a winner here!

The problem is not whether the market is there or not, it's more a matter of when Boeing can start deliveries at reasonable rate (they first have to clear a very considerable backlog, and get the 787-9 in service - not to mention the current small 787 issues and production ramp-up.

My 0.02 cents . . .

PW100

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: SCAT15F
Posted 2013-02-14 14:56:18 and read 9731 times.

I think the biggest problem with a HGW version of the 7810 is the engines. I can't see how there is much more room for thrust growth beyond the 76-78K range without some major modifications per the Trent XWB for the A3510...

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Lutfi
Posted 2013-02-14 17:51:15 and read 9343 times.

Agree with others who say that this looks like a suitable A330-300 replacement.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: panam330
Posted 2013-02-14 17:56:31 and read 9340 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 30):
The Boeing ACAP sheets for the 788 show 242 seats in a 3-class layout.

   Corrected I will stand, then. Thank you.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-02-14 19:08:03 and read 9173 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
The 777-200 carried more people and cargo farther than the A330-300, but burned more fuel doing so. The market spoke and the A330-300 has outsold the 777-200 by a tremendous factor.

Don't know how you can say "a tremendous factor". 777-200A + 777-200ER sold 515, while the A333 sold 618. The difference is more than made up by 77F, and there are a few 77L too.

I think the 787-10 is worth doing and will sell some, in the sense that freighters are worth building. Perhaps tech improvements will see its range extended and make it more competitive, as has happened with the A333.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 19:22:49 and read 9151 times.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 35):
Don't know how you can say "a tremendous factor". 777-200A + 777-200ER sold 515, while the A333 sold 618.

I was specifically referring to just the 777-200, not the 777-200ER. The sales ratio is 7:1 in favor of the A330-300 (618 to 88), which is tremendous in my book.

The HGW models of the A330-300 have definitely allowed it to win RFPs that were formally only the realm of the 777-200ER (or A340-300). As such, if Boeing is able to create an HGW model of the 787-10 down the road, one wonders if it start winning RFPs that are currently only the realm of the A350-900.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-02-14 20:02:29 and read 8989 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 36):
I was specifically referring to just the 777-200, not the 777-200ER. The sales ratio is 7:1 in favor of the A330-300 (618 to 88), which is tremendous in my book.

Ok, but in that case the 777 carried a lot more dead weight to fly a little bit further. In fact, the current A333 flies a full pax load further than the 772A ever did.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-02-14 21:03:29 and read 8835 times.

Hello folks,

I scrolled the thread and didn't find the link I just posted. It sheds some light on the current topic. Thoughts?


http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...87-10-unfazed-by-787-battery-woes/

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-02-15 00:48:55 and read 8505 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
At an OEM OEW level, pending "final numbers" for production frames, their looks to be around the same 8-12% spread between the 787-10 and A350-900 as there is between the A330-300 and 777-200.

Apologies Stitch.

This is all very nice and interesting.

However, the real point I was trying to make here is that the cost per seat difference between the 787-10 and A350-900 will almost certainly be trivially small, whereas the A330-300 had/has a very clear advantage

Ferpe's model in the Tech Ops threads shows the 787-10 with a fuel burn of 0.0393 kg/nm/m2 of cabin, and the A350-900 with 0.0397 kg/nm/m2 of cabin - a difference of 1% per useable area of cabin

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: godbless
Posted 2013-02-15 03:34:29 and read 8217 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 36):
I was specifically referring to just the 777-200, not the 777-200ER. The sales ratio is 7:1 in favor of the A330-300 (618 to 88), which is tremendous in my book.

This is no fair comparison though - the 333 really first kicked off to after it's MTOW was increased which happened a few years after EIC. So it would be 777-200A vs. "A333A".
I guess it's the easiest to conclude though that both A and B came up with pretty awesome birds here  

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: AA777223
Posted 2013-02-15 07:59:37 and read 7753 times.

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 26):
This looks like very, very similar to the 767-400. Is the 787-10 going to replace those as well.

How I see it is as follows, especially in light of new 777 and 787 info.

787-8 - Direct 764/A332 replacement

787-9 - bookends 77E/L/A333 on the low end of capacity and range, essentially upgrades all capabilities from these models

787-10 - bookends the 77E/A333 on the upper end of capacity, meets range and payload fairly evenly with less fuel burn. Smacks the A358 right on the forehead. Regional competitor, with less range and capability, but much better efficiency, due to being a double stretch, as opposed to a shrink. makes me think of the current relationship between the A333HGW and 77E. The A333 is a little less capable, but continuous upgrades have closed that gap much more than it used to, and leapfrogs the 77E in efficiency on missions within the envelope of their mutual capability.

777-8 - fills a similar capacity role was 787-10, but with much more range and payload, essentially the international aircraft to the regional 787-10. Upgauge 77E/A343/A333HGW replacement. Direct 77L/A345 replacement. Bookends current 77W on the low end of capacity, with upgraded range and payload with similar fuel burn. Goes head to head size and range with A359, but might be a little more capable, with slightly higher fuel burn.

777-9 - bookends 77W/A351 on the upper end of capcity. Delivers upgauge to current 77W missions in terms of capacity, payload and range with lower burn.

This is my armchair analysis, and how I see these aircraft competing in the market. It is not worth much, but I enjoy speculating on these things. Feel free to flame me.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-02-16 18:40:51 and read 6781 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 36):
I was specifically referring to just the 777-200, not the 777-200ER. The sales ratio is 7:1 in favor of the A330-300 (618 to 88), which is tremendous in my book.
Quoting godbless (Reply 40):
This is no fair comparison though - the 333 really first kicked off to after it's MTOW was increased which happened a few years after EIC. So it would be 777-200A vs. "A333A".

Fully agree.

I don't know why the 772A was ever offered, but that's another story I guess.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows 787-10X Details
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-02-16 19:19:39 and read 6633 times.

The 772 was offered for a few reasons:

Launch customer United wanted it
Japanese customers wanted it
It filled production slots and helped Boeing achieve ramp up by the time a 90k engine was going to be ready to certify on the wing.

The IGW would not be technologically ready in the same time frame, so Boeing wanted to lure customers with a package where they could invest in 772s and train crews and then take delivery of 77Es and 773s and incorporate them immediately into their fleets. This was to compete with the A330/A340 offering from Airbus that was to EIS earlier, and to make the MD11 less attractive because it was a one size fits all tri-jet that didn't fit a lot of missions.


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/