Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5725209/

Topic: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Atlflyer
Posted 2013-03-28 15:38:11 and read 45791 times.

Great article on detailed specs of the 777x.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...eing-777x-to-spark-mini-jumbo-war/

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-28 16:19:36 and read 45580 times.

Interesting article, thanks for posting the link. I hadn't realized that the 8X was planned for EIS two years after the 9X.

With the statements that Boeing realizes that 10-abreast isn't the most comfortable for the 777 family, and planning on thinner interior walls to make that configuration more feasible, I have to wonder what kind of penalty the plane would take to widen the fuselage a few inches. Is it all that much?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: airfrnt
Posted 2013-03-28 17:30:14 and read 45219 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
With the statements that Boeing realizes that 10-abreast isn't the most comfortable for the 777 family, and planning on thinner interior walls to make that configuration more feasible, I have to wonder what kind of penalty the plane would take to widen the fuselage a few inches. Is it all that much?

The engineering cost would be prohibitive.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-28 17:40:17 and read 45145 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
With the statements that Boeing realizes that 10-abreast isn't the most comfortable for the 777 family, and planning on thinner interior walls to make that configuration more feasible, I have to wonder what kind of penalty the plane would take to widen the fuselage a few inches. Is it all that much?

A change in the exterior dimensioning of the fuselage would be a massive undertaking. New tooling, new assembly processes, possibly new certification.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: airfrnt
Posted 2013-03-28 17:47:06 and read 45090 times.

There are a lot of good points here - The example of Korea Air is especially important. I fly the LAX-ICN flight frequently. I've never seen business class sold out (on average, I would guess that on average 1/3d of the four times I have flown it since march have been open). This is on a carrier that already is starting with the lowest seat density of any of the 380 providers. That means that Airbus can try and get back advantage by going bigger, but there is little evidence that the carriers can deal with that amount of capacity.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: queb
Posted 2013-03-28 18:07:36 and read 44958 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
Boeing realizes that 10-abreast isn't the most comfortable for the 777 family

Since 2011, Airlines & Boeing are not agree with you.

http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/17/03/84/59/777_110.jpg

beware of Aspire Aviation numbers, there's a lot of imagination and speculation. Does anyone really believe that the engine will not exceed 100,000 pounds of thrust? Class F aircraft (like A380) ? folding wingtips (LOL!) etc...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-03-28 18:17:07 and read 44838 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 5):
Since 2011, Airlines & Boeing are not agree with you.

That's not how I read the linked article:

Quote:
We’re looking for a more comfortable 10-abreast,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) vice president (VP) in marketing Randy Tinseth said on the sidelines of the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) conference in March.

Why would Boeing look for a more comfortable 10-abreast, if it was the most comfortable seating arrangement already?

[Edited 2013-03-28 18:21:21]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2013-03-28 18:19:03 and read 44818 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 5):

He's talking about passenger comfort.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-03-28 18:26:29 and read 44757 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 5):
beware of Aspire Aviation numbers, there's a lot of imagination and speculation. Does anyone really believe that the engine will not exceed 100,000 pounds of thrust? Class F aircraft (like A380) ? folding wingtips (LOL!) etc...

Sure it will be capable of more than 100,000lbs of thrust just like the GE-90-115 is capable of more than 115,000lbs of thrust, but it is indeed targeted to have only 100,000lbs of thrust available for normal operations.

Class F, again, that's not made up, that's fact. Classes are not just made up on a whim. If your wingspan is within that range, you are in that class, unless you do what Boeing is doing and artificially shorten it while on the ground.

I would be more shocked to hear boring doesn't use folding wingtip than to see them actually do it.

As for the article, it was the most objective article I have read in a while. It had every detail released so far and some new things that hadn't been, as far as I'm aware, and combined it into one big article. Certainly painted a clearer picture in my head.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: queb
Posted 2013-03-28 18:29:49 and read 44734 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 7):
He's talking about passenger comfort.

I'm talking about money.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-03-28 18:31:56 and read 44728 times.

Quoting Atlflyer (Thread starter):
Great article on detailed specs of the 777x.

Unfortunately, it is so poorly written, I'm having a hard time getting through it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: queb
Posted 2013-03-28 18:43:10 and read 44637 times.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
Class F

A class F aircraft means more airport taxes, much less accessible airport. Boeing can do the 777X without exceeding 65 meters wingspan.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-03-28 18:57:03 and read 44563 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 9):

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 7):
He's talking about passenger comfort.

I'm talking about money.

10 wide Econ class is the reality going forward. Boeing is looking into carving out the sidewalls to allow for slightly wider seats. North Americans and Euros are having more and more trouble fitting into the narrow seats in Economy  

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-03-28 19:29:16 and read 44372 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
A change in the exterior dimensioning of the fuselage would be a massive undertaking. New tooling, new assembly processes, possibly new certification.

It's funny, the difference in complexity between stretching a plane and widening it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-03-28 19:35:14 and read 44328 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
Why would Boeing look for a more comfortable 10-abreast, if it was the most comfortable seating arrangement already?
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 7):
He's talking about passenger comfort.
Quoting queb (Reply 9):
I'm talking about money.

Boeing is at least looking at pax comfort, the airlines have gone to 10 abreast as the figures have shown and pax have had to just grin and bear it.

I expect the extra width will be enough to make 10 abreast with wider seats but not enough to go 11 or 12 abreast.
The trade off if the walls are thinner will be an increase in interior nose, something which some folks say is already louder than the competition.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-03-28 19:37:00 and read 44304 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
The trade off if the walls are thinner will be an increase in interior nose, something which some folks say is already louder than the competition.

Improved engine technology and a lower power requirement should address that issue to some extent.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-03-28 20:10:37 and read 44128 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 11):
A class F aircraft means more airport taxes, much less accessible airport. Boeing can do the 777X without exceeding 65 meters wingspan.

Boeing seems to disagree with you. Everything we've seen about the 777X in the last 4-6 months has focused on the 71+ m wingspan with the "simple" (no moving parts on the tip) folding tips.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-03-28 20:13:21 and read 44102 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
and pax have had to just grin and bear it.

Seems they are willing to do that in exchange for fare levels that have not kept pace with rate of inflation. Has a $600 fare 20 years ago risen to $1000 in 2013, I don't think so.
I remember paying about $2000 from YYZ-AKL in the 1990's . It is still around $2000.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: queb
Posted 2013-03-28 20:55:52 and read 43884 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 16):
Boeing seems to disagree with you. Everything we've seen about the 777X in the last 4-6 months has focused on the 71+ m wingspan with the "simple" (no moving parts on the tip) folding tips.

If the 777X wingspan is more than 65 meters, airport restrictions will be the same than A380, not very economical for a 405 passengers aircraft (according to Boeing standards) that will probably have around 380-385 seats in the real life.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: PM
Posted 2013-03-28 21:06:00 and read 43775 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 10):

Unfortunately, it is so poorly written, I'm having a hard time getting through it.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-03-28 21:14:47 and read 43621 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 19):
Quoting mham001 (Reply 10):Unfortunately, it is so poorly written, I'm having a hard time getting through it.Glad to hear I'm not the only one.

It's like they never heard of a period. It was a very cumbersome read, but it had some decent info. Not sure if I see it all the same as they do but it was generally informative. Just cumbersome.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-28 21:14:55 and read 43629 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 18):
If the 777X wingspan is more than 65 meters, airport restrictions will be the same than A380, not very economical for a 405 passengers aircraft (according to Boeing standards) that will probably have around 380-385 seats in the real life.


That is the point of the folding wingtips. On the runway the B777X becomes category F with a 71.1m wingspan. On the taxiways and at the gates, it becomes a category E aircraft due to the folding wingtips making the wingspan 64.8m (same as the B777-300ER/200LR. Hence the category E conditions will apply to the B777X everywhere but the runway.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-03-28 21:45:56 and read 43237 times.

I enjoyed the specific details (despite the 777X hate in the reader comments).

However, the writing was tough to endure. Some of the sentences spanned 6 lines! Six Lines. The opening sentence contained 75 words! 75 words! Many more if you count hyphenated words as two words!

I cannot imagine many of my bilingual 'engineering-type' friends, who speak English as their second language, being able to thoroughly comprehend that article at all.

Positioning of the 778 as a direct head to head competitor to the A351 is interesting, especially as it arrives some 4 years later.

Peter

[Edited 2013-03-28 22:24:34]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-03-28 22:22:57 and read 42811 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 18):
If the 777X wingspan is more than 65 meters, airport restrictions will be the same than A380, not very economical for a 405 passengers aircraft (according to Boeing standards) that will probably have around 380-385 seats in the real life.

Please completely ignore the ICAO wingspan classing. All the widebodies I looked into have their own unique guidlines for airport compatiblity.

The A380 for example is largely treated the same as a 747 with special restrictions on centerline spacing for its wingspan. If you don't have enough spacing you can still operate it with special ground handling procedures Oh and they did mandate Code F firefighting equipment. You DO NOT need Code F runway widths. You DO NOT need Code F taxiway widths.

More importantly there is things the general guidelines doesn't handle. A airport might be completely incompatible with a 777 but allows A346.. Or the reverse. The 777 has very high pavement loading, and the A346 needs huge radius turns.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: migair54
Posted 2013-03-28 23:56:47 and read 41737 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
That is the point of the folding wingtips. On the runway the B777X becomes category F with a 71.1m wingspan. On the taxiways and at the gates, it becomes a category E aircraft due to the folding wingtips making the wingspan 64.8m (same as the B777-300ER/200LR. Hence the category E conditions will apply to the B777X everywhere but the runway.

Now the question is: Will the authorities accept that?? or, will they say that the plane is cat F and that´s it??? is a plane allowed to be in two different categories??

i see here a few issues, specially the certification of this folding wings, on a fighter is not an issue, but on a comercial plane... that´s a much more tricky issue.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 13):
It's funny, the difference in complexity between stretching a plane and widening it.


Making it wider is a completely new design, and not only the plane, but also the tools and the process to do, as seen with the A350 and the A350XWB, they have to do a whole new plane and process...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: worldrider
Posted 2013-03-29 00:06:32 and read 42797 times.

from what i read this new 777 is going to be a "787 shape alike" with better engines. the real improvement over the older version seems to be the engines. reminds me what airbus offered with the first A350 version, an engine change and new wings. why not boeing, its way cheaper than a whole new design.
im defenitely not going to hold my breath on this new 777.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-03-29 00:33:48 and read 42492 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 5):
Since 2011, Airlines & Boeing are not agree with you.

I think the "market" you are referring to is skewed by large operators like EK, it is just look at the number of airframes delivered in that configuration, not the number of airlines that have made that choice.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-29 00:44:40 and read 42893 times.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 24):
Now the question is: Will the authorities accept that?? or, will they say that the plane is cat F and that´s it??? is a plane allowed to be in two different categories??

i see here a few issues, specially the certification of this folding wings, on a fighter is not an issue, but on a comercial plane... that´s a much more tricky issue.

There's no valid reason for the authorities to not accept it, as it has been in use for decades. However it is a first for a commercial aircraft I think.
Actually, it is the opposite because with fighter jets, the folded wings include movable parts like the ailerons etc and fighter jet wings go through far more strenuous activity than commercial aircraft will go through. The folded part of the wing on the B777X is essentially the raked wingtips with no moving parts involved.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 25):
im defenitely not going to hold my breath on this new 777.

Fortunately the CEOs of LH, BA, EK, QR, PR and a few others disagree with you and can't wait for it's launch.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-29 01:15:47 and read 42467 times.

The 9 will most certainly make life even harder for the VLAs, with the global economy changing cycles very fast and often sitting with VLAs when the market turns down will hurt a lot more than if sitting with 777-9s, they will have very good economy between 350 and 390 seats. I think B has another winner here as the 77W has been now for many years. It is needed too as the 748i was a dud.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: queb
Posted 2013-03-29 06:10:07 and read 38592 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
That is the point of the folding wingtips. On the runway the B777X becomes category F with a 71.1m wingspan. On the taxiways and at the gates, it becomes a category E aircraft due to the folding wingtips making the wingspan 64.8m (same as the B777-300ER/200LR. Hence the category E conditions will apply to the B777X everywhere but the runway.

What happens if the folding wingtips system is not working? The aircraft need to be certified to be able to take off with one engine inoperative and folded wing, or both etc.. The FAA will not accept it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-29 06:14:11 and read 38592 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 29):
What happens if the folding wingtips system is not working?

The design appears to be "fail safe" in that the default failure state of the wing is with wingtips down and locked. So if there is a failure, it would prevent the wingtips from being raised post-landing. At which point you just fix them.



Quoting queb (Reply 29):
The aircraft need to be certified to be able to take off with one engine inoperative and folded wing, or both etc.. The FAA will not accept it.

Once in flight, the wing-tips won't be able to be raised, so it's a moot point.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-03-29 06:23:14 and read 38496 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 27):
Quoting worldrider (Reply 25):
im defenitely not going to hold my breath on this new 777.

Fortunately the CEOs of LH, BA, EK, QR, PR and a few others disagree with you and can't wait for it's launch.

As far as the 777-9 is concerned, yes. EK and BA have all but ordered it, and other airlines that need proper 744 replacements or have a substantial 77W fleet will certainly take a good hard look, like EY and even CX (although I can't see them ordering as many 779's as they have 77W's, due to the A35J). Can't see LH ordering the 777X, A350's are a certain bet there.

But I still can't see a business case for the 777-8. The A350-1000 can do everything the 777-8 can but is lighter and less expensive. The article suggests commonality with the 777-9 as an advantage but how about the A350-1000's commonality with the -900? Launching the 777-8 makes as much sense as relaunching the A340-600 to combat the 77W's success IMO  I think the proposed EIS of 2021 is just an insurance to cancel the -8 without too much cost, when Boeing realises it has been too optimistic with the chances of success for the -8.

There is something in the article I don't really understand: "the roll-out of the 777-9X is scheduled to take place in the fourth quarter of 2017, followed by a 9-month flight test programme which ends in late third-quarter 2018 and an entry into service (EIS) in mid-2019".
Why EIS mid-2019 if the flight testing is finished Q3 2018???

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: queb
Posted 2013-03-29 06:24:53 and read 38309 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
Once in flight, the wing-tips won't be able to be raised, so it's a moot point.

"fail safe" like the lithium batteries ?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-03-29 06:25:04 and read 38404 times.

Ghad, that OP article grabs every rumor there is and combines them without a real order. My 4th grade essay teacher would have been appalled!

Here is what we know:
1. Interior stretch. That isn't too tough. While new vendors are required, that has been under discussion for 5 years now! With new aluminum (some form of GLARE?) this is quite possible.
2. Lighter wing. While the 777 is a great plane, its wing has been known to be overweight from day #1 and now there are new aluminum.
3. More fuel efficient engines, this means less fuel weight
4. More wingspan which means more wing area, which further helps fuel efficiency and probably a wing reprofile and wing technology has progressed tremendously in the last decade. The fastest progress I'm aware of since that burst in 1936-1945. Or since Fokker stole Junkers 'thick wing' idea.  

All of the above means less engine is required. I see the

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
With the statements that Boeing realizes that 10-abreast isn't the most comfortable for the 777 family, and planning on thinner interior walls to make that configuration more feasible, I have to wonder what kind of penalty the plane would take to widen the fuselage a few inches. Is it all that much?

Its a few hundred million in engineering costs plus some more for certification. This will help widen the isles which improves 'perceived room.'

Quoting airfrnt (Reply 2):
The engineering cost would be prohibitive.

Why? I'm in the industry and it doesn't seem that excessive. The FAA has a plan for certification of such changes. Now the certification guidelines were intended for freighter conversions, but there is no reason Boeing couldn't adapt the plane. This is a 777NG. The 737NG received a new wing, new body length, and many other changes. The 777 isn't that much ore.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 24):
is a plane allowed to be in two different categories??

It is two different categories as the wingspan changes. Besides:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 23):
All the widebodies I looked into have their own unique guidlines for airport compatiblity.

   It will just be new proceedures.

Quoting queb (Reply 29):
What happens if the folding wingtips system is not working?

There will have to be a manual way to unfold the wingtip and lock it in place. Boeing has a division that does Navy planes, they know the tricks.




Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-29 06:44:52 and read 38029 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 32):
"fail safe" like the lithium batteries ?

If we're going to drag this up in every thread, I'll have to start finding issues with other planes so we can well and properly pollute the thread and drive it into the ground.

But considering neither hull was lost, yes, the design appears to have indeed safely failed.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Highflier92660
Posted 2013-03-29 06:49:01 and read 37939 times.

If the Boeing 777x is going with a Boeing 787-like wing will the cruise Mach be bumped up from .84 to .85? I've read a lot of range figures but haven't seen a cruise Mach.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-03-29 06:52:44 and read 37813 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 29):
What happens if the folding wingtips system is not working? The aircraft need to be certified to be able to take off with one engine inoperative and folded wing, or both etc.. The FAA will not accept it.

Its been noted that they would certify the 777X wings in the folded and unfolded position for flight, therefore in the event the wingtips fail to unfold or unfold in flight, it can continue flying. For the failure inflight it would require some aileron and spoiler deflection to compensate for the lift imbalance.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: AngMoh
Posted 2013-03-29 07:04:50 and read 37541 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 31):
There is something in the article I don't really understand: "the roll-out of the 777-9X is scheduled to take place in the fourth quarter of 2017, followed by a 9-month flight test programme which ends in late third-quarter 2018 and an entry into service (EIS) in mid-2019".
Why EIS mid-2019 if the flight testing is finished Q3 2018???
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):
Why? I'm in the industry and it doesn't seem that excessive. The FAA has a plan for certification of such changes. Now the certification guidelines were intended for freighter conversions, but there is no reason Boeing couldn't adapt the plane. This is a 777NG. The 737NG received a new wing, new body length, and many other changes. The 777 isn't that much ore.

I think 2019 is a no-go for EIS. There are just too many changes. The 777X has the same problem as the A350 MK1: a lot of changes but a few critical areas missed out to be a real winner. For me there are just too many changes to call it an upgrade:
* New engines: this a no-brainer
* New wing: expensive but might be needed
* Folding wingtips: sorry but here we go in overboard. To say that this is a simple only works on powerpoint. Maybe engineering it is simple but there is certification, convincing airlines that this is not going to cause problems, convincing airports it is a good idea and in general creating major changes to operational procedures.
* Thinner wall: maybe ok if it was not for the next 2 points
* New alloys for hull: new alloys = new certification
* Larger windows: larger windows = new hull design and new certification
* and probably to top it off a completely new electrical system (not announced, but considering all other technology transferred from the 787 highly likely)
To me it is just a brand new plane. Only reason to call it a 777 is to grandfather as many certification requirements as possible. And we all know what happened last time Boeing announced they would develop a brand new plane is 4 years....

Another reason why I think there are too many changes: the same resources are required to develop the 737 MAX in about the same timeframe. If if there is a crunch, I would definitely give the 737 priority.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: flyinghippo
Posted 2013-03-29 07:10:07 and read 37362 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 17):
Seems they are willing to do that in exchange for fare levels that have not kept pace with rate of inflation. Has a $600 fare 20 years ago risen to $1000 in 2013, I don't think so.
I remember paying about $2000 from YYZ-AKL in the 1990's . It is still around $2000.

That is partially due to the increase in efficiency in modern airplanes. Newer planes are able to move the same (or more) amount of passengers/cargo (revenue) with less resources (Fuel, flight crew)

Quoting queb (Reply 29):
What happens if the folding wingtips system is not working? The aircraft need to be certified to be able to take off with one engine inoperative and folded wing, or both etc.. The FAA will not accept it.

If I read it correctly, the 77X will be designed to fly with even if one of the folding wing tips breaks off during flight with minimal effort. Didn't a REVENUE 757 fly with one of the wing tips missing due to maintenance or something?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: flyinghippo
Posted 2013-03-29 07:17:06 and read 37204 times.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 37):
Larger windows: larger windows = new hull design and new certification

This is a low priority for the 77X, may or may not happen. My bet is it will not happen, same goes for lower attitude.

If 77X adopts the 787 cockpit, what kind of certification change will be needed? And would that ruin the cross commonality with the current 777 pilots?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-03-29 07:25:56 and read 36993 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 29):
What happens if the folding wingtips system is not working? The aircraft need to be certified to be able to take off with one engine inoperative and folded wing, or both etc..

The airplane will be so certified. The folding wingtip is a very small portion of the wing area. Having one or both tips folded (or even missing) will have an impact on fuel burn, but won't affect the aircraft's ability to take off or cruise.

You all are overthinking this.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2013-03-29 07:27:43 and read 37006 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 27):

Fortunately the CEOs of LH, BA, EK, QR, PR and a few others disagree with you and can't wait for it's launch.

Glad that for once, PR is among the first in selecting a new design for its use. Hopefully, it will serve them well in the years ahead.....

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/im...tion/Miscellaneous/777X_Boeing.jpg

Sometimes, being broke leads one to the right choice at the right time.   

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-03-29 07:47:40 and read 36566 times.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 37):
* New alloys for hull: new alloys = new certification
* Larger windows: larger windows = new hull design and new certification

The original 777 design already featured an Al-Li fuselage. It was consequently dropped, but it shouldn't cause much complications if Boeing decided to use it for the 777X. And bigger windows will be just be an added bonus as a result.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 39):
If 77X adopts the 787 cockpit, what kind of certification change will be needed? And would that ruin the cross commonality with the current 777 pilots?

IIRC, the 767-400 was also modified to have a 777 style cockpit. Not sure if pmCO and DL have separate pilot pools for the 767-400.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 41):

I'm glad the typical 777 screwdriver tailcone is still there! With the vertical stabilizer of the 787 it really looks cool  

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-03-29 08:07:25 and read 36050 times.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 39):
If 77X adopts the 787 cockpit, what kind of certification change will be needed? And would that ruin the cross commonality with the current 777 pilots?

Very minimal, and no. The 777 and 787 already share a common type rating.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2013-03-29 09:07:39 and read 34785 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 42):
I'm glad the typical 777 screwdriver tailcone is still there!

As they say..."If it ain't broke, why fix it"? Maybe Boeing doesn't see anything in the tail that would "screw" them in the end   .

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 42):
With the vertical stabilizer of the 787 it really looks cool

Yeah...it would've been disproportional if they'd adopted the original shark fin too    .

[Edited 2013-03-29 09:11:26]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-03-29 09:33:17 and read 34257 times.

Sometimes Daniel Tsang does really nice write-ups, this is not one of those me thinks. On the positive side he has gathered a lot of the latest facts (=stuff said officially by Boeing or GE) and rumors (from other journalists mostly) and mixed that with his own sources (not to much this time me thinks) and conclusions.

In the latter there is one that I don't understand at all, the 8100nm range for the 777-9X and -8X. The previous credible rumors came after Boeings latest customer group meeting in Seattle a couple of months ago and said they were 8500nm frames, this is also what my model says with the data at hand. How can a 777-9X which gets:

- 6 meter larger span (reduces the induced drag with 18%)

- has a larger wing area and lower MTOW (means it can start it's cruise at a higher FL, badly needed )

- has engines which consumes 10% less fuel

only have 170 nm more range then a 777-300ER has (spec range of 7930nm).

Yes the -9X takes 4t more pax, is a bit longer and has more wingarea. Those increased areas increases the parasitic drag with 7% (from 17.9 klbf to 16.8 at FL 370) but the induced drag decreases with double that (from 15.4 to 12.3 klbf) due to the increase in span (all values at mid cruise weight 284t).

A figure of 8100nm spec range simply does not make sense especially as the driving customer (EK) is asking for 8500nm+. So I am surprised how Daniel can come to this figure given the above. All indications is that the -9X will lay around 8500nm nominal (and then B has a bit of margin in the pocket) and perhaps loose some of that in the end (with the inevitable weight creep) and that the -8X will beat that a little.

[Edited 2013-03-29 09:38:31]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-03-29 10:02:57 and read 33653 times.

Quote:

“On the 777X, things are accelerating. The configuration is looking good. The big question is affordability and the business case, making it affordable for us to build and the airlines to buy,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) vice president (VP) of marketing Randy Tinseth said at the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) conference in mid-March.

I think this will be a key issue due to the fact that the 787 has sucked up so many resources and is so late in paying them back, and that the 777Xs will have the A350s keeping them honest on price.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-03-29 10:55:01 and read 32670 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
I hadn't realized that the 8X was planned for EIS two years after the 9X.

Neither did I, but it seems quite reasonable given that it is likely the 777-9X will be the more popular (and thus higher priority) aircraft.

Quoting queb (Reply 11):
Boeing can do the 777X without exceeding 65 meters wingspan.

That defeats the purpose, as the efficiency gains, if any, won't be as much as they can get with a larger wingspan. Others have already talked about the larger wingspan (and the folding wingtip being the solution to airport handling issues that comes with an increased wingspan) so I won't elaborate further.

Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
The trade off if the walls are thinner will be an increase in interior nose, something which some folks say is already louder than the competition.

Not necessarily. As I understand it, noise insulation is not necessarily correlated to the thickness of the insulation but rather the material used. Then there's the high probability that the GE9X will be somewhat quieter than the GE90. Nevertheless, I believe that the noise issue on 777s have been blown out of proportion.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 37):
For me there are just too many changes to call it an upgrade:
* New engines: this a no-brainer
* New wing: expensive but might be needed
* Folding wingtips: sorry but here we go in overboard. To say that this is a simple only works on powerpoint. Maybe engineering it is simple but there is certification, convincing airlines that this is not going to cause problems, convincing airports it is a good idea and in general creating major changes to operational procedures.
* Thinner wall: maybe ok if it was not for the next 2 points
* New alloys for hull: new alloys = new certification
* Larger windows: larger windows = new hull design and new certification
* and probably to top it off a completely new electrical system (not announced, but considering all other technology transferred from the 787 highly likely)

I believe you have overstated the extent of the update.

New engines, new wings and thinner walls are almost dead set certainties, and I believe folding wingtips would be highly likely. I don't believe it is "going overboard" as you put it, as a system had already been designed for the original 777. The folding wingtips for the 777X will be less complex than the one designed for the original 777, as the 777X folding wingtips will not include any control surfaces.

New alloys for fuselage construction have been rumoured, but I do not believe it is confirmed, and larger windows is highly unlikely.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-03-29 11:24:36 and read 32105 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 13):

It's funny, the difference in complexity between stretching a plane and widening it.

Not really; to stretch it only involves adding more identical sections; widening it involves completely redesigning the sections, and building new tooling for them.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-03-29 13:44:46 and read 30079 times.



Quoting queb (Reply 32):
"fail safe" like the lithium batteries ?

Now you're just being argumentative.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 37):
And we all know what happened last time Boeing announced they would develop a brand new plane is 4 years....


Let me check my math. Mid 2019 - Mid 2013 = 6 years. I don't get 4 years. Does anyone else get 4 years?



[Edited 2013-03-29 13:53:24]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-29 13:55:06 and read 29912 times.

So where will the 777X be built?

[Edited 2013-03-29 13:55:34]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: woodsboy
Posted 2013-03-29 14:50:08 and read 29091 times.

As first class gets more and more lavish and luxurious, Y gets more cramped with more seats, less pitch. Its a fact that US domestic first class seats are filled with mileage upgrades and mileage tickets, how about F class globally? Do airlines really make so much off of selling F seats that it justifies the ever expanding space that one F class passenger gets and the ever shrinking space that Y class gets? I've always thought that the typical domestic F class seats on US carriers would be perfectly comfortable for any length trip, and I guess they use to be since F class around the world use to be more like US domestic F class is now, with better food of course. Last year I flew on Air New Zealand from LAX-AKL and return in F class on a mileage ticket. It was, of course lovely and the service was superb but there was so much wasted space made up of the structure of the seats and unecessary space on all sides of me, it seemed like incredible overkill. I wonder if the trend of ultra-lavish-premium F class will ever give way to a more comfortable Y class, especially now that modern planes can fly such long routes.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-29 15:45:54 and read 28260 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 31):
But I still can't see a business case for the 777-8. The A350-1000 can do everything the 777-8 can but is lighter and less expensive. The article suggests commonality with the 777-9 as an advantage but how about the A350-1000's commonality with the -900?

Could you please direct me to anywhere which shows the price for the A350-1000 and B777-8X? Also whilst the B777-8X is expected to be heavier (not by much), its also has > 15,000lb higher MTOW. Still not sure why aspire aviation quotes the B777-x as 8100nm, quite a few calculations including Ferpe's have shown the expected range to be 8400-8500nm.

From what I understand, the A350-800 & 900 have more commonality than the 1000, especially after Airbus made more modifications to improve the range to 8400nm.

However, not much business case is held for the 8X anyway, the 9X will certainly be the star of the show that's for sure.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-29 16:07:21 and read 28113 times.

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 51):
As first class gets more and more lavish and luxurious, Y gets more cramped with more seats, less pitch. Its a fact that US domestic first class seats are filled with mileage upgrades and mileage tickets, how about F class globally? Do airlines really make so much off of selling F seats that it justifies the ever expanding space that one F class passenger gets and the ever shrinking space that Y class gets? I've always thought that the typical domestic F class seats on US carriers would be perfectly comfortable for any length trip, and I guess they use to be since F class around the world use to be more like US domestic F class is now, with better food of course. Last year I flew on Air New Zealand from LAX-AKL and return in F class on a mileage ticket. It was, of course lovely and the service was superb but there was so much wasted space made up of the structure of the seats and unecessary space on all sides of me, it seemed like incredible overkill. I wonder if the trend of ultra-lavish-premium F class will ever give way to a more comfortable Y class, especially now that modern planes can fly such long routes.

Interestingly, F is not the major money maker. Business class is generally what tends to bring in majority of the revenue. The yield for first class per RPK is typically 7-8 times more than that of economy class whilst business class is roughly 5 times that of economy class.
Though Biz class cabins almost always break even and have considerably higher load factors (whilst having a lower break even load factor than First class) than first. First on most routes are generally loss making and the current trend inidcates first class is declining whilst enhanced business is starting to offer improved services and luxury.

Economy class is definitely going to get more cramped unfortunately, way too many reports show price is the primary driver for purchase of economy tickets. With fares going down over time, and costs going up...economy would have to fit as many seats as possible to ensure revenue at least meets cost. For a better economy class product, premium economy is the way forward. More and more airlines are offering premium economy for passengers who want a bit more space and comfort with an economy price tag.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-29 16:24:12 and read 28042 times.

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 51):
As first class gets more and more lavish and luxurious, Y gets more cramped with more seats, less pitch. Its a fact that US domestic first class seats are filled with mileage upgrades and mileage tickets, how about F class globally? Do airlines really make so much off of selling F seats that it justifies the ever expanding space that one F class passenger gets and the ever shrinking space that Y class gets? I've always thought that the typical domestic F class seats on US carriers would be perfectly comfortable for any length trip, and I guess they use to be since F class around the world use to be more like US domestic F class is now, with better food of course. Last year I flew on Air New Zealand from LAX-AKL and return in F class on a mileage ticket. It was, of course lovely and the service was superb but there was so much wasted space made up of the structure of the seats and unecessary space on all sides of me, it seemed like incredible overkill. I wonder if the trend of ultra-lavish-premium F class will ever give way to a more comfortable Y class, especially now that modern planes can fly such long routes.



I agree. In my opinion, aiirlines have gone too far in making their F and J class products too good. Why are flat bed seats now almost standard in longhaul J class when 30 years ago they weren't even standard in F class? Airlines would likely be more profitable today if they still offered the same F and Y class service as in the 1970s, or at least with the type of 3-class service common in the 1980s with reclining F class sleeper seats and a J class product similar to many premium economy products today. That would allow them to fit more seats in the premium classes and permit more spacious Y class seating as in the days when 34-nch pitch was standard in Y class.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: LH506
Posted 2013-03-29 16:27:16 and read 28041 times.

Could A answer the B777-9X with the 350-1100? How would this plane compare to the 9X?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-29 16:37:42 and read 28033 times.

Quoting LH506 (Reply 55):
Could A answer the B777-9X with the 350-1100? How would this plane compare to the 9X?

A has said there will be no further stretch of 350, besides any further stretch will require very significant modifications including new engines as the trent xwb has been pushed to its limits whilst still being efficient.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: by738
Posted 2013-03-29 16:38:15 and read 28020 times.

Bigger plane, less exits .....mmmm.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: LH506
Posted 2013-03-29 16:55:46 and read 27950 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 56):

But this would leave A again without any answer to B. They would leave B the low end 788 and the high end of the big twins 779X. Not very smart, if you ask me.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-03-29 16:57:30 and read 27955 times.

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 51):
I wonder if the trend of ultra-lavish-premium F class will ever give way to a more comfortable Y class, especially now that modern planes can fly such long routes.

No.

J class travelers (you were in J; there is no F on Air New Zealand) are mostly driven by luxury, so products get more luxurious. Y class travelers are overwhelmingly driven by price, so products get cheaper (with all that implies).

You'll notice that where there is true premium economy there is a very small amount of it. Only a few people who can't afford J are interested in anything other than price.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-03-29 17:07:50 and read 27883 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 45):
A figure of 8100nm spec range simply does not make sense especially as the driving customer (EK) is asking for 8500nm+. So I am surprised how Daniel can come to this figure given the above. All indications is that the -9X will lay around 8500nm nominal

I suspect that one possible cause might be some optimistic assumptions around OEW ....

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-29 17:40:51 and read 27814 times.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 37):
Larger windows: larger windows = new hull design and new certification

The 747-8 adopted the window belt of the 777, so the 777X adopting the window belt of the 787 should evidently not be a major concern.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-03-29 18:31:42 and read 27604 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 60):
I suspect that one possible cause might be some optimistic assumptions around OEW ....

Rgds

That's one thing that puzzles me too. I have no doubt that they could achieve massive OEW reductions, along with all the other radical changes they are planning. I do wonder if the scope of these changes is too much for one iteration. When you look at the much more modest scope for the NEO and MAX, and the time it will take to implement these, I do wonder how the far more ambitious 777X changes will happen successfully.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-03-29 19:05:42 and read 27515 times.

Quoting LH506 (Reply 58):
But this would leave A again without any answer to B. They would leave B the low end 788 and the high end of the big twins 779X. Not very smart, if you ask me.


That's the rub, attacking two airliner programs (787/777) with just one program (A350).

I'm sure each manufacture can defend their decision.

[Edited 2013-03-29 19:07:35]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-03-29 19:39:10 and read 27389 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 63):
That's the rub, attacking two airliner programs (787/777) with just one program (A350).

I'm sure each manufacture can defend their decision.

If you look at their products, they tend to not go head to head. Even when they do, A320 vs 737, their market share over time is large enough for both of them. With only two manufacturers, it makes sense, and has worked well to date for each of them.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: queb
Posted 2013-03-29 20:19:54 and read 27276 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 49):

Quoting queb (Reply 32):
"fail safe" like the lithium batteries ?

Now you're just being argumentative.

my point is that I think the FAA will think twice before certifying another exotic "fail safe" design like folding wintips, the 777X will not have folding wingtips.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-29 20:34:22 and read 27241 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 65):
my point is that I think the FAA will think twice before certifying another exotic "fail safe" design like folding wintips, the 777X will not have folding wingtips.

Folding wingtips have been part of military aviation for at least half a century. Adapting it to commercial aviation should be very straightforward.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-29 22:54:40 and read 26996 times.

The wingtips are a no brainer, I am surprised so many are sceptical of a very straight forward solution. Anything new seems to be suspicious to the über conservative aviation crowd..

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-03-29 23:17:18 and read 26955 times.

Quoting queb (Reply 65):
my point is that I think the FAA will think twice before certifying another exotic "fail safe" design like folding wintips, the 777X will not have folding wingtips.

Um, The wingtips are not required to fly the aircraft. You can remove the raked wingtips from a 777-300ER or 777-200LR and go flying around. I don't think Boeing certified it as a valid configuration for actual passenger service, but nothing prevents it on the non-regulatory side of reality.

Its quite easy for them to design folding wingtips that are completely idiot proof in addition to fail safe. Make the locking mechanism completely unable to release while under areodynamic loads. Make it so that the retraction of the locking pins requires the input of power. (power loss leads to locking pins seeing a closing force). Last, since you only fold them on the ground, use the existing sensors for wieght on the landing gear to allow retraction.

Lets put it this way. The tip folding up is less of a threat to continued flight than the spoilers deploying, and guess what is on all the modern aircraft I can think of right now.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-03-29 23:17:49 and read 26946 times.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 37):
* Folding wingtips: sorry but here we go in overboard. To say that this is a simple only works on powerpoint. Maybe engineering it is simple but there is certification, convincing airlines that this is not going to cause problems, convincing airports it is a good idea and in general creating major changes to operational procedures.
Quoting queb (Reply 65):
my point is that I think the FAA will think twice before certifying another exotic "fail safe" design like folding wintips, the 777X will not have folding wingtips.

I'm wondering what the issue is with the simple folding wingtip design? There are numerous moving control surfaces on an aircraft that somehow seem to function fine. Why is this such to a concern to people?

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-03-30 04:39:06 and read 26486 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 68):
Lets put it this way. The tip folding up is less of a threat to continued flight than the spoilers deploying, and guess what is on all the modern aircraft I can think of right now.

Make that thrust reversers as well and we have a hull loss example (Lauda air 767) that this is dangerous if it goes wrong. I fly with a folded (and wiggling  Wow! ) raked tip any day compared to a spoiler that deploys out of control and if a thrust reverser has own ideas you are dead in the water it seems.

Give the tip a break       

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-03-30 06:04:22 and read 26166 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 70):
Give the tip a break       

That makes my day  
Let's fold up the non-issue of the.wingtips...err... folding up in flight.  

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-30 06:12:15 and read 26157 times.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 38):
Didn't a REVENUE 757 fly with one of the wing tips missing due to maintenance or something?

There is also a picture of a flying A330 in the database with only 1 winglet.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-03-30 07:06:07 and read 26035 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 54):
Airlines would likely be more profitable today if they still offered the same F and Y class service as in the 1970s, or at least with the type of 3-class service common in the 1980s with reclining F class sleeper seats and a J class product similar to many premium economy products today.

I think airlines would go out of business if they tried that. Economy class passengers are much more likely to book on price, while passengers in the premium cabins are, I believe, more likely to book based on the "bling" of the cabin, irrespective of price. If I were a first class passenger with loads of cash to spend and have the choice of a recliner with the possibility of a seat mate on Airline A for $6000, or a fully flat bed with a 200 channel IFE, private suite, shower etc, for $18,000 on Airline B, I'd choose the latter option.

Quoting LH506 (Reply 58):
But this would leave A again without any answer to B.

Why would that be a problem?

Boeing don't have an answer to the A380, nor do I think there is a business case for Boeing to design an all new VLA in the size category of the A380. Airbus didn't have an answer to the 747 until the launch of the A340-600. OEM's don't manufacture aircraft as direct competitors to their counterpart's products, they manufacture them if they believe there is money to be made.

There's also the issue of how far is "too far" to stretch the A350. Like any other airframe, there's a limit to how far it can be stretched before costly and significant changes needs to be made to accommodate that stretch.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 62):
When you look at the much more modest scope for the NEO and MAX, and the time it will take to implement these, I do wonder how the far more ambitious 777X changes will happen successfully.

If the GE9X is ready to go in 2018 as per this thread, 2019 EIS for the 777X isn't out of the question.

I don't think they've bitten off more than they can chew. The 737MAX may be a comparatively minor upgrade compared to the 777X, but 18 years ago, the transition from 737 Classic to 737NG was also a massive undertaking which paid off handsomely, just like the 777X will be. I don't think the 777X is much more complex a project: both aircraft had new engines and new wings as the major changes among many others designed to significantly improve efficiency.

Quoting queb (Reply 65):
my point is that I think the FAA will think twice before certifying another exotic "fail safe" design like folding wintips,

Not any more than they usually do.

Quoting queb (Reply 65):
the 777X will not have folding wingtips.

It is very likely to have folding wingtips.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 69):
Why is this such to a concern to people?

  

Good question. I may not know anything about aircraft design, but I'm lead to believe that this is a relatively simple piece of technology, and given that the folding wingtips will not include any control surfaces, I believe it will act as a "winglet" of sorts if it were inadvertantly folded in flight, if that were possible at all.

As I understand it, the folding wingtip is only to be activated when on the ground, and when deactivated it is locked in the "down" position, any failure is likely to result in the folding wingtip not activating after landing rather than activating in flight. As has been mentioned:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 36):
Its been noted that they would certify the 777X wings in the folded and unfolded position for flight, therefore in the event the wingtips fail to unfold or unfold in flight, it can continue flying.

so that even in the event of a failure which causes a wingtip to fold in flight, it will still be able to fly safely. To me, folding wingtips are really not a concern.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-30 10:35:37 and read 25604 times.

I'm trying to understand the purpose of the 777-8X but I don't get it. Why should Boeing develop a 1 to 1 competitor? In this segment, history has proven that 1 type can kill the competitor. Aspire Aviation reports:

Quote:
Make no mistake, while the 777-8X will have a considerably heavier airframe and hence structural weight and that the Airbus A350-1000 is going to have the lowest block fuel burn per seat on 350-seaters, the 777-8X nonetheless has a higher maximum take-off weight (MTOW) at 315t against the A350-1000′s 308t providing more uplift and carrying more passengers and revenue cargoes despite its shorter range along with the 777-9X at 8,100nm (nautical miles), upped from 8,000nm recently, according to Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources at the Chicago-based airframer.

In my opinion, Boeing should drop the 777-8X and continue with the 777-8LX and the 777-9X. With a range of 9400nm the 777-8LX could fly 350 passengers and full payload on 7000nm routes like DXB-LAX. A perfect a/c for EK for example. The 777-9X will have its own market. But what about the the 777-8X? It will have a higher block fuel burn, less range and carrying the same amount of passengers as the A350-1000.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-30 10:42:11 and read 25575 times.

I suppose if the difference in OEW between the 777-8 and 777-8L is minimal, then there is probably no reason to offer anything but the 777-8L. Operators who do not need the full capability of the 777-8L can derate the MTOW and engine thrust to reduce costs.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-03-30 11:03:23 and read 25525 times.

No problem with the folding wingtips.
Just numerous take off with wings in the folding position on aircraft carriers
Just one question which worst case scenario for take off thrust dimensioning

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-30 11:03:38 and read 25611 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
I suppose if the difference in OEW between the 777-8 and 777-8L is minimal, then there is probably no reason to offer anything but the 777-8L. Operators who do not need the full capability of the 777-8L can derate the MTOW and engine thrust to reduce costs.

Thanks, that makes sense.

There is too much information circling around. Last month, during ISTAT, Boeing was talking about a 777-9X (EIS 2019) and a 777-8LX (EIS 2021) and now Aspire Aviation is talking about a 8000nm 777-8X. Too much rumours, too much speculation is going around.

[Edited 2013-03-30 11:04:34]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-03-30 11:21:30 and read 25565 times.

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 39):

If 77X adopts the 787 cockpit, what kind of certification change will be needed? And would that ruin the cross commonality with the current 777 pilots?

None. The type rating is now the same, with only a FAM class req'd.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 63):
That's the rub, attacking two airliner programs (787/777) with just one program (A350).

It's worked for them before. They set the A330 right between the 767 & 777. We can even expand that by showing that the MD-11 was also in production at the time. Hell, even going back to the A300, they've done this. IIRC, that, in all variants, sold close to the DC-10 & L-1011. Seems to have worked well enough for them.

Quoting queb (Reply 65):
my point is that I think the FAA will think twice before certifying another exotic "fail safe" design like folding wintips, the 777X will not have folding wingtips.

Think twice? They're the FAA. They'll think 5 or 6 times, it's what they do. But it will be Certificated if Boeing includes it in the final design. It's like Plug-Doors; some folks will worry about what can happen in flight, but the design will be such that a failure will be relatively benign.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 69):

I'm wondering what the issue is with the simple folding wingtip design? There are numerous moving control surfaces on an aircraft that somehow seem to function fine. Why is this such to a concern to people?

There shouldn't be. But they're new to the commercial market, and highly visible. Given another twenty years (when maybe a few types have picked this up) and it won't be such a big deal.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 73):

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 54):
Airlines would likely be more profitable today if they still offered the same F and Y class service as in the 1970s, or at least with the type of 3-class service common in the 1980s with reclining F class sleeper seats and a J class product similar to many premium economy products today.

I think airlines would go out of business if they tried that. Economy class passengers are much more likely to book on price, while passengers in the premium cabins are, I believe, more likely to book based on the "bling" of the cabin, irrespective of price.

I think that's pretty much the case. But for me, there are exceptions. I tend to book a lot w/ EK for longhaul needs as their Y section is better than most of what one would see on say KLM (though KL's MD11 Y class is actually pretty good for personal space; shame to see them disappearing) or their friends at AF. A simple difference there in seat pitch seems to make so much difference, especially where flights are 10+ hrs duration.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 73):
If I were a first class passenger with loads of cash to spend and have the choice of a recliner with the possibility of a seat mate on Airline A for $6000, or a fully flat bed with a 200 channel IFE, private suite, shower etc, for $18,000 on Airline B, I'd choose the latter option.

Sales agree with you there, but I have to wonder... At what point does that $18,000 get so close to just chartering one's own plane? With that one, we even get to do away with airport hassles & connections too.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: L0VE2FLY
Posted 2013-03-30 12:44:05 and read 25438 times.

I was excited about the 777X until I read this:

"787-styled larger dimmable windows"

That's the only feature I don't like about the 787, it'll allow the cabin crew to dim the windows whenever, however they like. I can't imagine not having full control over my window.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SCAT15F
Posted 2013-03-30 13:19:44 and read 25315 times.

Honestly, considering how many upgrades they are making, I'm surprised that they aren't going to redesign the nose/cockpit section. Evidently it must be very good aerodynamically, because it is the oldest part of the 777 design; its actually the 767 nose/cockpit section.

I would have though they would go for a 787/A350 style nose/cockpit

Any thoughts?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-03-30 13:59:13 and read 25228 times.

If the 8500nm insistence by EK is for real, and it seems to be, then I see the 777-9X pay load based on Ferpe chart crowding that of the 573t MTOW, 295t DOW A380 that EK are likely to put on the DXB-SFO/LAX/IAH routes in the next year or so. At similar payloads the -9X could have a CASM advantage .

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-30 14:03:30 and read 25197 times.

Latest information says the 777-9X will have a range of 8100nm. Where do you get 8500nm?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-03-30 14:28:55 and read 25127 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 82):
Latest information says the 777-9X will have a range of 8100nm. Where do you get 8500nm?

Read my post 45. Sometimes Daniel Tsang finds some really good info, sometimes he gets it wrong. IMO this is one of the times he got it wrong (another time was when he said hes "multiple Boeing sources" told him this and that on the 787- and -9 weights, it was ALL wrong (and a lot as well) and common sense = me + several others in the Tech/Ops thread who dissected his info and deduced it to not hold water, we were within 2% of the final figure).

Tim Clark would never buy a 777-9 with a 8100nm spec range, he has asked for 8500nm and he will get 8500nm. It just so happens all the data leaked on the frame also supports this and not 8100nm.

[Edited 2013-03-30 14:32:45]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-30 16:04:25 and read 24864 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 83):
Read my post 45.

I've missed it. These threads are going too fast  
Quoting ferpe (Reply 83):
Sometimes Daniel Tsang

Well, he's an analyst. Analysts gets it wrong too.

But other sources like Flightglobal are also speaking of a 8100nm aircraft, is everybody having it wrong?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 83):
Tim Clark would never buy a 777-9 with a 8100nm spec range

He doesn't have to, the -8LX with 9400nm range should give him what he wants: carrying 350 pax plus full payload on DXB-LAX kind of routes.

During ISTAT last month, it was mentioned that EK would be very interested in the -8LX for the larger routes.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 83):
he has asked for 8500nm and he will get 8500nm

Maybe, maybe not. I have to see it first if Boeing is willing to extend the range to 8500nm to satisfy 1 customer, even if that customer buys 100 of those aircraft. 8500nm is already such a niche range, perhaps it's better to optimize the airframe for the more common ranges and keep the whole 777 customer base happy.

Also, according the latest information, the range has been increased from 8000nm to 8100nm by increasing the GE9X engine thrust from 100,000 to 105,000 lb. What kind of thrust should the GE9X provide for a 8500nm range? So far, the latest information on the internet is not speaking about a > 110.000 lb thrust engine.

So, I have to see it first.

[Edited 2013-03-30 16:05:24]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-03-30 16:14:50 and read 24855 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 84):
Maybe, maybe not. I have to see it first if Boeing is willing to extend the range to 8500nm to satisfy 1 customer, even if that customer buys 100 of those aircraft. 8500nm is already such a niche range, perhaps it's better to optimize the airframe for the more common ranges and keep the whole 777 customer base happy.

You mean Boeing's largest 777 customer? Of course Boeing will take their needs into account. Given Ferpe's analysis and Clarke's desire for 8,500 miles on the -9X, Boeing will deliver.

Remember the -8X will carry the same as the current 773ER in terms of passengers but will be able to go much further thus given airlines that don't need the high capacity of the -9X the ability to boost cargo carrying capacity on flights such as DXB to LAX and SFO. The -9X will be in its own class since it will be a twin carrying over 400 people.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-03-31 07:17:03 and read 24252 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
There is too much information circling around. Last month, during ISTAT, Boeing was talking about a 777-9X (EIS 2019) and a 777-8LX (EIS 2021) and now Aspire Aviation is talking about a 8000nm 777-8X. Too much rumours, too much speculation is going around.

The 'base' 777-8X was speculated on by FlightGlobal in an article last year. It's not new. The 777X family has been rumoured for some time to consist of the 777-8X, 777-8LX and 777-9X. There is, in my view, a strong possibility of a 777-8F as well, despite this model never being mentioned before, because there's simply no reason not to do it.

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 79):
I was excited about the 777X until I read this:

"787-styled larger dimmable windows"

That's the only feature I don't like about the 787, it'll allow the cabin crew to dim the windows whenever, however they like. I can't imagine not having full control over my window.

Well, you don't really have full control over your window, anyway, as (unfortunately) a lot of airlines enforce a "window shades down" policy. I'd rather be able to see outside through a tinted window than not see anything at all through an opaque shade.

I don't think the 777X will feature 787 windows. What it might feature, is the dimmable window system. Engineering it to fit on 777 windows shouldn't be too difficult, and using that instead of conventional window shades should save a fair amount of maintenance costs as well as weight. As I understand it, larger windows will weigh more, so if keeping the 777's windows help keep the weight down, I'd rather they kept them.

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 80):
Honestly, considering how many upgrades they are making, I'm surprised that they aren't going to redesign the nose/cockpit section. Evidently it must be very good aerodynamically, because it is the oldest part of the 777 design; its actually the 767 nose/cockpit section.

I would have though they would go for a 787/A350 style nose/cockpit

Any thoughts?

As always, the big question is "return on investment". Unless the aerodynamic improvements lead to fuel burn improvements which lead to additional sales (or sales at a higher price) which recovers the additional investment on developing a new nose, it probably won't happen.

Perhaps someone with an understading of the aerodynamics and design of the 777 and 787 front ends can tell me what would be the implications of such a project on (a) development costs; (b) maintenance costs; (c) aerodynamic advantage and (d) fuel burn advantage before we can begin to make educated guesses as to whether Boeing will do this.

Incidentally, I believe I have read here before that the 777 and 767 only share cockpit window frames and radome. They do not have a common Section 41.

[Edited 2013-03-31 07:32:02]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-03-31 08:18:32 and read 24152 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 85):
You mean Boeing's largest 777 customer? Of course Boeing will take their needs into account

They didn't with the 748i, deferring instead to LH's requirements ....

Quoting ferpe (Reply 83):
Sometimes Daniel Tsang finds some really good info, sometimes he gets it wrong

We all get it wrong sometimes ...  

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-31 08:23:44 and read 24170 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 85):
You mean Boeing's largest 777 customer? Of course Boeing will take their needs into account.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 87):
They didn't with the 748i, deferring instead to LH's requirements ....

If EK had a fleet of 50 747-400s, I expect Boeing would have stayed with the 74m model of the 747-8.  

I expect Boeing knew EK was not serious in their interest for a 74m 747-8, while they knew LH was very serious in their interest in a 76m 747-8.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-03-31 09:21:18 and read 24004 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 84):
But other sources like Flightglobal are also speaking of a 8100nm aircraft, is everybody having it wrong?

Could you give a pointer to this? Here is the pointer to Scott Hamiltons mentioning of 8500nm after Boeings latest 777X customer group meeting: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/ . Scott is one of the best networked journalist there are and he has not mentioned 8100nm after that.

BTW where did you find the figure for the thrust increase of the GE9X? In Flightglobal the GE9X program manager mentioned to S Trimble they will increase the thrust a bit but not how much, someone else knew that figure?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-03-31 09:28:19 and read 23979 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 88):
I expect Boeing knew EK was not serious in their interest for a 74m 747-8, while they knew LH was very serious in their interest in a 76m 747-8

I know you keep saying this.

But equally, you can't say EK isn't important to Airbus. And yet Airbus haven't kowtowed to EK over the A350-1000..

I'm not saying the 777-9X won't end up with an 8 500Nm range, but "just because EK say so" isn't the most compelling argument.
Do you think it is?

Ultimately the OEM's will go with what appears best in the market overall, surely

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-03-31 10:50:17 and read 23788 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
But equally, you can't say EK isn't important to Airbus. And yet Airbus haven't kowtowed to EK over the A350-1000

Didn't the redesign of the -1000 come from EK saying it wasn't a good enough replacement for their 777–300ERs? They were the only ones I remember ever saying anything like this.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-31 11:12:45 and read 23789 times.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 91):
Didn't the redesign of the -1000 come from EK saying it wasn't a good enough replacement for their 777–300ERs?

I've heard that EK want to (at least in part) use the A350-1000 as a replacement for their 777-300As - a high-capacity, medium-range hauler. So the original specification with lower weights and thrust would suit that purpose better than the revised design with higher weights and thrust, which makes the A350-1000 more competitive as a high-capacity, long-range hauler.

That being said, they've so far kept their order for 20. Of course, even at the higher specification, the A350-1000 likely works out better as a 777-300A replacement than the 777-300ER so...

[Edited 2013-03-31 11:13:22]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-03-31 16:46:23 and read 23280 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
I'm not saying the 777-9X won't end up with an 8 500Nm range, but "just because EK say so" isn't the most compelling argument.

I agree. Probably the three carriers of that region have similar desires. I guess the incentive to Boeing depends on how many units they might sell to these three. Addressing EK specifically and DXB-LAX. There is circumstantial evidence to support their desire for 8500nm. On the occasional day the flight time is over 18hrs . FlightAware data shows the worst case flight distance at close to 7500nm. For a 17hr flight using these inputs gives an ESAD of about 8400nm. So the desire for it is understandable. Certainly 8100nm doesn't cut it from their viewpoint.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-01 06:00:34 and read 22724 times.

Taken from the Aspire article:

...With a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 344,000kg, the 777-9X is going to create a new niche in the marketplace. It also symbolises Boeing’s belief that sustained growth in long-haul international traffic will lead to the market moving onto a new niche which is a notch above today’s 350-seat segment while a notch below the very large airplane (VLA) segment such as its 467-seat Boeing 747-8I Intercontinental.

This big bet could make or break the success of the 777-9X ....


Its a big bet but its one that Boeing has to take and to be fair it does have some logic behind it. Not only is there a trend to upsizing, but (as has been acknowledged in other threads), the poor sales performance of the 748i has potentially masked any hidden demand for efficient twins in the 400 seat size category.

..... Interestingly, initially the business case of the 353-seat 777-8X is thought to be considerably less robust than that of the -9X, with the lower-end segment below the 7,100nm range being cannibalised and undermined by the proposed 323-seat 787-10X aircraft (“Launch of Boeing 787-10X has implications on 777X“, 22nd Oct, 12). However, Aspire Aviation understands that Boeing is now going to utilise the 777-8X to compete head-to-head with the A350-1000 while its 777-9X will reflect shifting market dynamics and create a new market in its own .....

I still don't buy this argument - the 777-9X while be providing all the competition for the 35J. Granted - there is little cost in piggy-backing the 8X on the program but I see it being slaughtered by all others in the 300-350 seat category (359, 787-10, 35J). If the 777-8X could adequately compete with the 35J then the 777-9X would be unnecessary - which it is not.


On the 777X, things are accelerating. The configuration is looking good. The big question is affordability and the business case, making it affordable for us to build and the airlines to buy, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) vice president (VP) of marketing Randy Tinseth said at the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) conference in mid-March.


This is the most important quote in the entire article. Derivatives usually have an excellent business case - that it is such an issue here is testament to just how much effort and capital Boeing wan't to put into the 777X program. I'm curious as to just how much extra cost is involved in moving to an Al-Li fuselage - no hints available there yet.
Clearly, the 777X models are going to be around for a long time - they need to be to get a decent ROI. Boeing knows that this will move Y3 to the right but they probably figure that it doesn't really matter as Airbus will be very hard put to come up with anything in the 400 seat category (in any serious numbers) much before 2030. Sitting at just under 74 meters there is not much room to stretch the 35J any further and Airbus can't and won't lauch another wide body sized between the 35J and the 380 - this would have been heavily scrutinised as part of the strategy to go to 400 seats with the 777-9X.

I think the 35J will be a winner, the 777-9X will be a winner and the 777-8X will be a dog.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-01 06:03:21]

[Edited 2013-04-01 06:03:55]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-04-01 13:04:20 and read 22175 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 78):
At what point does that $18,000 get so close to just chartering one's own plane? With that one, we even get to do away with airport hassles & connections too.

No where near it. Using the current national average of $5.84/gallon for Jet Fuel, flying 6000 nm round trip in a G650 would mean a nearly $60,000 bill for the fuel alone. That doesn't include the cost of maintenance, insurance, housing of the airplane when not in service, the crew's salary, per diem, hotels, transportation, airport and FBO landing fees, customs fees, much less the $64m price tag of the aircraft itself, all of which could be factored into the cost of a charter depending on the specifics of how the charter company operates.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-04-01 13:38:33 and read 22038 times.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 95):

Actually, the whole point of chartering and fractional ownership are that you don't pay for most of that. So, I'm sure much of that's overstated. Indeed, $60,000 is considerable though as a fuel - alone expense. Though we should consider that if one is so well off that even $18,000 is that much better to spend than the $6000 or so (for J), $60,000 plus another $10,000 in charter costs probably isn't a big deal either, especially when things like point to point convenience and bring two or three other folks along for the same costs.

I know it's weird, but if I were that kind of plutocrat, I'd rather spend $70,000 for this type of exclusivity than "waste" $18,000 hanging out with the rest of the plebians at the airport. That's really how folks in that strata think.

[Edited 2013-04-01 13:39:32]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-04-01 14:20:16 and read 21864 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 96):
Actually, the whole point of chartering and fractional ownership are that you don't pay for most of that. So, I'm sure much of that's overstated. Indeed, $60,000 is considerable though as a fuel - alone expense. Though we should consider that if one is so well off that even $18,000 is that much better to spend than the $6000 or so (for J), $60,000 plus another $10,000 in charter costs probably isn't a big deal either, especially when things like point to point convenience and bring two or three other folks along for the same costs.

I know it's weird, but if I were that kind of plutocrat, I'd rather spend $70,000 for this type of exclusivity than "waste" $18,000 hanging out with the rest of the plebians at the airport. That's really how folks in that strata think.

Again different management companies have different policies. I know most charter companies will bill the passengers for any fees. At the FBO I've worked at, we've always had a challenge selling fuel instead of paying a facility to charter flights, because while the charter company pays the fuel bill, they can charge the passengers the facility fee. Again, those other costs will be accounted for some degree in the cost of the charter.

A quick google search is giving numbers of anywhere from $4k-7k per hour to charter a Gulfstream. A 6000nm round trip flight will be around 12 Hours in a G650, meaning 24 hours total flight time for a round trip. So we're talking $96k-168k for that $4k-7k range. These numbers are for GIVs and GVs, but they're no cheaper to operate than the G650, they're slower by about an hour on each leg, and the GIV will have to stop for fuel on a 6000nm trip. A Falcon may be cheaper, but not anywhere near the cost of the first class ticket, and no Falcon model can do the trip non stop (the 7x just barely missing it at 5950 nm range). Either way, its way more expensive than the first class ticket. It's clearly worth it to those who can afford it, but I think it's a big leap to say the sort of person who can afford the first class ticket can also afford the Gulfstream. I've seen plenty of our customers with smaller GA planes (props and jets) who travel internationally use their planes to skip connecting airline connecting flights and just fly their plane to whichever airport the international flight is departing from, and then fly out in first or business from there.

The 1% may be a wealthy bunch, but there is still a huge disparity among them. I remember one day on our ramp we had a King Air 90, a Falcon 900, and a G550. King Airs are clearly not cheap airplanes. Anyone (or any company since in corporate aviation, companies are often time people like the SCOTUS says) who pays over $3m to buy one clearly has some $. But the owner of the Falcon could have bought more than 10 King Airs for the price of his one 900. The G550 is in yet another price category. That plane costs as much as the Falcon plus about 4-5 King Air 90s. I don't remember who was operating the Falcon, but the King Air only came from a few hunded nm away and was carrying a few people, so short trip with the costs spread out over several people. the G550 was from Europe and brought over a single person.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-01 16:42:23 and read 21673 times.

It's been noted that some companies mandate that if a group of senior executive management must travel, they do so on different flights to prevent an accident from taking them all out. Such policies would preclude putting them all on a chartered bizjet.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-04-01 17:49:14 and read 21602 times.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 91):
Didn't the redesign of the -1000 come from EK saying it wasn't a good enough replacement for their 777–300ERs? They were the only ones I remember ever saying anything like this.

EK has been one of the most vocal critics of the change, clearly stating that they weren't involved in the decision.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 92):
That being said, they've so far kept their order for 20.

Told you to keep an eye on this  

Actions always speak louder than words  

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-04-01 19:36:07 and read 21415 times.

I'm amused at all the debate over bling (premium seats). Boeing will offer the payload/range airlines want.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
Folding wingtips have been part of military aviation for at least half a century.
Quoting sweair (Reply 67):
The wingtips are a no brainer

Exactly. I fail to see all the debate over the wingtips. That will be 5 to 7 days of flight test (not consecutive) or so. Oh, far more that in stress and safety reviews.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 83):
It just so happens all the data leaked on the frame also supports this and not 8100nm.

Interesting. That doesn't leave many missions for the 778.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SCAT15F
Posted 2013-04-01 22:05:45 and read 21186 times.

Agreed. The 778x doesn't have much of a business case. A 778LR might sell a few (very few) but that's it. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-04-01 23:23:18 and read 21083 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 100):
Interesting. That doesn't leave many missions for the 778.

only reason it will exist is its little more expensive than its certification costs. The primary costs will be driven by the new 777F version 2.0

That said I'd be amazed if Boeing did more than Marketing materials for the 777-8x without a customer showing interest, and no detailed design work without a firm order. It may be cheap enough to put a 777-8x into reality, but its still a cost to do the work required to detail the changes from its sister models. I certainly see 0 interest for Boeing to do a wieght optimized 8 version like some people are throwing rumors around. The F will want the full MTOW, so why make a whole new varient that costs even more to develop?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-02 01:13:48 and read 20852 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 99):
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 91):Didn't the redesign of the -1000 come from EK saying it wasn't a good enough replacement for their 777–300ERs? They were the only ones I remember ever saying anything like this.EK has been one of the most vocal critics of the change, clearly stating that they weren't involved in the decision.

I believe that was their biggest issue, not with the redesigned product itself.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-02 07:16:27 and read 20388 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 87):
They didn't with the 748i, deferring instead to LH's requirements ....
Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):

But equally, you can't say EK isn't important to Airbus. And yet Airbus haven't kowtowed to EK over the A350-1000..

I think both Boeing and Airbus have learned when to take Tim Clark seriously and when not to. In other words, they know the difference when he voices desires and when he voices demands; i.e. if you don't do this I won't buy it, as opposed to if you do this i MIGHT buy it.

As to the 777-8X, if it is heavier than the A3510, and offers no more range and worse fuel burn per seat, I see it as an utter waste of effort. Boeing surely knows this, and if they build it anyway they deserve a seat in the idiot's hall of fame.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: L0VE2FLY
Posted 2013-04-02 12:17:01 and read 20056 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 86):
Well, you don't really have full control over your window, anyway, as (unfortunately) a lot of airlines enforce a "window shades down" policy.

Any airline that forces me to close my window on a scenic flight is very unlikely to get my business again. I have no problem closing my window on a red-eye across the ocean but not while enjoying some beautiful scenery in the middle of the day!



Quoting CXB77L (Reply 86):
What it might feature, is the dimmable window system. Engineering it to fit on 777 windows shouldn't be too difficult, and using that instead of conventional window shades should save a fair amount of maintenance costs as well as weight.

Maintenance wise I think it's quite the opposite, as the planes age the dimming systems will malfunction just like the IFE systems. Conventional shades are very durable and light weight.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-04 09:34:13 and read 19337 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 104):
As to the 777-8X, if it is heavier than the A3510, and offers no more range and worse fuel burn per seat, I see it as an utter waste of effort. Boeing surely knows this, and if they build it anyway they deserve a seat in the idiot's hall of fame.

It's highly likely that the 777-8X will offer no more range than the A350-1000, but the ultra long range 777-8LX will beat the A350-1000's range by some margin. I think Boeing should still go ahead with developing the 777-8 but only offer the higher MTOW ultra long range version, even if it is a niche player, as it could form the basis of a future 777-8F which might turn out to be as successful as the current 777F, if not more. The way I see t, developing the 777-8 is far from an "utter waste of effort".

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 105):
Maintenance wise I think it's quite the opposite

Not according to other members on this board who know the 787 inside out and have worked with it. The 787 dimmable windows require less maintenance than conventional shades.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-04 13:01:05 and read 19022 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 104):
As to the 777-8X, if it is heavier than the A3510, and offers no more range and worse fuel burn per seat, I see it as an utter waste of effort. Boeing surely knows this, and if they build it anyway they deserve a seat in the idiot's hall of fame.

Ferpe's load/range charts suggest that B will not be taking such a seat ! Based on the information that is available for the A350-1000 and the 777- 8XL and 9X his chart shows the -8XL has a fuel burn of 41.1 kg per 1000nm per M^2 of cabin space compared to the A350-1000's 41.3. So there is little in it , The -8XL will haul its 323 passengers about 9250nm and the A350-1000 its 350- passengers about 8300nm. Take whichever suits you best.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-04 13:13:20 and read 19073 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 107):
Ferpe's load/range charts

I think this the chart we are talking about, it describes the 777-8X and -9X vs the 350-1000 and 748i. The -8LX which flies some 9400nm is not described, in fact I have not modeled it yet  :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR777X35Jand748i_zpsdb494f8c.jpg

[Edited 2013-04-04 13:15:12]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-04 13:33:36 and read 18962 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 89):
Could you give a pointer to this? Here is the pointer to Scott Hamiltons mentioning of 8500nm after Boeings latest 777X customer group meeting: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/ . Scott is one of the best networked journalist there are and he has not mentioned 8100nm after that.

Hi ferpe,

So much information floating around   Where to start?

1) Boeing and EK

First, people are believing that EK will get want they want. But your source - Schott - is saying something else:

"a -9X that is about 407 passengers, around 8,500nm range (with Emirates wanting more range but the majority of customers opposed as unneeded for their operations);"

This would mean that 8500nm is the default range given by Boeing, and EK wants more but won't get it. So far for the "Boeing will deliver to EK theory".

2) ISTAT

There was the ISTAT conference in the beginning of March. I cannot find it anymore but I'm pretty sure they were talking about a 8000nm -9X with EIS 2019 and a 9400nm -8LX with EIS 2021. Or I was sleeping and did not pay enough attention  

3) Engine

Then the engine. The GE9X would provide about 100,000 lbs of thrust. A few weeks later, both Aspire Aviation and Flightglobal are reporting that the engine thrust has been increased to 105,000 lbs. Aspire Aviation adds that this is done to increase the range to 8100nm.

Now, if you need 100,000 lbs of thrust for a range of 8000nm, you probably need 110,000 - 120,000 lbs thrust for the 8500nm range? But so far, not any media source has talked about such an engine.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFGTIpzCIAAf1uW.jpg:large

Scott is the only one talking about a 8500nm -9X airframe and that was in November 2012. But the latest information is pointing out towards a 8000-8100nm -9X airframe.

I'm lost   

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 13:38:40 and read 18927 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):
Scott is the only one talking about a 8500nm -9X airframe and that was in November 2012. But the latest information is pointing out towards a 8000-8100nm -9X airframe.

I'm lost   

Given the IAG order in favor of Airbus, Boeing will need to find a way to ensure EK buys the -9X. If that means putting the wood to GE so be it. If it means combing through the design to identify weight saving - they will. I'm not saying Boeing closes up shop if they lose EK to Airbus but it would be a crippling blow to their 77X program. They simply cannot afford to lose EK. Boeing knows this and EK knows this.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-04 13:53:40 and read 18879 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 107):
Ferpe's load/range charts suggest that B will not be taking such a seat ! Based on the information that is available for the A350-1000 and the 777- 8XL and 9X his chart shows the -8XL has a fuel burn of 41.1 kg per 1000nm per M^2 of cabin space compared to the A350-1000's 41.3. So there is little in it , The -8XL will haul its 323 passengers about 9250nm and the A350-1000 its 350- passengers about 8300nm. Take whichever suits you best.

But as ferpe pointed out in an earlier discussion, that slide does not tell the whole story. In the end, the -8X will be heavier and will have a (slightly) higher block fuel burn than the A35J. In this 350 seat segment, competition is hard and the less economical frame can be killed as history has already proven. I asked it before, what is the point of developing a -8X and I agree with CXB77L:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 106):
It's highly likely that the 777-8X will offer no more range than the A350-1000, but the ultra long range 777-8LX will beat the A350-1000's range by some margin. I think Boeing should still go ahead with developing the 777-8 but only offer the higher MTOW ultra long range version, even if it is a niche player, as it could form the basis of a future 777-8F which might turn out to be as successful as the current 777F, if not more. The way I see t, developing the 777-8 is far from an "utter waste of effort".

  

And during the ISTAT conference last month, Boeing was talking about a -8LX and not a -8X. That's why I also think that Stitch has a valid point on this one:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
I suppose if the difference in OEW between the 777-8 and 777-8L is minimal, then there is probably no reason to offer anything but the 777-8L. Operators who do not need the full capability of the 777-8L can derate the MTOW and engine thrust to reduce costs.

  

Bottom line: if the development costs of a -8X (not -8LX!) are relative small they could offer it. Just like Airbus is doing with the A350-800. Even if they get only 100 orders, that should be enough to cover the certification costs.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-04 13:57:29 and read 18856 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 110):
Given the IAG order in favor of Airbus, Boeing will need to find a way to ensure EK buys the -9X. If that means putting the wood to GE so be it. If it means combing through the design to identify weight saving - they will. I'm not saying Boeing closes up shop if they lose EK to Airbus but it would be a crippling blow to their 77X program. They simply cannot afford to lose EK. Boeing knows this and EK knows this.

Even with 'only' 8100nm range EK would buy the -9X. They can use the -8LX on the long routes; the -8LX airframe can fly DXB-LAX routes with 350 pax and full payload. Something the current 77W can't do.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-04 15:38:11 and read 18654 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 110):
I'm not saying Boeing closes up shop if they lose EK to Airbus but it would be a crippling blow to their 77X program.

One thing that I haven't seen is some sort of estimate of how many 777X's that people think EK will eventually go for? I mean, they have the A350-1000 coming so that is part of the 77W replacement market right there. Let's say it's 75 frames - is the 777X program valid with those 75 frames but invalid without them? If so, then I say scrap the project altogether. Otherwise, how do you justify a program that lives or dies by one or two carrier's interest?

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-04-04 16:00:58 and read 18616 times.

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 105):

Maintenance wise I think it's quite the opposite, as the planes age the dimming systems will malfunction just like the IFE systems. Conventional shades are very durable and light weight.

They're light until you have 100 or more on an airframe. Then I don't know what it works out to, but keep in mind Boeing went to far as to delete eyebrows from existing 737s, so I'm thinking there must be something to it.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 106):

Not according to other members on this board who know the 787 inside out and have worked with it. The 787 dimmable windows require less maintenance than conventional shades.

I can't speak to the 787, but I know a lot of the 744s BA used to send us (just as an example) had issues with window blinds being stuck all over the place. Seems like we never got fewer than about ten of those written up during a given week.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 16:19:59 and read 18555 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 113):
One thing that I haven't seen is some sort of estimate of how many 777X's that people think EK will eventually go for? I mean, they have the A350-1000 coming so that is part of the 77W replacement market right there. Let's say it's 75 frames - is the 777X program valid with those 75 frames but invalid without them? If so, then I say scrap the project altogether. Otherwise, how do you justify a program that lives or dies by one or two carrier's interest?

I'd expect EK to order a/c in batches to coincide with lease returns or heavy checks on older a/c. As of January of this year, they had six 772ERs, 12 777s, 10 772LR, 86 77W with 64 on order and 20 options. They also have 16 A340s which will be leaving soon.

EK has 50 359s on order and 20 351s with 50 359 options.

I'd expect that EK would convert some of the 64 77Ws to be delivered later to 779-Xs and convert those orders. EK is still growing unlike many carriers so we have to account for a decent amount of growth on top of replacing older/less efficient aircraft.

I'd say that EK goes for at least 100 of the 77Xs. It's a bit of a guess but if you look at the a/c they need to phase out and account for the 350's on order plus the fact the 777-9X will have great CASM, EK won't pass that up.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-04 17:09:12 and read 18464 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 115):
I'd expect EK to order a/c in batches to coincide with lease returns or heavy checks on older a/c. As of January of this year, they had six 772ERs, 12 777s, 10 772LR, 86 77W with 64 on order and 20 options. They also have 16 A340s which will be leaving soon.

EK has 50 359s on order and 20 351s with 50 359 options.

I'd expect that EK would convert some of the 64 77Ws to be delivered later to 779-Xs and convert those orders. EK is still growing unlike many carriers so we have to account for a decent amount of growth on top of replacing older/less efficient aircraft.

I'd say that EK goes for at least 100 of the 77Xs. It's a bit of a guess but if you look at the a/c they need to phase out and account for the 350's on order plus the fact the 777-9X will have great CASM, EK won't pass that up.

Ok, so:

1. EK might need 100+ over time.
2. EK won't pass them up.
3. EK might not be able to fill all needs with an A350/A380 combo.

I guess, then, we can pehaps put to rest the concern about the 777X being at it's last throes. It might not break any records but it should find a home at a decent enough number of carriers and in decent enough quantities that we can focus more on the "what" and not the "if".  

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 18:53:53 and read 18329 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 116):
I guess, then, we can pehaps put to rest the concern about the 777X being at it's last throes. It might not break any records but it should find a home at a decent enough number of carriers and in decent enough quantities that we can focus more on the "what" and not the "if".  

A twin jet with over 400 seats has never been built before so its kind of in its own category. The CASM should be great as will the cargo carrying capacity. This is an a/c that UA would like (747 replacement), BA (747 replacement) as well as EK and the other Gulf Carriers.

The question mark to me are the airlines in Asia. CX and Singapore have already bought the 350 series and I don't know if they would also buy the 77X. JL has already indicated its considering ending its Boeing exclusivity. NH might grab some but that isn't a given.

Quantas is another quandry. They missed the 77W boat and jumped into bed with EK to survive as an international airline. They are ordering 787s but were supposed to send them on to Jet Star. They might not need the lift of the 777-9X.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-04-04 20:15:54 and read 18199 times.

Wouldnt it be great if Boeing quits all the mumbo Jumbo and offers something really different ?

A 797 (instead of using the 777 nomenclature) and offers the new plane to cruise higher due to a bigger folding wing and FASTER SPEED AT CRUISE....ala sonic cruise?

Then a 12 hour flight would be a 10 hour 20 minute flight at higher (read smoother) altitude.... heck if they offered that Id Endure 11 abreast seating...

Then again airplanes have become quite boring in th elast 10 years (well the 787 isnt boring but its problems have made it like LAdy Gaga)

Best Regards TRB

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-04 20:56:46 and read 18150 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):
2) ISTAT

There was the ISTAT conference in the beginning of March. I cannot find it anymore but I'm pretty sure they were talking about a 8000nm -9X with EIS 2019 and a 9400nm -8LX with EIS 2021. Or I was sleeping and did not pay enough attention

I have Boeings ISTAT presentation and there is not range given there and I have not read any journalist reports that states it as well.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):
3) Engine

Then the engine. The GE9X would provide about 100,000 lbs of thrust. A few weeks later, both Aspire Aviation and Flightglobal are reporting that the engine thrust has been increased to 105,000 lbs. Aspire Aviation adds that this is done to increase the range to 8100nm.

Now, if you need 100,000 lbs of thrust for a range of 8000nm, you probably need 110,000 - 120,000 lbs thrust for the 8500nm range? But so far, not any media source has talked about such an engine.

First:
Flightglobal only stated that GE has decided to increase the thrust, not how much. Aspire's article states the same. The 105.000 figure I can't find in their articles nor anywhere else, could you please point me to it?

Secondly:
The max range has more to do with aerodynamic drag (read wing span and smooth wing surface) and engine fuel consumption (read -10% better then the GE90-115, that is a whopping 5% better then TXWB which is today's best engine) then the TO thrust rating. The 77W with a 6 meter shorter span and engines which consumes 10% more flies 8000nm today (7930 to be exact), how do you get a 777-9X to only fly 130nm longer in such a case?

Thirdly:
TO thrust requirement is to 80% set by induced drag, this is reduced by 18% with the 71m wing (do the math, the induced drag is inversely proportional to the span^2 ) so you don't need 110-120klbf thrust to start a -9X with 344t and a 71m wing when you need 115klbf to start a 77W with 65m and 351t.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-04 20:57:22 and read 18141 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 118):

Wouldnt it be great if Boeing quits all the mumbo Jumbo and offers something really different ?

A 797 (instead of using the 777 nomenclature) and offers the new plane to cruise higher due to a bigger folding wing and FASTER SPEED AT CRUISE....ala sonic cruise?

Then a 12 hour flight would be a 10 hour 20 minute flight at higher (read smoother) altitude.... heck if they offered that Id Endure 11 abreast seating...

Then again airplanes have become quite boring in th elast 10 years (well the 787 isnt boring but its problems have made it like LAdy Gaga)

Best Regards TRB

Boeing isn't willing to commit the BILLIONS of dollars required to do a new design aircraft. They just did so with the 787 but botched it with the outsourcing and other issues. Boeing and Airbus will eventually move to another all-new design but it will be a while.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-04 21:15:42 and read 18128 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 120):
Boeing isn't willing to commit the BILLIONS of dollars required to do a new design aircraft.

There's also a question of diminishing returns, in an aircraft design your biggest gains from CFRP is in the wing and the empennage which is where the 777X has CFRP.

The fuselage is full of electrical installations and there an Al construction is not that bad as you get the return path for free, further you get an proven concept against ramp rash damage. CFRP in the fuselage gains you maintenance points but I'm not sure you gain so much weight in the end, in the case of the 777 it is just not worth it to make a new fuselage, not if your 777X 10 abrest can be made good enough for 80% of the carriers.

Airbus had a fuselage cross section (read A300, 310, 330, 340) which was to narrow to go much beyond 300 pax (the diff between the 330 cross section and the 777 is 5.6m versus 6.2m), therefore they took the investment to make the A350 cross section in CFRP. Airbus also wanted to make the fuselage frames for the 350 in Al for exact the reason I described but was pushed by the airlines to go to CFRP for maintenance reasons.

[Edited 2013-04-04 21:19:07]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: flyingclrs727
Posted 2013-04-04 21:46:19 and read 18058 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 15):
Improved engine technology and a lower power requirement should address that issue to some extent.

Plus the the thinner insulation used in the 787.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-04-04 23:47:48 and read 17936 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 121):
There's also a question of diminishing returns, in an aircraft design your biggest gains from CFRP is in the wing and the empennage which is where the 777X has CFRP.

Lets not forget that Boeing stands to save a huge amount on the construction costs of the new CF wings vs the old aluminum ones. Shaving a few % off the cost of ownership by way of lower frame cost brings plenty of customers. New wing won't be cheap to develop, but the benifit is huge to all aspects of performance and economics.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-05 01:39:26 and read 17763 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 119):
Secondly:
The max range has more to do with aerodynamic drag (read wing span and smooth wing surface) and engine fuel consumption (read -10% better then the GE90-115, that is a whopping 5% better then TXWB which is today's best engine) then the TO thrust rating. The 77W with a 6 meter shorter span and engines which consumes 10% more flies 8000nm today (7930 to be exact), how do you get a 777-9X to only fly 130nm longer in such a case?

Hello Ferpe, 7930 Nm for 777-300Er is for 365 PAx (9 abreast)

@386 PAX (10 abreast) it's only 7825 Nm (Boeing's data)

Quote:

Seating: 386 passengers in three-class configuration
Range: 7,825 nautical miles (14,490 km)

777-9X standard LOPA is 10 abreast

No at big deal, but worth mentionning

The guess is :

How much lighter the engines ?
How much heavier the fuselage
How much lighter the wings

Engine wise, the rotation angle can have an impact on the take off thrust ?
What kind of safety reserve will the regulator put on the folding wingtip ?
Will the 777-9 be a runway dragster or a snail ?

Have a nice day

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-04-05 01:56:53 and read 17711 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 124):
What kind of safety reserve will the regulator put on the folding wingtip ?

That is an interesting question. If the FAA sticks with the rule that no single component failure should be able to jeopardise the safety of the aircraft, they probably demand that the wingtip could brake off in flight with out posing danger to the aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-05 02:10:47 and read 17680 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 125):

And ask for the field performance to be calculated with this worst case scenario

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-05 03:24:01 and read 17686 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 121):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 120):Boeing isn't willing to commit the BILLIONS of dollars required to do a new design aircraft.
There's also a question of diminishing returns, in an aircraft design your biggest gains from CFRP is in the wing and the empennage which is where the 777X has CFRP.

  

I think Boeing are pushing the boundaries already in terms of diminishing returns for a such a large investment as the 777X - my only issue with the program. To pour further billions into the program to fund a clean sheet design is not necessarily going to generate any more sales - particularly when Airbus don't have 400 seater on the horizon.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 121):
The fuselage is full of electrical installations and there an Al construction is not that bad as you get the return path for free, further you get an proven concept against ramp rash damage. CFRP in the fuselage gains you maintenance points but I'm not sure you gain so much weight in the end, in the case of the 777 it is just not worth it to make a new fuselage, not if your 777X 10 abrest can be made good enough for 80% of the carriers.

The choice of AL-Li for the 777X fuselage is defacto acknowledgement by Boeing that such a concept is viable to compete with all composite designs. Its obviously a neat fit when creating a derivative of an existing alloy platform but as Bombadier have shown with the C Series it can also stand on its own merits for a new design. The real litmus test will be what materials A and B use for their new narrow body programs in the next decade - by that time the issues with composite fuselage's will be well understood.


Regards,
StickShaker



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-05 04:19:27 and read 17579 times.

One thing I don't understand is the thinner interior walls. Why would the current interior walls be wider than they need to be, and if the walls become thinner, will the interior become noisier?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-04-05 05:23:46 and read 17465 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 128):
if the walls become thinner, will the interior become noisier?

Well, that depends on whether the GE9X will be quieter than the current GE90s, It probably will be...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: flyingclrs727
Posted 2013-04-05 06:16:42 and read 17377 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 128):
One thing I don't understand is the thinner interior walls. Why would the current interior walls be wider than they need to be, and if the walls become thinner, will the interior become noisier?

The existing walls were designed based on the materials available when the 777-200 was designed. The 787 was designed from the beginning to have thinner walls due mainly to the use of newer insulation materials. Redesigning the 777 walls around the newer insulation used in the 787 would allow for enough additional interior space to make 10 abreast seating more comfortable than on current 777's.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-05 06:28:42 and read 17399 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 108):
I think this the chart we are talking about, it describes the 777-8X and -9X vs the 350-1000 and 748i. The -8LX which flies some 9400nm is not described, in fact I have not modeled it yet

If this chart is correct, it is pretty bad for the A3510. The 778X beats it (barely) in fuel efficiency and carries the same load farther, which if true renders the heavier weight of the 778X irrelevant. But it is worse news for the 748i, for it destroys its business case altogether. Out of curiosity, how does the A380 compare?

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 125):
That is an interesting question. If the FAA sticks with the rule that no single component failure should be able to jeopardise the safety of the aircraft, they probably demand that the wingtip could brake off in flight with out posing danger to the aircraft.

As I understand it, the wingtips can stay folded or fall off without impacting flight safety. Their benefit is that they reduce induced drag, but the plane can fly perfectly safely without them as controlability is not compromised-the ailerons have enough authority to cope with any malfunction.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-05 06:52:41 and read 17336 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 113):
One thing that I haven't seen is some sort of estimate of how many 777X's that people think EK will eventually go for? I mean, they have the A350-1000 coming so that is part of the 77W replacement market right there. Let's say it's 75 frames - is the 777X program valid with those 75 frames but invalid without them? If so, then I say scrap the project altogether. Otherwise, how do you justify a program that lives or dies by one or two carrier's interest?

It's not all about EK. I don't dispute that EK may very well be the biggest customer for the 777X, and therefore the most important, but there will be others. The fact that more and more airlines are configuring their 777-300ERs in a high density (350+ seat) configuration is evidence to the available market for a bigger 777. This is where the 777X slots in. Even if, for whatever reason, EK decide not to order the 777X, I do not believe that will spell the end of the project, although I will concede losing the EK order will be a significant blow.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 128):
One thing I don't understand is the thinner interior walls. Why would the current interior walls be wider than they need to be, and if the walls become thinner, will the interior become noisier?

Not necessarily. It's not just the thickness of the material that determines noise transmission, but also the material itself. The new engines should also be quieter than the GE90-115Bs.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-05 08:07:58 and read 17217 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 131):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 108):
I think this the chart we are talking about, it describes the 777-8X and -9X vs the 350-1000 and 748i. The -8LX which flies some 9400nm is not described, in fact I have not modeled it yet

If this chart is correct, it is pretty bad for the A3510. The 778X beats it (barely) in fuel efficiency and carries the same load farther, which if true renders the heavier weight of the 778X irrelevant. But it is worse news for the 748i, for it destroys its business case altogether. Out of curiosity, how does the A380 compare?

I recall previous Being figures that suggested that the existing 737NG was more efficient than the A320NEO...I'd be very surprised if the A3510 wasn't signicantly more efficient than the 778X. The 779X has no direct Airbus rival, so is complementary to the A350 and A380

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-05 09:25:40 and read 17087 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 133):
I recall previous Being figures that suggested that the existing 737NG was more efficient than the A320NEO...I'd be very surprised if the A3510 wasn't signicantly more efficient than the 778X.

I am talking about Ferpe's load-range chart, unless you consider that Boeing propaganda. I don't know where he got his figures, but I would be surprised if the 778X wasn't at least close to the A3510 in efficiency; after all, its engines are newer and larger (and jet engines in general increase in efficiency as they get larger), and it will have an all-new wing. If it is not very close to the A3510 in efficiency then, as I have said earlier, it is an utter waste of time and money.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-05 12:35:51 and read 16867 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 134):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 133):
I recall previous Being figures that suggested that the existing 737NG was more efficient than the A320NEO...I'd be very surprised if the A3510 wasn't signicantly more efficient than the 778X.

I am talking about Ferpe's load-range chart, unless you consider that Boeing propaganda. I don't know where he got his figures, but I would be surprised if the 778X wasn't at least close to the A3510 in efficiency; after all, its engines are newer and larger (and jet engines in general increase in efficiency as they get larger), and it will have an all-new wing. If it is not very close to the A3510 in efficiency then, as I have said earlier, it is an utter waste of time and money.

What I meant that there are always loads of calculations, both those issued by the OEMs and those issued by 3rd parties, with varying assumptions used, which can tilt the message.

One thing I don't understand is that the A3510 will use 97k thrust engines, whereas the 778X can get by with around 90k, despite being slightly heavier and having a fatter fuselage. I can't imagine the GE9X engines will be THAT much more efficient than the newly developed RR engine for the A3510? Didn't the A3510 start off with lower power engines before the thrust requirement crept up...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-04-05 12:46:09 and read 16854 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 135):
One thing I don't understand is that the A3510 will use 97k thrust engines, whereas the 778X can get by with around 90k, despite being slightly heavier and having a fatter fuselage.

Well, you need to remember that the 777X will have a longer wingspan 233ft vs 213ft on the A350. The Larger wingspan will reduce Induced drag, so the lower thrust engines for the 777X isnt so far fetched.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 135):
I can't imagine the GE9X engines will be THAT much more efficient than the newly developed RR engine for the A3510?

Well the difference is that the GE9X hasn't been built and tested yet, the Trent XWB has. Plus GE are looking for certification somewhere around 2018, 5 yrs from now. A lot can happen in 5 yrs...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-05 12:52:27 and read 16820 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 135):
One thing I don't understand is that the A3510 will use 97k thrust engines, whereas the 778X can get by with around 90k, despite being slightly heavier and having a fatter fuselage. I can't imagine the GE9X engines will be THAT much more efficient than the newly developed RR engine for the A3510? Didn't the A3510 start off with lower power engines before the thrust requirement crept up...

Post 119 third paragraph: take 308 and divide by 65^2, note that figure. Then take 315t and divide with 71^2. Now which figure is lower? As said you are looking at 80% of the answer to your question.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-04-05 15:23:03 and read 16541 times.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 136):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 135):
I can't imagine the GE9X engines will be THAT much more efficient than the newly developed RR engine for the A3510?

Well the difference is that the GE9X hasn't been built and tested yet, the Trent XWB has. Plus GE are looking for certification somewhere around 2018, 5 yrs from now. A lot can happen in 5 yrs...


But the improvements are incremental, it's not as if the GE9X will be introducing radical and unique new technology. Presumably the Trent XWB of 2018 can be made to be more efficient than the engine of 2013. After all, RR had a new engine ready for the 777X, and since it lost out can now devote its attention exclusively to the Trent XWB instead.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-04-05 15:38:54 and read 16497 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 138):
But the improvements are incremental, it's not as if the GE9X will be introducing radical and unique new technology. Presumably the Trent XWB of 2018 can be made to be more efficient than the engine of 2013.

While I don't dispute your main point, I note that jetlife2 posted in the Tech/Ops forum to the effect that:

"I can assure you though that the GE9X is indeed an entirely clean sheet design. If you think about the operating cycle compared to the GE90-115B you will see that it is not an evolution. In fact I would say that there are only 3 things in common between the two engines, and they are "G", "E" and "9".

At this stage, I suspect that any assumptions of significant superiority in either direction are rash at best...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: FlyboyOz
Posted 2013-04-05 17:27:23 and read 16374 times.

why 10-abreast economy? Is that because EK has more 777s than other airlines??

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-05 17:56:22 and read 16333 times.

Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 140):
why 10-abreast economy?

More seats lowers your cost per seat and increases your revenue per seat. As such, many 777 operators are moving to 10-abreast from 9-abreast.

As I understand it, the 777X should have a seat cushion width at 10-abreast of 17.2in | 437mm, which is what the 747 is at 10-abreast and the 787 is at 9-abreast.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-05 20:35:29 and read 16165 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 124):
Hello Ferpe, 7930 Nm for 777-300Er is for 365 PAx (9 abreast)

@386 PAX (10 abreast) it's only 7825 Nm (Boeing's data)

The easiest way to understand the difference is that I give you their SAR (specific air range= range per ton of fuel = mpg) at their average flight level, 77W flies 61 nm/t and 777-9X gets 73 nm/t. That includes that the 77W flies with 365 pax+bags and the 777-9X with 406 pax+bags. This means the 777-9X flies 19% longer per ton of fuel despite carrying 40 more pax.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 124):
The guess is :

How much lighter the engines ?
How much heavier the fuselage
How much lighter the wings

I don't need to assume that the frame gets any lighter to get to the payload range chart, the better wing and engines are enough. In fact I am assuming it gets slightly heavier due to a longer fuselage and 40 more seats, 173t for the -9X instead of 168t for a 77W (all figures are for a spec configuration ie show room model, a real airliner model is always heavier and thus have an inferior payload range curve, but that applies to all models, 35J as well as -8X or -9X).

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 124):
Engine wise, the rotation angle can have an impact on the take off thrust ?
What kind of safety reserve will the regulator put on the folding wingtip ?
Will the 777-9 be a runway dragster or a snail ?

Boeing is making a new wing, they have every chance to tailor the start slat/flap config to get a better lift per rotation angle characteristic to compensate for the slightly longer fuselage. Further the wider span will help in a major way, the induced drag makes up 80% of the D in the all critical start L/D which sets the engine thrust (which is set by the engine out case more then the take off distance).

I don't think FAA will require that you loose an engine and a wingtip at the same time, than you have a bad day at the office  Wow! .

Not as preppy as the 77W  , more like a 777-300 for those that have flown with one.

[Edited 2013-04-05 20:47:12]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-04-06 13:15:58 and read 15631 times.

Thanks,
So 25% less per seat than 777-300ER (9 abreast vs 10 abreast)

The folding wingting is a mechanical device so it can fail...

For my part it's the interesting point of this project : how to go beyond class E span, without having class F restriction

One case : landing in a class E airport, unable to fold wingtips, how are you going to taxy ? without messing the whole airport schedule ?
71 m might be "acceptable" on class E airport ( 747-8I has derogations I remember)
But it's an important point (at least for me)

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-04-06 13:30:34 and read 15580 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 143):
For my part it's the interesting point of this project : how to go beyond class E span, without having class F restriction

One case : landing in a class E airport, unable to fold wingtips, how are you going to taxy ? without messing the whole airport schedule ?
71 m might be "acceptable" on class E airport ( 747-8I has derogations I remember)
But it's an important point (at least for me)

It shouldn't pose much of a problem as it's just 3 meters longer on each wing than a category E maximum vs the A380 that's 7.5 meters longer on each wing than a category E maximum
Hence

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2013-04-06 14:21:45 and read 15493 times.

To me, the folding wingtip is the least complex problem to solve. Navy planes have been folding more than 3 meters since WW2, and that's with passing hydraulics and electrics past the hinge. They are tested to a much higher G load than the 77X should ever see.

I'm surprised they are only adding 3 meters past the hinge. That's not even as Once you decide to add a folding section, then the sky is the limit....why stop at a 71m span? If that is good, wouldn't more be better?

3 meters is less than the size of the 767 winglet.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-04-06 15:12:16 and read 15386 times.

[/quote]

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 145):
I'm surprised they are only adding 3 meters past the hinge.

Perhaps Boeing is avoiding certification problems with longer folding wing tips.

I guess that the folding wingtip will not make to the final product, because the airlines will not want the added complexity for a marginal gain.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-06 16:57:45 and read 15248 times.

Quoting joecanuck (Reply 145):
I'm surprised they are only adding 3 meters past the hinge.
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 146):
Perhaps Boeing is avoiding certification problems with longer folding wing tips.

  

Longer spans might require flight control surfaces to be past the folding mechanism and Boeing won't want to do that because it adds to the weight and complexity (I believe the 777-200 folding wingtips incorporated flight control surfaces).

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-04-06 20:49:53 and read 14909 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 141):
More seats lowers your cost per seat and increases your revenue per seat.

I always thought that more seats equated to lower RASM. Do I have it backwards?

-Dave

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-06 21:23:52 and read 14882 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 148):
I always thought that more seats equated to lower RASM. Do I have it backwards?

I guess it depends on what fares those seats go out for. It does raise your total revenue per flight, however.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Mortyman
Posted 2013-04-07 01:52:01 and read 14634 times.

Quoting by738 (Reply 57):
Bigger plane, less exits .....mmmm

My thoughts too ... Not sure I like that ...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-07 07:07:55 and read 14341 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 146):
I guess that the folding wingtip will not make to the final product, because the airlines will not want the added complexity for a marginal gain.

I'm sure it will be. The 777X folding wingtips aren't all that complex. Boeing had already developed one for the original 777-200 which is more complex and heavier than what is proposed for the 777X, because the 777X's folding wingtip does not incorporate any control surfaces.

The gains that will result from the added span is not insignificant.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: joecanuck
Posted 2013-04-07 08:57:27 and read 14250 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 151):

The gains that will result from the added span is not insignificant.

...and, again, the technology has been perfected over half a century of navy flying. I don't know how often the folding mechanism has failed but I couldn't find any. It's easy to build a fail safe into the mechanism to prevent taking off with the wings folded.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-07 09:56:40 and read 14134 times.

Forgive me for being slow on the uptake, but I thought, when I heard of the 777X concept, that the 777-9 was the replacement for the 773ER and/or the 748; and the 777-8 was the replacement for the 772ER.
If this is NOT the case, then what IS the replacement for the 772ER? The A359?

THere is a lot of speculation going on here. I am going to "wait and see" what Boeing does after ethey get the 787 problems taken care of....

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-07 10:12:32 and read 14104 times.

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 153):
If this is NOT the case, then what IS the replacement for the 772ER?

The 787-9. It's cabin is effectively the same length as the 777-200ER.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-07 14:02:12 and read 13826 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
The 787-9. It's cabin is effectively the same length as the 777-200ER.

THis does make sense. However, if this is the case, I would expect A LOT more orders for the 787-9 as the 772s (even the -ERs) are getting old already. Are we going to see a rush of orders for the 787-9 anytime soon??? That would be nice.
          

PS- Thanks Stitch for your info.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-08 12:56:10 and read 13209 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
Quoting hannahpa (Reply 153):
If this is NOT the case, then what IS the replacement for the 772ER?

The 787-9. It's cabin is effectively the same length as the 777-200ER.

But it has one less seat per row, making it about 10% less capacity.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-04-08 13:27:12 and read 13111 times.

Is the 787-10 a suitable repalcement for 772ER?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-08 13:35:33 and read 13101 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
The 787-9. It's cabin is effectively the same length as the 777-200ER.

Only in a rather cramped configuration...

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2013-04-08 14:09:49 and read 13078 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 63):

That's the rub, attacking two airliner programs (787/777) with just one program (A350).

I'm sure each manufacture can defend their decision.

I think Airbus made the best decision it could have made at the time. With the 350, A is winning the lion's share of the 77E market and will probably split the 77W market with Boeing. The 779 will probably split the VLA market with the 380 (slight favor to the 779). So Boeing will rule the 767/A330 200 market. Not much wrong with that really, just the cycle is probably timing for Boeing to be on top for the next 15 years, after which it will probably swing back to Airbus.

Like a couple of well matched tennis players... back and forth... back and forth........

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-08 14:28:47 and read 13035 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 156):
[But it has one less seat per row, making it about 10% less capacity.

It depends on the airline and the product.


Quoting YTZ (Reply 158):
Only in a rather cramped configuration...

Again, it depends on the carrier and the product. 9-abreast on the 787 is about the same as 10-abreast on a 747 and more comfortable than 10-abreast on a 777.



Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 157):
Is the 787-10 a suitable replacement for 772ER?

Yes, especially for those who operate 7-abreast in Business or 10-abreast in Economy.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-08 15:54:49 and read 12839 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 160):
It depends on the airline and the product.

Well, the 787 was designed for 8 abreast originally, and most airlines are making it 9; whereas the 777 was designed for 9 abreast, and many airlines are going to 10. So most airlines, I suspect, will have one more row in the 777 than the 787, There will be a few, I suppose, who will have 9 abreast in both, but I think they will be by far in the minority.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-08 16:37:31 and read 12807 times.

Well for those who have 10-abreast in the 777 and don't want to back to 9, then they're going to have t order the 777X. As such, the 777-8X becomes the 777-200ER replacement for those customers and it might not be as poor a seller as some are positing.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-09 09:07:51 and read 12391 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 162):

         Thats exactly what I was thinking. The 777 is WIDER than the 787..... This is why I think the 777-8 has a good business case!!!

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-09 09:19:45 and read 12348 times.

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 163):
Thats exactly what I was thinking. The 777 is WIDER than the 787..... This is why I think the 777-8 has a good business case!!!

The business case is base purely on numbers, and the only way passenger comfort enters into them is if substantial numbers of them refuse (or prefer) to fly it, and are willing to pay the difference. More width means more drag and weight, which means more fuel and hurts the numbers.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-09 19:54:41 and read 11987 times.

I agree but I believe the original question was about the 777-200 replacement and the 10-abreast fad did not start happening until much more recently (77W). I can only think of one customer in the top 15 77E customers with a 10-abreast product (AF). EK is #19 on the list of largest 772/77E customers. I believe JL has 10-abreast on their non-ER 772's.

In other words (and as Stitch has mentioned): If an airline is looking to perfectly replace (not up gauge) their current 777-200ER product and they are not Air France, then the 787-9 is a perfect replacement. If they want additional range and capacity then the A359 makes sense, and if they want additional capacity and don't need the range above 4,500nm then the 787-10 will work well.

Clear as mud. Fleet planners have a fun but stressful job.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-09 21:01:58 and read 11892 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 164):
Quoting hannahpa (Reply 163): Thats exactly what I was thinking. The 777 is WIDER than the 787..... This is why I think the 777-8 has a good business case!!!
The business case is base purely on numbers, and the only way passenger comfort enters into them is if substantial numbers of them refuse (or prefer) to fly it, and are willing to pay the difference. More width means more drag and weight, which means more fuel and hurts the numbers.

The 777-8X may have commonality with the 9X - but that commonality comes at a price.
The 8X is a non-optimised variant that is structurally less efficient than the 9X - it has a wing and engines (de-rated) designed for an aircraft that is 29,000kg heavier (9X). This wouldn't be so much of an issue except that the 8X is totally surrounded by fully optimised and highly efficient platforms such as the 359, 35J and 787-10 and in the case of the Airbus products, clean sheet designs.
In a world where efficiency is everything that is a very difficult environment in which to begin life as a derivative.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-09 21:13:02]

[Edited 2013-04-09 21:18:51]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-09 23:44:47 and read 11705 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 166):
The 777-8X may have commonality with the 9X - but that commonality comes at a price.

The rub is since the 8x will be a shrink of the 9x, it's not going to cost a ton to certify it. I'm guessing they will do the 9x first, and only build the 8x if they get a large enough order.

Somebody might want a 77LMAX.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-09 23:46:52 and read 11713 times.

Like many of you, I have a hard time understanding why the 777-8X is positioned on top of the A350-1000 especially as a non-optimized frame as you've stated StickShaker. I am sure there are very good reasons why the -8X isn't positioned at the 77W length (73.9 M) and the 9X isn't maxed out at 80M but I just cannot understand why. I have to believe that having the largest possible twin is a market advantage medium/long term.

Did they not fully understand the capability potential of the 787-10 or do they overestimate the capabilities of the 747-8i? I find that hard to believe. Is there something inherent in the design (MLG? Strength of Fuselage?) that makes it very difficult to stretch that far. Maybe its just customer feedback that we are not privy to. That is very important but if I was managing an airline I could see the benefit of having manufacturers offering competing product and maybe their short terms interests aren't long term wise for Boeing.

Having a product to compete against both the A350-1000 and the A380-800 would be a smart move rather than punting on one and relying on another. The freighter and the LR is an afterthought in my mind. Engine capability seems to be there and the folding wing should make the optimal span irrelevant.

If someone has any insight, I would really like to hear it. I can't believe this is just hubris, I am sure I am missing something. Thanks.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-09 23:51:48 and read 11697 times.

I keep reading that the 8x is a stretch of the 777-200ER not a shrink of the 9X. Has that changed? It may change as orders come in as you say. Commonality can be an important factor I suspect.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-10 00:51:53 and read 11592 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 168):
I am sure there are very good reasons why the -8X isn't positioned at the 77W length (73.9 M) and the 9X isn't maxed out at 80M but I just cannot understand why.

I think there are quite a few of us scratching our heads over that one. The 777X will be an excellent platform on which to develop derivatives - I just don't see the 8X as best effort material.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 168):
Maybe its just customer feedback that we are not privy to.

Yes, there would be all sorts of information that is not in the public domain regarding the 777X program and no doubt Boeing know what they are doing. Doesn't stop the confusion here though.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 169):
I keep reading that the 8x is a stretch of the 777-200ER not a shrink of the 9X

The 8X is approx 777-250 in length (772.5).


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-10 06:36:00 and read 11269 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 170):
I just don't see the 8X as best effort material

Ferpes's chart in reply 108 gives the -8X a useful edge in range/payload over the A350-1000. at an almost identical fuel burn /knm/m^2 of cabin floor area.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 170):
Doesn't stop the confusion here though.

Never a truer word spoken on A net.  

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-10 07:41:19 and read 11139 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 171):
Ferpes's chart in reply 108 gives the -8X a useful edge in range/payload over the A350-1000. at an almost identical fuel burn /knm/m^2 of cabin floor area.

If Ferpe's chart is accurate, then I don't understand all the bashing of the -8X on this board. It will carry the same number of people as the 351 with an edge in lift and an identical fuel burn. So with metrics of passenger capacity, cargo capacity and CASM being comparable with a range edge - the -8X on paper has a slight edge over the 351.

The -9X of course gets all the glory simply because it can carry 403 folks as a stretch with attendant cargo increase with a similar range. However, not all airlines want/need that capacity.

So what am I missing in this comparison between the -8X and 351 given the stated capabilities and Ferpe's range chart?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-10 08:17:18 and read 11077 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 168):
I am sure there are very good reasons why the -8X isn't positioned at the 77W length (73.9 M) and the 9X isn't maxed out at 80M but I just cannot understand why

What is limiting the -9X is likely landing gear length/rotation angle; it is likely that in order to get adequate rotation with an 80m long fuselage the landing gear would have to be lengthened more than can be easily accommodated. Note that the 77W added the extra boost by causing the main trucks to pivot on takeoff, gaining probably .5m in effective length. The -9X will be significantly longer than the 77W, and while the new wing will allow them to position the landing gear legs farther out, and hence get longer legs, there is undoubtedly a practical limit. Besides, landing gear legs are VERY heavy.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-10 08:34:03 and read 11053 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 168):
I have to believe that having the largest possible twin is a market advantage medium/long term.

They already have the largest twin on the market in the 777-300ER, and when the 777-9X enters service, they will still have the largest twin on the market.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 168):
Is there something inherent in the design (MLG? Strength of Fuselage?) that makes it very difficult to stretch that far.

I strongly suspect that is the reason why the 777-9X isn't longer than it is. There's a limit to how far every airframe can be stretched, and I suspect that the 777-9X will be as long as the 777 is ever going to get.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 173):
The -9X will be significantly longer than the 77W

Is a 2.7m stretch that significant in terms of the need to make accommodations for rotation angles?

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-10 08:43:02 and read 11038 times.

"The 8X is approx 777-250 in length (772.5)."

Thanks StickShaker. I am aware of the dimensions but my point is that if the -8 is a stretch of the 77E it can optimized but if it turns out to be a shrink of the -9, I don't believe it can compete with the A351's fuel burn. It will be interesting to see which way they go about it if it gets built.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 172):

This could very well be true. However, the -8 would make the 4th new frame within the 314-353 seat segment. Currently there is only one model in that segment and it isn't selling well anymore. Does Boeing think there are more sales to be had in that segment 6+ years after the first new build's EIS (A359 in 2015*) all because it may have a slightly better fuel burn and slightly better lift? The -8 also requires airlines buying into 10-abreast seating and being ok with the folding wing concept (not a big deal, but still its an additional risk).

Personally, I would just like to see more variety in the sky and I see the -8 as a 'me too'. There seems to be plenty of space >350 seats. Do we really think this is the most profitable model they can introduce 8 years from now? Thrilled about the -9 and the A351 though.

tortugamon
*People seem to think there will be a little more slippage than the currently stated 2H 2014.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-10 09:08:35 and read 11007 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 173):

Very helpful. That makes a lot of sense. They probably wouldn't have made the pivoting main trucks (impressive engineering there) if they were not already pushing the limits on the 77W as you say.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 174):

You're right. I should have said the largest "possible" twin not just the largest twin. I am not sure how firm these 80M gate boxes are but I suspect aircraft length is going to be limited to that for the foreseeable future.

Making a 74M-385-seat-8 and 80M-429-seat -9 would take more engineering resources as people suggest and maybe the addition potential revenue could not recover the necessary ROI of the project. It could be that one model in the middle at 407 seats is more profitable than the two models but why do I think Boeing has already done those calculations.


tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: abba
Posted 2013-04-10 09:40:42 and read 11043 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 172):
If Ferpe's chart is accurate, then I don't understand all the bashing of the -8X on this board. It will carry the same number of people as the 351 with an edge in lift and an identical fuel burn. So with metrics of passenger capacity, cargo capacity and CASM being comparable with a range edge - the -8X on paper has a slight edge over the 351.



There are some problems here. What is compared is a 351 vintage 2013 to a 778x vintage 2020 with specs and an engine that has not reached a stage of development where it is offered with specs that will induce penalty payments if not met...

In other words: The 778x is now mostly dreams and marketing - and the 351 a moving target.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-10 10:36:58 and read 10947 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 174):

Is a 2.7m stretch that significant in terms of the need to make accommodations for rotation angles?

Perhaps not, but sometimes every inch becomes very expensive.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 175):
Thanks StickShaker. I am aware of the dimensions but my point is that if the -8 is a stretch of the 77E it can optimized but if it turns out to be a shrink of the -9, I don't believe it can compete with the A351's fuel burn. It will be interesting to see which way they go about it if it gets built.

Since the basic structure is going to be the same, it matters little if you talk about the -8 being a stretch of the 772ER or a shrink of the -9X. Either way you have exactly the same plane.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-10 10:55:43 and read 10923 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 177):
In other words: The 778x is now mostly dreams and marketing - and the 351 a moving target.

Not quite. There has been enough disclosed about the -8X to allow Ferpe to model it. So it is more than dreams and marketing. But your point that the 351 should improve in the time between its EIS and the -8X EIS is valid.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-10 11:09:05 and read 10928 times.

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 153):
If this is NOT the case, then what IS the replacement for the 772ER? The A359?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
The 787-9. It's cabin is effectively the same length as the 777-200ER.

This thread has become a general 777X thread so let's put all the cards on the table  

The 787-9 can be seen as a 777-200ER replacement indeed but so does the A359. The 787-9 may have the same cabin length but it seats a maximum of 290 passengers in a 3 class configuration due the 9 abreast cabin. The 77E can seat 314 passengers thanks to a 10 abreast cabin. The A359 is bigger and allows to seat the same 314 passengers in a more comfortable 9 abreast cabin. The sum up:

- 77E: 10 abreast, 17" seats, 314 pax
- 789: 9 abreast, 17.2" seats, 290 pax (can also have 18.5" seats in a 8 abreast cabin and 250 pax max)
- A359: 9 abreast, 18" seats, 314 pax

However, this does not mean there is a real winner here. In real life, like Stitch pointed out, the decision will be made on the airline needs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 162):
Well for those who have 10-abreast in the 777 and don't want to back to 9, then they're going to have t order the 777X. As such, the 777-8X becomes the 777-200ER replacement for those customers and it might not be as poor a seller as some are positing.

I do not agree.

10 abreast is an advantage for the current generation 777 aircraft because it allows the airline to install more seats and thus generate more revenue. 10 abreast is however not an advantage for the 777-8X because it will already carry a maximum of 353 passengers. The A35J will seat about the same amount of passengers in a 9 abreast cabin with wider seats.

- 777-8X: 10 abreast, 17.4" seats**, 353 pax
- A35J: 9 abreast, 18" seats, 350 pax

I don't see why airlines should stick with 10 abreast.

** Note: the 777X will have a bit wider cabin, but not wide enough to allow 18" seats in 10 abreast.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 168):

Like many of you, I have a hard time understanding why the 777-8X is positioned on top of the A350-1000 especially as a non-optimized frame as you've stated StickShaker.

I keep asking myself the same question (see also reply #74).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 168):
Having a product to compete against both the A350-1000 and the A380-800 would be a smart move rather than punting on one and relying on another.

The problem with this market segment is that it is not big enough for all those frames and the less economic airframe will be killed in the end. Instead, each frame should have its own unique features so they can live together.

- 777-9X: new 400 seats market
- 777-8LX: ULH frame, excellent freighter too
- A35J: current 350 seat market

Splitting the 350-400 seat market, 50/50, no one will get hurt.

On the other hand, Airbus is doing the same with the A350-800. Both manufacturers offer a less economic airframe and if they can sell enough of them to cover the certification costs (let's say 50 to 100 units), well why not then. Every sale is a sale less for the competitor  

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-10 11:10:42 and read 10915 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 178):

I thought that it would be easier to stretch a lighter frame (77E) and only add support where necessary than trying to take a larger frame (-9) and try to remove weight. I thought that was the problem with the A358. Maybe it does not make a difference.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-10 11:25:47 and read 10888 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 180):
The problem with this market segment is that it is not big enough for all those frames and the less economic airframe will be killed in the end. Instead, each frame should have its own unique features so they can live together.

- 777-9X: new 400 seats market
- 777-8LX: ULH frame, excellent freighter too
- A35J: current 350 seat market

Splitting the 350-400 seat market, 50/50, no one will get hurt.

On the other hand, Airbus is doing the same with the A350-800. Both manufacturers offer a less economic airframe and if they can sell enough of them to cover the certification costs (let's say 50 to 100 units), well why not then. Every sale is a sale less for the competitor  

Do you all honestly believe the airlines (especially ones such as EK and the other 10 abreast leaders) care at all about whether it feels "cramped" in economy? They have data going back to deregulation in the U.S. (circa 1978) that tells them the public will book with the airline with the cheapest fare almost every time.

I also don't buy that the -8X is not "optimized." It is what it is, a 350 seat jet that is cheaper to fly than the 77W with a longer range. It will compete against the 351 and will have to contend with frames such as the 787-10 at the lower end of their seating capacity. Boeing will offer it because it won't cost much to develop given the work invested in the -9X. They also will be able to offer the -8X LR which will sell some frames and have a staggering range which means folks like EK can run double-daily to LAX with one of the flights on the -8X LR and pack in the cargo that EK whines it can't currently carry.

The obsession on this board with the "latest tech" comparing the 351 to the -8X really does not resonate with the airlines who actually pay for the plane. All they carry about is price, capability and reliability. So long as it does what Boeing or Airbus said it would do, they will buy one or the other depending on their needs and fleet composition.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-10 11:44:14 and read 10833 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):
Do you all honestly believe the airlines (especially ones such as EK and the other 10 abreast leaders) care at all about whether it feels "cramped" in economy? They have data going back to deregulation in the U.S. (circa 1978) that tells them the public will book with the airline with the cheapest fare almost every time.

I know, the airlines do not care. It was more a reaction to the "we stick to 10 abreast because" reply.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):
I also don't buy that the -8X is not "optimized." It is what it is, a 350 seat jet that is cheaper to fly than the 77W with a longer range. It will compete against the 351 and will have to contend with frames such as the 787-10 at the lower end of their seating capacity. Boeing will offer it because it won't cost much to develop given the work invested in the -9X. They also will be able to offer the -8X LR which will sell some frames and have a staggering range which means folks like EK can run double-daily to LAX with one of the flights on the -8X LR and pack in the cargo that EK whines it can't currently carry.

The A350-800 will also be way better than the A330 and yet it only secured 90 orders for the simply reason the competitor has a better alternative (787-9). I doubt if the A350-800 will ever sell more than 200 units, unless Airbus optimize the airframe. And I believe it is the same story for the -8X: same wings and engines from the -9X, no further optimalisations and the competiror will have a better airframe (A35J). And I can see Boeing also selling 100 of those -8X aircraft, and that should cover the certification costs, but it won't be the same success as the 77W.

No hard feelings here, just my   

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: abba
Posted 2013-04-10 14:12:37 and read 10627 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 179):
Not quite. There has been enough disclosed about the -8X to allow Ferpe to model it. So it is more than dreams and marketing


Even dreams and marketing can be modeled   . How many firm contracts with penalty payments if guaranteed specs are not met has been signed by now? What the Boeing marketing department - that is those who framed the name Dreamliner and made sure it was rolled out on the 7th of July 2007 no matter what - says as long as Boeing is not to put its money where their mouth is should be taken with a big spoon of salt.   

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-10 14:37:20 and read 10562 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 173):

What is limiting the -9X is likely landing gear length/rotation angle; it is likely that in order to get adequate rotation with an 80m long fuselage the landing gear would have to be lengthened more than can be easily accommodated.

Since they're building a new wing, installing longer gear shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 180):
- 777-9X: new 400 seats market
- 777-8LX: ULH frame, excellent freighter too
- A35J: current 350 seat market

I think that's about it but commonality and a better deal from Boeing by ordering more planes might get the 8x ordered in a package might make the difference in some orders.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-10 14:42:11 and read 10552 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 180):
** Note: the 777X will have a bit wider cabin, but not wide enough to allow 18" seats in 10 abreast.

This is why I think that the 777-8 is a better replacement for the 77E. And still be 9-abreast in Y.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):
777-9X: new 400 seats market
- 777-8LX: ULH frame, excellent freighter too
- A35J: current 350 seat market

If Boeing does NOT build the -8X, I think that they should build the -8LX. This would be the perfect replacement for the 77L/A340-500.

Just my   

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-04-10 14:46:43 and read 10538 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 183):
The A350-800 will also be way better than the A330 and yet it only secured 90 orders for the simply reason the competitor has a better alternative (787-9). I doubt if the A350-800 will ever sell more than 200 units, unless Airbus optimize the airframe. And I believe it is the same story for the -8X: same wings and engines from the -9X, no further optimalisations and the competiror will have a better airframe (A35J). And I can see Boeing also selling 100 of those -8X aircraft, and that should cover the certification costs, but it won't be the same success as the 77W.

No hard feelings here, just my   

No hard feelings here   What further optimizations do you or other folks reading this think the -8X requires? It doesn't make sense to develop a new wing and engines for a variant and we have to assume Boeing will be looking for ways to lighten the aircraft where possible. I agree that it likely won't see as many frames as the -9X but should do fine and at minimal development costs which will also yield the -8X LR and a freighter to boot.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-10 15:07:55 and read 10495 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 187):

I feel the smaller version of the 777X is already going to be the LR and Freighter regardless of how big the plane is so long as it is based upon the larger wing/engine of the 9X. Is there something specific about about the 8X that makes it ideal for those platforms that any short version of the 777X could not accomplish? I just feel that both the 8X and the 9X should be bigger so that even though the wing and engine dimensions (fan size and weight) are not ideal for the 8X, a capacity increase over the more optimized 351 could help sell the plane along with lower price, commonality, package deals, training and all of the other excellent points people have been mentioning.

On a slightly different note, the WSJ article that mentioned the 777X could be launched by next board meeting indicated that EK was most interested in the 8LR. Can that be accurate? I know TC wanted the LAX lift but I was thinking the 9X was by far more interesting for them as a whole.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-10 19:13:40 and read 10246 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 184):
How many firm contracts with penalty payments if guaranteed specs are not met has been signed by now?


Don't forget it has yet to be approved by the Boeing Board,,,,,,,,,

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
On a slightly different note, the WSJ article that mentioned the 777X could be launched by next board meeting indicated that EK was most interested in the 8LR. Can that be accurate? I know TC wanted the LAX lift but I was thinking the 9X was by far more interesting for them as a whole.

the answer is here.......

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):
They also will be able to offer the -8X LR which will sell some frames and have a staggering range which means folks like EK can run double-daily to LAX with one of the flights on the -8X LR and pack in the cargo that EK whines it can't currently carry.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-10 20:55:16 and read 10119 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 172):
The -9X of course gets all the glory simply because it can carry 403 folks as a stretch with attendant cargo increase with a similar range. However, not all airlines want/need that capacity.

The 9X gets all the glory because it is only at that size and capacity that the 777X program can compete successfully with the 35J. The entire business case for the 777X is predicated on existing 77W customers (along with new customers) migrating up to the 400 seat category for the 9X.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 172):
I don't understand all the bashing of the -8X on this board

Its not just here on A.net - the 8X has received much attention in the aviation media for having a poor business case. Roughly translated this implies that it is not sufficiently competitive to score many orders. Given that the 8X is the direct replacement for the trail blazing 77W I don't think that is a good situation for Boeing.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):
They also will be able to offer the -8X LR which will sell some frames and have a staggering range

The 77L has a staggering range but in sales terms it is only a niche player - should the massive market segment carved out by the 77W be served by a non-optimised niche player ?

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):
The obsession on this board with the "latest tech" comparing the 351 to the -8X really does not resonate with the airlines who actually pay for the plane.

Its all about having sufficient efficiency built into the platform to keep it competitive over its life span - this is why the 789 is going to be a killer - at the expense of the 358. The "latest tech" resonated quite strongly with the airlines who bought the 77W rather than the 346.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 183):
The A350-800 will also be way better than the A330 and yet it only secured 90 orders for the simply reason the competitor has a better alternative (787-9).

  

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 187):
What further optimizations do you or other folks reading this think the -8X requires? It doesn't make sense to develop a new wing and engines for a variant

Airbus has individually optimised both the 359 and the 35J and this is why both will be highly competitive rather than just one model being competitive at the expense of the other. You don't have to develop a new wing to optimise a particular variant. Boeing have chosen the approach of commonality for the 777X rather than optimisation. I suspect they have done so to keep down the massive capital costs (R&D) of launching the program rather than any conviction that commonality will produce more sales than a strategy employing optimisation.


I think we have a mini-jumbo war here on A.net.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-10 21:19:28]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: abba
Posted 2013-04-10 21:55:49 and read 10014 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 189):
Don't forget it has yet to be approved by the Boeing Board,,,,,,,,,



Exactly! We are still in the phase where words come cheap.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-11 02:02:28 and read 9838 times.

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 186):
This is why I think that the 777-8 is a better replacement for the 77E. And still be 9-abreast in Y.

A 777-8X with a 9 abreast cabin will only seat 310 passengers or so. Therefore it will compete with the A359 and the latter will have a lighter airframe and burns less fuel.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
On a slightly different note, the WSJ article that mentioned the 777X could be launched by next board meeting indicated that EK was most interested in the 8LR. Can that be accurate? I know TC wanted the LAX lift but I was thinking the 9X was by far more interesting for them as a whole.

The -8LX make sense for EK because they can fly 350 pax and full payload on DXB-LAX routes. That is something the -9X and the current 77W can't do that.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 185):
I think that's about it but commonality and a better deal from Boeing by ordering more planes might get the 8x ordered in a package might make the difference in some orders.

That is true, that's why I think they could sell 100 -8X units or so. Just like the A358. But it won't be in big numbers.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 190):
Its not just here on A.net - the 8X has received much attention in the aviation media for having a poor business case.

   To quote:

Quote:
Recent customer meetings indicated that the proposed 777-8X isn’t particularly well received. The concept as currently envisioned is actually slightly smaller than the current 777-300ER: 350 passengers vs 365 in three class. Customers are much more favorably inclined toward the 777-9X, envisioned at 407 passengers three class, more than 50 passengers larger than the Airbus A350-1000. The extra capacity goes a long way toward the economics, which according to sources, is targeted for the 9X to be 21% better fuel burn and 15% better operating costs, per seat.

Source http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...ying-how-far-to-take-improvements/

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
I feel the smaller version of the 777X is already going to be the LR and Freighter regardless of how big the plane is so long as it is based upon the larger wing/engine of the 9X.

There is indeed a good chance that we will never see a -8X:

Quote:
As a result of such cool reception toward the 777-8X, according to our source familiar with the thinking, Boeing is pondering covering the low end of the 777 class with the 787-10 and proceeding only with the 777-9X.


(quoted from the same source above)

Stitch has also a clear view on this:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
I suppose if the difference in OEW between the 777-8 and 777-8L is minimal, then there is probably no reason to offer anything but the 777-8L. Operators who do not need the full capability of the 777-8L can derate the MTOW and engine thrust to reduce costs.

Going forward with a -8LX and a 9X is still how I see it.

[Edited 2013-04-11 02:12:53]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-11 02:11:19 and read 9793 times.

/edit

Duplicate post.

[Edited 2013-04-11 02:13:12]

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-11 03:43:13 and read 9664 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 190):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):They also will be able to offer the -8X LR which will sell some frames and have a staggering range
The 77L has a staggering range but in sales terms it is only a niche player - should the massive market segment carved out by the 77W be served by a non-optimised niche player ?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 192):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 185):I think that's about it but commonality and a better deal from Boeing by ordering more planes might get the 8x ordered in a package might make the difference in some orders.

That is true, that's why I think they could sell 100 -8X units or so. Just like the A358. But it won't be in big numbers.

Let's have a look at the current operators of ULH planes:
AC: 6x 77L
AI: 8x 77L
DL: 10x 77L
EK: 10x 77L and 10x A345
ET: 6x 77L
EY: 4xA345
J2: 2x A345
PK: 2x 77L
QR: 9x 77L
SQ: 5x A345
TG: 4x A345
W3: 2x A345
And there are some that operate just one or two as BJJ/Governmental use.
Of those I can only see AC, DL, EK, QR and perhaps EY interested in new ULH planes. And probably some BBJ/Governmental users. But some A345/77L operators use them on relatively short routes (I was one an EK A345 from DXB to SEZ recently, just 4,5 hours!). Let's say, with some growth in mind, from current users about 50-60 orders. Boeing needs 40-50 orders from new operators to reach 100. Not impossible, but with A350s and 777-9X already having 8000NM+ range, I wonder where the routes are in that particular niche for the 777-8LX   

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-11 05:37:08 and read 9467 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 194):
but with A350s and 777-9X already having 8000NM range, I wonder where the routes are in that particular niche for the 777-8LX

I see the -8LX as a 77L with ~ 50 more seats. So about 77W seating with 77L cargo ability. Would work rather well on IAD/JFK/YYZ- HKG/ PVG sectors that are about 16 hrs westbound.
I think the -8LX and the -9X complement each other. The first will give away passenger load in favor of freight and the second will do the reverse on ULH sectors. Essentially this is how AC are operating their YYZ- Asian sectors.

Topic: RE: Boeing 777x To Start Mini Jumbo War
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-11 07:17:38 and read 9356 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 177):
What is compared is a 351 vintage 2013 to a 778x vintage 2020 with specs and an engine that has not reached a stage of development where it is offered with specs that will induce penalty payments if not met...

The same applies for the 777X. The 2020 EIS vintage 777X might well be better than the current, 2013 proposed version. It's not just the A350 that gets running improvements as the program progresses.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 182):
Boeing will offer it because it won't cost much to develop given the work invested in the -9X. They also will be able to offer the -8X LR which will sell some frames and have a staggering range which means folks like EK can run double-daily to LAX with one of the flights on the -8X LR and pack in the cargo that EK whines it can't currently carry.

  

I don't think the 777-8X will be a big seller, but I also think that Boeing should develop it anyway, because it isn't going to cost much to develop, and because it forms the basis for a 777-8LX and potentially, a 777-8F as well.

Quoting abba (Reply 184):
What the Boeing marketing department - that is those who framed the name Dreamliner and made sure it was rolled out on the 7th of July 2007 no matter what - says as long as Boeing is not to put its money where their mouth is should be taken with a big spoon of salt.

No one is going to argue that the 787 program went smoothly, but I fail to understand how that is relevant to the upcoming 777X program. Every program has different challenges. Just because the 787 program didn't go as smoothly as Boeing would've liked doesn't mean the same is going to happen with other programs.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 192):
Going forward with a -8LX and a 9X is still how I see it.

Those two subtypes will be the bigger sellers, definitely, but unless there is no interest whatsoever in a base 777-8X, I think Boeing should still do it. Even if there were only a handful, say 50, orders for the base 777-8X, it might be profitable for Boeing to do it because of the relatively low development costs.


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/