Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5746876/

Topic: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-04-24 22:45:07 and read 21223 times.

Per ATW news (subscription required for full article):

http://atwonline.com/airframes/boein...ely-soon-777x-launch-possible-year

Jim McNerney says that the 787-10 launch will be soon; not much of a surprise there, clearly the 787's team have been busy with other matters for the past few months! It will be a relief to see the 787-10 being launched; I can't remember a variant that has been so much talked about, but not yet launched (well, apart from the A380-900!).

Have the final specs (specifically length) been announced for the -10?

The fact that the 777X launch is only "possible" this year is a bit of a surprise - to me, anyway. I appreciate that launching two major projects in one year is a big challenge, but I had understood that EK is pretty much ready to go and would probably like to announce the launch at this year's Dubai air show.

Presumably we will get more flesh on both of these two stories at the Paris Air Show.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: qf340500
Posted 2013-04-25 02:01:14 and read 20688 times.

"soon", "imminent", "possibly"... how many times have we heard this?

Slow news day in the US?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-04-25 02:14:43 and read 20632 times.

I smell launch order at Paris Air Show - BA, IB, Lufthansa perhaps? We shall see.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2013-04-25 03:14:10 and read 20412 times.

Interesting the comment at this stage. First all have been waiting for the 787-10 launch.
Then recently it seemed that the 777x will come through even more soon.

While I have no doubt that the 787-10 was always more ready for launch, I read this step back (in my eyes), that the airlines are still not in agreement about the 777x spec, namely probably an interest conflict between Emirates (the more long range the better - that's why we may read about the 230 plane option) and other (European) customers, who are satisfied with 'reasonable' long haul capability.

Regards

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-25 03:54:45 and read 20256 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I smell launch order at Paris Air Show - BA, IB, Lufthansa perhaps? We shall see.

I think it's best to say who ISN'T going to order it, or rather, how many frames EK, BA, and LH will order   

What about DL ordering a replacement for the 744 or 772?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-04-25 04:43:41 and read 19842 times.

Flightglobal is suggesting that a production increase will be required for the -10. The chief exec is quoted as saying

One thing we don't lack for with the -10X is demand," McNerney says. "Customers want this airplane.


Where would this fit in with BAW's recent acquisitions?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-04-25 04:55:34 and read 19656 times.

The 787-10 would seem to be a good 772/772ER replacement for BA and others.

Incidentally, does anyone know if Boeing has defined the length of the 777-9X yet? I've heard that the -8X will be around (exactly? shorter? longer?) 77W size, but the -9X will be a good bit longer; will Boeing try to bring it as close to the 80m mark as it can? It would appear to me, a lowly enthuasist buying considerably fewer 777s than Emirates, that if they're going to lengthen it, they might as well get as much bang for their buck and push it as close to the 80m as possible.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: na
Posted 2013-04-25 05:00:04 and read 19562 times.

The 777X is a risky program, and very expensive. What if the A3510 overperforms and Airbus launches the A380-900 with unbeatable CASM before the 777X even flies? Then the third 777 generation is doomed, at least its success and lifecycle rather limited. It could become the A340-600 of the 2020s.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-25 05:14:11 and read 19342 times.

Boeing have recently stated that their current efforts re the 777X are focused upon "getting the business case where we want it to be".
I interpret this as balancing the massive R&D costs of the 777X program against projected sales revenues to deliver a ROI that meets corporate hurdle rates. This does not necessarily imply a conflict over specifications - that could be occuring as a separate issue anyway.
Having such a massive R&D component makes it a much harder decision - much harder than the original decision to launch the 77W/77L.

The market does have some justification to be confused as to just where the 777X has been heading over the past couple of years - there have been many conflicting signals.
Richard Aboulafia (a self confessed Boeing fan) gives an interesting insight into things here in his January newsletter. Its also worth reading this one regarding his comments about the A358 because those comments are equally relevant to the 777-8X - a model which can't be helping the overall business case of the 777X that much.
The non-optimised 8X is going to be surrounded by clean sheet optimised designs - if it could be made more competitive then the overall business case of the 777X program would be far more robust. At the moment it is the 9X that has to do all the heavy lifting to make the 777X case viable - thats an awful lot to ask of one single model to justify that massive R&D price tag.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-25 05:24:54]

[Edited 2013-04-25 05:25:32]

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-25 05:42:25 and read 18859 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 6):
Incidentally, does anyone know if Boeing has defined the length of the 777-9X yet?

Last I heard was 69.4m for the 777-8X and 76.5m for the 777-9X.

The 777-200 family is 63.7m and the 777-300 family is 73.9m, in comparison.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-04-25 05:53:38 and read 18678 times.

The 77X is appear to be particularly risky, but Boeing management are going to be in a risk averse frame of mind for the immediate future. Also, as planes get larger, sales volumes shrink, even if the program is profitable. They will be seeing how the larger 748i and A380 programs are going, be keen to aim for something that will be popular enough to guarantee a decent profit in short period of time. The 77X will be a complex project, with new wings and other major development required.
In it's favor, it will have a market segment more or less to itself. The A350 will be too small, the A380 too big, the 748i irrelevant. Important customers are already indicating they are interested. However, it won't be able to rely on the 777X for scales of volume to help make the case for what will be a significant investment, and the 787-10 or even 11 will be available anyway.

So, IMHO, the 777-9X will go ahead, it will have a segment of the market largely to itself, it will be profitable, but it won't be the success the 77W was in terms of volume.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-25 06:10:24 and read 18386 times.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):

Jim McNerney says that the 787-10 launch will be soon; not much of a surprise there

No surprise that he keeps saying it, this has to be the 30th imminent launch of the 787-10

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I smell launch order at Paris Air Show - BA, IB, Lufthansa perhaps? We shall see.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):
think it's best to say who ISN'T going to order it, or rather, how many frames EK, BA, and LH will order

If you care to look through the Anet archives people predicted launch orders for the 787-10 at Paris 2011.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-25 06:43:06 and read 17871 times.

Quoting na (Reply 7):
The 777X is a risky program, and very expensive. What if the A3510 overperforms and Airbus launches the A380-900 with unbeatable CASM before the 777X even flies? Then the third 777 generation is doomed, at least its success and lifecycle rather limited. It could become the A340-600 of the 2020s.

The 777X is neither risky nor expensive when compared with the other alternative - an all new aircraft. New aircraft programs are inherently risky and costly, as opposed to upgrades to existing platforms.

Based on the proposed specifications, the 777-9X is likely to be a very successful aircraft irrespective of the performance of the A350-1000. These two aircraft are different enough that they could operate alongside each other in the same fleet. The business case for the 777X program is solid, and as much as you wish it to be, it isn't "doomed". To so easily dismiss an aircraft before it has even been designed is pure shortsightedness.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-25 07:01:03 and read 17518 times.

Does anyone know the dimentions of the 787-10 yet? Or do we have to wait until they launch it?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-25 07:01:47 and read 17549 times.

Does anyone know the dimentions of the 787-10 yet? Or do we have to wait until they launch it?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-25 07:04:42 and read 17484 times.

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 13):
Does anyone know the dimentions of the 787-10 yet?

Last reports are 68.5 to 69 meters in length with the same weights as the 787-9.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-04-25 07:44:25 and read 16854 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):

Wings? Same length too? Or longer? Originally, they were going to have the 787-9 wing at 209ft. Are they going to have that proposed wing for the 787-10?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-25 08:11:50 and read 16448 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 12):
The 777X is neither risky nor expensive when compared with the other alternative - an all new aircraft. New aircraft programs are inherently risky and costly, as opposed to upgrades to existing platforms.

I think the wing mods make it much like the A340-5/600 program, Boeing may end up with a fair/good aircraft but also it may be outclassed by the new build A350. The 777-9X is also by all accounts very expensive. You can also look at the 747-8 for what happens when you increase wing size.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-25 08:32:50 and read 16076 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):

The 748 is a great aircraft and its wing is a significant improvement over the 744 wing. What's killing the 748 is the 77W...not its wing. The 77X will just be the final nail into the coffin.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-25 08:43:04 and read 15887 times.

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 17):
Wings? Same length too? Or longer? Originally, they were going to have the 787-9 wing at 209ft. Are they going to have that proposed wing for the 787-10?

Same wing . MTOW only 3 to 4t more than 789 to achieve the 7100nm range at max passenger load.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-25 08:49:47 and read 15780 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Last reports are 68.5 to 69 meters in length with the same weights as the 787-9.

If this refers to MEW it tends to confirm that B expect to bring in the 789 at a lighter weight than expected. The extra length should add about 6 to 7t to the MEW.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: davs5032
Posted 2013-04-25 09:42:08 and read 15055 times.

Quoting na (Reply 7):

The 777X is a risky program, and very expensive. What if the A3510 overperforms and Airbus launches the A380-900 with unbeatable CASM before the 777X even flies? Then the third 777 generation is doomed, at least its success and lifecycle rather limited. It could become the A340-600 of the 2020s.

It's not *that* risky given it's a redesign based on a highly successful 777, and it's expensive, but only because (needed) improvements are being made to make it more competitive with the A35J. Also, the risks you've associated with A35J and A389 over-performance are highly overstated, as the 77X will be launched (likely with a massive order by EK) and will accumulate enough other orders from current 777 customers to build a significant order book far before it, or the A35J, flies, therefore there's no way competitor over-performance could "doom" the 77X. Customers will be willing to commit to it early on due to the positive experiences and reputation of the 777 on which the redesign is based.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 8):
The market does have some justification to be confused as to just where the 777X has been heading over the past couple of years - there have been many conflicting signals.
Richard Aboulafia (a self confessed Boeing fan) gives an interesting insight into things here in his January newsletter. Its also worth reading this one regarding his comments about the A358 because those comments are equally relevant to the 777-8X - a model which can't be helping the overall business case of the 777X that much.
The non-optimised 8X is going to be surrounded by clean sheet optimised designs - if it could be made more competitive then the overall business case of the 777X program would be far more robust. At the moment it is the 9X that has to do all the heavy lifting to make the 777X case viable - thats an awful lot to ask of one single model to justify that massive R&D price tag.

I'll have to read the articles more in depth, but I just don't see the 778X's disadvantages as being anywhere near as pronounced as with the A358. Sure, the 778X, like the A358, will be a shrink, and this creates efficiency disadvantages, but you have to account for the fact that the 778X is being stretched by almost 6 meters over the 772. This will actually place it closer to the optimized 77W, than to the non-optimized 772 in terms of size.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-04-25 09:56:45 and read 14850 times.

Why even bother with the 778 at a new length? Make the 778 - 77W length ( so no new engineering needed on length) and stretch the 779 as close to 80M as possible.

Give the 778 8,500NMish range as a real 77W replacement and the 779 bigger size but less range. Very much like the 789/781 combo

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-25 10:15:56 and read 14594 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Why even bother with the 778 at a new length? Make the 778 - 77W length ( so no new engineering needed on length) and stretch the 779 as close to 80M as possible.

Give the 778 8,500NMish range as a real 77W replacement and the 779 bigger size but less range. Very much like the 789/781 combo

I'd say they are better off taking the 77W/77L approach.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: Atlflyer
Posted 2013-04-25 11:06:02 and read 14334 times.

From the Boeing transcript on SeekingAlpha.com (which allows copying up to 400 words as long as they are sourced so this is not violating copyright laws):

Here is the best info directly from the source on their current thinking on the 777x:

W. James McNerney, Jr.

I think we have figured out by and large what airplane to build. We think we know and as you know as well because you know us well, the composite length modified fuselage new engines, okay. And so, the question there is, the question then becomes and we’re sort of in the middle of assessment now, where to assemble it and where to build the major components and we’re in the middle of that process. I mean, obviously, Everett is doing one heck of a job right now, building the current 777 model.


W. James McNerney, Jr.

Well, I think this will be a derivative airplane, a significant derivative airplane. The two new key technologies will be a composite wing, which will be a fourth generation composite wing for us. So this is an example of a game changing technology that we now have good experience with and now have matured and the second will be new engines on the airplane. And our discussions with customers have said that the range and efficiency that this engine wing combination will produce is significant in their minds. And that there’ll be a splitting of value between us and our customers that works for both of us, that’s those are the discussions we’re having right now. We have a lot of confidence that about the executability of this plane and the pricing we think, we can get that will benefit both us and our customers. So we’re pretty far down that evaluation and we’re excited about what we see.


W. James McNerney, Jr.

Composite wings are incredibly efficient as compared to aluminum wings, not only in the way, not only in the aero dynamics, but in the weight on them. And that plus the engines are producing over 90% of the value of this airplane. let me just leave it that way.

And the composite wing, the bigger of composite wing gets the more efficient it becomes and this is a big composite wing.

Thomas Black – Bloomberg News

Okay. And if I could just on the economic versus range some airlines want more range, others want more…

W. James McNerney, Jr.

And so we will have two models that have different capacities, so thick roots versus thinner roots. But range is something that within reason, they’re going to pay for. And that’s what the wing produces and that’s what the new engines produce.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: davs5032
Posted 2013-04-25 12:13:44 and read 13608 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 24):
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Why even bother with the 778 at a new length? Make the 778 - 77W length ( so no new engineering needed on length) and stretch the 779 as close to 80M as possible.

Give the 778 8,500NMish range as a real 77W replacement and the 779 bigger size but less range. Very much like the 789/781 combo

I'd say they are better off taking the 77W/77L approach.

You're probably right, but ultimately time will tell. By placing it where it's proposed to be, they gain some of the 77Ws CASM efficiency, while still retaining some of the 77Ls range. Plus, they probably don't want to have the two new variants sized too closely together, as they'll want it to cover a large capacity segment.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-04-25 14:38:50 and read 12351 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 26):
You're probably right, but ultimately time will tell. By placing it where it's proposed to be, they gain some of the 77Ws CASM efficiency, while still retaining some of the 77Ls range. Plus, they probably don't want to have the two new variants sized too closely together, as they'll want it to cover a large capacity segment.

If the 778 can't be competitive with the 351 on CASM, there's no point offering it. Might as well offer the 778LX and sell that as an airplane with 77L range and 351 payload. I'd bet there's a market for that type of airplane. The 779 will be in a class of its own. It's bound to be CASM competitive with the 351. And it comes with none of the pressure of trying to fill an A380. And has more room for cargo. The airplane will be a hit.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: davs5032
Posted 2013-04-25 15:50:51 and read 11927 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 27):
If the 778 can't be competitive with the 351 on CASM, there's no point offering it. Might as well offer the 778LX and sell that as an airplane with 77L range and 351 payload. I'd bet there's a market for that type of airplane. The 779 will be in a class of its own. It's bound to be CASM competitive with the 351. And it comes with none of the pressure of trying to fill an A380. And has more room for cargo. The airplane will be a hit.

Good points. I'm in full agreement that the 778 won't be competitive with the A35J, as you said, the 779 was always intended to go up against the A35J; that's why Boeing is stretching it to fit more seats. I just disagree in that I think the 778 does make a legitimate enough business case to justify its existence. It would never work out by itself, I'll concede, but I think it is well placed to compliment the 779. As proposed, the two variants provide customers a product just above and below the capacity of the A35J, which is a good strategy, IMO. Any customers who happen to choose the 779 over the A35J, should they also have routes requiring a ~350 seat plane, would at least have a reason (commonality) to consider the 778 over the A35J, despite the 778 having inferior economics. It may not work, but its clear what they're trying to accomplish.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-25 15:52:01 and read 11946 times.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 27):


I would go one step further: Even with a competitive CASM, a 778 that enters the market 4 years after the 351 and has identical capacity would still be a very difficult sell and not worth the effort except as a freighter/ULH. I believe there needs to be a positive differentiating item other than fleet commonality to make up for the lag in delivery and added risk for carriers without fleet commonalty constraints. I am relatively confident Boeing will come up with something. Two non-freighter/ULH 777X would be a lot better than one.

The one thing the 77X has going for it is time: The 77E and 77W replacement market really should not pick up until 2020 (77E) or 2025 (77W). Even with 600+ a350 orders I have a hard time coming up with many carriers that will be using the 350 to replace the 77E/W (SQ and EK exceptions).

Any other carriers come to mind? It appears that A350 sales have been for the following:

(1) A330 upgauge replacement (A350-8/900)
(2) B744 replacement (A350-1000 at IAG, CX, UA [I know])
(3) Carriers who are modeling for growth and need aircraft not necessarily for replacement (EK, QR).

The 77W has benefited from #3 as much as the A350 has. Between 2017 and 2020 the 77W should be able to compete with A351 on price, commonality, and availability. Will the time between the A351 and the B77X EIS result in Boeing producing higher quality 350+ seat aircraft(s) or will Airbus' production ramp up be too much for Boeing to recover.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-25 16:39:30 and read 11545 times.

Other than LH and maybe UA and TK can anyone come up with another airline who would be very interested in the 351 before 2020 that hasn't already ordered it? I will believe the JL rumors when I see it happen. If the 77X schedule slips than all bets are off.

I think the 787-10 launch is much more important for Boeing as that aircraft could compete in all three of the scenarios I mentioned above and it would be an excellent 772/E replacement when that comes around early next decade.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-04-25 21:08:40 and read 9933 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The 748 is a great aircraft and its wing is a significant improvement over the 744 wing. What's killing the 748 is the 77W...not its wing. The 77X will just be the final nail into the coffin.

I can agree with all of this but the wing did add significant weight to the aircraft.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-25 22:20:22 and read 9573 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):
I think the wing mods make it much like the A340-5/600 program, Boeing may end up with a fair/good aircraft but also it may be outclassed by the new build A350. The 777-9X is also by all accounts very expensive. You can also look at the 747-8 for what happens when you increase wing size.

What made the A340-500 uncompetitive wasn't only the wings, but rather that it had two more engines than the 777.

The 747-8's increase in wing size has also helped it to improve efficiency over the 747-400, so I'm not sure I see your point.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Why even bother with the 778 at a new length? Make the 778 - 77W length

Because the 777-8 would compete with the A350-900. How effective it is as an A350-900 competitor, however, remains to be seen. It will be larger and have roughly the same range as the A350-900, and its wider fuselage would enable it to fit 10 across in economy and 7 across in business if airlines are inclined to so configure their aircraft.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
and stretch the 779 as close to 80M as possible.

I'm concerned that an 80m 777-9 would be a "stretch too far", which would necessitate major changes to the landing gear and the structure to improve rigidity at that length, leading to significant weight gain. I don't think that an 80m 777 would work. There is a point at which stretching an aircraft becomes a case of diminshing returns.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Give the 778 8,500NMish range as a real 77W replacement and the 779 bigger size but less range. Very much like the 789/781 combo

The 777-8X already is an 8,500nm aircraft, as is the 777-9X.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 27):
If the 778 can't be competitive with the 351 on CASM, there's no point offering it.

The 777-8X's direct competitor isn't the A350-1000; it's the A350-900.

The trouble for the 777-8X isn't so much the A350-900 as the 787-10. For airlines that don't require the additional range of the 777-8X / A350-900, the 787-10 appears to be a much, much better choice given that it is likely to be significantly lighter. I would agree with the point that the 777-8X probably won't sell too many, but as to there being "no point" to offer it, I disagree. The cost of developing the 777-8X isn't going to be too great as it is "piggybacked" (for want of a better word) onto the 777X program as a whole. Any failure of the base 777-8X to generate sales is likely to be compensated for by the success of the 777-9X.

Furthermore, the 777-8 size fuselage is going to form the basis for the ultra long range 777-8LX, which would act as a 777-200LR replacement with even greater payload range capabilities, and a potential future 777-8F.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 31):
I can agree with all of this but the wing did add significant weight to the aircraft.

The 747-8's wing isn't CFRP - at least, not entirely. The flaps, ailerons, spoilers and rudder are carbon composite (where the 747-400 used a fibreglass composite). In contrast, the 777X's wing is almost certain to comprise of a higher percentage of carbon composite than the 747-8 wing.

In addition, the current 777 wing has been reported to be overweight. A redesign of the wing is likely to remove excess weight, which may result in the 777X wing having a relatively small weight gain over the current 777 wing, if at all, despite the increased span.

[Edited 2013-04-25 22:45:30]

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-25 23:46:25 and read 9255 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 30):

Ill probably put money on NH taking some frames along with maybe SQ.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-26 01:03:20 and read 9174 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 32):
The 777-8X already is an 8,500nm aircraft, as is the 777-9X.

There is clear evidence B are making sure the 777-9X has the payload-range to get EKs acceptance, B have not said it but Flightglobal talked with the GE program manager Millhaem for their feature article in FG Club: ANALYSIS: GE opens five-year development effort for 777X engine:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ent-effort-for-777x-engine-384004/


Here an excerpt from the article:

" Boeing has only one chance to get the 777X design right, and its patience is clear in the GE9X configuration, which has evolved even since September. At that time, GE revealed a configuration with a 129in (3.28m) fan diameter. On 15 March, GE announced the fan diameter had grown to 132in, although Millhaem clarified in an interview that the diameter is really 131.5in.

"Boeing wanted a larger [fan] that will give us a little more thrust for the engine," Millhaem explains. "The core will grow a small amount as well. It's a relatively small change that we're making on the engine."

Millhaem says the new fan diameter establishes the GE9X bypass ratio as 10.3:1,..... "


So Boeing is asking for more thrust then planned last summer, IMO this is to safeguard that EK gets their west coast USA bird (he might buy 275 of them so I would also make sure he is happy with the spec  Wow! , see other thread). So if the initial definition was for 344.3t it will most probably be close to todays 351t now. Nothing wrong with that, it will ensure the 777-9X it's very own niche but it will cost those who does not want to fly quite that far a fraction in fuel.

I did an original analysis of the 12:1 GE9X in Tech/Ops and I have now updated this with the changes (not in the thread yet, comes in the weekend). Seems to cost 0.5-1% in TSFC, the fuel burn in still 4% better then the TXWB however, will keep the 777X competitive. I will publish updated analysis this weekend as I want to write a bit around what happens when one up-sizes an engine by increasing fan and core size    .

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: parapente
Posted 2013-04-26 01:24:49 and read 9069 times.

Reply 34.

Seems a good analysis. Boeing have listened and changed. However the calculations only work if you have gone 17" x10 across and are already full.Start flying this aircraft at lower load factors and I bet the numbers will change for the worse very quickly. Will Airbus try and cut the bottom of this market with a 350-1100 - who knows, they might in time.

The 777-8 will one day create a phenominal cargo aircraft and dovetail with the 748 well in that respect.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: Ronaldo747
Posted 2013-04-26 01:47:28 and read 8988 times.

Quoting parapente (Reply 35):
The 777-8 will one day create a phenominal cargo aircraft and dovetail with the 748 well in that respect.

I see a 777-8F will rather be a 744F replacement like the today's 777F is a 742F replacement. The 777-8F will not have the 747-8F payload capacity.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-26 02:50:36 and read 8901 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 22):
I'll have to read the articles more in depth, but I just don't see the 778X's disadvantages as being anywhere near as pronounced as with the A358. Sure, the 778X, like the A358, will be a shrink, and this creates efficiency disadvantages, but you have to account for the fact that the 778X is being stretched by almost 6 meters over the 772. This will actually place it closer to the optimized 77W, than to the non-optimized 772 in terms of size.

Yes but the wing and engines are optimised for the larger 777-9X rather than the 8X producing extra weight and drag. The degree of disadvantage imposed by a non-optimised design such as the 8X really depends on what it is competing against. The 777-8X needs to compete against the 35J - not the 772 or the 77W. In efficiency terms the 8X is best seen as a shrink of the 77W rather than a stretch of the 772.
The heavy 358 is competing against a fully optimised (and very efficient) 789 and it is clearly loosing the battle. The 777-8X is a non-optimised derivative that is going head to head with a clean sheet fully optimised design (35J) so it is plausible that it could be at even more disadvantage then the 358 vs the 789. When comparing the 777-8X to the 358 I guess the ultimate measure will be the number of sales - time will tell.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 29):
I would go one step further: Even with a competitive CASM, a 778 that enters the market 4 years after the 351 and has identical capacity would still be a very difficult sell and not worth the effort except as a freighter/ULH. I believe there needs to be a positive differentiating item other than fleet commonality to make up for the lag in delivery and added risk for carriers without fleet commonalty constraints. I am relatively confident Boeing will come up with something.

I also suspect that Boeing will come up with something and that "something" is likely to be some degree of optimisation - the level of which will represent some point on the cost vs performance equation. To do nothing is essentially giving away market share to the 35J and the 787-10. I also have difficulty with the idea that airlines will buy such an aircraft with sub-standard performance in relation to its peers for any perceived benefits of commonality. There will be plenty of commonality with the 787-10 if they already operate 787's and likewise with the 35J if they operate 359's.

The 777-9X will no doubt be very successful but I think a company with the history and reputation of Boeing can do a lot better than the 777-8X.   


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-04-26 05:37:14 and read 8620 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
So if the initial definition was for 344.3t it will most probably be close to todays 351t now. Nothing wrong with that, it will ensure the 777-9X it's very own niche but it will cost those who does not want to fly quite that far a fraction in fuel.

A rather similar enhancement to the most recent iteration of the A350-1000 which appears to have worked out well.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-26 12:31:09 and read 8210 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 32):
Ill probably put money on NH taking some frames along with maybe SQ

NH - They do not operate Airbus wide body aircraft (I realize BA didn't either). Their 7 777-300s will have high cycles come late this decade but I think the 781 will be able to fill that role admirably. Unless Japanese economy really picks up I just don't see a 350+-seat aircraft purchase with a delivery before 2020. They debated the A380 but I think they are comfortable passing for now.

SQ - I suspect they would have ordered the 351 as part of their 2 350 separate purchases if they had an interest. They have already replaced their 744s and have reordered more 77W's and the 77W's that they have are only about 4 years old on average. I imagine they will be very interested in the 351 down the road but not before 2020 or they would have ordered it.

And that's my point, I really do not see many pre 2020 A351 orders left to be won. LH is a done deal and UA could probably be convinced but it appears to me that the 77X will be fighting the 351 and the 388 for orders 2020 and beyond from this point forward. If it wasn't for EK I am not sure Boeing would be as far long as they are with the 77X as is.

Now Leahy could get his way: add an additional 351 production line, swap spots with the 358 and open up some additional slots and you could get existing customers to add to or change their positions in the coming years. And that may already be decided for all we know. Maybe the IAG pushed that decision over the edge.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-27 04:51:29 and read 7568 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 34):
There is clear evidence B are making sure the 777-9X has the payload-range to get EKs acceptance

Thanks for that, and I look forward to your updated analysis. I am however concerned about a heavier 777-9X burning more fuel than anticipated. I hope Boeing gets the balance between fuel burn and payload-range right on this aircraft.

Then again, airlines aren't likely to buy the 777-9X for its fuel burn, for it is almost certain to have a higher fuel burn per trip than the A350-1000. They buy it for its extra passenger and payload-range capabilities over the A350-1000, so enhancing that should not pose too much of a problem in terms of potential sales.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 37):
A rather similar enhancement to the most recent iteration of the A350-1000 which appears to have worked out well.

Indeed it has, but not without some noise from Clark and Al Baker.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-27 04:57:21 and read 7554 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 39):
for it is almost certain to have a higher fuel burn per trip than the A350-1000.

There's no "almost certain" about it. A significantly heavier plane WILL burn more fuel.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-04-27 05:32:50 and read 7481 times.

What about Optimizing the wing for the 778 with the 778 at 77W length and give it a 8,500-9,000 NM range then stretching the 779 as much as possible with same MTOW but trade range - making it a 7,000-7,500 NM aircraft?

Isn't one of the reasons the 781 is so super efficient as it trades range for length?

Then you have a super Optimised 789 at 8,500 Nm, 290 Seats - 781 - 7,100Nm 340 Seats, 778 - 8,500 NM 400ish seats (10W - 77W length) and 779 450ish seats 7,000-7,500nm?

Would an optimized 77W length 778 beat a A351? If it could then it would make it very difficult for A to sell the A351 - Airlines like the 77W size and it would be a perfect more comfortable 10W replacement.

A 7,000-7,500 Nm Close to 80M long 450 Seat long 779 could also give the A380 fits on some of it's medium range (bulk of routes). It would kill Europe to NA and Europe to Mid East routes.

If yes then you have a much more sensible line -up. As sales have shown 77L sales have been rather anemic - no real need to replace

If a 778 starts out at 8,500 NM within a decade (when 77L replacements are needed) it's range will easily be over the 9,000NM mark through efficiency improvements.

Same with my Theoretical 779 - Say it starts at 7,200-7,300 Nm range within a decade it will be in the 8,000 nm range (the 77W was originally specked at 7,200-7,300 and has grown to a 8,000nm aircraft and will go over with planned PIP's) just when the bulk of 77w need to be replaced

You have to build in room for growth - Giving a Frame the Structure to go 9,500 Nm at launch means that within a decade it's easily over 10,000nm - no one needs that range or excess structure.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-27 22:50:51 and read 6891 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 41):
Would an optimized 77W length 778 beat a A351?

This sounds completely reasonable to me. I really like it. A completely optimized 77W with new wings, engine. and all of the fixings. They know there is too much weight in there and the wing is too small. They know its a size people want. Give the engineers a chance to one-up an already solid aircraft, keep tooling consistent to minimize investment, and when they are content and its cherry, stretch it as far as they can for the 777-9 and substitute some range for payload. I get it.

The problem is I think Lars Andersen and his team probably have already worked with that concept and decided it would not work. It is too logical for them to not have heavily considered it. I speculate three reasons why it did not work: (1) EK asked for a 779 that was optimized and not a-range-for-payload version like you lay out and they have suggested buying 225 of them so who cares what anyone else thinks, (2) The 77W could not be effectively stretched more than 2.4 Meters without significant changes to the entire structure like has been suggested to me when I have postulated something similar (and they seem smarter than me) and that would prevent two different length models, and (3) such a plan would prevent a 777XLR or 777XF because the engine would not not be of optimal dimensions for it. Your plan probably only needs a 120" - 85-90 KLBF engine and it wouldn't make sense for GE to optimize the 132" - 100KLBF they are working on which would prevent a 778XF(& LR), and any other letters you want to add, from being viable.

If a couple of these three things are true I think if I was an engineer I might come up with something similar to what we are faced with. Say it aint so.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-04-27 23:05:24 and read 6857 times.

My guess is they will make the 777-9 and the 777-8L/F, same wings, engines etc As little differences as possible to keep costs down. Then enhance the 7810 to do a 772 role better, beefed up UC, additional tanks etc.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-04-28 01:39:34 and read 6658 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 43):
My guess is they will make the 777-9 and the 777-8L/F, same wings, engines etc As little differences as possible to keep costs down. Then enhance the 7810 to do a 772 role better, beefed up UC, additional tanks etc.

That makes the most sense to me. It's all about the -9 and whatever they can get out of the -8 will be bonus...and the -8 will never see the light of day unless somebody specifically orders it.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-04-28 01:50:18 and read 6621 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):

The freighter and L will have a decent market combined, the non L would have very little market IMO. If they can find som more range in the 787-10 it would be ok as a 772ER replacement, a bit smaller but a lot more efficient.

The 777-8L could do the absurd routes that the 773ER cannot make today, having less seats would be ok if payload/range would be even better than the 77L of today. Cargo +330 seats and a long range would probably be a perfect plane for some airlines.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-04-28 06:15:13 and read 6391 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
The problem is I think Lars Andersen and his team probably have already worked with that concept and decided it would not work. It is too logical for them to not have heavily considered it.

I agree - Boeing would have considered all available options and no doubt have good reasons for choosing their current 777X strategy. Nonetheless I still have some difficulty in following the logic of optimising the largest family member and imposing the burdens of a straight shrink onto the smaller model - particularly in the crucial 350 seat segment. The only straight shrink that has been really successful was the 332 and that was because despite the disadvantages of being a shrink it was still superior to the older 767. I can't see the non-optimised shrunk 777-8X derivative enjoying too many advantages over the clean sheet, stretched (and structurally efficient) 35J.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
(3) such a plan would prevent a 777XLR or 777XF because the engine would not not be of optimal dimensions for it.

Not necessarily - the 350 family is optimised on the 359 but that did not prevent the larger 35J from being developed - this would be the basis for any 359R in terms of gross weight. It has been done at the cost of some commonality which adds to the overall R&D bill.

Quoting sweair (Reply 45):
the non L would have very little market IMO

The 77L EIS was in 2006 yet it has only scored 58 orders against almost 700 for the 77W - its a small volume market for ULH aircraft.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-04-28 07:14:07 and read 6230 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 43):
My guess is they will make the 777-9 and the 777-8L/F, same wings, engines etc As little differences as possible to keep costs down. Then enhance the 7810 to do a 772 role better, beefed up UC, additional tanks etc.

I'm being an idiot here but let me make sure i'm on the right page- UC is undercarrage, right?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-28 11:33:10 and read 5915 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 46):
The 77L EIS was in 2006 yet it has only scored 58 orders against almost 700 for the 77W - its a small volume market for ULH aircraft

If it had been 2 or 3-years earlier it would have taken a number of 77E orders by virtue of its better efficiency above about 1500nm. It would have been great for someone like NZ with their 11 to 13 hr. sectors but with the latent ability to do 16hrs and better.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-04-28 11:56:45 and read 5839 times.

I think we can calculate the 77L+F as one sale? Its the same basic frame.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2013-04-28 12:37:47 and read 5791 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 48):
It would have been great for someone like NZ with their 11 to 13 hr. sectors but with the latent ability to do 16hrs and better.

Yes, the AKL-YVR sector springs to mind. NZ longhaul should be 77W, 77L and 789 in my opinion.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-28 15:27:23 and read 5553 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 48):
If it had been 2 or 3-years earlier it would have taken a number of 77E orders by virtue of its better efficiency above about 1500nm.

This is a great point. I had thought the figure was 2000nm but the vast majority of 77E routes are longer than that anyway. Hard to believe when the 77L weighs 8t more. Question: Do you think that if the technology was available at the time (it wasn't), if Boeing could have made the 77L in 1997 instead of the 77E they would have sold the same number of frames as the 77E did (422), more, less? Explain 35 points

The longer wings would be a problem at some gates, SQ and others may not have been able to derate the engine to save on landing fees etc, but it would have opened more routes. Interesting thought.

This appears to be part of the thinking for the -8. Boeing had to certify two other less capable 777-200 models before they could certify the third model the Worldliner. Why not jump ahead of all of that certify one especially because short distances will already be covered by the 787-10x so they know airlines would only use this for 4500+nm missions almost by definition. A cheaper option for sure.

I still think it should be bigger.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 46):
I can't see the non-optimised shrunk 777-8X derivative enjoying too many advantages over the clean sheet, stretched (and structurally efficient) 35J.

Hear, hear.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 46):
It has been done at the cost of some commonality which adds to the overall R&D bill.

Right. But keeping costs down and commonality up are two of the most central value propositions the 77X is working with. I was just giving some reasons why they went a different direction. But you are right, I should have said 'hinder' instead of 'prevent'.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-28 15:53:59 and read 5506 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 51):
Hard to believe when the 77L weighs 8t more.

True , but its airframe efficiency and resultant fuel burn largely overcomes this extra weight.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-28 19:28:22 and read 5318 times.

The 777-200LR was a bit of a chicken-and-egg model. Boeing sold it on the merits of range and most 77E operators didn't need that range so they didn't place orders. As such, Boeing stopped development for a time and continued forward only with the 777-300ER.

Once the 777-300ER entered flight test and showed better-than-expected results, the 777-200LR became a fair bit more desirable, but most 777-200ER customers had placed their top-ups and couldn't switch. It did, however, allow Boeing to win RFPs against the A340-300E and A340-500 fas well as what top-up orders there were.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: davs5032
Posted 2013-04-28 20:02:14 and read 5213 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 46):
I agree - Boeing would have considered all available options and no doubt have good reasons for choosing their current 777X strategy. Nonetheless I still have some difficulty in following the logic of optimising the largest family member and imposing the burdens of a straight shrink onto the smaller model - particularly in the crucial 350 seat segment. The only straight shrink that has been really successful was the 332 and that was because despite the disadvantages of being a shrink it was still superior to the older 767. I can't see the non-optimised shrunk 777-8X derivative enjoying too many advantages over the clean sheet, stretched (and structurally efficient) 35J.

It's understandable to question of optimizing the largest member of the family to the detriment of smaller members, but that strategy worked out just fine with the 77W. Right now, the 350 seat segment is the "crucial" one, but where will it be in 10-20 years? Boeing is betting on the trend of airlines wanting more and more capacity to continue into the future.

Clearly, the -8X will be disadvantaged against the 35J, but at least they're stretching the current 772 to bring it closer to optimization. The variant will not win many orders against the A35J, but it's better to put *something* out there to compete in that segment, especially when you can offer niche advantages such as higher payload and longer range that might entice certain customers...plus, at the worst, it will be very successful as a freighter.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-04-29 07:33:24 and read 4811 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 51):
Question: Do you think that if the technology was available at the time (it wasn't), if Boeing could have made the 77L in 1997 instead of the 77E they would have sold the same number of frames as the 77E did (422), more, less?

I think part of what hindered the 77L sales was the fact that the 77W had so much better cost per seat. If the 77L and the 77E were launched at the same time, with the 77W several years later, I would imagine that the 77E would've sold fewer frames and the 77L would have sold more, simply because those that needed the extra range would have gone with the 77L, while those that didn't need the extra range would've either gone with the 77E or the A333.

If that had happened, I would imagine that the 77W would not have sold as well as it did, because those who wanted a C market 777 would have already bought the 77L. The net effect, I would suspect, is that the number of sales for the 777 family as a whole would be quite similar to today.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-04-29 08:18:24 and read 4718 times.

Supposedly today is Boeing's annual shareholders' meeting in Chicago. Will we see the launch of a 787-10 or 77X? Stay tuned!

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-04-29 08:42:00 and read 4634 times.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 54):
Clearly, the -8X will be disadvantaged against the 35J

Ferpes load/range tables do not support this assertion . Based on a common calculation methodology the -8X has ~ a 300nm range advantage , the fuel burn per M^2 of cabin area per Knm favors the -8X slightly 41.1 kg to 41.3kg .

[Edited 2013-04-29 08:44:10]

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-29 08:59:44 and read 4588 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 57):
Ferpes load/range tables do not support this assertion . Based on a common calculation methodology the -8X has ~ a 300nm range advantage , the fuel burn per M^2 of cabin area per Knm favors the -8X slightly 41.1 kg to 41.3kg .

When seeing these figures we shall realize the different status of the projects, 35J is 2 years from EIS (we hope  ) and -8X is still a rubber plane. So even if a first analysis says the -8X will do fine on range, payload and fuel burn it has to, otherwise it would not be launched. It's biggest drawback (apart from flying on ppt) is that it requires the pax to sit 10 abreast to reach the seating capacity of 35J. For certain airlines this is fine, for others a non starter.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: FriendlySkies
Posted 2013-04-29 12:32:10 and read 4300 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 58):
It's biggest drawback (apart from flying on ppt) is that it requires the pax to sit 10 abreast to reach the seating capacity of 35J. For certain airlines this is fine, for others a non starter.

Wasn't part of the proposed study a thinner sidewall to improve seat width in a 10 abreast config?

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: pnwtraveler
Posted 2013-04-29 12:57:08 and read 4195 times.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 59):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 58):
It's biggest drawback (apart from flying on ppt) is that it requires the pax to sit 10 abreast to reach the seating capacity of 35J. For certain airlines this is fine, for others a non starter.

Wasn't part of the proposed study a thinner sidewall to improve seat width in a 10 abreast config?

Better and thinner insulation and a more efficient sidewall design was definitely mentioned. Whether this actually makes it into the aircraft or not is another thing. I remember clearly thinking at the time that someone must have crunched the numbers on existing aircraft to determine the cost to benefit ratio for retrofitting a similar approach. My thought was on those it wouldn't result in being able to put an additional seat in the row, just additional passenger space and comfort, and we all know that doesn't add much to the bottom line for the bean counters.

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-04-29 13:45:12 and read 4159 times.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 59):
Wasn't part of the proposed study a thinner sidewall to improve seat width in a 10 abreast config?

Yes. By increasing the sidewalls by about 4" the seat widths could reach 17.4" in 10-abreast seating. However, I believe ferpe's point was that even after this stretch some customers (CX, SQ) who put 18"+ seats in the 777 will not compromise seat width and therefore the added benefit of those 4" will not impact them and thereby making the -8 less economical compared to the 351. The -9 could still be competitive at 9 abreast I believe.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 60):
My thought was on those it wouldn't result in being able to put an additional seat in the row

I am not sure if this widening will able to be retrofitted. Before 2012 the majority of the 77W deliveries were in 9 abreast (link below) so a lot of the routes covered by those 320 planes could see a significant improvement in their economics by making the switch. Those already in 10 abreast, not as much, but still impactful. And those that do not want the 10 abreast seating would have some explaining to do if they didn't pick up some 351s even with the 777-8X is just flying on powerpoint.

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

tortugamon

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-29 14:37:12 and read 4093 times.

For those that like to understand more of the GE9X and it's latest adjustments I have now updated the GE9X Tech/Ops thread with the uprated engine vs the original one, post 15. Post 1 gives the airframes requirements on the engine:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...GE9XBPR103analysis_zps6593f11d.jpg

Topic: RE: 787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-04-30 04:45:26 and read 3579 times.

Ooops, that was the link to one of the tables (the one for the updated engine), here the link to the thread about the GE9X:

GE9X Analysis (by ferpe Mar 17 2013 in Tech Ops)


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/