Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
772LR As SuperMTOW 772ER?  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Does anyone know the maximum range of the 772LR without the supplemental fuel tank option?

I'd imagine it'd be near or slightly above the range of the GE90-94B powered 772ER... but have found no corroboration to back that up.

Keeping in mind that the 772LR will offer the highest MTOW of any twinjet aircraft ever designed  Wow!, one would think that (due to the slow sales of the C-market) Boeing would be actively promoting the tank-less 772LR as a superhigh-MTOW 772ER for those carriers who might desire a little more "oomph" on current B-market routings, but not need 10,000mi+ range to get the job done.

This seems like something of an advantage considering that the A345 cannot both lower its structural weight nor add additional cargo capacity in this manner. Then again I'm sure the 777NG's superhigh purchase expense (relative to a true 772ER) prices it right out of that market.  Sad

Perhaps an optional resort on Boeing's behalf, should sales continue to stagnate?

~*paging Dr. Hamlet*~  Laugh out loud

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

C-boy:
Well, if it isn´t the hellraiser of A/B war!!!



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2286 times:

Well, if it isn´t the hellraiser of A/B war!!!

Take a look in the mirror sir. It's those kinds of statements that get those damn A vs B duels going! ConcordeBoy mentioned only facts that I can tell in his post. I saw nothing out of line whatsoever. If anything, he bashed Boeing for the cost of the 777LR.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2225 times:

Good call Boeing Nut.

Actually, what I'm saying is that: the 772ER is currently the longest-ranged aircraft in commercial service. The A345 will soon debut (if any of its launch customers ever get around to taking delivery of one  Big grin) with considerably longer range than the 772ER. The tanked 772LR will again claim the title of longest-range for Boeing.... but it will be an even more considerable gap from its smaller-legged 772 sister.

So, barring a new 744 entry with longer range than the 772ER (considering the past... not likely)..... one would imagine that Boeing would be promoting a de-tanked 772LR as a median between a high powered 772ER and a tanked 772LR.



User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

I ran a quick regression in Excel using the 777-200, -200ER, and extra-tanks -200LR and ended up with an easy linear equation, with fuel volume as the input and Boeing's published range as the output.

Range (nm) = -260.61 + 0.17655 * Fuel Volume (Gal)

Using the equation for those three aircraft results in range discrepancies of less than 15 nm from Boeing's published figures, so I'd say it's a tight correlation.

Using the non-tanked 777-200LR with 47,890 gal of fuel, I get a range of about 8,195 nm (probably +/- 15 nm). This compares with the -200ER's 7,740 nm at MTOW.

With no extra tanks (full cargo): 8,195 nm
With one extra 1,850 gal. tank: 8,521 nm
With two extra 1,850 gal. tanks: 8,848 nm
With three extra tanks (max. fuel): 9,175 nm

Hope this is helpful.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2003-09-06 21:28:25]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

*assuming the above calculations are accurate*


With no extra tanks (full cargo): 8,195 nm

Hmm, that's pretty much in line with what I thought. So again, the question begs asking: why on Earth is Boeing not actively promoting this advantage?


...about the only reason I can think of is that it doesnt want in-house competition with the 772ER. Then again, why not drop the price on that model and make it up in volume which could give further incentive to borderline customers and also, further decimate the A343? Anyone?


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

...then again, maybe Boeing's taken a page from the 747SP and A340-8000; and learned that it's tough to differentiate and sell an aircraft based solely on range

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Not just range honey - its a bit of range with full pax bags and cargo.

N


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

I am not sure which charts you are reading, but a 777-200LR running at maximum payload has a range of 7000nm, compared to 5800nm for the -200ER (also at maximum payload). Now the question is, which routes would benefit from this?

SailorOrion


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3412 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

I think Boeing is smart. People who are going to get this aircraft would more than likely already be flying other variants. They will probably not sell as many of these as the regular sized 200 and 300 variants. They have to charge a premium for a more specialty-type aircraft. It's not that the new variants are going to take away from purchases of the older models like I believe the new A340s will do to the 200 and 300 variants of that aircraft.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

They will probably not sell as many of these as the regular sized 200 and 300 variants

both -300 variants and all three -200 variants are of the same respective dimensions


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
EK Keen On B 772LR As It Lands In Dubai posted Wed Jun 22 2005 09:05:59 by EK156
Difference Btw 772ER And 772LR posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:48:32 by FlyingHippo
Will 772LR Surpass 772ER Orders? posted Sat Feb 19 2005 01:53:30 by DfwRevolution
The 772LR 3% More Efficient Than The 772ER For LH posted Fri Aug 6 2004 21:37:44 by YUL332LX
AS Flight 587 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 22:00:13 by Seattleflyer
Why No AS MD80's At SNA posted Fri Dec 8 2006 06:33:39 by MDCJets
BA As Private Equity Target? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 17:17:51 by Temph0
AS And The 734 Combi posted Sun Dec 3 2006 23:52:10 by FlyingNanook
French Overseas Airlines Team Up As 'Fadecom' posted Sun Dec 3 2006 21:06:52 by Owleye
Lufthansa Eyes Amritsar As Its Next Indian City! posted Sat Dec 2 2006 19:47:09 by Concorde001