ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1853 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 , 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.
Perhaps an optional resort on Boeing's behalf, should sales continue to stagnate?
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1759 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.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1698 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 ) 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.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1350 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1657 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
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1641 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?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1708 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
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
Not just range honey - its a bit of range with full pax bags and cargo.
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1343 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?
PVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 18 Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1332 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, 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. 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 787 posts, 
) 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.
From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
