747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3847 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12514 times:
With the Boeing 787 dreamliner replacing the 767, it made me think in ten years or so the 777 will need a replacement. I would think a enlarge 787 body with a 21 ft wide cabin, 240 + wing span, new tail and 0.86/87 cruising speed. I believe this design would be a good ideal. What do you think Boeing should design as a 777 replacement.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12442 times:
The B787 can be stretched to cover the B777-200. Eventually, a replacement will be needed for the B777-300 and the B747. Boeing have studied several possible designs. In my opinion, the most promising of the studies has been for 270inch circular cross section with a an internal cabin width very close to the 21 feet you suggest.
Pensacolaguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 548 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12427 times:
The 777 is a fairly new airplane. And 10 years from now it will still be flying. Maybe 30+ years from now, they will replace it with something. Depending on the world economic conditions. I think they would probably replace it with their Blended Wing design that they strapped, a while back ago. Or maybe a four engine 777 Can't know what the Boeing designers have in mind...
DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12385 times:
Quoting Zvezda (reply 1): The B787 can be stretched to cover the B777-200
I think Boeing will want to replace the whole 777 line with a complete new line. I don't think Boeing will combine the 767 and 777 replacement in one line, which would mean streching the 787 to fully replace the 772 aswell.
Quoting 747400sp (reply 0): I would think a enlarge 787 body with a 21 ft wide cabin
Yes, the 777 replacement should keep the same fuselage width, which would mean having it wider than the 787.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10932 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12181 times:
Its very, very unlikely the 777 will become such an Evergreen Bestseller as the 747. The odds a clearly against it.
1. the 787 will eventually make the 772 obsolete
2. Boeing needs to bring a new top-of-the-line aircraft to replace the venerable 747 past 2015 even if the 747 Adv. becomes reality.
3. Streamlining down to three families is anyway the plan at Chicago/Seattle, and that will lead to an aircraft that will be bigger than a 777, but smaller than the A380, to cover the market niche from something slightly smaller than the 773 up to something slightly smaller than the A380.
Under these impressions I expect Boeing to have a new top-model in service around 2015, terminating the 747 and the 777 line. The 747 will have become the airliner with the longest production-span ever by then. By that time Boeing will have learnt a lot from the 787 as well as from the A380 to create a fantastic new aircraft.
Hopefully it´ll be a Quad.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12028 times:
Quoting NA (reply 4): Its very, very unlikely the 777 will become such an Evergreen Bestseller as the 747. The odds a clearly against it.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. Boeing will have to update the line and incorporate new technologies, but it will fundamentally still be a 777 with plenty of systems commonality. You could see a A350-like program that extensively modifies the 777 fuselage for the purpose of weight reduction. Widebodyphotog mentioned that Boeing had already studied the possibility of replacing the fuselage fore and aft of the wings with a composite fuselage and is considering running with this after the 787 EIS.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11955 times:
I think a 777 replacement is way too early to even begin considering right now. Boeing is generating huge sales with 773ER, and they have just developed the 772LR. The 777 currently is the most efficient aerofoil in the sky. I don't see a need to begin considering a replacement for at least another decade.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11919 times:
My first impression was that it may be kind of early, since it first flew in 1994. Although the more I think about it, there is an approximate 15 year spilt between all-new planes. So the time to start thinking about a 777-replacement is now, though it may not roll out until about 2015.
Why replace it at all, and with what? Replacement implies a type of growth, Boeing claims the VLA market too small even for Airbus, so why bother replacing 777, a plane that can take the pax loads of a 747 for another 10 years? I think there may/will be a 774, just a 773 with Trent 1000 type engines for the range issue. I think expanding an already successful plane is better than doing it to one that has been loosing sales, i.e. 747(/767 tanker deal). That line should stop altogether.
Do you folks realize how Airbus created Boeing's market? They created a gap to fill.
Quoting Zvezda (reply 1): In my opinion, the most promising of the studies has been for 270inch circular cross section with a an internal cabin width very close to the 21 feet you suggest.
I've seen that plane you speak of, it was in an AVST magazine, I forgot when but it was at least two years ago. It had a funny name model #762830, closer relation to 777 at the time, it was what Boeing could have built had the A380 market been bigger. It was instead of a double deck a single deck with same passenger load, 12-seat abreast with 4 engines. I don't know if it was a wider cross-section or a perfect circle, maybe that one shape that Boeing patented for a smaller vehicle concept (what ppl rumor here as a 737 replacement called 797) might have had its origins from.
[Edited 2005-02-21 20:44:26]
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11764 times:
The 787 technology will be used as the footprint for all Boeing jetliners for the foreseable future, including replacements for the 777, 737NG, 747, etc. A entirely new line of aircraft will come from this technology, replaceing all current Boeing models at some point. They will be sized not to compete with each other, but to meet customer needs while trying to defeat Airbus offerings.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3847 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11706 times:
Remember the 767 was 20 years old when the 787 was introduce as the 7E7, and younger than that, when the sonicrusier was introduce. The 787 was design from the sonicrusier. In 10 years the 777 will be 20 years old, so it will be time for a replacement study.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1788 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 11525 times:
Quoting NA (reply 4): an aircraft that will be bigger than a 777, but smaller than the A380, to cover the market niche from something slightly smaller than the 773 up to something slightly smaller than the A380... Hopefully it´ll be a Quad.
It may be both twin and quad, sharing same fuselage but with different wings. I still see it 777-based, unless it is too small for 500+ seats. But if 380 sells at least as Airbus predicts, then Boeing may build its own VLA, leaving future "777 replacement" to be for sure still an 777-based twin. As for "777 not being such an Evergreen Bestseller as the 747" - 747 was both size and range monopoly, which was never the case for 777. Still, it is 777 the fastest selling widebody in history...
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1874 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11119 times:
Quoting Gigneil (reply 15): Being quads isn't what makes the A340 not perform as well as the 777.
Then tell me what is. It's not all, but it's a big part. The 345/346 and 772lr/773er is the quintessential comparison of twins vs quads. They are designed around the same time, have nearly the same wing area, and nearly the same capability. Is the quad design being much heavier than the twin design a coincidence?
Lockheed1011 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 156 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11078 times:
A 777-400, -500, -600, -700, -800 & -900. The 777 is here to stay.
No 787 will replace 777, not wide enough. 787 is in its own category and 777 on a different one! That is why the 717 is out of the race, it is competing with the 737 and the 737 is killing it. Boeing knows that the competition should not be within the same company. In this case they had no other choice after taking over MD.
Let Airbus do that with the A350 against the A330/340!
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10896 times:
Is the quad design being much heavier than the twin design a coincidence?
I dunno whether you do or don't know that for a fact but i wouldn't jump straight to that conclusion (unless you do know it for a fact). I speculated that it was perhaps also due to the long narrow dimensions of the A340NG vs the 777, infact i started a thread on the topic but never got a proper answer. Whilst the combined engines of the A346 weigh more than the two of the 777, i've read the wing structure can be lighter because the weight is distributed more evenly, at least that was one of the arguments for the A343. Although in the case of the A340NG's, i'd say the 4 engine design does contribute to the weight difference, i can't imagine it being 29t in the A345* case and 14t in the A346's*. If you could shed any more light on the bizarre obesity - which solely lets the A340 down - i'd very much appreciate it.
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10687 times:
Right now, a replacement for the 777 is probably the lowest of priorites for Boeing. The question now is whether a 747ADV design will sell enough planes to make the cost of building it worthwhile. Then, Boeing must start on a 737 replacement, using 787 technology, considering the number of 737s, A320 series, DC-9s, and MD-80s that will be due for replacement within the next 20 years.
Being quads isn't what makes the A340 not perform as well as the 777.
Speaking of hasty generalizations... where did I refer to A340/777 performance. I simply stated that twins are more efficent (in terms of economy and performance), which can be easily verified with numerous examples.
A clean-sheet aircraft for 773ER/744 replacement (as NA refered to) in quad configuration makes absolutely no sense under any circumstance.
Quoting Lockheed1011 (reply 17): No 787 will replace 777, not wide enough. 787 is in its own category and 777 on a different one!
Not necessarily. The 787 is wider than the A346 fuselage, which seats roughly the same amount of passengers as the 773ER. 772ER replacement is definitly possible.
Quoting RJ111 (reply 18): If you could shed any more light on the bizarre obesity - which solely lets the A340 down - i'd very much appreciate it.
I've always been under the impression that Airbus had to substantially beef-up the A346/A345 wing to accomidate the payload they wished to lift. The engineers were working around the original A330/A340 wing, which was initially optimized for a lighter payload than its competitor, the 777 wing. Therefore, the end product (the A346/A345 wing) was heavier than desired.
Notice that the A330/A340 wing is economical down to the A332, while the 777 wing isn't economical beyond the 772A. Boeing initially optimized the 777 wing for much higher payload, so when the 777LR came along, beefing the structure to 775,000 lb MTOW wasn't as difficult.
The A343 is lighter than the 772ER, but this meant a more efficent structure for the MTOW increases in the 777LR versus the A340NG.
UA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1745 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10337 times:
Quoting NA (reply 4): Its very, very unlikely the 777 will become such an Evergreen Bestseller as the 747. The odds a clearly against it.
That's just silly. Others have stated that it has surpassed the 744, and also, the 777 uses the latest technology. It was/is truly a technological marvel when it first rolled off in '94, and when it became popular in the late 1990s.
"Notable 777 design features include a unique fuselage cross section, Boeing's first application of fly-by-wire, an advanced technology glass flightdeck with five liquid crystal displays, comparatively large scale use of composites (10% by weight), and advanced and extremely powerful engines. The 777 was also offered with optional folding wings where the outer 6m/21ft of each would fold upwards for operations at space restricted airports."
For those of you who might argue against this: consider this...
Airlines such as UA (first that comes to mind for DC-10 ops), began retiring their DC-10's in the late 1990s, (1997-1999). They purchased 60 777s to replace the DC-10s (1970) which had been around for 30+ years. Also, look at the A320, which was certified in 1988, and began flying in '89. It is 16 years old, and is being used to replace alot of older 737s in airline fleets.
OB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3461 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10279 times:
Quoting DeltaWings (reply 3): I think Boeing will want to replace the whole 777 line with a complete new line. I don't think Boeing will combine the 767 and 777 replacement in one line, which would mean streching the 787 to fully replace the 772 aswell.
Isn't it also replacing some 757s flown on longer routes? It would make sense to simplify everything, and have Boeing offer the 737 for short to medium haul routes and the 787 for medium to long haul routes.
PyroGX41487 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10261 times:
Replacing the 777 this early in the game would be completely ridiculous. With Boeing acknowledging the necessary update or replacement of the 747 line (with the 747ADV for update), I think it's pretty safe to assume the 777 will be here for a long while to come.
Firstly, the 777-200A was meant to fill a market gap Airbus created between the 767 and 747, and fortunatly, the design was created with alot of room to spare, and has the potential to even replace aging 747s. The 777-200ER jumped in range (7,000 nm or so nm, if I'm not mistaken), the 777-300 jumped in passenger capacity, and the newest generation, the 777-200LR and 777-300ER jumped in both. The -300ER is only just emerging as an ideal 744 replacement for Boeing buyers like SIA, AF, and JAL, all three of which who have the plane or have it on order. I think as we see the 744 fleets begin to age over the next five to ten years, we'll see an increase in 777-200LR/-300ER sales.
I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread that as the 777 fleet builds on itself, other models are made obsolete.
And so on. Pretty soon I think we'll see 772ER sales plateau and the said above trend will begin. If this happens, I believe we won't see a 777 replacement at least for another 15 to 20 years, 15 at the very SOONEST.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1013 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10242 times:
Quoting OB1504 (reply 22): Isn't it also replacing some 757s flown on longer routes?
Eh not really. The 787-3 will be the only large regional aircraft when it enters service, but it will be significantly larger than the 752. For comparison, a 752 seats about 200, whereas the -3 will seat about 300 in identical configuration.
Obviously no 1:1 replacements will take place. The 787-3 mostly replaces 762/763 (non-ER) and A300/A310. I doubt it will really catch on in North America, where the bulk of 757 market exists. The 737-900X, A321, and 737/A320 replacements will be replacing 757 in the future.
: That isn't true at all!! Those aircraft serve completly different niches. Using a 773ER on 773A routes would be a huge waste of aircraft. Why? The 77
: And what about the threat the A350 poses to the 772? With similar to 787 economics, shouldn't Boeing be worried about the future of the 777 orders? Su
: There is some weight disadvantage associated with the narrower but longer fuselage of the 340. Also, in general, Airbus planes tend to be heavier tha
: "Huge"? Respectable, maybe, but hardly huge. They've sold more 787s in a fraction of the time.
: Please correct me if I am wrong. But didn't SWA ask Boeing about the posibilities of building a 737 on the 7E7 technology?
: The 787 will not replace the 777, but Boeing has implied (if not said) that future 777 and 737 replacements would be based on 787 technology. They don
: Boeing has sold ~100 773ER at an high list price of $200+ million. 773ER constitue roughly 1/6 of 777 sales and have continued the 777 order book as
: Lehpron, the 12-across design you saw in AWST was a different study. It's fuselage was wider than its height. The design I mentioned in Reply #1 was f
: So we agree. Hardly "huge". OK, OK. On their website Boeing list 56 787s sales. So you aren't counting the 30 for JAL, the 60 for China, the 6 for Fi
: PM, very good comment on the somewhat lackluster success of the 773ER vs. the incredible success of the A380 so far. Its astonishing that an aircraft
: I just really hope that boeing do exactly like they did with the 787.....a totally new innovative design.... cause you should admit the T7 has a lill
: NA is exactly right in Reply #34, except for his doubt about it being a twin. This aircraft will probably have 10-across seating, rather than 9-across
: No 787 will replace 777, not wide enough. 787 is in its own category and 777 on a different one! Not necessarily. The 787 is wider than the A346 fusel
: That's not relevant. The 787 could easily be used to replace the 777 in 99% of configurations. N
: Gigneil, do you mean the B787 could replace the B777-200 or that it could replace both the B777-200 and the B777-300? It's clear to me that the B787 c
: As has been mentioned, the 787 is mildly wider than the A340. The A330/340 fuselage stretches from the A330-200 all the way to the A340-600. No reason
: I imagine that the 777 will have another 10 years of production. However, I would imagine that the 787 will render the Triple-7 obsolete. I would sugg
: If they continue stretching aircraft the way they have been doing (Boeing) such as what they had done with the 737, then yes...the 787 will eventually
: There may be a manufacturing benefit, but long, relatively thin fuselages weigh a bundle more than wider more optimised solutions. Not to mention for
: "Never... unless" is not quite "never" ... A "direct or so" 777 replacement will no way be a quad, but anything trying to expand to 500+ seats area -