Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10  
User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8724 times:

Interesting read.

Apparently, EK wants both... cargo and range.

Hope 747ADV get launch soon.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...wst_story.jsp?id=news/10315p03.xml

Cheers

[Edited 2005-10-31 05:45:07]

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8701 times:

I like the 747 ADV. I heard that its engines are going to be bleed-air derivatives of the 787 engines, though. I know it would cost more for development, but couldn't Boeing get a competitive advantage against the A380 by having bleedless engines on the 747ADV?

User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8475 times:

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 1):
but couldn't Boeing get a competitive advantage against the A380 by having bleedless engines on the 747ADV?

 boggled  Are they going to put an extra 100 seats in those engines?

In all seriousness, if you read the article, you'll read that these aircraft dont compete.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8433 times:

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 1):
couldn't Boeing get a competitive advantage against the A380 by having bleedless engines on the 747ADV?

That would require developing electrical systems to replace the perfectly good pneumatic systems all over the airplane. It would cost several billion dollars additionally for development, additionally increase the cost per plane by many millions of dollars (due to the small manufacturing runs), and might perhaps improve efficiency by as much as 1%. With the development costs amortized over the number of planes that might be sold, the price per aircraft might be doubled. Somehow that doesn't strike me as a good deal for a 1% gain.

I can say with confidence that no pneumatically powered airliner will be converted to electrically powered. It would have been nuts for Airbus to even consider doing so from the A330 to the A350. Only with a clean-sheet all-new design will we see bleedless systems.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10046 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Seems like a pretty wel written article.
Thanks SQ212
A


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8322 times:

Quote:
The 747 Advanced is supposed to improve fuel consumption over the baseline 747-400 by 6%.

I think that should be CASM, not fuel consumption. If it is fuel consumption, it is not on a per seat basis.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8276 times:

Article seems to make sense .

Boeing is taking a rational approach. You can't serve everybody at the same time.

Hopefully the advanced will be launched soon, filling the 773/346 - 388 gab.

Seems good news for 359 too. It will be a head on battle with the 772 for the next few years.

In between the lines is seems Boeing has no 747adv passenger prospects yet. Maybe airlines will wait & see before ordering it.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8249 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Seems good news for 359 too. It will be a head on battle with the 772 for the next few years.

That's not a battle. That's a slaughter. I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter.


User currently offlineAAFLT1871 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2333 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8183 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter.

Cargo comes to mind



Where did everybody go?
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8163 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
That's not a battle. That's a slaughter. I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter.

If the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also. Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range like the 777-200ER/LR (with useful payload of course).

Future orders and insight into how the airplanes will be used will be interesting.

Cheers


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8034 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range

7500 nm (13900 km) is still a respectable range. 14 hours of flight time, covers most long haul flights for most airlines. e.g:
MEL-LAX: 6883 nm
LHR-SIN: 5879 nm
NRT-DTW: 5559 nm
TXL-LAX: 5044 nm
all fall within it's range.

Boeing 777-200ER: Proven performance, 2006-2009 delivery options, good resale value (freighter) and fleet commonality (existing 777 fleet) could be selling points for the 777-200ER compared to the A350-900.

Much focus on ultra long range these days (on a.net), but lets not forget the 777-200LR is heavier and more expensive then the 777-200ER, and serves a ULH niche. I believe Jet Airways recently changed there mind after looking through the numbers.

[Edited 2005-10-31 11:26:05]

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6923 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7947 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
Seems like a pretty wel written article.

Yeah, especially the bits about how the 777-200ER "pushed the A340-300/-400 (-400???) out of the market" and that Airbus is a French company...  

Really, these are crass mistakes for a publication that purports to be a serious journal.

[Edited 2005-10-31 12:12:08]

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7920 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Seems good news for 359 too. It will be a head on battle with the 772 for the next few years.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
That's not a battle. That's a slaughter. I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter.

I tend to agree with both comments. However, aside from EK, what other large orders are pending where these two aircraft types will go "head to head" in the next few years? At SQ, QF, CX, the battle seems to be between the 787 and 350 and the 772ER is not a player (I could have this wrong, there has been quite a lot of speculation on the various combinations that these orders will take). Can't Boeing afford to wait a few years to get it right. On the flip side, they seem to have most of the 767 replacement market to themselves--for now.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7889 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 11):
and that Airbus is a French company...

Slightly OT, but it's not only the author of this article that has this perception in the U.S. IMO, this doesn't auger well for large defense deal with the U.S. DoD (like tankers) unless Airbus does some agressive marketing stressing its "international" pedigree and contributions to the U.S. economy. I agree this is a glaring mistake for a publication like Aviation Week.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7679 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
f the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also. Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range like the 777-200ER/LR (with useful payload of course).

Future orders and insight into how the airplanes will be used will be interesting.

Cheers

 thumbsup 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
7500 nm (13900 km) is still a respectable range. 14 hours of flight time, covers most long haul flights for most airlines. e.g:
MEL-LAX: 6883 nm
LHR-SIN: 5879 nm
NRT-DTW: 5559 nm
TXL-LAX: 5044 nm
all fall within it's range.

wow Keesje....I'm actually agreeing with you for the first time... praise 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6063 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 13):
Quoting PM (Reply 11):
and that Airbus is a French company...

Slightly OT, but it's not only the author of this article that has this perception in the U.S. IMO, this doesn't auger well for large defense deal with the U.S. DoD (like tankers) unless Airbus does some agressive marketing stressing its "international" pedigree and contributions to the U.S. economy. I agree this is a glaring mistake for a publication like Aviation Week.

Weather it is true, or not, most Americans do look at Airbus as a French company and Boeing as a wholey American company.

To us that know better, both Boeing and Airbus are really multi-national companies. It is just the Airbus HQ is in France and Boeing HQ is in the US.

It is interesting the the writer says that both the A-350-900 and the B-787-1000 wuld need 80K lbs of thrust. But, that does make sense. You still have to plan on loosing one engine at MTOGW, after V1 and still be able to get airborne with the remaining runway avaiable.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6016 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
To us that know better, both Boeing and Airbus are really multi-national companies. It is just the Airbus HQ is in France and Boeing HQ is in the US.

Airbus HQ is loaded with Germans, English & Spanish managers, the Boss is a German, the language English, the sales man an American. Doubt the same goes for Boeing HQ (apart from the language & sales man  Wink )..


User currently offlineAmy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5966 times:

Could the trent 900 not work for the 747 ADV? Are they too heavy?

I dunno just seems like every new aircraft gets brand new engines on it these days... is that economical for the manufacturers? RR make so many different kinds of engines these days i find it hard to keep track!



A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
User currently offline797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5292 times:

I think that most aviations fans would love to see this old dinosaur having a new life as advanced. This is the first real "jumbo", - and will always be special one way or another.
However I think it is disappointing to see that "...The 747 Advanced is supposed to improve fuel consumption over the baseline 747-400 by 6%."
That is less than I would have expected.

If any of you not have read Randy's article about the 747ADV, you should have a look at it: http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2005/06/timing.html

As he write "...The key thing now is timing."
No doubt we will see it sooner or later.


So come on Boeing, get the 777LR, 777F, 787, and the 747ADV finished, and get the 797 on the drawing board.  Wink



Keep it clear of the propellers
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5204 times:

Quoting Amy (Reply 17):
Could the trent 900 not work for the 747 ADV? Are they too heavy?

You don't need engines capable of hauling the A380 for the 747ADV, which will be much lighter.

Quoting Amy:
I dunno just seems like every new aircraft gets brand new engines on it these days... is that economical for the manufacturers? RR make so many different kinds of engines these days i find it hard to keep track!

Well, in the case of the 747ADV, they are using the GEnx, which is for the 787 so there's the reuse there.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6923 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting Amy (Reply 17):
I dunno just seems like every new aircraft gets brand new engines on it these days...

I know what you mean but I wonder how different things really are. Superficially, the A300, A310, A330, 767, 777, 747 and MD11 all use the PW4000 but I assume that there are significant differences between the various models. Much the same argument could be made about the CF6 on the A300, A310, A330, DC10, MD11, 767 and 747. At the other extreme we have six "different" RR Trents for the A330, A340, A380, A350, 777 and 787 but I assume they all shame common features. Are the PW4000 and Trent programmes really that different or is it just a matter of marketing?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9):
If the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also.

Projected MTOW for the A350-900 is 540,000 lbs. For the B787-10X, it is 562,000 lbs. Also, Airbus and Boeing design their wings differently. The Airbus wing is slightly more optimized toward T/O performance and the Boeing wing is slightly more optimized for cruise performance. As a result, the B787 will have a higher V2 than the A350, requiring more thrust for a given TOW. So, no, the A350-900 will not need as much thrust (75,000 lbs) as the B787-10X (80-83,000 lbs).


User currently offlineOkees From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 424 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

Bleedless engines were mentioned several times in this post and in other posts.. but what does bleedless mean?

okees



mobs jakis
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

Quoting Okees (Reply 22):
Bleedless engines were mentioned several times in this post and in other posts.. but what does bleedless mean?

Airliners typically have many pneumatic systems powered by bleed air from the engines. In a bleedless design, electrical system are used rather than pneumatic systems, the engines drive larger generators, and power is distributed via electrical wires rather than through air ducting. The bleedless design has several advantages:
1) engines can be changed between manufacturers, increasing the resale value of the airframe,
2) lighter weight, and
3) off-the-shelf systems can be used in some instances.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4159 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
To us that know better, both Boeing and Airbus are really multi-national companies. It is just the Airbus HQ is in France and Boeing HQ is in the US.

Well I sort of agree and disagree with you on this my friend, although you are partially right in your statement...

1. Boeing does most, if not all, of their assembly in the U.S. (Or North America if you consider their Canadian parts subsidiary) with sub-assemblies either manufactured by Boeing or it's subcontractors. It's rightly considered an American company (90% or more of it's shares are American owned), although with a global supply chain.

2. Airbus does their final assembly in both Germany and France. They are truely a multi-national company, as they are owned by French, German, Spanish and British entities (EADS and BAE). It too relies on a global supply network (40% of the A380 manufactured in the U.S.). You are right though as Airbus is perceived here in the U.S. as a French company.

It can be confusing, I'll admit. Here's another teaser... Rolls Royce is considered a British company although it's American subsidiary manufactures more engines then any other division and 35% of the company is American owned.

Go figure!



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
25 Atmx2000 : Of course the reason for the higher MTOW would be to create an aircraft to satisfy EK's orignal 8000nm+ range demands. A 787-10 with similar range to
26 Zvezda : Think about what happens when you increase the MTOW of the B787-8 to 520,000 lbs. Since it's composite, the OEW will not be increased all that much.
27 Shenzhen : This is the point, right. If Boeing feels they need to increase the MTOW of the 787-10 to something that requires over 80K pound thrust on an airplan
28 Zvezda : Ok. Max payload for the A350-900 is projected at nearly 50t. Let's load up an A350-900 and a B777-200ER with 50t of payload each then add fuel up to
29 Sq212 : I would like to think A330 is more of a regional airplane than the A350-900. A350-900 competes with 772ER. Some operators will find applications for
30 Shenzhen : I guess what I was trying to illustrate (without doing much work, thanks Zveda) is that the 777-200ER may still have life for airlines that want to f
31 Zvezda : Shenzhen, thanks for pushing me to do that bit of analysis. I agree with you. The proposed 562,000 lbs MTOW version of the B787-10X would be able to p
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...
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Customers Press Boeing To Make Early 787-10 Dec posted Wed Feb 1 2006 17:45:58 by Atmx2000
FI: Boeing Focuses On 787 Weight Not Rate posted Tue Aug 15 2006 13:56:44 by Leelaw
1st 787-10 Shows Up In Boeing Presentation posted Fri Sep 29 2006 16:16:37 by Boeing7E7
Baseler: Boeing In "Serious" 787-10 Talks posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:09:26 by Leelaw
Boeing To Offer 787-10? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:44:41 by Reggaebird
Boeing Talks About 787-10 At Asian Airshow posted Wed Feb 22 2006 06:50:15 by OyKIE
Not 8 But 10 Boeing 777-200ER For KLM posted Thu May 16 2002 14:21:58 by EHAM06
Double-Decker From Boeing - Why Not 787? posted Thu Oct 14 1999 21:09:37 by Ilyushin96M