Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 And 777 Range  
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1219 posts, RR: 7
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

In comparison to the 777, what kind of range does the 787 have in relation to the number of passengers? In many forums I hear people comparing 787 to handling 777LR routes. There is also alot of talk about the 787-10 which would "surely canabalize" the 777-200. If this happened would the 787-10 really have the range of the different variants of the 777? Without the benefit of the same thrust range in the 787 engines that the RR800/GE90/PW40000 are capable of producing, I don't see how it could happen or perform nearly as well. It seems to me if they stretched the 787 to a -10 length it would hamper performance so much it wouldn't be able to make the same flights the 777 does. Any information would be helpful.

P.s. I did a search and couldn't find this topic previously discussed. Sorry if it is redundant.


Sic 'em bears
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting AA777223 (Thread starter):
There is also alot of talk about the 787-10 which would "surely canabalize" the 777-200. If this happened would the 787-10 really have the range of the different variants of the 777?

The 787-8 and 787-9 will have more range than the 772A, 772ER, 773A, and 773ER. Only the 772LR will have more range than the 788/789.

The 787-10 if built today would have around 7,400 nm in range (with 772 capacity) assuming a complete payload for range swap, a la 772ER to 773A. This is a bit low for the 777 replacement, roughly on par with the A343.

Boeing is waiting for the more powerful engines necessary to enable a MTOW growth of the 789. Boeing wants to launch the 787-10 as the -10X with about 8,000-8,300 nm to meet the requirements of EK and reach the "base" level for current generation long haul aircraft. Engines are the key, the current Trent 1000 and GEnx can't put out the 80,000 lbf necessary for this variant.

Just last week Rolls Royce ran the Trent 1000 prototype and are confident enough to offer a 75,000 lbf variant. Step in the right direction, enough to enable the 787-9HGW with 8,600 nm of range. The 787 will likely grow just like any other aircraft.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
The 787-8 and 787-9 will have more range than the 772A, 772ER, 773A, and 773ER. Only the 772LR will have more range than the 788/789.

Though the 772LR requires auxillary tanks to increase range. The 789's range without auxillary tanks would be greater.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1219 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4393 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Engines are the key, the current Trent 1000 and GEnx can't put out the 80,000 lbf necessary for this variant.

You say engines are the key and there are 80,000 Lbs of thrust neccesary. This brings me to my point. Why would the 787 only need 80,000 lbs of thrust to haul the same load as the 777-200er, which needs 90,000-95,000 produced by the current GE90-94B, RR892, etc? I can't imagine they would be able to see a true 777-200er replacement in the 787-8/9/10 untill we see a 90-100,000 lbs of thrust from the GE GENx, and RR Trent 1000. What is the missing component here that allows these aircraft to fly as far as the ER variants of the triple 7, carrying the same payload, but with such a diminished thrust rating?



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 792 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4323 times:

The 787 family carries less aircraft weight, and thus needs less thrust to haul the same payload.


What?
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4250 times:

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 3):
Why would the 787 only need 80,000 lbs of thrust to haul the same load as the 777-200er, which needs 90,000-95,000 produced by the current GE90-94B, RR892, etc?

The 787 aircraft are lighter than 777 aircraft (by about 100 tons). While it would be kind of trippy to replace a larger plane with a smaller plane, technology and economics can make it possible. Besides, when aircraft derivative are stretched, they get heavier for their size, they will need more thrust to do anything beyond the original specification.

The simplified Berguet equations for range of a jet plane are not dependent on thrust, they do require the TSFC among other numbers. This si a link to my proffessors pdf lecture on the range and endurance of aircraft, just skip to the end: http://mercury/gallyt/ae302/Performance-Part5.pdf



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3414 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4237 times:

The 787 is composite vs 777 metal a/c. Supposed significant weight savings. Do we know for sure if GE/ RR are working on an increased thrust version of the engines for Boeing?

AA1818



God is a Trini...
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4608 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4221 times:

Widebodyphotog produced the chart in the link below. It is very comprehensive and should answer most questions.

http://theaviationspecialist.com/787_family.gif

In another chart Widebodyphotog shows that the max payload of the -200ER is slightly higher ( 135500lb v 129200lb)and the range somewhat better (5800nm v 5400nm)with max payload than the hypothetical 787-10. The fuel burn would favour the -10 quite significantly.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4193 times:

Boeing knows what they are doing. In 2011/2012, we'll see the first 787-10s, which will be powered by 80,000ish lb GEnx and RR Trent 1000s. I have no doubt these engines can be tweaked up. Just look how far GE90 was pushed. 787-10 will have passenger capacity roughly equal to 777-200, or 777-200ER, and equivalent range, but it's not likely to have as great of cargo capacity. Moreover, it's total payload will be smaller. I think Boeing is thinking by 2012, they'll be moving 772 into cargo sales anyhow. Then they'll have the 787-10 to take its place, except for 772LR, which will continue as a niche player. This will allow the new Y3 to be a larger aircraft, not having to shrink down to 772 size.

Composites are beautiful. Smaller plane, smaller engines, less gas.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 8):
In 2011/2012, we'll see the first 787-10s, which will be powered by 80,000ish lb GEnx and RR Trent 1000s.

There is no chance of the B787-10 flying in 2011, but 2012 or 2013 is possible. Thrust is likely to be somewhere in the range of 75K to 80K if delivered in the above timeframe.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 8):
787-10 will have passenger capacity roughly equal to 777-200, or 777-200ER, and equivalent range, but it's not likely to have as great of cargo capacity. Moreover, it's total payload will be smaller.

The initial MTOW of the B787-10 has not yet been decided. The B787-10 will probably have a lower payload than the B777-200ER, but that is not certain.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

I can't imagine the MTOW or payload being higher. The interior volume will be smaller for sure. It's not a round fuselage like 777.


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 6):
Do we know for sure if GE/ RR are working on an increased thrust version of the engines for Boeing?

They absolutely are.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
The interior volume will be smaller for sure. It's not a round fuselage like 777.

Actually, the 787-10X would have more volume than the 772ER.

The 787-10X if built will likely have the highest fraction of cargo volume to passenger capacity of any commercial aircraft in the world.


User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1219 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

The 787 represents Y2 in the Boeing future aircraft plan, correct? Y1 will be next with the 737 replacement, and then Y3 will be a 748/ 773 replacement? What kind of aircraft do you think we might see for Y3? Do you think we will see essentially a more efficient, slightly larger 773 type aircraft, or something totally different. I can't imagine boeing having a 773 aircraft as their largest aircraft. It seems that leaves the VLA market uncontested to Airbus. I knew there were some fascinating designs in the past for aircraft like the A380, MD11, 747-500, etc. I heard of a "double wide" 3 aisled type aircraft, and some other crazy designs. What do you think we will see for Y3? I would love to see boeing come up with something really special to replace the 773, 748!


Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 12):
The 787 represents Y2 in the Boeing future aircraft plan, correct?

Correct.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 12):
Y1 will be next with the 737 replacement, and then Y3 will be a 748/ 773 replacement?

The launch of the B747-8 seems to ensure that Y1 will precede Y3.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 12):
What kind of aircraft do you think we might see for Y3? Do you think we will see essentially a more efficient, slightly larger 773 type aircraft, or something totally different.

I think there will be a greater difference in interior cross section between the B777 and Y3 than there will be between the B787 and the B777. The exterior fuselage width of Y3 seems likely to be in the range of 260 to 270 inches. That would allow for generous 10 abreast Y seating or cramped 11 abreast seating. I would be surprised if Y3 were to have a fuselage form other than an approximate cylinder.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
Quoting AA1818 (Reply 6):
Do we know for sure if GE/ RR are working on an increased thrust version of the engines for Boeing?

They absolutely are.

Does anyone know what the max power outlet for the Trent 1000 /GEnx will be in the future? Could it someday replace the GE-90-115B, or would that make a huge derivative?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
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...
AI 787 And 777 Routes. posted Mon Sep 12 2005 00:40:42 by Kaitak744
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
CO And The E170 And 777/787 posted Thu Jul 21 2005 23:59:25 by Goodmanr
Headrests On Delta 767-400ER And 777-200ER posted Wed Oct 25 2006 20:31:42 by 1337Delta764
Why Is There A Gap Between The 787-3 And 787-8? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 05:00:13 by JAM747
What's The Diff Between The 787-3 And 787-8? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 04:48:06 by Remcor
Will B747 Have Cockpit Commonality With 787 & 777? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 00:34:32 by JAM747
Virgin Blue's New Embraer And 777 Fleet? posted Tue Aug 22 2006 00:06:12 by Aussie_
787 And 748 @ Farnborough Air Show 2006 posted Tue Jul 11 2006 17:01:19 by BoeingBus
Boeing 787 & 777 Orders posted Sat Jul 1 2006 08:34:35 by Grantcv
SQ / EK / QR / 380 / 787 And ORD posted Sun Dec 11 2011 18:04:38 by nomorerjs
Clarification About Wings On 787-8, -9, And -10? posted Fri Nov 18 2011 09:51:34 by tsugambler
What Do The French Call The 747 And 777? posted Mon Nov 7 2011 13:03:37 by 76er
Avianca And 777? posted Mon Nov 29 2010 18:42:31 by colinatl