Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Talks About 787-10 At Asian Airshow  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9840 times:

From ATWonline:

The 787-10 will possible feature

- Increased MTOW

- Strengthened undercarriage

- 6 meter stretch from the 787-9

- Range 14300KM 500KM less than the 787-8

- Rolls-Royce have agreed to certify the engine above 80 000lb thrust.

- Order from Emirates is expected in late March.

Read more at http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4111


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9835 times:

So what will its economics be if they cram nine abreast seats into the -10 like the other post is talking about airlines doing with the -3, -8, and -9?


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9805 times:

thanks for the link...some interesting stuff there.........would be kind of strange to see a 787 with a six-wheel truck.....

also interesting to see Rolls Royce will be able to build a larger engine to get the thrust needed, as Boeing's Baseler has been saying that if the engine manufacturers can build the engine, then they'll be able to build the plane.

again, thanks for the link. Smile



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9785 times:

I think it will only emphasise the 787's superiority over the 350; at 8 abreast, the 787-10 is probably a bit better than the 350-900, but at nine abreast, you're talking of about 30-40 extra seats and that can make a very significant impact on economics. EK will be a 9 abreast customer, since it already does 10 across on 777s.

EK is a bit concerned about the 787-10's range, but many other airlines won't be quite as concerned about that; from the perspective of an airline like Aer Lingus - a possible 787/350 customer - 14,000kms (around 8,000mi) which is considerably more than most carriers need and as we know - from examples like SQ - airlines on ULH flights tend to allow more space, not least to control weight and boost range.

In addition to the u/c being strenghtened, Boeing is also looking to put a 777 style 6 wheel main u/c on the 787-10.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9750 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
- Increased MTOW

- Strengthened undercarriage

From 787-9 MTOW or from the 560 ton MTOW estimate, which was supposed to be based on the max weight the undercarriage can support? If they are considering a modification to the undercarriage, does mean that Boeing is shooting for greater than 560 ton MTOW? And if they modify the undercarriage, would they strengthen it enough to support an even larger -11 variant stretched by another 6m?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9698 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
would they strengthen it enough to support an even larger -11 variant stretched by another 6m?

Sounds like it would turn into the twin-aisle version of the 757-300. Long, slender, and a total B**** to disembark from if you're sitting in the back.

But I'm sure the economics won't be beat.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9690 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1):
So what will its economics be if they cram nine abreast seats into the -10 like the other post is talking about airlines doing with the -3, -8, and -9?

If the plane is anything like this, the 787 family will offer great versatility from the 787-3 to the 787-10.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):
thanks for the link...some interesting stuff there.........would be kind of strange to see a 787 with a six-wheel truck.....

also interesting to see Rolls Royce will be able to build a larger engine to get the thrust needed, as Boeing's Baseler has been saying that if the engine manufacturers can build the engine, then they'll be able to build the plane.

again, thanks for the link.

my pleasure. It was very interesting about the part with upgraded engines, and strengthened undercarriage. It will be interesting to see if EK and SQ orders this plane.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
From 787-9 MTOW or from the 560 ton MTOW estimate, which was supposed to be based on the max weight the undercarriage can support? If they are considering a modification to the undercarriage, does mean that Boeing is shooting for greater than 560 ton MTOW? And if they modify the undercarriage, would they strengthen it enough to support an even larger -11 variant stretched by another 6m?

From my understanding of the article it does mean they are shooting for a greater MTOW.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9646 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
And if they modify the undercarriage, would they strengthen it enough to support an even larger -11 variant stretched by another 6m?

A 75 meter B787-11X would need 6 wheel bogeys not only to distribute the weight but also to avoid tail strikes during rotation by employing the same trick as the B777-300 (which pushes the aft axle down and the front axle up).


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9385 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
From 787-9 MTOW or from the 560 ton MTOW estimate

560 tons? That's like A380-weight, man. You meant 560,000 lbs, eh?

The purpose of strengthening landing gear for heavier derivatives are not for potential increases in MTOW later on. It is for when they touchdown on landing, the struts experience greater stresses than their original MTOW, i.e much more. It depends on the rate of decent and the strut's shock/cylinder travel.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAmirs From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9321 times:

Now I wish LY would change their 772 orders to 773, and order the 787-10 with the other 787 they are expected to order next year.

The 773 would keep their engine commanality with the other 772ER (RR Trents 895) and would still have the range for TLV - NYC, TLV - LHR and TLV -BKK. Those would probably be the routes the a/c would do.

They dont even need the range the 773ER has for these routes.

[Edited 2006-02-22 12:02:54]

User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3437 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9029 times:

Im really excited about the propect of a launch. Let's hope Boeing aren't biting off more than they could chew- launching too many variants with rapid succession??!! Go BOEING!!

I'm just waiting for Airbus to launch the A380-900 with an EK order now!!!!!

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5943 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8791 times:

Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has prooven so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Hope not!
While I am a GE fan, I'm still glad to see RR competing handily. But what I want is competition- both of them- not either of them alone.

In any event, this is exciting news for Boeing, though I am surprised that they're talking about orders in March!!


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8756 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 11):
Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has prooven so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Just because we haven't seen GE release a statement doesn't mean they won't compete. After all, they have the GE90 experience to draw upon. It's not like they don't know big engines. Furthermore, GE Aviation is "ahead" of RR on the A350 at the moment, so I don't think they're crying too much. You can't be first at everything.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8562 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
A 75 meter B787-11X would need 6 wheel bogeys not only to distribute the weight but also to avoid tail strikes during rotation by employing the same trick as the B777-300 (which pushes the aft axle down and the front axle up).

Would an -11 be a possibility in the 9-14 year time frame? Then what will happen to the Y3? It must be huge.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 11):
Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has proved so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Could the reason for GE's hesitation be that they have the 772LR market, and don't want to rush the development? I am sure that when the if this turn out to be true, the Genx will provide with more power. It amazes me that the they can offer a thrust range from 53 000 lb thrust 80 000 thrust with the same fan diameter.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8525 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
560 tons? That's like A380-weight, man. You meant 560,000 lbs, eh?

Oops.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 11):
Hmmm. I am surprised that Rolls seems to be gaining the upper hand in the 787 market, especially after GE has prooven so agile when it came to securing exclusivity on the 777NG and the 747-8. Is GE falling behind so early in the program as to ignore the engine for the 787-10???

Hope not!
While I am a GE fan, I'm still glad to see RR competing handily. But what I want is competition- both of them- not either of them alone.

The GEnx core is supposedly less upwards scalable than the Trent 1000 core.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8373 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
It was very interesting about the part with upgraded engines, and strengthened undercarriage. It will be interesting to see if EK and SQ orders this plane.

Agreed. This could spell more trouble for the A-350.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8319 times:

Atmx2000, sorry for breaking away from our previous conversation on the 787-10 a few weeks ago (had to heed to the call of my job). Thanks for setting me straight on the fact that the 787 airframe was weight-limited as opposed to being volume-limited (as I had erroneously assumed).

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
The GEnx core is supposedly less upwards scalable than the Trent 1000 core.

It will be interesting to see how GE responds to this new requirement now that RR kind of has a leg up.

Another interesting scenario is what happens to the 789? Is the gap between the 788 and the 787-10 (78A? - think hexadecimal) big enough for the 789 to stand alone and not have it's marketshare cannibalized by it's siblings?

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8284 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 16):
Is the gap between the 788 and the 787-10 (78A? - think hexadecimal) big enough for the 789 to stand alone and not have it's marketshare cannibalized by it's siblings?

Considering that the -10 would be a 6 meter stretch of the -9, I'd say there would be no problem, and that the three aircraft would compliment each other quite nicely.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7702 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 15):
Agreed. This could spell more trouble for the A-350.

And maybe to an even greater extent the enhanced A340-500/600.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 13):
Would an -11 be a possibility in the 9-14 year time frame? Then what will happen to the Y3? It must be huge.

If Boeing develops a -11, then maybe the plane would require a larger wing surface? The 777 has a much larger wing surface than the 787.

Quoting N60659 (Reply 16):
It will be interesting to see how GE responds to this new requirement now that RR kind of has a leg up.

Can they use the GE90 core and an electrical architecture from the Genx, to provide with sufficient thrust, or would it be cheaper to upgrade the core on the Genx?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13520 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 7216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
- Order from Emirates is expected in late March.

I found the Singapore interest even more intreguing...

I do wonder if the -10 will cancel the -9. If the 764 had been done early, it would have superceeded a bunch of 763 sales (not all, some customers had a transpacific need for the 763ER's range).

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):
EK will be a 9 abreast customer, since it already does 10 across on 777s.

 checkmark  EK will buy on uplift. Range... will be a concern with them, but I expect the 787's to be used mostly for A330 supersizing and replacement. Although, maybe EK wants something to also augment their soon to be extensive 777/346 fleet? I'll have to look at their route map when I have more time. If someone can add some facts on the EK range needs, I would appreciate it.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 3):
In addition to the u/c being strenghtened, Boeing is also looking to put a 777 style 6 wheel main u/c on the 787-10.

Nice factoid. They'll have to do something.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
560 ton MTOW estimate

 rotfl  oops is right. A380 part duex!  Wink Don't worry, we understand, just had me laughing a bit...

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
The GEnx core is supposedly less upwards scalable than the Trent 1000 core.

Translation: GE optimized for minimal fuel burn at the specified thrust levels. RR left a little growth room. Also, the tripple spool is a little easier to upthrust than a double spool. I don't doubt GE will step up to the plate. More than likely it will be a la GE-90-115, a slightly larger fan for the same nacelle (if possible, I do not know anything about the 787 nacelle characteristics). As I think about it, the shared nacelle *might* prevent GE from expanding the diameter...  scratchchin 

I thought the 787 would do well, Boeing is taking a winning horse and changing the rules of the race. However, this means that *soon* Boeing will have to turn on all of the vendors for the 2nd assembly line. I believe this is refered to as a "classy kind of problem to have" in the business world.  bigthumbsup 

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1259 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 7190 times:

I think it is fascinating that Rolls has taken an upper hand in up- certifying the Trent 1000. I think it should be noted however, that in this size market, rolls already has a sizeable advantage (a la the 777-200er). Many of the airlines which would be looking to purchase the 787-10 already have rolls engines in their 777 fleet. I do think however, surely GE, with the incredible GE90 engine, can certainly use some of their high thrust technology, to apply to the GEnx. I am certain we will see great things from both companies. Congratulations to both as well as Boeing for finally admitting they are working on a -10 variant. While I am sad to think about what it may do to sales of my favorite aircraft, the 777, they are sure to secure a most difinitive advantage over airbus. I really think they are gonna out do themselves on this one, just like they did with the 777!


Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 5546 times:

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 20):
I really think they are gonna out do themselves on this one, just like they did with the 777!

Actually, I think the B777 is a case for how not to do it. Rolls Royce took an early lead from PW, then ultimatly got shoved out of the way by Ge90. They had the largest market share, but they didn't secure the 777LR and now GE has pulled ahead.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 20):
Congratulations to both as well as Boeing for finally admitting they are working on a -10 variant.

Boeing has "admitted" to looking at the 787-10 for some time. Perhaps 6-12 months.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 5397 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 13):
Would an -11 be a possibility in the 9-14 year time frame? Then what will happen to the Y3? It must be huge.

If Boeing were to build a B787-11X (about the length of the A340-600), then Y3 would start with about 350-380 seats in the shortest version. It would still be smaller (and much lighter) than the WhaleJet.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):

If Boeing develops a -11, then maybe the plane would require a larger wing surface? The 777 has a much larger wing surface than the 787.

Not necessarily. The B787 wing is good for at least 600,000 lbs TOW.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19):
I do wonder if the -10 will cancel the -9.

No chance. Boeing's policy is a roughly 20% size difference between models. The difference between the B787-8 and B787-10 is greater than that.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 5324 times:

I don't foresee a 787-11. Y3 will fill that, plus, that will start to inch up on 773.

right now they have one for one replacement, which i think they are happy with.

757-300 - 787-3
767-200ER - 787-8
767-300ER - 787-9
767-400ER/777-200ER - 787-10

Why would they want anything bigger? The 787-10 already will have awesome economics. Pushing it further would be tempting fate. Like a 265-270ft long 777-400.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 5324 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
No chance. Boeing's policy is a roughly 20% size difference between models. The difference between the B787-8 and B787-10 is greater than that.

On the otherhand, the difference between the 787-8 and 787-9 is less than 20%, and the difference between the 787-10 and 787-9 would be even less if they increase by the same 6m. Perhaps a proportional increase in cabin length would make more sense, increasing the 787-10 length by 7-8m.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
25 MD-90 : But it really doesn't cost Boeing very much extra to have those different fuselage lengths. If they could do it with the 707, it's even better today w
26 AA777223 : I was talking about Boeing and the triple 7 in general, not Rolls Royces engines.
27 Post contains links OyKIE : Although one could say that plane sizes increase when a new model is available, I think this is a better sizewise comparsion. The 757-300 is much sma
28 Post contains images Johnny : @ FlyDreamliner 757-300 - 787-3 767-200ER - 787-8 767-300ER - 787-9 767-400ER/777-200ER - 787-10 No,these figures are not correct.It looks like that:
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...
Boeing To Offer 787-10? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:44:41 by Reggaebird
Boeing Wins Its 1st Order At Asian Aerospace 2004! posted Tue Feb 24 2004 21:01:02 by Singapore_Air
Baseler: Boeing In "Serious" 787-10 Talks posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:09:26 by Leelaw
Boeing's Bair: Talks With QR Continue About 787 posted Mon May 29 2006 08:15:20 by Leelaw
1st 787-10 Shows Up In Boeing Presentation posted Fri Sep 29 2006 16:16:37 by Boeing7E7
Boeing Not Concerned About 787 Problems posted Thu Jul 20 2006 15:21:49 by EI321
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
Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10 posted Mon Oct 31 2005 05:28:07 by Sq212