Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
From ATWOnline: 787-10 Spec  
User currently offlineSONICDANCE From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 20 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2833 times:

ALOHA! Check this out:

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4522

One thing that strikes me is that the range that Bair quotes is lower than everyone's guess down in a.net... It's only 7500nm as opposed to an estimation of 8000nm+. Another interesting spec is that MTOW is the same as the -9. It also sounds like the engine is the same as the -9. So... Boeing ends up building something less capable than we estimated. Don't take me wrong, I love the 787s and I believe that it's a great aircraft. I'm just a little disappointed that Boeing is not adding more range on it to counter the proposed A350-900. So it seems like the order from Emirates is still not inside Boeing's bag...

And here's my guess: Boeing will launch -10ER sometime. I also wonder if Boeing refrains from making the MTOW on the -10 higher in order to avoid "killing" the 777-200LR...

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks ago) and read 2801 times:

From Article:

"The carrier is expected to announce an order for 50 dash 10s at the Farnborough Air Show in July."

I find it hard to believe that this order is already a forgone conclusion, something tells me there'll be plenty of drama, intrigue, and suspense before the fat lady sings a la QF last year.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting SONICDANCE (Thread starter):
And here's my guess: Boeing will launch -10ER sometime. I also wonder if Boeing refrains from making the MTOW on the -10 higher in order to avoid "killing" the 777-200LR...

It is not the B-777-200LR that the B-787-1000 will "kill". It is the older B-777-200ER, which Boeing can afford to heavierly discount to keep in production.

The range of 7500nm and 360 seats actually puts the B-787-1000 into a different range catagory. That is a 16.5 hour flight, and enough range to fly DFW-SYD (7450nm), not counting fuel reserves.

[Edited 2006-03-29 08:00:33]

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks ago) and read 2756 times:

Quoting SONICDANCE (Thread starter):
One thing that strikes me is that the range that Bair quotes is lower than everyone's guess down in a.net...

Just yesterday, ATWOnline said the -10 would have the same range as the 787-8...



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8642 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The range of 7500nm and 360 seats actually puts the B-787-1000 into a different range catagory. That is a 16.5 hour flight, and enough range to fly DFW-SYD (7450nm), not counting fuel reserves.

You would run out of fuel over the pacific doing that, the GNM might be 7450, the ANM is over 8000.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12032 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks ago) and read 2733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I thought EK's requirement was for a 300-seater that could do 8,000nm? confused 


Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineSONICDANCE From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks ago) and read 2693 times:

It is not the B-777-200LR that the B-787-1000 will "kill". It is the older B-777-200ER, which Boeing can afford to heavierly discount to keep in production.

The range of 7500nm and 360 seats actually puts the B-787-1000 into a different range catagory. That is a 16.5 hour flight, and enough range to fly DFW-SYD (7450nm), not counting fuel reserves.

--------------------------------
Hmmm... let me clarify my point of view. I see Boeing's action for not extending the -10 to over 8000nm is not just because of the technical reasons but also because that would take away quite a bit of potential 777-200LR's customer. From what I understand, the customers (say PAI) does not have the belly fuel tank installed in their 772LRs. Most airlines don't even need that 8500nm+ range. If the -10 goes beyond 8000nm, that would be not just saying sayonara to the 772ERs but also limiting the LR's sale (except when you need the payload that the LR can provide.) But you know, it's just my perspective.

BTW, would a -10ER be possible one day, when the time comes to replace 772LRs? I mean, if Airbus launches A350-900HGW, Boeing might be screwed.


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2304 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks ago) and read 2675 times:

Well, a 787-10ER would require 80,000 lbs (777 style) engines. I don't think the GEnx and the RR Trent 1000 are ready for that at this point.

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

if the MTOW stays the same as the -9, at 540000 lbs, with a 20foot stretch, you may be talking at a minimum a 20-30,000lb increase in OEW (the 772 to 773 is a 50K increase for a 20feet stretch, so lets assume the composites save almost a third ,which it probably doesn't, but the fuselage is narrower too).
Isn't that going to be a big hit on payload and fuel carrying capability??


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 7):
Well, a 787-10ER would require 80,000 lbs (777 style) engines. I don't think the GEnx and the RR Trent 1000 are ready for that at this point.



Quote:
Rolls-Royce is ready to develop a more powerful version of the Trent 1000 for the 787, telling ATWOnline that "it is our intention to power any and all variants of the 787 family.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4505



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineNW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
It is not the B-777-200LR that the B-787-1000 will "kill". It is the older B-777-200ER, which Boeing can afford to heavierly discount to keep in production.

The range of 7500nm and 360 seats actually puts the B-787-1000 into a different range catagory. That is a 16.5 hour flight, and enough range to fly DFW-SYD (7450nm), not counting fuel reserves.

I hate to nit-pick but if it's one thing I can not stand on Airliners.net is when someone ignorantly insists on calling aircraft what 'they want to call it' or what they 'feel it should be called'. Nowhere ever has Boeing or any credible news source, refer to the proposed 787 variant as the 787-1000, but here you come along shouting 'the B-787-1000 this' and the 'B-787-1000 that'. It is plain and simple, the Boeing 787-10...DASH 10! Not -1000, not -100, not anything but the -10. Its like referring to a DC-10-30 as a DC-10-300 or the 747-8 as the 747-800. That's not what the plane is officially designated. Call it the 787-10 as it was stated just yesterday in several press releases that that's what it will be called.

Thank You


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

I'm pretty sure this is just ATW's speculation. Since RR is coming out with new engines, and GE may as well, I'm not sure MTOW will be the same. I'm sure they can play with wing extensions or lift enhancing devices. My point is, the first good idea we'll have on 787-10 specs is when Boeing publishes them, and they won't be credible till a 787-10 flies and proves them. Same goes for the other 787s and A350s. One thing we all learned from Douglas a long time ago, anyone can talk a killer game, believe it when the plane performs.


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineSONICDANCE From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

I think the 787-10 at this spec would be problematic, as we can see w/ the 777-300. It might not be as weak as the 777-300 in terms of take off and cimb performance but I don't think it would be that great either. My guess is that the takeoff performance and the climb performance is what causes a big decline in range (judging from the range comparison w/ -8 and the original -9...) Just wondering if a higher thrust engine (80,000lb+) w/ 540,000lb MTOW would help the situation. I also wonder if the -10 can make 8000nm w/ 8 abreast config...

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

If they target the same MTOW, it is no surprise that the -10 would have significantly lower range. The original -9 spec before the current 540,000 lbs MTOW version was ~508,000 lbs MTOW, or 32,000 lbs greater than the -8. Even with that increase in MTOW, the range of that -9 was quoted as being 200 to 300nm less than the -8. To get to 8000nm, they will need to add something like 20,000 lbs. To get to a range close to the -8, they will need to add about 32,000 lbs. Adding another 32,000 lbs on top of that would bring it close to the -9, and possibly exceed it. If they get -8 range, they obsolete the 772LR except for missions that require the aux tanks. If they target the lower end, they obsolete the 772A and A330, and severely encroach upon the 772ER. Also targetting the upper weight range would potentially increase the risk with regards to getting the desired engines on time.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 11):
I'm pretty sure this is just ATW's speculation [...] My point is, the first good idea we'll have on 787-10 specs is when Boeing publishes them, and they won't be credible till a 787-10 flies and proves them.

Excuse me?
In the very article quoted by the thread starter is reported that:

Quote:

Concerning the 787-10, Bair revealed that the model will have a range of 7,500 nm., which "meets Emirates' requirements." The carrier is expected to announce an order for 50 dash 10s at the Farnborough Air Show in July. Bair told ATWOnline that the dash 10 will be a simple payload-for-range trade with an MTOW of 540,000 lb. He said the range may change slightly as the airframer and key airlines finalize the exact stretch. It may be "40, 50 or 60 seats bigger" than the dash 9, he said.

You call this 'speculation from ATW'?

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
If they target the lower end, they obsolete the *772A* and A330, and severely encroach upon the 772ER.

How can one obsolete a model since long dead?



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
If they get -8 range, they obsolete the 772LR except for missions that require the aux tanks. If they target the lower end, they obsolete the 772A and A330, and severely encroach upon the 772ER. Also targetting the upper weight range would potentially increase the risk with regards to getting the desired engines on time.

I think this is what eventually will happen: Boeing will have two or three prominent blue-chip customers asking for the 8000nm range capability out of -10, followed by the rest of current 777-200ER users, that are currently in the "wait and see" mode. I wouldn't be surprised to see that, especially with Rolls Royce recently stating they are able to push Trent-1000 to 80k pound thrust range, Boeing will actually make the 787-10's 8000nm range standard, just the way they did it with -9 recently. That would actually make more sense in my opinion: have a one product family with the same range, covering 210 - 360 seat market, while leaving the ULR "SYD-LHR" and 400+ pax B-market routes to the future Y3* family. Let's be honest: as great as 777-200LR is, it's just a niche tie-in to the larger 777-300ER.

*) one reason why I believe that 787-8LR will never happen and Y3"ER" will be THE AKL/MEL/SYD-FRA/CDG/LHR/JFK/ORD/ATL plane is because while being able to carry about 300 - 350 pax on such long segment, the larger Y3 will have lower cost per seat-mile and also could be able to take up some high-priority cargo, generating potentially higher revenue for its operator than the smaller "787-8LR", as well as covering the demand on the Kangaroo Route without the SIN/BKK/HKG/ICN/DXB/DEL stopover. By the same token, "standard" Y3 for B-market could be configured with 350 - 400 pax, have superior cargo load capability just to about anything flying currently, and cost per seat mile that would make 777-300ER seem like it's a gas guzzler.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineSONICDANCE From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

BlueSky1976:
I think this is what eventually will happen: Boeing will have two or three prominent blue-chip customers asking for the 8000nm range capability out of -10, followed by the rest of current 777-200ER users, that are currently in the "wait and see" mode.

---------------------------------------------------------
I agree, which is why I'm shocked to hear that Bair would say that -10 would only have 7500nm range. But things are not firmed yet so we'll see... By the way, if Emirates would have ordered the -10, they should have done it by now, as Boeing has clearly indicated they will make the -10. Personally I feel that something fishy is happening, especially if Airbus is offering A350HGW, which I could totally see the jet has 8000nm+ range. The -10 seems to be close to be the limit (in terms of undercarriage) that it can increase the MTOW...


BlueSky1976:
*) one reason why I believe that 787-8LR will never happen and Y3"ER" will be THE AKL/MEL/SYD-FRA/CDG/LHR/JFK/ORD/ATL plane is because while being able to carry about 300 - 350 pax on such long segment, the larger Y3 will have lower cost per seat-mile and also could be able to take up some high-priority cargo, generating potentially higher revenue for its operator than the smaller "787-8LR", as well as covering the demand on the Kangaroo Route without the SIN/BKK/HKG/ICN/DXB/DEL stopover. By the same token, "standard" Y3 for B-market could be configured with 350 - 400 pax, have superior cargo load capability just to about anything flying currently, and cost per seat mile that would make 777-300ER seem like it's a gas guzzler.

-------------------------------------------------------
I would disagree with this part. I don't know much about airline musiness but I think 787-8LR is doable because they would be easier to fill up the seats than the Y3-LR. (or even turn the whole plane to business/first class only, kinda like the business jet service that some airlines offer...) And since it is smaller, it can open more new routes. But I do think that 787-8LR would just be another niche plane, like the 737-700ER.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
You would run out of fuel over the pacific doing that, the GNM might be 7450, the ANM is over 8000.

With a headwind.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

Quote:
He also had a warning for Airbus, saying the dash 10's seat-mile costs are "almost unbelievable."

How is this a warning? Without actual data I wonder how anyone can compare anything. Bair appears to be bragging without proving it - IMO its a journalist's joke.

Quote:
The test program will include six aircraft and be one of the tightest ever for a Boeing or Douglas jet.

What is a "tight" test program? It is from a resource sense with few airplanes to do the job or having more planes to test all parameters within a shorter amount of time? Seem like the same ratio to me. But then more aircraft seems like an advantage, didn't the Oxcart (a.k.a SR-71) program test with 2 or 3 planes? Granted there was just a few dozen planes made.

Quoting SONICDANCE (Thread starter):
One thing that strikes me is that the range that Bair quotes is lower than everyone's guess down in a.net...

Who probably knows more about what is going on Bair for anyone involved in the 787 program, or "everyone's guess down in a.net"? Keep in mind some people want things to be a certain way and are so sure about them, thus stating their opinions as fact.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
I thought EK's requirement was for a 300-seater that could do 8,000nm?



Quoting SONICDANCE (Thread starter):
It's only 7500nm as opposed to an estimation of 8000nm+.

This may help, come to your own conclusions:

Quote:
He said the range may change slightly as the airframer and key airlines finalize the exact stretch. It may be "40, 50 or 60 seats bigger" than the dash 9, he said.

7810 is not frozen yet, so it's operational performance parameters are not set in stone and will vary as computers are not perfect, they are operated by humans  Smile



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
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...
Where Is The 787-10? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:11:18 by AA1818
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
First Commercial Flight From Mogadisu For 10 Yrs posted Mon Jul 31 2006 14:38:18 by Bennett123
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
787-10 Moved Up To 2010? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 06:09:44 by AeroWesty
Boeing To Offer 787-10? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:44:41 by Reggaebird
787-10 Specifications posted Fri Apr 14 2006 20:38:25 by Iloveboeing
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus