Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Offer 787-10?  
User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1176 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8525 times:

Is this news? Is it official?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...6.story?coll=la-headlines-business

Text:

Boeing Co. said it would begin taking orders for a larger version of its planned 787 Dreamliner jet within the next year, spurred by demand from Middle Eastern airlines.

The 787-10, which will be able to carry as many as 310 passengers, will enter service in 2012, said Michael Bair, head of Boeing's 787 program.

The first test flight of the 787 is slated for late summer of next year, and its first delivery to All Nippon Airways Co. is scheduled for early summer 2008, Bair said. Boeing said it had enough firm orders and tentative commitments to fill its production schedule into 2011.



[Edited 2006-05-23 12:46:48]

[Edited 2006-05-23 12:59:34]

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5731 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8416 times:

I guess roll out of the first 787 will probably be early summer '07 followed by ground tests and firstflight in Aug 07? This is my speculation. In one year we'll be seeing the first 787! Can't wait!


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8338 times:

Similar story in the Seatlle based newspaper.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/271207_boeing23.html

"My guess is that it will be within the next 12 months," Michael Bair, head of Boeing's 787 program, said Monday in a conference call with reporters. "We are still working with customers to find the right size."

It's still a guess, but within 12 months is not all that soon. The time advantage over Airbus will be very minimal if any, in opening the orderbook and delivering the first aircraft. Boeing indicates 2012, while unconfirmed reports mention the same year for the unconfirmed A350.

"List prices for the 787 range from $138 million to $188 million and don't include discounts traditionally given to airlines. Airbus' A350, in its current design, lists for $158.6 million to $165.3 million."

So much for the much more expensive A350. The US$ 120 million 787's are history.

"The 787-10 will be a stretched version of the 787-9 and sacrifice some range to add extra seats and cargo capacity."



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8314 times:

Sacraficing range for seats may not be what customers want. They may want both and therein may lay the opportunity for the A-350; a slightly bigger plane with more range at the same CASM.....


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8314 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
"The 787-10 will be a stretched version of the 787-9 and sacrifice some range to add extra seats and cargo capacity."

With existing 789 powerplants. Still plenty of scope for larger core engines(to be offered on the A350/370?) to be adapted for a longer-ranged 787-10X. I feel Boeing might be biding their time here and waiting to see what the engine OEMs come up with for the new 350/370. Bair has also said the final size of the -10 has yet to be resolved. I guess the best consensus from interested parties will win the day here. Cargo capacity of the -10 is awesome at around 44 LD-3s, I believe, as will be operating economics.

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
It's still a guess, but within 12 months is not all that soon. The time advantage over Airbus will be very minimal if any, in opening the orderbook and delivering the first aircraft. Boeing indicates 2012, while unconfirmed reports mention the same year for the unconfirmed A350.

Yes, but existing 787 models will already have been in revenue service for around 4 years. That's a big plus for Boeing and the -10, up against an all new and untried 350/370. It's not such a big step up from a 788/9 to a -10, size or technology wise. It's a much bigger step from an A330/340 to a 350/370.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10643 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8265 times:

I fear that the loooong 787 will become as ugly as the 773. Its a stretch to like these tubes. And won´t such bird make at least the 772ER obsolete?

User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8253 times:

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 4):
up against an all new and untried 350/370. It's not such a big step up from a 788/9 to a -10, size or technology wise. It's a much bigger step from an A330/340 to a 350/370.

 confused 

Has innovation stopped airlines ordering the 787. Afterall it's a big step up from the 767 to the 787. Not?

As for your last sentence. Your guess is as good as mine. But people have been insisting that the difference between the A330 and A350 is minimal, so much even that the A350 has several times been called 'a warmed over A330'. Forgot about that?

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 4):
With existing 789 powerplants. Still plenty of scope for larger core engines(to be offered on the A350/370?) to be adapted for a longer-ranged 787-10X.

Let's not go overboard here, the 787-10 hasn't been launched yet and her specifications are unknown to us, for the moment. Way to early to counter with a 787-10X. Altough I've seen the 787-11 been mentioned on here aswell.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8215 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 5):
I fear that the loooong 787 will become as ugly as the 773. Its a stretch to like these tubes.


The A346 is longer than the 77W, and the fuse is also narrower than the 787 fuselage Wink

Quoting NA (Reply 5):
And won´t such bird make at least the 772ER obsolete?

The 787-10 can do most of the missions, if not all, the 772ER is able to do, and it will therefore (most likely) replace the 772ER.


User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8195 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 6):
Quoting Dalecary (Reply 4):
up against an all new and untried 350/370. It's not such a big step up from a 788/9 to a -10, size or technology wise. It's a much bigger step from an A330/340 to a 350/370.

And here's the person who doesn't like to be quoted out of context! I'm trying very hard to be reasonable with you here. I am talking about perceived risk. You forgot to quote the part where I said the 787 would have been in revenue service for 4 years already and would be a known quantity and possibly less risky than opting for the 350/370.

Quoting Manni (Reply 6):
Has innovation stopped airlines ordering the 787. Afterall it's a big step up from the 767 to the 787. Not?

Um, no it hasn't, but the competition hasn't been particularly strong either and Boeing spent the time with the airlines defining the 787 and redefining it in the case of QF and the 789. The same looks likely to happen with the -10 IMO.

Quoting Manni (Reply 6):
As for your last sentence. Your guess is as good as mine. But people have been insisting that the difference between the A330 and A350 is minimal, so much even that the A350 has several times been called 'a warmed over A330'. Forgot about that?

I will endeavour to be reasonable again. I am referring to the new A350/370, which will have an all new fuselage and wing and not the existing A350 which struggles to be competitive with the 787. So, don't attribute "warmed over A330" to me.

Quoting Manni (Reply 6):
Let's not go overboard here, the 787-10 hasn't been launched yet and her specifications are unknown to us, for the moment. Way to early to counter with a 787-10X. Altough I've seen the 787-11 been mentioned on here aswell.
I know a fair bit about the -10. 7,500nm range, cargo capacity of 44 LD3s, same engines as the -9, operating economics that will scare some A380 operators........ It can only be improved upon with larger thrust engines, improved range and some minor size adjustments. But the basic -10 is pretty well Known I would have to say. It will be launched within the year. That is the common theme out of Boeing. You haven't seen me mention the 787-11. I haven't gone beyond the 787-10X at this stage.


User currently offlineNW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8180 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 5):
I fear that the loooong 787 will become as ugly as the 773. Its a stretch to like these tubes. And won´t such bird make at least the 772ER obsolete?

Did you just become interested in aviation like yesterday??? Your remarks seems very amatuer. The 773 is a very attractive plane, especially the -ER version. Most would say the A346 is uglier because not only is it longer, its narrower which makes the plane look out of proportion, especially with those huge engines.

Next, have you been sitting in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut? It has been discussed beyond extensively on here that the 787-10 is PURPOSEFULLY a 772ER killer. Boeing isn't just going to hand over sales to the A350 (or A370 whichever) so being a smart company, they would rather cannabalize their own product rather than let another company do it.

[Edited 2006-05-23 15:41:43]

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8088 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
"List prices for the 787 range from $138 million to $188 million and don't include discounts traditionally given to airlines. Airbus' A350, in its current design, lists for $158.6 million to $165.3 million."

So much for the much more expensive A350. The US$ 120 million 787's are history.

Are you familiar with the concept of market demand driving price?


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7930 times:

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 8):
I know a fair bit about the -10. 7,500nm range, cargo capacity of 44 LD3s,

 confused 

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
"We are still working with customers to find the right size."



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 10):

Are you familiar with the concept of market demand driving price?

Would you really attribute this significant price increase to market demand? Boeing aggresive pricing policy has won them several big deals, I doubt they'll throw that overboard. Prices do tend to go up. There are several factors that could have raised the listprice, I suspect market demand is not one of them. Underestimated development costs, the weak dollar (80% of 787 parts will be imported), the rising energie prices, the higher cost for raw materials etc.

There seems to be a price increase of 15% for the version that was once priced US$ 120 million. 15% is less than the averege discount given, Boeing could have reduced their discounts instead of rising the price if market demand would dictate that.



Quoting NW727251ADV (Reply 9):
Did you just become interested in aviation like yesterday??? Your remarks seems very amatuer. The 773 is a very attractive plane, especially the -ER version. Most would say the A346 is uglier because not only is it longer, its narrower which makes the plane look out of proportion, especially with those huge engines.

Interesting, you insult the poster of the above quote but resort to a similar remark when talking about the A346. Beauty is not an exact sience.

Anyway, I'd rather have a tall one with big ones than a fat one where the big ones dissapear in the mass.  yes 

If you wanna talk about beautiful looking aircraft, talk A345 and A332.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10643 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7809 times:

Quoting NW727251ADV (Reply 9):
Did you just become interested in aviation like yesterday??? Your remarks seems very amatuer. The 773 is a very attractive plane, especially the -ER version. Most would say the A346 is uglier because not only is it longer, its narrower which makes the plane look out of proportion, especially with those huge engines.

Next, have you been sitting in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut? It has been discussed beyond extensively on here that the 787-10 is PURPOSEFULLY a 772ER killer. Boeing isn't just going to hand over sales to the A350 (or A370 whichever) so being a smart company, they would rather cannabalize their own product rather than let another company do it.

Thanks for your "friendly" answer. I have had serious internet connection problems at home in the past weeks and hardly any time to get access via my office computer recently so I couldn´t follow the myriads of "isn´t the 787 the greatest invention since sliced bread"-topics in detail. So that Boeing is admitting in killing its own product which is currently regarded as the best upper-midsized widebody did not reach me in all its earnesty so far. You can´t blame me for that.

That I regard the 773 as (relatively) ugly has nothing to do with amateurism. More the opposite is the case. I´m a designer and creative director and I say from my standpoint its out of proportion and reminds me of a a-netters photoshop-modification unfortunately making it into reality. Why must you bring in the A346 here? I know its thinner and even (hardly noticecably) longer and I wouldn´t call it particularly pretty, but its a quad which gives its overall shape a better balance in my personal view.
With the same right as you I could in turn say your views are amateurish in callling the 773 beautiful. But I won´t.  Cool


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7731 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 12):
Why must you bring in the A346 here?

If you're going to associate "beauty" with the fuselage length/width, and are willing to call the B773 ugly, then ergo the A346 would likewise be hideous. The B773 is more proportional than the A346.

Hell, the B787-10 will have almost the same fuselage length/width proportions as the A333/A343.

Quoting NA (Reply 12):
With the same right as you I could in turn say your views are amateurish in callling the 773 beautiful. But I won´t.

If you were being professional, you probably wouldn't have broached the subject at all...  Yeah sure

Quoting Brendows (Reply 7):
The 787-10 can do most of the missions, if not all, the 772ER is able to do, and it will therefore (most likely) replace the 772ER.

It will replace the B772ER in terms of its sales niche, but it will not likely replace the bulk of -200ER currently flying.

The average age of a B772ER is only 5.5 years old. The average age in 2012 will be around 10-11 years old. Save for SQ and maybe EK, most airlines will not being replacing large fleets of -200ER this early.

That means for AA, UA, BA, JL, AF, and other very large B777 customers, the responsibility of -200ER replacement might not necessarily fall on the B787-10X variant being proposed today.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10643 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7653 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
The B773 is more proportional than the A346.

Oh well, you might think so. I don´t. Lets say, both aren´t pretty. Its ok with me, if you think the 773 is a beauty. But don´t critisize cause I think its ugly. That doesn´t make sense.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
If you were being professional, you probably wouldn't have broached the subject at all...

If it comes to taste issues, I as a designer am tempted to say something. Do you think a professional proves he´s one, if he keeps his mouth shut? No way. Thats my homeground, so to say. I think because of that I have more right to say something about that, just as a lawyer has more right to say something about law issues, or an engineer more about technical details. Thats no arrogance at all and should not that hard to understand. I´m always a bit annoyed that in taste issues everyone suddenly thinks he´s an expert, cause of cause everyone has "some" taste. Well, I also have "some" knowledge in law, but would never dare to discuss earnestly with lawyers.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7575 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 14):
Oh well, you might think so. I don´t

There's absolutely nothing subjective about the mathematical ratio between fuselage width and length.

Quoting NA (Reply 14):
Its ok with me, if you think the 773 is a beauty. But don´t critisize cause I think its ugly. That doesn´t make sense.

I am hardly defending the B777-300/ER because you have offended my opinion (which you haven't)

What I am criticizing is your idiotic methodology and how it has absolutely nothing to do with the B787-10X. You do realize that the -10X will be no longer than the A333/A343 and yet be slightly wider? It will have very simmilar proportions to the A333/A343, B772ER, and A345.

Yet for some innane reason, you think the -10X will have the proportions of the B777-300/ER? Moreover, the -300/ER is hardly disproportionate compared to the A346, B753, or any number of aircraft flying. Have you even bothered to look at the specifications for the B787?


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7513 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):

[i]Quoting Brendows (Reply 7):
The 787-10 can do most of the missions, if not all, the 772ER is able to do, and it will therefore (most likely) replace the 772ER.[i]
It will replace the B772ER in terms of its sales niche, but it will not likely replace the bulk of -200ER currently flying.

I was referring to the sales niche, since it will replace a part of Boeing's product line.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):

The average age of a B772ER is only 5.5 years old. The average age in 2012 will be around 10-11 years old. Save for SQ and maybe EK, most airlines will not being replacing large fleets of -200ER this early.

That means for AA, UA, BA, JL, AF, and other very large B777 customers, the responsibility of -200ER replacement might not necessarily fall on the B787-10X variant being proposed today.

Totally agree with you

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
Would you really attribute this significant price increase to market demand?

The $120m price tag was known in 2004 if IIRC, and it was for the 783, right? With a 4% rise in price annually*, that would equal about $130m in 2006. A $8m difference on a project launched two years ago (when you consider what such a project have gone through,) is that too bad?

*just to get a simple number to work with.

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Airbus' A350, in its current design, lists for $158.6 million to $165.3 million."

So much for the much more expensive A350.

The prices for the different 787 models are as follows (from Boeing.com):
787-3 $138.0 -- 143.0
787-8 $148.0 -- 157.5
787-9 $178.5 -- 188.0

As you can see, the 789 costs about 20% more than the 788. The seattlepi-article doesn't state whether it's the A358 or the A359 that cost between $158,6m to $165,3m, but I'm having a hard time believing that both models have a list price in that interval. Wouldn't you agree?

[Edited 2006-05-23 20:35:18]

User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7281 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
Quoting Dalecary (Reply 8):
I know a fair bit about the -10. 7,500nm range, cargo capacity of 44 LD3s,

If you know where to look, this has been published. While the -10 is not fully defined the above figures(plus another 6m fuselage extension) are a very good guide to go on. Same MTOW as the -9 with a range for payload trade-off is commonly mentioned. You need to do a little more basic research Manni. It wasn't that hard to dig up.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6885 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
Hell, the B787-10 will have almost the same fuselage length/width proportions as the A333/A343.

Yeah, basically, and rarely is A330 called an ugly aircraft. The 787 will be A332/A333 length, and will be slightly wider in fuselage, not unattractive proportions at all.....



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6853 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
"List prices for the 787 range from $138 million to $188 million and don't include discounts traditionally given to airlines. Airbus' A350, in its current design, lists for $158.6 million to $165.3 million."

So much for the much more expensive A350. The US$ 120 million 787's are history.

If you are indeed referring to the current A350, then I'd say that Boeing is smart to raise the prices, particularly when their only competitor is getting a verbal thrashing on a regular basis from the very customers it's trying to woo.

If I owned one of only two taco stores in town, and the other one was the butt of everyone's jokes, I'd probably consider raising my prices a little as well. At least until they decide to make a better taco.

Quoting Manni (Reply 6):
But people have been insisting that the difference between the A330 and A350 is minimal, so much even that the A350 has several times been called 'a warmed over A330'. Forgot about that?

I don't think any of us will ever forget the A350 saga. Having said that, I thought we all were on the same page that the A350 (at least, the more recent design) lacked much commonality with the A330, and the newest possible version yet-to-be-defined will likely have virtually nothing in common with the A330.

Are you saying that the A350 in the currently-offered-for-sale version is what may have been called a "warmed over A330"? If so, I thought we'd already put that version to rest?

Frankly, with the A350, it's hard to keep it straight.

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
There seems to be a price increase of 15% for the version that was once priced US$ 120 million. 15% is less than the averege discount given, Boeing could have reduced their discounts instead of rising the price if market demand would dictate that.

Not that I understand why you (or anyone) really cares, but I would think more goes into it than just printing a price in a brochure. For example, if discounts are not disclosed publicly, the only thing Airbus has to go by is the catalog price.

Raise the price on the 787 and Airbus may think they can price the A350 higher.

Raise the price on the 787 and the customer thinks they got a better deal on the discount.

Raise the price on the 787 and perhaps reach breakeven a few frames sooner.

I guess it all depends on Boeing's goals. Maybe they WANT Airbus to feel pressure, one way or the other, on how to develop the A350 - I haven't a clue. I doubt anyone here really does either. Again, though, why does it matter?

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4691 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6853 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I honestly can't believe there are people here arguing about what proportions constitutes beauty. Aesthetics is all a matter of individual cultural taste.

Can someone give me a link to "real" 787-10 data from the manufacturer???


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6793 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On the subject of airplane aesthetics, I think the 777 (be it a -200 or a -300) is one of the prettier planes in the sky. I think the A330 is one of the uglier ones, but that is mainly because those two small engines look kinda silly on such a long fuselage and long wings. Adding four to the A340 does wonders in making it look better.  Smile

On the subject of the 787-10, it will still EIS before the A350MkV-900 does, I believe (since the A358 is slated for 2012) and it will help fill a gap in the 787 family, which with the 787-10 will allow it to cover almost a dozen airliner models from Boeing and Airbus, which offers airlines one plane family that can handle a large number of mission profiles.

Yes, the A350MkV-1000 will have a definite capacity advantage (range remains to be seen), but depending on what max MTOW is, a 787-10 has a lot of underfloor space to hold fuel while still offering significant cargo capacity. And it will EIS some 24 months or more after the 787-10 (2014 vs. 2012).

So the 787 will probably face competition from the A350, but she will have "time on her side", so to speak.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6694 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
It's still a guess, but within 12 months is not all that soon. The time advantage over Airbus will be very minimal if any, in opening the orderbook and delivering the first aircraft.

Who really believes Airbus will be able to bring the A350 out in 2012? Remember the A380 was supposed to enter service in March 2006.

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
So much for the much more expensive A350.

Let's not go overboard here, the newest version of the A350 hasn't been launched yet and her specifications and price are unknown to us, for the moment. Airbus will have to recoup the higher development cost somehow.

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
here are several factors that could have raised the listprice... Underestimated development costs, the weak dollar (80% of 787 parts will be imported),

The weak dollar helps Boeing and hurts Airbus.


User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6400 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 22):
Who really believes Airbus will be able to bring the A350 out in 2012? Remember the A380 was supposed to enter service in March 2006.



Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 22):

One of these days the chickens are going to come home to roost. Composite issues, delivery delays, other 787 issues. The A crowd are going to have a field day.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 22):
Let's not go overboard here, the newest version of the A350 hasn't been launched yet and her specifications and price are unknown to us, for the moment. Airbus will have to recoup the higher development cost somehow.

Somehow that seems to have been lost by Manni I think.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6283 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 20):
Can someone give me a link to "real" 787-10 data from the manufacturer???

No I can't, but I believe WBP's table is very accurate IMO. Plenty of comments out of Boeing that the range will be restricted, as it will have the -9s MTOW and another 6m fuselage extension. I'm pretty sure ATWonline published the 7,500nm range and FI has been pretty close to the mark with their figures.
There is some room to change, however, if the engine OEMs come up with higher thrust engines in the 2012 timeframe. The probability of a larger A350/370 family may allow this and consequently a bleedless version would likely be developed for the -10.


25 Post contains images Manni :
26 Dalecary : Here we go again, quoting out of context, when I have also added that ATWonline and FI have published some of this data. I also regard WBP's tables a
27 Boeing7E7 : It has a sliding scale from about 5600nm up to 8500nm. To get to the 8500nm, you start trading seats for range. In other words, airlines wishing to u
28 Joost : You are right, but there will still be a significant market for a 787-10. The 787-9 will have a range of 8600-8800nm, and I think it's safe to assume
29 Columba : Maybe we see a launch at Farnborough ? There are many Asian and European airlines that urged Boeing to develop the 787-10. Although BA is not known f
30 Post contains links and images Brendows : Manni, I'm not sure whether you're just trying to copy Keesje's sense of humor or if you just don't want to figure things out. I'm going to help you w
31 Post contains images Manni : You seem to suck up quite a bit lately. What are you motives? Dont bother. Obviously, because it's incorrect. And your point is? Besides copying me..
32 Stitch : They just might, since it would blunt some of the momentum of any changes Airbus decides to make on the A350 program and whatever orders (for any mem
33 Post contains images Brendows : I haven't been registered here for a long time, but doesn't mean that I've only been reading posts on this forum since April 2006 you know What has D
34 Dalecary : Why not? Don't you think they are accurate.Please explain your behaviour? I didn't say it wasn't anywhere near being firm, just not 100% firmed up. I
35 N328KF : Manni, I would like to know what special insight you have over Widebodyphotog to throw his data into question. I believe he does route planning as a
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
Is It Possible For Boeing To Offer B777-300F? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 04:02:56 by AirCanada014
Emirates In Negotiations For Up To 50 787-10 posted Tue Mar 28 2006 07:27:35 by Terryb99
Boeing Talks About 787-10 At Asian Airshow posted Wed Feb 22 2006 06:50:15 by OyKIE
CFO: Boeing To Use 787 Technology In Narrow-Body posted Tue Feb 14 2006 16:27:40 by Leelaw
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
Ilfc & Boeing To Confirm 787 Order posted Mon Nov 21 2005 06:43:13 by PanAm_DC10
Boeing To Unveil 787 Flight Deck Today 8/31 posted Wed Aug 31 2005 17:07:20 by NYC777
Boeing To Offer Longer Range, Quieter 747 Model posted Tue Feb 26 2002 08:51:04 by Singapore_Air