NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5160 posts, RR: 49 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19026 times:
Quoting Ultrapig (Thread starter): Can some of tell me how such a large amount of weight could be removed from a completed airliner?
Hiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2118 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18915 times:
Naaah..gonna be the first single engine 777.
Really...suspect they are going to draw on what they have learned with composites on the 787 and redo certain structures...15 years of advances in construction from the original design time should be able to help.
Firennice From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18853 times:
Move to additional composite structures.
That could be why the 737 composite upgrade has been pushed back to 2014-5 is to rework the 777 in additional composites.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18705 times:
Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 2): Naaah..gonna be the first single engine 777.
I immediately thought of this too!
Quoting Ultrapig (Thread starter): There is a report that Boeing will try to do this to conclude the sale to Qantas.
Would a 7 ton lighter B777LR be able to reach nirvana? (i.e. LHR-SYD with no restrictions?).
Another question is: I assume they might "backport" the modifications to the B773ER too, to make it even more competitive?
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10694 posts, RR: 100 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18705 times:
Once upon a time I had a conversation with a structural engineer on the 777 who noted that many of the joint connections had to be rushed to meet schedule and thus several tons of weight were added (due to the lack of optimization). Combine this will selected material replacement and one would have a 7 ton lighter 777.
As we know, weight is very important in an airliner.
Geo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 18530 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 4): Would a 7 ton lighter B777LR be able to reach nirvana? (i.e. LHR-SYD with no restrictions?).
Almost certainly. The problem with the current 772LR is that it is very payload restricted on the SYD-LHR sector for some of the year. By removing 7 tonnes in zero fuel weight you have effectively 7 tonnes of payload to play with when fully juiced up, thus changing the route from being marginal to very possible with good passenger and freight loads.
It would be great if Boeing do acheive this as it will make the trip to and from Oz all the more pleasant.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/7/8,B741/2/4,B752,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,1-11
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3954 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 18360 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 4): I assume they might "backport" the modifications to the B773ER too, to make it even more competitive?
and the 777-200ER... I would think the timing of this change is critical. I have to think that carriers such as NZ are sitting on their hands waiting to see how this plays out.
Boeing had conversations with 777 operators about a year ago to sound them out
on what they were looking for.
SirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 18360 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 4):
Another question is: I assume they might "backport" the modifications to the B773ER too, to make it even more competitive?
Indeed, after Airbus' talk of the A35XX having 25% better CASM than the 773ER, I think its more or less required (even if the real numbers turn out to be half that).
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 18174 times:
Quoting Geo772 (Reply 8): Almost certainly. The problem with the current 772LR is that it is very payload restricted on the SYD-LHR sector for some of the year. By removing 7 tonnes in zero fuel weight you have effectively 7 tonnes of payload to play with when fully juiced up, thus changing the route from being marginal to very possible with good passenger and freight loads.
It would be great if Boeing do acheive this as it will make the trip to and from Oz all the more pleasant.
will be interesting to see how the numbers of the A350-900L look....
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 17691 times:
Quoting Geo772 (Reply 8): By removing 7 tonnes in zero fuel weight you have effectively 7 tonnes of payload to play with when fully juiced up, thus changing the route from being marginal to very possible with good passenger and freight loads
You are presuming constant MTOW of course.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Geo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17602 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 15): Quoting Geo772 (Reply 8): By removing 7 tonnes in zero fuel weight you have effectively 7 tonnes of payload to play with when fully juiced up, thus changing the route from being marginal to very possible with good passenger and freight loads
You are presuming constant MTOW of course.
Pretty much, simply because the one thing that Qantas in particular wanted was the aircraft to be able to do this extreme trip with a high load. I think if you just took 7 tonnes out of the structure and MTOW then although the range would go up it might not be enough to allow for the high loads that Qantas and other carriers will want. It would still make it an even more capable aircraft than it is now.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/7/8,B741/2/4,B752,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,1-11
Pavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17602 times:
The 777 7 tons lighter, would possibly compete with A350. Altough even the super heavy A350 will only have 95 000 lb class engines and no composites. They will need some good engineering to acomplish that task.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17515 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 14): will be interesting to see how the numbers of the A350-900L look....
Yep, if the world even exists in 2016, it will be interesting to see...
359L sounds to be a long way off (using 350-1000x engines and gear means it'll come AFTER that jet). A lot can change in 10 years.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17324 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 18): Yep, if the world even exists in 2016, it will be interesting to see...
Well..I guess you are right....
But its still interesting to see what comes of the A350-900L super-duper ultra longhaul-ultra-777 killer plane...
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 17270 times:
Quoting ShowerOfSparks (Reply 19): Maybe they are considering a shrink along the lines of the 707-138's built specifically for Q.A.N.T.A.S. way back when.
I would personally doubt this. I think manufacturers are trying to reduce the number of sub-models they offer, to keep the manufacturing process as simple as possible. I would be very surprised if Boeing introduces one new submodel just for one airline.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Firennice From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16715 times:
It is the composite structure.
We have worked with them in drilling/countersinking to replace parts with lighter parts. Composites make up only 12% of the current 777 structure weight. They will be starting to use more of what they learn from the 787 to replace more and more with composites.
There are not a lot of parts that are composite now. With the announcment they will be converting 737 to composites in a few years its only natural to shift this one as well.
Revo1059 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15957 times:
Interesting. I wonder if this means they could slowly morph the 777 into a mostly composite plane without making a completely new model. The 777 is already a top notch plane. Just swap out the metal with CF as time goes on to keep it competitive. Saves a ton on development costs vs. a totally new plane.
Firennice From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15146 times:
I was thinking about it and thought I should throw in a disclaimer....I am not sure if the work we are doing is part of this 7 tons they are lightening the craft. I am pretty sure what we are working on does decrease the weight but it might not be that particular project. So they could be counting something else as well.
25 Stitch: I imagine if Boeing can knock off 14,000lbs off the 772-LR, they should be able to get that or more out of the 777-300ER which should help it compete
26 HighFlyer9790: its only a matter of time. dumping 7 tons must be quite appealing to Qantas for their SYD-LHR wish list...
27 Astuteman: No composites? A350X composite content is reported as being 45% of total weight (compared to 35% for the "old" A350 IIRC, and 50% for the 787). http:
28 Jet-lagged: Seven tons is 14,000 lbs, or about 6,300 kg. Let's say a passenger averages 80 kg, plus 50 kb for baggage, that is 130 kg. Add a factor for fuel (say
29 MarBergi: Allowing for the pax figures to be correct you could double or qudaruple the price (assuming LHR - SYD) and then you start to talk real money...
30 MD-90: It's not that easy. Look at airplanes like the Learfan or Myron Jenkins' GlaStar. Jenkins' (who had already built an Ohskosh Grand Champion-winning G
31 Ikramerica: Assume those seats average $5000 at least. So that's at least $100,000 per take-off. Over $0.5M per week in revenue per plane?
32 Sonic67: Qantas is currently talking to suppliers about lighter materials that could be used for the interiors to reduce the 777-200LR weight. Qantas wants a l
33 RAPCON: No, no. You've got it all wrong!! Q: How can B reduce the weight of a 777LR by 7 tons? A: Easy! Just have Leahy make the sales pitch!!!!!
35 Jetpilot21: Weight saving efforts are common in the final design process before a new airplane starts production. Weight saving exercises are also very common aft
36 Gemuser: It was not THAT far back! It was Qantas Empire Airlines(QEA) at the time of the B707-138s Gemuser
37 Johnny: @Jet-Lagged "Seven tons is 14,000 lbs, or about 6,300 kg. " WHAT...?!? Johnny
38 Jacobin777: thank you very much sir. That puts the range to 9200-9500nm...close to the "holy grail" numbers of 9200nm (SYD-LHR) if Airbus could indeed hit their
39 Sonic67: No I meant Q.A.N.T.A.S. If you're going to heckle someone, get your facts right! The article makes it sound as if Qantas is hiring the vendors to do
40 Zvezda: 7 tons (also called short tons) = 14,000 lbs. 7 tonnes (also called long tonnes) = 7,000 kg.
41 Aeroplan73: Maybe Boeing will fill the cabin with helium.
42 Johnny: Hi Zveza, that is funny to read.Thanks for your help. I thought tons/tonnes is metric, so 7 tons are always 7000kgs... But i learn every day!
43 Atmx2000: I don't know if there is any difference between ton and tonnes, but in the context of American English, no one uses tonnes to refer to anything but m
44 Johnny: Hmmm, So what is correct now? 7000kgs or 6300kgs for 7tons ? To be honest i have never heard about short and long tons as the word tons in german is r
45 Jacobin777: That's actually incorrect... here are the correct numbers and nomenclatures.. 7 short ton = approx. 6350 kg 7 long ton (UK-ton) = appox. 7112 kg 7 me
46 Johnny: I will never understand why the metric system is not the standard system, but that is a different story... Why making everything more difficult than n
48 AirMailer: because we like being different. Why does everything have to be so uniform with you europeans?
49 SFORunner: On a related note, to help reduce total weight, PAX will be sitting on inflatible chairs that will double as personal flotation devices/life rafts an
50 TinkerBelle: Gee, lighten up! What happened to a sense of humor in this site?
51 Gr8Circle: How soon would Boeing be able to do this? Would airlines like AC and AI (who have ordered the 777-200LR) also get these 7 ton lighter aircraft?
52 Starlionblue: Assuming you accepted the single point of failure, a single engine 772LR would need the same thrust as a single engine puts out today, in other words
53 PolymerPlane: Not quite, 772LR has a range of 9420NM at typical payload of 301pax and their luggage. The problem of SYD-LHR is not the distance but the prevailing
54 United787: At what point so changes in an aircraft's materials result in a new round of testing?
55 Starlionblue: It's not black and white. Any change requires some form of certification. The extent of testing and certification efforts depends on the changes. If
56 Hiflyer: Hey...if they made it a single engine would it then have to comply with "ESOP"??? couldn't resist.....
57 DeltaDC9: I doubt it. We have very reluctantly accepted limited use over the last 30 years and it is unlikely that people here will cook, build, play sports, o
58 Jacobin777: PP..that's why I said it puts them "in the range" of the Holy Grail, even though I listed the 350-900L's potential range and LHR-SYD range...I took t
59 Astuteman: I knew it - bog standard 400mm centres for roof joists and stud walls - just like us True, but your fluid ounces, pints and gallons are "wrong" anywa
60 Starlionblue: Ironically, so do European recipes. I'm not saying it will happen in the next 5 years. But over the next 100 we may see a change. It's all about savi
61 Pygmalion: one other note... all Boeing airplanes are designed and built in inches and pounds, gallons. They will give you converted flight manuals and instrumen
62 AirMailer: Save what money? How do you save money when changing measurement standards? It wouldn't save us a single penny. We have these new things over here, w
63 GoCOgo: US units are better. Why? They are more accurate without having to bring in fractions. With around 2.2 lb per kg, it is more accurate to give a weigh
64 Jacobin777: 1)its about 2.25lbs/kg. 2)Why must one bring fractions with metric? ie.- gravitational force = approximately -9.8m/s^2...hence, one could (and should
65 AirSpare: If I can make a jab at Europe-It's because based on 10, Europeans can make measurements counting on their fingers. Towards us Americans-We will never
66 Pygmalion: Decades of design data, testing, material science, fastener tables etc were done in the inch, pound system. With damn near all of the modern aircraft
68 Starlionblue: I'm not saying money would be saved year one. But year 52 maybe. No more conversions. Then again, as you say computers make it easier True. But I thi
69 PolymerPlane: Well that's why I said not quite in the range of the Holy Grail . If it is in the range, that means the current 772LR is also in the range of Holy Gr
70 Outlier: If Boeing were to show a concept drawing of this...how long before Airbus announces another new plane?
71 DeltaDC9: In the late 70's they changed all the street signs to metric and Englisher, and taught it in school as the new standard. It just didn't catch on. I t
72 Jacobin777: ok..got ya'...at least I know we're on the same page. Got a few gallons of water for all that salt? I prefer using Kelvin...
73 PolymerPlane: hmm. that's odd, I do not know the actual units they use in the actual blue print design, but judging from the numbers they provide in the aircraft d
74 Ruscoe: I remember when Australia changed over to metric overnight. It certainly was easier to calculate, but then somebody invented computers and calculators
75 Pygmalion: The point I was trying to make is the certification and regulations drive keeping aircraft in inches/pounds... Everything we do (yes I am an aircraft
76 Astuteman: uh-uh . Do that and you've re-designed the entire plane (near enough), re-engineered all of your supply chain, rebuilt/re-tooled most of your factori
77 Pygmalion: I agree, just because they can, doesnt mean they will or should just swap into a composite fuselage. Why not go whole hog, the 777 is already 16 year
78 GoCOgo: For fractions, I mean decimals as well. (With the exception of the irrational numbers out there, decimals have fractional equivalents, and all fracti
79 ShowerOfSparks: Don't make me come over there and hit you
80 Geniusjacky: When even though we have 75 and 76, seriuosly, could your really tell. Turning the thermostat, it's either 70 or 75 or 80 to me. Our unit is simply b
81 ShowerOfSparks: Don't forget weight and balance in kilograms
82 GoCOgo: America certainly teaches the system, especially in high school. But once I went to engineering school, I saw the US units giving me nice numbers to
83 Texfly101: One thing to keep in mind is that the Everett dock and rail spur that is being built was not just for the 787. It is sized to handle any major assembl
84 787engineer: I agree completely, Astuteman. We may see composite parts used here and there to lighten the 777, but I doubt we will ever see a composite fuselage 7
88 BHMBAGLOCK: It's also worth noting that the potential for labor savings for portions of the aircraft with more complex curves such as the nose and empennage is f
89 Cloudyapple: I find Coke tastes better in 330/355ml cans So is an ounce a weight or a volume unit!? I think what units to use depends on what industry you are in
90 Sonic67: Boeing could replace the aluminum 777 floor with a composite one. It would be kinda fitting because the current Q 747-4ER passenger versions has a cam
91 Jacobin777: open any math/chemistry/physics textbooks, and they are all in the metric system...
92 Boeing7E7: One has to wonder what a new composite wing and bleedless systems would net for the 777 along with what you mention....
93 Astuteman: Ah, the pleasure of having knowledgeable people to bounce comment off. . I was waiting for someone to pick me up on the "re-designed the entire plane
94 Starlionblue: You think it tastes better in a can? Unusual. Most people like glass bottle best, followed by plastic bottle and finally can. Same with beer. The can
95 787engineer: The tail cone, maybe, it doesn't attach to all that much and is mostly there for aerodynamics, and to make it look "OK" .
96 Pygmalion: The current 777 floor is made of composite floor beams and panels with titanium seat tracks. No aluminum. Its been that way from the beginning. There
97 Atmx2000: Personally I prefer Original Recipe wings.
98 OzGlobal: No, you Americans use the British system. Sorry to break it to you.
99 Pygmalion: we design in imperial gallons and sell in pounds sterling???
100 Ikramerica: The best places in the structure to save weight are in the tail, wingbox, wing, cockpit, main deck floor, lower deck floor, cargo doors, pax doors, ca
101 Jacobin777: my bad..that was a typo...its actually 2.205 and those numbers become very important when they are multiplied by a factor of tens of thousands..hence
103 MakeMinesLAX: Formulae such as the ones you've indicated are inherently neutral with regard to measurement systems - you can plug in any values as long as they are
104 Atmx2000: I think Martians have a different value for a light-year.
105 Jacobin777: its called the de facto standard mate...
106 GoCOgo: Perhaps we have different textbooks, but mine all had around a 50/50 mix. But many of my engineering textbooks were US only And many of my engineerin
107 Geniusjacky: Um....Not too sure about that. While I know in construction, most architechturer/ civil engineers use english unit, I never heard of using English in
108 Jacobin777: .. However, after the derivations are done (yuck, I detested derivations), problems are solved/values given using metric values.... of course any "ac
109 Nitrohelper: I still think the ten fingers method is the best. Must be a British system as it was used before the USA existed ? I guess the Greeks and Romans used
110 Dank: But don't you think that the 5' to 6' average height is a construct because it happens to be the integer units of height Americans are used to? My gu
111 Jacobin777: -Welcome to A.net... -and supporting my views..
112 Sllevin: Probably. Pax are considered to weigh 210 pounds if they are adults, for planning purposes. This would add almost 67 passengers. Word was that the 77
113 Zvezda: The metric units of time were the only part that didn't catch on. There were 10 hours in a day and 100 minutes in an hour. I seem to recall ten days
114 Dank: Thanks a bunch. Glad i could contribute something cheers.
115 Jacobin777: If anything, I would see BA dropping this route entirely (they have already dropped LHR-MEL), especially when all of the A380's come on board...many
116 AWombat: I think that Qantas don't want to be making a hole in Western Australia the other 20% of the time. You cannot make a schedule where sometimes you get
117 Atmx2000: An Ohm is a 1 Volt·Amp-1 = 1 (Joule·Coulomb-1)·(Coulomb·s-1)-1 = 1 (kg·m2·s-2)·Coulomb-1·Coulomb-1·s = 1 kg·m2·s-1·Coulomb-2 Certainly is
118 Dank: i wasn't explicit in my (dependent on distances and forces) comment above. All that aside, my guess is that there is a lot in engineering that is kep
119 Lightsaber: On topic, SYD-LHR is a premium market that could justify a non-stop. I also see QF needing a plane that can do SYD-JFK (possible?) and SYD-DFW. Let's
120 Atmx2000: I thought an increase was allowing for larger windows. In other news: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/278165_mulally20.html LONDON -- With Air
121 Dank: Lightsaber, spot on both on the on topic comments and the off topic comments. The question with regards to getting the 772LR to do the Sydney - Londo
122 Jacobin777: SYD-JFK is possible right now with the -200LR and with a 7-tonne (darn it, which one are they using..lol) reduction, it would probably to well.. howe
123 Dank: And that is probably wise. I would think it would be hard to justify getting a new type in the fleet simply for those two flights. But they would mak
124 Jacobin777: with the -200F also (as well as the -300ER) being on the same platform as the -200LR, improvements one one will help improvements on the other....so
125 SJCRRPAX: To keep the off topic stuff going, I learned both in Engineering School. As a matter of fact, the easiest part of any engineering problem I ever had
126 Dank: I think everything should be able to take the natural log of everything . But seriously, the reason that it is convenient for the units to match up w
127 Dank: wasn't even thinking about the 773 when i posted that. stupid me. My thoughts vis a vis the -200f vs. -200lr is whether the weight savings go mainly
128 Sllevin: See, I think that the stop is horrid. Nothing worse than having to be woken up, get awake, land, kill a couple of hours, then get back on the plane.
129 Widebodyphotog: Actually Boeing uses 20 inch basic frame spacing for 737, 757, and 747, 21 inch frame spacing for 767 and 777, and 24 inches for 787. That degree of
130 Starlionblue: How much precision do you need? And besides, if you start saying "you can never have too much precision" you will soon be using fractions of F degree
131 SunriseValley: My question is what is a realistic time frame for all this? Presumably a new engine is only an option for the 777-200ER ? Any estimate how long QF wo
132 Gemuser: Until a better offer comes along! There is, AFAIK, no other realistic proposal in the works, so Boeing has as long as it takes, as the requirement fo
133 SunriseValley: Fair comment. However don't you think the SYD/MEL-DFW/NYC route possibilities should be considered in the overall scheme of things in so far as the -
134 BoomBoom: I thought the 787 wasn't going to have any ribs since it's a CRRP fuselage.
135 Pygmalion: You still have to transfer the floor loads to the monocoque skin somehow... The pax don't suspend themselves from sky hooks. Frames are also what sup
136 Jacobin777: lol...I just think you are one big geek.... to be honest, it is a bit trivial, and we are being a bit pedantic...but at the end of the day, the SI is
137 Baroque: Mostly US and Imperial measures are similar but the gallon, the ****** gallon. This entry actually oversimplifies the matter. http://en.wikipedia.org
138 Starlionblue: Indeed. And the metre was originally one ten millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole along the Paris meridian at sea level.
139 Astuteman: Ah yes - "potential". You would have thought that the more overweight the frame, the more potential there was for improvement, but apparently this ig
140 Atmx2000: Perhaps the flaws are so fundamental to the design. The A345 is far more than 7t heavier than the 772LR. The difference between the A345 and A346 is
141 Astuteman: Which presumably means a brand new design (like the A350X) should have FAR MORE potential than a tweak of the "flawed" existing design (like the old
142 Rheinbote: The frames [sic] are spaced 25'' apart.[Edited 2006-07-20 19:59:41]
143 Widebodyphotog: I think in a manner of speaking yes. But the problem is that there are no engines available that could increase the range of 787-10 to 8,500nm or so.
144 2wingtips: Are you sure about the timing of the 85klb engines WBP? I thought the A350-900 was going to be first to market in 2012. I assume this will have the 8
145 Jacobin777: thanks for the reply..but right now, I assumed that the thrust for the GenX is at "peak" maximum (i.e-might not be technologically feasible to increa
146 Widebodyphotog: I can say from working with some of the customers that are interested in 787-10 the request is for more range than the 75Klb engines will allow. 787-
147 Astuteman: Beat me to it. Provided there's no delays WBP, "new" 85k engines should be EIS in 2012 for the A350X-900. A thought..... If you make a substantial im
148 Jacobin777: Thanks for the reply Interesting about carriers wanting more range out of the 787-10..is that something which might be holding EK back? IIRC, Boeing
149 Lightsaber: Thanks for the info. I always enjoy your posts. And I didn't know the 767/777 had a different rib pitch... learn something new every day. A still air
150 Baroque: If that is the case and the 3 spool engines do have an advantage over the 2 spools, it has taken a coons age for that bit of potential to be realised
151 Joni: The "ale gallon"?! For a while, I'd already sort of taken the metric system for granted.
152 Baroque: Yes, the various gallons are quite something. It IS enough to make you glad you are metric. Usually I dont like the style Nazis, but when Aus went me
153 Crosswind: I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being considered here... Firstly, the "lightening" of the 777LR is under consideration by Q
154 Starlionblue: That certainly puts things in a new light. But it's still an interesting step. Given the Kangaroo Route, such a premium service will no doubt sell we
155 Dank: That does change interpretation a bit. I think that the ATWoline article which I saw (but seems to have been removed, maybe?) was a bit vague with th
156 2wingtips: No, this is not correct Crosswind. It is a combined effort by both Boeing/Qantas to remove 7-9t of weight from the 772LR. Some will be structural and
157 MD-90: And the meter was supposed to be one ten millionth...but the French miscalculated. My favorite aerospace unit would have to be slugs.
158 Crosswind: That isn't how I read the Flight Global Article at all - it seems to be all about Qantas struggling to make their interior configuration light enough
159 BA787: That Non-stop SYD-LHR really would stick two fingers up at Virgin Atlantic, especially after all the piss-taking Richard Branson did when they introdu
160 2wingtips: They are not going to get a 7-9t lighter 772LR without Boeing's help are they? At best I can see 2-3t from interior lightening. That would mean they
161 Gemuser: Would not need to. With the JSA BA will automatically code and revenaue share on any ULR non stop service. Gemuser
162 Zvezda: Yes, I think VS would probably pull out of OZ if QF/BA start operating nonstop LHR-SYD/MEL service. Carriers like EK and SQ have a big advantage in b
163 Baroque: From that other thread looks as if SQ is not too interested with or without its 7 tons. But QF is probably independently minded.
164 Gemuser: I am sure they are, BUT. QF (international) is extremely adverse to extra aircraft types. From the departure of the Super Connie QF have only had two
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 497 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3954 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 532 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
