Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Y3 Anyone?  
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6423 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

This is not a thread about Delta or IFE, so please dont bring it up.

Many of us are speculating on the 737RS/Y1. However, after that will be Y3. Y3 is expected to be a 777/747 replacement. Since the 747 has two decks, there is the possiblity that Y3 could split into two aircraft - the 808 (single-deck, twin-engine) and the 848 (two-deck, quad-engine). The 808 could be available in two variants: the 808-8 (777-200LR replacement) and the 808-9 (777-300ER replacement). The 848 could have its deck spanning the whole aircraft, making it more of an A380 competitor. The 808 should perhaps have 3-4-3 seating in a standard configuration. The 848 may become the first three-aisle aircraft, with 2-3-3-2 seating, just like the 747 was the first twin aisle. All models should feature a 787-style interior and windows, and should use composites extensively. What are your thoughts on this?


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1948 times:

I believe there will be a definite 777 replacement in the works after Y1, say about 2015-2020. However, a double deck 747 replacement all depends on if there is a market for such an aircraft. Boeing will have to see how the 747-8 sells and especially how the A380 sells. If the -8 is a success and the A380 turns out to be a flop, then there will be no reason for Boeing to make anything larger than the 747.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
This is not a thread about Delta or IFE, so please dont bring it up.

That's a first.

If we should insist on proven technologies, then what many here expect that it will be another twinjet, a slightly larger version of 773. We have to do what works as success breeds confidence and most times more success but not without arrogance.

Odd thing, if you tell people even 737RS/Y1 could be anything, they think you mean it to be what is just not likely -- they're missing the point. Just like Y1, we have no clue what Y3 will be let alone more than a 747RS or 777RS.

As of cross section, if we believe that the world is going more towards smaller than larger, then why change the cross section of what is quite competitive now? A380 is not in 747's class and is actually at the upper-most edge of Y3. In otherwords, Y3 effectively fills the gap between A346 and A380 as well as Boeing's counterparts. There can only be competition between A388 and the largest outcome from the Y3 study. If Boeing feels the need to compete with A380 if ever, there is more than enough expansion between 777 and A380 -- assuming Boeing is right about future trends.  Wink

Comfort and whatnot are and will be issues, the ever growing size of the average passenger will be an issue as well.  Wink

We coud just tweak every last drop of fuel out of our engines til they use almost no fuel, but our range will be limited to half-way-round the world. What is the point of increasing past 21,000 km when you could go another route to cut the time/fuel? Fuel change requires an infrastructral change - I'm not touching that.

I don't think whatever will exist after 797 will be a numbered airplane, rather a named airplane with a model number that is mainly for account purposes. Why? Boeing intends a future with much less aircraft as they do now for simplicity and cost effectiveness. Besides random requests by carriers, I do not think we will see derivatives every half decade in the future like we did the in past 20 years. One product with a few base derivatives will be meant for long term use within a targeted market with minor and subtle improvements along the way as opposed to -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, etc. derivatives.

Let's go out there shall we:

MTOW = 950,000 lbs
span = 75m
length = 70m
engine = 2x 125,000 lbs
range = 8000 nmi
alt = FL380
pax = 480 tri class, 600 max
CS: 3-4-3 wide seat economy

I'm making stuff up for now.

Hey let's integrate blown-flaps like C-17 so that we can have this plane go where normally wouldn't due to taking up so much runway for t/o and landing...hell, I think that could be incorporated into 737RS/Y1 as it would eleviate large airports by sending planes into relatively smaller fields...



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineCactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2439 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
Many of us are speculating on the 737RS/Y1. However, after that will be Y3

What in gay hell is a Y3?

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
This is not a thread about Delta or IFE, so please dont bring it up

So....many.....comments.....hard.....to.....resist.....

 coffee 



You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting Cactus739 (Reply 3):
What in gay hell is a Y3?

The Yellowstone Project...Boeing's plan to replace the current fleet. 787 is Y2, 737 replacement is Y1, and the 777/747 replacement is Y3.


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1731 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
This is not a thread about Delta or IFE, so please dont bring it up.

Impossible to avoid when it is the first thing said in the whole thread...

Quoting Cactus739,reply3]So....many.....comments.....hard.....to.....resist.....
[/quote]
Don't hold back, let it all out  Wink .

[quote=KSUpilot
(Reply 4):
The Yellowstone Project...Boeing's plan to replace the current fleet. 787 is Y2, 737 replacement is Y1, and the 777/747 replacement is Y3.

Correct. And given the current "time schedules" for Y2, Y3 might be interesting to discuss from 2012 on, as that's when Boeing would probably launch it at earliest.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1699 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
All models should feature a 787-style interior and windows,

I think the 787 style interior would be a kind of oldish by the time a "Y3" if ever hits the sky. Probably they have taken lessons from the 787 and do things differently.

IMO the Y1 will be the 737/757/762 replacement, the Y2 the 763/772 replacement and and the Y3 the 773/747 replacement.

I expect a "Y0.5" 90-135 seater. It seems all possible design's that can be stretched to over 200 seats seem far to heavy to compete in $100/barrel environment and the 180-200 segment seems key to me in th next decade.

http://www.kaktusdigital.com/images/large/klm_lrj_02.jpg


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
The 808 could be available in two variants: the 808-8 (777-200LR replacement) and the 808-9 (777-300ER replacement).

The B777-200LR will be replaced by a B787-10. Y3 (if built) will be larger. The smallest Y3 would have at least the cabin floor area of the B777-300ER (330.4 sq meters). The largest Y3 would probably have a cabin floor area smaller than that of the WhaleJet (552.5 sq meters).

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
The 848 may become the first three-aisle aircraft, with 2-3-3-2 seating

In the same spacing as 2-3-3-2, an airline could and certainly would fit 3-5-3 seating. Any three aisle economy seating configuration would have at least 12 seats abreast 2-4-4-2. While 3-6-3 or 3-3/3-3 would be legal, I doubt we'll ever see it as that would correspond to 2-2/2-2 C class seating.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
The 848 could have its deck spanning the whole aircraft, making it more of an A380 competitor.

The WhaleJet doesn't need a direct competitor. It's selling poorly enough without one. Boeing have been smart enough so far to stay out of such a tiny niche market and I expect Boeing won't suddenly lose their good sense on this question.

It's also extremely unlikely that Y3 would have two different cross sections. More likely, if it's ever built, would be 3-5-3 seating on a single deck.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6423 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
The B777-200LR will be replaced by a B787-10.

The 787-10 will replace the 777-200ER, not the -200LR, unless Boeing makes a longer range version of the 787-10.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
MO the Y1 will be the 737/757/762 replacement, the Y2 the 763/772 replacement and and the Y3 the 773/747 replacement.

Makes sense to me, though I am unsure if Boeing or Airbus want to play in the sub-125 seat market.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
The 787-10 will replace the 777-200ER, not the -200LR, unless Boeing makes a longer range version of the 787-10.

Which is quite possible. The 787-10 can grow MTOW to over 600,000lbs (with proper undercarriage enhancements), and with more efficient engines and a lighter structure then the 772LR, should be able to go as far as the 777 model with a larger usable payload.

Hopefully Boeing will offer a 787-10LR at the same time they offer the 787-10 (as Airbus appears to be doing with the A350-900 and A350-900R). That way, if you don't need the range, you just forgo ordering the extra tanks and load her up with more cargo down below and people up top.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
The 787-10 will replace the 777-200ER, not the -200LR, unless Boeing makes a longer range version of the 787-10.

I wrote "a B787-10" not "the B787-10." Whether it is the base B787-10 or a B787-10ER or some other designation, the B777-200LR will be replaced by a B787-10.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The 787-10 can grow MTOW to over 600,000lbs (with proper undercarriage enhancements),

With undercarriage enhancements and sufficient thrust, a B787 could have a MTOW of 640,000 lbs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
should be able to go as far as the 777 model with a larger usable payload.

Farther, faster, with more payload, and using less fuel. It will even cost less to manufacture.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Hopefully Boeing will offer a 787-10LR at the same time they offer the 787-10

No chance. Boeing will first offer a B787-10 with the same landing gear as the B787-9 and perhaps up to 20,000 lbs higher MTOW and a little more thrust. Anything over 560,000 lbs MTOW will come later.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
No chance. Boeing will first offer a B787-10 with the same landing gear as the B787-9 and perhaps up to 20,000 lbs higher MTOW and a little more thrust. Anything over 560,000 lbs MTOW will come later.

Is 20,000lbs going to be enough to compete effectively against the A350-900? Especially since not all 20K will be available for extra payload/fuel due to some of it going to additional structure in the frame extensions and more powerful engines?

I imagine the 787-9 is already approaching the limits of her engines with her higher "final" MTOW, but I would think if it could be done, Boeing would be better off with a "787-9ER" with the extra 20K in MTOW on her current undercarriage and instead push the 787-10 into the 625-640K MTOW zone to maximize her competitiveness...

I know the ULR market is a bit...light...right now, but as you have noted, the 772LR is better then a 772ER for 772ER mission profiles beyond 2000nm. Therefore, I would think Boeing would like to (and therefore try to) give the 787-9 and 787-10 all the possible advantages they can, just as Airbus seems to be doing by launching an A359R in conjunction with the A359.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Boeing would be better off with a "787-9ER" with the extra 20K in MTOW on her current undercarriage and instead push the 787-10 into the 625-640K MTOW zone to maximize her competitiveness...

That would make the OEW unnecessarily heavy and make the aircraft less attractive for many customers. It would also delay EIS several years. A 560,000 lbs MTOW B787-10 would be a very capable and efficient aircraft. If someone really needs more payload/range performance in the short run, the B777-200LR is still available.

I expect a B787-9ER would also exceed the 560,000 lbs limit of the current landing gear. A B787-8ER is the only ER version that would make sense with the current landing gear. Once higher thrust engines become available, Boeing can be expected to upgrade the landing gear and then B787-9ER, B787-10ER, B787-11, and B787F versions all become possible.


User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):

No chance. Boeing will first offer a B787-10 with the same landing gear as the B787-9 and perhaps up to 20,000 lbs higher MTOW and a little more thrust. Anything over 560,000 lbs MTOW will come later.

What are the current weights of the 777/767 models to which these correspond?



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12):
A 560,000 lbs MTOW B787-10 would be a very capable and efficient aircraft.

Good to know.  thumbsup 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12):
If someone really needs more payload/range performance in the short run, the B777-200LR is still available.

 checkmark 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12):
I expect a B787-9ER would also exceed the 560,000 lbs limit of the current landing gear. A B787-8ER is the only ER version that would make sense with the current landing gear. Once higher thrust engines become available, Boeing can be expected to upgrade the landing gear and then B787-9ER, B787-10ER, B787-11, and B787F versions all become possible.

Understood. Thank you.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 1283 times:

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 13):
What are the current weights of the 777/767 models to which these correspond?

Widebodyphotog has compiled a nice chart for us:
http://theaviationspecialist.com/master_weight_data.gif


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1149 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
I expect a "Y0.5" 90-135 seater. It seems all possible design's that can be stretched to over 200 seats seem far to heavy to compete in $100/barrel environment and the 180-200 segment seems key to me in the next decade.

Seems I´m not the only one drawing these conclusions..

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...%20(UNITED%20STATES)&from=business


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1126 times:

Interesting article. So I guess we are looking at a possible Boeing version of the E-Jets. I'm assuming the Y-0.5 will not have a T-Tail (like the 717 and CRJ-900). It would make sense for Boeing to base the Y-0.5 off of the full size Y-1.

They already will have one up on the E-Jets as the Y-0.5 will be a part of a larger family of aircraft. Another thing that could have is if the Y-0.5 is a bit wider than the E-Jets. (Can you say 797XWBRJ!!!)  Smile


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...
Anyone Here Know AMS Very Well? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 21:44:21 by Thom@s
Anyone Fancy A Non-Rev Day Trip...? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 16:34:46 by TUGMASTER
Anyone Know Anything About Denver Air Connection? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 00:10:01 by Chi-town
Anyone Think Durham Tees Is A Stupid Name? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 01:17:15 by 8herveg
Arial Shot: Can Anyone ID The Location? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 02:08:02 by Matt D
Can’t Reach Anyone At Pan Am posted Mon Nov 20 2006 15:32:50 by LH526
Can Anyone Tell Me Loads On DL2 LGW-JFK? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 20:30:27 by BY188B
Anyone Work For QF Ticketing/reservations? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 00:14:45 by Gasman
Anyone Flown Apple Vacations? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 22:57:00 by Chi-town
Does Anyone Know About Jetdirect? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 07:58:41 by Turbonytro