Quote: Andries says that the GEnx would be offered for the A350 at a rating of 87,000lb thrust (387kN). This would match the Trent XWB, which R-R is optimising at this rating for the A350-900, and from which it will offer a derate to 75,000lb for the -800.
However, while GE will derate its GEnx offering similarly for the -800, it is not prepared to join R-R on the A350-1000 with a 95,000lb-thrust version.
So it looks like GE should be able to provide more then sufficient thrust for the 787-10, as should RR.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8484 times:
It will be interesting to see if the 787-10 comes to fruition. I wonder if, from the Airbus perspective, they are looking forward to the big GEnx or if it is a threat because it enables a 787-10.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26922 posts, RR: 83 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8440 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 1): It will be interesting to see if the 787-10 comes to fruition.
It will happen. Now that engine thrust is no longer an issue, I imagine it's coming down to Boeing working with airlines on how much of an advancement they want (in other words, do Boeing need to re-engineer the landing gear to support more then 560,000lbs MTOW).
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 1): I wonder if, from the Airbus perspective, they are looking forward to the big GEnx or if it is a threat because it enables a 787-10.
Well Airbus has little choice. They need the GEnx to help sell the A358 and A359 and as those two models have grown in size and weight, they need more powerful engines to drive them, which helps Boeing offer more capable 787 models.
Werkur767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8417 times:
Sure they are looking forward to the big GEnx, 787-10 maybe will be fruition, the 787-9 is a reality for 2010, the 767 is old now for many airlines around the world, the 787 is a new aircraft that will repalce the 767, the design shows the thrust variant will be big, and for a high range, GEnx maybe can be used sooner, on 787-9s.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8435 times:
I understand the GEnx is important to the 359, but I still wonder what the better market position would be: an A359 with one engine type competing against the 772, or an A359 with two engine types competing against a 787-10.
Ultimately it should make the A350/787 tussle that much more fun. Any idea when a 787-10 could be launched/delivered given this update?
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8406 times:
What thurst level has Boeing/GE settled on for the 787-9? Has that been finalized yet?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8392 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 4): I understand the GEnx is important to the 359
Its more important to the A358.....GE is still not completely sure about the A359 and is completely out for the A350-1000
UAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 540 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8299 times:
Well at least we can do one comparison and that is the 787-900 vs A350-800.
Boeing 787-9 Info:
Seating:
250 to 290 passengers
Range:
8,600 to 8,800 nautical miles (15,900 to 16,300 km)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cross Section:
226 inches (574 centimeters)
Wing Span:
197 feet (60 meters)
Length:
206 feet (63 meters)
Height:
56 feet (17 meters)
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
540,000 lbs (244,940 kg)
Program milestones:
Entry into service in late 2010
Airbus A350-800 Info:
Seating:270 (3 class) passengers
Range:
8,500 (15,730)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cross Section:
232 inches
Wing Span:
210 feet
Length:
198.5 feet (60.5 meters)
Height:
55.5 feet (16.9 meters)
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
245 tons
Program milestones:
Mid-2014
So, if the 787-900 is >2 meters longer, don't you have to assume it can carry more pax in equivalent configurations. Looks like it (787) will have slightly more range also.
CJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8190 times:
Still, the 787-10, if it does arrive, will arrive at least 4-7 years later, the 777's market is just too good.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26922 posts, RR: 83 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8151 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 4): I understand the GEnx is important to the 359, but I still wonder what the better market position would be: an A359 with one engine type competing against the 772, or an A359 with two engine types competing against a 787-10.
I believe the A359 with two engine types is better, as it allows them to appeal to 777 and A340 operators using GE or RR powerplants.
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 4): Ultimately it should make the A350/787 tussle that much more fun. Any idea when a 787-10 could be launched/delivered given this update?
2012 is the most often quoted date.
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 5): What thrust level has Boeing/GE settled on for the 787-9? Has that been finalized yet?
The current GEnx maxes out at 75,000lbs so I imagine that is what is being offered on the 787-9 since they decided to make the 787-9IGW MTOW the base specs.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 10): How would this impact Boeing's ability to offer the B787-10 at an earlier date? Since the A359 will only be ready in mid 2013.
Well it should mean GE should be able to support a 2012 launch date for the 787-10...
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8150 times:
Quoting UAL747-600 (Reply 8): So, if the 787-900 is >2 meters longer, don't you have to assume it can carry more pax in equivalent configurations. Looks like it (787) will have slightly more range also.
Not necessarilly. 2m is not a significant ammount. Things like tail sweep angle and tail cone length can account for the difference without providing more passenger space.
I, for one, would like to see info on cabin dimensions (floor are, interior width at seat and eye level, interior length, etc).
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7718 times:
87,000 lbs of thrust is sufficient for a 625,000 lbs MTOW. That would be enough to provide a B787-11 with well over 8000nm range (with two belly tanks). Note that the limit of the current wing (after strengthening) is about a 640,000 lbs MTOW. With a strengthened wing and upgraded undercarriage (including two more wheels), a B787-9ER, B787-10ER, B787-11, and B787F are all now possible.
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 4): Any idea when a 787-10 could be launched/delivered given this update?
Launch could be as early as next month. EIS would probably be 2012.
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 5): What thurst level has Boeing/GE settled on for the 787-9? Has that been finalized yet?
75,000 lbs.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6): The only real question is when? Before Le Bourget 2007?
The B787-10 launch should be not later than Le Bourget, perhaps sooner.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7608 times:
Quoting UAL747-600 (Reply 8): Boeing 787-9 Info:
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
540,000 lbs (244,940 kg)
Airbus A350-800 Info:
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
245 tons
That's a 50,000 lbs difference! What accounts for it? Pax, fuel?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Flyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 513 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7570 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16): That's a 50,000 lbs difference! What accounts for it? Pax, fuel?
I don't think there is really any difference. I am pretty sure that the 245 ton Airbus figure is "metric tons" which would mean that the weights are damn near identical.
Lokey123 From Barbados, joined May 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7531 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
Launch could be as early as next month. EIS would probably be 2012.
Got a report from someone who attended a Boeing session on the 787 last week.
Boeing is stating an end of 2012 roll out for the 787-10.
Additionally, I was told that there is currently no plan to address connectivty on the airplane, with the demise of Connexion by Boeing. Boeing is said to be aggressively working the issue but customers with early slots are very concerned as a plan would most likely not be in place to address their needs.
There is currently no plan to ensure production quality to customers, they're still trying to work on that one too.
Last but not least, and don't take my numbers to be exact please, it was said that the airplane is overweight by 7000 lbs. Now this obviously conflicts with what Scott Carson said last week so i don't think that number is accurate at all.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7443 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15): 87,000 lbs of thrust is sufficient for a 625,000 lbs MTOW.
Oops! I just realized that's wrong. The calculation is more complex than I was thinking at 5:20 local time. Possible MTOW would be lower.
Here's the theory: Assuming the wing remains the same, Vlof increases with the squareroot of the TOW. The higher Vlof must be achieved in about the same distance, so thrust must be increased (linearly with Vlof) in order to accelerate faster. However, thrust must also be increased (linearly) to overcome the higher inertia of the higher TOW.
So, unless I'm wrong again, the thrust required is proportional to the TOW^1.5. Can anyone confirm that?
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7440 times:
Is RR really capable of overlap development of three widebody Trent family/baselines for A380 (Trent 900), 787 (Trent 1000) and A350 (Trent XWB), while at the same time investing in the next gen Trent narrowbody line?
Sounds like a lot. GE, on the other hand has the CEnx with one core/baseline for 787/748 (yes, I know there are slight differences bewtween them) and the narrowbody project to worry about.
I like GE's hand better - particularly since they have already worked at 115Klbbs and higher and are now pulling back for their GEnx. RR will have to flirt with 100Klbs for the first time ever for the A350-1000.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7419 times:
Quoting Lokey123 (Reply 18): Last but not least, and don't take my numbers to be exact please, it was said that the airplane is overweight by 7000 lbs. Now this obviously conflicts with what Scott Carson said last week so i don't think that number is accurate at all
There have been persistent reports that the 787-8 is 2-3 tons over Boeing's internal weight targets, but still on track to meet the specifications sold to customers.
This doesn't necessarily conflict with Scott Carson's statement that the -8 was ahead of SFC targets by around 2%, as Boeing may have found ways to compensate in other areas.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7312 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19): So, unless I'm wrong again, the thrust required is proportional to the TOW^1.5. Can anyone confirm that?
IIRC, its 1.3-1.5..so your numbers would be correct..
Jben From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 74 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7244 times:
RR is quite capable of 3 projects at once. In fact, it's only really 2, you may have read recently that RR stood down the Trent 900 line. Also, there is no sign that RR is behind on the Trent 1000, infact both GE and RR started their test programs exactly on time!
It's also different because RR is offering the same engine across the A350XWB program.
As for going over 100k, it's already been done in the Trent 8104 (which sadly fell because of RR's unwillingness to enter a risk sharing agreement with Boeing), but it was tested to over 115k.
Also as i've stated before, people forget the engine weights. On a 772ER, comparing the GE94B and the Trent 895, the aircraft powered by the Trent will weigh 7,600lbs less.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4015 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7185 times:
Quoting Lokey123 (Reply 18): it was said that the airplane is overweight by 7000 lbs.
Last I heard it was 700 lbs? Maybe an extra zero found it's way in...
25 Baron95: But they'll have to continue the EIS development at some point, no? I didn't realize it was that much - thanks for the info. That is an additional 35
26 SirOmega: Nice. And if the A350-1000 model sales soar, Boeing can come back with the 787-11 model, and have a similar EIS (2015). For airlines needing the cargo
27 Jben: No, the fuel burn advantage of the GE90 isn't that great. On the 777 versions where RR is offered, it is the leading powerplant, having 44% of the mar
28 RJ111: The GE90 has better fuel burn that the Trent but is noticeably heavier. Resultingly a GE90 powered 777 burns less than the Trent powered 777 beyond 3
29 DarkBlue: Please be careful with how you phrase the thread title as it's a bit misleading. "GEnx Will Be Offered In 87,000lb Thrust Variant" isn't entirely true
30 Stitch: I'm not sure who "Andries" is, since that is the only time the name is referenced in the article (no first name and no title). So I had to assume (wi
31 Jacobin777: I think you quoted the wrong person there....
32 DarkBlue: Ah, my apologies. I now see where the confusion comes from. Olivier Andries is an Airbus VP. His statement should read in context with the two previo
33 Stitch: Got it. Thanks, DarkBlue. I too was confused by the statements saying that it wasn't a done deal that GE was going to power the plane, then the statem
34 Zvezda: No doubt GE can do so. The big question is what timetable are GE willing to commit to.
35 Wah64d: IMO the B787-9 vs A358 sales war will come down to purchase price per airframe. The seat count is almost identical and the B787-9 (paper) range advant
36 DarkBlue: I can't discuss the details of the engine, but the GEnx-3A (as it will be called) will not be the same as the GEnx-1B / 787 engine. I'm not so sure i
37 Justloveplanes: Interesting question: Do the transpac airlines favor GE 777 over RR's and the reverse for transatlantic? That would work well with your technical poi
38 Stitch: I imagine it will have a larger fan diameter and such, but will the core be different? (I understand if so, you probably can't discuss specifics and,
39 RJ111: There are a lot more factors other than fuel burn and i doubt there is a massive trend. Also most airlines use their 777s on a variety of different r
40 DarkBlue: Yep, different core too. The GEnx-2B engine has a different fan, booster and LP turbine, but shares the same core as its big brother the GEnx-1B. The
41 Stitch: So if my nomenclature is correct: GEnx-1B is the 787 powerplant. Genx-2B is the 748 powerplant. GEnx-1A was to be the A350 powerplant. GEnx-3A would
42 WorldTraveler: Is it possible that one use of an 87K GeNX would be to reengine 777s? If 787 remains strong, Boeing might find a market for reengining 772ERs to keep
43 Stitch: A GEnx in the 95,000lb thrust range to power the A350X-1000 would indeed be capable of powering a 772A and 772ER and might be popular on freighter co
44 Jbmitt: I think that at most the difference is negligible. Delta flies their RR-Trent 777's to BOM from JFK 7799 miles vs 8065 for CO
46 WorldTraveler: Mileage is not as important as the winds and routing. DL's BOMJFK flight has been in the air as long as 16 1/2 hrs on a few days since it started. CO
47 Dank: I think this simply is the fact that we are comparing a plane at the bottom of the line (358) with one in the middle (789). SQ's strategy of going wi
48 Baron95: Sorry I don't know how that happened - the quote wan from Jben I think.
49 Jacobin777: No problems there..I wasn't upset or anything..I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any confusion..
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26922 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4447 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Barbados, joined May 2006, 138 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 74 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
