Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6031 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3): They're inevitably going to release a -10 which will be another strecth on top of the -9.
The B787-10 is expected to be 20 feet longer than the B787-9, have engines with at least about 80K lbs of thrust, a MTOW of at least about 560,000 lbs, and a range of at least 8000nm. EIS is expected to be late 2012.
Ultrapig From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5902 times:
I saw this post and I see that the -3 and the -8 are the same length but that the 3 carries more people and has a shorter range-are they simply the same frame with the same MTOW's one have larger tanks?
If so why wouldn't someone simply buy a -8 and if it wanted to use it for shorter flights put in more seats and less fuel?
Beech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5841 times:
Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 5): If so why wouldn't someone simply buy a -8 and if it wanted to use it for shorter flights put in more seats and less fuel?
Because though they may be the same fuesalage they have a different wing. It is designed for domestic use, short/medium haul with more pax. It also has winglets instead of a full wing with tips. It can fit inside a small gate that way. A 787-8 would NOT work in any of those situations as its designed for long haul, would be far less efficient in short haul and would never come close to fitting in a standard 767 gate or smaller for that matter than a 787-3 can.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5805 times:
Quoting Beech19 (Reply 6):
Because though they may be the same fuesalage they have a different wing. It is designed for domestic use,
The 787-3 fuselage barrels are also rotated fewer times on the tape mandrels, and thus have less carbon fiber. This is fine due to the lower stresses for the short haul role envisioned.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
SeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 298 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5715 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 7): The 787-3 fuselage barrels are also rotated fewer times on the tape mandrels, and thus have less carbon fiber. This is fine due to the lower stresses for the short haul role envisioned.
Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame.
T773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 276 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5533 times:
Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 10): Doesn't the -3 also have a beefier undercarriage than the -8 or -9?
Yes, the 787-3 does have stronger landing gear. This is due to the fact, that it will fly perform more landings the 787-8, because it will be used for the domestic market.
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5502 times:
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 8): Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame.
In a nutshell, the 787 fuselage skin is both a pressure vessel and a load-bearing structure. This is contrary to a conventional fuselage where the ribbing and stingers transfer structural loads while the skin acts as the pressure vessel.
Because the 787-3 will be certified at a lower MTOW than the -8, fewer structural loads will be transfered through the fuselage. That allows Boeing to thin the fuselage slightly.
CFRP has significantly better fatigue properties than aluminum and the -3 will not be thinned to the point that it compromises basic structural integrity.
Many forget that the -9 is also slightly thicker than the -8 for the exact same reason. The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.
Tootallsd From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 542 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5410 times:
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5311 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12): Many forget that the -9 is also slightly thicker than the -8 for the exact same reason. The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.
This should be true only for the central sections which are different in length. The nose and tail should be the same along with the sections nearest to them. The aft sections would have slightly different loads due to the longer moment arm, but this is probably insignificant. The sections near the wingbox would have very different loads and should have thicker CFRP for the longer versions.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4544 posts, RR: 28 Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5070 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4): The B787-10 is expected to be 20 feet longer than the B787-9, have engines with at least about 80K lbs of thrust, a MTOW of at least about 560,000 lbs, and a range of at least 8000nm. EIS is expected to be late 2012.
Does anyone think that there might be a 787-5, basically a lower MTOW version of the -10 with the -3 wing? I'm thinking of China, India, etc where the low operating cost and flexibility on shorter itineraries as a people hauler might be a better fit than domestic A380's.
I'm not a big proponent of the -3 model like some people seem to be, but the -5 option intrigues me a little more.
(It's late, and I don't think my wording flows, but you get the point).
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5027 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 15): Does anyone think that there might be a 787-5, basically a lower MTOW version of the -10 with the -3 wing? I'm thinking of China, India, etc where the low operating cost and flexibility on shorter itineraries as a people hauler might be a better fit than domestic A380's.
There is no demand for it now but, if someday the demand develops, Boeing would be happy to build 50+.
The more likely follow-on models would be: B787-8ER, B787-9ER, B787-10, B787-11, and B787F. All but the first would require an upgraded undercarriage including two more wheels, as well as strengthened wings and increased thrust.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4544 posts, RR: 28 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5003 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16): There is no demand for it now but, if someday the demand develops, Boeing would be happy to build 50+.
Thanks. I was hoping you'd reply. I'm assuming that this is because it's too much plane for most medium-haul routes, where the 737NG/A32X are more optimal at this point? Perhaps we're 10-15 years away from the demand.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4880 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 17): Thanks. I was hoping you'd reply. I'm assuming that this is because it's too much plane for most medium-haul routes, where the 737NG/A32X are more optimal at this point? Perhaps we're 10-15 years away from the demand.
It's hard to say. India and China look to me like they will have a lot of point-to-point service domestically.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4744 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12): The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3955 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4704 times:
Quoting Cardiffairtaxi (Thread starter): Can anyone give me the details of different models of the 787 available,and their operating(predicted) distances,pax carried etc.Thanks in advance.
AirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4184 times:
Quoting Tootallsd (Reply 13): Sometimes I wonder how some people find their way to airliners.net (and a million other sites) to make these postings.
It took me a whole 30 seconds to find your requested information
You know, I agree that looking at Boeing first might have made a lot of sense. But to make these comments? Was it really necessary guys? Come on. I guess some of us are just not graced with the intuition or common sense of you two guys. We are not worthy!
SeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 298 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11): The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.
Thank you for the help, that could explain differences in fuselage thickness. And with hindsight, it seems obvious that fatigue is much less a design determinant with CFRP.
FL370 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
all i can say is that i cant wait till the plane starts flying in that beautiful DREAMLINER livery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 303 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 672 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3955 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
