Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will The 748F Carry On After Y3?  
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

When Boeing embark on Y3, will there be a freighter version with the sort of capability offered by the 747F and 748F? My naive guess is that the answer will be "no". Is there any reason why Boeing should not continue producing the 748F in parallel with Y3 for as long as the demand is there?

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

Depends on what the Airlines want and the success of the BWB studies.

If the BWB is successful as a freight platform, then expect Y3 *IF* it persued to be optimized for passengers only.

If the BWB doesn't pay off at this time, then you can expect Y3 to be more of a "hybrid" like the 747. Boeing would likely try for a swingtail first then go to a nose door if that can't be done effectively in daily cargo ops. The failure for the BWB to be adopted in the near future (in industry time, IE decade or two) then its the most likely case that Y3 will exist.

That said at this time I expect the 787 to get a major MTOW growth version after the 737RS is done, Then for Y3/BWB to be decided on. A MTOW growth version of the 787 could haul near 744 volume and payload for a fraction of the cost of the other planes used today. The economies of scale would make a 787F completely ruin older freighters in overall cost. The A330F has been rumored to sell for $90M, but the 787F if done on a higher MTOW version could sell for not much more and haul 744 loads.. all while having higher margins. Of course the A350XWB freighter might be equaly impressive, but at this time its no more solid than my guesswork on possible future versions of the 787.


User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

MTOW=range
MZFW=payload


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting Art (Thread starter):
When Boeing embark on Y3

IF Boeing embark on Y3. I think that's a very big IF. It appears the market is far too small to justify the development costs. I don't see Boeing repeating the WhaleJet mistake.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3223 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 3):
IF Boeing embark on Y3. I think that's a very big IF. It appears the market is far too small to justify the development costs. I don't see Boeing repeating the WhaleJet mistake.

Y3 is intended to replace the 777-300, 747, and possibly go bigger and compete with the 380.

The question is not will they build Y3, the question is only what size range will they design into it. They will not stay with the 748 and 773 forever, and the 787 will not be stretched to 773 size IMO. The comment about not making the same mistake as Airbus is very valid, I dont see them going with a base model anywhere near the size of the 380.

As for the thread topic, the 748F, as Boeing has said for a while, will be built for quite a while and along side Y3 possibly. Y3 will likely start with a passenger model and then a freighter when the market warrants. The 748F will most likely start to decline once the Y3 freighter is offered, which will be after they milk the 748 for all its worth.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 4):
The question is not will they build Y3, the question is only what size range will they design into it. They will not stay with the 748 and 773 forever, and the 787 will not be stretched to 773 size IMO.

Building a 787-11 the size of the 777-300ER is a very real low-cost, low-risk, high-profit option for Boeing. The question is whether or not Boeing will ever build a Y3. I think not. In my opinion, the market is too small to justify the development costs.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

As has been asserted above, we should not automatically assume that there will ever be a Y3. The VLA market is sketchy at this point. Its assumed that Y3 will seat around 400-500 passengers. One of Randy Baslers favourite weapons was highlighting the apparent 200 seat gap in Airbus' product lineup. What Randy never cared to point out was the sales figures for aircraft in this segment. There has only been one airline order in the last 5 years.

The freighter market is different however, but with Boeing having a monopoly in the large freighter at this point in time, I cant see there being much pressure on them to spend $10b+ developing a new aircraft. I still see Boeing sticking with larger 787 versions for the forseeable future. The advent of the A350XWB may have altered their product strategy.


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

I started this thread some time ago, there are some excellent points made regarding this subject.

Y3, Chaos At The Top Of B's Plans? (by AirSpare Sep 27 2006 in Civil Aviation)

I think that a "777RS" or Y3 is likely. The 777 is a popular product to the people that fly (pay the airlines bills). My gamble is that B will take the plunge, the R&D, manufacturing processes and engines (RR) are being worked on now, between the 787/737RS and the XWB.

If the 777 can hit 1000 frames, I think a replacement will also.


Hey Zvezda~Best regards



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 7):
If the 777 can hit 1000 frames, I think a replacement will also.

I agree that the 787, which is the 777 replacement, will achieve 1000 orders.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1):
Depends on what the Airlines want and the success of the BWB studies.

If the BWB is successful as a freight platform, then expect Y3 *IF* it persued to be optimized for passengers only.

I think your right about the BWB being used for military or freight applications first.

The BWB may allow two versions of the same airframe to compete in both the military and civilian cargo markets - something we haven't seen since the first jetliners. Another possibility is a combination tanker/stand-off bomber/UAV platform with only the cockpit pressurized . The later seems more likely to me. Besides efficiency, a main advantage of the BWB is the ability to combine many roles in one platform. Unfortunately, it is weakest in its passenger carrying potential.

The BWB is a very versatile platform - but it has two main weaknesses. The first is that it would have to have a much stronger skin in order to have a pressurized interior. The other is that it would give the passengers a rough ride during turns in all but the center seats, and more space would have to be "wasted" on aisles to create a comfortable seating arrangement. The cabin could easily have the feel of a very tightly packed, cramped movie theatre. One could throw weight and money at these problems because of the BWB's far superior efficiency - but I don't see how anybody would risk it unless a freight model was proven first.

If I had to bet I would say we will see a widebody-sized multi-role BWB military plane in the next decade or two - whether Boeing or somebody else builds it. Civilian freight applications would soon follow. That would allow Boeing to optimize the Y3 for passengers. But consider that most of the foretasted market for Very Large Aircraft is for freighters. They would have to wait a long time for the market to grow enough for a passenger-only version viable. By that time, a passenger BWB could be a reasonable proposition.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
Building a 787-11 the size of the 777-300ER is a very real low-cost, low-risk, high-profit option for Boeing. The question is whether or not Boeing will ever build a Y3. I think not. In my opinion, the market is too small to justify the development costs.

"ever" is a very long time and I'm sure you don't mean it literally. When do you think a new design airframe with a base model larger than the 777-300ER would be viable? the 10-20 year time frame the thread starter mentioned? Not anytime in the reasonably foreseeable future? I'm not being sarcastic, I really respect your knowledge and would like to know what you think.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I expect Y3 will offer an eventual freighter version, but I would be surprised if it was a nose-loader. The 747-8F is available to meet that demand and someone may figure out how to put a nose-door on a passenger 747-400 which opens that fleet up.

User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
Building a 787-11 the size of the 777-300ER is a very real low-cost, low-risk, high-profit option for Boeing. The question is whether or not Boeing will ever build a Y3. I think not. In my opinion, the market is too small to justify the development costs.

It is not that I disagree completely, it is just that there is a compelling argument against the 787-11, and the need for something slightly larger than the 773 and maybe as big as a 748, which is only worth looking at with the large end of a Y3 family that inculdes smaller higher selling models such as a 773 sized plane and maybe one increment bigger. Its the smaller higher selling model that will make or break Y3 IMO.

One thing I do know is that the market has not solidified enough in this arena for Boeing to feel comfortable enought to decide on a strategy. I think they are simply in the analysis phase and will remain so for a while.

The 777 and 748I, in addition to EIS of the 350 give them plenty of cushion to do so. The dividing line between Y2 and Y3 has always been the most foggy element of Yellowstone and what it has spawned.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
Quoting AirSpare (Reply 7):
If the 777 can hit 1000 frames, I think a replacement will also.

I agree that the 787, which is the 777 replacement, will achieve 1000 orders.

was it truely intended as a 777 replacement, is it the 767 replacement or is it both?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EI321 (Reply 12):
was it truely intended as a 777 replacement, is it the 767 replacement or is it both?

I believe both, at least with the 777-200 and 777-200ER. I don't believe Boeing expected to have to worry about the 77L, 77W and 77F within a decade, but they did have the foresight to plan for some significant MTOW growth, at least, with a stronger undercarriage and wing then what would have been needed just to compete with the 767, A330 and 777-200A.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 9):
When do you think a new design airframe with a base model larger than the 777-300ER would be viable? the 10-20 year time frame the thread starter mentioned? Not anytime in the reasonably foreseeable future? I'm not being sarcastic, I really respect your knowledge and would like to know what you think.

My suspicion (and I'm not convinced this is the case, but it seems likely to me) is that there will not be a sufficient market for a Y3 unless and until it is possible to build it with a CASM at least 15-25% lower than the 787-11/A350-1000. The problem is that, even in 20 years, it would then be possible to build replacements for the A350 and 787 with correspondingly lower CASM. Getting that far ahead of a moving target seems hopeless.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
there is a compelling argument against the 787-11

Please share. I have not seen a compelling argument against the 787-11.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
The dividing line between Y2 and Y3 has always been the most foggy element of Yellowstone and what it has spawned.

Here we are in complete agreement.  Smile

Quoting EI321 (Reply 12):
was it truely (sic) intended as a 777 replacement, is it the 767 replacement or is it both?

Corporations don't have intent; people have intent. I'm sure there were differing intentions among people at Boeing who backed the 7E7. Whatever they were, I don't think they matter as far as what the 787 is becoming. The 787-8 is larger than the 767-400. A 787-11, if built, would be very nearly the same size as the 777-300ER. I think we can all agree, whether we think the chances of a 787-11 are 10% or 70%, that they are higher than the chances of a 787-7. There is no overlap in size between the 767 and 787 families and almost certainly never will be. The 787 and 777 families (including the 787-10) do overlap. In terms of mission performance, the 787 is a rough match for the 777 and far exceeds the 767.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 12):
was it truely intended as a 777 replacement, is it the 767 replacement or is it both?

Y2 was intended to replace the 757-300, all 767s, and the 777-200. Going after the 777-300 is an afterthought that is possible, but shrinking is out of the question AFAIK.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
Please share. I have not seen a compelling argument against the 787-11.

I guess that is subjective.

There have been plenty of debates here on the subject, not that I agree with any of them, that suggest the 787-11 would not complete well enough against the comparable A-350 without new wings, landing gear....I guess the basis of the argument is that you basically end up with a different plane, so why not increase the cross section and make it Y3.

I am still not in the camp that thinks Y3 will be a blended wing, either...yet.

This will be one of Boeings most critical decisions of this century IMO.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2907 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
There have been plenty of debates here on the subject, not that I agree with any of them, that suggest the 787-11 would not complete well enough against the comparable A-350 without new wings, landing gear.

Certainly a 787-11 would need revised landing gear, as would a 787-9ER, 787-10ER, and probably any 787F. The existing wing could be strengthened and the swept area could be increased without having to develop a wholly new wing. Even if a wholly new were needed, that would still be less of a difference than that between the A340-300 and the A340-500/600.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
I guess the basis of the argument is that you basically end up with a different plane, so why not increase the cross section and make it Y3.

Ah, but one doesn't end up with such a different plane. The important thing is that all the systems could be retained. Even with a wholly new wing, the development cost would be about 20-25% that of a Y3.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
I am still not in the camp that thinks Y3 will be a blended wing

A BWB would not be a Yellowstone family aircraft.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
This will be one of Boeings most critical decisions of this century IMO.

Here again we agree.  Smile


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2882 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
I agree that the 787, which is the 777 replacement, will achieve 1000 orders.

Permanently re-iterating your idea of a prospective '787-11' and the 787 alledgedly being a 777 replacement doesn't make your assertions anymore credible. There's next to nothing in the baseline 787 design that makes a 787-11 plausible, apart from the equally often re-iterated contemplations of hypothetic fuselage lengths and floor areas.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 17):
Permanently re-iterating your idea of a prospective '787-11' and the 787 alledgedly being a 777 replacement doesn't make your assertions anymore credible. There's next to nothing in the baseline 787 design that makes a 787-11 plausible, apart from the equally often re-iterated contemplations of hypothetic fuselage lengths and floor areas.

There is certainly a very good chance that there will never be a 787-11. Regardless, if the 787 ranges from the 787-3/8 to the 787-10, then it is much more of a 777 replacement than a 767 replacement. The smallest 787s are larger than the 767-400. At the upper end, the 787-10 will be larger than the 777-200(ER/LR).


User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

When the Y3 is rolled out, the 748 (both versions) will have done its job for Boeing anyway. Boeing must continue to fight pro-active for their market share, nor re-active, for its market share, and I don't see any reason not to built the Y3. The 773ER shows that there is a market for planes of that size, and it would be stupid from Boeing to stop the successfull Yellowstone project. Being A and B fan, I look forward for the y3!

Cheers

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 17):
There's next to nothing in the baseline 787 design that makes a 787-11 plausible, apart from the equally often re-iterated contemplations of hypothetic fuselage lengths and floor areas.

Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to what in the baseline 787 design that makes a 787-11 implausible?

The 787 fuselage is wider then an A340's, so it would not suffer as much from bending stretches at 75m in length as the A340-600 does. Also, CFRP is stronger and lighter then Al, so a 75m 787-11 fuselage can more easily be reinforced to handle what bending stresses it will encounter more then the A340-600 was.

The 787 wing is designed for MTOWs approaching 640,000lbs, though it will need additional reinforcement. That is 100,000lbs above the MTOW of the 787-9. With extensions, the wing would probably be around 70m, similar to the span of the 747-8I so it should not impact gate operations since it will still offer 20m clearance wingtip to wingtip in the traditional 80m "box".

The undercarriage is "only" able to handle 560,000lbs, but Boeing has experience designing triple-axle undercarriages handling 750,000lbs so 640,000lb should prove no problem. And the 787-11 will have sufficient underfloor space to take a six-wheel bogie without killing fuel or cargo capacity.

Engine thrust will be in the 85,000lb range which is 10,000lbs beyond the current GEnx and Trent 1000 variants, but in and of itself should not be insurmountable. It might even be possible to fit a Trent XWB/"GEnx2" either with the existing 123" fan. If not, they may proceed with a new model with a slightly smaller fan (as GEnx does with the 748 variant).

Seems doable to me...


User currently offlineSv11 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

Is there a big enough market for the Y3 in the near future? The 747-8 and A380 are not selling well right now. The 777-300ER appears to be mostly replacing 747-400s converted to cargo.

sv11


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The 787 fuselage is wider then an A340's, so it would not suffer as much from bending stretches at 75m in length as the A340-600 does.

The essence of your point is correct, but it is fuselage height not width that matters because the vertical stresses are much greater than the horizontal stresses.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Also, CFRP is stronger and lighter then Al, so a 75m 787-11 fuselage can more easily be reinforced to handle what bending stresses it will encounter more then the A340-600 was.

Yes, exactly.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The 787 wing is designed for MTOWs approaching 640,000lbs, though it will need additional reinforcement. That is 100,000lbs above the MTOW of the 787-9. With extensions, the wing would probably be around 70m

If just changing wingtip extensions, Boeing would probably choose to keep wingspan within the 65m limit for E sized gates. If Boeing choose to develop a wholly new wing, then 70m is plausible. The two main reasons for considering a new wing are field performance and fuel capacity. Another benefit would be improved L/D due to both advances in aerodynamics and the availability of more computing resources for less money.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The undercarriage is "only" able to handle 560,000lbs, but Boeing has experience designing triple-axle undercarriages handling 750,000lbs so 640,000lb should prove no problem. And the 787-11 will have sufficient underfloor space to take a six-wheel bogie without killing fuel or cargo capacity.

Yes, exactly, though an electronics bay would have to be relocated. That requires significant wiring changes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Engine thrust will be in the 85,000lb range which is 10,000lbs beyond the current GEnx and Trent 1000 variants, but in and of itself should not be insurmountable. It might even be possible to fit a Trent XWB/"GEnx2" either with the existing 123" fan. If not, they may proceed with a new model with a slightly smaller fan (as GEnx does with the 748 variant).

If the wing is retained and only the wingtip extensions are changed, then more thrust would be needed to achieve good field performance. Utilization of the 123" fan is not unlikely.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 4):
The 748F will most likely start to decline once the Y3 freighter is offered, which will be after they milk the 748 for all its worth.

Here I must wonder if freighters are also subject to Zvezda's law: will freight operators always go for the lowest tonne-mile operating cost, in the smallest possible format?

The reason this might be important is that the A359F (EIS 2017) would burn roughly 10% less fuel per tonne-mile than even the 748F, based on an analysis of the specs announced at the XWB launch in Farnborough last year. (90 tonnes max payload @ 5000 nm range).

There is the sticky point of the nose door, but I believe that factor is blown out of proportion on a.net in comparison to basic operating costs.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 17):
There's next to nothing in the baseline 787 design that makes a 787-11 plausible, apart from the equally often re-iterated contemplations of hypothetic fuselage lengths and floor areas.

Quite the contrary, at least on a technical basis (as opposed to business case). By careful and educated guesswork one can reasonably extrapolate the performance of aircraft derivatives that haven't even been publicly discussed by the OEMs. The Breguet range equation is very powerful for this sort of analysis, as are the trends of technical metrics (SFC, L/D, OEW) across aircraft families and over time. A 787-11 with the modifications outlined by Stitch would likely be very competitive (by my estimate, nearly 20% lower fuel burn than the 773ER, and on a par with the A350-1000)


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 23):
Here I must wonder if freighters are also subject to Zvezda's law: will freight operators always go for the lowest tonne-mile operating cost, in the smallest possible format?

With the constraint from Zvezda's Law that range is sufficient and the additional constraint that the pallets/containers/cargo actually fit in the smaller aircraft, I would say Yes. There is a lot of opportunity to increase frequencies on freight routes. Increased frequency means higher revenue/tonne.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 23):
By careful and educated guesswork one can reasonably extrapolate the performance of aircraft derivatives that haven't even been publicly discussed by the OEMs. The Breguet range equation is very powerful for this sort of analysis, as are the trends of technical metrics (SFC, L/D, OEW) across aircraft families and over time. A 787-11 with the modifications outlined by Stitch would likely be very competitive (by my estimate, nearly 20% lower fuel burn than the 773ER, and on a par with the A350-1000)

 checkmark  Looked at another way, a 787-11 with the same payload/range performance of a 777-300ER would have an OEW 80-85,000 lbs lower. It would also have a much lower manufacturing cost. If Boeing can sell 777-300ERs (and as of this year they still can) then there is certainly demand for an aircraft with the same performance at dramatically lower purchase and operating cost.


25 Post contains images Lehpron : Of course not. Whatever becomes of Y3 is NOT near-term. Boeing initially meant a Y3 to replace 777/747 with a overall family pax range of 300-600. If
26 XT6Wagon : 787-12 can't exist... While a typical stretch would make a 787-11 75m long, I would expect Boeing if they do one to poll the customers hard, then like
27 Stitch : Technically it could, in that a 5m stretch would take it right to 80m. I'd only see it happen if Airbus makes an 80m A350-1100.
28 Zvezda : The Yellowstone family is a tube-and-wings concept family. A BWB would be something else. Huh? Some cabin floor areas for comparison: B787-11X 324.6
29 Rheinbote : Sure. Amongst others you need to take things like buffet margins, approach speeds, and field performance into account. You can't stretch the 787-10 m
30 Zvezda : If Boeing produce a six-wheel bogey for heavier 787s, there is no reason why it shouldn't have the tip-toe feature developed for the 777. That number
31 Rheinbote : Last time you confirmed something with a source at Boeing your source was wrong. Even if the wing would be good for 640K, how would you get any 787 l
32 Zvezda : It can happen. I also consider Widebodyphotog to be a reliable source, but I wouldn't bet a finger on him always being right. I've written before tha
33 XT6Wagon : yah, a 5m stretch would be nearly worthless. possible, but I think just jumping straight to 80m or just under makes more sense. If Boeing does a new
34 Zvezda : There are other reasons not to go to 80m. There are taxiing issues with turning radii at many airports and many airports don't have taxiways spaced f
35 Post contains images Lehpron : If I used your logic with 787, I could keep stretching it and somehow it would be justified on a cost per unit payload basis. My proof is that the hy
36 Zvezda : An increase in takeoff velocity requires a more than proportional increase in thrust (given the same wing).
37 XT6Wagon : Well, I'm sure the 787F would be built on a high MTOW variant and would need the strongest landing gear regardless due to the need to have as high a
38 Post contains images Stitch : A 787-13 would exceed 80m in length and as such would probably not be compatible with most facilities whose name did not end with the words "Air Forc
39 DeltaDC9 : Which makes me wonder if that is because there was no 748 and the 777 was a better choice than a 744. I dont think so, the 250 747 freighters in serv
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...
Will Airbus Coem Back On Track After Paris? posted Thu Apr 26 2007 21:46:02 by Deaphen
Bmi - How Long Can They Carry On The Way They Are? posted Sat Feb 24 2007 16:36:23 by Demoose
Alaska Air: No Carry On Allowed Under The Seat! posted Mon Dec 4 2006 17:07:28 by HAMAD
Fluids In Carry On Luggage To The US Questions posted Thu Oct 26 2006 18:50:39 by Paneuropean
New Carry-on Restrictions Will Affect BA! posted Sat Aug 12 2006 21:19:36 by AIR MALTA
Carry-on Restrictions Will Last - Clark Ervin posted Fri Aug 11 2006 14:38:22 by Bmacleod
Will The Great Escapade Be Back On-line? posted Mon Feb 28 2005 13:02:52 by Aviationfreak
Where Will The A342 Go After SAA . posted Sat Dec 27 2003 09:08:48 by Dennys
Carry-on Luggage In The US posted Tue Dec 16 2003 23:35:21 by Pkone
Will AA Keep The TW Registration On Former TW A/c? posted Thu Mar 21 2002 21:40:52 by TrnsWrld