Msl747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 412 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2084 times:
Why not? I'm bored.
Here is what we (I) know:
Y1 - 100 to 200 seat market, Replacing the 717, 737, 757-200?
Y2 - 787
Y3 - 350 + seat market, Replacing the 777-300, 747?
In what direction do you believe Boeing will going with the Y1, Y3 projects? Y1 is fairly straight forward (or is it?), replace the 717, 737, 752 presumably using 787 technology. What about Y3? Do you believe we will ever see a Y3? or simply a 787-11 with improved wing/gear design. Maybe something along the ways of the A350-1000? Perhaps something completely different? (Alternate power source, BWB, etc) Or will that come after Yellowstone? What about time lines? Are we talking 2015? 2020? or Beyond? Sorry if this has been discussed to death before, but as I said I'm bored!
And, yes I know anything we can possibly discuss on the topic is mainly going to be speculation, but speculation is fun, isn't it?
Commercial Pilot Certificate: Single and Multi-Engine Land; Instrument Airplane
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
Quoting Msl747 (Thread starter): Do you believe we will ever see a Y3? or simply a 787-11 with improved wing/gear design. Maybe something along the ways of the A350-1000?
We'll see both 787-10 and -11 with improved wing/gear/.../... design, and it's them that will be along the ways of the A350-1000 and (the -11) beyond. 350-1000 is not any big in comparison to 787, I don't understand why it is referred as "bigger" one in many threads here. It does not need Y3 to get a 1-to-1 competitor. The fact that currently available versions of 350 are larger than those of 787 simply means that next for Boeing will be to stretch 787, while for Airbus - to address smaller market with 350. The thing is that the latter is already here, hence 788/9 are right planes at absolutely right time, while Airbus has nothing to offer. And when it comes to what current versions of 350 are designed for, Boeing must have their own answer, based on already proved (by then) design. As for Y3 - it's going to be a monopoly in ~400 seats range, and it's yet to be seen whether such a monopoly is needed (good for Boeing, almost not working at all monopoly on ~450 seater costs them next to nothing, thanks to good freighter sales).
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7415 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1943 times:
Whether or not Y3 ever gets developed depends on how Boeing perceives the market for the over 350 seat planes. If it becomes stronger you will see the 787 stopping at the -10 with no significant MTOW increase. If it continues to decline then the 787-10 will be larger and the MTOW will increase, and the 787-11 will appear with a larger wing and higher MTOW. Then again, if demand really increases, the BWB may appear at around 450 or 500 seats, and the 787 will fill the smaller capacity requirements. Y1 will most likely be a CFRP version of the 737, with a fuselage inside width a few inches larger than the A320, and with improved engines.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1713 times:
Y1: 737-752 replacement
Obviously a single aisle narrow body to replace the 737, i'm thinking a smaller 787 all around. Same technology but put in a smaller package. What is uncertain is how low of capacity the plane will be made to replace. The 736 wasn't really the best seller, more airlines are going for planes like the E190, so will boeing try to compete with that or build an entirely new plane to compete with that plane.
The 752 replacement could be a twin aisle version, something like the 762, a short wide plane but it would probably be more like a longer version of the 737 replacement.
I'm thinking this will be named the 797. So the 737-700 will be the 797-1, the 737-800 is the 797-2 but the 737-900 and 757-200 will become one plane, especially if they share the same cabin width.
The Y3 might come earlier though with the way the A350 is looking. The A350 is looking like a serious competitor to the 777 and Boeing does not want to let that segment go. The 777 is a great airplane but the technology is getting a little old. To compete with the A350 they have to offer at least the same advantages and make it a little better. They may go with the full Y3 or maybe just a big update to the 777 and make the 777NG, just like they did with the 737NG. The technology might not be there to really make a complete Y3 that could cannibalize the 748. For the 777NG they would use composite frames, maybe barrell technology but composite panels would probably be easier and cheaper right now. Use GenEx engines, GE will have to get over the fact that the GE90 might not have been fully paid off but they will have to deal with it, possible same engines as the 787 will give engine commanality, and similar cockpits will make pilot training easier for airlines that order both. This might be expensive but it will be cheaper than creating an entirely new plane family (the Y3) and a stop gap solution for the A350 until the Y3 can be completed. The 777-400 will replace the 772 and a possible LR version, but with the saved weight by using composites and new technology the range would already be great with the 774 that a 774LR would be able to fly extremely far, then the 777-500 would replace the 777-300, all roughly the same capacity.
A 787-10 could happen but stretching the 787 to a -10 and -11 is not that smart, the plane is meant for the -8 length and stretching it that much could turn out like the A340-600. the A346 is a good plane but that huge stretch gave it some balance problems that impacts cargo volume the plane is able to carry. Now if the entire 787 was upscaled (Fuselage width increased and stretched) then the proportions would work out better, but then you might as well call that the 777NG