Dkramer7 From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7654 times:
Hi all,
Given Qantas use B767-300's between Sydney and Melbourne now one would get the impression that they like using widebodies between the two cities.
Knowing this, i wonder why qantas didnt show more interest in the 787-3, considering that it is designed for short haul high capacity trips, which would seem to fit in quite well (Just my humble opinion of course).
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 70 Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7633 times:
Quoting Dkramer7 (Thread starter):
Given Qantas use B767-300's between Sydney and Melbourne now one would get the impression that they like using widebodies between the two cities.
Knowing this, i wonder why qantas didnt show more interest in the 787-3, considering that it is designed for short haul high capacity trips, which would seem to fit in quite well (Just my humble opinion of course).
Currently I have a very hard time believing that the 787-3 in its current form will ever be built. It is just too heavy with little range. It lacks versatility for other longer routes, if Qantas was to suddenly opt to deploy them on international routes.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7427 times:
I would not go so far to say that the 787-3 as designed will not be built, since it really is an easy thing for Boeing to do (it's essentially a 787-8 with a few less layers of tape). However, I tend to think that JL and NH may not be as hot for it now as they were four years ago. As fuel prices - and fares - rise, I expect more and more Japanese will move to the shinkansen and accept the time hit. So NH and JL in four years time may not need that capacity boost the 787-3 brings to the table.
However, if JL and NH still want it, there is nothing really stopping Boeing from giving it to them. And it can only get better as lessons learned on the 787-8 and 787-9 are applied to it.
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3033 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7342 times:
Probably because it's easier just to use a 788/9 which may slightly be overkill, versus purchasing a different version for a handful of routes. In short, they may feel there isn't enough distinction between the -3 and the -8/9 to warrant ordering it.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7332 times:
Quoting 777STL (Reply 3): Probably because it's easier just to use a 788/9 which may slightly be overkill, versus purchasing a different version for a handful of routes. In short, they may feel there isn't enough distinction between the -3 and the -8/9 to warrant ordering it.
I agree with this. Flexibility is a great tool in aviation.
Given Qantas use B767-300's between Sydney and Melbourne now one would get the impression that they like using widebodies between the two cities.
Knowing this, i wonder why qantas didnt show more interest in the 787-3, considering that it is designed for short haul high capacity trips, which would seem to fit in quite well (Just my humble opinion of course).
Any Thoughts?
Probably because its mega-heavy for its size and would offer them no flexibility whatsoever in the event of one of the B787-8s going tech on a long haul route.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 70 Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7245 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): I would not go so far to say that the 787-3 as designed will not be built, since it really is an easy thing for Boeing to do (it's essentially a 787-8 with a few less layers of tape).
Stitch, I expected better from you. How about the modified wing? While the 787-8 has a wing span of 197 feet (60 meters), the 787-3 has a wing span of 170 feet (52 meters). Would like to know what modifications will be involved between the 787-8 wing and the 787-3.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9081 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7149 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 6): How about the modified wing?
Couldn't agree more, WINGS. At the behest of the Japanese carriers Boeing agreed almost literally to 'saw off' the wings of the 787 to get the wingspan down to a 757/767 figure that would fit existing gates at Japanese regional airports.
Kind of like setting a thoroughbred racehorse to pull a milk-cart.........
Reminded of a privilege I enjoyed many years ago, meeting a pilot who flew Spitfires during WW2. He'd had a bad year or two flying the 'Spitfire Mark Vb' - which was an attempt to turn a world-class interceptor into a ground-attack aeroplane by sawing off its elliptical wings and tuning the Merlin engine for better low-level performance, He told me that an Aussie pilot had pronounced its epitaph in three short words - "Clipped, cropped, clapped!........".
I'm pretty sure that the 783 will be cancelled and that the two airlines that have ordered it will be compensated with other Boeing models at handy prices.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7133 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): I would not go so far to say that the 787-3 as designed will not be built, since it really is an easy thing for Boeing to do
Different wing = different aircraft.
The problem with the 787-300 is the really low range, it is almost an Airbus A300 B2 .If Boeing manages to put 1000 miles more into it at same MTOW, things look different - but the enginieering man power isn't available, even for money...
GlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7057 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 7): Boeing should definitely try to improve the 787-3, as LH and othes who have a need for shorthaul widebody aircraft have ruled it out as too heavy.
I'm afraid even an improved 787-3 wouldn't change LH's mind.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8): I'm pretty sure that the 783 will be cancelled and that the two airlines that have ordered it will be compensated with other Boeing models at handy prices.
I would almost go as far as that NH and JL will/might even be happy to cancel the 787-3. Personally I don't see the businesscase in the future to use big aircrafts on most of the routes NH and JL want to deploy the 787-3. And on shorter intl. hops the 787-8 would do the job just as good.
GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6860 times:
It's a short-ranged "people hauler" (carries 20%-50% more pax than the B788/B789) and weighs anywhere between 54k-80k kg less than the B788/B789.....so much for being "mega-heavy"...
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 70 Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6794 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
It's a short-ranged "people hauler" (carries 20%-50% more pax than the B788/B789) and weighs anywhere between 54k-80k kg less than the B788/B789
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the 787-8 and 787-9 also able to haul that amount of people configured in a high density layout? Both the 787-3 and 787-8 share the same fuselage length.
While it may not be as economical to haul that amount of people over such short distances vs the 787-8/9, it is more then capable of doing so.
I still see the 787-8 with derated engines as ideal for ANA and JAL. It would also provide much more versatility o their operations is the need arises to serve longer distances.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6777 times:
Hi Wings...
Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the 787-8 and 787-9 also able to haul that amount of people configured in a high density layout? Both the 787-3 and 787-8 share the same fuselage length.
IIRC, its close...but not completely..
Quoting WINGS (Reply 12): While it may not be as economical to haul that amount of people over such short distances vs the 787-8/9, it is more then capable of doing so.
This is true, however the sole purpose of the B783 is to haul pax a short-range. While the B788/B789 would be much more flexible, to carry almost the same amount of pax with all of the extra un-needed weight would seriously cost a bit more, especially given the prices of Jet-A now.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 12): I still see the 787-8 with derated engines as ideal for ANA and JAL. It would also provide much more versatility o their operations is the need arises to serve longer distances.
I still think it would be a bit too heavy....the difference between the B783 and B788 is on an order of multiple number of tons....even having derated B788 would still wouldn't be as economically efficient.
Of note, while the B783 might not be built (I still believe it eventually will), it was needed to get the B787 program off the ground.
What are the primary differences between the 787-3 and 787-8 ? What am I missing? Both share the same width and length. So I would assume that seating capacity and even the numbe of MAX passenger certification would be identical for the 787-3 as it would be for the 787-8.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 13): I still think it would be a bit too heavy....the difference between the B783 and B788 is on an order of multiple number of tons....even having derated B788 would still wouldn't be as economically efficient.
It will never be as economical to operate, but it would have some advantages.
1* One less type in the fleet/Commodity. 2* More versatile for longer routes if the need should arise 3* Re-sale value
The 787-3 is a very specific model for a very specific market. Boeing would be better off skipping the 787-3 and going onto other market segments such as an eventual 787-8/9ER, 787F and 787-10.
Airlines across the globe have given Boeing a clear indication as to what they like and what they don't, and I'm sure that the majority would rather misuse the 787-8 rather then opting or the 787-3.
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6671 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 14): What are the primary differences between the 787-3 and 787-8 ? What am I missing? Both share the same width and length. So I would assume that seating capacity and even the numbe of MAX passenger certification would be identical for the 787-3 as it would be for the 787-8.
The 787-8/9 will not fit into the domestic gate spaces as the 787-3. That and the lower weight were the primary selling points for the 783 for the japanese carriers. They do not need that much "flexibility" as they have alot of experience with their market's high density demand (a la 744Ds). The japanese carriers are not worried about resale value, as they will use these planes into the ground (again much like the 744Ds).
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6648 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 14): The 787-3 is a very specific model for a very specific market.
True, but that's what its target is for. 2500-3000NM could do quite well for many carriers which are specifically looking to move people. Africa, Middle East and South America would be good candidates for the B787-3 as well.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 14): Boeing would be better off skipping the 787-3 and going onto other market segments such as an eventual 787-8/9ER, 787F and 787-10.
Given the costs of the B787-3 (i.e.-calculated in development costs, etc.) and given the fact it probably wouldn't require too much extra work, I believe its a viable plane.
I think Boeing will look at the aforementioned models only after they get the B787 program fully running....with the B787-3 built into the program, I do not believe it would stretch their resources too much.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 14):
Airlines across the globe have given Boeing a clear indication as to what they like and what they don't, and I'm sure that the majority would rather misuse the 787-8 rather then opting or the 787-3.
Again, when oil was at $60/barrel, misusing the plane might have been better. Looking at SQ and their A330's acquisition/lease..it seems carriers might be more prone to getting a plane which isn't "over-kill".
Quoting WINGS (Reply 14): 1* One less type in the fleet/Commodity.
True, but carriers such as NH and JL have already figured this into their costs.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 14): 2* More versatile for longer routes if the need should arise
JL and NH have had a specific need for a "people hauler"...and given the amount of frames they have ordered of the -3, Boeing could certainly build it now. Now if either one of the two carriers decided to cancel their -3 order, then I would think the variables would change quite a bit.
I think their is enough of a market where resale value wouldn't bee too much of a problem. If NH and JL do get it, I expect them to use it for decades.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5540 posts, RR: 40 Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6610 times:
When I read all these posts I have the impression that the 787-3 might have the same problem as the 737-600 and the A 318 have in their respective class. They are all too heavy for their mission and will remain niche aircrafts.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6509 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11): Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
It's a short-ranged "people hauler" (carries 20%-50% more pax than the B788/B789) and weighs anywhere between 54k-80k kg less than the B788/B789.....so much for being "mega-heavy"...
Just have a look at the OEW of the old school aluminium A306 and compare it to that of the 'lightweight CFRP' 783...
The 787-3 is indeed mega-heavy for what it is supposed to do, no need to deny it.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6420 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18): Just have a look at the OEW of the old school aluminium A306 and compare it to that of the 'lightweight CFRP' 783...
Nice way to spin the truth (as usual )...B783 is a bigger plane-bigger wings, wider fuselage, longer in length, has more seats more and carries more cargo...so what's there to "deny"?
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6393 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19): Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
Just have a look at the OEW of the old school aluminium A306 and compare it to that of the 'lightweight CFRP' 783...
Nice way to spin the truth (as usual sarcastic )...B783 is a bigger plane-bigger wings, wider fuselage, longer in length, has more seats more and carries more cargo...so what's there to "deny"?
But how many kgs per seat for the 783 as opposed to the A306?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6345 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 20): But how many kgs per seat for the 783 as opposed to the A306?
In what sense? Its a bigger plane with the same MTOW....don't know about MZFW and the other variables however.
Add the more efficient engines (as well as the fact lower thrust needed), etc. and its not really close...
Actually, it is a very rational way to compare the structural efficiency of 2 similar short haul wide body frames... and their frames alone.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19): B783 is a bigger plane-bigger wings, wider fuselage, longer in length, has more seats more and carries more cargo...
The 787-3 is basically just a 787-8 light and although Boeing did its best to shed as much of the unwanted weight as possible, the frame would indeed still carry along too much dead weight.
For one, the 787-3 would fly on a too large win, yet Boeing couldn't clip the 787-8 wing any further than they intended to do so its would still end up being too large for what it is intended, and less than an optimal design for short haul flights, adding weight to the frame.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 20): But how many kgs per seat for the 783 as opposed to the A306?
The slightly larger seating capacity of the 787-3 is not responsible for its higher OEW: the weight increase is greatly disproportional to the capacity increase...
This is the ONLY reason why the 787-3 would be more efficient than an A300.
Because despite its higher OEW/seat, it would burn less fuel per seat thanks to its efficient engines... and its engines alone.
The claim the 787-3 is a fat-boned frame is a justified one for sure!
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 14 Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6299 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
It's a short-ranged "people hauler" (carries 20%-50% more pax than the B788/B789) and weighs anywhere between 54k-80k kg less than the B788/B789.....so much for being "mega-heavy"... sarcastic
Ok. Its 50,000 lbs heavier at OEW than the aircraft if replaces, the B763 and has 1000nm less range.
It weighs 8k kg less than B788 at OEW and its MTOW is 50k kgs less. An aircraft that weighs pretty much the same as its sibling at OEW but concedes 50,000kgs at MTOW and still gives away almost 5000 nm in range is a dog in most people's books. I see absolutely no reason for its existence and apparently, neither do the airlines.
Mega-Heavy? At 50000lbs more than a B763, Most certainly!!
Before you rant on about MTOW, the lower certified MTOW of the B783 is of no benefit whatsoever when the OEW is near identical to its sister aircraft that can fly 5000 miles further.
I put it to you sir, do YOU have any idea what you're talking about???
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6269 times:
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 23): The 783 is 50,000 lbs heavier at OEW than the aircraft if replaces, the B763, and has 1,000nm less range.
Mega-Heavy? At 50,000lbs more than a B763, Most certainly!!
Now you've compared the 783 to the 767, which in fact is an advantage as the 763 isn't a natural born short-hauler either and yet the numbers make the 787-3 looks like a dog already!
Now, compare it to the notoriously efficient A300, a widebody designed with short haul in mind and see how its numbers simply destroy the claim the 783 is an efficient modern short haul frame!
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 23): The 783 weighs 8,000kg less than the B788 at OEW and its MTOW is 50,000kg less. An aircraft that weighs pretty much the same as its sibling at OEW but concedes 50,000kg at MTOW and still gives away almost 5,000nm in range is a dog in most people's books.
The 787-3 could only make it off the design board thanks to its highly efficient engines... and even then it is a dog, as the market has shown by snubbing it completely! I'd be very surprised to ever see one built...
[Edited 2008-06-09 13:37:44]
25 Jacobin777: It carriers much more people..... It doesn't need the higher MTOW for its specific missions. Such a "dog"..is that why its sold 43 frames? I guess yo
26 DLPMMM: A large part of the reason for the lower MTOW is because the Japanese landing fees are based on the MTOW. Th783 was specifically asked for by the Jap
27 Slz396: It doesn't indeed. And so logic would dictate that its OEW is also reduced far more drastically than it only is... the reason for the very small redu
28 DLPMMM: Moral obligation? WTF? At the request of NH and JAL, Boeing said that they could put on some stubbier non-critical wings and smaller fuel tanks on th
29 WAH64D: You are absolutely right. However, it should have a massively reduced OEW over the B788 and it just doesn't have this. You're assuming a certain leve
30 Jacobin777: People don't want to believe in the truth. It still needs to keep a higher OEW given its design mission...Not to mention, its considerable lower MTOW
31 DLPMMM: Boeing did here, in order to get NH to sign on as the launch customer. Cleaver negotiating by NH I would say. That is the point. Boeing didn't see a
32 WAH64D: Since you asked. The A300-600 is 20000kgs lighter than the B783 yet it has a 5000kg higher MTOW. Admittedly, the older generation engines will requir
33 DLPMMM: The Japanese don't care, as they don't need cargo space on these flights. Most of the pax don't even have luggage, and the intra-Japan cargo is prima
34 ZuluAviator994: Wait, how about an idea here. I believe that Boeing, being Boeing, will shed some weight from the supposed 'dogged' design. This will be from lessons
35 WAH64D: The Japanese are making a lot of appearances in this thread about Qantas. The high structural weight is actually a hinderance in this respect. Heavy
36 DLPMMM: Because that is who the 783 was designed for. I don't think Qantas or any other airline will want the 783. It is a specialty niche aircraft built jus
37 Kent350787: Getting back to the OP - QF has been "underutilising" 767s on the east coast since 1985. As did Ansett too until they collapsed. Why haven't any Oz a
38 WAH64D: Exactly. Something that the B783 should be able to do at this weight but can't. I see it as being more a case of not enough to take your eye off the
39 DLPMMM: Nothing that you say or choose to believe can change the fact that the market is not large enough for a short/medium range wide body to justify alot
40 WAH64D: "Designed" is a major stretch of the imagination IMO. A minimal [next to zero?] development cost sub-variant of B788 is more like it. I do not believ
41 Ikramerica: Look, for all the arguing, there is just some really flagrant misinformation/misinterpretation going on. Because Boeing has artificially capped the MT
42 Jbernie: QF could potentially use the aircraft for SYD/MEL-PER, SYD-MEL, maybe SYD-BNE a a stretch, and for international over to New Zealand and possibly int
43 Stitch: I may be operating from false information, but I was under the impression the main wing "unit" was identical across all three models of the 787, and
44 Jacobin777: They have... From what I know, they aren't really doing too much work change. Why don't people understand the fact the B787 program might not have ev
45 Slz396: Interesting how everybody actually seems to agree that the 787-3 is not fully optimized for short haul indeed, yet when somebody calls it mega-heavy (
46 Rheinwaldner: Aha, the 783 is beaten again! That story repeats itself about every month. But even the 783 fans must admit that it is an easy target. It is by far th
47 MD-90: Obviously it's attractive enough for two customers to order 43 frames. And to think that ANA and JAL feel a "moral obligation" to order expensive new
48 NAV20: Even more so since at least one, possibly, both, the Japanese airlines also ordered 788s. I'm sure that, earlier on, Boeing would have been happy eno
49 DLPMMM: What the hell are you talking about? Beaten by what? The story only repeats itself because some people like yourself think a.net is some sort of spor
50 Rheinwaldner: I failed to express precisely what I meant. I just observed that the 783 in this forum seldom is considered as heroic deed by Boeing. I am happy for
51 DLPMMM: It is not a lemon because it will do precisely what it was meant to do. It fills a small market niche for minimal development costs. A lemon is a veh
52 WAH64D: Better? Debateable. 20 years better? Absolutely not a chance! Please read the whole thread, we were aware of this 12 posts before you repeated the fa
53 PITIngres: The word "design" does not imply "designed from scratch". Boeing obviously saw an opportunity to grab 40+ orders by taking the 787, sawing off the wi
54 Jacobin777: It's not even remotely debatable..the numbers aren't even close... For the needs of the Japanese carriers, the A306 carries more weight (per pax) and
55 Virgin747LGW: Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 31): Boeing did here, in order to get NH to sign on as the launch customer With all the interest from airlines the 787 must have
56 Jacobin777: The B787 wasn't getting as much traction at the time....also, there needs to be a certain amount of commitments for "x" amount of frames before the p
57 WAH64D: I bet they're both delighted too, I don't think.................... http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/17/all...ts-equity-cx_vk_0117markets07.html Garbage
58 DLPMMM: " target=_blank>http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/17/all....html The article you linked says that they can't wait for the 787s to arrive. Your point? Sor
59 WAH64D: Well you can read it through Everett tinted glasses like you do or you can realise that they've had to alter their business plan due to Boeing's fail
60 MD-90: And I'm sure the 787's wing isn't any better than the A306's... If both airlines cancel their 783 orders because gas prices have risen enough to make
61 WAH64D: Yes, indeed there is. Ahem..... Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japanese Government tax incentives, Ahem........
62 Stitch: Which is likely why Boeing will convince them to cancel their 787-3 orders and take 767-300s instead. They can get them faster, they already have the
63 Jacobin777: What does that have to do with the fact NH has put down deposits for the B783? Nothing... You can put any quotes or spin, however, have NH or JL canc
64 ADent: I thought they were converting at least some of them to full 744s and using them on long haul service.
65 Rheinwaldner: I do not say the 783 represents a bad business case, probably the opposite is the case I do not say just to clip the MTOW was a mistake I do not say
66 Baroque: And this is still true for QF - even if Aus is about as far away as you can get unless you take the extreme step of being in NZ. And to add to the my
67 WAH64D: I'm not interested in approximations. The numbers I used are FACTS provided by the relevant manufacturers. Something that doesn't suit your agenda so
68 DLPMMM: Horsecrap. You are using high density numbers for Airbus and typical all Y for Boeing. You don't want to compare pax floorspace or all std Y config b
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 80 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
How about the modified wing? While the 787-8 has a wing span of 197 feet (60 meters), the 787-3 has a wing span of 170 feet (52 meters). Would like to know what modifications will be involved between the 787-8 wing and the 787-3.
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5540 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
