Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AW: Boeing Reconsiders Plans For 787-10  
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 31442 times:

Aviation Week 6/23/08, page 57
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Plan%20for%20787-10&channel=awst

"Boeing 777 replacement could absorb the 787-10’s role"

"Boeing Commercial Airplanes President Scott Carson says the paramount consideration now is whether the double-stretch concept makes sense, or if it would be more expedient to meet that market demand in another way. The alternative is to make that particular seat-count the bottom end of the product line that will eventually replace the current 777 wide-body family."

"The 787-10 has notionally been viewed as an aircraft with a 310-seat capacity [...] the new product family would likely reach up to 425 seats, and therefore offer more capacity than 777s and close any gap that might exist between the company’s big twin-widebodies and the 747-8."

So much for the 787-11 that was so heavily promoted here on A.net...

176 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1324 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 31411 times:

Yes the 787-11 concept is done.

I think they will go for a 787-10 still. Above this, I think we will see new 777s (a replacement or refurb) that will be about 20 seats larger than the 787-10 up to maybe 400 to 420 seats. We shall see...



"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31302 times:

I thought the 777 replacement might be a super twin with the top end equal to the 747-8 and the bottom end between the 772 and 773 with the 787-10 taking up the 772 mantle. After all the 748 is only a stop-gap product when it comes to the passenger version, it's the freighter that is top dog. I don't see the point in Boeing going for a VLA A380 challenger, leave that to Airbus, anyway the VLA is an unprofitable niche product  Wink so why not go for the popular large twin market, 1000+ 777s cant be wrong  angel 

User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1607 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31264 times:

A 787-10 would always be later than the A350, and it remained to be seen if it would be able to match its capabilities. A 'simple' 6m stretch most likely wouldn't be - not enough range. To match the A350-900, it would require investments in wings, undercarriage etc, costing billions so why not spend it on a new wing, new engines etc for a 777NG? And while they're at it, why not a new, lighter fuselage as well? Et voila, there is Y3.... To replace the entire 777 family, taking the wind out of the sails of the A350 as well.

But I do wonder what Boeing will do if Airbus decides to launch an A320 replacement at the same time. Will they have the resources to respond????  scratchchin 

As for the 787-11... That one only exists in the imagination of some a-netters  Wink



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31240 times:

I agree, I think the 777 replacement should be slightly larger, what with the popularity of the 77W. Baseline at 325-350 seats and stretch at 400-425 seats.

I also think the 787-10 will be built but more as a medium-range niche player rather than the true 772ER replacement. It will be a low cost derivative for Boeing and will not feature a MTOW increase, larger gears or engines, thereby limiting payload-range performance but being very economical to operate. A great A330-300 replacement with growth in mind.

All just speculation on my part, of course Big grin



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineAirFRNT From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31059 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Thread starter):
So much for the 787-11 that was so heavily promoted here on A.net...

I've always thought that Boeing was deliberately stalling and waiting for Airbus to paint themselves in a corner with the 350, and then launch something that reduces that plane to a niche role, and makes the 380 superfluous.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 30944 times:



Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 5):
I've always thought that Boeing was deliberately stalling and waiting for Airbus to paint themselves in a corner with the 350, and then launch something that reduces that plane to a niche role, and makes the 380 superfluous.

And then Airbus could make an A330 replacement that could beat the 787 on anything up to 6000 nm (or so) and thereby reducing the 787 to a plane to be used for the very few very thin, very long routes only.

In other words: each time any of the two A or B makes a move - they at the same time open themselves for the other to counter act.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2285 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 30903 times:

So, this sounds like the Y3 will be a family with maybe three versions, offering around 310, 370 and 425 seats? Or 772, 773 and 744 sized airplanes all in one family?

It's also interesting to read that the article basically confirms that a 737RS based on the 787 technology would only offer an 8 percent efficiency improvement.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30853 times:



Quoting Brons2 (Reply 4):
I also think the 787-10 will be built but more as a medium-range niche player rather than the true 772ER replacement. It will be a low cost derivative for Boeing and will not feature a MTOW increase, larger gears or engines, thereby limiting payload-range performance but being very economical to operate. A great A330-300 replacement with growth in mind.

I tend to agree, but I would question whether such a plane would be successful in the market. Look at the 739A and A333. The latter's sales have dwindled to a trickle, and the former only sold 54 frames IIRC, although the exit configuration was probably a large factor in that. My point is that planes which trade range for payload have performed poorly in the marketplace in the past. This trend is likely to continue, so Boeing would have to decide whether a small number of sales justify bothering.

If you could give the Y3 a common pilot rating, and a high level of maintenance commonality with the 787, that would make the airlines happier than the above 787 stretch would.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30844 times:



Quoting Abba (Reply 6):

And then Airbus could make an A330 replacement that could beat the 787 on anything up to 6000 nm (or so) and thereby reducing the 787 to a plane to be used for the very few very thin, very long routes only.

Not really. Boeing's move would force Airbus to uncompetitive status with two large, unpaid for programs - the A380 and the A350. Airbus knows that Boeing sooner or later will do a 737 replacement, and that absolutely is not a shot they can be late for. Airbus lost that battle when they widened the 350.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30596 times:

If the 777 replacement reaches 425 seats, then by this logic it would have to span 310-425 seats. That means the longer version would be 37% larger than the shortest. Same would be true of the 787-10 compared to the 787-8.

The 787 now only spans 230-270. The 777 spans 300-365. In both cases, that's 20-25%

Boeing has had one widebody family that spans a big range, the 767 at 1 : 1.2 : 1.35 ratios. And the 762 has turned out to be too costly to operate over time, the 764 underperforms due to lack of will for a major investment in new structures to support an IGW.

Airbus also hadn't try to play this game until the A346 and now the A350-1000. The A346 (even with inflated capacity numbers) is over 40% larger than the A342. But the sweet spot in size is the A343 (and A345, which was just many years too late). Now the A350-1000 is about 30% larger, which isn't as aggressive, and may turn out to work well.

If so, you would see Boeing not start at 310, but instead 325 to 425, which is a 1:1.30 ratio. But is there enough room for 3 aircraft only separated by 50 seats each. The 375 seat version is a perfect 77W replacement 1:1, the 325 seater can team with the 789 as 777 replacements, and the 425 seater takes over where the 744 left off.

But there may be 777 operators who would want to replace them with 789 and 78-10, not two different families. And they wouldn't be happy cutting or growing capacity for the entire replacement fleet.

Which is where Airbus has the advantage with the A358 and A359, and why they should get GE on board for those two models even without the A350-1000, because there is a looming replacement market for A340s and 772ERs.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2285 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30458 times:



Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
Not really. Boeing's move would force Airbus to uncompetitive status with two large, unpaid for programs - the A380 and the A350.

But it would also leave Boeing with three large, unpaid for programs: the 787, 748 and Y3. Also, the Y3 would possibly compete with the two other Boeing programs. Not sure how Airbus would be uncompetitive with two unpaid programs, but Boeing would be competitive with three unpaid programs.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
Airbus knows that Boeing sooner or later will do a 737 replacement

Which would leave Boeing with a fourth unpaid program.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
and that absolutely is not a shot they can be late for.

Airbus can be two or three years late for that market. The 737/A320 market is so huge so one airframe manufacturer cannot fill that market alone, even if one of them would get a three year headstart on the other. What will determine the outcome of the 737RS/A320NG battle will be the quality of the product, not whether one of them is launched a couple of years earlier than the competition.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
Airbus lost that battle when they widened the 350.

Not sure how you can say that Airbus lost that battle five years before EIS of the A350. I think it's a little bit early to say that. What if somebody would have made the same judgement on the 777 in 1990?

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 8):
The latter's sales have dwindled to a trickle,

If you consider 47 orders last year and 19 orders so far this year "a trickle." But the A333 is not an airplane which traded range for payload. The 333 was the baseline model. The 332 was the plane that traded payload for range.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineTravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 938 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30458 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 8):
I tend to agree, but I would question whether such a plane would be successful in the market. Look at the 739A and A333. The latter's sales have dwindled to a trickle, and the former only sold 54 frames IIRC, although the exit configuration was probably a large factor in that. My point is that planes which trade range for payload have performed poorly in the marketplace in the past. This trend is likely to continue, so Boeing would have to decide whether a small number of sales justify bothering.

It depends. If the 787-10 is a simple stretch of the 787-9 and only loses 1000nm of range it is still a fairly strong performer when compared to A333, 772A and even 772ER. Commonality with the rest of the 787 family would be a strong selling point.

In theory it should be the most economical of the 787 family?

What sort of fuselage cross section would a 777 replacement with a seat range of 310-425 potentially be. It looks like it would be very similar to the current 777 with the lengths ranging from 777-200 - 777-400. All things being equal I can't see a new gen 777-200 having superior operating economics to a 787-10. Just heaps more range, which probably won't be needed by most airlines.

Maybe it's more of a strategic view. Why tie up plenty of engineering resources on one variant of the 787 (even if it is only a couple of years), when you can use those resources to develop a new plane family, which has the potential to capture more sales?


User currently offlineDl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30391 times:

I just can't see a 787-10 happening unless it is part of a 777 replacement/upgrade. The 787-10 is a good capacity twin jet but a double stretch just doesnt seem like a good idea, it needs to be a different plane. The 777 is a great plane and needs to have just as good of a replacement or upgrade so it can compete well against the A350. The original A350 wasn't much of a threat to the 777, it was barely a threat to the 787, but after the remodel it is a tremendous threat to the 777. airlines that are dumping their 4 engined jets like 747s want a twin jet to replace most of them, while the 777 is perfect for that it the A350 is newer with more advanced technology. There are still airlines who want the 777 and boing should give them a good replacement to compete better against the A350. At the low end could be the 787-10 but wrapped into the new 777, and grow up to around the size of the 748 or slightly less capacity. Range needs to be great, especially in the larger capacity models but fuel economy can not be sacrificed for this. GE could develop large GenX engines to adapt to a 777 sized jet, i'm not sure if the RR engines currently for the A350 will work or if they will even be willing to supply for it but we'll see. All boeing needs is a scaled up 787 with cockpit commonality between the two to offer airlines who want to order both series and easier training for pilots so they will have the ability to switch between the two.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 30067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A 787-11 or 787-12 was never going to happen without a significant overhaul of at least the undercarriage and the engines. The wings are good for close to 300t and their performance is better then expected, but they would still need some serious thrust behind them for field performance issues. So at that point, you might as well revise them, as well.

I still believe the 787-10 makes sense. People keep getting hung-up on the range, but Boeing still thinks they can get close to 7500nm out of it. And nobody says the 777-200ER or A340-300 are "range-limited planes" even though they only fly a couple hundred nm farther at their nominal payloads.

A 77E can fly 5800nm at maximum payload (59t) and the A340-300 can haul 54t out to 5400nm. I expect a 787-10 should be good for 55t, minimum, and I can't see it being unable to fly 5500nm with that load. It would offer more cabin space and a great deal more cargo hold volume then an A350-900, A340-300 or 777-200ER. It would also out-haul an A330-300 by well over 1000nm.


User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1893 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29649 times:

IMO Boeing will build a new airliner. They will designate a new number , put wings and engines on it and probably throw in a cockpit and some passenger seats. The 808.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29559 times:



Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 15):
The 808.

what happened to the 797


User currently offline1821 From Greece, joined Jul 2007, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29302 times:

Gotta love the arm chair CEO'S on this forum ( i'm one of them too lol ). Let's all just wait until it's officialy produced b4 we start getting out hopes up lads  Wink


734 , 737 , 738 , 742 , 744 , 757 , 767 , A320 , AVRO RJ 100 , ATR 72 . ATH , ZTH , RHO , EFL , LHR , MAN , DUB , AMS ,
User currently offline1821 From Greece, joined Jul 2007, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29299 times:

Gotta love the arm chair CEO'S on this forum ( i'm one of them too lol ). Let's all just wait until it's officialy produced b4 we start getting our hopes up lads  Wink


734 , 737 , 738 , 742 , 744 , 757 , 767 , A320 , AVRO RJ 100 , ATR 72 . ATH , ZTH , RHO , EFL , LHR , MAN , DUB , AMS ,
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 28226 times:



Quoting RedChili (Reply 11):
But it would also leave Boeing with three large, unpaid for programs: the 787, 748 and Y3.

I have a hard time thinking that the 748 and 787 programs are not paid for - there are plenty of orders and the product will be delivered, and the programs will be profitable. And if they end up not being profitable, its because of worldwide issues (economy, oil, etc) that would affect any airplane that would have been offered.

As to Y3, I think the three models are on track. However, I would expect that only two models come out first - the 325 and 375 pax models. We'll see what happens with the 748 between now and 2020. We may see the I model dropped sooner than the F model, and the introduction of the stretched Y3 up to 425 pax (once the platform is stabilized).

There are a host of logistical issues as well - how do you get large fuse sections between various points on the globe - the dreamlifter isn't big enough. Maybe Boeing will go with the panel route a la A350 instead of sections.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 28217 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 8):
I tend to agree, but I would question whether such a plane would be successful in the market. Look at the 739A and A333. The latter's sales have dwindled to a trickle, and the former only sold 54 frames IIRC, although the exit configuration was probably a large factor in that. My point is that planes which trade range for payload have performed poorly in the marketplace in the past. This trend is likely to continue, so Boeing would have to decide whether a small number of sales justify bothering.

The original 739 suffered from restricted capacity due to regulations regarding number of exit doors. That's the primary reason why its sales suffered. The A333 has had decent sales, but its range-payload is significantly less than that of the 772ER, A343, and the proposed 787-10 and A359. That's why its sales have been poor. One should remember that there is diminishing returns for range-payload as range increases given the earth is a sphere. 5500nm from JFK puts most of S. and E. Asia and S.E Africa out of range while 7500nm brings almost everything but S.E Asia and and Oceania in range. There are only diminishing returns at 8000nm and 8500nm.

JFK&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy" border=0>

From DXB, the A333 can't reach most of N. and S. America and half Australia, while 7500nm range gets you all but the west coast of Latin America.

DXB&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy" border=0>



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 28002 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A330-300 and 777-200 will likely have some 600 sales between them when they're finally closed down. That is nothing to sneeze at and if Boeing could convert that to even 300 787-10 sales, it would be worth the investment, especially since that investment is going to be relatively minuscule as a pure 6m stretch of a 787-9.

User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 27813 times:

As I was going to post earlier (blasted internet issues)...

I think this means a couple of things:

a) Y3 will definitely be coming despite the protestations of many around these parts and
b) I think we'll see a 785 now.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27558 times:

For boeing it is simple economics and "wait and watch " approach . They first have to look at the demand for the 788 and 789 and then decide that how many of those they can sell of the production line between 2015-2020 as opposed to the line churning out less ammounts of 788 and 789's and substituting some of them with the 787-10. If they see the same continued demand for the 2 varients (and the -3 ) that they have seen in the last few years (if demand continues 2-3 more years they'll effectivly sell out all production slots till 2018-2020 ) then their might not be any point in canabalizing one varient's sale to support another new varient specially if they have to invest substantial money and recources to develop that varient.

After boeing has a grip on these economic,production numbers they have to look @ the numbers of the A350 family and see till how far it has been booked as far as production slots are concerned , if the 350 sells in huge numbers and delivery slots are booked as far as 2018 then boeing will have still good demand for the 777 family (as Airbus does for the 330) simply because their is not much option for airlines , so again canablizing the 777 sales wont make sence then specially considering the fact that 777 costs are more or less recovered,

If the demand for these is somewhere in the middle , then they could consider making hte 777NG instead and not competing directly against the 350-900 .

Moreoever boeing will need time to see what the A350 becomes , and how the customers respond to its performance and what type of demand it creates (in the 77W size category) . If the 77W category (A350-1000 , 77W and above) is still a hot category which will see projected sales increasing in the 2020+ period then boeing may well be better off to sell the 787 varients (3,8,9) and instead create better or longer ranged varients instead and not add streches , but instead go for a totally new widebody for EIS of around 2022 with the capacity range between the A350-900 - A350-1000 in the lower end and upto 425-440 seats @ its higher end . It would all depend on what market demands and in my opinion with the current demand levels for the dreamliner and the 777 , boeing has about 5 years before they really need to start looking into seriously what to do .


My 2 cents


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6916 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 27550 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 8):
Look at the 739A and A333. The latter's sales have dwindled to a trickle



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 20):
The A333 has had decent sales, but its range-payload is significantly less than that of the 772ER, A343, and the proposed 787-10 and A359. That's why its sales have been poor.

Where on earth has the myth come from that sales of the A330-300 have been "poor" or have "dwindled to a trickle"?

In the last 30 months (since the start of 2006) Airbus have sold 118 A330-300s - that's more than 33% of all A333 sales since they started marketing it more than twenty years ago. Put it another way, it's almost four a month every month for two and a half years. If it's a "trickle" then it's a substantial one - and a profitable one!

And "poor"...? They've sold 350 to date. Its only direct competitor in that segment has sold 88.

The A333 was not designed to compete with the 772ER or A343. It was designed to do what it does better than any other airliner out there and I'd say Airbus judged that market rather successfully.


25 Post contains images MCIGuy : This tells me that Boeing has obviously been giving serious thought to Y3. Could it be that it's further along than we thought? I mean, we're caught u
26 Columba : I guess no airline was interested in the 787-10 as it was offered. EK ordered the A350, BA might order 777W to fill the gap and LH said last week that
27 Columba : Dear Atmx2000, you must be joking right ? The A333 and the 77W are the best selling widebodies at the moment. The 772ER and A343 might have a better
28 JAAlbert : I thought I had read that the 777-300 had been stretched just about as long as it could go without running the risk of significant tail strikes on tak
29 Travelhound : Very Good Point! Maybe the economics of sending the engineers on the 787-10 program to a program to warm over the 777 would result in higher sales. F
30 AirFrnt : 748 and 787 would be done at that point, leaving just Y3 and 737RS. Take a look at the 787/350 battle and tell me you honestly believe that the 787's
31 Rheinwaldner : I have always said: - Above the 787 Boeing will be weak in about a decade. Where the gap in Airbus's product range just begins (above A350) the produc
32 Cloudy : In the past payload/range performance has trumped efficiency for similar sized widebodies. That is why the 787/A350/747-8 and A380 are all pretty lon
33 EBJ1248650 : It's interesting that he commented the decision on what the product line will be will be made in a couple of years. I see Y3 launching sooner than we
34 A342 : I agree with the others. That statement is utterly ridiculous. It gives you all of Europe and the entire American continent. It gives you all of Euro
35 Ruscoe : Except EADS/Airbus are having trouble funding the 350. Then there is the 320 replacement, so a long time for a 330 replacement. Cheers Ruscoe
36 Scbriml : What trouble are they having?
37 PEET7G : My dear lad, at around 900 sales the 787 is well paid for (or at least secured). I know it hurts, but deal with it. Also with the costs of the 748 I
38 Post contains images Keesje : Makes sense and seem the right course. What is denied at this stage is that we are talking a 747-8i replacement too. The 787 family could cover everyt
39 AirFrnt : Who has denied it? Seems like a bit of a straw man to me. But given the complete and total lack of commercial success on the scale needed to justify
40 Thegeek : You're thinking of the A332 and 77W. After checking the figures, yes I can see that it's not exactly a trickle for the A333 in 2008 after the Gulf Ai
41 Cloudy : This is the result of decisions made when fuel prices were lower. Also, airlines know the A380 and the 747-8 cannot decisively beat the A350 and 787
42 Parapente : In marketing you cannot be all things to all people all of the time. The 787 product was designed to meet a specific market and does it very well. As
43 Post contains images Keesje : Boeing says it could fit the gab under the 747-8, nor overlap with it. I think a three aisle configuartion would be far more effiecient then a very w
44 JoeCanuck : Instead of a taller oval, why not a wider oval? Then you save the weight of a second floor, and gain space in the hold for cargo, maybe even another l
45 Post contains images Keesje : I think a flat oval would create a lot of cross section / drag and waste a lot of space. A second floor seems much more efficient.
46 JoeCanuck : It depends. The extra space in the hold can be used for revenue cargo or room for more fuel. A double decker would be space limited for cargo in the h
47 Post contains images Keesje : I don't think so. Cargo deck and passenger deck have minimum heights dictated by the payload (containers and passengers). If you make an oval very na
48 Stitch : There may be no need for such a replacement. The plane, er, plain facts are the 747-8I carries more cargo and burns less actual fuel then the A380-80
49 WAH64D : You should be on the stage sir, that is indeed comedy of the highest order! Boeing's hand has been well and truly forced with the realisation that no
50 Post contains images Keesje : Same for the A340-600 but.. Apples to apples the a380-800 carries about 35% more passengers then the 747-8i. 747-8i :400, A380 : 540 seats. Apples to
51 Flipdewaf : Tis heavier. Fred
52 Baroque : I like the dollars stacked in next to the LD3s Very graphic even for bears of very little brain. I suppose the flat oval might grow on you but it doe
53 Ikramerica : Here we go again... Apples to apples, the 737NG can only be fitted 5 abreast to achieve the same Y seatwidth as the A320 can (19"). Apples to apples,
54 WingedMigrator : The notion that a double decker suffers a large penalty in structural efficiency is not all that well founded. Comparing OEW per area of cabin, the A
55 Post contains images Keesje : 9 abreast on 777, 787, a350 seems reasonable, 10 abreast on 747 is standard Looking at a380, it seems the cabin width is 6.58 meters (747 - 6.1 meter
56 AirFrnt : Because clearly Airbus and Boeing are turning away carriers left and right who see large VLA's as their salvation from high oil prices. As of this wr
57 RedChili : They have plenty of orders, so they will be paid for in the future, but they are not paid for. Same with the A350. My dear lad, please read my reply
58 JoeCanuck : Put cargo in those dollar signs and you can pack in the same number of passengers and significantly more cargo than a double decker. Or, you can use
59 Atmx2000 : It would behoove you both to understand the Airbus product line and that the A333 is not the A332, which is the aircraft selling well, and which has
60 Jfk777 : The A333 is agood east coast and midwest twin to Europe. LAX or SFO to Europe is a stretch.
61 Cloudy : I won't argue with you about the double deck.... There are reasons why, commonly, newer planes are often heavier than the planes they replace despite
62 WAH64D : I have absolutely no idea what relevance your message has to my quote.
63 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think cargo is transporter mostly in LD3 containers and standard pallets. Using the open spaces would require additional structure and complex load
64 Baroque : As Keesje perhaps says, while it was easy to fit $ signs in there, getting useful cargo space or fuel space would be a bit more difficult. You could
65 Voltage : Ignoring the wasted crown space for a moment, would it be possible to split the 2 LD3's in Keesje's drawing and squeeze a third one in between them i
66 United Airline : Heard that the B 747/777 replacement will be a double decker which is bigger than the B 747-8 with two engines only. Can anyone confirm that?
67 FrmrCAPCADET : Spector of unintended consequences: I am fairly sure that we do not know at this time what all of the consequences of $200 a barrel oil wil be. Both A
68 Post contains images A342 : I understand both, thank you very much. The A332 may sell better, but that doesn't make the A333 an aircraft which "is doing not so well". The A333 h
69 Columba : Which is good enough for most airlines, NW and US are doing fine with their A333s. LH has a huge A333 fleet and never ordered any new A332 in additio
70 Astuteman : I'd be interested to know what draws you to the cnclusion that a 325 - 425 seat Y3 will a) reduce the A350 to a niche role, and b) make the A380 supe
71 JoeCanuck : As someone mentioned, maybe it's possible to make it wide enough for 3 x ld3's, instead of the standard 2. While cargo may not be as profitable per p
72 Blackbird1331 : Baroque: He was begging for a refund.
73 Brons2 : Keesje, that double decker twin concept of yours is a hot looking plane.
74 Astuteman : I think that's the key point, Stitch. In the same way that an A380-800 market exists despite the 777-300ER and A350-1000, a market for the A380-900 w
75 XT6Wagon : Its strange then how well WN does hauling cargo with... NO CONTAINERS AT ALL. Also just because LD3 is the current norm, doesn't mean different conta
76 PM : Then you are looking at the wrong figures. The A333 has comfortably outsold the 77W in 2008 and is neck-and-neck with the A332. So we aren't counting
77 Astuteman : y Not sure how that can be deduced from any of the data available. Have you any idea how much that huge wing weighs? I "suspect" you'll find that if
78 Parapente : The lead article states that Boeing will "wait and see" whilst concentrating on getting the -8 out of the door (only then will they get any "hard" per
79 PM : Alas, most unlikely to be a new order, in my opinion.
80 Cloudy : Even if a two engine plane that big were possible, the investment required to make a new engine of that size for only one guaranteed application coul
81 Thegeek : A333 = 39 A332 = 55 Not quite neck and neck. What are you're figures? You are correct on the A333 outselling the 777 (37 orders), but it wouldn't hav
82 DocLightning : Unless it's got two decks...
83 Osiris30 : Two decks and how about a partial lifting body design.. I mean as long as we are 'blue skying' here.
84 Atmx2000 : The poster I was responding to was claiming that the A333 and 77W were the two best selling widebodies. This is a patently false statement. The A332
85 Post contains links PM : Where do you get 37 from? Boeing lists 22. http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...ageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000 Aha - I see. You've gone from ju
86 JoeCanuck : I have no problems what so ever about a thread going off topic but I think the 332/333/77w subject might be well served in a thread of its own. Just
87 XT6Wagon : Doesn't matter, the A388 has to stand on its own. And like I said it has terrible effiency. The 389 might be quite good when it arrives, but who know
88 PM : Agreed. Why might that be interesting? You surely aren't suggesting that these two very different models compete in some way? ...and targeting a quit
89 Ikramerica : Still 37% larger… You forgot the 77L. Which brings it to 574. And the A345, which brings that size class in the Airbus line to 606. And the A333/A3
90 Burkhard : A new aircraft familily needs to be designed for a market of at least 1000 planes. That is why Boeing must be very careful with a 787-1000 . The 787-8
91 Post contains links Thegeek : Sorry about that, I didn't have those figures broken down and assumed that for the purposes of the discussion, they were likely to be nearly all 77W'
92 Zvezda : The main point of the article is that Boeing have backed off from their certitude to build a 787-10. They will make a decision in two or three years.
93 AutoThrust : Nope, Enders himself confirmed the press there will be a A380-900. Besides they would be stupid to not make it. It would be a small investment.
94 WAH64D : Zvezda, you are normally right on the ball but you must have been living in a cave for a couple of months. A359 will be built, there are already airl
95 Zvezda : Yes, and Scott Carson said that Boeing would definitely build a 787-10. The A380F was even more confirmed than either, but that didn't stop Airbus fr
96 Travelhound : I always thought one of the nice things about the production process for the 787 barrel is that it was very adaptable to a change in barrel size. Con
97 Zvezda : The autoclaves, which are very expensive, could not be used for larger barrels. Neither could the Dreamlifter fleet. A 425 passenger Y2.5 based on th
98 AirNZ : Is such a statement (about basically anything) not farcical nonsense???? Each of us could clearly 'argue' that any sales figures of any competitor pr
99 DocLightning : My bad. I thought you said "longer." Although it isn't the first time Boeing has overlapped classes. The 753, for example, stepped right on the 762.
100 Zvezda : I'm stating that as a fact. I'm sorry that I do not have a public source. Let's just say that I don't share the exuberant optimism of some here. I'll
101 Astuteman : By what measure? It's absolutely pointless to pick a specific measure all on its own to demonstrate "inefficiency" when, taken in context, that "inef
102 Ikramerica : well, if you take out the cockpit and tail section, it would be 37% longer too.
103 Abba : That is as close to nonsense as you can possibly get. Aerodynamic efficiency and structural efficiency is in no way unrelated and are to a large exte
104 PM : I was 'forgetting' nothing. If anything, I was generous to leave out 28 A340-200s. I was comparing the models originally launched by each manufactuer
105 PM : Yes. No - 14. (You're 15th was a single plane ordered this month by Korean and it has not yet been announced - that I'm aware of - which model it is.
106 Ikramerica : Whatever. You can subgroup and break up a product to try to show one thing or the other, but to "suggest" that anyone got the better of anyone when t
107 Thegeek : Sounds like we finally agree on the point that started this debate: the 77W sells better than the A333. I don't think I've embarrassed myself that mu
108 Atmx2000 : If your quibling with my use of the word "poor", you are correct. In the context I used it I was intending to use the word "poorer". After all, just
109 RedChili : Trying to leave the A333 debate and get back on topic... (or close to the topic, at least)... This is possibly a real headache for Boeing. a) This air
110 Post contains links Travelhound : Quoting Zvezda (Reply 97): A 425 passenger Y2.5 based on the 787 cross section would be more than 85 meters long. I don't believe Boeing would ever bu
111 Zvezda : That may be why Boeing plan to take two or three years to decide. No, it's fuselage length/height ratio would not be as extreme as that of the A340-6
112 Ikramerica : I still think that you could see a plane for Y3 that harkens back to the original idea for the 747, where the cockpit is up high but there is no pax s
113 BAW716 : Since we are pulling out our crystal balls here... The 777 replacement will look something like this: a) it will not be a complete redesign; rather a
114 Travelhound : But it does seem that the circular cross section of the 777 is very much optimum from quite a few different perspectives. Firstly, the cross section a
115 Zvezda : Why would Boeing take a step back with construction methodology? The cross section will not be so much larger as to make larger autoclaves impractica
116 Parapente : Quoting Travelhound (Reply 114): You would think a 425 seat 10 abreast 777 at 80.0 metres would be the most efficient aircraft, especially when consid
117 WAH64D : Because the last "step forward" they took cost them 2 years on the project, weight problems, untold credibility losses and a fortune in compensation.
118 Post contains images Keesje : On the above shown Ecoliner I envisioned two NG GE90-115s combined with a third 35 klbs ATPU based on e.g. CFM56. IMO it should be more efficient the
119 JoeCanuck : It looks like they finally have most of the bugs worked out of the process. To me, it would seem inefficient, at best, to abandon processes in which
120 Astuteman : The only reasons that I can think of are logistical, i.e. transportation. Those issues aren't insurmountable. Rgds
121 Travelhound : I can't see Boeing changing their production methodology. I think you have to remember that the 787 program just wasn't about Boeing making a new pla
122 Zvezda : Huh? It looks to me like the A350-1000 will have an easy time beating the 777-300ER in both payload/range performance and efficiency. Having worked o
123 WAH64D : Assuming they have worked out those problems and they can't occur again, I take your point. I agree with your post. It does however remain to be seen
124 Rheinwaldner : I think the 787 is a first gen. CFRP construction approach. Boeing would be stupid not to improve present technology. I can see even development paths
125 Astuteman : I'm inclined to agree with you. 250" would get you 10Y with the same comfort as the A350 at 9Y - c. 17.5"-17.7" (and similarly 11Y at the same comfor
126 Post contains images Keesje : I think the long term trent will be that combining cargo with passengers will decline. Dedicated cargo operation (routes, hubs, carriers, aircraft, d
127 Voltage : To me, everything seems to be pointing to this as the most logical choice.
128 Zvezda : Not feasible? Is that really want you mean? For that to be true, 787s produced using this process would have to fail to enter service -- ever. I'll c
129 Astuteman : I've seen nothing to suggest that the A350-1000 that goes into service in 2015 will have growth beyond c. 300 tonnes MTOW built in from the start. So
130 Cloudy : It is also the least risky choice. This would give Boeing something roughly equivalent to the A350. It would also allow them to postpone the crucial
131 Zvezda : I don't see anything stopping Airbus from increasing the A350's MTOW to 340 tonnes. Some structures would need to be strengthened and thrust would ne
132 WAH64D : I mean feasible from a reliable logistics point of view. The supply chain has been a big let down thus far. I agree that the physical methodology of
133 ElbowRoom : I can help them with that one
134 Voltage : I'm not so sure about that. If oil prices stay high, airlines will have to reduce frequency to reduce seats. They can either reduce frequency a littl
135 Voltage : Why should a plane with the same cross section as the 787 be called a Y2.5? Why not Y3 itself? I mean how many families share the 707 cross section? H
136 JoeCanuck : EK already puts more than 400 butts in the seats of their 77W. With those nifty new seats, 10 wide is even less than of an issue back in goat class. S
137 Zvezda : I agree. Boeing changed materials, construction methods, and supply chain arrangements all at once. Changing only two (any two) of those might have a
138 Astuteman : I don't see anything (technical) stopping it either. But such growth is as obviously NOT in the A350 plan as growth obviously WAS in the plan for the
139 Travelhound : I just think the CFRP barrel is just so easy to make. In simplistic terms all it needs is a assembly jig, mandrel for the shape of the section to be
140 Astuteman : I'll apologise for this, Zvezda. It was uncalled for. Hopefully I explained sufficiently why I don't CURRENTLY see the A350-1000 lifting the same pay
141 Zvezda : Apology accepted. Looking at the A350's design, I see nothing eo ipso to support your case. Everything about the aircraft itself, from the wing to th
142 Travelhound : I understand that the surface area of the A350-1000 wing is greater than the 777-300ER Why?
143 Atmx2000 : And I will point out that what we are interested in is the viability of a single model, because the original question is whether the comparatively sl
144 Zvezda : The use of CFRP rather than metal wings means that the weight penalty is smaller for increasing the aspect ratio in pursuit of aerodynamic efficiency
145 Astuteman : I tend to agree.. In essence, yes. Such plans WERE communicated right from the start of the A380 programme, and, for example, the engine design chose
146 Rheinbote : Oh my, here we go again - 787-11 and 787-12... In the meantime, in an attempt to recover payload/range guarantess, 787-8 weight has grown well past t
147 Astuteman : Is that correct? That's about 227 tonnes... That "Chinese copy" of an A330 comes ever closer... It seems the obvious thing to do, to increase MTOW...
148 Rheinbote : That's the MTOW needed to haul guaranteed palyoad over guaranteed range - a range the A330 is not capable of. Even at these elevated weights, the 787
149 Travelhound : Yes you are correct, the systems are very sophisticated and I would hate to think that my comment somewhat under valued the efforts of the engineers
150 Astuteman : Certainly wouldn't question that, Rheinbote. That said, at the "elevated" weights, the vast majority of the fuel burn savings are now going to be com
151 Osiris30 : Minor point of order: Those particular engines can't hang off the 330, due to being 'bleedless', so you might give back another 1-2% SFC (maybe).
152 HawkerCamm : I understand that the B787-8 is about +3500kg spec K (june 07) weight targets. That'll be +1.5-2.0% fuel burn increase for 3000-5000nm sectors or -300
153 HawkerCamm : Bleedless engines or "the all electric airplane" is completely over sold. Its benefits in overall fuel burn/SFC is nowhere near 1-2%. At the end of t
154 Astuteman : Understand that. But on the basis that the benefits of CFRP are oversold on here because primary structure is actually a relatively small percentage
155 HawkerCamm : Your right Airframe is about ~60% LG ~10% Powerplant ~10% Systems ~10% Cabin ~10% General weight distribution but not miles off
156 Thegeek : Refering to the A380: That's exactly right. Last I heard, Airbus were planning to start developing the A389 in 2010. By the time it enters service, mo
157 Rheinbote : The spec weights are weights 'as offered', not 'target' weights. Target weights are way below spec K. Are you talking MEW or OEW?
158 Astuteman : And I suspect a large part of "Airframe" isn't "primary structure" (as in fuselage skin). - it will be all sorts of other smaller parts, like insulat
159 Baroque : All of which seems to translate that CFRP barrels are conceptually simple, but not necessarily mean that they are easy to make. Or it seems to alter
160 Astuteman : Or have made them even larger. The Trent 900 and GP7000 of the A380 don't need to be 116" fans to hit the 70 000lb of the current aircraft. Based on
161 Zvezda : I wonder how much money Boeing are spending on research into resins that would better insulate against noise without compromising the other propertie
162 Astuteman : Historically, fan sizes have been increasing for a given thrust, driven by efficency... It's possible, of course, that by that time, we'll be looking
163 HawkerCamm : As I understand it the spec weight (MEW) is what is sold to the airline but is contractually protected by some margin for new aircraft by 'x' percent
164 Zvezda : For new engine families, yes, but the question at hand was the extent to which the Trent XWB might limit Airbus increasing the A350's MTOW. Within fi
165 XT6Wagon : While I agree that the 777 was being "protected" lets not forget that the MEAT of the market is in the smaller sizes of the widebody line. Airbus mov
166 Ikramerica : Sitting in a metal tube is like being in a steal drum. It's not any better. Someone Boeing was able to decrease the insulation compared to a metal ai
167 Banjo76 : Finally someone has said it. The fact that you don't bleed air out of the compressor stealing power (mass airflow) to provide cabin pressure does NOT
168 Cloudy : When Boeing made the decision to go bleedless, they emphasized these points 1. Pneumatic systems are about as reliable and light as they ever will be
169 Tdscanuck : Weight savings and SFC wasn't the primary driver to go to bleedless. ...which is not very reliable. Pneumatics are pretty much always on the top dela
170 Ikramerica : It does not prove anything of the sort. That is like saying that every car maker makes equal cars and if one car doesn't have a technological advance
171 Joecanuck : I would think that there would be some significant wasted energy and weight with the heating, filtering and cooling of bleed air so it can be environm
172 ADent : Minor point - The GEnx is available in both configurations. GEnx-1B is bleedless, the GEnx-2B is not bleedless.
173 Post contains images Keesje : Well the A350-1000/ - 900R / 900F family will have a different main 6 wheel boogie landing gear anyway, maybe it will include the required 3 inch add
174 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : That was discussed here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/216974/
175 Parapente : This is a most interesting thread,but most confusing as individuals are directly contradicting others with exactly the same information! Either the 35
176 Zvezda : Yes, I believe you do see 3 inches. Good thread! I agree with Tdscanuck. Non sequitor. Airbus want to focus on the announced products and worry about
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...
Boeing Pitches 3-2-3 Layout For 787 posted Wed Feb 6 2008 10:43:29 by Kappel
Official:Boeing Re-Schedule For 787 First Flight posted Wed Jan 16 2008 06:12:22 by OyKIE
Boeing Close To Defining 787-10 posted Tue Nov 13 2007 10:52:59 by T773ER
Cathay: No Plans For 787 Or A380 For Near Future posted Tue Oct 30 2007 14:58:44 by EI321
Boeing Unveils Plans For 767 Freighter posted Mon Feb 19 2007 21:18:55 by EI321
Boeing Ends Plan For 787 Wireless IFE posted Sat Jan 20 2007 11:54:12 by Rheinbote
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Could Boeing Abandon Plans For Y3? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 23:12:43 by Zvezda
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Boeing Goes Outside For 787 Parts Delivery posted Fri Feb 24 2006 17:25:25 by N60659
Boeing Unveils Plans For 767 Freighter posted Mon Feb 19 2007 21:18:55 by EI321
Boeing Ends Plan For 787 Wireless IFE posted Sat Jan 20 2007 11:54:12 by Rheinbote
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Could Boeing Abandon Plans For Y3? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 23:12:43 by Zvezda
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Official:Boeing Re-Schedule For 787 First Flight posted Wed Jan 16 2008 06:12:22 by OyKIE
Boeing Close To Defining 787-10 posted Tue Nov 13 2007 10:52:59 by T773ER
Cathay: No Plans For 787 Or A380 For Near Future posted Tue Oct 30 2007 14:58:44 by EI321
Boeing Unveils Plans For 767 Freighter posted Mon Feb 19 2007 21:18:55 by EI321
Boeing Ends Plan For 787 Wireless IFE posted Sat Jan 20 2007 11:54:12 by Rheinbote
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Could Boeing Abandon Plans For Y3? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 23:12:43 by Zvezda
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Cathay: No Plans For 787 Or A380 For Near Future posted Tue Oct 30 2007 14:58:44 by EI321
Boeing Unveils Plans For 767 Freighter posted Mon Feb 19 2007 21:18:55 by EI321
Boeing Ends Plan For 787 Wireless IFE posted Sat Jan 20 2007 11:54:12 by Rheinbote
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Could Boeing Abandon Plans For Y3? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 23:12:43 by Zvezda
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua