Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Posted (3 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10188 times:
Information from Boeing's Annual Investor Conference can be found here.
The 787 Program Update notes that Boeing intends to build the 787-3 and will reach firm configuration sometime after 4Q 2009 and EIS after the 787-9.
Boeing also notes the 787-3 will incorporate improvements and features from the 787-9.
This intrigues me.
Many of us have believed that Boeing would re-design the 787-3 because the current model has gained zero traction outside of NH and JL and their needs can be met with a "787-8D" using the upturned wingtip extensions and the 53klb thrust engines of the 787-3 and a paper reduction in MTOW.
Most, if not all, of us assumed Boeing's 787-3 re-design would aim for the 767-300 replacement market, with a lighter frame and higher MTOW with a range of around 5000nm with pax+bags+some cargo.
But what if the 787-3, instead of being based on the 787-8, would instead be based on the 787-9 and designed to combat the A330-300 as an A-market aircraft?
The 787-9 is a bit larger then the A330-300 in terms of cabin area and it offers four more LD3 positions so it could offer more payload thanks to supporting higher TOWs (up to 245t vs. 230t) and needing to tank less fuel due to higher-performance engines (and perhaps better aerodynamics). And while the A330-300 is very light for her size, Boeing should be able to get the 787-3's OEW down, as well.
Airbus right now appears to have no plans in place to replace the A330-300. Yes, a Spanish paper floated a hypothetical "A350XWB Regional" with a paper reduction in MTOW, but evidently no other changes. And many have floated a hypothetical re-engine and/or re-wing of the A330 family.
The A330-300 has been a very successful program for Airbus. Boeing might see an opportunity to try and muscle in on that success...
 Â
I also note that the Boeing Commercial Airplanes presentation shows the 787-10 in the "Product Development" slide...
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10085 times:
So why not just a 787-5 and 787-6, 5000nm versions of the -8 and -9?
As for using technological advances learned from the 787-9, it doesn't mean the aircraft is going to be the size of the 787-9. Boeing applied the 77W advances to the 777-200 airframe for the L/F versions.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1625 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9833 times:
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): Many of us have believed that Boeing would re-design the 787-3 because the current model has gained zero traction outside of NH and JL and their needs can be met with a "787-8D" using the upturned wingtip extensions and the 53klb thrust engines of the 787-3 and a paper reduction in MTOW.
787-8 is too heavy for this mission, 787-3 is/was supposed to be lighter.
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): But what if the 787-3, instead of being based on the 787-8, would instead be based on the 787-9 and designed to combat the A330-300 as an A-market aircraft?
The 787-9 is a bit larger then the A330-300 in terms of cabin area and it offers four more LD3 positions so it could offer more payload thanks to supporting higher TOWs (up to 245t vs. 230t) and needing to tank less fuel due to higher-performance engines (and perhaps better aerodynamics). And while the A330-300 is very light for her size, Boeing should be able to get the 787-3's OEW down, as well.
787-9 is already Boeing's answer to the A333, if the 787-9 can fulfill 7-8 hour missions effectively, I'm not sure they need another.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8534 posts, RR: 100 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9762 times:
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): Boeing also notes the 787-3 will incorporate improvements and features from the 787-9.
As in the size?
Honestly, to really go toe to toe with the A333, my opinion is that a reduced weight 789 makes much more market sense than the originally proposed 783.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): As for using technological advances learned from the 787-9, it doesn't mean the aircraft is going to be the size of the 787-9. Boeing applied the 77W advances to the 777-200 airframe for the L/F versions.
Point taken. I still think that the economics favor a 5500nm version of the 789. For the shorter missions flown with widebodies by SQ, EK, and TATL, the 788/789 will have capabilities far beyound what the mission requires. But if a bit more weight could be removed (not just a paper downgrade in MTOW), the market is there. Not for a whole new airframe, but for a low development cost variation (of the 789 or A350XWB).
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): And many have floated a hypothetical re-engine and/or re-wing of the A330 family.
While I am a fan of this concept, at this point it will only happen if the Mobile AL assembly plant is opened. I would like to be proven wrong... but everything I've read is that the new building and the old A330 line will be converted to A350XWB production.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9743 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2): 787-8 is too heavy for this mission, 787-3 is/was supposed to be lighter.
Yeah, by all of five tons or so which is irrelevant for the ≤1250nm missions the plane is designed for. Neither NH nor JL will be trading payload weight for fuel weight on such a mission.
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2): 787-9 is already Boeing's answer to the A333, if the 787-9 can fulfill 7-8 hour missions effectively, I'm not sure they need another.
But the 787-9 is over-designed for such missions with heavier OEWs to support heavier MTOWs.
I would imagine airlines might be unlikely to buy the 787-9 for the same reason they did not buy 777-200ERs or A340-300s to handle missions currently covered by the A330-300. Even SQ is taking new-build A330-300s for their regional missions instead of just buying more 787-9s with a lower MTOW.
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1625 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9684 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Yeah, by all of five tons or so which is irrelevant for the ≤1250nm missions the plane is designed for. Neither NH nor JL will be trading payload weight for fuel weight on such a mission.
Of course not. They'll just be burning more fuel carrying around a bunch of dead weight.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): But the 787-9 is over-designed for such missions with heavier OEWs to support heavier MTOWs.
Yes but how much of this weight could Boeing actually take out? I don't know, maybe you do.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9563 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2): 787-8 is too heavy for this mission, 787-3 is/was supposed to be lighter.
Marginally. 9000kg OEW. And 7000kg more than the 764ER, the closest size comparison to the 787-3. And it's still 29000kg lighter than the 77A they use domestically, carrying more passengers per kg of OEW.
A lot of that comes from the
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 5): Of course not. They'll just be burning more fuel carrying around a bunch of dead weight.
They will be burning less fuel than a 764, 772 or A332...
So more than what, a theoretical 787-3 that was launched years ago and looks dead?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9514 times:
I think a low MTOW version could definitely be useful. Maybe with a max payload range of 4500nm. I don't know how much range future 787s with actually have but i'd bet a big wedge of the routes that the plane will be flown on in the future won't be beyond 8 hours and if you can reducue fuel burn by reducing weight it's will probably be attractive to a lot of airlines.
Kmz From France, joined Feb 2008, 109 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7734 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7): I think a low MTOW version could definitely be usefu
I agree with RJ111.
In my opinion a B787-300 with light wings (optimized for about 4500nm) would get a lot of attention from the airlines. A321 or B739 may be economical, but for quick boarding the single aisle is not really of advantage.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7599 times:
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): Most, if not all, of us assumed Boeing's 787-3 re-design would aim for the 767-300 replacement market, with a lighter frame and higher MTOW with a range of around 5000nm with pax+bags+some cargo.
A 787-3 with the qouted range, makes in my opninion more sense than the 3050 Nm range the current 787-3 has. But if Boeing is going after the A333 market, why not get the range up too 5650 Nm range as Airbus says their A333 has right now.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3): Honestly, to really go toe to toe with the A333, my opinion is that a reduced weight 789 makes much more market sense than the originally proposed 783.
Range wise it seems to be make more sense. But size wise, there will be a huge gap between the 737-900ER and a 787-9 size A-market airplane. So perhaps two modes, one with the 787-8 length and the other with the 787-9 length and equal range could prov to be an oportunity for Boeing?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Even SQ is taking new-build A330-300s for their regional missions instead of just buying more 787-9s with a lower MTOW.
Aren't these planes just leased as a stop gap meassure until the 787-9 arrives? Still makes allot of sense for allot of airlines
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 346 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7414 times:
The 787-3 is a great concept and the range should be enough for a 4-6 hour flight fully loaded with cargo and passengers.
The problem is the empty weight of the plane.
To reach the economics of the 737 and the 320, it has to be from 74 to 90 tons (depending on the cargo capability) at 300 all economy seats.
The only planes that reach that are the A300-600 at 90 tons and the 767-300 at 86 tons.
It seems that when the airframe gets wider, the weight penalties compared to the single isle, increase rapidly.
Therefore, I do not see any point in the 787-3 to compete with the extra A330-300s that Airbus is producing right now to compensate with the late arrival of the A350.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6947 times:
This might be a bit of topic but out of historical interest and since it involves this segment I would like to get something clarified about the A-market 777-200. Is the reason for airlines choosing the A330-300 over 777-200A the 17 tonne higher weight on the A-market 777? They offer the same range, as well as the same payload. The benefit for the 777 is that it flies a bit faster, but with a weight penalty. In percentage the 777 weighs about 14% more than the A330. The 787-3 will weigh 17 % less than the A330-300 and 27 % lighter than the 777-200. I guess that the wing on the 777-200A has a penalty for being able to support the added weights on the -200ER/LR.
Quoting Panais (Reply 11): The only planes that reach that are the A300-600 at 90 tons and the 767-300 at 86 tons.
So perhaps Boeing should offer a 767-100NG and 767-200NG as a 737/757 replacement for more efficient turn around times? New engines, smaller more efficient wing and FBW. Might be for another thread....
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Carls From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 496 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6792 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2): if the 787-9 can fulfill 7-8 hour missions effectively
It will be really hard for the 789 to beat the A333 in that kind of missions as is for the 788 beat the A332. And we won"t know this until the less heavier 789 start coming out of assemble line.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3): at this point it will only happen if the Mobile AL assembly plant is opened
Which I read it will be opened since USAF will share the order between Boeing and NG/Airbus, this is what I read over the Internet.
If Airbus see the market we will see the A330 MK II which is the first interaction of the A350 MK I. Doing this they will be protecting the market share they have with the A332/A333/A343 more or less 1600 units, and a shortened version A330-100 with small and lighter wings as a replacement for 757/A300 and 767 could be a great product. Actually I think could be a hit!!!
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1878 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6744 times:
Quoting Panais (Reply 11): It seems that when the airframe gets wider, the weight penalties compared to the single isle, increase rapidly.
I don't think that the size of the cross section has a dominant effect on weight. I assume its the heritage of the high performance long range jet (which the 787 is) which decimates the short-medium-range prospects. If a tailor made plane would only use the cross section of the 787 the result would IMO be the world-CASM leader. Both the specifications of the A306 or the A333 could be copied while offering staggering efficiency. The 787-technology-level should guarantee that outcome.
For short-to-medium ranges the 8.5 abreast cross section would probably be perfectly acceptable as genuine 9 abreast cross section.
On the other hand in the debates about CFRP fuselages I raised some concerns about weak spots of the 787 cross section. Maybe Boeing would prefer to do the fuselage design and production concept a second time. Present signs in CFRP fuselage construction show already a shift in what's considered as future proof (no autoclaves, ...).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6015 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 12): Is the reason for airlines choosing the A330-300 over 777-200A the 17 tonne higher weight on the A-market 777?
I expect that is a major reason. An A330-300 should be more efficient then a 777-200 because of this which is why it quickly became the preferred choice.
Brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 2195 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5664 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 5): Of course not. They'll just be burning more fuel carrying around a bunch of dead weight.
Don't know how you know this as the 787-3 has yet to be built and we don't know what the performance really will be like. And we all know how accurate information on the Internet is.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 8): Well, we need a real 757 replacement, if it's not going to be a narrowbody maybe this is it.
Would the 737-900 fit this segment considering the way the majority of 757's have been used?
Quoting Carls (Reply 13): Which I read it will be opened since USAF will share the order between Boeing and NG/Airbus, this is what I read over the Internet.
I doubt that Airbus is going to really get a sniff for the U.S. government with the democrats in power and the trend to get bailout money hinging on U.S. based companies getting the money.
Adam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 389 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5484 times:
Quoting Brilondon (Reply 16): Would the 737-900 fit this segment considering the way the majority of 757's have been used?
From what I understand, the 739 can do some (most?) but not all of the missions that the 757 can. I believe the 757 has a longer range, better capability to serve airports at higher elevations, and better payload.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 755 posts, RR: 54 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5448 times:
Quoting Brilondon (Reply 16): Would the 737-900 fit this segment considering the way the majority of 757's have been used?
Not just the majority, but the vast majority of scheduled 757-200 service can be performed by the 737-900ER and A321. Assume a bit more performance from the inevitable 737NG/A320 replacement models and the case for a "direct" 757 replacement shrinks even more.
Quoting Panais (Reply 11): The 787-3 is a great concept and the range should be enough for a 4-6 hour flight fully loaded with cargo and passengers.
The problem is the empty weight of the plane.
To reach the economics of the 737 and the 320, it has to be from 74 to 90 tons (depending on the cargo capability) at 300 all economy seats.
According to what/whom?
There is a certain misconception that weight automatically sabotages the economics of an airplane. On paper, you always want the lightest airframe but don't forget that bigger, more aerodynamic wings and bigger, more fuel efficient engines add considerable weight. Fortunately the savings often justifies that weight.
Notice that the 737-700 is several thousand lbs heavier than a 737-300. Notice the 777-200 is about ten thousand lbs heavier than a DC-10. Despite this obvious weight penalty, the hourly block operating cost for the heavier 73G and 772ER is less than the obsolete aircraft they replace.
The 787-3 as proposed cost less to operate than an A330-200, A300-600, or 767-300 or else it never would have been launched at all. In virtually any configuration, the 787-3 beats the per-seat cost of a narrowbody. What has caused slow sales is the fact that it is extremely range limited and is aimed at a market niche (which IMO) is not very strong to begin with.
Increasing the MTOW so that the 787-3 could actually fill its fuel tanks a bit more would go a long way toward making it a sufficiently flexible aircraft that more carriers might look at it.
Carls From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 496 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5229 times:
Quoting Brilondon (Reply 16): I doubt that Airbus is going to really get a sniff for the U.S. government with the democrats in power and the trend to get bailout money hinging on U.S. based companies getting the money.
I thought Northrop Grumman was an American Company, you have to remember that they are just using the A330 platform with a software installed by NG. Planes are going to be build in USA by USA workers, besides that USAF has stated several times that the right size AC they need is the A330, being the 767 too small and the 777 too big. My guess is that USA Congress will be pushing for a split solution here, keeping Alabama State happy and Boeing supporters happy too. This would open the oportunity to bring the A330 MK II to the market, but once again this is only my speculation.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5175 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 15): I expect that is a major reason. An A330-300 should be more efficient then a 777-200 because of this which is why it quickly became the preferred choice.
With the 777-200ER being only 4 tonnes heavier, it makes me wonder why Boeing made those planes so similar? the 777-200A must carry allot of structure that it does not need.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18): Increasing the MTOW so that the 787-3 could actually fill its fuel tanks a bit more would go a long way toward making it a sufficiently flexible aircraft that more carriers might look at it.
Stitch idea to increase the payload to make it able to compete against the A330-300 makes allot of sense. But in order to get the range, they would probably need a higher thrust. And that might be a good thing, as the 53lb engines would be very derated from the original design.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, RR: 79 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5156 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20): With the 777-200ER being only 4 tonnes heavier, it makes me wonder why Boeing made those planes so similar? the 777-200A must carry allot of structure that it does not need.
That is what I think is the reason.
The A330-300 was not designed to support as high MTOWs to carry fuel for deep B-market missions (that was the A340-300's job) so Airbus could optimize the design.
FrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1376 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4400 times:
Doesn't this all come down to how many planes they can spread the $billions of developmental costs over? Japanese airlines get the 783 because they are willing to buy enough of them. Are airlines looking for a 3000+ mile 300 seat plane? And might it just be cheaper just to 'abuse' a 788?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8534 posts, RR: 100 Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3996 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 10): So perhaps two modes, one with the 787-8 length and the other with the 787-9 length and equal range could prov to be an oportunity for Boeing?
I realize there will be an A-market size gap, but I'm not a fan of the 'shrink' due to the higher CASM. Either the route should be serviced by an A319CJ, or 73G/738 or its a route that would fill the 789. But as others have noted,
Quoting Carls (Reply 13): Which I read it will be opened since USAF will share the order between Boeing and NG/Airbus, this is what I read over the Internet.
My preferred scenario, but that is only a rumor. But, as I noted earlier, that 2nd plant is required for a re-engine to reach enough 'scale.'
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 20): they would probably need a higher thrust. And that might be a good thing, as the 53lb engines would be very derated from the original design.
As you already noted, since these are low MTOW variants, getting more engine thrust will not be an issue. The issue will be cycles as these engines will be optimized for relatively few overhauls between service (maybe 3,000) at maximum thrust. For the A-market 787, expect a little 'de-optimization' to occur to expand the engine's ability to handle cycles (at the cost of limiting take off thrust). e.g., more turbine cooling.
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1625 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3921 times:
This idea seems to be good, but I don't see Boeing devoting much attention to it. The 787-3 was only launched to appease JL/NH since the Japanese were critical to the whole 787 program. Personally I feel like many airlines would prefer the flexibility of sending a 788/789 on a 3000nm mission then turnaround and do a 5000-6000nm mission. Let us remember that the 777-200 has sold 88 copies, compared to the 777-200ER's 409 frames so far.
25 Stitch: But let us also remember that the A330-300 has sold ~400 copies while the A340-300 has sold around ~200. The A330-300 cannot perform many B-market mi
26 Pellegrine: All true, but the A333 is the competitor to the 777-200, and the A343 is the competitor to the 777-200ER. If an airline wanted B-market range with Ai
27 Stitch: SQ only operates the 777-200ER. The ones performing regional missions around Asia have a lower MTOW via a paperwork de-rate. SQ is buying 787-9s to i
28 Pellegrine: I see now, thank you for the info you are a wealth of information and accuracy which this forum greatly needs. I was only aware that they have Trent
29 Stitch: The 787-9 is about the same size as an A330-300 and both are smaller then the 777-200 and A350-900XWB. However, the A330-300 should be lighter then a
30 Jdevora: I don't have any additional info to offer, but I always thought that they plan to run them in parallel. IIRC, the 330 has around a 6 years backlog, t
31 Ikramerica: Because the 772 was not intended to be a long term product. It served three purposes: 1. It served the needs of customers in Japan and Asia who used
32 Lightsaber: A triple spool should have better efficiency on the shorter mission. In addition, RR tends to over-optimize the weight reduction (at a slight cost of
33 Baroque: Tell us the fate of the dreaded tanker contract and we can likely guess the fate of the A330 line! Absent moving it somewhere else, the A330 style as
34 OyKIE: Historically I have been a big fan of "shrinks" on this forum, as sometimes a smaller plane can increase the yield since they do not need to flood th
35 Panais: I think it is more complicated than that. The A330 MK II was designed for long range. I am of the opinion that the B788 will be mostly used for mediu
36 Kappel: Depends if the 788 uses 8 or 9 abreast seating. The a332 has more like 250 seats in a 2 class config (like KL). That's exactly what airbus did. The a
37 Allegro: Exactly. Remember one of the main reasons for the 787-3 was that it could fit the gate area currently assigned to 767's. The 787-8 and 9 cannot. Henc
38 Stitch: Put upturned wingtips on a 787-8 and it will have the same span as a 787-3 and fit in the same gates.
39 Panais: My opinion is that 788 operators will have 9 abreast and keep the 8 abreast for Economy plus. With 9 abreast the airlines make more money. It will be
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23614 posts, 
 
, 20630 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From France, joined Feb 2008, 109 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, 
From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 346 posts, 
Might be for another thread.... 
From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 496 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1878 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 2195 posts, 
Stitch idea to increase the payload to make it able to compete against the A330-300 makes allot of sense. But in order to get the range, they would probably need a higher thrust. And that might be a good thing, as the 53lb engines would be very derated from the original design.
Printer friendly format 
