Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Improve 777 By 15-20%  
User currently offlineCosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 24686 times:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=323362

If true, there is much life left in the T7

What does it mean for 748i?

139 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 24685 times:

Seems to make it more official, but something like this has been speculated on this forum for a while now. Great to see it may very well happen.

User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 24407 times:

not good news for the 350, but not real bad either.

not good news for the 748, but then there aint been much of that anyway. This would be the sort of thing that could cause LH to finally add 777s to their fleet, at the expense of ........ (don't want to even say the words, let alone get flamed!)



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineThenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2512 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24282 times:

Targeting for 15% and getting 15% are two totally different things. I'll believe it when i see it.

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know that the 777 is an amazing aircraft and it keeps getting better and better every day, but if Boeing even gets close to their goal of 15-20% we are talking about 1000-1500 miles extra on top of 8000 that the plane can fly, there is nothing that will be able to mach it in its class. We already know that the 777-300ER in its current form can beat A350-1000 in payload/range but the A350-1000 will beat it in economics. If these improvements do come forward it will make these two products from A and B that much more competitive against each other. I'm just not sure how will the airlines and the leasing companies take it, we all know what happened when A went with a worm over design instead of a clean sheet design.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24164 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yup, pretty much just repeating what Boeing have been suggesting. New wings. More composites. Improved engines.

Even without the threat of the A350XWB, Boeing and GE would continue (and have continued) to improve the 777. The A350XWB remains a moving target, however, since Airbus continues to seem to be holding their cards close to their chest. Once it actually is flying and sending back data, then Boeing will likely narrow their options down to a list that fiscally and temporally make sense.


User currently offlineCosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23993 times:

Could Boeing have been holding back in releasing the improvement numbers to give 748i more runway?

As the pressure mounts to win the 777 and 747 replacement market, Boeing may choose to sacrifice 748i and leak more specific 777NG numbers.


User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23854 times:

Whats the point of trying to do this now? Wait at least five years and see what can be done then.
Most airlines will by the time Boeing has this ready already have committed to either the 350 or the 787. Great aircraft, bad timing a bit like the new version of the 747.
Better slowly tweak the present 777 for another five years like Airbus have done with the 330 and instead put the resources into a 787 that seems to be missing every target set so far.

And a new wing, more composites and a new engine isn't cheap, requires quite abit of engineering talent and to compete it must be better than the 350. Add on that so far composites hasn't been problemfree on the 787 so perhaps its best to take it easy and make sure that all the present problems are solved before embarking on another composite project...

I reckon GE is pushing harder on this than Boeing themselves, GE has dug themselves into a hole and allowed RR to capture over 500 orders on the 350. This is a market-segment that GE has dominated with its 777 before the 350 and GE is seeing this segment being lost to a newer product and to its main rival RR.
With major European (I reckon most US airlines will go with whatever Boeing offers) orders coming the coming years the last GE wants is to loose the stronghold they have had at airlines like AF and at the moment it looks like they stand to do just that unless they get onboard the 350. GE needs a new 777 more than Boeing right now.



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23785 times:

Boeing is probably confident that the A350 will fall short of it's promises, based on Boeing's own experience with the 787 composite aircraft and the GEnx and RR engines going on it. Since the A350 was supposed to benefit from both the efficiency of composite and the efficiency of these new engines (with a 1/2 gen upgrade of some kind), if Boeing is seeing less than they expected, they are going to postulate that Airbus will run into the same issues.

At the same time, the 777 is a known quantity at Boeing, and they do know what they can do to improve it (just that it will cost a lot of money), so they may be able in a real position now to improve the 777 15%, and if the A350 doesn't reach it's "20%" targeted improvement over the 777 baseline of 3 years ago (which is already a moving target), the 777 will compete darn well, just as the A330HGW competes favorably with the deliverable performance of the 787 for many missions.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 23600 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Boeing is probably confident that the A350 will fall short of it's promises, based on Boeing's own experience with the 787 composite aircraft and the GEnx and RR engines going on it. Since the A350 was supposed to benefit from both the efficiency of composite and the efficiency of these new engines (with a 1/2 gen upgrade of some kind), if Boeing is seeing less than they expected, they are going to postulate that Airbus will run into the same issues.

Still, the 777 will remain to have a far heavier airframe then the A350, a new (composite?) wing and new engines won't mitigate that completely. And, if the new engines won't be as efficient as promised, it will affect a 777NG too. Unless, of course, a GTF with 90-110k thrust suddenly comes out of P&W 's hat Big grin

I'm afraid Boeing needs a new model to be able to compete in the long-term with the A350. They won't like it, but it's necessary. As you say, a 777NG may compete favorably with the early A350 models just like the A330HGW does with the early 787-8's, but only for a few years. The A350 will be at the start of its development, the 777 at the end. Not unlike the A380 vs the 748i. A 'cheap' solution doesn't cut it. That's the lesson Boeing learnt from the 748i, unfortunately.



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 offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 23487 times:

Its the 777-200 versions.

While the 777-300ER is doing fine, the 777-200ER and 777-200LR are not.

The backlog for the 777-200ER is 19 and for the 777-200LR just 20 aircraft.

The 787-9 is years away and the 787-10 unclear.

Meanwhile Airbus in this 300 seat category scored a back lock of hundreds of A330-300's and A350-900s.

A big question is of course the engines. Will GE come up with a new 90-120 klbs engines and still not offer it for the A350 XWB?

Will RR propose a Trent 900/XWB based engine for a new 777 ?


http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/257954/


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9496 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 23411 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):

is there any way for the GEnx to work?



yep.
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 23245 times:

15-20 % just by changing the wings and engines ?

It sounds huge to me.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 23206 times:



Quoting Sebolino (Reply 12):
It sounds huge to me.

737 classic vs. 737NG.

747 classic vs. 747-400.

Improvements can be made by reworking the wing and upgrading the engines. 20% is likely too high, but there are improvements to be made. The question is the cost.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6924 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 22731 times:



Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 9):
I'm afraid Boeing needs a new model to be able to compete in the long-term with the A350.

'The only reason to go with a new model is if they go composite fuselage. Any other changes can be done much more cheaply by improving the existing one. Aluminum fuselage design is a pretty mature technology; unless you want to change the cross section (and I see no need for that on the 777) you don't need to change it. Look at what Boeing did with the 737NG, and that was with a design dating from the 60's. The only changes to the 777 fuselage that would improve efficiency are perhaps the nose design, and that can be changed without starting over. This idea that massive improvements can always be achieved with a clean sheet design is a myth. Obviously they know of improvements they can make on the wing and engines; therefore they are pursuing those. The decision on whether or not to launch a new model will depend on how well they resolve the 787 issues, and what their financial state is at the time. If the 787 fails to deliver on its promises and it's decided that composite fuselages are not worthwhile (which I do not believe will happen) then the 777 will likely continue on with periodic improvements for decades. Assuming that the bugs do get worked out of the 787 (both operational and production) then it is just a question of when the 777RS gets launched. That will depend on Boeing's financial position and market conditions, and how well the A350-1000 does. It will also depend on whether market conditions force the 737RS. Since everyone seems to be in agreement that composite fuselage construction will yield less on this size this will depend on engine choices, and whether or not the next generation of engines will fit the 737. If they don't Boeing will be pretty much forced to address that before the 777RS.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineFun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1051 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 22500 times:

Launch customer UA? Weren't they the launch customer the first time around? I'm sure Boeing would like to capture that order the second time too now what UA has a proposal out there.

User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 22479 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 12):
It sounds huge to me.

737 classic vs. 737NG.

747 classic vs. 747-400.

OK, but the 777 is not exactly an airplane from the 60's, it's already considered economical. Engine makers have made progress since then, but only a few percent if I'm not mistaken.
And the wings cannot be so bad that one can gain more than 15% by a redesign ...

Or it means that a redesigned wing for the A320 could lead to the same gain.  crazy 


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 20261 times:



Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 3):
Targeting for 15% and getting 15% are two totally different things. I'll believe it when i see it.

I think what we are all forgetting is exactly how incredible the 777 was when it was introduced. I know as a child it was a much anticipated aircraft for me.

I think here lies the rub. We have made a great number of advancements since then. It's no "great feat" to take an already great airplane and improve on it over the years. We do it with computers, cars and the like. I think the 15% is conservative and we could see as much as a 25% increase.

Quoting Cosmofly (Thread starter):

What does it mean for 748i?

It means the 748i is slated to be a great airplane simply because they have put all their know-how into its refurbishment. The article states that they will take what they have learned from the 748 and 787 and use it on the 777. If anything it's a testament to how efficient the 748 will be....you'll see!



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 20007 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cosmofly (Reply 6):
Could Boeing have been holding back in releasing the improvement numbers to give 748i more runway?

I doubt it, since they're having to scale back 777 production due to slowing sales. If they had something that could sell hundreds of more frames, they'd have shown their hand.



Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 7):
I reckon GE is pushing harder on this than Boeing themselves, GE has dug themselves into a hole and allowed RR to capture over 500 orders on the 350. This is a market-segment that GE has dominated with its 777 before the 350 and GE is seeing this segment being lost to a newer product and to its main rival RR.

But GE went in with eyes wide open. They demand a minimum RoI on a program which is why they demanded the first two years of A350 production before they committed to powering that plane. When Airbus scrapped it and went to the A350XWB, GE could have powered it with the GE90 family since GE is not precluded from providing GE90 power on any other platform, but Airbus demanded GE spend billions and develop an all-new engine.

There are senior managers within GE who feel that the only A350XWB model with traction is the -900XWB. They feel the A350-800XWB is going to turn out to be a dud (so those existing orders will evaporate) and that the -1000XWB will not be competitive against the 77W on deep B-market missions, They may be wrong. They may be crazy. But they feel that they can't make that minimum RoI they need to commit to a project, so they have yet to do so.

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 9):
Still, the 777 will remain to have a far heavier airframe then the A350...

Maybe. Maybe not. The 787 was widely expected to be lighter than the A330-200 and A330-300, but the final design freeze had OEWs higher than both and the first tranche of production planes will be even worse.

Airbus claimed that the A350-900XWB would be 11t lighter than the A340-300 and 22t lighter than the 777-200ER. That OEW then rose 3t about the time they reached Design Gate M5, but they're still tweaking the design and have been silent on OEW since.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 19126 times:



Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 4):
we all know what happened when A went with a warm over design instead of a clean sheet design.

- it didn't do any bad, with quite fast 100 orders - even more, it doesn't do bad today, with all 330 improvements.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
back lock of hundreds of A330-300's and A350-900s.

- how many of them are 330s and how many 350s?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
-1000XWB will not be competitive against the 77W on deep B-market missions,

- with 777 still being larger than 35A (well, there can always be 35B, but not any soon), and 777NG possibly getting base for some more stretch, and today's "composites? not so fast..." environment, radical upgrade without going for new design sounds very reasonable. Before composites truly mature, and both 787 and 350 show how it all really works, and time comes to eventually replace 777 (and 330) - it may be way too early for Y3 to finally succeed both 777 and 747.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 19028 times:

As much as I'd like to be excited for this, if Boeing decides to improve the 777 rather than a clean sheet, will the airlines simply react the same way that they did with Airbus's A350 mk1?? Would a CFRP wing/wingbox and improved engines realize 15% better operating costs over the current 777? And would these improvements be applied to the 77E as well?


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9111 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 18861 times:



Quoting Cosmofly (Thread starter):
If true, there is much life left in the T7

Does not say much at all, it just refers to operating cost. To me it is "targeting a 15 percent to 20 percent improvement in operating costs" is more of a trow away line for free publicity. They would need to more specific, i.e. direct operating cost, indirect operating cost (which In my view would either remain the same or increase), or total operating costs.

A similar scenario has been looked at before, consider what was possible with the A350OG (new wing and engine and A330 fuselage), a 5-10% improvement was possible, and this was largely due to the new engine. The GE-90115B being where it is not with TSFC, and already being very high bypass, I do not see large leaps in TSFC in the next 5 years, 1-2% would be more likely.

It is not possible with a new wing and new engines for the 777-300ER to have a 15-20% improvement on total fuel burn, the 787 does not even achieve that over the A330 with a new airframe/wing/engine combination.

I suspect the ways these figures have been fudged would come back to a cost per seat basis, and someone has used a 9 across vs a 10 or 11 across config, and in that case they would be talking about a reduction in range, not an increase to account for the additional number of passengers carried.

Quoting Cosmofly (Thread starter):

What does it mean for 748i?

Still makes a good freighter.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineYellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6184 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 18846 times:

IF a 20% improvement is possible, for sure EK and AF will be beating down Boeings door.

GE have been very quiet on engines for a improved 777 or A350...too quiet...I suspect GE and boeing have something up there sleave but want to get the 787 flying first.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineCosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 18747 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
It means the 748i is slated to be a great airplane simply because they have put all their know-how into its refurbishment. The article states that they will take what they have learned from the 748 and 787 and use it on the 777. If anything it's a testament to how efficient the 748 will be....you'll see!

See here http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-october-move-to-flight-line.html
Yahyavi says preliminary data also indicates the 747-8 potentially exceeding performance specs. "We really think the results of both airplanes - freighter and passenger - will be better than planned," he says.

So 777NG may indeed walk the path of 737NG.


User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 18687 times:

the 748 always was more marketed towards cargo companies. I think Boeing knew for various reasons a 4 engine passenger airplane was starting to become a thing of the past except for a few select airlines.

25 Stitch : If true, that would make their decision to launch it suspect, but then a number of Boeing management decisions have been suspect, so what's one more,
26 Stitch : Well if it's a 25% improvement in Cash Operating Costs per seat, that would match Airbus' claims for the A350-900XWB vs. the 777-200ER and the A350-1
27 SEPilot : I think the decision to launch the freighter was sound. The decision to launch the pax version may be less so, but it's too early to tell. If in fact
28 Zeke : He also said "Our goal is to get to 90% in October, which is better than planned,", the original schedule had the 748i EIS next year, I cannot see ho
29 OyKIE : After several hints about re-enginening the 737NG as weel as the 777NG makes me believe that Boeing might co develop these programs. They might lack
30 Excalibur : With the 737NG, the 748, this possible 777NG and the 787 fiasco, it seems to me that Boeing feels more and more comfortable building new generations o
31 Ikramerica : At the time of the 744, the 747 was about the same relative age, as a platform, as the 777 will be by the time this revision would arrive. 25 years o
32 Revelation : My understanding from reading this forum and from other sources is that the 737NG fuse is still the same cross section and still is made with Al, but
33 Flyglobal : I know that many forum members here do not like 4 holers. So just my favorite thought again (I mentioned some time before). As engine development is d
34 Stitch : You are describing the 747-8.
35 XT6Wagon : GE already plans to put in much of the GEnX era technology in the GE90, If Boeing can talk fast enough GE might be willing to go all the way to a "ne
36 DocLightning : RR generally designs a new product for each type, but might incorporate features of one engine or another. The 777 is an efficient airframe, but the
37 Dynamicsguy : Why not lay the groundwork now? It seems like this isn't a proposal to launch the 777NG now, but more a study looking at what would be possible. The
38 Rheinwaldner : Targeting something does not mean so much. Boeing simply states the goals that must be achieved for the 777 to be succesfull in the future. They know
39 Zeke : The simplest way to get a paper improvement as I hinted above is to go from the 9 across to 10 across seating config, nothing like adding seats to re
40 Post contains links Travelhound : 15-20% doesn't sound unreasonable to me. A couple of years ago there was an article about a trade study to reduce the weight of the 777 by 7.0 tonne.
41 Rheinwaldner : Make that study for the A330 and you get specs that will never be achieved by an 787... I say the 777 is not an easier object to get another 15% effi
42 Dynamicsguy : From the article linked by the OP: So it looks like it's a study to see whether it is possible to make enough improvement to the 777, or whether they
43 Travelhound : ... and that's what I think it will ultimately come down to. A 777NG will be fully optimised, where as a new A350 will be at the start of the optimis
44 SEPilot : I do not have this understanding; mine is that the basic fuselage structure is unchanged. Anyone with specific knowledge care to comment?
45 Zeke : I do not think would get anywhere near that sort of weight drop using composites, keep in mind the A380 wing box saved about 1500 kg, and that struct
46 KC135TopBoom : Why? The B-747-8I is a different class of airplanes. Most of the latest B-747-8 news has been good. Well, if you are going to combine A-330 orders wi
47 Zeke : The 77W cannot get a 20% improvement in range, and that is not even what Boeing is suggesting.
48 Keesje : Those are 300 seaters, the A330-200, 787-8, 773 and A346 are not. And 300 seats is a market hotspot. I think it is about efficiency, not range.
49 TISTPAA727 : Come on Zeke, your better judgment knows he is referring to the latest updated schedule and not the original. You are just looking for something to b
50 Par13del : We appear to have accepted that the A350 will be superior to the existing 777 even though what is quoted below is also a given. If Boeing is talking
51 Lightsaber : I believe it is possible. Part of the weight savings would have to come out of the engines. (Integrated blade rotor compressors for one example.) Thi
52 RIX : - still, how many of these "hundreds 330s and 350s" are 330-300s and how many are 350-900s?
53 FrmrCAPCADET : Both comments of mine were speculation on the effect of a 20% improved 777 on sales of the 350 and 748, regarding the later the 'bad news' was referr
54 Jambrain : Aren't you being a bit pessimistic RR and GE have been delivering at least 1% SFC improvement per year over the past few engine generations, as the 1
55 Rheinwaldner : I know that the A333 is the absolute CASM leader. But as you say, the 77W is virtually the same. So leading twin efficiency can be attributed to the
56 Astuteman : A reduction in operating economics and a reduction in fuel burn aren't necessarily the same thing..... Seems some a-netters are even more confident..
57 Manfredj : I think it's interesting to note that most corporate aircraft like the Falcon/Gulfstream/Lear have basically the same design since their inception. T
58 Astuteman : I very much doubt that the 748i would "enjoy" a 15% increase in fuel burn...... If you meant "decrease", I'd suggest it would be more likely that I'd
59 KC135TopBoom : But the B-772s and B-788s are, and both have sold very well. Yes, I meant the B-77L, sorry for the typo. Correct, the hottest selling WBs right now a
60 Travelhound : Well that means if the A350 will have operating economics 25% better than the 777, its costs would need to look something like this:- Fuel - 20% (35%
61 EA772LR : That's interesting Travelhound... While I realize that the the 787 vs. A330 isn't quite the same as the A350 vs. 777, but we can look at the way the
62 Jambrain : You misunderstand, I meant each clean sheet new generation of engines every 4 years or so has improved SFC by 4% or so from the previous engine gener
63 Astuteman : Again, I'd caution against the risk of confusing "25% better operating economics" with "25% lower operating cost". FWIW, as your table implies, I fin
64 Post contains images Travelhound : Yes, agreed! I think the hardest thing about these types of discussions is actually establishing the baselines from where to start from. From what I'
65 F9Animal : Wow, that is impressive if Boeing can improve the 777 by 15-20%. I mean, the airplane is already a champ! Makes you wonder if the 737 would be a even
66 FrmrCAPCADET : 380 niche 748 smaller niche, plus freight
67 StressedOut : This is so silly that it's laughable. I have worked with the people who designed the 777 fuselage and they sure didn't rely on NASA R&D to do it. The
68 Post contains links Zeke : Even more so. The 77L has a larger penalty at its current maximum range in terms of the cost of fuel to carry fuel. If you look at the Boeing marketi
69 Cosmofly : Nations are competing with each other and government contributions are everywhere. I am sure CX got a good deal to move out of Kaitek. China is subsi
70 Astuteman : Er, that's one I can contradict with a VERY high level of confidence.... Rgds
71 Post contains links Jambrain : Lets be fair though http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT2001/9000/9400naiman.html NASA help RR as well
72 StressedOut : With regard to the GE engines first, I don't know anything about NASA's involvement in their development but any benefit to the GE90 will almost certa
73 Lightsaber : On engines? I'm not really pessimistic for a retrofit. I'd love to see an all new 777 engine... but that is unlikely. However, there is a scaling adv
74 Rheinwaldner : This was in fact an honest question! I believe there is a positive contribution by welding. I know that the A340NG´s are heavy but they would be eve
75 Zvezda : IF Boeing can trim several tonnes of excess weight from the 777's fuselage AND IF Boeing are willing to invest billions in the development of an all n
76 Zeke : AND IF the rest of the industry stops improving aircraft, the benchmark is continuously moving.
77 Astuteman : This is the aspect I find an interesting ponder...... For aircraft like the A380 or 748i which are likely to be moderately limited as to where they f
78 Zvezda : I agree. Boeing might deliver 500 or more revised 777s. I don't believe Airbus and Boeing together can deliver anywhere near that many passenger VLAs
79 Ikramerica : I think that the 777 has to stay within the boundaries set by the 744 in terms of wingspan, just as the 777 longer range family does now. For example
80 Zvezda : I think it's safe to say that some airlines would prefer the convenience of 65m gate compatibility and some other airlines would prefer the substanti
81 RIX : - why exactly these numbers? Just curious, as it looks like some specific calculations/considerations are behind them. - which exactly current design
82 Zvezda : RIX, the 777-300 is 20 frames longer than the 777-200. I can imagine a reworked 777 being offered as a 777-8 ten frames longer than the 777-200 and a
83 MSNDC9 : Okay.... HAHAHHAHHAHA NASA did some R&D????? Please. Thats like the FAA taking credit for RNP based approaches constructed by the tech guys at Alaska
84 Khobar : I think there's a very good reason for doing this now. I can't help but wonder if they are looking to do all this to 777 with the tanker competition
85 Stitch : A 10-abreast configuration for the A350XWB would be unacceptable for most carriers. The current 777 at 10-abreast is very close to the A350XWB at nin
86 Khobar : I know, but that's not really the point. Zeke was correct in that manufacturers boosted seat counts to make the economics better, and I was agreeing.
87 Zvezda : The revised cabin interior under consideration at Boeing for future possible 777 models is 10cm or 4 inches wider than that of current 777s. So, each
88 Burkhard : 15-20% of economics will mean more passengers at slightly reduced operation costs I'm sure. 10 abroad gives 11%, a little stretch another 4%, and if t
89 HawkerCamm : That depends on the wing span. Re-engine and re-wing the B777 with a 70m span CFRP wing and your'll be close to 15%. Modify the cabin walls to get th
90 Rheinwaldner : Only because it would be a VLA. A stretched 777 had to be counted as VLA by all means. It would mark the worlds first twin VLA! That's the point. I w
91 Zeke : I suggest you look at the 2010 NASA aeronautics budget and objectives. All the comparisons that airbus were doing were based upon 9 across on the 350
92 Frigatebird : Why not? Boeing is still a very healthy company and has made huge profits in the past few years. Much of the development costs of the 787 have been s
93 Brons2 : Excellent post, thank you. Welcome to my RU list. I agree that differentiating from previous 777 products and Airbus products is a great idea for the
94 Brons2 : IMHO, yes. Maybe they can talk Lufthansa into dropping the 748i in favor of this 777 derivative.
95 Stitch : I doubt it will work. LH really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, real
96 SEPilot : Everett Dirksen (Senator during the 1950's-60's) used to say, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money." Regardl
97 RIX : - I see your point, thanks. - may be, although I'm not sure I would put it this way (or, rather, "would be able to put it this way" ). - well, presum
98 Zvezda : Once 65m has been exceeded, there is no reason to constrain the wingspan below the optimal balance of weight and aerodynamic performance. I don't bel
99 HawkerCamm : On the contray... I would suggest that they should aim to get the highest range (MTOW) out of the current MLG constraints. The Al-Li fuselage, the co
100 Stitch : Well the 77L and 77W are said to effectively be at the TOW limit for their undercarriage. So if Boeing is going to make a larger 77W with the same un
101 AirNz : Out of curiosity, with it still being the same cross section and still made out of AI, how then do you see it as being totally different in terms of
102 Zvezda : Developing an all-new CFRP wing with a substantially higher aspect ratio would result in a substantially increase in L/D so I don't see any chance of
103 Post contains links Cosmofly : EK said it wants 777 to improve 8-10%. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azRpQqgCq_uk EK already uses 3-4-3 layout. If Boeing's targ
104 Post contains links Lightsaber : Agree 100%. Its not worth breaking 65m for a small advantage. There is a cost for the airlines to go beyond the 744 gates. Then I google the 748's wi
105 Astuteman : Presumably because there are reasons to break 65m by a small margin? Personally I don't see a 777 refresh getting a >65m wing, but then that's just m
106 XT6Wagon : " target=_blank>http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747....html Its raked wingtips on a reprofiled wing. The basic structure of the wing is the same as
107 Zvezda : As XT6Wagon mentioned, Boeing decided to save on development costs by retaining the JumboJet's wing spar. The VLA market is not large enough to justi
108 Astuteman : Don't disagree, to be honest, but as XT6Wagon mentioned, it is extremely expensive to develop a new CFRP wing, and I wonder if Boeing commit to NOT d
109 Pellegrine : It is the other way around. A346 has lower pavement loading than the B77W, even though it weighs more. This is due to the three double-tandem main ge
110 Post contains images Zeke : The 777 aspect ratio is around 8.6 at the moment, while some scope exists to improve that, you would not see that large an increase, one still needs
111 Zvezda : I hope we can all agree that Boeing have better prospects for recouping developing costs for a warmed-over 777 than for a warmed-over 747. Thanks!
112 HawkerCamm : Yes... But to do so I think they need to position it above the A350-1000XWB. i.e. 425pax and win on the seat-mile cost
113 Zvezda : For Boeing to have a successful warmed-over 777 programme, they would definitely need to beat the A350-1000 on seat-mile costs. At 10-abreast that's
114 Zvezda : I did some back of the envelope extrapolations. Extrapolating from the 787-8 and 787-9, an all-new CFRP wing for an 800,000lbs MTOW 777 would have an
115 Ikramerica : What about a 775,000 MTOW? Or even 765,000? One reason the 77W has the MTOW it has is to lift enough fuel to get it where it needs to go with the engi
116 Zvezda : Keeping MTOW to about 770,000 lbs would result in an optimal wingspan about one meter shorter than at 800,000 lbs MTOW. If the newer engines were an
117 EA772LR : How big would the fan diameter be if the GE90-115B were to go from a 9:1 to 12:1 bypass ratio?? That would be a real monster.
118 Zvezda : How much thrust do you want?
119 EA772LR : Well let's assume it stays the same or grows to 120K if the weight of the 77WNG were to grow to 800K.
120 Post contains links Jambrain : Don't know where you are getting 9:1 for the 115B from according to this paper http://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/file/technologygihou2/10006_1.pdf the GE 90-9
121 Astuteman : Although I think the A380's wing was optimised for higher weights than we're seeing today. I would have guessed about 70-72m for a plane at today's w
122 Zvezda : An all-new 75m CFRP wing would probably result in better field performance even if thrust were held constant and the MTOW were increased to 800,000 l
123 EA772LR : My apologies Jambrain...I got my numbers confused with the GE90-94B. But thank you for the info. Oh yeah. If Boeing ups the MTW (not MTOW) to 800,000
124 Ikramerica : I still don't understand the need to up the MTOW if efficiency is being impacted that drastically. They are saving 50,000 pounds of fuel on a 1:1 77W
125 Zvezda : Ikramerica, it is speculated that about half of the 15-20% improvement would come from a change from 9-abreast to 10-abreast seating by widening the c
126 Cosmofly : I believe EK has info from Boeing for a potential 10% gain on top of their 3-4-3 gain.
127 Ikramerica : I don't buy that speculation, because airlines are ALREADY putting in 10 abreast anyway. That's a lowering of CASM based on fitting in more seats, no
128 Zvezda : Cosmofly, I believe an all-new 72-75m CFRP wing combined with engine improvements could perhaps result in an 8% reduction in trip costs by means of an
129 Astuteman : Just having a look at the potential wing change... A 72m span CFRP wing on the 773ER, with the same 10.4:1 aspect ratio as the CFRP wing on the 787-9
130 Zvezda : The same thing was said about the WhaleJet's 79.2m wingspan. In both cases, there are benefits of better field performance, better climb performance,
131 EA772LR : I tend to agree with Zvezda's idea that in order for Boeing to really compete with the A359/10 is to 'not' compete directly. I mean building a slightl
132 Zvezda : Just to clarify, I don't think that size differentiation per se will help the 777 to compete with the A350. I think Boeing's best chance to compete w
133 Jambrain : It's GE or RR (or even Pratt) that would have to make a significant investment for a 120K engine that would have no other applications of that thrust
134 Zvezda : Even if MTOW were to increase to 800,000lbs (which may not be necessary), I think 110K engines might suffice with the sort of wing improvements we've
135 EA772LR : I agree. The Ecoliner is one of the more beautiful concepts from Keesje. However, wouldn't the Ecoliner (if actually built and put in service) suffer
136 SpeedyGonzales : It seems to me, with all the talk of new wings and stretches, that the plane people suggest here is hardly any more 777 than an A330 is an A300.
137 Ikramerica : Is the 737NG not a 737? It is longer and has a wider wingspan and new engines and gear compared to the 737 classic.
138 Zvezda : Compared to what? The Ecoliner would have a similar passenger to LD3 ratio as the JumboJet -- higher than that of the WhaleJet, but not as high as th
139 EA772LR : Not to mention the 737NGs rolling off the line now compared to the 737-100/200s rolling off the line in the 60s/70s... I wasn't aware of this. If tha
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...
Air India Delays Paychecks By 15 Days! posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:21:28 by Comorin
Dutch Media: AF-KLM To Buy 15-20% Of Alitalia posted Mon Oct 27 2008 03:38:46 by LifelinerOne
NZ Cuts Tasman Fares By 15% posted Thu Sep 4 2008 21:49:12 by 777ER
AVE Opens MAD-BCN, IB Expects 15-20% Drop In Pax posted Wed Feb 20 2008 06:42:26 by BuyantUkhaa
Mdlr Airlines Considers 15-20 Frames Order posted Tue Apr 17 2007 09:35:49 by Flying-Tiger
TP Wants 15-20% More Frequencies To Brazil posted Sun Jan 28 2007 21:46:01 by Airbazar
Official CX Orders 16 777-300ER Plus 20 Options posted Thu Dec 1 2005 09:37:54 by CCA
AirMalta To Announce Airbus Or Boeing By 15 May posted Sun Apr 28 2002 16:48:41 by LMML 14/32
Emirates Confident Of 15-20 % Growth posted Wed Jan 9 2002 15:26:49 by GF-A330
BA Replaces 777 By 767-300 On Some Routes? posted Thu Oct 4 2001 09:48:32 by Cool777