Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7846 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9036 times:
Whatever happens with the 777, I would expect a 747-400 type outcome. Use the shell with many updated 787 changes. The new plane may be like the 737NG where Boeing stripped it down to the fuselage with new wings and engines.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8688 times:
Short of an all-new design, the biggest opportunity to improve the 777 would be all-new CFRP wings (with a new centre wingbox) and a span of about 75m. That would increase L/D, reduce weight, reduce noise, reduce MX, improve field performance, and increase fuel capacity. The disadvantages are the development and certification costs and the need to use more widely spaced gates.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9612 posts, RR: 97 Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8688 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): Then again, Boeing might just need to do mild improvements to engine SFC and OEW/MZFW/MTOW to keep on selling them for another decade, as Airbus has been able to do with the A330 vs. the 787.
It doesn't necessarily have to be "as good as or better", if it can "lift a bit more, a little bit further, or be available a bit sooner, or be a bit cheaper to buy", or preferably all 4
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28624 posts, RR: 84 Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8424 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 5): So what are we looking at for engines? What kind of technology do we have that could replace a 90,000lbs thrust engine?
Wel the top-end models of the Trent XWB would work and it would probably kick GE to add things like contra-rotation, new fan, IBR compressors, wide chord blade technology and such onto the GE90 family. Or GE and PW can work together to add improvements to the GP7000 and scale it up to the 90-100K thrust range.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7965 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Thread starter): With the "recall" of Lars Anderson it looks like BCA are about to get serious on the next stage of the 777 program. I wonder where this initiative will take the type?
Why go the half step? Why not go ahead and initiate Y3 development or at least do some brainstorming regarding what Y3 might need to be? Is the problem that the technology Boeing wants for the Y3 isn't available yet ... or the engines they want aren't available yet?
The 748i hasn't sold well. The 777 is a fine airplane but just how far can you stretch or improve it to get sufficient sales to warrant the effort and the expense? Wouldn't Boeing do better with a clean sheet design to leapfrog anything Airbus might try to build to compete? My fear is that Boeing may wait too long to develop Y3 and miss a market that just might be available now and in the near future.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6224 times:
Quoting Cosmofly (Reply 10): The money can be better spent on a new 787 wing and center box for a 787-10/11 that can replace the 777. The same new wing can be used for the -F, -ULR, and even a tanker later on.
"It would be possible to stretch the B787 to the same length as the A340-600 -- with a new wing, of course."
For reasons that are not clear to me, Boeing seem not to be going in that direction. I still think it's an idea worth exploring. I note that a 787-8ER or 787-9ER with the big wing would be perfect for SYD/MEL/AKL-LHR nonstop services.
Web500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 631 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6072 times:
I say use a next gen 777 as a test bed of sorts for technology, since you have already missed the A350 boat. It might sell some , but importently it will give Boeing a test run of building with new technoledgies on that scale, so they know what to expect and don't get put in another 787 debacle. They will be able to build wings, fusulage yada yada yada, and when the time comes hey will know what to expect.
For the engines, I think that there definitely needs to be competition if you look at the 787, before deliveries have ebb begun, there were improvments, maybe do due to the interchangeable engines, making the engine manufactures more competative due to the fact that once an airplane is built it is no longer locked into an engine make.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15128 posts, RR: 26 Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5906 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12): Why in the world would the USAF want a 787-based tanker?
True. By the time they actually buy tankers they can get whatever comes after the 787.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12): Even a double-stretch of the 787 can't replace the 777, especially the 777-300ER. There's just not enough cargo volume in that fuselage.
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 14): Why go the half step? Why not go ahead and initiate Y3 development or at least do some brainstorming regarding what Y3 might need to be?
Here are my thoughts on the subject, which I think I've posted before but here they are.
I would prefer a two pronged replacement for the 777. A 787-10 at the end of this decade (the oldest 777s will be ~25 years old) would be a good replacement for the 777-200 variants, with the exception of the LR. This may be a pretty extensive rework, but still probably cheaper than an all new airframe. Ideally, the second prong would be the Y3 sometime later, which would utilize all of the tricks of the 787 and then some and start right around 77W size. Hopefully, there would be enough of a gain in fuel efficiency to also replace the 77L.
The catch is that right around this timeframe is when Boeing would really want to get serious about the 737RS. This is the plane that Boeing absolutely cannot afford to screw up. If that project is going on, they probably won't be able to devote the resources to develop the Y3 at the same time. If this is the case, I would advocate and 777NG, which would be a pretty major rework but less resource intensive than a new plane. Like the Y3, I would want this plane to start at the 77W size and perhaps have a further stretch (which may be difficult due to gate restrictions) to almost full cover the gap below the 748.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2648 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4396 times:
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 6): I have wondered about the feasibility of a staged renewal:
Develop new composite fuselage barrel sections to lighten the structure and reduce maintenance.
Graft on the 787's nose section.
Develop a new wing optimized for the reduced weight.
That would be like a 787XWB. It may be second most expensive replacement, but if you could develop a 787XWB (10 seat cross section more comfortably than on the 777) but keep the systems that have been developed for the 787 and make it possible for crew members to fly both without training it would sort of be like the 757/767 siblings. Keep as many parts and structures in common as possible. It should be cheaper to do a 787XWB than to develop a brand new 777 replacement, but it will be many times more expensive than to just do a 777NG.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
AeroPiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 281 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3996 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 18): No. Airbus is building the A350 to compete, using all the latest technology. The best Boeing can do is match it, at this point.
The level of technology in the A350 will not surpass the 787. Aircraft enabling technologies must be mature before the FAA/JAA will allow them on airplanes flying over 200 plus passengers at Mach 0.8+, at 35K+ ft....
So A 777 replacement launch in about 2 years from today, might be around the right time to see if any break through in engine technology, or materials can be applied to a new airplane.
A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9612 posts, RR: 97 Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3869 times:
Quoting AeroPiggot (Reply 20): The level of technology in the A350 will not surpass the 787. Aircraft enabling technologies must be mature before the FAA/JAA will allow them on airplanes flying over 200 plus passengers at Mach 0.8+, at 35K+ ft....
Some airline CEO's that have both aircraft on order have been quoted as disagreeing with you......
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15): For reasons that are not clear to me, Boeing seem not to be going in that direction.
There must be some reasonably good reasons why this is not currently the default though.
That said, nothing has been firmly decided yet, as far as I'm aware.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1404 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3274 times:
Boeing have already stated (recently) what they are going to do - they also said (correctly) that there is no hurry.What they said (and why not believe them) was that they will look at rewinging the 777.It makes perfect sense.
Use all the knowledge gained (and designs) of the 787 wing,scale it up with a new wing box and Bob as they say is your uncle.Of course the engines will need to be changed.
For the -200 clearly Rolls are already developing theirs.GE will have to upgrade their offering (it's about the right time).They will continue to mantain contractural exclusivity on the -300er.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
Quoting Parapente (Reply 22): Boeing have already stated (recently) what they are going to do - they also said (correctly) that there is no hurry.What they said (and why not believe them) was that they will look at rewinging the 777.It makes perfect sense.
What they will look at doing and what they will do may be quite different things. There is no doubt Boeing will look at a new wing for the 777. It would be nuts to not evaluate the option. That does not mean Boeing will select that option.