Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777...where To From Here?  
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9927 times:

Boeing Management Changes (by Laddie Jan 28 2010 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=4693154&searchid=4693154&s=Laddie#ID4693154

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?

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9335 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Agreed.

The key will be how airlines respond to those planned updates, which I expect will depend on how the 787 and A350XWB perform.

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.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9078 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.

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9078 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.

 checkmark 

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  

Rgds


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9012 times:

So what are we looking at for engines? What kind of technology do we have that could replace a 90,000lbs thrust engine?

Is it likely the new engines will have less power because of aerodynamic/weight improvements on the fuselage?



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8913 times:

I have wondered about the feasibility of a staged renewal:

  1. Develop new composite fuselage barrel sections to lighten the structure and reduce maintenance.
  2. Graft on the 787's nose section.
  3. Develop a new wing optimized for the reduced weight.

The thinking here is that developing the wing last would make it lighter and more efficient than a new wing designed for the current fuselage. The disadvantages I see are
  • The benefits of the new wing show up later, whereas I suppose it to be the biggest win. Would that be fatal in the competitive marketplace?
  • The final product would be suboptimal relative to a clean-sheet design.
  • It presents the airlines with more models over time.

    But it would require less commitment of capital at a time (relative to an all-new design) while keeping the revenue flowing.


  • User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
    Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8842 times:

    It's not practical to replace the fuselage with CFRP barrels and keep everything else. Also, the benefits would not be worth the development and certification costs.

    User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
    Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8842 times:



    Quoting Manfredj (Reply 5):
    So what are we looking at or engines?

    I suspect a GE90 with GEnx technology rolled in.

    Quoting Manfredj (Reply 5):
    What kind of technology do we have that could replace a 90,000lbs thrust engine?

    We're good to 115k certified, and there's lots of anecdotal reports out there that it's capable of more than that. As long as they don't crank the weight up much, there's no need for more thrust.

    Quoting Areopagus (Reply 6):
    I have wondered about the feasibility of a staged renewal:

    The problem is you have to recertify at each stage. Easier and cheaper to roll them all in at once.

    Tom.


    User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
    Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8814 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



    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.


    User currently offlineCosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8766 times:



    Quoting Zvezda (Reply 3):
    all-new CFRP wings (with a new centre wingbox)

    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.

    Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
    it can "lift a bit more, a little bit further, or be available a bit sooner, or be a bit cheaper to buy"

    T7 suffers from high manufacturing cost. More modular manufacturing, more welding and less rivets will save manufacturing cost and reduce weight. Better and cheaper.


    User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
    Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8652 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



    Quoting Cosmofly (Reply 10):
    T7 suffers from high manufacturing cost. More modular manufacturing, more welding and less rivets will save manufacturing cost and reduce weight. Better and cheaper.

    Which will always get my vote  highfive 

    Rgds


    User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
    Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8461 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.

    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 Cosmofly (Reply 10):
    The same new wing can be used for the -F, -ULR, and even a tanker later on.

    Why in the world would the USAF want a 787-based tanker?

    Tom.


    User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
    Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8417 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



    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.

    A 787-9 is said to offer 36 LD3 positions, which is four more than the 777-200 family. Extrapolating that to a double-stretch 787-10 should offer 44 LD3 positions, equal to the 777-300 family.


    User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8355 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.



    Dare to dream; dream big!
    User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
    Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 6614 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.

     checkmark 
    I first suggested a 787-11 in Reply 27 of this thread: Are 787 Wins Healthy For Airbus? (by DfwRevolution Apr 12 2005 in Civil Aviation)

    "If I were making decisions at Boeing, I would develop a B787-10 to replace the B777-200ER and perhaps even a B787-11 to compete head-to-head with the A340-600."

    In Reply 28 of this thread, I pointed out the need for a new wing: Should Airbus Hope For The 747 Adv? (by A380900 Jun 13 2005 in Civil Aviation)

    "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.


    User currently offlineWeb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 756 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 6462 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    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.



    Boiler Up!
    User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
    Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 6296 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.  duck 

    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?
    User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
    Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 5404 times:



    Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 14):
    Why not go ahead and initiate Y3 development or at least do some brainstorming regarding what Y3 might need to be?

    The only reason that the concept "Y3" exists in the world is that Boeing *already* did the brainstorming regarding what the 777 replacement might need to be.

    Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 14):
    The 748i hasn't sold well.

    True. It also hasn't entered service. The original 747 looked just as bad this early in the game.

    Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 14):
    Wouldn't Boeing do better with a clean sheet design to leapfrog anything Airbus might try to build to compete?

    No. Airbus is building the A350 to compete, using all the latest technology. The best Boeing can do is match it, at this point.

    Tom.


    User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
    Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 19 hours ago) and read 4786 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
    User currently offlineAeroPiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 4386 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.  twocents 



    A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
    User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
    Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 4259 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



    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.

    Rgds


    User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
    Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 3664 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.


    User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
    Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 3412 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.


    User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
    Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

    Re above. Well the other option is a trebble stretched 787-11 with its "natural" 2-4-2 seating (hmmmm 346? - XWB) and a totally new undercarriage to boot. Which way do you think you would go?

    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...
    Where To Find Timetables From The 1960s-1980s? posted Thu Mar 12 2009 16:33:06 by Rolypolyman
    Where Does Northwest Fly To From Amsterdam? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 13:35:38 by 8herveg
    Where Do TCX 753s Fly To From MAN? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 22:42:42 by SK736
    Where Does United Fly To From LAX? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 18:18:55 by NotSoFrqntFlr
    DL 777 Configuration Switch From 2-5-2 To 3-3-3 posted Wed Jan 18 2006 04:48:22 by Airplanetire
    OK6414 From CSA. From Where To Where? posted Fri Jul 8 2005 14:00:51 by DeltaWings
    Where Do BD Operate Their Regionals To From LHR? posted Wed Jun 29 2005 09:26:23 by Lhrmaccoll
    Qantas 747 Over CYQG... From Where To Where? posted Tue Jan 4 2005 22:56:29 by Vio
    Where Did Pan Am Fly To From SLC? posted Tue Nov 2 2004 07:24:12 by WesternA318
    CO Announces From [where?] To Berlin Next Year posted Wed Oct 13 2004 17:17:33 by Acidradio