Aubrey Cohen's Seattle pi update on Boeing Q1 results presents interesting comments on the need for the 787-10. Appears Boeing CEO has high level of confidence 777 team will find performance improvements. He was not specific about the gains but he did mention where they will originate. CEO also mentioned new upcoming orders for the 777 to justify production increases. If Boeing delivers the A350-1000 will have their line in the stand.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25575 times:
This is interesting to me. I'm not worried about the A350-1000 killing off the 77W in the near term (pre 2020). The 77W and 77L still offer quite a punch. I'm concerned about something to compete with the A359, which the 77E can't or won't. At least I don't see how it can based on Airbus's specs on the A359. Who knows tho, maybe the 789 will be good enough to replace A343s/77Es for most operators, and perhaps a 789ER with the 63m wingspan and increased MTOW later on for more performance. I think a straight stretched 7,200nm 7810 would be a helluva plane to beat over the Atlantic, and some Pacific routes.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25349 times:
There is just no growth in the current 787 platform for a 787-10. When the 787-10 was floated, it would have held about 290 people in three classes at 8-abreast in Economy. The 787-9 can reach 280 with 9-abreast in Economy, so it's effectively filled the role the 787-10 was planned to. The 787-9 offers similar room to the A330-300/A340-300 and with many carriers are now omitting the First Class cabin and others are considering reducing their Business Class cabins, that would allow it to hold more Economy seats.
The 777-200ER offers more seating capacity than the A350-900 at 9-abreast in Economy, and that delta only grows if the 777-200ER is 10-abreast. A 787-10 would offer even more capacity than the 777-200ER at 9-abreast and be in the ballpark of a 777 at 10-abreast, but I'm interested in knowing if the 787 (and A350) can take the herringbone Business Class seating in 1+2+1 like the 777 can, or if they have to stay at 1+1+1 like on the 767 and A330/A340. I also expect the 787 (and A350) cannot accept 2+3+2 forward-facing Business Class seating like the 777 can (at least without narrow seats like 2+2+2 on the 767).
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25344 times:
Quote: "the extent to which we really redo the 777, which is a real option, the improvements particularly the weight-to-strength kind of improvements with carbon fiber and what we think we can get from the engine, are substantial."
That's intriguing. What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing? Perhaps too much to hope for.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25209 times:
The wing would be the most obvious part. The current wing is heavier than it needs to be, so starting fresh with a CFRP wing - probably re-profiled like the 747-8 wing was - could save many tons, which can be put back into payload or fuel weight.
GE has plenty of updates they could do to the GE90, and by keeping the 777-200ER around would allow GE to spread them across the low-thrust models, as well, which might make them palatable to Airbus (and customers) for the A350. It would also open up another opportunity for Rolls-Royce and the highest-thrust model of the Trent XWB as a Trent 800 replacement.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25118 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3): That's intriguing. What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing? Perhaps too much to hope for.
I'd guess they will do nothing less than what they did with the 748. It's a bigger market, and you have tough competitors, something the 747 doesn't--directly anyways.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 25112 times:
I found Jim McNerney's comments interesting as well; especially when he called it the "old" 787-10.
He seems to suggest the use of CFRP and new engines may be enough for refresh of both the 777-200 series and -300 series to compete with the A350-900 and -1000. If so, this could make the 787-10 unnecessary. However, he did not suggest a commitment to the refresh approach; only that they are looking at all options. Boeing still needs to have a good understanding of the A350-1000 before making a design decision. I believe Airbus has set next year as a goal for final design freeze on the -1000 (please correct me if I'm wrong). At that point, I would suspect we will see something solid from Boeing shortly thereafter.
Given JM's comments, I wonder how much CFRP would be used in a refresh of the 777 series? A new CFRP wing seems given as it would be lighter and offer improved aerodynamics. Could Boeing feasibly switch to CFRP barrels for the fuselage or would the weight savings be so minimal to not justify the effort/expense? Perhaps a CFRP wingbox would offer significant weight/structural gains.
BoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 313 posts, RR: 33 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24941 times:
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 6): Given JM's comments, I wonder how much CFRP would be used in a refresh of the 777 series? A new CFRP wing seems given as it would be lighter and offer improved aerodynamics. Could Boeing feasibly switch to CFRP barrels for the fuselage or would the weight savings be so minimal to not justify the effort/expense? Perhaps a CFRP wingbox would offer significant weight/structural gains.
I suspect an all new or significantly new wing, and perhaps some interior components, but not the fuselage. The CFRP fuselage drives a lot of complexity into the airplane systems, and I don't think a lot of people realize that. Grounding and lightning protection is entirely different, and would require modifications to multiple airplane systems. So it would not likely be much lighter, if at all, but would be very expensive to do. At that point, it's time to just design a clean sheet airplane.
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24940 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): The 787-9 can reach 280 with 9-abreast in Economy, so it's effectively filled the role the 787-10 was planned to.
Jim McNerney seemed to confirm your thinking today as he suggested that the 787-10 may not be required as the 787-9 was turning out to be a very capable plane.
CFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24918 times:
Regarding the 777 orders, do any of you think that what Boeing has heard from customers recently indicates the demand for their family with modifications will, at a minimum, match the current orders for the A350-900 (273 units) and the A350-1000 (75 units)? There has to be some reason for the inclusion of the 777E/LR config in the discussion, because generally 777 discussions have focused on the 777W.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24912 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3): That's intriguing. What parts of the 777 might be redone in CFRP? New wing? Perhaps too much to hope for.
Perhaps a new section 41, made of CFRP and reshaped? Could be used on 767 tanker as well, same avionics in both. Replace the rear section as well, making it more aero and all CFRP (including new APU design and exhaust) again closer to the 787 design. Combined with a new wing shape, extension and material change (similar to the 748 reworking), reduction of weight with newer internal systems and more electric v. pneumatic, and the new engines, and there's some opportunity there.
Compared to a crippled 787-10, or the same sort of work required to make a 787-10 worth it, the 777-8/9 makes more sense.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24866 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): The wing would be the most obvious part.
No doubt. So if Boeing offers a CFRP wing and new engines to counter the 'all'-CFRP challenger we'll finally get a hint at how well the original A350 concept might have fared in the marketplace had Airbus stuck with it.
Boeing will need a new wing to produce a viable 787-10. For much the same investment, they can develop a wing for the 777 instead. The 787-10 will need much more than just a wing, whereas the 777 won't need a new landing gear etc. Seems that the 777 path would be cheaper and holds the possibility of two distinct models to be offered (-200LR+ and -300ER+).
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24867 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): The wing would be the most obvious part. The current wing is heavier than it needs to be
I agree, and here the most improvements in operating economics are to be found, then come the engines and finally weight reduction by using more CFRP. It will be interesting how a (again) revised/upgraded B777 will look like and how it will perform.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24754 times:
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 6): He seems to suggest the use of CFRP and new engines may be enough for refresh of both the 777-200 series and -300 series to compete with the A350-900 and -1000.
My only reservation is that many were claiming the same kind of 'refresh' wasn't good enough for the A330 vs. the 787. Why should or would it be any different here with a 'refresh' of the 777 vs. the A350? Perhaps it's what Stitch said in another thread-maybe the airlines are more open to a refresh now that they've experienced all that they have in the last 4 years.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
CFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24723 times:
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 8): I suspect an all new or significantly new wing, and perhaps some interior components, but not the fuselage. The CFRP fuselage drives a lot of complexity into the airplane systems, and I don't think a lot of people realize that. Grounding and lightning protection is entirely different, and would require modifications to multiple airplane systems. So it would not likely be much lighter, if at all, but would be very expensive to do. At that point, it's time to just design a clean sheet airplane.
So could they use CFRP for much of the internal structuring and re-enforcements? I would think the floor structure change would have an impact on weight, but will impact overall a/c strength. Could that impact a wing modification?
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24728 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11): Perhaps a new section 41, made of CFRP and reshaped? Could be used on 767 tanker as well,
Way too late to be putting a new nose on the 767.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11): reduction of weight with newer internal systems and more electric v. pneumatic
Going electric carries considerable cost in redesign, and unless you go all-electric you're still carrying the weight of the pneumatic ductwork and adding a heavy electrical buss to that...counterproductive IMHO. Best to go with one or the other, not a mix. I expect lighter internals, but no fundamental redesign.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24655 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 12): So if Boeing offers a CFRP wing and new engines to counter the 'all'-CFRP challenger we'll finally get a hint at how well the original A350 concept might have fared in the marketplace had Airbus stuck with it.
Good point. But I'm convinced Airbus made the right call by going with the A350XWB. They needed something to replace the A340 family in their lineup. If only Airbus could have smoothed out A380/A400M production and worked on a refresh A330 and the A350XWB.
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 9): Jim McNerney seemed to confirm your thinking today as he suggested that the 787-10 may not be required as the 787-9 was turning out to be a very capable plane.
This is what our friend BoeEng has been saying about the 789. He'd know. He works on the 787.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24649 times:
Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 15): So could they use CFRP for much of the internal structuring and re-enforcements? I would think the floor structure change would have an impact on weight, but will impact overall a/c strength.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24602 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 17): But I'm convinced Airbus made the right call by going with the A350XWB.
The original A350 would've worked if the cross-section allowed 9Y. The 777 doesn't have that problem...it's already wider than the XWB.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24413 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 14): My only reservation is that many were claiming the same kind of 'refresh' wasn't good enough for the A330 vs. the 787. Why should or would it be any different here with a 'refresh' of the 777 vs. the A350?
Because the 777 is a wider airframe than its erstwhile competitor (A350 Mk. 6/XWB), whereas the A350 Mk. I was narrower than the 787.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24254 times:
Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 20): Should Boeing consider modifications to the 777E to make it more regional friendly to offset the nipping seen from the A330-300?
I expect the 787-9 will have that market covered from a Boeing product standpoint.
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5981 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24154 times:
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 9): Jim McNerney seemed to confirm your thinking today as he suggested that the 787-10 may not be required as the 787-9 was turning out to be a very capable plane
That is an amazing statement as the first 787-9 hasn't even been built yet, yet we are talking about its capabilities.
BoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 313 posts, RR: 33 Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 24060 times:
Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 15): So could they use CFRP for much of the internal structuring and re-enforcements? I would think the floor structure change would have an impact on weight, but will impact overall a/c strength. Could that impact a wing modification?
I suspect we'd see things like new, lighter Flight Deck support structure and lighter Flight Deck seats, perhaps new cabin lavs and galleys making use of lighter materials (ala 787), and maybe the dimmable windows in replacement of window shades (a maintenance savings). Perhaps new linings in the cargo compartments and cabin if they can be made lighter. As well, they could potentially redesign some of the airplane systems to smaller, lighter LRUs. So these changes, in addition to engine improvements and a new or improved wing.
It's all going to depend on how much money Boeing is willing to spend. From the discussions I've been hearing, the answer to that question is "whatever it takes".
25 BoeEngr: Not THAT amazing, if you ask me. The 787-9 design is well on its way. We're getting lots of good data back from the 788 test program, and that data i
27 einsteinboricua: Well, if there's no demand, then there's no cigar. Basically what has been said is that the 789 can do everything a possible 787-10 can do. Maybe an
28 EA772LR: I think it had more to do with all the rave of CFRP at the time more so than the width of the respective fuselages. I think the reason why the 787 is
30 TeamAmerica: I think you've got this backwards. Generally accepted fact that the larger the aircraft the greater the weight savings by going to CFRP. An all-CFRP
31 ikramerica: Well the obvious major weightsaving for the program is going to be replacement of window shades with LCDs. All the rest is simply secondary...
32 EA772LR: Ah, but you're talking about an all new plane essentially. Not a refresh. An all CFRP 777 would be a show stopper IMHO. If this is the case, then som
33 RJ111: That surprises me as early indications suggest to me that the -900 will do what the 763ER did to the 762ER. This effectively leaves just the 789 which
34 Stitch: They were interested in it at least as a way to move more people on ≤10-hour missions, but with their investment in the A350, they might be interes
35 TeamAmerica: And that would finally produce the aircraft that QF has wanted all along. LHR-SYD nonstop, either way.
36 seabosdca: If Boeing could reduce empty weight by 15 tons across the 777 line, while keeping MTOW, MZFW, and thrust the same, the payload range capabilities of
37 ikramerica: And before people say "but Airbus could do the same with the A350" don't think for a minute that Airbus isn't already doing such things to get a lowe
38 EA772LR: How much weight could Boeing shed by going with an all new CFRP wing? Good question.
39 BMI727: Not as it is, but I think that it would be worthwhile for Boeing to make the necessary changes for a competitive 787-10. How about a 787-9LR with the
40 RJ111: This proposition sounds completely unrealistic to me. Maybe an all composite clean sheet design could pull this off. Do you have any basis for this c
41 Stitch: It depends on how much that 787-10 would cost and how it would compare to an upgrade of the 777. At a minimum, the 787-10 would likely need new under
42 Delimit: While perhaps overstated, the 777 is reputed to be overbuilt. It was designed during a time when efficiency was not the be-all end-all it is for the
43 BMI727: An upgraded 787 wouldn't be cheap, but cheaper than a new airframe. Honestly, I think that both an upgraded 787 and 777 will be necessary, unless a 7
44 SV777: I think beside wings/fuselage enhancements, Boeing still waiting for final results of all electric systems from the 787 to be adopted in 777 and how m
45 CFBFrame: So I'll ask the question again. Take off your technical hats and think about Boeing's reason for its change of heart. Mr. Mc said new 777 orders are o
46 allegro: I think QF wanted the 7810 too ... I think it is dead. The 777 is proving to be a remarkable design that can be updated to be competitive with current
47 cosmofly: The 777s are very expensive to manufacture, thus expensive to acquire and own. The 787, and the A350XWB are supposed to have a much more cost efficien
48 clickhappy: Aubrey Cohen is about the LAST guy you want to listen to about anything Boeing, seeing has he has been banned from attending any Boeing media function
49 web500sjc: Can Boeing get any more length out of the 777? Will the add a 774 to the line up, and would they not call these ERs and instead just designate them wi
50 Stitch: What QF wanted was a plane that can fly 350 passengers and their bags some 8500 nm, which the 777-300ER, 787-11 or A350-1000 could not attain, so it
51 ikramerica: While true, that's not what I'm saying. Airbus has a very aggressive weight target for the A350, and they are going to be doing everything possible t
52 Jacobin777: ..but there really aren't too many C-market or long B-market missions....the A350 will have a lower cash cost/seat advantage.....something which carr
53 morrisond: How much longer of a wing could they put on it? Could they go to A380 width? Keep Lift the same but minimize drag? How much a fuel savings would they
54 RJ111: You could just as easily ask why Boeing didn't incorporate these quick and easy changes like lightweight seats and interiors into the 777LRs in the f
55 seabosdca: Agreed... EK, EY, and CX would find an 8500+ nm "77W light" very, very useful, but all that capability would be wasted on European and most North Ame
56 Jacobin777: Price, price, price....cost of technology going down and economy of scale. Price, price, price......cost of technology going down and economy of scal
57 RJ111: How can economies of scale be an issue if Boeing were seemingly willing to incorporate them for the sake of one customer?
58 JerseyFlyer: I wonder what Emirates is going to think of this development. Weren't they the ones pushing the 787-10 in the first place?[/quote] Yes but remember t
59 StickShaker: Its a very good point - how can it be the angle in one case and the devil in the other. Boeing are essentially in a similar position to that of Airbu
60 Delimit: Aren't seats something that are customer supplied?
61 BoeEngr: The bulk of assembly will be in 2012. First flight in early 2013.
62 Stitch: You can generally knock 50% off list for a widebody order from either Boeing or Airbus today, and yes those prices include engines, avionics, cabin o
63 JoeCanuck: I didn't really seen much in the article concerning the fates of the -10 and 777. Boeing is looking at both options and will decide their choices some
64 Jacobin777: You have it the other way around friend. It would have been cost prohibitive for one customer...but not for many, many customers..... ...better CASM,
65 RJ111: I shall effectively repeat what i said, as they were seemingly ready to do it for one customer, it obviously isn't cost prohibitive.
66 Jacobin777: How do you know? Do you know what the asking price was? Maybe the price was indeed too high for QF once Boeing made all of the changes...
67 RJ111: And Jacobin plays the "i and others are allowed to speculate but you are not" card. How predictable.
68 Jacobin777: No need to get your knickers in a twist mate.....Where did I state you weren't allowed to speculate?....I was only explaining why I think your argume
69 ikramerica: He's still hung up on the idea that the A350 is getting some of it's weight savings by going with light interior fittings and that is bothering him b
70 Jacobin777: ....I think that's probably more along the line as to what is happening...both the A330 and B777 have been improving continuously.....
71 Stitch: Spirit Airlines just introduced A320s with seats that cannot recline, noting the lighter weight saves fuel and the lack of movement reduces maintenan
72 EA772LR: Crazy what the airlines will do to make a dollar. These things really are turning into buses of the sky. Pretty soon we'll see school bus style seats
73 ikramerica: That's not quite the same thing. That's cutting features to save weight. But look at DL and UA, replacing perfectly good coach seats with lighter one
74 RJ111: At the end of the day, if what Boeing proposed to QF for LHR-SYD made economic sense for less extreme flights, i see no reason why this proposal would
75 parapente: Quote "I quite like the EK idea for the 777NG. Make it a 772.5 and 773.5, where there’s a 2-3 row stretch for each model. This could be doable with
76 Stitch: The more I think on it, a dual-track strategy of the 787-10 and an updated 777-200LR and 777-300ER might be the best option for Boeing. Even if it was
77 2175301: I actually agree with this concept; but what I think will happen is that Boeing will first do a 777NG (more bang for the $$ now), and then later on d
78 PlanesNTrains: The 787-10 would be years out anyhow, and the 787-9 can fill some of that void temporarily, so I can also see the 777NG being the higher priority. Ho
79 bmacleod: So if the 787-10 is dead, will the next-gen 777 have 787 Gen-X type engines? Maybe more composites in the fuselage? An all-aluminum fuselage carries c
80 Stitch: And yet it doesn't really have to be. The 787-9 is a good bit more than just a stretched 787-8, which is why it's gestation is taking as long as the
81 PlanesNTrains: Stitch, rather than quote your great posts, what I'll say is that I didn't consider the replacement cycle as you laid it out, and that is obviously a
82 Stitch: I expect a "straight stretch" 787-10's best market is going to be TATL services and sub-10,000km missions around Asia, Africa and the Middle East - a
83 BMI727: Good to see people coming around to my way of thinking... That is part of the reason that I think that a 777NG must be part of Boeing's future. True,
84 RJ111: I think you either do the dual strategy or the 787-10IGW. I like the dual strategy idea, but it's true that some airlines tend to prefer flexibility
85 BMI727: I envision it as kind of both. The IGW 787-10 would be designed to replace all of the short bodied 777s except the LR, or maybe including the LR if p
86 parapente: But Boeing "did" have 2 wings for the 787.But they decided to compromise (sorry "unexpected wing performance improvements") the 789 by using the small
87 BMI727: My guess is that a new 787-10 wing would be even larger and diverge more from the 787-8 wing than the original -9 wing. Basically, I believe that Boe
88 BAW716: 787-10 won't happen. It will be less expensive and faster for Boeing to modify it's existing (and very successful) 777 line to bring the 300-400 seat
89 Stitch: The 787 is heavier than planned, but Boeing continues to claim it will meet it's performance guarantees (and they now have actual data to plug into th
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, 
He'd know. He works on the 787.
Printer friendly format 
