Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Would Y3 Have To Be To Replace 777 And 380  
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 27069 times:

Lets have some fun. I am not an Engineer so I'm making a lot of assumptions.

Assume that your Boeing and that you decide to match Airbus and re-engine the 737, which would leave you significant resources to focus on a 777 replacement.

It would need to replace 777 and kill A380, but probably your own 747-8i as well (but not the Freighter)

Your the Boeing CEO and you have to decide on what to go with. What would Y3 look like?

If it were me I would focus on what I could deliver in a reasonable time span. I would want an EIS around 2016-2018 to combat open A380 production slots and the A350-1000.

The Shortened time span would probably dictate that you do something with Current 787 Based Technology.

My plane would be a 787 based Double Decker twin with 80M wing span in two lengths - say 70m and 80m(wild Guess)

The main deck would mimic a 787 but as your doing a new barrel make it a little wider to make 9w truely comfortable.

The upper deck could be 3x3 or 2x2 business. Call it 400 Seats 3 class short body, 500 long body.

Use all current 787 technology - no bleed, same flightdeck etc.. with updated 777 engines (may need to go to a lot more thrust - I think they can go as high as 150K on the LR engines).

Basically your just building a new fuselage and using everything you learned on 787

Do what the 777 did to the A340-600 to the A380. Who would buy a 4 holer when a more efficient 2 holer could basically do the same job?

124 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 27049 times:

Y-3 shouldn't be wasted on "replacing" the A380 at all.... that market is too niche Boeing can comfortably cede to Airbus

now..... a good Y-3 would have 2 or 3 sizes that span 350-450 seats.... imagine taking the 77W in the low end and the 748i in the upper end. compared to a 250-320 seater that Y-2 is to become (assuming 787-10 is true), then there's good spread between the 2 that'll prevent it from jeopardizing each other.

Y-1 is probably more like 150-220, since the low-100's is probably a goner to EMB and Bombardier (heck, look at A318 and 736 sales)


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 26953 times:

Yrs ago I did a similar Y3 concept; "Ecoliner" with Henry Lam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7UIN5NlCc
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-Oqf_vOman...MiWns/s1600/AirFrance_Ecoliner.JPG

Replacing both the 777 and A380 seems a stretch. A double deck 18 abreast A380 has nearly double the capasity of a 9 abreast 777.. Folks saying they compete are lost  

[Edited 2010-05-04 14:46:37]

User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 26789 times:

I remember the Ecoliner, that thing is beautiful.

Given 787 level technology, would it be good enough to sway A380 Customers and replace the 777?

As Airbus is unlikely to replace A380 anytime soon, would an Ecoliner effectively cap the A380 at less than 300 frames, leaving Airbus with only the A350-1000?

Is this what Boeing should build and Re-engine the 737, as then they effectively match(assuming Airbus does an A320RE) or beat Airbus Everywhere?

If the just do a 777NG it's unlikely to be good enough to sway A380 customers, and may only be as good as A350-1000.

If you were Boeing CEO what would you do?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29653 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 26767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If you want to "kill" the A380, you need something like the Ecoliner. But at the moment the A380 doesn't look to be such a threat that it needs to be "killed".

So I'd concentrate on a traditional "tube with wings" at two lengths - 70m and 80m - with a six-inch wider fuselage to allow the aisles to grow from 17 inches to 20 inches to make boarding and cabin servicing in-flight easier and using the same 17" wide, 10-abreast seats as the 777 does since that works for airlines and for passengers (carping aside, they still suck it up and fly). Then you can offer 19-inch wide seats in Premium Economy at 8-abreast.

MTOWs for both would be around 350t (like the 77L and 77W) so the plane could use the GE90-115B engines (with significant and extensive upgrades to reduce SFC and maintenance). Offer Rolls-Royce the opportunity to overhaul the Trent 800 to create the Trent 8115 Mk. II so you can have two engine suppliers.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26653 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
If you want to "kill" the A380, you need something like the Ecoliner. But at the moment the A380 doesn't look to be such a threat that it needs to be "killed".

I still think a single tube 11Y will be the eventual answer to this question. However I expect it to wait till they have a better grasp of complex shapes done with composite. This is so they can "pancake" the fuselage more and have more vertical sidewalls too. This way frontal area is minimized.

Nevermind I fully believe that a conventional double bubble 11Y could take on the A380 anyway. There is alot of structural wieght to a double decker with modern certification requirements, and a single "tube" plane is going to be vastly cheaper to produce than the A380.

The extra fuselage diamiter should also pay with much larger volumes for cargo.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26643 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
My plane would be a 787 based Double Decker twin with 80M wing span in two lengths - say 70m and 80m(wild Guess)

In the time frame mentioned, could you perhaps explain where the engines needed to power it would come from?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29653 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 5):
I still think a single tube 11Y will be the eventual answer to this question. However I expect it to wait till they have a better grasp of complex shapes done with composite. This is so they can "pancake" the fuselage more and have more vertical sidewalls too.

One of the concepts for Airbus' UHCA was to have a "horizontal double bubble" with two A300-sized fuselages side by side encased in an outer skin (somewhat like certain Soviet subs had two parallel pressure hulls encased in a larger, unpressurized hull).

Airbus UHCA Concept with "horizontal double-bubble" parallel cabins


There was also their P500 concept, which preceded the A3XX and would have used a similar side-by-side parallel cabin.


User currently offlineIcelandairMSP From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26572 times:

As it currently stands, there are few reasons to size up a brand new aircraft to compete with the A380. As has been said, it is a niche aircraft (particularly in that I believe it can only stretch, not shrink) and it has already picked up most of its target customers.

That said, we will have to wait and find out what happens to the 787-10. Everyone says it's a matter of "if," but Boeing has already expressed that a further stretch wouldn't have the statistics of the shorter models and the larger the model, the further it needs to go, really. If they leave the 787 program with just the -8 and -9 variants, Y3 might be a three-variant aircraft. I think so long as Boeing designs the aircraft from the beginning that way and isn't appending on a possible stretch as the 787-10 is, they'd be a little more convincing.

If it's a 2-variant aircraft, I imagine they go straight for the 360/420 or 350/450 split. A 3-variant I'd imagine would be more like 300/360/420 or 320/400/480.

It would probably need to comfortably seat 10-abreast if stretched so far. No more of this "9-abreast but 10 if you REALLY have to" crap or now with the 787 it came out as "8-across but 9 if you MUST." Thankfully there's more room for 9 in the 787 than 10 in the 777. Who are you kidding, Boeing?

The range would need to be stellar. If they could design it to get near 77L range standard on all models, they could focus on just their base variants. The days of high-capacity US aircraft needs (762, 763, 772) are pretty much over and the Japanese never seem to order enough short range versions of anything to make the cost of designing a non-ER or D version worth it. Look at the 773 versus the 77W. Basically, the fewer the variants, the better. The less they would need to have ER and LR versions would only benefit development.

I would probably need to be able to stand alone as a freighter as well. That's where the 747 continues to make money and why the 777 ended up outselling the A340.

I suppose if we're being crazy, this could be the chance to look at a 3-aisle aircraft. 2-4-4-2, 3-3-3-3, if they could get that to not be an obscenely wide plane with wingspan, it might have a shot. But I'm not aerospace engineer, so I don't know what implications a wider cabin would have except it would probably leave more room for cargo below, but it would need to at least fit at A380 gates. If airports had to scramble about to prepare for another aircraft that may never come (or does come often and takes up lots and lots of room) I'd say it wouldn't fly. But again, I don't know how you would figure out what an efficient wingspan increase would be.

Anyway, just rambling some thoughts.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26560 times:

I see the A380 will grow and cabins been rationalized (11 abreast maindeck, stretch, new engines) and it will connect the top 20 hubs in Europe, Asia and North America with 500-800 people onboard in 4-5 seating classes. To compete with that you need another A380.

Personally I think Boeing will go with a beefed up 787 subseries covering the segment up to ~350 seats. (bigger wing engines, LDG etc). They have to, the 777-200ER/LR has lost the battle against A350-900 already (backlogs imploded).



The 747-8i was not embraced by the airlines and the A350-1000 (with its redesigned engine and enlarged wing, LDG) can probably cover the market up to 420 seats.



Boeing currently "owns" the segment >320 seats with the 777-300ER and existing 747 fleet. If they do a simple upgrade on the 777 I wonder if the airlines think it's good enough. (They "refused" the 757-300, 767-400ER, 787-3 and 747-8i and put question marks at the 737NNG, it's not unthinkable..)


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26519 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
There was also their P500 concept, which preceded the A3XX and would have used a similar side-by-side parallel cabin.

yah, these I am sure failed do to having a massive structural disadvantage over a stacked deck, given two pressure vessels, and low height to lenght making bending stiffness a concern. Composites should allow it to be done as a single pressure vessel... and not quite so wide such that you don't have quite the same issues with emergancy exit.

On the other hand a 14Y (16Y?) triple aisle plane would seat a hell of alot of people and haul a hell of alot of cargo. I just don't see it practical unless something severely limits frequency of flights and promotes the use of VLA in mass numbers. The airport commonality issues alone would sink it in todays market.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29653 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-200ER is "End of Life" so there was no backlog to "implode", just the natural evaporation of the backlog as customers moved on and existing orders were filled. And the 777-200LR keeps adding orders to it's backlog, which I believe is the opposite of what happens in an implosion.

User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26419 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 6):
In the time frame mentioned, could you perhaps explain where the engines needed to power it would come from?

I have read that the Ge-90-115 can go as high as 150k lbs of thrust, combined with an 80 m wing that may all you need to build an A380 Lite with sufficient runway performance.

Quoting IcelandairMSP (Reply 8):
As it currently stands, there are few reasons to size up a brand new aircraft to compete with the A380. As has been said, it is a niche aircraft (particularly in that I believe it can only stretch, not shrink) and it has already picked up most of its target customers.

I don't think you have to compete directly, but at some size (say around 450 seats) frequency and lower maintenance costs may favour a twin Ecoliner like Aircraft or an 777 XWB with 11 W seating - 3x5x3 - although who would want to sit in such a beast?

I wouldn't call it that limited of a market - the 777W and 747-4 replacement market will be quite large.

I'm just wondering with 787 level technology if Y3 can cover both and be good enough to knee cap the 380 within the next 7-8(based on the fact that it may take Airbus 5-7 years to clear the A380 backlog so EIS would be similar) years if Boeing decides to do a cleansheet.

Good point about the cost of a twin decker.

An 80m x 80m 11W Single Deck may be the winner. At least until a BWB is feasible.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 26422 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10):
On the other hand a 14Y (16Y?) triple aisle plane would seat a hell of alot of people and haul a hell of alot of cargo

When I made sketches on the Ecoliner cross section it seemed to me it is probablematic the make >11 abreast on a single deck efficient compared to a double deck.



User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 26318 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 13):
When I made sketches on the Ecoliner cross section it seemed to me it is probablematic the make >11 abreast on a single deck efficient compared to a double deck.

I thoght ther could be a maximum of 2 people between you and the isle, so why would 12 abrest need 3 isles, it would only need 2, right?

If I were A or B I would have the eggshape of the 747, That way the bottom Could be wide enough to haul three LD3 side by side, or maybe an LD3 corect way, Then a LD3 squezzed inbetween another LD3.



Boiler Up!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29653 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 26307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 14):
I thoght ther could be a maximum of 2 people between you and the isle, so why would 12 abrest need 3 isles, it would only need 2, right?

I believe the maximum number of seats you can have in a center section is five and the maximum number of seats you can have in a section that abuts up to the fuselage on one side is three - so that would be 3+5+3 = 11. Twelve would require (essentially) four sets of three seats - 3+3+3+3 with an aisle between each set (for a total of three aisles).


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4602 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25901 times:

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 14):
Could be wide enough to haul three LD3 side by side, or maybe an LD3 corect way, Then a LD3 squezzed inbetween another LD3.

My impression is that the LD in largest use is the 96 or 88 x125x63 pallet. The LD3 is primarily used for baggage.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2197 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 25754 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Assume that your Boeing and that you decide to match Airbus and re-engine the 737, which would leave you significant resources to focus on a 777 replacement.

That assumption would be the single largest error made by Boeing right from the start. The question you have to ask first is: what would Airbus do in the meantime with their "free resources"? If there is the slightest possibility that Airbus would advance in the NB market (e.g. by developing a new clean sheet NB shortly after the A320NG) IMO it would be a capital error to obligate with Y3. It would literally end Boeing's market participation in the single aisle market (after about 2020).

Engaging those "free resources" by commiting to Y3 and loosing the power to answer any thread to the NB market adequately IMO would be very dangerous for Boeing. Because answering adequately the NB market's needs could require "significant resources" as well.

Therefore your initial assumption requires Boeing to take a very risky and bold step right at the beginning.

But having said that let's continue with the fun part and speculate along the given premise...!


IMO Y3 should put the focus on beating the A350 efficiency. If the mid-size version will be larger the main goal must be to beat the A350 effciency significantly. Because the larger plane must be more efficient to have a chance at all. And because the shrink-version of it will compete head-to-head against the A350 anyway (and shrinks loose some efficiency).

Probably the best would be the size starting directly above the 789 (nothing to gain by overloading the 787 backlog more by new derivatives). The 300 seat market could be needed for Y3 to get a positive business case because overall sales volume for the larger sizes alone may be too dimmish.

How to accomplish that?

Most likely and cheapest would be a new plane reusing the 787 cross section...


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 25672 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 18):
Engaging those "free resources" by commiting to Y3 and loosing the power to answer any thread to the NB market adequately IMO would be very dangerous for Boeing. Because answering adequately the NB market's needs could require "significant resources" as well.

This is Boeings dilemna - they cant do Y1 and Y3 at the same time.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 18):
And because the shrink-version of it will compete head-to-head against the A350 anyway (and shrinks loose some efficiency).

This is where I'm confused that many people see Y3 as something that must reach up into 748 and 380 territory. I would have thought that Y3 will be built to defend the significant territory established by the 77W against the new and more efficient 350-1000 - the 350 seat category is where an awful lot of money is to be made or lost.
If the 350 seat version of Y3 is a heavy shrink like the 358 then it will be at a disadvantage as the stretched 350-1000 will be the most structurally efficient model of the 350 family. Its all about CASM and there doesn't seem to be a good case for sacrificing the structural efficiency of the 77W replacement just for the sake of getting into the 748 or 380 size category.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 18):
IMO Y3 should put the focus on beating the A350 efficiency

 checkmark 


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2010-05-05 04:00:36]

User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25476 times:

Maybe Y3 doesn't have to shrink to 350 seats. Boeing could do the 787-10 to get them into the low 300's and Y3 covers say 375-475

At what size and efficiency will an Super Sized 777(Call it the MCD777 - For McDonald's not MD) or Ecoliner take away Airlines desire to go to A380-800/900 size? Can it be done with current technology?

Isn't the achilles heel of the A380 Turn Around time, and lack of flexibility as it's just too big and hard to fill? If it does go to an 900(to match efficiency of Y3) and 650+ seats won't that just be one size too big, and airlines will end up having to sell the extra seats as cheap Y class?


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 25324 times:

The X-48C is where Boeing is at present.They completed tests in April on the X-48B after a year of tests.These were to proove landing and takeoff at high AOA.Thet prooved successful.Now a twin engined version with vertical tails is about to be tested X-48C.This is just comleting(ed?) the Langley wind tunnel tests.This revised design will further reduce (the very low) noise elements and further improve stability.This is very likley (with 787 style wingtips) to be close to the final shape.It has been modeled on a single passenger compartment and a single cargo hold.With a total pax of about 450.

A BWB (flying wing) is 30% more efficient than a tube and wings via it's shape alone.

As the 777 is getting a revamp and the 747(8) has just got one, such a plane is at least a decade away.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 24429 times:

The initial assumption has a flaw. You cannot replace 777s and compete against A350 and A380 with one family.

The A380 is needed everywhere were slots are an issue and airports cannot be expended. To compete against it, you must build an aircraft of at least the same size, and there is clearly no market need for another aircraft in that size for the next decade.

Shall Y3 reach up to the 748 size? 748i sales are anything but brilliant, so investing 10th of billions for this size to get an aircraft slightly better than the 748 doesn't pay out.

So it remains the size of the current 777. 772 and 77E and soon 77L are under home competition by the 787, so all that remains is the 77W market. Basically, currently the 77W has no competitor, and this will partly remain even after the A350-1000 enters service end of this decade. Up to now 400 77W have been ordered.

So Y3 for me is the question, is it worth to invest 20 bio $++ into a market of 400 frames size, so 50mio ++ per potential frame, if you have no competitor resp can keep in the market with a modest mid life update for maybe 2 bio?

I would reconsider this in about 5 years, earliest.


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 810 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23202 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 1):
Y-3 shouldn't be wasted on "replacing" the A380 at all.... that market is too niche Boeing can comfortably cede to Airbus

You don't need to replace the A380 as it hasn't proven to be profitable. There are a few niche markets and routes that do well with it but at best they'll break even or possibly make a tiny profit.

Sticking to the question though, if you were aiming to replace both the 777 and A380 in one frame, it would have to be a highly adaptable frame to scale between 300 seats up to 500. That's very difficult to do economically because the wing design would need to change to suit the larger or smaller variant.

The only solution I could suggest is a lightweight, all composite, variable geometry wing. This has never been done. It would allow the wing to adapt and stay in optimal position based on speed, weight etc. After that, it's just a matter of uprating or down rating the engines and taking plugs in and out of the fuselage to get a 777 replacement or A380 replacement.

It would be high risk and high cost with current technology. I am over simplifying things a bit but it is a workable theory. I do like the flying pancake designs too where the fuselage is used to generate lift. I think there is potential there too.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23178 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 19):
This is Boeings dilemna - they cant do Y1 and Y3 at the same time.

Why not? They're doing 787 and 747-8i at the same time, they did 757 and 767 at the same time, and the narrowbody team runs largely independently of the wide-body team anyway.

Tom.


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2198 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23009 times:

I agree with the sentiments that an A380 replacement is not in the cards for Y3 unless some miracle happens and airlines can fly the beast half full and still make a profit. September 11th and now the economic crisis has put panic into the CEO's and boards of airlines. Except for the arab airlines with endless cash barrels available, every other airline doesn't want to get caught with massive capacity that they can't fill in an industry that is notoriously cyclical. The situation in Greece could easily degenerate and economic crisis part two would be on the horizon. So except for slot restricted airports I don't see the market for the giant aircraft to be great.

I also see the trend continuing where the public is more time sensitive and the move to more convenient flights as happens in North America. So more point to point where economically feasible and frequency will continue to be the prefered and growing choice. You see the drive for it across the board in all other areas of the public's life, it isn't rational to think the public will accept it in the travel industry.


25 morrisond : One of the knocks on a BWB is that if you go to an extreme of something like 20-25w, it would make it very uncomfortable for people in turns. Why not
26 sunrisevalley : Stitch, as a point of reference do you define a 77W as a 73.08m plane (fusilage tip to tip) or 52.93m ( centre front door to centre rear door)...or s
27 Stitch : I use actual fuselage lengths since that is what determines how the aircraft will integrate into airport infrastructures. So I would define a 77W as
28 Post contains images parapente : One of the knocks on a BWB is that if you go to an extreme of something like 20-25w, it would make it very uncomfortable for people in turns. Not when
29 Stitch : You could write the flight control software to limit the plane's turn rate to prevent such forces being transmitted to the passenger cabin. And the m
30 Post contains images astuteman : I don't understand why it would "need" to kill the A380 And even that won't "kill" the A380. It might result in it being moved "upstream" though On a
31 SolarFlyer22 : I agree. The only possible change would be if there is a steep and sustained increase in air travel. If the traveling population and frequency went u
32 keesje : If you start connecting these hubs and their extensive feeder networks you get on a good way. 1 ATLANTA, GA (ATL) 2 CHICAGO, IL (ORD) 3 LONDON, GB (L
33 morrisond : It doesn't need to kill the 380 but it could take airlines need to buy it away if Y3 is good enough, and allow Boeing to regain market dominance abov
34 Post contains links Jambrain : Anyone who has been to China and or India in the past 5 years will have seen the explosive growth of the middle classes / graduate educated engineers
35 Stitch : The unfortunate side for Boeing and 747 aficionados is that a significantly improved 777-300ER is going to kill the 747-8 just as the original 777-30
36 Post contains images LAXDESI : Unfortunately, Boeing has no choice but to improve the 773ER to counter A350-1000.
37 Stitch : They do, but it remains to be seen just how much improvement they have to do. Contrary to the depiction some have put forward, this is not a "winner
38 rwessel : The problem is not the turn rate (and any airline pilot who can't keep the ball centered needs to find another job), rather the roll in and out of th
39 tdscanuck : This is certainly an issue that needs to be dealt with, but it seems like a given that any future large aircraft are going to be full FBW, which mean
40 XT6Wagon : 11Y would require 3.2 feet of extra width over a 787. Exactly two 17.2" seats with 2 extra armrests. heck throw in an extra 6" total to make the aisl
41 Post contains images astuteman : Fair comment. It is indeed possible that the A380 may never return its investment. But the great delays in development and production ramp-up, combin
42 rheinwaldner : It is a dilema because financing would make it nearly impossible. That could be the reason that currently production speed for 737 and 777 are increa
43 Post contains links morrisond : http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...380-jumbo-sits-out-order-boom.html Why not? The X-48 C is looking pretty good. If it really is that much more e
44 Post contains images astuteman : The technology to build it has been around for decades - but it's not built yet. I don't see a 450-500 seat BWB at the top of boeing's "to-do" list j
45 A342 : So during the 787 and 748 development, the narrowbody engineers sat around and twisted their thumbs while one widebody delay was followed by another?
46 kanban : consider that the 737 replacement will be a metal fuselage, composite wings, and new engines. (metal because for the barrel size adequate composite th
47 morrisond : I never mentioned that it has to replace an A380. I was asking if you could make a 450 Seat plane efficient enough ( I guess the answer is yes if you
48 frmrCapCadet : The competition, in my mind, for the 380 is and will be indrect, and at the edges. The 350 and 787 are and will eat into predicted 380 orders. And imp
49 LAXDESI : No one knows where fuel prices will be 10 years from now. If fuel prices are double what they are today, I can see a robust market for A380 size airc
50 A342 : If those rules were true, not a single A380 would have been ordered. Instead, airlines would be flying ultra-long-range 50-seaters across the pacific
51 XT6Wagon : Composite fuselages are far cheaper to produce, and thus will be used. One of the goals of the 737RS program is to save on production costs so a redu
52 Stitch : Folks need to remember that the price of crude oil affects more than the price of Jet A. A significant rise in the price of crude oil will raise the p
53 frmrCapCadet : I could have used some sort of term like 'casm/rasm dynamic' rather than 'rule'. Although the point Zvezda made was that the rule asserts that as cap
54 747400sp : Here is a Y-3 ideal that I would like to see. Design an ultra large twin jet or even quad, useing a 787 section 41. Design the a/c cabin with a 22' 8"
55 Post contains images A342 : I don't question that. But if total profit is higher even with a lower RASM, then I'd go for that. The flight you mention are not P to P at all. Ever
56 DocLightning : Except the order book isn't bearing that prediction out. Now, with all this CFRP stuff, has anyone considered a square cross-section?
57 kanban : Cost wise only, structurally are best for larger larger diameters.. a single aisle composite barrel requires more thickness than a metal barrel skin
58 frmrCapCadet : Last I knew both New York City, London and et cetera are points. And a huge amount of their traffic originates and ends in these points. Which does no
59 tdscanuck : No, they "sat around" and cranked out 30+ 737's per month, while doing two performance improvement packages and a new interior, providing the cash fl
60 DocLightning : Because if you have a square cross section, you don't have crown space to deal with, nor do you have awkwardly-shaped cargo spaces. You have two long
61 LAXDESI : Wouldn't there be greater drag with a square cross section?
62 astuteman : So are the exceptions. The "rules" are great from a purely hypothetical view, but in reality they are affected by a whole host of other external fact
63 A342 : As I already mentioned: But still, doing PIP packages, a new interior and integrating a new engine variant (CFM56-7BE Evolution or whatever they call
64 Burkhard : CFRP does not end laws of physic. There will be extreme forces in the edges and on the sides, so a square aircraft that is pressurized will be MUCH h
65 rheinwaldner : That rule fails spectacularly explaining why each of the A330, A340, 777, 787, 743&744, 748, A350, A380 on average replaced smaller aircrafts....
66 morrisond : I think you can do two with Engineers switching between the two as needed. There are core NB and WB teams that are augmented when needed. Plus as comp
67 rheinwaldner : Then, why are clean sheet programs much more costly and take longer than ever? Countless times I read resignated comments on this website that new ai
68 Stitch : That would be very expensive. The 787 program had thousands of engineers and even then, it was so starved for resources that they had to pull enginee
69 A342 : Well, that's exactly my point! Maybe the widebody and narrowbody teams at Boeing don't operate that independently after all... I believe Airbus, simi
70 kanban : Boeing has design and manufacturing engineering (the two work hand in hand on design work) teams in Russa, India, Japan and more... some of these area
71 Stitch : They share some resources, but the mission profiles of are generally very different so Boeing does maintain separate engineering teams for the variou
72 morrisond : It seems that much of issues are production issues, not design issues, on both 787 and A380. Switching to CFRP construction was more complex than for
73 Post contains images Jambrain : Is your background in engineering or may I hazard a guess in Sales? As I am sure many more qualified people then me will tell you that creating a mod
74 frmrCapCadet : - 300 of the new and very largest large airliners in the last c10 years, which saw the greatest number planes ordered in history. - The smaller 787 h
75 morrisond : Yes, I know it's over simplifying, my point though is to stick with 787 technology and aero, it would cost you huge dollars to improve on 787 aero an
76 A342 : Yes and no. If you consider that the average A380 will have about twice as many seats as the average 787 (I'm including both the 788 and 789 here), i
77 Post contains images LAXDESI : Perhaps a seat metric (based on number of seats X number of aircraft) for wide-bodies would be more useful.
78 XT6Wagon : Sure it does. You should first look at the fact that Boeing made far more money on the 767 program than the 747 program. Margins on the 747 were allw
79 tdscanuck : When the whole industry (in widebodies) is based on LD containers, I think you do have an awkwardly-shaped cargo space...you're talking about wasted
80 kanban : small point.... the 787 and 747-8 are commercial engineers, the bulk of the Wedgetail and P8-A engineers are military/aerospace division... yes there
81 BMI727 : Exactly, I don't think that the A380 is really stealing market share from any Boeing product. The 748 is selling slow, but the A380 is too, so it doe
82 rheinwaldner : The 787 mostly was order for 767 replacement which is smaller. Therefore om average the 787 replaces smaller aircrafts too. I agree!
83 A342 : Did they? That would be news to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't heard such a statement anywhere else... Do we? It seems you have the n
84 StickShaker : The 748 is a derivative rather than clean sheet design - running Y1 and Y3 in parallel would be far more demanding. The big issues other than enginee
85 morrisond : If I was Boeing CEO, 777NG would be similar to the 747-800 transformation, so I could get to Y1 and Y3 as soon as possible. You just have to make it g
86 sunrisevalley : For the 77W; and if I am reading the chart correctly, at 7000nm if MTOW was reduced by 12t the payload would increase by ~ 6.76t.
87 BMI727 : I don't think that would be good enough. You can make a lot more changes than that and still be a whole lot cheaper than an all new design. I think t
88 Post contains images Stitch : The current 777 is looking pretty good at the moment, to say nothing of a 777NG. In the past two weeks Boeing sold 30 777-300ERs, which is 40% of the
89 bmacleod : To replace the 777, basically have 787 technologies; a 'fattened' or lengthened 787 perhaps? I don't see Y3 capable of taking on the A380; Boeing woul
90 frmrCapCadet : A Y-3 coming close to the CASM of the 380 would be a formidable competitor.
91 BMI727 : I'm certainly not part of the "777 on death bed" crowd, but it is always good to be looking into the future. And furthermore Boeing really doesn't ne
92 morrisond : Y3 Doesn't need to take on A380 Directly, but if a twin engine 400-450 Seat BWB with or without Open Rotor (hard to do on A380 due to shielding issues
93 zvezda : The OP's question was how to replace the 777 and simultaneously prevent any further WhaleJet orders. To succeed in satisfying both objectives would re
94 LAXDESI : 798 and 799 would be about 2m longer than 772 and 773 respectively. That would add about 2 rows in the economy section. I think the proposed 79X are
95 zvezda : You appear to be counting only the lower deck.
96 Post contains images astuteman : As far as I'm aware, Boeing say that the 747 was for a long time their cash cow by a large margin. It is only in recent years that its crown has been
97 Post contains images zvezda : An Ecoliner with a 240x300 inch fuselage cross section would have a cross sectional area 23-24% smaller than that of the WhaleJet. "slightly narrower
98 LAXDESI : Sorry. I totally missed that.
99 parapente : It should not be forgotten that Boeing sat down and looked ay a "Y3" with Airbus (thus halving costs) and rejected it on commercial grounds.They were
100 zvezda : That's right. During the biggest sales boom in the history of commercial aviation, both passenger VLAs had sales which were a close approximation of
101 Post contains images astuteman : On the cabin area figures provided, the ecoliner provides only 7% less cabin area per unit m length, but will 24% smaller in cross-section. I don't b
102 Post contains images zvezda : The greater the fuselage cross-section, the greater the difference between cabin length and fuselage length. The biggest difference in volumetric eff
103 morrisond : At the beginning of this thread, I was all for an Ecoliner or 777 11W CFRP idea. However after hearing about Boeing's progress and encouraging results
104 zvezda : I suspect that Boeing will probably decide to rewing the 777, rather than develop an all-new Y3. The big problem with a passenger BWB is customer and
105 morrisond : Good point, but as you would have so much interior volume you could put skylights in and have an observation area in the front, seperate from 1st/Bus
106 frmrCapCadet : It has seemed to me that Boeing does not need to 'kill' the 380. But that a 777 sized frame, maybe a little larger, Y3 or NG that came close to the CA
107 LAXDESI : IIRC, A380 cost about $15 billion to develop, and B787 cost about $10 billion to develop. It would be safe to assume that Y3 would cost around $10 bi
108 A342 : Probably, it has been already mentioned, but a BWB is a horrible shape for a pressure vessel.
109 Stitch : Difficulty fitting into existing airport infrastructures? How do you load and unload passengers and cargo? How do you handle loading and unloading fl
110 astuteman : Simple. Commercial necessity vs commercial risk. As I said many, many posts ago, technology is NOT the constraint. Rgds
111 zvezda : It's a question of the extent to which one wants to optimize the design. One can always spend more time and money on a wing design and get a lighter,
112 Post contains links LAXDESI : If the cost is closer to $4 billion, then it might be better, IMO, to spend an additional $6 billion for an all new design. A while back, I had looke
113 LAXDESI : Correction: The cargo numbers are 68,895 lbs. for 773ER, and 75,250 lbs. for 773NG.
114 sunrisevalley : I am having some trouble with your numbers. If I understand you correctly , the passenger load is 76650#, cargo is 75250#, passenger ready weight (eg
115 LAXDESI : I am using Boeing's numbers based on its 365 seat configuration: OEW 372,100 MTOW 775,000 MZFW 524,000 MSP 151,900(Max. Structural Payload) The diffe
116 zvezda : Why? What benefit do you hope to attain by spending another (at least) $6B? The obvious big one is reduced MX for the airframe by upgrading to a CFRP
117 LAXDESI : As I noted in my post below, 773ER(Y3-10 abreast) does better than A350-1000. Furthermore, with a 10-abreast fuselage, Boeing can offer a 774ER(Y3) t
118 zvezda : 10-abreast does not require an all-new aircraft. Boeing could make the 777's cabin about 8-10cm wider by using more expensive insulation, as they hav
119 LAXDESI : True, but it will not match the comforts of A350 in Y. For that a much wider fuselage is needed. I am trying to come up with a cabin width that will
120 Post contains images astuteman : EK already flies its 773ER's 10-across. Makes you wonder why they've got A350-1000's on order. I suspect it's not that simple.. See above. Again, I d
121 zvezda : Compared to current 777-300ERs, the A350-1000 promises substantially better operating economics. It would be a very expensive development (probably l
122 Post contains links LAXDESI : Here's a post from my thread comparing B773ER(9 abreast) to A350-1000. I haven't run the numbers with a 10-abreast 773ER, but I don't expect that to
123 Post contains links and images A342 : To add more fuel to the fire: "Airbus is raising its expectations on A380 orders this year to 20 aircraft. Chief operating officer for customers John
124 zvezda : 20 net WhaleJet sales in 2010? Would be nice, but Leahy has a record of optimism.
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...
What Would It Take To Reopen 717 Prod'n? posted Fri Mar 2 2007 00:11:01 by QantasA380
What Would It Take To Get An Airline Started? posted Tue Jan 9 2007 00:07:57 by Speedbird747BA
KLM To Add More 777's And F100's posted Thu Sep 22 2005 16:46:30 by Kappel
What Would US Need To Start South American Ops? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 20:38:57 by Jdwfloyd
Would We Have Alternative To Kerosene? posted Wed Jun 29 2005 05:10:45 by Aleksandar
What Would You Like To See On The A380? posted Mon Jan 5 2004 04:54:58 by MarcJet66
What Would You Fly To MAD From MEX, IB Or Am? posted Fri Oct 31 2003 02:06:34 by Ar385
What Would You Do To Save An Airline? posted Sun May 19 2002 20:18:09 by Konstantinos
What A/C Would You Like To Live In? posted Fri Oct 26 2001 13:03:42 by Braniff Place
What Would You Like To See On The Next 747? posted Thu Oct 25 2001 13:24:22 by VS744