Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing/BCA 787-10X Unveiled  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 42335 times:

This is not a launch, but a concept drawing:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...boeing-lifts-the-cover-on-new.html

As Jon Ostrower says, it looks like a couple of fuselage plugs were inserted. It's not as long as the longest previous estimates, but is still a significant addition.

[Edited 2011-05-24 13:55:32]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
199 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 42321 times:

"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

A few numbers would be nice, comparisons with the A351 and 77W even more so.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 42287 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My original guess was going to be a:

2m stretch to the forward end of Section 43
2m stretch to the forward end of Section 46
1m stretch to the forward end of Section 47

Somebody did a sketch of a 787-10 showing a "Section 42" between Sections 41 and 43 and FB notes this may be in effect with the new design.

So maybe 2m forward of Section 47 and a new Section 42 of 2-3m length?

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong

The original 787-10 design was believed to be a 6m stretch of the 787-9. To match the 777-300ER in floorspace, the stretch would have needed to be around 10-12m.

[Edited 2011-05-24 14:00:21]

User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 41811 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

Probably necessary to maintain a viable range envelope.


User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 41440 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 3):
Probably necessary to maintain a viable range envelope.

Still, 43 extra seats is still a fair size increase. Ideally, I think Boeing would like the -10X to have a 20% capacity increase over the -9 or 54 more seats.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 40985 times:

I wasn't keen on this but now I'm a believer. A relatively simple stretch, trading seats for range. This gives them the fuselage needed for a longer range version which will be more complicated since it will need more gear, power and wing.

I wonder what the range will be...



What the...?
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 40432 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
"Smaller than the 2007 rendering". So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

A few numbers would be nice, comparisons with the A351 and 77W even more so.

I really doubt this is to compete witht the 77W or the A350-1000. It's more of a 772 replacement and to compete agaainst the A350-900.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 40264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 4):
Still, 43 extra seats is still a fair size increase. Ideally, I think Boeing would like the -10X to have a 20% capacity increase over the -9 or 54 more seats.

I know from Boeing that the 2007 concept was to seat 321 in a Boeing OEM three class layout at 9-abreast in Economy. So they likely pulled the final two rows of seats, which would have been a center row of four with a lavatory on either side. So we're talking a 4m stretch as opposed to 6m.

Looking at the concept art, the row of four windows with a join on either side exactly matches the "Section 42" extension I have seen in some suggestions. So my guess is a 2m "Section 42" slotted in between Sections 41 and Sections 43 and a 2m extension of the front of Section 47.

So OEW should be a bit less than the OEW increase between the 787-8 and 787-9. I'd guess around 8t more than the 787-9, so assuming the 787-10's MTOW is also 251t, between the extra empty and payload weights, I'd guess fuel will be reduced between 15-20t. So I would expect a similar fuel load at MZFW as the 787-8.

[Edited 2011-05-24 17:16:09]

User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 39078 times:

Stitch, not two rows. It will still seat 313 ( 270+43 )


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlineYXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months ago) and read 37854 times:

Don't blast me if I get this wrong, but a higher density possibly lower range plane would this full a 762 plug? Good high density transcon with better fuel efficiency than a 777?

User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 36787 times:

Looks like a 757 fuselage.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 35845 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 1):
So as not to prematurely kill their cash-cow 77W, or am I reading this wrong?

No, no 787 stretch without a significant rework of the wing and other parts could really challenge the 77W.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
To match the 777-300ER in floorspace, the stretch would have needed to be around 10-12m.

That would roughly match the length, but I would imagine floor space would be somewhat lacking still. Capacity in a nine across configuration would be about the same too, though.

Honestly, I find the 5 meter stretch a bit short. I think 8 or so would be closer to the mark, if for no other reason than I think that the A350-1000 is the plane the 787-10 should be aimed at more than the A350-900. Maybe Boeing would have to go back to the original -9 wing or get the powerplant makers to make some improvements to keep a reasonable range, but if the -10 is only going to be a 5 meter stretch, I have to wonder if Boeing isn't kicking themselves for not adding a bit of length to the -9 when they had the chance.

And while we're at it, what is the X in -10X? Or maybe there isn't a tangible feature to warrant the X, and Boeing is just spinning it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinenipoel123 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 34868 times:

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 10):
Looks like a 757 fuselage.

Aside from the distinct 787 nose, meaning most planes will have a similar fuselage. They are, after all, tubes with wings. Some are prettier than others though...



one mile of road leads to nowhere, one mile of runway leads to anywhere
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 34327 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):

Honestly, I find the 5 meter stretch a bit short.

I suspect any longer of a stretch and the extra weight would take too much off of the range to make it worth while...at least if they wish to stay with the -9 wing, engines and bogies.



What the...?
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 34084 times:

Going by the additional windows looks like 1 additional row of seats forward of the wing, and 4 additional rows of seats aft of the wing.

6+(4x9)=42 seats



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1885 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 33093 times:

That would be one sexy looking 787. I hope Boeing gathers enough traction on the market to launch it and build it.


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 32668 times:

With most of the bits straight out of the parts bins, I don't imagine it would take much more than someone making the order to get the ball rolling.


What the...?
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 32582 times:

It sounds like a 4-5m stretch only.

That aircraft is no B77E replacement, as it lacks the range.
But could be a very competitive trans-atlantic people mover for DL,UA and AA.


User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8565 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 32552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):

With most of the bits straight out of the parts bins, I don't imagine it would take much more than someone making the order to get the ball rolling.

Maybe NZ could become the launch customer for the 787-10 as well as for the -9. They will be looking for replacements for their 777-200ERs in a few years. I am sure that they were one of the carriers mentioned as being potentially interested the first time the -10 was suggested. Of course they still have to wait for Boeing to start work on their -9s, so maybe they won't be in too much of a hurry to be a launch customer again.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 32312 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):
With most of the bits straight out of the parts bins, I don't imagine it would take much more than someone making the order to get the ball rolling.

It will actually require a lot of redesign, not that it will be all that noticeable from the outside. The composite barrels ply directions and thickness would need to redesigned to take the additional loads of the longer keel.

They also may decide to reduce the side if the horizontal and vertical stabilisers as the additional moment arm would mean the current design is too heavier than required.

I would also not be surprised to see changes to the landing gear similar to the 300ER for tailstrike prevention.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 32084 times:

"Same wing, same engine", according to Albaugh. OK, so we most likely won't see the wing extension originally planned for the -9, that I can believe. But I hope the engine will deliver a bit more thrust than the -9, wouldn't it?  
Quoting 328JET (Reply 17):
That aircraft is no B77E replacement, as it lacks the range.
But could be a very competitive trans-atlantic people mover for DL,UA and AA.


   It will be targeted as a A333 replacement, which would be a very lucrative market potentially. Not just for North American airlines, I suspect European and Asian airlines would be interested as well. They wouldn't mind a little bit of extra capacity combined with lower operating costs compared to the A330-300.

But that 787-10X needs to be significantly cheaper to operate than an A350-900, or it will be doomed   

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 18):
Maybe NZ could become the launch customer for the 787-10 as well as for the -9. They will be looking for replacements for their 777-200ERs in a few years.


As 328JET said, this is not a 77E replacement, and certainly not for NZ who needs the range of the 77E. Besides, most 777-200ER's are relatively young and need not to be replaced soon.

I do hope for a launch order by AF/KL though   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 31978 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20):
It will be targeted as a A333 replacement, which would be a very lucrative market potentially. Not just for North American airlines, I suspect European and Asian airlines would be interested as well. They wouldn't mind a little bit of extra capacity combined with lower operating costs compared to the A330-300.

Asia has a massive number of widebodies operating relatively short routes, this would be a perfect replacement for the 773A as well.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 31738 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Going by the additional windows looks like 1 additional row of seats forward of the wing, and 4 additional rows of seats aft of the wing.

6+(4x9)=42 seats


Counting the windows they have added a section of 4 windows up front + an extra body join space the size of a window and extended the tail section forward with 4 windows.

Does 4 + 1 windows length increase forward of the wing only give you 1 row of business class seats? On the 789 (picture from latest ACAP broschyre) 5 windows gives you 2 J rows:



Why do they do a double join forward of the wing? Going from 788 to 789 they exteded section 43 from the door forward with 5 windows but for the 781 they don't increase this section, instead they kind of bolt a plug between section 43 and section 41. I don't quite get why they put a section 42?? in there, it give you 2 join areas, couldn't they just extend 43? Poking around I found this:

787 Components For 787-9? (by DfwRevolution May 13 2007 in Civil Aviation)

"the autoclave that Kawasaki is using for the section 43 is 17 meters long. The section 43 it self is 7,5 meters on the 787-8 and 10 meters on the 787-9. So there is a long way for Kawasaki to go until they are maxed out."

So the need for a plug is not there really. Seems the -10 extension is really quick and dirty  .

If you really need to produce a plug to sit there with 2 joins, what do you do? Rob the 2nd and 1st class of windows? Not to optimal.

[Edited 2011-05-25 02:29:58]


Non French in France
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 31338 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 21):
this would be a perfect replacement for the 773A as well.

It's a bit lacking in capacity for a 773 replacement, CX for example has 398 seats in their 773's. A350-1000 would be better suited for that role.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 31020 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
This is not a launch, but a concept drawing:

First I was wondering why Boeing presents the new version in a different livery. But I suppose this is due to the fact that currently it's just a concept whereas the other two version shown in the picture are already launched and in case of the 788 already in prodcution.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 10):
Looks like a 757 fuselage.

Exactly what I thought when I saw this picture.


25 parapente : It seems to have taken 20 posts to get round to what Boeing themselves have said what this plane will be. A 333 killer. Thats what it is (intended to
26 Post contains images CHRISBA777ER : Me too. Sexy.
27 DLDTW1962 : The 787-10 drawing almost looks like the B757 or A321 only wider and longer.
28 qfa787380 : It is a stretch with 43 more seats to make it a nominal 313 seater v 270 for the 789. Of course it is a 77E replacement as it will have over 7,000nm
29 JoeCanuck : Just a quickie GC range map from Aukland puts most of the Western Americas and most of Eastern Asia within a 6500nm range...probably theoretically do
30 Worldliner : Looks great. This should appeal to some airlines after capacity on medium range routes, might see North American airlines wanting to replace their TAT
31 JoeCanuck : Is it just me that finds it stunning that an aircraft that can potentially fly almost 1/3 of the way around the globe non stop carrying over 300 passe
32 Stitch : I have to believe the 787-10's MTOW will also be 251t and that the 787-9's MTOW was raised to this to lay the foundation for the 787-10. So at that p
33 seabosdca : And the 343... the 787-9 is pretty much a drop-in 343 replacement. I agree with the rest of your analysis.
34 AA777223 : I agree. This is kinda a "half" plane. As we all know, despite how everyone tries to characterize it, from a true capacity (NOT range) perspective: T
35 tdscanuck : When airframes say "plug" they almost never literally mean a plug, as in a separate piece of fuselage an an extra circumferential splice. They just m
36 panais : You wanted to say replacement instead of killer? Because by they time that this B787-10X is available for delivery to airlines, the A333 would have b
37 Stitch : Based on that concept picture, it looks very much like a "Section 42" plug is being placed between Sections 41 and 43 . Section 47 looks like it's be
38 328JET : For me the question raises if the airlines really should order both the A350 AND the B787-10 to replace the B77E, A343s and A330s...? It is all about
39 LAXDESI : Boeing's Airport Compatibilty Brochure shows 280(3 class) seats for 789. So the 313 seat 787-10 is only 33 seat larger than 789. I would think a 4m st
40 Stitch : If the 787-10 is more economical crossing the Atlantic than the A350-900 is... We have seen airlines fly the A330-300 and the 777-200ER instead of th
41 seabosdca : Not quite. On capacity, it's closer to this, assuming 9Y 787s: 788 = A332 = 764 789 = A358 = A333 = A343 7810 = A359 = 772 A3510 ~= 773 (A3510 is a b
42 Post contains images frigatebird : If you already operate the A350, no, adding the 787-10 wouldn't make much sense (unless you are EK or plan to mimic them ) But if you are a 787 opera
43 Post contains images 328JET : Yes and no. You need two fleets which are big enough to justify a second similar sized aircraft. That rules out a lot of potential customers. The que
44 Stitch : I disagree, but as you say, we'll know in a decade.
45 zeke : CX has already written off the 787 for a number of reasons, the main one being in the 9 across configuration the seats are not wide enough, it is clo
46 Post contains images AA777223 : I was assuming based on 8Y, admittedly. I think it is uncivilized to put 787s in a 9Y arrangement. I feel the same about 10Y on the 777. Your point i
47 seabosdca : In that case you were pretty close. But I think 9Y 787s will eventually be universal. Their seats and aisles aren't like 10Y 777s -- they're like 10Y
48 PlanesNTrains : After all of the mixed 330/777 fleets have developed, I think it's entirely plausible that we'll continue to see such buying patterns from many carri
49 328JET : I expect that as well. But more like smaller B787-versions and bigger A350-versions in one airline.
50 AirbusA6 : With many airlines choosing combined 787 A350 fleets, this could win a few extra orders for the 787 that would otherwise have been filled by default w
51 Stitch : It appears to depend on the aisle. At 19.5" aisles, it looks like seat cushion width at 9-abreast on an A350 will be 17.5". If you go with 17.25" ais
52 PlanesNTrains : I understand why that makes sense, but to me having both types in my fleet means that I could choose to have overlapping models for different mission
53 LAXDESI : A330s becomes very attractive when compared to 8-abreast 787s. A350 cabin is about 5" wider than B787's cabin. Would that be enough for CX to go 9-ab
54 BMI727 : That's a good philosophy, but I think that Boeing needs to be aiming at least as much for the A350-1000. If fuel prices rise, that bar gets lower. It
55 Stitch : The only way I see that happening is with some major changes to the wings, undercarriage and engines that would create a new "sub-family" of aircraft
56 ikramerica : It could be though that the "missing window" of the old join remains simply for simplicity and continuity purposes, but it's not a join location. Or
57 BMI727 : They are going to have to do that eventually, but spending so much time worrying about the A350-900 and making what is really a half measure 787-10 w
58 Stitch : Looking at the drawing in the ACAP, it sure looks like they are measuring the width inside the armrests and not including (part of all of) the armres
59 tistpaa727 : Exactly. I see this decision as leaving room for Boeing to introduce the 777NG mid decade to take on the A350-1000 and the upper end of the market. O
60 JoeCanuck : That's my sneaking suspicion...I can easily see two 787 families. The new -10 fuse will be the largest of the smaller models and will also be the bas
61 LAXDESI : In that case 787-10(LR) will compete directly against A359 for long haul routes, and 787-11(assuming a 20 foot stretch of 787-10) will compete agains
62 qfa787380 : I don't believe you and can almost guarantee CX will revisit the 787, when the -10X is offered. It certainly could replace their 333 fleet.
63 frmrCapCadet : As I understand any smaller plane with the range and similar or better CASM can be considered a competitor, just not in all circumstances.
64 JoeCanuck : I suspect that is a long term possibility. It might be a real over reach but there have been rumours that Boeing might make a CFRP wing for the 777..
65 Stitch : The 747-8 really has to play in her own sandbox, as small as that sandbox might be. Boeing can't raise the MTOW of the 777-200LR/777-300ER any more a
66 IcelandairMSP : Slightly off-topic, but why did Boeing decide to design the 787 to a width that would be generous at 8-abreast and a little tight at 9-abreast when it
67 Stitch : I expect it was a decision to be able to offer nine-abreast seating with the same seat width of the 777 and 747 at ten-abreast while offering more co
68 zeke : That is not correct, we have had new EY seats installed for some time across the fleet, and is set for another upgrade by the end of 2013. The A350/7
69 JoeCanuck : My assumption was that Boeing was going for a more comfortable 8 across and it was customers who decided to try for nine across and it caught on and
70 zeke : Could I suggest instead of purporting to have knowledge of what is installed, state the source that you got your information from when you made your
71 Post contains images frigatebird : I agree, CX could always decide to go 8-abreast on the 787-10X, it should still have more seats than an A333 (the 787-10X should be 10-12ft longer),
72 328JET : One question is open: WHEN can we expect the -10 to enter service?
73 dynamicsguy : One of the Boeing configuration guys visited Australia recently to give lectures on the 787, and this was one of the configuration decsions he was in
74 JoeCanuck : ...which, coincidentally enough, is a mere 0.3" less width per seat that what SEATGURU.COM reports as standard width for many A333's with their 8 acr
75 frigatebird : It needs to be officially launched first before anyone can answer that question - and that will happen only if Boeing can secure launch orders for at
76 columba : I know, I say that all the time but Lufthansa has stated interest in the 787-10. They need an aircraft the size of the A333/A343 and I guess they cou
77 JoeCanuck : 6500nm from FRA covers all of N.America, most of S.America, all of Africa and all of mainland Asia. I'd say that is pretty decent coverage. Now they j
78 Stitch : Speaking only for myself, I have found that the seat design makes a difference. I find an A320 family plane to be more comfortable than a 737 Classic
79 JoeCanuck : I agree. I have had very comfortable 6 hour flights with OS from DXB to VIE...they had excellent seats on their 738s. Conversely, I flew on an older
80 AA777223 : Hell, they still need to get the first 788 delivered. Until they do that, I won't count on them successfully creating a new aircraft.
81 frmrCapCadet : Success: 3 380s a month, and 7 787s a month
82 Post contains images 328JET : Did you...? We all know that Lufthansa will not wait until 2018 to replace their 343s... And before 2018 i do not see the -10 delivered.
83 Stitch : I think Boeing could theoretically offer it before then, but it would require order conversions from existing 787-8 and/or 787-9 customers. Honestly,
84 328JET : I doubt that this team had the time to develope two variants at the same time.... Let´s assume EIS of the B787-8 this year. EIS of the B787-9 late 2
85 Stitch : The key is, they really aren't two different variants. We're talking a 2-3m fuselage plug ("Section 42") and a 1-2m longer Section 47 and that's abou
86 328JET : Didn´t you say the same about the B787-8 and B787-9? That means we now have three different lengthes of the same aircraft...? They are very similar,
87 Stitch : I would imagine I did not, since the 787-8 and 787-9 have many changes between them.
88 JoeCanuck : There will be more similarities between the -10 and the -9 than between the -9 and -8. Except for maybe making the fins smaller to squeeze in a bit mo
89 mffoda : [Edited 2011-05-26 16:38:29][Edited 2011-05-26 16:39:12]
90 travelhound : With the amount of 77W's in service and on order it just might be the case there is a limited market for a 787-10 sized aircraft with 77W range requi
91 Stitch : The 787-10 is (effectively) a straight stretch of the 787-9. So the only physical difference between them should be the length of the fuselage (and p
92 HiJazzey : Neither do I. I'm fat, so it's a major issue for me. The width of the seat is a deciding factor. I used to look for 777s because of the comfortable 1
93 cosmofly : IMHO, it makes complete sense to integrate the development of 787-9 and -10X. The 787 project is so far behind schedule that only fast time-to-market
94 mffoda : Fair enough... But my comment was based on the ease of introducing a -10 vs. -1000 as you have just provided some details above (The 787-10 is ((effe
95 nomadd22 : Aren't they already using a slightly sub optimal wing for the -9 by going with the -8 wing? Using that same wing for the -10 might be stretching it a
96 Stitch : Within the A350 family, the A350-800 is a pure shrink of the A350-900. The A350-1000 will be more than a straight stretch, with tweaks to the wings,
97 mffoda : I'm afraid we're going to have use the same argument on the A350-800/ 900... No? And is the -1000 gonna have the same wing??[Edited 2011-05-26 18:45:
98 JoeCanuck : The -9 and the -10 should have the same weight, so same wing shouldn't be an issue. This is why it is deemed as a relatively simple stretch, even com
99 Post contains images mffoda : I know Joe... And thank you for all your patients... I guess what I was driving at was the ability of either manufacturer to deliver the -10 vs. -100
100 Stitch : I would think Boeing would need less time to deliver the 787-10 after the 787-9 than Airbus would need to deliver the A350-1000 after the A350-900 if
101 Post contains images mffoda : Thanks Stitch... I'm done for the evening... Anyone need a beer while I'm getting up?
102 Post contains images ferpe : The 787-10 is supposed to have the same MTOW as the -9, therefore it can keep the same wing planform, engines and undercarriage as the -9. If you want
103 JoeCanuck : With less work required that is entirely unique to the -10, (in comparison to the situation with the -1000), it is supposed that, overall, the -10 is
104 ferpe : Re if you can already cater for the design changes for the -10 in the desing of the -9 like the increased wing stresses. You can't even if you wanted
105 Post contains images astuteman : When Boeing themselves have said that a 787-10 won't be appearing "anytime soon", I don't think it's unreasonably to speculate that it won't be appea
106 BMI727 : I suspect that being "suboptimal" depends a lot on what you're doing. The 787-9 probably lost some performance at the extreme end, but for shorter fl
107 Post contains images frigatebird : I guess LH will have to wait until 2018, because neither the 787 nor the A350 will have production slots available before that... Maybe A or B can sq
108 doclightning : Really? Obviously, it's not insignificant, but I consider pitch to be more important.
109 328JET : Exactly. And as there is a lot to do and Boeing is not known for efficient project managements in the last years, i believe 2018 EIS is realistic. Lu
110 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : They must be pretty inefficient to need 7 years to do a "simple stretch". -Dave
111 astuteman : Depends what else they feel needs prioritisation Dave. The 787-9 enters service in 2013. BOEING have said the 787-10 ain't going to happen "anytime s
112 VH-BZF : I think Qantas would order this - yesterday! BZF
113 JoeCanuck : I like the somewhat subtle change in mindset from Boeing that seems to be occurring. They got burned by trying to be a bit too revolutionary with the
114 scbriml : Explain "based off of the -1000"? The R and F are both variants of the -900. IIRC when they were first mentioned, they were going to be -900s with th
115 BMI727 : That's exactly what "based off the -1000" is. Same as the 777-200LR and 777F being based off of the 777-300ER. Essentially, it's the same plane witho
116 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Of course, but "prioritisaztion" is one thing, ability is another. His comment: seemed to address "ability". But I'm open to correction. -Dave
117 Post contains images 328JET : After all that debacle with the dreamliner, Boeing will be very careful with a new derivative. They will not start a new version before the previous
118 Stitch : They're going to incorporate the same triple-sxle main wheel trucks of the A350-1000. I also expect them to adopt the same wing tweaks as the A350-10
119 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Ok, so you are saying that they will not prioritize it now, and not that they aren't capable. Is that correct? -Dave
120 JoeCanuck : They don't have to prioritize the -10 now...no more than Airbus has to prioritize 350 variants based on the -1000. Doing the -9 is doing most, (of co
121 Post contains images 328JET : You got my point! They have other new aircrafts in the main focus right now.
122 JayinKitsap : Thanks for the good summary, many people here on A.net just tend to cheer on their team. Yes the 787-10 is just a stretch without added MTOW. But the
123 JoeCanuck : Yes and no...the 787 program as a whole is 3 years behind schedule but there is nothing to indicate that the -9 schedule itself has slid further in r
124 Post contains images 328JET : I wonder if an aircraft in the middle of the size and range of the -9 and -10 wouldn´t be a better idea instead of both sizes? That aircraft could r
125 JoeCanuck : I suspect they are looking to offer a choice between passenger load and range. On the other hand, they ultimately have to build what customers want a
126 Post contains images 328JET : Hopefully the airlines do not decide now, that the -10 suits their needs better than the -9 and change their order like some did from the -8 to the -
127 JoeCanuck : Actually, I don't doubt some will but if they can keep the -9 and -10 similar enough, it might not be too much of a disruption to the line. I think B
128 Stitch : The extra OEW would hurt the range. Part of the significant increase in MTOW for the 787-9 over the years has been to allow it to tank more fuel to m
129 328JET : I know but most routes are well below the mentioned 7000Nm range of the -10.
130 JayinKitsap : Remember to look at the payload range curves. Some airlines will need the -9 to be at the full payload or a great payload for the ranges of their rout
131 328JET : I am not so sure... I think the capacity and capability gaps between the A358/359 and 35J is a better idea and will force some airlines to operate al
132 Post contains images Stitch : A350-800: 270 passengers A350-900: 314 passengers (16% more) A350-1000: 350 passengers (11% more) 787-8: 242 passengers 787-9: 280 passengers (16% mo
133 N328KF : This is Apple's MO and they learned quickly to obsolete themselves before someone else does. There are worse business models to copy.
134 328JET : I know that we do not agree, but i really see no reason to operate both the -9 and -10, when the -8 is already part of the fleet. Better buy a -10 fl
135 JoeCanuck : As market conditions change, so do products. There is no reason why a 787 has to be a direct size replacement to the 767, no more than a 321 has to be
136 328JET : It is a very good idea, but more as a A332-competitor, which is very equal in size. I think a fleet consisting of B787-8s and B787-10s would be perfe
137 JoeCanuck : I doubt there will be many airlines with all three models. I think offering more options to the customers is a good thing.
138 Stitch : Well Boeing could always deploy a "787-10ER" with higher MTOWs and modification to the wings and undercarriage just as Airbus is doing to the A350-10
139 travelhound : I can see QF operating the 787-8 for domestic and the 787-9 & 787-10 for international opps. I just feel the 9 & 10 models will really compli
140 Stitch : We all need to remember that the original 7E7-8 MTOW was 216t and the 7E7-9 was 227t. This gave Boeing 27t of MTOW growth for the 7E7-10 model, which
141 ferpe : You now mean the 787-10ER variant with new wing, undercarriage, stronger engines etc I suppose. Sure, that will be a very attractive aircraft, going
142 328JET : The B787-8 is a very heavy bird for shorter flights
143 dynamicsguy : That may be the case, but that is exactly where QF plans to use it. The first 787-8 were to go to JQ then as the 787-9s were delivered the -8s would
144 Stitch : No, I mean the 251t MTOW 787-10. Like the 787-8, it's going to be fuel weight limited. A 787-10ER should at minimum be able to match an A350-900 in r
145 328JET : At the time Boeing will have its B787-10ER ready, Airbus will have its A350-900R ready...
146 Stitch : I'm skeptical Airbus will launch an A350-900R, personally, but if they do then chances are it will play in a different market niche that the 787-10 j
147 Post contains links 328JET : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...10-variant-over-the-next-year.html In my eyes the most important point in the article: - B787-10 will not have
148 parapente : Re Reply 147. Exactly right. Origonally they stated that the "10" would be a 772er replacement - now it won't (can't) be.But it certainly covers the 7
149 travelhound : All those many years ago when Boeing started marketing the 787 they sold them as being complimentary to the 777. The simple reality is if you need a
150 Stitch : The 787-9 now replaces the 777-200ER. It carries as many people (at 9-abreast). NH have already converted some of their 787-8s to 787-9s to use as 77
151 dbo861 : Isn't it pretty much the same as operating both the 73G and 738? They'll share the same parts and the same pilots will be able to operate both. I don
152 BMI727 : Neither did the A330, and just look at how that turned out. The simple fact is that the 777 is too much plane for a lot of flights. You don't need th
153 Post contains images LAXDESI : 789 at spec. is likely to weigh about 40,000 lbs. less, has 4 more LD3 positions, and is cheaper by about $15 million at list. One would expect 789 t
154 328JET : Guys, i cannot follow your logic... 1. You assume that the smaller B789 will replace the bigger B77E. 2. You assume that the bigger B787-10 will repla
155 Post contains images BMI727 : Let's get a few things straight: 1. One aircraft replacing another DOES NOT have to have the same capacity. 2. The capacity of the replacing aircraft
156 PlanesNTrains : If it has a higher profit potential, why not? Maybe slightly less passengers and slightly more cargo at a lower acquisition cost makes sense to some
157 Stitch : The 787-9 has fuselage is almost EXACTLY the same length as the 777-200. For an airline like NZ, VS, or DL that uses the herringbone Business Class s
158 Post contains links LAXDESI : True. 789 is more efficient than 772ER on 9-12 hour mission. 789 is more efficient than A333 on 6-8 hour mission. 789 is competitive or better than A
159 zeke : They are false statements, they are not based upon fact. One could demonstrate how each of the three of those statements could be reversed depending
160 joecanuck : Since when is speculation not allowed by forum rules?
161 par13del : I guess I have a question, the A350-1000 has already "killed" the 777W in all the threads we have discussing what Boeing has to do to upgrade the a/c
162 zeke : Expressing ones opinion is much of what this forum is all about. However one should not be dressing up ones opinion to appear as fact, when it is not
163 joecanuck : He has stated many times that his calculations are estimations. Since, for example, the 789 doesn't exactly exist at this moment, any comment on it i
164 328JET : Ok, guys, i know what some of you believe. The longer range airplane is getting a smaller replacement and the shorter range airplane is getting a bigg
165 Post contains images par13del : Ah hah, I knew you used to read the NW DC-9 threads Personally I believe that you are both correct as there is not right and wrong in this, some take
166 joecanuck : Actually, I'm not a believer that one plane has to be a straight across replacement for another...especially as an airline and economic conditions ev
167 Post contains images 328JET : Which is a huge benefit of strong competition, i would say.
168 joecanuck : Indeed...and these forums would get really boring really fast if we only had one plane to talk about.
169 Post contains images 328JET : That is the main reason A and B starts new aircraft programs, i suppose... Making money doen´t seem to be the driving factor today...
170 Stitch : But the 787-9 is not a smaller plane than the 777-200ER in many airline's configurations. I expect many carriers could drop their 777-200ER seating c
171 PlanesNTrains : I believe his post is a follow up of sorts from his previous post earlier, which clearly shows he is using estimations based on the incomplete inform
172 328JET : Sorry, i don´t get your point...
173 328JET : The B789 has one seat less than the B777 in each row of the economy class in most airlines configurations. For sure 9y are possible in the B787, but
174 frmrCapCadet : Implicit in his post is that it all depends. Indeed each should be reversed is some circumstances. And it will be thus with the 350 versus 787 family
175 Stitch : I was not aware of any 787-9 customer having announced their Economy Class seating configuration other than British Airways. I'd like to update my re
176 LAXDESI : What is the point of comparing a fully paid 772ER to new 789? My analysis is about the future prospects of two competing aircraft. Btw, my numbers al
177 328JET : YOU are saying that a B789 can replace a B77E ever and ever again, not me... I didn´t count how often you wrote it here, so YOU must be sure about t
178 Stitch : And that is because I know the physical dimensions of the cabin of both airplanes and they are effectively identical in length, so they can fit the s
179 PlanesNTrains : You don't need to. It was directed at another poster. Exactly. Somehow those "facts" are fine, though. "Can" and "Will" are two entirely separate thi
180 328JET : I NEVER did that. Stitch is expecting the B789 to replace the B77E, not me. But by comparing the floor sizes and cabin width of both airplanes i high
181 Stitch : Per statements by Boeing, something like two-thirds of 787-8 and 787-9 customers intend to fit nine-abreast in their aircraft.
182 328JET : Show us a link, please.
183 yellowtail : So the big question is how many of these 78-10 puppies will EK take. And how many will QR and EY take to keep up with the neighbors.
184 Post contains links and images Stitch : As requested: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh.../2006-02-21-dreamliner-seats_x.htm And this article from October 2010 reaffirms that most custom
185 LAXDESI : The linked article suggests that 789 will burn nearly 12,000 gallons less fuel flying its design range of 8,135 mile than 772ER flying its design ran
186 PlanesNTrains : Well, you said this: And this: No, that's not what he said. He said they "can". Oh please. Show us a link to your assertions about 8 abreast in the 7
187 413X3 : Which sounds like a lot, until you look at lease payments for both frames.
188 dynamicsguy : The 787 can fit 9 across with 17.2" seats (same as a 10-across 747) and normal aisles - the coss-section was expanded specifically to allow this. My
189 BMI727 : Nobody in their right mind is. This rush to anoint one type as the replacement for another type is just stupid.
190 travelhound : I think it has to be remembered airlines normally have to manage their aircraft stock over a 20 year period and lease repayments / financing costs /
191 ruscoe : There is a lot of talk about x section comparisons. IMO the x section of the 350 series is one of its failings. It carries around extra weight, with n
192 Post contains images astuteman : I don't think the paradigm is anywhere near as simple as that in reality. It will ultimately depend on the customer airline MO. Sometimes it will be
193 joecanuck : What's happening now, is Boeing is working on the lighter end and Airbus is working on the heavier end. I suspect Boeing will eventually beef up the
194 Post contains images astuteman : I think that's where we're headed too Rgds
195 328JET : Yes and the competing A350 can offer 18 inch seats. Also the A350 offers more space for future bigger business/first class seats in each row. As you
196 dynamicsguy : Sure, but that's not what my reply was about. You say that a 9-across 787 is comparable to a 10-across 777, and that's not the case. The consensus ar
197 Stitch : Of course, individual airlines will vary, but looking at Boeing's figures for an OEM configuration, a set of three seats for the 777 is 59" armrest t
198 joecanuck : Let's suppose the 9 abreast 787 seats will be 17.2" and the A350 seats will be 18" wide, giving us a difference of 0.8". 0.8" x 9 seats is 7.2 inches.
199 Stitch : Here are my calculations from Reply 51: At 19.5" aisles, it looks like seat cushion width at 9-abreast on an A350 will be 17.5". If you go with 17.25
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...
First 787-10X Image posted Mon Oct 17 2005 13:05:50 by Bells
WSJ: BCA May Decide On 2nd 787 Line By Sept. 21 posted Thu Apr 27 2006 18:43:19 by N328KF
AA 787 Orders And Fleet Renew posted Tue May 24 2011 11:34:43 by ck8msp
Will AF/KL Order 787/350 At Paris Airshow? posted Wed May 18 2011 15:53:01 by qfa787380
Boeing 787 ANA First Aircraft posted Sun May 15 2011 00:29:35 by piaflyer
787-9 Increases Mtow posted Mon May 9 2011 12:10:35 by ferpe
HM's Plans While They Are Waiting For Their 787's? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 20:17:32 by hma350
UA(CO) IAH 1st 787 Crew Base; LAX 737 Base posted Sun Jan 9 2011 09:57:36 by LAXintl
Is That Possible A Shortened 787/A330? posted Sat Jan 8 2011 03:17:19 by LPSHobby
What New Tatl And Tpac Routes Will The 787 Create? posted Thu Jan 6 2011 04:12:57 by Irishpower