JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 6364 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 42186 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 34063 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 41465 times:
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.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 16737 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 37046 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?
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8970 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 33753 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.
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 ;-)
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 10824 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 33513 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
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1960 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 33285 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.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 33179 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 a6 to ruin my username)
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2809 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 32939 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.
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:
"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.
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.