Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 24626 times:

The linked article suggests that Boeing is studying composite wings and changes to fuselage to update the current 77L and 77W.

As for the 787-10, it would seem that Boeing is going to offer a size(320 seats) that matches the A359(314 seats).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-entry-timing-for-planned-new.html
Quote:
Boeing is evaluating the entry into service timing of its 777-300ER successor and 787-10 variant, as part of its competitive response to the Airbus A350-1000.

The 787-10 variant, seen as a "relatively small statement of work", said Piasecki, would be a stretch of the 250- to 290-seat 787-9, and would offer a performance of approximately 320 passengers, twin 74,000lb (329kN) engines, with a range of 6,800nm (12,600km), slightly lower than its June estimate of 6,900nm.

145 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 24525 times:

I wonder if Boeing has already been designing the 787-10 in parallel with the -9 work. Assuming no material changes to the MTOW, IMO the "small statement of work" stretch can be efficiently run in parallel such that as much production commonalities as possible can be taken into account.

I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more. A new CFRP wing can become a bigger task when compared to the 748 work. Would the resources be better spend on 787-11,12 and 787-9HGW with new wing and center box to ultimately replace the 777?


User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 24467 times:

This is indeed an interesting time for Boeing.

Placing composite wings on a 777 fuselage is a major undertaking. If they do indeed re-wing the 777 it will be interesting to which (if any) aerodynamic enhancements will be added. Also, it will be interesting to see which fuselage changes are incorporated. Possibly a composite rear pressure bulkhead, aluminum-lithium fuselage skin?



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 24477 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more. A new CFRP wing can become a bigger task when compared to the 748 work. Would the resources be better spend on 787-11,12 and 787-9HGW with new wing and center box to ultimately replace the 777?

Aside from engines, wing, wing boxes are the easiest of the "low hanging fruit" (as fellow A.netter lightsaber states).

If the B777X will require a new wing design (which it seems it will) then going CFRP might save a bit of weight as well.

It also ostensibly seems GE has "some things up its sleeve" to counter against the TrentXWB.

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
The 787-10 variant, seen as a "relatively small statement of work", said Piasecki, would be a stretch of the 250- to 290-seat 787-9, and would offer a performance of approximately 320 passengers, twin 74,000lb (329kN) engines, with a range of 6,800nm (12,600km), slightly lower than its June estimate of 6,900nm.

As I have mentioned in another thread, while the B787-10X would be somewhat competing with the A359, it will probably be a better A333 replacement with better range/cost efficiency, etc. rather than a plane which will be able to effectively compete with the A359.

That being said, many carriers will like the capabilities of the B787-10X.

I'm still not a fan of derivatives, but given how Boeing has been managed lately, maybe it will be the way to go..  .



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30419 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 24449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I wonder if Boeing has already been designing the 787-10 in parallel with the -9 work.

I'd honestly be shocked if they had not, especially once the 787-9 took on the same weights as the original 787-10 and effectively forced the 787-10 to be a straight stretch.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more.

If Boeing is going to produce an entirely new wing (and not a re-profile of the existing wing as was done with the 747-8), choosing CFRP may be the better option, especially as it gives Boeing more experience with the material that can carry over to the 797.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12286 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 24214 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
It also ostensibly seems GE has "some things up its sleeve" to counter against the TrentXWB.

No big mystery. AvWeek has reported:

Quote:

The GE9X plan will see an improved version of the GEnx compressor combined with a second generation of the advanced eCore (engineering core) family at the heart of the CFM Leap and Tech X engine programs. GE Aircraft Engines president David Joyce says “the next step is Gen 2 of eCore which is the GE9X.’

Ref: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20_2011_p0-338113.xml&channel=comm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I'd honestly be shocked if they had not, especially once the 787-9 took on the same weights as the original 787-10 and effectively forced the 787-10 to be a straight stretch.

I don't know. Boeing has been really conservative. We also thought Boeing would be doing a bang-up job studying their options with the 737 replacement and yet they still aren't able to say what the airplane configuration will be.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
If Boeing is going to produce an entirely new wing (and not a re-profile of the existing wing as was done with the 747-8), choosing CFRP may be the better option, especially as it gives Boeing more experience with the material that can carry over to the 797.

I suppose, but it would seem it's the Japanese Heavies that are learning the most about CFRP wing construction, and given that the same companies are partners on the 777, chances are they will be heavily utilized on 777-8/9.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 24121 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
It also ostensibly seems GE has "some things up its sleeve" to counter against the TrentXWB.

No big mystery. AvWeek has reported:

I didn't happen to read the link you provided prior to my comment. Thanks for the link though..



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 24059 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
If Boeing is going to produce an entirely new wing (and not a re-profile of the existing wing as was done with the 747-8), choosing CFRP may be the better option, especially as it gives Boeing more experience with the material that can carry over to the 797.

A CFRP wing involves not just design, but also a new supply chain and infrastructure built up. It will be a longer undertaking with more unknown unknowns. The other question becomes if a new CFRP wing, why not a CFRP box too?

The ultimate answer is what is good enough to fend off -1000 long term. Theoretically if a 777NG is good enough to fend off the -1000 for at least a decade after EIS, there may not be a need to do a 777 replacement as there is nothing in Airbus' horizon to challenge it. Then CFRP may make sense.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30419 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
I suppose, but it would seem it's the Japanese Heavies that are learning the most about CFRP wing construction, and given that the same companies are partners on the 777, chances are they will be heavily utilized on 777-8/9.

Makes sense. They would likely be lead contractors for the 797 and Y3, as well.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 7):
A CFRP wing involves not just design, but also a new supply chain and infrastructure built up. It will be a longer undertaking with more unknown unknowns. The other question becomes if a new CFRP wing, why not a CFRP box too?

Perhaps. I suppose it depends on how long Boeing thinks the 777X can be competitive and how far back they can push Y3.


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 959 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 23618 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more. A new CFRP wing can become a bigger task when compared to the 748 work. Would the resources be better spend on 787-11,12 and 787-9HGW with new wing and center box to ultimately replace the 777

This is their bread and butter market so they should aggressively try to maintain an edge. I think incorporating CFRP is a great idea and anywhere you can save weight you can save fuel. I am not sure if the added cost of CFRP vs. Aluminium offsets the fuel costs at this point however. My guess is that answer is yes. If I were Boeing I would aim for radical weight reduction to improve the performance of a stretch.

1) Replace the landing gear metals with CFRP or look for additional weight savings there. Lighter breaks, tires, rims etc.
2) Replace the superficial exterior aluminium with CFRP. Nose cone, air brakes, slats, gear doors etc.
3) Use more titanium? This is pricey but it saves weight for sure.
4) Maybe keep the same wing but add a CFRP extension to the wingtip to extend it without having to re-engineer the entire thing.
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?


User currently offlinen1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 559 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 23564 times:

Aspire Aviation also posted this:

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/0...-be-a-highly-efficient-derivative/

Some highlights:

Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources say Boeing is now eyeing a provisional date of launch in 2013 with an entry into service (EIS) in 2019 for a major 777 revamp, designated as the 777-8X/9X at this stage.

The new 777-8X/-9X, sources say, will feature a new derivative engine of the GE90 engine family providing around 100,000 lbs of thrust, a new wing design that is similar to the supercritical wings found on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the 747-8 aircraft, as well as the studies currently undertaken by the airframer to feature more composite contents on the revamped widebody to reduce weight.

While many options are currently being evaluated, including slightly stretching the 777-300ER’s 73.9 metres (m) fuselage to accommodate several additional rows of passengers, another option being studied is “internal stretching” without actually lengthening the 777X’s fuselage by removing internal frames in some sections to provide more room to comfortably accommodate 10 seats in a single row.


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 23492 times:

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?

That probably wouldn't be a weight savings. Batteries are dense/heavy.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9944 posts, RR: 96
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 23471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n1786b (Reply 10):
The new 777-8X/-9X, sources say, will feature a new derivative engine of the GE90 engine family providing around 100,000 lbs of thrust,

So, about the same thrust as the A350-1000.......   

The current plane sports 115k lb thrust.

Yet the same article quotes an increase in MTOW as well...

Ah well. If wishes were fishes..

Rgds


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 957 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 23222 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
I'm still not a fan of derivatives, but given how Boeing has been managed lately, maybe it will be the way to go..

The 777LR program was a derivative and it did an outstanding job.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
1) Replace the landing gear metals with CFRP or look for additional weight savings there. Lighter breaks, tires, rims etc.
2) Replace the superficial exterior aluminium with CFRP. Nose cone, air brakes, slats, gear doors etc.
3) Use more titanium? This is pricey but it saves weight for sure.
4) Maybe keep the same wing but add a CFRP extension to the wingtip to extend it without having to re-engineer the entire thing.
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?

1. Not possible. Landing gear struts are forged titanium. CFRP is not suited for that task.
2. Extremely difficult. The CFRP-metal interfaces requires significant effort. It's far from simply replacing Al panels with CFRP panels
3. Extremely expensive. Titanium is also a complete P.I.T.A. to machine. Tooling and labor costs get hosed, too.
4. More feasible.
5. Probably wouldn't result in any weight savings. I believe the RAT also provides some direct mechanical power in the 777, so you would need to supplement batteries with electric motors.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30419 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 23146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'd be more comfortable with a 2017 EIS, myself.

It will be interesting to see how much Boeing can raise MTOW/MRW. As I understand it, the pavement loadings for the 77W's tires are already very high.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 23055 times:

Cross posting the OP from techinal thread below:
B787-10 Versus A359 Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Sep 13 2011 in Tech Ops)

The numbers below assume that the proposed B787-10 will have similar MTOW and wings as the B789. Even if the MTOW is bumped up slightly given the slightly higher(2,000 lbf) engine thrust, the overall conclusion will remain mostly unchanged.

General Specifications:
....................................B787-10......................A359
Fuselage Length..............222..........................219.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................19.6
Wingspan........................197..........................213
Wingarea.......................3501.........................4767 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................320..........................314(@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................590,800 lbs.
MZFW........................400,000....................423,300
OEW..........................272,000....................292,000 (OEW for B789 and A359 are my estimates)
MSP...........................128,000....................131,300
Design Range..................6,800.....................8,100 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
Engines.........................74,000 lbf................84,000 lbf.
List Price..........................$248(?)....................$268 million

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.48
OEW/MZFW......................0.68...........................0.71
MZFW/MTOW....................0.72...........................0.67
MTOW/Wingarea............158............................124
MTOW/Thrust....................3.73...........................3.52

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW), as per my model:

The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers. The difference in cargo payload is about 5,000 lbs. in favor of A359. It seems to me that both are well matched in operating cash flow for this mission length. B787-10 does not seem to have any advantage over A359 for short and medium haul routes.

The much larger wing of A359 is a major factor in the superior performance of A359, as evidenced by lower overall fuel burn for the above mission.

A359 should turn out to be an excellent replacement for both A333 and B77E with larger capacity and lower fuel costs. A359 can replace both A333 and B77E, whereas B787-10 cannot replace 77E as it falls short on both capacity and range.

I am not too excited about 787-10, but it will have fleet commonality as a major selling point, along with my expectation of a lower selling price.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 957 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 23020 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
OEW..........................272,000....................292,000 (OEW for B789 and A359 are my estimates)

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW), as per my model:

The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers

For those constantly arguing that heavier aircraft inherently suffer a fuel burn penalty on short/medium routes, please take note. There's a lot of ingredients in the fuel burn smoothie, weight is only one of them.


User currently offlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1069 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22873 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?
Quoting delimit (Reply 11):

That probably wouldn't be a weight savings. Batteries are dense/heavy.

Yeah and batteries run out of power too! I'd much rather have a RAT than a battery thanks.

Sandyb123



DC3, 727, 737, 744, 753, 777, A32X, A345, A388, ERJ145, E190, BaE146, D328, ATR72, Q400
User currently offlineSUNRISEVALLEY From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4811 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22335 times:

Do we know if Lars Andersen is still out of retirement and continuing to head up 777NG effort?

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22224 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 2):
aluminum-lithium fuselage skin?

At this point, its gonna be a new aircraft.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers.

Can I see that formula, please?

NS


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 867 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20891 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):

I wonder if Boeing has already been designing the 787-10 in parallel with the -9 work. Assuming no material changes to the MTOW, IMO the "small statement of work" stretch can be efficiently run in parallel such that as much production commonalities as possible can be taken into account.

Sadly, no. The 787-9 is a long way down the track compared with the 787-10 which hasn't even been nailed down yet. 787-9 firm config was over a year ago and we're sizing to the final loads now. The capability and specs of the 787-10 haven't even been decided yet. The best that can be done is to anticipate what changes may be made and protect that design space.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 7):
A CFRP wing involves not just design, but also a new supply chain and infrastructure built up. It will be a longer undertaking with more unknown unknowns. The other question becomes if a new CFRP wing, why not a CFRP box too?

There has been talk of the Boeing Development Center at Boeing field being used for potential 777 wing production. They have the infrastructure to produce large composite structures there. Do you mean wingbox? Centre wing box?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
1. Not possible. Landing gear struts are forged titanium. CFRP is not suited for that task.

Composite links are being used on the 787 already. You can't replace everything with CFRP, but some of it you can.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
2) Replace the superficial exterior aluminium with CFRP. Nose cone, air brakes, slats, gear doors etc.

Nose cone probably already is. Spoilers (they're not air brakes) already are, along with the rest of the wing moveable trailing edge. Fixed leading and trailing edges are probably composite. Slats I don't know. The entire empennage already is. Gear doors look like they're composite and I'd be surprised if they're not. These are parts where composites had already replaced metals some time ago.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
3) Use more titanium? This is pricey but it saves weight for sure.

Not necessarily. You'll (generally) use Ti when you are space-restricted. If you're not, then Al should give you a lighter structure. There are other reasons to use titanium, but it's not a magic bullet.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I'd be more comfortable with a 2017 EIS, myself.

I guess it's nice to pluck a date and not be involved in trying to make it happen  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 20117 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 20):
Not necessarily. You'll (generally) use Ti when you are space-restricted. If you're not, then Al should give you a lighter structure. There are other reasons to use titanium, but it's not a magic bullet.

How feasible is a replacement of Al structures like body skins with AL-Li. To me it sound there might be a difference in electrical potential ie there would be corrosion if you mate them without galvanic isolation?

Other problems?



Non French in France
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19973 times:

Quoting n1786b (Reply 10):
a new wing design that is similar to the supercritical wings found on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the 747-8 aircraft

The 777 already has a supercritical wing.

I wonder whether Boeing has become too anxious.

They are now countering two more modern Airbus designs with upgrades of their older base designs. About a year ago I would have expected that Boeing would face two serious development programs to counter an A320-reengine and the A350 at the same time. And now they seem to tackle the situation with only two upgrade programs.

I hope their strategic judgment has improved since their activities have got this unoriented touch (execution of 787, launch and execution of 748, launch of 737MAX). Otherwise this strategy seems just not wise. Having only two secondary runners might not match Boeing's self-image.

Because when I look at this proposal I can not see the changes that could allow to beat the efficiency of the A350. While I am not even sure whether they could match it, we have to state that a 777X must beat the A350's efficiency to keep a decent market. Remember the A346: it was also no match for the 77W and it failed to keep a decent market. If we seriously consider the lesson tougth by the 777 itself (!) we have to say that just being a fellow-traveller will not be enough.

Why would equally good be not good enough?
Because the 777X will have to be larger to overcome the efficiency deficite (lengthening and/or widening the fuselage will allow to counter somewhat the inherent efficiency gap by a larger size -> improving the per seat metric by having more seats). And - as we generally agree - something larger must be more efficient, otherwise it has no point.

Remember the threads that Dreamliners would make obsolete the A380? Simply because at matching per-seat cost the giant would make close to zero sense? This thesis mostly only failed because the 787 in reality has failed to match the A380's per-seat efficiency. But as a common rule I would say that mindset sticks. That means that a larger and at best equally efficient 777X has not much of a chance.

In summary these things weaken a 777 based A350 opponent:

- A 777X would probably try differentiate by being bigger. Something that only works if it can beat the A350's efficiency per seat. Something not quite probable.

- To be blunt, the 777X is as unlikely to match the A350's per seat efficiency as a A330 derivative could have matched the 787's. The pattern how the A350MKI (= A330 derivative) lost high-profile campaigns against the 787 will not be broken by a 777X.

- Have GE being equally wholehearted engaged as their are for the GEnx for a new 777 engine. Despite that they are not challenged by any competition on that platform and despite that the unique thrust class promises far less production volumes.

- A larger 777 would make the 748 technically obsolete. But earning the 748 market does also not look very compelling. The bread-and-butter widebody market is where the 787 and the A350 sit. Anything above 350 seats is a niche in comparison. I predict an order of magnitude more 787 and A350 sales than sales for anything larger.

- For replacements efficiency trumps far more than aircraft size. Airlines will pick (and have done so) the more efficient aircraft even if the replaced type had a different size. 787's replacing 767's, A346 replacing 742's, 77W's replacing 744's and A380's replacing whatever they replace are tesimonies for that.

Disclaimer: efficiency in this post always means per-seat.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 904 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 19801 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I'd be more comfortable with a 2017 EIS, myself.

As of today, Boeing have a backlog of 311 777 aircraft. At a production rate of 7 a month the current backlog spans out till May / June 2015.

At a guess I would expect at least another 100 - 150 orders for the current 777, so realistically Boeing has a full order book up till 2017/18.

From those numbers there could be a lull in production during the 2018/2019 period. This might be a nice little strategic cushion that allows Boeing the opportunity to deliver 777's if there are still customers wanting the existing model .... or Boeing might need a slower production rate so that it can change over to the new model.

2019 looks about right to me, but I suspect there are plenty of customers who might want the 777X a little sooner!


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19018 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
I'm still not a fan of derivatives, but given how Boeing has been managed lately, maybe it will be the way to go..

The 777LR program was a derivative and it did an outstanding job.

We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.



"Up the Irons!"
25 delimit : Considering the scope of what is being discussed for the 777, we're seeing it go from classic to NG. That sure seemed to work for the 737.
26 Post contains links Revelation : Ah, one side comment and I've learned something new for the day. Air brakes mostly increase drag but don't reduce lift, whereas spoilers do both. Bei
27 cosmofly : Centre Box. It is interesting that Boeing is thinking of pulling 777 wing in house. I wonder if this is a change of heart after the 787 delay. It may
28 Jacobin777 : I don't believe that a B77X would be better than a newly built plane 25 years later...regardless of the the B737 situation has been. Due to time, res
29 gigneil : I don't think the 753 was a disaster because of the 753, but because of the program management. If that guy were around right now, or even a few year
30 Jacobin777 : Part of the strategy friend is to understand market conditions. There was an excellent blog by Leeham about how Boeing's mistakes have hurt them (the
31 Stitch : I also am not sure we can directly compare the 777-300ERX / A350-1000 to the 777-300ER / A340-600. In addition to the "quad versus twin" point that R
32 Post contains images cosmofly : The 77E market was in part obliterated by the A33x and 77W already. Boeing has only 2 choices for a 2017 EIS to compete with -1000 and these are 777X
33 LAXDESI : My model does show 787-10 burning less fuel than A359 for missions below 1,700 nm, which is about 4-5 hours of flight time. For the right price, B787
34 Post contains links seabosdca : Jon is up with a new article summarizing current thinking on the 777-8X and -9X: Composite wing with huge 71.3m span (up from 64.9m on the 777-300ER)
35 OldAeroGuy : The fan on the GE90-115B is also 128". The thrust is smaller on the -9X consistent with a higher bypass ratio.
36 Ruscoe : Don't hold your breath but the 787 has not even entered revenue service. Point to point will happen and it is one of the reasons why the 380 is not s
37 QFA787380 : Why will Boeing move on upgrading the 777 at this stage? Not needed IMO. I also think they won't do anything until the specs for the 350-1000 are firm
38 LAXDESI : He is suggesting 330 seats for 787-10(about 16 more than A359), which would make it 5 feet( 2 more Y rows) longer than A359. The article mentions a 3
39 seabosdca : Sorry; Jon said the existing fan was 135", and I used that as the basis for my post...
40 Post contains images cosmofly : With all the investment, why not park the 787 section 41 to it and call it Y3 Now Boeing really need to use the 748i OSU space to add 50 seats. Other
41 BMI727 : Might as well build a new plane then. I think that ship sailed when they went with the smaller wing on the 787-9. It works fine with basically no pen
42 JoeCanuck : I presume to get the weight down to what is suggested in the article, Boeing would have to go with an exotic new aluminum alloy. Is a 10 ton reduction
43 Revelation : Agreed. The X will presumably keep almost all the systems from the 'Classic' Isn't it already? The lack of orders from BA, CX, et al have been devast
44 Stitch : Supposedly the 777 is over-engineered (compared to if it had been designed today) and there is a good bit of weight that can be taken out of the exis
45 2707200X : If Boeing where to launch the Boeing 777-8X and 9X, I would not think that the 787-8X would be like the 777-200ER or LR because the size and range cat
46 Jacobin777 : To a certain extent yes, but looking at the A359 orders (and configuration in comparison to the B77E) does say something about it. Well, it did keep
47 Revelation : As your summary points out, to me the most interesting paragraph is: So just like the A350 didn't shoot right at the B787 (it went a tad higher than
48 BMI727 : Some of that architecture is going to hold back a 777NG and make it a model that appeals to a more narrow customer base than the A350. Yes, but there
49 rheinwaldner : There are a lot of differences. But one of the most important factors will be similar and can't be discussed away: the efficiency relation per seat.
50 Post contains images ferpe : All this shows a couple of things: 1. Size and weight means drag and to combat drag you need cruise thrust. Even if you increase your thermodynamic e
51 parapente : From the Aspire article Stretching & payload/range capabilities The revamped 777-9X will likely see the seat count on the 777-300ER being increase
52 EPA001 : Though I can understand that people get very excited about the B777 plans, and they sure look good to me, this point you made is very important. The
53 Revelation : Really? What things are you thinking of? Boeing will have a good opportunity to go through the plane and replace things that don't make sense, at the
54 Aircellist : Would this be the very first time an airplane would become more capable in range and carrying capacity, and yet be powered by a less powerful engine?
55 seabosdca : Which makes sense. The 777 is just too heavy, even lightened, to compete directly against the A350-900. So a 772-sized variant is out. But perhaps B
56 Stitch : I could see a market for 500+planes. If EK commits hard, they're worth 100+ based on their 777 purchasing history and between the other Gulf carriers
57 cosmofly : Because the 787-11,12 may fit the following better So we may have 787-xx against 350-xxx if Boeing finds it more compelling in the long run.
58 jsquared : I'm not an aircraft designer, but I can't imagine that stretching the 787 a 3rd and 4th time is going to produce a very efficient aircraft when compa
59 Post contains images astuteman : That's not a differentiation we find easy here.... Except perhaps in CASM, especially if it promises to beat the A350-1000. And the consequences of t
60 Stitch : No. It's all speculation on our part. One issue with a longer and heavier 787 is that you risk losing commonality with the earlier models if you make
61 ferpe : An area that might require even more time for a 787-1X would be the engines and nacelles. The present designs started at 63klbf and would be pretty m
62 mffoda : The GEnx, GE90 and EA GP7000 are all related development. I believe GE can adequately cover any thrust requirement without having to start from scrat
63 BMI727 : I can't imagine that Boeing will get the total benefit of any materials upgrade if they are trying to convert a plane that was designed in aluminum.
64 JoeCanuck : At some point, commonality is sacrificed in some areas to get more out of an airframe. the -10 would max out the potential for the current gear, wing
65 Post contains links ferpe : The GE90 is one generation older technology then the GEnx and would not cut it for the 787-1X even in revised form: http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.co
66 Stitch : The GE-9X could be an option for a larger 787.[Edited 2011-09-15 21:44:46]
67 rheinwaldner : The execution of e.g. the 787 was linked quite closely with some strategic decisions that even Boeing seems to consider as errors today. Except when
68 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Because the MK1 was only capable of 8 across, the 787 can do nine, which is what airlines wanted. That fact is why the current 350 is called the XWB
69 rheinwaldner : Even if the A330 would have been 9 abreast from the start the A350MkI would be no match for the 787. It can't on CASM. It can only by having a differ
70 CXB77L : Why should it? The way I see it, with weight savings, the 777X will be more than able to hold its own against the A35J. While it will probably still
71 Revelation : It's interesting that A350MkI customers started saying that since you're already building a new wing and putting new engines on it, you might as well
72 rheinwaldner : Who says it will? Boeing is gambling big time if they rely their strategy on the fact that the A351 will have incurable overweight... 1. Only few air
73 Post contains links mffoda : Nothing that you are saying discredits what I posted. Nor does the aeroturbopower article... From GEnx site: http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/g
74 astuteman : Boeing are talking about making the 777X longer than it is now, , carrying 30 more people than the current plane, and giving it a 72m wingspan instea
75 JoeCanuck : I don't think anybody has said that a longer 777X will be the same or lighter weight of the -1000. What people have been saying is the 777 can get li
76 Post contains links rheinwaldner : No, my answer was to another post where this was suggested. I have an answer for this in my virtual library: http://www.nlr.nl/smartsite.dws?id=2819
77 OldAeroGuy : One big difference is that the TrentXWB for the A350-1000 is producing 97K thrust with a 118" fan and the Ostrower article indicates that the GE9X wi
78 BlueSky1976 : Is it possible that GE will be footing part of the bill for the development of 777-8X/-9X? They did it in exchange for exclusivity on -200LR/-300ER be
79 Post contains images seabosdca : Sounds kind of like what people have been saying about the target OEW of the A350-1000... Rumors say there is up to 10 t to cut out of the current 77
80 EPA001 : Imho easily. 10t weight reduction is an awful lot, and it remains to be seen how much they can actually realize. Then making the wings 10 meter longe
81 Jacobin777 : IIRC, it had more to do with the MTOW of the B777 but I think Stitch knows what it is.
82 Stitch : I am under the impression that the agreement is for TOWs above 300t. I recall Boeing floating an 8t lighter 777-200LR concept when they were trying t
83 astuteman : The pair of Trents would knock 4 or 5t off the OEW......... I'm sorry, my friend. Boeing are too good a company, and the 773ER is too good an aircraf
84 BMI727 : I don't think the case is that good, and hasn't gotten any better lately. If Boeing could start cranking these things out in 2015 or 2016 and the A35
85 astuteman : I'm sure there was. there's always weight that can get removed. 10 tonnes? It might be great to hope for in the Boeing camp. Do you honestly believe
86 JoeCanuck : Materials technology has come a long way since the 777 was designed. If Boeing could use the newest Al-li, which Alcoa says is 10% lighter, how much
87 PlanesNTrains : I think it's somewhat early to call the A35J a game changer or not. It's much too early for carriers to be selecting the A35J also (or the 777X) beca
88 Stitch : I'm guessing the A350-900 has enjoyed such strong sales because many A340-300, A330-300 and 777-200ER operators are looking to replace those planes be
89 astuteman : It's too early to call the A350-1000 in any way, really You might think so, but it appears plenty early enough for this forum to have tried, convicte
90 SchorschNG : Airbus has demonstrated a quite good performance on weight estimation lately. The A380 is roughly 1.5t overweight compared to 2004ish figures. That i
91 CXB77L : True, but this is an entirely new program with entirely new challenges. I agree that it is dangerous business practice to hope that the opposition st
92 Post contains images EPA001 : Like you said, this is the next A380 on A-net. I have no doubts, just as the A380 did, the A350-1000 will be a phenomenal plane and everyone will see
93 Rheinbote : The 20% figure is useless because only certain parts of the landing gear can be made from Ti. And for the A380, all the parts that can be made from T
94 Post contains images mffoda : I'm not picking on you SchorschNG... But they missed the numbers on the A400M by 7 tonnes initially... And it is 2/3 the weight of the 787. So, I wou
95 Revelation : Agreed, yet when we hear reports (unfortunately not corroborated) that Airbus is claiming 24% fuel burn advantage over 747-8I and 777-300ER, we have
96 JoeCanuck : There isn't that much doubt about the performance of the -1000...but what seems to me to be the biggest objection, is the assumption that the -1000 w
97 Post contains images astuteman : We don't have to of course. We can just take them with the pinch of salt that is always appropriate when we don't know the basis underlying the claim
98 Post contains images EPA001 : I for one have never said so. That some might suggest this is probably a bit of an over-reaction. Just as I already have read that the B777-NG will b
99 Stitch : Depends on how much thinner Boeing can make the walls of the 777X. Right now, the 777 seat cushion width at 10-abreast is 437mm versus 445mm for 9-ab
100 JoeCanuck : Agreed. It's a bit difficult to claim absolutes about anything so far in advance and so undefined. I imagine it will be another year before we get an
101 BMI727 : I wouldn't be shocked, but even if they did find 10 tons, I think they would still have quite a bit of work to do matching the A350-1000.
102 speedygonzales : I recently flew a KLM 777-300ER for the first time, and while the seats (especially the armrests) are a bit narrow, the overall comfort was still far
103 Post contains images wn700driver : Maybe. The problem, as you are no doubt aware, is that you're comparing two very different aircraft, and two very different markets. Is the 380 a phe
104 rheinwaldner : Scaling up the fan takes longer than creating this new GE90 version? Rumors say also the A351 will beat the 77W by 24%. If true, the 777 has no chanc
105 CXB77L : Rubbish. I find claims of efficiency gains in the region of 24% to be somewhat over-optimistic. That said, even if that is true, Boeing can shave 8t
106 ferpe : The 77W is B best selling A/C for a reason, B knows how to make competitive A/C as does A, the 330 is also dominating it's niche. So they both know th
107 seabosdca : If true, the 777 has no chance. If half true, a lightened and slightly stretched 777 with GE9X power and a 747-width cabin definitely has a chance. B
108 Stitch : Considering how heavy a First Class suite or lie-flat Business Class seat is, I don't find it incredible that they could have a material impact on OE
109 rheinwaldner : Sure. They have more than a material impact on OEW. But you either have this stuff and the weight or no weight and no interior. But having luxury sea
110 poLOT : No, A and B are not responsible for seats and layout, but they are certainty responsible for everything else (side walls, overhead bins etc). It won'
111 rheinwaldner : I don't question a little bit. My post was an answer to claims that tons could be removed from the airplane. = gain another row
112 Jacobin777 : By your logic, EK, AF and other current 10-across operators are going for 11 across. My point is your logic is incorrect. 10-across is currently bein
113 poLOT : Sorry, I didn't see the original post by Stitch about the 777LR for QF. I really don't know all that much about what Boeing was proposing to QF and I
114 PITingres : Rows go across the plane, not down the length. Adding another seat across adds 40+ seats, which quite a bit more than adding another row of 9 or 10 s
115 OldAeroGuy : The 97K TrentXWB development (new larger core) has delayed the A350-1000 by two years. You don't just scale up the fan, you need to do a full develop
116 BMI727 : There are definitely things Boeing could do to cut down the sidewalls. Doesn't the new 737 interior have larger cutouts near the windows anyway? They
117 JoeCanuck : Actually, they aren't going to scale up the fan...they have stated they will be keeping the same diameter fan as the -900, but spin it faster to get
118 OldAeroGuy : Please re-read my post. The GE9X will be producing only 2.6% more takeoff thrust with a fan that is 17.6% larger in area than the 97K TrentXWB. It's
119 JoeCanuck : Missed that bit. Isn't that almost the same percentage difference in fan size as between the NEO LeapX and the MAX LeapX? If this can work so spectac
120 Post contains images mffoda : Sadly, Princess Leia has pulled his kitchen pass... And he is unable to respond at this time...
121 rheinwaldner : Oops, sorry, mixed the words! Would column be the right term? I just think that on average the 777 is a 9-abreast-aircraft and that some millimeter m
122 Post contains images 328JET : I really doubt Boeing could reduce the wall thickness to offer real 10-abreast seating comfort in a new B777. If the materials to do so would be avai
123 rwessel : Sure, but the A380 are all glamorous now, and the pride of the various fleets. When some of that gloss wears off, don't you think that we'll see 11 a
124 Post contains images 328JET : For sure, the time for it could come if Airbus won´t start the A389 instead of. Which again shows that the B777 is no real 10-abreast airplane.
125 CXB77L : That might be, but since the current 777 can be fitted with 10-across anyway, I think that airlines that want 10-across oon their 777s will buy the 7
126 328JET : I agree. Airlines which want 10-abreast, will go B777X in this segment, the others will go A350.
127 justloveplanes : According to seat guru, A380 10 across and B777 9 across have exactly the same seatwidth. Going up to 11 across would benefit the A380 by about (10%
128 CXB77L : Not necessarily. Even a 77W configured 9-across has more capacity than the A35J. If Boeing decides not to stretch the 777-9X any further it still hol
129 Stitch : At 7-abreast versus 6-abreast in Business Class, that would be true. Both aircraft are within a half-meter of cabin length (favoring the A350-1000).
130 JoeCanuck : 2.5" per side or 63mm.
131 Post contains images astuteman : Er, yes it can, and the A350 has been ordered as such. Might not be very comfy though But is insulation the limiter. I suspect that the sidewalls of
132 Post contains images frigatebird : I can only remember Air Caraibes intended to do so (with A350-1000s!), but I can't recollect them firming up their orders. Or will they get them on l
133 BMI727 : The 10 abreast seating in current 777s seems pretty real.
134 YTZ : The thing I find befuddling is the purpose of the 778X. The A3510 will surely beat it on CASM. And it's quite the narrow range/payload slot in between
135 seabosdca : I agree. It seems like a ULH-only thing. If the rumors are correct that it's a small shrink of the 77W (so closer to 77W length than 77L length), the
136 Post contains images CXB77L : My guess is that it'll be a next-generation version of the 77L, and by default, the next 77F as well. It'd be aimed to snuff out the chance of an A35
137 gigneil : But the A359R will offer a lot more range. And be a lot, a lot, a LOT lighter. NS
138 Stitch : Even if the A350-900R matches the 777-200LR's payload and flew it 25% farther, it's still going to hit the wall at around 9,500nm. That's not going t
139 328JET : I would say horrible instead of real... The cabin of the A388 is 68cm wider.
140 Jacobin777 : I recently flew on EY's A346 ORD-AUH. While I'm a big fan of A330's in general, the A346 felt "too cramped" for a 16 hour flight (though it was smoot
141 StickShaker : Given where Alan Joyce is taking QF (Asia) its quite likely that by the time the 778 is flying QF will no longer be flying their own metal into LHR.
142 YTZ : Optimizing an aircraft for SYD-LHR is a serious waste of effort. No other route has such tight demands. And it realty penalizes the majority of other
143 Post contains images ferpe : Re the weight discussion, lets do a little more work then just say "I think B can or can not". Here goes: 1. There is MEW improvement potential in the
144 SchorschNG : I guess they didn't give away the space in the first place. Usually the frame height limits the cabin width, not insulation. Can be easily seen when
145 rheinwaldner : I agree with you analysis. But Boeing believes that the MTOW will be so much lower that they think engine thrust could drop by more than 10%. Let me
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...
QF's Expansion Weighs A350 And 787-10 posted Mon Feb 4 2008 16:58:13 by Stitch
QF's Expansion Weighs A350 And 787-10 posted Mon Feb 4 2008 16:58:13 by Stitch
QF's Expansion Weighs A350 And 787-10 posted Mon Feb 4 2008 16:58:13 by Stitch
Article On UA's CH11 Exit And Look Ahead (Long) posted Sun Jan 15 2006 20:07:51 by 777fan
Article On UA's CH11 Exit And Look Ahead (Long) posted Sun Jan 15 2006 20:07:51 by 777fan
Article On UA's CH11 Exit And Look Ahead (Long) posted Sun Jan 15 2006 20:07:51 by 777fan
Article On UA's CH11 Exit And Look Ahead (Long) posted Sun Jan 15 2006 20:07:51 by 777fan
AC Orders 777 (18/18) And 787 (18/42) posted Mon Apr 25 2005 12:25:38 by Boeing7E7
AC Orders 777 (18/18) And 787 (18/42) posted Mon Apr 25 2005 12:25:38 by Boeing7E7
AC Orders 777 (18/18) And 787 (18/42) posted Mon Apr 25 2005 12:25:38 by Boeing7E7
AC Orders 777 (18/18) And 787 (18/42) posted Mon Apr 25 2005 12:25:38 by Boeing7E7
Article On Small/medium Airports And LCC's posted Sat Feb 5 2005 17:55:27 by Vatveng
Article On Small/medium Airports And LCC's posted Sat Feb 5 2005 17:55:27 by Vatveng
Article On Small/medium Airports And LCC's posted Sat Feb 5 2005 17:55:27 by Vatveng
Article On Small/medium Airports And LCC's posted Sat Feb 5 2005 17:55:27 by Vatveng
Article On Indy Air's Performance And Impact posted Thu Jul 29 2004 19:38:08 by Hoya
Article On Indy Air's Performance And Impact posted Thu Jul 29 2004 19:38:08 by Hoya
Article On Indy Air's Performance And Impact posted Thu Jul 29 2004 19:38:08 by Hoya
Article On Indy Air's Performance And Impact posted Thu Jul 29 2004 19:38:08 by Hoya
NYT Article On 787 BBJ And The Luxury Market posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:33:55 by BWI757
NYT Article On 787 BBJ And The Luxury Market posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:33:55 by BWI757
NYT Article On 787 BBJ And The Luxury Market posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:33:55 by BWI757
NYT Article On 787 BBJ And The Luxury Market posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:33:55 by BWI757
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
New Article On 787-10 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 04:26:43 by Radelow
New Article On 787-10 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 04:26:43 by Radelow
New Article On 787-10 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 04:26:43 by Radelow
New Article On 787-10 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 04:26:43 by Radelow
Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:04:04 by Joni
Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:04:04 by Joni
Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:04:04 by Joni
Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:04:04 by Joni
Aviation Week Article On 787 Name And 200 A/C Goal posted Mon Jan 31 2005 16:24:12 by N328KF
Aviation Week Article On 787 Name And 200 A/C Goal posted Mon Jan 31 2005 16:24:12 by N328KF
Aviation Week Article On 787 Name And 200 A/C Goal posted Mon Jan 31 2005 16:24:12 by N328KF
Aviation Week Article On 787 Name And 200 A/C Goal posted Mon Jan 31 2005 16:24:12 by N328KF
AC Orders 777 (18/18) And 787 (18/42) posted Mon Apr 25 2005 12:25:38 by Boeing7E7
Article On Small/medium Airports And LCC's posted Sat Feb 5 2005 17:55:27 by Vatveng
Article On Indy Air's Performance And Impact posted Thu Jul 29 2004 19:38:08 by Hoya
NYT Article On 787 BBJ And The Luxury Market posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:33:55 by BWI757
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR posted Fri Jun 16 2006 20:59:30 by AerospaceFan
New Article On 787-10 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 04:26:43 by Radelow
Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:04:04 by Joni
Aviation Week Article On 787 Name And 200 A/C Goal posted Mon Jan 31 2005 16:24:12 by N328KF