Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Clarification About Wings On 787-8, -9, And -10?   
User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10396 times:

I'm confused and I need some clarification. I had initially thought that the 787-9 and the 787-10 were intended to share a wing which was larger than the 787-8 wing... but from looking at the 787 article on Wikipedia, it seems that the 787-8 and 787-9 will actually share a wing instead (since the wingspan is listed as identical). Yet, the same article states that the range of the 787-9 will be greater than the 787-8. How can this be, if the 787-9 will have a longer, heavier fuselage and the same wing? Is it just a question of more fuel tanks? And secondly, will the 787-10 use the same wing as well, or will it get the brand-new wing? The Wikipedia article implies the 787-10 will have a range penalty relative to the 787-9, so it seems like Boeing might be trying to make do with the same wing.

I'm always inclined to take Wikipedia articles with a grain of salt, so can someone straighten this out for me?

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRWK823 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10306 times:

Considering the 787-10 hasn't been officially launched yet it's nothing more than speculation as to whether or not it has the same wing. It'd be a safe bet, however, to see a new wing on it.

As for the range, yeah it is because of the extra fuel tanks as I can confirm the wingspan is the same.


User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10237 times:

They have all the same base wing and tankage. The reason that the 787-8 has less range then the 787-9 is because it is limited on how much it can fill up of the large tanks (127kl / 102t) by it's MTOW (only 228t).

With only ~10t more OEW the 787-9 has all the way up to 252t MTOW to fill with payload and fuel, about 34t more then the 788. The 789 has higher skin friction drag (longer fuse) and higher drag due to lift (heavier with the same wing) but it can run those engines at a higher powersetting for longer = longer range.

Finally the 787-10 has yet another fuse stretch so it's drag due to skin friction is higher. Further the longer fuselage weights more and to be able to fill this long fuse when they don't fly long legs B will increase the MZFW. This means reinforcements which cost OEW, count on ~15t higher then the 788 . This time the MTOW is the same as the 787-9, therefore with more pax (about 40 more) and higher OEW it can not fill it's tanks as much as the 787-9 nor the 787-8. In the end it has a 6800nm spec range with full pax load. It is positioned as a 2000-6000nm frame.

[Edited 2011-11-18 10:35:26]


Non French in France
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4986 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9906 times:

Thanks Ferpe for a nice summary of the differences.

User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9782 times:

Ferpe, I know you may not be able to or willing to discuss this (and I understand if you decide not to discuss this), but where are you employed? Your user photos suggest you work at EADS/Airbus as a manager of either design or stress engineering. If that is true and you are willing to communicate with me I have a few questions regarding design versus stress engineering in the aerospace industry.


What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9616 times:

Quoting tsugambler (Thread starter):
I had initially thought that the 787-9 and the 787-10 were intended to share a wing which was larger than the 787-8 wing... but from looking at the 787 article on Wikipedia, it seems that the 787-8 and 787-9 will actually share a wing instead (since the wingspan is listed as identical).

You're right. Apparently the 787-8 wing exceeded expectations during detailed analysis and testing and it was determined that the tradeoff in terms of time and effort for enlarging it on the -9 was more in favor of using the same wing, so that's what will happen. The performance hit on the -9 is marginal at worst.

It does back Boeing into somewhat of a corner though, since the three variants were really always going to need two wings between them and Boeing just changed the split, so the 787-10 is now a bit more challenging.

Frankly, if Boeing had to do it again, I bet they would have dropped the -10 entirely and made the -9 larger. They would really be better off with two models than three given the delays and resource constraints.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9519 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As ferpe has noted, the 787-9's additional range comes from being fuel-volume limited at MTOW as opposed to fuel-weight limited. The 787-9 actually has fractionally less fuel tank capacity than the 787-8, but can fill those tanks more even with the extra passengers, bags and cargo thanks to the much higher TOW.

The original plan was to give the 787-8 a 60m span and the 787-9 a 63m span. As I understand it, the 787 has a common wing root and the wingtip extensions for the 787-9 would have been 1.5m longer (per wing). Boeing decided for cost and time issues to make the 787-8's wingtip extensions the ones for the 787-9, as well.

This change does hurt the cruise fuel burn of the 787-9, however the weight savings help the cruise fuel burn and Boeing claims that the two effectively cancel each other out.

When Boeing first launched the 787 program, the 787-8 had an MTOW of 216t and the 787-9 was 227t. That allowed around another 25t of MTOW for the 787-10 (~250t). Through discussions with airlines, who wanted more performance, the 787-9's MTOW rose to 245t in 2006. It was raised again to 247t in 2009 and then 251t in 2011, both to help account for empty weight creep.

So the 787-9 now has the same MTOW as planned for the 787-10X. Therefore, like the 787-8, it will be fuel-weight limited and will not fly as far as the 787-9.

[Edited 2011-11-18 12:53:00]

User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9322 times:

Thanks for the answers! I have a much better grasp of the issue now.

User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8169 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 5):
Ferpe, I know you may not be able to or willing to discuss this (and I understand if you decide not to discuss this), but where are you employed? Your user photos suggest you work at EADS/Airbus as a manager of either design or stress engineering.

   I think it is in my profile, I have been an military fighter pilot and have an engineering degree, with this combination I was working on new military aircraft projects, there in many different areas (a bit of structure, aero and systems). The basics are the same between military and civil A/C, so I might have a hunch about how things work in principle. I also pick up a lot of things here, that is why I enjoy the discussions, a bit of deja vu.

I certainly don't work for any aircraft manufacturer, but have been involved in large projects in the industry and in other adjacent high-tech industries.

Just a happy amateur as so many here and enjoying it    .



Non French in France
User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7984 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
Frankly, if Boeing had to do it again, I bet they would have dropped the -10 entirely and made the -9 larger. They would really be better off with two models than three given the delays and resource constraints.

You are right in a sense, they need a frame to replace the 777-200 range and that should most probably come from the 787, so a 787-10 with a ULH wing, higher MTOW and stronger engines + MLG is the next logical step, the 787-11. Such a frame will give the A350-9 a run for it's money, it will be a tad larger and should therefore have better CASM.



Non French in France
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7098 times:

Quoting tsugambler (Thread starter):
Is it just a question of more fuel tanks?

Ever since airliners went to wet-wing fuel tanks, the actual tank volume has only been loosely coupled with the mission. This is because the tank volume is really dictated by the wing loft. You obviously need enough fuel to do the mission but it's fairly normal that the tanks are bigger (in some cases, like the 787-8, a lot bigger) than the mission requires.

The enormous growth in fuel capacity between the 777-200 and the 777-200ER came about with no added physical tanks...the original 777 just wasn't using a big chunk of the center wing box as a fuel tank.

Tom.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7040 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):

That makes sense. Thanks.



What the...?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6838 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 10):
You are right in a sense, they need a frame to replace the 777-200 range and that should most probably come from the 787, so a 787-10 with a ULH wing, higher MTOW and stronger engines + MLG is the next logical step, the 787-11. Such a frame will give the A350-9 a run for it's money, it will be a tad larger and should therefore have better CASM.

Part of where Boeing got burned a little bit is when airlines started making the 787 9 across in coach versus 8. At that point, the effective size of 787s got bigger. Several years ago, I think Boeing would have benefited by stretching the 787 a bit more for the -9.

Honestly, I don't see the 787-10X as being that great of a product, but if it can be offered without taking resources from any other programs, it might still be a good idea. A real 787X would be a luxury for Boeing, but I think that the Y3 should take precedence, as it looks more and more like the 777X will be a nonstarter competing where the 77W is now: it will have to increase in size to even hope to match costs with the A350.

I think the 787-10X might be useful if they can crank it out before 2018 or so and still launch a new Y3 for entry into service during the early to mid 2020s. Now the -10X might buy Boeing more time bringing the Y3 to market (for some customers) but I don't think they can do it while dealing with the 737MAX.

From where I sit, the best way forward for Boeing is to leave the 787 as a two member family for the time being and turn their attention to the 737MAX and then launch the Y3 around 2015-2016. Then perhaps look into a stretched 787 variant after the MAX is in service for entry into service in a similar timeframe as the Y3.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787-9 at 9-abreast is the modern 777-200/777-200ER replacement, as they offer the same fuselage length. As such, the 787-9 should become a popular 777-200 family replacement.

By leveraging the 787-9 to maximum advantage, the 787-10X becomes a very cheap derivative and it will be able to carve it's own niche in the market as opposed to having to sell directly against a competitor. It will be larger than the A350-900 (especially in cargo capacity) and the range will be fine for plenty of regional missions. I expect it to sell extremely well to Asian and Middle Eastern carriers and should prove popular with American and European carriers.

I just don't see a viable economic case for Y3 at this time. By the time Boeing could bring it to market, a significant bulk of A330, A340, 747 and 777 fleet replacements will already have been taken care of by the 787, A350 and A380.

Rather then invest billions on the 777-8X and 777-9X, I think a better plan may be to go with the 777-300ERX, using new interior insulation to allow a true 10-abreast seating and the best GE-9X engine that can be brought to market - and preferably PiPable to existing GE90 powerplants.

One advantage Boeing does have with the 777 over the A340 is that Boeing has sold significantly more 777-200LRs and 777-300ERs (especially) than Airbus sold A340-500s and A340-600s. There is also the 777 Freighter. And Boeing continues to secure plenty of orders, expanding the pool of parts and such.

So even in a world where the A350 crushes the 777 on overall economics, Boeing will still find buyers, just as the 767 continues to sell in a world where the A330 is distinctly better in almost all areas thanks to the vast numbers built and delivered.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6261 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
The 787-9 at 9-abreast is the modern 777-200/777-200ER replacement, as they offer the same fuselage length. As such, the 787-9 should become a popular 777-200 family replacement.

For a lot of airlines that will be the case, but had Boeing known then what they know now, they probably would have wanted a few extra rows in the -9.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
I just don't see a viable economic case for Y3 at this time. By the time Boeing could bring it to market, a significant bulk of A330, A340, 747 and 777 fleet replacements will already have been taken care of by the 787, A350 and A380.

That case has to be made now, lest Boeing end up with a situation where 777 orders slow to a trickle like they did with the 767, even had the 787 been on time. No reasonable 777 derivative is going to be competitive with the A350 without moving firmly to a capacity range somewhere above it.

The timing works well with the 777 still very much in its prime as a passenger aircraft for mainstream airlines, and should still find a market even after the A350 shows up with airlines looking for more seats or freighters, hence the need for a substantial upgrade is negligible. Boeing can have an aircraft with capacity from about the 77W level up to near A380 level and likely match the A388 on CASM and stay a step ahead of the A350 and have it in time to replace a ton of 777s and A330s delivered in the last decade and later. If that delays or stops the 787-10X, so be it. A lot of those potential customers are likely already customers for the A350 anyway.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Rather then invest billions on the 777-8X and 777-9X, I think a better plan may be to go with the 777-300ERX, using new interior insulation to allow a true 10-abreast seating and the best GE-9X engine that can be brought to market - and preferably PiPable to existing GE90 powerplants.

Certainly Boeing should continue to improve what they can on the 777 before the Y3 enters service, without making a major investment, in order to buy even more time. But I think the GE9X should be saved for a new plane.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 163 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5996 times:

now there is one thing i don't understand: where does the MTOW difference between the B787-8 and B-787-9 (or in fact other a/c too like A319 and A320) come from? MZFW depends on the wing structure which is probably identical and MTOW depends on MLGr and other structure, am i right? does the B787-9 have a strengthened landing gear or is the difference in MTOW paper work only?

thanks for some knowledge  

[Edited 2011-11-18 23:52:38]

User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5927 times:

The 787 base architecture is state of the art, even more then the A350. B made a big jump in technology, in hindsight a perhaps to big jump, but now they have got it working. They now have decades were they can hone this technological base to perfection, the architecture is not in it's peak today IMO.

It was also designed to allow 9 abreast in Y, the cross section is OK. A was clever to add 12cm to the 350 but it is 12cm nothing more and you have the best part of 6m to spread it across. The diff between the A320 and MAX is 19cm which they can only spread on one aisle, still airliners don't see it as a problem.

It would only be natural to use this architecture to cover from 220 to 340 seats and let the 777 or it derivatives take on from there, we all realize that 777 derivatives can not compete below 350 seats. I think the 777-8X will be the same fuselage as todays 300ER and the 777-9X a stretch, of those two the -9X will sell the most.

Stitch answered re Y3, I tend to agree.



Non French in France
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5894 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 16):
It would only be natural to use this architecture to cover from 220 to 340 seats and let the 777 or it derivatives take on from there,

When are these upgraded 787s going to show up? Maybe Boeing can sneak in a -10X in there, but that won't really be a competitor with the A350-1000. The 777X might take some orders from the A350-1000, but it will have too much capacity for a lot of customers and those that will find it attractive will likely be buying current 777s for at least the rest of this decade anyway. The way Boeing's product outlook seems, it doesn't look to me like a significantly upgraded 787 could be in service much, if any, sooner than a clean sheet 777 replacement.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

@kmz

it is not quite as you state though you are on the right track. MZFW means a fully loaded tube with minimum fuel in the wings, this is the worst case for the wing bending moment when such a ship passes a thunderstorm cell just before landing. This case does not load only the wing, the wingbox and wing-body join also get a beating. The tube is loaded in the same way as for MTOW or a shade higher as the ships movements will be heftier with empty tanks.

The MTOW case is lighter for the wing, winbox as the fuel functions as a counterweight outside of the center of lift for each wing. Tube as before. The MTOW does dimension the LG and the engines.



Non French in France
User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 163 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4679 times:

ferpe,

thanx for the explanation! so concerning the MTOW delta, what is then actually the difference between the B787-8 and B787-9 structure wise? Is the MLG stronger? I am trying to understand how big the communality between two a/c types really is?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kmz (Reply 15):
now there is one thing i don't understand: where does the MTOW difference between the B787-8 and B-787-9 (or in fact other a/c too like A319 and A320) come from? MZFW depends on the wing structure which is probably identical and MTOW depends on MLGr and other structure, am i right? does the B787-9 have a strengthened landing gear or is the difference in MTOW paper work only

The 787-9 will have upgraded structural components to handle the higher MTOWs. Those could be added to the 787-8 to create a "787-8LR" with a 251t MTOW - an extra ~20t of fuel weight would allow for extremely long stage lengths.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
For a lot of airlines that will be the case, but had Boeing known then what they know now, they probably would have wanted a few extra rows in the -9.

Perhaps, but the 787-9 was very much influenced by customer feedback.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 17):
When are these upgraded 787s going to show up? Maybe Boeing can sneak in a -10X in there, but that won't really be a competitor with the A350-1000.

It was never meant to be. Originally, it was designed to be a 777-200ER replacement, but the 787-9 grew to handle that market due to customer demand.

So now, the 787-10X should be a 777-300 replacement - not in terms of direct capacity (though at 9-abreast it would be pretty close), but in terms of it's market niche, which is high-capacity regional transport of people and cargo.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
That case has to be made now, lest Boeing end up with a situation where 777 orders slow to a trickle like they did with the 767, even had the 787 been on time. No reasonable 777 derivative is going to be competitive with the A350 without moving firmly to a capacity range somewhere above it.

True, but even if production slows to two or three a month, that can still be profitable for Boeing and give them time to sit and wait for the replacement market cycle to come to them.

The 787-8 and A350-900 have both benefited from being timed to enter service during the peak of the 767-300, 777-200, A330-200 and A340-300 replacement cycle.

The A380-800 should have also benefitted from arriving during the peak of 747-400 replacements, but the A340-600 and 777-300ER soaked up a significant portion of that market. And the A350-1000 is arriving before the start of the A340-600 and 777-300ER replacement cycle, so demand has been tepid. As the A346 and 77W replacement cycle starts, the A35J should secure orders and continue to do so as the replacement cycle moves into full swing.

What Boeing does not need is to bring the Y3-8 and Y3-9 to market at the tail end of the 777-200/777-300 A340-500/A340-600 replacement market or well before the start of the A350-900/A350-1000 replacement market. So Boeing would have to launch Y3 by the end of the decade with an EIS of no later than 2025, which would be when the first 777-300ERs are hitting the decade mark and carriers like EK and SQ are looking to start replacing them.

Now that they have pushed NSA back, and if they make the 787-10X a pure stretch of the 787-9, that could be doable.


User currently onlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
So even in a world where the A350 crushes the 777 on overall economics, Boeing will still find buyers, just as the 767 continues to sell in a world where the A330 is distinctly better in almost all areas thanks to the vast numbers built and delivered.

Current A330 sales versus current B767 sales aren't even close.

With a lot of resources for the B748/B787 programs winding down and Boeing not deciding to go with the NSA, I think Boeing can certainly go with building a plane or family of planes seated between the A35J/A388. This is a very large market segment. In a way, it would be Boeing's "VLA-project".

Granted it would be a brand new project which would require a lot of money. However this market is too valuable to lose market share, having a dominant position has helped funding other efforts, costs, and there is competition.

Just like how the A35J is "seated" between the B77E and B77W offering excellent costs/economics, so too can a Boeing "seated" between the B77W and A388 offering excellent economic/costs.

Yes, it would basically mean the end of the B748 program (at least the -I), but so what? Better to have one destroy one's own product rather than having the competition do it.   . Also, a new Boeing wouldn't be out in the market for another 8-10 years.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
So now, the 787-10X should be a 777-300 replacement - not in terms of direct capacity (though at 9-abreast it would be pretty close), but in terms of it's market niche, which is high-capacity regional transport of people and cargo.

Considering Boeing only sold about 60 of those, they might want to rethink their plan. And most of the A330-300s out there are awfully new.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
So Boeing would have to launch Y3 by the end of the decade with an EIS of no later than 2025, which would be when the first 777-300ERs are hitting the decade mark and carriers like EK and SQ are looking to start replacing them.

That's exactly the timeframe they need to be looking at.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 21):
I think Boeing can certainly go with building a plane or family of planes seated between the A35J/A388. This is a very large market segment. In a way, it would be Boeing's "VLA-project".

The initial Y3 should be slightly smaller than the 77W and A350 to seat about the same capacity in ten across, and then have one or two stretches beyond that.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Considering Boeing only sold about 60 of those, they might want to rethink their plan. And most of the A330-300s out there are awfully new.

Well let us not forget that the 777-300 launched well after the 747-400, so a significant part of the 747-200 replacement market was already handled by the 747-400. As such, the market for the 777-300 was for regional missions that needed the capacity of a 747, but not the range (Japan, Southern China, SE Asia and the Middle East). Those regions of the world continue to grow, along with more of China and now India.

And with a reasonable timeframe for the 787-10X being towards the end of this decade, that would correspond to the first wave of 300 seater replacements, so one could see order conversions from the 787-9 (and perhaps even A350-900) to the 787-10X for regional missions.


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...
Attn OAK And DEN Spotters, G4 757 On 9/9 And 10 posted Thu Sep 8 2011 13:09:44 by mark8762
Number Of 787 And 747-8s On The Boeing Flight Line posted Fri Jul 9 2010 09:16:03 by CFBFrame
How Quiet Are The 787 And 747-8 From The Outside? posted Mon Jun 7 2010 22:19:50 by A380900
787 And A350 Final Prices posted Fri May 7 2010 21:31:09 by panais
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 (#2) posted Tue Dec 8 2009 22:33:47 by Diamond
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 posted Mon Dec 7 2009 19:45:42 by AeroPiggot
Any Domestic NW 744 Operations 12/09 And 1/10? posted Sat Dec 5 2009 16:26:43 by CodyKDiamond
ATW - 787 And 747-8F Might Fly On The Same Day posted Wed Dec 2 2009 03:03:51 by OyKIE
KLM 77W To JFK 10/6 And 10/10 posted Thu Sep 17 2009 17:14:16 by FlyDeltaJets
Marketing Gimmicks On The 787 And A350? posted Wed Apr 1 2009 11:43:00 by CEO@AFG