seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6296 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 38188 times:
From my too-late thread starter on the same subject...
I was assuming, and I expect everyone else here was too, that the 777-8X concept was a ULH-ranged straight shrink of the 777-9X. Apparently, not so. The 777-8X would be an 8000 nm shrink with derated engines, and now Boeing says it's studying a 9500 nm 777-8LX as well.
Personally, I can't see the point of either variant. They will be heavier than the A350-1000 but offer less capacity. The -8LX might sell a few copies for ULH, but I don't see any mission where the -8X would be the best product. The 787-10 would be better on shorter missions, while the A350-900 or -1000 would be the best product on longer ones.
It seems to me that Boeing should focus on the -9X, letting the 787-9 take care of the 8000 nm market for smaller planes and the 787-10 take care of the high-capacity medium-haul market.
flightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 37432 times:
Quoting na (Reply 3): I don't know about what sense such an ultra long haul plane should make.
But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting.
The -9X will only be 8ft longer, hardly noticeable.
This seems to be the most informative article on the 777NG to date. Seems like it confirms a lot about what has been said around here.
Three things i found really interesting.
1) either this is a typo, or they are expecting some really big things to happen with this plane. But it said the -8LX which will be a ~14ft stretch over the -200, seating 353, would have a 14-16% fuel burn per seat reduction over the current -300ER. If they can do that, again assuming it was not supposed to be over the -200ER, then this is going to be one hell of an aircraft family!
2) The are proposing two sets of wings being available. A Longer 233ft wingspan with raked wingtips and a shorter, 225ft wingspan with blended winglets.
3) That the option for the folding wings is being brought back and will become standard on all the new 777's with the 233ft wingspan. This will be done to allow the 777 retain its Code E classification while on the ground and taxiing but will move it back to type F once it enters the runway. It said that the entire raked wingtip would be what folds to save on complexity in the system. It also noted that each wingtip would be 11ft in length. This to me seems like it would pretty much make the 225ft wing useless because once folded, the larger wing will still have a shorter span (211ft vs 225) than the wingleted wing.
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 37283 times:
Three questions to our panel of experts:
1. Is an increase in 85 nautical miles worth the investment cost?
2. How does such a small increase in range allow airlines to eliminate the "kangaroo stop"?
3. The article points out that the 777-LR is a niche aircraft. What is the realistic market for such a plane?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 16087 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 37119 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): That being said, I can see what Boeing is doing here: use the 787 and the 777X to bracket the A350.
Yes, but to properly do that they would need a 787-10 with long enough range to really compete with the A350-1000, and I don't think they can pull that off. The 777-8 would seem to likely be only marginally competitive and the 777-9 would have to be carrying more passengers to compare favorably with an A350-1000.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
IAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 504 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 36903 times:
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 12): 2. How does such a small increase in range allow airlines to eliminate the "kangaroo stop"?
It's not about range, it comes with a 15% reduction in per seat fuel burn that significantly cuts the operating cost too. The -200LR can fly the route now, but not profitably as it's payload restricted. The 777-8LX will be 14ft longer than the 200ER/LR too, which means more cargo capacity as well.
Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12235 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 36650 times:
Since any two points on the Earth are no more than 12,500 miles apart, and ULH airplanes are now over 11,000 miles (not in nm) in max range, we will soon be hitting the airplane that will truely be a globe trotter.
dfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1035 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 36598 times:
Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19): I don't see the reason to spend money on this. They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm.
With today's aircraft. All but five* of the routes listed are being performed by aircraft that appeared in the last decade. As aircraft gain more range, more payload, and lower operating cost, these routes will become more reliable, more profitable, and more city pairs over >6,700 nm will be added.
* - And two of those are CO's 772ER with Ge90-94Bs, which if I recall correctly, only became available in 2000.
sharktail From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 36299 times:
So how would this compare to the 787-10? More range, obviously, and apparently 30 passengers more (323 for 787-10 and 353 for the 777). But if you are looking at 15% fuel burn improvements, would anyone still be interested in the 787-10 if you can get a 777-8(L)X that goes further and is close in fuel burn?
If they can pull that off, the 787-10 could be a casualty of friendly fire defending against the 350. Then again, I think Boeing wouldn't mind that much...
: The 787-10X now looks to be 68m long, which is the same as the 777-8X. So the 777-8X is to the long-range 787-10X.
: Well thought way to put this, so a plane with about a 13,000 mi range can connect nonstop any two cities in the world. Okay, those are good, and mayb
: Just heavier, less efficient, and less competitive. Regardless, I think this 777-8LX is an answer to a question nobody's asking.
: One could look at this as a counter re-action towards A extending the longevity of the 330 with the 330S. I believe that B has more options available
: So Boeing would have a 787-10 then a 777-8 then *another* 777-8L ? Isn't that a lot of R&D dollars to span 7500-9500 nm ? I'd still vote for this
: As do I, but without any 777-8 of any kind.
: As the 787-10 directly leverages the 787-9 and the 777-8LX would directly leverage the 777-8, I would imagine the costs of both would be (relatively)
: Actually, I agree. Eventually, Boeing could do an ULH version of the 789/-10 if the demand was there. As it is, the ULH market has even less demand t
33 Max Q
: Still not enough thrust, Boeing will have to think twice before De rating the engines to the extent advertised. So what that it has a composite wing,
: JFK is in NYC. You skipped over that one??? LOL
: Wow, lift your sights a little. 21 EXISTING flights, right? But there are potentially dozens of other city pairs that this aircraft could open up. A
: If you are counting the 74Es in the list as the other three, you may not realise that the 747-400ER was launched in November 2000 and Qantas received
: Yes, I totally missed that. ULH flights are expensive to operate and I don't see the 777-8LR being much cheaper to operate the 777-200LR.
: It would serve as the 777F replacement. Given that the 777-8F and the 777-8LX is likely to be based off the same frame, developing both a freighter a
: The rumored 787-10 won't be spec'ed less than 7000nm. So here we're suggesting 3 planes, one for 7000nm (787-10), one for 8200 nm (777-8), then anoth
: That's because it wont be cheaper than the current -200LR. It will be 14-16% cheaper to operate than the -300ER. Boeing wouldn't design something wit
: The proposed stretched 777-9X(407 seats) could end up with GSM(gallon seat mile) that matches that of A350-1000(350 seats). The proposed stretched B77
: No reason not to. If they are doing the 777-9X, then the 777-8XLR is no different than the 77L. It will cost next to nothing to design and certify gi
: Or just get A350s. Not so much considering that the 77F has effectively no competitors and won't for some time. No they don't, but if they want a 787
: But that's only 2 different aircraft families, so if you look at it from the development cost point of view, the 787-10 being a straight stretch of t
: It may not mean much if Airbus achieves their 20-25% savings targets. I suspect they will have little luck competing with the A350-900 with any 777 v
: I would bet that the additional cost of the -8LX development (given that they are going to do the -8X and -9X anyway, and the -8LX will have essentia
: It wouldn't be a huge cost, but it wouldn't be a huge payoff either. I just don't see the case for the 777X. Boeing doesn't need to improve the 777 t
: Did you see this one? http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...ops-777x-to-challenge-airbus-a350/
: You guys are forgetting one very important factor: wind. Let's take JFK-NRT as an example, where the GC distance is 5861nm. The cruising speed of a 7
: Are you referring to just the ULH versions or the whole 77X project? I agree that the ULH market isn’t worth a new specific version, but Boeing has
: What about Delhi Indira Ghandi to Chicago O'Hare? Served by both American and Air India, it's shown as 7483 nm on a great circle mapper (15 h 47 m).
: But as of now, those routes are just a handful. If you look at the current longest routes, only the top 4 are operated by A345/77L/744ER. From number
: But then you have an A/C that has 16% larger capacity and that needs filling. As you say that could give it equal costs (in terms of fuel usage) per
: The 77L successfully piggybacked on 77W because it's the same plane, just chopping fuselage sections. If we assume Boeing using a similar formula, th
: 777-200ER. (AA's are equipped with the maximum 656,000 lbs MTOW and Trent 894s.) Also, you're using statute miles; that flight is "only" 6503 nm. Jus
: As always, the market will speak. I do believe the 777X isn't worth the effort, but then I don't know how many airlines are talking to Boeing behind
: The standard setting on the Great Circle Mapper is for statute miles (sm), not nautical miles, and ORD-DEL is 7483sm. In nautical miles, the distance
: Try certifying a route like AKL-JNB direct with EDTO restrictions and it will have to travel far further than the 'gcmap' distance between the two cit
: The 77L can already do the longest flights, but I think noone wants to be in the air for 18 hours? Its just too long to stay in a seat. I once flew LA
: To be honest, Stitch, it's not that much of a smokescreen if you read the article. All of the concepts being discussed are part of a range of options
: In J I wouldn't mind a bit if I can make LHR-SYD nonstop. Y is a huge pain, especially the EK way of flying 17 hour flights at 10-abreast 777. If it'
: In premium cabin, no doubt I would like it. A nonstop would be just perfect for GRU-NRT-GRU. With the block time for NRT-GRU of about 21:30, the flig
: I think the value of red-eye is over-estimated here. JFK-LHR red-eye works because it's so short (and only 5 hour time difference), so the biz pax ca
: Are you suggesting that Boeing and the airlines only produce and sell aircraft that are pleasing to look at, and the airlines only buy aircraft aesth
: I wasn't suggesting that fuel burn per seat parity with A350-1000 will make the B777-9X desirable for all operators on all routes. EK with its 7-abre
: The 777F will also need a successor and the 777-8LX (well, I don't like that designation) is a perfect base with more payload, slightly more volume a
: No need to sit on the tarmac on both ends. If JAL or ANA flew the route with those times they could still use the aircraft to fly an Asian roundtrip
: The 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777F all have ETOPS-330 certification from the FAA and NZ is working towards getting it from the New Zealand aviation au
: That would be nice. But then there are such atrocities as the 732 and every single Airbus made other than the A330/A340 series. Doesn't have to be. A
: The real meat are the 777-9X and the -8LX. Anything else, the 787 family will take care of.
: You may want to make it modular to fit in a 777 to make it more future proof.
: Well, this is all based on information about proposed studies. To me, it's very likely that if it all goes forward, the study known as the -8LX will
: Boeing already offered "wing options." Everybody went standard. ... I don't think the intent is for the 777 with folded wings to fly.
: There's Emirates and probably a few others. But they likely won't see more than 30-35% market share in my estimation against the A350-1000. I think t
: I find it interesting which will prevail. Airbus has struggled with the A350-1000. There are only 4 customers with 2 having publicly stated disapprov
: Given that it will be using the same development team, same components, and same line as the other 777-8/9 variants, it won't keep them from doing an
: It's a long way off and if Airbus gets even close to their promises, they won't be hurting for sales. Airlines won't be able to afford not having it,
: Perhaps a future version of the GE90 could be designed like the GENx that allows the core and and fan to be taken apart for shipping.
: The fan diameter is the issue. The GE90 can be dismantled IIRC. The thing is that if you have an AOG at an outstation, you need to get the engine, in
: For what, the 777? There has only ever been one wing, nor have i ever read of multiple wings being offered in the beginning. Thinking about it, i don
: Im calling BS on that... If a larger engine is needed, one will be made. There is multiple ways to ship stuff and they wouldnt let something like tha
: Do you foresee twin-engined VLA within 20 years ?
: IIRC, they were going to sell 777s with wings that folded and 777s with normal non-folding wings. I remember this because of MelJet.. I don't think t
: Personally, no, but I'm only just now beginning to understand the complexity of engines and aircraft design, so i cant really say other than pure gue
: When no airline committed to the folding wing option, Boeing dropped it. Doing so is said to have allowed them to increase the wing tank volume for t
: It doesn't matter whether the engines are turbojets from the 1960's or antimatter-catalyzed fusion engines made of crystallized angel tears and unobt
: The issue here is that the 777 with 65m wingspan could fit into any 747 gate, which airlines found to be satisfactory and no need for the folding win
: That's very different. The LCF doesn't need to respond to the average emergency; it flies on a regular schedule. It eases the manufacturing process s
: Last year we were taking about an engine with twice the thrust of a GE-90-115. As a first order approximation that would need a 41% bigger diameter f
: I always take one OEM's claim in comparison with a competitor's product with a grain of salt. In a recent comparison, Airbus assigned the 77W with 17
: I understood weight being a major issue as well.
: Or you can turn that around and conclude that there is no need for a new airplane optimized for ULH routes.
: I don't follow ... Yes, ULH is a small market, but these planes are useful for more than just ULH. They are also useful for hauling a lot of freight
: I would not bet on that, I have been puzzeled by the figures given by John and here is why: (it might seem a bit technical but I have explained every
: Is there a rule of thumb for short term engine capability compared to normal rated thrust? As in the new 100k engine being Ok'd for several minutes of
: Nice chart...thanks...it clears things up a lot....but, of course, I do have questions. If we're talking about power load as the limitation, primarily
: I would have thought if this was possible then it would have been already applied to other twins, as it obviously has great potential for fuel saving
: Yes, but they are optimized for ULH and, therefore, suboptimal for anything else. If 90%+ of their missions are not ULH, why buy an airplane that is
: I think that Airbus design goal with the 350 was 3000 meter runway at ISA and reach FL350 within 30 minutes at MTOW What kind of engine is needed to
: For a 2 holer you typically need less then 20% of the TO power for the cruise phase. That is why it is so important to clarify what TSFC you talk abo
: It seems as though Boeing may need to add larger high-lift devices as part of the new CFRP wing to give the 777X adequate climb performance. How much
: You can assume that the 777X should be similar, the first is pretty much a must and the second desirable, the 777X team would have some explaining to
: Not any more. Boeing could conceivably divert a Dreamlifter; although there are legal issues to overcome. But since it will be strictly in support of
: But it's not just in emergencies. Spares need to get around the world on a regular basis. Boat/train/oversized truck is too slow for many application
: Also the LCF cargo bay doors can't support themselves while they are opening or fully open, so they are only useful for transporting specialized carg
: I made a copy and paste error for the fuselage area for the 789, it should be 926m2, here now the corrected table: ................Thrust.lb......MTOW
: Does anybody know how much still air range is needed to fly SYD LHR non stop all year round?
: They have a procedure for opening the tail with a forklift if needed. A big forklift.
: Entirely back of envelope calculation : 10573mi GC 120 km winds, padding 14% westbound guestimate : 12053mi Rounded : ~12,000 mi / 10,430nm / 19,300
: What about the fan case? Would that fit, too? Which would cause a production delay on the 787 line. The 77L is within 1% of fuel consumption per ASM
: SQ is still going daily on the SIN-EWR For the layman what are you saying? Are you saying if you flew a 77E and 77L on the same route with the same l
: If you count NYC-HKG (8060sm) as ULH, then it's definitely profitable if sufficient O&D exists. It went from 0 nonstop in 1999 to 4x nonstop dail
: I would rephrase that: few airlines are ordering 77Ls, even fewer are ordering 772s.
: Internally is not the only way to ship an engine. There is no reason why a plane cant be built to have an extra hard point on the wing to accept an e
: Has anyone seen or made drawings comparing -8X and -9X dimensions to the existing -200 and -300 series? A quick look on google didn't produce anythin
: And given that many of the top-10 routes are expanding, I'd say that they are (or are headed that way in QF's SYD-DFW case).
: Not all of those top 10 routes are flown with 345/77L,. Those that are don't seem to be fairing particularly well: * EWR-SIN: business only. * LAX-SI
: I was more commenting on the overall state of ULH travel... In any case: And still strong at daily, despite the recent addition of the A380 to JFK. D
: Strong? Are loads really good? Well, it means it carries only about 100 people. But not operated with a specific ULH airplane, which is the point of
: Fantastic, based on some random dates I've looked up on ExpertFlyer over the next 4-6 weeks... There are even a couple of flights showing only a coup
: For SQ with an 80% load factor: A345 business direct only: 80 pax at $10k return = $800k revenue per return flight 77W mix: 4 first @$12k + 34 busine
: You're right, I thought it would be a 77W. But it could have been flown by a 77W. The point is that there are only a handful of ULH routes currently
: Which is another problem for ULH flights. And if you then go the J-only route, well maybe with the decreased weight you no longer need an ULH plane t
: Your premise that ULH aircraft are only good at flying ULH routes is blatantly false. The very fact that A345s and 77Ls flies routes that are within
: The economics of ULH aircraft on other routes just aren't good enough. EK is flying 77Ws with restrictions instead of 77Ls on its SFO and LAX routes
: Thank you. I tried to say the same back in reply 98: but you did it much better.
: I dare say QF or VA would be potentially buyers if they can get: MEL-LHR/CDG/FRA SYD-LHR/CDG/FRA MEL-DFW/ORD/NYC SYD-DFW/ORD/NYC MEL/SYD-GRU/GIG secto
: I meant the fan case. A GE-90-115 fan case is about 135 inches in diameter. Scaled up 41%, that's about 190 inches. A 747 main deck is about 240 inch
: I'd like to agree, but I don't think it's practical. 1. The Premium traffic isn't there to support an all-F/J aircraft. 19 hours in W, let alone Y, i
: AI is hardly the best example given their financial situation at present. The 77L may have only sold a handful, but when you combine the sales of the
: That's arguably true for the A340-500, but not so much the 777-200LR. And that's not a slam on the A340-500, just a reflection that Airbus had to rai
: A fine post! In a list of all notable 77L customers obviously AI needs to be mentioned. Also the point seabosdca was making was absolutely not relate
: Isn't your reasoning a contradiction in itself? All data seems to indicate that Boeing will develop a new long range of the 777 focusing on better ef
: So will the economics of other routes, because the 777-8LX is not being developed in a vacuum and non-ULH types will improve right along with it. It
: You're probably right, but yet, as it has been pointed out above, carriers like EK or SA choose to fly the 77W or 346 in missions that seem to be tay
: My gut feeling is that if you're cargo heavy, go with 77L, but if you're pax heavy, take the 77W.
: I believe EK bought the A340-500 more for her lifting ability on missions out to 12,000km versus her ability to fly farther than 15,000km. At the tim
: I don't think the LR model is a priority since it will more than likely be a straight shrink, (obviously not a walk in the park but pretty much as eas
: Sunday is not that low because many prefer a good night sleep prior to attending business on Monday. I'd guestimate x26
: With the 789 coming into service, I just wonder how much value there is to a 777-8ULX. The 789 offers to fly the max payload to 5700nm. That's 11.5 ho
: The 77L makes sense if you have cargo to haul, if you are not a major cargo handler, pax+cargo makes a decent return in dollars I would bet. I don't t
: I believe LHR-SYD non-stop can only work with premium cabin travel. When SQ had an Economy Class cabin on their A340-500s, it was similar in comfort
: I think they'll offer the plane because it's going to be 99% in common with the -9x, so why wouldn't they? It's like the ATR42. Nobody expects it too
: The other part of the issue is that I don't think it makes much sense to offer the -9X either.