Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Efficiency Of The 777-9X vs 747-8I?  
User currently onlineSSPhoenix From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 95 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 13880 times:

Hello Dear A. netters,

Considering that Boeing is now seriously moving towards fixing the conceptual/preliminary design of the 777-9X and the 747-8I is just about to enter service, in pure perfornance terms (I'm sure the 7779X will come with a lovely price tag) do you think the newer aircraft will be so capable for most missions that the 747-8I could do that carriers will just shun the queen?

I would guess that Boeing would try and Pitch the 787, 777X Versions and 747-8 at a customer - and concince the customer that the 777X and 747-8 would work harmoniously along each other?

What are your thoughts?

Please do not convert this thread to a A vs B - I just think we might be generation that seems the 'Cigar with Wings' configuration exhaust it's efficiency gain ceiling.

Thanks and hope you're all having a good Monday  


There's Method in the Madness ...
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm not sure if Boeing's decision to stretch the 777-9 2m beyond the length of the current 777-300ER is based on structural efficiency/capability or an attempt to keep enough passenger capacity between it and the 747-8.

If it's the latter, IMO Boeing is making a mistake, and they should stretch the 777-9 as close to 80m as they can and accept that the 747-8 is likely not going to have a future as a passenger plane - just a freighter.


User currently onlineSSPhoenix From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13391 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
based on structural efficiency/capability or an attempt to keep enough passenger capacity between it and the 747-8

Interesting point Stich ... because I have heard (will post links as soon as I can re-trace them!) tha Boeing are going to also increase the internal width available within the 777X family cabin by introducing some of the structural methods/configurations learnt from the 787. Basically, to ease the burden of having 10 abreast seating - If Airliners operating the aircraft *cough* Emirates *cough* are caring enough to push OEMs for this. Of course, the real structural question that arises is the limit to which Boeing can 'thin' the fuselage walls and increase length within a safe/realisitc envelope.

I agree .... that actually, as much as I love to see more A380s and B747-8s going head to head in the skies - and looking at how far they have managed to increase the length of the 747-8 from 744 (also A346 from A343) I 'Feel' that Boeing has this potential to stretch the 777X all the way - or maybe it becomes an emergency exit problem (where they might have to add a set of one more?)

I'm quite excited to see what this aircraft might look like - I think Kemjee had done a few renderings - but the new version might get smaller diameter engines?

Visual Ogling aside - it could be a case of both A and B seeing rapid shifts in the way markets repond, and they want an aircraft that sits neither there nor here, rather than having something highly specialised. To me this certainly seems to be the strategy that A took with A35J.



There's Method in the Madness ...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13292 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SSPhoenix (Reply 2):
Interesting point Stich ... because I have heard (will post links as soon as I can re-trace them!) tha Boeing are going to also increase the internal width available within the 777X family cabin by introducing some of the structural methods/configurations learnt from the 787.

Per Jon Ostrower's articles, Boeing is looking to re-shape the fuselage frames to recover about 10cm/4 inches of cabin width. That would allow the 777X at 10-abreast to offer a 17.4" seat cushion width - about .2" more than the 747 at 10-abreast or the 787 at 9-abreast and within .1" of what Airbus has been stating for the A350 at 9-abreast.

(In the above configurations, the 777 has 17" aisles, the 787 has 18" aisles, the 747 has 19.5" aisles and the A350 has 18.35" aisles)


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12996 times:

Simply the talk of any 779X will kill the 748i at its current configuration.

After the 2013 PIP to get back to the original spec, it is unlikely that the 748i will get any further significant aero or engine updates, and it should not given that it is the last leg of the Queen.

However IMHO there is still one last silver lining for the 748i: the crown space which is now really being put to use for the first time. The first addition to the delivered 748i VIP is the integration of the Aeroloft which will prove to the world that the OSU is for real. I am hoping Boeing or Greenpoint will show some non-CG pictures once it is done.

Boeing may yet be able to find a clever way to increase the 748i seat count further without having to do any structural redesign. The biz model for a real life 467 seat count is a vast improvement over a Boeing marketing 467 seat count. Do not count the Queen out yet.


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3256 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9424 times:

I still think there are routes and places where 4 engines are better than 2. Just my humble opinion, yes I'm old school.


AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5576 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9294 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 5):
I still think there are routes and places where 4 engines are better than 2

Across the South Pacific there is basically no alternative, at least so long as there is ETOPS. Therefore as the 340s age LAN, Aerolineas and SAA might be forced into considering another 4 engine.

We can probably count QF out of this thinking since they will either operate JNB and SCL with a 380 after the 744s go (which should be a decade for the ERs) or simply drop the routes.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9140 times:

I am a bit surprised that you can get 4inch just by applying some lessons learned. Probably they reduce the frame height locally, which would increase structural weight. But as only a limited length of the fuselage is affected, it might add only marginal OEW.

Apart from that, the B747-8I hasn't attracted many customers despite being on the market for about 7 years. I doubt that a launch of any B777-300ER upgrade will help the B747. If the capacity gap reduces to 20 or so seats, the B747-8I is dead. Boeing will probably try to retain a market for the B747, but at the same time realize that castrating such a prosperous product as the B777-9X costs much more than writing off this B747-8 program entirely.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7875 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 5):
I still think there are routes and places where 4 engines are better than 2.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 6):
Across the South Pacific there is basically no alternative, at least so long as there is ETOPS.

ETOPS-330 should allow operations over almost all of it and where they don't, re-routing will happen to stay within ETOPS-330 requirements.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2091 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
If it's the latter, IMO Boeing is making a mistake, and they should stretch the 777-9 as close to 80m as they can and accept that the 747-8 is likely not going to have a future as a passenger plane - just a freighter.

That is a little iffy. For many years, airports have been laid out to accommodate aircraft that can fit within a 75M X 75M box. Going past it to 80M starts creating issues on the ground at many facilities.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 4):
Boeing may yet be able to find a clever way to increase the 748i seat count further without having to do any structural redesign. The biz model for a real life 467 seat count is a vast improvement over a Boeing marketing 467 seat count. Do not count the Queen out yet.

The problem is that airlines could switch their 777s to 10 abreast and crush the 748i's fuel CASM. Cramming more seats in a 748i is certainly possible but the 747 is already distinctly less comfortable and efficient than the 9Y 777 and an airline that wants to push maximum efficiency has more to squeeze out of the 777. I am not so sure that a real 467 seat 748i is possible in any real world configuration, even if they cram some seats in the crew rest area or remove the midships galley.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 9):
For many years, airports have been laid out to accommodate aircraft that can fit within a 75M X 75M box. Going past it to 80M starts creating issues on the ground at many facilities.

I was under the impression it was an 80m x 80m box. But anyway, one would expect the 777-9X to operate beside A380s and 747-8s, both of which were designed for 80x80m facilities.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7179 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
ETOPS-330 should allow operations over almost all of it and where they don't, re-routing will happen to stay within ETOPS-330 requirements.

ETOPS-330 covers the entire planet.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?DU=mi&EU=...kbfi-wsss-YSSY-lhr-VGZR-kbfi&E=330

Pay no attention to the goofy flight route, it was just something to make sure I got the whole world on the map.

Tom.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5576 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7134 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
ETOPS-330 covers the entire planet.

OK, I didn't quite follow that map... Would ETOPS-330 allow, say, SYD-EZE to be operated by a 777 without having to take an arduous detour?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7082 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 12):
OK, I didn't quite follow that map...

Sorry, I got too used to using that tool. Here's what the world looks like with ETOPS-90 range rings (for a 777):
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?DU=mi&EU=...=kbfi-phnl-wsss-FAJS-lhr-kbfi&E=90

Note the lighter-shaded circles around all the diversion airports. The darker blue areas are outside ETOPS-90...the Atlantic, Pacific, and north pole have big holes.

If we expand to ETOPS-120 we get:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=kbfi-ph...i&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts
The Atlantic hole has shrunk but the Pacific and north pole are still a mess.

Enter ETOPS-180:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=kbfi-ph...i&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=180&EV=410&EU=kts
Polar hole is gone, most of the Atlantic hole is gone...now only the mid-Pacific and south-Atlantic have issues

ETOPS-207/240:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=kbfi-ph...ls&DU=mi&E=207&E=240&EV=410&EU=kts
These close the holes up for some improved efficiency but they're still there.

Finally, ETOPS-330 (with the original -90 and -120 rings in for comparison):
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=kbfi-ph...=mi&E=90&E=120&E=330&EV=410&EU=kts
The only thing uncovered is a small chunk around the south pole, where no routes go anyway.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 12):
Would ETOPS-330 allow, say, SYD-EZE to be operated by a 777 without having to take an arduous detour?

Yes:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syd-eze&DU=mi&EV=410&EU=kts&E=90,120,330

Tom.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5576 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6901 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):

Thank you very much! I now see exactly what you mean.

Your answer to my question is no doubt technically accurate. However, I've just been reminded of something in the LA 787 thread: CASA (the Australian Civil Aviation Security Authority) have to all-intents-and-purposes said that they would not approve a request beyond ETOPS-180. Apparently that doesn't just apply to Australian registered airlines/aircraft, but any flight which enters Australian airspace.

AKL-EZE would not be a problem though since the NZCAA isn't stuck in the stoneage!!!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6521 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 14):
However, I've just been reminded of something in the LA 787 thread: CASA (the Australian Civil Aviation Security Authority) have to all-intents-and-purposes said that they would not approve a request beyond ETOPS-180. Apparently that doesn't just apply to Australian registered airlines/aircraft, but any flight which enters Australian airspace.

I can see how CASA has the authority to prevent Australian registered aircraft from doing that, but I'm pretty sure the ICAO treaties wouldn't allow them to restrict it to any other flight entering Australian airspace. They might exercise functional authority in the form of granting or not granting a particular city pair, but once an airplane is actually airborne I don't think CASA has any ability to control the flight path it takes while outside Australian airspace.

Tom.


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...
Interesting Upper Deck Evacuation Slides - 747-8I posted Mon Jan 2 2012 19:06:33 by YYCFlyer
747-8i Orders posted Sun Jan 1 2012 19:17:34 by planetime
Boeing 747-8I Certified posted Wed Dec 14 2011 16:14:11 by flightsimer
Will Qantas Airways Order The Boeing 747-8I posted Mon Dec 12 2011 05:34:30 by mcpcshowcaseHD
Will There Be A Live Feed From The 747-8I First Fl posted Wed Jan 12 2011 19:42:01 by bg8810
VS's B 747-400s/A380s posted Mon Dec 27 2010 21:46:08 by United Airline
Will 747-8I Get Same Windows As 787? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 10:28:54 by hannahpa
Greenpoint Introduces the Aeroloft for the 747-8i. posted Tue Oct 19 2010 22:50:52 by cosmofly
First Boeing 747-8i Passenger Takes Shape posted Fri Oct 15 2010 11:56:21 by propilot83
Lufthansa Will Introduce New C-class With 747-8I posted Sat Oct 9 2010 00:30:13 by columba