rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 376 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 30579 times:
Hello all,
I ran across this article regarding the new line up Being is planning to offer. What caught my attention is the wingspan that the 777-9x is going to be the largest at 233.4 feet. Equally interesting the elimination of the "over the wing exit" to shave 1000 pounds. Just wanted to share with the rest of us aviation enthusiasts.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 2, posted (10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 30125 times:
In the thread linked below, I had assumed 234 feet wingspan based on a flightglobal article. 777-9X, even with 234 feet wingspan, has higher wingloading than A359 if my wingarea estimates for A359 and 777-9X are correct. 777-9X has less powerful engines normalised for MTOW. Numbers from the OP of the linked thread. A350-100 Versus B777-9X(407 Seats) Analysis (by LAXDESI Mar 4 2012 in Tech Ops)
MTOW.....................679,000....................753,000 lbs.
MZFW......................485,000...................525,000
OEW........................335,000...................375,000 (my estimates)
MSP.........................150,000...................150,000
Design Range................8,400.....................8,200 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$309......................$320(?) million
Engine Thrust..............97,000...................99,500 lbf
Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.50
OEW/MZFW......................0.69...........................0.71
MTOW/Wingarea............143............................149 (777 has higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.50...........................3.78 (A350-10 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11134 posts, RR: 63 Reply 3, posted (10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 29870 times:
Is it known whether this wingspan will apply to all 777-X variants, or just the -9? If it's a standard wing for all models then I can see it being problematic - as the article states such a span pushes the aircraft up into ICAO Code F. That's going to limit where and how frequently it can be used unless infrastructure is modified. Of course the folding wing option would solve that, which would be an interesting solution.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 29420 times:
Honestly, even though it will be a Code F airplane, integrating it into airports might not be that much of an issue.
It will still fit in an 80x80m box and with no outboard engines and the natural upward sweep, there will be no worries with FOD or clearance with runway/taxiway signage.
The only real concern I can see will be clearing other planes on the ramp during taxiing, but since one would expect a 777-9 to be only used at international gates, which are designed for large planes (747 / A380), again, it can probably be okay.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11134 posts, RR: 63 Reply 5, posted (10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 27846 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): The only real concern I can see will be clearing other planes on the ramp during taxiing, but since one would expect a 777-9 to be only used at international gates, which are designed for large planes (747 / A380), again, it can probably be okay.
Yes, this and parking (especially) would be the issue. The 777, 744, 340, 330 etc... are all code E and can be accommodated by a 65/70m wide stand - even the 748i can just squeeze in to the larger so long as taxiway separation permits access. Because of this the majority of wide body stands are 70m, it's only A380 stands which need to be wider. So if carriers like BA, CX, JL, NH etc... were to opt for the 71.14m wide 777X in any number, then their respective hubs (including LHR's new T5 - most stands are 70m wide or under) would have to be reconfigured. That's a huge pain in the ass, to put it very mildly, and I can't see how it won't impact significantly on sales when the competition (A350) will be capable of using current infrastructure.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): It will still fit in an 80x80m box and with no outboard engines and the natural upward sweep, there will be no worries with FOD or clearance with runway/taxiway signage.
Agreed regarding the sweep, but at most airports you can still count the number of 80m wide stands on your fingers - the notable exceptions mostly being home hubs for A380 fleets.
I don't see how the expectation that hundreds of airports worldwide will upgrade what, thousands of stands (presuming the 777X will be as successful as the current 777), is a sensible approach.
flyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26800 times:
Generally aircraft park straight in to the gate...but if the aircraft comes into the gate at a slight angle, say 15 degrees off straight, the effective width required reduces significantly. So take a 72m span 779X, angle it by a few degrees, and it will fit into a 70m wide stand. A little lateral thinking?
See gates 4,5,6 and 7 at BHD as a simple example...in this case 6 and 7 can accomodate either straight in or slant stands.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8748 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26700 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5): That's a huge pain in the ass, to put it very mildly, and I can't see how it won't impact significantly on sales when the competition (A350) will be capable of using current infrastructure.
The article said the following:
Boeing was previously studying 4 wingspan options for the 777-9X – 65m (213.3ft) with winglets, 68.6m (225ft) with winglets, 71.1m (233.4ft) with 787-styled raked wingtip, and a 233.4ft option featuring a folding wingtip before settling on the largest one.
Could we see a folding wingtip to solve that problem?
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26575 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5): I don't see how the expectation that hundreds of airports worldwide will upgrade what, thousands of stands (presuming the 777X will be as successful as the current 777), is a sensible approach.
I'm going to hazard a guess that Boeing has chosen this length because carriers have not objected to it. So that implies they have plans for integrating such a plane into their ground operations, either by making modifications or operating it at airports that are "A380 ready", which would mean they are also "777-9 ready".
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 26179 times:
There are many airports that are already in complience with ICAO Code F/FAA ADG VI. Any airport that handles the A-380-800 or B-747-8I will be able to handle the B-777-X. Both of the current VLAs fit into the 80m X 80m gate box and so will the B-77X.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 24957 times:
It seems to me that Boeing is already going to be modifying this new 777 a lot. Al-Li alloy, new CFRP wing, new engines, new fuselage lengths, new interior. The difference between this 777X and its predecessor is going to make the difference between the 741 and the 744 look like nothing.
Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?
If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips. With that it would remain a code E aircraft and only turn code F when entering the runway as the tips unfold. I don't see this as ever being an issue since they have already said it would remain code E.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 24621 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 11): If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips. With that it would remain a code E aircraft and only turn code F when entering the runway as the tips unfold. I don't see this as ever being an issue since they have already said it would remain code E.
How much weight would that add? How would you absolutely positively ensure that the tip won't break off in flight? How much extra reinforcement will that require?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 24626 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10): Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?
From a technological standpoint, yes.
However, such a plane would probably not be ready until the mid to late 2020s and at that point, Airbus would already have secured the bulk of the 777-300ER replacement market with the A350-1000.
So Boeing would be in the positon then that Airbus is in now with the A350-1000 - airlines with hundreds of new planes that they're in no hurry to replace.
With the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9, they can offer similar delivery positions to the A350-900 and A350-1000.
I haven't looked for the link, but it was either in it or it was posted by someone here in. The discussion... But I think it said, that the technology is here today to allow it without extensive excess weight being added. Remember, the original 777 had them as an option but no one ever took it.
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 836 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 24406 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 11): If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips.
Isn't it true, more or less, that the airlines never ordered this option for the current generation of 777s because of the added weight and maintenance needs for the folding mechanism?
I would think that the airlines, if given the option, would rather have a lighter plane with a longer wingspan and less maintenance requirements than a heavier plane with a smaller wingspan. ....all provided that they have adequate gate space when and where needed for the larger wingspan.
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 24378 times:
A new Al-Li fuselage is very unlikely because it would require a complete redesign (a cleansheet a/c) to take full advantage of weight gain, unless that's the objective of Boeing (to launch a brand new aircraft)
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 18, posted (10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 24240 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10): Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?
There is still a great deal of the present 777 that will stay unchanged, just as was the case with the 737NG and the 748 projects. A clean sheet would be at least 3 times the cost, and much more time. The time is the biggest issue, as Stitch pointed out.
Quoting queb (Reply 17): A new Al-Li fuselage is very unlikely because it would require a complete redesign (a cleansheet a/c) to take full advantage of weight gain, unless that's the objective of Boeing (to launch a brand new aircraft)
As I understand it, Al-Li can be substituted (with proper considerations) for Al. This means the structural design is much the same-it is just a material substitution. Not trivial, but a lot less than a clean sheet design. CFRP requires a complete new structure.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11134 posts, RR: 63 Reply 19, posted (10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 24130 times:
Quoting flyingcello (Reply 6): Generally aircraft park straight in to the gate...but if the aircraft comes into the gate at a slight angle, say 15 degrees off straight, the effective width required reduces significantly. So take a 72m span 779X, angle it by a few degrees, and it will fit into a 70m wide stand. A little lateral thinking?
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that - aircraft park nose in because it takes up the least amount of lateral space along the terminal front. A 70m wide stand offset at a 15 degree angle would take up an extra 7m of lateral space, making the problem worse, not better.
Quoting flyingcello (Reply 6): See gates 4,5,6 and 7 at BHD as a simple example...in this case 6 and 7 can accomodate either straight in or slant stands.
These stands are not designed to save lateral space, as per above they would increase it. They are designed to accommodate the A321 (44.5m length) at an angle so that it fits more comfortably on BHD's 45m x 40m stands.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7): Could we see a folding wingtip to solve that problem?
I think that could be quite likely, perhaps as an option. Wouldn't be the first time either.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8): I'm going to hazard a guess that Boeing has chosen this length because carriers have not objected to it. So that implies they have plans for integrating such a plane into their ground operations, either by making modifications or operating it at airports that are "A380 ready", which would mean they are also "777-9 ready".
That or they are still testing the water. I can see it won't be a problem for airports like DXB, DOH, AUH and I expect their home carriers are having a big amount of input.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
There are many airports that are already in complience with ICAO Code F/FAA ADG VI. Any airport that handles the A-380-800 or B-747-8I will be able to handle the B-777-X. Both of the current VLAs fit into the 80m X 80m gate box and so will the B-77X.
But these 80m x 80m stands are not that common - I doubt they are provided by even half of the airports which currently have 777 services, or A330/340/747 which may potentially be replaced by a 777X.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11134 posts, RR: 63 Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 24077 times:
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 11): If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips. With that it would remain a code E aircraft and only turn code F when entering the runway as the tips unfold. I don't see this as ever being an issue since they have already said it would remain code E.
That would make complete sense. Optimum wing span, same great maneuverability on the ground and no need to bash terminals about.
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 23936 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18): As I understand it, Al-Li can be substituted (with proper considerations) for Al. This means the structural design is much the same-it is just a material substitution. Not trivial, but a lot less than a clean sheet design. CFRP requires a complete new structure.
You can substitute a standard alloy skin with an al-li skin (same thickness, same dimensions, etc) but the weight gain will not be optimized. Al-li is a lot more expensive than standard aluminum alloys, the optimization of weight gain, ie adjust the thickness and dimensions of parts such as skins, frames and stringers, is absolutely necessary to offset the cost of metal.
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 23813 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18): As I understand it, Al-Li can be substituted (with proper considerations) for Al. This means the structural design is much the same-it is just a material substitution. Not trivial, but a lot less than a clean sheet design. CFRP requires a complete new structure.
If it were that easy, all manufacturers, including Airbus with neo, Boeing with MAX and Embraer with E-Jet G2 would change for Al-Li. Even Mitsubishi chose a standard alloy for the MRJ
morrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 23430 times:
That sure does sound like a really expensive re-do.
Wouldn't a 260' Long 787- 11x seat just as many as a 250' long 777-9X and have more Cargo room?
I'm guessing it should weigh a lot less than a 777-9x, meaning a 65m wing would be fine making it fit in Existing Code E gates.
It would require a new center section/wing (30' longer in length) and longer front landing gear. Basically use the front and rear sections from the 787-10 and just redo the center. As it is longer I would guess the Tail size should be okay.
They just spent billions on the new 787 systems and manufacturing process - why not build further on that work rather than reinventing the 777 at great cost.
This seems to me to be the better option and I can't see it gaining 200,000 lbs (difference in weight between 787-9/10 and 777-9x) be stretching it 30', so it should have a lower thrust requirement(85-90,000lbs which there are some great options available or will be available) and be better on fuel than the 777-9x.
By 2019 they should be able to crank out a lot of 787's from there 3 FAL's, convert the 777 line once production ends and you could have close to single aisle output.
What am I missing? Wouldn't this be cheaper to develop than what they are envisioning?
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 25, posted (10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 23788 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): I'm guessing it should weigh a lot less than a 777-9x, meaning a 65m wing would be fine making it fit in Existing Code E gates.
You can't get something for free. If it has the same payload and range capability as the 777-9X then it has to be about the same weight. If it doesn't have the same capability the it's not an equivalent product.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): It would require a new center section/wing (30' longer in length) and longer front landing gear.
You'd already have rotation problems with a 787 that long; lengthening the nose gear will only make that worse. It's doubtful the thing could rotate for takeoff without all new gear.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): By 2019 they should be able to crank out a lot of 787's from there 3 FAL's, convert the 777 line once production ends and you could have close to single aisle output.
The 787 supply chain isn't capable of the combined 777+787 production rate. It could be, but the capital investment would be massive.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): What am I missing? Wouldn't this be cheaper to develop than what they are envisioning?
The 787 gear can't support that much weight (more correctly, airport pavement can't take that much weight coming through 8 wheels). You'd need to make the 787 a triple-axle gear like the 777. That means an all new center wing box and wing structural design. You need new engines either way (the existing 787 engines don't go that large). You have rotation problems. You have drag problems (the wing loading would be really high). Everything that you'd have to do to the 777 you'd also have to do to the 787, only worse.
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 23024 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18): CFRP requires a complete new structure.
I realize the 777-x is an update not a clean sheet design, but when it does come time to do the clean sheet Y-3 aircraft, What is Boeing's attitude towards CFRP construction and the other features of the 787 (bleedless engines, etc)? Boeing had been saying several years back that CFRP was the way of the future, but now you don't hear so much about it. I wonder whether CFRP and the other features are living up to Boeing's expectations?
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 22779 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): The only real concern I can see will be clearing other planes on the ramp during taxiing, but since one would expect a 777-9 to be only used at international gates, which are designed for large planes (747 / A380), again, it can probably be okay.
Would it help if they wasn't parked right next to each other . A 777x that is just a little bit too big for its box next to one that is somewhat smaller than what the box allows?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 29, posted (10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 22374 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18): A clean sheet would be at least 3 times the cost, and much more time.
Would it? Yes, it would require an entirely new structure. That's the point. But they're already doing the wings basically from scratch with the materials switch. The engines are being re-done. They can scale the systems architecture directly from the 787 and they have the CFRP experience to design bigger barrels to do a new fuselage.
The bigger issue is time. And I suppose it is true that they would be conceding the 250-350 seat market to Airbus completely in the near-term if they did this.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14): The same way you absolutely positively ensure that the wing won't break off in flight...you don't.
That's not what I mean. I mean that having a spar that's meant to break some distance out from the midline is going to be heavy and difficult to design to meet ultimate load tests. Not insurmountable, I'm sure, but heavy, expensive, and difficult. That's why I doubt we'll see folding tips.
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 19): I can see it won't be a problem for airports like DXB, DOH, AUH and I expect their home carriers are having a big amount of input.
I'm sure they are. The trouble is that EK, EY, and QR all fly to airports other than their home. And if they can't fly those planes anywhere, then they're worth scrap.
When Airbus started marketing the A380, Boeing's favorite marketing strategy for the 748i was to point out that their product could fly to so many more airports than A's. The 778/9X will be smaller aircraft (capacity-wise) than the A380 and so will probably be used to a wider variety of markets. This sort of wingspan might limit the available markets enough to hit sales.
spink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 21981 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29): That's not what I mean. I mean that having a spar that's meant to break some distance out from the midline is going to be heavy and difficult to design to meet ultimate load tests. Not insurmountable, I'm sure, but heavy, expensive, and difficult. That's why I doubt we'll see folding tips.
The spars really shouldn't be the issue. The issue will be the weight added for the rotation and latching mechanism. The folding tip would require likely a relatively beefy motor and screw jack mechanism to lift up the 12ft or so of wing. Then you have the hinge mechanism which will add weight. Then you have effectively a double set of ribs, one on the main wing and one right on the folding tip interface, both of which will need to be stronger than a normal rib as they have to support the weight of the folding wing. Then finally you have the likely electrically engaged locking mechanism. Realistically, you are probably looking at 500-1000 lbs of additional weight per wing plus the loss of somewhere between 1-2 K gallons of fuel.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14348 posts, RR: 26 Reply 32, posted (10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20423 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10): Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?
I think it absolutely would. Boeing could launch it during the middle of this decade and have it in service in the early to mid 2020s. With the A350, particularly the -1000, sliding backwards, the window gets bigger for Boeing. And I can't see the 777X being especially successful. Emirates will buy a buttload, but they'll buy a buttload of 777-300ERs too if Boeing goes with the Y3. Some other airlines will like it too, but Boeing would still be doing a lot of work to get a plane that is going to rely on having more seats to get close to cost parity with the A350-1000. It's not like they will have problems keeping the 777 line moving until a Y3 is ready, although not at a high rate necessarily but I doubt it would be worse than the 767 during the 787 development.
Quoting UA933 (Reply 31): Question: Why would Boeing put engines on the 779 that have less power then the current 77W?
Weight reductions, or at least a weight increase that is minimal for the size increase due to new materials plus a big ass wing.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
brindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20180 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): With the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9, they can offer similar delivery positions to the A350-900 and A350-1000.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25): The 787 supply chain isn't capable of the combined 777+787 production rate. It could be, but the capital investment would be massive.
Indeed, with the mooted 14/month 787 output, the 787+777X should be able to offer better delivery by a handy margin.
Does anyone have any thoughts about the 777X development being "and" or "or" the 777-300+ I see being mentioned?
dynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 767 posts, RR: 8 Reply 34, posted (10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 19639 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): How would you absolutely positively ensure that the tip won't break off in flight?
Same way you design every part of an airplane's structure.
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 15): Remember, the original 777 had them as an option but no one ever took it.
My understanding was that the original folding wing would have folded inboard of the aileron, so a substantial increase in complexity and the loads which would have to go through the structure and mechanism. It would still be non-trivial, but I could see how a trade study could come out favourably if only the raked tips had to fold. If they used raked tips with similar dimensions to the current tips then that would be enough to get you under the class E wingspan.
Quoting queb (Reply 17): A new Al-Li fuselage is very unlikely because it would require a complete redesign (a cleansheet a/c)
Quoting queb (Reply 21): the optimization of weight gain, ie adjust the thickness and dimensions of parts such as skins, frames and stringers, is absolutely necessary to offset the cost of metal.
The work required to re-gauge is not even close to that of a clean sheet design. Even without a change in material there would be plenty of re-gauging.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 35, posted (10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 19189 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?
From a technological standpoint, yes.
However, such a plane would probably not be ready until the mid to late 2020s and at that point, Airbus would already have secured the bulk of the 777-300ER replacement market with the A350-1000.
Quite true and this does look like the commercial policy that Boeing is going to pursue; treat the A350 as a fait accompli in the early model 777 replacement market, wring out the last drops of commercial potential from the 777 family and make a decision on a clean sheet aircraft sometime in the 2020s.
However, it also provides for a 737NG or MAX option as the 777 has a rather excellent commercial position and prospects at the moment and that might remain the case with successive re-engine, weight dropping and technology updating once every 15 years or so. Would cost a lot less than a clean sheet design.
For the record, we discussed the future for VLA's in a thread recently and it appears that Boeing with these plans for the 777-x has rendered many of the arguments for large, four engine aircraft mute....
As for Ai-Li my understanding is that whilst some parts could be substituted over time, the process does require time, money and much more of a redesign than just taking one part out and adding an identical one of a new material.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1911 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18900 times:
This upgrade sounds expensive and complicated to me, and mission creep is a real risk (it's all a bit Trigger's broom), personally I'd either do a small upgrade (as in the 737MAX) or an all new plane. Indeed, when the 787 has theoretically defined the next generation of Boeing airliners, it's slightly awkward that Y1 and Y3 are a long way off.
I don't see the problems with producing an all new Y3 with a slight time delay, the A3510 is hardly flying off the shelf, and those airlines with massive fleets of 77Ws are hardly likely to dump them and replace them with A3510s in the meantime, especially if Y3 will potentially be alot more capable.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 37, posted (10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18892 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 35): Quite true and this does look like the commercial policy that Boeing is going to pursue; treat the A350 as a fait accompli in the early model 777 replacement market, wring out the last drops of commercial potential from the 777 family and make a decision on a clean sheet aircraft sometime in the 2020s.
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 35): Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?
From a technological standpoint, yes.
However, such a plane would probably not be ready until the mid to late 2020s and at that point, Airbus would already have secured the bulk of the 777-300ER replacement market with the A350-1000.
Quite true and this does look like the commercial policy that Boeing is going to pursue; treat the A350 as a fait accompli in the early model 777 replacement market, wring out the last drops of commercial potential from the 777 family and make a decision on a clean sheet aircraft sometime in the 2020s.
Historically, Boeing have only launched clean sheet designs when they have had no other choice, when no further derivative could do the job required. They dragged their feet launching the 777 and only did so after major customers such as BA threatened to go out and buy 330's. Similarly, the 787 was only launched when it was abudantly clear that the 767 could no longer compete with the 332. Its just not part of Boeings DNA to jump early into launching a new platform when there are other commercially viable options available - which is definately the case with the 777X.
I also suspect that Boeing may presently be even more conservative than usual about launching Y3 due to the extended timeframe required for the 787 program to break even. Even Boeing dont have unlimited sources of funding and what they have is no doubt considered better shared amongst the 789/10 along with the 737 MAX and then 777X.
There would also be the desire to benefit from the learning curve of the 787 in terms of manufacturing and in service data before commiting to such a massive program as Y3.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 38, posted (10 months 23 hours ago) and read 17564 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): That sure does sound like a really expensive re-do.
It is a really expensive re-do. But that is what is necessary to get close to the fuel burn on a per seat basis the A350-1000 will be offering. Boeing knows how good the A350-1000 will be and I am convinced that they will get very, very close to that fuel burn target. And they can offer higher capacities for the airlines who need it. I guess though that not to many airlines will go for the capacity increase, most will phase out their B747's for the B779-X. Hence why I believe we will see many fleets operating and the B787, and the A350 and B779-X. .
Quoting UA933 (Reply 31): Question: Why would Boeing put engines on the 779 that have less power then the current 77W?
Because the wing area will generate much more lift. So they need a lot of less speed to create enough lift to get of the ground. Basically following the principle Airbus has been using on the A330-A340 and A380 and what Airbus will be using on the A350. That principle is more economical, and also reduces the engine noise. .
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 39, posted (10 months 22 hours ago) and read 17408 times:
Quoting queb (Reply 21): You can substitute a standard alloy skin with an al-li skin (same thickness, same dimensions, etc) but the weight gain will not be optimized. Al-li is a lot more expensive than standard aluminum alloys, the optimization of weight gain, ie adjust the thickness and dimensions of parts such as skins, frames and stringers, is absolutely necessary to offset the cost of metal.
Quoting queb (Reply 22):
If it were that easy, all manufacturers, including Airbus with neo, Boeing with MAX and Embraer with E-Jet G2 would change for Al-Li. Even Mitsubishi chose a standard alloy for the MRJ
As I said, it is not trivial; this is what I was referring to. But the basic layout of structural supports would be the same; the sizes of the skin sheets would be the same, and the locations for fasteners would be the same. Going to CFRP means that the basic structure would be completely different.
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 27): Boeing had been saying several years back that CFRP was the way of the future, but now you don't hear so much about it. I wonder whether CFRP and the other features are living up to Boeing's expectations?
I think they still believe it; it is just that they do not have time right now to design a new plane without losing too much market share. That is why they went with the MAX instead of the NSA.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29): Would it? Yes, it would require an entirely new structure. That's the point. But they're already doing the wings basically from scratch with the materials switch. The engines are being re-done. They can scale the systems architecture directly from the 787 and they have the CFRP experience to design bigger barrels to do a new fuselage.
It is still a massively larger project to go clean sheet rather than doing a derivative.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
morrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (10 months 21 hours ago) and read 16440 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25): Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
I'm guessing it should weigh a lot less than a 777-9x, meaning a 65m wing would be fine making it fit in Existing Code E gates.
You can't get something for free. If it has the same payload and range capability as the 777-9X then it has to be about the same weight. If it doesn't have the same capability the it's not an equivalent product.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
It would require a new center section/wing (30' longer in length) and longer front landing gear.
You'd already have rotation problems with a 787 that long; lengthening the nose gear will only make that worse. It's doubtful the thing could rotate for takeoff without all new gear.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
By 2019 they should be able to crank out a lot of 787's from there 3 FAL's, convert the 777 line once production ends and you could have close to single aisle output.
The 787 supply chain isn't capable of the combined 777+787 production rate. It could be, but the capital investment would be massive.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
What am I missing? Wouldn't this be cheaper to develop than what they are envisioning?
The 787 gear can't support that much weight (more correctly, airport pavement can't take that much weight coming through 8 wheels). You'd need to make the 787 a triple-axle gear like the 777. That means an all new center wing box and wing structural design. You need new engines either way (the existing 787 engines don't go that large). You have rotation problems. You have drag problems (the wing loading would be really high). Everything that you'd have to do to the 777 you'd also have to do to the 787, only worse.
Tom.
I was envisioning a new Wing Center Section to give the increase in length and allow longer gear - Wing Span may need to go higher than 65M, but assuming this bird could be lighter and more efficient (smaller cross section = less drag plus potentially less weight), maybe not as wide a wing as 777-9x.
Still wouldn't this potential plane with 260' in length and potentially lower thrust requirements than 777-9x be more efficient and have more cargo space than the mooted 777-9x?
By 2018 there 3 787 FAL's should be able to crank out well in excess of 20 frames per month.
Ignoring development cost is this potential plane more efficient than A350-1000?
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (10 months 21 hours ago) and read 16307 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39): As I said, it is not trivial; this is what I was referring to. But the basic layout of structural supports would be the same; the sizes of the skin sheets would be the same, and the locations for fasteners would be the same. Going to CFRP means that the basic structure would be completely different.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 42, posted (10 months 20 hours ago) and read 15423 times:
Quoting queb (Reply 41): It's doable but it's not financially sustainable
That is a question I do not have enough information to answer, and I suspect that only Boeing insiders do. All decisions on what to do with the 777 will have to undergo cost-benefit analysis, and presumably the Boeing people doing that will make good decisions. But whatever they do, they MUST make the 777x competitive with the A3510, or they are wasting their time and money. So they may end up doing some things that are hugely expensive but provide relatively small gain, just to cross that threshold. The A346 proved that in today's market no amount of discounting or soft soap will sell an aircraft that is significantly inferior to its rival in economics.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
rj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1472 posts, RR: 2 Reply 43, posted (10 months 20 hours ago) and read 14929 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 37): Historically, Boeing have only launched clean sheet designs when they have had no other choice, when no further derivative could do the job required. They dragged their feet launching the 777 and only did so after major customers such as BA threatened to go out and buy 330's. Similarly, the 787 was only launched when it was abudantly clear that the 767 could no longer compete with the 332.
So, in other words, we'll have to wait quite a while for the 797.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 44, posted (10 months 19 hours ago) and read 14017 times:
Quoting rj777 (Reply 43): So, in other words, we'll have to wait quite a while for the 797.
Actually, I have a bit different take. Boeing has been reluctant to undertake new planes strictly because of the huge risk involved. They are now in a much more competitive environment than they have had since the 1960's, when they wrested dominance in air transports from Douglas. They have launched new aircraft since then largely when they had a compelling reason to; the 757, 767, and 777 were all launched in response to market demand; I question StickShaker's assertion that the 777 was launched reluctantly. They are in a whole new ballgame now; this is the first time since they gained market dominance that they have lost it, and they are being challenged on every front with better planes than they currently have. It was very clear that they would have much preferred to launch the NSA rather than the MAX; but they couldn't because too many customers would have bolted. I believe the same may apply here; I think they would rather launch Y3 than do the 777x, but they simply cannot afford the time.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8748 posts, RR: 52 Reply 45, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13787 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): How would you absolutely positively ensure that the tip won't break off in flight? How much extra reinforcement will that require?
It depends on how much of the wing would fold. If it includes the slats and outboard aileron, then the mechanism is quite complicated because you also have to pivot control surfaces, actuation and hydraulic plumbing. That’s not a small task. You also have to have the hinge be able to react the loads of the aileron which significantly increases weight.
However if you only pivot the wing outside of the slats/aileron the mechanism is essentially a large two position ground spoiler. The mechanisms behind control surfaces are far more complex as they are dynamic moving surfaces rather than a two position surface that would have a secondary locking feature.
In general, ailerons aren’t falling off with any regularity, so I wouldn’t be worried about a folding wing, although the airplane would likely still remain airworthy with the wingtip removed since that would decrease the structure supporting it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 46, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13722 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 45):
It depends on how much of the wing would fold. If it includes the slats and outboard aileron, then the mechanism is quite complicated because you also have to pivot control surfaces, actuation and hydraulic plumbing
Boeing has stated that if they go for folding wings it will be the wingtip only, with no control surface involvement.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 48, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13520 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 47): Because the 777X will have a lighter MTOW than the 77W/77L
About the wing I already answered the question from UA933. See reply 38. .
I am not so sure that the B777-9X will be lighter. The plane will be significantly bigger, so even if the weight saving program is very successful, at best they will equal the weight of the B77W. But even that is a very, very ambitious goal. A relatively slight increase in weight seems much more likely. Of course on a per seat basis the B777-9X will be lighter then the B77W.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 50, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13443 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): Airbus would already have secured the bulk of the 777-300ER replacement market with the A350-1000.
So Boeing would be in the positon then that Airbus is in now with the A350-1000 - airlines with hundreds of new planes that they're in no hurry to replace.
For Airbus isn't that the case now? Sales of the A-3510 are anemic, compared to its two smaller sisters, and due to all the B-777-300ERs being relitively new? IIRC the first B-77W was delivered in 2004 to AF(?). Even with a 2018 EIS for the A-3510 this airplane will only be about 14 years old. I don't see Airbus delivering hundreds of A-3510 by 2020, or even the mid 2020s, as it will still be competing with the hundreds of B-77Ws still on order and yet to be delivered. By the mid 2020s the oldest B-77Ws will just be reaching about 100,000 flying hours and maybe about 20,000 cycles. Remember the B-77W is primarily used for long haul flights, some up to about 14 hours, so thier cycles will be relitively low.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 51, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13347 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 49): If it isn't, then there is no reason to launch it as it needs similar range to the 777-300ER to be effective
The greatly improved aerodynamics of the wings and interface with the fuselage and new engines will make for a much lower fuel consumption. So the MZFW might be up, the maximum take-off weight might still be lower due to the plane needing less fuel. .
MotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2760 posts, RR: 10 Reply 52, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13308 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7): Could we see a folding wingtip to solve that problem?
No airline client ever went for it before with the initial Triple-7's and I can't imagine it offering any appeal now. How much confidence do you think Joe-Public will have in an airplane that's wings fold out like some air-force offering? I believe airlines will be too risk averse to negative customer reaction.
BTW, this AspireAviation article by Daniel Tsang reads very much like a Boeing PR influenced puff piece asking no hard questions of the folks at Puget Sound while consistently putting an element of doubt in every reference to the A350-1000 and family.
brindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13287 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 40): Ignoring development cost is this potential plane more efficient than A350-1000?
Great point; I dont have the answer as to which of you is right; indeed I suspect that we are ultimately talking about the balance of trade-offs, as is usually the case.
.However for more background I suggest you search for "Zvezda" in the a.net archives.
Greatly missed.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 42): But whatever they do, they MUST make the 777x competitive with the A3510, or they are wasting their time and money.
Precisely.
Most of the discussion everywhere is about the 777-9X.
The real game is ... what needs to be done to make the 777-8X competitive with the A350-1000?
The minimum requirement revolves around a much lighter weight and much better engine SFC.
Which pretty-much leads to the major changes to the "Classic" 777 being weighed-up.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 54, posted (10 months 18 hours ago) and read 13194 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 51): The greatly improved aerodynamics of the wings and interface with the fuselage and new engines will make for a much lower fuel consumption. So the MZFW might be up, the maximum take-off weight might still be lower due to the plane needing less fuel.
At MZFW, a 777-300ER can load a bit under 114t of fuel. If trip fuel weight is reduced by 10%, that would recover about 12t. MTOW drops by 7t, so that allows the MZFW of the 777-9X to be increased by 5t, which is probably necessary to cover the OEW rise. So the engine suppliers are probably going to need to do better than 10% trip fuel weight reduction in order to allow the 777-9 to fly as far as the 777-300ER with a higher payload weight.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 55, posted (10 months 17 hours ago) and read 13024 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
If it isn't, then there is no reason to launch it as it needs similar range to the 777-300ER to be effective.
The whole point is to reduce fuel burn. The larger wing (with lower wing loading, higher aspect ratio and better aerodynamics will produce more lift with less drag) and improved engines will be necessary for that. With lower fuel burn it means lower fuel quantity to achieve the same range, and hence the weight savings.
Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 52):
No airline client ever went for it before with the initial Triple-7's and I can't imagine it offering any appeal now.
The previous folding wing had ailerons on the folding part, vastly increasing cost and complexity. The present proposal is just for the wingtips with no control surface involvement-it might be a lot more attractive.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 56, posted (10 months 17 hours ago) and read 12988 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): How much weight would that add? How would you absolutely positively ensure that the tip won't break off in flight? How much extra reinforcement will that require?
I believe that the F-18 has given Boeing engineers enough experience with a folding wing design. I saw the F-18 at RIAT 2012 doing a very impressive air display, and after landing it folded the wing's. I thought about it when I saw it. How come there has not been accidents related to the folding wings? It must be an impressive design.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29): Would it? Yes, it would require an entirely new structure. That's the point. But they're already doing the wings basically from scratch with the materials switch. The engines are being re-done. They can scale the systems architecture directly from the 787 and they have the CFRP experience to design bigger barrels to do a new fuselage.
I have to agree with you. Boeing developed the 757 and 767 in tandem to reduce cost, complexity and to increase commonality. A 787XWB so to speak with the same systems, software and architecture should be less complex than doing a brand new plane from scratch. Boeing could build from the 787 experience and re-use as many parts as possible. look at the 737 and 727. They have a lot in common as do the 757 and 767.
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 36): This upgrade sounds expensive and complicated to me, and mission creep is a real risk (it's all a bit Trigger's broom), personally I'd either do a small upgrade (as in the 737MAX) or an all new plane. Indeed, when the 787 has theoretically defined the next generation of Boeing airliners, it's slightly awkward that Y1 and Y3 are a long way off.
I agree that the 777X is a step back compared to the 787. The cabin enhancements makes even more sense on the longer range 777 than the 787. The better higher humidity, better cabin pressure and larger windows will be preferred option for passengers.
I know this design study in the start included looking into doing a completely new plane. It seems like Boeing has dropped the idea. In the long run I believe a 787XWB would be better long term solution than the 777X although I am sure it will be competitive as a derivative.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 23): Wouldn't a 260' Long 787- 11x seat just as many as a 250' long 777-9X and have more Cargo room?
IMO this would have been a really competitive airplane.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
BG777300ER From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 57, posted (10 months 17 hours ago) and read 12917 times:
I think whats also amazing is that it will be a couple inches longer than the 748. That long of a body with two engines will look awesome! Can't wait for the 777-9x
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 58, posted (10 months 17 hours ago) and read 12847 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 56): I agree that the 777X is a step back compared to the 787. The cabin enhancements makes even more sense on the longer range 777 than the 787. The better higher humidity, better cabin pressure and larger windows will be preferred option for passengers.
The answer is simple: the market will not wait for a Y3 or 787SWB. Also, the necessary equipment (CFRP lay-up machines and autoclaves) to build 777 sized barrels do not exist and would be hugely expensive, as well as requiring considerable ramp-up time/learning curve, while the necessary infrastructure for building the Al 777 is up, running, and proven. Airlines will wait until 2018-2020 for the 777x; they will not wait until 2024 or later for the Y3/787XWB.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8748 posts, RR: 52 Reply 59, posted (10 months 17 hours ago) and read 12585 times:
Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 52):
No airline client ever went for it before with the initial Triple-7's and I can't imagine it offering any appeal now. How much confidence do you think Joe-Public will have in an airplane that's wings fold out like some air-force offering? I believe airlines will be too risk averse to negative customer reaction.
First off, public perception into how airplanes operate is only of limited importance in design. If Airbus and Boeing were really concerned about people being fearful of how the airplane operates, then Airbus would have found a way to mute/silence their PTU that barks like a dog when the airplane is taxiing on a single engine.
Secondly, some might think it is really cool. They are only talking about the wingtip, so it will essentially look like a winglet at the gate, but then deploy when the airplane gets to the runway. A winglet that folds down during taxi-out would be pretty cool in my opinion and A.net fans would love taking pictures of it as it deploys.
I think the idea of an actuated winglet is a pretty interesting one. If the drag is reduced sufficiently by making the wing tip fold straight out over a conventional winglet design to overcome the weight penalty of the actuation equipment, then it sounds like a good idea. We aren’t talking about carrier style folding wings.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 60, posted (10 months 16 hours ago) and read 12340 times:
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 27): Boeing had been saying several years back that CFRP was the way of the future, but now you don't hear so much about it. I wonder whether CFRP and the other features are living up to Boeing's expectations?
Yes. They've been using CFRP for 20+ years. The change on the 787 was the scope of use, not the material. The 777 uses *exactly* the same material construction in the empennage as the 787 uses for almost everything.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 40): Still wouldn't this potential plane with 260' in length and potentially lower thrust requirements than 777-9x be more efficient and have more cargo space than the mooted 777-9x?
Probably, but at massive extra cost. I don't think the business case closes.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 40): By 2018 there 3 787 FAL's should be able to crank out well in excess of 20 frames per month.
Yes, but the supply chain can't produce 20 frames per month so the FAL capacity is moot.
Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 52): How much confidence do you think Joe-Public will have in an airplane that's wings fold out like some air-force offering?
I have huge confidence that Joe Public both won't notice and won't care.
morrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (10 months 16 hours ago) and read 12340 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 58): The answer is simple: the market will not wait for a Y3 or 787SWB. Also, the necessary equipment (CFRP lay-up machines and autoclaves) to build 777 sized barrels do not exist and would be hugely expensive, as well as requiring considerable ramp-up time/learning curve, while the necessary infrastructure for building the Al 777 is up, running, and proven. Airlines will wait until 2018-2020 for the 777x; they will not wait until 2024 or later for the Y3/787XWB.
No need to build an 787 XWB - a 260' long 787 at 9W will seat as many as the 777-9x at 10W and should be more comfortable with the 787 Barrel Shape.
You can use the same machines as the 787-8/9 to build the barrels.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 62, posted (10 months 16 hours ago) and read 12183 times:
I don't suppose that Boeing could develop a system that allow the aircraft to fly with the wingtip folded down to form a a full raked wingtip for long haul ops, or with the wingtip folded up as a winglet for shorter haul/regional operations where this might increase the fuel efficiency.
I know the barriers to such a proposal would be massive, don't expect it to happen any time soon... But I think it would be extremely cool if it was possible...
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 63, posted (10 months 15 hours ago) and read 12134 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 61):
No need to build an 787 XWB - a 260' long 787 at 9W will seat as many as the 777-9x at 10W and should be more comfortable with the 787 Barrel Shape.
This would be way too long for any airport; it would have monumental rotation problems; and it would probably have structural problems due to length/diameter ratio as well. To say nothing of wings and landing gear being inadequate. I assume you are joking.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
I think it's a valid suggestion. It would fit within the 80 m box (260 ft = 79.2 m); if you had to build a new wingbox anyway, you could incorporate longer gear; and CFRP could mitigate the structural issues somewhat.
That said, I think it would have some structural issues despite the CFRP, it would be a challenge getting it to carry enough weight for 8000+ nm range, and it would be way more expensive to engineer than morrisond thinks. I expect the 777X is an easier project.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 65, posted (10 months 15 hours ago) and read 12024 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 56): I have to agree with you. Boeing developed the 757 and 767 in tandem to reduce cost, complexity and to increase commonality. A 787XWB so to speak with the same systems, software and architecture should be less complex than doing a brand new plane from scratch. Boeing could build from the 787 experience and re-use as many parts as possible. look at the 737 and 727. They have a lot in common as do the 757 and 767.
I hadn't even thought about the 757/767 pair, but you're absolutely right.
Quoting oykie (Reply 56): IMO this would have been a really competitive airplane.
Except for the minor problem that it would be unable to take off because it couldn't rotate. But that's just a detail...
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 64): I think it's a valid suggestion. It would fit within the 80 m box (260 ft = 79.2 m); if you had to build a new wingbox anyway, you could incorporate longer gear; and CFRP could mitigate the structural issues somewhat.
And at some point you've just made a whole new type if you make enough changes.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 66, posted (10 months 13 hours ago) and read 11808 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 45): However if you only pivot the wing outside of the slats/aileron the mechanism is essentially a large two position ground spoiler. The mechanisms behind control surfaces are far more complex as they are dynamic moving surfaces rather than a two position surface that would have a secondary locking feature.
I think a good analogy for the folding tip as proposed for the 777-9X would be retractable landing gear, ie single hydraulic cylinder actuation, up/down position only, and a locking mechanism.
The industry was initally resistant to retractable gear but the performance improvement offset the additional weight and maintenance costs. I think the same will apply to the folding tip in the long run.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
ContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1436 posts, RR: 50 Reply 67, posted (10 months 12 hours ago) and read 11570 times:
Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 52): BTW, this AspireAviation article by Daniel Tsang reads very much like a Boeing PR influenced puff piece asking no hard questions of the folks at Puget Sound while consistently putting an element of doubt in every reference to the A350-1000 and family.
And they should employ a proofreader that understands English sentence structure and basic tense. "Awkward" doesn't begin to describe this article.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 68, posted (10 months 11 hours ago) and read 11355 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 58): The answer is simple: the market will not wait for a Y3 or 787SWB. Also, the necessary equipment (CFRP lay-up machines and autoclaves) to build 777 sized barrels do not exist and would be hugely expensive, as well as requiring considerable ramp-up time/learning curve, while the necessary infrastructure for building the Al 777 is up, running, and proven. Airlines will wait until 2018-2020 for the 777x; they will not wait until 2024 or later for the Y3/787XWB.
Why would it not be ready until 2024. The 787 was more complex and a higher risk. I know design for the 787 started in 2003, but it was not launched before ANA ordered it in 2004. The 787 will reach 10 frames by the end of 2013. That is 10 years from launch until 10 frames pr month. (Assuming it will actually succeed). Now if the 777 replacement shared almost all systems and software with the 787 I fail to see why it should take 12 years to reach 10 frames pr month. Remember that the initial 787 plan was for 4 years from launch to EIS. We know that was overly optimistic, but the answer should be between the original 787 plan and what happened in the end.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 60): Boeing had been saying several years back that CFRP was the way of the future, but now you don't hear so much about it. I wonder whether CFRP and the other features are living up to Boeing's expectations?
Yes. They've been using CFRP for 20+ years. The change on the 787 was the scope of use, not the material. The 777 uses *exactly* the same material construction in the empennage as the 787 uses for almost everything.
Another positive part with Airbus, Boeing and Lockheed Martin building more CFRP structures is that the cost for the material is falling and that means that each the cost of producing 787, A400M, A380 parts as well as the F-35 will continue to fall.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 65): Except for the minor problem that it would be unable to take off because it couldn't rotate. But that's just a detail...
I am sure we could convince someone at Wall Street that a plane that cannot take-off will have unbeatable costs
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 69, posted (10 months 8 hours ago) and read 11046 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 62):
I don't suppose that Boeing could develop a system that allow the aircraft to fly with the wingtip folded down to form a a full raked wingtip for long haul ops, or with the wingtip folded up as a winglet for shorter haul/regional operations where this might increase the fuel efficiency.
A raked tip always outperforms a winglet from an aerodynamic standpoint. If the wing is built to operate properly with the raked tip there would be no benefit to running it as a winglet. You would just fold it all the way down once you took the runway for every flight.
Quoting oykie (Reply 68): I know design for the 787 started in 2003, but it was not launched before ANA ordered it in 2004. The 787 will reach 10 frames by the end of 2013. That is 10 years from launch until 10 frames pr month.
The design for the 787 started in the late 90's. The 787 began life as the Sonic Cruiser; all the material and systems advances in the 787 were originally designed for the Sonic Cruiser. It wasn't until 2003 that they flipped the configuration for equal speed/lower fuel rather than equal fuel/higher speed. The 787 has been well over 12 years in development.
Quoting oykie (Reply 68): Now if the 777 replacement shared almost all systems and software with the 787 I fail to see why it should take 12 years to reach 10 frames pr month.
A.net already went on a tear that the 787 was going into service with outdated technology thanks to a 3 year delay. Can you imagine what would happen if Boeing launched a new aircraft with what is now, in some cases, 12 year old technology?
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 70, posted (10 months 7 hours ago) and read 10899 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44): Quoting rj777 (Reply 43):So, in other words, we'll have to wait quite a while for the 797.
Actually, I have a bit different take. Boeing has been reluctant to undertake new planes strictly because of the huge risk involved. They are now in a much more competitive environment than they have had since the 1960's, when they wrested dominance in air transports from Douglas. They have launched new aircraft since then largely when they had a compelling reason to; the 757, 767, and 777 were all launched in response to market demand; I question StickShaker's assertion that the 777 was launched reluctantly. They are in a whole new ballgame now; this is the first time since they gained market dominance that they have lost it, and they are being challenged on every front with better planes than they currently have. It was very clear that they would have much preferred to launch the NSA rather than the MAX; but they couldn't because too many customers would have bolted. I believe the same may apply here; I think they would rather launch Y3 than do the 777x, but they simply cannot afford the time.
I didn't mean to imply that Boeing are/were reluctant to launch new designs, but rather cautious and conservative. I certainly agree that the aviation world has changed markedly since the days when Boeing was the dominant OEM. ... this is the first time since they gained market dominance that they have lost it, and they are being challenged on every front with better planes than they currently have ....
The 77W has so successfully dominated its category that its only competition has now ceased to exist - it's hardly struggling as was the 767 against the 332. The future derivative (777X) is also being very well received by airlines with Big players such as EK indicating they will buy them by the bucketload.
We have an established platform which continues to be a cash cow and the future derivative has airlines champing at the bit to get hold of them and urging the earliest EIS possible. These are not the conditions under which any OEM will launch a new platform for $15B+ along with all the associated risk. The 35J will provide healthy competition - that is only to be expected but the 77W has a massive installed customer base of which many are keen on the 777X.
I would expect Boeing to launch Y3 in the mid to late 2020's at which time it will leapfrog the 35J with a similar performance delta as the 787 has over the 330.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29): That's not what I mean. I mean that having a spar that's meant to break some distance out from the midline is going to be heavy and difficult to design to meet ultimate load tests. Not insurmountable, I'm sure, but heavy, expensive, and difficult. That's why I doubt we'll see folding tips.
Didn't Boeing perform ultimate load tests on the 777 with one wing tip configured with a folding mechanism? I seem to remember that they did. Do any of you know for sure?
Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 72, posted (10 months 7 hours ago) and read 10907 times:
Quoting jetmech (Reply 71): Didn't Boeing perform ultimate load tests on the 777 with one wing tip configured with a folding mechanism? I seem to remember that they did. Do any of you know for sure?
The folding wingtips were discarded prior to Boeing starting static testing of the 777. So the 777 wing test was performed with the wing we see today.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 74, posted (10 months 7 hours ago) and read 10799 times:
Quoting jetmech (Reply 71): Didn't Boeing perform ultimate load tests on the 777 with one wing tip configured with a folding mechanism? I seem to remember that they did. Do any of you know for sure?
They may have taken a full scale test article to ultimate load with a folding mechanism, but the full static rig going through the wing break that's all over youtube had the regular non-folding wing.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 73): Meaning the broken wing might be draggier, but the pilot could correct with rudder and make an expedited landing.
Differential lift (roll) would probably be the bigger issue, but it's probably not worse than the differential roll of a fuel tank puncture and the ailerons are sized to handle that.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4542 posts, RR: 28 Reply 75, posted (10 months 3 hours ago) and read 10503 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 70): The future derivative (777X) is also being very well received by airlines with Big players such as EK indicating they will buy them by the bucketload.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 70): and the future derivative has airlines champing at the bit to get hold of them and urging the earliest EIS possible.
While I'm sure there has been interest in the 777X program, I am not convinced that carriers are indicating that they will be buying them by the bucketoad or that they are necessarily chomping at the bit to get them ASAP. I'm sure that the right plane would always ellicit such feedback, but I am waiting to hear all the details of the 777X before believing that it's THAT GOOD to get these great sales out of the box.
I think it's more correct to say that in the late'90s, Boeing was researching both Glacier and Yellowstone, both sharing common systems and materials research. They tried to sell Glacier (Sonic Cruiser), but the airlines wanted Yellowstone.
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 77, posted (10 months 1 hour ago) and read 10363 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 69): The design for the 787 started in the late 90's. The 787 began life as the Sonic Cruiser; all the material and systems advances in the 787 were originally designed for the Sonic Cruiser. It wasn't until 2003 that they flipped the configuration for equal speed/lower fuel rather than equal fuel/higher speed. The 787 has been well over 12 years in development.
While the 787 benefit from the materials, systems and propulsion from the Sonic Cruiser, I fail to see why this would not apply if Boeing built a 777 from the knowledge gained from the 787 development. It is not like they would have to start from scratch. The 787 with its its CFRP barrel design and better humidity and pressure would offer significantly better product. Not saying that the 777 is bad in anyway. Still one of my favorite airplanes. Just questioning why a 787WXB instead of a 777X would have to re-invent everything.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 69):
A.net already went on a tear that the 787 was going into service with outdated technology thanks to a 3 year delay. Can you imagine what would happen if Boeing launched a new aircraft with what is now, in some cases, 12 year old technology?
There would probably be an outcry here at Airliners.net But by this argument we could say that the 777 concept started life in the eighties
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 76): I think it's more correct to say that in the late'90s, Boeing was researching both Glacier and Yellowstone, both sharing common systems and materials research. They tried to sell Glacier (Sonic Cruiser), but the airlines wanted Yellowstone.
So they did, and this research would benefit an eventual 787XWB.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 79, posted (10 months ago) and read 10261 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 77): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 69):The design for the 787 started in the late 90's. The 787 began life as the Sonic Cruiser; all the material and systems advances in the 787 were originally designed for the Sonic Cruiser. It wasn't until 2003 that they flipped the configuration for equal speed/lower fuel rather than equal fuel/higher speed. The 787 has been well over 12 years in development.
While the 787 benefit from the materials, systems and propulsion from the Sonic Cruiser, I fail to see why this would not apply if Boeing built a 777 from the knowledge gained from the 787 development. It is not like they would have to start from scratch. The 787 with its its CFRP barrel design and better humidity and pressure would offer significantly better product. Not saying that the 777 is bad in anyway. Still one of my favorite airplanes. Just questioning why a 787WXB instead of a 777X would have to re-invent everything.
Adding to my argument. The A350XWB was launched in 2006, and will eventually fly in 2014. That is 8 years. The prior design the non XWB A350 did not have as advanced materials as the A350XWB. Lars Anderson and his team has been dedicated to work on the 777 evolution since 2010, so they have two years already of data. They will not start from scratch here either. From 2010 til 20124 is 14 years.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 80, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10189 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 75): While I'm sure there has been interest in the 777X program, I am not convinced that carriers are indicating that they will be buying them by the bucketoad or that they are necessarily chomping at the bit to get them ASAP.
I think EK belongs to the "buy them by the bucketload" category as the aircraft is essentially being designed to their specifications. Other carriers are genuinely interested as opposed to lukewarm - I dont think Boeing would be dissapointed with the response so far. There is no sign whatsoever of airlines telling Boeing to go back to the drawing board as many did with Airbus and the original 350 design. While no program or derivative is without risk you could hardly ask for a better platform upon which to base a derivative.
The 777X program allows Boeing to unlock billions of dollars of untapped value remaining in the 777 program - this value would largely be sacrificed if Boeing chose to launch Y3 instead. This might not be too important to aviation enthusiasts who love to see new programs every second week but its a mighty tough one to get past shareholders who want maximum value for every dollar invested. The business case for derivatives is usually far more robust than a new program and Boeing are particularly good at derivatives - the 737NG is testament to this.
I just think its far too early in the lfe cycle of the 777 to be shutting it down while so much potential value remains.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10470 posts, RR: 20 Reply 81, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9874 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 78): F18s and F14 etc have had foldable wingtips iirc, none of them have broken off and these things fly hard as hell.
Right, but airliners are optimized for economics, not for air combat. I agree it's a solvable problem, but the reason the 777 wingtip fold didn't catch on was because it was extra weight and extra maintenance and extra cost, so in the long run it made more sense to provide adequate gate and runway clearance.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2186 posts, RR: 4 Reply 83, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9645 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting brindabella (Reply 33): Does anyone have any thoughts about the 777X development being "and" or "or" the 777-300+ I see being mentioned?
A 777-300+? If I understand you correctly, I'm assuming you mean incremental improvements that will be made to the 77W in the meantime while the 777X is on the drawing boards?
I can't see why both can't be done at the same time. Incremental improvements to the 77W isn't going to require major design work. Most of that will focus on the new 777X.
If I've missed the point of your post, I apologise.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 48): I am not so sure that the B777-9X will be lighter.
I'm positive that it will be, or at worst, coming in at the same weight as the 77W. If we are to assume that it will have new wings, Al-Li skin and a significant structural weight reduction (that a.netter Lightsaber has mentioned is possible), then I don't see why the 777-9X will weigh much more than the 77W, despite being larger.
Quoting brindabella (Reply 53): Most of the discussion everywhere is about the 777-9X.
The real game is ... what needs to be done to make the 777-8X competitive with the A350-1000?
I don't think the 777-8X is meant to compete with the A350-1000, but rather the A350-900. You're right, though, that most of the discussion is focussed on the 777-9X and little is said about the 777-8X. I think it's acknowledged that the 777-8X is the weaker cousin of the -9X, and exists as a platform for the ULH 777-8LX and the possible future 777F.
Quoting oykie (Reply 56): I agree that the 777X is a step back compared to the 787. The cabin enhancements makes even more sense on the longer range 777 than the 787. The better higher humidity, better cabin pressure and larger windows will be preferred option for passengers.
I'm not sure I agree with that. First of all, the 787 is narrower than the 777. The cabin enhancements that you mention could also be fitted to the 777X. It may not have the larger windows of the 787, but having dimmable windows like the 787 shouldn't be too difficult to engineer, as well as interior design that mimics the 787.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 80): The 777X program allows Boeing to unlock billions of dollars of untapped value remaining in the 777 program - this value would largely be sacrificed if Boeing chose to launch Y3 instead.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 80): I just think its far too early in the lfe cycle of the 777 to be shutting it down while so much potential value remains.
I couldn't agree more with those sentiments. The main reason why I personally want to see Boeing launch the 777X instead of the Y3 is because the 777 is still a very young airframe, and there's still a lot of untapped potential there. Then there's the cost aspect which you mentioned as well. The 777 program initially was well over budget, and while subsequent sales have no doubt recovered all the money that was spent on the 777 program, building the 777X could potentially result in a better return of investment than spending on an all new type.
I'm hoping there'll still be new 777Xs (or a subsequent update post 777X) being built in 2034
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10470 posts, RR: 20 Reply 84, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9607 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 83): I'm positive that it will be, or at worst, coming in at the same weight as the 77W. If we are to assume that it will have new wings, Al-Li skin and a significant structural weight reduction (that a.netter Lightsaber has mentioned is possible), then I don't see why the 777-9X will weigh much more than the 77W, despite being larger.
I agree. I personally have a hard time seeing how the thrust is being cut back from ~115k lbs to ~98k lbs just based on aerodynamic improvements alone, there has to be a lot of weight coming off the frame/wings as well.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 85, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9610 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 68):
Why would it not be ready until 2024
There is a lot of work to do before it is launched, and Boeing has its hands full still with the 789, 7810, and MAX programs. They are in no way ready to tackle another new aircraft at this time.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
brindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 87, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9598 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 83): A 777-300+? If I understand you correctly, I'm assuming you mean incremental improvements that will be made to the 77W in the meantime while the 777X is on the drawing boards?
My understanding is that the proposal is for a weight-reduction program via a new belly-fairing or suchlike, as well as the employment of new materials in other areas; and in particular a substantial improvement in the GE90. Altogether about 5% fuel-burn improvement.
That will be compared and contrasted with the decision to go straight into the 777X program, I guess.
Trade-offs as usual.
Possibly the decision is riding on the progress of the A350-900?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 88, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9497 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 83): I don't think the 777-8X is meant to compete with the A350-1000, but rather the A350-900.
Assuming 10-abreast, the 777-8X will have near-identical capacity to the A350-1000. And I agree that it will be mighty difficult for it to be competitive. I'm not quite sure why they're doing it.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9394 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 62): I don't suppose that Boeing could develop a system that allow the aircraft to fly with the wingtip folded down to form a a full raked wingtip for long haul ops, or with the wingtip folded up as a winglet for shorter haul/regional operations where this might increase the fuel efficiency.
I know the barriers to such a proposal would be massive, don't expect it to happen any time soon... But I think it would be extremely cool if it was possible...
In an inverse and even cooler way, that has been done before...on the Valkyrie during its flight envelope.
To put it simply, the wingtips folded down inflight to ride on "compression lift" for improved efficiency.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 90, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9356 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 88): Assuming 10-abreast, the 777-8X will have near-identical capacity to the A350-1000. And I agree that it will be mighty difficult for it to be competitive. I'm not quite sure why they're doing it.
I believe it is to bracket the A350-900 - the 777-8X above and the 787-10X below. That being said, I maintain my original belief that the 777-8 should be a 777-300ERX and the 777-9 should be as close to 80m in length as Boeing can get it.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 91, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9319 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 69): A.net already went on a tear that the 787 was going into service with outdated technology thanks to a 3 year delay. Can you imagine what would happen if Boeing launched a new aircraft with what is now, in some cases, 12 year old technology?
How different are the internal systems on the 73G from the 732? The big difference is wing and engines, no?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 74): Differential lift (roll) would probably be the bigger issue, but it's probably not worse than the differential roll of a fuel tank puncture and the ailerons are sized to handle that.
But a fuel tank puncture means a relatively gradual loss of fuel on that side, which means that the differential forces would develop slowly enough for the aircraft to respond. The loss of a tip happens in a split second, although I'm sure the autopilot would be able to handle it.
More importantly, would installation of a folding tip mean that a tip loss would be the event that would define aileron size? Given that the folding tips would be an option, it would mean that even an aircraft without the tips would need the same ailerons (or you'd be certifying two entirely different wings). Or would other events actually define aileron size (engine-out, fuel tank puncture, etc.)?
oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 92, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9071 times:
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 82):
Plus 18,100. I wonder if surviving earthlings would not be traveling to the outer fringes of the galaxy by then?
LOL! They probably just discovered a 777 wreck on a deserted planet
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 83): The cabin enhancements that you mention could also be fitted to the 777X. It may not have the larger windows of the 787, but having dimmable windows like the 787 shouldn't be too difficult to engineer, as well as interior design that mimics the 787
The AA 777-300ER will already have elements of the Sky-interior so we do not have to wait for the 777X to see an updated interior. But it cannot get the same humidity and cabin pressure as they are the direct result of the CRFP fuselage.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 85): There is a lot of work to do before it is launched, and Boeing has its hands full still with the 789, 7810, and MAX programs. They are in no way ready to tackle another new aircraft at this time.
During the 787 development time, Boeing also completed the 737-900ER (EIS 2007), 747-8F (2011), 747-8I (2012), 777-300ER (EIS 2004), 777-200LR (EIS 2006), 777F (EIS 2009), P-8 Poseidon (IOC 2013) Boeing 737 AEW&C (IOC 2009) so it seems like they historically are capable of doing a complete new program along with several derivatives. Even complex derivatives like the 747-8 and the 777-300ER.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 93, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8888 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 91): How different are the internal systems on the 73G from the 732?
Mostly new flight deck, all new fuel system, all new generators, all new fire extinguishing, all new interior, all new avionics, all new nacelles...it was a lot more than just engines and wing.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 91): More importantly, would installation of a folding tip mean that a tip loss would be the event that would define aileron size? Given that the folding tips would be an option, it would mean that even an aircraft without the tips would need the same ailerons (or you'd be certifying two entirely different wings). Or would other events actually define aileron size (engine-out, fuel tank puncture, etc.)?
I suspect it would still be the fuel tank case but, whatever the sizing restriction, it would make sense for the supply chain to just have one aileron.
flightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 94, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8702 times:
Like everything else, there are always multiple solutions to everything. A plane doesn't have to rotate to get airborne. In the case of the b52, it often does the opposite with the rear wheels lifting first, like in the above link. And even a very minute amount of rotation can get a plane airborne.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2186 posts, RR: 4 Reply 95, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8376 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting brindabella (Reply 87): My understanding is that the proposal is for a weight-reduction program via a new belly-fairing or suchlike, as well as the employment of new materials in other areas; and in particular a substantial improvement in the GE90. Altogether about 5% fuel-burn improvement.
I'm not sure if it's worth it then, especially when the 777X will be here before the end of the decade. Unless such improvements can be done cost-effectively, spending money on a "777-300+" on the eve of a 777X launch seems a little pointless to me.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 88): I'm not quite sure why they're doing it.
Because they can, and because it won't cost them too much money. If the 777X program consisted only of the -8X, then I would agree, but they also have the ultra long range 777-8LX and the possible 777F that may be based off the 777-8X. So while the -8X itself may not be a big seller, nor the -8LX, the same cannot be said of a potential future "777FX".
Quoting oykie (Reply 92): But it cannot get the same humidity and cabin pressure as they are the direct result of the CRFP fuselage.
I don't know too much about the technical details in that respect, but Zeke has mentioned in these forums before that Airbus have already got 6000ft cabin pressure in their A330s and A340s - despite not having a majority composite construction like the 787. Theoretically, then, it's possible ... unless I'm very much mistaken.
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8213 times:
This may seem premature since there hasn't been anything said by the board by Boeing but would both proposed models be built simultaneously? Since this is a generous update of a current frame that's flying now it seems like it shouldn't be an easy transition. Possible?
DarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 98, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8202 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 79): From 2010 til 20124 is 14 years.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95): Quoting brindabella (Reply 87):
My understanding is that the proposal is for a weight-reduction program via a new belly-fairing or suchlike, as well as the employment of new materials in other areas; and in particular a substantial improvement in the GE90. Altogether about 5% fuel-burn improvement.
I'm not sure if it's worth it then, especially when the 777X will be here before the end of the decade. Unless such improvements can be done cost-effectively, spending money on a "777-300+" on the eve of a 777X launch seems a little pointless to me.
If these things can be certificated and added to the 77W, and incorporated into the 77NGs I'd think that Boeing is just getting a little ahead of the game (at worst), and perhaps saving themselves some engineering effort down the line on the NG models, as they could be carried over with minimal to zero evolution...
This may seem premature since there hasn't been anything said by the board by Boeing but would both proposed models be built simultaneously? Since this is a generous update of a current frame that's flying now it seems like it shouldn't be an easy transition. Possible?
Sure... Why not? It would not be too different to the way the 73NG (and now MAX) models were developed with the 600, 700, 800, & 900 models being developed in tandem.
Posting without Talent is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 99, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8151 times:
I just gave some examples of foldiong wingtips that worked, the F18 has them and that wing gets truly punished, never heard of one loosing a wingtip have you? I can be done and it works. It might be a weight penalty to it though, if its the raked tip that will be folded its less complicated?
flyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8044 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 19): I'm afraid it doesn't work like that - aircraft park nose in because it takes up the least amount of lateral space along the terminal front. A 70m wide stand offset at a 15 degree angle would take up an extra 7m of lateral space, making the problem worse, not better.
Plym,
I've sketched out the arrangement (can't work out how to show my sketch here though). At a 15 degree slant, the width footprint of the 779X as proposed would reduce to 69.5m.
Worst case scenario would be a 773ER and 779X in adjacent stands. In this case, the 779X pushback would have to infringe the 773ER stand, but I'm sure that can be accomodated. Both can sit side by side in 70m stands...at least in width. Obviously both are longer than 70m.
There may well be regulations that prevent a pushback or arrival moving through part of another stand, but the geometry could work.
spink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7900 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95): I don't know too much about the technical details in that respect, but Zeke has mentioned in these forums before that Airbus have already got 6000ft cabin pressure in their A330s and A340s - despite not having a majority composite construction like the 787. Theoretically, then, it's possible ... unless I'm very much mistaken.
FYI, quoting pressure in ft of altitude for a plane is a bit fuzzy. Was matters is the max nominal pressure differential.
A330s have a max nominal diff pressure of 8.32
A340 is 8.6
A380 is at 8.6 from the only listing I could find.
Data for 787 suggest it is somewhere around ~9.4-9.5.
FYI, Concorde could go up to 9.9 nominal, it had to to hit FL600.
Pressure relieve valve values appear to be:
777: 9.1
747: 9.4
330: 8.85
340: 8.85
787: appears to be 9.93 based on boeing testing at 14.9 at 150% of max.
Anyone have values for the 380?
But yes, most planes spend their life under 6000 FT cabin air pressure since they don't tend to cross the pressure differential point to hit 6k until they are at ~FL370 on mostly linear internal curves. The 787 cabin pressurization schedule published by Boeing doesn't appear to take full advantage of the max nominal pressure differential advantage, roughly following the same curves as the 777/747 until about FL340 and then maintains 5K until FL370/380 ramping up to 6K at FL400/410 and maintain 6k until max altitude at ~FL430. The 787 schedule I have could be out of date as it is from a 2005 Boeing presentation.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 102, posted (9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7953 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 88): Assuming 10-abreast, the 777-8X will have near-identical capacity to the A350-1000. And I agree that it will be mighty difficult for it to be competitive. I'm not quite sure why they're doing it.
Product lineup, why force your customers to another OEM when they have additional product needs.
TomB From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 103, posted (9 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7595 times:
How does Boeing increase the nominal seating capacity of the B-777-9X to 407 seats from 365 seats in the B-777-300ER? That is an increase of 42 seats.
Boeing shows the standard configuration of the B-777-300ER with 20 first class seats, 70 business class seats and 273 premium economy class seats with a 9 abreast configuration for a total capacity of 365 seats.
Boeing plans to stretch the fuselage of the B-777-9X by 8 feet 7 inches which would permit the addition of 3 rows of 9 abreast seating in the economcy class or the addition of 27 seats. That leaves 15 seats to be be reconciled.
There is also talk that Boeing will reduce the depth of the frames in the semi-monocoupe fuselage and thus gain about 4 more inches of interior width. That would permit a small increase in the width of the seats. The Boeing cross sections show a 10 abreast economy seating option in the B-777-300ER in which the seats and the aisles are all 17 inches wide. If If Boeing could increase the interior width of the B-777-9X by 4 inches, then they could increase the seat width to a maximum of 17.4" wide.
I am assuming that Boeing's standard configuration for the B-777-9X will include one economy section with 10 abreat seating plus a premium economy section with 9 abreast seating, business class seating and first class seating. Can anyone clarify the standard seating configuration on the B-777-9X?
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2186 posts, RR: 4 Reply 104, posted (9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7125 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting TomB (Reply 103): I am assuming that Boeing's standard configuration for the B-777-9X will include one economy section with 10 abreat seating plus a premium economy section with 9 abreast seating, business class seating and first class seating. Can anyone clarify the standard seating configuration on the B-777-9X?
I'm not entirely sure what, if any, premium economy seating will be counted in Boeing's standard configuration, but it's almost a given that there'll be 7 across in business and 10 across in economy to come up with 407 seats.
I would imagine that the 42 seat advantage is due to having two more rows of economy class seating at 10 across and one extra seat per row.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 105, posted (9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6995 times:
Quoting TomB (Reply 103): I am assuming that Boeing's standard configuration for the B-777-9X will include one economy section with 10 abreat seating plus a premium economy section with 9 abreast seating,
Boeing usually models their med/long-haul aircraft with a 3-class configuration for seat counts. I've noticed that most airlines actually seat in less dense configurations.
I would have to think that a Y+ product would be 2-4-2 and a J product would be 2-3-2 or 2-2-2 with F being 1-2-1 on most premium carriers.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 107, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6295 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 80): There is no sign whatsoever of airlines telling Boeing to go back to the drawing board as many did with Airbus and the original 350 design.
From what I have read, and veiwed on things like the 5 hour PBS special on the making of the 777 back in the 90's...Boeing's efforts on working directly with United's[and other airlines] staff, (Pilots, F/A's, and especially the mechanics) is one of the reasons it started off so well! From the threads on A.net, Airbus did not do that, and is IMO why they had so much pushback from the airlines to "re-create/improve" the A350.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 110, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6094 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 109): Quoting 135mech (Reply 107):
rom the threads on A.net, Airbus did not do that
Those threads are not always the best source of information. .
It's no less than this thread, right? My point was (thought it was pretty clear) was that Boeing wasn't thrown back to the drawing board because they started it right...Airbus was...
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 111, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6010 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 110): Boeing wasn't thrown back to the drawing board
Remember the Sonic Cruiser which a only couple of years later turned out to be the B787? I can assure you that it required some very serious drawing board work.
But please, keep this thread about the possible developments for the proposed B777-8X/9X with which Boeing is going to counter the A350-1000.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 112, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5921 times:
Quoting oykie (Reply 92): During the 787 development time, Boeing also completed the 737-900ER (EIS 2007), 747-8F (2011), 747-8I (2012), 777-300ER (EIS 2004), 777-200LR (EIS 2006), 777F (EIS 2009), P-8 Poseidon (IOC 2013) Boeing 737 AEW&C (IOC 2009) so it seems like they historically are capable of doing a complete new program along with several derivatives. Even complex derivatives like the 747-8 and the 777-300ER.
But they have also realized that the massive delays to both the 787 and the 748 programs was partly a direct result of being way overextended, and they do not wish to do it again.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 114, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5607 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 113): Put that new wing on the 748 too
Unfortunately, I believe the 747 has seen the last major upgrade. There is no financial case for a new wing, or any other major improvement; demand for it has been squeezed between the A380 and the 777. And with the improvements that the 777x is bringing to the table, that space is probably going to be pretty close to zero. The 748F will still get orders due to its ability to handle outsized cargo, but the 748i has limited prospects. A new wing won't be enough to make it more attractive.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 115, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5484 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 105): Boeing usually models their med/long-haul aircraft with a 3-class configuration for seat counts.
I think that's actually an ICAO standard configuration to allow apples-to-apples comparison.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 111): Quoting 135mech (Reply 110):
Boeing wasn't thrown back to the drawing board
Remember the Sonic Cruiser which a only couple of years later turned out to be the B787?
Remember that the airlines actually wanted the Sonic Cruise pre-9/11?
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 114): Unfortunately, I believe the 747 has seen the last major upgrade. There is no financial case for a new wing, or any other major improvement;
That same argument could have been made about the -400. The 747-8 got a new wing and new engines...there is no particular reason that that same business case won't work again in ~15 years if the 747 is still the only going concern in the large freighter sector.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 116, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5044 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 115): Remember that the airlines actually wanted the Sonic Cruise pre-9/11?
Yes, I do remember that. Just as I also remember Airbus already sold 200 copies of the A350-MK-1. But market developments caused them to change plans, meaning back to the drawing board.
My reaction was on the claim being made that only Airbus had to go back to the drawing board, and Boeing had not done so. But I am sure you know and understand that.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4922 times:
To say the 748 got a new wing is stretching it IMO. Who knows in 10 years, the freighter might still be needed in the market as the 77F never really will be replacing it.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 118, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4890 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 117): To say the 748 got a new wing is stretching it IMO.
How so? New loft, new flight controls, new high lift system, new pylons, new planform, new tip...the only thing they didn't change was the sweep and the fact that it's still aluminum.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 119, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4823 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 115): That same argument could have been made about the -400. The 747-8 got a new wing and new engines...there is no particular reason that that same business case won't work again in ~15 years if the 747 is still the only going concern in the large freighter sector.
If their is no other large freighter available you may be right. However, I see it likely that with the 777x program Boeing is likely at some point to upgrade the 777F as well, which is likely make it more economically efficient than the 748F. In that case 748F sales will dwindle, as the only ones who will buy it will be those carrying things that will fit on it but not on the 777F. If the technology improves so that the 748 can be again made competitive, the same improvements can be made to the 777 to keep it ahead. This all assumes that the 777 can be improved to the point that its economics equal or beat the 748; I do not know for a fact that this is true, but from what I have read I believe it is.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, RR: 96 Reply 121, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4683 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 107): Airbus did not do that, and is IMO why they had so much pushback from the airlines to "re-create/improve" the A350.
You need to be oh so careful with this kind of comment.
To suggest that Airbus don't talk to their customers in much the same way that Boeing do strikes me as either a) nonsensical, or (cynically) b) aimed at demonstrating that they are nothing more than a government funded job creation scheme who pay no attention to the market.
As they are neither a) nor b) I can only believe that they DO talk to their customers in pretty much the same way that Boeing do.
You'd be surprised perhaps at how involved key customers were in the development of the A380 - the plane that the market supposedly "doesn't want"..
How they act upon those conversations may be affected by a huge number of internal and external factors and/or market events
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 122, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4612 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 121): Quoting 135mech (Reply 107):
Airbus did not do that, and is IMO why they had so much pushback from the airlines to "re-create/improve" the A350.
You need to be oh so careful with this kind of comment.
As I stated "IMO" ... from all of the things I have read and the reports etc...Boeing has done a LOT better at customer satisfaction with the 777 than Airbus did with the original A350. And as I stated before it's In My Opinion (IMO)
This is a forum for all people to view/write their information and informed opinions.
That you did, but not in the correct way. Your quote was:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 122): Airbus did not do that, and is IMO why they had so much pushback from the airlines to "re-create/improve" the A350.
Where you clearly state as a fact that "Airbus did not do that" and only then you state that you believe (opinion) that is the reason for ...................
I can assure you both Airbus and Boeing are in very close contact with their potential customers when it comes to new airplane development. Remember they sold already 200 copies of the A350-MK1. But then the signal from the market came in stronger and stronger that a totally new model would be the better option. And so they changed their strategy and opted for the A350-XWB.
Just as Boeing was on track with the Sonic Cruiser and then due to market changes the signal came out that something a bit more common/not so fast airplane would be the best option. And so they changed their strategy and presented the B787 dreamliner.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 124, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4554 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 121): You'd be surprised perhaps at how involved key customers were in the development of the A380 - the plane that the market supposedly "doesn't want"..
Airbus' willingness to work with customers on interior fittings have been a - if not the - major reason Airbus has been unable to meet their delivery rate targets.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 125, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4328 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 121): To suggest that Airbus don't talk to their customers in much the same way that Boeing do strikes me as either a) nonsensical, or (cynically) b) aimed at demonstrating that they are nothing more than a government funded job creation scheme who pay no attention to the market.
The original comparison was specifically to the 777; this program was marked by far (unusually) higher customer involvement than prior programs, both in scope and in how early they were brought in. This was atypical behavior, even for Boeing.
Nobody is saying Airbus doesn't talk to their customers. The suggestion was that they may not have done so *to the degree of the 777*, which isn't any kind of disparagement because Boeing themselves didn't do so to the degree of the 777 on other programs.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 126, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4272 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 125): The original comparison was specifically to the 777; this program was marked by far (unusually) higher customer involvement than prior programs, both in scope and in how early they were brought in. This was atypical behavior, even for Boeing.
Nobody is saying Airbus doesn't talk to their customers. The suggestion was that they may not have done so *to the degree of the 777*, which isn't any kind of disparagement because Boeing themselves didn't do so to the degree of the 777 on other programs.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1598 posts, RR: 4 Reply 127, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4139 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 125):
The original comparison was specifically to the 777; this program was marked by far (unusually) higher customer involvement than prior programs,
Although not directly working on the 777 program at that time, I was able to visit UA maintenance facility in SFO as the overall cultural change at that time at Boeing to have more direct input from the customers. It's one thing to get info from Fax and Twixes. It's another to hear it from the line mechanics themselves. The visit actually produced a couple of design improvements that were incorporated on to the 777 and later 737NG.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, RR: 96 Reply 128, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3994 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 125): The suggestion was that they may not have done so *to the degree of the 777*, which isn't any kind of disparagement because Boeing themselves didn't do so to the degree of the 777 on other programs.
So pointing out that Airbus had to to "re-create/improve" the A350 because they didn't talk to the customers isn't a disparagement.. particularly as the A350 post-dates the 777 by quite a bit.
Do you know that Airbus don't involve their customers to that extent?
I accept that on an internet forum people are entitled to have that opinion.
My opinion is, and remains, that without the data to demonstrate it, it is an unsafe opinion.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 125): Nobody is saying Airbus doesn't talk to their customers
That is what was said. It might not have been what was meant, but it IS what was said..
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 130, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3501 times:
My earlier comment (post 80) was to highlite that the recent 777X proposals outlined by Boeing have been well received by the airlines (particularly current 77W operators) confirming that Boeing are moving in the right direction. Didn't mean to start a war here with references to the 350 Mk1 - can't we all just get along here guys ?
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 123): Remember they sold already 200 copies of the A350-MK1. But then the signal from the market came in stronger and stronger that a totally new model would be the better option. And so they changed their strategy and opted for the A350-XWB.
Don't forget the demise of the 346 also played a significant role here as the 350 program then had to be effectively up-sized (XWB'd) to include the 350-1000. This exacerbated the existing problem of the 358 being a somewhat heavy shrink.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 376 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11134 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 104 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 220 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, 
. 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2760 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 248 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, 
They probably just discovered a 777 wreck on a deserted planet 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
