Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
So If Boeing Was To Pass On 777x And Build Y3....  
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18993 times:

As discussed in other threads it sounds like Boeing is having some second thoughts on 777X at least the 778.

If Boeing was to just do a 777+NEO minimal change for say 2016-17, could they have a 777/748 replacement ready in 2022 (I'm assuming that a re-engine of the 777 family keeps the line busy for another 5 years as it will be good enough).

I'm assuming a launch in 12-18 months. What technology could be available for production by 2022?

How efficient of a design could be made?

Will they be able to move beyond traditional Tube and Wing by then and go BWB - or is there a half step in between?

Personally by then I think they could do something in CFRP that either looks like a twin Ecoliner or do something a little more radical like a single deck 12 W Twin with an Ovalized Fuselage laid on it's side (composite construction should allow this by then - even if it needs to be supported mid-span - there should also be an aero benefit as the fuselage could generate significant lift meaning a smaller wing could be used).

Will the technology by there to at least match match a possible A389 with new engines (I would assume same wing as a new one would be too costly)?

I would assume the small Y3 would be in the 420-440 seat range with huge range and the larger version in about 500 passenger.

Discuss.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31009 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing did have a four-engine, three-aisle, twelve-abreast (2+4+4+2) concept called the 763-246. It would have had the overhead cabin like the one offered on the 747-8. The design was ~274 feet long and 262 feet wide.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18856 times:

Yes, Boeing could also simply abandon the idea of the B-777X altogether, build the B-787-10 as an interium airplane while they design and finalize the Y-3. The Y-3 could be 2, 3, or 4 engines, but I doubt we will see 4 engines as the combined fuel burn is just to high, no matter how efficent the engine is. A BWB design still has some draw bcks like the additional 'ride' passengers seater further from the airplane center get, as well as fewer windows.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31009 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18763 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't see Boeing being ready to bring a BWB to market and even if they were, I am not sure the public is ready since the experience will be very different than on current "tube" airliners.

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18762 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Boeing did have a four-engine, three-aisle, twelve-abreast (2 4 4 2) concept called the 763-246. It would have had the overhead cabin like the one offered on the 747-8. The design was ~274 feet long and 262 feet wide.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18657 times:

I would be very surprised with anything more than 2 engines as well - given new efficient high lift wings it seems like existing Engine thrust Levels or a little bump - 115-120=5,000 Lbs should be more than sufficient for 500 Passengers over 8,000NM.

I would be very surprised if they Jumped directly to BWB either - something of a hybrid - My very Ovalized Single Deck 12W twin with wings attached like normal may be the interim step they need (and it should be easier to produce) before they go full BWB which given it's potential efficiency is where were going.

If you look at Boeings development schedule Y3 in the early 2020's makes sense as after 2016/17 (assuming they don't go full 777x but do a 777+) gets pretty quiet after 2017.

Launch Y3 in 2014 for delivery in 2022.
Y1 gets launched in 2020 for Delivery in 2016 (Giving 10 years of MAX Production), using new production techniques (Non-Autoclave CFRP?) developed for Y3 with ovalized 2-3-2 fuselage
787 Gets updated mid 2020's with PIP's and new Engines (not that intensive for Boeing)
787 gets replaced with full BWB early 2030's


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18457 times:

What combined annual production of B787 and A350 can be expected? Given combined B787/A350 orders approaching 1500 at this time, could a 777NEO hold its own through offering faster delivery? Not quite the same but instead of A330 orders tailing off as B787 neared introduction, they rose IIRC. Why not skip a major redesign as suggested and do Y3 next decade?

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18347 times:

I just don't see Y3 happening until next decade (possible launch end of this decade however).
That would give the 777X about 6 years of sales before Y3 and then probably another 2 years during Y3 before the line closes. That's enough time for a good 600 777X whilst it would probably have a break even figure of 150.
Y3 is highly unlikely to be a standard tube design. Y3 is replacing the 77W and 748 after all and is aimed at the A380 so needs to be bigger than a 77W and probably the 748. It will likely be less capacity than the A388 but more efficient and lower costs, or it will be much larger (think 600+ in 3 class layout). If it is the larger design then it most certainly has to be BWB as the market is not big enough for 2 competing Supers of standard design. The 7810 will of course fill in the market below Y3 (albeit with a gap which is the A350 sweetspot).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31009 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18260 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would not expect Boeing to take the fight to the A380-800 and A380-900 with Y3.

I can't see a traditional tube greater than 11 abreast, and then only if it can be done with CFRP so that the weights do not exceed the current 777-300ER so that it can use 115k engines. Otherwise, they have to go to four engines and I don't see that working unless it's A380-sized.

Beyond that, we probably need to look at a double-decker option like the Ecoliner.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18138 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Beyond that, we probably need to look at a double-decker option like the Ecoliner.

Which looks like a 787 with a an upper half 737 on top.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/r...eesje_pics/Ecoliner2comparison.jpg

[Edited 2012-09-28 09:50:24]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31009 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18049 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting panais (Reply 9):
Which looks like a 787 with a an upper half 737 on top.

Indeed, but it may very well be the most structurally-efficient design to seat 350-450 people.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18005 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
If Boeing was to just do a 777+NEO minimal change for say 2016-17, could they have a 777/748 replacement ready in 2022 (I'm assuming that a re-engine of the 777 family keeps the line busy for another 5 years as it will be good enough).

I think the problem there is that 5 years isn't enough time to recover the cost of the 777+NEO.

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
How efficient of a design could be made?

Tough to predict that far ahead, but it's safe to assume it would rise to at least 787-A350 levels + about 5% (the engine companies get about 0.5% per year on average).

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Will they be able to move beyond traditional Tube and Wing by then and go BWB - or is there a half step in between?

We're technologically able to move to BWB now. It's the regulations, customers, and airports that aren't anywhere close to understanding how to deal with it.

Tom.


User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15221 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
I'm assuming a launch in 12-18 months. What technology could be available for production by 2022?

I like all the speculation I'm reading, but the technology just is NOT there. Airbus had some fancy designs, too, and admitted that designing the dynamics around them required another 20-25 years or so. Not to mention the engines! Same on the Boeing designs. Besides, launching early kills existing programs (others made that point here). nah, sorry, 2014 would be gutsy, but with entry in 2030 at the earliest. In other words, the youngest of us on this list will enter middle age, and I'll be dead or gaga in an oldfolks' home going phhhhhhhhh when I see an airplane fly by.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6669 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 14228 times:

I see here a lot of mentions of "Y3" and "Y1" while there is nothing of the sort with Airbus. Why is that ? After reading thousands of messages about what Y1 will be and ending up with a 737NGNGNG, I certainly won't hold my breath on Y3 being revolutionary !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10042 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting morrisond (Reply 5):
My very Ovalized Single Deck 12W twin with wings attached like normal may be the interim step they need

I'm not sure quite how you would organise, or certify 12-across. It would almost certainly have to be triple aisle

Quoting morrisond (Reply 5):
Launch Y3 in 2014 for delivery in 2022.
Y1 gets launched in 2020 for Delivery in 2016 (Giving 10 years of MAX Production), using new production

For what its worth, I'll put money on Y1 appearing BEFORE Y3

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 7):
I just don't see Y3 happening until next decade (possible launch end of this decade however).

I don't think you'll even see a launch until mid-next decade.....
If I look at the 737MAX, and 777X, 737MAX sticks out as the one that will need replacing first...
(And Boeing aren't going to do Y3 instead of 777X IMO)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
I can't see a traditional tube greater than 11 abreast, and then only if it can be done with CFRP so that the weights do not exceed the current 777-300ER so that it can use 115k engines

Agree.

Rgds


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
For what its worth, I'll put money on Y1 appearing BEFORE Y3

I would not be surprised at all if that would turn out to be true.  .


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13522 times:

Is a 777 replacement based on
787 nose
Wider 787 type fuselage to seat 10 abreast
787 tail
Wing root insertions to extend wing and fuel and allow triple bogie undercarriage
All using 787 based technologies and construction techniques

possible?

Would it be possible and it would seem to be a lot less cost than a new Y3.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3766 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13285 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
It's the regulations, customers, and airports that aren't anywhere close to understanding how to deal with it.

And maybe the passengers sitting 60 feet from the longitudinal axis who are in for a hell of a roller coaster ride on a tight approach in windy conditions...  

To be honest I haven't followed the BWB devlopment lately. I don't know if they've found ways to overcome that problem through FBW software tweaks or other.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13212 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):

Is a 777 replacement based on
787 nose
Wider 787 type fuselage to seat 10 abreast
787 tail
Wing root insertions to extend wing and fuel and allow triple bogie undercarriage
All using 787 based technologies and construction techniques

possible?

Would it be possible and it would seem to be a lot less cost than a new Y3.

This is a brand new plane so what is different to a Y3?

When Airbus did the original A350 Mk1, it got widely criticised by the Airlines for being to big a change with too little benefit. The words of SQ: ''Having gone to the trouble of designing a new tail, and introducing a lot of new composites, and everything else, they might as well go the whole way and design a whole new fuselage as well instead of using something old,''

Airbus Should Redesign A350, SQ Says (by Sq212 Apr 7 2006 in Civil Aviation)

In the end it became a whole new plane and 5 additional years of development as well as billions more in investments.

Boeing has the same problem with the 777-X: how do they improve the 777 without making it a half baked new plane. And a lot of the suggestions raised here, make the 777-X exactly a A350 Mk1. I think it is understandable that Boeing is cautious as they don't want the make the Airbus mistake (which a lot of A.netters feel like doing).


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4833 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13050 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):

And maybe the passengers sitting 60 feet from the longitudinal axis who are in for a hell of a roller coaster ride on a tight approach in windy conditions...

Unlikely.... The passenger compartment would more likely be 70 feet across in total (meaning the furthest seats would be 35 feet (10m) from the logitudinal axis (which isn't massive). It would likely have double decks in places.
Who needs windows? most passengers don't look out them anyway and with technology it would be easy enough to have side facing cameras (via IFE) or even a few on the walls in places for those who really want to look out (there would still be some windows of course particularly around exits).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2616 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 12995 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
As discussed in other threads it sounds like Boeing is having some second thoughts on 777X at least the 778.

They're not having second thoughts. They are building the 777X. The only question is how far those upgrades will go.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
For what its worth, I'll put money on Y1 appearing BEFORE Y3

  

Me too. I think that we could see the "Y1" or "NSA" (whatever it may be called) launched in the early 2020s for EIS in the mid to late 2020s, and the "Y3" launched in the mid 2020s for EIS in the early 2030s.

I agree that out of the 737MAX and 777X, the 737MAX will need replacing sooner. Unlike the 777X, the 737MAX is a minimal change upgrade to keep the costs down.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
I don't think you'll even see a launch until mid-next decade.....

  

I agree with that too.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
Would it be possible and it would seem to be a lot less cost than a new Y3.

That would be the Y3 as you're designing an all new widened fuselage anyway.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 18):
Boeing has the same problem with the 777-X: how do they improve the 777 without making it a half baked new plane. And a lot of the suggestions raised here, make the 777-X exactly a A350 Mk1.

As far as I'm aware, no airline has told Boeing that the 777X doesn't go far enough (although they risk that happening if they take the "cheaper" upgrade option. Just because SQ told Airbus that the A350 Mk 1 didn't go far enough doesn't mean the same will happen to the 777X.

I happen to think that the A350 Mk 1, had it been built, would've been a terrific aircraft which would have given the 787 a run for its money, although it wouldn't be able to touch the 77W's territory. Perhaps part of the reason why Airbus decided to do the XWB is to get a slice of the 77W's success.

The A350 Mk 1, however, was hindered by the narrower cabin cross section which wouldn't have been able to comfortably fit 9 across in economy, while the 787 could. The 777X, in contrast, has a wider cabin than the A350XWB allowing it to fit one extra row per seat in a bid to reduce its costs per seat to counter the increased weight over the XWB. As such, I do not believe that the success or otherwise of the A350 Mk 1 is any indication of how the 777X will fare. They are different aircraft.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12544 times:

I wish Lockheed would come back to the Airliner Market and build the Future Airliner they had in the NASA Study done last year.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/6...ain_composite_1a_original_full.jpg


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2899 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12490 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sorry for my ignorance but what does BWB stand for?

Also, with all the "general" fanfare around the 787 Dreamliner and A380, why does it seem like the A350 get such little play? (except on A.net)



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12473 times:

BWB is Blended Wing Body design that Boeing, and I think MDC has been floating for awhile. It looks like this

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/6...eing_concept_original_4x3_full.jpg

HTH


User currently offlineYchocky From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12221 times:

Quoting n901wa (Reply 21):
I wish Lockheed would come back to the Airliner Market and build the Future Airliner they had in the NASA Study done last year.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/6...ain_composite_1a_original_full.jpg

Is that a DL wavy gravy tail?


25 tdscanuck : Probably. Maybe not the exact nose but certainly the structure and aerodynamics. Yes. Yes, although the 787 actually has the 777 tail for all intents
26 Stitch : "Y3" for Airbus is the A350-1000 and the A380-800 and "Y2" is the A350-800 and A350-900. As for "Y1", as soon as Boeing does launch the NSA, Airbus w
27 Ruscoe : The difference is my proposal is for a 777 replacement, not for a 777/747 replacement, and hence a much lighter structure, and is not a new plane but
28 CXB77L : Boeing hasn't defined a "Y3" as an aircraft yet. It is just a project code name. As such, it could still be anything. Your proposal could become the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Slows The Pace On 777X. Why? posted Thu Aug 23 2012 09:44:59 by rotating14
Iberia Pilots To Strike On 18th And 29th Of Dec. posted Wed Dec 7 2011 05:07:00 by MIAspotter
WN Going To 4th F/A On 800 And Carts? posted Sun Nov 20 2011 10:47:49 by EASTERN747
If Lockheed Was To Design An Biz Turbo Prop? posted Mon Oct 31 2011 08:20:54 by 747400sp
If Lockheed Was To Design A Modern Airliner? posted Fri Sep 16 2011 16:41:17 by 747400sp
Airbus Or Boeing Failing To Deliver On Time posted Tue Oct 23 2007 04:59:22 by Max78
Airlines Learn To Fly On A Wing And An Apology posted Sun Mar 18 2007 17:37:49 by RJpieces
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Boeing Close To Breakeven On 787 posted Sun May 21 2006 13:29:02 by Lumberton
Chances To Fly On IL62 And TU134? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 01:40:58 by B777-700