Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG  
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 39768 times:

In a general AW article about all new Boeing DA aircraft programs (and the 747-8 in the headline) is hidden SOME REAL NEWS  Wow! (and it sound like they know what they are talking about), here goes:

"The -10X involves more than adding fuselage plugs to the 787-9. There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads. A redesign also offers the promise of improved performance in the wing. An upgraded environmental control system is likely, as is a stronger main landing gear that uses six-wheel trucks, as does the 777-300ER. "

That sounds very much like the start of the 787-10HGW, a cleaned up and stronger wing - center wingbox join can carry a higher MTOW then the 789 as can a 6 wheel MLG. With these modifications the route up to some 280t should be prepared and ranges that make the 787-10 a real long-haul frame (280t gives you some 8000nm with the present wing). Don't be surprised to see the final offered variant pass 7000nm with full passenger load with a margin and then gradually stepping up to 8000nm as times goes. The engines are probably the limiting factor more then the wing so as these can add power so will the 787-10 add MTOW and thus range.

The new MLG would possibly restrict the cargo to 40 LD3 with the present 9 frame stretch, a small sacrifice and a good move. If you go to the trouble of certifying a new variant better remove some of the bottle-necks that you can in the process and those that you can't (the engines) you follow their stepwise development.

So we get a real A359 competitor after all in the 787 range, mile by mile or really lbf by lbf  .

[Edited 2012-12-03 02:13:32]


Non French in France
262 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 39793 times:

What market does that leave for the 777-8X?

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1874 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 39545 times:

None, unfortunately...

Sniff... sniff...



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 39421 times:

So if the cost of development of the 777X can't be spread across the 778-8X as well, does that mean reducing the scope of the 9X as well? Expanding the scope and cost of development of 787-10 logically means reducing that of the 9X. Just as the A330 is competitive for years yet, so the 777 might be with not so much development more than a pretty simple stretch.

User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39366 times:

Interesting! Surely expecting a MTOW increase now


Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39347 times:

Interesting catch, ferpe!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 3):
Expanding the scope and cost of development of 787-10 logically means reducing that of the 9X.

Not necessarily. If the putative 777-8 goes to the boneyard in the sky, then the -9 could be better optimized for its missions and hence more competitive. 777-9 and -10 anyone?


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 639 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39257 times:

So the 7810 moves from an A333 killer to an A359 direct competitor.

Does that mean the A333 lives longer?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39123 times:

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):


Sounds like they are using a similar approach as what Airbus did from the -900 to -1000. The additional wheels, increased wing loads, and changes to the ECS may also mean the possibility of another fuselage extension.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 39074 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 5):
Not necessarily. If the putative 777-8 goes to the boneyard in the sky, then the -9 could be better optimized for its missions and hence more competitive. 777-9 and -10 anyone?

Wouldn't a -10 be too long to be practicable.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2222 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 38933 times:

Do you see what I meant in all these 77X threads about a 787-based A351 competitor?

A new landing gear is a more extensive upgrade that I would have thought to be required to approach A351 capability from below. If Boeing brings forward the 787 that much, a 340 seat, high performance version won't be out of reach anymore.

With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

Bye bye 77X.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 38717 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):

I wonder what sort of a weight and fuel burn penalty this will cause on the 787-10. The 787-10 as it was would have been a terrific A333 replacement on medium haul (10 hour) routes. I think the addition of the triple bogie main landing gear will have a negative effect its trip fuel burn for such routes.

Also, are there any plans to increase the wingspan on the 787-10? At just 60m it seems to be on the small side for an airliner with its size and mission profile, particularly if Boeing wishes to increase the range of the 787-10.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 3):
Expanding the scope and cost of development of 787-10 logically means reducing that of the 9X.

No.

While I agree that the base 777-8X is all but dead (though the ultra long range 777-8LX and a "777-8F" is still a possibility), the 787-10 isn't anywhere near big enough to take on the market of the 777-300ER and its successor, the 777-9X. What the advent of the 787-10 means is that the 777X family will be reduced. It will not make the 777X family redundant.

I think it is a good strategy for Boeing to sandwich the A350-1000 between two of its models, the 787-10 and the 777-9X. Without a competitive and heavily revised 777-9X, Boeing wouldn't have much of a competitive offering if airlines wanted something between the size of the A350-1000 and the A380.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

Bye bye 77X.

In your dreams.  



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 38632 times:

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads.

Going back into history when the SOB issues and weight creep became evident back in 2009/10 the smart money was on a complete SOB redesign and 6 wheel boggies (you can check the archieve) but there were some who insisted that Boeing could cheat physics, not so.

Also at this point I'm thinking ironic thoughts about the recent thread that insisted that the A350-1000 was a dead end with no room for growth without a major redesign (not true), seems that the B789 has this problem in spades.



BV
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1583 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 38590 times:

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
That sounds very much like the start of the 787-10HGW, a cleaned up and stronger wing - center wingbox join can carry a higher MTOW then the 789 as can a 6 wheel MLG.

Wouldn't make these added modifications the -10X a lot heavier, thus compromising its biggest advantage towards the A359? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard a 6 wheel bogie implies some stiff weight penalties.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
The engines are probably the limiting factor more then the wing so as these can add power so will the 787-10 add MTOW and thus range.

Perhaps we'll see a modified GE9x appear on the -10X to compete with RR's Trent-1000 TEN, GE is working hard on it anyway for an and of the decade EIS.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

It would need another stretch, and I'm not so sure Boeing will go that far.

And I don't write the 777-9X off just yet, although it becomes more and more likely Boeing will eventually have a 787-10 with GE9x and RB3025 engines and 8000+ NM range. Possibly developing an all new widebody family offering 77W/747 replacements, GTF engines, EIS 2023/2024, right at the start of the 77W replacement cycle.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 38430 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
Perhaps we'll see a modified GE9x appear on the -10X to compete with RR's Trent-1000 TEN, GE is working hard on it anyway for an and of the decade EIS.

We have the bleed v non bleed problem here again, a GE9x would have to be completely re engineered for the 787. But I think that the GEnx is at the top of its thrust range for the 789 anyway, this is another problem with a double stretch.

[Edited 2012-12-03 05:14:58]


BV
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 38386 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 8):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 5):
Not necessarily. If the putative 777-8 goes to the boneyard in the sky, then the -9 could be better optimized for its missions and hence more competitive. 777-9 and -10 anyone?

Wouldn't a -10 be too long to be practicable.

I can't say. But there's a market for a twin widebody with the highest capacity that's practical to build, and it would be a lucrative niche for sure. On the other hand, Boeing is still making hopeful noises regarding the 747-8I... ( and we know how many of those Emirates have bought, even though they say that growth will be mainly via airplane size upgrades ).


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1583 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 38216 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):Perhaps we'll see a modified GE9x appear on the -10X to compete with RR's Trent-1000 TEN, GE is working hard on it anyway for an and of the decade EIS.
We have the bleed v non bleed problem here again, a GE9x would have to be completely re engineered for the 787

At this stage of the development, I don't think it would cause GE that many headaches (although I admit it wouldn't be something trivial either) GE initially started both bleed and non bleed (for the non-XWB A350) versions of the GENx too...



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2222 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 37981 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
In your dreams.

My dreams are not related in any way to the 77X.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
It will not make the 777X family redundant.

I agree fully. With the 77X Boeing will try to conquer markets that have been adressed before (748) but that are in danger to be covered by future 787 upgrades.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

It would need another stretch, and I'm not so sure Boeing will go that far.

The new landing gear would not be needed for A359 capability. Proof: the A359.

So what else does Boeing have in mind?

I would say any stretch is easy-peasy compared to the wing/center-wing-box changes that go with 6 wheel MLG. The newsworthy part in this thread is the High-MTOW version of the 787, that will be on the radar from now on. The length of that plane will only be a minor variable, that can be adjusted to match the sweetest portion of the market. Anything up to 340-350 should be straight forward...


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 37759 times:

The original range of the 787-10X is about 6750 nm, reportedly potential customers want a range over 7000 nm, but I never see 8000 nm range for this aircraft, this range is reserved for the 787-9 and 777X (all variants) respectively. The six wheel MLG is not a surprise, given to the heavy stretch over the basic 787 frame.

I don't see why Boeing should kill the 777-8X variant. Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter, so a 777-9X shrink is a must-have.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 37655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
"The -10X involves more than adding fuselage plugs to the 787-9. There are indications that a redesign of the infamous side-of-body join, where composite delamination issues caused delay for the 787-8, will be needed to accommodate the stretched aircraft's greater loads. A redesign also offers the promise of improved performance in the wing. An upgraded environmental control system is likely, as is a stronger main landing gear that uses six-wheel trucks, as does the 777-300ER. "

Very interesting news. Thanks for posting.

Quoting zeke (Reply 7):
Sounds like they are using a similar approach as what Airbus did from the -900 to -1000. The additional wheels, increased wing loads, and changes to the ECS may also mean the possibility of another fuselage extension.

It sure looks that way.  .

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 6):
So the 7810 moves from an A333 killer to an A359 direct competitor.

It sure looks that way too!  .

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):

Do you see what I meant in all these 77X threads about a 787-based A351 competitor?

You have said it all along, I commend you for that. But they are not at A351-capacities yet.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
With such a 781X Boeing won't need the 77X to compete against the A351.

They will not need the B777-8X for sure now.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
In your dreams.

Maybe, maybe not. But these changes to the B787-10X are influencing the business case for the B777-X-program. For sure the B778-X is now an even more highly doubtful proposal imho.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
It would need another stretch, and I'm not so sure Boeing will go that far.

But the potential is now there.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But I think that the GEnx is at the top of its thrust range for the 789 anyway, this is another problem with a double stretch.

True, but the potential is there. At least from RR.  .

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
The new landing gear would not be needed for A359 capability. Proof: the A359.

So what else does Boeing have in mind?

That question will be answered as the program comes along. When that will be only Boeing can tell us.  . Interesting times ahead, as always. But Boeing seems to be following more and more the concepts Airbus is bringing to the market. We have seen it with the B737-MAX and now they seem to be "copying" the A350 program structures.

[Edited 2012-12-03 05:54:09]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8998 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 37519 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):

The new landing gear would not be needed for A359 capability. Proof: the A359.

So what else does Boeing have in mind?

My guess it is a tyre pressure issue, they are probably pushing 240-250 psi.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 37444 times:

As others have suggested above, and I have pointed many a time - The 787 barrel has a lot of future capability in it. A 280T 787 effectively kills the 77W. The Barrels are very similarly sized - only a 9" difference in Height is inmaterial although the barrel is maxed out at 9W - you don't get the same comfort in a 777 barrel at 10W. As for engines the 789 is launching with 71,000 LB engines - the engine OEM's are already pushing there designs to 76-78,000 - with wing tweaks wouldn't this be in the right thrust class?

I can see a 77W+ as mentioned in articles from last week with a 4-5% Fuel burn improvement in the 2016-2017 timeframe to get to a complete replacement in the early 2020's with the program starting very soon, with the improvements carrying over to the 77F program.

A 2020's technology - all carbon 12W Eliptical (same cross section area as the 777) 70M (375-400 seats - huge range) and 80M Twin (450 + seats - 8,000NM range) with up to 80M wings would put some serious hurt on the A380 program - kill the 787i and take Boeing into New size ranges. This plane should be possible with engines in existing thrust ranges.

Mastering non-standard Fuselage cross sections (possibly using non-autoclave carbon) makes sense at the relatively low volumes of a Y3 sized aircraft.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1874 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 37306 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter, so a 777-9X shrink is a must-have.

The thing is, 777-8X was not being conceived as the shrink of -9X, contrary to the belief on this forum. It was going to be a stretch of the current 777-200ER with a lighter wing. At least that's what the original idea of it was.

I'm still hoping Boeing decides to build it, however, with this latest development I'm afraid the 787-10X will turn out to become the "777-200ER/-8X killer".

Well... at least 777-9X is a sure thing.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 37276 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
With the 77X Boeing will try to conquer markets that have been adressed before (748) but that are in danger to be covered by future 787 upgrades.

  

I do not believe any 787 variant will ever supplant the 777-300ER, let alone the 777-9X. It was simply never designed to be stretched that far in the first place. The 787-10 is as big as the 787 will get, although higher MTOW variants remain a possibility.

The 787-10 may have the range (with an MTOW upgrade - which is by no means definite), it may have the fuel burn, but it does not have the cargo carrying capacity or the seating capacity of the 777-300ER. The 777-9X will only raise the bar further in that respect.

The 777 and 787 families of aircraft are distinct and separate. The increase in the 787's capabilities - which is terrific for the 787 family, by the way - does not mean

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
Bye bye 77X.

... not by a long shot.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
I would say any stretch is easy-peasy compared to the wing/center-wing-box changes that go with 6 wheel MLG.

  

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
the stiffness to strength ratio for CFRP is lower than for aluminum, which means with the same strength you will get more deflection with CFRP as opposed to aluminum (hence the much greater wing flex with CFRP wings). Fuselage flex with an airliner is much more important than wing flex, and hence with the CFRP fuselage (especially with the smaller diameter) and a very long fuselage you may have to add structure to get the necessary stiffness beyond what is required for structural strength. Hence you may lose the weight savings of CFRP. Overall, you are probably better off with the larger diameter Al fuselage rather than trying to extend a smaller diameter CFRP fuselage to get the same capacity. There comes a point (as the A346 proved) where a extending a given fuselage diameter is a case of diminishing returns, and that will be true no matter what the material
777X Vs 787-11/12 (by morrisond Sep 20 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
I don't see why Boeing should kill the 777-8X variant. Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter, so a 777-9X shrink is a must-have.

  

The base 777-8X variant probably won't get off the ground, but there's still the ultra long haul 777-8LX and a potential 777-8F variant to be built. There's little doubt in my mind that although the 777-9X will dominate the 777X family sales going foward, its smaller sibling will also be developed, if only as a freighter/ultra long hauler.

[Edited 2012-12-03 06:15:16]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2222 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 36984 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 22):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
With the 77X Boeing will try to conquer markets that have been adressed before (748) but that are in danger to be covered by future 787 upgrades.

Sorry, you are right of course. I wanted to say "not in danger" to be covered by future 787 upgrades...


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1157 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 36924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):

with the GE90-115 the most powerful GE engine? Then Gen 1b engine could easily exceed that 115K thrust limit
The answer is?? will there BE enough room for the FAN to make that Thrust?? ??
The Triple Bogey Landing gear we at United call "BIGFOOT" will solve the problem because it is large and LONG enough to support a 115 in fan already this will obviously change the Ground stance with the smaller 787's but not significantly enough to make It undoable


25 BoeingVista : No it couldn't core is too small. Its like saying that Dodge make NASCAR engines so a Cirus engine can be made good to race in NASCAR.
26 zeke : With todays technology they do not need an engine the size of the GE90-115 to power an aircraft the size of the 77W.
27 Post contains images astuteman : Agree. You can see this in the effect that it has on the A350-1000 relative to the A350-900. however, it does raise some very interesting questions a
28 Stitch : Everyone has been assuming the 787-10 would have the same MTOW (~251t) of the 787-9, so there was no need for a revised main gear geometry. The only
29 zeke : Bit of an overkill for 280t, that woud be around 20 t per wheel, 5 wheel would be around 25, and 8 around 30. The norm would be 25-30t per wheel.
30 BigJKU : For a moment I thought Boeing should consider doing both versions of the 10, the stretch only and the increased MTOW, but I get why they wouldn't. The
31 tdscanuck : This is very likely. The 787-8 already has really really high tire loading, it's only going to get worse on the stretches.
32 Stitch : A 69m long, 65m span, 300t 787-10 would offer more passenger seating, more cargo volume and longer range than the A350-900, so it would be a compelli
33 JoeCanuck : I don't think this rules out a simple stretch version of the -10. Not everybody needs the extra capabilities of a HGW and there is no reason why they
34 seabosdca : Wouldn't the new landing gear eat at least two of those LD3 positions? So a 6 m stretch might (or might not) be enough to preserve the expected 42 LD
35 Stitch : I would expect it depends on how much larger Section 45 needs to be to accommodate the larger bogies. Airbus had to extend the gear-bay of the A350-1
36 BoeingVista : Okay, but surely this is yet another proposed 787-10 version, this is not the one that was rumoured to be offered last month, that one was aimed at t
37 strfyr51 : Boeing could build a freighter out of whatever model they field as a passenger model. As a matter of fact the Bigger the Fuselage the Better and more
38 ytz : Could the 787-10 not serve as a decent freighter?
39 morrisond : As they are redoing the side of Body join - maybe the 781 has a unique section 45 with the Chord of the 781 Wing Wider at the Join (1M?) - essentiall
40 Post contains images astuteman : Probably because all along that is what Boeing appear to have maintained it was likely to be. Ge and RR have indeed both been working on more powerfu
41 Post contains images Stitch : Yes it would be a different and more capable airframe than the simple stretch. But a 787-10 at the same MTOW of the 787-9 would be able to use the 78
42 zeke : I have seen these throw away lines far too many times before, what iteration is this of the 787-10 ? Point being EK, nor any other carrier has placed
43 Stitch : The iteration based on what ferpe says AviationWeek believes Boeing may be working on. The 787-10 is currently projected to be a 5m to 5.5m stretch,
44 BoeingVista : If you are keeping the weight the same you do not need a 6 wheel main gear hence the weights are rising and so must thrust. Yes another month another
45 Stitch : Exactly what I mentioned in my first response (#28). When Boeing launched the 7E7, the MTOW for the 7E7-9 was projected to be 227t. That left 25t of
46 BoeingVista : And thrust requirements. Yes, basic physics. Well the 787-9 is now topping 250t so its eaten the MTOW growth margin for the 10 and then some, so are
47 Stitch : At the time they made the decision? No. Boeing wanted the 7E7 to be sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200 in passenger capacity (hence f
48 zeke : We have been discussing 787-10/11/12 for over 5 years now, Boeing has taken numerous iterations to airlines. No I did not say that. With a correspond
49 Post contains links and images ferpe : According to CM yes, the 787-9 have larger wheels and they might be more spread then the -8. They certainly take more place then the -8, the MLG roof
50 BigJKU : That seems like a tremendous leap of logic to me. People here seem to expect both manufacturers to plop out designs that are perfect from day 1 for t
51 Post contains links and images ferpe : Here the 788 and 789 LG pattern and tires, now the experts can start telling us why B goes to 6 wheels for the 787-10. My take is that the area covere
52 cosmofly : All the article says is that the 6 wheel MLG is "likely". IMO it will depend much more on customers feedback. Are customers really replacing A333s wit
53 BigJKU : I would tend to agree with this as well. The discussion of a new MLG is probably a lot more about a potential 11 model than it is the 10.
54 sunrisevalley : In its analysis of the mass of the 788, PIANO-X put the weight of the under carriage at 8.5t. I would image that most of this weight starts at the st
55 Post contains links RickNRoll : When you look at the A330 thread Airbus Push A333 Mtow To 242t Activate Center Tank (by BoeingVista Nov 29 2012 in Civil Aviation)#last perhaps Boeing
56 rheinwaldner : They don't need. The A351 does also not neet 77W capacity to obsolete it in the long turn. You can quote SEPilot and others as long as you like. I al
57 jet-lagged : It looks like of the three, the A359 has the highest wing gear tire pressure.
58 CXB77L : The 787-10 is already a double stretch over the base 787. I do not believe that we will see a 787 larger than the -10. I don't get this fixation with
59 StickShaker : I think that with the planned 777X program Boeing could be at serious risk of over-investing in a mature platform (777) - one that was conceived in t
60 brindabella : Agree. Always looked like the best use of the available resources as well as a larger barrel for the 777X being the more conservative approach as the
61 Post contains images brindabella : Thanks, Stitch; it explains a lot, and rounds the story out. I previously queried the weight-growth, and CM observed that the 787 barrel is 1st-gen a
62 Post contains images sunrisevalley : oops my bad. Two should read four
63 frigatebird : If you look at some of the pictures posted on the A350 prototypes thread (especially Boeingvista's at reply 91), you can see that the 4-wheel bogie o
64 rheinwaldner : Inherent, but small. At least a lot smaller than the difference between 779X and A351. Why do you insist that the 779X could compete against the A351
65 JoeCanuck : I agree that a HGW -10x will be in a totally different weight class than the -9, and it would probably be a close competitor to the 350-1000, (though
66 Post contains links BigJKU : http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...901_boeingexecsxml.html?prmid=4939 Boeing just reshuffled management in a way that makes me think major changes
67 JoeCanuck : I think there is real potential for the 777-9x. The biggest obstacle was the 748i and it seems to me that Boeing has pretty much accepted that the -8
68 Stitch : Only if the 787 was launched after the A350XWB, which it of course was not.
69 Post contains images SEPilot : Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup? I would have thought that th
70 Post contains images ferpe : Not necessarily, the 787 is a very compact design, the design team has got a lot of capacity onto a very minimalistic real estate. Do the numbers and
71 sweair : Maybe they want a 100% 772/ER replacement? By going that route they kill the 8X. But the 9X is still a good idea it has 10 across as a weapon against
72 Post contains images EPA001 : I think it will make Boeing sweat a lot more to first accomplish this line-up. .
73 tdscanuck : It's not about willingness, it's about demand. If enough airlines wanted one, they'd build it. But look how fast they 777-200/300 became the 200ER/30
74 BigJKU : Both companies have challenges in the market area above their current offerings. The good news for Boeing is that they have an open top end of their
75 Post contains images Stitch : The A330-300 is successful because it's range has improved so much from EIS thanks to the significant TOW boosts. If the A330-300 of today still had
76 rheinwaldner : Good question. I have noticed that too and I don't know why too. I could imagine that the increment to cover the larger ranges too is small enough, t
77 Stitch : And yet NH and JL have noted the 787-8 is more efficient. I'll be interested to know how the 767 and 787 compare for LA. Boeing clearly didn't want t
78 tdscanuck : The 757, 767, and A300 were only stretched once, not twice. The 747, 777, and A340 all required huge structural modification to handle their eventual
79 dfambro : There's United, for one. 9 and 9. Qatar, Ethiopian, and Air India are also 9 and 9. JAL and ANA are 9 and 8 long haul. LOT and LAN, no 777s of course
80 SEPilot : It seems from what I have read that Airbus was originally offering just that with the original A3510, and was getting a lot of interest. After they u
81 Stitch : The A350-1000 at launch was designed to be an 8300nm aircraft, though once the design started to firm up that dropped to 8000nm. Airbus responded by
82 ytz : Exactly. I was so excited about the Dreamliner when it launched. But knowing that all the airlines are going 3-3-3 in Y has me rooting more and more
83 sunrisevalley : Good point ! Based on typical passenger aircraft belly cargo density of about 160kg/m3 the 787-10 is volume limited at about 50t max payload. It will
84 gigneil : The 767-200 was the base 767 airframe. Then you ended you ended up with a 767-300 and a 767-400. NS
85 rheinwaldner : How does the number of wheels depend on the order when an aircraft was launched? No, the number of wheels depends on the carried weight first and for
86 Post contains images ferpe : It is not just the next weight increment, at these levels of MTOW the A340 had an extra leg installed to spread the load, the A359 has an unusually w
87 sweair : If Boeing wont do the 8X, what about the freighter? Will it stay the same? The 9X has no competitor as of now, I view it as a 10 across cabin. The 8X
88 Post contains images CXB77L : The 777 is a different airframe to the A330 with different characteristics and different "upgradeability" (for want of a better word). While I think
89 pellegrine : A big DUH. I've been saying this for years. A.net's 787-10 can't support itself on 8 main wheels. DUH...
90 trent1000 : I think you're getting a bit excited there & wonder how an extra 1000nm magically appears (even over your unspecified timeframe). That's a signif
91 astuteman : true. But I can't see any reason why the 787 can't be stretched to at least the same length (and hence same capacity) as the A350-1000 Where've you b
92 Stitch : Except the A350-900 didn't exist in 2004 when Boeing launched the 7E7 so how, exactly, were they to know they would have needed to design the 7E7 to
93 zeke : That is why the OEMs spend millions each year doing massive mathematical models for their market forecasts, those forecasts are used to define the pa
94 tdscanuck : I was thinking mostly of the 200/300...if your argument (not *yours*, I mean the argument in general) is that they stretched wtihout much modificatio
95 Stitch : Airbus and Boeing follow different design philosophies when it comes to the widebody market. Airbus uses one widebody family to cover as much of the
96 zeke : I think history has shown the SA2 (A320), YA9 (A330) and TA11 (A340) identified passenger demands well in advance and produced popular aircraft still
97 Post contains images Stitch : [Edited 2012-12-05 08:24:08]
98 sweair : How much of an bad idea would it be to do a 787-10 with the 789 MLG and MTOW and a heavier 787-10, call it ER for commonality with the other frames at
99 Stitch : It would depend on what platform airlines were more interested in. A 787-10 with a higher MTOW can, of course, be loaded to a lower TOW for shorter m
100 tdscanuck : I agree those are all popular and successful, but we were talking about forecast *accuracy*. At launch, Airbus grossly underestimated A320 and A330 d
101 sunrisevalley : I gather we are to assume that there will be no 787-10 at ~251t MTOW ... or do we? The 6750nm range at max passenger load does not need more than the
102 Stitch : I guess it depends on how accurate Aviation Week's reporting is, as they are the ones reporting Boeing is at least considering a 6-wheel bogie and a
103 sunrisevalley : What options do Boeing have to increase the fuel capacity from the present ~101t ?
104 Stitch : The issue with the 787-10 is not fuel volume at MTOW, but fuel weight at MTOW. If we take Aspire Aviation's numbers, a 787-10 with a 251t MTOW and 19
105 rheinwaldner : There is a difference between a shortsighted 767/A330 replacement and a clever design that is fully capable to replace 767's at one hand and does not
106 sweair : Your problem is that you keep thinking the 787 is the A350. It is not! The 787 was never designed to replace the 777, Y2 is 787 Y3 is the 777 replace
107 Post contains images Stitch : Well if the goal is to only match (or exceed) the A350-900's capacity, then yes, the 787-10 does not need any additional MTOW. However, such a 787-10
108 SEPilot : Asleep. I was not aware of these orders; my life has been quite complicated in the last six months-you may have noticed that I have not been posting
109 Post contains images EPA001 : That was once the idea, but since then a lot has happened. And the weight and size increases of the B787-versions -9 and -10X (proposed) put a heavy
110 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : I fail to see how they could actually be all that accurate anyhow? The world changes and unless they have a crystal ball, how can they know all possi
111 Post contains links and images ferpe : I ran the different variants to do a PR chart to help the discussion. The -10ER is 270t with an OEW of 135t ie showroom spec, the -10 is 251t with 132
112 sweair : Put a graph of the 787-10ER+A3510 and the 77W/9X, that would probably explain why the 787 will never replace the 777 for some. Payload range is payloa
113 PlanesNTrains : Of course it will never replace the 777 for some. That doesn't mean it can't replace the 777 for many. For the ones whom it doesn't, is there enough
114 Stitch : The 787-9 should pretty much handle the same missions as the 777-200ER (at 6-abreast Business / 9-abreast Economy) with better efficiency. So Boeing r
115 Post contains links and images ferpe : Added (and busy ) , it shall be noted the -8X and -9X have engines that are 4% better then TXWB, this means end of the decade and some development ri
116 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for your hard work and quick reactions to posts here. Your graph is very enlightening.
117 sweair : Thanks, that is making our debate so much better, great graphs!
118 mffoda : @ ferpe The 777-9 cabin m2 seems off... Is it?
119 Post contains images ferpe : The cabin areas per m2 are as follows: 789 266, 7810 -10ER 296, 359 291, 351 330, -8X 322, -9X 370 What you see concatenated after the frame name is
120 frigatebird : No, that is not what I said. I said it was a less complicated solution - less complicated than further increasing the size of a 4 wheel bogie, especi
121 rheinwaldner : The 789 is a great 772ER competitor as well as the A359. So do you think that the 787 would lose 3000nm range, just by stretching it 2-3 meters to co
122 Post contains images astuteman : Ah. Apologies. My Bad. Yep. I get that. Rgds
123 StickShaker : Agreed - that also means that airlines are not clamouring for the 405 seats of the 777-9X and would be happy with less if they could get the required
124 Post contains images Stitch : It is not the loss of range, but the loss of payload to meet that range. At their respective Maximum Zero Fuel Weights, the higher MTOW of the A350-9
125 ferpe : Why not, the engines are 4% more efficient, that is a lot (half of the efficiency improvement of a A333neo). Weight is frame+ fuel and fuel burn goes
126 Stitch : And one would reasonably expect those other things to change as well (greater span/larger wing area, higher thrust engines, etc.) in order to both su
127 sunrisevalley : Probably not by coincidence, at 270t MTOW the required fuel load including reserves for max passenger load at max range of about 7800nm is right on t
128 rheinwaldner : Sure, but isn't it reasonable to assume that other major change would come with the 6-wheel MLG? How weird would it be, to have only that one specifi
129 ZOTAN : Could someone please post the link to the article? I have been looking but unable to find it. This would be big news. Last I've heard is that the 787-
130 Stitch : I'm guessing it is in the print edition.
131 Post contains links ferpe : Nope, the the headline is funny: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_12_03_2012_p40-522315.xml
132 Stitch : So stronger SOB. Updated wing. Updated undercarriage. Upgraded ECS. All would support higher TOWs and additional stretches.
133 rheinwaldner : Thanks. One line that explains a lot. It took me countless posts in many threads to explain the rationale behind such an upgrade. And faced strong op
134 sweair : You really think the 777 has no future? And that it is optimal to have one family to cover 230-400 seats? The span is too great to cover with one fra
135 parapente : One thing about Boeing that I like is how they move slowly and carefully.This is how they have achieved such a fantasic record of success with their m
136 CXB77L : I didn't mean that it would be physically impossible to do so, but rather that it'd be impractical and entail many structural changes to the current
137 par13del : The 787 started out as a upsized version / replacement of the 767, it is not the league of the 777W in terms of range and capacity at longer ranges,
138 rheinwaldner : Not at all. 777's will be built easily for another 10 years even if doing only some minimalistic improvements. Which would mean that there are a lot
139 sweair : Emirates liked the idea of putting up to 380 seats and have a notch more range than the current 360 seat 77W. Its a big step between the A350-1000 an
140 tdscanuck : The two most important strategic decisions for any type are fuselage cross section and payload/range curve. Those, much more than anything else, dete
141 Post contains images CXB77L : I can't see any reason why the 777, with substantial upgrades in the form of the 777X, can't keep selling from now until the mid 2030s, when I expect
142 Stitch : To be fair, until the Aviation Week article that started this thread, all of the talk from Boeing and analysts was that the 787-10 would indeed just
143 Post contains images EPA001 : You should read better. Nowhere in his post is he suggesting this. All changes Airbus made between the A350-900 and the A350-1000 are at best at the
144 sweair : He dismissed the 400 seat market, but as I see it a realistic 400 seater has max 380 seats in airline layout. Why settle for 50% of the 350 seat mark
145 EPA001 : And that is where the risks are. The niche might easily be too small to make a decent ROI for such an extensive redoing of the B77W. Then Y3 would be
146 Roseflyer : I admire your persistence, but efficiency is a spectrum not a case of shortsightedness. If they design extra capability in the 787 to allow for addit
147 par13del : Yes, which I take to be the 777-200, 200ER and maybe even the 300, but is it really a downsized version of the 777-300ER, that is what I meant by the
148 rheinwaldner : Depends on the MTOW they choose. Maybe you doubt wrongly. Which -10 anyway? Has it been settled? Sure. And where is the difference to the 77X? Ferpe
149 sweair : You keep thinking of the 777 as a 9 across cabin, its going more towards being a 10-across cabin and the 777-X even more so.
150 BigJKU : I think that this is the right answer. They are going to design the -10 (possible as both a "light" pure stretch and a heavy with various new things
151 Roseflyer : My personal opinion is tainted with information I will not share, so sorry can't do that. I don't doubt they can build a 787 to match the payload and
152 tdscanuck : Sure...same range and 20% less seats than whatever Boeing's next largest aircraft is at the same time. Tom.
153 astuteman : That's not actually what he did. What he actually suggested is that it's possible that a smaller, lower cost airframe CAN compete with a larger, more
154 Post contains images pellegrine : times 100 over The 7E7 which became the 787 was meant to replace the 767-300/ER and -400ER more or less. Sure, can that grow to eclipse a 777-200ER,
155 Post contains images StickShaker : I am suggesting a heavy 787 would suppliment the existing 77W (and later 777+) until Y3 rather than replacing the entire platform. The job of the hea
156 Post contains images CXB77L : Which is why I think there is very little credibility in this sort of talk. If Boeing were discussing stretching the 787 further, I'd sit up and list
157 JerseyFlyer : While I agree with your conclusion, we should also remember that Airbus used the same fuselage from A310 up to A346, and Boeing from B731 to B 753. N
158 morrisond : CXB77L - Above you state that Boeing may actually replace your cherished 777 instead of doing 778/9. What do you think they replace it with if they go
159 EPA001 : No, he did not. This was the question asked: And Rheinwaldner never stated anything like this. He did state a possible goodbye to the B777-X, which i
160 rwessel : On a per-weight basis CFRP is vastly stiffer than aluminum, and about twice as stiff as aluminum on a per-strength basis. Obviously that depends on h
161 Roseflyer : To help answer CXB77L, stiffness, strength and toughness are all different measurements of a material. Carbon fiber itself is great in tension but ho
162 morrisond : Various Boeing people have also mentioned that the 787 is much heavier and stiffer than necessary as they were very conservative with there first use
163 Aircellist : Out of curiosity, who, out here, honestly thought in 1995 that the 777 would one day mostly replace the 747?
164 Stitch : Well the 777-300 was designed to replace the 747-100 and 747-200 so it was not beyond the realm of possibility that a very HGW 777-300 (the 777-300ER
165 RickNRoll : The 787-10X proposal appears to be one more piece of the puzzle that Boeing is trying to solve. Where to put it's investment for the next series of r
166 Post contains links and images ferpe : As we might have discussed the 7810 vs 777 to some length, let me highlight some other comparisons that might spark some fire (it is weekend and we ne
167 JoeCanuck : You are evil...entertaining and informative...but evil. Nice find.
168 par13del : A question, does this create a frequency issue, the lower capacity more efficient 777-300ER replacement would only have the A380 above which is a hug
169 Post contains images cosmofly : Note the 7810 vs 359 comparison is based on 4000nm. Looking at the chart at 4000nm, 7810 has the same payload as 359, but can carry 16 more pax, abou
170 Roseflyer : You are evil aren't you. As you'd probably expect, I can see interesting manipulations in those numbers as you probably can too. Nothing too egregiou
171 Post contains images sunrisevalley : It seems clear to me that A are using a 251t version of the 789-10 in their presentation. Ferpes chart shows the 270t version a little ahead in payloa
172 Post contains images lightsaber : Most excellent. The 787-10 isn't finalized and we're ready to discuss the -11. I've read some reports that the original (titanium IIRC) wheel bays di
173 Post contains images Stitch : I know. I know. But seriously, the changes Aviation Week list are a fair bit of changes for a single model. Having two would improve the RoI.
174 Post contains images ferpe : It is always nice with compliments . I see manipulations as well but in both directions . The whole comparison is multidimensional, let's therefore s
175 CXB77L : I have no experience with aircraft design but I'd imagine the 'Y3' to be a single deck widebody twin approximately the same size as the 777-300ER as
176 tdscanuck : Only if the extra model garners enough extra orders to cover the incremental investment for the second model. That is, at best, not clear for a notio
177 rheinwaldner : The 77X will be 10 abreast. And it will need it. But I see it not as strength but as liability. At least to compete with the A351. Because to compete
178 Post contains images CXB77L : That's the whole point! By moving the 777-9X above the A350-1000, Boeing is "straddling" the A350-1000 at both ends: with the 787-10 at the smaller e
179 tdscanuck : Of course I can make up two numbers, just as you did. But they don't *mean* anything because we don't know how much Boeing is willing to sink into up
180 Stitch : If Boeing wants to "envelope" Airbus, then IMO the plan to do so would be a 79m 777-9X, a 74m 777-8X and a 69m 787-10X - a 5m stretch between each pla
181 morrisond : I'm with Stitch on stretching the 777 as much as possible - but don't really see the need for 778. Just max out the 777 at 80M - expand internally - h
182 waly777 : It is simply not economically sensible to stretch any aircraft family that long. To put that into persperctive, the B787-8 is 56.7 metres long, to co
183 rheinwaldner : Cabin area makes the 781 look smaller because ist has a less wide cross section. But as it is basically as 9-abreast as the A350 in fact the cabin le
184 tdscanuck : Yes, absolutely. If you want a 400 seat aircraft a 777-X makes economic sense. A 787-X does not. Tom.
185 davs5032 : I agree on the 77-9X being maxed out to around 80m; I think that plane would do pretty well, especially because it would be so big that it would basi
186 StickShaker : The 744 had no effective competition in its size category - it was always going to do well. It was only much later with the arrival of the 346, 77W a
187 StickShaker : The importance of this cannot be overstated. The 777-9X may well establish a new market in the 400 seat category but the 350 seat market will essenti
188 Post contains images mffoda : Don't mean to be a stick in the mud... But, if you were building original 777 Now? It would cost more as well!
189 Stitch : I do believe the 777-8X at the planned 70m length is probably too short. A 74m 777-8X, which would offer the same cabin length as the 777-300ER (and
190 davs5032 : I agree with the premise, just not as to the best solution or action for Boeing to take to best defend the segment. The current -8X would struggle, b
191 BigJKU : I think the key to such a stretch is a more stout version of the 10. I would suggest that if Boeing goes with a new MLG, modified wing and wing-body
192 Stitch : The main issue is going to be fuselage bending. This was an issue with the A340-600 and providing sufficient structural reinforcement contributed to
193 JoeCanuck : It doesn't have to be either/or. I think there are markets for both a -10 lite and a HGW -10. Not everyone is going to want to haul around the signif
194 BigJKU : I tend to agree unless Boeing judges that the 787-10HGW we are theorizing would, in Boeing's eyes, still dominate that market and thus they could spr
195 JoeCanuck : The sales of the 333 bear this out, to my way of thinking. It will be interesting to discover how Boeing does brace up the stretch. More stringers? B
196 tdscanuck : The problem is the fuselage cross-section...it's just to narrow to be that long. It would be the CRJ-1000 of widebodies (that is not a good thing). Y
197 BigJKU : Ok, so how is Airbus doing it with a fuselage that is 3% wider? Is that little bit of width that big of a difference?
198 Stitch : Airbus developed the baseline loads around the 67m A350-900, while Boeing developed them around the 57m 787-8. So the 74m A350-1000 is a 7m stretch o
199 BigJKU : I, and everyone else I think, fully understand that part. I am responding to the statement that just flat said the barrel is too thin to be stretched
200 tdscanuck : 3% wider is 12% stiffer. So yes, it makes that big of a difference. Tom.
201 JoeCanuck : Makes sense. Thanks.
202 StickShaker : Yes, it probably would - but the cost and complexity of the 777X progam still remains well beyond the threshold at which most OEM's prefer to opt for
203 JerseyFlyer : How does the "barrels vs. panels" design difference between 787 and 350 play into the potential to stretch either frame?
204 CXB77L : Funny you should say that, considering that in terms of cabin length, the 777-9X isn't very much longer than the A350-1000, which you argue doesn't c
205 Post contains links and images ferpe : Seems we hadn't finished of the 7810 vs 777 part, let me then finish of how Airbus views the 7810 before we get to long from my charts in post 166. So
206 parapente : . A 74m 777-8X would compete directly with the A350-1000 while a 79m 777-9X could open up a new market where the 747-8 has failed. Post 204. Yup exact
207 StickShaker : Its a mighty big factor - particularly when it occurs late in the platform life cycle. Yes - but the aircraft must remain competitive over a longer t
208 Post contains images CXB77L : Mr Conner has confirmed as recently as August that the decision on offering the 777X (or not) is proceeding as planned. There is no delay. The only "
209 tdscanuck : It shouldn't really factor in much at all in terms of design. It may factor in big time in terms of capital expense (tooling) because building a long
210 Beeski : Has anyone done projected Seat Cost per Mile of the 787-10 "lite"? Would it be the most efficient airliner in the world? Even more efficient than the
211 Stitch : I don't see a 79m 777-9X as a competitor to the A380-800, but instead as a way to narrow (perhaps eliminate) the seat-mile and trip costs to the A350
212 Post contains images brindabella : Guess it's understandable that much of the discussion here on a.net is focused towards TATL - N.America - Europe. I surprises me, however that neithe
213 parapente : Reply 208 This thread has come about due to Boeing stating that instead of pushing the 777 derivatives (as it has been for 18 months) it is now puttin
214 Stitch : A significant number of them are flying on 737s and A320s operated by LCCs - between them, Lion Air and Air Asia have ordered almost 800 A320-200s, A
215 justloveplanes : It's sure looking that way now. Maybe a 777MAX lite or weight reduction program while Y3 gets launched. Waiting on Y3 also gets a better look at the
216 morrisond : The actual Height difference is only 5" A350 20' 787 19'7" or only 2.1%. Is it the compression of the Top Skin the problem - or the stretching of the
217 tdscanuck : Both A & B are looking at those markets in a *huge* way. But, per customer choice, most of that growth is currently being served by medium-haul n
218 sunrisevalley : How about 31t for a 13hr sector which will also mean that it is likely that there will be many more city pairs to pick up the increases in traffic. I
219 abba : However, there will be many more pairs of mega-cities around as in particular Asia and S. America grows economically. China alone will contribute qui
220 morrisond : If that is normal doesn't Carbon give you a big natural advantage in Tension and wouldn't the large wingbox really help on the bottom with the compre
221 StickShaker : I think the 737 is somewhat enigmatic and I wouldn't expect current wide-bodies to have the same longevity. The 707, 717, 727 and 757 have all ceased
222 tdscanuck : CFRP has much better fatigue properties (fatigue is primarily a tension problem), which gives you a big tension advantage for structures where fatigu
223 rheinwaldner : You can compare only cabin-lengths width the same abreast-count of course. The 787 is hardly more 8-abreast than the 777 10-abreast. Keyword: current
224 Post contains images brindabella : I get what you mean (and you may yet prove to be right) - but the idea of an "enigmatic" 737 tickles my fancy. Sneaks out on foggy nights? What you s
225 Stitch : A 7m stretch would still give the A350-1000 a 27-36 Economy seat advantage. For comparison, the A350-900 has a 27-seat advantage over the 787-9. The
226 rheinwaldner : ? The current 781 per Airbus would have 330 seats. Stretching it less than two additional meters would mean that the delta to the A351 would shrink t
227 Stitch : The best data I have been able to find shows the A350-1000 having a cabin length of 58.95m compared to the 787-9 having a cabin length of 48.39m. If B
228 Post contains links and images ferpe : I don't think the OEMs are seeking overlapping positions, look at the presently presented frames capacity positioning: This shows the cabin and cargo
229 Post contains images Stitch : Well Airbus has placed the A350-1000 smack on top of the 777-300ER: same cabin length, same number of LD3 positions, same ~8000nm nominal range. If Bo
230 rheinwaldner : So Airbus' average number of seats per meter of cabin length would be 5.9. Using that number for the 789 cabin length gives me a total of 287 seats.
231 CXB77L : Fair point. However, I would imagine that the 76.6m stretch with a 57 seat advantage over the A350-1000 would do just that. Then there's the issue of
232 Post contains images EPA001 : The question is, is that market there? It hardly exists now and I have the impression the B77W is exactly in the sweet spot with her present capacity
233 rheinwaldner : You are in error. I consistently say that the 77X "could be" not worth the effort. I have witnessed a lot of changed intentions from Boeing and Airbu
234 Post contains images parapente : Reply 229. "Well Airbus has placed the A350-1000 smack on top of the 777-300ER: same cabin length, same number of LD3 positions, same ~8000nm nominal
235 Stitch : Yes, they could throw in an extra row of Business Class and an extra row of Economy, but I favor Economy because it's load factors are consistent whe
236 Post contains images CXB77L : As I have tried to explain, the lack of 748i sales is no indication of the available market for that segment. I would argue that any airline that cur
237 rheinwaldner : You are mixing probably the nominal three-class-capacity of the 77W with the one of the A351. The A351 has a nominal three-class-capacity of 350 per
238 Stitch : Perhaps, though I will note that Airbus has traditionally used a higher percentage of Economy Class seating in their OEM configurations compared to B
239 parapente : Quoting parapente (Reply 234): Who wants "bigger"? They most certainly don't want the 748 which is abit of a clue. As I have tried to explain, the lac
240 Post contains links Heavierthanair : G'day Here I am reading that the 787-10X requires engines with 76000 lb thrust in comparison to the 787-9 with 74000 lb thrust. I am confused. I doubt
241 JoeCanuck : I was just thinking about the engines...if they needed more power, could Boeing use the XWB engines?
242 Stitch : I am of the opinion that the 76,000 pound thrust engine is to improve field performance for the 251t 787-9 and a 251t 787-10X. If Boeing is going wit
243 morrisond : They will probably need more thrust - but this could be offset by an increase in wing span. You Can't use the XWB engines without major mods - the 787
244 Post contains images ferpe : We shall be very clear on what is thread facts and fiction (or speculation) , as the one that started the thing here a try to clear the fog a bit: -
245 tarheelwings : It is re-freshing to read posts like these: informative, un-biased, and with humor to boot! Welcome to my respected list Ferpe.....and merci beacoup
246 Post contains images Heavierthanair : G'day Thanks for clarifying this Ferpe. In other words the 333 killer is still on for which the 76,000 lbs engines seem to be adequate. The 787 quadru
247 rheinwaldner : When I divided the the nominal three-class-capacity by the cabin length, the resulting constant was the basically the same both in case of the 789 an
248 CXB77L : Then the proper way of determining the required cabin length for such an arrangment would be whatever the A350-1000's cabin length is, minus one metr
249 StickShaker : 1. Massive increase in fuel prices to above $100/barrel after a very long period at around $35/barrel. 2. The greater impact of high fuel prices on l
250 rheinwaldner : Wrong, wrong, wrong. You must decrease the seats of the upper classes and the Y-seats by the same percentage. But I won't explain it once more. See d
251 StickShaker : When a competitor (35J) is positioned within the gap (or overlapping zone) betweeen 2 programs that gives the opportunity to compete from below (787)
252 parapente : Re Engine thrust requirements. Quote Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 240): I was just thinking about the engines...if they needed more power, could Boei
253 Post contains images pellegrine : Dozens? I could count maybe 15-20. Biz class didn't get any wider per the airline flying. Airlines only chose to put an extra seat in economy rows. 1
254 CXB77L : All fair points. However, that is the reason why the 777X needs to be a significant upgrade. A minor update to the engines won't do. Because Ferpe sa
255 rheinwaldner : No, Ferpe said that it does require other major changes than the 6-wheel gears. Which is obvious as the article mentions even a number of other major
256 LAXDESI : Your comment motivated me to compare length to diameter ratios for some examples of simple stretches. ............................................A34
257 CXB77L : Precisely. Those major changes don't come cheaply, and that money is better spent on the 777 as it's a platform that's already correctly sized to com
258 parapente : I guess Boeing will have to learn how to make just one first before blue skying on the distant future..... Al Baker described his frustration about th
259 StickShaker : What exactly "happended" to the 753 ? You do realise that there are more A.netters out there who firmly believe in the resurrection of the 757 progra
260 CXB77L : I agree with that, but I think you'd find that the same is true for stretches: there comes a point when stretching an airframe beyond a certain lengt
261 sweair : Do we have numbers of 260 seats in a 753 vs say a 260 seat 787-8? The old 753 must still give some impressive numbers at that capacity on shorter rout
262 Post contains images EPA001 : Yet! . They might propose a longer B787 in a month, 6 months, a year, two years? Nothing is fixed in stone yet, especially since the 6 wheel bogey wi
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...
787-10X Formally Offered To Airlines posted Wed Nov 7 2012 05:08:04 by BlueSky1976
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
787 To Have Maintenance 'guarantees' posted Wed Feb 23 2005 22:49:44 by Keesje
PER To Have Third Runway In Five Years posted Thu Nov 22 2012 21:41:35 by Quokkas
Cathay Mulls 787-10 To Replace A330s posted Fri Nov 16 2012 04:01:06 by CCA
LAN Airlines Confirms 787 Services To LAX posted Mon Nov 12 2012 00:49:54 by SCL767
ANA 787, Welcome To Seattle! posted Mon Oct 1 2012 11:12:33 by flybaurlax
United 787 #3904 To IAH posted Sat Sep 22 2012 06:25:35 by CALTECH
DL To Have A Greater Presence At MKE? posted Wed Aug 15 2012 10:45:25 by IllinoisMan
Flightglobal: Exclusive QR 787 Air-to-air Video posted Fri Jul 6 2012 11:10:10 by RubberJungle