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 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 39843 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, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 39868 times:

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

User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1875 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 39620 times:

None, unfortunately...

Sniff... sniff...



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 39496 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 offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 39441 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 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 39422 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, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 39332 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, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 39198 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, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 39149 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, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 39008 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, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 38792 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 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 38707 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, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 38665 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 4 weeks ago) and read 38505 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 4 weeks ago) and read 38461 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, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 38291 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, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 38056 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, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 37834 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, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 37730 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, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 37594 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 4 weeks ago) and read 37519 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 onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1875 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 37381 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, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 37351 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, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 37059 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, 1169 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 36999 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


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 37398 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
Then Gen 1b engine could easily exceed that 115K thrust limit

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.



BV
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 37388 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
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?? ??

With todays technology they do not need an engine the size of the GE90-115 to power an aircraft the size of the 77W.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 37279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
I think the addition of the triple bogie main landing gear will have a negative effect its trip fuel burn for such routes.

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 about how far Boeing may push the 787-10 in the future.
As Rheinwaldner pointed out, the A350-900 is approaching 270t MTOW on a double bogie MLG

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
At just 60m it seems to be on the small side for an airliner with its size and mission profile

If the weights go beyond 250t in any meaningful way, I'd tend to agree

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 11):
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

One or two of us went to some lengths to point out the inconsistency of some of the thinking on that thread.
Wasn't all that well received in some quarters though. It seemed much more fashionable to single out the A350-1000 for some unique treatment..

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
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 GEnx 1B will never get anywhere near that.   
A brand new engine based on its technology could, of course

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 37221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
The six wheel MLG is not a surprise, given to the heavy stretch over the basic 787 frame.

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 reason Boeing needs a six-wheel bogey on the 787-10 is because they're going for significantly heavier weights - 20-30t, IMO.

GE and RR have both been working on more powerful engines for the 787-9 and 787-10. My guess was it was meant to improve field performance, but they would also be necessary to support higher take-off weights.

As for the wingspan, I think it safe to assume we'll see 63-65m because the extra weight is no longer a real penalty since you have so much TOW growth.

I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m. That would give the 787-10 the same 3m fuselage cabin length advantage over the A350-900 that the A350-900 has over the 787-9. So you'd be able to seat an additional 27 passengers over an A350-900 (and 52 over a 787-9). This would also provide room for 44 LD3 positions - an 8 LD3 position advantage over the A350-900 and 787-9.

The A350-900 should still have the range advantage - at MZFW it can tank 76t of fuel whereas I could see the 787-10 at around 70t (210t MZFW | 280t MTOW).


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 36706 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):

The only reason Boeing needs a six-wheel bogey on the 787-10 is because they're going for significantly heavier weights - 20-30t, IMO.

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.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 36558 times:

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. They can leverage a huge portion that would have bought the stretch only into helping pay to develop the higher MTOW variant of the airplane which may or may not be the basis for other frames in the future.

As for the 777x I am curious what this does to it. If you could stretch the 787 to an 11 model and complete with the A351 directly then things get interesting. Does Boeing either remake 777x or move down the road to a Y3 approach or some blend. Were I Boeing I would be looking to use by 777x/Y3 to offer a true 10 across, ultra low CASM airliner that would make life tough for the A350/787 and would be able to serve as the top end large airliner for most airliners not named Emirates.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 36568 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
My guess it is a tyre pressure issue, they are probably pushing 240-250 psi.

This is very likely. The 787-8 already has really really high tire loading, it's only going to get worse on the stretches.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 36268 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 29):
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.


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 compelling option for many carriers (EK alone could be hundreds of frames).

And if Boeing is going to 300t, then a 75m 787-11 designed o compete with the A350-1000 becomes a possibility, IMO. Such a plane would offer about an 18-seat advantage over the A350-1000 and would offer the same cabin length as the 777-9X

[Edited 2012-12-03 07:59:27]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 35990 times:

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 can't do a -10 lite and a heavy.


What the...?
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5407 posts, RR: 4
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35858 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m. That would give the 787-10 the same 3m fuselage cabin length advantage over the A350-900 that the A350-900 has over the 787-9. So you'd be able to seat an additional 27 passengers over an A350-900 (and 52 over a 787-9). This would also provide room for 44 LD3 positions - an 8 LD3 position advantage over the A350-900 and 787-9.

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 LD3 capacity of the 5 m "simple stretch," but won't likely give 44 LD3 capacity.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Wouldn't the new landing gear eat at least two of those LD3 positions?

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 A350-1000 by one frame.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35377 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
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 compelling option for many carriers (EK alone could be hundreds of frames).

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 the A330-300 this one is targeted at the A350-900.



BV
User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1169 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):

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 cost effective. there are no major freight ports that already cannot be reached by air and having a 9000KM range isn't going to help when you take off and land at max gross ZFW Every Flight


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35136 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 17):
Do not forget that Boeing eventually needs a platform for a later 777X freighter

Could the 787-10 not serve as a decent freighter?


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35157 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
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 A350-1000 by one frame.

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?) - essentially putting 2.5M plugs in the existing 788/9 wing and allowing room for a larger MGB?

Maybe the longer Section 45 (call it 1M longer) makes it a 70 M plane with Stitch's 6M Stretch - giving it room for two more rows and giving it a 350 seat (A351) capacity?


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
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

Probably because all along that is what Boeing appear to have maintained it was likely to be.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
The only reason Boeing needs a six-wheel bogey on the 787-10 is because they're going for significantly heavier weights - 20-30t, IMO.

GE and RR have both been working on more powerful engines for the 787-9 and 787-10.

Ge and RR have indeed both been working on more powerful engines, but it has always been stated that the push from 75k lb to the (say) 78k lb of the Trent 1000 TEN was to accommodate the requirements of the 787-10 at the existing weight.

I can't see any way a 787-10 at 270 tonnes, (even with a 65m wingspan) will need less thrust than a 270 tonne A350-900 - i.e. 83 000lb.
A 280 tonne MTOW is more likely to need about 87 000lb thrust

To me, that's a different engine altogether to the GEnx 1B and Trent 1000
(Ironically enough, it would look more like the Trent XWB to my eyes...   )

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 35269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 36):
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 the A330-300 this one is targeted at the A350-900.

Yes it would be a different and more capable airframe than the simple stretch.


Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
Ge and RR have indeed both been working on more powerful engines, but it has always been stated that the push from 75k lb to the (say) 78k lb of the Trent 1000 TEN was to accommodate the requirements of the 787-10 at the existing weight.

But a 787-10 at the same MTOW of the 787-9 would be able to use the 787-9's engines. Hence my guess it was to improve field performance at the 251t TOW.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
To me, that's a different engine altogether to the GEnx 1B and Trent 1000. (Ironically enough, it would look more like the Trent XWB to my eyes...   

And the GE-9X.

[Edited 2012-12-03 08:55:34]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 34677 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
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 compelling option for many carriers (EK alone could be hundreds of frames).

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 orders partially due to the design uncertainty, partially due to availability, and thirdly, due to the 777/777X/A350 crossover. Wing design changes, gear changes, engine changes, ECS changes are not free, that is best part of 5 billion in R&D, it is just as complex as going from the A340-300 to A340-600.

The 787 does have a physical limit on growth, and Boeing does have limits on its resources.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
This is very likely. The 787-8 already has really really high tire loading, it's only going to get worse on the stretches.

My understanding is the -9 is lower pressure than the -8, different tyre ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 34607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
I have seen these throw away lines far too many times before, what iteration is this of the 787-10?

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, so 6m is hardly pushing the envelope. And you were the one who noted that a six-wheel bogie is unnecessary unless you're looking at 300t or more TOW.

We know the 787 at 251t suffers from poor field performance with a 60m span, so such a span seems untenable for a 300t model. On the flip side, the Airbus Aficionados all mention how wonderful a 65m span is for the A350. Since the 63m span was going to weigh 1.8t more than the 60m span, a 65m span should come in at or below 5 tons (to account for additional strengthening). But with TOW going up close to 10x that, it should be acceptable.

And a 300t 787-10 with a 65m span should need around 95,000 pounds of thrust if we use the A350-1000 as a baseline. While well beyond what the GEnx and Trent 1000 can offer, it is not beyond what the GE-9X and Trent XWB can offer. So both companies do have a foundation to build on to scale the GEnx and Trent 1000 (just as both did to develop the high-output GE90-11xB and Trent 8100 series).


Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
My understanding is the -9 is lower pressure than the -8, different tyre?

I recall someone noting that the 787-9's tires are larger diameter than those on the 787-8.

[Edited 2012-12-03 09:32:04]

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 34504 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):

But a 787-10 at the same MTOW of the 787-9 would be able to use the 787-9's engines. Hence my guess it was to improve field performance at the 251t TOW.

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.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 41):
Yes it would be a different and more capable airframe than the simple stretch.

Yes another month another 787-10 proposal, I hope all of these designs are electronic or there wont be a single tree left in Washington State

Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
I can't see any way a 787-10 at 270 tonnes, (even with a 65m wingspan) will need less thrust than a 270 tonne A350-900 - i.e. 83 000lb.
A 280 tonne MTOW is more likely to need about 87 000lb thrust

To me, that's a different engine altogether to the GEnx 1B and Trent 1000

Nope its going to need a thrust bump into the range that neither the Trent 1000 or GEnx-1b are comfortable with, lets hope that neither RR or GE are goaded into making unrealistic promises like last time..

Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
(Ironically enough, it would look more like the Trent XWB to my eyes... )

And we are back to the non bleed problem yet again! Some really short sighted (or long sighted) decisions were made when designing the 787, its like it was designed by Apple marketing men...



BV
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 34383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
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.

Exactly what I mentioned in my first response (#28).



Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
And we are back to the non bleed problem yet again! Some really short sighted (or long sighted) decisions were made when designing the 787, its like it was designed by Apple marketing men...

When Boeing launched the 7E7, the MTOW for the 7E7-9 was projected to be 227t. That left 25t of MTOW growth for a "7E7-10", which should have been enough to account for the extra OEW while still offering ~8000nm range (at 8-abreast Economy).

As structural weight grew and customers made the switch to 9-abreast Economy and planned to put in more modern and heavier premium cabins, Boeing ate up that entire surplus with the 787-9. So the only way to get more range out of the 787-10 is to up the TOW.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 33548 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
As structural weight grew and customers made the switch to 9-abreast Economy and planned to put in more modern and heavier premium cabins, Boeing ate up that entire surplus with the 787-9. So the only way to get more range out of the 787-10 is to up the TOW.

And thrust requirements. Yes, basic physics.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
When Boeing launched the 7E7, the MTOW for the 7E7-9 was projected to be 227t. That left 25t of MTOW growth for a "7E7-10", which should have been enough to account for the extra OEW while still offering ~8000nm range (at 8-abreast Economy).

Well the 787-9 is now topping 250t so its eaten the MTOW growth margin for the 10 and then some, so are we agreed that the 787 design was short sighted?

Boeing did not ask the engine OEM's to design with that magnitude of weight growth in mind, they were expecting to power a 250t 787-10 not a 280 - 300t one and that I think is an Elephant yet to be dealt with. If we use 280t thats 12% more weight than the 789, 12% on 75,000lb is 84,000lb an increase of 9,000lb; people are still freaking out about the A35J thrust bump of 4000lb which is 4.3%



BV
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 33483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
Well the 787-9 is now topping 250t so its eaten the MTOW growth margin for the 10 and then some, so are we agreed that the 787 design was short sighted?

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 focusing on a comfortable 8-abreast Economy configuration). Discussions with potential customers scaled that to the A330-200, A330-300/A340-300 and 777-200, but still with a comfortable 8-abreast Economy (I would not be surprised if 9-abreast was meant for Japanese domestic missions and charter operators).


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 32927 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
The iteration based on what ferpe says AviationWeek believes Boeing may be working on.

We have been discussing 787-10/11/12 for over 5 years now, Boeing has taken numerous iterations to airlines.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
And you were the one who noted that a six-wheel bogie is unnecessary unless you're looking at 300t or more TOW.

No I did not say that.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
65m span is for the A350.

With a corresponding increase in wing area, the wing area on the A350-1000 is greater than the 77W for a lower TOW. Increase in span can reduce drag, it does not really rate a mention in the lift equation, and adding span at the tips does not tend to produce great aeroelastic results.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
And a 300t 787-10 with a 65m span should need around 95,000 pounds of thrust if we use the A350-1000 as a baseline.

The 787-8/9 wing has around 1000 sq.ft less wing area than the A350-1000.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 32572 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
My understanding is the -9 is lower pressure than the -8, different tyre ?

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 had to be raised for the -9.

Here now the tire pattern and data from the A359 ACAP (left) and 788 ACAP (right). As one can see there is a considerable difference in the size of the boogie, the 359 covering 3.5 m2 vs about 2 m2 fr the 788, the A350 covers 82% more surface with 1400*533, 240 PSI tires vs 1250*508, 230 PSI tires. Don't have the 789 dimensions but will search for it (click on the picture to see the data better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350788bogiespattern.jpg



Non French in France
User currently onlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 32343 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
Well the 787-9 is now topping 250t so its eaten the MTOW growth margin for the 10 and then some, so are we agreed that the 787 design was short sighted?


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 the whole market. The fact of the matter is the 787 has already sold around 850 of them in two versions. The 777 has sold 1,400 models. For Airbus the A330 has sold 1,200 models and the A350 around 550. If we add in the 767 and A340's then we have another 1,000 and 400 respectively.

The 777, in particular the 77W, seems to have shifted the economics of long haul flying a good deal. Quads and tri-jets no longer fit into any plans except in the largest models but pose unique challenges when it comes to right sizing a plane to span certain portions of the market. I don't think there is any shame for either manufacturer to take its time in figuring out how to address markets that were at one point addressed by multiple airplanes, the 767, 777 and if you look at where the 777x would go the 747 for Boeing and the A330, A340, A380 for Airbus. Why people get so worked up about it is beyond me.

Frankly I think it makes the most sense for Boeing to see exactly what they want to do with the 787-10 before addressing the 777 section of the market. The good news about the way it has played out is that, at the moment, Boeing has nothing internally it has to fear hurting with the 787-10 (and any derivatives of that). If they decide that the 787-10 with whatever level of work they elect to put into it could be the basis for another stretch then nothing they currently market really stops them from doing so. Whatever they decide to do with the 787 they can build the 777 (or its replacement) in the market above that since it does not currently exist. However they got here this approach strikes me as prudent. Once you know exactly what you can do with the 787 barrel and basic engineering then you can decide exactly what you need to do around that.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 31546 times:

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 covered is to small, the 789 boogie covers 55% less area then the A359 even though the tires are now 1370*530 230 PSI.

One can see from the dimensions that the boogie is contained in the length, it increased 0.22m in with but only 0.05m in length. The 788 and 789 MLG well is 5 frames in length ie 5 * 0.61 = 3,05m and you need some margin, guess it was time to add 2 frames to get 4.25 m well which would fit 3 wheels of the 788 size :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/788789bogiespattern.jpg

Edit: as little as the A350 needs to go to 280t to fly 8000nm with full pax as little must the 787-10X, I remembered wrong in the OP The slightly higher 787-10 pax count gets hauled 8000nm at 270t with the existing 789 wing, should one extend the wintips a bit that will reduce or it will fly slightly longer. Most of all it will help the start performance thereby reducing how much the engines needs to increase in thrust for a higher MTOW.

[Edited 2012-12-03 12:56:37]


Non French in France
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 29669 times:

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 with A350s that B needs to do a A359 me-too?

A simple stretch will give B a strong position in the A333 market. Without such, a possible A333HGW or NEO will be left unchecked, and may in fact encourage A to do so. Besides, a 6 wheel MLG 787-10X is no more attractive than a A359.

IMO it is better to optimize new wing and MLG for 787-11 and -12 which will keep A350 family tree in check, and will make customers study hard about ordering A351 and 777X down the line. There are already increasing market shift to A351, as in the recent case of QR. It will be very difficult for B to launch a third wing to maximize the 787 barrel length to match further A350 stretch when A decides to do so.

A may have 1 or 2 wings for A350s, but B has to decided how to best deploy its 2 wings for all possible 787 variants.


User currently onlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 29387 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
IMO it is better to optimize new wing and MLG for 787-11 and -12 which will keep A350 family tree in check, and will make customers study hard about ordering A351 and 777X down the line. There are already increasing market shift to A351, as in the recent case of QR. It will be very difficult for B to launch a third wing to maximize the 787 barrel length to match further A350 stretch when A decides to do so.

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.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26350 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
I think the addition of the triple bogie main landing gear will have a negative effect its trip fuel burn for such routes
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
but I've heard a 6 wheel bogie implies some stiff weight penalties.

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 strut so two extra wheels and modifications to the strut to support them will probably not add that much weight, perhaps 1.5t tops.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 25780 times:

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 is thinking of investing heavily in the 787 for now, and doing with the 777 what Airbus has done with the A330. Not a lot of money, not a lot of risk, incremental changes that keep an already good product making easy money for quite a few more years.

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 24992 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
But they are not at A351-capacities yet.

They don't need. The A351 does also not neet 77W capacity to obsolete it in the long turn.

Quoting zeke (Reply 19):
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.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 22):
... not by a long shot.

You can quote SEPilot and others as long as you like. I always said that the A351 would be answered best using the 787 platform (with the equal or smaller effort than for the 77X). And now Boeing has set a course that approves this.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 24):
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?? ??

Why does a 787 based 340-seater need more thrust than a 777-based 400-seater?

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 30):
Were I Boeing I would be looking to use by 777x/Y3 to offer a true 10 across, ultra low CASM airliner that would make life tough for the A350/787

Boeing is proposing such an incredibly expensive upgrade of the 777. And it is still not more ultra-low-CASM than the e.g. A351.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m.

Why not 7m?

In that case the capacity would be closer to the A351 than the A351's capacity to the 77W. Which is close enough to compete.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
And if Boeing is going to 300t, then a 75m 787-11 designed o compete with the A350-1000 becomes a possibility, IMO.

The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
Wing design changes, gear changes, engine changes, ECS changes are not free, that is best part of 5 billion in R&D, it is just as complex as going from the A340-300 to A340-600.

Correct, but very likely this is less than for the 77X. At least not more. And that way Boeing will get a better A351 competitor than the 778X (can't trump on efficiency) or the 779X (not comparable in size) would be.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
Are customers really replacing A333s with A350s that B needs to do a A359 me-too?

I can't get why people are so fixated on the A359. This news can only mean that Boeing tests whether the void at 340-350 seats can be adressed with the 787 platform. They will find out, it can.

And if it can, there is an incredible award. I mean they would offer a familiy that would be unchallenged to replace 767's as well as anything else up to the spot where the 77W sits today. Only the upper 2/3 of that bandwidth would have to be shared with the A350. But the "single-family"-argument for basically any long-range-need of 80% of all the airlines must be a very, very compelling case for the 787.

As I have said earlier, from Airbus perspective I would fear such a 787-family much more than anything that starts with 77.

Don't forget there is one tendency (among others) to replace larger aircraft with slightly smaller ones if it comes with a CASM-reduction. The 77W proves that. And aircraft that are currently discussed or offered to replace the 77W prove that too. It does not need the 77X to keep that market.


User currently offlinejet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 24771 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
Here now the tire pattern and data from the A359 ACAP (left) and 788 ACAP (right).
Quoting ferpe (Reply 51):
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 covered is to small, the 789 boogie covers 55% less area then the A359 even though the tires are now 1370*530 230 PSI

It looks like of the three, the A359 has the highest wing gear tire pressure.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 23838 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
787-11 and -12

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 larger 787s. There's a limit to how far an aircraft can be stretched before it becomes severely compromised by weight and fuselage flex. If that weren't the case, we'd be flying in 80m long 707s ...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
I always said that the A351 would be answered best using the 787 platform (with the equal or smaller effort than for the 77X).

Only if you're willing to accept an inherent compromise in range and payload against the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Boeing is proposing such an incredibly expensive upgrade of the 777. And it is still not more ultra-low-CASM than the e.g. A351.

Even if that turned out to be correct, airlines don't choose aircraft based solely on CASM. Airlines aren't nearly as concerned about CASM as they are about profit. If the 777-9X offers a capacity and payload advantage over the A350-1000, it does not need to beat the A350-1000's CASM in order for it to be attractive to airlines.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Correct, but very likely this is less than for the 77X. At least not more. And that way Boeing will get a better A351 competitor than the 778X (can't trump on efficiency) or the 779X (not comparable in size) would be.

The 787-10 is smaller than the A350-1000, thus I d not believe it will be as effective an A350-1000 competior as the 777-9X. The 787-10's ideal mission is as an A330-300 replacement and that's the market that I believe Boeing is aiming for. Even with the increase in weight and trip fuel burn over the previous 787-10 - if Boeing indeed do go down the route of offering a 6 wheel main landing gear - it is still very likely to have a fuel burn per seat advantage over the A330-300. With the added range due to an increased MTOW, it's going to also be a very capable 777-200ER replacement. I see the 787-10 as alternatives to the 787-9 and A350-900 as replacement for A330-300, A340-300 and 777-200ER.

As for the 777-9X being bigger, it does not make it any less an A350-1000 competitor. It may not necessarily be competing for exactly the same market, but as far as sales is concerned, we could see airlines buying both models and operating them side by side in the same fleet. It is therefore a very effective ploy by Boeing to "sandwich" the A350 family with both the 787 and the 777. None of the 787 and A350 families are exactly the same in size, thus offering an alternative to airlines should they consider one aircraft to be too small and the other too big. The 777-9X is an A350-1000 competitor in the same way that the A380-800 is a 747-8 competitor.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 753 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 23620 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 30):Were I Boeing I would be looking to use by 777x/Y3 to offer a true 10 across, ultra low CASM airliner that would make life tough for the A350/787
Boeing is proposing such an incredibly expensive upgrade of the 777. And it is still not more ultra-low-CASM than the e.g. A351.

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 the 1990's when fuel was cheap and aircraft were designed somewhat heaver than in today's world. I see the 330-350 seat segment as being far better served by a modern state of the art platform (787) than by one that will be approaching the end of its life cycle by 2020. The 777 platform is only a couple of years younger than the 330, an aircraft that Airbus has decided doesn't warrant expensive upgrades in its later years.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):I also could see Boeing going with a 6m stretch as opposed to 5m.
Why not 7m?

In that case the capacity would be closer to the A351 than the A351's capacity to the 77W. Which is close enough to compete.

Agreed, the 405 seat capacity of the 777-9X is born out of the need to compete on CASM with the 35J rather than airlines clamouring for a bigger aircraft (other than EK). Airlines happily traded their 744's for 77W's, is there any indication that they really need that capacity again or is it just the performance.

Quoting zeke (Reply 42):
Wing design changes, gear changes, engine changes, ECS changes are not free, that is best part of 5 billion in R&D, it is just as complex as going from the A340-300 to A340-600.

The 787 does have a physical limit on growth, and Boeing does have limits on its resources.

Its all a matter of how those resources are best deployed - the 777X program represents a massive investment in a mature platform, far exceeding that required to develop a 787-10/11 with similar capabilities and also with much greater risk. Any 787-10/11 would have a life span of at least 30 years - far more than could ever be possible with the 777X which I suspect could struggle to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI.

I think this 787 vs 777X debate is going to go on for quite a while.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 23462 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
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

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 fuselage length heads towards 80m (see SEPilot above).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
We have the bleed v non bleed problem here again, a GE9x would have to be completely re engineered for the 787.

Is a "bleedless" engine not simpler?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
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.

Agree. The two decisions should be seen as linked, IMO, rather than being separate.
B have now amassed a pretty substantial portfolio of projects (KC46, MAX, 787-9, 787-10, 777+).
I had wondered if something along these lines might happen, in that B came in for (understandable) criticism from various quarters for being excessively conservative in their announced development times for the MAX etc.. Those big gaps in time sure looked extremely seductive ... just fill them in with an upgrade here, a "simple stretch" there ...

This is overall the lowest risk, coupled with the 777+ going for a nice market while it is there, in exactly the same manner as the A330 MTOW upgrades are planned to do.

cheers Bill



Billy
User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 23383 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
Boeing wanted the 7E7 to be sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200 in passenger capacity (hence focusing on a comfortable 8-abreast Economy configuration). Discussions with potential customers scaled that to the A330-200, A330-300/A340-300 and 777-200, but still with a comfortable 8-abreast Economy (I would not be surprised if 9-abreast was meant for Japanese domestic missions and charter operators).

  

 

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 and hence very conservative (apart from the unforeseen weight-growth due to the still-evolving techniques required to cope with lightning-strike on a CFRP fuse.).

Put the two together ...

cheers Bill

 



Billy
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 22657 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 54):
I would image that most of this weight starts at the strut so two extra wheels and modifications to the strut to support them

oops my bad. Two should read four   


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 22547 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 51):
the 789 boogie covers 55% less area then the A359

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 of the A359 is indeed very wide. I guess increasing the length by adding 2 wheels is a less complicated solution for the 787-10X.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 52):
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 with A350s that B needs to do a A359 me-too?

It definitely came as a surprise since there were reports potential airlines wanted Boeing to emphasize efficiency rather than range. Only S-UH was on record pushing Boeing for A787-10X with 7000+ range.



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, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 22421 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 58):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
I always said that the A351 would be answered best using the 787 platform (with the equal or smaller effort than for the 77X).

Only if you're willing to accept an inherent compromise in range and payload against the A350-1000.

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, although its size does differ strongly? And at the same time you deny the ability of a 781ER to compete with the A351, although its size would not differ nearly as much.

I don't get it.

And notice: the 6-wheel MLG would enable the 781ER to match the range of the A351 for virtually any needs. For a half baked 781 Boeing would never entertain the idea of such a massive gear-reconstruction. No, this will be a fully fledged upgrade of the 787.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 58):
The 787-10 is smaller than the A350-1000

So what. It would be a lot closer than the 779X.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 22260 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):

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 at this point we are starving for actual details).

I think Boeing is realising that the 787 is better suited to compete in the 772 arena than the 777x...which will compete almost directly with the 748 more than the 350-1000.

That's why I think they will still do the relatively simple stretch for the -10 lite, (based on the -9 MTOW), and that will give them the fuselage to work with should they go for a HGW version. (I believe it is somewhat easier to add strength efficiently than have to take out weight.)

For that, I believe the wings, gear and engines will be derived from the 777x family, rather than the current 787 family. That way, there would still be some economics of scale working in their favour as opposed to doing major mods for only the 779x alone.

My 2 clams anyway.



What the...?
User currently onlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 22197 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 65):
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...901_boeingexecsxml.html?prmid=4939

Boeing just reshuffled management in a way that makes me think major changes to the scope of the 777X project are quite possible. It strikes me that placing one person in charge of these programs is primarily to rationalize the various programs into a coherent product lineup. My person guess is that one of his primary task is going to be to decide just where the 787 stops and where the 777X either begins or a new aircraft is needed.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 65):
That's why I think they will still do the relatively simple stretch for the -10 lite, (based on the -9 MTOW), and that will give them the fuselage to work with should they go for a HGW version. (I believe it is somewhat easier to add strength efficiently than have to take out weight.)

I tend to think your approach makes sense unless Boeing sees no potential competition for a pure stretch of the 787-10 and figures it can make the changes it needs to make to get a true A351 competitor range wise out of the 787 while still having a firm hold on the large potential market for the pure stretch with the same airplane. That would let you amortize your R&D cost across a much larger volume of frames. There are plenty of airlines who would probably prefer a pure stretch but they won't be left with many other options. I could see that going either way really.

I am with those who think that the discussion of a higher MTOW for the 787 means a major rethink for the 777X program. I would think it may go so far as killing it all together.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 22111 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 66):

I am with those who think that the discussion of a higher MTOW for the 787 means a major rethink for the 777X program. I would think it may go so far as killing it all together.

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 -8i will always be a low demand, niche aircraft while the 777-9x has the potential to get a large chunk of the 744 retirement market, as a more efficient gap filler than the 748i.

Boeing would rather a product of theirs puts two in the temple of their big bird than have the other guy do it.



What the...?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

Only if the 787 was launched after the A350XWB, which it of course was not.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21807 times:

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 the success of the A333 shows that there is a significant market for it. Do all airlines insist on the ability to fly 8000nm with EVERY widebody, even though there are only a comparatively small number of routes requiring that range? It seems to me that far more people fly 500-6000nm routes than longer ones, and a plane with 6000nm range will burn less fuel doing it than one with 8000nm range. Yes, fleet commonality is nice, but you can still buy a 789 or A359 for the long routes and accept the capacity penalty while saving a lot of money on the vast majority of routes with the 7810 or A3510. I thought Boeing was being very sensible in making the 7810 a simple stretch of the 789 and accepting the shorter range that that would entail, but they seem to be following the same pied piper that Airbus followed with the A3510, to less than an enthusiastic reception from their customers. Has the A3510 gained any net orders since they announced the redesign? I think the whole world's gone nuts.      


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21775 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

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 you will find that it is comparatively shorter, lower and in general tighter then the A350. Not all this is because it is positioned one tick lower then the 350, it is deliberate to minimize weight and wetted area, to gain performance. The A350 lives on it's one generation later engines to match the 787 IMO (I also think the more spacious 350 design is deliberate to gain more stretch room but that is not the discussion of this thread).

The other side of that coin is you might have to go into your trick bag for longer length versions, the 787-10X has a 5 frame stretch forward of the wing and only a 4 frame rear of the wing. One should immediately question one-selves why, the more normal stretch is symmetrical?

Is it for CG reasons? Not sure. Is it for rotation clearance reasons with the present MLG attachment point unchanged? Might be. What would jive with that would be a longer 6 wheel boogie with a 777-300 type pivot restraint to gain MLG length at rotation.

There are many reasons why B might have gone to 6 wheel boogies on a 787-10X, not all have to be pavement loading alone   .



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21711 times:

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 the smaller 787+A350.

320 seats and more range and then up to 380 seats with even more range, I think a lineup like that will make Airbus sweat more than just a 787 competitor.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 71):
I think a lineup like that will make Airbus sweat more than just a 787 competitor.

I think it will make Boeing sweat a lot more to first accomplish this line-up.  .


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 21623 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?

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/300ER and how fast the 787-3 disappeared.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
a plane with 6000nm range will burn less fuel doing it than one with 8000nm range.

Yes, but the relatively small delta in fuel burn doesn't balance the opportunity cost of not being able to go really far when you want to or, much more typically, being able to haul an obscene amount of pax and cargo. Don't think of an 8000nm airliner as an 8000nm airliner...think of it as a 6000nm airliner with tons of revenue cargo.

Tom.


User currently onlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 21513 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 72):
I think it will make Boeing sweat a lot more to first accomplish this line-up. .

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 product lineup they could fill with a 777x or something new, depending on what you can get out of the 787. The bad news is that in my view it is looking more and more likely they will need a new airplane at the top end of their product lineup.

The good news for Airbus is that you probably don't need another plane with the A380 already at the top end. The bad news is they have two potentially awkward gaps (between the A320 and A350 and the A350 and A380).

It will be interesting to see how everyone elects to move on opportunities and weaknesses over the next couple of years. In my view Boeing has the more wide open playing field on the top end (they don't have to worry about cannibalizing 777 or 748 sales in my view). Airbus would be more reluctant to impinge upon A380 sales but probably will feel less of a need to move quickly in my view.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 21493 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
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 the success of the A333 shows that there is a significant market for it.

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 the 212t MTOW of the original model (WV000/WV002), the 777-200ER would probably be closer to 1000 orders than 500 and the A340-300 would probably still be on offer.  


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 21410 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?

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, that a specialized design could bring much better economics....

Even 788's that replace 767's have excessive range and payload capabilities (compared to the 767).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 70):
Not necessarily, the 787 is a very compact design, the design team has got a lot of capacity onto a very minimalistic real estate.

I do consider a too dense design as a flaw, if the first upgrade just 10 years after launch scratches at the limits regarding weight and clearances.

This did not happen to the 747, 757, 767, 777, A300, A320, A340. Basically any other aircraft did not run into issues with ground clearance and MTOW-upgrades 10 years after launch. I don't know how to call that other than shortsighted.

In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective. But as both are 9 abreast, high performance long range aircraft it was likely from the beginning that they will end up covering very similar spots on the payload/range-map.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 70):
Do the numbers and you will find that it is comparatively shorter, lower and in general tighter then the A350.

I did the numbers and I noticed it too. I did a heavy fight with CM recently, because he claimed wrongly that the 787 and the A350 would sit roughly at the same height above ground....

Note: I don't consider the 6-wheel MLG as an activity to just correct a mistake. People who think that this is only directed at the A359 are claiming that (in essence). I think this is a normal and reasonable increment to enable new MTOW dimensions that are needed to tackle the A351 from below.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
Even 788's that replace 767's have excessive range and payload capabilities (compared to the 767).

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.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective.

Boeing clearly didn't want the 787 to compete with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, but by 2004 Boeing likely saw the writing on the wall as the A330-300 was winning more and more RFPs against the 777-200ER. And even if Boeing did not, Boeing's customers clearly saw said writing as they pushed Boeing to make the 787-9 a true 777-200/777-200ER replacement (which the 7E7-9 was not).


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 21105 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
This did not happen to the 747, 757, 767, 777, A300, A320, A340. Basically any other aircraft did not run into issues with ground clearance and MTOW-upgrades 10 years after launch.

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 MTOW (and the 777 required semi-levered gear to mitigate ground clearance). The only one that got away unscathed is the A320 and it, like the 737, was designed for a lot more stretch/shrink from the get-go than the rest. What you're calling "shortsighted" is actually normal.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective. But as both are 9 abreast, high performance long range aircraft it was likely from the beginning that they will end up covering very similar spots on the payload/range-map.

They're not both 9 abreast for any one carrier. If your cabin product is 9 abreast in a 787, it's 10 abreast in a 777 (and 8 vs. 9 if it's a wider product). As a result, the payload/range curves don't overlap in any meaningful way unless you've got an airline that runs wildly different cabin products within their long-haul fleet, and I can't think of anyone that does that.

Tom.


User currently onlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 21051 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
unless you've got an airline that runs wildly different cabin products within their long-haul fleet, and I can't think of anyone that does that.


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.

Not sure about arrangements for airlines that haven't taken delivery.

[Edited 2012-12-04 15:11:20]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 80, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20900 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 73):

It's not about willingness, it's about demand. If enough airlines wanted one, they'd build it.

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 upgraded it for long range they got a lot of flak from some customers, no new orders for a long time, and some cancellations. I'm not sure whether or not they have more orders for it now than they did when they made the change. I do not have any inside information into airlines' thinking and desires for new planes, but it seems to me that they were doing better with the medium range version.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 81, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 73):
It's not about willingness, it's about demand. If enough airlines wanted one, they'd build it.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
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.



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 increasing the MTOW from 298t to 308t to restore the range (now 8400nm).


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 82, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 20733 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 79):
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.Not sure about arrangements for airlines that haven't taken delivery.

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 for Airbus, where future Y pax won't be condemned to a 17" wide seat.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Why is it that both Airbus and Boeing seem unwilling to offer a large capacity medium range airliner in their new lineup?

Range-Payload. It's not about range. I would suggest that as cargo drives profits more and more, airlines want the ability to service their medium-haul destinations with a full payload. That 7000nm 787-10 is really a 5500nm aircraft at max payload. That makes it truly a "large capacity medium range" aircraft. Really, we should stop talking about the superficial max ranges of the OEMs and stick to discussing max payload-ranges.

[Edited 2012-12-04 17:17:41]

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 83, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 20544 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 82):
That makes it truly a "large capacity medium range" aircraft. Really, we should stop talking about the superficial max ranges of the OEMs and stick to discussing max payload-ranges.

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 haul such a load about 10hrs


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 84, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 20456 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
The 757, 767, and A300 were only stretched once, not twice

The 767-200 was the base 767 airframe. Then you ended you ended up with a 767-300 and a 767-400.

NS


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20301 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 56):
The 787 would have major design flaws if it does need 6-wheels gears to compete with the A359 (which does not need that). IMO a 6-wheels-787 is only needed to counter the A351.

Only if the 787 was launched after the A350XWB, which it of course was not.

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 foremost.

A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels. More wheels come into play to when the MTOW goes up another dimension.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
And yet NH and JL have noted the 787-8 is more efficient.

I brought it as an example to show exactly that. The new generation widebodies are beating the effficiency of the old ones despite that their extensive range capabilities (SEPilot raised the question the medium ranges aren't adressed with tailor made designs anymore).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
What you're calling "shortsighted" is actually normal.

None of the examples I listed had:
- Space issues
- Gear issues at just the next weigth increment

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 78):
They're not both 9 abreast for any one carrier. If your cabin product is 9 abreast in a 787, it's 10 abreast in a 777

The two are maybe not always 9-abreast but both are twin aisle-twins which suffices to make my point...


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 20262 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
- Gear issues at just the next weigth increment

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 wide spread boogie (which takes a lot of place, A359 uses 6 frames spaced 0.635 m to stow it's 4 wheel MLG and the wing fairing is deeper then the 787 for that very reason. The 787 uses 5 frames spaced 0.61 m on the 788 and 789 and has a rather snug wing fairing, something they can keep if they do as we assume).

Further the 359 wheel pressure is the highest in the industry, one could probably argue that A is taking a risk with the A359, should the OEW increase they can be pavement loading limited to what they can do about it. If B has gone to a 6 wheel boogie for the 787-10 I think it is a clever move, it gives the 787-10 a long life with several MTOW hikes going forward (and we know how successful that is as mid-life kickers  ), A has the 350-1000 to cover that space and it has indeed 6 wheels on the boogie.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19980 times:

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 would have had 2 competitors if not 3, A359+3510 and 787-10.

Very few will order the 9X and just have 350 seats on it. They would rather order the A350-1000. But what is a realistic seat number in the A350-1000? I guess it would be below 350?

The 9X will finish off the 748i, but the freighter would still have its own market.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 88, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19907 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
The 777 platform is only a couple of years younger than the 330, an aircraft that Airbus has decided doesn't warrant expensive upgrades in its later years.

The 777 is a different airframe to the A330 with different characteristics and different "upgradeability" (for want of a better word). While I think the A330neo would be quite a formidable airframe, I can understand why Airbus chose not to go ahead: it is hindered by its fuselage cross section that does not support 9-across economy configuration, which can be achieved on the 787 to further reduce its cost per seat.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
Airlines happily traded their 744's for 77W's

The 77W may lack outright passenger capacity against the 744, but beats it in just about every other way, including payload and range. I disagree with the notion that airlines are trading 744s for 77Ws due to a want of smaller aircraft, but rather they are doing so because the 77W is a more capable aircraft. The 77W has more LD3 positions and more space for revenue cargo than the 744. Fuel burn is but one factor.

If the 787 is to replace the 777X program, I think the question is not so much whether one is more efficient than the other, but whether one is more capable than the other, in every aspect of aircraft performance and capacity. There's little doubt that the 787-10 (or any 787 derivative) will beat the 777-9X's trip fuel burn. But will it also beat the 777-9X's payload-range?

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):
the 777X program represents a massive investment in a mature platform, far exceeding that required to develop a 787-10/11 with similar capabilities and also with much greater risk. Any 787-10/11 would have a life span of at least 30 years - far more than could ever be possible with the 777X which I suspect could struggle to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI.

In terms of gross costs, I disagree that the 777X program "far exceeds" what is required to develop larger and higher MTOW 787s. Personally, I do not believe that we will see a 787 larger than the -10, as it is already a double stretch over the base -8. So if Boeing wants to compete in a market above that of the A350-1000, the 777-9X is needed.

I also disagree that it would struggle to sell. I think the 777-9X has a reasonably bright future. Any airline that's currently operating the 777-300ER at 10-across in economy would find the 777's extra width attractive in order to maintain on board product commonality.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):
Why do you insist that the 779X could compete against the A351, although its size does differ strongly? And at the same time you deny the ability of a 781ER to compete with the A351, although its size would not differ nearly as much.

I don't get it.

If you look at seating capacity alone, that's true. However, I remain doubtful that a 787-10 will match the A350-1000's payload-range figures, while I have little doubt that the 777-9X will beat it. This is not so much to do with the 787-10's physical size as it is with its MTOW limitations.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 64):
For a half baked 781 Boeing would never entertain the idea of such a massive gear-reconstruction. No, this will be a fully fledged upgrade of the 787.

Not necessarily. Without doing a 6 wheel main landing gear, the 787-10 would be severely limited. I have read on here that if the 787-10 was to use the same gear as the 787-9, it would be limited to an MTOW of 251t - the same as the 787-9. That would have a massive impact not only on its range but its payload. A 6 wheel main gear is the only logical solution to that problem.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
I would have thought that the success of the A333 shows that there is a significant market for it.

I agree. But despite the redesigned main gear, the 787-10 is still likely to be a very capable replcement for the A333.

Quoting sweair (Reply 71):
Maybe they want a 100% 772/ER replacement? By going that route they kill the 8X.

I think the 777-8X would not have taken off anyway, with or without this upgrade to the 787-10. I think, however, that the 777-8 might still proceed but only in the guise of the ultra long range 777-8LX and the 777-8F.

Quoting sweair (Reply 71):
But the 9X is still a good idea it has 10 across as a weapon against the smaller 787+A350.

  

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective.

No, not a mistake. They designed the 787 to be primarily a 767/A330 replacement. If they had made provisions for the 787 to succeed at the upper end of the 777 market as well, the 787-8 wouldn't be as efficient as it is today. That would be the mistake.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinepellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 89, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19725 times:

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. "

A big DUH. I've been saying this for years. A.net's 787-10 can't support itself on 8 main wheels. DUH...



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinetrent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 561 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 19632 times:

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
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.

I think you're getting a bit excited there & wonder how an extra 1000nm magically appears (even over your unspecified timeframe). That's a significant jump from 7000 to 8000.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 91, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 19525 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 58):
I don't get this fixation with larger 787s. There's a limit to how far an aircraft can be stretched before it becomes severely compromised by weight and fuselage flex

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

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 69):
Has the A3510 gained any net orders since they announced the redesign?

Where've you been, my friend? Both CX and now QR have ordered 43 between them since July

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels.

Except, as Ferpe has pointed out the wheels on the A359, are much bigger, have a higher pressure, and are further apart, than the wheels on the 787-9.
It's not a simple like-for-like

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 63):
I guess increasing the length by adding 2 wheels is a less complicated solution for the 787-10X.

It may be quite the opposite.

The aircraft was designed to accommodate a twin bogie. It's brave to assume that the wheel well has room for a triple bogie.
It's entirely possible that re-arranging the wheel well to accomodate a triple bogie may entail not just signifucant structural changes but also the relocation of some significant bits of system equipment.

The A350 was designed from the outset to allow the A350-1000's wheels to fit

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 92, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
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 foremost.

A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels. More wheels come into play to when the MTOW goes up another dimension.

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 (eventually) support a ~268-ton MTOW in order to achieve the same capabilities?

At 252t, the 7E7's theoretical maximum take-off-weight was equal to the baseline 257t A340-300 and well beyond what the A330-200 and A330-300 were at (and continues to remain so).


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 93, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19351 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 92):
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 (eventually) support a ~268-ton MTOW in order to achieve the same capabilities?

That is why the OEMs spend millions each year doing massive mathematical models for their market forecasts, those forecasts are used to define the passenger demand and hence aircraft of the future. This is not the only market class where there Boeing market forecast obviously did not identify the demand correctly in advance.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 94, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19321 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 84):
The 767-200 was the base 767 airframe. Then you ended you ended up with a 767-300 and a 767-400.

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 modification, you really don't want to be bringing the -400ER into the conversation.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
The two are maybe not always 9-abreast but both are twin aisle-twins which suffices to make my point...

Then I don't understand your point. The 767-200 and the 777-300ER are both twin aisle twins too...but they're sure as heck not playing in the same space.

Quoting zeke (Reply 93):
This is not the only market class where there Boeing market forecast obviously did not identify the demand correctly in advance.

I don't think you can find *any* market forecast for a new type in modern times, from either OEM, that turned out to be even remotely correct except maybe the 757/767 and the A300.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 95, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19306 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 93):
This is not the only market class where there Boeing market forecast obviously did not identify the demand correctly in advance.

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 market as possible - the A330 and A340 were effectively one family and the A350 certainly is.

Boeing uses two widebody families - one scaled to the lower end (767) and one scaled to the upper end (777). And their market forecasts reflected that with the Yellowstone Project. Yellowstone 2 would be the smaller widebody - the 787 - and Yellowstone 3 will be the larger widebody (replacing the 777).


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19235 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 94):

I don't think you can find *any* market forecast for a new type in modern times, from either OEM, that turned out to be even remotely correct except maybe the 757/767 and the A300.

I think history has shown the SA2 (A320), YA9 (A330) and TA11 (A340) identified passenger demands well in advance and produced popular aircraft still used in the market almost 25 years later, the forecasts are normally 20 year projections to match the life span of a major investment like a new airframe. Prior to launching the A330/A340 the A320 was about 2 years away, and the 737-300 was in service. Boeing were saying they did not need a re-engine the 737-300 with a 10% fuel savings, as by 1992 that new engines (prop/unducted) would be around that would reduce fuel burns by 60% for the 150 seat aircraft, needless to say, I do not think we will be at those levels even in 2022.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
Airbus uses one widebody family to cover as much of the market as possible - the A330 and A340 were effectively one family and the A350 certainly is.

Boeing uses two widebody families - one scaled to the lower end (767) and one scaled to the upper end (777). And their market forecasts reflected that with the Yellowstone Project. Yellowstone 2 would be the smaller widebody - the 787 - and Yellowstone 3 will be the larger widebody (replacing the 777).

Last time I looked, the A330/A340 family was still selling very well, is it premature to dismiss Airbus as having a one product widebody line up ? when in reality they are still selling A330 and A350s ? Would it be fair to say they A350 is the A340-200/300/500/600 replacement ?

Or do you contend the A330 is not for sale ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting zeke (Reply 96):
Last time I looked, the A330/A340 family was still selling very well, is it premature to dismiss Airbus as having a one product widebody line up? when in reality they are still selling A330 and A350s ? Would it be fair to say they A350 is the A340-200/300/500/600 replacement?

Or do you contend the A330 is not for sale?

 Confused

[Edited 2012-12-05 08:24:08]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19089 times:

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 Boeing. One would be the 6800nm A333 replacement and the other a proper 772ER replacement.

What range would a ER version have to have to replace the 772ER?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19026 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 98):
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 Boeing.

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 missions.

At least with the 787 platform, we've seen aerodynamics plays a much larger role in operating economics than empty weight - the 787-3 was projected to weigh over 10 tons less than a 787-8, but the loss of wing area from the shorter wingspan meant that beyond 250nm, the heavier 787-8 was more efficient.

So if Boeing is also considering increasing the wing area and span in addition to raising the MTOW, then the extra weight to support that MTOW will likely have little to no impact on operating economics on shorter missions at lower TOWs.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19035 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 96):
I think history has shown the SA2 (A320), YA9 (A330) and TA11 (A340) identified passenger demands well in advance and produced popular aircraft still used in the market almost 25 years later, the forecasts are normally 20 year projections to match the life span of a major investment like a new airframe.

I agree those are all popular and successful, but we were talking about forecast *accuracy*. At launch, Airbus grossly underestimated A320 and A330 demand, and overestimated A340 (although their estimate assumed the SuperFan was available). Boeing did the same thing for the 737 and 747. Boeing hasn't (yet) grossly overestimated a new type but they totally shanked it on derivatives (767-400ER, 747-8i, etc.).

My point was that the OEM's really suck at actually getting the correct demand estimate...typically, they either go way low or way high from reality.

Tom.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 18981 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 86):
If B has gone to a 6 wheel boogie for the 787-10 I think it is a clever move, it gives the 787-10 a long life with several MTOW hikes going forward (and we know how successful that is as mid-life kickers )

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 251t. So is that behind us and is SU-H's ideal of 7000nm plus now more likely?
Have you given thought to where the first MTOW might be with the new MLG?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19048 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 101):
I gather we are to assume that there will be no 787-10 at ~251t MTOW ... or do we?

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 revised SOB join to support higher wing loadings.



Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 101):
Have you given thought to where the first MTOW might be with the new MLG?

I would imagine Boeing would want an MTOW similar to the A350-900 to allow a similar fuel load to be carried to provide similar range (the 787-10 will be able to carry around 18-27 more people). So between 270-275 tons.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19007 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
I would imagine Boeing would want an MTOW similar to the A350-900 to allow a similar fuel load to be carried to provide similar ra

What options do Boeing have to increase the fuel capacity from the present ~101t ?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18943 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 103):
What options do Boeing have to increase the fuel capacity from the present ~101t ?

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 191t MZFW can tank 58 tons - 57% full tanks.

The A350-900 at 268t MTOW and 192t MZFW can tank 76 tons - 70% full tanks (Airbus shows the fuel capacity at 108t).

So increasing MTOW would allow more fuel to be tanked.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18826 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
In my theory Boeing wanted the 787 to stay away from the 777, which would be an mistake from product strategy perspective.

No, not a mistake. They designed the 787 to be primarily a 767/A330 replacement.

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 pose restrictions regarding later upgrades on the other hand.

There are a lot of things you can do enable later upgrades in a more easy way that don't impair the first versions notably.

Just look at the 787 cross section. For a pure 767 replacement 8.6 abreast is a terrible cross section to choose. But it is a great example how assets have been injected into a design, that would not have been needed for the initial versions. That design decision alone (which was very wise and exceptionally far-sighted) has put the 787 firmly into the neck of the 777. Even the smallest 788 does increase the 767's payload/range/size-capability to an extent, that putting the two in the same league is insulting the 787.

If you draw little dots on a floorspace/range diagram for the 763ER, the 788 and the 772ER you will see that the 788 sits a lot closer to the 772ER than the 763ER. And still the 788 is the primary 767 replacement. Already the 789 would match the 772ER's position and the 781X will leave behind both A359 and 772ER.

Nobody should be suprised if the 787 continues creeping into 777 territory and eventually cover any spot that has been held by 9-abreast 777's. Its just a matter of time.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 85):
A 787-based A359 competitor should really not require any more MTOW to achieve A359 capabilities. And hence also not more wheels.

Except, as Ferpe has pointed out the wheels on the A359, are much bigger, have a higher pressure, and are further apart, than the wheels on the 787-9.

On the other hand the 789 has a more narrow fuselage, has lighter wings and engines. I really can't imagine that the 787 would need 6-wheels to compete with the A359 if stretched to the same length. Too similar are all these parameters. And b.t.w. the lower tire pressure of the 787 does not increase surface loading but reduce it....

Quoting sweair (Reply 98):
What range would a ER version have to have to replace the 772ER?

The 789 has already the cabin-length of the 772ER. And as the 772ER's are almost all 9 abreast this means that the 789 is already there. Having a lot more range than the 772ER.

So the 6-wheel 781X is not about the 772ER.

It is strange to see how people almost stubbornly "invent" aircraft against which this 781X should compete. First the A359, now the 772ER. But nobody seems to recognize that this flavour of a 787 will run against the A351 (IMO). At 340 seats nominal the A351 will face tough competition from such a 781X. Doing the 748i trick Boeing could sell it as-350 seater...


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18768 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):

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 replacement, get it?

Airbus will try to cover the 220-350 seat market with one family, Boeing thinks they can do this with 2 different families. If you stop being so stubborn things will get clearer.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18815 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
On the other hand the 789 has a more narrow fuselage, has lighter wings and engines. I really can't imagine that the 787 would need 6-wheels to compete with the A359 if stretched to the same length.

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 would not match the capability of the A350-900 in terms of payload/range at the outer ends of the spectrum.

So if you want to match an A350-900 out to around 5000nm, no worries.

If you want to match an A350-900 out to around 8000nm...   


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18785 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
Where've you been, my friend? Both CX and now QR have ordered 43 between them since July

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 very often lately.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
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 replacement, get it?

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 strain on that claim which you make. Not to mention the B777-X proposals instead of an all new successor to the B777. Also that is by far not so black and white anymore as it was maybe 5-6 years ago. The world has changed. Get it?      .


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18708 times:

Quoting xxxx (Reply 100):
My point was that the OEM's really suck at actually getting the correct demand estimate...typically, they either go way low or way high from reality.

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 possible ramifications of what's to come? Certainly there are many parameters that they can model, but then there's the surprises...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
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 revised SOB join to support higher wing loadings.

These "leaks" always seem to be put back on the OEM's as if they were press releases. Then the thrashing and bashing begins...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
If you draw little dots on a floorspace/range diagram for the 763ER, the 788 and the 772ER you will see that the 788 sits a lot closer to the 772ER than the 763ER. And still the 788 is the primary 767 replacement.

Were there an A330NEO or an A322NEO, I think it would be less of a 767 replacement than it is right now. If/when Airbus (followed by Boeing) announce a new narrowbody lineup that is in the 175/200/225-ish range with transatlantic range, sales of the 787-8 will likely be the next 767-200ER (past) or 777-200ER (current) as aircraft that are seldom ordered.

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
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 replacement, get it?

It is what it becomes. Until the Y3 becomes more than an internal concept, the 787 gets to become whatever Boeing and the airlines decide it can be. Back when the 7E7 was formulated, we had the 7E7 (Y2) coming out in 2008, the 797 (Y1) coming out in 2012, and then Y3 (whatever it was to be) coming out mid-2010's. Oh, and Airbus was going to be relegated to a distant 2nd. Flash ahead 8 years and you'll see that things have not gone as planned. There is no money to do all of that, no need - yet - to do the Y1, and no clear path forward - yet - to do the Y3.

I have absolutely zero clue what Boeing is going to (or should) do, but it would make sense to me to do the 787-10 as a more capable platform such as described in this thread, tweak the 777 to get a few more years of decent sales out of it, but put all their cards into the true 773/748/388 replacement aircraft mid 20's, with a new Y1 coming late 20's. Were that to be the case, the 787 would be "promoted" to low-end 777 replacement, even though it initially wasn't supposed to go that way.

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
Airbus will try to cover the 220-350 seat market with one family, Boeing thinks they can do this with 2 different families. If you stop being so stubborn things will get clearer.

I think it remains to be seen what Airbus does in that market segment. Today is one thing - five years from now is another. Just as Boeing ponders different options, so does Airbus. An A330NEO/Lite could conveivably become the new 250 seat, mid-range people mover that replaces much of the 767 capacity in a more effective and perhaps less expensive manner than the 787. And they could probably have it on the market for delivery while there are 787 customers waiting for their planes.

Hey, it probably won't happen, but it could. And if it does, Boeing needs to get as much out of the 787 as possible. Might as well take it up-market rather than cannibalize it from both ends with the A330NEO and the 777X.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18689 times:

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 132t OEW, -9 251 with 125 and 359 268 with 136. The engines on the -10ER has to be 80klbf to get acceptable start performance and a top of climb of 300ft/min at FL310. As can be see the -10ER is just fuel limited at the design range of 8000nm, maybe a bit tight (as always click on the chart to see better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR789781781ER359.jpg


I have made no changes to the -10ER wing, the -9 proposed extended wingtips might do it good, haven't check what it does however. Engines are TWXB and T1000TEN, the latter being 1% of from the TXWB TSFC.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18605 times:

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 payload range..

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 113, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18556 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 112):
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 payload range..

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 of them to warrant investing billions into a 777X - following billions invested in a 748 - only to once again replace if prematurely with a clean-sheet design? I doubt very much that Airbus will stand still during all of this.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 114, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18568 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 really need only worry about the 777-300ER at the moment.

As to protecting that plane, I still believe a "777-300ERX" with 115,000lb GE-9X engines makes more sense than the 777-8X / 777-9X.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 115, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18629 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 112):
Put a graph of the 787-10ER+A3510 and the 77W/9X

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 risk IMO:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR-9-10-10ER359351-8X-9X.jpg

-8X MTOW 315t with 158t OEW, -9X with 344 and 172, both with 71m wings.



Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 116, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18563 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):
Added (and busy  )

Thanks for your hard work and quick reactions to posts here.   Your graph is very enlightening.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 18541 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):

Thanks, that is making our debate so much better, great graphs!


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 18312 times:

@ ferpe

The 777-9 cabin m2 seems off... Is it?



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 119, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 18091 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 118):
The 777-9 cabin m2 seems off... Is it?

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 the average fuel consumed in kg over 1000nm and then divided by cabin m2 to normalize it between the frames. I use m2 cabin to avoid the whole seating discussion with things like class distribution and 8 vs 9 vs 10 abrest comfort levels etc. Wingedmigrator proposed it in a Tech/Ops thread and it makes sense for first order normalization purposes avoiding the whole complexity of seating. One can also see that for a certain cabin comfort level there goes roughly 1 pax per m2, if you take my m2 figures as pax above the positioning of the frames in capacity fits our discussions somehow over the different threads.

Now if one want to go to a more exact comparison one would have to do a cabin for all frames with the same principles for comfort, galley sizing etc and then divide by seats to get kg per seat-mile but that is for the airlines to do  .

Re normalized fuel consumption, suffice to say that all these frames are in the 39 to 40 kg range with only the -9X dipping below at 38.4 kg/nm/m2. It is also average fuel consumption when flying their spec mission, it cost fuel to carry fuel for those last miles so one can only really compare frames with the same spec range. The -10 only have a 6900nm nominal range and therefore has a lower average fuel consumption, should not be directly compared with the 8000nm frames.

To really compare things like fuel consumption one shall fly all frames over the same distance, say 3000 and 6000nm. Then the result is more representative. Further such results shall be taken as an indication, the model is not that exact and I also do the cabin m2 by cabin length * cabin width ignoring front and back cabin taper etc. Therefore I normally don't show any fraction for the fuel but did it this time as they are all so close. To use with caution   .

[Edited 2012-12-05 22:02:46]


Non French in France
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 120, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 17892 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 63):I guess increasing the length by adding 2 wheels is a less complicated solution for the 787-10X.
It may be quite the opposite.

The aircraft was designed to accommodate a twin bogie. It's brave to assume that the wheel well has room for a triple bogie.

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, especially in width. Pretty sure a 4 wheel bogie as wide as the A359's will never fit on a 787. Ferpe once posted 2 pics comparing the thickness of the wing roots of both 787 and A350, the latter one looks about 50% thicker.



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, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 121, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17817 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
So if you want to match an A350-900 out to around 5000nm, no worries.

If you want to match an A350-900 out to around 8000nm...

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 come close to the A359?

Quoting sweair (Reply 106):
The 787 was never designed to replace the 777, Y2 is 787 Y3 is the 777 replacement, get it?

So it was aimed at the 767 replacement market only?

That's rubish because the 787 is far too much 777-like for that. The first 787-versions have longer ranges than any other new design before (that means it is a high performance twin aisles aircraft from the outset) and it has a cross section which would be pure waste if the 767 and the A330-market would have been the sole purpose.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):
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 risk IMO:

Thanks for the charts. I have some observations:

- It is not plausible why the 779X would have significantly more range and payload while it will have roughly engines with the same power as the A351. Something does not add up. I could imagine that Boeing makes a 400-seater from the 77W with less thrust by giving up some range and probably payload. But extending range, payload and size while reducing thrust and weight is simply not credible.

- It does not make sense to spend 6-wheels MLG to the 781 if the gained payload increment would turn out so small. Your MTOW-assumption for the 781ER is biased to make the difference look small. If you would recalculate using an MTOW that would match the potential of the 6-wheel MLG and assume other changes (that would still cause comportably less effort than planned for the 77X), you will see that the 787 could be brought very closely to the A351.

- Looking at payload alone does hide a lot of relevant parameter because it tells nothing about the pax/freight split. As a full A380 has almost no reserves to carry cargo, a 781ER could have virtually the seating capacity of a A351 while the payload would be consumed by a higher percentage for pax instead for cargo. A characteristic which could suit a lot of customers at least as well as the other way round.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 122, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 120):
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, especially in width. Pretty sure a 4 wheel bogie as wide as the A359's will never fit on a 787

Ah. Apologies. My Bad.
Yep. I get that.  

Rgds


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 753 posts, RR: 5
Reply 123, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17630 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
The 77W may lack outright passenger capacity against the 744, but beats it in just about every other way, including payload and range. I disagree with the notion that airlines are trading 744s for 77Ws due to a want of smaller aircraft, but rather they are doing so because the 77W is a more capable aircraft.

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 capability.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
In terms of gross costs, I disagree that the 777X program "far exceeds" what is required to develop larger and higher MTOW 787s.

I disagree, a heavier 787 will likely use an extended wing of around 65m which would be based on the existing 787 wing - Boeing originally proposed a larger wing for the 9 and 10. The costs involved would be far less than the full cost of developing a completely new wing for the 777X.

The 777X represents the most ambitious derivative program in terms of scope and cost ever proposed by Boeing. Previous major late life upgrades included the 737NG, 744 and 748 - none of these programs involved significant changes in materials, assembly techniques or the supply chain as will occur with the 777X.

Airbus had almost exactly the same concept for the 350 Mk1 which was costed at around $5.5 billion in 2004 dollars, throw in inflation, scope creep, schedule slippage and all the other unkown unknown's and the 777x is likely to exceed $10 billion in cost. It has much of the capital cost and risk associated with a new platform but doesn't have the advantages of long life and further derivatives - Y3 will be the next cab off the rank.
Its not a case of whether Boeing can do it but rather a case of is the 777X the right thing to do with $10 billion or more - you come up against the law of diminishing returns when investing huge amounts of capital late in the life cycle.
The 748 is a good exampe of over investing in a derivative - while the market did not materialise, Boeing could still have gernerated a ROI if the development costs had been much lower.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 59):the 777X program represents a massive investment in a mature platform, far exceeding that required to develop a 787-10/11 with similar capabilities and also with much greater risk. Any 787-10/11 would have a life span of at least 30 years - far more than could ever be possible with the 777X which I suspect could struggle to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI. ......
.......I also disagree that it would struggle to sell.

Yes it will sell but the qualifier is "to sell sufficient frames to generate an acceptable ROI".
With such a massive upfront capital investment the 777X will need to sell a huge number of frames to recoup that investment and then earn some income. With that size of capital investment the 777X will need to either sell like hot cakes or have a very long life cycle for a derivative. The more that is invested in the 777X then the further out to the right the launch of Y3 will need to be pushed. The 777X will never have the market to itself as occurred with the 77W - it will be competing in a very diferent world against much newer and very capable competitors.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 88):
I think the 777-9X has a reasonably bright future. Any airline that's currently operating the 777-300ER at 10-across in economy would find the 777's extra width attractive in order to maintain on board product commonality.

Your right, it will probably sell in reasonable numbers - but would the present value of the 777X exceed that of a 777+ (5% improvement) launched much earlier and costing far less to develop. The 777X also does not satisfactorily address the 300-350 seat market where a heavier 787 derivative would be such a formidable competitor.

The concept might not necesarily be one of a heavier 787 replacing the 77W but rather supplimenting it by by exploiting as yet untapped potential of the 787 platform. There will likely still be the need for a heavier and larger platform but I'm not sure that the 777X is the best way to fill that need - the 777+ may be a better way to go.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 113):
Quoting sweair (Reply 112):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 payload range..

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 of them to warrant investing billions into a 777X - following billions invested in a 748 - only to once again replace if prematurely with a clean-sheet design? I doubt very much that Airbus will stand still during all of this.

Good summary.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 124, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
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 come close to the A359?

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 A350-900 allows it to tank an additional 18 tons of fuel which translates to some three hours of additional cruising time using Airbus' estimates.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
As a full A380 has almost no reserves to carry cargo, a 781ER could have virtually the seating capacity of a A351 while the payload would be consumed by a higher percentage for pax instead for cargo.

A 75m 787-11 would offer some 52 LD3 positions - 8 more than the A350-1000 and 777-300ER - so cargo volume won't be an issue for her.  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 125, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17353 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
- It is not plausible why the 779X would have significantly more range and payload while it will have roughly engines with the same power as the A351. Something does not add up.

Why not, the engines are 4% more efficient, that is a lot (half of the efficiency improvement of a A333neo).

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
But extending range, payload and size while reducing thrust and weight is simply not credible.

Weight is frame+ fuel and fuel burn goes down 10%, ie trip fuel no longer weighs 140 but 120t, there you have 20t. Thrust is set by start and top of climb, start is to 80% induced drag, there your 71m helps (look in past threads how much, has been discussed several times). Top of climb suffers a bit but is over strong on twins anyway so it is OK for a -9X.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
- It does not make sense to spend 6-wheels MLG to the 781 if the gained payload increment would turn out so small. Your MTOW-assumption for the 781ER is biased to make the difference look small. If you would recalculate using an MTOW that would match the potential of the 6-wheel MLG and assume other changes (that would still cause comportably less effort than planned for the 77X), you will see that the 787 could be brought very closely to the A351.

If you read what I write I say the MTOW is engine limited for a 787 stretch, the 6 wheel gear is there because you're past the limit for a 4 gear design that fits the 787 belly (if AW has the right info). This does not mean you can suddenly make the frame a 300 tonner, other things needs major changes then.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 126, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17312 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 125):
This does not mean you can suddenly make the frame a 300 tonner, other things needs major changes then.

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 support those higher MTOWs and to maximize their benefit.

And we're unlikely to see a direct jump from 250t to 300t - I could see the first jump being to, say, 270t to equalize the "TOW Gap" to the A350-900.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 127, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 17186 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 126):
And we're unlikely to see a direct jump from 250t to 300t - I could see the first jump being to, say, 270t to equalize the "TOW Gap" to the A350-900

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 the tank capacity of just over 101t.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 128, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 17115 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 125):
other things needs major changes then.

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 specific major change (6-wheel MLG) if the increment would be so small as shown in your chart?

No, it is safe to assume that Boeing does analyse a package of several major changes and the 6-wheel-MLG are just that part which became evident. Otherwise it makes no sense. This can clearly be seen in your chart....


User currently offlineZOTAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 17041 times:

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 787-10 MTOW would be the same as the 787-9


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 130, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 17033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 129):
Could someone please post the link to the article? I have been looking but unable to find it.

I'm guessing it is in the print edition.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 131, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 17023 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):
I'm guessing it is in the print edition.

Nope, the the headline is funny: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_12_03_2012_p40-522315.xml



Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 132, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 16969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quote:
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.

So stronger SOB. Updated wing. Updated undercarriage. Upgraded ECS.

All would support higher TOWs and additional stretches.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 133, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16557 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 132):
So stronger SOB. Updated wing. Updated undercarriage. Upgraded ECS.

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 opposition by many. It does not fit into a world view where the 777 should keep its current relevance for a long time despite being sandwiched by three new clean sheet designs (two of them of a revolutionary new kind).

How often I got kindly reminded (garnished with verbose explanations) that the 781 would "only" be planned as simple stretch? And boom, that plan seems to become invalid (as it happens now and then with plans)....

And still almost nobody seems to believe, that this will be Boeings primary answer to the A351. But I still do.

This means also that this will be their primary effort to stay present in the 350 seat market. Because it is better to compete there with a 340-seater, than with a 400-seater, you know. Range&payload will be fine and sufficient for the bulk of all airlines as well.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16322 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133):

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 frame, hence you see how the A358 falters in the lower range, it is just too much airframe! The 748i is not a top seller, so no 400 seat option there, end the 777 and the top model would have 320 seats. To go beyond the 787-10 length will be a major pain for Boeing, it would become the new A340-600. The frame is not designed to go to the 77W size.

To EOL the 777 and not do a Y3 would be the most stupid mistake B ever could do.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1564 posts, RR: 10
Reply 135, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16240 times:

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 models over they years.

The only recent mistake (if one can call it that) is the 748. But even here, even though it is locked into losses at present, is doing an interesting job. It removed Airbus from the heavy freight market,kept it 'honest' on every 380 they have sold, and racked up a few 'i' orders.But they, by now, have presented and re presented the aircraft to all and sundry. The picture is not rosy.

So they are feeling airlines out. An improved 300 then a a smaller 8X a larger 9X both with a new wing attached.And that is what we have ben hearing about for the last year or two.Over the same period Airbus has made a big change to their 1000.Clearly this is what their customers were demanding. Indeed it looks like it is now taking precident over the -8 model.

None of which will have been lost on Boeing. It appears they have now swiveled their 'guns' and have pushed the 777 offerings into the background (poor responses?) and offering to plug the gaps (A333 and A359) with 2 potental stretched versions (heavy and light) of their brand new platform (787).

This IMHO is exactly what they will do now.

As for the large aircraft segment - who knows. As others have said, It begins to look more and more like they will wait and (after the 10X) developments produce a totally new aircraft to replace the 773 and 748 . In the mean time the 773er continues to do very nicely thank you.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 136, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16234 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting astuteman (Reply 91):
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

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 787 to "beef up" the fuselage and increase its strength.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
Already the 789 would match the 772ER's position and the 781X will leave behind both A359 and 772ER.

The 787-9 is pretty much a replacement for the 777-200ER. As is the A350-900.

However, the A350-900 is the better, more capable 777-200ER replacement for airlines that want to use their aircraft on longer haul missions. The 787-9 falls short of the A350-900's payload beyond 5000nm, as Ferpe's chart shows. The 787-10, without the upgrade, would've been even worse in that regard, as a simple stretch with the same MTOW as a 787-9. What the inclusion of six wheel main gears does for the 787-10 is increase its MTOW so that it can match the A350-900's payload range figures - and even beat it. But it still falls a long way short of the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
Nobody should be suprised if the 787 continues creeping into 777 territory and eventually cover any spot that has been held by 9-abreast 777's. Its just a matter of time.

I doubt that the 787 would be stretched any further than the -10. So there is still a gap at the top end of the 777 family that can only be replaced either by the A350-1000 or by the 777X.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
It is strange to see how people almost stubbornly "invent" aircraft against which this 781X should compete. First the A359, now the 772ER.

The 787-10 doesn't compete against the 777-200ER. It replaces it.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 113):
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 of them to warrant investing billions into a 777X

I think there is, particularly if the 777X turns out as good as it has been reported could be. The 777-9X and the A350-1000 sales battle isn't a "one or the other" proposition. I think it is quite likely that airlines would order both to operate alongside each other, as the 777-9X is the larger and more capable aircraft. If the airlines can make more money from the 777-9X's added payload range capabilities than they lose from the fuel burn deficit, then I fail to see why the 777-9X wouldn't be on their shopping list.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 115):

Thank you for your hard work in putting that graph together, Ferpe. It just goes to prove my point that the 787-10 isn't really a match for the A350-1000 even with the upgraded main gear, and that is quite evident from looking at your payload range chart. At 6000nm the A350-1000 would carry about 7t more than the upgraded 787-10. The 787-10"ER" is much closer, payload range wise, to the A350-900 than the A350-1000.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 119):
The cabin areas per m2 are as follows: 789 266, 7810 -10ER 296, 359 291, 351 330, -8X 322, -9X 370

Thank you for that. There's been too much emphasis placed on seat count. I think the cabin area figures show clearly where the 787-10 is at in terms of size.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
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 come close to the A359?

That wasn't Stitch's point. According to Ferpe's chart, the original 787-10 could match, or even beat the A350-900 in terms of payload until around 4250nm. Beyond that, the A350-900 builds up a sizeable advantage in payload-range. The 787-10"ER" fixes that, and its payload range figures now pretty much match the A350-900 until about 8000nm. It is therefore a much better A350-900 competitor than the previous version.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
it has a cross section which would be pure waste if the 767 and the A330-market would have been the sole purpose.

It was designed originally to be a comfortable 8 abreast layout but with the option of going to a higher density 9 abreast layout for carriers that want to have that option. Boeing's early cabin mockups show the seats arranged in a 3-2-3 configuration. That puts it smack bang in the A330/A340 territory. As more and more carriers went for the 9 abreast layout - possibly due to ever spiralling fuel prices, its demonstrator aircraft were fitted with a 3-3-3 configured economy. But that doesn't change the fact that the cabin cross section is narrower than it would be had it been designed as a 777 replacement in the first place.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
But extending range, payload and size while reducing thrust and weight is simply not credible.

Yes, it is.

Lower trip fuel burn = less fuel required to be carried for the same mission = lower MTOW without affecting payload. It also increases range.
Larger wings provide greater lift, therefore less thrust is required.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
It does not make sense to spend 6-wheels MLG to the 781 if the gained payload increment would turn out so small.

It does, because without the 6 wheel landing gear, the 787-10 wouldn't be able to compete with the A350-900, although it would still be a very good A330-300 replacement. Clearly, Boeing doesn't think that's enough.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 121):
Looking at payload alone does hide a lot of relevant parameter because it tells nothing about the pax/freight split. As a full A380 has almost no reserves to carry cargo, a 781ER could have virtually the seating capacity of a A351 while the payload would be consumed by a higher percentage for pax instead for cargo. A characteristic which could suit a lot of customers at least as well as the other way round.

Payload isn't just about cargo, it's also about range. If an aircraft has an excellent payload range performance, then it can theoretically fly a long way - such as westbound on a transpacific route against a stiff headwind - without (or with less) weight penalties, so it doesn't have to leave pax, bags or cargo behind. The more it carries, the more money it makes.

Rather than focusing on seat count, CASM or trip fuel burn, I think that payload-range is one of the most, if not the most important factor when deciding on aircraft purchases, because that affects how much money an airline is able to make from the aircraft. Based on payload range, the 787-10 without a 6 wheel landing gear would have been a fantastic A330-300 replacement, but it would struggle against the A350-900. This upgrade brings it more in line with the A350-900 but it is still somewhat short of what the A350-1000 can do. That's why the 777X, particularly the 777-9X, is still required. Irrespective of what Boeing chooses to do with the 787-10, it will never be able to supplant the 777-9X.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
I disagree, a heavier 787 will likely use an extended wing of around 65m which would be based on the existing 787 wing - Boeing originally proposed a larger wing for the 9 and 10. The costs involved would be far less than the full cost of developing a completely new wing for the 777X.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing. It'll also need a new landing gear, new engines, new wing to body join, and various structural "beefing up" to handle the increase in MTOW. It is not an insignificant task. Neither is the 777X an insignificant task, granted, but if it has one advantage at all, then it's the fact that they aren't increasing the MTOW for the 777-9X but rather reducing it, and as such, Boeing do not need to engineer a new main landing gear for the 777X.

Even if I were to concede this point, would a heavier 787 result in a more competitive - and by implication, more capable in terms of payload-range - airframe than the 777X program could achieve? I'll call on Ferpe's talents and expertise here - if he reads this - to see if he can create a payload-range comparison for a hypothetical higher MTOW 787-10 (pick a number, whatever you think might be possible - never mind the fact that there's a lot more work that needs to go into it to make it possible) against the 777-8X/777-9X and A350-1000?

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The 777X represents the most ambitious derivative program in terms of scope and cost ever proposed by Boeing.

I don't think anyone would suggest that the 777X is anything but a significant update of the 777 family.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The 777X will never have the market to itself as occurred with the 77W - it will be competing in a very diferent world against much newer and very capable competitors.

Neither will the 'Y3' or a heavier 787 have the market to itself. So as far as that point is concerned, there is no difference. I don't dispute that it will need significant sales in order to turn an acceptable RoI for Boeing, but I disagree that the 777X would struggle to reach that magical number, whatever it happens to be. As expensive as the 777X is, I doubt it will be more expensive than the 'Y3' or, indeed, doing a heavier 787. And the 777-9X's size and payload range advantage over the A350-1000 could mean that airlines will operate both aircraft side by side rather than one or the other.

As long as the 777X remains competitive - and I have no reason to believe why it wouldn't be - then having the Y3 being pushed further and further to the right isn't a problem. Ideally, from my point of view, the 777X will hold the fort against the A350-1000 with both having more or less an equal share of the market, while the Y1 comes in the mid to late 2020s and the Y3 comes in the mid 2030s. As someone who is partial to the 777 family of aircraft, I concede that I might be viewing this with rose coloured spectacles clouding my objectivity, but I fail to see why the 777X, with a significant enough update - can't take the 777 a further 20 years into the future before bringing its all new replacement to the market. The 737 and 747 families have both been around significantly longer than the 777, yet they're both still being sold, albeit with varying degrees of success.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The 777X also does not satisfactorily address the 300-350 seat market where a heavier 787 derivative would be such a formidable competitor.

On this point, I don't disagree.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 123):
The concept might not necesarily be one of a heavier 787 replacing the 77W but rather supplimenting it by by exploiting as yet untapped potential of the 787 platform.

Then I think we might have been talking at cross purposes here. I agree that a heavier 787 is beneficial to the 787 program as there is, as you say, untapped potential, and that it would supplement the 777. However, I also believe that the 777, and the 777X, will continue to exist irrespective of what Boeing chooses to do with the 787. Their futures are not interdependent.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133):
And still almost nobody seems to believe, that this will be Boeings primary answer to the A351. But I still do.

This means also that this will be their primary effort to stay present in the 350 seat market. Because it is better to compete there with a 340-seater, than with a 400-seater, you know. Range&payload will be fine and sufficient for the bulk of all airlines as well.

You can believe what you want. I remain unconvinced. You're placing too much emphasis on seat count and not enough on payload range and completely ignored Ferpe's cabin area figures which shows that the 787-10 is indeed closer to the A350-900 than the A350-1000. I also don't know where you got 340 seats from as the "typical" seat count for the 787-10 is 323 seats.

The 787-10, even with the 6 wheel landing gear, still falls short of the A350-1000's payload range and seat count.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 137, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16142 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
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 rheinwaldner (Reply 133):
It took me countless posts in many threads to explain the rationale behind such an upgrade.

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, it can certainely be more efficient than the 777W on the lower ranges.

The question is does the world need a 777W replacment, an a/c which can travel its current max range with it max cargo to suit that range, if the answer is no, then the A350-900 and 787-9 and 748i are all fine, but Airbus seems to think that they need to get closer to the max performance figures of the 777W so they are working on the A350-1000.
Boeing has to decide if they are going to leave the market segment where the 777W max performance number reside, efficiency is only one metric, wanting to carry 350+ pax 7,000nm is one issue which cannot always be replaced by taking 300+ pax 6,000nm more efficiently.

Unless Boeing designs a new version of the 787 which is wider than the existing a/c negating the need to make a long thin looking a/c to accomodate 777W loads and range, I do not see any version of the 787 replacing the 777W at its maximum ranges, which is where the a/c presently excels and has no competitor.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 138, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 15994 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 134):
You really think the 777 has no future?

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 of $$$'s to earn for Boeing without noteable effort. Which means that earning back the collosal investment for the 77X proposal would require the 777-franchise to sell another thousand copies until 2030 or so. Which is questionable to ever happen...

The correct discussion is about the right balance between investment and return. The 77X is an extreme proposal in that regard. A huge investment and huge risks whether it will stay competitive for that long period until the investment is payed back.

Quoting sweair (Reply 134):
And that it is optimal to have one family to cover 230-400 seats?

Not at all.

Nobody needs a A351 competitor with 400 seats. If no 400 seater does exist airlines will do what they do today if they want a 230-seater: order something else that is as similar as possible in size.

400-seaters are currently such a hot market, that you can be happy if you don't participate.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 15965 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 138):

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 and the A380, depending on where the line is for profit in a A380, might be well above 400 seats. The market wants less option in your opinion? I think its the other way, they want something between the mega 380 and the 350 seat twins. Just because the 748 is not popular doesn't say that there is no market above 350 seats and below 460 seats.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 140, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 15977 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
Rather than focusing on seat count, CASM or trip fuel burn, I think that payload-range is one of the most, if not the most important factor when deciding on aircraft purchases, because that affects how much money an airline is able to make from the aircraft.

The two most important strategic decisions for any type are fuselage cross section and payload/range curve. Those, much more than anything else, determine whether the airlines want it or not.

Quoting par13del (Reply 137):
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, it can certainely be more efficient than the 777W on the lower ranges.

This is a bit inverted...the 787 is a range/payload/speed/crew equivalent *downsized 777*. The demand the 787 i's filling was caused by the aging out of the 767's but if you look at all the characteristics of the aircraft it's absolutely clear that it was intended to be a "777 for routes without enough demand for a 777." This also makes it capable of filling all the 767 roles. Note that this line of argument doesn't apply to the 787-3, which I'd argue is why the -3 went away.

Tom.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 141, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 15938 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 138):
Which means that earning back the collosal investment for the 77X proposal would require the 777-franchise to sell another thousand copies until 2030 or so. Which is questionable to ever happen...

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 its all new replacement to then take over. The 777 is still a relatively young and advanced airframe with huge potential for further development.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 138):
Nobody needs a A351 competitor with 400 seats.

Tell that to EK. Tell that to AF. Tell that to every airline that puts a high density 10-across seating configuration in a current 777-300ER. I think the evidence is quite clear: as there are more and more airlines adopting a tighter 10-across economy on their 777s, there is a greater demand for a larger 777-300ER. That's where the 777-9X slots in.

Quoting sweair (Reply 139):
The market wants less option in your opinion? I think its the other way, they want something between the mega 380 and the 350 seat twins. Just because the 748 is not popular doesn't say that there is no market above 350 seats and below 460 seats.

  

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 140):
The two most important strategic decisions for any type are fuselage cross section and payload/range curve. Those, much more than anything else, determine whether the airlines want it or not.

...the 787 is a range/payload/speed/crew equivalent *downsized 777*. The demand the 787 i's filling was caused by the aging out of the 767's but if you look at all the characteristics of the aircraft it's absolutely clear that it was intended to be a "777 for routes without enough demand for a 777."

Thank you for your input, Tom. That makes a lot of sense.

[Edited 2012-12-07 05:59:59]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 142, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 133):
How often I got kindly reminded (garnished with verbose explanations) that the 781 would "only" be planned as simple stretch? And boom, that plan seems to become invalid (as it happens now and then with plans)....

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 be a "simple" stretch of the 787-9, leveraging all the systems and components of that model.

The only folks talking about a "787-11" or "787-12" were a.net members.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing. It'll also need a new landing gear, new engines, new wing to body join, and various structural "beefing up" to handle the increase in MTOW.

And all of this is what Aviation Week says Boeing is at least looking at.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 143, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 15757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 134):
You really think the 777 has no future?

You should read better. Nowhere in his post is he suggesting this.

Quoting parapente (Reply 135):
An improved 300 then a a smaller 8X a larger 9X both with a new wing attached.And that is what we have ben hearing about for the last year or two.Over the same period Airbus has made a big change to their 1000

All changes Airbus made between the A350-900 and the A350-1000 are at best at the size of 5% of what Boeing is proposing for the B777-X Program. It is the other way around, Airbus makes small changes to the A350-1000 to get a very competitive airframe. Boeing needs to do an awful lot of changes to the "good old B77W" to keep her competitive only because she is bigger (as the B777-9X). The B777-8X will still lose out easily against the all new A350-1000.  .

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
I doubt that the 787 would be stretched any further than the -10.

But now for sure the opportunities are there.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
As long as the 777X remains competitive - and I have no reason to believe why it wouldn't be - then having the Y3 being pushed further and further to the right isn't a problem

Only if she remains competitive. Then I agree with you. If not, Y3 is the next move to make by Boeing.

Quoting sweair (Reply 139):
The market wants less option in your opinion?

Again you should read better, nowhere in his post is he suggesting this.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
The only folks talking about a "787-11" or "787-12" were a.net members.

Seems they were quite visionary A-net members. I recall that I have also talked a couple of times about a possible B787-11 or -12.  ,


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15678 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 143):

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 market when you have a product that can go above and create its own niche? Want up to 340-350 seats go Airbus, want more go Boeing.

In EKs cabin the A350-100 would have below 340 seats anyway.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 145, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15606 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 144):
nd create its own niche?

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 the better choice imho.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 146, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15559 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 105):
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 pose restrictions regarding later upgrades on the other hand.

There are a lot of things you can do enable later upgrades in a more easy way that don't impair the first versions notably.

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 additional stretches and increases in MTOW without significant redesign, then they have overdesigned the 787-8, put too much weight in the design, and hurt its efficiency. Airbus is running into this problem with the A350. While trying to offer the -800/900/1000 they are facing problems with efficiency on the -800. The airplane is overweight for its intended capacity and payload and many suspect that it will suffer the same fate as the 777-200 A market. Airbus also is facing problems pushing the A350-1000 high enough without requiring significant redesign and similarly is receiving negative comments from customers.

It isn't a case of shortsighted design. It is optimized design. A single airplane cannot efficiently cover a spectrum of 150,000 - 200,000MTOW without significant design changes.

Conventional design practices usually result in an airplane being overdesigned by about 10% to allow stretches and MTOW increases. That was the logic used during the design of airplanes prior to the 777. The 787 had extra pressure on efficiency with skyrocketing fuel prices, and they reduced the 10% overdesign gap to make the 787-8 and 787-9 even more efficient, but the consequences are a complicated 787-10 design.

The 77W exceeded the intended MTOW increases for landing gear. The result was significant redesign including semi-levered gear and a dual chamber shock strut.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7136 posts, RR: 8
Reply 147, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15344 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 140):
This is a bit inverted...the 787 is a range/payload/speed/crew equivalent *downsized 777*.

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 777W, trust I was not wrong in my a/c nomenclature.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 148, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15298 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
But it still falls a long way short of the A350-1000.

Depends on the MTOW they choose.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
I doubt that the 787 would be stretched any further than the -10.

Maybe you doubt wrongly. Which -10 anyway? Has it been settled?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
If Boeing are to use a heavier 787-10 as the basis for its long haul twin from here on in, and replace the 777-300ER and 777X programs with it, it'll need more than just a new wing. It'll also need a new landing gear, new engines, new wing to body join

Sure. And where is the difference to the 77X?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 136):
You're placing too much emphasis on seat count and not enough on payload range and completely ignored Ferpe's cabin area figures which shows that the 787-10 is indeed closer to the A350-900 than the A350-1000.

Ferpe did pick an unnormally low MTOW for the 781X on that chart. This was an assumption on his part and not a fact. An assumption that is not credible because Boeing would be nuts to spend the enourmous effort for a 6-wheel MLG if the gained payload and range would be so negligible.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
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 be a "simple" stretch of the 787-9, leveraging all the systems and components of that model.

It was absolutely. But to me it was always clear that a 9-abreast aircraft, that has the 8000nm range from the outset will eventually become what the 777 today is. This is really not hard to see.

To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers. One for seats, another for range with spec load. If you are not sure how to accomplish the prediction, just apply the average increases in size and range of similar aircraft. Anyway just dare that prediction.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15260 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):

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.


User currently onlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 879 posts, RR: 12
Reply 150, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15231 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers. One for seats, another for range with spec load. If you are not sure how to accomplish the prediction, just apply the average increases in size and range of similar aircraft. Anyway just dare that prediction.

I think that this is the right answer.

Quoting parapente (Reply 135):
None of which will have been lost on Boeing. It appears they have now swiveled their 'guns' and have pushed the 777 offerings into the background (poor responses?) and offering to plug the gaps (A333 and A359) with 2 potental stretched versions (heavy and light) of their brand new platform (787).

This IMHO is exactly what they will do now.

As for the large aircraft segment - who knows. As others have said, It begins to look more and more like they will wait and (after the 10X) developments produce a totally new aircraft to replace the 773 and 748 . In the mean time the 773er continues to do very nicely thank you.

They are going to design the -10 (possible as both a "light" pure stretch and a heavy with various new things designed to support an increased MTOW) and then once they will compare an -11 to the A351 and the 778X and go from there. My guess is that you see the 10 light, 10 heavy and 11 models of the 787. It is cheaper with lower risk than farting around with the 777.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 151, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 15206 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers. One for seats, another for range with spec load. If you are not sure how to accomplish the prediction, just apply the average increases in size and range of similar aircraft. Anyway just dare that prediction.

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 range of the A350 lineup. Doing it with similar efficiency and having the realistic redesign and engineering costs is the challenge. When you start with a smaller airplane, scaling it up is more challenging and less cost effective. Sometimes the trade study indicates you should start fresh or with a different model like the 777.

[Edited 2012-12-07 13:41:24]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 152, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 15032 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 148):
To challenge some of the doubters I specifically call out Tdscanuck, Roseflyer and CXB77L to tell me what size&range they think the largest and most potent 787 version will have in 2025? Please just post two numbers.

Sure...same range and 20% less seats than whatever Boeing's next largest aircraft is at the same time.

Tom.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 153, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14966 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 144):
He dismissed the 400 seat market

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 expensive one for a given market segment.

In much the same was as EK suggest that the 777-300ER is the 748i's biggest problem.....

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 146):
Airbus also is facing problems pushing the A350-1000 high enough without requ