Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 23479 times:
The 787-9 is a 6m stretch of the 787-8 and it added four LD3 positions forward and 4 LD3 positions aft (going from 28 to 36). A 5.5m stretch should offer at least another 6 LD3 positions, not 4. I wonder if Boeing is leaving space aft for a larger Section 45 to support larger gear with a future HGW model?
ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 23278 times:
Or for weight, balance and structural integrity they are "blocking" the most forward and rear positions to decrease on moment? Simple stretches are not simple when it comes to added flex and moment.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 22708 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2): Or it has added belly fuel taking up space
I would expect the 787-10 to have the same fuel capacity as the 787-8 and 787-9 (~126,000 liters) for, like the 787-8, the 787-10 will be fuel-weight limited at MTOW so it won't be able to load that much fuel, anyway.
I would expect Boeing will extend Sections 43 and 46 for the 787-10 just as they did for the 787-9, so I would think they'd be able to get a similar number of LD3 positions from said stretch.
Dash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 20850 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): A 5.5m stretch should offer at least another 6 LD3 positions, not 4
Well, LD3 are side by side, they go in pairs. A new fuse section is added on both ends of the wingbox so I assume they could either fit in 2 extra LD3 per section (single pair, side by side), or 4 extra LD3 (two pairs). Both sections gives you either a total of 4 extra LD3, or 8. Can't have 6, that would mean a pair of half-LD3 in each section.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 20390 times:
Range for payload then. Hmm. History hasn't looked too kindly on such a plane except for 747 Classic vs 747SP.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): The 787-9 is a 6m stretch of the 787-8 and it added four LD3 positions forward and 4 LD3 positions aft (going from 28 to 36). A 5.5m stretch should offer at least another 6 LD3 positions, not 4. I wonder if Boeing is leaving space aft for a larger Section 45 to support larger gear with a future HGW model?
Perhaps the extra length is long enough for 1.8 LD3s forward & aft, left and right. What I'm trying to say is maybe it falls just short of the required length, and they are unwilling to shuffle the extension forward/aft due to balance issues.
swallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 544 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18098 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): the 787-10 will be fuel-weight limited at MTOW so it won't be able to load that much fuel, anyway.
My understanding is that all 787 variants are fuel-weight limited at MTOW, but the 789 can tank more fuel than the 788 (higher MTOW) and 7810 (lower MZFW). Correct?
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1784 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17997 times:
The cargo capacity change with 1 additional row of 2 LD3s in the forward and back holds can be explained as follows:
- the forward fuselage is stretched 6 frames compared to the -9 or 12 frames compared to the -8. Frame spacing is 24''. Normally that would allow 2 additional rows of LD3, here apparently only 1 row of 60.4'' lenght LD3s. The most plausible reason would be that the air conditioning "snake pit" in front of the center wingbox needs to be expanded to cater for the additional pax capacity, this is very tight on the -8 and -9.
- the rear fuselage is stretched 3 frames compared to the -9 or 7 frames compared to the -8. As that is 72'' and a LD3 row takes 60.4'' it only allows one additional row to be loaded, even with the present landing gear being untouched.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1784 posts, RR: 57 Reply 13, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17775 times:
Quoting swallow (Reply 11): My understanding is that all 787 variants are fuel-weight limited at MTOW, but the 789 can tank more fuel than the 788 (higher MTOW) and 7810 (lower MZFW). Correct?
You are correct, all have about the same tank volume (126.000 l or 101t) and they all get fuel limited well north of 8000nm if you load them so you can start with the tanks full, ie they are all weight limited in their practical payload-range usage. The rest is a matter of MTOW, MZFW and DOW/OEW, where the -9 has the best range cards and the -10 the most MSP. The -8 is limited in both MZFW and MTOW, expect new weight variants once things settle down.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2185 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14363 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): Randy Tinseth's today's briefing shows the 787-10X details for the first time.
No real surprises there, it appears to be quite similar to the many rumours of the 787-10 before.
Quoting behramjee (Reply 5): Too few passengers for my liking versus B789...B781 should be increased to 340-350 at least !
I don't agree. I think Boeing has it just right by positioning the 787-10 in between the A350-900 and A350-1000 in capacity. It is also a shorter ranged (compared with the other members of the 787 family) aircraft aimed at providing maximum fuel efficiency as a medium hauler and is an ideal A330-300 replacement.
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14259 times:
Whilst this is all great and i looking forward to many variants of the 787 in the skies, would it not have been more appropriate to keep this under wraps (not go public) until they get the current issues resolved? just my
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2185 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13988 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting ual777uk (Reply 19): would it not have been more appropriate to keep this under wraps (not go public) until they get the current issues resolved?
It may be that this presentation was planned long before the 787 was grounded, so I don't think this was deliberate timing on Boeing's part. But even if it is, I think it's about time we had some positive news about the 787 family.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 22, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11199 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 9): Range for payload then. Hmm. History hasn't looked too kindly on such a plane except for 747 Classic vs 747SP.
Depends on the competition.
The 777-200 carried more people and cargo farther than the A330-300, but burned more fuel doing so. The market spoke and the A330-300 has outsold the 777-200 by a tremendous factor.
The 787-10 will carry more people and cargo then the A350-900 and should burn less fuel doing so. So for RFPs for medium-range missions (those currently dominated by the A330-300), I expect the 787-10 to be a very strong - and successful - competitor. (The A350-900 will be the vehicle of choice for long-haul missions.)
JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9933 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 22): The 787-10 will carry more people and cargo then the A350-900 and should burn less fuel doing so. So for RFPs for medium-range missions (those currently dominated by the A330-300), I expect the 787-10 to be a very strong - and successful - competitor.
I agree. It will be interesting to see how Airbus responds. I think there is scope for a "simple stretch" A359 to A3510 length or thereabouts with A359 engines, wing, landing gear etc.
From what I read we will likely hear from a customer around the third quarter of 2013
[Edited 2013-02-14 10:15:28]
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
25 astuteman: This is true. That said, the difference in size and weight between the 772 and A333 is very large compared to that between the 787-10 and A350-900, w
26 SWALUV: This looks like very, very similar to the 767-400. Is the 787-10 going to replace those as well.
27 Stitch: At an OEM OEW level, pending "final numbers" for production frames, their looks to be around the same 8-12% spread between the 787-10 and A350-900 as
28 sunrisevalley: I have played around with a number of different payload /range options in PIANO-X and I cannot get a fuel load greater than 88t. Seems to me there is
29 panam330: The 'typical' 3-class seat count (according to wikipedia) on the 787-8 is 210. A.net says that the 764's typical 3-class count is 245, with the 763 a
30 sunrisevalley: The Boeing ACAP sheets for the 788 show 242 seats in a 3-class layout.
31 PW100: What the 767-400 lacked, was range. So let's see . . . 767-300ER range: 6300 nm* 767-400ER range: 5500 nm* 787-10 range: 6500 - 7000 nm** * per WIKI
32 SCAT15F: I think the biggest problem with a HGW version of the 7810 is the engines. I can't see how there is much more room for thrust growth beyond the 76-78K
33 Lutfi: Agree with others who say that this looks like a suitable A330-300 replacement.
34 panam330: Corrected I will stand, then. Thank you.
35 thegeek: Don't know how you can say "a tremendous factor". 777-200A + 777-200ER sold 515, while the A333 sold 618. The difference is more than made up by 77F,
36 Stitch: I was specifically referring to just the 777-200, not the 777-200ER. The sales ratio is 7:1 in favor of the A330-300 (618 to 88), which is tremendous
37 thegeek: Ok, but in that case the 777 carried a lot more dead weight to fly a little bit further. In fact, the current A333 flies a full pax load further than
38 rotating14: Hello folks, I scrolled the thread and didn't find the link I just posted. It sheds some light on the current topic. Thoughts? http://www.aspireaviati
39 astuteman: Apologies Stitch. This is all very nice and interesting. However, the real point I was trying to make here is that the cost per seat difference betwe
40 godbless: This is no fair comparison though - the 333 really first kicked off to after it's MTOW was increased which happened a few years after EIC. So it woul
41 AA777223: How I see it is as follows, especially in light of new 777 and 787 info. 787-8 - Direct 764/A332 replacement 787-9 - bookends 77E/L/A333 on the low e
42 thegeek: Fully agree. I don't know why the 772A was ever offered, but that's another story I guess.
43 ikramerica: The 772 was offered for a few reasons: Launch customer United wanted it Japanese customers wanted it It filled production slots and helped Boeing achi
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1787 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, 
, 21029 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4444 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2611 posts, 
From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 544 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2010, 1784 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 115 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2309 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6799 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
