Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Shows 787-10X Details  
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27813 times:

Randy Tinseth's today's briefing shows the 787-10X details for the first time.


(picture uploaded by http://twitter.com/jonostrower)

No word yet on EIS or first customers.

[Edited 2013-02-13 13:04:36]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27720 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4865 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27551 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I wonder if Boeing is leaving space aft for a larger Section 45 to support larger gear with a future HGW model?

Or it has added belly fuel taking up space



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27517 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.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 26948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

[Edited 2013-02-13 15:06:17]

User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4851 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 26266 times:

Too few passengers for my liking versus B789...B781 should be increased to 340-350 at least !

User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1886 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 26167 times:

I heard that the 7810 might have a 777 style 6-wheel landing gear truck. Anybody know anything about that?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 26076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
Too few passengers for my liking versus B789...B781 should be increased to 340-350 at least !

The step change from the 787-8 to the 787-9 is 40 passengers, so another 40 from the 787-9 to 787-10 seems appropriate.



Quoting rj777 (Reply 6):
I heard that the 7810 might have a 777 style 6-wheel landing gear truck. Anybody know anything about that?

As the various weights are the same as the 787-9, a triple-axle bogie is unnecessary.

However, if Boeing increases those weights, then yes, a triple-axle bogie may be necessary or desirable.

[Edited 2013-02-13 18:16:50]

User currently offlineDash9 From Canada, joined Nov 2008, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 25091 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.

Thats the way I see it!

-Dash9


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 24629 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.


User currently offlineAndrensn From New Zealand, joined Jun 2012, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 24493 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The step change from the 787-8 to the 787-9 is 40 passengers, so another 40 from the 787-9 to 787-10 seems appropriate.

It will also give the 777-8x a better business case because there will be a bigger seat count difference

[Edited 2013-02-13 20:49:05]

User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 22339 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?



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 22238 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.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 22016 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.



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 21211 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 13):
The -8 is limited in both MZFW and MTOW, expect new weight variants once things settle down.

The 787-8 should benefit from the weight savings made for the 787-9. We might see new weight variants after LN126.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinemaxter From Australia, joined May 2009, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 20822 times:

Mmmmmmm, call me cynical, but does this look like a hastily contrived smokescreen to you?

Maybe not, but then again, maybe yes...   



maxter
User currently onlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20183 times:

Quoting maxter (Reply 15):
but does this look like a hastily contrived smokescreen to you?

The presentation itself may be hastily contrived, but not the underlying data.


User currently offlineJack From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20054 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 16):
Mmmmmmm, call me cynical, but does this look like a hastily contrived smokescreen to you?

Due to the 787-8 issues I assume you mean?

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 16):
The presentation itself may be hastily contrived

It is also a picture taken from an iphone of a presentation, not a copy of the presentation itself. That doesn't help the look of the information.

[Edited 2013-02-14 02:06:45]

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18603 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.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18497 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   

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18226 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.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17086 times:

According to those details, here is a rough idea of the 787-10 compared to the the 8:




arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.)


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14171 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.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12697 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
or first customers.

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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering posted Wed Feb 13 2013 12:43:50 by KarelXWB
787-10X To Have 6 Wheel MLG posted Mon Dec 3 2012 02:07:11 by ferpe
787-10X Formally Offered To Airlines posted Wed Nov 7 2012 05:08:04 by BlueSky1976
Qantas CEO "very P*ssed Off" With Boeing Over 787 posted Tue Jun 12 2012 17:51:42 by ZKOJH
LH Possible Launch Customer Of 787-10X posted Tue Mar 20 2012 03:55:50 by na
Boeing Replaces 787 Chief posted Sat Feb 25 2012 09:46:37 by TomB
Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S posted Mon Jan 30 2012 02:51:25 by ferpe
Boeing Announces 787 Dream Tour posted Thu Nov 24 2011 10:42:50 by WROORD
Boeing Confirms 787 EIS Will Be Delayed posted Tue Nov 30 2010 13:59:02 by scbriml
Boeing Reviewing 787 Delivery Schedule posted Tue Nov 2 2010 02:00:13 by Chiad