Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020  
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 337 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 35591 times:

Emirates seems to have given some more hints of what they've been offered. It seems the engines for the 9X has been increased to 103,000lbs of thrust and EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

The article also indicates that only the 9X and 8LX are on offer, confirming an article on aviationweek.com from a few weeks ago.

http://pro.flightglobal.com/news/art...-control-777X-supply-chain-385953/

The article might be open only to flightglobal pro subsribers only but this is an excerpt....


" Both variants will be powered by the General Electric GE9X with the 777-9X the lead variant slated for service entry in 2020. The -8X will follow around nine months later.

"We were concerned about it being underpowered in the early days, and Boeing has now grown the thrust [from under 100,000lb] to around 103k," Clark says.

"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."


The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
172 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 35503 times:

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

Interesting. We have been hearing 'end of the decade' for a long time. I, along with others I believe, have been taking that to mean 2019. However, I just thought about that and technically December 31, 2020 is still this decade. Logic being that decade #1 = 1/1/01 - 12/31/10 or 10 years. If that is true then I am going to feel a little annoyed by the semantics/games.

A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able to fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.

tortugamon


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 632 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 35158 times:

55 t payload on 16h30-16h45 mission, that's more than A380-800 575t can do (circa 50 t) !     

User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 337 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 35036 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):

Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.

Trust him to want close to the impossible....either that or he was referring to the 8LX which certainly be capable of such a feat. In the arricle he did mention the 8LX will be able to do those routes seating 330 pax for emirates whilst carrying quite an amount of cargo.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.

Hmm it seems so but being a straight shrink of the 9X with the primary difference being the cabin length, it seems feasible as the differences btw those 2 will be minimal.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 34785 times:

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
Emirates seems to have given some more hints of what they've been offered. It seems the engines for the 9X has been increased to 103,000lbs of thrust and EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency. Even now, it's still an impressive drop in thrust from the 115k of the current 77W.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 34768 times:

A lot of us were sceptical that you could power the -9X on 99.5k engines, 103k sounds more reasoable.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

But this aircraft is going to be the Tim Clark special, it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump, Emirates won't have to worry about the cost of course because they will get a massive discount.

Plus if you are not planning to run 10 across do you gain much from the 777X?



BV
User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 382 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 34437 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
has a bigger wing

The large wing is the reason why it needs a relatively low thrust. A high L/D means low T/W for a certain runway performance.


User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 34335 times:

Does anyone have that schematic that shows the relatives proportions of all the newer Boeing wbs - someone posted it in another thread. But it was a great visual reference as to what's actually proposed here - had the 787-8/9/10 stacked against the 77W and 777-8L/9 models. Would love to see it again (link is ok too) - TIA!

User currently offlinevirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 34267 times:

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 7):
Does anyone have that schematic that shows the relatives proportions of all the newer Boeing wbs - someone posted it in another thread. But it was a great visual reference as to what's actually proposed here - had the 787-8/9/10 stacked against the 77W and 777-8L/9 models. Would love to see it again (link is ok too) - TIA!

I assume this is the one you're after?

http://arpdesign.files.wordpress.com...2/08/presentation_master-copy2.png



[Edited 2013-05-17 07:08:02]


The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2644 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 34235 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency

It is because of the larger wing that enables the thrust to be reduced, because the new, larger wing will generate more lift than the current wings. It is also because of that larger CFRP wing and the new GE9X engines that will enable the 777-9X to keep its fuel burn in check. It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity, thanks to a new wing and new engines.

The GE9X is a generation ahead of the GE90, and an all new wing design is a generation ahead of the current design.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump

Tell that to QR, BR, BA, and a host of airlines that have expressed an interest in taking the 777X. To say that "no other operator" will need the 777X's capabilities is an argument not grounded in facts. The fact is that more and more operators of the 777 are going for a 10-across economy seating to increase the 777-300ER's seating capacity in order to further reduce per seat costs. Those are the airlines to whch Boeing are pitching the 777X.

[Edited 2013-05-17 07:17:48]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 337 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 33890 times:




The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31123 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 33714 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
But this aircraft is going to be the Tim Clark special, it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump, Emirates won't have to worry about the cost of course because they will get a massive discount.

Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

Though it did annoy EK and QR, who now are rumored to be huge customers for the heavier, thirstier and more expensive 777X...   


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 33111 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
Plus if you are not planning to run 10 across do you gain much from the 777X?

If you're hauling a lot of freight, then yes. Also, keep in mind that by the time 2020 comes around, the number of airlines operating the 777 with 9X will be a minority.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 33123 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000. My point is that not every airline requires the things from an aircraft that middle east carriers demand.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Though it did annoy EK and QR, who now are rumored to be huge customers for the heavier, thirstier and more expensive 777X...

I know, go figure..

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity.

If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J. The problem with VLA's is they only work efficiently if you can fill them up, and in this case you have to be willing to fly 10 across. Unless an airline is willing to go 10 across and commit to filling 400 seats I don't think the 777-9X works.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
Tell that to QR, BR, BA, and a host of airlines that have expressed an interest in taking the 777X. To say that "no other operator" will need the 777X's capabilities is an argument not grounded in facts. The fact is that more and more operators of the 777 are going for a 10-across economy seating to increase the 777-300ER's seating capacity in order to further reduce per seat costs. Those are the airlines to which Boeing are pitching the 777X.

What is BA's longest route? Off the top of my head I'd say LHR-EZE, that's 1,500 miles less than DXB-EZE so BA at least do NOT need the range. Extreme range flights are more or less limited to Mid East operators. Also as above unless BA are going 10 deep in a 777 carcass they will not be getting Boeing seat mile costs.



BV
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 32893 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
so BA at least do NOT need the range.

True, but if they ( SQ, CX et al) see a need for about 350 seats in a premium configuration they will consider it. They will operate their A35J at about 300 seats, do they need something bigger, time will tell.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2644 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32339 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000.

But also larger, so it carries more passengers and cargo for greater revenue potential.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J.

No it won't, because the 777-9X is large enough to differentiate itself as being one step up from the A350-1000 in terms of size and capacity.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
The problem with VLA's is they only work efficiently if you can fill them up, and in this case you have to be willing to fly 10 across. Unless an airline is willing to go 10 across and commit to filling 400 seats I don't think the 777-9X works.

No argument there, but given that there are an increasing number of airlines putting 10 seats across in economy on their 777-300ERs, the market for a 10 across 777-9X is potentially quite large.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
What is BA's longest route?

Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network. Maybe he can answer your question better.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1896 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32268 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Qatar converted majority of its order for -800s to -1000s, despite constant moaning of Al Baker. Cathay Pacific ordered some and so did British Airways. Rumor has it JAL will also get some.

Keep in mind that this is 350-seater and those will never sell in quantities smaller aircraft do.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 31979 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network.

Airline CEO's say all kinds of things, do you believe everything Alan Joyce, O'Leary or Ali baker says too?



BV
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5634 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 31853 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...
Sorry, but I beg to differ. Qatar converted majority of its order for -800s to -1000s, despite constant moaning of Al Baker. Cathay Pacific ordered some and so did British Airways. Rumor has it JAL will also get some.

Keep in mind that this is 350-seater and those will never sell in quantities smaller aircraft do.

I might be misunderstanding, but I think Stitch was saying that the increased weight/thrust/etc of the A350-1000 didn't seem to hurt it's sales, and so why shouldn't the same be true/possible with the 777X.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31123 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 31314 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
Sorry, but I beg to differ.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
I might be misunderstanding, but I think Stitch was saying that the increased weight/thrust/etc of the A350-1000 didn't seem to hurt it's sales, and so why shouldn't the same be true/possible with the 777X.

Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground. So my comment was that it did not hurt sales, but instead boosted them (created A spike, so to speak).


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1896 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 30878 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground.

Thanks. I am totally unfamiliar with those American sports terms, depite living in the USA for thirteen years. I appreciate your clarification.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 30503 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 20):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground.

Thanks. I am totally unfamiliar with those American sports terms, depite living in the USA for thirteen years. I appreciate your clarification.

LOL but the way Stitch initially used the term is totally different in context from spiking a football. "spike" in everyday vernacular definitely means increase/sharp increase ... which is the way it was originally intended  

Anyway back to the discussion at hand...

And thank you to those for sharing the image of the different wbs compared - straight porn to us widebody lovers!  


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12638 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 29956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network.

Yes he did. Just before BA ordered A350-1000s and then relegated the 777X from "a perfect fir" to a far less flattering "still a possibility".   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 29760 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency

It is because of the larger wing that enables the thrust to be reduced, because the new, larger wing will generate more lift than the current wings. It is also because of that larger CFRP wing and the new GE9X engines that will enable the 777-9X to keep its fuel burn in check. It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity, thanks to a new wing and new engines.

The GE9X is a generation ahead of the GE90, and an all new wing design is a generation ahead of the current design.

A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB combo, which hasn't even flown yet! It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510; its original 100k engines, seem optimistic



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 29513 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB combo, which hasn't even flown yet! It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510; its original 100k engines, seem optimistic

 

Why does the 77X need to be a generation ahead of the A350? These planes are contemporaries; I don't expect either one to be a "generation ahead" of the other (whatever that means).



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
25 aircal62 : is the A350 fuselage all composite? I thought that the fuselage was a mix of metal alloy and composite.
26 Post contains images PW100 : Probably. But then again, maybe, before writing his memoires, he should first publish: Buying Big Twins for Dummies Oh, and for the record, before I
27 waly777 : But yet it will have a wing which is 6.2 meters longer and with a larger surface area than the A350-1000. Larger wing = even more lift and hence less
28 Post contains images PW100 : More weight = more drag = more thrust. Larger wing will only partially off set that. I can see how it needs less thrust that the 77W, but at its prop
29 morrisond : What is it runway performance going to be like? I would assume approach will be a bunch slower and rotation speed lower as well - but what about field
30 JoeCanuck : Approach and takeoff performance will depend on the high lift devices as much as clean wing area.
31 Post contains images tortugamon : Agreed. Even now it is only about 6% higher which, if it happens, would still be an impressive figure as the 77X is heavier and carries 16% more seat
32 ferpe : Re how you get a 779 or 3510 of the ground: 1. For both you need the lift from the wing to lift the weight of the aircraft + a bit extra for the climb
33 Post contains images BoeingVista : Yup, Boeing still risk being caught in the increasing MTOW wedge that caught the 787 and A35J, engine manufacturers can build you an engine of whatev
34 waly777 : This explains it much better than I can.... The reason the 77W has such high thrust engines is to compensate for it's relatively small wing for the w
35 Post contains images scbriml : On what basis would BA 'need' the 8X rather than the 9X? I don't see it myself.
36 XT6Wagon : The current GE engines on the current 200LR/300ER have the ability to use more than rated thrust for a short period if the operator is willing to sho
37 Max Q : Something's not right here. Lift is not free, with lift comes drag and a bigger wing creates a lot of extra lift and a lot of extra drag. This is unpr
38 PlanesNTrains : Sure, but in that case they both could readily seat the same - 9 abreast. Therefore, with the A350 you were paying for more width without getting mor
39 BoeingVista : Not buying it. The 787 was conceived as an 8 across aircraft, yes you can fit 9 across in it; the A350 as a 9 across aircraft in which 10 across is p
40 JoeCanuck : The difference in width between the 787 and 350 is less than the difference between the 737 and the 320, and it doesn't seem to be making a huge diff
41 PlanesNTrains : Shocking. Hmmm.... So Boeing conceived an 8 abreast aircraft - that just "happened" to fit 9 across with the common 17.2" seats. Wow, how random....
42 CXB77L : "Still a possibility" does not mean that it is in any way less of a "perfect fit" than it was when he made the statement. Just because they haven't b
43 rwessel : All else being equal, a bigger wing of used to produce the same lift will generate less induced drag (lower alpha), but more parasitic drag. A wing o
44 BoeingVista : Wasn't that Branson? But yes I take your point, marketing is mostly BS on both sides. There are, but the Airbus view of Boeing seat counts is general
45 PlanesNTrains : That's not what I said. However, I don't think they were clueless about the potential. YMMV. -Dave
46 cx828 : so can the 777-8LX has the range of LHR-SYD so that BA can buy some exclusively for this route??
47 JoeCanuck : Boeing had already learned the lesson of the 777 when they envisioned it as a very roomy 9 abreast airliner, and ever intrepid EK realised that it co
48 tortugamon : Although I do not have any inside information to base it on, I agree. What may have been a surprise was the number of airline customers that went wit
49 Post contains images KarelXWB : I agree and while the potential sales numbers for the Middle East carriers are huge, they are nowhere close to the numbers Boeing need to keep the 77
50 scbriml : Frankly, I don't ever seeing an airline operating this route non-stop.
51 airbazar : Sounds like the same exact argument EK used for the 748I. The big question is: Will Boeing take the bait this time around?
52 JoeCanuck : At least not until we can buy tickets on suborbital airliners.
53 sweair : How far is LHR-PER? I would rather bypass ME or Asia, not my favorite places in this world anymore.
54 Post contains links 817Dreamliiner : 7829nm according to GCM http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-per&MS=wls&DU=nm
55 angmoh : And it is an absolute no-go for a commercial service the next 10 years... Apart from the fact that the flight itself is not viable, PER is probably o
56 sunrisevalley : The airways distance is about 8100nm . A flight plan that SX1899 did , on the day, the westbound ESAD was about 8600nm and the sector time in excess
57 scbriml : It simply now sounds far less likely - "perfect fit" to "meh, well maybe". Actions speak louder than words. It does, simply because it's up to 36 lar
58 neutrino : Except that the A350 will fly with an empty attic as well - albeit a less voluminous one. From what I can recall which I believe is very correct, tha
59 PlanesNTrains : BoeingVista? It just seems that it'd be better to connect somewhere more central if for no other reason than it allows for one aircraft to meet the m
60 KarelXWB : That is impossible with the given engine thrust. I think he meant 55t total payload, so 40-45t passengers and 10-15t additional cargo. Or he meant th
61 tortugamon : I would let EK make the 8LX into anything that he wants but the 9X has to have a wider net. It sounds like Branson is on it. I hope it comes to happe
62 BoeingVista : Yes, exactly the same. I think that they will but that in doing so the -9X will end up with a high OEW and price which will hamstring other operators
63 PlanesNTrains : Actually, it seems that you are the one that is speaking for the inner workings of Boeing. Whatever they marketed, it doesn't mean that they never co
64 BoeingVista : Its on the record. Exactly, as in I don't see a great role for the 777X within IAG. Even though a clean sheet was never on the cards there were many
65 dynamicsguy : The 787 was configured specifically to allow for 9 abreast seating. The fuselage width was set based on this requirement. My source for this is a guy
66 PlanesNTrains : There's a big difference between that statement and your diatribe comparing the 777X to the MAX. I understand that you are vested in one scenario but
67 Post contains links Hamlet69 : Source? None of my sources at Boeing knows anything about them "screwing with the sidewalls," ever, in the program. Granted, only a few of them have
68 Post contains links dynamicsguy : To elaborate, I've gone back and refreshed my memory. The guy I'm referring to was John Roundhill who retired as VP of product development from Boein
69 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Apparently his source is "on the record". We just need the record. I'm honestly staggered that you're staggered. -Dave
70 Post contains links BoeingVista : Try putting a full stop after "Exactly" and consider yourself disassociated with my 777X statement. Just because its a statement you disagree with do
71 StressedOut : Sorry, you are wrong. The fuselage cross section is one of the most critical decisions on an airplane and I can assure you that Boeing designed the 7
72 PlanesNTrains : Oye. You made it sound like we were in agreement when clearly that wasn't the case. So, August 21, 2003, there was a presentation made that showed 9
73 tortugamon : Great comments. In addition, I believe those same 4 customers have ordered additional 77Ws since ordering the A351. I realize that many will disagree
74 dynamicsguy : Your contention is this: It may have been conceived and marketed as 8 across, and I don't disagree with that. However, the decision to allow for 9 abr
75 BoeingVista : Yes, debunked by a presentation from Boeing vice president of engineering that states it, very good. This wasn't the only time that this was stated.
76 Post contains links and images rheinwaldner : This is not just a bit. At a 5° climb out flight path about 30t of the 344t total weight appears on the axis of the drag and is fighting the thrust.
77 waly777 : That is not true, the truth is right in front of you but you refuse to see it because it doesn't match with what you're trying to say. In other words
78 KarelXWB : Nope, A330 is a 8 across with 9 option for economy.
79 XT6Wagon : A330 can do 9 in charter configuration. Thats less than a 17" seat A350 can do 10 in charter configuration. Thats less than a 17" seat I've heard its
80 Post contains images KarelXWB : This is the only picture of a 10-abreast A350 cabin Airbus ever released: And the airbus.com website says: But no numbers about seat and aisle widths,
81 PW100 : Mea Culpa. Slip of the pen . . .eh . . . keyboard. I did mean 9X off course. I do not think BA is seeing markets where they need the -8X range potent
82 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : In reply to the 10-abreast A350 cabin, I found this in the A350 technical data pdf: A typical 9-abreast A350 cabin means: - 18.1" aisles - 18" seat cu
83 PlanesNTrains : And your source showed both 8 and 9 abreast options???? Or....they get frustrated when people with an obvious agenda over dozens of posts keep saying
84 Post contains images EPA001 : Interesting thread. That the EIS has "shifted" to 2020 at the earliest comes as no surprise. Just as the engine thrust at 103k lbs is no surprise. It
85 ferpe : We are not talking about the same "bit" of climb. You are talking about the normal twin engine climb, which for all twins is a no problem as their en
86 tortugamon : Has it really shifted? I have been doing some searches and I cannot find any quote from management that says 2019. I have read 'end of the decade' a
87 waly777 : Hmm but something that hasn't been set can't be shifted? If I remember correctly, the 2019 was more of a speculation or an educated guess. It was nev
88 KarelXWB : I think 2019 comes from the media and analysts, nothing was confirmed by Boeing.
89 Post contains images EPA001 : You are both correct. That is why I put shifted between "". . Maybe I should have expressed myself a bit more clear. But at least now we have some mo
90 rheinwaldner : The fact that 17klbf would not be just "a bit" of 58klbf was my point. And IMO 17klbf is still not enough. I get 32klbf that would be needed beyond d
91 lightsaber : Needed for EK's infamous 114F (temperature) takeoff requirement. Where is the market for the 8LX with that payload at range?!? I'm confused... Who wo
92 texl1649 : Serious question; when was the last time Boeing actually hit a forecast EIS date for a major model? 737-900?
93 Post contains images sunrisevalley : No mention of the 8500nm. From Ferpes table for the -8XL he will get close to his 55t on a time table day of 16hr 20min or about 7900nm ESAD . For th
94 ferpe : The requirement is for a 2.4% climb as I wrote, that equates to a climb angle of 1.4°, sorry for the typo (if you would have calculated from the req
95 Ruscoe : Do you think the original thrust spes under 100,000lbs were simply to attract interest and possibly competition from RR (?P&W), to extract as muc
96 Stitch : Based on comments from GE in 2011, they were committed to making the GE9X as good as they could because they believe that RR and P&W could be com
97 rheinwaldner : Without the typo I do get the same figures as you (I did only work with your numbers and not look up the requirements). The effect of span on induced
98 ferpe : Induced drag is proportional to lift^2 / span^2 whch for level flight then is weight^2 / span^2 . It is the span^2 which makes modern frames seeking
99 rheinwaldner : Though in case of the 77X the span^2 will only make up the disadvantage from the weight^2 which works adversary. The weight appears also in a squared
100 ferpe : Here their drag values at mid cruise weight: FL370......................Drag due to lift............Drag indep. of lift......Total drag 350-1000 at 2
101 Post contains images KarelXWB : There was an interesting talk by Boeing today. Some keypoints by Jon on Twitter: > Boeing for the first time has confirmed the existence of the 777
102 Post contains links Atlflyer : Here is a nice summary: http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...gy/2021033087_boeingconnerxml.html On 777X, Conner said the larger -9X variant, the one
103 KarelXWB : Not. You're falling in the pitfall called "marketing".[Edited 2013-05-22 10:10:09]
104 Atlflyer : Also Connor said the 777-9x will have 40-50 seats more than the 777-300ER. Are they basing this off the original 365 seat 777-300ER or the 386 seat co
105 KarelXWB : See reply #101, it is based on a 9-abreast 77W.
106 Atlflyer : I guess the market will show us how competitive the 777-8x actually is against the A350-1000...
107 Stitch : If the 777-8X has a similar OEW (remember, it's smaller than the A350-1000) and engines as fuel-efficient at cruise as the A350-1000 (and perhaps mor
108 BlueSky1976 : For some reason, there is (incorrect) assumption on a.net that 777-8X will be inefficient aircraft. Quite opposite - it will win many RFPs with post -
109 KarelXWB : Those assumptions are based on what we've seen in the past with ULH airframes.
110 waly777 : Indeed but those have been heavy ULH frames @ the 300 seat mark, which gave them rather high cost per seat figures. With the seat numbers @ 353 (by b
111 KarelXWB : Sure, I also expect it to sell more than today's 77LR but it remains a 9400nm niche aircraft: I don't see it selling in the same numbers as of today's
112 Post contains images ferpe : The 777-9X is a bit of a no-brainer, here B plays the card they have of the only efficient 10 abreast cross section in the mid range market (the 748
113 PlanesNTrains : See: There's really so much spin in these things that it's hard to follow for this layman. I just assume they'll be great aircraft but I am not going
114 Stitch : It's 9400nm with a full load of ~350 passengers and baggage. Add in a full load of revenue cargo and it's probably going to be closer to 7500nm based
115 Aviaponcho : From a Bloomberg article So what ? 777-9X with 400-410PAX at less than 8000 Nm range ? And Boeing seems to be focused on rendering the -8 "acceptable"
116 KarelXWB : Sure, I was talking about the -8(L)X. I have no doubts about the -9X. I agree 100% with you, but all above assumptions are also based on the informat
117 Aviaponcho : 777X will be class F on runway and on part on taxiway (I can't imagine the 777 unfolding or folding wingtips on the runway, it will eat some useful sl
118 JoeCanuck : The 9x is coming for sure, but the 8x may never get made, and if it does, it will be because somebody wants it. It may also become the new 777F, sinc
119 Aviaponcho : Joecanuck Conner spoke about the -8X He might indeed need to convince customers and the board
120 JoeCanuck : Maybe I'm a cynic but I've started taking all these announcements with a grain of salt until paper is signed.
121 CXB77L : I assume he means operating costs per seat, in which case it is entirely possible. The 777-9X is projected to be a 407 seat aicraft in Boeing's stand
122 Aviaponcho : CXB77L, I was just telling that folding / unfolding will take time on the threshold / end of runway or Will need to make sure final parts of taxiway a
123 XT6Wagon : Not at all. While we don't know exactly how Boeing will do the folding mechanism, its possible that It can fold at low speeds meaning its in the proc
124 JoeCanuck : I have no problem believing that Boeing can make folding wingtips which can be extended and folded while taxiing.
125 Post contains images Heavierthanair : G´day From an engineering point of view that is no problem, you also can design them to extend and fold in flight, you can even design them to flap i
126 CXB77L : The aircraft does not need to be at a complete standstill before activating the folding wingtips. It can do so while vacating the runway without slow
127 Aviaponcho : I just said that it will imply some constraint on taxiway or aircraft taxiing For sure it will be done will taxiing but 1) You have to make sure at ai
128 tortugamon : Regarding these folding wingtips. I suspect that any airport that is A380 and B748 compliant should be ok with the proposed 77X. The 748 is 2.5 meters
129 CXB77L : That is not a big deal. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that the 777X will be used to any airport other than major hubs which are already A380/74
130 Aviaponcho : Tortugamon, of course A380 compliant airport will be fine with 777X, and even at the gate ... I think. There's also spacing problems on parallel taxiw
131 Stitch : The 777X wings look to be about 6m wider than the 777, so I'd be surprised if this was even a minor issue on taxiways at major airports. The idea that
132 tortugamon : For sure. They have had the technology before this for sure. You are probably right but I am sure Boeing is trying to make sure that the 77X does not
133 flyabr : Who knows...maybe when the wheels go down...the wingtips go up...and vice versa! That should alleviate any problems with runway/taxiway clearance at m
134 nomadd22 : I can pretty much guarantee you the wing tips aren't going to automatically go down on takeoff.
135 XT6Wagon : The main thing i could see preventing it is if they use a locking system that pins it when there is positive lift. This is so that it can't fold in f
136 JoeCanuck : Boeing has said they plan to certify the plane with one or both wingtips folded. At Taxi speed, hydraulics are more than capable of resisting what li
137 Post contains images astuteman : Especially when we've all be A-net indoctrinated that there would only ever be 21 x A380 compatible airports .... Real-life experience suggests that
138 packsonflight : Tim Clark seems to be concerned about space at his DXB hub, and I guess he is insisting that the 9X fits in to present 777 box I guess that Boeing ca
139 spink : The bigger issue for the 777x is that if it is at all close to being as successful as its parent, there simply aren't enough bigger parking spaces av
140 CXB77L : Hence the folding wingtip solution to enable the 777X to fit into the same gates as the current 777. The 71m wingspan will be reduced to 65m when fol
141 Post contains images Stitch : Per one of the books on the 777's development, the original folding wingtip was designed to work once the aircraft was on the ground and traveling be
142 Post contains images EPA001 : I would expect the same. And I do not expect this to be an issue which could cause worries to Boeing or the customers. It is technically not more cha
143 OldAeroGuy : Since it only operates on the ground, the proposed 777X tip fold is more akin to a cargo door than a flap system.
144 brons2 : 10 abreast on the A350 looks to be as inhumane as 9 abreast is on the A300/310/330/340 with 16.5" seats. I've done it, once, on a Euro holiday airline
145 Post contains links KarelXWB : So what's the deal with the MTOW increase? > Boeing ups 777-9X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 340,000kg > Boeing ups 777-8X’s MTOW to 351,534kg fr
146 Stitch : That would be the same weight as the 777-300ER, so I am guessing it's to improve payload-range even more.
147 waly777 : Ah most likely to boost the range. Though you remember what is now offered as the 8X is what was once referred to as the 8LX, which is the straight s
148 ferpe : The -9X is logical, that is needed to fulfill EKs wishes, for the -8X I think his source has said there will be an MTOW increase but not the exact nu
149 BlueSky1976 : Don't 77L and 77W have the same MTOW as well? If so, I think it means that Boeing is designing 777-8X as a straight shrink of 777-9X.
150 Post contains images Aviaponcho : Going from - "the same range as 777-300Er" quoted by boeing official next weekso 7700-7900 nm mark to - Tsang quoted 8100 nm ... and - Knowing that A
151 ferpe : Nope, 77W MTOW is 351.5t and 77L 347.5t. But the 77L has got a lot of flak because it is to inefficient in everyday utilisation (= 10-15 hours legs)
152 Aviaponcho : Can we say the 777L has got a lot of flak, because in the 300 segment you can have the A330-300 ... when you don't need range / payload, an A340-300 i
153 waly777 : Still not sure where you're getting the quote of 'the same range as the 777-300ER', the 9X has been given a range of 8100nm from the start and this i
154 Post contains links Aviaponcho : The same day, McnNerney or Conner said that the range was on par with the 777-300ER ... http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?...S972I01-3VKK35JJJH9V6N7
155 waly777 : Ah I saw that article as well, but the 9X matching the range of the 300ER doesn't mean it will have the same range. Put into context, he is highlight
156 sunrisevalley : True, but it does not make the oft quoted 8500nm that EK say they need .
157 rheinwaldner : This IMHO only corrects what has not been realistic before... It is misleading to say a 351t 778X would have an increased MTOW. Because the relevant
158 waly777 : Inded but the 8100nm range is based on a 340 ton 9X, this rumoured 351ton version would most likely be given a good range boost. It might even have s
159 JoeCanuck : It would only be a significant decrease from the present 777 program if you don't take the -9X into consideration. Those hundreds of sales of the -8X
160 astuteman : If he'd have wanted to say "beats the range of the 773ER" he'd have said so. He's marketing his new aeroplane... Rgds
161 Post contains links waly777 : Yet, a flightglobal pro article of the same interview he points out what I said in reply 153.... " As a result of this composite wing, the 777X would
162 CXB77L : I don't think even Boeing disagrees. But the 777-8X isn't the only aircraft in the family. Boeing's strategy against the A350 isn't the 777-8X alone.
163 ferpe : You have missunderstood the original 315t version of the 777-8X, the fuselage was not based on a prolonged 777-200LR or shortened 777-300ER, it was b
164 Post contains images ferpe : I think we can find a much better reason for the discrepancy between what one or the other of Boeing is saying and my payload-range chart. Consider t
165 justloveplanes : I think the key is aero is better than modeled actually. 787 was a learning experience on OEW, and they know how to model that now. So the key is if
166 Post contains images ferpe : They do a lot more then guessing but negative surprises are possible, the GEnx leap (pun intented ) to GE9X is as big as GE90-115B to GEnx-1B and the
167 Post contains images lightsaber : Just a bit of a CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion) mismatch issue. Lightsaber
168 Post contains images ferpe : And stiffness missmatch issue, ref a certain whale wing which mixed CFRP and Al in what should have been a "perfectly acceptable way" ...[Edited 2013
169 JoeCanuck : The long lead time does hint that Boeing is being more cautious about deadlines this time around, (which was, in my opinion, the number one root cause
170 Post contains links KarelXWB : Is this the Boeing's patent application for raked wingtips on the 777X? http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...D+folding&RS=AN/boeing+AND+folding
171 rheinwaldner : I think you misunderstand what is relevant for a design to meet different MTOW capabilities. The key criteria is certainly not the reinforcment here
172 Post contains links KarelXWB : From an interview with Tim Clark (EK): > EIS 2020 or 2021, 18 months later than initially promised > Emirates will likely buy both the 777-9 and
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...
New Aircraft Designs EIS <2020, Any Additions? posted Thu Oct 23 2008 15:13:36 by Keesje
AA Investigates B777 Engine Fails To Respond posted Fri Feb 29 2008 06:18:34 by Petera380
B777 Engine Suppliers posted Fri May 5 2006 13:20:37 by Boeing767-300
B777 Engine Diameter posted Wed Jan 12 2005 20:02:27 by Cathay744
Air Austral B777 Engine Fire At Johannesburg Intl posted Sun Oct 24 2004 18:29:50 by Haan
Engine Shutdown On AF B777-300ER Delivery Flight. posted Sat Jun 5 2004 09:28:55 by Ejazz
B777 Engine choice.?? posted Thu Feb 4 1999 05:27:48 by Will
77W: Severe GE-engine Problems posted Thu May 16 2013 03:44:49 by na
KLM Orders Another B777. posted Thu May 9 2013 11:30:44 by EPA001
Air China 777 Diverted To ARN Due To Engine Fault posted Thu May 9 2013 09:50:15 by JonssonF