Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777X Updated Information And Developments  
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 42124 times:

There has been some new information regarding the 777X during the Paris Air Show and I thought I would start a thread where future developments can be documented. So far I have the following:

Airframe News:
-Boeing has confirmed that the 777X will have folding wing tips
-It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787
-Other interior changes and a 'new passenger experience' above the 787 are in the works but details are fuzzy.

Ge9X Engine News:
-GE is promising a 10% reduction in fuel burn compared with the GE90-115B's and also promised a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption versus the Trent XWB 97klbf
-This article has some excellent technical details about what GE is doing with the 9X
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ushes-envelope-ge9x-new-boeing-777

777X Customers:
-EK says that the 8X will do SYD-ATH will 330 seats and a full payload
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"  Wow!
Here is a good interview: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/emira...tretch-end5dFiETve3GUw6ZJ1eEg.html
-Akbar Al Baker (QR Chief) is now saying that is not interested in the 8X only the 9X but he thinks the 9x will be 'better than they are saying'.

Feel free to add if anyone has additional news from this week.

tortugamon

256 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 42140 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787

Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30892 posts, RR: 87
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 42081 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

I assume they'll just apply the 787 window belt (as they applied the 777 window belt to the 747-8).


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 41956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

132" fan... I'm speechless. When I started in the industry, vendors didn't even have the tools to make that big of a fan!   

My only issue with the 777X is that it kills off the space occupied by the 748i.  

But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.    IMHO, these engine improvements mean that the A389 will require something more advanced than the TrentXWB. As someone in Aerospace R&D, I'm liking the pace of technology.   

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"  

   I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway. I suspect the new style windows are a maintenance benefit so why not do something to add bragging rights?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 41768 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"

   Like Lightsaber, I would really like to know what the mouth of EK actually means by this...


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41594 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Yes. It has been speculated that many passengers would not even realize that they are on a 787 if it was not for the windows. Its a differentiating item that consumers will immediately recognize.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
132" fan... I'm speechless

Completely. I like to picture in my head a big tube with a gigantic wing and two 737s fuselages hanging off each wing; and its still bigger than that! Its really unfathomable.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.

From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
But what is meant by 'popular?'

Not sure. I really cannot see them doing anything close to 50/50 on the order but that was a bombshell to me and motivated me to create the thread. EK wants to not only be the biggest global airline but wants in on FedEx game too?

Some 'new' information
At 2:09 in the following video recap there is a picture of the 777X cabin vs the A350. I was not at the briefing but it looks like from the image that they are changing floor level to maximize cabin width at armrest level. I thought that was already the case but if not that could be a difference maker. Personally I find elbow room and seat pitch to be more important than seat cushion width.
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2013/06/airshow_day_two_wrap.html

Also, Boeing keeps referencing this 4th generation CFRP wing: I understand the first generation was the early -8s, second was recent -8s, and third was the -9. If anyone can describe what these changes are from generation to generation, I think we could all benefit.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5504 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41363 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787

Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Come on.... since when have airlines recently cared about what is more appealing to the (majority of, aka: economy) passengers?  
.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway. I suspect the new style windows are a maintenance benefit so why not do something to add bragging rights?

I also suspect it to maximize the seating capacity. If you can keep that extra row and improve aisle width to improve boarding rates its a winner. What is the maximum they could possibly add to available seating/aisle width?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.

From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well .

I tried to start thread on this earlier, I think the real problem for the 389 is that by going bigger it has that much more to need to fill, while the 777 and her sister craft (like the A350 etc.) can be more easily scaled/deployed and redeployed on various routes than the 389. It will eat sales that the 388 would otherwise get and require more resources to expended further hitting the ROI of the 380. I really want to see the 389 and I know it will be excellent as the 380 already is but I think it is a real conundrum for Airbus.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30892 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning".  Wow!
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?   

The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1573 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 41157 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Bigger windows are ALWAYS justified!


User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 41053 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Also, Boeing keeps referencing this 4th generation CFRP wing: I understand the first generation was the early -8s, second was recent -8s, and third was the -9.

I would think it is a reference to out-of-autoclave production process.


User currently onlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4769 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 41038 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

correct...but whats with the SYD-FCO nonstop chatter by Mr Clark? Could EK legally fly nonstop SYD-FCO with traffic rights? Surely it cannot survive on its own accord on this route and would definitely require feeder support from Alitalia and other carriers out of FCO into Europe.


User currently offlinebobmuc From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 40915 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption versus the Trent XWB 97klbf

Does this mean, that they expecting a 5% improvement only in some "specific" missions (distance, speed, etc.) versus the Trent XWB?

Maybe GE is very careful at this early stage, but doesn't sound as a solid statement for me.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 40747 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

  

I'm not that surprised. The 777-9X might be too big for some destinations. The 777-8X offers 777-300ER capability with a considerable superior range (if needed). And it will be much more efficient.


User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 40607 times:



Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):

I screen-shotted the moment in the video you pointed out. Very interesting. It looks to me however like Boeing is thinning the 777's wall where the shoulder and armrest meet in order to tweak out some more room. Look at the bizarre shape of the blue sidewall. Very interesting stuff.



heroes get remembered but legends never die
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11267 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 40545 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"

I always stated that the -8X would be a perfect payload airframe for EK.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?

He says popular in the EK fleet, not in general  

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-Akbar Al Baker (QR Chief) is now saying that is not interested in the 8X only the 9X but he thinks the 9x will be 'better than they are saying'.

Qatar doesn't need the -8X because 1) they don't need the range (9400nm) and 2) they also don't need the payload capabilities. Baker seems to prefer the A350-1000 instead because it will offer a lower trip cost. And as an 77W operator and with traffic growth in mind, the -9X is also a no-brainer.

[Edited 2013-06-18 14:27:26]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 40416 times:

So, Air Lease actually ordered 33 B-787s, 30 -10s and 3 -9s? KE ordered 5 B-747-8Is, and 6 B-777-300ERs.

Is the order by KE for 5 more B-747-8Is in addition to the 5 they already have on order? Or are they firming up their original order for the B-747-8I? I believe this is a new order for the B-747-8I. KE already has 3 B-747-8Fs in their fleet, with 5 more still on order.

This will give KE the second largest fleet of B-747-8s with 18, when all are delivered, just one airplane behind LH who will have 19.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2230 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 40351 times:

Clark may mean popular in the EK fleet vs. other airlines but with his check book not many other airlines matter. Just like the 380, if he ends up with 150 units and 20 other airlines order 10-20 each then this thing should be paid and profitable right quick.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 40242 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
It will eat sales that the 388 would otherwise get and require more resources to expended further hitting the ROI of the 380.

Agreed on both accounts. And IMO this is why the A389 has not yet been launched. I suspect A388 orders will pick up (probably not to the level Airbus originally predicted) and eventually they will start making money on each frame and will start to look at making the stretch happen. Can't happen quick enough IMO but I suspect A will be cautious and I think it won't happen until 2025 or so. There is a possibility that the A389, while requiring more seats sold to break even on trip cost vs the 388, as a percentage of total capacity it may be lower as their should be a number of added efficiencies with the stretch.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

But how many missions do you think that applies to? LAX, SFO, IAH, SYD, MEL, EZE...I start running out of city pairs relatively quickly. Can you really see a need for more than 20 frames? I have to imagine the -9 would be the 150+ frame choice, hence my confusion with his quote.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 9):
I would think it is a reference to out-of-autoclave production process.

Ok, so does that mean they can make the wing lighter so less drag? more smooth so less drag? best mix of materials so stronger and therefore more lift (or less drag)? Or does it just mean they are getting really good at it so it will be quicker and/or cheaper to produce and this is an economics item? These are semi rhetorical as I do not think these answers are really out there in the public domain yet.

Quoting bobmuc (Reply 11):
Does this mean, that they expecting a 5% improvement only in some "specific" missions

Specific fuel consumption (SFC) is the amount of fuel an engine consumes per unit of thrust. The actual mission is irrelevant, this is a way to compare multiple engine's fuel use across a range of thrust levels to determine which engine is most efficient. It a way of comparing engines apples to apples. To that end GE's 9X is promised to beat RR's Trent XBW by 5%. We will see!

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 13):
I screen-shotted the moment in the video you pointed out

Great idea; its not the floor it is indeed the sidewall. Good catch. If you zoom in you can kinda see the lines where they are thinning the wall just at shoulder level. For some reason I thought this sidewall slimming would be throughout but this makes much more sense. And now that I think about it this could be Lightsaber's point in #3 when he talks about redoing the window belt  -I)). I can really see this having a real positive impact on 10Y seat quality  . Now how many 9Y 77W operators will agree?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
1) they don't need the range (9400nm) and 2) they also don't need the payload capabilities.

Right you are. Which is why it was surprising when just a couple weeks ago he said he wanted to be the launch customer for it  .

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
This will give KE the second largest fleet of B-747-8s with 18, when all are delivered, just one airplane behind LH who will have 19.

Good point, wrong thread.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30892 posts, RR: 87
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 40152 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
But how many missions do you think that applies to? LAX, SFO, IAH, SYD, MEL, EZE...I start running out of city pairs relatively quickly. Can you really see a need for more than 20 frames? I have to imagine the -9 would be the 150+ frame choice, hence my confusion with his quote.


High ambient temps can impact the 777-300ER's payload on shorter missions while the 777-200LR is pretty much unaffected by them. An EK Fleet Planner on pprune,org noted that when DXB is at 37°C, a 777-300ER needs to off-load 1.7 tons of cargo for the flight to JFK. They also noted that the 777-200LR can take it's full payload to IAH even when temps at DXB are 42°C. The 777-9 could be similarly affected by high ambient temps in DXB whereas the 777-8 should not.

Honestly, I could see the A380-800 and 777-8 being the backbone for EK's long-haul fleet (13-16 hour endurance) with the A350-1000 and 777-9 being the backbone for their medium-haul (8-11 hour endurance) fleet.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 40151 times:


Here is an image of 777 in production where you can see the sidewall. 2" from each side seems reasonable to me. Also, if you look at the back of the image you can see the crew rest area. Substantial room up there, hope B can find a way to stretch that space the length of the cabin and put it to use with either revenue generating ideas or saving cabin floor space.

Image from NYCAviation.

tortugamon


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 39835 times:

Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10? in the AviationWeek article?

80M Long?


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 39819 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
They also noted that the 777-200LR can take it's full payload to IAH even when temps at DXB are 42°C.

   That is insane. It is carrying a full load of passengers stuffed into a high-density configuration plus 10 or more tons of cargo... over 7000 nm... into a headwind... while taking off in 42°C conditions? I knew the 77L was a beast, but that's something else.

Even so I remain skeptical whether such capability on the very worst days is really worth the tradeoff of reduced passenger capacity the rest of the time.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 332 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 39724 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 21):
Even so I remain skeptical whether such capability on the very worst days is really worth the tradeoff of reduced passenger capacity the rest of the time.

Ah but the -8X will be offering increased capacity similar to the -300ER whilst retaining that level of performance.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 39572 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Ah but the -8X will be offering increased capacity similar to the -300ER whilst retaining that level of performance.

In the context of the -8X of course "reduced capacity" refers to a comparison with the -9X.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 39480 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
1.7 tons of cargo for the flight to JFK

Impressive stuff about the 77L. Not that surprised about the 77W on a 6knm mission heading west on a very hot day though. How much is 1.7t in lost revenue, $6k? Are we assuming that the 9x will not have at least a little bit better performance than the 77W because it would not take that many more seats sold in a 777-9x to make up for that.

The temperatures mentioned should only impact flights greater than 6knm taking off between 11am-3pm June through September and heading West right? DXB is busiest late at night and early AM I believe. You are definitely convincing me that -8x will be a bigger part of the EK fleet than I thought but I still don't think it will be bigger than the -9x. North America, South America, and Australia are important but Europe and Asia is their bread and butter and I do not see a reason for an 8x on those missions.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10?

Juicy. These guys should learn to say: "that has not yet been discussed in any meaningful way". 'No Comment' seems so guilty sounding. Not sure the market is asking for a 445 seat triple stretch 777....yet!

tortugamon


25 Post contains links tortugamon : Here is the article Morrison references. A couple highlights: >"Fancher told Aviation Week the folding arrangement will only be for the tip of the
26 JAAlbert : What about the ribs does Boeing intend on changing? A two aisle jet with 400 passengers - it seems like it will be a beast to board and deplane a jet
27 Post contains images lightsaber : Now that we can agree on. That part I got. What I'd like to know is the ratio of 8X/9X that EK is going to order.... That it is. I still remember a p
28 Post contains images PM : Like the 10-abreast in Y makes it less appealing. Well, I've made six 787 flights and, frankly, I didn't notice the windows being anything special.
29 aerokiwi : Having flown the A380 a few times now, with it's huge "interior" widow and pinprick porthole of an exterior window, give me a big Boeing window anyda
30 sweair : What would be the capacity on the 777-8F? Eating away at the 748F I guess..
31 PHX787 : I dont know if this was mentioned before so forgive me if it was, but are they building this out of composites like the 787?
32 Dan23 : The new wing is believed to be composite, yes, but not the entire airframe which remains similar to todays 777.[Edited 2013-06-19 00:40:01]
33 sweair : There was talk about Al-Li for the structure, but nothing has been said during the show as I understand. Al-Li buys you a lot of benefits as do CFRP.
34 KarelXWB : Did he mentioned both types? I believe he meant the 777X in general.
35 flyglobal : While I agree that I personally prefer big windows and the A380 windows aren't appealing for window lookers like me - we need to reflect the daily pr
36 Post contains links tortugamon : If you zoom in extra far on the image in Reply #13 you will how Boeing is manually drawing a line at arm rest level to should level and carving out i
37 Post contains links and images KGAI : full sized version couple observations: 1) we knew previously the new 777s will only have 8 exits. It now looks like exits 3L and 3R aren't doors at
38 Post contains images sweair : B seems to love putting wingbend in any image of their aircraft, even on the 748i.. I think we got it by now
39 rj777 : Looks like on the -9 they've ditched the overwing door for a 739 style window plug aft of the wing
40 Post contains images Stitch : It lowers CASM which lowers fares - and I am quite sure passengers find that appealing.
41 OldAeroGuy : Each sidewall is thinned by 2" so the cabin width is increased by 4". With an EK aisle width and 10ab, the seat cushion grows from 17" to 17.4".
42 BoeingGuy : Don't those look like 777 tails in the rendition? I'm not seeing that they appear to be changed.
43 Post contains links and images KGAI : Ya, I might be seeing things, but if you compare it to: View Large View MediumPhoto © Bastian Ding It appears the 777X tail has a more prominently c
44 morrisond : So with Scott Fancher slip up on "No Comment" on 777-10X - what could Boeing be thinking? I would think it somewhat inefficient to have three sizes -
45 7BOEING7 : On the -8, yes. On the -9 (assuming the artists rendition is correct) it looks like they've moved 2L/R and 3L/R farther aft compared to the 300ER and
46 Stitch : I am guessing these are Type III exits? Which are certified for 35 people per Sec. 25.807 — Emergency exits. That would reduce the Exit Limit of th
47 tortugamon : This aircraft was just presented to the board two months ago, I do not think anything has changed since then to think they should shake things up. Ai
48 frigatebird : Only if Airbus has second thoughts about an A350-1100 IMHO.
49 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for gathering all the information. It is very interesting to read. That is some fan! . I like that too. When the A389 is announced, (at the 20
50 flyabr : To each his own, but i'd really like to ride on an airliner and be able to look out the window without having to crane my neck into an uncomfortable
51 Post contains images mffoda : I just thought about our old a-net friend friend Keesje, when I seen your reply. He likely say, that it has 26% better SFC then the Leap-1b on the MA
52 Post contains links tortugamon : Some news came out today about two new potential customers for the 777x so I thought I would create a list. If I miss any please let me know. Just an
53 ghifty : I remember in one of the many 737 MAX threads on here, one of Boeing's upper managers blasted Airbus for having a larger fan on the A320NEO v. 737 MA
54 TP313 : > Emirates (both models) - Yes > Qatar (9x)) - Yes > Malaysian (Presumably 9x source) - Maybe > Ethiopian (See Malaysian) - Doubtful, may
55 Post contains images tortugamon : I am so happy that this is not one of those threads tortugamon
56 Post contains images lightsaber : and perhaps a little less tip loss to flow path ratio... and a little higher pressure ratio And a lower cycle life between overhauls as the engine is
57 DocLightning : Interesting. If we draw an analogy from the 789 and 78J we could say that 779 will have a range of around 8,000 nm. The 77J would probably be in the
58 Post contains images mffoda : Thanks Lightsaber, I guess humor, is a acquired taste around here...
59 Post contains images astuteman : That's what I expected them to do. moving the deck etc. is BIG engineering FWIW I think EK will slowly convert their A350-900's into -1000's to opera
60 JoeCanuck : I think the 380 will be re-engined at some point but won't get stretched. It's already the big boy on the block and I doubt making it bigger will mea
61 Post contains images astuteman : We'll see. I certainly believe Boeings line that the "sweet spot" is moving upwards, and I expect that trend to continue. FWIW Airbus agree In a deca
62 Post contains links tortugamon : I am changing my mind. If this was just a weight saving mechanism why move the door from over the wing? It would save weight where ever it is put if
63 Post contains links KarelXWB : Here is some more information in what direction Airbus is looking: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...resher-to-help-rekindle-sales.html
64 tortugamon : What should Boeing's strategy be toward the 77W as we get closer to 777X EIS and just as important the A351s EIS? The A330 strategy of offering furthe
65 Post contains images frigatebird : I’m one of them. Not as sceptical since the huge endorsement from EK (what was it, they plan to have 275 or so in their fleet? ). But I’m doubtfu
66 Stitch : I'm quite confident the 777X is off the table for UA now that they converted/ordered 35 A350-1000s for 747-400 replacement and upgauging some 777-200E
67 frigatebird : Leaving only DL as possible 777X customer in the USA. AA will stick to the 77W for the foreseeable future.
68 CX Flyboy : Why are people doubting CX as a 777X operator? I would almost bet money on us buying some -9Xs.
69 francoflier : Yup, ditto.
70 frigatebird : Well, according to Zeke one of the reasons the 787 lost to the A350 at CX last year was the narrow seating in the 787, preventing CX from an uniform
71 TP313 : Because CX seating arrangements in Y will prevent any possible 777X advantage over the 350-1000 from materializing[Edited 2013-06-20 04:46:05]
72 Stitch : Well if CX is hesitant about getting a VLA, the 777-9 would serve as a reasonable 747-400 replacement at 9Y.
73 bikerthai : Having seen what the structure of the 787 tail looks like, I would not be surprised if they change the 777 tail also. The change would be purely from
74 PHX787 : DL is almost a guarantee for this plane. The 744 fleet is small but still lucrative. Most flights to NRT are on 744s and are jam packed. CX Needs a g
75 ODwyerPW : Well he was stubborn and opinionated and we often took opposing views, but I really do miss his contributions to A.net. I'd love to see his commentar
76 Post contains images 817Dreamliiner : And according to their seat maps, they currently have 10 across on the 747s
77 Post contains images mffoda : I couldn't agree with you more! Perhaps we should start a campaign to have Keesje released from A-net jail? Let Keesje go...
78 Roseflyer : The overwing slide is rather heavy and elaborate. You save weight by putting a single aisle slide that is straight rather than a bending slide that g
79 CX Flyboy : Can someone explain the seat width in 10 Abreast vs 9 in the 350-1000 and the 777X? What would total pax loading be at the two different widths for t
80 planesntrains : Great pictures. Interesting data. Somewhat of a pot-stirrer. I would imagine that the goal is to phase those out over time so they "don't count". Any
81 Post contains links tortugamon : I considered them, then searched and searched and could not find any interview where they expressed interest. My list was of those that have made a c
82 sunrisevalley : Any of their 16hr city pairs would benefit from the -9X. The ability to up their premium cabin configuration from its ~300 seats, improve the belly c
83 cosmofly : It is not just the sidewall. The floor beam is also thinner so the cabin actually feels roomier.
84 sunrisevalley : I doubt it . They would need to have growth on LAX-LHR-LAX and they might accommodate this by serving the UK market from perhaps SFO. I would specula
85 Stitch : Seat-cushion width on the 777X will be between 17.0 and 17.4" at 10-abreast. Seat-cushion width on the A350 will be between 17.5 and 18.0" at 9-abrea
86 CX Flyboy : Thanks for the explanations. So how about cargo capacity of the 777x vs the 350-1000 over a 14-16hr sector assuming full passenger load. To be honest
87 aerokiwi : Except, Boeing has managed to pull it off. Well, not the Boeing ones. How have they managed to develop larger windows where Airbus hasn't? I'm no eng
88 Stitch : In terms of volume, I'm guessing we'll see another row of LD3s added to the 777-9 for a total of 46 compared to 44 for the 777-300ER and A350-1000. I
89 tortugamon : Me too. As I mentioned in reply #81. CX could upgrade most of their economy to economy plus at extra pitch and still add seats while improving comfor
90 frmrCapCadet : Gasp - if airlines started thinking this way I would do a lot more tourism by air. I have had such miserable experiences in Y over the last several y
91 planesntrains : Except they have, at least on the A350. Per Airbus.com: "Passengers will enjoy more headroom, wider panoramic windows and larger overhead storage spa
92 sunrisevalley : The best there is to go by is Ferpe's load/range chart that compares the two 777X versions and the A350J. 16hrs is about 7750nm and fits the HKG- JFK
93 Post contains images astuteman : Apart from you, who say's that Airbus haven't? Correct. as far as I'm aware the window are is remarkably similar. My understanding is that the A380 t
94 bikerthai : Well, the size of the window is really a trade off. It really is dependent on the frame and stringer spacing. Frame and stringer spacing are typicall
95 CX Flyboy : Thanks. Seems to me that for an airline with A350J like CX, there is still a place for the 777-9x and even some A380s.
96 CXB77L : As am I. But it would look amazing! I do not believe that will happen - hence the no comment. The 777-9X is as big as the 777 is going to get, bearin
97 tortugamon : Singapore Airlines also had 10 across until they retired their last 747 last year. They have not ordered an A351 though I suspect they will with thei
98 tortugamon : Has anyone heard about the 77W performance improvement package (pip) that has been talked about for a couple years? I have read that they have an engi
99 astuteman : The difference between 17" and 16.4" is exactly the same - look at the press that gets on here. It will matter somewhere down the line. Not everywher
100 neutrino : But not in percentage terms!
101 tortugamon : Touché. Thankfully 17.0" is minimally acceptable to the majority. How much more seat do you think it would take to get CX, SQ to go for it? Never? t
102 Post contains images astuteman : Hairsplitter If I respond to my statement, it is to say that, like the sweet spot in airframe size, it's not unreasonable to suggest there is a "swee
103 sweair : The 787 has a bit wider seats at 9 across than the 77W at 10? No One seems very miffed about 3-3-3 in the 787 here, most niose is about 3-4-3 on the 7
104 tortugamon : You're right that no decision is ever made in a vacuum. Every decision in aviation seems to be one giant decision tree full of trade offs. Is it the
105 Post contains images neutrino : It also depends on geographical region. Broadly speaking, 17.5' is just about fine for western bottoms. In our part of the world where the physiques
106 Post contains images astuteman : 0.6" could make all the difference........... Rgds
107 Post contains images CXB77L : Yes, definitely. Particularly given the fact that a lot of people seem not to take note of 9 across on a 787, or the fact that it is the standard sea
108 Post contains images sunrisevalley : Not replying to Astuteman in particular but to the participants to this thread as a group. On the whole matter of seat width it seems to me that the
109 frmrCapCadet : Humor alert! Western bottoms - Broadly speaking. Is that a ethnic comment, even if broadly true?
110 zeke : I agree, I even see airlines operating the A330, 787, A350, and 777X together if they have a large enough network. Each airframe has a sweet spot whe
111 tortugamon : But what is interesting is that its the Asian international airlines that have the widest seats versus other continents. Well we have a good idea bec
112 Post contains images Stitch : I don't believe anyone has. I believe it was Wired magazine that first reported DL would roll it out around 2010, but clearly they never did.
113 AngMoh : Comparing the 777x with the 747 is silly. A 777x will replace a 77W and will be judged in comparison. CX put 10 across on the 747 because at that tim
114 tortugamon : For the last 15 years it did not matter. Going forward, I think it will. Before now if an airline wanted a nominal 350 seat aircraft they bought a 77
115 Post contains links tortugamon : Does anyone have a perspective on when reporters spoke with Tim Clark about the 777X why would he mention that the 777-8X flying from Sydney to Rome?
116 CX Flyboy : You say disaster and whilst true that there was criticism from those who cared, the truth is that load factors did not really suffer so I think 'disa
117 CXB77L : On the contrary, it's been reported that the idea behind widening the fuselage was that the 777X can fit the same seat widths at 10 across as on a 74
118 aerokiwi : Hey just calling it as I sees it. The A380 windows were a real surprise - they're tiny! And while the A320 windows are better positioned for me (high
119 Post contains links tortugamon : Swiss is leaning toward putting 10-abreast in economy on their incoming 77Ws. From the Apex article: "As for configuring its -300ERs in nine or 10 abr
120 seabosdca : What? The 777-9X is sized to be a drop-in 747-400 replacement. You can't find two more directly comparable products.
121 BoeingVista : Which is maybe a bit silly as 747-400's have mostly been replaced by the smaller 777-300ER, there will be relatively few 747-400's flying in 2021 to
122 ricknroll : The widest and the narrowest.
123 zeke : We have had some details emerge as to what Boeing would like to do. Has anyone heard if the FAA/EASA will accept this as a 777 derivative, or will the
124 tortugamon : Boeing has been really talking up the common flight certificate and cockpit with the 787. I do not see why the FAA/EASA would not let them operate un
125 zeke : The cockpit is the least of the worries, I was thinking more along the lines of new systems and the new wing. Boeing was constrained on the 747-8 by
126 frigatebird : The 777X will be as close to a new cleansheet design as you can get. Seems that only the fuselage will be kept, pretty sure the landing gear will be
127 Stitch : I'm sure the wing will require a Limit and Ultimate Load test since it will be new materials. From what I have read, Boeing certified the existing 777
128 Post contains links and images zeke : Not sure about the ULT, they did build a demo
129 bikerthai : What are the criteria for being considered as a derivative? Are you looking purely from a commonality of flight characteristics? Size and functionali
130 tortugamon : Some new information came out today from Aspire Aviation. A couple of the highlights: > EIS postponed to 2nd quarter 2020 > internal widening ca
131 aviaponcho : I think postponed eis a been "introduced" at PAS2013 I don't buy the door story
132 OldAeroGuy : What don't you buy about the door story?
133 bikerthai : This answered alot! Thanks, There's many way to maintaining frame section moment of inertia when reducing frame height. Interesting design question o
134 aviaponcho : Because 4 exits limits the seating capacity at 440 PAX, so you need a fifth one... High density 2 class 777-9 will go near 500 PAX i think. Just have
135 DFWHeavy : A Couple of things: 1. 8,000 NM of range is a loooong way and reaches 99% of all city pairs that will logically be flown (Exception: SYD-LHR, DFW-PER,
136 KarelXWB : 1. Correct 2. The A350-1000 range is set at 8400nm
137 seabosdca : Not likely. The folding portion of the wingtip will be a tiny percentage of the total wing area. Having one wingtip folded will bring an efficiency p
138 TP313 : For a 3-class 350 passenger configuration. But from my estimation if we consider the same seating density that Airbus gives for the 359, the 35J shou
139 KarelXWB : Yes but the same logic applies to all other aircraft too. I believe we were talking about the default range given by the manufacturer.[Edited 2013-07
140 PW100 : Not quite. After taking into consideration the prevailing winds, you will find year round reliable operation is limited to around 7000 nm for most ro
141 KarelXWB : You are right of course, I forgot to add those numbers. But even 7000nm should cover a lot of routes.
142 OldAeroGuy : The frame sculpting is probably a bigger inhibition to fatigue cycling. Both statements may be true. You need a 5th exit (but not a full door) for ex
143 astuteman : 8 000Nm is a long way, but the 777X has about as much chance of hitting its spec range as the A350-1000 does in a real life service environment - tha
144 sunrisevalley : This is not a pick on someone post rather a question on why a certain criteria , in this case nm of range is used. Why isn't this value expressed as
145 ferpe : This is most likely because people has problems to convert hours to distance, they have no clue about the relationship between M numbers and distance
146 aviaponcho : Hello Ferpe, did you run your model with this OEW ? Can it be that A350-1000 will have the same Payload than 777-9 @8000 Nm (400 Nm is somewhere betwe
147 Stitch : Shouldn't a CFRP wing weigh less than an Al one? Otherwise why choose that material?
148 justloveplanes : Any discussions or comments yet on whether this 777X AL fuselage will have the cabin altitude and humidity characteristics of a 787?
149 Post contains links and images ferpe : Yes, I have entered an OEW which would fit with the 8100nm given by Aspire and the latest changes to the GE-9X, here how the models stack up with the
150 ferpe : Yes, as I say you gain about 10% in weight for a same size wing with the same stress level. But you do not have a same size wing and not the same str
151 JoeCanuck : To me, one of the biggest advantages to CFRP for a wing is that complex curves and 3 dimensional shapes are much easier to implement. They could also
152 ferpe : I think you are right on the money, until one has figured out smarter electrical return networks, shielding techniques and knows more about damage to
153 aviaponcho : Ferpe, thanks On your payload range curves the slope of the first part of the curve is steeper for the 777-9 than for the A350-1000 (worst fuel block
154 bikerthai : Through my experience from the most simple to the more complex, we get about 20% weight reduction for the same size and strength going from Al to com
155 Post contains links and images tortugamon : Flight Global has some additional information on the GE9X today: > the high pressure compressor rig will be tested this summer >GE has designed
156 Post contains links rotating14 : Has any one heard of Boeing offering a lighter version of the 777-8x to compete closer with the Airbus comparable? http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/
157 tortugamon : Hopefully it is not just a paper derated version a la the A350-900 lite. tortugamon
158 rotating14 : Yes hopefully not. At least Boeing is now recognizing that the 8x, as it is, does not offer a compelling argument to the A350-1000.
159 tortugamon : Other than payload at range, I agree. tortugamon
160 dfambro : How exactly does one subtract a meaningful amount of weight? I would think that the big gains would be in items that are not simple to change. Please
161 seabosdca : It's a difficult question and the right one to ask. So far, no one has actually succeeded in making a meaningfully lighter "lite" variant of any pass
162 Post contains links rotating14 : I also am not an engineer but I'm guessing that they will find areas were they can modify to eliminate weight, replace parts with lighter raw materia
163 KarelXWB : I'm pretty convinced it will be a derated version. People here think a derated version is a bad move, but it's not. In fact, such a model will save t
164 tortugamon : Other than fleet commonality, what advantage would a derated version of the 777-8x have over the 351? tortugamon
165 ferpe : It would have the same problem as the 358, the wing and engines are way oversized this heavy and draggy, the fuel efficiency would suffer. It's advan
166 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : A de-rated aircraft gives you: > Less landing fees because the MTOW is lower > Less noise, some airport require less noise for night landings &
167 tortugamon : Forgot maintenance. I suspect there will not be many who will pay more in fuel burn for slightly better maintenance and commonality. Thanks Karel, bu
168 KarelXWB : Oops sorry tortugamon, I guess I misunderstood your question.
169 anrec80 : What makes the plane the most appealing to passengers is price of economy ticket. For that, even 3-4-3 77W is perfectly appealing to most.
170 Post contains images tortugamon : No problem at all, enjoyed the run down and the link. tortugamon
171 SSTeve : Maybe landing gear, wingtip extensions, and engines?
172 packsonflight : I think that it it is impossible to reduce weight in any meaningful way. if the wing box wing spar, landing gear and fuse is not to be touched. If th
173 JoeCanuck : Another advantage to derating is that you actually have a much more powerful than needed engine on the wing...which can come in handy in high/hot/sho
174 trex8 : Don't you need a specific software plug etc to get the higher thrust?? Is there an "over ride" in the cockpit to get back to the higher thrust rating
175 ferpe : Just wanted to post that the Payload-Range chart I posted in 149 is does not 100% reflect the latest weight changes as per Aspires article. I reacted
176 ferpe : Thanks, I have consistently seen this as well in all the studies that are done of going from Al to CFRP. Now can you explain why we do not see these
177 Post contains links aviaponcho : Reuters announces the 777-9 as being 12 t heavier than 777-300ER, so that's 180 t OEW for now http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...ng-minijumbo-idUK
178 rheinwaldner : The difference probably is not related mostly to the material. The 788 is "much more aircraft" in different areas, e.g. the cross section. I think th
179 JoeCanuck : I was under the impression that on some engines, the derate is based on power settings and that under normal situations, power is kept to a lower tha
180 trex8 : AFAIK Its certainly possible for an airline as SOP to have TO thrust etc limited where the max thrust is always available by advancing the throttle f
181 Post contains images astuteman : There could be a number of reasons IMO. Firstly, the need to put a metallic mesh in to provide an ESD return path. Secondly, the next gen aircraft al
182 Post contains links tortugamon : While I agree with your disappointment and assessment in general, the 788 (118t)is a tad bit lighter than the A332 (119.6t). While that is not much d
183 nomadd22 : Boeing has already said that composites wouldn't be much of an advantage for the 737 replacement because required impact resistance keeps them from b
184 Post contains images astuteman : The 787-8 is frighteningly similar to the A330-200 in dimensions - visually they could almost be the same plane if not for the much bigger engines, 5
185 tortugamon : Haha, very true. I was surprised. Certainly the wings on the 787 are longer if you take into account the 32.2 degree vs 30 degree sweep back angle re
186 frmrcapcadet : The situation in wood house building may provide an analogy. If you size beams, joists, rafters according to strength standards alone they will lack
187 aviaponcho : Tortugamon... 787-8 is similar in weight as A330-200 (a little bit lighter, but smaller also). And It hasn't got a big range lead when comparing with
188 rotating14 : If I may interject. Isn't the comparison of the 777-9x to the A350-1000 pointless since the 9x will be in a completely different class ofaaircraft?
189 Post contains images tortugamon : Yes, yes it does. Boeing is going to add 12t to the aircraft but reduce the thrust from 115klbf to 102klbf? They are going to lift 27t or 11% more ai
190 aviaponcho : It is bigger for sure. It will be a nice aircraft I was only speaking of weight But 407/350 = 1.17 -> 17% more pax And 162/132 = 1.23 -> 23% mor
191 tortugamon : This will be the true test for sure. Very true. The 777 was evidently overbuilt though so hopefully with this do-over they can really carve out the e
192 Stitch : In terms of cabin floor space, they're pretty much identical (257m2 vs. 259m2). The A330-300's cabin is two meters longer, but the 787-9 can take an
193 ricknroll : The A330 can do the same seats per row. If you are a bargain hunter after a cheaper plane, you are also likely to be keen to do the high density cabin
194 justloveplanes : There are a few things I recall here. 1) Boeing I believe said the decision to go with CFRP was principally for reasons other than weight. Maintenanc
195 Post contains links KarelXWB : But the wing will be bigger and thus will generate more lift. Extra weight is unavoidable because the airplane (9X) will be larger than the A35J anyw
196 bikerthai : I would concur that the 787 in general was over built as the tendency for incorporating new structure technology is to overbuilt everything to avoid
197 Post contains images PW100 : Why would you want more lift, when the weight is supposedly going down . . .? Lift requirements should follow weight requirements. PW100 PS. Yes, I d
198 nomadd22 : So you can use lower thrust engines.
199 KarelXWB : I'm not sure if I follow you here. The weight will go up, not down, the airframe will be 12t heavier than the current 77W. > 12t heavier > bigg
200 Post contains links and images ferpe : Guys, it is not that simple, here is an excellent chart from the Roskam book (it is really good): Study it carefully because it says a lot: - at star
201 PW100 : Absolutely, basic performance engineering 101, that's why I put a PS down there . . . Off course I was referring to MTOW, not OEW. OEW is of limited
202 KarelXWB : MTOW will be the same, 351t.
203 Post contains images PW100 : So, not more lift requirement then, apparently . . . . . . as opposed to: So allow me to explain my PS: Off course what you probably meant to say is
204 Post contains images KarelXWB : Lift, wing load, for some reason I always mix those 2 up But yes, that's what I had in mind but not could find the words for. Thanks for explaining. A
205 ferpe : The factor that determines the TO thrust of the engines is not the normal take off as you say but the one engine inoperative situation (OEI). With on
206 Post contains images ferpe : There is a fault in the table above, I spotted it since the parasitic drag is the same for the -1000 and -9X, cant be when they would have the same ty
207 sweair : Did Al-Li get mentioned? ALCOA is marketing a 7% gain in weight efficiency over plain Al? Along with the benefit of better corrosion resistance? IF an
208 astuteman : I was about to ask how the 777X has less parasitic drag when it's bigger AND the V2 ref is higher. But you answered the question in post 206. How doe
209 CXB77L : I don't believe it has been confirmed by Boeing. Al-Li remains a speculation, but I have no doubt that Boeing are considering all the possibilities.
210 Post contains images ferpe : This fault does not, as I add the drag for start and landing slats and flaps (+ elevator compensation of the pitch down moment that the flaps cause)
211 ferpe : Just a tidbit, the fact that the safe climb out speed is higher lowers the induced drag but increases the parasitic drag, this is also what you can s
212 nomadd22 : The new Al-Li alloys have had brittleness issues that have kept them from working out for other applications.
213 astuteman : Witness the A380 wing rib feet cracking issues..... Like CFRP, Al-Li isn't a universal cure, but one that needs to be applied in the right way to the
214 tortugamon : To be fair, I believe the majority of 77Ws are still in 9 abreast. It was not until last year that most of the deliveries in the year were 10 abreast
215 mjoelnir : I am not quoting that post, but really the whole set of assumptions regarding the needed power for the 777-X and your model. Would one not need to ca
216 WesternDC6B : And this means the ribs stick out that much further in relation to the cabin wall, jamming us big shouldered folks in even tighter. Warning: old-man
217 Post contains images KarelXWB : I would love to see fuel burn numbers on 6000nm, 7000nm and 8000nm missions for the -8X. Not sure if that is possible.
218 Post contains images PW100 : I think that was exactly what I wrote, at least that was my intention . . . Thank you very much for hearing my request and putting your numbers here.
219 KarelXWB : Well sure, that's why I put things in perspective and said "between 20 and 25%" instead of 25%. After having the 787 one year in service, I believe A
220 bmacleod : Not seeing any significant changes regarding composite or advanced materials compared to 777W, but I may be wrong....[Edited 2013-07-06 11:33:57]
221 Post contains links and images ferpe : Absolutely not , that is why I publish it, to discuss them. I don't iterate the numbers, I calculate them with the same method as the OEMs uses for f
222 OldAeroGuy : When you say "ribs", I believe you mean frames which is the term used for fuselage forming members. Thinning the sidewall is dependent on thinning th
223 ferpe : Just to make it clear, this is in no small part from the V2 being higher for the -9X, the thrust after lapse can not balance the total drag of the fr
224 Post contains links and images ferpe : Here now a corrected chart. In the end I decided to keep the numbers on the chart the fuel burn when you fly your spec mission, it shows how much it
225 spink : That's all pretty remarkably close. It would be interesting to know what you think the margin for error is...
226 Max Q : Something is wrong here, Boeing has never produced a derivative that provides more performance with higher weight and less power. Just not buying it !
227 ferpe : As I said before the absolute margin for error is some 2-3%, the error between these frames is very much dependent on their final OEWs, I have the -1
228 KarelXWB : Excellent. The A35J and -9X are extremely close, that will be fun to watch. The -8X speaks for itself, one will only buy it for the long > 8000nm
229 Post contains images cerecl : I am in my crystal ball mood today If the estimate was accurate I predict A350-1000 and 777-9X will evenly share the 77W replacement market in the ne
230 bikerthai : Interesting design consideration. Are they going to the electronic dimmer window? One reason to go the the electronic dimmer window is to eliminate t
231 OldAeroGuy : Ferpe, what payloads are associated with the fuel burns? At 7000nm, the -8X carries 15t more payload than the A351. That might make the 1.7 percent hi
232 rj777 : I'm going out on a limb here, and saying that if the Asiana crash had some sort of systems failure then will that affect the desing of the 777X?
233 Stitch : If any ADs are issued for the 777, they will be incorporated into the 777X.
234 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : His charts are at max payload. If you ask him nicely, he might add the max passenger payload You would then have something like this:
235 OldAeroGuy : If his charts are at Max Payload, then my comment holds. At 7000nm range, the -8X has 15t more payload capability than the A3510. If this additional r
236 Post contains links roseflyer : rj777, If there are any ADs issued related to airplane design, they will likely be incorporated first on 777 new build production airplanes well befo
237 Post contains images ferpe : Thanks bikerthai, yes I am to general with my 10% statement, when one add up all the things you noted here it is not such a bad metafor however. I du
238 KarelXWB : Do doubt it will be a good cargo hauler, but there are not many airlines out there who needs those payload capabilities.
239 sunrisevalley : given that the norm for passenger aircraft belly cargo is about 160kg M3 most are volume limited. One TATL carrier that I know of maxes out at 24t in
240 Revelation : Interesting, given John Leary's comment that folding wingtips are silly and will never be put into service...
241 aviaponcho : Those folding wingtips ! I've read somewhere that Boeing will certificate the 777-9X on take off with one wingtip folded If it includes the worst case
242 PW100 : First off all, the main benefit (if I understand correctly) comes from the increased V2 speed (180 vs 165 kts). Furthermore, some (most??) customers
243 bikerthai : Easy in terms of design/layout stand point. Not so easy if you consider the man-hours required for design, analysis, wind-tunnel testing, certificati
244 seabosdca : Why? It's still a very small part of the wing area. There will still be plenty of lift. You are overthinking this issue. The aircraft will have no tr
245 justloveplanes : Wonder if A will respond with an A3510/1 HGW with folding wingtips..... What is good for the goose.........
246 Stitch : 737NGs do not seem to have problems talking off with two upright winglets and we have pictures in the database of 747-400s successfully taking off wi
247 Revelation : Officially speaking, Boeing hasn't said if it will have folding wingtips or not, or if they will be optional or not. I personally suspect that they w
248 rotating14 : Do you have a source of where you read this?? Part of your statement doesn't make sense. How and why would Boeing certify a derivative with (1) wing
249 Post contains links Stitch : Based on what I have read in various books about the 777, the original 6.5m folding wingtips were designed to be retrofitted to planes after producti
250 ferpe : The drags for a -1000 are 16klbf parasitic and 38klbf induced. The reason the -9X would be similar is because the wings are the same wetted area, the
251 Post contains links and images Revelation : As astuteman said in another thread, bring it on! Go ahead and do the A380 as well! http://theplaneblog.wordpress.com/20.../26/putting-the-x-in-tripl
252 PW100 : Well, since we were discussing thrust requirements at MTOW, acceptable runway length, possibly throw in ISA + 20C and perhaps a couple of thousand fe
253 astuteman : I think the A380 has shown us the way here to a degree, as slowly, but surely, more airports accommodate it. The trend for larger wingspans in the pu
254 rheinwaldner : I second the thoughts of PW100. If the 77X will accomplish to reach a higher V2 with much more mass and about equal thrust either the A351 is seriousl
255 Post contains images ferpe : I have not been telling "the whole truth..." , the parasitic drag is made up of: - skin friction drag, varies not quite with the square of the speed
256 Post contains links jetblueguy22 : Part 2 has been created and can be found here 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 2 (by jetblueguy22 Jul 9 2013 in Civil Aviation) Regards,
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...
Information And Particulars About Aviation Trade Fairs Please? posted Fri Nov 26 2010 07:52:29 by KShafiq7
Fleet Information And Website posted Mon Aug 1 2005 20:28:32 by Iflewrepublic
Airlines With PTVs – Updated List And Questions posted Sun Feb 15 2004 10:37:58 by Udo
Could AF Cancel Their A350s And Order 787-10/777X? posted Sun May 5 2013 02:30:06 by LY777
Order 275 Pieces (777X) And You Bend The Spec posted Wed Apr 17 2013 10:26:42 by ferpe
Boeing And QR Talk About 777X posted Wed Apr 3 2013 21:17:40 by kaitak
DL Launches New Ipad App And Updated Phone App posted Fri Jan 11 2013 06:37:16 by burnsie28
So If Boeing Was To Pass On 777x And Build Y3.... posted Fri Sep 28 2012 06:22:09 by morrisond
Ethiopian Developments: Add'l 5x787 And A330 posted Sun Dec 18 2011 02:47:35 by ETinCaribe
Airbus And Boeing Backlog Information posted Tue Jan 11 2011 03:12:55 by panais