Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 6  
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 25
Posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 31589 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Dear members,

Please note that this thread was started in order to discuss the technical-and or possible operational details of the 777X. If you would like to discuss Unions issues, kindly feel free to do so in the dedicated Boeing / Union thread which can be found here:

Boeing And Their Unions - The Future? (by SA7700 Nov 11 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Part 5 can be found here:

777X Updated Information And Developments Part 5 (by iowaman Nov 7 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Please stay on topic.


Thanks and regards,

SA7700


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
247 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 30818 times:

Mitsubishi makes proposal to build 777X wings in Japan:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...n-mitsubishi-idUSL5N0IX3XN20131112



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflyinggoat From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 30779 times:

From the article:

"According to the person with knowledge of the plan, Mitsubishi has proposed building a fleet of five 'Roll On-Roll Off' cargo ships capable of transporting sections of the 777X wing, which would be the longest Boeing has ever commissioned."

Building 5 Ro-Ro ships specifically to transport 777x wings sounds pretty impressive! Quite the investment by MHI too. I'd be curious to see what these ships look like.

Perhaps future 787 wings will be transported by ship as well.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2352 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 30530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyinggoat (Reply 2):
Building 5 Ro-Ro ships specifically to transport 777x wings sounds pretty impressive! Quite the investment by MHI too. I'd be curious to see what these ships look like.

It would certainly be a far smaller investment than Boeing made in 747LCFs. You can buy a 100,000t container ship for $150m, which would be massively too large. While a RoRo will be different than a container ship, and have some additional costs*, for carrying a few bulky, but essentially weightless, 777 wings, you'd probably end up with a ship well under 25,000t


*Obviously needing the hatches on the end and the big unobstructed deck, OTOH you won't need any deck cranes, etc.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 30412 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rwessel (Reply 3):
It would certainly be a far smaller investment than Boeing made in 747LCFs. You can buy a 100,000t container ship for $150m, which would be massively too large. While a RoRo will be different than a container ship, and have some additional costs*, for carrying a few bulky, but essentially weightless, 777 wings, you'd probably end up with a ship well under 25,000t

Indeed. It is quite an effective solution - reminiscent of the (much maligned) shipping method created for the A380. I would guess the 777X vessels would be broadly similar

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 30406 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
reminiscent of the (much maligned) shipping method created for the A380

Is the roll-on roll-off barge that is much-maligned? or the elaborate convoy itself? I thought the Ville de Bourdeaux, etc were something like $30 Million a piece for the three. That sounds like a deal to me.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 6, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 29592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Is the roll-on roll-off barge that is much-maligned? or the elaborate convoy itself? I thought the Ville de Bourdeaux, etc were something like $30 Million a piece for the three. That sounds like a deal to me.

As you say, the specialist Ro-Ro ships are relatively cheap to buy and run, compared to a specialist heavy airlifter.
Mind you, it's a bit further from Japan to Seattle than it is from Ellesmere Port to Bordeaux  

(That, and I'm expecting there to be a lot more of these wings than there are A380 wings ...)

Rgds


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 29502 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):

Since we are only considering the wings, they can be laid flat while at sea and can be rotated upright for the short rail trip, you really don't need to mod a RoRo that much. There are many RoRo that can handle large truck that won't require that much modification to fit a container that can handle the wing.

They do ship enough cars across the ocean from Japan to the US to know what they are talking about.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 29308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
They do ship enough cars across the ocean from Japan to the US to know what they are talking about

You're not likely to find me arguing against sea transport my friend  

Airliner fan or no

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 29310 times:

All indications are that the vote is going end up lopsidedly 'No'.

I have a hard time picturing the work being done in CA. SC makes the most sense to me if they don't build it in WA. TX could also work. That state is very supportive of companies wishing to relocate and the weather is much more conducive to consistent flights.

Obviously this is WA's to lose. This is not a good sign though. Though I suspect this was Boeing's first attempt. Once they see other options, the context for the next attempt will be set.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 29295 times:

Reuters has tweeted the following:

#Airbus is expected to plaster #DXB13 with posters and invite delegates to sit in 17" seats to try to sour #Boeing's 10-abreast 777X launch

http://twitter.com/ReutersAero/status/400688893650935808

Not sure if this will be very popular. My guess is that they won't go with 17.2/17.4" seats. Although the more I read about the scalloping of the wall the more I think that the added room will come above arm rest height and closer to shoulder height. Personally, that is more important to me than a seat cushion but maybe 17.0" is indeed not going anywhere. We will have to stay tuned.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
As you say, the specialist Ro-Ro ships are relatively cheap to buy and run, compared to a specialist heavy airlifter.

Right, and I suspect the 787 wings will be transitioned to these barges to once their is enough slack in the supply chain.

But you mentioned that these ro-ro's are 'much maligned' for the A380. Can you give me some background? Why was that approach not a popular one?


tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 29250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
All indications are that the vote is going end up lopsidedly 'No'.

The moderators have asked all union talk be done at Boeing And Their Unions - The Future? (by SA7700 Nov 11 2013 in Civil Aviation) and not this thread.



Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10):
Not sure if this will be very popular.

The people making the decision to buy a 777X or an A350 - airline management - generally don't fly Economy, especially on an intercontinental flight.  


In other news, The Seattle Times reports that “two sources close to Boeing” state that if Boeing chooses to not build the 777X in Washington, the current favorites are Long Beach, Salt Lake City or Huntsville.

Long Beach has the advantage of the C-17 FAL (so facilities already in place) and a skilled workforce. The disadvantages are Boeing believes CA is even less business friendly than WA, especially in terms of environmental and permitting regulations.

Utah is a non-union state and offered incentives to Boeing to place the 787-9 horizontal stabilizer assembly plant in SLC so they would very likely offer new incentives to land the 777X. Disadvantages is that structural assemblies and components would need to be delivered via rail from a West Coast seaport or direct via air.

Huntsville has an aerospace skilled workforce, but not necessarily an airplane skilled workforce. And like SLC, it's land-locked so it would require rail or air transport.

[Edited 2013-11-13 12:28:36]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 29143 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
In other news, The Seattle Times reports that “two sources close to Boeing” state that if Boeing chooses to not build the 777X in Washington, the current favorites are Long Beach, Salt Lake City or Huntsville.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The disadvantages are Boeing believes CA is even less business friendly than WA, especially in terms of environmental and permitting regulations.

Any idea why CHS is missing in their list of favorite locations?

[Edited 2013-11-13 13:01:42]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4986 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 29123 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8):
You're not likely to find me arguing against sea transport my friend

Especially if it can be accomplished below the waves  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 29101 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12):
Any idea why CHS is missing in their list of favorite locations?

No, though these locations may be in addition to CHS.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 29068 times:

Quoting flyinggoat (Reply 2):
Building 5 Ro-Ro ships specifically to transport 777x wings sounds pretty impressive! Quite the investment by MHI too. I'd be curious to see what these ships look like.

IMO Mitsubishi's proposal to Boeing is very generous, seems like they're laying all their cards on the table in the hope securing the wing work.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 29067 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Huntsville has an aerospace skilled workforce, but not necessarily an airplane skilled workforce. And like SLC, it's land-locked so it would require rail or air transport.

How did they get the Saturn 5 to Canaveral? Can they get a barge to the Mississippi?

One scenario if the contract is voted down is to have final assy still be in Everett but all the major components be fabbed elsewhere. You will still draw down a lot of work force in the Everett but have lots of major work elsewhere. Unlike the 787 though, the off-loaded work will be within the company at a non-Puget Sound site.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10):
But you mentioned that these ro-ro's are 'much maligned' for the A380. Can you give me some background? Why was that approach not a popular one?

In truth it was probably the whole logistics system, not just the ships. When the reality is that despite the complications these transportation systems (like that suggested for the 777X wings) are a very small proportion of the overall product cost.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 13):
Especially if it can be accomplished below the waves

Ro-Fo - roll-on, fire-off  

(in retrospect, that sounds like a good evening in, doesn't it?   )

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28963 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 16):
One scenario if the contract is voted down is to have final assy still be in Everett but all the major components be fabbed elsewhere.

Well much of the current 777 is fabricated elsewhere, currently, already. So if Boeing builds the 777X wings somewhere else and ships them to PAE, the guys who build up the current 777 wings at PAE would be gone, but most everyone else would be okay.

That being said, Boeing is working on significantly automating the assembly of 777X fuselage sections (the "Anacortes Project") and while Boeing have said they're not interested in off-shoring this tooling, back in 2003 Boeing and Mitsubishi did consider having the Japanese assemble the 777 fuselages and "pre-stuff" them as is done now with the 787. If Mitsubishi is willing to build a RO-RO to ship 777X wings, they're probably willing to do so to ship 777X fuselages, as well...


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 28896 times:

Mitsubishi are big in the ship-building sector, so throwing together a few specialist ro-ros will be easy as pie. However, am I alone in wondering about the timing of their offer? On the eve of the union vote? Interesting.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28663 times:

Quite fascinating times we live in. I guess we will know whether or not Everett grasped its future or let it slip through its fingers tomorrow morning. Keeping the FAL line in Everett stays with tradition.....moving the line elsewhere though would be a bold change and something quite interesting to watch. Imagine a Boeing with a production line in Southern California! One has to wonder if the hippies would understand the mega $$$$$ and lessen their restrictions.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 28476 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Huntsville has an aerospace skilled workforce, but not necessarily an airplane skilled workforce. And like SLC, it's land-locked so it would require rail or air transport.

Actually, it's not. The Tennessee River is adjacent to Huntsville.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 16):
How did they get the Saturn 5 to Canaveral? Can they get a barge to the Mississippi?

These days, the Tombigbee Waterway connects the Tennessee River to the Gulf of Mexico at Mobile.

http://tenntom.org/

You don't have to use the circuitous barge route the initial S-1C's used to get the Gulf.

(Tennessee River - Ohio River - Mississippi River)



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28302 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
In other news, The Seattle Times reports that “two sources close to Boeing” state that if Boeing chooses to not build the 777X in Washington, the current favorites are Long Beach, Salt Lake City or Huntsville.

Any idea why St. Louis isn't on the list?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28249 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 22):
Any idea why St. Louis isn't on the list?

Might be the same "issue" with Huntsville - they're military aerospace folks, not commercial.

[Edited 2013-11-14 00:11:11]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28060 times:

Aviationweek.com has a nice overview about the recent 777X developments. It doesn't contain any new information but it's still good to read.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_11_14_2013_p0-636700.xml

Perhaps they should join Airbus in Alabama   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
25 EPA001 : I like Huntsville. Some good friends are living there quite nicely. But does The Tennessee River give Huntsville an access over water to the sea?
26 SEPilot : Not a chance. And Boeing execs must be smoking something illegal to even think of locating any new project in California.
27 C680 : Look for Boeing to quietly acquire more land in Charleston, SC - that will be the best indication of Boeing's intent.
28 OldAeroGuy : Did you open the Tombigbee link provided in my Reply?
29 Post contains images EPA001 : No I did not. Sorry, I thought that was related to the Saturn V question. My apologies, it is all clear to me now.
30 bikerthai : Engineers and Machinists are interchangeable. Skilled machinists gets temporarily transferred between Military and Commercial projects as manpower is
31 nomadd22 : Uh.....No.
32 USAF336TFS : I agree. My guess is that they will build the wings in S.C., not Japan. Too expensive, a logistical challenge as well as Intellectual Property issues
33 N328KF : I could be wrong, but I believe BCA has already acquired the necessary land. The engine nacelle parts facility that they just broke ground on is actu
34 N328KF : Bikerthai obviously meant they are mobile between divisions, not between the two labor categories.
35 bikerthai : Correct me if I'm wrong, but with all the subcontract issue with the 787, the only major issue with Japan was the battery issue. I have not heard of
36 Post contains links tortugamon : I had not realized that. Boeing may have to navigate the Panama Canal if they chose to make the wings in Japan. Definitely not the shortest of lead t
37 KarelXWB : I don't think the 777X work would interfere the 787 ramp-up in CHS (and vice versa).
38 Stitch : There were some strength issues with the keel beams for the main landing gear well, but that was handled with titanium supports on existing frames an
39 Post contains images bikerthai : This would have been an Engineering Design issue. It could have been either an initial sizing miscalculation or a detailed design error. Did the Japa
40 Post contains links tistpaa727 : Yes, you are correct. Back in September they acquired additional land right next to the airport. I think this is different than what you were describ
41 SEPilot : My suspicion is that the Seattle area has seen the last new project that it will ever see from Boeing. Anything they can move will be moved. And anyth
42 sonomaflyer : Can they keep on track with production and roll out if they don't do the FAL in the Seattle area? Airlines were already critical of the fact Boeing wa
43 tortugamon : They won't need to start configuring the FAL for years yet. Keep in mind that Boeing broke ground in Charleston, SC in November 2009 and its first 78
44 Post contains images justloveplanes : As a former resident of SC and a great fan of the state..... Them's fighting words!!! Seriously, however, how is the dispatch reliability of SC birds
45 Post contains links and images tortugamon : I am a fan too. Kiawah is a great place and Charleston is a solid town. No disrespect intended . Much of what we know is speculative and rumors but t
46 SEPilot : I think this is crucial for critics of Charleston to remember. i have every confidence that the Charleston workforce, or any other workforce, can lea
47 justloveplanes : Interesting articles. However to muddy the waters further.... from the article above "Air India has eight 787s. Most or all of which were put togethe
48 tortugamon : And ANA has a 99% rate and all of those aircraft come from Everett...we really can go back and forth and the reality of the situation is that we do n
49 Post contains links tortugamon : WSJ is reporting that CHS is indeed being considered and was being considered before the union vote.
50 dc1030cf : What are the chances of seeing a "Douglas" built 777-NG from LGB ?
51 Stitch : I am of the opinion that if we do see a full 777X FAL outside of PAE, it will be a second FAL to PAE (as the CHS 787 line is ti PAE). If Boeing really
52 tortugamon : I have a hard time getting my head around those kind of figures. With the 787 just now getting to 1,000 I have to imagine 400 orders for the 777x by
53 Stitch : On the flip side, extensive automation for final assembly would reduce the need for assembly skilled workers and could help CHS hit higher delivery t
54 sunrisevalley : Could this introduce welding instead of riveting . That would sure help the weight!
55 rheinwaldner : b.t.w. was it not the idea once to do pass the FAL in only some days?
56 Stitch : So a bit more why Boeing is considering these three sites for a/the 777X FAL and not CHS: Long Beach - the C-17 FAL will become available for convers
57 KarelXWB : Qatar's first CHS 787 also had quality issues, the airframe went back inside the assembly hall after roll out to get fixed.
58 Post contains links KarelXWB : Officials in Utah confirm Boeing leaders reached out this afternoon to Gov. Gary Herbert about Utah's interest in building 777X. http://twitter.com/Da
59 USAF336TFS : I didn't say I blamed "Japan Inc." for the 787's growing pains, although the battery manufacturers certainly were, at least, partially responsible. M
60 Post contains images bikerthai : I second that opinion. Not necessarily. Depending on the production rate, even if they have fuselage assy at one place, they may still need two machi
61 justloveplanes : I wonder if composite is an option if they keep the same dimensions as the existing 777?
62 sunrisevalley : what methodology is Airbus using on the A350 series? Riveting CRFP panels to aluminium frames?
63 bikerthai : When assembling composite structures, hi-loc bolts are typically used. Rivets (specially aluminum rivets) are not recommended because of galvanic cor
64 trex8 : Well if you're getting a billion $+ in free "subsidy" for the development of your new product so you don't have to spend it out of your own bank acco
65 PW100 : On the flip side, they have already buillt like 80. Where is Charleston right now 14 or so? How long did Everet take to build their no. 14? Or maybe
66 ncfc99 : Isn't the CHS line also supposed to have a lower monthly rate than PAE anyway? PAE = 8-10 frames per month CHS = 4-6 frames per month
67 tortugamon : I did not say it took 6 months to go through the FAL. Next month the 787 lines will be rolling out a new aircraft every 3 calendar days; closer to 2
68 KarelXWB : CHS also had to rework the pre-LN66 birds on the assembly line while PAE had the EMC to perform this job.
69 KarelXWB : > Boeing recently approved another thrust increase in the jet's new GE engines to 105,000 pounds, up from 102,000 pounds - a direct request from Em
70 PW100 : Sure, fully agree. I certainly hope that lessons learned in Everett will roll over to Charleston as well (and vice versa). But that still ignores tha
71 tortugamon : Which statement is dubious? That Charleston is not exactly blowing people's socks off? tortugamon
72 Post contains links KarelXWB : While we wait for the formal launch of the 777X jet, here are a few nice articles to read: > Udvar-Hazy Wants 777X Performance Compromise > Unio
73 Post contains links KarelXWB : Boeing targets 2020 first delivery for 777X -exec: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...dubai-boeing-idUSL5N0J103520131116
74 PW100 : Probably poor choice of words from me. I felt your initial statement was sort of suggesting that Everett folks were better than Charleston folks. I j
75 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : New renders of the 777X jets: http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/401989509841027072
76 Post contains images BlueSky1976 : https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/401988118342926336 "The Boeing 777 is now the best selling wide-body jetliner in aviation history. The 747 now
77 Post contains links KarelXWB : Tim Clark: 777-9X will have 16-17% fuel burn adv over 777-300ER. Arriving in 2020, followed by 8X 18 months later. http://twitter.com/AvWeekFlottau/st
78 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : A 5th door is visible on this Etihad 777X render:
79 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : An art impression of the 777X cockpit: Folding wings, bigger windows, new interior and big flight deck changes are confirmed. http://twitter.com/jonos
80 Post contains links and images ferpe : Here a couple of interesting details on the the 777X wing seen on their high resolution renderings: Folding wingtips, note the zig-zag folding line: O
81 KarelXWB : Hi ferpe, where did you find that first picture?
82 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Never mind, I found them. Source (including a nice video): http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-11-...rd-Breaking-Orders-and-Commitments[Edited 2013-11-17
83 dynamicsguy : This was exactly what I found interesting. The 787 outboard flap is really long and thin, and with only 2 major supports there's a lot of torsion and
84 ap305 : Looks great in the air but the 787 type pylon/wing geometry combined with the tall 777 gear is giving a absurdly(visually) high engine/ground clearanc
85 Post contains links KarelXWB : B777-9 range set at 8200nm. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_11_17_2013_p0-637685.xml
86 Post contains images CXB77L : Thanks for posting. They both look gorgeous Indeed, this is cause for celebration It's always been a matter of time before the 777 overtook the 747 a
87 KarelXWB : List prices have been revealed: > The larger 777X-9, due 2020, will cost $377.2 million > The smaller 777X-8 debuting 18 months later is priced
88 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Table with some specs:
89 JAAlbert : The video on Boeing's website says the cabin will be "almost" a half meter wider! That's huge! I thought Boeing could only get an extra 4" of cabin sp
90 KarelXWB : Marketing, optical illusion, a half meter is physically not possible.
91 mjoelnir : Perhaps they can not think in meters, or we have to ask half a meter wider than what? It is not half a meter wider than the B-777, than you would sit
92 JAAlbert : Why would Boeing publishing such a statistic in its prepared material that is obviously false? I can see an official misquoting such a statistic off
93 Post contains images ferpe : Based on the latest info from the launch today and the readjustment of the A350-1000 range I have updated my model. Here is how the most interesting f
94 KarelXWB : It's marketing, meaning the information is not incorrect an sich, only misleading. They are probably comparing their product to the competitor, but m
95 Post contains images ferpe : The Boeing marketers got ahead of their selves , the 777X is indeed 0.5 wider in the cabin then the .................... 787 and 0.4 m wider then the
96 Post contains links KarelXWB : The Emirates cabin will be as follows: > B777-8: 342 passengers in 3-class > B777-9: 440 passengers in 2-class http://twitter.com/jonostrower/st
97 JAAlbert : Ahah! And what a shame, the 777 certainly could use an extra half meter of width (as compared to the 777ER not the 787)!
98 sunrisevalley : Ferpe, Does your load/range table change very much?
99 questions : "Wider cabin." 0.1M? Is this coming from an improvement in the sidewalls? What gets the room? The aisles? The seats?[Edited 2013-11-17 14:14:43] Edit
100 KarelXWB : The cabin will be 4" wider (thus each seat could increase by 0.4").
101 flyinggoat : 4 inches wider compared to the current 777, which is supposed to offer more comfortable 10 abreast seating. As an aviation nut, I'm excited to see th
102 PW100 : Thanks for these numbers, very interesting! Really shows why Boeing HAD to do the 777X as the 77W simply was no longer going to be effective in tomor
103 SonomaFlyer : Why wouldn't EK go three class with the -9X?
104 Post contains images ncfc99 : Also any chance of a coloum with payload carried over said 6000nm.
105 Stitch : I am sure they will put three classes in some 777-9, but I would not be surprised if the initial 777-9 missions are to India - where they need capaci
106 Post contains images SEPilot : Rubber rulers? But there is one thing that puzzles me. I have believed that if you have a large airliner and a smaller one with similar economics, th
107 Stitch : Actually, the larger one should sell better because it offers better revenue potential for little additional cost. It's why the A320 and 737-800 sell
108 ricknroll : Is "offerability" a word? Surely "offered" would do the same job, more easily. These Americans and their crazy words.
109 SEPilot : Yes, the larger variants in a given class generally sell better, but by your reasoning the A380 should have outsold the 77W and the 77W should have o
110 mjoelnir : The size argument is related to an a.net law: The more capable frame with the same CASM sells always better until you get to the A 380. The question w
111 OldAeroGuy : Actually, the 777-300ER has outsold the A330-300, 717 to 659, despite being in the market place about 10 fewer years. The 777-300ER also outsold the
112 SEPilot : I did not know the figures, but I had thought the A333 had outsold the 77W. Thanks for the info. That is understandable, as my theory does cover larg
113 tortugamon : I would not call the A380 more capable than the 77W. It may have a small range advantage but lacks cargo capability. tortugamon
114 Stitch : The step-change in capacity and performance between the 777-9 / A350-1000 and 777-8 / A350-900 is not as large as the step-change between the A380-80
115 SEPilot : Well, I can buy that. I also acknowledge Tortugamon.s point about the A380's lack of cargo capability.
116 Post contains links and images ferpe : Here the fuel burn table with the types requested, all over a 6000nm still air leg followed by the Payload-Range table for the 350-400 pax battle: ...
117 ncfc99 : Many thanks for this ferpe, and for your many informative posts throughout this website.
118 Post contains links aviaponcho : Very nice Ferpe Did you already have this one http://avia.superforum.fr/t547p360-b...lacement-et-ou-modernisation#42466 http://www.icao.int/SAM/Docume
119 Post contains images KarelXWB : There is 400nm loss but also 19 more pax, or does this not change much? We can laugh about it, but I don't see how this differs from today's 77W, whi
120 aviaponcho : Ferpe You number for 6000nm are with full pax payload, aren't they ? Thanks
121 KarelXWB : It appears that Emirates and Qatar have worked together to define the 777X. Google for "WSJ Qatar, Emirates Joined Forces on Boeing Order" to read the
122 sunrisevalley : To clarify, does this put the revised passenger count at 350 ? Scaled off Ferpe's updated load/range table I get a max volume limited payload for the
123 Stitch : The Payload-Range charts for the current specification of the A350-1000 that Airbus marketing have been showing has a payload of around 65 tons at a
124 wingman : The 35J is a nice local plane, but I still want lots of them, and another 50 380s, and WTH, throw in another 200 777s while I have this pen in my hand
125 tortugamon : Not 'better', just not far enough down the learning curve yet. They will get there eventually but I wouldn't want to launch a new program there unles
126 Post contains links oykie : These items are generally known, but I thought it would be of interest to members here. Just in from Boeing mediaroom: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/201
127 Post contains images EPA001 : Just beautiful. Especially the look of the wings. . Still no side sticks? . Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Which is quite close to the A350-10
128 Post contains links and images ferpe : Nope, great find . Thanks for spotting it, it does change a little, the block goes to 74.9t and the per m2 goes to 2.62. The max payload in the Paylo
129 Post contains images EPA001 : According to your model this shows how close the A350-1000 and the B777-9 are. But of course the extra tickets must be sold for the B777-9 to stay (a
130 Post contains images ferpe : Yes. LH said that the A350-900 and the 777-9 was similar in per seat burn and that is what the table shows. With real cabins the Airbus models will b
131 KarelXWB : Here's a question: the A330 had multiple MTOW boosts over the years. Being originally a regional aircraft with a small range, this was relatively eas
132 ferpe : The possibility for the 330 to boost it's MTOW from 216t IIRC to ultimately 242t came to a great deal from the wing which was shared with the 343. Th
133 sunrisevalley : They may well be using a different cargo density which would account for it
134 KarelXWB : Thanks ferpe, that's what I wanted to know.
135 Post contains images lhrnue : So which one is the new button? The button for the folding wing-tips
136 OldAeroGuy : Don't quite understand what you mean by this. From Ferpe's data: The -9X compared to the -1000 has a: 0.7% fuel burn advantage in terms of FB per m2
137 Post contains images KarelXWB : The 777-9 does not fall short, but I believe he meant something else (note the "otherwise" part in his sentence). The figure is 2.62 instead of 2.65,
138 tortugamon : I think we might be taking tiny differences in these numbers too seriously. Although I have confidence in Ferpe and his work I prefer to view these th
139 seabosdca : At least, we have to acknowledge that there is quite a lot of potential error (especially compared to the tiny size of the differences between these
140 KarelXWB : Of course, and a 2014 A350/B787 will be different than a 2020 A350/B787.
141 OldAeroGuy : Actually, I didn't. Arguing about selling more tickets would apply to saying the -1000 falls a bit short compared to the -900 because the -1000 has t
142 PW100 : It has always amazed me how pretty much all Airbus widebodies had such low wingloading, compared to Boeing's (espcially 77W). I guess it's partly exp
143 tortugamon : I find it interesting that they can have low wingloading but are only a touch slower than the 787. Usually I equate low wing loading with a slower ai
144 OldAeroGuy : You should compare the A346 to the 773ER. They're very similar, no matter which wing reference area definition you use. The primary wing loading exce
145 OldAeroGuy : Time to break out the proverb again. Remember that the A380 cruises at around 0.85M vs 0.84M for the 773ER and 0.835M for the A346. The later two hav
146 KarelXWB : Perhaps "falling short" is the wrong term here, but I think EPA001 meant the 777-9 would "fall short" if you can't fill the seats because the 777-9 i
147 Stitch : Perhaps, but the chart they released at the 2011 Dubai Air Show does show the 777-300ER with a 70t payload (which matches Boeing's ACAP at MZFW), ins
148 sunrisevalley : Ferpe's chart suggests that the A350-1000 pulls ahead of the 77W in range at about 7750nm with payload ~ 35t (or at about max passenger load) droppin
149 tortugamon : With these 777x orders and combined with the A351 order book and their current planned production rate of the A351s an airline cannot effectively get
150 ferpe : For that very reason I use one and the same reference area definition for all my aircraft in the model. For ease of measurement I use the Airbus defi
151 Post contains images ferpe : My chart now shows a 63t max payload, this is after the adjustments AIrbus made to all models recently. Re max payload of A350-1000 we are discussing
152 Post contains images ferpe : That is with 350 pax for -1000 and 406 for the -9 I guess. When we divide the block burn with 369 and 406 we understand why Airbus suddenly pitches t
153 tortugamon : True but isn't there a tradeoff? The larger wing has more drag which lowers speed? The fastest jets (and birds for that matter) have higher wing load
154 astuteman : My question woyld be how many times does a 773ER actually take off with a 70t payload? I suspect that it will experience something similar to the A33
155 tortugamon : You seem to correctly praise the value of availability. A330 production rates increased to its highest rate 2 years after 787 EIS, why would the 77W
156 Post contains links CaliAtenza : http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...1115,0,2497272.story#axzz2l4vBdeM1 would be nice to see something built in California for a change.
157 Post contains images KarelXWB : I'm afraid we don't have access to this kind of information, but I assume at least the 9-abreast 77W operators are not filling their aircraft up to m
158 StTim : There was an article I read yesterday saying that the next key issue for Boeing is selling the delivery slots available for the 777 legacy line before
159 KarelXWB : The A320ceo => A320neo and 737 NG => 737 MAX transition has to go very smooth because they use the same assembly lines. There is less to worry
160 cal764 : I'd just like to throw out there..I had been listning to WCBS news radio 880 and they had said Boeing was still contemplating whether final assembly o
161 frigatebird : Follow the discussion on this separate thread:
162 Post contains links and images EPA001 : Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 137): ...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2 350-1000........74.9..................2.62 777-8.............79.5....
163 sunrisevalley : I have had verification that one 9 abreast 77W operator is right around the 59t that I use. Passengers and baggage at ~35t and freight including tare
164 KarelXWB : 24t freight is impressive. Can you name the airline or is this confidential information?
165 OldAeroGuy : While skin friction drag of the larger wing is a factor, transonic airplanes also add compressability drag. Airfoil section design becomes important
166 Post contains links and images ferpe : There is indeed a trade-off; I edited my answer to include this trade-off. This is the generalized drag curve for an aircraft, as you can see the tot
167 Post contains images EPA001 : I can for sure live with that statement. . That too is another very important variable which may be decisive when airlines are planning for purchasin
168 Post contains images ferpe : Yes, we enter the seating rat race , I guess B did the 406 seats for the -9X with their usual ATA standard 3 class and Airbus complains that this is
169 KarelXWB : Yes, the usual apples and bananas. I believe the 777-9 would have around 390 seats in the Airbus configuration.
170 Post contains links Kengo : If already posted, please disregard... Per FlightGlobal article, Clark believes Emirates input on the 777X will turn it into a best selling platform,
171 Post contains images MD-90 : Huntsville has easy access to the Gulf of Mexico via the Tennessee River and the Tenn-Tom Waterway. Boeing is experienced with this method because th
172 Post contains links KarelXWB : Still, Boeing talks to Alabama officials about 777X: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/boeing...s-to-alabama-officials-about-777x/
173 XT6Wagon : Nope, The 737Max will start on its own line, separate from the existing 737 lines. While I have read nothing about it, I wouldn't be suprised if Airb
174 aviaponcho : Ferpe I was going through your numbers once more and find somethng very surprising A380-800 fuel burn ! Taking 407 Pax for 777-9 and 555 Pax for A380-
175 dynamicsguy : Sort of. They are building a mini line for the first few Maxes. It will have only 2 positions (rather than 6-7 in the full 737 lines) and will not be
176 KarelXWB : First time I hear this, I thought Boeing needs 3 full lines to produce 47 aircraft per month?
177 Post contains links KarelXWB : Boeing has talked to at least a half-dozen states about the planned 777X: http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...22293812_boeingotherstatesxml.html
178 ferpe : Done, 300ER 96.5t and -800 152.3t
179 KarelXWB : And the fuel burn per l/100km/m2 ?
180 ferpe : Does that make sense, you have a 6000nm trip with very special LOPAs, but here they are, 300ER 2.53 l/100km per pax and 3.20 per m2, -800 2.77 per pa
181 KarelXWB : I was just interested because Emirates will go ahead with the 2-class A380.
182 Stitch : They may be doing it in stages, but they are putting a new 7-position line to the left of the current 7-position Assembly Line #1 that according to t
183 j22 : Bit of topic but that would be a big surprise to me. To me it looks like Airbus is going to transfer one assembly line at a time to A320 NEO. To lear
184 SEPilot : They did that once before in the late 90's, and there were a LOT of people yelling.
185 astuteman : Sounds about right. I've always figured in round numbers the A388 burns roughly 50% more fuel than a 773ER and provides about 65% more passenger spac
186 SEPilot : But these figures indicate that all of the new large twins will offer better fuel burn per seat than the A380. While this does not necessarily mean t
187 Post contains images EPA001 : Well, these large twins will not EIS for another 4 to 7 years. Let's not forget that. . But you are correct, the sales could be hurt by the new upcom
188 tortugamon : I believe that the A359 could very well have lower fuel burn than a current A380 in current configurations. That is about 1 year from EIS. Thank you
189 Post contains images EPA001 : Ah, yeah, I guess you are correct. I had forgotten about the smaller types which according to ferpe's model also have a very low fuel burn per passen
190 frmrCapCadet : And of course the principal competitor to the 380-900 is the 800. Will Airbus make more money selling the 800, or spending more R and D money for the
191 ricknroll : The stretch is a simple one that has already been designed into the existing plane.
192 frmrCapCadet : It still will cost a few to several billion. If they do the stretch they will also do an engine update.
193 Post contains links and images ferpe : Re the CASM of the A380 vs the twins here a couple of conclusions from a thread in Tech/Ops that looked at the underlying fundamentals. it is good rea
194 Aviaponcho : I've lost my "typical" CASM breakdown What are the pilots parts in the CASM ?
195 CXB77L : As mentioned in the other thread, Boeing isn't saying that the 777X's cabin will be almost half a metre wider than the current 777, they're saying th
196 mjoelnir : As the Boeing B777-8/9 cabin will not be half a meter wider than the cabin of the A 350 they can not refer to the competition either the difference i
197 rwessel : You need to pay a couple* of them, no matter how many passengers you have. So at least in theory, the flight crew costs less per seat on a larger air
198 Polot : That is why they say "almost", you are taking the PR way to literal. Remember what it is: PR.
199 mjoelnir : Calling 36 almost 50 is strange mathematics, it is nearer to a quarter meter than half a meter. Would you call 17 inch nearly two feet? Subway got in
200 Stitch : It's greater than a third of a meter, so using "common" fractions (1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4), 1/2th is the next logical step.
201 mjoelnir : Again would you call 17 inch nearly two feet? About the same relation of length as calling 36 cm half a meter. If they would have said more than a th
202 Stitch : They are not, unless you define a meter as being over four feet (as opposed to 39.37 inches). Anyway, it's just marketing malarkey and both OEMs shov
203 mjoelnir : It must be that Americans have a strange sense regarding the metric system. 36 cm are 72% of half a meter. 17 inch are about 71 % of 24 inch, being t
204 Hamlet69 : If you are that worked up over it, I would suggest writing two letters: one to Boeing. The other to Airbus for their equally BS A350 'Xtra Wide Body'
205 Post contains images KarelXWB : The difference is, Xtra Wide Body refers to their own A330/A340/A350MkI metal
206 Polot : If manufacturer X's plane was 17in wider than manufacturer Y's they certainty would
207 Post contains images Hamlet69 : Haha. Touché. Then let's call the 777X half a meter wider than the 787 and be done with this pointless argument. Hamlet69
208 Post contains links KarelXWB : Boeing has issued a formal request for proposals (RFP) to 15 locations around the United States that will bid for the work of building its forthcoming
209 flyinggoat : I'm sorry if I missed this being discussed, but what changes will there be to the landing gear of the 777x? As I understand it, the pavement loading o
210 Finn350 : 777-300ER, 777-8 and 777-9 all have the same maximum take-off weight of 775,000 lb so I would assume there is no need to change the landing gear unle
211 UAL-Fan : I just about bust my gut open laughing when I saw California on that list of States. I guess We do have bragging rights here as being the LEAST busine
212 Post contains links waly777 : Looks like the targeted range for the 9X is 8400nm Hopefully this dispels the rumours that the 777x was designed primarily for the ME3 Some details on
213 Post contains images EPA001 : That is no surprise. It is virtually the same range as the A350-1000 will have. . For most airline routes I can think of that will be (more than) eno
214 tortugamon : It sounds like there is a lot of time baked into this schedule but the 787 went from firm configuration to first delivery in 6 years and the 777x loo
215 kaitak744 : Watch what you say. Production could very well end up in Long Beach. There is a skilled (Boeing) workforce. There is a soon to be empty plant and fac
216 rcair1 : If I was talking 'bout the 'one that got away....'
217 flyinggoat : Thank you, I didn't realize the MTOW was the same. Guess I missed that. Thanks.
218 Post contains links KarelXWB : Word is on the street that California considers $7.5 billion in tax incentives to win 777X work. http://twitter.com/GlennFarley/status/405143051489669
219 justloveplanes : It's Huntsville or someplace else, not CA. California is Puget Sound second act and why Boeing is looking around the first place. CA's 7.5 is less tha
220 bikerthai : One thing about So. Cal, or even Utah, is that if you were to move there, you will have a better chance of getting many of the Engineers in the Puget
221 Post contains images bikerthai : Here's a question. Could a heavy lift helicopter lift a 777 section for a short distance? That could solve moving containers from the port to Long Bea
222 StTim : Are all these incentives being offered by state governments legal under the WTO?
223 Post contains links drew777 : Whether they are or not, Airbus is participating in them too. State and local incentives totaling nearly $158.5 million will help secure the $600 mil
224 trex8 : The 787 WA state subsidies which are The same as those offered for the 777x were illegal as its based on sales which are related to actual production
225 SSTeve : I have a hard time believing the design is really "complete" if they're truly kicking around where to build the wing and how much to stuff the barrel
226 SonomaFlyer : I have a hard time believing a helicopter would be allowed to regularly lift heavy sections for flight over populated areas between the port and the
227 KarelXWB : Firm design will follow in 2015, expect a few changes in the coming months.
228 Post contains images EPA001 : Which says nothing about them being legal under WTO-rules or not. For the sake of argument, and to prevent derailing this thread, we better assume th
229 CX747 : My heart and nostalgia says keep the FAL and all the work in Everett. My rational side says, pick a right to work state. My "That's Awesome" side is a
230 tortugamon : I have been playing around with GC Mapper which is dangerous trying to get an idea of what EK's 35 778s will be used for. I imagine they would not hav
231 Stitch : That is what I am thinking, as well as cities with strong cargo loads (I have read SEA-DXB and IAH-DXB are two such routes).
232 Post contains images EPA001 : But it gives us an idea to work with. The airplanes will not arrive before late 2021 or early 2022 anyway, so a lot can happen to these possible dest
233 tortugamon : I had heard that IAH was a good cargo route but SEA was news to me. Interesting. The range band is also appealing for SYD as it opens IST and maybe a
234 justloveplanes : Is the 777X using barrels? It seems to be decided as Aluminum, but they could be barrels I suppose?
235 Stitch : I've hard that EK uses the SEA-DXB flight to ship a fair bit of spares for their 777 fleet.
236 CXB77L : It is not necessarily the case that EK will use their 777-8Xs exclusively on 7000-8000nm missions. For example, PER sees regular 772LR and 773ER serv
237 sunrisevalley : A very interesting exercise. Basically they will have 77W capacity with better than 77L capability. I calculate the volume limited payload for an EK
238 tortugamon : Yes, it is important to note that the city pairs I am identifying should allow EK to operate the route at full payload barring any hot/high limitatio
239 tortugamon : Ok I am running out of markets to check in my 7-8knm great circle map checks: My final one is India. From BOM and DEL the following represent possible
240 sunrisevalley : This is a current AC routing, has been so since the introduction of the 77L . Before that there was a tech stop at HNL, southbound I believe. EK haul
241 BoeingVista : No! Not legal at all. Washington state tax breaks of $3.1bn for the years 2006-24 were specifically rulled illegal by the WTO and this decision was w
242 sunrisevalley : The A35J maxes out at 61t around 12hrs or 45t at about 15hrs. The -9X is good for 46t at 16hrs and the -8x 57t at 16hrs. I guess it depends if you ca
243 tortugamon : It is, but if you look at my note I was suggesting that they could attempt a SYD-YYZ non-stop east bound and make the stop at YVR westbound. Not sure
244 jambrain : This is a most intriguing quote I think, it raises the question will EK and the ME3/4 start flying ULH triangles which overfly their hubs? i.e. SYD-F
245 BoeingVista : More likley to be what they plan to do once they own 100% of QANTAS..
246 Stitch : I seem to recall JQ talking SYD-FCO once they received the 787-9. Now with the QF-EK tie-up, perhaps EK is looking at possibly taking over routes ori
247 Post contains links SA7700 : This thread will be locked for further discussions as it has become quite long. All posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping
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...
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 4 posted Sun Oct 13 2013 10:41:44 by iowaman
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3 posted Sun Sep 8 2013 22:11:04 by tortugamon
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3 posted Sun Aug 11 2013 02:34:19 by SA7700
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 2 posted Tue Jul 9 2013 22:20:13 by jetblueguy22
777X Updated Information And Developments posted Tue Jun 18 2013 11:11:57 by tortugamon
A350 Production And Development Part 11 posted Fri Jun 7 2013 05:03:00 by Aviaponcho
Cathay Pacific Evaluating A380 And 748i Part 2 posted Sat Feb 9 2013 10:36:08 by iowaman
VS A330-300's - Information And Names? posted Wed Jun 6 2012 08:12:12 by virginblue4
Information And Particulars About Aviation Trade Fairs Please? posted Fri Nov 26 2010 07:52:29 by KShafiq7
Camp Mirage And YYZ - Part 2 posted Fri Oct 15 2010 23:06:39 by SA7700