Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 81
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1914 times:
The cross section of a 777 sounds a little wide, don't you think? The 772 is an unusually wide aircraft - 5 inches wider than the already plenty wide DC-10.
The reason 2-3-2 isn't logical is the same reason the A332 is whooping it up against the 767 now and the A300 and A310 are the most popular smaller widebody freighters and not the 767F - the cross section is just nost wide enough. Gotta be able to fit two LD3s side by side.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1874 times:
When Mulally mentioned the '777 fuselage,' he wasn't refering to cross-section, but architecture. The new aircraft will have a perfectly circular fuselage, like the 777. However, it will not be as wide, probably very similar to the A330/340 (as already mentioned, it will be wide enough to fit two LD3s). Of course, don't expect an actual A330/340 fuselage either. In fact, it will probably be slightly larger due to the shape, allowing ample cargo volume without sacrificing headroom.
Patches From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
I just can't believe it would be as wide as 777. 2-4-2 would be the best fit. than it could compete against the A330 in all phases. plus it would have the container space it would need. If they made it almost as big as a 777, would'nt it compete against itself?
[John] Roundhill [vice president of marketing for the new aircraft at Boeing Commercial Airplanes] said lower-deck cargo-carrying capability is a key factor in determining a new aircraft's basic features such as range, payload and cargo hold cross section. The baseline design for the Sonic Cruiser has side-by-side LD3 containers under the passenger deck. (The bracketed inclusions were taken from earlier in the article.)
This probably means a 2-4-2 layout, but perhaps it could be 2-3-2 if they use a double-bubble design and the composite structure allows higher volumetric efficiency. I think Boeing will try to find a way to get the cabin walls to be more vertical than the competitor, which to me suggests 2-4-2 and double-bubble. We'll find out in good time.
Thadocta From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1724 times:
One of the problems with the 767 and its 2-3-2 configuration is that you only really end up with one extra seat per row compared with the narrow body 737 and 757 aircraft - as a result, it doesn't really give you that much more of an operational advnatage.
Compare it with the A332, giving you TWO extra seats per rown (when viewed across the entire cabin length, that makes a hell of a difference) and then factor in freight capability, it would make sense for Boeing to make the B787 into something a bit wider than then B767.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2627 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1620 times:
Off course I did not meant that it would have a 330 fuselage. However I have no doubts whatsoever that it will have 2-4-2 seating. The fuselage is going to be wider that the 767 to allow for side-by-side underfloor LD-3. However it would not surprise me that Boeing would actually make it a little wider than the 300/330/340 to get some marketing advantage over the Bus. That would also allow for more headroom at the window seats, since the cabin walls will be more vertical. Combined with the general cabin architecture of the 777, this would give a more relaxed and spacious feeling to the pax. compared with the Bus.
It would not be as wide as the 777. Why bother spending billions of dollars if they could do the same thing basically with a 777-100? As previously said, such a 787 would compete head on with the 777 family. Makes no sense.
Boeing has repeatedly said that the aircraft would have two different missions, being medium haul and [ultra-] long haul. Would this mean that they are designing different wings for each mission?
A short/medium haul aircraft could do with a much smaller wing than the long rane aircraft. The smaller wing will tremendously increase short/medium haul efficiency. This is the reason why the shrinked 330-500 will not work. It still has a wing designed for 12000 km range, which is much too heavy for the short hops [as opposed to the A303/310]. A smaller wing could be up to 5 tons less heavy [which equals about 50 additional revenue pax...!].
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1450 times:
I can't help but notice the skepticism in the article over whether or not Boeing would really launch this airplane. Their credibility is really on the line after this announcement. They really now must go forward with this program if they're to have any hope of regaining momentum lost to Airbus. They can't delay because Airbus will field a competitor as soon as the bulk of the A380 R&D is done. Their back is to the wall, now-they MUST build this aircraft! I don't think they'll have any problem getting launch customers if the '787' has such outstanding economics. But I think the longer-range versions may threaten the 777-200, even with lower capacity. Boeing must be careful to avoid too close a performance overlap but the time to do this is clearly now-it's what the airlines want. Too bad for the Sonic Cruiser, that would really have been something!
: Here's the 787..... http://www.boeing.com/phantom/bwb.html Pete
: Delta-Flyer I hope you are right, and I used to think as you do. It is a bit tantalizing to see the possibility of a midsized BWB mentioned on Boeing'
: The BWB is not going to be the next a/c in the 7X7 family. Boeing is not going to make such a quantum leap in a/c design for the forseeable future. Th
: I agree, calling the BWB the 787 is a bit premature. But it's interesting that the Boeing Phantomworks website added these commercial variants after t
29 BWIA 772
: The 787 i hope is as popular with the airlines as the 777 and really give bus competition for the 330 market. I wonder if the work done on the 787 wil
: The commercial versions of the BWB have been on the Phantom Works website for some time, even before the cancellation of the SC. N
: The commercial versions of the BWB have been on the Phantom Works website for some time, even before the cancellation of the SC. I think they added th