Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 Re-wing Study Revealed  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

As discussed some time ago Boeing still is considering a big 777 upgrade.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4289296

Carsson today reveiled they are studying a new (probably composites) wing

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Revealed,%20787%20Flight%20Looms

Of course strongly related to 787-10. Personally I think rewinging / engining the 787 for a 787-10 and 787-11 would make more sense. But of course there is a timetable with the A350XWB flying in a few years..



92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2219 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Carsson today reveiled they are studying a new (probably composites) wing

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...Looms

Could be interesting, if it would close the gap between the 777 and published A350 specs. But, it also signals that Y3 is a long way away from fruition.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Personally I think rewinging / engining the 787 for a 787-10 and 787-11 would make more sense.

IMO 787-10 has less than a 50% chance of happening, it's a double stretch and Boeing will have to fight hard to keep the payload/range adequate versus the 789. 787-11 no chance. At these longer fuselage lengths it makes more sense to have a wider fuselage (the 777).



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 1):
IMO 787-10 has less than a 50% chance of happening, it's a double stretch and Boeing will have to fight hard to keep the payload/range adequate versus the 789. 787-11 no chance. At these longer fuselage lengths it makes more sense to have a wider fuselage (the 777).

The 787 and 777 don't differ that much. Both have side by side containers and 9 abreast. The 777 is flying around a big empty attic. The major difference is the material.

Boeing has gambled the way ahead for fuselages is CRFP. Launching a new metal 777 with improved / optimized wings would be spectacular.

As I said (much) earlier a long range 787-10, -11 would need a new wing / engines /landing gear to replace the 777-300ER.

A new wing would IMO enable a capable 777-400ER.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):

The 787 and 777 don't differ that much. Both have side by side containers and 9 abreast. The 777 is flying around a big empty attic. The major difference is the material.

An upgraded 777 would certainly have thinner sidewalls for true 10 abreast. The current plane is very close to proper 10 abreast, except that the aisles are too narrow.

A 777-300ER with substantially lighter OEW could be an 8000 nm aircraft at 10 abreast. That would change its relationship to the A350-1000, at least, and probably make it fully competitive.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4361 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

A mid life update of the 777 makes a lot of sense. As deiveries to airlines will be slower and margins lower, completely new models shift far away, I expect Y1 to be the only new aircraft in service before 2020 after 787 and A350. 777 and A320 will have mid life upgrades, shifting a replacement down to 2025-2030.

User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Pure speculation here... but maybe Boeing has decided that they can more effectively offer a 777NG program based on composites and 787 technology, rather than go with a full fledged, brand new Y3. The 777 is already a very capable and efficient aircraft; now imagine what it could do with GENX-type engines and lighter weights through more use of composites. I doubt it would take Boeing long to build and develop, and would be an obvious choice for current 777 operators... could be a danger to the A350.

User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1219 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

What if we had both aircraft? One is less capable, more of a trans-con, high capacity, or trans atlantic a/c, much like the 764. The other could be a beefier, heavy duty, longer range, higher MTOW a/c a la the 772.

The 764 style a/c could be the 787-10, which represents the pinnacle and greatest stretch of an airframe, wringing all that can be out of it, while the rewinged 777, could be the launching platform for larger aircraft, like the rewinged 77W, 77L, etc.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2219 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
The 787 and 777 don't differ that much. Both have side by side containers and 9 abreast. The 777 is flying around a big empty attic. The major difference is the material.

Boeing has gambled the way ahead for fuselages is CRFP. Launching a new metal 777 with improved / optimized wings would be spectacular.

As I said (much) earlier a long range 787-10, -11 would need a new wing / engines /landing gear to replace the 777-300ER.

Herein lies the crux of the issue... Boeing meant for the 787 to replace the 767. Some of the airlines kept pushing for a '777-like replacement', and the bigger the 787 gets the less efficient it's going to be because Boeing was targeting the 767 size. The only reason so far that the 789 has a higher range than the 788 is because airlines demanded higher fuel capacity. It looks like 9 abreast 787 is going to be equivalent to 10 abreast 777.

The much talked about 787-10 isn't big enough to replace the 77W.

Let's make a quick list of what would be needed for a competitive 787-11:
-Bigger wing (more area and fuel capacity)
-Taller 6-wheel main landing gear w/ bigger tires
-90,000+ lb. thrust class engines (looks like only Trent XWB meets this as Trent 1000/GEnx would be hard to scale this high)
-A lot of structure reinforcing to enable a much higher MTOW

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
A new wing would IMO enable a capable 777-400ER.

I do agree with you here, if the new wing brought suitable efficiency, an 80-metre or so 777 would be an amazing aircraft. And it would be a true 744 replacement rather than the slightly smaller 77W. I think Boeing would not want to produce this though as it would hurt the 748i.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

IIFC a "777-400ER" is not possible, it would require a new wingbox and landing gear redesign.

User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3186 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Cba (Reply 5):
The 777 is already a very capable and efficient aircraft; now imagine what it could do with GENX-type engines and lighter weights through more use of composites.

I'll take it one step further, based on a slip of the tongue by a PW exec... imagine a re-winged 777 w/ GTFs on it... I'll leave you to ponder that thought. (PS: said exec also said PW was *not* looking at the 350XWB for the GTF)



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2219 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
IIFC a "777-400ER" is not possible, it would require a new wingbox and landing gear redesign.

True, I forgot about this in my post. 6-wheel main gears cannot go much above the present 777,000 lb. MTW. A 774 would need bigger 8-wheel main gears, it would be the biggest single-leg main gear ever on a commercial airliner.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineMogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting AA777223 (Reply 6):
like the rewinged 77W, 77L, etc.

hmmm.... was the 77L/77W "re-winged" or just the same wing with wingtip extensions ?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29694 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I remain skeptical a re-winged 777 would really be competitive against an A350XWB that entered service on schedule and was good enough to be 20% more fuel-efficient than the competing 777 model.

Re-winging the 777-200ER and hanging 93k Trent 2000s off those new wings is not going to drop the 77E's fuel burn by 20%.

I find the 777-400 idea to be a bit of a non-starter unless they can increase the fuel capacity and MTOW. The 747-400 slots in around 5250nm at MZFW - about 500nm less than the 77W. If the re-wing significantly improves L/D and field performance, it might become the true 747-400 replacement from Boeing, but it would also once and for all ensure the 747-8I will never sell.

And I'm not sure Boeing wants to write-off the billions they've spent on the -8I and sink more billions into the 777 program on the hope it will work where the former did not.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

IMO it makes sense.

Boeing could develop a new wing, redesign the fuselage with lighter materials, improve aerodynamics and have the 777 variant that would be a true replacement for the 777-200/-200ER: the 777-8. Then, about 1 - 2 years after A350-1000 EIS, Boeing could go ahead with the 777-9 (a 777-300ER replacement) and the 777-8ER as a replacement for the -200LR.

After all, 777 is not 747: the market is much bigger and, if giving it all-new wing and other improvements gives Boeing another 500 sales, it is worth a shot. Besides, 787-10 could never be as capable as 777-8.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlinePanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Airbus has the A350 at 270,314 and 350 3-class seating arrangement.
Boeing has the 787 at 250 and 290.

Should Boeing develop the 787-10, they will then have an inefficient 315 seat plane that cannot compete with the A350-900 because it was not developed specifically for that size, while the A359 was developed from day one for that size. Ultimately, Boeing will be losing every sale to Airbus on that category.

Boeing's only solution is to come up with a new plane that will satisfy the 315, 350 and 390 seating arrangement, thus creating a nice niche for it in that market and possibly bridging the gap between the A350-1000 and the A380.

There can be a number of commonalities, such as flight decks, electronics, etc with the 787 that will create a family of airplanes.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Currently I see the 77W/77L vs. the A350 as the A333/A332 vs. the 787. If we can now imagine how a re-winged A330 would stack against the 787 (and it's already proven to be a damn great plane, even with the 787 on the horizon). It would certainly be very compelling for current A330 operators. I think the same would come from the 77W/77L. Currently the 77W can fly farther with more payload than the A350-1000, and according to Boeing's revised range/payload charts, the 77W is already at or above 8,000nm. So re-winging, with improvement in the engines, and dropping the OEW, should give Boeing another few hundred nautical miles which would make the 77W/L at least that much more viable until they are ready for a clean sheet design.


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineCosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Can Boeing develop a common design wing for 777NG and 787-10/11? It does not mean the same size but the 777 one need only be proportionally bigger.

Add another 100 seats to 748i by making it a 1.8 decker and Boeing will have a nice 250-550 seat product line.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3186 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):

Re-winging the 777-200ER and hanging 93k Trent 2000s off those new wings is not going to drop the 77E's fuel burn by 20%.

Again, guys, please think a tiny bit outside the box here. PW has stated they expect the GTF will turn 15-20% improvements on a big fan. They have also (accidentally) stated they are looking at the GTF on a 777 refresh. A new wing + a GTF will get a substantial fuel burn savings. Additional weight trimming on the 777 (I'm sure they wouldn't *just* rewing it) and you have a formidable aircraft.

If you dig through the IAG podcasts you'll get a LOT of interesting tidbits from the VP for the GTF project @ PW.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

This is reminding me more and more of the original A350.

Another improvement Boeing could do is to have a GLARE fuselage



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Panais (Reply 16):
Should Boeing develop the 787-10, they will then have an inefficient 315 seat plane that cannot compete with the A350-900 because it was not developed specifically for that size, while the A359 was developed from day one for that size.

The problem with a straight stretch of the 787-9 is not that it's inefficient -- quite the opposite. The problem is that such a plane would have payload-range issues, with as much as 1000 nm less range than the A350-900.

A "straight stretch" 787-10 should be lighter than the A350-900 and, accordingly, more efficient on those missions it's capable of flying. Think about the relationship between the A330-300 and the 777-200ER.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 21):
Quoting Panais (Reply 16):
Should Boeing develop the 787-10, they will then have an inefficient 315 seat plane that cannot compete with the A350-900 because it was not developed specifically for that size, while the A359 was developed from day one for that size.

The problem with a straight stretch of the 787-9 is not that it's inefficient -- quite the opposite. The problem is that such a plane would have payload-range issues, with as much as 1000 nm less range than the A350-900.

A "straight stretch" 787-10 should be lighter than the A350-900 and, accordingly, more efficient on those missions it's capable of flying. Think about the relationship between the A330-300 and the 777-200ER.

If a new wing can developed, why not for the 787? New engine, wing, wingbox etc would probably produce a more efficient up to date aircraft then a re winged 777.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
This is reminding me more and more of the original A350.

Indeed. Rewinging / engining the A330 for competing the 787 was a bad idea, for the 777 competing with the A350 it might be a good idea..


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 15):
Boeing could develop a new wing, redesign the fuselage with lighter materials, improve aerodynamics and have the 777 variant that would be a true replacement for the 777-200/-200ER: the 777-8. Then, about 1 - 2 years after A350-1000 EIS, Boeing could go ahead with the 777-9 (a 777-300ER replacement) and the 777-8ER as a replacement for the -200LR.

After all, 777 is not 747: the market is much bigger and, if giving it all-new wing and other improvements gives Boeing another 500 sales, it is worth a shot. Besides, 787-10 could never be as capable as 777-8.

Interesting post BlueSky1976. i would have to agree with all of your points  checkmark 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Indeed. Rewinging / engining the A330 for competing the 787 was a bad idea, for the 777 competing with the A350 it might be a good idea..

There is a fundamental difference between the two. A330 is only capable of 8 abreast, while the 777 has a superior fuselage cross section in terms of passanger capacity as compared to the A350. With a little bit modification, 777 can take 10 abreast.

I had a thread on this several weeks ago, indeed if boeing can put 777 into a diet, a B777A can be exactly as capable and almost as efficient as the A350-10

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
This is reminding me more and more of the original A350.

In hindsight, Airbus needed to do the A350XWB, otherwise they would have assuredly handed the 300+ seat market to Boeing. With that said, the original Al-Li A358/A359 would have given the 787 a run for its money.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):

Again, guys, please think a tiny bit outside the box here. PW has stated they expect the GTF will turn 15-20% improvements on a big fan. They have also (accidentally) stated they are looking at the GTF on a 777 refresh. A new wing + a GTF will get a substantial fuel burn savings. Additional weight trimming on the 777 (I'm sure they wouldn't *just* rewing it) and you have a formidable aircraft.

Can PW do this? When does GE's exclusivity contract end with Boeing on the 777 Long Range family? And does it even end at all? If it does, and PW can outfit the 777 with a GTF, then when could PW have that size of a turbofan ready? 2015 and later? How big would the fan be on a 90,000-115,000lb thrust engine?



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 24):
There is a fundamental difference between the two. A330 is only capable of 8 abreast, while the 777 has a superior fuselage cross section in terms of passanger capacity as compared to the A350. With a little bit modification, 777 can take 10 abreast.

maybe Airbus could put the generous A330/340 on diet and do new interiors for 9 abreast. It already flies with leisure carriers anyway for yrs.



The A350XWB is also offered with 10 abreast..


It's up to the airlines.


25 Parapente : I think Blue sky 1976 is right on the money. This rewinged plane will exactly replace the 2 existing aircraft. The wing will be (a little) lighter and
26 Stitch : Yes it was an interesting podcast, but I don't think P&W will have a 133-138" 100,000lb GTF ready for service in the next five years. I'd be surprise
27 Revelation : Interesting post. So what's preventing Boeing from going with a new fuse too? Are they admitting the barrel technology won't scale up? Or they can't
28 PolymerPlane : You can argue whatever you want, but the fact is the airlines didn't buy that they can put 9 across in A330 Still inferior to the B777 as I said in m
29 Post contains links Keesje : Boeing may still develop a bigger version of the Dreamliner known as the 787-10, seating 310 people, and while that might compete with a re-winged 77
30 LHB727230Adv : Well it looks like Boeing is doing what I've suspected they'd do for a while now: upgrade a still very capable and modern plane to compete with the A3
31 Khobar : Out of curiosity, what would the difference be between the 787-10 stretched from previous versions and a 787-10 designed specifically from the start?
32 Viscount724 : You'll never gain enough in thinner 777 sidewalls to make a 10-abreast 777 as spacious as a 10-abreast 747 which has a 10-inch wider cabiin.
33 EA772LR : True, but by the same token, people absolutely should drop the idea of the A350XWB having 10 abreast. Talk about cramped
34 Ikramerica : 375 and 425 seats are too close. I can see Boeing instead making the 777 a true 10 abreast with crappy 17.2" seats, and using the newer wing and engi
35 AA777223 : I meant to say that a a rewinged 77L/77W, implying IF they were to put a new wing on the aircraft, not that they already had by putting winglets on i
36 NW1852 : I know it would never happen, but if your going to dream, dream big; Maybe they could engineer it for 4 engines and go after the best looking plane aw
37 Astuteman : Easy tiger. If you're talking about a CFRP fuse, then you're talking about a new plane (aka Y3) Always, my friend So when did Boeing say they were lo
38 Osiris30 : I believe GE's exclusive is for specific models, any new model would not be subject to the contract with GE. Unless ofcourse GE wants to risk share o
39 EA772LR : Very Interesting. I will certainly listen to it. Thanks Indeed
40 CFBFrame : The thing I like about the Boeing strategy is that they are looking at the next phase of customer demand and then presenting a product versus offering
41 FrmrCAPCADET : The critical part of the story is that Boeing will be shopping these alternatives to the airlines. What was left out of the story is the relative cost
42 Revelation : Is "quite competitive" enough to justify the cost (both in real dollars and in opportunity costs) to spend your time reworking the 777? If the custom
43 Stitch : I believe this, as well, though Leeham.net's Piano-X calculations theorize that a 787-8 at spec OEW and spec SFC carrying the same payload as an A330
44 Lightsaber : Sadly, I think that management is ahead of the engineering. 2018 is the earliest I believe Pratt could field a 120k thrust GTF. Most likely. For thos
45 EA772LR : That's a lot of fuel to be saved. I will be curious to see how Airbus is able to make an aircraft slightly smaller than the 77W fly just as far on a
46 Osiris30 : Publically, this would be the first time I know of, but I'm sure if some of our 'insiders' here weren't under NDA you might have heard it sooner. Ofc
47 Osiris30 : I'm reminded of a quote about a will and a way Isn't it true that Pratt has done gearbox tests significantly larger in the lab than used on their tec
48 Carls : Keesje, an A330/A340 with 9 abreast is insane, the same apply for the 10 abreast 777. I can't imagine my self with 1.95 mts and 110 kg seated in an A
49 EA772LR : But weren't the same engines on the 'A330-lite/A350' the same engines to be on the 787? So at that time, it was a no brainer for them to offer to bui
50 Joecanuck : I haven't seen any mention of Thompson seats. These could turn the 777 into a comfortable 10 abreast.
51 Virgin747LGW : Actually as far as im aware Airbus were planning to leave the A330 to compete with the 787 but the airlines were having none of it so then came the A
52 EA772LR : Which in the end proved to be the better deal because Airbus would have entirely ceded the market to Boeing from the 789 up to the 77W which is a hel
53 Lightsaber : I'm unaware of a GTF gear test this high. If Pratt has tested beyound 120k... My sources have respected their NDA. To what size do I know about? Sigh
54 CFBFrame : Revelation- I think both of these ideas are trial balloons on the part of Boeing until an economic analysis is performed comparing the cost and trade-
55 Cosmofly : If re-wing, how easy is it also to add a bit of width to make a 777xwb, hence a true 3-4-3 airliner? Boeing explored widening the 747 in early early 7
56 Osiris30 : Even if it was the exact same engines (which is wasn't) there is still HUGE certification costs that each would have had to bear. They were based on
57 DL767captain : I feel like continuing to stretch the 787 will turn it in to something like the A340 where it just kept getting longer and longer. While the 787-10 m
58 Cosmofly : 787XWB should work wonders
59 Pellegrine : This sounds like a very old study to me. I am familiar with Piano-X but I cannot recall this specific study. The fuel burn delta seems quite high. Do
60 EA772LR : Well I certainly agree with the above, in hindsight Airbus probably should have gone after the 777 replacement, a lot of things happened in the marke
61 Osiris30 : I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. They may have been pushed by a couple of airlines, but I doubt all that many wanted the 380 as
62 Astuteman : The 748 boys might beg to differ...... Need to be careful what the baseline comparator is...... Spot on, IMO P+W have openly said they've been asked
63 Osiris30 : Maybe, but I still don't see a GTF hanging off the 748. If it was, well all I could say would be look out world. The improvement that would offer a 7
64 Joecanuck : The 350-1000 is only about 5 inches wider than the 787. Any stretch the 350 can do, the 787 can copy. Of course, they might need more wing and bigger
65 VirginFlyer : Slightly off topic, but bearing those comments in mind, what is the likelihood a large GTF could be offered as an Engine Alliance engine? Maybe this
66 Osiris30 : No need. Pratt have very publically stated they aren't willing to share their GTF learnings with anyone. They would be foolish too IMHO. Pratt has ea
67 Panais : Agree. Also gave the opportunity to Airbus to use the A330 to create a freighter and a tanker and have a great product that can be competitive in the
68 Astuteman : But in the context, the 748i has been fitted with what was considered the "game-changing" engine at the time that it was launched. Will a GTF in c. 2
69 Post contains images Keesje : That's going to be tough one.. For a long time I've expected Boeing to go for a HGW 787 variant, probably with new wing to cover everything up to 350
70 RIX : - the problem with the original 350 was that that was all with what Airbus was going to counter 787. Like if upgraded 777 was everything that Boeing
71 Keesje : They should upgrade the A330-200. But they haven't (well they have gradually, but not structurally) we have the 777-200/300, the 777-200ER and 777-20
72 Par13del : I admit to getting confused whenever I read a thread such as this, I cannot figure out how we get to some of the product thoughts being thrown around,
73 Revelation : And one can project this logic to why Boeing should be doing an all-new 777 if airlines don't bite. 777 is not competitive with A350, 747-8i is going
74 Panais : My opinion, is that Airbus looked at its own product portfolio and then at Boeing's and realized that they had to develop two products, like Boeing,
75 Post contains links and images Keesje : Emirates, the airline that will be the biggest user of the 777 by the end of this year, has lukewarm interest in a larger- winged version, Chief Exec
76 Post contains links EA772LR : Yes, but as you also did, I pointed out that Airbus had no idea how good the 777 Long Range family was going to be, so they didn't see the need to pr
77 XT6Wagon : I'm guesing that Boeing is looking at its resources and needs. The 787 team when done polishing up its work moves onto the 737RS The 748 team when don
78 Stitch : The trick was, the airlines that were pushing for it we're global players - BA, SQ, QF, LH, et. al. Airbus and Boeing care as much about the quality
79 Astuteman : Good para. A slew of small improvements such as a bit out of the weight, a tad more interior cross-section, and a modest improvement in SFC collectiv
80 DL767captain : It's not like the 748i is really surviving right now though. Honestly it seems like Boeing would not like to get rid of the 777, they could add a lot
81 Cosmofly : Boeing needs to put another 100 seats on it.
82 Brons2 : Is this the new math? 50+350=425 Thread related content: I think Airbus should still consider a re-engined A330, as it has proven to be a formidable
83 Post contains images Osiris30 : This man also ordered 50 380s. He always wants bigger and bigger. Either he's mad or his penis is tiny! Seriously though, EK's desire for enormous ai
84 EA772LR : Astuteman, may I ask, IYHO, do you think that opting for a CFRP wing on the 777 may be a better option and worth it in the long run, as unlike the 74
85 XT6Wagon : The one that keeps floating in my mind is can boeing make the 777LR in a VIP config a "any two major airports on the globe" plane. If they can that m
86 JoeCanuck : The 777 has a very efficient wing already...the best of any Boeing flying, at the moment. I wonder how much more they can possibly wring out of a new
87 Pellegrine : Clark is a smart CEO but he has "outlier opinions" in that he will say whatever is beneficial for his airline, what he wants is sometimes not very re
88 Thegeek : You're assuming that the MTOW would be raised. But lets say that the OEW goes on a diet, but not quite enough to compensate for fitting an additional
89 XT6Wagon : The engines on the 777LR family will get GEnX tech insertion packages in the near future for lower fuel burn. GE has more incentive to push more "han
90 Thegeek : Won't this package lack contra rotation? And to get the full advantage of this, don't you want a 3 shaft engine? I'm not sure about IBR compressors e
91 Stitch : Don't we have that now with the 777VIP bizjet?
92 Post contains links EA772LR : Yep. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/bbj/
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 777 Re-wing Study Revealed
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Re- What Is This On Wing? posted Sat May 10 2008 14:18:01 by 747LUVR
Oval Structures Under 777 Wing posted Sun Dec 23 2007 13:59:53 by PlaneInsomniac
777 Wing Ultimate Load Test Photos/Video posted Tue Aug 29 2006 00:31:30 by 2H4
777 Wing Design. posted Thu Dec 4 2003 00:23:42 by PIA777
777 Wing Lighting posted Tue May 6 2003 18:28:57 by KFRG
Wing Tips On 777's posted Mon Sep 23 2002 07:52:14 by Flyordie
Folding Wing Option For The 777? posted Tue Aug 6 2002 20:30:16 by Mr Spaceman
A320 Wing Design And Detailed Questions. posted Mon Jun 8 2009 16:12:17 by EcuadorianMD11
How Many 767/777 UA Has? posted Sat May 30 2009 01:08:03 by Fuzzman777
Updated 777 Characteristics For Airport Planning posted Sat May 23 2009 06:34:12 by SunriseValley

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format