Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 777-400NG Stretch, New Wing, Engine  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

As indicated by Boeing themselves a 777 enhancement might be on the table to counter the upcoming A350XWB-1000. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSrA_WRIvXvc.

So I toggled around the numbers a bit and Henry Lam (kaktusdigital.com) made some great slides (again).

Engines
Based on Genx and GE90-115B engines. Overall pressure ratio 25:1, Thrust at sea level: 125,000 lbf, Diameter fan :123 inch.



Dimensions
Wing span: 71.2 m, Fuselage lenght 777-300NG: 242 ft 4 in (73.9 m), 777-400NG: 258 ft (78.9m)

Performance
Maximum payload range Boeing 777-300NG : 6200NM (11,300km), Boeing 777-400NG : 5,500 nmi (10,190 km). Max range (passengers only) Boeing 777-300NG: 8300 nm (15,370km), Boeing 777-400NG : 7900 nmi, (14,800 km)

Capasity
Typical Boeing 777-300NG: 365, Boeing 777-400NG: 420. Max capasity : 550 passengers (both types)

Weights
MTOW Boeing 777-300NG 755,000 lb (340,000 kg), Boeing 777-400NG 797,000 lb (362,000 kg)


Boeing 777-400NG study

Summary
 arrow  Lighter composites wing (787 technology) with better L/D and room for fuel.
 arrow  More fuel efficient, more silent engines, based on certified GE90 and GENX technology.
 arrow  More capasity to bring down CASM and/or offer A380 style products /services.
 arrow  Low risk option to sustain 777-300ER market dominance and replace passenger 747-400s

140 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That is one sweet looking aircraft - particularly like the graceful wingtips.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSeemyseems From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 967 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

I hope this does happen, it would be great to see what it looks like too!


seemyseems
User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6808 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

An even longer 777? Anyway, interesting stuff.


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

Yes, we've had discussions in the past where I and others posited that any 777NG would need to be a stretch, with capacities of 340-50 and 400 based on a smaller stretch than you suggest (due to the limitations of takeoff roll and gate space) but with more effective 10Y seating than today (through the use of quieter engines, more effective insulation and thinner side walls allowing for 2-4 more inches), and using GE90 engines that incorporate GEnx design enhancements, and a greater use of composites for wings, nose and tail.

Thanks for collecting all the data and ideas into one place. Just try to resist the urge to slap a "copyright keesje" on it this time.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

As usual, another well-planned market option by Keeje.

Boeing does need an airplane to replace the 744; if the 773ER is a great replacement for classic 747s, they need to come up with a twin to take over for the 744. And the 748 is clearly NOT it.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Assuming the landing gear and tarmac can take the 362t weight, it might be a solid competitor to the A350-1000XWB applying "proven" technology already in use with many airlines around the world today.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
As usual, another well-planned market option by Keeje.

No, as usual, another well pilfered concept by Keesje without giving any credit to anyone else (other than the artist, which he never used to do, either). Slapping someone else's art on other people's ideas is not innovative thinking. It's just a nice presentation of preexisting concepts.

Other than adding 20 seats to the ideas of others (without providing market analysis as to why this would be desirable), nothing he's posting here is a new idea, and frankly, in the past, when others have proposed such changes over time to the 777, he's dismissed them as still unable to compete with the A350X for various reaso ns (wasted crown space, older design, weight, etc.).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineA300 American From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

I can see it happening! 787 trickle down technologies to an aging 777 platform.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

Oh, and if Boeing do go this route, the aircraft will surely be known as:

777-8 and 777-9.  Smile



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2526 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

Once again, you've done excellent work Keesje - I loved the Ecoliner concept you posted and the artist's rendition of this aircraft is magnificent. Those wings are based on the 787 wing design, aren't they?

User currently offlineAtomsareenough From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 566 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

Interesting idea. I wonder how successfully they can balance the efficiency of the GENX with the power of the GE90.

Also, out of curiosity, would adding another 5 meters of length to the fuselage present any practical problems?

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):

Capasity

Not to nitpick, because I really do enjoy and appreciate your posts, but I just want to give you a heads-up because I've seen you consistently misspell this word. It's "capacity", with a C instead of an S.


User currently offline757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 1):
That is one sweet looking aircraft - particularly like the graceful wingtips.

 checkmark 
Mouth-watering gorgeous... show that picture and that's half the motivation to build it right there!



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Based on Genx and GE90-115B engines. Overall pressure ratio 25:1

If the OPR is just 25, your project will not get very far.  Wink
I assume you mean a *compressor* OPR of 25. Overall pressure ratio should be 50 at least.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

Great looking concept drawing from Henry again, better than many manufacturer-issued ones.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:

Henry Lam had some time left and made the 777NG artist impressions. http://www.kaktusdigital.com/. We have done some concepts since the A320 Enhanced Performance a few yrs back. ILFC proposed a -400 some time ago. Ikra I always name the artists unless I sketch something myself.



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
If the OPR is just 25, your project will not get very far

I meant a pressure ratio of 25 about 8% higher then GE90..


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
If the OPR is just 25, your project will not get very far

I meant a pressure ratio of 25 about 8% higher then GE90..

Again, that's the pressure ratio of the compressor only. State of the art in engine overall pressure ratio is 45-50.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
it might be a solid competitor to the A350-1000XWB

Well, it certainly would be wider than the airplane that markets itself as "extra wide body". The current B-777, and this B-777 is already wider than any version of the A-350.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2825 posts, RR: 45
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Keesje: A very good post, thank you! I have a question. What are the gate accomodation issues for a 258 foot long airplane? I am sure there are plenty of places they will work, conversely, there are plenty of places they won't. How restrictive is that, and has an analysis been done of airports that would either be unable to accomodate the aircraft, or would require significant modifications to do so? Obviously size has been an issue with the A-380 (and with other aircraft before that, e.g. the 747), but this aircraft would (Boeing would hope anyway) be more numerous and operated to more places than the typical VLA routes.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I am just wondering about this constraint to design. As an aside, if Boeing did go this route, it would seem to be the final nail in the coffin of the 747.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Boeing does need an airplane to replace the 744; if the 773ER is a great replacement for classic 747s, they need to come up with a twin to take over for the 744. And the 748 is clearly NOT it.

It looks like the end is near for the jumbo jet...

This is one sweet-looking aircraft! I'm sure that UA and DL will  biting  on this one!



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineWolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 488 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Excellent work Keesje. Love to see your concepts and visualizations.  bigthumbsup 

Please ignore the bitter comments.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Wouldn't it need a 3rd MLG? Anyway, looks awesome.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 18):
What are the gate accommodation issues for a 258 foot long airplane?

It should be fine as it will still fit in an 80mx80m box. Such a plane would be used for international ops and those gates are already sized for large aircraft (744/748//77W/A346/A388).

[Edited 2009-07-02 13:40:40]

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
ILFC proposed a -400 some time ago.

I remember that, its some years ago. But didnt Boeing turn it down because, among other issues, the 773 is already at the upper end of how long the 777 could be stretched?


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Absolutely beautiful aircraft.  drool  I would like to see that nose replaced with the 787, with the 787 cockpit for added commonality across the families of 787/777.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Engines
Based on Genx and GE90-115B engines. Overall pressure ratio 25:1, Thrust at sea level: 125,000 lbf, Diameter fan :123 inch.

Only 123 inch fan? The current fan GE90-115B fan is 128 inches. How about 133 inch fan in order to keep a very high BPR. I know the GE90 core is scalable up to 150,000lbf.

All in all, and interesting and nice looking design.  thumbsup 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
25 NCB : Keesje is right that Boeing must come up with B777NG ASAP, no matter of how busy they are with other programs. The A350 threat is too big and the B777
26 EPA001 : Yes it is. Thanks for this vision of which I think Boeing is pretty serious studying such a variant themselves. It would still be some years though b
27 YULWinterSkies : Don't call me anti-B for saying this, but i think B would have to be careful by doing so, as airlines may perceive it as a warmed-over 777, à-la A350
28 Brons2 : I think they should make an ER and LR versions of these planes. The LR at the weights mentioned, the ER at 699,000 lbs and a range of ~6500 nmi, choic
29 RIX : - but there was nothing wrong with it per se, and it was quite a good/quick seller. The wrong thing about it was that it was the only Airbus answer t
30 NA : I think so, too. Imho Boeing should wait at least another two to four years. This will allow them a) to watch how the A380 is doing, b) to see how th
31 JoeCanuck : One thing Boeing has learned is that CFRP has its limits. The 350 may not be able to overcome the limitations any more than the 787 can. Metal alloys
32 PanAm92 : I think Boeing should have worked on a NG 777 and put the 747 to sleep. The twin engine planes seem to be the way the market is going. Living near JFK
33 RIX : - I'd also add, e) get some initial experience from 787operations to know "how composite" whatever they build next is going to be.
34 Trystero : Bigger, longer and uncut!!!
35 BMIFlyer : I like it Not really much more I can say Lee
36 PlanesNTrains : Perhaps, but the strength of the 747-8 project has been in the freighter sales. The passenger version is almost like an add-on to an existing program
37 Gilesdavies : If a 777-400NG stretch is offered, would it not be then treading on the feet of the 747-800??? Both aircrafts would then have a similar capacity and b
38 Stitch : A 777-400 would pretty much ensure the 747-8 dies a lonely death. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that it would require a not-insignificant commitment
39 Ikramerica : This is why any 777-9 would not be 420 seats 3-class. Currently, the 77W is 365 (nominal), and a stretch to 420 (using 9Y as Keesje) believes is too
40 DL767captain : This seems way more likely than an entirely new 777 sized plane. It may hurt the 748i but there isn't really much to hurt. I really like the pictures
41 EA772LR : Huh? The A330 hasn't lost market share yet to the 787. The same can be said about the 777 vs. A350, particularly the -1000, which is what this 777-40
42 United Airline : What about the Y2? I mean the double decker which is going to replace the B 747/777
43 Thegeek : This will never happen. Boeing has bigger fish to fry with the 787. A higher MTOW 777 would also require a new landing gear, and by the time it enters
44 Keesje : The 777-300ER/NG is bigger then the future A350-1000. This 777-300NG/-400NG would be positioned in a bigger segment, 365-420 seats, rather then up to
45 HAWK21M : I Feel Boeing will concentrate on the B787 instead. regds MEL.
46 Thegeek : So MTOW is the same. Then what do you need the new wing for? I understand that the 77W/L wing is quite efficient already. History hasn't looked kindl
47 Stitch : That's called the 787. Y3 is the 777/747 replacement study member of the Yellowstone program.
48 Keesje : The wing / wingbox are lighter and more efficient. So OEW for payload & less fuel..
49 SunriseValley : and weighs in at about 383K pounds +- passenger ready. A healthy amount of additional weight for only 278 seats.
50 Ual747 : Keesje, the pics are beautiful! The only miniscule thing that I will say is that in the 2nd pic, the landing gear need to be a bit further apart. I co
51 Tdscanuck : If you design to the same load factors, you get the same strength. The only way to make a Ti structure more crash-survivable is to overbuild it (more
52 Baroque : Oh well, I suppose it all hangs on what you mean by incomparable. It is, just the wrong way??? I suppose while making it out of Ti, they might as wel
53 SEPilot : Either the 787 will prove the advantages of CFRP construction (which I believe it will) or it won't. If it does, I am convinced that reduced maintenan
54 Post contains links and images Keesje : If Boeing manages to realize a good marketshare 250-320 seats with various 787 versions that might be ok. Apart from that I think they need a competa
55 SEPilot : You miss my point. If CFRP does not work out as an airframe material for the 787 it will fail for the A350 as well. If Airbus can make it work, Boein
56 Keesje : It already works. A good percentage of the A380 is composites, the 777 has 10% and A320s 15%. I think its more about the balance. CRFP is not the hol
57 SEPilot : Quite true. I personally believe that both the 787 and A350 will be spectacularly successful, but we won't know for sure until they fly.
58 DocLightning : So are new engines sufficiently efficient that there isn't the necessary range penalty for the extra weight? Is new engine, new composite wing, and lo
59 Thegeek : That's exactly my point. But why should Boeing do anything about the 744 replacement market? The 77W is already the best 744 replacement on the marke
60 Keesje : Boeing has nothing succesfull being produced >300 seats for the coming years then the 777-300ER. The 787-9 is years away. The 777-200, -300, 200ER an
61 Thegeek : So, you are expecting this stretch & upgrade to be competitive against the A350XWB-1000? I'd think they'd find that pretty challenging, but you never
62 Keesje : The 300NER is already be substantial bigger then the A350-1000. A 777-400NG would add another 50 seats / space. Not in the same segment as A350-1000
63 Thegeek : I wouldn't say substantially. 365 vs 350 3-class passengers, 0.1m in length. It's a bit wider and a fair bit more MTOW, but is that important? Yes, a
64 JoeCanuck : More if you go 10 wide like EK and others are doing. Plus, it can haul a significantly larger payload...as far as we know since I don't think the wei
65 Thegeek : This point is true. If the A351 can get roughly the same number of pax roughly the same distance with 53t less MTOW, I'd think it would be unbeatable
66 EA772LR : I think as is, from what we know now, the A350-1000 won't be able to carry nearly as much payload, nor passengers at any range that the 77W can. But,
67 Tdscanuck : This is the kicker...*if* Airbus can hit the target numbers on the A350, they'll slaughter the 777. And they'll absolutely deserve it. But the A350's
68 Thegeek : Let's hope that they are. Otherwise, they're publicising a target that they know they will miss. A good way to look stupid.
69 Jambrain : It's mostly going to be down to RR I guess, if each new Trent is 4% better then the last T800->->T500->T900->T1000->TXWB is a lot of improvements (no
70 747Fleet : well this one going to be quite large then the previous designs very interesting airplane i wonder long the the flight would be with full load B777 se
71 DocLightning : The elephant in the room is the length. Not only will you have to have the computers limit angle at rotation, but having all that plane is going to m
72 Astuteman : And I think this, whilst valid, is considerably overhyped... CFRP already works. It's the hype that's proving a failure IMO I think this is correct,
73 Thegeek : That's the way I see it. You're forgetting half of the CFM56. But yes, it isn't helping them one bit. Perhaps triple spool is coming into its own at
74 Jambrain : I'm talking proper engines not those little hairdriers!
75 Parapente : The concept of a 777 stretch is as has been said old. Indeed Boeing themselves mentioned the possibility years ago. (And BA asked for it).And yes it w
76 Baroque : 'Bout time?????
77 CFBFrame : Airbus has learned, and Boeing has watched, the market kill Airbus for proposing a warmed over redesign on the A330 family. Airbus has learned that th
78 Gigneil : Definitely, yes. Airbus has significantly more commercial composites experience than Airbus, and Boeing is certainly making a lot of the mistakes for
79 SunriseValley : Are you sure ? Except for EZE and SIN it covers the routes of the large European flag carriers even assuming a westbound 5200nm range. It would not w
80 Post contains links Keesje : Gigneil, we better put the books aside run to Boeing & tell 'm http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=323362
81 Rheinwaldner : Regarding the engines the 777 has a big disadvantage: the high thrust requirements. The smaller twins share one large thrust class (sub 100k). The 77
82 SEPilot : True; however market acceptance is often pretty nearly black and white, for example, the 764. Even though, from what I have seen, it pretty well matc
83 Rheinwaldner : The 787 may substantially underperforms regarding the promises, it still would be good enough against the A330, I think we can say that already. Even
84 SEPilot : What I was referring to was CaptainX's dire predictions that CFRP would prove to be totally unsuitable, that it would shatter and catch fire in a cra
85 DocLightning : Wait. The GE-90 was a 90k engine. That's how it got its name. The 110/115 models were developed when a HGW version of the 777 was designed for the 77
86 Tdscanuck : This isn't really true. A GE90 is much more efficient than, say, a JT8D, but the GE90 burns *way* more fuel per hour at comparable cruising speeds. W
87 DocLightning : Ok, but that's not a good comparison because the GE90 makes a lot more thrust than the JT8D. The JT9D and the GEnX are a far more fair comparison. Si
88 Rheinwaldner : The airframe is made to cope with a certain MTOW. The required thrust is chosen to cope with that MTOW. Hardly the MTOW of a 777NG would be reduced.
89 Jetlife2 : This is correct. Subsequent posts imply the airframe weight is fixed and the thrust is fixed. In airplane design this is not correct. It is a virtuou
90 Astuteman : If you're starting with a clean sheet of paper, then I'd agree completely. But an existing frame? I think Rheinwaldner is correct in this case. The 7
91 Thegeek : Up would be challenging too: isn't the 12 wheel main landing gear at about its limit? The points above are where there could be stretch which preserv
92 Post contains images Cysafan : No way!! MD-11 is better !!! Haha !! Very pleasant front nose!!
93 zainmax : Are these pictures and the specifications officially unveiled by Boeing ?
94 Post contains links A342 : I believe a 777-400 could be built with the same wing and MTOW as the current -300ER. Here's the rough analysis I've done: The OEW difference between
95 tdscanuck : No, they're from Keesje and Henry: Tom
96 SHAQ : 212 in the new configuration I think... It is wayy premium heavy !
97 thegeek : You're looking at its technical and in service performance. What about its sales performance? That still lags the A332 last I checked. Perhaps given
98 474218 : The B-58 had 16 main wheels.
99 A342 : No, actually I meant the sales performance. Might be true, but not by a big amount. Recently airlines have been preferring -300s to -200s. Just look
100 Post contains links thegeek : As did the 747. My point was that adding 4 more main gear wheels or a centre main gear (more likely) is not a small change. And I consider it to be u
101 Post contains links keesje : At July's Farnborough Air Show, Emirates also ordered 30 Boeing (BA.N) 777-300ER wide-body planes, a deal worth potentially more than $9 billion. [ID:
102 Stitch : Which would imply EK does not expect traffic on those routes to grow to the point they justify an A380-800, which can make the run now.
103 keesje : I do not know what EK expects. Maybe they expect growth in the next 10 years and would gradually optimize the fleet mix, frequencies and capacity per
104 Stitch : Not for EK, IMO, otherwise they would have ordered the 747-8 as it would have carried more passengers and cargo than the 777-300ERs they are sending
105 BMI727 : Emirates already said that they don't foresee the A350-1000 replacing the 77W, since it seems that the A350-1000 is lower in capacity and probably wo
106 thegeek : I don't think there is such need. Slightly higher frequency with A3510s would satisfy the market for this one. Or, in some cases, slightly lower freq
107 Post contains images mandala499 : Hmm... ever tried a single engine after V1 on a 773ER at MTOW? "Nice" climb rate and don't bother flying it straight & ball center... increase the
108 SchorschNG : That's why a simple stretch wouldn't get far. You'll need a 10-20% larger wing. Disadvantage: for the 300-seat 5000nm mission (B777-200ER) the aircra
109 thegeek : Is there anyone who thinks a substantial increase to the 777 MTOW is a possibility?
110 Stitch : No. The tire loading and wheel speed limits under the current MTOW make increasing it not really feasible. A "777-300ERX" is going to have to increas
111 474218 : However, the 747 has four (4) struts, the B-58 only two (2).
112 XT6Wagon : This is what makes me think that a strectched version of the 777 will NOT happen. The 300ER already has issues with rotation adding another 10-15ft b
113 BMI727 : That might be a bit of a stretch, but if Boeing isn't going to do a new wing and extensive weight reductions on the NG, then what's the point? You do
114 thegeek : There is no point in messing with the 777 much. Unless, of course, the A3510 is a massive flop.
115 BMI727 : There is, but it doesn't have to be now. Somewhere in the 2015-2020 range is when I was thinking. It won't be.
116 thegeek : That's the least logical idea of all! What are you thinking? And how would something less than Y3 compete with the A350?
117 BMI727 : The 77W and 77F with a few 77Ls are going to keep the line going for some time with some incremental improvements. It doesn't really need to. The 77W
118 thegeek : I can agree with you on that one.
119 parapente : "It doesn't really need to. The 77W NG would sit above the A350 in payload range and capacity" Exactly.Although (many years ago) Boeing did say that a
120 Post contains links and images keesje : It think Y3 will be bigger then the A350. The 787 family should take care of the 763/A330/A350/777 For the 777 upgrade I think a dramatic stretch is
121 Stitch : I just don't think a stretch is necessary or even desirable. The first thing Boeing needs to do is cut GE a check to help shoulder the cost of re-work
122 thegeek : Doing such a thing also would reduce the need for the 77L, as the payload-range of the 77W would be improved. I don't see why Boeing should pay for a
123 Stitch : Which I expect Boeing would be okay with, since the 777 Freighter would carry on. If you can make an operator's current 777-300ER more efficient, the
124 QFA787380 : I'm actually new to this thread but am a big proponent of the 3-row stretch to the 77W and possibly to the 77L as well. The 777 can possibly become a
125 thegeek : Or GE could spend some more money improving the CF6! 777 has a few years of sales left in it, but a major revamp, keeping the same basic design is unl
126 sunrisevalley : I agree. EK 's block time equivalent is ~7500nm ESAD. Right now they are limited to ~37t payload. For full passenger load plus fill available freight
127 Post contains images Stitch : Well EK have noted that the passenger loads are more important than the cargo loads, since the 777-200LRs they were flying could lift around 45 tons
128 parapente : The 772 must be dead.If Airbus cannot build a brand new carbon aircraft with brand new engines that is aimed directly at that aircraft and beat it, th
129 sunrisevalley : My viewpoint is if a carrier has a 80% load efficiency on a route with a 772 at 300-seats they are better off with a 280-seater 789 , same number of
130 Post contains images astuteman : Not sure how many times we've been through this. The latest A380 R/P chart shows a max payload of 84 tonnes. As the MZFW of EK's A380-800's is 366 to
131 BMI727 : ...and the A330 is in many cases a 772 replacement. And I'm not suggesting stopping the 777 line. The 787-10 would be primarily designed to take over
132 Post contains images sunrisevalley : A'man...thanks for the correction and the detail of how you arrived at it.
133 astuteman : It would be quite nice if Airbus copied Boeing and used "ZFW" as the vertical axis on their R/P charts as opposed to "payload". It would save the pot
134 parapente : Reply 129. My viewpoint is if a carrier has a 80% load efficiency on a route with a 772 at 300-seats they are better off with a 280-seater 789 , same
135 SchorschNG : Capacity needs always be considered in the network context. Those fewer seats can be given higher price, so many price-sensitive Eco Pax will automat
136 sunrisevalley : When the Boeing announcement was made that Lars Andersen was taking over the project I believe they expected an October announcement of where they ex
137 parapente : Re Reply 136. That seems a well thought out couple of "real world" options to me. My personal view is that option 2 would not now happen due to the de
138 sunrisevalley : Disregarding the 773ER NG which is as yet undefined, I believe the issue on A.Net with the 748i is that A.netters have not been able to replicate LH'
139 Stitch : Did EK decide on the WV002 model for long-haul? I thought they had selected WV000 (361t MZFW) for their long-haul and WV001 (372t) for their medium-h
140 XT6Wagon : I think what you are missing is that Airbus has not matched the 777 load capacity by wieght in the A350. There are reasons to do this as it lets you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing 777-400NG Stretch, New Wing, Engine
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...
Boeing 777 Type Ratings posted Thu Oct 9 2008 10:43:30 by JETBLUEATASW
Boeing 777 Class 3 EFB posted Sun Aug 17 2008 23:58:58 by LeftWing
Boeing 777 Mtow Options posted Fri Aug 15 2008 01:44:34 by SXI899
LAX Runway Tunnel-1/3 Of 747 Wing+engine Hang Over posted Sun May 25 2008 19:20:07 by HeyWhaTheHay
A350-1000 New Wing To Support 4 Engines F0r -1100? posted Fri May 23 2008 00:09:17 by Panais
A320RS: Airbus Plans Radical New Wing posted Wed Apr 30 2008 01:59:29 by Aviationbuff
Video: Damaged Saudi Airlines Boeing 777 Lands posted Thu Mar 13 2008 02:18:18 by LockstockNL777
Boeing May Not Test 787 Wing To Destruction posted Tue May 29 2007 19:22:40 by Stitch
Should Boeing Had Kept The 747 Wing At 40 Degrees? posted Mon Apr 16 2007 04:01:23 by 747400sp
Introducing A New Jet Engine? posted Sat Mar 24 2007 04:29:51 by NASOCEANA
Boeing 777 Type Ratings posted Thu Oct 9 2008 10:43:30 by JETBLUEATASW
Boeing 777 Mtow Options posted Fri Aug 15 2008 01:44:34 by SXI899
X-Ray Of A Boeing 777 posted Thu Feb 4 2010 15:44:33 by Qslinger
Boeing 777 Class 3 EFB posted Sun Aug 17 2008 23:58:58 by LeftWing
Boeing 777 Autopilot And LNAV/VNAV On To posted Thu Jan 14 2010 08:31:48 by Krisyyz
Boeing 777 Mtow Options posted Fri Aug 15 2008 01:44:34 by SXI899
Boeing 777-300ER Underfloor Cargo Question posted Fri Oct 30 2009 02:04:04 by Reggaebird
LAX Runway Tunnel-1/3 Of 747 Wing+engine Hang Over posted Sun May 25 2008 19:20:07 by HeyWhaTheHay
LAX Runway Tunnel-1/3 Of 747 Wing+engine Hang Over posted Sun May 25 2008 19:20:07 by HeyWhaTheHay
Airbus New Wing Root Fairing Technology posted Sat Apr 4 2009 01:47:25 by Aviationbuff
Boeing 777 Type Ratings posted Thu Oct 9 2008 10:43:30 by JETBLUEATASW
Boeing 777 Class 3 EFB posted Sun Aug 17 2008 23:58:58 by LeftWing
Boeing 777 Mtow Options posted Fri Aug 15 2008 01:44:34 by SXI899
LAX Runway Tunnel-1/3 Of 747 Wing+engine Hang Over posted Sun May 25 2008 19:20:07 by HeyWhaTheHay
X-Ray Of A Boeing 777 posted Thu Feb 4 2010 15:44:33 by Qslinger
Boeing 777 Autopilot And LNAV/VNAV On To posted Thu Jan 14 2010 08:31:48 by Krisyyz
Boeing 777-300ER Underfloor Cargo Question posted Fri Oct 30 2009 02:04:04 by Reggaebird
Airbus New Wing Root Fairing Technology posted Sat Apr 4 2009 01:47:25 by Aviationbuff
Boeing 777 Type Ratings posted Thu Oct 9 2008 10:43:30 by JETBLUEATASW
Over Wing Engine? posted Wed Aug 11 2010 09:41:22 by Wrighbrothers
Boeing 777 Fuel Consumption posted Tue Jun 15 2010 02:41:26 by dkramer7
X-Ray Of A Boeing 777 posted Thu Feb 4 2010 15:44:33 by Qslinger
Boeing 777 Autopilot And LNAV/VNAV On To posted Thu Jan 14 2010 08:31:48 by Krisyyz
Boeing 777-300ER Underfloor Cargo Question posted Fri Oct 30 2009 02:04:04 by Reggaebird
Airbus New Wing Root Fairing Technology posted Sat Apr 4 2009 01:47:25 by Aviationbuff
Boeing 777 Autopilot And LNAV/VNAV On To posted Thu Jan 14 2010 08:31:48 by Krisyyz
Boeing 777-300ER Underfloor Cargo Question posted Fri Oct 30 2009 02:04:04 by Reggaebird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format