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 Lighter composites wing (787 technology) with better L/D and room for fuel. More fuel efficient, more silent engines, based on certified GE90 and GENX technology. More capasity to bring down CASM and/or offer A380 style products /services. Low risk option to sustain 777-300ER market dominance and replace passenger 747-400s
Seemyseems From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 947 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
I hope this does happen, it would be great to see what it looks like too!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours 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.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4856 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours 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.
A300 American From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 158 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
I can see it happening! 787 trickle down technologies to an aging 777 platform.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours 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.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1944 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours 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?
Atomsareenough From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 543 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours 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?
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.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours 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..
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11023 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours 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.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2443 posts, RR: 47 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 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.
Steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 8522 posts, RR: 22 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 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 on this one!
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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).
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8615 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 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?
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Absolutely beautiful aircraft. 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.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 will lose market share like snow melting to an August sun.
There is no future for the actual B777 in the post-2016 new airplanes market with any significant new orders unlikely after 2010.
I would go with a B774-sized airplane as base model and take a shrink to cover the A359 competition and a stretch to cover the B744 replacement market.
The engine should be a Trent XWB variant or a GEnx-based engine IMO, if possible open rotor, with the same cockpit as the 787.
There are things that I would love to see such as an all Ti-structure but it will not be achievable cost-wise until new Ti-production processes are developped which is not expected before at least 2015.
An all-Ti structure would make a very long stretch possible and significantly improve crash survivability (impact forces/fire resistance) winning as a result on passenger appeal. Maintenance and weight (by over 20%) will be reduced significantly compared to aluminium and composite structures, fatigue characteristics uncomparable. "Active wing" technology will become very easy to apply as each wing structure will be able to carry its own load unlike active wings that must remain attached in one piece to conserve strength.
Corrosion will be a thing of the past, airframes will last a century.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 16 Reply 26, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Wolbo (Reply 20): Excellent work Keesje. Love to see your concepts and visualizations.
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 before they would realize this plane since the B747-8 would be the first victim of your vision.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 7 Reply 27, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 first-generation (the warmed over A330).
By the time development comes, the A350XWB will have made progress, requiring a brand-new project from its competitor... History tends to repeat itself. Manufacturers should learn from their comptitors' mistakes.
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2924 posts, RR: 5 Reply 28, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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, choice of GE or RR power (no GE exclusivity under 700K lbs) and amazing CASM.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1779 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 27): airlines may perceive it as a warmed-over 777, à-la A350 first-generation
- 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 to 787. Now, 777NG would be same wrong if there was no 787 at all. Plus, 777 is still bigger than 350 and can cover everything from current 340/777 market to 744 with no capacity loss (774). Although nobody said 350-1100 is impossible after 350-1000 is built, but, then, Boeing is waiting for what the latter will look like to decide on 777 upgrade/replacement...
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 8615 posts, RR: 11 Reply 30, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 27): 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 first-generation
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 the 748I sells after the crisis, c) to have a chance to judge how good the A350 will be, d) how much the 777 will lose against all those.
If by 2012/13 the 748I does not become the moderate success Boeing hopes for, and the 777 sales drop steeply as can be expected, then the ONLY choice for Boeing must be the development of a joint all-new 777/747(pax) replacement, an aircraft which should be of approx. 77W size or slightly larger as the basic type (but wider than the 777), and a stretched version of about 748I size with the possibility of an even slightly larger model and, if needed, even a shorter version of a size halfway between 772 and 77W. Such aircraft could debut in 2017/18.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4318 posts, RR: 25 Reply 31, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 27): By the time development comes, the A350XWB will have made progress, requiring a brand-new project from its competitor... History tends to repeat itself. Manufacturers should learn from their comptitors' mistakes.
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 are proven, predictable and reliable. Rather than being a setback, all metal might help sales. I bet there are more than a few airlines who are wishing that the 350 mk1 was on the market.
PanAm92 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 airport you see more airlines flying A330 or 777
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1779 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 30): This will allow them a) to watch how the A380 is doing, b) to see how the 748I sells after the crisis, c) to have a chance to judge how good the A350 will be, d) how much the 777 will lose against all those.
- I'd also add, e) get some initial experience from 787operations to know "how composite" whatever they build next is going to be.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4027 posts, RR: 28 Reply 36, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting PanAm92 (Reply 32): 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 airport you see more airlines flying A330 or 777
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, so a lower risk, lower cost option than a clean sheet design, and probably preferable to a 777NG at a time when the "original" 777 was enjoying profound success.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2713 posts, RR: 1 Reply 37, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 be aimed at similar markets... It is happens it will be great!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 38, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 37): If a 777-400NG stretch is offered, would it not be then treading on the feet of the 747-800???
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 from a number of major carriers to make it happen. I'm talking a score each from carriers including EK, SQ, BA, CX, JL and NH. Heck, it probably need ALL of them considering one "prestige" carrier so far has not been enough to launch the 747-8 (LH) or A350-1000XWB (EK) into sales stardom.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 39, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): 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 from a number of major carriers to make it happen. I'm talking a score each from carriers including EK, SQ, BA, CX, JL and NH. Heck, it probably need ALL of them considering one "prestige" carrier so far has not been enough to launch the 747-8 (LH) or A350-1000XWB (EK) into sales stardom.
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 long anyway.
390-400 seats is where any stretch would go. Basically, two small plugs ala the 748, and a switch to 10Y seating as standard.
A 777-8, between the lengths of the 772 and 773, would be about 340 seats at 10Y.
I believe airlines are happy with their long range fleet between 300 and 400 seats. Nobody seems to be clamoring for VLA (400+) seat aircraft despite their lower CASM...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 and think it makes a lot of sense, it allows boing to use the same production facilities and get a lot out of just a little investment.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 11 Reply 41, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 25): 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 will lose market share like snow melting to an August sun.
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 777-400NG is designed to compete with. Boeing is in a good way right now with the 77W. If I were Boeing I'd be investing more in getting the 787-8/9/3 right, then push for an 8,000nm 787-10, one that can truly compete with the A359.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): Therefore, I'm of the opinion that it would require a not-insignificant commitment from a number of major carriers to make it happen. I'm talking a score each from carriers including EK, SQ, BA, CX, JL and NH. Heck, it probably need ALL of them considering one "prestige" carrier so far has not been enough to launch the 747-8 (LH) or A350-1000XWB (EK) into sales stardom.
I think if Boeing were to launch something similar to what Keesje is proposing above, EK, CX, BA, and possibly even LH, amongst many others would probably leap on that plane. It would have the range of the 77W or better, superb payload, and RASM/CASM figures. A new wing, and MLG would be needed, which may be too expensive.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8541 posts, RR: 21 Reply 42, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
What about the Y2?
I mean the double decker which is going to replace the B 747/777
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 the market, it's life is likely to be short if competing with the A350XWB & 787.
Of course, if we could go back 5 years and stretch the 777 instead of the 747, while applying engines with 15% better SFC, it might have been worth it.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 44, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 350 seats such as the A350XWB.
The engines have slightly higher diameter, the wing is new. For the rest commonality with the 777-300ER/200LR should be significant.
The range of the 400NG would be 5500nm. Capacity for range..
Realistic seatcounts: Singapore Airlines seats has 278 seats in their Boeing 777-300ER, Cathay about 300 ANA 280 ?
Those carriers could add seats, bars, showers etc like in the A380s. E.g. SQ and ANA 777-400NG: 305 seats and Cathay 330 in premium longhaul configurations.
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 44):
The range of the 400NG would be 5500nm. Capacity for range..
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 kindly on planes which trade range for payload: e.g. 773A vs 77E, 739A vs 738. Even the A332 outsells the A333 for reasons which don't seem too obvious to me. The only exception I can think of is the 747 vs 747SP, but that doesn't really count.
The only way this would work for me is the SFC is improved to the level of the 787, and therefore the fuel tanks don't need to be as big.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 47, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Ual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 50, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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 could never do anything like that, so kudos, just something I noticed. Not sure if it is easy to correct, but if you did that, the pic would be perfect! I especially like the color scheme! Why oh why don't we have great C/S like that?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11028 posts, RR: 72 Reply 51, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 32653 times:
Quoting NCB (Reply 25): An all-Ti structure would make a very long stretch possible and significantly improve crash survivability (impact forces/fire resistance)
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 weight, more cost, less performance).
Quoting NCB (Reply 25): Maintenance and weight (by over 20%) will be reduced significantly compared to aluminium and composite structures, fatigue characteristics uncomparable.
Fatigue characteristics of Ti are worse than composite.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 52, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 32396 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 51): Fatigue characteristics of Ti are worse than composite.
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 well give it, what, say a Mach 3 cruise too!
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5900 posts, RR: 39 Reply 53, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 32353 times:
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 maintenance will be one of the biggest advantages. In this case, I do not believe that Boeing will invest this amount of resources in another aluminum plane, and I do not think that Ti is going to be viable for airframe construction. For one thing, while Ti is much stronger than Al, it is also quite a bit heavier. While the strength to weight ratio is better, the required thickness (for example, for fuselage skins) may mean that there is no net weight savings. And Ti is miserable to work with. On the other hand, if the 787 does not work as expected, I think Boeing will be in trouble, and will not have the resources to do this. For that matter, if the 787 fails because CFRP does not work out, Boeing will not have to answer the A350-1000 at all.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 54, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 32510 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53): For that matter, if the 787 fails because CFRP does not work out, Boeing will not have to answer the A350-1000 at all.
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 competative aircraft between the 787 and the A380. Maybe the 777 and 747 series do not provide the means to realize steady sales long term.
A Boeing 777-300NG + 777-400NG sub serie might provide a $6 billion interim solution, positioned above the A350-1000 and under the A380.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5900 posts, RR: 39 Reply 55, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 32299 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 54):
If Boeing manages to realize a good marketshare 250-320 seats with various 787 versions that might be ok.
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, Boeing will also.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 56, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32323 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 55): 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, Boeing will also.
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 holy grail for all applications. Maybe Boeing will make different material choices for certain apllications in their next design.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5900 posts, RR: 39 Reply 57, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32290 times:
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14022 posts, RR: 55 Reply 58, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32118 times:
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 lots of heavier landing gear good enough?
I'd imagine it would take a fair sight more than 125,000 lbs of thrust on each engine to match the 77W's range. And it's not going to be a good 744 replacement unless it has the range.
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 32084 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58): And it's not going to be a good 744 replacement unless it has the range.
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 market, unless you count the A380 as a 744 replacement. And for the routes that the A380 makes sense a further stretch of the 777 wouldn't be a competitor anyway.
I do agree, though, that keeping the MTOW the same makes this project a bit more probable. You have to keep the range more or less the same too, though.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 60, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 32006 times:
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 59): 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 market, unless you count the A380 as a 744 replacement. And for the routes that the A380 makes sense a further stretch of the 777 wouldn't be a competitor anyway.
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 and 200LR backlog are drying up, The 747-8i contniuous to be a wallflower. That's why Boeing is considering upgrading the 777 as a low risk option. Waiting until the -300ER sales drop will be too late.
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 know.
The 777-200LR was only really ever intended as a niche aircraft, so I wouldn't really say that it's sales are drying up more than any other plane being produced now. At least it's a wider niche than the A345 appeals to.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 62, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 31712 times:
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 61): 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 know.
The 300NER is already be substantial bigger then the A350-1000.
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 31624 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 62): The 300NER is already be substantial bigger then the A350-1000.
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 777-400 would be a direct competitor to nothing presently in the market. 5 years ago, going after that niche might have been worth it, but not now. If you could improve the efficiency of the 777, that would be something, but Airbus wouldn't lose much since they've already pretty much lost the A340 vs 777 battle.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4318 posts, RR: 25 Reply 64, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31581 times:
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 63): 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?
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 weights of the -1000 have been etched in stone yet.
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 31554 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 64): I don't think the weights of the -1000 have been etched in stone yet.
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 from an efficiency standpoint, even if you forgo some cargo revenue. Hitting those numbers might not happen for Airbus though.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 11 Reply 66, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 31499 times:
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 65): 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 from an efficiency standpoint, even if you forgo some cargo revenue. Hitting those numbers might not happen for Airbus though.
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, again, that can change. I think it would be wise for Boeing to sit on the 77W and improve that as much as possible (and within financial reason) and get the 788/789783 off the ground, quite literally, then launch a larger 787-10/787-11 with new wing/wingbox, new MLG, and new GE engines (with the Trent XWB) and let the 777 die slowly the way the 767/747 has.
On a side note, I think Airbus should increase MTOW on the A350-1000 to 700K. This would certainly close the range/payload gap on the 77W.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11028 posts, RR: 72 Reply 67, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 31405 times:
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 65): 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 from an efficiency standpoint, even if you forgo some cargo revenue. Hitting those numbers might not happen for Airbus though.
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 numbers are so much better than anything anybody else has been able to pull off, it's not at all clear how they're going to do it. Airbus is very innovative but, unless they're keeping a very good secret, they haven't revealed any "magic bullet" technology for the A350 and incremental improvement over current state of the art just isn't enough to get them from there to where they say they're going.
Jambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 220 posts, RR: 14 Reply 69, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 31343 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 67): But the A350's numbers are so much better than anything anybody else has been able to pull off, it's not at all clear how they're going to do it
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 (not that I'm saying GE90-115 on 77W is T800 standard it's actually more like between T500 and T900 generation)
This current B screw up on the 787 must be causing GE some headaches, since the 744 and 767 lines have shut down (as good as) the only wide body engines they are delivering are GE90s plus their 1/2 of their GP7200, if B decide to do narrow body next not Y3 and airbus deliver on their promises wrt A350 the 777 line will be running out of steam in 2014 with no replacement in sight until EIS of Y3 in 2020.
I just hope if B do a 777NG they open up the engine contest!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14022 posts, RR: 55 Reply 71, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 31282 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 54):
A Boeing 777-300NG + 777-400NG sub serie might provide a $6 billion interim solution, positioned above the A350-1000 and under the A380.
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 make ground handling and airport planning a nightmare.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 72, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 31188 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53): If it does, I am convinced that reduced maintenance will be one of the biggest advantages
And I think this, whilst valid, is considerably overhyped...
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 55): If CFRP does not work out as an airframe material for the 787 it will fail for the A350 as well
CFRP already works. It's the hype that's proving a failure IMO
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 66): 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
I think this is correct, and why on the right missions, the 77W can still "outearn" the A350-1000.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 67): But the A350's numbers are so much better than anything anybody else has been able to pull off, it's not at all clear how they're going to do it
I don't think this is rocket science, to be honest.
The A350-800's figures look remarkably similar to the 787-9's figures, and most of us believe the 787-9 will get there, eventually.
I suspect the A358 will be a heavier airframe than the 787-9 because of the bigger wings and engines. But I suspect it will have better fuel burn due to engine SFC and a modest L/D advantage.
Result - similar performance.
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 31171 times:
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 69): It's mostly going to be down to RR I guess
That's the way I see it.
Quoting Jambrain (Reply 69): This current B screw up on the 787 must be causing GE some headaches
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 the present technology level.
But if the same happens on the A350, that won't hurt GE at all.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 75, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 31012 times:
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 would trade pax for range. How much would of course depend on weight saving and engine efficiency.But that was then...
Now we have the 350-1000. Boeing have noted that Airbus have been very slow about releasing figures on it.They also know that there is weight growth on the project (and thrust growth) already -which will kill range.They also know just how hard it is to work with composits - and their route is supposidly lighter than Airbus'.
Much worse however was the 748i decision.This " new"aircraft as has been said would bury (the already) dead 748i.
More interesting has been the noises comming out of Boeing about a new aircraft.Perhaps they have realised that no Al aircraft can compete with the carbon 350.
My personal view is somewhat different. IMHO the 777 aircraft under discussion would be a fine compeditor to the 1000.Different granted - but every bit as efficient for those who could fill it - and many could. No the problem does not lie here.It lies with the 777-200er replacement market.
The 350 will eat it for breakfast -that is what it is designed to do. We absolutly Know what Boeing intended as they used it in all their sales pitches. The 787-10 was to be the 777-200 replacement. Again - not the same as the 350-9 but none the less in the same market segment.
The whole problem now is that it cannot.The 787 is too heavy - period. It is for that reason and that reason alone that Boeing are being forced to look at a new plane.
I bet that the cost of a rewinged,re undercarraged (re engined?) 787 -plus a revamped 777 would equal in cost and timing a new - new plane. Hence the decision to do so.
CFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 2 Reply 77, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 30167 times:
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 the industry appreciates modest improvements in existing designs, and they pay handsomely for success. I would say that some of that success has come from the A380. Trading penalties for sales, so are you really looking at a true A330 sales number? Recent sales number indicates Boeing continues to hold a slight lead in the widebody market. That might indicate a greater confidence in Boeing in the segment.
As for the 77W, it is selling well, and with performance upgrades it will continue to sell well. I question why this group thinks airlines really want a wholesale change in this segment a/c which will have a selling price penalty for the small gains currently available. In addition the a/c becomes a new fleet type. You're asking Boeing to provide an a/c that gives 50 more seats, in a region of the a/c where little revenues are derived? Back end seats cover cost, but do not create bottom line profit. Additionally, I'm not sure the high end customers have really appreciated the bars and other amenities offered in the A380, so why add worthless weight and a longer a/c? I know airlines can move those seats to upper classes, but the majority will go to the rear.
As for range, are we getting in to the dead zone of interest? Yes the 777LR and the A340-500 are niche players and have seen minimal success. I know there are a few routes, but are they worth shelling out the additional purchasing $ by the airlines?
So for $5- $10 Bil Boeing should invest in this a/c? I'd say, fix the 787-8 and produce the 787-9, watch what happens with the A350-8 and -9 to see if the performance results reach commitment, and then announce your plan. But while you're doing it improve performance on the 77W and the 777LR cost effectively, and then in 2020 have a replacement for the 737 allowing Boeing to leverage up the next gen VLA. Producing a much bigger jump on the market, requiring Airbus to shift focus. Why mess with your widebody perfection because some guy makes paper claims? I think the 787 weight issues are proof positive. The better the current 77W offering the tougher the sell of the A350-1000. Nice pictures and concept, what's the business case though? Be careful about claims.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15605 posts, RR: 90 Reply 78, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 30160 times:
Quoting Racko (Reply 21): Wouldn't it need a 3rd MLG? Anyway, looks awesome.
Definitely, yes.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31): The 350 may not be able to overcome the limitations any more than the 787 can.
Airbus has significantly more commercial composites experience than Airbus, and Boeing is certainly making a lot of the mistakes for them in advance.
Quoting United Airline (Reply 42): I mean the double decker which is going to replace the B 747/777
Don't see it any time soon. Plus how could a double decker replace a 777?
Quoting Keesje (Reply 44): The range of the 400NG would be 5500nm. Capacity for range..
There is absolutely, positively no market whatsoever for your suggestion. Zero. Not one single frame.
Fantasy is fun, but I recommend a good book instead of this.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 1 Reply 79, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 30021 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 78): here is absolutely, positively no market whatsoever for your suggestion. Zero. Not one single frame.
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 work as well for EK and it's neighbors but EK is going to be loaded to the gills with A380's and 77W's anyway.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1876 posts, RR: 6 Reply 81, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27579 times:
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.
Regarding the engines the 777 has a big disadvantage: the high thrust requirements.
The smaller twins share one large thrust class (sub 100k). The 777 engines are an own thrust class. Usually such "small" markets are not target of the best innovation and highest investments.
Of course the 777 market is not small but the GE90-market is (compared to the sub 100k engine thrust class). The GEnx and the Trend-XWB belong to the bread-and-butter thrust class that are sold with much higher volumes than GE90. And likely the GE90 thrust class will die anyway. No twin will ever require such high thrusts again. In the future the performance of the 777 will be reached by much lighter planes, hence no need for such engines any longer.
IMO the 777NG is not attractive enough to justify large investments in a new GE90 derivate (which could still mean several hundred sales).
Quoting RIX (Reply 29): Plus, 777 is still bigger than 350
Either the 777 becomes 10-abreast. Otherwise there is no "size" for a 777 that could not be matched by the A350. Already now the key elements of the A350 are equally sized e.g. cross section, wingspan, wing area.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31): The 350 may not be able to overcome the limitations any more than the 787 can.
Better bet not on that. One day CFRP technology will live up to the expectations.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53): 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 maintenance will be one of the biggest advantages. In this case, I do not believe that Boeing will invest this amount of resources in another aluminum plane, and I do not think that Ti is going to be viable for airframe construction.
I agree that Boeing for future investments will follow the CFRP approach. Of course you will see refinements. But to back off from the 787 level-of-CFRP-technology would be a serious blow to Boeing.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 53): On the other hand, if the 787 does not work as expected, I think Boeing will be in trouble, and will not have the resources to do this. For that matter, if the 787 fails because CFRP does not work out, Boeing will not have to answer the A350-1000 at all.
The 787 will work. The market has spoken. For Boeing it even has worked already. The deals are signed. The success is carved in stone.
Nonetheless the technology of the 787 is/will be subject to change. Many aspects of the 787 design likely will remain as a unique solution forever (like with every other plane too, I have to say).
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 55): 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, Boeing will also.
The 787, the A350 or CFRP do not 100% work or 0% work. They "work" to a certain degree. One maybe more than the other.
It is not black or white. The benefits of CFRP are not reaped at once. The 787 will capture one (arguably rather small) part of those benefits. Other, future CFRP planes will for sure perform better to deliver the benefits of CFRP.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 62): Not in the same segment as A350-1000 anymore.
But adressing the same RFP's. The better efficiency quite often dictates the size that is wanted by an airline. The rule goes like this: The larger offering has to offer a better efficiency to win against a smaller one. But no 777 will ever be as efficient as the A350. It is not possible. The 777 CASM at best will not be more than 5% off.
As I said it will be difficult for the 777 to vary enduringly from the A350. In the medium term the A350 platform can everything a 777 can.
Just imagine that Airbus could always raise the A350 MTOW into 777 realms (using 777 engines would always guarantee paritiy regarding proulsion). The resulting range or payload would blow anything that a 777 could offer. The result would also be a sweet cargo plane!
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 66): 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 there is no reason why the A350 could not grow into that capability. The A350 family has all assets to match the capabilities of each 777 variant. And at the same time reducing CASM significantly. The "efficiency-lead" enjoyed by the 77W was smaller, but still was enough to clear the market from the A340NG.
Quoting Parapente (Reply 75): They also know that there is weight growth on the project (and thrust growth) already -which will kill range
The first adjustment was lowering the thrust requirements.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 80): Gigneil, we better put the books aside run to Boeing & tell 'm
Of course Boeing must test the market reponse for such an alternative. They check any option. We (in this discussion) speculate about the outcome. Will the market generate enough sales to support a beefed-up 777?
If the 777 efficiency is reduced by 15..20 percent they may have a chance. But still the efficiency is more or less on par with the A350. Enough to generate some market (mostly for the larger models) but will there be many sales?
The A340NG success story is not a desireable pattern for Boeing. If the fortune of the A340NG is anything to learn from, the prospects of a 777NG would not look bright (and the A340NG "only" had to compete with another formidable alu plane).
In the above link Boeign claims efficiency gains of 15..20% for the 777NG. But if we question Airbus to create a new clean-sheet CFRP design with 20% lower CASM I would consider even a 15% reduction for the 777 as completely incredible.
Updating a 15-20 year old alu design shall be on par with a state-of-the-art CFRP design?
The biggest advantage of all the A350 versions (like a central theme), is the much lower MTOW to do the same. The A350 is made to perform nearly each current 777 task with much lower MTOW. Leaving the 777 MTOW as it is prohibits real efficiency gains. The 777 has too much structure to carry structure (a high MTOW means that the structures are befeed up everwhere, e.g. the gear that copes with the 777 MTOW must have more strength than the A351 gear, thus any 777 gear will weight more than the A350 gear, and because the gear weighs more the 777 again needs more structure to cope with heavy gears...which requires again an even stronger gear...and so on).
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5900 posts, RR: 39 Reply 82, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 27515 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 81): The 787, the A350 or CFRP do not 100% work or 0% work. They "work" to a certain degree. One maybe more than the other.
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 matches the A330 in economics it has had decidedly underwhelming market success. If the 787 substantially underperforms or is subject to the problems CaptainX has prophesied it will be a failure, despite the number of sales. In that case those sales will become liabilities and will likely sink Boeing. I do not believe this will happen, however.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1876 posts, RR: 6 Reply 83, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 27449 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 82): If the 787 substantially underperforms or is subject to the problems CaptainX has prophesied it will be a failure, despite the number of sales. In that case those sales will become liabilities and will likely sink Boeing. I do not believe this will happen, however.
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 if the empty weight would stay on A330 level. Airlines would deploy this plane in their fleets, the order book would be partially cancelled, Boeing would pay some penalties, forever the Boeing-always-overdelivers-dogma would be gone, the next Boeing project would be 787NG, built in WA and so on. That is the worst case. CFRP plays almost no role in it. It would not sink Boeing. I give Boeing a full further decade to get the 787 right before the 787 sinks Boeing. The 787 is at least on par with the best other option, that is enough to linger on.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5900 posts, RR: 39 Reply 84, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 27234 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 83): I give Boeing a full further decade to get the 787 right before the 787 sinks Boeing.
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 crash, or some other reason that would cause the 787 to repeat the Comet fiasco. That would definitely sink Boeing, but I consider that to be an extremely remote possibility. You are correct that the 787 will succeed on some level as long as it outperforms the A330 (which it should.) If it doesn't then again Boeing would be in trouble.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14022 posts, RR: 55 Reply 85, posted (2 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 26848 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 81):
Regarding the engines the 777 has a big disadvantage: the high thrust requirements.
The smaller twins share one large thrust class (sub 100k). The 777 engines are an own thrust class. Usually such "small" markets are not target of the best innovation and highest investments.
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 77W and 77L.
Presumably, if the engines are more efficient, then they need less fuel to operate. If the airframe is more efficient, then it must be lighter. So now you have less fuel to burn and less airframe to lift, which means you need less thrust.
You only need more thrust if you're going to extend the range of the model you're offering. But there isn't a market for a 77W-sized airframe with an even longer range; not if that longer range is going to hit its efficiency. And the current 77L is so close to absolute max range (enough range to travel anywhere in the world in one hop) that an upgrade would not need any more fuel capacity.
I'd bet you could get back below 100K per engine.
What are they going to do to the 777's wing to make it better? I didn't think there was much that could be changed about it.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11028 posts, RR: 72 Reply 86, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 26829 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 85): Presumably, if the engines are more efficient, then they need less fuel to operate.
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. When you talk about thrust required for a mission, you need to look at total weight fuel required, not just efficiency.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14022 posts, RR: 55 Reply 87, posted (2 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 26745 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 86):
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. When you talk about thrust required for a mission, you need to look at total weight fuel required, not just efficiency.
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.
Since we're upgrading the 777, it will still be a twin-engine airliner with roughly the same cargo and passenger capacity.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1876 posts, RR: 6 Reply 88, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 26614 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 85): You only need more thrust if you're going to extend the range of the model you're offering. But there isn't a market for a 77W-sized airframe with an even longer range; not if that longer range is going to hit its efficiency. And the current 77L is so close to absolute max range (enough range to travel anywhere in the world in one hop) that an upgrade would not need any more fuel capacity.
I'd bet you could get back below 100K per engine.
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.
The airframe of a 777 is given. Even if you could leave fuel behind, because total fuel use has been reduced, every part (Ok, not literally) that is built into a 777 reflects the original MTOW. In other words you don't easily strip down that structure to reflect lower MTOW needs.
The likely outcome would be that the MTOW and the fuel capacity remains as today.
The result would be:
- Identical thrust requirements
- A little more range with comparing payload
- Or more payload over a comparing range
Jetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 187 posts, RR: 22 Reply 89, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 26023 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 85): Presumably, if the engines are more efficient, then they need less fuel to operate. If the airframe is more efficient, then it must be lighter. So now you have less fuel to burn and less airframe to lift, which means you need less thrust.
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 virtuous cycle. Less airframe weight needs less thrust which needs less fuel which needs less airframe weight. Lower thrust engines are also lighter so they themselves need less structure.
PS I originally conveyed this intent by quoting the same text and concisely following it with a single checkmark - this didn't meet a.net standards!
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 90, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25952 times:
Quoting Jetlife2 (Reply 89): Subsequent posts imply the airframe weight is fixed and the thrust is fixed. In airplane design this is not correct. It is a virtuous cycle. Less airframe weight needs less thrust which needs less fuel which needs less airframe weight. Lower thrust engines are also lighter so they themselves need less structure.
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 773ER airframe was designed to be... the 773ER airframe, complete with 352t MTOW. Every part of that airframe would have been designed accordingly (unless Boeing factored growth in, which is actually going the other way).
There may be the odd bit of the product that might easily be re-designed for a less onerous service, but to achieve the result you describe on the 777 would need a re-design of the entire plane. And if Boeing are going to do that, they might as well, er, design a new plane.
I don't think there's any real doubt that the 773ER's MTOW will stay as a minimum at 352 tonnes. It might go UP a touch. Down?
Can't see it
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 25802 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 90): I don't think there's any real doubt that the 773ER's MTOW will stay as a minimum at 352 tonnes. It might go UP a touch. Down?
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 preserves the MTOW, but are the wing/engine savings enough to allow enough of a stretch to bother?
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4627 posts, RR: 4 Reply 94, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 20336 times:
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 the -200LR and -300ER is 22.7 tonnes, for a stretch of 10.2m. So for a stretch of another six meters, I'll assume an OEW growth of 15 tonnes.
Assuming that MZFW stays the same (and not taking into account the receent 5,000lb MZFW increase for the -300ER), max.structural payload would drop to a measly 54.8 tonnes.
However, I believe there's a relatively simple solution for this problem: borrow the 777F's manoeuvre load alleviation system and assuming they use the 777F's MZFW, max. structural payload would go up to 65.2 tonnes. With programmes to take weight out of the 777, payload should be as good as the -300ER.
Now of course a larger airframe should have a HIGHER payload than a smaller one, but I rather doubt that max.structural payload is frequently achieved for passenger airliners.
Such an aircraft would still have a range of at least 4,500 and rather 5000nm, with max. structural payload.
Considering how well the A333 is currently doing, such a range is more than enough to achieve substantial sales.
Just look at the 4500nm radius from LHR, DXB and SIN:
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 19527 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 94): Considering how well the A333 is currently doing,
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 that it's still selling some with the availability of the A332, the conclusion could be that such a 774 would sell some even with the availability of the 77W. Whether or not this would be enough to justify such a program seems a tad dubious.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4627 posts, RR: 4 Reply 99, posted (2 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 19362 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 97): You're looking at its technical and in service performance. What about its sales performance?
No, actually I meant the sales performance.
Quoting thegeek (Reply 97): That still lags the A332 last I checked.
Might be true, but not by a big amount. Recently airlines have been preferring -300s to -200s. Just look at the large orders by EK, AirAsiaX, Chinese carriers etc.
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 unlikely at this stage in the 777's life, unless the A350XWB-1000 proves to be a flop.
Quoting A342 (Reply 99): No, actually I meant the sales performance.
Oh, Ok. The A333 Sold 18 in 2009 vs 28 A332s and 4 A33Fs. Better than a kick in the teeth, but also showing that airlines favour capability over CASM. I don't understand it, but it seems to be the way it is.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 101, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14764 times:
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:nWEA0008]
Clark said the airline is collaborating with Boeing to find a solution for the manufacturer's wide-body 777 aircraft, but said he could not share more details.
"We are working with Boeing on the next generation of 777. We are still very interested in a replacement," he said.
Boeing has said it is looking at the future of the aircraft which faces competition from the future Airbus A350-1000. (Reporting by Tamara Walid; Editing by Tim Hepher)
Obviously Boeing is working on 777 enhancements, no indications what those enhancements would be though. If EK is pushing this program, no doubt emphasis is placed on payload - range (e.g. DXB-California)
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 102, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14765 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 101): Obviously Boeing is working on 777 enhancements, no indications what those enhancements would be though. If EK is pushing this program, no doubt emphasis is placed on payload - range (e.g. DXB-California)
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.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 103, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14682 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102): 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.
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 flight.
I think their is a need for a 400-425 seat full efficient aircraft. Air doesn't offer one, IMO Boeing has an opportunity here.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 104, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14489 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 103): I think their is a need for a 400-425 seat full efficient aircraft.
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 now. Which is why I believe that even if Boeing had offered 8300nm of nominal range, EK would not have bought it. It was a red herring argument and I don't know why Clark kept feigning interest in the plane, since he certainly did not need any additional leverage with Airbus.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11542 posts, RR: 27 Reply 105, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14483 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 103): 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 flight.
I think their is a need for a 400-425 seat full efficient aircraft. Air doesn't offer one, IMO Boeing has an opportunity here
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 won't work as well at extreme payloads and ranges. Boeing needs to increase the nominal payload of the 777 to around the 8500NM mark.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 106, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14308 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 103):
I think their is a need for a 400-425 seat full efficient aircraft
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 frequency with A380s.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5880 posts, RR: 74 Reply 107, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 14254 times:
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 MTOW and engine thrust again, and it'll be a performance engineer's nightmare to seek ways on how to make the single engine after V1 take off legal... But then, that's hearsay from those who fly the 773ER...
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 439 posts, RR: 0 Reply 108, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 14223 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 107): 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 MTOW and engine thrust again, and it'll be a performance engineer's nightmare to seek ways on how to make the single engine after V1 take off legal... But then, that's hearsay from those who fly the 773ER...
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 aircraft is way oversized.
A larger B777 would certainly kill the B747-8I.
Theoretically there is still a gap in seating capacity, but the B747-8I isn't very attractive.
Interesting thought: When I stretch the B777 to a 400-seat B777-9 and put a B777-8 somewhere between the B777-200 and -300 fuselage size, would that yield an interesting freighter based on the -8? Probably 120t Payload with a bit more volume than current B777-200F. Another nail in the casket of the B747-8 this time for the -8F.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 110, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 14118 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 109): Is there anyone who thinks a substantial increase to the 777 MTOW is a possibility?
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 increase payload by lightening the structure to reduce MEW/OEW and increase MZFW and performing significant updates to the GE90-115B to reduce SFC.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 11 Reply 111, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 14074 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 100): 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 unlikely at this stage in the 777's life, unless the A350XWB-1000 proves to be a flop.
However, the 747 has four (4) struts, the B-58 only two (2).
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2845 posts, RR: 4 Reply 112, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13944 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 110): 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 increase payload by lightening the structure to reduce MEW/OEW and increase MZFW and performing significant updates to the GE90-115B to reduce SFC.
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 behind the wing just makes it worse. Not to mention more weight in the structure.
If Boeing is going to make a tube plane longer than the 300ER I can't see how they avoid effectively making a whole new airplane. By the time you do a whole new wing, wingbox, landing gear, stretch, extensive wieght reductions, etc. Might as well have put the 787 into the enlarger and done a whole new plane sharing subsystems with the 787.
One thing I think is being overlooked is transitioning the 777 from a 9Y plane to a 10Y plane is a large jump in capacity without the need to stretch the plane any. The required payload increase to carry the extra people will come from offloading tons of fuel made possible with the revised engines.
Its confusing why people think the 777 needs to get bigger in wieght and length to compete with the SMALLER A350. With the 777LR family currently rarely needing its entire MTOW to perform the missions desired of it, even today its silly. With the fuel burn improvements of a GE90-115 with GEnX tech insertion, you would need to be hauling lead bricks to care about the MTOW being too low.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11542 posts, RR: 27 Reply 113, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13803 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 112): By the time you do a whole new wing, wingbox, landing gear, stretch, extensive wieght reductions, etc. Might as well have put the 787 into the enlarger and done a whole new plane sharing subsystems with the 787.
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?
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 112): Its confusing why people think the 777 needs to get bigger in wieght and length to compete with the SMALLER A350.
You don't need to make it weigh more, and it isn't to compete with the A350. It's to replace the dog that is the 747-8 and compete against the A380 on the lower end. And it would be a straight stretch of a 777-300NG, so it's not going to be a huge investment.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 114, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 13781 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
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?
There is no point in messing with the 777 much. Unless, of course, the A3510 is a massive flop.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11542 posts, RR: 27 Reply 115, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 13766 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 114): There is no point in messing with the 777 much
There is, but it doesn't have to be now. Somewhere in the 2015-2020 range is when I was thinking.
Quoting thegeek (Reply 114): Unless, of course, the A3510 is a massive flop.
It won't be.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11542 posts, RR: 27 Reply 117, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 13745 times:
The 77W and 77F with a few 77Ls are going to keep the line going for some time with some incremental improvements.
Quoting thegeek (Reply 116): And how would something less than Y3 compete with the A350?
It doesn't really need to. The 77W NG would sit above the A350 in payload range and capacity while the 787-10 would be positioned to cut the A350's legs out from under it on shorter routes. To borrow football terminology, Boeing would be using bracket coverage.
Of course, depending on how the picture looks come 2016-2018, Boeing could just skip the 777NG and go straight to the Y3, but that remains to be seen. Either way, I think that designing and building a 787-10 should be a higher priority than a reworked 777.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 119, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week ago) and read 13666 times:
"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 further small stretch of the 777 was possible,I tend to agree with the broadly held view that Boeing will find a few inches out of the lining and offer a 10Y at the "Standard" 17" seateing.Thus offering those who want/need it an extra 20/30 seats.
However I also see the appeal at 9 abreast inY.It gives the 777 the same space in economy as a 380,which is important as the 2 aircraft are very often usewd in the same fleets.Configured like this you also get either greater range or cargo payload. Both a good thing.The range particularly so when pairing with 380's whose range is being and will be extended over the years.
This still leaves "ultimate capacity" with the 748 for those who want this size of aircraft.
Once the 748 decision was made (as opposed to Y1) the NG777 became a certainty IMHO.The fact that Boeing have spoken about it and flight did an artickal - not withstanding that EK and BA (Willie Walsh himself) have spoken about it leaves me in no doubt that it is happeneing.Boeing don't need to announce it - and won't until the 351 specs are released.
For Boeing that will mean their whole range will have changed - other than the 737 decision.This -clearly will wait until after the end of this year by when Airbus are now committied to announce their intentions.
Afrer that? Personally I see a quiet period when they concentrate on making money - not spending it.As per the recent Flight article.The 789 is looking more and more like the 772er replacement. On that basis (assuming a 737 replavement) Y1 may come in what 15 years time?
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 120, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13644 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 116): And how would something less than Y3 compete with the A350?
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 unlikely nor necessary. 3 rows of economy (27-30 seats) would set it apart and provide growth for -300ER operators. A small concession on range wouldn´t hurt to much. A shorter version would be available for longer flights and in pratice it would mostly only lead to a few less cargo containers on a few flights. I did a sketch a while ago to give an impression. Basically stretches/ enhancements of both the -200 and -300 versions.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 121, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13600 times:
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-working the GE90-115B to reduce SFC and maintenance and increase on-wing time. Initial effort should be at a PiP so that not only new engines benefit, but you can retrofit the existing engine fleet.
The 777-200ER will die within the next couple of years as the 787-9 and A350-900 EIS. There is no reason to spend anything on it and it should be retired from offer as the 777-200 and 777-300 have been. Boeing can just poll their customers for any final orders and then announce an end date for production.
After that, the "heavy lifting" comes in with items that can only be implemented with a new-build engine on a new-build airframe. Coexistent with that effort would be the weight reduction effort on new-build airframes to create the 777-300ERX, the 777-200LRX and the 777FX (which, ironically, will probably sell huge to FX). This will help convince existing 77W operators to stay with the type and not jump to the A350-1000. It will also reduce the market interest in an A350-900R and A350-900F.
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 anything to improve performance of in service airliners though, as those sales have already been made. I guess the 77L would probably still need to be offered though.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 123, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13350 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 122): Doing such a thing also would reduce the need for the 77L, as the payload-range of the 77W would be improved.
Which I expect Boeing would be okay with, since the 777 Freighter would carry on.
Quoting thegeek (Reply 122): I don't see why Boeing should pay for anything to improve performance of in service airliners though, as those sales have already been made.
If you can make an operator's current 777-300ER more efficient, they're likely to hold on to it longer and not order the A350-1000 as early as they might have. And by holding on to the plane longer, it increases their "investment" in the type and means when it does come time to replace it, improves the chances that replacement will be a 777-300ERX and not an A350-1000.
QFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 124, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13038 times:
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 true 10-ABR plane with some interior redesign and narrowing of internal insulation and wall lining thickness etc. How many inches wider does it need to be to be true 10-ABR, considering many carriers now operate their 777s 10 across(EK and AF for example)?
A composite wing would seem likely to reduce weight and improve efficiency. I don't think there will be any range reduction, particularly if new engines or more efficient GE90 derivatives are involved(which I think they will be).
The key, like all things in this industry is when to announce. Boeing really want to see firm 3510 numbers before they go ahead with anything. The customers will be there. EK will buy truckloads. BA just last week said they will see what Boeing comes up with next year. Surely QF would go for it as it would meet their desire for a true 350 seat 8,000nm plane.
I actually think Boeing may move on the 777NG before they act on a 737neo or all new NB family. 787 technology would surely scale up well. The big negative is that it would kill the 748I, but that may happen without the 777NG anyway.
I think Boeing will offer a 777NG around 2016/17.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 125, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13005 times:
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 unlikely to be a good investment.
Even the lack of CFRP is a bit of a show stopper IMHO. While the difference is only about 4% AIUI, all other things being equal, that doesn't take into the effect of the virtuous cycle where the weight savings allow reduced fuel to be carried which allows less structure and so it goes on.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 1 Reply 126, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12919 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 101): If EK is pushing this program, no doubt emphasis is placed on payload - range (e.g. DXB-California)
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 volume they need ~ 55t. Seems to me it will take a new (lighter) wing to help achieve an ~18t improvement, if it is achievable. EK, QF and the other gulf carriers would appear to be the major market.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102): 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.
Certainly but very payload restricted. The L/R chart shows ~62t for a 7500nm range. I assume this chart is based on ~ 270.5t OEW. But EK 's version is very close to 300t DOW which I figure would give about 32 to 33t of payload. We will see how this improves post-2012.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 127, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12963 times:
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 126): EK 's block time equivalent is ~7500nm ESAD. Right now they are limited to ~37t payload. For full passenger load plus fill available freight volume they need ~ 55t.
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 DXB to LAX. Going home, the 77L's could depart at MZFW, which would have been 64t payload.
I know the DXB-JFK flights lift between 58 and 60t (depending on ambient at DXB), so that is a heck of a hit
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 126): Certainly but very payload restricted. The L/R chart shows ~62t for a 7500nm range. I assume this chart is based on ~ 270.5t OEW. But EK 's version is very close to 300t DOW which I figure would give about 32 to 33t of payload.
So their 77Ws lift more than their A388s?
No wonder they're asking Boeing for a more capable 77W...
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 128, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12915 times:
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, then they can't do antyhing - and they most surely can!
Much is spoken here about the mythical 787-10.
Those who can count up to 10 have realised that without huge re-engineering a -10 can only ever be a 330 replacement.Now that may not be a bad thing (the 330 has sold shed loads) and it's always an option.Indeed we may well see it in a few years.But as for an exact 772er replacement.No.
There was a very full article recently by Flight International on exactly this subject.They came clearly down to the conclusion that the 787-9 indeed was (in 9 abreast Y config) very much a 772er . OK it's not "exactly" a 772er or indeed a 350-9.But think "gap analysis".Each model does not have to be a carbon copy (sorry about the pun) of the competition.
If your ideal 772er was just a fraction less (capacity) than the aforementioned then a 789 would be a fabulous plane to have.Indeed we have seen the massive switch to the 9 and Boeing themselves now say that it wil account for at least 50% and many think considerably more.Those orders cannot be only 767 operators just wanting a larger aircraft suddenly.Indeed at 9 abreast the 788 is larger than the 767.So it has to be the segment above it.
little gap in the market- whilst it costs nothing on a forum the real world is somewhat different. Yes perhaps a "250" as previously shown.But would it beat the new dedicated 350 series - I doubt it.
But an improved 77W now thats a different story.Range,payload,pax all would be very welcome. Yup they could stretch it (400) but as others have said this would be an admission of failure of the 748i and they ain't given up on this baby yet - not by a long chalk.
I believe the talk of Y1 is misplaced.When did you last hear Boeing make the slightest mention of it.No they have placed their bets.(Improved 748 and improved 773).I think that this may well turn out to be the right strategy.It will certainly give them time to mature the revolutioary structures that are being tested in scale form -second stage flight testing, using twin engines (rather than 3) and"conventional" vertical stab's being tested as we speak).
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 1 Reply 129, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12881 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 128): If your ideal 772er was just a fraction less (capacity) than the aforementioned then a 789 would be a fabulous plane to have.
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 seats filled, but at ~86% efficiency.Sure there will be days when they are sold out but who cares. It is good for the consumer to be reminded from time to time that automatic availability should not be taken for granted.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 130, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12864 times:
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 126): The L/R chart shows ~62t for a 7500nm range. I assume this chart is based on ~ 270.5t OEW. But EK 's version is very close to 300t DOW which I figure would give about 32 to 33t of payload.
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 tonnes, this places the empty weight assumed in the chart as 282 tonnes, not 270.5 tonnes.
The latest R/P chart also shows the payload for the GP7000 version at 7 500Nm as between 63 and 64 tonnes (about the thickness of the line on the chart).
Which implies a ZFW of 345 - 346 tonnes, i.e. 45 to 46 tonnes of payload for a 300 tonne DOW aircraft.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 127): So their 77Ws lift more than their A388s?
In some people's dreams perhaps.
But no
Despite EK's A380's having the heaviest DOW of any in service.....
More typical A380 empty weights experienced by other operators would put their lift at 7 500Nm ESAD between 53 and 54 tonnes
Post 2012 aircraft could see the potential for;-
2% better SFC from the GP7000 - good for 4t of extra payload at 7 500Nm ESAD
Some 3 to 4 tonnes lower OEW from Airbus's weight reduction programme.
A MTOW hike of 4 tonnes to 573 tonnes.
perhaps the potential for a double digit tonne payload improvement at 7 500Nm ESAD for a lightened 573 tonner with improved engines.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11542 posts, RR: 27 Reply 131, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12857 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 128): Those who can count up to 10 have realised that without huge re-engineering a -10 can only ever be a 330 replacement.
...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 for the 777 (in either variant) on shorter routes (up to transatlantic and maybe short transpacific). If airlines want to carry more or fly further they can have a 777. And nothing would stop Boeing from doing an even more modified 787-10 in the future (like the 777-300).
Quoting parapente (Reply 128): But would it beat the new dedicated 350 series - I doubt it.
But a 787 could, which is why the 777NG should drop the short body entirely.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 133, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12724 times:
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 132): A'man...thanks for the correction and the detail of how you arrived at it
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 potential error source implicit in having to back-calculate the ZFW
My calculation perhaps illustrates why EK currently still prefer the 773ER for their 7 500Nm ESAD routes, and why they're pushing so hard for the A380 improvements.
An A380 lifting 55 tonnes at 7 500Nm ESAD vs 37 tonnes for a 773ER is a considerably different proposition to an A380 lifting 45 tonnes compared to 37 tonnes for a 773ER
The payload difference goes from 22% to 50% on that basis.
Compare that to an operating cost difference implied by SQ of about 38%......
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 134, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12653 times:
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 number of seats filled, but at ~86% efficiency.Sure there will be days when they are sold out but who cares. It is good for the consumer to be reminded from time to time that automatic availability should not be taken for granted.
Reply 131
...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 for the 777 (in either variant) on shorter routes (up to transatlantic and maybe short transpacific). If airlines want to carry more or fly further they can have a 777
Agreed and agreed.Exactly my thinking.The 789 will cover the 772er but with fractionally less capacity (and if you want/need more well then there is either a 350-9/10 or a 773er.
If you need full 772 capacity or more even but not the range then a simple stretch 787-10 will do nicely.
I feel sure that Boeing will rest happily with that senario in the short/medium term.
And yes they are developing a response to the -10 with the 773 ER/NG as written about in flight and indeed strongly refered to by a boeing employee on this site a while back. IMHO they will only release it when A 350-10 specs are released and/or B. A Very major airline(s) force their hand on a major order.I bet alot of the work (on computer) has already been done both for aircraft tweeks and engine mods.
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 439 posts, RR: 0 Reply 135, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12636 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 134): 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 seats filled, but at ~86% efficiency.Sure there will be days when they are sold out but who cares. It is good for the consumer to be reminded from time to time that automatic availability should not be taken for granted.
Capacity needs always be considered in the network context. Those fewer seats can be given higher price, so many price-sensitive Eco Pax will automatically chose different routes or times. Important is that overall seat count is still sufficient as otherwise you are inviting competition.
If you fly a busy route with 2 B777-200 a day, you can easily switch to one B787 and one A380. The B787 will serve the lower volume time window
If we look at real-life aircraft layouts of the A380 of carriers like LH and AF, they increased economy and kept business and first constant.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 1 Reply 136, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days ago) and read 12618 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 134): IMHO they will only release it when A 350-10 specs are released and/or B. A Very major airline(s) force their hand on a major order.I bet alot of the work (on computer) has already been done both for aircraft tweeks and engine mods.
When the Boeing announcement was made that Lars Andersen was taking over the project I believe they expected an October announcement of where they expected to go on the 77W upgrade. My view is that they will be putting dollar costs against the various alternatives and getting customer responses accordingly. My view is that MTOW is about at the limit. If they can get 7 to 10t of payload without a new wing it will be one number or 15 to 18t with a new wing it will be another. They will poll the operators to see which is the most popular.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1209 posts, RR: 10 Reply 137, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days ago) and read 12613 times:
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 decision to "re wing"(and re engine) the 747. (Unless, as someone said they had given up on the 748 - not something I prescribe to personally).
I believe an additional 7-10 t, -10 across y seating option with17in seats,( and an engine upgrade) would make what is already a fantastic aircraft totally unbeatable.
It's personal I know but it's (773er) the best plane I've flown on by miles (No have not flown 380).I think the 773er story has a huge way to go - particularly a NG "brush up".It will continue to sell like hot cakes IMHO.The right aircraft at the right time.Boeing know this and won't let it slip.
The 350-1000 will get some market share I am sure (it's all about required/optimised pax capacity really).But perhaps less than they were hoping for.I do fear that even without a "350" stretch, between the 773Er NG and the weight optimised 388 the 748i will have a hard time.Not because it is not a good plane - just that the other 2 are/will be that much better.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 1 Reply 138, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12619 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 137): between the 773Er NG and the weight optimised 388 the 748i will have a hard time.Not because it is not a good plane - just that the other 2 are/will be that much better.
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's analysis of it . At 20 frames or more this aircraft fills much more than a niche in LH's operation.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23604 posts, RR: 79 Reply 139, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12582 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 130): As the MZFW of EK's A380-800's is 366 tonnes...
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-haul.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2845 posts, RR: 4 Reply 140, posted (1 year 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 12215 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 128): 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, then they can't do antyhing - and they most surely can!
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 build a lighter, cheaper aircraft for the same seating capacity. However It means that the 777 is still the range/payload champ of its "class". This is one reason that others and I feel that the 777 doesn't need as much updating to keep pace. Fuelburn saving from updated engines show up as not only better cost side economics, but better payloads on these long haul routes. A modest savings in fuel burn has a non-linear effect as you carry extra fuel to haul the fuel that far.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Lighter composites wing (787 technology) with better L/D and room for fuel. 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 4948 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 947 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 5423 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20630 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1944 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 531 posts, 
on this one!
I would like to see that nose replaced with the 787, with the 787 cockpit for added commonality across the families of 787/777.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4318 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Oct 2008, 242 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8541 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2163 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 30161 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2009, 10 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1876 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Jul 2009, 107 posts, 
From Panama, joined Jun 2007, 237 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 5880 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
