Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Under Carriage Changes For More TOW  
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4618 posts, RR: 5
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

The 787 is said to be limited by the present under carriage to a TOW of ~254t. An analysis of the structure by Lissys puts the weight of the present undercarriage at ~8.6t or ~ 3.8% of MTOW. In the absence of such things as ACAP documents we don't know what the pavement loadings are and by inference the tire loadings. I would assume that the existing "hardware" could be strengthened with a modest increase in weight . My question is what is possible with the tires? Presently there appears to be plenty of daylight /space between the main strut and the tire for additional width. I would assume that with a wider cross section tire the present pavement loading could be held but could the tire be redesigned to carry more weight?
Any thoughts?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29706 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2892 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GE has been mumbling about raising the thrust of the GEnx1B from 75,000lbs to 78,000lbs for the 787-10, so I wonder if Boeing thinks there is some MTOW growth still left in the undercarriage.

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Thread starter):
I would assume that with a wider cross section tire the present pavement loading could be held but could the tire be redesigned to carry more weight?

The 787-9 gear is already modified relative to the 787-8 in order to reduce pavement loading. It has larger tires on wider spacing, which necessitated raising the pressure deck 9" in the 787-9 in order to accommodate the larger gear into the wheel well. It is very unlikely Boeing made this change without getting every bit of TOW capability from the gear, considering they knew they would be moving straight from the 787-9 into the 787-10. Any added TOW (relative to the 787-9) would likely mean a major redesign of the wheel wells and a very difficult re-integration of the 787's center section. I do not believe Boeing is even remotely considering taking this on.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4618 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 2):
I do not believe Boeing is even remotely considering taking this on.

Thanks CM. So at this time it is very unlikely that the 787-10 will have any meaningful increase in TOW vis a vis the 789.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
GE has been mumbling about raising the thrust of the GEnx1B from 75,000lbs to 78,000lbs for the 787-10

If the ~251t MTOW is held is there need for more power than about 74k pounds? Basically all that is happening is a swap of fuel for payload. Apparently RR are offering more optional power also. I assume this is via a "plug" if needed,. But the 3% or so lower fuel burn will be attractive.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2792 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2534 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 3):
If the ~251t MTOW is held is there need for more power than about 74k pounds? Basically all that is happening is a swap of fuel for payload. Apparently RR are offering more optional power also. I assume this is via a "plug" if needed,. But the 3% or so lower fuel burn will be attractive.

I have been having the same thougths as well, there might be an explanation to some of it: The longer body of the 787-10 will have an effect on the start (and therefore one engine out case which is the dimensioning part for max take-off power), it will increase the wetted are and it will increase the part of the fuselage flying with a high AOA when rotating and up until V2. Thus the drag will increase compared to 789 and that one engine would need to be stronger to maintain the same take-off performance. It might also be that B want to improve that TO performance for the 787-10, my analysis in the wings thread shows the 789 to be pretty weak in this respect even with 74klbf.



Non French in France
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 3):
Apparently RR are offering more optional power also. I assume this is via a "plug" if needed,. But the 3% or so lower fuel burn will be attractive.

RR was noted as saying at Farnborough that the 787-10 was likely to require around 76k and as such they were readying an engine for 78k.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 787 Under Carriage Changes For More TOW
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


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

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


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are "nacelles" Under The Wing For? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 12:18:21 by Flexo
Double FR Passenger For More Luggage? posted Thu Sep 1 2005 03:43:48 by JoeCattoli
SWAPs For GSE Tow Back Trailers (TUGS) And Pickups posted Tue May 3 2005 23:47:29 by Sheldyn
What Will A 787 Wing Do For 767 posted Sun Mar 18 2012 08:52:25 by cosmofly
Schedule Changes In PHX For Daylight Savings posted Wed Mar 30 2011 17:31:14 by Cubsrule
Is The 787 More Quiet Than The A380 Both RR And GE posted Sun Aug 1 2010 20:59:53 by Aeroflot001
GE Or RR For United 787? posted Thu Mar 11 2010 08:08:53 by 1337Delta764
More Maintenance Checks For Freighters? posted Mon Jun 29 2009 02:34:05 by Faro
SOP's For Automatic VOR Changes posted Mon May 25 2009 00:21:43 by Faro
RR Recovers Trent Fuel Burn Margin For 787 posted Sun Apr 5 2009 06:16:37 by Rheinbote

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format