ferdinando
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:31 pm

Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:19 am

Topic: RE: Will Boeing Let The 777 Die?
Username: Baron95
Posted 2006-10-27 08:00:16 and read 10835 times.
Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 14):
Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 12):
Remove 15klbs of weigh

Call me skeptical, but how would they pull that off?

Boeing has announced a program to remove about 12000-lbs from the 772LR to enable, among other things, better economics (payload) on SYD-LHR route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question for Widebodyphotog or any other who can reply:
which is the situation at this date (february 2007) of Boeing's program to
lighten 772LR (how many lbs must still be removed; when it will finish;
final still air range of plane; number of auxiliary tanks, ecc.)?
Thanks
Ferdinando
microd@tiscalinet.it
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8655
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:31 am

Any such plans have likely been shelved. The existing 772LR with 3-aux tanks can fly LHR-SYD 12 months of the year with payload, but can only fly westbound SYD-LHR non-stop with payload 9 months of the year.

At this point, I think QF is content to build their future long-haul fleet around the 787 and A380. Reducing the OEW of the 772LR to the point where LHR-SYD could be flown year-round with payload would likely be too expensive to justify for such a limited niche.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:51 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Reducing the OEW of the 772LR to the point where LHR-SYD could be flown year-round with payload would likely be too expensive to justify for such a limited niche.

But wouldn't a reduction in the OEW make the aircraft more economical over all ranges, not just at the top end?
What?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:58 am

From what I remember: the only made-public details were lightened supplied-equipment (seats, galleys, lavs) and some tweaking to the gear, pylons, etc. Whether that was the end of it is of course anyone's guess, though I doubt those factors alone could've been the sole constitution for a 6ton payload reduction.

Also, up to six aux tanks were to be offered.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
I think QF is content to build their future long-haul fleet around the 787 and A380. Reducing the OEW of the 772LR to the point where LHR-SYD could be flown year-round with payload would likely be too expensive to justify for such a limited niche.

I don't think QF was their sole intended target, though certainly a primary one.

Could of course turn their attention toward SQ once more, as that airline has yet again waffled on whether or not it is continuing to pursue the 772LR for its fleet (which I still of course contend is more "when" than "if"  Wink)
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:45 am

If six aux tanks is installed on -LR whattabout cargo/freight and numbers of pax?

Micke//  stirthepot 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:50 am

Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13809
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
If six aux tanks is installed on -LR whattabout cargo/freight and numbers of pax?

not wonderful in terms of cargo space, but the 744ER also is limited in cargo space, and QF bought that, and the A380 is limited in cargo space (after baggage is accounted for) and many carriers have signed on for that.

I think the goal was something like a 240 seat 3-class jet that could do the SYD-LHR 350-360 days a year without a fuel stop, and the 77L couldn't do that. The best they could get, reportedly, was 240 seats at 9 months a year, or far fewer seats, fewer than SQ puts on the A345, which was not economical.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23498
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

If launched, the A380-800R would have a center wingbox fuel tank (like the A388F can be optioned with), but I don't believe this will give her the legs, either.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:05 am

I´m talking about non-stop with -LR (LHR-SYD n back)

Micke
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:14 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 8):
I´m talking about non-stop with -LR (LHR-SYD n back)

How long would that flight be?
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:47 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

Pull off a couple hundred pax, replace them with gas, then maybe.

772LR, with a bit less weight and full aux fuel should be able to run the route nicely, the question is how big the market is for the non-stop.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8655
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:23 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

Economically? I can't image the A388 QF already has on order could be stripped down to the extent that sufficient range could be obtained for year-round, non-stop operations. Not without a cruise ship configuration of less than 300 seats that would carry an ungodly premium.

If SYD-LHR is ever going to become economical, I'd put my money on a growth variant of either the 787-8 or 787-9.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13809
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:28 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
772LR, with a bit less weight and full aux fuel should be able to run the route nicely, the question is how big the market is for the non-stop.

Actually, i think it's not the question at all. There is demand for that, plenty.

The problem is the same that faced Concorde. Concorde, despite what some believe, was not a money loser for those operating it. The sunk costs were the sunk costs, but using the given that the plane already existed in fleets for BA and AF, on a per flight basis, a Concorde made money. But, the costs were higher per pax than flying that same passenger in F on a 747 or 777. There was more profit to be made putting that passenger in F class than in Concorde class. And with no other alternatives (no competing supersonic flights), if Concorde ceased to fly, passengers were not going to stop traveling.

You can make the same case against the 77L non-stop in a low density configuration. If the costs of that trip to the airline are appreciably higher than sending them one-stop on a 744 SYD-LHR, then even though you may even be able to charge a premium for the non-stop, it likely wouldn't be enough to compensate for the added costs. That's why QF wouldn't consider it unless they could assure pax it would be non-stop (so they could charge more) and unless they could fit at least a medium density configuration on the jet, to bring down CASM to a level that made it a better business decision than just flying that pax on the one-stop...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3754
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:36 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 9):
How long would that flight be?

Somewhere between 18 and 20 hours depending on winds etc vs 22.5-23.5 hours for the normal flights.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5958
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:03 pm

The difference is that QF 1 from SYD to LHR could leave at 9:00pm instead of 5:00pm for the stop in Bangkok arriving at LHR at the same time. The return could leave LHR at 5:00pm arrivng in Sydney around 8:00pm, the customer gets a full day at each end. QF can charge a small premuim for the nonstop but it should be a First, Business and Premuim Economy plane, let the leisure traveler paying little take the flights stopping in Bkk or SIN
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:04 pm

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 14):
The difference is that QF 1 from SYD to LHR could leave at 9:00pm instead of 5:00pm for the stop in Bangkok arriving at LHR at the same time. The return could leave LHR at 5:00pm arriving in Sydney around 8:00pm, the customer gets a full day at each end.

Suggest you put the "day" in inverted commas, the pax will definitely be "in inverted commas" after 18-20 hours!!  Wow!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6446
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:31 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Can a A380 be tweaked to fly that route nonstop?

No, the present A380 cannot do it with any viable payload.

But the interesting thing is what happens to the A380 when the next generation engines are online from RR and possibly GE.

Of course at some time the A380 will take advantage of the new engine technology as the B787, B747-800 and A350 are based on. Obviously the A380 will not for a substantial period of time be the only long range plane which relies on what is expected soon to be outdated engine technology. But it is also natural that Airbus cannot announce new and improved versions of the A380 as long as it hasn't even entered scheduled service.

But it is very likely that a good part of the A380s on order will be re-negotiated and will fly with for instance a RR Trent 1700 variant instead of present day Trent 900. That could possibly make the A380 interesting on a LHR-SID non-stop route.

Maybe also the extremely slow sale of A380 during the last two years can be attributed to secret tales that Airbus (of course) will strap new engines under the A380 wing when they are available and have proved their value. One guess could be that potential A380 customers want to wait and see performance and maintenance costs on these new engines before they decide on such a large investment.

I would like to be able to read the small letters in the Qantas sales contract for their recent follow-on A380 order. I would gladly take a bet on the fact that it contains a clause about "alternative engine options".
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:46 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
But it is very likely that a good part of the A380s on order will be re-negotiated and will fly with for instance a RR Trent 1700 variant instead of present day Trent 900. That could possibly make the A380 interesting on a LHR-SID non-stop route.

"Interesting", perhaps. But are you implying that the next gen engines will alone boost the A380's range from 8,000nm to the over 9,000nm needed for SYD-LHR? That's roughly a 12% increase in range. That seems quite a bit from engines alone.

(Note: I'm not saying you're wrong; just questioning if indeed that much efficiency is to be recognized from slinging new engines on the wing.)

Regards,

R
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:51 am

Surely pulling as much weight off the 777 in general would make the case for the A350 that much harder. Wouldn't that be motivation enough?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23498
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:52 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
But it is very likely that a good part of the A380s on order will be re-negotiated and will fly with for instance a RR Trent 1700 variant instead of present day Trent 900.

So you feel RR will just write-off the development cost of the Trent 900 and take the earnings hit killing the program will entail moving the A380 to the Trent XWB?

Trent XWB's must have a heck of a profit margin built into them...  scratchchin 
 
jbernie
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:09 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
Pull off a couple hundred pax, replace them with gas, then maybe.

772LR, with a bit less weight and full aux fuel should be able to run the route nicely, the question is how big the market is for the non-stop.

Depending on who you listen to, Qantas would be aiming for a first/business only setup as it is easier to charge extra for those fairs, and those people would be more willing to pay.

For the 744s flying the route they could potentially have a smaller first/business setup in the upper deck (example) and use the freed up space for more economy tickets, and if so desired, maybe something like the United economy plus to give some people extra leg room, and of course, for such a long flight, charge a bit more there as well.

Think of it this way, if Qantas is asking both Boeing and Airbus for a plane that can fly this, you know they already have the market for it. Between the ability to charge more for their product, and be able to provide a faster non stop service, it becomes an appealing flight.

No need to interupt sleep mid flight for the stop over... add in some showers, and you can get of the plane fully rested, clean, and ready to do business.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
So you feel RR will just write-off the development cost of the Trent 900 and take the earnings hit killing the program will entail moving the A380 to the Trent XWB?

I don't think this is the issue, as long as the new engines are also RR, then the revenue remains in the company. Would make the 1700 much more successful
What?
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:15 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 14):
The difference is that QF 1 from SYD to LHR could leave at 9:00pm instead of 5:00pm for the stop in Bangkok arriving at LHR at the same time.

There's no way that you could save four hours on that non-stop flight. A 777 is slower than a 747. In addition, it is very possible that a 777 doing SYD-LHR will even be forced to fly at a reduced speed to save fuel and make it the whole way. You also have to remember that the 747 only stays for around two hours in BKK. I'd guess that the non-stop flight would save maximum two hours.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 13):
Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 9):
How long would that flight be?

Somewhere between 18 and 20 hours depending on winds etc vs 22.5-23.5 hours for the normal flights.

A quick calculation:

The regular cruise speed of a 777 is 0.84 Mach, which is around 897 km/h at cruising altitude.

The great circle distance between SYD-LHR is 17,016 km.

At that distance and speed, the flight time will be 18 hours and 58 minutes.

However, we do know that:
a. The great circle distance crosses over the Himalayas. The non-stop flight would have to go either north or south of the Himalayas, thereby making the flight slightly longer (my guess would be 10-15 minutes).
b. Due to the extreme distance, the 777 might be forced to fly at a slower speed than the regular cruise speed.
c. There are headwinds on SYD-LHR, which will also add time to the flight (my guess would be around one hour).
d. The block time, or scheduled flight time, is always much more than the actual time of distance divided by airspeed. Block time also makes room for taxiing, climb, approach, and taxiing at arrival airport. For such a long time, my guess is that QF would have to add at least 40 minutes to the estimated flight time.

All taken together, my guess is that the block time for SYD-LHR would be around 21 hours, plus/minus 30 minutes.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4407
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:45 am

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 20):
Depending on who you listen to, Qantas would be aiming for a first/business only setup as it is easier to charge extra for those fairs, and those people would be more willing to pay.

QFs aim with the non-stop is to capture as much traffic between Oz & the UK as is *economically* possible. FULL STOP.

The reason is to compete with SQ, EK, MH, TG, CX, VS, JL, KE and every other Tom, Dick & Harry on the Kangaroo route by offering something they CAN NOT offer -nonstop- service (except VS, thats an interesting winkle!). Not just to F/J pax but ALL. As far as QF is concerned ANY pax not flying them or BA between Oz & the UK is a pax and revenue poached by these upstart interlopers! You don't have to hang around the company & its operations very long to be immersed in this attitude.

That's want they WANT. What they can do is, of course, another matter. They will peruse a premium only service, if it makes economic sense, but just as a pit stop on the road to lifting ALL Oz/UK traffic non stop, if that is the only way to cut the interlopers out of the market.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6446
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
...are you implying that the next gen engines will alone boost the A380's range from 8,000nm to the over 9,000nm needed for SYD-LHR? That's roughly a 12% increase in range. That seems quite a bit from engines alone.

Right, that will not be done by new engines alone.

But there are a lot of uncertainties. First of all we know little more than years old round performance figures.

First of all Airbus lists range as 15,000 km. That is roughly 8,000nm, but it is exactly 8,100nm. That helped a little. That is based on a three class 555 pax configuration.

Then we don't know if 8,100nm is correct. It could be 7,900 instead? It could also be 8,300, if we assume that the people in Toulouse could have calculated 200nm wrong?

Then I don't expect a standard three class 555 pax configuration for such a flight. It would be terror to sit 20 hours on a Y class seat. We might assume
a two class configuration with, say, 450 seats. Then we can load 20,000 lbs more fuel in extra belly tanks. That brings us roughly 400nm further.

Then the present A380 is certified with MTOW of 1,120,000 lbs (the A380F will be certified with 1,300,000 lbs and with 10% software uprated engines). Never ever in history has a successful airliner flown for more than a few years until heavier versions were offered.

Now it begins looking like something. Depending on how much more efficient new engines can be, and how right Airbus was in the first place with their 15,000 km estimate.

We could also take a present day A380, configure it with 200 or 250 flat beds and do the LHR-SID sector right away (with half of the baggage compartment taken up by extra fuel tanks like an A319CJ). But there would hardly be a market for such a business.

I'm not saying that the A380 will ever during the next 40 years do the LHR-SID sector non-stop. But it will be interesting to see what happens during the next few years.

Only one thing I feel 100% sure: I will never personally experience a non-stop LHR-SID flight. The extra cost of having no fueling stopover will have a pricetag which I will not be willing to pay. That would be something like fifty years ago when PanAm jumped the pond with a B707-100 configured for 40-something pax.

When we go to extreme ranges, then it is a fact that we spend the vast majority of the fuel on transporting nothing but fuel. That will become increasingly less popular as fuel prices rise. That is one thing which may prevent it from ever happening. It may make all ultra long range flights uneconomical.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:12 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 25):
I'm not saying that the A380 will ever during the next 40 years do the LHR-SID sector non-stop.

...though don't quite think the market is there, particularly considering that most large airliners flying today can do LHR-SID nonstop  Wink
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 10):
772LR, with a bit less weight and full aux fuel should be able to run the route nicely, the question is how big the market is for the non-stop.

Actually, i think it's not the question at all. There is demand for that, plenty.

The problem is the same that faced Concorde. Concorde, despite what some believe, was not a money loser for those operating it. The sunk costs were the sunk costs, but using the given that the plane already existed in fleets for BA and AF, on a per flight basis, a Concorde made money. But, the costs were higher per pax than flying that same passenger in F on a 747 or 777. There was more profit to be made putting that passenger in F class than in Concorde class. And with no other alternatives (no competing supersonic flights), if Concorde ceased to fly, passengers were not going to stop traveling.

You can make the same case against the 77L non-stop in a low density configuration. If the costs of that trip to the airline are appreciably higher than sending them one-stop on a 744 SYD-LHR, then even though you may even be able to charge a premium for the non-stop, it likely wouldn't be enough to compensate for the added costs. That's why QF wouldn't consider it unless they could assure pax it would be non-stop (so they could charge more) and unless they could fit at least a medium density configuration on the jet, to bring down CASM to a level that made it a better business decision than just flying that pax on the one-stop...

What about high premium routes run on the A345.

You can get from SIN-LAX or SIN-EWR one stop, or for more money, you can do it non-stop, on a mostly premium aircraft. This would be the same thing, a 772LR fitted largely with C and J, and perhaps 'premium Y' or economy plus, and for more money, you can have the non-stop. They'll still operate the one stops, but this would give Qantas a one up on all of the many other airlines doing this route with a one-stop.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23498
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:30 am

Quoting Aerohottie (Reply 21):
I don't think this is the issue, as long as the new engines are also RR, then the revenue remains in the company. Would make the 1700 much more successful

Yes, but RR still has hundreds of millions, if not billions invested in the Trent 900 program. The actual amount appears to be an industry secret, but the UK government wanted to front them ~$500 million in 2001 to develop the Trent 900 for the A388 and the Trent 600 for the A345E and A346E. And while the Trent 600 program was axed along with the A345E/A346E, RR still had to have spent a mint on the T900.

They've sold 300 of them so far (75 frames times 4 per frame) and each engine lists for around $30,000,000 (based on CA's $600 million order for 20). So chances are RR is program-positive (since margins are probably better then 10%), but the ROI on only 300 sales is probably too low.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:34 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
So you feel RR will just write-off the development cost of the Trent 900 and take the earnings hit killing the program will entail moving the A380 to the Trent XWB?

The Trent XWB is going to happen anyway.

If the prospect of selling further A380's with Trent 900's is negligible, but the prospect of selling A380's with Trent XWB's is much higher, I could well see RR sacrificing the Trent 900.
A sale is a sale.
They've very little to lose.

The Trent XWB is going to happen anyway......  Smile

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
Obviously the A380 will not for a substantial period of time be the only long range plane which relies on what is expected soon to be outdated engine technology.

The Trent 900 isn't nearly as "outdated" as is often made out on A-net.

It's likely that the difference between SFC for the Trent 900, and Trent 100 is as little as 4%.
As RR indicate that the Trent XWB has a 2% better SFC than the Trent 1000, it's reasonable to expect up to 6% improvement in cruise fuel consumption (offset against slightly heavier engines)...

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
That seems quite a bit from engines alone.

(Note: I'm not saying you're wrong; just questioning if indeed that much efficiency is to be recognized from slinging new engines on the wing.)

If an A388R ever comes to pass, the range extension will come from :-

Firstly - a substantial increase in MTOW, for which the wing, structure and undercarriage were designed for. The minimum increase will be 30t (from the 570t of the 388 to the 600t of the 388F). It may be more.
wing and undercarriage for this weight A380's have already been designed and built.

Secondly - the 6% ish (IMO) SFC improvement made available by moving to the Trent XWB

Thirdly - structural improvements, some of which were already underway for the 388F, e.g extended use of AlLi and "Advanced" GLARE, more composite parts in the wing etc. etc.

There have been mutterings that an A380R derivative would have a "nominal" range of 9 750 Nm. But they're just mutterings.

Regards
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13809
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:53 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 27):
What about high premium routes run on the A345.

This is exactly the same case I explained. SQ has already learned that this route, while giving them an "edge" marketing wise, is not making them the money that they expected due to limitations of the aircraft. They can, in fact, make MORE money per passenger flying JFK-SIN one stop in a 744. If presented with the proposition of buying the A345 today, with the higher fuel cost environment, SQ would not do so.

But, like Concorde for BA and AF, SQ has already invested in the fleet, and thus there is no additional up front cost to continuing this route. They charge a couple hundred dollars extra for the flight in C class, and they are playing off of the convenience factor, hopefully winning passengers that could go elsewhere if the flight wasn't offered. This was one reason to keep Concorde flying as well. Though BA would make more money booking you in F on a 744, you could also fly F on AA or UA. But AA and UA couldn't fly you on Concorde. If there was no value in Concorde, it wouldn't have hung on as long as it did.

The A345 doesn't have the same bloated costs of Concorde, so the "lost" profit vs. sending the pax on a standard 744 aren't as great. But if SQ could put 20 more seats on the A345, or carry some revenue cargo, they would do it in a second. And if they could ensure that cutting the EWR-SIN route would send 100% of those passengers to their JFK-FRA-SIN service, they'd do it too.

This was my point about demand. There is plenty of demand for SYD-LHR or SYD-JFK non-stop, but the question is, is it worth it to QF to fill that demand? QF doesn't think it's worth it unless they can get 240 pax into the plane. A 77L with the same seating as the SQ A345 and no cargo any time of year isn't going to sway them.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23498
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:56 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 27):
What about high premium routes run on the A345.

QF looked at it, but the plane could only fit 120 seats on a NS LHR-SYD run, which was below what Boeing could offer on the 772LR which itself was considered too low by QF.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
The Trent XWB is going to happen anyway. If the prospect of selling further A380's with Trent 900's is negligible, but the prospect of selling A380's with Trent XWB's is much higher, I could well see RR sacrificing the Trent 900. A sale is a sale.

That it is.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6446
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:13 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
So you feel RR will just write-off the development cost of the Trent 900 and take the earnings hit killing the program will entail moving the A380 to the Trent XWB?

Dear Stitch, the Trent 900 with its contra rotation layout is a stepping stone to the Trent 1000 and Trent 1700.

Just like Trent 5-6-7-800s were stepping stones to the 900, and the RB-211 before them.

RR will produce and sell what products they have AND the products which are wanted by the customers. The rest they won't sell. That's the way every business works.

They will not be able to tell customers: "Hey, we haven't covered every R&D penny on the 900 yet, so you can't have any 1700s until you have bought X number of 900s".

Let me tell you a related (and true) story: Some 30 years ago I was on a summer holiday in Iceland. At that time the Icelandic import was very regulated since foreign trade balance was in a difficult situation. You had to obtain an import license to be able to import practically everything.

The previous year the potato harvest had been exceptionally good. So there was plenty of old potatoes in the country. But the quality, well, they got more and more rotten, to say it frankly.

Normally the cold climate didn't allow 100% domestic potato production, so the people had become accustomed to importing good, new potatoes from southern Europe by May/June or so, while new Icelandic potatoes would be ready by September. But this year the government said: "No new potatoes yet, you will have too eat the old potatoes first".

Man, I have never been eating so much rice!!!

In late July, when the potato trade had come to a complete stop, and supermarkets had put rice on all their potato shelves, then the government gave up: "OK, we will issue potato import licenses". (And let the pigs eat the rotten potatoes).

The reason for those potato import licenses was not to please the people, but to save foreign currency on the more expensive import of rice!!!

Back to aviation: If the Trent 1700 delivers as promissed, then the 900 will be very shortlived. But as a stepping stone that is nothing unusual.

We could say that the whole B747-300 program was a similar stepping stone to the B747-400.

The growth potential of the 747 - and what the customers wanted - was a more potential plane with two men front office.

The more powerful engines (over the -200) were available, it was an easy design task to stretch the upper deck, a little strengthening here and there, and vupti, the 747-300 was there, better than the -200 from a customer view. A few dozen examples were produced.

The modern two men cockpit and the larger and more efficient wing took a lot longer time to design and get certified, but when it finally happened, then the 747-400 - the final product - was there.

Most likely the 747-300 would never have been produced if the Boeing designers hadn't already had the -400 on the drawing board.

If we assume a low production volume Trent 900 to be a financial failure, then we should consider the 747-300 the same sort of failure. But it was a success since it relied on 80% 747-200 R&D, and all new R&D was reused for high volume 747-400 production.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6446
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:22 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
The Trent 900 isn't nearly as "outdated" as is often made out on A-net.

Absolutely right, Astuteman, the Trent 900 is very likely the most advanced engine in its class flying today.

But if the Trent 1000 and 1700 deliver as promised, then it is only the 2nd most advanced. In a boxing match (and many other games, including business games) a 2nd place is nothing worth writing home about.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 29):
It's likely that the difference between SFC for the Trent 900, and Trent 100 is as little as 4%.
As RR indicate that the Trent XWB has a 2% better SFC than the Trent 1000, it's reasonable to expect up to 6% improvement in cruise fuel consumption (offset against slightly heavier engines)...

4 or 6% SFC gain is an enormous gain, especially when talking about ultra long range planes.

If we imagine a plane which falls 5% short of a very long range flight with a given payload and at MTOW, then it takes a lot more than just adding 5% fuel to make it reach the destination.

To lift that 5% extra fuel you will need a strengthened (heavier) plane and more powerful (heavier) engines. To efficiently lift the extra weight of fuel, frame structure, engines your will need a longer (heavier) wing, which must be strengthened (heavier) due to increased bending forces.

To lift all that extra weight the more powerful engines will burn considerably more fuel per mile - plus of course for those extra 5% miles.

For fully optimized ultra long range planes a 5% increase of range could easily mean a 15-20% increase in fuel burn with the same payload.

So a 5% gain in SFC is a tremendous achievement. If we assume an A380 with full pax load (555) on a quite easy 7,000nm sector, and with 5% better SFC, then it will not just burn 5% less fuel.

It will take off with a lighter fuel load. Being lighter, it will burn less fuel per mile, therefore it will take off with considerably more than 5% less fuel, which means that it will take off even lighter, and burn even less fuel etc.

In the end such a 5% gain in SFC may mean a reduction in fuel burn on such a 7,000nm in the 10-12% region. THAT SPELLS DOLLARS!!!

And then we haven't mentioned possible reduced power take-off, cooler EGT, and therefore longer engine on-wing time = reduced maintenance costs.

A similar SFC gain on a short range plane doesn't give nearly the same gain simply because the fuel weight is never such a high portion of the all up weight.

But let us see. Even if the new engines end up delivering far less than 4 or 6% SFC gain (even half of that), then it will mean a fantastic performance gain on especially ultra long range planes.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:58 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
If SYD-LHR is ever going to become economical, I'd put my money on a growth variant of either the 787-8 or 787-9.

given the numbers of the two, I would say a "B787-9ER" version would probably offer the best balance of pax/range....

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
This is exactly the same case I explained. SQ has already learned that this route, while giving them an "edge" marketing wise, is not making them the money that they expected due to limitations of the aircraft.

..but the problem is that SIN-New York doesn't have as much pax flying as the Kangaroo Route......if QF could offer a nonstop product (which it wants), one would think given all the competition, the "critical numbers" are there......in other words...different markets...

...that being said, I dont' see QF going for the B777, its just not needed in their fleet... mad  ...they will focus more with their incoming A380's and B78's...and see what either Boeing or Airbus do with the B787/A350....
"Up the Irons!"
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:14 am

Just for the mix, the calculated maximum saving westbound for a non-stop Sydney-London flight was 90 minutes, rather less than I would have expected, but the issue was one related to optimal fuel burn versus matching the speed of a jet going one-stop.

The savings for the 40% of so of Qantas premium fare passengers to London that didn't begin their trips in Sydney varied between nothing and minus two hours compared to connections over Singapore or Bangkok.

The exercise turned into a dead set joke.

The non-stops will come when a jet configured for a reasonable mix of all classes, presumably for humane reasons, a premium economy, can make the journey on a daily basis both ways from Sydney and Melbourne independently, and arrive at a London airport where it makes economically rational use of an available slot. This favors a development of a medium sized jet, such as a version of the 787 or A350. It could yet be done by a version of the A380 further into the future, assuming projections of a doubling to trebling of passenger numbers come true.

But we are peering into the unknown with our minds lock stepped to what we think airliners can do today or in the near future. The future is not like that. It will either be much nastier, or nicer, than we can imagine. It will never be anything identical to what we reasonably imagine. People, and markets, are consistently, even tragically bad at seeing the future.

Live for today, that's what I'm doing for a few months anyhow.

Antares
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23498
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Situation Of Boeing's Program To Lighten 772LR

Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:25 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 32):
RR will produce and sell what products they have AND the products which are wanted by the customers. The rest they won't sell. That's the way every business works.

Of course, it does. But I don't believe RR suddenly had a revelation in building efficient engines between the Trent 900 and the Trent 1000, especially since both draw heavily from the aborted Trent 8104 program.

I'm not a propulsion engineer (I leave that to Lightsaber), but I imagine the Trent 1000's better SFC comes in part from the lower thrust requirements. As the Trent 1700 looks dead, RR will have to offer the larger XWB engine, itself larger then the Trent 900.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 32):
They will not be able to tell customers: "Hey, we haven't covered every R&D penny on the 900 yet, so you can't have any 1700s until you have bought X number of 900s".

Sure they can, especially since GE is not providing a GEnx option for the A388.

I agree that if the Trent XWB makes the A388 so much better airlines will order many multiples more then RR will offer it, but I don't believe that SFC alone is why the A388 is currently not selling as strongly as Airbus expected.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos