|Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 7):
What would a wider Y3 bring to the table that a 787HGW wouldn't, except for the ability to reach higher passenger capacity at the larger sizes? (W)e've seen from the 747-8I and A380 experience that the market for even larger planes is problematic at best.
One wonders how well the A380-800 would be selling if it weighed 25% less and burned 25% less fuel...
Wide Y3 might have better structural efficiency than a really long 787, but at the expense of volumetric efficiency. The extra width doesn't help load more cargo, and the plane starts getting really heavy if you try to do anything significant with the extra crown space.
And yet the plane does not need to be a perfect circle. Yes, that is the easiest structure to pressurize, but monolithic CFRP should give us some options. Move to an ovoid shape with flatter walls to allow for more passenger headroom at the windows and that lessens the crown space. Move more systems conduit up there, freeing more space down below. You might be able to create a taller underfloor bay that is still two LD3s wide to allow taller standard pallets, improving cargo capacity and yields.
Either plane will need an engine that doesn't exist today, but a Trent XWB variant could power an HGW 787 more easily than a wide Y3. A wide twin Y3, especially if made large enough to replace the 747-8I in its largest size, would need all-new engines.
Just because an Al-paneled four-holer weights 500 metric tons doesn't mean a CFRP monolithic barrel twin has to.
The 77W has an MTOW of 352mt. An A350-1000's is supposed to be 295mt. That means Boeing could have a Y3 that was 15% heavier and still use GE90-115Bs for all flight envelopes.
I agree that a wide Y3 would be successful and nice to see. I just don't yet understand why it would gain enough extra orders versus an HGW 787 to be worth the much higher investment.
Because it would be in a class above the A350XWB instead of the same class.
It would also be a more effective and efficient VLA then the 747-8I or the A380-800 where slot restrictions were not paramount (and even then, it might still work out better) even in a 425 seat maximum model.
And you need to look at the 20-year market. Airbus Aficionados keep pointing to world air travel rising 5% per annum in perpetuity to explain why the world will need 1000 A380-800s. Well, if air travel is going to rise forever, then they're going to need bigger planes across the board, won't they?
So if Boeing can offer a larger plane then Airbus, what are the world's airlines going to buy?
Over the last 20 years, that extra seat per row the 777 has had over the A340 has served it well because world air traffic has grown over that time and that extra seat helps lower the cost of flying folks and increasing the amount of money you make doing so.
|Quoting Scbriml (Reply 19):
Yes, but don't both Airbus and Boeing see the sub-VLA market at 6,000+ over the next 25 years? So, they seem to think there's more to play for there than you do.
And yet both feel that the world needs 1500 747-8Is and A380-800s.
Still, I did note the 2500 was pure replacement. So that leaves room for expansion (which I used 3600 because it was easier to divide by three). And then that 6000 unit figure also includes 1000 767s and 500 A332s, plus a few hundred A300s and A310s and even a handful of 747-200s, DC-10s and MD
The 787HGW is the quick, easy, and cheap way for Boeing to address the 300-400 seat market.
But so was the A340 for Airbus...
Boeing spent the money to do it better, even if it took longer and cost more. And they reaped the rewards.
Airbus has done the same with the A350XWB (vs. the original plan of A345E/A346E). And they too, look to be reaping the rewards.
I don't think Boeing needs to settle for the same, if the market is willing to embrace something more.
And finally, let's keep this thread on the 777 and A350XWB and not the 737NG and A320, okay?
[Edited 2007-12-01 06:57:10]