LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:18 pm

The linked article suggests that Boeing is studying composite wings and changes to fuselage to update the current 77L and 77W.

As for the 787-10, it would seem that Boeing is going to offer a size(320 seats) that matches the A359(314 seats).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-entry-timing-for-planned-new.html
Quote:
Boeing is evaluating the entry into service timing of its 777-300ER successor and 787-10 variant, as part of its competitive response to the Airbus A350-1000.

The 787-10 variant, seen as a "relatively small statement of work", said Piasecki, would be a stretch of the 250- to 290-seat 787-9, and would offer a performance of approximately 320 passengers, twin 74,000lb (329kN) engines, with a range of 6,800nm (12,600km), slightly lower than its June estimate of 6,900nm.
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:38 pm

I wonder if Boeing has already been designing the 787-10 in parallel with the -9 work. Assuming no material changes to the MTOW, IMO the "small statement of work" stretch can be efficiently run in parallel such that as much production commonalities as possible can be taken into account.

I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more. A new CFRP wing can become a bigger task when compared to the 748 work. Would the resources be better spend on 787-11,12 and 787-9HGW with new wing and center box to ultimately replace the 777?
 
amccann
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:14 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:42 pm

This is indeed an interesting time for Boeing.

Placing composite wings on a 777 fuselage is a major undertaking. If they do indeed re-wing the 777 it will be interesting to which (if any) aerodynamic enhancements will be added. Also, it will be interesting to see which fuselage changes are incorporated. Possibly a composite rear pressure bulkhead, aluminum-lithium fuselage skin?
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:43 pm

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more. A new CFRP wing can become a bigger task when compared to the 748 work. Would the resources be better spend on 787-11,12 and 787-9HGW with new wing and center box to ultimately replace the 777?

Aside from engines, wing, wing boxes are the easiest of the "low hanging fruit" (as fellow A.netter lightsaber states).

If the B777X will require a new wing design (which it seems it will) then going CFRP might save a bit of weight as well.

It also ostensibly seems GE has "some things up its sleeve" to counter against the TrentXWB.

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
The 787-10 variant, seen as a "relatively small statement of work", said Piasecki, would be a stretch of the 250- to 290-seat 787-9, and would offer a performance of approximately 320 passengers, twin 74,000lb (329kN) engines, with a range of 6,800nm (12,600km), slightly lower than its June estimate of 6,900nm.

As I have mentioned in another thread, while the B787-10X would be somewhat competing with the A359, it will probably be a better A333 replacement with better range/cost efficiency, etc. rather than a plane which will be able to effectively compete with the A359.

That being said, many carriers will like the capabilities of the B787-10X.

I'm still not a fan of derivatives, but given how Boeing has been managed lately, maybe it will be the way to go..  .
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:44 pm

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I wonder if Boeing has already been designing the 787-10 in parallel with the -9 work.

I'd honestly be shocked if they had not, especially once the 787-9 took on the same weights as the original 787-10 and effectively forced the 787-10 to be a straight stretch.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more.

If Boeing is going to produce an entirely new wing (and not a re-profile of the existing wing as was done with the 747-8), choosing CFRP may be the better option, especially as it gives Boeing more experience with the material that can carry over to the 797.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13844
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:10 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
It also ostensibly seems GE has "some things up its sleeve" to counter against the TrentXWB.

No big mystery. AvWeek has reported:

Quote:

The GE9X plan will see an improved version of the GEnx compressor combined with a second generation of the advanced eCore (engineering core) family at the heart of the CFM Leap and Tech X engine programs. GE Aircraft Engines president David Joyce says “the next step is Gen 2 of eCore which is the GE9X.’

Ref: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20_2011_p0-338113.xml&channel=comm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I'd honestly be shocked if they had not, especially once the 787-9 took on the same weights as the original 787-10 and effectively forced the 787-10 to be a straight stretch.

I don't know. Boeing has been really conservative. We also thought Boeing would be doing a bang-up job studying their options with the 737 replacement and yet they still aren't able to say what the airplane configuration will be.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
If Boeing is going to produce an entirely new wing (and not a re-profile of the existing wing as was done with the 747-8), choosing CFRP may be the better option, especially as it gives Boeing more experience with the material that can carry over to the 797.

I suppose, but it would seem it's the Japanese Heavies that are learning the most about CFRP wing construction, and given that the same companies are partners on the 777, chances are they will be heavily utilized on 777-8/9.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:21 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
It also ostensibly seems GE has "some things up its sleeve" to counter against the TrentXWB.

No big mystery. AvWeek has reported:

I didn't happen to read the link you provided prior to my comment. Thanks for the link though..
"Up the Irons!"
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:26 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
If Boeing is going to produce an entirely new wing (and not a re-profile of the existing wing as was done with the 747-8), choosing CFRP may be the better option, especially as it gives Boeing more experience with the material that can carry over to the 797.

A CFRP wing involves not just design, but also a new supply chain and infrastructure built up. It will be a longer undertaking with more unknown unknowns. The other question becomes if a new CFRP wing, why not a CFRP box too?

The ultimate answer is what is good enough to fend off -1000 long term. Theoretically if a 777NG is good enough to fend off the -1000 for at least a decade after EIS, there may not be a need to do a 777 replacement as there is nothing in Airbus' horizon to challenge it. Then CFRP may make sense.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:19 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
I suppose, but it would seem it's the Japanese Heavies that are learning the most about CFRP wing construction, and given that the same companies are partners on the 777, chances are they will be heavily utilized on 777-8/9.

Makes sense. They would likely be lead contractors for the 797 and Y3, as well.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 7):
A CFRP wing involves not just design, but also a new supply chain and infrastructure built up. It will be a longer undertaking with more unknown unknowns. The other question becomes if a new CFRP wing, why not a CFRP box too?

Perhaps. I suppose it depends on how long Boeing thinks the 777X can be competitive and how far back they can push Y3.
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:59 pm

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I am not sure if a CFRP wing is the right choice for 777NG. Boeing has done a lot of studies in reducing the 777 Al wing and if it is good enough fend off the -1000, why spend more. A new CFRP wing can become a bigger task when compared to the 748 work. Would the resources be better spend on 787-11,12 and 787-9HGW with new wing and center box to ultimately replace the 777

This is their bread and butter market so they should aggressively try to maintain an edge. I think incorporating CFRP is a great idea and anywhere you can save weight you can save fuel. I am not sure if the added cost of CFRP vs. Aluminium offsets the fuel costs at this point however. My guess is that answer is yes. If I were Boeing I would aim for radical weight reduction to improve the performance of a stretch.

1) Replace the landing gear metals with CFRP or look for additional weight savings there. Lighter breaks, tires, rims etc.
2) Replace the superficial exterior aluminium with CFRP. Nose cone, air brakes, slats, gear doors etc.
3) Use more titanium? This is pricey but it saves weight for sure.
4) Maybe keep the same wing but add a CFRP extension to the wingtip to extend it without having to re-engineer the entire thing.
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?
 
n1786b
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:10 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:06 pm

Aspire Aviation also posted this:

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/0...-be-a-highly-efficient-derivative/

Some highlights:

Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources say Boeing is now eyeing a provisional date of launch in 2013 with an entry into service (EIS) in 2019 for a major 777 revamp, designated as the 777-8X/9X at this stage.

The new 777-8X/-9X, sources say, will feature a new derivative engine of the GE90 engine family providing around 100,000 lbs of thrust, a new wing design that is similar to the supercritical wings found on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the 747-8 aircraft, as well as the studies currently undertaken by the airframer to feature more composite contents on the revamped widebody to reduce weight.

While many options are currently being evaluated, including slightly stretching the 777-300ER’s 73.9 metres (m) fuselage to accommodate several additional rows of passengers, another option being studied is “internal stretching” without actually lengthening the 777X’s fuselage by removing internal frames in some sections to provide more room to comfortably accommodate 10 seats in a single row.
 
delimit
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:08 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:17 pm

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?

That probably wouldn't be a weight savings. Batteries are dense/heavy.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting n1786b (Reply 10):
The new 777-8X/-9X, sources say, will feature a new derivative engine of the GE90 engine family providing around 100,000 lbs of thrust,

So, about the same thrust as the A350-1000.......   

The current plane sports 115k lb thrust.

Yet the same article quotes an increase in MTOW as well...

Ah well. If wishes were fishes..

Rgds
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8573
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:21 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
I'm still not a fan of derivatives, but given how Boeing has been managed lately, maybe it will be the way to go..

The 777LR program was a derivative and it did an outstanding job.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
1) Replace the landing gear metals with CFRP or look for additional weight savings there. Lighter breaks, tires, rims etc.
2) Replace the superficial exterior aluminium with CFRP. Nose cone, air brakes, slats, gear doors etc.
3) Use more titanium? This is pricey but it saves weight for sure.
4) Maybe keep the same wing but add a CFRP extension to the wingtip to extend it without having to re-engineer the entire thing.
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?

1. Not possible. Landing gear struts are forged titanium. CFRP is not suited for that task.
2. Extremely difficult. The CFRP-metal interfaces requires significant effort. It's far from simply replacing Al panels with CFRP panels
3. Extremely expensive. Titanium is also a complete P.I.T.A. to machine. Tooling and labor costs get hosed, too.
4. More feasible.
5. Probably wouldn't result in any weight savings. I believe the RAT also provides some direct mechanical power in the 777, so you would need to supplement batteries with electric motors.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:35 pm

I'd be more comfortable with a 2017 EIS, myself.

It will be interesting to see how much Boeing can raise MTOW/MRW. As I understand it, the pavement loadings for the 77W's tires are already very high.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:52 pm

Cross posting the OP from techinal thread below:
B787-10 Versus A359 Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Sep 13 2011 in Tech Ops)

The numbers below assume that the proposed B787-10 will have similar MTOW and wings as the B789. Even if the MTOW is bumped up slightly given the slightly higher(2,000 lbf) engine thrust, the overall conclusion will remain mostly unchanged.

General Specifications:
....................................B787-10......................A359
Fuselage Length..............222..........................219.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................19.6
Wingspan........................197..........................213
Wingarea.......................3501.........................4767 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................320..........................314(@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................590,800 lbs.
MZFW........................400,000....................423,300
OEW..........................272,000....................292,000 (OEW for B789 and A359 are my estimates)
MSP...........................128,000....................131,300
Design Range..................6,800.....................8,100 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
Engines.........................74,000 lbf................84,000 lbf.
List Price..........................$248(?)....................$268 million

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.48
OEW/MZFW......................0.68...........................0.71
MZFW/MTOW....................0.72...........................0.67
MTOW/Wingarea............158............................124
MTOW/Thrust....................3.73...........................3.52

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW), as per my model:

The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers. The difference in cargo payload is about 5,000 lbs. in favor of A359. It seems to me that both are well matched in operating cash flow for this mission length. B787-10 does not seem to have any advantage over A359 for short and medium haul routes.

The much larger wing of A359 is a major factor in the superior performance of A359, as evidenced by lower overall fuel burn for the above mission.

A359 should turn out to be an excellent replacement for both A333 and B77E with larger capacity and lower fuel costs. A359 can replace both A333 and B77E, whereas B787-10 cannot replace 77E as it falls short on both capacity and range.

I am not too excited about 787-10, but it will have fleet commonality as a major selling point, along with my expectation of a lower selling price.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8573
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:57 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
OEW..........................272,000....................292,000 (OEW for B789 and A359 are my estimates)

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW), as per my model:

The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers

For those constantly arguing that heavier aircraft inherently suffer a fuel burn penalty on short/medium routes, please take note. There's a lot of ingredients in the fuel burn smoothie, weight is only one of them.
 
sandyb123
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:18 pm

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
5) Put in a lithium ion battery instead of that Ram Air Turbine for emergency power?
Quoting delimit (Reply 11):

That probably wouldn't be a weight savings. Batteries are dense/heavy.

Yeah and batteries run out of power too! I'd much rather have a RAT than a battery thanks.

Sandyb123
Member of the mile high club
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4991
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:58 pm

Do we know if Lars Andersen is still out of retirement and continuing to head up 777NG effort?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:07 pm

Quoting amccann (Reply 2):
aluminum-lithium fuselage skin?

At this point, its gonna be a new aircraft.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers.

Can I see that formula, please?

NS
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:53 am

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):

I wonder if Boeing has already been designing the 787-10 in parallel with the -9 work. Assuming no material changes to the MTOW, IMO the "small statement of work" stretch can be efficiently run in parallel such that as much production commonalities as possible can be taken into account.

Sadly, no. The 787-9 is a long way down the track compared with the 787-10 which hasn't even been nailed down yet. 787-9 firm config was over a year ago and we're sizing to the final loads now. The capability and specs of the 787-10 haven't even been decided yet. The best that can be done is to anticipate what changes may be made and protect that design space.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 7):
A CFRP wing involves not just design, but also a new supply chain and infrastructure built up. It will be a longer undertaking with more unknown unknowns. The other question becomes if a new CFRP wing, why not a CFRP box too?

There has been talk of the Boeing Development Center at Boeing field being used for potential 777 wing production. They have the infrastructure to produce large composite structures there. Do you mean wingbox? Centre wing box?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
1. Not possible. Landing gear struts are forged titanium. CFRP is not suited for that task.

Composite links are being used on the 787 already. You can't replace everything with CFRP, but some of it you can.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
2) Replace the superficial exterior aluminium with CFRP. Nose cone, air brakes, slats, gear doors etc.

Nose cone probably already is. Spoilers (they're not air brakes) already are, along with the rest of the wing moveable trailing edge. Fixed leading and trailing edges are probably composite. Slats I don't know. The entire empennage already is. Gear doors look like they're composite and I'd be surprised if they're not. These are parts where composites had already replaced metals some time ago.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 9):
3) Use more titanium? This is pricey but it saves weight for sure.

Not necessarily. You'll (generally) use Ti when you are space-restricted. If you're not, then Al should give you a lighter structure. There are other reasons to use titanium, but it's not a magic bullet.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I'd be more comfortable with a 2017 EIS, myself.

I guess it's nice to pluck a date and not be involved in trying to make it happen  
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:13 pm

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 20):
Not necessarily. You'll (generally) use Ti when you are space-restricted. If you're not, then Al should give you a lighter structure. There are other reasons to use titanium, but it's not a magic bullet.

How feasible is a replacement of Al structures like body skins with AL-Li. To me it sound there might be a difference in electrical potential ie there would be corrosion if you mate them without galvanic isolation?

Other problems?
Non French in France
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:28 pm

Quoting n1786b (Reply 10):
a new wing design that is similar to the supercritical wings found on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the 747-8 aircraft

The 777 already has a supercritical wing.

I wonder whether Boeing has become too anxious.

They are now countering two more modern Airbus designs with upgrades of their older base designs. About a year ago I would have expected that Boeing would face two serious development programs to counter an A320-reengine and the A350 at the same time. And now they seem to tackle the situation with only two upgrade programs.

I hope their strategic judgment has improved since their activities have got this unoriented touch (execution of 787, launch and execution of 748, launch of 737MAX). Otherwise this strategy seems just not wise. Having only two secondary runners might not match Boeing's self-image.

Because when I look at this proposal I can not see the changes that could allow to beat the efficiency of the A350. While I am not even sure whether they could match it, we have to state that a 777X must beat the A350's efficiency to keep a decent market. Remember the A346: it was also no match for the 77W and it failed to keep a decent market. If we seriously consider the lesson tougth by the 777 itself (!) we have to say that just being a fellow-traveller will not be enough.

Why would equally good be not good enough?
Because the 777X will have to be larger to overcome the efficiency deficite (lengthening and/or widening the fuselage will allow to counter somewhat the inherent efficiency gap by a larger size -> improving the per seat metric by having more seats). And - as we generally agree - something larger must be more efficient, otherwise it has no point.

Remember the threads that Dreamliners would make obsolete the A380? Simply because at matching per-seat cost the giant would make close to zero sense? This thesis mostly only failed because the 787 in reality has failed to match the A380's per-seat efficiency. But as a common rule I would say that mindset sticks. That means that a larger and at best equally efficient 777X has not much of a chance.

In summary these things weaken a 777 based A350 opponent:

- A 777X would probably try differentiate by being bigger. Something that only works if it can beat the A350's efficiency per seat. Something not quite probable.

- To be blunt, the 777X is as unlikely to match the A350's per seat efficiency as a A330 derivative could have matched the 787's. The pattern how the A350MKI (= A330 derivative) lost high-profile campaigns against the 787 will not be broken by a 777X.

- Have GE being equally wholehearted engaged as their are for the GEnx for a new 777 engine. Despite that they are not challenged by any competition on that platform and despite that the unique thrust class promises far less production volumes.

- A larger 777 would make the 748 technically obsolete. But earning the 748 market does also not look very compelling. The bread-and-butter widebody market is where the 787 and the A350 sit. Anything above 350 seats is a niche in comparison. I predict an order of magnitude more 787 and A350 sales than sales for anything larger.

- For replacements efficiency trumps far more than aircraft size. Airlines will pick (and have done so) the more efficient aircraft even if the replaced type had a different size. 787's replacing 767's, A346 replacing 742's, 77W's replacing 744's and A380's replacing whatever they replace are tesimonies for that.

Disclaimer: efficiency in this post always means per-seat.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1147
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:46 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I'd be more comfortable with a 2017 EIS, myself.

As of today, Boeing have a backlog of 311 777 aircraft. At a production rate of 7 a month the current backlog spans out till May / June 2015.

At a guess I would expect at least another 100 - 150 orders for the current 777, so realistically Boeing has a full order book up till 2017/18.

From those numbers there could be a lull in production during the 2018/2019 period. This might be a nice little strategic cushion that allows Boeing the opportunity to deliver 777's if there are still customers wanting the existing model .... or Boeing might need a slower production rate so that it can change over to the new model.

2019 looks about right to me, but I suspect there are plenty of customers who might want the 777X a little sooner!
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:33 pm

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 13):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 3):
I'm still not a fan of derivatives, but given how Boeing has been managed lately, maybe it will be the way to go..

The 777LR program was a derivative and it did an outstanding job.

We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.
"Up the Irons!"
 
delimit
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:08 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:52 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 24):
We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.

Considering the scope of what is being discussed for the 777, we're seeing it go from classic to NG. That sure seemed to work for the 737.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13844
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:06 pm

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 20):
they're not air brakes

Ah, one side comment and I've learned something new for the day. Air brakes mostly increase drag but don't reduce lift, whereas spoilers do both. Being a glider pilot, you would think I'd know the difference, but it's common to use the word 'brakes'. We even use it in our checklists, sigh!

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_brake_%28aircraft%29

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):
About a year ago I would have expected that Boeing would face two serious development programs to counter an A320-reengine and the A350 at the same time. And now they seem to tackle the situation with only two upgrade programs.

They still might, if your predictions are true.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):
I hope their strategic judgment has improved since their activities have got this unoriented touch (execution of 787, launch and execution of 748, launch of 737MAX). Otherwise this strategy seems just not wise. Having only two secondary runners might not match Boeing's self-image.

Failure in execution is not the same as stategic judgement. 787 was an example of good strategic judgement, but one can argue it was forced upon them due to the demise of the 767. 747-8 was a reasonable strategic judgement presuming its initial cost estimates. Time will tell on the MAX, but it seems like a reasonable strategic judgement to me.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):
Because when I look at this proposal I can not see the changes that could allow to beat the efficiency of the A350. While I am not even sure whether they could match it, we have to state that a 777X must beat the A350's efficiency to keep a decent market.

I don't think it has beat it to keep a decent market, for the same reasons the MAX doesn't have to beat the NEO to have a decent market.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):
Remember the A346: it was also no match for the 77W and it failed to keep a decent market. If we seriously consider the lesson tougth by the 777 itself (!) we have to say that just being a fellow-traveller will not be enough.

I don't think we're in a 777 vs A340 or 777 vs MD11 situation. The twin architecture just beat the quad and tri on so many grounds.

Keep in mind this is just a study. I'm sure Boeing has a good dossier on the A350, and if the study shows a 777 fuse with new wings and engines can't make money against an A350 then Boeing won't build it.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):
Have GE being equally wholehearted engaged as their are for the GEnx for a new 777 engine. Despite that they are not challenged by any competition on that platform and despite that the unique thrust class promises far less production volumes.

Indeed Boeing has a lot of eggs in the GE basket, however you can say the same for RR on the -1000x. Why should they be so enthusiastic about building an all-new engine for something that may in turn out to be a stretch too far and get its butt whipped by a purpose-built 777x?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:08 pm

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 20):
Do you mean wingbox? Centre wing box?

Centre Box.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 20):
There has been talk of the Boeing Development Center at Boeing field being used for potential 777 wing production. They have the infrastructure to produce large composite structures there

It is interesting that Boeing is thinking of pulling 777 wing in house. I wonder if this is a change of heart after the 787 delay. It may also set the tone for the 797 program. I think it is a good thing as more and more players are entering the market and it is becoming more important to have proprietary technologies.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 20):
Sadly, no. The 787-9 is a long way down the track compared with the 787-10 which hasn't even been nailed down yet.

I would have thought that Boeing would at least budget in a simple stretch option when designing the -9. Whether the option is exercised or there is a need for more optimized design changes could be the decision for another day.

[Edited 2011-09-14 09:32:06]
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:06 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 25):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 24):
We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.

Considering the scope of what is being discussed for the 777, we're seeing it go from classic to NG. That sure seemed to work for the 737.

I don't believe that a B77X would be better than a newly built plane 25 years later...regardless of the the B737 situation has been.

Due to time, resources, certification, etc, I don't believe a number of the technologies which will be available in 2017-2020 will be put on the B77X. In fact, the Aspireaviation website (mentioned above) alluded to that.

"For instance, the carbon nanotube reinforced polymer (CNRP) material which is used on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) undoubtedly has a bright potential in the commercial aerospace arena. According to a study conducted by MITRE in 2004, a 50% single-walled nanotube (SWNT) CNRP is 17% stronger than the CFRP, yet 30% lighter.

Yet for these 2nd-generation composite technologies to mature before a 2019 entry into service (EIS) of the 777-8X/9X would be utterly unrealistic and insurmountable."
"Up the Irons!"
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:17 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 24):
We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.

I don't think the 753 was a disaster because of the 753, but because of the program management.

If that guy were around right now, or even a few years longer, there would be a lot more of them. With gas prices right now, that plane is a goldmine.

NS
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:23 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 29):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 24):
We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.

I don't think the 753 was a disaster because of the 753, but because of the program management.

If that guy were around right now, or even a few years longer, there would be a lot more of them. With gas prices right now, that plane is a goldmine.

Part of the strategy friend is to understand market conditions. There was an excellent blog by Leeham about how Boeing's mistakes have hurt them (the current "McBoeing" situation with management and BOD). From not being able to offer an NSA to the potential problem against the A35J.


Boeing can ill-afford to make an error with the B77W-sized market. While I don't think the A358 will be gaining too many orders, the A359 has completely obliterated the B77E market.
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:24 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):
Remember the A346: it was also no match for the 77W and it failed to keep a decent market.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
I don't think we're in a 777 vs A340 or 777 vs MD11 situation. The twin architecture just beat the quad and tri on so many grounds.

I also am not sure we can directly compare the 777-300ERX / A350-1000 to the 777-300ER / A340-600.

In addition to the "quad versus twin" point that Revelation makes above, the A340-600 was a very different plane to the A340-300. A new wing design. New engines from a different manufacturer. A significant rise in empty weight.

The 777-300ERX will be a refinement of the 777-300ER. It will use improved engines from the same manufacturer and family. It will likely lose empty weight, not add it. And if it does add a new wing, it may be more a case of new materials than new design.

So a 777-300ER operator adding the 777-300ERX will be a smoother and cheaper process than an A340-300 operator adding the A340-600.
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:07 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 30):
Boeing can ill-afford to make an error with the B77W-sized market. While I don't think the A358 will be gaining too many orders, the A359 has completely obliterated the B77E market.

The 77E market was in part obliterated by the A33x and 77W already.

Boeing has only 2 choices for a 2017 EIS to compete with -1000 and these are 777X or 787-11. Currently Airbus claims -1000 to have 20+% (24%?) lower fuel burn (probably against 9-abreast 77W) so Boeing must determine which can compete more effectively in the 2020s. 777x depends on 10-abreast while the plastic 787 has no material penalty against the plastic A35x, and may even has an edge with the barrel construction.

How much cheaper R&D and faster can a CFRPed 77x with new box and wing be when compared to a 787-11 with new box and wing? What can GE or RR do for a -11 in the mean time? If not CFRPing 777x, is it much faster and cheaper to develop and can carve out at least 50% of the projected market in the 2020s.

I am still in favor of walking down the 787 path. While customers have their wishes based on short term vision and their good experience with the 77W, long term vision is what Boeing management are paid for. I am just an armchair guy.  
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:16 pm

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 16):
For those constantly arguing that heavier aircraft inherently suffer a fuel burn penalty on short/medium routes, please take note. There's a lot of ingredients in the fuel burn smoothie, weight is only one of them.

My model does show 787-10 burning less fuel than A359 for missions below 1,700 nm, which is about 4-5 hours of flight time. For the right price, B787-10 may be more attractive to some airlines than A359 on regional routes. I expect the 787-10 to be cheaper than A359 by at least $10 million on a net basis.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:49 pm

Jon is up with a new article summarizing current thinking on the 777-8X and -9X:

  • Composite wing with huge 71.3m span (up from 64.9m on the 777-300ER)
  • Small stretch from the 777-300ER for the 777-9X
  • Small shrink from the 777-300ER for the 777-8X
  • Reduced MTOW to 342t (from 351.5t)
  • Reworked fuselage frames and sidewalls for 4" extra cabin width, enough to make 10Y comparable to the 747
  • New GE-9X engines with smaller 128" fan and 99,500 lb thrust
  • Larger wing, reduced drag, and reduced weight will allow similar performance even with the smaller engine
  • Maintains 8000 nm nominal range for the 777-9X


Interesting. I'm skeptical that the performance targets are realistic. This strikes me as a slightly bigger "new" A350-1000...
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:03 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
New GE-9X engines with smaller 128" fan and 99,500 lb thrust

The fan on the GE90-115B is also 128". The thrust is smaller on the -9X consistent with a higher bypass ratio.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:09 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 22):
Remember the threads that Dreamliners would make obsolete the A380? Simply because at matching per-seat cost the giant would make close to zero sense? This thesis mostly only failed because the 787 in reality has failed to match the A380's per-seat efficiency.

Don't hold your breath but the 787 has not even entered revenue service. Point to point will happen and it is one of the reasons why the 380 is not selling well at the price they should command; and then there is the 350 also, which if it produces the figures Airbus says is a sure 380 killer.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 24):
We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.

If one only measures success in terms of numbers then yes but they are derivatives which kept customers happy, and I would expect broke even.

Ruscoe
 
qfa787380
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:49 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:36 pm

Why will Boeing move on upgrading the 777 at this stage? Not needed IMO. I also think they won't do anything until the specs for the 350-1000 are firmed. The 777 is selling well now and has quite a few years of 100+ orders remaining. In all likelihood the 350 will be delayed and airlines will have no option but to turn to the 777. I think this is a premature move by Boeing and not required until after 2020. The 787-10X seems like a formality and will have unbelievable economics. However, Boeing have to get 788/9 production up to speed and the Max EIS. I think the 777X is in their plans but not of immediate necessity or interest.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:41 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Jon is up with a new article summarizing current thinking on the 777-8X and -9X:

He is suggesting 330 seats for 787-10(about 16 more than A359), which would make it 5 feet( 2 more Y rows) longer than A359.

The article mentions a 3-class 388 seat 777-9X in 10-abreast, but it is not clear if it is the slightly stretched version. One would expect the 777-8X, a slight shrink of 77W, to be around 350 seats, with B787-10X at 330 seats..
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:56 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 35):
The fan on the GE90-115B is also 128". The thrust is smaller on the -9X consistent with a higher bypass ratio.

Sorry; Jon said the existing fan was 135", and I used that as the basis for my post...
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:08 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Jon is up with a new article summarizing current thinking on the 777-8X and -9X:

With all the investment, why not park the 787 section 41 to it and call it Y3  

Now Boeing really need to use the 748i OSU space to add 50 seats. Otherwise the 748i is dead.

[Edited 2011-09-14 17:10:11]
 
BMI727
Posts: 11110
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:43 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
The linked article suggests that Boeing is studying composite wings and changes to fuselage to update the current 77L and 77W.

Might as well build a new plane then.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
I wonder if Boeing has already been designing the 787-10 in parallel with the -9 work.

I think that ship sailed when they went with the smaller wing on the 787-9. It works fine with basically no penalty on the -9, but a competitive 787-10 will need a bigger wing and probably higher weights too.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 7):
The ultimate answer is what is good enough to fend off -1000 long term.

I think no 777 variant can do it, at least not without seriously reworked 787s to cover the bottom end.

Quoting n1786b (Reply 10):
Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources say Boeing is now eyeing a provisional date of launch in 2013 with an entry into service (EIS) in 2019 for a major 777 revamp, designated as the 777-8X/9X at this stage.

Six years for a relatively straightforward wing and powerplant upgrade that would rely in large part on increases in capacity to match per seat costs plus the competition now not hitting the street until 2017? Boeing is probably better off saving their money on this one and building out the 787 followed by a new large widebody.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW), as per my model:

The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers. The difference in cargo payload is about 5,000 lbs. in favor of A359. It seems to me that both are well matched in operating cash flow for this mission length. B787-10 does not seem to have any advantage over A359 for short and medium haul routes.

Those numbers won't be getting any better at longer ranges. Boeing should save their money on that one too.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 30):
Part of the strategy friend is to understand market conditions. There was an excellent blog by Leeham about how Boeing's mistakes have hurt them (the current "McBoeing" situation with management and BOD).

Boeing management chose a bad time to be scared.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):

The 777-300ERX will be a refinement of the 777-300ER. It will use improved engines from the same manufacturer and family. It will likely lose empty weight, not add it.

That's the course Boeing should be taking with the 777. Improve performance incrementally without massive investments and set themselves up to have a replacement in service around the mid-2020s. Take the resources they would have spent on the 787-10X and 777NG this decade and come up with a 787NG with increased weights and a new set of wings and landing gear.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:58 am

I presume to get the weight down to what is suggested in the article, Boeing would have to go with an exotic new aluminum alloy. Is a 10 ton reduction in OEW realistic with lighter aluminum and a composite wing?
What the...?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13844
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:52 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
So a 777-300ER operator adding the 777-300ERX will be a smoother and cheaper process than an A340-300 operator adding the A340-600.

Agreed. The X will presumably keep almost all the systems from the 'Classic'

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 40):
Otherwise the 748i is dead.

Isn't it already? The lack of orders from BA, CX, et al have been devastating. Who else of size will be ordering? Certainly by 2017 the answer will be clear if it isn't already. Even the 777F sales seem to be a eulogy for the 747-8F.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
Might as well build a new plane then.

There's a lot of advantages of keeping the 777 systems architecture in place, with regard to cost, certification activities and training.

As the 737NG proved, you can change oh so many things and still get it certified as a 737.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:54 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 42):
I presume to get the weight down to what is suggested in the article, Boeing would have to go with an exotic new aluminum alloy.

Supposedly the 777 is over-engineered (compared to if it had been designed today) and there is a good bit of weight that can be taken out of the existing structure.
 
User avatar
2707200X
Posts: 4848
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 am

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:55 am

If Boeing where to launch the Boeing 777-8X and 9X, I would not think that the 787-8X would be like the 777-200ER or LR because the size and range category of the 772 is already being challenged by the A350-900 from Airbus and the 787-10X from the airplanes own stable as a replacement. If anything, I would say the 777-8X should serve as a successor to the 777-300ER in capacity and length to better compete with the A350-1000, any shorter the 778X would be very simmilar in capacity to the 787-10X. The 777-9X in my opinion should serve as as a growth version of the 778 perhaps serving as a 20 foot stretch bringing the plane to about 80 meters.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:16 am

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 32):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 30):
Boeing can ill-afford to make an error with the B77W-sized market. While I don't think the A358 will be gaining too many orders, the A359 has completely obliterated the B77E market.

The 77E market was in part obliterated by the A33x and 77W already.

To a certain extent yes, but looking at the A359 orders (and configuration in comparison to the B77E) does say something about it.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 36):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 24):
We've seen the disaster the B764 and B753 were as well.

If one only measures success in terms of numbers then yes but they are derivatives which kept customers happy, and I would expect broke even.

Well, it did keep carriers such as CO and DL in the "Boeing camp" for a number of years, but they really weren't planes which sold well. Also, part of the "McBoeing" clan includes people who were responsible for the DC-10 and MD-11...
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13844
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:18 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Jon is up with a new article summarizing current thinking on the 777-8X and -9X

As your summary points out, to me the most interesting paragraph is:

Quote:

As part of the studies, Boeing is examining optimizing the fuselage around the new larger wing, looking at both a fuselage stretch and a shrink of the 777-300ER. One conceptualization of the -9X would be an additional stretch to the 777-300ER, while the -8X would be a shrink of the 365-seat jet, The 777-8X and -9X would allow Boeing to span the products between the proposed 330-seat 787-10X and 467-seat 747-8.

So just like the A350 didn't shoot right at the B787 (it went a tad higher than the 787-8 so it could hit the 777 market), now the 777X isn't shooting right at the A350, it's shooting a tad above with the -8X and much above with the -9X. All this could leave Boeing with a very compelling market story from 787-[8/9] to 777-[8/9] with common type ratings, and if needed, a 787-10 right in between.

IMHO the 777-300ER has shown where the 'sweet spot' of the market is, and given our world economy, no one should really bank on the market shifting towards the 747-8 or A380. If it shifts below, it shifts right into the 787 sweet spot. The 777-8/9 is bracketing the 777-300ER, which should squeeze the A350-1000 from above and create a plane that the A350 architecture can't touch even higher up the scale. The tone of the article suggests those on the 777-8/9 study understand this well. Let's hope that understanding moves along with the program.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11110
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:47 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
There's a lot of advantages of keeping the 777 systems architecture in place, with regard to cost, certification activities and training.

Some of that architecture is going to hold back a 777NG and make it a model that appeals to a more narrow customer base than the A350.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 47):
The 777-8/9 is bracketing the 777-300ER, which should squeeze the A350-1000 from above and create a plane that the A350 architecture can't touch even higher up the scale.

Yes, but there isn't necessarily a large market in that untouchable area.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: FG Article On 777-8X/9X And 787-10

Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:34 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
I also am not sure we can directly compare the 777-300ERX / A350-1000 to the 777-300ER / A340-600.

There are a lot of differences. But one of the most important factors will be similar and can't be discussed away: the efficiency relation per seat. And I can't see another factor that had more impact on the poor A346 sales than this gap.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
In addition to the "quad versus twin" point that Revelation makes above,

Quad pre se is not a bad metric. But the price tag it carries often hampers the efficiency. And this would be the problem. There are quads that have done well and were very close to the competing twin, e.g. the A343. And would the A343 have got the planned geared engines, it would have beaten the 772ER. And today the 787 as a GTF driven quad would probably beat the chosen twin configuration too.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 36):
Don't hold your breath but the 787 has not even entered revenue service. Point to point will happen and it is one of the reasons why the 380 is not selling well at the price they should command; and then there is the 350 also, which if it produces the figures Airbus says is a sure 380 killer.

I did not question the theory. I just don't think that the 787 can reach the CASM of the A380. And regarding the topic of this thread: before the A350 kills the A380 it will kill any thinkable 777 variant (because even more favouring CASM and size-similarity). The A380 should enjoy a unique per-seat advantage for quite some time.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34):
Composite wing with huge 71.3m span (up from 64.9m on the 777-300ER)

Small stretch from the 777-300ER for the 777-9X
Small shrink from the 777-300ER for the 777-8X
Reduced MTOW to 342t (from 351.5t)
Reworked fuselage frames and sidewalls for 4" extra cabin width, enough to make 10Y comparable to the 747
New GE-9X engines with smaller 128" fan and 99,500 lb thrust

Larger wing, reduced drag, and reduced weight will allow similar performance even with the smaller engine

Maintains 8000 nm nominal range for the 777-9X

IMO a clever draft. Requires hefty investments. But anything below could be too less. It is a testimony how Boeing judges the A351.

Who is online