cubastar
Topic Author
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:07 pm

Boeing studies replacement of 777.200LR (Concept only) Service entry estimated 2020s. Mission range of 9480 nm. Estimated 14-16% fuel fuel burn per seat improvement over present -200LR.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...long-range-777-8lx-concept-368176/
 
phishphan70
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:23 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:10 pm

Glad to see the LR market being included into the 777X plans. Now if only I could afford my own.....
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4921
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:10 pm

From my too-late thread starter on the same subject...

I was assuming, and I expect everyone else here was too, that the 777-8X concept was a ULH-ranged straight shrink of the 777-9X. Apparently, not so. The 777-8X would be an 8000 nm shrink with derated engines, and now Boeing says it's studying a 9500 nm 777-8LX as well.

Personally, I can't see the point of either variant. They will be heavier than the A350-1000 but offer less capacity. The -8LX might sell a few copies for ULH, but I don't see any mission where the -8X would be the best product. The 787-10 would be better on shorter missions, while the A350-900 or -1000 would be the best product on longer ones.

It seems to me that Boeing should focus on the -9X, letting the 787-9 take care of the 8000 nm market for smaller planes and the 787-10 take care of the high-capacity medium-haul market.   
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:14 pm

I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make.

But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:24 pm

Quoting na (Reply 3):
But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting.

Why is that?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:27 pm

Quoting na (Reply 3):
I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make.

It would make a good freighter.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:36 pm

This thing sounds like a nonstarter to me. The only way it could become reality is if it is basically a shrink of a 777X in longer length and therefore has negligible development costs.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
airbazar
Posts: 6809
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:40 pm

Sorry but 85nm more than the 77L still doesn't make a SYD-LHR non-stop possible. The fuel burn savings may extend the life of the 772 but that's about it.
 
flightsimer
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:00 am

Quoting na (Reply 3):
I don't know about what sense such an ultra long haul plane should make.

But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting.


The -9X will only be 8ft longer, hardly noticeable.

This seems to be the most informative article on the 777NG to date. Seems like it confirms a lot about what has been said around here.

Three things i found really interesting.

1) either this is a typo, or they are expecting some really big things to happen with this plane. But it said the -8LX which will be a ~14ft stretch over the -200, seating 353, would have a 14-16% fuel burn per seat reduction over the current -300ER. If they can do that, again assuming it was not supposed to be over the -200ER, then this is going to be one hell of an aircraft family!

2) The are proposing two sets of wings being available. A Longer 233ft wingspan with raked wingtips and a shorter, 225ft wingspan with blended winglets.

3) That the option for the folding wings is being brought back and will become standard on all the new 777's with the 233ft wingspan. This will be done to allow the 777 retain its Code E classification while on the ground and taxiing but will move it back to type F once it enters the runway. It said that the entire raked wingtip would be what folds to save on complexity in the system. It also noted that each wingtip would be 11ft in length. This to me seems like it would pretty much make the 225ft wing useless because once folded, the larger wing will still have a shorter span (211ft vs 225) than the wingleted wing.
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
G500
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:00 am

Quoting na (Reply 3):
I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make

AGREE 100%

what's the idea, flight from LAX to NRT and back to LAX without refueling???
 
Max Q
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:05 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):

Reply 7, posted Mon Feb 13 2012 18:40:21 your local time (16 minutes 17 secs ago) and read 183 times:

Sorry but 85nm more than the 77L still doesn't make a SYD-LHR non-stop possible. The fuel burn savings may extend the life of the 772 but that's about it.

I'm wondering, though if this extra range is achieved without the use of auxiliary tanks.


What I don't understand is the very significant decrease in engine thrust despite the gross take off weight not decreasing
proportionally.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4921
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:07 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):
What I don't understand is the very significant decrease in engine thrust despite the gross take off weight not decreasing
proportionally.

That's what that huge new CFRP wing is about. Airbus is doing exactly the same thing with the A350.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1549
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:13 am

Three questions to our panel of experts:
1. Is an increase in 85 nautical miles worth the investment cost?
2. How does such a small increase in range allow airlines to eliminate the "kangaroo stop"?
3. The article points out that the 777-LR is a niche aircraft. What is the realistic market for such a plane?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:14 am

I still think Boeing is doing it wrong. The 777-8 should be the length of the 777-300ER (74m) and the 777-9 should be a 6m stretch out to 80m.

That being said, I can see what Boeing is doing here: use the 787 and the 777X to bracket the A350.

787-8
A350-800
787-9
A350-900
777-8
A350-1000
777-9

(The 787-10X would slot between the A350-900 and the 777-8, but I'm not including it because it will lack the range for deep B-maket missions)



Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):
What I don't understand is the very significant decrease in engine thrust despite the gross take off weight not decreasing proportionally.

The 777X is expected to have a not-significantly wider wingspan, which will help aerodynamic loading and allow lower engine thrusts.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
That being said, I can see what Boeing is doing here: use the 787 and the 777X to bracket the A350.

Yes, but to properly do that they would need a 787-10 with long enough range to really compete with the A350-1000, and I don't think they can pull that off. The 777-8 would seem to likely be only marginally competitive and the 777-9 would have to be carrying more passengers to compare favorably with an A350-1000.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
point2point
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:34 am

Might these be the only markets that could really use any type of ultra-ultra-long-haul aircraft - listed in what I believe would be the most used?

LHR-SYD - 10573 mi
JFK-SYD - 9950 mi
NRT-GRU - 11489 mi
PEK-GRU - 10922 mi
HKG-GRU - 11195 mi

Any more?
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:39 am

Quoting point2point (Reply 15):
Any more?

NYC-SYD - 9940mi
 
IAD787
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:54 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:43 am

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 12):
2. How does such a small increase in range allow airlines to eliminate the "kangaroo stop"?

It's not about range, it comes with a 15% reduction in per seat fuel burn that significantly cuts the operating cost too. The -200LR can fly the route now, but not profitably as it's payload restricted. The 777-8LX will be 14ft longer than the 200ER/LR too, which means more cargo capacity as well.

IAD787
Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
 
ssteve
Posts: 1133
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:43 am

JNB-LAX, 10385mi if we're dreaming. Or sub in EZE for GRU or SIN for the Asia destinations.

I feel like they're putting the numbers together for this concept to see if anyone would want it. Says they're mooting folding wingtips, too.

[Edited 2012-02-13 16:48:47]
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:54 am

I don't see the reason to spend money on this. They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm. Does any airline really need a 9500nm plane. I don't think so.

8285nm SINº-EWRº Singaporeˇ 345x7
7621nm SIN-LAXº Singapore 345x5
7454nm SYDº-DFW º † Qantas ˇ 74Ex6
7334nm ATLº-JNBº Deltaˇ 77Lx7
7246nm DXBº-LAX Emirates ˇ 77Wx7 77Lx7
7215nm DFW-BNEº †† Qantas 74Ex6
7186nm BKKº-LAX Thai ˇ 345x7
7097nm DXB-IAHº Emirates 77Lx7
7041nm DXB-SFOº Emirates 77Wx7
10th Longest:
7014nm HKGº-JFKº Cathay Pacific ˇ 77Wx21
7009nm EWR-HKG Continentalˇ 77Ex7 / (Cathay Pacific 77W scheduled May)
6993nm DOHº-IAH Qatarˇ 77Lx7
6987nm DXB-DFW Emirates 77Lx7
6925nm JNB-JFK South Africanˇ 346x6
6883nm MELº-LAX Qantas 388x7 / V Australiaˇ 77Wx3
6828nm DTWº-HKG Delta 77Lx4
6787nm HKG Air Canadaˇ 77Lx7 / Cathay Pacific 77Wx13
6785nm TPE º-JFK EVAˇ 77Wx4 ØØ
6784nm BOMº-EWR Air Indiaˇ 77Lx7 / Continental 77Ex7
20th longest:
6772nm HKG-ORDº Cathay Pacific 77Wx7 / Unitedˇ 744x7
6741nm YVRº-SYD Air Canada 77Lx7

From: World’s Longest Flights 15 February Update (by yeogeo Jan 29 2012 in Aviation Polls)

[Edited 2012-02-13 16:55:30]

[Edited 2012-02-13 16:58:45]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:07 am

Since any two points on the Earth are no more than 12,500 miles apart, and ULH airplanes are now over 11,000 miles (not in nm) in max range, we will soon be hitting the airplane that will truely be a globe trotter.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:12 am

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
I don't see the reason to spend money on this. They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm.

With today's aircraft. All but five* of the routes listed are being performed by aircraft that appeared in the last decade. As aircraft gain more range, more payload, and lower operating cost, these routes will become more reliable, more profitable, and more city pairs over >6,700 nm will be added.

* - And two of those are CO's 772ER with Ge90-94Bs, which if I recall correctly, only became available in 2000.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:25 am

I think what Boeing is doing is studying evey possible option for the 777. No doubt we'll hear a lot more theoretical variants...not all of which will make it to production.

Boeing will float the ideas and it will build whatever they get orders for.
What the...?
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:29 am

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 21):
And two of those are CO's 772ER with Ge90-94Bs, which if I recall correctly, only became available in 2000.

You are correct.
 
sharktail
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:41 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:39 am

So how would this compare to the 787-10? More range, obviously, and apparently 30 passengers more (323 for 787-10 and 353 for the 777). But if you are looking at 15% fuel burn improvements, would anyone still be interested in the 787-10 if you can get a 777-8(L)X that goes further and is close in fuel burn?

If they can pull that off, the 787-10 could be a casualty of friendly fire defending against the 350. Then again, I think Boeing wouldn't mind that much...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:39 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
Yes, but to properly do that they would need a 787-10 with long enough range to really compete with the A350-1000, and I don't think they can pull that off.

The 787-10X now looks to be 68m long, which is the same as the 777-8X. So the 777-8X is to the long-range 787-10X.
 
point2point
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:42 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Since any two points on the Earth are no more than 12,500 miles apart, and ULH airplanes are now over 11,000 miles (not in nm) in max range, we will soon be hitting the airplane that will truely be a globe trotter.

Well thought way to put this, so a plane with about a 13,000 mi range can connect nonstop any two cities in the world.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 18):
JNB-LAX, 10385mi if we're dreaming. Or sub in EZE for GRU or SIN for the Asia destinations.

Okay, those are good, and maybe MEL or AKL could get into this with European or U.S. East Coast markets, or a BKK or KUL to certain points in South America.

But if we really bent over backwards here, and make a most liberal assessment of the routes that would be economically successful (again, big stretch here) that still may be no more than about 30 or so routes as to where this bird would be needed.

Now, my observation here is not really to debate the merits of any individual route, and I'll admit that even I think that this 30 or so number is quite high. But just assuming that it is, would there be any financial benefit for either A or B to be looking producing such a craft with this small, limited of a market? And on that, I personally don't think so.

But then, Boeing produced 747 versions that served the short-haul Japanese market.

And of course The Concorde was produced, after all.......

 

[Edited 2012-02-13 17:49:37]
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:57 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
So the 777-8X is to the long-range 787-10X.

Just heavier, less efficient, and less competitive. Regardless, I think this 777-8LX is an answer to a question nobody's asking.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:00 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):

One could look at this as a counter re-action towards A extending the longevity of the 330 with the 330S. I believe that B has more options available and coming to corner the 350/330S as Stitch has brought to our attention. A visual of these 777x's would be nice!!   
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:20 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
The 787-10X now looks to be 68m long, which is the same as the 777-8X. So the 777-8X is to the long-range 787-10X.

So Boeing would have a 787-10 then a 777-8 then *another* 777-8L ? Isn't that a lot of R&D dollars to span 7500-9500 nm ?

I'd still vote for this line-up

787-8 (replace 763)
787-9 (replace 764/332)
787-10 (replace 772/333/343)
777-8L (replace 77L)
777-9 (replace 77W)
 
qf002
Posts: 3066
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:27 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 29):
I'd still vote for this line-up

As do I, but without any 777-8 of any kind.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:33 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 29):
So Boeing would have a 787-10 then a 777-8 then *another* 777-8L ? Isn't that a lot of R&D dollars to span 7500-9500 nm ?

As the 787-10 directly leverages the 787-9 and the 777-8LX would directly leverage the 777-8, I would imagine the costs of both would be (relatively) minimal.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Regardless, I think this 777-8LX is an answer to a question nobody's asking.

Since the TOW is already there to support the 777-9X, offering it as an option for the 777-8LX doesn't hurt anything. I think of it like the A350-800HGW - maybe someone will find a use for it, but if they don't, then they chose a lower MTOW and de-rated engines and save on fees and maintenance.
 
qfa787380
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:49 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:33 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 30):
As do I, but without any 777-8 of any kind.

Actually, I agree. Eventually, Boeing could do an ULH version of the 789/-10 if the demand was there. As it is, the ULH market has even less demand than the VLA market!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:47 am

Still not enough thrust, Boeing will have to think twice before De rating the engines to the extent advertised.



So what that it has a composite wing, it is still not much lighter !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:51 am

Quoting point2point (Reply 15):
JFK-SYD - 9950 mi
Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 16):
Quoting point2point (Reply 15):Any more?
NYC-SYD - 9940mi

JFK is in NYC. You skipped over that one??? LOL
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:56 am

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm. Does any airline really need a 9500nm plane. I don't think so.

Wow, lift your sights a little. 21 EXISTING flights, right? But there are potentially dozens of other city pairs that this aircraft could open up. A little imagination...
 
CBRboy
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:03 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:02 am

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 21):
All but five* of the routes listed are being performed by aircraft that appeared in the last decade.
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 21):
* - And two of those are CO's 772ER with Ge90-94Bs, which if I recall correctly, only became available in 2000.

If you are counting the 74Es in the list as the other three, you may not realise that the 747-400ER was launched in November 2000 and Qantas received the first −400ER on October 31, 2002.
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:16 am

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 34):
JFK is in NYC. You skipped over that one??? LOL

Yes, I totally missed that.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 35):
Wow, lift your sights a little. 21 EXISTING flights, right? But there are potentially dozens of other city pairs that this aircraft could open up. A little imagination...

ULH flights are expensive to operate and I don't see the 777-8LR being much cheaper to operate the 777-200LR.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2600
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:24 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
Personally, I can't see the point of either variant.
Quoting na (Reply 3):
I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make.

It would serve as the 777F replacement. Given that the 777-8F and the 777-8LX is likely to be based off the same frame, developing both a freighter and a passenger variant is quite justifiable. The 777-8LX itself may not sell many copies, but the 777-8F probably will. It's a similar situation to what's happening with the 747-8F and 747-8i. If Boeing had not released the freighter version of the 747-8, the entire program would be as good as dead in the water.

The 777-8LX will also be a terrific A345/77L replacement, and as a competitor to the theoretical A359R.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
This thing sounds like a nonstarter to me. The only way it could become reality is if it is basically a shrink of a 777X in longer length and therefore has negligible development costs.

The fact that the 777-8F can potentially exist off the same frame as a 777-8X / 777-8LX makes this project worthwhile.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
Sorry but 85nm more than the 77L still doesn't make a SYD-LHR non-stop possible. The fuel burn savings may extend the life of the 772 but that's about it.

SYD-LHR is 9188nm GC. The 777-8LX will have 9480nm range. Now, I don't know how much the prevailing winds will add to the equation, because that would vary from season to season, and it is highly likely that payload would be restricted on that route. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. Impractical, maybe, but not impossible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
Yes, but to properly do that they would need a 787-10 with long enough range to really compete with the A350-1000, and I don't think they can pull that off. The 777-8 would seem to likely be only marginally competitive and the 777-9 would have to be carrying more passengers to compare favorably with an A350-1000.

But they don't have a 787-10 with long range. The 787-10 is just going to be a straight stretch of the 787-9, thus it is likely to have less range than the 787-9. The 787-10 is also needed to cover the A333 replacement market. Making a long range 787-10 could reduce its efficiency on shorter regional routes.

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
I don't see the reason to spend money on this. They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm. Does any airline really need a 9500nm plane. I don't think so.

I think you're looking at this a bit too simplistically. Currently, there aren't many airlines that uses the 77L on routes where its range would be stretched to a limit. The 77L is capable of lifting its 52t MSP up to about 7500nm before it starts taking a payload penalty. The 777-8LX will probably perform even better in that regard, making it attractive for airlines that need to haul a lot of payload a long way.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Just heavier, less efficient, and less competitive. Regardless, I think this 777-8LX is an answer to a question nobody's asking.

Isn't it generally true that the longer range version of an aircraft is heavier, less efficient and less competitive at shorter ranges? The 787-10 isn't designed for long range missions. That's where the 777-8X and 777-8LX comes in. Yes, the 787 would be a much better aircraft on routes within its capabilities, but the 777-8LX will fly further than any 787 can.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:41 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
Isn't it generally true that the longer range version of an aircraft is heavier, less efficient and less competitive at shorter ranges? The 787-10 isn't designed for long range missions. That's where the 777-8X and 777-8LX comes in. Yes, the 787 would be a much better aircraft on routes within its capabilities, but the 777-8LX will fly further than any 787 can.

The rumored 787-10 won't be spec'ed less than 7000nm. So here we're suggesting 3 planes, one for 7000nm (787-10), one for 8200 nm (777-8), then another one for 9500nm (777-8L).

Essentially splitting "B market" and "C market" into 3 planes instead of 2.
 
flightsimer
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:47 am

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 37):
I don't see the 777-8LR being much cheaper to operate the 777-200LR.


That's because it wont be cheaper than the current -200LR. It will be 14-16% cheaper to operate than the -300ER. Boeing wouldn't design something without having an idea if it is wanted or not.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that its carrying nearly 20% more passengers than that of the 777-200LR, plus the extra cargo, yet flying it the 85nm further than the -200LR. Plus, that's with no aux tanks. Put it in a configuration close to today's and i can see it easily performing the ULH routes like London-Sydney.
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:02 am

The proposed stretched 777-9X(407 seats) could end up with GSM(gallon seat mile) that matches that of A350-1000(350 seats).

The proposed stretched B777-8X(353 seats) is unlikely to be lighter than A350-1000, and will therefore be at an operating disadvantage. Acquisition cost differential will have to be a major factor if B777-8X is to be competitive against A350-1000.

A simple stretch A350-1100, with lower range, may be what Airbus ends up doing to respond to B777-9X's GSM parity with A350-1000
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19628
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting cubastar (Thread starter):
Boeing studies replacement of 777.200LR (Concept only) Service entry estimated 2020s. Mission range of 9480 nm. Estimated 14-16% fuel fuel burn per seat improvement over present -200LR.

No reason not to. If they are doing the 777-9X, then the 777-8XLR is no different than the 77L. It will cost next to nothing to design and certify given that the 777-9X must be designed and certified. Almost all the components will be identical.

Quoting point2point (Reply 26):

But if we really bent over backwards here, and make a most liberal assessment of the routes that would be economically successful (again, big stretch here) that still may be no more than about 30 or so routes as to where this bird would be needed.

Airlines have been buying the 77L not only for its range, but also for its lifting power. Even at hot and high airports, it lifts a lot.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:07 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
but if they don't, then they chose a lower MTOW and de-rated engines and save on fees and maintenance.

Or just get A350s.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
The fact that the 777-8F can potentially exist off the same frame as a 777-8X / 777-8LX makes this project worthwhile.

Not so much considering that the 77F has effectively no competitors and won't for some time.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
But they don't have a 787-10 with long range.

No they don't, but if they want a 787-10 they should make it that or go ahead with the Y3. I think the appeal of a 777X is just to narrow and moves away from the sweet spot of the market. It wouldn't be the sales slug the 747-8I is, but it would not pose much, if any, threat to the A350.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
The 777-8LX will also be a terrific A345/77L replacement,

Two planes which have sold a combined 91 copies.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
Making a long range 787-10 could reduce its efficiency on shorter regional routes.

It would, but if the A350 is any indication, that's what customers want. Really Boeing should just launch the Y3 towards the end of this decade for entry into service during the early 2020s. Whether a 787-10 could complement that could go either way.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2600
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:39 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 39):
The rumored 787-10 won't be spec'ed less than 7000nm. So here we're suggesting 3 planes, one for 7000nm (787-10), one for 8200 nm (777-8), then another one for 9500nm (777-8L).

Essentially splitting "B market" and "C market" into 3 planes instead of 2.

But that's only 2 different aircraft families, so if you look at it from the development cost point of view, the 787-10 being a straight stretch of the 787-9; and the 777-8X and 777-8LX to be 'doglegged' off the 777-9X program, it is quite a cost efficient way of bringing these aircraft onto the market.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
No reason not to. If they are doing the 777-9X, then the 777-8XLR is no different than the 77L. It will cost next to nothing to design and certify given that the 777-9X must be designed and certified. Almost all the components will be identical.

  

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Not so much considering that the 77F has effectively no competitors and won't for some time.

But they'll come, and when they do, Boeing will be ready for them - converting the 777-8LX into the 777-8F shouldn't incur too much in terms of development costs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
No they don't, but if they want a 787-10 they should make it that or go ahead with the Y3. I think the appeal of a 777X is just to narrow and moves away from the sweet spot of the market. It wouldn't be the sales slug the 747-8I is, but it would not pose much, if any, threat to the A350.

I cannot agree with that. The 777X program (particularly the 777-9X) as it is proposed is going to be one hell of an aircraft. The 777-8X and 777-8LX, as proposed in the article, will also offer about 15% better seat mile costs than the current 777-300ER. Given that the 777-8X and 777-8LX offers 12 fewer seats than the current 777-300ER, that is a significant achievement.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Two planes which have sold a combined 91 copies.

... which needs to be replaced eventually. Yes, the ULH market may be small, but eventually, the A345 and 77L will run out of its useful life, and if there was no replacement, how will airlines sustain those routes that require the A345 or 77L? Besides, as DocLightning mentioned, development costs of the 777-8LX will not be significant given that it can be 'piggybacked' off the 777-9X program. In the 777-8, Boeing has the opportunity to sell some airframes at very little cost. Having both the 777-8X and the 777-8LX gives Boeing the ability to cover both the A350-900 and the theoretical A350-900R, thus giving customers an option. Focussing solely on the 777-9X would be a mistake, when the 777-8X can also be developed for very little additional cost.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
It would, but if the A350 is any indication, that's what customers want. Really Boeing should just launch the Y3 towards the end of this decade for entry into service during the early 2020s. Whether a 787-10 could complement that could go either way.

Well, EK and QR aren't particularly happy with the changes ...

Right now there doesn't seem to be an aircraft designed specifically for medium haul high capacity routes. The A333 has been a phenomenal success in that sector, and Boeing could have a slice of that with the 787-10. Making a long range 787-10 would at best be a compromised solution in an attempt to gain both the A333 and A359 markets. I think Boeing should design the 787-10 to be a direct A333 replacement with no more than 7000nm range, leaving the longer range market to the heavier and more capable 777-8X.

There's no reason to rush into the Y3. The 777X as it is proposed will do more than just hold the fort for many years to come.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:27 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
as proposed in the article, will also offer about 15% better seat mile costs than the current 777-300ER. Given that the 777-8X and 777-8LX offers 12 fewer seats than the current 777-300ER, that is a significant achievement.

It may not mean much if Airbus achieves their 20-25% savings targets.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
Having both the 777-8X and the 777-8LX gives Boeing the ability to cover both the A350-900 and the theoretical A350-900R, thus giving customers an option.

I suspect they will have little luck competing with the A350-900 with any 777 variant. Luckily the 787-9 should do nicely.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
There's no reason to rush into the Y3.

That's awfully easy to say now before the A350-1000 has really begun to gather momentum. But if it does what Airbus says it will, the only way a 777 will be able to compete is to add more seats, and that is going to make it too large for some customers. Some will find it okay, but many others won't.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19628
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:32 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):

Two planes which have sold a combined 91 copies.

I would bet that the additional cost of the -8LX development (given that they are going to do the -8X and -9X anyway, and the -8LX will have essentially all components in common with one of those two models) will be about ten or fifteen frames.

A single order from QF might justify the entire program, just as it justified the 747-400ER.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:46 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 46):

It wouldn't be a huge cost, but it wouldn't be a huge payoff either. I just don't see the case for the 777X. Boeing doesn't need to improve the 777 that soon and an improved 777X would be a band-aid to combat loss of market share more than a real competitor.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
n1786b
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:10 am

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:57 am

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
This seems to be the most informative article on the 777NG to date.

Did you see this one?

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...ops-777x-to-challenge-airbus-a350/
 
flyingalex
Posts: 623
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:32 pm

RE: Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept

Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:26 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Since any two points on the Earth are no more than 12,500 miles apart, and ULH airplanes are now over 11,000 miles (not in nm) in max range, we will soon be hitting the airplane that will truely be a globe trotter.
Quoting point2point (Reply 26):
Well thought way to put this, so a plane with about a 13,000 mi range can connect nonstop any two cities in the world.

You guys are forgetting one very important factor: wind.

Let's take JFK-NRT as an example, where the GC distance is 5861nm. The cruising speed of a 777 is about 500 knots, so we get a flight time of almost 12 hours, but this only considers the still air distance.

Heading west across North America and then across the Pacific, our flight will be going into headwinds. Let's say we've got a good jetstream going that gives us a headwind component of 50 knots all the way. This means that our speed over ground has been reduced to 450 knots, which gives us an adjusted flight time of over 13 hours. To put this in terms of distance travelled through the air (including wind), you can either multiply the new flight time by the crusing speed (so 13 hours x 500 knots = 6500nm) or simply add 50 knots to the distance for every hour of flight ( (13*50 = 650nm) + 5861nm = 6511nm).

This difference is on a comparatively short flight which is not at all pushing the envelope, and it is calculated with a headwind that is not over the top. On a longer flight, or one with stronger winds, the issues increase. And we haven't taken routing restrictions (i.e. for political reasons or because of ETOPS no-go areas) into account yet.

Wind is the reason that LHR-SYD is already possible with a B77L, while SYD-LHR is not.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 910A, Abeam79, Alexa [Bot], Bing [Bot], crownvic, fry530, jake112, JAmie2k9, KC135R, ldvaviation, LeCoqFrancais, LFW, seanpmassey, trex8, ty97, Yahoo [Bot] and 301 guests