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

FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:09 am

777-9X at 407 seats and 777-8X at 353 seats are suggested as likely models. 787-10 will be at 323 seats.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rgets-year-end-777x-launch-369074/

Quote:
Boeing is targeting a year-end board launch for its conceptual 777X, in time for a late decade service entry, said the company's commercial unit CEO, Jim Albaugh.

"We're working towards being in a position toward the end of this year to talk to our board. That's assuming the business case closes, that's assuming the technical trades are ones that close," says Albaugh, who was speaking at a press conference following the unveiling of Boeing's 1000th 777.

The conceptual two-member family is seen as a 14,800km (8,000nm) 407-seat 777-9X and 353-seat 777-8X and potentially even a third model in an ultra long-range 777-8LX. The baseline -9X and -8X each grow the lengths of the existing 777-300ER and -200ER fuselages and add a 787-style composite wing, say those familiar with Boeing's studies.

The launch of the new 777 family would likely be done in conjunction with a 323-seat 787-10X, a stretch of the 787-9 due for service in 2014, and would more evenly spread Boeing's widebody product line from the 242-seat 787-8 to the 467-seat 747-8.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:52 am

EK's Chairman was in Seattle to take delivery of the 1000th 777 and to celebrate the launch of DXB-SEA service and he was apparently quite enthusiastic about the 777X in EK's fleet: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2017651815_boeing03.html

[Edited 2012-03-02 22:58:50]
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2599
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:54 am

The last paragraph of that article is interesting, and could be either good or bad:

Quote:
Albaugh declined to offer any details on the 777X's potential efficiency in comparison to the 777-300ER, but says it would be a "pretty significant improvement" and "I think that our customer base would be very interested in."

A previous FlightGlobal article predicted a 15% reduction in per seat costs over the 777-300ER, so I'm guess they don't want to sound overly optimistic officially - certainly not until the design has been frozen.

Interesting times ahead for the 777. I can't wait to see how it pans out  
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:18 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
A previous FlightGlobal article predicted a 15% reduction in per seat costs over the 777-300ER, so I'm guess they don't want to sound overly optimistic officially - certainly not until the design has been frozen.

If at 15% per seat number is correct, and the 9X is 407 seats, and the 300ER 365 seats, makes the trip costs not very different to the current 300ER.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2599
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:33 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
If at 15% per seat number is correct, and the 9X is 407 seats, and the 300ER 365 seats, makes the trip costs not very different to the current 300ER.

It was for the 353 seat -8LX.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...long-range-777-8lx-concept-368176/

Quote:
The reduced fuel burn per seat for the -8LX is estimated to be a 14% to 16% improvement over the 777-300ER
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19571
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:53 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):

Interesting times ahead for the 777. I can't wait to see how it pans out

Pardon me for being a cynic. And for the record, I am neither an A nor B fanboy. And this is not an AvB starter.

First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such. The Airbus fanboys will absolutely love every little setback. The Boeing fanboys will keep on bringing up the A350 and A380 programs.

Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.

Both planes will fill different niches, but they will do well.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:59 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such. The Airbus fanboys will absolutely love every little setback. The Boeing fanboys will keep on bringing up the A350 and A380 programs.

Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.

That's the whole purpose of being on A.net, isn't it?  
 
redrooster3
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:35 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:00 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such.

Seems like its like that for every model type, whether its Boeing, or Airbus.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.

Marketing
The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:24 am

If they stretch the frames, how will this save any weight? Or do they aim to keep the current numbers but growing the frame inside the same weight budget?
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2599
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:47 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such.

You could say the same for the A350 as well. In fact, just about every aircraft produced had run into dramas along the way causing the first few frames to miss its projected targets. The 787 missed its targets, so did the 747-8, so did the A380, and presumably, so will the A350. Improvements on later built frames will get it to meet, or perhaps even exceed its initial forecast targets.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.

That's all part of marketing.

Quoting sweair (Reply 8):
If they stretch the frames, how will this save any weight?

First of all, it's only a minimal stretch. The 777-8X is 4.46m longer than the 777-200, while the 777-9X is 2.13m longer than the 777-300. Secondly, new (smaller) engines, new CFRP wings, more extensive use of composites in other areas, along with the use of Al-Li alloys on its fuselage and structure ought to bring its weight down somewhat.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:52 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
A previous FlightGlobal article predicted a 15% reduction in per seat costs over the 777-300ER, so I'm guess they don't want to sound overly optimistic officially - certainly not until the design has been frozen.

It's worth being careful with quotes like this.

The article you linked clearly sates "a 14% - 16%" reduction in per seat FUEL costs. Not per seat costs.
The per seat cost reduction would likely be about half that, making it about 7% - 8% I'd guess.

I'd guess that half of that per seat fuel burn reduction comes from the engine, some from the increased span, and the rest from shoehorning 353 people into an aircraft some 6m shorter than the 365 seat773ER

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
and 353-seat 777-8X

The article linked by CXB77L suggests that the -8X will be 4.5m longer than the 772 - at c. 68m (about 1m longer than the A350-900).
That would suggest a cabin area of about 310 m2, some 30 m2 up on the 772, if I assume a 2"-3" increase in interior width.

I'm guessing EK's seat count would go up from c 286 on their 772's to 326 on the 777-8X, assuming 4 extra rows of 10Y

The 2m stretch of the 773ER suggested in the article for the 777-9X would seem to imply a cabin area of about 350m2.
If that extra space is allocated to Y, EK's 3 class seat count would be about 378 (an extra 20 Y seats up on their 3 class 773ER).

I still wonder if a small gain in extra width would be enough for cariers like SQ to go 10-across.

Rgds
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:02 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
787-10 will be at 323 seats.

Should do decently, but there is the issue of production capacity.

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
777-9X at 407 seats

Some airlines will like it. Many others will completely ignore it.

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
777-8X at 353 seats

Probably a slow seller at best, but it's as close to a freebie as Boeing will get.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
I still wonder if a small gain in extra width would be enough for cariers like SQ to go 10-across.

It better be, otherwise the 777X will be a very tough sell against the A350. Doing 9 across probably all but kills the economic case.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
behramjee
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:07 am

B 777-800X (778) - range is 14,800KM seating 353 pax in a 3 class configuration

B 777-900X (779) - range will be the same i.e. 14,800KM but will seat 407 pax in a 3 class configuration; this will be a replacement of the B773ER and can fly DXB-LAX/SFO/SYD/GRU nonstop without any payload issues.

Boeing 787-100X - range will be 14,000KM and will seat 323 pax in a 3 class configuration; this will be the direct replacement of the B772ER

Comments:

Personally speaking, I do not think that the B778 will be a popular choice for airlines as it brings nothing special to the table. However, the B779 shall definitely be as it would be seating 57 more pax versus the A350-1000X and only offering a range of 800KM less.

Emirates has been a key driver of this program and one can definitely expect it to order many of the type as its primary requirement was to have an aircraft the size of a B773ER or slightly larger that could operate with a full load of pax + cargo from DXB to the U.S. West Coast and South America which the B779 is slated to. In turn, one can now also expect QR's CEO to follow suit and order many as well which in turn will result in the carrier dumping the A351 if Airbus does not listen to his demands as the A351 program is heading down the same road as the A346HGW!

One more appetizing feature of the B779 is that according to its specifications, it shall also be able to fly nonstop with a full payload from both BOM and DEL to ORD-Chicago which can prove to be a really attractive proposition for 9W/UA/AI/AA to ponder over their long term fleet requirments!
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:39 pm

The quoted fuel burn is -8LX versus -300ER, which doesn't make any sense.

I think the B777 is a perfect platform for seizing the upper end of the single deck capacity region, limited to ~450 PAX in 3 class. The only thing - as stated by many seasoned posters before - is that the -8/9X is the final death certificate of the B747-8I. Without any chance of selling these the entire program becomes more of a joke. OK, the board has changed since and the predecessors can be blamed.

A launch of the -8/9X (especially the 9) would pressure Airbus to do something with the A380, probably go Trent 1000 and go A380-900/800HGW.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
incitatus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:55 pm

778 and 779? Seems like Feng Shui continues to be a strong element in aircraft projects both at Boeing and Airbus  
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
probably behind schedule,

Being on time? What an irrelevant concept....

[Edited 2012-03-03 05:57:00]
Stop pop up ads
 
ANITIX87
Posts: 2952
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:52 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:40 pm

I realize exact numbers would be impossible to compute, but how much will developing the 777X cost, compared to developing an all-new large twin based on the 787?

It seems like Airbus and Boeing, for some reason, are afraid to launch all-new aircraft and prefer to rest on their laurels (see A320NEO, 737MAX, A330HGW, 747-8, etc). Are the 787 and A350 going to be the last new airframes to come from these two companies for a while?

I understand that creating a new airframe requires a ton of money, time, and manpower, but I have to imagine that a bespoke aircraft, taking advantage of all-new technology (rather then implementing some improvements to old tech - remember, the 777 is a 20-year old design at this point) would be a more significant return-on-investment in the long run, no?

Again, I'm sure Boeing (and Airbus) are doing their homework in this case and that the decision was made for a reason, but I'm always surprised to see "adjustments" of old designs, rather than all-new products.

Or, is it a marketing gimmick? Is it done this way solely to take advantage of the Airworthiness Certificate and the famous name of A320, 737, and 777? Is the new aircraft different enough that it could be its own entity?

TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4944
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 pm

Quoting behramjee (Reply 12):
Boeing 787-100X - range will be 14,000KM and will seat 323 pax in a 3 class configuration; this will be the direct replacement of the B772ER

If this 787 variant is to be announced later in the year it will be within the MTOW capability of the existing under carriage of ~ 255t and will have a range of ~6500nm at max. passenger load. A 772E equivalent would need ( probably) a new wing and certainly an undercarriage with more wheels and would be unlikely to be ready for offering in 2012.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13744
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
EK's Chairman was in Seattle to take delivery of the 1000th 777 and to celebrate the launch of DXB-SEA service and he was apparently quite enthusiastic about the 777X in EK's fleet: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2017651815_boeing03.html

He also suggested a 2019 EIS date.

Quoting sweair (Reply 8):
If they stretch the frames, how will this save any weight? Or do they aim to keep the current numbers but growing the frame inside the same weight budget?

The idea is that because the plane will be carrying many tons less fuel to complete the same mission due to better engines, there is margin in the design that can be used to cover the weight of the stretch. I'm sure the devil is in the details, so I am waiting to see what Boeing says what it really thinks it can do.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 12):
Personally speaking, I do not think that the B778 will be a popular choice for airlines as it brings nothing special to the table. However, the B779 shall definitely be as it would be seating 57 more pax versus the A350-1000X and only offering a range of 800KM less.

Emirates has been a key driver of this program and one can definitely expect it to order many of the type as its primary requirement was to have an aircraft the size of a B773ER or slightly larger that could operate with a full load of pax + cargo from DXB to the U.S. West Coast and South America which the B779 is slated to. In turn, one can now also expect QR's CEO to follow suit and order many as well which in turn will result in the carrier dumping the A351 if Airbus does not listen to his demands as the A351 program is heading down the same road as the A346HGW!

As above, TC had some interesting things to say:

Quote:

Clark said the delivery timetable of the Airbus jet is questionable. He also predicted that the 777X will outperform it.

"They're different airplanes," he said. The 777X "has greater legs, greater range, greater lift."

The specifications offered by Airbus for the A350 show that the plane will adequately cover up to 10-hour flights, Clark said. That currently encompasses 80 percent of the Emirates route network, he said, but the airline plans to shift more "into the 13-to-18 hour mission range."

"That's, frankly, where it doesn't quite stack up," Clark said.

So at least one very important customer is seeing the merits of the 777X. Whether or not that's enough to banish the A351 to obscurity will be the topic of many current and future a.net discussions!
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:19 pm

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15):
I realize exact numbers would be impossible to compute, but how much will developing the 777X cost, compared to developing an all-new large twin based on the 787?

Exact numbers are indeed hard to come by, but it's safe to assume the cost of the all-new plane would be at least twice as much, and possibly up to four times as much, as a derivative like the 777X. There is also more risk in the all-new plane, as Airbus and Boeing have just demonstrated so well with the A380 and 787.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15):
Are the 787 and A350 going to be the last new airframes to come from these two companies for a while?

Assuming Boeing proceeds with the 777X, the next real opportunities to launch an all-new airframe will be for EIS in the 2020s, so it will be at least a few years before either maker does so. I think an all-new narrowbody from either Boeing or from both majors is the most likely.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15):
but I'm always surprised to see "adjustments" of old designs, rather than all-new products.

The existing designs are so refined, and such major technological leaps are needed to decisively surpass them, that the huge risk and expense of all-new programs gets harder and harder to justify. Most of the benefits can be accomplished through refinements. Boeing pretty much had to do the 787 because the 767 was conceptually flawed in today's market. But there is a lot of pushback on Airbus for doing the A350 instead of an A330 refinement with new engines, new materials, and a considerably improved wing -- pretty much Boeing's exact plan with the 777X.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:54 pm

I think one could summarize Clark's comments that he needs two niches filled - large twin up to 10 hour and large twin 13-18 hours. He needs more of the former than the later, but the ratio will move somewhat toward the 13+ hour. The 778-9 are niche models, as is the 350-10 (and other very large airliners). But they are important to airlines, and can be profitable for the maker and user. Boeing is capitalizing on the only space or niche left for the 777. Hope they do it well.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:00 pm

Nothing I am seeing changes my belief the 777-8 should be the same length as the 777-300ER and the 777-9 should be as close to an 80m stretch as Boeing can attain.

I don't see the point of targeting the 777-8 at the 777-200ER market. The 787-9 already fills that role for long-haul and the 787-10 will fill it for medium-haul (where the extra capacity and more trips allow you to maximize the lower costs and higher revenues). Not to mention the A350-900 will have a 10-year head start for airlines that need a 300-seater for 13-15 hour missions.

The 777-300ER is the market leader and making it better certainly can't hurt. I am skeptical Airbus will meet their 2006 goals in terms of MWE per seat, block fuel per seat and and COC per seat against the 777-300ER, especially at launch. I'm sure it will be better, but a 777-8 that knocks 10% off the MWE per seat, 15% off the block fuel per seat and 15% off the COC per seat of the 777-300ER will likely be very close to what the A350-1000 offers, but could still have a higher seat count, a higher payload weight and equal or better range.

And that could be the recipe for a general split of the market, which is good for both OEMs, overall.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2460
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
Some airlines will like it. Many others will completely ignore it.

In every thread concerning the 777X, I've seen you continue to repeat this claim. That the 777-9X as speculated in the media will be too big for most airlines. However, I see no evidence whatsoever that this will be the case. A few? Sure. But "many"? Non-sense.

Let's look at today's 365-seat 777-300ER. To date, it has 601 firm orders (China Southern's 10 and Pakistan's 5 have yet to be firmed as of this writing). Of those 601:

- 300 (50%) are operated/ordered by A380-800 (525-seat) customers.

- 146 (24%) are operated/ordered by 747-400 (416-seat) customers.

That's 74% of the -300ER's orderbook where the 777 is not even the largest aircraft in the respective airlines' fleet. Nor will the media-speculated, proposed -9X. In other words, these are customers who can (or at least believe they can) fill these aircraft.

Now, I certainly agree that it's an entirely open question whether Boeing will gain enough interior dimension to make operators like SQ go 10-wide. Frankly, I have no clue, and it will be interesting to see what the 777X actually turns out to be. So if it's a debate about comfort, I can certainly see both sides.

But arguing that customers will shun a larger -300ER based on sheer capacity alone is fanciful.

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Boeing is targeting a year-end board launch for its conceptual 777X, in time for a late decade service entry, said the company's commercial unit CEO, Jim Albaugh.

"We're working towards being in a position toward the end of this year to talk to our board.

I think FlightGlobal is getting their timing a little cross-wired. The way I read Mr. Albaugh's quote, is that they will be presenting the 777X to the board by year-end for ATO, not Launch. I would see ATO being granted @ year-end, with Launch subsequently following by mid-Q2 '13.

What I certainly can see is a potential simultaneous ATO (and subsequent launch) of the 787-10X and 777X. By pitching a full-fleet of 787's and 777X's, Boeing seems to fill in their product line very well, at least on the surface.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
I still wonder if a small gain in extra width would be enough for cariers like SQ to go 10-across.

As I said above, so do I. It's a very open question at this point, and I'm very curious to see the 777X fleshed-out.

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
would more evenly spread Boeing's widebody product line from the 242-seat 787-8 to the 467-seat 747-8.

I've had more than one Boeing salesman tell me that the main obstacle to selling 747-8i's is the 777-300ER, not the A380. If the 777-9X gets anywhere near to where FlightGlobal is speculating it is going, the 747-8 passenger days are done. Sad, as it is perhaps one of the most beautiful airliners in the skies, ever. But that's the reality.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15):
I understand that creating a new airframe requires a ton of money, time, and manpower, but I have to imagine that a bespoke aircraft, taking advantage of all-new technology (rather then implementing some improvements to old tech - remember, the 777 is a 20-year old design at this point) would be a more significant return-on-investment in the long run, no?

It's not nearly so cut-and-dry, no. If it was, then yes, you'd be seeing clean-sheet designs every 10-15 years. However, the state we are at in the industry now is too mature. These airframes are so thoroughly optimized, so updated, the engineering so fine-tuned, that there really isn't any "all-new technology" that's going to substantially change things for the forseeable future. The most that can be gained is in the engines, and the subsequent benefits to the airframe. Thus why you're seeing the NEO, the MAX, and to a certain extent, the 777X.


Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3781
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:55 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
so did the A380

No, she only missed weight targets, but due to better the performing of the whole package she did not miss range or fuel burn targets at EIS. And these values have been improved on the A380 ever since.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
The article you linked clearly sates "a 14% - 16%" reduction in per seat FUEL costs. Not per seat costs.
The per seat cost reduction would likely be about half that, making it about 7% - 8% I'd guess.

Which makes a big difference, though the reduction still is significant.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
777-9X at 407 seats

Some airlines will like it. Many others will completely ignore it.

407 seats looks like cramped up seating to me. But I can choose not to fly airliners with a cramped-up seating configuration.  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):

Nothing I am seeing changes my belief the 777-8 should be the same length as the 777-300ER and the 777-9 should be as close to an 80m stretch as Boeing can attain.

I agree with you on this, but Boeing may have some reasons to make these choices. Though they have not really explained them convincingly yet.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 21):
As I said above, so do I. It's a very open question at this point, and I'm very curious to see the 777X fleshed-out.

For which we still have to wait quite some time. Only then we can start telling about some significant issues instead of theoretical numbers what we mostly were forced to do since the real data will not be available for many years to come.  .
 
nw1852
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:48 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:42 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
would more evenly spread Boeing's widebody product line from the 242-seat 787-8 to the 467-seat 747-8.

I've had more than one Boeing salesman tell me that the main obstacle to selling 747-8i's is the 777-300ER, not the A380. If the 777-9X gets anywhere near to where FlightGlobal is speculating it is going, the 747-8 passenger days are done. Sad, as it is perhaps one of the most beautiful airliners in the skies, ever. But that's the reality.


Boeing could always add 4 ultra efficient engines to the 777X to appease A-netters with an affinity for 4 holer's.

Silly but I dream.....And how handsome would that be?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19571
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:42 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 21):
It's not nearly so cut-and-dry, no. If it was, then yes, you'd be seeing clean-sheet designs every 10-15 years. However, the state we are at in the industry now is too mature. These airframes are so thoroughly optimized, so updated, the engineering so fine-tuned, that there really isn't any "all-new technology" that's going to substantially change things for the forseeable future. The most that can be gained is in the engines, and the subsequent benefits to the airframe. Thus why you're seeing the NEO, the MAX, and to a certain extent, the 777X.

I would argue that we've pretty much optimized the fuselage of a commercial airliner. We're at the point where there aren't many cost-effective improvements that can be made to the fuselage.

Now, the wings and engines are a completely different story. There's a lot of room to update and upgrade there.

So if you can use the same fuselage and put on new wings and/or engines (which is what was done with the 737NG, 744/8, A345/6, 77L/W, and A320NEO) then you should do that. It's only worth coming up with a new fuselage if it will be significantly better or if the new wing/engine simply won't allow that fuselage.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
PIEAvantiP180
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:04 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:26 am

Does anybody esle see the strategy that Boeing might be doing a Y3 in 2 stages. First develop a new wing and engines that will come out in 2019 and stick the 777 fuselage and systems on top or it. And then in late 2020 they can just do a new fuselage out of composites, maybe new engines and attach that to the wing and undercarige that's already in production. I'm sure they would have to tweak the old wing and wing systems to match the new systems of the new fuselage but most of the components would be in place. By doing this they can spread their costs and risks over 2 platforms instead of one. I'm sure that would mitigate risks and any potential delays on a Y3 that will replace 777-747-8 range.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2599
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:48 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Nothing I am seeing changes my belief the 777-8 should be the same length as the 777-300ER and the 777-9 should be as close to an 80m stretch as Boeing can attain.

At a planned 353 seats, I don't think the 777-8 is a true 777-200ER replacement, or a competitor to the 787-9 or the A350-900, for that matter. The Boeing standard 353 seat count is 3 more than the A350-1000, and 12 fewer than the current 777-300ER. It may not be the same length as the current 777-300ER, but giving it a wider cabin capable of 10-abreast seating certainly increases the seat count to A350-1000 / 777-300ER territory.

And a 777-9 at 407 seats is mroe of a "777-400ER" to me. That 42 extra seats could either be achieved by a 5 metre stretch but retaining a 9-abreast cabin, or a 2 metre stretch with a 10-abreast cabin. I'd rather Boeing kept the stretches to a minimum in order to keep the 777X's weight down.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
407 seats looks like cramped up seating to me. But I can choose not to fly airliners with a cramped-up seating configuration.

There are airlines that operate a 77W with more than 407 seats. AF, for one. So does EK's 2-class 77W.

So while I'm sure most airlines would choose to operate a 777-9X with fewer than 407 seats, I'd think that even with a 407-seat configuration it shouldn't be too cramped  
Quoting NW1852 (Reply 23):
Boeing could always add 4 ultra efficient engines to the 777X to appease A-netters with an affinity for 4 holer's.

Silly but I dream.....And how handsome would that be?

That'd be suicide. 2 ultra efficient engines will always beat 4. And personally, I don't see quads as being automatically more attractive. It's how well balanced an aircraft design is, aesthetically. Twins, quads, tri-jets ... as far as I'm concerned, the number of engines doesn't matter.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
frigatebird
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:44 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Nothing I am seeing changes my belief the 777-8 should be the same length as the 777-300ER and the 777-9 should be as close to an 80m stretch as Boeing can attain.

I guess the current 777-9X proposal is the maximum Boeing can do. Stretching it further would probably mean so much redesigning of the landing gear etc to retain something of its runway performance, it wouldn't be a 777 any more...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 26):
I'd rather Boeing kept the stretches to a minimum in order to keep the 777X's weight down.

   That will also be one of its main considerations.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
I still wonder if a small gain in extra width would be enough for cariers like SQ to go 10-across.

SQ probably not, and I haven't heard them expressing any interest in the 777X. They have done so for the A350-1000, which should be a perfect replacement for their 77W's. CX, I can't see them go 10 abreast in Y either, but they probably have enough 77W's in their fleet and on order for some time. With 38 A350s on order though, I'm sure there will a lot of -1000's as well in CX'fleet, they'll probably want to see it in the air first.
146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:05 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 26):
At a planned 353 seats, I don't think the 777-8 is a true 777-200ER replacement, or a competitor to the 787-9 or the A350-900, for that matter.

Well no, in that is depends on 10-abreast in Economy, as does the 777-9.

As much as we carp about 10-abreast on the 777, it is a configuration a number of major airlines find works so perhaps there is interest in the 777X from other 777 operators besides EK who fly 10-abreast (AF/KL, NZ, etc.).
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
I still wonder if a small gain in extra width would be enough for cariers like SQ to go 10-across.

My view is that SQ and CX would not do it, and that NH and JL would not do it for their long-haul fleets.

But I also think no other airline in the world would have a problem with it, assuming the extra width is sufficient that the 777X cabin has the same seat width as a 747 cabin.

So I think Leahy will have a bit more advantage in his negotiations with SQ and CX than he does with everyone else.  
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3938
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:12 pm

Currently the standard seat width in a 10 abreast 777 seems to be around 17". There is a 13" difference between the 777 diameter and Boeing interior width specs. If they could magically take 5 inches out of the walls, that gives them enough room for 17.5" seats. It's not a huge difference, but might be enough to make 10 abreast virtually standard for economy.
What the...?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:15 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
I would argue that we've pretty much optimized the fuselage of a commercial airliner. We're at the point where there aren't many cost-effective improvements that can be made to the fuselage.

What is "cost-effective" constantly changes as new technologies mature. To say that we have "pretty much optimized" any structure of a commercial airliner is short-sighted. There are numerous evolutionary paths from the 787's composite fuselage that we have yet to explore.

If we have "pretty much optimized" the fuselage of commercial aircraft, then Boeing would not have the opportunity to remove literally tons of weight from future 787 block points. There would be no question as to whether the 787 monocoque is better/worse than the A350 panel approach. There would be no question as to whether next-generation narrowbodies should use advanced alloy or composite construction. There would be no question whether future composites will require autoclave or air-temperature curing. Obviously, there are plenty of opportunities to refine all aspects (including aero) of fuselage design.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:40 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 21):
It's not nearly so cut-and-dry, no. If it was, then yes, you'd be seeing clean-sheet designs every 10-15 years. However, the state we are at in the industry now is too mature. These airframes are so thoroughly optimized, so updated, the engineering so fine-tuned, that there really isn't any "all-new technology" that's going to substantially change things for the forseeable future. The most that can be gained is in the engines, and the subsequent benefits to the airframe. Thus why you're seeing the NEO, the MAX, and to a certain extent, the 777X.

I disagree to an extent. We're really only in our second generation of electronically-designed aircraft. We're still seeing the short-comings of these design tools with both the 787 and A380. And we are seeing new disruptive technologies in materials, structures, systems, and propulsion.

IMO, the decision to go new versus update is driven less by technology and more by payload requirements. If your payload requirement stays roughly the same, then there isn't much reason to change the payload-carrying vessel; the fuselage. This most commonly correlates to passenger capacity. Airline's demand for narrowbody capacity has stayed relatively constant at 140-180 seats, enabling multiple generations of 737 and A320. Airlines still demand a 350-400 seat aircraft, allowing the 777 to stay at 244 inches. If airlines demand more capacity out of the 777-9X, I would not be surprised if Boeing scraps the 777X and goes with a clean-sheet Y3.

It seems like every clean-sheet launched in the last 10 years has targeted a passenger capacity point that could not be served optimally by an existing fuselage the manufacturer had to offer. Both the 787 and A350 XWB are targeting higher capacity points than the aircraft they nominally replace, and both necessitated wider fuselages*.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 30):
If they could magically take 5 inches out of the walls, that gives them enough room for 17.5" seats. It's not a huge difference, but might be enough to make 10 abreast virtually standard for economy.

And 17.5 inches would match the seat cushion width Airbus has been showing in their A350 Press Releases* so for airlines who desire a common seat cushion width across their widebody fleet, they could operate the 777X at 10-abreast and the A350 at 9-abreast with the same seats.


* - The A350-900 ACAP shows 17.7", but that is measured from the middle of the armrest to the middle of the adjacent armrest.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18821
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 30):
If they could magically take 5 inches out of the walls, that gives them enough room for 17.5" seats. It's not a huge difference, but might be enough to make 10 abreast virtually standard for economy.

And 17.5 inches would match the seat cushion width Airbus has been showing in their A350 Press Releases* so for airlines who desire a common seat cushion width across their widebody fleet, they could operate the 777X at 10-abreast and the A350 at 9-abreast with the same seats.

Seat cushion width is only part of the story. Also have to consider the narrower armrests and smaller gap between the cushions and seatbacks on 10-abreast 777s. Those differences also put you closer to your neighbour.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
Seat cushion width is only part of the story. Also have to consider the narrower armrests and smaller gap between the cushions and seatbacks on 10-abreast 777s. Those differences also put you closer to your neighbour.

True, but now we're talking millimeters, if even that, and I expect most passengers do not travel with micrometers on them.  

8 is more than 7, so an A330 seems more crowded than a 767, even if both have the exact same seats with the exact same dimensions. A 777 that is 9-abreast seems more crowded than an A330, even if both have the exact same seats with the exact same dimensions. As such, a 777X that is 10-abreast will seem more crowded than an A350 even if both have the exact same seats with the exact same dimensions.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3938
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:53 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):

I'm not a small guy but I never had a huge problem with seat width on my EK flights...but I did notice the crappy seat comfort...or lack thereof. I think the majority value pitch over width, and seat comfort over both.

The OS 738 seats were way more comfortable than the EK 777 seats...and SIA seats were also very comfortable. The SIA width was nice but not a deal maker or breaker...the comfort of the seats themselves sealed the deal.
What the...?
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:02 am

Copy of OP from my thread in the technical forum comparing A350-1000 to B777-9X(407 seats.
A350-100 Versus B777-9X(407 Seats) Analysis (by LAXDESI Mar 4 2012 in Tech Ops)

Summary of changes to B77W to create B777-9X(407 Seats) :
CFRP wings with 234 ft wingspan
MTOW of 753,000 while preserving current payload/range capability of 77W
Engine thrust at 99,500 lbf. with higher bypass and ceramic matrix
Larger wing with its increased lift to drag ratio, coupled with the a 10% improvement in specific fuel consumption for the GE9X engine.

The 777-9X will be 2 meter longer than the 77W, and will have a slightly wider cabin for more comfortable 10Y. The OEW of 777-9X is an estimate that reflects the longer and lighter fuselage due to use of lighter material, higher wingarea, lighter composites for wings, lighter engines, and additional furnishings for the 42 seats.

General Specifications:
....................................A3510.......................B777-9X
Fuselage Length..............242..........................249 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................234
Wingarea......................4767.........................5050 sq. feet(my estimate)
Seats(3 class).................350..........................407 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................679,000....................753,000 lbs.
MZFW......................485,000...................525,000
OEW........................335,000...................375,000 (my estimates)
MSP.........................150,000...................150,000
Design Range................8,400.....................8,200 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$309......................$320(?) million
Engine Thrust..............97,000...................99,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.50
OEW/MZFW......................0.69...........................0.71
MTOW/Wingarea............143............................149 (777 has higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.50...........................3.78 (A350-10 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

Under the assumption of a 7,300 nm (LAX-DXB) mission at MTOW:
B777-9X burns about 3,500 gallons more at a current cost of $13,000.
Negligble difference in cargo payload for the above mission length.
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $24,000 in additional 57 seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, B777-9X has a net operating advantage of $11,000 for a 7,300nm mission in 10-abreast 777-9X configuration, and more if one accounts for 7-abreast J class layout of EK, which would be difficult to arrange in A350-1000. This translates to annual operating advantage of nearly $4 million for B777-9X. One can see why EK is excited about 777-9X.

For an operator like CX which is more likely to configure 777-9X in 9-abreast, the numbers for a 6,300nm mission(LAX-HKG) are as follows:

B777-9X burns about 3,000 gallons more at a current cost of $10,500.
Negligble difference in cargo payload for the above mission length.
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $8,000 in additional 18 Y seat(2 meter stretch) revenues at 70% load factor.

A350-1000 has an operating advantage of $2,500 per trip, which is about $1 million annually.

For long dense routes, B777-9X with 9-abreast is at a slight disadvantage against A350-1000. A350-1000 has a trip cost advantage that bodes well for it with operators looking for flexibilty in deploying one aircraft across many types of route profiles, capacity wise .
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:36 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 8):

The wing are and OEW for the -1000 is incorrect, I guess most of the subsquent calculations are also incorrect.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
fruitbat
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:34 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:55 pm

Well, the engine competition just kicked off - part of a big feature in Flightglobal on the 777X

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...rolls-royce-pratt-whitney-set.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ew-engine-concept-for-777x-369294/

http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/

Some really big improvements being thrown around by people "in the know".........let the games begin!!

Apols if this is posted elsewhere - searched but couldn't find anything - mods feel free to delete if this is duplicated.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:08 pm

Boeing decided a GTF was too risky for the 787. I wonder if they will change their mind for the 777X?

Pratt have stated that they could scale the GTF to 100k with a 133-138 inch fan.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:10 pm

Quoting fruitbat (Reply 39):
Well, the engine competition just kicked off - part of a big feature in Flightglobal on the 777X

Worthy of its own thread IMO.

Some mouthwatering info...

From RR - 132.5" fan   
BPR of 12:1
PR of 62.5  Wow!

10% better SFC than the GE90-115

From P+W - a 100k lb GTF - wow!!

From GE - 128" fan
BPR of 10:1
PR of 60:1

Must admit, the GE engine looks like an evolution of the GE90 -115 (and none the worse for that).
The RR spec motor looks like a monster...   
I've never seen RR out-BPR or out-PR GE yet (will stand corrected of course)

A smorgasbord of engines here....
Gotta love em  

Rgds
 
ZiggyStardust
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:37 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:13 pm

Thanks for the articles. In http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/

"The redefinition of its widebody line will place roughly 15% breaks in seat counts from the 242-seat 787-8 all the way to the 467-seat 747-8I, with five 8,000nm (14,800km) aircraft...The smaller 353-seat, 69.55m 777-8X, a ten-frame stretch of the 777-200ER, would follow the -9X with a significantly derated 88,000lb GE9X engine and 315t MTOW."

We've talked mainly about the 777-9X, but it seems to me the -8X is more ambitious. Compared to the A350-1000, it has 7 tons more MTOW (+2.2%), while having engines with 9K less thrust (-9.3%) and yet flies 8000nm. Compared to the -9X, the -8X has 29t less MTOW (-8.5%), while the engine has 11.5K less thrust (-11.5%).

Furthermore, Rolls talks about a single bill of material for the 2 versions and a paper derate for the -8X engine. Any estimate on how derating an 99.5K engine by 11% affects weight/SFC versus an optimized 88K engine?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:26 pm

If the GTF turns about to be amazing, that the 777X can have it and the A350-1000 cannot (at least per the current exclusivity agreement with the Trent XWB on that model) could be an interesting dynamic...
 
PlaneAdmirer
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:19 am

My knowledge of engines and how they work amounts to a pile of beans. However, I find this part facsinating. It's a great dyanmic. It also tells me that the three engine makers all believe there is a real market for the 777X.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2599
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:51 am

Quoting fruitbat (Reply 39):

Thanks for the links.

Quote:
If launched under its current conceptual specifications, say those familiar with the details, the 777-9X would yield a 21% improvement in per-seat fuel burn and a 16% improvement a cash operating cost per-seat over today's 777-300ER.
Quote:
The smaller 353-seat, 69.55m 777-8X, a ten-frame stretch of the 777-200ER, would follow the -9X with a significantly derated 88,000lb GE9X engine and 315t MTOW. It would be a direct competitor to the A350-900 and promises similar cash and fuel economics improvements over its -200ER predecessor as the -9X will over the -300ER.

These numbers are even better than I had originally thought they'd be. What I thought would result in a 40% market share for Boeing in the 777 vs A350 battle could become 50%   

Exciting times ahead for the 777 family. I can't wait to see how it turns out!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
Pratt have stated that they could scale the GTF to 100k with a 133-138 inch fan.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 41):
From RR - 132.5" fan

  

So both RR and PW will have to scale their engines up larger than even the current GE90-115B to achieve less thrust, while GE9X is planned to have a marginally smaller fan? From this article, RR claims a "better than 10%" fuel burn improvement over the GE90-115B. I'd imagine PW's offering will have similar fuel burn reductions. While I do like larger engines from an aesthetic point of view, what effect will a larger fan have on drag? Or will it be negligible when the whole package (including new wings and fuel burn improvements) are taken into account?

Based on what has already been proposed, which engine should Boeing opt for? Or should they opt for more than one?
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5347
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
If the GTF turns about to be amazing, that the 777X can have it and the A350-1000 cannot (at least per the current exclusivity agreement with the Trent XWB on that model) could be an interesting dynamic...

According to Keesje in the Flightglobal comments, putting something other than a GE on the 777X would negate the exclusivity agreement currently in place. Is this based on the thrust range of the engines? What are the downsids of such a move?

-Dave
-Dave
 
PM
Posts: 4818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:00 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 46):
putting something other than a GE on the 777X would negate the exclusivity agreement currently in place. Is this based on the thrust range of the engines?

As I understand it, they have exclusivity above 100,000lbs. Whether that extends to the -8X and -9X, I don't know but I noticed that the RR engine is rated at 99,500lbs!

Where did the RB3025 number come from?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5347
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:02 am

Quoting PM (Reply 47):
As I understand it, they have exclusivity above 100,000lbs. Whether that extends to the -8X and -9X, I don't know but I noticed that the RR engine is rated at 99,500lbs!

Intersting.   So theoretically if the RR engine is at 99,500, then GE/Boeing are still bound by the exclusivity clause......

-Dave
-Dave
 
PM
Posts: 4818
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: FlightGlobal: Boeing Targets Year End 777X Launch

Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:09 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
So theoretically if the RR engine is at 99,500, then GE/Boeing are still bound by the exclusivity clause......

Yeah, except that the GE9X also appears to be rated at 99,500! Maybe that's just what the plane requires.

Mind you, if the 100,000+ exclusivity deal remains in place, RR are on dangerous ground. Thrust requirements always seem to increase as programmes advance.

For what it's worth (i.e. a pure guess) I suspect the exclusivity may have been time-limited too. Perhaps it will have lapsed by the time the 777X enters service.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 3AWM, ArtV, bombayduck, carljanderson, CF-CPI, FLJ, Google Adsense [Bot], jetblastdubai, migair54, Planeflyer, Polot, StTim, UAinAUS, Yahoo [Bot] and 299 guests