SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:20 pm

It's pretty curious many people strongly believe that a hypothetical 787-10 is actually a fact

But having into accout that:

1.- There's nothing official yet

2.- Boeing being reluctant to lauch it despite it is on the drawing board

3.- A hypothetical 787-10 could be similar by comparison with the Boeing's newest project 777-8X


What is the real likelihood of an official 787-10 lauch, then?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Dreamliner_rendering_787-3.jpg

And being the 787-3 designed specifically for the Japanese market and all 787-3 orders converted to the 787-8, but despite that, even for some medium haul routes like the intra-asian, the former 787-3 or a new very similar plane could be a successful 330/763/773A replacement, specially for those (such as SQ or CX) who currently have many 330's or 777's flying leg in less than 3,000nm. More than 40 787-3 initially were ordered and being wingspan 7.6 m (25 feet) shorter doing it easier for airports with restricted gate spacing a re-lauch, new offer from Boeing could be well-accepted, specially in Asia.
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
NYC777
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:33 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Thread starter):
1.- There's nothing official yet

2.- Boeing being reluctant to lauch it despite it is on the drawing board

3.- A hypothetical 787-10 could be similar by comparison with the Boeing's newest project 777-8X


What is the real likelihood of an official 787-10 lauch, then?

Ok so despite your obvious hostile tone....

Boeing execs have said and been on the record as saying that they plan on going to the Board at the end of this year to get authorization to launch and take orders. They're not reluectant to launch it, they still have to get the business case together and iron out issues present it to the board and then they could launch it. They also have to get the 787-9 engineered and drawing out for manufacturing as the 787-10 is a straight stretch of the 787-9. They can't start work on the -10 when they haven't finished work on the -9.

The 777-8X is going to be larger than the 787-10, they're not similar.

Check out this link:
http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/05/18/787-dash-ten/

[Edited 2012-06-08 11:41:52]
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:37 pm

Maybe a 787-7 could be made, a tad smaller than the -8, smaller wing, lighter overall, max range about 4500nm.

The 787-10 will be done I am sure of it, it will replace the 777-200 perfectly at a lower fuel burn. The 777-8X will grow to 350 seats, to combat the A350-1000, that vacates a space that the A330-300 and 772 has now.
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:42 pm

Paraphrasing Boeing execs -- "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."

The issue with the 787-3 is that it was much smaller than most airlines want, and was too specifically targeted to quite short range ops. A 787-10 with 5000nm (or maybe even up the 6,000nm -- the figure seems to move around depending on who you talk to) will be useful for flights across the Atlantic, from Europe to Africa, between the Americas and perhaps even some shorter Asia-Europe sectors (ie up to 10 hours).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:53 pm

As NYC777 noted, the 787-10 has been on Boeing's mind for years. However, as the 787-8 and - especially - the 787-9 have grown in terms of their various weights, that has impacted the 787-10.

It is believed that the undercarriage for the 787 is good for a bit over 250t.

At launch as the 7E7-9, the MTOW was 227t, which would have given Boeing around 25t of growth for the 787-10. Customers pushed Boeing to raise that to around 245t by 2006 for better performance and Boeing then had to raise it even farther to counter weight creep and it is now 251t - right at the undercarriage limit. So now the 787-9 and 787-10 have the same MTOW. As the 787-10 is going to weigh more, that means it will be fuel-weight limited and therefore will not be able to fly as far as the 787-9.

Now that wasn't necessarily a terrible thing back in early 2006 as Airbus likely would have hit the same issues with the original A350-1000 (which itself was just a hypothetical stretch of the original A350 sized to match the 777-200). But in mid-2006 Airbus launched the A350XWB with the baseline plane (A350-900XWB) sized around the 777-200, as opposed to the double-stretch of the A350.

So the 787-10 can carry more passengers - and a lot more cargo (by volume) - then the A350-900, but it can't fly nearly as far. So instead of competing directly with the A350-900, the 787-10 now looks to be more a regional plane to replace the A330-300 and 777-300A. As such, Boeing now is considering brining the 777-8 to market to directly compete with the A350-900. The 777-8 and 787-10 are very close in capacity (the 787-10 is a meter longer in cabin length), but the 777-8 will have significantly more range.

So Boeing will likely pitch the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9 as a package deal to airlines - the 787 for regional routes and the 777X for long-haul.


As to the 787-3, the aerodynamics were so crippled by the shorter wing that even with a projected 10t lower OEW, the 787-8 was more economical beyond 500nm. So there really was no reason to fly the 787-3 over the 787-8.
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:54 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
so despite your obvious hostile tone....

?? Not hostile at all, just making a general question.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
The 777-8X is going to be larger than the 787-10, they're not similar.

The question is IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X. I'd like to see the MTOW figures, anyway.

787-9 is going to have 206 feet (63 meters) ...777-8X apparently will have 69,55 meters* ...so I don't think 787-10 if launched, is going to have more than 69 meters, but something between 63 (787-9 length) and 69'5 meters (777-8X)

* according Flynews magazine, April 2012
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:57 pm

The 787-3 was officially cancelled a year or two ago. That was publicly announced by Boeing.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:58 pm

Eventually the 787-10 is needed. Many missions don't require those EK DXB-LAX at MTOW type of lift/range requirements, so optimizing the plane for EK (which both Boeing and Airbus have been more than happy doing) is really penalizing medium-haul operators.

The 787-10 would be a great replacement for 333 on intra-Asia and short TATL flights.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:06 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 5):
The question is IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X. I'd like to see the MTOW figures, anyway.

It's not a matter of different size, it's a matter of different capability. Best guesses are that the 787-10 will have about 6700-6800 nm range, better than an A330-300 or 777-300A but far below today's long-haul planes. The 777-8X will have true 8000+ nm range comparable to that of the A350-900.

I still think the 777-8X is likely to fail because it will be too heavy for its capabilities. The 777-9X is the one I'm excited about.
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:08 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 3):
Paraphrasing Boeing execs -- "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."

Exactly ....In March 2006 Mike Bair, the head of the 787 program at the time, stated that "It's not a matter of if, but when we are going to do it

But March 2006 ...is a long time ago and we go on with the same news, and right now with the 777X project, it can change many plans.
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6166
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:13 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 5):
The question is IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X. I'd like to see the MTOW figures, anyway.

Yes I wonder how the respective specs would differ. It seems the two planes might have a bit of overlap. Hopefully someone can provide a rough comparison of length, range, cargo capacity, seating, and engines.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:20 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Thread starter):
And being the 787-3 designed specifically for the Japanese market and all 787-3 orders converted to the 787-8, but despite that, even for some medium haul routes like the intra-asian, the former 787-3 or a new very similar plane could be a successful 330/763/773A replacement, specially for those (such as SQ or CX) who currently have many 330's or 777's flying leg in less than 3,000nm.

The 787-8 and -9 can do almost the same. The analysis showed that the -3 was only more efficient at something like under 300 NM.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 3):
Paraphrasing Boeing execs -- "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."

To be fair, that was several delays and a larger wing ago. Now there is no larger wing and the production line is fully booked with -8 and -9 orders. The former changes the analysis of a potential 787-10 since building it would mean either less capability or more development work and the latter means that there's no time pressure either way. Boeing won't be able to start cashing checks for the 787-10 any sooner whether they launch it now or a few years down the road.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:22 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 9):
But March 2006 ...is a long time ago and we go on with the same news, and right now with the 777X project, it can change many plans.

If I had to bet, I would bet a lot of money on the 787-10 being produced eventually. The business case is just too good. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my lunch money on the 777-8X.
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
So instead of competing directly with the A350-900, the 787-10 now looks to be more a regional plane to replace the A330-300 and 777-300A
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
So Boeing will likely pitch the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9 as a package deal to airlines - the 787 for regional routes and the 777X for long-haul

Do you think the 787-10 will be launched for regional, routes shorter than 3,000 nm and as a 787-3 improved? Stitch are u thinking in the end the original role assigned by the former -3 will eventually be played for the 787-10 if launched??
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:47 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 5):
IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X.

Body length has no bearing on airplane capacity...
...747-8 is longer than A380 with around 100 fewer seats.
...757-300 is same length as 767-300 with around 60 fewer seats
...767-400 is just 8 feet shorter than a 777-200, but with nearly 100 fewer seats.

In a 2-class config, 787-10X will have 10%-15% fewer seats than the 777-8X, which is similar to the seating capacity difference between the 787-8 and 787-9.
 
davs5032
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:12 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:06 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
Ok so despite your obvious hostile tone....

I would classify the initial post as more "overly skeptical" than "hostile," but that's just me.

Quoting SKY1 (Thread starter):

It's pretty curious many people strongly believe that a hypothetical 787-10 is actually a fact

But having into accout that:

1.- There's nothing official yet

2.- Boeing being reluctant to lauch it despite it is on the drawing board

Sure, there's nothing "official" yet, but when the writing's on the wall...

Quoting qf002 (Reply 3):
Paraphrasing Boeing execs -- "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."

...then IMO there's probably good reason to assume that it will happen eventually. Based on comments by Boeing's execs, I'd say that on a scale from myth (1) to fact (10), the 787-10 is probably around an 8.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to classify the delay to announce as "reluctance." There are more ideal times to make such announcements, based on the situation of the market, etc. Also, Boeing probably wants to ensure the accuracy of the specs it will offer by doing as much research as possible before releasing to potential customers a new plane - and the performance promises that will come with it...they want to ensure that they don't prematurely promise more than the plane will eventually be able to deliver.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:19 pm

The 789 is close now, it should be on the FAL in the next 6 months? Its not that big difference from the 788, better lighter parts I read, but mostly just a stretch of the 788? More powerful engines and fuselage strengthening.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:27 pm

Since the 787-10 will use most of the important bits from the 787-9, and there's already a huge backlog for the 787 in general, there's no rush to officially offer the -10 right now.

With the current plan of keeping the MTOW of the -10 the same as the -9, and trading range for payload, most of the engineering required to create the -10 will be accomplished by the -9.

In short, I think it's much to early to start to worry about the fate of the -10.
What the...?
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:42 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):

I agree. A 787-10 isn't going to be rushed out any time soon. I'm hoping for a 2020ish timeframe for first deliveries. There will be a lot of regional 77E's and earlier A333's up for replacement by then.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:21 pm

Do you think a 787-10 could do JFK - GRU with a fair load?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:24 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 19):
Do you think a 787-10 could do JFK - GRU with a fair load?

It should be able to do JFK-GRU at or close to MZFW.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:24 pm

The USA airlines used to use wide bodies domestically. If fuel prices climb maybe a 787-10 would be more economical on NYC-LA than a 757/737/A320. Or ORD to LAX, PDX, SEA, etc. Which 787 has the same number of seats as the old DC-10s?

They could also use a 787-5 with 4000 mi range - if Boeing could come up with an advantage (lower operating costs, lower purchase price, etc). I don't think that will happen. The 787-3 was too crippled for USA use, or really anywhere outside Japan.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:44 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 13):
Do you think the 787-10 will be launched for regional, routes shorter than 3,000 nm and as a 787-3 improved? Stitch are u thinking in the end the original role assigned by the former -3 will eventually be played for the 787-10 if launched??

It might very well be used on missions that short, but it can be used on longer missions, as well. Just not the longest missions.

MZFW for the 787-9 is 181t, which is 20t higher than the 787-8, allowing 70t of TOW for fuel. If Boeing raised the 787-10's MZFW by the same amount - to 201t - that would allow 50t of fuel to be loaded. I expect the actual MZFW will be less - probably closer to 190t - which would allow 60t of fuel to be loaded - 86% of the fuel of the 787-9.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4948
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:30 am

In my view the 787-10 is like shooting fish in a barrel. Based on an assumption that there will be little or no increase over the 789 in MTOW, that the OEW will be about 136t, that the MZFW is unchanged from the 789 and a 3-class 323 passenger load, PIANO X indicates that range with max passenger load would be about 6500nm. Fuel load would be ~ 84t some 82% of capacity. With a 46t payload it would do a 5000nm / 10h 50m sector. It would haul ~40t on any of the Asian coast to Mid-Europe city pairs that are ~12hr westbound flying time.
My view is that at typical belly cargo density it will be weight limited. Another 10t of ZFW would not go amiss to address this shortfall.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:40 am

OK lets say that the 7810 is launched....who would operate it?
DL? UA? EK? BA? JL? NH? AA? Who else? AC? AF? Just thinking here.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
QANTAS747-438
Posts: 1656
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 7:01 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:56 am

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 6):
The 787-3 was officially cancelled a year or two ago. That was publicly announced by Boeing.

Too bad. I can seriously envision WN getting a "low" range 787 for long-haul international flights in 10 years. The 787-3 looked perfect for them. WN wouldn't need it to fly 7000+ mi, but something with 5000mi would be good. They could do Europe or southern South America nonstop from LAX, MDW, BWI, etc...

What if a carrier like WN came around and told Boeing that they wanted a 787-3, would Boeing revisit it?
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4948
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:21 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 24):
OK lets say that the 7810 is launched....who would operate it?
DL? UA? EK? BA? JL? NH? AA? Who else? AC? AF? Just thinking here.

It should be attractive to Asian and TALT carriers.As an example 46t on a 9h 25m sector such as CDG-CLT or SYD-HKG It could replace many 77E's that are being used at the low end of their capability on under 12hr sectors such as LHR-LAX or BKK-CDG.
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:48 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 17):
Since the 787-10 will use most of the important bits from the 787-9, and there's already a huge backlog for the 787 in general, there's no rush to officially offer the -10 right now

   I'm fully agree!

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 25):
What if a carrier like WN came around and told Boeing that they wanted a 787-3, would Boeing revisit it?

I read about one year ago that some low-cost carriers like WN and specially budget airlines from the Asia-Pacific region could be interested about a new generation of planes to fly more efficiently routes up to 3,000 nm and cheaper that any other 787 ...it was asked Boeing and Boeing told them that the -3 version could be re-opened if they get a firm order involving a minimum number of frames.

But like Stitch has pointed out offering an interesting figures, that former 787-3 could be right now the 787-10 as a ·regional· and improved 787 version for shorter missions. But still I can't see Boeing lauching the -10, specially because there is not an enough, real interest by both, Boeing and airlines customers. If had, for sure we already would have some number as firm orders. At least right now it looks like there is not enough interest ...but on the long term many 330/767/773A which currenty are used in regional routes will have to be replaced.
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:54 am

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 25):
The 787-3 looked perfect for them. WN wouldn't need it to fly 7000+ mi, but something with 5000mi would be good.

Even empty, a 787-3 couldn't fly 5000nm. The MTOW was too low to tank enough fuel.



Quoting SKY1 (Reply 27):
But still I can't see Boeing lauching the -10, specially because there is not an enough, real interest by both, Boeing and airlines customers.

There is interest. It's just that availability was so far in the future that it wasn't a viable option for fleet planning.

I think Boeing will wait a couple more years before they launch it, however, unless a customer who has yet to order the 787 (like EK, who have expressed interest in the 787-10) places a major order that justifies bringing forward the launch date.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:10 am

The 787-3 will be replaced by a NB that is bigger than its sisters in the NSA family. 50% of the OEW of the 787-3. It has to be somewhere between 739 and 788 in capacity and size. Either Airbus or Boeing will do it, I am sure. A medium body/medium range/medium capacity airliner. The 788 will not be the best TATL shuttle if fuel prices double. Too much structure in that role, you would need something lighter designed for this specific task, maximum 5000nm flights.

Energy cost will demand new thinking and segmentation of the market, you cant really make a long range WB a good medium range WB/NB.
 
danielgoz
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:08 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:37 am

I don't think it's going to happen! Boeing are better off making the 777-8X! They don't want more time to go to waste and more money down the drain!
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4948
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:26 pm

Quoting danielgoz (Reply 30):
I don't think it's going to happen! Boeing are better off making the 777-8X! They don't want more time to go to waste and more money down the drain!

I would suggest there is greater uncertainty of outcome and cost in the 777-8X than in the 787-10. They are virtually there with the latter.They pretty much know what they need to do to achieve the 789 and to achieve the -10 beyond that is not a large step.
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:02 pm

Quoting danielgoz (Reply 30):

The 777-8X will be considerably larger, heavier and less efficient on short hops.

Just look at the success of the A333. An A333 with better economics and a bit more range would be an absolute killer aircraft for most airlines. The 787-10 will cost very little for Boeing to develop and will be an extremely attractive proposition for the airlines. A 777-8X would come nowhere close to fulfilling the regional (and even long haul with 6000nm of range) needs of any airline. How many 77L's do you see flying 3-4 hour hops around Asia, or even on Asia-Europe?

I'm not even convinced that the 777-8X is a viable proposition. But that's another thread altogether...
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:29 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
The 787-10 will cost very little for Boeing to develop and will be an extremely attractive proposition for the airlines.

If that clear ...why not lauched yet?

I agree with you there's a big market for regional ops. up to 3,000-3,200 nm on widebodies ...mostly the earliest 330's, 767's and specially the 777-300A flying on regional will become obsolete soon and a replacement is going to be necessary.

But right now is too soon to find out what plane is going to be the right replace and for sure it won't be a single aircraft ...the XWB-900 will be in the competition on that market as well, and meanwhile Boeing will be busy enough to assure themselves that 787-8 and -9 production has not more delay, no mention their newest 777X project.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
How many 77L's do you see flying 3-4 hour hops around Asia, or even on Asia-Europe?

Sometimes QR send their 77L's to MAD, myself I flew last January that 6-hours fly Doha-Madrid on it
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4948
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:34 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
unless a customer who has yet to order the 787 (like EK, who have expressed interest in the 787-10) places a major order that justifies bringing forward the launch date.

EK has about 35 A330 and 777's ( not 77W's) between 10 and 15-years old that must be up for replacement starting within a few years. EK have about 80 city pairs within 10hrs of DXB. That is a very large potential.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:46 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 33):
If that clear ...why not lauched yet?

Because you would have had to wait a decade to get one and what airline wants to tie up capital for that long?

Boeing is showing some prudence by not announcing the 787-10 until they have the 787-9's performance nailed down and that won't happen until that airframe is certified sometime next year.

GE is mumbling about making even more powerful GEnx engines with 78,000 pounds of thrust for the 787-10 and the only reason I can think that would be necessary is because Boeing feels they can get more than 252t out of the 787-9's undercarriage. But Boeing won't know that until they have a 787-9 to test.

If Boeing can get more TOW out of the plane, then that improves the fuel load and that improves the range and that improves the plane's desirability with carriers and that improves the potential order pool.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 pm

With all bad luck the 787 project has had, maybe the MTOW of the 789 will be a positive surprise? Say they could certify it for 260t...

How long will it take to certify the 789? It cant be as long as the 788?
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4948
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:37 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 36):
With all bad luck the 787 project has had, maybe the MTOW of the 789 will be a positive surprise? Say they could certify it for 260t...

I think the MTOW is set at about 251t. A positive surprise would be an OEW at .49 or better of the MTOW.   
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:03 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 33):
If that clear ...why not lauched yet?

The 787-8 has literally just entered service, and the 787-9 has got a long way to go. They've also had the 748 to develop, and are working on the 737MAX. There's only so much they can do.

In any case, they need to time it to coincide with regional 777 and A330 retirements, which will be widespread at the end of the decade and early next. Some of the failure of the A35J to gain large scale orders so far is the fact that it is poorly timed as a 744 and 77W replacement.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:31 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 36):
How long will it take to certify the 789? It cant be as long as the 788?

According to Boeing first flight is scheduled for August/September 2013 and entry into service for 1Q or 2Q 2014. So certifcation is obviously planned to be done in 9 months plus or minus 2.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
GE is mumbling about making even more powerful GEnx engines with 78,000 pounds of thrust for the 787-10 and the only reason I can think that would be necessary is because Boeing feels they can get more than 252t out of the 787-9's undercarriage.

The landing gear limit should be somewhere around 265t, but I think the current limit for MTOW is the wing. More thrust could as well be aimed at enhanced takeoff and climb performance.

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 33):
Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
The 787-10 will cost very little for Boeing to develop and will be an extremely attractive proposition for the airlines.

If that clear ...why not lauched yet?

First see how the 787-9 comes along, then do a revamped 787-8 incoporating the 787-9 design improvements. Not to mention MAX and KC-46, I think engineering is quite busy already.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:36 pm

The 787-10 will be cheap, all other costs have been taken on the 788 and 789, I can clearly see why it would be a sound investment to make. And airlines seem to like it as well LH among others. Where would LH fit the 787-10? The range wont be super long.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 14):
...747-8 is longer than A380 with around 100 fewer seats.

Much shorter upper deck, but it does carry more cargo.

Quoting CM (Reply 14):
...757-300 is same length as 767-300 with around 60 fewer seats
NB vs. WB.

Quoting CM (Reply 14):
...767-400 is just 8 feet shorter than a 777-200, but with nearly 100 fewer seats.

Seven abreast seating (Y class) vs. nine abreast seating (Y class).

Boeing could market a modified version of the B-787-3. It would need a longer wingspan, range out to 4500-5000 nm, seat 220-269, about 5000-5500 cu ft of cargo capability, lower MTOW and MLW than the B-787-8. Let's call it the B-787-7, and make it slightly shorter at 180' (same lenght as the B-763, B-788 is about 187' long), but using the same 197' B-787-8 wing, but no center wing fuel tank.

It would be an excellent replacement for the A-306, A-321, B-752/3, and B-762/3 (non-ER). It would have TATL and TRANSCON range/capability with a full cargo and pax load (year-round, both directions), yet still be light weight enough to fly BOS or JFK to the Caribbean and northern South America destinations. It would also be able to do MCI/DFW//IAH/DEN/SLT/PHX to Hawaii, as well as Hawaii-Guam.

[Edited 2012-06-09 14:56:12]


[Edited 2012-06-09 14:58:06]

[Edited 2012-06-09 14:59:07]
 
PIEAvantiP180
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:04 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:58 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 40):

The A330 is not long ranged to but LH seems to love it. In LH fleet the 787-10 would replace the A330 on trunk tatl and shorter Asia routes.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11734
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:03 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Boeing could market a modified version of the B-787-3. It would need a longer wingspan, range out to 4500-5000 nm, seat 220-269, about 5000-5500 cu ft of cargo capability, lower MTOW and MLW than the B-787-8. Let's call it the B-787-7, and make it slightly shorter at 180' (same lenght as the B-763, B-788 is about 187' long), but using the same 197' B-787-8 wing, but no center wing fuel tank.

The issue with a new 783 is competition with the NEO and MAX (specifically, the A321NEO and 739MAX). Those will be far more ideal planes for BOS/JFK to the Caribbean. It wouldn't be able to do midland hubs to Hawaii, but those types will, in my opinion, end the business case for the 783. It will be cheaper and more flexible to have a large longer range narrowbody fleet.

I'm more interested in the 787-10. The issue will be range and what customers find attractive. We do not want another 773 (which, from public statements, is *extremely* unlikely):
While McNerney stated Boeing has not publicly disclosed a 787-10 range target, he explained the aircraft's range would be "a lot better" than the 767 and Airbus A330, "and not as good as the long-range 777s".

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...variant-over-the-next-year-357493/


To myself, that clearly brackets the range between 6,000nm and 7,200nm. Now, 'a lot better than the 767 and Airbus A330' I assume means better than the almost 6k nm range of the 763ER and 5.7k nm range of the A333. All Boeing needs to do is provide enough range. The A332 was originally sold with 6.8k nm range. I believe that would be about ideal. That would allow 'near TPAC' missions that are heavy in passengers but light in cargo to have excellent economics with the 787-10. For anything longer range, the 789 will fill the mission.

Quoting ADent (Reply 21):
The USA airlines used to use wide bodies domestically.

Then the market fragmented and customers started voting with their dollars for frequency. There is still *some* domestic widebody utilization, but that is more to up the utilization of long haul planes on premium domestic routes. I believe that will be the way forward. Otherwise, airlines will be buying the MAX or NEO anyway (excluding EK, who seems focused on the A359 as their smallest aircraft).

Lightsaber

Late Edit:
Doing a few range circles on the great circle mapper, I see a business case for slightly less range, but still greater than 6knm. I could see Boeing launching the 787-10 with as little as 6.3k range.

[Edited 2012-06-09 15:09:56]
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:53 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 39):
The landing gear limit should be somewhere around 265t, but I think the current limit for MTOW is the wing.

I heard somewhere that the wing was good for 290t and the undercarriage for ~255t.
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:00 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 43):
The issue with a new 783 is competition with the NEO and MAX (specifically, the A321NEO and 739MAX).
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 43):
It will be cheaper and more flexible to have a large longer range narrowbody fleet.

Depends what market you're talking about. 321NEO and 739MAX are more focused in some North Atlantic routes as a 757-200 good replacement, but I can't imagine SQ, CX and other leading Asian carriers replacing their 330-300 or 777-300 with narrowbodies.
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:06 pm

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 45):

lightsaber is talking about the 783, which would have lacked the range/capability to be an A333/773 replacement for most Asian airlines.

[Edited 2012-06-09 16:06:58]
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:51 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 46):
which would have lacked the range/capability to be an A333/773 replacement for most Asian airlines.

For these regional routes top-range usually is 3,000 to 3,200 nm. Seldom 4,000 nm is needed on that regional routes. And about capability cargo issues is also important.

I agree with a poster above saying about a modified version of the B-787-3:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Boeing could market a modified version of the B-787-3. It would need a longer wingspan, range out to 4500-5000 nm, seat 220-269, about 5000-5500 cu ft of cargo capability, lower MTOW and MLW than the B-787-8. Let's call it the B-787-7, and make it slightly shorter at 180' (same lenght as the B-763, B-788 is about 187' long), but using the same 197' B-787-8 wing, but no center wing fuel tank.

Dunno if call it 787-3, -7 or -10 but an efficient, reliable-low fuel burner airliner to fly middle-range could have its market share. But maybe any 787-8 or XWB could also be that plane for high density, shorter routes.

In short, I think there's enough market, being not the highest-priority although
Time flies! Enjoy life!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11734
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:18 am

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 45):
I can't imagine SQ, CX and other leading Asian carriers replacing their 330-300 or 777-300 with narrowbodies.

Agreed. But they'll go for pretty large gauge. I could see them more with the 787-10 than the 737-3. There are two ways to approach better mid-haul economics. to myself, the 737-10 makes more sense.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
SKY1
Topic Author
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:03 am

RE: 787-10 Myth Or Reality? New Chance For 787-3?

Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:37 am

737-10? you mean 787-10, right?

Ironically like you know pretty well neither 787-3, nor -10 are right now available, -3 was available until 2 years ago, the -10 still is an unknown factor.

I tend to think Boeing is by far, busier about the 777X or develop a totally brand-new 777 than thinking about a new 787 version.
Time flies! Enjoy life!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a380787, ACDC8, AU795, ba319-131, Baidu [Spider], BartSimpson, BobMUC, Cory6188, dbo861, flydia, GBerg, Google [Bot], hayzel777, jetblastdubai, jetwet1, KarelXWB, LeCoqFrancais, Mikey711MN, Polot, rutankrd, SPEEDJACK, tjh8402, tmiw, YYZAMS and 279 guests