waly777
Topic Author
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 9:59 am

Emirates seems to have given some more hints of what they've been offered. It seems the engines for the 9X has been increased to 103,000lbs of thrust and EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

The article also indicates that only the 9X and 8LX are on offer, confirming an article on aviationweek.com from a few weeks ago.

http://pro.flightglobal.com/news/art...-control-777X-supply-chain-385953/

The article might be open only to flightglobal pro subsribers only but this is an excerpt....


" Both variants will be powered by the General Electric GE9X with the 777-9X the lead variant slated for service entry in 2020. The -8X will follow around nine months later.

"We were concerned about it being underpowered in the early days, and Boeing has now grown the thrust [from under 100,000lb] to around 103k," Clark says.

"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 10:22 am

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

Interesting. We have been hearing 'end of the decade' for a long time. I, along with others I believe, have been taking that to mean 2019. However, I just thought about that and technically December 31, 2020 is still this decade. Logic being that decade #1 = 1/1/01 - 12/31/10 or 10 years. If that is true then I am going to feel a little annoyed by the semantics/games.

A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able to fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.

tortugamon
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 11:46 am

55 t payload on 16h30-16h45 mission, that's more than A380-800 575t can do (circa 50 t) !     
 
waly777
Topic Author
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 12:00 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):

Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.

Trust him to want close to the impossible....either that or he was referring to the 8LX which certainly be capable of such a feat. In the arricle he did mention the 8LX will be able to do those routes seating 330 pax for emirates whilst carrying quite an amount of cargo.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.

Hmm it seems so but being a straight shrink of the 9X with the primary difference being the cabin length, it seems feasible as the differences btw those 2 will be minimal.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1495
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 12:46 pm

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
Emirates seems to have given some more hints of what they've been offered. It seems the engines for the 9X has been increased to 103,000lbs of thrust and EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency. Even now, it's still an impressive drop in thrust from the 115k of the current 77W.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 12:47 pm

A lot of us were sceptical that you could power the -9X on 99.5k engines, 103k sounds more reasoable.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

But this aircraft is going to be the Tim Clark special, it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump, Emirates won't have to worry about the cost of course because they will get a massive discount.

Plus if you are not planning to run 10 across do you gain much from the 777X?
BV
 
sirtoby
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:56 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 1:48 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
has a bigger wing

The large wing is the reason why it needs a relatively low thrust. A high L/D means low T/W for a certain runway performance.
 
9w748capt
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 1:59 pm

Does anyone have that schematic that shows the relatives proportions of all the newer Boeing wbs - someone posted it in another thread. But it was a great visual reference as to what's actually proposed here - had the 787-8/9/10 stacked against the 77W and 777-8L/9 models. Would love to see it again (link is ok too) - TIA!
 
Virginblue4
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:18 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 2:07 pm

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 7):
Does anyone have that schematic that shows the relatives proportions of all the newer Boeing wbs - someone posted it in another thread. But it was a great visual reference as to what's actually proposed here - had the 787-8/9/10 stacked against the 77W and 777-8L/9 models. Would love to see it again (link is ok too) - TIA!

I assume this is the one you're after?

http://arpdesign.files.wordpress.com...2/08/presentation_master-copy2.png



[Edited 2013-05-17 07:08:02]
The amazing tale of flight.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2604
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 2:11 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency

It is because of the larger wing that enables the thrust to be reduced, because the new, larger wing will generate more lift than the current wings. It is also because of that larger CFRP wing and the new GE9X engines that will enable the 777-9X to keep its fuel burn in check. It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity, thanks to a new wing and new engines.

The GE9X is a generation ahead of the GE90, and an all new wing design is a generation ahead of the current design.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump

Tell that to QR, BR, BA, and a host of airlines that have expressed an interest in taking the 777X. To say that "no other operator" will need the 777X's capabilities is an argument not grounded in facts. The fact is that more and more operators of the 777 are going for a 10-across economy seating to increase the 777-300ER's seating capacity in order to further reduce per seat costs. Those are the airlines to whch Boeing are pitching the 777X.

[Edited 2013-05-17 07:17:48]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
waly777
Topic Author
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 2:34 pm

The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 2:45 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
But this aircraft is going to be the Tim Clark special, it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump, Emirates won't have to worry about the cost of course because they will get a massive discount.

Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

Though it did annoy EK and QR, who now are rumored to be huge customers for the heavier, thirstier and more expensive 777X...   
 
davs5032
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:12 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 3:16 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
Plus if you are not planning to run 10 across do you gain much from the 777X?

If you're hauling a lot of freight, then yes. Also, keep in mind that by the time 2020 comes around, the number of airlines operating the 777 with 9X will be a minority.
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 3:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000. My point is that not every airline requires the things from an aircraft that middle east carriers demand.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Though it did annoy EK and QR, who now are rumored to be huge customers for the heavier, thirstier and more expensive 777X...

I know, go figure..

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity.

If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J. The problem with VLA's is they only work efficiently if you can fill them up, and in this case you have to be willing to fly 10 across. Unless an airline is willing to go 10 across and commit to filling 400 seats I don't think the 777-9X works.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
Tell that to QR, BR, BA, and a host of airlines that have expressed an interest in taking the 777X. To say that "no other operator" will need the 777X's capabilities is an argument not grounded in facts. The fact is that more and more operators of the 777 are going for a 10-across economy seating to increase the 777-300ER's seating capacity in order to further reduce per seat costs. Those are the airlines to which Boeing are pitching the 777X.

What is BA's longest route? Off the top of my head I'd say LHR-EZE, that's 1,500 miles less than DXB-EZE so BA at least do NOT need the range. Extreme range flights are more or less limited to Mid East operators. Also as above unless BA are going 10 deep in a 777 carcass they will not be getting Boeing seat mile costs.
BV
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5007
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 3:27 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
so BA at least do NOT need the range.

True, but if they ( SQ, CX et al) see a need for about 350 seats in a premium configuration they will consider it. They will operate their A35J at about 300 seats, do they need something bigger, time will tell.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2604
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 4:00 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000.

But also larger, so it carries more passengers and cargo for greater revenue potential.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J.

No it won't, because the 777-9X is large enough to differentiate itself as being one step up from the A350-1000 in terms of size and capacity.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
The problem with VLA's is they only work efficiently if you can fill them up, and in this case you have to be willing to fly 10 across. Unless an airline is willing to go 10 across and commit to filling 400 seats I don't think the 777-9X works.

No argument there, but given that there are an increasing number of airlines putting 10 seats across in economy on their 777-300ERs, the market for a 10 across 777-9X is potentially quite large.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
What is BA's longest route?

Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network. Maybe he can answer your question better.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 4:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Qatar converted majority of its order for -800s to -1000s, despite constant moaning of Al Baker. Cathay Pacific ordered some and so did British Airways. Rumor has it JAL will also get some.

Keep in mind that this is 350-seater and those will never sell in quantities smaller aircraft do.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 4:19 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network.

Airline CEO's say all kinds of things, do you believe everything Alan Joyce, O'Leary or Ali baker says too?
BV
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 4:25 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...
Sorry, but I beg to differ. Qatar converted majority of its order for -800s to -1000s, despite constant moaning of Al Baker. Cathay Pacific ordered some and so did British Airways. Rumor has it JAL will also get some.

Keep in mind that this is 350-seater and those will never sell in quantities smaller aircraft do.

I might be misunderstanding, but I think Stitch was saying that the increased weight/thrust/etc of the A350-1000 didn't seem to hurt it's sales, and so why shouldn't the same be true/possible with the 777X.

-Dave
-Dave
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 5:02 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
Sorry, but I beg to differ.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
I might be misunderstanding, but I think Stitch was saying that the increased weight/thrust/etc of the A350-1000 didn't seem to hurt it's sales, and so why shouldn't the same be true/possible with the 777X.

Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground. So my comment was that it did not hurt sales, but instead boosted them (created A spike, so to speak).
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 5:28 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground.

Thanks. I am totally unfamiliar with those American sports terms, depite living in the USA for thirteen years. I appreciate your clarification.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
9w748capt
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 5:54 pm

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 20):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground.

Thanks. I am totally unfamiliar with those American sports terms, depite living in the USA for thirteen years. I appreciate your clarification.

LOL but the way Stitch initially used the term is totally different in context from spiking a football. "spike" in everyday vernacular definitely means increase/sharp increase ... which is the way it was originally intended  

Anyway back to the discussion at hand...

And thank you to those for sharing the image of the different wbs compared - straight porn to us widebody lovers!  
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13469
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 6:34 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network.

Yes he did. Just before BA ordered A350-1000s and then relegated the 777X from "a perfect fir" to a far less flattering "still a possibility".   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1495
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 6:48 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency

It is because of the larger wing that enables the thrust to be reduced, because the new, larger wing will generate more lift than the current wings. It is also because of that larger CFRP wing and the new GE9X engines that will enable the 777-9X to keep its fuel burn in check. It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity, thanks to a new wing and new engines.

The GE9X is a generation ahead of the GE90, and an all new wing design is a generation ahead of the current design.

A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB combo, which hasn't even flown yet! It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510; its original 100k engines, seem optimistic
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 7:08 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB combo, which hasn't even flown yet! It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510; its original 100k engines, seem optimistic

 

Why does the 77X need to be a generation ahead of the A350? These planes are contemporaries; I don't expect either one to be a "generation ahead" of the other (whatever that means).
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
aircal62
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 2:08 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 7:51 pm

is the A350 fuselage all composite? I thought that the fuselage was a mix of metal alloy and composite.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2745
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 8:57 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network. Maybe he can answer your question better.

Probably. But then again, maybe, before writing his memoires, he should first publish:

Buying Big Twins for Dummies
Quote:
. . . the best time to publically talk up the competition, just before you sign the dotted line on the 350 series!



Oh, and for the record, before I get    if the 777-8X turns out as Boeing predicts, I'm sure BA will order them in considerable numbers.

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
waly777
Topic Author
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510;

But yet it will have a wing which is 6.2 meters longer and with a larger surface area than the A350-1000. Larger wing = even more lift and hence less thrust is required. Which would explain the difference in thrust required between the bigger GE90 and the GE9X
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2745
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 9:38 pm

Quoting waly777 (Reply 27):
Larger wing = even more lift and hence less thrust is required

More weight = more drag = more thrust. Larger wing will only partially off set that.

I can see how it needs less thrust that the 77W, but at its proposed 344,000 kg, it is still a whopping 36,000 kg    (= 12%) heavier than the 308,000 kg MTOW of the 350-1000 (is this the latest figure?). I'm still quite sceptical that a mere 5000lbs of thrust delta between the 350-1000 and 777X is sufficient, despite the larger wing.

I have always believed that 105k - 110 lbs would seem much more likely. But again, kudos to Boeing if they can pull it off!   

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
morrisond
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 9:45 pm

What is it runway performance going to be like? I would assume approach will be a bunch slower and rotation speed lower as well - but what about field length given the probable lower rate of acceleration but lower lift off speed?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 9:53 pm

Quoting morrisond (Reply 29):

Approach and takeoff performance will depend on the high lift devices as much as clean wing area.
What the...?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 10:31 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510,

Agreed. Even now it is only about 6% higher which, if it happens, would still be an impressive figure as the 77X is heavier and carries 16% more seats. We will see.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 3):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.
Hmm it seems so but being a straight shrink of the 9X with the primary difference being the cabin length, it seems feasible as the differences btw those 2 will be minimal.

I think that this implies that Boeing is not planning much optimization on the 8X.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J.

I am not so sure. A says the 351 will have a 25% lower trip cost relative to the 77W. Boeing says 20%. Lets assume 22.5%. The 351 has 4.25% less seats than the 77W so that explains some of the difference as it is a smaller plane. Still a very big deal though and clearly an excellent option for many airlines.

However this is where the 9x makes sense for some airlines. In EK configuration Stitch has a quote from EK saying the 351 has 317 seats in their configuration. Based on TC's quote above the 9X will have 400 plus seats in EK configuration or 28% more seats. Even if the 351 has 22.5% lower trip cost than the 77X, the fact that the 77X would have 28% more seats (in EK configuration) should result in enough lower per seat costs (roughly 6%), more seat revenue (28% times seat load factor), and larger payload revenue to compensate. If you know that you can fill the seats, and even with 77W trip costs, the 9X could make sense for some airlines.

Regardless, BA is predicting 21% lower seat costs on the 9X relative to the 77W and with only 11% more seats they are clearly expecting trip costs will be lower by around 10%. Clearly the 351 will have a lower trip cost vs the 77X. The question will be just how close these trip costs are for each airline's configuration as well as billion other important factors .

tortugamon
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 10:33 pm

Re how you get a 779 or 3510 of the ground:

1. For both you need the lift from the wing to lift the weight of the aircraft + a bit extra for the climb speed. You need that regardless if the wing is comparatively small (77W) normal (3510) or large (779).

2. The key question is how much drag the engines must overcome to keep the speed or even increase it when the wing generates the need lift in 1. A small wing (77W) generates a lot of drag = really large engines. A normal wing (3510) generates a normal amount of drag = normally large engines. A large wing (779) generates proportionally less drag = proportionally smaller engines.

3. So from 1 and 2 we understand that what is needed is low drag for the 777-9X to work. Then lets qualify what we mean with large wing:

- At start 80% of the drag comes from drag due to lift = induced drag in this case (compression drag is 0). So what differs between these 3 birds is the level of induced drag.

- Induced drag you lower by higher aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is defined as wing span^2/ wing area. Hence 71m span wings on the 779.

Thus, the key to the relatively smaller engines on the 779 vs 3510 and 77W is the high wingspan. This is so important that B goes to the trouble of folding raked tips.

[Edited 2013-05-17 15:39:09]
Non French in France
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Fri May 17, 2013 11:48 pm

Quoting PW100 (Reply 28):
I'm still quite sceptical that a mere 5000lbs of thrust delta between the 350-1000 and 777X is sufficient, despite the larger wing.

Yup, Boeing still risk being caught in the increasing MTOW wedge that caught the 787 and A35J, engine manufacturers can build you an engine of whatever size you just have to be honest about your weights.

I think most of us, at least the a.netters who have had girlfriends, and I know that's not all of us   have had the does my tail look big in this discussion.. The PR men have to be honest with themselves and admit weight gain is a probability, the 777-9X is not a size 0 bird.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 30):
Approach and takeoff performance will depend on the high lift devices as much as clean wing area.

Which add noise, will it have the same QC noise rating as the A35J, this could easily be a deal breaker for BA, but we assume that this will part of the design parameters.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510

I remember a certain company using the wider needs more power and burns more fuel argument against the cabin width of the A350 v the 787 not so long ago, now who were they again... That's right Boeing. So maybe they should explain why this is not the case for the 777X.
BV
 
waly777
Topic Author
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 2:36 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 28):
More weight = more drag = more thrust. Larger wing will only partially off set that.

This explains it much better than I can....

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):

The reason the 77W has such high thrust engines is to compensate for it's relatively small wing for the weight it carries. (ideally, boeing would have liked that wing to be bigger but that would have been just more work).

Besides, it has been said by boeing insiders on a.net that the 777 wing is over-engineered and there's a lot of weight to remove from it and sinc the 777x will have a primarily composite wing, I can assume it will weigh roughly the same or just a little bit more...however the wing will produce a lot of lift to carry even less weight than the 777W (MTOW differences)
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13469
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 3:39 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 26):
if the 777-8X turns out as Boeing predicts, I'm sure BA will order them in considerable numbers.

On what basis would BA 'need' the 8X rather than the 9X? I don't see it myself.   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 3:52 am

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
Even now, it's still an impressive drop in thrust from the 115k of the current 77W.

The current GE engines on the current 200LR/300ER have the ability to use more than rated thrust for a short period if the operator is willing to shorten the overhaul interval. It could be that the 103K rating can still provide 115K or more for those operators needing the extra thrust out of hot and high airports.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 5:19 am

Something's not right here.


Lift is not free, with lift comes drag and a bigger wing creates a lot of extra lift and a lot of extra drag.


This is unprecedented for Boeing, to produce a variant with significantly less power than the previous version and only fractionally lighter.


As I said, something's not right.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 6:00 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 33):
I remember a certain company using the wider needs more power and burns more fuel argument against the cabin width of the A350 v the 787 not so long ago, now who were they again... That's right Boeing. So maybe they should explain why this is not the case for the 777X.

Sure, but in that case they both could readily seat the same - 9 abreast. Therefore, with the A350 you were paying for more width without getting more seats. With the A350 vs 777X, one will readily seat 9 abreast and one will readily seat 10 abreast. Obviously a larger, heavier frame seating one extra seat across will have to utilize increased thrust and burn more fuel. How much is the question.

-Dave
-Dave
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 6:24 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 38):
Sure, but in that case they both could readily seat the same - 9 abreast. Therefore, with the A350 you were paying for more width without getting more seats. With the A350 vs 777X, one will readily seat 9 abreast and one will readily seat 10 abreast. Obviously a larger, heavier frame seating one extra seat across will have to utilize increased thrust and burn more fuel. How much is the question.

Not buying it. The 787 was conceived as an 8 across aircraft, yes you can fit 9 across in it; the A350 as a 9 across aircraft in which 10 across is possible so if an operator chooses they can use the extra width. Boeing simply chooses to assume that while operators will max out seating in their aircraft but that they will not do so in a competitors to make its advert stack up.

One of the reasons the A350 is going to be more efficient that the 777 is that it does not fly with an empty attic that the 777X will continue to cart around.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 35):
On what basis would BA 'need' the 8X rather than the 9X? I don't see it myself.

Is there anything that the -8X would bring to BA that the A359/J won't? I thought that the A350 order ruled the -8X out in the short / medium term.
BV
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 6:37 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 38):

The difference in width between the 787 and 350 is less than the difference between the 737 and the 320, and it doesn't seem to be making a huge difference in the narrow bodies...so I don't see why the difference will make a lot of difference in the much larger planes.

The extra weight of the 350 has more to do with it's proposed capabilities more than the diameter of its fuselage. The 350-800 is roughly equivalent to the 789 and the 350-900 is close to the capabilities of, (and much more efficient than), the 77E...and Boeing really doesn't have anything coming up that can compete, feature for feature. The -10 will be close in passenger loads but lack the range.

The 350-1000 will likely be more efficient than the 777-8x for shorter to mid ranges and will be considerably more efficient than the 77W.

So fuselage diameter only tells a small part of the story when explaining aircraft weights.
What the...?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 6:40 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Not buying it.

Shocking.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
The 787 was conceived as an 8 across aircraft, yes you can fit 9 across in it

Hmmm.... So Boeing conceived an 8 abreast aircraft - that just "happened" to fit 9 across with the common 17.2" seats. Wow, how random....

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
the A350 as a 9 across aircraft in which 10 across is possible so if an operator chooses they can use the extra width

Your wording paints the picture perfectly. 787 - Readily fits 9 abreast. A350 - ".....it's possible....IF an operator chooses..." In other words - not readily a 10 abreast aircraft.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Boeing simply chooses to assume that while operators will max out seating in their aircraft but that they will not do so in a competitors to make its advert stack up.

I'm not Boeing. I am simply offering a counterpoint to your blurb earlier.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
ne of the reasons the A350 is going to be more efficient that the 777 is that it does not fly with an empty attic that the 777X will continue to cart around.

Relax. I'm sure the A350 will be a knock-out, and I'm not buying any aircraft myself. You don't need to try to win me over.

-Dave
-Dave
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2604
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 6:55 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 22):
Yes he did. Just before BA ordered A350-1000s and then relegated the 777X from "a perfect fir" to a far less flattering "still a possibility".

"Still a possibility" does not mean that it is in any way less of a "perfect fit" than it was when he made the statement. Just because they haven't bought some yet doesn't mean they won't in future, nor does the order for the A350-1000 in any way diminishes the possibility of a 777X joining the fleet, unless and until they unequivocally rule out that possibility.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB

No, nor will a clean sheet "Y3" be likely to be a generation ahead of the A350. The new wing and new engine design is, for want of a better word, the same "generation" as the wing and engine on the A350.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 33):
I remember a certain company using the wider needs more power and burns more fuel argument against the cabin width of the A350 v the 787 not so long ago, now who were they again... That's right Boeing. So maybe they should explain why this is not the case for the 777X.

It's called marketing, something that Airbus themselves do so well. Maybe they should explain why their "four engines for long haul" campaign doesn't apply to the A350?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Boeing simply chooses to assume that while operators will max out seating in their aircraft but that they will not do so in a competitors to make its advert stack up.

There are numerous examples of Airbus doing the same.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Is there anything that the -8X would bring to BA that the A359/J won't?

The 777-8LX will offer increased payload-range over the A350-900.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 7:14 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 37):
Lift is not free, with lift comes drag and a bigger wing creates a lot of extra lift and a lot of extra drag.

All else being equal, a bigger wing of used to produce the same lift will generate less induced drag (lower alpha), but more parasitic drag. A wing of the same area, but of higher aspect ratio, will produce similar parasitic drag, but lower induced drag. Lowering the lift needed (reducing the mass of the aircraft while keeping the wing the same) also reduces induced drag (while leaving parasitic drag roughly unchanged).

Boeing appears to be lightening the aircraft, while increasing the wing area and the aspect ratio. That should result in a significant reduction in induced drag, with a modest increase in parasitic drag. So the L/D of the aircraft should be improved.

An interesting side effect may be lowering the best economy cruising speed a bit. If we accept that the current 777 is somewhat underwinged in comparison, its best cruise would be pushed higher because of the excess induced drag produced by the higher needed alpha. Best cruise is not quite best L/D, but it's in the neighborhood (but somewhat faster), and best L/D is invariably very, very close to where induced and parasitic drag are equal. That may also make higher altitude cruise easier, particularly when the plane is heavier.

Unfortunately I don't understand the implications of a larger wing on shockwave drag enough, so that muddies the issue more than a bit.
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 7:33 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
It's called marketing, something that Airbus themselves do so well. Maybe they should explain why their "four engines for long haul" campaign doesn't apply to the A350?

Wasn't that Branson? But yes I take your point, marketing is mostly BS on both sides.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
There are numerous examples of Airbus doing the same.

There are, but the Airbus view of Boeing seat counts is generally recognised as being more real world than Boeings view of Airbus seat count.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 41):
Hmmm.... So Boeing conceived an 8 abreast aircraft - that just "happened" to fit 9 across with the common 17.2" seats. Wow, how random....

So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft? If I recall they then screwed with the sidewalls and to end up with enough space for your 'standard' 9 so not random nor originally planned.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
The 777-8LX will offer increased payload-range over the A350-900.

Which is fine if you need the range, BA don't need the extreme ranges being talked about by Emirates.
BV
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 7:44 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft?

That's not what I said. However, I don't think they were clueless about the potential. YMMV.

-Dave
-Dave
 
cx828
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:21 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 7:46 am

so can the 777-8LX has the range of LHR-SYD so that BA can buy some exclusively for this route??
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 8:17 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 45):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft?

That's not what I said. However, I don't think they were clueless about the potential. YMMV.

Boeing had already learned the lesson of the 777 when they envisioned it as a very roomy 9 abreast airliner, and ever intrepid EK realised that it could be a somewhat comfortable, very profitable 10 abreast airliner.

There can be little doubt that Boeing saw the possibility of 9 abreast when they decided on the fuse diameter for the 787.
What the...?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 10:11 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 47):
There can be little doubt that Boeing saw the possibility of 9 abreast when they decided on the fuse diameter for the 787.

Although I do not have any inside information to base it on, I agree. What may have been a surprise was the number of airline customers that went with 9 abreast. If you were designing a fuse from scratch, is there anyone commenting on this topic that thinks that it was not a good idea to position it in a way to maximize airline choice and flexibility while carrying LD3s? Well stated Joe.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 43):
Unfortunately I don't understand the implications of a larger wing on shockwave drag enough, so that muddies the issue more than a bit.

Not sure either but I would think that Boeing will make the wing much thinner and increase the degree of sweepback resulting in lower shockwave drag and maybe moving the ideal cruise speed a little to the right (everything else being equal). I have read that Tim Clark expects the aircraft to fly faster but I am not not sure how B will get there and if it will come down to the new supercritical CFRP airfoil but I think we will see the 777X tick up to .85 Mach which means EK will fly it at .86. From the 767 to the 787 the wing became much thinner, wings were more swept back and cruise speed jumped .05m but that may be do to other things and I may be oversimplifying.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20184
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020

Sat May 18, 2013 10:48 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
No it won't, because the 777-9X is large enough to differentiate itself as being one step up from the A350-1000 in terms of size and capacity.

  

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000. My point is that not every airline requires the things from an aircraft that middle east carriers demand.

I agree and while the potential sales numbers for the Middle East carriers are huge, they are nowhere close to the numbers Boeing need to keep the 777X selling for the next 15 to 20 years. But do you think the thrust increase is too much for most other airlines?

I think the 777-9 will just do fine.

[Edited 2013-05-18 03:51:29]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK