Therefore the top priority for Boeing is to halt the rise of the 350-seat A350-1000 by all means and prevent the aircraft from gaining any further traction from now on.
And Boeing seems to be doing just that. In order to placate Japanese carriers JAL and ANA over their perceived over-reliance on a single supplier, Aspire Aviation‘s sources at the Chicago-based plane-maker say the 777X’s 4th-generation carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) wing is likely to be made in Japan, before being transported by ship to Everett for final assembly.
Winning the prize of the 777X’s CFRP wings would be precious for Japan, not only because it is the centrepiece of the major revamp, but also of the fact that it is the largest wing ever built for a Boeing aircraft. The 71.1m (233.4ft) CFRP wings will also feature a folding wingtip on its outermost 11ft (3.35m) with a hydraulics actuator and a piano-type topside hinge – a novelty feature designed to make the 777-9X an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Code E aircraft at the gate and Code F aircraft while on the runway
Not sure If this will stop NH and JL from Ordering the A350XWB, But I guess you really never know. Not sure about the idea of having the wings shipped by sea though.
Some other interesting 777X related notes from the article:
While this gives a thrust-to-MTOW (maximum take-off weight) ratio of 0.6 for the 777-9X, lower than the 0.627 ratio for the A350-900 and 0.63 for the A350-1000, as well as the 777-300ER’s 0.656, this does not mean that the 777-9X is underpowered. On the contrary, it is a testament to how optimised the 777-9X will be when it comes to the combination of its CFRP wings, engines and airframe.
Firstly, the 407-seat 777-9X is 4% more weight efficient than the 350-seat A350-1000 in terms of the MTOW per seat metric with the -9X’s MTOW at 344 tonnes and the A350-1000′s at 308 tonnes. Coupled with the more aerodynamically efficient wing on the 777X, it is apparent on the reason why the 777X has a 4.76% less thrust-to-MTOW ratio than the A350-1000: less weight efficient means the A350-1000 needs more power.
Secondly, the 0.76% discrepancy between the weight efficiency advantage and the thrust-to-MTOW difference is explained by the non-linear relationship between thrust, weight and engine fan size. The more weight efficient 777-9X has a relatively less demanding thrust requirement, leading to a smaller engine fan size that creates less drag and weighs less, which in turn reduces the thrust requirement further.
This speaks volume to the superior economic performance that the 407-seat 777-9X will have over the 350-seat A350-1000, which Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) vice president (VP) of marketing and business development Mike Bair said in a May 7 investor and analyst conference in New York as having the lowest fuel burn per seat of any airplane.
Ranges remain the same from the previous article: