keesje
Posts: 8598
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:59 am

As discussed some time ago Boeing still is considering a big 777 upgrade.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4289296

Carsson today reveiled they are studying a new (probably composites) wing

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Revealed,%20787%20Flight%20Looms

Of course strongly related to 787-10. Personally I think rewinging / engining the 787 for a 787-10 and 787-11 would make more sense. But of course there is a timetable with the A350XWB flying in a few years..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Pellegrine
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:13 pm



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Carsson today reveiled they are studying a new (probably composites) wing

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...Looms

Could be interesting, if it would close the gap between the 777 and published A350 specs. But, it also signals that Y3 is a long way away from fruition.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Personally I think rewinging / engining the 787 for a 787-10 and 787-11 would make more sense.

IMO 787-10 has less than a 50% chance of happening, it's a double stretch and Boeing will have to fight hard to keep the payload/range adequate versus the 789. 787-11 no chance. At these longer fuselage lengths it makes more sense to have a wider fuselage (the 777).
oh boy!!!
 
keesje
Posts: 8598
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:13 pm



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 1):
IMO 787-10 has less than a 50% chance of happening, it's a double stretch and Boeing will have to fight hard to keep the payload/range adequate versus the 789. 787-11 no chance. At these longer fuselage lengths it makes more sense to have a wider fuselage (the 777).

The 787 and 777 don't differ that much. Both have side by side containers and 9 abreast. The 777 is flying around a big empty attic. The major difference is the material.

Boeing has gambled the way ahead for fuselages is CRFP. Launching a new metal 777 with improved / optimized wings would be spectacular.

As I said (much) earlier a long range 787-10, -11 would need a new wing / engines /landing gear to replace the 777-300ER.

A new wing would IMO enable a capable 777-400ER.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:20 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):

The 787 and 777 don't differ that much. Both have side by side containers and 9 abreast. The 777 is flying around a big empty attic. The major difference is the material.

An upgraded 777 would certainly have thinner sidewalls for true 10 abreast. The current plane is very close to proper 10 abreast, except that the aisles are too narrow.

A 777-300ER with substantially lighter OEW could be an 8000 nm aircraft at 10 abreast. That would change its relationship to the A350-1000, at least, and probably make it fully competitive.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:28 pm

A mid life update of the 777 makes a lot of sense. As deiveries to airlines will be slower and margins lower, completely new models shift far away, I expect Y1 to be the only new aircraft in service before 2020 after 787 and A350. 777 and A320 will have mid life upgrades, shifting a replacement down to 2025-2030.
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:30 pm

Pure speculation here... but maybe Boeing has decided that they can more effectively offer a 777NG program based on composites and 787 technology, rather than go with a full fledged, brand new Y3. The 777 is already a very capable and efficient aircraft; now imagine what it could do with GENX-type engines and lighter weights through more use of composites. I doubt it would take Boeing long to build and develop, and would be an obvious choice for current 777 operators... could be a danger to the A350.
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:38 pm

What if we had both aircraft? One is less capable, more of a trans-con, high capacity, or trans atlantic a/c, much like the 764. The other could be a beefier, heavy duty, longer range, higher MTOW a/c a la the 772.

The 764 style a/c could be the 787-10, which represents the pinnacle and greatest stretch of an airframe, wringing all that can be out of it, while the rewinged 777, could be the launching platform for larger aircraft, like the rewinged 77W, 77L, etc.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
Pellegrine
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:41 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
The 787 and 777 don't differ that much. Both have side by side containers and 9 abreast. The 777 is flying around a big empty attic. The major difference is the material.

Boeing has gambled the way ahead for fuselages is CRFP. Launching a new metal 777 with improved / optimized wings would be spectacular.

As I said (much) earlier a long range 787-10, -11 would need a new wing / engines /landing gear to replace the 777-300ER.

Herein lies the crux of the issue... Boeing meant for the 787 to replace the 767. Some of the airlines kept pushing for a '777-like replacement', and the bigger the 787 gets the less efficient it's going to be because Boeing was targeting the 767 size. The only reason so far that the 789 has a higher range than the 788 is because airlines demanded higher fuel capacity. It looks like 9 abreast 787 is going to be equivalent to 10 abreast 777.

The much talked about 787-10 isn't big enough to replace the 77W.

Let's make a quick list of what would be needed for a competitive 787-11:
-Bigger wing (more area and fuel capacity)
-Taller 6-wheel main landing gear w/ bigger tires
-90,000+ lb. thrust class engines (looks like only Trent XWB meets this as Trent 1000/GEnx would be hard to scale this high)
-A lot of structure reinforcing to enable a much higher MTOW

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
A new wing would IMO enable a capable 777-400ER.

I do agree with you here, if the new wing brought suitable efficiency, an 80-metre or so 777 would be an amazing aircraft. And it would be a true 744 replacement rather than the slightly smaller 77W. I think Boeing would not want to produce this though as it would hurt the 748i.
oh boy!!!
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:46 pm

IIFC a "777-400ER" is not possible, it would require a new wingbox and landing gear redesign.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:47 pm



Quoting Cba (Reply 5):
The 777 is already a very capable and efficient aircraft; now imagine what it could do with GENX-type engines and lighter weights through more use of composites.

I'll take it one step further, based on a slip of the tongue by a PW exec... imagine a re-winged 777 w/ GTFs on it... I'll leave you to ponder that thought. (PS: said exec also said PW was *not* looking at the 350XWB for the GTF)
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Pellegrine
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:49 pm



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
IIFC a "777-400ER" is not possible, it would require a new wingbox and landing gear redesign.

True, I forgot about this in my post. 6-wheel main gears cannot go much above the present 777,000 lb. MTW. A 774 would need bigger 8-wheel main gears, it would be the biggest single-leg main gear ever on a commercial airliner.
oh boy!!!
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:02 pm



Quoting AA777223 (Reply 6):
like the rewinged 77W, 77L, etc.

hmmm.... was the 77L/77W "re-winged" or just the same wing with wingtip extensions ?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:03 pm

I remain skeptical a re-winged 777 would really be competitive against an A350XWB that entered service on schedule and was good enough to be 20% more fuel-efficient than the competing 777 model.

Re-winging the 777-200ER and hanging 93k Trent 2000s off those new wings is not going to drop the 77E's fuel burn by 20%.

I find the 777-400 idea to be a bit of a non-starter unless they can increase the fuel capacity and MTOW. The 747-400 slots in around 5250nm at MZFW - about 500nm less than the 77W. If the re-wing significantly improves L/D and field performance, it might become the true 747-400 replacement from Boeing, but it would also once and for all ensure the 747-8I will never sell.

And I'm not sure Boeing wants to write-off the billions they've spent on the -8I and sink more billions into the 777 program on the hope it will work where the former did not.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1604
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:21 pm

IMO it makes sense.

Boeing could develop a new wing, redesign the fuselage with lighter materials, improve aerodynamics and have the 777 variant that would be a true replacement for the 777-200/-200ER: the 777-8. Then, about 1 - 2 years after A350-1000 EIS, Boeing could go ahead with the 777-9 (a 777-300ER replacement) and the 777-8ER as a replacement for the -200LR.

After all, 777 is not 747: the market is much bigger and, if giving it all-new wing and other improvements gives Boeing another 500 sales, it is worth a shot. Besides, 787-10 could never be as capable as 777-8.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:27 pm

Airbus has the A350 at 270,314 and 350 3-class seating arrangement.
Boeing has the 787 at 250 and 290.

Should Boeing develop the 787-10, they will then have an inefficient 315 seat plane that cannot compete with the A350-900 because it was not developed specifically for that size, while the A359 was developed from day one for that size. Ultimately, Boeing will be losing every sale to Airbus on that category.

Boeing's only solution is to come up with a new plane that will satisfy the 315, 350 and 390 seating arrangement, thus creating a nice niche for it in that market and possibly bridging the gap between the A350-1000 and the A380.

There can be a number of commonalities, such as flight decks, electronics, etc with the 787 that will create a family of airplanes.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:32 pm

Currently I see the 77W/77L vs. the A350 as the A333/A332 vs. the 787. If we can now imagine how a re-winged A330 would stack against the 787 (and it's already proven to be a damn great plane, even with the 787 on the horizon). It would certainly be very compelling for current A330 operators. I think the same would come from the 77W/77L. Currently the 77W can fly farther with more payload than the A350-1000, and according to Boeing's revised range/payload charts, the 77W is already at or above 8,000nm. So re-winging, with improvement in the engines, and dropping the OEW, should give Boeing another few hundred nautical miles which would make the 77W/L at least that much more viable until they are ready for a clean sheet design.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:40 pm

Can Boeing develop a common design wing for 777NG and 787-10/11? It does not mean the same size but the 777 one need only be proportionally bigger.

Add another 100 seats to 748i by making it a 1.8 decker and Boeing will have a nice 250-550 seat product line.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:41 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):

Re-winging the 777-200ER and hanging 93k Trent 2000s off those new wings is not going to drop the 77E's fuel burn by 20%.

Again, guys, please think a tiny bit outside the box here. PW has stated they expect the GTF will turn 15-20% improvements on a big fan. They have also (accidentally) stated they are looking at the GTF on a 777 refresh. A new wing + a GTF will get a substantial fuel burn savings. Additional weight trimming on the 777 (I'm sure they wouldn't *just* rewing it) and you have a formidable aircraft.

If you dig through the IAG podcasts you'll get a LOT of interesting tidbits from the VP for the GTF project @ PW.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9751
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:46 pm

This is reminding me more and more of the original A350.

Another improvement Boeing could do is to have a GLARE fuselage
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:47 pm



Quoting Panais (Reply 16):
Should Boeing develop the 787-10, they will then have an inefficient 315 seat plane that cannot compete with the A350-900 because it was not developed specifically for that size, while the A359 was developed from day one for that size.

The problem with a straight stretch of the 787-9 is not that it's inefficient -- quite the opposite. The problem is that such a plane would have payload-range issues, with as much as 1000 nm less range than the A350-900.

A "straight stretch" 787-10 should be lighter than the A350-900 and, accordingly, more efficient on those missions it's capable of flying. Think about the relationship between the A330-300 and the 777-200ER.
 
keesje
Posts: 8598
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:08 pm



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 21):
Quoting Panais (Reply 16):
Should Boeing develop the 787-10, they will then have an inefficient 315 seat plane that cannot compete with the A350-900 because it was not developed specifically for that size, while the A359 was developed from day one for that size.

The problem with a straight stretch of the 787-9 is not that it's inefficient -- quite the opposite. The problem is that such a plane would have payload-range issues, with as much as 1000 nm less range than the A350-900.

A "straight stretch" 787-10 should be lighter than the A350-900 and, accordingly, more efficient on those missions it's capable of flying. Think about the relationship between the A330-300 and the 777-200ER.

If a new wing can developed, why not for the 787? New engine, wing, wingbox etc would probably produce a more efficient up to date aircraft then a re winged 777.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
This is reminding me more and more of the original A350.

Indeed. Rewinging / engining the A330 for competing the 787 was a bad idea, for the 777 competing with the A350 it might be a good idea..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:11 pm



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 15):
Boeing could develop a new wing, redesign the fuselage with lighter materials, improve aerodynamics and have the 777 variant that would be a true replacement for the 777-200/-200ER: the 777-8. Then, about 1 - 2 years after A350-1000 EIS, Boeing could go ahead with the 777-9 (a 777-300ER replacement) and the 777-8ER as a replacement for the -200LR.

After all, 777 is not 747: the market is much bigger and, if giving it all-new wing and other improvements gives Boeing another 500 sales, it is worth a shot. Besides, 787-10 could never be as capable as 777-8.

Interesting post BlueSky1976. i would have to agree with all of your points  checkmark 
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:15 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Indeed. Rewinging / engining the A330 for competing the 787 was a bad idea, for the 777 competing with the A350 it might be a good idea..

There is a fundamental difference between the two. A330 is only capable of 8 abreast, while the 777 has a superior fuselage cross section in terms of passanger capacity as compared to the A350. With a little bit modification, 777 can take 10 abreast.

I had a thread on this several weeks ago, indeed if boeing can put 777 into a diet, a B777A can be exactly as capable and almost as efficient as the A350-10

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:17 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
This is reminding me more and more of the original A350.

In hindsight, Airbus needed to do the A350XWB, otherwise they would have assuredly handed the 300+ seat market to Boeing. With that said, the original Al-Li A358/A359 would have given the 787 a run for its money.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):

Again, guys, please think a tiny bit outside the box here. PW has stated they expect the GTF will turn 15-20% improvements on a big fan. They have also (accidentally) stated they are looking at the GTF on a 777 refresh. A new wing + a GTF will get a substantial fuel burn savings. Additional weight trimming on the 777 (I'm sure they wouldn't *just* rewing it) and you have a formidable aircraft.

Can PW do this? When does GE's exclusivity contract end with Boeing on the 777 Long Range family? And does it even end at all? If it does, and PW can outfit the 777 with a GTF, then when could PW have that size of a turbofan ready? 2015 and later? How big would the fan be on a 90,000-115,000lb thrust engine?
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
keesje
Posts: 8598
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:21 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 24):
There is a fundamental difference between the two. A330 is only capable of 8 abreast, while the 777 has a superior fuselage cross section in terms of passanger capacity as compared to the A350. With a little bit modification, 777 can take 10 abreast.

maybe Airbus could put the generous A330/340 on diet and do new interiors for 9 abreast. It already flies with leisure carriers anyway for yrs.



The A350XWB is also offered with 10 abreast..


It's up to the airlines.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:22 pm

I think Blue sky 1976 is right on the money. This rewinged plane will exactly replace the 2 existing aircraft. The wing will be (a little) lighter and more efficient. They may be able to make the sidewalls thinner bringing 10 abreast economy into the equasion more regularly. There is always AlLi if needs be. GE will still make the engines but improve them with Gnex technology. They are not about to give a huge segment of the market away just yet!

My goodness but the 748i market is getting smaller and smaller by the day. I am still waiting....
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:24 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):
If you dig through the IAG podcasts you'll get a LOT of interesting tidbits from the VP for the GTF project @ PW.

Yes it was an interesting podcast, but I don't think P&W will have a 133-138" 100,000lb GTF ready for service in the next five years. I'd be surprised if they have it ready in the next decade.

And at that point, one has to ask will there be a market for a second new 315-seater?

The 787 has already soaked up the remaining 767-300ER replacement market and taken large dents out of the A330-200 replacement market. By the time Airbus could get a re-winged and re-engined A330-200 designed, certified and into production, there may be only a handful of sales left.

The A350-900XWB is just starting it's sales run so there are plenty of 77E and A343 replacement sales to gun for over the next decade and each one Airbus wins lessens the pool for the 777ERX.

The A330-200 had a solid sales run recently in no small part because of delays in getting the 787-8 into the air. With deliveries now looking to shrink, one has to wonder how many of those frames will actually ever be delivered, since the 787-8's availability could coincide with the revised delivery dates of the originally "interim" A330-200s.

Boeing's best shot with the passenger 777s now is to hope traffic rebounds in the middle of the next decade and Airbus slips on the A350XWB's EIS. That way, Boeing can push the 777 as an "interim" replacement just as Airbus did with the A332.

Going forward, Boeing arguably should just shelve the 747-8I project (or deliver the 20 to LH if they must have them) and launch Y3 as a true 777-sized replacement with lie-flat herringbone business class seats at 1+2+1 and 10-abreast at 45mm seat widths matching the A350XWB at 9-abreast:

Y3-100 - 300 seats in two classes at 70m (50C/250Y)
Y3-200 - 375 seats in two classes at 75m (50C/325Y)
Y3-300 - 425 seats in two classes at 80m (50C/350Y)

That way the -100 is larger than the A350-900XWB, the -200 is larger than the A350-1000XWB and the -300 is larger than an A350-1100XWB or the 747-400.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:25 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):
Again, guys, please think a tiny bit outside the box here. PW has stated they expect the GTF will turn 15-20% improvements on a big fan. They have also (accidentally) stated they are looking at the GTF on a 777 refresh. A new wing + a GTF will get a substantial fuel burn savings. Additional weight trimming on the 777 (I'm sure they wouldn't *just* rewing it) and you have a formidable aircraft.

Interesting post.

So what's preventing Boeing from going with a new fuse too?

Are they admitting the barrel technology won't scale up?

Or they can't solve the transportation issue?

Won't the upgraded -200ER get trounced by the A350-1000, presuming similar engine technolgies?

Is Boeing getting timid in its old age? Or just overly frugal?

We see "new wing on an tweaked fuse" isn't doing so well for 747-8i.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:29 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
maybe Airbus could put the generous A330/340 on diet and do new interiors for 9 abreast. It already flies with leisure carriers anyway for yrs.

You can argue whatever you want, but the fact is the airlines didn't buy that they can put 9 across in A330

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
The A350XWB is also offered with 10 abreast..

Still inferior to the B777 as I said in my previous post.

B747 is also offered in 10 across, as the A380. Are you saying they are just as good?

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
keesje
Posts: 8598
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:14 pm


Boeing may still develop a bigger version of the Dreamliner known as the 787-10, seating 310 people, and while that might compete with a re-winged 777 the two planes together would offer more alternatives to the A350, the executive said.

While Boeing would prefer to respond with a bigger version of the 787, made from plastic composites rather than metal like the 777, it’s not clear that the engine offered by General Electric Co. would be sufficient to power an A350-size plane.

Dubai-based airline Emirates said as long ago as October 2007 that a GE-equipped 787-10 would lack thrust. Rolls-Royce Group Plc offers a larger engine suitable for the plane, but the Arab carrier mainly uses powerplants from the U.S. company.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a27lmS__Ngrc

Interesting IMO GE now faces demand for a better 90 klbs engines from Airbus and from Boeing, who prefer a bigger version of the 787. I think the Boeing / GE deal on engines > 80.000 lbs is under pressure, to state it mildly. Maybe GE wants to build a new big engine, if it is allowed to supply it to everyone. They must have noticed the trent XWB orders from some of their loyal customers during the last few yrs.

Interesting times if United, AF/KLM or Delta people visit their booth tommorow to ask what's the status on the A350XWB..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LHB727230Adv
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:49 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Well it looks like Boeing is doing what I've suspected they'd do for a while now: upgrade a still very capable and modern plane to compete with the A350. In my opinion it would be foolish of Boeing to dump a relatively new aircraft design in favour of a very expensive clean sheet design when they have most of their resources currently tied up in the 787, and have to face the fact that they'll also have to put a great deal of resources into a (much more and IMO sooner needed) 737 replacement.

The best thing Boeing could do is drop the 777-200, and replace that with the 787-9, and potentially a 787-10. Then with the redesign of the wing, in addition to the 777-300ER replacement (lets call that the 777-8), offer an 80 meter stretch (being the 777-9).

This new wing should allow Boeing to stretch the -300ER without too many problems. By lowering the empty mass of the aircraft, the 777-9 would not require as significant a thrust increase to maintain the range the -300ER offers, and I have no doubt that GE will be able to get another 10-15 K out of their engines. The landing gear would need redesigning, probably the addition of a third main landing strut, as I cant imagine they'd add a fourth axle to the existing gear.

A six meter strech of the fuselage would allow for seven additional seat rows at 32 inch pitch, which adds 63 seats at nine abreast, or 70 seats at ten abreast seating. Such an aircraft would finally have the capacity to truly replace the 747 once and for all. Though I'll be sad to see the 747 go (and I won't be when the 747-8 finally gets canceled), quads really are a thing of the past and its time the 777 lives up to its full potential IMHO.

Add some system improvements from the 787, and update the flight deck, and you're sure to have a plane that'll sell through 2020.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:48 pm



Quoting Panais (Reply 16):
Should Boeing develop the 787-10, they will then have an inefficient 315 seat plane that cannot compete with the A350-900 because it was not developed specifically for that size, while the A359 was developed from day one for that size. Ultimately, Boeing will be losing every sale to Airbus on that category.

Out of curiosity, what would the difference be between the 787-10 stretched from previous versions and a 787-10 designed specifically from the start? Different wing? Different engines?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 34):
This will be one of the most challenging and potentially expensive tasks (obviously outside of the new wing) for Boeing should they decide to stretch or increase MTOW. The 77W is already at the edge at 775K now.

Perhaps they could so something a little different - instead of 2xX wheel arrangement, they could go 3xX (I I I instead of I I).

How deep are the wheel wells?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18838
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:50 pm



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 3):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):

The 787 and 777 don't differ that much. Both have side by side containers and 9 abreast. The 777 is flying around a big empty attic. The major difference is the material.

An upgraded 777 would certainly have thinner sidewalls for true 10 abreast. The current plane is very close to proper 10 abreast, except that the aisles are too narrow.

You'll never gain enough in thinner 777 sidewalls to make a 10-abreast 777 as spacious as a 10-abreast 747 which has a 10-inch wider cabiin.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:00 pm

True, but by the same token, people absolutely should drop the idea of the A350XWB having 10 abreast. Talk about cramped  crowded 
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:04 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Going forward, Boeing arguably should just shelve the 747-8I project (or deliver the 20 to LH if they must have them) and launch Y3 as a true 777-sized replacement with lie-flat herringbone business class seats at 1+2+1 and 10-abreast at 45mm seat widths matching the A350XWB at 9-abreast:

Y3-100 - 300 seats in two classes at 70m (50C/250Y)
Y3-200 - 375 seats in two classes at 75m (50C/325Y)
Y3-300 - 425 seats in two classes at 80m (50C/350Y)

That way the -100 is larger than the A350-900XWB, the -200 is larger than the A350-1000XWB and the -300 is larger than an A350-1100XWB or the 747-400.

375 and 425 seats are too close.

I can see Boeing instead making the 777 a true 10 abreast with crappy 17.2" seats, and using the newer wing and engines to make it 8000-8200nm at this density.

That then makes the 77L larger than it currently is at 9Y, spacing it from the 787-9 better, and the 77W approaches 400 seats. There is still not a large proven market for planes over 400 seats, at least compared to the 300-400 seat category.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:07 pm



Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 12):
was the 77L/77W "re-winged" or just the same wing with wingtip extensions ?

I meant to say that a a rewinged 77L/77W, implying IF they were to put a new wing on the aircraft, not that they already had by putting winglets on it.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
The A350XWB is also offered with 10 abreast..

That is awful. 10 abreast on a very wide 777 is bad enough, but the same arrangement on a already narrower A350XWB is just heinous.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
nw1852
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:48 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:16 pm

I know it would never happen, but if your going to dream, dream big; Maybe they could engineer it for 4 engines and go after the best looking plane award.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:17 pm



Quoting Cba (Reply 5):
but maybe Boeing has decided that they can more effectively offer a 777NG program based on composites and 787 technology

Easy tiger. If you're talking about a CFRP fuse, then you're talking about a new plane (aka Y3)

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Rewinging / engining the A330 for competing the 787 was a bad idea, for the 777 competing with the A350 it might be a good idea..

 rotfl 
Always, my friend

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):
They have also (accidentally) stated they are looking at the GTF on a 777 refresh

So when did Boeing say they were looking at this "777 refresh?"  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Yes it was an interesting podcast, but I don't think P&W will have a 133-138" 100,000lb GTF ready for service in the next five years. I'd be surprised if they have it ready in the next decade.

 thumbsup 

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
We see "new wing on an tweaked fuse" isn't doing so well for 747-8i.

Agree with that, but the starting points are fundamentally different IMO. Out of date cross-section and wing shape/span are always going to compromise the 748i, no matter how much "787 tech" goes into the engines and the, er.........lighting.

Much as I like the 747, the 777 (IMO) is fundamentally more sound in terms of cross-section and wing characteristics vs weight.

Rgds
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:28 pm



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 25):
Can PW do this? When does GE's exclusivity contract end with Boeing on the 777 Long Range family? And does it even end at all? If it does, and PW can outfit the 777 with a GTF, then when could PW have that size of a turbofan ready? 2015 and later? How big would the fan be on a 90,000-115,000lb thrust engine?

I believe GE's exclusive is for specific models, any new model would not be subject to the contract with GE. Unless ofcourse GE wants to risk share on the new design, in which case the contract would likely be ammended and extended. PW had stated 2014-2015 as a time frame for a '777/350 class engine'. The fan would be the same size, but the core smaller than the GE90-115B (in theory). You should go find the IAG podcast with the VP of the GTF programme, it was very insightful in terms of both what was and was not said.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Yes it was an interesting podcast, but I don't think P&W will have a 133-138" 100,000lb GTF ready for service in the next five years. I'd be surprised if they have it ready in the next decade.

They have said 2014-2015 (or maybe 2016). I'm sure if they had an aircraft it could be moved up. PW has done *alot* of work on the GTF for a *long* time now. If they have it ready for one size they have it ready for all IMHO. It's not like they are two years into the oddesy. This is a 20+ year undertaking on their part. I think people are too quick to dismiss them right now.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Going forward, Boeing arguably should just shelve the 747-8I project (or deliver the 20 to LH if they must have them) and launch Y3 as a true 777-sized replacement with lie-flat herringbone business class seats at 1+2+1 and 10-abreast at 45mm seat widths matching the A350XWB at 9-abreast:

Why spend billions more for what ammounts to about 3% more savings than you get with a re-wing/re-engine. The 787 should teach us many things about what CFRP can and cannot do. I'm very interested to see how Airbus is going to reach the numbers on the 350XWB slides as well. I think they may be overly agressive, just as we have seen with the early 787s. CFRP is a better material for a lot of reasons, but it's not responsible for large savings on fuel burn. Operating costs perhaps.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
So what's preventing Boeing from going with a new fuse too?

Let me ask you the question another way around without entering into the CFRP good/bad debate (I think CFRP=good): If you can achieve 99% of teh same effectiveness with 25% of the cost investment, why the *&^% would you spend 4x as much for that extra 1%.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
Won't the upgraded -200ER get trounced by the A350-1000, presuming similar engine technolgies?

Based on? If you have an engine that delivers a 15% improvement that closes alot of the 350x advantage right off the bat. Simple fact of the matter is, the 777 is a damned good frame. It's very efficient at what it does, and it does it better than anything else on the market today. With a 'better' wing and a 'better' engine it's probably quite competitive with the XWB at a fraction of the cost. The GTF for this thrust class wasn't something worth considering even two years ago. PW has shown a lot recently that makes me (and others) think it's finally 'ready'. GTF is a game changer, much like bypass was (IMHO).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
We see "new wing on an tweaked fuse" isn't doing so well for 747-8i.

You're comparing apples and bricks here. I could turn your arguemetn around and say 'We see an all new design isn't doing so well for the 380'. VLA quads are not going to fly off the shelves, new design or old. They are a niche player. They ONLY reason the 747 sold half of it's frames is because at one time nothing else flew that far (I believe Boeign even released stats to that effect, showing >60% of customers chose the 747 due to range, not size).

If the 777 is selling (and it is, all things considered in this downturn), then a better 777 will sell at least as well. If Boeing can have it ready around the time of the XWB being available by tweaking and re-engining the aircraft then so much better.

Incidentally, I thought Airbus should have reengined and refreshed the 330 as well. Especially now that they have a HUGE hole in their line up between the 321 and 350XWB.

The final advantage of a re-engine/re-wign 777 is simple; more resources go into Y1, where the real sales are. Being first there is worth about 3-4 years of backlog IMHO. If Boeing can secure the big twin market position with a 777RS, and the lowend of the twin market with the 787, and be first with Y1 they are in a powerful position.

Similarly if Airbus can hit *all* the marks they talk about with the XWB and be first with their 'Y1' they are in the drivers seats.

Get your popcorn ready, it will be fun  Smile
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:55 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 40):
I believe GE's exclusive is for specific models, any new model would not be subject to the contract with GE. Unless ofcourse GE wants to risk share on the new design, in which case the contract would likely be ammended and extended. PW had stated 2014-2015 as a time frame for a '777/350 class engine'. The fan would be the same size, but the core smaller than the GE90-115B (in theory). You should go find the IAG podcast with the VP of the GTF programme, it was very insightful in terms of both what was and was not said.

Very Interesting. I will certainly listen to it. Thanks  checkmark 

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 40):
The final advantage of a re-engine/re-wign 777 is simple; more resources go into Y1, where the real sales are. Being first there is worth about 3-4 years of backlog IMHO. If Boeing can secure the big twin market position with a 777RS, and the lowend of the twin market with the 787, and be first with Y1 they are in a powerful position.

Similarly if Airbus can hit *all* the marks they talk about with the XWB and be first with their 'Y1' they are in the drivers seats.

Get your popcorn ready, it will be fun

Indeed  wave 
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
CFBFrame
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:09 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:24 pm

The thing I like about the Boeing strategy is that they are looking at the next phase of customer demand and then presenting a product versus offering a product to compete with their existing offering. Customers have pushed for an answer on the -10 for a number of years and Boeing has not made a commitment that affects the 777 sales. The 787 is a well established 767 replacement and they have focused on ensuring that market has been addressed; and getting more than 800 orders has proved the strategy well received by the market.

Now they come to the table with two options to address the slowing demand for the 772 and the 777W. We believe replacement will be based on a 20% improvement, while Boeing is looking to offer the most cost effective customer accepted solution. The 20% is a claimed Airbus marketing number over the 777 family that may be hard to achieve w/o penalties not suitable to customers? None of the A350XWB offerings have flown so the jury is still out on that number. Under-promise and over deliver should be the objective of both suppliers based on what we've seen from both to date.

Here's my issue with the Airbus approach to the widebody market They offered a new product to compete with their own perfectly good A330 offering. When the A350 offering was made the A330 was at the beginning of a wonderful career, and it totally confused the marketplace. The A330 was just beginning to establish itself as a market leader. NW had just helped in establishing the offering in Boeing's backyard. Boeing knew the 767 was a dead man walking and the 787 was working hard to gain traction. In the face of that Airbus announces the A350 and demand for both the A330 and the A350 take a major hit. What Airbus failed to realize was the existing A330 had wonderful legs to carry it to market leadership, allowing it to continue taking share at existing 767 customers. Their move to kill their own product caused the 767 replacement market to shift back to Boeing and they then established the 787 as the replacement for both the 767 and the extrmenly successful A330. Proof; look at the total sales of A330 and the A350 XWB and you see the 787-8 and 787-9 have matched the sales. And, the A330/A350XWB sales are cross breeding sales into both the 787 and the 777 market spaces. What Airbus should have done was offer a 777W replacement first and then back down into the A330 replacement market, thereby allowing the A330 to capture market and grow that leadership position.

Boeing has been quite about the 777 replacement, knowing that any comment stunts existing offering demand. They have allowed the a/c to run its course without proposing an offering that impacts existing customer choice. Now presenting options that are on a timeframe matching next level 777 a/c replacement strategies. Replacement options are being evaluated by the customer as considering a move upward with the new establsihed offering (787) or choosing to go with a 777NG. Either leveraging new technology or leveraging commonality with existing 777, and either play is not a tough sell for the customer.

So while Airbus fights to get customers to stop (but not really stop thinking) thinking about the A330 and accept them as a worthy player in the 777 replacement market, Boeing is offering well accepted and appreciated options to the market they established. I don't know which of the options wins in the end, what I do know is neither kills the existing market opinion of the existing 777.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:30 pm

The critical part of the story is that Boeing will be shopping these alternatives to the airlines. What was left out of the story is the relative cost of each of the alternatives. Trade secret? The implication, as I read it, is that the decision will be made the what airlines are willing to buy. Will the disadvantages of a 777NG, or a too long 787 over a new build be overcome by the lower prices/earlier delivery of the former two? We need a bean counter to weigh in.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13755
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:20 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 38):
With a 'better' wing and a 'better' engine it's probably quite competitive with the XWB at a fraction of the cost.

Is "quite competitive" enough to justify the cost (both in real dollars and in opportunity costs) to spend your time reworking the 777?

If the customer turns their nose up at the product, you get to eat the cost of the refresh, then get to do the all-new airplane a few years later. This seems to be what happened with the A340-[56]00 refresh vs A350.

The ever popular Richard Abulafia said in the Bloomberg article above:

Quote:
The history of re-winging is one of mixed blessings, Aboulafia said. It�s possible you wind up spending more than you expected with less commercial impact than envisaged. An all- new plane might offer better value from a cost standpoint.

Feel free to have a different opinion.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 38):
The GTF for this thrust class wasn't something worth considering even two years ago. PW has shown a lot recently that makes me (and others) think it's finally 'ready'. GTF is a game changer, much like bypass was (IMHO).

I hope it is a game changer.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 38):
Incidentally, I thought Airbus should have reengined and refreshed the 330 as well. Especially now that they have a HUGE hole in their line up between the 321 and 350XWB.

At least you are consistent!

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 38):
The final advantage of a re-engine/re-wign 777 is simple; more resources go into Y1, where the real sales are. Being first there is worth about 3-4 years of backlog IMHO. If Boeing can secure the big twin market position with a 777RS, and the lowend of the twin market with the 787, and be first with Y1 they are in a powerful position.

Similarly if Airbus can hit *all* the marks they talk about with the XWB and be first with their 'Y1' they are in the drivers seats.

Get your popcorn ready, it will be fun

It seems to me that customer's desires for a all-new narrowbody are sucessfully being held in check, but when one manufacturer is ready to go, the other better be ready to leap shortly thereafter.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 41):
The 20% is a claimed Airbus marketing number over the 777 family

I think I heard 20% as a Boeing number with regard to the required improvement of 787 over 767. I've heard the narrowbody threshold is lower but harder to hit given the different range/capacity targets.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 41):
Boeing has been quite about the 777 replacement, knowing that any comment stunts existing offering demand.

Then why these current articles? Is Boeing doing some scare mongering to try to hold off A350 sales till Boeing really decides what to do next? Or is it a trial balloon to judge how big a market there is for a reworked 777? Certainly such a trial baloon is needed at some point in the process.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22937
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:35 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
I think I heard 20% as a Boeing number with regard to the required improvement of 787 over 767. I've heard the narrowbody threshold is lower but harder to hit given the different range/capacity targets.

I believe this, as well, though Leeham.net's Piano-X calculations theorize that a 787-8 at spec OEW and spec SFC carrying the same payload as an A330-200 over 6000nm would burn 18% less fuel.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11737
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:59 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 17):
PW has stated they expect the GTF will turn 15-20% improvements on a big fan. They have also (accidentally) stated they are looking at the GTF on a 777 refresh. A new wing + a GTF will get a substantial fuel burn savings. Additional weight trimming on the 777 (I'm sure they wouldn't *just* rewing it) and you have a formidable aircraft.

Sadly, I think that management is ahead of the engineering.  Sad 2018 is the earliest I believe Pratt could field a 120k thrust GTF.  Sad

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 3):
An upgraded 777 would certainly have thinner sidewalls for true 10 abreast. The current plane is very close to proper 10 abreast, except that the aisles are too narrow.

Most likely. For those who rant against 10 abreast in the 777, its here and not going away. Might as well add a little width to each seat. I've heard numbers as small as 0.25"!  wideeyed  But that would help sell the seats...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
but I don't think P&W will have a 133-138" 100,000lb GTF ready for service in the next five years. I'd be surprised if they have it ready in the next decade.

 checkmark  We agree 100%.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
You'll never gain enough in thinner 777 sidewalls to make a 10-abreast 777 as spacious as a 10-abreast 747 which has a 10-inch wider cabiin.

 checkmark  But that isn't the goal. The goal is so that more airlines are willing to offer 10-abreast so that Boeing can claim a seat count increase.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 37):
So when did Boeing say they were looking at this "777 refresh?"

GTF? I doubt Boeing will look into the engine until long after its flow around on narrow bodies. But as far as the wing, there was discussion today.

I personally think it would be wise to do a 'partial re-wing'. Forget the wing box, that is too expensive to modify. But remove some weight from the wing. Do a little to reduce weight (Material substitution, reduce the number of pieces were appropriate), and re-profile the wing. Yes... technology has progressed in wing profiles since the 1990's. Just as they are doing a reprofile of the 748, do so with the 77W. Between weight and aerodynamics, fuel burn would be cut ~4% (in my opinion).

But I personally see the most benefit from a re-engine. As good as the GE-90-115 is... technology has moved on. Building a GE-90 at GEnX technology levels would cut fuel burn 6% or more. Keep the same fan diameter (to save on a new nacelle), but add:
Contra rotation
New fan (the GEnX is that much more advanced)
New wide chord blade technology (both compressors and low turbine).
Integrated blade/Rotor (IBR) compressors.

This would improve efficiency and cut engine weight.  spin 

The question is, will this be enough to rain on the A350 parade? A 10% drop in fuel burn is only enough to take the range out to ~8,800nm. This is not a full 77L replacement. But it does provide much better economics for the longest 77W routes and certain 77L routes (e.g., SIN-LAX, but I'm not certain about DXB-LAX which would be the better money maker). Its really going to depend on how much weight can be removed from the airframe.

Oh, a GTF should be able to drop fuel burn on its own 14% or more compared to the current GE-90-115. Or... about 9% less than a 'redone' GE-90' or 6% less than a 'from scratch' GE replacement. But... I do not see the GTF being ready in time.  cry 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:00 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
I believe this, as well, though Leeham.net's Piano-X calculations theorize that a 787-8 at spec OEW and spec SFC carrying the same payload as an A330-200 over 6000nm would burn 18% less fuel.

That's a lot of fuel to be saved. I will be curious to see how Airbus is able to make an aircraft slightly smaller than the 77W fly just as far on a 25% reduction in fuel burn. They've got their hands full for sure!
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:06 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 37):
So when did Boeing say they were looking at this "777 refresh?"

Publically, this would be the first time I know of, but I'm sure if some of our 'insiders' here weren't under NDA you might have heard it sooner. Ofcourse, this isn't to say that anything is carved in stone, and I will be the first to admit that I'm drawing inferences from winks, nudges, smiles, slipped tongues and possibly tea leaves, but hey, I never said it was fact.. just trying to provide a possible alternate direction.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Is "quite competitive" enough to justify the cost (both in real dollars and in opportunity costs) to spend your time reworking the 777?

Well... bluntly; yes. But that's just my thought. Clearly if Boeing does decide to go ahead with such a beast they will think it makes sense. As I said earlier the 777 is danmed good frame as it is and it set the bar very high for potential competitors (inhouse and from other manufacturers).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
Feel free to have a different opinion.

We've never had the opportunity to re-wing with something as game changing as the GTF, expect maybe the rework of the 737, and I think anyone alive would argue the 737 Classic and 737 NG refreshes were worth every penny Boeing spent on them. It's not about refresh vs. clean sheet. The customer doesn't give a rat's backside if it's a clean sheet design or a refresh. The CX cares about fuel burn, maintenance, acq. cost, training costs, etc.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
At least you are consistent!

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Airbus could have gone without something in the 777 space (the 340 is god awful business wise for them). But now they have a big hole between 321 seating/range and the smallest 350. Had they re-engined the 330 it likely would have been out by now, and put a substantial hurt on the 787 (thanks mostly to the 787 delays). Both GE and RR were onboard for the re-engine so they thought it was worth their time and billions to do it.

I mean Airbus still have the 360, 370 and 390 model numbers available too, so why are they being so stingy, it's not like Boeing who only has the 797 left (I'm being cheeky here in case anyone goes mental)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
It seems to me that customer's desires for a all-new narrowbody are sucessfully being held in check, but when one manufacturer is ready to go, the other better be ready to leap shortly thereafter.

Not if one or the other is taking a bath on existing projects. Imagine Boeing went to do an all new Y3 as your are suggesting and midway in Airbus announced their 320RS or whatever they call it. Boeing is now left scrambling and would be forced to chose between delaying their Y3 or missing out on Y1 class sales. If you need any evidence as to the engineering drain a single program can have, just look at the 380, 787 and 400M. In fact the last 3 major projects from Airbus and Boeing have been absolute schedule disasters. Hopefully the 350 and 748 break the trend, but the 748 is already tracking late and I'm not getting very good vibes on the 350 either.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):

Then why these current articles? Is Boeing doing some scare mongering to try to hold off A350 sales till Boeing really decides what to do next? Or is it a trial balloon to judge how big a market there is for a reworked 777? Certainly such a trial baloon is needed at some point in the process.

With all due respect, if you're hearing about it in the press (as a quote, rather than a 'we have heard from a reliable source') I can promise you the trial balloon was floated LONG ago to major customers. Boeing doesn't do anything without talking to certain customers first (nor does Airbus).
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:17 pm



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 45):
Sadly, I think that management is ahead of the engineering. 2018 is the earliest I believe Pratt could field a 120k thrust GTF.

I'm reminded of a quote about a will and a way  Wink Isn't it true that Pratt has done gearbox tests significantly larger in the lab than used on their tech demonstrator? That's what I've heard. If true then it's more the core than the gearbox for the 120K engine they would have to build. I think Pratt *could* have an engine ready in 5-6 years if they wanted to.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 45):
GTF? I doubt Boeing will look into the engine until long after its flow around on narrow bodies.

Hey you have more contacts than I have in Pratt land, but seeing as Airbus has flown a GTF around on their tech demonstrator, and based on other things I've *heard* based on discussions and what not, I think you might being a bit too negative with that statement.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 45):
Oh, a GTF should be able to drop fuel burn on its own 14% or more compared to the current GE-90-115

Man are you hyper conservative :P What happened to 'set the world on fire' Lightsaber :P I've heard numbers as big as 20% at that fan size. Who knows until they build one I guess.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Carls
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:29 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
maybe Airbus could put the generous A330/340 on diet and do new interiors for 9 abreast. It already flies with leisure carriers anyway for yrs.

Keesje, an A330/A340 with 9 abreast is insane, the same apply for the 10 abreast 777. I can't imagine my self with 1.95 mts and 110 kg seated in an A330 with 9 abreast for more than two hours.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: 777 Re-wing Study Revealed

Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:33 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 47):
Both GE and RR were onboard for the re-engine so they thought it was worth their time and billions

But weren't the same engines on the 'A330-lite/A350' the same engines to be on the 787? So at that time, it was a no brainer for them to offer to build new engines...maybe I have that wrong though  Confused
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests