RJMAZ wrote:B777LRF wrote:The 787-8 should have been a shoe-in for 767 replacement, but with its somewhat orphan status things are not quiet that easy. Could UA convince Boeing to bring the -8 up to -9 production standards, then I think not only United but a long line of airlines would be highly interested. If they were to further enhance the -8 to better fit a 5000NM / 250-seat market, then it might just be the 'MoM' airlines would be flocking to. It would, figuratively speaking, blow the -800neo out of the water for anyone not having a desperate need to carry 250 souls, and not a soul more, for 14 hours, whilst simultaneously nursing a serious aversion to Boeing 787s. And that, as I'm sure we'll all agree, is about as rare as hens teeth.
The 787 is proving to be a money maker, 'even' in -8 disguise, and so even if UA can't make Boeing improve on an already fine mousetrap, my guess is UA will take them anyway.
Which is why my money's on a A321neo/B787-8 order for near-term 757/767 replacement.
I completely agree with this. You may have seen my posts saying the same thing.
The 788 has very low commonality with the larger versions and is the now the most expensive model to produce. The 788 in a way is the prototype model of the 787 family let's call it the version 1. Many production improvements were included in the 789 making it faster to build and slightly lighter let's call it the version 2.
Commonality isn't the biggest problem it's more the extra labour and weight in the 788 design reducing fuel burn and purchase price making it unattractive. Boeing has gained a lot of knowledge and is ready to implement more production and weight improvements in a version 3 carbon fibre aircraft.
The 788 could very well be relaunched with these improvements and become the NMA / MOM aircraft everyone is talking about. Very disappointing as an enthusiast.
As so much of the relaunched 788 would be rebuilt it would be easy for Boeing to target short range efficiency. By setting a maximum takeoff weight below 200T it reduces the peak load the aircraft would see. This allows the bulkheads, wingbox, wingspars, wing skins and landing gear to be made lighter. This is as simple as removing a few layers of carbon fibre or machining an extra few millimetres of metal from the parts.
The A338 competing against the Boeing MOM in United order is further evidence that this new Boeing NMA will be large and could be a 787-3 done properly.
Remember the 787-3 failed because it was going to only be around 5% lighter than the 787-8 despite having a maximum takeoff weight reduced by a massive 27%. A proper weight reduction optimisation would have seen 10-20T of empty weight shed off the 787-3 but budget only allowed for it to be a simple wing tip reduction and weights/thrust reduced on paper. To do it properly instead of using a derated engine it would have been better to go with a slightly smaller but higher bypass ratio engine.
I agree with this concept: a "properly" re-done 783 that significantly reduces OEW.
The problem is that there is no modern engine that is appropriately sized....they're all to big.