juliusg
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:01 am

Just did the most excellent Boeing factory tour in Seattle. The 777x weighs a fair bit more than the 350, so QF would be waiting to get the final weight of the x. It is not yet rolled out - until it does test flights NEXT YEAR, QF cannot know what it will weigh. Weight is EVERYTHING! They're being prudent waiting for the tonnage, if it were known now, they would move now.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:21 am

Has anyone got any idea how many frames are up for grabs in this RFP? 10-15? (not all for use on longest routes, of course)
 
325i
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:01 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:53 am

Thank you Stitch for your response. It could well be likely that your comment is the basis for what has evolved.
Regards 325i.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:33 am

2022 eh.Well that's big news ( well I think so).Clearly Joyce is 110% certain that both can do it.It is ,as others have noted,the fastest possible entry date for both the 778'x' and A351ulr.
3 years does not sound like a long time to me to sort out all the different aspects required for such a venture.Obviously it's a lot more involved than a metal/carbon structure that can fly the required distance (although obviously that had to come first).I outdoors have thought they will need to make their mind up pretty quickly on the plane so planing on every other aspect can start.
And New Zealand? Guess it means New York is on but who knows about London,but it must be awfully close to being possible.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:49 am

ewt340 wrote:
Buying B777-8 is just stupid. It's just a bigger B777-200LR. Not a good aircraft to invest.

Also, with all these ultra long haul flights planned in the future for Qantas, they wouldn't need massive aircraft like A380. Instead they would just use 2 A350-1000. One of them would be use for the non-stop flights to London, Paris and NYC. The other are for the Singapore/LA stopover flights.

B777-8/-9 combo wouldn't be able to gave them the freedom to do so.

Also, A350-900/ULR and A350-100/ULR combo would give them superb flexibility for most of their long-haul flights.


Completely wrong. Just like you said in another thread that LHR is the only Europe destinations served from PDX and SLC, you are way off the mark in this too.

The 777-8 has a different wing; fly by wire system like the 787; other systems like the 787 and different engines. That’s just for starters.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6547
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:19 am

If the A350-1000 really can be made to fly this route with a payload comparable to that of the 777-8, that's bad news for the whole 777X program. It would also mean A350 payload-range has reached the point where an A350 stretch could compete straight across with the 777-9.

Personally, I'm skeptical. I think the 351 needs significantly more MTOW to make this work, and I'm not convinced the current engines can lift enough more MTOW without seriously increasing engine maintenance costs. I expect what Airbus proposes will be at a payload disadvantage to the 777-8, and the question for Qantas will be whether the marginal payload carried by the 777-8 can generate enough revenue to justify the extra empty weight.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:36 am

Well Qantas appear to have said that both aircaft meet their primary criteria (which is 300 pax).However from 'downstairs lounge' pictures from Airbus perhaps we can assume that any shortfall vis a vis the 778 will be in the cargo capacity arena.Probably not a deal breaker- but we shall see.Since the 350 is bound to consume less fuel it may be a willing trade.
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:46 am

Stitch wrote:
People in the know are probably not posting here. The QF Group have purchased a significant number of A320 airframes so it is possible those monies have been applied to those orders. Those deposits could also have been refunded due to the delays in delivery (QF received over $300 million back from Boeing for the lateness of their 787s under their original contract, even though they ended up cancelling that contract and never taking delivery under those terms). Qantas was also a launch customer for the frame and there is that claim (by Bloomberg?) that Airbus accepted a ridiculously low deposit on those sales contracts which, if true, could mean the amount is so small QF doesn't care.


First I've heard of Qantas "cancelling that contract" - as far as I was aware, the contract was amended with the changes to the order distribution. The contract itself, I don't believe it was ever cancelled. If so, that would be stupidity of the highest order considering the pricing at the time.

For the Airbus A380 deposits on the last 8 aircraft, I'd be interested to know what is happening there too. Airbus are notoriously slow at removing orders from an order book. Or perhaps it's the airlines. Either way, time will tell.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13285
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:52 am

.
Joyce said Qantas was seeking more details from Boeing on the weight of the 777-8, which has not yet entered production, but added he was confident both manufacturers could meet the range challenges.


It seems both types can meet the range challenges, which is good.

But Qanats is seeking more details from Boeing specifically on the weight of the 777-8.

Apparently that is a topic on the table on board level.

Image

If the 777-8 is very heavy, it is very heavy.

That's not a positive for an aircraft, specially on long term operating costs.

“We do believe we are at a stage where the capability for both vehicles is there and is a matter of the financials and working through how the business case works,” he said.


https://uk.reuters.com/article/qantas-results-airbus/qantas-eyes-larger-airbus-a350-jet-for-sydney-london-flights-ceo-idUKL3N1VE2SG
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ewt340
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:36 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Buying B777-8 is just stupid. It's just a bigger B777-200LR. Not a good aircraft to invest.

Also, with all these ultra long haul flights planned in the future for Qantas, they wouldn't need massive aircraft like A380. Instead they would just use 2 A350-1000. One of them would be use for the non-stop flights to London, Paris and NYC. The other are for the Singapore/LA stopover flights.

B777-8/-9 combo wouldn't be able to gave them the freedom to do so.

Also, A350-900/ULR and A350-100/ULR combo would give them superb flexibility for most of their long-haul flights.


Completely wrong. Just like you said in another thread that LHR is the only Europe destinations served from PDX and SLC, you are way off the mark in this too.

The 777-8 has a different wing; fly by wire system like the 787; other systems like the 787 and different engines. That’s just for starters.


Yes, I make mistake regarding the other topics about BA expansion on another topic, I don't see how that topic related to this one.
But you didn't provide any point to why my opinion is wrong. Please elaborate instead. This is a forum for discussion after all.

I don't see how the new wing or fly-by-wire would suddenly make Qantas choose B778 if A350-1000ULR offer better numbers for them. After all, A350 is a next-gen aircraft that have advance wings and engines, that also utilize fly-by-wire technology.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13285
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:06 am

I think replacing the 747 is as important as opening ULHR in this process.

And 787-9 is not a solution for that requirement. Even if QF says so.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
redroo
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:22 am

keesje wrote:
I think replacing the 747 is as important as opening ULHR in this process.

And 787-9 is not a solution for that requirement. Even if QF says so.

Image



You’re right in that the 747 (and a380) need to be replaced and that the 789 is not the answer.

For a large proportion on qantas flights, the 789 will be a perfect aircraft. Not too large for the non Sydney capital cities and all the range needed to serve Singapore one day and LAX the next.

What is missing is something bigger (and with more range for London and New York). Sydney is quite capabale of filling more than a 789 to Singapore, Hong Kong, LAX every day, multiple times a day. Qantas isn’t big enough to have multiple aircraft so they are trying to simplify. Standardising around a 789 plus something a bit bigger makes a lot of sense.

This is why the 359 was never in the picture IMHO. It offered very little different from the 789. The 35J is different and probably opens up the competition some more. My favourite is still the 788 and I am far from a 777 fan.

I’m very wary of Airbus historically overpromising and under delivering when it comes to range (a345 and TBH the 350ulh only gets range through ditching payload). And I would be wary of ever touching a RR engine again after the A380 incident, but that’s just my skippy perspective.

At the end of the day I’ll be happy when QF finally achieves the holy grail and delivers us a non stop to London and New York - whatever the aircraft. No more pointless stop over!
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:28 am

Erebus wrote:
Has anyone got any idea how many frames are up for grabs in this RFP? 10-15? (not all for use on longest routes, of course)


Well they're gonna need 3 frames for each route, and they said they'd like to do SYD/MEL/BNE-LHR/JFK so that's 6 routes. Assuming these would all be single daily flights that's 18 aircraft, but I doubt they all are gonna have the same frequency (chances are either routes from SYD will have more frequencies or from BNE/MEL fewer) so I'd say 15-20 aircraft. They'd also probably get a ton of options/purchase rights too like with the 787.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
smartplane
Posts: 1059
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:30 am

keesje wrote:
But Qanats is seeking more details from Boeing specifically on the weight of the 777-8.

Apparently that is a topic on the table on board level.

Could the Boeing Board have more weighty (pardon the pun) issues on the table, including whether to suspend/delay 778 development, or replace both X's with an 8.5?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:37 am

keesje wrote:
If the 777-8 is very heavy, it is very heavy.

That's not a positive for an aircraft, specially on long term operating costs.

It's not that simple, K-man.

More weight comes from the engine with the biggest diameter fan and the highest bypass ratio ever. Remember how you tell us this matters when you talk about A321neo? More weight comes from longer wings optimized for long range. More weight relative to competitor allows more strength to carry more fuel and cargo.

As above, both products have met the entry criteria. Should be interesting to see which one wins.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:23 pm

redroo wrote:
This is why the 359 was never in the picture IMHO. It offered very little different from the 789. The 35J is different and probably opens up the competition some more.


In the reuters article linked by keesje above, Joyce says that they could combine the order with some A350-900s if they selected the A350-1000ULR.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26449
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:09 pm

ClassicLover wrote:
First I've heard of Qantas "cancelling that contract" - as far as I was aware, the contract was amended with the changes to the order distribution. The contract itself, I don't believe it was ever cancelled. If so, that would be stupidity of the highest order considering the pricing at the time.


They cancelled the 35 787-9 they had on firm order in August 2012 and received their deposits back from Boeing on them. They did keep their 50 options and eventually negotiated new purchase contracts with Boeing first for Jetstar (787-8) and later for Qantas (787-9).

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/busi ... -jets.html
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8856
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:06 pm

I simpy do not see where they say anything negative about the weight of the 777. Maybe it is already lighter than expected and performance indications clearly destroy the A350.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13285
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:49 pm

seahawk wrote:
I simpy do not see where they say anything negative about the weight of the 777. Maybe it is already lighter than expected and performance indications clearly destroy the A350.


Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
If the 777-8 is very heavy, it is very heavy.

That's not a positive for an aircraft, specially on long term operating costs.

It's not that simple, K-man.

More weight comes from the engine with the biggest diameter fan and the highest bypass ratio ever. Remember how you tell us this matters when you talk about A321neo? More weight comes from longer wings optimized for long range. More weight relative to competitor allows more strength to carry more fuel and cargo.

As above, both products have met the entry criteria. Should be interesting to see which one wins.


Maybe you are right and weight is not very important for lift/ induced drag. And the weight really makes possible the best engine and wing possible, more than compensating any possible disadvantages.

Or maybe you are not right & just bending the truth to push your favorite option :veryhappy: . Anyway it seems Qantas is interested in the 777-8 weight. At least that what their CEO says. But he can be wrong too of course :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:49 pm

ewt340 wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Buying B777-8 is just stupid. It's just a bigger B777-200LR. Not a good aircraft to invest.

Also, with all these ultra long haul flights planned in the future for Qantas, they wouldn't need massive aircraft like A380. Instead they would just use 2 A350-1000. One of them would be use for the non-stop flights to London, Paris and NYC. The other are for the Singapore/LA stopover flights.

B777-8/-9 combo wouldn't be able to gave them the freedom to do so.

Also, A350-900/ULR and A350-100/ULR combo would give them superb flexibility for most of their long-haul flights.


Completely wrong. Just like you said in another thread that LHR is the only Europe destinations served from PDX and SLC, you are way off the mark in this too.

The 777-8 has a different wing; fly by wire system like the 787; other systems like the 787 and different engines. That’s just for starters.


Yes, I make mistake regarding the other topics about BA expansion on another topic, I don't see how that topic related to this one.
But you didn't provide any point to why my opinion is wrong. Please elaborate instead. This is a forum for discussion after all.

I don't see how the new wing or fly-by-wire would suddenly make Qantas choose B778 if A350-1000ULR offer better numbers for them. After all, A350 is a next-gen aircraft that have advance wings and engines, that also utilize fly-by-wire technology.


I wasn’t discussing Qantas’ choice. I was stating that the 777-8 is not just a larger 777-200LR as you said. That said, I think Boeing’s chances are good. Qantas and Boeing have a very good working relationship.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26449
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:51 pm

seahawk wrote:
I simpy do not see where they say anything negative about the weight of the 777. Maybe it is already lighter than expected and performance indications clearly destroy the A350.


That is unlikely, but the empty weight delta between a 777-8 and an A350-1000ULR will be narrower than that between the 777-8 and A350-900ULR (and this assumes the A35K will see no increase in OEW to make it a ULR model, which may not be the case).
 
qf002
Posts: 3583
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:05 pm

Stitch wrote:
They cancelled the 35 787-9 they had on firm order in August 2012 and received their deposits back from Boeing on them. They did keep their 50 options and eventually negotiated new purchase contracts with Boeing first for Jetstar (787-8) and later for Qantas (787-9).

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/busi ... -jets.html


Correction - they cancelled 35 of 50 firm orders in 2012. The 15 -8s for JQ were never cancelled (first delivery was in 2013) though 4 were later converted to -9s and taken up by QF instead.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8856
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I simpy do not see where they say anything negative about the weight of the 777. Maybe it is already lighter than expected and performance indications clearly destroy the A350.


That is unlikely, but the empty weight delta between a 777-8 and an A350-1000ULR will be narrower than that between the 777-8 and A350-900ULR (and this assumes the A35K will see no increase in OEW to make it a ULR model, which may not be the case).


The only thing written in the article is, that QR is seeking more information on the weight of the 777-8 from Boeing. That does not tell us in what ballpark the weight is, nor if QR thinks it is bad or good.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:29 pm

keesje wrote:

Or maybe you are not right & just bending the truth to push your favorite option :veryhappy: . Anyway it seems Qantas is interested in the 777-8 weight. At least that what their CEO says. But he can be wrong too of course :wink2:

Well you have already pointed out that QF management are wrong on their 747 replacement so....par for the course.....
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:42 pm

keesje wrote:
Maybe you are right and weight is not very important for lift/ induced drag. And the weight really makes possible the best engine and wing possible, more than compensating any possible disadvantages.

Or maybe you're trolling by misrepresenting my position. :wink2:

Par for the course.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 1073
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:43 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
keesje wrote:

I'm afraid so.. :worried:


Holding a one-stop SYD-DXB-LHR itinerary as ecologically superior to a non-stop is like ordering a super-sized fast food meal with a Diet Coke.


It's true that as a headline an 8000nm sector other things being equal uses about 15% more fuel than two 4000nm sectors. However the question is much more complex.

1. An 8000nm flight will use the most direct route. A plane stopping mid way will not, it has to deviate from the most efficient route to wherever the refuelling airport is, flying more miles than is necessary. That is before holding patterns are taken into account, which are routinely 40min-1hour at mid points on the Kangaroo route (e.g. Singapore).

2. The 15% difference is based on two even 4000nm sectors. For example SYD-SIN-LHR is not two even sectors, SIN-LHR is approximately 150% of SIN-SYD, so the difference is not 15%, but less because SIN-LHR is already a relatively long sector.

Add those two together and the fuel difference shrinks quite a lot.

That's how airlines like Qatar, Delta and Qantas already make ULH work profitably day in day out.

I know people love to quote SQ's old New York service, but lets get real, how were they ever going to find enough people to fill a premium only widebody between Singapore and New York each day? That was just SQ's legendary arrogance getting the better of them.

This is a really interesting point, and I appreciate that you brought it up. I've always thought that apart from truly ULH routes, most B stage lengths would be more efficient for airlines non-stop, for the reasons you've mentioned above, as well as one other important detail. I was always under the impression that takeoff and landing were the two least efficient phases of flight. You use a lot of thrust, the aircraft isn't in a clean configuration and the air is thicker. I know tanking fuel is expensive and taxing on efficiency, but I've always kinda operated under the assumption that if an airline can fly a fully loaded (payload) aircraft on a route with sufficient fuel, they are better off doing it non-stop, as they haven't had to go through an extra cycle of takeoff and landing. Not to mention, less tress on the air frame, engines, downtime of fueling and aircraft servicing, landing fees, ground/airport crew etc. Heck, even from a catering perspective, because people expect two meals on a longer flight, you're probably going to serve two meals SYD-SIN and two SIN-LHR vs probably 2.5/3 (I'm not sure how many meals they would serve on a flight this long. What did SQ do when they had SIN-EWR?) on a SYD-LHR service.

I realize this isn't applicable in this scenario, as the aircraft for SYD-LHR will be strained to it's limits with full fuel, and far from full payload. However, on say LAX-LHR, I assumed the airlines would actually spend less flying me nonstop than say LAX-JFK-LHR.
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-135/145/175/190, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21589
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:54 pm

reltney wrote:
What is an RFP?


As others have said, an RFP is a Request For Proposals. When a business is looking to purchase or contract for something (it doesn't need to be an airline looking for aircraft), they will release an RFP to a set of potential vendors (or sometimes publicly).

So when my medical group was looking for a new radiology group, we released an RFP to multiple radiology groups with a deadline. The groups all submitted their proposals by the deadline and then we evaluated them, choose what we thought were the best overall proposals, and then engaged in a competitive bidding and negotiation process. In the end, one group came out on top and we now have a new contracted radiology group.

So just about any major purchase or contract for which there are multiple potential suppliers will start with an RFP.

Now, for airlines looking for widebody aircraft, it is well known that there are only two vendors who can produce them (because I guarantee you that Ilyushin did even not cross QF's collective mind). So they'll send the RFP to both A&B and then see what those two OEMs can cook up. Because there are only two vendors, they'll almost certainly be invited to bid and then QF will choose the bid that works best for them based on a tiresomely large number of factors (not just technical benefits, but financing, maintenance contracts, etc.)
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:36 pm

Stitch wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
First I've heard of Qantas "cancelling that contract" - as far as I was aware, the contract was amended with the changes to the order distribution. The contract itself, I don't believe it was ever cancelled. If so, that would be stupidity of the highest order considering the pricing at the time.


They cancelled the 35 787-9 they had on firm order in August 2012 and received their deposits back from Boeing on them. They did keep their 50 options and eventually negotiated new purchase contracts with Boeing first for Jetstar (787-8) and later for Qantas (787-9).

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/busi ... -jets.html


I was aware of this, however if they kept the options, it means that the original contract was kept intact. That is what I was pointing out as your wording implied the entire contract (firm, options, purchase rights) was cancelled.

The "negotiation of new purchase contracts" you mention above is also not correct as far as I can tell. They exercised the options, which is not a new purchase contract. Thanks for the article though, I had no idea that they received so much compensation but I am not surprised considering how late the aircraft was in the end.
I do enjoy a spot of flying, especially when it's not in economy!
 
jagraham
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:36 pm

keesje wrote:
.
Joyce said Qantas was seeking more details from Boeing on the weight of the 777-8, which has not yet entered production, but added he was confident both manufacturers could meet the range challenges.


It seems both types can meet the range challenges, which is good.

But Qanats is seeking more details from Boeing specifically on the weight of the 777-8.

Apparently that is a topic on the table on board level.

Image

If the 777-8 is very heavy, it is very heavy.

That's not a positive for an aircraft, specially on long term operating costs.

“We do believe we are at a stage where the capability for both vehicles is there and is a matter of the financials and working through how the business case works,” he said.


https://uk.reuters.com/article/qantas-results-airbus/qantas-eyes-larger-airbus-a350-jet-for-sydney-london-flights-ceo-idUKL3N1VE2SG



How heavy is "very heavy"?
 
jagraham
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:02 am

With regards to weight, the current average estimate for the 778 is 165t. Versus 145t for a 77L, 167t for a 77W, and 159t for A35J (vs 141t for A359, a 7m stretch and at least 30 to 38 t OEW increase before Project Sunrise changes).

The 77W is a 10m stretch of the 77L. So 2t per meter of stretch, with the last 2t or so going to beef up the frame to carry 65 extra pax and their bags.

The 778 is 6m longer than the 77L. So 157t before the engines.

The 778 wings are longer, but at the tips. And are carbon fiber. So the wings should be a wash or better. Still 157t before the engines.

The GE9x is 3000 lb heavier than the GE90-115. 3t for the engines. So 160t should be the OEW . . but wait!

The 77x fuselage is AL-LI. Which is why Boeing didn't go composite

"Boeing’s latest 777-9 will have composite wings but will sport a mostly aluminium fuselage The reason for this change is the emergence of advanced third generation aluminium-lithium (Al-Li) alloys, which are not just cheaper than both CFRP and titanium alloys, but are also lighter and stronger than previous iterations. As a result, Al-Li alloy-intensive aircraft have better fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs."
https://aluminiuminsider.com/aluminium- ... ight-back/

The latest AL-LI should make the fuselage 6% to 7% lighter than the 77L and 77W fuselage. About 3% overall weight reduction, or about 5t. OEW about 155t.

Boeing is preparing a big positive surprise on weight compared to what everybody is expecting.
 
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6547
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:47 am

jagraham wrote:
With regards to weight, the current average estimate for the 778 is 165t.

...

About 3% overall weight reduction, or about 5t. OEW about 155t.

Boeing is preparing a big positive surprise on weight compared to what everybody is expecting.


Interesting analysis, and definitely affects the 777-8's market position (and competitiveness in this order). I'm not sure it captures everything, though. First, I'd expect cabin furnishings for the 777X to be somewhat heavier than for Longer Range 777s, between the odd-shaped sidewalls and the increased reference passenger capacity (pretty sure Boeing quoted OEW for the Longer Range versions is based on a 9Y configuration). Second, I thought I had read that even with CFRP the new wing is expected to be heavier because it is so much bigger. Third, you're leaving out the ~2 t you postulate for the reinforcements on the 77W (the 778 should be similar as payload will be similar). Finally, I doubt Al-Li in the fuselage alone can shave 5 t. I do hope they can bring it in a few tonnes under 165 t, but I expect 155 t (or any weight lighter than an A350-1000) is too optimistic.

If somehow the 777-8 were lighter than the A350-1000, that would be a very good sign for it.
 
jagraham
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:51 am

seabosdca wrote:
jagraham wrote:
With regards to weight, the current average estimate for the 778 is 165t.

...

About 3% overall weight reduction, or about 5t. OEW about 155t.

Boeing is preparing a big positive surprise on weight compared to what everybody is expecting.


Interesting analysis, and definitely affects the 777-8's market position (and competitiveness in this order). I'm not sure it captures everything, though. First, I'd expect cabin furnishings for the 777X to be somewhat heavier than for Longer Range 777s, between the odd-shaped sidewalls and the increased reference passenger capacity (pretty sure Boeing quoted OEW for the Longer Range versions is based on a 9Y configuration). Second, I thought I had read that even with CFRP the new wing is expected to be heavier because it is so much bigger. Third, you're leaving out the ~2 t you postulate for the reinforcements on the 77W (the 778 should be similar as payload will be similar). Finally, I doubt Al-Li in the fuselage alone can shave 5 t. I do hope they can bring it in a few tonnes under 165 t, but I expect 155 t (or any weight lighter than an A350-1000) is too optimistic.

If somehow the 777-8 were lighter than the A350-1000, that would be a very good sign for it.



I don't expect the 778 to be lighter than the A359. The increased payload and MTOW will see to that.

As for the furnishings, the quoted pax capacity is 360 pax. Virtually the same as the 77W. 10 across in Y is baked in, and should be after all the tricks Boeing did to get there with 18" seats. So the furnishings should be the same as the 77W.

As for the wing, wing area for 77x is 5025 sq ft vs 4702 sq ft for the 77L and 77W. Wingspan folded is 2 inches wider - 1 inch per side - than the 77L and 77W wing. The wingtips are about 100 sq feet each, leaving about 123 sq feet dfference not attributable to extra span (and some of that 123 sq ft has to be in wingspan, since at the 212 foot point the wings are about 10 feet wide instead of coming to a point; if the entire 123 sq ft = 62 sq ft per side - were spread across the 212 - 20 (fuselage width) = 198 feet wingspan without the folding wingtips, it is equal to a 8 inch increase in thickness. For a wing which is 10 feet instead of 1 inch at the bend point. This explains the entire 123 sq ft or 2.5% increase in wing area absent the folding wingtips, to me. Others may beg to differ. In any case, the wing is not much bigger at all. The only weight addition is the joint.

The estimate of weight reduction is from the article, with the assumption that the fuselage and wing box is half the weight. Others may beg to differ there too.

If I put the extra 2t in, we get 157t. I'm okay with that; it's a ballpark guess after all.

My main point being that the weight estimate for the 778 does not add up for composite wings and an Al-Li fuselage.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26449
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:56 am

Leeham.net guesstimates the 777-8 will come in with an OEM OEW of around 168,000kg, which is between 8-10,000kg higher than the OEM OEW of the A350-1000.
 
jagraham
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:46 am

Stitch wrote:
Leeham.net guesstimates the 777-8 will come in with an OEM OEW of around 168,000kg, which is between 8-10,000kg higher than the OEM OEW of the A350-1000.


I know. And Leeham is usually pretty good about these things.
But once I looked at wing area, and convinced myself that the difference 1) is not big, and 2) is accounted for with the change to the folding wingtip and the design detail therein, not to mention the new wing is carbon fiber, I can't see any increase in weight due to the wing.
Add to that an Al-Li fuselage, and there is no reason for a shorter, Al-Li fuselage 778 to be any heavier than a 165t 77W.
 
Kikko19
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:21 am

What if B does the same trick of A and increase the range of the 779 making it LR?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6547
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:46 am

Kikko19 wrote:
What if B does the same trick of A and increase the range of the 779 making it LR?


Pavement loading and gear capacity are likely to constrain more than a relatively small MTOW increase for the 777X. The A350 has more headroom in that respect.
 
Kikko19
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:21 am

seabosdca wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
What if B does the same trick of A and increase the range of the 779 making it LR?


Pavement loading and gear capacity are likely to constrain more than a relatively small MTOW increase for the 777X. The A350 has more headroom in that respect.

roger that! if the 35k lr will win (unlikely but who knows...) with QF I guess B will have to find a countermeasure.
 
marcelh
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:34 am

Revelation wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If I remember correctly Emirates had orders (not options) for 70 A350s.. those were the days.

And bought some A380s instead.... :stirthepot:

Still just MOUs... :stirthepot:

(ref: https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/e ... 16-billion)

Ah, just as the 787 deal?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:25 am

jagraham wrote:
With regards to weight, the current average estimate for the 778 is 165t. Versus 145t for a 77L, 167t for a 77W, and 159t for A35J (vs 141t for A359, a 7m stretch and at least 30 to 38 t OEW increase before Project Sunrise changes).

The 77W is a 10m stretch of the 77L. So 2t per meter of stretch, with the last 2t or so going to beef up the frame to carry 65 extra pax and their bags.

The 778 is 6m longer than the 77L. So 157t before the engines.

The 778 wings are longer, but at the tips. And are carbon fiber. So the wings should be a wash or better. Still 157t before the engines.

The GE9x is 3000 lb heavier than the GE90-115. 3t for the engines. So 160t should be the OEW . . but wait!

The 77x fuselage is AL-LI. Which is why Boeing didn't go composite

"Boeing’s latest 777-9 will have composite wings but will sport a mostly aluminium fuselage The reason for this change is the emergence of advanced third generation aluminium-lithium (Al-Li) alloys, which are not just cheaper than both CFRP and titanium alloys, but are also lighter and stronger than previous iterations. As a result, Al-Li alloy-intensive aircraft have better fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs."
https://aluminiuminsider.com/aluminium- ... ight-back/

The latest AL-LI should make the fuselage 6% to 7% lighter than the 77L and 77W fuselage. About 3% overall weight reduction, or about 5t. OEW about 155t.

Boeing is preparing a big positive surprise on weight compared to what everybody is expecting.

I agree with this 100%. The empty weight projections from others are all high.

Empty weight will be 160T at most for the 777-8 in my opinion. The 777-9 will be 173-176T.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13285
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:46 am

.
Determining 777-8 OEW, I expect the OEW of the 777-9 to be in the 185-188t area.

Image

source: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4074574-weighing-boeing-777minus-9
source: https://medium.com/o530-carris-pt-herald/boeing-777x-dimensions-matter-8e80dd601a83


For finding 777 fuselage weight one could reference, the 777-200LR- 777-300ER difference. The 777-300ER weighs 167.8t, the 772LR weighs 145.1, the lenght difference between the two is 10m.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications

With wings, engines, landings gears & sytems of the two aircraft weighing the same, a 777 fuselage weighs roughly 2.2t per meter.

A 777-8 is 6.9m shorter than a 777-9. It shares the same wing, engines, landing gear etc. with the 777-9.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/

So the 777-8 fuselage weighs probably around 6.9m x 2.2t = 15.2t less than the 777-9 fuselage. That places the 777-8 OEW in the 170-173t area.

The A350-1000 has an OEW of around 155 t. For the A350-900LR, Airbus didn't have to increase A350-900OEW. But maybe they have to do some strenghtening for a A350-1000LR though. Let's assume a 2-3t higher OEW than the regular A350-1000; 157-158t.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Specifications

:arrow: This would make a A350-1000LR around 12-16t lighter than a 777-8.

In terms of seating capacity it is hard to say what would be the difference. The A350-1000 is a few meters longer, would Qantas put 10 abreast on the 777? Specifically on 15-20 hour flights?

Image
fake :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:21 pm

jagraham wrote:
With regards to weight, the current average estimate for the 778 is 165t. Versus 145t for a 77L, 167t for a 77W, and 159t for A35J (vs 141t for A359, a 7m stretch and at least 30 to 38 t OEW increase before Project Sunrise changes).

The 77W is a 10m stretch of the 77L. So 2t per meter of stretch, with the last 2t or so going to beef up the frame to carry 65 extra pax and their bags.

The 778 is 6m longer than the 77L. So 157t before the engines.

The 778 wings are longer, but at the tips. And are carbon fiber. So the wings should be a wash or better. Still 157t before the engines.

The GE9x is 3000 lb heavier than the GE90-115. 3t for the engines. So 160t should be the OEW . . but wait!

The 77x fuselage is AL-LI. Which is why Boeing didn't go composite

"Boeing’s latest 777-9 will have composite wings but will sport a mostly aluminium fuselage The reason for this change is the emergence of advanced third generation aluminium-lithium (Al-Li) alloys, which are not just cheaper than both CFRP and titanium alloys, but are also lighter and stronger than previous iterations. As a result, Al-Li alloy-intensive aircraft have better fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs."
https://aluminiuminsider.com/aluminium- ... ight-back/

The latest AL-LI should make the fuselage 6% to 7% lighter than the 77L and 77W fuselage. About 3% overall weight reduction, or about 5t. OEW about 155t.

Boeing is preparing a big positive surprise on weight compared to what everybody is expecting.


An OEW of 159 t for the A350-1000 is about the highest estimate I have seen. Mostly it is talked about 155 t as an absolute max and most likely somewhere between 150 and 155 t in reality, the only information posted by somebody flying the A350-1000 points to the lower end. In the same way an OEW of 145 t for the A350-900 seems to be the upper limit, several of the now flying frames coming in below.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:24 pm

keesje wrote:
.
Determining 777-8 OEW, I expect the OEW of the 777-9 to be in the 185-188t area.

Image

source: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4074574-weighing-boeing-777minus-9
source: https://medium.com/o530-carris-pt-herald/boeing-777x-dimensions-matter-8e80dd601a83


For finding 777 fuselage weight one could reference, the 777-200LR- 777-300ER difference. The 777-300ER weighs 167.8t, the 772LR weighs 145.1, the lenght difference between the two is 10m.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications

With wings, engines, landings gears & sytems of the two aircraft weighing the same, a 777 fuselage weighs roughly 2.2t per meter.

A 777-8 is 6.9m shorter than a 777-9. It shares the same wing, engines, landing gear etc. with the 777-9.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/

So the 777-8 fuselage weighs probably around 6.9m x 2.2t = 15.2t less than the 777-9 fuselage. That places the 777-8 OEW in the 170-173t area.

The A350-1000 has an OEW of around 155 t. For the A350-900LR, Airbus didn't have to increase A350-900OEW. But maybe they have to do some strenghtening for a A350-1000LR though. Let's assume a 2-3t higher OEW than the regular A350-1000; 157-158t.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Specifications

:arrow: This would make a A350-1000LR around 12-16t lighter than a 777-8.

In terms of seating capacity it is hard to say what would be the difference. The A350-1000 is a few meters longer, would Qantas put 10 abreast on the 777? Specifically on 15-20 hour flights?

Image
fake :wink2:




So let me get this straight. You're saying the 778, which is roughly the same size as the 77W, will weigh more than the 77W.

Interesting, because Boeing has said for several years the CFRP wing will be 5,000-10,000 lbs lighter. The body is a new alloy that Boeing has also said will be significantly lighter. I have not seen an estimate but an additional 5,000-10,000 lbs weight savings is probably reasonable. The engines we have been told will weight about 3,000 lbs more, but of course, they are much more efficient.

So by my rough math the 778 should weight 4t-14t less than the 77W. That would put the 778 about 10t lower than the figure you mentioned. Or very,very close to the A35K which will be somewhere around 160t with reinforcement to meet Project Sunrise criteria.

Look, if you want to believe Boeing is going to screw the pooch with the 777x program that is fine. But I see no reason to assume a 25 year update in technology will weigh more. That makes no sense unless Boeing does a massive screw up similar to the Airbus A345 A 346 disaster, and frankly, I don't see thàt happening.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
Qf648
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:32 pm

Well wife got picked for a QF survey related to project sunrise. Mainly asked about what features you’d like, what you’d pay extra for and what wow things you’d be interested in.

Reading between the lines I could discern the following.

1. QF is interested in understanding space and how they can monetise it. So I would not expect 10AB.
2. It’d be a premium heavy approach so would expect a larger premium economy than on the 380 and 787’s
3. Were really interested in thoughts on sleeping modules gymnasiums etc.

The third was the most interesting because haven’t heard anything on the 77x side of things for these cargo bay modules. All that talk is heavy in favor of the 35K.
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:42 pm

Aren’t cargo bay ceilings too low to most people to stand up properly?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13285
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:51 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
keesje wrote:
.
Determining 777-8 OEW, I expect the OEW of the 777-9 to be in the 185-188t area.

Image

source: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4074574-weighing-boeing-777minus-9
source: https://medium.com/o530-carris-pt-herald/boeing-777x-dimensions-matter-8e80dd601a83


For finding 777 fuselage weight one could reference, the 777-200LR- 777-300ER difference. The 777-300ER weighs 167.8t, the 772LR weighs 145.1, the lenght difference between the two is 10m.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Specifications

With wings, engines, landings gears & sytems of the two aircraft weighing the same, a 777 fuselage weighs roughly 2.2t per meter.

A 777-8 is 6.9m shorter than a 777-9. It shares the same wing, engines, landing gear etc. with the 777-9.
source: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/

So the 777-8 fuselage weighs probably around 6.9m x 2.2t = 15.2t less than the 777-9 fuselage. That places the 777-8 OEW in the 170-173t area.

The A350-1000 has an OEW of around 155 t. For the A350-900LR, Airbus didn't have to increase A350-900OEW. But maybe they have to do some strenghtening for a A350-1000LR though. Let's assume a 2-3t higher OEW than the regular A350-1000; 157-158t.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Specifications

:arrow: This would make a A350-1000LR around 12-16t lighter than a 777-8.

In terms of seating capacity it is hard to say what would be the difference. The A350-1000 is a few meters longer, would Qantas put 10 abreast on the 777? Specifically on 15-20 hour flights?

Image
fake :wink2:




So let me get this straight. You're saying the 778, which is roughly the same size as the 77W, will weigh more than the 77W.

Interesting, because Boeing has said for several years the CFRP wing will be 5,000-10,000 lbs lighter. The body is a new alloy that Boeing has also said will be significantly lighter. I have not seen an estimate but an additional 5,000-10,000 lbs weight savings is probably reasonable. The engines we have been told will weight about 3,000 lbs more, but of course, they are much more efficient.

So by my rough math the 778 should weight 4t-14t less than the 77W. That would put the 778 about 10t lower than the figure you mentioned. Or very,very close to the A35K which will be somewhere around 160t with reinforcement to meet Project Sunrise criteria.

Look, if you want to believe Boeing is going to screw the pooch with the 777x program that is fine. But I see no reason to assume a 25 year update in technology will weigh more. That makes no sense unless Boeing does a massive screw up similar to the Airbus A345 A 346 disaster, and frankly, I don't see thàt happening.


Hi Elron, the 777-9 OEW reference numbers are from Boeing.
Lets take the official 2014 777-9 OEW (of 188t).

777-9:......... OEW~188t, lenght: 76.7m
777-300ER: OEW~168t, lenght: 73.9m
---------------------------------------------------- -
.............................. ~20t...............2.8m

Lenght difference between 777-300ER and 777-9 is counting for a ~6-7t part of the OEW difference (at ~ 2.2t per 777 fuselage meter).

Still it shows that the new wings, engines, pylon landing gears combined are a substantial OEW booster for the 777X versus the 777-300ER.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11167
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:57 pm

jagraham wrote:
The latest AL-LI should make the fuselage 6% to 7% lighter than the 77L and 77W fuselage. About 3% overall weight reduction, or about 5t. OEW about 155t.


Last time i heard Boeing discarded the idea of using AL-Li because it is way expensive and safes only around 2000 pounds of weight, or no more than 1% total weight. I didn´t read anything about the 777x using Al-Li past 2015, and at that time that was mostly "may use Al-Li", which it does, for Cargo floor beams. And if Alcoa puts out a press release over that, i am pretty sure there would be one over the whole fuselage being made out of it.
Is it made of Al-Li? In any case, it would not make the aircraft nearly as much lighter as you claim.

But once I looked at wing area, and convinced myself that the difference 1) is not big, and 2) is accounted for with the change to the folding wingtip and the design detail therein, not to mention the new wing is carbon fiber, I can't see any increase in weight due to the wing.


Funny. If you make the wing longer the bending moment goes up geometrically. You need a *much* stronger wing if you only make it a little longer, especially if you want to move the center of lift further out, which you want to do since you otherwise can just dump the longer wings and just put vertical winglets on it. Carbon fiber is strong, but not that strong.

If the 777-8x was so light, Qantas wouldn´t need a competition.Also, the 777-9 has a MZFW of 255,000 Kg, quite wasteful if it is so light, since airlines will have a hard time cramping more than 60.000kg payload into it..... 400 pax plus less than 40 LD3 are about 60 tons, why would Boeing plan an aircraft that can carry 5 or 10 or 15 tons more than you can conceivably load onto it? Let alone 30 useless tons of lift considering

Add to that an Al-Li fuselage, and there is no reason for a shorter, Al-Li fuselage 778 to be any heavier than a 165t 77W.


would give 90 tons structural payload, 20 tons more than the longer 77W. That does make no sense.

That is a pretty good indication that OEW will be 190 +/- change for the -9. Per your own assumption:

The 77W is a 10m stretch of the 77L. So 2t per meter of stretch, with the last 2t or so going to beef up the frame to carry 65 extra pax and their bags.

The 778 is 6m longer than the 77L. So 157t before the engines.


you would have the 778 at 176t +/- pocket change. Which also does make sense, because that would allow full tanks and a full long haul cabin at MTOW.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8856
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:25 pm

Again the only thing is that they asked for more information about the weight. That tells us nothing about the actual weight or if the actual weight is good or bad or whatever.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13285
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:17 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
Look, if you want to believe Boeing is going to screw the pooch with the 777x program that is fine. But I see no reason to assume a 25 year update in technology will weigh more. That makes no sense unless Boeing does a massive screw up similar to the Airbus A345 A 346 disaster, and frankly, I don't see thàt happening.


Why not? The 747-8, 787-8 had interesting gestations and they redesigned the 737-7, 737-9 yrs after launch. MAX gliders are filling Renton & everybody is quiet on the 767 tanker. Boeing screws up now and than & you can see it happening if you are willing tyo open your eyes. too. But that's off topic.

The 777-9 according to Boeing numbers will be 2.8m longer then 777-300ER and weigh 15-20t more.
If that is "screwing the pooch" is your opinion. Maybe drag, engine sfc & 10 abreast become way better?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26449
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Airbus and Boeing meet Qantas Project Sunrise challenge, RFP to be completed by end of 2019

Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:19 pm

keesje wrote:
In terms of seating capacity it is hard to say what would be the difference. The A350-1000 is a few meters longer, would Qantas put 10 abreast on the 777? Specifically on 15-20 hour flights?


Why wouldn't they? Seat comfort would be a wash between a 9-abreast A35KLR and a 10-abreast B779 and QF is already flying the "ultra-tight charter configuration" 9-abreast on the 787 between LHR and PER and SYD.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos