Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
n5u
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:49 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:04 pm

it to soon its not even fully integrated in the fleet yet, Its modern enough to be upgraded with out been a NG
 
cskok8
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:37 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:47 pm

Should it be called 787 Max 9 and Max 10?
 
Raptormodeller
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:51 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:51 pm

I think you've jumped the gun by about 10 years.
A380 A330 A318 A319 A320 A321 B737 B757 B767 B747 MD80 E185 E195 Q400 EF2000
AF BA QF SQ HOP LT AA BE
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8471
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:55 pm

jfk777 wrote:
The 787 will have incremental upgrades as expected. A longer range 787-10 would be welcome as a 777-200ER replacement. A 787-9 flying from JFK to Sydney nonstop would be a welcome development.


I agree that there will be incremental improvements, but IMHO it will be more like the A330 which steadily increased range over about 20 years, rather than designing and certifying a specific LR model for either the 789 or 78X.

I don't think it make any sense to specifically divert resources into a hypothetical 787-9LR because the market for such an aircraft is pretty tiny. Qantas might be interested in a handful if they don't go ahead with the 350 order. United might take a few for a couple of new ULH routes like EWR-SIN or SFO-BLR. Maybe, maybe Air India to replace the 77L and 77W on their longest North American routes. Other than that I can't think of anyone who would want or need such an aircraft.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
ACCS300
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:19 am

Redesign the cabin to properly accommodate 9 abreast seating as it was originally designed and optimized for 8 abreast. Perhaps make the sidewalls thinner a-la 777x so passengers could fly comfortably 9 abreast like on the A350.
 
Deeso
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:30 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:05 am

They might doing incremental upgrades and PIP's try for a while. I don't see them studying a NG at least till the very late 20's for EIS in the middle 30's. They'll try to follow the rule "10-12% less fuel than competing aircraft" So that will depend greatly on what Airbus does, how the NMA program evolves, the need of a proper substitute for the 737 and how the market behaves during the next decade. You also have to look at replacement cycles. The new CFRP frames are supposely less prone to corrosion and fatigue meaning longer lifespans. Probably by the end of the decade no airlines will think of retire their early A350s or 787s; at most some late production A330ceo.

And of course, who knows how the economic cycle will be in a 15-year timeframe. Not me.
 
olle
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:22 am

Airbus seems to work on a 350neo right now. They seems to consider that RR will come with something around 2025.

I think Boeing and Airbus right right now want to address different markets. Boeing is forced to do something about NB.

Airbus on the other hand see that they might be able to reach 50% market share in wb.

I would no be surprised to see a A350 800 concept coming again replacing 330neo perhaps using a smaller wing in order to compete with 787 900 and 1000 while maintaining it for 350 1000 and a new 1100.

A 787neo and 350neo within 5-7 years timeframe will therefore leave some victims. 330 and 777.
 
User avatar
GSPFlyer
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:15 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:12 pm

I definitely think a 787-10ER would make a lot of sense. The current 78J is a little short on the range side at 6,430 nm, compared to the 777-200ER at 7,065nm.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:55 pm

The 787 and A350 will be due for a geared turbofan and harvest that leap in efficiency. 2030EIS? Will GE have an offering?
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:09 pm

cskok8 wrote:
Should it be called 787 Max 9 and Max 10?


I’d suggest MaxQ..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
ILikeTrains
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:30 pm

Like others have said, PIPs and weight reductions will carry it through most of the decade. Probably at that point will be something major, like a new GEnx or a RR engine that works.

I’m betting more on a big MTOW boost and new wing after 2030. MTOW is the biggest limitation to 787, and the wing is a bit undersized for the -10.
 
n5u
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:49 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:44 pm

If your going to "NG" anything it should be the 727-200 it was the best plane they ever built. Pilots loved it, it had good short field performance,fast, comfortable and you did't need any ground facilities.
 
Mightyflyer86
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:00 pm

n5u wrote:
If your going to "NG" anything it should be the 727-200 it was the best plane they ever built. Pilots loved it, it had good short field performance,fast, comfortable and you did't need any ground facilities.


The 727NG exists, its name is the 757.
 
n5u
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:49 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:22 pm

Mightyflyer86 wrote:
n5u wrote:
If your going to "NG" anything it should be the 727-200 it was the best plane they ever built. Pilots loved it, it had good short field performance,fast, comfortable and you did't need any ground facilities.


The 727NG exists, its name is the 757.


no it was the replacement but it missed the mark. Not to take anything away for the 757 though it too was a grate plane but it was to heavy and because of its tall landing gear it needs special equipment at the gate. the 727-200 did the job of the 737 & 757 not to mention the fact that it was built way more sold the either of them. The thing was as solid as a brick outhouse...
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4706
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:37 pm

Max Q wrote:
Boeing should not let the 787 get ‘stale’
keep improving it


I completely agree. But having said that, a 787NG is not the way forward right now. What Boeing should do is a rolling series of improvements ala what Airbus did under the "A320 Enhanced" program. Launched in 2006, it rolled out a series of minor improvements (engine PIPs, new cabin, minor aerodynamic tweeks, winglets), ultimately culminating with the re-engined A320neo.
Under a similar program, Boeing should roll out cabin improvements (which to be honest, it really needs), aerodynamic improvements, improved/modified wingtip devices (I mean, if Airbus could improve the A350 winglets barely 3 years after EIS, Boeing should be able to do something as well), various technological advances and improved MTOWs, culminating with a 787neo in 8-10 years when a new engine is truly available.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:39 pm

n5u wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:
n5u wrote:
If your going to "NG" anything it should be the 727-200 it was the best plane they ever built. Pilots loved it, it had good short field performance,fast, comfortable and you did't need any ground facilities.


The 727NG exists, its name is the 757.


no it was the replacement but it missed the mark. Not to take anything away for the 757 though it too was a grate plane but it was to heavy and because of its tall landing gear it needs special equipment at the gate. the 727-200 did the job of the 737 & 757 not to mention the fact that it was built way more sold the either of them. The thing was as solid as a brick outhouse...



I’ve quite a bit of experience in both the 727 and 757


I appreciate your affection for the 727, it was a fine, solid,very fast aircraft and it handled beautifully


However it can’t come close to the 757 in efficiency, payload and range, it certainly couldn’t do the same job
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:43 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Boeing should not let the 787 get ‘stale’
keep improving it


I completely agree. But having said that, a 787NG is not the way forward right now. What Boeing should do is a rolling series of improvements ala what Airbus did under the "A320 Enhanced" program. Launched in 2006, it rolled out a series of minor improvements (engine PIPs, new cabin, minor aerodynamic tweeks, winglets), ultimately culminating with the re-engined A320neo.
Under a similar program, Boeing should roll out cabin improvements (which to be honest, it really needs), aerodynamic improvements, improved/modified wingtip devices (I mean, if Airbus could improve the A350 winglets barely 3 years after EIS, Boeing should be able to do something as well), various technological advances and improved MTOWs, culminating with a 787neo in 8-10 years when a new engine is truly available.



Agree completely, that’s probably the best way forward and would spike interest in further sales
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4706
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:50 pm

Max Q wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Boeing should not let the 787 get ‘stale’
keep improving it


I completely agree. But having said that, a 787NG is not the way forward right now. What Boeing should do is a rolling series of improvements ala what Airbus did under the "A320 Enhanced" program. Launched in 2006, it rolled out a series of minor improvements (engine PIPs, new cabin, minor aerodynamic tweeks, winglets), ultimately culminating with the re-engined A320neo.
Under a similar program, Boeing should roll out cabin improvements (which to be honest, it really needs), aerodynamic improvements, improved/modified wingtip devices (I mean, if Airbus could improve the A350 winglets barely 3 years after EIS, Boeing should be able to do something as well), various technological advances and improved MTOWs, culminating with a 787neo in 8-10 years when a new engine is truly available.



Agree completely, that’s probably the best way forward and would spike interest in further sales


Following the A330 with a number of MTOW versions wouldn't hurt too much either, like a de-rated 5000 km regional variant with underfloor lavatories and certified for up to 460 seats. Would be really cheap to do.
 
n5u
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:49 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:00 pm

Max Q wrote:
n5u wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:

The 727NG exists, its name is the 757.


no it was the replacement but it missed the mark. Not to take anything away for the 757 though it too was a grate plane but it was to heavy and because of its tall landing gear it needs special equipment at the gate. the 727-200 did the job of the 737 & 757 not to mention the fact that it was built way more sold the either of them. The thing was as solid as a brick outhouse...



I’ve quite a bit of experience in both the 727 and 757


I appreciate your affection for the 727, it was a fine, solid,very fast aircraft and it handled beautifully


However it can’t come close to the 757 in efficiency, payload and range, it certainly couldn’t do the same job


Ill agree but it would have been nice to see what the 27 could do with high bypass engines. Like the tays off the folker-100s
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:39 pm

I think you are mixing terms. The 737NG was a major improvement with a new wing as well as new engines, plus a whole host of other improvements. The only improvement that would be worthwhile for the 787 is new engines WHEN they become available. There is no guarantee when that will be. They will have to offer significant improvement to be worthwhile, on the order of 10% or more. Until they are ready both Boeing and the engine makers will continue to make incremental improvements with PIPs.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:55 am

As well as engines I would guess there has been some advances in materials that could be taken advantage of since the first aircraft to incorporate these technology was designed.
 
pranav7478
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:22 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:59 am

get rid of the trents! go exclusively ge like 777! :) just kidding, but i wouldnt put the problematic trents on the plane for a new generation
Planes I have flown on: CRJ-900, E175, E190, A319, A320, A321, A330-200, 717, 737-700, 737-800, 747-400, 747-8I, 757-200, 767-300, 777-200, 777-300(ER), 787-8, 787-9
Airlines I have flown on: AI, AS, BA, DL, 6E, 9W, B6, KE, SQ, WN, UA, US, VA
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:21 am

zkncj wrote:
Oykie wrote:
There was a rumor that the 787-10 for Air NZ had an increased range, but IIRC they will not offer more range, but 787-9 will do more longer haul flying and shuffling the planes around.


For the first batch of 787-10s are coming with the standard range, although I would expect by the time NZ looks at ordering an second batch they will be of an extended range -10 model.

NZ/Boeing have both been public about looking at ways to extend the range for NZ’s requirements.

AKL-EWR will be operated by an 275 seat 789.


What are these ways?
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:01 pm

n5u wrote:
Max Q wrote:
n5u wrote:

no it was the replacement but it missed the mark. Not to take anything away for the 757 though it too was a grate plane but it was to heavy and because of its tall landing gear it needs special equipment at the gate. the 727-200 did the job of the 737 & 757 not to mention the fact that it was built way more sold the either of them. The thing was as solid as a brick outhouse...



I’ve quite a bit of experience in both the 727 and 757


I appreciate your affection for the 727, it was a fine, solid,very fast aircraft and it handled beautifully


However it can’t come close to the 757 in efficiency, payload and range, it certainly couldn’t do the same job


Ill agree but it would have been nice to see what the 27 could do with high bypass engines. Like the tays off the folker-100s



There were lots of proposals to re-engine the 727 including total removal of the #2 engine and the entire inlet and replacement of #1 and #3 with high bypass engines of much greater thrust overall than all three of the earlier power plants


I remember AA was quite interested but I don’t remember which engines were specified, they had a very large 727 fleet to replace or update but they eventually went with the MD80 which they got an amazing deal on from MD and it was considerably more efficient


However UPS did re-engine their 727-100 airframes with the Tay and an updated cockpit with efis displays


And of course numerous conversions on -100 and -200 series were done replacing #1 and #3 with the JT8D-217 or -219 engines, this mod also removed the reverser on the #2 engine


I couldn’t agree more with you on what a fine aircraft the 727 was

It was the first Jet I ever flew and I was in it for six years, initially as an FE and then in the right seat as FO


It was a beautiful aircraft to fly, solid, stable, very fast, very responsive and it went through turbulence like a knife through butter


Best wishes
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
n5u
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:49 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:20 pm

Max Q wrote:
n5u wrote:
Max Q wrote:


I’ve quite a bit of experience in both the 727 and 757


I appreciate your affection for the 727, it was a fine, solid,very fast aircraft and it handled beautifully


However it can’t come close to the 757 in efficiency, payload and range, it certainly couldn’t do the same job


Ill agree but it would have been nice to see what the 27 could do with high bypass engines. Like the tays off the folker-100s



There were lots of proposals to re-engine the 727 including total removal of the #2 engine and the entire inlet and replacement of #1 and #3 with high bypass engines of much greater thrust overall than all three of the earlier power plants


I remember AA was quite interested but I don’t remember which engines were specified, they had a very large 727 fleet to replace or update but they eventually went with the MD80 which they got an amazing deal on from MD and it was considerably more efficient


However UPS did re-engine their 727-100 airframes with the Tay and an updated cockpit with efis displays


And of course numerous conversions on -100 and -200 series were done replacing #1 and #3 with the JT8D-217 or -219 engines, this mod also removed the reverser on the #2 engine


I couldn’t agree more with you on what a fine aircraft the 727 was

It was the first Jet I ever flew and I was in it for six years, initially as an FE and then in the right seat as FO


It was a beautiful aircraft to fly, solid, stable, very fast, very responsive and it went through turbulence like a knife through butter


Best wishes

awesome I wish there was a like button ....but i would love to hear more 727 stories
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9306
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:24 pm

For those saying a 787 update is premature, all past Boeing widebodies received a significant update to propulsion, aerodynamics, and structures after about 10 years of in-service experience, plus or minus a few years. GE and Rolls Royce were working on the GE90-115B and Trent 8105 just five years after the 777 entered service.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
Josbo
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:37 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:25 pm

olle wrote:
Airbus seems to work on a 350neo right now. They seems to consider that RR will come with something around 2025.

I think Boeing and Airbus right right now want to address different markets. Boeing is forced to do something about NB.

Airbus on the other hand see that they might be able to reach 50% market share in wb.

I would no be surprised to see a A350 800 concept coming again replacing 330neo perhaps using a smaller wing in order to compete with 787 900 and 1000 while maintaining it for 350 1000 and a new 1100.

A 787neo and 350neo within 5-7 years timeframe will therefore leave some victims. 330 and 777.

A350NEO may even be a GEnx/9X derivative.

I think people need to remember this isn't the dawn of the 777 era anymore. Long haul fleets are established, not explosively growing where engine competition was brutal. There aren't enough orders yet to cover the 787 development to begin with either, so it could be throwing good money after bad.

And customers who bought RR originally will still want a second engine option for an NG. For Rolls this just isn't possible until the late 2020s (Ultrafan), and the Trent 1000 has been its name for half a decade. For GE it would be faster, but they'd be looking to maximize ROI on the GEnx first. Their focus would be a CMC PIP for the GEnx.

As for the bird itself, the wing is supposedly undersized. I don't know if folding wingtips would be enough to fix that with the extra weight it brings. New engine weight could also sharply impact OEW. Without a MTOW boost, it would be pointless. If Boeing has to compose a new wing for the 787 NG, that'll be another half billion thrown at the program if not more.

If all Boeing does is re-engine the 787 and throw folding wingtips on it, they could probably do that by 2024, but I suspect it's not enough of an improvement to make the market jump the way an NG should.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:04 pm

As a number of people have said, any major improvement in performance would come from the engines. Taking a 1000 lbs out of the frame here or there is nice, but not very consequential.

For example the weight reduction of the 787 with the use of composites created a 3% improvement in fuel burn, but the engines accounted for 8% the improvement.

With the issues at RR I don't see any major SFC engine improvements for at least 5-6 years.
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
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:07 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
For those saying a 787 update is premature, all past Boeing widebodies received a significant update to propulsion, aerodynamics, and structures after about 10 years of in-service experience, plus or minus a few years. GE and Rolls Royce were working on the GE90-115B and Trent 8105 just five years after the 777 entered service.



Exactly

Historically every Boeing 7 series started to receive regular updates and steady improvements just a few years after service entry with the notable exception of the 787


No question it’s a superb aircraft but it can still be improved and that would seriously invigorate sales
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:15 am

n5u wrote:
Max Q wrote:
n5u wrote:

Ill agree but it would have been nice to see what the 27 could do with high bypass engines. Like the tays off the folker-100s



There were lots of proposals to re-engine the 727 including total removal of the #2 engine and the entire inlet and replacement of #1 and #3 with high bypass engines of much greater thrust overall than all three of the earlier power plants


I remember AA was quite interested but I don’t remember which engines were specified, they had a very large 727 fleet to replace or update but they eventually went with the MD80 which they got an amazing deal on from MD and it was considerably more efficient


However UPS did re-engine their 727-100 airframes with the Tay and an updated cockpit with efis displays


And of course numerous conversions on -100 and -200 series were done replacing #1 and #3 with the JT8D-217 or -219 engines, this mod also removed the reverser on the #2 engine


I couldn’t agree more with you on what a fine aircraft the 727 was

It was the first Jet I ever flew and I was in it for six years, initially as an FE and then in the right seat as FO


It was a beautiful aircraft to fly, solid, stable, very fast, very responsive and it went through turbulence like a knife through butter


Best wishes

awesome I wish there was a like button ....but i would love to hear more 727 stories



I’ve got quite a few N5, I’ll put some out
on the site soon, there’s a lot of affection for the 727 in this forum and pilots here that used to fly it like TB727 and myself

Best wishes
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:54 am

The 787-9 was originally planned to get larger blended winglets to reach the same span as the A350. The performance ended up being better than expected so it kept the 787-8 wingtips. I would think there is a good chance that the 787NEO gets solesource GE engines just like the 777W.

The biggest thing that would change the development path is if Boeing has a widebody NMA about to launch. The 787-8 is quite different from the 787-9/10 pair. If the NMA is about to come then the 787-8 should be killed off. However if the NMA has been cancelled then the 787-8 update should become a priority.

The 787-8NG could in theory get an optimised engine and the 787-9/10 could get a MTOW bump, wing strengthening with the original blended wintips and a further stretch to the 787-11.

It is much easier to certify an engine within the same nacelle. The TrentTen is a good example of a new core fitted in quickly. However as you increase the bypass ratio with a newer core the nacelle must become larger in diameter to maintain thrust. The 787-8 is unique in that it has a lower thrust level and it could get a bypass ratio of 12:1 while maintaining the current nacelle size. The Trent 700 to Trent 500 is a good example where a smaller core was fitted to increase bypass ratio and improve fuel burn and weight.

The 787-8 could go solesource GE with a CMC filled engine inside the current nacelle. A minor weight reduction and a few parts such as the wing gets optimised to the lower MTOW.

The 787-9/10 can then use the same core a few years later with it running closer to the temp limit with a larger diameter fan.
 
Max Q
Topic Author
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:59 am

A larger fan seems problematic with the very short landing gear on the 787
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Silverstreak
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 2:49 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:14 am

Deserts are full of “new and improved” airliners which were never to their full potential. How about slowing down a bit?
 
catiii
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:01 am

Silverstreak wrote:
Deserts are full of “new and improved” airliners which were never to their full potential. How about slowing down a bit?


Such as?
 
LagrangianPT
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:07 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:41 am

There is no engine for a hypothetical 787NG... RR Ultrafan maybe, but they won’t be available until at least the middle of the decade.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2086
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:12 am

Max Q wrote:
A larger fan seems problematic with the very short landing gear on the 787

Not at all.

Height is only one factor. The 787-9/10 landing gear is wider than average and the engines are located closer to the centreline than average. This means the engines can be lower to the ground without any problem.

Both the A350 and 787 can get a 10% fan diameter increase with about the same bank angle. The A350's 118inch can go to to 130inch. The 787's 111inch fan can go to 122inch.

With an improved bypass ratio of 12:1 the fan diameter would only need to be increase by 10inchs on the 787. So in theory a bypass ratio up to 13:1 could fit on the 787.

The A350-1000 might actually have the most difficulty fitting a high bypass ratio engine. To get 97klb thrust out of the 130inch fan the engine would struggle to hit a 12:1 bypass ratio. However the A350-900 and its lower 84klb thrust requirement the 130inch fan would allow a very high 13.5:1 bypass ratio.

The question is will Airbus want high commonality between the two A350 engines. The higher thrust requirement of the A350-1000 will mean the bypass ratio of the A350-900 engine will have to be limited to allow for a higher core flow. Or Airbus will be forced to have two very different engines with the A350-1000 engine having a lower bypass ratio and a larger core.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:47 am

We’re probably 10-15 years away from a 787NG. Boeing will be busy enough for the next few years developing a new NB aircraft.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5
 
Mightyflyer86
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: Time for a 787NG

Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:45 pm

n5u wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:
n5u wrote:
If your going to "NG" anything it should be the 727-200 it was the best plane they ever built. Pilots loved it, it had good short field performance,fast, comfortable and you did't need any ground facilities.


The 727NG exists, its name is the 757.


no it was the replacement but it missed the mark. Not to take anything away for the 757 though it too was a grate plane but it was to heavy and because of its tall landing gear it needs special equipment at the gate. the 727-200 did the job of the 737 & 757 not to mention the fact that it was built way more sold the either of them. The thing was as solid as a brick outhouse...


No it did not miss the mark, more than 1,000 airplanes were sold. When it was introduced, the 757 was a pretty efficient machine compared to the gas guzzling three holer (727).

Part of the reason why the 757 was “heavy” is the fact that it had to have great runway performance in order to be able to fly to the same airports the 727 flew into. Later on the A321 was introduced and it was able to fly 80% of the 757 routes far more efficiently and at a much lower weight.

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