Opus99 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

How GE could acheive 10% in ten years:
1. 3.5: 1 GTF, about 6.5% fuel burn reduction
2. Higher match # high pressure compressor (needs better bearings and seals), about 1% fuel burn reduction
3. Fan improvements, about 0.2%(yes, just a fraction of a percent)
4. CMC inlet guide vanes to high turbine: 2.5% (s/b within 5 years, if not sooner)
5. CMC turbine stators, perhaps 0.5%
6. CMC combustor liners, perhaps 0.5%
7. Now what is really in question for within ten years, is CMC 2nd stage high turbine blades (about 2.5%), but due to the stresses, iffy. I do not consider 1st stage turbine blades possible within ten years, but that is just my opinion.
8. Improved compressor variable bleet (0.25% or so)
9. Improved variable turbine cooling (0.35% or so)

They also need to add to the 787 the GE9x technologies (already developed):
10. Variable turbine cooling, 2.7% or so
11. Improved cooling loops 0.75% or so
12. CMC coated combustor liner 0.2%
13. Fan blade tech (needs a new design to change bypass ratio) 0.5%

The could also do conter-rotation,but GE has chosen a different tech path and this might be a bridge too far in terms of bearing and seal speeds.

Lightsaber

What about just putting GE9X on the 787? The GE9X is supposed to already be 10% better than the GEnx - although at about a 5000 lb per engine penalty . . .

10% better than the GE90*

A blend of evolutionary and revolutionary designs will enable the GE9X to be the most fuel-efficient jet engine GE has ever produced on a per-pounds-of-thrust basis. It’s designed to deliver a 10% improved aircraft fuel burn versus the GE90-115B-powered 777-300ER and a 5% improved specific fuel consumption versus any twin-aisle engine available, plus achieve an approximate 10:1 bypass ratio, a 60:1 overall pressure ratio and margin to Stage 5 noise limits.

https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/e ... aft-engine

While GE won't mention competitors in their brochures, we all know that "any twin-aisle engine available" means the Trent XWB . . . So GE is advertising 5% better than Trent XWB

ZK-NBT wrote:

In reality the then NZ CEO said the 781 order wasn’t code for replacing the 77W, I wouldn’t say he said ‘explicitly’ it wouldn’t replace the 77W.

tealnz wrote:

In an interview after he announced the original 787-10 order the then-CEO of Air NZ said explicitly that the -10 would not be the 77W replacement – and that there would be a further selection process so years down the track for that purpose. I expect that comment reflected a view that a 77W replacement would need similar capacity and capability which even the -10 HGW couldn’t offer. That of course was pre-covid…

My comment was made in light of the airline's decision last summer to retire their 777-300ERs and just operate the 787-9 and 787-10.

ANZ's post-pandemic traffic patterns appear to not to be able to support the 777-300ER and that arguably should also mean they are also not able to support the A350-1000, to say nothing of the 777-9.

As such, the 787-10 is now going to be ANZ's "big lifter" for the foreseeable future and one would presume that it will be deployed on former 777-300ER routes where feasible.

Stitch wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

In reality the then NZ CEO said the 781 order wasn’t code for replacing the 77W, I wouldn’t say he said ‘explicitly’ it wouldn’t replace the 77W.

tealnz wrote:

In an interview after he announced the original 787-10 order the then-CEO of Air NZ said explicitly that the -10 would not be the 77W replacement – and that there would be a further selection process so years down the track for that purpose. I expect that comment reflected a view that a 77W replacement would need similar capacity and capability which even the -10 HGW couldn’t offer. That of course was pre-covid…

My comment was made in light of the airline's decision last summer to retire their 777-300ERs and just operate the 787-9 and 787-10.

ANZ's post-pandemic traffic patterns appear to not to be able to support the 777-300ER and that arguably should also mean they are also not able to support the A350-1000, to say nothing of the 777-9.

As such, the 787-10 is now going to be ANZ's "big lifter" for the foreseeable future and one would presume that it will be deployed on former 777-300ER routes where feasible.

As Air New Zealand has up to now no 797-10 and seems to have the right to switch versions, they could end up with taken 787-9 only. Smaller frame for fewer passengers with enough cargo and range possibilities.

Stitch wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

In reality the then NZ CEO said the 781 order wasn’t code for replacing the 77W, I wouldn’t say he said ‘explicitly’ it wouldn’t replace the 77W.

tealnz wrote:

In an interview after he announced the original 787-10 order the then-CEO of Air NZ said explicitly that the -10 would not be the 77W replacement – and that there would be a further selection process so years down the track for that purpose. I expect that comment reflected a view that a 77W replacement would need similar capacity and capability which even the -10 HGW couldn’t offer. That of course was pre-covid…

My comment was made in light of the airline's decision last summer to retire their 777-300ERs and just operate the 787-9 and 787-10.

ANZ's post-pandemic traffic patterns appear to not to be able to support the 777-300ER and that arguably should also mean they are also not able to support the A350-1000, to say nothing of the 777-9.

As such, the 787-10 is now going to be ANZ's "big lifter" for the foreseeable future and one would presume that it will be deployed on former 777-300ER routes where feasible.

Hi Stitch,

In this very old thread you mentioned the 789 gear is good for 280T - any idea where you got that from or is it still valid?

viewtopic.php?t=754663

Of course it probably doesn't need that much - but if you can get to 265T at the same pavement loading as an 779 - and as there are rumoured heavier 777X's possible at say 365T - which by definition would have higher pavement loading than 779 - 265T doesn't seem like that much of a challenge.

Thoughts?

morrisond wrote:

In this very old thread you mentioned the 789 gear is good for 280T - any idea where you got that from or is it still valid?

It came from someone who had provided other information that had checked out so I considered it worthy of passing on. Mind you, this value is likely what the struts and attachment points can handle. So actually reaching 280,000kg could require larger tires or a six-wheel truck like the 777.

As to actually increasing the MTOW from beyond the current values, one imagines by now Boeing has significant data on how the current undercarriage handles pavement loading and such so they have likely been able to improve the accuracy of those models.

The questions I see being asked by Boeing are:

1) How much can we improve the operating weights?
2) How much do we need to improve the operating weights to meet customer requests?
3) Can those operating weight increases be retrofitted to existing frames, or can they only be done with new-builds?
4) If the latter is the case (for the maximum increase), can existing frames take some operating weight increases?
5) How do those operating weight increases impact competitiveness vis-a-vis the A350-900 in RFPs both lost and in play?
6) How do those operating weight increases impact competitiveness of the 787-10 vs. the 777-9?

Not sure where the 787-10 needing an extra 1knm comes from to be on a par with the 77W. The MZFW range of the 787-10 is ~4knm and does so with an additional 21t of cargo on top of max pax. With max pax and 21t of cargo the 77W is going ~6knm. To allow the 787-10 to match that the MTOW needs to be in the order of 277t. To match the max pax and bags range of the 77W it needs 267t MTOW. I think in the context of ANZ the cargo is very important.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Stitch wrote:

morrisond wrote:

In this very old thread you mentioned the 789 gear is good for 280T - any idea where you got that from or is it still valid?

It came from someone who had provided other information that had checked out so I considered it worthy of passing on. Mind you, this value is likely what the struts and attachment points can handle. So actually reaching 280,000kg could require larger tires or a six-wheel truck like the 777.

As to actually increasing the MTOW from beyond the current values, one imagines by now Boeing has significant data on how the current undercarriage handles pavement loading and such so they have likely been able to improve the accuracy of those models.

The questions I see being asked by Boeing are:

1) How much can we improve the operating weights?
2) How much do we need to improve the operating weights to meet customer requests?
3) Can those operating weight increases be retrofitted to existing frames, or can they only be done with new-builds?
4) If the latter is the case (for the maximum increase), can existing frames take some operating weight increases?
5) How do those operating weight increases impact competitiveness vis-a-vis the A350-900 in RFPs both lost and in play?
6) How do those operating weight increases impact competitiveness of the 787-10 vs. the 777-9?

Thanks.

Interestingly enough in the OCT, 2021 787 revision they did update the pavement loading data.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

Does anyone know how to find the older ACAP to compare and see what they changed?

I found the Revision J 787 ACAP and it appears that the new 787 Pavement loading data puts the 787 at the same pavement loading at 254.7 T as it used to at 251.7T.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/s ... 1506567348

Unless someone else can provide anything - based on my basic research it does not seem like there will be any issues with pavement loading going to at least 265T and possibly more like 270T with the existing gear and tires.

That doesn't mean they will go that high - but it doesn't appear to be an issue.

In fact on Rigid/High strength surfaces the 781 at 254.7T appears to slightly less load the pavement than an A321XLR will.

If you interpolate the A321NEO at 97.4T with an ACN of 64 to XLR at 101T you get an ACN of 66.4. The 781 is 66. That assumes nothing changes in the footprint/tire size or PSI in the tires on an XLR.

morrisond wrote:

Does anyone know how to find the older ACAP to compare and see what they changed?

I have 787 ACAPs going back to 2007 (which is when I believed they were first launched) and will give them a look tonight.

Stitch wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Does anyone know how to find the older ACAP to compare and see what they changed?

I have 787 ACAPs going back to 2007 (which is when I believed they were first launched) and will give them a look tonight.

Thanks - you probably want to compare revision M to the current N.

flipdewaf wrote:

Not sure where the 787-10 needing an extra 1knm comes from to be on a par with the 77W. The MZFW range of the 787-10 is ~4knm and does so with an additional 21t of cargo on top of max pax. With max pax and 21t of cargo the 77W is going ~6knm. To allow the 787-10 to match that the MTOW needs to be in the order of 277t. To match the max pax and bags range of the 77W it needs 267t MTOW. I think in the context of ANZ the cargo is very important.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is not even close to what a 77W can haul even with a 12,000 lb increase in MTOW e.g.

“ Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235. ”

From viewtopic.php?t=1422657

77W can carry over 30,000 lb more than a 787-10

zeke wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Not sure where the 787-10 needing an extra 1knm comes from to be on a par with the 77W. The MZFW range of the 787-10 is ~4knm and does so with an additional 21t of cargo on top of max pax. With max pax and 21t of cargo the 77W is going ~6knm. To allow the 787-10 to match that the MTOW needs to be in the order of 277t. To match the max pax and bags range of the 77W it needs 267t MTOW. I think in the context of ANZ the cargo is very important.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is not even close to what a 77W can haul even with a 12,000 lb increase in MTOW e.g.

“ Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235. ”

From viewtopic.php?t=1422657

77W can carry over 30,000 lb more than a 787-10

Where did 260T come from? It may be more.

morrisond wrote:

zeke wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Not sure where the 787-10 needing an extra 1knm comes from to be on a par with the 77W. The MZFW range of the 787-10 is ~4knm and does so with an additional 21t of cargo on top of max pax. With max pax and 21t of cargo the 77W is going ~6knm. To allow the 787-10 to match that the MTOW needs to be in the order of 277t. To match the max pax and bags range of the 77W it needs 267t MTOW. I think in the context of ANZ the cargo is very important.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is not even close to what a 77W can haul even with a 12,000 lb increase in MTOW e.g.

“ Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235. ”

From viewtopic.php?t=1422657

77W can carry over 30,000 lb more than a 787-10

Where did 260T come from? It may be more.

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

Opus99 wrote:

Scotron12 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Why are people getting negative at seeing the 787-10 at ANZ? They don’t mind the -9 but the -10, heaven forbid. As ANZ earmarked the 787-10 for the 77W replacement. They also made the switch to match the number of 77W they had to replace which is 6/7

Why are you upset about posters that are suggestive being against the B787-10 at ANZ? We don't know what the details are that Boeing is proposing. If they do the same to the B787-9, it maybe more attractive to ANZ. Right now it's all speculation until Boeing publishes the hard numbers.

Rgds

The 787-10 at ANZ is not speculation though it’s a firm order that has been revised once due to Covid. Even if they want to use it for pacific rim it’s a very good aircraft.

But there’s a backlash with some posters on a more capable -10 for whatever reason

Certain users take what is said very literally, sometimes you have to read between the lines as to what was actually said.

Personally I am of the opinion that NZ decided the A350 being a new type entirely was not required, the 77X is to big but possibly initially stood a chance given the existing 777 fleet and the ability to use it to LAX/SFO/IAH.

Then enter a 781HGW which can at least cover LAX/SFO-AKL plus fits in with the existing 787 fleet, this seems to be where the back lash is that NZ can’t carry a full payload, to me a lot of that is taken away by a single type long haul fleet and the ability to use a mix of 789/781.

I don’t disagree that it means certain routes can only be 789 IAH/ORD/EWR but there maybe other opportunities down the track to increase capacity into new cities further fragmenting the market.

Long story short an all 787 fleet makes a huge amount of sense for a smallish operator like NZ.

ZK-NBT wrote:

TBH I don’t recall NZ having ever dismissed the 10 for North American routes.

NZ have/had for sometime been moving to target the premium leisure market, while not in the numbers that SQ or QF carry, enough where NZ could have a code 3 789 on the ULH routes say 250 seats, I wonder what the minimum is on the 781 for them? A bit more premium and around 300 seats to make LAX/SFO work?

At the time they took delivery of their first 789 in 2014 they were quite clear that they wouldn’t be able to use the -10 on trans-Pacific routes (see https://tinyurl.com/4uxwb5fs) – and even had questions about flexibility of the 789 on North American routes.

With experience in service they have obviously found that the 789 has the legs, at least in lower density configuration. And in the context of the 77E replacement it seems some combination of engine, MTOW increase and perhaps lighter empty weight persuaded them the -10 could be used for some routes, even if it lacks the flexibility of the 77W (see flipdewaf’s numbers in this thread).

Opus99 wrote:

Why are people getting negative at seeing the 787-10 at ANZ? They don’t mind the -9 but the -10, heaven forbid. As ANZ earmarked the 787-10 for the 77W replacement. They also made the switch to match the number of 77W they had to replace which is 6/7

NZ ordered eight -10s to replace the 77Es, not the 77Ws. At the time they said the -10s would be used mainly for Asian routes. Which makes sense – their seat mile costs will be unbeatable on routes like Tokyo and Singapore and at those ranges they will also generate great revenue from cargo.

The calculus for North American routes and 77W replacement is a different matter. As we know from UA experience the -10 is stretched westbound to AKL out of the US. We don’t yet know what Boeing has committed to by way of MTOW increase and other improvements. We don’t know what NZ is projecting by way of future pax volumes or freight prices. We do know that they have backed away from early retirement of the 77Ws – and a reasonable inference from that is that they want the freight + pax capability that only the 77W can offer. I doubt they know themselves what their long-term solution looks like. It may be that a 789 HGW will give them what they need.

tealnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

TBH I don’t recall NZ having ever dismissed the 10 for North American routes.

NZ have/had for sometime been moving to target the premium leisure market, while not in the numbers that SQ or QF carry, enough where NZ could have a code 3 789 on the ULH routes say 250 seats, I wonder what the minimum is on the 781 for them? A bit more premium and around 300 seats to make LAX/SFO work?

At the time they took delivery of their first 789 in 2014 they were quite clear that they wouldn’t be able to use the -10 on trans-Pacific routes (see https://tinyurl.com/4uxwb5fs) – and even had questions about flexibility of the 789 on North American routes.

With experience in service they have obviously found that the 789 has the legs, at least in lower density configuration. And in the context of the 77E replacement it seems some combination of engine, MTOW increase and perhaps lighter empty weight persuaded them the -10 could be used for some routes, even if it lacks the flexibility of the 77W (see flipdewaf’s numbers in this thread).

Opus99 wrote:

Why are people getting negative at seeing the 787-10 at ANZ? They don’t mind the -9 but the -10, heaven forbid. As ANZ earmarked the 787-10 for the 77W replacement. They also made the switch to match the number of 77W they had to replace which is 6/7

NZ ordered eight -10s to replace the 77Es, not the 77Ws. At the time they said the -10s would be used mainly for Asian routes. Which makes sense – their seat mile costs will be unbeatable on routes like Tokyo and Singapore and at those ranges they will also generate great revenue from cargo.

The calculus for North American routes and 77W replacement is a different matter. As we know from UA experience the -10 is stretched westbound to AKL out of the US. We don’t yet know what Boeing has committed to by way of MTOW increase and other improvements. We don’t know what NZ is projecting by way of future pax volumes or freight prices. We do know that they have backed away from early retirement of the 77Ws – and a reasonable inference from that is that they want the freight + pax capability that only the 77W can offer. I doubt they know themselves what their long-term solution looks like. It may be that a 789 HGW will give them what they need.

Your points are fair enough and we should probably wait to see the technical details and then take it from there

tealnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

TBH I don’t recall NZ having ever dismissed the 10 for North American routes.

NZ have/had for sometime been moving to target the premium leisure market, while not in the numbers that SQ or QF carry, enough where NZ could have a code 3 789 on the ULH routes say 250 seats, I wonder what the minimum is on the 781 for them? A bit more premium and around 300 seats to make LAX/SFO work?

At the time they took delivery of their first 789 in 2014 they were quite clear that they wouldn’t be able to use the -10 on trans-Pacific routes (see https://tinyurl.com/4uxwb5fs) – and even had questions about flexibility of the 789 on North American routes.

With experience in service they have obviously found that the 789 has the legs, at least in lower density configuration. And in the context of the 77E replacement it seems some combination of engine, MTOW increase and perhaps lighter empty weight persuaded them the -10 could be used for some routes, even if it lacks the flexibility of the 77W (see flipdewaf’s numbers in this thread).

Opus99 wrote:

Why are people getting negative at seeing the 787-10 at ANZ? They don’t mind the -9 but the -10, heaven forbid. As ANZ earmarked the 787-10 for the 77W replacement. They also made the switch to match the number of 77W they had to replace which is 6/7

NZ ordered eight -10s to replace the 77Es, not the 77Ws. At the time they said the -10s would be used mainly for Asian routes. Which makes sense – their seat mile costs will be unbeatable on routes like Tokyo and Singapore and at those ranges they will also generate great revenue from cargo.

The calculus for North American routes and 77W replacement is a different matter. As we know from UA experience the -10 is stretched westbound to AKL out of the US. We don’t yet know what Boeing has committed to by way of MTOW increase and other improvements. We don’t know what NZ is projecting by way of future pax volumes or freight prices. We do know that they have backed away from early retirement of the 77Ws – and a reasonable inference from that is that they want the freight + pax capability that only the 77W can offer. I doubt they know themselves what their long-term solution looks like. It may be that a 789 HGW will give them what they need.

Ok I do vaguely recall that. I would say a few airlines probably brought the 773 and had similar thoughts, only 60 built, that it didn’t have transpacific range, though KE did use it NRT-LAX for a time, NRT-LAX being fairly short in comparison to other transpacific routes.

Remember this article is from 2014 and NZ were going to look at 77X/350 as a 772 replacement while saying more 789s were possible, they went 781 there.
I agree we don’t yet know the technical details although NZ will know more than we do obviously.

Were the 77Ws ever going to retire early? 2027 seemed about right anyway for retirement.

Opus99 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

zeke wrote:

It is not even close to what a 77W can haul even with a 12,000 lb increase in MTOW e.g.

“ Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235. ”

From viewtopic.php?t=1422657

77W can carry over 30,000 lb more than a 787-10

Where did 260T come from? It may be more.

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

At max pax and bags range that makes sense but it doesn’t give it the payload/range performance of a 77W. The 781 is currently 2knm short of the 77w at the 781 max payload.

At 268t the takeoff performance would be roughly in line with the 77W.

To get similar high payload performance as the 77W the B781 needs ~277t.

To match the 77E it needs about 272t MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Where did 260T come from? It may be more.

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

At max pax and bags range that makes sense but it doesn’t give it the payload/range performance of a 77W. The 781 is currently 2knm short of the 77w at the 781 max payload.

At 268t the takeoff performance would be roughly in line with the 77W.

To get similar high payload performance as the 77W the B781 needs ~277t.

To match the 77E it needs about 272t MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh it certainly won’t match the 77W for sure. But I would expect it to be good enough that what you’re losing is paid for in its efficiency and economics on 90% of the routes that the 77W does.

For what it’s worth. We can go back to a thread where Jay United brought the 781 figures on the ATL-FRA cargo route during covid and what he said was the cargo payload was coming very very close to the 77W. Over 100,000 lbs of cargo

viewtopic.php?t=1457339

This is the quote for Jay:

“United operates cargo only flights between FRA-ATL-FRA on a 78X. In February we had multiple 78Xs operate FRA-ATL with at least 100,000 LBS but there were days when we exceed the 100,000 LBS. Looking at the report for February the one day/flight that stands out happen about 2 weeks ago on the FRA-ATL leg where a UA 78X operated the leg with 113,200 LBS of cargo. The first thing I thought of was damn that pretty close to our 77Ws this despite the fact the 78X has one less pallet position than the 77W. Granted FRA-ATL is a much shorter flight than lets say NRT-ORD, but GRU-ORD is only a slightly longer route around 300 NM or so. It is conceivable that the 78X could operate GRU-ORD as a cargo only flight and still carry the same amount of cargo UA is loading on our 77Ws out of GRU.

You are correct on short and mid-range long haul cargo only flights the 78X can do exactly what the 77W can do but at a lower cost. The 77W is not efficient if it has to go head to head with a 78X on a route the 78X was designed to handle.“

Now my question is that last sentence on what the 78X was designed to handle. If we can stretch that out some more with this MTOW bump, it’s a formidable aircraft. Competition is stiff out there.

But Fred, I must admit that your stance earlier on the 777X I might just be coming round to it here. When you look at Boeing now bringing this 787-10 IGW, the 359 the 35K. It’s getting crowded and I’m just less confident in how many passenger sales the X will get. But I still expect it to be a good freighter. Let’s see

Opus99 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

zeke wrote:

It is not even close to what a 77W can haul even with a 12,000 lb increase in MTOW e.g.

“ Take for example today's 5/29/2019 UA85 TLV-EWR flight the MTOG for the 78X is 560,000 today's TOG was 559,235. Now before you said I told you so lets take a look at what is on that aircraft. First and foremost the aircraft went out full with 318 passengers and 326 bags and 26,089 pounds of cargo. Lets break it all down the OEW is 300,563 the weight of all 318 passengers is 60,903, the weight of their 326 bags is 9780 pounds and there was 26,089 pounds of cargo add those number together we get a ZFW of 397,335 out of a MXFW of 425,000. The cleared fuel was 161,900 so when you add the cleared fuel to the ZFW you get a TOG of 559,235. ”

From viewtopic.php?t=1422657

77W can carry over 30,000 lb more than a 787-10

Where did 260T come from? It may be more.

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

GEnx-1B78/P2 is capable of 80.4K takeoff thrust, 68.6K for max continuous, per the TCDS from the FAA

Trent 1000-R is capable of 81K takeoff, 72.7 mac continuous, per the TCDS from EASA

I think for takeoff performance, the biggest limiting factor for a HGW 787 will be the wing. Ive seen linkedin profiles for engineers working on the 787 IGW wing, so I imagine they are doing something. They’ve got 15 feet to stretch out and fit inside of the same gates.

For reference, the A359 and Trent XWB go up to 84.2K.

ILikeTrains wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Where did 260T come from? It may be more.

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

GEnx-1B78/P2 is capable of 80.4K takeoff thrust, 68.6K for max continuous, per the TCDS from the FAA

Trent 1000-R is capable of 81K takeoff, 72.7 mac continuous, per the TCDS from EASA

I think for takeoff performance, the biggest limiting factor for a HGW 787 will be the wing. Ive seen linkedin profiles for engineers working on the 787 IGW wing, so I imagine they are doing something. They’ve got 15 feet to stretch out and fit inside of the same gates.

For reference, the A359 and Trent XWB go up to 84.2K.

As much as I’d love to see a stretched wing. It would cause certification problems. Boeing does not want unnecessary certification

Here’s what Leeham had to say:

The wing loading of a 787-10ER at Max Take-Off Weight goes from 700kg/m2 to 750kg/m2. This is still short of the top wing loading in the business, the 777-300ER at 770kg/m2. But stronger engines to accelerate the aircraft to a higher lift-off speed or longer runways are needed.

And let us also remember what Boeing actually told Leeham;:

“Here’s what Boeing is sharing today:
787-9 and -10 additional capabilities with Increased Gross Weight

More range and payload for both 787-9 and 787-10
Complete operational commonality with existing 787 fleet and family, with no additional empty weight or thrust changes

787-10 comparisons with increased capabilities:

777-200ER replacement with the same range, up to 42 extra seats, and more than 25% better fuel per seat

Even larger payload advantage over A350-900, along with 19 more seats, 2% lower trip, and 8% lower per-seat cost

60 more seats, more than 20% more cargo, and the same range as the A330-900, with 17% lower operating cost per seat“

Opus99 wrote:

For what it’s worth. We can go back to a thread where Jay United brought the 781 figures on the ATL-FRA cargo route during covid and what he said was the cargo payload was coming very very close to the 77W. Over 100,000 lbs of cargo

It isn’t close to what a 77W will do, what he is talking about is no passenger flights belly cargo only flights during covid. The 77W can carry over 150,000 lb, where the 113,000 lb is the maximum for their 787-10s.

It isn’t 90% of what a 77W can do, it’s 70-75%.

I think the 78X will become the 321 of widebodies. It's usually the biggest stretch that provides the best economics and sells the best. It's really kind of a no brainer. The 787-8/9 are already in tons of fleets. Look at the A330-300. It's range grew significantly from inception. Same is now happening with the 321 and will eventually happen with this. There are/will be a significant amount of routes that this 78X will be the absolute casm king on for probably the next 30+ years. The problem for Boeing is who is going to want the 777X if the 787's are doing their job so much better.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

For what it’s worth. We can go back to a thread where Jay United brought the 781 figures on the ATL-FRA cargo route during covid and what he said was the cargo payload was coming very very close to the 77W. Over 100,000 lbs of cargo

It isn’t close to what a 77W will do, what he is talking about is no passenger flights belly cargo only flights during covid. The 77W can carry over 150,000 lb, where the 113,000 lb is the maximum for their 787-10s.

It isn’t 90% of what a 77W can do, it’s 70-75%.

Okay let’s see. At that 70-75% airlines might not mind the payload drop.

Eva Air is replacing two 77W routes with 787-10 from October:

TPE-YVR
TPE-SEA

And I’m sure Eva will you be very interested in this 787IGW

Opus99 wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

GEnx-1B78/P2 is capable of 80.4K takeoff thrust, 68.6K for max continuous, per the TCDS from the FAA

Trent 1000-R is capable of 81K takeoff, 72.7 mac continuous, per the TCDS from EASA

I think for takeoff performance, the biggest limiting factor for a HGW 787 will be the wing. Ive seen linkedin profiles for engineers working on the 787 IGW wing, so I imagine they are doing something. They’ve got 15 feet to stretch out and fit inside of the same gates.

For reference, the A359 and Trent XWB go up to 84.2K.

As much as I’d love to see a stretched wing. It would cause certification problems. Boeing does not want unnecessary certification

Here’s what Leeham had to say:

The wing loading of a 787-10ER at Max Take-Off Weight goes from 700kg/m2 to 750kg/m2. This is still short of the top wing loading in the business, the 777-300ER at 770kg/m2. But stronger engines to accelerate the aircraft to a higher lift-off speed or longer runways are needed.

And let us also remember what Boeing actually told Leeham;:

“Here’s what Boeing is sharing today:
787-9 and -10 additional capabilities with Increased Gross Weight

More range and payload for both 787-9 and 787-10
Complete operational commonality with existing 787 fleet and family, with no additional empty weight or thrust changes

787-10 comparisons with increased capabilities:

777-200ER replacement with the same range, up to 42 extra seats, and more than 25% better fuel per seat

Even larger payload advantage over A350-900, along with 19 more seats, 2% lower trip, and 8% lower per-seat cost

60 more seats, more than 20% more cargo, and the same range as the A330-900, with 17% lower operating cost per seat“

Here is the article - tons of detail as Opus99 says. It has to be more than 260T to get that much range.

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

morrisond wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

GEnx-1B78/P2 is capable of 80.4K takeoff thrust, 68.6K for max continuous, per the TCDS from the FAA

Trent 1000-R is capable of 81K takeoff, 72.7 mac continuous, per the TCDS from EASA

I think for takeoff performance, the biggest limiting factor for a HGW 787 will be the wing. Ive seen linkedin profiles for engineers working on the 787 IGW wing, so I imagine they are doing something. They’ve got 15 feet to stretch out and fit inside of the same gates.

For reference, the A359 and Trent XWB go up to 84.2K.

As much as I’d love to see a stretched wing. It would cause certification problems. Boeing does not want unnecessary certification

Here’s what Leeham had to say:

The wing loading of a 787-10ER at Max Take-Off Weight goes from 700kg/m2 to 750kg/m2. This is still short of the top wing loading in the business, the 777-300ER at 770kg/m2. But stronger engines to accelerate the aircraft to a higher lift-off speed or longer runways are needed.

And let us also remember what Boeing actually told Leeham;:

“Here’s what Boeing is sharing today:
787-9 and -10 additional capabilities with Increased Gross Weight

More range and payload for both 787-9 and 787-10
Complete operational commonality with existing 787 fleet and family, with no additional empty weight or thrust changes

787-10 comparisons with increased capabilities:

777-200ER replacement with the same range, up to 42 extra seats, and more than 25% better fuel per seat

Even larger payload advantage over A350-900, along with 19 more seats, 2% lower trip, and 8% lower per-seat cost

60 more seats, more than 20% more cargo, and the same range as the A330-900, with 17% lower operating cost per seat“

Here is the article - tons of detail as Opus99 says. It has to be more than 260T to get that much range.

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

Wow. The Leeham article is quite interesting. The enhancements to the 789 in some ways are even more interesting than the 787-10.

If the article is true, and Leeham is generally considered a respected and reliable aviation news entity, the 787-10 IGW should be very competitive as a replacement for the 77E with much, much better fuel burn and operational costs with the range of the 77E. The Leeham article said 25% better fuel costs per seat than the 77E. if so....wow.


As far as the 789, its disadvantage relative to the A359 has been at the outer edge of the payload/ range curve. The Leeham article is stating the 789 IGW will significantly close that gap with better operating and fuel costs.

If this is real these improvements should really shake up the wide body market. It should be interesting to see how Airbus responds.

Opus99 wrote:

Okay let’s see. At that 70-75% airlines might not mind the payload drop.

Eva Air is replacing two 77W routes with 787-10 from October:

TPE-YVR
TPE-SEA

And I’m sure Eva will you be very interested in this 787IGW

We used to have seasonal changes from 744 to 343 on the HKG-YVR, the schedule change for Oct does not really demonstrate anything to me. Many airlines put smaller capacity aircraft on routes when there is seasonal changes.

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

At max pax and bags range that makes sense but it doesn’t give it the payload/range performance of a 77W. The 781 is currently 2knm short of the 77w at the 781 max payload.

At 268t the takeoff performance would be roughly in line with the 77W.

To get similar high payload performance as the 77W the B781 needs ~277t.

To match the 77E it needs about 272t MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh it certainly won’t match the 77W for sure. But I would expect it to be good enough that what you’re losing is paid for in its efficiency and economics on 90% of the routes that the 77W does.

Of course it does, it’s a newer generation of aircraft with a newer generation of engines. The question isn’t “would it be useful to replace the 77W with the B781?” But rather “which aircraft should the 77W be replaced with?”

The 789 for example may cover 95% of those missions and the A359 may cover 98% of those missions for the same or similar reductions in cost.

Opus99 wrote:

Now my question is that last sentence on what the 78X was designed to handle. If we can stretch that out some more with this MTOW bump, it’s a formidable aircraft. Competition is stiff out there.

But Fred, I must admit that your stance earlier on the 777X I might just be coming round to it here. When you look at Boeing now bringing this 787-10 IGW, the 359 the 35K. It’s getting crowded and I’m just less confident in how many passenger sales the X will get. But I still expect it to be a good freighter. Let’s see

The 781 isn’t crowding the A359 and A35k. The 781 might be crowding the 789 a bit with these upgrades and if the 789 gets them too then the 789 will continue to encroach on the A359 even more but not the A35k. The A35k has a small but somewhat unchallenged niche, the issues for the A35k are around how big that niche is and how much it costs to build.

For the the 781 to match the A359 performance it needs a 276-277t MTOW (this is t match the 280t A359). This, as we know is complete BS.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

At max pax and bags range that makes sense but it doesn’t give it the payload/range performance of a 77W. The 781 is currently 2knm short of the 77w at the 781 max payload.

At 268t the takeoff performance would be roughly in line with the 77W.

To get similar high payload performance as the 77W the B781 needs ~277t.

To match the 77E it needs about 272t MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh it certainly won’t match the 77W for sure. But I would expect it to be good enough that what you’re losing is paid for in its efficiency and economics on 90% of the routes that the 77W does.

Of course it does, it’s a newer generation of aircraft with a newer generation of engines. The question isn’t “would it be useful to replace the 77W with the B781?” But rather “which aircraft should the 77W be replaced with?”

The 789 for example may cover 95% of those missions and the A359 may cover 98% of those missions for the same or similar reductions in cost.

Opus99 wrote:

Now my question is that last sentence on what the 78X was designed to handle. If we can stretch that out some more with this MTOW bump, it’s a formidable aircraft. Competition is stiff out there.

But Fred, I must admit that your stance earlier on the 777X I might just be coming round to it here. When you look at Boeing now bringing this 787-10 IGW, the 359 the 35K. It’s getting crowded and I’m just less confident in how many passenger sales the X will get. But I still expect it to be a good freighter. Let’s see

The 781 isn’t crowding the A359 and A35k. The 781 might be crowding the 789 a bit with these upgrades and if the 789 gets them too then the 789 will continue to encroach on the A359 even more but not the A35k. The A35k has a small but somewhat unchallenged niche, the issues for the A35k are around how big that niche is and how much it costs to build.

For the the 781 to match the A359 performance it needs a 276-277t MTOW (this is t match the 280t A359). This, as we know is complete BS.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh no, I don’t mean it will match them, I just think customers have a lot of choice on the 300+ seater market. They all have their USPs right but they could all potentially build a good case to replace 77Ws which becomes a problem for the X like I said. Not necessarily that they’re giving you the same thing

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

At max pax and bags range that makes sense but it doesn’t give it the payload/range performance of a 77W. The 781 is currently 2knm short of the 77w at the 781 max payload.

At 268t the takeoff performance would be roughly in line with the 77W.

To get similar high payload performance as the 77W the B781 needs ~277t.

To match the 77E it needs about 272t MTOW.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh it certainly won’t match the 77W for sure. But I would expect it to be good enough that what you’re losing is paid for in its efficiency and economics on 90% of the routes that the 77W does.

Of course it does, it’s a newer generation of aircraft with a newer generation of engines. The question isn’t “would it be useful to replace the 77W with the B781?” But rather “which aircraft should the 77W be replaced with?”

The 789 for example may cover 95% of those missions and the A359 may cover 98% of those missions for the same or similar reductions in cost.

Opus99 wrote:

Now my question is that last sentence on what the 78X was designed to handle. If we can stretch that out some more with this MTOW bump, it’s a formidable aircraft. Competition is stiff out there.

But Fred, I must admit that your stance earlier on the 777X I might just be coming round to it here. When you look at Boeing now bringing this 787-10 IGW, the 359 the 35K. It’s getting crowded and I’m just less confident in how many passenger sales the X will get. But I still expect it to be a good freighter. Let’s see

The 781 isn’t crowding the A359 and A35k. The 781 might be crowding the 789 a bit with these upgrades and if the 789 gets them too then the 789 will continue to encroach on the A359 even more but not the A35k. The A35k has a small but somewhat unchallenged niche, the issues for the A35k are around how big that niche is and how much it costs to build.

For the the 781 to match the A359 performance it needs a 276-277t MTOW (this is t match the 280t A359). This, as we know is complete BS.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fred,

I don't any reasonable person expects the 787-10 to match the payload range performance of the A 359. But per the Leeham article Boeing is saying the 787 IGW will basically match the performance of the 77E. You mentioned to get there the 787-10 will need a MTOW of 272 tons.

Leeham is saying the 787 IGW may top out at 268 tons MTOW. If true, with PIP's the 787-10 should be at or very close to the 77E.

To me, that should be the target.

The 77E will have a large replacement market. Again, think UA, AA,BA, and KLM that already own 787's and 77E's.

But until Boeing puts out full technical details I am still not a true believer.

morrisond wrote:

Well - you still haven't explained why the Ultrafan would be 350 only, other than Airbus would finance it. Effectively that would mean Rolls is forgoing any future 787 orders. That's a big thing to give up.

The deal would be; in return for Airbus assistance in finance they would get a few years (4-5) exclusivity/head start on the ultrafan. I'm not sure how realistic such a deal would be.

morrisond wrote:

You are also still dealing with probably a decade before Ultrafan is ready. A PIP 787/350 could be ready in half the time. Rolls would be smarter to do the PIP as it could apply to both 787 and 350 without the massive capital investment of the Ultrafan.

https://youtu.be/sRAt8mn3HyY?t=3188

Andrew Geer, Ultrafan Chief Engineer says something like end of the decade. He further expands a bit about it being a funny thing with the manufacturers product range plans. Knowing that the earlier ultrafan EIS date was 2025, personally I am of the opinion that it is much more likely that any delay in EIS would be much more a result of Airbus product strategy than any technical hold up. I feel Airbus is keeping ultrafan in their back pocket to hit exactly at the time they feel it is most opportune for them to do so.

For Boeing what would be a very unpleasant scenario is that they invest significantly in a ~265T 787. Then in 2024-2025 Airbus launches the A350ultrafan with a 77,8m A350-"1050" which will reduce any further 777X passenger sales to a few dozen at best. This due to a ~25T lower empty weight and a 4% better SFC than a PIP-ed GE9X. It will be 77W vs. A340-600 all over again. Boeing will then again have to develop the 787 to enable a 290-300T 787-11 to compete in the above 787-10 market.

As said, that's Boeing dilemma in my view. How much do we want to invest on a small MTOW increase now (which already really could use a larger wing), without again needing to spend a whole lot's of money redesigning the same components if we need to replace the 777X with a 787-11 because it has completely stopped selling after A350 ultrafan launch?

The alternative for Boeing would be to accept the 777X as passenger jet does not have much future (after A350ultrafan launch) and go straight to that much higher MTOW 787-10 and 11 with a new MLG and wingbox and 65m wing. Problem is they need a WB GTF to make it commercially viable.

I reckon Airbus is waiting with the A350ultrafan for Boeing to make a choice on the future of their 787 and 777X range. Till that time they are probably quite comfortable with the current situation.

Taxi645 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Well - you still haven't explained why the Ultrafan would be 350 only, other than Airbus would finance it. Effectively that would mean Rolls is forgoing any future 787 orders. That's a big thing to give up.

The deal would be; in return for Airbus assistance in finance they would get a few years (4-5) exclusivity/head start on the ultrafan. I'm not sure how realistic such a deal would be.

morrisond wrote:

You are also still dealing with probably a decade before Ultrafan is ready. A PIP 787/350 could be ready in half the time. Rolls would be smarter to do the PIP as it could apply to both 787 and 350 without the massive capital investment of the Ultrafan.

https://youtu.be/sRAt8mn3HyY?t=3188

Andrew Geer, Ultrafan Chief Engineer says something like end of the decade. He further expands a bit about it being a funny thing with the manufacturers product range plans. Knowing that the earlier ultrafan EIS date was 2025, personally I am of the opinion that it is much more likely that any delay in EIS would be much more a result of Airbus product strategy than any technical hold up. I feel Airbus is keeping ultrafan in their back pocket to hit exactly at the time they feel it is most opportune for them to do so.

For Boeing what would be a very unpleasant scenario is that they invest significantly in a ~265T 787. Then in 2024-2025 Airbus launches the A350ultrafan with a 77,8m A350-"1050" which will reduce any further 777X passenger sales to a few dozen at best. This due to a ~25T lower empty weight and a 4% better SFC than a PIP-ed GE9X. It will be 77W vs. A340-600 all over again. Boeing will then again have to develop the 787 to enable a 290-300T 787-11 to compete in the above 787-10 market.

As said, that's Boeing dilemma in my view. How much do we want to invest on a small MTOW increase now (which already really could use a larger wing), without again needing to spend a whole lot's of money redesigning the same components if we need to replace the 777X with a 787-11 because it has completely stopped selling after A350 ultrafan launch?

The alternative for Boeing would be to accept the 777X as passenger jet does not have much future (after A350ultrafan launch) and go straight to that much higher MTOW 787-10 and 11 with a new MLG and wingbox and 65m wing. Problem is they need a WB GTF to make it commercially viable.

I reckon Airbus is waiting with the A350ultrafan for Boeing to make a choice on the future of their 787 and 777X range. Till that time they are probably quite comfortable with the current situation.

It’s just an MTOW bump. It’s not a brand new plane. It’s like saying airbus should not invest in their 350 283 MTOW bump. You do know that is also coming with an engine PIP from RR right? And the EIS is 2024.

I see no ultra fan launch in 2025. You have to understand that wide-body market now is soft. Investing in a brand new engine has to come from a push from rolls to re-engine the aircraft. Now As airbus, I have not even finished selling the 350-1000, I’ve only just brought the 350F to make headway in the freighter market but you know what will make sense? Let me invest in an ultrafan when I’ve not even finished making ROI on thé current project. Let me spend another 5-6 billion for an aircraft. Then there’s the selling proce. The 350-1000 is 20-25% better than the 77W have you not wondered why it doesn’t sell? The main factor? It is too damn expensive to the point that you actually go into a negative down from that 25%. So airbus needs to work on the costing of this 350 before committing to building a probably more expensive one. 2025 is in 3 years.

Let us be realistic. Now if you said 2027 okay that makes sense.

Something you also may not know is the 787IGW is a pre-requisite for the re-engine of the 787 that is the planned step before the 787 re-engine and is there somewhere they wrote the ultrafan is only for the 350? If there is please point it out to me.

Nobody is investing in a new wing or anything extensive. MTOW bump and a software upload. That’s it. Jheez

And you know what RR said? They’re waiting for whoever comes to drive that project forward. Till then, it’s on ice

ElroyJetson wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Oh it certainly won’t match the 77W for sure. But I would expect it to be good enough that what you’re losing is paid for in its efficiency and economics on 90% of the routes that the 77W does.

Of course it does, it’s a newer generation of aircraft with a newer generation of engines. The question isn’t “would it be useful to replace the 77W with the B781?” But rather “which aircraft should the 77W be replaced with?”

The 789 for example may cover 95% of those missions and the A359 may cover 98% of those missions for the same or similar reductions in cost.

Opus99 wrote:

Now my question is that last sentence on what the 78X was designed to handle. If we can stretch that out some more with this MTOW bump, it’s a formidable aircraft. Competition is stiff out there.

But Fred, I must admit that your stance earlier on the 777X I might just be coming round to it here. When you look at Boeing now bringing this 787-10 IGW, the 359 the 35K. It’s getting crowded and I’m just less confident in how many passenger sales the X will get. But I still expect it to be a good freighter. Let’s see

The 781 isn’t crowding the A359 and A35k. The 781 might be crowding the 789 a bit with these upgrades and if the 789 gets them too then the 789 will continue to encroach on the A359 even more but not the A35k. The A35k has a small but somewhat unchallenged niche, the issues for the A35k are around how big that niche is and how much it costs to build.

For the the 781 to match the A359 performance it needs a 276-277t MTOW (this is t match the 280t A359). This, as we know is complete BS.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fred,

I don't any reasonable person expects the 787-10 to match the payload range performance of the A 359. But per the Leeham article Boeing is saying the 787 IGW will basically match the performance of the 77E. You mentioned to get there the 787-10 will need a MTOW of 272 tons.

Leeham is saying the 787 IGW may top out at 268 tons MTOW. If true, with PIP's the 787-10 should be at or very close to the 77E.

To me, that should be the target.

The 77E will have a large replacement market. Again, think UA, AA,BA, and KLM that already own 787's and 77E's.

But until Boeing puts out full technical details I am still not a true believer.

i too am betting on the 270T MTOW range.

Every development costs engine makers and OEM crap loads of money. This is not mobile phone development. And every action (very expensive) will trigger another expensive reaction from competition which will wipe out any hedge. This is the reality and the separation from the wet dreams of us in the forum they play with real money. And this year will be maybe covid free but interest rates hikes, inflation, wars will cool down a lot the travel fever.

Polot wrote:

The only way Airbus gets Ultrafan exclusivity is if they pay for its development (and hold rights to its design/patents). Doing so dramatically changes the business case of a A350 re-engine: you are suddenly adding several billion to it because Airbus has to eat all the engine development costs, not RR. It is in RR’s best interest to get their engines and their tech on as many products as possible. They do engine exclusivity contracts to keep engine competitors out, not to lock themselves onto one application. If Boeing comes to them asking about putting Ultrafan on 787 they are not going to outright dismiss them and say no.

Most of Ultranfan talk has been about A350 first because that is the engine thrust range arena that RR is playing in with the prototype development mules. The intention is always to have the tech trickle down (in this case) to lower thrusts for 787/A330 space.

It was not my understanding that Boeing had paid for the GE9 on the 777 and the -9X on the 777X.
Setting aside that RR are not in great financial shape right now, what makes you think it's not in their interest to invest in an A350NEO to retain the exclusivity on a more competitive frame?
I don't think its as black and white as you make out

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

Polot wrote:

The only way Airbus gets Ultrafan exclusivity is if they pay for its development (and hold rights to its design/patents). Doing so dramatically changes the business case of a A350 re-engine: you are suddenly adding several billion to it because Airbus has to eat all the engine development costs, not RR. It is in RR’s best interest to get their engines and their tech on as many products as possible. They do engine exclusivity contracts to keep engine competitors out, not to lock themselves onto one application. If Boeing comes to them asking about putting Ultrafan on 787 they are not going to outright dismiss them and say no.

Most of Ultranfan talk has been about A350 first because that is the engine thrust range arena that RR is playing in with the prototype development mules. The intention is always to have the tech trickle down (in this case) to lower thrusts for 787/A330 space.

It was not my understanding that Boeing had paid for the GE9 on the 777 and the -9X on the 777X.
Setting aside that RR are not in great financial shape right now, what makes you think it's not in their interest to invest in an A350NEO to retain the exclusivity on a more competitive frame?
I don't think its as black and white as you make out

Rgds

RR has a lot of customers on the 787, why lose out on potential revenue by not being on the 787 which has sold over 1000 aircraft. They could also offer some thing help any relationship issues as T1000 is losing a lot of ground in the 787

astuteman wrote:

Polot wrote:

The only way Airbus gets Ultrafan exclusivity is if they pay for its development (and hold rights to its design/patents). Doing so dramatically changes the business case of a A350 re-engine: you are suddenly adding several billion to it because Airbus has to eat all the engine development costs, not RR. It is in RR’s best interest to get their engines and their tech on as many products as possible. They do engine exclusivity contracts to keep engine competitors out, not to lock themselves onto one application. If Boeing comes to them asking about putting Ultrafan on 787 they are not going to outright dismiss them and say no.

Most of Ultranfan talk has been about A350 first because that is the engine thrust range arena that RR is playing in with the prototype development mules. The intention is always to have the tech trickle down (in this case) to lower thrusts for 787/A330 space.

It was not my understanding that Boeing had paid for the GE9 on the 777 and the -9X on the 777X.
Setting aside that RR are not in great financial shape right now, what makes you think it's not in their interest to invest in an A350NEO to retain the exclusivity on a more competitive frame?
I don't think its as black and white as you make out

Rgds

Are the GE90 and GE9x 777 exclusive because GE are not allowed to use them on anything else, or are they 777 exclusive because there is no and never was a suitable alternative aircraft to put them on? A350 predates launch of -9X (and wouldn’t want older GE90), and competitor to original 777s was four engine A340. At the time of XWB launch GE did not want to develop a new engine in competition with the GE90/77W, which is why they dropped from the A350 when A350mk1 was powered by GEnx. RR got exclusivity on larger A350-1000 back in 2010 or 2011 when that variant was slightly redesigned, then exclusivity on the -900 last year or 2020.

Early GE90s certainly were not restricted to just the 777, according to Leahy GE offered to put them on the A330 but Airbus said no.

Opus99 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Well - you still haven't explained why the Ultrafan would be 350 only, other than Airbus would finance it. Effectively that would mean Rolls is forgoing any future 787 orders. That's a big thing to give up.

The deal would be; in return for Airbus assistance in finance they would get a few years (4-5) exclusivity/head start on the ultrafan. I'm not sure how realistic such a deal would be.

morrisond wrote:

You are also still dealing with probably a decade before Ultrafan is ready. A PIP 787/350 could be ready in half the time. Rolls would be smarter to do the PIP as it could apply to both 787 and 350 without the massive capital investment of the Ultrafan.

https://youtu.be/sRAt8mn3HyY?t=3188

Andrew Geer, Ultrafan Chief Engineer says something like end of the decade. He further expands a bit about it being a funny thing with the manufacturers product range plans. Knowing that the earlier ultrafan EIS date was 2025, personally I am of the opinion that it is much more likely that any delay in EIS would be much more a result of Airbus product strategy than any technical hold up. I feel Airbus is keeping ultrafan in their back pocket to hit exactly at the time they feel it is most opportune for them to do so.

For Boeing what would be a very unpleasant scenario is that they invest significantly in a ~265T 787. Then in 2024-2025 Airbus launches the A350ultrafan with a 77,8m A350-"1050" which will reduce any further 777X passenger sales to a few dozen at best. This due to a ~25T lower empty weight and a 4% better SFC than a PIP-ed GE9X. It will be 77W vs. A340-600 all over again. Boeing will then again have to develop the 787 to enable a 290-300T 787-11 to compete in the above 787-10 market.

As said, that's Boeing dilemma in my view. How much do we want to invest on a small MTOW increase now (which already really could use a larger wing), without again needing to spend a whole lot's of money redesigning the same components if we need to replace the 777X with a 787-11 because it has completely stopped selling after A350 ultrafan launch?

The alternative for Boeing would be to accept the 777X as passenger jet does not have much future (after A350ultrafan launch) and go straight to that much higher MTOW 787-10 and 11 with a new MLG and wingbox and 65m wing. Problem is they need a WB GTF to make it commercially viable.

I reckon Airbus is waiting with the A350ultrafan for Boeing to make a choice on the future of their 787 and 777X range. Till that time they are probably quite comfortable with the current situation.

It’s just an MTOW bump. It’s not a brand new plane. It’s like saying airbus should not invest in their 350 283 MTOW bump. You do know that is also coming with an engine PIP from RR right? And the EIS is 2024.

I see no ultra fan launch in 2025. You have to understand that wide-body market now is soft. Investing in a brand new engine has to come from a push from rolls to re-engine the aircraft. Now As airbus, I have not even finished selling the 350-1000, I’ve only just brought the 350F to make headway in the freighter market but you know what will make sense? Let me invest in an ultrafan when I’ve not even finished making ROI on thé current project. Let me spend another 5-6 billion for an aircraft. Then there’s the selling proce. The 350-1000 is 20-25% better than the 77W have you not wondered why it doesn’t sell? The main factor? It is too damn expensive to the point that you actually go into a negative down from that 25%. So airbus needs to work on the costing of this 350 before committing to building a probably more expensive one. 2025 is in 3 years.

Let us be realistic. Now if you said 2027 okay that makes sense.

Something you also may not know is the 787IGW is a pre-requisite for the re-engine of the 787 that is the planned step before the 787 re-engine and is there somewhere they wrote the ultrafan is only for the 350? If there is please point it out to me.

Nobody is investing in a new wing or anything extensive. MTOW bump and a software upload. That’s it. Jheez

And you know what RR said? They’re waiting for whoever comes to drive that project forward. Till then, it’s on ice

Good point about the bump in MTOW being a pre-requisite for a re-engine.

Then a re-engine 787 at 265T or so would give you similar range/payload capability to existing A350-900 and seat more passengers. A350 GTF more efficient - but an 787 wouldn't be that far behind and probably a lot lower capital cost as you don't need to stretch it, and by many reports manufacturing cost of 787 is lower as less expensive materials are used.

morrisond wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

The deal would be; in return for Airbus assistance in finance they would get a few years (4-5) exclusivity/head start on the ultrafan. I'm not sure how realistic such a deal would be.



https://youtu.be/sRAt8mn3HyY?t=3188

Andrew Geer, Ultrafan Chief Engineer says something like end of the decade. He further expands a bit about it being a funny thing with the manufacturers product range plans. Knowing that the earlier ultrafan EIS date was 2025, personally I am of the opinion that it is much more likely that any delay in EIS would be much more a result of Airbus product strategy than any technical hold up. I feel Airbus is keeping ultrafan in their back pocket to hit exactly at the time they feel it is most opportune for them to do so.

For Boeing what would be a very unpleasant scenario is that they invest significantly in a ~265T 787. Then in 2024-2025 Airbus launches the A350ultrafan with a 77,8m A350-"1050" which will reduce any further 777X passenger sales to a few dozen at best. This due to a ~25T lower empty weight and a 4% better SFC than a PIP-ed GE9X. It will be 77W vs. A340-600 all over again. Boeing will then again have to develop the 787 to enable a 290-300T 787-11 to compete in the above 787-10 market.

As said, that's Boeing dilemma in my view. How much do we want to invest on a small MTOW increase now (which already really could use a larger wing), without again needing to spend a whole lot's of money redesigning the same components if we need to replace the 777X with a 787-11 because it has completely stopped selling after A350 ultrafan launch?

The alternative for Boeing would be to accept the 777X as passenger jet does not have much future (after A350ultrafan launch) and go straight to that much higher MTOW 787-10 and 11 with a new MLG and wingbox and 65m wing. Problem is they need a WB GTF to make it commercially viable.

I reckon Airbus is waiting with the A350ultrafan for Boeing to make a choice on the future of their 787 and 777X range. Till that time they are probably quite comfortable with the current situation.

It’s just an MTOW bump. It’s not a brand new plane. It’s like saying airbus should not invest in their 350 283 MTOW bump. You do know that is also coming with an engine PIP from RR right? And the EIS is 2024.

I see no ultra fan launch in 2025. You have to understand that wide-body market now is soft. Investing in a brand new engine has to come from a push from rolls to re-engine the aircraft. Now As airbus, I have not even finished selling the 350-1000, I’ve only just brought the 350F to make headway in the freighter market but you know what will make sense? Let me invest in an ultrafan when I’ve not even finished making ROI on thé current project. Let me spend another 5-6 billion for an aircraft. Then there’s the selling proce. The 350-1000 is 20-25% better than the 77W have you not wondered why it doesn’t sell? The main factor? It is too damn expensive to the point that you actually go into a negative down from that 25%. So airbus needs to work on the costing of this 350 before committing to building a probably more expensive one. 2025 is in 3 years.

Let us be realistic. Now if you said 2027 okay that makes sense.

Something you also may not know is the 787IGW is a pre-requisite for the re-engine of the 787 that is the planned step before the 787 re-engine and is there somewhere they wrote the ultrafan is only for the 350? If there is please point it out to me.

Nobody is investing in a new wing or anything extensive. MTOW bump and a software upload. That’s it. Jheez

And you know what RR said? They’re waiting for whoever comes to drive that project forward. Till then, it’s on ice

Good point about the bump in MTOW being a pre-requisite for a re-engine.

Then a re-engine 787 at 265T or so would give you similar range/payload capability to existing A350-900 and seat more passengers. A350 GTF more efficient - but an 787 wouldn't be that far behind and probably a lot lower capital cost as you don't need to stretch it, and by many reports manufacturing cost of 787 is lower as less expensive materials are used.

To get a 265t 787-10 to match the pax and bags payload range of a 280t A359 would need an SFC improvement of about 13%. To match the MZFW range of the 280t A359 it would need an SFC improvement of ~20%. Is this in line with what we saw for the GTF implementation on the A32x?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

astuteman wrote:

It was not my understanding that Boeing had paid for the GE9 on the 777 and the -9X on the 777X.

It is indeed true that Boeing did not pay GE to make either the GE90-11xB family nor the GE-9X family exclusive to the 777 platform. But the LR777 family was pretty much going to be a sole-source engine because media reports noted that neither GE nor Pratt were willing to invest the money necessary to create an engine for it if they did not get said exclusivity. And in the case of the GE-9X, Airbus does not have a commercial airplane platform that the engine is suitable for.

In the case of GE, the GE90 had proven to be a very expensive program for them that had (relatively) poor RoI. And in the case of Pratt, their issues with the 4090 family (NOx emissions, fuel burn misses, etc.) they were unlikely to win new customers and might not keep their existing ones if there were other OEM options available.

Rolls was willing to share because their installed base on the 777 was large enough they were confident they could make the numbers work (they also has RLI from the UK government to help with the initial capital outlays to develop such an engine). And it is for that reason that I concur with the opinion of those who believe that Rolls has a large enough installed base on the 787 that they would not want to orphan that business by making UltraFan only available on the A350.

That being said, I could see Rolls taking a page from GE on the original A350 and enter into a short-term exclusivity period with Airbus and then make the engine available for the 787. GE was granted two years by Airbus so I could see Airbus willing to cut a similar timeframe deal with Rolls. And I think RR-powered 787 operators would be quite okay with this because it lets A350 operators work the bugs out first (much as Trent XWB customers benefitted from all the teething issues the Trent 1000 went through, prior).

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It’s just an MTOW bump. It’s not a brand new plane. It’s like saying airbus should not invest in their 350 283 MTOW bump. You do know that is also coming with an engine PIP from RR right? And the EIS is 2024.

I see no ultra fan launch in 2025. You have to understand that wide-body market now is soft. Investing in a brand new engine has to come from a push from rolls to re-engine the aircraft. Now As airbus, I have not even finished selling the 350-1000, I’ve only just brought the 350F to make headway in the freighter market but you know what will make sense? Let me invest in an ultrafan when I’ve not even finished making ROI on thé current project. Let me spend another 5-6 billion for an aircraft. Then there’s the selling proce. The 350-1000 is 20-25% better than the 77W have you not wondered why it doesn’t sell? The main factor? It is too damn expensive to the point that you actually go into a negative down from that 25%. So airbus needs to work on the costing of this 350 before committing to building a probably more expensive one. 2025 is in 3 years.

Let us be realistic. Now if you said 2027 okay that makes sense.

Something you also may not know is the 787IGW is a pre-requisite for the re-engine of the 787 that is the planned step before the 787 re-engine and is there somewhere they wrote the ultrafan is only for the 350? If there is please point it out to me.

Nobody is investing in a new wing or anything extensive. MTOW bump and a software upload. That’s it. Jheez

And you know what RR said? They’re waiting for whoever comes to drive that project forward. Till then, it’s on ice

Good point about the bump in MTOW being a pre-requisite for a re-engine.

Then a re-engine 787 at 265T or so would give you similar range/payload capability to existing A350-900 and seat more passengers. A350 GTF more efficient - but an 787 wouldn't be that far behind and probably a lot lower capital cost as you don't need to stretch it, and by many reports manufacturing cost of 787 is lower as less expensive materials are used.

To get a 265t 787-10 to match the pax and bags payload range of a 280t A359 would need an SFC improvement of about 13%. To match the MZFW range of the 280t A359 it would need an SFC improvement of ~20%. Is this in line with what we saw for the GTF implementation on the A32x?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi Fred, I'm guessing it would never be able to meet the MZFW range - but the Max pax and bags range number of 13% does not seem like an impossible target with a GTF or get pretty close so instead of 85-90% as capable as A359 with just a bump in MTOW - it gets to the range of 95-98%.

I think the Neo is about 15% better per seat, MAX similar.

Stitch wrote:

astuteman wrote:

It was not my understanding that Boeing had paid for the GE9 on the 777 and the -9X on the 777X.

It is indeed true that Boeing did not pay GE to make either the GE90-11xB family nor the GE-9X family exclusive to the 777 platform. But the LR777 family was pretty much going to be a sole-source engine because media reports noted that neither GE nor Pratt were willing to invest the money necessary to create an engine for it if they did not get said exclusivity. And in the case of the GE-9X, Airbus does not have a commercial airplane platform that the engine is suitable for.

In the case of GE, the GE90 had proven to be a very expensive program for them that had (relatively) poor RoI. And in the case of Pratt, their issues with the 4090 family (NOx emissions, fuel burn misses, etc.) they were unlikely to win new customers and might not keep their existing ones if there were other OEM options available.

Rolls was willing to share because their installed base on the 777 was large enough they were confident they could make the numbers work (they also has RLI from the UK government to help with the initial capital outlays to develop such an engine). And it is for that reason that I concur with the opinion of those who believe that Rolls has a large enough installed base on the 787 that they would not want to orphan that business by making UltraFan only available on the A350.

That being said, I could see Rolls taking a page from GE on the original A350 and enter into a short-term exclusivity period with Airbus and then make the engine available for the 787. GE was granted two years by Airbus so I could see Airbus willing to cut a similar timeframe deal with Rolls. And I think RR-powered 787 operators would be quite okay with this because it lets A350 operators work the bugs out first (much as Trent XWB customers benefitted from all the teething issues the Trent 1000 went through, prior).

I would agree and can see this totally happening.

ILikeTrains wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Where did 260T come from? It may be more.

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

GEnx-1B78/P2 is capable of 80.4K takeoff thrust, 68.6K for max continuous, per the TCDS from the FAA

Trent 1000-R is capable of 81K takeoff, 72.7 mac continuous, per the TCDS from EASA

I think for takeoff performance, the biggest limiting factor for a HGW 787 will be the wing. Ive seen linkedin profiles for engineers working on the 787 IGW wing, so I imagine they are doing something. They’ve got 15 feet to stretch out and fit inside of the same gates.

For reference, the A359 and Trent XWB go up to 84.2K.

Well if they go to that much trouble to update the wing, why not add the folding wingtip technology developed for the 777X?

IAG has 18 on order for BA. Longest sector is LHR-GIG at around 12hrs or so. To get utiilation to 5000hrs per year will be tough!

CX are flying their A350-1000s HKG-JFK around 16-17hrs...but no where near 5K/yr.

Never heard that metric used before. Why buy it if that's the case??

Scotron12 wrote:

IAG has 18 on order for BA. Longest sector is LHR-GIG at around 12hrs or so. To get utiilation to 5000hrs per year will be tough!

CX are flying their A350-1000s HKG-JFK around 16-17hrs...but no where near 5K/yr.

Never heard that metric used before. Why buy it if that's the case??

Notice he said versus a 300ER. BA used their order to replace the 747. CX was kind of and kind of not seeing as they were both operating at the same time and had the 777-9 on order as well

flyingclrs727 wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

In its current format the 787-10 needs to go up to 268.5T to get about 900NM of fuel according to Leeham news. Pavement loading will not be a problem as many of you have already said. The gear will need re-inforcement which Leeham says won’t be a problem. The engine will need the high thrust version which I’ve not seen in action I think the 78K thrust or is it 80K thrust?
But what Leeham says is look, it’s going to be a ground hugger, so prepare for long rolls down the runway and shorter time on wings for those engines. Unless of course GE is coming with a PIP but that’s not confirmed nor are there any rumours from credible sources. so we have to assume not

GEnx-1B78/P2 is capable of 80.4K takeoff thrust, 68.6K for max continuous, per the TCDS from the FAA

Trent 1000-R is capable of 81K takeoff, 72.7 mac continuous, per the TCDS from EASA

I think for takeoff performance, the biggest limiting factor for a HGW 787 will be the wing. Ive seen linkedin profiles for engineers working on the 787 IGW wing, so I imagine they are doing something. They’ve got 15 feet to stretch out and fit inside of the same gates.

For reference, the A359 and Trent XWB go up to 84.2K.

Well if they go to that much trouble to update the wing, why not add the folding wingtip technology developed for the 777X?

You don't need to as the 787 which has a wingspan of 60.2 M uses gates that have a Maximum of 65m. A fold might get you to 66 or 67M not worth it.

The engineers may be working on beefing it up and/or putting some new longer/different tips on it to increase its lift and/or efficiency.

The 787-9 (and 787-10) were originally going to have a 63m wingspan, but Boeing decided in the end to keep the entire family on the 787-8's 60m as it saved certification time and the weight savings of the shorter wing was more beneficial than the cruise fuel burn savings except on the longest stage lengths.

I am not sure how much the longer wing would benefit the 787-10 IGW, but it might be something Boeing considers for the 787-9 IGW since I imagine it would be of real benefit at the far edge of the payload/range envelope.

StTim wrote:

But it does add significant certification costs.

Which I’m sure Boeing wants to avoid