787-10 Discussions Confirmed

redflyer · Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:57 am

I thought this was interesting. First confirmation from Boeing that I've seen that the design is under active consideration. Powerplant maturity seems to be the big hold-back.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...wst_story.jsp?id=news/10315p03.xml

Iloveboeing · Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:49 am

I think that if customers are demanding a 787-10, then Boeing should do it. They need to do everything possible to win Emirates. They already lost Qatar on the 787 (although it was nice that they got some 777 orders from them).

As for the engine, maybe GE could derive something from the GE90-115B to achieve more thrust.....I know that the engines are way too big to put on the 787, but maybe some elements could achieve more thrust....

A350 · Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:09 pm

Quote:
WHILE BASELER WAS BULLISH about the prospects for the 747 Advanced, he was more reserved about the 787-10, the as-yet-unlaunched long-haul version of the 787 that could carry more than 300 passengers. While he concedes that discussions have taken place with potential customers, he indicates the company isn't looking to launch the product at the moment. Emirates, already a big 777 customer, has been at the center of 787-10 discussions since the airline has indicated the current 787-8 and 787-9 don't quite suit its needs.

That doesn't sound very optimistic to my ears. I've the impression there are major issues with the 787-10(X) since it's a much heavier derivate of the 788/789. It will come, but will probably significantly different to the "classic" 787s and expensive to develop.

A350

PPVRA · Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:11 pm

Boeing can always B747ADV the B777 family. That in the end could cover the B773 as well, and if Airbus A350s the A340, Boeing has it covered.

Would be more expensive to A350 the B773 alone.

Cheers

Amy · Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:19 pm

I'm not sure about the 787-10, it could turn out as another 767-400 and I don't think that would help Boeing much.

1337Delta764 · Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:24 pm

Quoting Amy (Reply 4):
I'm not sure about the 787-10, it could turn out as another 767-400 and I don't think that would help Boeing much.

Read my signature to know the real truth about the 767-400.

Aither · Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:26 pm

"THE FRENCH manufacturer" ???
AWST is usually more serious.

zvezda · Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:40 pm

Quoting A350 (Reply 2):
I've the impression there are major issues with the 787-10(X) since it's a much heavier derivate of the 788/789. It will come, but will probably significantly different to the "classic" 787s and expensive to develop.

The B787-10X in discussions has a MTOW of 562,000 lbs. which is the heaviest it can be without requiring changes to the undercarriage. The wings are good for yet higher weights. The only differences between the B787-9 and the B787-10X are:

a) higher thrust engines (80k to 82k lbs) due to the higher MTOW,
b) increased length (by 6 meters), and
c) some fuselage strengthening by means of laying down additional tape layers.

That's it. The number of doors stays at 4 per side. b) and c) are not trivial, but they are not "major issues" while a) depends obviously on the engine manufacturers. a) is the only one that might be expected to put at risk EK's EIS target of 2011.

PM · Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:11 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5):
The 767-400 is not a failure, it was strictly intended as a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental.

There may be some grain of truth in this but it is an argument I have never found convincing. Are you saying that Boeing don't want to sell the 764 to anyone else and haven't tried to do so? It beggars belief that Boeing (or Airbus) would go to the trouble of designing and building a fairly major variant of an established model just for two customers. Yes, individual airlines' needs have driven developments (I'll quote Piedmont wanting a 737-400) but unless the manufacturer is completely daft (which Boeing certainly are not) then they expect and intend to sell it to many more airlines.

Look, ILFC for sure and GECAS (I think) ordered the 767-400 but then cancelled their orders because they couldn't place them. It may be comforting to pretend that Boeing only ever expected or wanted to sell the 767-400 to two airlines but very few people seem to believe it. The reality, surely, is that it was (is) a plane with limited appeal that failed to interest the market. The 757-300 is another example. And that's OK. Both Airbus and Boeing have simply gotten it wrong from time to time. Airbus, for example, only sold 28 A340-200s. Maintain this "niche aircraft for just two airlines" myth if you like but I don't think many people buy it.

Scorpio · Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:45 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5):
The 767-400 is not a failure, it was strictly intended as a niche aircraft for Delta and Continental.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that...

It was meant as Boeing's response to the A330-200, and Boeing themselves made that very clear at the time. I vividly remember such quotes as 'We expect it to become a hot seller' and 'Expect several more customers to sign up before the end of the year'. But say we believe you, then please explain the following:

-If the plane was only meant to be sold to DL and CO, why did Boeing decide to put a new 777-style cockpit in AFTER both DL and CO had placed their orders? Both were perfectly happy with the old 767 cockpit.
-Most importantly, if the 767-400ER was not Boeing's response to the A330-200, what was? The A330-200 was killing the 767-300ER in the market. Boeing weren't just sitting on their asses watching it happen, they were responding: with the 767-400ER. It just didn't succeed. This failure was what ultimately convinced Boeing they needed something more, and what ultimately made them come up with the 787.

I'm not saying that Boeing lost money on the 767-400, but it did not have the success Boeing was hoping for.

jacobin777 · Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:09 pm

While this is a fairly decent article, it does contradict a bit as to what EK's Clarke was saying in that Boeing has sent them some "good proposals" (not the exact quote) regarding the 787-10.

I think if Boeing is a little reticent about the 787-10, but if they lose enough orders, look for them to someway, somehow figure it out: i.e.-apply pressure to the engine manufacturers, since it seems that engine thrust is the majour problem to solve.

keesje · Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:19 pm

About the 767-400ER, I think Boeing was aiming at large 767/777 users.

The fact that both UA and AA were in problems from start 2001 and in survival mode after 9-11 didn't help the 764ER to say it mildly.

norcal · Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:19 pm

So how will the A350-900 have the required thrust if the similarly sized 787-10 can't? The coposite hull should make the 787-10 lighter than the A350-900, thus requiring less thrust.

1337Delta764 · Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:06 pm

The cold hard fact is that Boeing never expected the 767-400 to be a huge seller. In fact, Boeing originally wanted DL and CO to order the 777-200 to replace the L-1011 and DC-10. While they ordered the 777-200, they didn't fulfill Boeing's mission. Boeing then offered them the 777-100. The 777-100 would have been heavy for its size and operating costs would have been barely any lower than the 777-200. This led to the development of the 767-400, with near zero development costs.

garpd · Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:22 pm

PM, Scorpio. Believe what you want. It's quite expected that you will take the "negative" view of the 764, due to your well known anti Boeing feelings/postings.

Fact is, the 764 was an easily developed derivative designed and built to meet the needs of two large Boeing customers, namely Delta and Continental. Both of whom subsequently ordered it.
The 764 comprises of technology that was already available to Boeing. Namely 777 flightdeck, windows and software with the 767 fuselage and wing.

In terms of aircraft development the 764 was simple and cheap.

The 764 fulfilled it design goals. Boeing simply added it to the catalogue of product, should someone else be interested, say to replace their L1011's or make a modest addition to an existing 767 fleet for example.

Airbus did precisely the same (only in reverse regarding size) with the A318. An easily developed and built derivative.

widebodyphotog · Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:23 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 12):
So how will the A350-900 have the required thrust if the similarly sized 787-10 can't? The coposite hull should make the 787-10 lighter than the A350-900, thus requiring less thrust.

The A350-900 will have slower V2, climb, and cruise speeds, all requiring less thrust in total than the enlarged 787. While 75Klbt takeoff thrust may be adequate for the A350-900 it will not meet the performance demand of the highly loaded wing and faster speeds of a theoretical 787-10.

-widebodyphotog

Aloha717200 · Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:04 pm

You also have to account for the possibility that Baseler is downplaying the -10 to throw Airbus off. I know it's a stretch, but it's been done before.

I think the -10 will happen, honestly. It really depends on whethr GE and RR are willing to move up development of a more powerful nextgen engine for this airframe.

But my question is...if there isn't an engine suitable for the -10, then just what the heck is Airbus using on the 350-900? Similar size aircraft, and supposedly as efficient as a 787 (their claim, not mine), so what are they using and why can't Boeing use their engine?

Nevertheless, Boeing will likely need to have a competitor to the 359, if leahy's comments prove to be true about it being a 772ER killer. And if the 787-10 isnt the replacement, then a composite 777 will be.

redflyer · Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:18 pm

Quoting Amy (Reply 4):
I'm not sure about the 787-10, it could turn out as another 767-400 and I don't think that would help Boeing much.

True; especially if only a handful of carriers have expressed an interest. Now, it may be worth developing it IF the development costs aren't high (AKA 767-400) just to snag one or two additional airlines. Otherwise, if the development costs are material to the entire project then Boeing can let Airbus have those 2 or 3 carriers with its 350-900.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 12):
So how will the A350-900 have the required thrust if the similarly sized 787-10 can't?

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 16):
But my question is...if there isn't an engine suitable for the -10, then just what the heck is Airbus using on the 350-900? Similar size aircraft, and supposedly as efficient as a 787 (their claim, not mine), so what are they using and why can't Boeing use their engine?

Take Baseler's comments about lack of available thrust for the 350 with a grain of salt. He is, after all, a salesman. Put another way, would you believe Leahy if the situation were reversed and he made a similar comment about Boeing's product?

Scorpio · Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:35 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 14):
PM, Scorpio. Believe what you want. It's quite expected that you will take the "negative" view of the 764, due to your well known anti Boeing feelings/postings.

LOL! Anti-Boeing feelings/postings. That's a good one, especially from you. Weren't you the one who once claimed to be neutral in the whole A vs B thing, only to slam Airbus every chance you got? Yeah, that was you. So excuse me while I chuckle at that comment.

I'm not anti-Boeing by a long shot, and my posting history here will back that up. Sure, I'm biased to Airbus, and will admit to that, but it doesn't make me anti-Boeing, as I will not routinely attack Boeing. My bias merely shows in my defending Airbus, not in attacking Boeing. I'm bigger than that. Unlike you, whose bias shows in you constantly attacking one. Your posting history here clearly shows that.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 14):
Fact is, the 764 was an easily developed derivative designed and built to meet the needs of two large Boeing customers, namely Delta and Continental. Both of whom subsequently ordered it.
The 764 comprises of technology that was already available to Boeing. Namely 777 flightdeck, windows and software with the 767 fuselage and wing.

-If Boeing wanted to attract only DL and CO, they would not have gone through the trouble of putting in the 777 windows, cockpit, etc. While they didn't cost much to developed, it cost more than just keeping the 767 flightdeck. DL and CO would have been perfectly happy with that. In fact, whenthey ordered it, it wasn't even supposed to have the new flightdeck. You can look that up. So why put it in? For shits and giggles? No. Because they thought it would attract more customers.
Oh, and apparently you believe Boeing waited for almost a decade before coming up with a response to the A330-200. Tell me, you don't actually believe that yourself, do you?

This is not an 'attack' on Boeing, it's stating simple fact. It was widely published at the time that the 767-400 was Boeing's response to the A330-200. Boeing themselves left very little doubt about that. Now you can say what you want, you can say what I'm saying is not true, but then you'd also be saying Boeing themselves were lying at the time.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The cold hard fact is that Boeing never expected the 767-400 to be a huge seller.

Yes they did. Cold hard fact. They even said it in pretty much those words (they used 'hot' iso huge).

solnabo · Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:14 am

Quoting 1337Delta764:

"The cold hard fact is that Boeing never expected the 764 to be a huge seller"

Then my question is: why the hell did they build it in the first place? shees...

Micke//SE Yeah sure

1337Delta764 · Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:16 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 19):
Then my question is: why the hell did they build it in the first place? shees...

To make it to suit Delta and Continental. NO MONEY WAS LOST FROM THE 767-400 PROJECT. CASE CLOSED!

keesje · Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:21 am

Earlier on Boeing apparently proposed the 787-10 to EK, SQ and Qantas. It probably was in responds to airline requirements and to prevent them ordering the A359.

Now Boeing says there are no immediately plans to launch a 787-10, the 747adv has priority.

I do not believe those airlines make decision shortly before a board approval. Boeing knows more then we do on these airline's decision making and on the real status of 787 design / production development.

It is not impossible they concluded they need some extra time to get things right (as expected by many). The 787 (-3, -8, -9) is a lot of new technology development, design & certification combined.

Adding 70 inch/16 seats or so to the -9 (seats for range) could be enough for now & prevent immediate competition with the 772ER. (<- mark my words..)

Scorpio · Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:22 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 20):
NO MONEY WAS LOST FROM THE 767-400 PROJECT.

Nobody here said that, did they? All we said was that it was not the success Boeing intended it to be. And it wasn't. It was never meant just to be sold to DL and CO, it was meant to compete head to head with the A330-200. And it failed in that, hence first the -400ERX (cancelled), the Sonic Cruiser (cancelled) and now the 787.

solnabo · Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:23 am

"no money was lost from the 764 project"

Yeah right, tell that to my granny.

Micke//SE Yeah sure

and another Yeah sure

redflyer · Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:35 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 22):
All we said was that it was not the success Boeing intended it to be.

Even Boeing's website says the following:

"The 767-400ER also replaces older airplanes serving transcontinental routes. The first 767-400ERs were delivered to Delta Air Lines and Continental Airlines in August 2000. The first 767-400ER went into service on Sept. 14, 2000."

While I didn't find anything that reflects the 400's "hot" market potential, given the above it's obvious they expected to sell the 400 to a broader market.

astuteman · Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:11 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 15):
The A350-900 will have slower V2, climb, and cruise speeds, all requiring less thrust in total than the enlarged 787.

Excellent post again, Widebody. Thanks

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 16):
It really depends on whethr GE and RR are willing to move up development of a more powerful nextgen engine for this airframe.

Both A + B will be pushing RR + GE INCREDIBLY hard for uprates - both frames are well capable of higher MTOWs.....

keesje · Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:12 am

I'm getting a bit tired of the endlessly repeated matras how the B777 wiped out the A340 and A330 destroyed the 767 Sad

new content pls..

NYC777 · Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:59 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 25):
Both A + B will be pushing RR + GE INCREDIBLY hard for uprates - both frames are well capable of higher MTOWs.....

agree, if GE and RR can produce uprated Trent 100 and GeNX both in bleedless and bleed versions, I'm sure that both manufacturers would find no problems hanging them on higher MTOW versions of their planes.

Wiggidy · Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:40 am

Quoting GARPD (Reply 14):
PM, Scorpio. Believe what you want. It's quite expected that you will take the "negative" view of the 764, due to your well known anti Boeing feelings/postings.

Thats funny. Being a fairly impartial poster, I view Scorpio as pro-Airbus, anti A-bashers, but distinctly not anti-Boeing. Now yourself and NAV20 continually attack Airbus on every opportunity, therefore I would be quicker to label you anti-Airbus then these others anti-Boeing.

On topic, I agree that B is trying to avoid another potential 764 situation. Therefore I believe that they will wait until they have several airlines come forward and request a model such as the 787-10. I also believe they are adopting a similar strategy with the ADV. They don't want to jump the gun just to respond to A's moves.
-Wes

zvezda · Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:41 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 12):
So how will the A350-900 have the required thrust if the similarly sized 787-10 can't? The coposite hull should make the 787-10 lighter than the A350-900, thus requiring less thrust.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 15):
The A350-900 will have slower V2, climb, and cruise speeds, all requiring less thrust in total than the enlarged 787. While 75Klbt takeoff thrust may be adequate for the A350-900 it will not meet the performance demand of the highly loaded wing and faster speeds of a theoretical 787-10.

The composite fuselage of the B787-10X will give it a much lower OEW (270,800 lbs) than the A350-900 (288,100 lbs), however, MTOW is expected to be 562,000 lbs for the B787-10X vs 540,000 lbs. for the A350-900. All weights are estimates (obviously) and were kindly provided by Widebodyphotog.
http://theaviationspecialist.com/300seat_comparo_table.gif

TinkerBelle · Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:41 am

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 16):
Nevertheless, Boeing will likely need to have a competitor to the 359, if leahy's comments prove to be true about it being a 772ER killer. And if the 787-10 isnt the replacement, then a composite 777 will be.

Very well said.

The 787-10 probably would kill Boeing's 772ER but hey, better that than letting the A350-9 do it.

redflyer · Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:44 am

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 28):
I also believe they are adopting a similar strategy with the ADV. They don't want to jump the gun just to respond to A's moves.

How is the ADV being impacted by A's moves? I thought the ADV was simply waiting for the minimal number of orders to be launched. Or did I mis-read your comment?

1337Delta764 · Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:06 am

RedFlyer, that is only a mere advertisment just in case to get more orders. BOEING NEVER EXPECTED HUGE ORDERS FOR THE 767-400! END OF STORY!

redflyer · Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:24 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 32):
RedFlyer, that is only a mere advertisment just in case to get more orders. BOEING NEVER EXPECTED HUGE ORDERS FOR THE 767-400! END OF STORY!

You know, I doubt Boeing expects to garner an order from someone reading their website. I will tell you; however, that Boeing's expectations went beyond just CO and DL. While they may have catered much of the 400's design features to those two carriers, especially since they were the first to sign up, I don't think they expected the orders to stop there. Perhaps they weren't expecting an A330 killer, but I'm sure they had higher hopes for the 400 than just two airlines.

zvezda · Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:44 am

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 30):
The 787-10 probably would kill Boeing's 772ER but hey, better that than letting the A350-9 do it.

The B777-200ER will not survive competition from either the A350-900 or the B787-10X. It costs more to produce and more to operate. There are very few missions for which the B777-200ER is better than the A350-900 and no missions for which it is better than the B787-10X. The B777-200ER will continue to sell only so long as delivery slots are more readily available.

airxliban · Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:51 am

Interesting article but I find this comment to be inaccurate:

hoping to hit Boeing the same way Airbus was when the 777-200ER pushed the A340-300/-400 out of the market.

First of all, its not fair to say that the 777-200ER knocked the 340 out of the market and in any event, there never was a A340-400!!!!!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
I'm getting a bit tired of the endlessly repeated matras how the B777 wiped out the A340

Was that what you were referring to?

Scorpio · Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:51 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 32):
RedFlyer, that is only a mere advertisment just in case to get more orders. BOEING NEVER EXPECTED HUGE ORDERS FOR THE 767-400! END OF STORY!

First: don't get your panties in a bunch. No need for the yelling, we heard you the first time you said it. You repeating it and putting it in capitals isn't suddenly going to make it so.

Second: Yes, for the, what, third time now, Boeing expected far more orders for the 767-400ER. Just for you, I decided to make use of the wonderful archives of Flight International, and I came up with some rather interesting results. Allow me to share:

From an article dating November 24, 1999:

The 767-400ER, which is in flight testing, was developed to counter the strong-selling Airbus A330-200, but has so far been ordered by only two airlines - Continental and Delta - with 26 and 21 aircraft, respectively.

And, from that same article:

Despite the model's relatively slow start, Boeing claims it is confident that sales will pick up. "Airlines continue to show interest and we are actively working several proposals," it says. Boeing predicts that a significant portion of the market for the 767-400ER will develop over the next few years in the Asia-Pacific region.

Link to the article: http://www.flightinternational.com/A...ommitments+after+poor.html#Scene_1

From another article on the 764's flight tests:

Boeing is optimistic of attracting new sales from other US carriers such as American Airlines, as well as from Asian and European airlines.

Link: http://www.flightinternational.com/A...ambitious+flight+test.html#Scene_1

And more, from August 1998:

By this month, sales had reached 52 aircraft, with 26 orders for Continental, 21 for Delta and five for International Lease Finance. Although it has been static for some time, the orderbook is widely tipped to grow before the end of 1998. Queen says that there is "significant interest in the programme", and he adds that "-we still expect it to be a best seller".

P.S. Queen here is 767-400ER chief project engineer Hank Queen, not the band or Elisabeth Wink

Link: http://www.flightinternational.com/A.../Stretching+a+stretch.html#Scene_1

They even took the plane on a five week world tour to try and attract more sales in 2000. From July 2000:

To boost the sales prospects of its new entrant and underline its renewed attack on the mid-size market, Boeing has chosen Farnborough as the chief venue for a five-week 767-400ER world tour.

And from the same article:

Despite the huge technical effort by Boeing, it has so far secured just one additional customer for the new model, Kenya Airways, since the 1997 launch deals from Delta and Continental for 21 and 26 aircraft, respectively. The aircraft is pitched against a worthy rival from Airbus, the A330-200, which has taken the upper hand in most recent sales campaigns, while several leasing companies have dropped 767-400ER plans due a lack of significant customer interest.

Link: http://www.flightinternational.com/A...tretching+and+testing.html#Scene_1

Case closed?

newagebird · Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:12 am

hey everyone

Regarding the powerplant problems...has anyone heard of Pratt and Whitneys next generation engines. They use ADP technology or advanced ducted prop, basically they use a gear system to to reduce fan speed relative to drive turbine speed...this might sound like all complicated to some of u cuz even im trying to figure it out...i read it last night!.

anyway this engine gives out more thrust and less noise . It propulsive efficiency is much greater thant that of current engines. It also produces a much better specific fuel consumption rate. These engines have been in testing at NASAs wind tunnels for over 15 years now.

I was wondering if anyone had any views about this kind of engine

rgds
newagebird

redflyer · Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:04 am

Quoting Newagebird (Reply 37):
I was wondering if anyone had any views about this kind of engine

I thought P&W's research into ADP was on the lower end of the scale, around the 40,000 lb thrust range?

redflyer · Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:18 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 36):
Case closed?

Amen.

(Good work, Scorpio!)

widebodyphotog · Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:33 am

Quoting Newagebird (Reply 37):
hey everyone

Regarding the powerplant problems...has anyone heard of Pratt and Whitneys next generation engines. They use ADP technology or advanced ducted prop, basically they use a gear system to to reduce fan speed relative to drive turbine speed...this might sound like all complicated to some of u cuz even im trying to figure it out...i read it last night!.

anyway this engine gives out more thrust and less noise . It propulsive efficiency is much greater thant that of current engines. It also produces a much better specific fuel consumption rate. These engines have been in testing at NASAs wind tunnels for over 15 years now.

I was wondering if anyone had any views about this kind of engine

While being a very fuel efficient designs there are some pretty insurmountable problems with it's application on future airliners.

Optimal speeds are limited to less than M.80 while Boeing continues to design future aircraft for cruise speeds above M.85

The geared fan requires a huge propulsor to make appreciable thrust relative to direct drive counterparts. I.e. PW8000 would have a 76 inch diameter fan to produce around 25-35,000lbt with a BPR of 11:1. In addition a 40,000hp gearbox is required just to achieve that thrust. The fan size is comparable to a PW2000 or R-R 535 but with only 60-80% of the thrust...

The added liability of the gearbox system. No matter how robust you build it will still add a factor of failure into the propulsion system. And aircraft manufactures are highly averse to adding a big spinning barrel of hot gears to still relatively conservative airframe designs.

The geared turbofans like PW8000 had BPR's in the 10-12:1 range. With the advent of Trent 1000 and GEnX BPR above 10 is now feasible with more conventional, low risk designs, adding dramatically increased fuel efficiency without the complication and liability of high horsepower gearboxes. Through use of advanced lightweight materials and careful aerodynamic design most of the benefits of a geared fan design can be had without any of its drawbacks.

Possibly Lightsaber would be able to shed more light on the subject

-widebodyphotog

zvezda · Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:24 pm

Good summary, Widebodyphotog. In my opinion, the one insurmountable problem is the addition of a significant additional point of failure. Reliability is not likely to be sacrificed for efficiency.

PM · Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:01 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 14):
PM, Scorpio. Believe what you want. It's quite expected that you will take the "negative" view of the 764, due to your well known anti Boeing feelings/postings.

Uh?! You must be confusing me with someone else. Nor can you find anything anti-Boeing in my post about the 767-400. I'm almost 50 and way beyond any adolescent need to identify myself with a sports team or a manufacturer of aeroplanes. I'm interested in establishing the truth and shooting down those who spin and believe myths - on either side.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 36):
Just for you, I decided to make use of the wonderful archives of Flight International, and I came up with some rather interesting results.

Excellent work. He seems to have gone quiet now, doesn't he... Smile

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net