Interesting read.
Apparently, EK wants both... cargo and range.
Hope 747ADV get launch soon.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...wst_story.jsp?id=news/10315p03.xml
Cheers
[Edited 2005-10-31 05:45:07]
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Iloveboeing
- Posts: 474
- Joined:
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
I like the 747 ADV. I heard that its engines are going to be bleed-air derivatives of the 787 engines, though. I know it would cost more for development, but couldn't Boeing get a competitive advantage against the A380 by having bleedless engines on the 747ADV?
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 1): but couldn't Boeing get a competitive advantage against the A380 by having bleedless engines on the 747ADV? |
Are they going to put an extra 100 seats in those engines?
In all seriousness, if you read the article, you'll read that these aircraft dont compete.
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 1): couldn't Boeing get a competitive advantage against the A380 by having bleedless engines on the 747ADV? |
That would require developing electrical systems to replace the perfectly good pneumatic systems all over the airplane. It would cost several billion dollars additionally for development, additionally increase the cost per plane by many millions of dollars (due to the small manufacturing runs), and might perhaps improve efficiency by as much as 1%. With the development costs amortized over the number of planes that might be sold, the price per aircraft might be doubled. Somehow that doesn't strike me as a good deal for a 1% gain.
I can say with confidence that no pneumatically powered airliner will be converted to electrically powered. It would have been nuts for Airbus to even consider doing so from the A330 to the A350. Only with a clean-sheet all-new design will we see bleedless systems.
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
Seems like a pretty wel written article.
Thanks SQ212
A
Thanks SQ212
A
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quote: The 747 Advanced is supposed to improve fuel consumption over the baseline 747-400 by 6%. |
I think that should be CASM, not fuel consumption. If it is fuel consumption, it is not on a per seat basis.
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
Article seems to make sense .
Boeing is taking a rational approach. You can't serve everybody at the same time.
Hopefully the advanced will be launched soon, filling the 773/346 - 388 gab.
Seems good news for 359 too. It will be a head on battle with the 772 for the next few years.
In between the lines is seems Boeing has no 747adv passenger prospects yet. Maybe airlines will wait & see before ordering it.
Boeing is taking a rational approach. You can't serve everybody at the same time.
Hopefully the advanced will be launched soon, filling the 773/346 - 388 gab.
Seems good news for 359 too. It will be a head on battle with the 772 for the next few years.
In between the lines is seems Boeing has no 747adv passenger prospects yet. Maybe airlines will wait & see before ordering it.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Keesje (Reply 6): Seems good news for 359 too. It will be a head on battle with the 772 for the next few years. |
That's not a battle. That's a slaughter. I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter.
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter. |
Cargo comes to mind
Where did everybody go?
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): That's not a battle. That's a slaughter. I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter. |
If the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also. Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range like the 777-200ER/LR (with useful payload of course).
Future orders and insight into how the airplanes will be used will be interesting.
Cheers
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9): Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range |
7500 nm (13900 km) is still a respectable range. 14 hours of flight time, covers most long haul flights for most airlines. e.g:
MEL-LAX: 6883 nm
LHR-SIN: 5879 nm
NRT-DTW: 5559 nm
TXL-LAX: 5044 nm
all fall within it's range.
Boeing 777-200ER: Proven performance, 2006-2009 delivery options, good resale value (freighter) and fleet commonality (existing 777 fleet) could be selling points for the 777-200ER compared to the A350-900.
Much focus on ultra long range these days (on a.net), but lets not forget the 777-200LR is heavier and more expensive then the 777-200ER, and serves a ULH niche. I believe Jet Airways recently changed there mind after looking through the numbers.
[Edited 2005-10-31 11:26:05]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4): Seems like a pretty wel written article. |
Yeah, especially the bits about how the 777-200ER "pushed the A340-300/-400 (-400???) out of the market" and that Airbus is a French company...
Really, these are crass mistakes for a publication that purports to be a serious journal.
[Edited 2005-10-31 12:12:08]
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Keesje (Reply 6): Seems good news for 359 too. It will be a head on battle with the 772 for the next few years. |
| Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): That's not a battle. That's a slaughter. I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter. |
I tend to agree with both comments. However, aside from EK, what other large orders are pending where these two aircraft types will go "head to head" in the next few years? At SQ, QF, CX, the battle seems to be between the 787 and 350 and the 772ER is not a player (I could have this wrong, there has been quite a lot of speculation on the various combinations that these orders will take). Can't Boeing afford to wait a few years to get it right. On the flip side, they seem to have most of the 767 replacement market to themselves--for now.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting PM (Reply 11): and that Airbus is a French company... |
Slightly OT, but it's not only the author of this article that has this perception in the U.S. IMO, this doesn't auger well for large defense deal with the U.S. DoD (like tankers) unless Airbus does some agressive marketing stressing its "international" pedigree and contributions to the U.S. economy. I agree this is a glaring mistake for a publication like Aviation Week.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
-
- jacobin777
- Posts: 12262
- Joined:
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9): f the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also. Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range like the 777-200ER/LR (with useful payload of course). Future orders and insight into how the airplanes will be used will be interesting. Cheers |
| Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): 7500 nm (13900 km) is still a respectable range. 14 hours of flight time, covers most long haul flights for most airlines. e.g: MEL-LAX: 6883 nm LHR-SIN: 5879 nm NRT-DTW: 5559 nm TXL-LAX: 5044 nm all fall within it's range. |
wow Keesje....I'm actually agreeing with you for the first time...
"Up the Irons!"
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Lumberton (Reply 13): Quoting PM (Reply 11): and that Airbus is a French company... Slightly OT, but it's not only the author of this article that has this perception in the U.S. IMO, this doesn't auger well for large defense deal with the U.S. DoD (like tankers) unless Airbus does some agressive marketing stressing its "international" pedigree and contributions to the U.S. economy. I agree this is a glaring mistake for a publication like Aviation Week. |
Weather it is true, or not, most Americans do look at Airbus as a French company and Boeing as a wholey American company.
To us that know better, both Boeing and Airbus are really multi-national companies. It is just the Airbus HQ is in France and Boeing HQ is in the US.
It is interesting the the writer says that both the A-350-900 and the B-787-1000 wuld need 80K lbs of thrust. But, that does make sense. You still have to plan on loosing one engine at MTOGW, after V1 and still be able to get airborne with the remaining runway avaiable.
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15): To us that know better, both Boeing and Airbus are really multi-national companies. It is just the Airbus HQ is in France and Boeing HQ is in the US. |
Airbus HQ is loaded with Germans, English & Spanish managers, the Boss is a German, the language English, the sales man an American. Doubt the same goes for Boeing HQ (apart from the language & sales man
).."Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
Could the trent 900 not work for the 747 ADV? Are they too heavy?
I dunno just seems like every new aircraft gets brand new engines on it these days... is that economical for the manufacturers? RR make so many different kinds of engines these days i find it hard to keep track!
I dunno just seems like every new aircraft gets brand new engines on it these days... is that economical for the manufacturers? RR make so many different kinds of engines these days i find it hard to keep track!
A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
-
- 797charter
- Posts: 154
- Joined:
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
I think that most aviations fans would love to see this old dinosaur having a new life as advanced. This is the first real "jumbo", - and will always be special one way or another.
However I think it is disappointing to see that "...The 747 Advanced is supposed to improve fuel consumption over the baseline 747-400 by 6%."
That is less than I would have expected.
If any of you not have read Randy's article about the 747ADV, you should have a look at it: http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2005/06/timing.html
As he write "...The key thing now is timing."
No doubt we will see it sooner or later.
So come on Boeing, get the 777LR, 777F, 787, and the 747ADV finished, and get the 797 on the drawing board.
However I think it is disappointing to see that "...The 747 Advanced is supposed to improve fuel consumption over the baseline 747-400 by 6%."
That is less than I would have expected.
If any of you not have read Randy's article about the 747ADV, you should have a look at it: http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2005/06/timing.html
As he write "...The key thing now is timing."
No doubt we will see it sooner or later.
So come on Boeing, get the 777LR, 777F, 787, and the 747ADV finished, and get the 797 on the drawing board.
Keep it clear of the propellers
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Amy (Reply 17): Could the trent 900 not work for the 747 ADV? Are they too heavy? |
You don't need engines capable of hauling the A380 for the 747ADV, which will be much lighter.
| Quoting Amy: I dunno just seems like every new aircraft gets brand new engines on it these days... is that economical for the manufacturers? RR make so many different kinds of engines these days i find it hard to keep track! |
Well, in the case of the 747ADV, they are using the GEnx, which is for the 787 so there's the reuse there.
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Amy (Reply 17): I dunno just seems like every new aircraft gets brand new engines on it these days... |
I know what you mean but I wonder how different things really are. Superficially, the A300, A310, A330, 767, 777, 747 and MD11 all use the PW4000 but I assume that there are significant differences between the various models. Much the same argument could be made about the CF6 on the A300, A310, A330, DC10, MD11, 767 and 747. At the other extreme we have six "different" RR Trents for the A330, A340, A380, A350, 777 and 787 but I assume they all shame common features. Are the PW4000 and Trent programmes really that different or is it just a matter of marketing?
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9): If the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also. |
Projected MTOW for the A350-900 is 540,000 lbs. For the B787-10X, it is 562,000 lbs. Also, Airbus and Boeing design their wings differently. The Airbus wing is slightly more optimized toward T/O performance and the Boeing wing is slightly more optimized for cruise performance. As a result, the B787 will have a higher V2 than the A350, requiring more thrust for a given TOW. So, no, the A350-900 will not need as much thrust (75,000 lbs) as the B787-10X (80-83,000 lbs).
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
Bleedless engines were mentioned several times in this post and in other posts.. but what does bleedless mean?
okees
okees
mobs jakis
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Okees (Reply 22): Bleedless engines were mentioned several times in this post and in other posts.. but what does bleedless mean? |
Airliners typically have many pneumatic systems powered by bleed air from the engines. In a bleedless design, electrical system are used rather than pneumatic systems, the engines drive larger generators, and power is distributed via electrical wires rather than through air ducting. The bleedless design has several advantages:
1) engines can be changed between manufacturers, increasing the resale value of the airframe,
2) lighter weight, and
3) off-the-shelf systems can be used in some instances.
-
- USAF336TFS
- Posts: 1362
- Joined:
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15): To us that know better, both Boeing and Airbus are really multi-national companies. It is just the Airbus HQ is in France and Boeing HQ is in the US. |
Well I sort of agree and disagree with you on this my friend, although you are partially right in your statement...
1. Boeing does most, if not all, of their assembly in the U.S. (Or North America if you consider their Canadian parts subsidiary) with sub-assemblies either manufactured by Boeing or it's subcontractors. It's rightly considered an American company (90% or more of it's shares are American owned), although with a global supply chain.
2. Airbus does their final assembly in both Germany and France. They are truely a multi-national company, as they are owned by French, German, Spanish and British entities (EADS and BAE). It too relies on a global supply network (40% of the A380 manufactured in the U.S.). You are right though as Airbus is perceived here in the U.S. as a French company.
It can be confusing, I'll admit. Here's another teaser... Rolls Royce is considered a British company although it's American subsidiary manufactures more engines then any other division and 35% of the company is American owned.
Go figure!
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21): Projected MTOW for the A350-900 is 540,000 lbs. For the B787-10X, it is 562,000 lbs. |
Of course the reason for the higher MTOW would be to create an aircraft to satisfy EK's orignal 8000nm+ range demands. A 787-10 with similar range to the A359 which wouldn't need that much more powerful engines. Anyway, what are the engine requirements for the 789HGW proposal?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 25): Of course the reason for the higher MTOW would be to create an aircraft to satisfy EK's orignal 8000nm+ range demands. A 787-10 with similar range to the A359 which wouldn't need that much more powerful engines. |
Think about what happens when you increase the MTOW of the B787-8 to 520,000 lbs. Since it's composite, the OEW will not be increased all that much. Range with 200 passengers, their baggage, and no cargo should be close to 10,000nm. That's enough for any city pair on the planet. The B787-8 already has a still air range of 10,300nm carrying only 18,000 lbs of payload (which is not commercially viable).
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21): Projected MTOW for the A350-900 is 540,000 lbs. For the B787-10X, it is 562,000 lbs. Also, Airbus and Boeing design their wings differently. The Airbus wing is slightly more optimized toward T/O performance and the Boeing wing is slightly more optimized for cruise performance. As a result, the B787 will have a higher V2 than the A350, requiring more thrust for a given TOW. So, no, the A350-900 will not need as much thrust (75,000 lbs) as the B787-10X (80-83,000 lbs). |
| Quoting Zvezda (Reply 26): Think about what happens when you increase the MTOW of the B787-8 to 520,000 lbs. Since it's composite, the OEW will not be increased all that much. Range with 200 passengers, their baggage, and no cargo should be close to 10,000nm. That's enough for any city pair on the planet. The B787-8 already has a still air range of 10,300nm carrying only 18,000 lbs of payload (which is not commercially viable). |
This is the point, right. If Boeing feels they need to increase the MTOW of the 787-10 to something that requires over 80K pound thrust on an airplane with a low OEW, then something has to give on the heavier A350-9.
If you load the A350-9 up with revenue generating payload, then is it a regional airplane when compared to the 777-200ER with the same payload?
| Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9): If the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also. Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range like the 777-200ER/LR (with useful payload of course). Future orders and insight into how the airplanes will be used will be interesting. |
Cheers
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 27): If you load the A350-9 up with revenue generating payload, then is it a regional airplane when compared to the 777-200ER with the same payload? |
Ok. Max payload for the A350-900 is projected at nearly 50t. Let's load up an A350-900 and a B777-200ER with 50t of payload each then add fuel up to MTOW. The A350-900 could then carry 64.3t of fuel (nearly 57% of standard useable fuel). Range is 5120nm (I would not call that regional). The B777-200ER would then carry 109.4t of fuel (94% of standard useable fuel) giving a range of about 8000nm.
It actually appears that for any equal payload above about 20t, the B777-200ER will have better range than the A350-900, however, for missions that both aircraft can perform, the A350-900 will have substantially lower operating costs.
| Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): That's not a battle. That's a slaughter. I don't see how the B777-200ER stands any chance against the A350-900 except to the extent that the former has delivery slots available sooner than the latter. |
I need to withdraw that. The B777-200ER would still have a niche if the B787-10X were not to be built, though of course the B777-200LR could perform all those missions (at a lower operating cost than the B777-200ER).
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 9): If the 787-10 requires engines in the 80K range, then one would assume that this would be true of the A350-900 also. Therefore, the A350-900 (with 72K)will be more of a regional airplane rather then a long range like the 777-200ER/LR (with useful payload of course). |
I would like to think A330 is more of a regional airplane than the A350-900. A350-900 competes with 772ER. Some operators will find applications for A350-900 despite lack of cargo haul. Price and operating economics would be a big issue for 772ER?
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
| Quoting Sq212 (Reply 29): I would like to think A330 is more of a regional airplane than the A350-900. A350-900 competes with 772ER. Some operators will find applications for A350-900 despite lack of cargo haul. Price and operating economics would be a big issue for 772ER? |
I guess what I was trying to illustrate (without doing much work, thanks Zveda) is that the 777-200ER may still have life for airlines that want to fly the Pacific.
If Boeing wanted to produce an a 787-10 with a similar range/payload curve as a the A350-900, then they could probably do it with the engines available today. My guess is they feel that the range/payload advantage of the 777-200ER could sway some that have a potential revenue benefit that would outweigh the A350-900 operating economics over the Pacific.
If they can stay in the market with the 777 for another few years, then they could launch the 787-10 and try to capture the true 777 replacement market when GE/RR engines have evolved to higher thrust versions.
The 777 has never competed very well against the A330-300 on a regional basis, and I don't expect it to against the A350-900 either.
RE: Boeing's Focuses 747ADV, Not 787-10
Shenzhen, thanks for pushing me to do that bit of analysis. I agree with you. The proposed 562,000 lbs MTOW version of the B787-10X would be able to perform all B777-200ER missions and then some. However, there would still be missions that the B777-200LR could perform that the 562,000 lbs MTOW B787-10X could not perform.
To match the capabilities of the B777-200LR would require a B787-10X with a MTOW higher than 562,000 lbs. The wing might be good for 600,000 lbs, but the undercarriage is not. To exceed 562,000 lbs. would require more than 8 wheels on the main gear. Probably a center bogey with 2 wheels like on the A340 would be needed. Additional fuel capacity would also be needed. Does anyone know whether or not it would be possible to fit a fuel tank in the B787's center wing box (like in the A340 and B747)? Or is the only possibility to add fuel tanks to the cargo hold like the B777-200LR?
To match the capabilities of the B777-200LR would require a B787-10X with a MTOW higher than 562,000 lbs. The wing might be good for 600,000 lbs, but the undercarriage is not. To exceed 562,000 lbs. would require more than 8 wheels on the main gear. Probably a center bogey with 2 wheels like on the A340 would be needed. Additional fuel capacity would also be needed. Does anyone know whether or not it would be possible to fit a fuel tank in the B787's center wing box (like in the A340 and B747)? Or is the only possibility to add fuel tanks to the cargo hold like the B777-200LR?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 1337Delta764, 142857, 717atOGG, 817Dreamliiner, anymaninfc, as739x, BlueBaller, bluecrew, Boeing757100, BrianDromey, Cboyle, Chickapuss, crimsonchin, dagKentWA, DALCE, departedflights, dmanonice, FLALEFTY, Georgehay1960, Google [Bot], Ishrion, JetAmericaS80, JUANTRIPPEJR, LH658, lostsound, majano, mazdaman007, N737ER, nascar1, Ndebele, OA940, Pacemaker527, paulsaz, PlymSpotter, pmanni1, ram789, rubberdogdo, sagechan, sevenair, SRQLOT, Theseus, Tiredofhumanity, tomaheath, USAirALB, VCVSpotter, x1234 and 285 guests