Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:51 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 48):
The 787-3 only carries more passengers because it is intended to be used in a two-class layout, whereas the 787-8 is intended to be used in a three-class layout. You could do the interior layout identically if you chose.

true, but the 787-3 is optimised for shorter trips..and as Ikramerica stated, the 787-3 will be able to fit places where the 787-8/9 won't be able to.....

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 47):
So it can't park in the same spots as 767s unless those spots have extra room at the wingtips, which isn't going to be true at every airport and every gate they use.

basically, the 787-3 use is completely different than the 787-8 or 787-9....almost to the point being in a different category.....now whether one "abuses" the 787-8 or has a dedicated 787-3, that's up to the carriers, but it was important enough for NH and JL....
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27614
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 46):
Now, what I wonder is will Boeing, in an attempt to improve 748I resale make it so that the nose door could be a retrofit? Any one hear anything?

While their is no doubt that many freight carriers use the nose door, many others do not. So I would imagine the ability to easily retrofit a large side-door might make a 748I more appealing to carriers who, down the road, will either upgauge to A389s or downgauge to Y3s and then turn the 748I into a 748F.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 49):
LH's 330s are 333s, so they have the exact same capacity as their 343s, so they need the same type of aircraft if they want to replace them 1 by 1, without capacity re-adjustments. Whichever 787 fits the best for the 343 replacement will also be the best for the 333.

Ah, thank you. Then that does help the 787-10's case (as well as the A359's).
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:30 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 38):
Those 783s will be flying for 20+ years, and resale at the end is not a huge concern.

I'm willing to push it up to 30+ years. Proof? Look at the composite sailplanes. Most of the ones built in early 1970s are still flying, most of the ones written off have been lost in accidents. The longevity of airframe life crippled the sailplane industry, as the market became saturated with them, and only few manufacturers offer factory-new ones nowadays. Now apply that to the alluminum vs. composite frame to the commercial planes like 787... Granted, this is totally different category here, but generally the same rule applies: composites are lighter and stronger and last longer than metal. I truly believe NW will run theirs for at least 30 - 35 years. Now that would be a cash cow for them and in 2040 we'll probably see a bunch of "when will NW retire their 787s thread"  Wink  Smile  Smile

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 43):
Since you bring up naive, there is about a 99% chance that the B787 will enter service with ETOPS180, just as the B777 did.

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing will shoot for ETOPS330 with 787, just like they did with 777-200LR/-300ER.
Proudly avoiding 737 MAX since 18.11.2020.
 
Iloveboeing
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:33 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 52):

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing will shoot for ETOPS330 with 787, just like they did with 777-200LR/-300ER.

I hope they can. I think engine technology is advancing enough where we can increase to 330 min. The GE90-115B on the 773ER proved that.
 
trex8
Posts: 5677
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:11 am

I thought Etops 330 is still not "certified" yet.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:56 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 44):
I thought they were shooting for ETOPS 330?

I meant at least ETOPS180. However, I doubt the B787 will get better than ETOPS207 at EIS, though I expect it to eventually get ETOPS330.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:59 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 47):
SIA says they have 27 in the fleet, including 2 non-operating.

Anyone know which two? I'm guessing that one of them may be 9V-SMZ.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:20 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 56):
Anyone know which two? I'm guessing that one of them may be 9V-SMZ.

9V-SMZ is in operation..

the two are 9V-SMH and 9V-SMA (and of course, 9V-SPK was written off)
"Up the Irons!"
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:37 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 55):
I meant at least ETOPS180. However, I doubt the B787 will get better than ETOPS207 at EIS, though I expect it to eventually get ETOPS330.

Hmm ok, I believe you, but I could have sworn I read that they were going for 330 at EIS.....I must be going crazy  spin 
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:37 am

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/7478brochure.pdf

Go to page 16, and you'll see Boeing's "double box" diagram for the 748i + 777.

They would make a similar case for the 783. If you repaint the gates to be all 783 gates (rather than some 777 and some 763), then you could put 783s anywhere, and still fit 777/788s and 763s if you alternate them 1 for 1. But it gets kind of tricky as more 783s and 788s enter the fleet and more 763s leave.

It's the same kind of problem CO was having with the 73G, IIRC.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:50 am

Quoting Columba (Reply 39):
Lufthansa is indeed looking only at a replacement for their longhaul fleet mainly their A340-300s and 747-400s. This part of the order never included their short and medium haul fleet. Therefore the options for this part of the fleet renewal plan only consisted of larger variants of the A350 and the 787-9/-10.

Not disputing what you are saying, but to add a thought - I would think that they HAVE TO look at the A300 replacement options at the same time, as it all plays into which aircraft would be best for the longhaul choice.

Why go the A358/9 route then turn around and buy the B783? If you like the 783, then the 788/9/10 would have additional merit as a longhaul replacement. Conversley, if you are leaning towards an A321-style solution intra-EU, then the A350 would seem to be a more even (or even better, depending on performance/commonality with existing types) option for LH.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27614
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:54 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 58):
Hmm ok, I believe you, but I could have sworn I read that they were going for 330 at EIS.....I must be going crazy

Boeing can prove the 787 can fly an ETOP-330 mission profile, but until the FAA, the JAA, and the "EUAA" (sorry, forgot their acronym) sign off on it, it's just a PR stunt.  Smile

Is the JAA the only agency holding back ETOPS-240? Or is the "EUAA" still fighting it, as well?
 
LY4XELD
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 5:14 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:59 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 58):
Hmm ok, I believe you, but I could have sworn I read that they were going for 330 at EIS.....I must be going crazy   

 checkmark 

Bingo! You're not crazy  Smile
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:17 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 57):
the two are 9V-SMH and 9V-SMA (and of course, 9V-SPK was written off)

There were still 27 in operation after SMH and SMA were retired. I know with certainty that SMP, SMR, SMS, SMY, and all the SPx (expect perhaps for SPB) were still operating as of 13 April 2006. That's 19. The following 8 were operating on the following dates (but may have since been retired).

SMJ: 2 Feb 2006
SMM: 20 Jan 2006
SMT: 17 Mar 2006
SMU: 1 Mar 2006
SMV: 3 Feb 2006
SMW: 22 Jan 2006
SMZ: 13 Nov 2005
SPB: 16 Feb 2006
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 63):
SMJ: 2 Feb 2006
SMM: 20 Jan 2006
SMT: 17 Mar 2006
SMU: 1 Mar 2006
SMV: 3 Feb 2006
SMW: 22 Jan 2006
SMZ: 13 Nov 2005
SPB: 16 Feb 2006

I dont' think any of them have been retired.....SQ updated their site just today, and they stil list 27 744's with 2 retired....I assume that means 25 are active...
"Up the Irons!"
 
highflyer9790
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:21 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting AAden (Reply 30):
awsome news for boeing maybe AA would consider the 747-800

I would like to see AA get some more 777s with some 787s thrown in. their A300s are ancient and the 767s could use some replacing.
121
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:12 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
It will be the first-ever stretch of the 747 and is due to enter service in 2009.

Um, it's the 4th; being the first 747 stretch due to enter service is a first.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
...."The 787 is a good clean-sheet design," he (SQ) said.

I almost want to say, "well duh", but then not all clean-sheet designs get the attention deserved of them.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:06 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 66):
Um, it's the 4th; being the first 747 stretch due to enter service is a first.



Quoting Lehpron (Reply 66):

don't blame the messenger mate!
"Up the Irons!"
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:40 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 63):

SMJ: 2 Feb 2006
SMM: 20 Jan 2006
SMT: 17 Mar 2006
SMU: 1 Mar 2006
SMV: 3 Feb 2006
SMW: 22 Jan 2006
SMZ: 13 Nov 2005
SPB: 16 Feb 2006

I have some slightly more up-to-date information.
SMJ: 2 Feb 2006
SMM: 20 Jan 2006
SMT: 17 Mar 2006
SMU: 1 Mar 2006
SMV: 3 Feb 2006
SMW: 22 Jan 2006
SMZ: 15 Apr 2006
SPB: 12 Apr 2006

So, there were definitely 27 in operation as of 20 Jan 2006. If two have been retired since 20 Jan 2006, they could only be two of SMJ, SMM, SMT, SMU, SMV, or SMW. I would still like to know, which two?
 
sq212
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:14 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:11 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):

IMO, those statements seems to imply SQ preference and likelihood of pushing through with the order in May. At least 772LR and 748i, may be a few 789 and 787-10 in the near future. Question now is whether Boeing proposal is attractive enough for SQ to made the final decision.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:30 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 68):
there were definitely 27 in operation as of 20 Jan 2006. If two have been retired since 20 Jan 2006, they could only be two of SMJ, SMM, SMT, SMU, SMV, or SMW. I would still like to know, which two?

As of 12 April 2006, there were at least 26 JumboJets in operation with SQ. Of the 27 I listed above, the only one I'm not sure about is 9V-SMT. The last date I can confirm that 9V-SMT was in operation is 17 Mar 2006. Note that SMT is the only one without SpaceBeds. I understand that a few of the 27 have already been sold but SQ are leasing them back on a short-term basis.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:24 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 67):
don't blame the messenger mate!

Don't worry yo, I wasn't.  Smile
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
CptGermany
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:50 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:07 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 52):
composites are lighter and stronger and last longer than metal.

This might be true for sail planes which do not go up to the altitudes at which commercial airliners fly. IIRC, there have been indications by Boeing engineers that the composites on the B787 might lose their strength due the long UV exposure at high altitudes. I mean, time will tell whether the B787 airframe truly will last as long as their sailplane counterparts.

Quoting Columba (Reply 39):
Lufthansa is indeed looking only at a replacement for their longhaul fleet mainly their A340-300s and 747-400s. This part of the order never included their short and medium haul fleet.

This is exactly what Mayrhuber indicated in the following quote:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
Lufthansa is also considering the 787 and A350. But Mayrhuber said he is only interested in the bigger 787.

"The minimum for us would be the 787-9. Even better would be the 787-10," he said."

I stated before that LH is not replacing any of its short-haul fleet, simply due to that fact that their short-haul, aka KONT, fleet is not profitable. Just like many other large Eurpean operators, LH gets its profit out of long-haul operations. Why invest into a market which is not likely to give a ROI from the get-go?


My  twocents 
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:24 am

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 72):
I stated before that LH is not replacing any of its short-haul fleet, simply due to that fact that their short-haul, aka KONT, fleet is not profitable. Just like many other large Eurpean operators, LH gets its profit out of long-haul operations. Why invest into a market which is not likely to give a ROI from the get-go?

their short-haul now is starting to turn around..in fact AB had a loss last quarter...so LH might keep the pressure on.....

LH isn't going to do too much with their short-haul fleet until there is a Y1/A320 replacement...

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 71):
Don't worry yo, I wasn't.

only making sure. Wink

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 69):
MO, those statements seems to imply SQ preference and likelihood of pushing through with the order in May. At least 772LR and 748i, may be a few 789 and 787-10 in the near future. Question now is whether Boeing proposal is attractive enough for SQ to made the final decision.

yah..that's what I think.....its "all about the price"....!
"Up the Irons!"
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:48 am

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 72):
This might be true for sail planes which do not go up to the altitudes at which commercial airliners fly. IIRC, there have been indications by Boeing engineers that the composites on the B787 might lose their strength due the long UV exposure at high altitudes. I mean, time will tell whether the B787 airframe truly will last as long as their sailplane counterparts.

Compisite hydroplane racing boats can withstand an increadible amount of punishment. Composites on military and commercial planes have prooven they can stand the test of time. I doubt that the particular process used for the 787 is inferior to what has come before.

Fiberglass pleasure boats with gel-coat and no maintenance will start to break down after 20 years of full time sunlight, but not lose strength. Even that's long enough to serve as a basis of comparison unless you contend that the 787 process is inferior to that of old fashioned fiberglass. Apply new Gelcoat and you get another 20 years. Im sure they can apply a similar but superior UV resistant finish to what is used on boats, then the material is never even exposed.

BTW, this argument reminds me of the so called paint problem with CFRP. Seems noone around here was aware that GM uses CFRP for body panels on some of thier models. Painting is not an issue and niether is longevity.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7892
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:47 pm

SMJ, SMM and SMU have all visited AKL recently! And I think SMZ has aswell.

Sad to see the 744's leave, what a great aircraft!
 
intothinair
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:42 pm

Why would LH want the 787-10 as a replacement of the A343 when it is a lot larger, the 787-9 is equivalent, if not slightly bigger than the A343! the 787-10 would almost get into the ballpark of the A346!

cheers, Konstantin G
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:30 pm

Quoting Intothinair (Reply 76):
Why would LH want the 787-10 as a replacement of the A343 when it is a lot larger, the 787-9 is equivalent, if not slightly bigger than the A343! the 787-10 would almost get into the ballpark of the A346!

In terms of passenger capacity the proposed 787-10 is comparable to the 777-200ER, A350-900 and A340-500. At 300-310 passengers in three class seating, it it not comparable to the 380 seat A340-600.


-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
N1120A
Posts: 26724
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:45 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 47):
B, it doesn't fit into the 763 boxes NH and JL have, because last time I checked, they don't fly 764s.

The 764 fits into the La Guardia box, which is just about the tightest fit you can get a widebody into. NH and JL will not have any trouble with them fitting into gates at HND and ITM, airports that were built for 747s.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 47):
They fly 763s and 772/3As domestically.

I am well aware of that. They also park at gates meant to handle 747SR/D models

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 77):
In terms of passenger capacity the proposed 787-10 is comparable to the 777-200ER, A350-900 and A340-500. At 300-310 passengers in three class seating, it it not comparable to the 380 seat A340-600.

In the real world, that 300-310 actually translates to 240-250 and only if they do 9Y
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
CptGermany
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:50 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:32 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73):
their short-haul now is starting to turn around..in fact AB had a loss last quarter...so LH might keep the pressure on.....

LH isn't going to do too much with their short-haul fleet until there is a Y1/A320 replacement...

 checkmark 

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 74):
Compisite hydroplane racing boats can withstand an increadible amount of punishment. Composites on military and commercial planes have prooven they can stand the test of time. I doubt that the particular process used for the 787 is inferior to what has come before.

Fiberglass pleasure boats with gel-coat and no maintenance will start to break down after 20 years of full time sunlight, but not lose strength.

Composite hydroplane racing boats and fiberglas pleasure boast never fly at 30,000ft where the atmosphere is substantially thinner and hence more UV radiation is prevalent.

Besides, military aircraft typically don't spend as much time in the air as commercial aircraft. The latter's utilization is much greater. In addition, some military aircraft spend more time in maintenance than they do in the air. An airline can't afford that. That is why I believe that the design of the B787 will see some challenges in this area.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6024
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:45 pm

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 79):
Besides, military aircraft typically don't spend as much time in the air as commercial aircraft. The latter's utilization is much greater.

Tell that to the C-17 and Global Hawk drivers.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:50 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 80):
and Global Hawk drivers.

This is a joke, right?

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6024
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:54 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 81):
This is a joke, right?

Not really. They're in the air quite a bit. So what if the drivers are on the ground? My point still stands. They're long-endurance CFRP aircraft with utilization rates that WN would envy.

[Edited 2006-04-18 16:55:00]
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:56 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 82):
Not really. They're in the air quite a bit. So what if the drivers are on the ground? My point still stands. They're long-endurance CFRP aircraft with utilization rates that WN wound envy.

I was not disputing your latter point... I was just confirming that you were referring to the "pilots" of a UAV... that's all.

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
jacobin777
Topic Author
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:04 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 78):

In the real world, that 300-310 actually translates to 240-250 and only if they do 9Y

not for EK it won't......you can be it will be 300-310...
"Up the Irons!"
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 78):
In the real world, that 300-310 actually translates to 240-250 and only if they do 9Y

Actually using comparable airline configurations the 787-10 cabin area allows a bit more available seats than currently in service 777-200's. At eight abreast actual service configurations would range from 240 at the low end, i.e. NH, to 280 in three class seating. Nine abreast economy cabins would put that figure to over 310 in a typical three class arrangement. With a generic three class seating layout, using nine abreast economy, 787-10 would accommodate up to 340. The flexibility of being able to use reasonably comfortable seats in nine abreast even allows several options for four class seating to potential 787-10 customers in similar arrangements to what NH is using on its 777-300ER's, although with about 14% less area available for seats.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:23 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 78):
I am well aware of that. They also park at gates meant to handle 747SR/D models

not at every airport and not at every gate in the bigger airports. sorry.

which is not to say the 783 is going to be a problem, just they may have to repaint some gates to make sure that there is a safe minimum clearance of wingtips. it won't be the same severity of problem as trying to park two 748i or two 380 aircraft next to each other in existing gates.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:14 am

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 72):
IIRC, there have been indications by Boeing engineers that the composites on the B787 might lose their strength due the long UV exposure at high altitudes.

Boeing managers have said that the 787 will use the same carbon fiber and resin that has been used for the 777 tailfeathers for over 10 years. So is there any indication that those surfaces are deteriorating? The airlines with 777s probably will have a pretty good idea before ordering the 787.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:20 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 87):
Boeing managers have said that the 787 will use the same carbon fiber and resin that has been used for the 777 tailfeathers for over 10 years. So is there any indication that those surfaces are deteriorating? The airlines with 777s probably will have a pretty good idea before ordering the 787.

"Tailfeathers"??? I've seen 777 wings flap in flight before but I never noticed the feathers on the empennage...must only have those on the 777-200B-ird models...

-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27614
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:00 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 87):
Boeing managers have said that the 787 will use the same carbon fiber and resin that has been used for the 777 tailfeathers for over 10 years. So is there any indication that those surfaces are deteriorating? The airlines with 777s probably will have a pretty good idea before ordering the 787.

And considering the 777's tailfins/"tailfeathers" are similar in dimension to the main wing of a 737NG, that seems to bode well for the 787's wings holding up (even though they will be larger and will experience more and varied operational stresses).
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:27 am

Quoting Airmansv (Reply 42):
Cannot believe the naivity amongst the knowledgeable readers. 787 whatever form it takes is a paper design today , yet to prove itself, yet to get even 60 minutes ETOPS etc etc.....

Um, there's no such thing as 60 minute ETOPS. All twins are allowed to be operated up to 60 minutes from the nearest engine out diversion.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:32 am

can't anyone use poetry anymore without getting their throat slit?  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:34 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 91):
can't anyone use poetry anymore without getting their throat slit?

Whenever I try it, my posts get deleted so I'm going to assume it doesn't exist anymore.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26724
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:38 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 85):
At eight abreast actual service configurations would range from 240 at the low end, i.e. NH, to 280 in three class seating. Nine abreast economy cabins would put that figure to over 310 in a typical three class arrangement. With a generic three class seating layout, using nine abreast economy, 787-10 would accommodate up to 340

Again, I have a significant issue with that. On the CO 772ERs, which have as crunched a Y section as you can get at 31", they run at 283 seats in a true 2 class configuration (no premium economy). True 3 class seating can't stretch to 280 if the 772ER and 787-10 are seen as roughly the same size.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
steeler83
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:42 am

Damn, this thread was supposed to be about the 747-8. Look where we ended up  Smile I don't mind; both birds are rather exciting and thrilling to me
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:32 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 93):
Again, I have a significant issue with that. On the CO 772ERs, which have as crunched a Y section as you can get at 31", they run at 283 seats in a true 2 class configuration (no premium economy). True 3 class seating can't stretch to 280 if the 772ER and 787-10 are seen as roughly the same size.

Don't know why you would use CO's two class configuration as the benchmark layout for 777-200. But here is something to ponder...



There are a wide variety of seating arrangements used on current 777-200's. If 787-10 becomes a reality, it's longer cabin length will allow very comparable arrangements with wider eight abreast economy class seats.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
steeler83
Posts: 7702
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:56 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 95):
There are a wide variety of seating arrangements used on current 777-200's. If 787-10 becomes a reality, it's longer cabin length will allow very comparable arrangements with wider eight abreast economy class seats.

I was about to make a very inaccurate post here regarding the seating arrangement comparison between the 787-10 and 777. I was about to say that the 787 would be larger and capable of seating considerably more people than the 777 regarding that chart and what was posted as well as in the links, but I realized that seating arrangements are solely up to the airlines pretty much... Boeing's arrangement is just a suggestion as to what airlines can do with the arrangements. Just because that Boeing said that the 787-9, or 10, in this case, would seat more than 330 people does not necessarily mean that all aircraft will seat that much. It's only a guideline, if you will, for airlines to follow. I almost forgot about that...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:12 am

Before we continue further, can someone please post the square footage comparisons between the 787 versions and the 777 versions?
 
intothinair
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:53 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 77):
In terms of passenger capacity the proposed 787-10 is comparable to the 777-200ER, A350-900 and A340-500. At 300-310 passengers in three class seating, it it not comparable to the 380 seat A340-600.

uhm, first you say this, then...

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 85):
Actually using comparable airline configurations the 787-10 cabin area allows a bit more available seats than currently in service 777-200's. At eight abreast actual service configurations would range from 240 at the low end, i.e. NH, to 280 in three class seating. Nine abreast economy cabins would put that figure to over 310 in a typical three class arrangement. With a generic three class seating layout, using nine abreast economy, 787-10 would accommodate up to 340. The flexibility of being able to use reasonably comfortable seats in nine abreast even allows several options for four class seating to potential 787-10 customers in similar arrangements to what NH is using on its 777-300ER's, although with about 14% less area available for seats.

You say this??
i'm confused, your second statement is absolutely correct and thus your first isn't. As i will proove below the 787-10 only has around 35 seats less than the 773ER

Quoting N1120A (Reply 78):
In the real world, that 300-310 actually translates to 240-250 and only if they do 9Y

Please look below

Assuming the B787-10 will be 20 feet longer than the B787-9 (as the B787-9 is 20 feet longer than the B787-8), then the cabin floor areas are:

B787-9: 257.4 sq meters
A350-900: 262.9 sq meters
A340-500: 275.7 sq meters
B777-200: 279.0 sq meters
B787-10: 291.0 sq meters
A340-600: 314.2 sq meters
B777-300: 330.4 sq meters

As you can clearly see the 787-10 will have a floor area only 23 square meters less than the A346, and in a 9Y configuration we're talking around 20 seats less than the A346. Let us assume(Could someone be so kind to provide real data) that the A343s cabin floor area is 260sq meters(the a343 is a little samller than the 772ER) the 787-10 would clearly not be suitable, however the 787-9 would! If someone doesn't understand my reasoning, feel free to ask, or correct me if there is a mistake

cheers, Konstantin G.
 
CptGermany
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:50 am

RE: 747-8 Model Turning Heads

Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:24 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 87):
So is there any indication that those surfaces are deteriorating? The airlines with 777s probably will have a pretty good idea before ordering the 787.

I would love to paste a quote from an article that I once read, but I can't find it any more. I guess, you will have to take my word for it. Sorry. I understand though if you don't. I will continue my search and put it in this thread if I find it.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos