Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:38 am

I was just wondering if anybody knew what the specs to the 787-10 will be, such as the overall length and range?
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:49 am

Since such an aircraft does not officially exist, doubtful. Supposedly clients (read: Emirates) wanted roughly, or atleast close to 9,000 miles of range and greater passenger capacity than 787-9. Expect total length somewhere around perhaps 210' (my estimation). My guess is Boeing will unleash it to the world at Farnsborough this summer, and we'll get an idea of exactly what they're going to build.
 
aa1818
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:03 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:30 am

I have no doubt now that Boeing will launch it. Farnsborough seems the obvious place for such an announcement. Somewhere on these forums I remember reading that from amateur calculations Boeing was to be able to get about 8,000nm from a stretched 787. Cargo, passengers, seat costs etc were all consistent with the Dreamliner's stellar specifications, however, many A.net members expressed concern about Boeings ability to meet EK's range requirement without improved Engines from GE and RR.

Sorry I couldn't give a link or actual figures, but there are some members out there who had some a nice chart. Specs (not from Boeing) do exist somewhere in the internet. Check Wikipedia- scroll down to the bottom- not much info, but at least it's something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787#Commercial_launch

AA1818
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:13 am

There was some pretty definitive detail in a thread of a few days ago, but I don't remember the detail.
Seems to me the range is around 7300nm but with what load I don't know, the MTOW is within the capacity of the existing landing gear.
 
CWFan
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:58 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:26 am

I think that Ikramerica said on another thread that the range of the -10 would be in the 7300-7500 range, too. To which I asked how the 787 would get to the SYD-LHR range or the lesser, 9500m range that EK and Qantas have publicly asked for. Ikra's response, IIRC, was that the -10 improvements could be applied to the 787-8 to produce that range figure (which means that the greater passenger figures for the -10 still wouldn't be able to travel the 9500m+ route), probably in an upgrade after the -10's release. If so, that would leave the 787 family in the post 2012 timeframe with a full line of medium to ultra-longhaul birds in the mid-sized market. An attractive thought for Boeing.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:38 am

Stretches usually lower range, so I'd be surprised if a 787-10 could do 9000-10000nm unless they decide to only allow carry-ons and use the underfloor bays for fuel tankage.  Smile

But as CWFan, Ikramerica and others have noted that, just as Boeing used technologies from the 777-300 to greatly increase the amount of fuel (in terms of weight) a 777-200 frame could carry to create the 777-200LR, Boeing will likely use information from the 787-9 and 787-10 to create an LR 787-8 with the capability of carrying 250 people some 10000nm.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting CWFan (Reply 4):
To which I asked how the 787 would get to the SYD-LHR range or the lesser, 9500m range that EK and Qantas have publicly asked for.

EK's RFP is for 8300-8500 nm

The B787 is not at this time being considered for SYD-LHR non-stop.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 2):
however, many A.net members expressed concern about Boeings ability to meet EK's range requirement without improved Engines from GE and RR.

Well, it depends.

Boeing can simply use the existing engine variants that will likely offer a maximum of 80,000 lbf, near term. This means a range for payload swap analogus to the B773A model that was derrived from the B772ER. Such a -10 model, derrived from the -9HGW, would offer about 7,500 nm of range at MTOW.

Now, uprated engine variants with ~85,000 lbf would allow more payload. That would give both OEM the ability to reach EK's RFP.
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:41 am

on some thread it was said the MTOW would still be about 540K lbs(245 tonne), so will the 787-10 need just the 75K thrust engines of the baseline A359 or more??? The A359HGW is supposed to go to 265tonnes and need more than 75K thrust. I still don't understand why GE thinks it may need to go to a GP7000 derivative for that >75K thrust level and not use a GEnx but RR thinks it can provide whatever a 787-10 needs with the Trent 1000, unless it only needs 75K and maybe the A359HGW more like 80K.
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:39 pm

The rough specs of the -10 have been announced by Boeing. It will have the same MTOW as the -9(540,000lb), 40-60 more seats and a range of around 7,500nm. Same engines as the -9 and effectively the -10 trade's the -9's range for additional payload. EIS is 2012 at the earliest. I think there is every chance that a -10X will appear in the future when the larger core engines are available. Boeing has said they are in discussions with around 12 airlines regarding the -10. I think some of those airlines are: EK, QR, SQ, CX, BA and LH.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:00 pm

Quoting CWFan (Reply 4):
I think that Ikramerica said on another thread that the range of the -10 would be in the 7300-7500 range, too. To which I asked how the 787 would get to the SYD-LHR range or the lesser, 9500m range that EK and Qantas have publicly asked for. Ikra's response, IIRC, was that the -10 improvements could be applied to the 787-8 to produce that range figure (which means that the greater passenger figures for the -10 still wouldn't be able to travel the 9500m+ route), probably in an upgrade after the -10's release. If so, that would leave the 787 family in the post 2012 timeframe with a full line of medium to ultra-longhaul birds in the mid-sized market. An attractive thought for Boeing.



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
The B787 is not at this time being considered for SYD-LHR non-stop.

if anything, it might be a variant of the 787-9 which might be modified to perform the "Kangaroo route"...

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 8):
The rough specs of the -10 have been announced by Boeing. It will have the same MTOW as the -9(540,000lb), 40-60 more seats and a range of around 7,500nm.

to clear it up a bit.....

"According to Boeing, the dash 10's range likely will be similar to that of the 787-8 at 8,000-8,500 nm. The dash 9 can fly 8,600-8,800 nm. with 250 seats."

will have approximately 300 seats...

of interest.....

"What is attracting Emirates is the dash 10's seat-mile costs and fuel burn, both of which will be lower than the A380's. It also will have 80% more revenue cargo space than the A380, according to sources at Emirates. It is understood that Singapore Airlines and British Airways are among the carriers keen on the version."

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4505
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:28 pm

Quoting CWFan (Reply 4):
I think that Ikramerica said on another thread that the range of the -10 would be in the 7300-7500 range, too.

No, I only spoke of cargo capacity in relation to the A380 as EK spoke of it, not range.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:31 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
not range

of the 787-10

we did speculate on the range of a 788 with the 789/10 MTOW and engines, but that is a non-existent product.

It would take a more powerful engine and MTOW increase on the 789/10 to reach 772LR range.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 8):
It will have the same MTOW as the -9(540,000lb), 40-60 more seats and a range of around 7,500nm. Same engines as the -9 and effectively the -10 trade's the -9's range for additional payload. EIS is 2012 at the earliest. I think there is every chance that a -10X will appear in the future when the larger core engines are available. Boeing has said they are in discussions with around 12 airlines regarding the -10. I think some of those airlines are: EK, QR, SQ, CX, BA and LH.

I don't thing so. Since RR has publicly announced uprated Trent 1000's for an upcoming 787-10 of no less than 80,000lbs/each. GE has demonstrated GEnx engines running past 80,000lbs, and has done so publicly. My guess is that Boeing will have no trouble uprating the landing gear, much as they did for 767-400, for maybe close to 600,000lbs of MTOW. They won't sacrafice range. This is being built to airline specifications. They want range.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:11 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
on some thread it was said the MTOW would still be about 540K lbs(245 tonne), so will the 787-10 need just the 75K thrust engines of the baseline A359 or more??? The A359HGW is supposed to go to 265tonnes and need more than 75K thrust. I still don't understand why GE thinks it may need to go to a GP7000 derivative for that >75K thrust level and not use a GEnx but RR thinks it can provide whatever a 787-10 needs with the Trent 1000, unless it only needs 75K and maybe the A359HGW more like 80K.

LightSaber suggested that the Engine Alliance contract might have something to do with that.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:35 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 12):
GE has demonstrated GEnx engines running past 80,000lbs

Just to avoid any doubt, running an engine at over 80 000lb is not the same as it being capable of being certified at that figure. The Trent 1000 has already run at 83 000 lb thrust, but will be certified at 75 000 lb.
Most modern engines that I'm aware of have run at least 10% over certification thrust in testing (the Trent 900 has exceeded 90 000 lb for example, but is certified at 80 000 lb max).
It's not sustainable on-wing for the length of time required by the operators with minimum maintenance.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
I still don't understand why GE thinks it may need to go to a GP7000 derivative for that >75K thrust level and not use a GEnx but RR thinks it can provide whatever a 787-10 needs with the Trent 1000, unless it only needs 75K and maybe the A359HGW more like 80K.

LightSaber suggested that the Engine Alliance contract might have something to do with that.

That, I believe is correct. One of the biggest advantages that I perceive the Trent 1000/T1700 has over the GEnx is that RR are only answerable to themselves if they develop more powerful versions, whereas GE have to answer to the Alliance when you start getting into c 80 000 lb thrust ranges.

That may be significant for future A380 versions, too. The "new" T1700 might be a lot easier for RR to offer than the "new" GEnx is for GE. The EA may be forced to rely on an "updated" GP7000

However, I'll defer to Lightsaber for a more definitive view.
A
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:10 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 12):
My guess is that Boeing will have no trouble uprating the landing gear, much as they did for 767-400, for maybe close to 600,000lbs

I thought there would be an issue with runway loadings unless more wheels were added to the bogies with a resultant increase in OEW.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:17 pm

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 15):
I thought there would be an issue with runway loadings unless more wheels were added to the bogies with a resultant increase in OEW.

The alternative (which may or may not be practical) is larger diameter tyres. The 6-wheel bogies have the advantage of the levering trick to help avoid tailstrikes.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:49 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
That, I believe is correct. One of the biggest advantages that I perceive the Trent 1000/T1700 has over the GEnx is that RR are only answerable to themselves if they develop more powerful versions, whereas GE have to answer to the Alliance when you start getting into c 80 000 lb thrust ranges.

I have a hard time believing that GE would sign away the product category that would include GE90 replacements. Do you have any actual indication that the Engine Alliance agreement covers all engines of this range? I would think that it is restricted to the A380 and derivatives.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:38 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
was just wondering if anybody knew what the specs to the 787-10 will be, such as the overall length and range?

787 FAMILY SPECIFICATIONS


-widebodyphotog
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:54 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 18):

787 FAMILY SPECIFICATIONS


-widebodyphotog

So is the original 787-9 specification still on offer, or has it been superceded by the B model you mention.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:01 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 17):
Do you have any actual indication that the Engine Alliance agreement covers all engines of this range? I would think that it is restricted to the A380 and derivatives.

Not really, except for this:-

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
I still don't understand why GE thinks it may need to go to a GP7000 derivative for that >75K thrust level and not use a GEnx

You might well be right. As I said, you might get a more definitive answer from Lightsaber.

Regards
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:18 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 7):
I still don't understand why GE thinks it may need to go to a GP7000 derivative for that >75K thrust level and not use a GEnx but RR thinks it can provide whatever a 787-10 needs with the Trent 1000, unless it only needs 75K and maybe the A359HGW more like 80K.

The reason for this lies behind the concept of the GEnX. The GEnX is pretty much the pinnacle of two shaft technology at this point. With it's very high BPR the spools are basically at the highest mismatch of speeds that are tolerable for an efficient, reliable engine. It's a great engine, but to increase thrust with similar efficiency they basically would have to scale up all components from the Fan to the LPT to gain thrust levels that a proper 787-10 would require. Or narrow thermal margins at the expense of reliability. The Trent on the other hand being a three spool design can increase power by a scaling of either the IP spool, fan spool, or both without substantial efficiency penalties. The three shaft modular concept is the more viable way through for high specific thrust combined with higher BPR demands of future engines.

If a 787-10 is launched that realizes the full potential of what the airframe is capable of it will likely be a Trent 1XXX or further down the road a very high specification geared turbofan to meet the thrust requirements of 80-85Klbt. I don't believe that the GP7000 can be suitably adapted to the 787 airframe within the limitations of the common architecture concept Boeing has laid out for the 787 family.



-widebodyphotog
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:18 am

Well GE exclusivity hasn't really hurt the 773ER in terms of sales, so if RR is the only engine choice on the 787-10, it might not hurt it, either. Especially since non-RR operators can just enter into a "power by the hour" service contract and not worry about paying for spares and cross-training.
 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Well GE exclusivity hasn't really hurt the 773ER in terms of sales, so if RR is the only engine choice on the 787-10, it might not hurt it, either. Especially since non-RR operators can just enter into a "power by the hour" service contract and not worry about paying for spares and cross-training.

Yes, I was glad, but suprised when Cathay Pacific ordered the 773ER when they've historically been an all Rolls-Royce customer.
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:58 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 23):
Yes, I was glad, but suprised when Cathay Pacific ordered the 773ER when they've historically been an all Rolls-Royce customer.

only since they had Tristars, they had pratt 707s and GE CV880s before that.
 
atlflyer
Posts: 771
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:13 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:32 am

With a capacity of 300, do you think we will finally see 18.5'' seats in economy or will airlines still squeeze in another seat? Could the 787-10 with 9-abreast economy seating come close to competing with the 777-300ER (in terms of number of passengers)?
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:00 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
GE have to answer to the Alliance when you start getting into c 80 000 lb thrust ranges.

Is that a bad thing? Pratt and Whitney isn't selling many engines lately. Their PW2000 line is essentially dead, PW4000 sales are doing ok, but they're losing market share, and PW6000 never really took off. They do have some really good technology. With an infusion of PW comrpessor and other technologies, combined with the GEnx's many advances and you could have one hell of an engine. GP7200 is less efficient than GEnx because it's older, its development started earlier, and its not bleedless. An engine alliance engine wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Just look what GE's partnership with Snecma did, their best selling product line ever.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Well GE exclusivity hasn't really hurt the 773ER in terms of sales, so if RR is the only engine choice on the 787-10, it might not hurt it, either. Especially since non-RR operators can just enter into a "power by the hour" service contract and not worry about paying for spares and cross-training.

No one else but GE has produced an engine for 773ER. Not worth it. The development costs are too high. No one would spend it for less than half the market. Plus, of the three engines available, GE90 has the best burn rate in its higher thrust variants. I'm sure GE will find a way into the market for 787-10. That said, Emirates and SQ would certainly buy Trents.....

They could get away just offering the RR though. I just can't see GE not offering an engine.

Quoting ATLflyer (Reply 25):
With a capacity of 300, do you think we will finally see 18.5'' seats in economy or will airlines still squeeze in another seat? Could the 787-10 with 9-abreast economy seating come close to competing with the 777-300ER (in terms of number of passengers)?

I think some airlines will do 8 abreast coach. If UA buys it, i'm sure economy plus will be 8 wide. I don't think a 787-10 will challenger 773ER, seeing as it will be 30' shorter. It will for sure challenge 772ER though.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:15 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
No one else but GE has produced an engine for 773ER. Not worth it. The development costs are too high. No one would spend it for less than half the market.

Rolls-Royce was willing to share the market (using the Trent 8115), but GE and PW both demanded exclusivity if they were to produce an engine for the 777X. Since GE was the only company to offer development dollars, Boeing chose them.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:40 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
PW4000 sales are doing ok, but they're losing market share

To be fair, the PW4000 has a strong customer in the USAF.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:11 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
I don't think a 787-10 will challenger 773ER, seeing as it will be 30' shorter.

In terms of overall length, the B787-10 will reportedly be 226 feet 1 inch, while the B777-300ER is 239 feet 9 inches, a difference of 13 feet 8 inches. In terms of interior cabin length, the B787-10 will reportedly be 179 feet 10 inches, while the B777-300ER is 192 feet 4 inches, for a difference of 12 feet 6 inches.

It might be possible to squeeze an additional 5 rows of Y seating into a B777-300ER versus a B787-10 -- or, more realistically, 4.5 rows of Y seating plus 2 more lavs or 4 rows of Y seating plus 2 more lavs and some extra galley space.
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:03 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 12):
I don't thing so. Since RR has publicly announced uprated Trent 1000's for an upcoming 787-10 of no less than 80,000lbs/each. GE has demonstrated GEnx engines running past 80,000lbs, and has done so publicly. My guess is that Boeing will have no trouble uprating the landing gear, much as they did for 767-400, for maybe close to 600,000lbs of MTOW. They won't sacrafice range. This is being built to airline specifications. They want range.

Check out widebodyphotog's table in reply 18. It basically confirms the specs I listed.
 
SONICDANCE
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:13 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:50 pm

If RR was the sole engine supplier (at this point, as 80k+ lb thrust engine would be offered by RR soon...) for the -10, that would seriously hurt GEnx... We are talking about the blue chips (maybe) going for the -10 (Cathay, EK, Qantas, SIA etc...) and that's a huge business down there that GE can never ignore. I doubt GE would offer a GP7200 derivative as that would not bring commonality to the other 787 family (unless the operators have A380 w/ the Engine Alliance engines on like EK.) It will be interesting to see what GE can come up w/... I even suspect that -10 is not officially launched is because of GE.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:08 pm

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 31):
If RR was the sole engine supplier (at this point, as 80k+ lb thrust engine would be offered by RR soon...) for the -10, that would seriously hurt GEnx... We are talking about the blue chips (maybe) going for the -10 (Cathay, EK, Qantas, SIA etc...) and that's a huge business down there that GE can never ignore. I doubt GE would offer a GP7200 derivative as that would not bring commonality to the other 787 family (unless the operators have A380 w/ the Engine Alliance engines on like EK.) It will be interesting to see what GE can come up w/... I even suspect that -10 is not officially launched is because of GE.

Why doesn't GE just share some of the profits with PW to get around the contract?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:39 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 32):
Why doesn't GE just share some of the profits with PW to get around the contract?

Profit sharing is not the issue.

The issue is an EU ultimatium that only authorized Ge/PW to develop a joint engine under the condition that the GP7200 only be applied to what was at the time the A3XX and B747-X.

This was especially an issue when Boeing was pitching the B767-400ERX and -300ERX in 1998-1999. Boeing wanted to use the GP7200 as an engine option, but it would have required EU or WTO arbitration.

I don't see why either Airbus or Boeing would want to revisit this issue now that the GP7200 has been surpassed by the GeNX and T1000. I would bet apples to oranges that Ge finds a way to offer a +80,000 lbf engine without using the Engine Alliance hardware.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:28 am

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 31):
If RR was the sole engine supplier (at this point, as 80k+ lb thrust engine would be offered by RR soon...) for the -10, that would seriously hurt GEnx...

Maybe. maybe not. The 787-10 is going to be a big plane, designed to replace the 777-200ER. The three for-sale 787 models have snagged some 300 orders, and the domestic US airlines have yet to weigh in, nor have many large foreign airlines that operate 767s and A330s. GEnx could sell thousands in that market, plus what they can skim off the 748 program (which should also be worth hundreds, if not thousands, since ya need four plus spares per frame).

However, I do agree with both you and DfwRevolution that GE will spend the bucks to develop a bleedless engine capable of sustained 80,000+ lbs of thrust. The 787-10 market will be big, I expect, and if Boeing can go even farther (787-11), and GE will want to play in that sandbox.  Smile
 
SONICDANCE
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:13 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:24 am

I doubt the 787 would go to 777-300ER area (-11X) because there will be substantial engineering work to do (ala 340-600). A -10ERX will eventually replace 777-200LR (won't come out till at least after 2015 though, as the 777-200LR is brand new right now) and it might also benefit -11X (imagine -10ERX and -11 shares hardwares, just like the 777LR program). However, I don't think -11X would be a strong performer as structural efficiency goes down (long tubular fuselage), leading to excess OEW. -10 would be the longest that 787 would go, in my opinion.

However, if -11X did come, Boeing's game plan for Y3 will be interrupted, leading to 2 families (737RS and 787). I doubt Boeing would do anything bigger than 747-8I.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:38 am

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 35):
However, if -11X did come, Boeing's game plan for Y3 will be interrupted, leading to 2 families (737RS and 787). I doubt Boeing would do anything bigger than 747-8I.

And how do you propose for the 787 to supplant the 747-8I? If you stretch it beyond what people are suggesting for a hypothetical 787-11, then it will look like a damn lead pencil.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:13 am

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 35):
I doubt the 787 would go to 777-300ER area (-11X) because there will be substantial engineering work to do (ala 340-600). A -10ERX will eventually replace 777-200LR (won't come out till at least after 2015 though, as the 777-200LR is brand new right now) and it might also benefit -11X (imagine -10ERX and -11 shares hardwares, just like the 777LR program). However, I don't think -11X would be a strong performer as structural efficiency goes down (long tubular fuselage), leading to excess OEW. -10 would be the longest that 787 would go, in my opinion.

However, if -11X did come, Boeing's game plan for Y3 will be interrupted, leading to 2 families (737RS and 787). I doubt Boeing would do anything bigger than 747-8I.

As Zveda mentioned on the Y-3 thread, fuselage height is more important for rigidity, and the 787 fuselage is quite a bit taller than the A300 (234" vs 222"). And the lightness of the CFRP structure combined with higher efficiency engines would allow for similar range for slightly smaller payloads compared to what the 773ER carries at much, much lower TOWs (somewhere above 600,000 lbs versus 777,000 lbs for the 773ER). That would mean much less reinforcing of the structure would be needed. A -11X would be insanely lighter than the 773ER, by something like 30t to 35t. It should even be much lighter than the 145t 772LR, probably even lower than the 138t 772ER.

On the other hand, a -11X would be harder to push into the high 8000nm to low 9000nm category without extensive redesign. If they did so it might prevent Boeing from designing a Y-3. The Y-3 could benefit greatly from more unit sales in the 350 pax market to spread development costs over.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:24 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 33):
Profit sharing is not the issue.

The issue is an EU ultimatium that only authorized Ge/PW to develop a joint engine under the condition that the GP7200 only be applied to what was at the time the A3XX and B747-X.

Interesting. I didn't know that. So, then is there any contractual obligation that would inhibit GE from producing a GEnx with more than 80K thrust?

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 35):
I doubt the 787 would go to 777-300ER area (-11X) because there will be substantial engineering work to do (ala 340-600). A -10ERX will eventually replace 777-200LR (won't come out till at least after 2015 though, as the 777-200LR is brand new right now) and it might also benefit -11X (imagine -10ERX and -11 shares hardwares, just like the 777LR program). However, I don't think -11X would be a strong performer as structural efficiency goes down (long tubular fuselage), leading to excess OEW. -10 would be the longest that 787 would go, in my opinion.

The vertical cross section of the B787 is 235 inches -- closer to the B777's than to the A340's. With CFRP, rididity will not be difficult to achieve and there will not be too great a weight penalty. It would not need a new keel like the A340-600 did. Maintaining structural rigidity while stretching the B787 is just a matter of laying enough tape (with the correct orientation).

Quoting N328KF (Reply 36):
And how do you propose for the 787 to supplant the 747-8I? If you stretch it beyond what people are suggesting for a hypothetical 787-11, then it will look like a damn lead pencil.

How a hypothetical B787-12X would look is not relevant. (It would have a profile about like that of the A340-600 -- roughly 6% taller fuselage and 6 or 7% longer.) The issues in producing a B787-12X would be avoiding tail-strikes and steering on the taxiways.
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:14 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 29):
In terms of overall length, the B787-10 will reportedly be 226 feet 1 inch

If this is meant to be a 772 replacement, will Y3 be even longer than the 773 and A346, already the two longest commercial aircraft in the world?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
The issues in producing a B787-12X would be avoiding tail-strikes and steering on the taxiways.

So will Y3 be that long?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:20 am

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 39):

If this is meant to be a 772 replacement, will Y3 be even longer than the 773 and A346, already the two longest commercial aircraft in the world?

It's about five years too early to guess. If a Y3 is ever built, the longest version might be 80 meters. There would be at least one and probably two versions under 75 meters.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:53 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
Rolls-Royce was willing to share the market (using the Trent 8115), but GE and PW both demanded exclusivity if they were to produce an engine for the 777X. Since GE was the only company to offer development dollars, Boeing chose them.

Yeah, I remember the 8115, but it never got off the drawing board, just because only GE offered development money.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 28):
To be fair, the PW4000 has a strong customer in the USAF.

True, point taken.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 30):
Check out widebodyphotog's table in reply 18. It basically confirms the specs I listed.

I don't think we can be sure of much in the 787-10 until its launched. I think right now nothing is for sure. They can still change their mind, and I think they are still feeling out potential clients.

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 39):
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 29):
In terms of overall length, the B787-10 will reportedly be 226 feet 1 inch

If this is meant to be a 772 replacement, will Y3 be even longer than the 773 and A346, already the two longest commercial aircraft in the world?

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
The issues in producing a B787-12X would be avoiding tail-strikes and steering on the taxiways.

So will Y3 be that long?

To be fair, the upcoming 747-8f will be the longest, at 250ft. It's not impossible for Y3 to be 260+ feet in length. The 3-wheel bogies on 777 are helpful for avoiding tailstrikes, and new advances used on 773ER in tailskid and tailstrike avoidance will help too. My guess is that Y3 will also be atleast 10 abreast in Y. Moreover, the undercarriage of Y3 will be designed with this length in mind. This was not the case on either A340 or 777.
 
SONICDANCE
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:13 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:56 am

N328KF:
Oh! You misunderstood me (or I didn't say it clearly...). I never imagine 787 would be skretched to a point w/ 747-8's capacity. That's just not going to be a cool bird (on the other hand, Richard Branson can put the "Mine is longer than yours" slogan onto the ultra-long 787!! ^____^)

Zvezda:
Would you explain to me why the taller vertical section of 787's fuselage would alleviate the sketch problem that A340-600 encounters? I don't quite get the physics behind it... >___< (Where's my engineering textbook). I would imagine there would be a huge bending moment along the long fuselage, which leads to a higher skin stress. But as you said, which I agree, layering more carbon fiber tapes will take care of the stress problem). But I don't understand why the height of the fuselage is the key... The only thing I could think of is I-beams (as used in skyscrappers), which has a large cross-section area at the vertical end. It will be really helpful if anyone can explain this to me!! ^^

Atmx2000:
Further skretching 787 to 80m would create tons of problem, like tail skid, take-off angle etc (maybe the 773 style gear helps?). Just like what Zvezda suggests. It also doesn't give Boeing any flexiblity in its product range:
1) If Boeing is going after -11X, then Y3 will be a bigger plane than 773-ER, which Boeing thinks it's a small market (we'll see... don't flame me on this one). Would Boeing build Y3 to go after a market that they think is small?
2) As you suggested, -11X would have lower range than -10. Unless there would be substantial changes to the airframe, the range performance would be really ugly. I can see Boeing would launch -10ER in the future, which would benefit -11X if it is launched (just like how -9HGW benefits -10). If that's the case, I don't expect -11X can go farther than 8000nm, which slowly becomming an industrial standard for range for widebodies (MAYBE?? EK and SIA are the prime suspects...)
3) As you suggested again, Y3 can be "molded" better for the range and size than the -11X. It also gives Boeing a greater flexibility in its product portfolio.


The only scenario that I could see a -11X is the defragmatation of air traffic really happens as Boeing predicts. If that's the case, Boeing has no point building the Y3, as bigger planes are not needed (well... Airbus can have the whole market by themself). In that case, building the 787 to cover the 220-350 seats range would make a lot more sense, e.g. commonality, crew training, MRO etc. Otherwise, we won't see -11X but a Y3.

By the way, I do agree with the insane weight difference between -11X and 777-300ER. That's amazing!! (Eyeballs are out of my sockets, while my lips are "O" shaped.. ^___^)

P.S. Welcome to my RU list, Zvezda and Atmx2000!!!
 
SONICDANCE
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:13 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:58 am

Ughhhh!!! U have to have 20 posts in order to place RU list... That stinks... I'll get that 20 posts sooner or later... So I owe Zvezda and Atmx2000 something then...
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:20 am

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 42):
Would you explain to me why the taller vertical section of 787's fuselage would alleviate the sketch problem that A340-600 encounters? I don't quite get the physics behind it... >___< (Where's my engineering textbook). I would imagine there would be a huge bending moment along the long fuselage, which leads to a higher skin stress. But as you said, which I agree, layering more carbon fiber tapes will take care of the stress problem). But I don't understand why the height of the fuselage is the key... The only thing I could think of is I-beams (as used in skyscrappers), which has a large cross-section area at the vertical end. It will be really helpful if anyone can explain this to me!! ^^

Consider a long 2" x 4" piece of lumber. Would there be more bending if you held the wood with the wider 4" surfaces perpendicular to ground or the 2" surfaces perpendicular to the ground.

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 42):
2) As you suggested, -11X would have lower range than -10. Unless there would be substantial changes to the airframe, the range performance would be really ugly. I can see Boeing would launch -10ER in the future, which would benefit -11X if it is launched (just like how -9HGW benefits -10). If that's the case, I don't expect -11X can go farther than 8000nm, which slowly becomming an industrial standard for range for widebodies (MAYBE?? EK and SIA are the prime suspects...)

I'm assuming they would create a long range 10ER with TOW around 600,000 lbs, and a range comparable to the 787-9(HGW), in order to launch a -11 model.
 
SONICDANCE
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:13 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:19 am

Ahhhhh!!! Totally forgot this simple example... >__< Thanks Atmx2000!!! ^___^ This is a really good one... My brain is just really messed up w/ the solid mechanics stuff... So... in this case, the deflection at the skyward direction (z-axis) is not as big of an issue as the Airbus. But the horizontal deflection (y-axis, the x-axis is parallel to the fuselage) is not that much improved compare to A340-600, as 787's fuselage width is not that much wider. However it shouldn't be an issue since the lift is not acting on the fuselage horizontally. What about the rudder induced deflection? Is that a serious deal on A340-600?

BTW, yeah I agree w/ ya about the MTOW of -10ERX and -11X would stand around 600,000lbs. But it would have quite a lot of structural mod. to do too (e.g. to accomodate the landing gear (6-wheeler), extra fuel space, a little strengthening etc.) Just wondering if the wings would also be extended, just like the wings would be extended as well (like A340-500 and -600). I've heard the wing is good for MTOW of 600,000lb though so it's just a guess...

Personally I think Boeing should make the MTOW of -10 slightly higher than 540,000lb. That would make more sense coz you don't have to launch the ER version. If -10 can make 8000nm, then that would be even more attractive than the current form Boeing spells out. Of course the key issue is the engine...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:33 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
Interesting. I didn't know that.

I'll have to dig through Flug Review for the proof I know everyone wants, but until then, I swear on my mother's life

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
So, then is there any contractual obligation that would inhibit GE from producing a GEnx with more than 80K thrust?

None that I know of. The EU stipulation was IMO simply a means of preventing a North American monopoly, as the Ge/Pratt team was much larger than any other engine partnership to date.

Ironically, Boeing signed a North American engine OEM as the sole supplier for the B777LR only 12-18 months later  Wink

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 45):
BTW, yeah I agree w/ ya about the MTOW of -10ERX and -11X would stand around 600,000lbs. But it would have quite a lot of structural mod. to do too

Seems like a sensible mid-life upgrade come 2015, analogus to the B777LR or A340NG.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:58 am

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 42):
Zvezda:
Would you explain to me why the taller vertical section of 787's fuselage would alleviate the sketch problem that A340-600 encounters? I don't quite get the physics behind it... >___< (Where's my engineering textbook). I would imagine there would be a huge bending moment along the long fuselage, which leads to a higher skin stress. But as you said, which I agree, layering more carbon fiber tapes will take care of the stress problem). But I don't understand why the height of the fuselage is the key... The only thing I could think of is I-beams (as used in skyscrappers), which has a large cross-section area at the vertical end. It will be really helpful if anyone can explain this to me!! ^^



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 44):
Consider a long 2" x 4" piece of lumber. Would there be more bending if you held the wood with the wider 4" surfaces perpendicular to ground or the 2" surfaces perpendicular to the ground.



Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 45):
Ahhhhh!!! Totally forgot this simple example... >__< Thanks Atmx2000!!! ^___^ This is a really good one... My brain is just really messed up w/ the solid mechanics stuff... So... in this case, the deflection at the skyward direction (z-axis) is not as big of an issue as the Airbus. But the horizontal deflection (y-axis, the x-axis is parallel to the fuselage) is not that much improved compare to A340-600, as 787's fuselage width is not that much wider. However it shouldn't be an issue since the lift is not acting on the fuselage horizontally. What about the rudder induced deflection? Is that a serious deal on A340-600?

I'm glad Atmx2000's example was helpful. To answer his question, in the case of the 2x4, it is exactly twice as strong and twice as stiff through the 4" axis as through the 2" axis. For any other readers who may not be following the engineering, the reason an I-beam is shaped the way it is because, when oriented as an I and loaded in the vertical axis, the beam sustains compression along the top and tension along the bottom (in an airplane it's the other way around). As long as the beam is not deformed (which in practice it would be) there are no loads along the centerline, hence it would be a waste to put a lot of material there.

Rudder induced deflection was not nearly as big a deal on the A340-600 as was deflection in the vertical axis. Anyway, the inherent rigidity of CFRP would take care of rudder deflection issues. I'm confident that in the B787 the tape is oriented to deal with cabin pressure and vertical loads due to wing uplift acting against gravity. I doubt that much additional tape is needed for loads in other directions.

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 42):
1) If Boeing is going after -11X, then Y3 will be a bigger plane than 773-ER, which Boeing thinks it's a small market (we'll see... don't flame me on this one). Would Boeing build Y3 to go after a market that they think is small?

Not only a small market but, if the trends of the last 20 years continue, then a shrinking market.

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 42):
2) As you suggested, -11X would have lower range than -10. Unless there would be substantial changes to the airframe, the range performance would be really ugly.

If MTOW were the same, then the -11X would have less payload/range performance than the -10, because OEW would necessarily be (about 20,000 lbs) greater. Most likely, a -11X would have greater MTOW.

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 42):

The only scenario that I could see a -11X is the defragmatation of air traffic really happens as Boeing predicts. If that's the case, Boeing has no point building the Y3, as bigger planes are not needed (well... Airbus can have the whole market by themself). In that case, building the 787 to cover the 220-350 seats range would make a lot more sense, e.g. commonality, crew training, MRO etc. Otherwise, we won't see -11X but a Y3.

I guess you mean fragmentation, not defragmentation. I don't think there is any dispute over whether or not fragmentation will continue. I think the dispute is over the extent. Will fragmentation continue at the historical pace? Will it speed up? Will it slow down? Certainly there is a lot of pressure for transpacific flights to bypass NRT.

BTW, smaller aircraft with greater range don't happen because of market fragmentation. Market fragmentation happens because smaller planes with greater range become available. The B787 will fragment the transpacific market; it's just not clear how much. Boeing say 450 new city pairs. Perhaps it will be only 300. Perhaps it will be 500. Within 10 years, I expect Airbus's NSR and Boeing's B737RS to further fragment the transatlantic market. I just don't have a good idea how much.
 
SONICDANCE
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:13 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:37 pm

To Zvezda:
Thanks for the explanation. You guys dug me out of the whole chaotic mind that I was in earlier. To go further after learning my lesson (after going through some engineering textbook), the whole idea of skretching the fuselage is to limit the growth of skin stress (aluminum or composite skin, in 787's case) as well as to reduce the vertical deflection. Hence, taller fuselage height aircraft got an edge over circular fuselage. (Now my engineering professors won't yell at me!! ^^)

BTW, A320/B737-800 size class aircraft w/ 8000nm range? Oh gosh... the SFC of the engine must be really low then (even smaller than 0.5). But I think fragmentation (thanks for correcting me, Zvezda!) will be limited as the air space is quite crowded nowadays (and even worse in the future, as China and India will have way more airplanes than it was...) The hub-and-spoke structure won't die, but planes to support the hub-and-spoke structure would no longer be gigantic airplanes. I could imagine there would be a lot more hubs, which would be smaller than the current one, to support flights into smaller cities.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787-10 Specifications

Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:15 pm

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 48):
To go further after learning my lesson (after going through some engineering textbook), the whole idea of skretching the fuselage is to limit the growth of skin stress (aluminum or composite skin, in 787's case) as well as to reduce the vertical deflection.

Right. Increased fuselage height counters the vertical deflection, but it makes it more difficult to keep the skin from rippling. CFRP helps with both problems, but still frames and stringers are needed to keep the skin from rippling and to provide attachment points.

Quoting SONICDANCE (Reply 48):
A320/B737-800 size class aircraft w/ 8000nm range?

I don't think anyone expects the B737RS or NSR to have 8000nm range, but I do expect some variants to have greater payload/range performance than the B757. I would not be surprised to see single-aisle aircraft with 5000nm range flying by about 2015 or 2016.

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