Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
SCAT15F
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:04 pm

It would seem that the firm configuration for the 748i and the date for that decision is now resting solely on the results of the weight reduction program for EK's payload/range requirement (which is probably a good thing as the 748 will be made even more efficient - and I believe some airlines are waiting to see the results)

-EK said on Jan 29 that they needed 500 more miles; this is more than the 300 extra for the shorter 748i...

-I have heard rumors of going to an all-composite wingbox (maybe composite vertical and horizontal stabilizers/rudders as well?)...

-How much zero fuel weight needs to be trimmed to achieve the extra range? I have heard figures of 10,000 lb...

-for the GEnx-2B67; possibly a small thrust increase to 67,500 lbf (especially as the current engine thrust level of 66,500 lbf corresponds to the original 960,000 lb max t.o. weight)?

-I would assume these weight reductions, if successful, would be applied to the 748F? resulting in either an increase in payload or an increase in range. (Boeing can't wait too long on this, however)

any thoughts or inside info?  scratchchin 
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:10 pm

A 500nm range increase would require a weight reduction of about 20,000 lbs. Rumour has it that a composite wingbox would save 10,000 lbs. If a composite wingbox were to be developed, it would be used for the freighter also because the development cost would be greater than the production cost.
 
Danny
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:14 pm

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
decision is now resting solely on the results of the weight reduction program for EK's payload/range requirement

First of all the decision depends on Airbus ability to deliver A380 without further delay. If they get all A380s they ordered plus 100 XWBs or 787s there will be no need for 748.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:26 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 1):
Rumour has it that a composite wingbox would save 10,000 lbs.

Airbus claimed that the (huge) composite wingbox on the A380 saved "about 1 tonne" over the conventional aluminium version. It's total weight is about 10 tonnes.

If the conventional aluminium wingbox on an A380 would have been 11 tonnes, I can't imagine that on the 748i being any more than around 7 tonnes (15 400lb).
I suggest the rumour is "optimistic"...........

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
-I have heard rumors of going to an all-composite wingbox (maybe composite vertical and horizontal stabilizers/rudders as well?)...

Presumably all of these changes would be contained within the original "few dollars" budget put aside for the 748i.........
(money for nothing, chicks for free..........  Smile )

My thoughts are that any substantial weight savings that could be economically considered would already have been factored in.. (like the 5000lb "saved" on the wing though the use of next-gen alloys and composites).

Composite wing-boxes and stabilisers will give Boeing a fraction of what they need.

Regards
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:32 pm

I don't know what a wingbox weighs, but a savings of only 10% by switching from metal to CFRP does not seem plausible.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:38 pm

Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
decision is now resting solely on the results of the weight reduction program for EK's payload/range requirement

First of all the decision depends on Airbus ability to deliver A380 without further delay. If they get all A380s they ordered plus 100 XWBs or 787s there will be no need for 748.

...different routes and different needs..

.....also, I've read that EK might start the Left Coast with some of their incoming -200LR's...
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13770
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:53 pm

I think with regard to the 747-8 Boeing has many options to improve the aircraft. There is so much 20-40 year technology on board. Boeing no doubt focussed on the quick wins. Extra capasity, modern engines, getting out as much of the maintenance intensive technology as makes sense economically.

Replacing the wing box or introducing a supercritical wing as some suggested would IMO costs so much time & money that it would influence the overall business case of the 747-8 in a serious negative way.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
EI321
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:25 pm

Quoting Danny (Reply 2):
Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
decision is now resting solely on the results of the weight reduction program for EK's payload/range requirement

First of all the decision depends on Airbus ability to deliver A380 without further delay.

I think a lot of airlines are putting off looking at the Superjumbo until the doubts about the aircrafts introduction go away.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:30 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 1):
A 500nm range increase would require a weight reduction of about 20,000 lbs.

20 klb is about 5-6% of the total OEW, that is the total performance benefit Boeing claim they got from using 50% composites and 15% titanium on the 787 over a conventional aircraft.

Assuming he wants the same payload as what is being offered, with no OEW reduction the MTOW would need to be increased by 12.25t, with a 5 klb reduction in OEW, the MTOW would need to increase by 10t, with a 10 klb reduction in OEW, the MTOW would need to increase by 7.7t, and with a 20 klb reduction in OEW the MTOW would still need to be increased by 3.2t (best guess, back of a napkin calculation).

My best guess, back of the envelope calculation, assuming that the 67.5 klb thrust is limiting is that the OEW would need to decreased by 12000 lb, and MTOW increased by 15000 lb to get the same payload at the increased range, basically moving the point of maximum gross weight at max fuel up to meet the design payload.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Replacing the wing box or introducing a supercritical wing as some suggested would IMO costs so much time & money that it would influence the overall business case of the 747-8 in a serious negative way.

The 748i already HAS a supercritical wing. That's exactly why it's NOT a $1Bn - $1.5Bn development.
Changing the lofting and twist of the wing will have necessitated re-designing the vast majority of the components. But that's also why Boeing have taken the opportunity to save 5000lb by changing materials in the wing.
It's getting re-designed anyway.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Boeing no doubt focussed on the quick wins

But what your comment, and mine point out, is that there is a SERIOUSLY diminishing rate of return in the pursuit of weight.

Changing some big bits (like wing skins) from Al to Al-Li gets you a lot of saving for not a lot of cost (as Airbus are doing to recover the A380's 5t OEW overrun  Smile ).
Once you get beyond those, you rapidly get into the position where your return on investment would be better served by a new aircraft.

e.g. Changing from a metallic stabiliser to a composite one necessitates a complete re-industrialisation of that assembly (new design, new tooling (and lots of it), new contracts even.....)
Do Boeing even make it, or is it sub-contracted?
It's this re-industrialisation that makes the A350XWB so much bigger, and longer, an undertaking than the old A350

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
I don't know what a wingbox weighs, but a savings of only 10% by switching from metal to CFRP does not seem plausible.

Neither do I, but Airbus do, and they say the centre wing-box on the A380 weighs 10.5 tonnes (to be precise).
Airbus believing the savings to be around 10% sounds a lot more plausible than your disbelief. They DID it.  Smile
And at the time they made those statements (c. 2003 IIRC) they would have had NOTHING to gain by playing down the advantage.

It fascinates me just how many people are SO keen to throw the "black aluminium - limited gain" criticisms at the A350XWB's panels, but as soon as we talk about a Boeing stabiliser, it suddenly the "brave new world".
You won't get the same paradigm shift on a structure like a wing, as you will with the single piece 787 barrels..

FWIW I love the 748 programme - I think it's right on the nail.
I believe, though that there will come a time (very quickly) in pursuit of an extra 500Nm when reverting to the "shorter" 748i will be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to re-design 20 000lb out of most of the components of an already efficient aeroplane.

Regards
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:24 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
20 klb is about 5-6% of the total OEW, that is the total performance benefit Boeing claim they got from using 50% composites and 15% titanium on the 787 over a conventional aircraft.

777-200ER OEW: 304,500 lbs. 787-10 preliminary OEW: 275,000 lbs. That's a 10% reduction in OEW despite being a larger aircraft, with greater range, and greater payload capacity.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
there is a SERIOUSLY diminishing rate of return in the pursuit of weight.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
Once you get beyond those, you rapidly get into the position where your return on investment would be better served by a new aircraft.

 checkmark 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
It fascinates me just how many people are SO keen to throw the "black aluminium - limited gain" criticisms at the A350XWB's panels

I don't understand that either. CFRP is several times stronger for its weight than metals. There is also an advantage of large panels over smaller panels.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
I believe, though that there will come a time (very quickly) in pursuit of an extra 500Nm when reverting to the "shorter" 748i will be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to re-design 20 000lb out of most of the components of an already efficient aeroplane.

I think the 747-8 is already about there. Boeing have been adding to the project scope over the last few years and there is not much left they can do that is cost-effective.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26904
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:27 pm

I concur with those that opinion that unless Boeing sees some serious sales (with firm orders backed by strongly-favorable to Boeing cancellation clauses) from it, they are not going to be throwing billions more at the 747-8I. She already owns the top end of the freighter market with the "demise" (economically if not actually) of the A388F and, frankly, EK asks for the moon and the stars for the same reason Branson does - PR - and not because Tim Clark controls world aviation. Yes, the scenario where EK cancels the A388 and orders the 748I fits nicely with some "Boeing Boosters" sweetest dreams and "Airbus Aficionados" worst nightmares, but I imagine such a decision would be considered more of a nightmare by Clark, as well, who may very well want the A388 for PR reasons as much as operational and economics ones.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:54 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
I don't understand that either. CFRP is several times stronger for its weight than metals. There is also an advantage of large panels over smaller panels.

FWIW that particular observation wasn't aimed at you (although it might have appeared to be).
The strength multiplier you describe for the material won't always translate smoothly into a strength multiplier for a structure. The various needs of many structures are too complex to allow that.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
by Clark, as well, who may very well want the A388 for PR reasons as much as operational and economics ones.

If Tim Clark had wanted the A380 for anything other than purely operational reasons, that contract would be long gone now. The vast majority of PR associated with the A380 today is grossly negative.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
the scenario where EK cancels the A388 and orders the 748I fits nicely with some "Boeing Boosters" sweetest dreams and "Airbus Aficionados" worst nightmares, but I imagine such a decision would be considered more of a nightmare by Clark

Indeed.  checkmark 

I cannot possibly conceive of a better environment for EK to make a switch from the A380 to the 748i, and yet that switch has not come (nor will it, now IMO, although that may not stop them placing a 748i order resulting in a mixed fleet...).
The dollar is historically low.
The 748i has just been launched
He would presumably be in the market for at least 50 frames (maybe more including freighters) as a launch customer
He could do so secure in the knowledge that he could hand over a $500m cheque to cover a $10m deposit on each frame, written straight from Airbus's bank account (how sweet, eh?  Smile ).
(rumours of "give-away" A380's are fatuous IMO - he's entitled to his compensation whether he takes the planes or not..)
Boeing know that the switch would pretty well end the A380 as a programme. And they're financially strong enough to cut deep for TC.

But the contract is still there.
Therefore, TC still has his A380 contracts, because he WANTS them (needs them even)

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
It would seem that the firm configuration for the 748i and the date for that decision is now resting solely on the results of the weight reduction program for EK's payload/range requirement

And I was pretty sure in my understanding that the 748i's configuration had already been confirmed, at the time that LH placed their contract at Christmas, as the higher capacity, lower range option.

I'm left with the impression that the thread is as much about an A-net wish-list, as about any documented desire/aim by Boeing to turn the 748i into a 467 seat 8500Nm aircraft. (I'll be delighted to eat my words if something substantive can be produced.........)

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
I think the 747-8 is already about there. Boeing have been adding to the project scope over the last few years and there is not much left they can do that is cost-effective.

Indeed.
And despite the tenure of some of my comments, I'll reiterate that I think they've made a damned fine job of it, too.
(I bet 748F's new-builds are still selling after the A380 has ceased production........)

Regards
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:04 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
If Tim Clark had wanted the A380 for anything other than purely operational reasons, that contract would be long gone now.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
TC still has his A380 contracts, because he WANTS them (needs them even)

TC needs the WhaleJet. That might not be for operational reasons though. It might or might not be the case that EK need those WhaleJets. It is very difficult for a CEO to tell a board "At the time, that decision seemed like a good idea. Now, I don't think so anymore." That's how CEOs become ex-CEOs.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:13 pm

I dont think EK will order the 748; I just dont think they need it. They could have ordered both it and the 787-10 by now if they really wanted them.
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26904
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
If Tim Clark had wanted the A380 for anything other than purely operational reasons, that contract would be long gone now. The vast majority of PR associated with the A380 today is grossly negative.

But the PR in the public is mostly "she's late, but she's the biggest, newest, most amazing, most luxurious airliner in the skies". I noticed SQ has increased the type size of their name so that it now spreads across almost the entire fuselage of F-WWDD.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Gonzalez - Iberian Spotters



SQ wants the world to know they fly this baby, and I bet EK does, too.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
777-200ER OEW: 304,500 lbs. 787-10 preliminary OEW: 275,000 lbs. That's a 10% reduction in OEW despite being a larger aircraft, with greater range, and greater payload capacity.

No one in industry thinks the 787 is larger than 777....the 787-10 (if and when it gets launched) will kill some 777 models, not because of the 787-10 alone, but because of the A350XWB which is forcing it on the market. The 787-10 economics of doing 85% of the job cheap enough to discount the larger 772, just like the 739ER has killed the larger 757.

I stand corrected in stating that composites saved 6% OEW on the 787, the V.P. of 787 Engineering said its only 3%.

from the Stan Blankenship blog

"The 787 Dreamliner was launched with the promise of 20% better fuel efficiency per passenger mile. Most of the world believes the gains will come from Boeing's extensive use of composite materials for the airplane. Wrong!

In the December 6, 2004 issue of Aviation Week, p.62, Walter B. Gillette, V.P. 787 Engineering, was quoted as follows:

The 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency.
8% from the more efficient engines
3% from improved aerodynamics
3% from more efficient systems
3% from weight savings using composite materials
3% from the synergy of the last three items"

He then goes on to say :

"Had Boeing elected to build the 787 out of aluminum (aluminium):
- they would be claiming about 15-17% better fuel efficiency.
- they could use their existing (and proven) supplier base.
- their order book would be just as fat.
- there would be fewer ulcers in Seattle.
- this blog would not exist."

With the 787 having 20% better fuel efficiency for the same range, over 20% less fuel needs to be carried (costs fuel to carry fuel), less structure needs to carry the mass of the aircraft and the fuel, less lift needs to be developed, only a minor percentage of the efficiency gains is attributed to composites.

The major of OEW savings comes from better technology (engines, aerodynamics, systems etc), meaning the aircraft does not need the structure to carry more lift and fuel (which is evident from the lower MTOW), not the composites it is made form, an aluminium structure to carry these lighter loads would only be marginally heavier.

I have seen rhetoric of late on a.net of late claiming all this mass reduction by composite barrel consrtuction, the statements are completely flawed.

The VP of 787 engineering said they only got 3% improvement for using 50% composites in the entire aircraft, with the majority of the composites being in the wing, not the fuselage.

What is also obvious to me is that the range increase of the 748-i is mainly attributed to the engines and increased fuel volume, with the additional mass of the fuselage plugs (OEW, payload and fuel) negating all the aerodynamic improvements, replacing major sub assemblies on the 748-i will only give marginal improvements, not 10,000 lb a sub assembly as as suggested, to get that level of mass reduction in my view would require a complete composite wing, not just a composite centre box.

Boeing are trying to come to the market with this extra 500 nm, which is effectively saying they have got 70% of the efficiency gains that they got in the entire 787 program on the 748-i to get an additional 10-20% range over a 744, whilst at the same time the OEW, MTOW and fuel capacity has increased, things just don't compute.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
EI321
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:23 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
"The 787 Dreamliner was launched with the promise of 20% better fuel efficiency per passenger mile. Most of the world believes the gains will come from Boeing's extensive use of composite materials for the airplane. Wrong!

I really wish they would tell us which plane they are talking about (I presume its the 767). They specifically mention the A330 & A380 in other claims.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:39 am

The 787-10 IS quite a bit larger than a 777-200, Zeke.

The 787-9 is slightly smaller.

NS
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:42 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
"At the time, that decision seemed like a good idea. Now, I don't think so anymore." That's how CEOs become ex-CEOs.

Since he ordered the A380

The 748i has been offered for sale
The A380 EIS has slipped 2 years
The A380 has gained 5t around its waistline.

These are visible for all to see. I would have thought his masters would be far more concerned about him if he didn't acknowledge the changes.

To me it would appear more likely that CEO's become ex CEO's when they try to grimly hold onto a reality which no longer exists, but others can clearly see (Airbus might well testify to that, (as might Astute, for that matter... Wink).

For those reasons I just don't buy that a contract for 43 x A380's exists just to spare Tim clark's blushes.
He had no qualms at all about dumping 12 (or 18) A340-600's............

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 14):
I dont think EK will order the 748; I just dont think they need it. They could have ordered both it and the 787-10 by now if they really wanted them.

I don't think they'll order 748i instead of the A380.
In addition to? Who knows with EK......
As for the 787-10, it may well be that developments on the A350XWB (like engines) might also serve the 787-10 well, but not for a wee while yet.
He may well have been made aware of this, and (like others) be prepared to bide his time.
I'm not going to write the 787-10 off just yet..........

Regards
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26904
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:46 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 19):
I really wish they would tell us which plane they are talking about (I presume its the 767). They specifically mention the A330 & A380 in other claims.

Other statements from Boeing principals have confirmed that the 20% is versus the 767-300ER.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:50 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Replacing the wing box or introducing a supercritical wing as some suggested would IMO costs so much time & money that it would influence the overall business case of the 747-8 in a serious negative way.

The business model for the 748 has already changed with the problems encountered by the A380. It may just be in Boeing's best interest to invest more time and money to improve further the 748. Before Airbus' problems, the 748 was a niche player in a niche market. It has slowly started to become THE player in a niche market.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
In the December 6, 2004 issue of Aviation Week, p.62, Walter B. Gillette, V.P. 787 Engineering, was quoted as follows:

The 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency.
8% from the more efficient engines
3% from improved aerodynamics
3% from more efficient systems
3% from weight savings using composite materials
3% from the synergy of the last three items"

He then goes on to say :

"Had Boeing elected to build the 787 out of aluminum (aluminium):
- they would be claiming about 15-17% better fuel efficiency.
- they could use their existing (and proven) supplier base.
- their order book would be just as fat. [emphasis added]
- there would be fewer ulcers in Seattle.
- this blog would not exist."

I doubt their order book would be just as fat. Until recently Airbus had stuck with the aluminum frame and it caused their order book to go nowhere.

Also, the CFRP provides other benefits beyond mere weight savings. It allows for a much more efficient and cost-effective production line, which equates to increased profit margins.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:51 am

Boeing really doesn't need to respond to the EK requirements for the B-747-800I, or the B-787-1000, until EK makes a firm commitment to these airplanes. In other words, have EK put up deposits on firm orders and options for each airplane on signed contracts. Boeing, Airbus, McD and others have been burned before by designing and building speicality airplanes for just one customer.

EK may want the moon, but will have to settle for a sub-orbitial flight if that is all the market will support.

The B-747-800I will be a good airplane. Being able to fly for 8000nm with 467 pax and full cargo is nothing to sneeze at. Being able to fly DXB-LAX is 7246nm, according to great circle mapper.

DXB-LAX%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&SPEED-GROUND=410&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=" target=_blank>http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=D...E=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

So the B-747-800I can already fly the route EK wants to fly.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:56 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The B-747-800I will be a good airplane. Being able to fly for 8000nm with 467 pax and full cargo is nothing to sneeze at.

It cannot do that. No plane can fly at max payload that distance, not even the 777-200LR.

NS
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5565
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:58 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
I believe, though that there will come a time (very quickly) in pursuit of an extra 500Nm when reverting to the "shorter" 748i will be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to re-design 20 000lb out of most of the components of an already efficient aeroplane

 checkmark 
I totally agree, and in fact believe that Boeing will tell EK that the 748 is what it is, and if they want longer range don't fill all the seats, or use a less dense seating arrangement. I do not believe Boeing wants to spend additional billions on an airliner slated for replacement in the next decade anyway, especially for one customer. I would have thought that the 764 would have cured them of that. That said, I am in agreement with your sentiments on the 748 program; I think Boeing has done an outstanding job on it.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 12):
(I bet 748F's new-builds are still selling after the A380 has ceased production........)

I have a bet with Keesje on this very subject; maybe you can get in on it too.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
The VP of 787 engineering said they only got 3% improvement for using 50% composites in the entire aircraft, with the majority of the composites being in the wing, not the fuselage.

As I read it they have got 3% fuel economy improvement from composites; that does not mean that it is only 3% weight savings. I do not know what the ratio is, but I don't believe that it is 1 to 1.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:11 am

While this thread seems to focus on weight, with suggestions along the lines of a composite tail plane one thing needs to be carefully considered when it comes to the 747 - a heavy tail plane is good. This is because of the amount of downforce that the horizontal stab has to provide is reduced thus improving the aerodynamics of the aircraft.

This has been a 'free' range upgrade for 744 operators by loading the aircraft as close as possible to the aft CofG limits.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:14 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The B-747-800I will be a good airplane. Being able to fly for 8000nm with 467 pax and full cargo is nothing to sneeze at. Being able to fly DXB-LAX is 7246nm, according to great circle mapper.

Does the 8000nm figure on required reserves, etc? Factor in some wind, holding, and additional reserves you might find the flight marginal on some days without a modest payload penalty.

Could the airframe handle an HGW version? A 20 to 30k bump in MGTOW would probably be enough, but I have a feeling a million-pound 747 would be pushing pavement limits.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
EI321
Posts: 5053
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 25):
While this thread seems to focus on weight, with suggestions along the lines of a composite tail plane one thing needs to be carefully considered when it comes to the 747 - a heavy tail plane is good. This is because of the amount of downforce that the horizontal stab has to provide is reduced thus improving the aerodynamics of the aircraft.

They could look at a tail trim fuel tank, like on the A310. This would provide the aerodynamic down force required without the need for manipulating control surfaces, and hence reduce drag, and still allow the weight reduction offered by a composite tail plane. I highly doubt the 748 will have anything like this though.

[Edited 2007-04-04 19:29:16]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 20):
The 787-10 IS quite a bit larger than a 777-200, Zeke.

If or when its launched we will cross that bridge with some actual numbers, I can assure you that in industry the 787 is seen as a 757/767/A300/A310/A330 replacement, not big enough to replace a 777 unless you want to cramp up passengers. From what I have seen it does not have the capacity of a 777 when the same comfort levels are applied, if your going to look at 9 abreast in a 787, look at 10 abreast in a 777, 8 abreast in a 787, 9 abreast in a 777.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):

The B-747-800I will be a good airplane. Being able to fly for 8000nm with 467 pax and full cargo is nothing to sneeze at. Being able to fly DXB-LAX is 7246nm, according to great circle mapper.

The Boeing 748-i design payload is 467 pax @ 210 lb (95kg) = 44492 kg + nil cargo
The Airbus A380 design payload is 555 pax @ 210 lb (95kg) = 52725 kg + nil cargo
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:27 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
From what I have seen it does not have the capacity of a 777 when the same comfort levels are applied, if your going to look at 9 abreast in a 787, look at 10 abreast in a 777, 8 abreast in a 787, 9 abreast in a 777.

The 787-10 will be physically much larger, so even 8 abreast in a 787 will be fine to match the size of a 777-200ER.

NS
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
It fascinates me just how many people are SO keen to throw the "black aluminium - limited gain" criticisms at the A350XWB's panels, but as soon as we talk about a Boeing stabiliser, it suddenly the "brave new world".



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
I don't understand that either. CFRP is several times stronger for its weight than metals. There is also an advantage of large panels over smaller panels.

But both of you have indicated in another thread that you think Airbus should and will go with monolithic fuselage barrels instead of panels.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23):
Also, the CFRP provides other benefits beyond mere weight savings. It allows for a much more efficient and cost-effective production line, which equates to increased profit margins.

 checkmark 
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
The B-747-800I will be a good airplane. Being able to fly for 8000nm with 467 pax and full cargo is nothing to sneeze at. Being able to fly DXB-LAX is 7246nm, according to great circle mapper.

Looking at page 10 of Boeings 748I payload range chart it indicates 8,000 nM with 467 pax or 98,000 lbs. I am not sure about winds but it is based on "Typical Mission Rules" which includes the standard mission rules. On an 8,000 mile flight average headwinds of 60 MPH would eat up 1,000 miles of the range. If that is the case the 748 would be able to carry about 400 pax the 7,246 nm. However the reverse flight should have tail winds and the full load could be carried.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7478brochure.pdf
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:00 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 30):
But both of you have indicated in another thread that you think Airbus should and will go with monolithic fuselage barrels instead of panels.

No question, BB.
My point really was that it was not necessarily appropriate to expet the benefits which will be realised by monolitihc barrel sections, in a structure like a wing, or stabiliser, which by definition almost, will be much more akin to "black aluminium".

CFRP may well generate some benefits when offered as a replacement at piece-part level, but nowhere near as much as provided by the paradigm shift which is the monolithic barrels..

Does that make it any clearer?

Regards
 
SCAT15F
Topic Author
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8):
20 klb is about 5-6% of the total OEW, that is the total performance benefit Boeing claim they got from using 50% composites and 15% titanium on the 787 over a conventional aircraft.

Assuming he wants the same payload as what is being offered, with no OEW reduction the MTOW would need to be increased by 12.25t, with a 5 klb reduction in OEW, the MTOW would need to increase by 10t, with a 10 klb reduction in OEW, the MTOW would need to increase by 7.7t, and with a 20 klb reduction in OEW the MTOW would still need to be increased by 3.2t (best guess, back of a napkin calculation).

My best guess, back of the envelope calculation, assuming that the 67.5 klb thrust is limiting is that the OEW would need to decreased by 12000 lb, and MTOW increased by 15000 lb to get the same payload at the increased range, basically moving the point of maximum gross weight at max fuel up to meet the design payload.

That makes sense, so if Boeing raises the max t.o. weight to say, 985,000 lb and reduces zero fuel weight by 5000 lb, the only issue would be to increase the thrust of the engines to about 68,500 lbf thrust (which should be easily doable)

...you would then have an aircraft that could carry 479 passengers 8500 nm, or 400 passengers and full baggage 8000-8300 nm for EK.  bigthumbsup 
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
Airbus claimed that the (huge) composite wingbox on the A380 saved "about 1 tonne" over the conventional aluminium version. It's total weight is about 10 tonnes.

If the conventional aluminium wingbox on an A380 would have been 11 tonnes, I can't imagine that on the 748i being any more than around 7 tonnes (15 400lb).

But the 1 tonne saving was on the center wing box only, i.e. the part of the wing box which is contained within the fuselage. The complete wing box of an A380 including the outer wings certainly weighs more than 10 tonnes.

I understand that the center wing box of the 748 so far was unchanged as compared to the 744, while the outer wing boxes where completely redesigned, with increased web height for all three spars, yielding a thicker profile with larger internal fuel volume. Jig shape was completely changed as well (less dihedral, different loft). Why Boeing has (nearly) kept the planform when changing everything else escapes me. My best (wild) guess is that aeroelastic characteristics had to be preserved. Or does keeping the planform suffice to get grandfather rights for certification?  scratchchin 
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:32 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
It may just be in Boeing's best interest to invest more time and money to improve further the 748.

That means delay EIS, any changes now means back to the wind tunnel etc, could be a 6-12 month delay.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 21):
Also, the CFRP provides other benefits beyond mere weight savings. It allows for a much more efficient and cost-effective production line, which equates to increased profit margins.

Yes and no, but that is not the angle Boeing PR is pushing. Customer airlines don't care if Boeing makes a profit. Composites are not cheap raw materials, they are 5-10 time more expensive than aluminium per pound, that would have to be offset by reduced labour costs.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 24):
As I read it they have got 3% fuel economy improvement from composites; that does not mean that it is only 3% weight savings. I do not know what the ratio is, but I don't believe that it is 1 to 1.

Ballpark figure using the Breguet range equation would be about a 2% reduction in the OEW to get a 3% increase in range.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 26):
Could the airframe handle an HGW version? A 20 to 30k bump in MGTOW would probably be enough, but I have a feeling a million-pound 747 would be pushing pavement limits.

Did a quick engine out climb weight increase calculation given the additional thrust in the thread start, that would limit the MTOW increase to about 15000 lb on a nice cool day, or maybe nothing on a 40 deg day a DXB.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 27):
They could look at a tail trim fuel tank, like on the A310. This would provide the aerodynamic down force required without the need for manipulating control surfaces, and hence reduce drag.

The 744 had 10t of fuel in the tail, not sure about the 748-i

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 29):
The 787-10 will be physically much larger, so even 8 abreast in a 787 will be fine to match the size of a 777-200ER.

If or when that gets offered we can see, at the moment, it changes.

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 33):
...you would then have an aircraft that could carry 479 passengers 8500 nm, or 400 passengers and full baggage 8000-8300 nm for EK.

Runway performance out of DXB would also need to be looked at, 40 deg day is like taking off from 3000'.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
thebry
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:50 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:56 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
The 787 will have 20% better fuel efficiency.
8% from the more efficient engines
3% from improved aerodynamics
3% from more efficient systems
3% from weight savings using composite materials
3% from the synergy of the last three items"

He then goes on to say :

"Had Boeing elected to build the 787 out of aluminum (aluminium):
- they would be claiming about 15-17% better fuel efficiency.
- they could use their existing (and proven) supplier base.
- their order book would be just as fat.
- there would be fewer ulcers in Seattle.
- this blog would not exist."

Zeke, I get what you're saying here, but think you oversimplify the "economies of scale" efficiencies the Dreamliner will realize by virtue of being largely composite. In the Boeing answer above, 3% is given for use of composite materials, and an additional 3% is given for improved aerodynamics. Bear in mind, Boeing's method of building the composite sections contributes to aerodynamic efficiency. No rivets or seams for air to flow over.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:01 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 31):
Looking at page 10 of Boeings 748I payload range chart it indicates 8,000 nM with 467 pax or 98,000 lbs. I am not sure about winds but it is based on "Typical Mission Rules" which includes the standard mission rules. On an 8,000 mile flight average headwinds of 60 MPH would eat up 1,000 miles of the range.

I believe both Airbus and Boeing use 85% worst wind conditions on typical mission rules. So a 60 knot head wind over 8000nm would not eat up an additional 1000nm worth of fuel, it would be more like 75-100nm.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:06 am

Quoting Thebry (Reply 36):
Bear in mind, Boeing's method of building the composite sections contributes to aerodynamic efficiency. No rivets or seams for air to flow over.

Airbus is now welding Al, so that removes that problem, which I assume Boeing will use on the 748-i.

Where the boundary layer is turbulent it is of little consequence if rivets protrude, in fact it may help keep a turbulent boundary layer attached. 3M actually developed a film at one stage to resemble shark skin to reproduce this effect to reduce drag on aircraft, Airbus flight tested it on a A340.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:07 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Composites are not cheap raw materials, they are 5-10 time more expensive than aluminium per pound, that would have to be offset by reduced labour costs.

If that's the case then the A350XWB is going to be one costly plane, since it has all the expense of composites without the benefit of reduced labor costs that come from spinning the fuselage on a mandrel.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:15 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 34):
But the 1 tonne saving was on the center wing box only, i.e. the part of the wing box which is contained within the fuselage. The complete wing box of an A380 including the outer wings certainly weighs more than 10 tonnes.

Correct. The centre wingbox on the A388 is 10.5 tonnes
As far as I know, Airbus didn't make the outer wing boxes on the A380 out of CFRP...
I'm not sure what drove that decision.

In any event, Boeing have claimed a reduction of 5000 lb from the use of "advanced materials" in the wing.
And the reduction claimed by Airbus was around 10%.

Regards
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14842
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 39):

As I have previous said to you I will not reply to your comments, all you do is to try an incite AvB threads. Could you please not quote me when you are trying to start another AvB flame.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:29 am

A new jet spends 4,000 hrs per year airborne. That is a big commitment in fuel. That is why the A380 is hurting -- the fuel commitment is too great, like a mortgage whose size you don't know. It scares people.

Cutting weight from aircraft pays a lot of dividends, one of them being you can hike the price of the plane. In theory anyway
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:36 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
A new jet spends 4,000 hrs per year airborne. That is a big commitment in fuel. That is why the A380 is hurting -- the fuel commitment is too great, like a mortgage whose size you don't know. It scares people.

a) The size of the "mortgage" is very well understood
b) The "mortgage" will be taken out on routes where the "income" more than adequately covers the "mortgage".

The relative fuel efficiency of the A380 has been discussed ad-nauseam.
As of today, it is THE most fuel efficient aircraft flying, on a per-seat basis.
That won't (quite) change with the advent of the 748i, or the A350, or the 787.
They will just be easier to fill........

A warm welcome to A-net  

Regards

[Edited 2007-04-04 21:37:00]
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
As I have previous said to you I will not reply to your comments, all you do is to try an incite AvB threads. Could you please not quote me when you are trying to start another AvB flame.

And as I have previously said to you, I will continue to call you on comments. You provide no source for your assertion that composites are 5-10 times more expensive than aluminum.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:40 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 39):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
"Composites are not cheap raw materials, they are 5-10 time more expensive than aluminium per pound, that would have to be offset by reduced labour costs."

If that's the case then the A350XWB is going to be one costly plane, since it has all the expense of composites without the benefit of reduced labor costs that come from spinning the fuselage on a mandrel.

That depends - making composite panels is something Airbus has had a lot experience of and in any case, the process can be largely mechanised in much the same way that wing skin fab is. For sure I'm guessing there might be some assembly time penalties in terms of moving the panels around, but I think on the balance a mandrel spun fus is not going to be hugely ahead in terms of reduced labour costs. Much of the time-intensive work is fitting the interior and secondary structure and integrating the systems - which are common to both assemblies.

I think intuitively, the spun barrel approach is appealing to many people because it feels nice and looks to be a neat engineering solution - people just imagine, well, spinning a mandrel at high speed and buzzing the fibre up and down its longitudinal axis. If only it were that simple... I think the mandrel tape laying is done at much the same speed as the automated layup rate on a panel former, you're just trying to do more of it in one hit.

The real test IMO will be the production-failure-rate of the components using the barrel technique. A small flaw in any part of the barrel means either a new barrel or a time-costly fix. My gut feel says that it would not take many of these at all to negate any advantage the cylindrical mandrel system might have (if any) in production-time advantage.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7113
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:44 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 44):
You provide no source for your assertion that composites are 5-10 times more expensive than aluminum.

Try Gellman's Shadow Critical Project Appraisal for the A380
He's pretty reliable     

(If Boeing listened to what they paid for, they'd NEVER build the 787...   )

Alternatively, the link provided by Zeke in reply 16 quotes.............

Regards

[Edited 2007-04-04 21:48:07]
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:46 am

I think its certain that as the 747 production rate looks to be climbing, they will be looking at more aggressive programs to reduce build cost per plane, and be willing to spend more total as there is more frames to spread it out across.

So things like a composite wing box become better looking with every 748 sold since it will reduce the cost of each frame made outside of R&D, and the R&D to do it becomes cheaper and cheaper per frame.

My guess is right now they are trying to decide these major changes now, and leave stuff that is more "interchangeable" like floor beams till later on the list.

Oh and I don't think takeoff performance will be at all an issue if the Boeing airport compatibility brochure is accurate since it looks like the 748 will be vastly superior to the 744 in that regard.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:59 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
I stand corrected in stating that composites saved 6% OEW on the 787, the V.P. of 787 Engineering said its only 3%.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
3% from improved aerodynamics
3% from more efficient systems
3% from weight savings using composite materials
3% from the synergy of the last three items"

Exactly where is the claim OEW savings came to only 3% from composites? I only see the fuel efficiency claim here. One also should recognize that Boeing has increased MTOW significantly compared to noncomposite aircraft, while reducing OEW. They could have chosen to optimize for a lower MTOW and reduced OEW further, but chose to pursue greater range.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
No one in industry thinks the 787 is larger than 777....the 787-10 (if and when it gets launched) will kill some 777 models, not because of the 787-10 alone, but because of the A350XWB which is forcing it on the market. The 787-10 economics of doing 85% of the job cheap enough to discount the larger 772, just like the 739ER has killed the larger 757.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
From what I have seen it does not have the capacity of a 777 when the same comfort levels are applied, if your going to look at 9 abreast in a 787, look at 10 abreast in a 777, 8 abreast in a 787, 9 abreast in a 777.

The 787-10 will have 8 abreast capacity that is in the 300 pax 3 class range like the 772. 9 abreast economy seating will push capacity to the 320 seat range.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 748I Firm Configuration And EK

Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
I just don't buy that a contract for 43 x A380's exists just to spare Tim clark's blushes.

That's not what I wrote. I only suggested that it might be a factor.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19):
He had no qualms at all about dumping 12 (or 18) A340-600's.

I have no idea whether or not Clark had qualms when he dumped the A340-600s. How do you know?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
If or when its launched we will cross that bridge with some actual numbers, I can assure you that in industry the 787 is seen as a 757/767/A300/A310/A330 replacement, not big enough to replace a 777 unless you want to cramp up passengers. From what I have seen it does not have the capacity of a 777 when the same comfort levels are applied, if your going to look at 9 abreast in a 787, look at 10 abreast in a 777, 8 abreast in a 787, 9 abreast in a 777.

 Yeah sure There you go again.

Cabin floors areas:
777-200ER: 279.0 sq meters
787-10: 291.0 sq meters

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