astuteman
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:13 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43):
Further, they are having trouble getting the 787-10 up to snuff without major modifications, but Airbus expects the A350-1000 to basically be a simple stretch (with extra wheels) and fly 8000nm.

However, the A350 is being designed from the outset to achieve this. It's a bigger, heavier aircraft than the current 787. The A350-1000 SHOULD be a simple stretch with extra wheels.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43):
And considering nobody has signed on but EK and QR for the A350-1000, two airlines who placed huge hubris orders,

Presumably any "huge" order for the A350 is now to be labelled a "hubris" order.
Was EK's "huge" 777 order also a hubris order?
Strange that its never been described as such on A-net.
Different rules.................

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
The A350-1000 was supposed to fly 8500nm, and now it is 8000nm. Randy Baseler felt it would eventually fall to around the 7800nm of the 77W.

FWIW I think the spec of the A350 is at less risk.
Most of the technologies being applied are ones that Airbus already has some experience of, (e.g. the A380 tailcone is made from large CFRP panels).
I think that feedback from the A380 flight-test programme is also more likely to re-inforce the A350 data, rather than degrade it (an aerodynamics based statement).
I could be wrong, of course.

Still, even if the 350-1000 only matches the range of the 773ER, that's not bad for a 295t aircraft.  Smile

Regards
 
caljn
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:37 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:34 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 50):
Presumably any "huge" order for the A350 is now to be labelled a "hubris" order.
Was EK's "huge" 777 order also a hubris order?

Not speaking for ikramerica but a large order for an aircraft that barely exists on paper and won't be deliverable for at least 8 years...yeah, hubris would apply.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:51 pm



Quoting Caljn (Reply 51):
Not speaking for ikramerica but a large order for an aircraft that barely exists on paper and won't be deliverable for at least 8 years...yeah, hubris would apply.

Ah, thanks for the clarification Caljn.
I must also have missed QF's large order for 787's being labelled hubris.
Note to self - must concentrate more....  Smile

Regards
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:10 pm



Quoting Mestrugo (Reply 18):
They should have kept the MD-11 into production!

Well, unfortunately for MDD, it got killed by 4 hair-dryers aka the A340-300, and B finished off the execution with the T7.
When I doubt... go running!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:15 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 46):
Of course the -1000 is also the model that's furthest away from EIS (2015), so I would expect it to garner much slower sales at this time. It's clearly aimed at the 777 replacement market, which doesn't really mature for a few years yet (hence being the last model to be available).



Quoting EI321 (Reply 49):
Correct. the A350-1000 is a replacement for the A340-600 and 777-300ER. These are both very young aircraft, so their replacement cycle eill not come up until well into the next decade.

The 773ER replacement market doesn't start until the end of the next decade, except possibly sooner for SQ. Like the original A359 proposal it is premature as a replacement aircraft. The A359XWB is well timed as a replacement aircraft though.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 52):
I must also have missed QF's large order for 787's being labelled hubris.

He did say deliverable for at least 8 years. QF signed their order 3 years from expected delivery.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 52):

Quoting Caljn (Reply 51):
Not speaking for ikramerica but a large order for an aircraft that barely exists on paper and won't be deliverable for at least 8 years...yeah, hubris would apply.

I am continually amazed by airlines' willingness to sign up for new aircraft models from Airbus when EIS is 6 to 8 years away. I can't understand why they don't wait for Airbus to show more substance and order 5 years out.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14215
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:26 pm



Quoting Worldrider (Reply 29):
superior? in what way?

FWIW (since so many have asked), the difference between the 73G family and 32x family is essentially in the larger family members. The 738 is a better performer than the 320 (a high-density 738 has US transcon range year-round, a similarly-configured 320 does not), and the 739ER has a similar advantage over the 321. Certainly not as large a difference as between the 767 and 330, but some Boeing fan would have gotten upset had that been my only example...
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:38 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 55):
The 738 is a better performer than the 320 (a high-density 738 has US transcon range year-round, a similarly-configured 320 does not), and the 739ER has a similar advantage over the 321.

That's a very niche advantage and can put it a a disadvantage when airlines are looking for a craft to fly shorter hauls.

How's the cargo hold in the NG 737 family? Can they take any containers yet?

Regards
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:38 pm



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 54):
I am continually amazed by airlines' willingness to sign up for new aircraft models from Airbus when EIS is 6 to 8 years away. I can't understand why they don't wait for Airbus to show more substance and order 5 years out.

Part of it is likely that Boeing won't have something similar available for even longer.

Part of it is that Airbus has a proven track record in designing great planes (and the A380 is a great plane, period).

Part of it is being "first to fly" with something they feel will give them a real advantage over their competition who won't have it as soon.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14215
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:46 pm



Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 56):
How's the cargo hold in the NG 737 family? Can they take any containers yet?

That's a really interesting question... has anyone asked Boeing for this capability? I don't know of any NG operators who have expressed an interest.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:50 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 58):
I don't know of any NG operators who have expressed an interest.

A320 operators enjoy this advantage. Particularly good for getting perishables to international market from my home port of WLG.

MH
come visit the south pacific
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:53 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
Part of it is that Airbus has a proven track record in designing great planes (and the A380 is a great plane, period).

Jumping on the A340NG bandwagon wasn't a great idea in retrospect. You would think airlines would learn to wait and compare.

Let us contrast the situation to the 787 vs A350 situation where even as the A350 EIS got pushed further and further out, some of these airlines hemmed and hawed, and then finally ordered 787s, in the ending getting delivery dates much later than when they could have gotten them.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
Part of it is likely that Boeing won't have something similar available for even longer.

But they know that Boeing has shorter design cycles, and that Boeing could launch a model a few of years from now and still deliver around the same time.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14215
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:01 pm



Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 59):
A320 operators enjoy this advantage. Particularly good for getting perishables to international market from my home port of WLG.

Yeah, and quite a few do use it. We know that Boeing knows how to make an aircraft accept containers of some sort (it's not hard: bigger cargo door and some sort of 'magic carpet.' I can't think of any technical reason they couldn't do it with 737s. So I wonder if there's simply no interest.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15055
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:19 am



Quoting EI321 (Reply 45):
The A350 is optimised around a different length than the 787. Look at the wings - they are considerably larger.

Then the A350-800 must be a piece of crap, heavy and can't compete with the 787-900 or 777 for that matter. Yet the A350-800 is selling surprisingly well and the A350-1000 surprisingly poorly considering they are available a mere 1 year apart...

Quoting EI321 (Reply 45):
When an airline signs a firm contract they are signing on performance guarentees. This applies to both the 787 and A350.

EK and QR signed really large orders for A350s, and there is no doubt at all they are convertible to ANY model, so I don't buy it. They'd like the A350-1000 to be what is claimed, but they are by no means committed in any way to actually taking even 1 of them.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 48):
What should make a difference is that the 350-1000 wing is *baseline* for the whole family. Still needs extra wheels, indeed.

Again, then the A350-800 should be a stinker, yet it is selling much better.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 50):
Presumably any "huge" order for the A350 is now to be labelled a "hubris" order.
Was EK's "huge" 777 order also a hubris order?

Don't put "presumptions" into my mouth. If AF or LH or UA make a large A350 order, it's entirely different in my mind than what QR and EK are doing (plus, they wouldn't order 80-100 at once, but start smaller with options and rights like sanely managed airlines tend to do).

I personally think that EK and QR are in a pissing contest to be the king of the Middle East carriers and to try to dominate EU long-haul flying, and thus their large orders are about hubris as much as anything because they are still quite far from getting to that point. I've made this quite clear, and haven't strayed from that POV. I felt EK was leaning toward the A350, but have said from the start that an order for 100 of either was ridiculous. Most airlines order a small number and then take options and rights to more. EK and QR order huge numbers up front, plus even more options, and aren't generally even replacing planes when they do so.

EK's earlier 777 orders were slightly different because they were about current sustained growth and getting planes right now, not 7-8 years from now, but even then I think the surge to 100 777 fleet on top of 50 A380s is again about hubris. I can't see them meeting their growth plans without dumping seats and being subsidized by government dollars to be able to afford to do so, and it will lead to de-liberalizing of air treaties between the UAE and countries seeing their flag carriers decimated.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 52):
I must also have missed QF's large order for 787's being labelled hubris.

The order was less than half as large. 35 frames for a WELL ESTABLISHED airline ordered for the most part to REPLACE planes currently in their fleet. The options and rights were for growth, and QF has been very cautious in excercising those and balancing the needs with JetStar as well. They didn't order 80 or 100 off the bat. Their approach was sensible.

So why not actually look at the facts instead of getting all defensive about one manufacturer or another. The facts are that so far the A350-1000 is not clearly defined and barely selling despite it's "killer" economic promises, and the 77W is still selling even as delivery slots approach the EIS date for the A350. It's my belief this is because airlines are not yet convinced the plane will do what is promised, and a 7300nm A350-1000 with less payload, even if slightly cheaper to fly, won't be a 1:1 replacement for the 7900nm heavy duty 77W, especially if Boeing tweaks it a bit more as they are doing...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:00 am



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 60):
Jumping on the A340NG bandwagon wasn't a great idea in retrospect. You would think airlines would learn to wait and compare.

And yet it wasn't a terrible idea, either. Especially if you fly the A300, A310, A320 and/or A330.

It is true the 777 was the better plane, but many airlines did okay with the A340, instead.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 60):
Let us contrast the situation to the 787 vs A350 situation where even as the A350 EIS got pushed further and further out, some of these airlines hemmed and hawed, and then finally ordered 787s, in the ending getting delivery dates much later than when they could have gotten them.

That was the airline's choice. They could have done what QR originally did and take out a shed-load of delivery slots. It would have cost them some money up-front, but they could have covered themselves (within reason).

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 60):
But they know that Boeing has shorter design cycles, and that Boeing could launch a model a few of years from now and still deliver around the same time.

The problem is not Boeing designing the plane. They could have the 787-10 and 787-11 with Trent XWB power completed in six months if they really worked at it.

The problem is the 787 line is now filled until 2015. So unless 787-8 and 787-9 customers with deliveries in the 2012-2014 time-frame decide to change to the 787-10 or 787-11, any new orders would not be able to be filled until 2015 or 2016.
 
EI321
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:35 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 62):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 45):
The A350 is optimised around a different length than the 787. Look at the wings - they are considerably larger.


Then the A350-800 must be a piece of crap, heavy and can't compete with the 787-900 or 777 for that matter. Yet the A350-800 is selling surprisingly well and the A350-1000 surprisingly poorly considering they are available a mere 1 year apart...

Firstly, its a smaller aircraft than the 777.

Secondly, Would this anology also assuime that the 787-8 is a piece of crap, since the 787 is going to be spread accross three fuselage lengths? If we are assuming the tha 787-8 and A350-800 are 'shrinks', would this logic also deem the A330-200 to be a piece of crap?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 62):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 45):
When an airline signs a firm contract they are signing on performance guarentees. This applies to both the 787 and A350.


EK and QR signed really large orders for A350s, and there is no doubt at all they are convertible to ANY model, so I don't buy it. They'd like the A350-1000 to be what is claimed, but they are by no means committed in any way to actually taking even 1 of them.

I dont get what your trying to say here. Your trying to say that EK and QR are not commited to taking any A350-1000s? Thats absurd.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:41 am



Quoting EI321 (Reply 49):
Correct. the A350-1000 is a replacement for the A340-600 and 777-300ER. These are both very young aircraft, so their replacement cycle eill (sic) not come up until well into the next decade.

The timing of a replacement cycle depends not so much on age but on when a replacement becomes available with improvements in operating economics than justify the acquisition costs.

Quoting Caljn (Reply 51):
a large order for an aircraft that barely exists on paper and won't be deliverable for at least 8 years...yeah, hubris would apply.



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 54):
I am continually amazed by airlines' willingness to sign up for new aircraft models from Airbus when EIS is 6 to 8 years away. I can't understand why they don't wait for Airbus to show more substance and order 5 years out.

Given current widebody backlogs (VLAs excluded), ordering aircraft for delivery after 8 years is quite reasonable now.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 61):
We know that Boeing knows how to make an aircraft accept containers of some sort (it's not hard: bigger cargo door and some sort of 'magic carpet.' I can't think of any technical reason they couldn't do it with 737s. So I wonder if there's simply no interest.

There is very little demand for narrow-bodies to carry miniature containers. There is substantial demand for narrow-bodies to carry single-file LD3s. Obviously, 737s and A320s will never do so, but their replacements might.
 
siromega
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:57 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:06 am

A lot of what Boeing will doo with the 777 and 787HGW is dependent on flight test of the 788. By the end of 2008 Boeing will know what its options are regarding the response to the A350. They'll know if the 787 is overbuilt in terms of CFRP layers, whether or not bleedless air systems are worth it, and all the other small things they're doing are that much better than the status quo. From there they can venture into Y1 and whether or not to go 787HGW, spend a billion or two on the 777, or just do nothing at all.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:38 am



Quoting EI321 (Reply 45):
The A350 is optimised around a different length than the 787. Look at the wings - they are considerably larger.

It bears pointing out that the wing for the smallest A350 is a smidge larger than the wing for the largest 777.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:38 am



Quoting Boeing74741R (Reply 27):
Compared to the A320 the 737NG...

*Doesn't offer fly-by-wire technology
*Does not have as much cabin space (ok we're talking small numbers here but you can feel the difference in seat width and headroom)
*Basic fuselage design is based on the 707 from the 1950s!!!

There is no inherent benefit to FBW technology at the size of the A320/737NG. There are some upsides and some downsides. It's an interesting technological difference, but it's very difficult to say it's superior.

The cabin space argument is a little more complex. Although the A320 cabin floor is bigger, the 737 is wider at the height where people actually perceive the width most, so feels equal to or bigger than an A320 (especially if you're against the wall).

As for the fuselage design, structurally it's not much like the 707, but it does share dimensions. I'm not sure how a dimension becomes obsolete.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 39):

By the time Boeing could bring a Y3 to market, the GE90-115B will be ancient technology.

Ancient? The CFM56-3 is ~25 years old and still isn't considered ancient. Respectifully, I think you have a somewhat distorted view of the rate of technological advance in aircraft engines.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 41):
I would venture that as with other areas of technology, commercial airliners are going to evolve/improve at a faster rate than in the golden era. Look how quickly our computers get out of date.

I strongly doubt that. Commercial airliners have been on a path of diminishing returns since the mid 70's. They're getting better, but each improvement costs more and achieves less than the one before it. Computers are a very bad contrasting example since computers, until very recently (and maybe not even then) weren't up against a physical limit. Aircraft have been against a physical limit almost since day one and that severely constrains your rate of progress.

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 56):
How's the cargo hold in the NG 737 family? Can they take any containers yet?

Nope. What would be the added value? You can put boxes of any size (that will fit in the hold) that you want to, so what would be the additional benefit of a custom-sized container that only fits in one aircraft?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 61):
We know that Boeing knows how to make an aircraft accept containers of some sort (it's not hard: bigger cargo door and some sort of 'magic carpet.' I can't think of any technical reason they couldn't do it with 737s.

Agreed. But I can't see the businesses case to do it either.

Tom.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:48 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 14):
Here's hoping for the return of the trijet  biggrin 

.....I'll take a BWB at Moffett field also.... biggrin 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 62):
EK and QR order huge numbers up front, plus even more options, and aren't generally even replacing planes when they do so.

.....IIRC, EK has a 50+50 order on the A350, of which at least 40 are for replacements...so I don't think it would be fair to say the order was a "hubris" order..for EK at least.......

QR have stated they plan on keeping their planes for approximately only 7 years then having them transferred/sold/whatever to a new leasing company called "Onyx Leasing"...
"Up the Irons!"
 
astuteman
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:49 am



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 54):
I am continually amazed by airlines' willingness to sign up for new aircraft models from Airbus when EIS is 6 to 8 years away. I can't understand why they don't wait for Airbus to show more substance and order 5 years out.

Hubris, we're advised....  Wink

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 54):
He did say deliverable for at least 8 years. QF signed their order 3 years from expected delivery

Thus defining the boundary between a valid business deal, and one based on hubris?

Think I need a holiday..  Smile

Regards
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:30 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 67):
It bears pointing out that the wing for the smallest A350 is a smidge larger than the wing for the largest 777

An interesting point but what does this mean for the operating economics. Does a larger wing which would obviously be able to lift move not create more drag when that extra lift is not required.

I like most A netters don't fully understand the aerodynamics but would assume it is another of lifes trade offs.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18242
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:56 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 68):
The CFM56-3 is ~25 years old and still isn't considered ancient.

It certainly would be if a new engine of the same size had been developed in the last five years. Any CFM56 replacement would probably show at least a 15% better fuel burn.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 69):
IIRC, EK has a 50+50 order on the A350

70+50.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 69):
which at least 40 are for replacements

EK has stated the A350s will replace A330s (29), A342s (8), 772s (9) and non-ER 773s (12).

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43):
two airlines who placed huge hubris orders

Were those same airlines' large orders for 777s and (in QR's case) 787s also "hubris" orders? Just so we're clear. wink 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 62):
The order was less than half as large. 35 frames for a WELL ESTABLISHED airline

No. EK committed to 120 A350s, while QF committed to 115 787s. So those are actually very close to identical. Of that 115, the first 45 have been firmed - 65 according to QF, but Boeing don't seem to know about the extra 20!

Are you suggesting EK is not well established? Or are only airlines of the age of Qantas well established?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:04 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 62):
Again, then the A350-800 should be a stinker, yet it is selling much better.

Not necessarily a stinker. Airlines do not just by an aeroplane, they buy a complex product. The don't buy primarily for optmized aerodynamics, sleek contours, maximum innovation or what have you. Commercial aircraft design is a business of compromises. A large wing may be part of a good overall compromise. In that sense, a wing which is 'too large' is much less of a penalty than a wing which is 'too small'.

Funny, in the past Airbus was criticized for bestowing their aircraft with too small wings. The comparably large wings of the 757, 767, and 777 were widely seen as providing more room for growth in range and payload. Now that Airbus seems to have adopted the Boeing approach, you start complaining.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:29 pm



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 39):
By the time Boeing could bring a Y3 to market, the GE90-115B will be ancient technology.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 68):
Ancient? The CFM56-3 is ~25 years old and still isn't considered ancient. Respectifully (sic), I think you have a somewhat distorted view of the rate of technological advance in aircraft engines.

Everything I'm hearing from Boeing is that IF they ever build a Y3, the earliest possible EIS would be 2018. By then, the SFC of the GE90-115B will probably be about 20% behind the state-of-the-art. Whether or not that will be "ancient" is completely subjective, but it's clear that it won't be going on any new-design airliner.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
Yes it will, but what I really meant was Y3 likely doesn't need more then 115,000lbs of thrust, which we know is doable.

Anyway, I misunderstood Stitch. As long as no one believes that Boeing might put GE90s on a Y3 -- if they ever build one -- then we don't have an issue.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9716
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:31 pm

Which engine technology are we talking about as it relates to the widebody field that will obliterate the GE90-115B, the GENX or the TRENT, should we not have heard rumors by now of this development by any of the manufacturers?

Airbus is pushing GE to get on the A350 wagon do they want a version of the GENX - which was originally offered for one of the versions of the A350 - or a all new engine? A330's and B767's are flying around with engines that were designed years ago, how much tweaking takes place with each new engine delivery, especially when one considers that parts must be compatible with previous versions already in use?

Just trying to follow some of the logic being discussed here, as for the narrow body engines, its easy to say a new engine would make the existing ones obsolete, all I can say to that is lets see it, so far it is not on anyone's radar, both aircraft manufacturers have already stated that new narrow bodies are basically in the hands ot the engine makes who need to actually design and build this magnificent new engine, till then we will continue to see NG's or NNGG's or even Turbo Pops NG's
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:51 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 72):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 69):
IIRC, EK has a 50+50 order on the A350

70+50.

....ah yes, that is correct....

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 72):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 69):
which at least 40 are for replacements

EK has stated the A350s will replace A330s (29), A342s (8), 772s (9) and non-ER 773s (12).

....thanks for the breakdown.. thumbsup ..so 58 are for replacement...makes my argument that much better (I'm being a smart a** here  biggrin  ).....but in seriousness, if anything it makes EK's order even less hubris, as only 12 of the 70 planes ordered will be for expansion....
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18242
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:42 pm



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 76):
only 12 of the 70 planes ordered will be for expansion....

Correct. They don't need to use the A350s for expansion. They have 50+ A380s on order for that!  wink 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:54 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 75):
Which engine technology are we talking about as it relates to the widebody field that will obliterate the GE90-115B, the GENX or the TRENT, should we not have heard rumors by now of this development by any of the manufacturers?

GE is said to be considering some mild updates to the GE90, but there is only so much they can do and still maintain commonality with the rest of the family.

However, GE does have the edge on RR when it comes to building a 100,000lb+ thrust engine, since RR never went beyond the technology demonstrator stage. If Boeing launches Y3 and it needs engines with thrust ranges up to 115,000lbs, I expect GE to garner the lion's share of initial orders, even if RR joins the program on day one, because it will be seen as the "safe bet".

Quoting Par13del (Reply 75):
Airbus is pushing GE to get on the A350 wagon do they want a version of the GENX - which was originally offered for one of the versions of the A350 - or a all new engine?

They want an all-new engine, if for no other reason then they could really use the better SFC to offset the extra thrust the engines will need to lift the heavier A350 into the air.

Since RR has not (to my knowledge) released any serious info on the Trent XWB, it remains to be seen just how "new" it is. They say it will have a lower SFC, but the larger fan diameter alone would help with that. The Trent 1000 itself isn't that old of a design and there have likely not been great advances in the past few years nor are there likely to be any great ones in the next few. I am not saying the Trent XWB won't be better then the Trent 1000, but I do not think it will be a quantum leap, either.  Wink
 
EI321
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:26 pm



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 67):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 45):
The A350 is optimised around a different length than the 787. Look at the wings - they are considerably larger.

It bears pointing out that the wing for the smallest A350 is a smidge larger than the wing for the largest 777.

It also bears pointing out that increased use of composites in wings means that the wing can become larger (thus increasing lift) wgile reducing the weight induced drag of a heavier metal based wing like those in the A330 and 777.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:59 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 75):
Which engine technology are we talking about as it relates to the widebody field that will obliterate the GE90-115B, the GENX or the TRENT, should we not have heard rumors by now of this development by any of the manufacturers?

Lightsaber could give you all the details, but there are a lot of new technologies going into engines. The GEnx and Trent XWB already have close to 10% lower SFC than the GE90. New technologies include better materials which allow higher pressures and higher bypass ratios, new bearing designs, contra-rotation, etc.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18242
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:11 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
Since RR has not (to my knowledge) released any serious info on the Trent XWB, it remains to be seen just how "new" it is.

I don't think they've ever claimed it's an all-new design. Indeed, this would be a pretty rare event in the industry. The Trent series has a long lineage, to the best of my knowledge, going back to the RB211 on the TriStar. Each new model is an incremental improvement on the previous.

I believe the Trent-XWB (I hope they rename it soon!) to be an improved, scaled-up version of the Trent 1000 that powers the 787. Not a generation newer, but certainly an incremental improvement on that engine.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...ducts/airlines/trentng/default.jsp
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:44 pm



Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 71):
Does a larger wing which would obviously be able to lift move not create more drag when that extra lift is not required.

Not necessarily. There are two (major) contributions to the drag on a wing...drag from the shape (aka "form drag") and drag caused by generating lift (aka "induced drag"). The form drag goes up a little bit with increasing size but, for constant lift, the induced drag goes down with increasing span. If you have enough material advances to hold the wing weight constant, it would be possible to have a bigger wing generate less drag.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 72):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 68):
The CFM56-3 is ~25 years old and still isn't considered ancient.

It certainly would be if a new engine of the same size had been developed in the last five years. Any CFM56 replacement would probably show at least a 15% better fuel burn.

Based on what? The current CFM56 engines completed their last redesign last year...do you really believe they can get another 15% over that? I'm taking about other high-bypass turbofans here...switching technologies to a GTF or UDF could get that kind of jump.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 74):

Everything I'm hearing from Boeing is that IF they ever build a Y3, the earliest possible EIS would be 2018. By then, the SFC of the GE90-115B will probably be about 20% behind the state-of-the-art.

Again, based on what? The GEnx and Trent1000 have about a 20% jump over the CF-6, which is a ~30 year old engine. The GE90-115B will less than 20 years old when Y3 hits and engine efficiency improvements are a diminishing returns game (without a wholesale technology change, as discussed above), especially at the high sizes.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 75):
A330's and B767's are flying around with engines that were designed years ago, how much tweaking takes place with each new engine delivery, especially when one considers that parts must be compatible with previous versions already in use?

They don't tweak with each engine delivery, but they do make stepwise improvements all the time. There is no requirement that parts be compatible with previous versions already in use (although that may be desirable). You just issue a service bulletin to upgrade the old configuration to the new one. Most hardware service bulletins are one-way forward and, once you do them, you can't go back to the old parts without uninstalling the entire SB. Mature airplane programs may have a legacy of dozens of different part numbers for a particular part where only the last one or two are currently available and used.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 80):
New technologies include better materials which allow higher pressures and higher bypass ratios, new bearing designs, contra-rotation, etc.

Higher pressure isn't usually particularly hard, it's usually higher temperature that's the limiting factor. That is driven by materials but improvements of 20% on the temperature tolerance of materials are pretty much unheard of with the current technologies. I hadn't heard about new bearing designs, so any details you have to share would be most interesting. Contra-rotation has been around for several decades so I'm not sure how that counts as a new technology.

Tom.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:09 pm



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 7):
You may have already answered why you think this in an earlier thread, but I am still not sure I understand it. What would a wider Y3 bring to the table that a 787HGW wouldn't, except for the ability to reach higher passenger capacity at the larger sizes?

Y3 if done right gives Boeing a new larger base platform with which to work. It allows newer engines, further improved aerodynamics and lessons learned from the 787 to be applied. I personally can't see Boeing extending the 787 all the way up to where they will need to go over the next 20 years.. and that's the other thing to remember.. these planes are designed around 20 year (or longer possibly with CFRP) investment plans. In 20 years the growth in passenger traffic will likely warrant something substantially larger than a 787 might ever be able to efficiently become.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:39 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 82):
Not necessarily. There are two (major) contributions to the drag on a wing...drag from the shape (aka "form drag") and drag caused by generating lift (aka "induced drag"). The form drag goes up a little bit with increasing size but, for constant lift, the induced drag goes down with increasing span. If you have enough material advances to hold the wing weight constant, it would be possible to have a bigger wing generate less drag.

It's not just span that makes the difference in induced drag but aspect ratio which is span/cord. Winglets are one way that you can mimic the benefits of increased span without actually increasing the span, (or at least not to the same degree).

As far as I understand it, increasing the aspect ratio decreases the effect of wingtip vortices, which can create a lot of drag. Winglets attempt to do the same job by more gradually blending the high pressure air beneath the wing and lower pressure air above.

There are myriad things which can make a huge difference in wing efficiency. Area and aspect ration are just a couple...almost the easiest bits, I reckon. Profile, sweep and thickness also play huge roles.

On the other hand, I am dredging this up from memory and not being an expert in fluid dynamics, I could have it all wrong.
What the...?
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:40 pm



Quoting Caljn (Reply 24):
t better.
I say the flying experience on the 737 is infinetly more fun and interesting. In my opinion, better!

Maybe in the case of heavy turbulence, but otherwise when I sit in an aircraft I am thinking about legroom, elbowroom and perhaps the entertainment system, but otherwise, a flight is a flight. Deliver me safely, treat me well, and I'm a happy camper on either aircraft type. Generally, the experience is a reflection of the airline, not the aircraft manufacturer.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:04 pm



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 74):
Everything I'm hearing from Boeing is that IF they ever build a Y3, the earliest possible EIS would be 2018. By then, the SFC of the GE90-115B will probably be about 20% behind the state-of-the-art. Whether or not that will be "ancient" is completely subjective, but it's clear that it won't be going on any new-design airliner.

I believe it was Jim McNerny who said that a "refresh" of the current 777 would involve improvements to the GE-90. So this engine's SFC will not remain where it is. This is in fact, the biggest bang for the buck for improving the 777 IMO. There was also talk of removing 7 tons from the 777LR for Quantas, don't know how that works for the 77W.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3286
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:16 pm



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 102):
There was also talk of removing 7 tons from the 777LR for Quantas, don't know how that works for the 77W.

Yeah but I think that would beat the expense of a lot, and I mean a hell of a lot, of cycles. Remember how "relatively young" the Qantas 744 fleet is simply because they fly such long sectors, if the 77L were to do SYD-LHR (which it might be able to do with the weight removal) it would only get up to 10,0000 or so cycles in 30 years. You cant take the weight out of all the airframes because most aren't flying sectors that long.

Fred
Image
 
astuteman
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:16 pm



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 102):
There was also talk of removing 7 tons from the 777LR for Quantas, don't know how that works for the 77W.

But did this ever come to anything?

Regards
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:28 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 104):
But did this ever come to anything?

Regards

I don't know, but I am guessing not since Dixon is very vocal about pressing for a 787-11 and doesn't seem to mention a 777 solution.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18242
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:29 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 104):
But did this ever come to anything?

Apparently not enough to convince QF. It hardly seems like a trivial task does it? If it was that easy, wouldn't Boeing have just done it anyway?

I guess in the slightly longer-term, if the A350 continues to attract customers, Boeing might want to revisit this as part of a 777 refresh.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:46 pm



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 101):
Not just current sales, but the unprecedented order backlog from year after year of strong sales give Airbus, Boeing, GE, PW, and RR little incentive to rush replacements for the A320 and 737. I'm starting to think we might not see a 737 replacement until 2014 or 2015. The A320 replacement will probably follow due to the timing of the A350.

IF Boeing ever produce a Y3 not based on the 787's cross section, then it would probably have to follow the 737RS by at least four or five years. I agree with the Boeing view that they needn't rush a decision on how to replace the 777-300ER. They need to focus on the 787 for the next few years.

Pratt is putting its geared turbofan on the Bombardier's C-series, if and when they launch it. They don't seem to be afraid of killing the 737-600/700 market. That airframe/engine combination could be a game changer that forces the bigger players to act. Or, A & B could delay building a new narrowbody and cede the sub 150 seat market to 3rd players, perhaps making partners out of them. In that case, the new Boeing + Airbus families would be sized between the 737-800/A320 and the 787-8. On the Boeing side, this size of plane would be a more efficient use of the 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 widebody designs they seem to be considering for Y1. On the Airbus side, a super stretched version of such a plane could offer them a partial answer to the 787-8. I doubt Boeing and Airbus will be able to wait till 2015 if they want to keep the duopoly's dominance of the greater than 100 seat market.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:42 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 106):
It hardly seems like a trivial task (to remove 7 tons of MEW from the 77L) does it? If it was that easy, wouldn't Boeing have just done it anyway?

The goal was to get SYD-LHR 365-days a year at whatever QF considered a nominal payload. Either 7t wasn't enough, or QF felt that the service life of a 77L was too short to justify the investment.

However, if Boeing could do it in a cost-effective way, it might very well be an option on new-build 77Ls and 77Ws and could be taken up by future customers even if it does not meet QF's specific needs.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 107):
Pratt is putting its geared turbofan on the Bombardier's C-series, if and when they launch it. They don't seem to be afraid of killing the 737-600/700 market.

Well there isn't much of a market for the 736, and many 73G operators are finding the 738 has almost identical trip costs so flying the larger plane improves RASM.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View

Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:58 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 108):
The goal was to get SYD-LHR 365-days a year at whatever QF considered a nominal payload. Either 7t wasn't enough, or QF felt that the service life of a 77L was too short to justify the investment.

The problem for QF was that the operating cost would have been too high. We won't see SYD/MEL-LHR nonstop service until a 787 or A350 can do it.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos