There has been some new information regarding the 777X during the Paris Air Show and I thought I would start a thread where future developments can be documented. So far I have the following:

Airframe News:
-Boeing has confirmed that the 777X will have folding wing tips
-It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787
-Other interior changes and a 'new passenger experience' above the 787 are in the works but details are fuzzy.

Ge9X Engine News:
-GE is promising a 10% reduction in fuel burn compared with the GE90-115B's and also promised a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption versus the Trent XWB 97klbf
-This article has some excellent technical details about what GE is doing with the 9X
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne... ... boeing-777

777X Customers:
-EK says that the 8X will do SYD-ATH will 330 seats and a full payload
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"  
Here is a good interview: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/emira... ... J1eEg.html
-Akbar Al Baker (QR Chief) is now saying that is not interested in the 8X only the 9X but he thinks the 9x will be 'better than they are saying'.

Feel free to add if anyone has additional news from this week.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): -It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787

Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1): Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

I assume they'll just apply the 787 window belt (as they applied the 777 window belt to the 747-8).

132" fan... I'm speechless. When I started in the industry, vendors didn't even have the tools to make that big of a fan!   

My only issue with the 777X is that it kills off the space occupied by the 748i.  

But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.    IMHO, these engine improvements mean that the A389 will require something more advanced than the TrentXWB. As someone in Aerospace R&D, I'm liking the pace of technology.   

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): -EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"

   I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1): Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway. I suspect the new style windows are a maintenance benefit so why not do something to add bragging rights?

Lightsaber

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): -EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"

   Like Lightsaber, I would really like to know what the mouth of EK actually means by this...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Yes. It has been speculated that many passengers would not even realize that they are on a 787 if it was not for the windows. Its a differentiating item that consumers will immediately recognize.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): 132" fan... I'm speechless

Completely. I like to picture in my head a big tube with a gigantic wing and two 737s fuselages hanging off each wing; and its still bigger than that! Its really unfathomable.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.

From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): But what is meant by 'popular?'

Not sure. I really cannot see them doing anything close to 50/50 on the order but that was a bombshell to me and motivated me to create the thread. EK wants to not only be the biggest global airline but wants in on FedEx game too?

Some 'new' information
At 2:09 in the following video recap there is a picture of the 777X cabin vs the A350. I was not at the briefing but it looks like from the image that they are changing floor level to maximize cabin width at armrest level. I thought that was already the case but if not that could be a difference maker. Personally I find elbow room and seat pitch to be more important than seat cushion width.
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2013/06/airshow_day_two_wrap.html

Also, Boeing keeps referencing this 4th generation CFRP wing: I understand the first generation was the early -8s, second was recent -8s, and third was the -9. If anyone can describe what these changes are from generation to generation, I think we could all benefit.

tortugamon

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1): Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): -It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787 Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Come on.... since when have airlines recently cared about what is more appealing to the (majority of, aka: economy) passengers?  
.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway. I suspect the new style windows are a maintenance benefit so why not do something to add bragging rights?

I also suspect it to maximize the seating capacity. If you can keep that extra row and improve aisle width to improve boarding rates its a winner. What is the maximum they could possibly add to available seating/aisle width?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389. From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well .

I tried to start thread on this earlier, I think the real problem for the 389 is that by going bigger it has that much more to need to fill, while the 777 and her sister craft (like the A350 etc.) can be more easily scaled/deployed and redeployed on various routes than the 389. It will eat sales that the 388 would otherwise get and require more resources to expended further hitting the ROI of the 380. I really want to see the 389 and I know it will be excellent as the 380 already is but I think it is a real conundrum for Airbus.

Tugg

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning".

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?

The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1): Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Bigger windows are ALWAYS justified!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5): Also, Boeing keeps referencing this 4th generation CFRP wing: I understand the first generation was the early -8s, second was recent -8s, and third was the -9.

I would think it is a reference to out-of-autoclave production process.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

correct...but whats with the SYD-FCO nonstop chatter by Mr Clark? Could EK legally fly nonstop SYD-FCO with traffic rights? Surely it cannot survive on its own accord on this route and would definitely require feeder support from Alitalia and other carriers out of FCO into Europe.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption versus the Trent XWB 97klbf

Does this mean, that they expecting a 5% improvement only in some "specific" missions (distance, speed, etc.) versus the Trent XWB?

Maybe GE is very careful at this early stage, but doesn't sound as a solid statement for me.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

  

I'm not that surprised. The 777-9X might be too big for some destinations. The 777-8X offers 777-300ER capability with a considerable superior range (if needed). And it will be much more efficient.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):

I screen-shotted the moment in the video you pointed out. Very interesting. It looks to me however like Boeing is thinning the 777's wall where the shoulder and armrest meet in order to tweak out some more room. Look at the bizarre shape of the blue sidewall. Very interesting stuff.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): -EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"

I always stated that the -8X would be a perfect payload airframe for EK.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?

He says popular in the EK fleet, not in general  

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): -Akbar Al Baker (QR Chief) is now saying that is not interested in the 8X only the 9X but he thinks the 9x will be 'better than they are saying'.

Qatar doesn't need the -8X because 1) they don't need the range (9400nm) and 2) they also don't need the payload capabilities. Baker seems to prefer the A350-1000 instead because it will offer a lower trip cost. And as an 77W operator and with traffic growth in mind, the -9X is also a no-brainer.

[Edited 2013-06-18 14:27:26]

So, Air Lease actually ordered 33 B-787s, 30 -10s and 3 -9s? KE ordered 5 B-747-8Is, and 6 B-777-300ERs.

Is the order by KE for 5 more B-747-8Is in addition to the 5 they already have on order? Or are they firming up their original order for the B-747-8I? I believe this is a new order for the B-747-8I. KE already has 3 B-747-8Fs in their fleet, with 5 more still on order.

This will give KE the second largest fleet of B-747-8s with 18, when all are delivered, just one airplane behind LH who will have 19.

Clark may mean popular in the EK fleet vs. other airlines but with his check book not many other airlines matter. Just like the 380, if he ends up with 150 units and 20 other airlines order 10-20 each then this thing should be paid and profitable right quick.

Quoting tugger (Reply 6): It will eat sales that the 388 would otherwise get and require more resources to expended further hitting the ROI of the 380.

Agreed on both accounts. And IMO this is why the A389 has not yet been launched. I suspect A388 orders will pick up (probably not to the level Airbus originally predicted) and eventually they will start making money on each frame and will start to look at making the stretch happen. Can't happen quick enough IMO but I suspect A will be cautious and I think it won't happen until 2025 or so. There is a possibility that the A389, while requiring more seats sold to break even on trip cost vs the 388, as a percentage of total capacity it may be lower as their should be a number of added efficiencies with the stretch.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

But how many missions do you think that applies to? LAX, SFO, IAH, SYD, MEL, EZE...I start running out of city pairs relatively quickly. Can you really see a need for more than 20 frames? I have to imagine the -9 would be the 150+ frame choice, hence my confusion with his quote.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 9): I would think it is a reference to out-of-autoclave production process.

Ok, so does that mean they can make the wing lighter so less drag? more smooth so less drag? best mix of materials so stronger and therefore more lift (or less drag)? Or does it just mean they are getting really good at it so it will be quicker and/or cheaper to produce and this is an economics item? These are semi rhetorical as I do not think these answers are really out there in the public domain yet.

Quoting bobmuc (Reply 11): Does this mean, that they expecting a 5% improvement only in some "specific" missions

Specific fuel consumption (SFC) is the amount of fuel an engine consumes per unit of thrust. The actual mission is irrelevant, this is a way to compare multiple engine's fuel use across a range of thrust levels to determine which engine is most efficient. It a way of comparing engines apples to apples. To that end GE's 9X is promised to beat RR's Trent XBW by 5%. We will see!

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 13): I screen-shotted the moment in the video you pointed out

Great idea; its not the floor it is indeed the sidewall. Good catch. If you zoom in you can kinda see the lines where they are thinning the wall just at shoulder level. For some reason I thought this sidewall slimming would be throughout but this makes much more sense. And now that I think about it this could be Lightsaber's point in #3 when he talks about redoing the window belt  -I)). I can really see this having a real positive impact on 10Y seat quality  . Now how many 9Y 77W operators will agree?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14): 1) they don't need the range (9400nm) and 2) they also don't need the payload capabilities.

Right you are. Which is why it was surprising when just a couple weeks ago he said he wanted to be the launch customer for it  .

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15): This will give KE the second largest fleet of B-747-8s with 18, when all are delivered, just one airplane behind LH who will have 19.

Good point, wrong thread.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): But how many missions do you think that applies to? LAX, SFO, IAH, SYD, MEL, EZE...I start running out of city pairs relatively quickly. Can you really see a need for more than 20 frames? I have to imagine the -9 would be the 150+ frame choice, hence my confusion with his quote.

High ambient temps can impact the 777-300ER's payload on shorter missions while the 777-200LR is pretty much unaffected by them. An EK Fleet Planner on pprune,org noted that when DXB is at 37°C, a 777-300ER needs to off-load 1.7 tons of cargo for the flight to JFK. They also noted that the 777-200LR can take it's full payload to IAH even when temps at DXB are 42°C. The 777-9 could be similarly affected by high ambient temps in DXB whereas the 777-8 should not.

Honestly, I could see the A380-800 and 777-8 being the backbone for EK's long-haul fleet (13-16 hour endurance) with the A350-1000 and 777-9 being the backbone for their medium-haul (8-11 hour endurance) fleet.

Here is an image of 777 in production where you can see the sidewall. 2" from each side seems reasonable to me. Also, if you look at the back of the image you can see the crew rest area. Substantial room up there, hope B can find a way to stretch that space the length of the cabin and put it to use with either revenue generating ideas or saving cabin floor space.

Image from NYCAviation.

tortugamon

Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10? in the AviationWeek article?

80M Long?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): They also noted that the 777-200LR can take it's full payload to IAH even when temps at DXB are 42°C.

   That is insane. It is carrying a full load of passengers stuffed into a high-density configuration plus 10 or more tons of cargo... over 7000 nm... into a headwind... while taking off in 42°C conditions? I knew the 77L was a beast, but that's something else.

Even so I remain skeptical whether such capability on the very worst days is really worth the tradeoff of reduced passenger capacity the rest of the time.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 21): Even so I remain skeptical whether such capability on the very worst days is really worth the tradeoff of reduced passenger capacity the rest of the time.

Ah but the -8X will be offering increased capacity similar to the -300ER whilst retaining that level of performance.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22): Ah but the -8X will be offering increased capacity similar to the -300ER whilst retaining that level of performance.

In the context of the -8X of course "reduced capacity" refers to a comparison with the -9X.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): 1.7 tons of cargo for the flight to JFK

Impressive stuff about the 77L. Not that surprised about the 77W on a 6knm mission heading west on a very hot day though. How much is 1.7t in lost revenue, $6k? Are we assuming that the 9x will not have at least a little bit better performance than the 77W because it would not take that many more seats sold in a 777-9x to make up for that.

The temperatures mentioned should only impact flights greater than 6knm taking off between 11am-3pm June through September and heading West right? DXB is busiest late at night and early AM I believe. You are definitely convincing me that -8x will be a bigger part of the EK fleet than I thought but I still don't think it will be bigger than the -9x. North America, South America, and Australia are important but Europe and Asia is their bread and butter and I do not see a reason for an 8x on those missions.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20): Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10?

Juicy. These guys should learn to say: "that has not yet been discussed in any meaningful way". 'No Comment' seems so guilty sounding. Not sure the market is asking for a 445 seat triple stretch 777....yet!

tortugamon

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):

Here is the article Morrison references. A couple highlights:

>"Fancher told Aviation Week the folding arrangement will only be for the tip of the wing. “It is as complex as a landing gear door.” Because it will be so far outboard, only “a couple of wires”"

>“I think it will be readily accepted,” Fancher said. Boeing has had “almost no questions about it” recently, although there were a lot of discussions earlier in the development phase.

>Fancher instead insists the 777X is “very firm in the configuration, the design is very mature.”

>Fancher said, and he believes the “sweet spot” of the market will actually move from 300-350 seats to the roughly 400 seats the 9X will accommodate.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_06_18_2013_p0-589371.xml&p=1

tortugamon

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway.

What about the ribs does Boeing intend on changing?

A two aisle jet with 400 passengers - it seems like it will be a beast to board and deplane a jet with that many passengers - the 380 at least has three door deplaning. And a 777-10 would be even worse. Sort of like the wide body version of the 757!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5): From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well

   Now that we can agree on.   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14): He says popular in the EK fleet, not in general

That part I got.  

What I'd like to know is the ratio of 8X/9X that EK is going to order....   

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 21): That is insane. It is carrying a full load of passengers stuffed into a high-density configuration plus 10 or more tons of cargo... over 7000 nm... into a headwind... while taking off in 42°C conditions? I knew the 77L was a beast, but that's something else.

That it is. I still remember a poster here writing about loading pipe into the 77L at IAH... (it must have been in high demand...). Versatile. I see a need for some 8X in EK's fleet... I'm just trying to figure out how many...

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 26): What about the ribs does Boeing intend on changing?

See the picture in post #19. The idea is to widen the cabin by 2". This makes 10 across Y a little more comfortable.

But I *know nothing*. I haven't seen all the details. To say the least, I'm interested.

Lightsaber

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Like the 10-abreast in Y makes it less appealing.   

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5): Yes. It has been speculated that many passengers would not even realize that they are on a 787 if it was not for the windows. Its a differentiating item that consumers will immediately recognize.

Well, I've made six 787 flights and, frankly, I didn't notice the windows being anything special.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1): Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Having flown the A380 a few times now, with it's huge "interior" widow and pinprick porthole of an exterior window, give me a big Boeing window anyday.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5): Yes. It has been speculated that many passengers would not even realize that they are on a 787 if it was not for the windows. Its a differentiating item that consumers will immediately recognize.

Yup.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 10): but whats with the SYD-FCO nonstop chatter by Mr Clark? Could EK legally fly nonstop SYD-FCO with traffic rights?

A hint of a Qantas order?

Quoting PM (Reply 28): Like the 10-abreast in Y makes it less appealing.

True, they giveth and taketh. But seriously, airbus needs to start addressing it's approach to cabin windows - the A320s are tiny and the A380 just, ugh, what a jip!

What would be the capacity on the 777-8F? Eating away at the 748F I guess..

I dont know if this was mentioned before so forgive me if it was, but are they building this out of composites like the 787?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 31):

The new wing is believed to be composite, yes, but not the entire airframe which remains similar to todays 777.

[Edited 2013-06-19 00:40:01]

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 31):

There was talk about Al-Li for the structure, but nothing has been said during the show as I understand. Al-Li buys you a lot of benefits as do CFRP. Stronger, more durable yet lighter.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): Right you are. Which is why it was surprising when just a couple weeks ago he said he wanted to be the launch customer for it

Did he mentioned both types? I believe he meant the 777X in general.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 29): True, they giveth and taketh. But seriously, airbus needs to start addressing it's approach to cabin windows - the A320s are tiny and the A380 just, ugh, what a jip!

While I agree that I personally prefer big windows and the A380 windows aren't appealing for window lookers like me - we need to reflect the daily practice in planes:
On real long haul flight: Those flights are many times timed to spend the night in planes.

What happens in cabin ?

Soon after the meal service, people like to watch movies and the more its towards the 'night' want to sleep.
Typically the windows are closed then and the remaining window lookers like me are more or less politely asked to close it. Eiiiii.

So for Airbus, when they may spend money for the next gen planes (lets say A389, / A350-Mk2, they may take the window belt optimization rather a second priority, compared to e..g. wing improvements, weight reduction etc.

At least I as the arm chair Chief engineer would spend the money first on things improving customers (=airlines) calculation.

Regards

Flyglobal

[Edited 2013-06-19 00:52:05]

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 26): What about the ribs does Boeing intend on changing?

If you zoom in extra far on the image in Reply #13 you will how Boeing is manually drawing a line at arm rest level to should level and carving out inches out of that sidewall. Its a crude picture but you can see it. If you then look at the picture of the ribs and the interior I posted in 19 you will have an idea of what needs to be done. Some how all of this sidewall needs to be thinned out. Not sure if it will be composites, or extra reinforcement on either side of the thinned wall, or Dumbledore's magic.

Quoting sweair (Reply 30): Eating away at the 748F I guess..

10+ years away. Tough to speculate.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34): Did he mentioned both types?

Depends on how you interpret this: "We are very keen on the 777-8 and -9X aircraft and we are receiving presentations from Boeing in this regard," Akbar Al Baker "We hope to be one of the launch customers."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100740414
Moot now.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 35): At least I as the arm chair Chief engineer would spend the money first on things improving customers (=airlines) calculation.

And you probably would have most of the aviation brain trust with you. People are seeking out the A380 and it is showing high LF as a result. Some People pay more to fly it. That may wear off but at least for the time being we are seeing aircraft ticket purchasing not just based on convenience and cost; hopefully the brain trust can find a way to bottle that and spread it around. Maybe good 'calculations' and keeping customers happy are not mutually exclusive?

tortugamon

full sized version
couple observations:
1) we knew previously the new 777s will only have 8 exits. It now looks like exits 3L and 3R aren't doors at all, but large hatches.

2) Is it me or do the new 777s get 787 style vertical stabilizers?

[Edited 2013-06-19 04:57:14]

B seems to love putting wingbend in any image of their aircraft, even on the 748i.. I think we got it by now  

Looks like on the -9 they've ditched the overwing door for a 739 style window plug aft of the wing

Quoting PM (Reply 28): Like the 10-abreast in Y makes it less appealing.

It lowers CASM which lowers fares - and I am quite sure passengers find that appealing.   

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 27): See the picture in post #19. The idea is to widen the cabin by 2". This makes 10 across Y a little more comfortable.

Each sidewall is thinned by 2" so the cabin width is increased by 4". With an EK aisle width and 10ab, the seat cushion grows from 17" to 17.4".

Quoting KGAI (Reply 37): 2) Is it me or do the new 777s get 787 style vertical stabilizers?

Don't those look like 777 tails in the rendition? I'm not seeing that they appear to be changed.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 42): Don't those look like 777 tails in the rendition? I'm not seeing that they appear to be changed.

Ya, I might be seeing things, but if you compare it to:
View Large View Medium

Photo © Bastian Ding

It appears the 777X tail has a more prominently curved leading edge, both on the base and the top. To me, it looks pretty much identical to the 787 tail in the computer rendering.
But since it is afterall a computer rendering, I might just be reading too much into it.

So with Scott Fancher slip up on "No Comment" on 777-10X - what could Boeing be thinking?

I would think it somewhat inefficient to have three sizes - a 69.5M 778 - 76.5M 779 and 80M 771

Maybe Boeing is rethinking sizing again?

If a recall there was a rumor floating around that the 778/9 might use the original 77W MTOW.

How capable would a 73.9M 778 and 80M 779 using 77W MTOW be?

Can you still get close to 8,000 NM out of the 779 with the increase in MTOW?

Wouldn't it make sense to Build the 778 at the existing 77W length? Would it still have over 9,000NM range?

It's a 8T increase in MTOW. How much does an extra 4.4M of 777 Structure (77W-778) weigh? If less than 8T wouldn't this make sense?

Quoting KGAI (Reply 37): 1) we knew previously the new 777s will only have 8 exits. It now looks like exits 3L and 3R aren't doors at all, but large hatches.

On the -8, yes. On the -9 (assuming the artists rendition is correct) it looks like they've moved 2L/R and 3L/R farther aft compared to the 300ER and changed 4L/R to the smaller door.

Quoting KGAI (Reply 37): It now looks like exits 3L and 3R aren't doors at all, but large hatches.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 45): On the -8, yes. On the -9 (assuming the artists rendition is correct) it looks like they've moved 2L/R and 3L/R farther aft compared to the 300ER and changed 4L/R to the smaller door.

I am guessing these are Type III exits? Which are certified for 35 people per Sec. 25.807 — Emergency exits.

That would reduce the Exit Limit of the 777-8 to 365 (from 440 on the 777-200) and the 777-9 to 475 (from 550 on the 777-300).

Quoting morrisond (Reply 44): Maybe Boeing is rethinking sizing again?

This aircraft was just presented to the board two months ago, I do not think anything has changed since then to think they should shake things up. Airlines would not be expressing interest in it if they weren't sure what dimensions the aircraft will be.

My guess: They have internally talked about the possibility of another stretch way down the road and want to make sure, as always, their options are open to it. It would probably be another range for payload trade off similar to the 787-10. So an ULH (353 seats), a LH (406 seats), and 'Regional' (460 seats). Probably could do it at 81m (barely into no man's land). This regional would compete with the 777-9 and the 74...I can't even get it out. If it ever happened this would be way down the road and the market would be very different than it is now. I would think the wings and engines would have no problem accommodating.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46): 777-9 to 475

Maybe they are doing this door as an option to save wait for non-high capacity seating. 475 should be enough for 90% of the demand and maybe you add a full door for those that want 500 regional seaters. JAL sits 500 on their 773s so I could see 475 being an issue for this stretch. Are the evacuation numbers different for a type three door that is not over wing? I could see making this type of hatch that did not require a step up and went right to a slide that could actually evacuate more people then an over wing one.

tortugamon

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20): Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10? in the AviationWeek article? 80M Long?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 44): Maybe Boeing is rethinking sizing again?

Only if Airbus has second thoughts about an A350-1100 IMHO.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter): There has been some new information regarding the 777X during the Paris Air Show and I thought I would start a thread where future developments can be documented. So far I have the following:

Thanks for gathering all the information. It is very interesting to read.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): 132" fan... I'm speechless.

That is some fan!   .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.    IMHO, these engine improvements mean that the A389 will require something more advanced than the TrentXWB. As someone in Aerospace R&D, I'm liking the pace of technology.

I like that too. When the A389 is announced, (at the 2017 Paris Air Show?), she will also have some very interesting details te reveal. Also in the engine department.

Quoting PM (Reply 28): Well, I've made six 787 flights and, frankly, I didn't notice the windows being anything special.

I too think that the experience of bigger windows is overrated.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48): Only if Airbus has second thoughts about an A350-1100 IMHO.

Well, not before 2021 I guess.  .