|Quoting Millenium (Reply 35):|
To achieve this, Al Baker says the A350 stretch will need to incorporate “new engine technology” and doubts that the twinjet’s existing Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engine could be adapted for the larger variant as the powerplant “is already at its fullest” for the A350-1000.
A new engine and a new wing would be, what, $4 Billion+? That is more than the A330neo and the projected A380neo budget. Not sure how realistic that is for what people are considering a niche.
|Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 37):|
The 787-8 is interesting because it, along with the 787-9, were marketed long before the first flight of ZA001 back in 2009. The 787-10 (member 3) has only been on the market for 2 years as of June. Since then, I don't think we've seen any huge 787-8 orders.
Sure but that could be do to the fact that those that wanted it have ordered it. I just don't see how the simple presence of a 78X means airlines are less interested in a 788. I think this is more a bi-product of time and the larger variant just comes much later than the short one.
|Quoting par13del (Reply 38):|
Boeing should move on from the 777 and make its next large twin an all new program.
I do think this will be the last major remodel for the aircraft. I am personally impressed if they can execute a program that competes with an all new CFRP aircraft that looks to be exceptional while spending a fraction of the price with a 1990s aircraft. It has the potential to be very profitable.
|Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 39):|
Walsh of BA has discussed the possibility of converting 789s to 788s, though nothing has been confirmed. That is really the only case I can think of where the downsizing has happened to an existing order
AA and Scoot have.
|Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 41):|
I think AUS will be upgauged to a 789.
I thought that it has already been switched to a 789, at least temporarily.
|Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):|
with the new wing perhaps they can take off with less rotation angle, and hence are able to still go longer than the 77W without any additional assist.
Yup, that would be the critical question. I think the 779 will have terrific takeoff performance, EK is clearly demanding it for DXB in the summer so the question becomes how much length/capacity can you add and still get off the ground if you no longer need DXB-LAX range like the 779 does.
|Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):|
The A340-600 suffered a massive penalty for its long, thin fuselage - it's mostly this factor that made it so much heavier than 77W, not the four engines
I would like to explore this Matt as its a key question- Was the weight penalty in the A346 for the fuse or the engines? If it was a fuse strength issue then I do wonder if today's aluminum is stronger (does anyone know?), and if there is a cfrp role here that could ameliorate these concerns. I do not think it needs to go out to 82.6m (the same fineness as the A346) for it to be useful. I have always considered the A346 to be a quality bird that just ran into a superstar (77W).
|Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):|
Do you have a source for that? Not that I doubt you, just want to read about it myself.
Here is a press blurb: http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-che...r-for-777X_80157.html#.ViQ1gPlViko
Richard Aboulafia has trashed this decision in the past for changing horses. I do not know the dimensions/specifications of the new gear but I can't imagine you would change vendors if you weren't planning on making at least some changes. Here is one article where he did:
|Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):|
Lighter materials would certainly ameliorate the weight gain caused by stretching. But Boeing avoided going with Al-Li during this round, and I doubt they'd want to change materials for a likely low-volume 6th-derivative.
This mythical 777-10 would have to be a very simple, strong commonality stretch for it to work. I think even a significant change to the MLG could be a deal breaker.