User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9074
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:01 am

You could surely work with the landing gear to get a bit of angle out of it. The question I am asking myself is if it would not be clever to make the 777-9 ~2m longer.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:40 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 92):
I think Airbus redesigned the A35K just to really try and go for the 77W's throat, a 100% replacement rather than a 90% if you see what I mean.

IMHO Airbus was premature in upgrading the A35K to meet 77W capabilities. Efficiency wise it trounces the 77W anyway ( more so in the previous incarnation.)
Growing a plane from below into a target slot is imho more efficient in the long run than a target landing
that will result in overshooting from later available improvements. ( A design is usually optimised for a specific OEW || (_Payload || Fuel_) distribution. )

Looking at the -900ULR there is massive potential in this frames basic design.
Murphy is an optimist
 
brindabella
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:02 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 47):
I do wonder if modern materials will prevent the strengthening that was necessary for the A346. Also if you look at the ratio I believe a 777-10 would have to go out to nearly 83 meters in order to be of a similar width/length proportion to the A346. I am not sure this stretch needs that much.


Have to say that I've wondered the same about the mooted A350-1100.

What do you think?

cheers Bill
Billy
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:48 pm

Quoting brindabella (Reply 102):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 47):
I do wonder if modern materials will prevent the strengthening that was necessary for the A346. Also if you look at the ratio I believe a 777-10 would have to go out to nearly 83 meters in order to be of a similar width/length proportion to the A346. I am not sure this stretch needs that much.


Have to say that I've wondered the same about the mooted A350-1100.

What do you think?

I guess its not an exact science as the cockpit and tail sections are not any where near conformal to the shape of the main fuselage sections as they tappers more and less sharply etc etc. However we can make a quick check to see approximately where the 777 and the A350 ends up when stretched to A346 width/length proportion.

A346:
Width: 5,64m (Circular)
Lenght: 75,30m
width/length proportion (WLP): 0,075:1

777
Width: 6,20m (Circular)
Lenght (A346 WLP):82,67m

A350
Hight: 6,09 (Ovoid fuselage)
Lenght (A346 WLP):81,20m

It seems the 777 and the A350 are quite similar in this regard, question is if a aluminum or a carbon fiber fuselage is easier to stretch?

Regards.
Regards
 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:54 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 79):

an A330neo-style update for the 77W with Trent XWB engines would not work.

- (sorry if this sounds out of context) 77Wneo would not work as the only answer - same as "old" 350 or 330neo would not work as the only answer to 787. But as a part of solution, and with moderate fuel price to stay for a while, would any sort of 77Wneo make sense? How "77Wneo vs 350" would be different from "330neo vs 787"?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:55 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
8/7 if you only consider airline customers...

Strange argument. Thanks to lessors aircraft end up with more airline customers...
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26632
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:29 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 104):
But as a part of solution, and with moderate fuel price to stay for a while, would any sort of 77Wneo make sense?

Boeing originally looked at a stretched 777 - the "777-400ER" - in response to Emirates' original request for a larger frame. They then considered a series of improvements under the "777+" banner, including an extended wingspan and new engines (GE9X and RR RB3025), before deciding on the more comprehensive upgrade represented in the 777X.
 
nry
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:01 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 86):
Right. All Asian airlines look the same to me. (I hope I can make that joke, being half-Asian).

Depends which half made the joke. If the wrong half made it, the other half might hate it. Self-loathing is always a sorry thing.

  
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:12 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 106):
Boeing originally looked at a stretched 777 - the "777-400ER"

Interesting. Is there anywhere to read about these developments?

I remember a report in ~2012, after the CFRP wing had been leaked on FlightGlobal, that Boeing was leaning towards sticking with all-metal. That woulda been a heartbreaker.

Quoting nry (Reply 107):
Self-loathing is always a sorry thing.

Unfortunately I know some priests who would stridently disagree.

Quoting Millenium (Reply 103):
question is if a aluminum or a carbon fiber fuselage is easier to stretch?

Probably CFRP. It's just lighter, and you're talking about a drag/weight tradeoff when determining WLP or "fineness ratio." A stubbier fuse has more drag, a longer fuse more weight. Use a lighter material and the balance tips towards longer because weight is less dominant.

Plus CFRP is likely doubly efficient for "excessive" strength: One thing that keeps Aluminium competitive is the need to add lightning grounding mesh to CFRP. That factor should be constant with surface area. When you're building thicker, stronger CFRP sections, the proportion of weight devoted to lightning mesh should decline.

...I think. That's just first principles reasoning, though. Haven't seen that dynamic specifically cited by a real designer.

[Edited 2015-10-20 11:20:39]
 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:28 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 106):
Boeing originally looked at a stretched 777 - the "777-400ER"...

- yep, I remember that development. Just curious if something neo-ish would work today too, together with 777X.

Quoting nry (Reply 107):

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 86):
Right. All Asian airlines look the same to me. (I hope I can make that joke, being half-Asian).

Depends which half made the joke...

- or you can settle with only half of them looking the same  .
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:40 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 109):
- or you can settle with only half of them looking the same

I think when given a write-in "Other" ethnicity/race option from now on, I will identify as "Transpacific JV."
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:06 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 110):

Quoting RIX (Reply 109):
- or you can settle with only half of them looking the same

I think when given a write-in "Other" ethnicity/race option from now on, I will identify as "Transpacific JV."

That wins CoD right there!   
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:14 pm

Quoting brindabella (Reply 102):
Have to say that I've wondered the same about the mooted A350-1100.
What do you think?

Funny we were just discussing this in another thread. I personally believe that if airlines are interesting in ~375 +/- sized airplane and don't need a lot of range they are going to favor the A350-1000 as is so if you did just a simple stretch to the A351 I don't know if you would get that many incremental (additional/new) orders at the expense of the 779. So far the 77X has been purchased by airlines that want a good very long haul performing airplane. Should that change then I could see an A350-1100 being more intriguing.

In a fineness ratio perspective, it seems the A350 can go out to about 79m before it bumps into the A346 ratio which is about 6m. I do think CFRP would be better to stretch than aluminum.

Quoting Millenium (Reply 103):
Hight: 6,09 (Ovoid fuselage)

I have this at 5.96. Maybe its the ovoid that is throwing off our numbers.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 105):
Strange argument. Thanks to lessors aircraft end up with more airline customers...

I guess you can see it both ways. I see leasing companies as an extension of the Boeing's sales department and Boeing Capital and does not necessarily mean these are placed airplanes (contractually). In some cases they could be delivered to the same customers as those who have purchased aircraft outright like we see with DY on the 787. Both boeing and leasing companies are trying to sell to the exact same people just with different economics and circumstances.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 106):
the "777-400ER" -

I did not know that topic ever got that far. Interesting.

Quoting RIX (Reply 109):
Just curious if something neo-ish would work today too, together with 777X.

I once harbored a notion that they could strap the GE9X on the 77W in the 2018-2022 period while the 779 was ramping up. The thought was that the engine was due to be certified by 2018 so why wait two years to deliver a 779...but I think GE has their hands full and that could be a stiff ramp up while Boeing will be producing 779s in late 2018 to deliver on in the internal deadline of EIS of 4Q 2019 so there really isn't that big of a window afterall. Not to mention the change to the wing/pylon/mlg to fit the engine would be expensive. It was a fleeting thought.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26632
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:26 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 106):
Boeing originally looked at a stretched 777 - the "777-400ER" - in response to Emirates' original request for a larger frame.
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 108):
Interesting. Is there anywhere to read about these developments?


The Seattle Times wrote about it at the time.



Quoting RIX (Reply 109):
Just curious if something neo-ish would work today too, together with 777X.

I don't really think so. The A350-1000 and 777-300ER are very close in length so even with new engines, the "OEW penalty" the 777-300ER carries would be too high. Which is why I believe Boeing went with the longer wing - it needs the aerodynamic benefits to help overcome the structural weight penalty.



Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
I did not know that topic ever got that far. Interesting.

I don't think it went very far in the face of the A350-1000. It honestly would have been an "Emirates special" and after the 767-400ER ended up appealing to only two customers, I could see Boeing not wanting to invest in the same for a 777-400ER.
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:31 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 108):
WLP or "fineness ratio."

Ahh, of course "fineness ratio" it is...   

And the ratio should be the other way around eg. length divided by hight/width witch in case of the A346 would be about 13 (13,35:1) and not 0,075 (0,075:1). My bad.

So a question to anyone in the known, is the ability to go to higher "fineness ratio" easier on a thin tube (or fuselage) or a wide tube? Lets imagine two tubes one with a diameter of 1m and the other with 10m both balancing on one single middle point , witch one can go to the highest "fineness ratio" without breaking?

Regards.
Regards
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:49 pm

The 753 and the DC-8-61 have worse fineness ratios than the A346 and they are narrow body.

tortugamon
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2540
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:30 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 92):
All this agreeing is so boring! I find myself needing trolls!

LOL! Sorry, I'll try harder next time.  
Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 92):
That ET order will include 778s will it not? This is sort of an outlier if so: the 778's hot/high performance is more important, as the payload/range is not beyond the A35K or 779, but it is with the conditions at ADD. I wouldn't say this was like the ME3 in that they were 'always' going to, but the 778 clearly makes more sense here. If I'm right.

It does indeed.

And while I understand and appreciate your point, I can not bring myself to agree with it for a couple of reasons. For starters, we know that ET publically pitted the A350-1000 vs. the 777X. So in their view, it was a direct campaign. Airbus could have offered the newly-launched -900ULR as well, I honestly don't know. But we do know they offered the -1000 up against Boeing's 777-8/-9 offering. Thus I have a problem with dismissing it out of hand as an 'outlier.' Put another way, dismissing one frame's advantage over another as an outlier allows us to also dismiss the other frame's advantage that might win it a campaign as an 'outlier.'

Finally, I think it's a very slippery slope we'd be on to call a win an 'outlier' and dismiss it as such. Again, I entirely see the point about ET's need for a very good hot/high performer. So the 777-8 fit this RFP better. But how far do we take that? For example, let's look at another of the recent public campaigns of A350 vs. 777X: JAL. Looking at JAL today, and what they are trying to accomplish as an organization, it is clearly focused on tight capacity management, yield growth/control and cost reduction in the face of a declining home market. Not to mention the fact that the airline publically mentioned a desire to go away from a 'one supplier' status. Thus, the smaller A350 makes perfect sense and thus won the RFP. Now, do we dismiss this as an 'outlier' because the A350 fit this particular airline's needs better? I certainly wouldn't.



Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 92):
For me it's more the fact that many of the A35K buyers are 777 operators.

I say this half-serious/half-jokingly - but what airline that is looking for this size & performance of aircraft isn't a 777 operator? LH, obviously, but they just ordered 777-9's. . .  
Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 92):
With the 77W already in their fleets, and the desire to fly ULH routes, the 777X was pretty much nailed on as an ME3 aircraft from the start. It is exactly what they need, a large hub aircraft with the 777's proven design. The A35K didn't cover the same need, and while the A359LR *could* have made progress here, I'd say the advantage was always with the 778 in this scenario.

Yet the A350's largest customer and perhaps most vocal proponent, QR, didn't order the 777-8. They only ordered the -9 (so far, anyway).

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 92):
I think Airbus redesigned the A35K just to really try and go for the 77W's throat, a 100% replacement rather than a 90% if you see what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean, and completely agree. Hence my desire to see exactly how it will be used when it enters service.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
8/7 if you only consider airline customers...

I would most certainly include lessors as well. While they might not make the same buying decisions as the airlines re: pitting one frame directly against another, they also much do their homework and decide which aircraft will garner the most demand, and thus make them the most money by having that aircraft available for lease. Plus, to the OEM's, it creates flexibility to fulfill RFP's and/or gets their aircraft into the hands of customers who may end up purchasing more down the road. Here is where I feel Airbus has done a much better job than Boeing at utilizing lessors. For years, decades even, Boeing actively restricted the % of aircraft from one family that lessors could buy. They were stuck on the notion that they'd make more money by dealing with the airlines themselves. However, as Airbus has shown time and again, once the lessors get your planes into the hands of those 2nd- and 3rd-tier operators, and they are successful with it, they will come back for more.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 99):
I thought the semi-levered gear shifts the center of gravity from the primary axle of the MLG to the aft axle where is adds an extra 'joint' allowing it to rotate at the desired angle.

   That is, more or less, exactly what it does.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 105):
Strange argument. Thanks to lessors aircraft end up with more airline customers...

  

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 111):
Both boeing and leasing companies are trying to sell to the exact same people just with different economics and circumstances.

Sometimes, but certainly not always. Some customers don't have the financial ability to buy direct. Some just prefer not to. Adding lessors to the OEM's portfolio gives that OEM greater flexibility in placing their aircraft, both from a financial perspective, as well as a delivery-slot one. It does not always work (see Amadeo), but for the most part it is beneficial. And while lessors still seem to by buying narrowbodies 'in bulk,' for the most part that speculative nature has disappeared in the widebody market, and the lessors are more reserved, quite often having prospective lease's lined up before placing an order.


Regards,

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:45 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 116):
Yet the A350's largest customer and perhaps most vocal proponent, QR, didn't order the 777-8. They only ordered the -9 (so far, anyway).

QR ordered 10 778s this past June

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-06-...for-10-777-8Xs-Four-777-Freighters

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 116):
Sometimes, but certainly not always. Some customers don't have the financial ability to buy direct. Some just prefer not to. Adding lessors to the OEM's portfolio gives that OEM greater flexibility in placing their aircraft, both from a financial perspective, as well as a delivery-slot one. It does not always work (see Amadeo)

Certainly these are all great points but at the end of the day someone needs to operate the aircraft for the value equation to work and if the leasing company has not placed these aircraft then I am just don't see them as the same quality of order.

If somehow we can see how many of these leased aircraft have contracts in hand then I would definitely see them as just as valuable as any other order, more valuable from the position you propose about 2nd/3rd tier and incapable buyer perspective. But I think we see with the Amadeo order that some orders to leasing companies aren't as good as airlines themselves. Then again, Skymarket/Transaero....airlines don't always take their orders either.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:56 pm

Quoting Millenium (Reply 114):
Lets imagine two tubes one with a diameter of 1m and the other with 10m both balancing on one single middle point , witch one can go to the highest "fineness ratio" without breaking?

T'mon and I attempted to discuss this upthread...

Stiffness/strength of a cylindrical tube - measured by moment of interia - increases with the 4th power of diameter (per engineers here and Wikipedia).

Now, if your tube's density - inclusive of payload and structure - is constant, there's no difference to scale:

-Bending moment = force (weight) * bending arm.

-At constant density, weight rises cubically with diameter

-Multiply the cubic weight factor times the linear moment arm factor and your bending moment escalates to the 4th power of diameter - just like your stiffness or moment of inertia.

...which would mean scale is irrelevant.

However: For a single-deck airliner, payload and some structural items (floor beams, furnishings) don't escalate cubically with diameter: by definition a single deck isn't exploiting one of the 3 spatial dimensions. Therefore, a bigger-diameter single-deck should see some positive effect from greater diameter at constant fineness ratio.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 115):
The 753 and the DC-8-61 have worse fineness ratios than the A346 and they are narrow body.

Single aisles are inherently more efficient than dual-aisles, so they're the optimal choice out to a greater fineness ratio than dual-aisles.

BUT WAIT - doesn't that contradict everything I just said about bigger diameter single-decks having some advantage?

Sort of...

But there's another countervailing dynamic, which is efficiency of fuselage space usage. Single-aisles make best use of a single deck's volume - think of 777's crown space versus a 737's. You'll have less fuselage area per seat with a single-aisle, meaning less drag and - at decent fineness ratio - lower weight.

Which dynamic dominates for a given aircraft - stiffness through thickness or efficiency through fineness - is a level of analysis of which I am not capable.

Bjorn at LeehamNews has a good analysis of Boeing's NMA/MoM that shows a cutover between single- and dual aisle designs around ~240 seats.

I have crackpot theories showing that a dual-deck circular fuselage cuts into advantage over against a single deck at slightly below A380 size.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:06 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 117):
But I think we see with the Amadeo order that some orders to leasing companies aren't as good as airlines themselves.

Amedeo's deal is a sweetheart deal by a very motivated seller. It arguably should not have been booked as a firm order. It seems to be all upside for Amedeo, basically creating a "marketing partnership." I don't think typical sales to lessors see this kind of flexibility.
 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 113):
The A350-1000 and 777-300ER are very close in length so even with new engines, the "OEW penalty" the 777-300ER carries would be too high.

- (sorry for being annoying  ) for sure, 77Wneo will still be noticeably inferior to 350-1000. My question is, is it possible for it also to be enough cheaper? Back to my original question: how 330neo vs 787 is different from potential 77Wneo vs 350? (Unless it's too early to say, 330neo works - which, I think, it's not).
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:32 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 118):
Single aisles are inherently more efficient than dual-aisles, so they're the optimal choice out to a greater fineness ratio than dual-aisles.

Sure but I am more interested in understanding the tradeoff or penalty of these poor fineness ratios which begs the question: if it was such a penalty were the 753 and the DC 8-61 heavily disadvantaged relative to their single aisle competitors (not vs twin aisles which I accept). I don't know the answer to that. I think the 753's poor sales were due to timing.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 118):
Bjorn at LeehamNews has a good analysis of Boeing's NMA/MoM that shows a cutover between single- and dual aisle designs around ~240 seats.

Yeah and there is an academic paper of sorts on the subject from somewhere in Europe that explores dozens of possible designs and plots where each possible profile delivers its best results...I think they get to a twin aisle 7-seater around 220 seats or so.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 118):
Which dynamic dominates for a given aircraft - stiffness through thickness or efficiency through fineness - is a level of analysis of which I am not capable.

Me neither! I don't think many are capable because you would need to be cross-discipline trained and have a detailed model capable of tons of simulations. But fun to speculate.

Quoting RIX (Reply 120):
Back to my original question: how 330neo vs 787 is different from potential 77Wneo vs 350? (Unless it's too early to say, 330neo works - which, I think, it's not).

I think we know that the A330neo isn't as efficient nor is it as capable (range) as the 787 which is what you get when you do a warm over vs a clean sheet. Likewise a 777Max wouldn't be as efficient nor as capable as the A350, which most of us think the 77X is, if it didn't receive a new $2 Billion wing.

tortugamon
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4177
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:53 am

stretching the 777 would require lengthening the fuselage fwd of the wing and leaving the aft section alone . Then decreasing the rotation angle by 2-3 degrees until 50' where the climb angle would be unlimited to stall buffet.. that would surely decrease the possibility of tail strikes and major fuselage damage though I seriously doubt it would eliminate the possibility of a tail strike.
I think the 777 has gotten about as long as it's going to get without a major re-design of many International Airports Especially in the USA.. It might require Terminals Built especially for the "Super Twins" we might see in the future. Cities like SFO and SEA can survive for now but their room might be coming to a premium pretty quick and there's really little room to build a new terminal without "Pissing Off" a whole BUNCH of folks when their Cargo buildings are flattened For said terminal at SFO, and SEA-TAC??
They're "land locked". DEN, IAD, maybe ORD, ATL, IAH, DFW, MSP, and some others might do pretty well, Premier Airports like JFK? Might very well be hard pressed to find more room unless they too tear down a bunch of stuff and build a new Super -terminal for these enlarged wing airliners of the future.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:27 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 99):
I thought the semi-levered gear shifts the center of gravity from the primary axle of the MLG to the aft axle where is adds an extra 'joint' allowing it to rotate at the desired angle.

Almost right. The center of rotation (not center of gravity) is changed from the landing gear truck trunion to the aft wheels axle.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 99):
When I say 'telescoping' I mean that more height

Rotating about the aft axle makes the gear effectively longer without the added weight you'd need to telescope the gear by adding more gear post length to increase the oleo stroke. Then there would also be the problem of retracting the longer gear leg......
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
brindabella
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:08 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
I personally believe that if airlines are interesting in ~375 +/- sized airplane and don't need a lot of range they are going to favor the A350-1000 as is so if you did just a simple stretch to the A351

Same same the 787X, IMO.

I tend to bang-on a lot about the N.Atlantic focus of much a.net discussion; but I do see these medium-range "stretches" as having big, big potential in the various densely-populated regions of Asia.

Only problem I can see is that the A350-1100 will be a whole lot of aeroplane, with a price-sticker to match.

cheers Bill

[Edited 2015-10-21 07:10:18]
Billy
 
brindabella
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
Quoting Millenium (Reply 103):
Hight: 6,09 (Ovoid fuselage)

I have this at 5.96. Maybe its the ovoid that is throwing off our numbers.

Thanks to you both.

Together they nicely answer my idle query. Obviously the A350-1100 has plenty of stretch yet b4 it would be in danger of entering the realm of the A340-600 syndrome. ("A stretch too far").

cheers Bill


 &

(I also agree with the conjecture by some other posters that the 777X sizes are a little skew-whiff; but I suspect that the raw fact is that what SirTim wants .... he gets.)
Billy
 
brindabella
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: New Information About A Possible 777-10X?

Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:44 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):

I once harbored a notion that they could strap the GE9X on the 77W in the 2018-2022 period while the 779 was ramping up. The thought was that the engine was due to be certified by 2018 so why wait two years to deliver a 779...but I think GE has their hands full and that could be a stiff ramp up while Boeing will be producing 779s in late 2018 to deliver on in the internal deadline of EIS of 4Q 2019 so there really isn't that big of a window afterall. Not to mention the change to the wing/pylon/mlg to fit the engine would be expensive. It was a fleeting thought.

 

Me too.

A part of the speculation (for me at least) was driven by the "sizing" of the 777W/777X products
To me they kinda intermingled rather than stepping-on each other.
I wondered if the ramp-up would see a GE9X-powered 777W competing directly with the A350-1000.
This bird would have introduced a lot of stuff for the 777X while still being recognisably a 777W and so being a relatively friendly inductee to the existing 777W line.
Also giving the 777X a leisurely ramp-up a la the A350-900.
Seemed a shame to waste that magnificent 777W wing.
But all things must come to an end!

  

[Edited 2015-10-21 07:51:21]
Billy

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