hannahpa
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:33 pm

787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:29 am

I know that the 787-9 is much more than just a stretch of the 787-8, as the -9 is more technologically advanced. I am wondering if the 787-10 will be even more technologically advanced than the -9, or will it be just a simple stretch?

Will there be cabin improvements over the -9?
What other improvements will there be if any?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12486
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:43 am

There's inevitably going to be some advances, as models get tweaked as production matures.

The concept even applies to examples of the exact same derivative. Heck, look at a current A333 compared to one from 10yrs ago, and especially to one from 20yrs ago.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2722
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:55 am

Expect any meaningful advances to be rolled back into the -9 since the -10 is a simple stretch. Rolling into the -8 might be more of a thing since the -9 has many changes over the -8.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:34 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):

Building on that, if the 787-8 dies out prematurely relative to the rest of the 787 program, you could well see the 789 become literally a -10 shrink in the sense that everything not required purely for the larger structure of a -10 is rolled into the 789 to squeeze every bit of commonality out of the supply chain. I'm thinking along the lines of how Airbus tweaked the 330 after they were sure they were killing the 340 for good.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:35 pm

Picking up from what has already been said...Boeing has indicated that the 789 and the 78X will share 95% part commonality. Any improvement to one frame will be shared with the other much more so than the 789 vs 788 stretch.

That being said this is just a simple stretch at the moment and its focus is on providing better economics at the expense of performance. I could see a 78XER down the road with MTOW bumps as they determine them. It has been said that there is a restriction on the MLG to prevent this in the near term.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12486
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:25 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 4):
It has been said that there is a restriction on the MLG to prevent this in the near term.

Has it been set in stone that it'll be a 4wheel bogie/truck assembly, or is there still the possibility that it could be 6?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26366
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:27 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 5):
Has it been set in stone that it'll be a 4wheel bogie/truck assembly, or is there still the possibility that it could be 6?

The current wheel well is configured to only accept a four-wheel truck, so anything more and they'd need to redesign that area,
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:35 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
Expect any meaningful advances to be rolled back into the -9 since the -10 is a simple stretch. Rolling into the -8 might be more of a thing since the -9 has many changes over the -8.

Nearly all changes for the -9 that could be common... were rolled into the -8. I am pretty confident that all the reliability and enhancements developed for the -9 were rolled into the -8 when the -9 went into production. I am sure the -10 will be the same.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18096
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:59 pm

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 7):
I am pretty confident that all the reliability and enhancements developed for the -9 were rolled into the -8 when the -9 went into production.

  
Different wing/body structure
789 has a different tail/horizontal stabilizer

I'm sure there are other differences, just ones below my radar.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12486
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:51 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
so anything more and they'd need to redesign that area,

Is that still feasible, this far out.... or would too much change be required of the wing box to make it financially acceptable?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:12 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 9):

Is it feasible? Sure, if the business case is there. They would have to commit to doing an A35J-style qualitative design change in order to achieve performance gains not possibly by merely nipping and tucking the current 78J as a straight stretch.

As of now the 787 design is centered a notch or so below the 350 size-wise, so that may not be desirable to them given how they've positioned the product vis-à-vis both the 350 and their own 77X.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:13 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
Different wing/body structure
789 has a different tail/horizontal stabilizer

But those don't make the -9 a "better" airplane than the -8 or not as "good" as a -10. Upping gauges/thickness to take additional load doesn't make an airplane "better".

All the system reliability changes for the -9 were incorporated wholesale. The reduced weight components etc developed for the -9 were incorporated back into the -8's built after the start of the -9. There are many common parts designed for the -9 that are now part of the -8 build.

The same thing will happen to the -9 and -9 with improvements for the -10. That's just how it works.

Early -8's are not the same as a -8 built after the -9 came.
 
TripleA
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:42 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:28 pm

Do you guys think that the 787-9 will end up being the best-selling 787? I only ask this because it seems to be a trend that the middle model is the best selling, for example the 737-800 sold better than the -700 and -900, the 767-300 sold better than the -200 and -400, and so far the A320 has sold better than the A319 and A321 (although the 321 is becoming more popular). So I'm just curious if that is how the 787 sales will play out too.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 939
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:28 am

Quoting TripleA (Reply 12):
Do you guys think that the 787-9 will end up being the best-selling 787? I only ask this because it seems to be a trend that the middle model is the best selling, for example the 737-800 sold better than the -700 and -900, the 767-300 sold better than the -200 and -400, and so far the A320 has sold better than the A319 and A321 (although the 321 is becoming more popular). So I'm just curious if that is how the 787 sales will play out too.

Yes. Unless they do a -10ER, like they did with the 77W
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:58 am

Quoting TripleA (Reply 12):
Do you guys think that the 787-9 will end up being the best-selling 787? I only ask this because it seems to be a trend that the middle model is the best selling, for example the 737-800 sold better than the -700 and -900, the 767-300 sold better than the -200 and -400, and so far the A320 has sold better than the A319 and A321 (although the 321 is becoming more popular). So I'm just curious if that is how the 787 sales will play out too

Because those biggest and smallest models are designed to fit some specific needs of airlines at the costs of something for examples range, fuel efficiency etc.

For most airlines who don't need those specific requirements, the middle model will be their most likely choose hence best selling.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:23 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 9):
Is that still feasible, this far out.... or would too much change be required of the wing box to make it financially acceptable?

It is not feasible for the first version of the 78X in my opinion. The wings for the first 78X area already on-site in Everett (they will need to be transferred to BSC where the FAL will be). They have reached firm configuration and it is really set at this point.

But I do see them trying to mini-replicate the A333 progress by slowly taking away weight and adding MTOW where they can over a gradual on-going basis. It will already have A333-like range at EIS and that is the majority of the missions anyway.

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 11):
But those don't make the -9 a "better" airplane than the -8 or not as "good" as a -10. Upping gauges/thickness to take additional load doesn't make an airplane "better".

All the system reliability changes for the -9 were incorporated wholesale. The reduced weight components etc developed for the -9 were incorporated back into the -8's built after the start of the -9. There are many common parts designed for the -9 that are now part of the -8 build.

A significant number of the 789 improvement were not incorporated in the 788. The 788 orders are existing orders and they are meeting spec. Spending more money on further changes to that aircraft is a complete waste of capital. They can't get a higher price on existing orders are there aren't many new orders to be won.

Once 788 orders are empty I do see Boeing spending some money on it to try to differentiate more from the A338 to try to gain new orders but to do so before all of the early 788 customers have what they ordered years ago would be a waste of capital.

Quoting TripleA (Reply 12):
Do you guys think that the 787-9 will end up being the best-selling 787? I only ask this because it seems to be a trend that the middle model is the best selling, for example the 737-800 sold better than the -700 and -900, the 767-300 sold better than the -200 and -400, and so far the A320 has sold better than the A319 and A321 (although the 321 is becoming more popular). So I'm just curious if that is how the 787 sales will play out too.

The 77W, A300, and A333 were the best selling of their families and they were the largest of their generations.

I think it is about which is the optimal frame that can minimally do the job. Not about size per se.

tortugamon
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:26 am

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 11):
But those don't make the -9 a "better" airplane than the -8 or not as "good" as a -10. Upping gauges/thickness to take additional load doesn't make an airplane "better".

In the case of the tail and horizontal stabilisers they are better - simpler and cheaper to build structures and incorporating hybrid laminar flow control to reduce drag. But the cost to roll into the 787-8 outweighs the benefit. For this reason many of the improvements in the 787-9 aren't being rolled into the -8, and it's not just a matter of different gauge for different loads.
 
StTim
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:34 am

I thought the laminar flow was dropped as rhe complexity/weight did not bring enough benefits.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:51 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
But I do see them trying to mini-replicate the A333 progress by slowly taking away weight and adding MTOW where they can over a gradual on-going basis. It will already have A333-like range at EIS and that is the majority of the missions anyway.

But the A333 had the A340 as a skeleton to work off. You agreed that the MTOW increases of the A333 was as much due to the A340 and the fact that Airbus had all the work on this frame already to work from. I think we can agree that it will be difficult for either OEM to see the MTOW increases on a frame as the A330 has seen without a increase in R&D spending instead of incremental spending each year.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
Once 788 orders are empty I do see Boeing spending some money on it to try to differentiate more from the A338 to try to gain new orders but to do so before all of the early 788 customers have what they ordered years ago would be a waste of capital.

So Boeing will not improve a model for existing customers, only when they need to? Seems the kind of strategy that has caused them to lose all that market to Airbus. "My products are good enough for you and I will decide when to improve and only when I want to." This makes sense when you see the quotes from Boeing executives about the 739 being the leader against the A321.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sun May 01, 2016 2:33 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 18):
So Boeing will not improve a model for existing customers, only when they need to? Seems the kind of strategy that has caused them to lose all that market to Airbus. "My products are good enough for you and I will decide when to improve and only when I want to." This makes sense when you see the quotes from Boeing executives about the 739 being the leader against the A321.

We are talking about orders on hand that were sold at a specific price with a specific performance guarantee. Why should Boeing offer upgrades to such orders at Boeings expense?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sun May 01, 2016 3:03 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 18):
So Boeing will not improve a model for existing customers, only when they need to? Seems the kind of strategy that has caused them to lose all that market to Airbus. "My products are good enough for you and I will decide when to improve and only when I want to." This makes sense when you see the quotes from Boeing executives about the 739 being the leader against the A321.

No, its a case of the current 788 being good enough for current 788 customers, and evidently there hasn't been enough interest in further 788 improvements (re: orders) when talking to airlines to warrant spending the money to certify the -9 differences on the -8.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sun May 01, 2016 4:33 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
But I do see them trying to mini-replicate the A333 progress by slowly taking away weight and adding MTOW where they can over a gradual on-going basis

By all reports they have no room to add MTOW. They have increased tire pressures slightly over the -9 presumably to achieve the present MTOW. If they can hold the -10 MEW at 10t over the -9 they will have a 12.hr (5800nm) airplane. As an example , considerably more than the ~ 11 hrs. needed for FRA-LAX

[Edited 2016-05-01 10:12:41]
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3126
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Sun May 01, 2016 4:38 pm

many 'upgrades', are lighter, better, and cheaper to manufacture
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Mon May 02, 2016 12:31 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 19):
We are talking about orders on hand that were sold at a specific price with a specific performance guarantee. Why should Boeing offer upgrades to such orders at Boeings expense?

Agreed, they shouldn't. And I don't think they would. Now once those orders are filled and the costs to produce a 787 continues to drop further then I could see them making some efforts.

Quoting Polot (Reply 20):
No, its a case of the current 788 being good enough for current 788 customers, and evidently there hasn't been enough interest in further 788 improvements (re: orders) when talking to airlines to warrant spending the money to certify the -9 differences on the -8.

Agreed. And it favors airlines purchasing the 789 which drives higher profitably for the company. And its not like the A332 and A338 are taking any orders from the 788 as a consequence.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 21):
By all reports they have no room to add MTOW. They have increased tire pressures slightly over the -9 presumably to achieve the present MTOW. If they can hold the -10 MEW at 10t over the -9 they will have a 12.hr (5800nm) airplane. As an example , considerably more than the ~ 11 hrs. needed for FRA-LAX

Right, it already has A333HGW242T/A339 Range. It does not need the $5-10 Billion that Airbus invested in A333 in continuous improvements to have relevant range; it has it on EIS. For the vast majority of customers and missions it will be sufficient.

I personally think that right now they are focused on commonality and improving economics (cost) and that should be enough to keep the line busy at 6-7/month as they are limited to production in just Boeing South Carolina.

I don't see why 10t in MEW creep isn't manageable.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Mon May 02, 2016 1:04 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 23):
I don't see why 10t in MEW creep isn't manageable.

The 788 and 789 spread is 8.9 t at OEW. This is probably about 6t at MEW. Now this is Boeings "new " definition of OEW which in reality is the old DOW. I know for a fact that there are reasonable high seat count 789's flying that are about 2t lighter than the published OEW of 128.850 t. Thus I suspect there is room to bring the -10 DOW down to the 136 to 137t range.
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1274
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Mon May 02, 2016 3:02 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 23):
It does not need the $5-10 Billion that Airbus invested in A333 in continuous improvements to have relevant range;

Hi Source please for this ''estimate''?
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Mon May 02, 2016 6:53 am

Quoting Coronado (Reply 25):
Hi Source please for this ''estimate''?

Sure:
"[ Crawford Hamilton, who is the Head of Twin Aisle Marketing at Airbus] pointed out Airbus spends $180m per year doing these tweaks on A330, and that in fact, Airbus spent as much on the A330 over the past ten years doing tweaks as they spent on the initial development of the aircraft. "
http://airinsight.com/2014/01/03/clearing-the-air-about-the-a330neo/

So it cost more than the original A330. And that quote does not include the last 3 years where the 242t has entered service, the launched regional variant, the A330neo, nor the 1990-1999 time period where investments into the A330 took the range from 3,900nm to 5,250nm which surely required significant capital.
http://airinsight.com/2012/07/05/the...ontinuous-improvement-of-the-a330/

tortugamon
 
StTim
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Mon May 02, 2016 7:38 am

It is well known that Airbus has and continues to spend significant money on their in build platforms. This does lead to the improvements we have seen over the years. The A330 is an outlier but the A380 (wing twist change for instance) and A320 have also had significant levels of continuous spend.

Whether it is better to do this or to bundle them all up and have a new version where you can then charge more is a moot point.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: 787-10 Better Than -9?

Mon May 02, 2016 1:11 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 27):
lighter

Nothing unique to Airbus in this regard, both Airbus and Boeing (along with BBD and Embraer) are constantly investing in their products to improve them. According to Boeing, for example, the 77W's fuel burn is 3.6% lower than when it entered service.

The A330 is just the poster child for it because how how much it has been improved, but that is largely due to how much room Airbus had to work on it since the platform was already built up for the A340.

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