flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:38 pm

A simple question I suppose but one that probably has more to do with specific customer requirements than we will or can ever know.

From a relative lay-persons perspective I can see that the extremely successful 777-300ER program delivers an aircraft which on the face of it has significant compromises in terms of geometry and wing sizing giving a less than ideal initial cruise altitude and often limiting runway performance but yet airlines wanted to buy...

Without muddying the waters too much with the complexity so oft used for obfuscation purposes around these parts the takeoff distance requirements are driven by two major factors.
1.Wing loading (W/S) Lift required per unit area of wing which effectively drives how fast you have to go before you can take off
2.Thrust to weight ratio (T/W) The amount of thrust per unit of weight of mass of the aircraft which drives how fast you get to the required speeds.
With this in mind an increase in weight has a square law effect on the takeoff distance and this can be counteracted by an increase in wing area and/or thrust.
2 drivers but 3 variables. We see this scenario play out time an time again, we see an MTOW increase and a corresponding thrust increase as planform is normally hard to change.

For attainable altitudes then the drivers are based on:
1. Excess thrust available
2. Excess lift available to the buffet margin.

Excess thrust availability comes from either increased thrust or reduced drag.
Excess lift availability is a more complex situation with the buffet margin being determined by the compressability affects over the wings. In essence the higher the mach the greater the compressability affects but also the higher the lift coefficient is the higher the effects of the buffet.
In order to have excess lift available one can do several things.
1. reduce the lift required (make it lighter, this effect can be seen over the course of a flight where the step climbs occur.)
2. Increase the lift available
a.Make the wing bigger
b.Make the wing thinner
c.Design the wing to handle transonic flow better (this isn't low hanging fruit)

When we look at the above observations we can see that for an aircraft like the 77W (or indeed the A321) there is a mismatch between what the aircraft has to do to be able to get off the ground vs what it is then capable of when it gets in the air, i.e. the excess thrust required to be able to get the thing in the air is wasted when it gets up to cruise levels as the wing is more limiting on its ability to reach altitude than the engine (why we talk about wing limited vs engine limited altitude) in an ideal world the engine and wing would be matched.

With the upgrade of the 777 offering from the 77W/L going to the 778/9 X then the approach Boeing has taken has been to:
1. Update/upgrade the engine offering
2. Lengthen the fuselage (contour the walls as well)
3. Update the wing including a major change to its overall dimensions.

Whilst I agree that the engine upgrade was a no-brainer the part I have been thinking a lot about recently is the overall impact of the new wing and what it brings.
In very simple terms we can look at it like this.
77W
OWE = 168t
MTOW = 351.5t
Spec pax = 365
Spec range = 7370nm
OWE + pax = 168 + 36.5 = 204.5
Leaving 147t for the fuel (used or not)

779X
OWE = 184t
MTOW = 351.5t
Spec pax = 410
Spec range = 7525
OWE + Pax = 184+41 = 225t
Leaving 126t for fuel

Whilst I wouldn't argue that the 779X is a significant step forward in this regard what part of that step is due to the engine change and what is due to the wings.
Again, a very simple analysis of the problem would be to calculate the maximum range one can simply use the improvement in SFC as a crude guide to increased range so if we simply updated the SFC the spec range would become ~8100nm for a 10% improvement in SFC.

So the issue comes down to effectively a tradeoff: Does the reduced induced drag from a lower span wise loading and the allowable gain in altitude outweigh the increase in induced drag due to increased weight and increase in drag due to larger surface area.

So to give a bit more meat to the the issue and potential discussion I ran a bit of a model with my homemade excel warrior software on a combination of factors. there are essentially 3 varients in question the standard 77W with GE90-115b, the 779X with GE9x and a 77W with GE9X engines.

I chose what I thought was a pretty representative route for this bird SIN-LHR with a 20kt headwind and 50t payload.
Image
There are certain limitations to the model but it indicates that there is very little between the 77W with GE9x and the 779X in terms of total fuel use. Of course tthere are differences in the air frames beyond wings and engines (particularly in the fuselage length) but the "closeness" is of interest.

For reference the GE9X is shown as adding an extra 3t per aircraft and has a slightly higher diameter for aero purposes. The reference SFC that Ihave used is shown.

Because the data was so close I looked a bit more closely at the raw data my model spits out rather than just the summary and the first point of call is the cruise altitude.
Image
Here we can see difference that the wing is providing on the 779X with it being able to consistently be 2-4000ft higher than the 77W. The difference the engine makes here is more subtle but because of the lower fuel usage the initial weights are lower allowing higher initial levels that converge toward the end of the flight.

If we compare weights over the course of the flight we can see how this changes.
Image
The stark difference the engine makes to the slope of the graph made by the engines is easy to see. The Range scale represents distance left to run and can be used as a relatively good proxy for Required takeoff weight to travel that range. The thicker line shows where the data was actually generated for this flight with the thinner line being and extrapolation of that data. I added a line of 348000kgs as the data showed about 3.5t of fuel to initial climb so somewhat shows effective MTOW range at this payload.

The slope in the previous graph is effectively showing fuel flow per unit of distance, as we are mostly used to seeing this in terms of fuel per time I have shown this below.
Image
The data itself looks a bit "choppy" but that is showing the cruise phases at each step. There is data available for the intermediate climbs as well as for the initial climb but these are so spiky at the times of climbing that they detract from the useful cruise data and cause trend lines to fall off. There is a clear difference between the engine types but much less distinction between the wings effect in terms of fuel flow required.

The last chart is showing the total fuel use for the trip.
Image
Similar to the previous charts this really shows that the engine makes the difference here with the 77W+GE9X having very close to the same fuel usage as the 779X.

The wing of the 779X allows the aircraft to effectively add the stretch to the 77W for zero fuel cost, certainly not an insignificant factor but by far the bulk of the fuel savings are coming from the engines.

The new wing does not make the aircraft any more effective at the heavy loads at long range and arguably the simple engine change would allow a higher margin for fuel capacity at ranges above MZFW.

The elephant in the room is Takeoff performance. If the fuel use is effectively identical between the 779X and 77W with GE9x then the Empty weight difference of ~13t can remain. Would the [email protected] 337T be able to cope with 105klb engines?, when does it need the full 115klb? could the GE9X produce this?

I found this quite interesting to look at if somewhat indulgent. Hopefully you will critique and discuss.

Fred
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10620
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:09 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Whilst I wouldn't argue that the 779X is a significant step forward in this regard what part of that step is due to the engine change and what is due to the wings.
Again, a very simple analysis of the problem would be to calculate the maximum range one can simply use the improvement in SFC as a crude guide to increased range so if we simply updated the SFC the spec range would become ~8100nm for a 10% improvement in SFC.


The A351 promissed, and apparently delivered around that, a 25% fuel burn advantage vs. the 77W. With just 10, or even 15%, better SFC the 77X would have been stillborn. Even with the new wing they stretched it to improve per seat fuel burn.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13806
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:57 pm

Fred

You have put a lot of work into that post well done.

Yes I do think the GE9X engine could power the 77W, likewise I think the GE90-115 could power the 779 to start flight testing.

The only issue with the GE9X on a 77W I do not know about is ground clearance. Not sure if they changed the mounting to get more clearance.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:18 pm

It has been often commented that the high wing loading of the 777-300ER requires it to spend more time at lower, less-efficient altitudes as it burns off fuel. So the lower wing-loading of the 777X should have some positive effects in and of themselves.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:42 pm

Interesting. That's a great effort.

In other words, the almost identical fuel burn of 779 vs 77W+GE9X indicates that the higher L/D of 779 compensates for the 13t higher DOW.

Your numbers are in line with how engine SFC imprvements are the leading factor when it comes to fuel saving improvements that we have seen over the years.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2189
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:51 pm

Couple questions:

1. Are those fuel burn numbers trip burn or trip burn per pax? If it isn't normalized, then you get 410/365=1.12, so 12% more pax for free. Add that to the 10% SFC gain, and you're about in the right ballpark.
2. How are you modeling takeoff performance? If you remove 13t in DOW to get to 337t MTOW, you've got 96% of the weight and 91% of the thrust vs a 77W, for a total 5% T/W penalty. No-drag acceleration is thus 5% lower, and distance traveled to reach the same speed should go up roughly quadratically, meaning you've got a ~10% penalty before you factor in thrust lapse (worse on the higher BPR engine) and drag. the 779 gets around this by having lower runway speeds thanks to the bigger wing.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:04 am

I still wonder what exactly bad in a345/6 compared to 77w. What exactly too heavy? Wing or fuselage?

Thank for post, very interesting.
I think t/o performance can be solved in 321xlr way by different flaps.

Also, for me , 77x still looks like the only new plane being heavier than previous, or at least equal compared to capacity. Very different from 787 and 350.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:51 am

Time to return takeoff busters to airliners! (Trident 3B )
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:41 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
I still wonder what exactly bad in a345/6 compared to 77w. What exactly too heavy? Wing or fuselage?

Thank for post, very interesting.
I think t/o performance can be solved in 321xlr way by different flaps.

Also, for me , 77x still looks like the only new plane being heavier than previous, or at least equal compared to capacity. Very different from 787 and 350.


The A345/6 were heavy for their capacity. A logical development given the A340 "classic" was already there and development costs could be kept down, but not what would have come out as a clean sheet aircraft at the time. Four engines mean twice as much engine maintenance, more oil consumption, more parts that can break.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:18 pm

(sigh)
A346 was heavy. yes. thats what i wrote by myself. no need to repeat it as new info.

because its a cheap wing and fuselage stretch. yes. thank you. i wonder how i cant saw this by myself.

but my question is what part of frame exactly was heavy compared to 77w
yes, may be no one know it or cant say because of NDA.
but i hope one day i found it.
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:29 pm

LH707330 wrote:
Couple questions:

1. Are those fuel burn numbers trip burn or trip burn per pax?
Trip fuel burn, its in Kilos
LH707330 wrote:
If it isn't normalized, then you get 410/365=1.12, so 12% more pax for free. Add that to the 10% SFC gain, and you're about in the right ballpark.
Fuel burn over a specific sector doesn't scale linearly with SFC on a given trip (using fuel to carry fuel) the reduction in fuel burn from the 0.55->0.49lb/hr/lb is about 12.6% giving a total fuel reduction per pax as~25% (same as A35K)
LH707330 wrote:
2. How are you modeling takeoff performance?
I'm not moedelling it in as much detail, I simply have a baseline ClMax and derive the distance to get to the speed to lift off at that weight.
LH707330 wrote:
If you remove 13t in DOW to get to 337t MTOW, you've got 96% of the weight and 91% of the thrust vs a 77W, for a total 5% T/W penalty. No-drag acceleration is thus 5% lower, and distance traveled to reach the same speed should go up roughly quadratically, meaning you've got a ~10% penalty before you factor in thrust lapse (worse on the higher BPR engine) and drag. the 779 gets around this by having lower runway speeds thanks to the bigger wing.
I don't currently do anything with thrust lapse in the calculation but its also worth pointing out that at reduced weights you don't have to be going so fast, lower weight increases acc. and decreases Vlo, a double whammy.

Eyad89 wrote:
Interesting. That's a great effort.

In other words, the almost identical fuel burn of 779 vs 77W+GE9X indicates that the higher L/D of 779 compensates for the 13t higher DOW.
Basically, yeah.

Stitch wrote:
It has been often commented that the high wing loading of the 777-300ER requires it to spend more time at lower, less-efficient altitudes as it burns off fuel. So the lower wing-loading of the 777X should have some positive effects in and of themselves.
I'm wrestling this at the moment as its very difficult to untangle the wing loading from the rest of the data, the phrase "less-efficient altitude" is a slightly loaded one and I guess its why I wanted to do this analysis, less efficient for a particular aircraft at a particular weight; Yes, in general? It's tying my brain in knots as to how to clarify and present this.

tommy1808 wrote:
The A351 promissed, and apparently delivered around that, a 25% fuel burn advantage vs. the 77W. With just 10, or even 15%, better SFC the 77X would have been stillborn. Even with the new wing they stretched it to improve per seat fuel burn.
Agreed (kind of) I guess this is an ROI thing, cheap upgrade (engine only) vs expensive upgrade 779X with added capacity.

As another example I have done what I have called a 774er with GE9X. The ~3m Stretch adding 6t to the DOW. Admittedly this will be eating in to the available Payload weight.
Image '774er' Added to the table.
Approximately 3t of fuel used for the mission.
Image
As expected the '774er' site between the other GE9X varients.
Image
Total fuel used changes as expected with the 774er using more for the longer distance (heavier and more wetted area so its to be expected).
Image
The final chart of instantaneous fuel use shows the line for the 774er to be more or less a shift of the 77W+GE9X.

The interesting part for me when looking at this last chart is the fact that the slope of the instant fuel flow chart seems to show that the 779X compared to the smaller winged but re-engined 777 variants is more susceptible to weight variations in terms of fuel flow. We would expect the larger winged Variant to be better at higher weights by a larger amount than it is a low weights. Granted that difference is right in the weeds so might not mean anything but it definitely is not pointing in the expected way.

Fred
Image
 
LH707330
Posts: 2189
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:49 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Couple questions:

1. Are those fuel burn numbers trip burn or trip burn per pax?

Trip fuel burn, its in Kilos

LH707330 wrote:
If it isn't normalized, then you get 410/365=1.12, so 12% more pax for free. Add that to the 10% SFC gain, and you're about in the right ballpark.

Fuel burn over a specific sector doesn't scale linearly with SFC on a given trip (using fuel to carry fuel) the reduction in fuel burn from the 0.55->0.49lb/hr/lb is about 12.6% giving a total fuel reduction per pax as~25% (same as A35K)


Ok, so if it's the same trip burn and 12% more pax, can't you argue that the new wing gives you ~12% benefit over the old wing? Your 774ER chart seems to show this.

flipdewaf wrote:
I'm not moedelling it in as much detail, I simply have a baseline ClMax and derive the distance to get to the speed to lift off at that weight.

LH707330 wrote:
If you remove 13t in DOW to get to 337t MTOW, you've got 96% of the weight and 91% of the thrust vs a 77W, for a total 5% T/W penalty. No-drag acceleration is thus 5% lower, and distance traveled to reach the same speed should go up roughly quadratically, meaning you've got a ~10% penalty before you factor in thrust lapse (worse on the higher BPR engine) and drag. the 779 gets around this by having lower runway speeds thanks to the bigger wing.

I don't currently do anything with thrust lapse in the calculation but its also worth pointing out that at reduced weights you don't have to be going so fast, lower weight increases acc. and decreases Vlo, a double whammy.

Ok, so your target speed scales as sqrt(weight), I ignored that in my initial assessment. That should get you back to a ~5% penalty overall, which is more manageable in many situations. I threw thrust lapse out as an idea, IIRC it's about 20% by the time you get to v1, but the change in lapse rate between the engines based on the delta BPR likely won't have an overall impact of more than 1 pp (e.g. 20% vs 21%).

Regarding the A345/346 being too heavy, there were a couple reasons:

1. Tube too long->strengthening weight out of control
2. Wing chord increase added substantial structure in a suboptimal manner (they tried to do it on the cheap)

On the oil consumption front, I think the CFM56-5Cs actually burned more than the T500s, the T500 was pretty good on oil.
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:57 am

LH707330 wrote:

Ok, so if it's the same trip burn and 12% more pax, can't you argue that the new wing gives you ~12% benefit over the old wing? Your 774ER chart seems to show this.

The mythical 774er +GENX burns about 3% more than the the 779X suggesting that at a similar capacity the 779X wing gives a 3% advantage. The added empty weight of the 774er+GENX would increase and so reduce the payload which would have to be accounted for in additional structure so there is probably a bit more than that but it wouldn't drive it up beyond 4% I wouldn't think.

LH707330 wrote:
Ok, so your target speed scales as sqrt(weight), I ignored that in my initial assessment. That should get you back to a ~5% penalty overall, which is more manageable in many situations. I threw thrust lapse out as an idea, IIRC it's about 20% by the time you get to v1, but the change in lapse rate between the engines based on the delta BPR likely won't have an overall impact of more than 1 pp (e.g. 20% vs 21%).

I have been meaning to add a better model of takeoff to my simulation to understand the relevant parameters but want to understand the relevant levers that are affecting it and where they drive to. I might spend my lunch break today trying to understand the thrust lapse in a bit more detail and the relevant parts of modelling it. I have heard 20% at v1 and 20% at v2 but aI also need to make sure I understand Braking and decision times and the climbing and accelerating at the same time (its easy to model one or the other but what the realistic mix between the two is, is a decision I have to understand).

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:00 am

flipdewaf wrote:

For reference the GE9X is shown as adding an extra 3t per aircraft and has a slightly higher diameter for aero purposes.



Very interesting...I know GE have said that the GE9X will be "slightly heavier" than the GE90-115B, but did not quote any figures...do you have a reference for the extra 1.5T per engine or is this an informed estimate?...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:06 am

Excellent discussion.

With any aircraft size a manufacturer can choose between the following design compromise:

Small wing = lower empty weight
Medium wing = medium empty weight
Larger wing = higher empty weight

The bigger the wing the longer the average flight needs to be for it to be the best design choice. Boeing has clearly optimised the 777X for a longer average flight length than the 777W.

This longer optimised flight is a bad decision for the 777X freighter. In the freighter role I have seen members here question if the 777-8 freighter can match the 777F freighter. The 777F can probably carry 25T more fuel than the 777-8F with the same payload weight and hitting MTOW. In the passenger role 777-8 vs 777LR with the same payload fuel loads would be 140T vs 165T on a long haul flight. That is 17% more fuel in the old model. The newer engines and bigger wing can make up that 17% easily. But when the freighter has a 100T payload the fuel load is now 100T vs 75T. The 777-8F carries 25% less fuel. The big wing and engines can not make up that difference. The 777-8F will need to reduce payload to fly the same distance. The fuel burn per kg will then take a big hit.

In the freighter role Boeing would have been better off using the older wing with the new engines.
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:08 am

Faro wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

For reference the GE9X is shown as adding an extra 3t per aircraft and has a slightly higher diameter for aero purposes.



Very interesting...I know GE have said that the GE9X will be "slightly heavier" than the GE90-115B, but did not quote any figures...do you have a reference for the extra 1.5T per engine or is this an informed estimate?...


Faro

It's more absorbed information, I think it came from the emirates 779X thread but the weight is a difficult thing to find.

Fred
Image
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:22 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Excellent discussion.

With any aircraft size a manufacturer can choose between the following design compromise:

Small wing = lower empty weight
Medium wing = medium empty weight
Larger wing = higher empty weight

The bigger the wing the longer the average flight needs to be for it to be the best design choice. Boeing has clearly optimised the 777X for a longer average flight length than the 777W.

This longer optimised flight is a bad decision for the 777X freighter. In the freighter role I have seen members here question if the 777-8 freighter can match the 777F freighter. The 777F can probably carry 25T more fuel than the 777-8F with the same payload weight and hitting MTOW. In the passenger role 777-8 vs 777LR with the same payload fuel loads would be 140T vs 165T on a long haul flight. That is 17% more fuel in the old model. The newer engines and bigger wing can make up that 17% easily. But when the freighter has a 100T payload the fuel load is now 100T vs 75T. The 777-8F carries 25% less fuel. The big wing and engines can not make up that difference. The 777-8F will need to reduce payload to fly the same distance. The fuel burn per kg will then take a big hit.

In the freighter role Boeing would have been better off using the older wing with the new engines.


I totally agree on the freighter point, with the new heavy wing you are squeezing the point between OWE and MTOW giving a smaller window in which to put your payload and fuel combination.
With regard to the "longer optimised flight" part I think there has developed a synonym between longer range and heavier weight (understandably) A long flight could almost be described as two flights, a heavier one and a lighter one. in the example I used with 50t payload the aircraft was hitting FL410 at the end of the flight, if the payload was much reduced it would be flying at a height not selected for its efficient operation but limited due to its certification. I don't think the wings relative benefit is so much on the long flights but the heavy ones, the MZFW limited type...

I'll do some analysis on this today. (the beauty of having the model is that it takes 2 mins to set up and then 20 mins to do its thing while I get on with my real job).

Fred
Image
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:42 pm

LH707330 wrote:


Ok, so if it's the same trip burn and 12% more pax, can't you argue that the new wing gives you ~12% benefit over the old wing? Your 774ER chart seems to show this.



The official 2-class passenger count for 77W is 396 in a 10-abreast configuration (Boeing's website). 779's longer fuselage added 20 more seats, that's 5% more seats. The 12% seating difference can be obtained by assuming a 9-abreast 77W vs the 779. This has nothing to do with the wing.

This means the weight of the longer fuselage and bigger wing cancels out the benefit of the higher L/D. As a result, the wings of 779 got 5% more seats for free.

---

Flipdewaf,

If we assume a fuselage weight of 2.3 ton per meter, can we see the performance of a hypothetical 77X that kept the fuselage length of 77W? In other words, a 779 with a DOW of 177t (assuming it would be 2.9m shorter than 779) and a shorter fuselage (for less parasitic drag).

I guess the fuel burn here would illustrate the the difference the newer wing can bring.
 
Sokes
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:59 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
...
Similar to the previous charts this really shows that the engine makes the difference here with the 77W+GE9X having very close to the same fuel usage as the 779X.

The wing of the 779X allows the aircraft to effectively add the stretch to the 77W for zero fuel cost, certainly not an insignificant factor but by far the bulk of the fuel savings are coming from the engines.

The new wing does not make the aircraft any more effective at the heavy loads at long range and arguably the simple engine change would allow a higher margin for fuel capacity at ranges above MZFW.


You say "The new wing does not make the aircraft any more effective at the heavy loads at long range". As I read that the B777-300ER close to MTOW hangs around in rather low altitude, I struggle to believe that. But then I'm not qualified enough to say you are wrong. Also for some reason my computer doesn't show your graphs. Anyway how does it fit to the observation above, that the wing gives the stretch for zero fuel cost?

I believe the idea behind B777X is to increase MTOW and engine thrust massively after some years.
The B777-F is 63,73m long. Fully loaded it can fly 4970nm. That's pretty exact Seattle-Shanghai, but then one needs reserves.
The B777-8 will be 69,8m.
The B777-9 has OEW of 181,4 t and max payload of 73,5 t. What MTOW is required if one wants to fly with full belly from Seattle to at least Shanghai?
A330 and B777 got a lot of improvements over the years. What about a B777-8F with 380t MTOW?
Quite likely you are right that for 351 t MTOW Boeing takes unnecessary trouble.

flipdewaf wrote:
...
The elephant in the room is Takeoff performance. If the fuel use is effectively identical between the 779X and 77W with GE9x then the Empty weight difference of ~13t can remain. Would the [email protected] 337T be able to cope with 105klb engines?, when does it need the full 115klb? could the GE9X produce this?
Fred


I don't know if engine thrust would be enough. As stated earlier I believe the new engine will get higher thrusts later on.
I remember a a-net discussion that in Dubai heat the B777-300ER gets maximum tyre speed problems. Therefore the plane sometimes has to start at reduced MTOW.
"At the November 2013 Dubai Airshow ... 259 orders and commitments for US$95 billion at list prices. This was the largest commercial aircraft launch by dollar
value with Emirates ordering 150, Qatar Airways 50, and Etihad Airways 25, in addition to the September 2013 Lufthansa commitment for 34 aircraft."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X
So beside having a high payload transpacific plane the B777-X may have been planned as a Middle Eastern plane. They needed a new wing more than a new engine.

If it will be impossible to fit landing gears/ tyres for a strongly increased MTOW, please let me know.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:29 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
The elephant in the room is Takeoff performance. If the fuel use is effectively identical between the 779X and 77W with GE9x then the Empty weight difference of ~13t can remain. Would the [email protected] 337T be able to cope with 105klb engines?, when does it need the full 115klb? could the GE9X produce this?

I found this quite interesting to look at if somewhat indulgent. Hopefully you will critique and discuss.

Fred


777-300ER takeoff performance with the GE9X certainly is the elephant in the room with regard to your study. Takeoff performance is much more complex to calculate than mission fuel burn. I've done some estimates based on the Boeing Airport Compatibility Document D6-58329-2 and the Takeoff Performance data shown in Fig 3.3.10.

From this chart for S.L., IAS + 15deg C:
Flaps 20
TOGW: 337t
F.L.: 9,800 ft (GE90-115)
F.L.: 10,750 ft (GE9X) estimate based on the lower T/W.

MTOGW: 351.5t
F.L.: 10,500 ft (GE90-115)

Unfortunately, it looks like the -300ER (GE9X) at Flaps 20 would be 2nd Segment Climb limited at 328.7t. Takeoff at 337t would mean a Flap 15 takeoff. It appears this would add about 800 ft to the takeoff distance.

Flaps 15
TOGW: 337T
F.L.: 11,550 ft (E9X) estimate based on the lower T/W and lower Flap setting.

so the -300ER(GE9X) combination @ 337t would mean a 1050 ft takeoff distance increase compared to the -300ER(GE90-115B) @ 351.5t.

For the 777-9, the 10.8% span increase moves the 2nd Segment Climb limit beyond 351.5t and the 18% wing area increase lowers the takeoff speeds at 351.5t.

Takeoff distance for the 777-9X is estimated to be:
Flaps 20
MTOGW: 351.5t
F.L.: 9,750 ft.

so the -9(GE9X) combination @ 351.5t would mean a 750 ft takeoff distance decrease compared to the -300ER(GE90-115B) @ 351.5t.

These data show why Boeing grew the 777-9 wing area.

With the -300ER wing, a GE9X powered airplane is probably uncompetitive in terms of takeoff performance.

With the -9 wing, a GE9X powered airplane has better takeoff performance than a -300ER wing airplane with the GE90-115.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
LH707330
Posts: 2189
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:17 pm

Couple thoughts regarding the "less efficient altitude" idea:

1. The pressure changes will give you a little bit better TAS, but I'm not sure how to model compressibility at transonic speeds and how much of an effect it has
2. The temperature lapse rate stays at roughly 2*/1k feet until around 36k, depending on where in the atmosphere you are, so ceteris paribus you get a better delta-T and thus more efficient combustion in your engines.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3820
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:41 am

flipdewaf wrote:
A simple question I suppose but one that probably has more to do with specific customer requirements than we will or can ever know.

From a relative lay-persons perspective I can see that the extremely successful 777-300ER program delivers an aircraft which on the face of it has significant compromises in terms of geometry and wing sizing giving a less than ideal initial cruise altitude and often limiting runway performance but yet airlines wanted to buy...

Without muddying the waters too much with the complexity so oft used for obfuscation purposes around these parts the takeoff distance requirements are driven by two major factors.
1.Wing loading (W/S) Lift required per unit area of wing which effectively drives how fast you have to go before you can take off
2.Thrust to weight ratio (T/W) The amount of thrust per unit of weight of mass of the aircraft which drives how fast you get to the required speeds.
With this in mind an increase in weight has a square law effect on the takeoff distance and this can be counteracted by an increase in wing area and/or thrust.
2 drivers but 3 variables. We see this scenario play out time an time again, we see an MTOW increase and a corresponding thrust increase as planform is normally hard to change.

For attainable altitudes then the drivers are based on:
1. Excess thrust available
2. Excess lift available to the buffet margin.

Excess thrust availability comes from either increased thrust or reduced drag.
Excess lift availability is a more complex situation with the buffet margin being determined by the compressability affects over the wings. In essence the higher the mach the greater the compressability affects but also the higher the lift coefficient is the higher the effects of the buffet.
In order to have excess lift available one can do several things.
1. reduce the lift required (make it lighter, this effect can be seen over the course of a flight where the step climbs occur.)
2. Increase the lift available
a.Make the wing bigger
b.Make the wing thinner
c.Design the wing to handle transonic flow better (this isn't low hanging fruit)

When we look at the above observations we can see that for an aircraft like the 77W (or indeed the A321) there is a mismatch between what the aircraft has to do to be able to get off the ground vs what it is then capable of when it gets in the air, i.e. the excess thrust required to be able to get the thing in the air is wasted when it gets up to cruise levels as the wing is more limiting on its ability to reach altitude than the engine (why we talk about wing limited vs engine limited altitude) in an ideal world the engine and wing would be matched.

With the upgrade of the 777 offering from the 77W/L going to the 778/9 X then the approach Boeing has taken has been to:
1. Update/upgrade the engine offering
2. Lengthen the fuselage (contour the walls as well)
3. Update the wing including a major change to its overall dimensions.

Whilst I agree that the engine upgrade was a no-brainer the part I have been thinking a lot about recently is the overall impact of the new wing and what it brings.
In very simple terms we can look at it like this.
77W
OWE = 168t
MTOW = 351.5t
Spec pax = 365
Spec range = 7370nm
OWE + pax = 168 + 36.5 = 204.5
Leaving 147t for the fuel (used or not)

779X
OWE = 184t
MTOW = 351.5t
Spec pax = 410
Spec range = 7525
OWE + Pax = 184+41 = 225t
Leaving 126t for fuel

Whilst I wouldn't argue that the 779X is a significant step forward in this regard what part of that step is due to the engine change and what is due to the wings.
Again, a very simple analysis of the problem would be to calculate the maximum range one can simply use the improvement in SFC as a crude guide to increased range so if we simply updated the SFC the spec range would become ~8100nm for a 10% improvement in SFC.

So the issue comes down to effectively a tradeoff: Does the reduced induced drag from a lower span wise loading and the allowable gain in altitude outweigh the increase in induced drag due to increased weight and increase in drag due to larger surface area.

So to give a bit more meat to the the issue and potential discussion I ran a bit of a model with my homemade excel warrior software on a combination of factors. there are essentially 3 varients in question the standard 77W with GE90-115b, the 779X with GE9x and a 77W with GE9X engines.

I chose what I thought was a pretty representative route for this bird SIN-LHR with a 20kt headwind and 50t payload.
Image
There are certain limitations to the model but it indicates that there is very little between the 77W with GE9x and the 779X in terms of total fuel use. Of course tthere are differences in the air frames beyond wings and engines (particularly in the fuselage length) but the "closeness" is of interest.

For reference the GE9X is shown as adding an extra 3t per aircraft and has a slightly higher diameter for aero purposes. The reference SFC that Ihave used is shown.

Because the data was so close I looked a bit more closely at the raw data my model spits out rather than just the summary and the first point of call is the cruise altitude.
Image
Here we can see difference that the wing is providing on the 779X with it being able to consistently be 2-4000ft higher than the 77W. The difference the engine makes here is more subtle but because of the lower fuel usage the initial weights are lower allowing higher initial levels that converge toward the end of the flight.

If we compare weights over the course of the flight we can see how this changes.
Image
The stark difference the engine makes to the slope of the graph made by the engines is easy to see. The Range scale represents distance left to run and can be used as a relatively good proxy for Required takeoff weight to travel that range. The thicker line shows where the data was actually generated for this flight with the thinner line being and extrapolation of that data. I added a line of 348000kgs as the data showed about 3.5t of fuel to initial climb so somewhat shows effective MTOW range at this payload.

The slope in the previous graph is effectively showing fuel flow per unit of distance, as we are mostly used to seeing this in terms of fuel per time I have shown this below.
Image
The data itself looks a bit "choppy" but that is showing the cruise phases at each step. There is data available for the intermediate climbs as well as for the initial climb but these are so spiky at the times of climbing that they detract from the useful cruise data and cause trend lines to fall off. There is a clear difference between the engine types but much less distinction between the wings effect in terms of fuel flow required.

The last chart is showing the total fuel use for the trip.
Image
Similar to the previous charts this really shows that the engine makes the difference here with the 77W+GE9X having very close to the same fuel usage as the 779X.

The wing of the 779X allows the aircraft to effectively add the stretch to the 77W for zero fuel cost, certainly not an insignificant factor but by far the bulk of the fuel savings are coming from the engines.

The new wing does not make the aircraft any more effective at the heavy loads at long range and arguably the simple engine change would allow a higher margin for fuel capacity at ranges above MZFW.

The elephant in the room is Takeoff performance. If the fuel use is effectively identical between the 779X and 77W with GE9x then the Empty weight difference of ~13t can remain. Would the [email protected] 337T be able to cope with 105klb engines?, when does it need the full 115klb? could the GE9X produce this?

I found this quite interesting to look at if somewhat indulgent. Hopefully you will critique and discuss.

Fred

By expanding the wing chord they were able to reduce the takeoff thrust requirement over the 777-300ER which will overall make the airplane more efficient,
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:54 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The elephant in the room is Takeoff performance. If the fuel use is effectively identical between the 779X and 77W with GE9x then the Empty weight difference of ~13t can remain. Would the [email protected] 337T be able to cope with 105klb engines?, when does it need the full 115klb? could the GE9X produce this?

I found this quite interesting to look at if somewhat indulgent. Hopefully you will critique and discuss.

Fred


777-300ER takeoff performance with the GE9X certainly is the elephant in the room with regard to your study. Takeoff performance is much more complex to calculate than mission fuel burn. I've done some estimates based on the Boeing Airport Compatibility Document D6-58329-2 and the Takeoff Performance data shown in Fig 3.3.10.

From this chart for S.L., IAS + 15deg C:
Flaps 20
TOGW: 337t
F.L.: 9,800 ft (GE90-115)
F.L.: 10,750 ft (GE9X) estimate based on the lower T/W.

MTOGW: 351.5t
F.L.: 10,500 ft (GE90-115)

Unfortunately, it looks like the -300ER (GE9X) at Flaps 20 would be 2nd Segment Climb limited at 328.7t. Takeoff at 337t would mean a Flap 15 takeoff. It appears this would add about 800 ft to the takeoff distance.

Flaps 15
TOGW: 337T
F.L.: 11,550 ft (E9X) estimate based on the lower T/W and lower Flap setting.

so the -300ER(GE9X) combination @ 337t would mean a 1050 ft takeoff distance increase compared to the -300ER(GE90-115B) @ 351.5t.

For the 777-9, the 10.8% span increase moves the 2nd Segment Climb limit beyond 351.5t and the 18% wing area increase lowers the takeoff speeds at 351.5t.

Takeoff distance for the 777-9X is estimated to be:
Flaps 20
MTOGW: 351.5t
F.L.: 9,750 ft.

so the -9(GE9X) combination @ 351.5t would mean a 750 ft takeoff distance decrease compared to the -300ER(GE90-115B) @ 351.5t.

These data show why Boeing grew the 777-9 wing area.

With the -300ER wing, a GE9X powered airplane is probably uncompetitive in terms of takeoff performance.

With the -9 wing, a GE9X powered airplane has better takeoff performance than a -300ER wing airplane with the GE90-115.


Thanks For the analysis on the takeoff, this is very interesting and does indeed show why they needed the wing.

Not sure of the relevance but does the higher maximum thrust output (134klb) that was tested and released by GE recently show that there is room for growth in the engine to thrust levels of the -115b or is that something that will not scale linearly (higher max /= higher in use thrust).

Sokes wrote:

You say "The new wing does not make the aircraft any more effective at the heavy loads at long range". As I read that the B777-300ER close to MTOW hangs around in rather low altitude, I struggle to believe that. But then I'm not qualified enough to say you are wrong.


That's the piece that I really wanted to investigate, the high wing loading on the 77W and A321NEOLR don't seem to hamper their long range performance and it seems to almost have developed into a sort of folk lore. It may make some effect but the noise this generates around these parts is much higher than the actual impact.

Fred
Image
 
Sokes
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:26 am

flipdewaf wrote:
...the wing loading on the 77W and A321NEOLR don't seem to hamper their long range performance and it seems to almost have developed into a sort of folk lore. It may make some effect but the noise this generates around these parts is much higher than the actual impact.

Fred

" Its design offers 4,700 nmi (8,700 km) of range and features a new permanent Rear Centre Tank (RCT) for more fuel, a strengthened landing gear for a 101 t (223,000 lb) MTOW, and an optimised wing trailing-edge flap to preserve take-off performance.[95] The RCT will hold 12,900 l (3,400 US gal) of fuel, the equivalent of four 3,121 l (824 US gal) current ACTs, while it weighs like one and takes up the space of two"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ly#A321XLR

From 8.7.19:
"... the new A321neo derivative will have a range of 4,700nm and capacity for 270 passengers ...
For the A321XLR, meanwhile, Airbus has secured 15 customers – all but one an airline – who are taking a combined 249 aircraft. Of these, 112 – 45% – are conversions from previous orders."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... en-459501/

Considering what this plane could theoretically do in the transatlantic market and that the new tank is lighter and needs less space than the many old tanks, I don't find 249 aircraft dramatic. Wiki says 3914 A320Neo and 2686 A321Neo are on order. Customers aren't rushing for conversions, the NMA is still discussed.
Did B757 user order the A321XLR?

I guess the sum of increased fuel and increased engine maintenance limits attractiveness.
B777-300ER was competing against whom? It can't compete against A350.
I think A380 also has high wing loading.
Again, I'm not qualified, but I assume the wing loading does have a strong impact.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:55 pm

Sokes wrote:
B777-300ER was competing against whom? It can't compete against A350.
I think A380 also has high wing loading.


To answer these statements in two parts:

The B777-300ER was competing against the A340-600. It did rather well in this regard, out-selling its competition at an approximate 8:1 ratio.

Let's look at the wing loading of some long range airplanes. Pardon me if I use the English system here. I normally deal quite well in Metric dimensions but wing loading in Kg/M^2 is a bit awkward for me. Data are from Wikipedia for easy checking and wing area consistency (I hope).

MTOW - 1000 LB
747-400 910
A340-300 610
A340-600 840
777-300ER 775
A380 1268
747-8 987
A350-1000 696.7
777-9 775

Wing Area - FT^2
747-400 5650
A340-300 3908
A340-600 4707
777-300ER 4702
A380 9100
747-8 5960
A350-1000 4998
777-9 5562

Wing Loading at MTOW - LB/FT^2
747-400 161
A340-300 156
A340-600 178
777-300ER 165
A380 139
747-8 166
A350-1000 139
777-9 139

Of these long range airplanes, the A380, A350-1000 and 777-9 have the lowest wing loadings that are remarkably similar. Compared to other long range airplanes, their wing loadings are 16% to 28% lower.

There is a notable difference in Aspect Ratio between these three, with the A380 lagging badly:

Aspect Ratio
A380 7.53
A350-1000 9.03
777-9 9.96
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Sokes
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:28 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Sokes wrote:
B777-300ER was competing against whom? It can't compete against A350.
I think A380 also has high wing loading.


To answer these statements in two parts:

The B777-300ER was competing against the A340-600. It did rather well in this regard, out-selling its competition at an approximate 8:1 ratio.

Wing Loading at MTOW - LB/FT^2
747-400 161
A340-300 156
A340-600 178
777-300ER 165
A380 139
747-8 166
A350-1000 139
777-9 139

Of these long range airplanes, the A380, A350-1000 and 777-9 have the lowest wing loadings that are remarkably similar. Compared to other long range airplanes, their wing loadings are 16% to 28% lower.

There is a notable difference in Aspect Ratio between these three, with the A380 lagging badly:

Aspect Ratio
A380 7.53
A350-1000 9.03
777-9 9.96

Good post. Thanks for the effort.
You got me here. I had A380/ B747 in mind. You are right, of course. That apart it proves the point that wing loading matters. Or maybe not, considering A380?
Is wing loading or wing span (aspect ratio) more important?

"I think..." is something I should avoid in future.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3366
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:36 pm

To answer a frequent question as why can’t airliners cruise at higher flight levels, the new Global 7500 has a wing loading of 91 pounds/square foot and an AR of 12.06. Balanced field length at MTOW is 5,900’ and initial cruise at M.88-M.90 is F410 or F430. You can guess what a wing would look like to do that on a B777X.

GF
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:31 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Sokes wrote:
B777-300ER was competing against whom? It can't compete against A350.
I think A380 also has high wing loading.


To answer these statements in two parts:

The B777-300ER was competing against the A340-600. It did rather well in this regard, out-selling its competition at an approximate 8:1 ratio.

Let's look at the wing loading of some long range airplanes. Pardon me if I use the English system here. I normally deal quite well in Metric dimensions but wing loading in Kg/M^2 is a bit awkward for me. Data are from Wikipedia for easy checking and wing area consistency (I hope).

MTOW - 1000 LB
747-400 910
A340-300 610
A340-600 840
777-300ER 775
A380 1268
747-8 987
A350-1000 696.7
777-9 775

Wing Area - FT^2
747-400 5650
A340-300 3908
A340-600 4707
777-300ER 4702
A380 9100
747-8 5960
A350-1000 4998
777-9 5562

Wing Loading at MTOW - LB/FT^2
747-400 161
A340-300 156
A340-600 178
777-300ER 165
A380 139
747-8 166
A350-1000 139
777-9 139

Of these long range airplanes, the A380, A350-1000 and 777-9 have the lowest wing loadings that are remarkably similar. Compared to other long range airplanes, their wing loadings are 16% to 28% lower.

There is a notable difference in Aspect Ratio between these three, with the A380 lagging badly:

Aspect Ratio
A380 7.53
A350-1000 9.03
777-9 9.96


Airbus and Boeing use different methods for calculating wing areas, and hence their published wing area figures can’t be compared head to head.

This means the wing loading and aspect ratios comparisons using the published figured will be slightly inaccurate, especially when the figures are very close to each other. We can still get a general idea though.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:56 pm

Sokes wrote:

You are right, of course. That apart it proves the point that wing loading matters. Or maybe not, considering A380?
Is wing loading or wing span (aspect ratio) more important?

"I think..." is something I should avoid in future.


Wing loading plays a different role in performance than wing span, it comes down to the objective of the design and how it is optimized.

Since lift = weight at cruise, and since wing loading = weight/ wing area, using the lift equation we get the following:

Air density = (2 * gravity * wing loading) / ( speed^2 * lift coefficient).

This means, assuming a fixed lift coefficient, a lower wing loading allows for a lower air density, and hence a higher altitude. This can be seen when the A380 can cruise at higher altitudes initially than say the 77W.

The problem with the A380 is its very high span loading, and that increases its induced drag significantly ( it is more accurate to use span loading than aspect ratio when discussing induced drag). To get a better picture, A380 has a span that is longer than 779 by 12.7%, yet its weight is greater by 63.8%. That difference is no joke.

Airplane design is all about optimizing different parameters. A single parameter can never be taken in isolation. It is perfect to get the span as long as possible to get a very high aspect ratio, but the weight penalty might simply offset any gain and alter all other parameters.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:25 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
Airbus and Boeing use different methods for calculating wing areas, and hence their published wing area figures can’t be compared head to head.

This means the wing loading and aspect ratios comparisons using the published figured will be slightly inaccurate, especially when the figures are very close to each other. We can still get a general idea though.


Yes, I know.

That's why I said:

"Data are from Wikipedia for easy checking and wing area consistency (I hope)."

The Wikipedia areas don't appear to match exactly either the Airbus or Boeing methods. I hope the Wiki article writers are using a consistent wing area calculation. As you say, the general comparisons are pretty indicative.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:30 pm

Eyad89 wrote:

Wing loading plays a different role in performance than wing span, it comes down to the objective of the design and how it is optimized.

Since lift = weight at cruise, and since wing loading = weight/ wing area, using the lift equation we get the following:

Air density = (2 * gravity * wing loading) / ( speed^2 * lift coefficient).

This means, assuming a fixed lift coefficient, a lower wing loading allows for a lower air density, and hence a higher altitude. This can be seen when the A380 can cruise at higher altitudes initially than say the 77W.

The problem with the A380 is its very high span loading, and that increases its induced drag significantly ( it is more accurate to use span loading than aspect ratio when discussing induced drag). To get a better picture, A380 has a span that is longer than 779 by 12.7%, yet its weight is greater by 63.8%. That difference is no joke.

Airplane design is all about optimizing different parameters. A single parameter can never be taken in isolation. It is perfect to get the span as long as possible to get a very high aspect ratio, but the weight penalty might simply offset any gain and alter all other parameters.


Good post.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Sokes
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:17 am

Eyad89 wrote:

Air density = (2 * gravity * wing loading) / ( speed^2 * lift coefficient).

This means, assuming a fixed lift coefficient, a lower wing loading allows for a lower air density, and hence a higher altitude. This can be seen when the A380 can cruise at higher altitudes initially than say the 77W.

The problem with the A380 is its very high span loading, and that increases its induced drag significantly ( it is more accurate to use span loading than aspect ratio when discussing induced drag). To get a better picture, A380 has a span that is longer than 779 by 12.7%, yet its weight is greater by 63.8%. That difference is no joke.

Airplane design is all about optimizing different parameters. A single parameter can never be taken in isolation. It is perfect to get the span as long as possible to get a very high aspect ratio, but the weight penalty might simply offset any gain and alter all other parameters.


I liked your answer so much that I saved it in a word document.
The A380 wing looks funny. I assume
a) if one already has so much induced drag, one should at least fly in lower air density
b) volume for fuel is needed

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stan ... d_604.html says about air density:
30.000ft:8,91
35.000ft:7,38 (-17%)
40.000ft:5,87 (-34/ -20%)

The difference looks dramatic.
If induced drag mostly depends on span loading a broad wing should be o.k. Does the lift coefficient get worse with broader wings? Otherwise a broad wing seems like an advantage to me. Which is of course not how planes are built. Or to be more specific how the B777-300ER was built. What am I missing?
Turboprops have so low wing loading that bad weather gives a bumpy ride. Do they need such long wings mostly because low air speed limits lift or mostly because they need to reduce induced drag?
Shouldn't the A330Neo with 65m wing and low cruise speed mach 0,82 = 870 km/h be fuel saving? Or does the usual rule "forget the plane, see the engine" apply?

I once read that for wind turbine blades double the length utilizes the wind in four times the area, but needs eight times the material for the structure.
Anybody knows if same is true for plane wings?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:16 am

Sokes wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:

Air density = (2 * gravity * wing loading) / ( speed^2 * lift coefficient).

This means, assuming a fixed lift coefficient, a lower wing loading allows for a lower air density, and hence a higher altitude. This can be seen when the A380 can cruise at higher altitudes initially than say the 77W.

The problem with the A380 is its very high span loading, and that increases its induced drag significantly ( it is more accurate to use span loading than aspect ratio when discussing induced drag). To get a better picture, A380 has a span that is longer than 779 by 12.7%, yet its weight is greater by 63.8%. That difference is no joke.

Airplane design is all about optimizing different parameters. A single parameter can never be taken in isolation. It is perfect to get the span as long as possible to get a very high aspect ratio, but the weight penalty might simply offset any gain and alter all other parameters.


I liked your answer so much that I saved it in a word document.
The A380 wing looks funny. I assume
a) if one already has so much induced drag, one should at least fly in lower air density
b) volume for fuel is needed

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stan ... d_604.html says about air density:
30.000ft:8,91
35.000ft:7,38 (-17%)
40.000ft:5,87 (-34/ -20%)

The difference looks dramatic.
If induced drag mostly depends on span loading a broad wing should be o.k. Does the lift coefficient get worse with broader wings? Otherwise a broad wing seems like an advantage to me. Which is of course not how planes are built. Or to be more specific how the B777-300ER was built. What am I missing?
Turboprops have so low wing loading that bad weather gives a bumpy ride. Do they need such long wings mostly because low air speed limits lift or mostly because they need to reduce induced drag?
Shouldn't the A330Neo with 65m wing and low cruise speed mach 0,82 = 870 km/h be fuel saving? Or does the usual rule "forget the plane, see the engine" apply?

I once read that for wind turbine blades double the length utilizes the wind in four times the area, but needs eight times the material for the structure.
Anybody knows if same is true for plane wings?


Lift coefficient is basically a non-dimensionalised version of lift. It is useful for modelling and experimental purposes as it allows comparisons and predictions made of differing scales and velocities. The equation for lift coefficient (Cl) = Lift/(1/2* Density * Velocity^2 * Reference Area). Lift coefficient isn't affected by span only the variables in the equation. the things that will change with geometry is the drag and the weight and whilst each of those things can e simplified in to easy to understand chunks it is the interplay between them that can be confusing and if you take one in isolation then you will make erroneous/incorrect claims.

Its hard to determine how the wing weight will be affected as there are lots of things at play. if you change one thing what else changes/stays the same. i.e. if you increase span are you decresding chord to keep the area the same and if so are you keeping the thickness the same or reducing to maintain t/c. I do have a little spreadsheet in the works that shows the interplay between these things, when its suitable I will show on here.

I used to have from my university days a poster that made fun of the different disciplines involved in aircraft design and how they would design the plane if locked away from the others.
The engine designer had a huge high bypass engine with tiny wings and a pilot perched on top.
The Aero designer had a big glider
the cabin designer had a train with wings
The structure guy had a plane made of girders
The control guys had a dart with canards and the pilots had a cup holder

Fred
Image
 
Sokes
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:13 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
...
Air density = (2 * gravity * wing loading) / ( speed^2 * lift coefficient)
...

...
If induced drag mostly depends on span loading a broad wing should be o.k. Does the lift coefficient get worse with broader wings? Otherwise a broad wing seems like an advantage to me. Which is of course not how planes are built. Or to be more specific how the B777-300ER was built. What am I missing?
...


...The equation for lift coefficient (Cl) = Lift/(1/2* Density * Velocity^2 * Reference Area). Lift coefficient isn't affected by span only the variables in the equation. the things that will change with geometry is the drag and the weight ...
Fred


Interesting.
As I know neither lift nor lift coefficient I can't make a sure conclusion.
I conclude (believe) that a broader wing has better lift = allows the plane to fly higher, but has more drag at same flight altitude. If my conclusion is correct, that answers my questions.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:58 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Without muddying the waters too much with the complexity so oft used for obfuscation purposes around these parts the takeoff distance requirements are driven by two major factors.
1.Wing loading (W/S) Lift required per unit area of wing which effectively drives how fast you have to go before you can take off
2.Thrust to weight ratio (T/W) The amount of thrust per unit of weight of mass of the aircraft which drives how fast you get to the required speeds.
With this in mind an increase in weight has a square law effect on the takeoff distance and this can be counteracted by an increase in wing area and/or thrust.


First, I love this question and the modelling that went into your first answer. IIRC Boeing was internally discussing whether investment in the new wing was worthwhile; hindsight may prove it not to be so.

That said, I think your technical discussion goes a bit off in listing the two primary variables (and forgive me if this has already been raised in the thread; I haven't read it all):

The takeoff thrust requirement is limited by minimum thrust with OEI at V2, which is a relatively-low speed.
At low speeds, induced drag (Di) dominates; Di is proportional to the inverse of span^2.
Therefore, the 777X should have ~25% lower Lift/Di than 77W holding speed and weight constant. Given that Di is ~90% of drag at typical V2 speeds, that implies ~22% higher L/D at takeoff.
Climb gradient at V2 with OEI is determined by (T/W) - (L/D)^-1
Therefore, for a 77W+GE9X to have the same weight at takeoff would require ~30% higher thrust, depending on your parameters for the second-order delta of thrust lapse between GE90 and GE9X.
That would imply a significantly bigger GE9X with attendant weight, drag, and mx costs.
Of course the 77W+GE9X wouldn't require the full 775k lbs MTOW, so there'd be some midpoint between my simple modelling and the true model. I'm sure Boeing did that modeling and decided the wing was worth it.

As I said, with hindsight Boeing's decision might have been the wrong one given the incremental cost of the new wing, the lackluster appeal of 777-9's primary competition (A35K), and the 779's lackluster sales figures. But I think it comes down to more than the two main variables identified in your post. Engine maintenance and - as important - GE's engine development and production costs for a larger engine, would loom very large as well as the V2 constraints I've tried to highlight.

And for the record, I believe my posting history shows that I have viewed the 777-9 as a mediocre product whose commercial viability relied on the A380 being a bad product. I have argued elsewhere that Boeing should have launched a true A380 replacement instead of 777X, as the A380 would not be able to compete.
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:22 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Therefore, for a 77W+GE9X to have the same weight at takeoff would require ~30% higher thrust, depending on your parameters for the second-order delta of thrust lapse between GE90 and GE9X.
Surely A 77W with a GE9X would need an uprated version with approximately 115,300lb of thrust... ;)

Fred
Image
 
LH707330
Posts: 2189
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:15 pm

Sokes wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:

Air density = (2 * gravity * wing loading) / ( speed^2 * lift coefficient).

This means, assuming a fixed lift coefficient, a lower wing loading allows for a lower air density, and hence a higher altitude. This can be seen when the A380 can cruise at higher altitudes initially than say the 77W.

The problem with the A380 is its very high span loading, and that increases its induced drag significantly ( it is more accurate to use span loading than aspect ratio when discussing induced drag). To get a better picture, A380 has a span that is longer than 779 by 12.7%, yet its weight is greater by 63.8%. That difference is no joke.

Airplane design is all about optimizing different parameters. A single parameter can never be taken in isolation. It is perfect to get the span as long as possible to get a very high aspect ratio, but the weight penalty might simply offset any gain and alter all other parameters.


I liked your answer so much that I saved it in a word document.
The A380 wing looks funny. I assume
a) if one already has so much induced drag, one should at least fly in lower air density
b) volume for fuel is needed

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stan ... d_604.html says about air density:
30.000ft:8,91
35.000ft:7,38 (-17%)
40.000ft:5,87 (-34/ -20%)

The difference looks dramatic.
If induced drag mostly depends on span loading a broad wing should be o.k. Does the lift coefficient get worse with broader wings? Otherwise a broad wing seems like an advantage to me. Which is of course not how planes are built. Or to be more specific how the B777-300ER was built. What am I missing?
Turboprops have so low wing loading that bad weather gives a bumpy ride. Do they need such long wings mostly because low air speed limits lift or mostly because they need to reduce induced drag?
Shouldn't the A330Neo with 65m wing and low cruise speed mach 0,82 = 870 km/h be fuel saving? Or does the usual rule "forget the plane, see the engine" apply?

I once read that for wind turbine blades double the length utilizes the wind in four times the area, but needs eight times the material for the structure.
Anybody knows if same is true for plane wings?

Turboprops have higher AR wings because the engineering trade favors it. As the cruise speeds are slower, you can have a thicker wing with less form drag, which means you can make it stronger for a given weight. Given this, you can increase AR without as much weight gain as you'd suffer from a thinner wing. As you alluded to, the A330/340 wing was designed this way very deliberately, with a T/C of .12, as opposed to the .08/.09 of competing designs. The tradeoff was lower cruise speed, but the aerodynamics of it were stellar for the time. That wing has almost the same span as a 747 classic, and about 60% of the area.

Regarding the wind turbine thing, that's called the square-cube law: areas scale as the square of the linear dimensions, structure (and hence weight) scale as the cube. This also applies to planes.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:26 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Therefore, for a 77W+GE9X to have the same weight at takeoff would require ~30% higher thrust, depending on your parameters for the second-order delta of thrust lapse between GE90 and GE9X.
Surely A 77W with a GE9X would need an uprated version with approximately 115,300lb of thrust... ;)

Fred


SLS thrust would have to be higher than 115,300lbs at equal MTOW. Why? GE9X has less overspeed than GE90 (lower overspeed is whole ballgame for higher propulsive efficiency). Due to greater thrust lapse from lower overspeed, a 115k GE9X would have less thrust at the same V2 speed than does the GE90. In fact, the GE9X-115 would be weaker than GE90-115 from the moment the plane starts rolling. This is why, for example, the NMA needs 50k SLS thrust - more than you'd expect from the fundamentals if you don't look at lower overspeed and therefore greater thrust lapse.

10% lower SFC is going to save ~30,000lbs fuel load for the brochure max-range mission. Depending on the final weight delta of the GE9X and extra fuel attributable to extra drag, you might end up with lower MTOW on 77W+GE9X, which would then involve a loop to figure how big a GE9X you'd really need. I'd be surprised if it were less than 115k though, unless you add winglets.

...winglets+GE9X might have been the way to go, though.
Last edited by Matt6461 on Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:35 am

LH707330 wrote:
As the cruise speeds are slower, you can have a thicker wing with less form drag, which means you can make it stronger for a given weight.


I once tried to pencil out the cost/benefit of thicker, lighter wings versus higher wing form drag.
From those two parameters I couldn't see why every airplane wing isn't twice as thick - it takes a lot of wing form drag to get even -5% L/D delta; saving 50% of wing weight will more than balance that cost especially as it enables higher AR.

What gives?
I wasn't accounting for wave drag; which rises exponentially in the critical mach region.
As the critical mach number for transonic wings depends on their thickness (and technology level, lift coefficient...), wing thickness for transonic airliners is all about wave drag - specifically avoiding a 10% delta to total drag by going a couple clicks faster.. The form drag part of this tradeoff is nearly insignificant.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2189
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:13 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
As the cruise speeds are slower, you can have a thicker wing with less form drag, which means you can make it stronger for a given weight.


I once tried to pencil out the cost/benefit of thicker, lighter wings versus higher wing form drag.
From those two parameters I couldn't see why every airplane wing isn't twice as thick - it takes a lot of wing form drag to get even -5% L/D delta; saving 50% of wing weight will more than balance that cost especially as it enables higher AR.

What gives?
I wasn't accounting for wave drag; which rises exponentially in the critical mach region.
As the critical mach number for transonic wings depends on their thickness (and technology level, lift coefficient...), wing thickness for transonic airliners is all about wave drag - specifically avoiding a 10% delta to total drag by going a couple clicks faster.. The form drag part of this tradeoff is nearly insignificant.

That explains a lot. I wonder if the improved CFD tools have enabled the optimum to go to .85 in the later generations with less of a wave drag penalty. Or, put differently, why was the 330/340 wing was the only one designed to be thicker and a bit slower in exchange for a much better AR?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:52 pm

LH707330 wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
As the cruise speeds are slower, you can have a thicker wing with less form drag, which means you can make it stronger for a given weight.


I once tried to pencil out the cost/benefit of thicker, lighter wings versus higher wing form drag.
From those two parameters I couldn't see why every airplane wing isn't twice as thick - it takes a lot of wing form drag to get even -5% L/D delta; saving 50% of wing weight will more than balance that cost especially as it enables higher AR.

What gives?
I wasn't accounting for wave drag; which rises exponentially in the critical mach region.
As the critical mach number for transonic wings depends on their thickness (and technology level, lift coefficient...), wing thickness for transonic airliners is all about wave drag - specifically avoiding a 10% delta to total drag by going a couple clicks faster.. The form drag part of this tradeoff is nearly insignificant.

That explains a lot. I wonder if the improved CFD tools have enabled the optimum to go to .85 in the later generations with less of a wave drag penalty. Or, put differently, why was the 330/340 wing was the only one designed to be thicker and a bit slower in exchange for a much better AR?


It remains the case that lower critical mach numbers enable a lighter, more fuel-efficient plane. Most "green" future plane proposals from NASA/EASA specify cruise at ~.75-.80.

The biggest change has been the evolution of aerofoils from the old "peaky" designs to modern supercritical designs.

Image

There are tons of articles on this on the web. As you can hopefully see from this quick graphic, the supercritical design works by moving the shockwave aft on the wing. This has two big benefits AFAICS: (1) it means a weaker shockwave that covers less of the wing's surface area and therefore creates less functional wave drag, (2) it allows a thicker overall wing, especially in the forward part of the airfoil that contains the majority of the structural profile.

A more modern wing is, somewhat counter-intuitively, thicker than a less-modern wing. That costs a bit of wing form drag but, again, it's an easy tradeoff. This is why, for example, the MAX-8 has fuel volume for TATL missions while the A320 requires auxiliary tanks: The MAX uses the NG's mid-90's wing while the NEO uses a 1980's wing that is thinner and therefore has less fuel volume.

I don't think that necessarily explains the A330's lower cruise versus modern airliners. Remember that the 747 is actually the fastest-cruising airliner and is a couple decades older. Rather, I'd guess it's a design tradeoff of fuel efficiency and structural weight against cruise mach. The A330 would show greater fuel disparity against the 787 if they had equal cruise mach. A330's choice, however, is hard to argue with at current fuel prices.
 
flipdewaf
Topic Author
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:01 pm

747 has a high sweep so counteracts the high Mach number that way. A higher swept wing is heavier because it has a higher structural span.

I believe the A330/40 has the thicker wing because they intended to have a simpler single slotted flap system and not have the need for the high speed (inboard) aileron. This system gave a simpler uninterrupted flap that was as powerful as the double and sometime triple slotted flaps that Boeing were using. The downside was that if you intended to use thin wings with only outboard ailerons then at high speed the wing box wasn’t able to cope with the torque generated and the aileron effectively became a control tab on an ‘all flying’ control surface and you get roll control reversal.

Re engine over speed thrust, yes there would be a bit of that needing to be taken in to account but nowhere near 30% increase (~20% over current 115klb level).

I really need to sort out my takeoff model properly and thought I would be able to do it on my trip to Australia but it turns out Etihad business is less conducive to work and more conducive to drink and sleep( posting from Abu Dhabi lounge).

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Sokes
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:04 pm

LH707330 wrote:
As the cruise speeds are slower, you can have a thicker wing with less form drag, which means you can make it stronger for a given weight. Given this, you can increase AR without as much weight gain as you'd suffer from a thinner wing. As you alluded to, the A330/340 wing was designed this way very deliberately, with a T/C of .12, as opposed to the .08/.09 of competing designs. The tradeoff was lower cruise speed, but the aerodynamics of it were stellar for the time.


I had to look up what is T/C. It's maximum thickness of the wing/ chord. Chord is an imagined straight line from the (front) leading edge to the (back) trailing edge.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/geom.html

I would have assumed that a thicker wing has more form drag. Do you mean at lower speeds form drag can be lower even with a slightly thicker wing?
That's what "The tradeoff was lower cruise speed... " suggests.

Thanks for the info about turboprops. That explains it.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:48 am

Matt6461 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

I once tried to pencil out the cost/benefit of thicker, lighter wings versus higher wing form drag.
From those two parameters I couldn't see why every airplane wing isn't twice as thick - it takes a lot of wing form drag to get even -5% L/D delta; saving 50% of wing weight will more than balance that cost especially as it enables higher AR.

What gives?
I wasn't accounting for wave drag; which rises exponentially in the critical mach region.
As the critical mach number for transonic wings depends on their thickness (and technology level, lift coefficient...), wing thickness for transonic airliners is all about wave drag - specifically avoiding a 10% delta to total drag by going a couple clicks faster.. The form drag part of this tradeoff is nearly insignificant.

That explains a lot. I wonder if the improved CFD tools have enabled the optimum to go to .85 in the later generations with less of a wave drag penalty. Or, put differently, why was the 330/340 wing was the only one designed to be thicker and a bit slower in exchange for a much better AR?


It remains the case that lower critical mach numbers enable a lighter, more fuel-efficient plane. Most "green" future plane proposals from NASA/EASA specify cruise at ~.75-.80.

The biggest change has been the evolution of aerofoils from the old "peaky" designs to modern supercritical designs.

Image

There are tons of articles on this on the web. As you can hopefully see from this quick graphic, the supercritical design works by moving the shockwave aft on the wing. This has two big benefits AFAICS: (1) it means a weaker shockwave that covers less of the wing's surface area and therefore creates less functional wave drag, (2) it allows a thicker overall wing, especially in the forward part of the airfoil that contains the majority of the structural profile.

A more modern wing is, somewhat counter-intuitively, thicker than a less-modern wing. That costs a bit of wing form drag but, again, it's an easy tradeoff. This is why, for example, the MAX-8 has fuel volume for TATL missions while the A320 requires auxiliary tanks: The MAX uses the NG's mid-90's wing while the NEO uses a 1980's wing that is thinner and therefore has less fuel volume.

I don't think that necessarily explains the A330's lower cruise versus modern airliners. Remember that the 747 is actually the fastest-cruising airliner and is a couple decades older. Rather, I'd guess it's a design tradeoff of fuel efficiency and structural weight against cruise mach. The A330 would show greater fuel disparity against the 787 if they had equal cruise mach. A330's choice, however, is hard to argue with at current fuel prices.


The A330 wing is swept much less than the 747. 30 degrees vs 37.5 degrees. Could that somewhat explain the cruise speed difference?

Then again, the A350 wing is swept at 31.5 degrees and it cruises at 0.85. 20 years younger design I guess.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:45 am

Stalionblue wrote:
The A330 wing is swept much less than the 747. 30 degrees vs 37.5 degrees. Could that somewhat explain the cruise speed difference?


Yes, that's part of it for sure. Forgot to mention that element: modern airfoil design allows for less sweep at a given critical mach number (or higher mach for a given sweep).

But regardless of tech changes that made higher critical mach "cheaper" in terms of fuel burn (due to L/D and structural weight impacts), the A330 wing design would still represent a tradeoff of speed for higher fuel efficiency (as with all wings).
 
olle
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:01 am

Considering that 778 has been postponed is the new wing efficient enough to compensate tor the older frame in general?

The comparasion number mentioned in this thread showed a lower number for A350 then the 777x.
 
olle
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:04 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Sokes wrote:
B777-300ER was competing against whom? It can't compete against A350.
I think A380 also has high wing loading.


To answer these statements in two parts:

The B777-300ER was competing against the A340-600. It did rather well in this regard, out-selling its competition at an approximate 8:1 ratio.

Let's look at the wing loading of some long range airplanes. Pardon me if I use the English system here. I normally deal quite well in Metric dimensions but wing loading in Kg/M^2 is a bit awkward for me. Data are from Wikipedia for easy checking and wing area consistency (I hope).

MTOW - 1000 LB
747-400 910
A340-300 610
A340-600 840
777-300ER 775
A380 1268
747-8 987
A350-1000 696.7
777-9 775

Wing Area - FT^2
747-400 5650
A340-300 3908
A340-600 4707
777-300ER 4702
A380 9100
747-8 5960
A350-1000 4998
777-9 5562

Wing Loading at MTOW - LB/FT^2
747-400 161
A340-300 156
A340-600 178
777-300ER 165
A380 139
747-8 166
A350-1000 139
777-9 139

Of these long range airplanes, the A380, A350-1000 and 777-9 have the lowest wing loadings that are remarkably similar. Compared to other long range airplanes, their wing loadings are 16% to 28% lower.

There is a notable difference in Aspect Ratio between these three, with the A380 lagging badly:

Aspect Ratio
A380 7.53
A350-1000 9.03
777-9 9.96


Is the mtow numbers here considered the new numbers for 350 and other updates?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8485
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Did/Does the 779X need a new wing? and does it need to be so big?

Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:53 am

olle wrote:
Is the mtow numbers here considered the new numbers for 350 and other updates?


The june 1 2019 ACAPS shows
for A359 2 280t variants:
WV010 MTOW: 280 000 kg MZFW: 195 700 kg
WV013 MTOW 280 000 kg MZFW: 192 000 kg (ULR)

useable fuel is either 138kl/108.3t or ULR: 165kl/129.5t

for A3510 2 316t variants:
WV002 MTOW: 316 000 kg MZFW: 223 000 kg
WV011 MTOW: 316 000 kg MZFW: 220 000 kg

useable fuel 156kl/122.5t

This article posted june 15 2019
https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... Vk8Uh22iK4
says there is now a
WV003 MTOW: 319 000kg MZFW 223 000 kg ( actually more payload with same (122kl/96t) amount of fuel )
around too
though
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... -08-09.pdf
does not show it yet.
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fr8mech, OceanATC and 13 guests

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