User avatar
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu May 18, 2017 5:51 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I do not understand why replacement of the 747-400ER is here mixed together with looking at an small UHL fleet for special routes. You do not need the A350-900LR or 777-8 to replace a 747-400ER regarding the range, a 777-9, an 787-9, an A350-1000 or A350-900 have all the range needed, 777-9 and A350-1000 have the range and carrying capacity. One of the big reasons the 747-400ER is used on certain routes is that authorities only allow four holer on those routes.


You're conflating two issues, no one is saying that the 400ER fleet will necessarily be replaced with a niche ULH model, but it will have some bearing in the final decision. There is no way Qantas, with such a tiny long haul fleet, is going to buy both 777s and 350s, it will be one or the other and that model must be capable of also covering the market currently served by the 747.

CASA have recently relaxed their EDTO requirements so 4 engines aren't as important as they were in the past, and nontheless the 380s will be around for another decade or more.


I have not said that Qantas will both buy 777 and A350, even with an airline like LH and quite a few others doing that. The frames we are talking about here are frames for new routes you would not be able to do with a 747-400ER. So I do not understand all this talk about the ULH frames need to be able to replace the 747-400ER.


The most sensible course for Qantas would anyway be to buy A350-1000 to replace the 747-400ER and the A350-900LR for UHL and forget about the 777.



No, the most sensible course would be for QF to order the 778/779 and forget about the A350.
FriscoHeavy
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14191
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu May 18, 2017 5:53 pm

Polot wrote:
That is 39 extra inches (on the 77W) available, however, for lav/galley/closet space that may have otherwise been eating into Y/Y+/whatever room.


Newbiepilot wrote:
American has 11 rows of business class seats between doors 2 and 3 on the 77W at 43 inch pitch as well as 4 lavatories at the back of the business class cabin in front of door 3. If they had 46 inch pitch like they do on the 787, those 4 lavatories would have to be moved from in front of door 3 to behind door 3, which would result in 10 economy seats sacrificed or a 3% drop in total capacity on the 77W. Cabin width does make a difference in both business and economy classes, so that is how the 777-9 can get the higher seat counts.


Both of which prove Keejse's point - the additional cabin width of the 777 over the A350 doesn't allow AA to fit additional, high yield, premium seats per unit of length of the airframe. AA gets the same number of premium seats per metre of cabin length in an A350 as they do in a 777. In economy, the extra width equates to one seat per row, but makes no difference in J or F.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 6242
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu May 18, 2017 6:03 pm

scbriml wrote:
Both of which prove Keejse's point - the additional cabin width of the 777 over the A350 doesn't allow AA to fit additional, high yield, premium seats per unit of length of the airframe. AA gets the same number of premium seats per metre of cabin length in an A350 as they do in a 777. In economy, the extra width equates to one seat per row, but makes no difference in J or F.

Well no, it proves that AA's 77W J cabin is not big enough to slot an extra row of J seats from the angle difference between the 77W and 787. That changes if their J cabin was larger. So instead they used the space to slot in an additional row of Y (+10 seats -which is still more potential revenue even if Y) that would not have otherwise been there if the 77W had the same seat angle as the 787 at no major extra cost to AA.
 
redroo
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu May 18, 2017 11:00 pm

If you look at QF routes and what will happen to the them in the future it is clear they are going to need something small and capable and something large and capable.

The "small and capable" aircraft is needed for MEL, BNE, PER and for the thinner routes out of SYD. The 787 is perfect for this enabling them to fly from any of the capital cities to practically anywhere without having too many seats to fill. Perfect for BNE-SIN, BNE-DFW, MEL-DFW, MEL-SFO, etc, etc.

The "large and capable" aircraft is needed for SYD and the congested airports. SYD LAX is going to continue to need capacity. SYD HKG is constrained. SYD HND/NRT is constrained. I can see SYD SIN needing to up gauge soon. I cant see these routes going thinner or the capacity issues resolving anytime soon. That leaves a decision for either the A350 or the B777.

The 778 gives QF the best of both worlds without having to buy multiple A350s. It gets a much bigger plane the 787, but still with range. With the A350 it would need to buy the 900 for range and the 1000 for capacity. And for a small airline that is looking to simplify and needs range more than anything else, standardising on two similar aircraft from the same manufacturer makes the most sense... in my opinion.
 
smi0006
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Thu May 18, 2017 11:47 pm

redroo wrote:
If you look at QF routes and what will happen to the them in the future it is clear they are going to need something small and capable and something large and capable.

The "small and capable" aircraft is needed for MEL, BNE, PER and for the thinner routes out of SYD. The 787 is perfect for this enabling them to fly from any of the capital cities to practically anywhere without having too many seats to fill. Perfect for BNE-SIN, BNE-DFW, MEL-DFW, MEL-SFO, etc, etc.

The "large and capable" aircraft is needed for SYD and the congested airports. SYD LAX is going to continue to need capacity. SYD HKG is constrained. SYD HND/NRT is constrained. I can see SYD SIN needing to up gauge soon. I cant see these routes going thinner or the capacity issues resolving anytime soon. That leaves a decision for either the A350 or the B777.

The 778 gives QF the best of both worlds without having to buy multiple A350s. It gets a much bigger plane the 787, but still with range. With the A350 it would need to buy the 900 for range and the 1000 for capacity. And for a small airline that is looking to simplify and needs range more than anything else, standardising on two similar aircraft from the same manufacturer makes the most sense... in my opinion.


Is the 778 big enough long term? With QF looking to deploy 380s to SIN/HKG ex-SYD/MEL, with growth in mind and slots at all ports getting tight, I think a 779 would work to Asia and LAX both SYD/MEL, in sufficient numbers to warrant a sub fleet.
 
Taco2sDay
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 12:05 am

JFK and ORD (non stop) make sense with AA connections. Heck, ORD was announced on MEL-LAX-ORD but dropped with SARS.

Not sure what BOS brings to the table.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 4:39 am

redroo wrote:
The "large and capable" aircraft is needed for SYD and the congested airports. SYD LAX is going to continue to need capacity. SYD HKG is constrained. SYD HND/NRT is constrained. I can see SYD SIN needing to up gauge soon. I cant see these routes going thinner or the capacity issues resolving anytime soon. That leaves a decision for either the A350 or the B777.


The A380s are not going anywhere for the moment, so the high capacity trunk routes are covered. Dont see any reason why the 787 could be not the front runner for their ULH plans. Some of the cargo hold could be used to supply additional fuel volume on the 787-9&10. This would give QF the range they are looking for, with the commonality with their existing 787 investment with only a minor difference in the fuel system much like the 744 to 744ER. The ACTs on the A340 hold 5.7 t each of fuel, put two of similar capacity tanks in a 787-10 and fuel volume would increase 10+% you would end up with a very economical ULH workhorse with 36 LD3 positions underfloor (that could compete with the A350 on trip costs). On these ULH routes the underfloor capacity is hardly going to be used.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 5:39 am

zeke wrote:
The A380s are not going anywhere for the moment, so the high capacity trunk routes are covered. Dont see any reason why the 787 could be not the front runner for their ULH plans. Some of the cargo hold could be used to supply additional fuel volume on the 787-9&10. This would give QF the range they are looking for, with the commonality with their existing 787 investment with only a minor difference in the fuel system much like the 744 to 744ER. The ACTs on the A340 hold 5.7 t each of fuel, put two of similar capacity tanks in a 787-10 and fuel volume would increase 10+% you would end up with a very economical ULH workhorse with 36 LD3 positions underfloor (that could compete with the A350 on trip costs). On these ULH routes the underfloor capacity is hardly going to be used.

Doubt they can just do that on a whim, unless one of the OEMs has already gotten that tested/certified.

Never heard anything about Boeing doing it for the 787, or really Airbus either. But is that something they do, as a contingency?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 6:12 am

Pats have additional tank STCs for the 727, 737, 757, 767, MD-82/-83. http://www.aloftaeroarchitects.com/prod ... uel-sytems

Boeing has additional tanks available as an option for the 77L

Airbus have additional center tanks that are available on all models, one design that fits narrow body, another that fits wide body.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
gloom
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 6:45 am

zeke wrote:
The ACTs on the A340 hold 5.7 t each of fuel, put two of similar capacity tanks in a 787-10 and fuel volume would increase 10+% you would end up with a very economical ULH workhorse with 36 LD3 positions underfloor (that could compete with the A350 on trip costs). On these ULH routes the underfloor capacity is hardly going to be used.


Zeke, wouldn't such a concept pop up on the MTOW limit? You're talking 787-10 which is already quite heavy, so payload+fuel limited, (some) passenger load AND 36 LD3, AND full fuel (otherwise extra tanks don't make any sense) AND extra tanks - both tank mass and fuel inside. What sort of TOW are we talking here, and how much over MTOW?
Considering ULR, no 787 is as capable as 359, when at full pax+considerable cargo+ULH mission (over 6000nm). They (787s) are MTOW limited in that case. On the other hand, 787 has the edge on standard load at ULH mission. 778/779 will be the player to beat on wherever cargo is considerable, but it's still quite a few years away. I can imagine 350-1000 having same MTOW raise as 359 so far, and ending up somewhere within 90% load of 778 with similar range. It just depends how much Airbus will be able to push MTOW from current 308t. If it goes to 325-330t MTOW and gets some extra fuel capacity (used from that central tank), it could be as well 300-seater, 9500nm range plane to kill 778.
With around 5-6 years for 778 I can see an equal competition, even if I agree with most it's Boeing's to loose.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 7:27 am

ULH you are going to have to accept that cargo bay will only have baggage, that is why it is no place for discounted economy on ULH.

Yes MTOW will be the limit if you get around the fuel volume limit with additional tanks. However, Boeing has a history of producing HGW versions of aircraft after the base frame entered service.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tealnz
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 8:40 am

There's been no hint that Boeing are looking at a MTOW increase for the 789. They used all the MTOW headroom they had in the original design when they developed the 789. After the big cost blowouts on 787 development and production it's hard to see them spending another $xx billion any time soon on new gear, wingbox and wing to allow a significant MTOW increase into 359 territory. Without that they're stuck with QF type solutions – premium-heavy configurations that bring weight down enough to allow ULH routes for the 789. Belly tanks aren't much help if they don't have the MTOW headroom to use them.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 9:04 am

Why does it need to cost billions to develop a HGW variant ? No indication that was the case for the 767-300, 777-200, or A330.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23122
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 9:12 am

zeke wrote:
Why does it need to cost billions to develop a HGW variant ? No indication that was the case for the 767-300, 777-200, or A330.


Because the 787 landing gear design has hit a MTOW limit, a HGW 787-10 would require a new six-wheel bogie which would be a significant upgrade. The A330 upgrades were much easier to accomplish.
This server is powered by a lemon and two electrodes.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 9:30 am

zeke wrote:
Boeing has additional tanks available as an option for the 77L

Can't speak for Airbus, but Boeing tested the 77L with additional fuel tanks during its certification process.

My question is, for an airframe that was never tested with such during cert, can airlines jsut opt to add such?
I rather doubt it.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9756
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 9:36 am

If we assume a 7500NM range for the A350-1000 and 8700NM for the A350-900ULR this would be ranges from SYDNEY.

Image
7500NM, 8700NM and 9700NM ranges from Sydney.

The A359 added payload-range reserves, cabin quietness and seat comfort in economy class could mean a lot on e.g. PER-LHR too.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a350-900ulr-range-figure-not-a-revision-airbus-437060/

If operating (fuel) costs are substantially lower for the A350 than for 777s, that's weighs a ton in Aircraft selection. Virgin Australia might be an A350 candidate too. This weeks early A350-1000 long flight was flow by Virgin cabin crew. https://youtu.be/-BH51Qc1qZE
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 10:01 am

KarelXWB wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Only Keeseje would be using an Airbus marketing slide....


Seems that the marketing slide is pretty accurate, multiple sources have the 779 OEW at 186t, making it 31t heavier than the A350-1000.

... which is quite obvious as the 779 is larger and carrier more passengers.


Beside that Keesje reduced the figures of the slide significantly in his post. He did not blindly overtake the figures.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 10:09 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Because the 787 landing gear design has hit a MTOW limit, a HGW 787-10 would require a new six-wheel bogie which would be a significant upgrade. The A330 upgrades were much easier to accomplish.


What limit are you referring to ? Other aircraft have higher pavement loading than the 787-9.

Image

LAX772LR wrote:
My question is, for an airframe that was never tested with such during cert, can airlines jsut opt to add such?
I rather doubt it.


Sure its called a STC, Supplemental Type Certificate. The most common STC you will find on airliners include cabin products, seats, galleys, toilets, crew rests, and cargo aircraft loading systems, floors, barriers, and even cargo doors.

This company has STC for a lot of Boeing products already http://www.aloftaeroarchitects.com/prod ... uel-sytems

The Airbus ACTs are STC modifications as well, they are described in this FAST magazine http://www.airbus.com/support-services/ ... D%5D=41150
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am

Interesting. Knew about STCs, but didn't know additional tanks were covered there. Thanks for the link.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23122
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 10:53 am

zeke wrote:
What limit are you referring to ? Other aircraft have higher pavement loading than the 787-9.


The 787 is believed to be maxed out at ~ 250t MTOW, hence Boeing didn't bump the takeoff weight on the 787-10. We had several threads on a 787-10 HGW:

viewtopic.php?t=548669
viewtopic.php?t=754663
viewtopic.php?t=774165

If you're going to 280t or so it would require significant changes to the airframe. The 787 was designed to be a 200-250t airplane, can't magically turn that into a 300t airplane.
This server is powered by a lemon and two electrodes.
 
StTim
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 11:53 am

The big statement there is believed and backing that is Boeing not doing a MTOW bump for the -10 to provide a little more range.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9756
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 12:17 pm

Information I have suggest a simple MTOW boost using the current wing, LDG, engines of the 787 seems unlikely.

Doesn't mean Boeing shouldn't do it. Contrary. A 10-15% bigger wing for the 787 would enable Boeing to claw back market share they lost versus the A350-900 and -1000. The 787-10 and 777-8 didn't succeed in replacing the 777-200ER, 777-300ER and A340s. The excellent 787-9 is smaller.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1339277

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 12:23 pm

Thx for map Keejse's.I thought from reading a few posts that it would be 'tight' for the ULR to make London -but not at all if AB's range projection in flight - and this map is correct.
Interesting to note that a 350-1000 can also make Dubai.Ok not required now but (sadly) if these non stop flights 'work' commercially then Qantas will not need anything as large as an A380 in the long term.If they went A350 ULR then the -1000 might be an able partner aircraft.Mind you the 777/8/9 is also a v good combo'.

P To P (non stop).
Just a general point really -(I wonder whether it deserves a thread?)
I guess the first revolution was the range of the 747.More recently and far more importantly economically,the 787 is really opening up a host of new non stops,and now the A350 too.
But it's not just 'big boys'.The wingleted 757 has blazed new p2p city connections tatl and soon to be followed by the 321LR and perhaps the 797.

So what was a trickle seems to be becoming a flood.If oil stays around $50 will it become the new norm I wonder?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 4955
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Fri May 19, 2017 3:08 pm

zeke wrote:
What limit are you referring to ? Other aircraft have higher pavement loading than the 787-9.



In this case I think it is not pavement loading, but a limit on the design of the MLG. I do not believe that a 6 wheel bogie is needed to increase MTOW but a size up for the 4 wheel bogie.
The A330 and the 787-9/10 use the same tire size, the bogie is longer on the A330 and broader on the 787.
Compare to that the A350-900 and you see bigger tires and and all around a bigger boogie, both broader and longer.

Look in section 7 of the AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS AIRPORT AND MAINTENANCE PLANNING both at Airbus and Boeing.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23885
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 12:00 am

tealnz wrote:
There's been no hint that Boeing are looking at a MTOW increase for the 789. They used all the MTOW headroom they had in the original design when they developed the 789. After the big cost blowouts on 787 development and production it's hard to see them spending another $xx billion any time soon on new gear, wingbox and wing to allow a significant MTOW increase into 359 territory.


From speaking with 787 design team members, the wings are good for north of 290,000kg of MTOW with strengthening. The "weak" link appears to be the undercarriage, which is supposedly at the design limit of 255,000kg with the latest MTOW boosts. As zeke has noted, pavement loading does not appear to be the issue so I am guessing it's the struts themselves. I imagine they could be strengthened if necessary so perhaps the lack of a boost in the 787-10's MTOW is more a case of getting it into service sooner and a lack of "immediate" need for the extra range such a boost would provide from current customers and RFPs.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 1:00 am

sassiciai wrote:
What's the point of such a non-stop flight?

Anyone on such a flight (including both crews) would arrive at destination in no state to do much other than stumble and mumble about and go to bed, not sit down at a meeting table and negotiate future business contracts!

The operational costs would be horrible

A 2 or 3-hour stop somewhere to refuel and replenish will not impact overall journey time, and will save vast sums of money, and most people's sanity!

IMHO, a very silly idea for very little/no benefit!


If they were flying in a premium seat they might just be able to make that meeting. I would think that a fueling stop would be much more expensive then a non-stop, all other things being equal. A stop does not alleviate the sleep situation and may make it worse.
 
tealnz
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 1:33 am

Stitch wrote:
From speaking with 787 design team members, the wings are good for north of 290,000kg of MTOW with strengthening. The "weak" link appears to be the undercarriage, which is supposedly at the design limit of 255,000kg with the latest MTOW boosts. As zeke has noted, pavement loading does not appear to be the issue so I am guessing it's the struts themselves. I imagine they could be strengthened if necessary so perhaps the lack of a boost in the 787-10's MTOW is more a case of getting it into service sooner and a lack of "immediate" need for the extra range such a boost would provide from current customers and RFPs.


Interesting. I don't have any inside knowledge. But there is a consistent picture from multiple 787 threads that suggests:
- Boeing management were firm they wanted to position the 787 as a 767 replacement and not as a 777 competitor, this influencing not just design weight but also fuselage diameter
- Original design weights would have left headroom for development of future HGW variants (i.e. the scenario Zeke suggested). But even the 789 ultimately came in well above the original target weight.
- Among the consequences was the decision not to go with the longer wing for the 789. The explanation given was that testing showed no significant net gain from the bigger wing. We learnt from one thread here that it was a bit more complicated than that: because the 789 was hard up against its MTOW limit (which looks as if it's MLG, as you suggest) the aircraft would not be able to tank additional fuel to take full advantage of the bigger wing.
- With the current wing the 789, unlike the 359, is also volume limited for fuel at long ranges (volume for the 789 is about 40,000l less than the A350). The 789 will be operating past the second kink in the payload-range curve sooner than the 359).
So as even QF are finding, the 789 is ultimately not quite the extreme range solution that some had hoped - original design decisions mean it is up against some hard limits that the 359 does not face to the same extent.

None of this is to say Boeing can't develop future high-weight variants of the 787. And a HGW 789 and 78J with a big wing and 2020s engines would be spectacular performers. But I'm guessing it would be a substantial engineering job (i.e. not just a larger/stronger MLG) requiring a major investment, in a program that is already struggling to pay off development and production costs. In the meantime I don't think we're hearing anything from inside Boeing that suggests there's an easy way to find more MTOW headroom even to allow a belly tank solution of the sort Zeke was suggesting.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 1:39 am

tealnz wrote:
Interesting. I don't have any inside knowledge. But there is a consistent picture from multiple 787 threads that suggests:
- Boeing management were firm they wanted to position the 787 as a 767 replacement and not as a 777 competitor, this influencing not just design weight but also fuselage diameter
- Original design weights would have left headroom for development of future HGW variants (i.e. the scenario Zeke suggested). But even the 789 ultimately came in well above the original target weight.
- Among the consequences was the decision not to go with the longer wing for the 789. The explanation given was that testing showed no significant net gain from the bigger wing. We learnt from one thread here that it was a bit more complicated than that: because the 789 was hard up against its MTOW limit (which looks as if it's MLG, as you suggest) the aircraft would not be able to tank additional fuel to take full advantage of the bigger wing.
- With the current wing the 789, unlike the 359, is also volume limited for fuel at long ranges (volume for the 789 is about 40,000l less than the A350). The 789 will be operating past the second kink in the payload-range curve sooner than the 359).
So as even QF are finding, the 789 is ultimately not quite the extreme range solution that some had hoped - original design decisions mean it is up against some hard limits that the 359 does not face to the same extent.

None of this is to say Boeing can't develop future high-weight variants of the 787. And a HGW 789 and 78J with a big wing and 2020s engines would be spectacular performers. But I'm guessing it would be a substantial engineering job (i.e. not just a larger/stronger MLG) requiring a major investment, in a program that is already struggling to pay off development and production costs. In the meantime I don't think we're hearing anything from inside Boeing that suggests there's an easy way to find more MTOW headroom even to allow a belly tank solution of the sort Zeke was suggesting.


I really don't think that the 787 is the right plane to replace the A380 and 744ER for Qantas. I think the A350 and 777-8/9 are better. The 787 is a far lighter airplane. While yes it burns less fuel per seat, the 787 payload is roughly half the payload of a 747.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 1:41 am

keesje wrote:
The 787-10 and 777-8 didn't succeed in replacing the 777-200ER, 777-300ER and A340s.

One hasn't entered service, the other hasn't entered existence, and you're already jumping to a sweeping conclusion?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23885
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 1:53 am

tealnz wrote:
Interesting. I don't have any inside knowledge. But there is a consistent picture from multiple 787 threads that suggests Boeing management were firm they wanted to position the 787 as a 767 replacement and not as a 777 competitor, this influencing not just design weight but also fuselage diameter.


Yes, but in discussions with potential customers, the plane grew to the size it is today where it can cover the 777-200 family in terms of capacity.


tealnz wrote:
Original design weights would have left headroom for development of future HGW variants (i.e. the scenario Zeke suggested). But even the 789 ultimately came in well above the original target weight.


The 787-9 actually did make her design weight thanks to extensive effort on Boeing's part. Her operating weights did grow (in consultations with customers) to essentially consume all of the original headroom.


tealnz wrote:
Among the consequences was the decision not to go with the longer wing for the 789. The explanation given was that testing showed no significant net gain from the bigger wing. We learnt from one thread here that it was a bit more complicated than that: because the 789 was hard up against its MTOW limit (which looks as if it's MLG, as you suggest) the aircraft would not be able to tank additional fuel to take full advantage of the bigger wing.


The extra 4 meters of length the 787-9 wing would have had over the 787-8's wing was just in the wingtip's extension. So fuel volume within the wings was not impacted by the wingspan truncation (in fact, the 787-8's wing tank capacity is 380 liters more in total than the 787-9's).

As to why Boeing did not add the extension, the nearly 2000kg of additional weight cancelled out the aerodynamic improvement so reference trip fuel (for whatever sector[s] Boeing was modeling) showed a net zero benefit of having the longer wing and using the same extension meant they did not need to certify them and sped up designed and production.
 
jfkgig
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:45 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 2:37 am

I don't have any doubt that there is a very large market for this flight. At the moment, it is extremely difficult to get to or from Sydney from or to New York, and there are many meetings which should, but don't, take place as a result. I have no doubt that there is a massive latent demand if these cities could be connected by a simple 19 hour nonstop flight. People used to say not too long ago that there was no demand for a New York-Hong Kong nonstop, but now there are 6 non stops a day connecting the cities. It was usually difficult to get a seat on the EWR-SIN nonstop until SQ stopped it for its own economic reasons, and they will soon restart that flight with more economic equipment. I predict that they will eventually need more than a single daily SYD-JFK flight as people get used to the concept of easily taking face to face meetings, instead of having to deal with alternatives.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 3:00 am

jfkgig wrote:
I don't have any doubt that there is a very large market for this flight. At the moment, it is extremely difficult to get to or from Sydney from or to New York, and there are many meetings which should, but don't, take place as a result. I have no doubt that there is a massive latent demand if these cities could be connected by a simple 19 hour nonstop flight. People used to say not too long ago that there was no demand for a New York-Hong Kong nonstop, but now there are 6 non stops a day connecting the cities. It was usually difficult to get a seat on the EWR-SIN nonstop until SQ stopped it for its own economic reasons, and they will soon restart that flight with more economic equipment. I predict that they will eventually need more than a single daily SYD-JFK flight as people get used to the concept of easily taking face to face meetings, instead of having to deal with alternatives.

What do you mean "extremely difficult" to get to/from SYD from JFk? There is one direct flight, daily and multiple connections via LAX, DFW & SFO.

Gemuser
 
jfkgig
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:45 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 3:54 am

Gemuser wrote:
jfkgig wrote:
I don't have any doubt that there is a very large market for this flight. At the moment, it is extremely difficult to get to or from Sydney from or to New York, and there are many meetings which should, but don't, take place as a result. I have no doubt that there is a massive latent demand if these cities could be connected by a simple 19 hour nonstop flight. People used to say not too long ago that there was no demand for a New York-Hong Kong nonstop, but now there are 6 non stops a day connecting the cities. It was usually difficult to get a seat on the EWR-SIN nonstop until SQ stopped it for its own economic reasons, and they will soon restart that flight with more economic equipment. I predict that they will eventually need more than a single daily SYD-JFK flight as people get used to the concept of easily taking face to face meetings, instead of having to deal with alternatives.

What do you mean "extremely difficult" to get to/from SYD from JFk? There is one direct flight, daily and multiple connections via LAX, DFW & SFO.

Gemuser


What I mean is that all of those options add connecting time, diversions from optimal route, and potential delays, such that they are over the margin for what people will accept in deciding that a trip is worthwhile. SYD-JFK will always be a difficult trip -- that is a matter of geography. But the decision regarding whether or not to make that trip will always be made at the margin of what the traveler considers a worthwhile cost in light of the benefit. Every minute shaved off a trip creates more people for whom a trip would be worth the effort. A nonstop brings the detriment down to a more acceptable level such that many more trips will be made. The routing through DFW makes the trip much better than it used to be, but still not as good as a nonstop will be.
 
tealnz
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 7:10 am

Stitch wrote:
The 787-9 actually did make her design weight thanks to extensive effort on Boeing's part. Her operating weights did grow (in consultations with customers) to essentially consume all of the original headroom.

The weight story for the 789 is a bit murky. I think at one point early on Boeing published a MTOW of 230.7t. I somehow don't think the growth from there to 254t was mainly driven by shifting to nine-abreast seating and flat beds in business. When the first 789s were about to be delivered to NZ Boeing said the 787-9 weight "stayed below projections" by “several hundred pounds” through the development process. That doesn't quite sound the same as making the design weight. We're still stuck with the fact that, in contrast to e.g. the 767 and 777, Boeing does not seem to have left itself a pathway, short of a 777X-scale redesign effort, to produce higher weight variants of the initial 789 and 78J. Which must be frustrating for customers like QF who like everything else about the 787 but desperately need better payload/range.

Stitch wrote:
The extra 4 meters of length the 787-9 wing would have had over the 787-8's wing was just in the wingtip's extension. So fuel volume within the wings was not impacted by the wingspan truncation (in fact, the 787-8's wing tank capacity is 380 liters more in total than the 787-9's).

Yes I think I was missing the real point. I think it's more about the relationship with MTOW. At the point Boeing had to decide on the wingtip extension the issue was whether to go for better aero... knowing that the price would be 2t of fuel (or pax). It's not surprising they decided to stick with the 788 wing. But the larger point is that it was weight growth and lack of MTOW headroom that left them in this situation - surely not one they had contemplated earlier in the design phase.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3253
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 8:03 am

... surely not one they had contemplated earlier in the design phase.

The 787 evolution shows a range of "done too early" decissions ( some even kept back from the Sonic Cruiser phase ) that
turn it into a "limited future" product.
Murphy is an optimist
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5303
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 8:35 am

tealnz wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 787-9 actually did make her design weight thanks to extensive effort on Boeing's part. Her operating weights did grow (in consultations with customers) to essentially consume all of the original headroom.

The weight story for the 789 is a bit murky. I think at one point early on Boeing published a MTOW of 230.7t. I somehow don't think the growth from there to 254t was mainly driven by shifting to nine-abreast seating and flat beds in business. When the first 789s were about to be delivered to NZ Boeing said the 787-9 weight "stayed below projections" by “several hundred pounds” through the development process. That doesn't quite sound the same as making the design weight. We're still stuck with the fact that, in contrast to e.g. the 767 and 777, Boeing does not seem to have left itself a pathway, short of a 777X-scale redesign effort, to produce higher weight variants of the initial 789 and 78J. Which must be frustrating for customers like QF who like everything else about the 787 but desperately need better payload/range.

Stitch wrote:
The extra 4 meters of length the 787-9 wing would have had over the 787-8's wing was just in the wingtip's extension. So fuel volume within the wings was not impacted by the wingspan truncation (in fact, the 787-8's wing tank capacity is 380 liters more in total than the 787-9's).

Yes I think I was missing the real point. I think it's more about the relationship with MTOW. At the point Boeing had to decide on the wingtip extension the issue was whether to go for better aero... knowing that the price would be 2t of fuel (or pax). It's not surprising they decided to stick with the 788 wing. But the larger point is that it was weight growth and lack of MTOW headroom that left them in this situation - surely not one they had contemplated earlier in the design phase.



Was the 789 initially or ever planned for ULH? While airlines are using it as such on 16/17 hr flights anything longer needs the 778, I'd say the 789 is pretty dam capable, sure it takes a hit at those distances but it shows just how capable it is. The 78J will be interesting to watch to see if it can be used for a lower end 77W replacement for those with 77W's, QF probably could use the 78J as an A333 replacement, it's just slightly bigger.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 10:21 am

Stitch wrote:
in fact, the 787-8's wing tank capacity is 380 liters more in total than the 787-9's

Interesting. What causes that, and why?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
ikolkyo
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 1:47 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Stitch wrote:
in fact, the 787-8's wing tank capacity is 380 liters more in total than the 787-9's

Interesting. What causes that, and why?


Even more interesting is that the 789 still has more range the the 788, I'm assuming the 789 has a larger center tank?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 6242
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 2:18 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Stitch wrote:
in fact, the 787-8's wing tank capacity is 380 liters more in total than the 787-9's

Interesting. What causes that, and why?


Even more interesting is that the 789 still has more range the the 788, I'm assuming the 789 has a larger center tank?

No, both planes have roughly the same fuel capacity. The 789 having more range it is because the 788 is MTOW limited, you can't fill the tanks and have enough weight left over for a commercially viable payload. 789's MTOW gain is enough to overcome the weight gain of the variant and still have enough weight leftover to fill the tanks when the cabin is full.
 
ikolkyo
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 2:20 pm

Polot wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Interesting. What causes that, and why?


Even more interesting is that the 789 still has more range the the 788, I'm assuming the 789 has a larger center tank?

No, both planes have roughly the same fuel capacity. The 789 having more range it is because the 788 is MTOW limited, you can't fill the tanks and have enough weight left over for a commercially viable payload. 789's MTOW gain is enough to overcome the weight gain of the variant and still have enough weight leftover to fill the tanks when the cabin is full.


Ah, forgot about the MTOW, I assumed it was the same as the 789 and 78J. I wonder what kind of range the 788 would have if it did....
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23885
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 4:03 pm

tealnz wrote:
The weight story for the 789 is a bit murky. I think at one point early on Boeing published a MTOW of 230.7t. I somehow don't think the growth from there to 254t was mainly driven by shifting to nine-abreast seating and flat beds in business. When the first 789s were about to be delivered to NZ Boeing said the 787-9 weight "stayed below projections" by “several hundred pounds” through the development process. That doesn't quite sound the same as making the design weight.


According to one leasing company executive, at one point the 787-9 was some 16,000kg over her design empty weight. If she currently was anywhere near that heavy, we'd know about it as we knew about the overages of the early 787-8s, 747-8s, A350-900s and A380-800s. So her new design weight might not be as low as originally planned, it's not seriously blown out.

As for MTOW, yes the 7E7-9 had a projected MTOW of 227,000kg. By 2006, that had risen to 245,000kg through consultations with customers who wanted to install more Economy seating and heavier First, Business and Premium Economy seating as well have more flexibly payload-range through the ability to tank more fuel for longer trips or lift more payload for shorter ones. By 2009 it was 247,000kg and the current 254,000kg was announced around EIS - both I expect were driven by the A350-900's higher operating weights than trying to cover significant empty weight overages.


WIederling wrote:
The 787 evolution shows a range of "done too early" decissions ( some even kept back from the Sonic Cruiser phase ) that
turn it into a "limited future" product.


When designed, the 787's competition target was the A330 as the 777 comfortably controlled the higher end of the 250-350 seat market so there was no reason to mirror it's capacity and performance.


ZK-NBT wrote:
Was the 789 initially or ever planned for ULH?


From launch, her design range (passengers and bags) was projected to be greater than 8000nm which is "ULR" in Boeing's marketing parlance.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5301
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 4:35 pm

[quote="ZK-NBT. The 78J will be interesting to watch to see if it can be used for a lower end 77W replacement for those with 77W's, QF probably could use the 78J as an A333 replacement, it's just slightly bigger.[/quote]

Interpolating the 789 empirical data I have in Piano-X, the 78X via a 3.5t weight increase in the MLG to a DOW of 142t , an increase in drag and assuming the TEN engines, could make 285t MTOW , add 1 ACT you could have a ~ a 8000 nm airplane at max passenger load. For a carrier such as NZ it could definitely be considered a 77W replacement giving ~47t payload over ~ 14hrs.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 8247
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 6:15 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Stitch wrote:
in fact, the 787-8's wing tank capacity is 380 liters more in total than the 787-9's

Interesting. What causes that, and why?

Even more interesting is that the 789 still has more range the the 788, I'm assuming the 789 has a larger center tank?

Still wondering why the 788 has more (physically) available wing tankage than the 789 though. What causes that?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23885
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 8:00 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Still wondering why the 788 has more (physically) available wing tankage than the 789 though. What causes that?


That I do not know. Boeing's Hazardous Materials document for the 787 family gives the various fuel tank volumes for both the -8 and -9 and for whatever reason, the -9's is a bit lower for the wing tanks (and higher for the center tank). Perhaps it has to do with wing bending at the higher MTOW or something?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12561
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 8:55 pm

zeke wrote:
StTim wrote:
Given the choice I would fly direct everytime.


If you were to go one stop you might save the equivalent to 5 nights hotel accommodation. There will be a market for non stop flights, there will also be market for cheaper multi stop flights. From PER to LHR you have many choices including EK, QR, EY, MH, SQ. QR would be about the quickest with 19:35 trip duration.

Every stop adds time. Since people are paid while working, another six hours might pay for the non-stop. Also, no sensitive material​ can be shown or discussed on a public plane. I literally am banned from opening e-mail or most work documents on a plane.

If someone is flying for business that far, they are worth something to a company. Many of my friends reject deals if the flight time is too much to do another more profitable deal. A non-stop or fewer connections mitigate that.

Think of how many executives must fly only one connection each way to prevent them being out of pocket too long.

I think non-stop have a market. It is but a question of yeilds. I think both planes being discussed would be profitable.

I just paid a third more for direct tickets for a vacation as the direct flights add one more day of play time.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sat May 20, 2017 9:20 pm

I agree there is a market that has good yield, however it is the size of that market which is the true question.

Many people would like to fly non stop, but I think fewer people or companies are willing to pay for that. The fare could be 100% more expensive like the PER-LHR flights nonstop with QF is around $2300 in 17 hrs, where you can go with QR and transit DOH for half that in 19.5 hrs.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tealnz
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sun May 21, 2017 1:26 am

sunrisevalley wrote:
Interpolating the 789 empirical data I have in Piano-X, the 78X via a 3.5t weight increase in the MLG to a DOW of 142t , an increase in drag and assuming the TEN engines, could make 285t MTOW , add 1 ACT you could have a ~ a 8000 nm airplane at max passenger load. For a carrier such as NZ it could definitely be considered a 77W replacement giving ~47t payload over ~ 14hrs.

Lifting MTOW by 30t... that's an engineering task of the same order as the 77X re-wing/new engine. Not sure what the accountants will think about that. Isn't it more likely Boeing will hold off until a mid-life re-engine (for 789 and 78J) that would achieve a payload/range boost without a new MLG or wing/wingbox? In the meantime the 78J will be a great regional aircraft.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10774
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sun May 21, 2017 4:14 am

tealnz wrote:
Lifting MTOW by 30t... that's an engineering task of the same order as the 77X re-wing/new engine.


The 767-300 to 767-300ER saw a MTOW growth of 30 tonnes, the A330-300 saw a MTOW growth of 30 tonnes, the 777-200 to 777-200ER saw a MTOW growth of 57 tonnes.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tealnz
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sun May 21, 2017 4:55 am

Sure. But with the 767 and 777 there was headroom built into the design from the start for stretch and ER versions. And the A330 could take advantage of the strength built into the A340. The unusual thing about the 789 is the fact that it appears to have pushed to a hard MTOW limit pretty much from the start of production. Unless I'm missing something the 787 is now stuck at 254t, short of a re-engineering effort much more ambitious and costly than what Boeing undertook for the second generation 777s.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Qantas considering 777-8 or A359ULR to replace 744ER's to fly SYD-JFK and SYD-LHR non-stop

Sun May 21, 2017 5:06 am

tealnz wrote:
sunrisevalley wrote:
Interpolating the 789 empirical data I have in Piano-X, the 78X via a 3.5t weight increase in the MLG to a DOW of 142t , an increase in drag and assuming the TEN engines, could make 285t MTOW , add 1 ACT you could have a ~ a 8000 nm airplane at max passenger load. For a carrier such as NZ it could definitely be considered a 77W replacement giving ~47t payload over ~ 14hrs.

Lifting MTOW by 30t... that's an engineering task of the same order as the 77X re-wing/new engine. Not sure what the accountants will think about that. Isn't it more likely Boeing will hold off until a mid-life re-engine (for 789 and 78J) that would achieve a payload/range boost without a new MLG or wing/wingbox? In the meantime the 78J will be a great regional aircraft.

He said 3.5t, NOT 30t.

Gemuser

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