It is of course possible to talk about a 777 based double decker, but it is no need to talk about a 747 replacement. The 747 has been replaced by current existing frames.

jubguy3 wrote:

This is hilarious. You are literally throwing numbers in the air and deciding what's best based off of numbers that you MADE UP. Your idea sucks, I'm sorry.

You can actually estimate the cost of things based on history.

To calculate the cost of putting newer engines on the 747-8. Lets look at history.
A330NEO was $2 billion
A320NEO was $1.5 billion
737Max was $2-3 billion

So to re-engine the 747-8 $2 billion is a very good estimate.

To calculate the cost of a VLA cleansheert. Lets look at history.
A380 was $28 billion
787 was $32 billion
A350 is $13.5 billion
C series is $5.4 billion

So a VLA cleansheet $20 billion is a very good estimate.

To calculate the cost of the hump is harder, but a quarter of a cleansheet is definitely conservative. The wing, back half, landing gear, cockpit, systems and engines are all the same. That is a huge amount of engineering already done with production capability and supplier network in place. The carbon wing production will already be paid for with the other 777X models. A big cost will be certification and flight testing I could give further information and cost breakdown if you need further evidence to this estimate.

In terms of sales. There is an exponential increase in sales when one aircraft has a CASM advantage or is better value to the airline.
777 vs A340
748 vs A380
757 vs A321
767 vs A330
787 vs A330NEO
777X vs A350
In each of these comparisons the sales split between the two models. The greater the CASM advantage the larger the sales advantage.

So in terms of cleansheet vs 777Xhump vs 748NEO the sales of 500 vs 250 vs 50 would be reasonable. The 777Xhump would be very close to the cleansheet tech wise and weight wise. So a 2:1 sales difference is fair based on history. The 748NEO would have a big weight disadvantage and this CASM would cause sales to drop badly like the 757 vs A321 15 years ago.

[quote="jubguy3"]All VLAs are performing horribly. Fuel burn or not, aircraft like the 787 and A350 are the future.

*Quads* may performing horribly, not VLAs. The 777 is the case in point.

Jomar777 wrote:

When Airbus launched what was at that time the A3XX, Boeing stated that it saw the market going the other way with people flying more point to point rather than connecting at big hubs. It had a point at that time which reflects now on the fact that Airbus sold a good deal of A380s but ended up pushing for a A350 to counter Boeing when the B787 came to market successfully despite the initial glitches. These two (A350 and B787) are the future of aviation with the B777 fulfilling a niche market where VLAs are needed for high yielding routes which have scarcity of slots, for example. Nowadays, you can fly a B787 to and from Australia to the UK non-stop. In the past a connection in one of the world Hubs would be needed.

You missed the 1400 A330's flying around since the early nineties.. the same size 787 was a response to that, not to the A380.

The market (Emirates) have just spoken this morning.Its called the A380.

When some airlines already cram 450pax onto a 77w there is not really a need for a 747 replacement.

jubguy3 wrote:

But we don't need a VLA. The 747 8i has sold terribly, the A380 is on the brink of ending production if Emirates doesn't order more, and the 777-9 is already being pushed into a niche as possibly the largest available aircraft.

And in fact, the new generation 777 is not selling great guns, either. The airlines seem to like 300 seats or less, though if airports continue to get crowded, airplanes with larger seat capacities will make more sense.

parapente wrote:

The market (Emirates) have just spoken this morning.Its called the A380.

Emirates is still the only carrier willing to buy in bulk. But then, they have a rather unique business model.

YVRing wrote:

When some airlines already cram 450pax onto a 77w there is not really a need for a 747 replacement.

Airlines fly 550 not so cramped on A380. They have to offer the same comfort levels at regardless of aircraft type.

Main line legacy's flying A380s with 500+seats, fly their 77W's with 220-300 seats 3-4 class.

Also, if I am correct, the current 77W already is a pavement killer, as it has the highest wheel load out there. This double decker 777 would probably need a center main gear (like the 340 has compared to the 330). That brings you new certification issues and range limitations.

parapente wrote:

The market (Emirates) have just spoken this morning.Its called the A380.

I've been saying for years that the A380 orders will continue to trickle in and the A380NEO will come in a few years time.

People here say the VLA market is dead but so many members here honestly have no idea. They expect Boeing to just hand the entire 450+ seat market to airbus on a golden platter.

The A380 has a cabin area of 550m2
The 747-8 has a cabin area of 444m2
The 777-9 has a cabin area of 364m2

The A380 is 50% bigger than the 777-9. If the 777-9 becomes Boeings largest passenger aircraft then Airbus will have great success with the A380NEO.. Even a stretch to 80metres brings the cabin area of the 777X up to 385m2. The A380 can either fit far more total seats or have much more higher paying premium cabin..

Boeing will not get caught with their pants down.

The 748 did a great job putting pricing pressure on the A380 program causing Airbus to make a loss. Boeing needs a product to put pricing pressure on the A380NEO. A humped 777X would probably be able to reach parity with the A380NEO thanks to its newer carbon wings and lithium alloy fuselage. It would keep the A380NEO program running at a loss. A cleansheet double deck by Boeing couldn't be justified.

Boeing now has proof that the 747 airframe cant compete with the A380 airframe with both using equal engine tech. If the A380 and 747 both get new engines of equal tech the A380 will continue to outsell the 747 by a very big margin.

RJMAZ wrote:

parapente wrote:

The market (Emirates) have just spoken this morning.Its called the A380.

I've been saying for years that the A380 orders will continue to trickle in and the A380NEO will come in a few years time.

People here say the VLA market is dead but so many members here honestly have no idea. They expect Boeing to just hand the entire 450+ seat market to airbus on a golden platter.

The A380 has a cabin area of 550m2
The 747-8 has a cabin area of 444m2
The 777-9 has a cabin area of 364m2

The A380 is 50% bigger than the 777-9. If the 777-9 becomes Boeings largest passenger aircraft then Airbus will have great success with the A380NEO.. Even a stretch to 80metres brings the cabin area of the 777X up to 385m2. The A380 can either fit far more total seats or have much more higher paying premium cabin..

Boeing will not get caught with their pants down.

The 748 did a great job putting pricing pressure on the A380 program causing Airbus to make a loss. Boeing needs a product to put pricing pressure on the A380NEO. A humped 777X would probably be able to reach parity with the A380NEO thanks to its newer carbon wings and lithium alloy fuselage. It would keep the A380NEO program running at a loss. A cleansheet double deck by Boeing couldn't be justified.

Boeing now has proof that the 747 airframe cant compete with the A380 airframe with both using equal engine tech. If the A380 and 747 both get new engines of equal tech the A380 will continue to outsell the 747 by a very big margin.

Again, neat idea, and I am sure if you were allowed into Boeing R&D Offices, you may find such a design exercise in a file somewhere. But this is the problem, the A380 is biding its time till the new Ultra RR engines come online for the A350/787 in about 7 years. Which in turn could be installed on the A380. That would put your 777XH (hump) at a disadvantage again. Since no one will be making 100K thrust new gen engines for a long time.

keesje wrote:

I kind of always assumed Boeing engineered in significant MTOW growth on critical assemblies. It might explain part of the high OEW. Same for the GE9, I see it growing towards 120k lbs in the next 10 years.

If Boeing stretches the 777X to it's maximum, adds 3-4 rows/40 seats, moves galley underfloor (enough space), crew rests above



Crew rest are already mostly overhead on the 777s.


Underfloor galleys and lavatories are very doable if passenger capacity is important and e.g. cargo payload-range restricted anyway. Another

You disappoint me Keejse, I was waiting for you to post this.........





RJMAZ, some of longtime Anetters have seen something like this before......

viewtopic.php?t=755733

william wrote:

You disappoint me Keejse, I was waiting for you to post this.........

I think that's a cheap derivative. The Ecoliner trijet is more than a decade ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk was actually based on 777 fuslage.. Shortly followed by a Boeing patent: http://www.seattlepi.com/mount-rainier/article/Boeing-patents-design-for-double-decker-mid-wing-3720456.php

I think this one is more interesting, multideck circular extra wide, surrendering LD3 for passenger cabin. Also patented by Boeing within 2 years after a I did some sketches. They take no risks these days.



Boeing patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130306793

william wrote:

Kind of agree with Jubguy, the only reason for the hump would be to move the cockpit off the main floor, as his pic shows. That is important, because the only reason for such an aircraft you are proposing would be to phase out the 747 production completely, yet keep its present and future freighter customers happy with a more efficient "747" like aircraft.

No matter how feasible vs. ridiculous this thread is, I think the airplane industry needs some good shaking up. Now we are at the point where the customers are asking for the faster horse - time for something new? One change will be without a doubt, the transformation of airplanes from being airline-focused, into being end-customer focused. Why did Apple get so successful? Because they just did it better than others, it just works, it's comfortable, and people are willing to pay a premium for it. People are paying more and more everywhere for a bit of additional comfort and luxury, they are finally putting value on themselves, especially healthy diet, fitness / keeping in shape / feeling good, is gaining global traction like no tomorrow.

When will we see the first plane that addresses even some of this? Like... how about using this theoretical "hump" for a gym and a few showers for the users? Would really kick ass on a 12+ hour flight. Would add only very little weight (compared to additional seats, passengers, and their luggage), no issue for emergency exit. With modern materials, I'm sure we are not far away from providing the gym with see-through ceiling/walls. Or make you believe you are in a magical forest, with fake sunlight, peace & quiet (additional sound-proofing?). Birds singing.

Why not having a small duty-free shop in the hump, where you can browse items, instead of the stewardesses pushing the stupid-ass carts around crammed aisles of the plane asking if anyone wants duty free? That would also generate additional income, with good pricing and selection even a lot of it. A small casino? Even a better source of income! Over international waters/airspace shouldn't be an issue? A "Very Tiny Italy" pizzeria? Make the hump look like a spaceship from the inside, project images like travelling in space from the "windows".

Emirates already has the bar/lounge on the A380, which is an excellent first step in that direction. Why stop there?

I could think of a ton of non-conventional uses for such a hump. Not saying that it necessarily has to be a hump on a 777. Just in general.

I really like the crown Boeing concept, but I wonder how they would deal with emergency exits on the top section. And seeing as that it would have to be a clean sheet design, I wonder how risky it would be, especially for airlines who's models don't revolve around having multiple classes and don't need that kind of capacity

keesje wrote:

william wrote:

You disappoint me Keejse, I was waiting for you to post this.........

I think that's a cheap derivative. The Ecoliner trijet is more than a decade ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk was actually based on 777 fuslage.. Shortly followed by a Boeing patent: http://www.seattlepi.com/mount-rainier/article/Boeing-patents-design-for-double-decker-mid-wing-3720456.php

I think this one is more interesting, multideck circular extra wide, surrendering LD3 for passenger cabin. Also patented by Boeing within 2 years after a I did some sketches. They take no risks these days.



Boeing patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130306793

Why do some of the patent pics and your pic on the far right looks like the cross section of the 777X with 10 row seating? Hmmmmm.

BREECH wrote:

Right. Emirates at Gatwick. NOW you made me laugh.

Er... you realize that EK currently flies three daily A380 round trips DXB-LGW, right?

What's so hard to imagine about Emirates eventually having the following London-area capacity:

LHR: 6x A380 (as currently flown)
LGW: 3x A380, 3x 779
STN: 1x 779, 2x 78X
LTN: 2x 789 (field performance)

Who is disrespecting The Picard??

jubguy3 wrote:

I really like the crown Boeing concept, but I wonder how they would deal with emergency exits on the top section. And seeing as that it would have to be a clean sheet design, I wonder how risky it would be, especially for airlines who's models don't revolve around having multiple classes and don't need that kind of capacity

Business or first class seats means a very small number of people. This would make it easier to make a second emergency set of stairs. During the evacuation test the upper deck passengers will have to get out within a certain time. So reducing the number of upper deck passengers means the emergency stair solution can be simpler and smaller.


Boeing has produced more unsual designs before. The 767X below eventually turned into what we now know as the 777.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing has produced more unsual designs before. The 767X below eventually turned into what we now know as the 777.

Thanks god it did!

Jayafe wrote:

Thanks god it did!

Yes, it was dubbed the Hunchback of Puget Sound. It's uglier than the suggested 777-10, but not by very much.

for the love of God please stop adding humps to things Boeing + fans. what's next, an a380 with a hump?

william wrote:

keesje wrote:

william wrote:

You disappoint me Keejse, I was waiting for you to post this.........

I think that's a cheap derivative. The Ecoliner trijet is more than a decade ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk was actually based on 777 fuslage.. Shortly followed by a Boeing patent: http://www.seattlepi.com/mount-rainier/article/Boeing-patents-design-for-double-decker-mid-wing-3720456.php

I think this one is more interesting, multideck circular extra wide, surrendering LD3 for passenger cabin. Also patented by Boeing within 2 years after a I did some sketches. They take no risks these days.



Boeing patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130306793

Why do some of the patent pics and your pic on the far right looks like the cross section of the 777X with 10 row seating? Hmmmmm.

The middle pic looks like it the present 777 or 777X could accomadate extra pax in the upper dome area. What's special about this that Boeing is trying to protect, what exactly are they patenting?

william wrote:

william wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think that's a cheap derivative. The Ecoliner trijet is more than a decade ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk was actually based on 777 fuslage.. Shortly followed by a Boeing patent: http://www.seattlepi.com/mount-rainier/article/Boeing-patents-design-for-double-decker-mid-wing-3720456.php

I think this one is more interesting, multideck circular extra wide, surrendering LD3 for passenger cabin. Also patented by Boeing within 2 years after a I did some sketches. They take no risks these days.



Boeing patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130306793

Why do some of the patent pics and your pic on the far right looks like the cross section of the 777X with 10 row seating? Hmmmmm.

The middle pic looks like it the present 777 or 777X could accomadate extra pax in the upper dome area. What's special about this that Boeing is trying to protect, what exactly are they patenting?

The left one is a 777 cross section. The others two are a bit wider to accomodate two passenger decks. Maybe lowering the main floor would be posdible on a 777 sized deck. I felt a comfortable 10 abreast might be better.

Patents these days are often requested to prevent someone else getting it and getting into costly lawsuits in the future. I'll make sure they will..

scbriml wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Thanks god it did!

Yes, it was dubbed the Hunchback of Puget Sound. It's uglier than the suggested 777-10, but not by very much.

Lots of people think the 747 looks great. The hump on the 777X would be similar to a twin engine 747.

william wrote:

The middle pic looks like it the present 777 or 777X could accomadate extra pax in the upper dome area. What's special about this that Boeing is trying to protect, what exactly are they patenting?

They patent every idea to protect themselves. But yes the current 777 can nearly fit passengers in the upper dome area. Crew rests are often placed in this area. That is why I thought of the hump idea. It would be rather shallow hump with a very small drag penalty for a very large increase in passenger area.

zeke wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I would put the stairs at the front of the upper deck cabin inline with the centre aisle. As you go down the steps you would be walking forward towards the nose. There would be a landing roughly half way between the two levels. There would be the cockpit door on this landing. The stairs would then go 180degrees down to the lower level and would line up with the aisle of a 3-4-3 lower cabin.

You would need two sets of stairs to give two exits on the upper deck. You would not get away with what the 747 has. Even the seats at the front of a 747 on the main deck would not be certifiable these days.

Why?

RJMAZ wrote:

Can a modified 777X provide better value than a brand new VLA cleansheet?

The 777-10 can only have a 3.5m stretch before reaching the 80m box limit. I propose a slim 747 style upper hump added to the front of the 777x to use the space above the cabin. The 3.5m stretch would then be located aft of the wing to maintain centre of gravity. The upper deck would be designed for premium seating to free up the main cabin for more economy seats. The upper deck would be smaller than the 747 as a result it would narrow significantly at head height so it would be more suited to use lie flat beds that can extend into this dead space with overhead storage bins moved to the floor.

The 777X's large carbon wing would most likely be able to handle the added weight. It may have to sacrifice some range but the 777-9 already has exceptional payload/range. From the hump backwards the 777-10 could maintain 90+% commonality with the 777-9. There would also be potential for a thrust increase from the GE9X to allow a higher maximum takeoff weight in 10 years time. Empty weight would definitely remain below 200T and be 10% lighter than the 747-8 with matching cabin area.

If a new cleansheet VLA cost Boeing $20 billion, yet this 777X would cost $5 billion then it must be seriously considered. If it can provide 99% of the efficiency of a cleansheet for a quarter of the price then it is excellent value. The frames for the humped sections would obviously have to be new and it would require extensiive engineering but most of the systems, nose gear and cockpit could be retained.

You never stated how many pax this thing would carry. How much more over a 777-9? I count about 80 business seats in the "hump"

jubguy3 wrote:

for the love of God please stop adding humps to things Boeing + fans. what's next, an a380 with a hump?

We can't help it, we LOVE humps!

william wrote:

Why?

You must have an exit point forward and aft of any seat on the plane. So the seats in the nose of the 747 only has an exit point aft of the seats.

william wrote:

You never stated how many pax this thing would carry. How much more over a 777-9? I count about 80 business seats in the "hump"

This all depends on the seating density.

Here is 500 seats in a 777-300 with Japan Airlines for domestic flights.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Japan ... 77-300.php

Here is a 244 seats in a 777-300ER with Japan Airlines for long haul.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Japan ... 00ER_B.php

The hump would provide 20% more seating area than the 777-9. So if we go off the density of the domestic config above that means 600 seats. If we go off the long haul config it's only 292 seats. It is very unlikely that the upper hump would be fitted with economy seats and the staircase would probably create a low exit limit.

The seats generally get smaller in any given class the shorter the flight becomes. You dont need beds on a 1 hour domestic flight.

The 777-8 is an ultra long haul aircraft.
The 777-9 is a long haul aircraft.
The humped 777 would be a medium to long haul aircraft.

Out of the 3 aircraft the humped 777 would have the highest density seating on average.

Some examples of seating for the 777 hump are below

2 class high density with 590 seats
Upper deck: 40 business class seats - 10 rows of 4 abreast.
Lower deck: 550 economy seats - 55 rows of 10 abreast 32inch pitch.

3 class low density config 334 seats
Upper deck: 12 first class seats - 6 rows of 1-1 2 abreast open suites
Lower deck: 72 business class seats - 12 rows of 2-2-2 6 abreast
Lower deck: 250 economy seats - 25 rows of 10 abreast

So an exit limit of 40 for the upper deck would be fine. Even if the exit limit is as low as 20 it would still be fine for most airlines.

seabosdca wrote:

BREECH wrote:

Right. Emirates at Gatwick. NOW you made me laugh.

Er... you realize that EK currently flies three daily A380 round trips DXB-LGW, right?

Wrong. I didn't.

seabosdca wrote:

What's so hard to imagine about Emirates eventually having the following London-area capacity:

LHR: 6x A380 (as currently flown)
LGW: 3x A380, 3x 779
STN: 1x 779, 2x 78X
LTN: 2x 789 (field performance)

May I humbly note that NINE of those TWELVE are A380s? And that's exactly what I said - the future is with VLAs.

ikolkyo wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The market for VLAs wasn't nearly as large as expected. With smaller planes flying further, fragmentation happened.

Also, everyone does realize the 779 is an awesome 744 replacement, right? So if an airline needs growth from the A35K or 77W, it is low risk.

ikolkyo wrote:

If a 777-10 comes to fruition there will not be a hump, just a stretch to 80m.

Agreed. If it happens, it will be very analogous to the 787-10 where range is sacrificed for payload. Not short range, but certainly not SYD-LAX. Too few routes justify a new VLA. The recovery in cargo revenue allows survival, not risky aircraft purchases.

I could see a 80m or even a little longer simple stretch. With how competitive the 779 shall be, the market opportunity for a new VLA isn't there until about 2030 for launch and about 2038 EIS. This is an industry that requires thinking in long timescales.

Lightsaber

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if a 777-10 could do SYD-LAX. The 77W already flies that route today and the 777-9 is a 3m stretch with more range so another 3m stretch probably wouldn't hurt range on a hypothetical 777-10 versus the 77W.

I doubt a 3m stretch will happen. I think more like 8m to 10m (remember the Udvar-Hazy A389 discussions?).

The are something like 50 major airports built for 85m length already. Something like 30 for 89m (which I think is too long for a 777X stretch). The 80m box will be broken and airports that cannot accommodate a stretched 777X just won't see it.

I'm aware EK and possibly BA will order more A380s. A stretched 777X has merit. In particular once 2nd generation CMCs are ready... Everything I've seen has the 779 making more profit per flight than the A380CEO.

Lightsaber

Breaking the 80m box rule would obviously be much cheaper allowing a normal stretch.

The hump would be much more complex to engineer but it would have less drag and provide a bigger increase in cabin area.

for first, tell me about how you imagine a wing for new VLA, if even 778 using folding wingtips.
i dont see a plane much larger 779 before avanty style triple wing come in masses

I think Boeing is not doing all the investments it does on the 777X program just for the 777-9 and 777-8 ULR aircraft. A substantial stretch seems engineered, looking at dimensions, weights and engine ratings. Now the 777-9 isn't selling as hotcakes, Boeing obviously isn't in a hurry. And an Ecoliner project (which was also based on the 777) is highly unlikely with all the commitments / investments going into the 777X. https://www.henrylam.com.au/#3

RJMAZ wrote:

Can a modified 777X provide better value than a brand new VLA cleansheet?

The 777-10 can only have a 3.5m stretch before reaching the 80m box limit. I propose a slim 747 style upper hump added to the front of the 777x to use the space above the cabin. The 3.5m stretch would then be located aft of the wing to maintain centre of gravity. The upper deck would be designed for premium seating to free up the main cabin for more economy seats. The upper deck would be smaller than the 747 as a result it would narrow significantly at head height so it would be more suited to use lie flat beds that can extend into this dead space with overhead storage bins moved to the floor.

The 777X's large carbon wing would most likely be able to handle the added weight. It may have to sacrifice some range but the 777-9 already has exceptional payload/range. From the hump backwards the 777-10 could maintain 90+% commonality with the 777-9. There would also be potential for a thrust increase from the GE9X to allow a higher maximum takeoff weight in 10 years time. Empty weight would definitely remain below 200T and be 10% lighter than the 747-8 with matching cabin area.

If a new cleansheet VLA cost Boeing $20 billion, yet this 777X would cost $5 billion then it must be seriously considered. If it can provide 99% of the efficiency of a cleansheet for a quarter of the price then it is excellent value. The frames for the humped sections would obviously have to be new and it would require extensiive engineering but most of the systems, nose gear and cockpit could be retained.

Better do a 777 Aft-Upper-Deck instead. Like the memorable looking 767.

Edit: Someone posted that 767 above.

Looking back the limiting factor of the 777-9 isn't really a lack of cabin area.

If the goal of the 777-10 is to create a high capacity medium haul monster similar to the 787-10 then a stretch to 80m would be all that is required. There would be a huge amount of underfloor space to relocate all toilets and meal prep areas. This would effectively free up as much cabin area for seating as a 10m stretch.

An increase in payload weight would be required as such high density would be fairly heavy.

seabosdca wrote:

The 779 is already a "747" replacement. It will have essentially the same seating capacity as the 744 in similar configurations.

Boeing has confirmed that a simple stretch 777-10X (probably a 3,5 m stretch for 40 more Y class seats) is technically feasible, but I don't think they would be the first mover unless either 1) Airbus announces a further A350 stretch or 2) the sales race between 777X and A350-1000 starts to tilt dramatically in favor of the A350-1000. It looks today like the 777-9 is the long-range CASM king, and unless that status is threatened I don't see what incentive Boeing has to do anything.

The only thing that can replace a 747 is a 747. Anything else would be .......

RJMAZ wrote:

Looking back the limiting factor of the 777-9 isn't really a lack of cabin area.

If the goal of the 777-10 is to create a high capacity medium haul monster similar to the 787-10 then a stretch to 80m would be all that is required. There would be a huge amount of underfloor space to relocate all toilets and meal prep areas. This would effectively free up as much cabin area for seating as a 10m stretch.

An increase in payload weight would be required as such high density would be fairly heavy.

Tail strike?
The 777W is already a worry!



cheers

brindabella wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Looking back the limiting factor of the 777-9 isn't really a lack of cabin area.

If the goal of the 777-10 is to create a high capacity medium haul monster similar to the 787-10 then a stretch to 80m would be all that is required. There would be a huge amount of underfloor space to relocate all toilets and meal prep areas. This would effectively free up as much cabin area for seating as a 10m stretch.

An increase in payload weight would be required as such high density would be fairly heavy.

Tail strike?
The 777W is already a worry!



cheers

It's only 3m extra. The bigger wing on the 777X means it wouldn't have to rotate as much on takeoff.

So sorry that the 748 is a "failure".
It is an astonishing looking plane.
744 was a big hit, even 743 was good - given his short life.
But maybe airlines do not need all that space anymore. And if they need it, they simply go for the 380.
It's really the end for quads?

Carlos01 wrote:

william wrote:

Kind of agree with Jubguy, the only reason for the hump would be to move the cockpit off the main floor, as his pic shows. That is important, because the only reason for such an aircraft you are proposing would be to phase out the 747 production completely, yet keep its present and future freighter customers happy with a more efficient "747" like aircraft.

No matter how feasible vs. ridiculous this thread is, I think the airplane industry needs some good shaking up. Now we are at the point where the customers are asking for the faster horse - time for something new? One change will be without a doubt, the transformation of airplanes from being airline-focused, into being end-customer focused. Why did Apple get so successful? Because they just did it better than others, it just works, it's comfortable, and people are willing to pay a premium for it. People are paying more and more everywhere for a bit of additional comfort and luxury, they are finally putting value on themselves, especially healthy diet, fitness / keeping in shape / feeling good, is gaining global traction like no tomorrow.

When will we see the first plane that addresses even some of this? Like... how about using this theoretical "hump" for a gym and a few showers for the users? Would really kick ass on a 12+ hour flight. Would add only very little weight (compared to additional seats, passengers, and their luggage), no issue for emergency exit. With modern materials, I'm sure we are not far away from providing the gym with see-through ceiling/walls. Or make you believe you are in a magical forest, with fake sunlight, peace & quiet (additional sound-proofing?). Birds singing.

Why not having a small duty-free shop in the hump, where you can browse items, instead of the stewardesses pushing the stupid-ass carts around crammed aisles of the plane asking if anyone wants duty free? That would also generate additional income, with good pricing and selection even a lot of it. A small casino? Even a better source of income! Over international waters/airspace shouldn't be an issue? A "Very Tiny Italy" pizzeria? Make the hump look like a spaceship from the inside, project images like travelling in space from the "windows".

Emirates already has the bar/lounge on the A380, which is an excellent first step in that direction. Why stop there?

I could think of a ton of non-conventional uses for such a hump. Not saying that it necessarily has to be a hump on a 777. Just in general.

That's just what's needed is showers in the upper deck. Just wait till one of these showers leaks and gets passengers on the lower decks wet.

Gym
Showers
King sized beds
A SPA
You may add a bounch of fancy restaurants
A golf course, why not
Some shopping centers with deluxe shoes & purses to keep your precious one occupied
A winery, that's so sofisticate
I consider myself lucky when I get a free sandwich that tastes like plastic and a (plastic) glass of discount-brand orange juice
And super lucky when there's no screaming baby anywhere near

Again I think much of this discussion misses the point; the 747 was queen for ages not due to her size, but her unrivaled range. Sure, Boeing will unveil a 777-10X version at some point in the next 3-5 years, but the twin ranges don't really leave a big space for some huge 600 seater or whatever.

It's Airbus, after all, who admitted finally that their VLA projection numbers had included/baked in, of all things, their own A330. Crown space/major floor shifts could be done on a 777 frame, but the cost would be well north of what the additional orders would justify, imho. I don't think Boeing will spend another dime on a major engineering project related to an aluminum frame. The three 77x variants are the proverbial end of the road.

Like so much on A.net, an idea innocent of any actual engineering knowledge or, even a modicum of experience in aviation except sitting in row xxA.

GF

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Carlos01 wrote:

william wrote:

Kind of agree with Jubguy, the only reason for the hump would be to move the cockpit off the main floor, as his pic shows. That is important, because the only reason for such an aircraft you are proposing would be to phase out the 747 production completely, yet keep its present and future freighter customers happy with a more efficient "747" like aircraft.

No matter how feasible vs. ridiculous this thread is, I think the airplane industry needs some good shaking up. Now we are at the point where the customers are asking for the faster horse - time for something new? One change will be without a doubt, the transformation of airplanes from being airline-focused, into being end-customer focused. Why did Apple get so successful? Because they just did it better than others, it just works, it's comfortable, and people are willing to pay a premium for it. People are paying more and more everywhere for a bit of additional comfort and luxury, they are finally putting value on themselves, especially healthy diet, fitness / keeping in shape / feeling good, is gaining global traction like no tomorrow.

When will we see the first plane that addresses even some of this? Like... how about using this theoretical "hump" for a gym and a few showers for the users? Would really kick ass on a 12+ hour flight. Would add only very little weight (compared to additional seats, passengers, and their luggage), no issue for emergency exit. With modern materials, I'm sure we are not far away from providing the gym with see-through ceiling/walls. Or make you believe you are in a magical forest, with fake sunlight, peace & quiet (additional sound-proofing?). Birds singing.

Why not having a small duty-free shop in the hump, where you can browse items, instead of the stewardesses pushing the stupid-ass carts around crammed aisles of the plane asking if anyone wants duty free? That would also generate additional income, with good pricing and selection even a lot of it. A small casino? Even a better source of income! Over international waters/airspace shouldn't be an issue? A "Very Tiny Italy" pizzeria? Make the hump look like a spaceship from the inside, project images like travelling in space from the "windows".

Emirates already has the bar/lounge on the A380, which is an excellent first step in that direction. Why stop there?

I could think of a ton of non-conventional uses for such a hump. Not saying that it necessarily has to be a hump on a 777. Just in general.

That's just what's needed is showers in the upper deck. Just wait till one of these showers leaks and gets passengers on the lower decks wet.

Showers are already have wide experience on the upper deck of the A380, what’s the problem?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Like so much on A.net, an idea innocent of any actual engineering knowledge or, even a modicum of experience in aviation except sitting in row xxA.

GF

What do you think Steve Jobs or Elon Musk have replied to their engineers who were saying "that cannot be done" or "that's too impractical" or "only someone who has no clue can think of something like that"? Probably they said "Aaa, ok, never mind then, forgetaboutit". Or perhaps something else?

Speaking of which, I would love to see a bowling alley and an icehockey rink on a plane. And a wingsuite flying simulator. And private suites that you can rent per hour. And a sauna with a whirlpool. And I want to see all of that on the lower deck! Upper deck can be crammed full of people.

Please tell me beloved engineers, is there any idea in this thread that cannot be done from engineering point of view? Ok, an 18-hole golf course is pushing it. But a driving range I could see possible.

Shooting range???

In my rather limited understanding of the 777X program, the proposed 777-10 stretch would be a regional high density hauler that would also likely need additional doors to meet passenger egress requirements. Those doors would add weight and likely negatively impact additional seat space, making it of questionable utility in a lot of ways (extra cost to certify, build passed on through purchase price to customers, the extra empty mass would impact fuel economy as it would require more cycles per day to keep it's CASM numbers up, all leads to extra cost against only a modest number of extra seats). I'm sure that someone, somewhere will put forward a business case for it, and additional technological development may allow it to further optimize it's weight efficiency, reducing some of the issues above as well.

For doing anything bigger, you'd have to look at how heavy the aircraft will eventually be, and how much money you really want to pour into it. I suggest that you'd want to start with the lightest empty weight variant of the airframe and build from there.

Begin with the 777-8. reshape the upper portion of the main cabin area from just behind the cockpit to just before the tail to accommodate a crown that can seat 4 abreast business class seats. There will be a stairway at the front and back of the crown, as well as two doors on the sides just forward of the wings to allow for multi-deck embarking/egress and emergency slides.

If this is properly done, it can keep the total mass low enough that the pavement loading isn't an issue and there will be no need for a third main gear. Just reshaping the crown, but retaining everything from the maindeck floor on down and from the frames immediately behind the cockpit forward and immediately in front of the tail aft will serve to keep the development costs reasonable. This will allow high density seating throughout the main cabin area and premium seating in the crown, with maybe a few first class seats all the way forward if those are desired. Without doing a major tear up of the wings and engines, the design should allow similar range to the -9 as well. Given how long such a program would take, it would likely receive an updated engine through PIPS anyway, making up for any range issues in meeting that goal.

Would it require it's own certification program? Most likely, though I would have to imagine that portions of it would be considerably less complicated than the initial 777X program was.

Would it be able to seat as many warm bodies as the 777-10x would in a high density arrangement with sufficient exit doors for the task? Potentially, but probably not. But it would have significant revenue advantages over the 10X with the "premium" seating on the upper deck. You're looking at about 25-30 rows of business class seats at 4 abreast, that's 100-120 seats of premium revenue as compared to how many rows of extra economy can you fit in 3M as compared to stretching the -9 to the -10? At 10 abreast, that's at best 30 people. If you're breaking the 80M box, you're limiting airports that are usable for what, another 3M and 30 people? You're also adding a lot of empty weight by going longer than that for diminishing returns.

A double decker 777X makes sense, but only in a world where you need more range than the 10X could give and you predict that you can keep the load factors very high.

A 380-NEO would make it not financially viable though. The NEO would drive it to a very rough performance target and price target and likely make it never make financial sense.

(edited to fix typos)

texl1649 wrote:

Again I think much of this discussion misses the point; the 747 was queen for ages not due to her size, but her unrivaled range. Sure, Boeing will unveil a 777-10X version at some point in the next 3-5 years, but the twin ranges don't really leave a big space for some huge 600 seater or whatever.

It's Airbus, after all, who admitted finally that their VLA projection numbers had included/baked in, of all things, their own A330. Crown space/major floor shifts could be done on a 777 frame, but the cost would be well north of what the additional orders would justify, imho. I don't think Boeing will spend another dime on a major engineering project related to an aluminum frame. The three 77x variants are the proverbial end of the road.

This 1,000 times over. They 777x was done with the exiting fuselage to be reasonably cheap and to minimize project specific infrastructure cost in terms of mandrels. Much of what is being paid for with the wing center can be used to cook whatever else Boeing wants to make. A composite fuselage would have made it better and you could have more directly competed with the A350 but it wasn’t worth it. In reality most airlines will consider a 787-9 against an A359 anyway. The 77X has done well with those airlines that demand top end range/payload.

I have been told by people at Boeing that they will never build another airplane that isn’t increasingly composite simply because the level of automation possible is much higher.

The 77X will have a long career because what will be needed to beat it is a clean sheet composite 10 wise airplane so long as the tube and wings model predominates. And the market for planes that big is rather limited as the 77X and A350-1000 have shown us.

I think your point on why the 747 was what it was is spot on and also applies to the 77W and other original models. Simply put if you wanted to go a long way there wasn’t anything smaller than the 777 that would do it with a good payload. The A340 was not as efficient. The A330 only grew it’s range later in life. The 767 wouldn’t do it.

Now you can basically buy a plane as small as the 788 that can cover a lot of range. You don’t have to have something as big as a 777 doing it.

In the same way that Airbus overestimated the 747 replacement market for the A380 I believe they overestimated and didn’t properly locate the market for the A350-1000. Most 77W outside the ME3 and can make due with an A359 or 787-9 or 10. That’s what the market is telling us. They ended up with the A350-1000 being not quite enough plane for the biggest 77W users in the world. That’s a big miss.

Thanks LightningZ71 for the answer.

Where would this 777-10 "regional" be used?
Extra high density routes in Asia, transcontinental routes in the US?
I don't see any route in the EU in need of this kind of plane. Medium to big WBs get the job done by now, something like a 763 appears to be enough. Can't see a 773 being fully booked in intra-Eu routes, but I can be wrong.