Qantas wants bigger 787

David747 · Post by **David747** » 14 Jul 2007, 08:46

A350XWB wrote:boeing Y3 ..

Yellowstone 3 by Boeing is a project design to replace the B777-300 and 747 family.

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 14 Jul 2007, 08:54

The 787-10 is more of an A350-900 and 777-200 size aircraft. The problem with Y3 is that it would not only replace the 777-300 but kill the 747-8I as well. I don't think Boeing will want to kill the just redesigned 747 just yet. I think that Boeing could do a Y2.5. That is use the 787 fuselage with a new bigger wing and heavier landing gear. This would be the so called 787-11. Remember that Boeing used the same fuselage cross section on the 707, 727, 737, and 757. Boeing could just as easily use the basic fuselage cross section of the 787 to develop a whole family of aircraft from 210 to 375 passengers. All would have the one piece barrel CFRP fuselage and use the existing manufacturing equipment. The difference would be in the wings, engines and landing gears.
I think Boeing is pretty far along with the 737 replacement. The P&W geared turbo fan (GTF) is showing great promiss as the engine for the new CFRP 737. By 2017 Boeing could have a whole range of CFRP aircraft from 100 to 375 passengers. Only the aluminum 747-8I will soldier on in the 450 passenger size.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 14 Jul 2007, 17:50

747-8 at the moment is successful only as a freighter. With only one launch customer for the 747-8, I don't see the production of this plane lasting more than 5 years, giving Boeing enough time to study its replacement and the replacement of the 777-300. As for the A350-1000, that plane seems like a logical replacement for any operators of the 773ER. Here, Airbus could develop an advantage over Boeing, if it develops a plane that could carry up to 350 pax, over 8,000nm. I know Qantas would love a plane that could do that. Non stop service from Sydney to London could be achieve by a plane like that.

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 15 Jul 2007, 01:20

The 747-8I can carry up to 467 passengers 8,000nm. This performance might even be improved a bit by Boeing as the design of the 747-8I won't be frozen until the end of the year. I really think that the 747-8I will sell more, but the freighter version will keep the line open for the foreseeable future. I wonder if Y3 will be designed as a freighter and passenger aircraft like the 747 was. Will Y3 have a freighter version with a nose door for cargo? Will Y3 have the famous 747 style hump?I can see the 747-8F in production until at least 2020.

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 15 Jul 2007, 04:46

David747 wrote:7 As for the A350-1000, that plane seems like a logical replacement for any operators of the 773ER. Here, Airbus could develop an advantage over Boeing, if it develops a plane that could carry up to 350 pax, over 8,000nm. I know Qantas would love a plane that could do that. Non stop service from Sydney to London could be achieve by a plane like that.

Sydney to London is 9,188 nautical miles.
The B777-300ER can carry 365 passengers with a range of 7930 nautical miles.
The B777-200LR can carry 301 passengers with a range of 9,450 miles.
Qantas would like to see a 350 passenger plane that can go the distance with the usually safety margin, but it hasn't been done yet. The B777-10 might well be the first to the market that can pull it off.

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 15 Jul 2007, 06:10

PYX wrote:
David747 wrote:7 As for the A350-1000, that plane seems like a logical replacement for any operators of the 773ER. Here, Airbus could develop an advantage over Boeing, if it develops a plane that could carry up to 350 pax, over 8,000nm. I know Qantas would love a plane that could do that. Non stop service from Sydney to London could be achieve by a plane like that.
Sydney to London is 9,188 nautical miles.
The B777-300ER can carry 365 passengers with a range of 7930 nautical miles.
The B777-200LR can carry 301 passengers with a range of 9,450 miles.
Qantas would like to see a 350 passenger plane that can go the distance with the usually safety margin, but it hasn't been done yet. The B777-10 might well be the first to the market that can pull it off.

There is not a big market for a 9,5000 NM plus aircraft. The A350-1000 can't do this as proposed. The 787-10 would need a new wing and bigger engines to do 9500 NM. Boeing might be able to do a 787-9ER that might be able to do it. I think the 787-10 will be an 8,000 nm aircraft at first. This would cover most of the market. Boeing could do a 787-10 ER later if the market is big enough.

CX · Post by CX » 15 Jul 2007, 06:58

I doubt Boeing will stretch the 787 anything more than the -10, it will probably need much more supporting structures to be a spaghetti, and then go overweight like the A340-600.

There should be a long way until Y3, you always want to get most of a model then make a new model right? With still sales coming for 777s and a large backlog, it won't be replaced any time soon, more likely an improvement maybe with new wings and engines. In the perspective to kill off Airbus, they can do a Y3 and just discard the fact that they have 748I, but economically, having its 777 family beaten by the much newer A350 family for a bit of time does not cause problems, every 777 produced means taht the 777 programme is one aircraft more successful, and certainly you won't want to shorten your own programme by your own aircraft.

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 15 Jul 2007, 07:41

I am anxious for airbus. ....I think that airbus can go bankrupt

ps : exuse me.. my english is bad

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 15 Jul 2007, 12:24

A350XWB wrote:I am anxious for airbus. ....I think that airbus can go bankrupt

ps : exuse me.. my english is bad

Your English is fine. I only wish that I knew another language as well as many Luchtzak posters do.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 15 Jul 2007, 23:51

CX wrote:I doubt Boeing will stretch the 787 anything more than the -10, it will probably need much more supporting structures to be a spaghetti, and then go overweight like the A340-600.

Agreed, I don't see anything past the 787-10.

There should be a long way until Y3, you always want to get most of a model then make a new model right? With still sales coming for 777s and a large backlog, it won't be replaced any time soon, more likely an improvement maybe with new wings and engines. In the perspective to kill off Airbus, they can do a Y3 and just discard the fact that they have 748I, but economically, having its 777 family beaten by the much newer A350 family for a bit of time does not cause problems, every 777 produced means taht the 777 programme is one aircraft more successful, and certainly you won't want to shorten your own programme by your own aircraft.

Yes! The Y3 is indeed a long way off thanks to the B777 sales, as you noted. I believe the reality of the situation as we see it with Qantas is that to them the 777 is old. They see Singapore Airlines ordering the A350 as a replacement to their older 777 models. The 777 by the time the A350 goes into production, will have technology that is old compared to the 787, or A350. I believe that Airbus could have the upper hand against the 777 with the A350-900 and 1000 models. And if any of these planes somehow could make Syd to London non stop, and be fuel efficient, Qantas will wait to see a plane like that and forgo any stretch 787.

achace · Post by **achace** » 16 Jul 2007, 01:51

As I said earlier, the XWB1000 cut back to 300 seats will have enough weight carrying capacity for 25 tonnes of fuel in auxiliary tanks which would give it Sydney to London all year round, and be very comfortable at 300 seats.

Cheers
Achace

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 16 Jul 2007, 11:30

CX wrote:I doubt Boeing will stretch the 787 anything more than the -10, it will probably need much more supporting structures to be a spaghetti, and then go overweight like the A340-600..

The fuselage of the A350 is only about 9 inches wider then the 787. Therefore I see no reason why Boeing can't make a 787-11 that is 73.8 meters long like the A350-1000. Such an aircraft would need a bigger wing like the A350, stronger landing gear, and bigger engines, but I think Boeing could do it if they wanted to. I don't think the plane would weigh any more then the A350-1000 would. The redesign would be so extensive it might be better to just build the Y3. I don't personally think Boeing would build a 787-11, but they could.

CX · Post by CX » 16 Jul 2007, 13:23

boomer535 wrote:
CX wrote:I doubt Boeing will stretch the 787 anything more than the -10, it will probably need much more supporting structures to be a spaghetti, and then go overweight like the A340-600..
The fuselage of the A350 is only about 9 inches wider then the 787. Therefore I see no reason why Boeing can't make a 787-11 that is 73.8 meters long like the A350-1000. Such an aircraft would need a bigger wing like the A350, stronger landing gear, and bigger engines, but I think Boeing could do it if they wanted to. I don't think the plane would weigh any more then the A350-1000 would. The redesign would be so extensive it might be better to just build the Y3. I don't personally think Boeing would build a 787-11, but they could.

Yep, but that would mean their 787 airframe works from the smallest 787-8 to a length that is possibly longer than the wider 777 (even though 777 is 9 abreast anyway). They can build it, but probably at big weight penalties, maybe even more significant than A340-600, Boeing at first I recall, did not intend to stretch the 787, it is basically a 767 replacement, the -10 is a response to the A350, and whether it will be as good as the smaller -8 and -9, no one knows.

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 16 Jul 2007, 17:07

The reason the 787 carries less passengers then the A350 is the A350 has a bigger wing with more area and can carry more weight. The fuselages are within 9 inches of each other. Even though the A350 is 9 inches widder they still can't do 10 abreast (comfortably). A 787 that is as long as the A350-1000 (242 feet) will seat about the same number of passengers. If a 242 foot 787 is too long, then a 242 foot A350 should be too long as well. Maybe Airbus will have the same problems with the A350-1000 that they are having with the A340-600.

DC3 Fan · Post by **DC3 Fan** » 16 Jul 2007, 20:47

Just as a matter of interest, Emirates' 777 seats are ten abreast in Economy, 3-4-3. They do have 33 inch seat pitch, which is a little better than many.

http://tinyurl.com/2sk78p

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 17 Jul 2007, 01:26

DC3 Fan wrote:Just as a matter of interest, Emirates' 777 seats are ten abreast in Economy, 3-4-3. They do have 33 inch seat pitch, which is a little better than many.

http://tinyurl.com/2sk78p

283 seats on a 777-200, WOW!! The economy seats are 17 inches wide, smaller then on a 747 with 10 abreast. I can see why Emirates like the 777, they must be making some money.

The A350 is called an extra wide body but it is not wide enough for 10 abreast. What does the extra width get you except more drag over the 787? Maybe a little bit wider seats at 9 abreast is all I can see.

CX · Post by CX » 17 Jul 2007, 07:11

boomer535 wrote:
DC3 Fan wrote:Just as a matter of interest, Emirates' 777 seats are ten abreast in Economy, 3-4-3. They do have 33 inch seat pitch, which is a little better than many.

http://tinyurl.com/2sk78p
283 seats on a 777-200, WOW!! The economy seats are 17 inches wide, smaller then on a 747 with 10 abreast. I can see why Emirates like the 777, they must be making some money.

The A350 is called an extra wide body but it is not wide enough for 10 abreast. What does the extra width get you except more drag over the 787? Maybe a little bit wider seats at 9 abreast is all I can see.

787 goes comfortably with 2-4-2, it will have narrower seats than the A350 but I do agree that for airlines who doesn't really care too much about comfort, the extra inches the A350 has merely creates more drag and no revenue. And talking about Emirates, well they put 3-3-3 on A330s! So for them, 3-4-3 on A350s will not be surprising right? If they have 747s now they might go 4-4-4!

boomer535 · Post by **boomer535** » 17 Jul 2007, 11:54

The 777 cabin is about 9 inches wider then the A350XWB. If 10 abreast in the 777 is tight it would be downright painfull in the A350!! I thought the seats in a 747-400 I flew in last year at 10 abreast were a little tight. Especially on a 12 hour flight to Manilla.

Both the A350 and 787 have been advertised as being more comfortable then existing airliners, but I think that Airlines will pack in as many people as they can to make money. At least the humidity and air pressure increase on the 787 will make the environment more comfortable.

DC3 Fan · Post by **DC3 Fan** » 17 Jul 2007, 22:56

This post was superceded by the next post.

DC3 Fan · Post by **DC3 Fan** » 18 Jul 2007, 00:10

This is a re-post of the previous message with the Airline Names padded with underscores to better align the table.

Here are some standard economy seat statistics for B-777s in international service ranked by seat floor area. The percents are of the smallest ANA floor area.

Data source: Seatguru.com

Note: Sorry, the column alignment was lost when this was posted. Can anyone tell me how to preserve the alignment?

_____________B777, _Seats_,Width,Pitch, Floor Area
Airline________Model, #,Pattern,_in, in, sq in, sq m
Singapore______, 300, 9, 3-3-3, 19, 32, 608, 0.392, 119%
Korean________, 300, 9, 3-3-3, 17, 35, 595, 0.384, 116%
Singapore____, 200ER, 9, 3-3-3, 17.5, 34, 595, 0.384, 116%
American______, 200, 9, 2-5-2, 18.5, 32, 592, 0.382, 116%
Asiana_________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17, 34, 578, 0.373, 113%
Emirates__, 200&300, 10, 3-4-4, 17, 34, 578, 0.373, 113%
Korean________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17, 34, 578, 0.373, 113%
Maylasia_______, 200, 9, 2-5-2, 17, 34, 578, 0.373, 113%
American______, 200, 9, 2-5-2, 18, 32, 576, 0.372, 113%
ANA___________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 16.5, 34, 561, 0.362, 110%
Emirates_______, 200, 10, 3-4-3, 17, 33, 561, 0.362, 110%
Eva___________, 300, 9, 3-3-3, 17, 33, 561, 0.362, 110%
Korean________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17, 33, 561, 0.362, 110%
Korean________, 300, 9, 3-3-3, 17, 33, 561, 0.362, 110%
CathyPacfc_, 200&300, 9, 3-3-3, 17.5, 32, 560, 0.361, 109%
Singapore_____, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17.5, 32, 560, 0.361, 109%
United________, 200, 9, 2-5-2, 18, 31, 558, 0.360, 109%
Continental____, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17.9, 31, 555, 0.358, 108%
British________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17.5, 31, 543, 0.350, 106%
KLM__________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17.5, 31, 543, 0.350, 106%
Delta_________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 17, 31, 527, 0.340, 103%
ANA__________, 200, 9, 3-3-3, 16.5, 31, 512, 0.330, 100%

note: # = seats per row