I was looking through information from Boeing's Annual Investor Conference can be found here and I noticed in the 787 Program Update that Boeing still intends to build the 787-3 and will reach firm configuration sometime after 4Q 2009 (after the 787-9) and will EIS after the 787-9. Boeing also notes the 787-3 will incorporate improvements and features from the 787-9.

This intrigues me.

Many of us have believed that Boeing would re-design the 787-3 because the current model has gained zero traction outside of NH and JL and their needs can be met with a "787-8D" using the upturned wingtip extensions and the 53klb thrust engines of the 787-3 and a paper reduction in MTOW.

Most, if not all, of us assumed Boeing's 787-3 re-design would aim for the 767-300 replacement market, with a lighter frame and higher MTOW with a range of around 5000nm with pax+bags+some cargo.

But what if the 787-3, instead of being based on the 787-8, would instead be based on the 787-9 and designed to combat the A330-300 as an A-market aircraft?

The 787-9 is a bit larger then the A330-300 in terms of cabin area and it offers four more LD3 positions so it could offer more payload thanks to supporting higher TOWs (up to 245t vs. 230t) and needing to tank less fuel due to higher-performance engines (and perhaps better aerodynamics). And while the A330-300 is very light for her size, Boeing should be able to get the 787-3's OEW down, as well.

Airbus right now appears to have no plans in place to replace the A330-300. Yes, a Spanish paper floated a hypothetical "A350XWB Regional" with a paper reduction in MTOW, but evidently no other changes. And many have floated a hypothetical re-engine and/or re-wing of the A330 family.

The A330-300 has been a very successful program for Airbus. Boeing might see an opportunity to try and muscle in on that success...



I also noticed that the 787-10 appeared on the "Product Development" slide for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes presentation.

Stitch,

I think the proposed simple stretch of 787-9 as the 787-10 is the ideal replacement of the 330-300. WIDEBODYPHOTOG master_lh_mission_dataset.gif dated 2007 calculated an OEW = 278,300 vs. 274,500 for the 330-300 (Airbus site). Since it is a simple stretch, all the improvements of -9 will flow directly within. It can do all the A and most of B markets.

787-10 vs. 330-300 comparisons

MTOW: +26,300# (540,000 – 513,700)
MZFW: +24,200# (410,000 – 385,800)
OEW: +4,200# (278,300 – 274,500)
Payload: +30,500# (131,700 – 101,200)
Fuel: +7,858Gal (33,528 – 25,670)
3-Class: +6P (301 – 295)
LD-3 (2): +12 (44 – 32)

Regards,

Michael

Forgive me but why does Boeing need to do this with the 783? As Stitch noted above, the 789 supposed to be larger than the A333 and carry more pax/cargo. I suspect it will have a significant range advantage as well over both models of the A330.

Aurora,

You mean the 787-10. The 787-3 is the same size as the 787-8 designed for the Japanese’s market. So, why does Boeing need to redesign it based on the 787-9 to attack the 300P A market when 787-10 does it by default? So, why did Boeing proposed the 787-10 as a simple stretch in the first place?

As far as floor space,

330-300: 2,788 ft2
787-8:2,404 ft2
787-9:2,769 ft2
798-10: 3,131 ft2

Regards,

Michael

Michael, actually I was referring to the 783, which is the thread topic. Doesn't the 789 take on the A333 anyway? I probably missed the point of the discussion, though....

BTW, thanks for the data. Do you have the cabin area for the A332 handy?

Edit: sorry, meant floor space.

Aurora,

330-200: 2,489 ft2

This type of debate is very stimulating. You start down one direction per the title and end up going in a different direction do to insights presented during the debate. The 330-200 & 330-300 have the same MTOW. The 330-200 is a 200P & 330-300 is a 300P airplanes. You are trading capacity for range, likewise, with the 787-9 & 787-10. However, the difference here is that the 330-200 is a shrink with less payload capacity and with additional fuel capacity for greater range. 787-10 is a stretch for greater payload capacity with the same 787-9 fuel capacity for less range.

Regards,

Michael

The 787-9 does take on the A330-300 in the same way the 777-200ER and A340-300 do - all three are similar in size, but the A343 and 77E are much heavier because they are designed to fly a lot farther. That extra weight results in poorer performance on shorter missions because it requires more powerful engines and higher fuel burn to both lift that extra empty weight and the extra fuel needed to tote it around.

My worry about the 787-10, with the same MTOW as the 787-9, is that it becomes the 777-300 - a very specialized, high-volume, medium-ranged model with a very limited market. The 777-300 has similar range to the A330-300, but offers almost 38% more cargo volume and 28% more passenger floor space. And yet it sold even worse then the 777-200 and almost solely to Asian carriers for domestic or regional services.

Airlines want the 787-10 to be the next 777-200LR - fly 300 passengers over 8000nm - but at much greater efficiency. Now that Airbus is claiming to offer just that with the A350-900XWB, a 245t MTOW 787-10 just strikes me as a non-starter. Boeing is said to be working miracles in getting the plane to match the 777-200ER's performance, but if the A350-900XWB makes her numbers, that won't be good enough, I fear.

Stitch,

I know that the airlines want the 787-10 to be next 777-200LR. However, Boeing has a dilemma. A single airframe can’t encompass both the A & C markets. Here, B market is a freebie. If they want to attach the 330-300 and recapture the A market as you proposed, 787-10 as a simple stretch will do the job in a timely fashion. Time is on their side to design a 787-10ER to replace the 777-200LR and fend off the 350-900XWBR.

Regards,

Michael

They don't have that much time. Airbus has finalized the design and is adamant it will EIS in 2013. Even if the rumors circulating are true and Airbus needs another year of design refinement to meet the performance specifications, the A350-900XWB will still enter service within 12-24 months of the 787-9.

The problem with the 787-10 is there is just not TOW headroom left. At best, Boeing has 10t to work with based on what I hear the undercarriage is designed to handle. They had to jack the 787-9's TOW up to what they planned the 787-10's to be in order to tank enough fuel to fly over 8000nm at nominal payload. If Boeing was fantastically lucky, I suppose the 787-10's TOW could be raised enough to counter the weight of the extra structure, seats, passengers and their bags so it could carry ~40 more people the same 8000nm. But Boeing's own presentations to airlines around 12-18 months ago were aiming more for 7500nm at nominal payload. Also, a 787-10 is going to likely have a lower maximum structural payload then a 777-200ER (which is at 60t), but it will have 38% more hold space, so that means it will be flying around with empty space in the holds or empty seats in the cabin when operating the longest B-market missions.

So unless Boeing can re-design the undercarriage to support a 270-275t MTOW instead of a 250t one (and not buckle the pavement doing so), I'm not sure it will succeed against the A350-900XWB. Boeing needed 10,000 pounds more thrust to support the 25t TOW boost from the 787-8 to the 787-9. That means GE and Rolls would need to hit 85,000 pounds. Rolls has an engine that powerful - the Trent 2000 (formerly the Trent XWB) - but it has a good bit of new internals and a fan a half foot wider so it might not fit under the 787 wing. GE seems to be saying they can scale the GEnx to that level, as well, but they might need a larger fan and more bits to do it, as well.

Now, if the engines fit and Boeing can make the undercarriage work, then I think we'll see a launch because GE and Rolls would likely support it. Boeing has stated they can have a new 777 replacement in four years, but unless Y3 is a heck of a lot farther along in design then most of us assume, that has to mean some type of 787 derivative. Boeing could stretch the 787 by 12m to create the "787-11" with similar passenger capacity to the 777-300ER and significantly more cargo volume (18%), however I don't know if the plane could actually rotate when that long on the current 787 gear geometry and unless the 787's wings really are leaps and bounds better then expected, field performance is going to be a nightmare. To say nothing of needing engines pushing 95,000 lbs of thrust to support a ~300t MTOW.

A number of folks believe Boeing will do to the 787 what Airbus did to the A340-500/A340-600 - develop an entirely new and larger wing. They'd also need to re-design the wingbox to support a triple-axle main undercarriage truck along with longer struts to improve ground clearance to allow larger engines to be fitted. And they might scale the cabin diameter to support 10-abreast to bracket the A350XWB below and above in capacity. That might be possible in four years, but I have my doubts. Even if Boeing finishes the 787-9's firm configuration by the end of this year, they still have to work on the 787-3 and then figure out how to either create a 270+ ton 787-10 or design a new derivative with a new wing and perhaps fuselage.

I just don't think they can do it by 2013.

Stitch,

Do I need to remind you that the 350-900XWB scheduled for 2013 has a range of 8100 nm. It is designed for the B market (340-300 & 777-200ER). The C market 777-200LR has a range of 8750 nm without ACT (s). It is the 350-900R that is to be designed for the C market. Also, it is the airframe for the freighter.

By the way, Airbus is still refusing to state its OEW. It is amazing that all other perimeters are listed except OEW.

I agreed with the part of your analysis regarding the -10 as the 777-200LR replacement. However, Airbus is going to have the same issues regarding the -900R as the -10 regarding its undercarriage etc.

However, I disagree with your analysis regarding the simple stretch.

“Also, a 787-10 is going to likely have a lower maximum structural payload then a 777-200ER (which is at 60t), but it will have 38% more hold space, so that means it will be flying around with empty space in the holds or empty seats in the cabin when operating the longest B-market missions.”

They have essentially the same payload.

Airplane: 777-200ER 787-10
MTOW: 634,500 540,000
MZFW: 430,000 410,000
OEW: 304,500 278,300
Max Payload: 135,500 131,700
LD-3 (2): 32 44

The simple stretch can’t replace the -200ER in all missions as proposed. It can do all A missions which the 200ER is too larger for and it can encroach on a large % of the B market missions. It is the -10 designed for the C market that will also addressed the B market as well. It is going to have a MTOW & OEW lower than the 200ER.

Regards,

Michael

...wouldn't the MTOW for the 772ER be 656,000?

Stitch,

Concordeboy made a good observation regarding the posted values.

My numbers are from Boeing Airport Planning Document D6-58329 dated December 2008. However, 2.1.1 General Characteristics is dated July 1998. They are listed under HGW Option W/ GE engines. And my math was wrong, 430,000 – 304,500 = 125,500 not 135,500.

Your 60t = 60*2000 = 120,000. In fact w/ GE engines the proposed 787-10 has a higher maximum payload 131,700 vs. 125,500.

Now to add insult to injury, Boeing document 777-PS-2003 dated 6/28/07 page 4 of 11 W/ GE engines as the -200ER

MTOW: 656,000 (Concordeboy observation)
MZFW: 440,000
OEW: 321,500
Max Payload: 118,500

Now, it is 131,700 vs. 118,500 or + 13,200. Does this not weaken your case against the survivability of simple stretch 787-10?

Regards,

Michael

If Boeing thought the 787-10 at 245t would be a viable successor to the 777-200ER and a credible alternative to the A350-900XWB, I think they would already have announced it as part of the family to fulfill both of those roles. The A350-900XWB already has generated more then half the total sales of the 777-200ER and right now Boeing's public stance is either an improved or new 777 will be their answer, not the 787-10. The two most likely reasons for this are either Boeing doesn't think a 245t MTOW 787-10 can match the 777-200ER/A350-900XWB or Boeing's customers do not think a 245t MTOW 787-10 can match the 777-200ER/A350-900XWB.

The 777-200 has been dead for most of this decade and the 777-200ER is preparing to be laid to rest beside it. The 777-200LR is an amazing plane, but it isn't finding much traction with existing major 777-200ER operators (DL excepted), likely because for most of them they don't need to haul ~65t ~7500nm. Therefore, it's mostly going to new carriers (or carriers with very small 777-200ER fleets like EK) who likely are getting the 777-200LR for a similar purchase price to the 777-200ER and prefer to have a more capable plane because they can.

Widebodyphotog's numbers on the 787 family are mostly guestimates generated back in 2007 from data available at the time. I certainly won't dismiss them out of hand, but neither am I inclined to accept them as absolute truths. Airbus has also updated the numbers for the A350XWB family so the ones in his chart are now incorrect, as well.

I wish someone with Piano-X could run the numbers on the A350-900XWB vs. the 787-10 vs. the 777-200ER and see what the numbers show, but so far nobody with access to that kind of software appears to be willing to do it. I know Boeing and the airlines have it, and I am sure they've all run the numbers, and it appears that whatever is coming out so far isn't setting their hearts a-twitter.