Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 5. Turbofan design problems April 26, 2024
- Airbus 1Q2024 results: Airbus CEO: “A350 in-service experience drives positive reputation and orders” April 25, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 3 April 25, 2024
- Boeing CEO promises company is turning around…again April 24, 2024
- Solid start for stand-alone GE Aerospace despite cuts to LEAP output April 23, 2024
777X for Washington State: Reports Jon Ostrower
The Temporary Surge Line or TSL is prospectively slated for retirement in 2016 to make way for 777X as to not disrupt current 777 production. This plan mirrors a temporary third line in Renton for 737 Max.
But who will design the wing?
So reports Jon Ostrower on his Facebook page.
So, has the decision been officially announced yet?
Nope.
Boeing will design the wing, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if they decided to build it in Charleston. 😉
How would they transport it (the wing) to Everett then?
By ship.
Boeing could use the B-747LCF to move the wings, or as Scott suggests, by ship. The wingspan of the B-777-9X will be about 235′ long, including wingtip devices. The useable cargo space in the B-747LCF is about 135′ to 150′. With a fuselage width of about 20′, then each wing should be around 108′ long, including the wingtip devices. The cargo compartment width of the B-747LCF is about 27′ wide, the widest portion of the wing, the wing root is about 25′, so should fit, without leading and trailing edge devices.
There is also a transport by rail option. Boeing has been moving complete fuselage sections of the B-737NG by rail for years. The B-737-800 model is 129′ long, and the -900ER is 138′ long. The B-737NG model closest in size to the new wings of the B-777-9X is the B-737-700 model, at 110′ long. Of course the B-737NG is only about 13′ tall, about half the height of the B-777X wing, so special routing for the train will be required to get across rail bridges and tunnels.
“There is also a transport by rail option. so special routing for the train will be required to get across rail bridges and tunnels.”
That’s a pretty long train trip from Japan…. 🙂
Isn’t one of the considerations to build the wings in Charleston? If they build them there, than trains would be an option. If built in Japan, then the only options would be by ship or by air.
You’re supposed to laff, KC. Yuk it up.
(And yes, Charleston has been mentioned as an option by outsiders.)
I don’t think that rail trestle from Japan to Puget Sound is completed yet. LOL
With the 787-10 coming up for ATO in the next couple of years could all the real estate in Charleston be going to that program? Boeing is going to need to be able to produce 15 to 20 787’s of all variants when all three variants are in production, in combination with the 777X demand, there is a lot space demand in the future.
Will Boeing expand the 767 line into the 747 bays when they halt 747 production in the 20’s to build tankers? Or will those bays go to building 777 wings? I am operating under the assumption that the VC-25’s AF-1 replacements will be the last of the 747s.
The B-7810 got ATO last year, it should be coming up for launch sometime this year. I doubt the KC-46 tanker FAL will need to move into space on the B-747 line. The USAF is only buying 12-15 per year, as currently scheduled.
I don’t know if the VC-25 replacement airplanes will be the last B-747 passenger airplanes off the line. The Presidential B-747-400s for South Korea and Japan may also need replacement by the end of this decade. There are also other Presidential airplanes that will come up for replacement. These include B-744, A-345, B-747SP, A-300, CC-150, B-742, A-343, B-752, B-707, B-767-300ER, B-727, A-310, Tu-154, and many, many others. Obviously not all will be replaced by the B-747-8I, but some will. Wasn’t there already a B-747-8I recently delivered for the Emir of Kuwait?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing designed and built the majority of wing. The reason is simple: the suppliers goofed on the initial designs of the wing on the 787. Boeing had to teach the Heavies in Japan how to design composite parts for the wings and parts of the wing itself by sending hundreds of their own engineers over there to embed with them. They also had to buy out suppliers with the technology. It’s obvious the company mantra at the outset of the 787 was “the suppliers know the nuts and bolts more than the company, so just contract it out to them.” We all know how that turned out, and the reality is only some parts does that hold true. Further, relying on the suppliers guaranteed opaque management structures and processes.
Why take the risk? Why teach your future competitors how to do it? They have the technology, the know-how, and the footprint and resources to make it work.
Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing subcontracted almost all of it again. “If at first you don’t succeed, keep trying until you’re broke or it works.”
I don’t see ships as a valuable option. Of course, you will tell me that Airbus does exactly that with the A380 wing, but the distance between the UK and France is clearly not the same.
I knew about the 737 fuselages being moved through rail, I didn’t know if the 777X wing would fit, especially if (as some say), it is built in one piece. If it fits in length (and weight), then I’m sure that they can find some options to accommodate the height.
I thought that they couldn’t use the Dreamlifter, but I’ll accept your analysis on this.