Hazy on the 787-10: Steven Udvar-Hazy, CEO of Air Lease Corp and one of the most influential persons in the aviation business, weighs in on the versatility of the Boeing 787-10 in this Aviation Week article. Hazy and ALC were on the industry design team Boeing consulted during the discussions leading to the launch of the aircraft at the Paris Air Show. Originally Boeing planned a range of about 6,700 nm. Hazy constantly urged a range of 7,000 nm. This article gives an insight into Hazy’s overall thinking.
Turboprops: It’s a small market but five companies/countries are looking at whether to build the next generation of turboprops, as reported by Aviation Week.
The quoted range is 6,700-7,000nm. This leads me to believe that at 323 people the ranges is actually a 6,700nm airplane. It is only when you get down to the low density configurations that the 7,000nm will come into play. I am not sure that is what SUH meant when he asked for 7,000nm range. He is obviously happy enough.
What’s interesting is he states:
““We essentially have an airplane now that has almost the capacity of a 777-300ER, but with substantially lower trip costs”.
EK’s Clark has stated that the A350-1000XWB is a “super B777-300A”, capable of “running 10-12 hour flights”.
Its going to be interesting how carriers choose between the aformentioned planes. I thought the B787-10X was more of an A333-sized replacement.
I like the new look of this page.
tortugamon, I believe Boeing has said the B-787-10 will have a 7,000 nm range with a full passenger load.
The actual quote from Boeing is: “The new 787-10 will fly up to 7,000 nautical miles (12,964 km) — covering more than 90 percent of the world’s twin-aisle routes — with seating for 300-330 passengers, depending on an airline’s configuration choices.” I take that to mean that it is 7,000nm with 300 passengers and less with more. They have made the similar claims with the -8 and -9 so this isn’t out of the ordinary.
Regardless, I suspect that airlines that want to fly very long distances will be using lighter configurations and vice versa.
787-10 is going to be a great plane in the mould of B 300 ER and A 330 ; Boeing will (have to) keep improving the range beyond 7KNM + , nibbling away at 350-900 market needs as a more cost effective alternative.
Not sure though of the 10 abreast 7779X ,if you make it 9 abreast ,it is not that great vs 350-1000 .They have to take more weight out of the concept as it it now to make it as successful as 300 ER.
Afaics the 787-10 does not have the growth potential for big improvements over time that forex the A330 had.
It will be hampered by a wing designed for a plane 2 sizes smaller.
I thought the wing is over-sized for -8, but right-sized for -9. No?
initially the wing was right sized for the -8. The -9 was projected to have
a slightly larger wing ( tip extensions ? can’t remember ).
see the revision history on the WP:EN page (dec 31 2005):
After developement had turned into a nightmare and the delays raced each other the -8 wing was pronounced adequate for the -9.
Now the -8 wing adequacy has been extended to the -10 also 😉
31 December 2007:
wingspan for the -8 has grown to 60m, for the -9 to 63m
in retrospect really interesting to follow the changes over time ( wingspan, MTOW, ..).
Historically Boeing has sized their wings for future growth in takeoff weight. Internal structure has changed but the planform has stayed the same or had only minor changes.
– 747-100 at 710,000 lbs in 1969 vs the final 747-200 at 833,000 lbs in 1979 [+17%]
The 1989 747-400 had a six ft tip extension plus winglets: initial MTOW was 875,000 lbs, later increasing to 910,000 lbs for the -400ERF
– 767-200 MTOW was initially at 317,000 lbs in 1982; since the end of that decade the 767-300ER’s max available TOW has been 412,000 lbs [+29%]
– 787-8 MTOW = 502,500 lbs; 787-9 and -10 MTOW = 553,000 lbs [10.5% increase] using the same size wing.
The 787-10 has a long future. Only Boeing knows if there is any potential for additional takeoff weight in its wing.
You have sited two references that contradict each other. The -8/-9 both have 60 meter wings.
Only the chronological changes in design layout by Boeing over time.
Note the individual dates of the Wikipedia Snapshots.
Going through the Wikipedia Page Histories is quite insightfull.
“… wingspan for the -8 has grown to 60m, for the -9 to 63m”
“The 787-10 has a long future. Only Boeing knows if there is any potential for additional takeoff weight in its wing.”
The fact that an originally planned larger wing for the -9 has now become the same size as that for the -8 tells the story that this superior wing has outperformed their expectation.
In other words, it’s over sized for the -8, but about right sized for the -9, with the even larger -10 trading range with capacity.
Petten, my interpretation at the time was that available time and resources were
set against possible shortcomings and the balance fell towards accepting the future shortcomings. The 787 project was under immense pressure at the time and Boeing is a regular “find nice words full of ratio for decissions forced by circumstances”.
The -8 getting the -9size wing is explained by the -8 growing to the MTOW of the -9.
Good speculation on your part, but wrong. The wings were never different sizes, but don’t let that interfere with a good story.
gt62, your information is wrong ( and we are not in the 1984 timelline )
go through the History of the Wikipedia Page on the 787.
wingspans changed 4 or 5 times.
-3 -8 -9 ( no idea if the tabs survive )
51.6 m 58.8 m 60.0 m ( july 2006 )
52 m 60.12 m 60.12 m (dec 2006 )
52 m 60 m 63 m (dez 2007 )
52 m 60 m 63 m ( july 2008 )
— m 60 m 60 m ( june 2012 )
Wasn’t it you that told me not to trust everything in Wikipedia? 🙂
No idea what my alter ego wrote. could you point me to that post?
Nothing under googling “site:leehamnews.wordpress.com gt62 uwe wikipedia”
( then you could ask Scott who probably could give you similar wingspan change history information. Wikipedia certainly has its limitations, though much less than what is published on news sites, forex there is a shorttime edit to 50m wingspan for the -8 and -9 around done in dec 2012 afair 😉
Honestly the new layout is pretty old fashion and does not bring more clarity.
The background looks homemade in the 90s…
The background looks homemade in the 90s…
Back to black ( well what I see here ) !
True, but the original 787-9 was projected to have the MTOW of todays 787-8. At 250t, MTOW is already cornered in design space by approach speed, landing gear limits and available thrust.
Josh, according to Wikipedia, the 787-9 at 553,000 lbs MTOW has greater range than the smaller 787-8 at 502,500 lbs.
Approach speed – determined by landing weight, not takeoff weight. Max landing weights for the 787-8, -9 and -10 are 380,000, 425,000 and 445,000 lbs respectively. Actual landing weight at the end of a very long mission would be less, approximated by OEW plus that day’s payload plus reserve fuel. Higher landing weight = higher approach speed = longer landing field length. Runways are sized for takeoffs, not landings, so landing field lengths are rarely a critical factor.
One of the most critical landing gear design criteria is a rejected takeoff at max certified takeoff weight, using max braking effort, but no reverse thrust. If Boeing does increase MTOW above 553,000 lbs that will be one of their challenges
Available thrust – according to Wikipedia GE and RR may be anticipating a future -10 GW increase: the -9’s engines are rated at 71,000 lbs SLST, but the -10’s will be rated at 76,000 lbs.
I am surprised that AW devotes four pages to the competing turboprop projects, without even mentioning that they need engines …
Not to mention engines…there’s no room in the market for at least 4 out of 5 contenders and the business case is not clear at all for the remaining 1.
ATR72s are so dirt cheap where they are on the learning curve, that’s really hard to beat.
Interesting article on the turboprops, although it seemed to be missing a couple things. It mentions India’s mooted RTA, but neglects to mention that India is currently tendering a light military transport to replace it’s Avros (called medium in India, although clearly smaller than it’s MTA program) including EADS, Alenia, Antonov, Ilyushin as competitors. This program is also supposed to be linked to involving a new-entrant private Indian company in setting up capacity, which will be applied to a civil regional aircraft. It’s pretty likely that India is not likely to fund two competing regional aircraft, so RTA will likely be whatever program ends up involving the private Indian company associated with the military transport (possibly sharing work between public HAL as well).
EADS and Alenia offer their C-295 and C-27J for the military role, and could offer either ATR-72 production and/or participation in the new 90-100 seater. Antonov, which is actually involved in assisting China’s MA700, has it’s An-148… which isn’t that dynamic of an option, although reports of the tender requirements claimed a speed requirement that could only be met by Antonov’s regional jet, not turboprops: something about that tender isn’t quite solid, obviously. Ilyushin has a still unlaunched program for Il-112 but which has been receiving serious attention from Russian MoD, likely to have more solid announcement by MAKS in several weeks. That attention has also included talk of a passenger version, which could be the vehicle for India’s RTA effort, although what modifications it would comprise vs. the military airlifter is unknown.
About ATR’s program, it seems highly unlikely for EADS to not be involved, the early design work is still being hashed out, thru EU Clean Sky Research I believe, so the program isn’t really being substantially delayed (yet). Even if EADS didn’t want to spare the resources to participate equally, it seems likely they would still retain some participation, whether Alenia decided to go it alone, or in combination with other players – which could be Saab, Korea, or India. I like the 5-abreast concept, it also makes a premium/business class viable, although ensuring the smaller non-stretch version is competitive is of course important
I don’t see the Indian aircraft being build. The idea of giving it a composite fuselage speaks volumes of the approach: over-engineered and driven by the desire to apply all technology that is out there.
I think a stretched Q400 is the most likely aircraft, as it would be cheap and BBD has experience with stretching 4-abreast designs up to preposterous dimensions.
The article states nicely that any 5-abreast concept by ATR would mean a deviation from the current ATR concept. The ATR42/72 are actually very simple aircraft, designed to offer economy through simplicity. At least compared to the Q400. The approach appears to work well, with ATR having a comfortable lead in prop orders.
As stated by Philidor, the engine remains the key question. Current technology engines will probably not generate sufficient advantage compared to an E195-E2 with P&W GTF. Remains to be seen if P&W is compromising its own market (and if it can make the PW150 that much better given that the GTF advantage relies on technology largely not applicable to turboprops), or if GE steps in with a competing turboprop using Leap core technology.
THE 777-300ER AND A350S CARRY TONS OF IMPORTANT CARGO ON TOP OF THOSE 350 PASSENGERS ON 7000NM. IGNORED IT AND I’M AFRAID ONE MISSES OUT ON CORRECT PREDICTIONS. THE LARGEST 777 OPERATORS ORDERED A350S FOR A REASON.
Mr Udvar Hazy said that the 787-10 will be successful due to its versatility. I do not agree.
In term of versatility, the A350-900XWB is clearly more versatile (see the definition of “versatility” in wictionnary.
However, the 787-10 is clearly unbeatable in term of economics on routes up to slightly more than 6,000 nm.
If you wish to read the discussion in my blog this is the link: http://wp.me/piMZI-3fy
Quite…. Let’s not begin equating “versatile” with “good in one narrow use case”.
On a 6000NM flight an A350 can carry much more then a 787-10. If there is a strong cargo opportunity, no, the 787-10 is not unbeatable in terms of economics.
Lets wait for airfield performance too from hot/short runways. The wing seems smallish as will be rotation angles. Can influence payload-range too..
Lets wait until the 787-10 is defined before claiming any superiority.
I agree, keesje, let’s wait. The A-350 has only been in flight testing for a short period of time, and has not yet demonstrated its potential, either.
keesje “On a 6000NM flight an A350 can carry much more then a 787-10.”
Much more of what? In the regional version the A350-900XWB can indeed carry much more dead weight than the 787-10.
VV, if you define cargo as “dead weight” you are correct.
Uwe, the dead weight is the A350-900 extra OEW. It’s dead weight.
The A350-900’s wing and gear and also engines must be able to support the weight for 8,400 nm route and thus it is heavier. And yest the extra weight is dead weight that you carry on every single flight.
There is no way the A350-900ÙXWB “regional” can beat the 787-10’s economics. Never.
The only way to make the A350-900XWB regional better in term of DOC is to lower the ownership cost.
Nice to see that 6000nm are now considered regional. That distance covers
most European-Asian and European-American markets. It doesn’t really make a difference if an aircraft is designed for 7000nm or 5500nm. Size advantage by shorter design range becomes apparent if a range difference of at least 30-40% exists.
If the 787-10 and A350-900 empty weights are close and the Trent XWB has better sfc because of its bigger fan, newer technology, things will get interesting.
Airlines like BA, UA and SQ will avoid using the 787-10 above 5000NM. It would reduce cargo revenues opportunities and 9 abreast on a 787 longer then 8-10 hours would challenge their brand product consistency.
The 6000NM and 7000NM ranges used by some for the 787-10 are probably used for other purposes then representing real network dynamics.