Boeing reportedly mulling a super-stretched 777-10X to combat the A380

Multiple sources today have jumped on the story, based on looking at the 777-9X's reported wing area and the proposed 110,000lbf variant of the GE90, that Boeing is planning to offer a super-duper-stretched "777-10X" to try and meet or beat the fuel/passenger/mile number of any presumed A380NEO.

So I guess this is the Y3, a 777 with a new wing/engines and stretched to ludicrous lengths.

This thing, if built, should be longer than a 747-8, and I'm imagining that it'll be pushing the ragged limit of what's possible with an aluminum fuselage tube.

In any case, I'm betting that if it is built, it will make the 777-300ER and even the stretch-armstrong A340-600 look like a friggin 737-200 or A318 respectively!

These are some strange times that we're living in, for sure.

a reply to: Barnalby

Sounds interesting. It'd be a helluva lot more interesting if you edited your post with links to those sources. Those are the breaks (e.g. ATS protocol for posting a thread). Honestly, looking forward to those sources.

Is there a real need for this type of aircraft or is this for just some kind of bragging rights?

a reply to: Barnalby

Uhhhhhhhhhhh. . .

WHERE'S THE BEEF . . . errr . . . THE LINK?

a reply to: buckwhizzle

They wouldn't build it if there wasn't. They don't just build aircraft for no reason. This is going to cost them a lot of money to design, build, and test before they start really making any money back. It generally takes hundreds of aircraft sold before they even break even.

The A380 is too big. They haven't reached the break even point on it, and sales have been extremely sluggish of late. The 777-10X, if they build it, will be somewhere between 60, and 150+ seats smaller than an A380 depending on the configuration of the seats. That will make it more appealing to customers that want to be able to carry more passengers, but don't want to spend the kind of money they would have to spend on an A380.

www.linkedin.com...
www.bloomberg.com...
247wallst.com...
www.ibtimes.com...
www.thenational.ae...

a reply to: Barnalby
Maybe their efforts would be better spent on fixing current issues first?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: CovertAgenda

If there is a flaw in the GE90, unless it's on the aircraft side of things, Boeing wouldn't be fixing it, GE would be.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the links. ATS needs a built-in 'Zaph Signal'... you'll come correct in no time

a reply to: Zaphod58
And yet in the post I linked, authored by you...

Korean Airlines 777-300ER, HL7534 delivered in 1999, was departing Tokyo's Haneda airport as flight KE2708 to Seoul Gimpo when the left hand PW4090 erupted in flames

With it being both the PW and GE engines, it's not likely that it is a common parts issue, which makes me wonder if it's a common control issue, or something airframe related. Possibly lines rubbing somewhere, and the vibration of the engine rubs them until they crack.

So I agree if it was just a GE90 issue, then GE problem..... a la A380 and RR....BUT as you said, Its occurred with the PW too... so probabilities would indicate its an air-frame (or associated) issue.
Not having a go at you mate, just confused over your change of tune.??

a reply to: Zaphod58

But wasn't it looking more like a pylon/nacelle issue causing damage to fuel lines?

Since that sounds overwhelmingly like a wing problem, it hopefully should be a total non-issue on the 777 next gen's with their all-new wings.

Hopefully.

Thanks for posting the links as well!

a reply to: CovertAgenda

It's called not being sure, which is why it was posed as a question. The Pratt issue left engine parts on the runway, which looks like it was engine related. The GE problems both could have been either engine, or aircraft related. It's too soon to tell on that one.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Here's another, unrelated question about the presumed 777-10X.

In concept, this thing reminds me of the Schooner Wyoming, launched in Bath, and at 450' in length, just about the longest wooden ship ever constructed (sorry Zheng He!).

The Wyoming, pushing the ragged edge of what was feasible for all-wooden ship construction, was known in her brief life for visibly flexing and undulating with the waves as she rode over peaks and troughs, which was no doubt unsettling for her crew.

Since, by most accounts, this 777-10X will be in a similar situation, I wonder if anyone has thought of the passenger comfort (if only psychological) issues that an airplane with such a long and undoubtedly flexible fuselage might present. They'll have to put a curtain every 20 rows to make sure the passengers don't notice that the nose and tail sag nearly 1' relative to the wing box while in flight, and I'm sure turbulence with the curtains open will be like riding in an aluminum funhouse.

a reply to: Barnalby

I'm not sure it would flex that noticeably over the length of the fuselage. Aluminum doesn't have anywhere near the malleability of wood or composites depending on the ingredients. If it was flexing to an extreme, that it could be noticed by passengers, I don't think it would hold up very long to the stresses of flight. In addition, the interior panels might be able to cover or deaden the observability of what ever flex might exist in the structure.
I'd like to know what structures Boeing might have to add to strengthen the fuselage lengthwise or if the current design already has the strength built in to take the added stress.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buckwhizzle

They wouldn't build it if there wasn't. They don't just build aircraft for no reason. This is going to cost them a lot of money to design, build, and test before they start really making any money back. It generally takes hundreds of aircraft sold before they even break even.

The A380 is too big. They haven't reached the break even point on it, and sales have been extremely sluggish of late. The 777-10X, if they build it, will be somewhere between 60, and 150+ seats smaller than an A380 depending on the configuration of the seats. That will make it more appealing to customers that want to be able to carry more passengers, but don't want to spend the kind of money they would have to spend on an A380.

It will also only have two engines. A huge attraction

a reply to: Sammamishman

They'll put stiffeners where necessary.

a reply to: waynos

That'll sell quite a few right there.

a reply to: Sammamishman

I'm thinking that the sort of flex that is acceptable in an aluminum main wing spar may be what we might see in the 777-10X. Something on the order of 6"-1' from the static state, from aerodynamic loadings on the nose and from control inputs from the tail.

I know a tube structure behaves much differently from a spar in terms of deflection under load, but some flexibility is inevitable in what will be a nearly 100' cantilever structure ahead and aft of the wing, especially since they're gunning for light weight and efficiency on this design.

This thing could end up making a 757-300ER or DC-8 Super 60 look short and chubby.

a reply to: Barnalby

There's quite a bit of flexibility even in older aircraft. You can watch the fuselage on 767s and 757s twist when you're near a thunderstorm. They will make changes to the structure of this aircraft to limit the flexing that goes on though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I still wish that Y3 was going to translate into that short 747-capacity double-decker that fit in a 777 footprint (with gigantic twin "GE110" engines) that Boeing teased a while back.

We were promised the twin-aisle guppy to replace the 737, and we were promised the y3 to replace the 747. Instead, we got Y2 and a pair of Frankenstein jobs that Tupolev would be proud of.

Actually, scratch that. I'll reckon a TU-95 has MORE in common with a TU-4 than a 737MAX has with a 737-200.