Starting 2014 out with the big 777X is very an appropriate story. What I've done is to paraphrase this article with Liftndrag commentary. Please feel free to set up a second browsing tag with Aspire link above or just go there now to get its real scoop on the 777X program and projected performance targets for the 777X. Aspire has compared several notable class airplanes that 777X will do battle with during its progressions forward into the market place.
It is important to note that Boeing continues to have several rabbits in its engineering hat that will appear along the way. I would like this blog to spot those "rabbits" as they appear along the developmental road. Aspire only reports what is known at this point in time. Customers of the 777X may have additional and achievable bench marks on the 777X given by Boeing, that readers, pundits lack for its own opinion. I fall into the class of not having a precise opinion at this time, but have gathered clues why Boeing is doing the 777X in this manner.
This Manner is:
- Composite wings and flight surfaces
- Aluminum body not composite
- Bleed By Pass power for subsystems not the 787's central core all electric technology
- Heavier than the competition
- Bigger drag coefficient because of bigger diameter engines
- Greater lift surfaces with intuitive performance
- Greater passenger capability of 400+ seats
- Widest dual engine aircraft available. Its more than the XWB!
- It will fly better father with more people, even at a greater weight.
Aspire Aviation Chart
"Together with the 9,300nm ultra long-haul 777-8X that is capable of hauling 17 more tonnes of cargo when deployed on the same mission as the 344-seat A350-1000 while having a 5% lower block fuel burn per seat, or flying sectors that its competitor cannot, it would be safe to assume Boeing believes the 777X will be the ultra long-haul leader in the future.
Unsurprisingly, Airbus contests these figures and points out it estimates the 777-9X will be up to 35 tonnes heavier than the A350-1000 in terms of operating weight empty (OWE) as the A350-1000 is a clean-sheet design and utilises a carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) fuselage, whereas the 777-9X is a “5th derivative” bearing an aluminium fuselage. This will make the 777-9X more than 15% less fuel efficient per seat and the -8X more than 5% less fuel efficient per seat versus the A350-1000."
Let the war of promotional rhetoric begin between these two giants. If Boeing could not demonstrate to the Gulf of Arabia States what they had up its sleeves from engineering departments across the company, then they wouldn't have ordered 259 777X, after which Boeing rapidly picked up Cathy Pacific. A quick move counter to Airbus aspirations in its order book. They didn't receive any order of that nature during Boeing's 777X launch. Airbus painfully watches the Boeing order grow on a paper airplane while the A350 reality languishes. A boatload of 777X paper airplanes is a definitive slap on Airbus' nose. My best guess on this example is that Boeing made its case in greater clarity than normal. They showed these initial launch customers where they are keeping those cute little rabbits with a promise on how the trick is done with its heavier airplanes. Conventional wisdom says that Airbus uses an old school slide rule where it has computed Boeing over-weight into an inefficiency when comparing its A350-10 with the Boeing 777X. Boeing wings and body building divisions have a new bag since Christmas. They build world leading wings and have done body/airflow design changes, bringing out the best with its laminar air flows knowledge over its body. The body design adjust flows at key points that maximizes its slice through the air. Thus nullifying those suspended additional tons, as a penalty that Airbus' slide rule predicts. Boeing has been doing this research for awhile and has hinted that its conclusion will go forward with an active flight service and optimized composite wing that will retire the old school curriculum with a wrecking ball applications to Airbus school walls.
Its always in the details that gets competitors like Airbus. Slippery aircraft slide through the air significantly better than Big Box behemoths like the A380 or an A350.
I took specialize driver training as a requirement for my state employment. I drove ambulances, school buses and dump trucks through chicanes, skid pads and other devious situations to test my newly acquired advance driving skills. In a school bus it is a cumbersome behemoth on a narrow course. It wasn't a fuel efficient slippery thing of beauty, Neither is an A350. I hit the skip pad with water jets and the instructor activated emergency brakes. A 360 turn had just begun, and I had to control it. Had I had a sports bus weighing the same as a standard school bus I would have saved fuel and would have controlled its performance no matter the conditions. Enough digressing already! Boeing has demonstrated and not reported its summary to its customers who bought the 777X. They listened to Airbus and didn't buy period!
Therefore, no matter what Airbus says at this time from its own conventional wisdom, which doesn't take into account what Boeing attempts to do for the 777X. Final weight (tonage) are pending as the 777X matures. Boeing promised a plan as they promised with the 787. Airbus said, "impossible, improbable and its not going to happen with the 787". The 787 happened and yet we now have the A350 (improbable plastic), about to get kicked by a little of the old school, and then some new school in the 777X. Airbus, once has to say again impossible, improbable, and inconceivable (From Movie: Princess Bride).