Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Boeing studies ultra long-range 777-8LX concept


The new 777 variant would be capable of a range of 16,330 miles
holding a maximum of 195,270 liters or 51,585 gallons.

Boeing is exploring an ultra long-range replacement of the 777-200LR, conceptually dubbed the 777-8LX.
Likely to be the last of three members of a conceptual 777X family, the -8LX could potentially have a service entry in the 2020s, providing a mission range of 17,550km (9,480nm), industry sources tell Flightglobal, which is 85nm longer than the 17,395km (9,395nm) offered by the 777-200LR.
The reduced fuel burn per seat for the -8LX is estimated to be a 14% to 16% improvement over the 777-300ER, and the extended range may, for the first time, open the prospect of profitably operating flights between Sydney and London without a "kangaroo" stop in Southeast Asia.
Today's ultra long-range 777-200LR and the Airbus A340-500, which is no longer in production, have served in mostly niche roles for carriers requiring long-range capacity on hot and high and extended missions.

"Boeing continues to explore many options to build on the 777's popularity" including a new wing and even a clean-sheet aircraft, said the aircraft-maker, declining to discuss in detail the latest 777X concepts.
The 777-8LX's fuselage would match that of a proposed -8X, now seen as a three-class 353-seat 4.46m (14ft 7in) stretch of the 777-200ER.
With common structural elements, the -8LX and the larger -9X would share a 344t (760,000lb) maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), allowing the smaller jet to carry additional fuel for the extended missions, with a common fuel tank capacity across the conceptual family.
Both the 777-8X and -9X concepts currently aim for an 14,800km (8,000nm) design range.
With a common engine to the 777-9X, the -8LX is conceptually powered by the General Electric GE9X with a 99,500lb thrust rating, while the -8X is understood to be significantly derated off the engine's baseline design with its lower MTOW.
Currently, the 407-seat 777-9X, 2.13m (7ft) longer than the 777-300ER and, could have a service entry later this decade.
Boeing's 777X concepts have continued to evolve since the airframer formally established its advanced product development programme in January 2010, and the 777-8LX is understood to be a lower priority concept for Boeing as the heart of the market remains focused on the 777-200ER and 777-300ER-sized aircraft to respond to the A350-900 and -1000.
Early studies revolved around maintaining the 777-300ER and -200ER fuselage lengths, increasing capacity by carving out sidewalls and fuselage frames to comfortably accommodate 10-abreast economy class seating. Now Boeing's studies have expanded to bridging the product gap between a conceptual 323-seat 787-10X and 467-seat 747-8.
It is understood that part of Boeing's ongoing 777X evaluation also includes three options for a new massive carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) wing, with a potential baseline 71.1m (233ft 5in) span and raked wingtip, and 65m (213ft 3in) and 68.6m (225ft) wings with blended winglets.
The 787-inspired CFRP wing would grow the 777-300ER and 777-200LR's wing area by approximately 10%, providing slower and quieter approaches.
The 71.1m wing would push the 777 from ICAO Code E airport classification to Code F standards, the same category occupied by the 747-8 and A380. Under study is a revival of the original 777-200 wing-fold concept, which would have tilted upward a 6.9m (22ft 6in) portion of the wing that included the outer two leading edge slats and outboard aileron to accommodate McDonnell Douglas DC-10-sized gates.
Boeing's current concept scales back the weight and complexity of the design by folding only the raked wingtip, which is understood to be a 3.4m (11ft) portion of the wing, and does not house any wing control surfaces.
In short, Boeing would maintain Code E standards on the ramp and taxiway, up to 65m (213ft 4in), in line with today's 777-300ER, and shift to a Code F classification after entering the runway.
Source: Flight Global

2 comments:

  1. 16,330 miles? Must be a typho...16,330 km more likely. Why would anyone required 16,330 mile range anyway, considering the circumference of the earth is slighly less than 12,500 miles. Give another 1,500 miles reserve fuel, i.e. 14,000 mile range would be more than sufficient for antipodal range.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i need notes on boeing

    ReplyDelete