777-200LR & #777-300ER decimated #A340-500 & #A340-600, History could repeat itself with #777X nixing #A350-1000
This is a frequently popping BS. The single biggest reason why the 77W/L succeeded in beating the A345/6 is because of the 4 engines vs. 2. At the time of its development, Airbus hadn't expected the changes to ETOPS/ LROPS that made the quads less necessary.
This is a very popular urban legend. The real reason the A345 and A346 didn't sell well is because they were too heavy. The DOW of the 77W for Emirates is 178t. The DOW of the A345 for Emirates however is 184t. In a similar configuration, the DOW for the A346 would have been well over 190t. This makes the A346 some 15-18t heavier than the 77W in similar configurations, a very significant difference. The advantage of only having 2 engines versus 4 is also present, but in the order of 1%, whereas the weight difference comes out in the vicinity of 5-8% difference in fuel burn.
According to several press reports, Boeing/GE and EK have been discussing the 777-9X engine specs for weeks (if not months). EK is said to demand more thrust to make sure the aircraft is able to take off from Dubai in the hot season without a MTOW penalty (Aspire Aviation cited a 108 000 pounds engine).
In that context, Clark mentioned the possible use of liquid coolants. More recently, he said this approach had been dropped by GE, and that the engine would have a higher thrust than initially planned (102 000).
Taliesin, and others who know a lot about engines, what do you think of the issue and its implications for other potential customers ? Could GE end up making two engine versions ? Are the stakes high enough to delay the 777X launching ?
Honestly, I don't see what the drama is all about. They have another 4 or 5 years to come up with an engine that can do a little more than 100k lbs of thrust, grandfathered from an engine that can reliably put out 115k. I don't see what the big deal is supposed to be, but then again I'm on the outside looking in. Maybe the problem is that the engine was only ever supposed to put out 100k and now they find themselves forced to go to 108%. Still, the original GE90 grew from 90k lbs to 115k lbs, hence the name GE90. Maybe the problem isn't the overall thrust or reliability, but a drop in efficiency.
Then again, take-off thrust is only applied during some 10 minutes or so, cruise thrust should remain relatively unaffected, I fail to see how this should ruin overall efficiency, but again, I can only take guesses from where I am.
Crikey is reacting to information from the Wall Street Journal that Boeing has agreed to increase the 777X engine thrust to 105 000 pounds to match EK's requirements, while LH is protected by contract again specs changes (though the contract is not firm yet).
Crikey concludes that Boeing would offer a choice of two 777X power options.
The WSJ story is behind a paywall, but as usual, it can be read via a Google query : WSJ Boeing's New 777X Is Tailored to Please Mideast Carriers
12% less fuel burn per seat than any other aeroplane?
Yea, that was my thought as well.. if you cram 450 people into a 777X and only 489 into the A380, then I'm willing to believe those numbers. That would only be a paper exercise of course, because the levels of comfort wouldn't be remotely comparable. But then again, that's the typical Boeing marketing song.