Emirates may not want 787-10

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 18 Oct 2007, 19:03

Emirates may not want 787-10
Couple developments today out of Europe and the Middle East.

Emirates says it may not want Boeing's 787-10 because the GE engines won't be sufficient.

Boeing has yet to launch the 787-10. It had not yet decided how big to make the plane.

Some airlines, Qantas and Emirates have been the most outspoken, want Boeing to stretch the 787-10 well beyond a 300 seater.

The proposed 787-10 doesn't yet meet Emirates' needs, President Tim Clark told Bloomberg Thursday. The Dubai-based airline would operate the plane to destinations including Los Angeles.

"It needs more thrust," Clark said in the interview in Cannes, southern France. "It's not a view shared by Boeing, but my instinct tells me it needs more."

Emirates is weighing the 787-10 against the A350-900 and may order as many as 100 planes, Clark said.

The concern about the GE engine thrust might mean Emirates won't reach a decision by the time of the Dubai Air Show next month, when it had intended to make an announcement, Clark told Bloomberg.

"We're gratified Emirates is interested in the GEnx," said Rick Kennedy, a spokesman for Fairfield, Connecticut- based GE. "At this juncture it's premature, because the 787- 10 hasn't been formally offered to airlines."

Rolls-Royce engines for the A350 are more powerful and that may suit Emirates' requirements, Clark said.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... 123975.asp

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ing%20Buys

David747 · Post by **David747** » 18 Oct 2007, 23:45

grr. you beat me to this story, this is interesting, Emirates will opt out of ordering the 787 based on less thrusts of the engines, and these are non bleed air engines that are supposed to increase thrust. Amazing.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200710 ... 1/71018004

achace · Post by **achace** » 19 Oct 2007, 02:31

It is surprising that GE continue to hold out on engines for the XWB-1000.

I would have thought that such an engine, which I assume like the GEnx would be based on the GE90 from the 777 would have been an obvious way for Boeing to enhance the 777 around the entry into service time for the large XWB.

Its strange that Clark still keeps talking up the 787 and 748 despite saying that neither aircraft in their existing form meet the Emirates requirement.

Dont believe Boeing can really consider too much more R and D on the 748, which even by their own figures has a limited market.

With BA, QANTAS and now SIA saying the 747 is history, passenger sales are looking bleak, although Air China say they will stay with it.

Cheers
Achace

David747 · Post by **David747** » 19 Oct 2007, 11:34

I think Clark is trying to put pressure on Airbus on the A350 by mentioning the 787.. Who knows...

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 22 Oct 2007, 12:27

Emirates reportedly says Airbus A350 is good rival to Boeing 787

Emirates Airline's Executive Chairman Tim Clark said Airbus' new A350 XWB aircraft is a good rival for Boeing's and Boeing over a potential order of around 100 long-haul planes.
The contract is worth more than $20 billion and won't be split between the two aircraft makers, Les Echos also reported.
"We don't plan to split the order," Emirates' Clark was quoted as saying.
Clark also said he was satisfied that Airbus took his comments into account and modified its initial A350 project. "It took some time but Airbus listened to us," Clark was quoted as saying.
Regarding the B787, Clark said he regretted Boeing didn't confirm the launch of a bigger version. He also said General Electric Co.'s

engines which have been selected for the B787 aren't powerful enough.
"More power is needed. Boeing doesn't think so but that's what my instinct tells me," Clark was quoted as saying.
Newspaper Web site: http://www.lesechos.fr

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/e ... 2DD1845%7D

tsv · Post by **tsv** » 22 Oct 2007, 13:51

Ok enlighten me you engine gurus. What's the problem with not having enough thrust? Speed to low?

Thanks

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 22 Oct 2007, 18:24

tsv wrote:Ok enlighten me you engine gurus. What's the problem with not having enough thrust? Speed to low?

Thanks

Low engine thrust can increase take-off distances and (if the runway is too short) require lower weight for takeoff (fewer passengers/cargo). With higher thrust levels, you can have larger fuel tanks and get longer range (of course, you need higher thrust to take-off with the greater weight, so it's a trade-off)

The manufacturer's design a plane to meet specific parameters in terms of range, speed, take-off distance, payload, etc. and I trust both manufacturer's engineering (as opposed to the marketing) departments to design the plane properly to meet the above mentioned parameters.

I think the manufacturers know more about their product's needs thann someone who knows how to effectively operate them.

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 22 Oct 2007, 18:49

emirates undecided

Emirates' Clark outlines A350 XWB and 787 concerns

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... cerns.html

David747 · Post by **David747** » 22 Oct 2007, 21:00

I say, either Emirates commits to one of the planes or it can do us all a favor and shut the :censored: up.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 22 Oct 2007, 23:22

It would seem that Mr. Clark is playing both end's against the middle!

Somehow his arguments regarding engine thrust don't seem to add up?

Dubai will be interesting !

achace · Post by **achace** » 23 Oct 2007, 02:03

What needs to be understood when talking engine power is that all gas turbines are rated at 15 degrees C.

The de-rating for higher temperatures is a large number, which, without going to look at my books for confirmation would be about 35% of rated power in Dubai.

A further de-rating is necessary for altitude, which is why the manufacturers often go to Colombia for their hot and high testing.

Clark, and QATAR are two airlines therefore that suffer from the high temperature problem, and I can understand his concern.

If you need a comparison, a diesel engine de-rating in Dubai typically would only be around 12-15% depending on make and model.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Achace

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 24 Oct 2007, 21:46

Aren't all current 787 models offered with both the GEnx and the RR Trent 1000 engines? So why not the 781? Why is Emirates saying they may order the A350 for it's RR engines, if the 787 is likely to be offered with the same engines?

Boeing offers both GE’s GEnX engine and Rolls-Royce’s Trent 1000 on its 787s. Clark said the Rolls engine might work, but he wants a choice.

I take it this is supposed to answer my question, but honestly I don't understand what he's trying to say here.

Gliderpilot · Post by **Gliderpilot** » 24 Oct 2007, 22:02

You have to take into account for all what Clark is saying about 787 -and other aircraft as well-, is with a look at the performance charts for ISA+30 (at least, Dubai conditions).

I think that the RR-engines have better high-temp performance than the GEnx. So the GEnx (definitely) needs more thrust, and the RR (maybe) as well.

The new Dubai international central world Airport (or whatever) is going to have 6 runways of each 4,500m long (!!!).
All (new) aircraft are designed to take off at MTOW in ±3,000m under (normal) ISA conditions. So think twice when you have it about DXB, that's what Clark is doing. No one is complaining about 787 performance issues, except Mr Clark.

fc82091 · Post by **fc82091** » 09 Aug 2008, 16:48

smokejumper wrote: Low engine thrust can increase take-off distances and (if the runway is too short) require lower weight for takeoff (fewer passengers/cargo). With higher thrust levels, you can have larger fuel tanks and get longer range (of course, you need higher thrust to take-off with the greater weight, so it's a trade-off)

but doesn't mean more engine thrust = more fuel consumption ?
and its kinda obvious the A350 will be a bit better then the 787 since it will be a couple years younger

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 09 Aug 2008, 17:19

fc82091 wrote:
smokejumper wrote: Low engine thrust can increase take-off distances and (if the runway is too short) require lower weight for takeoff (fewer passengers/cargo). With higher thrust levels, you can have larger fuel tanks and get longer range (of course, you need higher thrust to take-off with the greater weight, so it's a trade-off)
but doesn't mean more engine thrust = more fuel consumption ?
and its kinda obvious the A350 will be a bit better then the 787 since it will be a couple years younger

It is a never ending circle - heavier weight requires higher thurst (to achieve reasonable take-off distance) and more fuel to achieve the same range (more fuel just increases the weight; hence even more thurst required, plus more fuel, plus a heavier structure to carry the weight). The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is an excelent example of how lower weight can benefit a plane and still meet the requirement. A number of descriptions of the A-4 have been wirtten and how the designer kept the weight down; one is found at the Global Security site. See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -4-var.htm

Just because a plane is a few years later does not necessarily mean that it will be better. Electronic and data systems are where most of the advancements are now being made and new electronics can always be included (consider the Boeing 737 - it is the same basic plane that was introduced in the mid-1960's and it is still competitive today with new electronic and navigation systems and, winglets. Both the B-787 and the A-350 will be carbon fiber based structually, only the 787 will be a more advanced technology (being a continuously wound structure vs, the multiple panel construction of the A350), so both will be lighter.

Aviation24.be

Emirates may not want 787-10

Emirates may not want 787-10

Re:

Re: Re: