How big of an advantage is having a completely new composite wingbox (777X) over old aluminum wings with composite extensions (A330neo)?
Posted by Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 138 comments
Especially when you consider that the 777X's initial cost estimates just for the wing was $2 bil+ which is the same as the whole A330NEO aircraft development cost, is the hassle of a brand new wing really worth it over simple composite extensions and wingtips over existing wing?
Puzzleheaded_Soil275@reddit
Well for one, the A330neo only cost \~2B to develop and actually got certified.
So there's that.
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
I don't know, but Boeing does, you can be sure that they made preliminary design studies for every possible variation of a new wing, of the feasibility, of the cost and benefits of each and a full market analysis to judge what their customers want and need. And for their specific case they judged it was worth it to go with a completely new wing. They also have very good experience, because the 747-8 also got a similar wing upgrade.
mnztr1@reddit
Overall I think the 777x is very overweight vs the A350K. and if Airbus stretches the A350, it gets even worse. As soon as RRs engine upgrades prove themselves in ops, I expect a massive order from Emirates for the A350K..if the UAE survives this war and the ME3 concept also survives. I think the wingbox saved them a ton or 2 but they did not have sufficient latitude from management to reduce the weight and I think it will bite them in the long run. The idea was to shorten the dev cycle, but that failed badly. So now they have spent more then Airbus on the clean sheet A350 and ended up with an overweight Franken777. Another consequence of the disastrous 787 program and the corporate trauma it inflicted.
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
The A350-1000 matches the 777-300er in pax numbers but the 777 can carry an additional 20t of lower deck cargo. That is where a lot of the weight difference comes from, the 777 is a fundamentally larger and more powerful airframe, thus the additional weight. Some airlines just want to fly pax and for them the A350-1000 is more efficient, other airlines count on the lower deck cargo to make additional money and for them, the 777X is without alternative.
There is no engine for a potential A350-2000 and the -1000 engines are running hot as it is.
mnztr1@reddit
A350 stretch would come with NEOing with Ultrafan. 777 can carry about 5.5T more payload but has an OEW that is more then 20T higher.
mnztr1@reddit
Dunno why people downvote facts. Facts are facts. 🤷♂️
TheO530CarrisPT@reddit
The Ultrafan may not be as ready for that task as of yet.
And a neo-ified A350 could have even a special version of the GE9X or a scaled-up PW1000G.
mnztr1@reddit
I believe the 9x is exclusive to Boeing contractually, but I am not sure how tight that is, if they produce a variant closely based on the 9x for example. I think there have been some pretty powerful Ultrafan prototypes already tested, and I just don't see why RR would spend that kinda $$ without a relatively near term prospect.
TheO530CarrisPT@reddit
The C929 will still use the PD-35 from Aviadvigatel. And the C939 may follow suit.
mnztr1@reddit
there were 4 respondents to the RPF for propulsion AECC, UEC, GE and RR. So its unclear what propulsion it will use, and it will likely have more then one option.
TheO530CarrisPT@reddit
Trying to make an A350-2000 with the current engines of the -1000 would make it like what the 787-10 is to the 787-9: a stretch that traded range for payload.
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
It’s also possible they made bad predictions.
DefundTheHOA_@reddit
Like Airbus did with the a380
RosieDear@reddit
Well, between 9/11 and Recessions and more Nationalism (less travel) and COVID and other things, the 380 didn't get lucky.
But I have a goal - even at my advanced age - of flying on one. I'm surprised that just that - the goal of flying on one, doesn't fill a lot of them.
grogi81@reddit
Hands down the best long haul I had in any other plane.
DirectAccountant3253@reddit
Quantas flies them from LAX to Sydney and we have taken several trips on them. Fantastic experience, you gotta take a flight on one.
LeeCarvallo-@reddit
Who?
DirectAccountant3253@reddit
Qantas (sorry spelling)
euanmorse@reddit
I missed a flight back from Japan and then the next flight that I could take happened to be an A380. It was an expensive mistake but I’m glad it happened.
LogExpert5281@reddit
And like Boeing did with the B757 and to a lesser extent the B777?
DefundTheHOA_@reddit
Not at all true lol
laparotomyenjoyer@reddit
Genuine question, how much of that was bad predictions vs wanting to see if it could be built and sold because of how impressive it was?
ConstableBlimeyChips@reddit
Airbus would have never produced the A380 if they didn't think there was a large enough market for it.
r1Rqc1vPeF@reddit
It was a vanity project.
They had to have the largest passenger aircraft.
There was no need or financial justification to build 2 final assembly lines.
They should have built the -900, a slight stretch that gives the aircraft better proportions. The -800 is too short.
It’s a fantastic aircraft to fly on, I changed my travel plans to Australia so that I could fly on it there and back in business.
BrewCityChaserV2@reddit
Indeed. I don't think people can really appreciate the incredible amount of resources that Airbus expended into making the A380 program happen, and not just from a fiscal standpoint.
DazzzASTER@reddit
Fiscal isn't a synonym for financial fyi
Stevethepinkeagle@reddit
DazzzASTER@reddit
Financial can be a synonym for fiscal, but fiscal is specific to financials as it relates to public office/government.
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
Some of it was politics, either of the traditional or corporate bariety
knorkinator@reddit
They definitely wanted to have a halo project and show the world what they can do, so that likely influenced their decision. And I'm glad it did, tbh.
RosieDear@reddit
It is very rare that mankind does not do what is possible.
I dislike calling something a failure. Economically - a LOT if a failure. Most big time inventors died broke.
I can say, without a doubt, that watching Airbus bake the A380 wing and other parts of manufacture truly excited me. It is likely many other people worldwide were pushed forward in their imaginations and creativity just by the building of this thing.
And what is money? We print the stuff.
BrewCityChaserV2@reddit
Just a few decades late. It would have kicked Boeing's ass in the 1970s. Imagine a fleet of those with Pan Am livery. Oh wait, don't do that.
Wyciorek@reddit
Imagine a fleet of A380s in Ryanair livery …
drunkendrake@reddit
Double decker bus
R35VolvoBRZ@reddit
1000 passenger a380
Desperate-Dig2806@reddit
Crashes in to us
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
To die by your side is such a heavenly way to die.
Desperate-Dig2806@reddit
And if a ten ton truck
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
kills the both of us
Wyciorek@reddit
They really should have gone with Airbus instead of Boeing. Jokes would be writing themselves
BrewCityChaserV2@reddit
Sorry didn't mean to convert this thread into a masochist convention.
saveyourtissues@reddit
It’s weird how Airbus built the first twin jet wide body and then didn’t build on it until the A330. Too early I guess
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
I mean, they were really small back then. They sold like only 550 A300 and in the 80's took the money and developed the 320 - which arguably is a bigger success than even the A330. I doubt they had the resources to develop the 330 much earlier.
saveyourtissues@reddit
Funny. Too small at first, too big later on.
burlycabin@reddit
Two things: Being a few decades is just laughably useless to point out. And, the 747 is simply a better cargo lifter due to the nose door, which makes it a better and more versatile plane that the a380 regardless of the decade.
FenPhen@reddit
Not sure about that in the '70s.
The 747 was a hedge for everybody. Boeing designed a cargo lifter with a nose door for the USAF but lost. And in the '60s, many thought supersonic air travel would be the future.
Boeing recycled the cargo lifter design and offered a wide body that could be used for high passenger loads and then transition to a cargo fleet when supersonic took over.
The A-380 design doesn't have the nose door nor high main deck.
ic33@reddit
It's easier to do cost predictions for manufacturing (not to say -easy-).
Not so easy to think about how the airline market will evolve.
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
Yup
sambull@reddit
Boeing never...that mcas thing was just to keep them on their toes
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
I mean that was actual malfeasance which is crazy but regular old incompetence is a real threat. Making airplanes is fuckin hard
RosieDear@reddit
And yet it seemed almost simple during WWII. Germany had certain personalities (it seems singular dudes) responsible for much of the design of top notch airframes.
In WWII the USA Industry, centered in CA, KS and NY and New England (engines), pumped stuff out like a "makers" lab. I remember reading about one of the bombers - again, just one dude came up with a template and fixture that made the entire "cross" of the plane (I think the body and the wing stumps) in one piece vastly quicker and with better tolerances.
They seemed to constantly innovate - I guess some of it due to knowing that some people getting killed here and there was part of the deal. So if a plane change could shorten the war but endangered more crew slightly, it was a calculation which would be beneficial.
Not that they made that calc - but it was prob assumed. Get more bombers out! No matter how good they were built the Germans were gonna shoot down 5 to 15% of them on every run at the beginning.
mdp300@reddit
Part of it is that during the height of the war, cost was no object. They needed ad many bombers as possible as quickly as possible. Unlike an airline that wants to make sure it can run profitably.
Things were also just simpler then. No computers, very little hydraulics, mostly just cables and leverage. And even then, the engines were much less reliable that modern jet engines. The military in WWII also didn't really care about reliability as much as, say, Delta does. They needed the planes to last through a few missions, not theough potentially decades of service.
sarexsays@reddit
Bingo, Ringo - less regulations, and basically unlimited funding
mexicoke@reddit
Entire 787 program comes to mind.
RosieDear@reddit
It really seems that the "zero deaths" - that is, the amazing increased safety of airliners, means almost unlimited funds for development. Not sure if that pays off - definitely pays better when you can make thousands of a copy.
But for the public - the benefit is quite amazing. In fact, it seems beyond belief. If someone would have told me 40 or 50 years back of the stats the industry would reach, I'd have been amazed.
ManageThoseFootballs@reddit
They have certainly been known to get things wrong.
Terminal_Phase@reddit
You trust anything Boeing does these days?
If it doesn’t help their bottom line, and therefore share value, they’re probably not doing it.
TheO530CarrisPT@reddit
Maybe their period of crispation should end?
They have enough shit to fix already, but things like this ain't making things better.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit (OP)
The 747-8 doesn't have a wing actually, it's the old aluminum one but with raked wingtips. It's even less of a modification than A330NEO. But your right they probably researched about it extensively, was just wondering what the numbers might look like.
sourcefourmini@reddit
Big if true
KickFacemouth@reddit
Because it doesn't have a wing, it has two.
fishmousse@reddit
Technically it has 4, the two back ones are just upside down
CrotchalFungus@reddit
F4, or something like that.
mduell@reddit
And new flaps.
Enceladus16_@reddit
u/profanitycounter
profanitycounter@reddit
UH OH! Someone has been using stinky language and u/Enceladus16_ decided to check u/FZ_Milkshake's bad word usage.
I have gone back 1000 comments and reviewed their potty language usage.
^(Request time: 19.8. I am a bot that performs automatic profanity reports.) ^(This is profanitycounter version 3. Please consider buying my creator a coffee.)
ballimi@reddit
But then after all those studies management would choose the option that maximises their bonus in the next few years.
comptiger5000@reddit
Boeing also re-winged the 737 in the 90s with the 737NG, so they've done it a couple times now.
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
And the 787 has a very similar wing shape and structure to the 747-8 and the new 777 wings (I believe they developed the 787 and the -8 wings together).
It is fair to be critical of Boeing when they make mistakes, but they know how to build very efficient composite wings and they do know their customers very well (and I stand by that even in regards to the 737MAX, the execution was bad, but the market does want an updated 737 over a new platform).
gnucklefuster@reddit
The took all that data and went to a cheaper option.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your comment or post has been automatically removed from /r/aviation. Posts/Comments from new accounts are automatically removed by our automated systems. We, and many other large subreddits, do this to combat spam, spambots, and other activities that are not condusive to the sub. In the meantime, participate on Reddit to build your acouunt age and this restriction will go away. Also, please familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, which you can find in the sidebar or by clicking this link. Do not contact the moderation team unless you feel you have received this message/action in error. We will not manually approve comments or posts from new accounts.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Arizona_Pete@reddit
We won't know for another 10 years, but what we can say is that doing this put Boeing far behind in sales and diverted attention away from new platforms and fixes to existing ones.
On the positive side, Boeing is staking out a leading position in composite structures and innovative wing designs. There's a strong chance that mastery in these areas sets them up for big wins down the road.
ggliter@reddit
It's weird to say that putting a new wing on the 777X out Boeing far behind in sales when Boeing has sold more 777X passenger airplanes than Airbus has sold A330neos. For that matter, Boeing has sold more 777X than Airbus has sold A350-1000, which is its direct competitor.
ContributionEasy6513@reddit
The A330neo was never designed to be a bleeding edge flagship product.
Something affordable, low risk, easy to transition to manufacturing/supply chain wise, straightforward to certify product. A big part of this is availability, instead of waiting the nearly decades backlog for 787 or a350.
The A330neo certainly has certainly incorporated tweaks and technology from the A350 and pulled off all the low-mid hanging fruit. To do anymore you are spending multiple billions for single digit efficiency gains if you are lucky which would have been a mistake.
IMO, it's the perfect evolution and balance for the A330 family and its place in the market both now as an airliner and down the road as a freighter conversion. Dragging a few extra kg's and burning a little extra fuel is not the end all of problems in the grand scheme for many missions.
The other big point is the A330neo is flying making money today, the 777X is not.
Disclaimer: I am associated with customers who have A330neo aircraft and orders, I am not impartial
Obvious_Pumpkin_4821@reddit
I love the A330 for it's 2 4 2 layout in economy.
Lucky_Outside_2009@reddit (OP)
Oh yeah for sure, A330NEO is an amazing program in its own rights. I love the A300 aiframe so it is a bit of a shame we might never see a proper 21st century A300 derivation but the A330NEO has an important place in today's market and I can respect that.
ContributionEasy6513@reddit
Give it a couple of decades.
At the end of the day it's a metal tube with wings and Airbus did a pretty damn good job early on creating something that it still very competitive and stood the test of time.
Yesterday's A300/A330 systems and technology look nothing like they do now thanks to continuous upgradability and updates by Airbus.
Making everything composite doesn't always mean better.
It can also introduce new challenges that need to be understood, engineered and certified. Just isolated to the composite wings, paint adhesion and lightning protection have been a big headache.
Operationally, especially for what the A330neo is targeted at, there is something to said having an aluminum design where repair/modification is straightforward and fatigue well understood.
I_COMMENT_2_TIMES@reddit
Thank you for your insight. In your opinion what could Airbus do to replace the A330neo in the future? Is any wide body in this segment smaller than the 787 even feasible?
ContributionEasy6513@reddit
Middle-Of-Market is still a valuable sized aircraft in terms of A330-900.
One of those cases where the best replacement of a A330 may be another A330.
The debate is if you can chop a couple of sections out to make the cancelled 350-800 and enough weight out of it (keeping the larger 9 across fuselage) or keep the same smaller existing 8 across diameter.
The lack of a re-engined 767 suggests no. The 737max and a320xlr are already pushing the boundaries of efficiency & range and passengers are begrudgingly accepting them on longer sectors for the right price.
Why send one medium haul wide-body when you can send 2 narrow bodies?
Could there be a market for an ultra modern, ultra efficient 757-300 size single aisle, maybe. Both the A320/737 are approaching the limits of how far they can be stretched and what they can do, but are still such a new aircraft's biggest threat.
All eyes will be on Boeing in the next couple of years.
I_COMMENT_2_TIMES@reddit
Fascinating. Feels like we’re reaching a point where every fuselage width already has an optimal overall size/efficiency balance and it’s just a matter of new engines and materials?
And were you referring to the NMA here in the end? Can see it going both ways.
ContributionEasy6513@reddit
I've been in the room when it was discussed, hundreds if not thousands of factors make up an airframe/engine agreement. One big thing being ground-costs and parking the damn things at busy airports.
An A320/737 can fit into a standard Class-C gate (max 36m wingspan). A 757 with it's longer wings, or new aircraft chasing efficiency may not fit into the same gate (hence folding wingtips). If it needs a larger widebody gate you can pretty much double the parking costs which is a huge deal for Ultra low cost carriers.
Then throw in the increased landing costs, air-navigation fees, the need for additional FA's, more expensive harder to find pilots of a wide-body aircraft.
If we are sticking with wide-body aircraft like a A330neo (thanks to thinner cabin material improvements), we can do 8 across seating, or 9 if we are psychopaths. A350 will squeeze 10 across. A 777 is 10 across for comparison. These numbers make accountants very excited.
Yea, if and when it materialises. Many many eyes are looking at Boeing to see what they do and what it will actually look like beyond renders.
Yep. Don't start airlines on next generation ultra efficient engines.
The last few years and reliability issues have been a disaster.
Ultrafan 30 is promising. Bureaucrats love their EV, Openrotor concepts but that will never happen in my lifetime.
Next generation aluminum-lithium alloys are very interesting, used in the A220 and Comac 909. It could make more sense than a carbon-composite aircraft like a 787 for narrow body's where cost and assembly time are critical. Autoclave availability is an issue I've heard discussed with increasing the rate of composites.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
I doubt that. The A330Neo was the perfect life-extension for the 330 line so that existing customers had part commonality while saving on fuel.
The A350 is the future for Airbus, esp. if fuel prices keep staying high. I doubt we'll see a A330Neo2
ContributionEasy6513@reddit
Well yea.
You bought the A330neo if you couldn't afford or wait for the a350 or 787.
Airbus couldn't make the A350 fast enough and were giving sweet heart pricing on what they could actually deliver.
When we see the next generation 787 and A350's with their next generation engines it will likely mark the end of the 330. Remember that Airbus still offers the military MRTT+ platform on the A330neo. We will be seeing A330's in the sky for a very long time!
Wyciorek@reddit
It was also their 'keep Boeing honest' program. For a pretty low cost, they got both a middle of the market plane and put a ceiling on 787 price.
Tactical_Moonstone@reddit
A350 is the "make everything composite" product.
The A330neo was what Airbus wanted to make initially, but Airbus's biggest clients wanted something way more than just an incremental upgrade and Airbus locked in. Eventually when the A350 finally rolled off the factory the big clients were happy and now Airbus could close up the middle with the A330neo without the big clients breathing down their neck.
LYuen@reddit
On the other hand, 777x is meant to be the future flagship and needs to compete with A350, 787 for efficiency. 777x is already on the back foot with aluminum fuselage instead of composite material, hence every bit of efficiency gain elsewhere is vital.
mduell@reddit
Can you give some color on why the hell they certified and delivered the -800? Seems certain to lose money.
ContributionEasy6513@reddit
Yea, that's my thoughts as-well but that sort of analysis is way outside my expertise.
AB would have known the sales of the 200 were dropping off and the numbers made the 900 more attractive.
My guess is it was a cheap option to position themselves to compete against the smaller 787 and offer some more range. AB have done this before with the A318 and a319neo.
UW_Ebay@reddit
The a330 neo won’t be anywhere near as efficient as the 777x. No plane will be for that matter.
Weak_Tangerine_6316@reddit
Air Canada recently ordered 5 A350-1000's to replace some of their older 777's. Availability was a factor. Range was also a factor. Certain long haul routes operate right at the edge of the aircraft's performance and range, even more so with the increased number of Asian/European airspace restrictions that don't have a clear end date.
Every bit of range Boeing can eke out of the 777X makes it viable for more routes and can represent dozens of sales lost or won depending on an airline's requirements.
fightingchken81@reddit
Nothing in the airliner industry is simple, everything must be certified, sometimes multiple times. Alot of the time you can't change a screw without it getting recertification.
As for composite wings yes it's worth the R&D, all the weight you save means fuel efficiency, and that is a big selling point to fleets. I read on the 777 they were doing a test on the wings and they pulled them up. Once they got to certification level they stopped but the engineers really wanted to test them out, because in theory the wing can touch each other and pop back into shape.
rdm55@reddit
At one point Boeing evaluated Spiroid Winglets for the 777x at one point.
obviousfakeperson@reddit
What an interesting little rabbit hole, thank you for sharing.
rdm55@reddit
Somewhere I have some renderings taken from Catia. I’ll post them if I can find them.
wighty@reddit
That seems like multiple points.
rdm55@reddit
I got your point!
Twitter_2006@reddit
I can't wait for the 777X to enter service next year!
mexicoke@reddit
To be fair, you could have said that same sentence for the last 5 years.
Twitter_2006@reddit
FAA Certification is closer than ever before so I'm confident about it entering service next year.
Blue_foot@reddit
Are you on the United board of directors?
wurstbowle@reddit
Fusion power has been 5 years away for the past 3 decades.
AdamN@reddit
This is the year of Linux on the desktop … just after infrastructure week :-)
mexicoke@reddit
You're missing the joke.
Boeing literally said that in 2020: https://investors.boeing.com/investors/news/press-release-details/2020/New-Boeing-777X-Completes-Successful-First-Flight/default.aspx
And again: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/boeing-777x-orders-in-doubt-after-schedule-delay.html
And yet again: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-777x-first-delivery-lufthansa-delays-kelly-ortberg-2025-1
Twitter_2006@reddit
Oh haha.I only started following the 777X program closely from 2024 onward.
Ambitious_Quote8140@reddit
That's Ferrari's TM
Falkun_X@reddit
Long term corrosion and fatigue issues as well as weight savings
illuminati229@reddit
This is the answer.
OracleofFl@reddit
It is weight as well as shape. Composite wings can be made into more complex and thinner shapes than aluminum ones which also adds to the fuel efficiency.
Hoverlover-1634@reddit
This is an important issue. Dealing with long term corrosion maintenance costs is big deal. Dealing with unexpected delays/costs in C and D checks are a PITA.
LightningGeek@reddit
There's no guarantee that a composite structure will be cheaper to maintain compared to a metal one.
I work heavy maintenance on 777's, and on some of the oldest 777's still in regular use. There are very few corrosion issues on them, especially around the wing box. We even take out the corner fasteners of the wing box to have NDT do through hole inspections. I don't think an issue has ever been found.
The only spot that does seem to be a recurring issue is the longerons forward of the tank cracking, and that is mainly on the -300's because of the extra length. Even with a longeron repair, a D check can still be done in 35 days, so it doesn't need to add a huge amount of time onto the check either.
mexicoke@reddit
Ask Qatar about issues with composite corrosion.
Tactical_Moonstone@reddit
Less composite corrosion than paint adhesion issues.
So much paint peeling, but there were no corrosion issues with the composite material itself.
w0nderbrad@reddit
They should make cool designs with the speed tape on the older wings. Make it look cool at least
mexicoke@reddit
The concern was the composite was deteriorating and the imbedded static discharge protection was at risk.
Qatar was all pissy pants about it while none of the other airlines seems to care.
My main point was that composite isn't immune to long term corrosion issues.
parabola19@reddit
Huge when the wing is a lot longer like the 777x
Left-Piano-791@reddit
Anytime you stick newer engines on an older plane design the wing loading changes and essentially forces a wing upgrade. You can get away with trying to control the weight, engine thrust, loads, and stiffness of the underwing package but then you can’t truly capitalize on what the new engine could get you as far as performance and efficiency.
Most composite wings aren’t ‘100% composite. The bulkheads are usually still aluminum but the spars, skins, and stringers are composite. There are a bunch of tradeoffs and studies that impacts weight, materials, spacing of structures items, etc.
Missus_Missiles@reddit
Ribs, aluminum. Major fittings, aluminum/Ti. Bolts, Ti, inconel, etc.
irisfailsafe@reddit
I think this is more of an economic issue. I imagined that Airbus realized that sales wouldn’t justify the cost of the new wing
Hour-Reward-2355@reddit
Atlas order of 20 A350 freighters tells you who made the right choice.
AlternativeEdge2725@reddit
The 350F also has a similar composite wing. So that comment doesn’t make any sense.
Ok-Insurance-9456@reddit
Not to mention that Airbus pretty much dumped A350F to Atlas because this is their only chance to enter the Boeing dominated freighter market. If they don't order 777XF at all in the future then that might be something noteable for the 350.
carrickshairline@reddit
Not really relevant to OP’s question is it mate
Crq_panda@reddit
No more fuel freeze calculations but here comes the warm air avoidance procedures during planning of the flight
Hurricane_Killer@reddit
When will we finally have the B777X enter service
mightymike24@reddit
They added composite sharkets. Adding that to a metal wing is not such a big deal. There are tons of winglet modifications for legacy aircraft. But really extending the wing span with two different sets of materials and therefore two fundamentally different design philosophies and sets of principles would be a whole different story. Extending legacy metal wing (spars, center wing boxes, skins) with composite would get very complicated (though not impossible). The transition (discontinuity) between the two materials would result in some interesting engineering challenges.
Commercially speaking, airbus is trying to do something completely different with A330neo than boeing is with 777X. The A330neo is a lower cost market proposition that does (is supposed to) not compete with the higher performance, higher cost A350. (It's actually kind of a reincarnation of the original, pre-XWB A350 concept). Boeing on the other hand does not have a modern product above the 787. That's where the 777X comes in. It's trying to replace the 777-300ER in boeing's portfolio without having to do a clean sheet design. This means it theoretically really needs to make a much bigger leap forward than the A330neo does. Otherwise you would need to do a clean sheet a few years later anyway (so you could argue). That's theoretically so. I personally think that a straight forward reengine of the 300ER would have been the way to go. It's the best twin aisle of its generation. It sits comfortably above the a350 (incl the -1000) from a capacity standpoint. So a reengine with all the fuel economy and range benefits that brings would have kept that market position locked for the foreseeable future for Boeing. Airbus can't go bigger with the a350 in a competitive way and they're unlikely to launch an aircraft above the a350 anytime soon. Besides, such an Airbus design would have to sit comfortably enough above the a350-1000 not to compete with it and have its own space in the market incl for future derivatives. This would probably mean a bigger aircraft even than the 777X. Is that then still doable as a twin and what's the market for it? Besides fuel economy (and range), 777X offers a bit more capacity for a lot more money (and weight) than a 777-300ER. Not sure that's what the market would have chosen for Boeing if it could have.
CryptographerHuge682@reddit
Those wings weight tons even empty of fuel and for example, I’m doing the ATPL exam for flight plan in the segment fuel there is some questions that ask how much fuel you burn per X extra KG, each 1000KG is like 364 KG of fuel that you burn, so I think is much better to have composite wings rather than extensions for airlines, btw I don’t think the 330 neo isnt selling as good as expected by Airbus
joeykins82@reddit
Yeah but some of that is because it sits in between the A350 and the A321xlr, and those are two aircraft that are absolutely not underperforming in terms of sales...
CryptographerHuge682@reddit
You are totally right with that, but I think Airbus expected it to be more engaging for airlines focusing on flights of 7/8 h, but at the same time they made it competitive for themselves with the A321XLR and yeah I see your point, still comparing in this post an A330 to a 777 is not to pleasing since I think the market for the 777 is the one dominated by the A350 rn, where weight in a 12/14 h flight is very important factor to make the flight profitable
Docminted@reddit
Zero advantage until Boeing gets the plan certified.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
They probably assessed they couldn't get enough of an increase in performance without totally overhauling the wing.
Gluecksritter90@reddit
One issue that must not be ignored is that the 777-300ER is already considered "under winged" for its weight, hence the often abysmal initial cruise altitude. The A330 began life as an afterthought to the larger A340 and therefore did not have that particular problem.
balsadust@reddit
Seeing as that plane is not in service, zero advantage
quietflyr@reddit
In addition to weight, there are some aerodynamic improvements made to the 777X wing over the legacy 777 (it's been 20 years since the 777's first delivery, after all). That makes for even more efficiency gains than going "part way" like Airbus did.
They're different engineering and marketing strategies. One isn't necessarily better than the other, they're different.
M40A1Fubar@reddit
31 years since first delivery. May 1995…
quietflyr@reddit
Thanks, will correct
ilovejeremyclarkson@reddit
Over 30 years now since the first delivery of the 777-200
carrickshairline@reddit
Weight