Yes, read the article.
Unducted fans fill the small gap between a normal turbo-prop and a high-bypass turbo-fan. If any application is thinkable, it would be cargo aircraft.

When we look at two cargo aircraft, the C-17 and the A400M, we further expect the A400M to be close by its predicted speed (which is normally the case), we see a gap of about M0.06 (C-17: 0.76 or 440kts, A400M: ~0.70), which equals roughly 65 km/h. I don’t think that for such small speed gap any technological risk will be taken.
For aircraft like the C-130 with lower speed capability a turbo-prop remains the best propulsion system.

If civil aircraft will start using UDF (which I doubt) and technology can be taken “off the shelf” in 10 years, military applications might be possible, but for no military application the UDF is of essential necessity.

UDF has a big advantage for military applications. It is loud.

In a certain speed range, it might be more efficient than either a conventional turboprop (because it omits the weight, drag and complexity of gearbox) or a high-bypass turbofan (because it omits the drag of the duct, and has higher bypass). It would, however, be louder than either turboprop (higher speed and tip speed) or high-bypass turbofan (no duct to confine the tip noise).

And it does not need to be a cargo aircraft. A bomber replacement of Tu-95 might do well with UDF…

Did those ANA jumbo’s with 594 fly long haul routes ?

No, but Corsairs do.

Also these are one off instances

At least three – Corsair, ANA, JAL

, what a manufacterer has to look at is that what the majority of airlines will do . I believe that some charter airlines also stuff 9 abreast on A330’s but that doesnt make the 330 a genuine 9 abreast aircraft . During the fag end her life the airlines might stuff close to 500 PAX on the 777’s to maximise revenue from an old airliner however boeing cannot design a new aircraft on the premise .

Boeing has designed 3 new aircraft – 747SR, 747-300D and 747-400D – basically for 2 airlines (JAL and ANA).

That was what my guess was however they would most likely do a 777 sized cabin width but a bit larger to add more comfort , also more optimized . I think the 787 program as it matures will yeild valuable information about many unknown and known qualities of composites etc so boeing will study that and see what they can do .

Given the current market demand i doubt that they will seriously consider a Y3 launch before 2015 or so . A HGW varient of the 787 with a 20 % strech and a new wing should do the trick as far as competition for the 77W cycle is concerned , however the only way that the Y3 will be launched if airlines want a super effecient Twin VLA .

So, what will be there in the large plane, low CASM sector?

A380-800, since 2007
B787-900, since 2010
B747-800, since 2010
A350-900, since 2014 or so
B777-300ER since 2004

Any future A380 stretches, if and when built
Any future 787 stretches if and when built
Any advanced 777 if and when built
Any advanced 747 if and when built

Y3 if and when built.

For comparison, the maximum 1-class seating shown on Boeing airport planning manuals is 539 for 747 main deck and 550 for 777-300 single deck.

Genuine 10 abreast is that the seat and aisle width would be acceptable to a wider array of airlines not just charter airlines . Basically according the aircraft should be capable of seating 10 abreast at equal to or prefereable greater comfort then the 777 today.

You mean – compared to comfort of 9-abreast 777 or 10-abreast 777?

No count.

Does any airline seat 550 on the 77W?

Do not know, but Air France seats 472, including 422Y at 10 abreast. 36 of the remaining 50 are at 9 abreast, so only 14 out of 472 sit 7 abreast.

The boeing published information states something like 368 PAX in 3 class at 9 abreast economy .

Indeed. At http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_seating_charts.html

Observe that the 84 “Business” seats have 39 inch pitch.

The Y3’s lower limit should be aound that or a little less at 9Y IMHO ( remeber this is my opinion , neither I nor you know what boeing has in mind) but it should appeal much more as 10Y almost as much so as the 787 appeals to airlines at 9Y .

Which turns out somehow not to add all that much space. 747-400 with 10Y at
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_seating_charts.html

has 376 seats on main deck. And 747 has nosecone seating included.

But if the shrink Y3 at 350 three-class seats is still almost long as 777-300 or 747-400, how long should the stretch Y3 be with genuine 430…450 three class seats?

And regarding Y3 , the only problem would be engines , technically speaking boeing started out with project yellowstone after 2002 because they wanted technologies identified and ready to launch 3 aircraft of different size and different timeframes . The 787 crossection would be about say 10-14 inches narrower then what a Y3 would most likely have ( it will most likely be a 9Y comfortable and also able to do 10Y like 777 but more optimised side walls like on the 787 and 350)

Wait again. What do you think Y3 is supposed to be?

787 is 577 cm outside.
A350XWB is 591 cm.
Tristar is 597 cm.
DC-10/MD-11 is 602 cm.
Il-86/96 is 608 cm.
777 is 620 cm.
747 is 650 cm.

Say 25-36 cm wider than 787 would be 602-613 cm.

What is the point of having Y3 at all? If the difference with 787 is so small, why launch all-new cross-section, rather than stretch 787? Boeing has been talking about 787-10, but has failed to launch it. Why? Because it is not really that good?

And given that the difference with 777 is so small, why have all-new Y3 rather than tweak 777?

See , as you add seats onto an aircraft , your CASM decreases however so does your RASM because at the end of the day you still have to sell a whole lot of seats and that puts a lot of pricing pressure . As the seat count increases so does the market for SUPPORTING routes meaning that if you have 20 route pairs that can sustain (maybe just for example sake) the A380-800 at 525 seats , when you up the 525 to 700 the route pairs shrink to maybe 10-12 .

The market for supporting routes decreases with trip costs – not seat count. For a given trip cost, the market increases with seat count.

So for others it makes no sence , and your allready niche aircraft becomes even more niche . Moreover for airlines filling up 700 seats means that they have to drop prices ( there are very few routes if any that can now sustain 700 seats every day or twice daily at a premium rate) . What airlines want is to fil the aircraft at the highest possible price to the customer hence make a lot of profit , however as CASM drops , so does RASM on most routes so what happens is that airlines have to discount a heck of a lot to fill the damn aircraft up which lowers profitability .

Suppose that you can fly 747-800 at the exact same trip cost as 747-400.

If you fill your 747-400 with 370 seats, then your 747-800 can have 405 seats of the same size.

Your RASM may decrease, but your trip revenue will not decrease, and it will certainly increase.

You may sell the same 370 tickets at exact same price as the 370 tickets of 747-400 and leave the extra 35 seats simply empty. If your trip costs are exact same as assumed, you are losing no money by this.

Or else you may sell the first 370 tickets at exact same price as on 747-400 – then sell the extra 35 at a heavy discount. Your profits from those 35 may be small, but they are there over and above what the first 370 have earned (if they were not there, you would leave the seats empty and still lose nothing, as above).

Or else you may install 370 slightly bigger seats, and charge a slightly higher price. The difference may be small, but it is there, over and above the profits of flying 370 passengers and 35 empty seats.

Or you can combine all of the above approaches in any most profitable proportion.

and what 2 years since 748 launch airlines have still rather ordered the mid sized aircraft for intercontinental travel .

748 was out of production by the time 2 years ago. As was the whole Hawker-Siddeley product line. And 748 cannot fly intercontinentally.

I dont know what to say about that? 777 engines developed by GE werent used for something else . so whats the point ?

Unless they are used on Y3, of course…

But Y3 would have to compete against 787-10, 350-1000, 777-300ER, 747-800. Do you think Y3 is competitive?

Yes like they are being used on the 748 😉 .

They are not. 748 uses turboprops.

Nothing has been committed yet , but if we want to assume then lets also take into account that boeing has plans ( PROJECT YELLOWSTONE) for a 2 engined 350-430 seater with second generation CFRP barrels , bleedless NG engines and totally electric . That will put a generous ammount of pressure on any VLA , when it comes to CASM .

U’re an intelligent man , you surely know why they wrote that.But whatever People can call it an 80 year old design , boeing investors and share holders wont mind , for a 4 billion dollar investment into a sector of the market which has seen barely 350 aircrafts sold over 7 years they have allready ( in what 1.5 years) sold 84 aircraft .

Airbus 380-800 development costs are paid and sunk now. Whether or not Airbus ever breaks even on A380, they will not recoup any of A380 development costs by cancelling or shutting down the program.

If Airbus only ever sells 200 A380-800 and breakeven would be 450 so they lose 250 frames (a pessimistic estimate), if they hope to develop A380-800ER with breakeven point of 50 more planes and then sell 100 planes, they would make a profit with 50 A380-800ER and decrease their losses on A380-800 from 250 to 200 frames.

A380-800ER is low hanging fruit. As for Y3, it requires Boeing to cover huge development cost of composite fuselage cross-section different and bigger than 787, huge NG engines etc. etc. It is not a less risky project than A380.