Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11011 times:

I was wondering if the 226" cross section was the cabin width or the fuselage diameter. If it is the cabin width that means It is almost as wide as a DC10.

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10881 times:

Quoting 747400sp (reply 0):
I was wondering if the 226" cross section was the cabin width or the fuselage diameter. If it is the cabin width that means It is almost as wide as a DC10.


It is almost as wide as a DC-10. It will be set up 2-4-2 in normal Y class, but have more cargo room than an Airbus widebody, less than a 777. I bet 2-5-2 or 3-3-3- would be possible with a squeeze, as the seats are said to be wider than the Airbus widebodies or 777



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10858 times:

Good question.

I know it can take 9 abreast 320 type seats & 2 aisles.
That could be 2x22" aisles,& 9x20" seats.

As an aside this is one of the major attributes of the 787. Boeing have done the figures based on 8 abreast but it can take 9 abreast. This adds up to either a lot more comfort or a lot more pax than the 350 will be able to offer.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5900 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10843 times:

Quoting N1120A (reply 1):
but have more cargo room than an Airbus widebody, less than a 777


any more info about the cargohold`?

the bigger airbus widebodys have more cargoholds than the 777 has!



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10786 times:

What I'm really interested in is not the cargo hold, but the opposite part of the plane, i.e. the space above the overhead bins. Has anyone heard anything on whether Boeing are planning to offer B777-style crew rest areas on the B787? I heard that this will be the case, but Boeing hasn't made any official announcements regarding this. Given that the width of the B787 will be almost that of the B777, and given that its shape will be ovoid, as opposed to totally round, I'd assume that there will be plenty of space for them.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5900 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10770 times:

Quoting SNATH (reply 4):
What I'm really interested in is not the cargo hold


but I am  Smile



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10749 times:

Quoting Avianca (reply 3):
the bigger airbus widebodys have more cargoholds than the 777 has!


Because comparitively they are longer. The 777 has more cargo capacity by weight and volume.

Quoting Ruscoe (reply 2):
This adds up to either a lot more comfort or a lot more pax than the 350 will be able to offer.


The A359 will be larger than the 789, which will be about the same size as the A358, while the 788 will be about 763 sized. A 9-abreast 789 may be able to seat more than the A358, but not the A359



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5900 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10697 times:

Quoting N1120A (reply 6):
Because comparitively they are longer. The 777 has more cargo capacity by weight and volume.


not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10690 times:

Quoting Avianca (reply 7):
not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.


Positions, not available volume. And they cannot lift as much weight.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5900 posts, RR: 40
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10679 times:

Quoting N1120A (reply 8):
not available volume


no, more positions are more volume.


Quoting N1120A (reply 8):
And they cannot lift as much weight.


depands on the route etc.



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10659 times:

>depands on the route <


No it doesn't, the 777 is a lighter plane but lifts more weight when you subtract weight with fuel from MTOW

>no, more positions are more volume.<

Not unless you count that the floor is set higher and does nothing to add to A340 revenue.

[Edited 2005-03-06 00:37:09]


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10646 times:

Quoting N1120A (reply 6):
Because comparitively they are longer. The 777 has more cargo capacity by weight and volume.


not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.


You're both right...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5900 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10630 times:

Quoting N1120A (reply 10):
No, as you can put bulk cargo in as well


the bulk compartment is not really big, it is maybe a differnts of 5cbm. the big part of cargo / luggage is build up on pallets or containers. for example 1 PMC ord PAG position has 10cbm space. and the 340 has more of this positions. also the contur of the possibly build up of the uld is bigger

Quoting N1120A (reply 10):
No it doesn't, the 777 is a lighter plane but lifts more weight when you subtract weight with fuel from MTOW


depans on the version, UA for example has some 777 with only 10tons of possible loading.



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10602 times:

Quoting Avianca (reply 12):
depans on the version, UA for example has some 777 with only 10tons of possible loading.


And that 777 has no direct A340 competition.

Quoting Avianca (reply 12):
the bulk compartment is not really big, it is maybe a differnts of 5cbm. the big part of cargo / luggage is build up on pallets or containers. for example 1 PMC ord PAG position has 10cbm space. and the 340 has more of this positions. also the contur of the possibly build up of the uld is bigger


Which again does not do anything for revenue cargo volume



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAvianca From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5900 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10576 times:

Quoting N1120A (reply 13):
Which again does not do anything for revenue cargo volume


why not? more positions = more space for more uld = more cbm

do not understand your point



Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
User currently offlineFlyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 517 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10524 times:

Back to the original thought, I wish there was some way that the builders, Boeing and Airbus could set the width to make it IMPOSSIBLE for the airlines to cram those crappy 17-18"(6.7 -7cm) coach seats in. You know they will if they can. The wider the cabin, the more flexibility that gives the airlines on setup. I know it helps sell planes, but it sure has me thinking that maybe I would rather do something else besides sit in a sardine can for 5-10 hours.  spin 

I vote for a mandatory A.net law that stipulates a minimum 20"(7.9cm) seat on all new jetliners. After all, it would only mean that the next generation narrowbody jet from Boeing would have to increase in width by 12" (4.7cm). Is that too much to ask!  rotfl 


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10518 times:

The extra available volume of the 777's holds is useless in 90% of airline configurations. They fill it with standard containers.

N


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10491 times:

Quoting Flyabunch (reply 15):
I wish there was some way that the builders, Boeing and Airbus could set the width to make it IMPOSSIBLE for the airlines to cram those crappy 17-18"(6.7 -7cm) coach seats in.


I wish!

I believe that the only way B and A can ensure that the airlines do not cram too many people in their planes is not to get them certified for more than a given number of passangers (which, say, on the B787 and the A330 will correspond to a 2-4-2 config, and not to a 3-3-3). But I'm sure this will prevent them from getting some contracts with, say, some charter companies that do want to cram people. So, unfortunately, I cannot see this happening...

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineQFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9812 times:

Quoting 747400sp (reply 0):
I was wondering if the 226" cross section was the cabin width or the fuselage diameter.


External width at widest point. The B787 has an ovoid fuselage. Its cross-section height will actually be greater than its width.

Quoting N1120A (reply 1):
...[B787 will] have more cargo room than an Airbus widebody, less than a 777.


A B777-what? Unless you're talking about the -300/ER, you're incorrect.

Quote:
...as the seats are said to be wider than the Airbus widebodies or 777.


Right on first part, part right on second part. Boeing has designed the B787 to have the same (economy) seat width as the B777 but with wider aisles. I guess if an airline was feeling "non-standard" then they could take the inches back out of the aisles and stick them onto the seats.

Quoting Ruscoe (reply 2):
I know it can take 9 abreast 320 type seats & 2 aisles.


Nope. You picked the wrong Airbus.

Quoting Avianca (reply 3):
...the bigger airbus widebodys have more cargoholds than the 777 has!


You seem as confused as N1120A. This isn't strictly right.

Quoting N1120A (reply 6):
The A359 will be larger than the 789, which will be about the same size as the A358, while the 788 will be about 763 sized. A 9-abreast 789 may be able to seat more than the A358, but not the A359


You might as well be incorrect because this ain't perfect, either.

Quoting Avianca (reply 7):
...not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.


The A343 has room for one more LD-3 vs B772ER if you're goofy enough to stick one in the bulk cargo hold.

Quoting Gigneil (reply 16):
The extra available volume of the 777's holds is useless in 90% of airline configurations. They fill it with standard containers.


What extra available volume?

Glad to see that everyone is clear on this stuff.  Yeah sure

  • The B788 (28 LD-3s) will have more container volume than the A332/358 (26 LD-3s)*.

  • The B789 (36 LD-3s) will have more container volume than the A333/343/359 (32 LD-3s), the A345 (30 LD-3s) or the B772/ER/LR (32 LD-3s)^.

  • The B773/ER (44 LD-3s) has more container volume than the A346 (42 LD-3s) or the A380 (38 LD-3s).

    *The Airbus models have provision to place one LD-3 in the bulk cargo section.
    ^The B772LR has provision to replace up to 6 LD-3s with removable hold fuel tanks.

    FWIW, the bulk cargo section of the A330/340/350 is 695 cu ft (without the bonus container placed in it) vs 600 cu ft of the B777. So, in a strict sense, the A333/343/359 has or will have 95 cu ft more total cargo volume than the B772/ER/LR. That is the equivalent to 0.6 LD-3 containers.


  • User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
    Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9747 times:

    And don't forget that the A340 crew rest goes in the bulk cargo compartment, reducing its cargo capacity to an insignificant level.

    The 777 crew rest goes in the overhead with no reduction in cargo volume.



    Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
    User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1518 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9628 times:

    OK QFA001,
    How about you put us right. In my case I assume it is 330 seat width not 320 I should be talking about.
    How wide are they?
    What is the internal horizontal diameter of the fuselage?
    How many will the 788 & 9 hold 9 abreast?

    Do you think this will become the standard configuration?

    Thanks,

    Ruscoe


    User currently offlineQFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 54
    Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9514 times:

    Quoting Ruscoe (reply 20):
    In my case I assume it is 330 seat width not 320 I should be talking about.


    You got it.

    Quote:
    How wide are they?


    The B787 economy seats? Generic seat bottom width for 8-abreast configuration is 18.5-in, same as the B777. Generic 9-abreast B787 would see 17-in wide seat bottoms (to keep reasonable aisles), about the same as 10-abreast B777.

    The A320 can comfortably handle an 18-in wide seat 6-abreast, same as the B767 7-abreast. The 8-abreast A330/350 is limited to about 17.5-in, give or take a few eighths. IIRC, the standard seat is 17.3-in but it has a dual arm-rest in the middle.

    So, when Boeing says they can do 9-abreast B787 vs 8-abreast A330/350, they're stretching the friendship.

    Quote:
    What is the internal horizontal diameter of the fuselage?


    The widest internal point of the B787 will be at 25-in cabin height (arm-rest height). That will be 214-in.

    Quote:
    How many will the 788 & 9 hold 9 abreast?


    You haven't given me enough data to answer this.

    Quote:
    Do you think this will become the standard configuration?


    No. 8-abreast will remain standard just as 9-abreast is for the B777.


    User currently offlineJet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 867 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9157 times:

    According to the airbus website, the max. internal width of the A340 is 208 inches. That is just 6 inches less than the 214 inches quoted above. So, the 787 won't be significantly different from the A330/350. Standard 2-4-2 configuration, a bit more comfortable.

    Boeing lists the internal diameter of 777 at 231 inches, very nicely one seat more than the 787. The 767 is listed at 186 inches.

    BTW, the 744 is shown as 240 inches, and from airbus.com the max interior width of the A380 is 259 inches (281 outside diamater). So, I can't imagine how we won't see 11 abreats seating in economy class - 3-5-3.


    User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1518 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8977 times:

    Thanks,
    Now we are getting some good info.

    What about MZFW & OEW for 787.?

    What about OEW for 358 & 9?

    I have not been able to find these figures.

    Anyone.

    Thanks,

    John


    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    Photo Of Boeing 787 Section Being Transported posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:09:01 by RobK
    Boeing Unveils 787's Sleek "lines" posted Mon Jun 13 2005 14:37:16 by Keesje
    Boeing 757 Fuselage Cross-section posted Thu Oct 17 2002 14:09:59 by JetTrader
    AA, DL, UA Vie For Boeing 787 Gold Care Contracts posted Wed Oct 18 2006 01:13:52 by WorldTraveler
    Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
    Boeing 787 Dreamliner Break Even No! posted Tue Oct 3 2006 22:26:50 by Bringiton
    A350 Cross Section Question posted Mon Sep 11 2006 21:16:13 by RIHNOSAUR
    Boeing 787-3 For Delta Hawaii Routes? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 22:30:06 by 1337Delta764
    Boeing 787 Progress posted Mon Sep 4 2006 18:03:31 by DTW757
    Kawasaki Heavy Mulling 2nd Plant For Boeing 787 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 20:29:44 by NYC777