Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Models  
User currently offlineCardiffairtaxi From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 303 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6557 times:

Can anyone give me the details of different models of the 787 available,and their operating(predicted) distances,pax carried etc.Thanks in advance.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6514 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B787
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/specs.html


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6509 times:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/specs.html

They're inevitably going to release a -10 which will be another strecth on top of the -9.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
They're inevitably going to release a -10 which will be another strecth on top of the -9.

The B787-10 is expected to be 20 feet longer than the B787-9, have engines with at least about 80K lbs of thrust, a MTOW of at least about 560,000 lbs, and a range of at least 8000nm. EIS is expected to be late 2012.


User currently offlineUltrapig From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 581 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6318 times:

I saw this post and I see that the -3 and the -8 are the same length but that the 3 carries more people and has a shorter range-are they simply the same frame with the same MTOW's one have larger tanks?

If so why wouldn't someone simply buy a -8 and if it wanted to use it for shorter flights put in more seats and less fuel?


User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6257 times:

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 5):
If so why wouldn't someone simply buy a -8 and if it wanted to use it for shorter flights put in more seats and less fuel?

Because though they may be the same fuesalage they have a different wing. It is designed for domestic use, short/medium haul with more pax. It also has winglets instead of a full wing with tips. It can fit inside a small gate that way. A 787-8 would NOT work in any of those situations as its designed for long haul, would be far less efficient in short haul and would never come close to fitting in a standard 767 gate or smaller for that matter than a 787-3 can.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6221 times:

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 6):

Because though they may be the same fuesalage they have a different wing. It is designed for domestic use,

The 787-3 fuselage barrels are also rotated fewer times on the tape mandrels, and thus have less carbon fiber. This is fine due to the lower stresses for the short haul role envisioned.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6131 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
The 787-3 fuselage barrels are also rotated fewer times on the tape mandrels, and thus have less carbon fiber. This is fine due to the lower stresses for the short haul role envisioned.

Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6097 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 8):
Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame

 checkmark 

More landings, pressure cycles, turbulence (landmass) etc..


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

Doesn't the -3 also have a beefier undercarriage than the -8 or -9?


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5949 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 10):
Doesn't the -3 also have a beefier undercarriage than the -8 or -9?

Yes, the 787-3 does have stronger landing gear. This is due to the fact, that it will fly perform more landings the 787-8, because it will be used for the domestic market.



"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5918 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 8):
Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame.

In a nutshell, the 787 fuselage skin is both a pressure vessel and a load-bearing structure. This is contrary to a conventional fuselage where the ribbing and stingers transfer structural loads while the skin acts as the pressure vessel.

Because the 787-3 will be certified at a lower MTOW than the -8, fewer structural loads will be transfered through the fuselage. That allows Boeing to thin the fuselage slightly.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
More landings, pressure cycles, turbulence (landmass) etc..

In an aluminum world, yes.

CFRP has significantly better fatigue properties than aluminum and the -3 will not be thinned to the point that it compromises basic structural integrity.

Many forget that the -9 is also slightly thicker than the -8 for the exact same reason. The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.


User currently offlineTootallsd From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 2):
Did you ever think to look at www.boeing.com

It took me a whole 30 seconds to find your requested information.

Sometimes I wonder how some people find their way to airliners.net (and a million other sites) to make these postings.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
Many forget that the -9 is also slightly thicker than the -8 for the exact same reason. The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.

This should be true only for the central sections which are different in length. The nose and tail should be the same along with the sections nearest to them. The aft sections would have slightly different loads due to the longer moment arm, but this is probably insignificant. The sections near the wingbox would have very different loads and should have thicker CFRP for the longer versions.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5449 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5486 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
The B787-10 is expected to be 20 feet longer than the B787-9, have engines with at least about 80K lbs of thrust, a MTOW of at least about 560,000 lbs, and a range of at least 8000nm. EIS is expected to be late 2012.

Does anyone think that there might be a 787-5, basically a lower MTOW version of the -10 with the -3 wing? I'm thinking of China, India, etc where the low operating cost and flexibility on shorter itineraries as a people hauler might be a better fit than domestic A380's.

I'm not a big proponent of the -3 model like some people seem to be, but the -5 option intrigues me a little more.

(It's late, and I don't think my wording flows, but you get the point).

-Dave

[Edited 2006-12-14 07:51:47]


Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 15):
Does anyone think that there might be a 787-5, basically a lower MTOW version of the -10 with the -3 wing? I'm thinking of China, India, etc where the low operating cost and flexibility on shorter itineraries as a people hauler might be a better fit than domestic A380's.

There is no demand for it now but, if someday the demand develops, Boeing would be happy to build 50+.

The more likely follow-on models would be: B787-8ER, B787-9ER, B787-10, B787-11, and B787F. All but the first would require an upgraded undercarriage including two more wheels, as well as strengthened wings and increased thrust.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5449 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5419 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16):
There is no demand for it now but, if someday the demand develops, Boeing would be happy to build 50+.

Thanks. I was hoping you'd reply. I'm assuming that this is because it's too much plane for most medium-haul routes, where the 737NG/A32X are more optimal at this point? Perhaps we're 10-15 years away from the demand.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 17):
Thanks. I was hoping you'd reply. I'm assuming that this is because it's too much plane for most medium-haul routes, where the 737NG/A32X are more optimal at this point? Perhaps we're 10-15 years away from the demand.

It's hard to say. India and China look to me like they will have a lot of point-to-point service domestically.


User currently offlineCardiffairtaxi From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5260 times:

Thanks very much to all you helpful posters!

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight

Yes that will save several hundreds of pounds..


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4865 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting Cardiffairtaxi (Thread starter):
Can anyone give me the details of different models of the 787 available,and their operating(predicted) distances,pax carried etc.Thanks in advance.

Go to this link for comprehensive coverage of your question.
787 Family Latest Information Release (by Widebodyphotog Oct 8 2005 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineAirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4600 times:

Quoting Tootallsd (Reply 13):
Sometimes I wonder how some people find their way to airliners.net (and a million other sites) to make these postings.



Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 2):
Did you ever think to look at www.boeing.com

It took me a whole 30 seconds to find your requested information

You know, I agree that looking at Boeing first might have made a lot of sense. But to make these comments? Was it really necessary guys? Come on. I guess some of us are just not graced with the intuition or common sense of you two guys. We are not worthy!

717


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.

Thank you for the help, that could explain differences in fuselage thickness. And with hindsight, it seems obvious that fatigue is much less a design determinant with CFRP.

The differences in MTOW, according to Boeing.

787-3 360,000 lbs
787-8 476,000 lbs
787-9 540,000 lbs

So (I presume) it would pay to have a 540'000 (+) lbs spec structure and a 360'000 lbs version. Or is every 787 custom tailored?

Is there a Boeing source for this?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1717 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 22):
Or is every 787 custom tailored?

No, there are far fewer custom options for the B787 than for any previous Boeing airliner.


User currently offlineFL370 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

all i can say is that i cant wait till the plane starts flying in that beautiful DREAMLINER livery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


fl370


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...
ANA Reveals First 787 Services posted Fri Dec 15 2006 19:36:22 by Kaitak
Virtual Roll Out: 787 posted Fri Dec 15 2006 07:43:29 by NWDC10
787 Models posted Wed Dec 13 2006 20:51:06 by Cardiffairtaxi
787 20% Vs. A350XWB 30% posted Wed Dec 13 2006 07:13:20 by AVinutso
BA, AF-KLM 787/A350 Future Order posted Tue Dec 12 2006 22:49:58 by 1337Delta764
Saudi Arabian AL : A350 And 787? posted Tue Dec 12 2006 22:30:18 by FCKC
UAL Says Looking At 787 And A350 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 19:10:05 by NYC777
RR Trent 1000 Gets Another 787 Order posted Tue Dec 12 2006 12:58:16 by PanAm_DC10
LH Technik Readies VIP Interior Concept For 787 posted Sun Dec 10 2006 14:20:12 by Columba
787 Nose Picture (REAL)! posted Sun Dec 10 2006 00:20:22 by JamesJimlb