Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 And 787 Specification  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 14949 times:

I know that these planes have not flown yet, but the "promised" specifications are really interesting, but I would like to know what kind of mission that suites either airplane.

787 specs.

Model | 787-3 | 787-8 | 787-9
Passengers | 290 - 330 | 210 - 250 | 250-290
Length 56.7 m | 56.7 m | 62.8 m
Wingspan 51.8 m | 60.0 m | 63.4 m
Height 16.92 m | 16.92 m | 16.92 m
Fuselage height 5.91 m | 5.91 m |5.91 m
Fuselage width 5.75 m | 5.75 m | 5.75 m
Cabin width 5.49 m | 5.49 m | 5.49 m
Cargo capacity 28 LD3 | 28 LD3 | 36 LD3
Empty weight 101,000 kg | 110,000 kg | 115,000 kg
Maximum takeoff weight 165,000 kg | 220,000 kg | 245,000 kg
Range 3,050 NM | 8,200 NM | 8,500 NM
Maximum fuel capacity | 41,965 L | 126,917 L | 138,898 L
Maximum thrust capability 53,000 lbf | 64,000 lbf | 70,000 lbf

A350 specs.

Model | A350-800 | A350-900 | A350-1000
Passengers 270 - 312 | 314 - 366 | 350 - 412
Length 60.7 m | 67.0 m | 74 m
Wingspan 64.8 m | 64.8 m | 64.8 m
Height 17.2 m | 17.1 m | 17.2 m
Fuselage width 5.96 m | 5.96 m | 5.96 m
Fuselage height 6.09 m | 6.09 m | 6.09 m
Cabin width 5.59 m | 5.59 m | 5.59 m
Cargo capacity 28 LD3 | 36 LD3 | 44 LD3
Empty weight N/A | 115.7 t | N/A
Maximum takeoff weight | 248 t | 268 t | 298 t
Range 8,320 NM | 8,100 NM | 7,990 Nm
Maximum fuel capacity 129,000 l | 138,000 l (36,500 US gal) | 156,000 US gal)
Engine thrust 75 000 lb | 84 000 lb | 93 000 lb

Right know there is more data on the A350-900 than the -800 and -100. That is not strange as they will fly later. I find it very interesting to see how close the A350-900 is to the 787-9 in terms of empty weight, cargo, range and fuel capacity. What I fail to see is, why? The A350-900 is almost 5 meters longer, has larger wing area and 268 T MTOW compared to the 245t MTOW for the 787. How can it be just as light as the 787-9, while being longer, has a wider fuselage and a longer wing span? It seems to good to be true. I know that there is more to it than what the numbers show me, so I would like a discussion as to what missions the 787 would be better than the A350? How hard will Airbus have to work to meet these targets? I believe both airplanes will be very good airplanes. Both the A350 and 787 will eventually be good airplanes. However, I believe that there is something, that my untrained eyes do not see.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 14849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well the 787-9 offers more cargo volume than the A350-800XWB and looks to offer about the same as the A350-900XWB, so depending on the dimensions and the weight of your belly cargo, you will probably be able to carry more with a 787 than an A350XWB due to the volume advantage over the A350-800XWB and the need to dedicate more volume to passenger bags on the A350-900XWB.

The A350-900XWB is aimed squarely at the 777-200ER with similar passenger capacities and slightly superior cargo volume (if not necessarily cargo weight, but even there, we only have one datapoint - EK - and it's based on Airbus' projections at the time).

The 787-8 looks to be aimed at the A330-200 market - long, low traffic density routes while the 787-9 and A350-900XWB look to be aimed at long, medium-density routes currently served by the 77E and A343.

The big gap right now is the A333, though both could offer "regional" models of the 787-9 and A350XWB to serve that market.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 hours ago) and read 14783 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

 talktothehand 

OyKIE asked for "a discussion as to what missions the 787 would be better than the A350" and I offered a possible example taking into account all the other areas I noted that the 787-9 and the A350-800XWB happened to be rather close.


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 hours ago) and read 14697 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
787 specs.

Model | 787-3 | 787-8 | 787-9

Range 3,050 NM | 8,200 NM | 8,500 NM

These are pax only ranges - and a limited number of pax at that (220 for the 787-8 and 240 for the -9). Typical use will be out to 6,500nm. Full payload range is around 5,500nm for the -8 and -9.

787-3 is probably DOA. The only customer is a mess right now.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 hours ago) and read 14697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):
I can follow that logic. The 787-9 would offer more revenue cargo than the A350-900, although the A350-900 has a higher MTOW. Does that mean that the A350 would make more sense on longer distance routes?

Well the 787-9 looks to offer more cargo volume, but until Airbus announces the actual payload figures for the A350XWB (and for that matter, Boeing does for the 787), the A350 might very well have a greater payload lift weight or perhaps a superior MZFW. So this could make the A350XWB the more capable plane for shorter or medium-range routes with high traffic and cargo volumes.



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):
There is a gap here, og course. but the 787-8 is much lighter than the A333. Is'nt that a huge factor?

But the A330-300 is a larger plane with greater passenger capacity and similar cargo volume. Also, it remains to be seen just how light the 787-8 ends up being over the various tranches. Right now, the 787-8 looks to be a bit under 10% heavier then the A330-300 at spec OEW weights and the first series of 787-8s will be above spec OEW.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 hours ago) and read 14615 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 5):
Full payload range is around 5,500nm for the -8 and -9.

Were are those numbers from?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Well the 787-9 looks to offer more cargo volume, but until Airbus announces the actual payload figures for the A350XWB (and for that matter, Boeing does for the 787), the A350 might very well have a greater payload lift weight or perhaps a superior MZFW. So this could make the A350XWB the more capable plane for shorter or medium-range routes with high traffic and cargo volumes.

Interesting. I have limites knowledge compared to you stitch. But, how will a superior MZFW translate into a more capable plane for shorter routes? I thought it was the other way around...  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
But the A330-300 is a larger plane with greater passenger capacity and similar cargo volume. Also, it remains to be seen just how light the 787-8 ends up being over the various tranches. Right now, the 787-8 looks to be a bit under 10% heavier then the A330-300 at spec OEW weights and the first series of 787-8s will be above spec OEW.

I thought the OEW would be around 110t (787-8) when the first 25 airplanes are built, no?

Since the 787-9 is a smaller plane in relation to the A350, then how come it can be just as light?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 hours ago) and read 14552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 7):
But, how will a superior MZFW translate into a more capable plane for shorter routes?

Since shorter routes would require a lighter fuel load, having a higher Maximum Zero Fueled Weight could allow you to lift more payload weight (be that heavier cabin fixtures, cargo, passengers or a combination thereof).



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 7):
I thought the OEW would be around 110t (787-8) when the first 25 airplanes are built, no?

Boeing's last public statement on the matter was 115t per the September 2007 ACAPS. The original goal I have been told was around 109t, but Boeing added some structure to the 787-8 specification during design to support higher MTOWs requested by customers.

Boeing does not, to my knowledge, publicly release the figures for a truly "green" airplane (one without any cabin fixtures or fluids and such). Airbus believes that a "green" 787-8 should weigh a bit under 96t and that ZA001 and her "fat sisters" will be about 100t.


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 hours ago) and read 14419 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 5):
The only customer is a mess right now.

Hmmm! I don't think it's quite the customer who is the "mess"!


User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 hours ago) and read 14136 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
I know that these planes have not flown yet, but the "promised" specifications are really interesting, but I would like to know what kind of mission that suites either airplane.

Some of the specs you quote for the 787-9 will be significantly different by firm configuration. Sorry I can't elaborate until it's made public.


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2445 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 hour ago) and read 13212 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
How can it be just as light as the 787-9, while being longer, has a wider fuselage and a longer wing span? It seems to good to be true.

I guess we will see on that one. I'm very anxious to see whether the A350 will have weight problems as the B787 has.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
I know that there is more to it than what the numbers show me, so I would like a discussion as to what missions the 787 would be better than the A350?

In my view, they overlap pretty well except that the 787-8 is smaller than the smallest of the A350 family (and therefore it is more suitable for smaller long/mid-range markets), and the A3510 is larger than the largest B787 ever could be (and it is meant to go up against whatever iteration of the B77W is around then).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
but Boeing added some structure to the 787-8 specification during design to support higher MTOWs requested by customers.

But has Boeing raised the 787-8 MTOW? I thought it was always 484,000 lbs (220,000 kg).

Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 9):
Some of the specs you quote for the 787-9 will be significantly different by firm configuration. Sorry I can't elaborate until it's made public.

Let me guess. OEW will go up, and so will MTOW.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (5 years ago) and read 12906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 10):
But has Boeing raised the 787-8 MTOW? I thought it was always 484,000 lbs (220,000 kg).

I''m probably thinking of the 787-9, then.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12605 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
But, how will a superior MZFW translate into a more capable plane for shorter routes? I thought it was the other way around...

No, that is correct, that is how an A330-200 can be competitive with a 787 on shorter routes, it carries 5+t more payload. Also Airbus has an A350XWB variant that has a 30t lower MTOW and other weights changed for shorter/medium routes.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):

Since the 787-9 is a smaller plane in relation to the A350, then how come it can be just as light?

It isn't, you just do not seem to understand the difference between manufacturers weight empty and operating empty weight.

The MWE for the 788 was estimated by Airbus in April 2008 to be 101.2t, and the 789 108.4t, SUH has since been quoted since to say the 789 was over 6t overweight, which would put the MWE about 1t above the Airbus estimates.

The A359 MWE was estimated at 115.7t (June 2008).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Right now, the 787-8 looks to be a bit under 10% heavier then the A330-300 at spec OEW weights and the first series of 787-8s will be above spec OEW.

From what I hear, the maximum structural payload for the initial 787s is disappointing.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineFlyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 582 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12045 times:

Again it comes to my mind that an A330-200 'enhanced' with a new engine e.g. Genxx based would be the hit all not extremely long routes and would grab in the 787-8 market as the Airbus competitor.
In addition the A330-200 could be the the right base for the sometimes demanded Short/ medium haul 2 aisle plane solution. If such a A330-200 SH/ MH (short haul/ medium haul) would get a dedicated composite wing optimized for such routes and some other weight/ size adjusted components (e.g. adopted suspension) without the need to develop a completely new aircraft, 2 planes can be developed and offered for some reasonable investment.

It would/ could be built at another production line, even in the US (if the tanker contest would result in some share for Airbus), or use the existing A220/340 line for continued production. Also it could help balancing the engine manufacturers share (not enough GE engine offers in overall Airbus planes)..

regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11866 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 13):
Again it comes to my mind that an A330-200 'enhanced' with a new engine e.g. Genxx based would be the hit all not extremely long routes and would grab in the 787-8 market as the Airbus competitor.

I can not argue with you about this.  Smile Hence, I completely agree.  Wink

Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 13):
In addition the A330-200 could be the the right base for the sometimes demanded Short/ medium haul 2 aisle plane solution. If such a A330-200 SH/ MH (short haul/ medium haul) would get a dedicated composite wing optimized for such routes and some other weight/ size adjusted components (e.g. adopted suspension) without the need to develop a completely new aircraft, 2 planes can be developed and offered for some reasonable investment.

That she could be, but it is at this time way too early for Airbus to make such decisions imho. See the possible year of 2024 as the EIS year for a real A320 successor.  Wink


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11595 times:



Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 9):
Some of the specs you quote for the 787-9 will be significantly different by firm configuration. Sorry I can't elaborate until it's made public.

That is such a tease to put out on airliners.net  Smile Are there no way to point in the direction...?  Silly

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 10):
In my view, they overlap pretty well

They do, but I always thought that the A350-800 was the one to overlap the 787-9. Many on Airliners have stated that the 787-9 would make more sense over time than the 787-8 because the OEW between them are just 5t and the 787-9 i a more capable plan. Following that logic. Why don't we just go for the A350-900 that has an even higher MTOW. Over simplification I know. And Zeke have been telling that the numbers are not equal as there are different ways to show OEW.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 10):
Let me guess. OEW will go up, and so will MTOW.

If OEW goes up to much, the A330 will enjoy an even brighter future.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
No, that is correct, that is how an A330-200 can be competitive with a 787 on shorter routes, it carries 5 t more payload.

For how long a distance does the A330 has a higher payload advantage?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
It isn't, you just do not seem to understand the difference between manufacturers weight empty and operating empty weight.

I know the difference. Not how much it differs between the MWE and OEW. The tables I have says OEW on both planes. My source might be wrong.

Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 13):
Again it comes to my mind that an A330-200 'enhanced' with a new engine e.g. Genxx based would be the hit all not extremely long routes and would grab in the 787-8 market as the Airbus competitor.

I agree. As the EU would like to start trading CO2 for airlines they will be pressed hard to have get more fuel efficient engines. An A330 that has 15% better fuel economy seems would find it's niche.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11345 times:

First of all,
none of them has already flown, so this numbers are not experimental facts, only predictions.
A380 for example had some weight issues I think. So to predict exact figures at this stage is nonsense, engines for A350XWB haven't been tested yet. It is something like the tech info of military aircraft and other equipment- you can find it everywhere, only a fool would take those figures for real


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10558 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 13):
Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 13):
Again it comes to my mind that an A330-200 'enhanced' with a new engine e.g. Genxx based would be the hit all not extremely long routes and would grab in the 787-8 market as the Airbus competitor.

I can not argue with you about this. Hence, I completely agree.



Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 15):
First of all,
none of them has already flown, so this numbers are not experimental facts, only predictions.



Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 15):
It is something like the tech info of military aircraft and other equipment- you can find it everywhere, only a fool would take those figures for real

I think this is the right way to look at such things. 380 exceeded its expectation as well as almost every aircraft produced by these companies. To make predictions on an aircraft that hasn't flown yet is a dangerous proposition either way.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10478 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 14):
For how long a distance does the A330 has a higher payload advantage?

I do not know exactly off hand, it is the 4000-5000 nm range. Had two increased to it recently, the additional MTOW increase to 288t, and the Trent 700 EP with the low fuel burn.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
From what I hear, the maximum structural payload for the initial 787s is disappointing.

I wouldn't be surprised.

I also would not be surprised if they were used by whomever takes them in a very dense (low J / high Y at 9-abreast) configuration for regional (≤3500nm) missions as a "super shuttle" - especially if they have RR power since the Trent 1000 has better fuel economy at climb which would benefit multiple daily hops.

Even with an SFC miss (and especially without), the computer models imply that the fuel burn will be better than an A332 on such missions and the payload advantage the A332 has will be negated. And for those airlines that are using A332s on regional missions, they can re-position them on longer missions until the more capable 787-8s arrive down the road.

Obviously not an optimal situation, but when presented with a lemon, one makes lemonade the best one can...

[Edited 2009-09-19 07:49:08]

User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10305 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 5):
Were are those numbers from?

Boeing.

The A350 is the same way. Those ranges to 8,000 miles are pax only.

[Edited 2009-09-19 07:42:23]

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10026 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8314 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just a couple of points...

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Range 3,050 NM | 8,200 NM | 8,500 NM

The 787 specs look "old" to me.
The range Boeing currently quote for the 787-8 is 7 650Nm with 250 pax and 8 000 Nm with 220 pax, the former number being the same at which the A330-200's range is quoted.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 5):
Full payload range is around 5,500nm for the -8 and -9.

Were are those numbers from?

I don't know where they're from, but they sound ball-park. That said, I'm going to guess that the 787-8's Max Payload range will be a fair bit less than 5 500Nm.
For reference, the A330-200's Max Payload range is about 4 300Nm

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Empty weight 101,000 kg | 110,000 kg | 115,000 kg

Presumably OEW (Operating Empty Weight). I was given to understand that the spec OEW for the 787-8 was now around 114t

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Empty weight N/A | 115.7 t | N/A

These are nowhere near the OEW figures for the A350. More like Manufacturers Empty figures, as Zeke said.

Again my understandings are more like, 118t, 128t, and 145t, making the A350-800 about 3t heavier than the 787-9 (being similar sized aircraft this sort of makes sense).

The A350-900 is not only a lot bigger than the 787-9, but as you can see, I understand it to be a good 13t heavier OEW

Rgds


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8031 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
The 787 specs look "old" to me.
The range Boeing currently quote for the 787-8 is 7 650Nm with 250 pax and 8 000 Nm with 220 pax, the former number being the same at which the A330-200's range is quoted.

According to Boeing.com they are between 7650 and 8200Nmile for the 787-8. The reason I qouted the higher number is because Airbus did not have tha same from to.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
Presumably OEW (Operating Empty Weight). I was given to understand that the spec OEW for the 787-8 was now around 114t

I was under the impression that this was "only" for the 25 first examples.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
Again my understandings are more like, 118t, 128t, and 145t, making the A350-800 about 3t heavier than the 787-9 (being similar sized aircraft this sort of makes sense).

Thank you for clarifying this for me Astetuteman. The numbers I got really did not ad up. These does. Still it seems to me that the A350 might have the upper hand in terms of lower CASM due to the highte MTOW, and range at maximum fuel.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7962 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 21):
According to Boeing.com they are between 7650 and 8200Nmile for the 787-8. The reason I qouted the higher number is because Airbus did not have tha same from to.

To that range, they are payload limited. The 787-8 is limited to a payload of less than 50,000-pounds at 8,000-nm, about 220 pax and no cargo.

Good luck making money with less 50% payload capability on an 8000 mile trip.

Max Payloads for the A350 - 5600-5800nm Range

350-800 - About 80k
350-900 - About 100k
350-1000 - About 122k

Max Payloads for 787 - 5500nm Range

787-8 - 98K
787-9 - 120k

Max Payloads for 777-2LR/3ER

777-2LR - 141k - 7600nm
777-3ER - 154k - 5800nm

[Edited 2009-09-25 13:48:05]

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10026 posts, RR: 96
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7745 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 22):
Max Payloads for the A350 - 5600-5800nm Range

350-800 - About 80k
350-900 - About 100k
350-1000 - About 122k

Max Payloads for 787 - 5500nm Range

787-8 - 98K
787-9 - 120k

I hope you don't mind me asking where those numbers came from... They all sound very low for Maximum Structural Payloads...

For curiosity's sake, Airbus on their website currently list the Maximum Zero Fuel weight of A350's as 173.5 tonnes, 192 tonnes, and 213.5 tonnes respectively.

Based on the OEW assumptions I gave in reply #20, that gives Max Payloads of:-

A350-800 - 122k lb
A350-900 - 140k lb
A350-1000 - 148k lb

Which aren't that far off those of similar sized Airbus products today....

For reference, the Airbus website quotes 149k lb for the A340-600 - astonishingly close to the astonishingly closely sized A350-1000  Smile

Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 22):
Max Payloads for 777-2LR/3ER

777-2LR - 141k - 7600nm
777-3ER - 154k - 5800nm

I make the range numbers 5 700Nm and 7 500Nm for those two planes from the R/P charts

Rgds


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...
Saudi Arabian AL : A350 And 787? posted Tue Dec 12 2006 22:30:18 by FCKC
Major Differences Between A350 And 787 posted Tue Sep 12 2006 07:36:45 by Dallasnewark
Thai Steps Up A350 And 787 Evaluations posted Mon Aug 7 2006 18:08:53 by Leelaw
Lufthansa Not Satisfied With A350 And 787 posted Mon May 8 2006 21:31:40 by Columba
A350 And 787 On The German Market? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 11:40:33 by Columba
EK: A350 And 787 Both Require Design Changes posted Wed Nov 23 2005 17:55:29 by N328KF
Aeroflot To Choose Between A350 And 787 Next Week posted Fri Oct 28 2005 11:38:38 by Keesje
Seating Capacity Of A350 And 787 Exaggerated? posted Thu Oct 6 2005 18:04:04 by Columbia107
Eithad Looking At 787/A350 And 777F/A332F posted Tue Aug 8 2006 11:16:45 by EI321
Ethiopian To Acquire 12 A350 And 5 B777LR posted Tue Jul 28 2009 08:06:15 by Mptpa
Saudi Arabian AL : A350 And 787? posted Tue Dec 12 2006 22:30:18 by FCKC
Major Differences Between A350 And 787 posted Tue Sep 12 2006 07:36:45 by Dallasnewark
Thai Steps Up A350 And 787 Evaluations posted Mon Aug 7 2006 18:08:53 by Leelaw
Lufthansa Not Satisfied With A350 And 787 posted Mon May 8 2006 21:31:40 by Columba
A350 And 787 On The German Market? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 11:40:33 by Columba
EK: A350 And 787 Both Require Design Changes posted Wed Nov 23 2005 17:55:29 by N328KF
Aeroflot To Choose Between A350 And 787 Next Week posted Fri Oct 28 2005 11:38:38 by Keesje
Seating Capacity Of A350 And 787 Exaggerated? posted Thu Oct 6 2005 18:04:04 by Columbia107
A Comparison Between A350 MkI And 787 posted Tue Feb 16 2010 12:56:09 by Carls