Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
789 - Heavier, Less Fuel = More Payload & Range  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 677 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 24896 times:

Can any of the engineers on this site explain how this can be achieved?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...e-787-9-configuration-in-june.html

"Despite a heavier aircraft, with a similar sized wing and slightly less fuel capacity, Boeing is aiming for greater payload and range for the 787-9 with a MTOW of 247,208kg (545,000lb) and a range of 14,816-15,742km (8,000-8,500nm) with 280 passengers in a three-class configuration.

"That's the beauty of engineering," says Shanahan who adds that Boeing doesn't want to offer an aircraft with less range than the 787-8 after increasing capacity and maintaining a common wingspan.

"Through understanding the performance of the -8 and optimising the configuration" the company has "found a way to get the range and the extra payload," he says."

123 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 24880 times:

One rule I've learned about engineering - just because it doesn't make sense on the surface doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps Boeing has found that fuel burn on the -8 is lower than expected thus far, and through other optimizations is able to predict that the -9 can maintain the desired range with a bit more weight.

User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 24843 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 1):

Very well said.
Engineers do miracle by achieving amazing results.
And Boeing is known for it... 

When is the 789 scheduled?



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 24631 times:

I assume the 788 cannot fill the tanks at pax payload, whereas the 789 has a higher MTOW and will be able to.

The 789 will still burn more fuel per mile.

In fact going off the specs on wiki which i realise is a tragic idea, the 788 seems particularly uncompetitive vs the 789 and i can imagine a lot of conversions.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 24561 times:

Jerseyflier, my experience was with buildings, not aeroplanes - but this could well be an example of what a mate of mine once (brilliantly) christened 'benign creep.'

Safety being such an overriding concern in building almost anything, there is a natural tendency to 'over-design' at first; to 'err on the safe side,' often making things stronger than they actually need to be (which is naturally a lot better than the opposite approach ).

You don't often get any feedback on whether you've over-designed a building; but, of course, in the case of aeroplanes, I expect that the designers start getting feedback as soon as the prototype flies, in the form of reduced fuel consumption, higher airspeeds/faster rates of climb for a given power setting, etc. And in the case of the 787, there is a 'whole new ballgame' being played out because the drag from a more or less monolithic composite airframe will be different (I would think almost certainly less) than that from a conventionally-fabricated aluminium one. The same sort of thing could well apply to the lift generated by the wings.

So my guess is that Boeing have found, from the early 788 test programme results, that the aeroplane is performing significantly better, in aerodynamic terms, than the (computer-generated) estimates suggested that it would. And are pleased to be able to use that feedback to secure economies/simplifications of various kinds on the design and configuration of the 789.

As to 'more range for less fuel,' Boeing have already admitted that the first 20 788s (and especially the first 7) will be considerably overweight; no doubt this will give them an opportunity to achieve additional weight-savings on later 788s as well.

[Edited 2010-02-20 07:45:15]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
I assume the 788 cannot fill the tanks at pax payload, whereas the 789 has a higher MTOW and will be able to.

That seems to make the most sense. The 787-9 has almost 20t more MTOW so the additional OEW and Payload together must be around 10-15t which allows the rest of the TOW to be used to tank extra fuel.

I was really surprised when the latest Boeing figures showed the 787-9's fuel capacity drop from ~139,000 liters to ~127,000 liters and assumed they had mistakenly repeated the 787-8's fuel capacity, but now we know that was a real drop.


Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
n fact going off the specs on wiki which i realise is a tragic idea, the 788 seems particularly uncompetitive vs the 789 and i can imagine a lot of conversions.

Perhaps Boeing is planning for the same, by having CHS build the 787-8 at three per month and PAE build the 787-9 at up to seven per month...


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24271 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
the 788 seems particularly uncompetitive vs the 789 and i can imagine a lot of conversions.

If this is true, NZ (789 launch customer) must be patting themselves on the back.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5855 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24074 times:

Makes me wonder how soon we will see a significantly increased MTOW on the 787-8. One would think that with the 787-9's MTOW a 787-8 would come close to the range of the 777-200LR.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 23607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
Makes me wonder how soon we will see a significantly increased MTOW on the 787-8.

Well the 787-8 has seen significant TOW growth since initial design (216t) to the current 228t. For that matter, so has the 787-9 (227t to 247t), but I have been told that was driven by customers who wanted to be able to lift more fuel to fly longer distances.


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 23288 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
I assume the 788 cannot fill the tanks at pax payload, whereas the 789 has a higher MTOW and will be able to.

So, the 788 will have a fuel tank that big, it will never be filled to the brim even without additional cargo? Just with pax and luggage? Talk about seriously overbuilt   

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
the 788 seems particularly uncompetitive vs the 789 and i can imagine a lot of conversions.

It sounds more and more like the 788 would be a shrunk version of the 789, not optimised for its size, just as the A350-800. Can we expect a 787-10 announcement this year perhaps? Final configuration of the 789 in June, around Farnborough...    Perhaps the 787-10 could have the longer wings and bigger fuel tank formerly planned for the 789, making it a true 772ER replacement.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2754 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 23029 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
I have been told that was driven by customers who wanted to be able to lift more fuel to fly longer distances.

That's half of it, yes. The other half is a confirmation of what most of us thought would happen - the 787 has become a de facto 9-abreast aircraft. If you look at the December 2009 revision to the ACAP, 'standard' 3-class configuration for the 787-8 has gone from 224 at 8-abreast Y, to 242 at 9-abreast. Likewise, the -9 has gone from 259 to 280.

I can also tell you that all the major campaigns the 787 is either in, or has been in recently, the airlines are asking for a 9-abreast layout.

IMO, beyond responding to customer requests, this does a couple of things: 1) it pushes the 787 family up a little to closer compete with/replace the A330 family. The airline-spec configurations I've been hearing about leave less than a 10-seat difference. 2) it makes the hypothetical "minimum-change -10X" less appealing. The strongest argument for such an aircraft was as a A333 killer. Now the -9 is basically there. 3) it makes what to do in the 300+ seat segment even harder to choose between. Larger 787 or revamped 777?

Regards,

Hamlet69   



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 22370 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yeah, the 787-10 just doesn't make sense anymore. All the MTOW growth has been absorbed by the 787-9.

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 9):
It sounds more and more like the 788 would be a shrunk version of the 789, not optimised for its size, just as the A350-800.

That's a bit of a stretch, IMO, since the 787-8 was always designed to be the baseline plane.

A more accurate scenario would be the 777-200ER to the 777-300ER, IMO.


User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 22082 times:

Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 2):
When is the 789 scheduled?

First flight of the first 787-9 is currently scheduled, I believe, for January 2013.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
In fact going off the specs on wiki which i realise is a tragic idea, the 788 seems particularly uncompetitive vs the 789 and i can imagine a lot of conversions.

I can imagine the same...

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 9):
Can we expect a 787-10 announcement this year perhaps?

I wouldn't count on it.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 10):
it makes what to do in the 300+ seat segment even harder to choose between. Larger 787 or revamped 777?

I believe the decision is close to final at this point. I will be surprised if we ever see a 787-10.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
That's a bit of a stretch, IMO, since the 787-8 was always designed to be the baseline plane.

Agreed. And I don't think people on here yet have an understanding of just how much change there will be between the 788 and 789. It's substantial, particularly in systems.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15840 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 21535 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
Can any of the engineers on this site explain how this can be achieved?

I think that there were rumors here a while back that the 787 wing was performing better than expected. It did well enough to make it not worthwhile for Boeing to design a new wing for the -9.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
the 788 seems particularly uncompetitive vs the 789 and i can imagine a lot of conversions.

The 787-9 was always going to be the longest ranging member of the family. But I do agree with you, and this bodes well for my prediction that when all is said and done, the 787-9 will be the best seller in the line.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
Makes me wonder how soon we will see a significantly increased MTOW on the 787-8.

Maybe, but a lot depends on trip costs. If the -9 can be upgraded to about the same point, a 787-8IGW may be less attractive. But we are probably a while away from knowing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Yeah, the 787-10 just doesn't make sense anymore.

It would take much more effort, but I still would advocate a two pronged approach to replacing the 777, and one of them is the 787-10.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 21413 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 12):
Agreed. And I don't think people on here yet have an understanding of just how much change there will be between the 788 and 789. It's substantial, particularly in systems.

I think we in the public are expecting the 787 to end up just like the 767. The early 762 was fine but the 763 was the gold standard of the type. Then, the 762 was improved using 763 technology, and a halfhearted stretch model was built as well.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 20773 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
"Despite a heavier aircraft, with a similar sized wing and slightly less fuel capacity, Boeing is aiming for greater payload and range for the 787-9 with a MTOW of 247,208kg (545,000lb) and a range of 14,816-15,742km (8,000-8,500nm) with 280 passengers in a three-class configuration.

Boeing is always "aiming for greater range and payload", as everyone else does.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
"Through understanding the performance of the -8 and optimising the configuration" the company has "found a way to get the range and the extra payload," [Shananhan] says."

That's a no-brainer again. But it doesn't mean anything specific. You gotta love Boeing PR yuck-speak. "Getting the range and extra payload" - does that mean the original payload-range is now met, or even exceeded? Was the common-span wing found to be better than the long-span wing? Was the decsion to go for a common span wing the result of an optimization or rather a make-shift compromise due to circumstances?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 20191 times:

So, the B-787-8 will become the B-767-300/ER, B-777-200, A-330-200, and A-300-600R replacement airplane?

The B-787-9 will become the B-777-200ER, B-767-400ER, A-330-300, A-340-200/-300/-600 replacement airplane?

Will the B-787s be able to carry as much cargo as the B-777-200/ER?

Will there be a B-787-9IGW version to replace the A-340-500 and B-777-200LR?

It seems with these new numbers, better than expected fuel burn from the RR engines, and more drag reduction has been found in the B-787-8 flight testing. Can we expect the same reduced fuel burn from the GEnx-1B engines? If so, that could mean better fuel burn rates on the GEnx-2B engine equipped B-747-8F/I.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
I assume the 788 cannot fill the tanks at pax payload,

That just does not make sense for Boeing to do that, unless it only applies to the first 7-20 airplanes.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 19717 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Will the B-787s be able to carry as much cargo as the B-777-200/ER?

In terms of LD3 positions, the 777-200 family offers 32 compared to 28 for the 787-8 and 36 for the 787-9. In terms of payload weight, the 787-8 seems to be holding at around 45t. The preliminary figure I had heard for the 787-9 was 58t, but I'm not positive those came from Boeing. The 777-200 is rated for 57t and the 777-200ER for 59t.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Will there be a B-787-9IGW version to replace the A-340-500 and B-777-200LR?

I doubt it. I've been told the undercarriage is good for 252t of TOW, which means Boeing only has 5t "play" left with the 787-9's new MTOW of 247t.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 19533 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
That just does not make sense for Boeing to do that, unless it only applies to the first 7-20 airplanes.

Well they have done it. The reason is probably standardisation across the family to save development costs. Plenty of aircraft can't fill their tanks at pax payload. the A332 is the biggest offender i can think of and it means they all end up with a crazy ferry range.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
It seems with these new numbers, better than expected fuel burn from the RR engines, and more drag reduction has been found in the B-787-8 flight testing.

Nothing about fuel burn can be concluded from that article.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
he 787-9 was always going to be the longest ranging member of the family

In the early days the -800 was going to have a longer range. In theory i should image an -800IGW wouldn't be too hard and might add another hour of flying over the -900. Whether anyone would want it is another question.

Assuming the 5t OEW difference is true between the 788 and 789 and combine that with the reality that most airlines are probably going for 9 across, it seems that the 787 has slipped from an aircraft really designed to take out the A332 to one that has become almost the perfect replacement for the 772.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5855 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 19263 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 18):
Assuming the 5t OEW difference is true between the 788 and 789 and combine that with the reality that most airlines are probably going for 9 across, it seems that the 787 has slipped from an aircraft really designed to take out the A332 to one that has become almost the perfect replacement for the 772.

The 787-9 is still a bit smaller than the 772 and has a bit longer range.

This is why the "simple stretch" 787-10 at 250 t feels so natural -- it would be an almost exact 77E replacement in size, payload, and range, but significantly more efficient.

It would compete with the A350-900, but have somewhat worse payload range, hopefully balanced by lower operating cost.


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6962 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 19118 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 1):
Perhaps Boeing has found that fuel burn on the -8 is lower than expected thus far, and through other optimizations is able to predict that the -9 can maintain the desired range with a bit more weight.

But then that's just a trick and the 788 should still have a better range, higher than the latest published figures.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 18974 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19):
The 787-9 is still a bit smaller than the 772 and has a bit longer range.

Well it's the same length externally (having some trouble finding the cabin length). With 9Y it'll house the same people in that cabin. I suspect it'll be 6 vs 7 in J and probably not many will have F. It may well end up with very similar capacity to the 772.

I have no idea what the status of the -10 is or whether it's viable.


User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1034 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18910 times:

Great news!

So how did they do it with increasing weight at the same time?
Hope they make 78-10 and 787-11, I really don't like that it takes so long time developing new planes.
Maybe they are holding their ace in the sleeve, company strategy, like cumputer hardware, slowly introducing bigger discs and processors


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6962 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18842 times:

The 787 cabin is only a tad smaller in width than the 777 cabin, wasn't it always going to be 9 abreast, seeing that it's standard on the 777 which even goes to 10 ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18810 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 10):
That's half of it, yes. The other half is a confirmation of what most of us thought would happen - the 787 has become a de facto 9-abreast aircraft. If you look at the December 2009 revision to the ACAP, 'standard' 3-class configuration for the 787-8 has gone from 224 at 8-abreast Y, to 242 at 9-abreast. Likewise, the -9 has gone from 259 to 280.

I can also tell you that all the major campaigns the 787 is either in, or has been in recently, the airlines are asking for a 9-abreast layout.

I understand that from an engineering, environmental and operating economics stand point, the developments being discussed in this thread are a good thing...

But is anyone else concerned about the 787 becoming a 9-abreast aircraft? Part of the reason I am excited about the 787 is because of the advances in pax comfort touted by Boeing: cabin altitude pressure, air quality, humidity, bigger windows, quieter, dynamic lighting and smoother ride...

But, if the 787 ends up as a 9-abreast for most airlines, will that be a downgrade in cabin comfort? What is the seat width for the 8 and 9-abreast 787, do we know yet? Will a 9-abreast 787 be similar to the dreaded 10-abreast 777 that fortunately is only used for European charters IICR? Not only do I not like the 3-3-3 layout but less seat width would suck and I am thin guy.

767 - 7-abreast - 18" wide seat (Source: Boeing)
787 - 8-abreast - ???
787 - 9-abreast - ???
777 - 9-abreast - 17.5-19" wide seat (Source: SeatGuru's stats vary greatly for a 3-3-3 config, not sure why)
777 - 10-abreast - 17" wide seat (Source: Boeing)

Will the 787 be similar to the CRJ?

CRJ - 4-abreast - 17" wide seat (Source: SeatGuru)
ERJ-170 - 4-abreast - 18.25" wide seat (Source: SeatGuru)


25 Post contains links sunrisevalley : You can find the answers in the link below.. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec2.pdf Briefly, 8-abreast is 18.5" with a 21.5" ail
26 Post contains images Stitch : I just don't think it would, excuse the pun, "fly". I would expect most airlines would prefer the flexibility that the A350XWB-900 would give them in
27 Frigatebird : Yes, the 788 was designed as the baseline plane. But it seems a bit overbuilt and not optimal for its smaller size. IMO, it looks more like the 762 v
28 Post contains images United787 : So...a 10-abreast 787 is only slightly better than a CRJ Yes, but a 747 is a 40 year old airframe and almost no airlines with regular service uses a
29 RJ111 : Payload may be more of a deterrent than range i think - if what you say about the MTOW limit is correct. It really depends on how the 787 actually pe
30 Post contains images sunrisevalley : It appears to becoming more fashionable on the 77W with EK leading the way and NZ about to move in that direction with the to be delivered 77W's and
31 IRelayer : What I'm wondering is, with the performance boost on the 789 described here, is a 787-10 now reasonably possible without a new wing design? What's wit
32 Stitch : It's five tons heavier than it was when it was the 7E7-8, which I don't think is that horrible. With an OEW of 115t, the 787-8 is 2t lighter than the
33 NAV20 : Subject to 'proof of the pudding' in service, there would appear to be some validity in Boeing's claim that because composite construction allowed th
34 Post contains images MoltenRock : So lemme get this straight now.... the current A330-200 w/ NWA-DL for instance seats 243, and as someone stated above the new 787-8 w/ 9 abreast seat
35 Baroque : I don't know where you put your bum in an airplane Nav, but I try to place it on the seat. And if you are one of 4 in an aisle seat, getting collecte
36 Post contains images astuteman : Simple. More MTOW = greater payload AND greater fuel capacity.. In that sense it's no different to the A330-200 That's the trouble with the seat-widt
37 Post contains images NAV20 : Last time I checked, Baroque, my shoulders were still wider than my backside. But I'm sure you're right - as soon as Qantas start flying their 787s t
38 parapente : I too raised my eyebrows when I read the article.And of course (the way it's intentionally written) it is confusing.However many have already stated w
39 JerseyFlyer : Very interesting - this will lead to the 788 and 789 having less "commonality" within the same fleet. This should provide an advantage to Airbus, now
40 Baroque : Aha, but aside from buying a ticket for your svelte good lady wife, how do you ensure the same holds for those in the adjacent seat or seats? And if
41 Baroque : Forgot to add that on my A380 flights, one of the main reasons I was more comfortable than in 767s or 747s was that with the extra seat width, I was a
42 Post contains links and images Zeke : With the aid of a chart that I borrowed from 787 Family Latest Information Release (by Widebodyphotog Oct 8 2005 in Civil Aviation) and amended you m
43 Post contains images NAV20 : Cheers, mate! But I think you probably mean, "one such MAY exist from about 2013 on" - namely the A350 'Extra-Wide-Body.' That certainly won't 'exist
44 Post contains images lightsaber : All of my 'rumor-mill' was expecting that wing aerodynamics would best promise. There is no avoiding more weight adding fuel burn. How dare those cus
45 BoeEngr : I suppose this is true. However, the airline customers have been very happy with the changes, and most of the changes will be rolled back into the 78
46 Stitch : The 787-8 also burns some 15% less fuel (based on Leeham.net's Piano-X projections). In theory, yes. And Airbus tried to do just this with the "A330N
47 Kaiarahi : Yes. Launch customer is NZ.
48 hawkercamm : I think what we will see is the airlines configure their B787/A350s depending on the range they operate. Say 9ab 2class for 4/5000nm. I think we will
49 Stitch : I wonder... The A380-800s will replace the 747-400s on the trunk routes and the 787-9 now gives QF and JQ A330-300 capacity with A330-200 range. So t
50 astuteman : There's a lot more to fuel burn than just the frontal area of the fuselage..... Point of order - the A330-based A350 NEVER was intended to have a CFR
51 Stitch : I'm pretty sure by around the fifth iteration of the model they had decided to go with CFRP for the fuselage, but Airbus offered so many versions I s
52 astuteman : Nope. CFRP fuselage only came in with the A350XWB, and even then it was originally on an Al/Li framework. Rgds
53 parapente : For what it's worth (now) Astuteman's right it was AlLi. Returning to the seat width issue.Whilst I accept that the average person does not know what
54 Burkhard : The fact sheet shows a range of 14.800–15.750 km since an eternity. Calling 14,816-15,742km "more range" is an interesting marketing. Didn't they ex
55 Baroque : I am a bit longer (and also a couple more stones too) and I found the significant advantage of the wider A380 seats in Y was being able to sit skew s
56 NAV20 : I'm afraid that the only 'logic' that is likely to prevail is whether QF (or any other airline) can fill the seats or not, Baroque. Since, as others
57 RJ111 : Do you have any examples of this mounting evidence? No it won't. Durability is pretty useless once the plane is obselete.
58 Jacobin777 : A smoother finish in theory should reduce parasitic drag.
59 Stitch : I would expect Boeing's flight test data is at least indicating a trend either way... But the main thing that seems to "obsolesce" and airplane right
60 parapente : If the above (frame) is true it's the ultimate "game changer". I always recall my father (an engineer) saying with a rye smile that the problem with t
61 RJ111 : Good points. But the wing is important too and who knows what other technology will come up in the next 20 years or how flying trends will change.[Ed
62 justloveplanes : There is also the higher pressurization due to composite strength and fatigue resistance, higher humidity levels and increased maintenace intervals d
63 Baroque : The example that probably has been best documented - but data not published (yet!!)! - is the contribution to lower drag from the ultra-smooth A380 w
64 ea772lr : Yeah but DL/NW flies a 2 class A332 with 243, and Boeing are saying the 788 can seat 242 in a 3 class. Big difference there. Even at 8 abreast, the 7
65 aircellist : Alas... For the first time, a new aircraft I really am not looking forward to flying in. In fact, I may even carefully avoid it... Unless AC goes 8-a
66 Zeke : The Boeing marketing seat laylout would not be used by any opeator in premium classes, the seat width and pitch is just too tight, e,g, 20" wide and
67 Post contains images ea772lr : Oh I know. No operator will use Boeing's marketing seating numbers, but I was just pointing out that comparing a real world 2 class configuration to
68 Rheinbote : Make that "Judging from Boeing's (surprisingly-low) list prices for 787s, monocoque composite construction is expected to substantially reduce produc
69 LAXDESI : Airbus provides the following for A332 cabin dimensions: Length 147.67 feet Width 17.33 feet which gives a cabin area of 2,559 sq. feet, or 243 sq. me
70 Stitch : Considering much of the production costs Boeing pays for a 787 are in a "per shipset" form to a handful of companies providing completed major sub-as
71 Zeke : That is true, also remember the A332 lifts about 11,000 lb more payload than the 788. Most of the seating configurations the manufacturers use assume
72 ea772lr : I agree. The 788, even after it meets its promised specs still couldn't fly 6500nm with any kind of meaningful payload, and forget about 8000nm. It w
73 MoltenRock : But wasn't it 15% at the start of the project? Hasn't that come down due to extra weight, and other changeups during the actual building of the plane
74 justloveplanes : I think Boeings recent decision to wing the 789 from the 788 design based on a mere 150 hours of flight tests, with a minimal fraction at cruise spee
75 Stitch : Based on the Piano-X projections Leeham.net published in March of 2009, on a 6000nm mission with a 50,000 pound payload, a on-spec 787-8 would burn 2
76 SpeedyGonzales : I have the following cabin lengths, measured between door centers, from public documents: A330-200: 1-2: 8,71m 2-3: 21,22m 3-4: 9,85m Total: 39,78m 7
77 LAXDESI : I am not sure if your assesment on 788 cabin length being shorter by 2.5m is correct, as it may be affected by differences in door locations between
78 RJ111 : Considering there's not even a concrete range published anywhere i'd take any fuel burn predictions with a pinch of salt. In addition a model on 6000n
79 Packsonflight : You are spot on there, because the 788 is replacing mostly the 767 which is a 5500 nm aircraft. The distance from JFK to LHR has not increased...
80 Post contains images CO787EWR : Actually.... every year JFK moves 20 or so millimeters away from JFK (this was a joke don't take it seriously)
81 Post contains links NAV20 : No, more room, aircellist. Quite well explained on here, with diagrams, from the time of the Air India order. That was the geometry that finally kill
82 sunrisevalley : AirBus are saying a seating width of 18'4" plus arm rests. I assume that this means the two nearest the windows. Would appear to be about 9" wider th
83 seabosdca : All indications are that the 788 will have a very similar range profile (of course, with payload reduced roughly proportionally to the difference in
84 Post contains links NAV20 : Thanks, sunrisevalley. Found this 2008 article which puts a rather different slant on the issue. With Boeing offering basic 8-across with the option o
85 Post contains images seabosdca : Yeouch. The A350XWB is nearly 10 in narrower inside than the 777, which can do 10Y only with 17" or 17.2" seats and narrow aisles. I don't see how th
86 CO787EWR : Will the 787 be more profitable than a 77E on route like EWR->HKG, I thought the 787 was "optimized" for 3000nm to 5000nm range flights. It seems
87 Baroque : That is about what I thought had happened. I suppose the question now is whether the increase in price really takes into account revised production c
88 LAXDESI : Here's what I found on actual seat confuguration of NWA(Delta) order for 788. J(21" wide seat) at 60" pitch- 36 seats, 6 abreast (2-2-2) Y (18.5" wid
89 Post contains images Zkpilot : NZ was the 2nd airline to order the 787, as such they got to have some involvement in what the aircraft would be like. It didn't take them very long
90 Post contains images astuteman : I don't know what "it" says, but "Boeing" said it was to save them the bother of designing another one. They also correctly acknowledged the adverse
91 JerseyFlyer : Air Asia X plan to operate their 359s with 10-abreast in economy (they do 9 abreast in 333s).
92 Post contains links panais : The Ethiopian Airlines 2 class configuration for the 787 is 270 seats with 9-abreast in economy. http://www.ethiopianairlines.com/en/docs/B787/index.
93 NAV20 : From the Airbus VP in that article I linked to in Post 84:- “The majority of airlines are saying that the nine-abreast arrangement will be the stand
94 Post contains links SpeedyGonzales : I got the lengths from Boeing's and Airbus' airport planning manuals: http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...ery/files/tech_data/AC/AC_A330.pdf (p39-
95 Stitch : Well a 40%-plus increase is significant - it's at least double the normal "adjusting for inflation" increases over the same period. The 787 has now g
96 seabosdca : Moving forward, I think the "sweet spot" will be whatever allows for Y seats of at least 17" width. That is 9Y for both aircraft. The 10Y A350 will b
97 astuteman : Don't dispute that Stitch, and I don't have a problem with the decision. Almost certainly the 787-9 wing would create a similar "outperformance" to i
98 Stitch : I would think they could still add the extra span in down the road, if they feel it absolutely necessary to meet a new performance goal.
99 pnwtraveler : I hope AC continues to buck the trend and not cram more seats in the way competitors have. My brother recently flew AF from Paris to North Africa on a
100 justloveplanes : Agree with your reasoning (as usual), the point I was trying to make was it took remarkably little data, and not even with the complete flight envelo
101 warpspeed : Could the decision to abandon the larger wing on the -9 also indicate an abandonment of the 787-10 in favor of a 777NG/Y3 as the targeted product offe
102 seabosdca : It occurs to me that Boeing might be repositioning the 787-10 for low development costs, very low operating costs, and somewhat reduced capability. A
103 LAXDESI : Thanks for the links. I did not thoroughly review the links that you have provided, but I am still not able to see the 2.5 m difference. Furthermore,
104 warpspeed : As a non-engineer I remain intrigued by the theme of this thread - more with less. As such, my earlier post should not have precluded further enginee
105 Rheinbote : It's more than 4 times that, but it doesn't really matter because ZA001 is not going to be sold to an airline customer. LN7 is said to be slightly be
106 dynamicsguy : As has been noted, many of the -9 changes will be rolled back into the -8. Really? The effect of increased smoothness over existing aluminium airfram
107 aircellist : Of course, the two passengers at both window seats will have more room at ankle and shoulder level, but all the seven other pax will still have narro
108 Post contains images NAV20 : With respect, aircellist, I think that's a bit of an 'over-statement.' Boeing decided to use the standard 747 economy seat, which has performed 'sati
109 Post contains images aircellist : Would I be over-reacting? That would be unheard of... Allow me to maintain that a narrower seat is a narrower seat, and in the middle, there will be
110 ruscoe : IMO the fuselage width of the 350 XWB is a fault. It results in increased weight and drag, without offering enough width for an extra seat. Its a lose
111 Post contains images astuteman : That explains why its sales have bombed I guess Rgds
112 Post contains images NAV20 : Good fun, aircellist. No designer can avoid people occasionally suffering that sort of bad luck! On the other hand, the trip you mention is 'shorthaul
113 ruscoe : No but it may well be why its sales are not even better than they are. It's virtually impossible except in a very niche market, or maybe they know so
114 Post contains images astuteman : ???? That aside, I'm actually on record as saying that I thought the -XWB body should have been about 6" wider, to offer a better 10-across product.
115 Post contains images Frigatebird : I still believe that Airbus initially only started the A350XWB as a 787 competitor, and mainly because EK and SQ specifically asked them so: "if you'r
116 NAV20 : Definitely a possibility, ruscoe. Thing is, Airbus reacted so late that they had the time and resources to produce only one new design to counter two
117 RJ111 : We've already concluded in this thread though that A) the 789 is basically the same size as the 772 and B) The 788 is somewhat uncompetitive vs the 7
118 Post contains links NAV20 : I agree with you that that could happen, RJ111. And one guy who agrees with both of us is the Boeing CEO, Jim McNerney:- "As for the 777, Boeing has
119 Post contains images Baroque : Ah but you have to "remember" RJ111 that the A3510 will be working up from under a "negative edge". Might be OK if that type of edge runs about the s
120 Post contains images astuteman : There was an "if" in my sentence for a reason..... My real point was that cabin width/seat count on its own can't be a measure of "rightness" or "wro
121 aircellist : Good fun indeed, Nav20! I'd go for "deteriorating". With people growing taller and fatter and seats growing narrower, we are on a collision course. Un
122 Post contains images Frigatebird : That subtlety was lost in translation (inside my brain, can't blame it on some kind of website), sorry! No argument there!
123 LondonCity : EK fitted 10-abreast seating on its B777s from day one. NZ is following and so too is EY of AUH. Also remember that AF and KL are busy retrofitting t
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...
Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption? posted Thu Oct 5 2006 17:50:31 by LordHowe
Where Can I Find Airbus Payload/range Graphs? posted Wed Dec 28 2005 23:27:38 by Ruscoe
Another Possible 772LR Payload/range Boost posted Tue Aug 10 2004 00:50:37 by DfwRevolution
New Europe-Australia Routes = Less Fuel & 30 Mins. posted Fri Nov 29 2002 13:58:44 by Singapore_Air
Air France: Less America, More Africa posted Wed Feb 27 2002 00:02:26 by Capt.Picard
Less Passengers = More Comfort? posted Fri Oct 5 2001 14:45:08 by TR
Less Frequencies, More Capacity? posted Tue Sep 28 1999 02:20:55 by FLY777UAL
Less Leg Room, More Complaints? posted Fri Jun 5 2009 19:12:49 by Ssublyme
More Fuel For The Fire On CVG? posted Wed Apr 22 2009 17:00:11 by Burnsie28
Av.fuel In MOW More Expensive Than At LHR posted Mon Jun 23 2008 11:23:54 by Pylon101