Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing: Firm Configuration Of 787-9  
User currently onlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 594 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19772 times:

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/07/bca_final_config_07_01_10.html

Boeing has announced the final configuration of the 787-9.

Good video included in the release. Shows how a stretch is not so simple. The aircraft's general specs don't look surprising, but I was glad to see the range will be north of 8,000nm.

From the release:

"The 787-8 and -9 are far more fuel-efficient and have much lower operating costs than either the A330 or the new A350 family." Jim Haas, 787 Marketing director

I buy into the A330 part of the quote, but view as marketing spin the notion that the 787 is more fuel-efficient and has a lower operating cost than the A350XWB (unless he meant the original A350   ) After all, how does he know this when Airbus themselves may not?






[Edited 2010-07-01 09:37:49]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19733 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
"The 787-8 and -9 are far more fuel-efficient and have much lower operating costs than either the A330 or the new A350 family."

I agree that the 787 family will obviously be much more fuel-efficient and having lower overall operating costs. But I don't subscribe to the 787 being more fuel-efficient or have lower operating costs than the A350XWB. First of all, the 787 doesn't really compete head to head with the A350 family.

With that said, maybe Boeing is getting some very positive numbers in from all the flight testing, and is confident in how the 789 will perform upon EIS.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlinePHKLM From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Dec 2005, 1198 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19640 times:

First scheduled delivery in 2013, I somehow refuse to believe that as it is 3 years ago the 787 rolled out of the factory for the first time, and just look where Boeing is right now...

As said in the video, it will not just be a simple stretch of the airframe...


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19626 times:

I'm sure they have some...colorful numbers to back up those claims.

I am excited for the 9. It should be even prettier than the 8, which looks a tad short to my eye.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
First of all, the 787 doesn't really compete head to head with the A350 family.

The 9 and the A358 are pretty much direct competitors.

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 2):
First scheduled delivery in 2013, I somehow refuse to believe that as it is 3 years ago the 787 rolled out of the factory for the first time, and just look where Boeing is right now...

Comparing development of the type to development of a variant is flawed. The 788 is a good chunk of the way through final testing.

[Edited 2010-07-01 09:53:27]

User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19623 times:

A happy day in my world!

 
Quoting delimit (Reply 3):
I am excited for the 9. It should be even prettier than the 8, which looks a tad short to my eye.

I feel exactly the same way. I can't wait to see it!


User currently offlineYuxi From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19512 times:

Is it just me or does the -9 look more "right" proportionally than the -8? The -8 looks a bit short and stubby (kind of like the 762).


Yuxi
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am sure Airbus have been giving guidance to their customers on the A350 as it moves through it's own firm configuration. And Airbus isn't the only company producing "Lessons Learned" documents based on intelligence-gathering efforts.  

It is true that the 787-8 and 787-9 are not direct matches for the A350-800 or A350-900 (and vice-versa), however I would not be surprised if customers are cross-shopping those respective models against each other.

And as to the 787-9's EIS, while it is indeed not just a "straight stretch" of the 787-8, it shares enough that the certification and flight testing program will be significantly shorter for the 787-9 than it shall be for the 787-8, which should allow it to EIS not-insignificantly sooner after first flight than the 787-8.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19482 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 3):
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
First of all, the 787 doesn't really compete head to head with the A350 family.

The 9 and the A358 are pretty much direct competitors.

  
My calculations suggest that 789 will have a lower GTM(gallon ton mile) than A358 for mission lengths below 5,200nm. Beyond 5,200nm, A358 has a lower GTM than B789.

Overall, they are well matched.


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1062 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19440 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
I agree that the 787 family will obviously be much more fuel-efficient and having lower overall operating costs. But I don't subscribe to the 787 being more fuel-efficient or have lower operating costs than the A350XWB.

Both Boeing and Airbus always claim superiority for marketing purposes. More for stockholders really I guess, it's not like the customers don't know the real scoop.


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1307 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19408 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
maybe Boeing is getting some very positive numbers in from all the flight testing, and is confident in how the 789 will perform upon EIS.

They must be very very confident to make such claims in comparison to competitive aircraft that they don't know all the details of, and that is still in development. In other words it sounds more like typical marketing bs to me. Not that I would like to question the efficiency. Good to hear the confidence, this means that efficiency is on track and will not delay the test program.



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19406 times:

Quoting Yuxi (Reply 5):
Is it just me or does the -9 look more "right" proportionally than the -8? The -8 looks a bit short and stubby (kind of like the 762).

Exactly!


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19168 times:

Quoting Yuxi (Reply 5):
Is it just me or does the -9 look more "right" proportionally than the -8? The -8 looks a bit short and stubby (kind of like the 762).

It's not just you. There's a fuselage proportion that just looks "right"...it's about 10-12:1. The 787-8 is short for its width, and the effect is severely exaggerated by the very large windows and relatively small vertical fin.

Tom.


User currently onlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2250 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19034 times:

It was the same thing with the 767 in my opinion. The 767-200 family looked a bit chunky. The 300 had just the right proportions. The 787-8 is the same thing for me. It looks deceptively smaller than it actually is. The big cockpit windows and passenger windows help to make the aircraft look smaller proportionately. The drawings of the 787-9 seem to have just the right proportions.

User currently offlineKPHXFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 413 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19008 times:

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 2):
First scheduled delivery in 2013

Is it known yet who the first scheduled recipient of the 787-9 is?


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18961 times:

Quoting KPHXFlyer (Reply 13):
Is it known yet who the first scheduled recipient of the 787-9 is?

NZ late in 2013


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18944 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 4):
A happy day in my world!

I bet so! Are you working on the -8 or -9? I'm very excited for the -9.   



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18863 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
It's not just you. There's a fuselage proportion that just looks "right"...it's about 10-12:1.

Interesting metric. Here are some numbers for selected aircraft:

Aircraft........ Ratio
A343.............11.3
A345.............12.0
A346.............13.3

B773.............11.9
B772.............10.3

A388.............10.2

B788..............9.80
B789.............10.9

The above metric does not include height, and therefore is less robust than one which includes height.

It is interesting to note that A345, liked by many, has a ratio of 12. A388, disliked by many, has one of the lowest ratio along with B788. IMO, B788 looks better than A388 as it is not as tall.

IMO, based on above, the "sweet spot" is around 11 to 12(fuselage length to width ratio).


User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18751 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 15):
I bet so! Are you working on the -8 or -9?

I'm on the -9 for now.


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18715 times:

It will vary a bit due to personal preference, but I think you're right; height plays a factor. My personal favorite as far as proportions go is the 772, with a 10.3 ratio, which is on the short side of that metric, but looks exactly right to my eyes. The A388, with a 10.2, on the other hand, definitely looks stubby.

Happily for the A388, she has a great personality.

[Edited 2010-07-01 11:13:51] Big grin

[Edited 2010-07-01 11:14:16]

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18642 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 18):
It will vary a bit due to personal preference, but I think you're right; height plays a factor. My personal favorite as far as proportions go is the 772, with a 10.3 ratio, which is on the short side of that metric, but looks exactly right to my eyes. The A388, on the other hand, definitely looks stubby.

You are right that B772 looks proportional with a 10.3 ratio. Another variable that affects the "look" is wingspan.

Btw, B748i comes in at about 11.9.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18438 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 18):
It will vary a bit due to personal preference, but I think you're right; height plays a factor. My personal favorite as far as proportions go is the 772, with a 10.3 ratio,

I like the longer sleeker look of the 77W:

Stunning


The 789 is going to look awesome as well. Even better than the 77E even though they're close in size/proportion with fuselage, wingspan, engine size, etc.




We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1249 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18388 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 16):
It's not just you. There's a fuselage proportion that just looks "right"...it's about 10-12:1.

That is a B-E-A-UTIFUL areoplane! The -10 would look spectacular.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18389 times:

The 300 looks a tad long to me (I am also not at all a fan of the 346, whereas I think the 345 looks great).

The reason I find the 777 so damn good looking, beyond the proportions being right, are the "neck" and the size of the engines. It looks a little brutal. Well, that's the best word I can find, at least. The longer 300 lessens the impact of both of those features.

The 789 is going to look fantastic. The 777's prettier, little sister.


User currently onlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 594 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18355 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 16):
IMO, based on above, the "sweet spot" is around 11 to 12(fuselage length to width ratio).

Externally, I agree and find the A340 family very easy to look at...
Internally, as an economy passenger, I like the shorter ones!

I wonder if birds have a particular "ratio." Not so easy to calculate with living beings, but Mother nature may have a say in all this.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 4):
A happy day in my world!

You sound like a proud papa...Thanks for all the hard work!!! While she's going to look awesome, I'm even more excited to hear about all the improvements you and the team came up with that will make her one fantastic plane.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 17):
I'm on the -9 for now.

Let us know when you move to the -10.... 

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 19):
Btw, B748i comes in at about 11.9.

Right in the "Sweet spot." I believe even Joe Sutter himself has noted that the -8i is proportionately just right. The iconic hump may throw off the calculation a bit, but that's what makes the 747 a stand-out.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 18284 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
"The 787-8 and -9 are far more fuel-efficient and have much lower operating costs than either the A330 or the new A350 family." Jim Haas, 787 Marketing director

While the B787 will have lower operating costs than an A350XWB, he can stop the spin a bit....there are many other variables such as CASM, etc. which gives the "true efficiency" of a particular model.

As a Boeing kool-aider, I'm glad to see the B789 finally being firmed..  

Quoting delimit (Reply 22):
The 300 looks a tad long to me (I am also not at all a fan of the 346, whereas I think the 345 looks great).

  ....I think the B772LR, A332 and A310 as the nicest of all...  ...Properly proportioned...  



"Up the Irons!"
25 Post contains images EA772LR : Well, obviously the 77L is my favorite plane...duh! I second that!
26 WarpSpeed : This has spurred a thought that maybe Boeing took the opportunity and designed the -9 to accommodate the possibility of a "straight stretch" of it in
27 Post contains images RJ111 : You guys aren't even in the right ballpark. 21.5:1 is by far the best ratio.
28 WarpSpeed : And that would be...the Concorde?
29 LAXDESI : A simple 20 foot stretch would increase the capacity by about 55 seats(3 class), while adding about 12,000 lbs to OEW. The range would drop by around
30 Post contains images delimit : Yeah, if I was to assemble my top three it would be 772LR, A332 and either the 744 or possibly the 748i (longer hump makes it so much better looking
31 Stitch : I would not be surprised if the 787-9 team has not been at least thinking about the 787-10 as they have worked on firming the configuration these pas
32 Post contains images RJ111 : Thanks for the numbers once again. Sounds like a fabulous aircraft and one i really think Boeing should pursue. It could undercut a lot of the A359's
33 justloveplanes : A bit bigger, but short range like the now defunct 783..... Hmmm...... I wonder what the wing to fuselage ratio was for 783 and how long a 7810 would
34 Post contains images BoeEngr : Thanks guys! Well, you might be waiting a while, that's not my next assignment...
35 ATLflyer : I totally agree. The -8 looks small in pictures. The -9 looks perfect...not too long like the A340-600.
36 ER757 : In person it looks better. I've seen it both in the air and up close (about 10-15M away) and it is a beautiful, graceful looking aircraft. But I agre
37 airproxx : Maybe the bleedless technology used on the 787 is part of an answer?
38 CFBFrame : Over the next 20 years, Boeing projects a demand for 3,310 airplanes in the 787-sized market. "The 787-8 and -9 are far more fuel efficient and have m
39 kiwiandrew : Glad to hear that design is frozen ... no more delays please please please please please , I can't wait to see it flying in the colours of launch cust
40 ikramerica : I'm not sure why people are surprised that a 789 could be more efficient than an A358. The 789 is a first stretch of a baseline, usually more efficien
41 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Well I couldn't agree more....its the best plane on the planet-but I am extremely as well... While more efficient than its smaller sibling, he was st
42 kiwiandrew : I don't think that anyone has said that it "couldn't be" more efficient , I think the reaction is more to that fact that Boeing are at this early sta
43 BMI727 : Well, a "simple stretch" is just that: a stretched fuselage and nothing more, other than perhaps a slight MTOW bump. That will result in a pretty str
44 ikramerica : It's obvious to me from your numbers that 11-12:1 is the true beauty spot, with 10:1 being okay but a little stubby looking. The best looking planes
45 seabosdca : It would be rather surprising, provided the A350-800 ends up as designed, if the 787-9 were not more efficient. The 789 is lighter, has less frontal
46 Post contains images seabosdca : I like them a bit shorter, with more wing and engine per foot of length... just check out my sig...
47 hannahpa : I had the same thought! I hope they are still thinking of building the 787-10 (even though we may be 5 years or so from FF or EIS.) I thought that a
48 delimit : The 789 already does that. A 772 seats right arou d the same numbers.
49 LAXDESI : True, if both 789 and 772 are configured to be 9 abreast in Y. One would need a 787-10 to match a 10 abreast 772. I expect the 772NG to be longer tha
50 dynamicsguy : From the article: We've been well and truly into the detailed design for some time now. Even though this marks firm configuration, most of our configu
51 Post contains images astuteman : While I'm on my feet.... Congratulations to Boeing for achieving this milestone. I too look forward to seeing the 787-9 coming into service. She's a b
52 NAV20 : BoeEngr - or anyone else working in the field - there seems to be one clear case of 'different philosophies' between the two manufacturers. Boeing ten
53 Yellowstone : Agreed. One data point that no one mentioned yet - the 757-300, the most slender aircraft I can think of (except Concorde). It's got a ratio of 14.7:
54 kiwiandrew : what about the DC-8-61 ? I believe it was slightly longer than the 757-300 ( 57.12 m versus 54.4 for the -300 ) and I imagine the fuselage was a pret
55 Yellowstone : Yup, the DC-8-61 appears to be the winner - it's ratio is 15.3:1.
56 Post contains images Glareskin : I am with you. There is only one sleeker than that. And it pleases my eyes even more: No. It would be bias to believe the claim without knowing all t
57 Post contains images Swallow : The 388 is the baseline model. The 389 will be the stretched version The 359 will precede the 358 into airline service. The shrink is not the first m
58 EA772LR : But it seems the A380 was designed from the outset to be even more optimized than it is at a longer length. It seems the A380-900 has been on Airbus'
59 justloveplanes : Many thanks for your all appreciated insight and congratulations on another milestone. I do have a question with regards to the 789. Other that the s
60 ikramerica : Yep, and the A318, 736, E135, etc. all look super stubby and just plain adorable. The 731 with it's cigar engines even more so, and the 717 is just f
61 Glareskin : Where did my logic imply that? My logics only implied that you cannot make claims without knowing all the facts. Both believe and disbelieve are nons
62 BMI727 : Don't forget that Boeing intended to build the shrink models of some of their new models after the initial versions (including two different 777-100
63 Stitch : Based on my research, I tend to think Boeing didn't really plan for those shrinks, but it was more like the 747SP - an attempted response to fill a m
64 SEPilot : I fully expect the 789 and A358 to be very close in performance; they hardly can be otherwise. Both companies are going all out to make the most effic
65 Post contains links PA515 : Found the Rob Fyfe interview it's from December 2009. PA515[Edited 2010-07-06 14:27:15]
66 9252fly : If the B789 engineering team is learning a lot from the B788,what will a potential B787-10 possibly learn from the B789? Would it not be possible to f
67 Post contains images DocLightning : There's one other: all-electric architecture on the 787. And for all the braying and hoo-hahing that Boeing did, Airbus pretty much showed that it wa
68 SEPilot : It remains to be seen whether or not it proves out. I gather the weight savings hoped for has not panned out as expected; but the other side, reduced
69 justloveplanes : Boeings claim for the all electric architecture was mostly mainteance based and for upgrades in place. I.E. as electric motors, etc became more effic
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...
Boeing Completes 787 Firm Configuration posted Sat Sep 24 2005 15:13:07 by Keesje
Boeing Buys Rest Of North Charleston 787 Facility posted Tue Dec 22 2009 05:04:47 by BOSSAN
Boeing Completes Firm Config Of 747-8I posted Tue Nov 6 2007 09:03:01 by NYC777
Boeing : No Freighter Version Of 787 For 10 Yrs. posted Tue Sep 4 2007 18:22:59 by NYC777
Will Boeing Display A Mockup Of The 787 In PAS? posted Thu Jun 14 2007 11:48:46 by LY777
New Pics Of 787 Parts: Boeing Presentation posted Thu Feb 8 2007 15:20:49 by NYC777
Boeing Finalises Firm Configuration For 747-8F posted Fri Dec 15 2006 23:52:20 by Werkur767
AC Notifies Boeing Of 787/777 Order Cancellation posted Sun Jun 19 2005 04:50:42 by Avek00
Boeing Still Hopeful Of 200 Firm Orders For 7E7 posted Thu Dec 23 2004 05:07:42 by Jacobin777
Boeing General Production Question (787 & 777) posted Thu Jun 24 2010 00:12:46 by kaitak744