Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn  
User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 969 posts, RR: 38
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 40238 times:

Per AV Week article from June 25, 2012, "The first two operators of the Boeing 787-8 are seeing better-than-anticipated fuel burn, despite prior expectations of below-par performance as a result of data from predelivery flight tests.

The numbers, though based on early experience with a relatively small fleet on a variety of routes, are surprisingly positive given the early configuration of the airframes and engines. The operators have not yet incorporated all the planned weight and fuel burn improvements of follow-on production versions."

See full article at

http://www.aviationweek.com/awin/Art...e-xml/awx_06_25_2012_p0-470831.xml

200 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 40137 times:

Some good news at last, I wonder how much those wings have helped, they are really state of the art. Anyway congrats to the Boeing folks on this page!   

User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 540 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 39336 times:

That is great news. I hope Boeing keeps it up.

And it appears that this is not just "rosy Beoing PR fluff", as some posters have been quick to point out. According to the article the GEnX is doing exceptionally well!


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3727 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 39260 times:

Where are the people (person?) continuing to claim those numbers are nothing more than PR fluff and lies, perpetrated from the highest echelons of Japans' two largest airlines?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 39221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The article quotes NH saying that on intra-Japan missions the 787's fuel burn savings are between 15 and 20 percent, so it looks like even on very short runs, the 787 is quite fuel-efficient just as it is on medium and long-haul runs.

User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 39076 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 3):
Where are the people (person?) continuing to claim those numbers are nothing more than PR fluff and lies, perpetrated from the highest echelons of Japans' two largest airlines?

Better yet, where are all the "the 787 is doomed because it is so overweight" neighsayers? Looks like Boeing got it right after all.   


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5854 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 38933 times:

How do you even determine fuel-burn numbers for a ghost plane? NH must be making stuff up.      

User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 906 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 38803 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The article quotes NH saying that on intra-Japan missions the 787's fuel burn savings are between 15 and 20 percent

Wouldn't this be an indication that on the longer sectors it is doing even better than 15-20% ?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 38770 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 7):
Wouldn't this be an indication that on the longer sectors it is doing even better than 15-20%?

The CEO of NH stated that for "international travel", fuel burn was ~22% lower, though there was some disagreement on that figure based on the belief that missions to China, being shorter, would see lower fuel savings as a percentage than missions to Germany.

With NH seeing fuel savings as a percentage upwards of 20% for missions within Japan, and even higher for missions outside of Japan, that implies that whatever the stage length, the 787-8 is a pretty darned efficient airframe.

And it will only get more so.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 38628 times:

Yeah a few people saw this coming too

http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com...2/05/04/787-to-make-a330-obsolete/



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 38541 times:

Wait till they take more weight out of the airplane and the engines have more improvments by the end of 2013 and Boeing would have trully set the bar at a high level. Airbus does have its work cut out for it and it'll be interesting to see if the A350 can match the 787 on the overall operating costs.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 38523 times:

Waow, as soon as the production is running on a higher level I think we will see a new wave of orders.

[Edited 2012-06-26 11:38:56]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38324 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 11):
Waow, as soon as the production is running on a higher level I think we will see a new wave of orders.

Yes, by the end of the year we should have in-service data from a half-dozen or more operators and Boeing should be (    ) assembling five new airframes a month as well as working through the backlog of airframes parked at PAE. All of which together should hopefully get 787 orders trending into the black again.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15834 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38246 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 9):
Yeah a few people saw this coming too

I thought that this was pretty well established that the 787 was better than expected aerodynamically, hence no new wing for the 787-9. Anyone who thought otherwise probably just wasn't paying attention.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38140 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
I thought that this was pretty well established that the 787 was better than expected aerodynamically, hence no new wing for the 787-9.

If Boeing had gone with the 63m span for the 787-9, they noted aerodynamic performance would be even better, but the extra weight of that span would effectively negate it, so it was a wash either way and therefore commonality benefits were more important.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pygmalion (Thread starter):
See full article at

Requires a log in.  
Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 5):
Better yet, where are all the "the 787 is doomed because it is so overweight" neighsayers?

The 787 is still mission limited due to the overweight. That is a lot less catering and fuel that can be carried at a given payload:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...xcess-weight-keeps-anas-early.html

But the parts for acceptable weight 788s are now arriving.

LN63 is the first 788 without rework (saves time and weight)!
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...nts-along-with-production-ramp-up/

Many are waiting for LN90+ which should meet empty weight promise (and have a higher MTOW):
http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/4...ficient-than-a330-new-report-finds

"Utilising US Department of Transportation (DOT) Form 41 data, the cost per seat mile of a 787-8 is 10.4% lower than a Boeing 767-300ER (extended range) equipped with winglets whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 5.8% lower than the 767-300ER on a 2,100 nautical miles (nm) mission. In cost per aircraft mile, the 787-8′s figure is 5.17% lower than a winglet-equipped 767-300ER whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 7.13% higher than the 767-300ER aircraft."

If the Form 41 data is accurate, than we already have a plane cheaper to fly than a 763ER with far more range and a bit more payload.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Yes, by the end of the year we should have in-service data from a half-dozen or more operators and Boeing should be (    ) assembling five new airframes a month as well as working through the backlog of airframes parked at PAE.

Let's see, UA pax service in Q4 per post 205:
787 Production Thread Part 4 (by LipeGIG May 30 2012 in Civil Aviation)#1

QR is due soon (July?), with service to follow in a few months.
LAN receives in August (service in?).
By September Ethiopian too (some sources early as July, but I'm not sure).

And eventually we'll hear about in service data from AI.   


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 37967 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
And eventually we'll hear about in service data from AI

Don't expect too much from them. Most probably they will complain about the fact that their financial situation is due to the high level of CFRP used on the 787...  Wink Sorry to all Indian a.netters - couldn't resist ...

[Edited 2012-06-26 12:47:31]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 37578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Requires a log in.

Google News is your friend.  


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 37530 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
LN63 is the first 788 without rework (saves time and weight)!

No it's LN66 not 63.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineabnormal From UK - England, joined Aug 2007, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 37478 times:

Not to burst the bubble here but, thanks to the delay in certifying the aircraft I expect, come 2014 when that aircraft needs to be FANS 2 compliant for flight in the EU above FL285, it won't be. All 787 flying after that date will be below RVSM airspace until the FANS 2 retrofit is available.

As Boeing's target for FANS 2 certification was the first 787-9, and they have been denied an exemption for any non FANS 2 -8s aircraft after Jan 01 2014, anybody planning on operating a -8 into EU airspace is going to pretty annoyed until the retrofit is available.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 37075 times:

Quoting abnormal (Reply 19):
As Boeing's target for FANS 2 certification was the first 787-9, and they have been denied an exemption for any non FANS 2 -8s aircraft after Jan 01 2014, anybody planning on operating a -8 into EU airspace is going to pretty annoyed until the retrofit is available.

Source? NH is operating HND-FRA without issues. A380's are FANS 1 pending retrofit like the B787-8.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 37029 times:

Quoting abnormal (Reply 19):
Not to burst the bubble here but, thanks to the delay in certifying the aircraft I expect, come 2014 when that aircraft needs to be FANS 2 compliant for flight in the EU above FL285, it won't be.

What's involved in the FANS 2 retrofit and why don't we think it will be ready by 2014? The chance that it's not just a software change is pretty small.

Tom.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21588 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 36935 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 11):
Waow, as soon as the production is running on a higher level I think we will see a new wave of orders.

That's likely. The 3+ years of delay lead to 3+ years of no net orders (net loss) due to there being little point in ordering. If your timeframe is 6 years, why order something that isn't available for 10?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9238 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 36121 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 3):
Where are the people (person?) continuing to claim those numbers are nothing more than PR fluff and lies, perpetrated from the highest echelons of Japans' two largest airlines?

I will happily put my hand up here   

As we discussed lat week when these numbers were released by ANA, it was reported in the English press that this was 20% lower trip fuel. The actual Japanese version of the ANA press release states it was on a per seat basis.



It would also appear that the comparison was done between two configurations which had the same difference in seat capacity, i.e. the 787 with around 265 seats, and the 763 with around 215 seats.

In short, the numbers did not present anything in my view that was a convincing improvement over the 763.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 36244 times:

That would either be a non-story or worse, actively bad PR. None of the press makes sense it that were the case.

25 Post contains links and images lightsaber : What strikes me is that by year end 2013 there won't be enough 787s in the global fleet to truly impact route pricing. That will take until the end of
26 LAXDESI : Good find, and thanks for sharing. Based on the above, early 788s on a short mission have nearly a 5% seat fuel burn advantage over A332HGW. One woul
27 Post contains links tommytoyz : Incorrect. The Aviationweek article does not say trip fuel burn. What news articles are you referring to. Can you link any? http://www.aviationweek.c
28 Viscount724 : But some people may want to read the actual Aviation Week article which they can't access if they're not a paid subscriber, or am I missing your poin
29 flylku : Agreed if this is validated over a slightly larger data set. What is the earliest delivery slot available. Ironically this can help Airbus as well. A
30 Stitch : Google News bypasses the Aviation Week gatekeeper and lets you directly read the article on their site.
31 Viscount724 : Do the magazines complain about Google hacking into their subscription-only publications, or have they agreed to let them? Seems to undermine the val
32 Post contains links Stitch : Earlier statements on fuel savings by NH CEO Shinichiro Ito referred to "per trip" and as such, there was a heavy debate about it in Rave Reviews For
33 glideslope : You really think there will still be an EU in 2014? Most of my colleagues do not. The 350 has it's work cut out for it.[Edited 2012-06-26 18:56:08]
34 flightsimer : Well there is that... But that's a convo for a completely different thread...
35 Post contains images lightsaber : But for those missions, the A333 is an *even* more attractive aircraft. In particular if it gains winglets. The numbers are in the 787s favor. It jus
36 Post contains images seabosdca : I think you need to stop mucking around with your silly aircraft engines and get to work on the truly important problem listed above.
37 Post contains images SSTsomeday : Off topic but.... Speaking of new Boeings, I'm looking forward to the 747-8 numbers.... Maybe they got it right twice. [Edited 2012-06-26 23:06:00]
38 Post contains images autothrust : I don't think it's true the 787 being over 20% more efficient over the A330. This figure is on comparison to the 767 IIRC. I also don't think the 787
39 Burkhard : Congrats to have the 788 fuel burn better than expected. End good all good... Since the engines of ANA and JAL are different, it seems both Trent1000
40 UALWN : I'd suggest a change of colleagues.
41 N14AZ : I really don’t understand why this thread became so emotional and hostile with snippy comments about Airbus, EADS and EU. One member is raising ques
42 Cerecl : I have suggested closing of this thread since there was no new information from the existing thread. Instead, but perhaps not surprisingly, the thread
43 EPA001 : I guess I agree with you on this suggestion.
44 Post contains images sweair : Don't lock a thread, take the comments that are bad out of it. Now back to the subject, if both ANA and JAL say so I believe it. It seems the 787 will
45 SEPilot : It seems that most new aircraft recently have performed better in service than expected-the 787, the 748, the A380, and the 77W/L. The exception seems
46 sweair : Or media report overly negative to create a spin?
47 Post contains images SEPilot : But a Gulfstream G650 would have much lower trip cost. What does that prove?
48 tdscanuck : To inject a little honest-to-goodness data into the thread, I went and looked at the long range cruise fuel burn numbers provided in the FCOM Performa
49 packsonflight : Why is the 787 compared to the 767 at all? It should be compared to the original goals and the promises made by Boeing. Anyway we can hold our breath.
50 Post contains images Delimit : Because the original goals set by Boeing used the 767. It was originally Boeing's claim that the 787 would be 20% more efficient than the 767.
51 SEPilot : And it appears that this goal has been met, even by the very first "grossly overweight" birds. It bodes very well for future production, which will o
52 Post contains images astuteman : Great news once again. It sounds like Boeing have managed to mitigate more of the spec miss on the early birds than they originally anticipated, whic
53 Post contains links Revelation : http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_06_26_2012_p01-01-470896.xml is publicly available. For us enginistas: The evil empire struts its stuff!
54 Post contains links and images zeke : We discussed this last week in relation to the actual ANA press release which this AW&ST article is partly based upon. The graphic in my earlier
55 sweair : I read that it might be close to 2% actually. With PIP2 the engine should be at or below spec. And all the negative reports I have seen, should learn
56 Flighty : Trip cost is what matters 9 months out of the year. In most markets. CRPM is what matters (cost per revenue pax mile). If your market has 6 people, t
57 Post contains images rheinwaldner : I am not sure about that one. I think there is a difference in cruise speed that strengthens the argument in favour of the 787
58 SEPilot : What matters most is making money. While trip costs are very important when planes are not full (as you correctly point out), a smaller plane has les
59 Post contains images tarheelwings : These are all interesting facts and I would assume accurate....what I don't get is the constant need to inject a negative spin in what should be by m
60 Post contains images glideslope : Agreed. Sit back and watch the new orders start to pour in.
61 Stitch : That was the plan, but once Boeing had detailed wind tunnel and CFD models they discovered that the 52m span proved to impact aerodynamic efficiency
62 Post contains links zeke : That is news to me, I was of the understanding Boeing delayed the 787-3 development due to delays with the 787-8. The customers then decided to conve
63 blueflyer : Maybe this got deleted in the cleanup of the slug fest, but I'd really like to know what makes one think Boeing can't get the 787 compliant in time?
64 Stitch : The 787-3 EIS was pushed back as the EIS of the 787-8 and 787-9 slipped and no new customers for the 787-3 came forward. I want to say I read about t
65 tommytoyz : So there are no English articles you can find and link to that you mentioned were published in the English press and you said were in error? The news
66 tommytoyz : If this were true, why is there almost no backlog for the 767, while the 787 has a backlog of almost 800 planes? Why wait 8 years for something when
67 Stitch : Well NH is a Japanese company and it was a press release for the Japanese market.[Edited 2012-06-27 12:06:50]
68 sweair : The 787 has one big disadvantage, its huge backlog and that will damped new orders for a while yet. But as airlines see a large number of 787s at othe
69 Post contains links zeke : Needless to say, the reason you provided does not sound reasonable. A 10t change in weight is significant, it is 100 passengers, have a look how this
70 tarheelwings : As you say, the 787 is an ULH plane which means that using it on short flights is not the most efficient way to utilize it.....I think we can all agr
71 tommytoyz : You interpret the English news articles to say things about the 787, that they do not say. The English one you linked to does not compare trip fuel b
72 phxa340 : You can always manipulate numbers to your advantage. Economists do this all day long. The point I think that is being overlooked is that ANA and JAL a
73 sbworcs : Sorry to ask what might be a stupid question but can someone please explaing, in simple terms, what FANS 1 and FANS 2 are? Thanks
74 Post contains links tdscanuck : Something that often gets forgotten around this issue is that the early "bad" 787's are only "bad" relative *to the original 787 specs*. Compared to a
75 bikerthai : People, you have to read zeke's post carefully. He is often on point. You just have to read between the lines to understand what he's saying. Even if
76 EPA001 : He sure is. And his assumptions on (relatively very) short range flights, where the B767 has an enormous weight advantage over the B787-8, are only l
77 Post contains images phxa340 : [quote=bikerthai,reply=75]I don't think he's anti 787. He, like me, just like be a devil's advocate just to make sure all ideas are on the table. Agre
78 UALWN : Don't worry: there's no shortage in a.net of devil's advocates for "the other supplier."
79 Post contains images phxa340 : , no argument there !
80 tommytoyz : First of all, this contradicts what ANA said, while deploying the 787 on their short routes. Secondly, the CASM advantage the 787 enjoys over the 767
81 zeke : I said above that I think the 787 is meeting their expectations, whatever those expectations were, they are not sharing them. I also believe the have
82 tommytoyz : You made the claim about how the English media were falsely reporting on the 787, not I. And when you finally did link to an English article, it didn
83 XT6Wagon : yah, Any "domestic" 787 will be a normal model with a paper derate. I assume the 789 or 781 being the most popular.
84 Viscount724 : I somehow had the impression that the 787, being designed 30 years after the 767, would have improved on the 767s rather slow cruising speed. I belie
85 XT6Wagon : It is. Its quoted cruise speed .85 while the cruise speed of the 767 is .80.
86 Post contains images sunrisevalley : So what is this weight expected to be? From the links in the post ; The first was 9.8t over weight LN7 to 19, 6.1t over and at LN 20 4 t. over. My qu
87 Stitch : Boeing's last ACAP figure for an OEM configuration was 112t.
88 sunrisevalley : In this context is OEM the same as MEW ?
89 tdscanuck : They're logical given Zeke's core assumption...that the dominant driver in the Brueget range equation is the weight. The actual in service data shows
90 col : Come to Asia, the widebody long haulers are used and abused on short legs every minute of the day.
91 Stitch : MEW usually refers to an airplane with no interior fittings, whereas OEW includes seats, lavatories, galleys and such. Boeing defines OEW as follows
92 Post contains links CM : The Boeing claim of the 787-8 delivering 20% lower fuel burn per seat versus the 767-300ER is per the following rules: Boeing long range interior rul
93 ferpe : It might be they are doing this for B frames, in the recent document the A358 is put as a 7800nm spec config aircraft angainst a 788 of 242pax with 7
94 rheinwaldner : I agree, there is a reason indeed. It is fully justified to highlight the benefits of a full cfrp vs. an aluminium aircraft. Except if the aluminium
95 SEPilot : There is justification for your skepticism certainly. I was one who was arguing that the A350 needed to go full CFRP to compete effectively with the
96 Burkhard : Can't say better, and propose to add RR and GE into the congratulations, since a good deal of this is with their merits.
97 Post contains images sunrisevalley : Then I asume your use of the term OEM was a typo [Edited 2012-06-28 05:56:29]
98 sunrisevalley : TK in calculating the DOW of their aircraft add in the crew weight. For example, for the 77W they use a 167.556t OEW and add potable water, crew , cr
99 Post contains images sunrisevalley : Mea cupla...I should have checked further. The 77W OEW quoted above is some .273t less than the OEW in the Boeing ACAP sheets. So I assume what is ha
100 CM : Hi Ferpe. I wasn't trying to further the discussion of anything other than Boeing's comparison of the 787-8 to the 767-300ER. That comparison is cont
101 sunrisevalley : Here are two links that are relevant to this discussion aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2011/11/b787-8-analysis.html lissys.demon.uk/boeing787-2011.html.
102 Post contains images Stitch : Not at all. The 112t OEW is with a Boeing 224-seat three-class OEM interior. I specifically note this because Boeing traditionally uses a premium cab
103 Post contains links and images zeke : ANA were not specific regarding the routes. Which contradicts their actual Japanese version of their press release I posted above. The original Japan
104 ferpe : Agree, lets start a thread at Tech/Ops on how manufacturers compare aircraft with this as an example, we know the A are doing the same kind of exerci
105 tommytoyz : There is no contradiction. I think that perhaps the problem is that you have a hard time believing in what is being said. Since the Japanese language
106 SEPilot : Well, as an engineer, my definition of structural efficiency is the ratio of payload weight to empty weight. I am not an aircraft engineer, and they
107 tommytoyz : The 787-8 is more structurally efficient vs the 767-300ER (Winglets). The 787 lifts the equivalent of 107% of its OEW The 767 lifts the equivalent of
108 Post contains links zeke : The contradiction is the the normalization on the per seat basis is missing which is what ANA had in their Japanese press release. See the calculatio
109 SEPilot : OK, I stand corrected. I assumed Zeke was using accurate figures. But your figures dispute that, and put the 787 as more structurally efficient. Take
110 tommytoyz : According to whom? Your link does not work. From what you are saying, it is 1) an independent analysis by someone (in 2011? By whom?), 2) making assu
111 tommytoyz : The 767-300ER without winglets is actually more structurally efficient that the 787-8. That's why I added the winglets into the 767 calculation...hah
112 mham001 : This whole debate, and that of the other thread is based on the parsing of words spoken in another language. It's amusing how some have a need to argu
113 Post contains links zeke : The structural efficiency I was referring to was in relation to the formula in reply 54. It is the natural log of the ratio of takeoff weight divided
114 tommytoyz : November 2011 All statements, models and assessments represent the independent opinions and analyses of Lissys. They do not imply any connection with,
115 Post contains images bikerthai : Do you mean max take off weight vs. max landing weight? At first glance I interpreted this as the amount of fuel burned during a flight which is real
116 phxa340 : How about we all wait to see what Al Baker at Qatar says about his 787 ... trust me , if ANA and JAL exaggerated performance ... we will hear about it
117 Post contains images lightsaber : I agree with that methodology! Except, QR will compare to the A330, not the 767. But if the 788 does not meet Al Baker's expectations, there is no do
118 tdscanuck : No, he meant actual takeoff weight divided by actual landing weight. This is what goes into the Brueget range equation (the ratio comes from the inte
119 Post contains images Stitch : The site that did the analysis between the 787-8 and 767-300ER on domestic Japanese operations noted that the 757-300 was the best choice for the mis
120 ikramerica : It was a lost opportunity that the Japanese and Chinese carriers didn't order 757-300s for at minimum the secondary short dense routes.
121 sweair : But hey a new real 757 replacement might still find a lot of orders, conversions from other models.. I think the NSA will account for this as it will
122 bikerthai : Yeah, that's what I thought. Mission specific means that aerodynamic and engine efficiencies also comes in to play. I was just thinking purely from a
123 tommytoyz : Thanks for the correction and clarification, because the formula you posted in reply 54 is the Breguet Range Equation, not any definition of structur
124 zeke : That depends on where one if viewing the problem from. An operator already has an established network, and they may have a wish list of additional po
125 sunrisevalley : Based on a 30t payload , a 788 OEW of 114.5 t. a 767 OEW of 93.032t the cross over point is right about 1000nm. According to PIANO-X the fuel burn fo
126 tommytoyz : I don't think anyone is thinking or saying that. Total structural efficiency is one thing, how airlines operate is another. It will be interesting to
127 tdscanuck : That's our disagreement...there's no such thing as "structural efficiency for that route". Structural efficiency is a measure of structural capabilit
128 Post contains images astuteman : You'll pardon me having a damned good belly laugh at this one, Tommytoyz. I can assure you it's not at your expense. After spending the thick end of
129 Flighty : It sounds like the 787 really does beat the 767 even with light loads (i.e., on a trip fuel basis). It is surprisingly difficult to get that informat
130 Post contains images lightsaber : It proves one can afford a G650. However, the line is closed, so now we debate NEO vs. MAX. Anything less than 2000nm is likely to go to the MAX and
131 sunrisevalley : You are right. Looking into the innards of the PIANO-X profile of the 788 they had a SFC factor of 1.02%. Change that to 1.0 and the cross over drops
132 tdscanuck : Just to make sure I fully understand what we're saying here, PIANO-X, the reference standard that everyone on a.net likes to use for these things, sa
133 Post contains links zeke : I beg to differ, that is how it is also described in textbooks, e.g. page 296 of "Elements of Aircraft Performance" http://mail.vssd.nl/hlf/ae02ch15.
134 tdscanuck : They talk about structural efficiency, correctly, in relation to *maximum total range* (their words, not mine). They go on to compare equal state len
135 tommytoyz : Nobody has made blanket statements. I have asked you for links to any and you have not been able to provide any to "blanket statements". Vague statem
136 Post contains links zeke : That term is used once in the entire chapter. Try reading section "15.5 Weight breakdown" where weight is discussed in detail and it is NOT confined
137 frmrCapCadet : Actually their is a more interesting possible thread other than the rehashes we are seeing on this thread. What specific routes, payloads, missions wi
138 tommytoyz : Zeke, enough words. Numbers please - as you define "structural efficiency for that route" (short routes) 787 Vs 767. What are your numbers in regards
139 Post contains links and images WarmNuts : This has been an engaging thread, wholly informative, even if lacking in elucidation. Regarding the quasi-qualified metric put forth by ANA (read that
140 mham001 : Sheesh, are you still at this? You know full well from the last thread that in another interview, he states "international" flights.
141 JAAlbert : Hey, great word, "elucidation"! I love it. I have to say, for the most part, this thread might as well have been in Greek. The factors, ratios, and c
142 zeke : I do not work for ANA or JAL, you would need someone from those airlines to tell you, they have their payload figures and planning rules. Where I wor
143 ferpe : It is not a "reference standard", it is the best model of real world conditions available for free to everyone. The fact that a more adjustable versi
144 tommytoyz : Glad you cleared that up. In summary, you don't know how the 787 compares against the 767 by your definition of structural efficiency. I really wonde
145 tommytoyz : Wiki figures and I clearly said my numbers were only as accurate as these. If they are wrong, well, then so are the calculations. The more important
146 phxa340 : True, but notable omissions off their published customer lists are ironically JL and NH, the 2 companies who know the ACTUAL fuel burn savings. They
147 ferpe : Then read your post again, just a blanket statement with no caveat about your sources. He did not disproved the claim, he questioned all those that t
148 Post contains images Stitch : Regardless of by how much the true figure is, the big takeaway here is that the 787 is better than the two airlines who operate them expected. This mu
149 Post contains images ferpe : It is great that there are good news for the 787 program, not only for the customers who ordered the aircraft in faith with Boeing but also for all t
150 sunrisevalley : I am not sure where you are getting the information that PIANO-X is saying that the 787 trip fuel is 1.8% better than the 767 on an about 5000nm sect
151 Post contains images phxa340 : Which brings up my confusion , when the A380 beat fuel consumption expectations, some of these same A-Net members took the press releases as truth bu
152 Post contains links Stitch : http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/boeing787-2011.html
153 ferpe : I have read those threads, the A380 beat it's own cruise fuel burn expectations according to A, having been revised downwards by a missed OEW it was
154 zeke : I freely admit I do not know the EXACT numbers, nor do you, and I would dare say no one on this thread does. I have however given you enough informat
155 Post contains links phxa340 : Yes they did. "After its first six months of service, ANA says the 787 efficiency levels are slightly up on the 20% savings originally expected at th
156 tommytoyz : I clearly did. And again later.....sorry if you were led to think otherwise.
157 tdscanuck : *Up to the range crossover*. It appears you just made a blanket statement that the lighter aircraft is always better; even your analysis shows that's
158 Post contains links tommytoyz : That's a cop out if I ever heard one. It's OK to base opinions on a hunch. That's fine, but you give no numbers here either. I think it is clear to a
159 sunrisevalley : Using the PIANO-X 787 EIS template and the 767 with winglets template the respective 50.1t and 50.7t fuel burns can be verified. However it needs to
160 Stitch : I believe the item with larger relevance is the payload, which is capped at 22t for both models. Even an overweight and under-performing 787-8 should
161 sunrisevalley : Good point. The 767 used in the example topped out at 5244nm for 30t payload. This overweight EIS 787 example with 242 passengers topped out at 40t o
162 zeke : They were a little more specific than that, e.g. "Qantas's Strambi concurs: "The A380 has met or exceeded all the original performance, noise and fue
163 phxa340 : So you are going to argue that that sentence is more specific than ANA saying : Come on. I am bowing out of this one ... if anything , ANA gave us mo
164 tommytoyz : You have made a considerable number of comments as seen below, where you say the 787 has poor structural efficiency as a reason for your opinions. Ho
165 Post contains images ferpe : Just so Zeke does not have to counter everything; - you can't be serious with this statement! Read the sentences again, one says nothing to the readi
166 Post contains links zeke : ANA have not stated the 787 is doing better than spec, or better than guaranteed by the manufacturer. Nor did ATW report that they were. They referre
167 sweair : The 787 will replace the 767, that was the aim of this program and to do it by being 20% more efficient, it seems like Boeing managed to nail that goa
168 tdscanuck : That's not actually true; Boeing (and Airbus) have in-house representatives at all major airlines with their products, including a "surge team" that
169 Post contains images phxa340 : Qantas said that the A380 met or exceeded expectations. ANA said the 787 is meeting or exceeding expectations. How again are they different ?? I unde
170 Stitch : Qantas stated they met the guarantees written into the original sales contract. While Boeing have stated that all 787-8s would meet performance guara
171 777jaah : I will lov eto see Av's numbers, because they replaced their 767-300 with 330-200, and now are waiting for their 787s. Of course, this can take a few
172 Post contains images mffoda : I'm guessing ANA is really happy with the 787's performance. From the WSJ... "ANA To Raise Up To $2.6 Bln To Buy More Boeing 787s" "TOKYO--All Nippon
173 AirlineCritic : Yes they are. And that, I guess, is the point of this thread. (But of course, Zeke is right that there is no universal advantage and that the advanta
174 Post contains images sweair : I would say they are buying more than the 36 788s on order. Maybe from AI?
175 tommytoyz : Quote from WSJ: ANA has said it is planning to order 49 of the wide-body 787s, which are 20% more fuel efficient than current equivalents, and has so
176 sunrisevalley : Which is exacly the number they have on order! So they plan to pay by raising more equity. Least costly way of doing it if the shareholders sign on t
177 dfambro : This press release - and the offering itself - may have even more to do with the fact that JAL is proposing re-list as a publicly traded company and
178 KDAYflyer : As usual, well said Stitch. There were many posters (who I dont see on here anymore) who were absolutely convivnced that the early birds were going t
179 KDAYflyer : Which would be very smart of them if true. They way overpromised then horribly underdelivered with all the delays of 3+ years. Perhaps the encouragin
180 tdscanuck : Airliner delivery is not a FIFO (first-in, first-out) process. If ANA orders today their deliveries aren't added to the "back" of the queue; OEM's on
181 phxa340 : So is this a net 13 addition they want ?
182 sunrisevalley : How do you come by this ? Read reply 176. So far as I can see they have 36 -8 and 19 -9 on order for a total of 55 units. Is there another 3 units ou
183 nomadd22 : Laughing at what? The fact that he got the percentages for the 380 completely wrong? Maybe I'm the one who has the numbers wrong, but isn't the 380 O
184 BoeEngr : Very pleased to see our launch customer so happy with their first planes. Somewhat lessens the pain of what we went through bringing her into service.
185 ferpe : I don't think the scale stopped there, more like 218t in my book but could be wrong. If right the VLAs are pretty similar.
186 Stitch : Per the latest 747-8 ACAP, with 467 seats in a Boeing OEM configuration, OEW is 213t and MTOW is 448t.
187 Post contains images astuteman : They did. But you leave out some important differences in what was stated....... Ferpe's about the last person on here I'd accuse of being biased....
188 zeke : OEMs are just suppliers to airlines, they do not get privileged access to our systems. It would be illegal under the Hkg privacy ordnance for us to g
189 Post contains images EPA001 : And those numbers for the A380 will continue to improve with further increases in MTOW and further weight reductions. No doubt these numbers will imp
190 sweair : I would guess when the lighter 789 parts are available in sufficient numbers, they have redesigned many parts as the 788 according to some Boeing eng
191 tdscanuck : That's why I said this: You don't need passenger/client names to know payload weight; Personally Identifiable Information has well established handli
192 OldAeroGuy : Actual airplane performance for an airline in terms of payload carried and fuel burned on specific routes is often required to be disclosed to an OEM
193 mham001 : If that were true, how would an OEM know if their planes are meeting performance guarantees? It strongly behooves an airline to keep the manufacturer
194 kanban : Most airlines allow Boeing to collect data that can be used to validate design in a way that certification and test operations can not. the data coll
195 zeke : That contradicts your previous comments that Boeing "have full insight into the actual operating condition, including actual payload for each flight
196 Post contains images WarmNuts : Am I correct in understanding that your management does not have visibility into the "goodness" of your FOQA process?? I find that difficult to belie
197 OldAeroGuy : Who said that they did? Obviously this statement is incorrect, since guarantee compliance can require that payload carried be known. The OEM will tre
198 kanban : Tell that to the four customer service reps who I visit with frequently... I am afraid that one airline's policies do not emulate all airlines polici
199 SEPilot : Being a total industry outsider, I have no direct knowledge of what information is exchanged between airlines and manufacturers. However, it seems tot
200 bikerthai : This is specially true when Boeing and Airlines (Virgin for example) cooperate on special projects like biofuel testing, or other type of performance
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...
A320 Sharklets Better Than Expected In Tests posted Mon May 28 2012 01:45:46 by flyingAY
Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected posted Wed Apr 4 2012 12:30:51 by ER757
BA Q4 2009 Losses Better Than Expected posted Thu Feb 4 2010 23:52:52 by yodobashi
767 Winglets Better Than Expected posted Thu Oct 15 2009 15:34:06 by Tommytoyz
AW&ST: B747-8F - Better Than Expected Fuelburn posted Sat Nov 29 2008 14:31:00 by OyKIE
ATWOnline: GTF Better Than Expected Test Results posted Sun Jun 22 2008 23:53:46 by OyKIE
Boeing Reports Better-Than-Expected 2Q Results posted Wed Jul 25 2007 18:59:02 by Bbobbo
FR Posts 'better Than Expected' Profit. posted Tue Aug 2 2005 13:07:34 by 7LBAC111
Snba Posts Better Than Expected 1st Q Results posted Fri Jun 11 2004 13:35:28 by Scorpio
JetBlue Reports Better-Than-Expected 1Q Profits posted Thu Apr 22 2004 23:19:41 by Jetbluefan1