Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Empty Weight Of 787-9 Vs A359. Whats Wrong!  
User currently offlineAirA380 From Bangladesh, joined Mar 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8695 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A350#Specifications

I just looked at the a350 empty weight 130.7t while 787-9 115.3t when a359 is only 2m larger than 787-9

difference of weight 15.4t. Why?

Both company have highly expert people working. so Whats gone Wrong, why is a359 so heavy.


I'm flying without wings!!!!!!!!
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8684 times:

Composite vs Traditional materials, at a guess.

User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8650 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Composite vs Traditional materials, at a guess.

The A359 is still made from mostly aluminium & composite material where the 797 is made from a completely composite fuselage...



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8608 times:

The A359 is slightly bigger, also has bigger wings. Checking those stats however, it looks like the 787-9 has a distinct advantage. About the same size, more payload, longer range, faster cruise, lower price, lower operating costs. Not bad!

User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 706 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8608 times:

Several reasons, being the two main ones:

1) Composite vs. metal fuselage - the material is not only lighter, but it also enables different manufacturing techniques which allow to optimize the shape / geometry to achieve desired mechanical characteristics while minimizing material usage, as well as composites can be optimized to display different strength in different directions vs. metal which basically has same strength in all direction.

2) Bleedless engines - cables are lighter than air ducts (for an equivalent amount of energy transferred over the same distance).


User currently offlineAirA380 From Bangladesh, joined Mar 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8592 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 4):
Several reasons, being the two main ones:

Thanks for your answer. There must other things that counts for the weight in excess of 15.4t....that is huge amount. Why on earth airbus would build somthing that heavy to compete with 787-9. I don't know please shead some light. cheers



I'm flying without wings!!!!!!!!
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 706 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8529 times:

Also, 787 is a new, clean-sheet design, using latest state-of-the-art design technologies (computer-aided engineering and simulation), materials and engineering know-how. The 350 is a compromise design which includes elements from a 30-years old fuselage (a legacy of A-300) and 15 years old wing (from A-340 and A330).

For sure Airbus engineers are capable of designing a lighter airplane that could match Boeing design (or even beat it, taking into account the progress made in materials and design technologies over the last few years), but:
1) it would cost more to develop
2) it would come to the market even later
than the A350, which is already at schedule disadvantage with the 787.

Airbus management decided that going with a less perfect airplane, but cheaper in terms of development cost and shorter delivery time, is their best option to compete with Boeing's new plane. Also, during the last few years Airbus technical resources were fully absorbed with the A380 and A400 projects. Only time will tell if this was a right business decision.


User currently offlineEilennaei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8276 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 6):
using latest state-of-the-art design technologies (computer-aided engineering and simulation), materials and engineering know-how.

Meanwhile, in Elbonia .... I read the Concorde was the last project on this side of the Pond that was drawn on traditional sheets.

[Edited 2006-04-13 00:50:15]

User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8260 times:

Quoting Eilennaei (Reply 7):
Meanwhile, in Elbonia .... I read the Concorde was the last project on this side of the Pond that was drawn on traditional sheets.

They may have used some CAD on the A320, A330, and A340 families, but none of them were paperless deisgns. The 777 is the first totally paperless airliner. I'd imagine all subsequent deisgns, incluiding the A380, followed its lead, though I don't have any specifics on that.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8209 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 8):
The 777 is the first totally paperless airliner. I'd imagine all subsequent deisgns, incluiding the A380, followed its lead, though I don't have any specifics on that.

Yup. The CAD software used for the 777 was even (gasp!) French.  Big grin

I share AirA380's wonder at the weight difference. It would be great to see a breakdown by major components, to see if all that extra weight is just in the fuselage, or spread around a bit more...


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9240 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7920 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 8):
They may have used some CAD on the A320, A330, and A340 families, but none of them were paperless deisgns. The 777 is the first totally paperless airliner. I'd imagine all subsequent deisgns, incluiding the A380, followed its lead, though I don't have any specifics on that.

Think you will find that is incorrect, Airbus has been using CATIA and ICAD for a long time, Boeing saw how good it was and started using it. CATIA as a product has grown, I knew it as CATINI, the version that is about now has a lot more features.

It was a very advanced product for its time, piping, robotics, FEM, CFD, composites. Remember having CATIA models going straight to the NC machine to cut aluminum parts, I think on the 787, you would have CATIA model driving the robotic composite layups.

Airbus had to use CATIA as they had worldwide manufacturing plants that had the electronic models delivered to enable the correct manufacturing tolerances to be used.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7909 times:

Airbus used CAD systems for portions of the aircraft--some components were still designed in conventional ways. The 777 was designed entirely with CATIA. I'm not sure what portion of the A330/A340 was done on computer (could be 90% for all I know) but it wasn't 100%.


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7894 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 2):
797 is made from a completely composite fuselage...

WOW....797? do you know something we dont?  Wink


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7875 times:

Quoting AirA380 (Reply 5):
Thanks for your answer. There must other things that counts for the weight in excess of 15.4t....that is huge amount. Why on earth airbus would build somthing that heavy to compete with 787-9. I don't know please shead some light. cheers

Welcome to my world so to speak...this is a question I ask about this and other comparable Airbus to Boeing products...But this difference is nothing compared to the structural weight difference between A345 and 7772LR...23.3t or more than 50,000lbs and they are basically the same seating capacity, cabin area, and made of the same stuff!

In the case of the A350-9 and 787-9, not only is the 787-9 15t lighter, but also has a slightly higher useful load capability. So the two airplanes are designed to carry the same weight of stuff, fuel/payload, but the Airbus has to carry an extra 34,000lbs of dead weight on top of that. To put that amount of weight in perspective, it is just about the same as an empty, complete class 8 tractor-trailer unit, (18 wheeler)!

Even worse situation for 777-200LR against A340-500...For that 50,000lbs+ of aircraft metal you get an airplane with 6,000lbs less useful load. These are two airplanes designed to do basically the same thing...

I am not as familiar with Airbus airframe construction principles as I am with Boeing's, but I must assume that within Airbus, building light weight airframes has some level of priority???


-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 13):
I am not as familiar with Airbus airframe construction principles as I am with Boeing's, but I must assume that within Airbus, building light weight airframes has some level of priority???

As the rest of the industy, a lighter airframe is worth more. About $500/kg.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4679 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is a more recent table from answers : new table
Regards



Contrail designer
User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7840 times:

i heard some people talking to day about how much beefier some airbus structures are compared to Boeings

two particular areas mentioned were the rear pressure bulkhead, and the centre wing box!


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7810 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 14):
As the rest of the industy, a lighter airframe is worth more. About $500/kg.

Wow 'saber, that's a hell of a lot of dough...$11,500,000 between 777-200LR and A340-500...

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 16):
i heard some people talking to day about how much beefier some airbus structures are compared to Boeings

two particular areas mentioned were the rear pressure bulkhead, and the centre wing box!

But what do you get for that? Increased cycle life? Sounds like a bit of over compensation considering there are no operational benefits from that "beefier" structure...I would be inclined to think that Airbus wing box structures have more heft, but what is the benefit of that?


-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Empty Weight Of 787-9 Vs A359. Whats Wrong!
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Weight Of Paint White Vs. Dark Colors? posted Thu Jul 12 2001 03:53:37 by Kevfoley
Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:18:53 by Airfoilsguy
Whats Wrong With This Photo posted Thu Oct 5 2006 20:10:47 by Airfoilsguy
Weight Of B737 Emergency Exit... posted Tue Sep 26 2006 01:33:44 by Kaddyuk
Rights Of Reservists Vs Employers posted Fri Aug 25 2006 13:51:11 by FlyMatt2Bermud
Weight Of A340's Centre Bogey? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 19:56:41 by Zvezda
Engine Of 772ER Vs 772LR posted Mon Jul 31 2006 01:23:07 by ORDRyan28
Operating Cost Of A332 Vs 772 On Route LHR To DAC posted Wed Mar 8 2006 00:06:25 by AirA380
Weight Of A Jersey Barrier posted Mon Feb 27 2006 22:52:59 by Cancidas
Status Of 787 Autoclaves posted Sun Feb 5 2006 19:46:32 by CaptainBob
Changes In Materials And Weight Of The DC-10 posted Sat May 3 2008 06:29:47 by DC10student
787-8/9 Vs 777-200LR posted Thu Dec 13 2007 19:43:06 by CO787EWR
Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:18:53 by Airfoilsguy
Whats Wrong With This Photo posted Thu Oct 5 2006 20:10:47 by Airfoilsguy
Weight Of B737 Emergency Exit... posted Tue Sep 26 2006 01:33:44 by Kaddyuk
Rights Of Reservists Vs Employers posted Fri Aug 25 2006 13:51:11 by FlyMatt2Bermud
Whats Wrong With This AF 773? posted Thu Oct 28 2010 14:45:54 by captain777
Can Someone Explain The Use Of Trim Vs. Elevator posted Thu Feb 25 2010 16:11:42 by AT
Whats Wrong With This Elal 747? posted Wed Oct 28 2009 14:08:59 by SXDFC
Weight Of Emergency Exit Slide posted Mon Feb 23 2009 13:57:52 by Lufthansa411
The Economics Of RJ Vs Prop posted Mon Jul 7 2008 13:14:22 by Landgreen
787 Vs A350: Freight Capacity Question. posted Sat May 3 2008 22:06:51 by MotorHussy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format