Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B787-10 Versus A359 Economic Analysis  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6500 times:

Based on the article below, I thought it would be fun to compare the proposed 787-10 to A359. The analysis below has many estimates, both from Airbus along with my estimates.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-entry-timing-for-planned-new.html
Quote:
The 787-10 variant, seen as a "relatively small statement of work", said Piasecki, would be a stretch of the 250- to 290-seat 787-9, and would offer a performance of approximately 320 passengers, twin 74,000lb (329kN) engines, with a range of 6,800nm (12,600km), slightly lower than its June estimate of 6,900nm.

The numbers below assume that the proposed B787-10 will have similar MTOW and wings as the B789. Even if the MTOW is bumped up slightly given the slightly higher(2,000 lbf) engine thrust, the overall conclusion will remain mostly unchanged.

General Specifications:
....................................B787-10......................A359
Fuselage Length..............222..........................219.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................19.6
Wingspan........................197..........................213
Wingarea.......................3501.........................4767 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................320..........................314(@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................590,800 lbs.
MZFW........................400,000....................423,300
OEW..........................272,000....................292,000 (OEW for B789 and A359 are my estimates)
MSP...........................128,000....................131,300
Design Range..................6,800.....................8,100 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
Engines.........................74,000 lbf................84,000 lbf.
List Price..........................$248(?)....................$268 million

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.48
OEW/MZFW......................0.68...........................0.71
MZFW/MTOW....................0.72...........................0.67
MTOW/Wingarea............158............................124
MTOW/Thrust....................3.73...........................3.52

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW), as per my model:

The B787-10 burns about 600 gallons more, while carrying 6 more passengers. The difference in cargo payload is about 5,000 lbs. in favor of A359. It seems to me that both are well matched in operating cash flow for this mission length. B787-10 does not seem to have any advantage over A359 for short and medium haul routes.

The much larger wing of A359 is a major factor in the superior performance of A359, as evidenced by lower overall fuel burn for the above mission.

A359 should turn out to be an excellent replacement for both A333 and B77E with larger capacity and lower fuel costs. A359 can replace both A333 and B77E, whereas B787-10 cannot replace 77E as it falls short on both capacity and range.

I am not too excited about 787-10, but it will have fleet commonality as a major selling point, along with my expectation of a lower selling price.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6418 times:

Maybe I don't have the latest figures, but for seating I have some other numbers.
In a typical 3-class configuration the A350 should hold 314 people, a 787-10 however only holds 290 iso 320 in
a 3 class config.

So with the rest of your numbers that would mean that the 359 holds 24 more people and/or 5000lbs more freight
at slightly lower fuelburn and 15% more range.

Also didn't Boeing just not too long ago stated that the 787-10 would probably have to wait for a long time to
materialize, the 777NG will come first.



[edit post]
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6418 times:

As always, thanks for the analysis! I find it astonishing that the 6800 nm airplane doesn't have the edge over the 8100 nm airplane at a 4000 nm mission  Wow! . But that probably comes from it being a straight stretch vs the base model...


WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 2):
As always, thanks for the analysis! I find it astonishing that the 6800 nm airplane doesn't have the edge over the 8100 nm airplane at a 4000 nm mission . But that probably comes from it being a straight stretch vs the base model...

As per my model, B787-10 has lower mission fuel burn than A359 below 1,700 nm mission, which is about 4-5 hours of flight time. For the right price, B787-10 may be more attractive to some airlines than A359 on regional routes.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6233 times:

Interesting comparison. I'm curious about your model and surprised by the result. The only factor among your general specifications that appears to make the A359 appear to burn less fuel is wing area because every other factor should make it burn less. I'm not an aerodynamic specialist, so I don't know what the impact of wing loading is on overall drag, but to me it seems like the lower overall weight of the 787 should be in its favor and that it would outweigh aerodynamic factors. Could you explain that a little further?

In general, a smaller plane will burn less fuel for flights within the majority of its operating envelope. Where its operating costs and efficiency go down is when it approaches its MTOW and the limits of its range/capacity. 4000 miles should comfortably be in the 787-10 range since that is a pretty standard transatlantic flight. The A359 should be able to take more cargo and fly further so I would assume at a certain range that it would be more efficient, but 1700 miles seems quite low. I'd expect the larger plane to be able to generate more revenue, but on a basis of fuel burn, I'd expect the smaller plane to almost always burn less fuel.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6204 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4):
I'm curious about your model and surprised by the result.

I too was surprised by the result, but it is entirely reasonable if you compare the B772ER to B772LR. I have not crunched the numbers, but I remember reading that the heavier B772L, with larger wings, has better operating economics than B772ER beyond 2,000nm(?). Perhaps someone in the know can elaborate.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 1):

Maybe I don't have the latest figures, but for seating I have some other numbers.
In a typical 3-class configuration the A350 should hold 314 people, a 787-10 however only holds 290 iso 320 in
a 3 class config.

I'm Surprised you did not answer his question? He is comparing the 787-9 to the the A359 not the 787-10??...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6101 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4):
The only factor among your general specifications that appears to make the A359 appear to burn less fuel is wing area because every other factor should make it burn less. I'm not an aerodynamic specialist, so I don't know what the impact of wing loading is on overall drag, but to me it seems like the lower overall weight of the 787 should be in its favor and that it would outweigh aerodynamic factors.

Wing loading tells you (among other things) what Cl must be in cruise. Higher wing loading means you need higher Cl. Induced drag goes by Cl^2, so higher wing loading means higher induced drag. Depending on the magnitude of the changes, this can overshadow the weight advantage.

Tom.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6093 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Wing loading tells you (among other things) what Cl must be in cruise. Higher wing loading means you need higher Cl. Induced drag goes by Cl^2, so higher wing loading means higher induced drag. Depending on the magnitude of the changes, this can overshadow the weight advantage.

Thanks for an excellent technical explanation, and welcome to my RU list.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 6):
I'm Surprised you did not answer his question? He is comparing the 787-9 to the the A359 not the 787-10??...

I am not sure what he was getting at. I do have a thread where I compare A359 to B789.
B789 Versus A359 Analysis (by LAXDESI May 20 2011 in Tech Ops)


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 6034 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 8):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 6):
I'm Surprised you did not answer his question? He is comparing the 787-9 to the the A359 not the 787-10??...

I am not sure what he was getting at. I do have a thread where I compare A359 to B789.
B789 Versus A359 Analysis (by LAXDESI May 20 2011 in Tech Ops)

I was just wondering where you got your seating numbers from, I cannot realy find anything quoted by
Boeing that says 320 seats in 3 classes, the best I could come up with is between 290 and max. 310
in 3 class config.

Not that I'm doubting your sources but for starters, I cannot open your link and after searching throgh
flightglobal ,I cannot really find any other numbers than those quoted by Udvar H. wich are about the
same numbers or Jim Albaugh at Boeing quoting 300 seats for the 787-10, again between 290 and 310.

Not that it is that important but it leaves me wondering if the 3-class 320 seatcount isn't a tad optimistic
or maybe not a real comparison with the 359, seeing that they only take typical 3 class seatcount as a
standard and not a min-max range for 3 class seating layout (like Boeing usually does).
As far as we can know, 314 seats on the A359 might as well mean ranging from 294 to 334 seats in a
3 class config if we use the same parameters to make up seating arrangement that boeing is using.



[edit post]
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5962 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 9):
Not that I'm doubting your sources but for starters, I cannot open your link and after searching throgh
flightglobal

Looks like the article has been removed. An article by Jon on FG blog suggests 330 seats for B787-10, which should make the 787-10 more competitive against A359 on short and medium haul routes.

The length of B787-10 relative to A359 in my OP accounts for one row difference in 9-abreast layout. If 787-10 ends up with 330 seats, then I will have to tweak my numbers a little bit.


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 10):

Interesting study nonetheless,
After looking the internetoranium for a while, one thing seems conclusive, it's final design
is not yet set, Boeing and Udvar are mentioning 310 seats typical in a 3 class config most of the time.
Specifically after talking with key customers in the middle east from 2007 and 2008 forward, a 787-10 with
310 passengers seems to be the general plan, in the far future, that is.

[Edited 2011-09-15 09:57:17]


[edit post]
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B787-10 Versus A359 Economic Analysis
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...
A350-10 Versus B773ER Updated Analysis posted Sat May 21 2011 16:49:57 by LAXDESI
A388 Versus B748 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 26 2008 20:30:16 by LAXDESI
C110 Versus E190 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 19 2008 01:53:00 by LAXDESI
A358 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Fri May 30 2008 00:07:09 by LAXDESI
A333 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Wed May 28 2008 14:46:13 by LAXDESI
A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis posted Tue May 27 2008 22:20:48 by LAXDESI
A350-10 Versus B773 ER Economic Analysis posted Sun Jun 1 2008 19:29:12 by LAXDESI
C130ER Versus B737-700 Economic Analysis posted Fri Jul 18 2008 13:07:15 by LAXDESI
ULH Non-Stop Versus One-stop Economic Analysis posted Sat Jun 14 2008 22:29:46 by LAXDESI
B788 Versus A332 Updated Analysis posted Thu Jun 9 2011 14:12:31 by LAXDESI

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format