Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Posts Updated 787 Characteristics  
User currently offlineaerobee From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 3 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 17671 times:

I was browsing Boeing's website today and noticed that an updated airport compatibility brochure had been posted. It contains some interesting information that I do not remember seeing previously.

Among other things, the brochure includes a full table of airplane weights as well as takeoff and landing runway lengths. The date on the brochure is December 2011 so I assume everything listed is very current.

A few observations:
For a MTOW of 228.4 tonnes, a spec OEW of 111.5 tonnes is listed. I believe that there was some discussion previously about the base (excluding overweight) OEW that Boeing was targeting. Maybe someone knowledgeable can give an idea of what payload-range would be expected from a 787 with a 228.4t MTOW and 111.5 OEW.

With "high-thrust engines" the takeoff field length for the 787 appears to be less than 9000ft. This should be good news for airports such as SAN that may have the potential for new long-haul service but lack long runways.

The document can be found at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/787.html and the numbers I am quoting come from the "airplane description" and "airplane performance" sections.

Long time a.net lurker and first time poster so I hope you all enjoy!

(Added following comment)
Mods: I am just getting the hang of things, so if this discussion would be better in CivilAv or an existing 787 thread, I would appreciate it if you could move it there.

[Edited 2011-12-23 23:31:57]

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineredrooster3 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 229 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 17645 times:

Quoting aerobee (Thread starter):
With "high-thrust engines" the takeoff field length for the 787 appears to be less than 9000ft. This should be good news for airports such as SAN that may have the potential for new long-haul service but lack long runways.

Please God, may we see some 787's here at SAN!!!!!!!!!!!!



The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 17369 times:

Quoting aerobee (Thread starter):
Maybe someone knowledgeable can give an idea of what payload-range would be expected from a 787 with a 228.4t MTOW and 111.5 OEW.

That will really depend on the fuel load necessary for the trip. Max payload is 94,000 pounds in the spec sheet but could obviously be chewed up by having to carry more fuel for distance. Long haul flights on twins are usually unable to carry the max payload available on the chart. And welcome to posting.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week ago) and read 17316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerobee (Thread starter):
For a MTOW of 228.4 tonnes, a spec OEW of 111.5 tonnes is listed.

The September 2007 ACAP (which is the earliest I have) showed an OEW of 114,532kg, so OEW is down by 3000kg.

The configuration is the same at 224 in three classes or 375 in one class, so it doesn't look like Boeing is trying to use a lower-density configuration to skew the OEW. The Exit Limit is lower now, too: 381 versus 440.


User currently offlineaerobee From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week ago) and read 17290 times:

Stitch, does the ACAP that you have list a MTOW of 228.4 tonnes or the lower value floated earlier that I believe was 484klb?

It is promising if the listed OEW has dropped while the MTOW has increased. The performance should be good for operators once the weight goals are achieved.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17241 times:

Stitch, do you believe these are the L/N 90 planned values. I question whether these are the L/N 20 and later values.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 16861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerobee (Reply 4):
Stitch, does the ACAP that you have list a MTOW of 228.4 tonnes or the lower value floated earlier that I believe was 484klb?

MTOW in September 2007 was still 219,534 kg / 484,000 lbs.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16832 times:

The figures in the table in section 2 does not add up in a number of places, strange.

The MZFW is ......161t
The MSP is ..........43t
Gives a OEW of ..118t

Now the OEW is speced at 111.5t?? Should mean the MSP is 48.5t.

Further the MSP of the RR bird is 200lb more then the GE but they have the same MZFW and OEW??????????????

I think we will see a new corrected version soon.

Anyway, if the 111.5t OEW is correct B has increased the MTOW with 9t and lowered the OEW with 4t, not bad    , think I should like to know how they managed that.

With a standard Operators items weight of 63kg/pax they now have an MEW of 111.5-14.1= 96.4t. They have taken 5t out of this figure compared to what A claimed.

I am surprised B gives out a non correct document after such a long wait.

The only plausible conclusion on can draw out of todays numbers are that the MZFW and MSP are correct and that the OEW is a non thought through political figure put there by someone that should have know better.

[Edited 2011-12-25 15:06:51]


Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
I am surprised B gives out a non correct document after such a long wait.

It appears Boeing is not assuming the plane at MZFW is also at MSP.

For the September 2007 ACAP, MZFW is given as 156,490kg and OEW as 114,532kg so the payload would be 41,958kg.

However, MSP was given as 45,359kg.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16633 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
For the September 2007 ACAP, MZFW is given as 156,490kg and OEW as 114,532kg so the payload would be 41,958kg.

However, MSP was given as 45,359kg.

Now I am totally confused   . It seems the 787 contains some black material and it ain't CFRP    . The normal law that the diff between MZFW and OEW or DOW is your max structural load seems not to apply    , woodoo or total confusion at work    .

Actually a 111,5t OEW and 42t MSP would make sense for the 219t model and the 114,5t OEW and 45,3t MSP for the 228t model but the way B is presenting things now I can't explain, total mystery    .



Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16575 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
The figures in the table in section 2 does not add up in a number of places, strange.

The MZFW is ......161t
The MSP is ..........43t
Gives a OEW of ..118t

Now the OEW is speced at 111.5t?? Should mean the MSP is 48.5t.

You can find the same thing in some of the Airbus ACAPs where there is a several tonne difference between the listed OEW, and that which is inferred by the max structural payload.

e.g, Airbus list the OEW of the A380 as 270t and MSP as 91t, for the 361t OEW on page 1 of section 2 of the ACAP. However, the range/payload chart in section 3 maxes out at "only" 84t, implying a 277t "OEW".

The only sensible explanation I've ever been able to derive is a difference between a "very basic OEW", and a "passenger ready weight", which might include for example, catering weights, or fresh water weight etc.

Otherwise, I'm as lost as you.

Rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16567 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
Airbus list the OEW of the A380 as 270t and MSP as 91t, for the 361t OEW on page 1 of section 2 of the ACAP. However, the range/payload chart in section 3 maxes out at "only" 84t, implying a 277t "OEW"

Sure, but to Airbus credit the table values does add up, the diff between the MZFW and the OEW = MSP for all weight variants listed. Then they present 1 chart for performance for all WV and both engines (they do list different OEW and MSP per engine as well, all nice and tidy) and then they let you understand that for a real case you better add 7t to reach something which has to do with flying the piece (like catering, newspapers for 525 pax etc which adds up to the DOW).

This all is plausible and explainable, the total dysfunctional display of figures from Boeing is not I am afraid    . For the 788 a DOW addition of 6,5t for 224 pax does not jive with me, further any DOW adds has to be counted within the MSP (Max Structural Payload= everything that goes into the tube, be it pilots, stewardesses,life-vests, toilet paper or catering) nor does the history of the figures presented, it smells deliberately tweaked figures.

I guess B can have taken the OEW from a 1 class cabin and the MSP for a std 3 class one, the ACAP does not positively state that the OEW is for the 3 class cabin. With such tircks they can earn themselves bragging rights in the war of words that B and A seems to have started on the 737MAX vs 320neo side, sad if it shall now spread to the DA side.

To be fair, A is not clean either, they presented a payload-range diagram at Dubai Air show that showed 35J vs 77W with an arbitrarily choosen OEW for the 77W of 173t instead of the published 168t. Guess what the 35J had better payload at all points of the diagram    , I will stick with my own diagram until I can explain those extra 5t for the 77W.

Sigh, I guess we are in for a BS period between A and B  ashamed  .

[Edited 2011-12-26 01:13:09]


Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well these are just general guidelines, and meant for airport planning, not mission planning. So as a PR tool, they're not very effective since only us propeller-heads look at them.  

We just need an Air India pilot to smuggle out the internal FCOM for their A330-200 and 787-8, allowing us to do a direct comparison.  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16361 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
We just need an Air India pilot to smuggle out the internal FCOM for their A330-200 and 787-8, allowing us to do a direct comparison.

Great idea    , you are our elected mission manager    . I will chip in my weekly allowance into our bribe-pool, it will move us forward with 20$    .

[Edited 2011-12-26 07:50:18]


Non French in France
User currently offlineaircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 16212 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 13):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
We just need an Air India pilot to smuggle out the internal FCOM for their A330-200 and 787-8, allowing us to do a direct comparison.

Great idea , you are our elected mission manager . I will chip in my weekly allowance into our bribe-pool, it will move us forward with 20$ .

Love it! Ready to add five canadian dollars!


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15687 times:

FWIW, my calculations based on fuselage and wing area suggest that B788 should be about 8,000 lbs. lighter than A332(257,588 lbs./ 117 tonnes) if it were made of similar material.

Assuming additional weight savings due to higher use of composites, it may be possible that a fully mature B788 could reach a spec. weight of 111.5t(245,800 lbs.).


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days ago) and read 15638 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
Assuming additional weight savings due to higher use of composites, it may be possible that a fully mature B788 could reach a spec. weight of 111.5t(245,800 lbs.).

so do you agree with me that these are post LN 90 values? It rather suggests something in the future since there is no load/range table provided.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15617 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 16):
so do you agree with me that these are post LN 90 values? It rather suggests something in the future since there is no load/range table provided.

They would then definately be LN90 or later frames.

Thanks LAXDESI, I agree, a mature and well built 50% CFRP frame would be about 4t lighter then a 332 so 111.5 would be fully plausible were it not for the weight history of the 788.

IMO the 788 program did not have the tools when they started the program to do an optimized frame, they discovered that when the structural problemsstarted to appear. These showed them that their tools lack capability to predict close to reality. The furious pace of the program (which was never stopped to think and rethink, this is the key, they just hasted on even more stressed by every problem that delayed them) never let the technicians the time to tune their tools. Thus you have to add margins in your designs and they are only 3-5% overweight at LN90 IMO, a 3-5% margin is really small in a structural design if you are unsure of your tools accuracy. But is is what the CFRP would gain you and they lost the weight advantage of it. They still have all the other advantges.

Please observe that this does not make the frame unsafe, just only 97% optimal, it is just a bit over-strong on the safe side.

So while they would have been at an honest 111.5t if they would have taken their time to do a proper job, I don't believe they are there with the 788. The 789 is the first frame when they had the time to tune everything to the level they usually are, at 99% optimisation   .


But that is just my opinion, lets see what reality tells us in due time  .



Non French in France
User currently offlineaerobee From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15613 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):
Assuming additional weight savings due to higher use of composites, it may be possible that a fully mature B788 could reach a spec. weight of 111.5t(245,800 lbs.).

LAXDESI,

If we assume that this is the mature target OEW, what range would be expected with a typical passenger payload and the listed MTOW of 228.4t?


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15550 times:

Quoting aerobee (Reply 18):
If we assume that this is the mature target OEW, what range would be expected with a typical passenger payload and the listed MTOW of 228.4t?

I ran through Piano X a 787 with MTOW = 227.930t; OEW =111.50t add on for DOW 4.50t and 224 passengers. The output gave a range of 8353 nm. At OEW and no allowance for DOW add on the range was 8912nm.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15542 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing updates their APACs over time to reflect improvements in structures, engines and such. I would think these specs are more representative of an LN20 frame than an LN90 one for that reason, but Boeing might have just decided to go with whatever "plan data" was since the first couple of score of airframes are going to see even more variation than usual between frames due to the varying levels of re-work needed.

They may be holding off the Payload-Range charts until they receive final certification from the FAA and can chew through all the data for the GEnx model.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15534 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
So while they would have been at an honest 111.5t if they would have taken their time to do a proper job, I don't believe they are there with the 788. The 789 is the first frame when they had the time to tune everything to the level they usually are, at 99% optimisation

You raise many valid points, and if you are correct then B788 may never reach a spec. OEW of 111.5t(245,800 lbs.)

Quoting aerobee (Reply 18):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 15):Assuming additional weight savings due to higher use of composites, it may be possible that a fully mature B788 could reach a spec. weight of 111.5t(245,800 lbs.).
LAXDESI,

If we assume that this is the mature target OEW, what range would be expected with a typical passenger payload and the listed MTOW of 228.4t?

If the B788 could slim down to 111.5t OEW, then at typical 242 marketing passenger load it should have a design range of 8,600nm(using pianoX template adjusted for weight).

B788 at A332(HGW) weight of 257,588 lbs. will have a design range of 8,000nm, which is 750nm higher than that of A332..

If a fully mature B788 were to be lighter than A332 by at least 5,000lbs, it should have a design range of around 8,300nm(242 passengers in marketing configuration) as per pianoX template.

B788 is not fuel volume limited at design range, so any decrease in OEW or increase in MTOW over time will boost the design range and/or payload.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15529 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 21):
then at typical 242 marketing passenger load

LAXDESI.... I think you have a typo here. I believe it should read 224.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15523 times:

Piano X , based on the inputs used in post 19 shows capacity of 28, 36 and 41t payload respectively over 7400, 6500 and 6000nm . All TOW's were close to max.
So the operator who wants to fly NYC- HKG can do it with max passenger load and ~6t of cargo.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 15453 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 22):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 21):
then at typical 242 marketing passenger load

LAXDESI.... I think you have a typo here. I believe it should read 224.

224 is low...that would be very spacious 3-class long haul. ANA's 2-class medium-range interior is 264 for comparison.

Tom.


25 Stitch : NH is planning on only 158 in two classes (46C + 112Y) for their international config per reports from FlightGlobal.
26 ferpe : As per your PianoX runs above you will see that you end up with much better payload range figures then Boeings offcial ones of 210 pax+bags @210lb the
27 tdscanuck : ANA's international long-haul is 3.5 abreast in business class according to their promo video...this causes an absurdly low seat density. I'm not sur
28 Post contains images Stitch : Probably not. It makes even their "Inspiration of Japan" 77Ws look crowded, and those are very spacious. UA is looking at 219 and QF at 258.
29 ferpe : I don't want to seem overly negative but could that very low seat count have something to do with the payload-range of these early crafts? Does ANA h
30 Stitch : I would expect not, to be honest. NRT-FRA should be easily doable even for LN009, much less LN031, 041 and 042. NH seems to have identified the numbe
31 sunrisevalley : Assuming they are using 118t OEW plus 4.5t to bring them up to DOW , a max volume limited load of 33.5t ; they can do 12hrs 40min which puts NRT-LHR
32 tdscanuck : Not really. ANA is so far below the design seatcount that it's not a payload limit...the overweight status of the early frames isn't equivalent to ne
33 Post contains images ferpe : So Boeing have taken the confused ACAP for the 787 of the air as predicted . Now lets see what comes back , more confusion or something plausible whi
34 ferpe : Now one month later Boeing have reinstated the old March 2011 Brochure stating the ACAP is under revision (there has been a dead link for a month now
35 Ruscoe : Seriously do you think Boeing is deliberatly establishing a moving target, for Airbus? I actually doubt it because Airbus would know the actual figure
36 ferpe : I don't think so, I think they put in the OEW for a 1 class cabin to get a figure close to the Wikipedia one, reading the ACAP carefully it is not st
37 Post contains images Stitch : Boeing doesn't use the single class Exit Limit for any other OEW that I can see, so it would be unusual for them to do so here. And even if they did,
38 ferpe : As per sunrisevallys post in the thread on how the 787 ended weighing more the planned there is new info from Aspire aviation re the MEW of production
39 Post contains links sunrisevalley : I don't see such a variant in Boeing ACAPS. On 2.4.1 Dec 2011 they show a 3-class 187 seat and a 3-class 224-seat. On 2.4.2 they show a 2-class 227-s
40 ferpe : I just want to say the 63kg is not only seats, it includes all the items that differ between and Airbus MEW and OEW ie: - seat - galleys, toilets - em
41 sunrisevalley : I have some bad math. here . 105t should read 99t giving a 11t spread between the 788 and 787-10. This seems possible.
42 ferpe : I have used the 30kg to reach a Boeing definition MEW less the seats, you end up at 93480 kg. If you then add 63kg for 224 seats your OEW should be 10
43 ferpe : So if the 788 figures makes sense the 787-10 does not, 119.5t is way to much. In the Airbus 787 lessons learned the 789 tracks the 788 with a 7.2 weig
44 ferpe : Airbus call their definition of MEW MWE (Manufacturers Weight Empty), I think we might use this way of writing it to denote we actually refer to the A
45 sunrisevalley : Ferpe, A particularly insightful analysis. Good work on unravelling the MEW and MWE conundrum! I believe the OEW's that you have put forward are worth
46 Post contains links and images ferpe : So now Boeing have published the ACAP that we have been waiting for since December last year. It shows that my assumption that everything was fine wit
47 Post contains links and images ferpe : Here how my model tracked the OEM chart in the end, I have put in the correct OEW but made no other changes:
48 Post contains links and images ferpe : The posting of my models 788 chart was done in a naive moment of joy and pride that I wasn't more of in range , then gradually sanity came back . No w
49 JoeCanuck : Gee...couldn't you get any closer...? An electron microscope could pick up that gap easy...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Posts Updated 787 Characteristics
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...
Photo Of 787 With Oldest Airworthy Boeing posted Sun Dec 18 2011 17:40:03 by geezer
Seatbelt Sign On Boeing 787 posted Mon Nov 28 2011 09:14:25 by planejamie
Boeing Testing Laminar Flow On 787 posted Fri Jun 17 2011 03:01:51 by ferpe
Boeing 787 Wing Profile? posted Sun Dec 19 2010 11:13:40 by GearDownFlaps30
Boeing 787 Withstands First Lightning Strike posted Thu Jun 17 2010 06:23:57 by NoWorries
Boeing 787 Strobe/Beacon Lights posted Tue Dec 15 2009 22:32:56 by Propilot83
Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far" posted Wed Nov 4 2009 00:52:06 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Cabin, How Silent / Noisy? posted Wed Feb 4 2009 04:34:43 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Engines posted Thu Jan 15 2009 09:06:48 by Legoguy
US FAA To Impose Special Conditions On Boeing 787 posted Thu Feb 28 2008 01:36:31 by Parapente
Boeing 787 Strobe/Beacon Lights posted Tue Dec 15 2009 22:32:56 by Propilot83
Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far" posted Wed Nov 4 2009 00:52:06 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Cabin, How Silent / Noisy? posted Wed Feb 4 2009 04:34:43 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Engines posted Thu Jan 15 2009 09:06:48 by Legoguy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format