Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Fuel Burn Targets  
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7187 times:

From civil aviation posts

http://airguideonline.com/2013/10/02...hort-haul-service-later-this-week/

“I believe that the 787 is an incredibly good aircraft,” Kjos (CEO) said in an interview. “It’s even better on performance than we anticipated, the fuel burn is lower.”


Apparently Norwegian has late builds (over 100 LN) that are on spec weight wise. Are the earlier (say post 50 LN's) meeting fuel burn targets?

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7172 times:

My first question would be,

are they really on spec or is he just BSing for the media?



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7135 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 1):
My first question would be,

are they really on spec or is he just BSing for the media?

My question in response: Why would he who has publicly called out Boeing a few times in the past weeks when the 787's had trouble be "BSing" for the media?

He is accurate though, whilst dispatch has been a little dodgy....performance wise, it has been better than the figures planned for.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7114 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 2):
Why would he who has publicly called out Boeing a few times in the past weeks when the 787's had trouble be "BSing" for the media?

I could see a couple reasons - one of them would be, that now that the plane is in the fleet, badmouthing it would turn counterproductive. Whereas before... it was just an airline CEO trying to get the best, now it would be a CEO basically telling they done messed up.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7098 times:

Kjos is a straight shooter, he would not BS such a thing. The Dreamliners he has consumes less fuel then they planned for, that is it. Now why can have many reasons, most likely the builds get better and better and the performance data from Boeing was measured with aircraft from early builds. It is not only that they gradually reach a target OEW, it is also that engines and airframe gets built to better tolerances and have smoother surfaces. Hatches and movables fit better and better which reduces drag.

All together it makes for a frame which is consuming less the guaranteed, something to enjoy and give Boeing credit for. The 787 is a beautiful architecture with a lot of potential, it was developed in a very hap-hazard way. Albaugh said " We just booted it", it being the development program with way to ambitious goals. Gradually these high goals will be technically met and the 787 will gain from it, the waves from the chaotic development is still felt in the reliability corner but the frame is settling performance wise.



Non French in France
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7046 times:

It would be interesting to see an actual comparison of fuel burn between ANA's LN 8 (the first frame delivered) and a recent build. Sadly we never will.

User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7035 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 3):
I could see a couple reasons - one of them would be, that now that the plane is in the fleet, badmouthing it would turn counterproductive. Whereas before... it was just an airline CEO trying to get the best, now it would be a CEO basically telling they done messed up.

Well your reasons show you haven't been reading the news lately. The 787 dispatch issues he called Boeing out on were already in his fleet as he had to lease from HiFly twice or thrice. Do check your facts first.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 4):
it is also that engines and airframe gets built to better tolerances and have smoother surfaces. Hatches and movables fit better and better which reduces drag.

Ah I figured it couldn't just be the reducing OEW's, this makes more sense.

[Edited 2013-10-04 11:09:02]


The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6275 times:

So any figures on just how much better the fuel burn is for the 787? It seems this sort of info would be something Boeing would want to make public right away to counter the plane's bad press.

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6216 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 7):
So any figures on just how much better the fuel burn is for the 787?

Let't compare with what Kjos sees as he flies the 788 or the 343, the other aircraft which would be capable to take the same number of pax and cargo over the distance. He would see that the 788 would take 48 tonnes of fuel for OSL-BKK and the 343 consumed 69 tonnes. Given that fuel is some 50% of your direct operating costs it is pretty significant, you can't operate his long range business unless you have such a frame.

This is a cost you have everytime you fly as would be airway and airport fees etc, the lease rate and crew cost and so fort depends on your utilization, this is where your scheduling comes in and all the discussions re Norwegians aggressive utilization of such a new aircraft.

[Edited 2013-10-11 15:38:07]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6189 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Thread starter):
Are the earlier (say post 50 LN's) meeting fuel burn targets?

ANA said even the early birds are meeting the numbers as guaranteed in the contracts.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8403 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6181 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 8):
Let't compare with what Kjos sees as he flies the 788 or the 343, the other aircraft which would be capable to take the same number of pax and cargo over the distance. He would see that the 788 would take 48 tonnes of fuel for OSL-BKK and the 343 consumed 69 tonnes

That is just amazing. A340 is some 43.75% greater fuel burn. Can this be true? Of course, the A343/A333 is a bit bigger than 788.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6176 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
A340 is some 43.75% greater fuel burn. Can this be true?

This is the total trip fuel. The A340 has more seats which should be taken into account if you want the fuel burn per passenger.

I don't know the A340 numbers, but Boeing claims a fuel burn advantage per passenger of 15-17% over the A330.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting justloveplanes (Thread starter):
Are the earlier (say post 50 LN's) meeting fuel burn targets?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9):
ANA said even the early birds are meeting the numbers as guaranteed in the contracts.

Like the early A380 frames, better aerodynamics have helped the 787 meet her targets even with engine SFC misses and weight overages.

Also, the OEMs deliberately understate their contractually guaranteed performance to give them some wiggle room. So an early 787 that is overweight with an SFC miss can still meet it's contractual performance guarantees even if it is not as good as Boeing said it would be in their marketing materials (either public or specific to the airline when they were responding to an RFP).


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6059 times:

By LN 103 the 788 met its goals, that would be in weight? Better aero saved its early entry probably. Now its engines are coming close to or on spec as well, all cobined a half decent aircraft once the kinks are worked out. The CFRP frame will with time start to show its advantage as well, less corrosion etc

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 14, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 8):
Given that fuel is some 50% of your direct operating costs it is pretty significant, you can't operate his long range business unless you have such a frame.

IATA claims it's 33%, where did you find 50%?

http://centreforaviation.com/news/ia...against-historical-averages-228589



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
IATA claims it's 33%, where did you find 50%?

33% is probably an average for an airline that operates a mix of short, medium and long-haul missions.

ferpe was referring specifically to long-haul operations, where fuel costs should be an appreciably higher percentage of operating costs since the fuel load to perform such missions is higher.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5571 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
IATA claims it's 33%, where did you find 50%?

I am not as thorough as you, I just quoted what some airline managers have been saying. That might have been when fuel was even more expensive, can't remeber but it can't be far away.

Re the 343 fuel burn, yes the 343 is larger then the 788 but a more appropriate comparison withe the A332 would give 48t vs 58t, a diff of 21%.



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5517 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
33% is probably an average for an airline that operates a mix of short, medium and long-haul missions.

ferpe was referring specifically to long-haul operations, where fuel costs should be an appreciably higher percentage of operating costs since the fuel load to perform such missions is higher.

Thanks. I always was under the impression fuel on domestic routes is more expensive due to the taxes.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 725 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

Did Kjos say they were beating contract spec or brochure spec? I'm sure there are a handful of different contract specs, Boeing probably lowballed the ANA numbers to give enough wiggle room, knowing later frames would be better.

Some early 748 customers said they were beating contract spec, but still below brochure spec, so unless we know the contract specs, it's difficult to say how they're doing overall, though to sweair's point, they're probably right at brochure spec or slightly better now.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5474 times:

It will be interesting to see once the 787 and A350 age, if the maintenence bills are lower for the fuselage compared to metal.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5414 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 19):
It will be interesting to see once the 787 and A350 age, if the maintenence bills are lower for the fuselage compared to metal.

They should be. CFRP doesn't corrode and eventually their fatigue life is significantly longer than aircraft aluminum. Based on some estimates I have seen, you'll scrap a 787 or A350 because while the airframe is still structurally sound, the components inside it are not.  


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Thread starter):
“I believe that the 787 is an incredibly good aircraft,” Kjos (CEO) said in an interview. “It’s even better on performance than we anticipated, the fuel burn is lower.”
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 18):

Did Kjos say they were beating contract spec or brochure spec?

It looks like what they were anticipating which might not be either one, but perhaps their working number. What I am wondering is what actual Fuel Burn and Payload / Range is now that they are about on spec weight wise.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4963 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 21):
ike what they were anticipating which might not be either one, but perhaps their working number. What I am wondering is what actual Fuel Burn and Payload / Range is now that they are about on spec weight wise.

They should then be a 118t empty weight airplane for a spec equipped aircraft, then it flies 7700nm with 242 pax with bags what I can remember.

There is another answer, what is the payload range of a practical equipped aircraft. We have done that calculation a few times and it seems an extra empty weight of some 10 tonnes has to be added for a realistic fly away empty weight, cabin, crew, catering and tare weight for the pax containers. As a 788 looses almost 100nm per extra tonne of fuel you have to leave behind because of this you will have a practical range of some 6700nm without cargo. It seems little but is pretty good especially as it only consumes 5t fuel per hour.

[Edited 2013-10-16 12:00:34]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

According to an AirInsight analysis of DOT data, United’s 787's are ~ 6% cheaper to fly per seat than the A330-200.

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/420949693867106304



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We should note, however, the different seat counts being compared:

UA 787-8: 219
DL A330-200: 234 or 239
US A330-200: 258
HA A330-200: 294

So the 787-8 has between 6.5% and 25% less seats.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 25, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Yes cabin configurations are always tricky. Some cabins can also be heavier. It's difficult to compare them on a 1:1 basis.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16994 posts, RR: 67
Reply 26, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 17):
I always was under the impression fuel on domestic routes is more expensive due to the taxes.

That would depend on which country(ies) you flying in/to. Long-haul uses much more fuel because you are burning a lot of fuel to carry fuel.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 27, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2721 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
We should note, however, the different seat counts being compared:

UA 787-8: 219
DL A330-200: 234 or 239
US A330-200: 258
HA A330-200: 294

So the 787-8 has between 6.5% and 25% less seats.

I find this worrisome, that AirInsight can compare cost numbers and then divide per seat without doing a proper homework to get apples to appels seat counts. It nullifies the whole purpose of the comparison  Wow!



Non French in France
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
According to an AirInsight analysis of DOT data, United’s 787's are ~ 6% cheaper to fly per seat than the A330-200.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 27):
I find this worrisome, that AirInsight can compare cost numbers and then divide per seat without doing a proper homework to get apples to appels seat counts. It nullifies the whole purpose of the comparison

Ostrower made the quote .Did he verify the basis of the data before quoting it. If not he hurts his credibility and that of the WSJ.


User currently offlineonebadlt123 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

As somebody who works with the 788 fuel burns on a daily basis, I will give my professional opinion and observation.
This aircraft is an absolute game changer when it comes to performance. The fuel burn for an AC of its size compared to its counterparts are staggering. It is almost unbelievable how little this aircraft sips fuel. You can take tremendous payload with an incredible difference in burn compared to the B762-764 counterparts. I, and others in the department are incredibly impressed with its performance.

Without getting into specifics obviously, this is just my personal opinion. I work with this AC daily


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1052 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

There is also additional info on Aspire's website today regarding 787-8 fuel burn.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/01/09/its-about-qantas/

Aspire Aviation‘s sources at Qantas say the 787-8 at Jetstar has outperformed its fuel burn specification by as much as 3%.

Qantas has all late build birds LN's 123, 134 & 142. It would appear these later birds have lost a bunch of weight...   



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 31, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 30):
It would appear these later birds have lost a bunch of weight...

Not only weight, they are incredibly smooth as well, the skin friction drag of the 787 is probably below target and that is the dominant drag component. The 787 has about 20klbf of drag at mid cruise weight for the engines to overcome on a long leg (> 10 hours), 12klbf if that is from the skin friction, 8 klbf from induced drag (grosso modo).

Get those surfaces shiny like mirrors (and they are and without the typical intra stringer and intra frame buckling) and those panels and movables to fit and it shows up in the fuel burn  . Look at some of Ostrowers high res Flickr pictures from Everett and you see the finish, incredible.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 30):
Qantas has all late build birds LN's 123, 134 & 142. It would appear these later birds have lost a bunch of weight...
Quoting ferpe (Reply 31):
and those panels and movables to fit and it shows up in the fuel burn

I ran through Piano-X a JQ 335- seat 788 with a SFC modifier of .965 on a 700nm sector (MEL-OOL) at ACAP 117.7t OEW . The fuel burn was right on 8000kg,

I had to bring the OEW down to 111.58 t to get the fuel burn at 7760kg or 3% less. Now if the guarantee was based on a higher OEW and/ or SFC and the 3% is based on that then the effective weight is probably higher than the 111.58t resultant.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting Reply 29):
I, and others in the department are incredibly impressed with its performance.


I understand what you are saying is in the context of 762-764 operations. It would be of interest to know how the actual burn is relative to what the expectation was and whether the expectation was based on the guarantee or some other benchmark. Probably you cannot enlighten us too much further but anything you can add would be helpful.  


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 787 Fuel Burn Targets
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...
MD-11F - Fuel Burn posted Tue May 28 2013 08:13:13 by Zunhao
Transpacific 777F Flights - Fuel Burn Question posted Wed May 8 2013 11:31:10 by flyBTV
Fuel Burn As A Function Of Fuel Consumption 777-LR posted Thu Jan 10 2013 16:32:32 by iwok
Higher/lower Altitudes And Fuel Burn posted Tue Jun 26 2012 23:43:49 by PHX787
Lufthansa 747-8 Fuel Burn posted Tue Jun 19 2012 15:19:45 by trex8
737-800 Reserve Fuel Burn posted Wed Sep 7 2011 20:25:37 by dispatch1979
What Is The Fuel Burn Rate Of B777-200LR/300ER posted Tue Apr 26 2011 08:44:03 by philippelouis1
Any Publications That Cover Fuel Burn? posted Mon Apr 18 2011 12:15:05 by AviationAddict
Where Can I Find Cruise Fuel Burn/Hour Data? posted Sat Feb 19 2011 08:53:25 by jedward
Fuel Burn For MD-83? posted Thu Nov 18 2010 03:37:17 by racsome

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format