ETStar
Topic Author
Posts: 1850
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:25 am

787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:06 am

So, what's the real difference between the 787 and the 777? Don't they really fall into the same category? Can it be said that a fleet based on one type could be complemented by the other without overlap?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:07 am

Well, one is significantly bigger than the other, to start.

N
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:08 am

The 787 is designed for thinner, longer range routes than the 777. It was mainly designed as an A300/767/A330 replacement, with seating covering the higher 767 end to the low 777 end. There is doubt over whether the largest 787s will hurt 777 sales, but IMO, they won't. The 777 offers longer range and higher density options, in the 777-200LR and 777-300ER. I think the two will compliment each other rather than hurt each other. Just my two cents...
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9875
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:09 am

Both are designed for long-haul flights, 787 seats under 250 passengers for point to point services and the 777 seats 250-350? passengers for hub to hub services
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:12 am

So, what's the real difference between the 787 and the 777?

You mean aside from:
  • different fuselage shapes
  • different fuselage compositions
  • different wings
  • different pneumatic structure
  • different engine options
  • different landing gear
  • different empennage
  • different weights
  • different sizes
  • different capacities
  • different operational specifications
  • 15years separation of launch

    ....or was their something else you were looking for?  Big grin


    [Edited 2005-02-08 01:13:44]
  • Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    ViveLeYHZ
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:10 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:16 am

    777ER is exactly right.

    Also, the 787 will be at the cutting edge of fuel efficiency, thanks to composite materials and advanced engine technology. I think of the 787 as the 21-century 767; same spirit, more agile.

    I hope AC gets 787s to replace their 767s.

    Cheers
    ViveLeYHZ
     
    ETStar
    Topic Author
    Posts: 1850
    Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:25 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:24 am

    ConcordeBoy, Mr SmartPants, I was looking for difference in brakes!

    Seriously though, wouldn't the 787 affect 777 sales especially with airlines that only had the 777 as a choice to provide long haul service? Does this somewhat spell the begining of the end for the 777? What would differentiate these two when looking at the big picture (no nuts and bolts pls).
     
    roseflyer
    Posts: 9606
    Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:43 am

    I think that the only 777 model that the 787 will compete directly against is the A market version. A market sales though have been relatively low ever since the ER came around. The 787 long range version will seat far fewer people than the 772. The 787 short range version will have relatively similar capacity compared to a 772, but will not have the range. It will compete with the short range 777 versions, but these sales are already limited, so I don't think Boeing is comprosing 777 program.

    Remember that quotes from manufacturers are usually a large over estimate of the seats in an airplane compared to the actual configuration. Correct me if I am wrong, but Boeing calculations for capacity call for a 60 inch pitch first class and a 40 inch pitch business class. Those are far less then what most airlines actually put in a plane. I would take the 250 seat figure with a grain of salt, because correct me if am wrong, but no airline has announced how many seats they will actually put in the 787.

    It is true that the 787 and 777 compete, but they should complement each other. Many people thought that the 777 would canibalize 767 sales because Boeing didn't have room for another widebody twin. But in reality the 777 has proved to be a success, and the 767 sales didn't die off immediately. 767 sales have dimished recently because it is an old design that isn't competetive and the new Airbus offerings are better and Boeing has committed to the 787 which is a 767 replacement.

    I think both will succeed, but the 777 is a ten year old design so the base versions are getting outdated. Future growth will be with the newer 772ER, LR and 773ER, but the plane will need a more comprehensive update in the coming years; most likely to occur after a 737 replacement is done.
    If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26468
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:33 am

    >The 787 long range version will seat far fewer people than the 772. <

    The 788 will, the 789 will actually not be far off and have longer range than the 772ER, let alone the 772A
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    roseflyer
    Posts: 9606
    Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:56 am

    N1120A, is the 789 really going have the same capacity and more range then the 772ER? That doesn't really make sense to me. I thought the 787 wing was smaller and the plane would either have a comparable capacity to the 777, or have a small capacity and a simlar range. I didn't think it could do both. The specifications from Boeing say:

    Model____# of Pax__Range(nm)
    787-300____296_____3500_(Note that Boeing quotes a 2 class configuration)
    787-800____223_____8500
    787-900____259_____8300

    777-200____301_____5210
    777-200ER__301_____7730
    777-200LR__301_____9280
    (Source: Boeing Company website)

    This puts the only 787 that has comparable capacity to a 777 as the 787-300. It has 1700nm less range though, which makes it have US transcon range, but not transatlantic. Also the figures for the 787-300 are for a 2 class plane, so it is not as large as a 777.

    The 787 is definitely a smaller plane. The 787-300 and 787-800 are definitely going to be different from the newer 772 models. The 787-900 though does get rather close to 777 capabilities.
    If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
     
    ViveLeYHZ
    Posts: 188
    Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:10 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:00 pm

    All this talk about the 787 competing with 777 makes me wonder, was the 777 considered a competition to the long range version of the 767 ? Here is how A.net describes the 777, first few lines read:

    The 777 was originally conceived as a stretched 767, but Boeing instead adopted an all new design

    Or was has the 757 constituted a threat to the short-range 767 ? The 757-300 and the 767-200 have almost the same range and capacity (according to A.net descriptions) although the 767 is a widebody, the 757 isn't (and I don't know why).

    I would think that the 787 is not competing with the 777, but rather complementing it, and the 787 would also provide a modern replacement for the 767.

    With the introduction of the 787 and the 777-200LR, along with the 737-NG, Boeing can match the requirements of even the most demanding airlines.

    Cheers,
    ViveLeYHZ
     
    Spike
    Posts: 1110
    Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:06 pm

    The main difference so far is in the order books / interest from major global carriers.
     
    timetables
    Posts: 43
    Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:21 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:09 pm

    Yes, there are many differences; they both take care of two different markets.
    All you need to know about the 777 is here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html
    All you need to know about the 787 is here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_sr.html, http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts.html, and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_stretch.html.
    NO URLS in signature
     
    777ER
    Crew
    Posts: 9875
    Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:18 pm

    Seriously though, wouldn't the 787 affect 777 sales especially with airlines that only had the 777 as a choice to provide long haul service? No, because as I said in reply 3, 787 seats under 250 passengers for point to point services and the 777 seats 250-350? passengers for hub to hub services

    I think that the only 777 model that the 787 will compete directly against is the A market version. Hardly if any airlines are ordering the B777A, so the B787 is really no threat as the B772A model is basically extinct
    Head Forum Moderator
    moderators@airliners.net for all Moderator contact
     
    zvezda
    Posts: 8891
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:30 pm

    Boeing could build (but has not announced any plans to do so) a further stretch of the B787-9 that would have the floor area and seating capacity of the B777-200. Using an overly conservative assumption of no improvement over currently planned models, such a stretch would have slightly better range than the B777-200ER.

    Given Boeing's history of improvements, it is possible that Boeing is hoping to delay the introduction of such a model until it can have the range of the B777-200LR. This would involve increases in MTOW, thrust, and fuel capacity.

    The recent increase in the size of the wing for the B787-8/9 to within one foot in length that of the B777-200ER supports the idea that Boeing may be preparing for a further stretch in the future. I expect that eventually the B777-200ER (and perhaps even the B777-200LR) will be replaced by a future version of the B787.

    When Boeing increased the wing size for the B787-8/9, did they also increase the range estimates?
     
    tockeyhockey
    Posts: 880
    Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:53 pm

    remember people, airplanes always tend to get bigger and give more capacity with time. the 777 will probably eventually expand to come closer to filling the role that will be vacated by the 747, especially if the 787 has some seat configurations that come close to the size of a 777.

    no way is boeing going to drop the 777 in the near future. look for that bird to be coming off the line for another 15 years.
     
    zvezda
    Posts: 8891
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:01 am

    Tockeyhockey, it's conceivable that, if Boeing doesn't go ahead with the B747Adv, that they might stretch the B777-300ER another six meters. However, I think an all-new B787-technology twin larger in cross section than the B777 with passenger capacities ranging from 350 to 500 is more likely.

    I would be surprised if the B777 were still in production in 2020.
     
    tockeyhockey
    Posts: 880
    Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:16 am

    i think that the 777's shelf life will depend greatly on what airbus puts up against it. the 777 is dominating its segment right now, and the a350 is not going to kill it, so what's airbus's next plane? is it a 777 beater? even if it is, when will it fly? 2012? 2015?

    i think people tend to underestimate the life-span of a good plane. remember, the 747 basically had no competition for thirty years, so it was produced for 30 years, and will probably fly for another 10 or so.
     
    DAYflyer
    Posts: 3546
    Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:53 am

    The 787 is designed for "long thin routes" and the 777 is designed for "Fatter long routes".
    One Nation Under God
     
    wingman
    Posts: 2898
    Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:19 am

    The problem with estimating lifespans nowadays is that the market is more competitive than it's ever been. We have two manaufactueres battling tooth and nail for 50% share and each has a fairly complete line up with minor gaps on each side. I think it is very likely that the 787 will mean the end of the 772A and ER (that is, if the A is even really around anymore). The reason is a clear cut combination of range and cost improvement in the 787. Why piss about with a plane that gets you marginally more capacity, less range and that has a list price $50-60M higher than the 787? That spells an "early death". But no one should fret because on the Airbus side you also have planes such as the 342 and 343 dying slow and miserable deaths already. This is the new reality. You won't see many planes rolling off the lines for periods of 30 years or more. The 777 will carry on for some time in the 772LR and the 773ER. The first as a freighter and the second as the step up from the 788 and 789. One major problem remains however and that is getting the cost of the 777 down to more realistic levels. Beoing's primary goals in order of importance: get the 787 in the air, reduce the cost of the 777 program by 10-15%, and then decide where to park the next $6B project...in a revamped 747 or a brand new line of narrowbodies. I agree with those who say going cheap on the 747 is a waste of money. Might as well blow your wad on new wings and own that sweet spot between 350 and 550 seats for another 20 years...and also give the 380 a run for its money in the freighter market. This is the project that I bet makes Leahy and Foregard soil their panties so it's the one I like best. Anyway, this should makes all of us nutters happy right?
     
    tockeyhockey
    Posts: 880
    Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:46 am

    Wingman,

    I agree that estimates are getting tougher as the market gets tougher, however, part of the reason the 747 flew for as long as it did was because europe put its eggs in the supersonic basket and the 747 flew uncontested for so many years. i would argue that while the market is certainly a more competitive one, the segment in which the 777 flies is currently uncontested and will remain that way for a while.

    what i'm saying is that there isn't any competition for the 777 on the horizon in the foreseeable future. i could even go out on a wing and argue that the 777 will be more important to boeing over the next 10-15 years than the 787 because it fills a niche that airbus is not going to compte in until the next decade. it can become the uncontested cashcow that the 747 was for so many years.

    my bet is that the 777 will be around in various forms for at least 10-15 more years. it's a great plane in a currently unchallenged market segment.
     
    bmacleod
    Posts: 2599
    Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:00 am

    One obvious difference should be that the 787 will consume much less fuel than the 777 and 767. Fuel is one of the biggest challenges facing the airline industry and one of the main reasons Boeing is going ahead with the 787.

    The design and fuselage composition are another big difference between the two aircraft.

    [Edited 2005-02-08 18:04:23]
    "What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
     
    md80fanatic
    Posts: 2365
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:20 am

    One currently exists and the other never will.

    (a prediction ^ )  Wink/being sarcastic
     
    User avatar
    N328KF
    Posts: 5810
    Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:26 am

    Md80fanatic:

    Care to wager a year's salary on that?
    When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
     
    BWIA 772
    Posts: 1613
    Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:24 am

    Wingman
    Isnt it possible for Boeing to update the 777 line lets say in the next 10 years with 787 technology including cockpit layout instead of making a 787 that would replace the 772A and the 772ER.
    Eagles Soar!
     
    zvezda
    Posts: 8891
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:45 am

    Between the A350 and the B787, the B777-200ER will not long continue in production. Let's not overlook that the A340-600 provides some competition to the B777-300.
     
    User avatar
    N328KF
    Posts: 5810
    Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:58 am

    Zvezda:

    For alternate definitions of "competition."
    When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
     
    tockeyhockey
    Posts: 880
    Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:37 am

    as for the a346, i think that there is a trend to move away from four engine planes. twice as many things to go wrong, more expensive to maintain, etc. i forsee the a340 program dying a pretty quick death.
     
    wingman
    Posts: 2898
    Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:23 am

    I think what the 777 needs most from the 787 is the manufacturing efficiency. It's a great plane and can still command a solid premium over the 340 series but the 772 model in particular will not last in its current form as a passenger jet with the advent of a newly stretched 789. The overlap in capabilities may not be huge but the price difference alone will make the 772 redundant. The exception IMO will be the freighter version of the 772LR. But it could still use a hefty cost reduction program to guarantee its supremacy in the mid-range heavy transport market (replacing DC-10s and MD-11s) for the next 20 years. Same goes for the 773ER. If the cost can get closer to the 346 I think it will crush the competition. In quite a few contests of late a number of airlines have admitted the technological supeiority of the 777 vs. the 340 but Aribus can come up with pricing that is below Boeing's min. profit point (possibly even cost in some cases). They must get the cost down and I hope they find ways of doing just that as they build and perfect processes for the 787.
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:38 am

    as for the a346, i think that there is a trend to move away from four engine planes.

    The A380 is a good example, right?  Wink/being sarcastic


    twice as many things to go wrong,

    But also two left when two fail...  Yawn And how often have things gone wrong "twice as much" on B747s or A340s? Is there ANY proof for four engine jets being "less safe"?


    more expensive to maintain, etc.

    Irrelevant. Maintenance is just one aspect out of dozens when choosing an aircraft type. Total costs matter.


    i forsee the a340 program dying a pretty quick death.

    With still more orders for the A340-500/600 compared to B773ER and B772LR, this is a quite funny prediction...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    zvezda
    Posts: 8891
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:16 am

    Udo,

    I think the A380 is the last all-new four engine airliner. Ever.

    I wouldn't argue that a four-engine plane is more or less safe than an ETOPS twin. However, the four-engine plane is much more likely to divert.

    You're certainly right about maintenance costs.

    The A340-500/600 have been on offer far longer than the B777-200LR/300ER. Let's see how many each sells in 2005. I would put money on the B777 outselling the A340 going forward.
     
    RODNAWACS
    Posts: 28
    Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:29 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:20 am

    Udo, I give you the A320 B737 argument is a toss up, but do you sincerly feel the A340 is a better aircraft than the B777? Just curiosity, I promise I wont comment. BTW, Id choose the A330 over the B767 so Im not too biased.
     
    roseflyer
    Posts: 9606
    Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:26 am

    The biggest argument for 4 engines for longhaul is that a 4 engine plane is more efficient because it doesn't have to be able to perform a one engine climb out. An A330 or 777 brings along a lot of extra weight because if one engine fails, the other has to be adequately powerful. The A340 gets away from this by not having to carry around overly large engines because it still has 3 if one goes out. Sure it has lackluster takeoff performance, but it is more efficient on the long haul since those little "vacuum cleaner" engines are better at cruise then the huge 777 engines. That slow takeoff performance of the A340 makes it more efficient then an A330 on 4,000 mile+ routes.

    Fortunately today engines are getting lighter and more efficient, so it isn't as bad as it used to be. 4 engines for long haul isn't as important for the medium sized plane market anymore. It is more then just about ETOPS, but rather efficiency as a whole.

    My opinion is that the Virgin theme of 4 engines being better is nothing but a marketing ploy. Virgin doesn't go with 4 engine planes because of ETOPS, or because they are "safer", they do so because they well suited to the long range type of flying that the airline does. But please note that I am not implying that the 777 is bad, but rather that 4 engines for long flights have been better in the past and is why it took so long for the first transoceanic twins to come about.

    [Edited 2005-02-08 23:45:00]
    If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:42 am

    I think the A380 is the last all-new four engine airliner. Ever.

    Probably.


    I wouldn't argue that a four-engine plane is more or less safe than an ETOPS twin. However, the four-engine plane is much more likely to divert.

    A quad is more likely to suffer from a failure, so it's more likely to divert. But with one engine failure, a quad could continue to its destination in certain cases - a twin MUST land as soon as possible.


    The A340-500/600 have been on offer far longer than the B777-200LR/300ER.

    True.


    Let's see how many each sells in 2005. I would put money on the B777 outselling the A340 going forward.

    I do expect exactly the same.


    but do you sincerly feel the A340 is a better aircraft than the B777? Just curiosity,

    I have never said or felt so. What I did do above was pointing out that the A340 is far from dying a quick death.

    And no, I would never argue ONE certain type is BETTER than ANOTHER. "Better" is relative, aircraft choice always depends on dozens of reasons. Comparing two types "blank", without a certain airline's background and requirements is senseless.


    I promise I wont comment.

    Any comments are welcome.



    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    RIX
    Posts: 1590
    Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:47 am

    "the 777 will probably eventually expand to come closer to filling the role that will be vacated by the 747... " - that's what I meant by huge potential of 777 in another topic. Having a 2-5-2/3-3-3 airframe is a huge advantage for Boeing - neither 340/350/787 can be stretched, nor 380 shrunk to cover under-400-and-up market that '7E7-technology'-based '777NG' will easily do, it the same time keeping its positions with 773-sized 'NG' version. "There isn't any competition for the 777 on the horizon" - in this case, absolutely. It's already has its pride and glory, but most of it may still be ahead...
     
    OldAeroGuy
    Posts: 3223
    Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:25 am

    RoseFlyer,

    A good theory on why Quads are lighter and more efficient than Twins for long range operations.

    Any idea why an A346HGW needs 63,000 lb. more takeoff weight and 12% more fuel volume than a 773ER for about the same Payload-Range performance?
    Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
     
    zvezda
    Posts: 8891
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:39 am

    Udo wrote:
    "I would never argue ONE certain type is BETTER than ANOTHER. "Better" is relative, aircraft choice always depends on dozens of reasons. Comparing two types "blank", without a certain airline's background and requirements is senseless."

    I would argue that the B737NG is better than the B737Classic of the same passenger capacity. I would argue that the A350 is likely to be better than the A330 of the same passenger capacity. How about B787-8 vs. B707? I really don't need to know about airline requirements to make such statements. Of course, whether they are sufficiently better to justify the purchase cost is another question.
     
    User avatar
    lightsaber
    Crew
    Posts: 12022
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:52 pm

    Roseflyer,

    You are 100% correct on the thrust issue. Above a certain airframe size four engines can be more economical than two. Rolls claims its cheaper to do the mx on 4 Trent 500's than 2 GE90-115's. http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aerospace/products/airlines/trent500/default.jsp

    If I may throw in a few more points on engine scaling:
    Engines basically cost by diameter and stage count. (e.g., number of turbine rows). Thus, the bigger the engine, the cheaper the thrust, to a point... Each manufacturer has a maximum economical Fan diameter; once you cross beyond that there is a sudden increase in costs due to more rework, higher reject rates, etc. I believe this is the reason GE90's are both expensive to make and mx. However, its possible to eek out just a little more efficiency from a larger engine.

    Also, larger engines do not weight much more than a smaller engine (The weight basically goes with diameter). Thus, two overpowered GE-90's on the 777 are lighter than 4 Trent 500's (don't forget to include nacelle weight).

    It all ends up coming down to trade off decisions. For the 777/340 size, its really a close call to go with 2 or 4 engines.

    Lightsaber.
    "They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
     
    N1120A
    Posts: 26468
    Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:59 pm

    >An A330 or 777 brings along a lot of extra weight because if one engine fails, the other has to be adequately powerful.<

    And that is, of course, why the 777 is lighter than the A340

    >The A340 gets away from this by not having to carry around overly large engines because it still has 3 if one goes out.<

    But it still has to carry more engines in number. Economies of scale apply to weight of things too

    >Sure it has lackluster takeoff performance, but it is more efficient on the long haul since those little "vacuum cleaner" engines are better at cruise then the huge 777 engines.<

    Um, then how do you explain the lower fuel burn on the 777?

    >That slow takeoff performance of the A340 makes it more efficient then an A330 on 4,000 mile+ routes.<

    No, the takeoff performance has nothing to do with it. The reason the A343 is more efficient than the A333 (not A332) on 4000+nm routes is because it has higher fuel capacity and MTOW, allowing them to go longer without weight restrictions. After 4000nm, the 333 starts taking lift hits, meaning the airline can sell less space, either for passengers or cargo.
    Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
     
    User avatar
    N328KF
    Posts: 5810
    Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:50 pm

    Sure it has lackluster takeoff performance, but it is more efficient on the long haul since those little "vacuum cleaner" engines are better at cruise then the huge 777 engines.
    Thus illustrating that RoseFlyer has no clue about how turbofans work.
    When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: 787 Vs 777 - What's The Real Difference?

    Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:45 pm

    How about B787-8 vs. B707? I really don't need to know about airline requirements to make such statements. Of course, whether they are sufficiently better to justify the purchase cost is another question.

    It should have been clear that my statement refers to similar types of or competing aircraft, not oldies vs hyper modern. Apparently it wasn't...  Insane  Insane


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...

    Popular Searches On Airliners.net

    Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

    Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

    Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

    Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

    Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

    Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

    Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

    Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

    Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

    Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

    Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

    Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

    Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

    Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

    Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos