747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3843
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:58 am

I was wondering if the 226" cross section was the cabin width or the fuselage diameter. If it is the cabin width that means It is almost as wide as a DC10.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:43 am

Quoting 747400sp (reply 0):
I was wondering if the 226" cross section was the cabin width or the fuselage diameter. If it is the cabin width that means It is almost as wide as a DC10.


It is almost as wide as a DC-10. It will be set up 2-4-2 in normal Y class, but have more cargo room than an Airbus widebody, less than a 777. I bet 2-5-2 or 3-3-3- would be possible with a squeeze, as the seats are said to be wider than the Airbus widebodies or 777
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:45 am

Good question.

I know it can take 9 abreast 320 type seats & 2 aisles.
That could be 2x22" aisles,& 9x20" seats.

As an aside this is one of the major attributes of the 787. Boeing have done the figures based on 8 abreast but it can take 9 abreast. This adds up to either a lot more comfort or a lot more pax than the 350 will be able to offer.

Ruscoe
 
Avianca
Posts: 5273
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:47 am

Quoting N1120A (reply 1):
but have more cargo room than an Airbus widebody, less than a 777


any more info about the cargohold`?

the bigger airbus widebodys have more cargoholds than the 777 has!
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:02 am

What I'm really interested in is not the cargo hold, but the opposite part of the plane, i.e. the space above the overhead bins. Has anyone heard anything on whether Boeing are planning to offer B777-style crew rest areas on the B787? I heard that this will be the case, but Boeing hasn't made any official announcements regarding this. Given that the width of the B787 will be almost that of the B777, and given that its shape will be ovoid, as opposed to totally round, I'd assume that there will be plenty of space for them.

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
Avianca
Posts: 5273
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:04 am

Quoting SNATH (reply 4):
What I'm really interested in is not the cargo hold


but I am  Smile
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:11 am

Quoting Avianca (reply 3):
the bigger airbus widebodys have more cargoholds than the 777 has!


Because comparitively they are longer. The 777 has more cargo capacity by weight and volume.

Quoting Ruscoe (reply 2):
This adds up to either a lot more comfort or a lot more pax than the 350 will be able to offer.


The A359 will be larger than the 789, which will be about the same size as the A358, while the 788 will be about 763 sized. A 9-abreast 789 may be able to seat more than the A358, but not the A359
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Avianca
Posts: 5273
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:22 am

Quoting N1120A (reply 6):
Because comparitively they are longer. The 777 has more cargo capacity by weight and volume.


not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:24 am

Quoting Avianca (reply 7):
not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.


Positions, not available volume. And they cannot lift as much weight.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Avianca
Posts: 5273
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:28 am

Quoting N1120A (reply 8):
not available volume


no, more positions are more volume.


Quoting N1120A (reply 8):
And they cannot lift as much weight.


depands on the route etc.
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:34 am

>depands on the route <


No it doesn't, the 777 is a lighter plane but lifts more weight when you subtract weight with fuel from MTOW

>no, more positions are more volume.<

Not unless you count that the floor is set higher and does nothing to add to A340 revenue.

[Edited 2005-03-06 00:37:09]
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17080
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:36 am

Quoting N1120A (reply 6):
Because comparitively they are longer. The 777 has more cargo capacity by weight and volume.


not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.


You're both right...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Avianca
Posts: 5273
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:39 am

Quoting N1120A (reply 10):
No, as you can put bulk cargo in as well


the bulk compartment is not really big, it is maybe a differnts of 5cbm. the big part of cargo / luggage is build up on pallets or containers. for example 1 PMC ord PAG position has 10cbm space. and the 340 has more of this positions. also the contur of the possibly build up of the uld is bigger

Quoting N1120A (reply 10):
No it doesn't, the 777 is a lighter plane but lifts more weight when you subtract weight with fuel from MTOW


depans on the version, UA for example has some 777 with only 10tons of possible loading.
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:44 am

Quoting Avianca (reply 12):
depans on the version, UA for example has some 777 with only 10tons of possible loading.


And that 777 has no direct A340 competition.

Quoting Avianca (reply 12):
the bulk compartment is not really big, it is maybe a differnts of 5cbm. the big part of cargo / luggage is build up on pallets or containers. for example 1 PMC ord PAG position has 10cbm space. and the 340 has more of this positions. also the contur of the possibly build up of the uld is bigger


Which again does not do anything for revenue cargo volume
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Avianca
Posts: 5273
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:49 am

Quoting N1120A (reply 13):
Which again does not do anything for revenue cargo volume


why not? more positions = more space for more uld = more cbm

do not understand your point
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
flyabunch
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:03 am

Back to the original thought, I wish there was some way that the builders, Boeing and Airbus could set the width to make it IMPOSSIBLE for the airlines to cram those crappy 17-18"(6.7 -7cm) coach seats in. You know they will if they can. The wider the cabin, the more flexibility that gives the airlines on setup. I know it helps sell planes, but it sure has me thinking that maybe I would rather do something else besides sit in a sardine can for 5-10 hours.  spin 

I vote for a mandatory A.net law that stipulates a minimum 20"(7.9cm) seat on all new jetliners. After all, it would only mean that the next generation narrowbody jet from Boeing would have to increase in width by 12" (4.7cm). Is that too much to ask!  rotfl 
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:06 am

The extra available volume of the 777's holds is useless in 90% of airline configurations. They fill it with standard containers.

N
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 am

Quoting Flyabunch (reply 15):
I wish there was some way that the builders, Boeing and Airbus could set the width to make it IMPOSSIBLE for the airlines to cram those crappy 17-18"(6.7 -7cm) coach seats in.


I wish!

I believe that the only way B and A can ensure that the airlines do not cram too many people in their planes is not to get them certified for more than a given number of passangers (which, say, on the B787 and the A330 will correspond to a 2-4-2 config, and not to a 3-3-3). But I'm sure this will prevent them from getting some contracts with, say, some charter companies that do want to cram people. So, unfortunately, I cannot see this happening...

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:24 pm

Quoting 747400sp (reply 0):
I was wondering if the 226" cross section was the cabin width or the fuselage diameter.


External width at widest point. The B787 has an ovoid fuselage. Its cross-section height will actually be greater than its width.

Quoting N1120A (reply 1):
...[B787 will] have more cargo room than an Airbus widebody, less than a 777.


A B777-what? Unless you're talking about the -300/ER, you're incorrect.

Quote:
...as the seats are said to be wider than the Airbus widebodies or 777.


Right on first part, part right on second part. Boeing has designed the B787 to have the same (economy) seat width as the B777 but with wider aisles. I guess if an airline was feeling "non-standard" then they could take the inches back out of the aisles and stick them onto the seats.

Quoting Ruscoe (reply 2):
I know it can take 9 abreast 320 type seats & 2 aisles.


Nope. You picked the wrong Airbus.

Quoting Avianca (reply 3):
...the bigger airbus widebodys have more cargoholds than the 777 has!


You seem as confused as N1120A. This isn't strictly right.

Quoting N1120A (reply 6):
The A359 will be larger than the 789, which will be about the same size as the A358, while the 788 will be about 763 sized. A 9-abreast 789 may be able to seat more than the A358, but not the A359


You might as well be incorrect because this ain't perfect, either.

Quoting Avianca (reply 7):
...not really the A340-300 has more ULD positions than the 777 also the A340-600.


The A343 has room for one more LD-3 vs B772ER if you're goofy enough to stick one in the bulk cargo hold.

Quoting Gigneil (reply 16):
The extra available volume of the 777's holds is useless in 90% of airline configurations. They fill it with standard containers.


What extra available volume?

Glad to see that everyone is clear on this stuff.  Yeah sure

  • The B788 (28 LD-3s) will have more container volume than the A332/358 (26 LD-3s)*.

  • The B789 (36 LD-3s) will have more container volume than the A333/343/359 (32 LD-3s), the A345 (30 LD-3s) or the B772/ER/LR (32 LD-3s)^.

  • The B773/ER (44 LD-3s) has more container volume than the A346 (42 LD-3s) or the A380 (38 LD-3s).

    *The Airbus models have provision to place one LD-3 in the bulk cargo section.
    ^The B772LR has provision to replace up to 6 LD-3s with removable hold fuel tanks.

    FWIW, the bulk cargo section of the A330/340/350 is 695 cu ft (without the bonus container placed in it) vs 600 cu ft of the B777. So, in a strict sense, the A333/343/359 has or will have 95 cu ft more total cargo volume than the B772/ER/LR. That is the equivalent to 0.6 LD-3 containers.
  •  
    OldAeroGuy
    Posts: 3187
    Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

    RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

    Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:37 pm

    And don't forget that the A340 crew rest goes in the bulk cargo compartment, reducing its cargo capacity to an insignificant level.

    The 777 crew rest goes in the overhead with no reduction in cargo volume.
    Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
     
    Ruscoe
    Posts: 1577
    Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

    RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

    Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:04 pm

    OK QFA001,
    How about you put us right. In my case I assume it is 330 seat width not 320 I should be talking about.
    How wide are they?
    What is the internal horizontal diameter of the fuselage?
    How many will the 788 & 9 hold 9 abreast?

    Do you think this will become the standard configuration?

    Thanks,

    Ruscoe
     
    QFA001
    Posts: 651
    Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

    RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

    Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:38 pm

    Quoting Ruscoe (reply 20):
    In my case I assume it is 330 seat width not 320 I should be talking about.


    You got it.

    Quote:
    How wide are they?


    The B787 economy seats? Generic seat bottom width for 8-abreast configuration is 18.5-in, same as the B777. Generic 9-abreast B787 would see 17-in wide seat bottoms (to keep reasonable aisles), about the same as 10-abreast B777.

    The A320 can comfortably handle an 18-in wide seat 6-abreast, same as the B767 7-abreast. The 8-abreast A330/350 is limited to about 17.5-in, give or take a few eighths. IIRC, the standard seat is 17.3-in but it has a dual arm-rest in the middle.

    So, when Boeing says they can do 9-abreast B787 vs 8-abreast A330/350, they're stretching the friendship.

    Quote:
    What is the internal horizontal diameter of the fuselage?


    The widest internal point of the B787 will be at 25-in cabin height (arm-rest height). That will be 214-in.

    Quote:
    How many will the 788 & 9 hold 9 abreast?


    You haven't given me enough data to answer this.

    Quote:
    Do you think this will become the standard configuration?


    No. 8-abreast will remain standard just as 9-abreast is for the B777.
     
    Jet-lagged
    Posts: 818
    Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:58 pm

    RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

    Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:06 pm

    According to the airbus website, the max. internal width of the A340 is 208 inches. That is just 6 inches less than the 214 inches quoted above. So, the 787 won't be significantly different from the A330/350. Standard 2-4-2 configuration, a bit more comfortable.

    Boeing lists the internal diameter of 777 at 231 inches, very nicely one seat more than the 787. The 767 is listed at 186 inches.

    BTW, the 744 is shown as 240 inches, and from airbus.com the max interior width of the A380 is 259 inches (281 outside diamater). So, I can't imagine how we won't see 11 abreats seating in economy class - 3-5-3.
     
    Ruscoe
    Posts: 1577
    Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

    RE: Boeing 787 226" Cross Section.

    Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:47 pm

    Thanks,
    Now we are getting some good info.

    What about MZFW & OEW for 787.?

    What about OEW for 358 & 9?

    I have not been able to find these figures.

    Anyone.

    Thanks,

    John

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: aviatorcraig, Baidu [Spider], DALCE, fun2fly, ghajdufi, Google [Bot], groobster, JetBuddy, KarelXWB, lcycs300, luca96, Luxair747SP, rbrunner, ROT371, SoJo, speedygonzales, StTim, TN486 and 281 guests