cardiffairtaxi
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:08 pm

787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:51 am

Can anyone give me the details of different models of the 787 available,and their operating(predicted) distances,pax carried etc.Thanks in advance.
 
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:59 am

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/specs.html

They're inevitably going to release a -10 which will be another strecth on top of the -9.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:13 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
They're inevitably going to release a -10 which will be another strecth on top of the -9.

The B787-10 is expected to be 20 feet longer than the B787-9, have engines with at least about 80K lbs of thrust, a MTOW of at least about 560,000 lbs, and a range of at least 8000nm. EIS is expected to be late 2012.
 
ultrapig
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:38 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:03 am

I saw this post and I see that the -3 and the -8 are the same length but that the 3 carries more people and has a shorter range-are they simply the same frame with the same MTOW's one have larger tanks?

If so why wouldn't someone simply buy a -8 and if it wanted to use it for shorter flights put in more seats and less fuel?
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:26 am

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 5):
If so why wouldn't someone simply buy a -8 and if it wanted to use it for shorter flights put in more seats and less fuel?

Because though they may be the same fuesalage they have a different wing. It is designed for domestic use, short/medium haul with more pax. It also has winglets instead of a full wing with tips. It can fit inside a small gate that way. A 787-8 would NOT work in any of those situations as its designed for long haul, would be far less efficient in short haul and would never come close to fitting in a standard 767 gate or smaller for that matter than a 787-3 can.
KPAE via KBVY
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 6):

Because though they may be the same fuesalage they have a different wing. It is designed for domestic use,

The 787-3 fuselage barrels are also rotated fewer times on the tape mandrels, and thus have less carbon fiber. This is fine due to the lower stresses for the short haul role envisioned.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
The 787-3 fuselage barrels are also rotated fewer times on the tape mandrels, and thus have less carbon fiber. This is fine due to the lower stresses for the short haul role envisioned.

Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame.
 
keesje
Posts: 8608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:24 am

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 8):
Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame

 checkmark 

More landings, pressure cycles, turbulence (landmass) etc..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:32 am

Doesn't the -3 also have a beefier undercarriage than the -8 or -9?
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
T773ER
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:13 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 10):
Doesn't the -3 also have a beefier undercarriage than the -8 or -9?

Yes, the 787-3 does have stronger landing gear. This is due to the fact, that it will fly perform more landings the 787-8, because it will be used for the domestic market.
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:04 am

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 8):
Are you sure of that? It seems counter intuitive to me, as I'd expect more takeoff and landings in a given time frame.

In a nutshell, the 787 fuselage skin is both a pressure vessel and a load-bearing structure. This is contrary to a conventional fuselage where the ribbing and stingers transfer structural loads while the skin acts as the pressure vessel.

Because the 787-3 will be certified at a lower MTOW than the -8, fewer structural loads will be transfered through the fuselage. That allows Boeing to thin the fuselage slightly.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
More landings, pressure cycles, turbulence (landmass) etc..

In an aluminum world, yes.

CFRP has significantly better fatigue properties than aluminum and the -3 will not be thinned to the point that it compromises basic structural integrity.

Many forget that the -9 is also slightly thicker than the -8 for the exact same reason. The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.
 
tootallsd
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:02 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:10 am

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 2):
Did you ever think to look at www.boeing.com

It took me a whole 30 seconds to find your requested information.

Sometimes I wonder how some people find their way to airliners.net (and a million other sites) to make these postings.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:12 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
Many forget that the -9 is also slightly thicker than the -8 for the exact same reason. The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.

This should be true only for the central sections which are different in length. The nose and tail should be the same along with the sections nearest to them. The aft sections would have slightly different loads due to the longer moment arm, but this is probably insignificant. The sections near the wingbox would have very different loads and should have thicker CFRP for the longer versions.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5371
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:50 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
The B787-10 is expected to be 20 feet longer than the B787-9, have engines with at least about 80K lbs of thrust, a MTOW of at least about 560,000 lbs, and a range of at least 8000nm. EIS is expected to be late 2012.

Does anyone think that there might be a 787-5, basically a lower MTOW version of the -10 with the -3 wing? I'm thinking of China, India, etc where the low operating cost and flexibility on shorter itineraries as a people hauler might be a better fit than domestic A380's.

I'm not a big proponent of the -3 model like some people seem to be, but the -5 option intrigues me a little more.

(It's late, and I don't think my wording flows, but you get the point).

-Dave

[Edited 2006-12-14 07:51:47]
-Dave
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:21 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 15):
Does anyone think that there might be a 787-5, basically a lower MTOW version of the -10 with the -3 wing? I'm thinking of China, India, etc where the low operating cost and flexibility on shorter itineraries as a people hauler might be a better fit than domestic A380's.

There is no demand for it now but, if someday the demand develops, Boeing would be happy to build 50+.

The more likely follow-on models would be: B787-8ER, B787-9ER, B787-10, B787-11, and B787F. All but the first would require an upgraded undercarriage including two more wheels, as well as strengthened wings and increased thrust.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5371
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:37 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16):
There is no demand for it now but, if someday the demand develops, Boeing would be happy to build 50+.

Thanks. I was hoping you'd reply. I'm assuming that this is because it's too much plane for most medium-haul routes, where the 737NG/A32X are more optimal at this point? Perhaps we're 10-15 years away from the demand.

-Dave
-Dave
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:55 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 17):
Thanks. I was hoping you'd reply. I'm assuming that this is because it's too much plane for most medium-haul routes, where the 737NG/A32X are more optimal at this point? Perhaps we're 10-15 years away from the demand.

It's hard to say. India and China look to me like they will have a lot of point-to-point service domestically.
 
cardiffairtaxi
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:08 pm

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:22 pm

Thanks very much to all you helpful posters!
 
keesje
Posts: 8608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:52 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight

Yes that will save several hundreds of pounds..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4952
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787 Models

Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:02 pm

Quoting Cardiffairtaxi (Thread starter):
Can anyone give me the details of different models of the 787 available,and their operating(predicted) distances,pax carried etc.Thanks in advance.

Go to this link for comprehensive coverage of your question. 787 Family Latest Information Release (by Widebodyphotog Oct 8 2005 in Civil Aviation)
 
airtran717
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:48 am

RE: 787 Models

Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:11 am

Quoting Tootallsd (Reply 13):
Sometimes I wonder how some people find their way to airliners.net (and a million other sites) to make these postings.



Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 2):
Did you ever think to look at www.boeing.com

It took me a whole 30 seconds to find your requested information

You know, I agree that looking at Boeing first might have made a lot of sense. But to make these comments? Was it really necessary guys? Come on. I guess some of us are just not graced with the intuition or common sense of you two guys. We are not worthy!

717
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: 787 Models

Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:25 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
The 787-8 will have a MTOW 60,000 lbs below the 787-9, and tweaking the CFRP layers will prevent the -8 from lifting unnecessary dead weight.

Thank you for the help, that could explain differences in fuselage thickness. And with hindsight, it seems obvious that fatigue is much less a design determinant with CFRP.

The differences in MTOW, according to Boeing.

787-3 360,000 lbs
787-8 476,000 lbs
787-9 540,000 lbs

So (I presume) it would pay to have a 540'000 (+) lbs spec structure and a 360'000 lbs version. Or is every 787 custom tailored?

Is there a Boeing source for this?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 787 Models

Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:02 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 22):
Or is every 787 custom tailored?

No, there are far fewer custom options for the B787 than for any previous Boeing airliner.
 
FL370
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 2:25 am

RE: 787 Models

Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:06 am

all i can say is that i cant wait till the plane starts flying in that beautiful DREAMLINER livery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


fl370

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ACCS300, B757Forever, ciarano, czpdx, flydia, Google [Bot], HALtheAI, hOMSaR, LatinPlane, MaxxFlyer, mstx44, NichCage, par13del, rafox, rhuns, Spacepope, toteskotes, zombie and 268 guests