TomB
Topic Author
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:17 pm

Boeing 787 Program Overview

Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:33 pm

Daniel Tsang of Aspire Aviation has written a very good article providing an overview of the Boeing 787 program.
"Challenges Remain as Boeing 787 Becomes Reality"
http://www.aspireaviation.com/blog/

Here is a summary of some of Daniel's comments:
7 to 8 B-787 deliveries in 2011
Negative gross margin on the first 1000 airplanes
Positive cash flow on a unit basis begins in 2016
Production rate should hit 10 airplanes per month by 2013 or 2014
May hit a production rate of 17 airplanes per month by 2016

Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

Engines:
R-R Trent Package A: 2% - 4% miss on SFC
R-R Trent Package B: 1% miss on SFC

GEnx-1B: 2% to 3% miss on SFC
PIP1: Reduces fuel burn by 1.4%
PIP2: Reduces fuel burn by 1.5%
2013 spec GEnx-1B: hits original SFC target (=+)

Aerodynamics of B-787: Slightly better than expected

Conclusion on B-787-8: Should finally hit the original factory specs in 2013

B-787-9: Weight is ahead of curve
B-787-10X: Probably EIS in 2016
 
tak
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:41 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:49 pm

WOW, the amount overweight seems really staggering! Thanks for summarizing this article. I just posted in another thread asking the question of which AC will be delivered in the remainder of this year: Which Other Airliner Receives The 787 In 2011? (by tonytifao Sep 27 2011 in Civil Aviation)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:46 pm

I'm a bit skeptical of those weights, to be honest. I recall other sources saying ZA001 was about 2.5 tons (5000 pounds) overweight.

Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees. I can't see how aero can overcome 6 tons of extra empty weight and a 4% SFC miss.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:13 am

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Negative gross margin on the first 1000 airplanes
Positive cash flow on a unit basis begins in 2016

What does this actually tell us? Since they do the accounting at the program level, what does this actually mean for the business?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight

Is that with or without the tons of flight test stuff on the airplane?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Aerodynamics of B-787: Slightly better than expected

I find it odd that he's got hard numbers for all the negatives but only the general term "slightly" for the positives...is there any quantification out there?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees. I can't see how aero can overcome 6 tons of extra empty weight and a 4% SFC miss.

There's a big difference between targets, specs, and contractual guarantees. I suspect the definitions are getting blurred. There's almost certainly a gap between the targets and the contracted minimums, just to start with.

Tom.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 924
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:03 am

Gross Profit Divided By Sales is the equation for GPM.

Gross Profit is the difference between total revenue from sales and the total cost of purchases or materials.

--

So a negative GPM would indicate Boeing is getting paid less then they are paying for the parts. GPM doesn't include overhead.


This article from Flight Global ( http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...he-price-of-boeings-787-sales.html ) said Boeing charged really low prices (as low as $65 million) on the first few hundred aircraft.

But by unit 1,000 each plane will have a positive GPM, since it hasn't been sold (or Boeing should really cancel the program). I guess the report could be that Boeing won't even pay costs when divided over the first 1,000 but that seems pretty harsh.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:55 am

I think the whole thing is a red herring...and like the 380 talk, won't change a thing. How much of the money spent, for example, is essentially research? The work done on the wing will potentially save billions when Boeing needs a new 777 wing...or the next narrow body...and it already went into the 748 wing.

If they go with a more electric architecture to save weight on the 777ng or anything else, it'll be thanks to the work done on the 787.

The windows on the 748 are thanks to the 777.

So not every penny spent on the 787 impacts only the 787. The money spent that only effects the 787 is absolutely impossible to calculate.

Regardless, there isn't a report that will kill this program...or any other. The only thing that will kill it is lack of customer interest. How much it cost Boeing is, at this point, irrelevant.
What the...?
 
Extra300
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:04 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:50 am

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
May hit a production rate of 17 airplanes per month by 2016

Wow. That´s an impressive production rate for a widebody if it ever happens. That would make just over 200 aircraft per year.

(For comparison, A330 had it´s best year so far in 2010 with 82 deliveries, and the best year for 767 was 63 aircraft back in 1992, and Boeing delivered 88 777 in 2009. All according to wiki)
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13201
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:43 am

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 6):
That´s an impressive production rate for a widebody if it ever happens

They're going to have two final production facilities, Everett and Charleston.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:51 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
How much of the money spent, for example, is essentially research?

I agree with you.

A lot of the money spent on the 787 program is an investment in the future of Boeing.

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:08 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
There's a big difference between targets, specs, and contractual guarantees. I suspect the definitions are getting blurred. There's almost certainly a gap between the targets and the contracted minimums, just to start with.

Agreed, but Boeing spokesfolk have specifically said "contractual performance guarantees".

I guess we'll know for sure when it comes time for the delivery ceremony for QR's first 787-8.  
 
c680
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:08 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
I guess we'll know for sure when it comes time for the delivery ceremony for QR's first 787-8

The way the whole 747-8f thing went, he's going to get LN-90!!!

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
LN-90: meets original weight targets
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:13 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
So not every penny spent on the 787 impacts only the 787. The money spent that only effects the 787 is absolutely impossible to calculate.

As this is the most transformative airliner since the 707, this is very true. What has been learned on the 787 will affect every airliner Boeing designs from here on. The 707 also took far, far longer than anticipated to turn a profit by itself, but without it there would have been no 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, or 787. Boeing would probably have followed the same course as Lockheed, and by now would probably have been absorbed by either them or General Dynamics. Fortunately Boeing seems to have had access to sufficient capital to overcome the cost overruns; in the 50's it was much dicier. They invested more than the net worth of the company twice before, once on the 707 and again on the 747. I don't think they did this time.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:27 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 11):
They invested more than the net worth of the company twice before, once on the 707 and again on the 747. I don't think they did this time.

Not even close. Even the most pessimistic and doom-laden projection of the cost of the 787 program is significantly lower than the company's current net worth.

Tom.
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:10 pm

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft? I can understand maybe the first 5 - 10 aircraft, but it seems like after that you should be able to figure out exactly what you want out of a certain process and piece of equipment, and therefore shouldn't have to wait for approx. 89 aircraft to be built before you can lower the weight enough to hit your target.

I'm not saying that I don't believe this info, just that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I would like to know why.

Does it just have to do with an assumption that Boeing/supplier engineers will be able to produce a variety of parts at a lower weight, or will they learn more about the aircraft and be able to physically remove certain items (like 1,000 rivets? - just throwing that out there as an example) and therefore reduce weight through many piecemeal reductions?

Any insight would be much appreciated!
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:33 pm

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):

I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft?

Any design process starts with assumptions; with many, many parts to design the first iteration will make assumptions about loads and stresses. Once the part gets modeled, it gets plugged into the assembly and finite element analysis is done on the assembly. Often times it will be found that stresses were overestimated (seeing as no designer wants to design a part that will fail), and weight can be removed. With pressure on to get the plane built and flying, there are many parts that do not get sufficient review to optimize them. What I suspect is happening now is that each part is being reviewed, and many of them are in fact overdesigned. It might be a few ounces on some part, and maybe a couple of pounds on another, but when you total it all up savings can be significant. The point is that every good designer will tend toward the conservative on the first pass, which means extra weight.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:37 pm

Question, could theoretically be an airline who could pick up the unwanted frames that were already built? Or, convince the orriginal airline to take delivery and hand them over under either a lease or sale agreement?

If those would be possible, do you think that someone would do that to jumo in front of the line for the 787?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4799
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:44 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
Question, could theoretically be an airline who could pick up the unwanted frames that were already built? Or, convince the orriginal airline to take delivery and hand them over under either a lease or sale agreement?

Sure. If the original airline does not want the airframe and refuses to take delivery of it than Boeing is free to sell it to whoever wants it. No need to force the original airline to do anything. If they don't want it and there is someone else who does might as well cut out the middleman.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
If those would be possible, do you think that someone would do that to jumo in front of the line for the 787?

Only if they could get an acceptable amount of frames in a short amount of time. No one is going to jump ahead for 1-2 frames and then wait 2 years to get the rest of their order for example (unless they ordered a small amount, i.e 4, then maybe). So you would have to look at some of the early customers.

[Edited 2011-10-04 07:46:03]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:44 pm

Boeing will need to make the "surge line" in Everett permanent, so the IAM complaint that the second line in CHS cost the IAM possible jobs is moot as is their case to the NLRB.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:37 pm

It is interesting to look at what finally was of the 787-8 if one assumes the figures from above. If the actual figures are 2-3t better per Stitchs assumptions then this whole reasoning adjusts a bit but is not invalidated. If one compare the 788 to the other A/C that one can buy today in this capacity-range class, the 332, an interesting picture emerges. They are surprisingly similar at first years as the 332 at 238t MTOW is at the pinnacle of it's career and the 787 is at the start of it's.

Table with all weights metric ton. Assumes 788 target is the 114,7t OEW B last publicized. At 787-8 spec range load of 242 pax+bags they both carry 23t, this is used for the range comparison:


......................7-19......20-50.....90-......332.........Comment
OEW..............121.......119.......115......120.........for the first 50 frames the OEWs are similar
MZFW..............?.........161.......161......168.........the 332 carries more payload below 5000nm
MTOW............220.......228.......228.......238........the 332 needs the 10t for its fuel burn deficit at longer ranges
Range at 23t....6800.....7300.....8000.....7300.......up to frame 50 the 332 exceeds or matches the 788
Fuel burn t/hr.....4,9..........4,9.......4,9.......5,6........the 788 burns 12% less fuel on a spec range trip

At frames up to say 40-60 the 2 frames are surprisingly similar (with the first 12 no fun at all) then the 788 sails away.

[Edited 2011-10-04 12:59:23]
Non French in France
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:14 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Boeing will need to make the "surge line" in Everett permanent, so the IAM complaint that the second line in CHS cost the IAM possible jobs is moot as is their case to the NLRB.

I don't think so. They just have to show that no current jobs have been effected. The union has to prove specific harm...potential or future harm probably won't cut it.

The union case is based on the Charleston plant being built specifically and primarily to punish the union for striking. If no current union member has lost their job or otherwise can show harm, I don't think this thing has any legs.

If Boeing can successfully show that the Charleston line is supplementary and not a replacement for the current line, I don't think there is much the NLRB could do.

Regardless, at worst, Boeing would be issued a fine, (based on some court calculated formula determining relative harm based on what proportion of the plant was built with union harm in mind), which they would no doubt appeal and the game would continue forever. There is not a chance in the universe that the union can succeed in shutting down the Charleston line.

I doubt they could even stop the surge line from being moved if Boeing wanted.

What I don't get is how the union can't see that every time they start an action against Boeing, they hurt their chances for any new work being placed in Washington.
What the...?
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:14 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The union case is based on the Charleston plant being built specifically and primarily to punish the union for striking. If no current union member has lost their job or otherwise can show harm, I don't think this thing has any legs.

It stands to reason that the capacity was needed and based on the statements made by Boeing the "missing" jobs are those not created in WA.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
What I don't get is how the union can't see that every time they start an action against Boeing, they hurt their chances for any new work being placed in Washington.

I disagree with a lot of what unions do but bear in mind that the only reason they exist is because how management treated employees. It is a two way street and I think there is plenty of blame for everyone. Problem is that neither side is interested in solving things.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:59 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):

I disagree with a lot of what unions do but bear in mind that the only reason they exist is because how management treated employees. It is a two way street and I think there is plenty of blame for everyone. Problem is that neither side is interested in solving things.

I'm actually not placing blame...I think there is plenty to go around...but ignoring reality won't help anybody. Boeing has made it clear that work stoppages in Washington are hurting their business and they will be placing work out of state to ensure that if there is a strike in one place, it won't kill their entire production.

This is a legally viable reason to move work out and if they had just said that, the LRB wouldn't have taken them to task. Unfortunately, some Boeing pinheads said they were going to stick it to the IAM as one of the reasons to move...and since it's against the law to punish unions for striking, the LRB is looking into it.

It may seem like mere semantics but moving work to ensure production continuity can be interpreted differently than moving work to punish unions...it partly depends on what the company says but it also depends on what the company does.

As it turns out, the unions haven't actually been punished by the plant in SC...what they also haven't been, in actuality, is rewarded with new work, (big but subtle difference)...unless you count the surge line, which I suspect is on the bubble at the moment...until the noise dies down.

So the reality is, (and legalities aside), if Washington wants to see more new work, it should think twice about poking the bear with a stick. You can be sure that Boeing will never make the mistake again of having any record where punishing a union for striking is a business goal...even if it is.

As long as they can show a viable business reason for moving, (even if it means short term loss), it's perfectly ok for Boeing to not only put new business outside of Washington, (or even out of country), but to move current production as well.

That die was cast when head office went to Chicago.
What the...?
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:39 am

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):
I can understand maybe the first 5 - 10 aircraft, but it seems like after that you should be able to figure out exactly what you want out of a certain process and piece of equipment, and therefore shouldn't have to wait for approx. 89 aircraft to be built before you can lower the weight enough to hit your target.

Part of it is the very long lead time on airliners, part is how the engineering has to be handled.

Suppose you determine, today, that you can get weigh reduction on a certain part. Changing that part may also change loads on other parts, so you need to do all that potential re-engineering too. Once that's all complete, the earliest you can possibly insert the change in to the supply chain is after *all* current affected parts are built, plus the time it takes the assorted suppliers to modify their production plans based on the new designs. If the farthest-back-corner of the supply chain is working on, say, parts for LN90 right now, that's the earliest you can cut the change in.

There's always the option to retrofit the change into already-built aircraft (i.e. issue a service bulletin) but for many changes, especially structural changes, the modification may be economically prohibitive.

Tom.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:20 am

My fingers are crossed that Boeing is finally being conservative in their estimates and they will actually ramp up faster than officially forecast.
What the...?
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:59 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
Any design process starts with assumptions; with many, many parts to design the first iteration will make assumptions about loads and stresses. Once the part gets modeled, it gets plugged into the assembly and finite element analysis is done on the assembly. Often times it will be found that stresses were overestimated (seeing as no designer wants to design a part that will fail), and weight can be removed. With pressure on to get the plane built and flying, there are many parts that do not get sufficient review to optimize them. What I suspect is happening now is that each part is being reviewed, and many of them are in fact over designed. It might be a few ounces on some part, and maybe a couple of pounds on another, but when you total it all up savings can be significant. The point is that every good designer will tend toward the conservative on the first pass, which means extra weight.

You are describing and engineering process done some 20 to 30 years ago. And I do not believe that Boeing worked that way for the 787. Let me describe it from the side of car engineering where I am spot on how the process works and I believe the airplane engineering process isn't different.

What is missing in your description is the key element of design work nowadays and that is simulation. Today no part is designed without spending a lot on simulation to figure out the right design that meets the goals for strength, manufacturing and weight to name a few. Simulation helps you to narrow down your design options and balance to ideally one preferred type, then to to do it like in the past with more try and error type design. In the past you may have tested and refined it 2 or 3 times based on your learning, but today you will actually design only 1 time and probably calculate a refinement loop for tuning. Only in rare occasions you may actually prepare and test 2 options.

I would not believe that Boeing is designing airplanes like that. It would be crazy. They should design it based on simulation. And Boeing also should be in control of the total airplane assemblies and subassemblies to do simulation of the those assemblies.

Now what happened that this idn't work for the 787.
I assume 2 major reasons for that.
1) Simulation tools:
Simulation tools for composite materials respectively the material mix haven't been calibrated good enough, respectively have been off the reality - some could assume when you do it the first time - and you may tend to add additional safety margin in to cover for that uncertainty. However still Boeing didn't adjust the weight targets accordingly.
2) Supply chain capability
I believe the second reason was that Boeing didn't have an effective supplier selection process for the 787 - especially the portion of design and engineering capability of the supplier wasn't spent enough attention in the selection process. We could read that some suppliers even contracted the design work to design houses. With that method you will get a puzzle of engineering results based on various unaligned methods and would need to spend a hell of work to put the puzzle together for a reasonable good simulation of systems.

For me those both points are the reason for Boeing being so much off the target.

Now the only solution is to organize the identified design changes in reasonable block points, what they obviously do now.

Hope they learned for the future.

regards

Flyglobal
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:11 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
If one compare the 788 to the other A/C that one can buy today in this capacity-range class, the 332, an interesting picture emerges. They are surprisingly similar at first years as the 332 at 238t MTOW is at the pinnacle of it's career and the 787 is at the start of it's.

It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.
Imagine how many years of design are between EIS of the A332 and the B788.

But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:15 am

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
Let me describe it from the side of car engineering where I am spot on how the process works and I believe the airplane engineering process isn't different.

What is missing in your description is the key element of design work nowadays and that is simulation. Today no part is designed without spending a lot on simulation to figure out the right design that meets the goals for strength, manufacturing and weight to name a few.

If I can offer a note of caution to your assumptions....

Whilst the principles may be the same, a car is a product with about 25 000 parts which will sell by the million.

I work on a product that has 3 000 000 parts and we will only produce 6 or 7 of this product.
There is NO WAY that we can cost justify the same level of modelling/simulation/engineering per part as you can on your car.
We have 120 times as many parts, and we will only charge the customer for making 7 of each, not millions.
To cap that off, the assembly process is dramatically more complex and convoluted.

An airliner I would expect, would fall somewhere between those two extremes.

It doesn't alter your correctness in principle. But there may be differences in application.

Rgds
 
qfa787380
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:49 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:07 am

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.
Imagine how many years of design are between EIS of the A332 and the B788.

But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

Assuming the thread starter is correct............................but is it???? Stitch has raised his concerns on the authenticity of the numbers. No doubt there's been a weight issue but I'm not sure it's as bad as mentioned here.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:10 am

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.
Imagine how many years of design are between EIS of the A332 and the B788.

But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

The base design has about 15 years between them (the wing was designed for the 340 about 1990) and the engines about 12-13 years (EIS 330 1994) but the engine has been updated all the time as has the structure to carry a higher MZFW and MTOW, only the base design on the wing has not been changed. Further, the body was in it's second or third optimization (300 and 310) The wings are not that different, they have the same span and the area of the 332 is only slightly larger (360m2 to 325m2) ie the aspect ratio is not that different. Assume the wing of the 788 is better but not dramatically so (the 340/330 wing was a masterpiece of it's time, this we know) and the body and systems of the 330 benefited from coming of the 300/310 and 320 for the FBW. I guess it confirms the red theory (Piepenbrock: red=incremental development in steps, blue=big jumps), B has clearly gone all blue on the 788.

The problem for the 788 is the immature weight situation, 228 to 120 is worse then 238 to 120 and that saves the 332 but then remember the the 330 family started at 212t! and the 332 could start at an optimal 330t as it was a derivative 5 years into the 333 I would say very much like the 789. Still once the 788 gets optimized in the first round with the later frames one start to see that the it's base design is clearly more modern and it will continue to get better and better. We are now 20 years into the life of the 330/340, lets see how good the 788/789 is in 20 years.

The only thing is, one shall perhaps not tout 2004 that one will revolutionize the world like B did (but then they probably did for passenger comfort, lets see what the pax says). And I guess the whole thing shows that Piepenbrocks theories has some merits, but then what he describes is just engineering common sense and has been known for ages.

B problem was they dropped the ball to A after the 777 and felt the need for a quantum leap to catch up, such things cost.
Non French in France
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:16 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
What does this actually tell us? Since they do the accounting at the program level, what does this actually mean for the business?

When Boeing releases the accounting block number this month, all will become clear.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:22 am

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 27):
Assuming the thread starter is correct............................but is it???? Stitch has raised his concerns on the authenticity of the numbers. No doubt there's been a weight issue but I'm not sure it's as bad as mentioned here.


Don't want to be negative but even with Stitchs figures things don't get that much better, the general conclusions are still valid. I guess my reasoning in the previous post shows why this happens, if you change to many things at once it takes time for the dust to settle. The one who has the advantage of continuous development (A in this case who had new programs with about 5 years between then all the time) benefits, it was 15 years between the 777 and the 787, this does not go unpunished, you simply loose to much know how and experience (not only in level but also sheer number of heads that can take the plunge of a new project the size of an A/C).

Bs board saved money they thought after the overdraft of the 777, they paid for it now.

[Edited 2011-10-04 22:24:20]
Non French in France
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:27 am

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
I believe the second reason was that Boeing didn't have an effective supplier selection process for the 787 - especially the portion of design and engineering capability of the supplier wasn't spent enough attention in the selection process.

In some respects, Boeing might have been asking contractors for very sophisticated products but it did use some usually very reliable contractors. Alcoa, Honeywell, Goodrich and Messier-Bugatti, Alenia, as well as the engine makers, (and more), are all reputable and have all produced good work in the past but were each responsible for some part of the delays.

It's wasn't just Boeing that bit off more than it could chew, (at the time), the contractors did as well. That the engine makers will probably be 4 years late or more before they can finally deliver is an indication of how far they are stretched and how advanced their goals are.

The results will be fantastic when everything gets ironed out. I guess they don't call it the bleeding edge for nothing.
What the...?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:52 am

With the 787, Boeing failed with the interfaces. How could they let the first wingbox be delivered 1/2 cm too short and still within definition?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

This explains why there will be little, if any, resale for the first 20 frames.

$500 per kg or a half million in plane value (or more) per ton.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
At frames up to say 40-60 the 2 frames are surprisingly similar (with the first 12 no fun at all) then the 788 sails away.

How do the 788s have the same fuel burn per hour post engine improvements and weight reduction?


It is sad not to have a hundred out now with payload/range that would be opening up new routes.   We will not see new capability until line number 90 and thus few new routes until then.

Then the game changes.  
Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:55 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):
How do the 788s have the same fuel burn per hour post engine improvements and weight reduction?


Fuel burn:
I have calculated all with the B standard T1000 = within 1% of spec SFC, few frames will have the A std T1000. When it comes to the GEnx more will fly with PIP1 before they get PIP2, therefore they will be about 1,5% of in SFC. For simplicity I treated all as having within 1% of SFC.

OEW and MTOW:
The different OEW does not influence the fuel burn as they all fly max spec range with MTOW, ie the frames are doing the same flight profile with the same max weight decrease per nm or hour = total drag is the same, whats affected is the range (ie the time when fuel is up) and the max payload you can load on top of the OEW for shorter ranges. In detail the 220t frame 7-19 has a 0,1t/hour lower fuel burn as the weight curve tracks 8t lower but as some only fly with PIP1 I did not adjust the fuel burn down 0,1t/hour, should have done perhaps.

In summary those are variations that lie within the uncertainty of the calculations, the overall conclusions does not change however.

[Edited 2011-10-05 03:03:25]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:31 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

At spec OEM OEW the 787-8 is a couple tons lighter than the A330-200 and it is a larger airframe with larger engines. But it does seem to be that CFRP is not the wonder weight-saving material it was touted as. I believe the A350 will be much closer to the 777 in OEW than some folks are claiming/projecting.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
At spec OEM OEW the 787-8 is a couple tons lighter than the A330-200 and it is a larger airframe with larger engines.

Don't want to be picky but the T700 at 6160kg is 222kg heavier then the T1000 at 5936kg, makes 0,5t on the frame level. Further they are equal in span, the 332 has more wing-area, the 787 is 2m shorter. The only larger for the 788 is it's 13cm wider tube.
Non French in France
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:42 pm

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
You are describing and engineering process done some 20 to 30 years ago.

And the process that's used today. Airliners are far to complex to do full product simulation like you're describing...there isn't a computer on earth big enough to pull that trick off.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
I would not believe that Boeing is designing airplanes like that. It would be crazy. They should design it based on simulation.

You can't simulate an entire aircraft in software. Maybe one day, but not today.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
And Boeing also should be in control of the total airplane assemblies and subassemblies to do simulation of the those assemblies.

Given the use of major suppliers by all OEM's, that's simply not possible either. You can have a common CAD/CAM model (Boeing did this on the 777 and 787) but you can't actually control the assemblies and subassemblies at the OEM level...if you were going to do that, you might as well just do the entire thing yourself. And that hasn't happened since long before the jet age.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
Simulation tools for composite materials respectively the material mix haven't been calibrated good enough

They've been around, for the 787 material, for 20+ years. How much more calibration do they need?

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
I believe the second reason was that Boeing didn't have an effective supplier selection process for the 787 - especially the portion of design and engineering capability of the supplier wasn't spent enough attention in the selection process. We could read that some suppliers even contracted the design work to design houses. With that method you will get a puzzle of engineering results based on various unaligned methods and would need to spend a hell of work to put the puzzle together for a reasonable good simulation of systems.

Whether or not you select good suppliers, you're always going to have the problem you discuss at the end of the paragraph.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.

Why? 13% is a *huge* fuel burn difference for an aircraft.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

Why? The 787 is a bigger airplane with more range and it weighs the same...that's darn impressive.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 29):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
What does this actually tell us? Since they do the accounting at the program level, what does this actually mean for the business?

When Boeing releases the accounting block number this month, all will become clear.

Not really...the accounting block almost certainly isn't the total number of frames that will be sold. If you dive into the footnotes of the annual report you'll see that the accounting block is the number that they can be reasonably sure will be sold right now. I've never seen the accounting quantity get above the actual orders quantity in any given annual report.

Tom.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:45 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
ie the frames are doing the same flight profile

Ah... So they are all flying to maximum spec range (maximum fuel load for the same payload)? The later lighter examples will still have a lower overall fuel burn thanks to more time at higher altitudes (less dense air=less drag).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
the overall conclusions does not change however.

That we may agree upon.  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
Why? 13% is a *huge* fuel burn difference for an aircraft.

15% is the generation goal. With the weight reduction, and thus higher altitude flight profile with less drag, the 787 will eventually shine.   

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:52 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
Not really...the accounting block almost certainly isn't the total number of frames that will be sold. If you dive into the footnotes of the annual report you'll see that the accounting block is the number that they can be reasonably sure will be sold right now. I've never seen the accounting quantity get above the actual orders quantity in any given annual report.

My understanding was when the accounting block was released, Boeing would state whether the program was in a forward loss position or not. If it is in a forward loss position, I am assuming Boeing at that point has to estimate (or at least provide analysts a chance at estimating) what the actual breakeven point is programmatically in terms of frames. It might not be totally clear (my bad on that one), but still a data point of significance for the financial analysts.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:35 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 37):
Ah... So they are all flying to maximum spec range (maximum fuel load for the same payload)? The later lighter examples will still have a lower overall fuel burn thanks to more time at higher altitudes (less dense air=less drag).

A real analysis would put all weight variants and the 332 against each other taking a certain payload (eg 70% of maxpax + say 5t cargo) at a certain very probable range (6000nm or so) and then check their performance/fuel burn. My simple spreadsheet can't do that, it would involve assumptions on L/D, SFC and so on.

I use the manufacturers spec range numbers as the base (they should know what they calculate    ) and then I extrapolate with this as the basis. This is why I always state fuel burn where the A/C started at MTOW, the flight profile to the range point is then always the same = no need for adjustments from my side    .

If one dwells into it it is quite a bit the OEM gives away when they state the spec range with a corresponding pax only load, the only other parameter one needs is the OEW et voila one can deduce a lot.
Non French in France
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:33 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 26):
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
Let me describe it from the side of car engineering where I am spot on how the process works and I believe the airplane engineering process isn't different.

What is missing in your description is the key element of design work nowadays and that is simulation. Today no part is designed without spending a lot on simulation to figure out the right design that meets the goals for strength, manufacturing and weight to name a few.

If I can offer a note of caution to your assumptions....

Whilst the principles may be the same, a car is a product with about 25 000 parts which will sell by the million.

I work on a product that has 3 000 000 parts and we will only produce 6 or 7 of this product.
There is NO WAY that we can cost justify the same level of modelling/simulation/engineering per part as you can on your car.
We have 120 times as many parts, and we will only charge the customer for making 7 of each, not millions.
To cap that off, the assembly process is dramatically more complex and convoluted.

An airliner I would expect, would fall somewhere between those two extremes.

The analysis (not necessarily the same as simulation) is tighter on airplanes than in the car manufacturing business (I've only briefly worked around the automotive industry, but that's my experience). The analysis is frequently done more strictly and the production methods are typically more strictly controled because the safety factors in the aviation business are tighter than in the automotive industry. The automotive industry puts a lot more emphasis into designing for manufacturability and keeping production costs down. In aviaiton, not only are safety factors tighter, but the consequences of failure are higher. The result is that the design process is far more time consuming. There are far more layers of engineering as typically 7 different engineering disciplines/levels review every drawing & part. Sometimes it is even higher than that quantity. That's why design takes so long. There are so many layers in the design process and on top of that for components beyond the detail part level, testing is done to validate that the part performs correctly.

With all that said, sometimes parts are over designed. Aerospace parts tend to be very complex with the small space constraints, strict weight requirements, and other restrictions (lightening, eletromagnetic frquency, flammability, etc), so often times they can be redesigned and improved as the airplane matures. New designs can save weight, improve capability or reduce manufacturing costs. There are still parts from the 737 going through the improvement process and getting redesigned with different designs, manufacturing methods, materials or other enhancements as technology matures.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:27 am

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 38):
My understanding was when the accounting block was released, Boeing would state whether the program was in a forward loss position or not.

They certainly can, but I don't think there's any requirement that they do so. If the program is in a forward loss position *and* they're taking an accounting charge that year (as they did in the past for the 747-8) then they'd have to disclose that, but if they don't take a charge I don't think they need to say anything.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 38):
If it is in a forward loss position, I am assuming Boeing at that point has to estimate (or at least provide analysts a chance at estimating) what the actual breakeven point is programmatically in terms of frames.

They could to make the analysts happy but I don't think there's any legal requirement for them to be that granular...their public financial statements don't even break down by program.

Tom.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:36 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
Why? The 787 is a bigger airplane with more range and it weighs the same...that's darn impressive.

Take a look in reply 18, please.


- The first 50 airplanes have the same range or even less range.
- The empty weight is similiar, despite CFRP on the B787-8.
- The fuelburn is 13 percent lower, which is no good value for 15 years later EIS. It is less than 1 percent per year.

By the way, the B787-8 is not bigger than the A332...


I believe that Airbus will cancel their A358 sooner than later, which could mean some improvements to the existing A332.

What will the comparison between the B788 and the A332NG look like? It could end on pair when it comes to range or fuelburn...
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
At spec OEM OEW the 787-8 is a couple tons lighter than the A330-200 and it is a larger airframe with larger engines
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
The 787 is a bigger airplane with more range and it weighs the same...that's darn impressive

My understanding is that the A330 actually has a fractionally larger cabin by dint of being a couple of metres longer, despite the 787 being fractionally wider.

Widebodyphotog's charts had the 787 at 223m2 and the A332 at 228m2, from memory.

Rgds
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:24 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees.

Where have they stated this? LN100 is not even a blockpoint, so that makes no sense. My understanding is that the 787 meets its mission from the LN20 blockpoint.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
They're going to have two final production facilities, Everett and Charleston.

The final assembly lines are only a small part of the picture. If you want to understand how (or if) the production can meet 17/month then you need to look at the whole supply chain and the investment required there to meet that rate.

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):
I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft?
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
1) Simulation tools:
Simulation tools for composite materials respectively the material mix haven't been calibrated good enough, respectively have been off the reality

This is not the case. Boeing methods and allowables for composite analysis are well developed. There is not a great deal of difference between 777 and 787 composite design manuals.

Astuteman has it right. You can't compare the automotive and aerospace industries like that due to the difference in magnitude of both complexity and volume. Add in the degree of optimisation already undertaken and the burdens associated with certification.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:14 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 40):
he analysis (not necessarily the same as simulation) is tighter on airplanes than in the car manufacturing business (I've only briefly worked around the automotive industry, but that's my experience). The analysis is frequently done more strictly and the production methods are typically more strictly controled because the safety factors in the aviation business are tighter than in the automotive industry. The automotive industry puts a lot more emphasis into designing for manufacturability and keeping production costs down. In aviaiton, not only are safety factors tighter, but the consequences of failure are higher. The result is that the design process is far more time consuming. There are far more layers of engineering as typically 7 different engineering disciplines/levels review every drawing & part. Sometimes it is even higher than that quantity. That's why design takes so long. There are so many layers in the design process and on top of that for components beyond the detail part level, testing is done to validate that the part performs correctly.

With all that said, sometimes parts are over designed. Aerospace parts tend to be very complex with the small space constraints, strict weight requirements, and other restrictions (lightening, eletromagnetic frquency, flammability, etc), so often times they can be redesigned and improved as the airplane matures. New designs can save weight, improve capability or reduce manufacturing costs. There are still parts from the 737 going through the improvement process and getting redesigned with different designs, manufacturing methods, materials or other enhancements as technology matures.

Rose Flyer, this way I can buy in way more and it is closer to my expectation as the reply astuteman made some threads above. By the way, the automotive design process is probably closer to car process as you may expect. The major difference is that we in automotive are less under certification protocol throughout all phases as the air industries is. Our people do not need to be certified, respectively licensed for each and everything they are doing, we are more certified if we follow our own defined processes we claim for a quality product and we have written in our ISO quality handbooks. Our certification is the authority certification at the end of the product development phase.

Still I wonder the reasons why the planes are so much off their targets given the process you described. Somebody should make an estimation and define a risk balance for each part and usually by that process in our case new technology and material gets higher safety margin and some reinforcement case study which allows quick reaction if the sampled and tested part fails. This higher risk weight assumption is then booked into the wight forecast which by this method gets better and better each new car development. We gave up booking the absolute minimum and best case in all parts assumption some time ago for target commitments.

I assume that something like this could be the case here: The Boeing Chicago marketing team advertising and promoting the best of best of best assumption, as the truth while the engineering team in Seattle may have preferred to comitt rather to the middle of the sensitivity analysis, which is usually closer to reality.

regards

Flyglobal
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:52 pm

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 44):
Where have they stated this? LN100 is not even a blockpoint, so that makes no sense. My understanding is that the 787 meets its mission from the LN20 blockpoint.

Sorry, Meant ZA100 (LN007). And it's in the public record, so a search should bring it up.


As for CFRP, even if it makes no difference to weight, hopefully it will make a difference to airframe longevity. But considering how much the industry bought into the hype of CFRP, it would be rather ironic if the 787 and A350 prove to be dead-end branches and both OEMs return to aluminum.

And considering how much fuel a long-haul widebody burns, even 13% should be worth jumping in the aisles for considering how folks are banging on how super-amazing a 15% fuel burn reduction is for a narrowbody flying an hour or two is.

[Edited 2011-10-06 05:57:02]
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The first 50 airplanes have the same range or even less range.

Spec range on an A330-200 is 7250 nm. The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The empty weight is similiar, despite CFRP on the B787-8.

Exactly. With the same OEW, the 787 is hauling more stuff farther with smaller engines and burning less fuel. Even with the worst case public estimates of OEW (ZA001), they're just barely catching the A330 on weight.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The fuelburn is 13 percent lower, which is no good value for 15 years later EIS. It is less than 1 percent per year.

13% is *huge*. 1% a year is an airplane designer's absolute wet dream. You seem to be massively overestimating the normal pace of aircraft development.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):
My understanding is that the A330 actually has a fractionally larger cabin by dint of being a couple of metres longer, despite the 787 being fractionally wider.

I think it really depends on the layout but I agree, it's probably the noise as far as cabin layout goes.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 45):
Still I wonder the reasons why the planes are so much off their targets given the process you described.

Stackup error.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 45):
Somebody should make an estimation and define a risk balance for each part

They do.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 45):
and usually by that process in our case new technology and material gets higher safety margin and some reinforcement case study which allows quick reaction if the sampled and tested part fails.

Aviation is with you right up to the quick reaction part...the design/build/test process is too long to quickly turn around and redesign. That's why you have blockpoint improvements down the line.

Tom.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11833
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:39 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The fuelburn is 13 percent lower, which is no good value for 15 years later EIS. It is less than 1 percent per year.

1 percent per year is how fast technology is moving. About half from the airframe and half from the engines. Now that technology moves in 'fits and starts.' So it isn't 1% every year, just 1% on average.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
I believe that Airbus will cancel their A358 sooner than later, which could mean some improvements to the existing A332.

I'm in that camp.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 44):
My understanding is that the 787 meets its mission from the LN20 blockpoint.

It will take the multiple engine PIPs and later (lighter) airframes to meet the 8000nm mission. LN20 is the first that is competitive with the A332. Later 788s will be far more competitive.

Note: I've always been in the camp that it will take the 789 for the 787 to 'get its legs.' That is the plane that will reduce the CASM to the point that we'll see a true explosion in long haul P2P IMHO.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
And considering how much fuel a long-haul widebody burns, even 13% should be worth jumping in the aisles for considering how folks are banging on how super-amazing a 15% fuel burn reduction is for a narrowbody flying an hour or two is.

Yes!   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
Spec range on an A330-200 is 7250 nm.

I thought the MTOW increase bumped that to 7400nm?

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview

Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:59 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that.

As have the 332, this statement means nothing Tom (and you know it) as long as you do not put in with what payload    . Both the 788 and the 332 have huge tanks (the 332 can't even fill them full at 0 payload without bumping into MTOW ) therefore both can fly 18+ hour flights with little or no payloads.


Re range, the 332 spec range with 252 pax=24,1t is 7250nm, the spec load of 788 is set at 242pax=23,05t, I therefore calculated both at the lower 23t payload to make it comparable.

Please also note that the 332 is a more capable short to mid hauler due to more MZFW, 7-19 is at 156t (found it now at the type certificate), thereafter 161t. Now the 332 has 168t ie it is at most 12t better on sub 5000nm legs.
Non French in France

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CV880, Darkchild101, dk44, etops1, Gemuser, GSP psgr, Indy, LAX772LR, N14AZ, n7371f, ordell, stevend08, TWA772LR, W3C [Validator], zrs70 and 227 guests