pygmalion
Topic Author
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:42 pm

Per AV Week article from June 25, 2012, "The first two operators of the Boeing 787-8 are seeing better-than-anticipated fuel burn, despite prior expectations of below-par performance as a result of data from predelivery flight tests.

The numbers, though based on early experience with a relatively small fleet on a variety of routes, are surprisingly positive given the early configuration of the airframes and engines. The operators have not yet incorporated all the planned weight and fuel burn improvements of follow-on production versions."

See full article at

http://www.aviationweek.com/awin/Art...e-xml/awx_06_25_2012_p0-470831.xml
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:56 pm

Some good news at last, I wonder how much those wings have helped, they are really state of the art. Anyway congrats to the Boeing folks on this page!   
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:08 pm

That is great news. I hope Boeing keeps it up.

And it appears that this is not just "rosy Beoing PR fluff", as some posters have been quick to point out. According to the article the GEnX is doing exceptionally well!
 
mham001
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:15 pm

Where are the people (person?) continuing to claim those numbers are nothing more than PR fluff and lies, perpetrated from the highest echelons of Japans' two largest airlines?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:21 pm

The article quotes NH saying that on intra-Japan missions the 787's fuel burn savings are between 15 and 20 percent, so it looks like even on very short runs, the 787 is quite fuel-efficient just as it is on medium and long-haul runs.
 
KDAYflyer
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:34 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 3):
Where are the people (person?) continuing to claim those numbers are nothing more than PR fluff and lies, perpetrated from the highest echelons of Japans' two largest airlines?

Better yet, where are all the "the 787 is doomed because it is so overweight" neighsayers? Looks like Boeing got it right after all.   
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:51 pm

How do you even determine fuel-burn numbers for a ghost plane? NH must be making stuff up.      
 
phxa340
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:05 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The article quotes NH saying that on intra-Japan missions the 787's fuel burn savings are between 15 and 20 percent

Wouldn't this be an indication that on the longer sectors it is doing even better than 15-20% ?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:11 pm

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 7):
Wouldn't this be an indication that on the longer sectors it is doing even better than 15-20%?

The CEO of NH stated that for "international travel", fuel burn was ~22% lower, though there was some disagreement on that figure based on the belief that missions to China, being shorter, would see lower fuel savings as a percentage than missions to Germany.

With NH seeing fuel savings as a percentage upwards of 20% for missions within Japan, and even higher for missions outside of Japan, that implies that whatever the stage length, the 787-8 is a pretty darned efficient airframe.

And it will only get more so.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:29 pm

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:35 pm

Wait till they take more weight out of the airplane and the engines have more improvments by the end of 2013 and Boeing would have trully set the bar at a high level. Airbus does have its work cut out for it and it'll be interesting to see if the A350 can match the 787 on the overall operating costs.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:37 pm

Waow, as soon as the production is running on a higher level I think we will see a new wave of orders.

[Edited 2012-06-26 11:38:56]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:03 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 11):
Waow, as soon as the production is running on a higher level I think we will see a new wave of orders.

Yes, by the end of the year we should have in-service data from a half-dozen or more operators and Boeing should be (    ) assembling five new airframes a month as well as working through the backlog of airframes parked at PAE. All of which together should hopefully get 787 orders trending into the black again.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:14 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 9):
Yeah a few people saw this coming too

I thought that this was pretty well established that the 787 was better than expected aerodynamically, hence no new wing for the 787-9. Anyone who thought otherwise probably just wasn't paying attention.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:28 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
I thought that this was pretty well established that the 787 was better than expected aerodynamically, hence no new wing for the 787-9.

If Boeing had gone with the 63m span for the 787-9, they noted aerodynamic performance would be even better, but the extra weight of that span would effectively negate it, so it was a wash either way and therefore commonality benefits were more important.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11732
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:34 pm

Quoting pygmalion (Thread starter):
See full article at

Requires a log in.  
Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 5):
Better yet, where are all the "the 787 is doomed because it is so overweight" neighsayers?

The 787 is still mission limited due to the overweight. That is a lot less catering and fuel that can be carried at a given payload:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...xcess-weight-keeps-anas-early.html

But the parts for acceptable weight 788s are now arriving.

LN63 is the first 788 without rework (saves time and weight)!
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...nts-along-with-production-ramp-up/

Many are waiting for LN90+ which should meet empty weight promise (and have a higher MTOW):
http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/4...ficient-than-a330-new-report-finds

"Utilising US Department of Transportation (DOT) Form 41 data, the cost per seat mile of a 787-8 is 10.4% lower than a Boeing 767-300ER (extended range) equipped with winglets whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 5.8% lower than the 767-300ER on a 2,100 nautical miles (nm) mission. In cost per aircraft mile, the 787-8′s figure is 5.17% lower than a winglet-equipped 767-300ER whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 7.13% higher than the 767-300ER aircraft."

If the Form 41 data is accurate, than we already have a plane cheaper to fly than a 763ER with far more range and a bit more payload.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Yes, by the end of the year we should have in-service data from a half-dozen or more operators and Boeing should be (    ) assembling five new airframes a month as well as working through the backlog of airframes parked at PAE.

Let's see, UA pax service in Q4 per post 205:
787 Production Thread Part 4 (by LipeGIG May 30 2012 in Civil Aviation)#1

QR is due soon (July?), with service to follow in a few months.
LAN receives in August (service in?).
By September Ethiopian too (some sources early as July, but I'm not sure).

And eventually we'll hear about in service data from AI.   


Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:46 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
And eventually we'll hear about in service data from AI

Don't expect too much from them. Most probably they will complain about the fact that their financial situation is due to the high level of CFRP used on the 787...  Wink Sorry to all Indian a.netters - couldn't resist ...

[Edited 2012-06-26 12:47:31]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:14 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Requires a log in.

Google News is your friend.  
 
NYC777
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:17 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
LN63 is the first 788 without rework (saves time and weight)!

No it's LN66 not 63.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
abnormal
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:14 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:18 pm

Not to burst the bubble here but, thanks to the delay in certifying the aircraft I expect, come 2014 when that aircraft needs to be FANS 2 compliant for flight in the EU above FL285, it won't be. All 787 flying after that date will be below RVSM airspace until the FANS 2 retrofit is available.

As Boeing's target for FANS 2 certification was the first 787-9, and they have been denied an exemption for any non FANS 2 -8s aircraft after Jan 01 2014, anybody planning on operating a -8 into EU airspace is going to pretty annoyed until the retrofit is available.
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:33 pm

Quoting abnormal (Reply 19):
As Boeing's target for FANS 2 certification was the first 787-9, and they have been denied an exemption for any non FANS 2 -8s aircraft after Jan 01 2014, anybody planning on operating a -8 into EU airspace is going to pretty annoyed until the retrofit is available.

Source? NH is operating HND-FRA without issues. A380's are FANS 1 pending retrofit like the B787-8.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:34 pm

Quoting abnormal (Reply 19):
Not to burst the bubble here but, thanks to the delay in certifying the aircraft I expect, come 2014 when that aircraft needs to be FANS 2 compliant for flight in the EU above FL285, it won't be.

What's involved in the FANS 2 retrofit and why don't we think it will be ready by 2014? The chance that it's not just a software change is pretty small.

Tom.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:36 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 11):
Waow, as soon as the production is running on a higher level I think we will see a new wave of orders.

That's likely. The 3+ years of delay lead to 3+ years of no net orders (net loss) due to there being little point in ordering. If your timeframe is 6 years, why order something that isn't available for 10?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:10 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 3):
Where are the people (person?) continuing to claim those numbers are nothing more than PR fluff and lies, perpetrated from the highest echelons of Japans' two largest airlines?

I will happily put my hand up here   

As we discussed lat week when these numbers were released by ANA, it was reported in the English press that this was 20% lower trip fuel. The actual Japanese version of the ANA press release states it was on a per seat basis.



It would also appear that the comparison was done between two configurations which had the same difference in seat capacity, i.e. the 787 with around 265 seats, and the 763 with around 215 seats.

In short, the numbers did not present anything in my view that was a convincing improvement over the 763.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
delimit
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:08 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:03 pm

That would either be a non-story or worse, actively bad PR. None of the press makes sense it that were the case.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11732
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:25 pm

What strikes me is that by year end 2013 there won't be enough 787s in the global fleet to truly impact route pricing.   That will take until the end of 2015 or even 2016. Oh well, more time for a.net debates. (It will take 300+.)

I'm patient.  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Google News is your friend.

Yes it is. Thank you.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 18):
No it's LN66 not 63.

You're right, I look here and I see that quite a few of the low 60's are in rework:
http://nyc787.blogspot.com/

I'm off by so much.   What matters is soon they will head out the door into the fleet with only a month or so delay.    Soon as in July delivery (expected)!

In fact, checking the above link shows that LN66-68 are undergoing prep for final delivery. Interesting to see that the LN66+ will quickly ramp to 5 frames/month until late 2013 when they ramp up to 10 frames/month.

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
The actual Japanese version of the ANA press release states it was on a per seat basis.

That makes more sense. But still, that has the 788 at a lower per trip cost than the 763ER.   

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:43 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Many are waiting for LN90+ which should meet empty weight promise (and have a higher MTOW):
http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/4...ficient-than-a330-new-report-finds

"Utilising US Department of Transportation (DOT) Form 41 data, the cost per seat mile of a 787-8 is 10.4% lower than a Boeing 767-300ER (extended range) equipped with winglets whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 5.8% lower than the 767-300ER on a 2,100 nautical miles (nm) mission. In cost per aircraft mile, the 787-8′s figure is 5.17% lower than a winglet-equipped 767-300ER whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 7.13% higher than the 767-300ER aircraft."

Good find, and thanks for sharing.

Based on the above, early 788s on a short mission have nearly a 5% seat fuel burn advantage over A332HGW. One would expect a mature B788 to increase this gap to 8-9%. I expect a mature B788 to have 16-18% seat fuel burn advantage over A332 on long missions.

A332 may still be an attractive aircraft, at the right price, for short/medium haul routes.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:43 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
t was reported in the English press that this was 20% lower trip fuel.

Incorrect. The Aviationweek article does not say trip fuel burn. What news articles are you referring to. Can you link any?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....d_06_26_2012_p01-01-470896.xml&p=1

Quoting zeke (Reply 23):
The actual Japanese version of the ANA press release states it was on a per seat basis.

CASM is an important metric. If that's not a convincing metric for you....you are free to raise your hand and state it's not an important metric in your mind.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
The 787 has around a 66,000 lb higher OEW than the 767, one would not expect it to have operational advantages over all routes.

Even if true, it does not change the advantages it has or change the numbers. But your thinking, that because the 787 has a heavier OEW, that it is natural for it to be 20% more efficient per seat, is overly simplistic.

For instance, the A330 - 300 is also heavier than the 767-300 by even more than the 787-8, by 76,000lbs, that's a 38% heavier OEW over the 767-300 - yet is nowhere near 38% or even 20% more efficient than the 767-300 winglets per seat. More like 8%. That proves the 787 -8 has far better CASM than the A330-300 and 767-300 winglets. Far better.

If it were all about weight, the A330-300 would top the 787-8 in CASM, but it doesn't, despite being heavier. So it's not all about OEW.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18822
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:51 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Requires a log in.

Google News is your friend.

But some people may want to read the actual Aviation Week article which they can't access if they're not a paid subscriber, or am I missing your point?
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:02 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 11):
Waow, as soon as the production is running on a higher level I think we will see a new wave of orders.

Agreed if this is validated over a slightly larger data set.

What is the earliest delivery slot available.

Ironically this can help Airbus as well. An airline that wants to remain competitive needs the next generation technology as soon as possible. Can't get it soon enough from Boeing? Buy it from Airbus. Of course it works both ways.
...are we there yet?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:14 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 33):
But some people may want to read the actual Aviation Week article which they can't access if they're not a paid subscriber, or am I missing your point?

Google News bypasses the Aviation Week gatekeeper and lets you directly read the article on their site.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18822
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 33):
But some people may want to read the actual Aviation Week article which they can't access if they're not a paid subscriber, or am I missing your point?

Google News bypasses the Aviation Week gatekeeper and lets you directly read the article on their site.

Do the magazines complain about Google hacking into their subscription-only publications, or have they agreed to let them? Seems to undermine the value of a subscription-only site.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:07 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
The Aviationweek article does not say trip fuel burn. What news articles are you referring to. Can you link any?

Earlier statements on fuel savings by NH CEO Shinichiro Ito referred to "per trip" and as such, there was a heavy debate about it in Rave Reviews For Boeings 787 (by Navion Jun 14 2012 in Civil Aviation).
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:54 am

Quoting abnormal (Reply 19):
Not to burst the bubble here but, thanks to the delay in certifying the aircraft I expect, come 2014 when that aircraft needs to be FANS 2 compliant for flight in the EU above FL285, it won't be. All 787 flying after that date will be below RVSM airspace until the FANS 2 retrofit is available.

As Boeing's target for FANS 2 certification was the first 787-9, and they have been denied an exemption for any non FANS 2 -8s aircraft after Jan 01 2014, anybody planning on operating a -8 into EU airspace is going to pretty annoyed until the retrofit is available.

You really think there will still be an EU in 2014? Most of my colleagues do not.

The 350 has it's work cut out for it.

[Edited 2012-06-26 18:56:08]
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
flightsimer
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:57 am

Quoting glideslope (Reply 40):

Well there is that... But that's a convo for a completely different thread...
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11732
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:41 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 31):
A332 may still be an attractive aircraft, at the right price, for short/medium haul routes.

But for those missions, the A333 is an *even* more attractive aircraft. In particular if it gains winglets.   

The numbers are in the 787s favor. It just shows that Airbus should have removed the two tons of weight from the A330 earlier and put on the winglets earlier.   In that alternate universe we already have CMC turbine blades and beer and wine now produce negative calories.   


Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:22 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
In that alternate universe we already have CMC turbine blades and beer and wine now produce negative calories.

I think you need to stop mucking around with your silly aircraft engines and get to work on the truly important problem listed above.   
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:04 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
the 787-8 is a pretty darned efficient airframe.

And it will only get more so.

Off topic but.... Speaking of new Boeings, I'm looking forward to the 747-8 numbers....

Maybe they got it right twice.  crossfingers 

[Edited 2012-06-26 23:06:00]
I come in peace
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:40 am

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 9):
Yeah a few people saw this coming too

http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com...lete/

I don't think it's true the 787 being over 20% more efficient over the A330.   
This figure is on comparison to the 767 IIRC.
I also don't think the 787 will be the A330 killer like the 777 to the A340. The A330 is still a very efficient and modern platform and doesn't suffer from two engines more like the A340 did.

For some airlines it will still be the better choice.

[Edited 2012-06-26 23:47:26]
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:08 am

Congrats to have the 788 fuel burn better than expected. End good all good...
Since the engines of ANA and JAL are different, it seems both Trent1000 and GENX 1B perform well. This gives rise to hope that the 748I and the A350 both will perform very well too.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:49 am

Quoting glideslope (Reply 40):
You really think there will still be an EU in 2014? Most of my colleagues do not.

I'd suggest a change of colleagues.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340
 
N14AZ
Posts: 1960
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:04 am

I really don’t understand why this thread became so emotional and hostile with snippy comments about Airbus, EADS and EU.

One member is raising questions about how the improvement rate has been calculated, which is acceptable in my opinion. To be honest, if it’s correct what he is claiming than I really would like to know it – independent on where this aircraft has been manufactured. Otherwise, what’s the point discussing this article?
 
Cerecl
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:10 am

I have suggested closing of this thread since there was no new information from the existing thread. Instead, but perhaps not surprisingly, the thread has degenerated into personal attack.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3781
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:20 am

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 52):

I have suggested closing of this thread

I guess I agree with you on this suggestion.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:33 am

Don't lock a thread, take the comments that are bad out of it.

Now back to the subject, if both ANA and JAL say so I believe it. It seems the 787 will be a very good airplane, when mature later on it will be hard to beat  
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:33 am

It seems that most new aircraft recently have performed better in service than expected-the 787, the 748, the A380, and the 77W/L. The exception seems to be the A345/346; IIRC the initial ones were disappointing. What I do not recall is whether the other planes performed better than expected after flight testing or whether the flight testing accurately predicted the actual performance. It seems that both the 787 and 748 are doing better than Boeing had led the customers to expect.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:41 am

Or media report overly negative to create a spin?
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:16 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 56):

I agree with you that the 763ER winglet, so far, represents unparalleled low trip cost, until proven otherwise. People can say that's irrelevant, blah blah, but it's not.

But a Gulfstream G650 would have much lower trip cost. What does that prove?   
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: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:23 am

To inject a little honest-to-goodness data into the thread, I went and looked at the long range cruise fuel burn numbers provided in the FCOM Performance Inflight section for the 767-300 and the 787-8. These are typically conservative because they have to work for worst-case engine degradation.

At equal weight (420,000 lbs), a 787-8RR burns 18% less fuel per hour at optimum altitude than a 767-300ER.

But, at Zeke correctly points out, the 787-8 weights more so, with equal payload, the gross weight will be more. If we credit the 787-8 40,000 lbs and take it up to 460,000 lbs for approximately equal payload, the 787-8 still burns 10% less fuel per hour.

Even at maximum weight (540,000 lbs) the 787-8 is only burning 10% more per hour but, at that weight, it's got far more range (or an extra 80,000 lbs of payload).

Since the 787-8 and 767-300 cruise at about the same speeds, the per hour fuel burn is directly equivalent to the per trip fuel burn.

Conclusion: based on *conservative* and certified data provided to all operators, it's entirely possible for the 787-8 to have double digit % *trip fuel* burn advantage over the 767-300, let alone per seat fuel burn.

Tom.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: AviationWeek - 787 Better Than Expected Fuel Burn

Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:39 am

Why is the 787 compared to the 767 at all?

It should be compared to the original goals and the promises made by Boeing. Anyway we can hold our breath... the AWST article says that Boeing will be commenting on the 787 fuel burn at Farnborough.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 604DriverGuy, 910A, AS512, BirdBrain, CM767, COEWRNJ, CrimsonNL, EasternDC821, frmrCapCadet, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], joemac547, lightsaber, NeBaNi, psychostang, SamoNYC, SyeaphanR, vpat48 and 216 guests