A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:02 pm

Hi Everyone, I was wondering the fuel consumption of the new generation aircraft from Boeing and Airbus.

I would like to compare the TRIP fuel needed of both B789 & A359 on a the following case :

- Route : LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

- Acfts : B787-900 & A350-900

- Payload : 32 tons

- FL 400 LFPG => KJFK

- FL 410 KJFK => LFPG

- Cruise M 0.85

Thanks for your feedbacks,
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:15 pm

The A359 part is also very interesting.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
gloom
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:04 am

Not really. One route, low payload, low range. Lighter plane wins by a fair margin. Comparison with A339 would be much more interesting, but possible probably in 1-2 years.
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:32 am

gloom wrote:
Not really. One route, low payload, low range. Lighter plane wins by a fair margin. Comparison with A339 would be much more interesting, but possible probably in 1-2 years.


So true, but lets compare the actuals "most advanced" acfts on the market on a very busy route.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:57 pm

The A350-900 is approximately 10% larger than the 787-9. Both aircraft are long to ultra-long capable.

If they are carrying the same payload, the A350-900 would have about 10% more empty seats and about 10% more empty LD3 slots (or cargo weight). The trips fuel would definitely be lower for the smaller aircraft.
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:03 pm

thanks all for your feedbacks. You guys are confirming what the débats of the MOM VS A330 Neo is about.

Do you guys agrees with the following " On route less than 10 hours / cap 300-350 pax, the most advanced acfts doesnt make difference compared to the CEO acfts generation.

Im talking about the fuel burn only indeed
 
gloom
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:36 pm

I'm not quite sure I get your point, but assuming I have.

When the new generation comes now, it gets 15-25% lower fuel burn figures. Out of that, approx 2 to 5 % is the aero refinement, rest goes to engines progress. So basically, any NEO plane would do lower numbers (A claims NEO to be at 16% lower than CEO), but mostly due to engines. If we manage to put two planes, 90s generation, and modern clean sheet at similar OEW, we get 20%. However, clean sheet plane will also be lighter, hence raising the difference into approx. 25% reduction.

This is basically the difference we see. NEO can get well within clean sheet plane, only a few (2-5) percent difference.

Of course, getting extra weight (higher OEW/MTOW) or opposite - lighter design weight in case of clean sheet plane - could shift the difference.

Cheers,
Adam
 
WIederling
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:22 am

gloom wrote:
This is basically the difference we see. NEO can get well within clean sheet plane, only a few (2-5) percent difference.


The only case where we see this is Airbus A330 vs. Boeing 787.
( craft man's product vs a PR guys colorful dreams :-)

A 767NEO would not be up to snuff and the
777X exists because a 77WNEO would still be 15% worse than the A3510.
Same for 757. Even with new engines a distant second to the A321LRs fuel use.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:25 pm

gloom wrote:
Not really. One route, low payload, low range. Lighter plane wins by a fair margin. Comparison with A339 would be much more interesting, but possible probably in 1-2 years.


You can have your fun later. Show the 789 vs A359 numbers first.
May be there is a surprise hidden in there. :-)

Afair ?Zeke? some time ago offered numbers that shew A359 using less block fuel than a 789 on a select route.
( can't find where that was posted here.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
gloom
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:09 pm

WIederling wrote:
You can have your fun later. Show the 789 vs A359 numbers first.
May be there is a surprise hidden in there. :-)


I'm a 359 fan myself, but on hop like that, and 30t payload, it's way below where 359 performs best (high loads). Since I can only quote others, as I have no access to raw data, I estimate the difference here to be around 3% in favor of 789 (lighter frame), based on previous reports (but it's only an estimation).

If we were going with 40+t and in 5000nm mission, I'd say that's probably more-or-less equal point, and with latest PIPs, 359 could be breaking into top position. But it's not the case here.

BTW, just curious what would be L/D for 359. I'd risk it's quite close to 789, gains to overcome additional weight on trip fuel on long missions are from Trents.

Cheers,
Adam
 
WIederling
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:32 pm

gloom wrote:
BTW, just curious what would be L/D for 359. I'd risk it's quite close to 789, gains to overcome additional weight on trip fuel on long missions are from Trents.


Wouldn't higher weights combined with a fuel use advantage over longer ranges indicate a better L/D for the A359?
Murphy is an optimist
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:40 pm

This stuff is so misleading that for practical purposes you cannot do a meaningful comparison on a website like this.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:01 am

gloom wrote:

If we were going with 40+t and in 5000nm mission, I'd say that's probably more-or-less equal point, and with latest PIPs, 359 could be breaking into top position. But it's not the case here.

BTW, just curious what would be L/D for 359. I'd risk it's quite close to 789, gains to overcome additional weight on trip fuel on long missions are from Trents.



At FL370, We have the following L/D ratio for the following planes:

A359: 21.12
789: 20.77
77W: 20.07
779: 21.27
A380: 20.08
748: 19.17

Those figures were calculated by Ferpe.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:55 am

Eyad89 wrote:
At FL370, We have the following L/D ratio for the following planes:
A359: 21.12
789: 20.77
77W: 20.07
779: 21.27
A380: 20.08
748: 19.17
Those figures were calculated by Ferpe.


Thanks.
Interesting the 779X is marginally better than the 359 but "buys" that with a disproportionately large step up in OEW
while 789 and 359 aren't far apart in OEW ( less than their capacity delta ).

T1000TEN/T7000 will be on par with the TXWB sfc wise?
Murphy is an optimist
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3328
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:09 pm

WIederling wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
At FL370, We have the following L/D ratio for the following planes:
A359: 21.12
789: 20.77
77W: 20.07
779: 21.27
A380: 20.08
748: 19.17
Those figures were calculated by Ferpe.


Thanks.
Interesting the 779X is marginally better than the 359 but "buys" that with a disproportionately large step up in OEW
while 789 and 359 aren't far apart in OEW ( less than their capacity delta ).


The 779 is also larger than the A359. That could also explain a large OEW delta. You can't say the OEW difference was due solely to L/D improvement.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
WIederling
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:02 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
The 779 is also larger than the A359. That could also explain a large OEW delta. You can't say the OEW difference was due solely to L/D improvement.


AFAIK the 779 is said to gain 19t OEW versus the 77W while MTOW stays constant.
( that can't stem from that piddling stretch of the fuselage. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3328
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:03 pm

WIederling wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
The 779 is also larger than the A359. That could also explain a large OEW delta. You can't say the OEW difference was due solely to L/D improvement.


AFAIK the 779 is said to gain 19t OEW versus the 77W while MTOW stays constant.
( that can't stem from that piddling stretch of the fuselage. :-)


You also can't say that the OEW differences between the 773ER and the 779 are solely due to L/D improvement. Other reasons for the OEW increase can be:

Body stretch
Cabin furnishings for more passengers
Engine changes to improve TSFC (larger fan and core changes for 60:1 compression ratio)
More wing area to allow 9% lower engine thrust at same MTOW as the 77W
Empennage changes to accommodate the larger wing area

The major L/D improvement configuration changes would:

Increased span and associated wing fold mechanism.

Only OEW changes for these items can be book kept against the total OEW change.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
WIederling
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:08 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
WIederling wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
The 779 is also larger than the A359. That could also explain a large OEW delta. You can't say the OEW difference was due solely to L/D improvement.


AFAIK the 779 is said to gain 19t OEW versus the 77W while MTOW stays constant.
( that can't stem from that piddling stretch of the fuselage. :-)


You also can't say that the OEW differences between the 773ER and the 779 are solely due to L/D improvement. Other reasons for the OEW increase can be:

Body stretch
Cabin furnishings for more passengers
Engine changes to improve TSFC (larger fan and core changes for 60:1 compression ratio)
More wing area to allow 9% lower engine thrust at same MTOW as the 77W
Empennage changes to accommodate the larger wing area

The major L/D improvement configuration changes would:

Increased span and associated wing fold mechanism.

Only OEW changes for these items can be book kept against the total OEW change.


round number
20t
- 3t ( stretch and more pax seating )
- 1t ( larger empenage )
- 0t ( MLG stays the same.)
-2.4t ( GE9X weight delta, a guess. modelled after Trent900 to TXWB increase )
== 13t for a wider wingspan and more area.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:42 pm

A380MSN004 wrote:
Hi Everyone, I was wondering the fuel consumption of the new generation aircraft from Boeing and Airbus.

I would like to compare the TRIP fuel needed of both B789 & A359 on a the following case :

- Route : LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

- Acfts : B787-900 & A350-900

- Payload : 32 tons

- FL 400 LFPG => KJFK

- FL 410 KJFK => LFPG

- Cruise M 0.85

Thanks for your feedbacks,


I find it odd how we can have a 787-9 vs A350-900 debate in response to your question without anyone coming close to answering your question or providing trip fuel numbers
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:26 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
A380MSN004 wrote:
Hi Everyone, I was wondering the fuel consumption of the new generation aircraft from Boeing and Airbus.

I would like to compare the TRIP fuel needed of both B789 & A359 on a the following case :

- Route : LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

- Acfts : B787-900 & A350-900

- Payload : 32 tons

- FL 400 LFPG => KJFK

- FL 410 KJFK => LFPG

- Cruise M 0.85

Thanks for your feedbacks,


I find it odd how we can have a 787-9 vs A350-900 debate in response to your question without anyone coming close to answering your question or providing trip fuel numbers


Well thanks to Bravo One we had the numbers for the 789. But None come up with the 359 for the moment.
 
gloom
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:35 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I find it odd how we can have a 787-9 vs A350-900 debate in response to your question without anyone coming close to answering your question or providing trip fuel numbers


Really surprised? It's a direct A vs B comparison, as unfair against A as possible (short route, low load). And once calculated, it will be used to prove "B is better than A", without using route/payload as assumption.

A380MSN004 wrote:
Well thanks to Bravo One we had the numbers for the 789. But None come up with the 359 for the moment.


On the other hand, there's no airline using 350 on the route specified. It takes extra effort and profiled software to crunch the numbers. Considering above, why waste anyone's precious time and computing time on never-to-happen scenario?

Cheers,
Adam
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:12 pm

gloom wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I find it odd how we can have a 787-9 vs A350-900 debate in response to your question without anyone coming close to answering your question or providing trip fuel numbers


Really surprised? It's a direct A vs B comparison, as unfair against A as possible (short route, low load). And once calculated, it will be used to prove "B is better than A", without using route/payload as assumption.

A380MSN004 wrote:
Well thanks to Bravo One we had the numbers for the 789. But None come up with the 359 for the moment.


On the other hand, there's no airline using 350 on the route specified. It takes extra effort and profiled software to crunch the numbers. Considering above, why waste anyone's precious time and computing time on never-to-happen scenario?

Cheers,
Adam


I’d do it, if I had available data... A vs B competition? Why would we care, the numbers are what they are, regardless of what we argue here :) I would love to see myself how they compare...
 
gloom
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:40 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
I’d do it, if I had available data... A vs B competition? Why would we care, the numbers are what they are, regardless of what we argue here :) I would love to see myself how they compare...


Well, right, just a number. How about LFPG-WSSS for a longer route, and say.. 40t payload? I wonder what would it be, just to stick against the case above :)
It's just a number anyway ;)

Cheers, Adam
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:24 am

A380MSN004 wrote:
Hi Everyone, I was wondering the fuel consumption of the new generation aircraft from Boeing and Airbus.

I would like to compare the TRIP fuel needed of both B789 & A359 on a the following case :

- Route : LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

- Acfts : B787-900 & A350-900

- Payload : 32 tons

- FL 400 LFPG => KJFK

- FL 410 KJFK => LFPG

- Cruise M 0.85

Thanks for your feedbacks,



This topic has come up a number of times. The 789 has about a 4% lower fun burn up to about 5500nm. At very long range the advantage swings to the 359.

I have not seen the comparison at different payload levels.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
A380MSN004
Topic Author
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Fuel Consumption Comparison B787-900 / A350-900 LFPG / KJFK / LFPG

Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:41 am

gloom wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
I’d do it, if I had available data... A vs B competition? Why would we care, the numbers are what they are, regardless of what we argue here :) I would love to see myself how they compare...


Well, right, just a number. How about LFPG-WSSS for a longer route, and say.. 40t payload? I wonder what would it be, just to stick against the case above :)
It's just a number anyway ;)

Cheers, Adam


Block Fuel : 76644 kg

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos