• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:02 am

Mrakula wrote:
trav777 wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

ok, in response to both you and the previous message on this same subject- guys, I don't want to keep going round and round on this.

Feel free to use whatever ACAP you want; I'm using a real world example of an actual flight, ok? Throw your ACAP out the wiindow; we have video of a FC on an actual flight as well as SQ's data on LAX-SIN. The p-r graph is linear. If you add payload you go up it, subtract and you go down it. This is a straightforward calculation.

Again, the 268t DL 359 will not do LAX-SYD with a full cabin. Its real range is around 6600nm with 300 pax, give or take. DL's config is probably not really much lighter nor heavier than any other common airline's. The 78J's brochure range, which I'm giving a hell of a lot of accuracy to given how accurate BA's other brochure ranges now are against REAL world flight profiles, is 6400nm with 330 pax. If you subtract 3t of pax (30) you will have more range than 6600nm. This is just a simple fact.

So what is the issue with it? You don't wanna hear it? You don't like it? There's nothing whatsoever factually controversial about what I'm saying and it's backed up with not just my own but another guy's analysis on the DL/350 thread. Even taking his rounded up number of 33t payload for that leg, against the wind on the westbound, the plane does not have the range to fly full pax in DL's config.

I'm not sure why this information is meeting with so much opposition when the numbers are not in dispute.[/quote

Sorry but your estmations are totally irelevant!

You are comparing data from forum thread about DL/A350 complains with 787-10 brochure data!!!

Compare both aircraft in same environment. Ideally at same route at same time.


is there a reading comprehension problem or something? Boeing's brochure specs are accurate these days. for the love of god you can go to the 787's ACAPS and adjust on the 789's graph downward to account for the increase in weight of the 78X and see exactly where the range will be...6400. And I mean adjusted ACAP relecting the downgrade from 8200-7635nm range on the 789


How can you say that? Boeing is true but Airbus lies.

787 ACAP
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

A350 ACAP
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf

There are manufacturers performance data. It is far from real world environment but at least something exact.


I'm not sure how to get through to you...can someone help me out here?

Yes, Airbus overstates the 350's range in its brochure. I have already shown exactly how and by how much. Their brochure range is THEIR OWN CABIN SPEC, do you get that!??!? However, no airline flies a cabin spec even close to theirs. Boeing decided to revise its brochure numbers downward to reflect more realistic numbers.

Surely airlines don't rely on brochure specs alone before they commit to spending billions of dollars on aircraft which have to last for 20 years or more?

I was under the impression that airlines use their own engineers and consultants to crunch the numbers? And surely they would have had access to the flight test data and real world data from other customers?


of course they don't depend on brochure numbers, but every single airbus fan on Anet does and for them, EVERY variant of the a350 inherits the 280t's attributes! On the DL/BOM thread, someone claims DL can just use "the 350" on ATL-BOM. It's absurd. Only the 280t variant has that kind of range. DL has none of those. JFK-MNL is a 278t...Air Phil didn't order this variant for kicks and giggles instead of a 276 or 268 both of which would've been cheaper. Right here is your "real world" range data.

Airlines negotiate performance guarantees with the manufacturers.
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:47 am

trav777 wrote:
PEK-DTW, TOW 275.4t. 5763nm still air GC distance. 25t cargo, 238pax = around 48t payload.


I guess you are referring to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53? It seems that the payload is 51t to 52t (post #54).

trav777 wrote:
drop 10t or 11t for the extra fuel necessary to fly the additional distance (744nm) of SYD-LAX. 30 or 31t.


Also SYD-LAX (DL40) is about 1 hour 20 minutes longer than PEK-DTW (DL188). Assuming an a350 burns 6t/hr, dropping 10t or 11t seems to be a little bit too much?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl40
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl188

trav777 wrote:
28t is not a full cabin. It is 2-3t shy of it. The 268t 359 DL has cannot do LAX-SYD as a city pair with a full cabin. Downwind probably...with a ton or two to spare. Upwind, no way. They have to block seats. In still air they probably couldn't do it maybe a ton short, only downwind can they carry 31t. Still wind they are below 30t, upwind significantly so.


So factoring in what I mentioned above, maybe 268t DL 359 can do LAX-SYD full cabin?
 
jagraham
Posts: 863
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:05 am

Eyad89 wrote:
jagraham wrote:



Trip fuel is SFC x thrust.
78J with RRs has Trent 1000-TEN. 2% less than Trent XWB on SFC.
But the Trent 1000-TEN is smaller - 76klbs vs 84klbs for Trent XWB. 10% less thrust.
So 8% less trip fuel consumption everything else being equal.
Of course, if the 78J is to grow, so must the engines.



So by this logic, 778 and 779 have the same trip fuel consumption since they have the same maximum thrust and SFC.


778 and 779 are close. Just as 77L and 77W are close. Or 789 and 78J are close. If they are carrying the same weight. The main difference is in weight - the bigger planes are expected to carry a higher fraction of MTOW thru to the destination. On average, 2% gain in TOW leads to 1% more fuel consumption. As a rule of thumb.

Of course CASM favors the bigger plane since it is carrying more passengers.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:26 am

travelhound wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
SFC is now close enough that weight makes the difference.


As it is a newer design the A350 also has superior aero/wing. Despite the Boeing propaganda all the 787 versions are saddled with the suboptimal wing designed for the 787-8 unlike what they planned to do. This is IMO comparable to the A340-300 engine fiasco.


Just because the A350 wing is newer it doesn't mean it's superior.

It could well be the case the newer composite wings may need less area than previous generation aluminium wings.

The newer again 777X wing is longer and thinner. In this case the wing has been able to evolve through folding wing tip extensions. I am not too sure how a 787 would gain an advantage by using a wing tip extension.


Seems unlikely the 787 has an inferior wing. The 787 per Mike Bair benefits from an exceptionally thin wing enabled by the bleedless engines. Boeing did start earlier (older program), but also had more engineering time (A350 MK I false start and A380 focus compressed / delayed XWB program) and less aero design constraints (bleedless) for optimizing the wing.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:12 am

trav777 wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
trav777 wrote:

is there a reading comprehension problem or something? Boeing's brochure specs are accurate these days. for the love of god you can go to the 787's ACAPS and adjust on the 789's graph downward to account for the increase in weight of the 78X and see exactly where the range will be...6400. And I mean adjusted ACAP relecting the downgrade from 8200-7635nm range on the 789


How can you say that? Boeing is true but Airbus lies.

787 ACAP
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf

A350 ACAP
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf

There are manufacturers performance data. It is far from real world environment but at least something exact.


I'm not sure how to get through to you...can someone help me out here?

Yes, Airbus overstates the 350's range in its brochure. I have already shown exactly how and by how much. Their brochure range is THEIR OWN CABIN SPEC, do you get that!??!? However, no airline flies a cabin spec even close to theirs. Boeing decided to revise its brochure numbers downward to reflect more realistic numbers.

Surely airlines don't rely on brochure specs alone before they commit to spending billions of dollars on aircraft which have to last for 20 years or more?

I was under the impression that airlines use their own engineers and consultants to crunch the numbers? And surely they would have had access to the flight test data and real world data from other customers?


of course they don't depend on brochure numbers, but every single airbus fan on Anet does and for them, EVERY variant of the a350 inherits the 280t's attributes! On the DL/BOM thread, someone claims DL can just use "the 350" on ATL-BOM. It's absurd. Only the 280t variant has that kind of range. DL has none of those. JFK-MNL is a 278t...Air Phil didn't order this variant for kicks and giggles instead of a 276 or 268 both of which would've been cheaper. Right here is your "real world" range data.

Airlines negotiate performance guarantees with the manufacturers.


Boeing revised his numbers because were much less accurate than Airbus figures but that does not mean they are accurate. Both A or B are just teorethical numbers.

I tried show some basic calculation. Thre is no way to 254 MTOW 787-10 have same andurance at same MZFW like 268 MTOW A350-900 only if A350 one generation older :-D

Cheers
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:23 am

jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
trav777 wrote:

I'm quite puzzled- with 330pax, the brochure range (which is accurate now since BA reduced to reflect realistic configs) of the 78J is 6400nm.

Why would ANYONE be surprised that it could do a <5000nm route like SFO-FRA?

I mean I'm asking this question quite seriously.

Wake up - the 78J with 300 pax has the same if not slightly more range than the 268t 359! It does not need an MTOW bump to "compete" with the A359; it's already better than the early variants of that plane!

Is there some kind of persistent delusion going around with regard to this aircraft because it doesn't have a heavy variant that sports an exaggerated 8000nm+ brochure range?


Can you explain how can 787-10 match range of 350-900 at 268 MTOW while have roughly same OEW and 14t less MTOW?

OEW 300pax fuel MTOW
787-10 135t + 30t + 89t = 254t
350-900 135t + 30t + 103t = 268t

according your logic A350 has 15% higher fuel burn!!! Are you seriuous? Even if you calculate 142t OEW for early build A350-900 the fuel burn penalty would be around 9%!!! Sorry but its worse penalty than A340-600 against 77W!


Trip fuel is SFC x thrust.
78J with RRs has Trent 1000-TEN. 2% less than Trent XWB on SFC.
But the Trent 1000-TEN is smaller - 76klbs vs 84klbs for Trent XWB. 10% less thrust.
So 8% less trip fuel consumption everything else being equal.
Of course, if the 78J is to grow, so must the engines.


I do not know were you got that Trent 1000-TEN has 2% lower SFC than TrentXWB but SFC is not only contribution in fuel consumption. 8% diffrence is too much if you take to perspective that is same in fuel consumption diffrence between A340-600 and 777-300ER which kiledl the A340 completely!
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:05 am

AtomicGarden wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A higher MTOW would add to empty weight and thus make the airplane burn more fuel on short to medium range flights.


but a 787-10ER would not be used for short flights


But most airlines would not order a 787-10 for short haul & a 787-10ER with a different wing, landing gear & engine for a limited number of flights. And it would cost boeing a pretty penny on a program thats still tight finacially.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:16 am

I suspect the entire 787 range of aircraft will receive a mid life makeover sometime around 2025. When / if this happens the 787-10 will be a more capable lighter, more fuel efficient and longer range aircraft.
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:24 am

travelhound wrote:
I suspect the entire 787 range of aircraft will receive a mid life makeover sometime around 2025. When / if this happens the 787-10 will be a more capable lighter, more fuel efficient and longer range aircraft.


Well considering that Airbus have already been publishing job advertisements for engineers to work on the the A350 Neo we can assume that they are planning something similar, perhaps including new versions.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:13 am

Kindanew wrote:
travelhound wrote:
I suspect the entire 787 range of aircraft will receive a mid life makeover sometime around 2025. When / if this happens the 787-10 will be a more capable lighter, more fuel efficient and longer range aircraft.


Well considering that Airbus have already been publishing job advertisements for engineers to work on the the A350 Neo we can assume that they are planning something similar, perhaps including new versions.


I'm going to get flamed here......and I don't want to start a different debate.

I suspect the A350, as good a aircraft that it is bracketed between the 787-10, which can operate 70% of the routes and the 777X, which will be able to operate everything else.

On the lower end you have a cheaper aircraft with lower operating costs, to a more expensive aircraft, but with capacity and range with comparable operating costs.

From where I sit Airbus will be the first mover and Boeing will simply respond.
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:44 am

The regular A350-900 variants from 268-280T don't require any/significant changes, the ULR has some modifications to the fuel system, but even that just uses more of the standard tank. The 787-10 is a stretched 787-9, which makes it very light and efficient on routes it can do, but I'm not sure if there are any cheap or easy ways to increase MTOW.

Therefore unless you are comparing the 280T A359 against the 787-10 then it's not really a sensible comparison. DL may potentially have issues with their A359s as they ordered the cheaper spec, SQ, QR and others who ordered versions suited to their routes seem very happy with it. They are both very good planes, with slightly different strengths.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:02 pm

travelhound wrote:
Kindanew wrote:
travelhound wrote:
I suspect the entire 787 range of aircraft will receive a mid life makeover sometime around 2025. When / if this happens the 787-10 will be a more capable lighter, more fuel efficient and longer range aircraft.


Well considering that Airbus have already been publishing job advertisements for engineers to work on the the A350 Neo we can assume that they are planning something similar, perhaps including new versions.


I'm going to get flamed here......and I don't want to start a different debate.

I suspect the A350, as good a aircraft that it is bracketed between the 787-10, which can operate 70% of the routes and the 777X, which will be able to operate everything else.

On the lower end you have a cheaper aircraft with lower operating costs, to a more expensive aircraft, but with capacity and range with comparable operating costs.

From where I sit Airbus will be the first mover and Boeing will simply respond.


No flaming needed. Boeing is offering quite a few choices with the 787 and 777 variants so airlines can choose airplanes optimized for certain missions. Airbus marketing counters by telling us that the A350 can do anything and everything in a size bigger than the 787-9.

Airlines can choose from Versatile vs optimized. It is a legitimate choice. Airbus and Boeing don’t have to have equal planes to compete. Airlines can choose the plane that fits their operational needs. It doesn’t mean Airbus or Boeing is better.
 
jagraham
Posts: 863
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:51 pm

Mrakula wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

Can you explain how can 787-10 match range of 350-900 at 268 MTOW while have roughly same OEW and 14t less MTOW?

OEW 300pax fuel MTOW
787-10 135t + 30t + 89t = 254t
350-900 135t + 30t + 103t = 268t

according your logic A350 has 15% higher fuel burn!!! Are you seriuous? Even if you calculate 142t OEW for early build A350-900 the fuel burn penalty would be around 9%!!! Sorry but its worse penalty than A340-600 against 77W!


Trip fuel is SFC x thrust.
78J with RRs has Trent 1000-TEN. 2% less than Trent XWB on SFC.
But the Trent 1000-TEN is smaller - 76klbs vs 84klbs for Trent XWB. 10% less thrust.
So 8% less trip fuel consumption everything else being equal.
Of course, if the 78J is to grow, so must the engines.


I do not know were you got that Trent 1000-TEN has 2% lower SFC than TrentXWB but SFC is not only contribution in fuel consumption. 8% diffrence is too much if you take to perspective that is same in fuel consumption diffrence between A340-600 and 777-300ER which kiledl the A340 completely!



The 78J, although larger than the A359, is a few tonnes lighter. MTOW is much less (254t vs 268 - 280t for A359).

Because of the reduced MTOW, the 78J can't go everywhere the A359 goes.
But where the 78J goes, it will burn less fuel. Because the engines are smaller.

The 78J won't kill the A359 because the A359 is needed for some long trips. But under 6000nm, the 78J should prove to be a compelling choice.
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:43 pm

Turnhouse1 wrote:
The regular A350-900 variants from 268-280T don't require any/significant changes, the ULR has some modifications to the fuel system, but even that just uses more of the standard tank. The 787-10 is a stretched 787-9, which makes it very light and efficient on routes it can do, but I'm not sure if there are any cheap or easy ways to increase MTOW.

Therefore unless you are comparing the 280T A359 against the 787-10 then it's not really a sensible comparison. DL may potentially have issues with their A359s as they ordered the cheaper spec, SQ, QR and others who ordered versions suited to their routes seem very happy with it. They are both very good planes, with slightly different strengths.


the 78X has more range @ 300pax than the 268t 359.

It is not the 78X that needs to change to compete better, it is the 359 that does. The 359 is a decent plane but it isn't great. Merely mediocre. It doesn't really do anything superlatively well from a performance perspective. If the 77X comes in with competitive fuel burn, I see sales drying up except for all-airbus shops in the widebody space. The 359 is a better version of the old 777, but the market and technology space has moved on.

With a wait-and-see approach, I think the copycat nature of this business means that if UAL sees good numbers from this plane, other fliers will jump into it. It's what the lighter 359 *should* have been. Mid-to-long haul fuel efficient

No flaming needed. Boeing is offering quite a few choices with the 787 and 777 variants so airlines can choose airplanes optimized for certain missions. Airbus marketing counters by telling us that the A350 can do anything and everything in a size bigger than the 787-9.


The 350 can do it but not at 5.4t/hr fuel. The 78X at the same weight should only suffer from marginally higher skin drag than the 789, thus a -4.5% trip fuel and 7-8% better seat-mile burn. Even light, SQ's 359 at 271t TOW burnt 5.85/hr. With 253pax. Granted this was upwind SFO-SIN. UAL is flying that exact same route with a 253pax 789 at 5.4t/hr. So no the 359 won't do what the 789 will.

Additionally, only the 280T 359 has range to match the 789 in brochure spec (UAL).
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:20 pm

trav777 wrote:

the 78X has more range @ 300pax than the 268t 359.


By looking at their ACAPs, no way could 78X pull that off.

Or you could simply follow common sense. They both have similar OEWs and MZFW, yet A359 still has 14T before it hits MTOW. You can figure out who will have more range.

trav777 wrote:
The 350 can do it but not at 5.4t/hr fuel.


yeah but with more payload. More payload that can pay for the extra fuel burn and even add more profit to it.


trav777 wrote:
Even light, SQ's 359 at 271t TOW burnt 5.85/hr.


271t TOW isn't light, that's more payload than 789 can handle for that range. And A350 can still add another 9t of payload on top of that.

trav777 wrote:
So no the 359 won't do what the 789 will.


Actually, 789 can't do what the A359 will, which is a lower CASM for a given range.


trav777 wrote:
Additionally, only the 280T 359 has range to match the 789 in brochure spec (UAL).


I don't know how to reply to that after all the different discussions we've had.
 
gloom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:43 pm

jagraham wrote:
But where the 78J goes, it will burn less fuel. Because the engines are smaller.


Any sources to support claims?

Fuel burn (or fuel flow, as I prefer to call it) is basically function of drag, weight and thrust*SFC required to maintain that weight/drag in cruise.

I'd say 78J would burn similar to 359 (trip fuel). The weight is comparable - 78J is probably slightly lighter per meter, but slightly longer, and it has more wetted area and smaller wing, which are obvoius disadvantage. But it could be +2% or -2%, as I have no access to FCOM data or performance numbers. And that is quite a difference. But if anything, comparing takeoff thrust between two planes, same generation, similar DOW, similar MZFW, with MTOW being differentiated by fuel, judging the cruise by takeoff thrust difference is useless.

Cheers,
Adam
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:40 pm

trav777 wrote:
Turnhouse1 wrote:
The regular A350-900 variants from 268-280T don't require any/significant changes, the ULR has some modifications to the fuel system, but even that just uses more of the standard tank. The 787-10 is a stretched 787-9, which makes it very light and efficient on routes it can do, but I'm not sure if there are any cheap or easy ways to increase MTOW.

Therefore unless you are comparing the 280T A359 against the 787-10 then it's not really a sensible comparison. DL may potentially have issues with their A359s as they ordered the cheaper spec, SQ, QR and others who ordered versions suited to their routes seem very happy with it. They are both very good planes, with slightly different strengths.


the 78X has more range @ 300pax than the 268t 359.

It is not the 78X that needs to change to compete better, it is the 359 that does. The 359 is a decent plane but it isn't great. Merely mediocre. It doesn't really do anything superlatively well from a performance perspective. If the 77X comes in with competitive fuel burn, I see sales drying up except for all-airbus shops in the widebody space. The 359 is a better version of the old 777, but the market and technology space has moved on.

With a wait-and-see approach, I think the copycat nature of this business means that if UAL sees good numbers from this plane, other fliers will jump into it. It's what the lighter 359 *should* have been. Mid-to-long haul fuel efficient

But this is the point, there is no real difference in terms of OEW/wing/gear etc between a 268-280T A350, the only reason for an airline to order the lower MTOW frame is that they want to pay less, which if they don't need the capability is entirely sensible.

However, a 254T 787-9 or 787-10 is at the maximum of what the structure can take, Boeing can't just increase the MTOW any more without modifying the structure. A 254T 787 is the airframe equivalent of the 280T A350, of course comparing against derated versions of the A350 makes the 787 look better.

Boeing could increase the MTOW of the 787-10, but it would be like the A350-1000; bigger, heavier and more capable, but less efficient in the 6-8 hour range. It's horses for courses BA are going to print money flying 787-10s full of business class seats across the North Atlantic. I really don't understand your problem with the A350 though, can any 787 fly SIN-EWR with more than a handful of people?
 
StTim
Posts: 3409
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:24 pm

Amongst all the people on here trav777 is convinced the A350 is a dud and that the 789 trashes the A359 and that the -1000 is dead against the 777X.

Now there may be some grain of truth in it but so far I see no one else anywhere near convinced.
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:26 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
but they simply have to drop 7t of cargo from possible 13t.


So you are assuming 100kg per passenger... Is it a bit too low?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26319
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:46 pm

moyangmm wrote:
So (we) are assuming 100kg per passenger... Is it a bit too low?


I believe this is the "industry standard" for calculating average passenger mass (it used to be 90kg prior to the mid-2000s).

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/STA10/Doc ... 005_en.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/us/w ... eased.html
 
jagraham
Posts: 863
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:07 am

gloom wrote:
jagraham wrote:
But where the 78J goes, it will burn less fuel. Because the engines are smaller.


Any sources to support claims?

Fuel burn (or fuel flow, as I prefer to call it) is basically function of drag, weight and thrust*SFC required to maintain that weight/drag in cruise.

I'd say 78J would burn similar to 359 (trip fuel). The weight is comparable - 78J is probably slightly lighter per meter, but slightly longer, and it has more wetted area and smaller wing, which are obvoius disadvantage. But it could be +2% or -2%, as I have no access to FCOM data or performance numbers. And that is quite a difference. But if anything, comparing takeoff thrust between two planes, same generation, similar DOW, similar MZFW, with MTOW being differentiated by fuel, judging the cruise by takeoff thrust difference is useless.

Cheers,
Adam


The 78J is less than 2% over a 789. The differences between a 789 and an A359 have been documented on a.net.
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:26 am

trav777 wrote:
You can look at what a flight did on a totally different leg (PEK-DTW) and simply pull payload off and add fuel and you will get to SQ31. +3t pax. +3.3 hrs fuel (19.5t) -25t cargo. Holy smokes, when we add this to DL's 275.4 TOW, we get...drum roll...273t. Take off the 3t SQ31 carried in extra fuel reserves and we are within ONE FREAKING TON of that flight's TOW.


The flight time of the DL188 on that day (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53) was 12:10; An SQ31 flight time (viewtopic.php?t=1408737) was 16:30. So the flight time difference was 4.33 hours. Your calculation seems to be a bit off?
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:14 am

What I did found on the forum A359 at TOW 277t burn 5,9t per hour on EWR-SIN route at 272t is 5,8t on SIN-JFK route so fuel burn for 268t TOW woul be slightly lower. That is just for illustration.

When I consider 789 burn 5,4t per hour I cannot understand how can 7810 at 254t MTOW with higher fuel burn can reach same payload/ range like 268t A350.

When you consider A359 vw00 has MZFW 192t same as 7810 we have max.fuel onboard 76t resp. 62t. That means endurace 13h resp 11,5h.

That was just for illustration based on forum numbers nothing accurate so take it in to account please.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12324
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:44 am

trav777 wrote:
On the DL/BOM thread, someone claims DL can just use "the 350" on ATL-BOM. It's absurd. Only the 280t variant has that kind of range.

Not as cut-and-dry as your statement would have it, considering that SQ had no trouble doing SFO-SIN, a route of the same distance, with a 275T A359.

Granted, DL's birds are denser, but they could also up their extant aircraft to 277T with the stroke of a cheque, as well as uprate their TBD aircraft to 280T by the same means.

So no, use of their A350 isn't "absurd" by any means. Perhaps less likely, but quite feasible and therefore plausible.




Turnhouse1 wrote:
The regular A350-900 variants from 268-280T don't require any/significant changes

Well, those from LN219 onward don't.

But FWIU, Airbus has given no indication that a pre-LN219 aircraft (excluding LN216, a -ULR) would be capable of upgrading to 280T.
Those ships lack the wing twist, modified winglets, modified empennage, and weight-saving materials around doors and other components.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:33 am

travelhound wrote:
Kindanew wrote:
travelhound wrote:
I suspect the entire 787 range of aircraft will receive a mid life makeover sometime around 2025. When / if this happens the 787-10 will be a more capable lighter, more fuel efficient and longer range aircraft.


Well considering that Airbus have already been publishing job advertisements for engineers to work on the the A350 Neo we can assume that they are planning something similar, perhaps including new versions.


I'm going to get flamed here......and I don't want to start a different debate.

I suspect the A350, as good a aircraft that it is bracketed between the 787-10, which can operate 70% of the routes and the 777X, which will be able to operate everything else.

On the lower end you have a cheaper aircraft with lower operating costs, to a more expensive aircraft, but with capacity and range with comparable operating costs.

From where I sit Airbus will be the first mover and Boeing will simply respond.


That's what happened with the 777X. Boeing didn't firm configuration until the A3510 was far enough into engineering that the design couldn't change.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:43 am

This team B member lost any credibility by stating "the 7810 can do Lax-Syd with a full payload easily".
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:59 am

RalXWB wrote:
This team B member lost any credibility by stating "the 7810 can do Lax-Syd with a full payload easily".

But it kinda can if you look at the ACAP's. Firstly what do you mean by full? or do you mean maximum payload?

At max payload the ACAP shows the 787-10 can fly only 4200nm. Japan airlines has 195 passengers in their 787-9's. A similar density cabin in the 787-10 would be around 250 passengers or 25,000kg of payload. The ACAP shows the 787-10 can fly 7100nm with 25T. The distance between Los Angeles and Sydney is 6515nm. So it can fly that route with a normal but low density cabin. Depending on weather it might even be able to fly with 300 passengers for the vast majority maybe 90% of the flights. So for 90% of the flights you'd have better CASM than the 787-9 and A359 but for the 10% of the westbound flights you'd need to block seats and have worse CASM than the 787-9 and A359.

Looking at the ACAPs with the same 60,000lb payload the 787-9 can fly 8000nm, the 787-10 can fly 7000nm.

The 787-10 can fly much further than people think.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:04 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
RalXWB wrote:
This team B member lost any credibility by stating "the 7810 can do Lax-Syd with a full payload easily".

But it kinda can if you look at the ACAP's. Firstly what do you mean by full? or do you mean maximum payload?

At max payload the ACAP shows the 787-10 can fly only 4200nm. Japan airlines has 195 passengers in their 787-9's. A similar density cabin in the 787-10 would be around 250 passengers or 25,000kg of payload. The ACAP shows the 787-10 can fly 7100nm with 25T. The distance between Los Angeles and Sydney is 6515nm. So it can fly that route with a normal but low density cabin. Depending on weather it might even be able to fly with 300 passengers for the vast majority maybe 90% of the flights. So for 90% of the flights you'd have better CASM than the 787-9 and A359 but for the 10% of the westbound flights you'd need to block seats and have worse CASM than the 787-9 and A359.

Looking at the ACAPs with the same 60,000lb payload the 787-9 can fly 8000nm, the 787-10 can fly 7000nm.

The 787-10 can fly much further than people think.


So if you squint, look at it sideways and really really ignore the statement then you are correct. DL would only have to fly around empty space to fly the route "at full payload".
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:11 pm

enzo011 wrote:
So if you squint, look at it sideways and really really ignore the statement then you are correct. DL would only have to fly around empty space to fly the route "at full payload".

Not really, every seat has a passenger and their bags are in the hold. That is a full plane. No squinting. The ACAPs dont lie.

Qantas operates the 787-9 with 236 seats on London to Perth which is 7820nm. 100kg per passenger is 23,600kg or 52,000lb of payload. Now the ACAP shows the 787-9 can fly 8300nm with that weight. So the ACAP range is 6% greater than the actual flight so there is bit of a buffer for headwinds.

Now the 787-10 has 13% more cabin area Qantas would fit 266 seats if they used the same density. That is 26,600kg or 58,500lb of payload. The ACAP has the 787-10's range at 7100nm with that payload Los Angeles to Sydney is 6515nm. So there is a 9% buffer for headwinds.

As the buffer is greater that means the 787-10 could do Los Angeles to Sydney easier than a 787-9 could do Perth to London.

If we assume the Perth to London 6% buffer is as far as you can realistic fly then to get that buffer on the 787-10 flying Los Angeles to Sydney you need about 300 seats.

Apparently you lose credibility by posting facts and accurate data.

There are lots of talk with Air New Zeland replace the 777 with 787-10 as it can do all of the current North America routes. The Airbus fanboys think that is ridiculous of course and suggest they should buy A350's.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:36 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
So if you squint, look at it sideways and really really ignore the statement then you are correct. DL would only have to fly around empty space to fly the route "at full payload".

Not really, every seat has a passenger and their bags are in the hold. That is a full plane. No squinting. The ACAPs dont lie.

Qantas operates the 787-9 with 236 seats on London to Perth which is 7820nm. 100kg per passenger is 23,600kg or 52,000lb of payload. Now the ACAP shows the 787-9 can fly 8300nm with that weight. So the ACAP range is 6% greater than the actual flight so there is bit of a buffer for headwinds.

Now the 787-10 has 13% more cabin area Qantas would fit 266 seats if they used the same density. That is 26,600kg or 58,500lb of payload. The ACAP has the 787-10's range at 7100nm with that payload Los Angeles to Sydney is 6515nm. So there is a 9% buffer for headwinds.

As the buffer is greater that means the 787-10 could do Los Angeles to Sydney easier than a 787-9 could do Perth to London.

If we assume the Perth to London 6% buffer is as far as you can realistic fly then to get that buffer on the 787-10 flying Los Angeles to Sydney you need about 300 seats.

Apparently you lose credibility by posting facts and accurate data.

There are lots of talk with Air New Zeland replace the 777 with 787-10 as it can do all of the current North America routes. The Airbus fanboys think that is ridiculous of course and suggest they should buy A350's.


It does raise the question of why the A359 sells at all if the 78X is that much more efficient and has as much range as you claim. The 78X has only sold 169 in total, and nearly 100 of those came at/ not long after launch. What gives?
 
tealnz
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:41 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
There are lots of talk with Air New Zeland replace the 777 with 787-10 as it can do all of the current North America routes. The Airbus fanboys think that is ridiculous of course and suggest they should buy A350's.

There seems to be something about the 787 that makes a.netters forget to take their chill pills. NZ know the 787 very well. They love them. They are now flying the 789 AKL-ORD (with ~20 seats blocked westbound apparently). At their last investor day event they also mentioned the 787-10 as a fleet option. For Asia. They said the -10 had similar range to their former 767s. There's never been any hint they saw it as an option for North America, even for AKL-LAX. In fact they've said in the past it didn't have the range. So what is that you know about the -10 that NZ don't?
 
brindabella
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:43 pm

rbavfan wrote:
AtomicGarden wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A higher MTOW would add to empty weight and thus make the airplane burn more fuel on short to medium range flights.


but a 787-10ER would not be used for short flights


But most airlines would not order a 787-10 for short haul & a 787-10ER with a different wing, landing gear & engine for a limited number of flights. And it would cost boeing a pretty penny on a program thats still tight finacially.


Like to explain why? :banghead:

cheers
Billy
 
brindabella
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:54 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
trav777 wrote:
On the DL/BOM thread, someone claims DL can just use "the 350" on ATL-BOM. It's absurd. Only the 280t variant has that kind of range.

Not as cut-and-dry as your statement would have it, considering that SQ had no trouble doing SFO-SIN, a route of the same distance, with a 275T A359.

Granted, DL's birds are denser, but they could also up their extant aircraft to 277T with the stroke of a cheque, as well as uprate their TBD aircraft to 280T by the same means.

So no, use of their A350 isn't "absurd" by any means. Perhaps less likely, but quite feasible and therefore plausible.




Turnhouse1 wrote:
The regular A350-900 variants from 268-280T don't require any/significant changes

Well, those from LN219 onward don't.

But FWIU, Airbus has given no indication that a pre-LN219 aircraft (excluding LN216, a -ULR) would be capable of upgrading to 280T.
Those ships lack the wing twist, modified winglets, modified empennage, and weight-saving materials around doors and other components.


Totally non-aviation response --- but enjoyed this one! Fun to parse/weigh.

TKS! :smile:

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13048
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:01 pm

tealnz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
There are lots of talk with Air New Zeland replace the 777 with 787-10 as it can do all of the current North America routes. The Airbus fanboys think that is ridiculous of course and suggest they should buy A350's.

There seems to be something about the 787 that makes a.netters forget to take their chill pills. NZ know the 787 very well. They love them. They are now flying the 789 AKL-ORD (with ~20 seats blocked westbound apparently). At their last investor day event they also mentioned the 787-10 as a fleet option. For Asia. They said the -10 had similar range to their former 767s. There's never been any hint they saw it as an option for North America, even for AKL-LAX. In fact they've said in the past it didn't have the range. So what is that you know about the -10 that NZ don't?


787-10 will probably have great CASM and be ideal for TATL, intra Asia and N-S America.

Being selected as an ideal New Zealand-US platform, would even surprise Boeing.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:26 pm

The OEW difference between the 787-9 and 787-10 is about 15,000lbs, which is equivalent to about 600 nautical miles worth of fuel. That should result in the 787-10 taking about the same payload 600nm less than the 787-9. We know airlines put more seats. 50 more seats represents around 15,000lbs or another 600 nautical miles of fuel. That is how we get to published ranges of the 787-9 having 1200nm more range than the 787-10.

We have plenty of 787-9 routes over 7,000nm. That rather clearly shows that 6000nm should be possible with the 787-10 in the real world. AKL-LAX is less than that. Cargo would be limited, but it is possible.
 
gloom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:42 pm

jagraham wrote:
The 78J is less than 2% over a 789. The differences between a 789 and an A359 have been documented on a.net.


No sources to support claims, just more claims. No discussion, then, just trolling. You may still believe takeoff thrust (or corresponding inlet size) indicates the difference between cruise fuel flow.

I'll mark you as troll, though.

Cheers,
Adam
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:05 pm

RalXWB wrote:
This team B member lost any credibility by stating "the 7810 can do Lax-Syd with a full payload easily".


didn't say it

said 300pax

learn to read
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:19 pm

moyangmm wrote:
trav777 wrote:
PEK-DTW, TOW 275.4t. 5763nm still air GC distance. 25t cargo, 238pax = around 48t payload.


I guess you are referring to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53? It seems that the payload is 51t to 52t (post #54).

trav777 wrote:
drop 10t or 11t for the extra fuel necessary to fly the additional distance (744nm) of SYD-LAX. 30 or 31t.


Also SYD-LAX (DL40) is about 1 hour 20 minutes longer than PEK-DTW (DL188). Assuming an a350 burns 6t/hr, dropping 10t or 11t seems to be a little bit too much?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl40
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl188

trav777 wrote:
28t is not a full cabin. It is 2-3t shy of it. The 268t 359 DL has cannot do LAX-SYD as a city pair with a full cabin. Downwind probably...with a ton or two to spare. Upwind, no way. They have to block seats. In still air they probably couldn't do it maybe a ton short, only downwind can they carry 31t. Still wind they are below 30t, upwind significantly so.


So factoring in what I mentioned above, maybe 268t DL 359 can do LAX-SYD full cabin?


51t? no. The cargo was on the FC. 25t cargo. 23t pax. On the FC on the video. Please just go look at it.

DL could probably fly LAX-SYD at 300pax with 268t. Not 325. The additional distance to SYD is about 1.5 hours, 10t is about right for the fuel and extra fuel to carry fuel.

Anyway, to restate my post which was deleted, you can simply remove payload/swap for fuel against distance and see that the SQ31 flight and DL188's performance match up. There was no cargo on SQ31 by inference, but they carried 3t extra fuel reserves.

To reiterate- the 78X has 6400nm range with 330pax. If you drop 3t, you will get another 2-300nm range out of it. The 268t 359 has around 6500-6600nm range with 325pax. Neither will do LAX-SYD full cabin. But if you drop 30 pax, both will. The 78X will do it more efficiently.

Those who claim the 78X cannot do TPAC...those people must struggle with math. Again, Boeing's brochure ranges now DO reflect typical DOWs and can be treated as good if the pax #s are close to the mfr spec. The 78X is effectively a much more efficient version of the lighter 359s. This plane does not need to gain weight.

Not as cut-and-dry as your statement would have it, considering that SQ had no trouble doing SFO-SIN, a route of the same distance, with a 275T A359.

Granted, DL's birds are denser, but they could also up their extant aircraft to 277T with the stroke of a cheque, as well as uprate their TBD aircraft to 280T by the same means.

So no, use of their A350 isn't "absurd" by any means. Perhaps less likely, but quite feasible and therefore plausible.


Dude, SQ31 has 253 pax. Are you going to cite me a ferry flight next? Their 275t plane could probably not have done that route with full spec pax of 325, which is what the 359 was SUPPOSEDLY designed to do. Remember? Replace all the 777s? Kill that frame? it's not doing that with 253 pax. In fact, it's competing directly against UAL's 789 with 253 pax on the very same route! People here may have heard of these things called LCCs and they're killing the low density pipedream flights because they're economically noncompetitive. SQ is losing money seat for seat unless they have some mad customer loyalty going for them. The CASM for a 275t 359 with the same amount of seats as a 789 looks horrible...it's getting wrecked. And I'm not even factoring in acquisition costs. THIS right here is why I think 359 sales have slowed so dramatically since entry into commercial service. The frame's performance isn't delivering.

DL "could" uprate...cool! But you CANNOT impute the attributes of the 280t 359 to the NON-280t 359 until and unless they DO.

Everyone around here keeps doing that over and over again. Saying DL "can fly ATL-BOM on the 359." Maybe on A 359 but not any 359 DL actually owns. Only IB so far as I know even has 280t 359s.
 
hitower3
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:44 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Granted, DL's birds are denser, but they could also up their extant aircraft to 277T with the stroke of a cheque, as well as uprate their TBD aircraft to 280T by the same means.


Dear LAX,

I would be interested to know what such a check would amount to. Are we talking about 100k$, millions?

Best regards,
Hendric
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

trav777 wrote:

The CASM for a 275t 359 with the same amount of seats as a 789 looks horrible...it's getting wrecked.


And the CASM for a 779 with the same amount of seats as A35K looks horrible ... it's getting wrecked.

And the CASM for a 789 with the same amount of seats as 788 looks horrible … it's getting wrecked.


I could on all day.
 
sabby
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:16 pm

trav777 wrote:
To reiterate- the 78X has 6400nm range with 330pax. If you drop 3t, you will get another 2-300nm range out of it. The 268t 359 has around 6500-6600nm range with 325pax.


The math doesn't add up. Both of those have almost same OEW and at 325/330 pax if they have similar range, it means the A359 is burning 1T per hour more fuel and that with a 17% larger wing ? If I remember correctly the 268T A359 was announced with 7400nm range with typical 315 pax.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8374
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:30 pm

trav777 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
trav777 wrote:
PEK-DTW, TOW 275.4t. 5763nm still air GC distance. 25t cargo, 238pax = around 48t payload.


I guess you are referring to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53? It seems that the payload is 51t to 52t (post #54).

trav777 wrote:
drop 10t or 11t for the extra fuel necessary to fly the additional distance (744nm) of SYD-LAX. 30 or 31t.


Also SYD-LAX (DL40) is about 1 hour 20 minutes longer than PEK-DTW (DL188). Assuming an a350 burns 6t/hr, dropping 10t or 11t seems to be a little bit too much?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl40
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl188

trav777 wrote:
28t is not a full cabin. It is 2-3t shy of it. The 268t 359 DL has cannot do LAX-SYD as a city pair with a full cabin. Downwind probably...with a ton or two to spare. Upwind, no way. They have to block seats. In still air they probably couldn't do it maybe a ton short, only downwind can they carry 31t. Still wind they are below 30t, upwind significantly so.


So factoring in what I mentioned above, maybe 268t DL 359 can do LAX-SYD full cabin?


51t? no. The cargo was on the FC. 25t cargo. 23t pax. On the FC on the video. Please just go look at it.

DL could probably fly LAX-SYD at 300pax with 268t. Not 325. The additional distance to SYD is about 1.5 hours, 10t is about right for the fuel and extra fuel to carry fuel.

Anyway, to restate my post which was deleted, you can simply remove payload/swap for fuel against distance and see that the SQ31 flight and DL188's performance match up. There was no cargo on SQ31 by inference, but they carried 3t extra fuel reserves.

To reiterate- the 78X has 6400nm range with 330pax. If you drop 3t, you will get another 2-300nm range out of it. The 268t 359 has around 6500-6600nm range with 325pax. Neither will do LAX-SYD full cabin. But if you drop 30 pax, both will. The 78X will do it more efficiently.

Those who claim the 78X cannot do TPAC...those people must struggle with math. Again, Boeing's brochure ranges now DO reflect typical DOWs and can be treated as good if the pax #s are close to the mfr spec. The 78X is effectively a much more efficient version of the lighter 359s. This plane does not need to gain weight.

Not as cut-and-dry as your statement would have it, considering that SQ had no trouble doing SFO-SIN, a route of the same distance, with a 275T A359.

Granted, DL's birds are denser, but they could also up their extant aircraft to 277T with the stroke of a cheque, as well as uprate their TBD aircraft to 280T by the same means.

So no, use of their A350 isn't "absurd" by any means. Perhaps less likely, but quite feasible and therefore plausible.


Dude, SQ31 has 253 pax. Are you going to cite me a ferry flight next? Their 275t plane could probably not have done that route with full spec pax of 325, which is what the 359 was SUPPOSEDLY designed to do. Remember? Replace all the 777s? Kill that frame? it's not doing that with 253 pax. In fact, it's competing directly against UAL's 789 with 253 pax on the very same route! People here may have heard of these things called LCCs and they're killing the low density pipedream flights because they're economically noncompetitive. SQ is losing money seat for seat unless they have some mad customer loyalty going for them. The CASM for a 275t 359 with the same amount of seats as a 789 looks horrible...it's getting wrecked. And I'm not even factoring in acquisition costs. THIS right here is why I think 359 sales have slowed so dramatically since entry into commercial service. The frame's performance isn't delivering.

DL "could" uprate...cool! But you CANNOT impute the attributes of the 280t 359 to the NON-280t 359 until and unless they DO.

Everyone around here keeps doing that over and over again. Saying DL "can fly ATL-BOM on the 359." Maybe on A 359 but not any 359 DL actually owns. Only IB so far as I know even has 280t 359s.


Let us start off with A350-900 280t. Still air range of 8.100 nm. That is with 325 pax no cargo.

The 268 t version, at 325 pax no cargo, 12 t ca 2 hour less fuel, ca 1000 nm less range. That would be 7100nm still air range, that would be with reserves for diversion and so on. LAX - SYD is about 6500 nm.

Until you show me somewhere written down an example that the A350-900 268 MTOW bird does not do this (something else than my cousin father knows a pilot at Delta and he said), I claim hereby that you are talking nonsense. If you need an hour more range, take a 275 t version. And I assume the Delta A350-900 are possible to upgrade to that.

If you want to talk sales of wide body types, 724 for the A350-900 up to now. 3 types do beat that number, all a longer time on offer. The 777-300ER with 844, the 787-9 with 790 and the A330-300 with 789.
Compared to that, we have the 787-10 with 169 frames sold.
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:31 pm

sabby wrote:
trav777 wrote:
To reiterate- the 78X has 6400nm range with 330pax. If you drop 3t, you will get another 2-300nm range out of it. The 268t 359 has around 6500-6600nm range with 325pax.


The math doesn't add up. Both of those have almost same OEW and at 325/330 pax if they have similar range, it means the A359 is burning 1T per hour more fuel and that with a 17% larger wing ? If I remember correctly the 268T A359 was announced with 7400nm range with typical 315 pax.


It makes sense, kind of... 7400 nm brochure range translates to 6500-6600nm in real world, after factoring in heavier cabin than brochure, catering, reserve, etc.
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:45 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Let us start off with A350-900 280t. Still air range of 8.100 nm. That is with 325 pax no cargo.


Well, the problem is, 8,100 nm is the range from ACAP, which assumes a very light cabin, less reserve, less catering, etc; its real-world range is less than that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26319
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:51 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
It does raise the question of why the A359 sells at all if the 78X...has as much range as...claim(ed). The 78X has only sold 169 in total, and nearly 100 of those came at/ not long after launch. What gives?


Perhaps airlines don't consider range the most important metric when setting the specifications, but instead consider other metric as more important and give them greater weight when both drafting and evaluating their RFPs to/from the OEMs?

After all, if we believe Airbus' marketing, the A330-300 at 230,000kg could do 90% of all scheduled 777-200ER missions, which one might think would have obviated the need for Airbus to bother developing the longer-ranged A350(-900) to (also) address that market segment.:silly:
Last edited by Stitch on Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1400
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:53 pm

Maybe Boeing shouldn't do a MTOW increase as it is just futile.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:07 pm

It appears to me the real threat of the existing -10 is that regular improvements over the next several years will not make it better than the 350 with regular improvements, but that it will be able to cover an ever increasing number of routes, and at its existing lower costs.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:30 pm

moyangmm wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Let us start off with A350-900 280t. Still air range of 8.100 nm. That is with 325 pax no cargo.


Well, the problem is, 8,100 nm is the range from ACAP, which assumes a very light cabin, less reserve, less catering, etc; its real-world range is less than that.


correct.

PEK-DTW, 48t payload (25/23). TOW 275.4. Drop 25. Add 9 (230->320pax). TOW now 259.4. 20.6t remain needed to go 2337 additional nm to 8100 from 5763. No chance. 20.6t will get you perhaps 1800. Real world 280t range is 7500-7600nm
 
trijetsonly
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:40 pm

trav777 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
trav777 wrote:
PEK-DTW, TOW 275.4t. 5763nm still air GC distance. 25t cargo, 238pax = around 48t payload.


I guess you are referring to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396117&start=53? It seems that the payload is 51t to 52t (post #54).

trav777 wrote:
drop 10t or 11t for the extra fuel necessary to fly the additional distance (744nm) of SYD-LAX. 30 or 31t.


Also SYD-LAX (DL40) is about 1 hour 20 minutes longer than PEK-DTW (DL188). Assuming an a350 burns 6t/hr, dropping 10t or 11t seems to be a little bit too much?

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl40
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl188

trav777 wrote:
28t is not a full cabin. It is 2-3t shy of it. The 268t 359 DL has cannot do LAX-SYD as a city pair with a full cabin. Downwind probably...with a ton or two to spare. Upwind, no way. They have to block seats. In still air they probably couldn't do it maybe a ton short, only downwind can they carry 31t. Still wind they are below 30t, upwind significantly so.


So factoring in what I mentioned above, maybe 268t DL 359 can do LAX-SYD full cabin?


51t? no. The cargo was on the FC. 25t cargo. 23t pax. On the FC on the video. Please just go look at it.

DL could probably fly LAX-SYD at 300pax with 268t. Not 325. The additional distance to SYD is about 1.5 hours, 10t is about right for the fuel and extra fuel to carry fuel.

Anyway, to restate my post which was deleted, you can simply remove payload/swap for fuel against distance and see that the SQ31 flight and DL188's performance match up. There was no cargo on SQ31 by inference, but they carried 3t extra fuel reserves.

To reiterate- the 78X has 6400nm range with 330pax. If you drop 3t, you will get another 2-300nm range out of it. The 268t 359 has around 6500-6600nm range with 325pax. Neither will do LAX-SYD full cabin. But if you drop 30 pax, both will. The 78X will do it more efficiently.

Those who claim the 78X cannot do TPAC...those people must struggle with math. Again, Boeing's brochure ranges now DO reflect typical DOWs and can be treated as good if the pax #s are close to the mfr spec. The 78X is effectively a much more efficient version of the lighter 359s. This plane does not need to gain weight.

Not as cut-and-dry as your statement would have it, considering that SQ had no trouble doing SFO-SIN, a route of the same distance, with a 275T A359.

Granted, DL's birds are denser, but they could also up their extant aircraft to 277T with the stroke of a cheque, as well as uprate their TBD aircraft to 280T by the same means.

So no, use of their A350 isn't "absurd" by any means. Perhaps less likely, but quite feasible and therefore plausible.


Dude, SQ31 has 253 pax. Are you going to cite me a ferry flight next? Their 275t plane could probably not have done that route with full spec pax of 325, which is what the 359 was SUPPOSEDLY designed to do. Remember? Replace all the 777s? Kill that frame? it's not doing that with 253 pax. In fact, it's competing directly against UAL's 789 with 253 pax on the very same route! People here may have heard of these things called LCCs and they're killing the low density pipedream flights because they're economically noncompetitive. SQ is losing money seat for seat unless they have some mad customer loyalty going for them. The CASM for a 275t 359 with the same amount of seats as a 789 looks horrible...it's getting wrecked. And I'm not even factoring in acquisition costs. THIS right here is why I think 359 sales have slowed so dramatically since entry into commercial service. The frame's performance isn't delivering.

DL "could" uprate...cool! But you CANNOT impute the attributes of the 280t 359 to the NON-280t 359 until and unless they DO.

Everyone around here keeps doing that over and over again. Saying DL "can fly ATL-BOM on the 359." Maybe on A 359 but not any 359 DL actually owns. Only IB so far as I know even has 280t 359s.


The video shows a GW of 607.200 lbs, FOB 191.500 lbs.
That's a ZFW of 415.700 lbs. In real numbers that's 188.558 kg.
Assuming an DOW of 140.000 kg (which is the same for a 787-10 with the same seat count), we can assume a payload of 48.500 kg.

Comparing both ACAPS (A350 and 787-10) the maximum range with 48.500 kg payload is 6.500nm for the A350-900 and 4.500nm for the 787-10.
From LAX:
Image
Map

From MUC:
Image
Map

If you believe me with the same DOW of around 140.000 kg for both is up to you. Everything else is objective and unbiased.
The 787-10 is a good medium range aircraft from an operator view. I'd prefer the A350 as a passenger due to the 20cm wider cabin with the same amount of seats per row.
Happy Landings
 
moyangmm
Topic Author
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: a MTOW increase on 787-10 to compete with A359?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:55 pm

trijetsonly wrote:
Assuming an DOW of 140.000 kg (which is the same for a 787-10 with the same seat count), we can assume a payload of 48.500 kg.

If you believe me with the same DOW of around 140.000 kg for both is up to you. Everything else is objective and unbiased.


The assumption of DOW being the same seems to be very important; it would be nice if someone can provide more information on that.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13

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