Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Topic Author
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Thu May 24, 2018 4:50 pm

First question, does the 787-9 really have more range than a 777-200LR? I keep seeing different values just about anywhere, but I've seen ranges of 8000 nautical miles and 9000 nautical miles, respectively. Here's what Boeing's website says.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/

Second (if the 77L is indeed the winner in terms of range), I've always been a bit baffled in recent times about airlines announcing nonstop routes "not once possible" because of lack of aircraft range, such as the LHR-PER Qantas flight which recently started (relatively speaking) on the 787-9, but wasn't there an aircraft already capable of such a route with even longer legs, the 777-200LR? Why no SIN-EWR on the 77L? I presume ETOPS has something to do with it, but then why would it be restarted on another twin?
 
Elementalism
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Thu May 24, 2018 5:05 pm

Maybe the 777-200ER isnt efficient enough at its full range to make it economically viable? Where the 787-9 can now make it profitable?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Thu May 24, 2018 5:29 pm

A look at the payload range charts says a lot
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 87sec3.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf

The 772LR can carry fuel/payload of 450K lb at 8,000 mile range. but only 380K lb at 9,000 miles.
The 789 can carry fuel/payload of 305K lb at 8,000 mile range, 280K lb at 9,500 mile range.

The 772LR is an expensive plane to operate, it can be purchased with up to 3 aux tanks, but is best on routes less than 8,000 miles before its performance drops off. The 789 can carry only about 2/3 the 772LR at 8,000 miles, but its curve is flatter so has better economics compared to the 772LR at the 9,000 mile point.

The 789 has a max fuel capacity of 223K so at the 9,500 mile point it can only carry 55K of payload, about 220 pax.

777-8 will be quite better than the 772LR.
 
User avatar
Irehdna
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Thu May 24, 2018 6:16 pm

The 77L hasn't been very successful because its economics drop off around the range of 77E/77W (8000 mi/13000 km). Also, the 77E/W are still relatively economical at their extreme ranges. Routes like HKG-JFK are nowadays comfortably flown by the 77W, and HKG-JFK has for a while been one of the longest flights with more than 1 daily frequency.

Additionally, there was a time (2008-2015) where fuel prices further diminished the economic value of the 77L operating ULH. Those times are gone, and we are finally seeing successful ULR flights on 77L like AI's DEL-SFO. However, it seems that only the airlines who already have 77Ls are using them in such a way. Most airlines will have obviously preferred the A359 or B789 v. the 77L if seeking new aircraft.

I am interested to see whether a passenger 778 becomes a reality. The A358 and A338 had quite a few orders early on, but they went away in favour of larger jets.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Thu May 24, 2018 6:20 pm

Irehdna wrote:
The 77L hasn't been very successful because its economics drop off around the range of 77E/77W (8000 mi/13000 km). Also, the 77E/W are still relatively economical at their extreme ranges. Routes like HKG-JFK are nowadays comfortably flown by the 77W, and HKG-JFK has for a while been one of the longest flights with more than 1 daily frequency.

Additionally, there was a time (2008-2015) where fuel prices further diminished the economic value of the 77L operating ULH. Those times are gone, and we are finally seeing successful ULR flights on 77L like AI's DEL-SFO. However, it seems that only the airlines who already have 77Ls are using them in such a way. Most airlines will have obviously preferred the A359 or B789 v. the 77L if seeking new aircraft.

I am interested to see whether a passenger 778 becomes a reality. The A358 and A338 had quite a few orders early on, but they went away in favour of larger jets.



You have a lot of this backwards. The 77L becomes more economical than the shorter ranged 77E at somewhere around 4,000 miles (I can't remember the exact number). The 77E has worse economics the further out it goes and performs worse than the 77L. The 77E doesn't hold a candle to the 77L except only the shortest ranges as noted above.

The 77W is a very efficient plane, but it cannot haul the same payload over a given distance. In that 8,000 range or so, nothing out there can outhaul a 77L. However, just because it can haul the most, doesn't necessarily make it the most efficient, which is where the 77W comes into play. Both planes do have amazing capability though.
Whatever
 
Caryjack
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

Re: Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Thu May 24, 2018 7:47 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
A look at the payload range charts says a lot
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 87sec3.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf

The 772LR can carry fuel/payload of 450K lb at 8,000 mile range. but only 380K lb at 9,000 miles.
The 789 can carry fuel/payload of 305K lb at 8,000 mile range, 280K lb at 9,500 mile range.

The 772LR is an expensive plane to operate, it can be purchased with up to 3 aux tanks, but is best on routes less than 8,000 miles before its performance drops off. The 789 can carry only about 2/3 the 772LR at 8,000 miles, but its curve is flatter so has better economics compared to the 772LR at the 9,000 mile point.

The 789 has a max fuel capacity of 223K so at the 9,500 mile point it can only carry 55K of payload, about 220 pax.

777-8 will be quite better than the 772LR.


It looks like you posted an earlier 788 load range chart, not that of a 789. The following link should show newer load /range charts for all 3 B-787 variants (pgs. 3-2, 3-3 & 3-4).
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... ps/787.pdf

The chart for a B-77LR indicates an OEW of 350 K lbs, a MZFW (payload w/out fuel) of 461 K lbs and a MTOW (OEW + MZFW + Max fuel) of 766 K lbs. So 111 K lbs of payload and 305 K lbs of fuel gives the 77LR a range of about 7200 nmi. If more range is required simply remove payload and add fuel.

These are simple approximations and, according to the charts themselves, should not be used for dispatch.
Thanks,
Cary
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26926
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Thu May 24, 2018 9:55 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
The 77L becomes more economical than the shorter ranged 77E at somewhere around 4,000 miles (I can't remember the exact number).


At EIS, the 777-200LR offered about a 3% fuel burn reduction per unit of payload to the 777-200ER beyond 2000nm. Boeing offered an aerodynamic PiP for the 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 in 2011 that brought some of the better aero (and a 1% fuel burn reduction) of the 777-200LR and 777-300ER in 2011, but Boeing and GE also PiP'd the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter in 2016 for a 2% fuel burn reduction.

Normalizing to the Boeing ACAPs, the 777-200LR will 8250nm with a 55,000kg payload and baseline fuel (so no auxiliary fuel tanks) whereas a 787-9 will fly 5250nm with a 53,000kg payload.
 
bzcat
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: Boeing 77L versus 789 on range

Fri May 25, 2018 12:30 am

Stitch wrote:
Normalizing to the Boeing ACAPs, the 777-200LR will 8250nm with a 55,000kg payload and baseline fuel (so no auxiliary fuel tanks) whereas a 787-9 will fly 5250nm with a 53,000kg payload.


So getting back to the OP's questions... ULH routes like PER-LHR were feasible with 77L if they can be done with 789 based on the payload charts. So the marketing claims that nonstop routes "not once possible" because of lack of aircraft range is not technically accurate. It was the fuel burn/economic that didn't pencil out, not the range capability per se.

If airlines wanted to operate those ULH flights, 77L was always a options, as was A345 which SQ did operate, although probably with even worst economics than 77L. More to the point, I think SQ could have operated LAX-SIN with a 70 seat 77W if it wanted... but that flight would have bleed red ink more so than the 100 seat A345.

Now A359 and 789 have moved the breakeven point further up the range so these ULH flights are economical to operate.

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