Kikko19 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:RJMAZ wrote:It is the same.
The A350-900 MTOW is 10% heavier than the 787-9 (280T vs 254T). The A350-900 has 7.5% more span (64.75m 60.12m)
The 777-8 MTOW is 11% heavier than the A358-1000 (351T vs 316T). The 777-8 has 9.5% more span (71.8m vs 64.75m)
Now this clearly shows you are wrong. The 777-8 wing is clearly big enough to carry the extra mass.
Any argument saying the A350-900 is better than the 787-9 can be also used to explain why the 777-8 is better than the A350-1000.
Any argument saying the 787-9 is better than the A350-900 can be used to explain why the A350-1000 is better than the 777-8.
Yet the Airbus guys will say the A350 is better in all situations. They will say the A350-900 lifts more payload further than the 787 and that trip fuel burn is not important. Yet when they compare the A350 to the 777X they suddenly say trip burn is the most important and that lifting more payload is not important.
The A350-900 and 787-9 both sell well and they both have pros and cons. Likewise the 777-8 and the A350-1000 they both have pros and cons. People are making it out like the 777-8 has no advantages at all over the A350-1000.
I think you nailed it. A great summary of those that employ constantly shifting arguments that always, always end up favoring only one side.
Both the 778 and A 351 are very close in terms of fuel burn and payload. It will be interesting to see which plane Qantas picks. I see this as almost identical to the A359 and 789 competition. One frame is lighter, has better fuel burn, and is less costly ( 789). One is heavier, burns more fuel, but can carry more payload and is optimized better for ULH missions (A 359).
Hello 778 vs A 351. The exact same dynamic. May the best plane win.
doesn't the fact that the 77x is an old frame with new engine instead make it like the a339 vs the 789?
I don’t think it’s comparable. The 779 does sell and has no direct competition being slightly larger than the A35K. The 778 is an ULH “beast” and designed for that purpose.