Checklist787 wrote:Polot wrote:zeke wrote:
It is about double the difference between the A350-900 (1670 nm) vs the 787-10 and the A350-1000 vs the 777-9 (873).
Airbus list the A350-1000 with a range of 8400 nm, and Boeing has a range on the 777-9 of 7527 nm, a differance of 873 nm.
Airbus list the A350-900 with a range of 8100 nm and Boeing with a range on the 787-10 of 6430 nm., a difference of 1670 nm.
A 6 tonne increase in MTOW only puts a small dint in the 1670 nm difference (best part of 4 hrs flight time), they need to find more like 20-25 tonnes more TOW to reach that, good luck doing that on the current engines.
It’s a question of how many operators need that 1100 or whatever nm (after a 6 tone increase). Boeing doesn’t actually have to match A359 range to put a dent in A359 sales, just like Airbus didn’t have to match 77E range to beat it with later A333s (although I’m aware differences between A330 and 77E are more dramatic than what we are discussing).
Note I’m just talking general and not suggesting the 787-10ER or whatever will or will not have major effects on the A359.
A359/ 78X vs A35K/779 isn’t the best comparison though.
The 78X has less range than the A359, but is slightly larger to similar size and lighter or similar weight. The 779 may have less still air range than the A359 but it is clearly larger and heavier. Idk how quickly payload will fall off with the 779 va the A35K.
Strangely he does not mention 8700Nm design range of the 777-8X
Because it’s not relevant to the discussion...