there were multiple operators for whom fuel burn data was disclosed on ULH segments. The 789 returns 5.4t/hr. The ULR 5.85t/hr. UA, QF, and one other airline. SQ (obv) for the ULR.
Yes however the data points are useless without knowing the payload being carried, this has been covered in detail in that other thread.The point of that other thread to to finally put to bed the silly squabbling on a.net and these claims of unrealistic fuel burns.
For example "Whatsaptudo" posted " Tonight’s QF9 has a flight time of 16:54 with a flight fuel burn of exactly 91.0. Take off weight is 249.3/ 254.0, and it arrives with 4.5T of fuel. Carrying 210 POB so 26 empty seats all of which are in economy.". That is a very light payload of under 20 tonnes, no alternate fuel on arrival, to achieve a fuel burn of 5.38 tonnes per hour. You cannot then compare that to an A350 carying 10-15 tonnes more payload and alternate fuel, it simply is not an apples to apples comparison.
despite your claims, zeke, nor whatever was hashed about in Techops, the 359's base weight incurs a fuel burn penalty.
The techops thread shows that, it shows the 789 has an advantage (very slight) at shorter ranges. The 787-8 empty weight is 30 tonnes heavier than the 763 with winglets, the 767 has a slight advantage at shorter ranges (>200 nm), however the 788 clearly has the advantage over long haul, this is a dramatic example how a large difference in empty weight does not alone impact long haul performance significantly. The weight difference between the 789 and A359 are not that significant, the A359 is heavier, however it is more capable being able to fly further and carry more payload, to put it another way it offers airlines more flexibility for very little penalty. Fuel burn has 3 components, the :L/D, the engine, and the natural log of the initial weight over the final weight.. It is not just a function of final weight (which includes the empty weight and payload). The aerodynamics which the A350 was designed primarily for long haul with its wing where the 787 was not with its smaller wing. That large wing killed the 358.
Goalseeking a 40t payload to make a claim about equivalent fuel burn simply does *not* comport with what has been disclosed right here on anet as far as real burn rates on real flights. Your assertions expect that the many ton heavier 359 simply magically burns the same fuel as a much lighter aircraft. There is simply no precedent for this in the real world.
The 40t payload was not selected by me, it was selected by "thepinkmachine" as that is the sort of payload he normally flies on the 789. He has checked my numbers, so has oldaeroguy.
The data we had in tech ops also compares well with independent published research, "Baxter, Glenn & Srisaeng, Panarat & Wild, Graham. (2018). The Air Cargo Carrying Potential of The Airbus A350-900XWB and Boeing 787-9 Aircraft on Their Ultra-Long-Haul Flights: A Case Study for Flights from San Francisco to Singapore. Transport and Telecommunication Journal. 19. 301-314. 10.2478/ttj-2018-0025. "
In that paper they said
"As can be seen, the payload potential of the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB aircraft is always slightly greater than the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 aircraft, particularly when there are no prevailing wind penalties.Specifically, the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB on average offers 5.5 tonnes more than United Airlines Boeing 787-9. Based on the current air cargo proxy yield ($0.375/tonne/km)(Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2016), and the distance (13,596.09 km) then there could be an additional $27,900 in revenue potential when the aircraft operates daily services. This equates to an annual revenue potential of $USD 20.3 million."
furthermore they say
The introduction of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft have enabled airlines to operate ultra-long-haul (ULR) services. This study has examined the air cargo carrying potential of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft deployed by Singapore Airlines and United Airlines, respectively. The study focused on the San Francisco (SFO) to Singapore (SIN) and Singapore (SIN) to San Francisco (SFO) air routes. Despite the very long flight stage length of 13,596.09 kilometres both aircraft types offer a meaningful air cargo payload. If the flights are not impacted by any prevailing winds, then Singapore Airlines Airbus A350-900XWB potentially offers an air cargo payload of 14.7 tonnes and United Airlines Boeing 787-9 a payload of 12.8 tonnes.
If we consider the available air cargo capacity when there is the maximum passenger compliment on board, the difference between the A350-900XWB in Singapore Airlines cabin configuration and the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 is 5.3 tonnes (in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB), which increases slightly to 5.4 tonnes in the east bound direction and reduced slightly to 5.2 tonnes in the west bound direct.However, if we utilise the typical load factors of each airline, the difference becomes 5.6 tonnes in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB aircraft, which increases to 5.7 tonnes in the east bound direction (and remains at 5.6 tonnes in the west bound direction)."
IAD-SYD is 8466nm- once again you are straining the bounds of credulity with your claims by asserting a base 359 could do this route. It's 366nm even above Airbus' range claims.
From the A350 ACAPS https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf
Their published data says it can do a payload of 284 passengers and baggage (calculated it to be 26,997 kg by the Breguet range equation) over 8466 nm.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News