I have been wondering about the fuel capacity of the 787. Boeing said it would use 20% less than planes of its size.
If it is 20% less than the 23,980-gallon capacity of the 767, then it would be 19,184 gallons. Is this how it will be, or will it have more fuel?
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: B787 Fuel Capacity
Didn't they say it would burn less fuel, maybe meaning if could fly 20 percent further on the same capacity???
Cheers
Cheers
RE: B787 Fuel Capacity
i think they said it can fly 20% further on the same amount of fuel as this would make sense as it would then be mega efficient
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
RE: B787 Fuel Capacity
I believe that all three models will have tankage for around 33,000 US gallons. That includes the 8,500nm. range version.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
-
- widebodyphotog
- Posts: 885
- Joined:
RE: B787 Fuel Capacity
| Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter): If it is 20% less than the 23,980-gallon capacity of the 767, then it would be 19,184 gallons. Is this how it will be, or will it have more fuel? |
Fuel tankage is not necessarily an indicator of the actual amount of fuel an aircraft needs to burn for a given mission. It just so happens that the aircraft you named in comparison are fuel limited aircraft, meaning their range with design payload is limited by the maximum fuel tankage of the aircraft. However the 787's are weight limited aircraft meaning that their range and fuel load with design payload is limited by structural MTOW so maximum fuel can not be loaded at design passenger payload...
Compared to a 767-300ER a 787-8 with a 224 passenger payload would need to load 127,400lbs of fuel for a 6,100nm mission while the 767-300ER would need to load 161,700lbs (max fuel) to travel the same distance with 218 passengers.
Compared with an A330-200 (a weight limited aircraft) a 787-9 with 259 passengers would need to load only 151,300 lbs of fuel for a 6,750nm mission vs 190,300lbs and 253 passengers for the Airbus.
-widebodyphotog
[Edited 2005-10-31 12:44:17]
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 2175301, 77H, a2b7, aaawxt, Absimilliard, AECM, An767, Anthstr, Austin787, B737MAX, Baidu [Spider], bigb, Bing [Bot], BoeingGuy, btfarrwm, Cboyle, Coexstud, CRJ900, dakota558, dbo861, Deltran757, departedflights, dr1980, Eagleboy, evanbu, flight152, gloom, Google Adsense [Bot], haveric, hOMSaR, InnsbruckFlyer, Ishrion, JayinKitsap, Jetport, jfk777, jhdk, jmaner89, jumbojettony, kamloops, LAX772LR, LCDFlight, LY777, MetalNeutral, mhae, miaintl, MohawkWeekend, msycajun, mysterzip, N62NA, Noshow, Opus99, PDXpat, PZ707, redzeppelin, rida79, rjbesikof, RL757PVD, robsaw, rph99, ryanrap1, SESGDL, sevenheavy, skipness1E, Snowman14, Sooner787, swacle, tofen, Tsull340, UALFAson, United857, Whompiez and 328 guests