Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Ruscoe
Topic Author
Posts: 1749
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:13 am

My apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page

Ruscoe
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:34 am

For the better or worse? Being unfamiliar with the page your link sends people to, it wasn't immediately obvious what data I was supposed to look for.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:08 am

This is the first publication of such a chart in the ACAP.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:24 am

Very interesting. Still no takeoff data for the 787-9 with high-thrust option. Looking forward to that one.

MZFW range a bit lower than I expected at 5250 nm, but pax+bags range appears to be right on Boeing's recent claims.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:31 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
Still no takeoff data for the 787-9 with high-thrust option.

And still no data on the OEW, I wonder why it takes so long.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:43 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
And still no data on the OEW, I wonder why it takes so long.

A source that has been reliable in the past is suggesting ~127t in 3-class standard configuration. On that basis The UA configuration is ~ 124.5t
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:45 pm

Where did the MZFW and OEM stand for again? I forgot.
 
sandyb123
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:29 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:51 pm

Quoting kl911 (Reply 6):
Where did the MZFW and OEM stand for again? I forgot.

MZFW: Maximim Zero Fuel Weight

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer

 

Sandyb123
Member of the mile high club
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 2:16 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 5):
A source that has been reliable in the past is suggesting ~127t in 3-class standard configuration. On that basis The UA configuration is ~ 124.5t

Making it ~ 10 tons heavier than the 787-8. Thank you.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 2:29 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 5):
On that basis The UA configuration is ~ 124.5t

to which must be added crew and pantry weights to bring it up to DOW. ~ 4t +- seems like an "in the ball park " value for this.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 2:47 pm

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7):
OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer

In this context it is rather
Operation Empty Mass, the mass of the aircraft without fuel and payload, but with all equipment necessary for operation (that includes the pilot). Some prefer OEW (W for weight). Although mass is the physically correct term, it doesn't lead to misunderstandings.

OEW of the B787-8 is given with 117.7t.
A document from September 2005 put the B787-8 OEW at 108.5t, and that of the B787-9 at 115.4t.
Hence, Boeing remains about 8-10t above its weight target, a pretty sobering value given that September 2005 reflected 2 years prior to first flight (and hence design freeze). B7Weight7.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:13 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
A document from September 2005 put the B787-8 OEW at 108.5t, and that of the B787-9 at 115.4t.

I don't think Boeing is chasing the old 787 iterations anymore. The latest design was the final one.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:21 pm

Quoting kl911 (Reply 6):
Where did the MZFW and OEM stand for again? I forgot.

you mean OEW?

Operating empty weight. Basically the weight of the aircraft without fuel or payload.

Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:52 pm

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7):
MZFW: Maximim Zero Fuel Weight

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer



Sandyb123

Thanks!
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:04 pm

The body side of join modifications and battery encasement added that much weight?

What else is responsible for the weight creep from 115.5 t to 127t?
learning never stops.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:11 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):

I don't think Boeing is chasing the old 787 iterations anymore. The latest design was the final one.

The OEW froze sometime in 2010, at least in officially accessible publications.
I just wanted to show to readers here that the B787 went through a very steep increase in OEW, which is quite uncommon for modern aircraft programs and reflects the very unrealistic planning of the B787 program.
Further, assuming that the "Terrible Teens" are above that value, we can understand why these aircraft are not accepted by the market.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:36 pm

All of the terrible teens are still parked? surely they've been reworked by now?
Nevermind... we are deviating from this thread which centers on the 787-9 weight/range.

Would some of that increase be a result of an assumption earlier that the planes would largely have 8-abreast seating.. but now we are seeing 9-abreast more often?
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:40 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 15):
I just wanted to show to readers here that the B787 went through a very steep increase in OEW, which is quite uncommon for modern aircraft programs and reflects the very unrealistic planning of the B787 program.

I see what you mean. I agree.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 16):
All of the terrible teens are still parked?

Some are still in storage, the last one should be delivered in 2017.


Boeing 787-8 L/N 12 by royalscottking, on Flickr
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:01 pm

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 16):
Would some of that increase be a result of an assumption earlier that the planes would largely have 8-abreast seating.. but now we are seeing 9-abreast more often?

Yes, When Boeing made 9Y "baseline", they strengthened the floor some. Then you also have a bunch more seats adding weight on their own.

Other posters seem to ignore both this and the MTOW growth the 787 saw. little bit of chicken and egg problem with MTOW growth. Increasing MTOW almost always costs weight, but they had to increase it to preserve payload on the early planes. So who knows how much was covering OEW miss, and how much was weight spent to get the MTOW.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26053
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:49 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 15):
I just wanted to show to readers here that the B787 went through a very steep increase in OEW, which is quite uncommon for modern aircraft programs and reflects the very unrealistic planning of the B787 program.

The best source for the details is: Airbus!

Airbus 787 Dreamliner Dossier Revealed (by IAD787 Dec 3 2008 in Civil Aviation)

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl.../12/exclusive_airbus_dreamliner_do has the key paragraphs about weight gain.

[Edited 2014-12-01 09:59:51]
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:09 pm

All of that 2008 info you guys are citing would speak to the 788...

My questions were regarding the 789.... How much weight changed after design freeze? Design freeze didn't occur on that plane in 2008 did it?
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:11 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
When Boeing made 9Y "baseline", they strengthened the floor some

Why would they have to strengthen the floor? Surely, the 9-abreast option was foreseen and offered from day 1.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:14 pm

To recap, the present 788 MEW with galley's and crew rest but not seats is ~107.5t and the 789 115.7t. An original calculation of the total mass of the various components put the 788 weight at ~107t. At least based on that parameter the weight is not too far off.
A word of retraction, I have been providing takeoff field data from Piano-X for various high altitude locations. This data is not correct. Apparently Piano-X is not able to accurately replicate the data generated by flight testing that provides these values. So use the manufacturers tables developed for this purpose as an indicator. Piano-X is accurate for other uses but not this one.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:29 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
Hence, Boeing remains about 8-10t above its weight target, a pretty sobering value given that September 2005 reflected 2 years prior to first flight (and hence design freeze).

And yet Boeing have stated the 787-9 is below it's target design weight. Considering that in 2010 Steven Udvar-Házy claimed the 787-9 design was over 6,000kg above target, that's some amazing weight reduction Boeing has been able to accomplish.



Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 15):
The OEW froze sometime in 2010, at least in officially accessible publications.
I just wanted to show to readers here that the B787 went through a very steep increase in OEW, which is quite uncommon for modern aircraft programs and reflects the very unrealistic planning of the B787 program.

We also need to remember that the 787-8 and 787-9 in service today are fairly more capable airframes than the original 7E7-8 and 7E7-9 launched in 2004. Airlines pushed for much higher operating weights - especially the maximum take-off weight - and I would expect that had an impact on the OEW. The 787-9's MTOW, for example, is 26,000kg higher than that of the 7E7-9 - an 11% increase.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:36 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 10):
Hence, Boeing remains about 8-10t above its weight target
Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
And yet Boeing have stated the 787-9 is below it's target design weight.

Boeing obviously means the design target as firmed in 2010 while SchorschNG refers to the earlier designs (which was indeed a different aircraft).
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:37 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 24):
Boeing obviously means the design target as firmed in 2010 while SchorschNG refers to the earlier designs (which was indeed a different aircraft).

I'm sure they do. But again, the 787-9 of 2010 is a more capable airframe with higher operating weights than the 7E7-9 of 2005 and therefore that likely accounts for a not-insignificant amount of that additional OEW growth.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:38 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
We also need to remember that the 787-8 and 787-9 in service today are fairly more capable airframes than the original 7E7-8 and 7E7-9 launched in 2004. Airlines pushed for much higher operating weights - especially the maximum take-off weight - and I would expect that had an impact on the OEW. The 787-9's MTOW, for example, is 26,000kg higher than that of the 7E7-9 - an 11% increase.

Also, the engine SFC EIS values have yet to be achieved as I understand it. Still some "fruit" to be gathered in on this one.
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:05 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 26):
Also, the engine SFC EIS values have yet to be achieved as I understand it. Still some "fruit" to be gathered in on this one.

Agreed. This is a new bird that will go though several years of optimization.
I suspect the same for every new bird especially ones with the composite frame. Its new technology.
From a sales perspective Boeing didn't take a huge risk with the B787, it filled a market hole.

I also expect the same type of updates and tweaking with the A350 before the final data is ready there as well.

I remember the MD-11 fiasco. I believe the B787 has been operating long enough that it is mostly through the woods. From another aspect it has no internal Boeing product to compete with.

I believe the real industry question remains whether the A350 is markedly superior to the A330NEO. If the A330NEO takes sales away from the A350 then a disaster exists. I find it highly interesting that none of the Airbus boys/bloggers will openly address this question. NOT A vs B, but A vs A?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:10 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 27):
I believe the real industry question remains whether the A350 is markedly superior to the A330NEO. If the A330NEO takes sales away from the A350 then a disaster exists. I find it highly interesting that none of the Airbus boys/bloggers will openly address this question. NOT A vs B, but A vs A?

It has been widely discussed. Especially on the DL order for the A330-neo and the A350-XWB. But also in other threads. Not sure where you are going with this. In DL's case the A330-neo won over the B787, not over the A350-XWB.

Quoting billreid (Reply 27):
I remember the MD-11 fiasco.

What fiasco do you mean?

[Edited 2014-12-01 11:11:15]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:11 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
I'm sure they do. But again, the 787-9 of 2010 is a more capable airframe with higher operating weights than the 7E7-9 of 2005 and therefore that likely accounts for a not-insignificant amount of that additional OEW growth.

Yep. I'm just pointing out people are using different weight target definitions, which can lead to confusion.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1181
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:12 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 28):
Quoting billreid (Reply 27):
I remember the MD-11 fiasco.

What fiasco do you mean?

The MD-11 fell short on performance, esp range. IIRC the engines didn't meet expectations and the airframe had issues too.

See The Range Challenged MD-11 (by LGB May 12 2001 in Civil Aviation) .
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:18 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 30):
It failed to meet specs.
Quoting ADent (Reply 31):
The MD-11 fell short on performance, esp range. IIRC the engines didn't meet expectations and the airframe had issues too.

Thanks for your replies. I knew that the MD-11 fell short on performance, but I did not connect "the desaster" with this short-fall in performance.  
 
Vladex
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:18 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 30):

It seems to me that there is a sizeable difference in space. Delta may be an exemption but I believe that since both have 2 models it would be logical to use 2 top models or 2 lower models together.

Cabin Floor m2
A330-200/800- 237.2
A330-300/900-265.8

A350-900 - 290.6
A350-1000- 329.8
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:29 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 30):
Airbus may have multiple products to offer its customers, but they will also have to spread the design costs over multiple frames. That is what i am referring to. The frames are just too close to each other. Tell me there is no overlap?

There is certainly overlap in size, but only marginally in performance. And the A350 is the newer top of the range product. But the A330-neo can fill the gaps in the portfolio bottom up. And I think it is doing so.

Overlap in size is not a bad thing imho with the qualities and capabilities of the airframe being quite different. The B777 also has some overlap with the B787-9/-10. And they are all doing very fine as far as I know.

The B787-9 will be hitting the sweet-spot imho of the program. So her numbers about payload range are most interesting to see. Of course they are initial numbers and over time they will most likely increase on the positive side. As they should.  .

Quoting billreid (Reply 30):
Perhaps the A350 sales were stagnating and AB needed the A330NEO to win more sales. But what does that say about the A350 program if AB moved forward for that reason.

Not much since they did not move forward with that program for that reason. The reasons to reengineer the A330, and further optimise the airframe even more (since that has been an on-going process since 1994), was to have a very cost-effective alternative for the B787-8/-9 which can virtually deliver an identical performance for lower costs. The A330 line has long been paid in full and every A330 produced is extra money which comes in relatively easy for Airbus.

Quoting billreid (Reply 30):
Perhaps you can tell me why there is no B767REO. What would be the reaction to that??

The B767 was replaced by the B787. An overall much better and so much newer aircraft. I think the most important reason why there is no B767-REO is the fact that it is too small. Look how much bigger (wider) the B787 is, and the B787-8 virtually stopped selling in favour of the B787-9 and -10. That potential was not on the table for the B767, and is on the table for the A330-neo.

[Edited 2014-12-01 12:30:34]
 
User avatar
Ab345
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:44 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:58 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 27):
I find it highly interesting that none of the Airbus boys/bloggers will openly address this question. NOT A vs B, but A vs A?

We tend to leave the "Airbus Doom/gloom scenario of the day" to you Boeing boys since you do it so well 

Per the topic discussed , does the payload range released change the dynamics of the frame Vs the A359. Not asking if it's better or worse, just if it has changed.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Tue Dec 02, 2014 12:22 am

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 35):
Per the topic discussed , does the payload range released change the dynamics of the frame Vs the A359. Not asking if it's better or worse, just if it has changed.

It does not appear that Airbus has yet published a Payload-Range chart in their ACAP (the September 2014 release does not have it).

Per the A350-900 vs. 787-10 Payload-Range Chart Airbus posted at their 2012 Global Investor Forum, the A350-900 will haul ~53,000kg out to ~5500nm.

Per the ACAP chart, the 787-9 at MZFW will fly the same distance, but we don't know what the Maximum Structural Payload is. I can say that the preliminary payload figure in 2005 was 58,000kg.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:41 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 36):
Per the A350-900 vs. 787-10 Payload-Range Chart Airbus posted at their 2012 Global Investor Forum, the A350-900 will haul ~53,000kg out to ~5500nm.

Unless the cargo density is considerably higher than the average belly cargo density hauled in passenger aircraft, maximum volume limited weight is likely to apply. For the A350-900 this is likely to be ~ 48t. For the 789 it is about 42t.
 
Ruscoe
Topic Author
Posts: 1749
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:31 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 36):
Per the ACAP chart, the 787-9 at MZFW will fly the same distance, but we don't know what the Maximum Structural Payload is. I can say that the preliminary payload figure in 2005 was 58,000kg.

A look at the latest 789 ACAP shows a payload of at least 58T out to 5,400nm, and that's assuming the OEW + Payload at 125T includes no payload, but as you say we don't know what the Max Structural Payload is.
In the past Airbus have claimed 6745nm for a payload of 55T for the 268T 359. That is for an aircraft with 15T more MTOW and 16,000lbs more installed thrust than the 789. I don't know the figures for the 272T version of the 359 but it is supposed to have a MEW of 119T, MZFW of 192T and OEW of 142T, which would only give 50T of payload, so I doubt these figures. I hope one of the people closer to Airbus can provide some more reliable figures for the forum for the 359.

Ruscoe
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:49 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
Other posters seem to ignore both this and the MTOW growth the 787 saw. little bit of chicken and egg problem with MTOW growth. Increasing MTOW almost always costs weight, but they had to increase it to preserve payload on the early planes. So who knows how much was covering OEW miss, and how much was weight spent to get the MTOW.

The wing was supposedly always designed for the -9.
The original (September 2005, published) MTOW of the -9 was 230.7t, of the -8 215.9t.
The current (November 2014, published) MTOW of the -9 is 252.6t, of the -8 227.9t.
At least the -8 shouldn't have suffered much from that increase, the accepted formula for OEW due to MTOw is in the order of 1 to 10 (you add 1t OEW to allow 10t additional MTOW).

In fact, Boeing more or less redesigned the entire -9's structure to cope with the higher weights, making the -9 less a derivative than rather a second version of the -8. It appears that the majority of the weight increase came from detailed design in the fuselage, and so finally by inexperience with the new material. The original estimates of the weight saving through CFRP in primary structure were not met (the Airbus presentation cites 3.3t additional weight due to "Fuselage & Wing Detail Sizing and Design). Or to put the the other way round: Boeing went to market with specs that it dreamed about in board meetings but that had no backing from the design office.

As Stitch said:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
And yet Boeing have stated the 787-9 is below it's target design weight. Considering that in 2010 Steven Udvar-Házy claimed the 787-9 design was over 6,000kg above target, that's some amazing weight reduction Boeing has been able to accomplish.

And probably a quite costly undertaking. The -8 will remain a curiosity, like the B737-100 and the B747-100 (at least the very early -100 with JT9D-3A engines) versions. Given the fact, that a -9 can fly the same payload of the -8 nearly 1000nm further (usually, you would expect differently from a stretch).
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:52 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 39):
The -8 will remain a curiosity, like the B737-100 and the B747-100 (at least the very early -100 with JT9D-3A engines) versions. Given the fact, that a -9 can fly the same payload of the -8 nearly 1000nm further (usually, you would expect differently from a stretch).

Given that over 200 frames have already been delivered with more than 250 more on order, that's a very nice-selling "curiosity." I agree that most sales going forward will be of the -9 and (especially) the -10 but it appears the earlier availability, lower purchase price, and lower trip cost of the -8 (which is partly related to smaller landing gear and lighter structure it can use as a result of its lower MTOW) are appealing to a lot of customers.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:36 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 42):
The A330-800 is virtually identical in size to the 787-8The A330-900 is virtually identical in size to the 787-9The A350-900 is virtually identical in size to the 787-10 and 777-200The A350-1000 is virtually identical in size to the 777-300

Thanks for including that... it's a sobering size check. Allot of discussion about overlap centered on 330NEO's relationship with A358.
But with A358 all but off the table... the Airbus product families/models compliment each other nicely.
learning never stops.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:39 am

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 43):
Again, I don't understand this.

The A330-800 is virtually identical in size to the 787-8
The A330-900 is virtually identical in size to the 787-9
The A350-900 is virtually identical in size to the 787-10 and 777-200
The A350-1000 is virtually identical in size to the 777-300

So what overlap is there in the Airbus line-up that isn't replicated in the Boeing line-up?

If equipped with 8-abreast cabin the B787 gets into real trouble against the A330, if equipped with 9-abreast it leads in performance but suffers on comfort. Same applies for the B777 versus the A350.
So, both are similar in size and payload-range, but the few inch difference in available cabin width can make a lot of difference.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14509
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:36 am

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 45):
If equipped with 8-abreast cabin the B787 gets into real trouble against the A330, if equipped with 9-abreast it leads in performance but suffers on comfort.

You can also go 9-abreast on the A330 if you want to make it cheaper to haul passengers, and if you disregard your customers enough. But of course by long standing A.net wisdom going from 18.5" to 17.3" seats is hardly noticable, but going from there to 16.7" creates a cramped nightmare....  

best reagards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:07 am

Quoting billreid (Reply 41):
As so many think I am a Boeing supporter I need to state I only have a true issue with one aspect about AB.
It hired an American to run sales. Let me see, 700 Million people live in Europe and the best you can do is hire an American?

Well he has been and amazing salesman   
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:45 pm

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 45):
If equipped with 8-abreast cabin the B787 gets into real trouble against the A330, if equipped with 9-abreast it leads in performance but suffers on comfort.

The 787-8 at 8-abreast should be very competitive with the A330-800. They're similar in size, similar in empty weight and the 787 has slightly better engines and much better aerodynamics.

The A330-900 has the advantage of an airframe optimized for missions below 10 hours whereas the 787-9 is optimized for missions of up to 15 hours. So on shorter missions, the A330-900 will have the advantage, but as stage length increases, so does the 787-9's performance advantage, be it 8-abreast or 9-abreast.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:38 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
slightly better engines and much better aerodynamics.

Aero I get, engines I don't.... Aren't the A330 Neo's engines from the A350? Those are newer than the 787 engines.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27542
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:52 pm

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 51):
Aero I get, engines I don't.... Aren't the A330 Neo's engines from the A350?

No, they are based on the Trent 1000 from the 787.
 
klkla
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:08 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 50):
Delta had already cancelled the NW B787 order and replaced it with T7's. It didn't seam likely that Anderson would admit making a mistake with the B787 cancellation and then order the B787 again.

Delta has not canceled the 787 order. Deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2020 IIRC. They still might cancel or delay delivery but at this point and time they are still on the order books.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22180
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: B787-9 Payload Range Updated

Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:27 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 34):
Overlap in size is not a bad thing imho with the qualities and capabilities of the airframe being quite different. The B777 also has some overlap with the B787-9/-10. And they are all doing very fine as far as I know.

The 772 hasn't sold any frames for a while. 77L sales are slow at best. The 77L is too much airplane for its size and nobody needs to operate routes that long. So between the A333 and the 789, the 772/L can't compete. The 77W is still selling. Mind you, Boeing offered the 77L because they had nothing to lose. Between the 77F and the 77W, the 77L has a completely compatible parts list except maybe a few esoteric cabin fittings. It has the same systems, interior fittings, and wing/engine as the 77W (the -110B is physically identical to the -115B other than a software plug) and the same fuselage as the 772 and 77F. The additional development costs must have been so low that they would have been silly not to have offered it. But the A333 and 789 are better choices for most airlines.

The 778 will be slightly larger in passenger capacity than the 78J but it will have greater range and payload. The 779 will be the biggest aircraft offered by Boeing after they stop making the 748i. It pains me to say it, but I doubt that there will be any more airline orders for the 748i.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 40):
I agree that most sales going forward will be of the -9 and (especially) the -10 but it appears the earlier availability, lower purchase price, and lower trip cost of the -8 (which is partly related to smaller landing gear and lighter structure it can use as a result of its lower MTOW) are appealing to a lot of customers.

And if need be, Boeing could always offer a 788-ER that is basically a 789 wing/box/gear with a 788 fuselage bolted on. But I think it would wind up being an A345 or 77L. This derivative might make a good 787-F and, in that case, they might just decide to offer the 788-ER, since the additional development costs for the passenger version would be minimal.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

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