Boeing has updated their performance assumptions for all aircraft families.

Please check out the linked article.  



http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ot-performance-assumptions-415293/

[Edited 2015-08-02 22:13:46]

Wow, those are some pretty massive reductions to see on paper.... but it's been a long time coming.

Quote: 777-8X ..... 8,700nm ..... 9,390nm

Essentially puts it back to the range which the original A345 was marketed as having. Interesting.

Quote: 777-300ER ..... 7,370nm ..... 7,850nm

  

Quote: 777-9X ..... 7,600nm ..... 8,200nm 747-8 ..... 7,730nm ..... 7,790nm

Interesting though that the models flipflopped in max range, when the adjustment is made.

So are These numbers more closely aligned with methodology that Airbus uses?

The 747-8I took a large hit in the passenger numbers from reading the article - which maybe explains why the range impact isn't as large.

Quoting Prost (Reply 2):

Hello,

It's very close to real airline operating ranges. It's often underestimated just how much the real airline dow has on the max range of aircraft, especially the newer gen aircraft where each additional 1ton reduces range farther than previous generations.

Airbus using a similar methodology would see a similar drop in max ranges. We certainly know this from presentations using our configs for our network.

I believe the difference for LH 747-8 range would be the heavier than planned weight of the first few frames.

[Edited 2015-08-03 00:20:09]

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 4): Airbus using a similar methodology would see a similar drop in max ranges

What do you mean with "would"? Airbus is using realistic assumptions for a long time, otherwise they would state the A338neo range with 8200m, and the A339neo with 7000nm instead of the numbers they use. Since that 750-800nm difference is bigger than what Boeing now shows, Airbus might use even more realistic assumptions.

best regards
Thomas

For the long-haul jets, Boeing now uses more realistic (and heavier) cabin configurations for its product range. So no ancient 39 inch pitch in Business Class anymore, etc.

Quoting Prost (Reply 2): So are These numbers more closely aligned with methodology that Airbus uses?

Yes.

[Edited 2015-08-03 01:38:28]

MAX 7 now has less range than a MAX 8 ??? And the 8 and 9 now have the same range ??

NEW OLD

737 Max 7 126 126 3,350nm 3,850nm
737 Max 8 162 162 3,515nm 3,660nm
737 Max 9 178 180 3,515nm 3,630nm

What a shocking turn of events! I for one am surprised that no one is actually going to put anywhere near 467 seats in a 747-8i! Who knew.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 5): What do you mean with "would"? Airbus is using realistic assumptions for a long time, otherwise they would state the A338neo range with 8200m, and the A339neo with 7000nm instead of the numbers they use. Since that 750-800nm difference is bigger than what Boeing now shows, Airbus might use even more realistic assumptions.

Many a Boeing devotee on this forum who were using the realistic Airbus figures as a stick will now no doubt be very pleased...   

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 5): What do you mean with "would"? Airbus is using realistic assumptions for a long time, otherwise they would state the A338neo range with 8200m, and the A339neo with 7000nm instead of the numbers they use. Since that 750-800nm difference is bigger than what Boeing now shows, Airbus might use even more realistic assumptions.

Airbus adjusted its performance numbers years ago as it introduced more realistic cabin configurations. However, these new range numbers are still not the same as airline configurations. For example, they don't take revenue cargo into account.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10): However, these new range numbers are still not the same as airline configurations. For example, they don't take revenue cargo into account.

Of course, but it is not without sense to give ranges for a passenger jet with "just" passengers. Range at MZFW would also be nice, but only comparable if the have the same payload.
On the other hand, brochure range is pretty irrelevant once the payload/range charts are public, and in that regard Boeing always was a model citizen in giving ranges for OEW+Payload and not just for payload with an overly optimistic DOW.

best regards
Thomas

Every airline has different configurations and often several different configs on the same basic frame. Then early frames will by their nature be heavier than later frames meaning that airlines will have many subtle range/payload differences even for the same aircraft type.

The airlines know all this but what has happened is that Boeing are being more realistic. Makes no difference to the airlines - they have the details.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 11): On the other hand, brochure range is pretty irrelevant once the payload/range charts are public, and in that regard Boeing always was a model citizen in giving ranges for OEW+Payload and not just for payload with an overly optimistic DOW.

A bit unrelated but for some reason Airbus is not publishing the payload range chart for the a350...

Quoting ap305 (Reply 13): A bit unrelated but for some reason Airbus is not publishing the payload range chart for the a350...

I guess they will once production gets to the one spec or better batch 3 aircraft. Iirc Boeing did the same with the 787, and maybe both did before, but I never noticed.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 5):

The methodology doesn't include just seat config.

I believe karelxwb once put up a an airbus presentation to an eu airline for the 339 and 359 showing expected max range for that airline.

Are contingency and/or divert fuel included in these new range figures ?

The 789 has killer range. Still more than 77W and 779!

Quoting barney captain (Reply 7): MAX 7 now has less range than a MAX 8 ??? And the 8 and 9 now have the same range ?? NEW OLD 737 Max 7 126 126 3,350nm 3,850nm 737 Max 8 162 162 3,515nm 3,660nm 737 Max 9 178 180 3,515nm 3,630nm

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 15): The methodology doesn't include just seat config.

The methodology is still crap if the Max 8 and Max 9 have duplicate ranges.

The additional passengers have a weight and so do their bags which should constrain range unless the MTOW increase between types is identical to that weight difference plus there is an increased fuel capacity somewhere to allow for the additional fuel burn of that weight. The odds that would all come out to an identical amount is ZERO. So, there is still a methodology problem.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 9): Many a Boeing devotee on this forum who were using the realistic Airbus figures as a stick will now no doubt be very pleased...

It was the Airbus Aficionados who (with just cause) were consistently criticizing Boeing using 1990's methodologies for their brochure figures. So it is they who should now be pleased Boeing has updated them to more accurately reflect current seating configurations.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): It was the Airbus Aficionados who (with just cause) were consistently criticizing Boeing using 1990's methodologies for their brochure figures. So it is they who should now be pleased Boeing has updated them to more accurately reflect current seating configurations.

The supposedly lacking range on the a350 as compared to the 787 was used many a time by the Boeing lot which in turn prompted the Airbus gang to point out the antiquated assumption that Boeing's range estimates were based on. The ultimate reality is of course that even these new figures are nothing more than brochure data. It is the guarantees,nominals and the space between these figures which count for an airline... and this is something which 99.9% of us have no access to.

"Although the numbers may have been similar, the weight of the passengers, their bags and the seats themselves have been growing substantially."

Has the Boeing guy just said that his customers got fattened.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 19): The supposedly lacking range on the a350 as compared to the 787 was used many a time by the Boeing lot

No the payload range graphs from which those numbers came have not changed.

Also it is Boeing not Airbus who have changed the typical range numbers, so Airbus numbers have not changed., and yes, the lack of superiority of the 359 between 20T and 50T payload is still a surprise considering its extra MTOW and higher thrust engines.

Ruscoe

We need to see updated ACAP sheets to see exactly what is going on. The seat mix makes a difference. Weight wise you can replace one F seat with 2-J or ~ 8-Y seats. My take is that they have increased the passenger + baggage value from the min. ICAO value of ~95kg to where most air lines are at in the 110 to 115kg range.
I ran my 789 base aircraft with OEW adjusted for seat weights ; at 112kg per passenger and baggage through Piano-X and got 7648nm of range. Pretty close to the 7635nm that Boeing is now quoting. Typical DOW add on is about 3900kg which brings the range down to ~ 7200nm or 15.5hrs endurance.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 19): It is the guarantees,nominals and the space between these figures which count for an airline... and this is something which 99.9% of us have no access to.

Finally saw something which went along with my first thoughts.
How does this affect the contractual terms Boeing used when selling their a/c, do carriers now have a claim for a/c not meeting specs?
If not, this whole thing is...........????

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10): Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 5): What do you mean with "would"? Airbus is using realistic assumptions for a long time, otherwise they would state the A338neo range with 8200m, and the A339neo with 7000nm instead of the numbers they use. Since that 750-800nm difference is bigger than what Boeing now shows, Airbus might use even more realistic assumptions. Airbus adjusted its performance numbers years ago as it introduced more realistic cabin configurations. However, these new range numbers are still not the same as airline configurations. For example, they don't take revenue cargo into account.

They also don't consider winds, elevation, and high temperatures so you still to reduce the quoted ranges by roughly 10% to get realistic numbers.

What is a "737 Max 200200" ????

Quoting par13del (Reply 23): How does this affect the contractual terms Boeing used when selling their a/c, do carriers now have a claim for a/c not meeting specs?

No, because the sales contracts would not be using brochure or OEM figures for operating weights as the basis for those guarantees. They're irrelevant in that regard.

Quoting par13del (Reply 23): If not, this whole thing is...........????

To end the a.net debates about how Boeing uses out-dated seat counts.   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26): Quoting par13del (Reply 23): How does this affect the contractual terms Boeing used when selling their a/c, do carriers now have a claim for a/c not meeting specs? No, because the sales contracts would not be using brochure or OEM figures for operating weights as the basis for those guarantees. They're irrelevant in that regard. Quoting par13del (Reply 23): If not, this whole thing is...........???? To end the a.net debates about how Boeing uses out-dated seat counts.

You have summed it up brilliantly.
The disclosures will not come as news to the US3, ME3, EU3, or Airbus, only to a.net and uninformed aviation media/industry experts.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 25): What is a "737 Max 200200" ????

I'm thinking it is the high capacity machine Ryanair is looking at with 200 seats.. is it's nickname the "Max 200" indicating that capacity? Then I think the 200200 is just the 200 from the title running into the 200 in the seat column without room for a space as posted. I.e. 737 Max 200 (space) 200 (seat column).

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 11): brochure range is pretty irrelevant once the payload/range charts are public

   This may make shorthand A/B comparisons marginally easier, but doesn't really change much. The payload-range charts won't change and always tell a much more complete story than the headline number.

Personally, I'd like to see every maker report three headline range numbers, all starting from an airline-typical DOW:

1) MZFW range
2) For a fixed, airline-typical passenger and cargo density, range for all passengers + bags + volume limited cargo
3) For the same fixed passenger density, range for all passengers + bags

[Edited 2015-08-03 17:03:06]

Of course the only folks this is good for is us. Can you imagine an airline plunking down a few billion on new aircraft based on the specs on the web site??!!!

Quoting flylku (Reply 30):

That's how TG got their fleet =)

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 27): You have summed it up brilliantly. The disclosures will not come as news to the US3, ME3, EU3, or Airbus, only to a.net and uninformed aviation media/industry experts.

Actually he is pointing out that large parts of a.net already realized that Boeing's figures were out of date, but go ahead and bash if you must.

Of course the only folks this is good for is us. Can you imagine an airline plunking down a few billion on new aircraft based on the specs on the web site??!!!

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 28): I'm thinking it is the high capacity machine Ryanair is looking at with 200 seats.. is it's nickname the "Max 200" indicating that capacity? Then I think the 200200 is just the 200 from the title running into the 200 in the seat column without room for a space as posted. I.e. 737 Max 200 (space) 200 (seat column).

Ah, that makes sense, yes!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 21): Also it is Boeing not Airbus who have changed the typical range numbers, so Airbus numbers have not changed., and yes, the lack of superiority of the 359 between 20T and 50T payload is still a surprise considering its extra MTOW and higher thrust engines.

You are reaching this conclusion without looking at the a350 payload/range chart which is not yet public?.

Most airlines are flying less than 10 hour routes, so range is not the most important thing. Fuel efficiency and other operating costs are.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 11): On the other hand, brochure range is pretty irrelevant once the payload/range charts are public,

   I was about to say the same.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 21): Also it is Boeing not Airbus who have changed the typical range numbers, so Airbus numbers have not changed

Airbus changed their numbers years ago for the same reason.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24): They also don't consider winds, elevation, and high temperatures so you still to reduce the quoted ranges by roughly 10% to get realistic numbers.

   10% is about right.

Quoting enilria (Reply 17):

Unlikely, the full table shows both 737-800/900 & max 8/9 have similar ranges both after and prior to the new revision.

This would imply the -900 and max 9 are with aux tank(s). So the methodology is just fine.

[Edited 2015-08-04 04:31:23]

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 15): I believe karelxwb once put up a an airbus presentation to an eu airline for the 339 and 359 showing expected max range for that airline.

I believe you mean this slide:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):

Thank you,

That was it, I couldn't remember if it was SAS or Finnair.

Aviation week also has an article on the changes.

From Flightglobal:

"As the first such update since the early 1990s, some of the changes appear significant. For example the predicted range for six models – 737 Max 7,737 Max 200, 787-9, 787-10, 777-9X and 777-8X – each decline by more than 500nm. Two other types, the 787-8 and the 777-300ER, lost almost 500nm of listed range.

By changing the assumptions now, Boeing finally acknowledges what most airline customers, industry analysts and rivals already knew. The standard set of assumptions Boeing has used to calculate performance for generic marketing purposes has been “obsolete” for a long time, Haas says."

"Boeing previously listed the latest version of the venerable 747 series with a 467-passenger cabin and a range of 7,790nm. But Boeing’s updated internal assumptions reduced the cabin to 410 passengers and a range of 7,730nm.

That moves Boeing’s assumptions closer to the specifications listed on Lufthansa’s web site, but there is still a wide gap between them. Lufthansa lists the 747-8I with a 364-seat cabin and a range of 7,073nm."

This is interesting. Boeing has finally admitted they've used unrealistic calculations. Every time I've pointed this out in these forums, some Boeing fanboy has gotten very upset. Especially during the A330neo threads. Now Boeing and Airbus will have more comparable numbers. But even though Boeing might be closer to reality with this revision, they're not completely realistic yet:

Boeing 747-8i:

Old Boeing numbers: 467 pax / 7790nm range
New Boeing numbers: 410 pax / 7730 nm range
Lufthansa numbers: 364 pax / 7073 nm range.

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 4): It's very close to real airline operating ranges. It's often underestimated just how much the real airline dow has on the max range of aircraft, especially the newer gen aircraft where each additional 1ton reduces range farther than previous generations. Airbus using a similar methodology would see a similar drop in max ranges. We certainly know this from presentations using our configs for our network.

Still not real numbers, just look at Boeing vs Lufthansa 747-8i numbers.

And Airbus has been using the closer to reality calculations for a very long time. During the A330neo presentation, they showed the range of the aircraft using Airbus calculations. Then they showed the range of the aircraft using Boeing calculations, and they were much longer.

Of course none of them are completely realistic.

There should be an industry standard for range figures. Like MTOW range minus the suggested 10% for winds, routing and so on.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 41): There should be an industry standard for range figures. Like MTOW range minus the suggested 10% for winds, routing and so on.

They should do away with the range and replace it with a sector time. This takes the winds into account. The 7635nm for the 789 would be better if it read 16hrs 28 min .

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 21): Also it is Boeing not Airbus who have changed the typical range numbers, so Airbus numbers have not changed, and yes, the lack of superiority of the 359 between 20T and 50T payload is still a surprise considering its extra MTOW and higher thrust engines.

Quoting ap305 (Reply 35): You are reaching this conclusion without looking at the a350 payload/range chart which is not yet public?

Airbus has posted payload-range charts for the A350-900 and A350-1000 as part of their presentations at their annual Investor Conferences as well as at major air shows (Dubai, for example).

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 41): Still not real numbers, just look at Boeing vs Lufthansa 747-8i numbers. And Airbus has been using the closer to reality calculations for a very long time.

I have LH A380s at 509 passengers and 13,100 km range while Airbus says its 4-class configuration is 544 seats and more than 2,000 km further. Now LH does not have the 575t versions I don't think so we would need an adjustment but, to be fair, neither of them use 'real numbers' not that I really think they could/should.

tortugamon

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 41):

Did you conveniently ignore this part of my response?

"I believe the difference for LH 747-8 range would be the heavier than planned weight of the first few frames."

For the record, no airline or lessor takes Airbus's numbers about Boeing or Boeing's numbers about Airbus seriously. If you want to see the analysts sweat a little during such presentations, continuously quiz them on exactly what details where used in the numbers for the competitors.

If you want a standard base for airbus or boeing, get them to crunch numbers using your specifications and you get a clear answer. The above are all brochure numbers...however the increase in pax and seat weights brings the ranges much closer to real operating ranges. There will still be variances....e.g our 3 and 2 class birds have significantly different payload/range abilities.

Also, LH's 747-8 is very premium heavy right? Meaning DOW should be higher than the above estimate

[Edited 2015-08-04 07:35:11]

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 45): "I believe the difference for LH 747-8 range would be the heavier than planned weight of the first few frames."

Even with the extra OEW, the increase in MTOW allowed the 747-8 to meet or exceed it's payload-range guarantees. The only contract miss was fuel burn due to the GEnx2B-67s being below spec SFC.

So all of LH's 747-8s should be meeting contracted guarantees for range, with later builds having better range.

There is another update from AW that includes more details and nice new chart.  http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...ce-changes-boeing-has-quietly-made




edit: new chart link added

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a.../uploads/2015/07/RANGE_table_0.jpg

[Edited 2015-08-04 09:07:44]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):

Agreed.

I haven't said it will not meet its payload/range guarantees (which I may add is only known to LH). I'm simply trying to account for the difference btw LH's 747-8 range and Boeing figures as I have no access to LH weights. I expect most airlines with a significant premium config to have a higher DOW than Boeing's estimate anyway.

The payload range curve has not been affected for any of the aircraft as far as I'm aware and I wasn't implying that.

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 45): Did you conveniently ignore this part of my response? "I believe the difference for LH 747-8 range would be the heavier than planned weight of the first few frames."

I used the LH numbers as a typical example while you said they were a discrepancy. Either way, Stitch sorted that out. My point was that Boeing has been using figures that are far out there, nowhere near realistic numbers. Airbus has been closer. You said that the similar thing would happen to Airbus numbers if the same logic was applied, but the same logic was applied by Airbus many years ago. And none of them use 100% accurate figures. That was the meaning of my post.

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 45): For the record, no airline or lessor takes Airbus's numbers about Boeing or Boeing's numbers about Airbus seriously. If you want to see the analysts sweat a little during such presentations, continuously quiz them on exactly what details where used in the numbers for the competitors.

The record shows that none of us has ever stated that an airline or lessor takes presentation numbers as hard facts. And again, you're missing the point. Airbus brochure numbers have been closer to reality. Boeing brochure numbers have been on another planet. None of them are completely accurate. Up until now, you could put Airbus calculations on a Boeing aircraft and shorten the range considerably. And you could put Boeing calculations on an Airbus, and extend the range considerably. Now they're much more similar.

Quoting WALY777 (Reply 45): If you want a standard base for airbus or boeing, get them to crunch numbers using your specifications and you get a clear answer. The above are all brochure numbers...however the increase in pax and seat weights brings the ranges much closer to real operating ranges. There will still be variances....e.g our 3 and 2 class birds have significantly different payload/range abilities.

Finally, we agree.