Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
mffoda
Topic Author
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:56 am

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]
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13559
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:48 am

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.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Prost
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:23 am

So are These numbers more closely aligned with methodology that Airbus uses?
 
StTim
Posts: 3805
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:11 am

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.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:12 am

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]
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14136
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:25 am

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
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:28 am

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]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2391
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:39 am

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
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:08 am

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.
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:26 am

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...   
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:56 am

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.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14136
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:07 am

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
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
StTim
Posts: 3805
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:15 am

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.
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:18 am

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...
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14136
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:22 am

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
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:45 am

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.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:27 pm

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

The 789 has killer range. Still more than 77W and 779!
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10410
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:37 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27457
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:27 pm

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.
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:41 pm

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.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
lhrnue
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:26 pm

"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.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1748
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:41 pm

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
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:06 pm

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.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10489
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:25 pm

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...........????
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:32 pm

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.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4496
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:41 pm

What is a "737 Max 200200" ????
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27457
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:46 pm

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.   
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:56 pm

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.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:01 am

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).
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). Flight Memory: 181 airports, 92 airlines, 78 a/c types, 403 routes, 58 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,119,414 passenger miles.

Home airport : CEC
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:02 am

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]
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 597
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:12 am

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??!!!
...are we there yet?
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:16 am

Quoting flylku (Reply 30):

That's how TG got their fleet =)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25273
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:16 am

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.
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
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 597
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:19 am

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??!!!
...are we there yet?
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4496
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:22 am

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!
 
ap305
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:37 am

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?.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:13 am

Most airlines are flying less than 10 hour routes, so range is not the most important thing. Fuel efficiency and other operating costs are.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:29 am

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.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:05 am

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]
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:07 am

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:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/97jn83.jpg
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:33 am

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.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:47 pm

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.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:13 pm

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 .
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27457
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:17 pm

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).
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:50 pm

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
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:33 pm

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]
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27457
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:17 pm

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.
 
mffoda
Topic Author
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:57 pm

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]
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:00 pm

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.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Boeing Revises Performance Assumptions

Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:10 pm

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.

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