Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:11 pm

This is of course correct  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
By the time this order is delivered I doubt they will have any active A330s or A340s.

But then!!!!!!!   

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26):
78X is larger than the 77E, I guess it depends on the model.

What do you mean? Will Emirates use their current pilots for their 6 current 777-200ER that probably will have left the fleet by that time the potential 787-10 arrives to fly all 70 + frames they would receive and thereby saving a lot of money? By the time Emirates gets their (Eventual) 787 they will almost certainty only operate 777-200LR (+F) and -300ER. Any 787 will be a lot "smaller" then the 777 Emirates operate by then. (And probably at least a bunch of 777-9 before all 787-10 would be delivered) (And yes I understand that Emirates only have one pool of 777 pilots)

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26):
But my point is that there are a lot of 777 pilots out there.

I am sorry but this is just beyond comprehension no offense but I really don't get this (= Reading comprehension, a measurement of the understanding of a passage of text). Are Airbus going to start loosing aircraft competitions in the future because there are a lot of 777 pilots out there?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
By your own argument 777 pilots won't want to fly the smaller 787.

  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Boeing is not going to change the gear or the wing to get this order, so it's at most going to be a different engine, with the 'non-emiratized' engines still on offer.

The engines offered on the 787-10 are part of Boeing's (And not the engine manufacturers) 787-10 airworthiness certificate. If Boeing says they will change nothing, nothing will be changed no matter how much RR or GE would like to help Emirates. Its all up to Boeing, they must decide to offer a higher trust version based on feedback from RR and GE on what they can deliver, not the other way around. RR or GE cant go to Emirates and say we can offer you more power or whatever, Boeing is in charge and what they offer is what will be offered, end of story.

Regards
Regards
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:16 pm

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 61):
The RB211started out at 42000 lb. st. with the -22B and ended with 60600 lb. st 524G/H-T.
Both with the same 84.8" fan size & 119.4" original & some 524 models, the rest at 122.3"
18600 lb. difference in thrust with improvements.
Main differences were improved cores with same number of stages & redesigned fans.

Yes and 18 years between entry into service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211

RR or GE won't just have to increase thrust, they would also need to increase the max temperature their current offerings are able to operate at and then increase thrust to enable full trust out of Dubai at 45°C. On top of that these are already super efficient ultra modern aircraft engines probably already utilizing their cores power production to the max.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...230C486257DF50059601D?OpenDocument

GEnx-1B78/P2

Takeoff - 5 min. at sea level,
(see NOTE 12)
static thrust, lb

80,400lb

Flat rating ambient temperature
Takeoff

86°F / 30°C

The GEnX is not able to deliver 80000lb in Dubai on a hot day. Didn't Emirates won't 84000lb (But maybe not on a hot day)?

Here are the numbers for RR T1000 (All models)

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...5EFE8A86257DFE0074C5D4?OpenDocumen

RR seems to be at about 78000lb (Trent 1000-K2) at ISA+18°C.

All models are flat rated to ISA + 15°C except the Trent 1000-D and Trent –D2, which are flat rated to ISA +20°C, the Trent 1000-K2, which is flat rated to ISA+18°C, and the Trent 1000-L2, which is flat rated to ISA +24°C.

What EK wants from the engines would probably require a major change to the engine selected. Do not sound like that is on Boeing and GE/RRs agenda at present.

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

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:17 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 93):
They also got better aero on the wing, so there was less reason to go for the weight sacrifice

Good point.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 94):
And if it was a 14 hour capable plane the A350 would be obsolete as it is lighter than any A350.

Its a 14 hour plane just as much as the A350 is an 18 hour plane - e.g. under very specific circumstances.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 94):
He wanted a lesser performing design which would have been a 10-12 hour mission aircraft. The current A35K isn't this.

Which probably contributed to him canceling his order for it and opened the door for the 78X which was optimized for that mission.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 94):
We don't know what restrictions are placed on those flights. Are they going out at 100% capacity or are there weight restrictions? We know the range calculations for both Airbus and Boeing are the best case scenarios with as light as possible catering and furnishings.

Are you suggesting UA blocks seats on its LAX-MEL flight? I would like to read some evidence of that. I highly doubt they would start that route over another if that was the case. The 789 has more range than the 77W according to Boeing's revised statistics so I have a hard time believing that.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 95):
If we take that to mean an empty weight difference of 8t, it is a fair amount, not insignificant as you say, and even more so when you consider the 78X has a higher seat count.

I would be careful to draw that conclusion as I think aero/sfc will be different and we don't know exactly where the weight difference went which could contribute to aero/sfc and most certainly will in some form. My only point is that there certainly will be a non-significant weight difference. My number is not as aggressive as Stitch's. We will see soon enough!

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 95):
I see the distinction between MEW and OEW, which would explain why the A359 is lighter. What's the difference?

Yep, I think that contributes to a lot of your delta.

Quoting Millenium (Reply 100):
Any 787 will be a lot "smaller" then the 777 Emirates operate by then.

I think we have learned that EK operates all aircraft at the same pilot pay rate so I guess this is moot.

Quoting Millenium (Reply 100):
Are Airbus going to start loosing aircraft competitions in the future because there are a lot of 777 pilots out there?

Well there are more 777/787 pilots than there are A380 pilots so when selling A350s the operator will have to pay more to train pilots, all things being equal, than they will if they choose a 787/777. Certainly everything else won't be equal.


Quoting enzo011 (Reply 94):
I believe the discussion was about the 789 being slightly crippled

I believe you are wrong. It was the 78X. Which is compromised.

tortugamon
 
trex8
Posts: 5624
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:32 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
Well there are more 777/787 pilots than there are A380 pilots so when selling A350s the operator will have to pay more to train pilots, all things being equal, than they will if they choose a 787/777. Certainly everything else won't be equal.

Are you talking specifically about EK or any operator??? There are literally a thousand A330s out there, whose pilots could easily get certified on an A350.
When are EK going to have phased out all their A332s? I know some are junked already but isn't the 78J/A359 issue for regional routes? Is EK going to put 77Ws on regional routes then downgauge when the 78J/A359 arrives or keep some A332s around for awhile??
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27450
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:43 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 94):
Or are we thinking that having less range and payload due to restrictions from the design (wing) does not mean crippled in performance?

Well on the 787-9, a 63m span would have added close to 2000kg of more weight and that would be 2000kg less payload being able to be carried and a percentage point or two in extra fuel burn per hour. So is that "crippling" performance?



Quoting enzo011 (Reply 94):
That is what he wanted, yet other airlines wanted more. Airbus seem to have listened to the majority and not just one airline. Do you believe the current A35K is only a 10-12 hour aircraft?

No, which is why I said it's a 14-16 hour airplane (for everyone else).



Quoting enzo011 (Reply 94):
Wasn't really talking about the 78X and its role in the EK route planning, more along the lines of, if the current A35K is a 10-12 hour plane (7800nm range) what does that make the 78X (6430nm range)?

A 6-8 hour airplane, which is what he wants per what I have read about the RFP.



Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 95):
I see the distinction between MEW and OEW, which would explain why the A359 is lighter. What's the difference?

MEW is Manufacturer Weight Empty and is generally considered to be the weight of the airframe before you install cabin fittings (seats, galleys, lavatories) and basic fluids (hydraulic fluid, brake fluid, engine oil, etc). So essentially it is the weight of the airframe as it exits the FAL before any outfitting or painting is done nor any first flight preparation.

OEW is Operating Empty Weight and this is defined by both Airbus (when they posted it) and Boeing in their ACAPS (Airport Compatibility docs) as the weight of the airframe with an OEM cabin fitting (seats, lavatories, galleys), fluids other than trip fuel, crew luggage, catering/pantry, etc.).

The difference between MEW and OEW can be 10,000kg or more.

[Edited 2015-11-07 15:45:05]
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:48 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
MEW is Manufacturer Weight Empty and is generally considered to be the weight of the airframe before you install cabin fittings (seats, galleys, lavatories) and basic fluids (hydraulic fluid, brake fluid, engine oil, etc). So essentially it is the weight of the airframe as it exits the FAL before any outfitting or painting is done nor any first flight preparation.

OEW is Operating Empty Weight and this is defined by both Airbus (when they posted it) and Boeing in their ACAPS (Airport Compatibility docs) as the weight of the airframe with an OEM cabin fitting (seats, lavatories, galleys), fluids other than trip fuel, crew luggage, catering/pantry, etc.).

The difference between MEW and OEW can be 10,000kg or more.

I see, thank you for explaining.

With the A359's MEW at 115t and the 789's OEW at 126t, the OEW could be fairly similar for both then?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:49 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 103):
Are you talking specifically about EK or any operator??? There are literally a thousand A330s out there, whose pilots could easily get certified on an A350.

Well I have the training in between a 787/777 to be 5 days and I have the A330 to the A350 to be 11 days so, yes, I do think that the former would be cheaper, all else being equal.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 103):
When are EK going to have phased out all their A332s? I know some are junked already but isn't the 78J/A359 issue for regional routes?

Not sure but this order is supposed to be for 3.5 times as many aircraft as the number of A332s they currently operate. On average the fleet is 14.7 years old so certainly so most will certainly be gone.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 103):
Is EK going to put 77Ws on regional routes then downgauge when the 78J/A359 arrives or keep some A332s around for awhile??

Not sure the exact plan. My guess is they will use the 78X/A359 where they used their A343/A333/773/A332s which was on non-Australia/Americas missions and they will use the 78X when they are launching a new frequency or launching a new route in Asia/Africa/Europe.

tortugamon
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:00 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
Well there are more 777/787 pilots than there are A380 pilots so when selling A350s the operator will have to pay more to train pilots, all things being equal, than they will if they choose a 787/777. Certainly everything else won't be equal.

I just don't really see it, if they choose the 787 most 777 pilots will attain 787 qualification and fly both and likewise if they choose the A350 most A380 pilots will qualify to fly the A350. Whatever they choose, 787 or A350 they will have to hire additional pilots. You will either need one pool of pilots to fly A380 and one to fly 777/787 or one pool of pilots flying A380/A350 and one flying 777. What is the big difference all else not being equal? There are plenty of A320/A330/A340/ pilots in the world to hire for A350 operations right, not just 777 pilots.

Regards.
Regards
 
trex8
Posts: 5624
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:13 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):


Well I have the training in between a 787/777 to be 5 days and I have the A330 to the A350 to be 11 days so, yes, I do think that the former would be cheaper, all else being equal.

8days
http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...-a350-xwb-and-a330-pilot-training/

But that may be on French workhours  Wink

[Edited 2015-11-07 16:14:34]
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:20 am

I was checking DXB anual temps, holy cow! averages 40C from late May to September !

I guess the V1 and V2 speeds at max take off weight are going to be tricky, This is going to be interesting because, if EK orders a truckload of 787-1000, it will mean that performance and payload are very competitive with the Airbus product, and for those needing a very economic and large aircraft the 787-1000 will be in their buying list.

A very interesting scenario in the coming months in various areas, this one, the A380 future, the C series Future, the SSJ sales, Anet will be very interesting.

Thanks Mario for your wonderful post, also the engine arena is very interesting and contested.!!!

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:28 am

Quoting SteinarN (Reply 96):
Amazing post as always. It is pure joy to read your very detailed and accurate writing  

Agreed! Another great post which is worthy of being saved in my archive.  

On the subject of this topic, I still believe the B787-10 has the best chances of being ordered by EK, but the A350-900 is not over and done with yet for this upcoming EK-order. We will know hopefully within 6-8 months what they will decide.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:32 am

Quoting Millenium (Reply 107):
I just don't really see it, if they choose the 787 most 777 pilots will attain 787 qualification and fly both and likewise if they choose the A350 most A380 pilots will qualify to fly the A350.

Alright, well we can move on then. Its a small point anyway. There is a much larger global fleet of pilots that will be cheaper to train for the 787 than the A350. Just a lot more aircraft in operation and the only thing that rivals the commonality is the A380/A350 and there is a very small number of available A380 pilots. Sure to the extent they are training them from scratch they could be similar, I honestly don't know.

Anyway, a long drawn out point that I am kinda done with once Zeke said that A380 pilots don't get paid more (which I thought they did and I assume Zeke is correct).

Quoting Millenium (Reply 107):
There are plenty of A320/A330/A340/ pilots in the world to hire for A350 operations right, not just 777 pilots.

Yes there are and they take 11 days, 8 days, and 11 days to train on the A350 respectively. All longer than the 787/777. And again, at least in terms of widebodies, there will be far more 787/777s at EIS of this fleet than A330s/A340s; close to double as much I would bet.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 108):
But that may be on French workhours  

Ha! Yes, indeed 8 days. Thanks for that. I should have it right above.

tortugamon
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:43 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 108):

8days
http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...-a350-xwb-and-a330-pilot-training/

But that may be on French workhours Wink

And 5 days from A380 to A350.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...eraircraft/a380family/commonality/

See illustration on the right side.

Regards.
Regards
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27450
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:52 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 105):
With the A359's MEW at 115t and the 789's OEW at 126t, the OEW could be fairly similar for both then?

Airbus no longer posts OEW in their ACAPS, but the inference I received in one of their presentations from January 2012 was that OEW was 142,000kg. So that is the number I have been using as the baseline for OEW for the A350-900 and why I believe it could be a fair bit heavier than the 787-10.
 
Millenium
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:53 am

And going from 777 to 787 is 5 days or longer...

The 787 is designed to be operationally common with the existing Boeing fleet, with the highest commonality with the 777 (see fig. 1). For instance, even though it may look different, the 787 flight deck operates just like the flight deck on a 777. As a result, it takes as few as five days of training for 777 pilots to qualify as 787 pilots. The pilot pool for operators of 777/787 mixed fleets is the same, and 787 pilots will spend less time training and more time flying.

The commonality extends to other Boeing airplanes as well. For example, Boeing is developing other short courses, such as a course from the 767 to 787, which could be as short as eight days. (As a comparison, it would take more than 21 days to train these pilots to fly a non-Boeing airplane.)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...rticles/qtr_1_08/article_02_2.html

Regards
Regards
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:54 am

My guess is that the 787-10 will be offered in two versions. There will be a version with more powerful R-R Trent 1000 engines so it could operate from DXB, AUH or DOH on routes up to 5,500 nautical miles in range. That means full-load non-stop to all of Europe, as far east as HND/NRT and all of the African continent.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:02 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 113):
Airbus no longer posts OEW in their ACAPS, but the inference I received in one of their presentations from January 2012 was that OEW was 142,000kg. So that is the number I have been using as the baseline for OEW for the A350-900 and why I believe it could be a fair bit heavier than the 787-10.

Fair enough.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I can make an estimate of the 78X's OEW, just under 134t. The 788's is 118t, and the 789's 124t, and the lengths go 57m, 63m and 68m, so it'll be around that. If we take 8t as the difference, I don't think that's too bad, it is considerably less than the 15.6t difference between the 77E and A333, so I don't think we'll have that level of disparity.

The only other thing I'll say is that by the time the A359 or 78X come online for EK, Airbus may have shed some weight off the A359. Not enough to make it more fuel-efficient than the 78X, but maybe enough to make it more competitive.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:31 am

An 8T OEM advantage including the ability to carry 4 more LD3 and seat 18+ additional pax compared to A359 -- that should be pretty deadly combination.

787-10 trip fuel savings should increase further on the shorter routes. Not to mention the savings in landing costs due to the lighter weight.

Unless EK is changing their business model, I agree with those who feel this is Boeing's to lose. I feel the only way the A359 really has a chance is coupled with a A380NEO
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:37 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
Its a 14 hour plane just as much as the A350 is an 18 hour plane - e.g. under very specific circumstances.

I think you may have to be very specific to get the 78X to 14 hours...past any operational requirements for airlines in the real world. If you wanted to fly 14 hours with only 170 passengers you could just buy a 788 instead of a 78X, probably the only way to get it to fly 14 hours. So...probably no it isn't a 14 hour aircraft.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
Which probably contributed to him canceling his order for it and opened the door for the 78X which was optimized for that mission.

Its funny, he only had 20 A35K on order and 50 A359. I guess he didn't really know what he wanted with his order as he is now once again looking at the A359. So he cancelled a 70 aircraft order for only 20 aircraft that were not to his liking. Or he is just using the A359 to negotiate for lower prices with Boeing. Someone will look silly in this, whether it is Boeing offering lower prices if they were the only aircraft in the running, or EK for cancelling and then reordering an aircraft after rejecting it in the first place.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
Are you suggesting UA blocks seats on its LAX-MEL flight? I would like to read some evidence of that. I highly doubt they would start that route over another if that was the case. The 789 has more range than the 77W according to Boeing's revised statistics so I have a hard time believing that.

I don't know. I only go on what posters on here have posted about the A350 and 787. While the range looks great for these new designs, the payload range curve is very steep towards the end of their range. They can fly a good distance if you sacrifice payload. I was asking you whether you knew if they take a payload hit.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
I believe you are wrong. It was the 78X. Which is compromised.

The reply I am taking it from is reply 57, where the poster said the 789 and 78X was supposed to share the 63m wing. All 3 share the same wing now. If this is due to their engineers not being able to properly design the wing initially for the 789 or because of the delays they decided to forgo the cost of the extended wing, only Boeing would know. I do know that they are very good at trying to sell us stories that may look negative towards the company. Sometimes it works and sometimes it is comical (A321 is just catching up the the 739 even though it is outselling the 739 by a good margin).

I took it the poster meant the 789 already has a compromised (crappy) wing from the 788, this is without talking about the 78X.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Well on the 787-9, a 63m span would have added close to 2000kg of more weight and that would be 2000kg less payload being able to be carried and a percentage point or two in extra fuel burn per hour. So is that "crippling" performance?

Do you know what the advantage of the extra span would have been? Or did the designers have a brain fart and leave some weight on the wing that really wasn't needed at all?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
A 6-8 hour airplane, which is what he wants per what I have read about the RFP.

That means there is 6-8 hours of range to find for the 78X. That is what, another 3000-4000nm out there...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 106):
Well I have the training in between a 787/777 to be 5 days and I have the A330 to the A350 to be 11 days so, yes, I do think that the former would be cheaper, all else being equal.

EK will have to find pilots for the expected orders, whether they are 787 or A350. Their current 777 pilots can't just fly on the expected 50 new 787s without needing other pilots to replace their 777 flights. So unless you have hundreds of 787 pilots out there willing to move to EK it will be a challenge to find pilots for their expected fleet. They are already actively looking for more pilots...whichever aircraft they order.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10483
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:29 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
So do you buy a plane that is most-efficient 90% (or more) of the time, or do you buy one that is capable of pulling it's full weight for that 10% (or less) of outlier cases, but the rest of the time is not as efficient as the other plane?

At the end of the day it may be relevant only to those who support the A350 win, this order - and in my opinion most orders - will be determined by things not related to the specific performance metrics of the a/c.
If they want the A380NEO what would influence Airbus more, a 787 or A350 order? So far they have been unable to get Airbus to jump, they cancelled an A350 order and are now looking at the a/c again, to be cynical as another poster said, this professional organization did not know what they were doing when they ordered or cancelled??.
In my opinion this order is Airbus to loose, if they really want to produce the A380NEO this is a perfect incentive, RR have already secured the engines for all new A380's and have an engine for the NEO, the airline has already given notice of a huge A380NEO order.
Airbus concern of the A380NEO customization for one client killing additional sales is softened by the additional sales of the A350.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:33 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
So the 787-10 could very well have a double-digit lower fuel burn (as a percentage) per hour on such missions compared to the A350-900.

It doesn't.

The A359 averages a fuel burn of 5.6t/hour on a 3000nm sector. We would dispatch our soon-to-arrive B789s 5.2-5.4/hour over the same. The 787-10 will have similar fuel burn to the B789

For comparison, I have several A359 QR FRA-DOH flight plans. Block fuel ranges 38-40t. Trip fuel ranges 30-31.5t with an average CI of 35. Sector time 5.5-5.75 hours.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:33 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 91):
The MTOW of the A359 is 17t more than the 78X yet its Max Fuel Weight is only 9t higher, that implies a not-insignificant OEW difference.

I don't know what the OEW of the 787-10 is but I would put it ~133t. That would make it 5-7t lighter than the A359 which is at 140t for our 2 class config.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 113):
Airbus no longer posts OEW in their ACAPS, but the inference I received in one of their presentations from January 2012 was that OEW was 142,000kg. So that is the number I have been using as the baseline for OEW for the A350-900 and why I believe it could be a fair bit heavier than the 787-10

142t is is the ballpark for a heavy J three class config. QRs's A359 is a bit lighter.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27450
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:07 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 118):
Do you know what the advantage of the extra span would have been?

Aerodynamic efficiency at cruise, which would have lowered cruise fuel burn.

As I understand it, the savings in empty weight going with the same 60m span as the 787-8 was equal to the loss of aerodynamic efficiency from not going 63m so cruise fuel burn was the same, either way. By using the 787-8 wing, it saved Boeing the need to certify the longer span and reduced the testing regimen for the 787-9.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 120):
The A359 averages a fuel burn of 5.6t/hour on a 3000nm sector. We would dispatch our soon-to-arrive B789s 5.2-5.4/hour over the same. The 787-10 will have similar fuel burn to the B789.

Thanks. Always good to have real-world numbers.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:13 am

Quoting Millenium (Reply 114):
And going from 777 to 787 is 5 days or longer...

I feel like that is what I have been saying. 5 days without full simulator time. Only the A380-A350 training is similar.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 116):
The only other thing I'll say is that by the time the A359 or 78X come online for EK, Airbus may have shed some weight off the A359. Not enough to make it more fuel-efficient than the 78X, but maybe enough to make it more competitive.

I think both will shed weight. With the 78X they don't have to do anything to add MTOW, all they are focused on is keeping it the same as the A359 and reduce weight. They seem to already be doing it with the 789 and I would expect similar results with the 78X, and the A359.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 118):
If you wanted to fly 14 hours with only 170 passengers you could just buy a 788 instead of a 78X, probably the only way to get it to fly 14 hours. So...probably no it isn't a 14 hour aircraft.

Exactly. The A350 that flies 18+ hours seats 170 as well. Perfect analogy:
http://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-confi...-range-a350-for-singapore-airlines

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 118):
Their current 777 pilots can't just fly on the expected 50 new 787s without needing other pilots to replace their 777 flights. So unless you have hundreds of 787 pilots out there willing to move to EK it will be a challenge to find pilots for their expected fleet.

There will be nearly 2,000 777s that will have entered service by then, so there will be a lot of active pilots in the commercial aviation industry with minimal training necessary to become a 787 pilot. I feel like I keep saying the same thing.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 121):
I don't know what the OEW of the 787-10 is but I would put it ~133t. That would make it 5-7t lighter than the A359 which is at 140t for our 2 class config.

I am close to that ballpark figure I guess.

The way I see it the 788 is 118t, the 789 is 125t, so the 78X would be 132t if the stretch was similar vs the 789-788 stretch - it isn't. The 78X is .5m less and it shares 95% commonality with the 789 while the 789 added MLG and other changes to add to the 789's capability that the 78X won't have apparently so I think the weight gain will be less. Either way, we are close. I think the 78X will come out close to ~131t vs the A359 around ~140t when they are both in service.

Thank you for the fuel burn figures Chaos

tortugamon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:13 am

The trading course requirements from one type to another have little to do with what the manufacturer says, it comes down to the local regulator.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 21186
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:17 am

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 75):
For reference, the official ICAO type designator codes are A35K for the A350-1000 and B78X for the 787-10.

But 78X violates SAE9100 required numbering! Sigh... Should be 78K.   

Lightsaber
3 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:03 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 3):
Quoting holzmann (Reply 1):
One would hope that this an indicator that B has a lot of interest from many carriers for the 781 in its current proposed form, enough to outweigh a potential order from Emirates.

Exactly my sentiments. Over-"emiratisation" can end up driving lots of potential customers to the competitor. EK sure is a large customer, but the "Non-ME3" section of the pie is still far larger.

  

Both well said.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2535
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:39 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69):
It flies nearly as far as a 747 which did the majority of Long haul flying before 1998. Crippled is an interesting word for a 14 hour airplane.

If you say 1998, you must be talking about a 747-400, which flew 7,270nm at max. passenger payload. 78X is aimed to fly 6,430nm with "330 2-class passengers", which could average to be a 85,000 lb. payload.

Furthermore, the 78X is more of a 12.5 hour airplane...taking into account taxi, takeoff, landing, ascent, and descent, than a 14hr one.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69):
They found that the extra span did not compensate for the extra weight. The wing was most efficient as is.

That would depend on the stage length you are talking about and exactly how Boeing was to modify the wing. The longer the stage length, the greater efficiency a longer wing brings, considering the same aerodynamic methods used between them. The 787-8 wing could also just be overbuilt.

In any case neither version achieves the 8,000 nm+ original goal with full pax payload.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69):
Supposedly the gear is the limiting item. No immediate MTOW lift available.

Makes sense, but if we're talking about extending wingtips, it could be as little as 500 lbs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 104):
Well on the 787-9, a 63m span would have added close to 2000kg of more weight

That's absolutely ridiculous. Not you saying that...but that an extra 3 meters should weigh 2000 kg, even if they're lengthening the wing at the root. What would Boeing be using? Lead?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 113):
Airbus no longer posts OEW in their ACAPS, but the inference I received in one of their presentations from January 2012 was that OEW was 142,000kg.

I have to take issue with this though. 26,300 kg (~58,000 lbs.) difference between MEW and OEW is HUGE in an aircraft this size. And the number is old, yes in fairness you did say January 2012, when the MEW was likely higher as well.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys. Citizenship/Residence::: Washington DC, US; Vaud, CH; Providenciales, TCI (hence my avi)
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:02 am

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 127):
If you say 1998, you must be talking about a 747-400, which flew 7,270nm at max.

Yep, and if you look at the cabin assumptions for both aircraft in the same time period I think you will see the 78X range is more similar to that than the new revised figures which more closely resemble today's cabin fittings and such. Boeing may have revised its range figures but it did not restate previous designs.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 127):
Furthermore, the 78X is more of a 12.5 hour airplane...taking into account taxi, takeoff, landing, ascent, and descent, than a 14hr one.

I think you will note that I did make an adjustment to that statement:

Quote:
reply=82, 14hrs is a touch high but it should be able to do 13 hour flights with a full load of passengers

...

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 127):
That would depend on the stage length you are talking about and exactly how Boeing was to modify the wing. The longer the stage length, the greater efficiency a longer wing brings, considering the same aerodynamic methods used between them.

But again, the better aero than expected coupled with the added weight made the standard wing ideal for the 789 - the extension would have hurt performance and the 789 isn't exactly a medium haul flyer.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 127):
Makes sense, but if we're talking about extending wingtips, it could be as little as 500 lbs

I feel like that supports the argument that we have read that the engineers felt like the extension would not have been as ideal as the current one.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2535
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:33 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 128):
Yep, and if you look at the cabin assumptions for both aircraft in the same time period I think you will see the 78X range is more similar to that than the new revised figures which more closely resemble today's cabin fittings and such. Boeing may have revised its range figures but it did not restate previous designs.

We shouldn't necessarily say assumptions, maybe projections, or just "range @ payload X" in my view, because most airlines configure long-haul airliners with a far less dense configuration than whatever Airbus and Boeing put out in their figures and ACAPs. The Boeing figures for the 744 are at a "full passenger payload" of 416-420 passengers, which could today equate to 102,000-117,000 pounds. This indeed is a greater payload than a 744 will fly 7,270nm...90,000-95,000 pounds.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys. Citizenship/Residence::: Washington DC, US; Vaud, CH; Providenciales, TCI (hence my avi)
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:07 am

Above is the fact that there were only 11 days in 2014 when the temperature got to 45C. I don't think anything magical happens when it gets to 45C, it will just be some continuous change (reduction) of lift, so there will still be a less of a problem at 44C, at 43C, etc. How many days were there in 2014 when the temperature was above 42C?

As the max temperature reduces, the hit on payload will also reduce. Can anyone say at what temperature the 787-10 could take off with 100% payload and fly to LIS, GLA, OSL as examples
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2770
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:50 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
Yes, but 45° days are going to be the exception (possibly the rare exception) and not the rule. So for the vast majority of the time, a 787-10 will be able to take a "full load" out of DXB and fly it 8-9 hours.

In July of this year, Dubai saw 12 days with temperatures of 45 degrees or more. You can expect to see more or less the same for June and September, whereas August will be 'worse'.

In rough number that gives you around 50 days a year when a 787-10 could be operationally challenged and is, I suppose, the 'problem' EK are facing. Sure they could limit the aircraft to only fly early mornings/late evenings/nights, when the temperaturs are more agreeable, but that's just adding another level of operational inflexibility. Or, in other words, around 25% of the year the aircraft can't operate in one of EK's four main arrival/departure banks.

The way the global climate is going, things are going to get worse, not better, in the foreseeable future.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:05 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 123):
Exactly. The A350 that flies 18+ hours seats 170 as well. Perfect analogy:
http://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-confi...lines

It's an analogy, not the perfect one. Do you see airlines taking passenger seats from the 78X for it to fly 14 hours? I will call an airline that does that stupid...because they can buy a cheaper and lighter aircraft and fly the same distance at better efficiency (for the weight and seats). So lets not talk about what an airliner can hypothetically do, lets talk about real world scenarios that the aircraft will be asked to do.

We are never talking about the A330-200 flying for 20 hours, yet it has been done. There was no payload, but it was done...that doesn't make the A332 a 20 hour aircraft....same analogy.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...-nonstop-from-europe-to-australia/
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:35 am

Quoting mfranjic (Reply 92):
To my knowledge, there are no . Trent 1000 engines rated or derated at ˙53200 & 58000 lb. st´. Trent 1000 engine with the lowest rated thrust is Trent 1000-E, rated at 265,3 kN - 59.631 lb s.t. Also there is no ´(64100 lb. st.)´ engine. The closest to this value is Trent 1000-H engine, rated at 284,2 kN - 63.900 lb s.t. The engines rated at the highest thrusts are Trent 1000-J2 and Trent 1000-K2, both at 347,5 kN - 78.129 lb s.t.

These numbers may relate to thresholds used to determine power by the hour contract price bands.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:37 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 123):
There will be nearly 2,000 777s that will have entered service by then, so there will be a lot of active pilots in the commercial aviation industry with minimal training necessary to become a 787 pilot. I feel like I keep saying the same thing.

And that makes a difference to the A330/340 number of pilots in what way?

As it is, there are over 1600 delivered A330/340 and less than 1400 delivered 777, already delivered 777 + 787 are about 1700. I would call it a washout.

AFAIK the training time from an A320 to an A350 is shorter than 737 to 787.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:09 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 128):
But again, the better aero than expected coupled with the added weight made the standard wing ideal for the 789 - the extension would have hurt performance and the 789 isn't exactly a medium haul flyer.

That does not reduce the added aerodynamic efficiency coming from added span. The main advantage from keeping the same wing on those three models could be commonality and by that time Boeing must have been desperate to reduced production cost.

I still think the expected difference in MEW between the 787-10 and A350-9 is around 5 t. Fuselage weight could be similar, perhaps 787 even heavier. The 787-10 is narrower and longer. The MLG, wings, engines will be heavier on the A350.

My rough guess of the difference, engines 2,5 t, wings 2 t and MLG 0.5 to 1 t. Slightly lighter fuselage, shorter, bigger diameter.

[Edited 2015-11-08 02:58:35]
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:20 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 129):
We shouldn't necessarily say assumptions, maybe projections, or just "range @ payload X" in my view, because most airlines configure long-haul airliners with a far less dense configuration than whatever Airbus and Boeing put out in their figures and ACAPs.

Agreed. My point was that the 78X is still extremely capable even if it is 'crippled' relative to the long flying 789/A359. In historical terms that is still long haul flying and able to fly 90%+ of the routes currently flown by widebodies.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 131):
In July of this year, Dubai saw 12 days with temperatures of 45 degrees or more.
Quoting B777LRF (Reply 131):
You can expect to see more or less the same for June and September, whereas August will be 'worse'.

Can you give me a source for that? Not that I don't trust you but the number of days you came up with is larger than mine; it could be do to location in Dubai - I tried to get mine from the airport. And who knows how far off the ground they take the measurement either so I could see some differences but would like to check it out, thanks.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 134):
And that makes a difference to the A330/340 number of pilots in what way?

It costs more to train an A330/A340 pilot on an A350 than it does a 777 pilot on a 787.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):
My rough guess of the difference, engines 2,5 t, wings 2 t and MLG 0.5 to 1 t. Slightly lighter fuselage, shorter, bigger diameter.

You think 13cm wider throughout the entire fuse is going to be negated by 1.5m longer? One of the benefits of the CFRP tube vs the CFRP panel is weight, not just because of the material but fewer fasteners as well. Wing, engine, empennage, and mlg should be heavier IMO. Not the amount quoted below, but heavier:



tortugamon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:46 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):

If what your posting is true Airbus would not sell a single A350

Obviously the market believes this crap either.....Boeing makes similar claims about the 737 vs the A320 and we know what the market thinks of that.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27450
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:29 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 127):
I have to take issue with this though. 26,300 kg (~58,000 lbs.) difference between MEW and OEW is HUGE in an aircraft this size. And the number is old, yes in fairness you did say January 2012, when the MEW was likely higher as well.

I agree it does seem to be a large variance. In 2012, MEW was given by Airbus at 116,000kg for the baseline goal with the early frames (first five, at least) at 119,000kg.

That being said, Chaostheory noted that Qatar's birds are a bit lighter than 142,000kg and they are configured with 36 Business and 247 Economy seats. So that 142,000kg figure from Airbus may be for Airbus' two-class OEM configuration which is 45 Business Class and 267 Economy Class.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:40 pm

I wonder if EK are considering 10-abreast Y in a REGIONAL A350-900? That would change the economics vs B787-10 significantly.

Plus they could have a few a few at 9-abreast as their pathfinder aircraft for new long haul routes, which is the real strength of the A350-900?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:18 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 139):
I wonder if EK are considering 10-abreast Y in a REGIONAL A350-900? That would change the economics vs B787-10 significantly.

I highly doubt EK will fly 10-across in Y..no matter what the route is.

Quoting zeke (Reply 137):
Obviously the market believes this crap either.

At the end of the day, EK will need a "trade-off" between efficiency and capability. For this particular need ("regional") which EK is looking for, IMHO the B787-10X would be the better-suited plane. Yes, it wouldn't have the capability of the A359XWB but is it something which EK needs? My guess is no.
"Up the Irons!"
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:48 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 137):
If what your posting is true Airbus would not sell a single A350

Obviously the market believes this crap either.....Boeing makes similar claims about the 737 vs the A320 and we know what the market thinks of that.

Ignore the numbers mentioned as I can't get to those either. Maybe A359 vs 788 or something but the comparison of fuse, engine, wing, and empennage seem reasonable. Smaller is usually lighter so I don't have a hard time believing the direction.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 139):
I wonder if EK are considering 10-abreast Y in a REGIONAL A350-900? That would change the economics vs B787-10 significantly.

EK said they chose to pas on an 11-abreast A380 with 18" seats even on regional missions; its hard to see how they would go to 16.9" on the A350. Not out of the question but I would be very surprised.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:54 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 141):
Maybe A359 vs 788 or something but the comparison of fuse, engine, wing, and empennage seem reasonable. Smaller is usually lighter so I don't have a hard time believing the direction.

Run the same comparison between the 767 and 787, where the 767 is significantly smaller and lighter and you get ......
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:04 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 142):
Run the same comparison between the 767 and 787, where the 767 is significantly smaller and lighter and you get ......

A big difference in weight as well? The 787 is bigger and is CFRP with a higher AR wing and has new engines vs the 767...A350/787 are nearly the same technologically and in the comparison of the A359/78X similar in capacity.

Are you suggesting that the 787/A350 comparison is similar to the 787/A350?

tortugamon
 
BHXLOVER
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:20 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:11 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 119):

Exactly.

And as for the title of the topic, that may suggest that Boeing do not think they will get the order anyway.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:27 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 131):
In July of this year, Dubai saw 12 days with temperatures of 45 degrees or more. You can expect to see more or less the same for June and September, whereas August will be 'worse'.

In rough number that gives you around 50 days a year when a 787-10 could be operationally challenged and is, I suppose, the 'problem' EK are facing. Sure they could limit the aircraft to only fly early mornings/late evenings/nights, when the temperaturs are more agreeable, but that's just adding another level of operational inflexibility. Or, in other words, around 25% of the year the aircraft can't operate in one of EK's four main arrival/departure banks.

Well, TC has now said EK is contemplating splitting the order (see separate thread Emirates 787/350: No Decision Till More A350's Fly (by metalinyoni Nov 8 2015 in Civil Aviation) ), so we actually may see EK ordering 40-50x 78X plus 20-30x A350 (-900 or -1000, yes!).
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
User avatar
mfranjic
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:54 am

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:28 pm

Quoting SteinarN (Reply 96):
Amazing post as always. It is pure joy to read your very detailed and accurate writing  

You have very pleasantly surprised me with Your praiseworthy reply, SteinarN. I'm sure we have not met, not yet, in any of the previous threads. The only thing I can say is I'm very glad You had the will and the time to read my posts... And that You liked them.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 109):
Thanks Mario for your wonderful post, also the engine arena is very interesting and contested.!!!

For me, it is always the same and the great pleasure to discover, TheRedBaron, that You liked what I have written. Thank You so much for the great support. +GBY+

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 110):
Quoting SteinarN (Reply 96):Amazing post as always. It is pure joy to read your very detailed and accurate writing
 
Agreed! Another great post which is worthy of being saved in my archive.

.
If I have understood correctly, EPA001, You already have a small collection of the selected works composed by mf … Thank You!!

I am also in the phase of collecting the material, but for some kind of the ... autobiography. Through this unusual story, simultaneously will be intertwining the fates of one machine and one human being. I will call it: ´My life with the uncontained head failure ´…


Nice regards

Mario
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile" - Albert Einstein
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:35 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):
You think 13cm wider throughout the entire fuse is going to be negated by 1.5m longer? One of the benefits of the CFRP tube vs the CFRP panel is weight, not just because of the material but fewer fasteners as well. Wing, engine, empennage, and mlg should be heavier IMO. Not the amount quoted below, but heavier:

Yes I think that because the needed thickness of the CFRP layers is not only dependent on the applied forces but also on the impact resistance in certain areas. That is why there is talk about the narrower fuselage not always getting lighter and a bigger diameter works better against bending and torsion at the same thickness. I have not seen any data up to now that shows the panel approach to come out heavier than the barrel approach.

I see you got a nice Boeing advertisement there. Perhaps you could explain what frames are compared.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:25 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
A big difference in weight as well?

The 788 is 25-30,000 kg heavier than a 767-300ER with similar capacity.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
astuteman
Posts: 7239
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing "will Not Change 7810 For Emirates"

Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:51 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 141):
Ignore the numbers mentioned as I can't get to those either.

I'm going to suggest that the Boeing slide uses a kind of "sleight of hand" to make the weight comparison one of MTOW rather than OEW as is implied.

268t less 20t is 248t
268t less 17t is 251t

They sound like the sort of figures we would have seen for 787-9/10 vs A350-900 when the slide was created.

Rgds

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