• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13995
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:25 am

AECM wrote:
I would like very much to see zeke graph uptaded with data from the A35K :D How does the A35K compares with A359 when flying same distance with same payload?


Give me a couple of weeks I should be able to add that.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:55 am

zeke wrote:
AECM wrote:
I would like very much to see zeke graph uptaded with data from the A35K :D How does the A35K compares with A359 when flying same distance with same payload?


Give me a couple of weeks I should be able to add that.


Great, thank you very much :D In the meantime are you able to provide some example data regarding some A35K fuel burn vs payload?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13995
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:20 am

It’s better I wait and give you that and have it reviewed before publishing.

Anecdotal one off flights have many operational variables that it’s hard to give a just comparison.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:30 am

zeke wrote:
It’s better I wait and give you that and have it reviewed before publishing.

Anecdotal one off flights have many operational variables that it’s hard to give a just comparison.


Great :D
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:14 am

Thanks to all for keeping this informative thread alive.
 
SteinarN
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:58 pm

I am eagerly awaiting further information from Zeke, thepinkmachine and others :smile:
 
Buffalomatt1027
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:02 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:00 pm

The 787-8 though has a much different mission ....... its smaller, fuel efficient, and can fly long distances.

A lot of 787-8s are used by BA for example are used to create new markets and have direct flights to Pittsburgh, Oakland, and other medium size airports. Those markets arent the usual types of markets BA would normally be in.

The a350s are not used to do missions like that.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13995
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:09 am

They are by other airlines
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:12 am

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
The 787-8 though has a much different mission ....... its smaller, fuel efficient, and can fly long distances.

A lot of 787-8s are used by BA for example are used to create new markets and have direct flights to Pittsburgh, Oakland, and other medium size airports. Those markets arent the usual types of markets BA would normally be in.
.


BA 788 and 789 seat map difference is lack of premium seating on the 788, they are Y heavy.
Looks more like holidayers or corporate shuttle.

( Then people often turn things upside down. With a hammer in hand every problem is a nail. for example 752 later use was such a "hammer".)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Buffalomatt1027
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:02 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 pm

WIederling wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
The 787-8 though has a much different mission ....... its smaller, fuel efficient, and can fly long distances.

A lot of 787-8s are used by BA for example are used to create new markets and have direct flights to Pittsburgh, Oakland, and other medium size airports. Those markets arent the usual types of markets BA would normally be in.
.


BA 788 and 789 seat map difference is lack of premium seating on the 788, they are Y heavy.
Looks more like holidayers or corporate shuttle.

( Then people often turn things upside down. With a hammer in hand every problem is a nail. for example 752 later use was such a "hammer".)


Yeah, because the medium size airports most likely can not sell as many Premium seats as well as a major hub can.
 
xwb565
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:53 pm

http://www.onthewingsaviation.com/2019/ ... tible.html

The early IB a359 ops to EZE reveals 33% less fuel burned vs a346 and more payload carried.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:06 pm

xwb565 wrote:
http://www.onthewingsaviation.com/2019/03/iberia-ahora-un-33-de-combustible.html

The early IB a359 ops to EZE reveals 33% less fuel burned vs a346 and more payload carried.


Very good performance. Now i'm even more curious about the A35K... :scratchchin:
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:55 pm

Excellent thread.

The A359/A35K is looking real strong...

It will be interesting to see what the in-service performance is for the 777X. If the fuel burned per seat is worse than 35K, this program is in trouble. I think 778 is done, personally. May never get made.

Will Boeing consider a 781 "IGW" down the road?
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4321
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:10 am

brons2 wrote:
Excellent thread.

The A359/A35K is looking real strong...

It will be interesting to see what the in-service performance is for the 777X. If the fuel burned per seat is worse than 35K, this program is in trouble. I think 778 is done, personally. May never get made.

Will Boeing consider a 781 "IGW" down the road?

It would need a new wing, larger gear (probably triple bogey), and uprated engines. If the 778 gets canned then yes I would expect it. If it isn’t then unlikely until the 787 is re-engined in about 10 years.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Joe2mercs
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:20 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:00 am

This is a very interesting thread, with plenty of intelligent speculation. Ultimately it is the airlines that look long and hard at the respective aircraft and how they might impact their commercial operations. Based purely on seating numbers the A350-900 is better matched against the 787-10 rather than the 787-9. In this respect the airlines appear to be ordering more A350-900s than 787-10s. The A350-1000 steps outside the 787 range and onto the toes of the 777. Here again it seems as if airlines prefer the A350-1000 to the 777x8, although here it is perhaps a tad unfair since the 777x has not yet entered service. The 777X9 has no immediate direct competition from Airbus, but having been badly burnt by the A380 and its heavy reliance on orders from gulf carriers, Airbus is perhaps reluctant to commit to an A350-1100 program.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:23 pm

AECM wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
http://www.onthewingsaviation.com/2019/03/iberia-ahora-un-33-de-combustible.html

The early IB a359 ops to EZE reveals 33% less fuel burned vs a346 and more payload carried.


Very good performance. Now i'm even more curious about the A35K... :scratchchin:


25% better than the 77W, which in turn is ~7% better than the A346.... I would think the higher payload makes the A359 look worse than it is.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
AirCal737
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:29 am

tommy1808 wrote:
AECM wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
http://www.onthewingsaviation.com/2019/03/iberia-ahora-un-33-de-combustible.html

The early IB a359 ops to EZE reveals 33% less fuel burned vs a346 and more payload carried.


Very good performance. Now i'm even more curious about the A35K... :scratchchin:


25% better than the 77W, which in turn is ~7% better than the A346.... I would think the higher payload makes the A359 look worse than it is.

Best regards
Thomas

But you can't just speculate this way. 77W is a 20% larger frame. It's also wrong maths to just subtract to get the 77W figures.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:44 am

AirCal737 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
AECM wrote:

Very good performance. Now i'm even more curious about the A35K... :scratchchin:


25% better than the 77W, which in turn is ~7% better than the A346.... I would think the higher payload makes the A359 look worse than it is.

Best regards
Thomas

But you can't just speculate this way. 77W is a 20% larger frame. It's also wrong maths to just subtract to get the 77W figures.


1. I didn't do the math, I repeated well known relative fuel burn difference, as you can see I didn't give a result...
2. This is about absolute fuel burn, not relative, hence size is irrelevant.
3.the size difference isn't 20% to any of the frames mentioned.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:10 am

268t A350-900's range is only 9500km (5129nm) as per Lufthansa:

Image

https://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/35a
 
xwb565
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:11 am

That is an approx for LH rules and is full payload.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:09 pm

xwb565 wrote:
That is an approx for LH rules and is full payload.


Agreed - 9500km should be with the frame at or near MZFW (so around 192-196,000kg) leaving around 70-75,000kg for fuel uplift.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:32 pm

Stitch wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
That is an approx for LH rules and is full payload.


Agreed - 9500km should be with the frame at or near MZFW (so around 192-196,000kg) leaving around 70-75,000kg for fuel uplift.


I wonder why LH would publish MZFW range. It does not do this for their other aircrafts.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13995
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:09 pm

moyangmm wrote:
I wonder why LH would publish MZFW range. It does not do this for their other aircrafts.


You didn’t think to question how you same source has the A330-300 with more range than the A350-900 ?

Does not even pass a reasonably test.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sciing
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:54 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:18 am

moyangmm wrote:
Stitch wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
That is an approx for LH rules and is full payload.


Agreed - 9500km should be with the frame at or near MZFW (so around 192-196,000kg) leaving around 70-75,000kg for fuel uplift.


I wonder why LH would publish MZFW range. It does not do this for their other aircrafts.

They use the A350 primary as cargo aircraft not a passenger one;-)
 
xwb565
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:42 am

From a very small sample size- the a35k is burning 22-23% less trip fuel than the 77w. I have been told not to put up any raw numbers. :cool2: . I repeat this is a very small sample size.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:56 am

xwb565 wrote:
From a very small sample size- the a35k is burning 22-23% less trip fuel than the 77w. I have been told not to put up any raw numbers. :cool2: . I repeat this is a very small sample size.


Tracks with what we have been seeing with other operators.
 
tomcat
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:37 pm

sciing wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Agreed - 9500km should be with the frame at or near MZFW (so around 192-196,000kg) leaving around 70-75,000kg for fuel uplift.


I wonder why LH would publish MZFW range. It does not do this for their other aircrafts.

They use the A350 primary as cargo aircraft not a passenger one;-)


Talking about cargo aircraft, here is a basic attempt at figuring out the capability of an hypothetical A359F. It would be designed in the 777F way: using the fuselage length of the A359 and borrowing the wings, landing gear and engines of the A351. I consider the same max payload as the one of the 777F, ie 102t:
MTOW: 316t (same has the current A351 MTOW)
Max payload: 102t
OEW: 140t (guesstimate) (the 777F OEW is 144.4t per Wikipedia)
Fuel load: 74t
Fuel at landing: 6.5t
Fuel burn: 67.5t
Avg hourly fuel burn: 6.3t (assumption)
Avg speed: M 0.82 (cruise speed M 0.85 and lower speeds during climb and descent)
Range: 10.7 hours / 5034 nm (vs 4970 nm according to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/freigh ... ical-specs )

Going by the Wiki OEW / range / MTOW / Max payload and considering 8t of fuel at landing, the 777F burns 93.4t of fuel to transport 102t over 4970 nm.

With a 102t payload, this hypothetical A359F would burn 131.5g of fuel per t.nm vs 184.3g for the 777F. This would be a 28.7% reduction in fuel burn.

Note that such an A359F would require a MLW of about 250t, while the current highest MLW of the A351 is 236t. It remains to be seen if the A359F could take a max payload of 102t.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26407
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:44 pm

Honestly, once Airbus commits to launching the A350-900F I am not sure they need to go with the original concept of using the A350-1000's wings and undercarriage.

The original concept was an MTOW of 295,000kg (identical to the launch MTOW of the A350-1000), but Airbus has raised the A350-900's MTOW from 268,000kg at launch to now 280,000kg. That's pretty close and with continued weight reductions and such, I like to think that the frame would work as-is without needing all the A350-1000's heavier bits.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:41 pm

tomcat wrote:
OEW: 140t (guesstimate) (the 777F OEW is 144.4t per Wikipedia)
Fuel load: 74t

Just for comparison : the A332F has 20t less OEW than the A333 Pax version.

OEW for an A359F could be as low as 130t.
Murphy is an optimist
 
tomcat
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:26 pm

WIederling wrote:
tomcat wrote:
OEW: 140t (guesstimate) (the 777F OEW is 144.4t per Wikipedia)
Fuel load: 74t

Just for comparison : the A332F has 20t less OEW than the A333 Pax version.

OEW for an A359F could be as low as 130t.


It clearly shows that Airbus could finally have a winner in the freighter market. A 316t A359 could also be a very good option for the project Sunrise. It could probably haul 300 pax and some cargo on a 20 hours flight, provided that it wouldn't be fuel volume limited (an ACT would take care of this limitation).

Stitch wrote:
Honestly, once Airbus commits to launching the A350-900F I am not sure they need to go with the original concept of using the A350-1000's wings and undercarriage.

The original concept was an MTOW of 295,000kg (identical to the launch MTOW of the A350-1000), but Airbus has raised the A350-900's MTOW from 268,000kg at launch to now 280,000kg. That's pretty close and with continued weight reductions and such, I like to think that the frame would work as-is without needing all the A350-1000's heavier bits.


It all depends on the max payload they are targeting. Not using the -1000 wings and undercarriage would set the MLW at a lower level than if they were using them. For new built freighters, the market demand is greater for the 777F/748F than for the A332F. This makes me think that Airbus should go for the highest payload/range possible. I don't want to go too much of topic but I also consider that the A330 still has a lot of growth potential as a freighter by using some A340 features: adding its center MLG leg would allow to push the MTOW of the A332F (or of a potential A338F) to 275t which was the highest MTOW of the A340s. This being said, my money is on the A359F rather than on any new development of the A330F.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed May 01, 2019 11:49 am

tomcat wrote:
.......................This being said, my money is on the A359F rather than on any new development of the A330F.


Taking the shrink approach probably is good for the freighter. ( metric is pure weight )
For the ULH PAX solution further pimping the base 359 airframe is of higher interest.
Taking the -1000 "chassis" really cuts into efficiency.
With the re-engine coming up it would make even less sense.
( Take the A359ULR and give it sufficient range boost to make an antipodes great circle route !? )
Murphy is an optimist
 
trex8
Posts: 5338
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri May 03, 2019 12:58 am

Ive been looking at the 777F and A359 acaps, it seems the A359 could carry far more pallets than the 777.
The A359 carries 6 pallets in forward underfloor bay and 5 rear. The 777 6 and 4.
It looks quite possible on the main deck you could easily carry 4 more in the length of the fuselage between the front and rear underfloor bays and probably 1 single one aft. The 77F carries 27 pallets on main deck, 10 below, the A359 could carry probably 31 main and 11 below.
You may have to contour the pallets on the main deck more on the A359 as cabin is less wide (and maybe height also??) but even then it would seem the A359 volume wise is bigger. If so having a higher weight and need for A350-1000 MLG may be necessary to get the best payload weight wise given its larger volume.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri May 03, 2019 7:30 am

SEPilot wrote:
I question this chart. I do not think the 707 in any form was ever used for 11 hour flights.


Of course it was, Buenos Aires to Madrid non-stop on a 707-387 was 11hrs 30 mins for example. And that was in 1967...

Tel Aviv to New York was 10 hrs 20 mins and that started in 1961.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 10:09 am

Fascinating thread. Read all 5 pages to see how this thread evolved with ever improving analysis.

zeke wrote:
Image


The A332 error has already been spotted and acknowledged in the thread and is therefore moot. I cannot wait to see the updated chart with OAG's input and with the A333/343.
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 5:38 pm

Pacific wrote:
Fascinating thread. Read all 5 pages to see how this thread evolved with ever improving analysis.

zeke wrote:
Image


The A332 error has already been spotted and acknowledged in the thread and is therefore moot. I cannot wait to see the updated chart with OAG's input and with the A333/343.


In this chart, what should be the range of 332 if not exceeding its MTOW?
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 7:02 pm

Pacific wrote:
Fascinating thread. Read all 5 pages to see how this thread evolved with ever improving analysis.

zeke wrote:
Image


The A332 error has already been spotted and acknowledged in the thread and is therefore moot. I cannot wait to see the updated chart with OAG's input and with the A333/343.


The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 7:30 pm

usax777 wrote:

The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.


Being at the MTOW doesn’t always mean the airplane is taking all the fuel it’s capable of taking - most large jets probably can’t take maximum structural payload and maximum fuel together.

So claiming airplane X range at MTOW is better when compared to Airplane Y without factoring in what brought it to MTOW in the first place is erroneous.
Last edited by novarupta on Sat May 04, 2019 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 7:32 pm

novarupta wrote:
usax777 wrote:

The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.


Being at the MTOW doesn’t always mean the airplane is taking all the fuel it’s capable of taking - most large jets probably can’t take maximum structural payload and maximum fuel together.


At 30t payload neither B787-9 nor A359 is fuel volume limited.
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 7:38 pm

usax777 wrote:
novarupta wrote:
usax777 wrote:

The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.


Being at the MTOW doesn’t always mean the airplane is taking all the fuel it’s capable of taking - most large jets probably can’t take maximum structural payload and maximum fuel together.


At 30t payload neither B787-9 nor A359 is fuel volume limited.


And I’m pretty sure with a 30 Tonne payload and maximum fuel the A350 isn’t exactly at MTOW either....it’s more akin to a 777 in size and capability.

[edit] one of the others who work around the type can confirm but I think @30 tonnes on a 787-9 would actually put you over MTOW if you were to fully fuel it.
Last edited by novarupta on Sat May 04, 2019 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 7:51 pm

usax777 wrote:
Pacific wrote:
Fascinating thread. Read all 5 pages to see how this thread evolved with ever improving analysis.

zeke wrote:
Image


The A332 error has already been spotted and acknowledged in the thread and is therefore moot. I cannot wait to see the updated chart with OAG's input and with the A333/343.


The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.

A more appropriate question is maybe not is that typical but what do airlines want. If it’s true as you say that 30t is typical is this through choice or necessity for operations. If, for example, QF could take a full pax load plus 15t of belly cargo, would they? Some airlines ply the North Atlantic with noting in the belly and some are squeezed to bursting. Why would ULH be any different?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3614
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 7:59 pm

ELBOB wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
I question this chart. I do not think the 707 in any form was ever used for 11 hour flights.


Of course it was, Buenos Aires to Madrid non-stop on a 707-387 was 11hrs 30 mins for example. And that was in 1967...

Tel Aviv to New York was 10 hrs 20 mins and that started in 1961.



Pan Am flew several -320B routes in excess of 11 hours. How soon we forget...
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 8:20 pm

usax777 wrote:
The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.


You are hunting for a mirage :-)
Why do you think that A359 with the same 40t payload but higher OEW has indistinguishable fuel burn to a 789 ?
( cue A359 moves weight more efficiently than 789. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 8:22 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
usax777 wrote:
Pacific wrote:
Fascinating thread. Read all 5 pages to see how this thread evolved with ever improving analysis.



The A332 error has already been spotted and acknowledged in the thread and is therefore moot. I cannot wait to see the updated chart with OAG's input and with the A333/343.


The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.

A more appropriate question is maybe not is that typical but what do airlines want. If it’s true as you say that 30t is typical is this through choice or necessity for operations. If, for example, QF could take a full pax load plus 15t of belly cargo, would they? Some airlines ply the North Atlantic with noting in the belly and some are squeezed to bursting. Why would ULH be any different?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Given the capabilities of current wide body planes, there is hardly any payload left for cargo after passengers and bags on ULH routes. Can you give me an example of ULH routes with significant amount of cargo?
 
usax777
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:45 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 8:27 pm

WIederling wrote:
usax777 wrote:
The problem of this chart is the assumed payload is 40t. In typical ULH operations the payload is about 30t (300 passengers and bags). With 30t payload, B789 will have advantage of fuel burn over A359. At MTOW, the range of 254t B789 should be similar as 278t A359.


You are hunting for a mirage :-)
Why do you think that A359 with the same 40t payload but higher OEW has indistinguishable fuel burn to a 789 ?
( cue A359 moves weight more efficiently than 789. )


Typically on the shorter the routes the higher the payload. Relatively speaking, A350 is “optimized” for shorter routes with higher payload. B789 on the other hand, is better at ULH with only passengers and bags.

So for 30t payload, which is common for ULH routes with passengers and bags but not a lot of cargo, B789 has similar range as 278t A359, but burns less fuel per hour.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat May 04, 2019 8:40 pm

usax777 wrote:
So for 30t payload, which is common for ULH routes with passengers and bags but not a lot of cargo, B789 has similar range as 278t A359, but burns less fuel per hour.


That is probably less correct than you think it is.

What you see in the graph is 1..2% block fuel difference.
Lets assume that the 789 has 10t less OEW than an A359.
( which would be acceptable for a plane providing 10% less space.)
reducing payload by 10t should penalize the A359 by ~1/30th ( assuming parasitic vs induced drag is 1:1 )

What one really sees is that the A359 has better capability @ much less ( ~~half?) the capability increase in fuel cost.
( 767 vs A330 comes to mind.)

note the in family large difference between 788 and 789 !
Murphy is an optimist
 
Pacific
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun May 05, 2019 2:54 am

usax777 wrote:
In this chart, what should be the range of 332 if not exceeding its MTOW?


It's in the thread, around 5700nm I believe it was. So is the reasoning of why 40t was chosen. This particular 787 pilot usually lifts in the region of 40t.

i.e. 40t is a reasonable, regular load when the aircrafts are not on niche ULR routes.
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 369
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun May 05, 2019 7:01 am

40 T payload is indeed on the high side for ULR flights. If anyone’s interested, here’s trip fuel burn data for [email protected] 25T payload, which is more or less what QF9/10 carries. Incidentally, 25T is also where the 789 becomes fuel volume limited. At higher ranges/lower payloads it will run out of fuel volume before it hits the MTOW. Assumptions for the numbers below are same as before.

4000NM - 41.5T
5200NM - 55.0T
6000NM - 64.6T
7200NM - 79.8T
8000NM - 90.5T
8400NM - 96.0T

The 280T A350 maxes out on fuel at about 32~35T payload and carries some 9T fuel more than the 789. This is offset by somewhat higher fuel consumption. I guess the A350 still has a slight edge, but at extreme distances and low payloads they come close to each other. How close would depend on how much more the 350 burns. Zeke?
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
4000NM - 41.5T
5200NM - 55.0T
6000NM - 64.6T
7200NM - 79.8T
8000NM - 90.5T
8400NM - 96.0T

Image
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon May 06, 2019 8:52 pm

Hi Zeke. Out of curiosity (again ) how far could a Cathay spec A35K fly with a 35T payload?
 
andrej
Posts: 1203
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 8:31 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed May 15, 2019 11:03 am

Hey guys,
today I came across this video on the YouTube.
Ethiopian 602 flight from Addis Ababa to Dubai. Allow me to share with you fuel page screen shot and a link to the video.
Maybe you will find it useful and it may act as another real world data on the fuel consumption.

Image

Source: https://youtu.be/KItuLnhdPXo?t=243
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: benjjk, Starlionblue and 23 guests

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