• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:50 am

tommy1808 wrote:
So.. you honestly think flying 17 hours westward and 17 hours westward at 5t/hr yield different total fuel burn? :)

The only difference wind makes in both scenarios is how much ground you cover in those 17 hours.

Best regards
Thomas


Of course not. But that's not the argument being made.

You prove my argument by saying the ground covered is different. Now you're on the right track.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:35 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
As i said from the very start you can fudge the numbers by giving the A350 an unrealistic empty weight. The lighter you make the A350's empty weight the more payload it appears to take.



Well, we can say that roughly OEW = MZFW - maximum structural payload (MSP)

Right from A350's ACAP, and using the base model WV000 with MZFW of 192,000 kg and MSP of 53,300 kg, we get an OEW of 138,700 kg for the A359. But that is only for the WV000 base model, since Airbus only issues the payload chart for that model only, it is the only model that has its payload chart published.


Later frames got lighter OEW, A.net members who work for various airlines have confirmed an OEW of 135t-136t right from the manual.

Your 142t OEW is a bit high and unrealistic, and in our case, it would make a huge difference in the payload for the trips we are comparing. Again, SQ22 carried 4.5t more in payload while flying a route that is 5% longer. Had the 789 flew in such conditions, its fuel burn numbers would have been completely different (of course, that's a big if since it won't be able to take off in that condition in the first place, it might weigh as much as 260t in that case)
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:46 am

First post here ....

I was just looking at some of the snaps from the a35k's first visit to MAN

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtaB7HMXcAEXfNN.jpg:large

From the fms display It looks like the aircraft only needs 65tons (73.5t at start minus 8.5t remaining) of fuel for the 11 hour trip equating to less than 6t per hour. Does this mean the a35k burns less than its smaller sibling?
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:15 pm

xwb565 wrote:
First post here ....

I was just looking at some of the snaps from the a35k's first visit to MAN

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtaB7HMXcAEXfNN.jpg:large

From the fms display It looks like the aircraft only needs 65tons (73.5t at start minus 8.5t remaining) of fuel for the 11 hour trip equating to less than 6t per hour. Does this mean the a35k burns less than its smaller sibling?



So I am assuming that’s the flight on the 1st of Dec?

The flight time was 12:20 hr, and so that would give an average of 5.98 t/hr for the A35K, impressive.

However, the A359 burned 5.8 t/hr on a significantly longer route, and we don’t know the payload the A35K was carrying. Until we get them both on a similar route with identical payloads, these figures would be misleading.


We will wait for what Zeke has to say on this, he might have been the pilot in that pic, who knows?


Those numbers for the A35K are pretty impressive for its size and capability, but their sales are not really as good as Airbus would have hoped I guess. This adds to the discussion that is going on in the general forum, CASM isn’t everything when it comes to fleet planning.
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:05 am

There is also a small insert at the bottom of the pedestal which seems to show an oew of 148t.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:29 am

xwb565 wrote:
There is also a small insert at the bottom of the pedestal which seems to show an oew of 148t.


good spot, it does look like it says 148000 or 148900. that would be impressive if it were. it could be fuel volume also I guess.

Fred
Image
 
majano
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:19 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
There is also a small insert at the bottom of the pedestal which seems to show an oew of 148t.


good spot, it does look like it says 148000 or 148900. that would be impressive if it were. it could be fuel volume also I guess.

Fred

If the interpretation that the fuel at start was 73.5t is correct, applying a density factor of 80% yields volume of aaprox. 92,000 litres. As the standard fuel volume of the A35k is 156,000 litres, I see fuel volume as unlikely.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13825
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:33 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
it could be fuel volume also I guess.


It has nothing to do with fuel volume ;) cannot confirm what it says, some people would not believe me anyway.

The -1000 performance factors are doing quite a bit better than the brochure.

You you cannot discern from the photo if the step climbs have been added and what atmospheric data is being used. That will change the landing fuel number.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:55 pm

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
it could be fuel volume also I guess.


It has nothing to do with fuel volume ;) cannot confirm what it says, some people would not believe me anyway.

The -1000 performance factors are doing quite a bit better than the brochure.


So it is indeed the oew or perhaps the dow for that particular frame. ;). Not surprising then that the fuel burn looks impressive. I expect more incremental orders once the data starts flowing.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:17 pm

Looking at the System Display, I'm guessing "GW" stands for Gross Weight, which shows 241,500kg and "FOB" is "Fuel on Board" which shows 51,300KG.
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:30 pm

That display seems to show the real time weight and fuel. They appear to be taking fuel on board as the photo was taken- other ones show even less just a few minutes before. The fms 1 page shows the expected performance- fuel at the runway(73.5) and the bottom of the page shows the expected fuel at landing(8.5). This as Zeke lets us know is perhaps not the ultimate result once other factors are entered but 65t would be a ballpark figure for what was burnt on that flight.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:43 am

As xwb565 says, the aircraft is still being refueled. Note "REFUEL PNL DOOR OPEN" and "REFUEL IN PROGRESS" on the SD.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:29 pm

I think the 'range' question was answered fairly early on in this thread.In truth one should not look at this one aspect in isolation.What it comes down to (imho) is the initial market positioning of the said aircaft against consumer (airlines) requirements.Extra range ( the subject matter) is only useful if customers require it.Otherwise you are dragging around stuff nobody needs.
Both central products,the 789 and the 359 seem to fit the market pretty well,sales would suggest that but several slightly different markets.Below that the 788 ( which was cleverly launched first) has sold well,whereas the 358 was a complete dud.
The two 10's are a very different matter.One was a 'simple' stretch that traded a huge amount of range yet seems to fit market demand quite well,clearly it's Uber efficient.Airbus was going to do a similar thing initially ( simple stretch) but in their case the market did not want to sacrifice range so modifications had to be made.
How this aircaft will pan out remains to be seen as its real competition hasn't launched yet.Is the 779 too big? Hard to tell.Again perhaps they will both find decent markets over time.
Over the many decades it seems Boeing is very good at judging the marketplace ,they certainly beat their two US competitors into the ground!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:09 pm

Stitch wrote:
Looking at the System Display, I'm guessing "GW" stands for Gross Weight, which shows 241,500kg and "FOB" is "Fuel on Board" which shows 51,300KG.


I wonder if that means payload was 241.500 - 51,400 - 148,000-148,900 = 41,200 - 42,100?

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
moyangmm
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:55 am

There is some recent data regarding A359's fuel burn from DL's application for its HND routes:

I was wondering what is 1817 gallons/hour in tons per hour?

Image

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2019-0014
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:59 am

moyangmm wrote:
There is some recent data regarding A359's fuel burn from DL's application for its HND routes:

I was wondering what is 1817 gallons/hour in tons per hour?

Image

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2019-0014


Assuming a SG of 0.8, it is 5500kg/hour. Which is in the ballpark for an A350-900.

Side note: weird to see fuel burn in gallons per hour. We only ever talk kg for the burn. I suppose since the airline buys fuel by the liter/gallon the measure is relevant to some beancounter.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
moyangmm
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:26 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Assuming a SG of 0.8, it is 5500kg/hour. Which is in the ballpark for an A350-900.

Side note: weird to see fuel burn in gallons per hour. We only ever talk kg for the burn. I suppose since the airline buys fuel by the liter/gallon the measure is relevant to some beancounter.


Isn't that too low? Maybe this is because the route (DTW-HND) is relatively short. Maybe 359's fuel burn for long-haul operations will be higher (~ 6 t/ hours)?
 
stratclub
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:37 am

Starlionblue wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
There is some recent data regarding A359's fuel burn from DL's application for its HND routes:

I was wondering what is 1817 gallons/hour in tons per hour?

Image

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2019-0014


Assuming a SG of 0.8, it is 5500kg/hour. Which is in the ballpark for an A350-900.

Side note: weird to see fuel burn in gallons per hour. We only ever talk kg for the burn. I suppose since the airline buys fuel by the liter/gallon the measure is relevant to some beancounter.

That bothers me as well. Sources like Wikipedia list fuel in gallons or liters.:banghead: Come on guys show fuel as pounds or kegs like is indicated on an actual aircraft FQIS and let the bean counters read gallons or liters from the fuel slip.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:45 am

moyangmm wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Assuming a SG of 0.8, it is 5500kg/hour. Which is in the ballpark for an A350-900.

Side note: weird to see fuel burn in gallons per hour. We only ever talk kg for the burn. I suppose since the airline buys fuel by the liter/gallon the measure is relevant to some beancounter.


Isn't that too low? Maybe this is because the route (DTW-HND) is relatively short. Maybe 359's fuel burn for long-haul operations will be higher (~ 6 t/ hours)?


That would depend on the winds. The summary only gives ground miles, not air miles. 5500 kg/hour doesn't seem massively out of the ordinary for an 11-12 hour flight but I don't know how long the flight actually is. A lot depends on loads as well.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
gloom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:37 am

Starlionblue wrote:
A lot depends on loads as well.


That one especially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEUKs_66Qa4

It clearly shows (at time 1:12) 2.47t/hr/engine probably somewhere around 1hr into flight (FU: 3050kg per engine). The plane is certainly light, so it does 5t/hr. Well below fuel burn assumed here.

It just happens, when needs are specific.

Cheers,
Adam
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:38 pm

moyangmm wrote:
There is some recent data regarding A359's fuel burn from DL's application for its HND routes:

I was wondering what is 1817 gallons/hour in tons per hour?

Image

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2019-0014



In those slides, It’s interesting that DL finds A359 burning less fuel per hour than its A332. It also burns 27% less fuel per hour than 777-200ER. On the other hand, those A339 numbers are surprising.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:12 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
In those slides, It’s interesting that DL finds A359 burning less fuel per hour than its A332.


I should hope so, since the A350 was originally meant to replace the A330. :duck:


Eyad89 wrote:
It also burns 27% less fuel per hour than 777-200ER.


Which is inline with predictions.


Eyad89 wrote:
On the other hand, those A339 numbers are surprising.


15% lower than the A332 (A333) is also within predictions, as I recall.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:01 am

Eyad89 wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
There is some recent data regarding A359's fuel burn from DL's application for its HND routes:

I was wondering what is 1817 gallons/hour in tons per hour?

Image

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2019-0014



In those slides, It’s interesting that DL finds A359 burning less fuel per hour than its A332. It also burns 27% less fuel per hour than 777-200ER. On the other hand, those A339 numbers are surprising.


Where's the A332 number?

The longer the flight, the bigger the advantage the A350 will have over the A330. And it can carry more payload.

Not surprised that it burns way less than the 777-200ER. It's really an unfair comparison since we're talking 20 years of age difference between the basic models.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:16 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Where's the A332 number?


It is in the actual application. The route is PDX-HND (4857 miles) and the fuel burn is 1829 gallons per hour.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:32 am

Stitch wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Where's the A332 number?


It is in the actual application. The route is PDX-HND (4857 miles) and the fuel burn is 1829 gallons per hour.


That number seems reasonable. The A350 really sips fuel compared to the previous generation of aircraft.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
trex8
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:23 pm

So no toilets on the A339!! page 37 !!
Also looks like they got the mid cabin crew rest and not the aft bulk compartment one like on the A330ceos they have now.
Assuming this LOPA is accurate
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:19 am

trex8 wrote:
So no toilets on the A339!! page 37 !!
Also looks like they got the mid cabin crew rest and not the aft bulk compartment one like on the A330ceos they have now.
Assuming this LOPA is accurate


Aft bulk crew rest is an option btw.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
trex8
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:44 am

Starlionblue wrote:
trex8 wrote:
So no toilets on the A339!! page 37 !!
Also looks like they got the mid cabin crew rest and not the aft bulk compartment one like on the A330ceos they have now.
Assuming this LOPA is accurate


Aft bulk crew rest is an option btw.


I assume the aft bulk area crew rests are built in and cannot be removed like the container based LDMCR. IIRC the original A330/340 LDMCR only had 6 beds but the neo gets 8 ( so they can also dispense with the 2 flight crew rest area in the forward galley area). Any idea how they managed to get 8 beds now?? Is it built in and not removable? The previous ones were based on a LD36 which is same size as a 96in pallet.

There seems to be a 8 bed bulk rest module available now https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/ ... 478120.htm
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:01 am

Removable or not, my point was that the aft crew rest is an option entirely. That is, there are A330s with it and A330s without it.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
mk2
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:20 pm

Going back to the original topic. zeke and thepinkmachine cooperated to build a spreadsheet using FCOM data for the following scenario (40t payload, 8t fuel at landing, 4000nm to 7000nm range) for multiple aircraft (A332, A359, B788, B789, B772, B77L).
The peer review process between zeke (A350 pilot at CX), thepinkmachine (B787 pilot), and oldaeroguy (retired Boeing engineer) gives us all great confidence over the compiled data.
Zeke, do you believe you can enrich the data with A35K data and publish the latest spreadsheet that was peer reviewed buy thepinkmachine and oldaeroguy ?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13825
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:08 pm

Cannot promise anything got a large project on that is taking a lot of my time.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:19 am

Some new figures for consideration from a 280t a359 with the latest performance improvements- 11.5hr trip, 71t fuel burn, 60t payload and 272 tow.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:12 pm

xwb565 wrote:
Some new figures for consideration from a 280t a359 with the latest performance improvements- 11.5hr trip, 71t fuel burn, 60t payload and 272 tow.


So that was flying at its MZFW? Since it still had 8 tons before it hit MTOW, it would be able to fly for 13hr carrying 60t of payload. Not bad.
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:48 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Some new figures for consideration from a 280t a359 with the latest performance improvements- 11.5hr trip, 71t fuel burn, 60t payload and 272 tow.


So that was flying at its MZFW? Since it still had 8 tons before it hit MTOW, it would be able to fly for 13hr carrying 60t of payload. Not bad.


Only rider being this was a new airframe with almost no performance deterioration.
 
tealnz
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:29 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
So that was flying at its MZFW? Since it still had 8 tons before it hit MTOW, it would be able to fly for 13hr carrying 60t of payload. Not bad.

That also hints at the challenge Boeing faces in trying to compete against an 359/A35K combo for the new Qantas fleet. The 77X will certainly offer capability. But with QF strategy shifting to frequency, non-stop ULH point to point (rather than hub to hub) and reduced trip cost/risk the gap between a 280t airframe with these capabilities and a 351t airframe becomes pretty stark.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:48 am

xwb565 wrote:
Some new figures for consideration from a 280t a359 with the latest performance improvements- 11.5hr trip, 71t fuel burn, 60t payload and 272 tow.


Can you share where did you got that numbers? It is from some flight record? I am just curious, I do not want dispute those numbers.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8487
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:47 am

xwb565 wrote:
Only rider being this was a new airframe with almost no performance deterioration.


that would be some years out, right?
How much % of performance do you lose per year 0.1.. 0.2 % ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13825
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:59 am

The 35K is way ahead of predictions, we have the FM fuel factor set to 9. The only reason it is not higher than 9 is that is the maximum limit. With in service data what will happen is the data package will improve and we will get back to more sensible fuel factors.

The factors I have seen even on our oldest A330 are still very reasonable.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 8487
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:04 am

zeke wrote:
The 35K is way ahead of predictions, we have the FM fuel factor set to 9. The only reason it is not higher than 9 is that is the maximum limit. With in service data what will happen is the data package will improve and we will get back to more sensible fuel factors.

The factors I have seen even on our oldest A330 are still very reasonable.


Lead me: ;-) How is this "fuel factor" used in Flight Management software ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:30 am

WIederling wrote:
zeke wrote:
The 35K is way ahead of predictions, we have the FM fuel factor set to 9. The only reason it is not higher than 9 is that is the maximum limit. With in service data what will happen is the data package will improve and we will get back to more sensible fuel factors.

The factors I have seen even on our oldest A330 are still very reasonable.


Lead me: ;-) How is this "fuel factor" used in Flight Management software ?


I think it is a number on the fmc that relatively determines trip fuel, reserves etc based on aircraft performance- The higher the number, the lower the fuel needs. From what Zeke is saying it appears that the a35k is beating book values by such a margin that even the maximum fuel factor number is calculating more fuel than actually needed.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13825
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:02 am

WIederling wrote:
Lead me: ;-) How is this "fuel factor" used in Flight Management software ?


Refer to pages 98-132 of this document, it’s quite a technical topic.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Gettin ... toring.pdf
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 8487
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:27 am

zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Lead me: ;-) How is this "fuel factor" used in Flight Management software ?


Refer to pages 98-132 of this document, it’s quite a technical topic.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Gettin ... toring.pdf

Thank you very much for the hint and help.

So the "9" you quote is the subtracted performance value in "%" ?
i.e. you have to adjust FMS ( some ??rather? conservative? ) table data by 9% down to reflect real performance?
Murphy is an optimist
 
xwb565
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:33 am

It also begs the question if Airbus marketing is making it very clear to prospective customers about the a35k's real world performance or they are still campaigning with slightly older values. I know it is a kind of silly doubt but sillier things have happened...
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:58 am

WIederling wrote:
zeke wrote:
The 35K is way ahead of predictions, we have the FM fuel factor set to 9. The only reason it is not higher than 9 is that is the maximum limit. With in service data what will happen is the data package will improve and we will get back to more sensible fuel factors.

The factors I have seen even on our oldest A330 are still very reasonable.


Lead me: ;-) How is this "fuel factor" used in Flight Management software ?


There are two factors in the FM. One has to do with fuel flow and the other with descent profile computation. Every frame is slightly different, and changes with age. The factors allow fine tuning of the FM predictions. E.g. After 20 years of service, a frame may have dings and repairs that increase drag. The fuel flow factor for that specific frame will allow the FM to make more accurate calculations.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:45 pm

Mrakula wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Some new figures for consideration from a 280t a359 with the latest performance improvements- 11.5hr trip, 71t fuel burn, 60t payload and 272 tow.


Can you share where did you got that numbers? It is from some flight record? I am just curious, I do not want dispute those numbers.
When i read the data i think about the A359 with 280T MTOW and latest improvements (new sharklets) and i know that SIA, PAL and IB have this version (am i missing some?). Taking in account these 3 a trip of 11,5h seems to fit with IB new A359 route EZE-MAD... But its just a guess
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:44 pm

AECM wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
Some new figures for consideration from a 280t a359 with the latest performance improvements- 11.5hr trip, 71t fuel burn, 60t payload and 272 tow.


Can you share where did you got that numbers? It is from some flight record? I am just curious, I do not want dispute those numbers.
When i read the data i think about the A359 with 280T MTOW and latest improvements (new sharklets) and i know that SIA, PAL and IB have this version (am i missing some?). Taking in account these 3 a trip of 11,5h seems to fit with IB new A359 route EZE-MAD... But its just a guess


11.5 hours is not stretching the 359s capabilities very much. I don't know for winds but in still air I'd guess EZE-MAD is 13½ hours. Still not making the 359 break a sweat.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:39 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
AECM wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

Can you share where did you got that numbers? It is from some flight record? I am just curious, I do not want dispute those numbers.
When i read the data i think about the A359 with 280T MTOW and latest improvements (new sharklets) and i know that SIA, PAL and IB have this version (am i missing some?). Taking in account these 3 a trip of 11,5h seems to fit with IB new A359 route EZE-MAD... But its just a guess


11.5 hours is not stretching the 359s capabilities very much. I don't know for winds but in still air I'd guess EZE-MAD is 13½ hours. Still not making the 359 break a sweat.
Looking at FR24 IB6845, MAD-EZE has a average flight time of 12h20 and IB6856, EZE-MAD has an average flight time of 11h21
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:05 am

AECM wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
AECM wrote:
When i read the data i think about the A359 with 280T MTOW and latest improvements (new sharklets) and i know that SIA, PAL and IB have this version (am i missing some?). Taking in account these 3 a trip of 11,5h seems to fit with IB new A359 route EZE-MAD... But its just a guess


11.5 hours is not stretching the 359s capabilities very much. I don't know for winds but in still air I'd guess EZE-MAD is 13½ hours. Still not making the 359 break a sweat.
Looking at FR24 IB6845, MAD-EZE has a average flight time of 12h20 and IB6856, EZE-MAD has an average flight time of 11h21


Thanks for checking. Those flight times are very comfortable in an A359. Probably never MTOW limited.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:07 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
AECM wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

Can you share where did you got that numbers? It is from some flight record? I am just curious, I do not want dispute those numbers.
When i read the data i think about the A359 with 280T MTOW and latest improvements (new sharklets) and i know that SIA, PAL and IB have this version (am i missing some?). Taking in account these 3 a trip of 11,5h seems to fit with IB new A359 route EZE-MAD... But its just a guess


11.5 hours is not stretching the 359s capabilities very much. I don't know for winds but in still air I'd guess EZE-MAD is 13½ hours. Still not making the 359 break a sweat.

According to some on these form a 12.5 hr flight is struggle hahaha. But now the standard A350 starts to get pushed around 16.5-17.5hours. PR have 295 on JFK-MNK which is blocked at 17+, minimal if any payload restrictions. And plenty 15 hour flights where it doesn’t even need MTOW.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: 787 vs A350 range

Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:40 am

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?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChrisKen, Dalmd88 and 12 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