UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:45 pm

Why hasn’t Boeing made a ULH version of the 787 that can fly routes like EWR-SIN that can complete with the A350ULR?
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:38 am

Because SQ didn't order 787 for that route. Current 254t 787-9 can already fly EWR-SIN with 161 seats. If SQ wishes, they could order some 787-9 now and configure it just like their A350ULR. They already had A350ULR so ULH 787 won't happen.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:59 am

Because it already is a ULH aircraft. Look at some of the routes in on, plenty of 16+ hour flights.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:57 am

UA857 wrote:
Why hasn’t Boeing made a ULH version of the 787 that can fly routes like EWR-SIN that can complete with the A350ULR?


tiny tanks.

The 787 can carry 126.000 liters of fuel, the A350ULR can carry 165.000 liters of fuel. The A350 doesn´t burn 30% more fuel/hour, but rather some single digit percent more.

You don´t get to have the optimum routing, optimum climb profile, every time luxury of PER-LHR on SIN-EWR. From the distance you´d expect a flight time difference of less than 1 hour, but its more 90 min to 2 hours difference.....

The 787 is an ULR plane as it is, but i don´t think they can make it ULR enough to fly SIN-EWR with the payload and reserves SQ had in mind.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:18 am

mintxwb wrote:
Because SQ didn't order 787 for that route. Current 254t 787-9 can already fly EWR-SIN with 161 seats. If SQ wishes, they could order some 787-9 now and configure it just like their A350ULR. They already had A350ULR so ULH 787 won't happen.


Maybe with 161 pax on board it can do SIN-EWR-SIN but not with same payload like A350ULR and on bad weather condition is fuel volume limited!

Did you notice 787 fly PER-LHR at 153t ZFW close to MTOW while A350ULR fly at 167t ZFW not hitting MTOW slightly.

Cheers
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:24 pm

Mrakula wrote:

Did you notice 787 fly PER-LHR at 153t ZFW close to MTOW while A350ULR fly at 167t ZFW not hitting MTOW slightly.



A359 DOW is quite a bit heavier than 789 (141t vs 128t). On SIN-EWR the payload should be similar between A359ULR and B789 (254t). The new 260t B789 should be a lot more capable than A350ULR.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:37 pm

mintxwb wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

Did you notice 787 fly PER-LHR at 153t ZFW close to MTOW while A350ULR fly at 167t ZFW not hitting MTOW slightly.



A359 DOW is quite a bit heavier than 789 (141t vs 128t). On SIN-EWR the payload should be similar between A359ULR and B789 (254t). The new 260t B789 should be a lot more capable than A350ULR.


B789 OEW is around 127t and A359 OEW is around 135t! Search in thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387

Still no information of 787 MTOW increase. 260t is just speculation.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26375
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:51 pm

Boeing could in theory offer a true ULH version of the 787-8 by using the more robust structural pieces of the 787-9 and increasing the MTOW to 254,000kg. The maximum fuel load of a 787-8 is just over 101,000kg so this would allow a ZFW of 153,000kg, which is 10,000kg below the current rating.
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:54 pm

To make a real ULH aircraft, the 787 would need extra tankage - another 10 tons or so. MTOW bump to 260 would increase payload, but actually decrease range at the extremes of the envelope.

The 788 ULH version would be great - the OEW is almost 10 tons less and it burns ~5% less fuel than the 789. Give it an MTOW bump and extra tankage and it would be a range monster.
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:56 pm

The REAL question is? Who Needs it? How many? and for What route? If there's a NEED? Boeing would probably build it..
 
Scotron12
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:15 am

Mrakula wrote:
mintxwb wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

Did you notice 787 fly PER-LHR at 153t ZFW close to MTOW while A350ULR fly at 167t ZFW not hitting MTOW slightly.



A359 DOW is quite a bit heavier than 789 (141t vs 128t). On SIN-EWR the payload should be similar between A359ULR and B789 (254t). The new 260t B789 should be a lot more capable than A350ULR.


B789 OEW is around 127t and A359 OEW is around 135t! Search in thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387

Still no information of 787 MTOW increase. 260t is just speculation.


Is this the same speculation about the 787-10 increase as well??
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:59 am

Scotron12 wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
mintxwb wrote:

A359 DOW is quite a bit heavier than 789 (141t vs 128t). On SIN-EWR the payload should be similar between A359ULR and B789 (254t). The new 260t B789 should be a lot more capable than A350ULR.


B789 OEW is around 127t and A359 OEW is around 135t! Search in thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387

Still no information of 787 MTOW increase. 260t is just speculation.


Is this the same speculation about the 787-10 increase as well??


Yes it is.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:00 am

strfyr51 wrote:
The REAL question is? Who Needs it? How many? and for What route? If there's a NEED? Boeing would probably build it..


Exactly.

A350ULR modification isn`t that extensive.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:48 am

mintxwb wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

Did you notice 787 fly PER-LHR at 153t ZFW close to MTOW while A350ULR fly at 167t ZFW not hitting MTOW slightly.



A359 DOW is quite a bit heavier than 789 (141t vs 128t). On SIN-EWR the payload should be similar between A359ULR and B789 (254t). The new 260t B789 should be a lot more capable than A350ULR.


Even if Boeing increased MTOW to the same 280t as the A359, it would still be fuel volume limited and carry almost 40.000 liters less fuel.
Even if your weight number where right, which they are not, and if fuel volume wasnt a problem, which it is, a 260t 787 would at best match the A350 as an ULH plane.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
mintxwb
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:23 pm

tommy1808 wrote:

Even if Boeing increased MTOW to the same 280t as the A359, it would still be fuel volume limited and carry almost 40.000 liters less fuel.
Even if your weight number where right, which they are not, and if fuel volume wasnt a problem, which it is, a 260t 787 would at best match the A350 as an ULH plane.


The A359 vs 787 range has been discussed ad nauseam in the other thread. The A350-900's real performance is far worse than some members claim it to be. No A350 is not a better ULH plane than the current 254t 787-9, let alone the 260t one. The 280t A359 at best can match the 254t 789. 268t A359 has similar payload-range as 254t 787-10.

We have to also remember that 787-9 also burns less than A350 significantly.

Back to OP's question, 787 is already the best ULH plane available.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:09 pm

mintxwb wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Even if Boeing increased MTOW to the same 280t as the A359, it would still be fuel volume limited and carry almost 40.000 liters less fuel.
Even if your weight number where right, which they are not, and if fuel volume wasnt a problem, which it is, a 260t 787 would at best match the A350 as an ULH plane.


The A359 vs 787 range has been discussed ad nauseam in the other thread. The A350-900's real performance is far worse than some members claim it to be. No A350 is not a better ULH plane than the current 254t 787-9, let alone the 260t one. The 280t A359 at best can match the 254t 789. 268t A359 has similar payload-range as 254t 787-10.

We have to also remember that 787-9 also burns less than A350 significantly.

Back to OP's question, 787 is already the best ULH plane available.


This statement you poted is false. In thread you refer is already discused and this is not truth!

Pilot of 787 post:

Below are 787 trip fuel figures @LRC:

I assumed 40T payload and ~8T reserve fuel at landing

4000Nm -44T
5000Nm - 54T (corrected 56,3T in later post)
6000Nm - 70T
7000Nm - 84,5T*
* Above MTOW, can’t carry 40T payload that far

My assumptions were:
DOW 127T
Res fuel 8T
Payload 40T
Landing weight 175T
still air
LRC

Pilot of A350:

Assumed a DOW of 135 tonnes, Landing weight of 183 tonnes.

4000 nm - 45.2
5000 nm - 57.5
6000 nm - 70.3
7000 nm - 83.9

I think it would carry that payload out to around 8000 nm.

I do not know why discused it further when there is extended thread about it already!
 
timh4000
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:14 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:28 pm

Many on here speculate about why airlines aren't building longer range jets. As is we have several that can fly over 12 hrs. And more than just a couple that can do 15 or more. But how much demand is there really? I'm not saying we shouldn't have any that can do 15+ hrs. But how many... I think rather than focusing on how far they can get them to go, how comfortable the flight is for nearly half of all commercial airliners already comfortably doing at least 12 hrs.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:53 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Why hasn’t Boeing made a ULH version of the 787 that can fly routes like EWR-SIN that can complete with the A350ULR?


tiny tanks.

The 787 can carry 126.000 liters of fuel, the A350ULR can carry 165.000 liters of fuel. The A350 doesn´t burn 30% more fuel/hour, but rather some single digit percent more.

You don´t get to have the optimum routing, optimum climb profile, every time luxury of PER-LHR on SIN-EWR. From the distance you´d expect a flight time difference of less than 1 hour, but its more 90 min to 2 hours difference.....

The 787 is an ULR plane as it is, but i don´t think they can make it ULR enough to fly SIN-EWR with the payload and reserves SQ had in mind.

best regards
Thomas

How much fuel would a cargo area tank hold, like the A321's?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26375
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
How much fuel would a cargo area tank hold, like the A321's?


It depends on it's dimensions. Each ACT on a 777-200LR held around 6000kg of fuel.

Also, the A350-900ULR has the same physical fuel tank structure of the A350-900, it can just make use of another 14,000 liters of the total volume through modifications to the fuel delivery and inerting system. It is possible that the 787 fuel tanks have unused volume that could be recovered in a similar way. Depending on if this is true and how much volume could be recovered, the use of ACTs might not be (as) necessary.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:41 am

Stitch wrote:
mintxwb wrote:
Those are simulator numbers that have absolutely no relevance to real-world performance


They are numbers generated from the actual flight management software Qantas uses to plan their actual 787 flights. It doesn't get any bloody more real-world.

The DL and SQ numbers, while not made-up either, have been consistently taken out of context to present a false narrative. They are valid only for the two specific flights referenced and people trying to extrapolate them to others should be banned for low-quality posting.


:checkmark:
Numbers from real trips are sometimes the best we can get to make any assumptions, but this is a case where actual 787 and A350 Pilots both agree the numbers are correct and legally used for flight planning.

And why wouldn´t they be so close..... they have the exact same engine generation, the A350 is somewhat heavier, but also has a newer and longer wing, has much more TOW and fuel volume to play with. The wing bit also makes a pretty good indication as to why the A350 seems to get better when the going gets long, while the 787 burns less on the more average long haul. Same idea Beoing has in mind for the 77X (better wing to make up for higher weight), or if you will the Spacejet vs. the E2.

Stitch wrote:
It depends on it's dimensions. Each ACT on a 777-200LR held around 6000kg of fuel..


Do you happen to know how heavy they are empty/with unusable fuel?

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:58 am

Designing an aircraft for greater range adds weight and reduces efficiency on shorter flights.

Boeing got the 787 perfectly in the sweet spot in my opinion.

In the coming decades both the A350 and 787 will fly further than they do now due to engine improvements. The A350 will then have too much range for most operators over 9000nm. The 787-10 will now be perfectly in the sweet spot and most members agree the 787-10 will start to sell in big numbers in the future.

The 787-9's range will near 8000nm with the MTOW bump. In 10 years time new engines will push range up to 8500nm. That is now outside of the sweet spot.

This is why the 797 is very important. The 787-9 is gaining capability and will become overkill for most airlines. Just like how the A321LR today can do the job the 757 did 20 years but with less weight and fuel burn. The 797 next decade will be doing a similar job to todays 787-8 but with less weight and fuel burn.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:56 am

RJMAZ wrote:
In the coming decades both the A350 and 787 will fly further than they do now due to engine improvements. .


unless of course globalization drives up cargo weight, and hence payload, requirements in sync or beyond efficiency gains. Both have an awful lot of cargo space to fill.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26375
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:55 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Do you happen to know how heavy they are empty/with unusable fuel?


No idea, but I would assume in the hundreds of kilograms between the structure and related plumbing.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:41 pm

This is why it would be a huge plus to let more reasonable and active people be mods. You know some impartial people.

Locking threads you know are going to be an issue will not deter people from having discussions like they seem to assume.
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:01 am

Mrakula wrote:
mintxwb wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Even if Boeing increased MTOW to the same 280t as the A359, it would still be fuel volume limited and carry almost 40.000 liters less fuel.
Even if your weight number where right, which they are not, and if fuel volume wasnt a problem, which it is, a 260t 787 would at best match the A350 as an ULH plane.


The A359 vs 787 range has been discussed ad nauseam in the other thread. The A350-900's real performance is far worse than some members claim it to be. No A350 is not a better ULH plane than the current 254t 787-9, let alone the 260t one. The 280t A359 at best can match the 254t 789. 268t A359 has similar payload-range as 254t 787-10.

We have to also remember that 787-9 also burns less than A350 significantly.

Back to OP's question, 787 is already the best ULH plane available.


This statement you poted is false. In thread you refer is already discused and this is not truth!

Pilot of 787 post:

Below are 787 trip fuel figures @LRC:

I assumed 40T payload and ~8T reserve fuel at landing

4000Nm -44T
5000Nm - 54T (corrected 56,3T in later post)
6000Nm - 70T
7000Nm - 84,5T*
* Above MTOW, can’t carry 40T payload that far

My assumptions were:
DOW 127T
Res fuel 8T
Payload 40T
Landing weight 175T
still air
LRC

Pilot of A350:

Assumed a DOW of 135 tonnes, Landing weight of 183 tonnes.

4000 nm - 45.2
5000 nm - 57.5
6000 nm - 70.3
7000 nm - 83.9

I think it would carry that payload out to around 8000 nm.

I do not know why discused it further when there is extended thread about it already!

I think you might be off slightly, The US rule is 8K fuel on top of destination. though you can mandate more..
 
DASYE
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:21 am

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:24 am

mintxwb wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
Pilot of 787 post:

Below are 787 trip fuel figures @LRC:

I assumed 40T payload and ~8T reserve fuel at landing

4000Nm -44T
5000Nm - 54T (corrected 56,3T in later post)
6000Nm - 70T
7000Nm - 84,5T*
* Above MTOW, can’t carry 40T payload that far

My assumptions were:
DOW 127T
Res fuel 8T
Payload 40T
Landing weight 175T
still air
LRC

Pilot of A350:

Assumed a DOW of 135 tonnes, Landing weight of 183 tonnes.

4000 nm - 45.2
5000 nm - 57.5
6000 nm - 70.3
7000 nm - 83.9

I think it would carry that payload out to around 8000 nm.

I do not know why discused it further when there is extended thread about it already!



Those are simulator numbers that have absolutely no relevance to real-world performance. Please see the math that multiple members did using real numbers from DL and SQ flights.

Please stop repeating those numbers; they have been debunked many, many times.


Citing that 'math' is inadequate since A350-900 on those flights were either carrying obnoxious amount of payload(in case of Delta flight to Beijing, 48~52 tonnes of payload) or having longer flight time and 'slightly' - about 30% - more payload than 'comparable' 787 flights.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Why Boeing hasn’t made a ULH Version of the 787

Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:59 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
mintxwb wrote:

The A359 vs 787 range has been discussed ad nauseam in the other thread. The A350-900's real performance is far worse than some members claim it to be. No A350 is not a better ULH plane than the current 254t 787-9, let alone the 260t one. The 280t A359 at best can match the 254t 789. 268t A359 has similar payload-range as 254t 787-10.

We have to also remember that 787-9 also burns less than A350 significantly.

Back to OP's question, 787 is already the best ULH plane available.


This statement you poted is false. In thread you refer is already discused and this is not truth!

Pilot of 787 post:

Below are 787 trip fuel figures @LRC:

I assumed 40T payload and ~8T reserve fuel at landing

4000Nm -44T
5000Nm - 54T (corrected 56,3T in later post)
6000Nm - 70T
7000Nm - 84,5T*
* Above MTOW, can’t carry 40T payload that far

My assumptions were:
DOW 127T
Res fuel 8T
Payload 40T
Landing weight 175T
still air
LRC

Pilot of A350:

Assumed a DOW of 135 tonnes, Landing weight of 183 tonnes.

4000 nm - 45.2
5000 nm - 57.5
6000 nm - 70.3
7000 nm - 83.9

I think it would carry that payload out to around 8000 nm.

I do not know why discused it further when there is extended thread about it already!

I think you might be off slightly, The US rule is 8K fuel on top of destination. though you can mandate more..


It is calculated with 8t fuel reserve! It depends on airlines policy.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ei146, IgorD, Ka6 and 20 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