Charlie757
Topic Author
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:59 pm

Boeing 787 Range

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:09 pm

On the Boeing website they state that the range of the 787-9 is 7,530 miles yet Qantas manages to make the aircraft fly non-stop LHR-PER which is a distance of almost 9000 miles routing dependant. So my question is, how can they make an aircraft fly so much further than its stated distance? Is it due to the aircraft config or have Boeing underestimated the performance of the 787? As the ‘longest Range aircraft’ (772LR) can only fly 8,500 miles yet the 787 majorly surpasses this.

Any info would be greatly helpful! :)
 
timz
Posts: 6568
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:16 pm

Charlie757 wrote:
further than its stated distance?

You're assuming "its stated distance" is some sort of official range. It isn't.

Any airliner has a full-payload range, assuming still air and standard reserve fuel. Maybe that's what the "stated distance" is in this case. If it's carrying less payload, it can carry more fuel and fly farther. Like London to Perth.

Any time you're comparing the ranges for two airliners, you have to spell out what payload each one is carrying. Pay no attention to range figures given by themselves, with no payload info.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:29 pm

It looks like one of your sources is in statute miles and the other in nautical miles. One is ~15% further than the other.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:44 pm

Charlie757 wrote:
On the Boeing website they state that the range of the 787-9 is 7,530 miles yet Qantas manages to make the aircraft fly non-stop LHR-PER which is a distance of almost 9000 miles routing dependant. So my question is, how can they make an aircraft fly so much further than its stated distance? Is it due to the aircraft config or have Boeing underestimated the performance of the 787? As the ‘longest Range aircraft’ (772LR) can only fly 8,500 miles yet the 787 majorly surpasses this.

Any info would be greatly helpful! :)

https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/lhr-to-per/
7829nm
that is marginally more than the 7530 _nm_ range given for a typical seating arrangement.
WP:EN says: 7,635 nmi
Murphy is an optimist
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:14 am

timz wrote:
Charlie757 wrote:
further than its stated distance?

You're assuming "its stated distance" is some sort of official range. It isn't.

Any airliner has a full-payload range, assuming still air and standard reserve fuel. Maybe that's what the "stated distance" is in this case. If it's carrying less payload, it can carry more fuel and fly farther. Like London to Perth.

Any time you're comparing the ranges for two airliners, you have to spell out what payload each one is carrying. Pay no attention to range figures given by themselves, with no payload info.


Tim references range payload charts. Search on the 787 Airport Planning Guide, it has the range payload charts for each model. Most planes taking off at MTOW can only do about 2/3 of the Range that can be done with about half payload.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:35 pm

Boeing's range number is very conservative. Its assumptions about aircraft weight normally is higher than the actual weight. Both 787 and 77W fly at least 1 hour longer than the payload-range chart in the "Airport Planning Guide" for any given payload.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:43 pm

moyangmm wrote:
Boeing's range number is very conservative. Its assumptions about aircraft weight normally is higher than the actual weight. Both 787 and 77W fly at least 1 hour longer than the payload-range chart in the "Airport Planning Guide" for any given payload.

Unless you can show evidence of this being true readers of this thread should consider this to be a lie, deliberate or otherwise.

Fred
Image
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:08 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Boeing's range number is very conservative. Its assumptions about aircraft weight normally is higher than the actual weight. Both 787 and 77W fly at least 1 hour longer than the payload-range chart in the "Airport Planning Guide" for any given payload.

Unless you can show evidence of this being true readers of this thread should consider this to be a lie, deliberate or otherwise.

Fred


Well, using EY/ETH 171 as the 777-300ER example, Boeing states the range of the 77W is 13649 km, but the route for this flight is 15479.02km, or roughly 13% above the spec. Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.

As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.

Now, these ranges are of course stated and marked before engine PIPs come into play, and those PIPs make a significant difference long term. Airbus seems to have not put the A350 PIPs into its stated A359 range, which is still just above 15,000km, instead of the 15,700km range boost they've touted in press releases previously.

So, eh, it's probably a wash on whether Boeing purposely understates capability or just doesn't bother polishing its website after improvements are done.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:34 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Boeing's range number is very conservative. Its assumptions about aircraft weight normally is higher than the actual weight. Both 787 and 77W fly at least 1 hour longer than the payload-range chart in the "Airport Planning Guide" for any given payload.

Unless you can show evidence of this being true readers of this thread should consider this to be a lie, deliberate or otherwise.

Fred


Well, using EY/ETH 171 as the 777-300ER example, Boeing states the range of the 77W is 13649 km, but the route for this flight is 15479.02km, or roughly 13% above the spec.
it’s 13502km and transpolar so likely no winds to speak of.
patrickjp93 wrote:
Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.
sure, if you make up numbers they will fit whatever narrative you want
patrickjp93 wrote:

As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.
just saying it doesn’t make it true.
patrickjp93 wrote:

Now, these ranges are of course stated and marked before engine PIPs come into play, and those PIPs make a significant difference long term. Airbus seems to have not put the A350 PIPs into its stated A359 range, which is still just above 15,000km, instead of the 15,700km range boost they've touted in press releases previously.
interestingly the flights we do have hard data for seem to show that they got the payload curve almost spot on
patrickjp93 wrote:
So, eh, it's probably a wash on whether Boeing purposely understates capability or just doesn't bother polishing its website after improvements are done.
Boeing have favourable/perfect conditions for their marketing numbers (why would you expect anything different) and now they are matching them in real world performance.

Moyangmm or 777xs or what’re she’s called today has stated this one hour thing many times and failed to show evidence time and again.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:55 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
it’s 13502km and transpolar so likely no winds to speak of.
Nope, that's the GCD, not the route distance. Route distance is over 15,000km as I stated before. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 0#222b3fd1

patrickjp93 wrote:
Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.
sure, if you make up numbers they will fit whatever narrative you want
See above. You're wrong and I have the direct real-world source to prove it.

patrickjp93 wrote:
As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.
just saying it doesn’t make it true.
No, but the actual events as recorded by objective 3rd parties do. Good thing FR24 and others have the flight recordings and metrics recorded for us.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Now, these ranges are of course stated and marked before engine PIPs come into play, and those PIPs make a significant difference long term. Airbus seems to have not put the A350 PIPs into its stated A359 range, which is still just above 15,000km, instead of the 15,700km range boost they've touted in press releases previously.
interestingly the flights we do have hard data for seem to show that they got the payload curve almost spot on
For the earliest birds, yes, and only questionably. On the newest ones, evidence shows Boeing at least isn't pushing new data and charts out to the public at large.
patrickjp93 wrote:
So, eh, it's probably a wash on whether Boeing purposely understates capability or just doesn't bother polishing its website after improvements are done.
Boeing have favourable/perfect conditions for their marketing numbers (why would you expect anything different) and now they are matching them in real world performance.

No, they have average condition performance numbers and seem to be exceeding them in at least these 2 cases.

Moyangmm or 777xs or what’re she’s called today has stated this one hour thing many times and failed to show evidence time and again.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then it's a good thing I brought sources you can't refute.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:26 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
it’s 13502km and transpolar so likely no winds to speak of.
Nope, that's the GCD, not the route distance. Route distance is over 15,000km as I stated before. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 0#222b3fd1
you have posted a link showing current flight times and none are near 16hrs
patrickjp93 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW
where are these weight figures?
patrickjp93 wrote:
flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.
sure, if you make up numbers they will fit whatever narrative you want
See above. You're wrong and I have the direct real-world source to prove it.
the interesting parts of payload range curves are both the payload and the range, you have provided no additional information in you links.
patrickjp93 wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:
As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.
with what payload, you continue to ignore half the equation and to give no further insight to the OP blindly talk about the range where the actual question was why can they fly further.
patrickjp93 wrote:
just saying it doesn’t make it true.
No, but the actual events as recorded by objective 3rd parties do. Good thing FR24 and others have the flight recordings and metrics recorded for us.
you are right, facts would make it true. Show them and you’ll have respect. Right now it’s dogma.
patrickjp93 wrote:

patrickjp93 wrote:
Now, these ranges are of course stated and marked before engine PIPs come into play, and those PIPs make a significant difference long term. Airbus seems to have not put the A350 PIPs into its stated A359 range, which is still just above 15,000km, instead of the 15,700km range boost they've touted in press releases previously.
interestingly the flights we do have hard data for seem to show that they got the payload curve almost spot on
For the earliest birds, yes, and only questionably. On the newest ones, evidence shows Boeing at least isn't pushing new data and charts out to the public at large.
patrickjp93 wrote:
So, eh, it's probably a wash on whether Boeing purposely understates capability or just doesn't bother polishing its website after improvements are done.
Boeing have favourable/perfect conditions for their marketing numbers (why would you expect anything different) and now they are matching them in real world performance.

No, they have average condition performance numbers and seem to be exceeding them in at least these 2 cases.
I’d agree that they have improved performance and likely can match stated payload tame performance with real world diversion requirements rather than the rather optimistic ones shown in the payload range curves. The data for qf9 shows this performance in detail. I would argue that it slightly outperforms the payload range curve there but then it has some conditions that are more favourable than the company standard for the payload range chart I.e block booking over the Indian Ocean allowing for cruise climbs.
patrickjp93 wrote:

Moyangmm or 777xs or what’re she’s called today has stated this one hour thing many times and failed to show evidence time and again.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then it's a good thing I brought sources you can't refute.
well you haven’t.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:48 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
you have posted a link showing current flight times and none are near 16hrs[
3 days ago breaks 16 hours, and here we're more focused on the range anyway. You can also use Etihad's postings of expected flight times (16:15-25 is common on Google Flights for the next 3 weeks)

patrickjp93 wrote:
Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW
where are these weight figures?
paywalled, but they're in the csv files you can download.

patrickjp93 wrote:
flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.
sure, if you make up numbers they will fit whatever narrative you want
See above. You're wrong and I have the direct real-world source to prove it.
the interesting parts of payload range curves are both the payload and the range, you have provided no additional information in you links.
My above points are adequate response to this AND the United 789 route, which is also separately recorded and quoted in the 789 vs a359 range thread.
Last edited by patrickjp93 on Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:55 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
you have posted a link showing current flight times and none are near 16hrs[
3 days ago breaks 16 hours, and here we're more focused on the range anyway. You can also use Etihad's postings of expected flight times (16:15-25 is common on Google Flights for the next 3 weeks)

patrickjp93 wrote:
Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW
where are these weight figures?
paywalled, but they're in the csv files you can download.

patrickjp93 wrote:
flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.
sure, if you make up numbers they will fit whatever narrative you want
See above. You're wrong and I have the direct real-world source to prove it.
the interesting parts of payload range curves are both the payload and the range, you have provided no additional information in you links.
My above points are adequate response to this AND the United 789 route, which is also separately recorded and quoted in the 789 vs a359 range thread.[/quote]
Seem to recall a lot of average payload figures bandied around tied to worst scenario winds. He publicly available data points show that the aircraft performs as advertised.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:28 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Well, using EY/ETH 171 as the 777-300ER example, Boeing states the range of the 77W is 13649 km, but the route for this flight is 15479.02km, or roughly 13% above the spec. Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.


get your units transformation correct

Distance AUH → LAX, Los-Angeles, CA, USA
Distance: 8,371.64 mi (13,472.85 km)

13,472.85 km is less than 13,649 km

mi ~= land miles @ 1,60934km
nm ~= nautical mile @ 1,852km
Murphy is an optimist
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:56 pm

WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Well, using EY/ETH 171 as the 777-300ER example, Boeing states the range of the 77W is 13649 km, but the route for this flight is 15479.02km, or roughly 13% above the spec. Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.


get your units transformation correct

Distance AUH → LAX, Los-Angeles, CA, USA
Distance: 8,371.64 mi (13,472.85 km)

13,472.85 km is less than 13,649 km

mi ~= land miles @ 1,60934km
nm ~= nautical mile @ 1,852km


I DID get my conversion correct. Read, the, route, distance. I'm well aware of the GCD being well within spec, but observe the route line vs. the GCD line, vastly different, and vastly different distance.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:20 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.

Last I heard UA had scrapped LAX-SIN. The 789 didn’t have the range to make a go of the route all year round even with its low-density configuration. UA launched a second service from SFO instead.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:53 am

tealnz wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.

Last I heard UA had scrapped LAX-SIN. The 789 didn’t have the range to make a go of the route all year round even with its low-density configuration. UA launched a second service from SFO instead.


UA scrapping LAX-SIN has nothing to do with range. SFO-SIN is very similar in distance. 789 comfortably fly both routes with full payload, usually below MTOW and carries some cargo. Even in the winter it has zero problem with a full cabin and some cargo (not a lot cargo if headwind is strong).
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:11 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Well, using EY/ETH 171 as the 777-300ER example, Boeing states the range of the 77W is 13649 km, but the route for this flight is 15479.02km, or roughly 13% above the spec. Based on what I'm finding off flightradar24 and other sources, it's not taking off much lighter than 3-4 tonnes under MTOW flying the longer 16h25m way, so at least this one example shows Boeing's own specs seem a bit conservative.


get your units transformation correct

Distance AUH → LAX, Los-Angeles, CA, USA
Distance: 8,371.64 mi (13,472.85 km)

13,472.85 km is less than 13,649 km

mi ~= land miles @ 1,60934km
nm ~= nautical mile @ 1,852km


I DID get my conversion correct. Read, the, route, distance. I'm well aware of the GCD being well within spec, but observe the route line vs. the GCD line, vastly different, and vastly different distance.


I have m doubts.

If they deviate from great circle route it is because it is "shorter" under cost/time aspects.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:00 am

moyangmm wrote:
tealnz wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.

Last I heard UA had scrapped LAX-SIN. The 789 didn’t have the range to make a go of the route all year round even with its low-density configuration. UA launched a second service from SFO instead.


UA scrapping LAX-SIN has nothing to do with range. SFO-SIN is very similar in distance. 789 comfortably fly both routes with full payload, usually below MTOW and carries some cargo. Even in the winter it has zero problem with a full cabin and some cargo (not a lot cargo if headwind is strong).


United statment about LAX-SIN-LAX was well published and United suspend it because B789 can made it with reasonable payload in bad weather condition. The route even if is cca same GCD like SFO-SIN but struggle because weather on the route and in the worst case approaching 18h of flight time!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:53 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
I DID get my conversion correct. Read, the, route, distance. I'm well aware of the GCD being well within spec, but observe the route line vs. the GCD line, vastly different, and vastly different distance.


could you provide a link to some sample data ( incl. graphic if possible of the "large deviation" you see from a GCD course?

( Keep in mind that on a Mercator(like) chart projection any great circle route that leaves the equatorial region
looks like a major diversion! )
Murphy is an optimist
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:02 pm

WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
I DID get my conversion correct. Read, the, route, distance. I'm well aware of the GCD being well within spec, but observe the route line vs. the GCD line, vastly different, and vastly different distance.


could you provide a link to some sample data ( incl. graphic if possible of the "large deviation" you see from a GCD course?

( Keep in mind that on a Mercator(like) chart projection any great circle route that leaves the equatorial region
looks like a major diversion! )


https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 0#222b3fd1

You have to select the squiggly line with 2 points on it, just under "Time". That plots the GCD line for you.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:22 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
I DID get my conversion correct. Read, the, route, distance. I'm well aware of the GCD being well within spec, but observe the route line vs. the GCD line, vastly different, and vastly different distance.


could you provide a link to some sample data ( incl. graphic if possible of the "large deviation" you see from a GCD course?

( Keep in mind that on a Mercator(like) chart projection any great circle route that leaves the equatorial region
looks like a major diversion! )


https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 0#222b3fd1

You have to select the squiggly line with 2 points on it, just under "Time". That plots the GCD line for you.


you are trapped by the Mercator map projection.
Great Circle Distance is 13.502 km
Flight time for this flight is 14.5 hours
777 cruise is 892km/h ( WP:EN:777 )
that is equivalent to covering 12934 km in still air distance.
difference is .5 hours of fuel (saved).
distance traveled on the show route may be longer
but prevailing winds seem to have assisted quite a bit.

You have strong jet streams from North America over southern Greenland, Iceland, Europe.
see https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/jetstream
That is why they reroute away from the GC course.

you have to look at the return flight were that routes!
(looked: seems to be no matching reverse offer available ?)
the comparable DXB LAX is done by A380, and seems to go around the "backside" and taking longer 15++hours
Murphy is an optimist
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:38 pm

WIederling wrote:
you are trapped by the Mercator map projection.
Great Circle Distance is 13.502 km
Flight time for this flight is 14.5 hours
777 cruise is 892km/h ( WP:EN:777 )
that is equivalent to covering 12934 km in still air distance.
difference is .5 hours of fuel (saved).
distance traveled on the show route may be longer
but prevailing winds seem to have assisted quite a bit.

You have strong jet streams from North America over southern Greenland, Iceland, Europe.
see https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/jetstream
That is why they reroute away from the GC course.

you have to look at the return flight were that routes!
(looked: seems to be no matching reverse offer available ?)
the comparable DXB LAX is done by A380, and seems to go around the "backside" and taking longer 15++hours


Other iterations of the same trip on (pretty much) the same route have breached 16 hours. To shamelessly cherry pick the best data sample for my core argument...

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 1#221b15c5
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3682
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:44 pm

Brochure ranges are nice for marketing folks, nice arguing points for fanboys; but useless as flight planning parameters. Don’t ask how I know.

GF
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:48 pm

moyangmm wrote:
tealnz wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
As for the 789, United's LAX-SIN flight takes off not far off its MTOW either, usually with all seats full, and basically flies clear to the edge of its stated 14,140km range, and those winds are not favorable at all.

Last I heard UA had scrapped LAX-SIN. The 789 didn’t have the range to make a go of the route all year round even with its low-density configuration. UA launched a second service from SFO instead.


UA scrapping LAX-SIN has nothing to do with range. SFO-SIN is very similar in distance. 789 comfortably fly both routes with full payload, usually below MTOW and carries some cargo. Even in the winter it has zero problem with a full cabin and some cargo (not a lot cargo if headwind is strong).

Sure, mate :shakehead:

Meanwhile for those who are interested in the real world take a look at jayunited’s comments in this thread:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1397827. He refers to “severe weight restrictions this route experiences during the winter months”.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:11 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ey171#221b15c5

7,576nm equiv. still air distance vs 7,370 nmi brochure range 206nm difference.

Where are the magnitude more range numbers you spoke about ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:46 pm

WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ey171#221b15c5

7,576nm equiv. still air distance vs 7,370 nmi brochure range 206nm difference.

Where are the magnitude more range numbers you spoke about ?


How are you getting 7576? I'm coming in at 7920 and change.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:09 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Brochure ranges are nice for marketing folks, nice arguing points for fanboys; but useless as flight planning parameters. Don’t ask how I know.

GF


It depends on which brochure range. One company's brochure range is consistently being demonstrated to be pretty reliable, even sometimes too conservative. The other one ....
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:53 am

moyangmm wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Brochure ranges are nice for marketing folks, nice arguing points for fanboys; but useless as flight planning parameters. Don’t ask how I know.

GF


It depends on which brochure range. One company's brochure range is consistently being demonstrated to be pretty reliable, even sometimes too conservative. The other one ....

I don’t think you should insinuate Boeing cannot match their payload range performance, the data we have for QF9 shows it to be pretty spot on for the 787.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:50 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ey171#221b15c5

7,576nm equiv. still air distance vs 7,370 nmi brochure range 206nm difference.

Where are the magnitude more range numbers you spoke about ?


How are you getting 7576? I'm coming in at 7920 and change.

15.9 hours @ 892km/h cruise for a 777 14182km resp. 7657nm ( minor km/nm conv. err fixed )
the difference is head or tail winds.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:54 am

moyangmm wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Brochure ranges are nice for marketing folks, nice arguing points for fanboys; but useless as flight planning parameters. Don’t ask how I know.

GF


It depends on which brochure range. One company's brochure range is consistently being demonstrated to be pretty reliable, even sometimes too conservative. The other one ....


Couple of years ago Boeing had to contract published ranges significantly
to avoid the customers and the wider public snickering to no end.
https://leehamnews.com/2015/08/05/boein ... -aircraft/
it has improved, but ..
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:12 am

Charlie757 wrote:
On the Boeing website they state that the range of the 787-9 is 7,530 miles yet Qantas manages to make the aircraft fly non-stop LHR-PER which is a distance of almost 9000 miles routing dependant. So my question is, how can they make an aircraft fly so much further than its stated distance? Is it due to the aircraft config or have Boeing underestimated the performance of the 787? As the ‘longest Range aircraft’ (772LR) can only fly 8,500 miles yet the 787 majorly surpasses this.

Any info would be greatly helpful! :)


As this seems to present a recurring misunderstanding / laxness in understanding units involved:

"7530" is 787-9 nominal range in NAUTICAL MILES @ 1,852 m

"9000" is LHR-PER Great Circle distance in STATUTE MILES @ 1,609 m
this is equivalent to
"7829" NAUTICAL MILES @ 1,852 m

my other peeve is "large reroute" statement
derived from Great Circle Routes plotted on a Mercator Map Projection.
( or one of the Mercator like adaptions that are designed to reduce area mismatch (polar vs equatorial))
or deviations from plotted vs flown in polar regions.
distances (in lattitude ) there are completely overstated.
Murphy is an optimist
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:27 am

WIederling wrote:
Charlie757 wrote:
On the Boeing website they state that the range of the 787-9 is 7,530 miles yet Qantas manages to make the aircraft fly non-stop LHR-PER which is a distance of almost 9000 miles routing dependant. So my question is, how can they make an aircraft fly so much further than its stated distance? Is it due to the aircraft config or have Boeing underestimated the performance of the 787? As the ‘longest Range aircraft’ (772LR) can only fly 8,500 miles yet the 787 majorly surpasses this.

Any info would be greatly helpful! :)


As this seems to present a recurring misunderstanding / laxness in understanding units involved:

"7530" is 787-9 nominal range in NAUTICAL MILES @ 1,852 m

"9000" is LHR-PER Great Circle distance in STATUTE MILES @ 1,609 m
this is equivalent to
"7829" NAUTICAL MILES @ 1,852 m

my other peeve is "large reroute" statement
derived from Great Circle Routes plotted on a Mercator Map Projection.
( or one of the Mercator like adaptions that are designed to reduce area mismatch (polar vs equatorial))
or deviations from plotted vs flown in polar regions.
distances (in lattitude ) there are completely overstated.


My experience on longhaul flights is that the actual distance is usually very close to great circle distance. The difference rarely exceeds 1-2%, even if the routing differs significantly on the map - so g.c. distance is a pretty good approximation. Of course, winds have to be factored in, too.

Having said that, I concur with the previous posters. Brochure range is completely meaningless and is there only to satisfy those with little understanding of the subject. It’s basically a random number.
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:23 pm

WIederling wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Brochure ranges are nice for marketing folks, nice arguing points for fanboys; but useless as flight planning parameters. Don’t ask how I know.

GF


It depends on which brochure range. One company's brochure range is consistently being demonstrated to be pretty reliable, even sometimes too conservative. The other one ....


Couple of years ago Boeing had to contract published ranges significantly
to avoid the customers and the wider public snickering to no end.
https://leehamnews.com/2015/08/05/boein ... -aircraft/
it has improved, but ..


That is not at all the claim of that article. Boeing had a deficiency in how it configured and collated data that made it nearly impossible to rapidly gauge what a given seating request would produce in terms of crew and CASM. In fact the article barely mentions range. And in fact if you dig into their cited data of 7% difference, the range went UP.

I swear half the problem with Leeham is its own anti-Boeing bias and the other half is its rabid readership mis-quoting/mis-attributing them.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:26 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

It depends on which brochure range. One company's brochure range is consistently being demonstrated to be pretty reliable, even sometimes too conservative. The other one ....


Couple of years ago Boeing had to contract published ranges significantly
to avoid the customers and the wider public snickering to no end.
https://leehamnews.com/2015/08/05/boein ... -aircraft/
it has improved, but ..


That is not at all the claim of that article. Boeing had a deficiency in how it configured and collated data that made it nearly impossible to rapidly gauge what a given seating request would produce in terms of crew and CASM. In fact the article barely mentions range. And in fact if you dig into their cited data of 7% difference, the range went UP.

I swear half the problem with Leeham is its own anti-Boeing bias and the other half is its rabid readership mis-quoting/mis-attributing them.


Your problem is not a Leeham problem. you own it, afaics.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-415293/

cite from there ( 2015, range reduced 7..8% on average, some more some less so ):
A visitor to Boeing’s web site this week will be in for a shock: the listed seat-counts and range specifications for nearly all of the company’s models have changed, some dramatically.
Model Seats, 2-class (new) Seats, 3-class (new) Seats (old) Range (new) Range (old)
737-700 126 N/A 126 3,010nm 3,445nm
737-800 162 N/A 162 2,935nm 3,085nm
737-900ER 178 N/A 180 2,950nm 3,050nm
737 Max 7 126 N/A 126 3,350nm 3,850nm
737 Max 8 162 N/A 162 3,515nm 3,660nm
737 Max 9 178 N/A 180 3,515nm 3,630nm
737 Max 200 200 N/A N/A 2,700nm 3,345nm
787-8 242 N/A 242 7,355nm 7,850nm
787-9 290 N/A 280 7,635nm 8,300nm
787-10 330 N/A 323 6,430nm 7,000nm
777-8X 350-375 N/A 350 8,700nm 9,390nm
777-300ER 396 336 386 7,370nm 7,850nm
777-9X 400-425 N/A 406 7,600nm 8,200nm
747-8 N/A 410 467 7,730nm 7,790nm
Murphy is an optimist
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:34 pm

WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Couple of years ago Boeing had to contract published ranges significantly
to avoid the customers and the wider public snickering to no end.
https://leehamnews.com/2015/08/05/boein ... -aircraft/
it has improved, but ..


That is not at all the claim of that article. Boeing had a deficiency in how it configured and collated data that made it nearly impossible to rapidly gauge what a given seating request would produce in terms of crew and CASM. In fact the article barely mentions range. And in fact if you dig into their cited data of 7% difference, the range went UP.

I swear half the problem with Leeham is its own anti-Boeing bias and the other half is its rabid readership mis-quoting/mis-attributing them.


Your problem is not a Leeham problem. you own it, afaics.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-415293/

cite from there ( 2015, range reduced 7..8% on average, some more some less so ):
Model Seats, 2-class (new) Seats, 3-class (new) Seats (old) Range (new) Range (old)
737-700 126 N/A 126 3,010nm 3,445nm
737-800 162 N/A 162 2,935nm 3,085nm
737-900ER 178 N/A 180 2,950nm 3,050nm
737 Max 7 126 N/A 126 3,350nm 3,850nm
737 Max 8 162 N/A 162 3,515nm 3,660nm
737 Max 9 178 N/A 180 3,515nm 3,630nm
737 Max 200 200 N/A N/A 2,700nm 3,345nm
787-8 242 N/A 242 7,355nm 7,850nm
787-9 290 N/A 280 7,635nm 8,300nm
787-10 330 N/A 323 6,430nm 7,000nm
777-8X 350-375 N/A 350 8,700nm 9,390nm
777-300ER 396 336 386 7,370nm 7,850nm
777-9X 400-425 N/A 406 7,600nm 8,200nm
747-8 N/A 410 467 7,730nm 7,790nm

Oh hogwash. You mis-represented what was stated in Leeham's article plain and simple. Boeing never over-stated capability. If the people of the world had maintained their health and not become such fat slobs, the old metrics would be spot on except for the First Class bit. In other words, yes, when you account for the fact people weigh more now, the projections on pax vs. range change, but what does NOT are the payload range curves which Boeing also publishes. In other words, you still had all the information you needed to plan accordingly regardless of which set of assumptions Boeing made for cabin planning.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:50 pm

I’ve yet to see evidence showing that a single flight by a Boeing aircraft exceeded the Boeing published payload range charts by an hour. There are some long flights and some average payloads but everything else is obfuscation.

viewtopic.php?t=1406387

I’ll post the link to a useful thread so people who come across this thread aren’t fooled in to thinking it has any relevance after 2 posters peddle their brand.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:51 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Oh hogwash. You mis-represented what was stated in Leeham's article plain and simple. Boeing never over-stated capability. If the people of the world had maintained their health and not become such fat slobs, the old metrics would be spot on except for the First Class bit. In other words, yes, when you account for the fact people weigh more now, the projections on pax vs. range change, but what does NOT are the payload range curves which Boeing also publishes. In other words, you still had all the information you needed to plan accordingly regardless of which set of assumptions Boeing made for cabin planning.



Not really, both articles says the same thing, but it seems to me that Leeham goes into an explanation of how Boeing used their old system. The FG article just states that they have now updated their assumptions and thus the results will be different. The figures are the same in both.

The problem that posters have on here is they seem to construe that because Boeing had to change their assumptions, it automatically means Airbus is also wrong and therefore there is a problem with the Airbus numbers. Both still use the most optimistic assumptions to reach the answer so both are still wrong, they are just about the same amount of wrong.

As for the reason, it isn't all about weight of passengers but the seat assumptions Boeing used. They had 60" pitch for F and 39" for J. Fat people or not, those seats have not been used on long haul travel for decades so their assumptions were out of date and it had to change. AFAIR, they also used a lower amount to calculate passenger weight and bags together, now this could also just be using old numbers but it sure was convenient that using a lower assumption for weight helped their numbers we use on here to fight about aircraft capability.

Those wanting to debate the OEM numbers and not taking them with a pinch of salt, on BOTH sides have fallen for the marketing of their favourite OEM. That is why it helps to read what those in the industry are telling you, even if it goes against what you want to believe. Trust me, there are enough other savy posters out there to ensure even if the pilots on here make a dubious it will be called out.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3682
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:41 pm

Right off the bat, every brochure range assumes Jet A at 840.0 g/liter. The specification for Jet A is 775.0-840.0 g/l, with 840.0 density very rarely found. I’ll let you guess what potentially losing 8% of your fuel load due to low specific gravity does for range. Then, add in real life winds, weather, alternates, routing, differences in seating and payload assumptions, legal reserves (brochures use lowest legal minimum reserves), in-service tolerances from perfect airframe and you can see how good brochure range is.


Gf
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787 Range

Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:11 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Right off the bat, every brochure range assumes Jet A at 840.0 g/liter. The specification for Jet A is 775.0-840.0 g/l, with 840.0 density very rarely found. I’ll let you guess what potentially losing 8% of your fuel load due to low specific gravity does for range.

In their ACAPS documents Airbus "links" volume and weight @ 0.785 kg/l
that is just short of the lighter spec limit.

Just like with evacuation "abstract" requirements not meeting specific reality:
As long as things are comparable ( i.e. parameters are not differently gamed like Boeing did
with their ancient seat maps ) There is not much need for getting excited about some conditions chosen.
( except when the whole industry games normalized fuel consumption in an act of deception and tax evasion. :-)
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 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