patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:55 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
If a NG A359 and A3510 become "too capable" at their present capacity, surely the answer is to increase capacity. Add length to both models, put lavs downstairs, and the "excess" capability becomes mopped up by additional passenger-carrying capacity without impinging on cargo space.

Also creates more space between A339 and A359, helping Airbus define their A330 succession plan. Maybe also room for the original "optimised" A358.


That indeed makes sense for the eventual A350-1100. If implemented right now, it probably wouldn't quite have the legs to handle the longest range 777-300ER routes, but on the NEO, sure.

However, then you're potentially running into the issue that seems to have a lot of airlines hesitating on the 777X: too much capacity that can't be filled. With P2P taking over, the A380 and 747 having both had the floor fall out beneath them, and the 777X's own sales pretty dismal outside the ME3, I don't know if an A350-1100 would be viable outside the ME3 and a few trunk routes in another 10 years.

The A330 family is on its last iteration. They'll clean-sheet the next one. The -800 has sold terribly, and the 900 has really only done so well recently with the rise of LCC long haul with the likes of Air Asia. If the 787 assembly line had had infinite bandwidth at the prices Boeing's been selling it at for the last 3 years, I somewhat doubt the A330 NEO would have even sold 100 frames by now, except maybe FOR Air Asia.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:20 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:


Successor, not replacement, and not perfect by any stretch since we're not going to get a 40% range bump in a single generation. Remember I keep bringing up the rise of P2P flying and the reduction of capacity needs on trunk routes.
Wait what! Has there been a reduction in capacity on trunk routes?

patrickjp93 wrote:
It will come down individually to the routes themselves on whether down gauging will be required or not as we start making our network graphs denser. Hong Kong to New York will likely always need an A350+ sized plane. Japan too LAX? Maybe, but that depends in part on whether or not they can efficiently fly a 788/9 to Chicago or Seattle and therefore reduce their PAX requirements for the given route. You CAN, in a brutal LCC config, fit 400+ people on the 78X, and in a basic 3-class config it fits over 320. The 777-300ER fits 450 people into a 3-class config (see Air Canada on Seatguru). And truth is the A350-1000 is even a capacity reduction from the 777-300ER for everyone operating the 77Ws with 10-abreast Y
Lol, so you are saying the perfect replacement for a 77W is the lower capacity but still stretched version of an aircraft made by Boeing but if the aircraft is of a lower capacity and is over ranged then we cant stretch it and reduce its range because its made by airbus. This is priceless (Zeke: do you have salted or sweet?)

patrickjp93 wrote:
. For operators like Virgin Australia and anyone else still running with 9, well, then we're back to the economics of each frame for the required range.
The economics f the lower fuel burn of the A359...

patrickjp93 wrote:
When the 78X NG gets flying, they'll have reduced the frame weight to be more competitive against the A350.
Would this be when airbus are playing tiddlywinks again?

patrickjp93 wrote:
Being overweight pretty much is the only reason that above the 9000km mark, the 78X works out to be the worse bird at max payload.
In what sense is it overweight? or is every aircraft overweight?

patrickjp93 wrote:
How is it not relevant to the real world? Part of flight economics is your landing/takeoff fees. The A350 will be heavier than needed without significant redesign of the wing or central wing box to reduce fuel space. Airlines will pay for that weight capability with every single cycle (fees are based on MTOW, not individual flight takeoff weights).
Are they? Its my understanding that they can be based on MTOW, MLW purely time based, based on wingspan, based on distance, based on icao code, based on ACI number based on number of passenger, based on cargo weight and any combination of the previous.

patrickjp93 wrote:
It's too capable for its own good moving forward, and that has real costs.
Except in this case it appears that the trip fuel of the A359 is about 2% lower than that of the B78X for a given mission (payload range)
patrickjp93 wrote:
If the wings can be thinned to reduce fuel requirements
Thinned in what sense? Material thickness, cord length, overall thickness?
patrickjp93 wrote:
and weight at the same range (and simply reduce MTOW by the same amount), you've just made the A350 more efficient for all of its viable missions.

Meanwhile the reality of structural design takes over and what you think is true doesn't play out.
Playing out the three options one could mean by "thinner wing"
1. Reduced cord.
Results:
Pros: Reduced skin friction drag.
Cons: Slower cruise (Mach), Faster cruise (airspeed) -> lower altitudes attainable, heavier wing, longer takeoff/landing runs.

2. Reduced overall thickness
Pros: Faster Cruise (Mach)/Lower transonic drag divergence -> potential increase in attainable altitudes if wing limited.
Cons: Heavier wing, more flexible wing

3. Reduced Wing skin thickness
Pros: Reduced airframe weight (so can be the only one you reasonably mean)-> lower fuel burn, increased range, potential for lower fees.
Cons: Reduced payload
The big issue with number 3 is that you reduce payload BEFORE you impact MTOW and so you get a HIGHER maximum range whilst removing useful payload capability. You need to know that MZFW is the major weight parameter that drives wing weight, not MTOW. MZFW range drives the design Max typical pax range is more of a result and the biggest reason why ranges look to have been going up when MZFW (Real design range) has remained relatively static (5.5-6knm)

patrickjp93 wrote:
That's essentially a proof by construction.
Whatever, it's clear your knowledge has ended.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Boeing isn't infallible, and Airbus currently has the better plane,
They have a different plane, this will continue to be the case.

patrickjp93 wrote:
but the question was focused on the long-term outlook of the future generations of craft.
Which has many different potential scenarios and one can argue lots of ways. There is clearly an echo chamber effect between a few Boeing Fanboys going on and linking to each others posts in various threads as a form of pseudo referencing to gain credibility.

Fred

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:34 pm

You are all not discussing the common understanding that you can buy an 787 for a lot less than an A350. That is probably one of the primary reasons the 787 is selling so well.

Boeing did a lot of work to get 787 costs down (taking a lot of titanium out for example) - now Airbus - which has publicly stated as much - needs to do a lot more work to reduce A350 production costs. It's just too expensive to produce.

I don't know any real numbers but if Boeing has a cost advantage of say 20% - that's the equivalent of buy 10 get 2 free compared to Airbus - or buy 10 get one free at 10%. That's a huge difference.

Basically you don't even have to schedule the extra frame(although that would be stupid) - just keep it as a free spare and your costs are the same as a fleet of A350 - as you are not filling it with Fuel or Crew.

A330 keeps selling as they can push those out for a lot less than A350.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1635
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:14 pm

We can calculate the empty weight from the ACAP by deducting the max fuel and the flight payload from the MTOW. The second kink point gives us the exact payload carried at max fuel. The A350-900 ACAP has the second kink point at 8650nm with 25,000kg and 110,523kg of fuel.

280,000kg minus 25,000kg payload minus 110,523kg fuel gives an empty weight of 144,477kg

The 787-10 ACAP has the second kink at 8100nm at 37,000lb (16,818kg) of payload and 101,456kg of fuel.

254,000kg minus 16,818kg payload minus 101,456kg fuel gives an empty weight of 135,726kg.

Surprise surprise the A350-900 clearly weighs more. The calculation has the A350 weighing 7% more yet the 787-10 has 3% more cabin area. As airport fees are weight based the 787-10 will always be cheaper to operate even if the A350-900 reached parity on fuel burn on a long haul flight.

Zeke however says the 787-10 weighs more than the A350-900. The ACAPs must be wrong just like the airlines who continue to order 787's 2:1.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:25 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
...


Okay, there's a serious amount just factually wrong or duplicitous in your response, so this is gonna take a while, and probably multiple reply posts.

Wait what! Has there been a reduction in capacity on trunk routes?

I should have said load factors, but in some cases, yes, capacity too.

Considering load factors have fallen slowly but steadily on the ME, the A380s are becoming more liability than asset, and STC isn't calling for a same-capacity replacement, yes? LH, KA, SQ, MAS, QF, EK, EY, QR, and BA aren't clamoring for a new VLA. LH and BA might be outliers in that regard given they have the 747-8I, but again, the trend's right there in plain view. The 777X also isn't yet selling well despite there still being plenty of 744s in the skies needing replacement in the next 5-10 years and 748s in the next 10-20.

Qantas is about to cancel their second BNE-LAX service due to poor yield while simultaneously launching a direct service to Chicago, and they used to run this route on a 747. That'll take capacity off traffic to LAX and DFW from Sydney and Melbourne as connecting points as well, so there's additional trunk route reduction.

LH is moving some of its bigger birds out of Frankfurt to Munich, so there's a European case. Bordeaux is also starting to take traffic away from CDG for more budget-oriented fliers. Gatwick and the other London airports are taking away leisure traffic from BA into LHR, and those butts left seats from other flights, not likely from a 1-hop like Dublin, but probably a trunk route hub elsewhere. The AM3 are reducing capacity as they move from 77Ws to 787s as well. The A321LR is also opening more direct flights on non-trunk routes, so that's load factor lost and capacity shrinking with it.

patrickjp93 wrote:
It will come down individually to the routes themselves on whether down gauging will be required or not as we start making our network graphs denser. Hong Kong to New York will likely always need an A350+ sized plane. Japan too LAX? Maybe, but that depends in part on whether or not they can efficiently fly a 788/9 to Chicago or Seattle and therefore reduce their PAX requirements for the given route. You CAN, in a brutal LCC config, fit 400+ people on the 78X, and in a basic 3-class config it fits over 320. The 777-300ER fits 450 people into a 3-class config (see Air Canada on Seatguru). And truth is the A350-1000 is even a capacity reduction from the 777-300ER for everyone operating the 77Ws with 10-abreast Y
Lol, so you are saying the perfect replacement for a 77W is the lower capacity but still stretched version of an aircraft made by Boeing but if the aircraft is of a lower capacity and is over ranged then we cant stretch it and reduce its range because its made by airbus. This is priceless (Zeke: do you have salted or sweet?)


Again, successor, not replacement. You have a serious issue either with duplicity or conflation. I haven't quite figured out which.

One more time, louder for the cheap seats: as load factors fall and capacities fall with them on trunk routes, we'll reach a steady state somewhere down the capacity ladder, anywhere from 50-125 seats is my guess. If it's as much as 100 seats, the A350 won't even be in the running anymore, and even the 787-10 will be on the high end of capacity needs at that point. That's how much difference we can potentially see as hundreds of A321 XLRs, 737 MAXes, and 797s take to the air.

A proposal to further stretch the A350-1000 assumes practically zero capacity reduction on 77W routes being flown today for the next 15 years, or such a brutal collapse of the A380 trunk routes that they make the 777X too big to fit them. Airbus' own execs have said that proposal has been shelved for the time being. So what does that leave as an option? Shrinking it? The A350-800 died in the womb if you recall, and the A330-900 has fulfilled its mission profile instead. While this is likely the last iteration of the A330 (given the -800's abysmal sales performance), it's abundantly clear the A350 is overbuilt for that mission profile; and if trunk load factors continue falling as they are, in 10-15 years that mission profile is going to be the right fit for trunk routes.

If Tony Fernandes and his like-minded long haul LCC execs are correct, and you really can fill 460 seats on a 9-abreast A330-900, the ones flying won't just be the poor people who wouldn't normally pay a flag carrier's prices. They'll be load factor stolen from said FCs' own trunk routes. So you intend to stretch a plane that already has a fairly high capacity and a ridiculous range (remember, we're discussing the NEO and NG) to provide a relatively tiny CASM improvement so your FCs can better compete with LCCs? I know Airbus and Boeing want to sell to all comers, but from the airlines' perspective, that's a bridge too far. It would be way too little way too late.

End of reply part 1.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:34 pm

morrisond wrote:
You are all not discussing the common understanding that you can buy an 787 for a lot less than an A350. That is probably one of the primary reasons the 787 is selling so well.

Boeing did a lot of work to get 787 costs down (taking a lot of titanium out for example) - now Airbus - which has publicly stated as much - needs to do a lot more work to reduce A350 production costs. It's just too expensive to produce.

I don't know any real numbers but if Boeing has a cost advantage of say 20% - that's the equivalent of buy 10 get 2 free compared to Airbus - or buy 10 get one free at 10%. That's a huge difference.

Basically you don't even have to schedule the extra frame(although that would be stupid) - just keep it as a free spare and your costs are the same as a fleet of A350 - as you are not filling it with Fuel or Crew.

A330 keeps selling as they can push those out for a lot less than A350.


I completely agree, the play here is currently probably more about availability and pricing than it is raw fuel burn. Playing in to pricing significantly is the financing costs which would normally favor the more numerous air frame but its not like any of these are facing issues going forward (neither are niche) so there is basically equal risk between the two so.

The two main things driving production costs between the two where we could say that one has an advantage over another is that Boeing have been building the 787 longer than Airbus have the A350 and so learning definitely come in to play there and the line rate makes a difference.

The rule of thumb is that for every doubling of line rate one would expect a 0.85-0.9 total cost of fished goods, and whilst I have no experience directly in the manufacture of aircraft in this regard I have seen these numbers be true in many manufacturing scenarios and I see no reason why it shouldn't still apply to aerospace (Its not as special as we'd like to think).

With that in mind I would expect that the B787-10 would cost ~0.92 of an A350 (per unit weight) assuming rate 10 vs rate 14 I would also suggest that there is some additional learnings to be had from the time in production of the 787 would probably push it to 0.9 of an A350 per unit weight.

My guess is 787-10 = ~0.9*A359 cost at this time.

Fred
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:41 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You are all not discussing the common understanding that you can buy an 787 for a lot less than an A350. That is probably one of the primary reasons the 787 is selling so well.

Boeing did a lot of work to get 787 costs down (taking a lot of titanium out for example) - now Airbus - which has publicly stated as much - needs to do a lot more work to reduce A350 production costs. It's just too expensive to produce.

I don't know any real numbers but if Boeing has a cost advantage of say 20% - that's the equivalent of buy 10 get 2 free compared to Airbus - or buy 10 get one free at 10%. That's a huge difference.

Basically you don't even have to schedule the extra frame(although that would be stupid) - just keep it as a free spare and your costs are the same as a fleet of A350 - as you are not filling it with Fuel or Crew.

A330 keeps selling as they can push those out for a lot less than A350.


I completely agree, the play here is currently probably more about availability and pricing than it is raw fuel burn.


plus keeping the FAL busy, Boeing does not just make some 50 787 more per year, but also seems to have a production gap opening earlier. A slot unsold is expensive, giving a little more discount can still mean profit, just a bit less. And a hell lot less than not selling it. This is not saying the 787 doesn´t sell on merit, just that Boeing may just have more reason to shop some off the price tag at the moment.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:55 pm

Agreed - Yes the A350 seems like an awesome airplane that really benefited from the extra design time - but basically did they build an Porsche when Boeing built an Audi (think of an Cayenne vs a Q7 - same basic concept/platform - the Porsche a little bit better due to better materials, bigger wheels/tires, bigger brakes/lighter weight)

Line rate is one factor - but making the A350 that few % better seems to have really added to the production cost. A bunch of that extra few % may have come from a lot more expensive materials.

Plus has anyone ever seen an analysis of how many labour hours an A350 vs an 787 takes to build? If Boeing's propaganda is right I would have to guess the 787 takes a lot fewer labour hours just due to the way it is put together.

If I was in a position to own my own aircraft of this size I would probably want the A350 as it seems like the real hot rod/performance champ. But if I was building an airline the 787 might be the better choice overall when everything is taken into account when I need to buy scores of them.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:39 pm

morrisond wrote:
Agreed - Yes the A350 seems like an awesome airplane that really benefited from the extra design time - but basically did they build an Porsche when Boeing built an Audi (think of an Cayenne vs a Q7 - same basic concept/platform - the Porsche a little bit better due to better materials, bigger wheels/tires, bigger brakes/lighter weight)

Line rate is one factor - but making the A350 that few % better seems to have really added to the production cost. A bunch of that extra few % may have come from a lot more expensive materials.

Plus has anyone ever seen an analysis of how many labour hours an A350 vs an 787 takes to build? If Boeing's propaganda is right I would have to guess the 787 takes a lot fewer labour hours just due to the way it is put together.

If I was in a position to own my own aircraft of this size I would probably want the A350 as it seems like the real hot rod/performance champ. But if I was building an airline the 787 might be the better choice overall when everything is taken into account when I need to buy scores of them.


And it's not like Boeing is sitting on its laurels in terms of finding ways to improve the 787's designs. The A350 has already had a couple weight reductions and PIPs to increase MTOW. as far as I know, Boeing hasn't done anything similar since the 789 took to the air. For the 78X to actually be heavier than the A359 is a bit of an embarrassment given the A359 has the larger wing and a vertical winglet. I'm sure they'll find another 2-4 tonnes to extract out of the design even before we get an NG announcement.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:01 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Agreed - Yes the A350 seems like an awesome airplane that really benefited from the extra design time - but basically did they build an Porsche when Boeing built an Audi (think of an Cayenne vs a Q7 - same basic concept/platform - the Porsche a little bit better due to better materials, bigger wheels/tires, bigger brakes/lighter weight)

Line rate is one factor - but making the A350 that few % better seems to have really added to the production cost. A bunch of that extra few % may have come from a lot more expensive materials.

Plus has anyone ever seen an analysis of how many labour hours an A350 vs an 787 takes to build? If Boeing's propaganda is right I would have to guess the 787 takes a lot fewer labour hours just due to the way it is put together.

If I was in a position to own my own aircraft of this size I would probably want the A350 as it seems like the real hot rod/performance champ. But if I was building an airline the 787 might be the better choice overall when everything is taken into account when I need to buy scores of them.


And it's not like Boeing is sitting on its laurels in terms of finding ways to improve the 787's designs. The A350 has already had a couple weight reductions and PIPs to increase MTOW. as far as I know, Boeing hasn't done anything similar since the 789 took to the air. For the 78X to actually be heavier than the A359 is a bit of an embarrassment given the A359 has the larger wing and a vertical winglet. I'm sure they'll find another 2-4 tonnes to extract out of the design even before we get an NG announcement.


They can always put the Super Lightweight parts back in but then that would probably up the cost.

Maybe 3D printing will help make that a lot more feasible.
 
gloom
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:22 pm

Be careful with taht math. It can be used both ways, you know. There's no knowing which one is right (and chances are quite high both are wrong).

RJMAZ wrote:
Lets compare the sales history of the 787 vs A350
In the last 4 years
322 vs 136. The 787 sold 2.36 times more.
(cut)
In the last 7 years:
615 vs 331. The 787 sold 1.85 times more.


So, basically since newer data is higher, it grows. Between 7 and 4 there was 293 to 195 (1.5 ratio), in the last 4 years it raised to 2.36. Fair point. It's more than 50% rise every three-four years. It will take some seven more years to reach 4:1 ratio.

Still:

In the last 4 years
322 vs 136. The 787 sold 2.36 times more.

In the last 5 years:
393 vs 133. The 787 sold 2.95 times more.

In the last 6 years:
434 vs 101. The 787 sold 4.29 times more.


... choosing 6 years ago as starting point, it seems that the advantage is decreasing. It was at 4.29, and reduced to 2.36 in only two years. Seems we need to wait some 3-4 years to see A350 taking the flag.

So, basically, the numbers are useless here. Especially that both are selling, and queues are probably now the difference. Boeing managed to get more orders lately because of production rate increase (this gave them some more early slots, as well as per-unit cost reduction). However, at some point it will balance itself. Increased cost of A350 (even if not lowered) will be offseted by earlier slot availability. This time is also cost - if you have to fly a fuel guzzler, every year of delay is worth your profit, or lack of capabilities. And Boeing will not be overly aggresive with pricing. If they continue at [email protected], they only need to outsell A350 at 1.4. It's been said here a couple of times - it's not about getting 80% share of market. It's about maxing out your profit. Not incomes, profit.

And 4:1 is definitely not a right way to achieve that. It would be if Airbus life depended on A350. It doesn't, even if they reverted back only to A320 family, they still have everything they need to make profit.

Any cheap trick on math will not prove your point, since it's just not right.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:18 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
We can calculate the empty weight from the ACAP by deducting the max fuel and the flight payload from the MTOW.


No you cannot, as you are about to find out.

RJMAZ wrote:
The second kink point gives us the exact payload carried at max fuel.


No it doesn't

RJMAZ wrote:
The A350-900 ACAP has the second kink point at 8650nm with 25,000kg and 110,523kg of fuel.


The usable fuel capacity is 108 330kg, however you cannot burn all of that under EU-OPS which are the standard fuel policy rules Airbus has stated it uses for their charts.
"STANDARD DAY CONDITIONS
TYPICAL INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT PROFILE
95 kg PER PASSENGER INCLUDING BAGGAGE
BASIC CONFIGURATION WITH CREW REST COMPARTMENTS
AND OTHER OPTIONAL FEATURES"

You are landing with alternate and final reserve fuel intact. In the long A350/787 thread Fred and myself used 7000 kg as the amount of fuel onboard at landing.

After offloading the 25 tonnes of passenger and the containers the bags are held in, to get to the empty weight you also need to offload the crew, all of the used catering, the IFE headsets, the magazines, the blankets, the pillows, drain the water, drain the waste, drain the unused fuel. Typically we carry 4-6 tonnes of catering, plus over a tonne of potable water. The "Full Servicing Turn Round Time Chart" they publish lists all of the other items that are carried on a typical flight in addition to passenger payload.

Even then between operators there will be differences, we carry a lot more survival and medical equipment than a lot of other airlines as we operate ETDO 240 on polar routes, airlines doing polar flying find it prudent to have on-board arctic survival equipment, which would not be necessary for an aircraft flying from EWR to TLV.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 787-10 ACAP has the second kink at 8100nm at 37,000lb (16,818kg) of payload and 101,456kg of fuel.


The 787 ACAPS latest version on the Boeing website ( https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf ) dated March 2018 (latest A350 ACAPS is Sept 2019) on page 38 of the pdf with the chart labeled "3.2.3 Payload/Range for Long-Range Cruise: Model 787-10 (Typical Engines)" it does not list the payload carried at all. The Y axis clearly states "OEW PLUS PAYLOAD", you have made an outright lie stating the chart says " kink at 8100nm at 37,000lb (16,818kg) of payload". The "second kink" as you call it corresponds to around 152 tonnes "OEW PLUS PAYLOAD"

Boeing charts are made under FAA rules for a fuel policy and not EU-OPS. You cannot compare the two charts directly as they are built using different fuel policies.

RJMAZ wrote:
Zeke however says the 787-10 weighs more than the A350-900. The ACAPs must be wrong just like the airlines who continue to order 787's 2:1.


So you do not drag my good name into your lies, what I said was "jayunited" had posted the UA 787-10 empty weight on this site in a number of threads, I provided a link to an example of that earlier. I said that UA empty weight is higher than our A359 empty weight. The Finnair A359 empty weight was posted a long time ago as well on this site, that was around 136 tonnes from memory.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1635
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:28 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
For the 78X to actually be heavier than the A359 is a bit of an embarrassment given the A359 has the larger wing and a vertical winglet.

It's not heavier. Boeing has not been embarrassed. The only person saying it heavier is Zeke and he has never provided any evidence.

With the same cabin type the 787-10 is lighter and has more cabin area.

The Boeing 787 ACAP documents have the payload range charts to prove this. The Y axis starts at zero payload for both the A350 and 787 charts. They both assume a standard cabin weight. You can calculate weight from the top down or bottom up to get the same answer.

Zeke is saying the 787 payload charts Y axis start at a lower weight than a real aircraft. If this was the case Qantas would not be able to fly Perth to London as any extra empty weight would reduce payload. It is already on the limit of the chart.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:59 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
And it's not like Boeing is sitting on its laurels in terms of finding ways to improve the 787's designs. The A350 has already had a couple weight reductions and PIPs to increase MTOW. as far as I know, Boeing hasn't done anything similar since the 789 took to the air. For the 78X to actually be heavier than the A359 is a bit of an embarrassment given the A359 has the larger wing and a vertical winglet. I'm sure they'll find another 2-4 tonnes to extract out of the design even before we get an NG announcement.


Boeing has already taken some 8t out of the 787 family. .

RJMAZ wrote:
With the same cabin type the 787-10 is lighter and has more cabin area.


you mean to say that 10 years of aerodynamic progress have left Boeing so far behind that they manage to burn 2~3 % more fuel on a lighter aircraft with a smaller wing and less wetted area and put a 10% higher price tag on it?

No wonder the A359 is outselling the 787-10 almost 4:1.....

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

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:38 am

tommy1808 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
And it's not like Boeing is sitting on its laurels in terms of finding ways to improve the 787's designs. The A350 has already had a couple weight reductions and PIPs to increase MTOW. as far as I know, Boeing hasn't done anything similar since the 789 took to the air. For the 78X to actually be heavier than the A359 is a bit of an embarrassment given the A359 has the larger wing and a vertical winglet. I'm sure they'll find another 2-4 tonnes to extract out of the design even before we get an NG announcement.


Boeing has already taken some 8t out of the 787 family.


Exactly. 787 was much more overweighted from start then A350 and it takes 90-100 built frames to shave it, compare to A350 got to target MEW after 20 airframe built. Boeing improves 787 same way as Airbus and GEnX and RR T1000 recieved numerous of PIPs!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:58 am

RJMAZ wrote:
It's not heavier. Boeing has not been embarrassed. The only person saying it heavier is Zeke and he has never provided any evidence.


Why do I need to post evidence ? “Jayunited” has posted the UA 787-10 empty weight on a number of threads, I provided a quote and a link to a thread where they have done so.

RJMAZ wrote:
With the same cabin type the 787-10 is lighter and has more cabin area.


As pointed out above the fuselage of the 787-10 is sever meters longer than the A359, that is how it gets more floor area. That floor area comes with a weight penalty, I work it out to be around 3 tonnes heavier than what it would be if the cabin length between door 1 and door 4 was the same as the A359.

RJMAZ wrote:
The Boeing 787 ACAP documents have the payload range charts to prove this.


That is an outright lie, the 787 ACAPS document does not have a payload range chart, it has a payload plus OEW vs range chart.

RJMAZ wrote:
The Y axis starts at zero payload for both the A350 and 787 charts.


Another lie, the Boeing chart you have no idea.

The Airbus chart starts with zero passengers, not zero payload, the note on the chart clearly states standard items included.

RJMAZ wrote:
They both assume a standard cabin weight. You can calculate weight from the top down or bottom up to get the same answer.


Another lie, no you cannot I went through that in my previous reply.

RJMAZ wrote:
Zeke is saying the 787 payload charts Y axis start at a lower weight than a real aircraft.


Another lie, the 787 charts all clearly state OEW plus payload, none of them show payload alone.


RJMAZ wrote:
if this was the case Qantas would not be able to fly Perth to London as any extra empty weight would reduce payload. It is already on the limit of the chart.
[/quote]

QF already has a non standard lighter cabin, they do have to leave seats empty at time, they don’t carry alternates.

The 232 seat configuration QF has is not close to the spec 290 787-9.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:24 am

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
It's not heavier. Boeing has not been embarrassed. The only person saying it heavier is Zeke and he has never provided any evidence.


Why do I need to post evidence ? “Jayunited” has posted the UA 787-10 empty weight on a number of threads, I provided a quote and a link to a thread where they have done so..


wait for the "but the United Cabin is much heavier".....

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:37 am

tommy1808 wrote:
you mean to say that 10 years of aerodynamic progress have left Boeing so far behind that they manage to burn 2~3 % more fuel on a lighter aircraft with a smaller wing and less wetted area and put a 10% higher price tag on it?

I doubt that's true but I assume it tongue in cheek, the the 787-10 appears to burn marginally more fuel on an identical mission but likely costs less to make (despite higher sticker price). If I ran an airline which would I buy? A total non committal "it depends" on more factors than I can be bothered to list right now.

Fred
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:46 am

flipdewaf wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
you mean to say that 10 years of aerodynamic progress have left Boeing so far behind that they manage to burn 2~3 % more fuel on a lighter aircraft with a smaller wing and less wetted area and put a 10% higher price tag on it?

I doubt that's true but I assume it tongue in cheek, the the 787-10 appears to burn marginally more fuel on an identical mission but likely costs less to make (despite higher sticker price). If I ran an airline which would I buy? A total non committal "it depends" on more factors than I can be bothered to list right now.

Fred


yeah.. it was tongue in cheek. And i agree with the "it depends". I am pretty sure that the -10 would come out on top if almost everywhere you want to fly it is within its MZFW range if the price tag doesn´t get in the way, but if the average and max stage length gets longer tables are going to turn as the A359 better aerodynamics, longer wing, start to pay off... literally.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:29 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
...


Okay, there's a serious amount just factually wrong

Always happy to be enlightened
patrickjp93 wrote:
or duplicitous in your response,

I'm now even more intrigued, that's quite the accusation.
patrickjp93 wrote:
so this is gonna take a while, and probably multiple reply posts.

It's taking a long time, you struggling?
patrickjp93 wrote:

Wait what! Has there been a reduction in capacity on trunk routes?

I should have said load factors, but in some cases, yes, capacity too.

Considering load factors have fallen slowly but steadily on the ME, the A380s are becoming more liability than asset, and STC isn't calling for a same-capacity replacement, yes? LH, KA, SQ, MAS, QF, EK, EY, QR, and BA aren't clamoring for a new VLA. LH and BA might be outliers in that regard given they have the 747-8I, but again, the trend's right there in plain view. The 777X also isn't yet selling well despite there still being plenty of 744s in the skies needing replacement in the next 5-10 years and 748s in the next 10-20.

Qantas is about to cancel their second BNE-LAX service due to poor yield while simultaneously launching a direct service to Chicago, and they used to run this route on a 747. That'll take capacity off traffic to LAX and DFW from Sydney and Melbourne as connecting points as well, so there's additional trunk route reduction.

LH is moving some of its bigger birds out of Frankfurt to Munich, so there's a European case. Bordeaux is also starting to take traffic away from CDG for more budget-oriented fliers. Gatwick and the other London airports are taking away leisure traffic from BA into LHR, and those butts left seats from other flights, not likely from a 1-hop like Dublin, but probably a trunk route hub elsewhere. The AM3 are reducing capacity as they move from 77Ws to 787s as well. The A321LR is also opening more direct flights on non-trunk routes, so that's load factor lost and capacity shrinking with it.

patrickjp93 wrote:
It will come down individually to the routes themselves on whether down gauging will be required or not as we start making our network graphs denser. Hong Kong to New York will likely always need an A350+ sized plane. Japan too LAX? Maybe, but that depends in part on whether or not they can efficiently fly a 788/9 to Chicago or Seattle and therefore reduce their PAX requirements for the given route. You CAN, in a brutal LCC config, fit 400+ people on the 78X, and in a basic 3-class config it fits over 320. The 777-300ER fits 450 people into a 3-class config (see Air Canada on Seatguru). And truth is the A350-1000 is even a capacity reduction from the 777-300ER for everyone operating the 77Ws with 10-abreast Y
Lol, so you are saying the perfect replacement for a 77W is the lower capacity but still stretched version of an aircraft made by Boeing but if the aircraft is of a lower capacity and is over ranged then we cant stretch it and reduce its range because its made by airbus. This is priceless (Zeke: do you have salted or sweet?)

Again, successor, not replacement. You have a serious issue either with duplicity or conflation. I haven't quite figured out which.

I have issues with fanboys
patrickjp93 wrote:

One more time, louder for the cheap seats: as load factors fall and capacities fall with them on trunk routes, we'll reach a steady state somewhere down the capacity ladder, anywhere from 50-125 seats is my guess. If it's as much as 100 seats, the A350 won't even be in the running anymore, and even the 787-10 will be on the high end of capacity needs at that point. That's how much difference we can potentially see as hundreds of A321 XLRs, 737 MAXes, and 797s take to the air.

Totally agree, why wouldn't you then put a lower capacity higher range lower fuel burning jet in the form of an A359?
patrickjp93 wrote:

A proposal to further stretch the A350-1000 assumes practically zero capacity reduction on 77W routes being flown today for the next 15 years, or such a brutal collapse of the A380 trunk routes that they make the 777X too big to fit them. Airbus' own execs have said that proposal has been shelved for the time being. So what does that leave as an option? Shrinking it? The A350-800 died in the womb if you recall, and the A330-900 has fulfilled its mission profile instead. While this is likely the last iteration of the A330 (given the -800's abysmal sales performance), it's abundantly clear the A350 is overbuilt for that mission profile;
Maybe so, but if my 3 ton SUV gets better mileage than my 1.5ton Toyota then why would it matter if the 3 ton SUV had added capability?
patrickjp93 wrote:
and if trunk load factors continue falling as they are, in 10-15 years that mission profile is going to be the right fit for trunk routes.
I think the problem you might be having is the notion that a jet built for long range doesn't have the inherent disadvantages that might be expected.
patrickjp93 wrote:

If Tony Fernandes and his like-minded long haul LCC execs are correct, and you really can fill 460 seats on a 9-abreast A330-900, the ones flying won't just be the poor people who wouldn't normally pay a flag carrier's prices. They'll be load factor stolen from said FCs' own trunk routes. So you intend to stretch a plane that already has a fairly high capacity and a ridiculous range (remember, we're discussing the NEO and NG) to provide a relatively tiny CASM improvement so your FCs can better compete with LCCs?
Whats the difference between an FCC and an LCC these days? I see no difference, the fares and service levels are the same. Marketing gibberish.
patrickjp93 wrote:
I know Airbus and Boeing want to sell to all comers, but from the airlines' perspective, that's a bridge too far. It would be way too little way too late.

End of reply part 1.

Waiting for part 2 with quivering excitement.

Yours, Fred
Image
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm

Just for reference, I did some buggering around with my models and it looks like an A359 stretched to the length of A350-1000 and an MTOW of 280t and a MZFW of 215t would have an OWE~7t higher than the standard A359.
If we assume the DOW then to be 143t it will take 365pax (at 100kg each) to 7150nm with an assumed 70 minute hold at 1500ft using 96t of fuel
if it is loaded up to MZFW and has the same 70minute hold at 1500ft then the mission range is ~4050nm using 59.8t of fuel.

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

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:57 pm

morrisond wrote:
You are all not discussing the common understanding that you can buy an 787 for a lot less than an A350. That is probably one of the primary reasons the 787 is selling so well.

Boeing did a lot of work to get 787 costs down (taking a lot of titanium out for example) - now Airbus - which has publicly stated as much - needs to do a lot more work to reduce A350 production costs. It's just too expensive to produce.

I don't know any real numbers but if Boeing has a cost advantage of say 20% - that's the equivalent of buy 10 get 2 free compared to Airbus - or buy 10 get one free at 10%. That's a huge difference.

Basically you don't even have to schedule the extra frame(although that would be stupid) - just keep it as a free spare and your costs are the same as a fleet of A350 - as you are not filling it with Fuel or Crew.

A330 keeps selling as they can push those out for a lot less than A350.

My tentative guess ( Revelation! ask for proof! ) is that Boeing's cost reduction
centers on "leaning on suppliers, heavily" and "snitching on required paperwork proving (and) inspections".

scaling and experience do not create step changes. pressing on suppliers has the potential though.
Murphy is an optimist
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:59 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
I think the problem you might be having is the notion that a jet built for long range doesn't have the inherent disadvantages that might be expected.


That's just laughable. It DOES have the disadvantages you'd expect. Does a narrower fuselage have lower drag than a wider one when both have equally laminar surfaces? Yes.

Does higher weight require more thrust to lift and cruise? Yes. The XWB 84 still uses more overall thrust to lift the A359 than is needed to lift the 78X, 10.38% more. Sometime way in the future when we have "perfect" engines at every thrust level, the A359 NEO v999 will burn more fuel than the 78X NG v999.

While we still have a ways to go on taking weight out of the 78X frame due to its overbuilt fuselage in particular with more steel than needed, if you take the current frames into the future of perfect engines, the A350 burns more fuel for the same missions the 78X will be able to fly, and it does so because its current design is optimized for close to the top end of ULH flight. There are only two major city pairs on planet Earth right now that the A359 ULR can't connect: Auckland & London, and Perth & New York.

The tiny fuel consumption advantage the A359 has today that can't be traced back directly to the 787 still being overweight is the newer Trent XWB engine. The GEnx CMC PIP will wipe out that engine advantage entirely.

But that's only half the problem. The A350 is a BIG bird, and the calculus of trunk routes is changing in the era of P2P flight. We have incontrovertible proof of this with the ME3, the slow 777X sales, and Airbus officially shelving the A350-1100 concept. The 78X has the advantage of being just smaller enough as to likely never have too much capacity, and over the very long term, it has the distinct advantage of not needing as much thrust for its missions, which, once engines plateau in efficiency gains, means the A359 will burn more fuel for the same missions at the same weight.

This is a discussion about future iterations of craft and using inductive reasoning on aircraft performance development along with some guesswork at where the market is going in terms of capacity needs. The A359's optimal weight advantage WILL disappear as the 787 is fully optimized. It's not like Airbus has God as its chief engineer. The 78X's range will extend into the USEFUL band for many more decades than the A350 will. At some point, even if that point isn't 10 years from now, the extra capability is useful for no one, the capacity goes well beyond what the market will bear, and you the airline pay one way or the other for the extra frame weight with every cycle.

As for the other half of my reply, I am a working man with a family, so apologies for the tardiness. That said, I'd rather sink a dishonest counterpart with one post and 30 individual sources than keep up your nonsense spin and death by a thousand cuts approach.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:26 pm

Mrakula wrote:
Wow...You found crystal ball :-o

How so? Everything I just cited for my reasoning is either inescapable mathematical fact (physics) or common knowledge on what's happening with air travel trends today. Taking things forward to their conclusions is inductive reasoning, which is a commonly used technique in high-level mathematics to prove many qualities of functions and algorithms, including limits, the limit of fuel economics being one central part here.

A) It is a bit of a crude to say 10% more thrust requires 10% more fuel in two engines that are perfectly efficient, but is more fuel required for more thrust? Yes.

B) Is there 30-40% more engine efficiency to be had? Most likely yes. See Lightsaber's breakdowns on that. If we get 40+, the 78X winds up with 14,000km range with zero airframe improvement, putting it right where Boeing's newest brochure ranges put the 777-300ER in a typical configuration.

C) Will Boeing and Airbus optimize these frames to their respective "perfection"? Yes. That's competition for you.

D) By B&C, we eventually arrive in a world where the 78X is just slightly more range-capable than the 777-300ER with a 20-27% smaller pax capacity (330 typical seating vs. Air Canada's 450-person 77W config).

E) The 737 MAX, A321 XLR, and eventual 797 all open up far more direct P2P flying than we can currently justify by a long shot, and THEIR successors will keep doing the same

F) The western world's population is mostly stabilized or very low growth

G) By E, more planes will be in the air with less people in them as we move into the future

H) By E,F, and G, trunk route load factors will fall as secondary airports become accessible by both distant hubs and distant secondary airports.

I) Low load factors on planes = poor sales figures for airlines

J) By H&I, the trunk route planes flying today will not be able to be filled in their current configurations and will be turning little or no profit

K) People prefer flying direct rather than stopping (See the unmitigated success of SIN-EWR, PER-LHR, AKL-ORD, LAX/SFO-SIN, etc..)

L) By law of Supply & Demand, airlines can fill more seats by making them cheaper

M) Airlines can make seats cheaper by cramming more into a given aircraft and selling each ticket for a smaller margin

N) By G & K, M would only make tickets cheaper for people demanding to fly the trunk route in the first place, mostly negating the benefit of selling more seats, as there'd be no demand to extract.

O) By K, L, and N, the only way to drastically change the price of tickets AND turn a profit is to get new craft better suited to the new demand, with smaller capacities and much better fuel economy.


Given all of the above, the only variable in here which matters once engine improvements plateau is whether the bulk of trunk route capacity needs levels off where the A359/K are now, or down further where the 78X is now.
Last edited by patrickjp93 on Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:39 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I think the problem you might be having is the notion that a jet built for long range doesn't have the inherent disadvantages that might be expected.


That's just laughable. It DOES have the disadvantages you'd expect. Does a narrower fuselage have lower drag than a wider one when both have equally laminar surfaces?
I could ask the same question about a longer one but I suppose the reality of the answer would be the same: it depends on the local conditions, in this instance, density and viscosity would be important factors.
patrickjp93 wrote:
Yes.

all things being equal except all thins aren’t equal.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Does higher weight require more thrust to lift and cruise? Yes.
no, 77W vs 779X.
patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB 84 still uses more overall thrust to lift the A359 than is needed to lift the 78X, 10.38% more.
for an aircraft that has an MTOW some 10.2% more
patrickjp93 wrote:
Sometime way in the future when we have "perfect" engines at every thrust level, the A359 NEO v999 will burn more fuel than the 78X NG v999.
my modelling analysis shows that at identical TSFC the A359 will maintain ~1% fuel burn advantage at reasonable stage lengths. This is down in the weeds with regards to actually mattering.
patrickjp93 wrote:
While we still have a ways to go on taking weight out of the 78X frame due to its overbuilt fuselage in particular with more steel than needed, if you take the current frames into the future of perfect engines, the A350 burns more fuel for the same missions the 78X will be able to fly,
show your analysis or sources
patrickjp93 wrote:
and it does so because its current design is optimized for close to the top end of ULH flight. There are only two major city pairs on planet Earth right now that the A359 ULR can't connect: Auckland & London, and Perth & New York.
so you are drawing causation BEFORE there is even correlation.
patrickjp93 wrote:

The tiny fuel consumption advantage the A359 has today that can't be traced back directly to the 787 still being overweight is the newer Trent XWB engine.
it isn’t, at equal TSFC and payload range missions a small fuel burn advantage remains with the A359.
patrickjp93 wrote:
The GEnx CMC PIP will wipe out that engine advantage entirely.
the RR guys are playing tiddlywinks with Airbus when that happens right?
patrickjp93 wrote:
But that's only half the problem. The A350 is a BIG bird, and the calculus of trunk routes is changing in the era of P2P flight. We have incontrovertible proof of this with the ME3, the slow 777X sales, and Airbus officially shelving the A350-1100 concept. The 78X has the advantage of being just smaller enough as to likely never have too much capacity,
the A359 is (I’ll say it slowly) s m a l l e r than the B78X
patrickjp93 wrote:
and over the very long term, it has the distinct advantage of not needing as much thrust for its missions, which, once engines plateau in efficiency gains, means the A359 will burn more fuel for the same missions at the same weight.
at the same TSFC and mission profile the A359 still burns less fuel.
patrickjp93 wrote:

This is a discussion about future iterations of craft and using inductive reasoning on aircraft performance development along with some guesswork at where the market is going in terms of capacity needs. The A359's optimal weight advantage WILL disappear as the 787 is fully optimized. It's not like Airbus has God as its chief engineer.
what gives the B78X more room for improvement and will a fundamentally older design not hit its limits earlier, I mean why else would we be building new models at all if we could just keep optimising old ones.
patrickjp93 wrote:
The 78X's range will extend into the USEFUL band for many more decades than the A350 will. At some point, even if that point isn't 10 years from now, the extra capability is useful for no one,
but comes at no mission cost (actual purchase price a different matter)
patrickjp93 wrote:
the capacity goes well beyond what the market will bear,
but what’s the issue with free capacity?
patrickjp93 wrote:
and you the airline pay one way or the other for the extra frame weight with every cycle.
Dynamic MTOW. Common practice.
patrickjp93 wrote:

As for the other half of my reply, I am a working man with a family, so apologies for the tardiness. That said, I'd rather sink a dishonest counterpart with one post and 30 individual sources than keep up your nonsense spin and death by a thousand cuts approach.

I understand and can wait for you to deal with family matters and finish with your dishonest counterpart before you respond to me.

Regards,

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:19 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
While we still have a ways to go
we? Interesting...

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:18 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Does higher weight require more thrust to lift and cruise? Yes.
no, 77W vs 779X.
patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB 84 still uses more overall thrust to lift the A359 than is needed to lift the 78X, 10.38% more.
for an aircraft that has an MTOW some 10.2% more

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like a fly to honey. The latest example in a line of your duplicitous responses.

The 77W and 777X are not comparable in this scenario, whereas the 787 and A350 are. The 77W does not have a supercritical wing, whereas the other three do. We made an enormous step change with the 787 and A350, and it's not likely to repeat itself given quantum mechanics and the fact Carbon is the lightest "stable" atom, meaning we're pretty secure in assuming we'll make all things equal in the next 30 years without a sweat when it comes to lightweight composition and shape. The 777X is a pittance heavier in the wing, but the effective lift area increased so much thanks to composite construction that it exceeded the overly conservative limits of Aluminum and Titanium in terms of liftable structure and made it possible to require less thrust. Unless you intend to tell me that Hydrogen-based aerogel can be used for aerofoil structure, and withstand a panel of MIT, Penn, and Cambridge Aerospace grads along with the most senior Boeing & Airbus engineers still working, just walk away.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:39 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Does higher weight require more thrust to lift and cruise? Yes.
no, 77W vs 779X.
patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB 84 still uses more overall thrust to lift the A359 than is needed to lift the 78X, 10.38% more.
for an aircraft that has an MTOW some 10.2% more

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like a fly to honey. The latest example in a line of your duplicitous responses.

The 77W and 777X are not comparable in this scenario, whereas the 787 and A350 are. The 77W does not have a supercritical wing, whereas the other three do.


I'd like you to read this NASA publication:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/89232main_TF-2004-13-DFRC.pdf

777 is the first Boeing frame that shows more or less a fully supercritical wing.
After ( beginnings on the A300 then fully on A310, A320, A330, A340, ... )
757, 767 don't really qualify and the NG wing is "so.. so"

cite:
"Boeing's 757 and 767 jetliners, and the new
generation of 737 aircraft, also have wings designed
with some form of applied supercritical technology."

obviously things progress. Look at the Airbus wing designs :-))
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:45 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Does higher weight require more thrust to lift and cruise? Yes.
no, 77W vs 779X.
patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB 84 still uses more overall thrust to lift the A359 than is needed to lift the 78X, 10.38% more.
for an aircraft that has an MTOW some 10.2% more

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like a fly to honey.
flies are more likely to be attracted to faecal matter I thought, ironic
patrickjp93 wrote:
The latest example in a line of your duplicitous responses.

I’m not 8, your name calling is a bit odd.
patrickjp93 wrote:

The 77W and 777X are not comparable in this scenario, whereas the 787 and A350 are. The 77W does not have a supercritical wing, whereas the other three do.

Other than supercriticality (sic) not being a binary thing it is also a concept based on compressible flow regimes which clearly isn’t where the circa 10% figure came from as this compares sea level values.

The difference in 77W - 779X thrust is due to differing wing geometries changes the liftoff speeds and low speed drag levels.

patrickjp93 wrote:
We made an enormous step change with the 787 and A350, and it's not likely to repeat itself given quantum mechanics and the fact Carbon is the lightest "stable" atom, meaning we're pretty secure in assuming we'll make all things equal in the next 30 years without a sweat when it comes to lightweight composition and shape. The 777X is a pittance heavier in the wing, but the effective lift area increased so much thanks to composite construction that it exceeded the overly conservative limits of Aluminum and Titanium in terms of liftable structure and made it possible to require less thrust. Unless you intend to tell me that Hydrogen-based aerogel can be used for aerofoil structure, and withstand a panel of MIT, Penn, and Cambridge Aerospace grads along with the most senior Boeing & Airbus engineers still working, just walk away.
I remember not being very good at history at school and my exam papers looked like this, I panicked and spilled everything I knew on to a piece of paper in the hope that something that looked correct was there. Alas my grades in history weren’t good.

Fred



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

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:16 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
............ given quantum mechanics and the fact Carbon is the lightest "stable" atom, meaning we're pretty secure in assuming we'll make all things equal ............


I didn't know elements like Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Beryllium, Bor are astable and thus radioactive.
Learned something new. ( whiffs of "German Physics" :-)

What really is interesting in Carbon is its wide and balanced range of oxidation states. -4 ... +4
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:34 pm

Just a quick question, where have RR or GE talked in public about a new engine for the 787 ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:01 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I think the problem you might be having is the notion that a jet built for long range doesn't have the inherent disadvantages that might be expected.


That's just laughable. It DOES have the disadvantages you'd expect. Does a narrower fuselage have lower drag than a wider one when both have equally laminar surfaces? Yes.


does a longer wing compensate for that? Yes.
You keep ignoring that the A359 uses less fuel than the 787-10.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:43 am

tommy1808 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I think the problem you might be having is the notion that a jet built for long range doesn't have the inherent disadvantages that might be expected.


That's just laughable. It DOES have the disadvantages you'd expect. Does a narrower fuselage have lower drag than a wider one when both have equally laminar surfaces? Yes.


does a longer wing compensate for that? Yes.
You keep ignoring that the A359 uses less fuel than the 787-10.


A longer wing using thin ( bringing easy low drag) profiles is expensive weight wise.

IMU the Airbus trick is to use thicker profiles that exhibit low drag while
needing intrinsically less material.
to whit: A359 has significantly more wing with no weight penalty versus the 787-10
and only a minor one against the smaller 787-9 OEW wise
_and_ allows a significantly higher MTOW too.
( still amusing to read that Airbus had to use all kinds of outmoded tech like "panels! forsooth!"
because Boeing was ahead anyway and held the patents on winning super tech.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:45 am

WIederling wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

That's just laughable. It DOES have the disadvantages you'd expect. Does a narrower fuselage have lower drag than a wider one when both have equally laminar surfaces? Yes.


does a longer wing compensate for that? Yes.
You keep ignoring that the A359 uses less fuel than the 787-10.


A longer wing using thin ( bringing easy low drag) profiles is expensive weight wise.

IMU the Airbus trick is to use thicker profiles that exhibit low drag while
needing intrinsically less material.
to whit: A359 has significantly more wing with no weight penalty versus the 787-10
and only a minor one against the smaller 787-9 OEW wise
_and_ allows a significantly higher MTOW too.

Wing weight scales (approximately) with span^3 and also scales with 1/(t/c).
t/c is also also an important driver in compressibility drag rises, (thicker being worse) but if you can tailor your wing better for the transonic regime then you can make it thicker and lighter and still go fast. The 747 used the trick of making the wing thicker and lighter but also had to make the wing longer (and heaver) without increasing the span.

No single part of aircraft design is particularly challenging to understand, the problem is understanding that in these highly integrated machines, nothing happens in isolation.

Fred
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1635
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:35 pm

I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger."

I guess a spreadsheet model can only get so far. Change the engine SFC a percent to give the answer required. Anyone can cherry pick to find a way to make the A350-900 look lighter. Compare an airline with a heavy layout in their 787-10's to an airline with a light layout in their A350's.

It is not surprising that Airbus gives an empty weight range between 135t and 145t. Zeke will of course pick the lightest empty weight to prove an argument.

Average weight the 787-10 appears to be 1000-2000kg lighter than the A350-900.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... d-airliner

I have also heard the GenX is getting much better fuel burn than the TrentTen which is why Air New Zealand selected it and Qantas is getting excemptional fuel burn on Perth London. I would go as far as saying the latest PIP genX is easily on par with the latest XWB.

It would not surprise me if the GenX performance is playing a big role in the 787 sales. It could even be beating the XWB which allows the 787 to make up for the slightly smaller wing.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:11 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger."

I guess a spreadsheet model can only get so far. Change the engine SFC a percent to give the answer required. Anyone can cherry pick to find a way to make the A350-900 look lighter. Compare an airline with a heavy layout in their 787-10's to an airline with a light layout in their A350's.

It is not surprising that Airbus gives an empty weight range between 135t and 145t. Zeke will of course pick the lightest empty weight to prove an argument.

Average weight the 787-10 appears to be 1000-2000kg lighter than the A350-900.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... d-airliner

I have also heard the GenX is getting much better fuel burn than the TrentTen which is why Air New Zealand selected it and Qantas is getting excemptional fuel burn on Perth London. I would go as far as saying the latest PIP genX is easily on par with the latest XWB.

It would not surprise me if the GenX performance is playing a big role in the 787 sales. It could even be beating the XWB which allows the 787 to make up for the slightly smaller wing.


And what is OEW range for 78X? Zeke used UA figures for comparison and also Airbus figures from the artical is from 2015.

It isn`t dogma that A359 is lighter then 78X but it can be both ways! So statement 78X is lighter is not relevant!
 
morrisond
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:41 pm

WIederling wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You are all not discussing the common understanding that you can buy an 787 for a lot less than an A350. That is probably one of the primary reasons the 787 is selling so well.

Boeing did a lot of work to get 787 costs down (taking a lot of titanium out for example) - now Airbus - which has publicly stated as much - needs to do a lot more work to reduce A350 production costs. It's just too expensive to produce.

I don't know any real numbers but if Boeing has a cost advantage of say 20% - that's the equivalent of buy 10 get 2 free compared to Airbus - or buy 10 get one free at 10%. That's a huge difference.

Basically you don't even have to schedule the extra frame(although that would be stupid) - just keep it as a free spare and your costs are the same as a fleet of A350 - as you are not filling it with Fuel or Crew.

A330 keeps selling as they can push those out for a lot less than A350.

My tentative guess ( Revelation! ask for proof! ) is that Boeing's cost reduction
centers on "leaning on suppliers, heavily" and "snitching on required paperwork proving (and) inspections".

scaling and experience do not create step changes. pressing on suppliers has the potential though.


And of course you would never admit that Boeing (and it's Partners) maybe were able to design the airplane to require less labour hours to assemble.

It's Barrel process seems to be more automated and it's wing maybe as well.

One of the benefits of all electric design for subsystems may be faster assembly as well. Electrical Connections may take a lot less time than bleed air systems.

I'm sure Airbus just takes whatever price it's subs demand for there work.

You might have a point on the inspection thing - but that is not going to save millions per frame - you might be talking tens of thousands at most - no where near what is needed to help explain Boeing's sales advantage which does seem to come down a lot to price.

The list price might be higher on 787 but reports on here are that 787's are selling for millions less than A350's - possibly in the ten's of millions or at least 10 million less. This is from memory - but I seem to recall actual transaction values at less than $100 million for an 787 and more than $100 million for A350.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:51 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger."

I guess a spreadsheet model can only get so far. Change the engine SFC a percent to give the answer required. Anyone can cherry pick to find a way to make the A350-900 look lighter. Compare an airline with a heavy layout in their 787-10's to an airline with a light layout in their A350's.

It is not surprising that Airbus gives an empty weight range between 135t and 145t. Zeke will of course pick the lightest empty weight to prove an argument.

Average weight the 787-10 appears to be 1000-2000kg lighter than the A350-900.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-avi ... d-airliner

I have also heard the GenX is getting much better fuel burn than the TrentTen which is why Air New Zealand selected it and Qantas is getting excemptional fuel burn on Perth London. I would go as far as saying the latest PIP genX is easily on par with the latest XWB.

It would not surprise me if the GenX performance is playing a big role in the 787 sales. It could even be beating the XWB which allows the 787 to make up for the slightly smaller wing.



So which one is it? Is the GenX on par with the TXWB or is it beating it, because you seem to be saying both in two sentences. Seems that you are speculating on both claims so I don't really understand how you are able to have different views when you speculate on performance.

Did you get any weights from your friend with connections or was it just a general statement? Also, what are you trying to point out with your link? We already know there are different weights for the A350 so other than that, I am not sure why you are linking an article for information that has been provided on the forums already.

As for the spreadsheet comment, someone is a little salty. Your friend with connections confirms the 78X is better than the A359 per passenger so it must be true for all other operators out there I suppose. That is the way it works, right? If it is true at one airline it is true for all of them.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:54 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger.".


Average seats [email protected] Airlines: 268 seats ~1.08m2/seat
Average seats [email protected] Airlines: 337 seats ~0,89m2/seat

Not sure how one gets a meaningful comparison out of that..... and that the 787-10 will burn less per passenger is a given under those circumstances.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Eyad89
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:01 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger."



Two things here:

1) No one claimed that the A359 burns less per seat. We are saying it burns less fuel per flight, which is very logical since it has a higher L/D ratio while being awfully similar in weight. This argument is against the claim that 787-10NG will always be the obvious choice if both can still cover a specific range.

2) Even when it comes to burn per seat, all the SQ 787-10s are less premium-heavy than their A359s, so this likely added to the fuel burn per seat thing.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:10 pm

For all the talk about how fantastic the 787-10 is (and I don't doubt that it is a fantastic plane for the operators), it hasn't really had the impact suggested on this site. Almost all customers have been major 787 operators. Only two airlines took it that did not already have 787s, and even then there were other links that made them a good fit in other ways than just from a performance perspective. From what I can see, the 787-10 has yet to win a meaningful competition. Even United Airlines' much vaunted plans to use the 787-10 to China seem to be a stop-gap measure, with 45 much better suited A350s inbound at that airline.


RJMAZ wrote:
I spend a few days hastling a friend with connections at Singapore airlines. Their 787-10's are lighter than all of their A350-900's. I couldn't get any fuel burn data besides "the 787-10's burn less fuel per passenger."


In fairness, they also stuff way more seats into the 787-10. They are more dense than even the regional A350s.

My own search shows that the 787-10 and A350 do lie very close to each other. Exact numbers don't seem to be available, but it really isn't much. Ultimately, the way an airline configures it probably has a greater impact.


patrickjp93 wrote:
The 777X also isn't yet selling well despite there still being plenty of 744s in the skies needing replacement in the next 5-10 years and 748s in the next 10-20.


The 747s are almost gone from the skies. There are not "plenty". It is something like 150 passenger 747s of all variants still in service, and over half of them already have replacements assigned. Of the remainder, most belong to small operators who would only consider cheap second-hand aircraft. The 777X is too late to the 747 replacement market.


morrisond wrote:
You are all not discussing the common understanding that you can buy an 787 for a lot less than an A350. That is probably one of the primary reasons the 787 is selling so well.

Boeing did a lot of work to get 787 costs down (taking a lot of titanium out for example) - now Airbus - which has publicly stated as much - needs to do a lot more work to reduce A350 production costs. It's just too expensive to produce.


They also did a lot of price dumping to try to choke the A330neo, just saying. Total number of aircraft sold is only one part of the equation. If they pushed out 50% more aircraft but made little to no profits on them, then Boeing didn't really "win" anything.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1635
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:15 pm

enzo011 wrote:
So which one is it? Is the GenX on par with the TXWB or is it beating it, because you seem to be saying both in two sentences.

Just pointing out which one it isn't. The mantra from the Airbus fanboys is that the XWB has the best fuel burn of any engine. That is simply not the case. The genX is on par at worst.

The XWB isn't much more than a scaled up TrentTen. Or should I say the TrentTen was built as a scaled down XWB. The XWB engine did enter service a year earlier.

The TrentTen does not match the GenX. The XWB has only some very minor tech differences that I doubt would make more than a 1% improvement over the TrentTen. Most of the guys on here are modelling the A350 with engines with better fuel burn than the 787.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:31 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
So which one is it? Is the GenX on par with the TXWB or is it beating it, because you seem to be saying both in two sentences.

Just pointing out which one it isn't. The mantra from the Airbus fanboys is that the XWB has the best fuel burn of any engine. That is simply not the case. The genX is on par at worst.

The XWB isn't much more than a scaled up TrentTen. Or should I say the TrentTen was built as a scaled down XWB. The XWB engine did enter service a year earlier.

The TrentTen does not match the GenX. The XWB has only some very minor tech differences that I doubt would make more than a 1% improvement over the TrentTen. Most of the guys on here are modelling the A350 with engines with better fuel burn than the 787.


The XWB 97 is known to be a somewhat different beast from the 84, which is part of the reason the A35K has an extra 1000km of range. There will be PIPs for the 84 and other variants derived from the work on the 97. The weird thing is the T1000 TEN was actually the first target for applying these PIPs, rather than the XWB or 7000. I think RR may have miscalculated on where to put their engineering effort for that, as the T1000 operators are now considering moving to GE just to escape the grounding, maintenance, and only ETOPS 90 (60?) Hell of the T1000. That engine is just cursed...
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:38 pm

enzo011 wrote:
So which one is it? Is the GenX on par with the TXWB or is it beating it, because you seem to be saying both in two sentences. Seems that you are speculating on both claims so I don't really understand how you are able to have different views when you speculate on performance.

Did you get any weights from your friend with connections or was it just a general statement? Also, what are you trying to point out with your link? We already know there are different weights for the A350 so other than that, I am not sure why you are linking an article for information that has been provided on the forums already.

As for the spreadsheet comment, someone is a little salty. Your friend with connections confirms the 78X is better than the A359 per passenger so it must be true for all other operators out there I suppose. That is the way it works, right? If it is true at one airline it is true for all of them.


The XWB (or at least the 97) should be 0.5-1% more efficient given it's a later generation design. When GE brings in the CMC PIP, the difference should disappear, and that'll be probably 1/2-3/4 of a tonne of weight saved between a pair of engines that can go back into payload.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1635
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:58 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB 97 is known to be a somewhat different beast from the 84, which is part of the reason the A35K has an extra 1000km of range.

That extra range comes entirely from the airframe there is no fuel burn improvements in the engines.

I would say the XWB 97 is actually worse than the 84. The 97 has a lower bypass ratio as the core was enlarged. The fan also spins much faster and slightly above optimal.

Rolls Royce ideally needed a bigger nacelle to hit 97,000lb thrust level. By keeping the nacelle size they can effectively produce a brand new engine and skip most of the testing using grandfathering rules. It does have some slight core improvements but I think they simply offset the other design compromises.

An extra 6inch on the fan diameter while keeping the original fan speed would have produced a better overall engine.

patrickjp93 wrote:
I think RR may have miscalculated on where to put their engineering effort for that, as the T1000 operators are now considering moving to GE just to escape the grounding, maintenance, and only ETOPS 90 (60?) Hell of the T1000. That engine is just cursed...
RR was just flying blind and using grandfathering to skip testing. The TrentTen is an entirely brand new engine with some 90% of the parts being unique yet it was certified as a tiny upgrade of the Trent 1000. They then produced hundreds of engines using an untested design.

I think they just got lucky with the XWB.

Imagine if Boeing built a cleansheet carbon aircraft and tried to grandfather it as a 737 because it has the same tyres and pilot seat. That is what RR is doing.

The new ultrafan engine is very high risk in my opinion. They have already ditched the variable pitch fan so it will be no better than a big version of Pratts GTF.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:02 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The XWB 97 is known to be a somewhat different beast from the 84, which is part of the reason the A35K has an extra 1000km of range.

That extra range comes entirely from the airframe there is no fuel burn improvements in the engines.

I would say the XWB 97 is actually worse than the 84. The 97 has a lower bypass ratio as the core was enlarged. The fan also spins much faster and slightly above optimal.

Rolls Royce ideally needed a bigger nacelle to hit 97,000lb thrust level. By keeping the nacelle size they can effectively produce a brand new engine and skip most of the testing using grandfathering rules. It does have some slight core improvements but I think they simply offset the other design compromises.

An extra 6inch on the fan diameter while keeping the original fan speed would have produced a better overall engine.

patrickjp93 wrote:
I think RR may have miscalculated on where to put their engineering effort for that, as the T1000 operators are now considering moving to GE just to escape the grounding, maintenance, and only ETOPS 90 (60?) Hell of the T1000. That engine is just cursed...
RR was just flying blind and using grandfathering to skip testing. The TrentTen is an entirely brand new engine with some 90% of the parts being unique yet it was certified as a tiny upgrade of the Trent 1000. They then produced hundreds of engines using an untested design.

I think they just got lucky with the XWB.

Imagine if Boeing built a cleansheet carbon aircraft and tried to grandfather it as a 737 because it has the same tyres and pilot seat. That is what RR is doing.


Hmm, informative...

Not just the XWB, but the 7000 as well is still flying trouble-free. It's almost like RR TRIED to screw up the T1000. It can't be purely from moving to a bleedless design, can it?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:28 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
So which one is it? Is the GenX on par with the TXWB or is it beating it, because you seem to be saying both in two sentences. Seems that you are speculating on both claims so I don't really understand how you are able to have different views when you speculate on performance.

Did you get any weights from your friend with connections or was it just a general statement? Also, what are you trying to point out with your link? We already know there are different weights for the A350 so other than that, I am not sure why you are linking an article for information that has been provided on the forums already.

As for the spreadsheet comment, someone is a little salty. Your friend with connections confirms the 78X is better than the A359 per passenger so it must be true for all other operators out there I suppose. That is the way it works, right? If it is true at one airline it is true for all of them.


The XWB (or at least the 97) should be 0.5-1% more efficient given it's a later generation design. When GE brings in the CMC PIP, the difference should disappear, and that'll be probably 1/2-3/4 of a tonne of weight saved between a pair of engines that can go back into payload.


And somewhere around that timeframe RR will also PIP its engine....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm

morrisond wrote:
The list price might be higher on 787 but reports on here are that 787's are selling for millions less than A350's - possibly in the ten's of millions or at least 10 million less. This is from memory - but I seem to recall actual transaction values at less than $100 million for an 787 and more than $100 million for A350.


You mean to say that airlines do pay a higher price for the smaller Airbus? Gosh, gee, I wonder what that can tell us about operating costs.... it's not like the A350 is more available or any other such reason why the more expensive plane to buy AND operate aircraft can sell.

It may very well be that the 787-10 is quite a bit cheaper to build but sales prices have little to do with production cost, aside of how deep a discount you can give, but everything with the perceived value of the goods bought. There is either a operating cost or revenue reason to justify those extra millions. And more revenue ain't easy with the smaller bird.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:49 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
So which one is it? Is the GenX on par with the TXWB or is it beating it, because you seem to be saying both in two sentences. Seems that you are speculating on both claims so I don't really understand how you are able to have different views when you speculate on performance.

Did you get any weights from your friend with connections or was it just a general statement? Also, what are you trying to point out with your link? We already know there are different weights for the A350 so other than that, I am not sure why you are linking an article for information that has been provided on the forums already.

As for the spreadsheet comment, someone is a little salty. Your friend with connections confirms the 78X is better than the A359 per passenger so it must be true for all other operators out there I suppose. That is the way it works, right? If it is true at one airline it is true for all of them.


The XWB (or at least the 97) should be 0.5-1% more efficient given it's a later generation design. When GE brings in the CMC PIP, the difference should disappear, and that'll be probably 1/2-3/4 of a tonne of weight saved between a pair of engines that can go back into payload.


And somewhere around that timeframe RR will also PIP its engine....

Best regards
Thomas

The XWB is the PIP source for the other 2 engines in the family. Far as I'm aware they have nothing planned for the XWB in the next year, whereas we know GE has something for the next calendar year.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:32 pm

morrisond wrote:
WIederling wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You are all not discussing the common understanding that you can buy an 787 for a lot less than an A350. That is probably one of the primary reasons the 787 is selling so well.

Boeing did a lot of work to get 787 costs down (taking a lot of titanium out for example) - now Airbus - which has publicly stated as much - needs to do a lot more work to reduce A350 production costs. It's just too expensive to produce.

I don't know any real numbers but if Boeing has a cost advantage of say 20% - that's the equivalent of buy 10 get 2 free compared to Airbus - or buy 10 get one free at 10%. That's a huge difference.

Basically you don't even have to schedule the extra frame(although that would be stupid) - just keep it as a free spare and your costs are the same as a fleet of A350 - as you are not filling it with Fuel or Crew.

A330 keeps selling as they can push those out for a lot less than A350.

My tentative guess ( Revelation! ask for proof! ) is that Boeing's cost reduction
centers on "leaning on suppliers, heavily" and "snitching on required paperwork proving (and) inspections".

scaling and experience do not create step changes. pressing on suppliers has the potential though.


And of course you would never admit that Boeing (and it's Partners) maybe were able to design the airplane to require less labour hours to assemble.

It's Barrel process seems to be more automated and it's wing maybe as well.

One of the benefits of all electric design for subsystems may be faster assembly as well. Electrical Connections may take a lot less time than bleed air systems.

I'm sure Airbus just takes whatever price it's subs demand for there work.

You might have a point on the inspection thing - but that is not going to save millions per frame - you might be talking tens of thousands at most - no where near what is needed to help explain Boeing's sales advantage which does seem to come down a lot to price.

The list price might be higher on 787 but reports on here are that 787's are selling for millions less than A350's - possibly in the ten's of millions or at least 10 million less. This is from memory - but I seem to recall actual transaction values at less than $100 million for an 787 and more than $100 million for A350.


Your last point on pricing is not correct. Perhaps you are thinking about OEM build costs, but no new-build 787's are being sold for less than $100M. As per the data from the Aircraft Values, And Lease Pricing - Spring 2019 thread (https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705), whose source is IBA (an aircraft appraiser) and ISTAT (aircraft trading industry trade group), new build 787-9's are transacting around $142M, and new build A350-900's are transacting around $148M, a gap of $6M. There is not enough market data to build consensus around 787-10 values, but it's more than reasonable to assume that the 787-10 is more expensive than the 787-9, so the gap vs. the A350-900 will either be smaller than $6M, or perhaps even negative.

From the thread:
B787-9 - $102.0 - 142.0, $850-1,150,000
A350-900 - $109.0 - 148.0M, $800-1,140,000

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alias1024, Francoflier, skywalker92 and 31 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