Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
swapcv
Topic Author
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Tue Oct 11, 2022 4:29 pm

I always wondered, is there any difference in the takeoff performance of both aircraft in most conditions. If there's a noticeable difference, who's the better performer? I have heard people say the 787 is a runway hog, but I remain unconvinced by that as there's not much evidence to such claims. I for one believe, variant for variant, i.e 787-8 vs A332/A338 and the 787-9 vs A333/A339, they're roughly similar. However I'd like to hear some more thoughts and opinions on this regard from the community itself hence this thread. Thanks.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4857
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Tue Oct 11, 2022 6:57 pm

Just looking over the ACAPS for the A339 and B789 both at 240t it looks like the 789 needs about 100m less (2600 vs 2600) but this is just me eyeballing it. I would imagine that at the same MTOW the 789 has a greater payload/range so for an equal mission the 789 would be marginally better still.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:28 am

These kinds of threads pop up all the time it seems, and I don’t know why people have such a hard time accepting that there almost never will be a single answer to “which is the better performer” for aircraft in any sort of similar competitive arena. There’s so many variables involved that the question becomes meaningless to anyone looking for a more serious evaluation beyond “scoring points” for one side or the other. The world is not black and white.

I am pretty sure, however that people that use phrases like “runway hog” or “gas guzzler” in these kinds of discussions are not bothering to look at real-world data like the ACAPS figures that Fred mentioned.

If the difference is around 100m in this case, that’s pretty negligible.
 
T54A
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Wed Oct 12, 2022 9:23 am

Post a specific question about a specific runway, at specific atmospheric conditions with specific payload requirements on a specific sector and then you might get a reasonable answer.
 
User avatar
swapcv
Topic Author
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:32 am

T54A wrote:
Post a specific question about a specific runway, at specific atmospheric conditions with specific payload requirements on a specific sector and then you might get a reasonable answer.


In that case I'll narrow this down to ISA, ISA+10 and ISA+15 conditions. I would like to know the RTOW and Payload-Range capability of the A330-200/-800neo vs the 787-8, and the A330-300/-900neo vs the 787-9 for the following Airports :

1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda
3. St.Maarten-Amsterdam/Paris CDG/Orly
4. Johannesburg-Amsterdam/Heathrow
5. Quito-New York JFK/Newark
6. Mayotte-Orly/Charles de Gaulle or Orly

I cherry picked these as these are the few known restricted airfields out of which both types used to or are still known to operate.
 
T54A
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:38 am

swapcv wrote:
T54A wrote:
Post a specific question about a specific runway, at specific atmospheric conditions with specific payload requirements on a specific sector and then you might get a reasonable answer.


In that case I'll narrow this down to ISA, ISA+10 and ISA+15 conditions. I would like to know the RTOW and Payload-Range capability of the A330-200/-800neo vs the 787-8, and the A330-300/-900neo vs the 787-9 for the following Airports :

1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda
3. St.Maarten-Amsterdam/Paris CDG/Orly
4. Johannesburg-Amsterdam/Heathrow
5. Quito-New York JFK/Newark
6. Mayotte-Orly/Charles de Gaulle or Orly

I cherry picked these as these are the few known restricted airfields out of which both types used to or are still known to operate.


I will provide A332 data for the JNB-AMS sector (5900nm). I don’t have other perf data for other airfields.

OEW: 122000kg
Sector Fuel: About 78000kg (72000kg Trip plus extra 6000kg)
RTOW RWY 03L with 5kt HW: ISA-233400kg, ISA+10-232200, ISA+20-228400kg
Potential Payload: ISA-33400kg, ISA+10-32000kg, ISA+10-28400kg.

I’m sure there are minor errors in these numbers, but it should give you an idea
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17515
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:01 pm

swapcv wrote:
1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda


ISG-HND with the A330 would be able to take maximum structural payload, can easily do a 2 hr flight off a 6000' runway
 
hitower3
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:31 am

zeke wrote:
swapcv wrote:
1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda


ISG-HND with the A330 would be able to take maximum structural payload, can easily do a 2 hr flight off a 6000' runway


Dear zeke,

I am always impressed about the RWY performance of modern WB jets at low weight. With a light fuel load, you can essentially operate an A332 (and likely a 787 too) from a regional airport with a short-ish runway without problems.
 
User avatar
swapcv
Topic Author
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 14, 2022 5:38 pm

zeke wrote:
swapcv wrote:
1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda


ISG-HND with the A330 would be able to take maximum structural payload, can easily do a 2 hr flight off a 6000' runway

Yeah, I'm beginning to believe that contrary to popular opinions in favor of either candidate aircraft, the reality is that both can easily lift similar payload out of such airports and fly similar distances. Any perceived difference in performance only comes into play at the extreme end of their ranges.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21337
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sat Oct 15, 2022 12:28 am

hitower3 wrote:
zeke wrote:
swapcv wrote:
1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda


ISG-HND with the A330 would be able to take maximum structural payload, can easily do a 2 hr flight off a 6000' runway


Dear zeke,

I am always impressed about the RWY performance of modern WB jets at low weight. With a light fuel load, you can essentially operate an A332 (and likely a 787 too) from a regional airport with a short-ish runway without problems.


The runway is probably fine. I think you'd quickly run into other issues, however. For example wingspan restrictions on the taxiways and pavement loading limits. :)
 
AAPilot48Heavy
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:50 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sat Oct 15, 2022 6:47 pm

swapcv wrote:
zeke wrote:
swapcv wrote:
1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda


ISG-HND with the A330 would be able to take maximum structural payload, can easily do a 2 hr flight off a 6000' runway

Yeah, I'm beginning to believe that contrary to popular opinions in favor of either candidate aircraft, the reality is that both can easily lift similar payload out of such airports and fly similar distances. Any perceived difference in performance only comes into play at the extreme end of their ranges.


100% Correct. Day to day, it’s really not an issue for either.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sat Oct 15, 2022 7:50 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
hitower3 wrote:
zeke wrote:

ISG-HND with the A330 would be able to take maximum structural payload, can easily do a 2 hr flight off a 6000' runway


Dear zeke,

I am always impressed about the RWY performance of modern WB jets at low weight. With a light fuel load, you can essentially operate an A332 (and likely a 787 too) from a regional airport with a short-ish runway without problems.


The runway is probably fine. I think you'd quickly run into other issues, however. For example wingspan restrictions on the taxiways and pavement loading limits. :)


The new large bizjets are running into these problems. Sure, 5000nm off a SL 4500’ runway, but ramp/taxiway clearances, PCN and not just the runway, GSE start becoming limiting.
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:07 pm

I live close to ORD and I often check Plane Finder app in the late evenings when I hear the aircraft fly by. The slowest climber by far is A333. Every single one is 800-1000 feet lower than other WBs when they overfly my house. And they are very loud.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:37 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
I live close to ORD and I often check Plane Finder app in the late evenings when I hear the aircraft fly by. The slowest climber by far is A333. Every single one is 800-1000 feet lower than other WBs when they overfly my house. And they are very loud.



Without knowing the TOGW, thrust settings being used, there’s little to make of it. You can’t compare dissimilar planes without knowing a lot of details.
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:43 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Without knowing the TOGW, thrust settings being used, there’s little to make of it. You can’t compare dissimilar planes without knowing a lot of details.


I'm totally aware of all that. If I watch tens of take offs from the same runway and half of them are heading to European destinations that are not that far apart, I would expect to see at least one hog A350 or B777 compared to A333s. But that just doesn't happen. Even Emirates, Etihad, and some far East-bound flights overperform Europe-bound A333s.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21337
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:45 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Without knowing the TOGW, thrust settings being used, there’s little to make of it. You can’t compare dissimilar planes without knowing a lot of details.


I'm totally aware of all that. If I watch tens of take offs from the same runway and half of them are heading to European destinations that are not that far apart, I would expect to see at least one hog A350 or B777 compared to A333s. But that just doesn't happen. Even Emirates, Etihad, and some far East-bound flights overperform Europe-bound A333s.


We don't "outperform" by climbing faster on the same sector. It isn't an efficiency race that way.

As GalaxyFlyer says, you don't know the weights, thrust settings, optimal cruise altitude, and assigned cruise altitude. Climbing at Derate 1 or 2 on the A333 means quite a bit less thrust than is available, but saving the engines trumps that.


BTW, for a similar long haul sector, the A350 can climb significantly higher initially than the 777. That's just the different nature of the wings on those aircraft.
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Wed Oct 19, 2022 2:00 pm

Guys, I get it. I'm just saying that it's a little strange that they are always lower and significantly louder departing after 10 pm in an area that has one of the highest noise complaint rates in the country. I understand weights, derated takeoffs, climb profile efficiencies, fuel cost, etc. One of the biggest offenders is SAS, and it has always been, even when they flew their A340-300s here. Maybe they just like to make noise and use Earth's curvature to achieve their cruising altitude.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:34 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
Maybe they just like to make noise and use Earth's curvature to achieve their cruising altitude.


If it’s good enough for NASA, it’s good enough for SAS :lol:
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Wed Oct 19, 2022 5:20 pm

LyleLanley wrote:

If it’s good enough for NASA, it’s good enough for SAS :lol:


Trudat! :)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17515
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Thu Oct 20, 2022 11:12 am

BEG2IAH wrote:
Guys, I get it. I'm just saying that it's a little strange that they are always lower and significantly louder departing after 10 pm in an area that has one of the highest noise complaint rates in the country. I understand weights, derated takeoffs, climb profile efficiencies, fuel cost, etc. One of the biggest offenders is SAS, and it has always been, even when they flew their A340-300s here. Maybe they just like to make noise and use Earth's curvature to achieve their cruising altitude.


There are reports in the public domain called type certificate data sheet noise (TCDSN), if you were to look at an A330-343X like SAS have, Trent 772C-60, MTOW 235 tonnes, and compare that to a 77W, you will find on all accounts the A330-343X is measured to be quieter.
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Thu Oct 20, 2022 5:41 pm

zeke wrote:
There are reports in the public domain called type certificate data sheet noise (TCDSN), if you were to look at an A330-343X like SAS have, Trent 772C-60, MTOW 235 tonnes, and compare that to a 77W, you will find on all accounts the A330-343X is measured to be quieter.


Maybe, but they are 1000 feet closer to the ground than anyone else so that advantage melts away quickly. Every time I hear my wife or my neighbors bitch via an email group about "crazy noisy aircraft that flew over last night" it's always either an A333 or some random old clunky cargo B747. All newer aircraft fly silently like whistles. I love BA's A380, LH's A359, EY's A351, anyone's B787s, or any B77Ws, B77Fs, or B748Fs. All these babies fly directly above my house and it's in series of 20-30 aircraft in a quick succession so it's very easy to compare.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17515
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:12 am

BEG2IAH wrote:
Maybe, but they are 1000 feet closer to the ground than anyone else so that advantage melts away quickly. Every time I hear my wife or my neighbors bitch via an email group about "crazy noisy aircraft that flew over last night" it's always either an A333 or some random old clunky cargo B747. All newer aircraft fly silently like whistles. I love BA's A380, LH's A359, EY's A351, anyone's B787s, or any B77Ws, B77Fs, or B748Fs. All these babies fly directly above my house and it's in series of 20-30 aircraft in a quick succession so it's very easy to compare.


The A330-343X as SAS has is certified quieter than a 77W. That is under very strict repeatable testing procedure with calibrated instruments. The type certificate data sheet noise also shows the A330-343X is quieter than a number of 767 configurations.

The A330-900 is very similar to the 787/350/380/748
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:56 am

zeke wrote:
BEG2IAH wrote:
Guys, I get it. I'm just saying that it's a little strange that they are always lower and significantly louder departing after 10 pm in an area that has one of the highest noise complaint rates in the country. I understand weights, derated takeoffs, climb profile efficiencies, fuel cost, etc. One of the biggest offenders is SAS, and it has always been, even when they flew their A340-300s here. Maybe they just like to make noise and use Earth's curvature to achieve their cruising altitude.


There are reports in the public domain called type certificate data sheet noise (TCDSN), if you were to look at an A330-343X like SAS have, Trent 772C-60, MTOW 235 tonnes, and compare that to a 77W, you will find on all accounts the A330-343X is measured to be quieter.

Just downloaded one fro A330. This is a pretty typical bureaucratic document designed to hide the forest behind the trees and provide as much white noise data and as little information as possible.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:17 pm

Who are going to believe, scientific engineering data or your lying ears?
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:11 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Who are going to believe, scientific engineering data or your lying ears?


Thanks guys for all the info. I do trust my ears but I trust science too, so out of pure curiosity how would you load/prep say an A333 and a B77W, let them take off within 3 minutes (implies same weather), on the same track, fly the same altitude profile (at least in the vicinity of the field), use the optimal cruising speed/altitude in calculations, same destination, same relative engine output, same relative loads (cargo, pax, fuel, ESAs :) )... In other words, how do you make these two aircraft fully comparable, apples-to-apples, so when I hear them fly over my house I can hear the difference? I have a fairly trained ear to distinguish between various engines at least.

I'm an economist/econometrician and controlling for various factors is all I do and care about at work. I'm really looking forward to learning from you. Thanks again.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:36 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Who are going to believe, scientific engineering data or your lying ears?

I don't see any scientific data in the TCDSN. It is a totally bureaucratic document.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2649
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:49 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Who are going to believe, scientific engineering data or your lying ears?


Thanks guys for all the info. I do trust my ears but I trust science too, so out of pure curiosity how would you load/prep say an A333 and a B77W, let them take off within 3 minutes (implies same weather), on the same track, fly the same altitude profile (at least in the vicinity of the field), use the optimal cruising speed/altitude in calculations, same destination, same relative engine output, same relative loads (cargo, pax, fuel, ESAs :) )... In other words, how do you make these two aircraft fully comparable, apples-to-apples, so when I hear them fly over my house I can hear the difference? I have a fairly trained ear to distinguish between various engines at least.

I'm an economist/econometrician and controlling for various factors is all I do and care about at work. I'm really looking forward to learning from you. Thanks again.

One control you could make is for sound frequencies. Maybe the Db values are smaller for the A330-343, but the buzz saw sound is more distinctive and thus you hear it better. I'm curious how often you get PW or GE A330s and what they sound like.

I find the A320 howl and GE90 whine very distinctive when they fly over my house, most of the others blend in more. The 320 makes about the same Db noise as a 737NG, but the NG doesn't sound as distinctive, so it seems quieter.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 7:54 pm

kalvado wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Who are going to believe, scientific engineering data or your lying ears?

I don't see any scientific data in the TCDSN. It is a totally bureaucratic document.


I see tables of measured noise levels, not a bit bureaucracy. Specifically, flyover noise level at different mass.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/22146/en
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:14 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
kalvado wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Who are going to believe, scientific engineering data or your lying ears?

I don't see any scientific data in the TCDSN. It is a totally bureaucratic document.


I see tables of measured noise levels, not a bit bureaucracy. Specifically, flyover noise level at different mass.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/22146/en

Flyover - taken at which location and which altitude? Configuration? What is the frequency spectrum? How frequency is normalized for perceived noise level? Any recognition to specific frequencies over the wide noise spectrum? What is the noise footprint? Any "wrinkles" in that which can explain specific location experiencing it different? Left vs right?
Flattening all that into a single number just to say "good enough" is the bureaucratic way of doing things.

An interesting example of scientific way of doing things is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... g_Aircraft
1630 Hz on A320 coming from somewhere behind nose wheel is certainly interesting example. given that there was another known issue with A320 - fuel tank overfill spot - I wonder if how many low-hanging fruit are left across all the models...
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:42 pm

And, “good enough” is just that. No one needs to know frequency, noise source down to a overfill drain, except perhaps engineers tasked with identifying sources and fixes. The public, Airport Operatorsxand crews don’t need it. The standard is for basic comparisons. No operation in actual aviation would use that data and no noise violation is going to be attributed to that detail level.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:40 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
And, “good enough” is just that. No one needs to know frequency, noise source down to a overfill drain, except perhaps engineers tasked with identifying sources and fixes. The public, Airport Operators and crews don’t need it. The standard is for basic comparisons. No operation in actual aviation would use that data and no noise violation is going to be attributed to that detail level.

Ah, I see how that works. There is "scientific" data, and when the public complains - the response is "shut up and believe in science, not your your lying ears!"
>no noise violation is going to be attributed to that detail level
But that is exactly the issue - something doesn't add up between published values and perception. I know US industry tends to believe in paperwork and regulation, not in stupid facts. However some critical attitude to things is pretty common outside of the cockpit, where SOP is the absolute king.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 10:02 pm

It’s not “shut up”; it’s that there’s a process to evaluate aircraft noise signatures, present them in a form usable by anyone that needs to test for Stage II or III compliance and for compliance with airport noise rules, whichever is more restrictive. See KSNA or YSSY night time curfews. I chose YSSY for a reason. A Global is permitted to operate there during curfew hours if operated below 75,000# as its noise signature is less at the reduced speeds. It’s a governing document. The perceptions of people is irrelevant to the TCDSN. This is an international standard, as seen by my EASA A330 document.

If someone wants to know exactly how much the flaps or the fuel PRV are a components of the noise signature, that’s found elsewhere, but not in any public engineering document.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:43 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s not “shut up”; it’s that there’s a process to evaluate aircraft noise signatures, present them in a form usable by anyone that needs to test for Stage II or III compliance and for compliance with airport noise rules, whichever is more restrictive. See KSNA or YSSY night time curfews. I chose YSSY for a reason. A Global is permitted to operate there during curfew hours if operated below 75,000# as its noise signature is less at the reduced speeds. It’s a governing document. The perceptions of people is irrelevant to the TCDSN. This is an international standard, as seen by my EASA A330 document.

If someone wants to know exactly how much the flaps or the fuel PRV are a components of the noise signature, that’s found elsewhere, but not in any public engineering document.

Not the first nor last time that published official data is anywhere between inadequate and misleading. And I doubt, honestly speaking, the manufacturer would go anywhere beyond the minimal effort required for certification. Regulations require a fairly limited amount of data - so I bet nothing was measured beyond that. I do see some publications where people try to do better job, which supports my expectations as such things wouldn't get into research journals otherwise. And some things are non-trivial. For example, I read a bit on the noise footprint of the helicopter (after hearing surprising patterns from the one flying overhead), and it is impressively complex.
And standard exists to make sure people living near the airport are not inconvenienced too much. So people's perception forms the basis for the standard, not the other way around.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sat Oct 22, 2022 8:17 pm

Design is based requirements, no reason to go beyond the regulatory requirements.

Akin’s Laws of Engineering
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sat Oct 22, 2022 11:11 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Design is based requirements, no reason to go beyond the regulatory requirements.

Akin’s Laws of Engineering

Of course, and if requirements are set by bureaucracy, then results are primarily bureaucratic.
However, I suspect quieter new generation is partially due to going beyond minimum, although for a different reason.
In my world, extra noise has to be associated with extra drag, and better modelling allows to identify those spots and improve aerodynamics at design stage with little extra cost. Fixing something on existing fleet is expensive, though..
 
User avatar
rjsampson
Posts: 642
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:00 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sun Oct 23, 2022 5:21 am

swapcv wrote:
I always wondered, is there any difference in the takeoff performance of both aircraft in most conditions. If there's a noticeable difference, who's the better performer? I have heard people say the 787 is a runway hog, but I remain unconvinced by that as there's not much evidence to such claims. I for one believe, variant for variant, i.e 787-8 vs A332/A338 and the 787-9 vs A333/A339, they're roughly similar. However I'd like to hear some more thoughts and opinions on this regard from the community itself hence this thread. Thanks.


OK, swapvc. I see that you haven't posted in response to all of the informative information that has been generously given. Maybe I can help you out. (In advance, if anyone goes to the charts to help swapcv, I thank you). So here's my thought experiment. All of OP's mentioned aircraft are in line to take off, one after the other. All of them:

    -Are taking off in ISA conditions, no wind, sea level, blah blah
    -Are at MTOW
    -Will be applying TOGA thrust
    -Are on a 10,000' runway
    -Have SPD set at 200kts
    -Are engaging AP as soon as practical (following necessary flap reductions)
    -Are completely disregarding Company policy for takeoff operations

Maybe to help OP (and others) enjoy the fruits of everyone checking on this:

    -How many feet down the runway is Vr?
    -How would the aircraft, be it an A35/A333/A338/B788/789 perform comparably?
    -What would the data show for expected FPM climb?

Amongst OP's aircraft, obviously the above parameters aren't apples-to-apples comparisons, but they're not exactly apples-to-steak comparisons either. :)
 
User avatar
swapcv
Topic Author
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sun Oct 23, 2022 5:35 am

rjsampson wrote:
Amongst OP's aircraft, obviously the above parameters aren't apples-to-apples comparisons, but they're not exactly apples-to-steak comparisons either. I think (I could be wrong!), that this is something that would be interesting to OP's question.


Even if they aren't apples to apples comparisons, I'd still love to see the hard data by others in future posts on this thread for all of those cases, so that I might just save this thread for future reference. Also to add, Thrust rating of the engines would also be appreciated, as both the A330 and the 787 have different thrust rating options for all their available engine variants.
 
KingOrGod
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sun Oct 23, 2022 9:46 am

BEG2IAH wrote:
Guys, I get it. I'm just saying that it's a little strange that they are always lower and significantly louder departing after 10 pm in an area that has one of the highest noise complaint rates in the country. I understand weights, derated takeoffs, climb profile efficiencies, fuel cost, etc. One of the biggest offenders is SAS, and it has always been, even when they flew their A340-300s here. Maybe they just like to make noise and use Earth's curvature to achieve their cruising altitude.


Just be grateful you don't have the rather pig of a plane 747-8 climbing out over your house. One would be thankful for the A343 then LOL.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sun Oct 23, 2022 11:02 am

rjsampson wrote:
swapcv wrote:
I always wondered, is there any difference in the takeoff performance of both aircraft in most conditions. If there's a noticeable difference, who's the better performer? I have heard people say the 787 is a runway hog, but I remain unconvinced by that as there's not much evidence to such claims. I for one believe, variant for variant, i.e 787-8 vs A332/A338 and the 787-9 vs A333/A339, they're roughly similar. However I'd like to hear some more thoughts and opinions on this regard from the community itself hence this thread. Thanks.


OK, swapvc. I see that you haven't posted in response to all of the informative information that has been generously given. Maybe I can help you out. (In advance, if anyone goes to the charts to help swapcv, I thank you). So here's my thought experiment. All of OP's mentioned aircraft are in line to take off, one after the other. All of them:

    -Are taking off in ISA conditions, no wind, sea level, blah blah
    -Are at MTOW
    -Will be applying TOGA thrust
    -Are on a 10,000' runway
    -Have SPD set at 200kts
    -Are engaging AP as soon as practical (following necessary flap reductions)
    -Are completely disregarding Company policy for takeoff operations

Maybe to help OP (and others) enjoy the fruits of everyone checking on this:

    -How many feet down the runway is Vr?
    -How would the aircraft, be it an A35/A333/A338/B788/789 perform comparably?
    -What would the data show for expected FPM climb?

Amongst OP's aircraft, obviously the above parameters aren't apples-to-apples comparisons, but they're not exactly apples-to-steak comparisons either. :)

I doubt you'll get a direct answer. Here is an attempt, though.
Below is comparison of performance data from airport planning manuals. A332 with PW4000 vs 787-8 with "high thrust rating". x-axis is adjusted so that scales match.
"High thrust engines" (shown) version has a bit shorter runway requirement than "typical". The 14000ft performance curve is causing some uncontrolled giggling.
Otherwise, feel free to compare for yourself, minimal computer skills are required
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/787.pdf - p.44 shown below
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... C-A330.pdf - p.266 shown below.
Image
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:30 am

Off the current METAR at Riyadh rwy 15L, our 789 with the newest P3 engines have RTOW 248 600kg. Our heaviest 333s with 772C engines 235 000kg.
 
User avatar
rjsampson
Posts: 642
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:00 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:15 pm

kalvado wrote:
I doubt you'll get a direct answer. Here is an attempt, though.
Below is comparison of performance data from airport planning manuals. A332 with PW4000 vs 787-8 with "high thrust rating". x-axis is adjusted so that scales match.
"High thrust engines" (shown) version has a bit shorter runway requirement than "typical". The 14000ft performance curve is causing some uncontrolled giggling.


Thanks for that. So it looks like that gives us figures for takeoff run at MTOW, ISA + 15 as approximately:

    332 w/ PW4000: 9,500ft / 2,900m
    788 w/ Hight Thrust: 8,900ft / 2,700m

Approximate delta being 600ft / 500m favoring the 788 performance under those conditions.

I'm guessing that for these charts, TOGA thrust is assumed?
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:53 pm

rjsampson wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I doubt you'll get a direct answer. Here is an attempt, though.
Below is comparison of performance data from airport planning manuals. A332 with PW4000 vs 787-8 with "high thrust rating". x-axis is adjusted so that scales match.
"High thrust engines" (shown) version has a bit shorter runway requirement than "typical". The 14000ft performance curve is causing some uncontrolled giggling.


Thanks for that. So it looks like that gives us figures for takeoff run at MTOW, ISA + 15 as approximately:

    332 w/ PW4000: 9,500ft / 2,900m
    788 w/ Hight Thrust: 8,900ft / 2,700m

Approximate delta being 600ft / 500m favoring the 788 performance under those conditions.

I'm guessing that for these charts, TOGA thrust is assumed?

Probably minimal possible runway meaning max thrust.
Although one thing to keep in mind - MTOW bumps without thrust bumps mean more runway, and at the tail end of the curve even small weight increase means a lot more concrete. A bit of thrust increase may shorten the roll significantly. Early versions of 787-8 charts showed no MTOW at ISA+15 at all. So, as others say, you need to have at least some specific conditions with specific numbers in mind; no such thing as "Gas? full tank please" at the airport.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17515
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:02 pm

kalvado wrote:
Probably minimal possible runway meaning max thrust.
Although one thing to keep in mind - MTOW bumps without thrust bumps mean more runway, and at the tail end of the curve even small weight increase means a lot more concrete. A bit of thrust increase may shorten the roll significantly. Early versions of 787-8 charts showed no MTOW at ISA+15 at all. So, as others say, you need to have at least some specific conditions with specific numbers in mind; no such thing as "Gas? full tank please" at the airport.


Not true, they have these fancy devices called slats and flaps, They can be adjusted to change takeoff performance. You can have an aircraft with a lower TOW use more runway than one with higher TOW just depending on the configuration used.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:08 pm

zeke wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Probably minimal possible runway meaning max thrust.
Although one thing to keep in mind - MTOW bumps without thrust bumps mean more runway, and at the tail end of the curve even small weight increase means a lot more concrete. A bit of thrust increase may shorten the roll significantly. Early versions of 787-8 charts showed no MTOW at ISA+15 at all. So, as others say, you need to have at least some specific conditions with specific numbers in mind; no such thing as "Gas? full tank please" at the airport.


Not true, they have these fancy devices called slats and flaps, They can be adjusted to change takeoff performance. You can have an aircraft with a lower TOW use more runway than one with higher TOW just depending on the configuration used.

I would think manufacturer charts are for best case situation in terms of runway performance. Actually, Boeing chart specifically shows what flaps settings are being used at which conditions, so they must have some idea about flaps effect. If you choose to trade in longer roll for less engine wear or something along those lines, it's your (or airline SOP) call
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17515
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:07 am

kalvado wrote:
I would think manufacturer charts are for best case situation in terms of runway performance


You would think wrong, that is why that chart is not used in any operational sense.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:45 am

kalvado wrote:
I would think manufacturer charts are for best case situation in terms of runway performance. Actually, Boeing chart specifically shows what flaps settings are being used at which conditions, so they must have some idea about flaps effect. If you choose to trade in longer roll for less engine wear or something along those lines, it's your (or airline SOP) call


Other than perhaps Air Koryo, I doubt there is any airline in the world where paper charts are used for performance planning. Even with the detailed performance engineering graphs/charts we have for our Boeing fleet, it would take me 5 minutes or more to work out the figures which can be done more precisely in 60 secs using an app. Pilots are conservative creatures and in the decades gone by where we did on occasion use charts, there was excessive rounding up and intercalation.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21337
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:12 am

Chaostheory wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I would think manufacturer charts are for best case situation in terms of runway performance. Actually, Boeing chart specifically shows what flaps settings are being used at which conditions, so they must have some idea about flaps effect. If you choose to trade in longer roll for less engine wear or something along those lines, it's your (or airline SOP) call


Other than perhaps Air Koryo, I doubt there is any airline in the world where paper charts are used for performance planning. Even with the detailed performance engineering graphs/charts we have for our Boeing fleet, it would take me 5 minutes or more to work out the figures which can be done more precisely in 60 secs using an app. Pilots are conservative creatures and in the decades gone by where we did on occasion use charts, there was excessive rounding up and intercalation.


As you say.

We used ACARS before. Now we use an app. I haven't been in the business that long but charts are definitely long gone.

If nothing else, charts are way too imprecise in edge cases. Unacceptable in modern ops.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Mon Oct 31, 2022 10:59 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I would think manufacturer charts are for best case situation in terms of runway performance. Actually, Boeing chart specifically shows what flaps settings are being used at which conditions, so they must have some idea about flaps effect. If you choose to trade in longer roll for less engine wear or something along those lines, it's your (or airline SOP) call


Other than perhaps Air Koryo, I doubt there is any airline in the world where paper charts are used for performance planning. Even with the detailed performance engineering graphs/charts we have for our Boeing fleet, it would take me 5 minutes or more to work out the figures which can be done more precisely in 60 secs using an app. Pilots are conservative creatures and in the decades gone by where we did on occasion use charts, there was excessive rounding up and intercalation.


As you say.

We used ACARS before. Now we use an app. I haven't been in the business that long but charts are definitely long gone.

If nothing else, charts are way too imprecise in edge cases. Unacceptable in modern ops.

Charts are an easy way to present data and - more importantly - trends. An app (and - before that - pages of tables) may be great in calculating your exact scenario, but may not be as useful for the bigger picture. An app is also good at helping to lose the forest behind all the trees.
And both are based on the same set of datapoints measured and calculated by the manufacturer. Does anyone believe an app would actually do a full aerodynamic modeling rather than extrapolate preexisting numbers?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10347
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Mon Oct 31, 2022 1:54 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
kalvado wrote:
I would think manufacturer charts are for best case situation in terms of runway performance. Actually, Boeing chart specifically shows what flaps settings are being used at which conditions, so they must have some idea about flaps effect. If you choose to trade in longer roll for less engine wear or something along those lines, it's your (or airline SOP) call


Other than perhaps Air Koryo, I doubt there is any airline in the world where paper charts are used for performance planning. Even with the detailed performance engineering graphs/charts we have for our Boeing fleet, it would take me 5 minutes or more to work out the figures which can be done more precisely in 60 secs using an app. Pilots are conservative creatures and in the decades gone by where we did on occasion use charts, there was excessive rounding up and intercalation.


As you say.

We used ACARS before. Now we use an app. I haven't been in the business that long but charts are definitely long gone.

If nothing else, charts are way too imprecise in edge cases. Unacceptable in modern ops.


On the other hand, engineers used charts with grease pencils, many edge cases became, “Boss, we’re out of limits, runway, etc”. Grease pencils also had the advantage of being erased. Now, the edge cases can become we’re doable until the crew finds out one of the assumptions used wasn’t the reality.

The Computerized AFM in the bizjet I last flew used test aero data, not the derived tables or charts from the paper version.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21337
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: 787 vs A330 Runway Performance/Requirements

Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:16 am

kalvado wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:

Other than perhaps Air Koryo, I doubt there is any airline in the world where paper charts are used for performance planning. Even with the detailed performance engineering graphs/charts we have for our Boeing fleet, it would take me 5 minutes or more to work out the figures which can be done more precisely in 60 secs using an app. Pilots are conservative creatures and in the decades gone by where we did on occasion use charts, there was excessive rounding up and intercalation.


As you say.

We used ACARS before. Now we use an app. I haven't been in the business that long but charts are definitely long gone.

If nothing else, charts are way too imprecise in edge cases. Unacceptable in modern ops.

Charts are an easy way to present data and - more importantly - trends. An app (and - before that - pages of tables) may be great in calculating your exact scenario, but may not be as useful for the bigger picture. An app is also good at helping to lose the forest behind all the trees.
And both are based on the same set of datapoints measured and calculated by the manufacturer. Does anyone believe an app would actually do a full aerodynamic modeling rather than extrapolate preexisting numbers?


I like the big picture in general, but for takeoff performance I really just need to know if we can go given current conditions and the performance numbers for the FM. The app tells me that.

There is a bit of "big picture" added, as the app will tell me what the limitation is in a given case, e.g. what the MTOW limit is given the current conditions. That way I know if we are really close or well within limits.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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