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.

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.

swapcv wrote:

1. New Ishigaki/Miyako-Narita/Haneda

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

BEG2IAH wrote:

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

LyleLanley wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

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

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

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

Akin’s Laws of Engineering

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.

-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

-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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

kalvado wrote:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?