embraer175e2
Topic Author
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:00 am

Did Boeing reduce the range of the 787-1000 on purpose to sell better the 777x series? Well I hope it doesn't affect its sales against competition of the a350-900 series.
 
rufusmi
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:28 am

No, the 787-10 is a simple stretch of the -9, meaning it's basically a -9 but just a little longer. Everything is the same except for the length of the plane. When you get a heavier aircraft with more people on it, it reduces range.
 
alyusuph
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:35 am

1) I guess it will have a little edge over the A359 because it does not carry with it the reinforcements required to load much fuel for longer range. 2) Perhaps Boeing calculated that most of the airlines do not need all that range, so they also avoided over building while most of the time it will not be used for ultra high range. 3) I recall Boeing talking (during the first flight) about a strong focus on a closer commonality with the B789. Experts in this forum can explain more about these points.
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
Busyboy2
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:57 am

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:36 am

alyusuph wrote:
1) I guess it will have a little edge over the A359 because it does not carry with it the reinforcements required to load much fuel for longer range. 2) Perhaps Boeing calculated that most of the airlines do not need all that range, so they also avoided over building while most of the time it will not be used for ultra high range. 3) I recall Boeing talking (during the first flight) about a strong focus on a closer commonality with the B789. Experts in this forum can explain more about these points.


Essentially yes. BA, UA, and others can do sub 5000 mile legs really well with the 787-10. LHR-BOS/NYC area will be super with this. Some Europe-middle east too. Boeing and Airbus can build 8000 mile airplanes that carry 350 passengers but let's face it, most equipment doesn't require that capability.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23991
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:47 am

embraer175e2 wrote:
Did Boeing reduce the range of the 787-1000 on purpose to sell better the 777x series? Well I hope it doesn't affect its sales against competition of the a350-900 series.


The two models are aimed at generally different markets, though there will be overlap between them.

As rufusmi noted, the 787-10 has the same operating weights as the 787-9, but is a heavier frame. That means the 787-10 does not have the available takeoff weight to tank as much fuel as the 787-9 so between a smaller fuel load and a heavier frame with greater drag (from the greater fuselage surface area), it's not going to be able to fly as far.

The A350-900 has a higher MTOW so it can tank more fuel and therefore can fly farther.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 4841
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:04 am

The A350-1000 will become the Queen of the North Atlantic. It will be hard to find a plane competitive on the typical Europe - America routes.
 
ikolkyo
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:14 am

seahawk wrote:
The A350-1000 will become the Queen of the North Atlantic. It will be hard to find a plane competitive on the typical Europe - America routes.


I feel that will eventually go to the 787-10, perfect replacement for the A333, although the A330neo could make a run for it.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:42 am

List price on the 787-10 is $308M and the 330NEO (900) $290M
 
columba
Posts: 5080
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:43 am

LH was rumored for a long time as the launch customer of the -10 but decided for the 777X and A350 instead. One reason why they choose the A350 over the -10 was the inferior range of the -10.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
waly777
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:17 am

columba wrote:
LH was rumored for a long time as the launch customer of the -10 but decided for the 777X and A350 instead. One reason why they choose the A350 over the -10 was the inferior range of the -10.


This replacement was for the a340-300 specifically @ the 359 vs -10.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10919
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:20 am

alyusuph wrote:
1) I guess it will have a little edge over the A359 because it does not carry with it the reinforcements required to load much fuel for longer range


I dont understand that comment, the 787-10 has the same MTOW as the 787-9, with a longer/heavier fuselage that the 787-9.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5055
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:30 am

I see the A359 and 78J having about the same market relationship that the A333 and the 772 had for many years; the A333 won out when very long range was not an issue, and now the 78J will. Likewise when it was, the 772 won out, and now the A359 will. The shorter range of the 78J should give it better economics than the A359, but when you need the range, you need it. But the difference is not going to be enough to justify buying both types unless you have a VERY large airline.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
steman
Posts: 1442
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:39 am

waly777 wrote:
columba wrote:
LH was rumored for a long time as the launch customer of the -10 but decided for the 777X and A350 instead. One reason why they choose the A350 over the -10 was the inferior range of the -10.


This replacement was for the a340-300 specifically @ the 359 vs -10.


Only that they (LH) went on to replace the A340-600 with the A359 instead.
Though they might still go 787-10 to replace the A343 and later on the A333, I don´t think they will introduce another aircraft family.
They´ll stick with A350, 777x, 748 and A380. What will replace A343s and A330s is anyone´s guess. Maybe A330NEOs or more A350s.
 
Quint1
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:20 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:11 am

steman wrote:
waly777 wrote:
columba wrote:
LH was rumored for a long time as the launch customer of the -10 but decided for the 777X and A350 instead. One reason why they choose the A350 over the -10 was the inferior range of the -10.


This replacement was for the a340-300 specifically @ the 359 vs -10.


Only that they (LH) went on to replace the A340-600 with the A359 instead.
Though they might still go 787-10 to replace the A343 and later on the A333, I don´t think they will introduce another aircraft family.
They´ll stick with A350, 777x, 748 and A380. What will replace A343s and A330s is anyone´s guess. Maybe A330NEOs or more A350s.



I believe LH will operate 787's at some point, especially since they combine orders with SN, OS and LX.
The -10 is the perfect replacement for the aging A333's at SN. They dont need a whole lot of range but since they are taking newer A333s at this point they dont need the -10 for some time. Same as with LH, the A333 are still quite young.
The 787-8 and -9 are also a good replacement for the 767-300ER and the 777-200ER at OS, and the 787-9 can act as a replacement for the A340-300 at LX. The 787-10 can be the replacement for their A333 but again, these are still spring chickens.

I do expect a big 787 order for the LH-group, but not for some time. Maybe in the early 2020's.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 4841
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:15 am

A LH order for the 767-A343 replacement is expected this year. What it will be is unknown, but I think it will be a split order including the 787. Due to LH Technik LH has little problems operating many different types in the group.
 
waly777
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:25 am

steman wrote:
waly777 wrote:
columba wrote:
LH was rumored for a long time as the launch customer of the -10 but decided for the 777X and A350 instead. One reason why they choose the A350 over the -10 was the inferior range of the -10.


This replacement was for the a340-300 specifically @ the 359 vs -10.


Only that they (LH) went on to replace the A340-600 with the A359 instead.
Though they might still go 787-10 to replace the A343 and later on the A333, I don´t think they will introduce another aircraft family.
They´ll stick with A350, 777x, 748 and A380. What will replace A343s and A330s is anyone´s guess. Maybe A330NEOs or more A350s.


http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... d-a350-900

I remember this was why the 359 chosen as it closer matched the requirements than the 787-10. A343 was the aircraft being looked at for replacement in that size category. Though they would definitely adjust fleet capacity as necessary dependent on changing requirements.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
enzo011
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:29 am

SEPilot wrote:
I see the A359 and 78J having about the same market relationship that the A333 and the 772 had for many years; the A333 won out when very long range was not an issue, and now the 78J will. Likewise when it was, the 772 won out, and now the A359 will. The shorter range of the 78J should give it better economics than the A359, but when you need the range, you need it. But the difference is not going to be enough to justify buying both types unless you have a VERY large airline.



The difference I would guess is that the operating weights of the A359/78J will be a lot closer than the A333/772 comparison, which favoured the A330 in that case. You will have more seats in 78J, but empty seats adds no revenue, no matter how good the economics is.
 
planespotter20
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:36 am

seahawk wrote:
A LH order for the 767-A343 replacement is expected this year. What it will be is unknown, but I think it will be a split order including the 787. Due to LH Technik LH has little problems operating many different types in the group.


I don't think we'll see the 787 in large numbers in LH'a fleet. The commonality of the a330neo makes it a very valuable plane for LH and IMHO it's only a matter of time before most of the European legacies who utilize the a330 will go for the neo. Now, maybe they could add ~10-15 787-10's just to get a plane for heavy short routes. Isn't the -10 capable of 330 seats in a two class standard? That's a lot of seats compared to the neo (287 vs 330). The other 787 variants aren't needed as they have a large number of a350s on order and instead of throwing in a new plane they'd just tack on more a350s. I think that going forward we'll see mostly 77X's and 748's in LH colors
 
T54A
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:20 pm

SAA's eventual fleet replacement will be interesting. Twins take a big performance knock out of JNB and SAA has to get to the likes of JFK and HKG with decent loads.
 
GriN
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:58 pm

787-10 is actually outsized for its frame, it's enough to see how it looks and that it has MTOW similar to the 787-9, while it's heavier and carries more payload, it's not surprising that it's inferior in range. Although the 787-10 will be a little more economical than the A350-900, it will not be able to replace the 77W as the A350-1000. The larger projected size of the A350 frame gives it a great advantage in range and capacity.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:17 am

Stitch wrote:
The A350-900 has a higher MTOW so it can tank more fuel and therefore can fly farther.


Difference in OEW is of interest. Capacity is about the same.

The A359 has a significantly less loaded wing while comparable OEW.
the efficiency swap over could already happen on shorter/middle ranges.
( A359 seems to take less fuel for some payloads than the smaller 789.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
ikolkyo
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:20 pm

I kinda wish the 787-10 had a higher MTOW/Larger wing, it would be very competitive to the A359, excellent 772 replacement and would really round out the 787 family.

I'm aware that would require new gear and etc but it could have been worth it down the road.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12627
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:51 am

Stitch wrote:
embraer175e2 wrote:
Did Boeing reduce the range of the 787-1000 on purpose to sell better the 777x series? Well I hope it doesn't affect its sales against competition of the a350-900 series.


The two models are aimed at generally different markets, though there will be overlap between them.

As rufusmi noted, the 787-10 has the same operating weights as the 787-9, but is a heavier frame. That means the 787-10 does not have the available takeoff weight to tank as much fuel as the 787-9 so between a smaller fuel load and a heavier frame with greater drag (from the greater fuselage surface area), it's not going to be able to fly as far.

The A350-900 has a higher MTOW so it can tank more fuel and therefore can fly farther.

Excellent point.

It should be noted the 787-10 is keeping the same wing structure and landing gear bays as the 789 (some minor reinforcement). Because of that, the MTOW cannot be increased (or it would be for the 789 equally).

This will always mean less fuel lifted and slightly more fuel needed per hour of flight. The end result is a cut in range. The high wing loading not only impacts range a bit (higher density air to push out of the way so more drag as a lower wing loading allows for higher altitude with a little bit more 'free speed').

The 787-10 is going to be limited to shorter missions. But there are a huge number of routes in that range.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
WIederling
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:38 am

lightsaber wrote:
The 787-10 is going to be limited to shorter missions. But there are a huge number of routes in that range.


The interesting question is : where is the swap over point in efficiency?

The 7810 isn't really much "OEW lighter" than the A359 while capacity is about the same.
I was surprised when someone presented data that the A359 can use
less fuel for the same "payload over range" task than the smaller, lighter 789.
Murphy is an optimist
 
gloom
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:00 am

WIederling wrote:
I was surprised when someone presented data that the A359 can use less fuel for the same "payload over range" task than the smaller, lighter 789.


Actually I was too. However, I've had a chat with a friend flying A330, and we talked after his introductory on A350. He claims A350 goes quite (extremely) slow on clean config, comparing to A330. This translates to low drag, or high LD ratio. So, everything sort of fits in, doesn't it?

I start to think it's not only Trent XWB which is superior, but also the 350 wing that could be superior to that of 787. Unfortunately, it will be at least a few years I think till we know the exact wing LD figures.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23534
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:07 am

As for the range, the following payload/range chart was published several years ago:

Image
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:57 pm

Isn't the A350 now closer on passenger capacity with spaceflex? Airbus quoting 325.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:46 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
I kinda wish the 787-10 had a higher MTOW/Larger wing, it would be very competitive to the A359, excellent 772 replacement and would really round out the 787 family.

I'm aware that would require new gear and etc but it could have been worth it down the road.

Yes, a bigger wing, gear and higher MTOW would make the 787-10 essentially identical to a A359 !! But would negate it's advantage as a shorter range, yet 300+ passenger aircraft.

The 787-10 is going to have a slow start. It will really come of age later... not due to bigger wing or higher weight, but engine improvements. In the next decade, if B could get another 5% to 10% efficiency improvement for 787-10 engines..it would allow for more than TATL or intra-asia ranges - or more cargo in that long fuselage on moderate ranges.

...And maybe, be good enough to save us from N. America east-coast to/from Europe on A321's (Sorry MoM, don't know if you will be built !)
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23534
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:45 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I kinda wish the 787-10 had a higher MTOW/Larger wing, it would be very competitive to the A359, excellent 772 replacement and would really round out the 787 family.

I'm aware that would require new gear and etc but it could have been worth it down the road.

Yes, a bigger wing, gear and higher MTOW would make the 787-10 essentially identical to a A359 !! But would negate it's advantage as a shorter range, yet 300+ passenger aircraft.


Competing on a 1:1 basis in the widebody market doesn't sound wise, it's probably better to leave the 787-10 as it is.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9849
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:46 am

Are the empty weight (OEW) of the 777-10 and A350-900 similar?

Figures I see suggest that. Both ~135-140t, dependent on customer specifics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_78 ... ifications

I don't know what Randy was comparing here. Maybe a smaller 787 and a bigger A350?

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17629
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:11 am

gloom wrote:
WIederling wrote:
I was surprised when someone presented data that the A359 can use less fuel for the same "payload over range" task than the smaller, lighter 789.


Actually I was too. However, I've had a chat with a friend flying A330, and we talked after his introductory on A350. He claims A350 goes quite (extremely) slow on clean config, comparing to A330. This translates to low drag, or high LD ratio. So, everything sort of fits in, doesn't it?

I start to think it's not only Trent XWB which is superior, but also the 350 wing that could be superior to that of 787. Unfortunately, it will be at least a few years I think till we know the exact wing LD figures.

Cheers,
Adam


350 slower than the 330? It is exactly the opposite. The 333 typically cruises around M0.81-0.82. In the 359 we're at M0.85 all day long, flying 2000-4000 feet higher, and we can go for several more hours while carrying more payload.

The 333 and the 359 do have roughly the same hourly fuel consumption on long flights (6 tons/hour), but that's with the 359 a good 40 tons heavier.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
gloom
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:28 am

Starlionblue, you probably missed the "clean config". That assumes minimum clean speed, or at least what I wanted to use. Maybe it's my misspelling that caused confusion.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17629
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:39 am

gloom wrote:
Starlionblue, you probably missed the "clean config". That assumes minimum clean speed, or at least what I wanted to use. Maybe it's my misspelling that caused confusion.

Cheers,
Adam


My bad. I thought you meant "clean" as in "cruise". I haven't thought about minimum clean speed fuel consumption. Since the 350 FCOM doesn't fuel consumption tables like the 330 one, it is a bit more work to compare. Sounds like a project for my next flight.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
gloom
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:56 am

Starlionblue wrote:
My bad. I thought you meant "clean" as in "cruise". I haven't thought about minimum clean speed fuel consumption. Since the 350 FCOM doesn't fuel consumption tables like the 330 one, it is a bit more work to compare. Sounds like a project for my next flight.


Nice project ;)

Is the minimum clean really so low comparing to 330? I know it's not an exact comparison, sort of apples to oranges, as mass range is different, still comparison is possible on set of assumptions (fully booked, no extra cargo, standard before-landing fuel).

Cheers, Adam
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17629
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:05 am

gloom wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
My bad. I thought you meant "clean" as in "cruise". I haven't thought about minimum clean speed fuel consumption. Since the 350 FCOM doesn't fuel consumption tables like the 330 one, it is a bit more work to compare. Sounds like a project for my next flight.


Nice project ;)

Is the minimum clean really so low comparing to 330? I know it's not an exact comparison, sort of apples to oranges, as mass range is different, still comparison is possible on set of assumptions (fully booked, no extra cargo, standard before-landing fuel).

Cheers, Adam


As you say a bit apples to oranges, but I do have the impression is that green dot (max L/D) is noticeable lower compared to the 330 at the same weight. That 350 wing is pretty fancy.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Pacific
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:25 pm

In the 1990s, Boeing stretched an aircraft and turned it into a CASM king. With a brochure range of 5,625nm and sized for approximately 250 seats, it was simply perfect for transatlantic operation.

It was easily outsold by the competing aircraft, a straight shrink at that, which had a whopping 25t higher OEW than the Boeing.

I wonder if the 787-10 is too 'incapable' in that it reduces operating flexibility for airlines?
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:54 pm

I'm amazed at how limited the 787-10 seems to be. Everyone here keeps talking about it as if it'll only be able to do east coast US to Europe flights. Considering the 787-9 is flying some of the longest routes in the world (SFO-SIN), it's amazing to me that the relatively small simple stretch reduces one of the world's longest range airliners to one that can't even handle west coast to Europe reliably.

I flew on the now defunct UA 764 (a double stretch) flight MUC-IAH a while back and was surprised when, presumably due to winds, ended up being a full 12 hours aloft. I realize these are two totally different airframes, but I guess what I'm getting at is I would've thought that simple EU to all of NA flights would be easily handled by the -10. I suppose it's interesting to see how differently affected certain frames are by their modifications.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5338
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:12 pm

AA777223 wrote:
I'm amazed at how limited the 787-10 seems to be. Everyone here keeps talking about it as if it'll only be able to do east coast US to Europe flights. it's amazing to me that the relatively small simple stretch reduces one of the world's longest range airliners to one that can't even handle west coast to Europe reliably. .


What is the basis for this statement? Sounds like A.net hearsay. If Boeing can build it within 10t ( and that is a conservative spread in my view) of the 789 the 78X is ~12hr. airplane with better than a 40t. payload. Better than what is needed for western Europe to west coast North America.
 
alyusuph
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:59 am

zeke wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
1) I guess it will have a little edge over the A359 because it does not carry with it the reinforcements required to load much fuel for longer range


I dont understand that comment, the 787-10 has the same MTOW as the 787-9, with a longer/heavier fuselage that the 787-9.


Yes because it might have required even more reinforcement of the fuselage to carry more fuel, at the moment it is heavier because of the stretch, but with same MTOW
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10919
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:27 am

alyusuph wrote:
Yes because it might have required even more reinforcement of the fuselage to carry more fuel, at the moment it is heavier because of the stretch, but with same MTOW


The 787-10 has the same fuel capacity as the 787-9.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:41 pm

zeke wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
Yes because it might have required even more reinforcement of the fuselage to carry more fuel, at the moment it is heavier because of the stretch, but with same MTOW


The 787-10 has the same fuel capacity as the 787-9.


and usually never maxed out there.
So, needs more MTOW for more fuel on top of payload for more range with the same payload.

But topped out hard at 253t.
Murphy is an optimist
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5338
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:19 pm

WIederling wrote:
So, needs more MTOW for more fuel on top of payload for more range with the same payload. .


Not sure where that is. Piano-X allows me to model it up to 270t TOW Fuel load is ~90t well below max.After adding 4t for additional weight of the MLG gets range upto ~13.5hrs. The wing probably needs some work to improve performance at this TOW.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:45 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
WIederling wrote:
So, needs more MTOW for more fuel on top of payload for more range with the same payload. .


.After adding 4t for additional weight of the MLG gets range upto ~13.5hrs. .


Where will you put that bigger MLG?
IF that would be so easy I'd assume that Boeing would have long done it.
At least for the 7810 to increase range some.

787 and 777 both are at the top of runway loading numbers.
One reason why neither 787 nor 777(X) show any increase in MTOW.
Murphy is an optimist
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5338
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: boeing787-1000 range vs a350-900

Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:35 pm

WIederling wrote:
Where will you put that bigger MLG?
IF that would be so easy I'd assume that Boeing would have long done it.
At least for the 7810 to increase range some.


I believe that Boeing talked of a HGW version a few years ago that would need a revised MLG. I don't recollect that they went into any detail on how they would achieve this. My understanding is that the 78X was introduced as an A330 replacement with more payload and range which it appears to achieve.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:33 am

I just read an interview with Tim Clark of EK. He said the 787-10 is "an 8.5hr plane without a kink in payload."

That would translate to around a 4,000nm plane at absolute max payload. I would guess the 787-10 could do Europe to the West Coast with modest payload restrictions (I.e full pax and bags but limited cargo.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23534
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:37 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
That would translate to around a 4,000nm plane at absolute max payload. I would guess the 787-10 could do Europe to the West Coast with modest payload restrictions (I.e full pax and bags but limited cargo.


Indeed (as suggested by the payload/range chart posted above).

The latest 242t A330-300 stretches to 4,500 nm. I believe the 787-10 could have used a 10t MTOW increase from the beginning, it would have been a better lifter than the A333.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 609
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:36 pm

There are very few routes that actually require 8000nmi range, its mostly the Gulf carriers that have pushed for this. This has been discussed ad-nauseam before. 6000nmi is really the sweet spot so the -10 should have no issues.
 
c933103
Posts: 856
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:03 pm

Would the difference between 359/78-10 be large enough to justify Airbus in building a 33K for those routes that 787-10 would be good at? But given the orderbook of 333Regional, that might not be a good idea
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12627
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:04 pm

What is the operating empty weights of the two planes. Being dangerous and going of Wikipedia:
142t for the A359. I see 128.85 for the 789 and would estimate 142t for the 787-10.

I'm missing something here...

keesje wrote:
Are the empty weight (OEW) of the 777-10 and A350-900 similar?

Figures I see suggest that. Both ~135-140t, dependent on customer specifics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_78 ... ifications

I don't know what Randy was comparing here. Maybe a smaller 787 and a bigger A350?

Image

Yea... if they are the same empty weight, after 2 hours, the aircraft with the larger wing wins on economics...

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
ap305
Posts: 1056
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 787-10 Range vs A350-900

Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:12 pm

lightsaber wrote:
What is the operating empty weights of the two planes. Being dangerous and going of Wikipedia:
142t for the A359. I see 128.85 for the 789 and would estimate 142t for the 787-10.

I'm missing something here...

Lightsaber


The a359 batch3 is said to be in the 135-138t range.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChrisKen and 3 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