a7ala
Topic Author
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:44 pm

Hi All,

One thing I have noticed is that it appears to me that boeing aircraft tend to have better landing performance than airbus. I have put together the following table outlining what I can find about similar aircraft types:

B787-8 B787-9 B787-10 B777-200ER B777-300ER A330-200 A330-300 A350-900 A350-1000
Length (m) 56.72 62.81 68.28 63.73 73.86 58.82 63.67 66.61 73.59
Tail height (m) 17.02 17.02 17.02 18.5 18.5 17.39 16.83 17.05 17.08
Wheels 2/4/4 2/4/4 NA 2/6/6 2/6/6 2/4/4 2/4/4 2/4/4 2/6/6
MLW (T) 172.4 192.8 201.8 213.2 251.3 182.0 187.0 207.0 236.0
MLW Runway (Dry) (m) 1620 1800 NA 1550 1750 1730 1780 1980 NA
MLW Runway (Wet) (m) 1850 2100 NA 1800 2050 NA NA NA NA

For example, the A350-900 requires almost 200m more than the B777-300ER on a dry runway despite the size difference. Is it the number of wheels, tail height or something else?

Thanks
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11453
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:17 am

The A350-900 best landing distance in ISA conditions nil wind is 4237 ft dry and 4688 ft wet at MLW. I would not fly like that for passenger comfort, but the performance is there to achieve that.

Those numbers come from the current flysmart performance software.

The problem with making threads like this is people often do not have the actual performance data in the first place and come to incorrect conclusions.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
OYVKH
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:32 pm

zeke wrote:
The A350-900 best landing distance in ISA conditions nil wind is 4237 ft dry and 4688 ft wet at MLW. I would not fly like that for passenger comfort, but the performance is there to achieve that.

Those numbers come from the current flysmart performance software.

The problem with making threads like this is people often do not have the actual performance data in the first place and come to incorrect conclusions.


Zeke,
Those numbers you are mentioning are calculated using unfactored performance...?? If that's the case, then you are comparing apples to oranges.
By using the ''simple'' standard 1.67 formula for planning purposes...Your dry required runway length would be around 7076ft (2157m), which is HIGHER than the numbers A7-ALA posted.

Regards,

OY-VKH
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11453
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:06 pm

Required runway length is not landing distance, as you mentioned at dispatch required runway length is a factor applied above the dry landing distance with either 1.67 dry of 1.92 wet.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
hivue
Posts: 1665
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:51 pm

Not strictly on topic, but how's this for an A350-900 landing distance --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqSTVWw7twU
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
OYVKH
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:46 pm

zeke wrote:
Required runway length is not landing distance, as you mentioned at dispatch required runway length is a factor applied above the dry landing distance with either 1.67 dry of 1.92 wet.


No, but all the numbers A7-ALA posted before were landing distances required at MLW and not unfactored distances. Therefore i would assume that comparing LFL with LFL would be the smartest thing to do.
Just my opinion.

To topic...

On the Boeing 787-8, those numbers are almost correct. 1650 m is required on a dry runway. Landing distance is 990 m and ground roll is 699 m. (172365 kg MLW and numbers are based using Piano-X)

Have a good one,

OY-VKH
 
a7ala
Topic Author
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:09 pm

OYVKH wrote:
To topic...

On the Boeing 787-8, those numbers are almost correct. 1650 m is required on a dry runway. Landing distance is 990 m and ground roll is 699 m. (172365 kg MLW and numbers are based using Piano-X)

Have a good one,

OY-VKH


Thanks - I was trying to scale from whats in the airport planning manuals.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11453
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing vs Airbus Landing Performance

Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:49 pm

OYVKH wrote:
No, but all the numbers A7-ALA posted before were landing distances required at MLW and not unfactored distances. Therefore i would assume that comparing LFL with LFL would be the smartest thing to do.
Just my opinion.

To topic...

On the Boeing 787-8, those numbers are almost correct. 1650 m is required on a dry runway. Landing distance is 990 m and ground roll is 699 m. (172365 kg MLW and numbers are based using Piano-X)


Got not idea what they posted, it was not the A350 pr 777 landing distance, fact is the A350-900 has a shorter landing distance than a 777-300ER at MLW. A large reason for that is the A350 has lower approach speeds. What I posted was the output of flysmart which is the factored operational landing distance.

The industry has gone away from using actual landing distance and using RCAM and operational landing distance for the best part of a decade after a number of overruns.

Why bother quoting piano x ? Is that because you don't have the actual performance data either ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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