Hi all,
Does anyone have a feel for whether the take-off performance of the new B787-10 will be better than the B787-9? Looking at the specs, the -10 seems to have around the same MCTOW (254T vs 253T) but has significantly more powerful engines (76klbs thrust vs 71klbs on the -9). And isnt there a higher thrust engine option which is 80klbs?
Anyone have a guess as to take off distance at MCTOW, Sea Level, ISA vs the 2,900m for the -9 on wiki?
Thanks
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: B787-10 Take-off Performance
Interesting topic.
My own personal prediction is that, unless Boeing comes up with some magic gear like the 777-3ER has, the 787-10 performance will be markedly worse, for the same reason the 737-9 is a runway hog: the darn thing can't rotate or flare, without a tail strike.
Beefy engines will improve the acceleration rate of the aircraft, but if you can't rotate, you've got to reach a very high speed before you can become airborne.
Boeing likes their stretch programs, and bean counters love the operating costs, but long airplanes do present drawbacks, too.
My own personal prediction is that, unless Boeing comes up with some magic gear like the 777-3ER has, the 787-10 performance will be markedly worse, for the same reason the 737-9 is a runway hog: the darn thing can't rotate or flare, without a tail strike.
Beefy engines will improve the acceleration rate of the aircraft, but if you can't rotate, you've got to reach a very high speed before you can become airborne.
Boeing likes their stretch programs, and bean counters love the operating costs, but long airplanes do present drawbacks, too.
-
- Florianopolis
- Posts: 382
- Joined:
RE: B787-10 Take-off Performance
Emirates was asking for the 80k+ engine for longer routes departing on hot afternoons, but I don't think Boeing was very interested in doing it. As for the field length at MTOW, I'd guess it's a little longer than Dubai's runways on a 115°F day.
They did. The -10 has the semi-levered gear, so the airplane rotates around the rear axle, and not the strut/bogie connection. Also, the 787 has some pretty sweet electronic dingfangdoos that function as an "electronic tailskid."
AvWeek Article
| Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1): unless Boeing comes up with some magic gear like the 777-3ER has, the 787-10 performance will be markedly worse, for the same reason the 737-9 is a runway hog: the darn thing can't rotate or flare, without a tail strike. |
They did. The -10 has the semi-levered gear, so the airplane rotates around the rear axle, and not the strut/bogie connection. Also, the 787 has some pretty sweet electronic dingfangdoos that function as an "electronic tailskid."
AvWeek Article
-
- WIederling
- Posts: 10043
- Joined:
RE: B787-10 Take-off Performance
| Quoting Florianopolis (Reply 2): They did. The -10 has the semi-levered gear, so the airplane rotates around the rear axle, and not the strut/bogie connection. Also, the 787 has some pretty sweet electronic dingfangdoos that function as an "electronic tailskid." |
Marginal improvement ( slightly more than a meter versus ~3.5m rear fuselage extension.)
electronic gimmicks make hugging the limits easier but does not remove that limiting limit.
Sometimes doing a growable design entails little downsides initially. Boeing tends to do
initial point landings.
-
- Revelation
- Posts: 29622
- Joined:
RE: B787-10 Take-off Performance
| Quoting WIederling (Reply 3): Sometimes doing a growable design entails little downsides initially. Boeing tends to do initial point landings. |
You can go too far in either direction, see A380-800.
-
- WIederling
- Posts: 10043
- Joined:
RE: B787-10 Take-off Performance
| Quoting Revelation (Reply 4): You can go too far in either direction, see A380-800. |
A bit of a quandary.
There is a gap between largest Twin Aisle and smallest Doubledecker/Quad Aisle.
Optimum size for the latter is probably more in the vicinity of an A380-1000HAZY airframe.
( just like the MOM sink hole.
But the market at the time would not "take" that.
GFC slump and rather successfull countermanding PR hampered the A380 significantly.
The A380 competitive success with select airlines has to percolate through first to
counter and dry up the overstated P2P meme.
There will be P2P traffic growth. But there will also be much stronger demand for VLA connections.
Re: B787-10 Take-off Performance
Its been over a year since I asked my original question - any updated info around on the B787-10 runway performance versus the -9 and -8?
Thanks
Thanks
Re: B787-10 Take-off Performance
a7ala wrote:Its been over a year since I asked my original question - any updated info around on the B787-10 runway performance versus the -9 and -8?
Thanks
Plane is still early in testing, doubt you'll get any new information until it hits airlines.
Re: RE: B787-10 Take-off Performance
Florianopolis wrote:Emirates was asking for the 80k+ engine for longer routes departing on hot afternoons, but I don't think Boeing was very interested in doing it. As for the field length at MTOW, I'd guess it's a little longer than Dubai's runways on a 115°F day.
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):unless Boeing comes up with some magic gear like the 777-3ER has, the 787-10 performance will be markedly worse, for the same reason the 737-9 is a runway hog: the darn thing can't rotate or flare, without a tail strike.
They did. The -10 has the semi-levered gear, so the airplane rotates around the rear axle, and not the strut/bogie connection. Also, the 787 has some pretty sweet electronic dingfangdoos that function as an "electronic tailskid."
AvWeek Article
Correct. The 787-10 has the semi-levered gear. What you are referring to is called Tail Strike Protection. The 777 has it too. The crew could override it if they really tried hard enough to intentionally strike the tail, but it's a fly-by-wire function that will prevent almost any unintentional tail strike.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 41 guests