It has been stated many times that the 787-9 is the app-killer. From my analysis below, Boeing has position it to take out both the 350-800 from above & 350-900 from below simultaneously, two birds with one shot. The -10 is icing on the cake.

Parameters -800 (Diff) -9 (Diff) -900
MTOW 546700 -6700 540000 -50800 590800
MZFW 382500 13500 396000 -27300 423300
Max payload 112500 24700 137200 4900 132300
OEW 270000 -11200 258800 -32200 291000
CARGO (LD3) 28 8 36 0 36
Floor Area (FT2) 2620 142 2762 -243 3005
Passengers 270 10 280 -34 314
Range (nm) 8300 0 8300 200 8100
Notes: 1.0 OEW from WIDEBODYPHOTO master_lh_mission_dataset.gif
2.0 Boeing achieves -9 OEW as it has stated for -8 from ln20 on.
3.0 Airbus achieves -800 & 900 OEW, ignoring for the time being the implications of BOEING777 statement regarding 350 weight issues.

-9 vs. -800 is no contest. I can see why JL wants to compare the -9 vs. -900. However, the analysis indicates a repeat of the 300ER vs. 340-600 battle, Airbus loses again.

Regards,

Michael

The 787 is almost ready for rollout.

Compared to the 787-9 the A350-800 will carry more further.

It has a bigger wing and enhanced bigger engines, and lots of lessons learned from the 787.

The A350-900 will carry a little less then the 777-200ER/LR, much more efficient.

Same for A350-1000 vs 777-300ER.

The 787-10 was skipped by the market and nobody has a planning anymore.

Boeing knew it had to react, they said so. It did not happen & the rest is history.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...ep-for-777.html

During the last few yrs the 777-200ER/LR backlogs dropped dramatically (about 40 as we speak?).

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/ke...pg?t=1238022136

The more efficient 300 seat A350-900 and A330-300 scored hundreds (600?).

It may carry more weight (both airframe and payload), but on cargo volume, a 787-9 clubs it like a harp seal thanks to 8 more LD3 positions.

Considering the shift from 747-400s (which carry more payload weight) to 777-300ERs (which carry much more payload volume), it looks like the world's airlines are not moving lead bars in their holds, so they seem to be more worried about "cubing out" before they "kilo out".

Let's see, first Airbus dismissed composites as dangerous. The original A350 was to be Al-Li. Then they went to composite panels on an aluminum frame. Then to composites on a composite frame. Talk about learning lessons!

That's not what the article you linked to said:
The 787-10's entry into service, originally expected in 2012 or 2013, is unlikely to be brought forward, however, given the existing 787 programme commitments.
I read that to mean that it won't be moved up, not that it will never be built.

Not as much as the A340 drop!

The 787 scored 800+
Funny how Airbus always has to combine families to get decent sales numbers.
But if you want to play that game, why not combine 777 and 787?

Don't forget to add in the 747's sales, too, since it doesn't compete with the A380. And the 767, since "everyone knows" Boeing only sold the 787 to 767 customers as a replacement.

So that's what, 4600 sales for Boeing vs. 600 for Airbus?

The further we look back, the better the Boeing numbers look.

.. but we won't mention Boeing 'order shrinkage' (ie. cancellations) and that the Boeing B787 figure includes B787-3's, B787-8's and B787-9's ..

I'm sure we'll see 'shrinkage' of Airbus' order book too...

Keesje, Keesje,

Your MO hasn’t changed one bit from our younger days @ 777 & Orders Blogs.

You were a sophist then as you are now, once a sophist always a sophist.

To prove it, I am going to use your wing statement, “It has a bigger wing...”


Airframe: 787-9 350XWB 300ER
Area (FT2): 3864 4767 4665
Span (FT): 207.8 212.4 212.6
Aspect Ratio (S**2/A):11.2 9.5 9.7

Airbus compares XWB vs. 777NG wing only completely ignoring 787 altogether. Why?

“Why new wing is key - A350 XWB
The cornerstone of the A350 XWB family is an all-new, carbonfibre wing that will be common to all three variants. With an area of 442m2 (4,790ft2), it is the largest wing to have ever been produced for a single-passenger-deck widebody.
The wingspan of 64m (210ft) is 3m greater than those of the A330/A340 and the original A350, and puts it in International Civil Aviation Organisation category E. The greater span, combined with the deeper chord, increases the area by 20% over its Airbus predecessors. The biggest twinjet wing now in production belongs to the Boeing 777-200LR/300ER, which has 0.7m greater span than the A350's wing, but slightly less area….”

The reason is this.

The 787-9 & 350-800 appears as identical twin fathered by the same male. But, I have concrete irrefutable evident that they were fathered by different males. My evident is Aspect Ratio/MTOW vs. delta maximum payload.

The 787-9 has a 24700# payload advantage (22%) over the 350-800. Because of Boeing’s superior wing (Crown Jewel) design converts 11200# (OEW) + 13,500 (Fuel) CASM per Airbus into RASM. If Airbus design was anywhere near as good, the 300ER should have been dead the very second after the 350XWB launch was announced.

O, there is one other matter.

I wish to thank BOEING777 for reinstituting a cherish tradition that has long been lost and forgotten. In times long ago, Kings had a court jester. It has been medically established that frequent laughter is necessary for good mental wellness.

Keesje, I thank you for the outstanding job you have been doing. Keep it up.

Regards,

Michael

What is an "App", as in the construction 'App-killer', if you please?

And the bulk of the terminiology employed in the original post is beyond my ken.

Is there anyone generous enough to steer me to some reading that will expand my comprehension skills? It will be hugely appreciated.

App=application.

Don't feel bad errol, it's a horribly written post. I think the OP meant to say the 789 is a killer app.
But I can't decipher this:

I'm no expert on this but let me see what I can do to clear this up. If I get my facts wrong, please feel free to correct me. These numbered staments apper to be the assumptions that the figures are based on. OEW I believe stands for operating equipment weight, the weight of the frame without fuel. statment 2.0 is that the assupmption is that Boeing will acheive OEW for the 787-9 as it has for the 787-8 from line number 20. The prior 19 are over weight and thus have reduced preformance figures. Statment 3.0 seems to be saying that it is based on airbus achieving their stated OEW. The second part refers to another posting where there was a discusion on how the the a 350 will be cargo limited. I hope this helps

I've given up attempting to interpret this agglomeration of tortured syntax and incorrectly positioned decimal points with obscure references to aircraft operating empty weight facts [sic]. But thank you!

Errol, you have such an eloquent way of backhanding people - its almost poetic.

File added on behalf of Michael Di Marco PE

The last numbers for 787-8 OEW Boeing gave was 115t in September 2007. At that time, MZFW was 157t. Widebodyphotog added 9t to the OEW for the 787-9, which would mean it would now be around 123t - dead even with the A350-800XWB. The current MZFW given for the A350-800XWB by Airbus is 174t. Widebodyphotog appears to give the 787-9 the same MZFW as the 787-8 which makes no sense, so chances are the 787-9's MZFW is also right about the same as the A350-800XWB. I expect the Trent XWB will offer a bit better SFC thanks to the larger fan, however the 787-9 could probably carry more fuel, so range might very well be a wash (within a couple hundred nautical miles of each other).

787-8 payload in September 2007 was 45t. I could see the 787-9 lifting another 5-6t more to match what Widebodyphotog says the A350-800XWB will lift. The 787-9 does offer a bigger cabin and more underfloor cargo volume so I think that is where the 787-9 right now has the advantage over the A350-800XWB.

We know the current 787 frames are overweight. But I'm hearing that aerodynamic modeling is looking better then planned and we know how the better-then-expected aerodynamic performance of the A380-800 wiped-out the heavier then expected empty weight and allowed the plane to meet the performance guarantees even though many thought she'd fall short because of that extra weight. If the real aerodynamic performance of the 787 proves to be as good as the models suggest, then that extra weight is not going to be as great a penalty and the production frames are a good bit lighter then the test frames already.

Later on Widebodyphotog introduced OEW and revenue floor space as variables.

Which is IMO a much better measure for structural eficiency then seatcounts that can be bend in every directions.

Can anybody link me to his tables?

Yes, these good question[s] IMHO.
The statement :: " The 787-9 does offer a bigger cabin ..."; what does that mean ?
+?

Cabin Floor Area takes the length of the passenger cabin and multiplies it by the width to find the total floor space of the cabin. Now, one cannot use every square millimeter of it due to things like cabin walls (which require the seats to be offset) and positioning of galleys, closets, bulkheads, lavatories, and other fixtures. However, it does allow one to drop a customer's specific cabin configuration onto it to see how things would fit.

The CFA for the 787-9 was stated by WBP to be 257.4 m2 and for the A350-800XWB, he stated it was 243.5m2. So the 787-9 has slightly more cabin floor area, but whether or not that actually translated into sufficient space for extra seats in a particular airline's configuration...

However, Airbus has subsequently increased the length of the A350-800XWB by 1.3m (it is now 62m vs. 60.7m) the A350-900XWB and the A350-1000XWB are also one meter longer (68m and 75m, respectively). So that will increase the cabin floor area a tiny bit.

My query relates to more to the pax count, which you contructively talk about, thank you. The 787-9 has a bigger cabin, but more accurately a longer cabin. So in real terms, no matter how much is said and printed about floor-area for basically similarly dimensioned floor-plans, there is no significant difference. And add sectors length differences, freight availabilies and capacities, and it is oretty much a non-issue, not so?

The number of seats does affect things like CASM and RASM.

The big brouhaha over seat counts generally focuses (if not fixates) on the fact that Boeing and Airbus use different metrics to calculate the number of seats in their respective planes. They use different seat pitches, seat styles, and ratios of First Class to Business Class to Economy Class.

Historically, Airbus has used smaller First and Business Class cabins and larger Economy Class cabins (as a percentage of total seats they show installed) then Boeing, so a physically smaller Airbus plane could match the seat count of a physically larger Boeing plane.

Now the folks who actually buy and operate the planes don't even bother looking at those seat counts. They take an empty cabin floor and drop their own seats, at their own ratio percentages, and then run the numbers to see what the actual CASM and RASM in their configuration would be and compare them.

But for the folks who wish to extol the virtues of their particular manufacturer and/or model, those seat counts are used to generate "hard CASM / RASM evidence" that their plane is better (or the other guy's plane is worse). And the other side, of course, refutes those numbers when they make their plane look bad and claim that it's all "pseudo-mathematics" (which it is). Of course, when those numbers worked out in favor of their plane, then they are facts.

There you go! A non-issue if ever I saw one.
Thank you.

Well at least we know no one here would twist numbers to make their favorite company look better!

Well with Rolls having to bump the engine thrust for the A350-800XWB back up to the original 75,000 pounds specification, it appears that having a larger-than-necessary wing may not be providing the great aerodynamic improvements many Airbus Aficionados claimed it would...

Without doing a significant number of sums, I wonder what other applications might be found for the GP7000.

...and thats before we get onto the subject of OEW, which Airbus still refuses to publish. I'll say nothing further on the matter

It was considered for the 767-400ER and the 747-X. Currently the European Union restricts the GP7000 to only four-engined planes, but there is widespread belief that restriction would be lifted to allow it on the A350XWB.




When launched, Airbus stated the A350-900XWB's MWE would be 114t. When they announced the 3t MTOW increase in June of 2008, they claimed MWE had risen to 116t. I have three independent sources who all claim it's higher than that (and all report very similar numbers), but I also will not engage in speculation at this time.

...actually, you mean 764ERX, which would've shared the powerplant with the stretched 747 proposal of the time, and also had a modified wing from the actual 764ER.

That I did.