AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: A350 and B787  (Read 1914 times)

Filippo

  • Former member
A350 and B787
« on: December 29, 2009, 10:57:27 PM »
I just hope two things:

1) That the A350-900/1000 come out available for order soon (before the production slot fills)

2) The 787s come out very soon! I remember that in ATB2, this model was delivered in 2007 (ie: on schedule). Will it still be on schedule now?

Hope hope hope  ::)

Offline type45

  • Members
  • Posts: 843
Re: A350 and B787
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2009, 05:30:49 AM »
I think I'll be forced to buy both of them ;)

A350 have a much longer range and less fuel burn, size of 787 is more suitable for my market

but I've a question: 787 is doing a lot to have a much less fuel burn than other planes, but how come 787-8 have a fuel burn even bigger than 767-400ER? ;)

sami can you tell us why? ;)

Offline Unbornio

  • Members
  • Posts: 662
Re: A350 and B787
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2009, 07:31:13 AM »
Well the 787 has longer range and cruises faster..  :P
Beta Tester

WesternU

  • Former member
Re: A350 and B787
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2009, 09:58:47 PM »
I was wondering the same thing on fuel burn.  The higher speed doesn't equate to the fuel burn savings announced by Boeing.  From what I calculated on flight times (the 787, at most, cuts flight times by about 5%), even on 6+ hour flight segments, it still falls short of what it should be.  Anyway, I also posted a question about this on the main board.

Offline MM21

  • Members
  • Posts: 451
Re: A350 and B787
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2009, 11:08:54 PM »
I was wondering the same thing on fuel burn.  The higher speed doesn't equate to the fuel burn savings announced by Boeing.  From what I calculated on flight times (the 787, at most, cuts flight times by about 5%), even on 6+ hour flight segments, it still falls short of what it should be.  Anyway, I also posted a question about this on the main board.
Yes, how can a carbon fiber fuselage plane with such fuel burn if it's very close to the size of 767? You guys can have a look how much metal really on the plane ( http://www.newairplane.com/787/design_highlights/). And no matter GE or RR, they both did a lot work to reduce fuel burn on their engines. Therefore I was wondering why is that the fuel burn of B788 even higher than a 767 at all.

And the second thing is, I hope the system or admin will increase production rate of both A350 and B787. As A358 and B788 is still quite small for many airline companies, that means many of us must buy B789 and A359. However, I got no idea how long I have to wait as production slots were filled with those early variants.

P.S. A359 should be the earliest variant in service, however the system made us disappointed this time.  :-\

tm07x

  • Former member
Re: A350 and B787
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2010, 03:30:33 AM »
thing with 787 is that you can get it with many different configs, 3, 8 and 9.
the guys here haven't added those models but have chosen to offer various A350 models.

The concept of the 787 isn't just in its performance, lower fuel cost or new interior design.
The 787 series offers a new way of flying, meaning, more direct routes, or point to point.
And bypassing the hubs. Boeing believes that the future passenger want to get straight
to their destination rather than connecting.

The fuel savings are, according to Boeing Company, 20%, not 5% as someone suggested.

The difference in the 3 models, 3, 8 and 9 are not only pax, mtow and range. But it's also WING SPAN (170 to 280 feet).
3 being the shortest wingspan and 9 series the longest.
The 8 and 3 are the same fuselage.
The 3 offers a 290-330 pax load, lower mtow to the 8 and 9 series. and a range of 2500-3000nm.

(no orders have yet been placed on the 787-3)

the 8 however, has a longer wingspan, increased mtow, range from 7650 to 8000++ nm and is limited to 210-250 pax.

the 9's mtow is almost twice of the 3s, almost 540k lbs, more cargo room, the 3 and 8 are the same.
the 9 is also longer, 250-290 pax and the longest range of them all, at 8000-8500nm

I read an article about the dreamliner once, and the logic to Boeings thinking,
like I mentioned before, it's a new concept. more direct routes, and also, the 8 series is targeted towards
airlines flying direct cross-atlantic routes between less dense routes. Typically the routes that the 757 handle today for Continental.
They fly many direct routes to less dense destinations like, sweden, norway, and smaller towns in germany and england...

The 3 series is meant to compete with the A300, I can't find the article right now, but IIRC, the 3 series is meant to fly shorter and denser legs.

the 9 series is just a stretched 8 series.

But the concept is really genius in a lot of ways, cus an airline like Continental who operate the 757 and 767, Lufthansa who operate A300, A330 and A340
would all save a lot of money by moving to the 787 in terms of fleet commonality.

maybe worth noting that Boeing CEO said that they don't believe in the demand of big aircraft like the A380, because people want to go straight to their destination. And if there was a need for such an aircraft, they'd build one faster than you can say Airbus. :P

also worth noting is that if you read airline.net and other forums airline related, they say that the 350 already has an identity problem.
being too big to compete with the 787 on P2P routes, and too small to compete with the 777, both in terms of efficiency and pax. =)

And if you opt for the smaller A350 it won't be as efficient as the bigger 787, and costs 20-30m USD more.
I don't see how this model can even be a viable option for an airline looking to replace 3!!! different models in terms of price, efficiency and most importantly, fleet commonality.... heck, it ranges from large 737 to small 777.... and A300 to A340, covering most bases of the A350.

Lufthansa already saying that they aren't shopping for a twin engine LR aircraft for trans-oceanic flights as they want 4 engines.
Since 340 is being phased out, it would leave the 747 Dreamliner the only viable option. And if they indeed go for a twin,
why replace it with an A350 when they can replace all their aging models with one aircraft model..

some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-3prod.html

Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong.

Anyways, it would be really cool to see an airplane like that here on airwaysim in its REAL configuration options. ;)
being able to fly direct, more efficiently would/could eliminate a bit of the hub syndrome.

think of it this way, a LOT of airlines would fly a 737 direct from europe to the states and asia if it had the range.
the 787-8 isn't THAT much bigger than a 737-900ER in terms of pax, but it has much longer range compared to the 737-700ER which has the
longest range of the 737 family... (aprox 5k nm)


Offline Name_Omitted

  • Members
  • Posts: 292
Re: A350 and B787
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2010, 05:25:29 AM »
Assuming, of course, that either enter revenue service.   :'(

tm07x

  • Former member
Re: A350 and B787
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2010, 06:15:09 AM »
lol! :D indeed! :)

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.