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: 787  (Read 2230 times)

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
787
« on: October 31, 2010, 03:57:02 PM »
Worst gas mileage than the 767-300ER, although they carry the same amount of people, but still costs a lot more. Does have better range and flies faster. Can somebody prove to me that the 787 isn't a dumb plane to buy?
No replacement for displacement

altmants

  • Former member
Re: 787
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2010, 04:44:51 PM »
Yes, If you are flying medium range flights I think the 737-300ER is better. HOWEVER, look at the price of the 767-300ER at max range.

142.79m - 167.15m USD ------- 167million gives you 6200NM


Cost of 787 - 167million. So Once you hit the higher tier 737-300ER, its the same price as the 787, and therefore should get the 787

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 787
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2010, 05:01:04 PM »
Ah. That makes sense, but still it seems like it has a very narrow market if that's the case.
No replacement for displacement

Offline jewiden

  • Members
  • Posts: 93
Re: 787
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2010, 05:42:00 PM »
but still it seems like it has a very narrow market if that's the case.
Not really. The somewhat higher price could be saved in commonality. (Not that I've calced it)

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: 787
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2010, 07:28:50 PM »
To compare fuel economy, you need to take into account number of passengers carried (Max is a convenient number to use) and speed as well.  If you take these into account, 787 is more fuel efficient, but not by a huge margin.

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 787
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2010, 07:45:33 PM »
787-8: 300pax/4910 kg = .0610
767-3ER (max range): 290pax/4790 kg = .0605

787 does get better per seat, but still, serves a narrow market, for people who want 260 seats at 7000nm, which brings me to a new question, why not get the A330-200 or B767-400ER which are both cheaper and carry a lot more.
No replacement for displacement

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: 787
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2010, 08:18:08 PM »
787-8: 300pax/4910 kg = .0610
767-3ER (max range): 290pax/4790 kg = .0605

It should be:
787-8: 300pax * 485 kts / 4810 kg/hr = 30.25
767-3ER: 290pax * 460 kts / 4790 kg/hr = 27.85

787 does get better per seat, but still, serves a narrow market, for people who want 260 seats at 7000nm, which brings me to a new question, why not get the A330-200 or B767-400ER which are both cheaper and carry a lot more.

All of the long range aircraft seems to be priced much higher than their shorter range counterparts...

Rex_Kramer

  • Former member
Re: 787
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2010, 09:02:32 PM »
I think the seating capacity of the 787-8 has been mis-specified in AWS - being only slightly higher than the 767-300 and significantly lower than the A330-200.

In real life the 787-8 is on a par, or even slightly bigger than the A330-200 giving away only a couple of meters in length but being wide enough for 9 abreast in Y.

Boeing list the maximum high density economy capacity of the 787-8 to be 375 but in AWS it's only 300.

Something to adjust in the next version ?

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: 787
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2010, 09:52:01 PM »
I was wondering about 787 being somewhat under-speced in AWS.  One of the things that I was wondering about is that a lighter 787, with smaller profile (cross-section) using pretty much the same engines as A350 but 787 is using more fuel...

As far as seating capacity, I think the only way we can get solid figures is by using the cabin dimensions + AWS defined seat dimesnions.  I think Sami is gathering some info on this, and he made a page for people who would like to help.  Here is Sami's post:
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,13093.0.html

Offline RibeiroR

  • Members
  • Posts: 84
Re: 787
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2010, 10:12:31 PM »
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a long range, mid-sized, wide-body, twin-engine jet airliner developed by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It seats 210 to 330 passengers, depending on variant. Boeing states that it is the company's most fuel-efficient airliner and the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction. The 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly-sized Boeing 767. Its development and production has involved a large-scale collaboration with numerous suppliers.

787-8
Range:
7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles (14,200 to 15,200 kilometers)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Total Cargo Volume:
4,400 cubic feet
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
502,500 pounds (227,930 kilograms)

in my view, it seems that the plane was badly modeled here, sources taken from the company's Web site, the 787-8 was specifically made to replace the existing market planes (767, 777), not the airlines get to discussing what is the best choice
  :P

Online ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: 787
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2010, 10:40:07 PM »
With the 788 there comes the 789, with more pax if reconfigured. THEN, you can have an equivalent to a two-class slightly less pax A332, with more range and nearly 1 Ton less of fuel per hour.

Daemus

  • Former member
Re: 787
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2010, 11:52:52 PM »
I am using the 4810 kg/hr fuel burn for the 787.

I took a 4300 nm 1-way route as an example and ran it round-trip. Both planes can do this daily (6-days per week as A-Check interferes with day 7).

Quote from: Frogiton
Worst gas mileage than the 767-300ER
More fuel consumed per hour, yes, but definitely not worse gas mileage.

The speed of the 787-8 makes up for the higher fuel consumtion.

The 767 will actually burn 4291.7 kg more fuel for the trip than the 787. This is because the 787 will make the trip just shy of an hour faster than the 767 does. At $0.42 /kg (current game-world price), that is $1802.51 extra you pay for fueling the 767 on the trip.

The 787's increased speed and capacity allow for it to haul ~10% more passengers over a given time-period than the 767. That means ~10% more potential revenue from the 787, which will be cheaper to operate than the 767 when running routes of appropriate distance for its design. The initial purchase price difference is ~3%.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 11:59:06 PM by Daemus »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 787
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2010, 11:56:19 PM »
Sami hates Boeing.

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: 787
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2010, 03:19:37 AM »
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a long range, mid-sized, wide-body, twin-engine jet airliner developed by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It seats 210 to 330 passengers, depending on variant. Boeing states that it is the company's most fuel-efficient airliner and the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction. The 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly-sized Boeing 767. Its development and production has involved a large-scale collaboration with numerous suppliers.

787-8
Range:
7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles (14,200 to 15,200 kilometers)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Total Cargo Volume:
4,400 cubic feet
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
502,500 pounds (227,930 kilograms)

in my view, it seems that the plane was badly modeled here, sources taken from the company's Web site, the 787-8 was specifically made to replace the existing market planes (767, 777), not the airlines get to discussing what is the best choice
  :P


Paraphrased from a post I made a year ago:

You can look at other official Boeing figures to get a rough idea of fuel economy and can see that the "20% figure" that PR throws around around just doesn't jive up with reality.  Carrying roughly (give or take a few) pax, the 787 has a fuel tank about 38% larger than a 764ER; and a range of about 44% more.  If indeed the 787 got "20% better fuel economy" it should be able to get a LOT further given it's fuel tank is so much larger.  It should easily go 9100+NM if it was indeed burning 20% less fuel for every pax onboard with as much fuel as it's got, but it can't even come close to that.   And the reason is because, fully-laden, a 787 weighs 20% more than a 764ER.

Given other Boeing information, I would say that the real-life (rather than PR-speak) fuel economy difference between the 787-8 and the 767-400ER is probably in the 5-10% range on the per-passenger level, and that's at best.

Here's a link to a site (  http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/index.html  ) that did full modeling of the 787-8 using Piano-X, a tool used by airframe and engine manufacturers including Boeing, and they came up with an estimated fuel economy of 11402 lb/hr at cruise with the GEnx -- almost spot-on what Sami's got here.

Long and short -- the 787 is 20% more fuel-efficient than a 767.  But one must consider that it's a very heavy plane made to carry large amounts of fuel and cargo.  Being more fuel-efficient doesn't necessarily mean burning less fuel, it means that you can move the same amount of weight further.  Or, in the case of the 787 -- more weight without burning more fuel.  You get into the same 'issues' when comparing trains with semi-trucks -- a locomotive is more efficient but it's really burning a LOT more fuel than a truck is.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 03:25:56 AM by Sigma »

Offline swiftus27

  • Members
  • Posts: 4395
Re: 787
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2010, 11:40:18 AM »
just cause it carries more doesnt mean it should fly much further.  Your figures dont factor in fuel burn just getting the fuel into the air.

Offline LoonyToony

  • Members
  • Posts: 388
Re: 787
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2010, 10:38:33 PM »
Would you not simply buy or lease it because it looks 100 times better than the 767. Not to mention compared to all that Scarebuses out there? Compared to those hideous fat women, the 787 looks like a supermodel. Forget the (slightly) better technical aspects, go for the sheer beauty of that airplane.

Offline Frogiton

  • Members
  • Posts: 784
Re: 787
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2010, 11:25:56 PM »
Would you not simply buy or lease it because it looks 100 times better than the 767. Not to mention compared to all that Scarebuses out there? Compared to those hideous fat women, the 787 looks like a supermodel. Forget the (slightly) better technical aspects, go for the sheer beauty of that airplane.

I'd buy a crapping elephant if it involved not having to wait 100 years to get it and it had decent stats.
No replacement for displacement

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: 787
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2010, 11:42:30 PM »
I'd buy a crapping elephant if it involved not having to wait 100 years to get it and it had decent stats.

Yeah, that is kind of a problem, that once you start the fleet replacement to 787 (or A350), there is not that much time left in the game to make it fully worthwhile...

I am attempting to do it (with A350, rather than 787) but I may still end up owning both, A350 and the model it is supposed to replace.

Offline Sigma

  • Members
  • Posts: 1920
Re: 787
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2010, 11:44:03 PM »
just cause it carries more doesnt mean it should fly much further.  Your figures dont factor in fuel burn just getting the fuel into the air.

Um, that's the entire point of what I wrote.

The 787 is heavy.  It's heavy because it carries a lot of fuel.  It's less efficient (than it could be) because it has to move so much weight.  As a result, even though it's, per PR-speak, "20% more efficient", that over-simplification for the benefit of news blurbs, is not taking into account the fact that a lot of that added "efficiency" is simply moving its ponderous bulk around (not just fuel, but more cargo space as well) and does not mean that it's burning 20% less fuel per-seat.  On a per-seat basis, it's actually not a heckuva lot better than a 764ER.

Now stretch it out, throw in a few dozen more seats, and trade some of that fuel weight for pax weight at the expense of range, and you'll be getting somewhere.  But, outside of perhaps parts of Asia, there isn't much demand for dense, short-haul aircraft; so you're not likely to see such a design.  Frequency, perhaps not as much as in AWS, is still king in most of the Western world; and airlines will choose multiple 737s over fewer, larger 787s.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 11:51:02 PM by Sigma »

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: 787
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2010, 11:45:31 PM »
Would you not simply buy or lease it because it looks 100 times better than the 767. Not to mention compared to all that Scarebuses out there? Compared to those hideous fat women, the 787 looks like a supermodel. Forget the (slightly) better technical aspects, go for the sheer beauty of that airplane.

Yeah, it does look cool, but as far as AWS economics, it is only marginally better than 767 and it is arguably worse than A350.

One thing I do miss though (not going with 767 this game) is 767-400ER.  That's a great plane in AWS.

 

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.