New game to replace DOTM?

[JumboShrimp]

flightsimmer,

Excellent info.  Hopefully, Sami will make the updates before the next game world starts.

[Sami]

Because Sami's numbers for the 787 aren't right... everything about it in here is wrong

All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.

[alexgv1]

All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.

Are any if these performance figures final, seeing as Boeing hasn't finished flight testing even the -8. I imagine that is when their promises on fuel burn, range, etc. are validated. Right now are we not using ballpark figures.

[type45]

I think the config problem can be solved only by a new config system using seat pitch, but this should be a long way to go, right?

btw, any data for 787-3? in MT4 we have 787-3 but it looks like the same as 787-9 except the range an dprice......

[Sami]

Are any if these performance figures final, seeing as Boeing hasn't finished flight testing even the -8. I imagine that is when their promises on fuel burn, range, etc. are validated. Right now are we not using ballpark figures.

No idea really. I think it has been a year or so since data was inserted so there may have been changes; but I think there cannot be anything major. I have just used the data they have provided (and also hard to start guessing if the 50th or so aircraft will have performance improvements or not and so forth.) Boeing provides quite good documentation on the performance and they are easy and reliable resources.

But database will also have complete prototype models (to make the market more dynamic) and those will be more difficult to estimate properly.

[JumboShrimp]

All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.

I think the biggest issue is the passenger count.  The cabin space area (provided by flightsimer) shows that the AWS figures are off by a mile.

The wrong passenger count leads to incorrect fuel useage per passenger mile, which is what really makes 787 pathetic in AWS.

If the cabin square footage can be verified, I think you can savely update the passenger info.  Then later, once range and fuel consumptions are known, those can be updated as well, but they will make less difference than the passenger capacity.

[Curse]

+1 @ JumboShrimp

[Silentlysailing]

I think the disparity is on the premium business seats where they dramatically reduce capacity. You can put the 787-9 into a 3 class cabin and carry between 240 and 260 pax. Individuals will have to reconfigure the aircraft to get up to the specs but it's definitely doable.

As it stands though Boeing has been losing orders due to the the aircraft coming in over weight. With that the range is reduced "10-15%" so I would assume a bit higher than expected fuel economy. The 787 according to Boeing's website has lost 12 orders this year, and other airlines are looking to possibly reschedule delivery.

[Silentlysailing]

Another mitigating factor that I thought about in 787 success is that the 757 is still being produced and has well over 100 orders when Boeing stopped making them in 2005.

[Jona L.]

So both are lacking 1000nm for some reason.

Though the number seems pretty large, but sami already deducts the required "reserve hour" from the maximum range, so that even if we fly our planes at AWS's maximum range we still don't break that rule....

Jona L.

[Sami]

The standard reserve fuel is usually (but not always?) included in the range graphs the manufacturer provides. And as mentioned the AWS payload&range data should be the same what manufacturer has published.

[JumboShrimp]

I think the disparity is on the premium business seats where they dramatically reduce capacity. You can put the 787-9 into a 3 class cabin and carry between 240 and 260 pax. Individuals will have to reconfigure the aircraft to get up to the specs but it's definitely doable.

Definitely not doable.  Just review this line from my post above:

787-9 all economy: 280
767-400ER all economy: 360

That implies that 787 is a much smaller aircraft than 767, when in fact (according to cabin size posted by flightsimer) it is a larger aircraft, ~20% larger

[Sami]

What is the max certified pax count for 787-9? (don't have the docs right here)

As it is marked as max 330 pax and 767 is marked as 409; and that causes the difference in the seat config. As it is still based only on the max seating number and proportions of that for other calculations. But in future it should be based on the actual length of the cabin instead, but data is still not found for several models.

[GEnx]

Might it be due to the difference in cabin layout? The B787 cabin looks incredibly spacious to me.

[JumboShrimp]

Might it be due to the difference in cabin layout? The B787 cabin looks incredibly spacious to me.

Boeing is definitely not building these to waste space.  It is up to the airlines what kind of seating configuration they pick.

If ww take 767-400ER and HD seating, it allocates about .52m^2 per passenger.  As a result we have:
767-400ER 409 HD economy seats
787-9 330 HD economy seats (current AWS data)

If we allocate the same area per HD seat what we should have
787-9 491 HD seats.

The difference between 330 what it is and ~491 what it should be is HUGE.  Nearly 50% difference.  It's a difference between being one of the most efficient aircraft and being much worse that the aircraft 787 is supposed to replace.

[Sami]

The difference between 330 what it is and ~491 what it should be is HUGE.

(I am only interested about what the true certified max seating is; not what can be calculated.)


Edit: Found it. Boeing has updated the docs. Exit limit is 440.

[flightsimer]

All of the payload & weight & range information is directly from Boeing's own docs. Fuel usage is guesstimated.

I would like to see these documents then because my info also came straight from Boeing documents or official press releases except for the floor area which I relied on from post on A.net from people that are involved with the 787 in some form (either with Boeing or with airlines already ordering them).

The configurations I gave for seating are straight from Boeing's airport planning brochure for the month of March 2011, I just saw the April one last night and its still the same.

As I said earlier in this thread and in another a while ago, the 787's max capacity is exactly the same as the 767's.

The -8 and previous -3 were maxed at 350 seats (same as the 767-300) and the -9 seats a max of 375 seats (same as the 767-400ER). Now theoretically, the 787's could seat even more in each variant if it used the same density seating as a 767 since they have more room, but to save time and money, Boeing decided to use the 767's certified max seating due to the same layout and number of exits between the two aircraft. So you will never actually see an evacuation test done with the 787 because of this.

As for fuel economy/range, in all honesty, any number now is going to be a guess because they have released NO info yet on its true fuel consumption and range. The first 6 test aircraft are about 5,000lbs overweight. However, they have a program already in place to reduce the weight back down to spec starting with l/n 7. I previously said by line number 50 the weight should be corrected, but I did a little more searching today and have found that they have since brought the correct weight all the way forward to line number 20/21. Boeing is already in the 30' so they should already be corrected.

However, just because they are overweight doesn't mean they won't make range. Because of being overweight, Boeing raised the MTOW of the 787 to allow the same ranges to be flown.

@ silentlysailing 240-260 seats in the -9 is still only the seating capacity of the -8. The -9 is supposed to seat almost 300 passengers in a 3 class configuration.

[JumboShrimp]

(I am only interested about what the true certified max seating is; not what can be calculated.)


Edit: Found it. Boeing has updated the docs. Exit limit is 440.

If the exit limit is (based on flightsimer post) in order to bypass a level of certification, probably still does not make sense to base the seating fonfiguration on that number, if the true HD seating capacity is ~490 estimate.

Nobody is going to configure 787 with all HD economy.  But the starting number will decide the quality of the rest of the seating that can be configured in the aircraft.

So the best way to resole this is to (at some point) convert the calculation, to be derived from cabin area (as planned), rather than some random numbers in the specs.

[flightsimer]

if its only certified for 375 seats even if the plane can seat 440, it wont, because its not certified for that.

I know ANA is replacing their domestic 772's with 789's. They have stated that they will be seating nearly 400 seats in a two class configuration. So 375 seats seem about right in a two class config with the majority being econ seats. I do question the 440 for the -9 though, but it might be right if they intended on using the 767's certificate only the -8.

One thing to remember about the 787 is so far, it hasnt been about hauling economy passengers. Its configured towards the premium classes which is why you hear about the -8 seating only ~220 seats for multiple airlines. Same thing with the 747-8I. LH has a massive premium cabin planned for the -8 with over 100 business/1st class seats in it.  

I deffinately agree about using floor space in the future. However, the seat types need to be changed as well in the way of not being just luxury, standard, HD, etc... You can fit 149 passengers on a 737-700 and still be very comfortable. It depends on the type of the seat itself. If they are slimbacks, than the seat pitch can remain the same, but yet they dont take up as much space.

[flightsimer]

As it stands though Boeing has been losing orders due to the the aircraft coming in over weight. With that the range is reduced "10-15%" so I would assume a bit higher than expected fuel economy. The 787 according to Boeing's website has lost 12 orders this year, and other airlines are looking to possibly reschedule delivery.

i forgot to say that is just completely wrong.

To date, Boeing has not had one 787 airframe canceled due to it being overweight or delayed. So far, every single cancelation has been directly caused by the GFC and airlines needing to use the money they would have paid for the 787s elsewhere.

Just yesterday, the first airline to cancel a 787 order replaced their initial order plus two more additional airframes.