Boeing 787 cruise altitude

[QF411]

Does anyone know what the 787's typical cruise altitude will be? Will it be in the 40s or typically the high 30s?

[fredgrav]

MACH 0.85 (0.89 MAX) at 40,000 ft (MAX CRZ ALT) ...
Best regards, :)
fredgrav

[XPMorten]

The FCOM says max operating altitude is 43.100.
Optimum cruise level is between FL350-430 depending on weight.
(500-300.000lbs)

XPM

[Flaperon777]

Errr...m,
XPM....QF411's talking about the 787. Just thought u'd missed that out.Cause i did too initially...
fredgrav's right..
Ta..

[XPMorten]

Well, I'm ALSO talking about the 787, what is your source of information?

[mutt]

I just downloaded the B787 FCOM from myboeingfleet.... The maximum operating altitude is listed as 43,100 feet. Their sales people are offering it as a M0.85 aircraft.

Mutt

[Wizofoz]

0.85 at what Cost Index?

These days most operators fly at very near maximum range cruise.

What would be it's ecom Alt and Mach at, say, MLW + 20 000KG at CI of 80?

[Bullethead]

G'day mutt,

How do you get authorisation the access the 'myboeingfleet' website?

I'd be interested in having a look at the B787 FCTM. I'm a little surprised it's even been published considering the airplane has yet to be certified.

Regards,
BH.

P.S Mutt, I had a bit of a dig around the myboeingfleet website and it looks like I can go through my company Boeing rep.

[mutt]

We are a 787 customer :):) The FCTM was issued over a year ago.

Mutt

[XPMorten]

LR cruise;
MLW is 370.000 lbs, + 20.000 kg = 414.000 lbs
Opt alt FL390
M.848
FF 5346/eng

Expect revisions to the numbers.

XPM

[Wizofoz]

If it meets those numbers then...

I want one!!!

[QF411]

That is impressive!! Thank you for your replies. Very informative!

[Spooky 2]

All the B787 manuals are published including the FCOM 1 & 2 along with the FCTM and the combined FCTM for the 777/787. ALL have big disclaimers regarding their use and accuracy at this hour. Actually the latest version is Revision #3 if I'm not mistaken. Also, most if not all B787 material will be delivered elctronically and not in a paper version.

[spannersatKL]

XP is the Fuel Flow in lbs/hr or kg/hr? Impressed if in lbs....

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Must be lb/hr. I'd be deeply UNimpressed if it was kg/hr per engine, and even slightly unimpressed if it was total fuel consumption.

:ok:

[stilton]

Way too early to start making performance assumptions but !


XPM,


Not sure why you are mixing up pounds and kilograms. Are you saying that at 414000lbs the numbers you quote are expected ?



Because those numbers look about midway between a 767-400 and the -200 and i'm not impressed.



I must be missing something ?

[XPMorten]

Stilton

I must be missing something ?

You are..:ok:

Comparing the 787 with the 76X cruise FF at the same GROSSWEIGHT will
only tell you the AERODYNAMIC- and ENGINE EFFICIENCY difference between
the two planes. The 787 will win here but not by a huge margin.

HOWEVER;

The B787 airframe and etc composite structure is much LIGHTER than
the B76X (operational empty weight).

SO, Imagine the B764 and B787 flying the exact same trip with the exact
same payload/pax. Due to less structural weight,
the 787 will ALWAYS be lighter than the B764 for the same flight.
This means;
- It also needs to plan LESS trip FUEL than the 764, making it even lighter
- Being significantly lighter, it will cruise HIGHER than the 764 on the same trip burning even less.
- It cruises faster -> gets there sooner, which means the 764 engines
will still be burning fuel when the 787 has parked.

If we add all this up the total effiency of the acf is supperior.

It's a bit like adding winglets to a 737. The aerodynamic gain is about 2%.
However, having to plan less trip fuel and thus always being lighter & cruising higher, the total fuel
gain will be 4-5 % on the winglet acf.

M

[stilton]

The expectation was the 787 would have 757 fuel burns with 777 range.




Looks like 767-300 fuel burn with who knows what range to me..

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
For the fuel they talk about 25% less then the B767 , baring in mind that B767 is a .80 cruiser :}

[misd-agin]

Supposedly 20% +/- more efficient.

[XPMorten]

Stilton

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the B763 manual I got
gives these optimum cruise # for 420.000 lbs

FL290
M.802
FF/ENG 6990

vs B787 (also 420.000 lbs optimum cruise)

FL390
M.848
FF/ENG 5346

Thats a huge difference, a 23% save in aerodynamic & engine efficiency alone!!

XPM

[galaxy flyer]

On a NM/1000# Fuel, it is better than that due to the higher TAS associated with 0.046 increase in Mach number.

GF

[Doors to Automatic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the B763 manual I got
gives these optimum cruise # for 420.000 lbs

FL290
....


Why is the 763 optimal cruise at such a low level? I would have expected
FL330 or FL350

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
Between 290 up to 330 you have the highest TAS for the same Mach :ok:

[stilton]

XPM,


I'm not sure how you obtained cruise fuel flow numbers for the 767-300 at 420,000 pounds considering the highest maximum take off weight available is 412,000 !




Further more your cruise data numbers are 10000 feet apart !



Heavily favouring the 787 in an unrealistic comparison. The 767 is a very good high altitude Aircraft and unless stuck down at FL290 by ATC would normally cruise at FL350 or higher depending on weight and other factors.



11000 pounds an hour total is a much better average fuel flow figure for the 763, in comparison, if your numbers are correct the 787's not that great..

[XPMorten]

We can compare any another weight if you like..:rolleyes:

http://www.xplanefreeware.net/morten/DOCS/b767cruise.jpg

[Zeke]

The B787 airframe and etc composite structure is much LIGHTER than the B76X (operational empty weight).

Everything I have seen from Boeing indicates that the 787-800 will have an OEW of at least 20,000 lb higher than the 767-300ER.

[stilton]

I suggest looking at identical weights at the same cruise altitude to make your comparison more relevant.

[Sir Richard]

Or even .... Identical payloads.....:8

[XPMorten]

Stilton,

I suggest looking at identical weights at the same cruise altitude to make your comparison more relevant.

Thats pointless! Modern acf are designed to cruise at optimum altitudes to stay in the low drag bucket of the airfoil.
Thats why the 787 is equipped with cruise flap so it can cruise more efficient slightly above or below it's optimum altitude.

SR,

Or even .... Identical payloads....

True, unfortunately the B787 OEW is still unknown and Boeing is
probably still shaving off it's weight. The FCOM
indicates minimum landing weights around 220.000 lbs. So as mentioned
by Zeke, a figure around 20.000 lbs heavier than the B763
is probably in the ballpark.

In that case it will STILL be WAY superior to the B763.

A same payload example.

B763, weight 320.000 lbs
FL 350 (optimum level)
FF 5286
M.802

B787, weight 340.000 lbs (added 20.000 OEW)
FL 410 (optimum level)
FF 4570
M.855

In fact, you can add another 80.000 lbs to 420.000 lbs to the 787,
it would STILL be more efficient than a 320.000 lbs B763.

And thats not counting the speed advantage OR need to plan less trip fuel
advantage which will give a weight reduction

The higher the grossweight, the bigger the advantage of the 787 vs 76X
will be.

XPM

[stilton]

Not pointless at all XpM But you don't seem to get the point. :ugh:



If your numbers just posted are remotely accurate, however then maybe it will do what they say on the 'brochure'

[18-Wheeler]

Perhaps a more valid comparison would be a 767-XXX to a 787 over the same route with the same payload.

[XPMorten]

Not pointless at all XpM But you don't seem to get the point

Then would you please enlighten me what a comparison
same weight AT same altitude would tell you with
regard to acf efficiency?

At the same weight/payload the 787 would cruise MUCH higher than the 763.
So at whatever altitude you would pick in between their optimum levels
BOTH acf would be inefficient ==> Pointless <==

XPM

[stilton]

Naturally the 787 will cruise higher than the 767 and faster for that matter.



However when you compare it's cruise efficiency at 390 while only looking at FL290 numbers for the 76 you are simply not being realistic.

[mutt]

Why do you care how much the aircraft weighs, look at the PAYLOAD CAPABILITIES, start with 150 pax, then 200 pax.

I don't care how much the aircraft weighs nor what altitude it flies at, but I do care can it carry my required payload and at what cost.

Unfortunately we cancelled our 787 order, so I wont get to play with this toy.

Mutt

[XPMorten]

I hate to bring the news to you Stilton, but this is very much reality.
In a few months time 787's will pass 5-10.000 feet above your 767
on the same sector, getting there before you at a much lower cost with
more satisfied passengers and more payload. Better get used to the idea..;)

LR Cruise (optimum)

Wgt B787 B763

300k FL430 FL370
340k FL410 FL340
380k FL400 FL320
420k FL390 FL290
460k FL370 N/A
500k FL350 N/A

[stilton]

I relinquish all hope of getting my point across, Xpm.



Happy landings..

[misd-agin]

It's the 'side by side' flight that would show the difference in fuel burn. Compare NYC to Europe. JFK-CDG is is approx 3100 n.m.

767-300 EOW 205,000
787 EOW 255,000 (target was 108K kg/238,000 lbs, reports that it's 8% overweight)

TOC for a 767-300 is approx. 90 nm to FL300. Estimate a 787 would take 130 n.m. to TOC. TOD to destination is approx. 130 n..m. Assume a 787 fuel burn to TOC is 8,000 lbs.

Assume a 60 kt tailwind. Total 787 cruise distance would be 2850 n.m.

Now add 200 pax (40,000 lbs) plus cargo (20,000) = ZFW of 315,000 and figure out the cruise fuel burn of a 787 at it's optimum altitude and speed. A 767-300 would burn approx. 75,000 lbs with 1+50 arrival fuel(alt+rsv).

Anyone with the 787 cruise data that can figure this out?

[tristar 500]

Reading about the cruising altitude of the 7 late 7 & understanding that the cabin altitude is going to kept at 6000 feet, what is the max dif of the going to be?

Most aircraft have a max dif of 8psi but presumably the Dreamliner is going to be much more.

tristar 500

[misd-agin]

Looks like a press diff of 9.18 (searching the internet).

Found this site that has lots of info and found the answer to my question. Apparently a 787-8 carrying 200 pax would burn about 60,000 lbs on a 3,000 nm flight, or approx. 15,000 lbs less than a 767-300 (20%). At current fuel prices that's about $4800 less fuel.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner : Analysis (http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/index.html)

[TopBunk]

Most aircraft have a max dif of 8psi but presumably the Dreamliner is going to be much more.

Max diff on the 747-400 is 9.4 psi!

[flytheworldG550]

Well in my Gulfstream G550, my cruise altitude is 48,000 feet at Mach 0.80 so there can't be an big difference :ok:

[galaxy flyer]

If you are cruising at FL480, you are either FL470B490 or don't know that RVSM ends at FL410. In the GLEX, 10.25 psid, gives a cabin at 4,500 when cruising at FL 450.

GF

[Spooky 2]

How about 88,000 # of fuel on a 8 hour flight at Mach .85 starting out at FL380 then 400.

[kbrockman]

How about 88,000 # of fuel on a 8 hour flight at Mach .85 starting out at FL380 then 400.

Was that the Seattle/Farnoborough flight for the demo787?
Curious, what was TOW?

[mmciau]

Some interesting Altitude and indicated Groundspeed numbers in this flight to Peurto Rico


FlightAware > Track Log > BOE5 > 25-Jan-2011 > KABQ-TJBQ (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE5/history/20110125/1600Z/KABQ/TJBQ/tracklog)

[Dani]

It's really pointless to compare the 767 with the 787 - we surely hope that it's better. Why not comparing it to an A330, which is the direct opponent on the market? I guess if it's 20% to the 76 then it would be about 10% to an 33, so not much...