The Boeing 787-900 Is it really a Dream ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing 787-900 Is it a Dream or a Dudd ?
Boeing promotes the Boeing -787 as "The Dreamliner" but does it really live up to the marketing hype?
I flew Coolangatta - Singapore last Sat and back today on Scoots 787-900 Dreamliner and wasn't overly impressed. I will still stick with the 777 as my favourite aircraft.
Like to hear from the boys and Girls that fly the Dreamliner just how good or not so good this aircraft REALLY is.
Out of Singapore last night with an almost full load of passengers and an OAT of approx 28 degrees. I felt sluggish to accelerate, using all the runway to take off and sluggish to climb. After take-off it really wasn't doing anything special as far as speed increase and climb rate was concerned. For the first 10 minutes and then it was away. Felt the aircraft it replaced on this route (the 777-200) performed a lot better. In reality I would like to know from the people that know better than I - the pilots is that the truth.
I found the ride a in smooth air very good but in turbulence – a lot more choppy compared to the 777. When the Dreamliner hit turbulence it seemed to bounce around like a cork, especially fishtailing/side to side movement generally. While the 777 it seemed to be a lot stable/steadier.
I want to like this new revolutionary aircraft but for me I keep my options open for now. Not overly impressed.
Is it faster than the 777? Think it fly’s a couple of 1000 ft higher.
Really welcome your input.
Perhaps a boost in engine output would be a good start. To improve its performance,
Dreamliner sceptic.
I flew Coolangatta - Singapore last Sat and back today on Scoots 787-900 Dreamliner and wasn't overly impressed. I will still stick with the 777 as my favourite aircraft.
Like to hear from the boys and Girls that fly the Dreamliner just how good or not so good this aircraft REALLY is.
Out of Singapore last night with an almost full load of passengers and an OAT of approx 28 degrees. I felt sluggish to accelerate, using all the runway to take off and sluggish to climb. After take-off it really wasn't doing anything special as far as speed increase and climb rate was concerned. For the first 10 minutes and then it was away. Felt the aircraft it replaced on this route (the 777-200) performed a lot better. In reality I would like to know from the people that know better than I - the pilots is that the truth.
I found the ride a in smooth air very good but in turbulence – a lot more choppy compared to the 777. When the Dreamliner hit turbulence it seemed to bounce around like a cork, especially fishtailing/side to side movement generally. While the 777 it seemed to be a lot stable/steadier.
I want to like this new revolutionary aircraft but for me I keep my options open for now. Not overly impressed.
Is it faster than the 777? Think it fly’s a couple of 1000 ft higher.
Really welcome your input.
Perhaps a boost in engine output would be a good start. To improve its performance,
Dreamliner sceptic.
Last edited by Tim Hamilton; 20th May 2015 at 08:27.
First off it is the Dreamliner nomenclature is B787-9 not the 900, Boeing dropped the 400, 900 etc for the B747-8 and the B787-8 and 9.
Sluggish take off is the result of engine de-rate, as is the climb rate. The B787-9 climbs to a slightly higher altitude than the B777-200 and way higher than the B777-300.
The B787-9 has a much lower cabin altitude than the B777 and most pilots agree that they feel better after a long haul in the B787 than the B777.
The B787 does ride differently in turbs than the B777 but the B787 is a generation further advanced in fly-by-wire technology that the B777.
Sluggish take off is the result of engine de-rate, as is the climb rate. The B787-9 climbs to a slightly higher altitude than the B777-200 and way higher than the B777-300.
The B787-9 has a much lower cabin altitude than the B777 and most pilots agree that they feel better after a long haul in the B787 than the B777.
The B787 does ride differently in turbs than the B777 but the B787 is a generation further advanced in fly-by-wire technology that the B777.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sluggish take off is the result of engine de-rate, as is the climb rate.
> Is it conceivable and have you considered it was on full throttle under those conditions ?
The B787 does ride differently in turbs than the B777 but the B787 is a generation further advanced in fly-by-wire technology that the B777.
> Yes an advanced - worse one
> Is it conceivable and have you considered it was on full throttle under those conditions ?
The B787 does ride differently in turbs than the B777 but the B787 is a generation further advanced in fly-by-wire technology that the B777.
> Yes an advanced - worse one
You could add more thrust but the airline won't use it. Your Gold Coast Singapore flight was about half the -9's range so the 125 tonne fuel tanks were probably just a bit more than half full. So even full of PAX I doubt it was anywhere close to a max weight TO.
It's fairly rare to go full thrust down the runway. You said it took all the runway to takeoff. That is the bean counter's goal. To use just enough thrust to get off the runway. A higher thrust means a hotter engine and that's not good for engine life. On the 747-8 (same engines if they're GE) we're adding power for climb, the TO thrust setting is less than the climb thrust setting.
On a twin engine airplane the plane has to meet certain climb performance numbers on one engine. So having two engines at full climb thrust is overkill. It becomes a calculus problem of having higher temps and a higher fuel flow for a shorter time. Most of the time you end up with the power way back but it saves fuel and that's what the company wants. So I'm betting your TO and climb were de-rated back to the minimum to meet the performance requirements.
It's fairly rare to go full thrust down the runway. You said it took all the runway to takeoff. That is the bean counter's goal. To use just enough thrust to get off the runway. A higher thrust means a hotter engine and that's not good for engine life. On the 747-8 (same engines if they're GE) we're adding power for climb, the TO thrust setting is less than the climb thrust setting.
On a twin engine airplane the plane has to meet certain climb performance numbers on one engine. So having two engines at full climb thrust is overkill. It becomes a calculus problem of having higher temps and a higher fuel flow for a shorter time. Most of the time you end up with the power way back but it saves fuel and that's what the company wants. So I'm betting your TO and climb were de-rated back to the minimum to meet the performance requirements.
Last edited by MarkerInbound; 21st May 2015 at 05:06.
was on full throttle under those conditions ?
I've never used max thrust for a normal takeoff.
