B787 The Wrong Aircraft????
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A330-800 has limited chance of being as efficent as the B787
From looking at the boeing website, it states that the B787 is about 30,000 to 40,000 thousand pounds lighter than the A330-200. If this is true, I don't see how an A350 can possibly be as efficent as a B787.
The problem with the A330 airframe
Have a look at the airbus A330 airframe. The problem with the A330 airframe is that the wing was a optimized for both twin and quad engines.
Ever noticed with the same wing the A330-200 has MTOW of 509,000lb and the A340-300 gets 606,000lb ?
This is becuase in a quad jet, the outboard placement two CFM's help reduce the stress placed on the center wing box structure. This allows the plane to support more mass in the fueslague. In the A340, this meant that a center fuel tank, center MLG, could be inconcorperated.
Only the later A330-200 had a center fuel tank. BUT if you noticed. The OEW (270,000lb + Max fuel (242,000lb is almost = MTOW (~507,000lb). (i.e. the center gas tank in only useful for a Military Tanker, surprize, surprize)
(This was the same with the 777, The original 777-200 A market does not have center fuel tank. Only the later strengthed HGW ,772ER and 773 had it, but it added 5,000lb extra weight )
What Airbus has to do to give the A330 airframe 8000NM range with a useful payload
Airbus basically needs to increase the MTOW of the A330-200/A350-800 by 250pax x 210lb = 52500lb
They might need to increase fuel tank size by from the current 36,872 gallons by say 5000 gallons to just below 42,000 gallons. That is 33,500lb more weight. (for ref. b777-200ER has 45,000 gallons)
The A330-800 will basically need a MTOW increase from the current A330-200 MTOW of 509,000lb to at least 560,000 to 595,000lb minus the weight of a new composite wing ~ this is very close to a A340-300.
Inorder to extend the range of the twin jet A330/A350 airbus will have to.
+ Increase the MTOW the aircraft so that it can actully lift a useful payload along with all the gas.
+This will probably mean new landing gear.
+Slight increase in fuel tank capacity.
The only way this can be achived with a new wing.
This new wing will most likely
+ Have a slightly larger volume for larger wing tank size.
+ Much Stronger Wing Box section to support higher MTOW in twin jet design.
+ More powerful engines to support the increased MTOW. my guess is 85,000lb class.
This new wing will most likely increase the weight the A350-800 .
If airbus choose to decide to increase the fuel tank capacity by 5000 Gal, then the A350-900 will really give the B777-200ER and a hard time.... so don't be surprized if Boeing have considered 65M to 70M derivatives of the B787 ...
By comparision, the B777 airframe MTOW has grown from 535,000lb to 766,000lb, at the cost of around 25,000lb weight gain. (thats over the weight of standard 100 pax).
From looking at the boeing website, it states that the B787 is about 30,000 to 40,000 thousand pounds lighter than the A330-200. If this is true, I don't see how an A350 can possibly be as efficent as a B787.
The problem with the A330 airframe
Have a look at the airbus A330 airframe. The problem with the A330 airframe is that the wing was a optimized for both twin and quad engines.
Ever noticed with the same wing the A330-200 has MTOW of 509,000lb and the A340-300 gets 606,000lb ?
This is becuase in a quad jet, the outboard placement two CFM's help reduce the stress placed on the center wing box structure. This allows the plane to support more mass in the fueslague. In the A340, this meant that a center fuel tank, center MLG, could be inconcorperated.
Only the later A330-200 had a center fuel tank. BUT if you noticed. The OEW (270,000lb + Max fuel (242,000lb is almost = MTOW (~507,000lb). (i.e. the center gas tank in only useful for a Military Tanker, surprize, surprize)
(This was the same with the 777, The original 777-200 A market does not have center fuel tank. Only the later strengthed HGW ,772ER and 773 had it, but it added 5,000lb extra weight )
What Airbus has to do to give the A330 airframe 8000NM range with a useful payload
Airbus basically needs to increase the MTOW of the A330-200/A350-800 by 250pax x 210lb = 52500lb
They might need to increase fuel tank size by from the current 36,872 gallons by say 5000 gallons to just below 42,000 gallons. That is 33,500lb more weight. (for ref. b777-200ER has 45,000 gallons)
The A330-800 will basically need a MTOW increase from the current A330-200 MTOW of 509,000lb to at least 560,000 to 595,000lb minus the weight of a new composite wing ~ this is very close to a A340-300.
Inorder to extend the range of the twin jet A330/A350 airbus will have to.
+ Increase the MTOW the aircraft so that it can actully lift a useful payload along with all the gas.
+This will probably mean new landing gear.
+Slight increase in fuel tank capacity.
The only way this can be achived with a new wing.
This new wing will most likely
+ Have a slightly larger volume for larger wing tank size.
+ Much Stronger Wing Box section to support higher MTOW in twin jet design.
+ More powerful engines to support the increased MTOW. my guess is 85,000lb class.
This new wing will most likely increase the weight the A350-800 .
If airbus choose to decide to increase the fuel tank capacity by 5000 Gal, then the A350-900 will really give the B777-200ER and a hard time.... so don't be surprized if Boeing have considered 65M to 70M derivatives of the B787 ...
By comparision, the B777 airframe MTOW has grown from 535,000lb to 766,000lb, at the cost of around 25,000lb weight gain. (thats over the weight of standard 100 pax).
Last edited by JetDriverWannabe; 5th Mar 2005 at 19:22.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polish Eddie,
I`ve been hearing noises that LOT would recieve discounts to become a A350-800 launch customer.3 way battle huh!
I`ve been hearing noises that LOT would recieve discounts to become a A350-800 launch customer.3 way battle huh!
It'd be really bad for Poland's position in the EU to order Boeing aircraft again... That's only political point of view. 
As far as I know LOT wants either 6 A330-200's or 6 787's... I haven't heard about offer for A350-800 though it'd be interesting!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
both have their uses
Both A/c have their uses... big global carriers - EK, SQ, QFetc etc would have use for A380 hub to hub to move the numbers in cattleclass. smaller airlines however -NZ, ANA etc would have more use for 787. Air NZ for example could fly direct from Auckland - Chicago or Auckland - Toronto. There would never be a need for 555 seat a/c for this route but 200-300 would definately be a usefull option and would save pax approx 2-4 hours... 14 hours instead of 18 sounds good to me! also save on fuel burn ( 2-4 hours flight time + 10 tons taxi/takeoff fuel) ..it all adds up. the lower cabin altitude would be nice too. Its going to take a lot of time embarking/disembarking pax on a A380 not to mention offloads!! I think it will be more successful as a frieghter than as a passenger a/c.
-zkpilot
-zkpilot
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: socal
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As of March 24, 2005:
Boeing aircraft sales: 239
Airbus sales: 44
read details:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/2019909/
March 31, 2005 (today):
EADS/Airbus stock downgraded to "sell"
1:54am 03/31/05
EADS cut at Merrill on flat profit seen at Airbus (FR:005730, BA) By Aude Lagorce
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Merrill Lynch cut European defense company EADS (FR:005730) to "sell" from "neutral," saying it believes that accounting changes, currency, delivery mix and lower margin deliveries to low-cost airlines will hold profit at Airbus flat for 2004-2008. The broker told clients that it would rather hold shares in U.S. rival Boeing (BA) , noting that it has become more focused on market share in civil aircraft and that its 787 model is doing well. "A rising order book could dilute investor perceptions that Boeing was a clumsy has-been against the swift and sure-footed Airbus," the broker concluded.
Boeing aircraft sales: 239
Airbus sales: 44
read details:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/2019909/
March 31, 2005 (today):
EADS/Airbus stock downgraded to "sell"
1:54am 03/31/05
EADS cut at Merrill on flat profit seen at Airbus (FR:005730, BA) By Aude Lagorce
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Merrill Lynch cut European defense company EADS (FR:005730) to "sell" from "neutral," saying it believes that accounting changes, currency, delivery mix and lower margin deliveries to low-cost airlines will hold profit at Airbus flat for 2004-2008. The broker told clients that it would rather hold shares in U.S. rival Boeing (BA) , noting that it has become more focused on market share in civil aircraft and that its 787 model is doing well. "A rising order book could dilute investor perceptions that Boeing was a clumsy has-been against the swift and sure-footed Airbus," the broker concluded.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I don't sound extraordinarily dense, but "cabin altitude of 6,000 feet" ??? --- I'm just pax and rather unknowledgeable at that, but would someone please explain to me what this means? (I am smart enough to know that it's not the plane's cruising altitude.) Please be gentle. Thank you very much.
it means that the aircraft is pressurised to the equivalent air pressure you would expereince if you were 6000 feet up a mountain.
The aircraft is designed with a "maximum pressure differential" in mind that means roughly that when you are flying at 40,000 feet your "cabin altitude" is maybe 10,000 feet.
The 787 is designed to fly direct city to city pairs and avoid the congestion horrors of flying to Heathrow, Chicago, Atlanta, Sydney Houston Narita etc.
It is thus the direct competition to the hub and spoke model that the A380 caters to.
The aircraft is designed with a "maximum pressure differential" in mind that means roughly that when you are flying at 40,000 feet your "cabin altitude" is maybe 10,000 feet.
The 787 is designed to fly direct city to city pairs and avoid the congestion horrors of flying to Heathrow, Chicago, Atlanta, Sydney Houston Narita etc.
It is thus the direct competition to the hub and spoke model that the A380 caters to.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: cardiff
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all this talk of orders/options for these aircraft is missing the point a bit....Take a look at the balance sheets for the big players in the Airline business..... You will observe lots of big RED numbers! The truth is, most airlines are hanging on by their finger nails right now, and have been since way before 9/11. The only guys making any kind of operating profit are those slimming down on every expense, and that includes new aircraft! Whilst Toulouse and Seattle may shift a few big airframes out of the door over the next couple of years, we are not going to see significant sales of either for a few years yet, there is a lot of slimming down and bankruptcies to go! Boeing 747/767/777 will still be around for quite some time, as will A300/310/330/340.
Yes Boeing can point to some big sales in Japan, and Airbus can crow about the middle east ordering a couple of dozen A380s, but the main markets, ie USA and Europe wont be forming an orderly queue just yet!
Having said all, that, I would be more inclined to flog my Boeing shares than my EADS shares at the moment! the A320 family is still outselling the B737 retreads, unless Boeing come up with a 737 replacement soon, they will be up a certain creek without any paddles!
Yes Boeing can point to some big sales in Japan, and Airbus can crow about the middle east ordering a couple of dozen A380s, but the main markets, ie USA and Europe wont be forming an orderly queue just yet!
Having said all, that, I would be more inclined to flog my Boeing shares than my EADS shares at the moment! the A320 family is still outselling the B737 retreads, unless Boeing come up with a 737 replacement soon, they will be up a certain creek without any paddles!
