Boeing 787 cruise altitude
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?
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by Bullethead; 9th Feb 2010 at 04:34.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 ?
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 ?
Last edited by stilton; 10th Feb 2010 at 04:54.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stilton
You are..
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
I must be missing something ?
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
Last edited by XPMorten; 10th Feb 2010 at 16:54.
