True, its long but possible, if one replaces worn out parts. Some of the current a10 fleet is getting completely new wings for example. Also, i would imagine the leftover f15s would be ones with most life in their airframes, produced in the 80s, lowering the average age to (still considerable) 45 years.

A bit off topic but… just why such a huge attrition reserve for USN fleet? With some 350 super hornets (lets say 56 will be growlers or do you think prowlers will be switched with growlers on 1 on 1 basis?) and 430 f35s thats a mighty big number of combat planes. Current air wings number 48 combat planes per carrier, while 780 future planes in USN give little over 70 planes per 11 carriers (i woudln’t say JFK is going anywhere). Even if USN would go back to cold war numbers, lets say 60 planes per air wing, there’d still be extra planes. Seems like a waste of resources really, as there’s always attrition reserve present anyway, in the sense that perhaps 8 carriers at most have their air wings present at one time, with remaining carriers undergoing lengthy maintenance procedures. Especially now with the superior f35, does USN really think it needs double the number of air wings per ready-for-deployment carrier? I’d think MoD budget (as a whole, not navy budget) would better be served with scaled back f18 or f35 numbers for navy and more money for usaf to get bit more raptors. Of course, with interservce rivalry, that’s not really possible, now is it?

Aren’t we saying the same thing, basically? Sure, you can cram 10 seats in there. But airlines seem to have realized a little bit of comfort can go a long way, lately one can’t really see 10 abreast on many planes. Even 777, fair deal wider, rarely has 10 abreast seating. as for md11 and 787 comparison, difference is almost surely less than 28 cm, as both the curvature of the fuselage is different and 787’s walls are thinner.

Very nice interior, wouldn’t mind to be ridin on one of those. 🙂 I wonder what is the reasoning for doing a 3 + 3 + 3 seating arrangement for economy, instead of 2 + 5 + 2? Getting past two passengers to get to the aisle can be not so comfy as it is, but if youre in the middle then at least you’ve got double the choice where you’re gonna go out – perhaps taking the less crowded way out. Also, for quick passenger turnaround – seems faster to fill/empty a plane when number of seats on each side of aisle is similar. 2 and 2.5 (for 2-5-2) versus 3 and 1.5 (for 3-3-3 seating) Only benefit i can think of is more ‘attractive’ seats near the windows.

EDIT: this hasnt got anything to do with 787 itself, any airplane can have any seating, space permitting. I am just thinking aloud about seat arrangement logic in general.

I agree. Aviation is heavily subsidized as it is, for both makers of planes and airline companies. The smaller an airline is, more heavily subsidized it is. Europe is prime example of countless small (and not so small) airlines that literally exist because of their respective govt’s subsidies, without which they’d go bankrupt in no time.

So why not redirect some of those subsidies and help faster travel? Ironic thing though is that where shaving half the time off would help most – long haul pacific rim flights – are also most expensive to pull off due to extra weight of so much fuel needed. Makes me wonder though… would it be feasible to have aerial refuelling tankers ready for certain busy corridors? Lets say groups operating from hawaii or marshall islands, for flights from US to china or australia. I wonder how much would that cost…

Huge number of tech advances we have today are a result of govt investments, mostly in the manner of fuelling research for the military, which then later trickled into commercial use sphere. So what’s the big deal of just circumventing the military step and pump money straight into making life better for average passenger? 😀 Damn, i should stop myself before i’m labeled a communist 😀

I would assume that thw wingspan for the 3 airbus models would be same?? Airbus has released wingspan figures for the -900 at 64m according to wikpedia . So it will have greater wingspan (greater by 4m) as compared to the -787 .

Well, no info has been given but i’d be very surprised if wingspan ends up being same for all models. Differences in size and with that weight are too big for the same wingspan being efficient, even when taking into consideration extra money spent on development and production of 3 different variations of the same design. Also, 787-3 for example has smaller wingspan and weight than other 787s. I would also be surprised if -10 model didnt have bigger wings since it’s definitely going to be some tons (tens of tons?) heavier. Of course 900 versus 8 and 9 still has 4 m longer wing which does offer the possibility that they overengineered the wing on 900 on purpose, and they intend to use same wing on 1000 while they will make a shorther wing for 800, trying to make that plane as efficient as possible – since that model is gonna have to cope with 787-8, however hard that mission seems now.

Again using the 777 analogy that we have both used in the past – Why would an airline want to take off with extra weight (i suppose the -800 will be heavier then the 787-800) , larger aircraft , bigger crosssection and wider wingspan ? When it can acheive its economy with the 787-800 which fits in the PAX no.s that they are looking for .

Of course it will go with cheaper plane in the long run. Even if airbus ends up being marginally cheaper at sale price, if its not as efficient during use, airlines would prefer boeing. It is interesting though that airbus claims that 6% or whatever despite all these things. Sure, it compares to -8, having 20 pax less but still, 20 pax alone cant seem to justify it for me, cause each row of pax more also brings quite a weight penalty with it. They’re either just doing usual marketing talk or they got a hold of some kind of UFO aerodynamics tech, seeing how their weight is still more than boeing. It’s really hard to make any sensible analysis yet, i can’t wait for industrial launch.

OR the notion of classes of planes according to pax numbers are gone. Maybe that’s what airbus is thinking. That airlines wont think in terms of: 200-250 class, 250-300, 300-400 class but that those ‘classes’ are much more precise and more varied in light where each new row of passengers is basically another class. Like i was saying, it is just too suspicious that airbus 350 series seems to be position more or less exactly in between of 787 and 777 models for that matter – in terms of pax numbers. Obviously diff airlines will need diff planes – and airbus may be thinking those differences may be small enough that 20 pax more or less WILL make a difference. Actually, i think that’s pretty good for competition overall, as both boeing and airbus would find a nice market for themselves if such thinking is true.

One another interesting tid-bit that I had overlooked in the past is that according to Airbus’s released information the A-350 – 900 weighs in at 265t (MTOW) with 315 passengers (again in standard class configuration) with a bigger cross section then the dreamliner. The 787-10 is rumoured to have a MTOW of 245 T therefore being lighter by 20 T aswell as being smaller in cross section . SO again the same problem – the Dreamliner -10 is lighter (for the same no. of passengers) and has a narrower span with the same engines!!!! However we still have to wait until the -10 is officially launched.

245 tons is official boeing data for -9. Seeing how there’s natural progression of weight with 787 series, -10 will definitely be heavier. Difference between -8 and -9 is some 30 tons for some 40 more pax. Now if we use that logic, however oversimplified it may be, we get 290 + 25 = 315 pax that 350-900 carries. 25 * 0.75 tons = 19 tons. 245 + 19 = 264 tons, pretty much the quoted 900 mtow figure. One ton discrepancy can easely be accounted with various combination of bigger fuselage, wings and more composites. Problem of course is – thats mtow figure, not empty plane figure which would be much more useful.

In my opinion I want boeing to change the specs of the -10 and offer more then what it is rumoured to be offering . I want a slightly bigger airframe , a little wider but with similar or marginally higher take of weight (250-255 T as compared to 245 currently planned) And Rather then competing with the 777-200 i want them to put it smack in the middle of the 2 777 varients and make it much much more flexible (290-350 PAX) but with an airframe that is smaller then both the A350-900 and A350-1000 and lighter then both these vareints (255T would make it 10 T lighter then the A350-900 ) and still be willing to compete with the two varients (although -1000 would offer the capability to expand it even further ).

I for one think 787 is very well positioned when it comes to fuselage width. Airbus may or may not have gone too wide with 350, depending on wether airlines will find those extra few inches enough to justify a comfortable 9 abreast even for long hauls. If they won’t put 9 abreast more often than airlines with 787 will for the same long flight, those extra inches are just a waste of efficiency. Which is why i think 777 is a screwup in width, at least when it comes to long flights. Its too wide for pax version. I know boeing made it wide enough so one could cram 10 abreast in it, but as longer and longer flights were possible, it became evident that its just too uncomfortable, and airlines just kept using less pax in a row for long flights.
It may be that is was on purpose, being a bit less inefficient in pax version but having a very fine freight version. Back then they knew even with too wide of pax plane they’re better positioned against 4 engined 340 so they didn’t think it’d matter. Now that next gen planes are to come out, that extra width may harm the pax versions of 777.

Like i said, 245 is not the -10 figure. With more pax and more weight, probably even longer wings, it is likely to go to 285-290 tons for 350 version. Just like 350-1000 will likely be over 300 tons. Again, these are mtow figures, assuming proportionate increase in fuel and other weigth for every pax, even if range plane needs to cross is the same – which while clearly a bit flawed logic can still be illustrative enough. The way -10 is designed now, it still leaves breathing space for 777-300. If it was made any bigger, it might kill 300 too, not just 200. Now, while airbus is positioned well enough to endanger 300, there’s always politics in some sales. Certain customers may be inclined to go for boeing no matter what – thus negating the 350-1000 advantage and boeing can afford to simply offer 777-300 to such customers.

What would be interesting is to see how much Cargo the 787-10, A-350 900’s and 1000’s will be able to carry as compared to the much larger 777’s and what effect the difference has on revenues for airlines and its effect (overall) on the airlines choosing one with the other.

Also, to continue my thought from previous paragraph – it’d leave more breathing room for freighter version of 777. Even if freight version continues to sell well – which it will i believe, since cargo versions of new planes will be last to be developed, overall numbers are still far less than pax needs in the market, which may make it hard to justify having a whole production line running just for a freighter. That is why even an odd pax version sold here or there may be very desirable, and why boeing chose not to impose on 777-300 with its 787-10 model.

So, like said, i don’t see 777 cargo being threatened head to head at all. Unless both boeing and airbus base their cargo planes on biggest versions the -10 and -1000. But that’s unlikely i’d say, as history has shown us cargo planes are almost never longest versions of pax model. Must be not adequate enough strength in the added pax section. 777’s width does make a difference in cargo, plus i would imagine it can carry bit more weight too, despite its size and older heavier materials its made of. But since most of the cargo business seems to go to specialized cargo airlines, i don’t think we’ll see too much of a influence in the sense that one airline might decide for pax 787 or 350 because it already has the cargo version. Such situations will be rare, i’d say. being slightly wider and carrying more weight, i’d guess 350-1000 is better positioned for cargo than 787-10, but there’s still 777 out, which many cargo airlines already have in their inventories.

However, if structure allows for -10 and 1000 versions of cargo – current freight 777 will fall behind, despite its wider fuselage. But i guess then boeing can also try to turn 777-300 into cargo version. It really depends, would aluminium be better posed to withstand extra structural pressure or are composites better for that? If i remember correctly, some article said reason why 787 isnt considered for next gen tanker for USAF is precisely because of it relatively weak structure due to composites – while perfectly good enough for weight density of pax, it is not enough for much higher weight densities.

[B]The 787-9 will have a range capability of some 13,000 km with 280 seat capacity compared to the 787-8’s range of 11,900 km and 230-250 seats.

The 290 figure I believe is in a single class arangement .

Well, boeing.com says 787-8 and 787-9. I would think that small discrepancy is due to the fact that each airline does in the end decide how many seats it will cram in their planes. Maybe air new zealand will have a row more of first class instead of economy class, compared to boeing’s predictions.

290 and 250 limits definitely are not single class arrangements. Not only do various sources explicitly say it’s 3 class arrangement but if you look at the length times width of the passenger deck, its clear that 787-9 for example, could host over 350 passengers if it crammed all in economy seating, 9 abreast.

Only uptil the 787-10 comes out . I agree with the fact that boeing is going to kill some versions of the 777 with the -10 but as the quote said it is better to do so yurself then let your competitor do it for you. Airbus has come out with an aircraft which puts itself between the 787 varients and the 777 varients and tries to compete with both . They are comming out with -R varients of the -1000 to further compete with the LR varients of the 777 which is what really makes me think as to the fact that can one aircraft do all this and still be more effeceint at both ends of the spectrum??

Here we’re comparing 350-1000 and 777, right? With 200 model, we have a plane that has some 10% more frontal cross section area while carrying less passengers (if we use 9 abreast seating in 777) or about same number (for 10 abreast, which almost no airline uses, certainly not for long haul flights). It may have same tech engines but there’s also more weight meaning more power needed at takeoff. So that’s clearly inferior. 300 model does offer about same number or more passengers for 10 abreast, but more weight and more drag are still there. Similarly, 787-10 will beat 777-200 and get dangerously close if not matching 300 efficiency in 9 abreast configuration.

Now airbus through their media reps at farnborough claimed that when compared to the 787-8 the a350-800 is 6% more economical on PAX per mile no.s however what would happen if you compare it to the more appropriate 787-9 ?? the PAX no.s are in favour of boeing with the 787-9 being smaller in crossection and using the same engine. SO what revolutionary technolgy will be required to offset the fact that the boeing aircraft houses 10 more passengers and has narrower cross – section???

I agree that airbus doesn’t seem to have as much to offer in 200-250 range. Unless it plans to give out 800 series at discount prices. Maybe they’ll play the card of comfort. 8 abreast in economy would be superb at the given cabin width. Still, i’d say it aws a consciouss decision on airbus behalf – better to go for bigger than smaller. Not necesarrily that there’s more money to be earned in bigger but maybe they calculated their own chances are better.

Also, i would agree that if one compared 800 to -9, boeing would fare somewhat better, or in worst case (if airbus tech indeed turns out to be superior as they claim, more composites or whatever) on par with airbus. Then it’d be down to price of airplane. If you can get same efficiency per seat while having few more seats extra – all for the same price, of course you’d go with boeing. Still, i imagine the efficiency AND price margin to be so similar that it will be, not unusually, politics that will decide some purchases. Or maybe some airlines will already have some boing or airbuses in other classes, so similar types fleets would be cheaper in the end.

I wonder what is the height of the fuselage – i doubt airbus fuselage is circular, and 787’s might not be either. I think only plane with perfectly circular fuselage is 777. Also, what are weights of planes mentioned here? We dont have those figures either. I think 350 has bigger wingspan than 787, so that’s more drag too… but we’ll know for sure when 350 gets launched properly in some months time.

How so it seats 270 whilest the 787-9 seats 280 a ten seat diffrerential only , whereas the 787-8 seats 240 which is a 30 seat differential and is in the category for airlines wanting between 200-250 seats rather then the category of airlines wanting 250-300 seats in which case they can choose between the 350-8 , 787-9 .

We seem to be using different data then. I just re-checked mine at boeing.com site and it still says 787-8 carries up to 250 while 787-9 up to 290 passengers. Where did you see your data published?

I Think the point he is trying to make is that the A-350 which would have to compete with both the 787 sized aircraft aswell as 777 aircraft (as airbus has done by going after the markets) has to make certain compromises which boeing needent as they dont intend on replacing the 777 with the 787.

Thing is, 787 will also hurt 777 sales. even 787-9 version is dangerously close to 777-200, while probably being a lot more efficient. 787-10 will also be very close to 777-300. Not to mention that it holds more than 200 while being just as or slightly more efficient. Sure, new engines for 777 will help but still, we’re talking about just 10-30 seats more. However great width of 777 is, seems airliners are just not using 10 abreast seating that much. Same reason why we’re seeing so relatively few people in a380 even though theoretically it’d go over 800 people.

350 family is clearly designed, from the beginning, to be slightly bigger than 787. So while it may not compete well with smallest 787, the more passengers we’re talking about, outlook for 350 is looking better. Keeping in mind what i said in paragraph above, about even 787 threading on 777s ground, a350 seems to be even better positioned to battle 777. I have been saying that in my first posts here, when rumours bout new 350 began – airbus needs 777 competitor as much as it needs 787 one. I think they have willingly let boeing a certain market with smallest 787 so they could focus on battling 777 and largest 787.