Need to settle a local "discussion"

My contention is that one of the advantages of the 787 is that it can depart fully loaded from a smaller airport than a fully loaded 787.

Who is right?

They are the same

I am absolutely certain they take the same amount of runway...down to the millimeter

I'll make bets with your friends anytime.

You got your question right in the "Subject Line," but you've got a typo in the text. Edit your message, and the cute comments will stop.

I don't have the data, but I'd be surprised if you're not right.

Referencing the title of the thread I take it that you are comparing a 747 to a 787.

It is true that a 787 can depart, fully loaded, from a smaller airport, but that is due partially to the fact that a fully loaded, 787 is several thousand pounds lighter than a 747 and in fact several thousand pounds lighter than a 777.

Max takeoff weight -

747 - approx 970,000
777 - approx 777,000
787 - approx 502,000

I say approximate above due to the various configurations being operated today by different airlines.

Anyway, as you can see, you're not really making an apples to apples comparison.

That said, the wing of the 787 is probably the biggest overall airframe improvement that Boeing has ever made. The newer technology and design of that wing and the capabilities it provides, given the power to weight ratio is far above that of the 747 or the 777, however, both the 747 and the 777 can carry a hell of a lot more weight (passengers and cargo) virtually the same distance as the 787-8

Until you see one in person, I don't think a lot of people realize just how small an airplane the 787-8 is compared to the 747 or 777. In fact, I think it's smaller than the larger variant of the 767

Yes I meant to compare the 747 to the 787.

The point being that the cabin crew is probably some ratio to the number of passengers so the cabin crew per passenger is probably similar between the two planes.

If you were to fly one 747 versus two 787s to a destination the savings in the 747 would mostly be that you are saving one cockpit crew. On the other hand if the 787 can fly from smaller airports it could fly direct to more locations.

My argument is that the reason so many 787s are being sold and so few 747s is that the 787 is more versatile for long flights. If one is flying direct versus airport to hub airport to next hub airport then destination airport.

We just flew KOAK direct to Stockholm in a 787. I don't think a 747 would pencil out on that run. The 787 was better than 90% full.

Pure speculation here on my part would be that the reasons more 787s are being sold today are that 1: The 747 has been around a long time and are well established in the fleets of the airlines that have or want them. new purchase would be mostly for replacement or expansion. The 787 is new so those airlines that want them need to build a fleet. And 2: The 787 is completely F***ing awesome.

Bill

Per FAA Regs one Flight Attendant for every 50 passengers.

The 787 was sold as being 20% more fuel efficient then anything else out there on the market at the time (pre A350).

So part of the marketing of the 787 was to over fly the hubs and bypass the fortress.

Who would have thought you would ever see nonstop AUS-LGW service but that is exactly what British Airways is doing with their 787.

The compelling case for the 787 is
1) Fuel burn/seat
2) Range/mission capability of 8000 Nm

Until the A350 came around, there was no other airplane with the capability. The “hub-buster” capability comes from being able to fly the long missions using a smaller airframe.

(Full disclosure - I work at the Boeing Company and delivery wide body jets for a living )

767-300= 409,000

Tom, I've never flown a 747, but I can talk some about the 787.

It's not really about airport size. It's more about the passenger/freight (revenue) between city pairs than anything. Most major cities, especially abroad, have more than adequate airports for either type. The 787 is a game changer in that it allows extremely long range in a medium sized airplane; thus it can be used on routes that simply can't support bigger (and a lot more expensive) airplanes.

And then there's the efficiency factor. Again, the 787 changed the rules. It's light and really fuel efficient. So far, it's beating projected fuel burn numbers, and unlike guys like us who fly Beeches 50-100 hrs a yr, these airplanes fly A LOT. It's normal for me to fly to Shanghai (15:48 the other day) and a crew take the same plane back on a 13 hr return flight. That's almost 29 hrs with a 2 hr stop. And it will do that kind of thing DAILY for a month when it gets a day off for some maintenance. Consider I burned about 25,000 gallons on my trip. That's about 1600 GPH. The same route for a 777 will take a little longer and burn 42,000 gallons or about 3000 GPH. And that's on every leg. And I climbed to FL370 whereas the 777 struggles at FL300 for hours. And the 787 cabin is at 6000' and has a humidifying system. Every other airliner is 8000' and DRY as a bone. Fatigue is totally different in the 787.

747 and 777 numbers are hard to justify on 'thin' routes, so those routes get serviced with code-share connections, commuters, etc. Airplanes like the 787 make possible many new non-stop routes throughout the world. A few examples are New Zealand, South Africa, many smaller cities in Japan, China and Europe, etc. This size airplane (like the 767, mid-size wide-body) have never had the legs like the 787. I believe Boeing will never scratch build an aluminum airplane again. The new 777X (maybe becoming the 797) will have a metal fuselage and a new CF wing, but any new design will be mostly carbon-fiber (this is me talking here... I don't know, but I'll bet we'll see a plastic narrow-body announced in the near future).

Anyway, the airplane is absolutely a delight to fly. It's sophistication is beyond belief, but under all that, it hand-flys like a dream. It will float on landing like a danged glider. The wing is truly something special. I could go on and on about all the cool things Boeing did to make this airplane great. Suffice it to say, they got it right and I believe we are seeing the beginning of a new era in air transport. Most of us have seen it all... DC-3, jet age, high-bypass turbofans, and now this magnificent fly-by-wire, electric, plastic airplane. For crying out loud... it has electric brakes! And we practice (just for fun) dual engine inop Autolands to zero feet DH from 100 miles away... at night... over the North Atlantic... and it's not even close. We are living in a great time.

PS. That's me in the picture. Between getting to fly my son's E33C and this, I'm not sure this isn't heaven.

Zero experience in the pointy end of these. I do usually hit Exec Plat with AA within the first 3-6 months of the year (in a low travel year it can take 8-9 months) mostly in economy. I'll very happily take the back of the 787 for comfort and ergonomics over any other long haul jetliner. Sure, I envy Jeff being up front but if I have to stay in back the comfort, lower pressure, and improved humidity still leave me feeling better after 12-15 hours in economy.

Bill

787-9 is closer to the 767-400 in weight (460,000 vs 502,500).

The 767-400 OEW is approximately 240,000, and the 787-9 approximately 190,000, so the 787 has approximately 90,.000+/- extra payload.

No 3 or 4 engine airplane can compete with a 2 engine airplane in takeoff or climb performance since they both have to meet 2nd segment climb criteria with the loss of one engine: That leaves the 747 with three remaining engines so it's overpowered by 25% whereas the 2 engine is overpowered by 50% with all engines running. Very seldom is a 757/767/777/787 limited by runway (the runway would have to be very short, since the airplane is overpowered with all engines running & it'd stop if one failed) and the 2nd segment climb limits are based on an engine loss, which almost never happens.

The 787 really was/is a game changer, but you can't compare the 777 to the 787 . . . totally different mission objectives, but they do complement each other. The 777 is a beast, the 787 an elegant electric race horse.

Jeff, is the 787 wing not referred to as a "living" wing? My friend is a captain in a 787 and that is how he referred to it last we discussed it. He mentioned that he got to pick up a new one at the factory and fly it back to Qatar...non stop!