Which aircraft is more efficient? The A350 or the 787

M

malipa

TU Delft AE student
Joined
14 June 2012
Messages
189
Reaction score
10
Airbus says it's aircraft is 25% cleaner than aircraft flying at this moment, 787 says its aircraft is 20% more efficient than aircraft flying at this moment. But the 787 has a smaller wing, slimmer fuselage, an other type of fuselage (lighter) etc? Even it's aerodynamics seem better, looking at the winglet, wingroot, the tail (787-9 uses passive laminar flow)...
 
Tough question to address until the relevant types enter service. The A350-900 doesn't compete at all with the 787-8 and only marginally with the 787-9. The 787-10 is the most direct comparison, and it doesn't enter service until 2018. It'd be more relevant to compare the existing 787s with the higher gross weight A330s. The A350-1000 is pitched against the 777-300ER and kind of against the 777-8X, although with significantly less range. We're not sure when or if the A350-800 will see the light of day. Hope that helps.
 
Depends what efficiency means: range specific fuel consumption? Fuel consumption per passenger?
 
Bill Walker said:
malipa said:
The aircraftmanufactures don't mention what the 25% or 20% mean...
Click to expand...

What? Marketing types being vague and non-specific? I am shocked.
Click to expand...


LOL, precisely my thought. ;D
Seriously, trying to make assessments based on marketing figures is frustrating at best, and hopeless the rest of the time.
 
Normally those statements from Airbus and Boeing are true, but it always depends what you compare. Competitor A says Im 20% better in range than B. What A doesnt say that they compared their best version of plane X with the worst plane version of B. A knows their planes and tries by competition analysis to find out about Bs, but they dont know for sure what B has. Maybe the truth is known by the airlines that operate both types in the future.
 
When they talk `efficiency` they should clearly state what components are factored in. They should also clearly state what is it compared to. If Boeing claims that their 787 is 20% more efficient, we need to know which version of 787 they mean. And we need to know what is this 20 % gain weighed against. Is it average statistics against various manufacturers in similar segment or a specific airplane with similar size and passenger capacity, or other criteria are applied?! Another question- how much of the gain is attributed to Boeing `( non-engine related) input and how much is attributed to more efficient engines supplied by other companies, thus also available to be installed on updated or revamped competitors ` planes.
Fuel efficiency is not enough. We need to factor in the PRICE of the airplane, parts availability, service intervals for various components, component price and parts replacement cycle. We need to factor in airplane complexity ( adds service costs)and reliability( adds delays), which can clearly add to unpredictable costs throughout the life cycle.
I think Boeing went the wrong direction by bleeding away the hardcore expertise on various know-how components allowing Fuji Heavy and Mitsubishi heavy gain expertise not only for their upcoming MRJ but for the future far beyond that. Boeing`s desperation to avoid high precision complex engineering( characteristic for the whole US prec. manuf. sector) and resort to penny pinching is biting back . Personally I think Airbus( unfortunately) is going to win the battle, as there are no signs in Europe of dwindling precision movement industries, be it industrial robots, car platforms or related industries. My 2 cents.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom