poniedziałek, 6 kwietnia 2015

Is the Dreamliner really so Awesome?

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a long-range, mid-size wide-body, twin-engine jet airliner developed by Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
This is the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) description of one airplane I'm going to talk about. What should I say? The "Dreamliner" really pisses me off. Yes, it does. The media make the Dreamliner the greatest plane ever and get really excited about it. In adittion, when the Dreamliner has problems or other difficulties, they make it a big event. Yesterday a LOT 787 had to come back from Warsaw Okęcie airport due to turbulence. Some smart person commented, that there would be no news, if the plane was for instance different. I agree.  Technically the Germanwings crash made media talk more about air crashes.
Know, I really want to see, if the dreamie (that's how I'll call the 787) is soo good (KFC, life tastes great).The list is going to be full of numbers. Some information might not be exactly 100% correct, but I tried my best researching. The first categories are a little bit messy, but since the third, there is a table showing the specifications.I'll compare it with the A330-300, A340, 777-200, A350-900, 767 and Il-96. The Il-96 is just for fun. Let's see.
 BTW
1.Please write some constructive comments about some posts I could do. Please give me some topics to cover, etc.  It really motivates me! :D
2. Write down your opinions about the 787 in the comment section please. Do you think it's so great? Do you agree with the "result"of the comparison? etc, etc. Thank you.

Avionics, pilotage, crewman.

Dreammies cockpit photo taken from Wikipedia.
FMCs, FBW, EICAMSes, MFDses. Typical boring modern cockpit. The difference between A330, 340 and 777s is that the displays are more functional and a the layout of displays is just a little bit comfortable for pilots. On the other hand there isn't a lot of blank space. The dreamie is better, but yet again not so much as some people expect it to be.
The A350 XWB is different, having a similar type of displays, however Airbus keeps the typical joystick where it usually is in modern Airbuses. The CDU (FMC), whereas the buttons are on the side. Dreamies keep the usual Boeing 777 design. Other than that, the overhead is very similar. All in all, the 350 has no yoke and is more spacious.
 A350 cockpit. Source: Wikipedia and Joao Carlos Medau
The 767 is much older, but yet again the cockpit uses some(but eventually very little) glass styled instruments, the overhead is quite similar. The 767 isn't better. Let's face it, the Boeing 767 is now old. The Il-96 (-300) needs three crewman. Ups, fail. Then again, it has a lot of good, sturdy avionics. Eventually, most gauges are in Russian. The 787 is way better.

Il-96 cockpit.
Overall, the 787s cockpit is quite decent. It is some more better than the A330/340 and Boeing 777. Some other large jets, Ilyushin 96 and Boeing 767 are also worse than this airplane. However the A350 XWB might make you feel like it's the more advanced plane. in the end I in a way understand the fact that people get excited by dreamies avionics.
Passenger capacity
An average Dreamliner carries about 270-290  (290-max. for the 787-8, 270min. for the 787-9).

787-8 interior. Source:Wikipedia
Average A330 can carry from 250 to 375(rare 330-300 configuration) passengers. The average is 312 (312.5 actually). All in all the 787 and A330 are quite similar, with the airbus being slightly (very slightly) better. The thing is that the A340 (most versions) are bigger than 787s. The smallest 340, -200 version carries around 270 passengers.
The Triple Seven is a little bit different. The Dreamliner was designed to replace the 767. Indeed not the triple seven. The larger -300 version takes up to 380, whereas the 787-9-310.
Aircraft landing approach. Side view of twin-engine jet in flight with flaps and landing gear extended.
Random 777-300ER picture. From Wikipedia.
A350 XWB is pretty much the same as the Dreamliner. However, having a little bit more space in the cabin, I guess passengers might prefer the XWB. The difference is yet again quite small, but IMHO the A350 is better.
The Il-96 interior picture taken from Wikipedia.
The Il-96 isn't as good as the XWB. A typical Il 96-300 carries around 240 people on-board. A 2-4-2 seat layout is also possible. I don't think anyone will need this information, as only 29 Il 96 airplanes were built. The 767-400 carries only 250, being bigger than the 787-9 and -8. Definently another sign showing, that the dreamie replaces the 767.
All in all, the dreamie isn't really shocking in case of passenger.Nothing special. The A350 and 777 are slightly better, along with the Airbus A330 and 340.
Takeoffs and Landings
The Dreamliner's MTOW is 228 000 kg. The takeoff distance at MTOW is around 3 000 metres. The 787-9's requirement is a 2 900 metre runway to takeoff. The 787-9's MTOW is 253 000kg. A 787-8 requires a 1650 metre runway for landing at MLW (maximum landing weight-I'm not sure if such an abbreviation exists) of 172 000kg. The -9 version needs around 1800m of runway to land at it's MLW (193 000kg). These are just facts, remember.
787-9 picture by BriYYZ from Wikipedia.
Here comes the A330-200, with a MTOW of 242 00kg. The T/O (takeoff) distance is 2 770 m. It looks as the dreamie isn't so awesome. However, I understand the MTOW difference, as the A330-200 is slightly bigger than the 787-8.  The -300 series MTOW and T/O distances are the same as with the -200. Not the best achievement. All in all, both A330 and 787 are similar in case of takeoffs. With a MLW of 182 000kg, the A330-200 needs around 1 800 metres of runway to land. The -300 series and -200F has a MLW of 187 000kg, but has the same landing distance of 1 800m. Again, the 330 and 787 are very similar. Kind of a draw, however the dreamie is much younger and meant to be better than a 90s widebody jet from a rivaly company.
My favourite Airbus -A340 is quite similar to the 330. In case of MTOW, the smallest one- A340-200 can takeoff at a weight of 275 000 kg. Considering the size, better than the Dreamliner. The -300 version's MTOW is 276 500 kg, I thought I'd be something around 290 000 kg. Compared to the Dreamie, it's a mediocre score. I won't tell you about the -500 and -600 series, as they are much larger than the 787, and it doesn't really make sense to compare them. The T/O distance for an A340-200 at MTOW is 2 990 metres, whereas the 300-3 100m.

Small A340-200.
Courtsey of Wikipedia and Anthony Noble.
The A340-200's MLW is 185 000 kg, and the -300-190 000. The A340-200 needs 1 900m, whereas -300 2 000 metres. Again, not a STOL airplane. The A340-200 being similar sized to the 787-9 requires a runway of similar length, however can land being heavier than the rival. It looks like a draw.
The 777-200 (-300 is too big) has a MTOW of 247t and the T/O roll distance (T/ORD is the abbreviation I made up) of 2 450m, the -200ER series- 297,5t and with a 3 380m T/O distance, whereas the -200LR-347 500kg. The -200LR's takeoff distance is 2,8km. With an impressive MTOW, the takeoff roll distance of the -200LT version beats the 787-8! That isn't agreat improvement Boeing.
Now study the 777-200 MLW; the first one is the -200, -200ER, and then -200LR:
Maximum landing weight445,000 lb
(201,840 kg)
470,000 lb
(213,180 kg)
492,000 lb
(223,168 kg)
The MLW landing distance, beginning with the -200, -200ER and then -200LR:
Landing field length (MLW) m (ft) 1,550 (5,100ft)
Landing field length (MLW) m (ft) 1,615 (5,300)
Landing field length (MLW) m (ft) 1,600 (5,250)

Aircraft landing approach. Front quarter view of twin-engine jet in flight with flaps and landing gear extended.











































Majestic looking 777 Source: Wikipedia

Looks very good, beating a lot of other airplanes. No wonder why the 777 doesn't have to be replaced.
What about the A350-900? Good question.
Maximum takeoff weight268 t (591,000 lb)
Maximum landing weight[146]205 t (452,000 lb)
The MLW is quite impressive, whereas MTOW-not so much. The T/O distance is 2 830m, quite similar to the Dreamliner -9.
The MLW landing distance is only 1300m! I couldn't believe it at first however it's achievable.
What about a fun Il-96?
Large tail, winglets and cool engines. Il-96 in Beijing.
Credit: Mark Tang and Wikipedia.
Max. Landing Weight183,000 kg (403,083 lb)220,000 kg (484,581 lb)
Max. Take-off Weight250,000 kg (551,000 lb)270,000 kg (595,000 lb)
                                      -300 version                    -M version
This aircraft isn't as popular as the Dreamliner, however the specifications of this plane are a little bit better, especially with the -300, which is nearly the same size (not shape) as the typical Dreamliner (787-8).
With the same order as above, I'll show you the Il-96 T/O and landings specifications.               
MTOW T/O roll distance: 2 340m (96-300) 3 000m (96M)
Landing distance (not quite sure if it's MLW) 900m (!) 1 800m


The landing distance for the -300 is quite impressive. The M versions specs aren't as good. It may be bigger and the avionics- improved, however the landing and takeoff specifications not.




350,000 lb
(158,760 kg)


412,000 lb
(186,880 kg)




450,000 lb
(204,120 kg)
      
767-300          -300ER          -400ER            


That is the 767s MTOW.
7,900 ft (2,410 m)8,300 ft (2,530 m)8,600 ft (2,621 m)10,200 ft (3,109 m)
Now the T/O roll distance for the 767 models as above.
767-300 variants MLW:

767-300: 136 078kg 767-300ER: 145 150kg.
The 767-400ER can land weighing 158 757 kg.
The 767-300(ER) can land at a 1 800m runway at MLW and the -400ER-2130m.
All in all, in the end the dreamie's score isn't impressive. it isn't a STOL airplane, it isn't a revolution incase of landing and takeoff economics. It's good. Just good.