A350 vs. 787

Anybody know the difference in specs?
Curious if the A350 will beat out the 787
in gas mileage

In article ,
NotPoliticallyCorrect wrote:

Anybody know the difference in specs?
Curious if the A350 will beat out the 787
in gas mileage

Do you mean fuel economy?
A350 is four engines, B787 is two engines.

NotPoliticallyCorrect wrote:
Anybody know the difference in specs?
Curious if the A350 will beat out the 787
in gas mileage

Probably not as neither burns gas.

Matt

john smith wrote:

In article ,
NotPoliticallyCorrect wrote:

Anybody know the difference in specs?
Curious if the A350 will beat out the 787
in gas mileage

Do you mean fuel economy?
A350 is four engines, B787 is two engines.

The A350 has only two engines. It is based on the A330

I don't know the exact specs, but but you must compare apples to apples.
The B787 will eventually come in 3 different sizes. The ones we are
getting only has around 230 seats. (smallest of the 3 versions) However,
it will have incredible range...somewhere around 7000 NM. I believe the
A350 (basically an upgraded A330) will have 300+ seats. So if you are
comparing passengers carried per fuel burned, the A350 looks pretty
good. However, if you compare fuel burned per mile traveled, the B787 wins.

Much of the fuel savings on the B787 is do to the fact that bleed air
from the engines will be used only for thrust. Pressurization, airfoil
anti-ice, etc. will all be electric. This will save a ton of fuel.
Also, the B787 is composed mostly of composite material, making it very
light.

BJ


NotPoliticallyCorrect wrote:
Anybody know the difference in specs?
Curious if the A350 will beat out the 787
in gas mileage

B. Jensen wrote:

Much of the fuel savings on the B787 is do to the fact that bleed air
from the engines will be used only for thrust. Pressurization, airfoil
anti-ice, etc. will all be electric. This will save a ton of fuel.

Where do they get the electricity? I'd guess it's from something that burns
fuel, but I could be wrong there.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"George Patterson" wrote

Where do they get the electricity? I'd guess it's from something that
burns
fuel, but I could be wrong there.



Yep, the engines burn fuel to turn electrical generators.

It all comes back to efficiency. It is more efficient to make electricity,
and use it for the auxiliary needs of an airplane. Using bleed air to work
through an incredibly inefficient (and complex and heavy) system of
conditioning air is less efficient than generating electricity, and using
that energy to condition the air.

But you knew that, right? g
--
Jim in NC

("George Patterson" wrote)
Where do they get the electricity? I'd guess it's from something that
burns fuel, but I could be wrong there.


Static charge from the wings.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message ...
("George Patterson" wrote)
Where do they get the electricity? I'd guess it's from something that burns fuel, but I could be wrong there.


Static charge from the wings.


Montblack

I thought they were building in some iron bars in the wings and then as they flew through the magnetic flux lines in the
earth they would generate the charge, storing the excess in batteries so they have some juice onboard until they get up
to speed. Of course using this method the east/west routes will be most desirable...


;-)

According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, Boeing thinks that
this is a near-even trade-off. However they believe that
electro-mechanical system will advance more quickly than bleed air
stuff, and that 20 years from now the tradeoff will be heavly away from
bleed air. They are moving now because they want to get a jump ahead,
and because future models of this plane will probably be getting new
equipment in 20 years.

-Kitplane01