4 ms·

So compared to the 777, the 787 is claimed to reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent, but it only carries 250 passengers instead of 300 - about 17 percent fewer.

by dhs 17y ago

So compared to the 777, the 787 is claimed to reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent, but it only carries 250 passengers instead of 300 - about 17 percent fewer. It seems to me that surprisingly little energy per passenger is going to be saved by replacing aluminum with plastics as the base material here. Does anybody here have an idea about the energy requirements of aluminum vs plastics in plane production? Are there significant savings zu be expected?

rms 17y ago
I would assume it meant per passenger. There's also the savings by having fewer empty seats, a slightly smaller plane gives the airline more flexibility in scheduling.
timtrueman 17y ago
"So compared to the 777, the 787 is claimed to reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent…" It was perhaps worded poorly but that's not what the article said: "Dreamliner will use 20 percent less fuel than jets of similar size…" I would wager a lot that if a 777 was redesigned with composites it would likely have similar fuel savings (~20%) over an aluminum 777. If you take a look at the table in the link at the bottom you will see the 777 is primarily for long-range, high-capacity flights. The 787 was originally intended as a replacement for the 767 and as a competitor to the A330-200. The majority of flights are shorter and carry fewer passengers than the target of the 777. So fuel efficiency is just fuel efficiency and fewer passengers is just a different market segment. The 787 is simply aimed at a different and higher volume market than the 777. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Passengers.2Frange_km_.28statute_miles.29_for_all_models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_...
yardie 17y ago
I believe the biggest difference is it can fly further than any other passenger jet. A london-Sydney could be done in a single hop rather than having to stop and refuel in Bangkok or Hong Kong. The difference between the 380 and 787 were the markets that were trying to buy them. The 380 made good sense for UAE carriers because Dubai is trying to be a hub between the east and west. The airlines in the west and east don't want their roles to be diminished so they see the 787 as a point to point airplane. No hub or refueling stops necessary. After having to deal with Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte, and Heathrow I'd much rather get to my destination than have to deal with another hub.

by dhs 17y ago

rms 17y ago

I would assume it meant per passenger. There's also the savings by having fewer empty seats, a slightly smaller plane gives the airline more flexibility in scheduling.

timtrueman 17y ago

"So compared to the 777, the 787 is claimed to reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent…" It was perhaps worded poorly but that's not what the article said: "Dreamliner will use 20 percent less fuel than jets of similar size…" I would wager a lot that if a 777 was redesigned with composites it would likely have similar fuel savings (~20%) over an aluminum 777. If you take a look at the table in the link at the bottom you will see the 777 is primarily for long-range, high-capacity flights. The 787 was originally intended as a replacement for the 767 and as a competitor to the A330-200. The majority of flights are shorter and carry fewer passengers than the target of the 777. So fuel efficiency is just fuel efficiency and fewer passengers is just a different market segment. The 787 is simply aimed at a different and higher volume market than the 777. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Passengers.2Frange_km_.28statute_miles.29_for_all_models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_...

yardie 17y ago

I believe the biggest difference is it can fly further than any other passenger jet. A london-Sydney could be done in a single hop rather than having to stop and refuel in Bangkok or Hong Kong. The difference between the 380 and 787 were the markets that were trying to buy them. The 380 made good sense for UAE carriers because Dubai is trying to be a hub between the east and west. The airlines in the west and east don't want their roles to be diminished so they see the 787 as a point to point airplane. No hub or refueling stops necessary. After having to deal with Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte, and Heathrow I'd much rather get to my destination than have to deal with another hub.