Hello All,
A previous post looked at the payload-range capabilities of small widebody aircraft. We now focus on mid-sized widebody aircraft. The previous-generation benchmark in the category was the 777-200ER. We will compare it with the new-generation aircraft: the 787-9, 787-10, and A350-900.
Boeing also recently disclosed the range improvements to higher gross weight variants of the 787-9 and 787-10. Does the 787-10 now match the 777-200ER payload range? We will also look at the A350-900 after the MTOW hike to 283 metric tons and the NPS (new production standards) weight saving.
Building updated payload-range diagrams
The words of caution from the previous post remain valid. There are also a number of other assumptions that have been made in building the payload-range diagrams in this post:
- For the 777-200ER, the payload-range diagram published in the airport manual uses a cabin configuration significantly lighter than modern aircraft. This blog re-used the diagram but adjusted it so it matches the point of the official range published by Boeing: 315 passengers (32.2 metric tons) at 7,060 nautical miles.
- The range of the 787-9 and 787-10 increased by 310 and 430 nautical miles, respectively, with the higher gross weight variants. This blog moved the diagrams “to the right” to reflect the higher capabilities without changing the maximum aircraft structural payload.
- For the NPS A350-900 with higher MTOW, this blog matches the payload of 325 passengers (30.9 metric tons) at the updated range of 8,300nm. The weight reduction also increases the maximum structural payload from 53.8 to 55.1 metric tons.
Payload-range diagrams
Below is the payload-range diagram of the four aircraft and their enhanced MTOW variants in dotted lines:
With the following payloads at various ranges:
| Range | 777-200ER | 787-9 | 787-10 | A350-900 | 787-9 HGW | 787-10 HGW | A350-900 HGW |
| 4,000 | 48.0 | 52.5 | 57.2 | 53.8 | 52.5 | 57.2 | 55.1 |
| 5,000 | 48.0 | 52.5 | 48.7 | 53.8 | 52.5 | 53.5 | 55.1 |
| 6,000 | 45.5 | 45.2 | 38.1 | 50.8 | 48.1 | 42.9 | 54.1 |
| 7,000 | 32.8 | 35.4 | 27.6 | 40.6 | 38.3 | 32.3 | 44.0 |
| 8,000 | 20.2 | 25.6 | 17.0 | 30.5 | 28.5 | 33.9 |
Handily beating the previous-generation benchmark
The 787-9 and A350-900 handily beat the 777-200ER payload-range capabilities, even before the recent MTOW enhancements. While the 777-200ER could at best fly missions of around 15.5 hours (what United Airlines did from Newark to Hong Kong before the Russian airspace closure), the 787-9 and A350-900 can comfortably fly 17 hours with premium-heavy cabin configurations.
The recent MTOW enhancements add around 30 minutes of flying time for the 787-9 and A350-900 for a given payload up to the maximum fuel point. The A350-900 keeps its payload advantage of around 5-6 metric tons for a given range against the 787-9.
787-10 HGW: better and close to the benchmark
The higher gross weight variant of the 787-10 adds around 4.7 metric tons for a given range up to the maximum fuel point. While the previous capacity at 7,000 nautical miles was borderline at 27.6 metric tons, it is now 32.3. Airlines can viably operate up to slightly north of 15-hour missions with the enhanced MTOW 787-10 variants as long the cabin is premium-heavy.
The aircraft still falls slightly short of the 777-200ER capabilities: it is around 0.5 metric tons behind at 7,000nm. Accounting for a slightly larger passenger capacity of the 787-10, it means around 15 minutes less flying time in cabin configurations with similar shares of premium seats. Airlines could make up for the slight range shortfall with a cabin that has more premium seats.
The 787-10 can carry more payload than any other aircraft in the category up to 4,500nm (4,750nm for the higher MTOW variants). The lighter airframe gives an advantage on missions of up to 10 hours.
However, the A350-900 and 787-9 then take over. So the 787-10 works well on dense intra-Asia and trans-Atlantic routes. But once missions exceed 10 hours, the 787-9 and A350-900 have more capabilities. Even after the MTOW hike, the A350-900 has a payload advantage of more than 11 metric tons (equivalent to around 2 extra flying hours).
EPSILON AVIATION 
Error on your analysis. Boeing says the upgrade to the -10 adds about 6.4 metric tons of payload
Link: https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/boeing-details-787igw-performance-improvements/
LikeLike
Hi the information provided in the article is inconsistent. A 430nm range increase is not compatible with a 6.4 tons payload improvement, but it is compatible with a 5.4 metric tons MTOW hike. There was though an error in the extra payload-range of the 787-10 HGW. I corrected it. Adds an extra ton, so a 4.7 tons payload-range improvement “to the right”.
LikeLike
The graph is a good depiction of what Boeing was trying to achieve with the upgraded -10. It wasn’t really to match the 350-900s capabilities. They knew the -10 in its current form couldn’t do that it was more to meet the 777-200ERs capabilities and I think they’ve done a good job given the circumstances. It was so they could pick low hanging fruit replacements. I.e United & BA which I think has bore good fruit but also increase productivity generally. Which has also worked. They’ve picked up air Canada, SAUDIA, emirates, top up from BA and a few others. United’s order last year and this year includes around 70 -10s which will be converted at a later date. So I think it was a good move! Nice work on the graphs!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the kind words the graphs hopefully help illustrate the points you are making. American will also likely take the -10 at some point. The 787-10 is a good trans-Atlantic, intra-Asia or Gulf -> Europe/Asia aircraft. Anything beyond (trans-Pacific, east Asia -> Europe with heavy cargo loads) works better with an A350-900. Again it is a matter of the airlines’ network.
LikeLike
I do think it also shows why Airbus wanted to introduce NPS. With multiple iterations of MTOW hike and weight savings, the payload-range capability is already quite excessive to some airlines.
Given 359’s major weakness against 78J is higher seat cost, having 1 more economy seat per row and 1~2 more rows do help to close the gap. A 283t NPS 359 with 30 extra passengers should fly as far as 280t 359, and still farther than any 787HGWs.
At this point not many airlines have signed up to 10-abreast, but the smaller galleies should work for more customers I guess?
LikeLike
The maximum realistic payload for the A359 is significantly higher than you have here. Pre NPS frames are seen to have a DOW in the 135t range and a correspondingly increased payload. Also I’m not sure where the 3% and 5% assumptions came from. Typically (and rightfully so) Boeing numbers used flag rules for their marketing and payload range diagrams and not a fixed percentage.
Fred
LikeLiked by 1 person