787-9 first flight follow-up

Here is some “morning after” coverage of the first flight of the Boeing 787-9.

  • The Wall Street Journal has this article with some detail about pricing, design improvements and other differences between the 789 and the 788. Via Google News so it should be accessible to all Readers.
  • CNET has this report, along with a compilation of photos.
  • The Seattle Post Intelligencer has this photo array.
  • Aviation Week has this report, with its usual devotion to detail.
  • The Everett Herald has this report.

17 Comments on “787-9 first flight follow-up

  1. I think as soon as you publish the like to the WSJ articles, it goes behind the paywall.

  2. All WSJ articles are behind the paywall. I was able to access it by googling Larger Version of Boeing Dreamliner Makes Maiden Flight.

    In the article Jon Ostrower wrote:

    The “Dash Nine,” as the new plane is known within Boeing, is 20 feet longer than its predecessor, can fly a few hundred miles further without additional fuel, and—with a capacity of 270 to 290 seats—can hold about 40 more passengers.

    How can a plane that is 20 feet longer and carries 40 more passengers fly a few hundred miles farther without additional fuel?

    Is it all from engine, aerodynamic, and weight improvements?

    Will these improvements be introduced on the 787-8?

    • The -9 has Hybrid Laminar Flow Control on the vertical fin, unlike the -8. This will give some drag improvement over the -8.

      I believe both brands of the improved engines will be introduced to the 787-8 around June 2014, according to the Aviation Week article.

    • Yes, that would seem to be something like a 100 million dollar lifetime revenue advantage over the -8. Maybe Boeing can get 40 million to convert to a -9. Lots of profit in an upgrade for both Boeing and the airlines.

    • ROFL, Tom.
      Same fuel as in 12,500 l / 10t more fuel.
      Same weight as in 23t more MTOW.

      • I emailed Jon O, and he stands by what he said in the article. He wrote in part:

        If route A is 7,800nm (about 15h) a 787-8 can fly that with a full tank of gas, a 787-9 would fly Route B at 8,100nm with the same full tank, but can also carry proportionally more passengers and cargo as well because of the added weight capability, improvements to the engines and new aerodynamic updates to the aircraft.

        I guess its beyond my ability to comprehend.

      • From my earlier post, the 787-9 is much more than just a 20-ft stretch.
        – Higher operating weight limitations
        [553,000 max takeoff, 425,000 max landing, 400,000 lbs max zero-fuel for the -9
        vs 502,500, 380,000 and 355,000 lbs for the -8],
        – higher-rated engines [71,000 vs 64,000 lbs, GE and RR]
        – Fuel capacity increase [36,641 vs 33,640 US gallons]
        All that plus some aero changes and you get slightly more range with 38 more passengers
        [8,500 vs 8,200 nm, 280 vs 242 passengers]

        With all the years he spent at Flight Magazine, I’m surprised Jon Ostrower’s is implying that you need a “full tank of gas” to fly max range at 100% passengers.

        Airliners hardly ever carry full fuel. They are designed for full payload.

        When the sum of [airplane] + [100% pax and bags] + [trip fuel ] = max taxi weight, then that’s the max range at full passenger payload.

        Add belly cargo? Then offload fuel to stay in inside the weight limit – you can’t fly as far.

        What if all the seats aren’t full? Then add fuel and fly farther.

        What if so few seats are sold that I can fill the tanks. That’s fuel break, the farthest you can go at max weight.

        What if no passengers at all? Then fill the tanks and off you go, but you will be at less than max taxi weight.

        Just as an example, here’s a link to a 767 payload-range: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/startup/pdf/767_payload.pdf

        Most of the time airliners operate well within their payload-range limits

      • Economies of scale are the main sales point of any large/streched aircraft.

        Bob got it right. With a 787-9, fuel burn per trip is higher than with a 787-8, but with 40 extra passengers fuel burn per passenger/km is lower.

        Engine may initially have a slightly higher efficiency, but any difference will soon be retrofitted to the -8.

  3. Interesting, or actually puzzling. Lufthansa has ordered from both Airbus and Boeing (according to their own media website) but nobody else seems to be talking about it. Neither Boeing nor Airbus nor anybody here.

    What’s up?!

  4. Hey all,

    Just wanted to chime in here.

    The fuel capacity of the 787-9 is not 3,300 gal more than the -8 and this has been the case for several years. I reconfirmed with Boeing (and sources) that this had not changed. In fact, the 787-9 has slightly less usable fuel than the 787-8. (Boeing June 2013: http://bit.ly/18Dg7tH ) Someone should fix the Wikipedia page.

    The line from my article doesn’t suggest that all you need is a full tank of gas to fly the brochure range, just that Boeing hasn’t added additional fuel tanks/capacity to fly farther. Getting into an explanation of structural capacity and maximum takeoff weight was best done here ( http://bit.ly/18Dgncl ), but my reference is a simplication of an otherwise complicated concept.

    Hope this clarifies.



    • Hi Jon, thanks for tuning in. The billion dollar question then remains why a significant heavier aircraft with a bigger load, but the same fuel capacity and wings flies so much further. Apparently Boeing doesn’t explain. Does the 787-8 some restrictions? Whats the untold story?

  5. The first 787-9 is up flying again, as BOE1. A one day turn-around is pretty good and confirms that the first flight indeed went well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *