Boeing 787 Dreamliner Specs

If you like us, please share with your followers.

Boeing 787 Specs

There are three different variations of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner although to date only two are flying, the Boeing 787 8 and the Boeing 787 9.  The table at the bottom of the page shows the detailed specifications of each of the variants.

As well as bringing large jet ranges to a medium sized jet, the Boeing 787 will also match the speeds of larger jets, being a cruise of Mach 0.85. This is delivered with an environmentally friendly fuel saving in the area of 20%.

Key to delivering this efficiency is a suite of new technologies.

Boeing 787 Composites

Weight is being reduced by the fact that up to 50% of the aircraft is built using composite materials, including the fuselage and wings. To put this in perspective, compare the Boeing 787 with Boeings’ current top selling Aircraft, the Boeing 777.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner
Composite Materials 50 Per Cent
Aluminium 20 Per Cent
Other Materials 30 Per Cent
Boeing 777
Composite Materials 12 Per Cent
Aluminium 50 Per Cent
Other Materials 38 Per Cent

The fuselage is constructed using single piece barrels joined end to end instead of multiple panels. This reduces the need for around 40,000—50,000 fasteners. Additionally it increased strength allowing for higher cabin pressures.

The Boeing 787 carries self monitoring systems that are able to report to ground based computer systems on the state of health of the aircraft and its systems.  One third of the efficiencies come from the new technology engines. Boeing has chosen two engines to work with; the General Electric GEnx and Rolls-Royce Trent 1000.  Both engines move from the old Bleed Air systems of powering aircraft systems such as; air conditioning and start-up, to electrical, thus moving to a more electrical aircraft. This is weight saving as well as less power drain on the engines.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Materials Pictorial

Boeing 787 Dreamliner construction materials

A pictorial representation of the materials used to construct the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Both engine types have an identical interface allowing operators to fit either type of engine when required. The engine nacelles also feature chevroned trailing edges of the casing to reduce engine noise. For the first time Pratt and Whitney have not had a launch product, as it is believed they could not make the business case work to develop this kind of engine.

An Active Gust Alleviation system, similar to the system that Boeing built for the B-2 bomber, improves ride quality. Boeing, as part of its “Quiet Technology Demonstrator Project”, experimented with several engine noise-reducing technologies for the Boeing 787. Among these was a redesigned air inlet containing sound-absorbing materials and redesigned exhaust duct covers whose rims are tipped in a toothed pattern to allow for quieter mixing of exhaust and outside air.  Boeing found these developments made the Boeing 787 significantly quieter both inside and out.

A special toilet has been designed to accommodate wheelchair passengers, a 56 inch by 57 inch lavatory has a movable wall so that two lavatories can be converted to one to allow access.

 

Boeing 787 Dreamliner wing

Boeing 787 Dreamliner wing comparison.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner cut away

Boeing 787 Dreamliner cut away.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Specs Table

Boeing 787 Dreamliner
Variant Boeing 787 8 Boeing 787 9 Boeing 787 10
Boeing_787_8
Boeing_787_9 Boeing_787_10
Milestones
  Maiden Flight 15 December 2009 17 September 2013 Yet to fly.
  Launch Delivery 25 September 2011 10 July 2014 2018
  Launch Airline All Nippon Airways Air New Zealand Singapore Airlines
 Boeing 787 Price List (average) US$224.6 Million US$264.6 Million US$306.1 Million
Dimensions
 Fuselage
  Fuselage Length 56.7 Metres (186 Feet) 62.8 Metres (206 Feet) 68.3 Metres (224 Feet)
  Fuselage Height
5.97 Meters (19 Feet 7 Inches)
  Fuselage Width (outside)
5.77 Meters (18 Feet, 11 Inches)
  Max. Cabin Width
5.49 Meters (18 Feet)
 Wing
  Wing Span
60.1 Metres (197 Feet, 3 Inches)
  Wing Area
325 Square Metres (3,501 Square Feet)
  Wing Sweep Back
32.2 Degrees
 Tail Fin
  Aircraft Height
16.9 Metres (55 Feet 6 Inches)
 Under Carriage
  Number of Nose Wheels
2
  Number of Main Wheels
2 x Bogies of 4
Engines x two
General Electric GEnx-1B or Rolls-Royce Trent 1000
  Thrust 64,000 lbf (280 kN) 71,000 lbf (320 kN) 76,000 lbf (340 kN)
Cabin
  Seating 242 (3 class) 280 (3 class) 323 (3 class)
  Seats Abreast
Typical 9 seats abreast in 3-3-3 configuration with seat width of 43.7cm(17.2in) at armrest level
Weights
  Maximum Take Off Weight 228,000 kg (502,500 lb)
251,000 kg (553,000 lb)
  Maximum Landing Weight 172,000 kg (380,000 lb) 193,000 kg (425,000 lb) 202,000 kg (445,000 lb)
  Maximum Zero Fuel Weight 161,000 kg (355,000 lb) 181,000 kg (400,000 lb) 193,000 kg (425,000 lb)
  Operating Empty Weight Weight 118,000 kg (259,500 lb) TBA TBA
Fuel Capacity Litres 126,210 Litres (33,340 US gal)
138,700 Litres (36,641 US gal)
Speeds
  Vmo/Mmo Velocity/Mach Max Operating speed
Mach 0.90 (593 mph, 515 knots, 954 km/h at 35,000 ft/10,700 meters)
  Cruise Speed IAS/Mach
Mach 0.85 (567 mph, 490 knots, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft/10,700 m)
Ceiling
43,000 Feet (13,100 Metres)
Range 7,650–8,200 nmi (14,200–15,200 km; 8,800–9,440 mi) 8,000–8,500 nmi (14,800–15,700 km; 9,210–9,780 mi) 7,000 nmi (13,000 km; 8,060 mi)
Cargo Capacity 137 m3 (4,826 cu ft) 28× LD3 or 9x (88×125) pallets or 8x (96×125) pallets + 2x LD3 172 m3 (6,086 cu ft) 36× LD3 or 11x (88×125) pallets or 11x (96×125) pallets” 175 m3 (6,187 cu ft) 40× LD3 or 13x (88×125) pallets or 13x (96×125) pallets
Take Off distance at MTOW at sea level (ISA) 10,300 ft (3,100 m) High Thrust Rating: 8,500 ft (2,600 m) TBA TBA
Variant Boeing 787 8 Boeing 787 9 Boeing 787 10

If there is more you want to learn about this airliner, please visit: Boeing 787 Home, Boeing 787 Interior, Boeing 787 Assembly, Boeing 787 Order Book and Boeing 787 History,

We welcome your comments below, is there more we could be showing or are there topics you would like to see? Thank you.

If you like us, please share with your followers.

2 thoughts on “Boeing 787 Dreamliner Specs

  1. quadcomputers

    I was looking for some information on the problems associated with the B787-8’s (regardless they have addressed and corrected many problems) the fact remains this was the first commercial aircraft grounded in 35 years time, here in the United States. Those GE engines had dangerous problems one case in particular was an engine spitting pieces of metal out the rear of the engine, which in turn started a grass fire. Raw fuel leakage from the wings, which the passengers had observed before the crew did, because those on-board computers posted no abnormal condition. These fires occurring in the rear fuselage cargo sections was not because of an APU unit, or aircraft battery (like our news people had stated) The B787 aircraft do not use a typical APU everything is electrical. The cause of these fires was was due faulty batteries and poor routed connections, high amp batteries used to drive equipment like trim position for the elevators. These are NOT problems which have occurred nor have they been seen on other new aircraft and new engines. These are very alarming problems, fortunately nobody was injured or killed. Personally I wouldn’t fly in this technological hunk-of-junk, even if the faulty components get removed and replaced. We are going to witness more problems in the near future as those composites might well start “flying off” like the surface skins on the upper surface of the B767’s Meanwhile “pilots” are not pilots, they don’t fly the airplane, they are computer input operators; and human system monitors; be this a joystick or a yoke; the computers fly the plane. I prefer to have a pilot having “direct” control and not by direct law; alternate law, or backup law, as the Air France flight that when down off the northeast coast of Brazil, it clearly means neither of the pilots knew what was happening to their aircraft and systems; and neither knew how to fly it manually. If this is the type of aviation you like the may GOD be with you… I prefer rudder pedals, yokes, and direct control period.

    Reply
    1. Peter Doornbos

      I understand where you are coming from. Aviation has come a long way, and I understand your argument about pilots being computer operators rather than stick and pedal operators. Your Air France example seems to have been repeated in the Air Asia A320 incident off Borneo where it seems the pilots were unable to recognise their situation, nor were they able to exercise some basic procedures to recover from the situation. I hope that the aviation industry takes note and implements appropriate training and refresher training to their flight crews to revisit some of the basic principles of flight.

      With regard to the new technology, and maybe this is part of the problem above, a case of TSTH, Technology Smarter Than Human. Pilots have to work with so many new systems and while that is in place to make things safer for all of us, it also adds to the knowledge pilots require to carry out their jobs. In the rare case where things go wrong, and all the backup systems fail then the pilot has to step in and evaluate what when wrong and compensate or retrieve the situation. Knowing how to fly a basic aircraft plus all these new systems must be one hell of challenge. I guess over 99% of the time they achieve it. so those are pretty good odds.

      Whenever new technology is introduced to any industry there is always a time of testing and ironing out teething problems. Road blocks and hurdles appear in practice which did not seem evident on the drawing board. If you told Wilbur and Orville you were thinking about building a metal aircraft carrying 450 people they would have been rolling around on the sand laughing at you. Would you get into a wood and canvas 747? No, things have to evolve to allow future developments and improvements to happen. Remember the de Havilland Comet. It was a total mystery why they kept dropping out of the sky with monotonous regularity. The beginning of the jet age was our first introduction to metal fatigue and it enabled us to take that into consideration when designing future aircraft.

      I agree the 787 is still work in progress, and no doubt future events will require a rethink of some methods of construction. We have to keep moving forward, making improvements and learning from our mistakes.

      I hope you will have a great and safe flight on a 787 some day. Thank you for stopping by.

      Cheers Peter

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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