[freedom-fries]

787 isn't a small plane! 787 is just 11% smaller by wingspan and just 3% smaller range than long-range 747. In large part, 747 and 380 went away because they were fuel-inefficient 4-engine planes, not because airlines wanted to fly tiny planes between LA and NY.

[anakaine]

Its definitely smaller in terms of capacity. Different seating configurations aside, notionally the 747 could seat 366 passengers whilst the 787 can seat 242.

[notahacker]

Your notional figures are low for both aircraft. You can get 330 passengers in the 787-10 in a reasonably spacious two class configuration, or cram another hundred more in a single class configuration.

Either way the difference in cabin space is essentially irrelevant to arguments about "smaller planes" in the context of suitability for battery power.

We're still talking about widebodies carrying well over 200 passengers which would be entirely unsuitable for battery powered replacements, and the 787 is larger than many of the other widebodies it's replacing.

[advisedwang]

> 11% smaller by wingspan

Wingspan is not a good measure of "size", that's just an output of engineering decisions on how to get the actual payload into the air.

> 3% smaller range

Range is not a measure of size. Making a smaller plane with similar range is a technological coup and major part of making smaller planes successful.

The heaviest 787's max weight is 250 t, but for 747 that is 442 t. That's a 40% difference!