Spaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3153 times:
According to the article below from airbus....
A340-500 EXCEEDS PREDICTION
Flight test results have demonstrated that the A340-500 has exceeded performance predictions and confirmed the aircraft's status as the world's longest range aircraft. The A340-500 will fly further and carry more payload than initially estimated, generating even more profit for its operators.
With its advanced wing design and four Rolls-Royce Trent 556 powerplants, the A340-500 offers airlines take-off and climb performance superior to those previously calculated.
For a given take off distance, available take off weight is increased by up to seven tonnes, offering more range and more payload carrying ability.
Where runway length is not critical, operators will benefit from the lower engine maintenance costs resulting from a higher thrust derate. The A340-500's climb capability will permit operators to secure the most favourable altitudes and routes.
The A340-500's payload range with a full payload of 313 passengers is increased to 8 700 nm (16,100 km) at 368 tonnes (811,300lb) take off weight. The aircraft is also available to new customers with an optional 372 tonne (820,100 lb) maximum take off weight, increasing the aircraft's full passenger payload range to 8,850 nm (16,400 km).
This new option also includes increases in maximum landing weight and maximum zero fuel weight to 243 tonnes (535,700 lb) and 230 tonnes (507,050 lb) respectively. Available payload is increased by up to five tonnes (11,000 lb). These optional weights are available without structural modification to the aircraft.
The A340-500, which will be the first ultra-long-range airliner to enter passenger service, is designed to provide airlines with the ability to open services between city pairs that are beyond the economic range of existing aircraft. Passengers will soon be able to travel in the peace and tranquillity of cabins engineered to make ultra-long-range flights not only more expedient but also more relaxing, without the need for technical stops or changes of aircraft that are currently needed to join city pairs such as Singapore to Los Angeles or Dubai to New York.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2986 times:
So, Singapore Airlines can add more features / seats / weight / cargo.
Good.
But I agree, how it weighs up to the 772LR is the most important thing at the moment. However, since there is no physical 772LR (shame), A345 is winning, so ha.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
Misleading claims: The A345 has not met expectation. Originally, it was 313 pax with a range of 8650 nm at 365t of MTOW. They have to increase the takeoff weight to 368t to recover the range shortfall. More than likely, they added another fuel tank.
BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2825 times:
Well if the 772lr has better than expected performance the current upper hand that Airbus has might just fly through the window. The 772LR has a better launching pad than that of the new 340s seeing that the 777 has a larger customer base and is considered the market leader betweeen the 340 and 777.
So I hope by the end of the decade the 7E7 backs up the 777 as being considered the better product in its class
RUSCOE From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1401 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 2665 times:
I think the point is that in order to meet payload range guarantees, the weight had to be increased.
This means the aircraft will have the capability as promised, but will be more expensive to operate.
Compare this with the 773 ER, which came in lighter and with better than advertised payload range. This is why Boeing can still find buyers at higher prices than A345.
My guess and that is all it is, is that Boeing work on the lower side of expected performance, while Airbus work on the upper side of expected performance.
I really cannot believe that Airbus could get a digitally designed wing wrong to the order of two tons.
I am trying to think of any Airbus widebody, which met its payload range at introduction to service. If any, I would put my money on the A310. Unfortunately it had the same problem which the 767 has now with the 330; lack of capability.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Gigneil:
Go check Airbus data. At 365t, the range has been listed at 8650nm for many years. The 8500nm was floating around for a while, but the final nominal product spec was at 8650nm. You just won't accept any hint that the 345 is not meeting specs. Sigh! Now Airbus claims 8700nm range at 368t. The additional 50nm range is sort of face saving, if you know what I mean.
If Airbus has to increase takeoff weight to meet payload and range guarantees, then they didn't meet expectation, let alone "better than expected". That's why I said the Airbus article is misleading.
Spaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 2203 times:
What about the optional increased tow with 372 tones and even more range that's now available to customers. With this optional range of 8850 nm, the A340-500 is edging ever closer to the projected range of the 777LR. That is to say if the LR meets the projected performance when it starts to fly. However, airbus did not mention the reasons of why the performance was better than expected. The only clue was that it now uses higher thrust engines, but besides that there is no further details.
BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 2126 times:
Spaceman:
Eventhough the 345 is edging closer to the range of the 772LR and reaches it by the time the LR is realeased. Airbus will still be at square one if the 772LR offers better than expected performance while maintaing a lighter weight than the 345.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 2099 times:
Gigneil:
I'm afraid Airbus is no longer the underdog. Also, you were not defending an opinion. You were defending a false advertising, to put it politely.
Spaceman:
The optional 372t MTOW of the 345 is not adequate to match Boeing's increase of the 772LR MTOW from 750klb to 766klb. At the higher MTOW, the 772LR will have a range of 9170nm.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 2065 times:
Gigneil:
Wow! Didn't see the other part of your reply. Be responsible of what you say. The MH flight is payload restricted on the DXB-EWR leg during part of the year, and the restriction is certainly not "horrifying". AFAIK, it amounts to no more than one tenth of the payload on the worst condition. Compare this to SQ's planned SIN-LAX nonstop service on the 345, the payload restriction will be on the order of 30% or more. That's why SQ's 345 will have less than 180 seats. Would you say that's horrifying?
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 2061 times:
Dynkrisolo, thank you for your excellent points.
A range increase that requires a MTOW hike is not really an efficent one. The A340NG is going to have two types of customers: existing Airbus customers and ETOPS challenged airlines/routes. Possibly they will sell some frames based on the lower list price of it relative to the 777 derivatives. For anyone else, the economics of the A340NG vs the 773ER/772LR are just not very compelling. Why carry around all that extra weight for less range?
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
The optional 372t MTOW of the 345 is not adequate to match Boeing's increase of the 772LR MTOW from 750klb to 766klb. At the higher MTOW, the 772LR will have a range of 9170nm
And that's only including the specifications generated by the GE90-110B1. Should Boeing/GE certify the bird to operate with the GE90-115B, as many sources indicate they will; the 772LR's performance will again be increased.
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2969 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
Klaus,
That's fine and dandy about ETOPS, but this thread is not about ETOPS, it's about performance. Clearly, despite Airbus spin, the A345 has fallen short of expectations. I don't see Airbus crowing about ETOPS in their press release, so I don't see how it's relevant to a discussion of airframe performance.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20848 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
Overall performance includes the consideration of safety margins including potential collateral damage.
And, of course, the effect safety measures can have on ticket marketing. Which - at this point - appears to be limited, but that could change overnight.
Boeing is clearly gambling on this never happening. And keeps heaping more cash on the table...
[Edited 2003-04-22 22:46:42]
25 ConcordeBoy: Klaus, Sorry to break this to you, but you're looking in from the wrong side of the window. Not only is extended ETOPS here to stay, but it's apparent
26 Klaus: That´s completely beside the point. Of course there is a push to - at least legally - nullify the disadvantage of twins against quads. Too bad the la
27 Brons2: Boeing is clearly gambling on this never happening. And keeps heaping more cash on the table... Kind of like Airbus gambing that another A300 tail won
28 ConcordeBoy: I'd have to agree with you on both accounts Brons And Klaus, some would say that those laws have already kicked in: SR111 being the catalyst which lea
29 Spaceman: The publish specs say it has 8650 nm for range, and now appearantly it will exceed 8700 nm plus some gain in the MTOW. I fail to see how this could be
30 Prebennorholm: Oh, it's really annoying what BS A and B people can read out of incomplete data. The only range related data we can read are: 1. The max range at max
31 ConcordeBoy: Let's just all be happy that the 345 designers did not produce another MD-11 style miscalculation Why? That would've been pretty awesome really
32 Brons2: Oh, it's really annoying what BS A and B people can read out of incomplete data. The only range related data we can read are: 1. The max range at max
33 Hamlet69: Klaus, "I don´t see an immediately imminent problem with that, but it may well depend on a single accident." You and I have debated the merits of ETO
34 ConcordeBoy: Another hypothetical - what if a 747/A340/MD-11/A380/etc. crashes while 3 hours away from a diversionary airport? Or how about this one... what if a q
35 Klaus: You´re missing the point: There are a large number of issues that do not differ between twins and quads. Engine redundancy, however, is one of the ve
36 ConcordeBoy: Which twins adeptly make up for with dispatch reliability (general and engine-wise) that quads thus far could never dream of. Tell me, how do quads ma
37 Klaus: ConcordeBoy: Which twins adeptly make up for with dispatch reliability (general and engine-wise) that quads thus far could never dream of. When having
38 Dynkrisolo: Spaceman wrote: plus some gain in the MTOW No. You don't gain MTOW. You only increase MTOW when it is necessary. Added weight means added cost. Preben
39 MD-11 forever: ConcordeBoy, I'm getting used to your biased "only twins can fly" style opinion. But this statement "Or how about this one... what if a quad/tri were
40 ConcordeBoy: Did you know that one of the findings was, that the timeline was too short at all even if they headed directly to Halifax and tried to perform an ove
41 MD-11 forever: ConcordeBoy, so what's your point then, you still imply that an ETOPS plane (which ironically also have no fire suppression in the areas that were aff
42 B-HOP: For God sake, the twice weekly twin vs quad, A vs B war again!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, 
From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, 
From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1401 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5745 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20848 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
