Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A358 Vs. A332 - If All New, Why The Same?  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7764 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

If the Airbus A358 is an 'all new' airplane, why does it have the same length and width as the A332?

If passenger comfort is an issue why not widen the fuselage? If cargo is an issue why not make it longer so that it takes more containers?

Also I notice that the fuel payload is the same between the A358 and the A332, does this mean that the actual fuselage and wing box are actually not new? That they are basically putting new engines and a reskinned wing and calling it a all new design? Is it an all new design?

If this has been discussed before my apologies.

88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7726 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
Is it an all new design?

That would probably vary depending on what question Leahy's being asked.

Q.Does the A350 have A330 commonality?

A.Yes it's a derivative of the A330 and has vast commonality.

Q.Will it be more efficient than the 787?

A.Yes, it's an advanced all new design.


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7517 times:

Dimensions mean ZILCH! You have to look at the new materials, systems, engines, and technologies incorporated into the cabin interior. That's why it's all new. If "all new" was characterised by dimension then I can think of a couple of aircraft pairs off the top of my head already  Wink


Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7454 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

You have provided 2 measurements that are irrelevant to my discussion, Wing Span and Cabin Length.

The B764 has a larger wingspan and longer cabin length than a 763, but it is not a new aircraft, see my point?


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
The B764 has a larger wingspan and longer cabin length than a 763, but it is not a new aircraft, see my point?

No I don't.

If new cabin length, new wingspan, new wing area, new engines, new materials, new systems, new weight, lower fuel burn, longer range etc is still all the same plane for you then tell me what make an aircraft really new?


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7385 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Some other numbers that don't seem to be adding up, so I am looking for clairfication.

The A358 will carry the same fuel load as the A332, 36,750 gallons.

The A358 max takeoff weight is shown as 540,000 pounds while the A332 is shown at 507,000 pounds.

They both carry the same amount of passengers, and the A332 carries more cargo (I think).

But the A358 has a range listed as 8,880 NM, while the A332 has a range of 6,750 NM.

So how can a plane that weighs 6% more achieve 25% more range? Are the new engines (more powerful on the A358 vs. A332) that much more efficient? 25% from the engines and a redsigned wing?

It seems like such a leap.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7354 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

But it weighs more, not less! It is supposed to be all new, but the numbers I am looking at show:

Operating Weight (empty)

A332 - 263,670
A358 - 273,591

So they have proposed a 'new' plane, using 'advanced techniques and materials' that weighs more and carrys the same, yet is a much better performer.

I am just trying to understand the numbers, that's all.


User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7354 times:

Clickhappy-- If this has been discussed before my apologies.

Well I don't know about your needing to apologise right here, but then hey where have you been because yeah it sorta has  Smile


It does seem to me though like the A350 is still very much just a smoke-and-mirrors PR offering from Airbus so far, not very successfully trying to buy a bit of time while backstage some of their guys are working long hours trying to figure out what the heck they're actually going to offer, and then build.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7341 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
So how can a plane that weighs 6% more achieve 25% more range? Are the new engines (more powerful on the A358 vs. A332) that much more efficient? 25% from the engines and a redsigned wing?

Exactly. It must have many more "new" things. So you have just proven that it's not all the same aircraft  Wink


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7333 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I don't believe that it is smoke or mirrors. Airbus builds a fine product and is run by professionals.

I am just trying to make the numbers work, and in my mind they don't, so I am hopeing that someone can explain it.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7322 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
So they have proposed a 'new' plane, using 'advanced techniques and materials' that weighs more and carrys the same, yet is a much better performer.

That'll probably be down to the engines.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7307 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well, what are these 'new' things, as you put them.

We have aerodynamics, engines, weight, and what else?


User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7259 times:

Clickhappy-- I don't believe that it is smoke or mirrors.

Okay, but for me anyway so far it pretty much has been. Now of course, they are indeed going to actually come out with something at some point in the not-too-distant future. And it'll have to be rather different indeed otherwise wow are they ever going to be in trouble  Smile But it's just that so far the whole 'warmed-over A330' tag for their PR shucking and jiving has I think been largely apt, and a bit laughable too.

Airbus builds a fine product and is run by professionals.

They've had their slip-ups though, especially lately. And at times run jointly by political swirlings too (let's face it, it's such a hugely-big-ticket industry that it's just about impossible to avoid, for all major players)


I am just trying to make the numbers work, and in my mind they don't, so I am hopeing that someone can explain it.

I sure can't explain it at this point either but yeah so far it doesn't look like much of an "all new" plane at all, no matter what Mr. Leahy might effuse to the contrary.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7246 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

What about comparing the A358 to the 788? They will be using (basically) the same engines, correct? So any gain in efficency will be shared by both types?


Max takeoff weight:
A358 - 540,000 pounds
788 - 480,000 pounds

Max payload:
A358 - 101,000 pounds
788 - 108,000 pounds

Fuel payload:
A358 - 36,750 pounds
788 - 32,139 pounds

Max range (with max pax):
A358 - 8,800 NM
788 - 8,500 NM

The A358 will use engines that produce 11% more power than those on the 788 (75,000 pounds/thrust vs. 67,000 pounds/thurst)

So how is it that a plane that weighs more, by 12%, and uses engines that will burn more fuel, able to fly 4% farther?


User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7245 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
If the Airbus A358 is an 'all new' airplane, why does it have the same length and width as the A332?

If passenger comfort is an issue why not widen the fuselage? If cargo is an issue why not make it longer so that it takes more containers?

Airbus has stated that the 350 is 90-something percent different than the 330. Also, the range and economics that come with the new plane make it a lot more different than the predecessor. It's kind of like asking why Boeing is going with the 787 when it could have stretched/reworked the 777 or even the 767.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12342 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7161 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
A332 carries more cargo (I think).

I wonder if this is due to moving the crew rest area downstairs?

That would mean less room for cargo on A350.

BTW I'm really impressed by the A350 orders. I don't think it's smoke and mirrors, except perhaps for the Indian beer company buying 15 widebodies. I think almost all the airlines are really good at studying the airplanes they buy, and they are very good at getting guarantees written into contracts. Just like Clickhappy, some of the numbers aren't making sense to me, and it's natural to ask why.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12342 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7107 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 14):
Airbus has stated that the 350 is 90-something percent different than the 330.

They've said that the part numbers of 90% of the parts are different. If one is cynical, one can wonder if they changed the part number of the rivets to get maybe 60-80% of the differences.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7092 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 13):
So how is it that a plane that weighs more, by 12%, and uses engines that will burn more fuel, able to fly 4% farther?

Good question. I had kind of hinted at the same issue on another thread:

A350 Specs Now On Airbus's Site. (by RJ111 Jun 13 2005 in Civil Aviation)#67

If you haven't read it yet, there is some good analysis on that thread as well.

As to your question, maybe Boeing is being conservative with it's range estimates.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7064 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Here is another way to look at the (odd) numbers, this time comparing the 764ER to the 788 and the A358 to the A332.

Fuel Payload:
764ER - 24,000 pounds
788 - 32,000 pounds

A332 - 36,750 pounds
A358 - 36,750 pounds

Max Range:
764ER - 5,650 NM
788 - 8,500 NM

A332 - 6,750 NM
A358 - 8,800 NM


So, the 788 carries 25% more fuel than a 764ER, and goes 33% farther. More fuel = more range, right?

The A358 carries the same amount of fuel as a A332, yet goes 24% (I called it 25% earlier) farther.

How is that possible? For Boeing, more = more, for Airbus, the same = more?


User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7032 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
The A358 carries the same amount of fuel as a A332, yet goes 24% (I called it 25% earlier) farther.

How is that possible? For Boeing, more = more, for Airbus, the same = more?

Not really a sensible argument because the range of an aircraft is a far more complex function than just fuel volume.

For a start the A350-800's MTOW will be 12T higher than that of the A330-200 (245T vs 233T) Secondly, through the use of advanced composites, the A350-800 will weigh 8T less than the dimensionally similar A330-200.

Also, like the 787 the A350 features the next generation of engines which are expected to increase fuel efficiency giving more range for a given fuel volume.

So for a given payload the A350 will be able to fly further than the A330, because the new aircraft has a 20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying ability as well as more efficient engines.

Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7008 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
A332 - 36,750 pounds
A358 - 36,750 pounds

I think you mean US gallons. It would be 248,932 lb.

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 19):
So for a given payload the A350 will be able to fly further than the A330, because the new aircraft has a 20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying ability as well as more efficient engines.

But the max usable fuel for both the A332 and the A358 is the same at 36,750 US Gallons regardless of the increased MTOW. This puts the onus almost completely on the efficiency of the engines. I certainly see Clickhappy's point.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6995 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

how can you say "20T advantage in payload/fuel carrying" when the specs being passed around show the A358 to carry the same amount of fuel (measure in gallons) as the A332.

Does fuel in the A358 weigh less? A different kind of fuel? I understand the concept of being able to carry more weight, but if the tank size is the same how can weight matter?

Thank you for your answers.


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6993 times:

Including the 767-400ER with the 788, A332, and A358 is best comparison yet. As I've posted before, the A332 -> A358 improvement should be less than the 764 -> 788 improvement for a couple of reasons:

- The A332 is more than 10 years newer than the 767 design, thus the scope for aerodynamic and structural improvements should be smaller.

- The A358 is still based to some extent on the A330 (same fuselage structure, suspiciously similar fuel tankage) and is using engines optimized for another airframe. The 787 is a completely clean-sheet design with clean-sheet engines.

This is why, in Boeing's words, Airbus would have to rewrite the laws of physics to achieve their payload/range numbers. The A332/A358 comparison does not make sense, especially given the 764/788 comparison. Flying a heavier aircraft with the same payload and the same fuel volume at a faster cruise speed 24% farther indicates some radical breakthrough in aerodynamic or propulsive efficiency that is currently not in evidence.

The only thing I can think of is that the original A330/A340 wing was such a compromise design that moving to a unique A350 wing produces massive benefits. This seems highly unlikely given the A330's solid performance and the relatively small changes to the A340 wing for the A340-500/600.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6985 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
So, the 788 carries 25% more fuel than a 764ER, and goes 33% farther. More fuel = more range, right?

So according to your logic 787 effectively gains only 8% of range on its efficiency? Weird because Boeing claims that:
"The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is a super-efficient airplane with new passenger-pleasing features. It will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplane of its size. "

Seriously - as Crosswind says these are much more complicated matters. If Airbus sells an aircraft with certain promises they'll better keep their word. Time will tell.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6962 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Danny I think your math is wrong (but correct me if I am wrong)

You are subtracting 33% - 25% to get 8% (33 - 25 = 8)

But what you mean to be doing is diving 25% by 33% to get +25%.

Therefore, based on fuel in gallons carried and range, the 788 is 25% more efficent than a 764ER.


25 Danny : According to your data 764ER flies 5650nm on 24000lb of fuel. So it can make 0,24 mile per 1lb. Give it 32000lb as 788 has and it should make 7680nm.
26 Crosswind : Yes, the fuel capacity is the same, but you have failed to understand that in common with all other aircraft at max ZFW (payload) the A330-200 cannot
27 Propulsion : I am baffled at how the A350 numbers add up too. Where are these savings going to come from? Are the new engines sufficient to produce all this benefi
28 Clickhappy : Well, if we use your line of thinking: A358 8,800 NM on 36,750 gallons of fuel = 0.2394 mile per gallon 788 8,500 NM on 32,139 gallons of fuel = 0.264
29 Clickhappy : The basic weight of the aircraft is less The figures being passed around show: Operating weight - empty: A332 - 263,670 pounds A358 - 273,591 pounds B
30 TinPusher007 : At what weight will a 767-400ER fly for 5,650 miles on 24,000lbs of fuel? I am here to tell you that its not going very far on such a light fuel load
31 Clickhappy : yes, my mistake = it should be 24,000 gallons.
32 B2707SST : As Clickhappy showed, the A358's OEW is about 10,000 lbs. higher than the A332's. Its MTOW is 26,400 lbs. higher. At best, this only allows about 16,0
33 Dynkrisolo : That's what Airbus says, but if you take a look at their specs sheet, the 332 OEW is 119.6t and the 358 OEW is 124.1t. So, the 358 is 4.5t heavier in
34 Monteycarlos : Because the A332 is comfortable enough. Well it takes more pallets and and LD3's than the 772ER so its big enough. Is there such a thing as fuel payl
35 Dynkrisolo : That's not good enough. Everything is relative. The competition provides either more comfort at 8 abreast, or more revenue at 9 abreast. That's not g
36 Monteycarlos : Well the "comfort level" on the A332 is good enough (i.e. noise levels and internal manufacturer design). Airbus don't think width is an issue and it
37 Airlinelover : Q.Will it be more efficient than the 787? A.Yes, it's an advanced all new design. I believe this is false. All other reports I've read indicate otherw
38 DeltaGuy767 : From what I've been looking at throughtout this post, I have seen no clear evidence that this A-350 is A) an entirely new model and B)that this is eve
39 Monteycarlos : Its not?
40 Post contains images Danny : Somebody did not make his homework If you missed it A350 has well over 100 orders and this is in only half a year after they started to sell it.
41 Post contains links Dynkrisolo : I don't think Airbus agrees with you. If it's not an issue, why they bother to use thinner cabin wall to allow 18-inch seats and claim they can also
42 Astuteman : You actually believe that Airbus would ACTUALLY adopt that approach? - it would be commercial suicide! Anybody actually believe that any airlines wou
43 Cymro : If you were to look at all planes made by both A & B then you would probably find that alot of the models share parts. This is to keep design costs d
44 B2707SST : They A350 does not have 12t more capacity; it has, at most, 16,000 pounds more versus the A332. The problem is not that the A358 can carry some paylo
45 Clickhappy : Have you ever thought that maybe the A350 design team looked at the requirements and decided that this would be the best size for their design? You th
46 DAYflyer : The wole thing is just goofy. One minute Airbus says one thing about the A-350 like "90% new parts", but all they did was give them different parts nu
47 Crosswind : A quick summary of A330 to A350 changes from last week's Flight International article (transposing key points from a diagram) CFRP rear fuselage Rear
48 Clickhappy : CROSSWIND - thank you for this info. Do you know what 'CFRP' stands for? Thanks.
49 Crosswind : Clickhappy; CFRP - Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic Regards CROSSWIND
50 Post contains images Ikramerica : if Leahy says it can, it can. funny, Boeing only claims the bleedless versions of the GENx style engines add 8% to the 20% efficiency gain. I assume
51 11Bravo : Excellent post Ikramerica. The thing here that causes me real pause for thought regarding the A350 is the lack of interest expressed by the larger est
52 Post contains images FlyAUA : Yes I read that article too. Great reading! Thanks for bothering to post the info here
53 Crosswind : Ikamerica, Your posts is amazing in that it singularly dismisses any statements made by Airbus and their engineers because you believe you know better
54 DAYflyer : Your joking, right? Leahy is a BS artist. Well said. Obviously you WERE joking above. Or they just buy into Leahy's BS.
55 Blue_Angel : Crosswind, did you ever heard about the MD11 ?[Edited 2005-06-17 22:39:31]
56 FlyAUA : Yeah sure they would spend so much money based on somebody's 'bullshit'..... "who cares about the billions we just spent on that aircraft order" [ /s
57 DAYflyer : Well, they certainly care about it...they just bought into it.
58 Crosswind : Of course but I don't think any parallels stand up to much scrutiny - for a start the MD-11's performance targets were set 20 years ago, computer tec
59 FlyAUA : I was already afraid that it wasn't obvious that my post had sarcasm written ALL over it. That's why I added the [ /sarcasm] Anyways, they didn't buy
60 Astuteman : B2707SST, you have double-dipped here, and unfairly so. Ranges for Aircraft in the Airbus website are always quoted for Max Pax, NO OTHER PAYLOAD, so
61 Ikramerica : billions are not spent on aircraft orders. millions are. and for launch customers of an airplane that has yet to be launched, the fee per craft is pr
62 Monteycarlos : Well post your source - I got my info from a table posted by Widebodyphotog in another thread which is readily accessible under a search for - "A350
63 Dynkrisolo : Hmm.. Am I at your service? How come you didn't ask Widebodyphotog for his sources? I can tell you Widebodyphotog's info is outdated. Anyhoo, the -9
64 Widebodyphotog : Outdated??? I put together the information from Airbus as soon as it was made public on their website. Does that mean that Airbus is publishing outda
65 Dynkrisolo : Widebodyphotog: Your Boeing data is outdated.
66 N60659 : Would you care to provide details for the basis of this open ended statement? Which information particularly is outdated? -N60659
67 Widebodyphotog : As always I'm happy to entertain any counterpoint to my assertions, speculations or information I believe to be factual. Please address the specifics
68 Dynkrisolo : I have not seen any publicly available information on the 789 OEW. I don't know where you get it. I do have more current information than what you po
69 Post contains images FlyAUA : Well that depends purely on whether you are Emirates/Qatar or an airline in Ch. 11
70 B2707SST : Passengers are counted as payload -- the 55,000 pound payload figure means 253 passengers plus their bags, with no additional cargo. According to Air
71 Ikramerica : I see the wink but don't get the joke. Are you saying Emirates/Qatar have laid billions on the table already? Or are you just furthering the false ho
72 Jacobin777 : I agree with the analysis of Widebodyphotog...something doesn't add up here....increased areodynamic wings and better engines will go only so far...it
73 FlyAUA : Oh for gods sake can everyone please lighten up! Nobody is decieving anyone with their data. This is why payload-range charts exist. The first kink in
74 Scbriml : I doubt very much that potential customers go to Airbus' website for information about aircraft models.
75 Post contains links B2707SST : If you're aiming this comment at me, I know very well how payload-range charts work. The ranges Airbus claims for the A332 and A358 -- 6,750nm and 8,
76 Widebodyphotog : My OEW and MTOW numbers for 787-9 are from an Airline specific proposal made by Boeing marketing, and releasing generic weight information does not v
77 N60659 : Now I understand why you were so sure of your numbers. Sorry for casting aspersions on the validity of your data. I do wish you had stated that befor
78 Post contains images FlyAUA : No not at all. Sorry if it came across that way. No offense intended I wasn't referring to the payload-range charts of the website by the way. I was
79 Dynkrisolo : Nonsense. When Boeing proposes to airlines, they have airline-specific OEW. Your OEW was clearly a generic OEW. I will let your own conscience to dec
80 Starlionblue : It becomes a question of semantics. Using some criteria, no jetliner since the 707 is really new. They're all tubes with wings right?
81 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : Outdated is not wrong. They were correct at one point in time. I can't even guarantee the numbers I have are the most up-to-date, because I don't wor
82 Widebodyphotog : Clearly? By what criteria do you come to that conclusion? I simply used the range of specific OEW's in the proposal and took the median value of that
83 Dynkrisolo : I have not once seen an airline-specific OEW that's lighter than Boeing's or Airbus's generic OEW. Your number is simply too low to be an average of
84 N60659 : Unfortunately, unless you can provide something more concrete than "outdated" and "approximate reference", the rest of us have to rely on figures tha
85 Dynkrisolo : For most people here who are not engineers, it's enough to know that the OEW of the 787 is significantly lighter than the 350. Whether it's 7.5t, 10t
86 Atmx2000 : I personally accept that Widebodyphotog's figures may not be up to date. I've seen the OEW figures last year, and the 787 models have changed since th
87 Widebodyphotog : And the generic OEW's are according to you, for which we still have no idea of the values you're talking about. If I'm working with "outdated" inform
88 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : It's relatively small, but that's all I will say. As I stated before, the OEW of the 787 is lighter than the 350. That's the essence of the data you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Not All Planes Of The Same Type Equal? posted Tue Nov 8 2005 13:03:45 by Jorge1812
Are All Engines Turning The Same Direction? posted Thu Jan 17 2002 20:19:39 by Red Panda
Why A 757-200ERX If The 762 Is Almost The Same... posted Tue Jun 19 2001 18:54:26 by Godbless
Why Airbus Can't Offer The Same Range On A321? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 03:25:40 by AirCanada014
Why Is AA Cheaper Than BA For The Same Flights? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 22:55:14 by Highpeaklad
DC-8 Vs B-707, Why The DC-8? posted Thu Jul 6 2006 05:15:55 by Rob878
Why Can't Bombardier Launch An All New 100 Seater posted Wed Jun 28 2006 22:42:37 by Tangowhisky
Why Is It Always The Same Answer? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 00:27:43 by JetBlueGuy2006
The New All New A350 Engine posted Sat May 13 2006 14:26:50 by Trex8
Cost Of Flights In LHR Vs SYD - Why The Diff posted Thu Jan 12 2006 23:28:40 by Ansett767