Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Any More Interest (Future Orders) For The A346?  
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14419 times:

I haven't heard a thing since Virgin's large order. Just wondering if there are more orders or interest on the horizon from any airlines...


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
133 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlsbls99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14388 times:

I believe there are some RFPs out there that include the A346 for CX and QF. Also, I thought Lufthansa placed a follow on order for a few more A346s?


319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14322 times:

Earth to Lufthansa: Check your kerosene bill. It's overdue.

User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14297 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 3):
Earth to Lufthansa: Check your kerosene bill. It's overdue.

Earth to you: Check thier overall bill. They are very profitable and they know what they are doing.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13047 posts, RR: 78
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14259 times:

Since the later A340's were intended to keep the line going for a few years longer, it's already succeeded in that.
Many 'experts' on here were sure VS would go 777 last time, well they didn't for whatever reason.

It will have, in it's various versions, have soon been in production for 15 years, not bad for such an obsolete, useless aircraft.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14174 times:

Anyway - back on topic.

I think once EH and EK's A340s are delivered that will be that - the A350 is the big seller now and IIRC they share a production line. It wont cost them anything to keep the specialist tooling etc - they may have some follow-ons from existing A340 operators but that will be that i think.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineIvo From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 470 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14125 times:

At the Paris Airshow they sold a Vip A340-600 to a Saudi customer.

Ivo


User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14112 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 4):
They are very profitable and they know what they are doing.

So what's wrong with making even more profit? Anyone that operates an A340 rather than a B777 has made a poor decision.

Earth to Lufthansa: All is forgiven. Come back to Seattle.


User currently offlineLionel From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14071 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 15):
Anyone that operates an A340 rather than a B777 has made a poor decision.

Don't take it personal but somehow I don't like your style of arguing! Why don't you first get rid of your anti-airbus bias and than talk to us again?


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14068 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 15):
So what's wrong with making even more profit? Anyone that operates an A340 rather than a B777 has made a poor decision.

Is fuel burn the only way to judge a planes profitability????


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13950 times:

There will be future orders for the A346, as its likely that airlines such as LH and IB will continue to add to their A346 fleets in the future for expansion and/or to replace A343s, but at the moment there does not seem to be a whole lot of interest in the A346 - there are several things to consider: the 773ER is hot at the moment and seems to be the aircraft of choice in the category, Airbus' own A359 may be directly and indirectly be affecting potential A346 sales, the 747-8 may have some impact on the A346's future, etc. There is a lot going on this segment.

EK has the A346 on order, although there has been so much speculation if EK will ever really get the aircraft - there were rumors about swapping A346 orders for A359 orders, rumors that EK would take additonal A380s in lieu of the the A346s, etc. If EK does order another 20+ 773ERs at the Dubai show, how will that impact the EK A346 order? Lots of quesitons.

CX is looking to expand and renew its longhaul fleet - and CX leases three A346s for use on its JFK-HKG route, and CX could order more of the type....but CX seems committed to the 747 family at the moment and its still unclear if CX will go with the 773ER or make a real committment to the A346 for longhaul. Something is up.

LH, VS, SA and other current operators are likely to top off their A346 fleets, but it just may be that Airbus curtailed future interest in all versions of the A330 and A340 families by lauching the A350 earlier than ever expected to compete with the 787 - a very interesting situation indeed and certainly one to watch.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29694 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't see why Airbus can't keep selling A346HGWs to existing A330/A340 operators.

I do think the A345's days are done, as the 772LR seems to be posting better performance and efficiency numbers, but as everyone likes to say, ULR is a "niche" market (though Boeing thinks they can sell two hundred 772LRs and 772Fs over the program life).

The A350 will mostly negate the need for the A342 and A343 where ETOPS is not an issue (I imagine some routings might require/advise four engines), but that's not a bad thing, per se, since Airbus continues to offer a viable alternative for those operators who wish to replace older hulls.


User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13815 times:

Quoting Luisca (Reply 2):
In fact CX might be dumping theirs in favor of the 773ER.



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 21):
Because what you say is untrue. If you can back up all that crap about CX dumping theirs in favour of 777s then please share. If not - then...well... you know what you can do.

Look at the use of word, I said MIGHT BE DUMPING. There have been several rumors that CX is leaning towards ordering the 773ER, Even in this forum if you just do a search. When the order finally comes then I will be able to give you something to back up my claim. Until then I will continue to say that it is a possibility.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
Is fuel burn the only way to judge a planes profitability????

This is precisely my point. Airlines analyze all aspects when deciding what to order. Fuel burn is better on the 777 NG's, but the cost of adding a new type, engine manufacturer, maintenance training, spare parts, etc sometimes outweigh the benefits of less fuel burn. LH, IB, VS all decided that adding a different fleet type even though that aircraft was more efficient in fuel burn and payload would hurt them more than it would help them.

And In my first post I said, most likely all new A345 and A346 orders will be add ons.


User currently offlineLH459 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 886 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13791 times:

Ah yes, the weekly "The A340 is crap, it's done for, it's a lousy airplane" etc etc etc thread!  Yeah sure
I can't believe some of you never get tired of this!



"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13756 times:

I think the 346's prospects will turn on the long-term price of oil. If the expectation is a continous rise, then the 346 will suffer. However if prices stabilize or even drop then the 346s prospects will improve.

One advantage of the 346 is the lower up-front capital costs. High oil prices eat into and have now overcome that advantage.


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13732 times:

"Ah yes, the weekly "The A340 is crap, it's done for, it's a lousy airplane" etc etc etc thread!
I can't believe some of you never get tired of this!"



Wait a second here, buddy.

All I did was ask a simple question...I didn't anticipate an A vs. B battle.

As my question/interest was addressed in a timely fashion...I'm happy....

You don't like it...don't read it...but be careful with your finger-pointing



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineLH459 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 886 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13661 times:

Quoting DIA (Reply 31):
Wait a second here, buddy.

All I did was ask a simple question...I didn't anticipate an A vs. B battle.

As my question/interest was addressed in a timely fashion...I'm happy....

You don't like it...don't read it...but be careful with your finger-pointing

I never said it was your fault, and your question was certainly valid. Nonetheless, the direction the thread took was sadly predictable. I read it because, optimist that I am, I had hopes that (for once) this wouldn't happen! Still, whenever the A340 is involved, some a.netters just can't resist.



"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13612 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 15):
Anyone that operates an A340 rather than a B777 has made a poor decision.

Yeah, every single airline that operates an A340 has made stupid decisions... Sure.

Quoting Luisca (Reply 19):
just today they announced further orders for 26

They haven't announced anything yet. They declined to comment on that story.

Quoting Luisca (Reply 19):
CX has a RFP out for the 773ER vs the A346, why have a RFP if you already operate one type?

Many reasons, e.g. to get a better price. If you only go to one manufacturer, they could raise the price. An RFP doesn't mean anything.

Quoting Luisca (Reply 19):
SQ already operate the A345 yet they will probably order 773ER and probably replace their A345's with 772LR's

Probably, probably. Let's wait and see.

Quoting Luisca (Reply 19):
If someone can post orders for A346 vs 773ER and A345 vs 772LR I am sure they will speak for themselves.

IIRC, the A345 and B772LR have sold approximately the same number of frames.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
though Boeing thinks they can sell two hundred 772LRs and 772Fs over the program life

If so, then the freighter will probably account for 80 percent of those orders.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 32):
A-340/200/300/400/500/600

I totally agree with you that the A340-400 is dead. As for the other models, they're alive and kicking and flying all over the world every day.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5675 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13514 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 34):
I totally agree with you that the A340-400 is dead. As for the other models, they're alive and kicking and flying all over the world every day.

They may be flying today but the orders certainly aren't coming in. The 777 has seen to that.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13475 times:

Geoffrey Thomas has reported from HKG on the "orders" forum that CX are believed to have chosen the 773ER over the 346HGW. With a 50+ 777 order coming up for EK at the DXB airshow, and both QF/SQ highly tipped to order 777s instead of A340s, surely the future is not very rosy for the A345/6.
It has been decimated this year by the 772LR/772F/773ER. You can't argue any other way.
Orders from smaller carriers(eg PR) and follow-ons from VS/LH etc look the best chance for future orders.
If, as predicted by some, EK orders 777s and cancels the 346 order and then SQ orders 772LRs to replace the 345s, then major airlines are rejecting the 345/6 big time.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10367 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13448 times:

Quoting Luisca (Reply 2):
Other than follow on orders I woudl say the A340 is pretty much dead. The 773ER and 772LR are far superior to the A346 and A345 in all aspects. No new airline will probably be ordering them. In fact CX might be dumping theirs in favor of the 773ER.

...and others



Oh, the 777 worshippers having a run again.
But master Boeing himself tells you its going to make better aircraft soon, with lower costs, the 747-8I and the 787 will kick the 777 left and right, and I wouldn´t be surprised if the 777 production rate would drop to be less than 50% of todays output in 5 or 6 years when fleets are packed with them and the focus will change on to replacing 744s and early 777s.

As a passenger I say from my own experience I prefer the smooth A346 over the 773 anytime. Although I won´t argue its been very quiet around it businesswise, sad enough. The 777 proves to be better despite its basically a ridiculously expensive aircraft at base price. To say its "far superior" is false, it just suits the high fuel prices better.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13426 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 30):
I think the 346's prospects will turn on the long-term price of oil. If the expectation is a continous rise, then the 346 will suffer. However if prices stabilize or even drop then the 346s prospects will improve.

One advantage of the 346 is the lower up-front capital costs. High oil prices eat into and have now overcome that advantage.

A point which most people in this thread have overlooked. Since the price of oil went up, proportionally orders for 340s have shrunk.

[Edited 2005-11-17 23:56:20]

User currently offlineRizzibird From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 232 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13384 times:

It's funny to hear some of our American friends claiming the A346 to be an unefficient gas-guzzler.  Wink Just past week I've read a newspaper article in which LH names the A346 as its most fuel-efficient aircraft, burning just 3,3 liters of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers. Does anyone have numbers for the B773ER? Just wondering.  Wink

User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2809 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13346 times:

wbp has provided the data many times. The 777LRs fly further, faster, with more payload, on less fuel. The A340NG has the advantage of lower purchase price, no ETOPS restrictions (for now) and, according to SA, more compatibility with hot and high airfields.

Quoting Rizzibird (Reply 39):
I've read a newspaper article in which LH names the A346 as its most fuel-efficient aircraft,

Yes, and before FR got the 738, the 732 was its most efficient aircraft. What do you hope to prove?


User currently offlineRizzibird From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 232 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13308 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 40):
, and before FR got the 738, the 732 was its most efficient aircraft. What do you hope to prove?

Sorry to say it this way, but this statement is just rediculous! The 732 and the 732 are something like 20 years apart, whereas the A346 and LH's other aircraft are just a few years apart. LH has a fairly modern fleet and the A346 is the most fuel-efficient aircraft within this fleet. So the A346 can't be as bad as many people on this board make it look. I don't say that it is more fuel efficient than the B773ER, but I have not found one single proof that it is the other way around either.


25 EI321 : I think the A380 is 3 litres per 100km, cant the find 777 data though.
26 Dalecary : There have been numerous reports to the contrary. Boeing are reportedly looking at increasing 777 production rates to around 7/month from 2007 to mee
27 Glom : It's not that bad, no. But it is a noticeable disadvantage compared to the 77W. The point is that LH saying it is their most efficient aircraft doesn
28 F4N : NA: In today's high fuel price environment, few things would define "far superior" more than that. regards, F4N
29 Soylentgreen : Way to go Luisca! In your face and sassy. I love it! And I agree with your assessment-the B777 is superior to the A340. Why? Because it is has techno
30 Post contains images USADreamliner : Can you repeat the question please? Let's focus on the topic please... I heard AR order the aircraft like 6 years ago, but I'm not sure about the situ
31 Trex8 : RR may eventually incorporate some Trent1000/1700 tech into the 500, in which case you may suddenly find the A345/6 fuel burn sufficiently improved to
32 Zeke : His data also showed that for over a 7500nm flight a A346 would take 2.5 t less payload than a 744, with burning 36t less fuel than a 744. He does so
33 Luisca : Why do you compare the A346 to the 744? Compare it to the 773ER. Do a fair comparison, What you are doing is like triying to compare the 738 with a A
34 Zeke : I didnt run the flight plans, wbp did, he didnt provide raw data for the 77W only for the 744 and 346. The updated Trent 500 will cost Airbus very li
35 Post contains images Boeing767-300 : Why do you Europeans have to resort to the usual "Americans Bashing Airbus". Can't you accept the fact that although 777 is a couple of years newer t
36 Post contains images TinkerBelle : Source please... The article out there says 26 orders and neither Boeing nor EK can confirm that so it's not even a done deal. Well, that's becoz the
37 Dalecary : Seattle Times for 26 773ER and Gulf News for at least 20 772LR. Today's issues.
38 RayChuang : I think future orders for the A340-600--which will all be HGW versions from now on--will most likely be to airlines that already fly the A346: LH, VS,
39 Zeke : To back Dale up, EK pilots I have spoken to have indicated similar numbers to me are being talked about within the company. Had a thread on it last w
40 Post contains images JetMaster : Yeah, LH will soon go bankrupt... Have you checked their financial results lately? Tell that to the A340 airlines which are highly profitable...but d
41 RedChili : The A340 will never have any ETOPS restrictions... It has four engines.
42 BuckFifty : I can tell you that is not true at all. In fact, at this point, the RFP is still neck and neck between the two. The decision will come soon, however,
43 BeechNut : Any time anyone on this juvenile forum posts "is the B7X7-YYY obsolete" or is the "A3XX-YYY finished", it turns into an A vs B pi$$ing match. It's so
44 Post contains images RJ111 : I reckon of the two CX will order the A346, when you take into account it uses RR's and doesn't need ETOPS restrictions. People talk about the 777's a
45 Sebolino : You should be consultant for airlines. They really need you. LOL. You are pathetic , boy.
46 OldAeroGuy : No, the main advantage the 773ER has over the A346 is a lower OEW. This contributes to about 5.5% better fuel burn. Engine TSFC is about 1.5% better
47 N328KF : No, but it has LROPS restrictions, and twins and quads are both subject to the same rules under LROPS.
48 Zeke : Umm NO right back at you ! As I have given you examples before .. 320 higher OEW than 734, lower burn 744 higher OEW than 744D, lower burn 738 with w
49 Coa747 : The A340-500 seems to be the more appropriate target for this discussion. With Air Canada being the first customer to announce a switch from the A340-
50 Post contains links TP777 : I think that TP in a long future could introduce some bigger planes on their fleet, in spite I would love to see a T7 on TP colours is more likely to
51 FlyingHippo : Let's try to stay on the topic people... I don't see any NEW customers ordering the A346, follow on orders, I think there will be enough... The only n
52 Bmacleod : AC finally realized this when they saw the fuel-burn ratio between the 777 and 340 and cancelled their A346 and remaining A345 orders. So is Boeing s
53 Icarus75 : I totally agree with you!!!
54 Glideslope : No. The 748 is going to force Airbus to rethink the evolution of the 380. Using up considerable resources that could be put on the 320NG program. The
55 Glideslope : As every 340 series operator is trying to do as quickly as possible while maintaining political ties. Many simply can't make a change. But wish they
56 AirFrnt : As far as VS goes, I suspect that VS may go forward with the A346 simply because of inertia. Elsewise, Airbus will use a cheap cancellation of thoose
57 B2707SST : In these cases, the higher OEW is more than compensated by better aerodynamics, (for the A320 and 773ER) lower engine TSFC, and/or (for the 744 and 7
58 Bmacleod : Are you absolutely sure on this? Didn't AC realize this or were the A350 performance specs upgraded after AC decide back in April on the 777?
59 N60659 : This has been discussed in so many threads in the past with figures, charts and in-depth analyses. Plus the 744 and the 744D don't fly the same missi
60 Sevenforeseven : Airbus A340-600 is the most unreliable bird that I have ever known as for B777 no experiance so no comment.
61 Irishpower : First let me say that I think BOTH aircraft are great as well. I like both A and B aircraft. BUT when it comes to pricing----Airbus has and advantage
62 A342 : Wrong. They replaced JT-3Ds which were 1st generation turbofans. Are you able to give examples ? Even AF could (not fully though, but because they ne
63 LH459 : This is not correct. The JT-8Ds were first generation turbofans, not turbojets. IIRC, the DC8-60 series was never manufactured with turbojets. The ea
64 N60659 : I stand corrected. However, the point I was making still stands. -N60659
65 Trent900 : Like a lot of the major international airlines in America? They seem to be having money troubles at the moment. Maybe they should have bought 340s in
66 Glareskin : One wonders if this forum is visited by airline efficiency advisors or aviation enthusiasts. Let's just hope the fuel prices will decrease in the next
67 OldAeroGuy : And all your examples have been wrong, since they mix OEW, airframe and engine changes. If the 773ER increased OEW to the same level as the A346, its
68 Zeke : The JT-8D TSFC was around .77-.8, CFM 56 around .66, "higher fuel consumption"...thats the FC part of TSFC regardless of the technology used. That wa
69 Post contains images QFA001 : FYI, the 7/month rate is set. Boeing is looking at going even higher. If CX & EK announce this week, then I think we'll soon hear from Boeing that th
70 Bmacleod : With crude oil demand from China and India only expected to increase? $60-70 crude is the new norm and we all must face the facts. Unless Airbus desi
71 OldAeroGuy : Zeke, Two comments: 1) Study the Breuget Range Equation. It will help you understand the factors influencing airplane range better than the equations
72 Zeke : That is the Breuget equation rewritten in terms of TSFC, ref area, and k. For maximum range, the relation between CL and CD was rewritten and this eq
73 Atmx2000 : Would the upgrades to the T500 increase weight and drag enough to increase thrust requirements, or would the SFC decrease be sufficient to drop fuel
74 Post contains images QFA001 : Option 2. A "Trent 1500" (ie. a T1700-ised T500), once additional weight and improved SFC are considered, offers 2.5-4% efficiency improvement depend
75 Zeke : What is the Trent 1500, is it a RR Vision 10 power plant or a JTI powerplant with the bypass ratio of 15 ? Is it a scaled down Trent 8104 ? See RR pl
76 Post contains images Boeing767-300 : Welcome to my RU list. I could not have summed it better myself.
77 Sabenapilot : What might be worth looking into for Airbus is a kind of A340-800, -900 (hey, we have to follow with the trend of namegiving), where they equip the A3
78 OldAeroGuy : Sorry, you've changed my old friend so, it was impossible to recognize. Classically, the equation is: Range = (Speed/TSFC)*(Lift/Drag)* ln(Initial We
79 Astuteman : FWIW I think you're dead right. Good post QFA001. If I were Airbus and were considering an engine upgrade to an airframe, I'd get the T1700 on the A3
80 Zeke : Your formulae assumes constant Cl/Cd , TSFC and Speed. As fuel is burnt weight and hence required lift reduces, if speed is held constant then either
81 Sabenapilot : Although I must admit I haven't completely followed every step of logic in the discussion above, mainly because I got lost in the non-mathematical not
82 Zeke : They have already been doing it, and it will continue to happen. RB211 TRENT 553-61 Basic model. RB211 TRENT 556-61 and 560-61 Same as basic model ex
83 OldAeroGuy : Actually, you said it twice in Reply 48. The first quote implies that a 2.5% Trent 500 TSFC improvement (assuming a Trent 1000 is 10% better than a T
84 Post contains images DAYflyer : A-340: filler
85 Glareskin : After the huge EK T7 order I must admit that it might be true... Sniff.
86 Kaneporta1 : That's a 12t OEW difference between the two aircrafts, isn't that pretty much the weight of the two extra engines?
87 Oryx : Airbus is currently offering the post of an engineer to follow the evolution of possible engines to power future A345/A346 variants. Looks like they b
88 FlyingHippo : I think the future of A346 relies on the pending CX and QF order. And if the rumors are true, doesn't spell good news for the future of A346.
89 Zeke : Nah I thought it would improve by 3/TSFC, and thought the TSFC of the Trent 1000 would be better than 10% based on Trent 8104 data. Didn’t think or
90 Post contains images QFA001 : OldAero, been there, man. Arguing the irrational is one thing. Arguing the incompetent is quite another! Wow, thanks. I was kind of bracing myself fo
91 Zeke : You seem to be pulling Trents out your rear end, I asked you before in reply 75 what these new Trents were, silence is deafening. Onya QF1. I freely
92 Post contains images Iwok : Well, at least you're finally agreeing that a twin is lighter than a 4-holer. 346H: OEW = 182,000 Kg 777ER: OEW = 168,000 Kg 773-ER : GE90-115B - 18,
93 Post contains images Astuteman : A bit aside from A346, But why "T1700" the T900, when the T1700 is in the same thrust bracket? FWIW, I think the launch of the 748 with a Genx monopo
94 Post contains links Zeke : From the FAA TCDS NUMBER E00049EN for the GE90-115B, the WEIGHT (DRY) Includes basic engine, basic engine accessories, and optional equipment as list
95 Atmx2000 : The weight savings would only be 2.2 metric tons. The GE90-115B's dry weight is 8.3 metric tons or 16.6t for the twin and that of the Trent 556 is 4.
96 Zeke : Source ? That seems to differ to the FAA certified data I have given above.
97 TepidHalibut : An A340 with two GE90's might be attractive to you, but I wouldn't try and certify it. The A340 has four engines so the take-off OEI thrust requirmen
98 Dalecary : Interesting. Didn't know QFA001 went to Swinburne University, or are there 2 QFA001s??? Starting to sound a bit like a sore loser now, aren't we!!! Y
99 Atmx2000 : The GE figure was from their website and the RR figure was from an aviation website, but I presume these figures don't have all components for the ce
100 Zeke : Four engine and two engine OEI climb gradients differ, I dont know how much thust would be required, I would not think it to be 3/4 of the 4 engine c
101 Post contains links Zeke : I checked the aircraft recovery manual for the A340-600 available at http://technical-data.mut-01.customers.artful.net/html/arm.html. Chapter 2-3-40
102 Dalecary : I have other sources all pointing to the same result. The disparity b/w the 773ER and 346 must be huge for CX to seriously entertain going 2 engines
103 Post contains images QFA001 : The T1700 and T900 (or "T1900") aren't technically in the same thrust class, yet. The T1700 has been re-sized from the T1000 for a 75klb application
104 Dalecary : Game I must be then. But really, the only one out of the 3 with a real chance of ordering 340s is CX. All the buzz(several media reports and personal
105 Zeke : Suppose that would be the Yahoo orders group, CX are not letting employees know, so I am somewhat amused how you seem to know all, or seem to know al
106 Post contains images QFA001 : Agreed. Infact, Airbus is (was?) hoping to launch the A340 upgrade with CX. I know; I'm just being cautious. If CX bought upgraded A340-600s, would i
107 Dalecary : No, just where CX was headed!!!
108 Dalecary : No, not the yahoo orders group, although that is a generally far more knowledgeable group than here. Trusted private sources that would know is all I
109 Post contains images QFA001 : I neglected to mention this earlier. The 7/month rate is set. Boeing is now looking at a higher rate for 2008-09. In production capacity terms, it wi
110 Hamlet69 : Production rates ARE going up to 7/month in 2007. That is already fact. However, that is simply to cover current orders. Expect rates to go even high
111 Iwok : Zeke, thanks for posting good leads on the engine weights.. I think QF is in an expansion mode, and there is no reason why they would not go big once
112 Zeke : I thought your business was being a professional academic, you are hardly an aviation professional, an aviation enthusiast granted, hardly and author
113 Dalecary : Nor do I profess to be. But maybe I'm smart, I listen to the right people and I learn. Haven't been specifically told anything, just that the 773ER l
114 Zvezda : I would be surprised to see any orders for any variant of the A340 from an airline not already operating the type. I would not be at all surprised to
115 Zeus419 : Regarding the often noted OEW weight difference issue between the A340-600 and the B777-300LR, I was once told by a "hands-on" industry A&P mechanic t
116 Boeing767-300 : All depends on price, Airlines might want 777ER for its superior operating efficiency but an A346 offered at the right price may offset operating cos
117 Atmx2000 : People have suggested that the A346 needs to be strengthened more because as a longer narrower tube, it is an inherently less rigid than the shorter
118 Zeus419 : >> People have suggested that the A346 needs to be strengthened more because as a longer narrower tube
119 Dalecary : I'll take this a bit further, if you don't mind. Tough if you do, because I will anyway. SYD is only slot constrained at certain times. You also assu
120 Trex8 : what is this "upgraded" A346 CX may be considering, the HGW or something beyond that. as far as "structural integrity and quality", my brother who adm
121 Aerofan : well as a sometimes revenue pax i wish that vs would order the 777. just flew to and from hong kong. on CO and VS. Incredible plane the 777. Excellent
122 SWISSER : The A340-600 was if I recall correctly a direct Airbus product replacement for the older model 747's and in fact if we look at current 773 and 346 ope
123 Astuteman : I've had a feeling for some time that Boeing are more "confident" in the way that they design airframes than Airbus. Safety records would indicate th
124 Zvezda : Try SQ. They have excellent service and the world's largest B777 fleet.
125 YULMRS : They cancelled their A346 order (3 units) but received all the A345 ordered (2 units).
126 Post contains images Zeus419 : Astuteman wrote:- >> I've had a feeling for some time that Boeing are more "confident" in the way that they design airframes than Airbus. . . . I can'
127 Trex8 : I would have to disagree with you that those incidents necessarily reflect poorly on B design engineering. Not that B have no blame.The first was due
128 Mikkel777 : Usually, it is the other way around. Airbus has the FBW envelope protection, so lesser saftey-margin is built in the design. The FI 757 did 3.8G (IIR
129 Zvezda : I've done 2.5g + and 1.0g - in an A319 during routine acceptance flight testing, so I expect an A321 probably would survive 3.8g without damage.
130 SWISSER : I have to object to these posts, This is a respectable thread on the topic that discusses the market for A346, so I don't see any relevant informatio
131 Astuteman : I apologise, SWISSER, if something I wrote has caused a problem. You will understand I hope that I am pretty much in the Airbus camp, but always try
132 Post contains images SWISSER : Dear Astuteman, I wasn't directly pointing at you're comments, I share you're opinions on many points on this forum and I respect you very much, howe
133 Mikkel777 : It might. I've done both 2.5 and 3.8G while flying, and the difference on your body is much larger than you'd might think. It is a general belief tha
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...
Will There Be More Orders For The Boeing 717? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 04:18:50 by Kaitak744
Any Future Orders For B737-600 posted Sun Aug 8 2004 05:20:16 by UNDAEROSPACE
No More Standing In Line For The Lav posted Mon Jan 5 2004 16:12:11 by CPH-R
Potential Orders For The B 757 posted Wed Oct 16 2002 11:28:50 by United Airline
When Is The Rpll Flight For The A346 Due? posted Mon Apr 15 2002 15:21:36 by Airbus_A340
311 Orders For The 728Jet! posted Fri Jun 22 2001 16:20:31 by Godbless
Potential Orders For The B 747-400D posted Mon Jun 4 2001 20:06:16 by United Airline
The Number Of Orders For The B 747-400 Up To Now posted Sun Jan 21 2001 05:49:07 by United Airline
Who Has Orders For The A340-600? posted Thu Dec 7 2000 22:32:35 by Ericmetallica
Boeing To Receive 20 Orders For The 747? posted Tue Sep 5 2000 21:27:36 by CX747