Quote: LAHORE - The B-777s delivered to PIA earlier this year are stated to be not up to the required specification and the management has expressed its concern over its quality, sources in the national flag carrier confided to The Nation here on Sunday.
As per sources, the planes cannot gain the required height during flight and are consuming more fuel, causing loss to the airline.
Two reasons are being attributed to not gaining the required height - the fuel burden and climate of the country. The plane was purchased to fly non-stop to New York, Toronto and Chicago, so it has to carry a huge amount of fuel; consequently cannot gain the required height during the initial three hours flight.
However, when a certain quantity of fuel was consumed, the plane could gain required height - ‘’when a plane makes low flight it consumes more fuel’’ an official of engineering department said.
Temperature and climate of the country was also described as hindrance in the take off of the plane. ...
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28360 times:
.if there is a problem, I'm sure Boeing will come and assist to solve the problem as during the flight testing, the plane actually burned less fuel than orginally anticipated.
KrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28283 times:
All of the 772LR flight test showed a lower than expected fuel burn. As always this sort of data only comes out once a type is in full operation. I would suspect that the Indian climate conditions have a large role to play in the TO and initial climb. Both the aforementioned issue and the lack of qualified pilots should of been more closely looked at before the LRs went into PIA's fleet.
OldAeroGuy From United States, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 2819 posts, RR: 61 Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28220 times:
Interesting, since one of the two 772LR's that PIA flies met Boeing's predictions with fuel to spare in setting the world distance record for a commercial airplane.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Aseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28199 times:
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 3): Interesting, since one of the two 772LR's that PIA flies met Boeing's predictions with fuel to spare in setting the world distance record for a commercial airplane.
you mean PIA has the one that flew from HKG-LHR?
rgds
VT-ASJ
OldAeroGuy From United States, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 2819 posts, RR: 61 Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28145 times:
Quoting Aseem (Reply 4): you mean PIA has the one that flew from HKG-LHR?
rgds
VT-ASJ
Yes, only two 772LR's have been produced and PIA has both of them.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28145 times:
Quoting Aseem (Reply 4):
you mean PIA has the one that flew from HKG-LHR?
PK has BOTH -200LR's.....and its interesting, as this particular -200LR came from to SFO directly from India
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7191 posts, RR: 42 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 28084 times:
As far as I know PIA has been routeing flights via Manchester (UK) anyway because of staff troubles etc.? A few more reasons also given in the article:-
"A PIA official requesting anonymity said the said planes were purchased specially for the non-stop flight from Pakistan to US, but after their delivery to PIA, US security forces did not allow direct flights from Pakistani International Airports to USA.
"According to the sources, US security forces declared Karachi airport as the only secured airport, and allowed direct flights from there - PIA was ready to operate its non-stop flights from Karachi but DG CAA took stand on the issue and did not allow operation from Karachi also.
"Besides this, there was also shortage of the skilled pilots to operate the B-777 as only senior pilots could fly such planes. A number of pilots have already left the Airline to seek better opportunities of job.
"According to the IATA rules the pilots operating B-777 were supposed to be relieved of duty three hours before and three hours after the flight in order to ready themselves for the next flight but the pilots were being given no such facilities.
To operate the B-777, a pilot will have to go through a training program. Some circles in PIA revealed that the airline was trying to come over the issue."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 28008 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8): As far as I know PIA has been routeing flights via Manchester (UK) anyway because of staff troubles etc.? A few more reasons also given in the article:-
PK has had a problem with its nonstop Pakistan-United States route....not the other way around, nor its PK-YYZ-PK routes..
lack of pilots is also a problem for now..
and as mentioned, the -200LR's performed very well during the flight testing..probably some glitch which needs to be solved...
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 27984 times:
Quoting Blrsea (Thread starter): As per sources, the planes cannot gain the required height during flight and are consuming more fuel, causing loss to the airline.
If it's a climb performance issue, why can't the -110B engines be reprogramed to the full thrust capability of the mechanically identical -115B engine?
Boeing typically biases their aircraft for optimum cruise efficency and allow the engines to "power" their way to altitude. Ergo, remove the paper-derating and performance should improve.
The certification requirements for that sort of modification would be very limited.
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 3): Interesting, since one of the two 772LR's that PIA flies met Boeing's predictions with fuel to spare in setting the world distance record for a commercial airplane.
Indeed! May this be the first time in recent history that a customer has ever publically commented about the B777 not performing to expectations?
I also wonder if their issue is with the advertized capability of the aircraft at launch in 2000 or with a capability later advertized by Boeing as performance of the B777LR began to exceed expectations in 2003? In other words: is it living up to the orginial specs, but perhaps not to some of the improvements that came later?
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4790 posts, RR: 65 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 27984 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 7): Sounds as if PIA is concerned with the B777's performance, not its QUALITY
This not a simple cut and dry issue, they have been complaining about this for a couple of years. As part of the deal, Boeing was to provide fee parts and service, which didn't turn out exactly as they thought.
This has been reported before in the Satribune newpapers with problems they have had with other 777s. Have a look at this link to see how the locals view the situation deal....http://flightsimpakistan.com/fsp/aviation/taj/blunder.htm
Maybe something in it, maybe not. One does wonder how one of the poorest third world countries that relies heavily on international aid was able to become the launch customer of the 772LR.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
PolymerPlane From United States, joined May 2006, 814 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 27984 times:
With basically the same engine and basic aircraft design as B773ER, I am really surprised about this claim, especially with the intial climb performance.
B772LR has 110klbs of thrust with 766klb of MTOW, while B773ER has 115klbs of thrust and 775klb of MTOW. The thrust to weight ratio is very similar between the two and we already heard that 773ER exceeds its performance expectation.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7191 posts, RR: 42 Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 27930 times:
Looks like this is the real reason:-
"US security forces did not allow direct flights from Pakistani International Airports to USA. According to the sources, US security forces declared Karachi airport as the only secured airport, and allowed direct flights from there - PIA was ready to operate its non-stop flights from Karachi but DG CAA took stand on the issue and did not allow operation from Karachi also."
For once, can't say I blame the US authorities.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 27834 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
Maybe something in it, maybe not. One does wonder how one of the poorest third world countries that relies heavily on international aid was able to become the launch customer of the 772LR.
they got a great deal on the plane..and they aren't a country in a complete need of handouts.....
not to mention, they have been pioneer flyers of Boeing jets in the Asian region for decades
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 27613 times:
Quoting Blrsea (Thread starter): PIA claims that its new Boeing 777-200LR doesn't meet specifications...
This is old news. There was a discussion about the "scandalous" PIA purchase not too long ago where "super sekrit" papers were relased to the press by the opposition party proving that Boeing was bribing officials in promising to fix various deficiencies - under warranty. LOL.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, RR: 69 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 27532 times:
I like from the article...
"One of the staffer, serving in the said plane said that in-flight entertainment system was not properly working from the very first day of its operation."
not only have I not read this anywhere except for this article, a few of my family have flown on the -200LR a few times already and none have complained about the in-flight entertainment system not working...
" As cargo section of the plane is also very small, the cargo business has also been reduced, as per the sources."
yah...sure, cargo on the -200LR is terrible, especially considering PK didn't have the auxiliary tanks installed......
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18442 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 27001 times:
Quoting Blrsea (Thread starter): However, when a certain quantity of fuel was consumed, the plane could gain required height - ‘’when a plane makes low flight it consumes more fuel’’ an official of engineering department said.
This is how the freaking plane is designed to work! It's as if they've never flown a long range jet before. They ALL start at a lower altitude until fuel is burned off and then climb to a higher altitude over time until they reach optimum cruise.
The 747 does this, the 340, the MD11, the 772ER.
It's the point many made in the first place about the ineficiency of flying such long distances non-stop, as you burn a lot of fuel to just carry that extra fuel to get you further, and restricts revenue payload.
It's as if they want non-stop routes to the USA to be just as fuel efficient on a per mile basis as flights to London. That is not going to happen with current technology.
But if you read further, there are many, many, many reasons that they can't achieve operational efficiency, and most of them are due to the nature of their airline in the region of the world they are based.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
JumboForever From France, joined Jul 2005, 198 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 26805 times:
I'm really puzzled by this article.
Let alone the typing mistakes (2004 instead of 2006) I don't see what's the cargo capacity has to do here. I mean, the cargo size is known way ahead. Maybe PIA didn't realize that cargo can't be filled up when you're full of fuel.
As for the Board not being informed about the details of the deal of the plane!!! Come on, who's running that airline ?
This is only bashing because they can't fly direct to the US.
Scoliodon From India, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26567 times:
That's right Boysteve, but Pakistan is also part of the Indian "Subcontinent" and has essentially similar climatic conditions - mountains, deserts, heat, humidity etc.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 2260 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26371 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 7): Sounds as if PIA is concerned with the B777's performance, not its QUALITY?
In many (also American) books about Operations Management, Quality stands for way more than just durability. It also includes performance, value-for-money, reliability, etc. It's a somewhat different interpretation than how the word is used in daily life, where it usually only stands for how durable something is built.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26371 times:
Quoting N754PR (Reply 19): This will not go down very well. I thought Boeing always meet their goals.
What goals is Boeing not meeting?
26 Wjcandee: That they don't have enough pilots for it is probably a primary issue. That they admit that their most trained guys are fleeing for other airlines and
27 Kaitak744: Well, this problem might not persist with the implement of the GE90-115b engines on the 777-200LR.
28 Tbear815: If PIA is upset with the planes, I'm sure some airline in some part of the world would take them off their hands. Could it be that the Pakistani's mig
29 Singapore_Air: What temperature and climate complications would these be specifically?
30 777WT: High temp would require the need for longer runways and more fuel to burn. Engines perform best at cold temps.
31 Mr.BA: As ambient temprature increases, more thrust is required to power the plane to take-off as air is less dense.
32 777WT: They don't seem to get the point. Saying they could get a 777 from another airline for 86 mil instead of a new one from Boeing for 250 mil. Tell me w
33 Pulkovokiwi: This from an airline that crashed it's Boeing 720 on it's inaugural flight all those years ago. I do not regard PIA as a credible operator and would n
34 Keesje: Well lets not forget this is a complex situation & we don't know for real what is happening behind the curtains..
35 StealthZ: And Air New Zealand crashed it's 2nd DC-8 while it's crew were trying to figure out how to fly it in 1966, do you refuse to fly with ANZ as well?
36 Fuffla: What are the orders like for the 772LR?
37 VivaGunners: I think there are orders from Air Canada and Air India, plus some frighters as well. There should be also an order for 3 frames from EVA Air, but I'm
38 Cricket: Hold on a sec, you really believe news reports in the Pakistani media? There was a thread a month ago where one newspaper claimed because the reporter
39 Atmx2000: This would probably be for range after cargo as design payloads have no cargo other than passenger bags. Airlines don't want to fly fuel in place of
40 NG737PSR: I don't suppose if anyone has taken into account whether PIA are accurate with the weights they use for their passengers hold and hand luggage. I've s
42 Deaphen: Taking this article, however un creditable it may be, if PIA is facing this problem, do you think it is a wise idea on Air India's part to order a bun
43 Merlin: Reports like these could spoil the image of the airline and boeing and as far as i know news paper officials are gonna get a serious wack for publish
44 MERLIN: your statement is absoulutly right, Now with these reports coming in about the inefficiency lets see what AI does about its LR's as it is the second
45 Deaphen: I guess time will tell... but u know what? Its my personal opinion, but i dont think the aviation ministry has made its decision wisely. I dont know
46 StealthZ: This may all be true but it was you that singled out a 40+Year old incident to damn the credibility of an airline!!
47 Atmx2000: The AI technical committee recommended the 777 both times there was an RFP. The first time the order went for the A343 over the 772ER. That order was
48 Stirling: That may be true, but then we are back to the efficiency issue. They are saying they are burning too much fuel.....in their words, "causing loss to t
49 Deaphen: I agree with your point, but what i dont get is what basis was the 787 and the 777 were ordered on? What is the main criteria? And that too such a hu
50 Deaphen: Oh dont let it get to you... face the facts, smell the coffee, and dont forget.. we do come from a third world country... now dont we (with a very hi
51 MERLIN: This order what AI has made cud be for 1 or more reasons, but one reason cud be is-due to the incresed competiton and ageing and a very limted fleet
52 MERLIN: the coffee smells strong, wonder how wud it taste..lol
53 Atmx2000: AI engineering is supposed to be good, and I would assume AI's tech committee is good as well. If Sean Mendis were still posting here, I am sure he c
54 Glideslope: Turning PIA into a legitimate operator.
55 Cricket: OK, why did AI order the 777-200LR? C'mon get off it the 'politicial' considerations for the order just because some Pakistani news hack who doesn't k
56 Keesje: I have the feeling that if an airline has a problem with aircraft brand X, it must be the operator / source that can't be taken seriously or doesn't u
57 Zeus419: Why all the sudden surprise? It's always been known that hot/high takeoff performance at MTOW was never the B777-300ER/-200LR's greatest strength. Thi
58 Widebodyphotog: Unless PIA is moving some dramatically high payloads I really don't see much in the way of substance to this article. For their particular 777-200LR's
59 Ikramerica: Your evidence for this? SQ says otherwise. Anyway, somehow CO can make the 772ER work EWR-HKG and EWR-DEL, so something tells me there's more to this
60 Zeus419: >> Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 64): and the Trent 500-powered Airbus also gets straight to 35,000ft altitude in one go Your evidence for this?
61 Keesje: Zeus, you better back this up. An A340 outclimbing the most powerfull 777. You're touching some a.net fundamental values & believes here. Before we k
62 Zeus419: >> Zeus, you better back this up. An A340 outclimbing the most powerfull 777. You're touching some a.net fundamental values & believes here..
63 Widebodyphotog: This is basically correct above certain brake release weights for 777-200LR. Total climb power is significantly higher for the A340-500/-600 and the
64 PIA747: PIA management has no issues with the 777LR. The only thing eating them away now is weak lobbying in Washington to secure direct flights. Aviation rep
65 Monteycarlos: I imagine it would be two, if not three crew... Its still quite a decent sized route.
66 Gr8Circle: Hello !!!! PIA is PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES!!! Nothing to do with India.....
67 OldAeroGuy: Airlines with 772LR orders are: Air Canada Air India Emirates EVA PIA The total order book stands at 35. Each aux tanks adds about 200nm range. A no
68 Atmx2000: Well Pakistan is on the Indian subcontinent, or at least mostly is.
69 Zeus419: Widebodyphotog wrote:- >> In general the HBPR twins have relatively low power in climb. This is limited by the requirements of engine reliability, lon
70 Monteycarlos: Is the GE90-115b 9:1? Correct me if my logic on this is wrong, but isn't this attributable to the A345/346 having greater total thrust?
71 Jacobin777: great...so that means you won't fly some of the top carriers in the world, including SQ, KL, AF, etc..since they all have had crashes and deaths... w
72 Cricket: A couple of facts here - true, sub-continental pilots haven't really covered themselves with flowers for some incidents out here, but c'mon that was b
73 Monteycarlos: Because takeoff performance is not the best indicator of a cost effective airliner?
74 OldAeroGuy: Interesting, perhaps we should compare notes. For the A345 at SL, 30 deg. C (ISA+15 deg C), my data say the TOFL with the Trent 553 rating and 380t (
75 Jacobin777: true, but that's what the article basically claims...
76 Monteycarlos: Lol, says alot for the article doesn't it!
77 Jacobin777: Monteycarlos...that's what many have been saying....to put it bluntly, the article sux.. Also, PK is having MAJOUR pilot issues regarding the long fl
78 Rmenon: And AI's incompetence is only matched (and exceeded by) NZ crashing a modern widebody in to Mt Erebus. And worse - the govt and airline conspiring to
79 Zeus419: >> Are your A345 numbers at the HGW MTOW and/or a higher Trent 500 thrust rating?
80 Widebodyphotog: This is immaterial since I was referring to twin engined aircraft engines for which thrust lapse is greater due to the factors I mentioned. The 340-5
81 Keesje: I'm not sure I understand 772LR : 2 x 115.000lb = 230.000lb A345 : 4 x 53.000lb = 212.000lb
82 Widebodyphotog: Just to note the 777-200LR has GE90-110B1L rated for 110,100LBt not 115,000Lbt... That's takeoff thrust not maximum climb power...You can't run the e
83 Cefarix: I think I can say with confidence that the author of that article is not well versed in the English language, and has absolutely no knowledge of actua
84 Boeing Nut: Could it be operator error? Because surely Airbus has never had that problem with one of thier new aircraft.
85 OldAeroGuy: The numbers I have for the two a/c at SL, 30 deg C are: 772LR @ 347.5t and GE90-110B: 10,650' A345HGW @ 380t and Trent 553: 11,500' I'm very confiden
86 777way: Korean Air had an accident almost every year during the 90's, even collectively PIA and Air India may have not experienced as many incidents.
87 Aviator27: Step climbing is normal for long range airplanes and is already taken into account in the performance specifications during certification. The HKG-LHR
88 Jaysit: Your comments are idiotic and should be struck from this discussion as they have nothing to do with the performance of the 777LR. You cite 2 AI accid
89 OldAeroGuy: Please explain why this is a problem. I'm sure that Boeing did not mis-represent the fuel burn from a step climb mission to PIA. And even for the A34
90 Manni: Incorrect on all points. PIA (10) and Air India (9) individually had more fatal incidents then Korean (8), needless to say that PIA and AI combined h
91 Zeus419: >> And even for the A345, an initial cruise altitude capability of FL350 probably does not present the most efficient fuel burn altitude. Best fuel bu
92 Raventom: Huh? I thought performance was a factor to quality? Yes but apparently PK say its actually making a loss because of this. The world record flight fro
93 CHRISBA777ER: LOL if you've ever seen the PK jumbos sweating out onto the runway at MAN, wings drooping, and a cabin chock-a-block with people going home, then you'
94 Widebodyphotog: This step climb issue seems to be becoming a bit of a non-sequiter. No commercial airplane, not a single one, follows the absolute most efficient cli
95 Saturn5: Hmmmm ... interesting because while back SIA gave up on the A340 on the Singapore-London route because of its worse climb performance than the 777. R
96 Singapore_Air: Actually I think you may be referring to the SIA A343E on the SIN-CDG route. And the problem was that apparently it could not climb fast enough over t
97 Zeus419: Saturn 5 wrote:- >> Hmmmm ... interesting because while back SIA gave up on the A340 on the Singapore-London route because of its worse climb performa
98 Deaphen: The LR came to DEL. And can u beleive it, there was absolutely no news coverage!! I live bloody 3 hrs away from DEL and would have run to the IGI Air
99 Widebodyphotog: The takeoff weight for the record distance flight was 695-700,000lb IIRC. If PIA even needs that high a takeoff weight to do their one-stoppers to No
100 707lvr: Welcome to young Cefarix (post #90,) only his second post and he ties up this thread pretty doggone accurately in a few words.
101 Saturn5: and you obviously don't have the faintest idea what I am talking about. I am referring to a well known climbing problem with the Airbus 340 that forc
102 Zeus419: >> spare me your lectures about "engines" that have little to do with this event that actually did happen.
103 F14D4ever: Your indignation is noted. Nevertheless, you need to do a little more to convince us that you are aware of & understand the difference between an A34
105 Jacobin777: a few of us knew about this for a while..hence we were ready for it.. ..... but don't you worry Deaphen, you should be seeing more than enough -200LR
106 Blrsea: 787 will replace the current A310s pretty well. And AI is not just looking for replacing existing frames, but increasing their network too. 787 is a
107 Deaphen: You did!!! ARGGHH!! horrible people you are ! Anyways, did u manage to catch it in DEL? if you have pics please send them to me. I know i will see a
108 Zeus419: I was at the roll-out ceremony of the 777LR and PIA only sent along a board member who read out a short speech which had evidently been scripted for h
109 Widebodyphotog: If you are referring to the article I have to reject the information out of hand. It is demonstrably clear that the author does not know or understan
110 777way: Sorry you took the post literally, it was just meant to be a kind of reference that such things can happen with top class carriers too and was not to
111 Threepoint: I'm steering this thread a little to the side for a moment...if I understand correctly: PIA currently flies from Pakistan non-stop to & from Toronto a
112 Blrsea: US does permit non-stops from India. AA and CO fly to Delhi directly from US. It doesn't allow the same from pakistan because it doesn't trust the se
113 Stirling: That is interesting. I was under the impression the A345 had a slight advantage, .86 to .84 over the 772LR. There are issues, there are not issues. C
114 Atmx2000: 777 cruise speed is 0.84. A345 cruise speed is 0.82.
115 OldAeroGuy: The A345 has a Long Range Cruise Mach of about 0.83. The corresponding number on the 772LR is 0.84. The A345 Mmo is 0.86 The only difference is the e
116 777jaah: List is huge, but you can't forget AA 757 and AV 727. Still, i'll fly AA and AV without a bit of concern in their ability to do their job. What a poo
117 Seanp11: No differences, the -110B1 is just a software downrated version of the -115B. If I am not mistaken, wasn't boeing even offering the -115B for the 772
118 LTU932: AFAIK, they are offering the -200LR with GE90-115B. Now, if PK isn't satisfied with their current batches, perhaps they should just try to have the e
119 CPDC10-30: If you monitor AC's A340-500 flights YYZ-HKG-YYZ, they almost always start out at FL280 or 290. I don't think they are doing this to enjoy the view.
120 PolymerPlane: Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you know what was the TOW? and how far it is from MTOW? If you have a light load sure you can climb s
121 Widebodyphotog: A340-500 cruise speed is .825 and 777-200LR cruise speed is .841-.843... Climb speeds vary with takeoff weight but the details are what OAG liad out
122 Zeus419: Polymerplane wrote:- "Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you know what was the TOW? and how far it is from MTOW? . . ." Hey do you folks
123 EbbUK: Just logged on. don't trust this article at all. How can the 777LR fail to meet spec? As the others have said on here, it must be the wrong pilots fly
124 Jacobin777: none by anyone at PK whatsoever....I see this is bad journalism or misinterpretation by the journalist
125 EbbUK: It's the only reasonable conclusion to draw at this time. And presumably evermore, perhaps
126 Wjcandee: Obviously. I think that you all have picked through the article pretty well. I think it draws interest mostly because of the particular ships that it
127 EbbUK: It's true, a person with no knowledge of aviation would know that a plane burns more fuel at lower altitude. That's the first thing non-plane lovers
128 AndrewUber: The Trents are powerful, but the older 340's could be outclimbed by a three-toed sloth. I bet the execs at Boeing who browse this forum would love to
129 OldAeroGuy: I'm willing to believe the Zeus419 numbers for the A345 if he is willing to believe mine for the 772LR. Why trust the Airbus numbers for the 772LR? S
130 Wjcandee: Do an ignorant Yank a favor and tell me whether this is intended as some kind of thin-lipped, hint-of-a-smirk British sarcasm, so I know whether to r
131 Khobar: This is part of an ongoing political attack against the 777 and PIA. PIA 777 Scandal? (by Clickhappy Apr 17 2006 in Civil Aviation) satribune.com is
132 Zeus419: OlderAeroGuy wrote:- >> I'm willing to believe the Zeus419 numbers for the A345 if he is willing to believe mine for the 772LR. Why trust the Airbus n
133 Airzim: And yet you continue to ignore the fact that the A345 will burn 20% more fuel on a similar mission. Who cares if it has better field performance? So
134 Zeus419: >> And yet you continue to ignore the fact that the A345 will burn 20% more fuel on a similar mission. Who cares if it has better field performance?
135 OldAeroGuy: How many Boeing presentations have you been to? The 772LR data I've presented is Part 25 certified. If Airbus is using 772LR data of their own produc
136 Airzim: Could say the same thing about MEX but guess what AM just bought? Not the Airbus.
137 Zeus419: >> How many Boeing presentations have you been to?
138 Threepoint: I stand corrected. Thank you. I'll bet those execs have much better things to do than sift through two dozen garbage posts for every useful or well-i
139 OldAeroGuy: Well, the better field length-range performance of the 772LR vs the A345 with similar or better payloads out of places like JNB did play a significan
140 Saturn5: So what may I ask? If you knew little more about aviation you would know that all other factors being equal twin engine airplanes will always suffer
141 Lightsaber: Unless the twin is "overpowered." (e.g., 757). So yes, you are correct if "all else is equal." But it isn't... Especially in this example. Oh, who co
142 Saturn5: Correct, it is not the 757 and it is not "overpowered". I am afraid precisely because of that 777 can never match 340's takeoff field requirements co
143 FlyDeltaJets: Everything has to be concrete on that ramp right? B/C when its just 90 at JFK planes sink into the asphault.
144 Abrelosojos: I have not seen a topic thats been so all over the place like this one . = "Huge Amount"? I think the order is not even sufficient as it replaces olde
145 Zeus419: OlderAeroguy, the assumptions used in your figures cannot be the same as those used by Airbus in their respective TOFL comparison. For a start, you ar
146 WINGS: Reading through this thread I can conclude that the latest order from Kingfisher for 5 A345 may actually not just have to do with price or fleet commo
147 Glideslope: LOL, it should be named the "over here, over there" thread.
148 Widebodyphotog: Always good info from you, and I'll add that this property of the three spool has been the deciding factor in the engine choice for at least one larg
149 OldAeroGuy: For Part 25 certified takeoff performance, TOGW, Field Altitude and Field Temperature are the only parameters needed to produce a given Takeoff Field
150 Zeus419: OlderAeroGuy -- Alright then, for a 6,000nm mission, what payload can the A345HGW carry in addition to 313 pax & their baggage? And what is the total
151 Widebodyphotog: For a generic airplane The A340-500 can carry it's maximum structural payload of 124,600lbs 6,700nm. Fuel load at that payload/range point would be 3
152 Zeus419: Widebodyphoto, you wrote, "The A340-500 can carry it's maximum structural payload of 124,600lbs 6,700nm" For the 380tonne A345 that is incorrect. That
153 Widebodyphotog: No 380t A340-500 have been built and probably will not be so it's really not germaine...But in point of fact the maximum payload for the higher gross
154 Abrelosojos: = Kingfisher does not have any A345 or any variant of the A340 series for that matter. -A.
155 Zeus419: Widebodyphotjpg:- >No 380t A340-500 have been built and probably will not be so it's really not germaine . . . But in point of fact the maximum payloa
156 Lumberton: He is correct they have not yet been built. We will have to see if Kingfisher ever takes delivery; they may, but then again, they might not.
157 SunriseValley: Zeus419.... I note that your occupation is an aviation journalist. Your information or the sources that you use, appear to be suspect and place your c
158 WINGS: That's not correct Widebodyphotog. Kingfisher have ordered 5 A345HGW. Certification of the A345 HGW will comence in early 2007. Wrong. Kingfisher hav
159 Widebodyphotog: What "official" spec are you talking about? I have a preliminary MFP from Airbus for the increased gross weight A340's and we have the models in PIAN
160 Zeus419: Sunrisevalley wrote:- >> Zeus419.... I note that your occupation is an aviation journalist. Your information or the sources that you use, appear to be
161 OldAeroGuy: Okay, this is kind of a trick question. If you take the A345HGW MZFW and subtract the OEW as given on the Airbus official specifications, you get a p
162 Saturn5: But maybe you are challenging airport capability. If runway is too short that will be the problem. Again, balanced field is computed as runway requir
163 TAN FLYR: ok..here is a question..what about the QUALITY OF THE FUEL? Could there be a problem with the volitility or burnability of JET-A available there? (sor
164 Widebodyphotog: Only thing I could think of in that regard is the density of fuel may be significantly different than it is elswhere. Jet-A varies greatly in density
165 OldAeroGuy: There are no easy answers for takeoff performance. While what you say is true, the 777 can reach its V1 with more runway to spare since it has a high
166 Trex8: so what are the numbers in AWSTs 06 Source book for FAA TOFL, 11500 for 772LR at 766K lbs gross and 10500 for A345, 811K??
167 OldAeroGuy: Well, for the 772LR, I'd call them outdated. The 11,500' TOFL is a pre-flight test value. The current value is 10,650' with the -110B rating. AW&ST s
168 Planetime: Would be nice if those clowns who are in the management of PIA get some pilots who could operate these aircrafts to make a rational judgement. Where
169 Subkk: The reason for ordering 777 is simple, it is the best long range Large Capacity airliner in the market, plus with range capability to do BOM SFO non
170 Subkk: I dont think that should be a problem, CO and AA fly directly from Delhi. Most of ground handling is done by AI for these airlines. So AI should be a
171 Atmx2000: I think he meant yes. I don't see any reason why AI won't be able to fly direct. Is energy density as expressed as energy/mass constant for different
172 Abrelosojos: = You are right ... Kingfisher has placed an order ... but in your initial post (reply 146), you say "number of airlines operating" ... Kingfisher DO
173 Widebodyphotog: I have to believe that the specific energy content of Jet-A is in general pretty consistent, and fueling is done according to mass. Density is usuall
174 Zeus419: OlderAeroguy:- Yesterday you quoted me asking:- "And also, at what point (i.e. as nm mission range increases) does the extra fuel start to displace pa
175 Antares: Can someone clarify whether or not the PIA flights use the corridor over Afghanistan like other carriers to avoid the Himalayas and Karakorum ranges,
176 Lumberton: Well, it's been several days and so far there was just this one article in the Pakistani press. Are there any other sources? If PIA is having problems
177 Widebodyphotog: You are exactly right, and it only needs 20% more fuel to move a given payload the same distance as 777-200LR... Who in the world says CG is on the "
178 Zeus419: Widebodyphotojpg wrote:- >> You are exactly right, and it only needs 20% more fuel to move a given payload the same distance as 777-200LR... Who in th
179 Widebodyphotog: And you have no idea what those specific restrictions are do you? I can answer that from your demonstration of lack of operational knowledge to be a
180 OldAeroGuy: Your attitude puzzles me. Where did I ever say your payload-range was suspect? I figured you were using the official Airbus Payload range curve and I
181 Zeus419: Widebodyphotog, You were wrong about the payload-range of the A345 when I asked you. And you have also dodged the issue of bulky ACTs in the -200LR ca
182 Seanp11: You mean other carriers than PIA are flying the 772LR??
183 Jacobin777: the point is the A345 has a "parmanent" ACT, where as the -200LR allows the CARRIER to choose if they want to have it installed or not, and if they s
184 Ikramerica: and who flies the 345HGW again... PIA didn't order the ACTs, but they are available to any carrier who wants them, thus the 772LR has greater range t
185 Zeus419: >> You mean other carriers than PIA are flying the 772LR??
186 Jacobin777: no carrier needs it at this point in time, which once again shows the flexibility the -200LR has over the A345.. without being too tautological, if o
187 OldAeroGuy: If they want the same range as the A345HGW, they only need to put in one aux. tank. They now have an airplane that can carry the same amount of cargo
188 Zeus419: >> If they want the same range as the A345HGW, they only need to put in one aux. tank.
189 Widebodyphotog: I was not wrong and was most certainly not "dodging" any issue. One carrier has ordered the ACT's because they need the range and the others have not
190 PolymerPlane: You hit the nail in the head. Zeus419, If you think that A345 can compete with 772LR, why would Airbus spinning their heads to revamp and redesign A3
191 Widebodyphotog: Please show us the routes, by airways, that 777-200LR can not fly with ETOPS 180 or 207 that A340-500 is operating now or that operators of A340-500
192 OldAeroGuy: To illustrate your point, please provide a route for either a current A345, A345HGW, or 772LR customer where the 772LR has to fly a longer track than
193 Antares: Query for Widebodyphotog in particular, since he knows what he is talking about. Can the 777-200LR (or the A345) actually reach an appropriate altitud
194 Zeus419: Widebodyphoto wrote:- >> I was not wrong No 380t A340-500 have been built and probably will not be so it's really not germaine . . .
195 Antares: Zeus419, I'm not actually saying a twin can't fly over such mountains, as they do use the Afghan corridor, but rather that perhaps a very heavy twin t
196 Dalecary: Because they are in Airbus' hip pocket? Wonder why Air India and Jet Airways from exactly the same region were happy to order all twins? Would you ca
198 AerospaceFan: Well, to be fair, as to that, two can play that game, wouldn't you say? Would the rest of the world welcome the threat to domestic populations from e
199 Lumberton: As I noted yesterday, the single article in the Pakistani press is the only mention of this. Maybe there's no "kerfuffle" at all? Have you seen any o
200 Dalecary: Oh yes it is. And you as an aviation journalist should know better about the inefficiencies of too many types in a fleet. Apart from the A32Xs, they
201 Widebodyphotog: Zeus419 Again your continued belligerence only further proves your ignorance of airline operations and the capability of the aircraft you are discussi
202 Zeus419: >> Oh yes it is. And you as an aviation journalist should know better about the inefficiencies of too many types in a fleet. Apart from the A32Xs, the
203 OldAeroGuy: It doesn't matter if you are a Twin or a Quad, you still have to plan for a depressurization and a descent to FL100 so the passengers can breath. The
204 Widebodyphotog: Sorry to say but again you are just blowing smoke...The fleet commonality benefits claimed by Airbus are wildly overstated as it pertains to fleet op
205 Zeus419: Widebody:- >> According to Airbus ACAP for A340-500/600 There are two different spec A340-500HGW and two RCT options on each of those models. . . . .
206 OldAeroGuy: Zeus419, Still no answers to the two questions I asked you? And if you think the 772LR rides on the coat tails of the 773ER, what does that say about
207 Widebodyphotog: While it does not necessarily negate the need to plan for depressurization, the 777-200LR APU is operable at all altitudes, this as you know, is a re
208 Brendows: Just a little addition, AC doesn't operate the A346 (although they have(/had) it on order.)
209 Lightsaber: Really? I didn't know this... Do you have a link? Not that I doubt your information... Just every APU design I've seen required a designed light poin
210 OldAeroGuy: I think it has more to do with pilot labor issues and/or management control of the airline than airplane performance.
211 OldAeroGuy: While there is a difference in MTO between the two ratings, I think that MCLB, MCT and MCRU are identical.
212 Widebodyphotog: Don't mind your "nitpick" it tends to keep me on my toes...I'll revise and clarify that according to FAA certification rules governing ETOPS the APU
213 Antares: Well guys you've scared the whatsit out of me by revealing that the jets that fly the Afghan corridor and by inference other high altitude zones are d
214 OldAeroGuy: Don't be too scared. An airplane transiting the Himalayas needs to have an enhanced supply of O2 onboard. If you have a rapid decompression, you need
215 Antares: OldAeroGuy, Thanks indeed for the detailed explanation. Years ago I asked one of the Qantas captains who lived near me at the time why Qantas didn't u
216 Zeus419: Antares, the OldGuy is very good at spinning side-issues so as to try and mask uncomfortable ones. But I suppose he's only doing his job! In fact,
217 Antares: Zeus419, I had heard the big twins do not fly the corridor that Qantas had pioneered over Tibet, although they do of course use Lhasa Airport, which i
218 Zeke: For ISA +10 conditions, one engine inoperative. 777-200/TRENT877 will 28000 ft at 150t, 777-200ER/TRENT892 will do 29000 at 151t 777-300/TRENT892 wil
219 Widebodyphotog: In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: "There you go again"... AF, VN fly twins over the Himalayas everyday. The 777's are actually scheduled in fas
220 Zeus419: Zeke, I quoted an official example of the A346HGW (or A345) flying the BKK-LHR route. Airbus confirms that it can fly a great-circle route directly to
221 OldAeroGuy: Well, I'm amazed. When I provide a reasonable technical analysis of a situation, you dismiss it as spin. Please explain how I'm masking an "uncomfort
222 Zeus419: OK, Olderchap:- You wrote:- >> Air France flies CDG-BKK. The great circle for this route goes over Nepal and Northern India. This is essentially the s
223 Widebodyphotog: And VN's 777-200ER trip time is 45 min faster by schedule than AF's A340-300... And who says the GC route is always the fastest route? That all depen
224 Zeus419: Widebody:- Assuming your flight-time number is correct (and I don't know that it is) -- do you know what route AF takes? They might not be taking the
225 Jacobin777: 1)what does flying over Afghanistan have to do with anything? Many carriers fly over Afghanistan without a problem 2)As Widebody states, there are ma
226 Zeus419: SO -- back to my original point: Still no evidence that 777s fly over the Himalayas, despite exclamations to the contrary.
227 Jacobin777: 1)Even if the 777's don't fly over the Himalayas, does it really make a difference for air carriers? 2)You refuse to answer anyone's questions when t
228 OldAeroGuy: OK Zeus419, let's take this as an example. I don't know how the VN 777's are equipped with regard to O2, but they may have a 12 min. chemical system
229 Zeus419: >> I don't know how the VN 777's are equipped with regard to O2, but they may have a 12 min. chemical system not suitable of operation in high terrain
230 Lightsaber: First, nice data. But to nitpick, the trent, as a triple spool, will have different performance variation with temperature than a double spool. Not m
231 OldAeroGuy: Yes, but I don't see the necessity for the Twin routing you are suggesting for BKK-LHR and the range difference you are quoting is erroneous. But if
232 Jacobin777: 1)as my microbiolgy professor used to say.."there is no such thing as a stupid question" 2)I should have stated to which you don't have an anwer to..
233 Widebodyphotog: You Know Lightsaber through the 787 program I have really come to appreciate the three spool engine more and more, and have come to the conclusion th
234 OldAeroGuy: And this time difference is easily explained as the 744 cruises at 0.85M and the 773ER cruises at 0.84M.
235 Lightsaber: Oops, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I manage people at every education you can imagine from mad scientists to those who coud not care
236 Widebodyphotog: Yes, the first part is the whole key to the future for the GTF. Thrust per unit fan area decreases by some amount with higher BPR despite increased s
237 PVD757: Count me in to this category. My sorry little business degree is being overpowered right now in regards to this engineering discussion, but I'm fasci
238 Rheinbote: Very unlikely to see a GTF in this segment first IMO. How about heat dissipation of the gearbox? And how about durability? Has anybody tinkered with
239 Jacobin777: ahh..that makes sense.... ..i'm making my way through engine dynamics 101... if you can define those two, it shall help through the conversations...
240 Lightsaber: It would. Thus why I think a lower thrust engine will get the GTF first. Imagine the 737 with an engine that gets 15% lower TSFC... quite a different
241 Jacobin777: Great....time to get another PhD .... at least I have flight to London to read it on.. thanks much kindly for the information.......
242 Lumberton: I'd add you to my RU list,but you're already there. Much obliged for the layman's explanation. But doesn't the gear box itself add weight? Are you say
243 Widebodyphotog: Hey, where there is a will there is a way. The pressure on fuel prices is huge and the incentives are very high for reducing fuel burn for commercial
244 Lightsaber: Oh, I missed a few definitions: Oh, if it helps, engines work by "Squeeze-bang-blow" You squeeze the air, "bang" fuel (add heat energy) and then "blow
245 Rheinbote: Okay, so why don't we go for warp-drives straight away? Just kidding. It seems to me that Lightsaber has more background in this area than me, so may
246 Rheinbote: Are you sure they share the nacelle structure and aero shape? They share the larger portion of the pylon (sans the lower rear quarter where some anci
247 OldAeroGuy: Second your thoughts, especially the thanks to Lightsaber, WBP. My customers don't pay me to repeat marketing slogans. And follow-on business require
248 Zeke: I know you have side stepped a line of debate that was previously raised by Zeus419. Can a 777 of any model maintain an altitude with a normal commer
249 Astuteman: I'd stopped reading this thread when the "tennis" got going - there's a lesson there.... Fabulous stuff. I could read posts like that all day, no prob
250 Abba: It sure did! Thanks for your time and effort! Abba
251 OldAeroGuy: Sorry if you think I side-stepped the issue. If you are talking about the flying from a SE port to Europe, the answer is probably no depending on the
252 Tigerotor77W: widebodyphotog, just out of curiosity, you're not an actuary with a story background in aeronautical engineering, are you? Some of your analysis seems
253 Widebodyphotog: The flatter climb profile keeps the speeds up, that's kind of the point of it. Sure at heavy weights 777's can go higher but it is not economical to
254 Baroque: Like Astuteman I had pretty much given up on all this: and then out of nowhere came the Lightsaber, WBP and OAG contributions. Really excellent and a
255 Baroque: Would an image from Google Earth help? Flights that I know about pass over or close to Kabul and then on SE over the Indo-Gengtic plain, leaving the
256 Widebodyphotog: It's a tradeoff really...Rolls three spool engines give you a more consistent efficiency through the transitions balancing this with engine life. The
257 Baroque: Thank you for that additional information. It all seems sufficiently complex to constitute a relatively black art. But we are indeed wiser for your a
258 Lightsaber: While I'd like to argue this... getting a 150,000hp gearbox to TRL6 (demonstrated technology ready for investing $1billion+) would be tough... too to
259 Lightsaber: Oh, clarification, the gearbox to 150,000hp to TRL6 would be tough in < 7 years. It can be done... but its also going to be an expensive demonstration
260 LTU932: This topic is getting long to load. Let's continue here: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications V2 (by LTU932 May 28 2006 in Civil Aviation)
261 Abba: Sorry - I believed you were added loooooong ago. Abba
262 Baroque: Thank you again, all of the information was fascinating, but the extra weight for some little rows of smaller blade is a real surprise. The section a
263 Lightsaber: I've started a thread for engine discusion here: A Rambling Thread On Aircraft Engines (by Lightsaber May 28 2006 in Civil Aviation) Lightsaber
264 Garnetpalmetto: Due to the length of this thread, I'm archiving it. Feel free to open a Part II.
Sponsor Message: 
From India, joined May 2005, 951 posts, 
From United States, joined Sep 2004, 13323 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1106 posts, 
, 2819 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7191 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4790 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2005, 198 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 736 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 2260 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
