Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A345 And 772LR Fuel Burn.  
User currently offlineAngelairways From United Kingdom, joined Nov 1999, 502 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 hours ago) and read 16932 times:

Can anyone here source reliable A340-500 and 777-200LR fuel burn figures?

112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 hours ago) and read 16864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The closest I can find is from Widebodyphotog's "772LR/A345 Mission Comparison Analysis". I'm pretty sure he uses industry numbers for these calculations, not personal speculation, so they should be valid for comparison purposes.

For a mission entailing flying 65,730lbs of payload 8,670nm, the 772LR requires 46,403 gallons of fuel vs. 56,174 gallons for the A345 (non-HGW). So an A345 will burn roughly 20% more fuel in this mission and will arrive 20 mins after the 772LR.

[Edited 2006-09-19 15:20:33]

User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 hours ago) and read 16814 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
20% more fuel

So the A345 burns something like 747 classic but has more range?


User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 hours ago) and read 16707 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 2):

So the A345 burns something like 747 classic but has more range?

No.

For the same range it will burn less. Remember that the longer the range an aircraft has the more fuel it has to cart around with it. Therefore the overall fuel burn will appear to be higher.

But still those numbers are heavily in favour of 777 operation with high fuel prices.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 hours ago) and read 16693 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
For a mission entailing flying 65,730lbs of payload 8,670nm, the 772LR requires 46,403 gallons of fuel vs. 56,174 gallons for the A345 (non-HGW). So an A345 will burn roughly 20% more fuel in this mission and will arrive 20 mins after the 772LR.

Lets not forget that the B777LR can also transport more cargo and passengers vs the A345.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 hours ago) and read 16549 times:

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 3):
But still those numbers are heavily in favour of 777 operation with high fuel prices.

While the number will easily give the B777LR the victory, their are some factors in which the A345 has an advantage.

-It has no ETPOS restrictions.
-Quieter Cabin.
-Cockpit commodity with A32X/A330/A350/A380.

While some members easily dismiss these facts then surely will contribute to a final decision.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16362 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
For a mission entailing flying 65,730lbs of payload 8,670nm, the 772LR requires 46,403 gallons of fuel vs. 56,174 gallons for the A345 (non-HGW). So an A345 will burn roughly 20% more fuel in this mission and will arrive 20 mins after the 772LR.



I dont know about the particular mission, I would disagree that its 20% across the board.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 4):
Lets not forget that the B777LR can also transport more cargo and passengers vs the A345.

Tell that to PIA who cannot get that performance from their 772LRs due to the departure aerodrome.

Be very careful coming up with blanket one fits all statements, some missions the 345 will be better than a 772LR, one of the reasons why SA chose the 346 over the 773ER.

The 772LR has the same list price as the 744, it is a very expensive aircraft to purchase for its size. (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/). The 380 is about $280m, 345 $198m.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16341 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
The 772LR has the same list price as the 744, it is a very expensive aircraft to purchase for its size. (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/). The 380 is about $280m, 345 $198m.

And these prices have no correlation with reality. AC's two 345s ended up cost $87 million each.

You can also rest assured that AC got a fantastic price on its 777s and a number of interesting cost caps that don't appear on the master contract.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16329 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
Tell that to PIA who cannot get that performance from their 772LRs due to the departure aerodrome.

Has this information actually been confirmed? We previously got a news report stating that PIA was rather unhappy with the B777LR performance although, many around here quickly dismissed it as bad journalism.

PS: On another matter, could you please get in contact with me.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16278 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
I dont know about the particular mission, I would disagree that its 20% across the board.

I think those are made up missions. Given that the T7 has the longer range, at some point you could find a figure where it can carry 2 tons of payload and the A345 only one. That would seem the T7 to give twice the performance.

Anyway, Tim Clarke will have both in his fleet and he once said they have roughly the same over-all economics.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
Tell that to PIA who cannot get that performance from their 772LRs due to the departure aerodrome.

They also said that due to the high weight the LR can not reach its best altitude until some fuel is burned, therefore it uses more fuel and has a shorter range than actually claimed by Boeing.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 7):
And these prices have no correlation with reality. AC's two 345s ended up cost $87 million each.

How do you know?


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16233 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
I think those are made up missions. Given that the T7 has the longer range, at some point you could find a figure where it can carry 2 tons of payload and the A345 only one.

Made up? Take a look at this chart made by Widebodyphotog:
http://theaviationspecialist.com/777-200lr_a340-500s_fmission.gif
And then check out his profile, and the hundreds of posts he has made concerning the performance of jets. In the end, every mission is made up, since you have to check out how a jet will perform on such a mission, based on data from the manufacturer. Widebodyphotog isn't spinning the numbers, they are real. Don't you believe me, or his numbers? Then, check out the payload-range charts for the A345 and 772LR and do the math. You can find the charts here:
A340-500/-600 ACAP
777NG ACAP
Hope you're able to understand the numbers.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
Anyway, Tim Clarke will have both in his fleet and he once said they have roughly the same over-all economics.

When it comes to fuel burn, no, not anymore with the fuel prices we have today.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
How do you know?

If you had been reading this forum for long enough, you wouldn't even ask him that question.


User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16233 times:

Anyone know if the A345s and 346s currently in service will get the HGW upgrade or if this will only be on new build aircraft? (might be a stupid question, forgive me)

User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16217 times:

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 11):
Anyone know if the A345s and 346s currently in service will get the HGW upgrade or if this will only be on new build aircraft? (might be a stupid question, forgive me)

I think the HGW is so different that it would be very costly to fit that into the older models. I also heard that the ones built from now on will all be HGW versions.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16177 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):

I think the HGW is so different that it would be very costly to fit that into the older models. I also heard that the ones built from now on will all be HGW versions.

That's correct Thorben, all future A345/A346 will soon only be delivered with the HGW option.

One of the main difference between the A346/A345 and the HGW version is that the latter will use solder welding to join the fuselage panels.

I would expect that the current non HGW operators would be able to adapt engine upgrade.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WINGS (Reply 4):
Lets not forget that the B777LR can also transport more cargo and passengers vs the A345.

True, but these were identical missions in terms of payload and range to provide a direct comparison between the two, which is what the OP was asking for.

And actually, the A345 carries about 2000lbs more payload at MTOW, however the 772LR flies 1030nm farther.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
I dont know about the particular mission, I would disagree that its 20% across the board.

That is probably true, which is why I bolded "this mission" because I did not want to give the impression that an A345 always burns 20% more fuel regardless of mission.

The A345HGW, for example, hauling 65,730lbs 9,000nm burns 58,039 gallons. The 772LR hauling 63,210lbs 9,700nm burns 53,400 gallons, so it's more like 8% when both planes are at max load and range, though the 772LR does have a nominal 700nm range advantage.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
I think those are made up missions.

As I indicated, it is a hypothetical mission with identical payloads and range. So for that specific mission, it's 20% but for another mission, it's only 8%.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16127 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 13):
I would expect that the current non HGW operators would be able to adapt engine upgrade.

How usefull would that be? The HGW has stronger engines that are not really needed for the non-HGW. Or do you mean adapting engine improvements to the weaker engines when they get new engines? How often are engines changed?


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 hours ago) and read 16086 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15):
How usefull would that be? The HGW has stronger engines that are not really needed for the non-HGW. Or do you mean adapting engine improvements to the weaker engines when they get new engines? How often are engines changed?

I meant upgrade kits for existing A345/6 operators. I would imagine that the HGW version should also incorporate better fuel saving vs the previous version.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 hours ago) and read 16027 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 8):
Has this information actually been confirmed? We previously got a news report stating that PIA was rather unhappy with the B777LR performance although, many around here quickly dismissed it as bad journalism.

All twins suffer more hot and high one engine out than quads do, this is not something to new.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
Anyway, Tim Clarke will have both in his fleet and he once said they have roughly the same over-all economics.

Correct.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
That is probably true, which is why I bolded "this mission" because I did not want to give the impression that an A345 always burns 20% more fuel regardless of mission.

The A345HGW, for example, hauling 65,730lbs 9,000nm burns 58,039 gallons. The 772LR hauling 63,210lbs 9,700nm burns 53,400 gallons, so it's more like 8% when both planes are at max load and range, though the 772LR does have a nominal 700nm range advantage.

Widebodyphotog does fantastic work, he is on my RR list.

However unless I could compare the flight plans of the two missions I could not conclude its a fair comparison. For example, one I previously looked out had a B product at its optimum altitude in a block climb and an A product cruising at non optimum constant altitude. If I recall correctly it was done this way for airspace constraints on the mission profile which were of similar lengths, however not over the same route.

He does great work, the trends in my view are a true and fair indication of the aircraft capabilities, however one should exercise caution taking them as gospel for all situations or for making percentage difference comparisons unless one knows all the background of the mission analysed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 hours ago) and read 15996 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
Anyway, Tim Clarke will have both in his fleet and he once said they have roughly the same over-all economics.

Nonsense.

All one has to do is look at the lopsided sales totals for last year--the 777 outsold the A340 by something like 120 to 15. The fact that this happened in a year when fuel prices set new records, tells you a lot.

That's why Airbus is replacing the A340 with a 9-across in Y twin.


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 hours ago) and read 15867 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 8):
Has this information actually been confirmed? We previously got a news report stating that PIA was rather unhappy with the B777LR performance although, many around here quickly dismissed it as bad journalism.

I recall PIA's problems with their T7's stemmed from minor details in the fit and finish of the aircraft. Some people tried to make a conspiracy issue out of the fact that Boeing was going to fix those items for free - under warranty.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 hours ago) and read 15829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
He does great work, the trends in my view are a true and fair indication of the aircraft capabilities, however one should exercise caution taking them as gospel for all situations or for making percentage difference comparisons unless one knows all the background of the mission analysed.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 hours ago) and read 15741 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 18):
All one has to do is look at the lopsided sales totals for last year--the 777 outsold the A340 by something like 120 to 15. The fact that this happened in a year when fuel prices set new records, tells you a lot.

Not really a conclusive argument. There are dozens of factors involved, fuel burn being one of them.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 hours ago) and read 15451 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
Not really a conclusive argument. There are dozens of factors involved, fuel burn being one of them.

I said it "tells you a lot", I didn't say it tells you everything.


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1305 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 hours ago) and read 15194 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 18):
All one has to do is look at the lopsided sales totals for last year--the 777 outsold the A340 by something like 120 to 15.

It's always nice to use the total T7 sales as comparison. As for the LR I feel it's the best aircraft nobody wants.....



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 hours ago) and read 15094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 23):
As for the LR I feel it's the best aircraft nobody wants...

Some would argue the same about the A388, however I prefer to be thankful that at least 134 of them are wanted, along with 40 772LRs and 26 A345s.

As an aviation enthusiast, I am impressed with the the A388 on a technical accomplishment level.

As an aviation enthusiast, I am impressed with the the 772LR on both a technical accomplishment level and an aesthetic level (as I believe the 777 is the prettiest commercial airliner family in current service).

As an aviation enthusiast, I am impressed with the the A345 on an aesthetic level as I believe it is a very well-balanced and graceful airplane.

And as an aviation enthusiast, I am pleased that I have been able to see all three models in person.


25 PolymerPlane : With LR's price is rumoured to be much higher than 345/6, it is pretty good argument in my opinion. Why would anybody buy a more expensive aircraft w
26 Manny : What would the fuel burn savings amount to annually ?
27 Post contains images Starlionblue : Fair enough. But I would not say it tells me a lot. I would say it tells me something. Just an opinion. That's an impossible question to answer witho
28 Prebennorholm : On the mission mentioned by Stitch in reply #1 savings would roughly be $200 per seat. If we assume 300 such sectors per year it would be some 15-20 m
29 Manny : Thanks for the answer. Thats some great info.
30 Rheinbote : It will use laser beam welding for some fuselage panels (lower lobe only)
31 Aviator27 : Your analysis and reasoning is flawed. You cannot use range charts to compare fuel burns between two airplanes. It just doesn't work like that. For o
32 Post contains images Stitch : Take it up with Widebodyphotog then, since I'm just repeating his dataset and conclusions.   I'm not sure Widebodyphotog did that when he calculated
33 Phollingsworth : You are correct in that you cannot use range circles or max range numbers, but you can use payload range charts. Of course that only works if you hav
34 FlyDreamliner : It's a strong vindication for the notion of the big twin. Especially in times of high fuel prices, Boeing's foresight and impressive engineering on 7
35 Aviator27 : I'm sorry but your analysis still doesn't pass the logic test. How can two airplanes burn the same amount of fuel for 7200 nm and then one of them bur
36 BoomBoom : Unfortunately, no one has provided a source to check.
37 Post contains links Stitch : Yeah, I muffed that quote so have asked the mods to delete Reply #33. Many of Widebodyphotog's charts include the "Fuel Consumption per Hour" rate. N
38 Stitch : I meat to say Reply #34 - my reply to Phollingsworth - and not Phollingsworth's reply itself.
39 PolymerPlane : Uh... NO.... even Leahy admitted that the fuel burn is higher on A345/6 compared to 777LR. He even offered to pay for the difference in the fuel cons
40 Zeke : Its is easy to see that an aircraft that has been in service for a number of years pays itself off before a newer one. I cannot see how a 772LR at EK
41 Post contains links Aviator27 : I checked out widebodyphotogs gif image so I can use his numbers. The first glaring difference that shows is that the B777-200LR takes off at 315,082
42 Futurecaptain : 777-200LR burns around 1.79 gal / mi A340-500 burns around 2.23 gal / mi Not a big difference, but over the course of a 10000 mi trip it adds up.
43 WorldTraveler : you bet it's a significant difference - about 20% each and every minute. not really. he just talked in circles and still demonstrated nothing that say
44 PolymerPlane : When you want to criticize one's work, please really check your facts and numbers. widebodyphotog's calculation is perfectly accurate. OEW difference
45 Lemurs : Yes, but it's also easy to believe that they really botched the marketing of that flight so badly that they couldn't get the yields that it is truly
46 Zeke : Total B/S, the 748i will have a lower CASM than any twin Boeing produce. Its will also have operational advantages over any twin that Boeing produce
47 PolymerPlane : SQ flies A345 directly to EWR, never to JFK. JFK flight is a 744 with a stopover in FRA. I just checked the online booking, SQ 21 and 22 SIN-EWR are
48 BoomBoom : That's nice, but that's not what I asked for. Where did Mr. Clark say the A340 and 777 have roughly the same over-all economics? Please provide a sou
49 Baroque : Does this mean that some of the improvements that would have been on the A340E or whatever it was going to be are going to be filtered into productio
50 JayinKitsap : I would give someone with as high of a respect rating as WBP some benefit of the doubt. I believe it was pointed out back during the 747 ADV discussi
51 Manny : [quote=WorldTraveler,reply=44 [/quote] For the aviation enthisiast in me its a few points to ponder.
52 Post contains links and images AutoThrust : Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): I dont know about the particular mission, I would disagree that its 20% across the board. Indeed this Numbers arent true   
53 Phollingsworth : I never said the charts were correct, they can have errors. The problem with using the payload-range is that you have to find equilivalent points to
54 WorldTraveler : ah... you're right.... I still have JFK on my mind for that flight. But SQ has acknowledged the flight loses money as does its LAX-SIN flight. I stil
55 Zeke : I am not aware of that, I am sure the shareholders would be jumping up and down if that was the case. SQ recently employed about 12 additional expat
56 Irobertson : Welcome to my Respected Users List. Your post was really nice to read. And what a difference those CFMs made to the DC8! I was curious as to whether
57 WorldTraveler : I’m not doubting that the 748 will be the most economical aircraft in the world…size does have advantages. I’m also not doubting that quads do h
58 Zeke : You seem to have a one sided recollection of history, who put twins on the north Atlantic first ? When the 340 first came out, no power-plant was ava
59 Airbazar : Never heard such a rumor. I think your're thinking about TG and their A345 BKK-JFK-BKK flight. The only thing I've heard is that SQ and especially th
60 Lemurs : Not every route needs to make money. I've heard elsewhere that SQ is losing money on those flights as well, but they don't care because they're impor
61 Stitch : To be fair, SQ's route structure and competitive landscape is very different then that of the US "Big Six" domestic carriers. This takes nothing away
62 Futurecaptain : The RAF. In 1919 flew a Vickers Vimy on the first direct trans-atlantic crossing. But seriously. The first ETOPS rating from the FAA was given to TWA
63 Lemurs : A fact so often missed when people bash on domestic legacies. We have the most hyper-competitive aviation market in the world, with direct flights to
64 Keesje : Lets not get carried away by PR and cash in on the future. Airbus is ruling the 200-280 seat segment. Boeing has a painfull production gab in that se
65 Widebodyphotog : I know I'm jumping into the fray a bit late but I'd like to clear some things up which seem to have become points of contention. It's nice to know tha
66 BoomBoom : You incorrectly assume that a plane has to be in service to be the market leader. Wrong. It only has to be marketed to be the market leader. The 787
67 Post contains images WINGS : Are you fully aware with what you have just written? If not wake up and smell the coffee. The B787 still has to fly, pass certification and prove it
68 Stitch : And thank you for doing so, sir.
69 BoomBoom : As soon as a plane is offered for sale it is being marketed. It doesn't need to fly, pass certification or prove it self with airlines to be offered
70 WINGS : Well BoomBoom, We are talking about market leader. In my eyes for a plane to acheive that recognition it has to prove it self. Something which it has
71 WorldTraveler : well done, widebody. You got to it, but the realpoint is that the 777LRs greater payload capability will translate into more revenue generating capabi
72 BOE773 : What engine types were you using for the data?
73 PolymerPlane : 772LR only comes with GE90-110 (well it also comes with the -115, but it's basically the same engine with different electronic limitation IIRC), and
74 Widebodyphotog : GE90-110B1 Engines for my analysis. the -115B1L produces only slightly more thrust for climb and cruise, so even if those were used the differences w
75 Thorben : All the things you claim there have not explained why TG, EY or IT still went for the A345.
76 Lemurs : Who said it had to? He wasn't claiming to explain why some airlines would choose one over the other, he was talking data. Sometimes immediate realiti
77 PolymerPlane : Yeah, but It has explained how AC, EK, and QR basically dump A345/6 in favor of 777LR. Cheers, PP
78 BOE773 : Thanks Wdbyptg. I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of how the airframe and engine manufacturers come up with their figs; but I guess this is propri
79 WorldTraveler : Remember the 345 was in service first. even with its shortcomings, it provided an advantage, even if it was a short-lived one.
80 Pihero : And now, another side of the story . These enormous gaps in terms of fuel economics have always bothered me, so I went to an airline flight planning p
81 Stitch : Well remember you are looking at a flight distance almost half of what Widebodyphotog was using. Flying those extra 4000nm requires a good deal more
82 Pihero : That's exactly the point, Stitch Why only offer one set of data that stretches the design of one airplane so that it looks awful ? I was more interest
83 Stitch : I don't believe Widebodyphotog choose numbers that specifically make the A345 look awful. He provided identical payloads and identical distance. It's
84 PolymerPlane : Well first of all, A343 vs. 772ER is a different story compared to 772LR and A345. Second of all, if you notice, 772ER is actually about 13 tons heav
85 Widebodyphotog : Good info and my I ask if you used AF flight planning data whose name begins with "G"? From the airplane OEW's it looks like you are using AF ship we
86 Keesje : Although I very much appreciate the additions of WBP I have had many discussions with him regarding the data used (seatcounts/CASM). It is very well
87 Pihero : No comment, for obvious reasons. No. The derate is on the structural MTOW. The TOWs I quoted are performance, they reflect the absolute capability of
88 Pihero : Stitch, PolymerPlanes and Keesje, Sorry I was involved in responding to Widebodyphotog and forgot to mention your posts. I think we quite agree on the
89 Widebodyphotog : Ah, I neglected to note the conditions ex JNB. However I have to say that the airport conditions departing airports like JNB and other hot and high a
90 Pihero : That's good enough for me. Thanks. These figures you quote on a SCL-LHR trip are a lot more valid to me than a bare max performance / manufacturer pub
91 Greasespot : Ok in an industry that stops flying blankets to save fuel do mods costing millions to save 3 and 4 % do you really think that anyone would use a 345
92 Stitch : Unlikely, which is why the A345's sales have been declining while the 772LR's sales have been increasing. For even when the fuel burn delta is not as
93 Starlionblue : Agreed, but the decision also depends on: - Price of engines and lease rates. Those GE-90s ain't cheap. - Price of aircraft and lease rates. Them 777
94 Post contains images Stitch :
95 Elvis777 : Howdy all, WBP sure did provide an education ,at least for me! Anywasy, just to add my uniformed two cents and more questions.... I thought that the e
96 Widebodyphotog : I've commented on the maintenance commonality subject before NG A340 to OG A340...SQ and others were particularly dissapointed to find that maintanenc
97 Johnny : There is one thing i would like to mention: Both A345 and B777LR are loosers in terms of sales.There are no other actual produced longrange airplanes
98 Elvis777 : Hi Johny, You may be right. But maybe not. It is possible that the 777lr will continue to garner sales. Since it is a derivative class bird it may alr
99 Post contains images Stitch : Actually there is: the A340-8000 with a grand total of one. But seriously, I do understand your point. These birds are designed for very specific rol
100 Post contains images Stitch : I've found this thread to be pretty enlightening, myself. A number of interesting data raised by many folks and, for the most part, the discussions ha
101 Post contains images Johnny : @ Stitch Yes, if the A340-8000 or -200 would be in production today, they would hold the crown.Same for the B767-400ER, which is the next airplane in
102 Trex8 : so can someone crunch the numbers to see how the A346 and 773ER compare on comparable routes/passenger loads
103 Post contains images Stitch : Well the 764ER is not a "(ultra) long-range" airplane (8000nm+), which was the criteria you were using, so it's not really relevant to your own point
104 Post contains links PolymerPlane : This comes directly from Leahy's mouth. I am not sure your 4 trent 500s maintenance cheaper than 2 GE90s has reached Leahy's ear, since he would have
105 Elvis777 : Howdy all, thanks for all the answers and for your kind responses to the side show. I found them to be very informative. So not to beat a dead horse t
106 David L : First of all don't think for a minute I'm a pilot but there's plenty of evidence out there. The differences between the 737, 747, 757/767 and 777 are
107 SunriseValley : I have taken the following figures out of one of WBP tables. Sorry I have a print-out and not the link. 777-300ER 340-600 MTOW 775000lb 811293lb Max.
108 Elvis777 : Hi David L. Ok., I get your take. Can someone else add a bit more to this point, pilot interchangeability (sic?) between eads products. someone in sch
109 David L : That's as it should be. I tried to find links to previous discussions without success. I'll try again later.
110 Post contains images Johnny : @ Stitch No, i was talking about longhaul-airplanes, not ultra-longhaul-airplanes... But i see that the A342 leads...
111 Post contains images Starlionblue : [/quote] You have a point, but that's not really what I meant. I will use an example. If you are AA and own 50+ 777s you will presumably have your own
112 AF022 : For those of us without access to AF's data, can you clue us into what you are alluding to? What is the fuel burn of the B777-300ER vs that of the B7
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...
Fuel Burn Of Airbus And Boeing? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:39:13 by MaxQ2351
Fuel Burn For The A318, 737, And E190 posted Sat Jan 15 2005 21:25:46 by Skymileman
Need Info On Fuel Burn And Some Other Stuff posted Tue Feb 3 2004 02:25:27 by Elwood64151
Difference Btw 772ER And 772LR posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:48:32 by FlyingHippo
Freighter Airlines And High Fuel Prices posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:15:42 by WN230
A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised? posted Fri Jun 23 2006 17:54:09 by UAL747-600
A320 Series Winglets Improve Fuel Burn posted Sun Jun 18 2006 10:01:20 by Joni
St. Louis's New Runway, And B6 Fuel Stops posted Mon Jun 12 2006 01:15:40 by GoBlue
Thai A345 And A346 posted Mon Feb 6 2006 14:20:30 by Lordanmol
Why The Difference Between EK's A345 And B773ERs posted Wed Feb 1 2006 00:01:00 by FlyingHippo
FI-GP7200 A380 Fuel Burn 0.7% Better Than Spec posted Wed Dec 2 2009 22:24:00 by Astuteman