Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR  
User currently offlineDangould2000 From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 2005, 172 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21020 times:

Is it me, or should Airbus either change their ''The world's longest range airliner'' slogan or should they update the A345 performance data?

i say this because, Airbus claim to manufacture the world's longest range airliner, yet the A345 has a much shorter range than the 772LR, (roughly 750km)

here, see for yourself:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...0a340/a340-500/specifications.html

because lately, it seems to me that airbus is full of itself,

[Edited 2006-10-18 17:38:23]


Next Flights:- wherever the airline sends me
114 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3403 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21041 times:

They'll probably keep it until the 777 does the new range in service - the HK to London trip last year was a test flight and so doesn't count.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21589 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21011 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
They'll probably keep it until the 777 does the new range in service - the HK to London trip last year was a test flight and so doesn't count.

Good point. Right now, the 345 is used EWR-SIN and that's the longest route in the world non-stop.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDangould2000 From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 2005, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20970 times:

true, but i still think that airbus is stuck on an egyptian holiday (they're up to their armpits in de-nile  Smile )


Next Flights:- wherever the airline sends me
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31437 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
They'll probably keep it until the 777 does the new range in service - the HK to London trip last year was a test flight and so doesn't count.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Good point. Right now, the 345 is used EWR-SIN and that's the longest route in the world non-stop.

Plus who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go.  Smile


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21589 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20882 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Plus who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go.

We do know that. Not as far as an empty 772LR loaded with fuel.

The physics is known. It's not just because Airbus didn't try it. The 772LR has over 1000nm greater range...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 706 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20849 times:

That's because Airbus kilometres are longer than Boeing kilometers. Bear in mind that Airbus has found a way to warp space AND time. A good example is how Airbus managed to extend 2005 calendar year well into what for us, regular mortals, was already calendar year 2006, but that is another story....

As for credibility, what do you expect from a company that on Friday vehemently denies a "rumor" that its CEO has presented his resignation, and on Monday announces a new CEO.


User currently offlineDangould2000 From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 2005, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20824 times:

so true, IMHO, they'll be gone soon, (when i say they, i mean Airbus Embarrassment )

[Edited 2006-10-18 18:07:19]


Next Flights:- wherever the airline sends me
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3403 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20791 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
us who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go

That's a fantastic question to ponder when half-drunk - like how fast would Formula One cars be if there were no rules?


If we assume that you replace all of the passengers and baggage on the plane with their weight in fuel (extra people shaped tanks!), the A345 in this case would arrive at it's maximum range point having used up it normal fuel just having the people replacement fuel left.

I think that, from the figures, that passengers + freight + bags on a 345 is 200tonnes so after 16 700 km you have 200t of fuel left - how far would that take you?


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 20759 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
We do know that. Not as far as an empty 772LR loaded with fuel.

The physics is known. It's not just because Airbus didn't try it. The 772LR has over 1000nm greater range...

420nm.

And i think the A345's fuel is weight limited at normal payload.  scratchchin 


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20639 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 9):
And i think the A345's fuel is weight limited at normal payload.

Yes, it is, it will reach MTOW before it fills up the fuel tanks.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Plus who knows how far an empty A345 loaded with fuel could go

For a empty A345 that would be about 9850nm, compared to 10300nm for an empty 772LR (which has no more room for fuel.)


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8513 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The question is who will fly from Sydney to LHR nonstop first ? 772LR or the 787.

User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20443 times:

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
The question is who will fly from Sydney to LHR nonstop first ? 772LR or the 787.

My guess it will be a 777LR(NG) with 787 technology or a 787LR. Who knows, maybe even a 777-300LR(NG)?



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21589 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20430 times:

Is the 345HGW STILL flying with empty space in the fuel tanks? And since it was MTOW limited before and not fuel volume, why did they increase the available fuel volume on the HGW version? It makes no sense...

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 9):
420nm.

I see Airbus has a "345HGW" now, but it's still 700nm, as the 772LR has more range than is listed on that page.

Widebodyphotog has access to the latest numbers on the 772LR, and the new "full pax still air range" is 9700nm. Still air empty is going to be more than 6% greater than still air full payload. If you follow the "680 line" down to the "320 line" (both extrapolated) you get nearly 10,750nmi, and shifting the graph over for the 9700nm range as defined, you approach 11000nmi

"with the wind" it flew 11,600nm, and that is using the required calculation method (it flew further on the flight as measured by actual route, greater than 12000nmi). It also wasn't empty (had pax, but not a lot). And there was plenty of fuel to spare, according to the pilots.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3314 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 20284 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 10):
Yes, it is, it will reach MTOW before it fills up the fuel tanks.

Really? Could they have revised the landing gear to accomodate some extra weight... or is MTOW more to do with the fuselage strength rather than the undercarriage strength?



Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1034 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20227 times:

I almost circled the globe on Flight simulator 2004(the X version comes out this month) on a 747-400 fully loaded with fuel and pilot was the only cargo. I used something like 1900 lb of fuel per engine

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20150 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 10):
For a empty A345 that would be about 9850nm, compared to 10300nm for an empty 772LR (which has no more room for fuel.)

Boys, you can play this game forever. Unless you calculate both airplanes' performances applying a defined set of rules, it's futile to compare figures from manufactruer's websites and banter about ~10% plus or minus. One is for sure, the 777's will always burn less fuel per seatmile.


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20084 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
Boys, you can play this game forever. Unless you calculate both airplanes' performances applying a defined set of rules, it's futile to compare figures from manufactruer's websites and banter about ~10% plus or minus.

I cannot provide any precise numbers like some other members on this forum can, the numbers I presented are based on the payload range charts from both Airbus and Boeing. The range numbers were supposed to represent a flight with no payload.
I noticed now that I had misread the payload range charts for the 77L. It shows a range of about 10300nm at 350klbs, while the OEW is 320klbs. In other words, the maximum range should be even a couple of hundred nm longer for the 77L.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16):
One is for sure, the 777's will always burn less fuel per seatmile.

 checkmark  No doubt about it.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 20015 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
It also wasn't empty (had pax, but not a lot). And there was plenty of fuel to spare, according to the pilots.

Landed with nearly 60,000lbs of fuel left. Enough to fly for two more hours hold for 30mins divert to a field 30mins and still have contingency fuel to fly for at least 5% of the 11,600nm it flew!


-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 19691 times:

Quoting Dangould2000 (Reply 3):
true, but i still think that airbus is stuck on an egyptian holiday (they're up to their armpits in de-nile Smile )

LOL - very silly, like it.

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3403 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 19433 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
the 345HGW STILL flying with empty space in the fuel tanks? And since it was MTOW limited before and not fuel volume, why did they increase the available fuel volume on the HGW version? It makes no sense...

it does - a plane is a complex peice of machinery that needs to essentially be a compromise - there's no point making the whole plane optimised for one aim and then wreck all the others.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 19125 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
I see Airbus has a "345HGW" now, but it's still 700nm, as the 772LR has more range than is listed on that page.

That's convenient. They updated the 773ERs range by 60nms when it improved, why not update the 772LRs when it supposedly has a more significant increase for an aircraft which is more focused on range performance?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Is the 345HGW STILL flying with empty space in the fuel tanks? And since it was MTOW limited before and not fuel volume, why did they increase the available fuel volume on the HGW version? It makes no sense...

Depends upon the payload. At 9000nm with 315 it may be restricted, but with less passengers in a sparser arrangement (which is more probable in service) it may be able to fill the tanks.

That said, flying with no payload is hardly relevent. Though when i brought that up on the thread HKG-LHR thread i was flamed to death.   

[Edited 2006-10-19 00:23:09]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 18970 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21):
That's convenient. They updated the 773ERs range by 60nms when it improved, why not update the 772LRs when it supposedly has a more significant increase for an aircraft which has more focused on range performance?

Because it's a simple matter of the BCA website existing for general reference purpose only, and therefore isn't always up-to-date or accurate.

About 6 months ago, they miscaptioned a few 787 pictures confusing the -3 and -8 variants. It just happens. Airlines get the real data, so what's it matter if the public reference guide is off by a few nm?

Now I do think it's a bit disingenuous for Airbus to leave their accolade of the A340-500 on their website given the fact that it is no longer the world's longest range commercial airliner. In 2004, Pratt still had "largest 777 engine supplier" on their webpage despite the fact that Rolls Royce (and maybe GE over RR by that point) had already taken first.

It's funny how slow companies are to update their marketing when they must remove a claim to fame...


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 18762 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21):
Depends upon the payload. At 9000nm with 315 it may be restricted,

At 9000nm, there is some more room for fuel in the fuel tanks (how much depends on how many RCTs the aircraft has,) but it seems like the available payload will be reduced by about five tonnes at 9000nm.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 21):

but with less passengers in a sparser arrangement (which is more probable in service) it may be able to fill the tanks.

Even if the aircraft carries less passengers in a real passenger configuration, the airline interior config will (if I have understood things correctly) typically be heavier than the standard config, resulting in a higher OEW, thus reducing range. I'm sure others can add some more information about that.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 17504 times:

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 14):
Really? Could they have revised the landing gear to accomodate some extra weight... or is MTOW more to do with the fuselage strength rather than the undercarriage strength?

While the landing gear and the fuselage may require additional stiffing to increase the MTOW, it is the wing that makes the airplane fly and it would definitely require additional internal stiffing to accommodate the additional weigh.


25 Molykote : So if I bought a McLaren F1 in the late 1990s and (capable of ~230mph) it's not the fastest production sports car in the world unless I personally ac
26 RIHNOSAUR : so using the figures in the sites, this "much longer distance" amounts to a 4.4% increase..honestly IMO that doesn't seem like much longer. there is
27 N328KF : "Isn't that big of a deal?" In FY2004, AMR Corporation (thus including American Airlines and American Eagle) spent $3.9 billion dollars on fuel. Ten
28 Legoguy : I never even thought about the wings! Thanks
29 RIHNOSAUR : ok sure. 10% is a big deal. it amounts to large sum but is 5% a big deal......or is 2% a big deal....my point is that while I agree that the 777 has
30 N328KF : When you're talking about millions and billions of dollars, of course it's a big deal. In the case of AA, even 2% would pay for the cost (at list) of
31 RIHNOSAUR : I wanted to add something... for example, if I have a toyota corolla and a honda civic, lets assume the civic is 4% more efficient saving you thousand
32 Stitch : The 772LRs biggest selling point probably won't be it's own range, but it's ability to carry a full payload farther then a 772ER can. It also happens
33 RIHNOSAUR : yes agreed ...but this is assuming al else is equal...and my point is .... is it??? is absolutely everything else about the the a340 500 the same exc
34 N328KF : You're using a micro example in a macro comparison. It doesn't work that way. As an example: A $27 billion merger was conducted two days ago, with a
35 RIHNOSAUR : I am not familiar with the economic terms you are using..first explain to me more clearly what you mean by a merger...how does it translates into sav
36 RJ111 : Hmm, very skeptical about that. A 772ER with which engines? what payloads? efficient on what basis? lb payload per fuel burnt? fuel per seat? a new 7
37 N328KF : The Chicago Mercantile Exchange just agreed to acquire the Chicago Board of Trade. They intend to reduce costs by removing duplicate functions; Also,
38 Stitch : You'd have to ask Zvezda.
39 Jdevora : The problem is that the fuel is not the only thing that maters, its percentage is growing but you still have to could things like the purchase cost,
40 Johnny : @Whitebodyphotog "Landed with nearly 60,000lbs of fuel left. Enough to fly for two more hours hold for 30mins divert to a field 30mins and still have
41 RIHNOSAUR : I mot sure what you say is true here....so as far as I understand the only airline operating the 777 200 lr is Pakistan airways and they have 2 only!
42 N328KF : Listen...it's clear that you haven't been following events for the past, oh, say, two years, but as of today, the 777-200LR is outselling the A340-50
43 OldAeroGuy : And Delta appears to have converted two 772ER's on order to two 772LR's.
44 RIHNOSAUR : does the word yet...mean anything ..??? relax ...I know that...that is why I said yet.
45 N328KF : That's a hedging word...the reality is that the A340-500 has had its butt handed to it since the 777-200LR flight testing began (the point at which c
46 PolymerPlane : Wait, I thought 772LR has outsold A345. I still can't understand how 772LR is less popular than A345 as of now. A345 only has 26 orders and 24 delive
47 Post contains images Hamlet69 : I know a lot of people on here are new to the industry, but if I may, I'd like to suggest doing a little research before posting some things. It would
48 Stitch : RIHNOSAUR's assertion is based on deliveries, not orders, so it's "most popular in service". So once the 772LR has one more active delivery then the
49 Sebring : For what it's worth, Air Canada no longer appears to be selling the two A-345s and it appears to have cut its order for 777-200LRs to six while incre
50 N328KF : As of the end of September, BCA still showed 11 777-200LRs and 5 777-300ERs. Where did you hear this from? And what indication do you have that they
51 Widebodyphotog : Actually 29 Freighters with The latest order for six coming from CZ... Deliveries for the 777-200LR are widely spread over the next 3-1/2 years. So u
52 Sebring : The source is the Air Canada IPO prospectus published by the company this week. See pages 35, 36 Page 35 reads as follows: "Air Canada plans to take
53 Zeke : Fairly big split in the purchase price of the aircraft as well, Boeing had the 200LR at the same price as a 744ER. From what I hear at SQ much the sa
54 EbbUK : I take it this was for the publicity flight, or was it for PK first revenue flight. You haven't been clear on this occassion
55 Stitch : The HKG-LHR publicity/record-setting flight.
56 OldAeroGuy : Please name or describe a route that the A345 would have better fuel burn per passenger than a 772LR, assuming equivalent seating rules.
57 Post contains images LimaNiner : Of course! Airbus uses metric km, whereas Boeing uses Imperial km.
58 PolymerPlane : I think it's more like they can't get reasonable price out of A345 rather than the price of LR. The resell price of A345 is probably too low, such th
59 Widebodyphotog : I can agree with that well thought out reasoning to some extent. However, if the A345 pricing was so favorable and so disparate from their 777-200LR
60 Zeke : A departure aerodrome that will cause the 772LR to be payload limited hot and high, or with obstacles clearance issues, the 340 has better OEI perfor
61 Sebring : Everything about the Boeing deal was a package. Airbus doesn't have a plane as good as the 777-300ER - AC wanted a 350-seater with such good economic
62 OldAeroGuy : While you've given some examples of potential cases where the A345 could be more fuel efficient per passenger than the 772LR, most of these in actual
63 Zeke : I dont know where you are pulling your numbers from, those are neither the manufacturers numbers, nor ACs. The manufacturers empty weight and OEW are
64 Jacobin777 : Source please? All indications by PK pilots have been that the -200LR is performing as expected (which is greater than originally anticipated)...
65 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Please see the Airbus website for the A345HGW OEW. You'll see I've used their number. Your value of 160.9t is not listed as a A345 OEW. The lowest va
66 Sebring : That's a route AC doesn't fly and may nto fly any time soon, at least until it can get a 787 variant on that route, in which case the 787 will likely
67 OldAeroGuy : While AC doesn't fly JNB-YYZ today, a lot of routes are evaluated when airplane purchasing decisions are being made. As for the 777 vs 787, it depend
68 PolymerPlane : I find it funny that people judge 772LR sales performance this early. Back 1/2 year or a year ago, when 772LR's sales was below A345, people shouted
69 Sebring : And yet the aggregate sales of 772LRs is nowhere near the aggregate sales for 777-300ERs which continue to flow in, and they are only slightly better
70 Macnamara532 : Right on to DanGould 2000. No wonder Americans like the British!
71 OldAeroGuy : A reasonable and accurate assessment.
72 RIHNOSAUR : thank you for giving those figures, it is clear that in the near future the 777 will be more popular than the a340 500 but once again as of now in op
73 Sebring : In all likelihood, the 777-200LRF will pass the 777-200LR in orders before the end of 2007. The freighter is two years away from service and already h
74 OldAeroGuy : I don't think they'll duke it out very much. The payload of the 777F is 50% larger than the A330F, so they are not in the same class. The 777F is a r
75 Widebodyphotog : 100% correct. The PIA situation has nothing to do with the performance of the aircraft. They are in a security/regulatory bind that has the non-stop
76 Sebring : AC has gone for the 787-9. They see it as the replacement for the 330s. The initial 787 deliveries they get will be placements for the oldest 763s, b
77 Jacobin777 : To top it off....PK serve Pakistan-YYZ-Pakistan nonstop anyway with the -200LR...
78 Post contains links Jdevora : Is the A345HGW flying already?? I didn't know that. The last that I read about it was at the end of http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...s/06_04_14
79 OldAeroGuy : It doesn't need to fly to do a performance estimate. The A380 and 787 customer performance guarantees have been provided the purchasing airlines well
80 Hamlet69 : Has anyone bought it yet? Did any of the current A340-500 customers switch some orders, because I don't believe anyone has ordered the -500 since the
81 Zeke : The number I quoted IS the manufactures OEW for the AC configuration currently flying, not some aircraft that has not left the factory. When the quad
82 OldAeroGuy : Please provide an Airbus source for 160.9t. It doesn't appear in the data on their website. The probability of your scenarios are getting into the st
83 Zeke : DWG.NO. : 340-25-12081, I never suggested it is on the website or publicly available, I stated it is the manufacturers OEW for that configuration. Th
84 Trex8 : why has Kingfisher ordered A345s????
85 Rheinbote : There's no such thing as "manufacturer's OEW". OEW is manufacturer's empty weight (MEW or MWE) plus all the stuff specific to the configuration (most
86 Stitch : EY just recently took delivery of an A345. Perhaps that was an HGW model? Do you happen to know what the 772LR will OEW in AC's configuration? That w
87 Ikramerica : No, they updated the range 4 times by hundreds of nm total. The 772LR range has already been updated once. Boeing has been on a lightening program to
88 Widebodyphotog : Currently Airbus has 5 different base spec A340-500: WV000 OEW 168.5 MTOW 368.0 TRENT 553 WV001 OEW 175.1 MTOW 372.0* TRENT 553 WV002 OEW 175.4 MTOW
89 Hb88 : ahem, do your parents know you're at the computer?? Neither, it was a QF 747-400, with a handful of pax and a special fuel mix. I can't remember when
90 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Airbus is technically lying..as the longest commercial flight in the world belongs to BA's 777-200ER...yes..it wasn't a full pax loaded flight, but n
91 Hb88 : Interesting. That flight you related was Brussells - Melbourne, not LHR-SYD. I'm not sure of the difference in distance. The QF 747 definitely did th
92 EbbUK : Of course as ever you are right
93 Stitch : I remember seeing it in the news, as well.
94 Jacobin777 : Technically, LHR-SYD is actually 50-60nm longer than LHR-MEL..of course, that doesn't take flight path into consideration, so the BA flight might hav
95 Trex8 : is a one off government charter technically a commercial flight in the usual sense? its certainly not a regular scheduled flight
96 Post contains images Jacobin777 : You answered your own question..its not a "regular scheduled flight", yet it is stil a "commercial flight"... So I guess Airbus could say "our planes
97 Post contains images Ikramerica : The poster asked who will fly SYD-LHR, not LHR-SYD, as SYD-LHR is the sector that makes the service unworkable. The 772 never flew LHR-SYD non-stop,
98 Post contains images Jacobin777 : c'mon Ikramerica..you know what I meant...
99 Zeke : None of those numbers match the AC configuration I stated, none of those numbers are for the (0 FC + 31 JC + 265 YC) version at AC, it has a manufact
100 Widebodyphotog : I did not intend for them to be representative of AC but of what Airbus is offering in general. As I stated I can not disclose that kind of specific
101 RJ111 : Yeah, in total. It was definately up from 7,880nm to 7,940nm. Seems to have gone back down, may have been lost in the website update. Don't know if s
102 Zeke : I cannot disclose that in a post, please check your instant messages.
103 Zvezda : I expect the first nonstop SYD-LHR service will be in a future B787 model. A hypothetical B787-8ER at 520,000 MTOW and 2 belly tanks could fly SYD-LH
104 Sebring : AC did choose the 787-9 for replacing the A-330s after 2012. However, AC has realy route opportunities NOW, like India and China, and if it wants to
105 Zvezda : Good point, but AC should have ordered B787s about two years before they did.
106 Sebring : About two years before they did place that order, they were bankrupt. And the 787-9 won't be available in 2008 anyway. And AC's 330s are pretty young
107 Zvezda : All true but, even in BK, AC could have held 2010 delivery slots for the B787-9. Er... If I recall correctly, AC did but the pilots union threw a wre
108 Sebring : The pilots decision did not change 787 delivery slots, they only delayed the introduction of 777s by a few months. Air Canada has chosen the 787-9 as
109 OldAeroGuy : I estimate the higher A345 airframe drag to be from: Greater wetted area with a good deal of it due to two engine/pylon sets vs four. Interference dr
110 Jdevora : I don't have a clue, but my understanding was that the biggest drag contributor was the "Form drag" that is directly releated with the cross-section
111 OldAeroGuy : Fuselage form drag is by no means the largest total drag contributor. It's rather far down the list of drag items. Induced drag and skin friction (we
112 Widebodyphotog : That would factor into things much more significantly if the aircraft were nearly the same weight, but the difference in initial cruise weights for a
113 Zeke : What do you mean by "second segment climb", FAR 25 its from gear up to 400'...it relates to one engine inoperative conditions
114 Widebodyphotog : My mistake correction: should read operational climb... Or maybe I should have said long range climb, but then I'd have to talk about climb gradients
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...
Bae And Airbus: Untying The Knot Or Not? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 02:19:02 by Art
Composite Divide: Airbus, Boeing And The New A350 posted Fri May 12 2006 12:06:17 by A380900
Why The Difference Between EK's A345 And B773ERs posted Wed Feb 1 2006 00:01:00 by FlyingHippo
Airbus' Portfolio And The A350 posted Wed Jan 18 2006 10:28:01 by NoUFO
KLM And The Airbus Deal! posted Tue Dec 13 2005 08:36:22 by CV990
Qantas And The 772LR posted Mon Nov 14 2005 15:05:26 by Aussieindc
Boeing And Airbus - Losing The Market? posted Tue Aug 23 2005 23:47:03 by Mrcomet
Why Hasn't Airbus Retired The A300 And A310 posted Fri May 20 2005 05:38:43 by United787
Airbus A380 And The Pairs Airshow posted Mon Mar 21 2005 11:19:57 by Fiedman
Ual's New Paint And The Airbus posted Thu Nov 18 2004 04:59:13 by Erj145lr