UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 903 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
While i was looking at the latest photo uploaded from TLS, i came across a Virgin Atlantic A340-600, i notice that it is not High Gross Weight (HGW).
Didn't Airbus stop producing the normal A340, arent they producing the HGW only?
if not why VS did not order the HGW, it is better than the original one.
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4566 times:
VSs deliveries started before the HGW was availble - their later planes being deliverd now are HGW but the early ones aren't
Don't know if you can "HGW" a pre-update plane - I suspect not
UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 903 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4364 times:
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1): Don't know if you can "HGW" a pre-update plane - I suspect not
Do you mean that a normal A346 cant be turned to HGW?
Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4255 times:
Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 3): Do you mean that a normal A346 cant be turned to HGW?
Yes, that's what Scouseflyer says. The A346HGW isn't just a simple MTOW increase on paper from the MTOW of the A346, there are structural differences between the two that prevents such a thing from being done.
SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4223 times:
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1): VSs deliveries started before the HGW was availble
Correct.
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1): their later planes being deliverd now are HGW but the early ones aren't
None of the 17 currently delivered A346 are HGW versions. That includes the three delivered in the last couple of months, as well as G-VWEB which arrives next week.
I believe later options can be converted to HGW versions if required.
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4208 times:
Quoting SevenHeavy (Reply 5): None of the 17 currently delivered A346 are HGW versions. That includes the three delivered in the last couple of months, as well as G-VWEB which arrives next week.
IIRC AB said when the HGW (or IGW as it's sometimes called) was certified that only the HGW of the A346 would be produced from then on?
Gokmengs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1096 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4182 times:
Does the HGW has considerable advantages over the stock 346 if thats the case how come VS didn't choose the option even after it became available for the rest of the deliveries?
SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
Quoting EGNR (Reply 9): They will be HGW by default. The non-HGW variant is no longer offered or produced.
Do you know when this came into effect?.
VS received G-VRED last month and that was non HGW. Also it seems that G-VWEB will be non HGW, and that aircraft has yet to be delivered.
Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4020 times:
Quoting SevenHeavy (Reply 10): Quoting EGNR (Reply 9):
They will be HGW by default. The non-HGW variant is no longer offered or produced.
Do you know when this came into effect?.
I believe all A340NGs produced and delivered since mid-summer have been of the HGW-version.
Quoting SevenHeavy (Reply 10): VS received G-VRED last month and that was non HGW. Also it seems that G-VWEB will be non HGW, and that aircraft has yet to be delivered.
VS might have done the same thing with these birds as with their 744s, certifying and operating them at a lower MTOW...?
Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3891 times:
Quoting AirbusA346 (Reply 12): What are the differances between the HGW and non-HGW.
A twelve ton increase in MTOW (which needs some structural reinforcements, and leads to a ~5ton higher OEW,) engines with a higher thrust rating, laser welded fuselage and a larger fuel capacity, that's some of the changes. It can carry more payload further (but burns more fuel when it's doing so) than the A340(non-HGW.)
UAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 903 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3743 times:
as i understood, that the non-HGW can be HGW, QR is the only airline that operates the A340-600HGW.
I was thinking about the 777-300ER, can a non-ER convert to ER version, i mean is there a major different between the two, i know the engine and fuel tanks but they have the same fuselage
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 14): as i understood, that the non-HGW can be HGW, QR is the only airline that operates the A340-600HGW.
I was thinking about the 777-300ER, can a non-ER convert to ER version, i mean is there a major different between the two, i know the engine and fuel tanks but they have the same fuselage
Quoting AirbusA346 (Reply 15): The 773ER has differant wingtips (raked) compare to the 773.
The 777-300ER is a massively different plane to the 777-300.
The A340-600X is different structurally to the A340-600. The structure of the A340-600X is actually lighter, there are control surface differences, and the MTOW of the plane is higher.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 20):
The A340-600X uses a higher proportion of composites. It is lighter than if you had just bulked up the previous airframe to that MTOW linearly.
Saying "light structure" is quite misleading here, because it IS 5 tons heavier. One could call it a more efficient structure, if you will
Standard version MTOW/OEW ratio: 368/177 = 2.08
HGW version MTOW/OEW ratio: 380/182 = 2.09
Hence the HGW is structure-wise exactly 0.49% more efficient. Not really impressing but ok ... still better than nothing.
Did you think of the mere 12t/5t ratio which is 2.4? Well, just the structural cannot fly ... you need to compare whole airplanes.
Jdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Quoting UAEflyer (Thread starter): if not why VS did not order the HGW, it is better than the original one.
From Airbus press release, looks like their latest 346 are HGW.
Quote: Qatar Airways is the first customer to take delivery of this new higher gross weight A340-600 with first deliveries due to begin in summer 2006, followed by deliveries to Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic and Etihad Airways.
They claim that the HGW is a 18% better than the normal 346. The problem is that they don't say better in what
Quote: Benefiting from A380 technology, reduced maintenance costs, and the latest development of Rolls-Royce Trent 500 engines, the new 380 tonne A340-600, with typical seating of 380 passengers in three-class comfort, provides up to 18% higher compared to earlier variants and travels 250 nm (463 km) further, up to 7,900 nm (14,600 km).
(enfasis added)
Quoting Brendows (Reply 13): A twelve ton increase in MTOW (which needs some structural reinforcements, and leads to a ~5ton higher OEW,) engines with a higher thrust rating, laser welded fuselage and a larger fuel capacity, that's some of the changes. It can carry more payload further (but burns more fuel when it's doing so) than the A340(non-HGW.)
Sponsor Message: 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 903 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1096 posts, 
346 if thats the case how come VS didn't choose the option even after it became available for the rest of the deliveries?
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 350 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
