Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No A346HGW For VS  
User currently onlineUAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 966 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6156 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.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3364 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6129 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


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6048 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):

Don't know if you can "HGW" a pre-update plane - I suspect not

Correct, that's not possible  checkmark 


User currently onlineUAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 966 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5927 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?


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5818 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.


User currently offlineSevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1148 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5786 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.

Regards



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3364 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5771 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?


User currently offlineGokmengs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1123 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5745 times:

Does the HGW has considerable advantages over the stock Smile 346 if thats the case how come VS didn't choose the option even after it became available for the rest of the deliveries?


Gercekleri Tarih Yazar Tarihide Galatasaray
User currently offlineSevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1148 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5726 times:

As far as I remember airbus have been delivering HGW A346 for a few months but the VS aircraft are so far all identical.

I assume that airbus have been a little flexible on this.

Regards



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineEGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5617 times:

Quoting SevenHeavy (Reply 5):
I believe later options can be converted to HGW versions if required.

They will be HGW by default. The non-HGW variant is no longer offered or produced.



7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
User currently offlineSevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1148 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5597 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.

Regards



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5583 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...?


User currently offlineAirbusA346 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5489 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 4):

What are the differances between the HGW and non-HGW.

Tom.



Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5454 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.)


User currently onlineUAEflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 966 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5306 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


User currently offlineAirbusA346 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5245 times:

Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 14):

The 773ER has differant wingtips (raked) compare to the 773.

Tom.



Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5085 times:

Quoting UAEflyer (Reply 14):
QR is the only airline that operates the A340-600HGW.

Nope, LH also received HGW versions. In the end LH will have 10 non-HGW (10 delivered) and 14 HGW models (3-4 delivered, 10-11 yet to come))


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5036 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.

NS


User currently offlineAirbusA346 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5001 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 17):
The 777-300ER is a massively different plane to the 777-300.

Yeh, I know that I was just one thing that is differant as in looks.

Tom.



Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4955 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 13):
A twelve ton increase in MTOW (which needs some structural reinforcements, and leads to a ~5ton higher OEW,)



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 17):
The structure of the A340-600X is actually lighter

How can these two statements function together?


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4853 times:

They're not contradictory if you know the story.

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.

NS


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4786 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.

cheers,
Jan


User currently offlineJdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 351 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4606 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 Sad

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.)

Both quotes are from Newly certified A340-600 brings 18% higher productivity

Cheers
JD


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...
Why No Winglets For 737-900? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 05:55:25 by UncGSO
Why No Winglets For Every 737-700/800? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:48:32 by LY777
Why No Alliance For EK, EY, MP And LT? posted Sat Oct 21 2006 17:50:21 by RicardoFG
Why No Mercy For The Disabled? posted Sun Jul 30 2006 23:19:52 by 747hogg
Why No Q-300's For QX? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 23:39:37 by Alaska737
Why No 763s For Continental? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 20:36:19 by LY777
Why No Winglets For The 737-600? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 11:35:41 by LY777
Why No Help For People With Connecting Flights? posted Thu Mar 2 2006 16:49:37 by Works4boeing
Why No 777 For LH? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 13:15:27 by Thaigold
Why No A-380's For BA posted Sun Aug 28 2005 08:04:03 by Fiaz