Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Carriers Consider Suing Airbus Over A346 CG Issues  
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21764 times:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ors/engineering/article1624119.ece

Airlines are considering suing Airbus after the aircraft manufacturer warned them that the front-end of the A340-600 was dangerously overweight, The Times has learnt.

The problem is caused by heavier than expected first and business-class areas and airlines have been told to reduce the amount of cargo they carry to rebalance the aircraft.

The first and business class sections on some A340600s are so heavy that they are pushing the jet’s nose down during flight, which can play havoc with the aerodynamics and potentially endanger passengers and crew. Flying nose down also increases drag off the wings and forces the aircraft to burn more fuel.

Airbus has recommended that airlines carry about five tonnes less cargo in the front of the plane to compensate, a reduction of nearly 10 per cent in its total cargo capacity.


....

The A340-600, at 75 metres, is longer even than the A380, and typically seats 380. Doug McVitie, the director of Arran Aerospace, said: “The A340-600 is a piece of spaghetti with wings. Anything heavy at the front will therefore throw off the centre of gravity and that causes all sorts of problems.”

Interesting problem. Airbus is claiming that it is the airlines' faults, but the airlines seem to suggest Airbus has incorrectly stated permissable weights. I wonder which airlines are complaining, given the limited number of A346 operators. Potentially it could lead to further cancellations of A346s.

This is also something to ponder in regards to further stretches of the 777 and the A350-1000 or suggested 787-11.

[Edited 2007-04-07 02:02:55]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
173 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 21705 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter):
Interesting problem. Airbus is claiming that it is the airlines' faults, but the airlines seem to suggest Airbus has incorrectly stated permissable weights. I wonder which airlines are complaining, given the limited number of A346 operators. Potentially it could lead to further cancellations of A346s.

AFAIK the forward and aft CG range on the 346 has not changed since certification (just the increase in MTOW), all I can say is that in the years we have operated the 346, we have not had forward CG issues.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 21686 times:

If this is true than SAA comes to mind as the first candidate, didn't they have loading troubles up until recently (bad CG due to difficult load spreading aft vs forward) ?
If its true



[edit post]
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20977 times:

From what I read above, only airlines are to blame for this.
Weight & balance is something very simple.
You must balance the front section with the weight you put in the rear section.
The maximum you can put in those sections is fixed.
So, if airlines decide to install heavier equipment on the main deck of their nose section, it automatically reduces by the same amount the weight you can put in the holds just under. This is just to keep the aircraft in balance with the rear section.
And it is the same for any aircraft, not only Airbus
This aircraft has been in operation for years. Airlines had the figures. So, if they have problems ith their new interiors, they are the only ones to blame, because they made the mis-calculations when choosing their new interiors.
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 20717 times:

Very interesting development. I would have thought that per SQm of floor space, first class is the lightest of all classes when passengers & luggage is taken into account.

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20409 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 7):
Very interesting development. I would have thought that per SQm of floor space, first class is the lightest of all classes when passengers & luggage is taken into account.

Not if the pax are allowed to bring on their egos as cabin baggage.  Smile  Big grin


User currently offlineIdlewild From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does the DC-8 60/70 series have these problems?

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19804 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 7):
Very interesting development. I would have thought that per SQm of floor space, first class is the lightest of all classes when passengers & luggage is taken into account.

1 F class seat has a mass of about 10 Y class seats, catering mass is of a similar proportion.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5093 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19695 times:

I didn't know there was a weight problem with the A340-600.


Work Hard But Play Harder
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19577 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 7):
Very interesting development. I would have thought that per SQm of floor space, first class is the lightest of all classes when passengers & luggage is taken into account.

1 F class seat has a mass of about 10 Y class seats, catering mass is of a similar proportion.

Even with passengers sitting in them & luggage in the hold?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19137 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 7):
I would have thought that per SQm of floor space, first class is the lightest of all classes when passengers & luggage is taken into account.

It perhaps doesn't have to be heavier, just heavier than expected. And remember it is closest to the front of a very long plane, so weight differences will result in greater torque.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2522 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18495 times:

I would surmise that Airbus is at fault since they presumably installed the F and C class seats; they had to know what they were going to weigh, should have done the calculations and in turn, told the respective carriers "yes, that's okay", or "no, you can't put that there". Either way, sucks to be the affected carriers.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18369 times:

Quoting Teva (Reply 4):
From what I read above, only airlines are to blame for this.
Weight & balance is something very simple.
You must balance the front section with the weight you put in the rear section.
The maximum you can put in those sections is fixed.
So, if airlines decide to install heavier equipment on the main deck of their nose section, it automatically reduces by the same amount the weight you can put in the holds just under. This is just to keep the aircraft in balance with the rear section.
And it is the same for any aircraft, not only Airbus
This aircraft has been in operation for years. Airlines had the figures. So, if they have problems ith their new interiors, they are the only ones to blame, because they made the mis-calculations when choosing their new interiors.
Teva

You're oversimplifying the subject and in so doing are being somewhat misleading. You are confusing overloading with loading outside of the CG range. I believe what's being said here is that because a certain amount of excess weight had been added in the forward half of the aircraft, that has reduced the amount of cargo that can be loaded forward without exceeding the CG limit. In some aircraft this would not be a problem, so it's not *the same for any aircraft*.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18313 times:

Interestingly enough it was LH who was out front on this issue some time ago. Performance at medium/long ranges with forward CG caused noticeably more fuel burn than predicted by Airbus. The crux of the problem is that many in service A340-600's have lower deck crew, catering, and passenger amenities that are fixed and can not be changed. The aft cargo hold space is dramatically reduced and you can not use cargo ULD to adequately offset loads carried in the forward hold especially when high center tank loads are carried. When the aircraft with the smaller aft holds are carrying a full revenue payload weight and balance is very tricky very similar to the 777-200ER with lower deck crew rests but a magnitude, greater because the forward hold of the A340-600 is very long and even light ULD in the forward positions are multiplied by very long "arm" and effect CG significantly.

A340-600 airplanes that do not have the lower deck amenities or don't have the full compliment, the problem is greatly reduced because there are many positions available to offset weight in the nose. But it's quite interesting on the A340-600 compared to the 777-300/ER the moment arms are shorter for the aft hold positions thus having lesser effect on CG and therefore trim settings. The point being that on the A340-600 when all aft ULD positions are loadable the weight aft has less of an effect on CG than an airplane of similar length.

I'm quite surprised that this issue has not come to light earlier as there are a hand full of carriers that have been significantly impacted by CG issues on the A340-600. Basically there is no real fix to it except for flying short range flights in order to use the full payload capabilities of the airplane.



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2829 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18248 times:

Maybe this will put a end to the persistant rumour that carriers are happy with the 346's they ordered.
 stirthepot 


User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18193 times:

It appears that the problem is not as much original aircraft design as it is new premium cabin upgrades that are the rage and all the weight that is going with them. A too simplistic view is that the aircraft was designed at a certain f c y config and therefore should not be an issue....it apparently is an issue when the newer f and c seats are now coming in far heavier than airbus set the original specifications for while newer y seats are using more lightweight materials than originally planned during design. A normal counterbalance for this, aside from cargo loading, is fuel. However aircraft that have large center tanks are prone to be more nose heavy which may also be an issue here especially if the cg problem is more acute at high fuel loads/long flights.

User currently offlineJetfan727 From Belgium, joined Dec 2006, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18066 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 17):
Maybe this will put a end to the persistant rumour that carriers are happy with the 346's they ordered.

And YES the vast majority of A340-600 users ARE happy with them, regretfully for the too many A340-600 bashers around !!!


User currently offlineNethkt From Thailand, joined Apr 2001, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18024 times:

Quoting Teva (Reply 4):
From what I read above, only airlines are to blame for this.
Weight & balance is something very simple.

Honey, it's not true at all time. I work this part for nearly all aircraft type in this wworld.
Some of the flights has crazy weight and balance problems which sometimes made us think again and again for the optimum usage of aircrafts.

At least 2 biggest 340-600 operators are talking to sue Airbus  Wink

Well, you've got to sue when the a/c your are buying reduce your payload over 5 tons (that's lots of money) only because someone miscalculated !!  Wink



Let's just blame it on yields.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):
Interestingly enough it was LH who was out front on this issue some time ago. Performance at medium/long ranges with forward CG caused noticeably more fuel burn than predicted by Airbus. The crux of the problem is that many in service A340-600's have lower deck crew, catering, and passenger amenities that are fixed and can not be changed.

LH uses underfloor crew rest and lavs on their A346's, do they not?

Are CG issues one of the reasons LH does not offer First Class on their A346 fleet? (That I can find from seatguru.com and seatexpert.com.)


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17715 times:

I have been wondering just how heavy those first class suites are. In an age where airlines are looking to strip any unnecessary weight from an aircraft, it is interesting that they are clamoring to install these large, bulky -- and apparently very heavy -- units.

I can't imagine the airlines would consider sueing unless they had some evidence showing that Airbus had said at the time of purchase, the airlines could put that much weight up front.

What is a bit scary is that the extra weight is "causing havoc" with the aerodynamic aspects of the plane which could be a safety issue. Describing the 340-600 as spaghetti w/ wings doesn't provide much reassurance (is this pre or post cooked spaghetti??)

I hope they solve the issue, as I would love to fly in one someday!


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17714 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
all I can say is that in the years we have operated the 346, we have not had forward CG issues.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
You work for CX, correct? Are there plans to update the current F and J seats with the new (and presumably heavier) suite and seat product?

Sparklehorse12 wondered if this was a "Boeing spook story."

Actually, if this is a problem, it sounds to me that this is not an Airbus-specific problem, but rather an issue that would come up for any existing, ultra-long fuselage when upgrades of heavy first and business class seats that were not originally envisioned for the type are installed.

IF Airbus is at fault, it could be because they did not worn airlines intending to upgrade existing A/C with all that additional forward weight, that it would cause weight and balance issues and lead to the reduction of freight carrying capability. The question would be, has Airbus encouraged such seating upgrades to keep the -600 current and selling, and kept mum about resulting freight penalties?

And yet, the operators are not stupid; wouldn't they realize that adding a lot of weight, and so far from the center of gravity at that, is going to have it's consequences?

Quoting Atmx2000 (Thread starter):
This is also something to ponder in regards to further stretches of the 777 and the A350-1000 or suggested 787-11.

I would assume that yet-to-be-built A/C will already include state-of-the-art first and business class seats as part of the equation as they calculate empty take off weight, where the center of gravity will/should be, and therefore (in the case of the 777 stretch) how long the fuselage extensions forward and AFT of the wing would be, am I right? The extra weight of those seats would be taken into consideration in the overall design.



I come in peace
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17616 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 23):
Actually, if this is a problem, it sounds to me that this is not an Airbus-specific problem, but rather an issue that would come up for any existing, ultra-long fuselage when upgrades of heavy first and business class seats that were not originally envisioned for the type are installed.

From what widebodyphotog is saying, it sounds like it the lower crew rest holds in the rear are making it difficult to balance out heavy loads in the front. This would make it a configuration specific issue. I wonder if this has had any impact on Airbus's thinking with regards to crew rests and other cargo deck facilities in the A350XWB.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3598 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17591 times:

An additional factor could be the CG position for the "as manufactured" airplane. If the CG with no interior furnishings is further forward than the Airbus prediction at time of sale, the airlines could have a valid reason for compliant. They would have based their interior arrangements on an empty weight CG that would have allowed the TOW CG to remain within the forward CG limit. If the actual empty weight CG is further forward than predicted, then forebody payload and/or center tank fuel would need to be reduced so the TOW CG was within the forward limit.

I don't know if this is the actual case, but the body strengthening and additional weight that has been said to be required to reduce "excess" flexibility in the A346 fuselage could be a probable cause for a more forward empty CG.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17528 times:

Quoting Teva (Reply 4):
From what I read above, only airlines are to blame for this.

Yes, and no. When adding various BFE (Buyer furnished equipment) to the generic airplane each component comprimises something to some degree. Airbus is responsible for working with the operators to understand how the variables add up when installing optional equipent that they offer. What has happened is that firstly the compliment of BFE that some carriers has drastically reduces the operating limits of the airplane. This may be the operators fault for going overboard with BFE, but on the other hand the those limits were narrow by design of the aircraft which is the fault of the designer...



Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
LH uses underfloor crew rest and lavs on their A346's, do they not?

And/or galleys as well...The aft hold is very small. When the lower holds have full revenue load, depending on the weight of cargo, they have to either offload some to keep the aircraft in trim, or burn additional fuel over the the flight due to forward CG. I have to qualify all this by saying LH has the most extreme lower deck of all the A340-600 operators. Honestly their arrangement would not be a good idea on any large airplane because of the potential detriment to performance. However, they never throughly considered the 777-300ER which can be configured with overhead crew rests and galleys, leaving the aft cargo hold fully useable. In my world if you must have galley and crew facilities that do not sacrifice revenue load then there was/is only one choice...



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17504 times:

Glancing at the replies, has anyone considered just moving the premium cabin to the center of the aircraft? It would weird to have an economy cabin, followed by premium seats, followed by economy seats, but it should solve the problem, no?

Quoting Jetfan727 (Reply 19):
And YES the vast majority of A340-600 users ARE happy with them, regretfully for the too many A340-600 bashers around !!!

Of the twelve airlines who have ordered the A340-600, five have "defected" to the 773ER. Do you really consider 7 out of 12 a demonstration of satisfaction amongst the "vast majority" of the A340-600 customers? That isn't even 60%


25 SSTsomeday : This is interesting. I have seen pictures of large rest room facilities down a flight of stairs at the back of 340's as well. I suppose this creates
26 DfwRevolution : No, the fuselage is too narrow. There isn't enough room above the cabin trim for a crown-area rest module.
27 OldAeroGuy : No, the A340 cross section does not have enough space in the crown to offer a 777 style overhead crew rest. Mr. Leahy's counter argument was to say t
28 Acheron : Then they would get sued for not abiding to the carriers' wishes, contract and whatnot.
29 WestJetYQQ : Simple as this, COME ON!!!! Doesn't Airbus have enough problems as it is?
30 Atmx2000 : Ah but then all those premium customers would complain about cabin noise. Anyway, I have a hard time believing the economy cabin is lighter. You've g
31 Coa747 : Shouldn't CG issues have been considered during the construction by Airbus. I would have thought they would consider maximum load and what that would
32 Post contains images Ikramerica : Which are heavier, their egos or the chip on your shoulder? Hey, believe what you want. Maybe the 77W will have the same issues. Who knows? Maybe the
33 Stitch : While I imagine it is not for CG issues, is not BA moving the new Club World cabin between Doors 2 and 3 on the 744? I thought I read about it in the
34 Jetfan727 : Some of LH's A346 are going to have F class. A kind of a stupid description to say the least, even more surprising since it comes from someone within
35 Post contains links Atmx2000 : Well we all know VS has delayed their orders... Whether it is for demand related reasons or something else who knows. CX ordered a lot of 773ERs desp
36 Dougloid : I do not see this as a problem for Airbus although the airlines are now understanding what it costs to dispense with the services of a competent weigh
37 Boeing767-300 : Ok so EK AC and CX would be three. Who are the other two?...
38 DfwRevolution : CX has placed an order for 18 773ER despite already operating the A346, so be careful who you reference... Seriously, is there any wonder why? No air
39 DfwRevolution : EY, QR
40 Jetfan727 : QR is even still in the process of taking delivery of their A340-600s. They like them a lot, as do their passengers on the LHR-DOH route. Too bad for
41 Bluewhale18210 : I simply DO NOT understant what the fuss is about. The whole reason you have certified load planners to work on flights is to optimize the CG. When it
42 Atmx2000 : But if it is only a problem on aircraft that have cargo deck options such as crew rests, galleys, and lavs, all of which are in the rear I believe, i
43 Post contains images DfwRevolution : They have one left on order for a fleet total of four. They have 14 773ER on order. Which aircraft do you think they "like" more? It's clear as day t
44 Musapapaya : Then when are they gonna be delivered?
45 Glideslope : Right on IMO. IMO, it's a design issue. Too large of a plug forward of CG. If it's that "tricky" to load to achieve a good fuel burn, no wonder it's
46 XT6Wagon : Eh, the MD-11 still makes a good freighter. Didn't have enough market to keep selling as a new build freighter, but I'd love to see ANY A340NG get co
47 Lostturttle : To make a "buck" or many in this case! But I tend to agree, give me a business class seat with a decent width and pitch. The IFE is icing on the cake
48 Rheinbote : quote: The first and business class sections on some A340600s are so heavy that they are pushing the jet’s nose down during flight, which can play h
49 Boeing767-300 : From the tone I would say just a little 'sarcastic' This is a very poor excuse for the A346 inefficiency when compared to the more fuel efficient 77W
50 Zeke : The crew rest replaced the bulk cargo space in the rear, it does not use the normal aft cargo space. The rear (bulk) cargo space has a maximum load o
51 JAAlbert : I thought so too! I did not realize the 340 is "extremely energy inefficient" or that it has a "voracious" appetite for fuel. I was under the impress
52 Rheinbote : Absolutely no sarcasm intended. The 346 had trumped the 777 in payload range until the advent of the 773ER. Since then the 346 is obsolete. The hike
53 Post contains images SunriseValley : i'm with Dougloid on this one. Clearly the carriers who are having the problem did not do sufficient workups of how they planned to operate the type
54 OldAeroGuy : However, the LH lower lobe lavs, economy galley and crew rest eat up nearly all the aft ULD capability. It would be interesting to know if LH is one
55 XT6Wagon : I think the question is how "honest" Airbus was with the airlines about the A346 specs. The lawsuit I am sure will rely on proving that Airbus mis-rep
56 Post contains images BoogyJay : I think this is an airline issue here, as all data are available in the Weight & Balance Manual. The A346 could possibly be too restrictive as to CG,
57 RoyalAtlantis : This question ought to insite some serious elitism.... But...if the F/C cabins are so heavy but they want to keep the planes, why don't these airlines
58 777ER : Considering how big EKs seats are, I'm starting to wonder if they are pleased they cancelled (or did they delay?) their order.
59 Jetfan727 : Before playing "Mr I know it all" you might want to check your sources, as your erroneous comments about CX seem to prove. Seems your knowledge of co
60 Atmx2000 : Who ever it is, they are likely just negotiating through the press. His comments haven't been erroneous. He never said they were getting rid of the A
61 Jetfan727 : Nobody can negate the fact that the A346 is far from being a commercial success. The B773ER has indeed given it a hard time . But that does not make
62 777fan : That's ridiculous. If they (Airbus) weren't able to make it work to the customers' specs, the carriers most likely wouldn't have placed the order in
63 SEPilot : It is fairly obvious to me that the longer a plane's fuselage is the more sensitive it will be as to CG issues. The airlines know this as well as Airb
64 Zoom1018 : You have to take into account one thing: the 773ER may not be arriving soon enough for CX to effectively phrase the A346 out!
65 SunriseValley : Search the archives; some of Widebodyphotog's tables will give you a pretty good idea.
66 Widebodyphotog : I would guess that LH would be one of the operators included. Their grievance may center around how Airbus placed the Aerodynamic C/P so far back on
67 Post contains links NAV20 : Fairly full article here detailing the basis of the argument (the airlines putting in too much weight up-front, or alternatively Airbus forecasting a
68 Dougloid : " target=_blank>http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au....html I referred this one to my old boss who was my supervisor in weights engineering and he is
69 MD-90 : You don't seem to be aware of which airline he flies for, are you?
70 Atmx2000 : It's the same article.
71 NAV20 : Sorry - can't raise the Times on here, unless I register; that's from 'The Australian.' But the bits I quoted certainly seem to clarify the question
72 Post contains images JetMech : G'day Zeke  , Is the fuel distribution to the stab tank something that the airlines themselves could readily adjust? It seems as though Airbus thems
73 Jetfan727 : Indeed I am not.
74 BoogyJay : ... And it's pretty interesting to note that LH is the only airline having recently renewed their committment to the type with their order for 7 A346
75 SailorOrion : I'm not sure about LH being really unhappy with the A340-600, as they have place two follow-on orders meanwhile, worth 14 units. Would have been perfe
76 Musapapaya : I found all these very unbelivable. I dont mean that I doubt the integrity of your figures, but especially points 1, 3 and 4. They seem to give a ver
77 Trex8 : well I'll take the info from someone who flies that particular plane for that particular airline over the general a.net wisdom any day sort of like t
78 EI321 : fuel burn fuel burn
79 Trex8 : the MD11 is IMHO not a good comparison as MDC just simply didn't hit their projected fuel burn performance figures at all when the MD11 entered servi
80 OA260 : Im an Airbus fan but if I was a passenger reading this article I would be very alarmed. All you need is a mistake forgetting to load 5 tonnes less an
81 Jetfan727 : You may be assured that there is absolutely no reason to be alarmed whatsoever. If there is one safe plane, this is the one. Finally someone who said
82 XT6Wagon : Its not a real safety issue, since its known, and within legal CG limits even loaded with the extra weight forward. The extra fuel burn is a concern
83 Post contains links Zeke : Somehow I dont think you have flown on a 345/346. The aft end hardly moves around at all, out of all the airbus aircraft that are in service it has t
84 EI321 : Does that suggest the the 747-8 will have higher fuel burn per passenger than the 777-300ER?
85 Jetfan727 : The reply of mine you are quoting was definitely not directed at you but at another participant under the name DfwRevolution. My apologies for the co
86 Post contains images Ikramerica : See, if this is the truth, then all the other arguments on this page are missing this important part. AIRBUS WARNED THEM about problems, and one has
87 SEPilot : Thanks for the info, but what I was looking for was a comparison between the A346 and the 77W. I thought you would be a good source because your airl
88 XT6Wagon : You forgot his crusade against all things ETOPS to the point of not wanting 4 engine aircraft to get ETOPS safety added to them.
89 Post contains images RedChili : Do you consider Zeke to be a prophet? I believe the first CX 77W will be delivered in September this year.
90 Brons2 : An A346? No, I don't think so. An A346 could not fly the mission you described.
91 Zeke : Not yet, few months, sept the first few should arrive, just the 772/773 at the moment.
92 Musapapaya : I am not Zeke but I know what you wrote here was quite wrong. CX uses a 346 HKG-JFK nonstop year round. Westbound trip clocks around 16 hours 20 mins
93 Zeke : HKG-JFK every day, schedule time is 15:45, and that is very easy to bust with taxi times at JFK in winter.
94 Trex8 : your description is spot on and I do take it into account but he still has technical insight into things most of us are clueless about and have no re
95 Brons2 : It may be 16 hours but it still ain't no 8600 nautical miles. 8600 statute miles, maybe.
96 Post contains images Halls120 : I've been watching other posters debate you for quite some time. Most of the time, you have the upper hand. Given all that, I find your dismissal of
97 Zeke : Such as ? The 340 has all the ETOPS equipment of the 330, it has cargo fire protection for 240-280 minutes, which is more than the standard 787 model
98 Post contains links and images Zeke : Have a look at the prevailing winds this time of year, a tack is flown almost direct east from HKG. It would not be uncommon on some flights to be cl
99 PVG : Looks like the dual software platform was causing airbus problems pre-A380 as well.
100 SEPilot : I did not realize that; I thought they already had them. No, I don't consider Zeke to be a prophet but I do respect his opinion (although I also disa
101 SunriseValley : Zeke......So if I fly JFK-HKG about October 23rd what are the odds that you will be part of the crew?
102 Post contains images JetMech : G'day Zeke , What you say here is quite true. I could do a full manual refuel of an A330 / A340 and put the fuel onboard at any distribution I liked,
103 Ikramerica : One can use that technical insight to one's advantage in an argument by claiming certain things that can't be verified and go against the realities o
104 Post contains links Rheinbote : Depends on your standards. In commercial aviation terms, a 10% difference in fuel burn (everything else being equal) is a lot. Leahy conceded that th
105 OldAeroGuy : Payload range data are also badly out of date. Both airplanes fly about 7900 nm for the design mission (pax and bags only). The A346IGW does not have
106 DAYflyer : Unless Airbus misrepresented to the airlines what they could or could not do...
107 Dougloid : For some reason, despite all the facts to the contrary people insist on characterizing the MD11 and DC10 as failures. They got bad press back in the
108 PA110 : This is exactly the problem with civ av. Some "know it all" armchair pilot trying to lecture an actual pilot. This thread has been fascinating, and m
109 Widebodyphotog : Payload, zone load, compartment load? Recent 6,000nm regular scheduled trip on a 777-300ER: TOW 768,400lbs (MAX 769,000) Payload 105,000lbs (includin
110 Jetfan727 : You would do well to check it out further before giving this kind of patronizing"advice" I was called a "rookie" precisely by the real kind of rookie
111 Zeke : I know it can be done, but like you I have never had to do it. I think for some strange circumstances like if we had to use JP4 fuel and had a fuel t
112 Post contains images Baroque : Why the extraordinary hostility to Zeke's statements of actual experience? Fine for WBPG to ask for more data, and I note that W's 6000 nm segment for
113 Poitin : All this is true, Zeke, except your going in argument -- stability is lost. While I have not flown 747s and such I have many hours in a Pitts Special
114 N328KF : 240-280 minutes? My understanding was that the 787 was being engineered for ETOPS-320 equivalent.
115 Zeke : Maybe it was just my interpretation of the wording. The aircraft remains within the normal CG envelope at all times, it remain 2% forward of the rear
116 Dougloid : Yes, it does. Flying with the CG in the aft part of the range is inherently less stable than when flying in a nose heavy configuration.
117 SunriseValley : If my methodology is correct and the load/ range charts are close to accurate, this puts the passenger ready weight of this particular aircraft at ju
118 Woodsboy : If operators are going to sue Airbus over the A340-600 CG issues, I wonder why nobody ever sued MD or Boing over the CG charactaristics of the MD80 fa
119 Widebodyphotog : Don't see why that would be as from takeoff to ICA the fuel flow rates are much higher than they are at cruise. The avg I detailed is from takeoff to
120 Widebodyphotog : More than 5t less than that is all I'll say... -widebodyphotog
121 SailorOrion : Sorry but the fuel burn figures I gave are official LH data. From the preliminary data they have it appears they assume both the 748 and the 388 to be
122 Ikramerica : What 8600nm segment? What plane are we talking about here? And notice how Zeke and WBP both are not in complete agreement, despite both of them doing
123 Widebodyphotog : Agreed, however I believe what the complaint is centers arround what the carriers must do to stay within limits which is reduce load in the forward h
124 Mham001 : I am not in any way qualified to question a professional, but I would not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon that every professional here pulls. I h
125 OldAeroGuy : But 180 min. works well for most operators and routes, with no routing changes required to remain within 180 min operating distances. If more diversi
126 Dougloid : Because the whiners and professional victims have taken over the airlines, or at least the ones that operate this class of aircraft and pretend to be
127 Poitin : Dougloid is correct. Perhaps it is semantics, Zeke, but when I learned to fly many many years ago, I was permitted to only fly "stable" aircraft whic
128 SEPilot : As mentioned earlier, if Airbus gave incorrect data at any stage of the process they are liable to be sued. If Boeing and/or MD said this is what you
129 RoyalAtlantis : i see your respect ratings and read your posts...but watch your words - I have flown on CX from JFK-HKG...and AC from YYZ-HKG - so who are you to mak
130 Zeke : 346 doing HKG-JFK along a route like HKG-TPE-30N 160E-33N 179E-35N 160W-36N 140W-KJFK following the winds. Sorry if that sounded condescending. What
131 Poitin : I am not sure what you mean by "structural damping mode". Are you referring to the FBW dampening I would expect the electronics to give automatically
132 Zeke : From one of the 340 differences documents : "The flight control laws have been redesigned on the A340-500/600 to damp out structural oscillations and
133 Dougloid : I had not heard about this but it stands to reason that small FMS directed control movements could do a lot toward ensuring a more comfortable ride b
134 Post contains links and images JetMech : G'day Dougloid , I think the concept had quite an early inception with aircraft. The Bristol Brabazon from the 1940's had a gust alleviation system t
135 Baroque : I had a feeling there must have been an overall difference in headwinds. That would have to be taken into account, probably segment by segment if cha
136 PolymerPlane : No, because the 773ER took off near MTOW. That means the plane carried as much weight as it would have if it were doing the same mission as the A346.
137 Flying-Tiger : Have heard that Boeing is running into similar problems with the 787 at the moment as well (too heavy F/C-seats), and had to strengthen the floor to b
138 Poitin : So it is the FBW system being used in a clever way. Obviously, they added some sensors to detect the turbulence and oscillations, but there is no roc
139 Rheinbote : What Zeke described (with more detail than I know) is a structural mode control system that may be integrated into an FBW system, but is not necessar
140 Aminobwana : Lets keep this simple: 1) In the specs Airbus must have indicated which is the max. load forward permisible for max, range flights. It is hardly belie
141 Dougloid : If aft economy section is half empty that moves the CG forward yet more. What I said. It's probably described in per cent MAC (mean aerodynamic chord
142 Aminobwana : quoting DOUGLOID reply 143 April 10 to 1) You write: :If aft economy section is half empty that moves the CG forward yet more. This is my point ! Even
143 SailorOrion : The certification agencies care crap whether your aircraft is overweight or whether the installed (and certified) seats move the CG front. As long as
144 Coa747 : Yeah because Airbus has never stretched the truth, like when they told Cathay that the A340-600 could make New York nonstop, but were careful not to s
145 Pilot21 : But it can make HKG-JFK nonstop, and does so on a daily basis! A fine ride I had it in too in 2005 flying between those two great Cities!
146 Trex8 : Airbus was overweight on the wings with the first few production A346s , which CX got, even then it has not stopped CX flying that route regularly non
147 Aminobwana : ---------------------------------------------------------------- My question was: Please let me know your qualified opinion regarding if it is compat
148 Post contains links StarGuy : The Daily Mirror has reported that Virgin Atlantic are unhappy with their A346 because the weight of the nose section has resulted in the amount of ca
149 Astuteman : Coming late to the (fascinating) thread...... But isn't the point here to put more fuel in the tail in order to correct a C of G that is overly forwa
150 Dougloid : The idea is to use the tank in the horizontal stabilizer to trim the aircraft to the aft part of the CG range. It's more economical. Of course you ca
151 OldAeroGuy : Well stated. I wonder if another part of the issue is CG curtailments. Since airlines don't weight every passenger and their carry-ons directly, it's
152 Dougloid : Well thanks for the vote of confidence. I used to work in the weight and balance field. I think most new large aircraft these days are using realtime
153 OldAeroGuy : The main question about these systems is their accuracy. In addition, there is the issue of passenger loading timing. While in many cases the monitor
154 Dougloid : True, which is why you wouldn't want to use them as instruments of precision accurate to a gnat's ass. But if the information is used conservatively
155 SunriseValley : Remember prior to take off from CDG for YYZ on a AC 767 in Dec. 2005; the flight attendants asked 15 or 20 passengers to move a few rows for take off,
156 OldAeroGuy : This only works if there are empty seats to move to.
157 VC-10 : I do not see how it is grounds to sue AI. All Airbus do is supply an empty tube, it is up to the airlines themselves as to what they put in it and wh
158 Yyz717 : If the 346 is falling short of the guaranteed or promised payload/range performance measures without advance warnings or advisals by AI that certain
159 Dougloid : I'm not sure whether you can file a complaint against Airbus and use being stupid as a basis for liability. When the airlines accepted the outfitted
160 STJ : I do Load Planning and PAX weights add up fast, for example if you take lets say 32 premium seats that weight 100 pounds out of the forward cabin tha
161 Qantas744ER : I know you work for CX etc. but you are really telling me the 777-300ER floor construction cannot support the new CX F class, but can support the new
162 Trex8 : I think he may be referring to the 773s already in service for several years with CX
163 Scbriml : Couldn't that just be a similar situation to QF's issues with A330 floors? Having ordered lightweight floors for domestic services, they than had to
164 Stitch : Is CX putting their suites into their 777-300A fleet?
165 Vorticity : Airplane manufacturors (Airbus, Boeing, etc) are responcible for providing cg and loading information to the airlines. I believe the grounds for a la
166 VC-10 : Airbus documention specfies the payload available based on a 'standard' cabin configuration. If the airlines choose to go for a heavier that standard
167 Yyz717 : The 346 is a relatively new aircraft. I question how much F cabin configurations have changed so drastically since 346 certification that W+B issues
168 AndesSMF : Engineering is full of conservatism and this is shown in many examples, including airplanes. If the wing is designed to fail at 2.5g load, the engine
169 Vorticity : Again, the quote was .... "The airlines believe Airbus has incorrectly stated the maximum weight for front-end cabins and they are considering suing
170 Dougloid : Again, that's like being a little bit pregnant. I do think that the aircraft may not have had a lot of leeway to be building gyms, spas and sleeping
171 Post contains links and images Stitch : Maybe Airbus is taking proactive steps? Image and template by Owen V. Williams. Image courtesy of Modified Airliner Photos.
172 Aminobwana : I would like if somebody answer me these questions first YES or NO, comments welcome after, as all the postings seem not to provide a clear answer, ba
173 Jacobin777 : ...just look at SQ's new F-seats....I don't expect the lead time for that was prior to the development and arrival of the A346.....that being said, g
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...
Lufthansa Was Thinking About To Buy 777 Over A346 posted Thu Feb 24 2005 11:24:45 by Columba
Shuttling Airbus' Over The Atlantic posted Tue Aug 17 2004 22:59:51 by Radelow
Clinton Threatens Airbus Over A3XX posted Mon Dec 18 2000 22:36:15 by Juul
Eads Cements Management Control Over Airbus posted Wed Nov 1 2006 08:51:46 by Leelaw
Airbus Won't Confirm EK A346 Cancellations posted Mon Oct 30 2006 12:34:02 by Keesje
Airbus Faces Fresh Hit Over Super-jumbo posted Sun Oct 8 2006 07:52:41 by Windshear
Airbus Parent Eads Pounded Over A380 Delays posted Wed Oct 4 2006 18:19:59 by BoomBoom
Airbus, Boeing Clash Over Jumbo Freighters posted Fri Jul 21 2006 17:35:47 by NYC777
BAE Urged To Sue Over Airbus Delay Blow posted Tue Jul 4 2006 05:51:01 by RAPCON
BAE Ready To Sue Over Airbus posted Sun Jun 25 2006 06:54:41 by NAV20