Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10360 times:
Airbus has confirmed that the A350XWB has had its MTOW increased by 3T because it has thus far failed to reach weight targets, with industry sources putting the overweight figure at 2T.
Aviationbuff From India, joined Mar 2008, 901 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10290 times:
Quoting Moo (Thread starter): Airbus still has 5 years to go to shave that 2T off.
Yes, Airbus has a cushion of 5 years to shave off 2T and probably they may succeed in it. As mentioned in the article "weight reduction is an ongoing effort," which means that Airbus is trying to achieve it.
I also have a feeling that Airbus might be finding it difficult to achieve the weight target and has increased the MTOW. If Airbus succeeds in achieving the target then what will be the impact of the increased MTOW on the aircraft.
Fellow a.netters with some insight will be in a better position to answer this.
RJ111 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3005 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10256 times:
You can look at it two ways really. On one hand they have 5 years to shed 2 tons, which should be very doable. Alternatively, they have gained 2 tons in a short amount of time and this would suggest that they'll gain even more over the next 5 years. I would be surprised if the amount overweight has peaked yet.
Joecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1584 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10158 times:
I reckon that whatever weight the 787 ends up at will be very close to a similar sized 350. Whatever weight issues Boeing struggles with, will be the same ones Airbus will have to deal with.
The materials are about the same, as are the aircraft sizes, roles and goals. For one of these planes to end up significantly different than the other is inconceivable.
Also, if in the end, Boeing can't make the 787 significantly lighter than the similarly sized, all ali 330, I am curious if Airbus can end up making the 350-1000 significantly lighter than the similarly sized 777 model it seeks to replace.
I reckon that whatever weight the 787 ends up at will be very close to a similar sized 350. Whatever weight issues Boeing struggles with, will be the same ones Airbus will have to deal with.
The materials are about the same, as are the aircraft sizes, roles and goals. For one of these planes to end up significantly different than the other is inconceivable.
Also, if in the end, Boeing can't make the 787 significantly lighter than the similarly sized, all ali 330, I am curious if Airbus can end up making the 350-1000 significantly lighter than the similarly sized 777 model it seeks to replace.
Your final sentence kinda answers the first...
The A350 is overall a slightly larger family of aircraft... ie closer to the 777 whereas the 787 is closer to the A330. So the 787 should really come in slightly lighter for its larger models whilst the A350 should be heavier for its smaller models. Then again Airbus does have 5 years to bring the weight down with the overall industry getting more used to the new technologies... Boeing could of course continue to improve the 787 over time also.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10017 times:
As long as they stay within their contractual guarantees with their customers, there is not too much to worry about. It might be a bit harder to lose the extra weight than with previous new models though. In the past it was done by making more use of CFRP components, and this is not so easy with a model that already has a lot of CFRP incorporated in the design....
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2238 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9910 times:
Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 4): if in the end, Boeing can't make the 787 significantly lighter than the similarly sized, all ali 330, I am curious if Airbus can end up making the 350-1000 significantly lighter than the similarly sized 777 model it seeks to replace.
Well, to me it looks like Airbus manages CFRP fuselages quite a bit better than Boeing, since the excess weight so early in the A350 program is already smaller than Boeing's (on a production frame BTW) and mind you, were talking a far bigger frame here!
It also means that where the 787 is actually not much lighter than the A330 indeed, the A350-900 and A350-1000 (despite these weight increases) will come in considerably lighter than their 777 counterparts indeed and there are a few more years to go...
The A350XWB might not only come a tad early, it may also come in slightly underweight (in reference to the new datums, not the original ones).
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4359 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9574 times:
Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 4): I reckon that whatever weight the 787 ends up at will be very close to a similar sized 350. Whatever weight issues Boeing struggles with, will be the same ones Airbus will have to deal with.
Boeing have increased the 788 OEW weight by about 6,000 kg since launch, and MTOW by about 1,000 kg. The A350 should be heavier, it has the wider diameter fuselage, and the larger wing.
Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 4): Also, if in the end, Boeing can't make the 787 significantly lighter than the similarly sized, all ali 330, I am curious if Airbus can end up making the 350-1000 significantly lighter than the similarly sized 777 model it seeks to replace.
Lot easier to have a lighter fuselage when it is narrower in diameter, the 787 is wider than the A330, the A350 is narrower than the 777.
Cathay Pacific wins �Airline of the Year 2009� Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9505 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7): It also means that where the 787 is actually not much lighter than the A330 indeed, the A350-900 and A350-1000 (despite these weight increases) will come in considerably lighter than their 777 counterparts indeed and there are a few more years to go...
I want to highlight this! The 787 failed to improve considerably on weight but the A350 will (even with this revised numbers). CFRP caused a significant weight advantage on the A350 but hardly none at the 787. These are good news for Airbus!
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1075 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9401 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 10): I want to highlight this! The 787 failed to improve considerably on weight but the A350 will (even with this revised numbers). CFRP caused a significant weight advantage on the A350 but hardly none at the 787. These are good news for Airbus!
Aircraft always seem to increase in weight until all the detail work is done and then the "real" weight reduction can occurr.
IMO this is neither good nor bad news, just what we expect.
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9365 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 10): I want to highlight this! The 787 failed to improve considerably on weight but the A350 will (even with this revised numbers). CFRP caused a significant weight advantage on the A350 but hardly none at the 787. These are good news for Airbus!
The 787 is bigger than the A330, while the A350 is smaller than the 777.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 14916 posts, RR: 63 Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9311 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7): Well, to me it looks like Airbus manages CFRP fuselages quite a bit better than Boeing, since the excess weight so early in the A350 program is already smaller than Boeing's (on a production frame BTW) and mind you, were talking a far bigger frame here!
Considering that Airbus is doing a simpler and more traditional fuselage structure then Boeing, which is likely heavier by nature because of it, I would not be surprised that Airbus' "weight creep" is therefore smaller. But that structure is still very likely to be naturally heavier then if they had done it the same way Boeing did, so adding 2t to it is not something to be pleased about, even if Boeing's plane is itself overweight to it's own spec.
What I find more interesting is that MTOW is going up. As Zeke noted, Boeing only raised MTOW 1t to offset 8t worth of OEW. I know from Boeing engineers that the 787's wings modeled much better then they expected so I'd be interested to know why Airbus is raising MTOW so much. EK has said the 77W has a payload - and could very well have a range - advantage to the A350-1000, so I wonder if Airbus is beefing up the MTOW to improve the payload-range charts. Range has been dropping as the program has advanced (and I am not throwing stones here since the same thing happened to the 787), which had narrowed the non-fuel-burn gap between the A350 and the 777.
And as MTOW rises, one wonders if RR will not have to gain back some of that 2% in thrust reduction they had originally announced and will this make it harder for GE to scale the GEnx to compete and will that make them less inclined to offer an engine for the program.
Speedbird2263 From Jamaica, joined Jul 2006, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9310 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8): No mention of thrust implications in the article. Would it be safe to assume that the downsizing of the thrust requirements allowed for an "extra" 3t?
Obviously, Boeing is using the nasty, heavy CFRP while Airbus has access to magical, light CFRP, which, while being exactly the same stuff, is entirely different.
I reckon that it's a bit too early to start gloating...a couple of tonnes here, maybe another couple of tonnes in another month or so...soon enough, the 350 may be needing the 777's engines to get off the ground...or not. Who knows? 5 years is a long time for things to go right or wrong.
As we've seen from the last few major aircraft programs, (787, 380, a400), overly optimistic predictions have a way of biting the seers in the butt.
Neither of these companies has an enviable recent track record...certainly indicating nothing to give one hope for flawless execution for the future. They've both made rosy predictions before and both fell flat on their faces and had to eat a lot of crow.
Until any of these things is in the air, not very much can be taken for granted...at least not by the rational.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9158 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15): Obviously, Boeing is using the nasty, heavy CFRP while Airbus has access to magical, light CFRP, which, while being exactly the same stuff, is entirely different.
Present CFRP technology allows to cut weight by 20% (and cost by 20%). Future CFRP technology is said to achieve another 10 % less weight and another 20% less cost. We don't know how mature the 787 approach is on this scale. And more important: we don't know the improvements Airbus achieved in the mean-time. As I said:
The 788 missed the possible 20% weight cut over A332 clearly, the A359 seems to realize more of that theoretical weight benefit compared to the 772ER.
Quoting Moo (Reply 12): The 787 is bigger than the A330, while the A350 is smaller than the 777.
The A332 has nearly the same size like the 788 (floor space, wing span). Sadly the same goes for the weight. That's what I meant.
The A359 is counted as 772ER replacement thus it is ok to compare the weight of both.
PolymerPlane From United States, joined May 2006, 801 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9055 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7): Well, to me it looks like Airbus manages CFRP fuselages quite a bit better than Boeing, since the excess weight so early in the A350 program is already smaller than Boeing's (on a production frame BTW) and mind you, were talking a far bigger frame here!
Wrong logic. Unless we know what OEW Airbus is targeting, there's no way of knowing which company manages CFRP better. If Boeing is targeting on the optimistic side and Airbus is targeting on the pessimistic side, then Boeing can have higher overweight than Airbus, while having the same CFRP
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7): It also means that where the 787 is actually not much lighter than the A330 indeed, the A350-900 and A350-1000 (despite these weight increases) will come in considerably lighter than their 777 counterparts indeed and there are a few more years to go...
What a leap of faith.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 9): Boeing have increased the 788 OEW weight by about 6,000 kg since launch, and MTOW by about 1,000 kg
OEW does not really tell you much. Airplane contract weight is the "green" airplane, not the OEW.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 283 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8995 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15): As we've seen from the last few major aircraft programs, (787, 380, a400), overly optimistic predictions have a way of biting the seers in the butt.
Neither of these companies has an enviable recent track record...certainly indicating nothing to give one hope for flawless execution for the future. They've both made rosy predictions before and both fell flat on their faces and had to eat a lot of crow.
To be fair to Boeing and Airbus, the problems with the 380 and 787 programs have been related to supply chain and production issues rather then the failure of those respective platforms to meet technical specifications. The 380 is exceeding its performance targets in service and it is reasonable to expect the 787 will eventually do the same.
Boeing and Airbus may have suffered a few dents in their credibility for failing to get their products to market on time but they seem to have preserved their reputation in terms of the quality of their products.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3109 posts, RR: 21 Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8936 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 1): 2 tons is a really good news, if there is any truth in it.
Burkhard I'm not singling you out specifically, but yours was the first post with sentiment regarding 'wow that's not too bad'.
I just want to point out to everyone that it's 2 tons overweight before many of the components have actually been manufactured yet, hence it doesn't really help us all that much one way or the other. We've all seen numerous frames gain substantial weight *after* this point in the process, so let's wait and see where she ends up closer to production time before we go declaring a winner.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Aviationbuff From India, joined Mar 2008, 901 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8872 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19): I just want to point out to everyone that it's 2 tons overweight before many of the components have actually been manufactured yet, hence it doesn't really help us all that much one way or the other. We've all seen numerous frames gain substantial weight *after* this point in the process, so let's wait and see where she ends up closer to production time before we go declaring a winner.
If A says now that it is more than 5T then it will be frightening add it gradually over the period, Airlines will obviously be annoyed but not shocked and press/people will not notice.
I strongly feel that they will achieve the weight reduction target
GlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 452 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8836 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3): Alternatively, they have gained 2 tons in a short amount of time and this would suggest that they'll gain even more over the next 5 years. I would be surprised if the amount overweight has peaked yet.
How can you say that. Maybe they lost 2 tons in a short amount of time?
Its not like they are building it right now and every pound they put on it is a pound more.Why is it more likely to become more instead of less, hm?!? Okay, maybe it is, specially because it's always easier to gain weight than it is to loose it . But you make it sound as it is a given.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 10): I want to highlight this! The 787 failed to improve considerably on weight but the A350 will (even with this revised numbers). CFRP caused a significant weight advantage on the A350 but hardly none at the 787. These are good news for Airbus!
Well, don't agree 100%. It surely is easier looking at the stage of there "lifecycle" of the to aircrafts, to put the A350 on a diet than it is with the 787. However, aircrafts are no products that are developed once and then left to move on to another product. Aircrafts were and will always be continously improved during their lifecycle. But you are right, it is and will be easier for the A350 to get rid of some more weight at this stage. And I also doubt that they will ever manage to get rid of ALL their overweight on the 787.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): EK has said the 77W has a payload - and could very well have a range - advantage to the A350-1000, so I wonder if Airbus is beefing up the MTOW to improve the payload-range charts.
I think you are right. Looking at the current MTOW of the A350-10 (295 tons) I guess most of the airlines would welcome an increase of the MTOW if the promised economics won't suffer (too much). The MTOW will still be close to 20% below the MTOW of the 77W.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15): Obviously, Boeing is using the nasty, heavy CFRP while Airbus has access to magical, light CFRP, which, while being exactly the same stuff, is entirely different.
MAYBE, just maybe the A350 and its schedule is a little bit more thought threw than the 787, just maybe. At least at the moment its hinting at this. Not that it necissarily will be, but it could be.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15): As we've seen from the last few major aircraft programs, (787, 380, a400), overly optimistic predictions have a way of biting the seers in the butt.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15): Neither of these companies has an enviable recent track record...certainly indicating nothing to give one hope for flawless execution for the future. They've both made rosy predictions before and both fell flat on their faces and had to eat a lot of crow.
Well, could you imagine that Airbus did indeed learn something out of the A380 disaster?! They did give themselves a loooooooot of time to develop the A350. I'm not saying that it will happen. But maybe the A350 will be early instead of late. We know that Airbus does often need more time to develop an aircraft than Boeing does. But honestly, I think they will not need all the time they gave themself. Probably they will use all the time they got. Not because the need it in the case of the A350 but because they have it.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
Present CFRP technology allows to cut weight by 20% (and cost by 20%). Future CFRP technology is said to achieve another 10 % less weight and another 20% less cost. We don't know how mature the 787 approach is on this scale. And more important: we don't know the improvements Airbus achieved in the mean-time. As I said:
However, as you said, neither do we know what Airbus' CFRP is like.
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 16): The A332 has nearly the same size like the 788 (floor space, wing span). Sadly the same goes for the weight. That's what I meant.
Whereas Airbus's aim is that the A350-10's empty weight will be around 15% lower than the 77W. (That's were I'm sceptical). Whereas the MTOW of the 77W is like 20% higher. Meaning that you could carry something like 30-35 tons less on the A350. However, if the A350 would achieve a fuelburn reduction of something like 10% that might shrink to something like 10 tons of cargo that the A350 can carry less. My calculation: The emptyweight of the 77W is roughly 166 tons. 15% would be 24 tons. So the A350-10 would weight 142 tons. The MTOW of the 77W is 351 tons. The one of the A350-10 is 295. So the net weight both aircrafts can carry is 186 tons for the 77W and for the A350-10 153 tons. If you now calcuate a reduction of 10% for the A350 you might end up with the mentioned figure on a similar route mission and a little increase in the MTOW of the A350.
We'll see how it turns out.
GlobeEx
[Edited 2008-06-09 07:12:45]
[Edited 2008-06-09 07:16:07]
In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces.
I think what PP was trying to suggest is that we do not know whether Airbus' weight targets are conservative in comparison to Boeing's on the 787. It's always easier to lower the benchmark and achieve your targets, per se.
Nothing to do with whether OEW is a good measure or not
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 620 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8633 times:
Quoting SkyGazer (Reply 23): I think what PP was trying to suggest is that we do not know whether Airbus' weight targets are conservative in comparison to Boeing's on the 787. It's always easier to lower the benchmark and achieve your targets, per se.
My remark was just for fun. The contradiction called for it. Basically I agree with PP.
Tangowhisky From United States, joined Jun 2006, 583 posts, RR: 6 Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8428 times:
No matter how one looks at it, any weight increase on the A350 is good news for Boeing. It can make Boeing take the easier route by further improving the 777, rather than a 777 replacement.
The A350 is a bigger threat to the 777 than the 787, as the 787 will sell well regardless how good the A350 becomes. But if the gap between the A350 and 777 narrows without Boeing's help, then it make life easier for Boeing to look at a Next Generation 777 as an intermediate solution.
Only the paranoid survive
26 Ikramerica: To me this sounds more like "we are now working under the belief that we can not shave weight down to the original OEW and are targeting 2T more as o
27 Baroque: Reminds me of Parkinson's first law. "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law
28 Moo: Without access to the program internals, it can sound like a lot of things. Foolish or prudent? Airbus has one of two options: guarantee the weight r
29 Ikramerica: This is very true. Also "the pace of work accelerates as a deadline approaches." This is why, if you are planning a long term project over many month
30 FrmrCAPCADET: The earlier figures for the 787 were based on 8 abreast seating. When they switched to 9 abreast weight and range figures had to change. I haven't see
31 Worldrider: [/quote] what a bitter reaction If Airbus does so, Man!, sure they would have learned somekinda thing from Boeing. But A is not B. 2 100% pure Boeing
32 Bringiton: As the systems mature and design freeze occurs the weigth usually grows until a point - system maturity is reached where the manuf. are comfortable wi
33 JoeCanuck: Hey dude...If I make personal remarks about you, then you can respond in kind. In the meantime, keep them to yourself.
34 Banjo76: Most of what is being said here is just pure speculation, nothing else. The fact that the 787 is overweight does not mean the A350 will be. The fact t
35 FRNT787: I attribute much of this to size. While the A332 and 787-8 have about the same floor area, the 787 is wider, and therefore uses more weight per foot
36 LAXDESI: I have a thread on economic analysis of A350-10 versus B773ER in the technical forum. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/2292
37 Ikramerica: Foolish. Anything that makes the comparison between the A350X and other aircraft less in the A350X favor is foolish.
38 Zeke: That assumption is flawed, the distance over the airways HKG-JFK is about 8,100 nm, return about 7,500 nm.
39 Ruscoe: Thanks for that. What is the fuel burn advantage of the 350 if the 777 MTOW is reduced by 21,000lbs, all other assumptons being the same. Thanks, Rus
40 LAXDESI: My distance is for HKG-LAX, and you are listing HKG-JFK. In any event, you should focus on the analysis for 6,300 nm mission length.
41 LAXDESI: I am not sure what you are exploring with your question. Reduction in MTOW is possible with a lower thrust engine, which could have a lower sfc. I wo
42 WingedMigrator: Your other important assumption is that you add cargo to a nominal pax load until the aircraft hits MTOW for your designated range (6300 nm). Perhaps
43 XT6Wagon: The 777LR family has such HUGE payload in terms of shear wieght that makes me think it will be very very hard for the airlines that operate it to rep
44 Zeke: My apologies, I was wrong. Will look at that sector when I get a chance, fuel figures and distance seem too high on face value.
45 Rheinwaldner: No, it would be like assuming that airlines would replace thier 747 fleets with 777. And yes, that's exactly what happens!
46 XT6Wagon: The 777-300ER is almost as perfect a 747 replacement as you could ask for. Less people, more cargo, cheaper operating economics. Oh and if you want t
47 Rheinwaldner: I still think if 773ER replace 744's the A351 will play the same role against the 773ER. Two important conditions (of three) from your own list are f
48 Astuteman: Seems a remarkably similar percentage and timing to the "overweight" on the A380... And like the A380, the A350 seems to have the benefit of being "o
49 Scipio: That would favor the aircraft with the capacity that best suits that particular payload mass. Other aircraft will be penalized in the comparison by c
50 Ikramerica: So, let's figure it out with realistic numbers then, even if it doesn't fit Airbus's PR. Just for kicks. Also, why not see what happens if you fly ma
51 Rheinbote: What a weird conclusion is that. Could as well be 2T out of 8T rumored? Much room left for further increases in the coming 5 years? Well, for one the
52 474218: Why all the concern, all these weights are just estimates, Airbus has not even frozen the design. When the first A350 is complete and put on the scale
53 Moo: Its not a conclusion, its an observation - do I really need to cover every single possibility that may happen in the next 5 years? No, I do not. The
54 Boeing4ever: True of every major commercial aircraft program. According to this source, these are the detailed sizing models they're using. The first ones th
55 WingedMigrator: There may be some confusion between apples and oranges. The "current best estimate" mass is how much they think it's going to weigh. The "target" mas
56 PolymerPlane: The OEW number for A350-10 does not make sense. for the 7930 nm range, B773ER has useable fuel of 320,863lb and is fuel volume limited at max range.
57 LAXDESI: I am not sure what you mean by 20% more fuel efficient. At design range, A350-10's has a MTOW which is lower by 117,986 (775,000-657,014), or about 1
58 PolymerPlane: I take the B773ER usable fuel and multiply by 80%, which means A350-10 consumes 20% lower fuel than B773ER 20% is the figure Airbus has been quoting.
59 Stitch: What I don't understand is that with an OEW upwards of 40t lower then the 77W, the A350-1000 is not finding any serious traction in the market to date
60 LAXDESI: I am not sure in what context it is quoted--trip or seat mile. Analysis based on revised model below: At 7,930 nm (design range of 773ER), 773ER burn
61 WingedMigrator: I see your points... but as far as I'm aware, aircraft are typically flown at less than MTOW. But why not fill 'em up to the gills. According to my (
62 Stitch: OEW for the 77W is 168t. In a recent Flight Global article on this issue, Airbus says the OEW target of the A359 is now 116t. This is close to a figu
63 XT6Wagon: Payload and Bird in the Hand Mainly its that you can get a 777 very quickly, and have a well know, profitable plane. If you order a A350 today, you h
64 LAXDESI: Your model gives a trip fuel of 30,720 and 39,005 gallons--a difference of 8,285 gallons. Is that fuel carried (keeping in mind reserves) or burned?
65 WingedMigrator: No, the article doesn't say that. I think you're confusing OEW and MEW.
66 WingedMigrator: I gave figures for the burn-off. I suppose I should have quoted LW figures to make that clear. That's certainly within the margin of error. (At least
67 LAXDESI: From my model, GTM (gallon ton mile) is 0.0758 and 0.0946 (advantage A351 by 20%). I wonder if this is the metric Airbus is referencing when indicati
68 Stitch: Well Airbus uses MEW while Boeing uses OEW, but they both refer to the same general thing - the weight of the plane with a generic airline interior b
69 WingedMigrator: I believe that's because your model is more optimistic about SFC and L/D, and more pessimistic about weight. The end result is lower fuel burn across
70 Rheinwaldner: By comparing the weight of a similarly performing and sized alu-plane. 772ER -> A359 would be such a possibility that shows my point. I think because
71 Scbriml: That doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from buying A350s significantly ahead of EIS. In the same way "speculation and promises" didn't stop anyone
72 Astuteman: Timescale IMO. Like the A330, the 777 is good enough to be run profitably enough that the Airline gets a better ROI by taking the "less efficient" ai
73 LAXDESI: Actually the delta for cargo is about the same once we account for the differences in no. of seats our models assume; your model uses the standard co
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1280 posts, 
From India, joined Mar 2008, 901 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3005 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 1584 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 3305 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 322 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2238 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 9878 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4359 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 620 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 14916 posts, 
From Jamaica, joined Jul 2006, 214 posts, 
Good catch, I wonder the same.
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3109 posts, 
Airlines will obviously be annoyed but not shocked and press/people will not notice. 
Printer friendly format 
