Spaceman
Topic Author
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 3:28 pm

A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:30 am

According to the article below from airbus....

A340-500 EXCEEDS PREDICTION
Flight test results have demonstrated that the A340-500 has exceeded performance predictions and confirmed the aircraft's status as the world's longest range aircraft. The A340-500 will fly further and carry more payload than initially estimated, generating even more profit for its operators.

With its advanced wing design and four Rolls-Royce Trent 556 powerplants, the A340-500 offers airlines take-off and climb performance superior to those previously calculated.

For a given take off distance, available take off weight is increased by up to seven tonnes, offering more range and more payload carrying ability.

Where runway length is not critical, operators will benefit from the lower engine maintenance costs resulting from a higher thrust derate. The A340-500's climb capability will permit operators to secure the most favourable altitudes and routes.

The A340-500's payload range with a full payload of 313 passengers is increased to 8 700 nm (16,100 km) at 368 tonnes (811,300lb) take off weight. The aircraft is also available to new customers with an optional 372 tonne (820,100 lb) maximum take off weight, increasing the aircraft's full passenger payload range to 8,850 nm (16,400 km).

This new option also includes increases in maximum landing weight and maximum zero fuel weight to 243 tonnes (535,700 lb) and 230 tonnes (507,050 lb) respectively. Available payload is increased by up to five tonnes (11,000 lb). These optional weights are available without structural modification to the aircraft.

The A340-500, which will be the first ultra-long-range airliner to enter passenger service, is designed to provide airlines with the ability to open services between city pairs that are beyond the economic range of existing aircraft. Passengers will soon be able to travel in the peace and tranquillity of cabins engineered to make ultra-long-range flights not only more expedient but also more relaxing, without the need for technical stops or changes of aircraft that are currently needed to join city pairs such as Singapore to Los Angeles or Dubai to New York.
 
BOEING747-700
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 5:21 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:46 am

I thought it had Rolls Royce Trent 553 engines and the 346 had the RR 556????
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:03 am

I thought it had Rolls Royce Trent 553 engines and the 346 had the RR 556????

Like Boeing, it appears that Airbus has decided to market a single engine for both types... though the derated version is still available.


BTW, there's already a similar topic going about this drivel:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1071552/
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15699
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:13 am

Well, it sounds impressive on its own.

How it compares to the 772LR is what's relevant though.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:36 am

So, Singapore Airlines can add more features / seats / weight / cargo.

Good.

But I agree, how it weighs up to the 772LR is the most important thing at the moment. However, since there is no physical 772LR (shame), A345 is winning, so ha.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
BOEING747-700
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 5:21 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:08 am

So does that mean that the "possible" Air Canada A340-541s will feature the Trent 556 power plants????
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:15 am

The 772LR may carry more payload than the 345 but you are letting your support of Airbus outweigh that of Singapore Airlines Limited?For shame.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:38 am

Misleading claims: The A345 has not met expectation. Originally, it was 313 pax with a range of 8650 nm at 365t of MTOW. They have to increase the takeoff weight to 368t to recover the range shortfall. More than likely, they added another fuel tank.
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:43 am



Well if the 772lr has better than expected performance the current upper hand that Airbus has might just fly through the window. The 772LR has a better launching pad than that of the new 340s seeing that the 777 has a larger customer base and is considered the market leader betweeen the 340 and 777.

So I hope by the end of the decade the 7E7 backs up the 777 as being considered the better product in its class
Eagles Soar!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:08 am

They increased the takeoff weight and also increased the range...

The original plan was 313 at 8500.

N
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:54 am

And I believe they will also feature same wings but lighter?
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:36 pm

I think the point is that in order to meet payload range guarantees, the weight had to be increased.

This means the aircraft will have the capability as promised, but will be more expensive to operate.

Compare this with the 773 ER, which came in lighter and with better than advertised payload range. This is why Boeing can still find buyers at higher prices than A345.

My guess and that is all it is, is that Boeing work on the lower side of expected performance, while Airbus work on the upper side of expected performance.

I really cannot believe that Airbus could get a digitally designed wing wrong to the order of two tons.

I am trying to think of any Airbus widebody, which met its payload range at introduction to service. If any, I would put my money on the A310. Unfortunately it had the same problem which the 767 has now with the 330; lack of capability.

Ruscoe
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:06 pm

Gigneil:

Go check Airbus data. At 365t, the range has been listed at 8650nm for many years. The 8500nm was floating around for a while, but the final nominal product spec was at 8650nm. You just won't accept any hint that the 345 is not meeting specs. Sigh! Now Airbus claims 8700nm range at 368t. The additional 50nm range is sort of face saving, if you know what I mean.

If Airbus has to increase takeoff weight to meet payload and range guarantees, then they didn't meet expectation, let alone "better than expected". That's why I said the Airbus article is misleading.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:33 pm

I thought Malaysia were doing New York-Dubai already with the 772's. Or did I miss something here?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:22 pm

"I thought Malaysia were doing New York-Dubai already with the 772's"

They are. What about it?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Spaceman
Topic Author
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 3:28 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:24 am

What about the optional increased tow with 372 tones and even more range that's now available to customers. With this optional range of 8850 nm, the A340-500 is edging ever closer to the projected range of the 777LR. That is to say if the LR meets the projected performance when it starts to fly. However, airbus did not mention the reasons of why the performance was better than expected. The only clue was that it now uses higher thrust engines, but besides that there is no further details.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:26 am

I just like defending the underdog a bit, no harm in that?

MH does fly DXB-EWR, but with horrifying performance restrictions at most times of year.

N
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:38 am



Spaceman:
Eventhough the 345 is edging closer to the range of the 772LR and reaches it by the time the LR is realeased. Airbus will still be at square one if the 772LR offers better than expected performance while maintaing a lighter weight than the 345.
Eagles Soar!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:53 am

Gigneil:

I'm afraid Airbus is no longer the underdog. Also, you were not defending an opinion. You were defending a false advertising, to put it politely.

Spaceman:

The optional 372t MTOW of the 345 is not adequate to match Boeing's increase of the 772LR MTOW from 750klb to 766klb. At the higher MTOW, the 772LR will have a range of 9170nm.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:14 am

Gigneil:

Wow! Didn't see the other part of your reply. Be responsible of what you say. The MH flight is payload restricted on the DXB-EWR leg during part of the year, and the restriction is certainly not "horrifying". AFAIK, it amounts to no more than one tenth of the payload on the worst condition. Compare this to SQ's planned SIN-LAX nonstop service on the 345, the payload restriction will be on the order of 30% or more. That's why SQ's 345 will have less than 180 seats. Would you say that's horrifying?
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

A345 Performance Worse Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:15 am

Dynkrisolo, thank you for your excellent points.

A range increase that requires a MTOW hike is not really an efficent one. The A340NG is going to have two types of customers: existing Airbus customers and ETOPS challenged airlines/routes. Possibly they will sell some frames based on the lower list price of it relative to the 777 derivatives. For anyone else, the economics of the A340NG vs the 773ER/772LR are just not very compelling. Why carry around all that extra weight for less range?
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:23 am

For the 777, it still hinges all on the continued viability of the current extended ETOPS regulations.

I don´t see an immediately imminent problem with that, but it may well depend on a single accident.

Redundancy still does matter...
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

The optional 372t MTOW of the 345 is not adequate to match Boeing's increase of the 772LR MTOW from 750klb to 766klb. At the higher MTOW, the 772LR will have a range of 9170nm

And that's only including the specifications generated by the GE90-110B1. Should Boeing/GE certify the bird to operate with the GE90-115B, as many sources indicate they will; the 772LR's performance will again be increased.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

A345 Performance Worse Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:30 am

Klaus,

That's fine and dandy about ETOPS, but this thread is not about ETOPS, it's about performance. Clearly, despite Airbus spin, the A345 has fallen short of expectations. I don't see Airbus crowing about ETOPS in their press release, so I don't see how it's relevant to a discussion of airframe performance.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Brons2

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:45 am

Overall performance includes the consideration of safety margins including potential collateral damage.

And, of course, the effect safety measures can have on ticket marketing. Which - at this point - appears to be limited, but that could change overnight.

Boeing is clearly gambling on this never happening. And keeps heaping more cash on the table...

[Edited 2003-04-22 22:46:42]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:45 am

Klaus,

Sorry to break this to you, but you're looking in from the wrong side of the window.

Not only is extended ETOPS here to stay, but it's apparently on its way to becoming the rule for ALL extended range aircraft operations... not just twins.

This site does a good job of explaining it.... and it's not just Boeing spin, the FAA's site backs it up as well!  Smile
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

ConcordeBoy

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:50 am

That´s completely beside the point. Of course there is a push to - at least legally - nullify the disadvantage of twins against quads.

Too bad the laws of probability may not be so kind...
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

Hmmm

Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:56 am

Boeing is clearly gambling on this never happening. And keeps heaping more cash on the table...

Kind of like Airbus gambing that another A300 tail won't fall off due to the backwards nature of the rudder feel?

Look, I'm not going to begrudge you your point. The added redundancy of 4 engines will be something of a selling point for Airbus. (The A340 will probably be required to comply with LROPS however)

The commonality with existing Airbus fleets, if you want to bring that up, will also be a selling point. As will lower acqusition costs (which are driven by inferior economics, but that's another thread).

The point of this thread is, however, does the A345 exceed performance expectations, based on range and takeoff weights, or does it fail to meet published specs? I'd say the latter.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 6:46 am

I'd have to agree with you on both accounts Brons


And Klaus,
some would say that those laws have already kicked in: SR111 being the catalyst which leads to the death of non-ETOPS complient operations.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Spaceman
Topic Author
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 3:28 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 6:48 am

The publish specs say it has 8650 nm for range, and now appearantly it will exceed 8700 nm plus some gain in the MTOW. I fail to see how this could be failing to meet the publish specs.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6447
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:08 am

Oh, it's really annoying what BS A and B people can read out of incomplete data. The only range related data we can read are:

1. The max range at max pax load has increased by 200nm.

2. When interpolating to an old predicted MTOW at 365 tonnes, then with max pax load the range is 8587.5nm and does fall 62.5nm short of the predicted 8650nm.

And so what?

There is no data about predicted vs. actual certified empty weight. Therefore we cannot calculate any fuel burn shortfalls or improvements.

If we imagine that empty weight came out half a percent heavy, then the fuel burn on a 8650nm sector is as predicted. And if it came out equally lightweight, then fuel burn is slightly over predictions.

All we can read from the data is that the 345 fell very close to predicted performance figures.

In addition we can read that aerodynamic, mechanical and structural integrity properties has allowed a 2% inceased MTOW and a 5 tonnes heavier max payload, which can only add slightly to operational flexibility.

Give me a break. There is nothing to make A people jump up and down. And nothing to make B people shout foul. Let's just all be happy that the 345 designers did not produce another MD-11 style miscalculation.

Kind regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:28 am

Let's just all be happy that the 345 designers did not produce another MD-11 style miscalculation

Why? That would've been pretty awesome really  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:16 am

Oh, it's really annoying what BS A and B people can read out of incomplete data. The only range related data we can read are:

1. The max range at max pax load has increased by 200nm.

2. When interpolating to an old predicted MTOW at 365 tonnes, then with max pax load the range is 8587.5nm and does fall 62.5nm short of the predicted 8650nm.


Yes, but Airbus is the one who gave us the press release trumpeting that the A345 performance was better than expected. In fact, the opposite is true. It's not by a large margin, I'll grant you, but their claim is a fabrication based on their previously published data. Or maybe they just had some different expectations they told nobody else about and are now exceeding them? Whatever. Just another day in the life of the Airbus propaganda machine.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:35 am

Klaus,

"I don´t see an immediately imminent problem with that, but it may well depend on a single accident."

You and I have debated the merits of ETOPS v. LROPS for some time, so I'm not going to rehash old arguements. However, I will point out one thing - what you call "a single accident."

I know you're point of view, so I know you are assuming an ETOPS-related accident. However, consider this - what if the Air Transat A330-200 had not been able to reach land, but had crashed in the Atlantic, killing all aboard. Would this restrict ETOPS aircraft, or all long-range airliners? The answer is the latter, as the Air Transat incident was not ETOPS related. Therefore, one of only 2 advantages the A340 has v. the 777 would be gone (which it probably will be in a few years, anyway). Another hypothetical - what if a 747/A340/MD-11/A380/etc. crashes while 3 hours away from a diversionary airport?

You see, it works both ways.

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:48 am

Another hypothetical - what if a 747/A340/MD-11/A380/etc. crashes while 3 hours away from a diversionary airport?

Or how about this one... what if a quad/tri were to crash about 15 minutes away from land because it didnt have to adhere to ETOPS-level fire suppression specifications; and because the pilot chose to spin out* and dump fuel rather than immediately divert, like an ETOPS ship would have?

Oops, my bad... it already HAS happened  Sad





*and yes, I am aware that an immediate landing probably would not have brought them enough time either  Sad
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:32 am

You´re missing the point: There are a large number of issues that do not differ between twins and quads.

Engine redundancy, however, is one of the very few that actually does.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:46 am

Which twins adeptly make up for with dispatch reliability (general and engine-wise) that quads thus far could never dream of.

Tell me, how do quads make up for their lack of fire suppression?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

ConcordeBoy

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:01 am

ConcordeBoy: Which twins adeptly make up for with dispatch reliability (general and engine-wise) that quads thus far could never dream of.

When having the choice only between delay or ditch, at least I choose the former... Especially when quad dispatch reliability is still extremely close to a twin. But to each his own, I guess.


ConcordeBoy: Tell me, how do quads make up for their lack of fire suppression?

By using modern A340s up to the same standards as ETOPS twins, for instance, not ancient MD-11s or DC-8s built and equipped to lower standards.  Insane
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:02 am

Spaceman wrote:

plus some gain in the MTOW

No. You don't gain MTOW. You only increase MTOW when it is necessary. Added weight means added cost.

Prebennorhem wrote:

2. When interpolating to an old predicted MTOW at 365 tonnes, then with max pax load the range is 8587.5nm and does fall 62.5nm short of the predicted 8650nm.

Do I need to point out the flaw of your argument here? Let's see, according to your interpolation, we could have a version of the 345 at 125t and has around 3000nm of range. Need I go on?

The simple fact is the original intent was to have a 365t aircraft carrying 313 pax. for 8650nm. Now, they need a 368t aircraft to carry 313 pax. for 8700nm. At max range, the payload of the 345 is about 30t. 3t difference is 1/10 of the payload. That's very significant. Airbus didn't meet their guarantees. End of story!
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:43 pm

ConcordeBoy,
I'm getting used to your biased "only twins can fly" style opinion. But this statement
"Or how about this one... what if a quad/tri were to crash about 15 minutes away from land because it didnt have to adhere to ETOPS-level fire suppression specifications; and because the pilot chose to spin out* and dump fuel rather than immediately divert, like an ETOPS ship would have? "

Is simply ridicolous! It shows me that you have no idea of the whole accident. Did you know that one of the findings was, that the timeline was too short at all even if they headed directly to Halifax and tried to perform an overweight landing with all connected risks..... This is really a poor comparison to imply that an ETOPS plane wouldn't have crashed. Bye bye credibility.......

Cheers, Thomas
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:51 pm

Did you know that one of the findings was, that the timeline was too short at all even if they headed directly to Halifax and tried to perform an overweight landing with all connected risks

Might have something to do with my statement "and yes, I am aware that an immediate landing probably would not have brought them enough time either "  Insane


Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:44 pm

ConcordeBoy, so what's your point then, you still imply that an ETOPS plane (which ironically also have no fire suppression in the areas that were affected on SR111.....) wouldn't have had to face the same fate? If so, it really would not surprise me, knowing that you are are a "die-hard" ETOPS fan.....

Cheers, Thomas
 
B-HOP
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 8:09 pm

RE: A345 Performance Better Than Expected

Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:13 pm

For God sake, the twice weekly twin vs quad, A vs B war again!
Live life to max!!!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos