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