flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:51 am

Since in another discussion thread Deafening Silence On A380 Tests (by Boeing767-300 Aug 18 2005 in Civil Aviation), there were a lot of good discussion about A345 and B772LR, which were off the original main topic, I figured I'll start a new thread based on these two fine aircraft models.

Now, I know that everyone has a bias when it comes to air planes, that's why we're all here. But I want a good, civil discussion about these two aircraft types. This is to compare two aircraft types with published data, this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing, and DEFINITELY not about Europe vs. US.

If you do not agree with someone's facts, please provide a good, published, data to back up your claim. If you do not agree with someone's opinion, please respectfully disagree and explain why. (If you'd like to let your opinion know, please start with IMO so we all know, just in case...:p) Opinions are just like (fill in your own body part here), everyone has one.

No name calling, no personal insults. If you can't handle a civil conversation about civil aviation, then I'd suggest you find another thread to look discuss.

Now, here are the facts about the two fine aircrafts:

Boeing 772LR: (Data from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family)

Launched: Feb 2000 with orders from PIA and EVA
Engine: Two GE-90-110B1L with 110,100 lbs of Thrust
Max range: 9,420 nm with aux. fuel tanks installed.
Max fuel capacity: 53,440 Gal.
MTOW: 766,000 LBs
Cruise Speed: Mach .84
Cargo Space: 5,302 Cubic Ft. (12-14 LD-3 Container pallets, plus 600 cubic ft of bulk cargo, depending on aux. fuel tank option)

Interior Space:
Cabin width: 5.86 m x Cabin length 49.50* m = 290.07 Sq Meters
*(Boeing does not provide the Cabin length, so I used the same logic in subtracting 5 meters from 345's cabin length since 772LR is 5 meters shorter on the outside. If anyone has the figures, please let me know!)



Airbus 340-500: (Data from http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...a340/a340-500/specifications.html)
Engines: Four Rolls Royce Trent 550 with 53,000 lbs thrust each.
Max range with passengers: 8,650 nm
Max fuel capacity: 56,750 Gal
MTOW: 811,300 lbs
Max Operating Mach: Mach .86

Interior space:
Maximum cabin width: 5.28 m x Cabin length 53.56 m. = 282.80 Sq Meters.

I did not include max pax capacity because Boeing and Airbus uses different variables to measure this.

If there are any more published information out there, I will post it up, and if you find any, please do share the info!

Thanks

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:06:28]
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:56 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Thread starter):
this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing

A345 versus B772LR and this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing ???

Can't wait to see that !
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:00 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 1):
A345 versus B772LR and this is not about Airbus vs. Boeing ???

Good point, I should've made myself a bit more clearer:
Comparing two aircrafts that is fighting for the same customers is fine, after all, competition is always good for the customer. Bitching and moaning about who is getting how much money from their government, which country is it produced in, the political condition of the manufacturing country, or making personal attacks because you're a A or B fan, is not acceptable.

This thread is for information gathering and comparison of data. If you have a preference, please express yourself, and your preference should be respected.

Thanks  Smile

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:03:14]
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15214
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:05 am

From what I understand the 77L can consistently carry more payload than the 345.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:08 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Thread starter):
Now, here are the facts about the two fine aircrafts

OK, these are facts, we are not allowed to give opinions because that is per definition A vs B, or US vs EU as you like...

So, what is your point? End of thread?
 Confused
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:13 am

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 4):
OK, these are facts, we are not allowed to give opinions because that is per definition A vs B, or US vs EU as you like...

Please give all the opinions you want, but please respect other opinions as well, and don't drag politics and national pride into this discussion.
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:14 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 2):
Good point, I should've made myself a bit more clearer:
Comparing two aircrafts that is fighting for the same customers is fine, after all, competition is always good for the customer. Bitching and moaning about who is getting how much money from their government, which country is it produced in, the political condition of the manufacturing country, or making personal attacks because you're a A or B fan, is not acceptable.

Very well written FlyingHippo, In my opinion the B777-200LR has a leading edge in terms of performance and range compared to the A340-500. Mainly due to it being a twin.
Although in terms of comfort the A340 family wins it for me. I will always prefer the 2-4-2 economy layout of the A340/A330/A350 vs the 2-5-2 of the B777 family.

When it comes to cabin noise the A340 family once again wins hands down. At least I can always get a decent nights sleep aboard the A340 family vs the B777.

I am eager to see how Airbus will react with the improved A340-500/600 HGW vs the 777 family. Last week I read in this forum that Airbus may introduce the A350 rear fuselage to the A340-500/600. With time am sure that this aircraft will be further improved as well as the B777.

Regards,
Wings

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:19:03]
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:14 am

Interesting stats. The 345 MTOW is over 45,000 lbs more but it carries less payload (according to what others have posted)?
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:15 am

Pro-Airbus will say :

-A345 is already in service.
-We still wait to verify Boeing's announced performances for the 772LR
-More comfortable seat Cong. 2 X 2 X 2 in Business rather 2 x 3 x 2 in the B777
-Safer "4 engines A long haul"
-Cockpit commonality with the other A340 and A330 models
-Quiter cabin

Pro Boeing will say :
-"4 engines 4 long Haul" doesn't make sense. Engines are safe and reliable enough today so we can trust only 2 engines for long haul
- B772LR is obviously better as all the airlines operating the A345 want to get rid of it to replace it by the A345.
-B772LR has an even longer range than the A345.
- B772LR can fly nonstop SYD-LHR ! Great ! though no airline has the intention to fly nonstop SYD-LHR ...

My opinion :

I like them both !


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Jeandy
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Jeandy



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © YK
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Juan Carlos Guerra Aviation Photography of Mexico

 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:17 am

Does anyone know if the flight test data for the 772LR has been released? The A345 has been flying for some time and it's operating characteristics are out there. Most of what I've seen argued in these threads WRT the 772LR is based on the projected operating characteristics. If all goes as promised, I think Boeing has a winner, but it'll be hard to match the sheer beauty of the A345. This is one of the most graceful airliners ever produced IMHO.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:20 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
Interesting stats. The 345 MTOW is over 45,000 lbs more but it carries less payload (according to what others have posted)?

I have found this interesting as well, but those are the facts from Airbus website.

A bit more info on MTOW and payload on the A345:

MTOW: 811,300 lbs
Maximum zero fuel weight: 496,000 lbs

Question:
Can I use MTWO - Maximum zero fuel weight = Max Payload Weight? (315,300 lbs)
 
beauing
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 1:59 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:23 am

FlyingHippo,
Thank you for posting the cabin areas. That's makes the 772LR
7.27 sq meters larger than the A345. That's significant.
For those not used to thinking in meters that's 23.8 sq feet.

[Edited 2005-08-22 21:27:28]
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:26 am

Quoting Beauing (Reply 11):
Thank you for posting the cabin areas. That's makes the 772LR
7.27 sq meters larger than the A345. That's significant. For those not used to thinking in meters that's 23.8 sq feet.

Well, I don't know if this is accurate, since Boeing did not specify the exact cabin length. I had to estimate based on the difference in outside length between A345 and 772LR
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:26 am

This should be interesting. Some realy good info already posted.

I'm not donning my tin hat and flak jacket for the show that's bound to follow.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:29 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 5):
Please give all the opinions you want, but please respect other opinions as well

Thanks Flying Hippo. In the meanwhile WINGS wrote down my opinion in a decent way. I just want to ad that I've experienced a big difference in noiselevels between the different engine manufacturers in the T7ER.

I think the GE engines on the ER models are significantly louder than others. Is GE the only engine for the LR? If yes I fully support WINGS opinion.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
baflyer
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:40 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:33 am

Quoting Beauing (Reply 11):
That's makes the 772LR
7.27 sq meters larger than the A345. That's significant.
For those not used to thinking in meters that's 23.8 sq feet.

Not even close... 7.27 sq m = 78.3 sq feet
Most frustrating part of being an atheist - Never being able to say "Told you so".
 
georgiaame
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:55 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:34 am

I have never flown in a LR, however I have a number of flights under my belt on a 777 in economy, business, and first. Last summer, I had the pleasure of flying Singapore's 345 round trip between LA and Singapore.

I am a passenger, and my vast engineering skills include recognizing the number of engines on a wing, and whether or not the forward slats are down. So for me it is a matter of comfort. I will also admit I grew up on Boeing aircraft, and was shocked, shocked, when NorthWest began flying Airbus equipment. (How could they put the good American workers out of work, and all that).

As a passenger, I love Airbus. The 340 series is noticably narrower than a 747 or 777, especially in the rear where I get a bit of a claustrophobic feeling. The 343 is just so quiet, even in the last rows, that I will go out of my way to fly one if the choice is offered. So I was somewhat dissappointed by the much louder environment on the 345. But the creature comfort of the plane is dramatic, partly due to Singapore's layout of 2-3-2 in exec economy. I didn't get the chance to sit up front in business, but their 2-2-2 layout seemed narrow, and again, same noise level.

I don't like flying 777, and go out of my way to avoid them. No matter where you sit, the noise level is dramatically greater than in an airbus. The 3-3-3 layout guarantees maximum discomfort to the vast majority of economy flyers, and when you are shelling out mega bucks for the honor and privelege of free drinks in business, you get mighty ticked off stuck in the middle of the 3 across. I don't care how wide the seats might be or what the pitch is.

As for efficiency and economy, I'll leave that for the gurus to fight over. Seems to me the 777 has it hands down both in the number of people who can be packed in like sardines, and the amount of cargo you fit in the belly. But since I don't have to worry about the technicalities, I go 343 when possible.

Oh yes, much as I dislike Delta, their 2-2-2 Business Elite is about the only selling point they have for their 777. I've flown with them, and again, the aircraft is noisy, but the cabin is very comfortable because of the 2-2-2 they utilize. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to utilize those aircraft on most of their international flights. Pity, since it sends me to the competition.
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:37 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 10):
Can I use MTWO - Maximum zero fuel weight = Max Payload Weight? (315,300 lbs)

No, 315,300 lbs is the max. amount of fuel in lbs that can be loaded when the airplane is at MZFW (Max Zero Fuel Wt).

The max. payload would be MZFW minus OEW (Operating Empty Weight).

Even then it might be impossible to load the max. payload because an airplane can reach a Volume Limited Payload before it reaches the Weight Limited Payload.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:42 am

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 16):
The 3-3-3 layout guarantees maximum discomfort

I'm pretty sure United has 2-4-2 in the backcabin.

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 16):
Pity, since it sends me to the competition.

There are more reasons to avoid flying Delta.... Worst airline ever!  Big grin
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:45 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 17):
No, 315,300 lbs is the max. amount of fuel in lbs that can be loaded when the airplane is at MZFW (Max Zero Fuel Wt).

The max. payload would be MZFW minus OEW (Operating Empty Weight).

Ah.. thanks for the info.

So MZFW is when a plane is loaded with all pax, cargo and baggage to the max, without the fuel?

Then what does OEW tell us?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:51 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 19):
Then what does OEW tell us?

It's the airframe weight plus everything required to be onboard to fly a mission.

This includes the flight crew, cabin crew, engine oil, potable water, galley carts and meals etc. The only things you need to add are the payload (passengers, luggage and cargo) and the fuel.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:52 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 6):
When it comes to cabin noise the A340 family once again wins hands down. At least I can always get a decent nights sleep aboard the A340 family vs the B777.

I flew on an A330 to Vienna recently. I got no sleep whatsoever. Probably due to the fact that I was surrounded by hyperactive teenagers going to Greece for a summer trip.  Smile

In all the years of flying, I've never noticed a difference in noise level. Perhaps it's due to my degraded hearing, but once I put my Sennheiser noise cancellation headphones on, a B777 is the same as an A330 is the same as a B737 is the same as an A320.....
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:23 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
In all the years of flying, I've never noticed a difference in noise level.

You must have either kick ass noise cancelling head sets or very bad hearing for not noticing the noise difference...  Smile
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 3):
From what I understand the 77L can consistently carry more payload than the 345.

Yes, it can

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
Interesting stats. The 345 MTOW is over 45,000 lbs more but it carries less payload (according to what others have posted)?

Yes, because its OEW is much higher

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 18):
I'm pretty sure United has 2-4-2 in the backcabin.

United has a 2-5-2 configuration in the back
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:36 am

Would it be fair to say, that Airbus has struggled to get the A340 right, right throughout it's life. The early fiasco with the IAE superfan, the early 200 and 300, the 8000, then the second generation 500 and 600, the HGW improvements, the talk of A350 fuselages etc. The amount of engineering effort that has gone in must be significant (even allowing for the commonality with the A330).

By contrast, the A320 has had stretches and shrinks, but is fundamentally the same aircraft 20 years on, a testimony to it's great design!
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:05 am

I think Widebodyphotog has summarised the data in the following post.
Take a look at what he has to say in Posting #74 and use it as a basis for discussion.
RE: Singapore Airlines Request For Prop. New Aircraft (by Widebodyphotog Aug 17 2005 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2005-08-22 23:07:40]
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:09 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 22):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
In all the years of flying, I've never noticed a difference in noise level.

You must have either kick ass noise cancelling head sets or very bad hearing for not noticing the noise difference

Both, I'm afraid.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
TP727
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 12:21 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:36 am

Many brazilians fly to Australia and New Zealand with stops either in Argentina, Chile or South Africa. It´s been said in here that AR is doing GRU-EZE-AKL-SYD. An SAA employee told me that many pax on the GRU-JNB leg are actually going to PER or SYD.
In my opinion there´s demand for direct flights from Brazil to New Zealand/Australia, but not related if it would high or low yielding pax.
My question after all said here is: Would the A345 or the 772LR, fully loaded with pax (in a normal seating configuration, not like SIN, that had to give up seats in exchange for the range) and cargo, be able to fly from GRU/GIG nonstop to AKL/SYD?
Back to the topic i have to say that both companies,Airbus and Boeing, are capable of making fine acft. They compete in a very aggressive market where not only aircraft performance counts, there are lots of political issues involved, fleet differences...
The fact that the A345 has four engines is, in my opinion, an advantage over the 772LR, for not be under ETOPS or EROPS rules. Although the number of destinations that would be affected for that reason may not be significant, probably some polar, and pacific routes.
In a passenger point of view, i don´t think that a relevant number of pax knowledge how many engines the acft they are flying have, or if they do, i doubt they even think about that as a matter.
Also in my opinion, engines now are very reliable and operation the 777 would not with only two would not put passengers in any risk. Not great risk, any risk. Just came to my mind that the 777 family have a perfect safety record, and they have been around for some time now.

Got to go, no intention of boring you.

TP727
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:50 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Thread starter):
Max Operating Mach: Mach .86

For the sake of more accurate comparison, I believe the best cruising mach is 0.825.
 
KL808
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 3:49 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:58 am

Quoting TP727 (Reply 27):

According to Great Circle mapper:

LAX-SIN is 7621 nm
SIN-EWR is 8285 nm

Now:

GRU-AKL 6504 nm
GRU-SYD 7228 nm
GIG-SYD 7312
GIG-AKL 6631 nm

IMO GRU/GIG-AKL can be flown by both aircrafts with full pax and cargo.
However
IMO GRU/GIG-SYD would have some penalties.

I would think that the A345 would be the winner for these routes cause there will be NO ETOPS restriction, then again IM not sure.

Maybe somebody can elaborate, and/or correct me.

Drew
AMS-LAX-MNL
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting KL808 (Reply 29):
I would think that the A345 would be the winner for these routes cause there will be NO ETOPS restriction, then again IM not sure.

Maybe somebody can elaborate, and/or correct me.

This may no longer be the case when the proposed LROPS rules are released.

The current schedule calls for a Dec. '05 publication.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:56 am

Quoting KL808 (Reply 29):
I would think that the A345 would be the winner for these routes cause there will be NO ETOPS restriction, then again IM not sure.

I was certain new ETOPS rules were quickly diminishing any advantage 4 holers have over twins.

I'd say that 114 orders for the 773ER in half the time the A346 needed to reach its current 114 total orders shows us that ETOPS is not as much of an issue as we think.

Well, thats my observation.

[Edited 2005-08-23 00:56:57]
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
AvFan4ever
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:07 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:24 pm

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 14):
I think the GE engines on the ER models are significantly louder than others. Is GE the only engine for the LR? If yes I fully support WINGS opinion.

Interesting opinion. Even BA rates their 777-200 and 777-200IGWs (GE engines) as quieter that their 777-200ERs (RR engines). Note QC departure and arrival information in towards the middle of the page: http://www.britishairways.com/travel/crnoise/public/en_gb

Perhaps this isn't a fair comparison (I am aware of the details, so don't bother), but it is the single piece of data I was able to quickly find on the Internet.

From a passenger's standpoint, perceived engine noise in the cabin is difficult to quantify, especially during cruise where most of the noise you hear is the air moving past the fuselage.
 
keesje
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:33 pm

The square meters comparison on the 772lr and a340-500 is misleading.

Most of the cabin on e.g. SQ is business class (60%/).

Both the 772 and A345 have a 6 abreast business class cabin.

So for the same square meters you can better have more length (a340) then width (777).


SQA340-500

A wider fuselage (777) would help SQ only in the economy class..

The same goes for standard cargo containers : they don't need a wide aisle. Lenght = more containers.

After the 7 abreast 767 and the 9 abreast 777 Boeing now concluded the same and specified the Boeing 787 fuselage accordingly.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:53 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
Perhaps it's due to my degraded hearing, but once I put my Sennheiser noise cancellation headphones on, a B777 is the same as an A330 is the same as a B737 is the same as an A320.....

The question was regarding the A340 being more silent than the B777, not the A330. I believe that the A340 is more silent than the A330.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 31):
I'd say that 114 orders for the 773ER in half the time the A346 needed to reach its current 114 total orders shows us that ETOPS is not as much of an issue as we think.

For most airlines it's not an issue. Take AF as an example. If they want to fly the 773 to Asia or North America, ETOPS is not a problem at all. But for an airline flying between Australia and South America, ETOPS could be a problem.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
After the 7 abreast 767 and the 9 abreast 777 Boeing now concluded the same and specified the Boeing 787 fuselage accordingly.

Will the 787 will have 2-4-2 in economy? Maybe it's a stupid question, but I've never seen any info on this before.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:46 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
The same goes for standard cargo containers : they don't need a wide aisle. Lenght = more containers.

thats as maybe, but if they were to carry more containers, they would need to rip out more seats.
I'm certain SQ have commented that the seating arrangement they have is the maximum allowable to enable the max range on the A345.

If that is so, the argument that more length = more containers is mooted.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:59 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
The same goes for standard cargo containers : they don't need a wide aisle. Lenght = more containers.

That's correct Keesje, the B777 family has more cargo space although many is dead space which has no use.
If Airbus is to go forward with the introduction of the rear fuselage section of the A350 into the A340-500/600 family then we might see a great increase in capacity and cargo.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:22 pm

Guys I'm impressed! This is a proper civilised discussion! There's some really interesting reading here too.

Having flown on neither aircraft (although I've been on A332s and A343s) they are nevertheless clearly both magnificent aircraft. It's no surprise that the 772LR may seem to have the edge over the A345 on performance as it is a few years younger.

What will be interesting is to see how the two compare when reaching their final variants before completely new models are introduced (I'm sure that's many years away)
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1664
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:30 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
Both the 772 and A345 have a 6 abreast business class cabin.

I think 6 across on a 777 would be called "First Class", same as if 6 across were installed on main deck of a 747/A380.

But hey, anyone can call a cabin whatever they want...

Cheers
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:04 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 36):
although many is dead space which has no use.

Not trying to be hostile or such, but what is the source for this info?
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:19 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
United has a 2-5-2 configuration in the back

Oops!  Wow! But at least it isn't 3-3-3....
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:32 pm

Quoting AvFan4ever (Reply 32):
Interesting opinion.

It is a very clear difference. Actually I have started a thread about it when I found out http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2248814
There a respondent stated that United uses P&W engines.

Quoting AvFan4ever (Reply 32):
From a passenger's standpoint, perceived engine noise in the cabin is difficult to quantify, especially during cruise where most of the noise you hear is the air moving past the fuselage.

Yes, I do agree on this. Noise perception is subjective, but even objectively (by measurement in a broad frequency) I'm sure that the different 777ER GE engines that I have heard are significantly louder than the engines on the United 772-ER (P&W?). And I agree that most of the ENGINE noise difference occurs during take-off and the initial climbing. But coming back to the original topic my perception is that the cabin-ground-noise-levels during cruise are lower in the A34x compared to the B77x.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:39 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 38):
I think 6 across on a 777 would be called "First Class",

It depends on the airline. BA has a 1-2-1 seating in first on the 777.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
Maersk737
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:41 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 39):
Quoting WINGS (Reply 36):
although many is dead space which has no use.

Not trying to be hostile or such, but what is the source for this info?

The source is, most airlines are using standard cargo containers.

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:42 pm

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 43):
The source is, most airlines are using standard cargo containers.

Cheers

Peter

That still does not confirm the dead space comment.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Maersk737
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:49 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 44):
That still does not confirm the dead space comment.

If the operator of the 777, is using standard cargo containers. There will be some unused space in the cargo hold. You can call that unused space, dead space.

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:00 pm

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 45):
If the operator of the 777, is using standard cargo containers. There will be some unused space in the cargo hold. You can call that unused space, dead space.

Thaks for that Maersk737, You summed it up pretty well.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
TEAtheB
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:04 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:06 pm

Quoting WINGS (Reply 6):
In my opinion the B777-200LR has a leading edge in terms of performance and range compared to the A340-500. Mainly due to it being a twin.

Why is this? Have you compared the weight of 4 Trent 500's with 2 GE90's?

Quoting AvFan4ever (Reply 32):
Even BA rates their 777-200 and 777-200IGWs (GE engines) as quieter that their 777-200ERs (RR engines).



Quoting AvFan4ever (Reply 32):
Perhaps this isn't a fair comparison (I am aware of the details, so don't bother),

Correct, it's not a fair comparison, so why write it?
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:09 pm

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 45):
If the operator of the 777, is using standard cargo containers. There will be some unused space in the cargo hold. You can call that unused space, dead space.

I'm, still waiting for a verifiably source. All we have is your say so.

A breakdown on space available and space used with the cargo containers on any given 777 op would be helpfull
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Maersk737
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

A345 And B772LR

Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:12 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 48):
I'm, still waiting for a verifiably source. All we have is your say so.

You can trust me Big grin

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 777222LR, aaway, aircountry, ampang, AvObserver, Baidu [Spider], ben175, benrgv, Boeing778X, CHCalfonzo, csturdiv, emiratesa345, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], msycajun, NeBaNi, qf789, southwest1675 and 317 guests