Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: A&C - A380 Delays Cost A340-5/-6 Orders?

Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:31 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 83):

Quoting Zeke (Reply 83):
Quoting Dalecary (Reply 80):
You failed to answer my direct question; how many airlines have ordered A345/346 this year, compared to 772LR/773ER orders?

I am a professional pilot, I will leave the aircraft order stats, and who/what lands where to the professional spotters.

Well good on you. You fervently contend that the 345/346 are superior to the 772LR/773ER, yet fail to see the market reality. The answer is 0 345/346 sales this year to airlines(I believe a private 345 was sold to the Gulf region).

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 80):
Maybe you would like to contact Airbus and ask why the promised A345/6 dispatch reliability rate hasn't yet reached the promised figures after 12 months EIS, and we are now 3+ years after EIS???

Your source for this ? Not the case at CX, SQ, LH, VS, SA. Flight international ran an article on this not so long back, it was not the case as you suggested.

The FI article clearly stated that this was of concern to Airbus and the airlines. It is a fact that after 3+ years of operation the 345/6 have yet to achieve Airbus' promised dispatch reliability rate. You need to read that article more carefully. Whereas, it is also known that the 773ER dispatch reliability rate matches the rest of the 777 family, somewhere in the low 99%s.

It is not the case at CX and we have a 340/777/747 fleet, including 346.

I will freely admit any new aircraft entering service is not perfect its not just a A345/346 issue, or an airbus issue, or a Boeing issue ... Your balanced comments are welcome.'re kidding. I've rarely encountered such a biased viewpoint as yours. Let's hope CX has the sense of the rest of the world and goes with the vastly superior 773ER!!!
User avatar
Posts: 17398
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A&C - A380 Delays Cost A340-5/-6 Orders?

Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:22 am

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 99):
But, Zeke, you're also claiming just the oppostie. Your position is that data published on Airbus' website is less favorable than what is found in your FCOM. I am struggling to think of any reason why this would be.

Had a look back, seems Airbus is quoting a higher weight and higher fuel volume.

The 346 has optional (i.e. customer option) additional centre tanks, also can get optional landing gear arrangements which can give higher MTOW, ZFW, MLW.

Centre fuel tanks are optional, if you don't need them additional cargo space is available, also data in the FCOM is listed for usable fuel only, not total fuel.

It is also common practice with profitable airlines to reduce the maximum weights certified for their aircraft if they don't need the capacity. Landing, parking and route charges in some locations are based upon MTOW.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 100):'re kidding. I've rarely encountered such a biased viewpoint as yours. Let's hope CX has the sense of the rest of the world and goes with the vastly superior 773ER!!!

Maybe they will, maybe they wont, IF the aircraft achieves what they want, and IF the right aircraft with our loads for our destinations is not an overkill then it will make sense to go for it.

However I do see on some routes its an overkill for our loads, and on some routes just not big enough. The 330/340/747 still fits in well in the route structure.

What a lot of airlines are looking at is that a 7773ER will do much the same job as the 744, some of those same airlines are flying around with empty seats on the 744. They need to trade off the high cost of running a 744, the empty seats, and the cost of replacing it with a 773ER which is not a cheap exercise.

If your starting with a blank piece of paper with a new airline, with guarenteed loads, and no debts, the planning is somewhat easier, real world its not like that at all.

United, BA, and Air New Zealand have been hurt by the 777 introduction, you go to one supplier for all your core equipment it leaves no backup if things don't go as planned.
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: A&C - A380 Delays Cost A340-5/-6 Orders?

Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:45 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
You don't think that possibility there is an error, as the CFM56-5B3 of 33k lb thrust engines are listed on the same site as about 5250 lb ? That's more thrust than the ones installed on our 343's.

Well, I would not expect that there would be an error on the CFM or Airbus websites. According to Airbus, the CFM56-5C engines on the 343 have 31,000-34,000 lb thrust

The CFM56-B3 is on the A321 Although the takeoff thrust is similar for both, the 5C's have higher cruise thrust and by-pass ratio; needed for the larger a/c.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
Quoting Iwok (Reply 89):Pretty obvious from my profile that I am not a pilot. Pretty obvious you are not an engineer.
Incorrect. I spent 7 years working as an aerospace engineer and have done structural design with composites for both airbus and boeing using CATIA.

I stand corrected.  Smile Any work with aerodynamics?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
Well you better go out and rewrite all the aircraft deign and performance books. The A343 wing shares 96% structural commonality to the A333 wing however in cruise the A343 has a lower fuel burn than the A333.

Well, the 333 is 7-metric tons lighter than the 343, and it has a lower frontal area, so using your prior statements it should have a lower fuel burn.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
At about 90% MTOW the 330 will go straight to FL380, whilst the 343 will only get FL330. It would take the A340 4 minutes longer to get to cruise altitude, however once there is has a lower fuel burn.

On the 333, 97000L fuel gives you 10,500km range. On the 343, 140000L fuel gives you 13,350km range. So for a full mission (albeit at different maximum ranges) Airbus supplied figures gives the 333 a 14% lower fuel consumption (L/km). Given that the 343 backlog is only 5, while the 333 backlog is 72, there must some truth to the numbers.  scratchchin 

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
Incorrect. Forward CG at a lower weight can have a higher fuel burn than for a aft CG at a higher weight. Forward CG you also need increase fuel used on takeoff as takeoff thrust needs to be increased (FLEX change).

This is true. However, in the basic context of our discussion (i.e twin vs. 4-holer) what is the import of CG location. Are you suggesting that there is a CG difference between twins & 4-holers?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
That ability to generate excess thrust costs weight, frontal area, and wetted area, weight and drag costs fuel, nothing is free.

Which is exactly why the 346 is less efficient than its 773ER nemesis.  Wink

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
P.S. thought the large font made your post look childish

Thank you for pointing that out. When I downloaded the html code from the CFM website I was unable to get the fonts and line spacing sorted out before going to bed. Time to polish up on my html...

Zeke, I applaud your stick-to-your-guns-save-the-alamo persistence. I have tried my best provide clear facts for the discussion. I highly doubt that Airbus, Boeing, CFM and GE would have incorrect information on their websites.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
Didn't ask, I went to university with a GEAE manager. The data came from him.

PS. you might want to ask your friend to double check his data, and make sure he is sending the right engines to the right customers. Big grin

Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: A&C - A380 Delays Cost A340-5/-6 Orders?

Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:50 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
I did contact GEAE for the data I had, where did you get your data from ?

If you contacted GEAE, then they'd tell you that the -115B fan is 128-in. With nacelle included, it is 140-in. As I indicated to you, you have the right idea but the wrong data.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
Please can you back your statement up ?

Or, you are blind. I told you that the -115B data included the nacelle, but the T556 data did not. What more do you want? You didn't compare apples with apples, which lead you to an incorrect conclusion. This amazes me, considering that you later said:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
A glaring example of how web site data need to be used with caution is that on the Snecma and GE sites the engine diameter for the GE90-115B are different.

Also, I hope that contacting GEAE doesn't mean reading their website!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
I still stand by my comments that the quad A340-600 is more efficient than a 777-300ER.

OMG. Well, having done dozens of comparisons for those two airplanes, I guess all I can say is that I disagree vehemently. But then, I have the right data.

 airplane QFA001
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: A&C - A380 Delays Cost A340-5/-6 Orders?

Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:15 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 90):
Thorben, your constant mis representation of facts and figures is quickly eroding any credibility you have.

I don't care about the credibility I have for you.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 90):
The 773ER and A345 are not competitors and I beleive you "compared" them just to give the illusion Airbus are on top.

No, I just wrote A345 instead of A346. A spelling mistake, not bad intentions.

Quoting GARPD (Reply 90):
Why are you so desperate to show Airbus on top all the time? Do you have insecurities about them?

Insecurities? Why? And I'm not desperate.

Popular Searches On

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