Quoting WINGS (Reply 98): they will further inhance its product to match and exceed that of the B777 family.

Hey, it will be easy! They only need to remove two engines!  

Seriously, now, I actually agree with Hamlet. In the long run, the A350 will probably make a much better base platform for an ULR plane, compared to the A345. However, the problem that Airbus has right now is that an upgraded A345 or an A350LR will take time (the latter more so, obviously). And if Boeing manages to capture the next few ULR orders (from QF, EK, and SQ; which I don't see as that far fetched; AC will probably revive their B772LR order soon too; and if BA decides to go ULR, the B772LR will be a no-brainer for them too), then Airbus will run out of customers to sell the upgraded A345 / A350LR to.

Tony

Quoting Wingman (Reply 36): So are you saying that Boeing, BA and QF are examining this idea in a delusional vacuum without realizing there are no premium passengers to make the route profitable? Seems rather strange that all three parties would waste the time, effort and money looking into it so seriously.

I think is among the most concise responses to the rational-thinking skeptics and also Keesje.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 99): Because the 345/6 wing can't take much more MTOW hike beyond what they have planned at 380t.

Thats true Dynkrisolo, the current wing for the A340-500/600 is close to its full potential. But I would expect little improvements here and their.
Dont be shocked if Airbus starts to incorporate A380 technology into the A340 family, to save on weight.

Is the introduction of glare, a greater use of composites, laser welding and further improvements , out of the question for the A340 family? I dont think so.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 100): Hey, it will be easy! They only need to remove two engines! Wink

Whats to say that RR will not produce a more economic Trent 500? If the A340 family fails then RR will also have a lot to loose.

Regards,
Wings
Wings

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 99): Because the 345/6 wing can't take much more MTOW hike beyond what they have planned at 380t.

Thats true Dynkrisolo, the current wing for the A340-500/600 is close to its full potential. But I would expect little improvements here and their.
Dont be shocked if Airbus starts to incorporate A380 technology into the A340 family, to save on weight.

Is the introduction of glare, a greater use of composites, laser welding and further improvements , out of the question for the A340 family? I dont think so.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 100): Hey, it will be easy! They only need to remove two engines! Wink

Whats to say that RR will not produce a more economic Trent 500? If the A340 family fails then RR will also have a lot to loose.

Regards,
Wings

Quoting WINGS (Reply 103): Whats to say that RR will not produce a more economic Trent 500? If the A340 family fails then RR will also have a lot to loose.

Isn't the Trent 500 basically a 757 RB211 derivative? Just asking, I haven't really followed the trent 500 development.

Cheers

Quoting WINGS (Reply 103): Whats to say that RR will not produce a more economic Trent 500? If the A340 family fails then RR will also have a lot to loose.

I do not even pretend to be an expert on this! However, to achieve substantial fuel burn savings, it's safe to assume that RR will have to splash quite a lot of money on R&D. And, given that the A345/A346 seem to be losing ground to the B777s, I doubt RR will be willing to take further risk with such a project.

Tony

It's probably too late now - but Airbus should maybe start with a clean sheet of paper?

After all, the A340 is pretty well a four-engined A330 - and the A350 looks like being a stretched and re-engined A330. It's about time Airbus got themselves a new fuselage.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 98): Would you expect Airbus to stop investing into the A340-500/600 program and let Boeing capture all of this segment?

The A340 program has reached the point of diminishing returns. Each improvement costs more and yields less. Airbus need to focus their mid-size efforts on the A350, which can compete with Boeing. It's time to give up on the A340. The A340-500 is not competive and cannot be made competive any more than a DC-8 can be improved to compete in the ULH market. The A340-600 is barely competive. The A350 offers Airbus so much more potential to compete effectively with Boeing.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 103): Whats to say that RR will not produce a more economic Trent 500? If the A340 family fails then RR will also have a lot to loose.

RR would lose more. As Zvenzda notes, the A340 has reached the point of diminishing returns. The "rule of thumb" is only half of the available technology advances can be retrofited to an existing design.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 107): The A350 offers Airbus so much more potential to compete effectively with Boeing.

Very true. Don't expect a lot more A340 sales. I worked on paper studies for Pratt to get an engine on the A340. We couldn't get that airframe to be an effective competitor to the GE90-115 powered 777's (before they beat promised TSFC by 2%!)

I'm afraid aircraft spotting won't be interesting until the BWB's or flying wings finally come out.  

Lightsaber

>>
Why not? Would you expect Airbus to stop investing into the A340-500/600 program and let Boeing capture all of this segment? they will further inhance its product to match and exceed that of the B777 family.

Well, in Keesje words, it's all about money and expenses. You have to make a profit at some point, and the 777LR's lower development cost and higher performance is severly undercutting the A345/A346.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 103): Is the introduction of glare, a greater use of composites, laser welding and further improvements , out of the question for the A340 family? I dont think so.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 102): But I would expect little improvements here and their. Dont be shocked if Airbus starts to incorporate A380 technology into the A340 family, to save on weight.

Wings,

It is not a simple matter of tweaking and splicing the airplane design. Each thing that you describe would require significant engineering resources and also very large re-certification costs for the A340.

Given those costs and the limited sales potential, Airbus would almost certainly be better off using those resources to start from scratch rather than pouring more money into the 340. I think that is the point of Zveda and others.

As far as Glare goes, Airbus chose not to use it on the A350 if I recall correctly.

[Edited 2005-09-27 17:28:16]

Quoting N79969 (Reply 110): As far as Glare goes, Airbus chose not to use it on the A350 if I recall correctly.

from what I've read, they decided not to use it, and if I can recall, I read an article somewhere specifying as that glare has been a "failure" to a certain extent in that its being used extensively on The WhaleJet, but the technology wasn't transferred to the A350.......

Quoting WINGS (Reply 103): Thats true Dynkrisolo, the current wing for the A340-500/600 is close to its full potential. But I would expect little improvements here and their. Dont be shocked if Airbus starts to incorporate A380 technology into the A340 family, to save on weight. Is the introduction of glare, a greater use of composites, laser welding and further improvements , out of the question for the A340 family? I dont think so.

That's what they are trying to do with the 350. How much is this costing Airbus? About 4.5 billion Euros! That's a lot of money.

Quoting WINGS: Whats to say that RR will not produce a more economic Trent 500? If the A340 family fails then RR will also have a lot to loose.

Engine designs are not like computer chips. The technology leap is at a much slower rate because the engine technology is more mature than computer chip technology. If engine companies can improve engine efficiency by a noticeable amount every few years, then we will see engine being constantly replaced and/or upgraded. The T500 is already a pretty efficient design.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 107): The A350 offers Airbus so much more potential to compete effectively with Boeing.

True to a point, Zvezda, but considering the time frame to get to market, as well as the fact that the A350 is relatively undefined compared to the B787 and B777, do you think the long-range B777's are really in that much danger from the A350? Maybe Airbus should just play the low-ball price game with A340's for a few more years until they have a truly competitive product. After all, the B777LR's are being manufactured today and many airlines just can't wait.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 107): The A340 program has reached the point of diminishing returns. Each improvement costs more and yields less. Airbus need to focus their mid-size efforts on the A350, which can compete with Boeing. It's time to give up on the A340. The A340-500 is not competive and cannot be made competive any more than a DC-8 can be improved to compete in the ULH market. The A340-600 is barely competive. The A350 offers Airbus so much more potential to compete effectively with Boeing.

Don't you think a hybrid of A340NG/A350 would make sense? Replace the fuse of the A340 by the A350 fuse segments, but keep the length. Keep the wing and the keel of the A346HGW since they are already made of composites for a good percentage and adapted to the plane's MTOW. Ask RR for an upgraded Trent 500 or smaller Trent 1000 variant. Keep the four engines in order to keep the high bypass ration and the wing design. The point is that such an a/c would be cheap to develop since there are virtually no new parts. It could by available at 2012. Any thoughts?

A350

Quoting A350 (Reply 114): Don't you think a hybrid of A340NG/A350 would make sense? Replace the fuse of the A340 by the A350 fuse segments, but keep the length. Keep the wing and the keel of the A346HGW since they are already made of composites for a good percentage and adapted to the plane's MTOW. Ask RR for an upgraded Trent 500 or smaller Trent 1000 variant. Keep the four engines in order to keep the high bypass ration and the wing design. The point is that such an a/c would be cheap to develop since there are virtually no new parts. It could by available at 2012. Any thoughts?

One major problem with that idea: It would still be a quad.

Twins are quickly becoming the prefered choice. The fact that Airbus are launching the A350 shows they know this very well.

This A340/A350 hybrid would be dead on arrival as a consequence.

[Edited 2005-09-27 22:26:03]

Quoting GARPD (Reply 115): One major problem with that idea: It would still be a quad.

Although quads are extremely unpolular in this forum, they still have the advantage of allowing higher airflow through the engines and higher bypass ratios. Remember that the GE90 has a good, but not extraordinary bypass ratio and the 787 engines are significantly weaker than the 777NG engines.

A350

Quoting A350 (Reply 116): Although quads are extremely unpolular in this forum, they still have the advantage of allowing higher airflow through the engines and higher bypass ratios. Remember that the GE90 has a good, but not extraordinary bypass ratio and the 787 engines are significantly weaker than the 777NG engines.

The GE90's bypass ratio is 9:1, which compares favorably with the CFM56-5C's BPR of 6.5:1 (A340-200/300) and the Trent 500's 7.5-7.6:1 (A340-500/600).

http://www.snecma-moteurs.com/en/act...ique_civile/moteurs_forte_poussee/
http://www.cfm56.com/engines/cfm56-5c/tech.html
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...e/downloads/airlines/trent_500.pdf

--B2707SST

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 84): If you click on 'Technical Specs.', then 'range', then a city, then an aircraft type, you get the maximum ranges for all 777 variants from major 'route centre' cities. I see that Boeing have added Sydney to the 772LR diagram from London, since I last looked at it. Possibly interesting news for NZ, too; Auckland-New York is now on the menu....but not Auckland-London, unfortunately.

Would have thought that you could do JFK-SYD if SYD-LHR was possible.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 117): The GE90's bypass ratio is 9:1, which compares favorably with the CFM56-5C's BPR of 6.5:1 (A340-200/300) and the Trent 500's 7.5-7.6:1 (A340-500/600).

Yes, but a quad could use 4 787 engines, as the 747Adv will do, allowing for even higher bypass ratios and airflows.

A350

Quoting Bells (Thread starter): Revealed: New Longer-range 777-200LR

Is there more to this then putting some additional fuel tanks in the cargo hold?

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 113): True to a point, Zvezda, but considering the time frame to get to market, as well as the fact that the A350 is relatively undefined compared to the B787 and B777, do you think the long-range B777's are really in that much danger from the A350? Maybe Airbus should just play the low-ball price game with A340's for a few more years until they have a truly competitive product. After all, the B777LR's are being manufactured today and many airlines just can't wait.

Anyone who can't wait for a follow-up A350 is most likely going to buy Boeing. The A340-500 is dead and should stay dead.

Quoting A350 (Reply 114): Don't you think a hybrid of A340NG/A350 would make sense? Replace the fuse of the A340 by the A350 fuse segments, but keep the length. Keep the wing and the keel of the A346HGW since they are already made of composites for a good percentage and adapted to the plane's MTOW. Ask RR for an upgraded Trent 500 or smaller Trent 1000 variant. Keep the four engines in order to keep the high bypass ration and the wing design. The point is that such an a/c would be cheap to develop since there are virtually no new parts. It could by available at 2012. Any thoughts?

It would make much more sense to stretch the A350 and use derivative higher thrust GEnx or Trent 1000s. I'm not sure what the lift limits are of the A350's wing. It might need a new wing. The A340 wing is probably overkill.

I am far from being an expert on propulsion systems, so anyone with better information, please correct me if I am wrong on this:

Quoting A350 (Reply 119): Yes, but a quad could use 4 787 engines, as the 747Adv will do, allowing for even higher bypass ratios and airflows.

I am not really sure what the bypass ratio has to do with a quad being more beneficial than a twin. In my mind, the primary requirement is the desired thrust level. The majority (85-95%) of the thrust being produced by a large turbofan engine comes from the fan. Depending on the thrust to be produced, the size of the fan varies, so, higher the thrust, larger the fan. In order to produce the target thrust, the fan has to be rotated at a specifically designed number of rpms. This is accomplished by the various stages of the core (compressor, combustor, and turbine). So, for large fans to rotate within a specified rpm range, the core tends to be bigger. This is what accounts for lower thrust turbofans having a slightly higher bypass ratio than higher thrust turbofans.

Again, in my mind, the deciding factor is fuel burn - if you can produce the same total thrust with a twin at a lower fuel burn than a quad, then that would be a better solution for the operator. Over the years, with more stringent rules required to meet the various ETOPS specifications, both the manufacture as well as the maintenance of powerplants that power twins has significantly contributed to twins being more reliable than quads - so much so that operators are leaning towards these stringent levels of maintenance regardless of whether they are servicing a twin or a quad.

The bottom line is that with the evolution of the turbofan engine from the early CF6s and JT9Ds, thrust levels have risen while at the same time powerplant SFCs have dropped. So depending on the size of the airframe, the need for quads has diminished to the point where they are needed only for the upper end of the OEW/MTOW spectrum, i.e., 747 and A380.

-N60659

[Edited 2005-09-27 23:53:09]

Zvezda. Please double check where you got the information about your statement saying that AKL-LON is possible. I've seen similar statements about the 777LR being able to fly eastbound AKL-LON v.v from other a.netters before and they are wrong.

Fact, AKL is further from LON than SYD. The great circle route is 18346kms LON-AKL and 16997kms LON-SYD. Travelling eastbound from LON, via a route close to ANC which mimics the shortest route the A340 used when it flew nonstop AKL-PAR, the range rises to around 18600kms.

Fact, Boeing quotes a still air range of 17446kms for the Boeing 777. This leaves a range shortfall of about 1000kms, if not more depending on the route.

Fact, on Boeing's own range map, it clearly shows that AKL is well outside the range circle for LON.

Any doubts, please follow this link to Boeing:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html

@N60659:

It's just physics: it's more fuel efficient to have a high airflow at low speed than a low airflow at high speed. Have a look how small the 732/707/DC9 etc low or no bypass-engines have been. The 787 engines will also be far larger than 767 engines*. Nowadays, you need far larger engines to achieve the same thrust with high bypass, or, more precisely, high airflow engines. As a result, there are two reasons two increase engine size: First, efficiency, and second, higher thrust. The current crown of this development is the GE90 high airflow and high thrust. However, if you want to further improve efficiency, you have to make it larger or weaker. It's currently made weaker since the 787 is smaller. If you want to power a T7NG/A340NG size plane with 787 class engines, you need four engines OR two extremely large engines. As long as GE doesn't deliver a 150 inch fan, the quad has an advantage.

A350

* I didn't check the exact numbers, I'm a bit tired, but I think you get the idea

Quoting A350 (Reply 124): If you want to power a T7NG/A340NG size plane with 787 class engines, you need four engines OR two extremely large engines. As long as GE doesn't deliver a 150 inch fan, the quad has an advantage.

With today's technology, I agree with you. My honest opinion is that today, the market between the 777/A340 and the 747Adv/A380 is limited anyway and any future endeavors in this niche are several years away. Improvements in CFD and more application of contra-rotating stages have helped improve engine efficiency to hitherto unknown levels. Who knows, maybe these and other advances will allow the production of higher thrust levels without the accompanied increase in engine size, making a higher thrust engine for a twin in this class possible.

-N60659

Quoting A350 (Reply 124): If you want to power a T7NG/A340NG size plane with 787 class engines, you need four engines OR two extremely large engines. As long as GE doesn't deliver a 150 inch fan, the quad has an advantage.

The efficiency inherent in modern HBPR turbofans comes from improving the efficiency of the thermodynamic cylcle of the gas generator section so that there is more power left over to move more air that does not undergo thermodynamic cycle (bypass air). The GE90 for example made significant improvements in both thermodynamic efficiency and fan efficiency which allowed unprecedented bypass ratios for its time and subsequently low SFC. These still have not been bettered by any current engine.

The target bypass ratios for the new Trent 1000 and GEnX are 10-11:1 made possible only by the fact that the efficiencies of the gas generators have improved to such an extent that there is shaft horsepower reserve to drive higher fan airflows, albeit with lower pressure ratios, with larger, more efficient fans. The GEnX gas generator is significantly more efficient than GE90 and application of GEnx technology to GE90 would produce an engine that would either produce the same amount of thrust for the same fan size while using less fuel to do so, or produce a higher level of thrust with the same TFC...

Maximum test thrust for the GE90-115B was 127,000lbt+ and according to GE that is a fairly conservative value. There is still a lot more capability left in GE90...

In the present iteration of the A340-500/600 four engines have no advantage over a twin with two highly developed powerplants. Unless you consider higher structural weight, higher drag and subsequent higher fuel burn to be a distinct advantage of four vs two engines. And let us not forget that the 777-200LR still has 4% more installed thrust than A340-500, is 55,000lbs lighter, carries more payload over a given distance, all while flying at a higher cruise speed...still looking for advantages...




-widebodyphotog

Quoting Post 52
Consequently, if the crude oil stays at $50 or 60/barrel, then we may have seen the last "standard" 777LR order, and the 777ULR will most likely stay a paperplane or "dreamliner" only.

Let's take a real example: A 777ULR will carry less payload than th LR, let's say 250 instead of 300 pax. On LHR - SYD non-stop it will need 160 tons of fuel.

Quoting Post 60
Quoting Baw716 (Reply 53):
Its the F and C cabins where the weight of the seats are REALLY heavy. However, if those are the cabins that would run full, then it would make sense to have an 18/60/175 pax version (256 seats). The reduction of 46 seats and the commensurate body weight (175-200lbs) would probably make the weight difference you would need to get the extra 1500 miles you would need to make the flight work with reserves.

Sorry to disappoint you, Baw716. 46 pax at 200 lbs = just over 4 tons. Add seats and baggage and it may be almost 6 tons.

Convert that to 6 tons more fuel. It will bring you some 350 miles further, not anywhere near 1500 miles. And then we haven't even counted the weight of the extra tanks.

It will take a lot more dramatic changes to increase range 1500 miles. Increased gross weight, longer runway requirement, ignorance of hot and high performance, etc, etc. And a reduced payload. And a considerably higher fuel burn per seat.

A "standard" 777LR could extend its range by 1500 miles if it had to carry zero seats, zero pax, zero payload, and it carried the same weight as extra fuel. And maybe a little more than 1500 miles, but not much. It wouldn't make +2000 miles.

A 777LR + 1500 miles would probably be something like a ten seat biz-jet !!!

Now come on, you say in one post that a 250 seat aircraft could make it with non stop but my 250 pax aircraft can't?

Please explain the formula you are using to come to these figures. Right now, nothing you are saying makes sense.

Quoting N60659 (Reply 125): @N60659: It's just physics: it's more fuel efficient to have a high airflow at low speed than a low airflow at high speed. Have a look how small the 732/707/DC9 etc low or no bypass-engines have been. The 787 engines will also be far larger than 767 engines*. Nowadays, you need far larger engines to achieve the same thrust with high bypass, or, more precisely, high airflow engines. As a result, there are two reasons two increase engine size: First, efficiency, and second, higher thrust. The current crown of this development is the GE90 high airflow and high thrust. However, if you want to further improve efficiency, you have to make it larger or weaker. It's currently made weaker since the 787 is smaller. If you want to power a T7NG/A340NG size plane with 787 class engines, you need four engines OR two extremely large engines. As long as GE doesn't deliver a 150 inch fan, the quad has an advantage. A350 * I didn't check the exact numbers, I'm a bit tired, but I think you get the idea

Where your theory is sound, in practice it has failed to show any influence.

777 sales are increased, A340 sales are decreasing. Perhaps not a rock solid indicator but it does hint at a preference for Twins.

There is clear evidence, most of which provided by my esteemed forum colleagues above, that show us that where ETOPS is not an issue, Twin jets are by far preffered over heavier, thirstier Quads.

I asked my associate who is responisble for several fleet changes, acquisitions and maintenance for airlines around Europe and Russia about what he sees between the Twin and Quad jet argument. He said:

"Quads are unnecessary in all but a very few instances. To put it simply, they use more fuel and cost a lot more to maintain. Besides, there's very little they can do that a twin cannot. There no longer is any reason to prefer a quad over a twin, aside from price."

To add to this, Air Canada are chomping at the bit to replace their quads, A340s, with 777s. Doing so they are quoted in saying they could save $100 mil a year in fuel and associated costs!

Nuff said for me, I'm convinced.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 96): IMO a.net urban legend. The 772X (forerunner of LR) was first offered to SIA in 1997.

Wasn't there a problem with the aviation world that stopped the B772LR going into production, then 9/11 totally stopped it till now? I do know something happened in the world which stopped it, so Keesje your argument is not valid as why the B772LR first failed

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118): Would have thought that you could do JFK-SYD if SYD-LHR was possible.

I was hoping they could, Zeke, nothing woiuld suit me better. And I think the distance is actually a shade less.

But Boeing's radius map from NYC clearly shows that the farthest the 772LR can get is Jackson's (Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea). I guess it's the same old story, prevailing westerly winds, you can get the distance eastbound but not westbound.

Hopefully QF will eventually go further than Los Angeles, anyway. My brother and his family live near LAX. I usually stay over with them on my way back from New York. But my sister-in-law is of Italian descent, she won't hear of me 'passing through' without a 'family reunion'. So even on the outward trip I have to delay my onward flight to allow time to catch a cab to Manhattan Beach and say hallo - even though there's usually only time to have coffee with them.

Her coffee's pretty good, but even so.......  

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 95): Airbus did not gain 50% of the market by being stupid with their money

Try telling that to NAV20

Quoting WINGS (Reply 102): Is the introduction of glare, a greater use of composites, laser welding and further improvements , out of the question for the A340 family? I dont think so.

During 2003,2004,2005, Airbus has spent more on R+D AFTER the A380 R+D is stripped out, than Boeing Commercial Aircraft has spent on R+D in total.

There's obviously a hell of a lot of stuff going on which will come out into the open one day.....

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 112): The T500 is already a pretty efficient design.

Not according to Widebodyphotog's data...

Quoting A350 (Reply 114): Ask RR for an upgraded Trent 500 or smaller Trent 1000 variant

Suspect a smaller T1000 is a far more attractive proposition, both from a technology standpoint, and from RR success/profitability standpoint..

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 131): During 2003,2004,2005, Airbus has spent more on R+D AFTER the A380 R+D is stripped out, than Boeing Commercial Aircraft has spent on R+D in total. There's obviously a hell of a lot of stuff going on which will come out into the open one day.....

That is assuming that Airbus is getting more bang for the buck from its R&D expenditures. This ignores issues like pay, exchange rates, etc.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 131): During 2003,2004,2005, Airbus has spent more on R+D AFTER the A380 R+D is stripped out, than Boeing Commercial Aircraft has spent on R+D in total. There's obviously a hell of a lot of stuff going on which will come out into the open one day.....

Quit with the Bull... Strip out the 4 billion government handout then compare. I'm willing to bet that once this is done, you will fill silly.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 131): Try telling that to NAV20

You've got me wrong, Astuteman. I reckon Airbus did very well in the early days, 'picking off' Boeing's range model by model with newer competitors. And their intervention raised standards all round, and lowered prices in real terms.

The problems began after 2000, when Airbus was subsumed into EADS. Since that time, Airbus' whole energies appear to have been absorbed by the (fundamentally uneconomic) A380 project.

As a result, they completely failed to see the potentialities of ETOPS, and also drastically under-estimated the potential of the 787. So Boeing are now picking off THEIR range model by model, to the point where one company (Boeing this time) may again be within sight of achieving virtual monopoly power in the market within a very few years.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 134): The problems began after 2000, when Airbus was subsumed into EADS. Since that time, Airbus' whole energies appear to have been absorbed by the (fundamentally uneconomic) A380 project.

Good it only appears to you and is not true in reality.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 134): As a result, they completely failed to see the potentialities of ETOPS, and also drastically under-estimated the potential of the 787.

If they failed to see it at all, then it was when they decided to build the A340 and not in 2000.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 134): So Boeing are now picking off THEIR range model by model, to the point where one company (Boeing this time) may again be within sight of achieving virtual monopoly power in the market within a very few years.

Very adventurous theory from Down Under...  


Regards,
JM

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 133): Quit with the Bull... Strip out the 4 billion government handout then compare. I'm willing to bet that once this is done, you will fill silly.

Information is straight out of both companies (Boeing + EADS) accounts, and internal statements, Shenzen.
You might be surprised that,
a) it's not a handout, it's an interest bearing loan, and
b) ALL of the R+D that Airbus do is funded out of REVENUE (to the tune of $2Bn + per year for the last 4 years).
c)The Government loans have gone to fund part of a Capital investment programme of c $5.Bn for the A380.
By the way, EADS government loans outstanding (owing) at the end of 2001 were c $3.9Bn. As of July 27th 2005, they were $6.1Bn.In other words, EADS has drawn down a NET $2.2Bn of government loans in the last 3 1/2 years.

In that time, Airbus has spent $7Bn in R+D total, with $4Bn being on the A380, and $3Bn, obviously on other programmes.
It (Airbus) has also spent, in that time, $5Bn in capital programmes for the A380 alone.

In summary,

Airbus have spent $7Bn in R+D, and $5Bn in capital investment, giving a total of $12Bn, in the last 3 1/2 years.
In that time, it's parent, EADS refundable government loans have increased by $2.2Bn, and private sector borrowing by just less than $2Bn.

The rest has been funded from revenue, i.e. sales (of c $83Bn in 3 1/2 years).
Airbus operating profit (after the $7Bn R+D spend has been deducted) has been declared as c $7.2Bn in 3 1/2 years. ($14.5Bn if you include the R+D that has been funded....)
Capital spending does not affect profit/loss, appearing later as depreciation.

In the same 3 1/2 year period Boeing Commercial Aircraft spent a grand total of $2.9Bn on R+D .
The good news is that it has ramped up significantly in 2005 as the 787 gets going (forecast $1.3Bn in the year 2005, still well short of Airbus's £2Bn +)

Sorry for the lengthy response, but I get irked by comments that Airbus is all about "Government hand-outs", when in fact it's a very well run, and VERY profitable business.
The response is not meant to be "anti-Boeing" either. I'm a fan of both companies, and Boeing have had a hard time coping with the market shrinkage, but they're starting to bounce back now that turnover is increasing.

I don't feel silly just yet.....  

Like I said, take away the government interest bearing loans, that may or may not need to be repaid, and state again that Airbus has spent more in 2003 then Boeing has in the past three years.

It only makes sense that more was spent whilst the A380 was in devlopment. Why don't you compare 92,93,94,95,96,97,98 ?????

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 131): Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 112): The T500 is already a pretty efficient design. Not according to Widebodyphotog's data...

I don't know what exactly Widebodyphotg's data was. If it was just the fuel burn of the aircraft/engine combination, then the inefficiency came mostly in the form of the 340 being too heavy and less efficient wing. The 345 is 32.5t heavier in MTOW than the 772lr. Simple physics: more energy is needed to move a heavier object.

The T500 is currently the newest engine in service. If the T500 is not close to being one of the most efficient engines as of now, then you must question what's wrong with RR. While the T1000 will no doubt be more efficient than the T500, it will also be heavier and bigger. If Airbus won't do much to improve the aircraft, the T1000 or its derivative will do little to close the gap between the 772lr and 345.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 138): I don't know what exactly Widebodyphotg's data was. If it was just the fuel burn of the aircraft/engine combination, then the inefficiency came mostly in the form of the 340 being too heavy and less efficient wing. The 345 is 32.5t heavier in MTOW than the 772lr. Simple physics: more energy is needed to move a heavier object. The T500 is currently the newest engine in service. If the T500 is not close to being one of the most efficient engines as of now, then you must question what's wrong with RR. While the T1000 will no doubt be more efficient than the T500, it will also be heavier and bigger. If Airbus won't do much to improve the aircraft, the T1000 or its derivative will do little to close the gap between the 772lr and 345.

Actually if you compare SFC figures the Trent 500 is notably less efficeint than even a GE90-94B at .568 vs .545lb/lbt. The main benefit of the optimized modular three shaft RR engines, Trent series, has been their relatively lower installed weight. The Trent 700, 800, 900 all fall short of their competitors on specific fuel efficiency. The Trent 1000 should be the first engine to change that trend.

The differences in fuel burn A340-500 vs 777-200LR are twofold. First the Airbus needs 14% more thrust at specified cruise speed than the boeing. The A340-500 pulls much more drag than the 777-200LR. More so than just the difference in MTOW would suggest, 805,679lb vs 766,000lbs. Secondly the higher cruise thrust requirement of the Airbus is generated with 6% less fuel efficient poweplants.



-widebodyphotog

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 139): First the Airbus needs 14% more thrust at specified cruise speed than the boeing. The A340-500 pulls much more drag than the 777-200LR.

Do you have the thrust ratings during cruise for both (which cruise speed)? The A340 seems to have a smaller cross section.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 139): The A340-500 pulls much more drag than the 777-200LR. More so than just the difference in MTOW would suggest, 805,679lb vs 766,000lbs.

Is this only because of the extra two engines (which I assume do not do much for the A345's aerodynamics) or due to other factors too?

Thanks,

Tony

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 139): Actually if you compare SFC figures the Trent 500 is notably less efficeint than even a GE90-94B at .568 vs .545lb/lbt

A 4.2% difference in SFC isn't going to overcome a 15-20% fuel burn disadvantage. The biggest fundamental issues with the 345/6 are 1. it's much heavier than the competition and 2. it's less effiicent aerodynamically. If these two problems are not properly addressed by Airbus, Rolls will only play a small role in closing the gap between the 345/6 and 772lr/773er.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 139): First the Airbus needs 14% more thrust at specified cruise speed than the boeing. The A340-500 pulls much more drag than the 777-200LR. More so than just the difference in MTOW would suggest,

The more I read the more surprised I am. The 777 has a (20%?) bigger cross section, a bigger tail.. can you please explain do we have links?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 143): The more I read the more surprised I am. The 777 has a (20%?) bigger cross section, a bigger tail.. can you please explain do we have links?

I'm afraid that exactly the cross section is the real advantage of the T7: mechanically, a long, thin tube is less stable than a shorter and thicker one. And remember, the A340NG needs an additional keel compared to the A343. It's just speculation, of course, but I have the impression that this point is far more important than the twin/quad issue. I'm a physicist and the fact that long, thin tubes aren't stable is eyepopping to me.

A350

Quoting A350 (Reply 144): I'm afraid that exactly the cross section is the real advantage of the T7: mechanically, a long, thin tube is less stable than a shorter and thicker one. And remember, the A340NG needs an additional keel compared to the A343. It's just speculation, of course, but I have the impression that this point is far more important than the twin/quad issue. I'm a physicist and the fact that long, thin tubes aren't stable is eyepopping to me.

The A345 is the same length as the A343 and A333.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 145): The A345 is the same length as the A343 and A333.

Since when?

HONEY I THINK I SHRUNK THE A340-500.

[Edited 2005-09-29 20:06:48]

Quoting GARPD (Reply 128): Nuff said for me, I'm convinced.

If the A350-800 is any indication, so is Airbus...  

Quoting A350 (Reply 144): I have the impression that this point is far more important than the twin/quad issue.

Honestly, I've never heard that tube theory before. I'm quite curious, as this does seem to go against my (very basic) understanding of physics.

However, I do know that part of the A340's drag penalty vs. the 777 comes from two sources - the wing and the engines.

The 777, from what I've read about, has a cleaner wing design than the A340, which reduces it's comparative induced drag.

Also, though the Trent 500's may have a smaller fan than the GE 90, remember that there are twice as many of them, which taken together, creates more drag than the 777.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 145): The A345 is the same length as the A343 and A333.

The A345 received a slight stretch. It measures 222 ft. 8 in. vs. the A343's 208 ft. 10 in. and carries 313 pax vs. 295 in Airbus' reference configuration.

--B2707SST