Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

OlderAeroGuy -- Alright then, for a 6,000nm mission, what payload can the A345HGW carry in addition to 313 pax & their baggage? And what is the total weight of the revenue cargo+pax+baggage And also, at what point (i.e. as nm mission range increases) does the extra fuel start to displace payload?

Another question: what total payload can the B777200LR carry at 247tonnes TOW with the 3 ACTs full of fuel?

[Edited 2006-05-23 16:17:50]

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 150):Alright then, for a 6,000nm mission, what payload can the A345HGW carry in addition to 313 pax & their baggage? And what is the total weight of the revenue cargo+pax+baggage And also, at what point (i.e. as nm mission range increases) does the extra fuel start to displace payload?

For a generic airplane The A340-500 can carry it's maximum structural payload of 124,600lbs 6,700nm. Fuel load at that payload/range point would be 315,300lbs plus taxi fuel...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 150):Another question: what total payload can the B777200LR carry at 247tonnes TOW with the 3 ACTs full of fuel?

For a generic airplane the 777-200LR can carry its maximum structural payload of 141,000lbs, 7,450nm. Fuel load at this payload/range point would be 305,000lbs plus taxi fuel. Payload with maximum fuel (358,000lb minus taxi fuel) is 88,000lbs and still air range at that load is 9,500nm. For comparison, an A340-500 with the same payload can only fly 7,950nm with a fuel load of 351,900lbs plus taxi fuel.

All ranges still air for manufactures generic OEW.

-widebodyphotog

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Widebodyphoto, you wrote, "The A340-500 can carry it's maximum structural payload of 124,600lbs 6,700nm"

For the 380tonne A345 that is incorrect. That payload range chart shows me clearly that the aircraft will carry approx 130,000lb (just under 60,000kg), and maintain this all the way out to around 7,500nm (looking at the official payload-range chart).

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 152):For the 380tonne A345 that is incorrect. That payload range chart shows me clearly that the aircraft will carry approx 130,000lb (just under 60,000kg), and maintain this all the way out to around 7,500nm (looking at the official payload-range chart).

No 380t A340-500 have been built and probably will not be so it's really not germaine...But in point of fact the maximum payload for the higher gross weight A340-500 is 126,100lbs, and range at MZFW would be 7,000-7,100nm. The HGW spec increases OEW by 15,500lb for a range increase of 330nm with design payload, an extremely poor tradeoff IMO...so at the increased MZFW the airplane is actually 7t heavier by structure and the extra 5t of fuel load can only carry the plane about 400nm farther. Not much of an improvement at all...

-widebodyphotog

abrelosojos
Posts: 4336
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:48 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting WINGS (Reply 146):Just look at the number of airlines operating the A345/A345 in what we can consider to be rather hot/high terrain. Qatar Ethiad Emirates Kingfisher South African Airlines Thai

= Kingfisher does not have any A345 or any variant of the A340 series for that matter.

-A.

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Widebodyphotjpg:-

>No 380t A340-500 have been built and probably will not be so it's really not germaine . . . <<

You are very wrong again. Kingfisher of India just ordered 5 firm + 5 option A340-500HGW (380 tonne) variant.

>> But in point of fact the maximum payload for the higher gross weight A340-500 is 126,100lbs, and range at MZFW would be 7,000-7,100nm <<

You are clearly contradicting Airbus' own official payload-range spec for the A345HGW.

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

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 155):You are very wrong again. Kingfisher of India just ordered 5 firm + 5 option A340-500HGW (380 tonne) variant.

He is correct they have not yet been built. We will have to see if Kingfisher ever takes delivery; they may, but then again, they might not.

sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Zeus419....
I note that your occupation is an aviation journalist. Your information or the sources that you use, appear to be suspect and place your credibility in jeopardy. I say this in all seriousneess. I think you need to do something about it.

WINGS
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications.

 Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 153): No 380t A340-500 have been built and probably will not be so it's really not germaine

That's not correct Widebodyphotog. Kingfisher have ordered 5 A345HGW. Certification of the A345 HGW will comence in early 2007.

 Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 154): = Kingfisher does not have any A345 or any variant of the A340 series for that matter.

Wrong. Kingfisher have recently placed an order for 5 A345HGW +5 options.

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 155):You are very wrong again. Kingfisher of India just ordered 5 firm + 5 option A340-500HGW (380 tonne) variant.

That's correct Zeus419. I don't know if Thai will also be receiving their last A345 as the HGW variant.

Regards,
Wings

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

What "official" spec are you talking about? I have a preliminary MFP from Airbus for the increased gross weight A340's and we have the models in PIANO...I think what we have is more accurate than what you can pull of their website or what's available for public consumption...

But I have to give this one a big "so what" as I'm not going to quibble over 500nm...In the big picture it's quite meaningless as MZFW payloads for any passenger airplane are extremely rare...The point relavent to this thread is that the A340-500 is significantly less capable even at the extremes of payload and endurance...

-widebodyphotog

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Sunrisevalley wrote:-

>> Zeus419.... I note that your occupation is an aviation journalist. Your information or the sources that you use, appear to be suspect and place your credibility in jeopardy. . <<

Spare me the lecture mate. I have the payload-range chart for the 380t A345. From Airbus. I say this in all seriousness. I think you need to do recognise that.

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 150):OlderAeroGuy -- Alright then, for a 6,000nm mission, what payload can the A345HGW carry in addition to 313 pax & their baggage? And what is the total weight of the revenue cargo+pax+baggage

Okay, this is kind of a trick question. If you take the A345HGW MZFW and subtract the OEW as given on the Airbus official specifications, you get a payload of 57.2t. However, Airbus quotes a typical volumetric payload of 43.3t. In other words, there isn't enough cargo space to carry the structural payload with 313 pax at 95 kg (per pax+bags) + cargo if you assume of a typical cargo density of 10 lb/cu.ft. For reference, this cargo density is representative of general market cargo. As a comparison, the A380F hits its volume and structural limits simultaneously at a cargo density of about 8 lb/cu.ft.

Therefore the structural payload limit is kind of meaningless at the generic Airbus OEW. It does allow heavier Airline OEW's to be accommodated though so that in of itself is good.

Incidently, if you do the same exercise on the 372t A345, you find the structural max payload would be around 59.1t even though the volume limit payload would still be at 43.3t. The A345HGW actually has less structural payload capability than the A345, according to Airbus.

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 150):And also, at what point (i.e. as nm mission range increases) does the extra fuel start to displace payload?

Somewhere in the vicinity to 7500 to 7600 nm.

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 150):Another question: what total payload can the B777200LR carry at 247tonnes TOW with the 3 ACTs full of fuel?

I presume that you mean a 347.5t MTOW and that 247t was a typo.

The 772LR carries its 301 design passenger+bags payload (28.7t) for a 9420 nm mission at this point.

The data I've quoted above are the manufacturers' generic performance. Actual airline performance will vary.

Zeus419, any thoughts on the Emirates A345HGW vs 772LR decision?

saturn5
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:49 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 148): What that basically means is that when you apply even the highest payloads that 777-200ER's are now seeing in actual service to the long range capability of the 777-200LR you don't even come close to challenging the airplane in terms of operational capability...

But maybe you are challenging airport capability. If runway is too short that will be the problem. Again, balanced field is computed as runway required assuming worst case scenario of loosing an engine at V1. In 777 a loss of a 50% power is a much more serious event than in A340 where it is 25%. So perhaps there are some operators and some runways where A340 has better field requirements. I ma not sure if this 30,000 lbs of being under MTOW makes so much difference to offset the situation (for 777), maybe it does, one would have to look at field tables.

[Edited 2006-05-23 19:17:53]

Tan Flyr
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

ok..here is a question..what about the QUALITY OF THE FUEL?

Could there be a problem with the volitility or burnability of JET-A available there? (sort of the same if you buy some real cheap gas here, your mileage drops a bit as the energy value is not as good)

And IF this were a factor, would it be measurable? How much would this additionally contribute to longer t/o rolls and climb?

Any fuel engineers out in Asia available for comment?

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting TAN FLYR (Reply 163):ok..here is a question..what about the QUALITY OF THE FUEL? Could there be a problem with the volitility or burnability of JET-A available there? (sort of the same if you buy some real cheap gas here, your mileage drops a bit as the energy value is not as good) And IF this were a factor, would it be measurable? How much would this additionally contribute to longer t/o rolls and climb? Any fuel engineers out in Asia available for comment?

Only thing I could think of in that regard is the density of fuel may be significantly different than it is elswhere. Jet-A varies greatly in density by region. But the engines don't really care about the volume of fuel it's the mass of fuel that matters. Even if, for example, the fuel density is relatively low, the mass requirement for the mission will not change, the operator would just have to buy more gallons or litres since fuel is sold by volume not mass...

-widebodyphotog

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Saturn5 (Reply 162):Again, balanced field is computed as runway required assuming worst case scenario of loosing an engine at V1. In 777 a loss of a 50% power is a much more serious event than in A340 where it is 25%.

There are no easy answers for takeoff performance. While what you say is true, the 777 can reach its V1 with more runway to spare since it has a higher T/W consistent with a Twin.

Factors against the A345 would be its higher wing loading that requires a higher takeoff speed and the fact that Part 25 TOFL is the longer of the engine inoperative distance or (1.15*the all engines operating distance). The factored all engines distance is often more limiting for a Quad.

When talking takeoff performance, the Part 25 calculated distances should always be used when available.

trex8
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 132):OlderAeroGuy wrote:- >> I'm willing to believe the Zeus419 numbers for the A345 if he is willing to believe mine for the 772LR. Why trust the Airbus numbers for the 772LR? . . . mutual acceptance of TOFL values means the 772LR would have a 1000' lower field length requirement for equal range and the same payload. << Sure, we can mutually accept Airbus' own A345 figures and maybe your B777 TOFL figures. BUT -- and I stress this -- we don't know what different underlying assumptions were used to reach those respective figures -- especially as they came from wildly different sources. So therefore, I still maintain that we CANNOT conclude that the 777 "would have a 1000' lower field length requirement for equal range and the same payload". Indeed, from everything I've ever read, and from every Airbus presentation I've ever been to, it's always been Airbus' claim that one of the key advantages of the A340-500/-600 over the B777LR is in terms of the respective take-off performance & field length at hot & high airports. And I sure don't recall Boeing ever denying that claim at any of the Boeing presentations I've attended.

so what are the numbers in AWSTs 06 Source book for FAA TOFL, 11500 for 772LR at 766K lbs gross and 10500 for A345, 811K??

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Trex8 (Reply 166):so what are the numbers in AWSTs 06 Source book for FAA TOFL, 11500 for 772LR at 766K lbs gross and 10500 for A345, 811K??

Well, for the 772LR, I'd call them outdated. The 11,500' TOFL is a pre-flight test value. The current value is 10,650' with the -110B rating. AW&ST should call Boeing and ask for updated data.

The problem with specification tables is keeping them up-to-date when there is no economic incentive to do so.

For a good example, the A.net specs are way out of date. If and when I retire a second time maybe I'll volunteer to update them if the moderators are willing.

planetime
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:16 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):Sounds as if PIA is concerned with the B777's performance, not its QUALITY

Would be nice if those clowns who are in the management of PIA get some pilots who could operate these aircrafts to make a rational judgement. Where do they get these clowns from..... first getting 777LR's to fly to USA nonstop but never getting security clearance. Then not enough pilots to fly the planes....... really some organization they got there.

subkk
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:00 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Deaphen (Reply 49): I agree with your point, but what i dont get is what basis was the 787 and the 777 were ordered on? What is the main criteria? And that too such a huge amount of them.

The reason for ordering 777 is simple, it is the best long range Large Capacity airliner in the market, plus with range capability to do BOM SFO non stop.

The 787s are needed to serve other markets other than US, say for example SA or Australia and also open up more connection points from India like BLR, HYD and MAA.

Have you seen the growth in Air Passenger numbers in India lately?

Also they need to replace the old war horses A300s and 742s

Subbu

subkk
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:00 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Cricket (Reply 72):Will AI get permission to do non-stop India-US? Um, bordering on something dramatically insane happening in India-US relations, the short answer is No.

I dont think that should be a problem, CO and AA fly directly from Delhi. Most of ground handling is done by AI for these airlines.

So AI should be able to fly directly

Subramanian

atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Subkk (Reply 170):I dont think that should be a problem, CO and AA fly directly from Delhi. Most of ground handling is done by AI for these airlines.

I think he meant yes. I don't see any reason why AI won't be able to fly direct.

 Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 164):Only thing I could think of in that regard is the density of fuel may be significantly different than it is elswhere. Jet-A varies greatly in density by region. But the engines don't really care about the volume of fuel it's the mass of fuel that matters. Even if, for example, the fuel density is relatively low, the mass requirement for the mission will not change, the operator would just have to buy more gallons or litres since fuel is sold by volume not mass...

Is energy density as expressed as energy/mass constant for different density fuels? And if it is, are they refueling according to mass or by volume?

abrelosojos
Posts: 4336
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:48 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting WINGS (Reply 158):Quoting Abrelosojos (Reply 154): = Kingfisher does not have any A345 or any variant of the A340 series for that matter. Wrong. Kingfisher have recently placed an order for 5 A345HGW +5 options.

 Quoting WINGS (Reply 146):Just look at the number of airlines operating the A345/A345 in what we can consider to be rather hot/high terrain. Qatar Ethiad Emirates Kingfisher South African Airlines Thai Regards, Wings

= You are right ... Kingfisher has placed an order ... but in your initial post (reply 146), you say "number of airlines operating" ... Kingfisher DOES NOT OPERATE the A345.

Cheers,
A.

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 171):s energy density as expressed as energy/mass constant for different density fuels? And if it is, are they refueling according to mass or by volume?

I have to believe that the specific energy content of Jet-A is in general pretty consistent, and fueling is done according to mass. Density is usually tested at the time of fueling...

However, for the kind of disparity in fuel volumes and mass that would cause a problem there would need to be HUGE variations in energy content. I'm talking about 10, 20, 30 or more percent which I don't believe is possible for one, and if by some chance that was the case, it would effect all airplanes flying out of that region equally...

-widebodyphotog

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

OlderAeroguy:-

Yesterday you quoted me asking:- "And also, at what point (i.e. as nm mission range increases) does the extra fuel start to displace payload? "

You replied:-
>> Somewhere in the vicinity to 7500 to 7600 nm. <<

Ah, so now you broadly agree with my "suspect" payload-range info! (well, I did give you the heads-up — so conveniently in my reply to Widebodyphotojpg — before you decided to post)

You also wrote:-

>> The 772LR carries its 301 design passenger+bags payload (28.7t) for a 9420 nm mission at this point. <<

So that’s considerably fewer pax (301 versus 313) and less overall payload (28.7t versus 30t) than the A350HGW carries at 9,000nm. And note that the A345 does not need any bulky ACTs — i.e. aux fuel tanks — in the cargo bay (and balance on a C-of-G knife-edge!) to do this. Indeed, the B777-200LR, without ACTs — as in PIA's case — cannot fly as far as the A345HGW.

>> Zeus419, any thoughts on the Emirates A345HGW vs 772LR decision? <<

I really don’t think Emirates has a problem with the A345’s payload-range. IMHO The main reason would have been the "bulk-buy" factor with that airline's large fleet of other B777s on order.

[Edited 2006-05-24 15:01:41]

antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Can someone clarify whether or not the PIA flights use the corridor over Afghanistan like other carriers to avoid the Himalayas and Karakorum ranges, and if so, is it possible the jet is still too heavy after departing Karachi to sustain a safe minimum on one engine when it reaches Afghan air space.

After all, when you are flying from Singapore or Bangkok, or perhaps even Mumbai on such a routing (over Afghanistan) you probably have plenty of time in any sort of jet to have achieved an altitude where an engine failure is readily managed.

I've been over the route in daylight in clear weather, and there is a section where you see lots of ice, crevasses and steep ridges, no place to be hunting around at say 25-26 thousand feet.

Antares

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

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Well, it's been several days and so far there was just this one article in the Pakistani press. Are there any other sources? If PIA is having problems with their 772LRs, wouldn't Airbus' PR department be "all over" this?

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174):So thatï¿½s considerably fewer pax (301 versus 313) and less overall payload (28.7t versus 30t) than the A350HGW carries at 9,000nm.

You are exactly right, and it only needs 20% more fuel to move a given payload the same distance as 777-200LR...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174):And note that the A345 does not need any bulky ACTs i.e. aux fuel tanks ï¿½ in the cargo bay (and balance on a C-of-G knife-edge!) to do this. Indeed

Who in the world says CG is on the "knife edge" when using ACT on 777-200LR?! Actually it's the total opposite. For a full cabin load the balance gets better with increasing ACT fuel load. The 777-200LR tendency is forward CG so the ACT fuel load broadens the range of allowable CG with heavy loads at long ranges...No offense but you really don't have an idea what you are talking about in terms of the 777 operation and are being very irresponsible with your assumptions...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174):The 772LR carries its 301 design passenger+bags payload (28.7t) for a 9420 nm mission at this poin

Actually as a result of flight testing and 2,000lb lower OEW for current spec aircraft, design range is been pushed out to 9,650-9,700nm.

-widebodyphotog

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Widebodyphotojpg wrote:-

>> You are exactly right, and it only needs 20% more fuel to move a given payload the same distance as 777-200LR...<<

Well, along that line of logic, we could also say that a B777-200LR uses a LOT more fuel, and costs a LOT more to transport 295-300 pax on a 5,700nm mission . . . than an A330-300.

>> Who in the world says CG is on the "knife edge" when using ACT on 777-200LR?! <<

My point was in the context of the heaviest take-off weight, at the extremities of payload-range (where heavy ACTs would naturally come into play). I should have made that clear in my original post. N.B. The Boeing website clearly says:-

This refers to the C-of-G constraint.

>> Actually as a result of flight testing and 2,000lb lower OEW for current spec aircraft, design range is been pushed out to 9,650-9,700nm <<

So then, Boeing should put this on the website if this is actually the case.

Anyway, can you tell me which airlines, if any, are actually going to put three space-consuming ACTs in their -200LR underfloor holds, instead of revenue cargo?

[Edited 2006-05-24 18:12:49]

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications.

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 178): This refers to the C-of-G constraint.

And you have no idea what those specific restrictions are do you? I can answer that from your demonstration of lack of operational knowledge to be a firm no. Do you even know what the CG limitations for A340-500 at MTOW or maximum fuel load? Again the answer is no...

In point of fact the limitations on zone loading at MTOW are not particularly onerous at all, and to my mind actually are better for cargo payload utilization as heavier ULD can be loaded forward, the opposite of the circumstance at lower fuel loads. Furthermore is is very hard to even conceive of a situation where certificated MTOW would be routinely required in airline operation. Even, for example, 9,000nm effective distance with a 36t payload does not require getting within 20,000lbs of MTOW (The 380t MTOW A340-500 can only manage 66,000lbs at this effective distance and is at structural MTOW). The full capability of the 777-200LR is way beyond 90% of the missions it will be used for as I have detailed in previous replies to this thread...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 178): Well, along that line of logic, we could also say that a B777-200LR uses a LOT more fuel, and costs a LOT more to transport 295-300 pax on a 5,700nm mission . . . than an A330-300.

This is logic, a fallacy of logic. The A330 is no more a competitor of 777-200LR than the Man In the Moon...No one who needs only that capability would consider the 777-200LR or A340-500 for that matter. The specific competitor to 777-200LR, the A340-500 uses 20%+ more fuel for any given payload/range point period. The 777-200LR is also faster and carries more payload over a given range than A345...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 178): So then, Boeing should put this on the website if this is actually the case.

Carriers do not operate the airplane based on the information available on the website...However it is quite obvious that the depth of your knowledge is limited to what one can learn from reading it.

-widebodyphotog

[Edited 2006-05-24 18:54:37]

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174):Ah, so now you broadly agree with my "suspect" payload-range info! (well, I did give you the heads-up — so conveniently in my reply to Widebodyphotojpg — before you decided to post)

Your attitude puzzles me. Where did I ever say your payload-range was suspect? I figured you were using the official Airbus Payload range curve and I also have a copy of that data. You said I didn't understand the characterisitics of the A345HGW. I said I did and satisfactorily answered your questions.

With regard to the timing of my answers, I have other things to do than write replies to A.net threads. You took nearly 20 hours to answer my post. I presume you have other priorities in your life as well. Why the constantly combative tone?

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174):So that’s considerably fewer pax (301 versus 313) and less overall payload (28.7t versus 30t) than the A350HGW carries at 9,000nm.

The differences in Airbus vs Boeing generic interiors have been discussed many times in this forum. The fact is that the 772LR has more floor area than the A345 so a truely apples-to-apples accounting would give the 772LR more seats. In truth, while neither OEM's seat counts match how airlines provision the interior, the Boeing seat counts come closer to the airline seat counts than Airbus. For instance, at Emirates, the A345 has 258 passengers while studies for the 772LR have shown 260 or more.

If you look at the range of the 772LR at the 313 pax design payload quoted for the A345HGW, its range is 9300nm, 300nm further than the A345HGW. If you look at the A345HGW at the 7772LR's 9420nm design range, the A345HGW payload drops to 22t.

Since both airplanes are at their fuel volume limits at this range, it's also a good point to compare relative fuel burn characteristics. The A345HGW fuel volume is 58,636 USG while the 772LR holds 53,525 USG. So for this payload-range point, the A345HGW burns 9.6% more fuel while carrying 30% less payload. If you convert both payloads to passengers, the A345HGW burns 42% more fuel per passenger.

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174): And note that the A345 does not need any bulky ACTs — i.e. aux fuel tanks — in the cargo bay (and balance on a C-of-G knife-edge!) to do this.

Having aux. tanks gives the 772LR a flexibility that the A345HGW lacks. The A345HGW carries a "permanent" aux tank in the form of a large body tank. In fact, this tank was enlarged for the HGW. This leaves the aft cargo compartment holding 12 LD3's for the A345HGW while the 772LR holds 14 LD3's if no aux. tanks are fitted. If the 772LR operator wants to operate with lowered MTOW at shorter ranges (7000 nm to 8000 nm) then he can maximize cargo capability with a no aux. tank configuration.

If really long ranges are needed, then all three aux. tanks can be fitted. This drops aft cargo compartment capability to 8 LD3's, but at design ranges, both the A345HGW and the 772LR are carrying pax plus bags only so cargo isn't a factor.

Boeing did make an interesting choice when they increased the 772LR from 340.2t to 347.5t. Rather than increase OEW to maintain CG range, they allowed CG range to drop as TOW increased. This does make loading more of a challenge at the 347.5T MTOW, but for the majority of operations at this MTOW, cargo isn't a factor as you're down to pax+bags only. Moving the bags around in forward or aft cargo compartments apparently gives sufficient loading flexibility. In contrast, Airbus maintained a larger GC range at 380t, but at a high price. When going from 372t to 380t MTOW, OEW increased by 3.9t, penalizing operating economics at all ranges. An interesting study in design philosophies between the two OEM's.

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174):Indeed, the B777-200LR, without ACTs — as in PIA's case — cannot fly as far as the A345HGW.

But only about 200nm less. And since they didn't select aux. tanks and have an MTOW of 340.2t, they probably don't need a range of 8800 nm for their operations. With no aux. tanks, they maximize cargo capbility and at 340.2t MTOW, they have the full CG loadability range.

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 174):I really don’t think Emirates has a problem with the A345’s payload-range. IMHO The main reason would have been the "bulk-buy" factor with that airline's large fleet of other B777s on order.

So you don't think that the better operating economics of the 772LR play any role?

[Edited 2006-05-24 19:07:11]

[Edited 2006-05-24 19:08:29]

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Widebodyphotog, You were wrong about the payload-range of the A345 when I asked you. And you have also dodged the issue of bulky ACTs in the -200LR cargo hold, and the fact that NOBODY uses them, by focussing most of your diatribe and your energies on my ‘cheeky’ aside comment about C-of-G balancing.

>> Carriers do not operate the airplane based on the information available on the website...<<

Exactly — they’re not using the ACTs, and that hypothetical 9,000nm+ range. Moreover, since nobody uses these ACTs, the -200LR actually flies LESS far than a A345HGW.

[Edited 2006-05-24 19:14:08]

seanp11
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:16 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 181):and the fact that NOBODY uses them

You mean other carriers than PIA are flying the 772LR??

jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 181): Exactly — they’re not using the ACTs, and that hypothetical 9,000nm+ range. Moreover, since nobody uses these ACTs, the -200LR actually flies LESS far than a A345HGW.

the point is the A345 has a "parmanent" ACT, where as the -200LR allows the CARRIER to choose if they want to have it installed or not, and if they so choose, it will still provide better economics than the A345...

the -200LR gives carriers more flexibility than the A345.....as well as a better cost advantage per trip

you can provide all the data you want, but at the end of the day, carriers seem to have chosen the -200LR over the A345, with Airbus admitting that the A345 can't match the -200LR...

now if you can explain that, I'm all up for it!

ikramerica
Posts: 15197
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 181):the -200LR actually flies LESS far than a A345HGW

and who flies the 345HGW again...

PIA didn't order the ACTs, but they are available to any carrier who wants them, thus the 772LR has greater range than the 345.

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

>> You mean other carriers than PIA are flying the 772LR?? <<

Seanp11, you will note that earlier, I clearly asked this question:-

"Can you tell me which airlines, if any, are actually going to put three space-consuming ACTs in their -200LR underfloor holds, instead of revenue cargo?"

And neither Widebody, nor OlderAeroGuy, nor any other Boeing cheerleader can give a positive answer.

jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 185):And neither Widebody, nor OlderAeroGuy, nor any other Boeing cheerleader can give a positive answer.

no carrier needs it at this point in time, which once again shows the flexibility the -200LR has over the A345..

without being too tautological, if one purchases the A345, one MUST purchase it with the tanks installed..

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 185):"Can you tell me which airlines, if any, are actually going to put three space-consuming ACTs in their -200LR underfloor holds, instead of revenue cargo?" And neither Widebody, nor OlderAeroGuy, nor any other Boeing cheerleader can give a positive answer.

If they want the same range as the A345HGW, they only need to put in one aux. tank. They now have an airplane that can carry the same amount of cargo as the A345HGW, has more passenger capacity, has a 20%+ fuel burn per passenger advantage and a 10%+ operating cost per passenger advantage.

So tell me why you think airlines prefer the A345HGW over the 772LR.

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

>> If they want the same range as the A345HGW, they only need to put in one aux. tank. <<

That's assuming that they can fly the ETOPS constrained aircraft in a straight line over that entire ULR mission. Which I doubt.

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 181):Widebodyphotog, You were wrong about the payload-range of the A345 when I asked you. And you have also dodged the issue of bulky ACTs in the -200LR cargo hold, and the fact that NOBODY uses them, by focussing most of your diatribe and your energies on my ï¿½cheekyï¿½ aside comment about C-of-G balancing.

I was not wrong and was most certainly not "dodging" any issue. One carrier has ordered the ACT's because they need the range and the others have not because they don't need the range. It's that simple. My response was that MTOW use with maximum fuel load is highly, highly unlikely in regular 777-200LR ops even at very long ranges. The situation, based on what carriers currently require, will usually end up at either heavy fuel loads with lower TOW or lighter loads at higher TOW. The instances that both are required will be a very rare convergence of conditions...

Your extrapolation of the burden of operational requirements for the 777-200LR is very misguided...

This "issue" as you say is based on facts you have used out of context which I can only assume is a practiced method of yours based on your listed profession...

In proper context: Without ACT fuel the 777-200LR range comes in at just over 8,900nm with design payload, required TOW is just over 700,000lbs, and at that cabin load out is well within trim limits. For the 380t A340-500 to travel the insignificantly longer distance to 9,000nm, it leaves the ground 135,000lbs heavier and needs to burn 61,000lbs more fuel. 21% more of the required burn for the lighter 772LR...Why would ANYONE want to do that?

-widebodyphotog

PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 187):Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 185): "Can you tell me which airlines, if any, are actually going to put three space-consuming ACTs in their -200LR underfloor holds, instead of revenue cargo?" And neither Widebody, nor OlderAeroGuy, nor any other Boeing cheerleader can give a positive answer. If they want the same range as the A345HGW, they only need to put in one aux. tank. They now have an airplane that can carry the same amount of cargo as the A345HGW, has more passenger capacity, has a 20%+ fuel burn per passenger advantage and a 10%+ operating cost per passenger advantage. So tell me why you think airlines prefer the A345HGW over the 772LR.

You hit the nail in the head. Zeus419, If you think that A345 can compete with 772LR, why would Airbus spinning their heads to revamp and redesign A345HGW with A345E and now larger A350? The fact is that 772LR can do whatever A345HGW can do and even more, with 20% less fuel burn. So what is your point?

It does not matter what kind of options airlines put in their orders. The most important is that as of now the order balance tips to 772LR favor. Of course each airline has its own judgement on installing options such as ACT. If they need the weight and volume hauling capacity but not the range, they will not opt for ACT. If they want to fly far, they will install ACT, as many as they need. The fact is that even with ACT, B772LR is stil more economical than A345 HGW.

I remember seing a illustration from Boeing's website that for SIN-LAX (or is it LAX-SIN?) 772LR can make it with 300+ passangers and bagage with extra 11tons of cargo, while A345 can only make it with about 200 seats and no cargo at all.

Cheers,
PP

widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 188):That's assuming that they can fly the ETOPS constrained aircraft in a straight line over that entire ULR mission. Which I doubt.

Please show us the routes, by airways, that 777-200LR can not fly with ETOPS 180 or 207 that A340-500 is operating now or that operators of A340-500 are planing in the future...

-widebodyphotog

OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 188):That's assuming that they can fly the ETOPS constrained aircraft in a straight line over that entire ULR mission. Which I doubt.

To illustrate your point, please provide a route for either a current A345, A345HGW, or 772LR customer where the 772LR has to fly a longer track than an A345.

There are some southern hemisphere routes were this could be true until LROPS is approved, but no one has seen the necessity of buying an A345 for these routes today.

antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Query for Widebodyphotog in particular, since he knows what he is talking about.

Can the 777-200LR (or the A345) actually reach an appropriate altitude if fully loaded when flying from Karachi along the tightly defined approaches to the Afghan corridor under the most adverse hot weather conditions?

Remember, they need to be at around 31,000 feet to deal with an engine out situation. No one flies directly across the Karakorums (except it seems a PIA Fokker Friendship, which vanished while so doing and without trace some decades ago.) I sat in a jump seat on the route many years ago (when such things were possible) and recall being told that actually getting ATC clearance to the desired altitude for the corridor is a big issue because of the comparatively large number of flights even then that wishes to 'sneak around' the giant peaks of the Masherbrums, Gasherbrums and Crasherbrums that pierce those skies.

Karachi is a lot closer to the start of this crucial corridor than say Mumbai.

Could it not therefore be that the 777-200LR is not under performing at all. It is simply geographically disadvantaged. I suspect this is why it has 'no problem' coming back from the US, because it would as high and light as it wanted to be.

Antares

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Widebodyphoto wrote:-

>> I was not wrong <<

Yes you were wrong. Completely wrong. I asked you: "at what point (i.e. as nm mission range increases) does the extra fuel start to displace payload?"

You then gave the following INcorrect answer:-

"The A340-500 can carry it's maximum structural payload of 124,600lbs 6,700nm".

I then told you the correct answer, which is:-

" . . . the aircraft will carry approx 130,000lb (just under 60,000kg), and maintain this all the way out to around 7,500nm . . ."

Widebody, you also said this:-

>> No 380t A340-500 have been built and probably will not be so it's really not germaine . . . <<

And I had to correct you yet again, with: "Kingfisher of India just ordered 5 firm + 5 option A340-500HGW (380 tonne) variant"

Antares, you’ve hit an important nail on the head: A twin engined aircraft cannot fly over mountains that high — due to engine-out / descent considerations. (e.g. over the Himalayas). It has to fly a big circle around them, or go a completely different route. However, a quad can hop straight over a 31,000ft mountain range no probs.

Hmm . . . now maybe Widebody & OlderAero should go and ask Kingfisher themselves (right next door to PIA   ) why they just placed orders & options for 10 A345-HGWs . . .

[Edited 2006-05-25 12:23:41]

antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

Zeus419,

I'm not actually saying a twin can't fly over such mountains, as they do use the Afghan corridor, but rather that perhaps a very heavy twin the 777-200LR can't do that if it takes off too close to the start of the high terrain.

It may be for example that 777-200ERs have no problem because they are lighter. I just don't know, but I'm interested in finding out if this is what the PIA kerfuffle is really about.

Antares

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

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 194):Hmm . . . now maybe Widebody & OlderAero should go and ask Kingfisher themselves (right next door to PIA ) why they just placed orders & options for 10 A345-HGWs . . .

Because they are in Airbus' hip pocket? Wonder why Air India and Jet Airways from exactly the same region were happy to order all twins?
Would you care to explain Kingfisher's fleet planning strategy to me? A32X/330/350/345/380 seems ridiculous for such a small carrier.

Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

>> A32X/330/350/345/380 <<

. . . No. that's not ridiculous for a nation with so many people (over 1 billion total, including 350million middle-class inhabitants . . . and rising . . . and one of the worlds fastest growing economies (7-10%) per annum . . . and one of the world's biggest exporters of labor/manpower . . .

AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 197): and one of the world's biggest exporters of labor/manpower . . .

Well, to be fair, as to that, two can play that game, wouldn't you say? Would the rest of the world welcome the threat to domestic populations from exports of highly qualified labor or manpower? Here in the 'States, we're becoming rather annoyed with the issue of displacement. If you suggest that globalism will result in mass migrations by air, I don't know if this is necessarily true, with all due respect.

In any event, there is something a bit "fishy", so to speak, with the concept that because a nation might be larger than the norm, one will need a passenger conveyance that is twice as passenger-capable as the next one down the line. It seems to me a bit like saying that if Henry Ford's Model T was such a success in America, then his competitor should have built minibuses for Europe. I don't think that this worked out that way in real life, and I don't think that Indians believe that they are entitled to, or at any rate, desire, a "mass transit in the air" equivalent merely because their country is more populous than, say, the whole of America.

[Edited 2006-05-25 13:46:08]

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

### RE: PIA Claims B777-200LR Not Upto Specifications...

 Quoting Antares (Reply 195): I just don't know, but I'm interested in finding out if this is what the PIA kerfuffle is really about.

As I noted yesterday, the single article in the Pakistani press is the only mention of this. Maybe there's no "kerfuffle" at all? Have you seen any other sources alluding to "problems"?

### 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