Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:15 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
None of those numbers match the AC configuration I stated, none of those numbers are for the (0 FC + 31 JC + 265 YC) version at AC, it has a manufacturers empty weight of 156.1t, and manufacturers OEW of 160.9t.

I did not intend for them to be representative of AC but of what Airbus is offering in general. As I stated I can not disclose that kind of specific operator information and will not do so. In point of fact I do however have to question your figures as the current AC A340-500 configuration as I know it is 225 Y and 42 F for a total of 267...The configuration you spoke of, "31JC 265 YC" seems more like the current config for their A340-300's...Additionally no one I'm aware of flying A340-500's now has a "300" seat configuration.

If you are able to and do not mind, would you disclose some more specific info from the source material you are using?



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:19 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 87):
No, they updated the range 4 times by hundreds of nm total.

Yeah, in total.

It was definately up from 7,880nm to 7,940nm. Seems to have gone back down, may have been lost in the website update. Don't know if someone can vouch for me. Arguable it was just to get it beyond the A346.

As for the QF LHR-SYD flight. It was in August '89 with 23 people (Including crew i believe). It was towed to the runway and given priority by various ATCs. 20 hours flight time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16161
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 100):
If you are able to and do not mind, would you disclose some more specific info from the source material you are using?

I cannot disclose that in a post, please check your instant messages.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:32 am

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 12):
My guess it will be a 777LR(NG) with 787 technology or a 787LR. Who knows, maybe even a 777-300LR(NG)?

I expect the first nonstop SYD-LHR service will be in a future B787 model. A hypothetical B787-8ER at 520,000 MTOW and 2 belly tanks could fly SYD-LHR nonstop with a commercially viable payload. Alternatively, a hypothetical B787-9ER at 560,000 MTOW and 3 belly tanks could do it.

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 14):
is MTOW more to do with the fuselage strength rather than the undercarriage strength?

The wing, center wing box, fuselage, and undercarriage usually need to be strengthened in order to increase MTOW.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
The 772LRs biggest selling point probably won't be it's own range, but it's ability to carry a full payload farther then a 772ER can. It also happens to be more efficient then a 772ER out beyond 2000nm (per Zvezda).

Per Widebodyphotog.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
This ignores airframe drag differences where I would estimate the 772LR would have a 4% to 6% advantage

I'm surprised the difference in aerodynamic efficiency is that large. Could you explain why it is?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
So despite the operator saying is more like 11%

Is that on a trip basis or a unit payload basis?

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 75):
For AC I don't know why they did not go for the 787-9 already. Even on their longest routes the 787-9 has great payload, dramatically lower trip cost than 777-200LR with more revenue generating cargo volume to boot. 5-15% lower passenger capacity may have been somewhat off-putting but the operating economics are much better for their route structure.

I think that was a blunder. If I were AC, I would have chosen the B787-9 over the B777-200LR.
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 103):
I think that was a blunder. If I were AC, I would have chosen the B787-9 over the B777-200LR.

AC did choose the 787-9 for replacing the A-330s after 2012. However, AC has realy route opportunities NOW, like India and China, and if it wants to succeed into those markets it can't afford to wait a decade.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:47 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 104):
AC did choose the 787-9 for replacing the A-330s after 2012. However, AC has realy route opportunities NOW, like India and China, and if it wants to succeed into those markets it can't afford to wait a decade.

Good point, but AC should have ordered B787s about two years before they did.
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:08 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 105):

Good point, but AC should have ordered B787s about two years before they did.

About two years before they did place that order, they were bankrupt. And the 787-9 won't be available in 2008 anyway. And AC's 330s are pretty young.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:27 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 106):
About two years before they did place that order, they were bankrupt. And the 787-9 won't be available in 2008 anyway. And AC's 330s are pretty young.

All true but, even in BK, AC could have held 2010 delivery slots for the B787-9. Er... If I recall correctly, AC did but the pilots union threw a wrench in the works.
 
sebring
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:37 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 107):

All true but, even in BK, AC could have held 2010 delivery slots for the B787-9. Er... If I recall correctly, AC did but the pilots union threw a wrench in the works.

The pilots decision did not change 787 delivery slots, they only delayed the introduction of 777s by a few months. Air Canada has chosen the 787-9 as a replacement for the 330s. They chose the 777-200LR to launch a few new routes like Toronto-Mumbai starting in 2007 because if they wait, other carriers like Air India will do so first and have the market to themselves for years. Can you not see the business logic of this?

In any case, you seem to want to make a point, but your arguments aren't persuasive and I will have no more of this discussion.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 103):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 62):
This ignores airframe drag differences where I would estimate the 772LR would have a 4% to 6% advantage

I'm surprised the difference in aerodynamic efficiency is that large. Could you explain why it is?

I estimate the higher A345 airframe drag to be from:

Greater wetted area with a good deal of it due to two engine/pylon sets vs four.

Interference drag of the outboard engines where a large nacelle is in the presence of a small wing chord. This is also the area of the wing where sectional lift coefficients tend to be the highest.

Airbus excressence drag practices.

Remember, it is just an estimate.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 83):
The probability of an airline choosing an aircraft based on fuel burn alone is also statistically insignificant, we would all be flying about in C150s.

No one said fuel burn alone is the reason for buying a particular airplane type. However, operating costs are a major factor in airplane selection and in today's environment, fuel burn amounts to 50% of operating costs.

I'm really surprised you think fuel burn is statistically insignificant.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
jdevora
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:21 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 109):
I estimate the higher A345 airframe drag to be from:

Greater wetted area with a good deal of it due to two engine/pylon sets vs four.

Interference drag of the outboard engines where a large nacelle is in the presence of a small wing chord. This is also the area of the wing where sectional lift coefficients tend to be the highest.

Airbus excressence drag practices.

Remember, it is just an estimate.

I don't have a clue, but my understanding was that the biggest drag contributor was the "Form drag" that is directly releated with the cross-section and being the 777 wider...
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:07 am

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 110):
I don't have a clue, but my understanding was that the biggest drag contributor was the "Form drag" that is directly releated with the cross-section and being the 777 wider...

Fuselage form drag is by no means the largest total drag contributor.

It's rather far down the list of drag items. Induced drag and skin friction (wetted area) drag are far more significant.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:40 am

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 110):
don't have a clue, but my understanding was that the biggest drag contributor was the "Form drag" that is directly releated with the cross-section and being the 777 wider...

That would factor into things much more significantly if the aircraft were nearly the same weight, but the difference in initial cruise weights for a given range and payload can be more than 45t! L/D is higher for the A345 by 2-5% at cruise but the cruise weights are nominally 13% higher than 777-200LR for a given payload and range. That is a huge difference in induced drag even when taking into account the increased lift efficiency of the A345 wing...

Wave drag is another advantage the 777-200LR has over the A340-500. With that increased lift efficiency comes a price. The onset of high shock comes on sooner in the speed range than the 777. The 777 can fly at higher cruise speeds at lower altitudes on the way up while the A340-500 with it's substantially greater thrust in climb is traveling as much as M.06 slower over the ground until higher altitudes are reached. The 777 hangs around at lower altitudes longer because of the climb limitation of its two engines but it covers more distance during the second segment climb saving time over the entire distance and subsequently lowering relative fuel burn. Basically the 777 flies a much "flatter" climb profile. At cruise the nominal speed difference is ~M.02 or ~10KTAS. That can mean up to a 25 min shorter segment time on ULH routes and or the equalizer on ETOPS diversion circle restricted sectors. Time is a significant factor when you are burning more than 300lbs per minute...

If the A340-500 was 20t lighter this would be a much closer competition. But since it is much heavier the field performance and climb advantages of quads are significantly diminished and overall operating efficiency swings to the 777 by a significant margin.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16161
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:40 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 112):
but it covers more distance during the second segment climb saving time over the entire distance and subsequently lowering relative fuel burn

What do you mean by "second segment climb", FAR 25 its from gear up to 400'...it relates to one engine inoperative conditions
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus And The A345, Boeing And The 772LR

Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 113):
What do you mean by "second segment climb", FAR 25 its from gear up to 400'...it relates to one engine inoperative conditions

My mistake

correction:

should read operational climb...

Or maybe I should have said long range climb, but then I'd have to talk about climb gradients, high speed climb vs speed for maximum climb gradient...blah blah blah...I'm really too tired to put all that stuff into words right now...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do

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