|Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 28):|
I have seen pictures of large rest room facilities down a flight of stairs at the back of 340's as well. I suppose this creates more space for low-yield, revenue seating, however it takes up cargo capacity, one would imagine.
The crew rest replaced the bulk cargo space in the rear, it does not use the normal aft cargo space. The rear (bulk) cargo space has a maximum load of 3468 kg. The crew rest normally has a empty mass in the range of 1500 kg.
|Quoting Coa747 (Reply 34):|
Wonder why you don't hear any customers complain about the 777-300ER?
We have had issues with our aircraft, I don't know of they have been resolved. The main issue was another floor had to be installed ontop of the Boeing floor to accommodate the F seats, it cost a couple of 1000 kg, and a number of strategies were looked at including moving the forward lav, and upper crew rest in order to fix the issue both in terms of CG control and being overweight.
|Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):|
CX has placed an order for 18 773ER despite already operating the A346, so be careful who you reference...
CX extended the lease on the 346 after the 773ER was ordered.
|Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 51):|
Yeah ,alright...it is obvious that this article was 'authored' by a complete ...ahem... with only a vague understanding of how planes fly.
Yes and very little knowledge of the 346 systems which has active CG control in flight to keep the CG 2% forward of the aft boundary by varying the amount of fuel in the horizontal stab. Fuel is also in the horizontal stab on takeoff. If an airline had CG issues on takeoff, to me the simple fix is to have more fuel in the horizontal stab which has a tank capacity of about 6.5t.