lightening I think he means lightning... Lightening protection is the reason why. On the Airbus aircraft, there is a difference between early and late models, the later models have more lightening protection strips on them as the weather radar changed. Early weather radar in Airbus aircraft did not...Jump to post
Just a few replies ago, you were arguing that takeoff TSFC was indicative of cruise TSFC. Are you now arguing that the TXWB will have an OPR improvement over takeoff and the GE9 won't? No argument at all, I stated fact in your quote from GE the basis was “per-pounds-of-thrust basis‘, and the only t...Jump to post
Given the GE9 OPR of 60 vs the GE90 of 42, a 10% fuel burn improvement seems achievable. This would explain why GE has devoted 5-7 years and several billions of dollars to GE9 development. The OPR improvement is hardly "marketing double speak". With an OPR of 52, the Trent XWB fuel burn l...Jump to post
Zeke, your comments surprise me. In the past, you've used TSFC (Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption) and have been quite precise about its definition. What GE states is consistent with your use of TSFC. Please quote where I've stated in this thread that the 779 will burn 10% less fuel than the 77W. My...Jump to post
No, I believe exactly what the statement says. At the same cruise thrust level, TSFC (Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption) for the GE9X will 90% that of the GE90. Takeoff thrust has nothing to do with cruise TSFC levels. I am sorry where is that written in that comment, specifically “cruise thrust lev...Jump to post
"A blend of evolutionary and revolutionary designs will enable the GE9X to be the most fuel-efficient jet engine GE has ever produced on a per-pounds-of-thrust basis. It’s designed to deliver a 10% improved aircraft fuel burn versus the GE90-115B-powered 777-300ER" That says the GE9X engi...Jump to post
This is my take on this discussion Block fuel over a given city pair, the A350-1000 will be ahead CASK/CASM, both airframes can sit 440 passengers, whichever airframe burns less fuel over that route would generally win, as fuel is a major fraction of the costs. If you look at anything except maximum...Jump to post
By the time Lufthansa were taking delivery of their first 747-8's they realized it was a dud. They had 747-8 commitments for 20 firm and 20 options and the easiest way to cancel the options was to order 779's instead. I doubt they would have selected the 779 at the time without the 748 issue at han...Jump to post
If your going windowless, why stick with a tube with wings ?Jump to post
The YouTube stream is up and waiting to go live
mat66 wrote:I you add 6F you end up way below the A35K at about 300-320. Cathay's 779 will either be one step up from the A35K or have F, more C or both.
We were discussing total passenger capacity, where exactly does ZFW/DOW/Any other weight metric go into that equation? Because history repeats itself. Many operators replaced the 744 with the 77W despite the 744 lifting 14% more passengers. The 744 was always at a disadvantage as it had around 9% h...Jump to post
Why the non standard level ?Jump to post
A few of the accident reports would have good detail on the stress calculations of the crack growth. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.226.7667&rep=rep1&type=pdf Also see appendix 1 of this document http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14513087/1326009573/name/TSwift_Comet.pdfJump to post
A few months ago we were having issues logging on to Rekyavik CPDLC and we needed our oceanic clearance. Instead of giving us two more minutes to sort the issue, Reykjavik insisted we copy the clearance by voice. Over HF! The FO had to ask them to "say again" about ten times. Oceanic clea...Jump to post
You neglect to mention the (at least) 30 more Y seats from 10-abreast seating vs 9 abreast seating in the A35J. And as per load factor, and 80% load factor on yearly average means that there are plenty of times where the plane is filled to the last seat. What is the yield are those seats going to a...Jump to post
A350-1000: 324 (54/270), J @ 2-2-2 with 77" pitch and no direct aisle access Y @ 32" pitch and 18" width - 777-9: 365 (63/302), J @ 2-3-2 with JAL/KE/WY style direct aisle access seats Y @ 32" pitch and 17.35" width (before anyone chirps, the difference in seat width betwee...Jump to post
As much as I prefer the A350 to the 777X, the 25% figure is unrealistic when comparing the -1000 to the 779. Just keep in mind the 779 is going to have in all likelihood more drag in cruise compared to the 77W due to the longer fuselage, larger engine nacelles, and higher wing area all resulting in...Jump to post
The 777-9 is much larger than the A35J and there is very little incremental cost to operating the A35J for an airline that already operates the A359. So I think the chances at Lufthansa are pretty good. The 77W to 779 is only around 1 row of business and two rows of economy, hardly “much larger”, h...Jump to post
intotheair wrote:The inhibited continents? Maybe they need to loosen up with a scotch or two or a skinny dip in the ocean...
According to FlightAware, N278AY flew from CLT to SAL on 5 NOV 2017 and has not returned (as of 12 JAN 2018), and N276AY made the same voyage 3 days ago. This appears to be the beginning of the end for the A333 at American, unless someone has additional information. Looks like the additional inform...Jump to post
Not even the 77W burns 25% more fuel than the A35K in comparable configurations, the 779 certainly won't. Don't believe the Airbus marketing crap (nor Boeing's). This is some analysis I did of the A350-1000 early long flight I did with 310 passengers onboard from the cockpit phtoto which showed the...Jump to post
Super80Fan wrote:Delta should just tell China to take a hike.
LH still has the 779 on order, however they've operated jets of similar size together before. Agreed AI is a no go. But everything else sounds plausible. -Rowen What routes does LH have that need the range/payload of the 779. It’s a lot more expressive aircraft to own and operate compared to the A3...Jump to post
However, many airlines do use 1000ft as the equivalent point. For the purposes of what was described above, at my airline if the RVR went below required after we passed the FAF equivalent point (1000ft) then we would continue to minimums. ILS approaches have a FAP, final approach point which is a d...Jump to post
Question: In general, if the airplane takes off at MTOW, or at the maximum usable weight given temperature and runway length, it will be a TOGA thrust takeoff? I'm thinking a Phoenix or Vegas transcon on a July afternoon is probably a TOGA takeoff ? In other words, you keep loading the airplane unt...Jump to post
FADEC is like the engine control module you would have on your car. In old jet engines they used have mechanical fuel control units, these got replaced by FADEC which is a electronic device that controls the fuel and other engine components/accessories. It reduced parts, improves economics, improves...Jump to post
Who would ever have thought the US not following their own WTO obligations. How many times have we seen that.Jump to post
SomebodyInTLS wrote:By the way, no-else notice the odd "comb" structures under the tail cone? I'm guessing that's something to do with minimum unstick testing (like the little cantilever thing they used on the A380).
The A321 and A330 are very popular domestically within China. I am amazed at many of the secondary cities that I fly over that I know very little about, however their size would indicate they have a significant population that are becoming wealthy enough to fly regularly.Jump to post
A metric Boeing.....Jump to post
ikolkyo wrote:What a disaster, RR has really dropped the ball on this one. I’m surprised that the Trent XWB is fairing so well since the 2 engines are similar in some ways. RR needs to pick it up quick.
The article says “Dyrt motorbytte Listeprisen for én motor ligger på rundt 160 millioner kroner. Dermed vil det koste totalt 6,8 milliarder kroner å skifte ut begge motorene på alle de 21 flyene.” Which says “Expensive motor exchange The list price for one engine is around 160 million kroner. Thus, ...Jump to post
Ok, I stand corrected. I just remember reading years ago that Airbus can never sell the aircraft. This might be the restricted part of the certification. To be honest I don't know ;) My guess would be no production certificate was obtained for them. The were produced under the A300 production certi...Jump to post
Excellent point. Airbus never tried to get EASA certification for the Beluga, however, and will never do it for the XL. As far as I understand it they operate them under some kind of permanent test airplane certificate for internal use only. I'm sure someone with more inside can elaborate on this b...Jump to post
CFRPwingALbody wrote:Why didn't Airbus remove the vertical tail plain and used a tail like the AN-225?
Sounds like ice that forms from cold soaked cold fuel from the previous sector. Often when you land fuel can be -10 or -20 degrees. With humid air ice will form over the fuel tank area. When fuel is added to the tanks the temperature of the fuel in the tanks rises towards the temperature of the fuel...Jump to post
I don’t see why they could not ship completed sections and wings to China like the A320 for assembly. The low rate production on the A380, and higher number of man hours per airframe would benefit grater from the lower wages in China. For all we know this could be extrapolated even further with a co...Jump to post