Matt6461 wrote:I was gonna say, "Odd model," but I see that it's indirectly estimated using fuse H, W, L.
Kind of I guess.
Theory says as it gets bigger it gets heavier (makes sense if you use wet area or not).
Matt6461 wrote:I'd say the A35K is the only representative example. It's far lighter than 77W for about equal payload/range. The 787/A330 comparison is confounded by comparing an 11hr plane to a 16hr plane (and .82M to .85M).
Good point although my estimator comes out with lower weight than the actual suggesting that CFRP makes things heavier...
Matt6461 wrote:Every time OEW's have significantly upgraded MTOW, they've had to strengthen fuselage as well.
I'm not sure that's the case, nothing substantial anyway (notwithstanding the A340NG)
Matt6461 wrote:What I found is that when comparing the empty weights to the OWE numbers the difference between them was modeled very closely by using the max squashed in pax number for the estimation.That 660 pax thing is an important revision.
I have added all the data to the model but just one area I'm not sure on, the engine weight you mention of 33000lb, is that total? each? if each how many (looks like two big ones?)
Matt6461 wrote:No Probs, Im sat in the office trying to work out how to best build a model for waste treatment systems at the same time. My company does have some sites near chicago so if I'm ever around I'll shout you out.And much thanks for taking the time on this. If you're ever in Chicago I owe you a beer.