Virgin to Order up to 30 Airbus A340-600's

err 13.900km = 7.505nm. just thought I’d mention it.

Here it is :

Nautical mile

A nautical mile is a unit of length. It is widely used around the world for maritime and aviation purposes.

The international nautical mile is defined as exactly 1,852 metres. This definition was adopted in 1929 by the International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference, Monaco. The United States adopted it in 1954. Prior to the adoption of the international nautical mile, the nautical mile used by the US and the UK was 6080 feet, or 1853.184 metres.

A nautical mile is approximately a minute of arc along a great circle of the Earth and was formerly defined so. The earth is not a perfect sphere, so a minute of arc can be less than, or more than, a nautical mile by a few metres.

The approximation to the minute of arc is convenient for air and sea navigation. The length of a minute of arc of latitude is found on any nautical chart and can be taken to represent approximately one nautical mile on that particular chart.

The abbreviation “nm” is used. The same abbreviation, “nm”, is also used to denote nanometre in the SI though little confusion is generated from this, as the contexts of use are very different. For example, the ‘nm’ abbreviation is typically seen in listings of aircraft flight range, but listed next to the range in kilometers (km). ([Example (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=400)] of nm, km together- in performance section)

One knot is a unit of speed defined as one nautical mile per hour. It is therefore 1852 metres per hour exactly.

that can’t be right, Hand, that means that one nm is different near the poles to one at the Equator.

At the equator for sure sorry ….

that can’t be right, Hand, that means that one nm is different near the poles to one at the Equator.

Might be able to help you out here, Sandy….

dug up an old copy of FlugRevue (February 2000), where the main topic is 30 Years of AIrbus. Anyway, there’s details of the whole fleet, and, for the A340-600, it lists ‘Reichweite mit typischer Passagierkap. (km)’ as 13’900. Which, by my rudimentary maths (139’000/16) is 8687.5 statute Miles (don’t ask me what it is in nautical Miles, though :confused: )

Bear in mind this was published two years before first deliveries.

Bhoy for your information.

1 Nm = the length on the earth surface of one minute of arc ie 60nm =1 degree

There we go, my point proven. Thank you Bhoy.

I’m not saying the 340-600 is a bad aircraft. I’m just saying… Airbus made out it would reach a far greater range that it actually does. Thus my point: Airbus are known to fail targets.

It was a quote. Long since forgotten as the A340-600 was soon found not to be able to reach it. It was on the Airbus website for their “project figures”. Naturally, as the thing can’t reach their claims… they’ve altered the website accordingly. Alas, I did not have the presence of mind to screenshot the page at the time.

I’m not sayiung the A340-600 isn’t a good aircraft. It is. I’m saying that airbus (yet again) at first promised more range and efficiencey from it than they actually managed to coaxed from it. It long been known that Airbus don’t seem to have the ability to live up to their projections when developing an aircraft.

So, I bet the A380 will eventually have less range, less capacity and less efficiency gains that airbus are currently predicting.

Might be able to help you out here, Sandy….

dug up an old copy of FlugRevue (February 2000), where the main topic is 30 Years of AIrbus. Anyway, there’s details of the whole fleet, and, for the A340-600, it lists ‘Reichweite mit typischer Passagierkap. (km)’ as 13’900. Which, by my rudimentary maths (139’000/16) is 8687.5 statute Miles (don’t ask me what it is in nautical Miles, though :confused: )

Bear in mind this was published two years before first deliveries.

MMurray Do we really care? Why, yes!

That is not a sensible statement to make. – You must be more sensible than me then BMused.

Hand. Yes you can fly Polar with two wheels, but you can’t fly direct so you have to fly a bit longer, about half an hour or so. So maybe that 777lr extra range will be of use here.

Yes , but I guess hat CO already does it.

MMurray Do we really care? Why, yes!

That is not a sensible statement to make. – You must be more sensible than me then BMused.

Hand. Yes you can fly Polar with two wheels, but you can’t fly direct so you have to fly a bit longer, about half an hour or so. So maybe that 777lr extra range will be of use here.

The 777Lr does have a small touch more range than the 345. But it’s got two engines…

So, it can’t fly direct over the N pole. Important if you’re trying to get to NY via Asia
It can’t fly between continents in the southern hemisphere
If certain key airports are closed around the north polar regions in winter for bad weather etc, as often they are, then it’s not going anywhere at all.
When one engine breaks down it’s going to be forced to land at a remote runway and be laid up for at least two weeks and lose money big time. Why, because an engine change on this aircraft is complex as the engine is so big, and secondly because ETOPs regulations require extra procedures.

Believe me, you want 4 engines for ultra long range flying over remote parts of the world.

ok, thats as maybe, but you originaly said

I quote:

No point India ordering the 777LR, because the Pakistani’s are using it (well someone has too)

That is not a sensible statement to make.

I do agree, 4 engines for longhaul is good for route restrictions. But the rest of what you said can be circumvented.

The 777Lr does have a small touch more range than the 345. But it’s got two engines…

So, it can’t fly direct over the N pole. Important if you’re trying to get to NY via Asia
It can’t fly between continents in the southern hemisphere
If certain key airports are closed around the north polar regions in winter for bad weather etc, as often they are, then it’s not going anywhere at all.
When one engine breaks down it’s going to be forced to land at a remote runway and be laid up for at least two weeks and lose money big time. Why, because an engine change on this aircraft is complex as the engine is so big, and secondly because ETOPs regulations require extra procedures.

Believe me, you want 4 engines for ultra long range flying over remote parts of the world.

Tempest , I’m not sure that you’re correct mate.
It seems to me that CO is operating a flight NY-Hong Kong , over the pole with a 777. Am I wrong?

The 777Lr does have a small touch more range than the 345. But it’s got two engines…

So, it can’t fly direct over the N pole. Important if you’re trying to get to NY via Asia
It can’t fly between continents in the southern hemisphere
If certain key airports are closed around the north polar regions in winter for bad weather etc, as often they are, then it’s not going anywhere at all.
When one engine breaks down it’s going to be forced to land at a remote runway and be laid up for at least two weeks and lose money big time. Why, because an engine change on this aircraft is complex as the engine is so big, and secondly because ETOPs regulations require extra procedures.

Believe me, you want 4 engines for ultra long range flying over remote parts of the world.

Well, Boeing and Embraer are feeding to entirely different markets.

Embraer are very capable and I see them doing very well.
There may well be teething problems with their new line of jets. To be honest, with any jet there are always a few teething problems. Flight tests cannot reproduce every sinlge situation a plane will be faced with.
There problems are usualy ironed out with in 5 to 10 production aircraft. Regardless of manufacturer

sorry ERJ is a bad example because they are pulling through well at the moment

good point but with a new aircraft from a big company with awesome technology as Boeing what are the lesser well known companies new planes going to be like….ERJ 190 .

Bmused55, when you said VS are having teething problems, does the A 345 give airlines teething problems because they are pretty similar except the capacity and range

Nothing I’ve read or heard.

A 340-500 seems to be one fine tuned cookie. Perhaps developed from lessons learned on the 600.

Also, the clear things up. VS’ teething problems are no longer there. Seems with a bit of on the job development all the bugs have been ironed out. The Fact that VS might be ordering 30 more proves this.

Bmused55, when you said VS are having teething problems, does the A 345 give airlines teething problems because they are pretty similar except the capacity and range

A shambles to be sure, I bet they’ll have to order the A345 to make JFK direct. No point India ordering the 777LR, because the Pakistani’s are using it (well someone has too)

An airline won’t use an aircraft because someone else is? LMAO! Rediculus.
The 777-200LR has more range than an A340-500. They would be mad not to order it in order to compete. But then again, their decision makers are very political :rolleyes:

A shambles to be sure, I bet they’ll have to order the A345 to make JFK direct. No point India ordering the 777LR, because the Pakistani’s are using it (well someone has too) 😉

Bmused,

Good Sir, come forward into the light and show us all this incredible Airbus 346 “8000nm” quote.

Don’t be shy now. You’re making this one up, ha, ha, ha.

Not even John Leahy would bark this one out.

It doesnt exist. :p

It was a quote. Long since forgotten as the A340-600 was soon found not to be able to reach it. It was on the Airbus website for their “project figures”. Naturally, as the thing can’t reach their claims… they’ve altered the website accordingly. Alas, I did not have the presence of mind to screenshot the page at the time.

I’m not sayiung the A340-600 isn’t a good aircraft. It is. I’m saying that airbus (yet again) at first promised more range and efficiencey from it than they actually managed to coaxed from it. It long been known that Airbus don’t seem to have the ability to live up to their projections when developing an aircraft.

So, I bet the A380 will eventually have less range, less capacity and less efficiency gains that airbus are currently predicting.

A shambles to be sure, I bet they’ll have to order the A345 to make JFK direct. No point India ordering the 777LR, because the Pakistani’s are using it (well someone has too) 😉

Bmused,

Good Sir, come forward into the light and show us all this incredible Airbus 346 “8000nm” quote.

Don’t be shy now. You’re making this one up, ha, ha, ha.

Not even John Leahy would bark this one out.

It doesnt exist. :p