Yet more delays!
Additional delays!
The launch customer, Shandong, deferred, but did not cancel, their orders. The first remaining customer is Kunpeng Airlines, and EIS is delayed to late 2010. See
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/06/323473/chinas-kunpeng-to-be-first-to-fly-arj21.html
Furthermore, with the high power output of today’s engines, the number of airports where twins are payload restricted is pretty limited, compared to the old days.
However, Benito Juarez airport is high, hot and restricted with terrain. It may therefore be one of the limited number of airports where twins still are payload restricted.
sukhoi opens superjet office in US and India
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/superjet-international-opens-us-office/
Sukhoi plans to fly the third aircraft this spring
More specifically
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/27/321686/video-first-two-superjet-100s-in-formation-flight.html
PowerJet is due to deliver SaM146 engines for the third test aircraft in March-April
Could you please expand on this chornedsnorkack?
Twins lose half of their thrust when one engine fails. Quads lose only one quarter. True, twins have more powerful all-engine thrust to compensate for this; but there is a perception that twins do not compensate completely, and that they have worse performance in restricted, hot and high airports.
A340-600, as mentioned, does now fly to MEX with Iberia. Do they suffer restricted weight?
Aeromexico does not trust 787!
Interestingly, it is said that
no aircraft currently in production can operate from the high altitude of Mexico City to Asia non-stop.
Aeromexico flies 777-200ER.
What would be the MTOW and range of 777-200LR out of Benito Juarez Airport? What about A340-600 (quads have better one-engine out behaviour, and Iberia flies them out of Mexico, as well as Quito where they crashed one), or A340-500HGW, or A380-800?
So?
Why should you expect it not to be big, outside or inside?
Even inside, the 787 is not a small airplane by any means – its only when you see it in the flesh you appreciate how big it actually is.
It is well known that the inside cabin width of 787 is appreciably wider than that of A300.
787 is also appreciably narrower than DC-10, Tristar, Il-86 or 777.
Because I hoped someone would be able to make an informed guess on the matter.
After all, if Pratt and Whitney makes official statements about their wildly hypothetical future plans, it may be hypothetical to ask what they mean with it, but not wildly hypothetical.
More background on how the existing, official, less than wildly hypothetical GTF-s compare against the real, nonhypothetical turbofans.
The closer competitors of MRJ include E-jets.
E-190/195 are powered by GE-CF34-10E turbofans. Thrust 8,2 tons, fan diametre 135 cm.
I think I have a lead to guess it. Disc loading.
An 188 cm diametre fan goes into a square 3,5 sq m area. The circle is of course smaller area (pi/4 times factor) but comparing apples with apples, we should be able to eliminate this.
So, we get 3 tons per square m for C130, and less than this (2,7 tons) for C110. MRJ-s 142 cm diametre fan goes into a 2 square m square, so this is from 3,3 to 3,8 tons per square m. Hm, note that there is a pretty wide range, and that Cseries has clearly lower disc loading than MRJ.
For comparison, the 174 cm disc of CFM56-5B3 goes into 3 square m square, and has 15 t thrust. So, about 5 tons per square m.
Going by 3 t per square m (the higher thrust of Cseries) would give 6 square m for an 18 t GTF. Which means about 245 cm fan diametre.
Far bigger than A321 engines, or B757, or the CFM-s of 340-300. But pretty nicely comparable to the Trent 500 of A340-600. And I understand that the underwing space for roughly 248 cm fan diametre of Trent 500 of A340-600 or Trent 700 of A330 is also present on A340-300.
As far as operating cost go, we have the numbers from SQ.
They say that the fuel burn of A380 per seat is 20 % lower than 747-400. Airbus promised 17 % lower, and delivered 20 % lower. This means that the fuel burn per trip is just 0,5 % higher. The 25 % extra passenger capacity is basically free, and comes with extra range, even compared to B747-400ER which only QaNTAS has.
747 is out of production – China Airlines got the last in spring 2005, Philippines cancelled theirs – but there are hundreds of them around.
The real competitor of A380 is B777-300ER. IIRC, A380-800 has roughly similar range (isn´t it slightly longer?), 120 % fuel burn and 170 % seat capacity of 777-300ER.
If Airbus were to produce an A380-800R with 590 t MTOW, how much would OEW increase? How much would fuel burn increase compared to A380-800? And how much would the range increase? How would the range compare against A340-500 or B777-200LR – and how would fuel burn per seat compare?
Meanwhile, ANA boasts that:
http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/us/e/about_ana/corp_info/pr/2009/090130-2.html
ANA will take delivery of the world’s first 787 in February 2010
Note that the galleries contain no glimpse of Emirates cattle class.
Yes, SQ has upper deck cattle class, which QF and EK lack, QF because of E+ and EK because of J. But all three airlines have main deck cattle at 10 abreast. Which of them is the best?
Only QF has E+, so no comparison there.
Which of those airlines has the best J? Each of them has a different arrangement. And who has the best R? Again, a very different arrangement for each.
Hello again all.
Didnt they try the backwards facing seats and people not like them?
I do like the idea though, i’v been trying to come up with a design where the back rest of the seat and rotate around to the other side thus making you sit backwards in the event of an emergency as its supposed to be safer that way .
Look at Etihad First Class on A340-500:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Etihad-Airways/Airbus-A340-541/1097128/L/
180 degree revolving seat.
These seats can also go fully flat. Perhaps you could design revolving seats which do not go fully flat and take up less space, so that they could be used in business, not just first. But not in coach: where do the feet go when the seat is rotating through the 90 degree sideways position?
Oh yes, forgot to answer the original question!!! BAC 311 diameter 6.05m, Airbus A300B 5.64m. A 32ft fuselage section was under construction when the project was cancelled.
Thanks!
Compare DC-10 602 cm, Tristar 597 cm, Il-86 608 cm, B-777 619 cm.
Tristar and DC-10 can and do fly 10 abreast. But the original economy seating was 8 abreast for both.
Does the size of BAC 3-11 look something similar to Tristar 500?
The 3-11 to have been in the same category as the A300, design proposals for a wide-body cabin, 8 abreast seating 245 pax tourist class, 9 abreast seating 270 for the I.T. market.
Did A300 inherit the exact 3-11 cross-section, or was it different?