dark light

chornedsnorkack

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 760 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: ARJ21-700 FLOWN! #567144
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: B787 first flight delayed (again) #568369
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Russian Civil Aviation #568571
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: B787 first flight delayed (again) #568574
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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?

    in reply to: B787 first flight delayed (again) #569761
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    Aeromexico does not trust 787!

    See
    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/27/323226/787-8-may-fail-to-meet-initial-specs-conesa.html

    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?

    in reply to: New Boeing 787 Images #571739
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    So?

    Why should you expect it not to be big, outside or inside?

    in reply to: New Boeing 787 Images #571960
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Size of 18 t GTF? #574601
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Size of 18 t GTF? #574800
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: How big can A380 get? #575749
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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?

    in reply to: B787 first flight delayed (again) #578232
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: Which airline has the best A380 #582026
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: ReDesigning an Aeroplane interior – Please Help ! ! ! #582876
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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?

    in reply to: BAC 3-11 cross-section #1160930
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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?

    in reply to: BAC 3-11 cross-section #1161127
    chornedsnorkack
    Participant

    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?

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 760 total)