chornedsnorkackI heard fuel burn is 20% better than on the B747-400 (which actually was the A380 design goal), and actual fuel burn is even a tiny bit better than Airbus promised. Now, consider it to be 1 or 2%.
The numbers I heard was that the promised burn had been 17 % better. So the actual fuel burn was 3…4% better than Airbus promised.
First application is on race tracks between congested hubs. JFK, Heathrow, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Singapoor. Any excess A380 will be available to airlines earliest in 2011.
Only Singapore has A380 now. JFK is not a hub for any airline who has bought A380. BA did buy A380, but those take some time to deliver (after 2011 or so?). LH does have A380 orders. CX has not bought them – but promised to buy A380 if they increase MTOW and range.
A380 will be flying out of MEL, SYD and DXB as well.
So, for the airlines who get A380 – will they pick the A380s for the most voluminous routes within the existing B747-400 range, or for routes too long for B747-400?
chornedsnorkackBoth engine options for the A380-800 yield a range of 8000nm with a normal passenger payload.
It was after SIN-SYD had flown for a couple of months that SQ announced Trent 900 burns several % less fuel than Airbus had promised. 380-861 has not entered service. Will it be no better than Airbus promised, or a few % better like -841, or even better than -841? The range depends on that.
Now, the OEW for airlines is normally higher, the passenger payload is a bit lower (see SQ with 490 seats instead of 555 initially assumed).
471. Emirates has 489. But SQ also has 375 seats on 747-400 instead of 416 assumed.
I guess these prestigious long range routes are not really for A380. Even if the general demand is present, you need to fill one aircraft that takes off at one time of the day. In the initial phase of operation any airline want to fly routes that can be covered by other aircraft, too, so they can kick in a B747-400 if necessary and pay the excess 100 passengers a drink as they have to stay on the ground (if A380 is fully booked).
How many 707-s or DC-8s replaced the 747-100 that was 21 hours late on its entry into service? And 747-200 and 747SP could not be replaced because nothing had their range. Nor can A340-500 or 777-200LR. Thai has 1 sole A340-500HGW and 3 A340-500 non-HGW. The SQ and EK A340-500 fleets also are small… And one time of day is often the only time of day that schedules and timezones make sense, so any extra flights would have to fly at about the same time.
How does the cost per seat compare between an 181 seat A340-500 or a 238 seat B777-200LR and an A380-800?
chornedsnorkackthe A380-800 already can fly all missions currently asked for.
Depends on what missions are asked for.
Boeing designed and built Boeing 747-400ER to satisfy a single order for 6 planes – the Qantas ones.
Qantas wanted 747-400ER for the MEL-LAX route. 12 800 km, and LAX-MEL is westwards – 747-400 non-ER has payload-range restrictions.
Qantas 380-841 would enter into service on the same MEL-LAX, because SYD-LAX is comfortable for 747, but even 747-400ER still struggles on MEL-LAX.
SQ wants to use A380-841 on HKG-SFO – 11 200 km. SQ was worried that A380 would struggle with payload-range on the westbound side nevertheless. Now that A380 is flying SIN-SYD, they discovered that the fuel burn is several % better than Airbus promised – it would also be better on SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG…
EK plans flying A380 DXB-JFK (11 000 km).
There are a number of routes now flown by A340-500 and B777-200LR. EK has DXB-GRU (12 200 km). PIA has KHI-JFK (11 700 km). Indian has JFK-BOM (12 500 km). Singapore has A340-500 struggling on SIN-LAX (14100 km) and SIN-EWR (15 400 km).
Are there any attractive routes which are slightly beyond the range of the now A380 and which have sufficiently large demand to fill A380-800 rather than A340-500 or B777-200LR?
chornedsnorkackThe cabin size is exactly the same for a Boeing 707-120 produced in 1958 and a Boeing 737-900 produced in 2008. The economies are somewhat different.
Predicting the comfort of Airbus 350 ought to be easier than predicting its economies.
chornedsnorkackAirlines somehow think they are ready to pass judgment on economics and competitiveness of a plane that enters into service only in 2013, and pay a lot of money to order it now.
chornedsnorkackYou’re trying to compare 2 aircraft that are a good 30 years apart in their development. Not forgetting the fact that the A350 isn’t realy anything more than drawings and the odd model so far.
Why is this comparison even worthwhile?
Because human bodies have NOT changed in those 30 years?
chornedsnorkackSee
http://www.tristar500.net/features/L-1011_Features.pdf
page 3:
Coach seats are more than an inch wider than on older jets. A wider floor allows more space than on some other widebodies.
Coach is 8 abreast, with stowage module in the middle.
chornedsnorkackSay – which one is offering the best value for money?
Aerion is taking money for their SSBJs now. But they do not have a manufacturer!
chornedsnorkackThe critical size seems to be somewhere close to the current Bombadier CRJ series. B717, ARJ21 and CRJ900 have rear-engine configuration rather due to heritage.
What about Embraer 145?
The business jets need lower landing gear. Additionally, they gain from the wing being positioned farer back (wing box does not interfere with cabin). But business jets are not really representative for jet design of all weights. Pain increases with weight.
Indeed. NO business jet except Mcdonnell 119/220 has underwing engines. Even the biggest Gulfstreams and Bombardiers have tail engines.
chornedsnorkackI think, because most small jets find 2 engines enough and big jets put their engines elsewhere.
ALL the disadvantages you mention about tail mounted engines are equally applicabl to 3 and 2 tailmounted engines. 2 engines in the tail continues to be the standard layout for regional and private jets, for very good reasons. 3 engines in tail continues to be the configuration of Dassault Falcon 7X. And yes, you can have high-bypass turbofans in the rear, like the 2 engine MD-80 and B-717, and 3 engine Yak-42 and Dassault Falcons. However, BAC 3-11 was not built…
chornedsnorkackWell firstly it is very hot in a jet engine and any normal amount of rain would rapidly turn to steam. The quantity of water in the air literally wouldn’t dampen down the fuel:air mix. Plus the spinner I believe flings precipitate straight into the bypass.
A turboprop is slightly different …
There was a passenger jet, I think DC-9, whose jets did not stay lit in rain and both shut down. Afterwards there were engine tests to replicate the problem, and the engineers could not shut down jet engines even with hoses. But it really happened to a plane – I do not remember which the outcome was, either it landed on a levee and later took off from the levee, or else it tried landing on a highway and wings met obstacles, with many victims.
chornedsnorkackIsn’t it the same thing? :confused:
Not quite.
Seat pitch is the measurement from one point of a seat to a corresponding point on next seat. Legroom is measured between different points – basically, thick seatbacks, seatback pockets and so on cut into the legroom from the same seat pitch.
UK actually does legislate legroom rather than seat pitch: the current minimum is 26 inches legroom, which leads to minimum of 29 inches pitch. Other countries do not have such formal rule – but they do not seem to have seat pitches under 29 inches anyway.
The Lords are advising that the minimum should be raised.
chornedsnorkackInteresting is that SIA actually seems to keep the economy and business at current (=B747-400) levels
Economy seats: B747 has 313, A380 has 399
Business seats: B747 has 50, A380 has 60.
SIA has B777-300ER, too, For some reason, they do not seem to want to replace the 3x daily 747-400 747-400 with, say, 4x daily 777-300ER… how does fuel burn compare?
chornedsnorkackThe aircraft operates on a daily Singapore-Sydney service (ATWOnline, Oct. 26), logging some 14 block hr. each day, and achieved an 80% load factor in its first month of operations. For the coming Christmas season it will be 100%, Chew said.
Which is interesting… on the EIS flight, they failed to achieve 97% load factor.
In addition, the 12 first class Singapore Airlines Suites are selling very well, he revealed. “I suspect that our friendly competition is an enthusiastic customer,” he laughed. In terms of technical performance, specifically fuel burn, the aircraft is performing better than Airbus promised. “In seat/mile terms we achieve overall a 20% better fuel burn than our 747-400s.”
20 % subtracted from 471 is 376,8. In other words, A380 can fly the same routes as the 375 seat B747-400 while burning just 0,24% more fuel.
This should put to rest the question of A380 being too big for any routes where 747-400 already flies. If you cannot fill the 500 seats but you do currently fly 747 on the route, you can just fly an A380 and leave the extra seats empty or not install them to begin with – you are not suffering any extra cost.
chornedsnorkackI did a sim in january with a loss of all flight controls. We landed back onto 31L at JFK with no damage using back up only (A340-600). Just to prove it wasn’t a fluke the sim was reset and we did it again, also without damage. Since the Sioux City incident we tend to look into things like this to a greater degree. For example, prior to that incident Airbus operators used to look at flying in back up mode was just something you would have to do until you could reset enough systems to regain conventional control however nowadays we see flight in back up through to its conclusion.
A340 has the advantage that it has 4 engines. The thrust lines are not in the same plane – so that you have three degrees of control by throttle, and keep them even if you have one engine out – unlike A300 which only has 2 degrees of throttle control with both engines intact.
Sign In
