A340-600 weight and balance. Times article

[sky9]

An article in The Times. The C of G of the APS weight is apparently too far forward.
Anybody got the real facts?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article1624119.ece

[rammel]

I have done a little W and B on the A340-600, SA and TG's. The max weights for each cargo positon and hold are lower at the most forward and aft positions, then get higher as you get towards the centre of the aircraft.

I was told this was because of the aircraft structure. Eg: If hold 4 was the only hold used and was up to max weight, you could cause damage to the airframe (if you had a tail scrape) as it is so far away from the centre. So instead of having a max hold weight of say 15000kg, it is 9000kg.

The fwd hold may be lower due to the seating config, but on the two carriers I have worked on I doubt it.

As an aside, I know of an Airbus aircraft that was out of the fwd limit by 120 units and flew 3 sectors before it was picked up. It was picked up during take off on the 4th sector:eek:

Hope this all makes sense.

[HotDog]

Put F & J down the back then. Supposed to be the most survival accident area anyhow, might as well capitalize on the extra cost.

[HZ123]

I saw this and question that surely the F & J seats, furnishings etc would have had to have complied with the maximum cabin floor weight loading and securing. Therefore surely someone is being econmic in the artical as I cannot see that the several companies quoted have not identified the problem sooner. Besides which fixtures and fittings are usually made by specific companies that manufacture stuff that has to meet approval and weight controls.

[teleport]

Put F & J down the back then. Supposed to be the most survival accident area anyhow, might as well capitalize on the extra cost.
Also, it would enhance the F&J experience: at arrival being led through cheaper cabins to disembark before anyone else. But what about engine noise? :ooh:

[g10]

Think i was once told that F+J are at the front for ride quality.

The effect of a flying into a perturbance is felt most at the back.

[enicalyth]

This is an old story and the worries were spotted at least 2-3 years ago when I read about it in one of the better industry rags.
It may be an old story sexed up anew but if there were genuine grievances then and Airbus have not solved them then someone is going to have to take the rap. Based on what the sales contract said was being offered and what the airframe was capable of there are the bones of the dispute.
If this is yet another Airbus clanger then they'll go from clogs to clogs in one generation. At the moment Airbus has bet the farm on the A380 with inadequate provision for next generation A320/330/340/350. This isn't the same as the Boeing 747 by a long chalk, this is forty years on and you can't say that the same margin will extend to Airbus now as it did to Boeing then.
It is an old story. Airbus have had 2-3 years to get to grips with the customer issues such as disappointing fuel burn, tweaking cg limits, problematic IFE and poor after sales all leading to discontent in the ranks of the buyers causing them to stay away in droves favouring the 777 instead.
Airbus should have put all this behind them, drawn a line in the sand and come out fighting with the A380 AND new generation A320/330 replacements.
But if time has been squandered and unhappy airlines are out for blood and Airbus lose in court or arbitration... Well, snap goes the camel's back.
Let's see. It is not the first time journos have recycled an old story but I just felt a shiver run up and down my spine.