PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Fragrant Harbour (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour-19/)
-   -   6 More A350 (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/474806-6-more-a350.html)

cxorcist 22nd January 2012 19:24

Fac6,

Take all that and do something useful with it why don't you? Join the GC and get some work done instead of wasting your time here on Pprune with all of us simple-minded blowhards.

spannersatcx 22nd January 2012 19:49


Originally Posted by AQIS Boigu (Post 6973790)
Looks like two 777s and two 400s a day to LHR starting in May...

Will be 4 a day soon I believe.

It's nothing to do with noise, it's all about eu carbon emissions and fuel burn!

swh 22nd January 2012 20:37


Originally Posted by turnandburn
747 freighter out, 777 freighter in due noise.

What is the status of the LHR noise regulations ? I “heard” the noise regulations that were due to come in were deferred as BA/VS said they will not stop operating 744s for some time yet.


Originally Posted by B-HKD
Lufthansa confirmed that that they will have no problem operating without the stab fuel until the solution is found.

They are confident the aircraft will have a 8000nm range with a economical payload and should gain 300-400nm when they get the stab fuel.

Longest route they use their 744 on currently (and longest route in the network) is FRA-EZE.

FRA-EZE is only around 6300 nm, which is like a eastbound HKG-LAX. They have said it will not be a problem over their route network, which is a lot short of 8000 nm.

Lufthansa operate their 747-8Is with only 386 seats, very little capacity change over their latest 744s configuration.

nitpicker330 23rd January 2012 03:55

Might be very little capacity change BUT a big fuel req drop :ok:

SMOC 23rd January 2012 05:39

-400 wing fuel = 163T
-8 wing fuel = 184T (yes the -8 has an extra 21Ts in the wings)

Even without the stab fuel the -8 holds 11T more fuel than a fully fueled -400 and burns at least 15% less.

swh 23rd January 2012 06:17


Originally Posted by SMOC
Even without the stab fuel the -8 holds 11T more fuel than a fully fueled -400 and burns at least 15% less.

Comparing the 8F to the 400ERF, the 8F looks like it burns a small amount more, not 15% less.

nitpicker330 23rd January 2012 07:31

Well I can say that according to the DCP 747 that on an ICN HKG sector the 8F burns about 4 tonnes less than a 400 ERF. That would be around 15% less for a bigger payload :ok:

cxorcist 25th January 2012 05:57

I wouldn't use short haul metrics to judge the -8F. Long haul is what it is built for. In that mission, it is easily carrying the extra 16% cargo volume and the increased weight of the aircraft for the same or better burn than the -400ERF. This before two engine tweaks over the next couple years and a rumor of more performance from the wing after some flight control changes. Also, the airplane will only get lighter as the production process is refined.

To me, it looks very likely that the ten -8 options CX has will be firmed as Intercontinental orders this year. Yet you never know what rabbit Airbus will pull out of the hat to sell the 380.

The Wraith 26th January 2012 11:15

The promise of fewer cracks in the wings of CX bound 380s perhaps....:E:E:E:D

8driver 29th January 2012 06:08


Comparing the 8F to the 400ERF, the 8F looks like it burns a small amount more, not 15% less.
Based on what? I've flown it a bunch and the thing makes gas every sector. CFP will eventually be adjusted I'm sure, but I think we are are carrying at least 20T more freight for the same fuel burn as an ERF. That's what I'm seeing anyway.

nitpicker330 29th January 2012 07:49

Based on Pprune bulls***:D

The 8 seems a very impressive piece of kit :ok:

Enjoy.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:38.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.