Plane Spotting - The Quiz

[GrantSmith]

This might be an ignorant question from an non-aviation nut but ...

Presuming that most of the fuel efficiency comes from the engines ... why they are simply not upgraded to a more fuel efficient type?

500 s and 600s have Rolls Royce I think (mr grant? )

If you can't afford the fuel you can't afford to buy one. Same with the car.

Rule Britannia......

Correct both have Rollers.. Variants of the Trent 500 family..

Efficiency isn't a direct result of the power plant but quite a few other variables... I feel the -500 suffered from the flaws in the earlier -300 and -200 they were fat and overweight... Which was a reason for them (-500) flying with reduced cabin sizes...

The heavier you are the more fuel you're going to consume...

[SinglePot]

Roll on Loi Krathong. I love those paper lanterns.

[SeaVisionBurma]

This might be an ignorant question from an non-aviation nut but ...

Presuming that most of the fuel efficiency comes from the engines ... why they are simply not upgraded to a more fuel efficient type?

David

One of the problems with these ultra long haul types is the great fuel vs weight conundrum. It is especially a problem for the A340-500, which when introduced was the world's longest range commercial aircraft.

It is a self perpetuating problem. To fly these huge additional distances requires a certain additional amount of fuel.

But all of that fuel required to get the aircraft from A to an extremely far away B added even more weight to the aircraft, and that extra weight at take off required a certain percentage of the fuel load simply to get the aircraft off the ground and up to cruise altitude (if that makes sense)

edit to add: The more fuel required for the additional distance flown, then the more additional fuel needed to carry the weight of that fuel...and so on.

Thats why when these A340-500's were in operation on their longer legs, they were usually restricted in the amount of payload. For some of those airlines, this usually meant dropping pax in favour of freight (better revenue). Some of the Cathay A340 pilots I know spoke of this situation often.

So in this case not so much about the efficiency of the engines, but a fundamental oversight in design. Again this is just my understanding of the situation - happy for any of the Airbus pilots to correct me on this.

[SinglePot]

Same as a car. Max engine efficiency, Max aerodynamics, Min weight.

Short haul, long haul no difference.

B787 impressive on all parameters. (apart from the prob with the weight saving batteries).

A340 sounds like a cock up.

Btw. when I travel economy I really like it when the airline gives you proper metal cutlery.

[SeaVisionBurma]

A340 sounds like a cock up.

Spot on - it was a fundamental cock up on Airbus's part.

Interested to see how the new A350XWB goes...should give the 777 a run for its money, and even the 787 in some variants.

[Ricardo]

If only someone had thought to add in-flight-fuelling capability to the A340 ...

I would suspect that the basic problem is a commercial one, airlines thought when surveyed that there was a market for very-long-haul point-to-point routes, but by the time Airbus had built the plane the customers had decided that they wouldn't pay for the extra-cost in their tickets. BA & Air France had a similar problem with Concorde, speed/time was a 'like', not a 'must have at-any-price'.

The solution is perhaps a mid-trip fuel-stop with crew-change, might be fun to do the numbers on this, and to see just how much better the newer-tech B787 will perform in a similar role ?

Personally I'll always take a short stop en-route, with a cheaper-ticket & (if need be) a change-of-plane, making me the ideal customer for the Gulf-based airlines, over an expensive non-stop long-haul flight. But then I'm not a high-value business-traveller anymore, and I pay for my own tickets.

[SinglePot]

Market forces. highly competitive environment.

Get the plane out there quick, or get it right.

Airlines who bought A340s like Thai seem to have expensive kit sitting on the Tarmac idle.

Costly.

[SeaVisionBurma]

The whole point-to-point vs hubs thing is quite interesting. It pretty much defined the whole competition between Boeing and Airbus with their last 2 respective production models - the A380 vs the 787

Boeing's research led them to go for a smaller capacity but longer range 787 for point-to-point sectors; Airbus decided that a massive capacity for use between hubs was the go and went with the A380. This goes back to the early-mid 2000's though, each have revised their outlooks.

[SinglePot]

If only someone had thought to add in-flight-fuelling capability to the A340 ...

I would suspect that the basic problem is a commercial one, airlines thought when surveyed that there was a market for very-long-haul point-to-point routes, but by the time Airbus had built the plane the customers had decided that they wouldn't pay for the extra-cost in their tickets. BA & Air France had a similar problem with Concorde, speed/time was a 'like', not a 'must have at-any-price'.

The solution is perhaps a mid-trip fuel-stop with crew-change, might be fun to do the numbers on this, and to see just how much better the newer-tech B787 will perform in a similar role ?

Personally I'll always take a short stop en-route, with a cheaper-ticket & (if need be) a change-of-plane, making me the ideal customer for the Gulf-based airlines, over an expensive non-stop long-haul flight. But then I'm not a high-value business-traveller anymore, and I pay for my own tickets.

one small correction. Speed time with Concorde was the essence not a like. 3hrs LHR-JFK.

Revenue mostly came from people travelling frequently for whom time was money.

Celebs did it for style.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Market forces. highly competitive environment.

Get the plane out there quick, or get it right.

Airlines who bought A340s like Thai seem to have expensive kit sitting on the Tarmac idle.

Costly.

Very good points.

Not that I am an expert, just a pleb who flies small bug smashers occasionally. Perhaps we should be running the major aircraft giants...

(just call me a back seat pilot )

[SinglePot]

Market forces. highly competitive environment.

Get the plane out there quick, or get it right.

Airlines who bought A340s like Thai seem to have expensive kit sitting on the Tarmac idle.

Costly.

Very good points.

Not that I am an expert, just a pleb who flies small bug smashers occasionally. Perhaps we should be running the major aircraft giants...

(just call me a back seat pilot )

Don't be too hard on yourself SVB. The principles of business are the same whatever it is. Street vendor serves undercooked food quick. Customer don't come back.

Turning one food stall into a global network seems like the hard part.

[Chao Lao Beach]

David 48: It has been covered well above, when you have big fuel loads, it effects everything. That is why on ultra long haul flights you get more leg room, less bums on the plane. That is minor in the big picture. I think it was SVB above who said it is a self perpetuating problem. That is an understatement. The heavier you are, the slower you go, initially the lower you may have to go, burning more fuel, that is even more fuel you need because you are burning more fuel due to extra fuel.

I like 5-6hr flights personally. Up and down every hour or less sucks after while. Long haul has 3 advantages, you only need to drive to the airports few times a month from home, not many annoying times checking in and out and transfers to and from hotels, often, you are layed down for many days so you get to know locals, and thirdly, something to do with laying down again...

​Remember that when the A340 came to life, that ETOPS was in its infancy for most operators. (3 & 4 Engine jets did not need to comply). The 340 did meet this need at the time. It really did back then.

There are still some operators making a absolute killing from their 340's, it is actually the most profitable long haul machine for some operators still today. (But it is a bit like the Thai rice scam scheme).

Airbus had a downturn in orders, to keep things ticking over on the wide body production line after the great B777 started, they offered new 340's with a fuel subsidy while the original buyer owned and operated it. So, if they leased it out or sold it, that particular machine lost the fuel subsidy from Airbus, many of these airlines know that they have a low resale value with out this and are now laughing at Airbus, as they have kept the machines for the long term. (Sucked in Airbus and you BS Subsidy) It has well and truly come back to bite Airbus in the arse, but don't all subsidies ??? Cough cough, did I just cough up some rice??? (Don't mention the war rice)

This at the time was 100% political, saving jobs etc.

I love the 3 color coded system in Airbus, it simplifies things, they have some awesome technology which is good and bad, (great for "do follow - no question any logic " cultures that are common XYZ countries). The plane is the Boss. I really think that Airbus designers have never ever even spoken to a Airbus Engineer on the floor or a pilot who flies the bloody thing in their life. I remember reading a older manual that was auto translated from French to Eng-Rish, it was a shocker. They have since fixed that issue now thanks to the Brits. Not many pilots are "passionate" and love the Airbus machinery they work with, but many passionatly love the Boeing products, even when they can be "annoying". It is like the Boeing Designers and Engineers have to fly what they produce or something, it is just more logical, little things that really pissed me off for no reason on the 320 in a earlier part of my life never raised its ugly head on any Boeing flew. I never flew the 777, I regret not playing at that when I had the chance, but that is history, some time you just have family priorities. But the 2 X Sim4hr sessions I did, everything was in the right spot and was logical. They pulled together all their gizmo's and layed it out in a 767 size space. The 67 was wonderful, oh so wonderful, it was made to look like a "simplistic barking goat" to the 777 logical cockpit. (Sim - a carton of beer can go a long way, but it must be cold and drinkable right away)

Note, many people think that a big B747 must have a big cockpit, BS, it is tiny. Really Tiny. The best for space are Russian Wide Bodies (I should find some pics, they are amazing & scary at the same time), great for this thread. But I can remember having a game of badminton (as a "pax", scabbing a free ride before "the war on everything" {9-11}) on a DC10 in the cockpit, it was bloody huge.

If only Thailand was not so scared of white man western aviation experience and not ban experienced pilots. Maybe they Ban people who question ? I dunno. I don't give a poo poo anyway, just an observation.

[SinglePot]

better ask your missus David

Don't suppose she's got shrimps going rotten on the Tarmac at don mueang.

[Chao Lao Beach]

A340 sounds like a cock up.

Spot on - it was a fundamental cock up on Airbus's part.

Interested to see how the new A350XWB goes...should give the 777 a run for its money, and even the 787 in some variants.

But remember at the time, the B777 was not proven.

In hind site, the B777 made Airbus look stupid regarding the 340, they should have killed it off much quicker than they did, but it was a EU political decision at the time, not a financial one.

Used A340's are becoming the perfect wide body corporate machine for head of Gov, royalty etc. (Fuel not matter mutt) Can go direct.

[SinglePot]

sounds like a very niche market CLB.

[GrantSmith]

Yes the Sultan of Brunei loves his pimped out A340...

[smokie36]

Yes the Sultan of Brunei loves his pimped out A340...

No minibar though.

[SinglePot]

Yes the Sultan of Brunei loves his pimped out A340...

Quick shopping trip to London. no need to refuel in Dubai?

[SinglePot]

Yes the Sultan of Brunei loves his pimped out A340...

No minibar though.

Very very good smokie

[Chao Lao Beach]

Once upon a time someone who spent allot of time is countries where booze is outlawed famously once said, "There is no shortage of booze here and the richer you are, the more you test it". ...or something like that anyway.

Though, I think it may be a bit embarrassing for a head of state machine from one of these places to have to declare and have an official paper trail of what is on board. (That is normal by the way)

PS, good call smokey

[Chao Lao Beach]

Yes the Sultan of Brunei loves his pimped out A340...

Quick shopping trip to London. no need to refuel in Dubai?

But May need to still stop for the night in Soi Cowboy.

[Chao Lao Beach]

image credit, airliners.net Erwin, (full image link later)

Aircraft Type ?

Hopefully this is easy, even with half of it. It is not a trick pic by the way.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Looks like a DC-10 from first glance?

[SinglePot]

Yes the Sultan of Brunei loves his pimped out A340...

Quick shopping trip to London. no need to refuel in Dubai?

But May need to still stop for the night in Soi Cowboy.

Up to him but many pretty Thai girl close to Harrods.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Ahh, idiot, there are winglets - spoke too soon I think

[SinglePot]

Ahh, idiot, there are winglets - spoke too soon I think

Never mind the winglets does it have a minibar.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Ahh, idiot, there are winglets - spoke too soon I think

Never mind the winglets does it have a minibar.

The minibar is inside the winglets - that's the problem...hardly accessible

[SinglePot]

Definitely not an Ilyushin then.

Tnx

[SeaVisionBurma]

[Tywais]

easy-one-for-TV-erwin-airliners-net.jpg

image credit, airliners.net Erwin, (full image link later)

Aircraft Type ?

Hopefully this is easy, even with half of it. It is not a trick pic by the way.

Unfortunately my work has been preventing me from participating very much here but ...

McDonald Douglas MD-11 and fog condensation.