New Airbus A350 - 1000 Looks interesting. . .

[Phil Perry]

New Airbus model claimed to save 25% on fuel over current competitors. . . video + article Herald Sun. 25 Nov

 

heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/four-victims-in-hospital-after-alleged-attack-at-glenhuntly-station/news-story/af86a773ddce9dbed66c5ed8bc03c2a9?nk=93b4985ef2f186538a40bcc482a53f45-1480254409 …

 

 

[farri]

Eco-efficiency

 

Cost-effectiveness

 

 

[dutchroll]

The A350 will be more economical, but not as much as the manufacturer's hype! I've never seen an Airbus meet the original fuel economy spec yet.

 

 

[cooperplace]

it's like new cars; every time one comes out it's 3%/7%/10% etc better. If these claims were true they'd run on fresh air.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Most of our Airbus A330s have "performance factor" adjustments set into the FMC of +3 to +7% depending on the individual aircraft. This is for fuel flow calculations which are higher than the manufacturer's spec. The A380 is pretty bad but I don't know what the numbers are. These get set in virtually from day 1 of operation.

 

Boeing do the same.

 

I have never, ever seen a "negative" one, ie fuel flow performance better than the manufacturer's spec, in my whole career.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Most of our Airbus A330s have "performance factor" adjustments set into the FMC of +3 to +7% depending on the individual aircraft. This is for fuel flow calculations which are higher than the manufacturer's spec. The A380 is pretty bad but I don't know what the numbers are. These get set in virtually from day 1 of operation.Boeing do the same.

 

I have never, ever seen a "negative" one, ie fuel flow performance better than the manufacturer's spec, in my whole career.

Ah. . .I see. . .all very ECONOMICAL then,. . . but mainly with 'The Truth' ? ?

 

Close friend always tries new technology. . .He bought one of the first edition Toyota Prius cars.

 

He got rid of it fairly soon, when he noticed that the 'Spec' for battery life / distance travelled, in the real world, fell far short of the manufacturers' claims. . . .

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Most of our Airbus A330s have "performance factor" adjustments set into the FMC of +3 to +7% depending on the individual aircraft. This is for fuel flow calculations which are higher than the manufacturer's spec. The A380 is pretty bad but I don't know what the numbers are. These get set in virtually from day 1 of operation.Boeing do the same.

 

I have never, ever seen a "negative" one, ie fuel flow performance better than the manufacturer's spec, in my whole career.

If Rolls Royce can organise some better quality engine oil seals,. . . the Aircraft using them might even achieve flights of a longer duration ! !

 

( Just watched 'That' Qantas A-380 / Singapore incident on 'catch up' . . .didn't see it first time around . . . )

 

Excellent piece of work by the flight crew. . . Much respect.

 

 

[dutchroll]

If Rolls Royce can organise some better quality engine oil seals,. . .

Yes that was rather a screwup from RR, who actually do normally make quite good engines. I think to say they were embarrassed by their manufacturing defect is an understatement.

They paid quite a hefty sum in compensation to Qantas for that one.

 

Aircraft manufacturers are all economical with the truth when their marketing people get involved talking about how efficient, reliable and economical their new plane is going to be. I have never seen an exception to this rule. Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed (from first hand experience). All of them.

 

What it essentially comes down to is "which new aircraft is going to be the least disappointing when comparing real performance to the marketing blurb?"