"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
08/12/2019 at 14:04 • Filed to: None
2
13|
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
08/12/2019 at 14:04 • Filed to: None | 2
| 13 |
But, I think it might be the safest jumbo-jet of its generation.... I don’t think there’s a single PAX fatality attributed to an A340 hull loss. Sure, it’s not widely used, but it’s less than the B777 or the MD-11 that are already very safe jets and still have more than 100 each.
When it was new, the A340 held two records; the longest range (A345) and longest cabin (A346), lost to the B772LR and the B748 later.
Did I tell any of you the A350 is bae?
Nick Has an Exocet
> Spanfeller is a twat
08/12/2019 at 14:31 |
|
I don’t think I’ve been on an A350 yet. I have an unpopular opinion: The 747 is the best riding plane ever produced. It’s not as quiet as an A380 or packed with tech like the 787 but it rides like a damn Cadillac.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Nick Has an Exocet
08/12/2019 at 14:32 |
|
The few times I’ve ridden on a B747 I was mildly disappointed... it’s too loud. I don’t notice ride as much, but you’re probably right as bigger planes ride better in general.
|
Nick Has an Exocet
> Spanfeller is a twat
08/12/2019 at 14:39 |
|
Well, you kind of have to think about the 747 loudness in context of when it was originally designed. Yeah, there’s not much better than slumping into a 747 seat with actual legroom with noise cancelling headphones for a transatlantic flight.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Nick Has an Exocet
08/12/2019 at 14:43 |
|
i totally agree with you. The B787 feels a bit skittish, but I appreciate the quietness a lot; I grow tired of headphones after 4-6 hours.
Wrong Wheel Drive (41%)
> Spanfeller is a twat
08/12/2019 at 16:08 |
|
If anything I wish the airplane were louder! Getting quieter is a very bad thing. Its not the noise of the plane that bothers me and forces me to wear headphones. It is the screaming children and the endless chatters. A nice loud engine noise tends to drown them out pretty good. I think I would much prefer an even louder engine noise to block out all of that crap.
Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing.
> Spanfeller is a twat
08/12/2019 at 16:09 |
|
SQ should have waited a little bit for the 772LR. I remember working those ultra long haul routes and we had to use special lightweight baggage containers and couldn’t carry any cargo, which in the airline biz is the real money maker; the cargo went on the real workhorses - 777s and 747s.
On an aircraft that could reasonably seat 300 pax, the SQ 345s first had about 180 seats, then 100. With little to no cargo you’re not going to make much money on those flights unless you charged a premium price, and most people weren’t willing to pay nearly double the fare to save a couple of hours. I’m sure it was quite luxurious, but it was a money-losing vanity project.
I worked several other flights operated by A340s, including TN, VS and AF. Nice enough planes, and just the right diameter cabin IMHO. TN and AF were flights between Tahiti and Paris. TN operated transfer flights and were easy to turn, but AF used the 343 between LAX and PPT, with the CDG-LAX leg operated by a 772. These flights were a pain since we had to offload every baggage container, take them half way across the airport, unload each container and run the bags through an x-ray, repack the containers and then load them onto the next aircraft. What a PITA. The containers were sealed, so why couldn’t see just move them from one aircraft to the other?
I remember hearing tales of the horrendous climb performance of the 343. LAN Chile had some for their European routes, but they were so anemic in climb that they frequently had to fly several hundred miles in the wrong direction to get enough altitude to cross the Andes. I guess that’s what happens when you strap four hair dryers under the wing.
Airbus seems to do fine on narrowbodies but t ends to mis-read the market when it comes to widebodies. The original A300 was a pretty good design and just what Europe and many other countries really needed, and is really something that should have sold better in the United States . And the A330 isn’t bad, although as a legacy design with that downward rake on the ground it won’t be very good for freighter conversions unless you can hack in that ugly nosegear extension as seen on the A330F . The A350 will probably do just fine, but I find the design to be a bit timid. They’re not really taking advantage of the carbon fiber, instead keeping the same old complex fuselage design but just with lighter skin panels. The systems aren’t any simpler either, still using pneumatics and lots of bleed air and the associated ductwork. Yes, Boeing took some major chances with the 787, but now that the initially hiccups have been worked out it had proven to be sold and reliable, opening up all sorts of routes never thought possible before, and making money whilst doing so.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing.
08/12/2019 at 16:15 |
|
Odd, Iberia flied the A342 to Mexico City; even with hair driers it seemed to do fine. But yeah, the A345 had its fair share of issues, I don’t think it sold very well.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Wrong Wheel Drive (41%)
08/12/2019 at 16:22 |
|
I’ve been pretty lucky in that regard...
|
Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing.
> Spanfeller is a twat
08/12/2019 at 16:24 |
|
Wel, MEX is at about 7,000 feet, whereas the Andes are about 22,000 feet up. The 342 would probably have performed a bit better since it’s a smaller aircraft with the same engines.
I have a soft spot in my heart for the 345. Nothing really wrong with it other than it being horribly inefficient; I like smaller planes with humongous engines, and think that the KC-135 looks better in re-engined forum than it did with the period- correct turbojets. The original A340 was designed around a revolutionary engine called the SuperFan IIRC, but that engine was never completed leaving Airbus to scramble for an alternative. That has happened so many times in this crazy business that it’s hard to count, with the engine either not being built or seriously late.
Oh, and one more A350 complaint - winglets are an add-on to compensate for a less than ideal wing design. If you’re starting with a clean sheet of paper you don’t need them.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing.
08/12/2019 at 16:39 |
|
MEX?
Please,
MMMX
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing.
08/12/2019 at 16:50 |
|
The A346 has massive engines though
facw
> Spanfeller is a twat
08/12/2019 at 20:40 |
|
but it’s less than the B777 or the MD-11 that are already very safe jets and still have more than 100 each
IIRC the 777 really only has two fatalities (in the Asiana crash), and those were not the aircraft’s fault at all (additionally one injured passenger was run over by firefighters in that crash.) It’s even harder to blame the 777 for either of the Malaysia crashes, suicidal pilots and SAMs are going to be a problem regardless of how safe the plane is.
Granted 2 is still more than 0, but there are more than 4 times as many 777s, and they fly more often. Additionally, given the design commonalities, the A340 was just as vulnerable to the pitot tube problem that brought down Air France 447 (though the A330 has a pretty good safety record as well).
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> facw
08/13/2019 at 05:57 |
|
That is true... it’s only “technically” safer.
I thought about the A330 but boeing doesn’t really have a competitor for it. Yes, the B767, but that one is a decade older