mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Mar 1, 2017 16:50:37 GMT 1
We have seen storage covers before, most frames are sitting in storage for less than a month. There have been a lot of frames waiting more than a month. Lets wait for the next picture. |
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,503 
|
Post by sciing on Mar 1, 2017 18:01:03 GMT 1
We have seen storage covers before, most frames are sitting in storage for less than a month. There have been a lot of frames waiting more than a month. Lets wait for the next picture. All frames stored there 3 weeks ago are not there anymore. So where are the for month stored frames in the picture? |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Mar 1, 2017 18:34:34 GMT 1
There have been a lot of frames waiting more than a month. Lets wait for the next picture. All frames stored there 3 weeks ago are not there anymore. So where are the for month stored frames in the picture? That may well be, but not all waiting frames are stored in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Mar 3, 2017 4:57:57 GMT 1
Interesting data from HK Express (Not too sure whether it is more appropriate to put it here or in the A320neo engines thread)    link |
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,503
|
Post by sciing on Mar 3, 2017 7:59:43 GMT 1
Any idea whats the difference between A320 and A32V?
I thought one is the version with Winglets, but which one? I quess A320, because of the better cruise, but why is the performance so bad beside cuise, block fuell is even higher than A32V. Looks like the A320 flow a little bit higher (shorter cruise, longer climb).
More than 20% less block fuel for the A32N, impressive, so for shorter trips the fuel consumption is even much better. More than 40% savings during non cruise! Could be really short haul monster if reliability would fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Mar 3, 2017 8:34:19 GMT 1
Any idea whats the difference between A320 and A32V? I thought one is the version with Winglets, but which one? I quess A320, because of the better cruise, but why is the performance so bad beside cuise, block fuell is even higher than A32V. Looks like the A320 flow a little bit higher (shorter cruise, longer climb). More than 20% less block fuel for the A32N, impressive, so for shorter trips the fuel consumption is even much better. More than 40% savings during non cruise! Could be really short haul monster if reliability would fit. I thought the difference between the A320 and A32V could be sharklets and non sharklets as well but HK Express also operate A320s with both CFM and IAE engines so it's also possible that the A320 could be A320s with CFM engines and A32V are A320s with IAE V2500 engines. A small note about the 2nd table on the first page (which talks about % difference between the 32N and the 320ceos) for those who want to compare that against what Airbus states. That table uses the A320neo as a baseline so it says the A320ceo uses x% more fuel than the A320neo whilst Airbus seems to use the A320ceo as the baseline (i.e. the A320neo uses x% less fuel than the A320ceo). Whilst that doesn't appear to make a difference, mathematically it produces two different figures as the formula for using the A320neo as the baseline is whereas using the A320ceo as a baseline, the formula is which gives a lower number than the first forumla. I've calculated the difference using the A320ceo as the baseline and the A320neo uses 17.35% and 19% less fuel than the 32V and 320 respectively per average trip. I hope the above makes sense and isn't too confusing (and I hope my interpretation / maths knowledge is right as well!) Also keep in mind that the average timings is different between the 3 varients so that also might skew the data. Nevertheless, the data looks good for the A320neo!  |
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,503
|
Post by sciing on Mar 3, 2017 8:41:59 GMT 1
Your mathematics are absolutely right. The difference between the 2 approches is quite significant the larger the saving is.
50% vs. 100%, 20% vs. 25%, quite strange Airbus is not using the the NEO as basis;-)
|
|
cck
Final Assembly Line stage 1
Posts: 228
|
Post by cck on Mar 3, 2017 11:55:33 GMT 1
Your mathematics are absolutely right. The difference between the 2 approches is quite significant the larger the saving is. 50% vs. 100%, 20% vs. 25%, quite strange Airbus is not using the the NEO as basis;-) Using A320ceo as base make more sense, as airlines only have A320ceo data in hand until take delivery of A320neo |
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Mar 3, 2017 12:20:39 GMT 1
Brilliant jkkw. Why don't you send to Airbus with sciing's suggestion of using NEO as base? It seems very sensible and if the marketing dept. can be helped by more than mere mortals such as yourselves, then why not? I'm sure they'd be pleased.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 3, 2017 13:05:41 GMT 1
Brilliant jkkw. Why don't you send to Airbus with sciing's suggestion of using NEO as base? It seems very sensible and if the marketing dept. can be helped by more than mere mortals such as yourselves, then why not? I'm sure they'd be pleased. I think cck explained it perfectly. Airbus' figures are intended to help -neo sales, they provide all A320 family customers with data that they can understand. Only customers having both sub-types in their fleet could you use the numbers any way. |
|
